Ridiculous Simplicity by Peter Jackson

a physical sense, no but frankly I am dreaming there ,if you cannot encrcle this DM and these BHs and these sphères, why you try to utilise these sphères ? for what Peter, you do not need recognising? me yes I need recognisings because since that I have shared this theory of spherisation on FQXI, I see that many now speak about these sphères and do not respect me , you think it is normal Peter ? not it is not logic and frankly I thought you were a friend, not a plagiarist discriminating.

You are not general, ask concrete questions abut this equation, if this matter exists so it is produced by something but perhaps you prefer the MOND? It is ironical there Peter, the jumble of words like you say are logic and rational , if they exist these particles, this DM so they are also encoded in nuclei.Are you sure you encircle this universe and its laws lol ?because speak is one thing, understand an other Peter,Well, just for you now I am going to analyse all your papper and I am going to discuss here and write a lot , just for you Peter. sPHERICALLY YOURS LOL

I am sorry Peter , I thought that you could understand in fact what is the real aether, what is this dark matter not baryonic and what is this quantum weakest force, but unfortunately, you cannot encircle these things.Sorry to have thought that yes you could.Make a jumble of mixings in a spherical electromagntic way, it is better indeed for you.The innovant things, really are not for you.

Ok now Like I am here to open your mind, I am going to re-explain my eqaution because you have not understood, E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² .m(b) is the mass baryonic you know this mass with c² and m(nb) is the mass non baryonic, you know this Dark matter which have big probablmilities to exist.Now if you cannot encircle whait is l , their linear velicity like c the linear velocity of photons, so there is a big problem there Pter, you must make an other passion than Theoretical physics, but it is just a suggestion of course, of course that is going to increase your vanity and in logic you arer going to be obliged to answer with odd words.Now if my reasoning is correct about the spherisation with quantum and cosmological spherical volumes Inside this universal 3D sphere, wo you must also encircle that if these particles of DM exists so they are produced by something, I see only one solution, the BHs.If now you cannot encircle what is the aether , you know this field from God like in the 1D field of strings or the muminiferous aether of eisnetin, so still make an other passion.Now my aether is gravitational p^roducing these particles from this cosmological central sphere, and we see that God Is connected with all quantum singularities.Now if you cannot encircle also that like the photons these particles are encoded in nuclei and that this standard model is encircled by this gravitation, there is a big problem, and really make an other passion than theroretical physics and indeed it is very very ridiculous.If you want speak about sphères also and about the spherisationn optimisation of this universal sphere, please make it well Peter , sorry but I am frank, I thought that you could help for my publications, but no you cannot.

Best that said and good lmuck in this contest.SPHERICALLY yours Jedi of thr Sphere lol

PJ

At your request I offer one questionable statement you make. You write

The Dirac electrons 4 spinors are equivalent to Maxwell's linear & curl states handed, inverse with each other over 90o and reversing over 180o.

I do not agree with that statement if I understand its intention The 4 elements of Dirac refer to two separate particles (the electron and the positron with different charges) and two polarization's or spin orientations that each particle enjoys. The connection of 4 aspects of Maxwell EM refer to a different set of properties. Both systems have 4 elements but I find the assumption that they are related by that fact is a stretch.

JK

Thanks :)

I have had your file open the whole day...as also some other Days...

The sub-quantum' or root function is beginning to see light. It is the monopole as instance, as a bending loop, rotated. The most surprising (or not surprising at all?) is it is an solitonic expansive state. What cause the expansion? Maybe just the vanishing complexity? It must go into i-World, as I don't understand the 'annihilation' aspect at all...

"the Higgs process or fermion pair production 'popping up' from nowhere' implies a smaller perhaps more fundamental 'sub quantum' scale of rotations as a 'sub-ether'. but we principally constrain ourselves to the testable realm and scale of condensed matter. This domain limit is also the lower end of electromagnetic (EM) coupling."

This is what I talk of too. But the scenario you ask for is beyond this, and reversed actually, see the finnish scientist as instance the links here https://people.aalto.fi/index.html?profilepage=isfor#!vladimir.eltsov

There is btw. very Little discussion about a non-Higgsian material emergence today.

About motion I would suggest harmonic oscillation as one good candidate to explore in GR.

https://www.google.fi/search?q=orbital+angular+momentum+Bloch+sphere&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw4Z7usLDZAhVJsKQKHQUTBSsQBQgkKAA&biw=1280&bih=855#

On the vector model of angular momentum, Peter Saari, 2016 fig 2. you see if you have it on a Bloch sphere, you get Three rotations.... hope you can open it.

The problem with Bob and Alice is the assupmption the entanglement is broken by gravity, but at the same time gravity cannot break it otherwise.... maybe an informational theoretic approach would be fine? The head/tail approach is like coin flipping and has Little information, you need something more complex, and I have thought a bit about the Three-states. Can they be entangled? They should?

Also amplitude is an important factor, at least in the semiconductors. It can maybe give some flip-flopping?

I see you have the same problem as me, too Little space, but we do as well as we can. Your text reminds me of someone, Mr S.

Thanks, it would be interesting to talk more with you.

Ulla Mattfolk.

Thanks for the encouragement -- yes that is the way to do it Peter -- Shockingly (neither of us seem to mind shocks) I falsify Cartesian 'wire frames' and substitute planes forming enclosures, which seems to fit your schema. Each plane is a near/far field transition (or LT).

Yes planes (or 2-D areas) that are enclosed is the ticket -- that is the basic idea.

I'm writing up the technical version (Thanks to Armin and Edwin for their input) which is all maths -- which has whole heaps of diagrams to help people work out what a S sedenion in abstract algebra is, the sedenions form a 16-dimensional noncommutative and nonassociative algebra over the reals, I actually draw a S as an enclosed area and then I can draw O Octonians and then H quaternions (8-D) and then C then R then N all as areas. Which is what are you saying in the above quote.

Each plane is a near/far field transition that is shown in the diagrams as well. Thanks for the email address when it is ready I will send you a copy Yours Harri.

I will send it off and I will look over your links to other essays. Harri -- go the new revolution

Dear Peter,

reading your essay, I appreciate your idiosyncratic efforts to come up with "ridiculously simple" concepts that explain and unite a number of phenomena in different fields of physics.

But I have trouble to see what your main idea, or main claim, really is. You are listing many detailed facts in several different fields of physics, but it would have helped to build these into a more coherent message or conclusion. For example, you mention 10 axioms on page 4, but you never refer to them later.

Also, I wasn't sure how to interpret your QM section. Are you claiming there to give a local realist model of a singlet state? We know due to Bell that this is impossible. What is the point that you are trying to make with your explanations in these two paragraphs?

Thanks, and best wishes,

Markus

Peter,

You asked: ...(copied to mine)

«I'm interested in why & how the motions of larger bodies further away are assumed to be a different case to smaller closer bodies».

«Surely there aren't two different 'types' of gravity?».

Answer: «there are no two types of gravity».

There is the only remote mechanism in the Universe for forming the force of interaction between the elements of matter, which is realized as a result of the interaction of the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves at the common frequencies of the parametric resonance (entanglement effect).

This quantum mechanism of gravity is shown in a photo of phenomena observed in outer space (essay 2017) https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806.

On the photo https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1MvF-AefpMmNWJ2MGJkRmJvR00/ two interacting large bodies are shown which, using a multitude of toroidal gravitational waves, move small elements of Saturn's rings (their moving is an indicator of the action of force between bodies) https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/4755/?category=images. It should be noted that there are no toroidal gravitational waves directly connecting the bodys. Toroidal gravitational waves interact with each other only at Lagrange points.

Similarly, with the help of toroidal gravitational waves, the Earth and the Moon interact, and the ocean tides are indicators of their interaction

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hzn3q0vZVToxOMVFkwGsRlOxnNeb9OiY/.

Orbital toroidal gravitational waves are formed due to parametric resonance in the medium of the physical vacuum (these are soliton waves), which minimize the force of interaction between bodies in a very rigid superfluid medium of the physical vacuum.

Ie, any force leads to the formation of toroidal gravitational waves aimed at minimizing the force, including minimizing the inertia force. Therefore the force of attraction of the Moon to the Earth is minimized, and the law of gravitation of Newton is unfair for both stars in galaxies and for orbital bodies.

Those. The moon is in orbit in the potential well of gravitational fundamental interaction and is not attracted to the Earth. All fundamental interactions have a potential stability pit as a strong interaction.

For example, no one uses the law of gravitation of Newton to calculate the ephemeris of planets and satellites. It is impossible to explain complex trajectories of the orbital motion of bodies without quantum reformation of toroidal gravitational waves. On a photo of rings of Saturn https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/5512_IMG004512.jpg

depicts the principle of the formation of a complex trajectory of the orbital motion of the small bodies of the rings of Saturn under the action of toroidal gravitational waves of two gravitationally interacting satellites of Saturn. And here is showed, complicated moving of the Pioneers https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1MvF-AefpMmVXJfWjF1VF9JaVU/ .

However, the mechanism of minimizing the force with the help of toroidal gravitational waves is not ideal. No ideality is caused by the absorption coefficient in the medium of the physical vacuum (the Hubble parameter).

In order that the Moon does not fall from the orbit, due to the imperfection of the mechanism of minimizing the force of its attraction to the Earth, on the Moon constantly acts the force that pushes the Moon in orbital toroidal gravitational wave with an equivalent speed of 1 km/s (the first cosmic velocity of the Moon). Therefore, on the surface of the Moon, a gravitational potential is formed equal to the square of the equivalent speed of 1 km/s.

A constant force is also acting on the Earth, it pushes forward it on orbit around the Sun by a stream of physical vacuum in a toroidal gravitational wave, with an equivalent velocity of 8 km/s (this was discovered by Michelson and Morley). Accordingly, a gravitational potential equal to the square of the equivalent velocity of 8 km/s (the first cosmic velocity of the Earth) is formed on the Earth's surface.

For example, it was found that the Sun moves relative to the propagation medium of microwave radiation at a speed of 369 km/s. To minimize the resistance force in a rigid environment of physical vacuum, the Sun forms a huge gravisphere, several light-years in size. The force of the deceleration of the sun in the medium of the physical vacuum is determined by the Hubble parameter, as is the anomalous inhibition of the Pioneers and the red shift of the photons. The entire energy of the braking of the solar system is concentrated in the Sun according to the principle of the action of the heat pump. Through the force of deceleration of the Sun, its radiation power is easily calculated.

Thus, one of the most fundamental parameters in the universe is the energy dissipation coefficient (Hubble parameter) in the medium of the physical vacuum, which determines all the parametric processes in the universe. The stars in the Universe are shining, due to the dissipation of photon energy in the medium of the physical vacuum.

You also asked:

«i.e. there's no explicit proof of the 'curved space-time' hypothesis in the LIGO finding. Is that fair?»

Instead of curvature of space-time, there is a derivative of spatial coordinates in time. Equivalent of "'curved space-time" is the variable speed of propagation of gravitational interaction.

For example, on the surface of the Earth, the velocity of propagation of the gravitational interaction is 8 km/s less than at the periphery of the Earth's gravisphere. Therefore, the elements (gravitons) of toroidal gravitational waves (similarly to the coronal loops on the Sun) are accelerated in bodies, when exiting the Earth (or are decelerated in bodies, at the entrance to the Earth). Thus, the reactive force of attraction of bodies is formed.

In the Earth's magnetosphere often occur conversion powerful toroidal gravitational waves. In this case, there are intense https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1MvF-AefpMmQnJaUXdOTEo4NW8 bursts of electromagnetic radiation over a wide frequency range and recorded the characteristic signals of gravitational waves LIGO project, that unreasonably taken as the signals from the "binary pulsars".

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Pete,

you are a yachtsman. Your running rigging is laid with a right hand twist of left handed strands. Your sheets are laid left handed of right hand strands, because most people are right handed and will spool a line onto a winch clockwise, and so a left handed lay tails off the winch in fair manner. But both lays are counter-torsional and intended since Xerxes' bridge engineers, to reduce stretch and prevent the strands from untwisting and the fibers from then pulling apart.

So until physicists can agree on a realistic model of what a *photon* IS, a singlet state is an imaginary numerical playmate.

Worm and parcel

with the lay.

Turn and serve

the other way.

Best jrc

Thanks Pete.

Sounds like your channel run was a lot of fun. Congrats!

Yeh, I would flemmish my garden hose, before renting, for fast tangle free drawing. There is a lot of accumulated wisdom in preindustrial arts. And when it comes to deduction of possible physical form at quantum level, I don't think we can discount macroscopic natural forms. I think with caution that we can find transcendence of scale by shapes. I once built a scale model of an architectural design which was a stack of octahedrons with the equilateral face of one module on the horizontal so that the next module reversed the orientation of vertex. It goes 4pi, and gives a triple helix for both hand torsions. I often wonder if that isn't associated with magnetic equilibrium.

The definition of *photon* is so blasted ambiguous that there are very many who immediately say. "Is Not!" But we cannot even say that the Planck Quanta isn't really a composit value of work. If we take e=hf literally, then each photon is a single quanta waveform, and to register any measurable effect it must accumulate to a system value. So intensity becomes confused with rapidity and number. So hey, maybe a photon is really built up of quanta strands, twisted and laid up like a short piece of rope? I think when it comes to scales of macroscopic Bell-Aspect experiments, that might illustrate what we are dealing with. (It's a trick bulb, man! Keep your money off the bar!) Sorry, though. A couple pages to qualify each of 10 axioms is a bit much for my attention span.

But best of luck. I think it axiomatic myself, that for inertia to translate throughout a discrete energy quantity that some parameter must relate to the whole quantity of energy. And if that be density, than a small portion of the total energy existing at a constant density at a c^2 proportion to the total quantity, would quadraticly fit the bill. So a 'charge' quantity could have a center of inertia without having a greatest density that would be inelastic, as would a subluminal particle, if the quantity of energy was small enough. It would still be dense enough to react to magnetic fields orthogonally, and would be less resistant to length contraction and thus more easily accelerated towards c by inductance reactance. So your helical rationales would not lack an inertial center. Best wishes, jrc

Hi Peter,

This is one of the more readable and better-argued "there is no such thing as entanglement" papers I've seen, so that's a plus.

You have way too many ideas for a full assessment, since I'd have to track down a lot of your ideas, many of which are highly non-standard and so would take some time to learn.

I've already provided a quite long set of comments inspired by your notes on your essay, so I'll leave it at that with the above link for anyone interested. You triggered quite a few discussion of related topics, too, so anyone interested in my view on some of these topics can find quite a bit of info on that too at the above link.

Also, I owe you a "thank you!" for inadvertently helping be find a John Bell quote that I had forgotten or skimmed over long ago. Bell's intriguing take on this issue is highly relevant to my own computer modeling argument that you can have a distinguished-frame or even single-frame universe that nonetheless has exactly the same full and beautiful all-frames-are-equal symmetry of "standard" special relativity. Here's the Bell quote, for whatever it's worth:

Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics by John Bell, page 180: "As with relativity before Einstein, there is then a preferred frame in the formulation of the theory ... but it is experimentally indistinguishable20,21,22. It seems an eccentric way to make a world."

Again, thanks for a genuinely intriguing read and argument, and for your generosity in encouraging other essayists!

Cheers,

Terry

Thanks for your comment in my essay.

I rated your's some time ago. After my input, your essay was first place (a 10).

See you next year.

Hodge