Hi Georgina

I apologise for the slow reply. I would like to have prepared this explanation for you while having more time on my hands, however I guess I better make a start.

I will present a couple of analogies that are somewhat comparable to my cosmological model. The general idea that we are testing, is that matter is dependent upon an interaction with space, that is the source of the energy that motivates atomic forces. So conceptually this is a very simple and intuitive consideration, and the analogies I give will reflex this simplicity. Analogies that serve this consideration are, the relationship between a candle flame and atmospheric oxygen, that the intensity of the flame is dependent on atmospheric oxygen density. Another analogy might be, an electrical appliance circuited with a battery, and the relationship between battery capacitance and an appliances ability to undertake energetic work.

I think the first step in realizing this might be a worthwhile use of your time, would be based on the prospect of assigning fundamental forces with a prior cause. It can be surmised that fundamental forces undertake work actions in the world, and so long as fundamental forces remain theoretically causeless, then this ability to undertake work also remains causeless. Is "causeless work" a reasonable notion to ascribe too?

My hypothesis is that the observations and measures which indicate to us that space has an expansive property, corresponds to a regenerative elemental field of space. I refer to the observation and measure of cosmological redshift, which is one and the same thing as the cosmological constant, and Dark Energy. That this continually emergent field is a universal energy supply, which matter is dependent upon to drive its fundamental force. So we will begin with three main parameters to quantifying a system of this type, then expand it to a forth parameter. We begin with 1. volume, 2. energy density throughout that volume 3. Intensity of an entity which is dependent upon that energy source. Then we incorporate the forth parameter which is, replenishment rate of that energy source.

We have a perfectly sealed room of set volume, which contains an oxygen density, and we place a candle within the room, its flame intensity dependent on oxygen availability. We set a clock ticking. Obviously the room volume remains a constant, so it is the oxygen density and flame intensity which is a declining variable parameter over time. It is also worth noting that oxygen density and flame intensity will share proportionality with one another during their mutual decline. Let us suppose that after 10 hours the room is nearly depleted of oxygen and the candle is about to wink out.

Now place two candles with the same room and set the clock ticking. Room volume and oxygen density remain the same parameters as the first experiment, but now the parameter of flame intensity is doubled. By doubling the demand on the oxygen supply, the rooms oxygen density and therefore flame intensity, decrease at twice the rate of the previous experiment. Adding further candles to the room, the results are simple arithmetic.

Forth parameter

A slightly more dynamic circumstance would be if the oxygen supply within the room was steadily replenished. Perhaps leaking under the door. Let us consider the example whereby there is one candle placed in the room, and the oxygen replenishment was set at precisely the same rate as the candles rate of oxygen consumption. All four considered parameters would remain constant over time, in balance with one another. The room volume, oxygen density, oxygen replenishment rate, and flame intensity.

Now we place two candles within the room, with the oxygen replenishment rate set as before mentioned, enough to replace the oxygen demand of one candle only. What happens? The system as a whole is not in equilibrium, so the oxygen density in the room and flame intensity will decline proportionately with one another until equilibrium is re-established. Equilibrium will be restored when each candle burns at half original intensity, which added together equals, the rate of oxygen replenishment. This relationship is important for my hypothesis, that between the replenishment rate of oxygen and flame intensity. Please take its note.

So what am I all about? What am I alluding too? If the cosmological constant corresponds to the replenishment rate of an elemental field, which is the source of atomic force via an interaction between space and matter, then the same general parameters will apply, and you would expect appropriate values to demonstrate correlation. Paul Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis deals with precisely these parameters. Auv conforming to replenishment rate, his measures of distance serve as components of universal volume and density of matter distributed within that volume, and then he determines (there exists an equality between the measure of Auv which we relate to replenishment rate, and a measure that corresponds to value of atomic force).

We can verify this by analysing Paul Dirac's 9 minute video in explanation of the Large Numbers Hypothesis. We simply list the parameters he mentions and this becomes clear.

So there is a good deal more to discuss, but none of it is overly complex and or unintuitive. Every point I make can be related back to simple considerations of simple analogous systems. But I want to quickly jump to the end game, where I am leading you, so you are not in the dark in this respect.

The end game hypothesis is this.

If Gluon activity "which is the primary giver of mass" is a variable value, dependent and proportional to energy density of space, in the same general way candle flame intensity is dependent on oxygen density. Then we can infer a relationship of proportionality between the density distribution of matter in galaxies, and a variable gluon activity, which is variable baryon mass. Gluon activity will directly correlate to universal matter densities.

Here's the evidence this works.

By studying galaxy luminosity profiles, it has been deduced that star densities within spiral galaxies generally decline by square of the distance from galaxy centre. That is the same thing as saying, matter densities decline by this uniformed value. If we now relate the proportionality of gluon activity and star density as before mentioned, it can be hypothesized. Gluon activity increases by square of distance from galaxy centre, in lock step as star density declines by square of the distance. Gluon activity equating to mass, then this places mass in precisely the correct place, and precisely the correct value to correct galaxy rotation curves. A variable baryon mass hypothesis, with an exacting mathematical formula, based on volume of space, Auv energy density within volume of space, and predicted Tuv gluon activity.

Based on a theory that provides an answer to the universal measures we have taken and the unexplained equality they are known to demonstrate. By ascribing atomic forces to a prior cause, which also describes a universal system that continually regenerates and can conceptually compound changes over time, evolve, develop intricate complexities through the only natural process we are aware of capable of achieving such articulated order, Darwinian. Give nature a natural energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. The observations and measures that lead to Dark Energies inference, could point to just such a natural potential, from which complex universal systems have arisen.

The measures taken that define the Dark Matter puzzle couldn't fit this hypothesis any better than they do. A mathematical relation between volume of space and Gluon activity. Hopefully I will be afforded the opportunity to explain these considerations here at FQXi.

I jumped right ahead here, but backing up a bit. What do you think of my oxygen filled room and candle flame analogy. Do you have any questions about it?

Thanks for listening Georgina.

Kind regards

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #1969

Dear Steven,

Only nature could have provided the simplest visible universal construct. Although "The general idea that we are testing, is that (finite abstract) matter is dependent upon an (finite) interaction with (finite invisible) space,.." is a neat highly complex idea, it has nothing to do with natural simplicity. All real matter has a single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one singular infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

I hope you see my point,

Joe Fisher, Realist

Steven, if I have understood how you are thinking about the fundamental forces your idea seems to violate conservation of energy, which is a pillar of physics. Likening energy input to combustion of oxygen I have to think about the products as well as the input. The oxygen does not just sustain the flame but is built into the combustion products. So if energy is being supplied from space like oxygen to a flame what happens to it, as it isn't "disappearing". I grasp that the candle is the atomic matter, the flame the strong nuclear force, the room is the galaxy, the oxygen is the energy. I don't know what the draught under the door is or why there is one- are you proposing some kind of diffusion to balance energy concentration ?

To be clearer Steven; I understand the replenishment of oxygen is an analogy for replenishment of energy and you have linked that idea to the cosmological constant giving expansion of the visible (Image) universe. An objection to that is that energy is not being used up. I think the first indication that this isn't going to work is when you say the nuclear force is performing work. This makes me think that you are likening it to the forces we see in everyday life that require energy input to the system to maintain the force; as energy is converted to heat by friction causing the system to run down if not 'fueled'. A better analogy, to my mind, is chemical bonds that are themselves a form of energy and do not require energy input for maintenance.

Hi Georgina

Conservation laws

Yes, my approach violates the conventional interpretation of conservation laws, however it offers a new interpretation which you can test for consistency. Which you are already doing I might add. But convention is inconsistent, and selectively violates its own conservation laws. Because my hypothesis attempts an explanation of the universe as a whole, the question of the big bang origin of the energy which formed matter is not out of context. With this in mind, how does SMoC account for creation of universal matter in context of conservation laws? Rhetorical question, because of course it cant. How can convention approach the question of Dark Energies apparently continual emergence in terms of conservation laws? And I might add, any force which undertakes an action which defies popular interpretations of entropy, in terms of the equal measure of disorder that a system need generate in the process of generating order. In this respect gravity defies the notion of entropy, and before it could be declared an entropic force, it would been to be determined where it exports the disorder too, to be able to create the order expressed as cosmological objects, planets, stars for example. And the same issue is true of nuclear bonds and electron bonds which are responsible for the creation of order, however where is the exported disorderly counterpart which need be identified, if this activity is to be interpreted in terms of being entropic? Heat process being the origin of the notion of entropy, however heat processes only play a very minor role in the formation of universal structure. It mediates elemental phase changes, and initiates chemical bond formation, and it holds stars buoyant against the non-entropic force of gravity which would otherwise collapse the star. But the major players by far, in the mediation of universal structure and therefore order, are non-entropic gravitational interactions, and non-entropic fundamental forces which maintain the nuclear and electron bonds. So until an entropic interpretation can be given to gravity and fundamental forces in general, then the popular emphasis which is given to the concept of entropy is way over stated. When you are more familiar with my concept, then this will serve as a useful test. But for now we are better off focusing on a more tangible aspect, as follows.

Do electron bonds undertake work?

The concept of "work" and its implications for conservation law, offers a useful test for the conventional model and or my model. Fundamental forces are responsible for all manner of interactions, but which ones are clearly undertaking work actions, because work can be viewed as a product which should not be perpetually given for free, at no cost within a closed system. And you have already zeroed in on the appropriate theme that offers an effective test, chemical bonds serving very well. Electron bonds occur on a micro scale, however there effects are clearly observed at the human scale of existence, and we can wrap our own hands around an object and apply direct force in opposing them and directly sense their ability to resist our efforts. I would go so far as to assert, that anything capable of imparting force in the world, or has the capacity to resist forces applied against it, is undertaking work. Is it possible that the electromagnetism which holds the electron bond secure is an energy conserved system, that is 100% efficient with no energy losses over billions of years, all the while issuing the "work" that holds rocks together, which has to be interpreted as some kind of by-product which places no demand on the system. A conserved system implies some kind of stable balance, equilibrium. But how can balance or equilibrium be maintained while work is being demanded of the system, or while it is absorbing forces and issuing resistants to forces?

If you want to upset this argument, then I suggest the way to do it would be to explain how and why the term of "work" does not apply to electron bonds. And the more straightforward and unambiguous your counter argument is, the higher I will judge its quality.

But no need to present a counter argument yet. If you expect my storey will unravel itself under the weight of its own details, and inconsistencies that might inevitably become apparent, then you might simply ask the questions and extends me the rope, which I might use to hang myself. But what I would much appreciate from you is comments and questions that indicate your level of comprehension please? As you have done very well so far.

I'll have more for you soon.

Steve

Thank you Georgina. All of your considerations are excellent. Yes you are approaching the understanding I seek to convey, and you are contrasting it very effectively with conventional interpretations. This is precisely what you need be able to do, to tease out the validity, or non-validity of my arguments. Your focus on conservation laws is well chosen.

I would also like to add, we should not view this discussion as me trying to convince you of anything. It is not my goal that you believe what I am saying. Merely that you comprehend my theme, and are able to contrast it to conventional theory. I felt it might be useful for you if I made that expectation known.

You said

"Likening energy input to combustion of oxygen I have to think about the products as well as the input."

Its good that you question the issue of "products" in terms of the chemical interaction between oxygen and flame. It does lead to a very pertinent issue, which I would much enjoy discussing. But we shouldn't get too carried away with this discussion until you have a firmer grasp on my overall theme. That universal energy emerges as Auv, which is transitioned to Tuv atomic forces, giving a reason for the peculiar equality of Auv = Tuv. But I will give you the short answer for now, and deflect the need for a more in-depth explanation by suggesting that, the oxygen and flame interaction is only intended as an analogy. Analogies are seldom perfect, but the oxygen density in the room and its proportional flame intensity does serve very well within its limited context. The short answer for your question is, the only product that is yielded during the interaction between the Auv elemental field of space, and Tuv matter, is atomic force, which is "work" effort. And this work effort is at the cost of the fields existence. It is annihilated in the process. However if you do want a more in-depth explanation now, then you could refer back to my contest essay. The Auv field is a Darwinian entity, and Darwinian entities benefit from continual re-generation, because otherwise they cant undergo intergenerational exchange and therefore evolutionary progression. The Auv field benefits from this annihilation interaction with matter, because otherwise its habitat of space becomes congested. In this respect, the annihilation process serves the same function mortality serves within biological systems, freeing habitat for consecutive generations. I am satisfied that this serves a good enough reason, to explain the function of the material baryon world and why it came to emerge from this Auv energy field in the first instance. And why all the agencies of matter are directed towards building the structures we observe of the world, evolved in terms of being optimized for their reason for existence, which is efficiency of interaction with the Auv field, to clear the field so that it may regenerate.

Darwinian entities evolve structure and agency best suited for obtaining the thing it is reliant upon to exist. A tuna is a highly refined torpedo of the sea well adapted to catching small fish and squid. Slip streamed, powerful and fast. Their reason for existence characterises everything about what they are, that is what nature does. Galaxies and the matter that forms them, have the structure and agencies characterised for interacting with the Auv energy of space, that provides their ability to mediate force, which enables them to build and maintain the structures we observe, which are optimised for that purpose for existence.

I am familiar with the sense that approaches being a distaste, that entertaining the idea of a Darwinian world brings with it. Darwinian is only a biological process after all. I too found myself confronted by this sense. But my enquiries insisted I confront this possibility, and its explanatory power overcame my objections in time. Now it is the notion of multiverses and many worlds interpretations that seam clumsy and inadequate, in their attempts at explaining the complexity of the world. An organisational principle of nature seams far more reasonable to me now than these alternatives. And the fractured interpretations of SMoC that cant make a unified sense of the world, despite the remarkable equality of various universal measures and observations serving as clues. The measures you and I have been discussing, Auv = Guv = Tuv. My model necessitates these equalities, and it is to my amazement that these equalities exist and have been known about for so long. I did not know about these equalities and reference them to build my model. I only discovered them after having toyed with the idea that space provides the resource that enables atomic force, and that being the reason that gravity = mass, Guv = Tuv. Then I was faced with the challenge of how space might serve as an infinite resource, for which the measure and observation of Auv and its very specific value equality with Tuv became known to me. That Auv = Tuv is a most extraordinary and unlikely association unless they shared an associated process, and of course how it would influence my opinion that I already had such a process in mind.

So I had an idea to test, and found these remarkable and unlikely associations which supported it. So you might appreciate that circumstance effects my perspective. But you don't have the benefit of the reassurance that gave me. Rather, your confronted by a very unfamiliar idea which contradicts important aspects of an understanding which you have hard earnt. But still you ask questions, credit too you. And I hope the existence of these rather unlikely equalities I use to evidence my hypothesis, will be enough to draw your curiosity further.

So theres a bit of waffling there for you. But it paints an aspect of the picture I hope is useful.

Hi Georgina

I hope you can forgive the rough and in-ready state of my explanations. I barely have time at the moment to prepare these at all. But to hone their form in an elegant format like I can do, I havent had time. Its not that I'm unhappy with the function of the points I'm making, but rather their form is less than desirable. But function over form, as they say, and I'm sure you will appreciate!

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #1975

Dear Georgina and Steven,

Nature provided us with the simplest visible structure obtainable. The real Universe consists of only one singular unified visible infinite surface occurring in one singular infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. What do you not understand about this? I asked you if reality was visible and neither of you answered my question. I now ask you if reality is understandable? You do not appear to understand your own complex finite theories.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Steven, with respect, I don't want to spend time on an argument against conservation of energy. There are many ways to explain things but the requirement for the possibility of validity, as I see it, is not just explanation of certain specific observations but not requiring abandonment of the basic building blocks that are laws of physics (applying also to chemical and biological systems.) Do not take that badly, I would put your idea in the same basket as the Many worlds hypothesis.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #1978

Dear Georgina,

There must be only one single way to explain natural visible reality. The real visible Universe must consist of only one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. As you have admitted, "There are many ways to explain things but the requirement for the possibility of validity, as I see it, is not just explanation of certain specific observations but not requiring abandonment of the basic building blocks that are laws of physics (applying also to chemical and biological systems.)" All observers have a complete surface and they can only see surface for only infinite surface exists. There is no way any eye could make any sort of finite "specific observation." All chemical agglomerations have visible surface. All biological systems have visible surface.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Hi Georgina

I dont mind hearing your frank opinion. I wouldnt expect you to be convince by the discussion we have had, but I am gratified you dont give credence to the many worlds interpretation.

There is something which I would like to clarify. I see now how my arguments could have been presented better. I can see how you got the wrong impression, however it is not that I have criticized conservation laws, but rather that the theory of fundamental forces contradicts them. Thats an important distinction which I hadnt made. If you think back to what I have written, you might now realize that I was using conservation laws to undermine the concept of fundamental force.

Are fundamental forces a concept you are willing to hear questioned, or reconsidered?

But before we go on, if indeed you do wish to go on? I would like to pause and take stock. Are we communicated effectively do you feel? Any general advice you feel I could benefit from?

Hi Steven, I have failed to adequately and precisely explain my objection.

Consider the abstract concept of a morphogenic field that shapes a developing embryo. A religious person might have as their personal criterion for potential validity correspondence with scripture and creed.That the morphogentic field is God's spirit would provide the necessary correspondence and sufficient cause, making it logical. A biologist would have a different critereon for validity, correspondence with observation and experiment. The morphogenic field can be described as the spacial and temporal distribution and concentration of chemical factors, (such as growth factors and chemicals having an epigenetic, DNA folding, effect that affects gene expression). Samples can be taken from the embryo at different stages and analysed and chemical can be added altering timing and concentrations and the effect on development observed. For the biologist the biochemical model provides the necessary and sufficient cause to be logical.

'Work' has a specific meaning in physics. If that term is going to be used to give a physics explanation it has to fit with what physicists know and understand by that term. When work is done energy input is converted to another form of energy. If energy is continually input it has either to leave the system in some form or keep building up as a form of stored energy. This means there would either be evidence of energy being released or evidence of growth in internal energy over time. That hasn't been found.

I do think the consideration of environmental influences is worthwhile but the model you have presented, as it is, is not compatible with what I consider necessary to qualify as potentially valid physics.

This might be a good place to say that my own proposition regarding gravity on this page also does not fit the evidence, or even my own earlier thoughts on inertia and mass. Though I stand by the need for revision of the foundation cause of gravity, what I have written is not correct and needs re-writing.

Georgina

This isn't looking very promising. Objections beginning and we're not even through step one of four.

What you failed to do, was identify which aspect of my explanation contradicted convention. You point to energy conservation as your objection, when the subject in contention is fundamental force. How can you feel you have qualified my idea well enough, to now serve as its critic, if you haven't got the basis of it sorted in your mind? You assume to much.

On the outset I listed 4 steps required to build my case, that would offer you a comprehension. It seems you are gearing up to set your opposition well prior to hearing steps 2, 3, 4.

I am not using the term "work" in any unusual sort of way that might confuse physicists. I have simply pointed out that fundamental forces are undertaking "work" actions, the electron bond for example, and that work is a "product" which has implications in regard of demanding an energy input, in terms of energy conservation laws. Tests as to whether something is undertaking "work" or not are 1. Does it impart force? 2. Does it impart resistance to force applied to it? Does this describe the behaviour of fundamental force, or indeed electron bonds? Yes. Is there a conventionally theorized energy input? No. Could the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv provide a possible energy source for fundamental force? Their value equality is suggestive of a possible causal link? If space serves as a resource that fundamental forces draw on, then why doesn't it run out? Auv cosmological constant is indicative of space continual emergence, and its value shares equality with universal value of Tuv. And so once again, the value equality between Auv = Tuv is suggestive of a causal relationship, that would serve as a far better interpretation of fundamental force in terms of energy conservation than the conventional notion, of fundamental force undertaking "work" actions without prior cause, or input. As I pointed out, fundamental force ascribes to causeless work actions.

If you disagree, then tackle my argument head on. Either tell us how electron bonds are not work actions? Or tell us what enables their work actions in terms of energy conservation? If you are going to argue against me, which is fine by the way, although you should qualify your understanding of my idea first. But make your argument a direct one, and not something frivolous like "your using your terms inappropriately and physicists will get confused".

I have spent a good deal of time talking about the value equalities of universal measures Auv = Guv = Tuv. You haven't mentioned these interesting points and instead choose to focus on my use of the "work" term. What is your opinion on Diracs observations, in terms of various value equalities? I don't care about his further inferences, just the observation of these measures and their close correlated values. Do you think he's imagining things, or do these close equalities really exist?

Steve

Georgina

Tell you what I'll do. I'll be extremely specific in terms of electron bond work actions. The more specific I am, surely the easier it will be for you to show me the error of my ways.

The theory of charge, and the differing circumstance of how it applies to our electronic technologies on the one hand, and atomic theory involving electron bonds on the other.

Electronics

We build batteries which are basically comprised of two isolated charge potentials, positive and negative. Side not, we are able to taste charge with the human tongue, experienced as acid and alkaline. Vinegar being the taste of positive charge, which wants to rob electrons from your tongue. If we then circuit two battery charge potentials, an electric current (photons) will flow as the system moves to equalize these indifferent charge potentials. It is this induced electric flow that allows our electrical appliances to undertake work. However it is not an infinite electric flow, as the battery charge potentials are eventually equalized and their capacity to undertake work declines proportionately.

Atomic force and electron bonds

Atomic electron bonds and circuited batteries both ascribe to theory of charge, however with consideration of how batteries work kept in mind, there is something very peculiar about atomic charge and how it is capable of undertaking work. It is the proton and the electron which hold opposite charge potentials, which allows the atomic system to undertake work. However, the charge potentials are never equalized between them, and the electric current (photons) never ceases to flow. This equates to being an infinite work potential. The electron being negative is the source of the current, which flows to the positive proton. But the electron never stops giving up photons, nor does the proton ever fill up with charge, so to speak, and stop excepting more photons. It just keeps absorbing photons but never altering its charge potential. So the electric current which allows work to be undertaken never ceases.

You mentioned stored energy. Perhaps you will elaborate your considerations of stored energy in terms of this electron proton interaction described above? Either that or tell me how the above interpretation is not the conventional interpretation?

The best answer the conventional approach can deliver is, fundamental forces deliver the work potential. However, the nature of a theory of "fundamental origin", is that it is the beginning of all explanations, that there is no prior cause or reality underpinning its existence. So when you observe a system undertaking work, and say it is fundamental forces that are responsible for it, you are basically saying it is "causeless work effort".

This is an argument that conforms with conventional interpretation of energy conservation law, which questions the notion of fundamental force. Contrary to your earlier misdirected objection concerning conservation. If you are going to argue against my idea then please make it a direct one. Don't just tell me I'm using terms wrong and expect that suffices.

If you cant state a good objection, then you should allow me to go on through stages 2,3 and 4. No obligations on you however, but please understand that I don't only write this so you might read it. I would be inclined to carry on regardless.

Steve

Georgina

I appreciate what you say here

"This might be a good place to say that my own proposition regarding gravity on this page also does not fit the evidence, or even my own earlier thoughts on inertia and mass. Though I stand by the need for revision of the foundation cause of gravity, what I have written is not correct and needs re-writing."

I was getting the impression you where disagreeing with me on the basis that I contradict conventional theory. Which isnt a best practice method for refute, although it is in manys employ it does seam. And while this is a forum title, "fountational Questions Institute" and we're in a sub forum titled "Alternative models of reality". But I see that doesnt encapsulate your position on things at all. But, I do think your objections are premature based on how much you know of what I speak. When you do deliver objections, I would hope they would be qualified and thoughtful.

Steve

Hi Steven, I'm sorry you feel I have not given you the helpful feedback you require. I did provide a link to a web site I have found informative, succinct and useful. re 'Work'. and energy. There are links to resources on the FQXi home page including to physics courses in a number of topics. Google searches and You tube videos can be an easy way of learning about physics.I have just found what seems to be a really good article about 'chemical energy'. I have only had a quick read but it is pointing out that there are differences in the way biologists talk about energy and the way physicist do, (that's useful to me.) The Trouble with Chemical Energy: Why Understanding Bond Energies Requires an Interdisciplinary Systems Approach.

Georgia

It seams to me that if you are going to voice your disagreement and categorize my theory as equivalent of the many world's interpretation. Quite unflattering I might add. Then you should backup your opinion with some kind of tangable reasoning, like where my idea brakes for example.

Your sharing your own theoretical ideas, so you must come up against general and undefined disagreement all the time. You should know better than to partake in it. If you give me a good argument how and why I'm wrong, then I will try to defend myself within that context. If you're going to speak generally and not form any sort of rationale, then I'm going to defend my idea by calling you out on having poor method. What else could I do.

Steven, I have not categorized your theory as equivalent of the many world's interpretation. I just consider both to have a conservation of energy issue.

I have tried to tactfully suggest that you require improvement of your basic knowledge of physics, which you can address using the resources I have suggested or find your own. I am not using my free time to give you unpaid lessons.

If the foundations of a house are not solid the house is in trouble. There is no need to look in the attic to determine that. You need to do some foundation work first, in my opinion. I realize that that is not what you want to hear but I am telling you what I think is needed. Respectfully, Georgina