[Process physics] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum

A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum

Pages:1



Process physics

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)



Posted by: Michael Kreutzjans

Has anyone else tried this perspective outside of the few that were mentioned in Reginald Cahill's paper? Its based on the assumption of the innacurracy of the Michelson-Morley experiments. I read his 100+ page paper explaining it all, but failed to find out if anyone else studies from his perspective besides the colleges he mentioned briefly.



Posted by: Mark Suppes

There were several connections to Process Physics in this thread I started a year ago:

http://forum.wolframscience.com/sho...s=&threadid=153

Also, A Wikipedia entry on process physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Physics



Posted by: Tony Smith

I'm about to head to Sydney for a few days, so I'll have to keep this a lot shorter than I otherwise might.

There is an independent process physics link page hosted by the even more eclectic Mountain Man Graphics.

I stuck my nose into the subject with a shortish paper last year.



Posted by: Jesse Nochella

Reg and I discussed Process physics and NKS, briefly and informally, by e-mail Last February, Particularly about randomness. What he had to say surprised me.

With his permission, it is attached below.



Posted by: Guy Birkin

This is all very interesting.
I have been thinking of the connections between NKS and Process Philosophy for a while now - it's something I mentioned in a paper for a recent conference that accompanied my CA-based artwork.
I hadn't come across Process Physics until now (should've done more research), so thanks for bringing this and Cahill's work to my attention.

Amateur as I am in this field, I must say that I find Mark's node-eating ideas both intriguing and potentially fruitful. And Dave Hayden's description of gravity=inertia is very appealing:

"...if *I* am not accelerating *upward* though space, then it must be that *space* is accelerating *downward* through me. In other words, as I sit here, planet earth is steadly chomping away at the space underneath me."

Although it's a bit unscientific, I have found Pierre Teihard de Chardin's idea of complexification (in his book The Phenomenon of Man) to complement Wolfram's NKS, and both PPs.



Posted by: Mark Suppes

A response to Cahill's paper pointing out flaws in his argument:

http://www.gravityresearch.org/pdf/GRI-040715.pdf



Posted by: Peter Morris

Originally posted by Mark Suppes
A response to Cahill's paper pointing out flaws in his argument:

http://www.gravityresearch.org/pdf/GRI-040715.pdf


When I compared Tom Martin's paper with the original paper of Cahill's, I gained the impression that Martin dropped a time dependent term in Cahill's flow equations, that then led to absurd results.


Cf Section 2.6 "In-Flow Superposition Approximation" in Cahill's paper.
http://lanl.arXiv.org/abs/physics/0307003



Posted by: Tony Smith

Reg Cahill made me welcome for a few hours when I finally found time to visit Adelaide a couple of months back and we had a very productive chat. Unfortunately I still haven't had a chance to update my reponse to Process Physics mentioned earlier in this thread, in part because the area hasn't stood still in the interim.

On the specific point of the inflow, my simplistic model of node inflow towards dissipation at a point mass gave an acceleration proportional to r^-5, which I still consider is not necessarily a problem depending on the nature of the coupling between space and matter (c.f. ocean waves, et al). However Cahill finally managed to penetrate my thick skull with the idea that node count may not have to be conserved in the inflow, an idea which invalidates my simplistic derivation of acceleration.

The sad part is that Cahill's ideas produce much more anger than they do analysis, even while he is clearly well supported by his colleagues at a good university. His starting point was as an expert in quantum physics and that expertise led him to results which clearly don't suit the gravitational physics establishment, but which appear to have a substantial basis when looked at with a more open mind.





Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research

© 2004-2014 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. | Disclaimer
vB Easy Archive Final - Created by Xenon and modified/released by SkuZZy from the Job Openings