Ain't that hilarious?If you don't know that, you have no business claiming that you constructed a "theory"
Ain't that hilarious?If you don't know that, you have no business claiming that you constructed a "theory"
Okay, what if we have a particle moving in an inertial frame? It is moving, so there is action, but there are no forces acting on it. No "technique", as you might say?
Of course they refused to publish it, they are a bunch of mainstream "high priests" who do not tolerate differing opinions.
But don't worry. Publish it here! Sciforums is very welcoming.
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.
If you don't know that, you have no business claiming that you constructed a "theory"
Really? Care to point out where you posted the math? Based on your posts, I very much doubt the veracity of your claim.
Where is your "set theory" formalism? There isn't any in that thread.
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.
Ever heard of Newton? He precedes your "discovery". By about 500 years.
Journals don't publish the kind of "stuff" that you write.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, I wanna read it now.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.
No, I wanna read it now.
Seriously, it's so goddamn vague, what the hell is anyone supposed to make out of it?
Okay, what if we have a particle moving in an inertial frame? It is moving, so there is action, but there are no forces acting on it. No "technique", as you might say?
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.
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'.
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.
He was pulling your leg. As proof, your "paper" was promptly rejected.
Have you read My Theory?
I told you formatting of my paper was not proper
I was given a code to check the online status of my paper.