I have been working hard to reorganize my life.
I think that is more difficult than solving the secrets of the universe.
I have solved the riddle of the universe, I am struggling with my life.
I have weighed in under 175 for two days in a row. Whohoo. I am a machine.
Appeal
I would like to appeal your decision in light of the
presentation at the APS seminar in Denver hosted by Kevin Dusling.
Additional detail appears in the print copy attached.
Forward to the Argument
I submitted an easily
examined and reproducible model which defines the universe in a predictive model
with applications to force, mass, energy and observed structures (including a
new view of fundamental particles, atoms, the periodic table, molecules, and black
holes). It defines gravity, how it arises and how it relates to other
forces and how they arise sequentially.
The forward is 3
pages, the actual argument is 4 pages; but the footnotes which provides support
for the argument is 14 pages.
The model explains the
three iterated functions that lead to the common "fractal" origins highlighted
by similarities of Neutrons and black holes; explaining how Neutrons secure the
atom in the same way that black holes secures the galaxy. The neutron
functions one-base state, one fractal smaller, than the black hole.
The model 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 consider
the simple equation from which the chart is built as proof that the compression
iterated function, fractal model is compelling.
I submit proofs of the
following: 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 presentations
of a number of similar papers. I get it. Non-mainstream thinking
tends to be theoretical and not practical. This is not theoretical; this
is a specific math model. Specific
mathematical results are given which support the model based on observed
results.
This is a long model,
complex in application. The audio book covering the model is 7 hours long
and only a summary. Proving the entire
theory is not necessary, however. The single chart with only the most
basic equations is so predictive of all dimensional structures including force
and time, that it is compelling evidence of the validity of the model. Rather than defending the entire paper, this
appeal will focus primarily only the evidence within the chart. Footnotes are included in the print copy
attached to provide more detail.
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 merits publication because it is predictive. Radical, but predictive.
Gravity and its place
in the force hierarchy is given. The forces that turn out to be less predictive
are the weak and electromagnetic and they can be explained in terms of how they
arise from the combination of two-dimensional states.
The article is 12
pages long, but one of the two primary features defines compression, force,
mass and dimension. They are all defined
by three iterated equations and can be summarized in a single chart and based
on the single equation made of two iterated functions (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) by applying the equation above; then the appeal should be upheld, in
my opinion.
The second feature
presented in this appeal, 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 iterated functions and the same resulting ratios, being a net
result of dimensional states 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 velocity and gravitational
time dilation.
It is worth noting
that this time concept is supported by work published after my initial publications. 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 of time from change in September of 2018. Links to my original articles can be found at
www.gmfpc.com.
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