I always enjoy Mr. Thompson's lucid comments here. I think the statement above illustrates why it is a bit harder for most of us to answer one of BigAl713's questions:On 2002-06-25 15:28, Tim Thompson wrote:
"But why does the universe do what we know it does? That's a tougher question, and is not directly observable. We answer the "why" by constructing some logical model that correlates as many of the facts we "know" as can be correlated; the more, the merrier."
"...why is energy equal to mass times the speed of light squared?"
The key word is "why". "What" the equation means can be found and defined, but why it works, is much more involved, and Tim Thompson outlines the methods to discover this.
BigAl713 also states:
"...Day is proposing a 3 tier structure of matter, all orbital in nature, and in the subatomic structure the meutrion is a nucleus. However the mass at the atomic level is in the nucleus, at the particle level it is in the encircling photons."
Did you mean "metreon" or "neutrino"?
Though Mr. Day himself is perhaps not obligated to do so, it would be a good thing if he (or someone) would devise independent experiments to test or reveal this structure should it exist. Perhaps his theory isn't relevant enough for someone to want to do this?
"Is there a relationship between light and matter and if so what?...Day's answer is that matter is 'made' out of light. Light is pure motion through space-medium and when turned in on itself forms the basis for matter. Matter is motion..structural motion..."
Don't quite get "matter is made out of light". As in matter is made from waves/particles? Photons? I read through the link but maybe I missed the explanation. Again, what independent experiments can be devised to test or reveal any of this structure should it exist?
How is his theory as good or better at defining the universe than current physics? Does it reconcile the breaking point between special relativity and quantum theory? I didn't notice that it addressed this.
I'm not a total math wizard, but expressing the basic mechanics of his ideas mathematically would have been helpful. Perhaps revealing any hidden flaw. Many of the statements are too subjective and open to diverse interpretation. Perhaps it's too "holistic"? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]