Why has my New Theory been moved here?

Hello all

Are the following statements physically valid? Are they testable?

A photon is energy that travels parallel to space-time. (A skin effect on space-time)
Mass is energy that travels non-parallel to space time. (Reflections within space-time)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

BentheMan

"I can link you to papers that show that quantum electrodynamics is the most accurate theory ever conceived by man."

You've caught my interest. Can I please have these links, I believe they will be fun to investigate and learn from?

"I can write threads that derive explicitly, step by step, how I get the above result. I can teach you about second quantization, and path integrals, and Feynmann diagrams."

Have you done this? Can you point me in the direction (of the threads)?
I thrive on learning and increasing my awareness.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"In the grand democracy that is the internet, every opinion counts, whether it is a good opinion or not. Every person has a voice and wants to be taken as seriously as the next person. I am telling you that every time I read a thread here about ``scientific establishment'' or ``the standard of inquiry'' or the like it makes me sick."

Personally I have tremendous respect for science. It is one of the great cornerstones of human endeavor. I believe it is a means to reform religion and refine it. Maybe not immediately, but the way we see the world today is much different then it was yesterday (as in a long time ago). The beliefs of humanity are changing.

I may be wrong, but part of my brain is oriented towards logic and ration. Part
of it is emotional and intuitive. The logical and rational part will not rest unless
it can sustain the clearest understanding. The emotional and intuitive part comes up with ideas that are fantastic and have no support. My intuition keeps telling me we are going into a great future, despite the logical part which doesn't know what to think about our prospects (of even having a future...logically it doesn't look good with global warming and more).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The biggest problem with deriving a T.O.E is "How consciousness is implicated in the universal equations?"
A TOE can not be sustained without including self animated Perception as proven by the "light wave particle duality"

Given the nature of scientific enquiry and methods used the growth in understanding is necesarilly torturous and pedantic.

If I was to estimate humanity's [ as a collective ] positioning on the "tree of global understanding" I would place it at less than 10%....sigh!
Yet we as a collective tend to take the arrogant position that we are close to knowing it all. How wrong can we be?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Testable?
hmmmmm....

IMO you are thinking along good lines though....

Years ago I posited an understanding about how time dilates and length can contract using the notion that if something was at absolute rest it would cease to exist. [ thus nothing can be at absolute rest = true] Given that the universe must constantly be changing [ at the rate of 'c' ] and when an object of mass moves beyond it's inertia position by use of acceleration or impact the change must be accomodated as being in excess of 'c' [ even if the change is only minor in speed ]
However as the object is now travelling in excess of 'c' due to that accelleration it's time is dilated so that it remains changing at the universal constant rate of 'c'.
In simplistic terms:
The energy imparted on an object of mass to cause accelleration is given back to the universe as demonstrated by the objects time/change rate dilating [ it's ability to change ramains constant yet the energy given to it remains with the universe as a whole and not the object thus it's mass stays constant regardless of velocity.
The conservation of energy is related also to the conservation of time. [ time = energy]

Now this is almost as hard to undertstand as the use of words like "moving parallel...though time..."

1/
The first thing to test and prove is that the universe has a constant change rate of 'c' regardless of what apparent relative velocity an object may be travelling at.
2/
The second thing to prove is that when an object is subjected to change thus energy imparted upon it, that it is a function of inertia to allow that change yet maintain the universal constant rate of change as 'c'.

Thus time must dilate for that objects change rate so that the object involved stays within the same universe as it was originally in. If time did not dilate the object would cease to exist in this univese as it's time line would separate and it would be in a universe of it's own. [ no longer parallel time dimensions ] Where special relativity stuffs up is that it already has every object of mass in it's own universe yet attempts to maintain a coherant universe whilst doing so.
The Time dimension is of course "absolute" universally which is why we have dilation in the first place.....[ unfortunately relativity fails to describe how/why the universe has constants which is it's main obstacle to being correctly founded IMO]

Of course if the above notions were proven correct it would destroy "special relativity" but open the door to studies into inertia.

 

Hello Quantum Quack

I guess the hard part is to determine if "time" is a rate function determined by multi-dimensional parameters or a separate dimension that we move through.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When it comes to defining "time" it is always difficult. So much confusion exists mainly because special relativity by AE was more or less the first accepted multiple time dimension theory and because the only person who came close to fully understanding it was Albert himself the rest of us just made up our own conclusions. IMO.
I work on the premise that:
The future is a potential defined by the present. Therefore it doen't exist except as a potential.
The past is what generates the future potential, And also no longer exists except as a future potential.
The present is the culmination of "ongoing" potentials and nothing more.

The paradox in our thinking is that we use language to decribe "moving into the future" yet we miss out the words "whilst always staying present in the NOW"
You cannot move "through" time as separate to time [ existentialism] you can only be time and always only "time". At this level You can only "be" change and not "cause" change.

If you look at a light globe shining a distance away for 1 second the light globe has changed approx. 300,000 kms within itself. [ like a ball bouncing on the spot] But it is very important to realise that the observer has also changed exactly the same distance.
The light globe and observer have changed simultaneouly 300000kms with in them selves even though they appear at rest to each other. [relative v=0]

So it can not be claimed that either the light globe or the observer are moving "through" time and it can only be claimed that the light globe and observer are moving "as" time. Yet that movement AS time is only a temporal or hindsight memory.

So it is important to draw the distinction between temporal [ memory - mind ]and physical [ material - matter ] states.

The issue in regard to dilation is that if the observer is traveling at 100kms per sec away from the globe his actual speed of change is now 'c' + 100kps [ actually it is more probably ('c'+ (100kps/2)) ] yet his change rate must stay at 'c', so time dilates to accomodate the increase in relative velocity so that the observer is still changing at the rate of 'c' as is the globe thus maintaining the same time line and universe.
If they did not they would both be unobservable to each other as they exist in separate time line universes.

Not an easy subject Montec.....

 

Give it a bloody well rest QQ.

 

That does nothing to negate what Ben said, on two points.

Firstly, QED is only about electromagnetic interactions. We know it doesn't even describe things involving the other two 'atomic forces'. Talking about gravity is irrelevent. QED is the most accurate theory derived by man within it's domain of applicability. This is almost tautological.

GR attempts to describe gravity. It matches experience for gravitational processes. The fact it doesn't describe quantum interactions of photons is irrelevent to the fact it describes what it set out to do.

Secondly, even if you ignored QED's inability to describe EVERYTHING, it still matches certain experiments to an unmatched accuracy. Find me a theory which accurately describes, to 9 decimal places, anything which it attempts to model. You won't find one other than QED (and perhaps one experiment in GR). Newtonian dynamics? Nope. Maxwell's EM? Nope (QED surplants that).

Talk is cheap. Let's see you provide a working theory.

You are now firmly in the realm of philosophy and pseudoscience. If something is unmeasurable, is it true? Does God exist, when almost by definition of a 'supernatural effect', it's unmeasurable (or else it would be part of nature)? If no experiment can justify a claim not falsify it, it's not really science. We then move into the realm of Occam's Razor. Can your model/description match all the predictions of current theories? Nope.

Then "My theory is philisophically different from yours" is irrelevent. It's a worse model.

I'll reply to the rest of your post in the morning. It's 4am and I have to get some sleep (damn jetlag!).

 

The question for me to find an answer to is not about "philosophical differences" or even accuracy of theory predictions.
It is more about how we as a community are declaring "scientifically" that light travels form point A to point B when in fact we have no scientific basis to do so except by the "utility" or usefulness of assuming this as fact.
You can not differentiate light from it's reflector, whether that reflector be a planet, a measuring device or a cloud in the sky.
Now I don't know about you but I see the potential for extraordinary misinterpretation of the data that is aquired on this assumption of light travelling.

You assume that vacant space has dimension? yes? why?
You assume that another theory will invalidate the data aquired so far? yes? Why?

You can declare your theory valid when it is "terminally" doubt ridden due to issues arising from the double slit experiments [ wave particle duaity ] and other critical contras.
You can declare veracity of a theory yet not accept the far reaching consequences of discoveries like quantum entaglement.

There is no room for Ego in good science and that is all this is about Ego.
I don't give a "rats arse" how accurate the data predictions are if the fundamental premise is flawed to begin with.
No, I don't have a complete working theory. But I know a flaw when I see it.
It is impossible to discuss in any detail how the photon theory is critically flawed with out ego-centric reactions.
In fact I don't really need to and to be blunt it is probably best not to as to do so would open up the stars to our ego centric behaviours, and that would be not good at all.

You have an enormous collection of accurate data.
You have a theory for that data that May be terminally flawed.
Maybe we just need to accept the data as correct and find another theory that allows it to remain so.
Assume that distance is non-exstant between objects of mass [ reflectors ] yet keeping in mind that the "distance" does effect intensity or strength but not travel times of energy. [ "light" ] so d/t is more d/i where i= intensity and not time.

Think of the effect of "light delay" being only a "reaction time" for mass to accomodate the change in intensity.

And start from there.