wolframscience.com

A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum : Powered by vBulletin version 2.3.0 A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum > Applied NKS > Process physics
  Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Michael Kreutzjans


Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

Process physics

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.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-11-2005 04:11 PM
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Mark Suppes

New York

Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 17

Process Physics

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

__________________
Mark Suppes

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-11-2005 05:03 PM
Mark Suppes is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Mark Suppes Click here to Send Mark Suppes a Private Message Click Here to Email Mark Suppes Visit Mark Suppes's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Tony Smith
Meme Media
Melbourne, Australia

Registered: Oct 2003
Posts: 168

Still have to get back to Adelaide

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.

__________________
Tony Smith
Complex Systems Analyst
TransForum developer
Local organiser

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-12-2005 10:37 AM
Tony Smith is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Tony Smith Click here to Send Tony Smith a Private Message Visit Tony Smith's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jesse Nochella
WRI

Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 132

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.

Attachment: reginald cahill.pdf
This has been downloaded 2383 time(s).

Last edited by Jesse Nochella on 05-13-2005 at 04:45 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-13-2005 04:39 AM
Jesse Nochella is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Jesse Nochella Click here to Send Jesse Nochella a Private Message Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Guy Birkin
Nottingham Trent University
Nottingham, England

Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 20

Just what I've been looking for

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.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-13-2005 09:34 PM
Guy Birkin is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Guy Birkin Click here to Send Guy Birkin a Private Message Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Mark Suppes

New York

Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 17

This is interesting

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

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

__________________
Mark Suppes

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-14-2005 05:12 AM
Mark Suppes is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Mark Suppes Click here to Send Mark Suppes a Private Message Click Here to Email Mark Suppes Visit Mark Suppes's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Peter Morris


Registered: Oct 2005
Posts: 1

Re: This is interesting

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 10-18-2005 07:59 PM
Peter Morris is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Peter Morris Click here to Send Peter Morris a Private Message Click Here to Email Peter Morris Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Tony Smith
Meme Media
Melbourne, Australia

Registered: Oct 2003
Posts: 168

Cahill's model of inflow

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.

__________________
Tony Smith
Complex Systems Analyst
TransForum developer
Local organiser

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 10-21-2006 01:01 PM
Tony Smith is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Tony Smith Click here to Send Tony Smith a Private Message Visit Tony Smith's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Post New Thread    Post A Reply
  Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread


 

wolframscience.com  |  wolfram atlas  |  NKS online  |  Wolfram|Alpha  |  Wolfram Science Summer School  |  web resources  |  contact us

Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research

© 2004-14 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. | Disclaimer | Archives