Iamsim vs Iam space

Frequently, i try to take on the role of 'distant observer' in regards to my work on Iam space. I try
to view it as another interested person might. The purpose is to check my own reasoning and
thought processes for relevance, validity, consistency,.. so that i can try to check the model for
the same reasons. For engineering purposes, there are others who have proposed discrete space
(and for other reasons). i have deliberately stayed away from discrete space because i do not
personally believe space is discrete (cellular as in Iamsim). But obviously, it has practical
applications. In linear systems science, many of the physical models are differential-continuous
but we actually simulate them on computers which are discrete. So a large part of linear systems
theory is called discrete (step-wise vs smooth).

As a distant observer looking at Iamsim and its possible correspondence to reality, i would
reiterate above and examine, in detail, the structure. With appropriate 'translation machinery'
(how one particle/photon moves from one cell to another), assuming impedance is constant,
uniform, and isotropic (does not depend on direction of travel), then the 'minimal set' of Iam
space reduces to R4. The reason for this is - the impedance of space is purely resistive,
approximately 377 ohms. However, the fourth component is not time as we think of it. Time in
this context is 'local time' which progresses at different rates dependent on local energy density.
From the cellular approach, again with proper translation machinery, temporal curvature is
'encoded' in that rate. So formally, Iam space becomes {R4 , Z0, t0, T} where the fourth
component of R4 has a very specific meaning as indicated above, Z0 is the impedance of free
space, t0 is the rate at which time passes in flat space (in our universe), and T represents the
(assumed enormously complex) translation machinery for a particle/photon to move from one
position to another. (For those who cannot stomach impedance it equates with c, the rate photons
travel in flat space and the limit rate for particles.)

Let's get a little more detailed to examine our assumptions:

Iam = {{x,y,z,tx: x,y,z∈R, tx=(1-EnatP/h)t0, Ena is neighborhood average energy density, tP Planck
time, h Planck's constant, and t0 is 'flat space time rate'}, c, T defined later}

The reasoning for using neighborhood average and not individual cell energy content is similar to
my reasoning for space: time is not discrete in our universe - we assume and perceive it
continuous. So naturally even in a cellular spatial approach, we assume temporal effects are
smoothed. This equates with a smoothed boundary for particles (not abrupt and discontinuous). If
indeed particles are Planck/other sized temporal distortions in the 'fabric of time', considering the
requirement for instance that those temporal distortions explain the strong force between nuclei,
'nuclear glue' becomes necessarily a boundary effect .. We see above that more than two
constants are required for our universe: two Planck constants, flat time rate, and speed of energy
propagation. Gravitation in this picture is not a boundary effect - it's more like a residual effect of
the temporal boundary. We're missing one critical component: particles.

Iam = {{x,y,z,tx: x,y,z∈R, tx=(1-EnatP/h)t0, Ena, tP, h, t0, c}, T, p} where p is the cosmological
particle set. We see that four constants are required for spacetime, two functions relating to local
time, one (assumed) incredibly complex position translation structure, and initial set of particles.
Missing from this picture is initial conditions: initial energy distribution among particles, size,
and shape of Iam space. Many many surfaces have been proposed for the shape of our universe.
Above assumes a kind of hyper-cube. For simulation purposes (and theoretical analysis), we
must choose something..

Iam = {{x,y,z,tx: x,y,z∈R, tx=(1-EnatP/h)t0, Ena, tP, h, t0, c}, T, p, p0} where the last item
represents the initial energy/momentum configuration of all particles in each cosmological
instance. The 'only' thing to be determined is T, the particle location translation machinery. In a
sense, this corresponds to QFT+QED+QM largely developed by Feynman. But unfortunately,
these tools/constructs/set-of-assumptions/theoretical-base are not amenable to Iam space. For
example, Feynman diagrams are amazingly powerful heuristic tools for understanding particle
dynamics. But they're based on virtual particles. So we cannot use them directly; we must
develop Iam space analogs of Feynman diagrams.

Another approach is thinking of T as a linear transformation on x (a particular particle). But as

stated previously, T must include: coherent, interference, and individual phenomena. As is
typical in any new branch of science, a shift of perspective and associated assumptions is really
all that was required.. i have confidence we can reformulate QFT+QED+QM for use in Iam
space .. 100 years was perhaps not lost after all..