physics, a gentleman's science Watching Neil Turok on Horizon or reading Stephen Hawking, for instance in The Nature of Space

and Time, i'm reminded: these are refined gentlemen with balanced, deep, and intricate perspectives. I w e could emulate them, i believe t here'd be less strife and s truggle - a nd - more f stimulating insightful discussions. N ot t hat they agree on everything, or even that i agree with them, but simply the gentlemanly respect they showothers combined with open-mindednes s these are unequivocally admirable qualities. i've written to both of them and i guarant ee you: they're willing to think about the following concepts.. Wikipedia is about to delete 'quantum realism' - my s econd attempt over s everal years to encourage humanity to ask fundamental questions about spacetime and energy. It doesn't distres s me; i expected it as convention's attempt to perserve: job s ecurity, investment in res earch, and most importantly - p ublic perception of their adequacy. For ins tance, if it was proven they've been pursing a 'dead end' / blind alley with the Standard M odel, if the prime assumptions of the Standard M odel are actually incorrect, there'd be a considerable amount of embarrassment on their side. They'd realize that for about 100 years, they were getting paid to confirm a theory that was essentially incorrect. Wikipedia's label of m y article was 'fringe', but the label is inappropriat e at best . i'm actually extremely conservative in my veiwpoints as we s hall see .. i propos e s ome 'radically conservative' veiwpoints: 1. spacetime/time is infinitely elas tic - nothing s pecial happens behind an event-horizon calling a black-hole a 'singularity' is a misnomer there's no abrupt change in spacet ime near a black-hole neutronium is the most dense material possible in our universe 2. spacetime/time has finit e elast icity simply implies a finite force/s tres s is required t o stretch/deform/s train spacetime/t ime this does not cont radict point 1 (pleas e s tudy elast icity to understand this point) 3. gravitational waves seem impossible in our universe please watch the video entitled: Cosmic Journeys: The Largest Black Holes in the Universe on YouTube; this illustrates the destructive force of gravitational waves if spacet ime allowed gravitational waves to propagat e, our solar system w ould have been destroyed by them 4. spacetime is explicitly 3D +1 there are no hidden dimensions to space as st ring theory sugges ts time is unidirectional/causal 5. what we think of as 'curved spacet ime' is actually only curved time time curves int o space - reinforcing point 4 6. spacetime is continuous spacetime is not discrete; there would be 'hard evidence' of discrete spacetime/time 7. energy/phot ons propagate in only one way: a trans vers e elect romagnet ic w ave oscillating out -of-phase w it h temporal curvature 8. the not ion of balanced curvature requires conservation the concept of t he ant iphoton, w ith negative temporal curvature, is 'born'/required 'coincident ally', they explain electromagnetism from a quantum realism standpoint 9. the concept of t he impedance of space/t ime is absolutely required in this framework engineers require it to analyze/des ign electromagnet ic devices; it's a pract ical concern

physicists cannot ignore it as trivial/meaningless/irrelevant M any of these concepts have been around in excess of 100 years. Allow me to repeat that. M any of t hese concepts have been around in exces s of 100 years. Not just been around - but put to practical us e for that much time. . Does that make me fringe? Or conservative? Conservative is not fringe; conservative is conservative. .. Convention is the speculative party: multiple dimensions discrete spacetime non-locality virtual exchange inherent randomness zero-point energy inflation / unrealis tic physics ... The list seems endless on convention's part - t o explain reality w ithout the Prime Cause. Who's fringe? Convention or me?