Jack Egerton

I was suggesting that a negative view on the first three topics would be justification for advancement, though it was not made clear. In any case, many other examples exist for and against, that I would quite like to hear, if they seem significant to yourself.

Fair enough.

Besides the three examples each way? We could discuss anything in another thread. Link me to it if you want.

The topic at hand.

Haha, no, sorry for the pedagogical tone. It makes more sense in the context of this...

Hi all We had another thread open that got to the 'need' for science, technology, engineering, and medicine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma The three links above are 'pro' advancement in tone. Three things against advancement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_bird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics Discuss...

inSe: If I do think more about this, it may be a while yet, so do not hold your breath for it

My first opinion on a concept. Again, truly grateful -- though you may believe me to be being sarcastic. However, when you state 'that' makes no sense, it would help us both to instead say statement X,Y, or Z makes no sense, please rephrase or elaborate. Regarding the 'need' for science, technology, engineering, and medicine (STEM), that is far beyond the scope of this topic. For the inquisitive reader, here is some information, however, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite So... I have opened such a thread:

To beecee (having not seen the other replies -- I will now read the other replies): Nothing can be proven. Things can be evidenced. If you understood that I said Einstein was wrong then you misunderstood. Any work of [Insert Name Here] is X% generally/broadly applicable, Y% straightforwardly applicable, Z% comprehensible to a person of a given level of education, etc. To Mordred: those parameters/conditions are yet to be specified in a Theorem by myself or anyone else, to my knowledge. What I have provided is conceptualisation through a Hypothesis. To swansont: Thank you for requesting a null hypothesis test. I would also like one. Thoughts necessary. To beecee, regarding your first comment: It feels like it can do more because of its inherent simplicity and generality. That is all I can give you for now. You certainly cannot force a thought process such as this. Maths may follow and may not; something more may come of this or otherwise. Overarching comment: What I have provided seems/feels like a good way of understanding the cosmos/universe. Nobody has yet even seemed to have thought about, or said anything about, the concept, which is the truly exciting thing that I am excited to provide unburdened and free to be regarded or disregarded -- but -- it is an exciting thought that has occupied my mind more than once in the past few months. I would take, for example, "wow, that's so darn intuitive -- it must be true", but that could be over-optimism. PLEASE TURN OVER to page 2 for the continuation of this thread.

Thank you Strange that was a joyful and productive discussion, truly.

I wholeheartedly disagree that I have been vague in the document or the text. I would like you to state anything that you consider vague such that I can clarify or restate. Yes, GR rests on many axiomic ideas, howsoever they are stated and named. I did say that twice in the above comment and so that case seems closed. Yes, evidence supports GR, yet, with a suitable particle distribution, my Hypothesis should and will agree with GR. Einstein has the advantage of many man-years headstart on myself and anyone who would pursue testing of my idea, such is the progression of time. I assume my concepts are correct on the Hypothesis level -- and continually openly invite discussion to counter this -- and I would expect a solid mathematical Theorem could be build on them. Let us forget 'Occam's Razor' and image I had stated 'my idea seems simpler and possibly more general -- evidence would help support this'. Thank you for stating the Lorentz Ether Theory, I am glad to see this mentioned here to provide context regarding the progression of science.

OK, for gravitation, but for other felt-forces my concepts may also apply. And GR has a greater number of suppositions than the Egertonian cosmos, and is therefore less likely to be true by Occam's Razor, once again. GR suppositions: objects must have mass, m, and mass, m, must bend spacetime by (x,y,z,t), plus other suppositions I may have missed or misstated. Egertonian cosmos suppositions: particles exist and are describable with a velocity distribution or separation distribution on a 1-D line. GR potential applicability: gravitational pseudo-force. Ec potential applicability: all conceivable felt-forces (or empirically measured forces).

So it may come down to this, when conceptually comparing to Einstein's GR: is spacetime bent by massive objects that create force fields (in Einstein's mind) or are objects just moving with a predictable velocity distribution (like Boltzmann's entropic gas equations but for all physical laws) but with no forces necessary. Occam's Razor would favour the Egertonian cosmos. Really, read what I wrote, so I do not have to restate it all, but this point is important, so will be restated: many particles near each other must most likely move apart, because moving closer is impossible (they are already close) <-- there is your gravitational pseudo-force and maybe any other force, for that matter

Upon inspection of that quotation: In case there was a Freudian slip towards 'god' not 'good'. One cannot test whether a god exists so it is an equally inviolable and un-useful Hypothesis. Alternatively, the above is testable in many stated and un-thought-of ways; the above may be useful in describing undescribed or novelly predicted physical phenomena. Read above to see examples. Though, as was just said above, the results of said tests may well be in agreement with existing Theorems, which is surely no bad thing

I did not say that maths was not necessary in testing a Theorem I said maths is not necessary in stating concepts through, for example, a Hypothesis. Yes, you do need maths to quantify things. No, you do not need maths to imagine a scaled unit. Yes, agreed, the word normalisation is a definition based on mathematical construct, but I meant that the concept is invariant for constants of proportionality and similar, i.e. normalisation takes care of it. You can test any Hypothesis by building a mathematical framework. This has not yet been done. I am very glad that you ask the above questions, as this is steps towards achieving such. Aims that are beyond credit should not be beyond imagination and should not necessarily be stated plainly, for they are personal. I can exemplify however. An aim beyond credit could be the desire to do something that one, themselves, considers meaningful, regardless of external accreditation. p.s. If, for example, the force of gravity that is felt on, for example, Earth is indistinguishable from otherwise the space(time) of Earth expanding in a force-free region, then such descriptions are testably/empirically equivalent or indistinct and it is merely a discussion on the convenience of each formulation, or, perhaps, the generality of each formulation, for example, that remains relevant and pertinent. In plainer words: one could get the same results from many concepts but some may be more useful and general than others.

A Family Name goes beyond a sole person and I have aims beyond purely credit.

I shall add then, that for a given duration of time, such as the time quantum -- and with no evidence provided that time is quantised -- that the normalised distance 1 = ct_q. Normalisation takes care of any mathematical/non-conceptual discussions. All discussions are conceptual or intended to be so. (Which rule written by who was broken with line numbering?) All particles are free in this model. Interatomic forces can be defined under the umbrella fundamental forces that I provided. They are all just particles 'in a box', but really on a line, in this model. I will re-iterate, using maths suggests thought beyond conceptualisation, which has not yet been given, and is not required for conceptualisation. You could run a sim of an expanding Earth with a suitable velocity distribution and recreate Newton's laws, because the concepts allow it. The maths to do so may well be fiddly. Thanks for your reply Jack p.s. GR would also follow from this, just as Newton's laws would... p.p.s. I would not want to sound rude, but at the slightest risk that you were implying and/or thinking 'I could have thought of this', well that should be true after the fact for all simple and profound ideas. What such expressed sentiments truly suggest is that my idea is, at the least, partially comprehensible to you, which is the aim of penning it here. However, as you might also realise, with 7bn people on this Earth, it is fairly likely someone somewhen has thought similar. I put my name to it because I am aiming to disseminate a thought that seems to fit the bill.

Hi all This is brief enough that one may as well read the text and provide insight. Best wishes Jack egertonian-cosmos.pdf n.b. citation directs here:

Thank you inSe: I will think more about your comments and questions. My initial response is that it seems, at first, not possible to have a tendency to zero of the linear asymptote in the current formulation. Wavelength tends to a length quantum, lambda_q, as I currently see it. Any localised particle with more energy -- shorter wavelength -- is heavier via relativistic relations and my formulations include such, this includes neutrinos. Thanks again, Jack.

I have extended the Declaration of Originality to include broader inspirations for this work. This seems all-encompassing, though I may think of more to add, in due course. However, the maximum file size upload is currently less than the PDF, so the broader inspirations will be quoted here: Further, under the label of `broader inspiration' comes any or all works on fractals including, most notably, Mandelbrot, or otherwise, anything associated with the year two thousand and sixteen film, Dr. Strange, for example, and any works by anyone associated with that film. As well as, for example, discussions I recall with any friends or colleagues on similar or such subjects, for example, Dr. Anthony Vaquero-Stainer, Mr. Christian Vaquero-Stainer, or Mr. Stephen Wall, and others. Also `broader inspirations' includes any popularisation of science, any dissemination of science, or any personal exposure to science by any persons or people known personally by myself or otherwise. Under `broader motivation' comes, utmost, family and friends, and less, anyone or anything.

Hi Mordred, I always like to be transparent in my review of literature. I searched Google scholar for hyperoperation, tetration, iterated exponentiation. I could not initially find any physics examples. The briefest of checks just now with 'hyperoperation physics' found some very involved set/group theory work with hyperoperations but I am honestly not at a level to know whether I am repeating anyone's work in those fields. My physics education is half applied and half theoretical, to Masters level. My 'major' or, in UK, final project, was on instabilities in nuclear fusion plasmas in tokamaks (very interesting read that! -- not even sure if I could legally share that work to you, it is not published, so likely). My Engineering Doctorate research is all ultrasonics based -- there we are. To reiterate: I cannot say whether anyone has done work like I have done on quantisation of physical laws using hyperoperative mathematics, because their level is beyond what I can comprehend at present. Thank you for understanding. Jack egertonian-quanta-tetration.pdf

On a side note, to anyone else reading this thread, a little bit of history on what I have so far published. These are, first, a multiparameter spectral ultrasonic method, and, second, an efficient and accurate finite element method. There should be wide and general applicability here, so enjoy, https://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.4976689 https://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.5000492 I would love to share a general noise reduction, signal processing, paper also, but it is yet to be finally approved. The same can be said for an ultrasonic imaging paper or two.

Yes, I did run out of first day comments in my quota. So, keeping as much content in one comment, I will now attached a newer version, which has the previously removed content with the two-term energy-momentum equation and with the Schrodinger equation. I did not have much time to think about that section, but there seems to be something to it once it can be linked to the previous work. There is an extra graph and associated Egertonian zero-point relation, for clarity, that features the desired constant values on small scales and linear values on large scales of zero-point energy, for example. It also inherently has excluded energies. There is still some confusion surrounding a few things such as the velocity quantum values. Open discussion is welcomed. Thanks Jack egertonian-quanta-tetration.pdf Also, I did look at adding time dependence to the Schrodinger equation, but that seems not to affect the workflow much, at present.

I fully agree. But, I also state twice that E=mc^2 is equivalent to that relation, via the gamma factor, etc, that I have stated. The substitution of gamma into one equation yields the other and vice versa, if I am not mistaken algebraically. Regarding photons, my workings yield photon energy with no constraint on its mass. I used the de Broglie relation for matter waves, or particles with wavelike nature, or waves with particle like nature, I would suggest. SEE HERE: I am unable to post a reply, Mordred, so I will reply here instead. I think massless particles are moving at velocity, c, or that limit may be approached asymptotically for particles with finite mass. If the are not changing direction or velocity, they are inertial, maybe. Consequently, from your below comment, I would personally rephrase 'gamma is not applicable in those cases' to 'gamma is not conventionally applied in those cases'. It seems it can be. IN REPLY TO studiot: I upvoted things I agreed with; I downvoted things I disagreed with. I am just in the process of uploading an updated version of the article which clarifies the point in contention. ! ALL ! please see here an updated version of the article where line 78 now reads: 'mq is the mass quantum of, in general, multiple masses in motion,' Thank you Mordred for pointing me in that direction. Hence why I have upvoted those points. egertonian-quanta-tetration.pdf