Skip to toolbar

Activity Feed Forums New Models Energy Wave Theory The Project: Phase 1 requirements, clarifying the initial conditions

  • The Project: Phase 1 requirements, clarifying the initial conditions

     Akinbo updated 1 month ago 2 Members · 4 Posts
  • Akinbo

    Member
    September 20, 2020 at 11:56 am

    Thanks Jeff for coming up with this and your enthusiasm to find the simplest possible model.

    I have listened to the Saturday Chat Sep 19, 2020. Like James Keenes asked, “What is the physics?” And if I may add to that “What is the philosophy?”

    In carrying out this project, for those who cannot write computer programs or code what contribution can they make? For example, can they make proposals for software people to implement in some kind of program?

    I agree with the expressed sentiment that the universe consists of a physical structure. I will prefer to call this ‘space’ rather than ‘spacetime lattice’. Now one important salient point missed in many particle proposals is that only objects like your red and blue marbles exist, and that the illustrated lattice of lines between them ARE NOT physically existing spatial things.

    Depending on the model this non-physically existing thing can be measured between objects, it can vary and it can be constant about an equilibrium position between two vibrating particles. It can also store potential energy which you have depicted with a spring on your website.

    So question. Can what does not physically exist be characterized as such? If they can, how philosophically satisfying will this be?

    Compare this to the alternative view that anything that can be measured, can vary in quantity and magnitude, and can store potential energy must be physically real?

    If this alternative view is more logical, in that what does not physically exist and is zero CANNOT separate physically existing things, and that only what physically exists spatially can separate physically existing things, it follows that what physically exists is continuous…. (continued)

  • Akinbo

    Member
    September 20, 2020 at 12:01 pm

    From this, if what physically exists to separate “particles” does not eternally exist, then the distance between “particles” can vary. It may not be possible to make distance reduce using Blender or other program, except for illustrative purposes only, where a square with zero value is not measurable and does not count towards the distance between “particles”.

    For example, if between two particles and X, we initially have X11111X, and subsequently we see it become X00101X, the distance between the two particles has shortened, even though on Blender we still have 5 boxes between X and X. Likewise, X11111X can be come X1111111X, in which case the distance between the particles has increased by 2 boxes. Again, how does Blender bring those two extra boxes between the particles into existence?

    I think, I will stop here for now so as not to bore you, but you may see further details on this reasoning in below links.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    *https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326377241

    *https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328698349

  • Jeff

    Member
    September 20, 2020 at 4:07 pm

    Akinbo, to answer the questions, the contest is structured around building a computer simulation and extending it as each phase progresses. There have been quite a few people that have contributed so far to the project without writing code by helping draft the requirements, the GitHub repository, volunteer to be a judge, etc. They are acknowledged on the project site, but are not submitting entries to win the prize money. To submit an entry eligible for the prize, there are specific rules about how to check in and make file(s) available for open source. Of course my thought has been that these are computer code source file(s), but in yesterday’s conversation Franklin had a challenging question about what if someone did a Crayola drawing. If it was a file checked into GitHub according to the rules, I suppose that would make it eligible. Again, it’s not the intention, so I’d prefer to see the prize money go towards something that can be downloaded and extended by other software developers in the future.

    Regarding the question about what is the physics and philosophy? The answer to the first question is laid out on the web site starting on this page for Phase 1: https://energywavetheory.com/project/phase1/. But notice that there are links throughout that page referencing the theoretical physics behind it. Regarding the philosophy, I just want to see physics simplified. I fear that there is a lost century of going down the wrong path and humankind would benefit with a better understanding of the physics at the smallest of levels (particles).

    I didn’t quite understand your question about Blender distances, but let me try to explain the question about particles and see if this answers the question. In the EWT model, particles form from standing waves and a boundary can be drawn around the transition point of standing waves to traveling waves such that particles are measured as stored energy (standing waves have no not propagation of energy). It’s predicted to be spherical at rest as waves converge upon a centerpoint and are reflected. But when in motion, the geometry of the standing waves changes consistent with wave patterns seen in the Doppler effect. So, what is being measured between the two particles that are in motion in Blender could change (to your point) if you are measuring the entire standing wave boundary that is measured as a particle. However, the more accurate way to do it in the simulator would be to measure the centerpoint of wave reflections (the wave center).

  • Akinbo

    Member
    September 21, 2020 at 1:18 pm

    Hi Jeff,

    Thanks for your response.

    I don’t know to what extent you tolerate criticism, but I see some of these things not as criticism but as dialectic in the tradition of the ancient Greeks.

    There is no gainsaying that phase 1 of the project is probably the most important. You have yourself mentioned that it is to be the foundation upon which other phases will be built. This being so clarity is essential.

    On terminology, for example it needs be made clear what difference there is between “a granule” and “a particle” so that the exercise does not reduce to semantics, especially when the initial goal is stated as “To simulate a micro-sized universe, the motion of its components and the formation of the FIRST particle”. It can be argued that Granule has equal right to claim precedence as the first particle. And if so, from what smaller particle would it have been formed?

    Arguments of this sort along with others such as “When a granule is displaced from equilibrium, it follows simple, harmonic motion”, suggest that ultimately the fundamental substance is a continuous rather than a particulate medium. For example, if the granules oscillate as stated here, it means that what lies between them can store potential energy, which therefore dictates that it must be substance. If so, which other type of yet smaller granules will it then be composed of?

    I like the attempt at simulation and I think it can be done once the framework or foundation is properly laid.

    The following links may be helpful in your thoughts. How the Conway Game of life works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway_Game_of_Life ). And some thoughts by Ed Fredkin et.al. on the subject at http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/

    If criticism can interfere with your goals and you wish to continue this conversation, you can take it offline. You can find my email address on the NPA relativity Google group or in some of my papers on Researchgate.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

Log in to reply.

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now