JosephStang

It's very obvious that I understood the term dimension as it is used in physics. You defining it for me after I just used it correctly is strange as is your apparent inability to understand clear logic.

Let's try it this way. I've been specific in my wording. I've never said Bell's inequalities are wrong. I've always only said obviated or overcome. The reason is that the Copenhagen interpretation is just as true as the Holonomic Toroid. The explanation is in found in collision geometry. The Toroid precesses towards the screen, and its precessions bring it closer one wave at a time. It "collides" with the screen anywhere in the Heisenberg sphere and our sub light measuring techniques cannot pinpoint which precession causes the collision. From sublight observers, both are equally true. The Toroid, as a theory, has two uses. One, it gives a unifying three dimensional logic to what can obviously be represented in higher dimensions. It also explains how geometry can make space appear curved even if the same effect can be achieved in flat space and gravity as a higher order precession. Two, it gives a shape to engineer around, because it naturally accomplishes the toroidal superposition space while also denominating the hidden variables. It's the theory of everything because it also explains the Copenhagen interpretation, while the reverse is clearly not true, or else Feinman would have.

You didn't respond to the logic. You just repeated your false claim that geometry is part of math. That's false. The only reason you think it is true is because you are a mathematician.

Here's why the math is irrelevant. I do not know how to quantize the toroid's precessional movement but the variables it will require are in the definition of the shape. To accomplish the quantization, the mathematician will have a near infinity of options when assigning delta in XYZ to the different hidden variables represented by the measurements of the Toroid. The proof that it is the theory of everything is logical, not mathematical, because there will be many different ways to setup those variables so as to purposely represent a specific experiment's superposition space. This is the logical proof: 1. 3d is logical and the entirety of evidence points to 3d. 2. The Holonomic Toroid can represent the quantum in 3d. It's the only shape that can. That's it. I don't need to provide a mathematical solution because the problem was logical and tautological, not quantizeable. It has been fully quantized. What was missing was a unifying logic. Moreover, even when someone does the math, it will not prove that the shape is what is there. It will only prove that the specific configuration can be molded to the superposition space. To PROVE it, as a scientist, one would have to design a 3d falsification experiment, in 3D.

This quantizes the Toroid without the travelling wave. David Bergman was a NASA engineer. I learned Quantum Physics from him, so I could program his math in a simulation. We stopped working together when I realized his Toroid needed the travelling wave to explain Quantum Strangeness and he refused. Now you can't say there isn't any math. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Spinning-Charged-Ring-Model-of-Electron-Yielding-Bergman-Wesley/0f73035756eb139e4b3afa2aaa6c75ce814b2cfb

You clearly don't understand the thing I have clearly described that you are attempting to discuss and failing. I never said anything about a Holonomic guiding wave. That's obviously impossible.

This 3D geometry explains gravity without the need of curved spacetime. Your appeal to authority is unreasonable in the face of your clear inability to understand the simple geometry I am describing.

It seems you are incapable of logic. The description of the geometry satisfies any sane criteria for the word "theory". To program it we need math. To understand that it logically describes everything requires no math. In fact, adding math is opposite from logical understanding. Math provides a quantized understanding, not a logical one.

Someone asked me to describe the Aharonov Bohm effect with the theory, so I did. I'm not even saying anyone's math is wrong. All I'm saying is that the geometry I'm describing is the logical explanation. It's true that mathematical testing is one purpose of experimentation but logical understanding is just as important. This is the most logical understanding. As far as the program, the NASA engineer did the math and gave me the equations and I tried programming it into a simulation. It was a team effort. That isn't a complicated thing to understand.

Bohm might have been an excellent mathematician, but I am not. I'm excellent at logic and programming. I was asked by a NASA engineer to help him program his theory, but it didn't explain quantum physics. I added a travelling wave to his theory and it now explains quantum physics. I described a geometry no one has described or conceived before. I can't do the math. Occam's razor says this is the theory. It can obviously be used to explain logically with words alone every aspect of quantum strangeness. Why should I also have to do the math? Einstein got help with the math. Why can't I? As far as Bohmian non-locality, I suppose that would be action on the other side of the time manifold in the Holonomic field, but no one has ever measured that so I don't feel the need to explain it. Bohmian locality with my theory as the base explains all apparently spooky action as deriving from 3D hidden variables. Edit: A geometry does not require a metric. The platonic triangle has no metric and yet no serious person would argue it isn't a triangle. In fact, the essence of the platonic triangle is that it has no metric. If it had a metric, it would not be the platonic triangle. Dear Moderator: let's agree this isn't personal. I've said quite a few times I can't do the math while describing this totally new geometry. How should I characterize responses that demand I do the math after I've said repeatedly I can't do the math? Thanks in advance for the rhetorical advice.

It's an example of Bohmian locality. Please understand the difference in the definitions.

Right. Toroid, not circle. Thanks for the correction. The rest of it is just you admitting you can't visualize the geometry.

Please reread the description of the geometry. It's very clear. The circle spins at light speed. There is a travelling wave on it. Because the circle spins at light speed, the wave goes faster than light without any of the circle going faster than light. To demonstrate, get on a train. Make a wave with your arm. The speed of the wave on your arm will be its speed relative to your body plus the train's speed. This is simple geometry.

When I say Haramein field, I'm not talking about his math. I just mean a toroidal pilot wave. Your knee jerk accusation of pseudo-science is illogical in the face of a geometry that would clearly create a toroidal pilot wave that accomplishes Bohmian Holonomy. If you can't approach this totally new geometry with anything other than Occam's razor, you should definitely exit the discussion.

Bohm's response to Bell's inequalities specifically dealt with the definition of locality. In its essence, Bohm described a pilot wave that perfectly carried the hidden variables that Bell's inequalities claim cannot reproduce quantum effects with sub light information. Bell was correct. Bohm is also correct. The pilot wave caused by the Holonomic Toroid is the Haramein field. It works in both STL and FTL. To discuss the Holonomic Toroid correctly, we have to start from first principles. This is true because the HT radically reinvisions all QP theory. As for specifics regarding all measured quantum strangeness, we need to program it and with math. I'm not a mathematician. For that I would need help. It was correct to discard the ether. I'm not supporting it. I'm describing pure flow constrained to the shape of the Holonomic Toroid. Ether is a useful word to describe pure flow. As far as the Aharonov-Bohm effect, it should be easy to engineer a scenario with the Holonomic Toroid such that lower order waves in phase with higher order waves interact without the higher order waves interacting.