[tedjay]

Originally Posted by Bob Campbell Your article is interesting, especially the part about the photon not being a particle. Personally I have trouble with theories based on concepts that can never be confirmed in phenomenal experience of any kind. No matter how much they claim to portray some aspects of some phenomena, they inevitably lack the capacity to apply universally. I suppose I was expecting this type of response when I first started to break Zeron theory into bite size bits. There's really no substitute for reading the whole logic sequence. So let me try to paint a bigger picture. I recently went through the text of the theory and highlighted and counted outcomes flowing out of the theory. Of the 94 outcomes, about one third gave good fits to key historical experiments and equations. The remainder were novel outcomes that solve many of the outstanding mysteries of physics. The evidence is strongly in support of the objective reality of Zerons, the Cosma and the theory as a whole. However I do not expect to receive much support from the many contributors to these forums. Objective reality seems not to feature strongly and the theories I have read seem to be more philosophical than practical. To illustrate the great gulf that exists between Zeron theory and what I find here, perhaps a few definitions might be helpful. Space: Space is what I live in, what the universe exists in, and it has three dimensions. It is nothing more complicated than that. How formed, how big, how constant or how continuous concerns me not, because these unanswerable questions do not affect Zeron theory. Time: Time is an abstract dimensionless human construct devoid of any properties. It lives in the minds of men who perceive it to be the interval between two events and the unit of time to be an empirical proportion of the interval between two events. Simplistic as these definitions may seem, they are realistic and they permit the unification in physics in an unusual but objectively real manner. However this puts paid to concepts like space-time which seems to have its origins in Einstein's efforts to incorporate gravity into General Relativity. I find it difficult to believe that fast and slow zerons can be known in phenomenal experience, just as it is difficult to believe that time or space can ever be known as independent entities. I do not understand how time and space can ever be known as anything other than independent entities. To consider them to be non-independent can only arise from some or other assumption about the nature of the big bang. Seeing that any such assumption must, de facto, be unknown, I think that the coupling of space and time stands on very shaky foundations. There is no evidence that there is a spacetime continuum or that either or both of space and time are continuous. Planck's constant has a solid basis in experience and it strongly indicates that space and time are discontinuous. I do not understand the concept of a discontinuous space or time. Do these have any physical meaning? Your article implicitly assumes that space and time are continuous, but there is no evidence that there is a spacetime continuum or that either or both of space and time are continuous. Planck's constant has a solid basis in experience and it strongly indicates that space and time are discontinuous. As regards Plank's constant I have identified this constant as being the energy of a fast Zeron. The equation is . h =z c^2 where h is Plank's constant, z = mass of a Zeron and c = the speed of light. That is the objectively real description of Plank's constant. There is no need to invent arbitrary structures that can only vaguely be imagined and never detected, or to make self-contradictory conjectures about space and time. Best regards, Bob

I suppose I could go on and reply to each of the points you have made but I fear the gulf is too large to bridge.

Kind Regards

Tedjay