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

Peter

We are in a single universe. We are not in 2 or more universes.

If a claim is made that there are multiple universes, the affirmative is what must be shown.

I think my STOE is the only model that suffest other universes with effects showing their existance in our universe. The Sources inject the stuff of our universe into our universe not from our universe. The Sinks eject the stuff of our universe into another space not in our universe. The growth change eqn. (dA/dt = -kA) of the series of 3 universes calculates the temperature of our universe to hunt e K= 2.718 K.

The STOE suggests the universe is flat and bounded. Th ere is an outer galaxy. The spiral galaxies inject stuff and elliptical galaxies eject stuff. In a galaxy cluster, all the matter from a group of spiral galaxies flows out to local elliptical galaxies. Like water sprayed in a parking lt with sinks. There is a limit the water will go and there will be parking lot beyond.

I am uncomfortable with answers of an infinite physical parameter - it's unreal , therefore, false. Because our universe is covered with the plenum, there is no "Beyond" the plenum.

Which paper? Is on the acedemia.edu?

Hodge

Dear Peter,

I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists and poets filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

    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

    «With the same anguish my days flash past,

    Monotonous as they were,

    As if roses are dropping their petals,

    And nightingales are dying.

    And she is also sorrowful,

    The Love that has guided me

    And envenomed blood

    Runs under her satin-like skin.

    And if I am in this world,

    It is for the only dream I have,

    That we both, like blind children,

    Will go to the mountain ridge

    There, where there are only reveries,

    In the world of the whitest clouds,

    To seek for faded roses,

    And listen to the dead nightingales.» (Romance N. Gumilev, Music A. Balchev)

    Physicists and mathematicians have become poets today to paint a picture of the world, filled with the ultimate meaning of existence.

    "We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself." (John A.Wheeler)

    What remains is the experiment. Perhaps you could suggest how Huygens (wave ) cab explain the experiment.

    Hodge

    Dear Peter,

    I never stated that "no part of the surface is made of anything." I accurately stated that No part of that unified infinite visible surface am finitely made of finite matter. You may think that there am different kinds of finite matter that originated from different finite sources, bot the one real unified visible infinite surface must be eternal.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    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

    Peter:

    I remember see you paper years ago. I'll reread it.

    There is no diffraction pattern after the 1st slit in the Young's Experiment. But the light does become coherent so there is a diffraction pattern after the second slit. This is long recognized. Do the experiment.

    The rest of you comments have very little to do with the Hodge Experiment. The wave in the plenum is caused by the photon. The wave thus formed DOES NOT come through the slit , it is reflected off the mask.

    You commented that the Huygens model could explain the Hodge Experiment. I don't understand how. Please explain - I'd like to understand.

    photon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k

    As I understand, The Huygens model suggest each point in the slit radiates a wave. Therefore, a point on the higher intensity side of the slit should illuminate the entire width ( above and below the center) of the screen. The integration then forms the pattern. This implies both sides of the screen should have an (nearly) constant diffraction pattern.

    RE: your cosmic redshift video, I saw lots of hand waving, where is the data calculation. There is lots of redshift, should be able to do the calculations.

    Hodge

    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

    The light from a candle is incoherent. when passed through a slit or pinhole it becomes coherent. As i said in the video, Coherence produces a diffraction pattern when passed through a slit. But light from a candle is incoherent. as I said in the video, there a 3 sources of coherence, for far away light sources (stars), form a lasar, and from the 1st slit in young's experiment. Incoherent light impinging on a mask with a pinhole produces an image not a diffraction pattern it's called a pin hole camera.

    It's obvious you have not listened or understood the video. Otherwise you'd know the photon is the source on the direction (Bohm) wave. When the photon is between the mask and the screen, there is no wave coming through the slit to the photon. Huygens requires a wave passing through the slit.

    But you don't have to accept the reflection. In that case you have to say where the directing wave comes from such that the diffraction pattern reflects photon's energy. This is the Major, major problem with the Bohm interpretation.

    You really don't understand the accepted physics or the problems with it. There is a reason accepted physics says Young's experiment is the whole key to QM.

    Hodge

    Dear Jackson,

    Very good essay, you have gone into depths of quantum mechanics very nicely....

    I am just quoting few of your words just for further discussion sake ....

    1. ..... "No conclusion is possible as to whether or not a cosmic architect created our or any universe"...

    ................ Why we should think this way sir? Just have a look at my essay, where I have discussed about birth and death of individual galaxies, independent any other galaxies. Why should we think of some creator......?

    2........ "It is possible to model mechanisms producing aims and intent algorithmically and give similar architecture to AI, but a computer as complex as a brain may be required for useful predictions.".........

    ....... More complex computer structures like super computers , single bit computers which work like individual neurons which can simulate Neural networks of brain are available...... The main problems faced are, how to use them and software development and programming. Another problem is they are very expensive. Some of the programming developed on them can be done very easily on your PC, and many times more accurately .........

    Best wishes for your essay

    =snp.gupta

      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

      Peter, thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

      You taught me quite about bit AI. I had not heard of Propositional Dynamic Logic. Apparently you work in the field and I will definitely look into some of the issues since it relates to what is happening at neural junctions. Also, I enjoyed your presentation of spin. I had to look up Bloch spherical vectors. If I understand your paper, you have found a classical explanation for half spin based on rotation in 3 dimensions. Spin and its associated wave function determine whether a particle is a fermion or boson. I wonder if signals that add in a neural network are boson like until they reach a particular junction that determines the result. Multiplication at nodes may addition of logarithms until a different kind of junction is reached (your neural hub?). I recall your red sock green sock paper and its relationship to EPR. As I mention in my paper, we need to know a lot more about hidden connections. Overall your paper was excellent. I agree that reaching conclusions regarding intent is a stretch for science with our current level of thinking. One thing that continues to bother me is how we all think so differently.

      Gene Barbee

        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

        Gene,

        Thank you kindly. I think our work knits together perfectly.

        I think the fermion/boson description is flawed as I've now shown the two (Maxwells) momenta within OAM can produce both so called 'states' purely subject to interaction angle with respect to the polar axis.

        The problem was that QM never did consider what a particle might 'look like' so blinded itself to the logical derivation.

        I think our different ways of thinking is at once our greatest strength and weakness. If we all though identically we'd be clones and not evolve at all! The key then should be to better organise our thinking to rationalise input more consistently, then allowing us to communicate better.

        I'm very glad we both rationalise well already so 'are on the same wavelength'. On occasions I wonder if I'm on the right planet!

        Peter,

        Thanks for an interesting read. The three concept rule is new to me. It was also unknown to my college professors. Perhaps they thought it was a minima rather than a maxima:-)

        FYI, Milo Wolff presented a visualization similar to what you present to explain QM spin. The key requirement is that there must be rotation about two axes.

        Regarding genetic mutations, I had assumed that mutations were somehow related to the decay of carbon 14. Spin alignment is a less destructive alternative.

        All in all, a good effort.

        Best Regards and Good Luck,

        Gary Simpson

          Gary,

          Thanks. And a big thanks also for the heads up on Milo Wolff. I've now visited his page, sent an Email and ordered his book! I've had massive self doubts that such a simple but important discovery hadn't been spotted by ANYBODY before, so it's great relief to have it ('pre'!) confirmed.

          Wolff doesn't seem to extend to the rest of classic QM yet from what I've seen so I hope our work each informs the others.

          I had a first speed read of your own essay this week and found some nice harmonics with my own thoughts, (the harmonics theme is one I've discussed in past papers). But I stumbled over the generous scattering of equations, conventionally frowned on for these essays. It doesn't help that I'm by no means a mathematician (though I did a while ago see and agree the physical analog of quaternions).

          I nonetheless earmarked it in the top grouping for a second and deeper read and look forward to discussing any points emerging.

          Best wishes

          Peter

          Jo

          Yes, I see it. It did take rather a long time but not long ago I became quite comfortable with the concepts of infinity and eternity.

          Best

          Peter