James,

Thank you very much for your consideration, especially in Light of the fact we have different views on convention. I'm used to getting negative responses to this.

To offer up a few more observations, the point I make about time and how it is similar to temperature, goes fairly deep into our biology and consciousness. For instance, I would argue the left, linear, rational...

view entire post

James,

Thank you very much for your consideration, especially in Light of the fact we have different views on convention. I'm used to getting negative responses to this.

To offer up a few more observations, the point I make about time and how it is similar to temperature, goes fairly deep into our biology and consciousness. For instance, I would argue the left, linear, rational hemisphere of the brain is based on time, as in sequence, while the right, emotional, intuitive side is thermal, as in feedback with context.

Consider that as energy changes form, it goes past to future, while the form goes future to past. As such reality is this dichotomy of energy and form. Consider that over a few billion years of evolution, we developed a central nervous system to process form/information and the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process energy.

Form is top down, while energy and process is bottom up. Our minds are constantly trying to figure out how all those bits of information work together, but they often seem like post-it notes on the wind, as we condense out bits of information from the energy. Otherwise it would whiteout.

As they go opposite directions of time, consider how this describes reality. Consider a factory; The product goes start to finish, while the process goes the other direction, consuming material and expelling product.

Life is similar. As individuals, we go birth to death, our lives in the future to in the past. While the species goes the other direction, on to new generations, shedding old. This operates on infinite layers, as our bodies are constantly generating and shedding cells, as the the environment evolves new species, as old ones go extinct.

As for the relationship of light and consciousness, consciousness is like energy, going from prior to succeeding thoughts, as these thoughts coalesce and dissolve. Much like frames of a movie, going future to past, it is actually the light shining through them we see, but our minds focus on the details.

Since there is only this energy, it is constantly being recycled in never ending feedback loops. Sort of like a tapestry woven from strands pulled from what had already been woven.

Which gets around to the cyclical nature of thermodynamics. Consider a convection cycle, where heat radiates out, as precipitation falls in. Then consider this in relation to that energy constantly expanding and creating new forms, which coalesce and congregate inward.

Then consider galaxies, which consist of radiation expanding out, as mass falls in.



What if what Hubble discovered, with redshift, was Einstein's original Cosmological Constant?

Consider the rubber sheet analogy of gravity. Logically where there is no ball to weight it down, it wouldn't be otherwise flat, or this would ignore the essential premise of relativity. So consider that the rubber sheet is over water and when the ball weighs it down, the sheet pushes back up with equal effect everywhere else. This we would detect as the redshift of light crossing the more empty regions of space. Though it is an effect of the light expanding to fill that space, which we then extract point particles of energy from the field

The reason Dark Energy was proposed is because the Big Bang model assumes the universe began with that initial Bang, resulting in the universe expanding at the speed of light. It was then assumed it cooled off and slowed down at a steady rate, but what was measured is that it slowed rapidly to begin with, then leveled out to a more stable redshift. To use a ballistics analogy, it would be as if the universe were shot out of a cannon and after it slowed, a rocket motor kicked in. This presumed rocket is Dark Energy.

Yet consider what we actually see and measure. This redshift starts off from our point of view quite slowly, but then gradually builds and eventually goes parabolic. Wouldn't an optical effect, compounding on itself create this very same effect?

Now if redshift is an optical effect, the light from beyond this horizon line of the sources apparently receding at the speed of light would still be reaching us, but it would all be shifted entirely into the black body and radiological spectrums. Which is exactly what we do see, with the Cosmic Background Radiation. So the CMBR would be the solution to Olber's paradox.

As for Dark Matter, what if this is a cycle of expansion and contraction, with both sides logically balanced? Then gravity is not so much a property of mass, as mass is an effect of gravity, this contraction side. Then the contraction effect goes all the way through the entire spectrum, from light being quantized into photons out of a field, so mass spiraling into black holes, like the eye of a gravitational storm. The effect requiring Dark Matter is this overall contraction, through the entire spectrum, not just what qualifies as mass.

More heresy. Fortunately I don't have to make a living from cosmology.

Regards,

John

view post as summary

Dear James Lee Hoover,

Good to meet again in yet another FQXi contest.(I especially liked your essay “Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice”). We retired researchers are never tired, aren’t we?

““The word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” iii suggesting that God and Jesus are identical but with a human connection and existence.” indeed but the...

view entire post

Dear James Lee Hoover,

Good to meet again in yet another FQXi contest.(I especially liked your essay “Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice”). We retired researchers are never tired, aren’t we?

““The word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” iii suggesting that God and Jesus are identical but with a human connection and existence.” indeed but the beginning of the gospel of John said: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”. So it means the connection with human consciousness and God in my perception. This is also my approach to the relationship with what I call Total Consciousness and the human consciousness that is restricted by Time and Space.

“Light is the advent of consciousness, the proof of our existence, a kind of a first cause.” I perceive light as the upper limit of our reality. Go faster and the “information” can no longer be detected. Because our “material state” cannot go follow it any longer and according to Einstein the information is going into the past, and that cannot be reached neither. For the rest, light is a photon that in my perception is an emergent phenomenon.

“the theory of everything (ToE) is thought to be tied up in the first few seconds of the Big Bang (BB) when the four fundamental forces – the weak, the strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational – were thought to be united into one force at high energies, the ultimate beginning of existence, when the universe was Planck size”. I agree with you that the ToE is behind the Planck length and time when there was a minimum of entropy because time and space don’t exist “there” when there is no time everything is simultaneous. So the expression “first two seconds” is in my humble opinion not right. Both time and Space are emerging from the Planck area including the “four” (maybe there are more) fundamental forces as you are mentioning also in your essay : “The BB is a time when the whole universe was thought to expand from a Planck size to macro size, forces of equal strength differentiating into four forces, two in the Planck range and two, long-range.”. Only the two in the Planck range are not inside but > as the Planck range.

I thank you for a well written thoughtful essay, that I valued and brought up a little in the contest results. I hope that the remarks I made can be a trigger for you to read, comment and maybe rate my essay “Foundational Quantum Reality Loops” where I also TRY to find an answer not only on the HOW but also on the WHY.

Best regards and good luck

Wilhelmus de Wilde

view post as summary

Hi James

I am sorry it has taken me so long to form a reply for you. I had read your essay some time back, however neglected to reply at that time. I am presented with a delema of sorts. On the one hand I greatly appreciate your writing and descriptive style. This aspect of your work I rate highly. The delema I face is that you're highly focused on describing a conventional scientific...

view entire post

Hi James

I am sorry it has taken me so long to form a reply for you. I had read your essay some time back, however neglected to reply at that time. I am presented with a delema of sorts. On the one hand I greatly appreciate your writing and descriptive style. This aspect of your work I rate highly. The delema I face is that you're highly focused on describing a conventional scientific basis, certain aspects of which I have come to doubt. You have read my essay, so you will appreciate the reservations I hold toward big bang theory. So when you write toward so many aspects of the world within implication and context that big bang is assumed correct, it is misaligned with my prejudices.

However, my theory is misaligned with nearly every-bodies prejudice, for I cant be right if big bang is correct. So I hope people will suspend their prejudice, and judge my essay in terms of a whether it is a well formed argument, or novel or creative. Which is what you must have done to provide a favorable rating for me. And I thank you for. So I can judge you highly on the same basis.

It was difficult to know how to express this. I had to think on it before I could reply. I did believe in the big bang theory, but once I began puzzle solving I had to map where the limits and challenges where to conventional theory. And through this process I came to view the conventional approach as a patchwork quilt tied together with loose stitching. And there were patches which needed adding that the conventional approach couldn't accommodate, like complexity and order of the world.

The conventional approach carries to many contradictions for me. I cant look at it now without them being glaringly obvious. I did not write about them because thats a sure way to write a poor rating essay. But That doesn't mean I cant form their argument. If you start looking for contradictions, and cataloging them. You discover there are many

I judge you are a person who can hear this point of view and understand. Thank you for your patients James

Kind regards

Steve

view post as summary