Hi John,

I will improve my English,I speak it like in french in fact , my grammar must be improved.I will do it in buying a book when I will have the loan soon due to debts of death of my mother.It is not a priority for me.I am a little sad that you have not understood my équations.I am going to make simple.Like said Einstein ,if you are not able to explain it simply to your grandmother,you don'tunderstand it really.The dark matter exists and is not baryonic.If this matter exists John,so there is a cause.They must be produced by something.Not the stars.BH are a reality and exist.We see that our standard model has a wall at this horizon between the two different model(Standard and gravitational.The supermassive BH are sphères, it islogic.If they are there, there are reasons.I say that these BH are also present at quantum scale.Protons are the secret but the standard model is not sufficient.See my équation E=mc²+ml² ,have youseen the relevance with l linear velocity of these particles coming from the main cenral cosmological BH, the biggest spherical volume after the universal sphere.See that we can superimpose the sphères !!!The quantum serie and its finite number(primes p adics numbers are relevant)is the same than the cosmological serie inlogic.The quantum stable serie is a relative photo ofour universalsphere.I hope than you see my theory ofspherisation now :) see that it explains gravitation and the link with infinite entropy at this central sphere.God is not far of us with this weakest force John.Imagine the number 1 for this singularity......BH in our universal sphere are less numerous than stars but the particles produced ? The standard model is encircled by BH and Dark matter.The gravitation is implied by this central cosmological sphere and its weak rotation and codes.It is simple when we see the generality of this universe.God does not play at dice and the sphere is the perfect equilibrium of sphere.The gravitation needs BH and dark matter and Inside the heat and thermo and electromagnetic forces are a kind of E.

John C.,

I will direct you to three papers posted to viXra.org. These are "The Wave Medium, the Electron, and the Proton - Parts 1 and 2" and "Quaternion Dynamics - Part 1". The first two papers lay out the concepts and develop a simplified model. The third paper develops quaternions. The exponential form is of interest and will lead to octonions when multiplied by the complex form of Euler's Equation. Equation 13.4 of the second paper is the basis for the proton size calculation.

Steve D.,

I'm up to 3 hours of practice per day. I let my hands rest one day per week.

The quaternion expressions could easily be interpreted as spheres since they have the same mathematical form (i.e., the sum of squares equals a square). The above works might also be of interest to you.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Gary,

thanks for the viXra directive, I'll see if I can follow it.

Steve,

As you write it, your equation says that: (E)nergy is equal to mc^2; plus the same initial mass quantity, squared. Is that correct? And in what way does that extra energy come about, what is a mass doing or interacting with that your equation refers to? What causes that m^2 to be added to mass:energy equivalence? Sorry, I do not understand. :-) jrc

Hello John and Gary,

Gary thanks ,I will learn more.

John,see simply that BH produce particles and they have like photons a linear speed before encoding.Forget the standard model and focus on dark matter and gravitation.Youknow the equation of Einstein is more suntil that you imagine.The mass encodes simply photonic informations.He had seen this encoding of evolution.I have inserted the linear speed of spherons before encoding like mc².We must rethought even our mass John.The ml² is the other step towards the entire entropy.I thought that you had understood my équations.But no apprently.See simply the generality and the project of God John with humility of course:) If you rest in the special relatiivity with simply stars and standardmodel, never you will found a road towards gravitation.It is a different quantum of E simply.It is logic in fact corrlated with rotating sphères and proportions.Hope that helps.Don't hesitate to ask questions, I will answer with pleasure.Don't forget John,see the generality and the sphères turning.Se that the central BH of our universal sphere produces the smallest andspeedest particles of gravitation implying the gravitational aether tending to infinity at this wall between physicality and infinity.Regards

Gary.

Okay, I'll try to answer: "I understand that QM and GR are both 4-D models. Presumably, they both share the same three spatial dimensions.

What is the basis for the belief that they also share the same 4'th dimension?"

QM is not a 4 dimension model.

Let's look at in the context of Bell's theorem. Even though the theorem claims to test local realism, the choice function is invested in detector settings, an unrealistic proposal. After repeating random choices a statistically significant number of times, we count the number of times the choices correlate and normalize the results. Richard Gill says, "The physicist's correlation is just the probability of equal outcomes minus the probability of different outcomes."

Quantum theory confuses physics with physicist. Random choices yield random results. And the time parameter is non-existent. In other words, the theorem proves just what the theorem assumes (See Karl Hess, Einstein was Right! ).

In an objective spacetime, simple connectedness is a theorem by existence -- the added degree of freedom that the time parameter provides assures objective outcomes without pinning an observation to a particular observer. It fulfills Einstein's requirement to complete an observation without disturbing the system. In other words, quantum mechanics can be derived from continuous spacetime in an objective manner, though the converse is not true. Quantum theorists make all kinds of ad hoc assumptions -- Quantum Bayesian is the worst of them, as it imposes a measure of personal belief.

The time coordinate has a negative value in Minkowski spacetime. Time reversibility is an absolute requirement of general relativity -- it provides symmetry -- while special relativity, straight line motion, is asymmetric with regard to time. This is how quantum mechanics can claim compatibility with special relativity, and why QM and general relativity cannot both be foundational.

Special relativity requires time dilation, something QM ignores. Or rather, normalizes, and then is able to ignore. Since time is length 1 in one direction, it has to be length 1 in all directions. Fine. In what measure space? Quantum theorists are in a potential trap of logical contradiction: if the measure space is n-dimension Hilbert space, it has to be rigged for 3 dimensions, R^3. So it limits itself to a 3 coordinate system, xyz, though we know that a complete accounting for position requires a 4 coordinate system, xyzt. Because normalized time zeros out of an algebraic equation, continuity can never be built into a quantum theory; i.e., T = 0 in a linear equation.

Steve,

No one that I know of argues that mass as a unit of measure is a universal absolute. The Equivalence Principle derived from SR established what had only been accepted as an assumed operational equality between gravitational mass and inertial mass. And by necessity of measurement through motion, extends to time and space. Hence spacetime is a logical consequence of the Equivalence Principle.

The one thing that can be derived from our system of arbitrary value units of physical quantities as an absolute value, is light velocity. Yet as you write it: "m|" would utilize the vertical bar to denote "m" as an absolute value. While I recognize and agree that our definition of inertia is only operational (a mass in motion stays in motion : a mass at rest stays at rest), and would theoretically benefit from development of a general definition which would predictably identify what it is about inertia that is the same for any mass regardless of state of motion; it would be illogical to assume that could be had by assuming an absolute value for mass. Rather, a general definition of inertia would have to be a universal proportionality of light velocity in relation to any given mass value.

Secondly, there are as many arguments against the Big Bang as there are for it. Foremost in opposition is that GR is not a complete theory! Doesn't claim to be! Einstein wasn't playing God and the Big Bang wasn't his damned idea! And your central universal sphere is the second argument in opposition, which exposes the contradiction of spatial neutral centrality in Relativity with a reversibility timeline of the observed expansion of the universe. GR is not a complete theory, the BB might as well be a Bed and Breakfast for all I care. Sorry. I wish we could communicate better (no need to get paranoid about it) but what little I think I understand of what you are saying, I would disagree with as stated above. Best wishes, anyway. Hell, this is just something to do til they close the lid on me. I think its ridiculous they way some people are so certain of being right in any walk of life that they think its okay to trip up others. I can sympathize with parental loss and financial difficulty, take it a bit easier on yourself. :-) jrc

Tom and Gary,

"the added degree of freedom that the time parameter provides assures objective outcomes without pinning an observation to a particular observer."

Bingo!

and perhaps the easiest thing not to recognize oneself doing. :-) jrc

Tom,

Many thanks for the reply. It will take me awhile to digest what you have presented. I've read it a few times already and it still does not compute.

My initial hang-up is that if time is a degree of freedom, then it is a dimension even if it lacks a definite direction.

Your statement almost sounds to me like saying it is always now. This is true but it ignores the fact that trajectories can be extrapolated into the past or the future.

I will nibble on your post a little bit at a time.

Thanks and Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

I find discourse with others useful since there is so much intuition in thinking and feeling...and since quantum phase is such a large part of neural information packets, the entanglement of quantum phase is how we share our intuition as well as thought with others.

The whole universe seems to exist with just matter and action, just like consciousness seems to exist with just neuron connections and action potentials. But there is also a dimension of quantum phase for each of matter and action and for each neural action as well. Our notions of continuous time and space both emerge from matter and action and so what you have said about time and space is very true. Continuous time and space emerge as very useful notions from the actions of matter but do not exist a priori.

This idea seems to show a way for both charge and gravity to come from the same decoherence rate of the universe of matter.

Tom,

Re "Quantum theory confuses physics with physicist" (Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 4, 2016 @ 14:09 GMT):

Did you ever actually study physics at university? You seem to get confused about quantum physics, and you seem to confuse physics with mathematics i.e. idealized systems. Your pre-conceived view of how reality OUGHT to be is NOT how reality actually is, as verified by experimental physical outcomes.

Tom,

"To answer your question, though, a scalar of measure zero is of no consequence to the coordinate system's dimensionality."

I do not understand the answer above. The scalar in question is time, and its value is not zero. It's value is the present age of the universe which is supposedly 13.8 billion years give or take a bit.

Ahhh ... now I've got the correct link for time. Thx ... I've read the paper and an initial reading does not make any sense to me. I'll continue to nibble on it. The bit about time having a random orientation is especially puzzling. The time axis must be perpendicular to the three special axes. Therefore, it is not random. It does not have a physical direction that we can perceive but it is not random.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Gary,

"The time axis must be perpendicular to the three special axes"

General relativity is a coordinate free geometry. Every point of convergence in three spatial dimensions, is a four dimension flat spacetime. Locally. That local geometry is the theater of all physics. We know, however, that spacetime is curved -- that the relation of time to space is a question of relativistic scale, and not linear.

Rigid transformations are only helpful in a Euclidean -- Newtonian -- context.