temporal relativity, avi able alternative ? i've just completed my 'mini-lecture s eries' on phys ics "phy w/ sam" on YouTube.

i don't have access to video-editing software so please forgive the 'presentation errors' and others evident.. it was fun and i have a good feeling about it.. Today, i attempted to write some professionals 'in the field' (of theoretical physics) about the ideas presented there. i'll keep you updated on any replies. Surveying the literature (yet again) about related topics produced a lis t of possible recipients and some inspiration for a fresh article about them. Core to this theory is the concept: conservation of curvature. But before we revisit that concept, let'sdiscuss the related conventional concepts. Conservation of energy: us ually stated as t he first law of thermodynamics; energy cannot be created nor destroyed; it can only be transformed. We'll see t his is crucial to a realistic model of the photon, a particle of light. Some have joked in the field that "you need a permit/license to use the word 'photon'" because in most instances/interpretations of conventional quantum mechanics, talking about a single photon has no meaning / makes no s ens e (in t hose framew orks). Even engineers don't bother explaining why transverse electromagnetic waves (their version of photons) 'self-propagate'. They just do. M ore on this later. Conservation of information: much attention (w ithin the field and publicly) has been paid to this concept relating to black-holes and information loss. When an object falls into a black-hole, is the information contained in that object forever lost? Or does it somehow persist on the boundary (the event horizon)? Proponents of string theory and't he holographic principle' would s eem to say "No!" (answering the first question) Roger Penrose would say " es !" His theory is more Y aligned with my way of thinking: black-holes are merely massive neutron stars with event horizons (they have sufficient mas s wit h escape velocity exceeding c, t he speed of light). N o big deal. Conservation of curvature: we ass ume creat ion was a balanced curvature event; equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created; equal amounts of photons and ant iphotons were created. M atter and photons have positive curvature; antimatter and antiphotons have negative curvature. Time slows down near positive curvature (this is a fact of nature); time speeds up near negative curvature (this we assume). M atter attracts gravitationally and in nuclei; antimatter repulses (his t we assume). TR explains all of these with temporal curvature: spatially distributed deviation from 'flat time'. That notion directly relates to c, energy propag ion rate. at So what exactly is a photon? We propos e it 'senergy changing form : from electromagnetic to temporal distortion to electromagnetic.. We propose: that's t e only way for it to propagate (move h from one place to another). Why? M y guess is solitons s tanding waves rarely found in nat ure, are , unstable. Solitons are the macros copic versions of a solitary unchanging w ave . They're extremely rare and always disappear. Ball lightning may be an electromagnetic version of that. That's also extremely rare and always unstable. So perhaps 'nature found a way' to stabilize the microversion of solitons, photons, by changing the form of energy within. Perhaps it's the only w ay for energy to propagate, other than spherical gravitational waves, in our universe. It 's 'just an idea' but a compelling one.. As photons have very slight positive curvature, s antiphot ons must have very slight ne ive o gat curvature. To explain elect romagnet is m realis tically, some of them must be charged. Ot herwise,

there's no way for protons and electrons to 'feel' the force of electromagnetism between them. Something r eal must mediate electromagnetism. They fit the balanced curvature framework. .. This all st arted w hen a gym teacher in junior high t old me "I have an idea about electrons and protons I can't prove .. I think they're self-confined photons. i repeated what he said "..self " confined photons.. Huh! i need time to think about it.." He just smiled .. A 'few' ;) years later .. We have viable alternatives to t he Standard M odel, virtual exchange, and inherent randomness. At no time did i actually pr ove elementary particles are self-confined photons ( hat concept was left by the w ays ide), but a lot of intereting/compelling concepts have t s evolved from that way of thinking.. The impedance of space, the elasticity of space,.. these notions, in thems elves, propelled/impelled me dow n a path i could hardly say "No!" to.. The fact you need elasticity of 's omet hing' in order for it to s tret ch/deform; the fact you need media impedance to explain different c (it's a fact the speed of light is different depending on media). The fact c directly relates to components of Z0, the impedance of space. The fact t he spin of photons, electrons, and protons directly relate to Z also made me 'very s uspicious '.. Finding an 0 exact relationship between elasticity and impedance was like someone s howing you a rainbow for the very first time.. Wow, i could barely believe my eyes.. It can't all be for naught; it can't all be wishful thinking; it can't all be fantasy.. The fact the theory crucially depends on a Prime Cause to explode the singularity (or smash two) should not be reason alone we dismiss the theory. After all, we cannot prove Goddoesn' t exist .. .. The theory is testable as described in the War for M eaning.. Bt w, t omorrow i have my first att pre-interview in a long time .. Plz say a few pray for me .. It couldn't hurt, right? ers