Yesterday I had a nice stair and weight workout, in the sense that I only did two sets and even these had slight reductions from my maximum lift. That being said, consiistent with my recent live applications on mountains, the stair workout was challenging and not held back.
Very soon I will be able to transition to the outdoor pool which is largely cleaned out post storm and merely waits for the combination of ambient temperature and water temperature to reach a level where I will not have a heart attack when I dive in, something I may attempt this week or next. Today is unlikely, but it is early yet to make that decision.
I have skipped days of exercise, but I am mainly on track, particularly if I swim today and get in at least 2000 yards, something that is far from certain.
I saw where VICE "read" the muller report over an 11 hour video which I consider an interesting public service. I think it is very well produced, at least in first few minutes I have watched. Will I watch all 11.55 hours? Do not expect it, although I plan to skip ahead and see how that goes. Having produced a 7 hour audio book over a great deal of time, only about half of which I personally produced, I understand the complexity of this undertaking and wonder if the same reader will cover the entire reading.
This set of posts is largely repetitive, so you can read or ignore them or wait for the last one in the series. As is obvious, this is a response to a narrow, small minded rejection of my work.
This sounds bitter, but it is merely factual. The mind rebels against the idea that the universe can be defined by such a simple equation, but it is more complicated than e=mc^2 and it gives rise to that slightly less simple equation and the underlying structural component of fpix allows for a sufficiently complex application that it makes sense.
Moreover, the curvature equation yielding as it does both the hinge and non-hinge solutions at least moving from -1 to 1 and from fpix to the first true base fractals (n=2 in the equation) means that the universe that causes me to type and you to read is adequately provided for with very high values of x.
Indeed, there is sufficient mystery in the makeup of quantum points governed by fpix, the exact rules of fractal buliding and destruction (limit equations) and the pre-space environment which yields both the count and the quantum elements of space that there is plenty of room for future inquiries, all of which will be built on my genius, not that i am a genius, but the model is effectively a work of genius under the definition of a quantum leap forward.
If only those judging me were able to set their prejudices aside for their own true intelligence which is part of what prevented them from making these conclusions which would otherwise have been easier for them to determine as they made one misguided jump (as from particle to field theory, from filled to empty space, etc) to another.
175.4, but the way, after breakfast, water and a half cup of coffee, is still considered within the framework of the target weight, despite being .4 stone over what it should have been. I think a shower would make the difference between the two although why I do not know.
So without further ado, I give you the next draft of the appeal, although the technical argument and chart are not included in this post, being essentially that previously presented.
This is a long and complicated theory, very complex in application. Proving the entire theory is not necessary, however. The reason is that a single chart with only the most basic equations is so predictive of all dimensional structures and force, that alone it is compelling evidence of the validity of the model.
I
would like to appeal your decision in light of the presentation at the APS
seminar in Denver hosted by Kevin Dusling. Please do not blame him for
adding to your workload since I think he was doing a substantial service.
I submitted an easily
examined and reproducible model which is novel and seems to define the universe
in a way more predictive than the standard model with applications to force,
mass, energy and observed structures (including atoms and the periodic table,
molecules, black holes). It defines with specificity gravity, how it arises
and how it relates to other forces. It explains the common
"fractal" origins and similarities of Neutrons and black holes and
how the Neutron secures the atom in the same way, one fractal smaller, that the
black hole secures the galaxy. It explains how the lesser effects of time
in the lower base state of the atom cause it to appear to change faster (move
faster) than the surrounding galaxy. Rather than drone on about this, I
only ask that you look at the chart below in light of the simple equation from
which the chart is built.
In this email I submit
below the following proofs: 1) the significance of the advance, and 2) the
soundness of the science, 3) the importance of the advance. The importance is simple, the model
supplements any other model and it describes the universe below the level of
time, energy and matter and shows how those dimensional features arise.
4) The accessibility
to readers is also clear since it is a very simple model and 5) lastly, it must
have reproducibility and since the equations are simple, they are easily
applied to existing observations and the results are given below in the single
chart which is the focus of this appeal..
Before I get into this
in detail let me give my personal impression. I have watched a number of
similar papers get presented. I get it. Non-mainstream thinking
tends to be theoretical and not practical. This is not theoretical. Specific mathematical results are given which
support the model based on observed results.
This is a
long model, complex in application. Proving the entire theory is not
necessary, however. The single chart with only the most basic equations
is so predictive of all dimensional structures and force, that alone it is
compelling evidence of the validity of the model. Rather than defending the entire paper, this
appeal will focus primarily on the evidence within the chart.
You may have looked at
this paper and observed it was too simple, especially since it was submitted by
someone who is not associated with a major university, and summarily ruled on
it. That is fair, but the appeal is to ask that you look at the results and see
that this is at least worth publication because it is extremely predictive of
gravity and its place in the force hierarchy. Indeed the force that turns out
to be less predictive is electromagnetic and it can be explained in terms of
how it arises from the combination of two force pairs.
The article is many
pages long, but one of the two primary features (compression, force, mass and
dimension are all defined by one equation and can be summarized in a single
chart and based on the single equation (2f(n)^2^n). If you can find fault
in the results then perhaps there is a problem with the chart. If, on the
other hand, the chart properly reflects observed resulting mass (neutron and
black hole primarily), force, range and type of force (which it does) merely by
applying the equation above; then the appeal should be upheld in my opinion.
The second feature
presented, separating time from change, is specific in terms of how it is
derived, but there is no single equation, although time is derived from the
same ratio, being a net result of folding and unfolding. This result is
also clear and reproducible when applied to existing equations such as the Schrodinger
equations for wave derivation or the equations for gravitational time dilation
merely by substituting dx for dt; the change in an underlying quantum time for
time. It is worth noting that this concept is not mine in a
vacuum. Phys.org: The
discrete-time physics hiding inside our continuous-time world. https://phys.org/news/2019-04-discrete-time-physics-continuous-time-world.html. The
phys.org article appeared many months after I first published the conceptual
separation in September of 2018 and is much less specific.
Finally, before
getting to the summary argument, I want to provide links to two video articles,
one a 12-minute discussion of the theory and the second a longer slide presentation
with audio for the first 8 slides. I would
suggest you will watch at least the first, shorter of these two so you will
have an overview of the theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment