[General] Assumtions for STOE model of Young's Experiment

[Wolfgang Baer]

A quick read of your paper

Intro; talks STOE and gives references but is there a short summary 
rather than a reference to several papers.
I like this summary since it gives a compact overview of your ideas.

Why and how does Hods and Plenum differ from particles and space?
Here we are confronted with a potential name change and a statement 
about simulation, it sounds suspicious.

What is a plenum density? there must be a material and a space to have a 
density so does this imply the plenum is derived from underlying 
material and space? Or are you postulating plenum density as a new god 
given parameter?

Assumptions: There are a lot of them!
1) The speed of gravity (speed of a plenum) wave is >> c : ok definite 
assumption may be right or wrong but clearly stated
2) The plenum supports wave action.  OK gravity waves ? plenum is 
postulated to have inertia. OK, not  definite assumption
3) (3) Hods are 2 dimensional.: ok definite assumption
4)The hods cause gravity in the plenum.: ok not definite assumption
     "The amount of plenum captured depends on the ρ of the photon 
environment." what is plenum captured mean?
5) The speed of the hods and photons depend on the ρ.:  not definite 
assumption but a conclusion
6) Each hod that presents zero cross section to the direction of 
movement loweres the ρ.
     A photon is a column of hods.:
7)

Ok I'm stopping here It is obvious to me that you are combining 
conclusions, important properties and a lot of properties that must be 
derived from basic assumptions.

I would suggest something like
1) Hods exist and have the following basic properties a), b),c)
2) Plenum exists and has the following basic properties .....
3) Speed of gravity is infinite??
4) ..etc.

Then derive the additional results or properties from there.

It is not a question of right or wrong but why one should learn as new 
explanation or terminology unless there is a demonstrable benefit.
Its a tough hurdle that I've been tripped up on many times.

Hope this helps,
Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com

On 5/8/2016 8:54 AM, Hodge John wrote:
> Wolf:
> Thanks again. Yes I think I saw the possibility in Sciama. I was 
> unaware of his model until you mentioned it. I don’t see how to go to 
> an experiment with it.
> I agree with your point about starting from basic postulates provided 
> we identify a basic postulate as a statement of what exists. For 
> example, the Equivalence Principle is not a principle because it has 
> an equal sign (a relation). Therefore, the derivation of the 
> Equivalence Principle is requirement for the basic postulates.
> The provisional paper “STOE assumptions that model particle 
> diffraction and that replaces QM” is attached as a *.pdf file.
> This is a list of the assumptions to work that have appeared in my 
> papers dealing with Young’s Experiment of the years.
> I would like your or any comments on unclear or new or whatever about 
> the model. I note these assumptions cover many questions about topics 
> that this forum has been asking such as why light has the maximum 
> speed of matter.
> Hodge
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160512/5a49015c/attachment.htm>