In all the cases , we must find the real origin philosophical and the real origin of geometries, topologies, matters, fields and properties of matters.

The actual crisis inside our theoretical sciences community at my humble opinion is to only focus on photons, strings or points and this GR. So they consider god or not these photons like primoridal essence and after with the geometrical algebras and the fields , they play with the partitions in maths and numbers and also with extradimensions begining in 1D at this planck scale. But all this is an assumption, they consider the spacetime of this GR, the minkoski works or others and after they try to unify G c and h , the QFT and the GR. But if all this is not the truth philosophically and ontologically speaking, so they are in a kind of prison.

The utilise the flows like the ricci flow to explain these geometries or topologies but the 3D spheres too can be deformed in preserving the volumes if the qutrits and main codes are in this space vacuum made of sphere too of this DE. All can be too explained when the 3 main series of spheres merge together.

So all seems really a question of philosophy and primordial essence after all . The real question so about these Spheres is , are they primoridal these 3D spheres like a choice of this universe, mathematical accident or god, or are they emergent from these geometrical algebras in resume. Personally I believe that the 3D and the Spheres are the choice of this infinite eternal consciousness . The extradimensions so are not really necessary , we can rank the fields in considering the motions, rotations, oscillations vibrations of these Spheres , we can respect the 3D at all scales and we can consider this time simply like correlated with the motions of these spheres.

About the consciousness, that becomes relevant considering the main energy of this infinity in 0D creating this physicality. We have so deeper logics to add to this strabdard limited model , the quantum BHs farer than these protons and the fact that this space vacuum encoding these photons and this cold dark matter to create the ordinary baryonic matter can be relevant even for the consciousness. I have reached the quantum gravitation like this and the antimatter is better understood. It is simply due to fact that these photons and these cold dark matter are two opposite suystems considering the matter energy, the photons have more energy than mass and the cold dark matter have more mass than energy ,and the DE is the main codes.

That implies even a fith force that we cannot still reach and it seems maybe antigravitational. The quantum gravitation is simply a newtonian mechanics but it is not the force between protons and electrons, but between quantum BHs of the DE and positrons.....

I beleive that the theoretical sciences community can a little bit think beyond the box and this prison of photons, strings and GR. They can return at this old schools. The GR seems correct for observations but it is just a tool , nothing tells us that this GR and photons alone are the only one truth.

Stefan,

Not to worry, the notion just took me, I haven't any idea of fleshing it out. It just struck me that since Faraday and the orthogonal relationship discovered in electromagnetism, there has never been an observation where it doesn't hold and we have no idea why it exists. So where do oscillations come from ? It is like there is physically a symbiotic relationship between a cubical space and a round space. So here's a simple macroscopic two part system, a cheap toothbrush, that can translate uniform rotational motion into an oscillation of reciprocating motion at right angles. If it can be mechanically done, why wouldn't there be some foundational relationship that connects the orthogonal to the non-linear which supports the macro array of solenoids, mass spectrographs, scanning electron microscopes and television screens and etc. Our understanding of electromagnetism is deduced from macro observations and the present state of physics really doesn't yet have a comprehensive plan to explain how a material particle can exhibit differentiated fields. jrc

The point of that last post is unclear. I'm not trying to say the lengths can be found to be unequal, which is Einstein's revelation. But it is not a correct comparison:

a) Object reality, material actualization

b) Image realty, observation product, manifestation from sensory inputs

Hi Steve,

good questions about one can be curious to know the answers. Needless to say that i really have no clue how to finally answer them, but that does not mean that there are no answers. We can only see what the future brings and continue to think about every facet of them.

Hi John,

ah, now i got it.

I like your idea of a symbiosis between cubical space and round space, because cubes so nicely could illustrate Boolean logic with its adverse values whereas round things seem (to me) to more represent the consistency aspects of logics with its starting and endpoint that can be put anywhere on a circle.

Stefan,

thanks for the nod, it can go a lot of ways. But then for me, physics and especially theory in any field is not a search for an absolute answer, but more a quest for the right questions. best for now - jrc

"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the

principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define

as follows:-- 1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of

two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion." Einstein, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies-- However, because of the prescription of method a) This experiment is not comparison of two different EMr informed observations a) and b) for which 1. is relevant. Method a) puts material measuring rod directly upon the measured material rod. The length of this rod depends upon the atomic structure and properties of the material of the rods. b) the seen image of the rod depends also upon how the reflected EMr is received ( and anything affecting it before receipt.) In this experiment it is not just the co-ordinate system being changed. (A no no.)

Maybe I should have previewed, and said that better. Yes of course observer a) sees the marks on the rod -

but the rod isn't measuring a seen observation product.) b)'s rod is doing that.

Hi John,

I agree that what physics says about the microscopic realms is often not comprehensive if one compares it to the macroscopic realm. For achieving a more comprehensive picture (if possible) one either had to question our intuitive explanations that we think hold for the macro realm (for example forces, cause and effect) or question the current descriptions of the micro realm (or both). The relation between particles vs. differentiated fields is perhaps the most prominent example of an appearing antagonism that one wants to have explained. I do not exclude that there is a proper explanation that could solve what we currently perceive as an antagonism. So I do not say that your thoughts and questions about the nature and workings of electromagnetism are ill-defined. I consider these questions themselves to be absolutely legitimate. It is only that I cannot contribute much to come nearer to an answer for them. There are many attempts to explain what goes on at the micro level more realistically. Maybe one of them will succeed or at least already has convinced you. My attempt was to somehow figure out how such attempts would relate to our macroscopic feeling of free will and the fact that there is consciousness (and presumably some intelligence - whatever it is) in the world that can cause some differences in the course of events for the non-conscious parts of the world, compared to the counterfact that there wouldn't be any consciousness in the world.

In a) It is material juxtaposition of ends of the measured rod and marks on the material measuring rod that makes the measurement.

Important for understanding the nature of the paradoxes of Relativity. Different observers see different 'manifestations' according to how the EMr is received and amalgamated; (Individually produced products). Seen 'manifestations' are categorically different from material objects, There should not be the expectation they will necessarily appear like the corresponding material objects in form.

[ The material object does not have a time dimension, the observation product does-which can lead to a deformed appearance when inputs to the observer at different times are amalgamated into the product.]

Re physics versus the upcoming COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow:

Let's not forget that physics models of the world say that people can have no genuine effect on the world. Physics models say that the laws of nature determine every number for every variable that represents every aspect of every outcome in the world.

According to physics, people are 100% a product of these laws of nature, i.e. people are mere epiphenomena that can only ever have the superficial appearance of responsibility for outcomes. Physics models say that the world is such that people can have no genuine responsibility for outcomes, and no genuine effect on the climate.

Physics says that the world is such that the laws of nature determine every number for every variable that represents people's own brains, hands, arms, legs and vocal cords. Physics says that the world is such that people can't assign any numbers to any of the variables that represent their own brains, hands, arms, legs and vocal cords.

So how could people be responsible, how could people have any effect on outcomes, if people can't assign numbers to their own variables? How could people have any effect on outcomes if it's the laws of nature and nothing but the laws of nature that are responsible for every number for every variable?

I hope that there will be some straight-talking physicists at the conference, soothing and reassuring the participants, and telling them not to worry, because physics models of the world say that whatever happens is inevitable: the laws of nature are responsible for every outcome, and people are mere epiphenomena that have no ability to have any effect on outcomes.

(But clearly, physics models of how the world works are wrong: the world is such that people ARE assigning numbers to their own variables.)

    Maybe it should be said that some material objects do have a 'time dimension' to their form (While Still being wholly existent at one time.) E.g. The cut trunk of a tree showing growth rings, Spatial position on the surface relates to a particular period of growth. Similarly other objects showing simple periodic growth such as a dipped candle or Gobstopper, un-contorted or otherwise disturbed sedimentary rock layers. These are exceptional. Development is often not spread evenly in a simple temporal-geometric relation. Material form also does not depend on relation to an observer.

    For observation products temporal/spatial-material origin of received signal and relation to the observer is (ignoring possible perturbation of signal) resulting in the geometric form of the product (seen wholly in the Present).

    I don't fully agree. While its true we construct similar observation product in the same environment, the product is not all there is. He is leaving out the mechanism of sight. In order to see, rather than just hallucinated product, reflected or emitted photons must be received and processed. A camera can stand in as the observer and will record a similar scene showing it is not hallucinations. The Moon really is there as source of EMR. That men can walk on it is pretty good evidence it is materially real. The observation product I generate using EMr input is neither there when I"M not looking nor materially real..

    Being seen wholly in the Present isn't a particularly helpful thing to say.-Observer generated spacetime images with semblance of objects are experienced in observer generated spacetime environment. The observer being a material object is not smeared out over time but is and has all parts existing (present tense) at the same time; Uni-temporal Now. This gives an unusual set structure that has all observer generated Virtual spacetime within Uni-temporal Object (material) reality space. The apparent higher dimensional spacetimes are within a singular lower dimensional space. I think this is strange and interesting.

    Here's some questions. Sets contain objects, Can the entirety of a seen Present qualify as an object or just individual experienced space-time (images of) objects? Likewise the object reality: instead of its entirety should just a single element such as one person be considered?

    This still puts higher dimensional experienced objects within the lower dimensional person set. If this is not allowed mathematically it makes experienced (images of) objects a special class of objects that can't be put into sets OR we have to pay attention to category and not combine or use together sets of observation product and set/sets of material objects. This will prevent the mathematical nonsense that the philosophical or metaphysical structure presents. Does there need to be a new mathematical rule for this situation, do existing rules have it covered or do we just allow and enjoy the paradox.