Would Galileo pass peer review today?

The case of Galileo Galilei, who was condemned for promotion of heliocentric model is usually interpreted by propaganda of mainstream science as a manifestation of superiority of so called scientific method over reactionary stance of Holy Church up to level, every notion of Galileo in different context is considered a direct manifestation of crackpotism. But under more thorough view we can identify many common points between reactionary stance of Holy Church and approach, which proponents of mainstream science are applying against promoters of Aether concept:

1. Heliocentrism was as an ancient Greek model by the same way, like Aether concept, so called plenum. It was thrown away later mostly from ideological reasons in both cases.
   
2. Holy Church was dominant meritocratic organization in Galileo era by the same way, like mainstream science today. Quantity criterion plays a role in AWT models of sociology, because majority mostly adheres to more conservative stance, then isolated souls due at the beginning of social cycle due the mutual compensation of progressive ideas (mutations) inside of larger groups.
   
3. Mr. Galileo has used an intuitive logical arguments without formal math to support heliocentric model (i.e. the order of Venus phases, orientation of lunar craters shadows, etc.), but they were ignored by his opponents on behalf of formal models by the same way, like mainstream science ignores logical arguments of Aether proponents on behalf of formal models - just because of their lack of formal math.
4. From the above reasons, Galileo was considered a controversial - if not naive - crackpot by the rest of people of his time by the same way, like many proponents of Aether concept today.
5. Both Holy Church at Galileo era, both mainstream science today have developed a tools for fast classification of renegades and crackpots without deeper analysis of their ideas, for example Malleus maleficarum handbook or famous crackpot index.
   
6. Heliocentric model was opposed by lack of stellar parallax regarding to Earth absolute motion, Aether model was opposed by lack of reference frame motion regarding to Earth absolute motion. This connection renders Aether model controversy as a direct analogy of heliocentric model controversy, just at different space-time scale.
   
7. While lack of parallax is was quite relevant argument against heliocentrism, the lack of Aether reference frame is result of pure misunderstanding of particle environment concept, as the motion of no environment can be observed by its own waves. This point renders mainstream science even more biased against logic and confused, then the proponents of geocentricism at Galileo time.
   
8. Geocentrists have ignored real life physics, the inertial physics in particular, which excludes the motion of heavier Sun around Earth on behalf of epicycles model by the same way, like space-time oriented model of contemporary physics ignores many real life connections of inertial character of vacuum, leading to wave character of light and many other phenomena.
9. Geocentric model was Platonism based on ad-hoced numerical regression of observation and ad-hoced geometrical constructs (deferents and epicycles) without deeper understanding by the same way, like mainstream physics today, which prefers formal theories based on ad-hoced postulates, abstract geometric constructs (strings, manifolds and branes of M-theory) and overly complex formal regression of reality, which nobody can understand at intuitive level too.
   
10. Geocentric model was used for calculations of motion of planets in Galileo times, although we know by now, these observations belongs into dual, i.e. heliocentric model. Analogously, mainstream science is blindly using relativity for interpretations of many phenomena (like gravitational lensing), which belongs into dual models by their very nature. We can consider this paradox a sort of supersymmetry phenomena (a formal model of theory is serving for confirmation of T-dual theory).
11. Formal models of geocentrists were of infinitesimal practical significance at Galileo times, they served mostly for calculations of horoscopes, based on periods of solar eclipses and planetary conjunctions, which gaved them the sign of authenticity. Many scientists today are using an Aether based models on background and Newtonian physics formalism (the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian calculus in particular) to give the predictability and notion of authenticity to their theories.
12. Many astronomers earned money like astrologers by bullshitting of layman people by their calculations without deeper understanding of their subject by the same way, like promoters of many scientific theories today, the promoters of string theory in particular.
13. Background motivation of negativistic stance of promoters of geocentric model was the fear for lost of their informational monopoly for interpretation of reality by mainstream paradigm (a theology in particular). The motivation of the negativism of mainstream scientists toward Aether model is the lost of their monopoly for interpretation of reality by so called scientific method.
14. The sectarian approach of both mainstream science, both Holy Church and other closed communities is characterized by so called novitiate period, during which new adepts are brainwashed by mainstream approach, before they're allowed to continue in further education and productive work. We can face this in contemporary educational system, where the formal approach to physical lectures prevails instead of more intuitive nonformal one.
    

It's apparent, history of science just repeats in social cycles at more advanced level of human understanding. Science just switched its progressive role with Holy Church of Galileo era. AWT explains this stance switching by inertial model of nested phase transforms, which is occurring inside of every large particle system during its gradual condensation/compactification.

When such system becomes sufficiently dense, its free-thinking particles will change into correlated, self-censored continuum, i.e. fluid or waves of energy. After then the density fluctuations of this fluid will behave like new generation of particles, while the former generations of particles are behaving like space-time or like energy wave by now. It means, the matter/particles and energy/space will switch their roles gradually and this evolution can repeat many times.

It may be interesting to follow, whether proponents of Aether theory will become such a brake of further evolution of science by the same way, like Holy Church of Galileo era or the proponents of mainstream science today. Thorough understanding of AWT pluralism should prohibit the formation of bias in ideology, though. We'll see. If nothing else, dense Aether concept could define a new era of ethics, tolerance and humanity understanding.

Can Boltzmann eggs really exist?

This post is a reaction to recent article of Lubos Motl, where he disputes the illustration presented from prepared book of Sean Carroll about thermodynamical time arrow. As usually, when Lubos begins to deny something, one can be sure, he's wrong, because he is applying strictly causal stance despite the fact, here's always symmetry between causal and intuitive approach. In general, consecutive logic of formal math isn't quite robust tool for determination of time arrow symmetry, being based on time arrow asymmetry. Therefore people with strictly logical thinking have often problems with unbiased, symmetric thinking, especially when supersymmetric ideas are separated by more distant space-time perspective (for example consideration of ancient Aether models together with modern geometrodynamics). Only emergence of many isolated formal theories, which are apparently singular/inconsistent mutually can bring us the clue about general symmetry in causality and to convince the hard core of formally thinking theorists about relevance of Aether concept.


Boltzmann egg is an paraphrase of Boltzmann brain concept in somewhat more edible form, related to famous chicken or the egg problem supposedly. Despite of Motl's algebraic game with entropy it's apparent, in sufficiently dense gas such egg can be formed spontaneously in less or more distant perspective, because every chaotic system forms a nested density fluctuations of various degree of complexity. We can observe for example a formation of two levels of density fluctuations during condensation of supercritical vapor and inside of environment of ultradense stars (so called "black holes") we can expect a spontaneous formation of even more complex systems. This is because despite low probability of intelligent brain formation the number of space-time states possible increases with number of particle involved fast and many combinations are even redundant: they lead to the same working brain - just rotated, translated or scaled in space-time perspective.

The complexity and number of nested levels of density fluctuations is virtually limited just by mass/energy density and here's no arbitrary reason not to suppose, Aether is infinitely dense environement. This makes formation of eggs or even moderately clever scientists undeniable. Suppose the human brain consist of 10^{23} particles, while we have landscape of roughly 10^{23*23} = 10^520 particle configurations available (maybe this number may sound fammiliar for someone in connection to solutions number of certain strrr...ange theory). After than the probability, at least one group of 10^{23} atoms would appear here in configuration, corresponding human brain complexity is just unitary. According to Hawking, a black hole of M kg has exp(1016 M2) quantum states. A typical astrophysical black hole formed by stellar collapse weighs about 1031 kg and carries as many as states. Converselly, the number of particles configurations observable inside of Universe by conscious creatures corresponds 10^{23*23} particles, which roughly corresponds the visibility scope of observable Universe.

From AWT follows, every formation of egg will be followed by spontaneous dissolving / destruction of some other egg in less or more remote perspective in analogy to spontaneous formation and dissolving of particle fluctuations inside of dense gas or elastic fluid. Evolution combines both the formation of complex system from chaos by the same way, like formation of chaos from complex system. String theory is the best illustration of the later with its landscape of 10E+500 solutions, because it's serving like quite costly generator of random numbers...

So I'm quite convenient with Dirac's and Carroll's idea of two or more reciprocal time arrows, separated by distant space-time perspective, as we can met with this phenomena at all dimensional scales: rain droplets condense and evaporate at the same moment, by the same way like stars evaporate into radiation, while still condensing into more dense clusters of galaxies or even black holes and this process still appears like causal from more general time perspective. The same conclusion follows from brane world cosmology. Our Universe may dissolve gradually during passing through even much larger gradient (space-time brane) and the acelleration of Universe expansion even supports this model. We can say, it's evaporating like black hole. The relation of reciprocal time arrows to the dark matter and antimatter distribution was disputed recently.

It's just a question of symmetry, where we should place such such general time scale, because in AWT the time is local concept by the same way, like space and at sufficiently remote scale Universe is basically aspatial and timeless, when looking both into past (i.e. cosmic scale), both future (i.e. Planck scale) and if some local symmetry violation still exists, it's probably of anthropic origin by its very nature.

Do particles have a free will?

Mathematicians John H. Conway (inventor of the cellular automaton Game of Life, between many other) and Simon Kochen of Princeton University have proven that if human experimenters demonstrate 'free will' in choosing what measurements to take on a particle, then the axioms of quantum mechanics require that the free will property be available to the particles measured, or to the universe as a whole. It means, that if humans have even the tiniest amount of free will, then atoms themselves must also behave unpredictably. Standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, of course, embrace unpredictability, but many physicists aren't comfortable with that, and are working to develop deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics. Conway and Kochen's proof argues, that these efforts will be fruitless — unless one is willing to give up human free will, in a very strong sense. Mr. Conway is giving a series of lectures on the 'Free Will Theorem' (ArXiv preprint) and its ramifications over the next month at Princeton. A followup article strengthening the theory (PDF) was published last month in Notices of the AMS.

By AWT every massive particle exhibits insintric unpredictable behavior, because it's always formed by many smaller particles - or at least appears so from human perspective. Every density gradient is realized by density change of many smaller gradients. Therefore the behavior and motion of surface gradient always hides a complexity of particle interior, thus rendering it less or more unpredictable in our eyes. Every particle formed by density gradients can interact only with another object arranged by same way in causal way (simila similibus affectur). The objects, which differs very much in their arrangement mass/energy or space-time distance scale cannot interact mutually in causal way (they're simply "too small" or "too large"). The largest objects which we can observe in causal way are therefore formed by large clusters of particles of the same size, shape and composition, which exhibits an unification and quantization of their behavior. From sufficiently distant/global perspective the behavior of both particles, both their observer becomes easily predictable by the same way, so we cannot separate the free will of particles from free will of their observer - which is n basic logic hidden beneath free will theorem.

AWT interprets the motion of particles in gravity fields as a sort of diffusion, which enables particle to follow the straightest path of mass/energy density gradient of their environment by the same way, like bacteria or protozoa are following the density gradients of chemical energy concentration. By this way, every particle exhibits a traits of consciouses behavior. Note that following of density gradients leads to dissipation of them and "death" of particle undeniably - every manifestation of "life" is always connected to it's "death" in less or distant perspective, therefore the stability criterion leads always to symmetric orbiting paths, i.e. to sort of adaptation of object against its premature evaporation via gravitational waves.

From AWT perspective human consciousness is an emergent effect, i.e. sort of condensate of conscious behavior of many particles, forming the observable universe by the same way, like the black hole can be interpreted as a condensate of spin properties of many particles at distance. While various particle properties and behavior compensate mutually (their mutual transversal motion, for example), some others (like rotation / surface spin or their ability to follow the most advantage path) are cumulative and they manifest itself at macroscopic scale, like black holes or intelligent organism. The living objects are behaving by the same way, being able to follow very weak and long distance interactions, which is interpreted as a "conscious behavior" from macroscopic perspective. But technically it just means, these objects have evolved for sufficient time (during travelling accross sufficiently large density gradient / space-time brane), so that random components of their motion have compensated mutually. By this way, every large object falling into even larger black hole has a chance to become sufficiently clever, until it dissolve completelly at its very end. We are perceiving increasing density of vacuum as an omnidirectional space-time expansion.

We can compare this interpretation of free will to the motion of tent roof, which is hiding dance of many persons behind it. Because every person affect the motion of tent roof in very subtle way, the motion of tent appears unpredictable from this perspective. Apparently chaotic behavior of water surface or human civilization as a whole is the effect of the same category. The motion of components inside of every large system can be interpreted like motion in hidden dimensions with respect to space-time defined by surface of this large system. For example the nuclear force violates the inverse square law for gravity, because it's represented by chaotic motion of nucleons inside of atom nuclei, so that only subtle causal portion of that motion manifest itself at distance. Just the common disbelief in Aether concept prohibited the mainstream science to interpret the probabilistic character of quantum mechanics by this easy and natural way,

Is New Scientist journal trying to blame the readers?

Recently my favorite New Scientist Journal has published the article "Conventional crop breeding may be more harmful than GM" (print version), where it disputes risk of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) of resistant variety of oilseed rape (canola), which was unveiled by BASF company last week. Article was published in context of another article "GM faces unfair regulation in Europe" and its GMO supporting bias is apparent.



Unfortunately, author of this editorial Mr. Andy Coghlan apparently missed (?) the fact, rape cultivar was produced by newly patented "proprietary" and "inovative gene conversion technology" developed artificially by "trait development company" Cibus, San Diego, CA, which is apparently proud of it. The RTDS method (i.e. Rapid Trait Development System), which BASF has used IS NOT a "conventional crop breeding" at all - it's a method known as "directed mutagenesis". This approach interferes with the cell's natural process of gene repair by directing DNA repair enzymes to change targeted genes in a specific way in order to produce a desired trait. It's not surprising, all details of this "conventional breeding method" are kept in secret thoroughly. By another words, despite this method it's called a "non-transgenic approach", it's just another artificial method, how to introduce anomalous genes for production of foreign metabolites inside of GMO plants.

My suspicion, editorial staff of New Scientist journal is aware of this apparent manipulation of readers deepened, when my question, regarding this issue was deleted from discussion thread bellow article in six minute period (see the screenshot of on-line discussion bellow) - as the only comment of the discussion thread. The very same censorship has occured, when I published similar comment under different nick one hour later for check. What the "unfair regulation" we are facing here?



To make things more clear, main problem of GMO crops isn't the artificial way of GMO crops production as such, but the introduction of foreign genes and their expressors into plant population, where the horizontal gene transfer (HGT) may occur via various mechanisms. Such mechanism was proven to be real many times for GMO crops. It's risks are summarized in previous post on this blog.

Here's a non trivial environmental threat regarding GMO technologies - but a huge money too. These two factors are driving force for promotion of methods, like the RTDS. While classical transgenic methods were banned in many countries, in Europe in particular, various companies are still trying another and another methods, how to evade these restrictions. What's even worse, these new methods are becoming even more risky to life environment, then classical transgenic methods, as the NS article inadvertently illustrates.

AWT and holographic theory

Holographic theory of Gerard 't Hooft is rather advanced (i.e. "freaky" from low dimensional perspective) idea, information and mass of every object is separated during it's fall bellow event horizon, so that information about all objects remains dispersed along surface of black hole and it can even determine the state of objects, who have fallen bellow event horizon (suppose they can survive such journey, at all). Because formally thinking theorists, who are preferring thinking in poorly conditioned complex logical clusters prefers highly dimensional and ad-hoced theories too, holographic principle was attempted to reconcile with / integrate into another accordingly formal theories, into topological string theory by Prof. Lenny Susskind in particular.

Holographic theory considers on background, we are living inside of such black hole, which is generally interesting idea, relevant even from AWT perspective. Furthemore it introduces an idea of tachyons (supposedly formed by gravitational waves), which are mediating the event horizon information projected projection inside, thus violating special relativity and string theory, which doesn't allow spreading of information in superluminal speed (again, AWT has no problem with such approach). As an additional connection can serve here the quantum delocalization proved by Aharamov-Bohm and Aspect's experiments and a holonomic character of information, treated inside of neural network by Pribram's theory, as proven by some experiments with cats, rats, flatworms or even slime molds (1,2), whereas AWT considers neural network as a quantum wave simulator of black hole interior, too. Furthermore, here's an apparent similarity between geometry of density fluctuations inside of dense particle system and the caustic patterns, projected through waves of water surface into bottom of water pool. Does it mean, volume fluctuations inside of dense droplet of fluid are formed by projection of by surface waves of droplet?

Apparently not, this is just a homology, but not analogy because of lost of information, which occurs here. Holographic model converges into Aether model, if we consider event horizon of black hole not being flat, but formed by thick layer of dense vacuum, so that the surface waves of this horizon will decompose into many spatial particles, whose common interactions are mediated by interference of gravitational waves ("tachyon condensation") in resemblance to Fatio-LeSage theory of gravity.

But holographic principle poses some conceptual problems, too. At first, it's causality arrow isn't quite clear for me (i.e. what serves as a hologram, holograph and holographic waves here exactly). In AWT the roles of all concepts can be interchanged mutually depending on observational perspective, driven by density gradient (by AWT every universe appears like system of one or more black holes, when being observed from inside of another black hole). In holographic theory it's not clear, where information exists separated from matter and where not. Should I serve as a projection matrix inside of another black holes, sitting inside of our Universe in relation to many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? Should we exist and to think about it in multiple-times? Why information about objects inside of black hole cannot be projected to black hole surface, instead? Can such way of thinking really simplify our understanding of reality, if we are forced to consider some deeper theory, capable to explain construction of holograph anyway? Which testable predictions it enables to derive for us? Etc...

Holographic principle simplifies multidimensional character of event horizon, which is formed by spatial density gradient, not by projection plane and which appears so only from distant outer perspective due the lensing effect and it doesn't consider presence of more holograms and holographs at the same moment. Furthemore it neglects lost of information, which occurs during fall into black hole, which renders it as a somewhat fringe theory, adhering to extrinsic perspective of reality observation. By AWT every dense object falling into dense black hole virtually dissolves into whole volume of dense environment, like lump of wet sand, when thrown into water, because the surface tension forces aren't capable to keep complex particles together.

Dissolving of objects into accretion radiation illustrates clearly, we shouldn't expect their image frozen bellow event horizon, as some interpretations of relativity considers. Instead of it, such object usually evaporates inside of our Universe a well before, then it can even reach the event horizon, like meteorite evaporates in Earth atmosphere. Therefore it has no meaning to consider some information about object after its fall into black hole, its projection into it the less, as such information cannot be recovered in its original form again due the probability reasons.

Recently, first experimental evidence of holographic principle was reported, when the noise of gravitational detectors was interpreted as a signal noise of giant holograph. But it's not quite clear for me, why just the noise was considered here. If we found a regular gravitational wave, it could be interpreted as a part of giant holograph as well. By this way, the finding of gravitational noise appears rather invariant to holographic theory for me and it can have a more robust and consistent explanation in context of AWT.