so ... can I ask ...do you have any particular reason(s) for not wishing to discuss the topic?
Questioning it's entire approach and how it is presented
is discussing it.
As to zero point energy, regardless of the language used or method ZPT (zero point theory) can indeed indicate very strongly it's mechanism and how it is able to manifest, in fact ZPT would predict the existance of Zero point energy once you understood the rational.
Except you have no working model or specifics of anything so saying "It can explain the mechanism" is very dishonest. You have a bunch of concepts you've arbitrarily taped together, they haven't been derived from a clear set of initial assumptions. I'll come back to this issue in a moment....
"It is often amazing what gemstones of inspiration one can find in amongst the scambled egg of someone elses insanity"
Yes, occasionally good ideas are inspired by nonsense but more often than not nonsense leads just to nonsense.
Perhaps you or some one else would be inclined to help translate the theory into that which can be peer reviewed and win a Nobel in the process [ re: attraction paradox ]
This is a classic mistake made by arm chair internet wannabe-scientists. You think you have the right concepts and all anyone needs to do now is just put in some maths to justify it. Doesn't work. If it did I could just say "Well quantum field theory describes the very small, general relativity the very big so we've got an explanation for everything, someone just needs to tie them together mathematically! Where's my Nobel Prize?". The problem is that when you actually look at the details you find QFT and GR can't be put into the same mathematical framework in a simple manner, you can't just tape them together despite their concepts being extremely good for understanding various physical phenomena.
Since all you've done is just say your opinion of various things you haven't shown they can be made consistent with one another, that there's a mathematical framework which binds them into a single construct. Furthermore you aren't deriving new conclusions in a rigorous manner, you're just adding more opinion. I'm sure I could ask you "How does your ZPT deal with [something]" and you'd be able to give a response but it's just one you make up from your own opinion, rather than seeing what the formal structure implies. That's why physicists do lots of calculations to see what the Standard Model says about LHC data, they can't just make up their opinion of what it will say.
Yes, there is a place in physics for someone having a qualitative concept in their head and then writing down some mathematics to formalise it but the formalisation must be done very early on else you're just piling assumptions on guesses on random supposition, which is what you have done.
Even if your opinion is accurate that doesn't cut it. If Einstein, instead of mathematically formalising GR, had written a paper which was nothing more than wordy descriptions of how he thinks space-time behaves he wouldn't have been doing good science. He'd need to justify how he arrived at those conclusions, what the precise predictions where. The devil is in the details. This is illustrated by the precession of the orbit of Mercury,
Both Newton and Einstein predict a precession. We observe a precession. And yet the precession was used by Einstein to disprove Newton. But how, they both say a precession should occur? Newton predicts the
wrong precession, he's out by about 10%. So without the details something can seem conceptually valid but is actually wrong.
Since you've already piled guesses on supposition on opinion you've already constructed what you think is a Nobel Prize worthy construct. Unfortunately you've failed to lay any foundations and, just as with a house, to lay the foundations you're doing to have to demolish the building, even if you are going to be able to rebuild it precisely as it was.
Therefore the use of Plancks system is merely a convenience to overcome the issues physics has with zero, being both a reality and non-reality simultaneously.
You are misrepresenting physics. Come on, you know you don't know any physics yet you're making statements about it in such a way to say "Oh obviously there's a problem!". It's dishonest to say such things when you know full well you're not familiar with the relevant concepts. I know you aren't familiar because you just demonstrated you don't know what the Planck units are for. They are just convenient units of time, length and mass. Physicists could work in seconds, metres and kilos but the algebraic expressions aren't as pleasant, even if they are exactly equivalent. It's similar to how it's convenient to work in units of length where in one unit of time light travels one unit of length.
As for zero being both a reality and a non-reality simultaneously you're now wandering into the realms of just meaningless nonsense. Even if the sentence wasn't poorly explained you're not familiar enough with science to know the mathematical models used and see problems in them. That isn't to say there aren't problems but the one you claim exists is not in physics, it's in your head.
