You generally start at the first approximation. The approach I do is very
sound as I make sure the models are lorentz invariant. The calculations are
very satisfactory and explains a lot of why's that one may have. Although
the basic block is simple, as you construct the bigger structures,
complications arise that hide the simple structure and the observations we
see on the macroscopic level, with their complexite will follow. You use
geometry to answer many questions. As things in this model do not interact
unless certain conditions are met you can overlay and in the end get higher
dimensional freedoms and I fully expect that you will be able to connect
your findings with certain geometrical constructs in 3D.
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:48 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> Stefan,
>
> All old models are ideals and simplifications. Nature is highly non
> linear and you certainly cannot increase the angular momentum by n*h.
> The reason is that after adding a quantum of energy the next resonance
> is slightly larger. So it looks like h(1+1)*(1+dh)^n...
>
> In mechanics you can get n for macroscopic bodies only under very
> special conditions...
>
> J.W.
>
> On 19.05.2023 21:19, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
> > http://itampe.com/on-the-fundamentals-of-charge.html
> >
> > I must say that my intuition and back of the envelope analysis seem to
> > pan out very nicely when I start to investigate math more seriously.
> > It all fit very well, actually a very satisfying result and this will
> > make the foundations of Mills GUTCP very understandable. I can't help
> > but think that this is a 1900 approach to superstrings ...
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>
