Process Physics

[Callisto]

Hi all,

I was wondering what some of you thought about 'Information Theoretic Process Physics'? The topic seems fascinating, however somewhat difficult to come to grips with. I attached a link for those who might be interested. There have been papers published which are surly worth a discussion. http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/introduction.htm

:smile: Callisto

[Chronos]

Indeed, it is hard to grasp. That's because it's philosophy, not science. Cahill has been trotting this pony around the web for some time, but has not substantiated it.

[yanniru]

Reginald Cahill derived a non-symmetric form of General Relativity from Process Physics [see e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0307003] similar to what John Moffat has been publishing for years [see e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506370] and what Jakob Bekenstein recently published [ see e.g.,http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412652]

I believe it was Cahill who first pointed out that the lack of measurements of Dark Matter for spherical clusters may just be because Newtonian Theory works for spherical galaxies but not spiral galaxies where the lack of the non-symmetric terms in the theories of gravity results in the supposition of Dark Matter.

Both Moffat and Cahill were considered somewhat crackpot until Bekenstein got similar results. Being a layman in cosmology, I cannot say what is correct. But it certainly seems like an unsettling issue that most cosmologists prefer to ignore. And if these three "fringe" physicists turn out to be correct, that does not necessarily mean that Process Physics is correct.