Stuff and Style of the Universe - the ultimate theory : C.Radhakrishnan I don't know anything about the so called "final theory"(and you have to pay to read it)..... But what I do know is that there is a really fascinating alternative theory of the universe on the net. It is a research paper published by C.Radhakrishnan. The entire work is downloadable for free! So, before buying the so called "Final Theory" you better take a look into this book titled "Stuff and Style of The Universe".I am damn sure that you will be interested. The theory is really easy to understand.It does not involve cumbersome mathematics though it demands a radical shift from the current concepts of the mechanism of the universe. This theory does not reject the conventional concepts of gravity and relativity...it only gives new dimensions to it. The entire book can be downloaded from: http://c-radhakrishnan.netfirms.com/universe.htm A few sentences from the Professor's homepage: This is a different look at the universe. A somewhat unconventional look... ...the last decade has thrown more challenges in front of physics than all the previous periods put together. Some of these literally block its way. There is a common feeling that any kind of detour may help... WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE MADE OF? IS SPACE EMPTY? WHAT IS MATTER? ARE THE VARIOUS FORCES BASICALLY DIFFERENT? WHAT IS RADIATION? DOES THE UNIVERSE REALLY EXPAND? HOW FUNDAMENTAL ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES? WHAT DOES LIFE MEAN? WHEN DID LIFE ORIGINATE? WHERE AND WHEN DID IT ALL BEGIN? SUCH QUESTIONS CRY FOR BETTER ANSWERS. IT IS TIME THE UNIVERSE IS LOOKED AFRESH. THIS BOOK ATTEMPTS JUST THAT SO AS TO HELP PHYSICS GAIN FIRMER GROUND. THE NEW PERSPECTIVE INVOLVES A PARADIGM SHIFT BUT THE PROBINGS ARE PRESENTED IN SIMPLE TERMS WITH A REDEEMING SENSE OF HUMOR.
Hum, im not sure about the " really good alternative theory of the universe" bit.... For me its too much of a paradigm shift in perception towards religion. i think ill stick to my multi universe/membrane theories just for now. (untill they dont find the higgs boson) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I dont really understand what you say, blobrana Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! When did religion come into our discussion? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I assure you that there is no religion involved in this document. Its purely a scientific paper presented to the Cochin University of Science and Technology(CUSAT) I am not asking anybody to believe the theory. You have the full freedom and right to accept/discard it.But you have to approach it with an open mind - that's the scientific spirit. What I am saying is that there is no harm in reading the theory. Did I say its a "really good alternative theory" - ok it was simply an error of expression (I am not too good in english , you know!)I have rectified it. This theory is a different approach to the mechanism of the cosmos. The theory does not say that the conventional concepts are wrong, it supports all the known observations and laws (there might be exceptions here and there). One of the important predictions of the theory is that about the speed of gravitational waves in space. The theory says that it is the speed of light. Recent experiments, (althought the results are still under debate) have arrived at the same result. Anyway here's the Foreword from the book: The entire book is downloadable for free. *Edited - do not copy/paste lengthy material, the link will suffice. Q
Hi INDIAN The book "Stuff and Style of the Universe" sounds interesting. Is it available on amazon.com ? I would rather spend a few dolars on a book than staerering at a computer screen for hours trying to read it. Regards APOLO
I, for one, dont believe that there is going to be one simplified mathematical expression to explain away everthing we have ever known... therefore, if it doesnt involve cumbersome mathematics, its a peruasive argument built on weak logic.
no, i think a complete picture wont be depicted with any mathematical expression.That is because at any instance there may be zillions of views about domain of knowledge and hence a complete snapshot should be impossible to take of complete knowledge domain.
The hardcopy of the book is currently available for sale only in India. The Indian publishers are looking for an International publisher.... I dont know more about these things... you can get the information directly from the author, please visit his website. Yes, its true that this book doesnt involve cumbersome mathematics...afterall what's the use of going through pages of equations since sometimes these equations yeild no concrete physical meaning....they sometimes tend to remain abstract. Quoting the author's words: "This is a different look at the universe. A somewhat unconventional look. The short ride to the viewing deck may get bumpy here and there. The trick to beat any possible discomfort is to avoid too firm a grip on longstanding knobs and handles; they happen to be somewhat disjointed." ...... From the first chapter- The Puzzles: "Even an ordinary billiard ball spoils one?s sleep in the end whether one wins the game or loses it. The primary laws that govern the ball?s behaviour are simple. They fully explain the way it moves, rolls, bounces and interacts with other balls. Then one is told that the ball is in fact not a ball half the time but a wave instead. One takes this apparently funny twist with a pinch of salt consoling oneself that it is perhaps all in the game and tries to learn all about how waves behave, hoping to play a better game next time with the extra advantage of this additional knowledge. But then it is disclosed that there is no way to know which mode prevails when. Better consider it to be both at the same time, one is advised. How can x also be y at the same time? If anything appears to behave that way, does that not mean that the thing is in fact neither x nor y? If neither, then what is it? Of course, the game of billiards would remain the same whatever it actually was. Only when the ball shrank to the size of an electron would it ?magically? pass through two adjacent openings at the same time." ....... "The general theory of relativity which alone succeeds in describing the macrocosm cannot be reconciled with the quantum theory which alone explains the microcosm. The quantum theory in turn cannot be made to accommodate relativity. These facts confound the confusion." ...... ...... "From then on the picture of the universe has progressively become more and more incomprehensible except in mathematical terms. However, ?warping?, folding or curving of space-time has not fully erased much of the lurking reservations about ?empty? space transmitting wave packets. Moreover, how does ?nothing? get warped, curved and folded on itself? One other puzzle that remains to be fully explained is in relation to radiation of energy.......................... ................. So in 1900 Max Plank put the quanta-restriction tap on all radiation emitters. No explanation was offered as to exactly what inhibited the outflow and restricted the emission. Does the emitter intermittently turn ?wise? and regulate the loss all by itself? Or, is the medium that carries away the emission the rationing officer? Or, is the act of restriction a combined workout? (Would something like the following interaction justify the inference that stammering is the most natural way of speaking? ?Do you always stammer??/ ?No, only when I speak.?/ ?Do you stammer always when you speak??/ ?No, only when I am not able to speak.?) ................ A series of thought-experiments have been performed to help piece together a new physical model of the universe. In its present form it can and does explain the entire horde of enigmas plaguing physics. It does not contradict any fundamental theorem in vogue. It only enlarges upon them. However, it certainly puts severe limits on mapping the universe by ?extrapolation? of ?local? conditions. (Extrapolations may occasionally lead to ?unforgettable? consequences. Once a researcher in agricultural meteorology prepared a paper in which he asserted that sugarcane could grow as high as a hundred meters in ideal conditions of temperature, pressure, humidity, etc. This result was obtained by extending the graph plotted with observed growth of sugarcane against an index of beneficial weather conditions. The paper was returned to the researcher by Dr. P. R. Pisharody, one of India?s eminent meteorologists and the founder-director of the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, with a note: ?Sugarcane knows better.?) The link: http://c-radhakrishnan.netfirms.com/universe.htm
Yes, its true that this book doesnt involve cumbersome mathematics...afterall what's the use of going through pages of equations since sometimes these equations yeild no concrete physical meaning....they sometimes tend to remain abstract. So, it is your opinion that scientific theories can best be explained with the English language as opposed to 'cumbersome mathematics?'
Actually what I was saying was that the discussion in this particular book avoids using too much math....the theory can be explained and understood without complex equations. In fact the theory requires general relativity to calculate "energy loss" (please refer the book).
