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

[Hodge John]

Wolf:Thanks for your instructive comments. The “abstract” is the short summary of <1000 characters?APS likes <1300 characters.  I have viewed the “Introduction” as a list of references(previous papers) with a short summary of one or two sentences. If people wantfurther explanation, the references are given. I tend to dislike the longintroductions that regurgitate a previous paper’s results. The repetition addslittle to the focus of a paper. It’s the way I was taught.  However, the subject of this paper is very non--standardwith many non--standard definitions and concepts. Perhaps, the furtherexplanation is instructive because looking up many papers is unreasonable.  Add as paragraph 3``TheNegative Feedback Loop (NFL) Principle posits the universe's processes arecontrolled by nested NFLs. The illusion of ``fine tuning'' a parameter is theresult of an NFL in operation. For example, The temperature of the universe iscontrolled by such process as demonstrated in \citet{hodg06}. A corollary isthat any parameter or process not in a NFL becomes unstable and eventuallyceases to exist. This can occur during critical changes such a change oftemperature. Ifthere were only one constituent of the universe, everywhere there would besameness. Two constituents is the smallest possible number of constituents.Mathematics has demonstrated that it is the basis of understanding of thephysical universe. Therefore, it is indicating something very basic about theuniverse. The two basic forms of mathematics may be the analogy of the forms ofthe constituents. The basis forms are geometry and algebra. More complex formsare constructed from these two basic forms.’’ In the paragraph beginning with ``The STOE poatulates…’’: ``…discrete particles …’’ to ``… discrete constituents …’’``… matter is …” to ``… particles (matter) are …’’``… captive plenum …’’ to `` … the plenum that the hods dragwith them (captive plenum) …’’ Add a paragraph after the paragraph:``The word ``space’’ is defined in many different contextsand meanings that are confusing and unfortunate. One is as a backdrop formatter to play its role in the universe. This is used to define distance. GRuses space more like the gravitational ether. That is, substances that candirect impose a force on matter to direct its trajectory. Then has a backdropmode to determine distance. The STOE uses ``plenum’’ to be the substance of theuniverse that directs matter and that has the property of inertia. This leavesthe issue of distance with the number of hod diameters in the plenum between objectsrather than a ill defined backdrop. Plenum density $\rho$ then is the amount ofplenum in a volume defined by hod diameters. Practically, the STOE currentlyuses the traditional measures of the backdrop method where another method isnot required (the redshift study was one such case where special $\rho$ actionconverted distance so that the backdrop measures could be used). ’’     In the Abstract add:The assumptions used in the STOE explanation and computersimulation are many over several papers. A “This paper…” statement should be added. ``This paper lists the many assumptions used in the computersimulation over several papers in Section~\ref{sec:2}. The Discussion and conclusion is in Section~\ref{sec:1}.’’  Change the title and first paragraph of the second section:``\section{Observationsspecific to the simulation of light}\label{sec:2} Thefollowing is a list of the STOE interpreted experimental observations used todevelop the equations for the computer simulation of Young's Experiment. Theypresent some major differences relative to the standard model of light.However, they have analogies to the big scale or to the Newtonian scale andthey are all needed to form the particle model that has experimentally shown todemonstrate diffraction.’’ Delete from (3) ``Hods are 2 dimensional.’’Add an assumption:(11)Many NFLs are used to control parameters. For example, the speed of a photon iscontrolled by the $\rho$ which keeps the photon in the local minima in theplenum. Computer programs with a huge number of iterations such as thissimulation will become unstable without NFLs.   This is becoming more of STOE assumption paper than onerestricted to the photon simulation. This probably justified because the STOEis very non--standard.  Being a lone (retired) researcher, seeing how others viewthis work is very instructive. Thanks,Hodge 

    On Thursday, May 12, 2016 6:43 PM, Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com> wrote:
 

  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-mail wolf 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 at Wolf 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/20160513/6cf00162/attachment.htm>