Hello everyone,

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place for this, but as someone asked me why I didn't post my theory on a physics forum, I thought I'd give it a try. I tried submitting it at physicsforum.com, but it got rejected as it couldn't live up to the standards for submitting they have in place. Rather tell you this right away, just so you know up front and get an idea of what (not ) to expect

What I have written is basically a thought experiment that started out as a concept of time and which grew to a theory that attempts to combine general relativity with quantum physics. Some of the implications are an explanation of why gravity works the way it does, the nature of dark matter and dark energy and much more aspects that are more metaphysical in nature.

There is one thing you must know about the non-scientific style it has been written in though and that it is essentially a process of thoughts written on paper. As such, there are many flaws and assumptions in the beginning of the paper, that I get back to in later parts to correct. The reason why I am intentionally leaving them in the text right now, is so any reader can following my logic and way of thinking behind the concepts that are explained later.

Another thing is that this text only provides a logical explanation for these concepts. It does not include any formulas that may back it up, as it is not my aim to actually work these out myself. I am merely providing the framework of ideas that can be used to create these formulas or so that they may be verified through existing ones.

While I obviously hope I didn't make too many, I won't claim that there are no errors nor flaws in it. I won't claim that everything in it is correct either. Even though I'm presenting certain ideas as already proven, know that all of the claims I'm making are only valid within the scope of the model and assuming that the model itself is valid to some degree. As such I am merely providing a model full of ideas, which may be an inspiration for others with an appropriate scientific background to build upon or of which the aspects where I have gone wrong in my reasoning, may be corrected to match with modern mainstream science. As such, I'm not interested in trying to disprove mainstream science, but would like my model to match with it as much as possible so it first and foremost remains compatible and can hopefully expand upon mainstream science.

Please also understand that the reason I'm posting this thread here is not just to share a theory with all of you that is complete and without errors, but to have it evaluated by peer review and well... hear all of your thoughts, comments, criticism, etc, whether they are positive or negative

Thanks for reading this through. You can find my thought experiment as a google document on the following link: http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dg...vision=_latest

Note: the thought experiment itself is no longer publicly available as I have split off the concepts of time and gravity from it. Both topics are subject to revision and have been altered multiple times during the course of this topic. Please skip through to this post that mentions the latest revision in order to catch up with the latest discussions and to avoid confusion of no longer valid statements.

Here is a verbatim copy of the contents of your link.

Sorry, the page (or document) you have requested does not exist.

Please check the address and try again.

Maybe you copied your link directly froma previous post- but the link is incomplete.

Could you repost it in full, please?

ETA: See... This is why one should reply immediately after opening a thread Hornblower beat me to it while I was lollygagging around.

Isn't it obviously this document: Are we all time travellers?

(I had to go into the future and come all the way back, just for you.)

140 kilobytes. Almost a novel.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Whoops, I did indeed copy parts from the other submission into this post and managed to mess the link up... Way to go for a first post! *ahum*

Anyway, no clue how you did it, but I'm impressed as 01101001 did find out the real link somehow

So erm, yes, it's that link indeed and erm yes, I got a bit carried away with it while most people on the forum it all initially started at found themselves to became increasingly less bothered to actually read it all through... can you believe that?!

Anyway, here's a sad panda looking for vict... er people willing to evaluate the nonsense he has come up with!

Have fun?! :P

Victim indeed.

From what I can tell Seiryuu, this is almost a literal attempt at a theory of everything.
Not just Gravity, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity- You go on to the Metaphysical, spiritual and paranormal as well.

Mostly it's waxing philosophy that has little bearing on actual science.

Right off of the bat you demonstrate glaring misconceptions about Relativity. You go on the take an almost Science Fictional approach to pondering impossibles in which the basis is your misconceptions.

After that, you tie in (sorry) a bunch of paranormal hogwash as if you are explaining why everything tastes like chicken.

I'm sorry if my review seems harsh. But you got a lot of your science wrong and then you went wandering off down paths that led you even further astray.
I might, later, if you ask me to, wade through that long winding river of yours to fish out samples of misconceptions and lead you to the (book market) to sample the wares, but in the meantime, that is way too much to try to correct in one post.

Seiryuu, You're obviously very intelligent. But intelligence means little without reinforcing it with practical knowledge.
I strongly suggest you put your brain to use by learning more about science than guessing and making up invented possibilities.
Learn about Physics, Relativity, Biology, Genetic diversity, Evolution, Psychology, etc before you try guessing as to how they all tie together. Much of what you tried to tie in either doesn't fit or doesn't even exist.
More importantly, I strongly suggest you develop more Critical Thinking skills that can enable you to separate fact from fiction.

ACH!

I'm actually wincing as I read this paper. I got to a juicy nugget here...

Seiryuu, I cannot help but think, like any creator who has put forth the time and energy into a creation, that you are proud of that creation.
It really sucks when some monkey butt like me comes along, skims over it, and proclaims it's garbage.

But sadly, such is real life. I can see pretty clearly now why the folks on the other pgysics forum you introduced your work on didn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. It would be like trying to teach an Electric Universe proponent Gravity to try to talk to you about it.

I'm sorry to be the bad guy here, but your creation is a load of bunk.

About the only thing the paper demonstrates is that you have a keen and curious mind, but it needs instruction.
It's like you showed someone your painting and they said, "You obviously have skills to be developed."

I feel bad here.

Okay, maybe I should have clarified this a bit further, but the document is a process of thoughts on paper. It started from assumptions. A lot of assumptions about things I knew nothing about and were wrong. That's why there are many errors in it. But, along the course of writing it, I did bother to start reading up and correct those assumptions where I noticed I had gone wrong. Also the different sections were written as they came to mind. There's no specific order, although it helps having read previous parts as I do sometimes refer to them.

In other words, the text I have written is a learning process on it's own and I'm constantly changing the assumptions being made and try to correct them as much as possible, but I have done this by ADDING text, instead of changing what I have written before, so that the thoughts leading there can be 'traced' so to speak. You will see that later parts of the text go back to previous parts to correct them, instead of merely trying to put it all together based on previous parts.

I am sorry if there are still way too many errors in it to correct, but most of the sections simply are only loosely based upon eachother and are not all necessary consequences of another. Sometimes a later section directly contradicts a previous one, as I have learned about a topic and found myself in need of correction.

I realise this may be a weird way of approaching things though, so I do suppose having changed the original sections might have been easier...

I see where you are coming from and it might be interesting to read it from start to finish and then analyze it for how you made changes...

But for a discussion and forum type setting, you're really going to need clarity.
Misunderstandings from typed words on a computer screen are all too easy to make even when folks are being clear.

I would recommend that you do a second paper- This one being Concise and to the point with a hypothesis or proposition that you currently hold that you can discuss.

Otherwise, one will end up sifting, sorting and trying to follow a winding path and you will end up clarifying, defending and explaining yourself at every turn.

Which is good, at least you don't come stomping in and claim you know everything better like some do here.

But if you were serious about the review part, the first thing you should do is correct what you know is wrong. IMHO it's a little rude to ask for review on something that you know to have mistakes. It wastes time to raise points in your paper, only to get a reply like "yeah I knew that was wrong".

Save your current version. If then, after correcting known errors, someone asks you how you arrived at some erroneous conclusion, you can answer by reviewing your earlier version or pointing to the relevant section.

Edit: or even better, consider Neverfly's suggestion.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

While I realise that a lot of it is guessing and making up possiblities, I do try to put it in a coherant manner so that some of my guesses can actually be tested or verified (such as the gravity example). Also I do sometimes fail to see the difference in the wild predictions established physicists make when it comes to explaining established theories, such as string theory (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html)

Don't get me wrong, I don't wanna claim I posses anywhere near the level of understanding of physics these people do, but although what I see and read from these people may be based upon solid maths, the interpretation of that math isn't necessarily correct.

I disagree. New theories (imho) start from guessing what something means, whether it is a mathematical equation or any phenomenon in nature and trying to figure out how it ties together. Then reading up on the subjects, finding out you're wrong, making new guesses, finding out experiments or previous knowledge proves you wrong again, correcting again allows for a process of learning.

You make an assumption, you test that assumption. One who is afraid of making assumptions or guesses won't be able to test them either. I'm not afraid of making assumptions or guesses, even if they are way off, totally science fiction like or not in the slightest possible. But I'm not afraid of having my guesses tested and being proven wrong either.

What matters is not whether they are right or wrong, whether it all ties together or not. What matters is that new ideas are being introduced that may explain things yet unexplained and that those ideas can be actually tested disproven one way or another. Since I don't have the knowledge to do that myself, this is why I'm turning to a forum where people who do posses that knowledge can evaluate and verify everything. If I could do it myself or had to understanding to do so, I would have correct a whole lot more already.

Again, it doesn't have to fit in at all. I realise a lot of what I have written may not fit in, may be flawed or based upon misconceptions and I'm willing to accept that it is utter crap. But at the same time, even an idea based upon a misconception may have it's uses elsewhere or may bring in an element that's still valid in a theory where the initial misconception is not present.

As for the critical thinking, I write a text based upon assumptions, but that doesn't mean I'm not aware of the assumptions, just like it doesn't mean I'm not aware of the fact that I'm merely guessing and that I may be far off from reality. It is my critical thinking that demands evaluation. It is my critical thinking that brings me here with the question: "I have written a whole load of things mixed together, full of guesses and ideas, but probably with tons of flaws in them. Time to weed out those flaws. Time to scrap all the guesses that are clearly wrong for reason this and that and figure out what may be of use and what not". If nothing remains, then so be it, but even then there may STILL be ideas that can give inspiration to scientists, rather than being of immediate use.

As for the science fiction, it seems to me that string theorists are no better, but maybe that's only because of my limited understanding. I wonder what you think about this link for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Impossible

Point taken from both of you. I suppose the first step is to try and split everything up in chunks, combine the relevant ones from start to end with all corrections made and with seperate hypotheses for each part. This way, the parts can also be evaluated seperately, rather than presenting it as a whole.

I still can't promise not to have those glaring misconceptions though, but hey, that's why I am here to learn in the first place. It's written from scratch, with an open mind and wild guesses as a framework to start from. Now I'm trying to match it with actual science to see which parts holds any value at all when the various aspects are being confirmed or proven wrong. Things that obviously don't match will be scrapped, I don't mind.

Then again, a critical mind applies both ways, and since I can be very stubborn about accepting anything new (even from myself, hence my call for evaluation ) I will probably also try to see first if what I claim can be corrected so that it does match before scrapping it all together. Then again I don't see what's wrong with that as long as I learn from all the criticism that is being presented so that I don't present the same thing with the same mistakes over and over while it's clear to everyone else that it's proven wrong.

Before I continue to do so though, one thing has caught my attention:

Can you please explain a bit anyway which misconceptions you're talking about so that I may at least correct this for starters?

Excellent attitude and welcome to BAUT


Well... Hmmm
Actually...
Like Capt. Janeway, this leads me to a temporal paradox in which I do not know if they are past, present or ... future... misconceptions. I'd have to go over your link again and try to figure out if you address much of what I read or not...

I think it would be better for you to go ahead and draw up your Current hypothesis for discussion.
That way, any misconceptions that you may still have can be addressed in the present without confusion.

You have already past 'starters' so you may as well run with it.

Fair enough, although you do not need to go through it and verify if I address them or not to present your concerns anyway. If you share the issues you see as misconceptions, based on what you have read, I can do the verifying. :P

Even if I do address them later on, it won't hurt having them pointed out to me, just to make sure. In fact, I would very much appreciate it.

Lose them. Make it correct as you can from the start.

I stopped reading very quickly because of the errors, but I recall early you wrote of how the mistakes evolved naturally and they show your thinking process.

Sorry. I'm not interested in your thinking process. I'd expect few are.

I'm interested in your new ideas plainly laid out, why they are different from previous ideas and why they are better and why they are right.

That should help solve the length problem.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Okay, I started by seperating the hypothesis of gravity on it's own, cleaning up all non-essential information related to the other sections and even correcting more errors as I found them in the process. I already fear your responses as to what the amount of errors concerns if I can still spot my own mistakes upon reviewing it, but meh, one has to start somewhere... Worst case, I already know what to scrap for sure then!

You can find it at http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dg...vision=_latest

This link asks me to sign in. I am guessing that it is to sign in to YOUR document, because when I politely complied, it started whining about how I don't have permission to access that document and I had to slap it around something proper.

I'm starting to notice a pattern here... sigh

Anyway, link adjusted: http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dg...vision=_latest

The trouble with your theory is that Mass is not altered by different rates and kinds of motions, speeds, velocities or Lack Of Motion.

ETA: for clarity of what I just said...: If Gravity was caused by motion, changes in motion would produce changes in gravity. Lack of motion would cause a lack of gravity. This is not the case. Gravity is independent of motion, speed or velocity.

Mass isn't altered indeed. It's not necessary either for the theory to work.

That's the thing: I didn't say gravity was caused by motions either. Two objects can be perfectly moving without experiencing gravity as long as their speeds are equal, but if I'm right as soon as one starts to slow down or speed up, THEN gravity will occur. That's what I mean with: gravity is caused by a difference in acceleration.

How do you escape Earth's gravity? Is it not due to an acceleration? When a rocket is launched into space, is it not because it accelerates enough to counter the force of Earth's gravity? Does it not start falling back as soon as it stops accelerating?

I'm not denying that mass still plays a factor either, just that it's not enough to explain gravity on it's own.

Like I tried to explain ineptly, I traveled into the future to see your confirmation that was/is/had been/will be the right link, did a time-copy (Alt-Ctl-C) then scurried somewhat back into the past so I could post it for those eager to read (Alt-Ctl-V).

Apologies: If I had topped-off my time-travel card before commencing I could have gone/returned all the way back to before your initial post, to warn you to get it right, but I ran out of hour-dollars. N'est-ce pas la vie.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

It is because the strength of gravity decreases with distance. This is not a relative perception.

What you are describing is G forces or Artificial Gravity.

Agreed, the force on an object experiencing gravity decreases by distance and increases as the object is being accelerated towards the attracting mass. But, part of my point is that this is not the total picture.

Allow me to explain: if we are in a spaceship that no longer accelerates away from Earth and doesn't accelerate sideways either, we will start experiencing an increasing gravitational pull towards the Earth, am I right?

Hence, my theory goes: the reason why this happens is because the Earth isn't just attracting based on mass, but based on it's own motion it makes as it orbits the Sun, providing a difference in acceleration between the ship and the Earth, generating a gravitional pull between them.

Or maybe you weren't able to warn me, because my vision of time travel doesn't match your description. It doesn't even allow you to warn me by travelling forward and back as that would simply be impossible in my model. Kinda ironic for a time travelling theory, huh?

Then why does Mass weigh more?
Why does the Sun have such extreme pull on the Earth when it's motion is much much less than The Earth, relative to the Earth?

Why is Jupiters gravitational pull so much greater?

What you are thinking of is Centripetal Force.

Mass, however, warps space - Yes- but it is doing such in a way that ALL surrounding space, in all dimensions is warped. You are thinking in the terms of the Visual Analogies used to describe the effect in "laymans terms" but this visual analogy effect is just that- ONLY an analogy. Space is not 2 D and the Curves you see go in every direction.

This is why the Earth will attract objects in any direction, regardless of motion or velocity.

Your idea is not new, by any means. It's been run across this board in ATM repeatedly.

Gravity pulls all mass equally towards the largest mass. As long as the objects are falling, they experience weightlessness. The reason why a large mass in the end weighs more than smaller masses, would be because of the difference in direction of the pull.

I claim there's a polarity in that small masses get pulled to larger masses, right? Well, both are prevented as they make contact with the ground. But the larger mass will weigh more, due to the difference in polarity. Small masses get pulled to Earth the same way as larger masses, but there will be a difference in the pull as Earth will get pulled a little more to the larger mass than to the smaller one.

As such, the gravitational forces masses excert upon eachother, are due to their polarity. Equal mass=equal pull towards eachother. If two objects experience gravity, the total force on both objects will be the same if they are pulled towards eachother or just one being pulled towards the other. But, if it's not an equal pull, the forces experienced by one object will be different compared to the forces experienced by the other object. In the case of a planet vs a human, this is a huge assymmetry.

Still, the difference in direction between the pull can be felt as larger masses simply excert a greater force upon the ground then smaller since more mass is being pulled into their direction compared to the smaller masses. Therefore, the ground also exerts a larger force upon that mass to prevent it, resulting in increased weight.

Does this make sense?

It's motion relative to Earth is much much less than that of the Earth, yes, but it's motion relative to the galactic centre is not. The extreme pull Earth experiences is due to that motion.

A planet orbits the Sun in a circle, only when the Sun is stationary. If the Sun moves in a direction 90° compared to the orbits as it orbits the galactic centre, the planetary motion must compensate for this movement as well. In other words, they are moving in spirals rather than circles, but since the relative positions never change due the Sun's gravity keeping everything in place, we don't notice these movements. If Jupiter has a larger gravitational pull, it could be due the fact that Jupiter doesn't need to be compensated as much by the Sun's gravity, because the planet is partually making this movement by it's own speed, rather than being "kept in place".

What I mean with this is that Jupiter may already be moving faster than some of the other planets, not in the orbital direction, but in the same direction the Sun is moving, hence it will experience a lower gravitational pull from the Sun, but attract more mass of it's own.

If difference in acceleration would be the same as a centripetal force, then all planets would move at the same angular velocity around the Sun. Although I don't know if centripetal forces play a role, they are not what I mean.

I agree, it warps all surrounding space, or in other words all slower and more importantly smaller objects get pulled towards the Sun, due to the polarity.

The motion planets make as they orbit the Sun is more complex than an ellipse. What the Sun's gravity does is keeping them in orbit sideways, while the Sun is moving ahead in it's own direction straight ahead.

What Earth does is accelerating objects who are slower towards it, while it orbits the Sun, yes. This happens indeed in all directions, as the Earth's mass should be vastly larger than the objects it captures, hence again, polarity determining the direction. The motion of the Earth itself is irrelevant to the direction of the gravitational pull, everything in range of the gravitational field with a different speed will be captured and pulled towards the largest mass.

My apologies in advance then, for having to discuss it once more...

Maybe? But, why would I let impossibility in your model affect my own time travel? I used a standard product, from a well known corporate TT-service provider, from your future. I just needed more hour-dollars, simple as that. I probably can't get too specific without violating some World temporal law.

If my activities don't fit your model, I hope you're not gonna say the future got it wrong. As we say: "It's hour-dollars now or get out and get there the old-fashioned way -- whenever!"

Don't despair. Keep developing your model. It will turn out to illuminate a particular patent -- in regards to what doesn't work. Sorry. But it was/will be worthwhile to the inventor.

Gotta go. Can't say which direction.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Point taken, your time travel may be more advanced than mine. If so, why would I want to try and prove the future wrong? Nono, I will either gladly abandon my model and learn your ways or at least modify my model so that it includes your ways.

Still, your inability to have warned me on beforehand annoys me. I don't settle for a standard product like that. It doesn't satisfy my needs you know. Would rather build my own that takes me anywhere for free.

That's the whole point why I'm here you know... the model is only the start, not the end. It's far from complete and still contains many "design errors", so I will keep on modifying and updating it untill it matches the latest inventions or in the case it becomes too old-fashioned replace it with a new one alltogether.

Now, share with me your secrets! I will find them out anyway, one way or another!

hey seir
i thought this was a thought experiment and not a theory of everything experiment.
some of what you said sounds plausible, but whats with all the demons and stuff? .

this is the right place to get the story straight, baut can help you tweak up or down your theories , but they got to be real , cause the universe is real.
And so is time ,as far as humanity is concerned .
without time , what would we have learned ? ..

just an opinion

__________________
it shows you how much i know....not much i guess----"sohhfly"

Good Morning, Sohh Fly... Just woke up?

It was, I just got a bit carried away!

Demons?

Afaik, there is no mention of demons whatsoever.

What is real and what is not? We can argue about it if you like. For example, consider imagination. Most people will tell you imagination is not real, however, doesn't the fact that imagination is part of reality and what we can experience implictly make it real?

Sometimes the border between reality and science fiction is thin. For this I would like to refer to my earlier post about the popular interpretations of string theory that have been written, even by physicists.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to say that you have to believe one letter from what I write untill someone actually manages to prove it or at least show emperical evidence, but untill then this shouldn't stop anyone from exploring the borders of reality and crossing them once in a while.

There used to be a time where atoms weren't considered as real either, so why should we be so predetermined about what's real and what's not? Sure, I agree: we shouldn't believe in anything that there doesn't seem to be direct evidence for, but at the same time I feel we shouldn't believe in the non-existence or non-possibility either. Why can't we simply not believe in either possibility, but instead simply acknowledge that we don't know and haven't made up our mind yet?

It's rather funny that you mention this, because in my own reasoning I started from the non-existence of time and found out the opposite to be true. Thing is, whether time exists or not, all depends on how you define the concept of time. During the text, my notion of time changed as well as I went along. I would love to elaborate on it, but I will follow Neverfly's suggestion first to streamline my concept of time and then present it to you as a hypothesis, instead of a thought process that changes as it went along.