Here the 'technique of action' is that the particle will move undisturbed in a straight line with its initial motion. The particle will follow the world-line and make an infinite journey there. 'No force' does not mean 'no technique'.'No force' means all the forces affecting the particle have zero values. If a force is applied to the particle, its initial motion will change; alternately if its initial motion is changed we can say a force is applied to the particle. So, if no force is applied the particle will continue with its initial motion. I thought getting published in a journal would have been better.
Ever heard of Newton? He precedes your "discovery". By about 500 years. Journals don't publish the kind of "stuff" that you write.
Is it a pre-requisite to develope a theory? I submitted my mathematical proof using the principle of set theory to the journal Physical Review. That time i was not having much knowledge on latex. So i explained the mathematical equations in a literal way.
You claimed that you developed a "theory" . According to you, it was based on "set theory". I pointed out that you posted nothing that supports your claim. So, why don't you copy it here, so we can see it. Please make sure that you post in Alternative Theories, not in P&M.
Have you read My Theory? Do you think my theory matches with Newton's discovery? Though i used Newton's discovery to prove my theory. It is upto the journals, what they should publish or not. I dont know if you have published any paper.
There is nothing to read, just one statement that you keep repeating. Does not qualify as theory, qualifies as incoherent babbling. I am asking about the formalism of what you claim to be your theory. Post it here and we'll talk. Make sure you open the thread in Alternative theories, not here, this section is for mainstream science.
I already told you, i submitted my theory, along with its mathematical proof to the journal Physical Review for publication. But it is not published there. I want to try with some other journal.
Of course it is not, they do not publish fringe stuff. Since you claim to have a formalism, why aren't you copying and pasting it here? Copy and paste what you submitted to Physical Review, let's see it. It will never happen, you are just posting fringe stuff, no self-respecting journal will EVER publish what you write.
All the potential TOEs like string brane and LQG, are seen as beautiful mathematical theories all with some hope of being one day validated. The problem for verification of any of them is that as yet science does not have the equipment and tools to view and examine at the quantum level. If they happen to not conform with observation, any future new QGT and TOE will almost certainly have to be achieved by "thinking outside the box" Some are capable of this, some are not.
You'd know when you have discovered the one thing from which everything is constructed. In effect, a true Grand Unified Theory simplifies and explains all known phenomena.
If Grand Unified Theory(GUT) is developed, i think it will only explain the 'technique of action' for everything.
No, I wanna read it now. Seriously, it's so goddamn vague, what the hell is anyone supposed to make out of it?
After developing this theory, i consulted one Physics Professor. He advised me not to discuss much about this theory with others but to straight-way submit it, in a Physics Journal for publication. He gave me the reference of Physical Review A. As per his advice, i think getting published in a journal would be better. What you think is vague? My Theory or my answer to your question in the previous post? I developed this theory in a different way and then i thought that this theory can be generalized for any action.
Further I would like to add that, as per Newton's Law of Inertia, if 'no force' is applied to a particle, ideally it will continue to move in a straight line and make an infinite journey in that straight line and it should never follow its path of the past. But in reality we know that if 'no force' is applied, the particle will follow a geodesic; which is a closed loop where the particle can follow its path of the past. So i think even if 'no force' is applied to the particle, the space-structure may apply some force to the particle to cause it to follow 'the closed-loop of a geodesic'.
I think the force applied by the space-structure on a particle as explained/bolded above in the quote, can be considered as the fifth force of nature.
I told you formatting of my paper was not proper and may be my explanation was also not very clear. I was given a code to check the online status of my paper.
By the looks of things, nobody has read Your Theory because you haven't made it available in a format that anyone could read or criticise. All I can say is that what you've produced here is worrisome. For instance you talk about having "mathematically proved" your theory. That alone makes it sound like you are describing something that is not a scientific theory. Also, the definitions of "action" and "technique" you give in your [POST=3098337]post #25[/POST] sound so general and vague they could mean anything. That might make a bad first impression, but I don't see a manuscript being rejected on that basis alone. That's automatic. Submit something to a Physical Review journal and you get an accession code. Even if your manuscript gets rejected at the editor stage two days later. You should also be aware that physicists and journal editors will tend to be polite in email exchanges, especially if they weren't even motivated to read your work. It sounds to me like the physics professor you contacted was just trying to get rid of you by directing you elsewhere, for instance.
