Hello Georgina.

I have read your paper for the most part and waded over your website. Although you have clearly put a lot of thoughts in this construction, it is calling for improvements in many ways.

1.- It is not clear what is the problem that you are solving. Thus it is hard to assess what is the contribution you are putting on the table.

2.- The paper needs to be more argumentative than declarative. In each section, I would suggest posing the problem first, then educate the reader on your views and methods, and then make it clear what your solution is.

3.- You may have to makeup your mind if this is a physics paper or a philosophy of physics or epistemology paper. If the former, it is good to have equations show up throughout, they are good stuff because they constrain your mind in a rigorous manner. If the latter, then I would do an awful more work with the illustrations, putting them in the middle of the content as appropriate.

4.- The illustrations are too dense and of difficult interpretation. They are not really helping the text in my sense. I would heavily break them down to simple schematics and multiply them throughout the text.

5.- You may find that you could be better off breaking this material into several papers. Your content has the structure of a book: when you have so much to put under a section, the content would do better under a breakdown per Chapter instead. But you may not have enough material for a book. But your blocks are definitely too dense.

6.- When making historical references in the text, don't assume that the reader knows the story under a term or a certain nomenclature. Your reader may or may not know. So be sure to explain what the story is.

7.- When all that is done, I suggest that you review your abstract and make it as appealing and true to content as you can. Remember that the abstract (and title) is your pitch to get readers, if unappealing you may get no readers.

But I congratulate you for your work anyway. You have done a lot of mentation. The reason why we have so many serious problems of interpretation in physics is because physicists have always been too reliant on math in order to show their genius while being highly deficient in philosophical mentation. Keep going!

Hi Anonymous,

thank you so much for your feedback

"It does what it says on the tin". I think the abstract on vixra does very clearly explain what it is about. I have put it in the history and philosophy section on vixra.

Thanks for many helpful suggestions, especially 2. I apologize the web site needs tidying and improving. Its good to know someone has visited it.

Hi Anon,

The Venn diagram is showing something distinct from just ordinary set theory. The material objects and physical information are ordinary objects within sets but the objects within the image reality, space-time, are a distinct category of objects, (that are really images, only considered to be objects.) The foundational reality is uni-temporal , it doesn't have a time dimension but is continually changing , so there is passage of time. Using this structure as a framework allows physics with Newtonian like time and Einstein's relativity to work together without contradiction, and the temporal paradoxes are dispelled. I have added to the site the links to the two essays that are on viXra now, with their abstracts.

Hello Mr Stoocklmeir,

Thanks for sharing this.I beleive also that he is right,I d like to see his reasonings, it seems relevant,it seems evident indeed that this gravity moves faster than light.It tends even to infinity.Could you please explain his reasonings a little ? It seems relevant,

best regards

Around 1990 using sci physics on the internet I said time and space are negative energy tachyons. Time and space vibrate a lot more fast than light - because of this particles can move on paths that are straight and particles do not have a change of energy. I said all spin 1 particles are tachyons, all tachyons have spin 1 and all forces are tachyons. I said there is attraction and repulsion between electric fields because electric fields emit forces - the forces move more fast than electric fields. The same is true for magnetic fields. I said all positive energy particles are made up of tachyons. I said all the vacuum is tachyons. I said all of the universe is negative energy. I said all of the universe is imaginary negative not certainty. There are not any complete measurements - after a measurement there is only not certainty. Kurt Stocklmeir

Indeed Eckard ,and I know well, here in belgium, we are a wonderful country where vlaams and french live in harmony since 1830,when we have liberted Brussels together.Vlaams and french are friends we have a wonderful even teamof soccer,4ème in the world classment.Our counry is a beautifulcountry of freedom.Our team of soccer has many colors,Lukaky democratic republic of Congo,Witsel a mix belgian africa,eden hazard,felaini maroc,and this and that we have a rainbow of colors and we live in peace.

Best Regards

Aether seems Gravitational.....

The aether has always been considered by our past thinkers, Descartes, Newton,Einstein and so more.Newton was a fervent thinker in God if I can say like Tesla ,Einstein....Newton imagined like a fluid connected with God and governing the matter and the universe.Einstein considered a luminiferous aether,with photons.These interprétations are utilised in many works actually with this luminiferous aether.That said I don't consider this aether like photonic.I prefer the newtonian gravitational interpretation.If God is connected, it is by this weakest force, the gravitation.We search it at this quantum scale.The dark matter not baryonic is probably the secret.That is why I have inserted the spherons produce by BH.Now imagine that all galaxies with its central supermassibe BHs.Imagine that we have a serie of BH between these galaxies and the central biggest BH of our universe.Imagine that these BH produce particles not baryonic not relativistic and insert my two équations about matter and energy E=mc²+ml² and mlosV=constant ,we have so a superimposing of gravitational aethers and the main primordial aether is gravitational from this central BH.We can so superimpose the gravitational aethers and they are also superimposed to the luminiferous atherif I can say.We see that gravitation is the main chief orchestra?Our stadard model is encircled by this gravitation.The quantum serie is in the same logic, our nuclei must insert these quantum BHs and particles also of gravitation.The relevance is to see that we have forces stronger than nucleaar forces due to these quantum BHs and we a have a force weaker than electromagnetic forces with spherons encoded.The gravitational aether is connected with all central quantum BH.......God Does not play at dices like said Einstein.....

Steve Dufourny - Tom van Flandern said some thing like if gravity is not straight between mass planets will have an increase of angular momentum and speed of planets will increase. I think Newton said this and I think this is why Newton wanted gravity to move more fast than light. It is simple to think about how an orbit of a star would change if gravity hit the star with a direction partly with the same direction of the star. I will try to include a link to a paper of Tom van Flandern.

http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/

Kurt Stocklmeir

    Thanks for sharing,I didn't know this thinker.I see that he is died in 2009 on wikipedia and that his works were about this gravity.I like his works in fact ,I m going to learn more, it is relevant this superluminal velocity of gravitation.I have the same results with my intuitive équations and reasonings.In all case I see that he was a generalist.Thanks still.

    Best Regards

    I think in the same way that his words seen on wikipedia here are these words

    Every effect has an antecedent, proximate cause

    No time reversal

    No true action at a distance

    No creation ex nihiloNo demise ad nihil

    The finite cannot become infinite

    Tangible, material entities cannot occupy the same space at the same time

    He was rational in all case and logic respecting the causes and effects.

    I am very interested to learn more about his works.I see that he worked at Yale and for others projects.I am going to learn more.Thanks still.

    Steve - an orbit of a star would change if gravity hit the star partly with the same direction that the star is moving - there is conservation of angular momentum - planets have constant angular momentum around the sun. Gravity is straight between mass - if gravity is not straight between mass angular momentum would change.

    Kurt Stocklmeir

      Steve - I am from the U.S. I do not understand some things that you say. I do not know what you mean when you say develop. There is conservation of angular momentum - angular momentum is constant for planets going around the sun. The same is true for stars that are part of a galaxy. Gravity needs to be straight between mass for conservation of angular momentum and this is probably true for any force. I am talking about angular momentum not speed. A planet can have a change of speed as it goes around the sun but angular momentum will be constant. Angular momentum depends on things like speed and distance. Use bing search conservation of angular momentum planets. I guess Einstein wanted gravity to move at the speed of light but this is wrong. I guess people like Steve Carlip like theories of Einstein - use bing search Tom van Flandern Steve Carlip. I do not like theories of Steve Carlip. It is probably true a lot of people like theories of Steve Carlip.

      Kurt Stocklmeir

        sorry for my English.I am french speaking from Belgium,Perhaps these verbs are better to unroll,to unfold, to develop.Development exists also like word.In all case I am understanding what you mean.I don't know the works of Carlip also.My favorite thinkers are Newton,Einstein,Tesla,Feynmann,Sagan mainly.In maths I like euler ,Riemann....

        we search after all the secrets of our universal laws entropically speaking.

        Regards

        Hi community.

        I want to share one post from my blog 'A Theory of Everything'.

        You should read for two reasons, it explains gravity and it is an unification theory (two big explanations in one). Less unknown variables than other theories and so easy that a child could understand.

        Strong nuclear force is gravity...

        I'm interested in creating an approach about superconductors (if you read the post you should understand).

        How can I continue with superconductors to explain it better and find a solution to my string theory?

        Thanxs in advance...