Eugene,
I read your essay. Good work.
I especially like your "particles from a field" idea in page 5. This is also quite similar to my own idea, albeit my idea and my descriptions of my idea have been pretty much according to the idea of motion transformations.
I think we are approaching points of agreement in our views. But I disagree with the ideas that are still tainted with the "curving space" idea. I understand "curvature" as "acceleration" which is purely of the idea of motion transformations.
You say:
"We need a final assumption: that the curvature of space is limited. Without a limit, space can curve in upon itself to produce infinitely dense mass points -- limits prevent this. Electrons and quarks, appear as limits to the curvature of C, and black holes as limits to the curvature of G. Limiting phenomena are defined by mass, charge, and spin ... When the C-field reaches the limit of curvature, the vortex wall is a mass current loop, inducing a secondary C-field circulation and converting to a torus topology..."
Let me clarify a little bit just how I understand this part of your essay regarding the final assumption that "the curvature of space is limited." Of course, this assumption implies that before this assumption there are the assumptions that there are "vectors of space" and that "space can be curved" and hence that space is subject to transformations -- e.g., the motion or curvature of space.
I of course disagree with the idea of the "curvature of space", since my idea is about motion (which is represented by a vector) and the motion of motions (which is represented by interacting vectors). My idea differs from your idea quite a bit.
My idea is that motions interact and may be resolved as particulate mass. When motions achieve the torus 'topology', it achieves the particulate configuration. This is clearly among the suggestions from the relativistic equation.
m=mo(1-v2/c2)-1 approx. mo(1+v2/c2)
m=mo(c2/c2+v2/c2)
In this relativistic equation, the term c2/c2 suggests that particulate mass is motion with the luminal speed in a 'rotational' configuration; the relativistic equation also suggests that mass increases as additions to the luminal speed occur. These suggestions can be extended to the idea of all the masses in the observable cosmos being already at the luminal speed and always breaching that particularization or discretization boundary.
The form of the relativistic equation actually suggests that in order to have mass-increases, there has got to be the seed-mass. In other words, without the seed-mass the process that effects the curvature of the motions that bring about mass-increases will not occur.
The relativistic equation therefore suggests that a cosmos must have always existed with the ever-increasing total mass and with a general mass density possibly maintained because of the expansion of the cosmos. Essentially, there is the suggestion that incident condensations are balanced by incident attenuations...
Another beauty of the relativistic equation is the fact that it yields a total increase in terms of mass-energy with half going into the mass formation and with the other half going into the cosmic background radiation. The fact that, for whatever value of mass plugged into the equation, the equivalent energy comprising half of the total increase falls right smack on the energy curve of the cosmic background radiation supports this idea. In my view, this totally kills the big bang theory.
On another note, the torus 'topology' of motion suggests how polarity (the electromagnetic dipoles) occur. The suggestion is that the electric and magnetic are the established current or flow of fundamental motions around the torus. In accordance with the relativistic equation, the established flow of motions are necessarily fed by an infinite vector field (e.g., what others call the 'vector space' or 'degrees of freedom') and could only be balanced by either a replication process and/or a radiation process in order for the torus to have the sustained quantized state similar to the original.
The 'entanglement' of a torus of a given spin and a torus of an opposite spin can actually be visualized as like a stacked donut pair with either the in-bound flows at the 'pole' and the out-bound flows at the 'equator' or vice versa...
I think the relativistic mass-energy equation is the candidate formula for a TOE. Because it meets the conceptual and phylisophical requirements. And because it appears that all possible particulate constructs can also be accounted for by the values of v2/c2 in the equation's approximation series. (Although I have not yet verified this.) Presumably, the kinematic inputs should be equal to the outputs over the seed-mass value.
Regarding the application of motion, in 1920 Einstein stated:
"We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
Einstein essentially dropped the idea of an aether as the medium of motion and replaced it with the idea of space "endowed with physical qualities" as the medium of motion. But, to say "curvature of space" or "transformation of space" is an inappropriate fusion (and hence 'confusion') of the fundamentals in nature. The idea of the curvature or accelleration of motion is sufficient in itself and satisfies the requirements of pure kinematics. The focus need only be on motion itself as the fundamental essence involved in the transformations. There is no need to regard any motion or transformation of space...
This is among the reasons why I have proponed a rather new idea regarding the space-occupying substance and medium of motion that I also call the 'aether.' This idea of an aether is somewhat similar but rather different from the idea of the luminiferous aether in classical mechanics. My idea of an aether meets the requirements for the idea regarding space being the essence that gets occupied and the idea of a space-occupying substance/medium that mediates the occurrence of motions of whatever velocities/speeds -- e.g., subluminal, luminal, and superluminal. My aether offers 'resistance' only according to and in the form of whatever underlying definitions of motions wrought in the medium -- and this means that the aethereal substance is always rendered the definitions by the essence of motion. I can therefore appropriately say "motions in the aether," "waves in the aether", "curvature in the aether" but not "motion of the aether" nor "aether waves" nor "curvature of the aether"; and hence, I can appropriately say "motions of motions", "waves of motions", "curvature of motions"... This new idea of an aether as the medium of motion satisfies the technical requirements for a perfect medium because it allows all the vectors of motion -- e.g., the linear motions, the curvatures of motion, the waves, the fields, the forces, etc. -- to be 'imbedded' and to 'carry' without the medium itself being technically confused as an essence of motion...
I think Einstein encountered the difficulty with the idea of the aether because he argued that superluminal velocity is impossible, and also because he did not consider the averaged-zero motion (as per the null-result of the Michelson-Morley experiment) as actually an essence of motion.
Rafael
