[Mr. Scientist]

WHERE TOO

[Vern (OP)]

More than millions. We are talking around 10^10^123!!

Wild eh?

I wonder why it is that although we have known this for about 200 years and there is not even one piece of experimental evidence that it is not what is real; we still cling to magical ideas of reality.

[Mr. Scientist]

More than millions. We are talking around 10^10^123!!

Wild eh?

I wonder why it is that although we have known this for about 200 years and there is not even one piece of experimental evidence that it is not what is real; we still cling to magical ideas of reality.

We cling to them, not because of irrationality, or even mental capacity, but because we seem to see this unchanging pattern in our observations of the world. This pattern in a system in which a complexity continues to move (ordered systems of particles) all down to entropy.

It seems as though, that the complexity had to be designed, and have meaning, choice... because without any meaning, we would have no choice to make the speculations we make today, nor could we actually analyze the mind-blowing statistics of such a thing to be true. This is reality at its finest and damn hardest

[Vern (OP)]

Those are deep philosophical concepts. But back to our plan, can we add a postulate or a prediction to the realities we have thus far described?

Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

Postulate: Space and time are invariant.

Then those two postulates led us to understand that if that is reality, this must also be true. And then we have a notion that not only predicts the unification of all the forces. but demands it.

The most obvious thing that comes out of it is a clear understanding of just exactly why the universe appears to have a quantum nature and why it possesses the uncertainty we see. Our misunderstanding of those two things led us down the false path of Quantum theory that Shrodinger and Einstein warned us about.

[Mr. Scientist]

Good points made vern.

[Vern (OP)]

I think we need to add to the postulates. It seems that the speed of light is invariant and that notion is needed so that logic demands the conclusions we have suspected so far. So we have:

Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

Postulate: Space and time are invariant.

Postulate: The speed of light in empty space is invariant.

So given this we can dispense with some foolish notions. We immediately know that space and time do not vary to accommodate material things in motion; material things must vary to accommodate motion because of their construct in accord with our first postulate.

[Mr. Scientist]

If we reduce it even further, there may be no motion at all.

[Ethos]

If we reduce it even further, there may be no motion at all.

Are you saying that motion does'nt exist? This reminds me of Einstein's world line where every change is not movement but a totally new existence for every Planck unit of time.

[Mr. Scientist]

Vern if you could mess. me, it would be appreciated. I have a few things to discuss with you. Thnks

[Mr. Scientist]

If we reduce it even further, there may be no motion at all.

Are you saying that motion does'nt exist? This reminds me of Einstein's world line where every change is not movement but a totally new existence for every Planck unit of time.

Yeh.... yeh, I can see that.

[Vern (OP)]

Vern if you could mess. me, it would be appreciated. I have a few things to discuss with you. Thnks

I try to respond to my all messages; I like open forums for idea development. []

[Vern (OP)]

I suspect we should be careful of Planck units. We can only logically deduce one Planck unit. That is the constant whose energy is E = hv; we can deduce from that simple equation that the amplitude of electric and magnetic potential is a constant in photons. This is an absolute deduction as real as 1 + 1 = 2. Planck's constant is the energy content of the rate of change of electric and magnetic amplitude over time. If the amplitude reached by this change were variable, it would need be part of the equation. It is not part of the equation. It is a constant.

We would then suspect; since we never see a greater amplitude value; that this constant electric and magnetic amplitude for empty space is the maximum that empty space can support.

But just because this is real for electromagnetic amplitudes in empty space, it does  not even suggest that it may have any meaning at all for other things like time and spatial area.

[werc]

I suspect we should be careful of Planck units. We can only logically deduce one Planck unit. That is the constant whose energy is E = hv; we can deduce from that simple equation that the amplitude of electric and magnetic potential is a constant in photons. This is an absolute deduction as real as 1 + 1 = 2. Planck's constant is the energy content of the rate of change of electric and magnetic amplitude over time. If the amplitude reached by this change were variable, it would need be part of the equation. It is not part of the equation. It is a constant.

We would then suspect; since we never see a greater amplitude value; that this constant electric and magnetic amplitude for empty space is the maximum that empty space can support.

But just because this is real for electromagnetic amplitudes in empty space, it does  not even suggest that it may have any meaning at all for other things like time and spatial area.

the Plank unit is the quantization of the spacetime it's not a continuous thing
newbielink:http://www.albertwasright.com/ [nonactive]

[Vern (OP)]

What are the fundamental factors that demand the quantization of space-time? We have those with the electromagnetic field; we don't hove those with spatial or temporal dimensions.

[werc]

What are the fundamental factors that demand the quantization of space-time? We have those with the electromagnetic field; we don't hove those with spatial or temporal dimensions.

but if you try to introduce a quantization in the space time a lot of things like fine structure constant, gravity and atom electrons orbit jumps will be has a clear explanation
The base of the theory is here:
newbielink:http://www.albertavevaragione.com/index.php?id=28&lang=en [nonactive]
I'm glad to hear your opinion about them

[Vern (OP)]

It is known from relativity that an absolute frame of reference does not exist. It is therefore obvious that the rest of the maximass can exist only in comparison with other observers.

I find lots of things in your paper that I can agree with. However, the above statement in chapter 14 does not fit well. If by relativity you mean Einstein's theories, about relativity, you could not use it as a logical argument that we know because of Einstein's theory. Theories cannot be the cause of things; at best they can only explain and predict.

If you mean relativity phenomena there is much evidence that this is not so. In that scenario, flat space-time is required in order to  produce relativity phenomena.

The physical meaning of the formula derives from the ratio of the velocity c of the wavefronts moving in the orbit and the velocity ve of the wave source-electron in the same orbit.

We must remember that we are referring to those wavefronts moving along the ideal tube whose axis is the orbit on which the closed path of the electron-wave source lies.

Figure 95 shows that "137" wavefronts of wavelength le move in the orbit in a resonance state, and that for each revolution made by the wave source the wavefronts coming from it make "137" revolutions.

Also, this from Chapter 24 does not sit well. We have pretty much discounted the notion that electrons orbit atomic nuclei. QM has it as a cloud of probability functions, which I find unnecessary. I would rather consider the Fine Structure Constant to be the ratio of the bend radius of the electron's comprising energy wave to the electron's charge value. In this case we find the cause of electric charge. It is the bend in the path of the energy wave.

Then, knowing this we can predict the value of electric charge that a tighter bend would produce. We can calculate the value of the strong nuclear forces. The force is two times shell 2 plus two times shell 3 electrons worth of force. And then we see that observations agree with predictions. And then we see that the dynamics of the strong force would be as observed. The predicted dynamics are exactly as is observed.

Calculator Source Code in C

[Ethos]

But just because this is real for electromagnetic amplitudes in empty space, it does  not even suggest that it may have any meaning at all for other things like time and spatial area.

Interesting; For existence to be digital, every quantum action must be in synchronous order. If we can observe one unit of Planck time intersecting another out of sync. then our total existence can not be digital. Maybe it's true that Planck time is a reality but only in terms of our ability to observe it? I think I'll start using my analog watch again, this digital world they're pushing on us dosen't fit my kind of reality.

[Vern (OP)]

I didn't mean to suggest that space and time can not exist as quantized chunks. They may very well  be. It is just that Planck's constant is a completely different animal with an easily discovered cause which would be different for space and time.

Cause of Planck's constant: The maximum electric and magnetic amplitude of electromagnetic waves is a constant.

This can be derived from E = hv. It says that photon energy is Planck's constant times the rate of change of the electromagnetic field. The change of the electromagnetic field must go to some amplitude. This amplitude is not part of the equation. It must therefore be a constant.

[Mr. Scientist]

I didn't mean to suggest that space and time can not exist as quantized chunks. They may very well  be. It is just that Planck's constant is a completely different animal with an easily discovered cause which would be different for space and time.

Cause of Planck's constant: The maximum electric and magnetic amplitude of electromagnetic waves is a constant.

This can be derived from E = hv. It says that photon energy is Planck's constant times the rate of change of the electromagnetic field. The change of the electromagnetic field must go to some amplitude. This amplitude is not part of the equation. It must therefore be a constant.

I'm afraid vern, that perhaps this is all quantum mechanics is saying right now.

Oh how i would love one which incorporates two models: One which suffices the description of this world, but one equally which suffices our existences.

[Vern (OP)]

That last one was a little over my head; I didn't quite grasp the meaning of it.  []