SSDS

Now a next minor upgrade of “The Information as Absolute” paper appeared - http://viXra.org/abs/1402.0173 , V2.

First of all that is the same as the V1, but with Russian translation: English version – pages 1-33, Russian one (Appendix) – pages 33-70.

For those, who downloaded the paper earlier - the change is, in fact, the following passage:

-----

It seems worthwhile to mention here an additional remark, relating to the Beginning. There are, in principle, no objections to suggest that at the Beginning Matter was firstly created as a huge number of so called hypothetical “Planck Т-particles”, i.e., the particles having masses that are equal to the Planck mass (near 10¹⁹ BeV). These particles contain and their algorithm works on the FLEs, which are absolutely symmetrical. Further interactions between these particles resulted in the appearance of observed now Matter. Such particles have at least two, possibly rather interesting, properties: (i) – since the particles interact with anything only by gravity force, they could be the particles, which have not interacted at the extremely hot Beginning totally, and so now can constitute, at least partially, so called “dark matter”, and (ii) – since for absolutely symmetrical algorithms it is impossible to choose a direction in the coordinate time, it is logically permissible to suggest, that they all move in the Matter’s spacetime in the positive temporal direction only. As that was pointed earlier, particles’ algorithms are some closed loop, and therefore all particles should have some inherent angular 4D momentum (what reveals probably as the spin in “usual” particles also), which is oriented specifically in the spacetime. So, if at Beginning only Planck mass particles were created, then in Matter there was no antimatter, when Its total angular 4D momentum, as a sum of PM-particles’ ones, was, let, “positively directed”. Further the conversation of this momentum could result in the absence of the antimatter, at least in the observed now part of Universe.

_____

That seems as something that is rather fantastic, but, nonetheless, it is permissible. And it isn’t too more fantastic, then any other existent cosmological suggestion relating to the Beginning…

Cheers

More – see the paper “The Information as Absolute” , at least the section 6.2. “Consciousness”, though it would be useful to read the paper as a whole.

Now a little upgrade of this [earlier http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712] paper appeared: http://viXra.org/abs/1402.0173

Cheers

SSDS’s thread “inform physics”, regrettably, was closed a couple days ago. So I re-post next time the post from this thread (SSDS post #24, Posted 7 June 2011 - 09:57 AM)

Since – again regrettably - it is necessary to re-post it again (as the 'SSDS', on 09 Jun 2010 - 1:19 PM) now.

So – some short version of the post:

********

'SSDS', on 09 Jun 2010 - 1:19 PM, said:

In June 2009 under some reasons I was forced to place in a number of forums a post “relating to well known "Many World" concept”. That remedied the situation on a some time (though with a non-virtual help of some specific service also), but now, as it seems, I’m forced to post this post again:

……….

And, e.g., some people, who seems attempt to send me in some another World, well know that I never will appear in this case in this World in future.

……..

Cheers

I really don't appreciate being attacked while asking for more information...

 

I(and others smarter than myself) have attempted to read your papers and gotten nowhere. I am asking for further explanation.

 

If you can not or will not provide it, then what are we here to discuss?

-? That is possible, the informational (“The Information as Absolute conception”) conception (Meta-Physical) and the informational model (physical), which follows from the conception, indeed aren’t trivial. But in such a situation one – if (s)he wants to understand - should think enough; if there is a possibility – and here it is – should put corresponding questions.

Though if the questions arise that means that something becomes be understandable.

Besides for you it would be useful to read other arXiv papers that are pointed out in this thread, first of all (“Space and Time”) http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 and (The Informational Conception and Basic Physics) http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657

But you write your posts too quickly…

Cheers

A number of members including at least one moderator, have mentioned an inability to understand what your posts reference.

 

I am trying to see that corrected.

 

 

Personally I find myself unable to form an opinion as to whether your argument is of a scientific nature. I cannot evaluate your argument based on what has been presented thus far, therefor I have not offered an opinion on the matter.

 

I am asking that you use other sources besides yourself so that your argument can be properly evaluated.

 

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/2012/07/24/on-self-citation/

 

If I claim that quibits are green and my evidence is myself stating that quibits are green; you would have reasonable cause to question the validity of my argument without ever seeing a quibit.

Again you write something that doesn’t relate to the tread’s topic.

So – and that is possible my last post relating to your posts - I don’t discuss anything with trolls:

- You a number of times wrote here about “peer review”, from what probably follows, that you know what that means.

So, once again, I ask you to write here something like to a peer review of the paper “ To measure the absolute speed is possible?” that is attached PDF in the SSDS post # 60 22 November 2013 - 08:54 PM.

If you aren’t capable to do so, I shall not continue this conversation.

Cheers

http://arxiv.org/help/moderation

 

Moderated yes, peer reviewed no.

 

 

I want to see a discussion take place here. Present the basics in one short paragraph. Then present what evidence you have in the next.

 

This thread has been going for over 5 years, time to either end it or move it forward.

 

 

It seems that you don’t know well also – what is the scientific forum. On the forums members discuss not only “peer reviewed” papers – you can look through, for example, other threads on this forum’s page. Besides - here aren’t prohibitions on – what time a thread should exist.

And, besides, you 3-th post already write something that by any means cannot be believed as something scientific.

Would you be kind, for example, to write in this thread – what do you think about the paper “ To measure the absolute speed is possible?” that is attached PDF in the SSDS post # 60 22 November 2013 - 08:54 PM? That will be – I hope till now, though there are some doubts already, something scientific and what relates to the thread’s topic.

If you cannot, then your posting seems as a trolling.

Cheers

To: All

- last information relating to the thread’s topic – see the last SSDS post (3-th page), including, certainly, the attached PDF.

ArXiv(Archive) is supposed to be for drafts of scientific papers. Papers there are looked at by editors but not peer reviewed.

 

I become concerned when I see papers from there that have not been published elsewhere.

 

 

 

Can you explain your hypothesis in simple terms and give evidence(not another self citation) that supports it?

 

Otherwise this thread is just going to continue as it has for literally years now.

 

 

 

It seems that you don’t know well – what is the arXiv. So see http://arxiv.org/ .

As well for you seems be useful to re-read the SSDS post Yesterday, 04:10 AM once more.

Cheers

To: All

- last information relating to the thread’s topic – see the last SSDS post (3-th page).

Has any of this been published in a peer reviewed journal?

There aren’t any publications either about the informational (“the Information as Absolute”) conception or about the informational model; all submissions were rejected by editors, without peer reviews. Including, for example, in a number of philosophical journals, though the papers “the Information as Absolute” http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 and “Space and Time” http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 are evidently new, actual and philosophical.

So the authors are forced to walk through the Net scientific forums to info people about the conception and the model.

On another hand – in the forums corresponding posts are often commented by some rather active forums’ members in a quite aggressive and senseless manner. It seems that the members of some journals editor boards are humans that are rather similar to those forums’ members.

Besides – when I looked through my last post I see that the attached paper “Absolute_speed_measur.pdf” is downloaded only 1 time – when I checked the attachment. Somebody has a difficulties when attempts to download the paper or that the downloading counters is rather strange?

Cheers

Attached PDF is – how one can measure the absolute speed of a reference frame in the absolute spacetime – some more detailed consideration of section 2.2. in http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979...

Cheers

Absolute_speed_measur.pdf

That is re-posting from an other forum (the blog about unifying of quantum mechanics and gravity)

Some notions relating to the problem.

(1) Space and time are some logical rules/possibilities, which determine – how the concrete informational system, Matter is constructed and how material objects must interact; space and time are absolute, including don’t depend on – what in Matter happens in any "time moment" and/ or in any "pace point". So neither space, nor time can be "quantized".

(2) In contrast to the spacetime, motions or any interaction of material objects are "realizations" of a set of rules that control Matter when She changes, but there is fundamental obstacle for any changings, which was formulated by Zeno 2500 years ago in his aporias. "To solve" the aporias Matter was forced to do any changing as some quantized process, when the state of some object between in/out states becomes be uncertainty; what in physics was realized as QM.

(3) Any force in Matter has a mediator, including that must be true for gravity force also. Since gravity and electricity are very like, it isn’t impossible that corresponding theory will have some traits analogous to the QE ones.

Some (and seems as non-accidental) example of a similarity of gravity and electricity – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657

Cheers

Some next re-posting from an other forum

________

 

Originally Posted by vacuum-mechanics

How?

Quote Originally Posted by SSDS View Post
Again – there is, in a certain sense though, no "mechanisms" in the slowing down of clocks ticks if a clock moves in the spacetime with a speed V. That is "purely kinematic effect".

 

 

How?

 

But on more deep level some "mechanism" exists – the ticks’ slowing appears because of the force that accelerated the clock in the space. Further the clock remains being slowed “inertialy”.

 

Again, how?

And that is true for any clock since all processes in the clock, down to its elementary particles (which are some clocks also) remain be slowed. Some differences appear when a gravity force appears, but this case is outside this topic.

 

 

Nimit

 

 

Let’s go from the end of your post. All “elementary” (don’t consider quarks here, that isn’t principal) are indeed clocks, i.e. some periodical processes. For photons that is well known; they are some clocks that run only in the space, with the speed of light and so are “massless”in the space, i.e. have zero “rest mass”. All “massive particles” at rest in the spacetime run only in the [“coordinate”] time, with the speed of light and so are “massless”, i.e. have zero “rest mass” when moving in the time direction. When, after obtaining of a spatial momentum, they move in the space also, they are the clocks also – that one can observe as the de Broglie waves (in other case Achilles never leave behind a turtle).

And, again – since there is for every particle (atom, body, etc.) some fundamental cycle that determines the particles characteristics, and since at movement in the space the particles must spend some (roughly) cycles on the steps in the space - when the speed (i.e. steps’ rate) in the spacetime is always constant – the cycles’ rate in the time becomes be slowed. Or if a human makes from particles a clock with the points and clock-face, the points become go slower through the clock-face. Again, there is no so called “time dilation”, the time is absolute and any clock cannot to do with the time anything. Besides – if for a particle there is some probability of a “bug” at every time step, then, since the time steps’ rate is slower, the particle lives longer. No mysticism besides.

Again – the slowing down of the speed in the time is the result of obtaining a speed in the space when some force impacted on the clock (particle, body, etc.), that is some “mechanism”. After the impacting is stopped, and the particle moves in the spacetime inertially, the (dilated) clock’s ticks rate remains be constant, i.e. that becomes be as “kinematical effect”.

Again – more see the arXiv links above since the processes here are a little more complex, first of all – since in the reality there are (at least) two times.

Cheers

That is re-posting from an other forum (the blog about the crisis in physics)

_______________

I just read that when Marx first read Darwin's Origin of Species in 186o, he wrote to Engels that "although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view."

 

How does is "contain the basis in natural history for their view?"

 

Also, I know that socialists later rejected Darwin and were proponents of Lamarckism, can anyone explain why Lamarckism was more consistent with socialism than Darwinism?

The discussion “why Lamarckism was more consistent with socialism than Darwinism?” here evokes, for those who lived in the USSR, nothing else then a smile. There wasn’t, of course, so and Darwinism was “official” standard science that was learned in school; Lamarckism was considered first of all nothing else then as some base for religions in the atheistic country. But it would be incorrect to think that Marxism is correct when it is stated as the base of socialism / communism (or something else post-capitalistic), just because of it is the base of the main Marxism’s “historical materialism” dogma that “the human existence determinates the human’s consciousness”. So the main goal of Marxism’s doctrine is a realization of “the great principle” – “for everybody - every need, from everybody - what he can” (possibly in native English texts that sounds a little in other words). When just satisfaction of needs is the main goal of capitalism, and so the “real socialism” in full accordance with Marxism transformed eventually (and inevitably) in capitalism in former socialistic countries. So it turned out experimentally proven that in reality such approach is incorrect. To understand why it does so and what approach should be more correct is necessary to understand, that the humans’ evolution did not start at some mutation of some monkey and it will not end as the biological species “homo sapiens”. The evolution started at combining of some chemical substances into a cell and will continue as a coming of the human (more correct – human’s consciousness) out the subset “human’s Consciousness” to subsets “human’s Consciousness-1”, “human’s Consciousness-2”, etc. The “historical materialism” is true for the humans’ societies up to (including) capitalism only. Next (post-capitalistic) society will not be the society, where “the human existence determinates the human’s consciousness”, but there will be “the human’s consciousness determinates the human existence ”… More - see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 (paper “The Information as Absolute”)

Cheers

Time is continuous because it can be indefinitely broken down into indefinitely smaller increments, which implies that the limit of spacing between the smallest unit of time is zero. There is no single unit or discrete interval which you can settle on to say that all larger units of time occur from or are compounded from, so it must be continuous, or smooth. This property of smoothness is also invariant of objects specified to be smooth or continuous, you cannot have a mathematically "less continuous" or "more continuous" line, either it is continuous at every point or it isn't. If time were however discrete, we would find that we can only measure events passing at a rate up to a specific interval of time, which we have not, you can get indefinitely closer to the speed of light and therefore measure an indefinably smaller rate at which time passes for other objects.

Besides – if the continuum hypothesis is true, then the cardinalities of the continuum set and of the “discrete” power set of the natural numbers set, 2^N, are equal, so the continuous and the discrete are in certain sense equivalent; so the time can be discrete (by some way) also.

Cheers

Seeing this is a scientific forum , maybe we should take god out of the equation, so let me pose the following.

 

What came before the big bang, of course if it happened?

Is our universe just one of an infinite number of universes?

Is what we call "Existence" both eternal and infinite?

Did the universe really have a beginning?

Etc?

time ago.

infinite number of other “Universes” in the Set, which are some informational systems also, possibly with another – or the same - logical rules (Nature and society laws) that govern the evolution. There isn’t anything surprising in such a reality; including – in that all universes (an “non-universes”) very possibly interact by some ways.

substances, some rules that make the substances “alive” and the human’s consciousness (the men was made “in the image and likeness of” -?).

– how that was (is, will be); anything, including the fate of any human, every her/his thought was known and is now realizing as always existing scenario.

Now a little upgrade of the paper “Space and Time” appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003

Though possibly it is worthwhile to correct the text (last sentence in the paper) a little.

It now is:

“…the orthogonality of the tau-axis to any straight line in the 3D space.”

It should be, e.g., as:

“……the orthogonality of the tau-axis to any spatial axis; and to any other line in the 3D space also, though.”

Cheers

A couple of preliminary remarks. As that is pointed out in the paper “The Information as Absolute” all/ any existent philosophical doctrines have common flaw: they study “the problems that both – non-provable and non-testable”. Besides (or consequently) so any doctrine has the problem of existence of something more fundamental. For example in Platonism
also a question arises – what is something where “the World of Ideas” and “inert Matter” are? From what they “are made”?

So inevitably any such a logical construction (including, e.g., the mathematical universe hypothesis) has this problem.

As to the MUH more specifically – it seems also that isn’t some neoplatonism, that is some next version of the Pythagorean “everything from a digit” doctrine. And so has natural flaw – it reduces everything to mathematics, when that isn’t true, since for math is critical the validity relations and so, for example, the math isn’t capable to descript all processes in Consciousness.

And – since (e.g., MUH) existent philosophical doctrines have the flaws above, their practical output is, as a rule, rather poor.
Besides that they always remain be hypotheses, which have no proof, for example – what inferences follows from them besides that they “explain Nature”?

Such problems become be resolved only in the informational conception. Including, e.g., in the conception become be more clear – what are space and time; from what follows, e.g., the explanation – why the special relativity theory isn’t correct and a reasonable model for basic physical principles; now philosophy obtains for study ultimately fundamental subject – the set “Information”, etc.
– see the arXiv links above.

Cheers

Now a little upgrade of the paper “the Information as Absolute” appeared – see

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712

The paper helps to understand additionally – if necessary – the “Space and Time” paper.

Cheers

The answer is very simple – because of those, who works in arXiv , at least in Gen-phys section team and at least till
now, are intelligent, ethical (and bold, though) people.

Now a little upgrade of the paper “the Information as Absolute” appeared – see

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712

The paper helps to understand additionally – if necessary – the “Space and Time” paper.

Cheers

It seems that for discussion in this thread would be useful to read the paper “Space and Time”,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 , V2

Cheers

Since there aren’t some questions/ comments on the thread’s topic, consider the two-clock experiment.

So, let there is some system that consists of a rod having the length L and
two clocks on the rod. The system moves along the rod’s axes with
constant speed V in some other RF, for example – on some Earth’ orbit.
It is well known from the special relativity that one can synchronize
clocks when they are in a point, and further, using a slow transport
with a clock speed v<<V, move clocks on the rod’s front and back
ends. In the RF the clocks showings will be at that different, on the
Voigt-Lorentz decrement (front clock is slower) –VL/c^2. If the clocks
are slowly moved to one point on the rod (let – front clock is moved to
back rod’s end), the showings must become equal again.

In the special relativity the clocks “show time” and so there is no difference –
moved clock constitutes, or not, a rigid system with the rod, in both
cases the result is one – the showings’ identity.

In informational model spacetime is absolute and the clocks’ difference is
“material” kinematic effect, when only the rod turns in a plain
“[coordinate] time, a spatial direction” (tau, X). So in the case when
moved clock constitutes all time a rigid system with the rod, then the
showings will be identical. But if there is a free motion (e.g., moved
clock has an engine), then the difference will conserve.

The orbital speed of international cosmic station is near V ~7.6 km/s, the
Voigt-Lorentz decrement, VL/c^2 ~ 8.4.10^(-14) s*L. For a rod having
L=25 m the decrement is 2. 10^(-12)s – now such a precision isn’t a
problem. For 250m rod the decrement is 2. 10^(-11)s, clocks such a
precision have sizes as a matchbox.

But so long rod isn’t possibly necessary. After first synchronization the process can be
repeated any times with a small rod. E.g., if one uses 10 cycles “put
ahead on the rod – free return” with 25m rod, the result will be as when
using 250 m rod.

It is evident, that by using measured data on the VL-decrement is possible to measure the speed V – when that is
impossible in framework of special relativity.

However, it is impossible in this case to measure the Earth’s speed in space relating
to absolute reference frame, because of in Earth’s gravity is impossible
to make a free clocks system. But if one launches a couple of clocks
far enough away from the solar system, then such a measurement would be
possible.

Cheers

And some addition to the SSDS post above. In contrast to the “simulation hypothesis”, the informational conception/ model haven’t too much PR, moreover, quite the contrary something other things happen. A couple examples – the paper “Space and Time” a month ago was rejected by “Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics” journal (earlier was rejected by two other journal), though it is evidently new, actual and metaphysical.

And – it even seems make one laugh: I info about next iteration of the conception in so called “Cosmocoffee” WEB forum,

http://cosmocoffee.info/viewforum.php?f=5&sid=fde5d7a362949ac8f842304d92cd8f0a

as an anonymous, in the thread “Crackpots”. As well as I placed the info about the next version of the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 , V2. At evening the info existed, at next morning it disappeared…

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

 

This universe may be a computer simulation, scientific evidence is pointing in that

direction as German physicists are trying to prove if this universe is a computer simulation or not.

 

Here's a link to their story below

 

http://www.techspot.com/news/50468-physicists-may-prove-we-exist-in-a-computer-simulation.html

 

 

 

“(Nick Bostrom “famously hypothesized”) … that our very existence may be nothing more than the algorithmic results of a computer simulation. in a holographic universe constructed by vastly superior beings? I know -- it sounds like the basis for good science fiction, but...”

- The “simulation hypothesis”, is in reality, the basis for a science fiction only, since it have a number of evident problems. For example – it is practically impossible to make corresponding simulation of Matter, e.g., every particle interacts with every other particle in Universe, at least by gravity; besides now it is known 3 fundamental forces besides gravity. Even “to simulate”, e.g., a real flight of a stone is necessary to simulate every impact of every air molecule, which, in turn, are dependent on wind, temperature, dust, etc., etc., etc. It seems very probable, that some “vastly superior beings” could find much more useful business, then to game in some puppet-show.

As well as “…The problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time...”

– isn’t by any means required by the “simulation hypothesis” only, there are a lot of much more physically based hypotheses, where space-time is discreet.

As well as, for example, the discreet space time is in the informational physical model; the difference – in this case the discreetness of space-time is rigorously grounded; from the model follow a number of experimentally tested rather important physical results – see arXiv:1110.0003 , arXiv:1004.3712 , arXiv:0707.4657 , arXiv:0706.3979 .

Though the “simulation hypothesis” have, by some unknown reasons, very good PR, for example – in May 2011 the info "you’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it"

(e.g., http://io9.com/5799396/youre-living-in-a-computer-simulation-and-math-proves-it )

was in a week widely spread through Web – there were more then 100 000 links.

At that – the info was at least twice incorrect, besides the “hypothesis” itself, the statement that “math proves something” is nonsense. Math cannot prove anything, all what can math, that it guarantees that the math results are consistent with the corresponding initial suggestions/ conditions. So if the suggestions were rubbish, then math results will be rubbish also, and nothing more

Cheers

For this topic it may be useful to read arXiv:1110.0003v2, V2.

Cheers

Now a little modification (mainly – some editing and something relating to the “twin paradox”) of the paper “Space and Time” appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 , V2.

Cheers