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

Steven Andresen: on 2/27/18 at 2:47am UTC, wrote Dear Luis Thank you. I will read your essay as well, but I'm afraid I...

Luis Patino: on 2/26/18 at 21:03pm UTC, wrote Dear Steven: Lucky you that you can go sailing! Sailing has indeed been...

Steven Andresen: on 2/26/18 at 8:53am UTC, wrote Wayne People invent clocks, then Einstein comes along and discovers their...

Steven Andresen: on 2/26/18 at 4:20am UTC, wrote Wayne Really, no destination in mind? Posed questions and didn't answer...

Wayne Lundberg: on 2/26/18 at 2:28am UTC, wrote Dear Steven, Your essay opens a myriad of questions in an apparent search...

Peter Jackson: on 2/25/18 at 19:57pm UTC, wrote Steve, Yes indeed, properly rather 'vector analysis' for force dynamics,...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 2/25/18 at 8:33am UTC, wrote Dear Steven, (copy to yours and mine) Thank you very much for writing me...

Steven Andresen: on 2/25/18 at 4:18am UTC, wrote Hi Ulla Thank you for dropping by my page and considering reading of my...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jorma Seppaenen: "Hi Georgina, Yes, CMB map is an observation product, it's very essential..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "Of course, the stars would, very slowly, move across the sky as the Earth..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 27, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin by Steven Andresen [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 21:36 GMT
Essay Abstract

The question of natural universal systems, their characteristic order and complexity? Generated by chance occurrence, or natural organisational principle? The term “in-animate matter” hardly seems an appropriate description of the world, with its innumerable physical agencies expressed as natural forces, that are seemingly contrived in the act of building and maintaining a finely tuned universe. Does acknowledgement of universal order serve clue, a clue to the fundamental nature of the world? Questions of a fundamental nature of the world push up against our theories of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Within this essay we identify clocks as being a QM device that measure GR effects. One device servicing two fundamental theories of the world? Could test of a unified theory be, a single theory that encapsulates all clock behaviour? We identify force for its role in clock function, then we relate forces to General Relativity and time dilation effects. Our inquiry seeks such answers then attempts to look beyond them, can time dilation be served effectively as a Quantum Mechanical effect?

Author Bio

An attentive student of nature

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 09:37 GMT
Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, two fundamental theories of one world. However QM and GR have clocks in common, in terms of clocks being a study in QM (made of QM), and GR being a study of clocks (time dilation). Two fundamental theories, servicing one world and now one device? QM might be surmised, a study of forces. GR might be surmised, a study of time.

Clocks can be thought of as possessing a split personality. They possess a back end mechanical spring, the study of which might be termed QM force. They possess front end hands considered a measure of GR effects time dilation. These split personalities however are connected via a shaft, which makes their respective studies of force and time an equivalent. Which makes perfect sense in terms of the spring drives the clocks function. My earlier message coined the term “force dilation” which represents this property of the spring, which stands equivalent to the term “time dilation”.

Force dilation a quantity which is entirely equivalent to effect of time dilation? Which term is more fundamental, or carries more useful meanings? Force dilation is a property of the spring which drives the clock, so that places it at the heart by virtue of being attached to cause. It causes the clocks function, the clock hands but follow. The front end of the clock is superfluous in terms of cause, like a puppet dictated to by a puppeteer. Time, a puppeteers puppet? Not flattering I know, but it makes my intended meanings clear.

Substitute the term of time dilation for the equivalent term of force dilation, then General Relativities effect is translatable as Quantum Mechanical effect. Theory can then be summarized in terms of, Clocks are QM devices (made of QM) which measure variable QM behaviour (force dilation) in relative motions and relative gravitational environments. One fundamental theory of the world, one fundamental theory that describes all behaviours exhibited by clocks.

QM is a study of forces, and relativity is redressed as a QM study of forces of bodies in relative motions and relative gravitational environments.

Relativity boils down to being merely the study of the modulation of QM forces.

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 00:55 GMT
Dear Steven Andresen,

Your introduction is one of the nicest I've read in any FQXi contest. Congratulations. And, for a curious mind, every day is a good day for living.

I do agree that it does appear "we exist as a world of matter fields of force", the fact that some of our bookkeeping scheme's denigrate the idea of force notwithstanding. It also seems true that the measure of good metaphysics is abundance of how's and why's it can testify to."

You then say the Big Bang metaphysics credits properties of the world to chance. I'm not so sure. My comment on Conrad Dale Johnson's essay discusses my interpretation of his approach to this problem. And it's 'time'-based, not multiverse. It resembles your description on page 4.

We also seem to agree on the nature of information: "for a binary data-bit to hold any information, we also have to specify's location…" Yes, I believe energy crosses a threshold, changing the structure of the system; (atom absorbing photon, switching binary gate on/off, etc.) 'in'-forms a system and leaves a record. Interpretation of this always requires a codebook or context. "One if by land, two if by sea."

Your time-dilation as 'force'-dilation bears some resemblance to my energy-time interpretation of 'time-dilation', since force x distance = energy. While mechanical clocks are easier to think about, they cannot measure relativistic 'dilation'; only atomic clocks can do this, generalizing the 'force' aspect.

However your key focus seems to be on the origin of 'fine-tuning', like Conrad Dale Johnson. I think when one considers energy-time conjugation as the essence of time 'dilation', the energies of the primordial field at the big bang change the local nature of time to such a degree that we cannot describe the 'structures', if any. You refer to these as a 'superposition', but that is probably more poetic than factual. We will almost certainly never know, but if there was ever a time where a 'Boltzmann brain' might momentarily materialize, this would be the time and place.

Thanks for an enjoyable, well-thought-out essay. Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 07:38 GMT
Dear Edwin

I’m glad you liked my intro and I much appreciate your complement.

I understand your grand effort contribution for this community, reading and communicating with a large number of essays and authors. I know you are extremely busy in this community service, and I feel guilty for demanding more of your time than you have already volunteered for me. But it is a relatively simple question I hope you can address for me please? An is more important to me than I might readily admit too.

I have been going on about galaxy rotation velocities. That if atomic energy is modulated/dilated dependent on gravities square law. What do you think of applying consequence to dilated mass?

Galaxies do rotate as though their mass density is constant from middle to edge. While infact star densities decline proportional to square of distance from galaxy centre. This illustrates the deviation from GR predictions. Its very tidy.

If atomic energy/mass increases dependent upon proximity of stars to each other, gravities square law. Then it applies mass precisely where it need be so as to predict galaxy rotation velocity. It presents a mathematical fit. Do you recognise my reasoning in this regard please?

Please can you tell me where you stand with this reasoning? and in light of your gravity / atomic energy considerations?

I understand your misgivings concerning the use of “perfect clocks” in theoretical context. You made that point clear in your essay. And you said to me that mechanical clocks can’t measure relativistic effects. I spoke loosely within terms of, near and afar large masses. Would you object in the same fashion if the mass was sufficiently large so as to have a dramatic effect on the mechanical clocks function? A neutron star or larger mass.

Thank you once again

Steve

Bookmark and Share


Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 04:16 GMT
Quoting Edwin from his page

"Dear Steve,nThanks for your gracious compliment. The interactive commenting is one of the most valuable features of these FQXi contests. I learn a lot from participation.nIt's difficult to address the 'flat rotation curve' problem in a single comment. Even tougher to analyze your specific model and address the pros and cons. A few years ago I treated spiral galaxies as 'mass current loops', which induce an axial gravito-magnetic dipole similar to the electromagnetic dipole induced by a charge current loop. This 'gravito-magnetic moment' pierces the galactic plane and exerts a Lorentz type force mv x C, where v is the velocity of the orbiting star with mass m and C is the gravito-magnetic field vector generated by the rotating spiral galaxy. Physically, this acts in exactly the correct manner, with faster objects experiencing greater force inward toward the central axis of the galaxy. Quantitatively, I have no results to compare to anything.nTherefore, since I have a qualitative theoretical explanation for 'flat rotation curves' from gravitational equations of the type seen in equation (5) of my essay, but I have no quantitative reason to believe it, I tend to stick with my own qualitative theory unless and until someone comes up with a qualitative explanation with quantitative calculations that are convincing.nAs for whether mechanical clocks in massive gravity would exhibit relativistic effects, I don't know.nI hope this answers your question.nBest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman"

Bookmark and Share


Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 04:17 GMT
Dear Edwin

Thank you

Ok I had hoped or assumed that your correlating clock cycle counts to consideration of energy value, resulted in our works having an equivalence. The only difference being you speak in terms of a variation of energy as clocks increase or decrease their cycle count, while I relate the same principle with term of force dilation.

However, when you convey to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Flavio Del Santo wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 09:05 GMT
Dear Steven,

Thanks for taling time to read my essay, as you posted in the dedicated section. I had already read your interesting work and also rated it. I hooe you get more visibility and votes.

Good luck!

Flavio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 07:38 GMT
Dear Flavio

Oh you've read my essay already :) nice to hear and thank you kindly. I will return the favor for you and leave a comment over on your page soon.

Best of luck with the contest

Steve

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 11:12 GMT
Dear Steven,

You ask very deep questions and give answers that lead to the deepest metaphysics. The metaphysics of the process, the new ontology, bring ideas to overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. Mother Nature tells us new concepts and makes us start a new dialogue. Success in the contest and research!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 07:36 GMT
Dear Vladimir

I love you're summation. Very nicely worded and I judge from it that you took my points well. Thank you kindly for reading and rating my essay. I very much look forward to reading your essay. You'll be hearing from me over on your page soon.

Kind regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 11:33 GMT
Dear Steven, nice and original Essay, congrats. Here are my comments, which concern gravitation because I am a gravity's physicist. 1) Your idea of a natural energy potential is intriguing. Its application to Dark Energy corresponds to the existence of an intrinsic curvature in extended theories of gravity. This paper of mine operates in that sense. 2) Strictly speaking, the deviations from theoretical predictions referred to as anomalous galaxy velocity are not deviation from general relativity. They are deviation from Newtonian gravitation instead. This is due to the issue that Einstein's equivalence principle prevents to localize gravitational energy. As a consequence, the total energy is frame-dependent. There are indeed various attempts to explain both Dark Matter and Dark Energy as frames artifacts, despite none of those is today considered definitive. 3) MOND is a non-relativistic theory of gravity. Thus, it needs a relativistic counter-part which cannot be general relativity, but an extended theory. With some colleagues, I have developed an approach in that sense. In any case, I find your Essay very innovative and entertaining. It deserves my high score. Congrats again and good luck in the Contest. Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 07:31 GMT
Dear Christian

A gravity theorist! that deserves a congratulations. I'd love to be paid for my contemplation's, a work I could take anywhere.

I will read your essay and also investigate your wider work, thank you for the link. I have a couple of points I would like to put to you, but I'm still on the sail boat, so will return to you soon. Simple points but I need to give careful thought, how best to frame them.

I'm not sure about your statement

"Strictly speaking, the deviations from theoretical predictions referred to as anomalous galaxy velocity are not deviation from general relativity. They are deviation from Newtonian gravitation instead."

I dont think it to loose of a comment " GR does not predict galaxy rotation velocity (in absence of theorized dark matter) therefore observed galaxy rotation velocities represent a deviation from GR prediction. Sounds fair to me. What am I missing please?

Thank you once again for reading and rating my essay. I'll return you the favor. Youre rating must have been one of those that bumped me, very momentarily to top of community ranking. I owe you joy for that :)

Steve

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 16:07 GMT
Steven

Thanks for your note on mine. (I'm sure it wasn't you who gave it the '1' today!) I loved your intro. You'll note in my bio I'm a rep level sailor. I've found it seminal in understanding nature and have written papers on it. I took some Kent & Delft students on a cross channel race last year. Using & teaching inertial 'tidewind' effects we did managed you may have heard of as a 'horizon job'!

You outline a highly unique and original idea showing unbounded thinking, which I like. I found the model itself fascinating. You'll see I'm also an open minded astrophysicist studying 20 papers a week for the data (much analysis is flawed!). Agreement with content isn't a scoring criteria here, but ALL novel ideas should be assessed. I did see some flawed starting assumptions, but that's common even among astronomers. i.e. the old galaxy merger idea and clock rate changes just aren't found. (Hafele & Keating had to revise their initial 'atomic clocks' report to comply with theory to get their PhD's!). Digital clocks would also seem an issue anyway, and your inferences from the Tulley-Fisher relation seems to have problems needing investigation, so there are many issues to be addressed. I see others also identify some above.

None the less it was novel, nicely written and interesting so I think worth a good score. It also included a number of matter I agree on, including that 'inanimate' is a poor concept, that MOND and indeed many current assumptions ARE wrong, and that QM and relativity need a common cause and treatment of time. (You'll have seen I present a consistent classical derivation in my own essay which I hope you understand. It DOES take good visualisation!)

Very nicely done. Keep up the research. I'll give you a link link to my own papers if I didn't know you were busy reading essays!

Best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 16:10 GMT
Steven, I'm not sure where all those 'n's came from or where the breaks went! Trying again.;

Thanks for your note on mine. I'm sure it wasn't you who gave it the '1' today! Loved your intro. You'll note in my bio I'm a rep level sailor. I've found it seminal in understanding nature and have written papers on it. I took some Kent & Delft students on a cross channel race last year. Using & teaching inertial 'tidewind' effects we did what you may know as a 'horizon job'!

You outline a highly unique and original idea showing unbounded thinking, which I like. I found the model itself fascinating. You'll see I'm also an open minded astrophysicist studying 20 papers a week for the data (much analysis is flawed!). Agreement with content isn't a scoring criteria here, but ALL novel ideas should be assessed. I did see some flawed starting assumptions, but that's common even among astronomers. i.e. the old galaxy merger idea and clock rate changes just aren't found. (Hafele & Keating had to revise their initial 'atomic clocks' report to comply with theory to get their PhD's!). Digital clocks would also seem an issue anyway, and your inferences from the Tulley-Fisher relation seems to have problems needing investigation, so there are many issues to be addressed. I see others also identify some above.

None the less it was novel, nicely written and interesting so I think worth a good score. It also included a number of matter I agree on, including that MOND and indeed many current assumptions ARE wrong, and that QM and relativity need a common cause and treatment of time. (You'll have seen I present a consistent classical derivation in my own essay which I hope you understand. It DOES take good visualisation!)

Very nicely done. Keep up the research. I'll give you a link link to my own papers if I didn't know you were busy reading essays!

Best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 16:11 GMT
ok, I give up! hope you can read it ok.

Best, peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 07:03 GMT
Peter

Thank you kindly for reading my essay and sharing your appraisal.

Fellow sailor! Nice to hear. I had you on the intro then didnt I :) Yes the physics of sailing gets quite involved. I've only been at it for about 8 months, so much to learn. But have pushed the limits on some lengthy open ocean voyages already.

Wasnt me who rated your essay down. Actually I dont rate essays down, or havent so far. If I dont like an essay I leave without placing a mark.

I like your term of "unbounded thinking". Provided it doesnt mean I am completely adrift :).

Your work sounds fascinating, and I will certainly take any comments and or critique from somebody in your position as a boon. My ideas have not received enough qualified critique, but not for my having avoided it. I have a desire to test a central aspect of my theory, so that it might live or die. I do need help in this task.

You mentioned a challenge to atomic clocks and toward my referencing the Tully Fisher Relation. I would be interested for more details on these if you are willing please? I'm aware of the lack of observed galaxy mergers. My hero Pavel Kroupa champions this work.

I am in the early stages of reading your essay, and will return to your page for comment soon. Youve spiked my curiosity towards your work, so links are welcome please? I would have a look once the contest is closed.

Thanks again for your interest and critique. And talk soon over on your page

Steve

Bookmark and Share



Author Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 23:50 GMT
Just a quick note to thank everybody for their comments and let you know I'm sailing for a day or two. So i won't have opertunity to write until I return. Hopefully with some fat lobsters

Have a great week all and talk soon

Kind regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 23:46 GMT
Steven,

Looks like someone took note of your excursion and gave you a 1 or a 2 after my 9. I take note because I have already gotten a 2 and a 1 w/o any comment.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 06:30 GMT
Jim

The drama since I've been away. Being equal top of the list was to good to last. I got a picture while it was up there though.

I understand that my essay achieved that momentary ranking for its novelty value, not because people believe it is so, or could be so. I suspect people are amazed that something so obviously crazy, could make a type of logical sense. And that although it might be likened to an elaborate house of cards, many delicate parts, it doesn't topple as easily as people first assume it might.

I dont have the expectation that such a novel concept could take a win in this contest. I wasn't even sure if people would acknowledge it, so my expectations have been exceeded in this respect. Thank you to those who appreciate a little creativity and originality. You bring me joy

FQXi seek new and original ideas, and spend time discussing how they might qualify material for evaluation. Not only are there a vast number of ideas out there to sift through, and limited resources to dedicate. But how are new ideas to be qualified for appraisal, while current scientific preconceptions might disqualify unfamiliar content?

I only really have one hope. My hope is that this essay contest opens an opportunity for discussion and test. It does serve a simple prediction, so let us attempt to falsify?

Steve

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 21:19 GMT
Steven,

Excellent essay. Great beginning in spirit and principle with letting nature overtake you. And the structure of your essay tends to augment your message. You introduce the elements which the natural forces of Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin work on with the principles of evolution. Have you read Jeremy England and natural forces: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-the
ory-of-life/? Seem to fit in with your quantum forces, energy bath, natural energy, and the natural forces mentioned like generational exchange.

Hope you can check mine out.

I highly rate yours.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 06:34 GMT
Thank you Jim

I havent read Jeremy England and natural forces, but I'll make a note to look it up. When the contest is closed.

I'll definitely be having a look over your essay, so will see you over on your page soon.

Thanks for reading my essay

Steve

Bookmark and Share



Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 18:43 GMT
Dear Steven,

I read with interest your views on dark matter. Please read Dark Matter http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf and reply.

Kamal,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 18:42 GMT
Steven Andresen

I have read your article. It was interesting. You have many new ideas.

I find that, regarding time, I have a concept very different from Yours. I regard clock behavior as caused by a physical process, sensitive to the ether wind, and without dilation of time. Take a look.

Best regards from ______________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 02:20 GMT
Hi John

Yes there are differences with our concepts, however mine also treats time as a physical process dependent on ether. That the interaction between ether and matter is, ether is converted to atomic force. Providing a tidy fit for Guv = Tuv. The forces are then considered to dictate the rate of causality.

A guess I do identify with your work in some ways, and this does influence the rating I assign to your essay. But besides them you give an alternative array of good arguments. You give enough of them to leave me and others thinking. At least those of us with open minds and flexible thinking.

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 11:59 GMT
Steven Andresen

See the answer on my page.

I think we both regard ETHER and TIME as important fundamentals in physics. Can You agree to my opinion that time must be absolute and without DILATION?

All the best ____________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 04:45 GMT
John

My essay details a distinction, the split personalities of clocks. The front of the clock supposedly measures a property of time, but the clock hands are merely the puppet of the spring behind the clock face that forcefully drives the clock.

I know you appreciate how common false inferences are. Like people inferring quanta of light, when it could be the detecting electron that imposes that property. In the same respect I hold it as a more accurate depiction that "force drives clocks, therefore clocks measure force".

The depiction "force drives clocks, but clocks measure time" is a faulty summation. In this respect time is a man made fallacy. The front end of the clock and its superfluous measure of time is useful for planing our day, but it is not a property of physics.

A better terminology is "rate of causality" and it is atomic forces which dictate it's rate. Photon exchange for example. The clock spring that drives the clock is made of EM forces. There is dilation, but it is not time dilation. It is force dilation, which causes variable rate of causality.

So specificly about time, time does not exist.

Steve

Bookmark and Share



James N Rose wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 20:23 GMT
Steven,

Thank you for reading my paper "Physical Fundamentals, Math Fundamentals, Idea Fundamentals – Have We Spotted Them All?" and recommending yours.

I applaud your effort to look at the spectrum of complex phenomena - from physics to biological - and ask that science appreciates that they must embody essential shared qualities. Which properties need fresh descriptions to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 04:55 GMT
James

Thank you for your message. I haven't yet read your essay, however as my message said, your essay is on my read list.

A biologist! and you've read my essay which advocates that the process responsible for generation of biological complexity, is also potentially responsible for generation of universal complexities, the character and complexity of matter, structure and process....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


James N Rose replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 06:38 GMT
Steve, Thank you for posting under my paper, and asking me questions about my comments and concerns with what you wrote. I will copy some of your/my remarks from there to here, for continuity, if that is ok.

You wrote:

"A Darwinian process which has been exclusively the domain of your field of study (biology), you hesitate to allow its extension to physics. You have gone so far as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 06:13 GMT
James

You honour me with an exceptional message. I am fascinated by circumstances of Darwinian evolution, and account of the following is certainly an interesting account.

“changes in how vein blood leaves the brain was responsible for helping australopithecine primates to stand erect, and lead to the evolution of homo sapiens.”

Darwinian evolution is an explanation that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 18:43 GMT
Steven,

The Jeremy England concept relates to your essay. It's one I used in the last essay contest called, "Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2732.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 04:42 GMT
Hi Jim

I recall your essay title from last year, so I must have liked it :). I havent read your essay yet but I will any day now. Ive been caught up moving house and also indulged a sailing adventure. But its nearly time I applied myself to the contest again.

I'm interested in anything that might relate too my ideas. Thanks for bringing Jeremy Englands work to my attention. I'll definitely follow up.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 20:08 GMT
Respected Prof Steven Andresen

Wonderful words in the OP..."The question of natural universal systems, their characteristic order and complexity? Generated by chance occurrence, or natural organisational principle? The term “in-animate matter” hardly seems an appropriate description of the world, with its innumerable physical agencies expressed as natural forces, that are seemingly...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 15:44 GMT
Dear Steven,

You indicated being a student of nature, but aren’t we ALL? High graded professors can inform us about the state of research, but it will ALWAYS stay research...the mystery is eternal...

You are naming a paragraph: “Probabilities within Infinities”, I was using this expression for the “place” from where our reality(s) emerge...so we have lots of thoughts in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 04:52 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus

I recall speaking with you last year :)

Thank you kindly for reading my essay. I will respond to you very soon, and I have your essay printed off for reading.

I look forward to discussing further with you very soon

Steve

Bookmark and Share



Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 21:06 GMT
Dear Steven,

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay.

With respect to you essay, I am not sure how well I understand your reasoning. But I take it that a central theme is given by the statements, “However, it has to be realized that having observed and discerned mathematical patterns, isn’t the same thing as having anticipated and or understood how and why these patterns of nature exist? Rather, the how’s and why’s of the world require a deeper understanding of system.” The next point is that the how and why can be investigated by investigating the connections between force and time. For such an investigation, the procedure is an analysis of clocks. Certainly it is a merit of your proposals that they lead to a system in which Darwinian emergence characterizes large-scale cosmic processes. This emergence approach is in line with considerable recent discussion which tries to apply Darwinian ideas in these larger ways, outside of the specific biological areas for which they were first developed. I do not have enough background to be able to say much about specific mechanisms. But your general idea, as you say near the conclusion of the essay, is, “World product of evolved optimisation.” Not just is a world product reached, but the processes leading to it are natural, in line with the relations between force and time. This is a useful approach.

Laurence Hitterdale

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 04:50 GMT
Dear Laurence

Thank you kindly for reading my essay and asking questions about it. I will respond to you very soon, and I have your essay printed off for reading.

I look forward to discussing further with you very soon

Steve

Bookmark and Share



Author Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 10:29 GMT
James

I’m back from surfing! For now ?

I’ve been chuckling for last few days. Re- your joke, “we look to each other to do the heavy lifting” haha lol. I do like your sense of humour.

I didn’t know about John Cowley until a few days ago. I’m amazed to learn about him and his achievements. I had heard murmurings we had a physicist in the extended family, but for...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 19:25 GMT
The whole of universe is made of particles, not "mater fields of force".

"However, it has to be realized that having observed and discerned mathematical patterns, isn’t the same thing as having anticipated and or understood how and why these patterns of nature exist? Rather, the how’s and why’s of the world require a deeper understanding of system. These types of understandings are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 04:39 GMT
Juan

To give you fair warning. My reply reflects your combative demeaner

Your comments and counter arguments are representative of your personal opinion, and do not carry the weight of scientific consensus or even general community opinion, which it seams by your tone, this is what you would have us believe.

I am going to take the time to counter this series of comments,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 04:47 GMT
You may rate my essay poorly with impunity, because I dont issue poor ratings myself. I either rate highly or I dont rate at all

Bookmark and Share



corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 09:07 GMT
Mr. Andresen?

So I read your essay posted on my page, but I don't know what to do next. How is it going?

Should I be the first, among us, who rates you with a 10 and then you will return the grade? Or should we do it vice versa (you first and I returning)? or maybe we both grade each other (with a 10, of course) in the same time ?

I hope you do have some sense of humor

Joyfully,

Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 09:22 GMT
Mr Silviu

Thanks for turning up on my page. Yes I did laugh, and I'm told that is the symptom of humor :-) A man with sense of humor, so I look forward to reading your essay all the more.

Steve

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 10:07 GMT
Dear Steven,

Thanks for visiting my FQXi Essay page.

You wrote an interesting and provocative Essay. I am a physicist of gravitation, so, I will insert below some comments/questions on the gravitational issues of your Essay:

You state that "Big bang theory offers a metaphysics creation of the world". Actually, big-bang theory is founded on plausible assumptions, like the Cosmological Principle, and GR through rigorous mathematics. It fails to understand what happened at the big bang instant based on the lack of unification of GR and QM that you correctly stress in your Essay.

Your approach with time in GR and QM is very interesting.

You state that "Mechanical spring force can be said to scale with shifting gravitational potential, allowing me to coin the term “gravitational force dilation’." But gravitational potential cannot be localized in GR based on Einstein's Equivalence Principle which has today a strong empiric evidence. How do you solve this issue?

You should consider also extended theories of gravity in addition to MOND. In fact MOND seeks to amend parameters of Newton’s gravitational theory while extended theories of gravity seeks to amend parameters of GR. In a certain sense, extended theories of gravity are the relativistic counterpart of MOND in the same way that GR is the relativistic counterpart of GR. Maybe this paper, of mine can further clarify this issue.

In any case, you wrote a nice and entertaining Essay, deserving my highest score.

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 04:18 GMT
Dear Christian

Congratulations on your vocation. That is a nice badge to wear and well done for pursuing your dreams. So many people don’t, or cant. So it really is great when somebody does, can.

When I refer to Big Bang as metaphysics, it isn’t to suggest implausible or plausible. I use reference to metaphysics in terms of the dictionary meaning “the branch of philosophy that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 11:42 GMT
Steve,

While I agree force, or rather energy is fundamental, I see it as in a dichotomy with information. In that energy manifests form, as form defines energy. Consider that galaxies are cycles of energy radiating out, as mass coalesces in. That as evolved beings, we have a central nervous system to process information and the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process energy. That our societies are the relationship of organic and social energy pushing out, as cultural, civil and economic forms coalesce in, giving structure to the dynamic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 21:39 GMT
I wasn't signed in.

Regards,

John Merryman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 00:40 GMT
John

Its really interesting what you have said here. How does force/energy relate to information? You refer to energetic systems such as galaxies, but also biological systems and also societal systems, socioeconomic, civil. They represent expression of energy, but then you make the distinction of the role of information. Do you mind if I refer to information as being code within this context?

Society isnt a random expression of energy. It is coded within human nature (biology) to a large extent, but also coded within cultural terms, and economic and legal systems. Whats interesting is that Darwinism is a relevant subject in the emergence of each of these. They are systems of expressions of energy which are encoded with forms and functions.

Physics and cosmology are systems energetic to an extreme, and they have extraordinary and exquisite forms and functions. Are those forms and functions coded? Its a pretty safe deduction that they are. Can intricate coded systems emerge in an instantaneous creation of chance? Or faced with attempt to explain this type of complex system, should we explore the possibility they emerged over time, compounded change within an accumulated coding system. If physics and cosmology are of such an emergent origin, then the coding is expressive within the atomic forces. The atomic forces dictate a form and function that can be interpreted within assumption that baryons have evolved to exploit an energy field of space. My essay represents but a brief example of the implicated possible interpretations. This idea is more interesting than I can easily convey.

Thank you kindly for reading my essay

Steve

Bookmark and Share



Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 13:28 GMT
Dear Steven Andresen,

I have read your Essay and suggest that you read Dark Matter: http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf

Quantum Mechanics claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145

Kamal Rajpal

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 14:13 GMT
Dark matter is non-baryonic and still it interacts with visible matter and htey get repelled in the process. How is that the nature of gravity reverses its usual attraction that it manifests within the visible world? If i postulate that dark matter is merely a frozen matter consisting of free protons, free neutrons and neutrinos how will you react to such a scenario? How to handle non-baryonic matter pauses the problem as we do not know how it interacts within and without?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 15:39 GMT
Steven,

Many thanks for an enjoyable read. The numerous metaphors were nice. I especially liked the one about the glass slipper.

I have previously considered the possibility that mass is constant and force varies. For example, in F=ma, the Lorentz Transform could be applied to mass using division or it could be applied to force using multiplication. The result would be the same. My question then becomes "How does this affect conservation of energy in a system such as a particle accelerator?".

I agree that QM governs clock innards and that GM governs clock faces. This is another nice metaphor. I have considered something similar by proposing the following: PSI = t*[cos(omega) + isin(omega)]. This creates a single "master time" that then creates two time-like parameters that can be inserted into GR and QM respectively.

If I understand correctly your discussion of galactic rotation, you believe that the factor G in Newton's Law of gravity is not constant but that it is a variable dependent upon the local environment. I have also considered this possibility but I lack the knowledge of GR that would allow me to attempt to apply the idea.

All in all this is a very nice essay. Well done.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 15:52 GMT
Dear Steven,

Excellent essay. It was nicely written and interesting so I think worth a good score. You are good at demonstrating the difficulty of combining QM with GR. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. I agree with you. But I think that merging is not possible because QM and GR looks at world from different positions. GR looks from observer positions in the moving frame. QM is all viewed as waves.

For example, observer on the Earth see that Moon and Sun goes around. Observer on the Moon see that Earth and Sun goes around. But observer outside Solar system see that center is Sun. A perfectly correct scene can be seen only from the outside.

GR and QM are correct theories. Both looks from inside of Universe. Hence, they show only part of reality.

Good luck in the contest.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 05:50 GMT
Ilgaitis

Thank you kindly for reading and commenting on my essay.

I appreciate what you say regarding the nature of different perspectives, from inside or from outside of a system. You make the case that QM and GR cannot be and needn’t be unified because they are simply different points of view, and so not necessary that either of them be all inclusive of descriptions of the world.

However, when we measure the parameters of QM we are pointing to matters process. And importantly “when we are measuring parameters of GR we are “again” pointing to matters process, clock behaviour. If we are always pointing to “matter’s behaviour” in either study, then why do we believe relativity to be a study of the properties of space? locality is implicated which draws attention to space as being implicated. And it surely is. But that doesn’t change the rationale that both theories QM and GR identify and measure properties and behaviours of matter, and that properties and behaviours of matter could, should be serviced with one theory. Clocks indicate how this might be done, and force dilation might be a good way to do it.

There are a couple of issues with GR, and there are a range of very well-informed individuals within this essay contest that draw attention to them. I believe they are right, and there are superior ways to construct our theory of relativity. So that my clock is not slower than yours, while yours is slower than mine. Or something along those lines “quote from Edwin Klingman’s essay”

I will have a read of your essay and we will talk again.

Thanks again

Kind regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share



Jouko Harri Tiainen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 17:25 GMT
Dear Steven -- the best introduction I have read for a long time -- I love the tone and style and the way you make it feel so personal and you can feel the power of the forces of nature.

I see many common threads in your essay with some of the other high-ranking writers in this great competition of the FQXi community.

Your essay fills the mind with many new ideas and connections --...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 05:13 GMT
Harri

Thank you so much. I guess I do take my pursuit of understanding very personally. It is my passion that leads me this way.

Yes. Edwin relating the process of time to considerations of energy, presents a parallel with my concept. He’s not quite ready to relate this to a principle of variable mass, but I wonder if he is thinking about it.

Yes Juan’s comments didn’t seem very reasonable. He reminds me of somebody else who occupies his time in that regard. It does seam of odd hobby to occupy so much of ones time with. How can somebody be motivated to read so much, and disagree with nearly the entirety of it!

The Higgs field is only presented as an explanation for +-1% mass.

I’m glad you appreciate the connection I make between atomic force and times process, while making use of clocks. I think it serves as a good observation and argument. That the process thought to be time is better served as force dilation, which presents a rationale, a method for unifying QM and GR.

I like that you make good use of the term “duration” in substitute for terms of “time”. It is a term more befitting of the worlds physical processes.

Yes, biology makes good use of internal timers. I do make good use of analogy, so you might find some of your references turning up in mine at some point. Cheers for the content.

Terms of “necessary or contingent” do offer an interesting categorizing filter to pass my concept through. I’ll spend some time thinking along these lines.

I will drop by your essay for a read in the next few days.

Thank you kindly for reading my essay and sharing your impressions.

Kind regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share



Jouko Harri Tiainen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 18:00 GMT
I could say the above more concisely as == you have the animate (with its own clock) looking at (i.e. measuring an) inanimate clock -- so which is the primary clock or whose tick-tock is fist? Since both seem to fit you critical criteria. Harri. Two clocks both functioning yet -- which is necessary and which is sufficient isn't clear. And what are the how's and why's for the primary cause of cause is that outside the in/animate divide so to speak?

It is always what questions your ask? Is it not! Harri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 22:05 GMT
well Mr. Anderson,

Your sense of humor made me read all the essay! and I admit it was a good choice... Your way of putting things together allowed me some nice mental images. like some puzzle pieces that fit between them.

Indeed a good essay and a grade in accordance

Respectfully,

Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 00:06 GMT
Mr. Silviu

That you have understood the puzzle pieces as I have presented them, measured them in your mind and appreciated their prospective fit for each other. Thanks for letting me know that my efforts to explain have worked as intended.

Within the next few days I will have read your essay and dropped by your thread for a chat.

Thanks again

Steve

Bookmark and Share



Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 03:39 GMT
Hello Steven,

Your essay is a delightful journey through a multitude of mental stimuli.

I have presumed that your intention was to identify enough general and special conditions for your readers to draw their own conclusions regarding the multiplicity of appropriate opportunities to apply the descriptive term “Fundamental”.

I was a little amused by your use of the acronym TOE since Google will give you a basket full of definitions; but any ‘well educated but non-specialist audience’ will understand what you were making reference to.

We are in agreement that ‘The world and its processes are far more intricate and interdependent than can reasonably be expected of a chance creation.’ The universe, and thus our world, operates on a few principles that are liberal enough to accommodate and correct deviations either side of optimal conditions. It is this self-correcting capacity that keeps the ball rolling.

I would like to read more about the speculative claim that ‘the universe’s propensity for generating molecular structure’ is ‘purposeful’. Is this a reference to metaphysics or theism?

I will likely read your essay over again after the essay contest is over.

Thanks for the walk in space.

Gary.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 04:42 GMT
Gary

Thank you. You’re very kind.

I did throw in the term “fundamental” a few times for good measure. But yes, I focuses less on the meaning of fundamental than I did on describing fundamental processes of the world.

hahaha yes “TOE”. That reference was there for those in the know.

Yes, the worlds operations are complex and interrelated in a way that suggests more than chance occurrence is needed to explain for them. You do think clearly in this regard when you acknowledge “deviations either side of optimal conditions”. The process which I explore as a prospective solution that might be termed “a natural organisational principle”. It is metaphysics and not theism. Theists have made good use of the complexity argument, and might be considered as being their best argument. Science has had a tough time countering it. What I propose is that science take possession of this argument, and in the process leave Theism with “not much”.

Thank you for reading and commenting, and I’ll drop by your essay for a read and comment soon.

Steve

Bookmark and Share



DIOGENES AYBAR wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:41 GMT
Hi Steven;

Very interesting essay. intriguing and thoutfull. You are a poet os science.

Best wishes;

Diogenes

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 14:14 GMT
Dear Steven

I agree many points including; "Science forming a necessary base or core of central importance.

A central or primary rule or principle on which something is based".

Here you may read,

my essay

Kind regards

Bashir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 14:43 GMT
Dear Steven,

I left already on February 16 a post and as mentioned there I voted you UP(8).(see your thread on the date of 16-02)

I was awaiting your comment and rating on my essay until now.(now I am on 19 ratings at 6.8)

I hope that you can appreciate my contribution, that is not only trying to explain the HOW but also the WHY.

good luck and best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 17:42 GMT
Dear Stephen Anderson, your essay is similar to a work of art. You write like Shakespeare. But I did not see a good effect from your visit to my page.I answer briefly on three points, as they are seen in New Cartesian Physics.

1. The Sun thermonuclear reactions are intermediate reactions. There stands out energy of rotation of the solar system.

2. The interaction no between space and matter, so as space is matter.

3. The possibility of evolved optimization inherent in the structure of physical space

I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 18:12 GMT
Steven,

You have summarized quite a few physics ideas at a high level, and renamed a few of them, but I was unable to come up with any kind of meaningful interpretation of what you were trying to convey with your concluding list of five Darwinian principles or influences. I think you are attempting some sort of anthropic-universe-by-evolution strategy. But beyond that, I’m not even sure. Your writing style is clear, though your use of centered paragraphs made them unexpectedly difficult to read.

You asked me to rate your essay, but frankly I would strongly prefer not to do so because it would be a low rating. I therefore will rate your essay only if you ask me to do so in reply to this posting.

Cheers,

Terry

Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)

Essayist’s Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jack Hamilton James wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 21:29 GMT
Dear Steven,

You essay got me thinking about many things, a fine achievement. I have often wondered on how evolution could be formulated universally. It is easy enough to see it everywhere but hard to say if its fundamental or what occurs from fundamentals. Congrats on a thoughtful essay I rate it highly.

Best,

Jack

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 01:26 GMT
Dear Jack

Thank you. I'm glad my essay presented food for thought. Your having considered evolution as a possible explanation for universal order and complexity marks you as a person of interest to me. I am going to do what I can to have a look at your essay before ratings conclude. I am already committed to reading a number of essays before competition close, but whats one more :)

Some helpful advice for you. Maybe dont go to peoples pages and request they read your essay. Thats what I did yesterday, I was a 7.4 and became a 6.6 before their bombing run had eased off. What a mistaka to makea! Oh well, the whole point is to have ones essay read. So all good

Thank you once again

Kind regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share


Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 02:57 GMT
Dear Steve, [from my essay-thread, in reply] thanks for dropping by and alerting me to your absorbing essay.

The fuller story: "As high seas crashed about you, a black bottle smashed aboard. Seeing the now-revealed message, you transcribed it here as your opening paragraph: not realising that you had discovered the missing introduction to Moby Dick."

Thus does your poetic bent go on...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 03:41 GMT
Dear Gordon

Thats a lovely message to receive after yesterdays bruising. I'm going to bump your essay up the list of those to read :)

Dont kid yourself, your writing style is fine and delightful. It is effective in flattery in any rate, and worked on me.

You write on a subject I enjoy. It is a subject that tasks then mind heavily, and that might have more to do with peoples selective interests more than it does your writing style. Especially this end of the contest when we're all trying to read as many essays as possible. So much learning and brain cramming. It can be a little tiring.

Thanks for your kind words and I look forward to talking again soon.

Steve

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 06:19 GMT
Steven,

I gave a high rating to your essay on 2/7/18. Hope you can check out mine.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 10:57 GMT
Here's a letter I wrote for Karen Crowther. I would like to share it with all of you too.

Dear Karen

You picked a good theme for this years essay, and you are accomplished in that you did the subject good justice. Congratulations of a great essay and a great score. I hit you with a 10 but it wasn’t sufficient to move you up to 7.7. But it will have pushed it closer to that tipping...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Ulla Marianne Mattfolk wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 22:30 GMT
Thanks.

The centered text is a bit difficult to read.

I copy from my essay answer.

"It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv" - a very good Query, indeed. Why is gravitation seen as symmetric, invariant and 'collapsed' when it maybe is a false grasp to do so? It is maybe only one side of things? Matrices are also a quantum approach. It will be interesting to read your essay. Many thanks.

Ulla.

Clocks are relevant only as harmonic oscillations, I Think.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 04:18 GMT
Hi Ulla

Thank you for dropping by my page and considering reading of my essay. I will certainly read yours.

Yes, the equality between Guv and Tuv is something interesting to reflect upon. Physical interactions are usually energy conversions, from one type to another. It is interesting to ask the question, which is cause and which follows as an effect? between Guv and Tuv.

I think Clocks are relevant in terms of the forces that drive their function. Force drives clocks, therefore clocks measure force. My essay explains the details

Talk soon

Steve

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 04:17 GMT
Steven,

I appreciate your taking the time to read my essay and comment on it. We all need to be honest. As you have seen, there is not a lot of that in this contest. I appreciate it.

JIm

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 08:33 GMT
Dear Steven,

(copy to yours and mine)

Thank you very much for writing me a message.

Excuse me for being short-sighted, I refrained from communicating with you after your categorical statement in 2017.

«These topics being prominent in the minds of people, evidences the complexity and fine tuning problem is a most pressing issue confronting our universal awareness. No...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wayne R Lundberg wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 02:28 GMT
Dear Steven,

Your essay opens a myriad of questions in an apparent search for a way to approach the essay topic. Yet you answer so few of them, it makes one wonder whether you have any destination in mind..

However, you do sense the crucial importance of causality, waxing poetic about its mutual effect on both GR and QCD (QM...). That was beautifully enigmatic, although you missed the tragedy for QM, since it must fundamentally change to be causal and thereby consistent with GR.

Ah well, I hope that in your musings you find a path to the truth.

Wayne

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 04:20 GMT
Wayne

Really, no destination in mind? Posed questions and didn't answer them? Can you give me an example of a question I posed but didn't answer? In any case, I can't be held responsable for your comprehension skills.

Steve

Bookmark and Share


Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 08:53 GMT
Wayne

People invent clocks, then Einstein comes along and discovers their rate is modulated in gravitational environments.

What you have done is listen to somebody say, "forces drive a clocks function, so forces must be implicated in general relativitys effects".

To which your respond. Nothing of any interest here, bit of poetic mumbo jumbo maybe!

Maybe it's that you're not very deductive

Steve

Bookmark and Share



Luis F Patino wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:03 GMT
Dear Steven:

Lucky you that you can go sailing!

Sailing has indeed been the inspiration for many great thinkers and students of nature. Indeed, you're no exception. I thoroughly enjoyed your writing and found your idea of force dilation very interesting and worthwhile as a way to reconcile galactic rotation with GR.

My very short essay focused on the applicability of the ideas represented by the word "fundamental" itself to physics, rather than focusing on any particular theory or attempt at a theory. It is a warning that considering things to fundamental can confuse rather than clarify physical relationships.

However, you did a good job of using "fundamental" in simplifying your explanation.

Sincerely,

Luis Felipe Patino-Cuadrado

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 02:47 GMT
Dear Luis

Thank you. I will read your essay as well, but I'm afraid I won't be able to before contest close. I'm out and about surfing camping and writing this on my phone. Didn't end up going sailing.

You like the clock rendition? If you like, in the days to follow allow me to discuss the ins and outs of the subject. Help you determine if there really is anything of interest in this observation and my interpretation of it. And there is.

I recently framed it like this

People invented clocks, then Einstein comes along and discovers their rate is modulated in gravitational environments.

I suggest that, "forces drive a clocks function, so forces must be implicated in general relativitys effects". How could it not be? It is observable and quantifiable. Force dilation.

Steve

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.