Is Reality Digital Or Analog? Physics Is Undecided - A Beautiful Universe ToE Offers An Answer by Vladimir F. Tamari

Vladimir

An excellent and interesting paper, which I thought I'd commented on earlier but seemingly not, and have just re-read. It confirmed the reasons why I 'bookmarked' it, as I very much agreed with most of your background sections, and there are some close parallels, but then also the odd major divergence, in your beautiful model. Well done and thanks for the interesting view. I'll try to catch up with your papers.

I hope you'll read mine if you haven't or perhaps we've already communicated there? I believe I may show you a few options to the directions you've gone which you may appreciate considering (if you haven't) as they seem to open the way to falsifiable solutions. You may also enjoy a short 'logical conclusions' paper with photographic evidence!

There are a number of consistent essays looking very strong and 'real', currently led by Edwin, which you seem to also be very close to (Ragaza, Parry, Spoljaric, Castel, Wittelman etc etc -see strings).

Best wishes

Peter

PS. loved the drawings too.

Ooops, that was 'Mittleman!', plus Dan Bendict. I'd expect you may like them all. Do give me feedback on mine (if you haven't!) Too many essays and ageing brain cells!

Peter

:) it's interesting all that.they turn thus they are .....proportional furthermore with the volumes and their rotations....interesting these similarities , interesting.

Steve

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for reading my essay. I have just done the same to yours. Your figures and your ideas are beautiful. We agree on some points, such as local realism, and I think we view particles in much the same manner. We also take seriously "Roger Penrose' call to 'start all over'." And we agree, I think, on the need for an 'ether' equivalent. And I think we also agree on Bell's Theorem: I too reject "probability as a real property of particles".

We are somewhat complementary in our approaches. If I interpret you correctly, you begin with electro-magnetics and 'derive' gravity therefrom. I begin with only a gravitational field and 'condense' locally real particles, including charged particles, which leads to electro-magnetics. Also, although our particles seem related, you place them on a lattice, whereas mine are embedded in a field. Thus there is overlap between our theories, but also points of divergence.

Peter remarked on 'aging brain cells', so I will remark on your association with Buckminster Fuller. As a teenager growing up in a backwater, all of the 'old people' I knew were 'simple' in that they never said anything that I had not either heard before or thought of before. So I concluded that your mind, like your muscles, degrades with age. But one day I saw Buckminster Fuller (age 76) on TV who said a number of things that I had never thought of! I then realized that one does not have to become simple and predictable with age.

Keep thinking new thoughts, in honor of Bucky.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

EUREKA FROM BELGIUM HAHAHAH SPHERES AND THE SPHERE DEAR ALL IT IS THE REALITY.

Dear Tamari insert the volumes, they are proportionals as the velocities of rot. with mass ....now you must consider that an ultim entanglement possesses a specific finite serie of entangled spheres, where thje center is the biggest spherical volume(as our center of our universal sphere), now you must consider a precise number. In a BEC probably the space, the light, the mass are the same , thus it's these rotations which imply the rule.If now you insert two main senses of rotation , you shall difefrenciate the mass and the light easily.Considering the evolution, you can thus insert the fusion by volumes and the synchro and sortings also, thus the quantum number rests finite for this two stabilities, linear and gravitational.The space doesn't turn logically and the lattices evolve .....thus of course the volumes of the entangled spheers are essential. Let's take thus the mass ,the volume , the vel.of rot.spin. and finally the velocity of rotation orbital.we can take a generality for the equation, constant=mvV ...mv1v2V..for all physical spheres generalized by a sphere of whole.now you can correlate with the thermodynamic and the quantum number and the decrease of volumes, a little as our cosmological spheres, indeed a star is bigger than a planet....the logic is universal.The velocities of rotations are proportionals with mass if and only if dear tamari the volumes,spherical are considered with the biggest rationality, deterministic.The road towards our walls is logic with reals as numbers.

Ps I am persuaded that this number is the same than our cosmological real number of spheres! and the serie is relativistically speaking the same.The number is important even for the light and its encoding by informations of rotations and frequences.That implies that the number during the fusion mass light of evolution doesn't change, ...tus the increases of mass is relevant with the volumes and the density.A little as our cosmolgical spheres, the number is finite and they evolve by increase of mass due to this fusion of light.If we consider the lattices as our cosmological spheres, you shall see the no mass of the space due to the not rotation, and the no mass of light due to an other main sense than the gravitational stability, these the linearity is relevant differenciating the sense.If you insert in the equation of Einstein E=mc² the speed of rot. spinal and the speed of rot.orbital of the whole of the spherical ultim entanglement you shall have E=(c²o²s²)m....that give logically with a time operator correlated with rotating spheres the maximum energy in all things at all scales......in a pure 3D.

Regards

Steve

Tom

Imagine that two of your nodes are fixed about a pure discrete empty space particle. The nodes are of the Planck length size containing mass/energy and spin in place. The spin also drags and spins the empty space between the nodes. When an empty space spins about a point in its 3-space center, it can do so and maintain its continuity with the rest of space. While doing so, it can transmit its anguler/spin momentum to the adjacent pure discrete empty node space particles without the nodes being displaced. Would this provide an emperical explanation for your transmission lattice mechanism? You would have continuity and discreteness existing simultaneously. If you imagine that the Planck length space is another curled up dimension, then your lattice struct-ture would be pure 3-space that appears to transmit light momentum across empty space.

Guilford Robinson

Vladimir

I'm sorry, I put Tom's name instead of youts, I was thinking of your article and didn't realize that I had written the wrong name until after I sent it.

Guilford Robinson

Vladimir,

Well argued, Vladimir.

"There are many versions of reality, depending on the person, animal or robot who experiences it."

My argument is the opposite of the above. I believe it is analogue and exists independent of beings who observe it. My details to support it are meager compared to yours.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

Hi Vladimir,

Thanks it's nice.In fact I said that the lattices between spheres are probably universally linked with the evolution, thus of course the space without rot.between cosmological spheres change and evolve on the arrow of time and its entropy.

For my publications, probably this year, at this momment I have some contacts in Belgium for the creation of the International Humanistic Sciences Center, I will create jobs thus of course I will be more professional.And of course I will publish many many pappers about my theory of Spherization a GUT TOE of Roating spinning spheres..........QUANTUM SPHERES.....COSMOLOGICAL SPHERES...UNIVERSAL SPHERE(unique of course this universe)the rotations and quantum number and their volumes with the finite number and it's ok.

For the fusion m/hv it's simple the mass polarises the light simply ...synchro sorting.........mass, volumes, vel.of rot.......thus you shall understan,d why the number must rest finite for a concrete increase of mass due to this evolution, coded intrinsically in the gravitational stability.The density and mass changes thus also their rotations and the volumes probably, the number doesn't change .....hope I am clearer.

Good luck also dear Vladimir, beautiful country the Japan, so creative this country and so skilling.

Steve

Hi Vladimir,

in a BEC light and space are the same , the gravity of course possesses a number finite for the entanglement but the add and multiplication is interesting and possible, see the work of Basudeba.I ask me one thing,the gravity has 1 the entanglement or a superimposing of entanglement , in fact it's difficult that ....the light and the space are the same, the gravity also but apparently due to evolution and biological or mineral complexification in 3D,this gravity has this number increased, or the other possibility is that the volumes of gravity increases....in all case it's a big unknown.The real combinations of spheres are so complexs but rest in 3D.

Regards

Steve

in fact if you see the light and its linearity and the mass and its gravitational stability....I see that as a male and a female , the light is for me the male and the mass the female in a simple point of vue....the fusion creates .....as a baby !

The Universe is thus an act of pure love and we evolve, thus of course we improve and we optimize.In logic the others spheres bigger as BH ...towards the center .....is in the same logic or rotations and polarizations.

Regards

Steve

hope you are well in Japan, it's a big earthquake, it's sad .

Take care

Steve

Dear Vladimir,

I'm glad to see that you, your family and friends are OK. My prayers go out to the people of Japan.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe