Theory of Everything.

[Orion68]

What part of discussion forum do you not understand?
I do not want to go to your site and read your paper.
If you refuse to discuss your ideas then I suggest you go somewhere else.

This starting to look like this will end up in the cesspool, I hope not, but if refuse to answer questions what other choice is there....

It would be nice that both parties in a discussion understand each other.
Quite normal in a discussion. Therefore I ask you to read the article which you seem incapable of. So please stay of this thread and go put your energy somewhere else.

In the meantime I still hope others on this forum will make the effort to read the article and give me feedback on the content of the article.

 

[origin]

It would be nice that both parties in a discussion understand each other.
Quite normal in a discussion. Therefore I ask you to read the article which you seem incapable of. So please stay of this thread and go put your energy somewhere else.

In the meantime I still hope others on this forum will make the effort to read the article and give me feedback on the content of the article.

I will request that the mod close this thread since it is clear your main goal is to get traffic to your site.

 

[Orion68]

I will request that the mod close this thread since it is clear your main goal is to get traffic to your site.

How narcistic and selfindulgent... Of you.

 

[origin]

How narcistic and selfindulgent... Of you.

Nah, I just enjoy discussions and not downloading stuff from some site to make some guy feel self important.

If you decide to discuss your idea at some point I will join in.

 

[Orion68]

Nah, I just enjoy discussions and not downloading stuff from some site to make some guy feel self important.

Enjoy 'trolling' it seems. Maybe the oparator will leave this thread intact while removing your comments.

 

[billvon]

I will request that the mod close this thread since it is clear your main goal is to get traffic to your site.

Yep. We got another one of those.

 

[Orion68]

Yep. We got another one of those.

What a shame. At least I've done my part on real science. Hope this thread will stay alive, cause I've got a real good theory in physics. I think the people will pick it up, one way or another...

 

[DaveC426913]

What a shame. At least I've done my part on real science. Hope this thread will stay alive, cause I've got a real good theory in physics. I think the people will pick it up, one way or another...

Orion: This is a discussion forum. If you are interested in disseminating and discussing your theory, then one must ask why you are so reluctant to disseminate or discuss it.

If what you want is a review of your paper, then a discussion forum is not the appropriate place. You should submit it to a journal.

 

[Orion68]

Orion: This is a discussion forum. If you are interested in disseminating and discussing your theory, then one must ask why you are so reluctant to disseminate or discuss it.

If what you want is a review of your paper, then a discussion forum is not the appropriate place. You should submit it to a journal.

Thank you once again for advise. I must
have had the wrong impression about what this forum is about. In my opinion there was no harm, nor is there any commercial, but purely a scientific reason to post this thread anyhow.
The article I talk about is about 40 pages of reading. Too much information to post at once at a forum. And since so many insights are uncommon one has to have read the article to know what I'm talking about. I was under the impression that people over here would take the effort of reading such an article but that is not so obvious as I now know.
Anyway, this thread will probably be cleared and that's that.
The site will remain online so if you ever want to read the article, it is downloadable for free as long as I'm around.

 

[origin]

The article I talk about is about 40 pages of reading. Too much information to post at once at a forum. And since so many insights are uncommon one has to have read the article to know what I'm talking about. I was under the impression that people over here would take the effort of reading such an article but that is not so obvious as I now know.

You have to understand we see this all the time. Someone will say they have some great theory and it will be 40 or 100 pages of hand waving pseudoscience.

I asked a couple of simple questions, if you had taken the time to answer the questions and the answers were compelling then you might get visits to see what your complete ideas were. But refusing to answer questions is a huge red flag indicating woo-woo.

By the way you will get more or less the same reception at all the science and physics sites if this your normal operating procedure.

Good luck.

 

[exchemist]

Thank you once again for advise. I must
have had the wrong impression about what this forum is about. In my opinion there was no harm, nor is there any commercial, but purely a scientific reason to post this thread anyhow.
The article I talk about is about 40 pages of reading. Too much information to post at once at a forum. And since so many insights are uncommon one has to have read the article to know what I'm talking about. I was under the impression that people over here would take the effort of reading such an article but that is not so obvious as I now know.
Anyway, this thread will probably be cleared and that's that.
The site will remain online so if you ever want to read the article, it is downloadable for free as long as I'm around.

Nope, Dave and Origin are right. This is a discussion forum and so the idea is to discuss ideas in the forum itself, not to get sent off to other places to do the reading. You will find the same thing in other forums: this one is more tolerant than most, in fact.

If you will not present your ideas here yourself, readers are not going to take the time to go off to read an unknown source just because some unknown person (genius? timewaster? nutcase? fool? malware specialist?) says there is something interesting there.

 

[Orion68]

Nope, Dave and Origin are right. This is a discussion forum and so the idea is to discuss ideas in the forum itself, not to get sent off to other places to do the reading. You will find the same thing in other forums: this one is more tolerant than most, in fact.

If you will not present your ideas here yourself, readers are not going to take the time to go off to read an unknown source just because some unknown person (genius? timewaster? nutcase? fool? malware specialist?) says there is something interesting there.

Like I said, I had the wrong impression about how a forum works. Presenting a link to an article is not an option I know now.

The problem with my theory is that it presents a different way of looking at the subatomic world, thereby leaving a lot of what quantum mechanics has to offer behind. And those specialists are just the public who have the insight to understand the article in its full potential. But it does away with the Bohr's Copenhague interpretation and that means putting 70 years of proven science aside, but in my view Einstein was right all the way. So because of this a lot of people wave the theory away beforehand without knowing what it's all about. Therefore I ask people to read the article so that both me and the other are on the same level. But that's a little too much, especially when there is the risk of me being yet another 'timewaster/nutcase/fool/malwarespecialist' and all too probably not a genius.

Well, it is quite interesting to have a thread on this site, regrettably it did not work out the way I wanted, a free discussion concerning the contents of the mentioned article.

 

[exchemist]

Like I said, I had the wrong impression about how a forum works. Presenting a link to an article is not an option I know now.

The problem with my theory is that it presents a different way of looking at the subatomic world, thereby leaving a lot of what quantum mechanics has to offer behind. And those specialists are just the public who have the insight to understand the article in its full potential. But it does away with the Bohr's Copenhague interpretation and that means putting 70 years of proven science aside, but in my view Einstein was right all the way. So because of this a lot of people wave the theory away beforehand without knowing what it's all about. Therefore I ask people to read the article so that both me and the other are on the same level. But that's a little too much, especially when there is the risk of me being yet another 'timewaster/nutcase/fool/malwarespecialist' and all too probably not a genius.

Well, it is quite interesting to have a thread on this site, regrettably it did not work out the way I wanted, a free discussion concerning the contents of the mentioned article.

If you have a theory that leaves most of quantum mechanics behind, you must have had a lot of work to do, since almost the whole of chemistry relies on quantum mechanical ideas. Do you have an alternative idea for the structure of the atom, then?

 

[Orion68]

If you have a theory that leaves most of quantum mechanics behind, you must have had a lot of work to do, since almost the whole of chemistry relies on quantum mechanical ideas. Do you have an alternative idea for the structure of the atom, then?

In fact, I do. It is described in the article. What it comes down to is that quarks consists out of three interacting zero-point particles. Those quarks form protons and neutrons, just as observed.
Two zero-point particles make up an electron. When the precise position and movement of the zero-point particles are known the whole internal working of a nucleus and the surrounding electron(s) can be calculated. So one can determine the precise location and speed at the same time of for example an electron around a proton, something impossible to calculatie within quantum mechanics where only the chance that a particle is on a specific place can be calculated.

Hope this is enough of an answer (for now).

 

[origin]

In fact, I do. It is described in the article. What it comes down to is that quarks consists out of three interacting zero-point particles. Those quarks form protons and neutrons, just as observed.

What is your evidence for this.

So one can determine the precise location and speed at the same time of for example an electron around a proton, something impossible to calculatie within quantum mechanics where only the chance that a particle is on a specific place can be calculated.

This is not a calculation problem it a fundamental property of matter according to current physics.

This would certainly earn you a Nobel Prize if true.

 

[DaveC426913]

So one can determine the precise location and speed at the same time of for example an electron around a proton, something impossible to calculatie within quantum mechanics where only the chance that a particle is on a specific place can be calculated.

Well, you're going to run into some trouble there with your theory, because Heisenberg Uncertainty is not merely a matter of calculation, it is an observed phenomenon.
If your theory can calculate the exact position and velocity of a particle, how does it explain our observations to the contrary?

And if you can calculate that, can you also explain quantum tunneling - another observed phenomenon upon which all solid-state semiconductor technology - including the computer you are currently using - relies?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

If you refuse to discuss your ideas then I suggest you go somewhere else.

not to get sent off to other places to do the reading.

Hope this is enough of an answer (for now).

The site rules are quite clear about 2 things
1 sending members to another site to read/interact as a premise of their process to engage on this site
2 refusing to discuss the subject you have posted on

quantum tunneling

give me a moment while i decompose this

You will find the same thing in other forums: this one is more tolerant than most, in fact.

you may just get immediately ip blocked by other forums as a potential risk or troll

 

[Orion68]

What is your evidence for this.

The evidence is (yet again) written down in the article. A short answer would be that the real character of the proton and the neutron are described. They both consists out of quarks . In the article the mechanism of the decay of the neutron and the neutron are explained. Evidence for this proces is later on obtained in two experiments, that of Jeff Steinhauer on Hawking radiation, and in the positron imaging tomography (PET). Both of these phenoma show data that correlaties 100% with the theorized decay of protons and neutrons.

 

[Orion68]

Well, you're going to run into some trouble there with your theory, because Heisenberg Uncertainty is not merely a matter of calculation, it is an observed phenomenon.
If your theory can calculate the exact position and velocity of a particle, how does it explain our observations to the contrary?

And if you can calculate that, can you also explain quantum tunneling - another observed phenomenon upon which all solid-state semiconductor technology - including the computer you are currently using - relies?

Quantum channeling is something I haven't thought of yet. I should do further investigation and see how it fits the theory.
The phenomon of the uncertainty principle is something that arises if quantummechanics were true all the way. There is no uncertainty Heisenberg Principle in this context, only within the theory of quantummechanics itself. The result of tests observing this tell us something on the working of the experiment themselves, nothing about the particles experimented upon.

 

[Orion68]

The evidence is (yet again) written down in the article. A short answer would be that the real character of the proton and the neutron are described. They both consists out of quarks . In the article the mechanism of the decay of the neutron and the neutron are explained. Evidence for this proces is later on obtained in two experiments, that of Jeff Steinhauer on Hawking radiation, and in the positron imaging tomography (PET). Both of these phenoma show data that correlaties 100% with the theorized decay of protons and neutrons.

A mistyping: 'In the article the mechanisme of the dacay of the neutron and the PROTON are explained. Ty.