Quantum constants' relation to Natural integers.

[Epsilon=One]

A Quantum constant’s relation to Natural integers (www.101123.com/NI)
A simple, Natural, geometric construction of the Planck constant

This thread is a reply to questions and responses posed on this forum at:
topic: Physics, Math, & Philosophy Homework;
Thread: Proofs; in posts #3 through #5 (www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=1272).The Planck constant (PC), and its derivatives, directly link Pulsoid Theory (www.101123.com/PTis) (PT) to Standard Model (SM) quantizing . . . the quantum theories.PT’s proof of the value of “One” (www.101123.com/PoO) is important, beyond its refutation of Kurt Gödel’s (www.CQthus.com/Go) “Incompleteness Theorem (www.CQthus.com/GIT),” because its proof is dependent upon the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC) (EC), the common denominator of all integers, which is a heuristic description of the Conceptual Unit (www.101123.com/CU) (CU), the common denominator of the radii of the smallest manifestation of Nature (Resoloids) and the unit of fundamental, intrinsic time (www.101123.com/FIT) (FIT).

The “smallest manifestation of Nature” is an apt description of the Planck constant (PC) that is at the foundation of the the most repected insight of the many intellectual giants that is contained within academia’s evolved Standard Models (SM) of physics.

Linking the concepts of the Planck constant (PC) and Natural integers (www.101123.com/NI) is profound, subtle, beautiful . . . and, refreshingly, simple. Possibly, comparable to Einstein’s concept of relativity. The linking of the Planck constant to the common denominator of the Natural integers (www.101123.com/NI), “One,” has the added benefit of resolving Gödel’s (www.CQthus.com/Go) “Incompleteness Theorem (www.CQthus.com/GIT)” (GIT) as well as directly tying GIT resolution to Nature; and, thus, linking all mathematics to Nature.

The resolution of GIT strengthens the foundation for both the disciplines of physics and philosophy (philosophical logic).

The link is easily seen through the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC) (EC) that is the crux of the symbolic, geometric (mathematical) unification of Reality (www.101123.com/R); whereas, the Unified Concept (www.101123.com/UC) (UC) is the philosophically logical unification of Reality (www.101123.com/R).

There are many derivations of the Planck constant; so, first, it is necessary to define what Planck meant by his original quantum constant. Said constant was a construction to mathematically describe what Planck considered as the minimal quantum of Nature, at that time known as: the Wien “energy element.” Wien's “energy element” must have come from somewhere; therefore, it will be considered as an emerging, “energy element” or “eee,” which will be appropriately designated as a backward three, "3," or “ε,” εpsilon, which designates the constant of the minimal energy quantum.

From observation, this minimal energy quantum, εpsilon, “ε,” must expand radiantly while oscillating in some manner; and, being fundamental, it must be without any distinctive variations and will be, thus, assumed as oscillating seminal motion (www.101123.com/SM), which has no dimensions, originates as a sphere (without dimensions) with its radius/vector being designated “One”; of course, if there was anything smaller that exists, it would be designated “One.” Thus,

εpsilon = One.
As there is no quantum that is smaller, by definition, than εpsilon, “ε,” it can be said that nothing exists that is smaller; thus, a sphere with a radius of One, “1” is the limit of Reality (www.101123.com/R); or simply, a sphere of radius one is the infinite (which is dimensionless) and a point (which is dimensionless) within the sphere (there is only a center) is the infinitesimal.

As there are no dimensions, the sphere and the point are congruent . . . as, in a sense, are the Natural integers (www.101123.com/NI) Zero, "0," and One, "1," as demonstrated by the Natural function (www.101123.com/NF), x² – x, (NF) that is the major radial complement of the Pulse/time for any ellipse, which when rotated about its major diameter, “D,” is an ellipsoid, which is the necessary, and required, geometry of the emerging “energy element, “ε.”

Motion is the hallmark of Reality (www.101123.com/R). That something does move is the saliency of the Unified Concept (www.101123/UC) (UC). Said motion results in the dynamic, emergent separation (www.101123.com/DES) of the dimensionless point and the dimensionless sphere that envelops said point.

At the instant of separation there is
an ellipsoidal quantum, εpsilon, “ε,”
with vectors that are minimally
larger than One.

Thus, it can be said that "One" is as representative of non-existence as "Zero"; or, that One, Zero, the infinite, and the infinitesimal are all singularities. As there can be only one singularity, they must all be equivalent to one another, or symbolic of . . . Infinity (www.101123.com/I).

It is of the utmost significance, for the structural stability and internal harmony (the basis of resonance, which is the essence of fermions and bosons) of the Triquametric motion (www.101123.com/TM), of Natural quanta, that the internal, salient, structural parts (www.101123.com/SSP) (SSP) of the Emergent Ellipsoid (www.101123.com/EEd), and its Pulse, "P," (www.101123.com/Pul) are always multiples of the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC) (EC). Such stability and harmony occurs when the vectors, "v," are the square of the Pulse, "P," (www.101123.com/Pul) for any Emergent Ellipsoid (www.101123.com/EEd).

The square of any value, from the infinitesimal to the infinite, approaches "One" as said value approaches "One."

Thus, approaching the minimal limit, the increment is moot and the vector/radius is conceptually “One.” While, interestingly, because of the dynamics of the separation, the vectors are the square of the radius; and, the spherical quantum has become a spheroidal Emergent Ellipsoid (www.101123.com/EEd). All ellipses are geometric constructions with limits between a circle and a straight line with vectors that are the square of the Pulse/time; and, most importantly, as such, all ellipses have an Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC) (EC) that equals . . . One, which is the same "One" as the minimal energy quantum: εpsilon, "ε."

All Ellipses are defined by the Brunardot Theorem (www.101123.com/BT): c² = 2v² – s²;
and, by its corollaries, the Pulsoid Theorem (www.101123.com/eP2): v = εP²;
and, the diameter chord = c = P(square root(v + r)).

The integer two, "2," for the Pulse, P,” is most significant, because it results in the geometry that creates first evidence of existence and the evolution of the Natural integers (www.101123.com/NI); this is because, most significantly, the smallest (first) resonances initiate the first "tick" of fundamental, intrinsic time (www.101123.com/FIT) (FIT). The energy transfers between the motion of the vectors and Resoloids (www.101123.com/R-loid) accounts for the pulse/“tick” of the quantum.

The first resonances that evolve from harmonic Triquametric motion (www.101123.com/TM) have radii of One; and, each subsequent hypotenuse Resoloid (www.101123.com/R-loid) has a radius that increases by one Conceptual Unit (www.101123.com/CU) (CU) with each "tick" of FIT . . . as does the "gap" between each pulsing Emergent Ellipsoid's (www.101123.com/EEd) major diameter. The value of the Conceptual Unit (www.CQthus.com/PT/CU) (CU), One, "1," remains constant for an ellipse of any size when the vector, "v," is set as the square of the Pulse, "P,"[URL]/time. It is this constant that is described heuristically by the [URL=www.101123.com/EC]Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/Pul) (EC).

(If no image appears below, "Click" your browser "Refresh" icon.)
http://b.g2d.us/PC-330.gif

Legend for an Equilateral Emergent Ellipse (www.101123.com/EEd) (vector = wave)
Acute and Obtuse Ellipses are congruentε = εpsilon = 1
P = Lines BE, BC, CD, DG = Pulse, “P” (www.101123.com/Pul) = 2
s = Lines BC, CD = soliton, (www.CQthus.com/Soliton) “s” = Natural Function (www.101123.com/NF) (NF) = P² – P = 2
r = Line AD = radius = 2P – ε = v – ε = 3
w = Line BD = wave = 2s = 4
v = Lines BF, CE, CG, DF = vector = w = P² = 4
h = Line AB = hypotenuse = w + ε = v + ε = 5
Hr = Hypotenuse radius of circle
..................inscribed in right triangle ABD = ε = 1
ε = P – Hr = h – w h – v = P² – r = v – r
c = P(Sq rt(r + v)) = 2√7It is at the second "tick," that is symbolized by the Pulse, "P," equals 2, that forms an equilateral Emergent Ellipsoid (www.101123.com/EED) wherein the Natural integers (www.101123.com/NI) evolve as lengths of the internal, salient, structural parts (www.101123.com/SSP) of said ellipsoid with the EC as their common denominator. It is the integer values, of said structural parts, that create the harmony within ellipsoidal quantum that creates the resonances, with integer value radii, that are heuristically symbolized by the circle inscribed in the above right triangle ABD. As the Pulse/time increases by Conceptual Units (www.101123.com/CU) (CU) said resonances separate with some groups of resonances (orbital Resoloids (www.101123.com/R-loid)) moving toward the ends of the major diameter, “M,” and inside the radii. The remaining groups of resonances (nuclear) converging at the intersection of the major and minor diameters. Thus, the basic Standard Model of fermion distribution.

And, thus, the EC that is always One, and is the radius of the minimal resonance, that is the minimal essence of mass, is equivalent to the Planck constant that symbolizes the smallest, emergent, ellipsoidal, energy element:

εpsilon, "ε."
And, it is the EC, as the Natural value of One that establishes the value of all subsequent integers. And, the dynamics of the ellipsoidal quantum, particularly, its Triquametric motion (www.101123.com/TM) (TM), is the source of all fundamental arithmetic manipulations/operations.

Therefore, the Planck constant; that is related to the EC, that is equal to the Natural integer (www.101123.com/NI) One, "1"; establishes the fundamental quantum constants' relationship to Natural integers (www.101123.com/NI). And, in a very real sense, the Planck constant's requisite geometry can be considered the source of all mathematics; as well as, the resolution of Gödel's (www.CQthus.com/Go) Incompleteness Theorem (www.CQthus.com/GIT) (GIT).

©Copyright 2006 by Brunardot. All rights reserved.
Terms: PhysicsMathForums.com, Brunardot, and Pulsoid Theory must be cited.
Sorry! This Thread has not been completed.
Please Bookmark and return to this site often.

If there is an immediate need for information,
please e-mail directly at the below "Click" link.

Please note that any private correspondence
may be edited and anonymously posted unless
requested otherwise.

Every effort will be made to expedite a reply
with the requested information.Please ask questions. :)With questions it’s possible to know if
comments are logical and convincing;
or whether clarification is required......http://1.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://7.g2d.us/e.jpghttp://2.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://3.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://4.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://5.g2d.us/e.gif
..........http://6.g2d.us/e.gif
..........If images don’t display, "click" the Refresh Icon.

[Toptunov]

Dear Y1,

I appreciate your "pulsoid theory" as the creation of an extraordinary mind, but the merging between phylosophical, geometrical, algebraic and physics' elements is so close that I'm a disoriented.

Let me ask you my usual question: have you thought a possible experiment to run out in an ordinary laboratory in order to verify at least an aspect of your theory that could differenciate it from other mainstream theories?

I know it could sound a poor question for your deep speculation on episthemology of science, but it's the turning point for each physicist, no matter how beautiful is their model (and yours actually is, also estetically speaking).

[Epsilon=One]

I appreciate your "pulsoid theory"...As I appreciate your wide-ranging insight.

...but the merging between phylosophical, geometrical, algebraic and physics' elements is so close that I'm a disoriented.Not to worry. As you have followed it, it was written to disorient.

The slow development to where the theory should have started was done with purpose. The most basic fundamental concepts are so simple that they can be easily stolen and possibly misused. I was not only concerned about the scientific fields; but, have been particularly concerned since the early '50s about the arena where the “war of ideas” has been waged on the world stage; which was quite hot in the ‘50s.

I have always felt that M a r x (word spaced to defeat SPAM filter) was basically correct for the time in which he lived; however, his ideas were exploited and corrupted for use against the common man rather than for humanity; as he intended. Much unintended suffering followed for the common man, for many years . . . all because of one man's concept or two that were taken from his control.

I have always believed that the pen (and by extension: ideas) is mightier than the sword; thus, words (and ideas) must be carefully utilized.

Less than 20 years ago, while working at TRW, Space and Defense, I realized that theoretical physics not only had not progressed to where I was then irrelevant; but, that theoretical physics had actually veered sharply off-course and declined since Einstein’s death . . . despite the tremendous improvement in available tools.

Factors that I found quite disturbing were such as acceptance of Big Bang and black hole theory; ignoring 1988 and subsequent observed high-energy background radiation; early trivializing of observed, accelerating galactic recession; over reliance upon mathematical manipulation beyond geometrical understanding, etc.

My problems all began when Morrison sent me to Einstein concerning arguments that I had developed concerning pulsoids and the SOL; that is when Oppenheimer and Hoover became involved. And, I was literally out at the wrong end of a firearm.

Without access to peer revue, or much sought for, and unobtainable, presentation to an academic group, I was concerned with Pulsoid Theory's (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis) (PT) consequent development. You must understand the paranoia: the theory was born in the McCarthy era, and I was involved with Oppenheimer and Morrison who were principles of the Manhattan project and under very close covert surveillance in the '50s.

In retrospect, I suspect Hoover (FBI), with cause, created many problems for me that I didn't realize for years.

Let me ask you my usual question: have you thought a possible experiment to run out in an ordinary laboratory in order to verify at least an aspect of your theory that could differenciate it from other mainstream theories?Back in the ‘50s, I was excited about a research project that would now be termed “cold fusion.” In the early ‘90s, I acc umulated (word separated to defeat SPAM filter) one of the most extensive files on cold fusion journal literature. It was at this time that I met Mario Rabinowitz, a senior researcher at EPRI, who wrote several interesting papers concerning cold fusion. He unwittingly, and as much as he could, gave me much support and encouragement.

I know it could sound a poor question for your deep speculation on episthemology of science, but it's the turning point for each physicist, no matter how beautiful is their model (and yours actually is, also estetically speaking).In the fifties, god and physics were not closely related; except maybe by Einstein.

Today, God is a major world-wide problem (one of my earliest predictions). I firmly believe that time is now of the essence, on many global fronts, and only the theoretical physicist can have an immediate assuaging impact. That is why I keep hammering that Science, Theology, and Philosophy (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/STP) (STP) are One. I had hoped, in 1990, the writings at: www.Brunardot.com (http://www.Brunardot.com) might have an impact. I was wrong. I was sure, last year, I could begin my arguments with acceptance of the Proof of One (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PoO) or the Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC); both simple geometric proofs. I was wrong. For obvious reasons, my academic friends must intellectually shun my jousting with windmills. (I worry about my effect on Eliot's academic career; though, to his credit, he attacks more directly and with more impact than I do or can.)

Regarding Pulsoid Theory's proof (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Proof): rather than contrived experiments, certainly, weight must be given to that which I consider the strongest of proof, which is: that which cannot be disproved and reconciles with all logic and observation. Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis) is essentially a rationalization, based upon physics, for a philosophy referred to as: Conceptualism (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/C).

However, I consider that a resolution of the Pioneer Anomaly (http://www.zarm.uni-bremen.de/Pioneer/) by a European space mission (http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42730) next year (I hope) will be as good a test for PT as Eddington’s test of relativity (which, ironically, as you probably have guessed, I find unconvincing).

[Toptunov]

Dear Y1,

If I’ve correctly understood you’re proposing a revolutionary revision of science, with the abolition of all the distinctions among different subjects, a return to “great mother philosophy” in an ancient Greek spirit.

Your “pulsoid model” is a universal scheme that should be the common pattern to all natural laws, providing their explanation at the same time.

That’s far more beyond Einstein’s dream of unifying forces: it’s close to the “theory of the whole” someone is seeking in several ways.

Let me warn you that it’s an ambitious project for at least three reasons:
1) the difficulty to express a “global” thought beyond the ordinary categories of mind (and language);
2) the lack of simple experiments to propose in order to test it;
3) the skepticism of all the people who will never accept one man having entered Creator’s mind.

I can’t judge whether your theory is correct or not, nor my colleagues from math dept. seem to be interested in the “proof of one”.

But I feel a great respect for you as a free thinker.
You’ve got a dream, a faith in something, that is pretty rare in present cynical days.
Dreamers usually have hard lives, but are precious forerunners of progress.

Good luck for the next year’s space experiment!

P.S. the fifties were hard for all worldwide free thinkers...

[Epsilon=One]

Thanks for your time, interest, and kind words. I'm not too good at handing such.

If I’ve correctly understood you’re proposing a revolutionary revision of science, with the abolition of all the distinctions among different subjects, a return to “great mother philosophy” in an ancient Greek spirit.I am proposing a revision of theoretical physics, which I see as the primary science; which revision should blur the fundamental lines between science, theology, and philosophy.

As theoretical physics approaches the SOL . . . and beyond . . . (at micro and macro scales) only rationalization is possible; thus physics is philosophy or vice versa. I consider mathematics as more a part of logical philosophy than I connect it with physics . . . where mathematics is merely a descriptive tool. Again, the two disciplines blur and become branches of one another.

When theoretical physics and philosophy rationalize the beginning (and ending), such that all logical symbolism has a Natural origin, then, they are becoming theology. And, each of the three major disciplines rest on the same foundations of one another.

Such a union should do much to erase the doubt that all three now manage to create in the minds of not only the masses of lay persons; but, also, increasingly in the minds of most of the learned elite. One way, or another, this situation will continue to exacerbate much of the increasing world-wide turmoil. I firmly believe that it is imperative that “tolerance” and “sustainability” are more important than ever as “the world shrinks” and the demands upon limited resources expands.

There are many great minds today that disparage that there will ever be final proofs, reconciliations, or unification concerning either physics or mathematics . . . and, almost no mathematician or physicist gives the philosopher much credit. Why should they?; the philosophers cannot agree among themselves; they are almost irrelevant since the fall of logical symbolism.

Much of this intellectual brooding of the élite can be laid to Gödel; and later, to the frustrations brought about by the continuing parade of enigmas of observation (because conventional paradigms are weak). I am not castigating Gödel; without his requiring the fundamentals be first put in order it is hard to tell where we would be now. Also, important was Korzybski; however, no one ever paid much attention to his General Semantics.

I refer to this unified discipline as Conceptualism. The thrust of Conceptualism is to replace faith, which fosters doubt, with rationality which frees the spirit to maximize happiness.

Please carefully parse:
Conceptualism (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/C); and,
Science, Theology, and Philosophy (STP) (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/STP)Your “pulsoid model” is a universal scheme that should be the common pattern to all natural laws, providing their explanation at the same time.

That’s far more beyond Einstein’s dream of unifying forces: it’s close to the “theory of the whole” someone is seeking in several ways.You have a brilliant mind that can comprehend that which should be so obvious that no one else seems to be able to understand.

Let me warn you that it’s an ambitious project for at least three reasons…Yes, I agree there is cause for your warning. However, no longer are my concerns what they once were. Times and necessities have changed; and, personal concerns aren’t the consideration that they once were. Now my concerns are little more than can I get my body through another winter.

1) the difficulty to express a “global” thought beyond the ordinary categories of mind (and language);You and Korzybski obviously must know something that I just can’t seem to understand . . .

2) the lack of simple experiments to propose in order to test itThis is not the problem it once was. Actually, there are quite a few angles to this if I could just get a small eclectic group to show a modic um [word formatted to defeat SPAM filter] of interest. There are strong proofs and test all about; nobody has really applied themselves (opened their eyes and minds). I am proposing nothing very difficult, except to discard a few basic concepts, and to review what facts are left. Should Pulsoid Theory logic be wrong, wherever the error is pinpointed, should be a starting point to something better. The last thing that I am proposing is to discard that which complies with IPSO (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/IPSO). My argument is with the theoretical physicist, theologian, philosopher, economist, and politician; not with the researchers, engineers, applied technicians, and teachers. If people can rationalize their environment without personal doubt, it will be very difficult to manipulate them for other than their own wellbeing.

3) the skepticism of all the people who will never accept one man having entered Creator’s mind.Here, I will defer to Salman Rushdie.

I can’t judge whether your theory is correct or not, nor my colleagues from math dept. seem to be interested in the “proof of one”.The posts that you have seen are ad hoc, disjointed, and often misleading or overly heuristic. The theory of that which is most fundamental must be simple, elegant and geometric . . . by definition. An understanding of the Pulsoid is such; though, I certainly have kept it quite obfuscated. The purpose is to build a proprietary trail to where I should have begun. I have been doing this for over 15 years to provoke interest in the less important; yet, equally controversial aspects of the theory. With no success. I clearly posted the Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) at the beginning of the internet; and yet, have not raised an eyebrow. I revised the Fibonacci sequence (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/rFs); and, not a word. I speak of the Natural function (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/NF) as a complement to the soliton. Not a word.

I have pleaded, as Eliot well knows, for months, at the highest (and lowest) levels of academe for 15 minutes at a blackboard with a small group of mathematicians. You would not believe the rebuffs.

Actually the Proof of One is much more straightforward than I have posted. And, it is a corollary of the Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) and Emergent Ellipsoids (http://www.EmergentEllipse.com) which are most elegant with the unique Brunardot Theorem (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/BT) and Pulsoid Theorem (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/eP2) which I haven’t been able to “sell” for many years. ????

Years before Hubble ST was launched, I insisted the galactic recession was accelerating. Nothing but derision before . . . and silence and “ignore”-ance afterward. I wrote a long manuscript on the duality of Infinity (infinitesimal and infinite as the same place) and the illusion of gravity’s source at each, thus Cosmic Inertia (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CI). I argued in 1988 at TRW that the galaxies were “falling” away from each other. The point is not what’s right and what’s wrong; the point is that no one wants to think beyond the accepted “line.” In ’55 the Pulsoid concept appeared to unite GR and QM, only Morrison was interested and he sent me to Einstein. Enter Oppenheimer and Hoover. Until you came along, I never thought I’d get back to the beginning . . .

It’s never been a question of right or wrong; what’s important is dialogue.

You’ve got a dream, a faith in something, that is pretty rare in present cynical days.I believe you are probably correct; however, I will never understand why it’s so rare.

Dreamers usually have hard lives, but are precious forerunners of progress.My life has been nothing to complain about . . . except, when I dream. I guess thinking about those like Thoreau and Van Gogh make things easier for me. My role model for a dreamer I suppose would be Louis Pasteur; he could dream with his feet on the ground and his eyes on the ball.

the fifties were hard for all worldwide free thinkers...Are you that old?

[Toptunov]

Dear Y1,

I’m not so old, but I have some older relatives and friends who are used to tell me about their youth.

May you please explain deeper how your assumption of “SOL not constant” (I read somewhere else) keeps valid the "Relativity principle" for each observer?

Last question: the decelerating speed of light you're proposing is somehow linked to “steady-state universe” theory?

[Epsilon=One]

...explain deeper how your assumption of “SOL not constant” (I read somewhere else) keeps valid the "Relativity principle" for each observer?This answer will be short and ad hoc. That means: not precisely as I completely understand the issue.

Soon, I will post a short essay on the subject. This is one of the issues that I have been working towards with the series of posts over the past year.

There are many arguments as to why the SOL is not constant, below is one; however, the acceleration is "relatively" quite small at all but extreme speeds. Thus, as to "Relativity principle" there should be little changes required for current theory or observation.

Few understand the internal, geometric construction of a light wave. (For now, I am only discussing what I refer to as the fourth state of light.) Basically, it is a pulsing, double ellipsoid (carrying a "photon") that I refer to as an Emerging Ellipsoid that was a fermion (Resoloid) until its expulsion from an atom or proto-atom.

The described light wave (hyper-relativistic, pulsing, double ellipsoidal "envelope") pulses with a "gap" (leading crest separation) that increases one Conceptual Unit (CU) per pulse. It is this phenomenon (increasing "gap") that is interpreted as the SOL. This CU is the same unit as that of fundamental, intrinsic time. Thus, it is time that remains constant at all scales and speeds . . . not light.

I don't expect you to immediately grasp what I am describing. I will work on the graphics and a better description with the mathematics that I find to be the most compelling aspect of the argument. Your probing with follow-up questions may help your understanding of what I'm trying to describe faster than when my detailed essay will be published. For myself, it was this work in the '50s that led to most all else.

...the decelerating speed of light you're proposing is somehow linked to “steady-state universe” theory?Yes. When light finally dissipates ("winds" down from its highly active state as an embeded Resoloid (fermion) before its ejected state) it coalesces, propagates, compresses, dissipates, ad infinitum.

With a bit of imagination, this should rationalize the Big Bang "container" enigma. The Big Bang, as the only Cosmic force opposed to gravity's illusion of attraction, is the biggest problem facing force unification for the Standard Models.

I firmly believe Einstein would immediately have understood most all of this far better than I if only he would have lived another day and I could have asked him to run a quick gedanken concerning: What if light's speed was not constant? He spent his last days tormented with quantum problems and elliptical/sinusoidal unification.

I believe he'd have died smiling had he run the above gedanken.

[ste]

Until the last two paragraphs, I see no connection between quantum constants OR the Planck constant. Even after reading them, I have yet to see any clear connection. Why is the Planck unit connected to the EC? How can it be shown to be true?

[Epsilon=One]

Until the last two paragraphs, I see no connection between quantum constants OR the Planck constant.I'm not certain what last two paragraphs you are referring to. Because you seem to "see" the connection within these paragraphs, I do not understand why you don't "see" the connection.

The Planck constant underlies all the various Planck quantum constants as defined by Standard Model theory.

Even after reading them, I have yet to see any clear connection. Why is the Planck unit connected to the EC? How can it be shown to be true?I thought I was quite clear. You will have to be more specific as to what I wrote that you don't understand.

Basically, the connection is quite simple in that they both are heuristic beginning points.