Pages

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

BDTH 5 of 10

The real question we all face is how to live our lives.
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.
The Denver 12-minute video: https://youtu.be/yczljGjPDYE
USA PowerPoint link: https://youtu.be/EjVR26KtAgo

No comments:

Post a Comment