Hi Ilja Schmelzer

You gave Wonderful words....." we consider different examples of changes from fundamental theories to approximations. Not surprising at all is the observation that space and time are more stable than the configuration space, which is more stable than the laws of evolution. This holds for the corresponding symmetry groups too....... " hope you will have a look at another...

view entire post

Hi Ilja Schmelzer

You gave Wonderful words....." we consider different examples of changes from fundamental theories to approximations. Not surprising at all is the observation that space and time are more stable than the configuration space, which is more stable than the laws of evolution. This holds for the corresponding symmetry groups too....... " hope you will have a look at another side also.....

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ….You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-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 GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

view post as summary

Ilja,

If I was to suggest what would be the most elementary theory change it would be time.

The problem is that we experience reality as flashes of cognition and naturally think of time as the point of the present moving past to future. Physics codifies this as measures of duration, between events.

The underlaying fact is that it is change turning future to past, as in...

view entire post

Ilja,

If I was to suggest what would be the most elementary theory change it would be time.

The problem is that we experience reality as flashes of cognition and naturally think of time as the point of the present moving past to future. Physics codifies this as measures of duration, between events.

The underlaying fact is that it is change turning future to past, as in tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns. Which makes time an effect, similar to temperature. Time is individual frequency, while temperature is masses of frequency and amplitude.

We could use ideal gas laws to correlate temperature and volume, but don't have that intellectual hang up about temperature.

Different clocks can run at different rates because they are separate actions. All things equal, a faster clock uses more energy, like metabolism.

Time is asymmetric because it is a measure of action and action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not the other.

The simultaneity of the present is dismissed by arguing different events would be viewed in different order from different locations, but that is no more consequential than seeing the moon as it was a moment ago, simultaneous with seeing stars as they were years ago. It is the energy which is conserved/exists as the present, not the information recorded in it. The fact the event radiated away the energy is both why it no longer exists and that we can observe that it did exist.

This also goes to determinism, as it is the occurrence of events which calculates their outcome. Probabilities turning into actualities and then residual. All the laws governing this process might be completely deterministic, but we don't know the total input into an event, prior to its occurrence, because much of this is being carried at the speed of light, so that would mean knowing information before it could arrive.

Also reading through some of the comments and responses, I just thought I'd put this up as something you might be interested over the long term.

Regards,

John B Merryman

view post as summary

Dear Ilja,

I read your essay with great interest. But after months of developing my ideas for the essay, I look at the other essays trough the glasses of my own ideas. So I want to make a few comments on what I see in your essay and I found most interesting.

In my essay I show that any realistic theory must have conventional elements. And by realistic I mean, any theory that has...

view entire post

Dear Ilja,

I read your essay with great interest. But after months of developing my ideas for the essay, I look at the other essays trough the glasses of my own ideas. So I want to make a few comments on what I see in your essay and I found most interesting.

In my essay I show that any realistic theory must have conventional elements. And by realistic I mean, any theory that has concepts, that are not are not directly observable. That means any physical theory. (For instance the metric field is not observable.) I did not work out this idea much in my own essay, but I can see this topic all over your essay.

First of all to explain, how conventionality comes in in a closed theory: a closed theory does not fix which statements are used to define the theoretical terms it uses (analytical statements) and which are observational consequences (empirical statements). For instance in your example of the Lorenz invariant sound equation, the equation is perfectly Galilei invariant, if by changing the velocity of the reference frame also the velocity of sound changes (and the use of the first order continuity equation). However if one uses the sound equation to measure length, then the sound velocity becomes a constant and the equation is Lorenz invariant. (I'm not so sure, if this was the point, you wanted to make there.)

Most disturbing for me (since in my essay, I defend a Bohr like view on QM), is the idea, that also randomness and determinism within a theory might be conventional. Finally we do not know/see, which relations are causal and which are definitory. Or which properties of an object are 'real' (whatever that means) and which are defined by measurement. Finally that would explain, why there are some many interpretations of QM with the same observational consequences.

I think a similar view was also Einstein's as it is shown in Don Howard's 'Einsteins Philosophy of science'. Most prominent Poincare explicitly endorses such a conventional view.

I hope this my reading of your essay is not too far off.

Best regards,

Luca

view post as summary

Dear Ilja

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post

Dear Ilja

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn’t then gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

view post as summary