So you are telling me you analyzed the system and drew a conclusion on what the figures show in a matter of seconds? Fair enough. If you are going to just say I am wrong, please move on. Your opinion is noted. Thank you for your efforts to better my understanding of the universe, but unfortunately they will go unheeded due to my lack of education.
Theory of Everything
- Thread starter sscully
- Start date
So you are telling me you analyzed the system and drew a conclusion on what the figures show in a matter of seconds? Fair enough. If you are going to just say I am wrong, please move on. Your opinion is noted. Thank you for your efforts to better my understanding of the universe, but unfortunately they will go unheeded due to my lack of education.
Pearls before swine.
I think we can skip this part.
Wow you jump right into it don't you? So you start off by saying relativity is incorrect! What is your evidence that photons have mass? You say "all masses below some point function as light. It seems you are saying there are several types of 'apparently' massless particles that we call light. Is this correct? If so what is your evidence for that statement? How many different types of apparently massless particles are there?
Individual photons act as waves. The bulk flow of photons do not act as waves AFAIK. Do you have evidence that they do?
Please show your evidence the laws cannot speak for themselves only the evidence can do that.
You say it is evidenced so please present your evidence.
You are making statements without evidence and then using those unevidenced assumptions to make more assumptions!
I highly recommend that you do not redefine a clearly defined term to mean something completely different such as your use of the term dimension.
A neutrino is not evidence for smaller dimensions. Frankly I do not knwo exactly what you mean by smaller dimensions.
Before moving on could you address the several questions I have?
Did you look at the evidence I referenced in another post?
Electromagnetism itself is evidence. I have defined a system very simply as infinitely small particles which cascade, through gravity, into infinitely large particles, using gravity alone. The system is now defined. Then, electromagnetism is subsequently analyzed and explained in full. This is not just something to write off. This is, in and of itself, very strong evidence for the theory. Notice that only one fundamental law is used to explain all others. This is evidence.
The evidence of my statement that there are infinitely lower levels is found in electromagnetism's explanation. You need to take a step back and think about the system. You are entering this with a closed-mind and therefore are not even considering the possibility. I understand the doubt, the likelihood of some random guy on the internet having figured it out in a sciforums post is highly unlikely, of course there is doubt. But you need to think the system through so that you can begin to envision precisely why electromagnetism is explained by gravity in full. And weak interaction. Strong interaction I am not well acquainted with, so the explanation is very limited, but my personal fallacies are not direct evidence against it.
Evidence of photons having mass is directly in redshift and blueshift. Why do we observe redshift and blueshift due to gravity? It is because of an unobservably small change in the velocity of the particle. The double-slit single photon experiment additionally gives support because it arrives at a wave pattern when many photons are individually sent through a slit. The closer to the side of the slit, the higher the gravitational lensing effects the local gravitational variations has on the path of the light, the more the photon is deflected to one side. If photons travel through all parts of the slit, a wave pattern will slowly form. This is why we use slits in the first place. A wave pattern will not form if there is no local gravitational variations. If the slit is too large, then no pattern of a wave can be observed. This is why.
I ask that you look at the large-scale observational evidence I linked in a previous post, with the model I present in mind. If you do that, without being sullied by our interpretations of the observations, you will begin to recognize that gravity is the cause. At that point, it is plausible. But then I will continue to walk you through the evidence in more detail so that you can see that it is irrefutable in the large-scale observations of the universe.
A neutrino is evidence that smaller masses can pass through larger masses. That is essential for understanding that the flow of mass through the sun, or any other mass in the universe, produces its electromagnetic field.
Wow, you are an old man trolling physics forums? Shoo, gnat.
Thanks for confirming the fact that you didn't look at the evidence. Well played, by the way. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
I see your methodology then is to start with observations. Using those observations, and the science that grows up around them, you derive a philosophy of what it all means. Then you fashion your TOE where everything works together. Now you are hoping to get some feedback, discussion and debate.
The feedback is that you are not conveying the steps between the observations and the science that exists, and the resulting science and philosophy of your TOE. The impression, and it may not be a correct conclusion, is that you didn't get a good understanding of the science. If that is the case, you may have come to unfounded conclusions, or you may have improperly envisioned how observations and science could be merged with philosophy. We aren't able to see the framework underlying you process and conclusions, and when you explain the details they aren't in terms that someone else, someone who simply knows the generally accepted science, can grasp.
How would you go forward if that was the impression?
It's a tough one. That's why I am writing a very detailed manuscript right now. Once I am published, it will be much easier. All it takes is one person to see the truth for it to spread like wildfire.
I decided to take the route of jumping right into it. This is the theory: infinite energy+infinite volume+gravity=universe. It is important to note how simple this is. The fact that I can then define fundamental laws of physics as a result of gravity in this extremely simple definition of the system is powerful in and of itself, I was hoping people would see that and then start to ponder. I have always felt the Big Bang was critically flawed, and so I approached all analysis of observations under the concept of "is this the result of gravity?" Gravity is the only thing we can observably say exists on extremely large scales; infinite scales due to F=Gm1m2/r^2.
Let me give another example of why this must be. A galaxy consists of: center of mass, orbiting masses, the flowing arms of the galaxy, and a halo. A solar system consists of a center of mass, orbiting masses (asteroid belt and kuiper belt), the flowing arms of the solar system (heliospheric current sheet), and a halo (oort cloud). Earth, even, has an inner and outer Van Allen belt which function as the equivalents to the asteroid belt and the kuiper belt. The parallels are endless, once you realize they can be found. I propose that you just try to draw parallels between systems such as that, in view of the theory, and perhaps you will find them on your own. You will see there is nothing that can't be explained in view of another observed level of the universe; at the most, we are missing the observation currently to explain it (such as chemistry--I have plans to correct this as my next step after publication).
Seriously? Go away. For the love of gravity.
This one doesn't. Elliptical galaxies have no arms, nor set orbits.
and not all solar systems are precisely as I define either. They, too, have this alternative structure.
Evidence? No, I didn't think so.
Feel free to keep responding, but I'm done interacting with you. Enjoy your self-righteousness in knowing that you are correct. I am not responding to someone who just uses a "physics says you are wrong" argument like it means anything, absent specificity. You clearly are not part of the crowd of thinking people that I am seeking here. I mean, seriously, you are in your 50s or 60s and you still haven't grown up? You need to do some introspection my friend.
You have no evidence, just a twisted interpretation from what I've seen so far.
Yes, that's obvious.
I wait with anticipation for this new found cosmological model.
You do realize we already have three other ToE's by three other delusional people on this forum.
So you have your job cut out. A couple of those ToE's have been waiting for this wildfire for 10 years or more.
OK, and much of what you say is based on the pleasing idea that there is a simple universal mechanism. But I am not seeing you develop your case for gravity alone being the answer.
An infinite and eternal universe, presumably the same on a large scale at all points, kind of confirms that there are universal laws of nature that govern how it works in all of those places. Some of the things you say resonate with me, but then the reason you give for the interesting hypothesis seems not to resonate.
A manuscript that reveals "reality" to the rest of the world would be a big seller, and I want a copy AFTER it becomes a big seller. The thing is that you have given us an awful lot of material and no one is jumping on the band wagon. That might mean that you are spending or going to spend a lot of time producing the manuscript without a pleasing result. To turn that into a positive statement, I suggest you spend a little time trying to discover if your audience is laymen or professionals. You certainly are facing a huge endeavor and I'm betting that as you write it, it becomes superseded quickly with not only your own new ideas, but input from the audience you want of reach. Find someone who you actually think it would benefit you to get on board, and focus one to one before going too far too fast. There is plenty of time to get it right, but who is going to ever know you got it if no one is on board?
You have no evidence, just a twisted interpretation from what I've seen so far.
Yes, that's obvious.
I wait with anticipation for this new found cosmological model.
You do realize we already have three other ToE's by three other delusional people on this forum.
So you have your job cut out. A couple of those ToE's have been waiting for this wildfire for 10 years or more.
Clearly theirs aren't as simple as infinite energy+infinite volume+gravity=universe then
So you looked at the evidence? Lets talk about it. I will walk you through your doubts.
I don't doubt that there will be a challenge finding someone. The evidence is a bit harder to see if you haven't been thinking about it this way before. To then be proposed to do so, it is very easy to write it off as "crank talk". That's why my manuscript is going to be extremely thorough, I am trying to cover every possible topic I can and explain how it fits within the model. The evidence is more than sufficient in large-scale observations of the universe, once the model is given a chance. I'm hoping the journals will embrace it. I plan on submitting to Philosophical Magazine; they are scientific but they embrace philosophy. To quote wikipedia: "The name of the journal dates from a period when "natural philosophy" embraced all aspects of science."
The theory itself is named The Universal Principle of Natural Philosophy, as an ode to Sir Isaac Newton who came up with the laws, and his own book, and way of thinking which I think is the only way to truly understand the universe. Without philosophy, we simply do not doubt interpretations that we make to a sufficient degree to recognize their fallacy.