Dear Mary Ann,
I just read your essay, you present some interesting ideas (especially the interpretation of quantum frequencies as frame change for a.particular energy). Please allow me in the spirit of constructive criticism to mention the following:
1. You mentioned Planck's constant as "6.626 x 10^(-34) erg-sec", actually the number you gave corresponds to the value in Joule-sec, and since 1 erg is 10^(-7) Joules, the value is 6.626 x 10^(-27) erg-sec. I personally don't care much about it here because you are not performing a complex calculation, but some professional physicists who see this may note it as a negative point.The numerical value of 4.76 x 10^42 is correct if you take the energy to be in Joules.
2. The story about the 2 psychologists is most likely an urban legend which inspired by the Harlow experiments on maternal attachement in Rhesus Monkeys, see for instance:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/studies/HarlowMLE.htm
3. You said: mass is a entity which exists in 3 dimensionals, either as a singlet or more, and can be described as a "standing" wave: ОЁв€--ОЁ"
Actually, in quantum mechanics, mass is presumed to refer to essentially the same concept as in classical physics, namely a measure of inertia (this is indicated by the fact that unlike for momentum and Energy, there is no "mass operator"). The wavefunction ОЁ does not refer to the mass of a system but to its "state". The only way I can try to explain what this means in a few lines is to compare it to the concept of a "state" in classical physics: There, the "state" of the system is essentially anything that can be said about a system once you know what its position and its momentum is. Classically, you can derive any other physical information about the system if you have this information. A major difference between a quantum state and a classical state (at least as they are usually formulated) is that the former can always be expressed in terms of a "superposition" of other states. A hand-wavy analogy to this is an arrow, or vector, in a Cartesian xy-coordinate system: You can always the decompose the vector into two constituent arrows, one along x, and the other along y. The quantum state is also a vector, and the space in which it "lives" is not a Cartesian coordinate system but something called the Hilbert space.
Finally, ОЁв€--ОЁ has a definite interpretation which is independent of mass, namely, by the so-called Born rule it is the probability per unit space of finding the system in a particular region.
Unfortunately, one of the things that can get confusing in quantum mechanics (unless one studies it in some depth) is that quantum states play multiple roles at the same time: They can be thought of as points in phase space, "waves" in configuration space, "vectors" in Hilbert space, and probability amplitudes (i.e. "square roots" of probability densities) in real space. However, the assertion that "mass can be described as a "standing wave"" cannot at this time be supported (at least without strong qualifications) given our current state of knowledge, however intuitive it may seem.
4. You said "Even today we have no real, no further understanding of the nature of time other than that set up from the calculus."
Depending on what you mean by "set up from the calculus" this may or may not be correct. In basic calculus, time is just a parameter in terms of which changes in spatial coordinates can be expressed, e.g. x(t), y(t), z(t). However, our understanding of time has evolved significantly from this starting point, and different physical theories have different conceptions of time which, unfortunately, seem at times mutually contradictory. For example, there is the quantum mechanical, thermodynamical, special and general relativistic and cosmological conception time. To the extent that continuity plays a role in all of these conceptions, it is correct they spring from the basic framework "set up from the calculus". However, I do tend to think that framing it this way is a little misleading. It strikes me as similar as saying that that our understanding of change in quantity is "set up from addition", and ignoring the role of, say, subtraction, multiplication, exponentiation, integration etc.
5. You said "Two sets may be subsets of one another,..."
Actually, no, unless they are the same set (at least in ZFC). The axiom of regularity prevents two unequal sets from including each other. Perhaps you meant, "A set may be a subset of another..."
I hope you found my criticism useful, as mentioned I thought your concept of frame change was interesting and may deserve more looking into.
Best wishes,
Armin
