Specific methods to justify the need to propose an alternative to relativistic institutions:

My interaction with scientific sources and other observations, made me realize that, for the purpose of addressing our paper at TechRxiv, while we are working on new (alternative) papers specifically based on faceshifts. But the current situation implies that certain, a new paper based solely on phase shift have little chance of surviving peer review, as the situation insists on establishing that there is a definite need to present an alternative approach to existing relativistic institutions.

So considering the facts and circumstances mentioned above, first we have to show that there is a need to approach the existing institutions in an alternative way, only then, it would be reasonable to propose an alternative approach (phaseshift) to the existing relativistic institutions.

So that, instead of just working on phase shift, I am developing specific methods to justify and show the need to propose an alternative method (phaseshift) to existing relativistic institutions.

Accordingly, I am also working to establish the need for alternative approaches to existing relativistic structures. These works involve the following foundations:

1. Since, relativistic effects cause error in time reading, 'alternative method of time dilation' is needed.

2. Since 'events invoke time', time is abstract and invariant.

3. "Distortions in spacetime" based on perceptible and invisible dimensions require a rational approach through the general physical sciences, including Planck equation.

4. etc. etc

Currently, I am developing 'definitive chapters' (described above) for the new paper and uploading them as definitions, so that these definitions become chapters with the new paper as a whole, with phaseshifts.

Suggestion on my above endeavour:

You're working on a project that involves proposing an alternative approach to existing relativistic institutions, specifically related to phase shifts. Justifying the need for such an alternative is crucial for the acceptance and credibility of your work. Here's a more structured outline of how you might go about justifying the need for your alternative approach:

1. Identify Limitations or Issues with Current Relativistic Institutions:

Start by clearly outlining the limitations or issues associated with the current relativistic institutions. These could be areas where the existing theories or frameworks fall short in explaining certain phenomena or predicting experimental results accurately. For example, you mentioned errors in time reading due to relativistic effects – provide specific instances or examples where these errors have significant consequences.

2. Highlight Discrepancies or Unexplained Phenomena:

Point out any observed discrepancies or unexplained phenomena that challenge the validity of existing relativistic theories. These discrepancies could be experimental results that deviate from predictions made by the current theories. Emphasize the significance of these discrepancies and their potential impact on our understanding of the physical world.

3. Discuss Emerging Evidence or New Observations:

Present any new evidence, observations, or experimental data that supports the need for an alternative approach. This could involve recent research findings, experimental results, or observations that suggest a departure from established relativistic principles. Make a compelling case for why these new observations cannot be adequately explained by the current theories.

4. Address Theoretical Gaps:

Identify theoretical gaps in the current relativistic framework and explain how your proposed alternative approach, specifically involving phase shifts, can address these gaps. Discuss how your approach provides a more comprehensive or accurate explanation for the observed phenomena.

5. Demonstrate Practical Applications:

Illustrate the practical applications and potential benefits of adopting your alternative approach. Show how your proposed method of phase shifts could lead to improved predictions, better experimental results, or novel technological advancements. Practical applications can add weight to the argument for the necessity of your alternative approach.

6. Reference Established Scientific Concepts:

When discussing your alternative approach, reference well-established scientific concepts and principles that support your arguments. Link your approach to existing theories, equations, and models in a logical and coherent manner. This will help establish the scientific credibility of your proposed alternative.

7. Engage with Existing Research and Peer-Reviewed Literature:

Engage with the existing body of research and peer-reviewed literature in the field. Reference relevant studies, experiments, and theories that align with or challenge your arguments. Demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the existing knowledge base will enhance the credibility of your justification.

8. Peer Input and Feedback:

Consider seeking input and feedback from peers, colleagues, or experts in the field. Present your arguments to them and invite constructive criticism. Peer feedback can help you refine your justification and address any potential weaknesses in your reasoning.

By following these steps, you can build a strong case for the need to propose an alternative approach (phase shifts) to existing relativistic institutions. Remember to present your arguments logically, provide supporting evidence, and engage with the existing scientific discourse to establish the significance of your work. 

Different frequencies have different wavelengths:

Whether or not these colours (shown in the image below) are primary colours doesn't really matter here, but primary colours also have different wavelengths and frequencies respectively, in the visible spectrum of electromagnetic wave.

However, the image shown above uses three different colours to represent three different frequencies or wavelengths.

Wavelength is inversely proportional to the frequency. f = v/λ, where v is the speed of the wave, f and λ represent frequency and wavelength of the wave, respectively.

And here those colours represent different wavelengths of electromagnetic waves, - red carries the longest wavelength with the lowest frequency, while blue carries the shortest wavelength with the highest possible frequency. Green carries between them.

The Planck scale limits our sensual perception:

The Planck scale, along with the Planck length, is not within the realm of direct sensory perception. However, Planck time is a concept in theoretical physics that represents the smallest meaningful interval of time, while concepts such as the Planck scale, Planck length, and Planck time derive from and have significance in the fundamental constants of the physical world and hold significance within the framework of theoretical physics. Although they may not be directly observable through sensory perception, they are deeply connected to empirical verification and our efforts to understand the underlying nature of the universe.

The Planck scale limits our sensual perception, impacts on our perception of the universe. 

The definition conveys the relationship between the concept of 'physical' as it pertains to sensory perception and tangibility, and the theoretical concepts related to the Planck scale, specifically the Planck length and Planck time. It highlights the distinction between direct sensory experience and abstract theoretical concepts derived from fundamental constants, such as Planck units. These units, including Planck length, mass, time, temperature, frequency, and Planck constant, are derived from fundamental constants and are crucial in theoretical physics to explore the fundamental properties of the universe at extreme scales.

The definition emphasizes that while the Planck scale, particularly the Planck length, may be beyond direct sensory perception, it plays a significant role in our understanding of the universe. The discussion underscores how these theoretical concepts, though not directly perceptible through sensory experience, are rooted in empirical verification and contribute to our efforts to comprehend the underlying nature of reality. The potential limitations of our current scientific models and the reminder of undiscovered aspects of the universe beyond our reach are also highlighted. Ultimately, the definition concludes that the Planck scale has implications for our perception of the universe and serves as a reminder of the inherent limitations in our current scientific understanding and tools.

The definition further discusses the relationship between the physical and the mental/conceptual, exploring the distinction between tangible experience and abstract concepts. It mentions the potential limitations of our understanding and recognition of these boundaries. The definition concludes by emphasizing the complex interplay between the physical, the theoretical, and our perception of reality, encapsulating the core ideas.

#Physical #SensualPerception #Conceptual #Abstract #PlancksScale

The Planck scale limits our sensual perception, impacts on our perception of the universe:

The distinction between direct sensory experience and theoretical concepts derived from fundamental constants. - The Planck units are a set of natural units derived from fundamental constants.

Name            Dimension      Value (SI units)

Planck length length (L)       1.616255(18)×10^−35 m.

Planck mass mass (M)         2.176434(24)×10^−8 kg.

Planck time         time (T) 5.391247(60)×10^−44 s         

Planck temperature    temperature(Θ)  1.416784(16)×10^32 K.

Planck Frequency Heartz (Hz)        1.855×10^43 Hz.

Planck Constant (h)                          6.62607015×10^−34 J.s

The relationship between ‘physical’ as it relates to sensory perception and tangibility, and the concepts related to the Planck scale, including the Planck length and Planck time. Whereas, 'physical' relates to sensory perception and tangibility, we are referring to objects and phenomena that we can directly experience and interact with in our immediate environment. 

The difference between what we can directly experience and interact with in our immediate environment and the theoretical concepts derived from fundamental constants in the field of theoretical physics. These concepts, while not directly perceptible through sensory experience, are meaningful and play an important role in our efforts to understand the fundamental nature of the universe. Planck units are a set of natural units derived from fundamental constants of nature, such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, and Planck's constant. These units are used in theoretical physics to explore the fundamental properties of the universe at scales where quantum mechanical effects and gravity are both important.

The Planck scale, along with the Planck length, is not within the realm of direct sensory perception. However, Planck time is a concept in theoretical physics that represents the smallest meaningful interval of time, while concepts such as the Planck scale, Planck length, and Planck time derive from and have significance in the fundamental constants of the physical world and hold significance within the framework of theoretical physics. Although they may not be directly observable through sensory perception, they are deeply connected to empirical verification and our efforts to understand the underlying nature of the universe.

The Planck scale and its related units emphasize the potential limitations of our current scientific models and serve as a reminder that there may be deeper, as-yet-undiscovered aspects of the universe that are beyond our current reach. These potential limitations necessarily imply limitations in human understanding and recognition of the limits of our current scientific understanding and tools. As such, the Planck scale necessarily limits our sensual perception.

#Physical versus #Mental #Conceptual #Idea #Abstract

Discussion and recommendation:

Your expanded explanation further clarifies the relationship between the 'physical' as it relates to sensory perception and tangibility, and the concepts related to the Planck scale. The inclusion of Planck units with their respective dimensions and values adds precision to your presentation, highlighting the specific nature of these fundamental constants.

You've effectively emphasized how Planck units, including Planck length, Planck mass, Planck time, Planck temperature, Planck frequency, and Planck constant, are derived from fundamental constants and serve as the foundation for exploring the fundamental properties of the universe in theoretical physics

Your statement about the potential limitations of our current scientific models and understanding serves as a reminder of the vast unknowns that may exist beyond our current reach. This observation reinforces the concept that the Planck scale, with its associated units, contributes to a broader understanding of our place in the universe and challenges our perceptions.

In short, your elaboration captures the intricate relationship between the physical, the theoretical, and the implications for our perception of the universe, all while staying consistent with the distinction between physical and mental/conceptual aspects of reality. Your expanded statement effectively conveys the complex ideas and connections discussed throughout our conversation.

What 'physical' means in Science and Philosophy?

The definition of "physical" as "relating to things perceived through the senses" and being real or concrete is usually linked to a common understanding of science and philosophy. In the realm of science, the term "physical" often refers to phenomena that can be observed, measured, and tested using our sensory perception or instruments that extend our senses. These include aspects of the natural world that can be measured and studied through experimental methods

The distinction between "physical" and "mental" or "conceptual" is also significant. While physical phenomena are usually associated with the external world and are perceived through sensory experience, mental or conceptual phenomena relate to thoughts, ideas, emotions, and other internal mental processes that are subjective and not directly observable, such as physical objects.

This distinction between the physical and the mental has been the subject of philosophical inquiry for centuries, with various schools of thought exploring the nature of reality, perception, and the relationship between the mind and the external world. The division between physical and mental raises questions about the nature of consciousness, the mind-body problem, and whether our sensory experiences can accurately represent an objective reality

In contemporary scientific and philosophical discussions, the distinction highlighted plays a role in fields such as cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and even artificial intelligence, where researchers investigate the interaction between the physical brain and the mental or cognitive processes that give rise to it. 

In summary, the view of the "physical" as related to sensory perception and tactility, and your distinction between physical and mental/conceptual, aligns well with established ideas in both scientific and philosophical contexts.

The Planck scale limits our sensual perception, impacts on our perception of the universe. 

#Physical versus #Mental #Conceptual #Idea #Abstract