FQXi Community

If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).

Current Essay Contest

Introduction

FAQ

Top essays & latest news

Read & discuss essays

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

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/discuss • winners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

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

FQXi FORUM

May 22, 2013

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2012 [back]
TOPIC: On the Nature of Time by Thomas Garcia [refresh]

Author THOMAS GARCIA wrote on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 12:47 GMT

Essay Abstract

My primary premise about time given 1st paragraph "Time is a property of matter and passes at rates inversely proportional to an object's speed." I propose to show my premise is as relevant to science as was Einstein's Relativity postulates. I explain my research tactics and the results show my ideas are difficult to understand even though there is no math included. I explain that I think I know why my ideas are new and logical, and they're supported by confirmed evidence. I explain how scientists have come to see time in ways that preclude discovering what time is. In the 2nd section, I propose there is no such things as warps and curvings of space and time and that such terms are unscientific. I provide two examples of time dilation to help readers as I wish I had been helped at first. I explain precisely what time dilation is and why it occurs. Section 2 argues that time and space are not dependent upon each other as Einstein claimed, and offer clear explanations why they are not. The 3rd section includes more examples of what has caused people to make errors in critical thinking. After that is a summary focused on my initial premise with regard to how it fits without conflict with some issues but not with others. My intention is to help readers realize conformity is good to certain extents, but beyond that it can stifle our capacity to be objective in finding the truth about our world. The issues I touch on in this brief essay are not just issues in science but issues that keep us inside the so-called "box."

Author Bio

BA at U. Houston '74. Sociology major with strong interest in science courses. Have written mounds of notes and references, decided to complete this essay for contest. Retired from state agency, USAF veteran. Love to read and write about science but get lost in heavy math. Good IQ with high objectivity level. Classic car collector (7 cars, 2 trucks). Also collect US coins and sport cards. Whew!

Download Essay PDF File

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 16:39 GMT

Dear Mr. Garcia,

As a not particularly well educated layman, I would like to thank you for the clarity of your exceptionally instructive essay. Although I pointed out in my essay Sequence Consequence that I did not believe that there was such a thing as time, your erudite writing on this matter has served to convince me that I am correct in my belief. One Universe could only ever have one motion in one dimension for one eternal duration once. I do not see how visible light could possibly move seeing that light only becomes visible when the radiant from the light source adheres to a surface, never mind that light could move at a constant speed.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 17:47 GMT

Dear Mr. Fisher,

Thanks for your warm and comforting response to my essay. I was afraid I was cutting out too much to make it fit and still be understandable. Your comments made my day!

For some unknown reason to me, I am unable to download your essay. I will try again and post a comment on it.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

John Merryman wrote on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 18:27 GMT

Thomas,

An interesting essay and you are definitely correct in many of your insights as to problems with current physics. A few points though;

If you are going to do away with the concept of the "fabric of spacetime," as causation, then you have to throw out the entire expanding universe model, because it is based on this warpable fabric and consider other, optical reasons for cosmic redshift. Here is a possibility worth considering. I also offered a possible analogy in my entry in the Digital vs. Analog contest.

Also a major contradiction I mention in my essay is that the Big Bang model still assumes a constant speed of light, even though the very fabric of the space being measured is supposed to be expanding. While I've mention this many times, about the only response anyone came up with is that C is measured locally, not galactically, but that overlooks the fact our universal galactic measure of distance is lightyears. If there are more lightyears between expanded objects, that's not expanding space, just an increased amount of stable space.

You are correct that speed is a factor in clock rates. The reason is that since nothing can travel faster than C and the rate of electron spin/vibration within atomic structure is close to C, when mass is accelerated, this internal activity is forced to slow, in order that the combination of external velocity and internal activity not exceed C. So any clock in an accelerated frame records a slower rate of change. Gravitational drag has the same effect. That's why clocks on GPS satellites are faster than ones on earth and have to be adjusted accordingly. It also explains why an accelarate object will shrink, as its atomic structure is flattened.

What this suggests to me is that space does amount to an inertial frame, such that it sets the speed of light in a vacuum. A good example of this, as opposed to motion being entirely relative to other motion, is centrifugal force. Consider an object in the void of intergalactic space. Logically, if it's spinning, it will still exert centrifugal force on its components, relative to the rate of spin, even if there are no other observable references to otherwise measure this spin. The only frame is space itself, with no properties to be bent, warped bounded etc. Only an infinite inertia of Euclidian space.

The reason C is a constant is because it is the point at which all internal energy is converted to linear velocity. Light has no structure. The notion that time stops for something falling into a black hole, but progresses for an observer outside would be like saying time stopped for that log I threw in the fire, because it turned into light, but continues for me.

Good luck in the contest.

John

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Tom Garcia wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 15:16 GMT

I did not propose to do away with the idea of S-T as “causation,” as you put it, John. IMO, S-T can cause nothing but provide us with information about events that could occur to objects moving in space. S-T is not a physical place in space, nor is it any kind of a force that can bend or warp space. It is instead a math construct, i.e., a tool, invented to enable calculations of events in time and in space. We construct math tools like logical assertions, as “What if” propositions in our minds. It was determined long ago that the results our tools provide us are not proofs of reality simply because they are not perfect, and because their interpretations are infallible.

Here is a good explanation of the difference between classical time and space-time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spaceti
me&printable=yes

I contend time, OTOH, is the fifth fundamental force, and as such, it exists like so many other things in the universe that are invisible or transparent to us, such as gravity, dark matter, and light. To me, it becomes a matter of one’s ability to focus on every detail of all explanations given as conclusions from experimental or simply observed effects.

I am not able to access your “here” link to “…a possibility worth considering.” The link to your previous contest entry works fine. I will take the time to read it carefully. You bring up some very good points with which I heartily agree.

You make a good point about light speed being constant then, disallowing FTL speeds as the BBT claims. Regarding space expansion or inflation, to believe space is expanding requires space to have a physical existence, and I think it does. The best solution to the Inflationary Period (IP) conjecture is a simple one: There was no matter exiting the BB when the IP occurred (matter formed later), therefore, time had not yet begun to become a property of matter. EM energy of that particular instant would not have had any mass to it and would not be subject to the force of time, thus it had no limitations of speed as it does now. This idea is invalid if matter formed prior to the IP; I do not know if it did or not. If so, it means another trip for me back to the so-called “drawing board.”

I refer to the BB problems in my essay, including the one about the rate of expansion increasing, which requires an explanation for the gap between the “slowing down expansion” of the IP, as is claimed today, and the “speeding up” and increasing expansion rate discovered by Hubble.

I am working now to think just how it would be possible for space to physically expand, or more appropriately, grow at great distances from us, yet not locally. The observed effect of space growth may be only another of nature’s tricks on us. These issues of Modern Physics need attention and not abandonment.

I have not heard of the concept that the speed of atom-bound electrons varies with respect to the speed of its host system, but I think it is a great idea! If it is true, it may explain more precisely why time rates vary inversely proportional to an object’s speed! Do you have a site or link where I can read more about that? Electrons have mass, so they too would be subject to time whether free or bound to a system. It may be their loss or gain of energy has something to do with time rates, too.

As far as “gravitational drag” goes, that has to do with more or less gravity pulling on objects depending on their distance from earth’s surface. For me, it is not the difference in gravity that causes the time difference on the ground clock vs. the tower clock. The difference occurs because the speeds of the two clocks are different instead. As a propeller repairperson in the USAF (so very long ago!), I learned quickly that the tip of a propeller moves through air much faster than does its shank area. That is due to the fact the tip must cover a longer distance around the prop’s spin circle circumference than does the prop’s hub. The tower clock must move faster compared to the ground clock since they must move as a single object locked into the earth’s spin. It is the same with the satellites locked into synchronous orbits. They move faster than all clocks on the surface of the planet, thus their time rates are slower.

Wish I could respond to your other points, but I am out of time!

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 16:21 GMT

Tom,

That's my point. You do not view spacetime as causation, only as a model of relationships, but then in the end of your essay, you assume the veracity of some form of expanding universe, based on the evidence of cosmic redshift, yet that entire idea requires the assumption of spacetime as causation. If you get rid of spacetime, then space is just empty void and redshift is due to some form of optical effect, not because the expansion of space is pushing the other galaxies away.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 18:25 GMT

John,

I said I am "working on it," meaning I have not decided 1 way or other re: the issue of space expansion. I just wrote some probs with it that need to be overcome before it will hold water for me.

Getting "rid" of s-t is not my intention at all. I want to separate it from reality as being no more than just an imaginary tool and not a place as many have come to believe. Relativity uses s-t as a good tool; Classical physics does not need it because time is real and so is space. A.E. made both interdependent wrt each other, but in real life that is untrue. In real life, space is not dependent on time, so Einstein's interdependence is false. The interdependence premise is like an = sign in our math tools. I have on occasion been called names for such heresy.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 02:21 GMT

Tom,

The ridiculous irony is that even if space is stretchy, it doesn't mean the universe is expanding. According to Einstein, gravity collapses space and he originally proposed the cosmological constant to balance it. I long ago, late eighties, read that for the universe to be a stable as it is, the expansion and gravitational contraction had to be roughly proportional. It occurred to me then that some form of convective cycle of expansion and contraction would be a far simpler explanation. Since then COBE and WMAP have measured background radiation to prove space is effectively flat. They discovered in '98 that the rate of expansion doesn't match what was predicted by Big Bang theory, but more closely matches a cosmological constant. Rather than review why Einstein proposed it in the first place, it is now called "dark energy." The explanation for why space appears flat is supposed to be due to inflation expanding it so much, that local space only appears flat, much as a small part of the earth's surface appears flat. So it's not like there is no evidence or theory to support other views.

Now when gravity "warps" space, it certainly doesn't cause the source of the light to move, just because we see it distorted. It's a lensing effect. I think that once they begin to think of light as only a particle when absorbed and not traveling for billions of years as a point particle, but as a wave, then the solution for redshift will be quite simple to figure out.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Tom Garcia replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 06:45 GMT

John,

My point precisely. The conclusion drawn today from the observed effects is only one of a number of possible explanations. When Chicken Little just knew the sky was falling, s/he could come up with no better conclusion. A.E.’s conclusion that gravity collapses space may not necessarily be correct, either.

Did he offer an explanation as to how gravity does that, or did he leave that problem for future generations to resolve? In fact, “dark energy” is an oxymoron, a fly-in-your-face contradiction of terms. Alternatively, is that the most damning admission of scientists’ inability to come up with a more appropriate term for the effect? In my forthcoming essay, “The Ether Found,” I show a different viewpoint that disallows gravity from being able to collapse space at all. Just saying something don’t make it so.

We agree there is more than enough room for alternate explanations for what we observe.

Your point about the lensing effect shows your high level of objectivity you possess. IMO, that trait is worth more than a high IQ because it helps us to make better assessments of any given situation than our matching high IQs. I like your idea about photons. I have always felt that light waves and photon particles exist in one state or the other, and it depends on the way we observe light that determines in which form we observe it.

I need clarification on your premise about light being a photon only when absorbed. A.E. showed us the dual nature of light by causing particles to form out of light waves. That seems to show photons are particles only when being ejected, as when electrons lose energy and move to a lower energy level in an atom, they emit a photon particle. I am curious to learn more about your idea, esp. your posit as to how that will resolve the redshift problem.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 17:36 GMT

Tom,

The premise of collapsing space is that it, like time, is only a measure. So if the points of measure are moving apart or together, it must mean space is expanding or collapsing. Personally I see space as an infinite equilibrium state in which matter exists, not simply an effect of matter moving about and being separate. I would say the clearest evidence of this is centrifugal force. What if there are no other references to a single object? Logically that wouldn't matter to the effect of it spinning. You would have no outside reference, but the tendency of moving objects to go in a straight line and being pulled around by the action of the entire object would still mean there is an inherent Euclidian space. It is moving through this equilibrium state which would set the speed of light, which is the speed at which all internal structure is converted to linear energy. Clocks run slower, the faster they move, so if we were to position various clocks around in various frames, the clock running the fastest would be the one closest to this inertial rest frame. Though this might require clocks far more precise then even what we have today.

I might have mentioned this previously, but I don't think gravity is so much a property of mass, but an effect of energy condensing into mass and creating a vacuum, much as mass releasing its energy creates pressure. This then would explain why expansion of space, as measured by the redshift of light and the collapse of gravity, as measured by the contraction of mass, are inversely proportional, being opposite sides of the same cycle. There is no observed dark matter, but there is observed excess of cosmic rays on the perimeters of galaxies. Going from this radiation condensing into interstellar gases, to light being absorbed by matter, all the way down to the cores of stars to where heavy metals condense out of lighter forms of mass, would create a form of fairly even vacuum between all forms of energy and mass, not just that which has apparent weight.

This then goes back to the idea that while photons might be measured as points, when they are absorbed by matter, why would they maintain this point-like form when they are just energy? Wouldn't light act more like a gas and expand to fill available space? To assume otherwise would require photons to have gravity, or some force holding them together, when it seems the most elemental feature of light is its tendency to expand.

Here is a paper suggesting a possible explanation for redshift.

My entry in the digital vs. analog contest offers an analogy.

Constantinos Ragazas offers a scenario in that contest as well.

As does Eric Reiter in this contest.

I recall some others arguing for light to not be fundamentally quantized, but you would have to go through the entries.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Garcia replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 10:56 GMT

John, please excuse my procrastination in responding to your posts. I am endeavoring to stay current, but the amount of time required for that exceeds the available time I have for other things.

Imust disagree that time is only a "measure." It is a physical reality that we observe indirectly in noting that things age. The "collapsing of space", OTOH, is only one of the possible conclusions drawn indirectly from our observations of certain effects.

"...infinite equilibrium state...." I assume you mean space goes on forever, but how is it in equilibrium? And why is centrifugal force the clearest evidence, and of what? How would the equilibrium state set light speed, and how is c the speed "...at which all internal structure is converted to linear energy."? To which inertial rest frame would the fastest clock be closest to?

These and the ones below seem to me to be very good points, but your prose leaves out a lot of information which would help understand them better.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

hide replies

Chris Kennedy wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT

Tom,

I think we are on the same page on some of the relativity issues you raise. However our approaches are very different. You use the famous light clock on the train axperiment (just follow the bouncing photon) along with raising issues about properties of space. I purposely don't do any of that to keep the focus on one specific thing: The relationship between motion and clocks and what the evidence shows about those two things specifically.

You raise an important issue concerning possible absolute motion of the Earth around the Sun, Sun around the galaxy, galaxy racing through space, etc..

An even better observation is that the speed of various galaxies would affect their calculations of the actual age of the universe! I also made that connection a few years ago and brought attention to it on Julian Barbour's thread, but it turns out David Wiltshire beat us both to it discussing that in his essay in a previous FQXi contest. Great minds think alike.

I don't know if you ventured over to Peter Jackson's thread yet but if you are incorporating the famous ceiling-to-floor-to-ceiling light clock in your analysis, he has studied that extensively and would be a good person to have that conversation with.

Good Luck.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT

Thomas

Nice to read a straight up no bull**** approach to physics. And I agree you're largely correct, but incomplete in one important way. I was trying to decide whether to write this at all when I read Chris's reference above, thanks Chris. Also read my last years essay on the similar 'Light Box' Gedanken. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

I'll give you the credit to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thomas Garcia wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 21:55 GMT

Hello Peter,

Thanks for reading my essay and especially for commenting on it. I put off reading yours because I am very busy this election year. I will comment on what is in your post but I will read your essay too.

I agree speed can only be measured relatively to another body, but because everything observable is in motion, no object can be “at rest” as a physical reality. Any objects, however, can be imagined as being at rest within an imaginary frame of reference or relatively to another object. Still, whether or not we imagine a body to be at “rest,” we know all real observable objects are in motion with respect to their own coordinates within the universe as if they were the sole object within it.

In such a case, there is no false reference to a privileged reference frame, since there is no reference to any other object at all. Thus, it is not a violation of relativity if only because it is a physical reality that all discrete objects have motion at one speed or another. We cannot measure that speed without comparison to another object, but that measurement is not the true speed of that single object within the universe. In physics, “motion” means “the act of moving.” There is no reference to a privileged frame. It is a simple statement of fact.

I disagree too that the existence of an ether was proven impossible. The experiment failed not because there is no ether but because the experimenters did not know at the time that light moves at a constant speed independent of its source. AE believed an ether existed, but he backed off after the MMX failed. I agree, as you say, THAT is the real problem to be solved. I have almost completed an essay on the existence of an ether, which I had planned to post in the forums here. Just recently, though, I read a notice that a new contest would soon be announced and if so, I may wait til then.

I agree too that the problem of light speed being constant regardless of speed and direction of source or observers has not been cracked yet. That is another failing of Modern Physics and of AE’s in ability to hang on to the commonsense premise that if c is constant in vacuum but varies in water and other substances, it must be that it uses some sort of medium in which it travels, like in the vacuum of space.

I understood that frequency denotes wavelength, but I think time rates are not related to Doppler shifts so much as to the relative speeds between objects.

In the case of the two planes crossing, they are the only objects in your ref. frame, thus their time rates depend only on their speeds, to be logical about it.

I will read your entry and comment on it. Thanks again for your kind words and interesting comments. I wish you the best of luck.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

hou ying yau wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 04:04 GMT

Thomas,

I have a different idea about matter and space time that I hope can be of some interest to you. I find that the zero spin quantum field can be reconciled from a system with vibrations in space and time. The model has some unique features that seem to be extendable to gravity and non-locality of quantum theory.

Is there really no reality in quantum theory

Best wishes for you in the contest.

Hou Yau

report post as inappropriate

Author THOMAS GARCIA replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 11:04 GMT

From: Thomas Garcia

To: hou ying yau

Thank you for reading my essay. I will read yours and post comments on it, to the extent of my understanding of it. Good luck to you as well.

report post as inappropriate

Hou Ying Yau replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 15:52 GMT

Dear Thomas,

Do you still have trouble up loading the essay? I opened it from my link and it looks OK. May be bad connection. I realize your e-mail address is not listed or I can e-mail a copy to you. My e-mail is hyau@fdnresearch.us

Hou Yau

report post as inappropriate

Hou Ying Yau replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 03:20 GMT

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for reading my paper. When I first saw your paper, I realize we share some common thinking that matter has something to do with time. This is something I believe may be true. Although I may have a different opinion, your thinking has a good score from me.

Sincerely

Hou Yau

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 16:58 GMT

Dear Thomas,

What do you think about time rate which is changed at different levels of matter, according to the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (subject of my essay). Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Garcia replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 14:22 GMT

Hello, Sergey. Your question may depend on the validity of the selection process of the "different levels" of matter. I will read your essay and comment on it.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

hoang cao hai wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 14:11 GMT

Dear Thomas Garcia

Why do not you boldly make a specific conclusion about the nature of time, after you was to analyze.

Remember to check out my essay.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Garcia replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 15:18 GMT

Dear Hoang Cao Hai,

Thank you for your comments. I have indeed made my "bold" conclusion about time, and I put it at the very beginning, as well as in various locations of my essay. For those who may have missed it, here it is again: "Time is a property of matter and passes versely proportional to an object's speed."

That provides the "Why?" for Relativity's "How" explanations about time and leads us to explain, or at least to offer alternative explanations to the many problems caused in not having solved the mysteries about time.

I will read your essay and comment on it as best I can.

Good luck to you in the contest.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Garcia replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 16:53 GMT

Sorry, my apologies; I misquoted myself! Time passes INversely proportional to an object's speed.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 14:20 GMT

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thomas Garcia wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 17:13 GMT

Thank you Sergey, for reading and assessing my essay. If you are asking me how to best rate essays, this is how I do it:

I suggest a reader should search carefully for misapplications of what are accepted truths, misunderstandings of cited theory and/or any tenets of a hypotheses including all its premises.

Ensure there is logical consistency throughout the paper, which requires a dogged focus that leaves no gaps in explaining both the how and the why of the topic, even if it leads to conjecture. Conjecture must be the best of all possible conclusions and explanations, not just the one preferred by the author. All possible conclusions and explanations must be examined, along with the author's reason(s) for selecting the one over the others.

Good luck to you in the contest.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:14 GMT

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is

$R_1$

and

$N_1$

was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have

$S_1=R_1 N_1$

of points. After it anyone give you

$dS$

of points so you have

$S_2=S_1+ dS$

of points and

$N_2=N_1+1$

is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have

$S_2=R_2 N_2$

of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:

$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$

$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$

$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$

In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points

$dS$

then the participant`s rating

$R_1$

was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Thomas Garcia wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 15:00 GMT

To me, Sergey, the question is, does the process allow the intent of the contest to be achieved?

As the rules stand today, it could happen. The problem is not due so much to the essayer's ratings of others' essays,or that apparently one can vote for himself, but it is due to the fact that the results depend on the non-essayers judges adherence to the very specific rules under which they must judge the essays.

The most interesting entries must be those of concepts consistent with known facts and which are falsifiable. They must be written in layperson's terms as much as possible for non-professional fans of science to better understand.

The only value given to essayer's ratings should be no more than a grain of salt simply because, IMO, I immediately saw many that appeared to be posted just to show they garnered great interest from friends.

That Man is corruptible is an undeniable fact of life. For the intents of the contest to emerge as desired, we must hope the judges can select the many that adhere strongly to the rules first, then from those, select the ones most likely to represent reality.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Add a New Post

Please enter the text of your post, then click the "Submit New Post" button below. You may also optionally add file attachments below before submitting your edits.
HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and will automatically be stripped out. Links to other web sites are permitted. For instructions on how to add links, please read the link help page.
You may use superscript (10¹⁰⁰) and subscript (A₂) using [sup]...[/sup] and [sub]...[/sub] tags.
You may also include LateX equations into your post.

[hide]

LaTeX equations may be displayed in FQXi Forum posts by including them within [equation]...[/equation] tags. You may type your equation directly into your post, or use the LaTeX Equation Preview feature below to see how your equation will render (this is recommended).

For more help on LaTeX, please see the LaTeX Project Home Page.

LaTeX Equation Preview

preview equation
clear equation
insert equation into post at cursor

Your name: (optional)

Important: In order to combat spam, please select the letter in this menu between 'F' and 'H':