michel123456

A constant squared is...a constant. If one puts C^2=R he is not wrong. He is right. The fact is we don't measure R anywhere, we measure C. So we should conclude that we are measuring the square root of a constant. IOW that reality somehow has a trick, making us measure only the square root of "something else" with bizarre units meters^2 divided by seconds^2. But I hear nobody asking: what is this?

Sure it's better. I waited a while to see if someone got interested reacting with your post, but it failed. It means it needs further improvement. 1. Imatfaal is a respected member, I don't remember him trolling. He took some time reading this thread and you rejected him. That's too bad, you lost a client. 2. you recognise that the title is heavy. The main problem is that you invite members to look at "a set of models that illustrate physics concepts" and opening your link, bam, "THE THEORY OF THOUGHT" in bold red. It is undermining your efforts. 3. It is a good idea to begin with wikipedia text, it creates a solid ground although wiki can be criticized. At least you are not beginning from nowhere, so I think it's a good thing. It creates a gap with the other hundreds of craps someone can find over the Web. But it is ruined with your title, see point 2 above. 4. Your work is indeed about "a set of models that illustrate physics concepts" . That is food for thought. I disagree on almost everything but it's fantastic! It is not word salad, it is "diagram salad" (please don't feel insulted ), your invention, and it's eatable. 5. To the point: you are right about the reduced Planck constant, it's a radius. But a radius with unities (the same unities with the full Planck constant). So it is a radius that is not a distance, but represents something else. IOW your diagram is only the projection of a cylinder. That is tasty food for thought. 6. I agree with 7. I sincerely hope someone else comes here, I don't consider myself reliable, you need more than 1 advice since you seem flexible and listening to comments, which is a wonderful behaviour.

@Samuel That looks like a fair interpretation. Do you have some reliable source for this? @Dr Rocket Here below the introduction of the wiki article on the Uncertainty Principle with bolded, underline, color mine What I understand is that the UP is about measurement. The last sentence in blue states that it has nothing to do with technology, it has to do with the interaction needed to collect knowledge. But it is all about measurement.

Time is in C.

Some other members are far more qualified than me, but thank you for the compliment. Klaynos is right, you logical intuition fails dimensional analysis. You have to work on it. I strongly suggest to give priority there. I suppose it is workable. There are other equations including energy, e=mc^2 is not the only one. Maybe you'll find out that your rotational factor is in mass too. But anyway you can not progress by guessing only. Put on the left units for energy, put on the right the correct units of what your logic tells you (a frequency?), and find what is missing. Why not? Methodology is not so important as long as you get a coherent result. I hope you will not force an open door. That's what happen to me continuously...

I succumbed too. Bolded mine. So this is a statement about "measurements". IIRC "standard deviations" is a term associated with measurements too. It is not trivial. To me it is not inherent at all.

I thought it was: when you know momentum you don't know position and when you know position you don't know momentum. Or: _when you know momentum many positions can do. _when you know position many momenta can do.

It fails to what? When HUP states that there is no way to theoretically ascertain the position and momentum of a particle, what does that mean?: A. that there is no position and momentum? that no exist? B. that there are too many positions and momenta? that we cannot decide which is the good pair.

Since Anilkumar seems to recognize the gravitational field as an entity, here is the next question: What is a gravitational field? Isn't it a property of spacetime around a massive object? -------------------- Because we will go around and around in circles (as Greg said) - how can something that is not an entity have properties?- and such questions, here is my answer: the gravitational field is the massive object.

O.K. lets have a look. your first graph is the following: on the left: PRE- BIG BANG, what is this? IIRC standard cosmology don't say a word about "pre big bang". How did you come to the representation of this epoch (if existed at all) as a circle? in the middle: "separation of Time and Depth" what is this? "separation of Pos. and Neg. clouds" what is this? Why do you represent it as 2 circles? on the right: POST BIG-BANG (supposedly the time we are living now?) "Rotation of Time and Depth" what is this? why 2 circles? why tangent? Generally, there is no continuation between the text from wiki and the graphs. The one does not support the other. Inside the graph, the same situation occurs. If one looks at the circles only, you seem to argue that space & time separate after the BB. As much as I know, spacetime is considered by physicists as a single entity throughout the existence of the universe until today. IOW I follow nothing, problems are everywhere.

I am french speaking too. Yes I was attacking. Your blog is misleading. If you want to present your ideas, do it, but not under the cover of mainstream physics. Not any serious guy will have a look at your presentation. A quick glance and out. I saw the title, the 2 small sentences we discussed before, and scrolled through the drawings. I bet most members stopped at the title. If you want to get comments you first have to redo it in a more honest and clear way. Or you can begin a conversation here by presenting your ideas. You may collect some answer.

From another thread thanks to member nec209. Put it here for anthology. squid robot --------------------- And this robot with bones

How do you explain sunrise and sunset?

You better change it. Put in italics the text from Wikipedia and it will become cleaner. Are you french speaking? No. I saw nothing. I found the presentation too irritating.

Sorry Time Traveller, now I don't believe you. Ha ha ha.

What is a class 7 security lab ?

The dark side is that you begin with: Though I have no doubt Jay Shaw is the author of the graphics, I have a serious doubt about the "Text from Wikipedia" part. For example I found no "Folds in multispace" article in wikipedia. Instead I found some article about the Citroen Berlingo multispace. You are presenting your own "theory" as it was part of the standard model. It is misinformation and it is very annoying. I wonder how legal it is. Beware someone will sue you.

First of all I have a personnal axiom: never mess living things with physics. If you put a living chicken in a physics equation, you'll get peculiar results. If you put a cat, as Schroedinger did, you'll get also a peculiar result. Living entities are not good examples of physical phenomenas: a bird can build a nest, something that physical randomness would forbid. Man build cars: cars are not an example of the result of some strict physical process. Likewise, a mug is not a good example, neither a broken mug, because a mug is the result of living human elaboration. Also, a human being breathing is not a good example, because it is part of a vital process. I am not sure that when you consider strict physical process like water evaporation, you will not find that it is perfectly reversible. Secondly, in your sympathetic diagram, you have a curve and a counter-curve. The counter-curve is not very clear, but appears at the right beginning on the left side. You should have an explanation on why the curve goes one way, then for some reason gets flat, then turns the other way. What are the physics behind that? Thirdly, if someone could go into the past, which I think is impossible, but even if he could, why would he be an exception not following the laws of physics? Of course he cannot be an exception. So if someone goes 10 years in the past, he will find himself 10 years younger. If he goes thirty years in the past, he will eventually transforms into a spermatozoid. In any case, he will never be able to kill his own grandfather.

Thanks to Steve I made yesterday a trip in another universe. I found weird stuff, amongst it this interesting (to me) article about mathematician M. Abdelkader. Which showed evidently the power of mathematics. And inside of maths, the power of the positive/negative sign. There is no mention of glass sky anywhere. Steve putted New Jerusalem inside the glass sky. This thread belongs to religion. Today I woke up in my old-known convex universe, which you must admit is at least the same bizarre as the concave one. It was fun. I wonder how serious is Steve about this.