Dear Stephen Wolfram,

i am happy to read your essay here and to learn more about your general thoughts about physical possibilities/impossibilities. Your paper is well written and has a nice rythm in exposing your lines of reasoning.

My personal view of the computational paradigm is, that it will change at some time in the future - maybe not so far away - to a mind/spiritual...

view entire post

Dear Stephen Wolfram,

i am happy to read your essay here and to learn more about your general thoughts about physical possibilities/impossibilities. Your paper is well written and has a nice rythm in exposing your lines of reasoning.

My personal view of the computational paradigm is, that it will change at some time in the future - maybe not so far away - to a mind/spiritual paradigm. That sounds weird at first glance, but i think the computational paradigm is yet too much deterministic and "bottom up" to grasp reality in its fundamental structures. It's a little bit like the clockwork-paradigm, invented by Newton.

What could it mean to assume a mind/spiritual paradigm? Firstly, it would surely mean that there come human values into play (you labeled this in your essay with "purposes"). Secondly, it would surely mean that there must be a conection between determinism and holism. There are some profound human experiences that suggest the possibility that our spacetime-reality is in some sense a filtered subset of another realm, where hypercomputation is indeed possible. Those human experiences are usually called "near-death experiences". About 40 years ago, the mainstream opinion on this issue was that those stories are purely abnormal hallucinations of the experiencers. But today it is widely accepted that these phenomenons are at least real in the sense that the experiencer must have experienced them in the time his/her brain/body wasn't active at all. Some of the made perceptions in those states of consciousness could be verified and are scientifically relevant. Because these experiences touches issues like timelessness, seing into the future, diving into ones own past, having a multimodal view on the surrounding environment, and perfect insight and knowledge into ultimate reality (and last but not least "love") and so on.

The problem of the limits of computability is linked with complexity. That is the stage where in my opinion "top-down"-causes come into play and new phenomena "emerge" at the very top of this irreducible complexity. My assumption is, that this is only possible because "emergence" can only be possible with a cetain top-down dynnamics as natural feature of ultimate reality. This means at the same time that the very notion of cause-and-effect isn't universally valid *without* purpose and subjective values. The subjective "spiritual" world isn't build up of only one subject's imagination, but through the power of a multitude of subject's values and imaginations, all in agreement with each other and fixed on the same purpose. That lead to the emergence of physical laws and the borders of irreducability.

I am strongly convinced that this "panpsychism", "super-natural" view will sooner or later develop out of the computational paradigm, because the very fact that the search for ultimate reality is build into ultimate reality via humans/consciousness is a hint in this direction and at the same time maybe its deeper purpose. See therefore my own essay here in to contest for a possible mechanism of ultimate reality to achieve all this.

Best,

Stefan Weckbach

view post as summary

Dear Stephen-

Thank your for your interesting essay, although I have a different opinion about the suitability of a computational approach to fundamental physics. Basically, I have similar concerns with many other posted essays, which have a computational, philosophical or formal character. This leads to an unbound search for, and speculative discussions about, a unified theory of physics....

view entire post

Dear Stephen-

Thank your for your interesting essay, although I have a different opinion about the suitability of a computational approach to fundamental physics. Basically, I have similar concerns with many other posted essays, which have a computational, philosophical or formal character. This leads to an unbound search for, and speculative discussions about, a unified theory of physics.

In your essay, the suggested 'discrete machine' or computational approach relies on formal axiomatic theory. This is, in my opinion, unlikely to provide an accurate representation of nature. In principle, an infinite number of machines can be imagined. Without guiding principle to reduce this number, this leads to an unbound search problem. In addition, certain machines may produce output that, deceptively, resembles observed natural behavior, although the output may never a good representation of nature when observing it at a small enough scale. Within the computational approach, it also remains to be explained how machines are created.

From within a 'discrete machine world' you'll not be able to comprehend nor completely accurately represent the possibilities of the 'analog' world, which nature appears to be. Theorems applicable to the world of discrete machines are in general not generalizable to the analog world. In addition, time is implicitly present in the operation of a machine, which makes it impossible to explain physical time from within a machine.

From my perspective, it is far more efficient to start a search for a unified theory directly with already observed 'known to be true' physical properties. This dramatically limits the search effort. These physical properties must be represented in terms of a minimal coherent formalism. From this theory it should be demonstrated that all observed quantum and relativistic effects appear and correspond to observed behavior within currently measured accuracy. This is essentially what Quantum Field Mechanics (QFM) attempts to do (see my essay). In the 'analog world' of QFM, interaction gives rise to unceasing pulsating phenomena. These quantum beat processes exhibit wave-corpuscular behavior (as Louis de Broglie suggested) and can be interpreted as massive particles. The mentioned pulsation has a finite duration (10^(-20) sec for electrons) and short spatial jumps (with a size equal to the Compton wavelength). This results in dynamically emerging discrete space and time, although the two attracting fundamental fields from which this behavior arises are 'analog and continuous'. In this analog world, dynamically emerging behavior has no relation to discrete machines and does not require multiple universes.

I have provided an -overview- of this theory and some of its extensions in my essay. The references provide the in depth rationalization. A slide deck on my website provides an alternative description.

Thanks again for your essay.

Regards,

Ben Baten

view post as summary

These El naschie and Huan are frauds.

You can consult

Integrity Under Attack:

The State of Scholarly Publishing

By Douglas N. Arnold

http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/siam-columns/integrity-
under-attack.pdf

Rumors of editor and journal misconduct have dominated the highly publicized case of the applied math journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (CSF),...

view entire post

These El naschie and Huan are frauds.

You can consult

Integrity Under Attack:

The State of Scholarly Publishing

By Douglas N. Arnold

http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/siam-columns/integrity-
under-attack.pdf

Rumors of editor and journal misconduct have dominated the highly publicized case of the applied math journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (CSF), published by Elsevier. As reported in a 2008 article in Nature,[2] “Five of the 36 papers in the December issue of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals alone were written by its editor-in-chief, Mohamed El Naschie. And the year to date has seen nearly 60 papers written by him appear in the journal.” In fact, of the 400 papers by El Naschie indexed in Web of Science, 307 were published in CSF while he was editor-in-chief. This extremely high rate of selfpublication by the editor-in-chief led to charges that normal standards of peer-review were not upheld at CSF; it has also had a large effect on the journal’s impact factor. (Thomson Reuters calculates the impact factor of a journal in a given year as C/A, where A is the number of articles published in the journal in the preceding two years, and C is the number of citations to those articles from articles indexed in the Thomson Reuters database and published in the given year.) El Naschie’s papers in CSF make 4992 citations, about 2000 of which are to papers published in CSF, largely his own. In 2007, of the 65 journals in the Thomson Reuters category “Mathematics, Interdisciplinary Applications,” CSF was ranked number 2.

Another journal whose high impact factor raises eyebrows is the International Journal of Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation (IJNSNS), founded in 2000 and published by Freund Publishing House. For the past three years, IJNSNS has had the highest impact factor in the category “Mathematics, Applied.” There are a variety of connections between IJNSNS and CSF. For example, Ji-Huan He, the founder and editor-in-chief of IJNSNS, is an editor of CSF, and El Naschie is one of the two co-editors of CSF; both publish copiously, not only in their own journals but also in each other’s, and they cite each other frequently.

Let me describe another element that contributes to IJNSNS’s high impact factor. The Institute of Physics (IOP) publishes Journal of Physics: Conference Series (JPCS). Conference organizers pay to have proceedings of their conferences published in JPCS, and, in the words of IOP, “JPCS asks Conference Organisers to handle the peer review of all papers.” Neither the brochure nor the website for JPCS lists an editorial board, nor does either describe any process for judging the quality of the conferences. Nonetheless, Thomson Reuters counts citations from JPCS in calculating impact factors. One of the 49 volumes of JPCS in 2008 was the proceedings of a conference organized by IJNSNS editor-in-chief He at his home campus, Shanghai Donghua University. This one volume contained 221 papers, with 366 references to papers in IJNSNS and 353 references to He. To give you an idea of the effect of this, had IJNSNS not received a single citation in 2008 beyond the ones in this conference proceedings, it would still have been assigned a larger impact factor than any SIAM journal except for SIAM Review.

view post as summary

What, exactly, do we mean by 'number'?

The human term ‘number’ and the concepts of a counting system are descriptions of difference between topologically whole areas. ‘Two fish’ decribes two discreet entities within a set ‘fish’. What we call number theory is the detailed analysis of how areas of difference within topologically whole entities organise efficiently within that...

view entire post

What, exactly, do we mean by 'number'?

The human term ‘number’ and the concepts of a counting system are descriptions of difference between topologically whole areas. ‘Two fish’ decribes two discreet entities within a set ‘fish’. What we call number theory is the detailed analysis of how areas of difference within topologically whole entities organise efficiently within that entity.

The differences described however are not the result of human numbering, human numbering is a classification of already existing areas of difference within a given set. A number of fish existed, in an awful lot of discreetly different ways, before the human number system. If we insist that the different areas only existed as areas of discreet difference after they were perceived to, we are what is commonly termed ‘creationist’.

It is accepted that the universe (by definition) is a topologically whole entity. Physics is the analysis of the areas of disceet differences, and how they interact, combine and divide within the topologically whole universe. In physics these areas of difference, and the way they ‘organise’ are treated as the results of naturally-occurring phenomena. Physics has always used mathematical tools to analyse these ‘physical’ areas of difference, and many words have been written about the miraculous coincidence that the language of mathematics is so well suited to do such analyses.

but instead of numbers being miraculously suited to describing the universe; what WE call number is how the universe ‘describes’ its differences.

the relationship between the ‘naturally-occurring areas of discreet difference in the topologically whole universe, and their behaviours’ and ‘human numbering system, number theory and mathematics’ is the equivalent of the relationship between ‘the naturally-occurring force between masses’ and what we call ‘the theory of gravity’.

relationship N->n

equivalent to

relationship G->g

where the capital letter represents a natural phenomenon and the lower-case represents the human analysis of the natural phenomenon.

The implications are that the naturally-occurring processes that we call ‘number theory’ will result in the naturally-occurring processes that we call ‘quantum mechanics’ and further to all other naturally occurring processes that we eventually call ‘physics’.

If the universe IS a topologically whole entity, and everything within that universe is composed of various fractions of the whole: then inflation is in fact division and subdivision. The expansion is in the ‘numbers’ ie the discreetly different areas within the whole.

it is not a set of sets, which is then a set of set of sets… the set of sets is absolute by definition and any introduction of further sets merely shows subdivision of the original.

[inserted note for Prof Schiller, with added lolz --> the term 'discreet difference' is used to indicate that although there may well be a continuum of difference it's only when such differences are discreet that they interact as differences. i love my analogies, so think of a magnet. there is a continuum between N and S (the physical object is a whole unit), and the differences in polarity gradually converge to the grey areas where we can't tell if it's more N than S or more S than N... but when the interactions of each pole are examined, we see they act in discreetly different directions. The continuum isn't discreetly different, so it isn't analysable through number. As soon as we're analysing using number we're separating it into discreetly different interactions. A curve on a graph is a continuum, but as soon as you wish to examine the value of a point on that line, you are separating it discreetly from the continuum of line before and after./note for prof schiller]

It is eminently testable as it predicts that ‘number theory’ and ‘quantum mechanics’ will become increasingly converged (ok, all areas of physics… but I say quantum mechanics because it’s at the narrow end of the decreasing complexity).

the prediction is: more and more ‘coincidences’ such as the riemann-zeta function will be ‘discovered’ at the LHC and other high-energy early-universe particle experiments. (In fact anywhere all naturally-occurring topological wholes being subdivided over time, when analysed mathematically should show evidence’s of ‘strange’ similarities between each other, whether it’s in physics, biology or any other field).

still with me?

:P

view post as summary

This post offers a comprehensive interpretation of most universal phenomena and the universe by discovering their physical origins. It proves that Galilean physics is the physics of everything, etc.

The Expanded Galilean Physics - Universal Phenomena and Cosmology

A. Universal Phenomena

The discovery of the Galilean-physics based interpretation of the universal phenomena is...

view entire post

This post offers a comprehensive interpretation of most universal phenomena and the universe by discovering their physical origins. It proves that Galilean physics is the physics of everything, etc.

The Expanded Galilean Physics - Universal Phenomena and Cosmology

A. Universal Phenomena

The discovery of the Galilean-physics based interpretation of the universal phenomena is based on the logical scientific lead that for universal phenomena such as the charge energy of proton and electron and gravity to continue to exist, they need constant energy supply and the stars should be the huge energy source needed to supply them. To continuously transport the energy of stars to all matters, the nuclear reactions in stars should continue to produce energetic tiny particles, undetectably small, to reach, to interact, and to lose energy to all matters to produce universal phenomena. There are already strong scientific evidences to show that stars constantly produce neutrinos, which carry no charge and are so small that they have the unique ability to penetrate all matters to reach all of their subatomic particles: protons and electrons. Therefore, neutrinos should be the tiny particles interacting effectively with all matters to produce all universal phenomena. However, scientists do not think so. They believe that both electrons and protons are point-size particles and therefore atoms and molecules are essentially empty space and therefore neutrinos hardly collide interacting with them. Another reason scientists believe that neutrinos are very inactive is that they believe that interacting with all matters to produce universal phenomena such as gravity should produce such large amount of heat that should evaporate all matters in seconds. These misconceptions together with other wrong knowledge taught by the mainstream of thought (its mathematical theories), such as that they believe that neutrinos have no mass, have effectively stopped scientists from understanding all universal phenomena.

Well established findings show that all matters are made of, in addition to protons and electrons, neutrinos, since they are produced in nuclear reactions from the matters made of protons and electrons. Unlike neutrinos both proton and electron are the fundamental charge particles and undoubtedly their charge is some kind of energy constantly producing forces. To constantly carry charge they should have constant energy supply from their environment. Otherwise, they should be absolutely uncharged particles like neutrinos. Therefore, without charge energy both proton and electron should be absolutely uncharged particles likely having mass density comparable to neutrinos, which based on our knowledge of atomic nuclei is amazingly dense, but should be much bigger than neutrinos. In space, the collision interactions between the energetic neutrinos coming from stars and the large uncharged particles should result in transferring energy from neutrinos to them. At equilibrium, the large uncharged particles should be surrounded by an amazingly dense atmosphere of neutrinos having much lower (kinetic) energy than the atmospheric neutrinos of the universe. If the large particles have irregular shape, at equilibrium they should be fast rotating and oscillating, thus, transferring their rotating-energy to their atmospheric neutrinos, which are therefore spinning and likely oscillating too. Both a proton and an electron therefore should be made of an absolutely uncharged particle having an amazingly dense atmosphere of spinning neutrinos constantly gaining the kinetic energies from incoming neutrinos of the universe to maintain their structures and charge energy. Both protons and electrons have their own gravitational force, which is the atmospheric pressure of neutrinos of the universe since neutrinos cannot penetrate through the large particle at their center. Besides, having amazingly dense atmosphere of neutrinos, they should also have repulsive force acting on one another. Both a proton and an electron therefore have an amazingly dense atmosphere of neutrinos of their own, gravitational force, and mutual repulsive force to express their charge energy not simply having single + or – force as generally believed.

The above logical understanding of both the structure and the charge energy of the fundamental charge particles (proton and electron) based on the knowledge of Galilean physics has led to the understanding of all universal phenomena and cosmology! Only the correct physics can have such easy to understand logics, overall coherency and consistency, and the support of all valid R&D findings!

Having two opposite forces instead of a single force to express their charge energy explains why protons and electrons form atoms and molecules. An electron approaches a proton due to that the gravitational force between them is greater than the repulsive force between them. However, their repulsive force increases upon their approaching and when the two forces are balanced, they form atoms and molecules. Free and partially free electrons and protons extend their neutrino atmospheres to produce the so-called “electric and magnetic force fields”, whose forces only act on charged particles. Knowing both electron and the proton having amazingly dense atmospheres of neutrinos also leads to the understanding why the neutrinos of the universe can interact effectively with all matters having atomic and molecular structures to produce many universal phenomena! It further reveals the scientific nature of the collision interactions between neutrinos and all matters: they are mainly the collisions among neutrinos hardly producing any atomic and molecular motions or heat. In these collision interactions neutrinos of the universe constantly lose (kinetic) energy to protons and electrons mainly to produce and to maintain their charge energy, to form and to maintain atomic and molecular structures not to produce the huge amount of heat expected by physicists! However, these collision interactions do cause protons and electrons to oscillate and these oscillation motions should constantly produce some heat. Therefore, there is a fundamental heat of matters produced by neutrinos-matters collision interactions, which keeps the centers of planets hot and produces their volcanic activities.

The logically arrived structure of both electron and proton further leads to the fundamental understanding of the energies released and absorbed from the collision interactions among all matters including physical, chemical and nuclear reactions! These collision interactions mainly involve losing or gaining neutrinos from the neutrino atmospheres of orbital electrons resulting in emitting or absorbing energy-producing neutrinos. Both the neutrino content and the weight of electrons therefore vary depending on the environment they are in. For example, free electrons contain the most neutrinos and are the heaviest. Electrons inside the nucleus of the heaviest atom contain the least amount of neutrinos, thus, are the lightest. The small amount of mass lost in a nuclear reaction therefore is explainable by the loss of neutrinos from orbital and/or nuclear electrons and, may be, a very small portion, from protons too, thus, avoiding the postulations that mass and energy are mutual convertible and the presence of pure energy, which is not even scientifically definable. Like both physical and chemical reactions, nuclear reactions now also obey mass-balance law, when the amount of neutrinos lost or gained in the reactions is accounted for.

The presence of gravity proves that there is a dense energetic atmosphere of undetectable neutrinos that interact effectively with all matters to produce it, which is the differential force between the pushing forces of the neutrinos going into and coming out of the matters. The presence of a dense atmosphere of undetectable neutrinos also explains the existence of protons, electrons, atoms, molecules, electric, and magnetic force fields.

The logically arrived structure of both electron and proton further leads to the understanding of light! Findings show that orbital electrons of atoms and molecules jump into lower-energy-level orbital emitting light. Since they can only emit neutrinos, lights should be their emitted neutrinos. This is explainable since getting closer to the protons in an atomic nucleus, an orbital electron need to lose some atmospheric neutrinos to reduce the repulsive force between them. Also, that the neutrinos emitted from orbital electrons are detectable as lights of various energy levels are explainable due to that the neutrinos of the atmosphere of an electron have various levels of spin energy, the closer to the absolutely uncharged particle at the center, the higher their spin energy. Lights therefore are neutrinos having spin energy. If neutrinos also have irregular shape, the light or the spinning neutrinos traveling in space should oscillate showing transverse wave-like properties, which have already been found. Also, balanced by two forces orbital electrons should circulate their atomic nuclei in a transverse wave-like motion. When lights bounce off orbital electrons upon going through a narrow slit, for example, they should produce wave-like scattering photographic patterns, which have also been found. However, contrary to general belief, lights are spinning neutrino particles hardly collide interacting with one another in space not the mass-free waves interfering with one another, although they show some wave-like properties when they collide interacting with matters. Findings also show that lights collide interacting with matters to lose all or part of their (spin and oscillation) energies turning into undetectable neutrinos, e.g., by passing through a black surface.

Traveling in space lights gradually lose their energy producing the well-known phenomenon of universal redshift of star lights. Hubble Law shows that the magnitude of the redshift of a star light is proportional to its distance from Earth. According to big bang theory the redshift of star light is relative-motion caused Doppler Effect of light and has concluded from Hubble’s findings that the universe is uniformly expanding. However, scientists have also discovered gravitational redshift of light, which cannot be explained by relative–motion Doppler Effect. In comparison, the latter is a much stronger effect, since it takes many light years to develop a detectable redshift of star light. To interpret both redshift effects of light consistently and coherently, I have proposed a mini-ether theory assuming that besides neutrinos the nuclear reactions in stars also produce mini-ether having particle size much smaller than that of neutrinos. Like neutrinos and may be more so, the concentrations of the mini-ether inside and around planets and stars are much higher than in space, thus, causing much stronger redshift effect than in space. This coherent interpretation of both redshift effects of light may be more reasonable than the conclusion of the big bang theory based on the effect of the universal redshift of light alone that the universe is uniformly expanding started from a big bang of a “singularity”, which the nature cannot logically produce.

B. Cosmology

The new cosmology of the expanded Galilean physics continues to recognize absolute time and space. It defines our universe as an energy consuming open-system, which should have limited size and duration inside the domain of nature. To form the universe the domain of nature should have a way to produce and to store the energy-producing material of the universe and a natural mechanism to start consuming it or to start a universe. The space surrounding our universe should still have a dilute atmosphere of neutrinos and since the temperature in an Intergalactic Space is already very low ~ 2.7 oK (based on the assumption that the microwave interference background coming from the Intergalactic Space surrounding our galaxy), the temperature outside the universe will drop to 0 oK and below, where according to scientific findings atoms and molecules cannot survive. It means that the material the nature made to release energy inside a universe cannot by hydrogen and helium. Based on our knowledge about nuclear reaction, the energy-producing material of the universe should be made from proton, electron, and neutrinos. Findings also suggest that at temperature very close to 0 oK atoms and molecules collapse into a very dense material like atomic nuclei but containing about equal amounts of protons and electron. The author has named this material “dense-matter object”.

I postulate that when stars and planets die at sub-0 oK, they collapse to form dense-matter objects, which are stable only at 0 oK and sub-0 oK temperatures in the domain of nature outside the universe. They continue to aggregate themselves and from the collection of proton, electron, and neutrinos to grow in size and, therefore, some of them can have amazingly large sizes. A galaxy is likely formed from a violent collision of two giant dense-matter objects and a universe can form from the multiple of such collisions. A violent collision should break the two dense-matter objects into billions of pieces and produce a thick cloud of dense-matter dust, neutrinos, protons, neutrinos, and huge amount of energy. Under the bombardment of the high-energy particles radioactivity and nuclear reactions should occur on the surface of the dense-matter object pieces and dusts. The dense-matter dusts would be quickly consumed to produce hydrogen and helium clouds in the cosmos and each piece of dense-matter object becomes a baby star. Simultaneous producing billions of baby stars marks the birth of a galaxy. Inside a galaxy dense-matter objects are unstable being radioactive and undergoing nuclear reactions on their surface constantly shooting out energetic particles such as neutrinos, hydrogen, helium, ions, etc. pushing things away and therefore they are “antigravity matters”. The existence of antigravity matter in this universe is still unknown to all. All the matters made of atoms and molecules are known gravity matters since they constantly get energy from atmospheric neutrinos produced by the antigravity matter in the universe to produce gravity.

Regular stars – A baby star or dense-matter object is very small, dense, and essentially invisible. It constantly shoots out besides neutrinos, protons, electrons, hydrogen, helium and ions to a great distance, where they gradually accumulate to form an outer-layer. Therefore, a regular star like our Sun is made of a dense-matter object having a large ball-shape hollow outer-layer, which gradually gets denser, thicker and, thus, shinier. However, regular stars are still unknown to be hollow and to have a dense-matter object or antigravity matter at their center. As their outer-layer gets thicker and hotter with aging, its inner surface will reach the critical temperature for nuclear reactions to occur to produce elements heavier than helium. Upon further aging, the inner surface of the outer-layer gets harder and harder for the gases and the particles continuously produced by the dense-matter object at the center to penetrate through and as a result the inner gas pressure continues to builds up. Therefore, mature regular stars like our Sun have to release their inner gas pressure by periodical burst and, eventually, the outer-layer of regular stars will explode to end their lives as findings have already confirmed this conclusion.

Planetary motions - The dense-matter objects inside many regular stars such as our Sun are fast rotating due to both their irregular shape and nuclear reactions constantly occurring on their surface. This rotating energy makes the outer-layer of these stars, such as our Sun, to rotate. More importantly, this rotating energy also enable it to shoot out energetic neutrinos supports the constant orbital and rotational motions of their planets and moons in a specific direction such as those of the solar system.

Dense stars – Baby stars are the densest stars but they have turned into regular stars longtime ago, which are artificially big having artificially low mass density. Findings show that when large regular stars explode, they effectively blow away their outer-layer turning into the so-called neutron stars, which are the densest stars found. Neutron stars should be the exposed dense-matter objects from their explosion. Instead of being dead, they are the baby stars reborn from the explosion. Giving time, they will become regular stars again. Many of them are found fast rotating too. The explosion of the medium size regular stars like our Sun blows a large portion of their outer-layer away to become white dwarf stars. Having both small size and an outer-layer hard to be penetrated through by hydrogen and helium, they should violently explode again as findings having proven so too.

Black holes – The presence of very large dense-matter objects particularly in and around the center of all galaxies is expected. They should be the “black holes” found. Having very strong antigravity, they destroy and disperse the light passing through and around them and are therefore black hole-like. They throw the hydrogen and the helium they constantly produce so far away that these gases continue to disperse into cosmos instead of forming ball-shape outer-layer to become gigantic regular stars. Some fast-rotating large dense-matter objects (black holes) throw their gases very far away forming large bright rings, which are rotating like the outer-layer of our Sun due to the fast rotating of the large dense-matter objects at their center.

C. Physical Origins not Mathematical Origins

A century of scientific revolution led by Einstein using the mathematical theories teaching mathematical origins to interpret universal phenomena against Galilean physics teaching physical origins has now completely failed due to both that it has not disproved Galilean physics and that the physical origins of the universal phenomena have been found. Now, the following scientific debates can be concluded.

A century of scientific revolution of Einstein has led to an era of (pseudo-) physics using mathematical origins, against the fundamental teaching of physical origins by Galilean physics, to interpret universal phenomena and cosmology. The revolution however has failed scientifically both to disproved Galilean physics and to be consistent with other fields of natural science. The discovery of the expanded Galilean physics using physical origins to interpret universal phenomena and cosmology has conclusively disproved all theories teaching mathematical origins. Some major conceptual changes from mathematical origins to physical origins are given bellow.

1. Light and gravity – Contrary to general belief, lights are neither (electromagnetic) waves nor quantized photons. They are neutrino particles having both spin energy, which hardly collide interacting with one another in space. Therefore, the negative finding in the Michelson-Morley experiment is expected, which however does not prove that light has an absolute speed in space. Gravity is the wind force of neutrinos not curved spacetime.

2. Mass and moving speed – Today’s physicists believe firmly that mass increases with moving speed. They cited the findings of the high-energy particle accelerators as “proofs”. However, having an atmosphere of neutrinos, a charge particle such as electron is expected to lose some of its atmospheric neutrinos upon moving. The higher the moving speed, the more neutrinos it loses and thus the weaker of its charge power. Therefore, charge particles lose, not increase, mass with increasing moving speed. However, magnetic-field measurement would wrongly show an increase in mass due to the reduced charge power of the moving charge particles.

3. CMB – A reasonable interpretation of CMB, the cosmic microwave interference background, is that it is emitted by the matters inside the Intergalactic Space surrounding our galaxy while our galaxy as a whole is moving in it to produce anisotropic property in CMB. Without stars in the Intergalactic Space, the temperature there is very low (~2.7 oK) and uniform. If CBM were the residue radiation predicted by the big bang theory, it should not have anisotropic property.

4. Einstein Equation E = mc2 – It is wrong to assume that energy (E) and mass (m) are mutually convertible. Pure energy is not even scientifically definable and therefore does not exist. The equation is correct to show that the energy produced by a reaction is proportional to the mass (of neutrinos) lost in the reaction but c2 is simply a proportional constant having nothing to do with light speed.

5. Matters and Energies – Since all energies are produced by matters, pure energy does not exist and matters cannot be converted to pure energy.

6. The Universe – The Galilean-physics based cosmology is developed based on the following logical thinking, the physical origins-based interpretation of universal phenomena, and findings. To make common sense it should be an energy-consuming and open universe. Similar to a fire, it should have limited size and duration. The domain of the nature that may have unlimited size and duration should have a natural way to make and to store the (nuclear) energy-producing material and a way to start the universe.

There is no valid scientific proof that time is not absolute and it is a common-sense making three-dimensional universe according to Galilean physics, which is made of both antigravity and gravity matters. The antigravity matters, which are made of densely packed protons, electrons, and neutrinos and is still unknown to the scientific community. Inside universe, they are radioactive constantly producing nuclear energy emitting energetic particles to produce antigravity and are located at the center of regular stars and dwarf stars and are also known as neutron stars and black holes.

6. Particle physics – Galilean physics teaches that the universe is made of only three stable fundamental particles, neutrinos, the uncharged proton, and the uncharged electron. It further postulated the existence of mini-ether to be the fourth fundamental particles to explain the redshift-of-light phenomena. They all have mass. I suggest that positron is the electron deficient in neutrino content. At present, Galilean physics has no explanation to the hundreds of very unstable elemental particles found. They are likely related to the break up of protons and electrons.

Since both protons and electrons are unbreakable there can be no quark particles. As expected that Galilean particle physics is not compatible with the standard model of modern physics. Since the charge properties are unique to both proton and electron only, the electric and magnetic field methods may be able to detect other elemental charge particles but cannot quantize the charge and the mass of them and may lead to serious errors for the standard model.

By Josef Tsau, Ph.D., jtsau@comcast.net , September 2010

view post as summary