Dr Manthey,

Wow! At least visually, an impressive display of mathematical analysis.

Conceptually, rather hard to grasp. Has an experiment been conceived to test whether or not your model is correct?

Near the end, as I understand it, you connect back to (3+1)-dimensional spacetime. So the scheme seems to depend on the validity of the assumption that the world is...

view entire post

Dr Manthey,

Wow! At least visually, an impressive display of mathematical analysis.

Conceptually, rather hard to grasp. Has an experiment been conceived to test whether or not your model is correct?

Near the end, as I understand it, you connect back to (3+1)-dimensional spacetime. So the scheme seems to depend on the validity of the assumption that the world is (3+1)-dimensional. A potential problem with this assumption is that it has not been tested inside matter. Almost all of the empirical support for General Relativity derives from observations made OUTSIDE large bodies of matter, which support the Schwarzschild EXTERIOR solution. Whereas the Schwarzschild INTERIOR solution has not been tested.

Specifically, the latter solution predicts that clock rates diminish to a central minimum. Not only has this prediction never been tested, it has never been explained in PHYSICAL terms, how this is supposed to happen. What physical process could possibly make clock rates decrease inside matter? Perhaps they don't. An alternative model of gravity discussed in my essay, Rethinking the Universe, predicts that clock rates would actually increase to a central MAXIMUM.

Most importantly, the prediction is correlated to a more empirically accessible observation: What happens when a test object is dropped into a hole through the center of a larger body? Galileo proposed the idea in 1632. Though the experiment could be done in an orbiting satellite or an Earthbased laboratory (with a modified Cavendish balance), nobody has yet got around to doing it. Instead, the physics community pretends to know what would happen without actually doing the experiment.

This lack of evidence should of itself suffice, I think, to motivate fulfilling Galileo's proposal with a physical test. Further motivation may be gotten from the arguments in the essay referred to above, which include the prediction that (because of the central clock rate maximum) the falling test object will not pass the center.

If this radical, so far untested, prediction should be proven true, profound cosmological implications would follow. Though equating "gravity with the concept of love" would be a stretch, a possible answer to your question,

"What separates systems that are intelligent from those that are not?"

may be forthcoming.

Cheers,

Richard Benish

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Nice essay Manthey,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

1. From a probabilistic point of view, the external behavior generated by the hierarchy, which is governed by, driven by, internal, long-term stability-based goals, can easily and naturally be construed as goal-directed, which it indeed is. But the actual goals - inherently invisible from the outside, and devoted to...

view entire post

Nice essay Manthey,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

1. From a probabilistic point of view, the external behavior generated by the hierarchy, which is governed by, driven by, internal, long-term stability-based goals, can easily and naturally be construed as goal-directed, which it indeed is. But the actual goals - inherently invisible from the outside, and devoted to maintaining overall resonant stability - and can only be inferred, and that imperfectly.

2. Elsewhere [1] I define persistent awareness as a stable self-resonant state of the spin hierarchy. Consciousness is then defined as awareness of awareness, that is, there exist two sets of resonances, the one more global (higher up in the hierarchy ( = lower frequency) than the other. The persistence and extent of the second, higher-level resonance is then a measure of consciousness.

A Good idea, I fully agree with you, with the help of Dynamic Universe Model a higher level consciousness is proposed …………………………… I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at this essay… “Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe” where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement…..

I think consciousness (intension) is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Be
st wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please…………….

=snp. gupta

view post as summary