Your discrete plasma field is a good intuition, but you still seem to conform to continuous space and time. Once you go discrete, space and time are no longer continuous. The causal set approach for a granulated universe has many good barmaid stories...it is just one thing after another...yada, yada, yada...

Steve,

Thanks, but I'm not sure where I've gone smooth. I confess I never really understood causal sets theory and didn't see how could be 'fractal'. To explain, In the 'Discrete Field' Dynamic all apparent 'smooth' Lagrangian behaviour is granular at the next scale down, naturally recursive, rather like the amplituhedron. Rotation is what DEFINES a discrete state or 'granule'

So; The 'vortex' state of a (Majorana?) fermion ('electron/positron pair') as the smallest 'condensed matter' state, is made of many smaller vortices, the 'pressure' distribution of which around the fermion (etc) is what we call 'gravity'. I feel that's more in line with granularity than continuity. No?

If you feel the two can combine for something greater than the sum... do advise.

Peter

Peter Jackson

I would like to discuss with you regarding the conflict between Potier and Michelson in 1882 that I describe on my blog. I have given you the blog address above. Write on my blog.

John-Erik

    Hi Peter...

    No problem...

    Have posted all my FQXi "What is fundamental?" commo on-line in UQS Social Media and Forums Log http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSSMF.php

    The short of it:

    [(Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion)] NOT = (No Accelerating Expansion)

    (UQS Emission to Shell 5) = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion)

    IF (Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) AND (Accelerating Expansion Verifiable to UQS Emission Shell 5) AND [(Accelerating Expansion) NOT = Constant)] THEN (Recursive Entity Interaction Density) NOT = Constant

    IF (Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) AND (Accelerating Expansion Verifiable to UQS Emission Shell 5) AND [(Accelerating Expansion) = Constant)] THEN (Recursive Entity Interaction Density) = Constant

    (UQS Emission to Shell 5) NOT = [(Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) = Constant)]

    (UQS Emission to Shell 5) = [(Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) NOT = Constant)]

    Thanks Peter for the Energy to keep me "Going On", I am putting down tracks... i.e. I code all visual mapped UQS conditionals/differentials, for UQS "calculus", as digital logic statements rather than symbolic equations.

    S. Lingo

    UQS Author/Logician

    www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

    Sue,

    Keep up the good work. I almost understood that comment! If redshift is simply explainable by the increasing orbital paths on the Shrodinger spherical (causal) wavefront) at the DFM would imply, then that element will be constant (if subject to refractive perturbations in between). Of course there would still be both red and blue shifts from recession and approach, as we find locally.

    I'm pretty sure I gave you links to my paper & video deriving the related cyclic cosmology (a scaled up quasar jet distribution) and helical path expansion, but if not, here they are;

    www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_WITH_BARS

    VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift

    very best

    Peter

    Peter Jackson

    My opinion is that Poitier (and others) made a terrible mistake 1880. I am sorry that you do not have a clear opinion on this point.

    Best regards from ________________ John-Erik Persson

    John-Eric,

    You may be right, but I said all I could on the blog. Sorry couldn't find anything to support 'infalling ether', only 'dragged frames'.

    I found Lodges 'glass disc' path error rather more serious as it led to Lorentz dismissing Stokes model, bringing confusion and the need for SR. Had Lodge used the correct observer frame he'd have found the true (Poynting) vector and scientific advance wouldn't have 'parked up' for 100 years!

    Ce'st la vie

    Best

    Peter

    Peter Jackson

    Of course you could not find anything. Potier made an error 136 years ago, and it was not discovered that he made an error and it was instead Michelson that was right.

    Regards _______________ John-Erik Persson

    7 months later

    Hi Peter Jackson.

    You remember you talked about collaboration.... Did you think any further about it???

    =snp

    9 days later

    Hi snp

    I haven't as I'm buried under work and blogging. The DFM is very successful, but as always ANY departure from doctrine is near impossible to disseminate!

    How good is your mathematics, i.e. finding Lagrangians etc.? I'm told a more mathematical approach might penetrate. Do yu recall my 'Law of the reducing middle' and extension of the rules of brackets? (All in the essays).

    Peter

    6 years later

    Hi Peter,

    I'm coming to this late, but I would like to know how you deal with the fact that an electron would have to revolve at superluminal speeds to generate the observed angular-momentum. As I understand it, it was this problem that made physicists abandon the rotating sphere model in the first place.

    Thanks
    J

    Write a Reply...