I have been working on a new theory with a friend of mine. We have now decided to share our ideas to other. We need peopl that can give us feedback on the theory. If there is something we have missed or if there is stuff that is really good.
You can find the theory at.

http://pub21.ezboard.com/bettheory

In the first post, what does a. s. o. mean? As in "But if the universe doesnt have a consciousness the universe cant have created mass, energy a.s.o."

Doctor Dick should have a lot to say about this...

D'oh! It means "and so on" right?

And Bossieman, welcome.

Just a question: how do we do to test your hypothesis? Abstract maths won´t help us. This has a flavor of scientific relativism to me.

But I might be wrong. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I might be missing something but I don't think this theory explains complex molecules very well. What about cis and trans double-bonds? How does C6H12 have different chemical properties in its various configurations if its nothing but a conglomeration of LESA & anti-LESA?

The theory was interesting to read but does need to propose some testable hypothesis.

There should be several ways to test the theory.
The theroy predicts alot of things. By studying this predictions from the theory we could verify it.
I list a few predictions from the theory.
1. Decay time depends on temperature.
2. Gravity can be neutralized,
3. There is no end in searching for heavier elementary particles.
4. All particles have mass, even the neutrinos.
5. The graviton can never be seen.
6. The graviton is antiparticle to the photon.
7. Mass is anti/room
8. Everything will behave as waves at low tempertures.
9. No need for antimatter
10. Galaxies are dissolving. Stars doesnt attract eachother. The opposite happens.

There is tons of more predictions and explainations for physical phenomena.
Many more things is coming from the theory.
The theroy gives an explaination to why the speed of light is c. Everything will be posted at the ET/forum but it takes time to translate and update. But please visit the forum at regular times to read the updates. I will post here when we have done updates on the theory.

The chemical properties depends on the 0-room and the extra LESA or anti/LESA. What you miss is that you think that the protons and neutrons in the molecyl is particles.
The difference between different Hexan types are just slightly different zerorooms. We cant measure this difference but we can see that it reacts and behave different so we try to explain this with trans double bounds.

Sure we can measure it, here's one technique chemists like to use.

http://www.cryst.bbk.ac.uk/BBS/whatis/cryst_an.html

We are talking about 2 different things.
But yes we can see different types oh Hexan. But we dont see the zero room. The explaination to the different properties are based on one theory. But we cant see the anti-LESA part of any particle. We cant measure it, only the total 0-room.

Bossieman,

welcome on board.
so if we consider BB created mass, than BB must conscious [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
mass -- if it exists -- is part of the universe, not created by it.
experiment shows this duality. it's a result of our observation, not our creation.

actually we cannot "see" ultrasounds, kuz of limitations (OK, evolution ) yet we have sensors to "see" (detect) them.
so evolution is not a problem.


u have to prove it.
in another theory ( ZPF) gravity could be result of special vacuum EM waves acting on charged particles (electron, proton, quarks ...)


not true. we can observe -- and measure --atoms decaying.
observation won't stop decay.

please clarify these points before going further ...

Thanks for the welcome. I will try to answer your questions.


There is no BB in our theory. We have another idea about the creation. I have not translated it yet but it will come up in the forum soon.

we have created this word as a result of our observations. Its not universe itself that has created the duality it is humans that have done that. I think we are talking about the same thing just different explainations.

The evolution is a problem IMO. Evolution has created limitations for us. Yes,we have detectors to "see" ultrasound but in what way does this proof that evolution is not a problem?
Do I have too prove it? A theory is correct until it has been proven wrong.
We know that both QM and GR cant be 100% correct. But we use them because they have not been proven wrong in any experiment what I know of.
We can not see the decay. We can never say now it decayed.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bossieman on 2003-01-22 16:55 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bossieman on 2003-01-22 17:29 ]</font>

So much for taking the new theory seriously. :/


-Adam

I think you meant to say this another way since the logic of this paragraph goes:

-- theory is correct until proven wrong
-- QM and GR have not been proven wrong

therefore QM and GR are correct, why do you "know" they are wrong?

Anyway, that's just me being picky [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

What I was actually posting about was that your theory has not made any predictions yet. I realize that this theory is still being worked out and translated but so far your description goes as follows:

1) Describe some nature of the universe (ex. earth goes around sun)
2) Explain it in LESA terms
3) Therefore the theory works

But I could just as easily replace LESA explanations with religious ones:

1) The earth goes around the sun
2) God made it do so
3) Therefore God exists

No offense to all you geocentrists out there. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

So please help us out by doing the following:

Give examples of phenomena, that if shown to exist, would prove your LESA theory wrong and tell us why these examples would disprove your theory.

Well I dont follow here. What do you mean?Its well know that QM and GR is describing the world in different ways. The Gravitational force has to be intermediareted(sp?) by a particle called the graviton. In GR the gravity is not a force at all, it is a curvation in space.
This is major issue in theoretical physics. The goal is to unit these 2 theories into one.

Scientific relativism, definitely.

Sorry Bossieman. It all looks like vague phraseology, at least to me. Can you present your arguments in a more objective fashion?

Decay time is not dependent on temperature or pressure, is it?

I was referring to your statement about how all theories are correct until disproven, Bossie.


-Adam

Does consciousness (however you define it) really have a place in physics? Is a photographic plate conscious because it can observe things?

One phenomena would be stars in the galaxy doesnt attract eachother, they push themself away from other stars. If this could be observed it would be a nice proof of the theory.
Entropy and gravity are connected. More gravity makes entropy increase.
gravitons are antiparticles to photons.
Neutrinos and photons have mass.
This are the eaxample I can think of now.

No it doesnt have a consciousness. A plate cant not observe things. We make the observation.

According to the theory it has to be. The theory says that decay time and temperature are closely related.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bossieman on 2003-01-23 04:50 ]</font>

Sorry, I don't buy it. Decay is a constant, full stop.

as for QM/SR/GR we have experiments SUPPORTING them.
Einstein did not like QM. then he changed his mind, kuz experiment confirms QM.

SO, u have to submit some experiment supporting u theory.

Yes, I can post ideas how to do experiments. I can do that by saying that Decay time depends on temperature. Someone or mee (I dont have the equipment)can try to do some research wheter or not decaytime depends on temperaure.

why would this example prove/disprove your theory? Please explain in terms of your theory (LESA/anti-LESA).

Why would these examples prove/disprove your theory? Please explain in terms of your theory (LESA/anti-LESA).

Surely since the theory explains all sorts of things in physics there can be more specific experiments that could test your theory. I'm not a physicist so I don't know how one would test "gravity increases entropy".

because humans have in all times belived that atars attract eachother because of gravity. What we say is that they push away not attract. So this would atually be a proof that that part of the theory is correct if it shows that stars doesnt attract eachother.

If stars don't attract one another then how do you account for multiple star systems in which stars orbit each other, therefore showing a definate attraction....?

Well today scientist say that the photon has mass =0, they dont know if neutrinos has mass. What our theory say is that both light and neutrinos has mass. So if we one day found out that light has mass we can drop SR and QM. And if that happened it was predicted by our theory.

Yes they are orbiting eachother but the distance increases all the time, the 2 stars are creating space between them increasing the distance. All stars do this according to our theory.
Just because we se a star orbiting another star people think this is because they attract eachother. That is what we have been teached in school without never questioned that staement. How do we know that 2 stars attract eachother instead of repulsing eachother? What proof is there? When we look at galaxies the stars has to high velocity in the outer rings. The galaxy should just spit out stars all the time. And that is exactly what the galaxy is doing. All stars in the galaxy is pushing eachother further away from eachother. If you did a computer model of this you would actually get a spiralgalaxy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bossieman on 2003-01-23 08:23 ]</font>