Classical Quantum Conciousness by Peter Jackson

Jo,

Thank you kindly.

But.. A 'surface' (which I agree) can only be be made of 'matter' or not 'exist', so should involve the particulate state of energy. The simplest particulate form is a rotating sphere. Ergo I invoke the simplest dynamic, or at least the most 'familiar'.

If it's not the simplest; then it isn't! It's unimportant. What IS important is the missing spin momenta which has made confusing spooky nonsense of the physics of the quanta. THAT is what's simplified, then also simplifying & uniting with Relativity.

Now everything can be or 'have' a refractive plane surface (near/far field TZ) and in all directions, so localising all physics everywhere.

Of course the 'matter' condenses from the sub-matter continuum condensate energy on perturbation, (or Higgs process if you prefer) but if we discuss that some may think I'm loosing my marbles!

Best

Peter

Joe,

Using proper and understandable definitions (you offer no others); If no part of the surface is made of anything how can it be illuminated'? Do you use different undeclared definitions?

Also, the continuum I invoke (giving rise to 'matter' by condensation where perturbed) is not 'finite', is not itself 'matter' and is everywhere. Perhaps then it's somewhere else I went wrong?

I also agree 'infinite' and have written papers identifying the wide consistencies with a 'recycling' universe. Interestingly in that case all 'matter' (including brain matter) must derive from some (probably rather more) intelligent entity at some time in the past.

Now I think your descriptions may indeed relate to some more 'fundamental' truth. So is there anything else you might remember from back then?

Best

Peter

John

Thank you kindly.

You'll have seen a coherent model of duality emerges, but I always study suggested falsifications so will look with an open (if sharply analytical) mind.

I found learning speed reading essential for the ~30 papers a week needed to accumulate adequate coherent 'data points' to consistently describe the proverbial elephant. I'm therefore speed reading all essays and note those to re-read more carefully. Yours is one, but I'll read those of all who read and comment on mine anyway.

One first question. Why does a single universe have to exist? Thinking conventionally for now, if our visible 'matter' based universe has bounds as observation suggests, yet beyond that entity is eternity to infinity, then can there not be infinitely many separate incidences of matter based universes (perhaps like the galaxies in our own). Do you know any evidence inconsistent with that? and if it were true would it falsify your hypotheses as you seem to suggest but don't seem to say how?

Then there's the temporal recycling model (of each?) of course, but only one iteration at a time. You may have seen my paper identifying the wide tranche of findings consistent with that?

best

Peter

John

I agree with much, i.e. that we're in one 'mass/energy' universe at a time, it's finite or 'bounded', there's an 'ether' with density distribution around matter, that energy is quantized whenever it interacts (i.e. measured etc.), that much current theory is seriously flawed, and that we must rationalise first then derive the maths.

However realistically the chances of your model being adopted as the new paradigm seem infinitely small (which I'm sure you know) and I'm afraid I think mainly for good reasons i.e. (despite your claims) lack of conclusive evidence. There are also apparent inconsistencies in your videos (re single slit diffraction, and aether waves I recall). As an example; you dismiss 'infinity' and insist a 'plenum with nothing behind it 'solves' the problem. It's just another 'idea' John, an interesting one but again NOT a solution or 'proof'! my view is 'infinity' may show only the limits of our brains.

I've never seen a problem with postulating different theories and don't like to 'criticise' but, to be realistic, it's way beyond what you've done to suggest you've 'falsified' Huygens, particularly as a more widely consistent model exists consistent with the effects you invoke AND Huygens principle. In general I get the impression wider reading in leading edge optics and photonics may be helpful.

I know that's not what you want to hear but I hope you agree we must all be self critical and honest if understanding and doctrine are to actually progress.

Best

Peter

John

Certainly. Without going back in detail, and just a little more than the bare Huygens derivation. It's the 'wave' in the aether which you surprisingly agreed towards the end of one of the video's.

Lets consider flashed from a space probe. The signals will 'expand' in all directions as a Schrodinger sphere. Passing a detector first with light then not then light then not etc. That is the 'wave' pattern I describe, but more complex.

Take a 'patch' of the surface of the sphere and consider it as a gold miners panning 'sieve' being lifted. But it is also 'swirled' laterally as it moves up, and not only that, but it can also be moved up & down slightly (relative to its' progress upwards) as it swirls, which gives elliptical polarity.

The instant this energy encounters matter or any perturbation fermions 'pop up' (pair production/Higgs etc) which re-quantise the energy - to you 'photons', which then spread again (unless self focussed into a Bessel beam).

Now you first said there's NO diffraction pattern from a single slit, which is wrong, but then agreed it! Have you never wondered why electrons gather densely at sharp topological changes? EACH edge of the slit re-quantises the energy, so giving the diffraction pattern. All else follows from that duality. I thought you'd already seen this, which also shows how the model solves a whole tranche of 'anomalies' including producing cosmic redshift WITHOUT accelerating expansion!;

Cosmic Redshift (etc) Video

I'm sure there may be some other aspect I've missed. If so just identify it for me. Past papers include various more detailed photonics experiments you'll be interested in, including this one I think;

Inertial Frame Error Discovery Derives Stellar Aberration and Paradox Free Special Relativity Via Huygens Principle

Best

peter

John

I'm confused by your assertion of no diffraction pattern from a single slit. I've always found one, varying with energy, distance and width, and it's well documented. Are you saying something different?

Single slit diffraction

I think few here subscribe to the view that real ontological understanding is just 'arm waving' without maths! There's no new maths needed for the redshift model, it's simple as Pi! - The circumference length increases as the orbital diameter increases so each orbit takes longer. As the lateral (propagation) speed is constant the wavelength increases (redshift). 'Understanding' that simplicity is everything.

You may be right that one simplistic 'interpretation' of Huygens may be; "each point in the slit.." but that's not correct. Each PART of the slit has TWO edges, which is what produces the single slit diffraction.

Another big common error is thinking 'frequency', which is only a time based derivative. The real physical property is WAVELENGTH Lambda, which any professional Astronomer or Astrophysicist will tell you. Diffraction patterns change with wavelength. Your assertion "therefore it MUST be from photons" as "no other model can explain it" is therefore quite wrong. The reason being that you started with a false assumption.

Later you say the same of the lateral shift, which is similarly untrue. Remember just because there's no light in the dark stripes doesn't mean there's no energy on that "trajectory". I found an interesting action was to move the screen further forward and back for the CHANGING 3D picture. As my essay identifies, reality becomes far clearer with 3D models.

Of course there are photons, spreading but requantized continually, but that doesn't falsify wave diffraction or Huygens principle. Better understanding of wave/particle duality is needed (I'm referring to ALL not just you John!)

In any case you should recall from my paper that the old 'ballistic' theory of conserved photons without wave characteristics doesn't and can't coherently explain Stellar Aberration.

I like and agree with much of your model, but in suggesting it falsifies waves the whole thing fails the consistency test. That's the area I see most refinement needed.

I hope that was clearer and helps.

Best

peter

John

You seem wholly wedded to your theory which blinds you to it's flaws. That's quite usual, particularly as we get old (as am I too). But you shouldn't assume or blame others ignorance. I well understand the theories behind the single slit diffraction pattern, which are FAR from settled.

I did well understand your video, also wide experimental results and current interpretation. The problem is, apart from 'passing over' key issues, that you clearly haven't recognised or taken on board that; NO WAVE HAS TO PASS THROUGH ANY SLIT!! - (That's duality for you!)

I also quite agree the Bohm interpretation is also flawed.

I'm only trying to help John, but if your belief in your full model is that deeply embedded then it supports the hypothesis of my essay, there's no capacity for development and and may then be little point discussing further.

Best

Peter

Satyav

Thank you.

I agree galaxies are evolving and also published a paper on an evolutionary sequence and recycling by quasar some time ago. I'll read your paper with interest. However nobody can prove how anything 'started'. I didn't want anybody to interpret or assume my essay suggested a god, or not, as many do.

I agree we're progressing, but still a very long way off nature as our doctrinal theoretical foundations remain badly flawed.

I look forward to reading your essay again in more detail and commenting.

Best

Peter