Inertia and proton/electron mass ratio

There are two kinds of conventional physicists: those that have open minds about the physics of
our universe and those that dogmatically adhere to probability theory. There are many of both
kinds.. So it's unfair of me to accuse the entire physics community of the latter.. This essay is an
appeal to the open-minded kind and the general public who also lean that way.. The other kind
might as well just skip to another essay/story..

i just wrote a letter to NPA, the Natural Philosophy Alliance. It was about one page long. It was
about inertia. It was also about the structure of space/time. If space/time has structure, we may
never know because the size of that structure may be beyond anything we can ever measure or
detect. That may be unfortunate reality. Of course, that does not prohibit us from trying to guess
the structure or determine which structure best fits observations. Unfortunately, there's a large
group of mathematical physicists who are hell-bent on determining that structure, even at the
price of our sanity. What i mean by that is if they determine the structure of space, if that model
is essentially incorrect but fits Standard Model assumptions, then we become a delusional society
looking at the universe in distorted ways based on our incorrect philosophy of science and nature.

The basis of the Standard Model is that physics is random: forces are based on virtual particle
exchange. Taken to the extreme, even spacetime is filled with random virtual particles. This is
the 'dogmatic view' mentioned above. But this rabid adherence to randomness is historically
based on the Copenhagen perspective which was philosophically anti-deterministic. What that
means is: in the history of physics, there was a group that could not stomach determinism
(because it violated their beliefs about freedom), so they devised a physics that supported their
philosophy. That physics is what i call probabilistic quantum mechanics. PQM and the
philosophy behind it have dominated physics for near a century.

i agree that freedom is paramount but we do not need to devise a quantum theory of physics
based on freedom just out of human insecurity. Freedom can be achieved in other more
sophisticated ways.. For instance, chaos theory is the branch of math that investigates random
behavior. Interestingly, some 'governing equations' for chaos are actually deterministic. So some
level of randomness/freedom can be achieved deterministically. This is actually an astounding
mathematical truth..

Another favorite area of mine is turbulence. Turbulence is 'kind of' the opposite of order.
Turbulence is the natural phenomenon which happens when fluid flow exceeds a certain critical
speed depending on the fluid. Laminar (smooth) flow is the contrasting kind. So we have another
example in nature where randomness can occur completely by itself. We don't really need to
'build in' randomness into the universe out of human insecurity..

There's a relatively new area of engineering called wavelet theory. Surprisingly, there are some
limits in 'perfection' which resemble Heisenberg uncertainty. The real question becomes: does
engineering mimic nature or the other way around? ;) Or have engineers simply discovered some
properties of nature that physicists have purported for decades? This sounds circular and i could
stop right there but engineering has some valuable insights which need expounding.
One thing physics neglects is media impedance - even the impedance of space - they ignore and
consider trivial. 'Strangely', it was the impedance of space which impelled me on the path of
discovery about 'alternative views' of nature. So can it be so invalid as physics claims? One of
my first discoveries was that the impedance of space relates charge to spin. i sent the result to a
journal and they said "interesting" but would not publish.. i kept at it .. Over the years i've
developed 'engineering' models of elementary particles which are more realistic and respect their
dual nature. Dual in that they exhibit electromagnetic character and 'mass' character both. Mass is
in quotes because we all know about Einstein's famous equation of mass-energy equivalence. So
we all know that mass and energy are 'interchangeable'. This concept and the fact elementary
particles have electromagnetic attributes forced me to try to find some way to 'unite' these two
features.. Why do electrons and protons exhibit these dual characteristics? Could it be because
space has two features which allow them? This is the simplest explanation and i pursued it
doggedly. i reasoned that the only possible way that e.p.s could exhibit dual character is because
space allows them. Space must have two unspoken qualities which allow electromagnetic
behavior and 'mass' behavior. 'Amazingly', all we need to do is look toward engineering..
Impedance and elasticity are the two concepts which designate 'what we need' to understand
elementary particles.. Many physicists scoff and walk away at this point in the discussion
because it smacks of determinism and the aether - which they've rejected years ago - both.

The 'bizarre' thing is: when we pursue this path to it's eventual conceptual end, we arrive at an
elegant theory of spacetime and elementary particles including general relativity / gravitation. So
could it be so wrong? As mentioned above, the main reason physicists cannot stomach this
theory is because it relates to concepts they've rejected as wrong .. In my most recent letter to
NPA, one of the things i unequivocally state is that we need to be able to discuss things
conceptually. If we cannot do that, it indicates we really don't understand. A conceptual
discussion forces you to imagine/visualize concepts. It forces you to relate ideas at a higher level
so that others can understand. Without conceptual understanding, we have no hope of
understanding our universe.

After years of study, i surmise the Standard Model is based on virtual exchange. That is the
central concept/assumption of the SM. Alternatively, the theory i've developed/discovered is
called temporal relativity, TR for short. TR is based on one critical assumption: time can store
energy like space. With that one assumption, you can explain quite a few things in nature.. Of
course, i couple that assumption with electromagnetic theory to be comprehensive. But
essentially TR is the simplest theory which explains conceptually: gravitation, strong force,
special relativity, and mass. If it's wrong, we can 'fall back' to a more complex model which is
the elementary particle version of general relativity.

Finally, we can discuss inertia and proton/electron mass ratio. Again, this will be a conceptual
discussion. What causes inertia? What causes the proton/electron mass ratio to be the value we
measure? From the classical perspective, inertia is mass resistance to acceleration. But that says
nothing about what Causes inertia. Is it media impedance? Or perhaps media elasticity? If it was
media impedance, larger objects would be impeded more than smaller objects of same mass ..
Let me copy-paste one critical part of my letter to NPA:
1. inelastic space/time = 0 energy propagation rate = no particles = dead universe
2. infinitely elastic space/time = infinite e.p.r. = everything happens all at once = dead universe
3. finitely elastic space/time = finite e.p.r. = finite set of e.p.s = possibility for life
The reason i put a slash between space and time is because we don't really need spacetime to be
elastic to explain nature. It could be one or the other. That's a simpler (and therefore preferred)
model. So i propose that elasticity is the core feature of our universe that determines whether or
not life can exist here. Now how that relates to proton/electron ratio is something for you to
determine.. There's a Nobel prize waiting for you! Go get it! ;)

(The Poynting vector in engineering indicates power flow in an electromagnetic field. Engineers
view photons as 'self propagating transverse electromagnetic waves' that are polarizable in two
ways: circular and linear. So photons 'self propagate' somehow.. Almost no one addresses how
they do this. Several alternative theorists propose energy propagates because it changes form:
from electromagnetic to mass-equivalent. If TR is correct, mass-equivalent is a temporal
distortion or curvature in time, so photons move because they change form between
electromagnetic energy and temporal energy. Alternatively, if GR is correct, mass-equivalent
is/are really little 'twists in space' (i call them spacelets), so photons move because their energy
transforms between electromagnetic field and spacelet. (The particle version of GR i call spacelet
theory, ST.) But again, convention dismisses all this because it's not formulated in the language
of QFT (quantum field theory) and because of the contradictory assumptions listed above. The
reason TR/ST cannot be formulated in the language of QFT is because that theory is based on
virtual exchange which is in direct opposition to the primary assumptions of TR/ST. A new
language must be developed analogous to QFT which is another challenge for theorists
embracing TR/ST. So there is much work to be done..)

The basic point of this essay is: if we truly understood our universe conceptually, we'd be able to
easily explain inertia and proton/electron mass ratio. The fact i can somewhat explain inertia
indicates this theoretical direction is preferable to SM/QED/QFT. Some might profess all i do is
a lot of 'hand waving' and gesticulation, endlessly propounding determinism and aether. But this
ridicule is unfair and unjust. If we religiously adhered to Occam's Razor and the scientific
method, we'd be pursuing TR/ST long ago..