Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

re castel: on 2/26/18 at 21:15pm UTC, wrote The Genesis Formula

re castel: on 2/26/18 at 21:14pm UTC, wrote [Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2p4jKO8zmU]The Genesis...

re castel: on 2/26/18 at 21:12pm UTC, wrote [Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2p4jKO8zmU]The Genesis...

re castel: on 2/26/18 at 21:08pm UTC, wrote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2p4jKO8zmU

Steven Andresen: on 2/22/18 at 7:47am UTC, wrote Dear Rafael If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/6/18 at 19:40pm UTC, wrote Dear re castel Wonderful..."The synthesized entire totality of the...

Joe Fisher: on 1/27/18 at 16:33pm UTC, wrote Dear R.E.A. Castel, Fundamentalist-Realist :) You have the right to...

re castel: on 1/27/18 at 5:32am UTC, wrote the Galilei velocity transformation u'=u-v


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: The Fundamental — in the Analysis and Synthesis of the Entirety of the Fundamental Existence by Rafael Emmanuel A Castel [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author re castel wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 17:23 GMT
Essay Abstract

The synthesized entire totality of the existence is itself the “fundamental.” This is because without the entire totality there would be no parts of the entire totality that make up the totality of the existence. It is illogical to say that the entirety of the existence did not exist because existence is not non-existence. But it is logical to say that the synthesis of the entirety of the existence was and is and will forever be current because it is an apparent fact that the existence occurs as much as it is a fact that the existence exists. The existence exists and occurs—or, to be more precise, some of its parts exist but do not occur and some exist and occur. So, it is logical to say that continuous replication in the already synthesized existence occurs. The appropriate question is therefore that regarding what fundamental components of the already synthesized existence occur and get replicated out of and into the already synthesized existence. The essence and occurrence of the “fundamental components” are the object of the present inquiry.

Author Bio

The author is just another guy who loves the fundamental human inquiry.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 17:15 GMT
Dear Rafael Emmanuel A Castel,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author re castel replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 04:56 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

My idea is that "information is in the motion formations and transformations", and "emotion/consciousness/mind/nous in the motion", and "the abstract reality in the corporeal reality."

The abstract-noumenal qualia (i.e., qualities, attributes, emotions) are manifested in the corporeal-phenomenal kinetica (i.e., motions as per motion formations and transformations).

R.E.A. Castel, Fundamentalist-Realist :)

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear R.E.A. Castel, Fundamentalist-Realist :)

You have the right to express your finite ideas, but finite ideas have absolutely nothing to do with fundamental REALITY>

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 04:36 GMT
Before Einstein's strange kinematics of fused and confused dimensional and vectoral analyses,.. the basic view of the universe was simple...

The basic dimensional analysis indicates that space is an infinite expanse - as per the Euclidean linear (1-D lines), plane (2-D areas), and solid (3-D volumes) geometry. And the basic vectoral analysis indicates a kinematic mass-energy cosmos that occupies infinite space - as per the Galilean-Newtonian velocity/motion transformations and the Maxwellian-Lorentzian mass-energy transformations.

The basic analyses indicate that Physics is mainly Kinematics - i.e., the laws of motion and the laws of motion formations and transformations. I understand that this is what Galilei, Newton, Maxwell, and Lorentz, among others, were saying. These classical guys applied the transformation factor primarily to the velocity and mass aspects; so, although not clearly articulated, these guys removed the space variables in the transformation equations and substituted the velocity (e.g., u and u') variables and the mass (e.g., m and m') variables. This is why we have the Galilei velocity transformation u'=u-c and Newton's F=ma that describe force as a kinematic tendency, Maxwell's equations that involves the waves (motions) and the motion tendencies (e.g., the electric and magnetic forces) as per the c=wf, and then Lorentz' motion transformation that has the mass variables substituted into the transformation equation instead of the space variables.

Einstein applied the transformation factor on the space and time aspects. And, although he put forth the E=mc² formula that actually shows that E and m and c are all motion constructs (forms of motion or motion formations, Einstein did not explicitly articulate the idea of the transformation factor being applied to the velocity and mass aspects. So, Einstein did not explicitly articulate the idea of purely the motion transformations embraced by the classical guys.

The classical physics guys apparently thought something occupies space; Maxwell called the space occupant the "ether"; this "ether" idea is apparently simply the idea of the fundamental space-occupant; it is not the "motion" idea; motion formations and transformations are rendered on the ether to give definition for what is called the substance of existence; so the substance of existence is both the "ether" space-occupant and the "motion" formations rendered on the "ether".

Einstein discarded the idea of the space-occupying ether and directly applied the transformation to space itself. But according to common sense, space is a scalar dimension, not a kinematic vector; space is not motion; motion is the kinematic essence, the essence fittingly represented by a vector. Nowadays the confused also say "vector space" - a further stupid confusion. This confusion is analogous to the confusing "time vector" term.

But it is evident that we have the space and time dimensions, which are non-dynamic scalar essences. And we have the motion and duration processes, which are the fundamental currents that "occur" more than just "exist", whereas the space and time dimensions simply exist and do not occur, because the dimensions are not currents and are merely the backgrounds wherein the fundamental currents occur.

Now, something occupies space; we call that something the substance of existence; it is composed of the space-occupying essence called the "ether" and the "motion" that renders the kinematic texture.

The "ether" and "motion" are fundamentals; they are never apart from each other; in other words, there is always the motion on the ether, which allows the idea of motion formations and transformations; such that motion can be spoken as having density - i.e., more motion in a given volume of space than in others. And so, a whole infinite cosmos made out of this kinematic ether-motion substance occupies infinite space. This is what I understand.

The Kinematics indicates that motion is kinetic energy; and by the E=mc² formula, energy has the ponderable mass m=E/c²; so, mass is energy and energy is mass. Since energy is motion, then mass is motion. Evidently, gravitation is motion. Since mass is motion, then gravitation is mass when eventually transformed into the condensed form of motion.

As I have mentioned before in my exchanges here, the condensed particulate mass form is basically a toroidal configuration. And apparently the gauge theories may be applied on the toroidal configurations. There is therefore the question regarding the vectors that are involved in the formation of mass and the sustained reality of the particulate mass formation. According to the genesis formula that I have put forth, the applicable vectors are the infinite gravitational vectors; and these infinite vectors are the revolutions with respect to an infinitely hierarchical kinematic cosmos.

Every particle of mass has a gravitational field around it; by extension the whole universe has a gravitational field around it; and the gravitational field is a never-ending 3-D motion. In my theory, the infinite revolutions with respect to the infinite cosmic hierarchy is the source and origin of the infinite 3-D gravitational vectors; essentially the image is that of every particle moving/accelerating outwards in all directions according to the principle of the relativity of motion, which actually gives a better explanation regarding the principle of equivalence this time in the 3-D tensor view. To me the revolutions defines gravity and is the origin of gravity, plus the fundamental idea of kinematics that says "motions move motions, motions cling to motions."

The "revolutions" are somewhat like the "branes" put forth in string theory. But compared to string theory, my idea of motion being the fundamental is more fundamental than the idea of wiggly strings; whereas the fundamental motion idea can be represented simply using a single vector, strings need a lot more motion vectors to describe their wiggly vibrations. So, my idea of motion as that which define substance is more fundamental. So, to me, M-theory is MOTION-theory. (I am putting this paragraph here just to indicate that all the physics theories (which have equations of motion) can be explained in terms of the idea of "motion formations and motion transformations" that I put forth.

Physics is about the motion formations and motion transformations. The phenomena in nature is fundamentally "motion."

I am a bit encouraged to speak more plainly and boldly now because I heard/saw "Closer to Truth" Robert L Kuhn (who is involved in FQXi) say "perhaps it is all about motion transformations" or something like that. I can't remember which episode. But as I remember it, it kinda made me think that the intellectual establishment is warming up to my theory of motion transformations.

My theory clearly contradicts Einstein's theory of space-time transformations. Einstein's idea of space-time transformations is baloney. It is time we reevaluate our scientific view.

We need to distinguish between the idea of the static scalar dimensions and the idea of the dynamic motion/duration vectors. The dimensional analysis and vectoral analysis in our physics should be clearly distinguished in order to clarify the entire picture of the synthesis of the existence.

If we continue in our fused and confused dimensional and vectoral analysis based on Einstein's convoluted and senseless idea of arbitrary space-time transformations, we will continue with the stupidly confused picture regarding the existence.

Kuhn's Closer to Truth program is remarkable. But we need to get to and be on the truth, not just closer. I think my idea of motion formations and transformations is the key in getting to the truth.

And I hope the FQXi guys and their associates will begin the serious investigations of the idea of motion transformations, because it explains, in the most logical and rational and comprehensible and sensible manner, the nature and even the purpose of the entire existence.

We should at least clarify the pure kinematics view of motion formations and motion transformations in contrast to the strange kinematics view of arbitrary space-time transformations...

(My submitted essay composition is in my estimation not well-developed. I had only 48 hours to write it before deadline. I even forgot to number the pages... But the essay should be easy to understand if you are a bit more forgiving...)

Bookmark and Share



Author re castel wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 05:32 GMT
the Galilei velocity transformation u'=u-v

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 19:40 GMT
Dear re castel

Wonderful..."The synthesized entire totality of the existence is itself the “fundamental.”"..... So, it is logical to say that continuous replication in the already synthesized existence occurs. ..... very good arguments... Best wishes for your essay

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 07:47 GMT
Dear Rafael

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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:08 GMT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2p4jKO8zmU

Bookmark and Share



Author re castel wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:12 GMT
[Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2p4jKO8zmU]The Genesis Formula[/Link]

Bookmark and Share



Author re castel wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:14 GMT
[Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2p4jKO8zmU]The Genesis Formula[/Link]

Bookmark and Share



Author re castel wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:15 GMT
The Genesis Formula

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.