Tarvo told us about his artificial consciousness computer program in the G&S forum before it more or less closed down. It also is a set of nodes that connect. But I just read the New Scientist article on Cahill's computer work which says pretty much what you just said, and it seems that Cahill is way ahead of Tarvo.

The computer work of Cahill has been left behind, as far as I can tell, by his own progress in rewriting Newtonian gravity.

What he has discovered, and I am not at all sure how this grew out of his computer work, is that Newton's theory of gravitation only works in spherical symmetry. Since Einstein forced his theory of relativity to match Newton in the low speed limt, it as well must be incorrect.

Cahill's work is truly revolutionary. Besides the flow of space, which is turbulent, and whose turbulent character depends on the relative positions of the earth and moon- solar eclipses affect the timing of pendulums and atomic clocks for example- his work explains away dark matter as a product of using a theory based on spherical symmetry for spiral galaxies, which essentially have a 2-d symmetry. Cahill also contends that there is actually an absolute motion in the universe, contrary to the thinking in physics for the last 100 years. And he claims to understand dark energy, which now must be 99% of the universe, or is it 95%, the other 5% being us.

I agree with yanniru that Cahill's process physics is connected to loop quantum gravity. The title of one of Cahill's papers even says that, but I have not read that paper yet. I have read but two, the GPS paper and the Fine Structure Constant paper.

Cahill has lots of almost every day data supporting his physics. I suspect that when it is well connected to LQG, then LQG will also be verified by all that data. The only question in my mind is whether in the end the combination will be called LQG or Process Physics.

Well, actually I have a more fundamental question. How is the random, self organizing, self referential physics in Cahill's computer work connected to the Cahill extension of Newtonian Physics to non-spherical symmetries? I hope some smart person can answer that for me. Perhaps an email to cahill is called for. But it is better to first read the appropriate papers.

Wanda

• cool - dolphin - February 5, 2004 - 06:26 UTC
  • Not comprehensible - wandaqueen - February 5, 2004 - 12:43 UTC
    • Sorry about that - dolphin - February 22, 2004 - 04:00 UTC
• The fundamental question - yanniru - February 5, 2004 - 18:04 UTC
  • A cornerstone - wandaqueen - February 5, 2004 - 21:31 UTC