AN: I think it would be instructive and constructive for readers if you would post my original PM to you. Your response (above) was a little 'out-of'context' re: my PM to you. Thanks
I was responding to more than just your PM.
I will soon (next few days) be presenting some preliminary calculations regarding the total unit energy of the quantum field. I will appreciate knowledgeable members checking my math (I am NOT a mathematician!). To begin with, any comments on the limits of applicability of:
E = hf (Planck Relationship)
speed = frequency x wavelength
You have picked two very basic equations to deal with. No amount of rearranging those will lead to a justified result. See my explanation of why coefficient reshuffling isn't good enough, over in Aetherwulf's thread on 'Planck particles'.
If my calculations pass muster, I will then comment regarding application of the calcs to the EEMU Hypothesis
You cannot start doing quantitative stuff if you haven't stated your initial quantitative assumptions. Otherwise you're just plucking results out of nowhere, which is pointless.
the velocity of light for EM wavelengths shorter than the Planck length, vibrational energies and frequencies of 'strings', and other. Thanks for your assistance!
None of which you have models for so any conclusions you reach are little more than opinion.
In industry and manufacturing, sometimes it's more efficient to just perform the experiment then to try to calculate or prove something mathematically. shouldn't we entertain the possibility that an experiment might be a more efficient way to get an answer than a calculation?
Yes, sometimes it's easier to do experiments for simple things but to build a piece of technology based on such things you require a model of the system, so you know how the technology will behave. There's tons of experiments about transistor technology but if you don't know how electrons behave in a quantitative predictive model then you'll not be able to manufacture computer chips with any kind of consistency.
Furthermore, there are
vast areas of industry where experiments are either prohibitively expensive or just impossible. Aerospace uses massive amounts of computing power to model air flow around plane designs. It's insane to try to design a modern plane to building your initial idea, testing it in flight, changing the design, building another plane, testing it in flight etc. If you have a good model of aerodynamics than you can do all of this quicker, cheaper and on a larger scale by doing computer simulations. This is particularly a problem for aerothermodynamics, which is the main thing in modelling how craft enter the atmosphere. No experiment can generate the necessary speeds (Mach 25+), temperatures (1,000K-10,000K), pressures, ionisation levels, densities all at the same time to recreate in a lab the conditions at the wing tip of the Shuttle as it de-orbits or on a probe entering the atmosphere of Jupiter. Even computer simulations are pretty poor because we don't understand the non-equilibrium thermodynamics of partially ionised hypersonic atmospheric flow around a catalytic ablative heat field well enough. Even if we did it's necessary to include fluid mechanics, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, particle kinetic, chemistry, quantum chemistry and quantum mechanics all at the same time. Doing a proper experiment would mean building a craft, putting it into orbit and then de-orbiting it. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars to get 5 minutes of data specific to that particular craft design.
There's a great many areas of industry where doing enough experiments is just not possible. They are typically the ones involving mega-projects or ultra expensive equipment. Such things occur more and more as we develop technology which goes further and further away from "I can do this in my shed with scrap metal and a blow torch" engineering.
With this in mind, I will speculate further that SQR is a reasonable analogy for describing subplanckian actions on the scale order of GRO's data (10^-48 m).
'Reasonable'? How on Earth do you quantify whether it is reasonable or not. We have no experimental data from the Planck scale, we have no viable models for the Planck scale and you have absolutely no formal structure to your claims, it's just random guessing put together.
Since the mainstream standard modelers will argue against this, what is their explanation for the GRO data?
Flawed logic. The reasonableness of your claims are entirely independent of whether or not anyone else has claims about the same thing. Since you're obviously not understanding why that argument is flawed I'll give an example.
I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. I ask two people, Alice and Bob, to guess the number I'm thinking of. They write the answer down and give them to me. I look at Alice's guess. She is wrong. Is Bob therefore more likely to be correct? Of course not. Whether or not Alice is right has no bearing on Bob's answer, he is still very very very unlikely to be right and it would be foolish of him to claim it is 'reasonable' to think he is right just because Alice was wrong.
You're doing that. Whether or not someone else has anything to say about the GRO data is irrelevant to how valid or not your claims aren't.
what is the 'energetic nature' of 'stuff'' existing at 10^-48 m? Since planck's constant only seems to apply (see above equations) to "quantizable' entities (be they matter or energy), anyone care to speculate on what may be happening at below-quantitizable (subplanckian) scales? "Perhaps" h no longer is in the "equation"? "Perhaps" c is a 'lower' velocity limit in subplanckian (i.e., SQR) reality, and superluminal energetics apply.
All there is is speculation,
none of it reasonable. Especially yours.
Some mathematical inter-relationships for your consideration:
*sigh* More trivial coefficient reshuffling.....
8. E=mc^2 =hf [ special limiting condition for speed at c]
Wrong! $$E=mc^{2}$$ is not a universally true equation. It is only true for particles at rest and only particles with mass can be put at rest. The photon has no rest mass and thus cannot be put at rest by a good choice of reference frame. The full equation is actually $$E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + |\mathbf{p}c|^{2}$$. For a particle at rest p=0 but if the particle has zero rest mass then m=0 and we get $$E = |\mathbf{p}c|$$. The photon's energy is E = |p|c, not $$E=mc^{2}$$. This is something anyone learning even the most basic of relativity will know. This illustrates you haven't done any proper reading, you're just taping together results you like the look of. If you actually had justification for using a result from special relativity, ie you'd derived the result within your work rather than just stolen it from elsewhere, then you'd have seen in the derivation how momentum comes into it, how light has a different result. This demonstrates the point I've been making, simply putting random results you like the look of (but don't understand) together and calling it EEMU is not how good science is done. If Einstein had been hit by a truck the day after writing down the two postulates of special relativity then other physicists could have derived all of special relativity from those two postulates without his input. Alternative if you put 2 competent physicists in 2 rooms and gave them both the postulates of special relativity then they'd both, eventually, derive the mass-energy-momentum result, the
same result. That's good science.
That cannot be said for your claims. No one else can work in your 'hypothesis', even if they wanted to, because there's no guiding formal structure, it's just your opinions. The same is true for the stuff spewed out by QWC, Farsight, Sylwester and others. It's just a mish-mash of various things you liked the sound of, typically don't understand or use properly and yet you claim it's 'reasonable'. No, it isn't.
.