yusrob
Dear Robert,
with all my respects, here is why I consider your theory lacking of concrete things. The works of Jenny Lorraine Nielsen, it, is concrete mathematically and physically, it is a beautiful model. But you you assert and develop nothing with our actual physics and maths. Your assertions wich are assumptions are more philosophical and metaphysical than physical, you don t answer my arguments about Lorentz symmetry and his and that, you assert your ontology without proofs or developments. You treat matter as fundament, ok, but you don t define it physically , our actual physics is more than our old philosophies you know. You must correlate and define with the quantum fields, the spacetime geometry, the symmetries, the interactions, the energy, the momentum.....Do you know that our QFT is about excitations of fields , so matter is emergent , not the primary essence. In telling so that time equal matter it is non sense mathematically and physically , you assert time equal matter , but where are your equations, your dimensionalities, your measurement predictions, the mechanisms simply.
You must understand that we need operations and in our actual physics we separate time and matter because they are simply different concepts , so different rules and dimensions, .....
We formulates this matter and time with derivations, formulations like for the lorentz covariance , experiments,connections with our actual equations also. So you assert a philosophical theory without real developments. The relativity you know is important and we have constraints , you must learn the Lorentz invariance , the observer dependence, the spacetime and its properties. If you don t make this, so it is confusing because it is not physics but philosophical metaphysics. I make the same for my theory of spherisation, in the past many years ago I asserted metaphysical philosophical arguments, but in making like this you destroy your credibility inside this theoretical physics community, because this community is rigourous and professional, we can have assumtpions and theories but there is a kind of language and a kind of humility important for this credibility. And also the mathematical developments,
We can never assert assumptions not proved. We need observations, measurements, equations, predictions,experiments, mathematical developments......we need simply a concrete structure of the theory shared . The energy, the fields, the gauge symmetries,quantum states, the metric of this spacetime, the mechanisms, the dynamics,the renormalisations,the causalities, this and that, all this need concrete structures . Like Jenny has made for example in detailing mathematically the structures. Without this, your assertions are just philosophical words, you can speak about philosophy or ideas, but don t assert them if they are not developed and proved with concrete physics and maths. The symmetries and interactions I repeat and insist are important to rank the properties of particles, fields, energies, mass, spin, .......If you had made for example a lagrangian with fields equations, invariances, a hilbert space structures, predictions, or with geometrical algebras for the tensors, vectors, scalars with associativity, commutativity, non commutativity , this and that with the Lie works, Hopf works or others, I could understand but no you have not made it, you assert a theory without developments. We cannot speak in absolutes when they are assumptions.
Regards
