Today once again I must confess to having been wrong. Or at least not having seen the wood for the trees. Or more specifically not having seen the trees for the woods. You see, refraction is the woods. It’s quite a complex phenomenon involving a bunch of elementary particles of energy (dots). However, is there something more fundamental than refraction? While I thought that there wasn’t, now I understand that what makes the wood of refraction are the trees of reflection.
I only realized this after I realized that curves don’t exist. If the only thing that determines the movement of dots is impacts, we should ask if impacts are refraction. While we could quibble with language and call impacts refraction, this would be disingenuous. Rather, just like this video illustrates, the impact of the dots is reflection:
However, once again I’m faced with a challenge. If I state that the most fundamental interaction is reflection, this means that the mathematics of the Theory of Everything isn’t ready yet. You see, in my previous posts, and even in my unfortunately rejected Theory of Everything -manuscript, I had left the mechanism of refraction (or reflection) rather vague. Or to once again quote the Sidney Harris comic “I think you should be more specific here in step two”:
So, it seems that while I know the general idea of reflection, the problem is that in a saint Hannes knot, there is an impact of a single dot with two other dots, whereas everywhere else there is an impact of just a single dot with another single dot.
While I have an intuitive sense of what’s going on, I still don’t have anything mathematical to explain the phenomenon.
This is what the area around the impact in a saint Hannes knot looks like, I one removes half the dots. The ones that aren’t immediately experiencing three-body collisions.
So, this is what I’ll be working on next. And as a side note, I’ve submitted an official form of appeal to Scientific Reports. I have clearly stated my objections to the rejections but suggest in it that I am willing to submit a revision. While the rejection was extremely vague, it isn’t 100 % wrong. The only reason for rejection is that the work is not valid. So I have to write the revision to be so foolproof that this criticism cannot be used anymore.
By the way, the working title of the revision is "The Mathematical Principles of All Physical Interactions Based on the Reflection of Elementary Particles of Energy"
Comments