Swoop,

Now you are getting personal. I don't think that is appropriate to say I am lying or imply that I am lying. I have not lied to you. I have been very upfront and honest. The problem with some of the advocates of contemporary physics like yourself is the extreme need to attack people unfairly and unreasonably simply because they disagree with you.

I try to bring up an interesting topics for discussion and you hammer me for it. Isn't that what this site is supposed to be all about. I think the problem here is you don't get it. Pehaps you should not be moderating as you are not behaving in a professional manner. If you would have noticed what was on wikipedia which I am going to assume is not rated as cranky. Says basically the same thing as the cranky website. So whats your point. I am always finding new things now that the internet is available so I don't think this is any big deal.

I guess I am angering some of you because I am having an easier time debunking Quantum Mechanics than the goose stepping advocats of quantum Mechanics. Einstien was right "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
While many of you have a great knowledge of mathematics and procedures concerning retro solving atomic processes. You have no imagination and some of you are rude and arrogant. I really had hoped that we could stick to ideas and explore new ideas and have fun but this is beginning to get ugly. Maybe that is what you Fortis GzhPCU want. You need to learn to be nice.

You know, I was hoping to make some friends and to have fun talking about this stuff. I am getting very disappointed.

Mmfiore, I'm certainly not trying to be rude. I'm just trying to get an answer to what I had thought was a reasonable question. Perhaps I could phrase it in a different way.

Without using the masses of the proton or neutron as an input, what masses does your method predict for the proton and neutron masses? If your method has any predictive capability ( even if it is not the best one), it should be able to do this.

Are you able to do this?

I am being rude? Because I am posing questions and we are in diagreement?
If you think someone is being rude, click on the red triangle. This is then brought to the attention of a moderator.

However, I personally do not like being called a "goose stepping" advocate of QM...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Hi Fortis,

Thanks, I do understand what you are asking now. No, without the input of original mass I cannot get final mass. And I agree that there should be a better way and that is what I am working on. I have what I believe are all the terms I am just experimenting with different ways to arrange them so a prediction of any particle mass could be made without a mass input. I agree that there should be an equation that can predict all masses without an input. The method I demonstrated is to show how I believe particles aquire mass. That is the really important and exciting concept if it turns out to be correct.

I have also had a difficult time in ATM.
I thought it was the place for heretics but the practitioners of orthodox
physics pursue us even here.Confusing things,bringing up irrelevant points.

An excellent topic and you answer well.
Maths can give useful answers of things we cannot understand, but I like to understand.Hard to predict things without an understanding.

Half of your mad ideas are the same as half of my mad ideas.
I expect that the remainder will make some sense after another read.

Do the experiment,prove your theory,they still will not believe you.

You misunderstood. We were being described as "goose stepping advocats" which is comparing us to an egg based alcoholic drink. I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing, however.

Also, I'm wondering if we are now hitting Godwin's law.

Thanks. That's all I was looking for. Your earlier posts suggested that you regarded this as a prediction of mass, but that didn't make sense.

So does your model provide any testable (ideally quantitative) predictions?

Fortis,

I came to the exact same conclusion as you that it is not the best method to find mass for particles. I apologize for not under standing your question.
Yes, I have an idea about exactly how to do it. I am just reluctant to give that out publicly because if my idea is correct I am afraid that it will be stolen. If you want to evaluate it privately just send me a private message. But you must promise me not to post it anywhere. If the idea is correct it should in fact be able to predict all particle masses without mass input. It is a fairly simple transformation formula. I am just not sure how to arrange the terms of the equation. And I also need to know some exact values for charges of the particles measured in coulombs and eventually may need to be converted to joules.

Undidly,

Thanks for the encouragement. Do you have a website or something I can read somewhere?

Thanks

gzhpcu,

You and I seem to be off on a bad tangent. Perhaps we can start over without hostile feelings. We can accomplish more that way. What say you.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

I have no hostile feelings...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Swift
That was my reaction to being called a liar by a moderator. So I will apologize for loosing my temper and saying that.

Gzhcpu,

Good to hear, lets try again only easier on intensity. I think there will be much disgreement and we probably won't change each others minds about the issues but at least the overall experince will be better. I do not think its so important who is right and who is wrong as it is getting to the truth. Somehow someday we will know what the truth is about for our Universe and everyone will benefit from it. Then we will all have to find something else to wonder about.

Notice I wasn't speaking as a moderator, (Moderation is done in purple) but as any other member of the board.

Can you help me understand how you never came across Miller apart from on an obscure Crank site in 20 years of research?
What did your research involve?

One of the claims doesn't fit.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Swoop,

My research was reading books about Relativity, String Theory, Quantum Theory primarily. I also read a lot of biographys about scientists starting from Newton's time up to the turn of the 20th century. In particular papers and letters they wrote to each other when I can find them. I want to try and understand what they were thinking about. Why they thought about things the way they do.

Why I never ran accross Dayton Miller, who knows. As far as I can remember he was not mentioned in any of the documents or books that I've read. If I had not brought him up here he would not have been mentioned here either. Why is he not mentioned much? Probably because he said that he detected ether wind. Perhaps what the crank site said, his work was suppressed.

I must say I don't know what to believe now about the whole thing. I want to know more about it.

Do they mention him in beginning physics classes?

I, for one, never heard about Dayton Miller...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

But you haven't spent 20 years developing a theory that incorperates aether and relativity.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

True...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

mmfiore, you titled this thread "Theory of Everything". What verifiable, quantitative, predictions does your theory make that can justify this description?

I am interested in your philosophy of time and time dilation. I believe that all that really exists as physical dimensions is distance and motion, involving space and energy, respectively, and that time is just a comparison of such motions. I do not view time as moving in one particular direction, but perceive the current state of the universe as being due to the causal effect of continuous motion and interactions in all directions that are always in the present, with a timeline representing a simplified convention for the comparison of these motions. This sounds the same as what you have stated. Is it?

I also believe that time dilation is not something that deals with time itself as a real property or dimension of the universe, since time is not physical. It would have to involve the nuclear processes of atoms directly, as you have also stated, so that it is only those processes which slow down, not time. Time dilation, then, would be the comparison of the the rate of one set of processes to another. This also sounds what you are saying. Is that right?

Okay, now for the questions. In your first mention of time dilation, you mentioned that it is the speed that something has to the ether that would cause time dilation, and that it is not affected by force. But a page or so later, you said that it is also affected by acceleration and gravity. Such accelerations can be produced by forces. Has your view changed?

Also, you said the greatest absolute time would be for something that is stationary to the ether. But as discussed earlier, your vision of the ether is continuous with no breaks. So how would one know if they were stationary to it? With QM, it would be when the average speeds of particles in the field were acting equally from all directions, so any overall effect of pressure from the field cancels out. How would that work out under your hypothesis for the type of ether that you envision?

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website - now revised)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

Hello Swoop,

You said:
I am not sure if my life story about my dedication to the study of this problem is pertinent to this thread but since you insist on going over my personal experience I will go a little deeper. I know what you are trying to do and this is not the best line of attack for you or anyone else to attempt. The ideas of my theory are what should be questioned or attacked not me the person. You are hoping to uncover some flaw in my claim of spending 20 years studying this subject and it is a waste of time as there is much better and more entertaining topics to cover than my personal study habits and dedication. I know what you are trying to do which is simply discredit the theory by invalidating me. It is an old, tired tactic.
To further clarify my background I guess technically it has not been 20 years as I was introduced to science and physics when I was 10 years old. The nun who was teaching my confirmation class said for everyone to find a Saint who was born on their birthday and to read about that Saint and bring back the name for next class.
Well to make a long story short the only person that I could find that was born on my birthday was guess..... You guessed it, Albert Einstein. Not only that but I found out I was born only 20 miles away from the hospital where he died a month after I was born. I looked at the picture of him in the encyclopedia and he looked like a very interesting fellow so I read about him. I became a very big Einstein fan. Later that year after my parents found out that I was interested in Einstein they drove me to Princeton to see the campus. What a beautiful campus! Years later I found out that my parents had hoped that I would go there someday. I feel bad that that never happened. I feel like I let them down.
So there is the truth about my past I really have not been reading about the theory of everything for 20 years it’s been more like 40.
This project of mine really kicked in a little more intensely at the time of my divorce in 1991 when I had a lot more time on my hands. At that point I formed the first document and placed down my first ideas onto paper. In the last year things got much more exciting because of a series of insights. Six months ago while I was working on the math part for which I have been made fun of. That’s ok I know I am not very good at it. I had been working on the formula all day long trying to get the exact quark speeds. I began to feel ill that day as I was having bad indigestion. That turned out to be my first mini heart attack. A few days after that "indigestion" I woke up at 3:30 am and had a major heart attack. They operated on me and saved my life. It was just after that when I was home recuperating that I decided to share my ideas about this with other people as I felt that it might be important and I might not be able to do it at all if I did not proceed now.
I really hope that this clears up any personal questions that you have about me. Now if there is any claim here that does not fit you can check at the hospital where I was admitted or check with my wife who absolutely hates for me to talk about physics because she thinks it’s boring or you can talk to all my friends at IBM whom I bored to tears over the years as I spent many a day talking about this subject and my earliest ideas about physics and the theory of everything. The bottom line here is this, while I do not have a formal education in the field of theoretical physics you will not find anyone more dedicated and more fascinated by the subject than I.
So what did my research involve? If you were thinking that I was making claim that I spent the last 20 years of my life in the library reading 10 hours a day. No, I read for most of the time as a person with great interest. I read books, articles, papers about the topic in the last 15 or so years after the first ideas started to form. More recently I read documents and books looking for confirmation of my ideas and also looking for a pattern in nature which I believe that I finally discovered just last year.

Look if you really want to find something to make me look bad I’ll give you a doozy . I am not quite sure why no one so far has jumped on this one. Perhaps it’s because no one went out to my crappy web site to read about the Slip Wave. So Sloop here is a statement that you can really sink your teeth into and make me look bad. That is, if you can prove me wrong. I am going to make a really outlandish statement the kind I know you TM’ers love to hear from us ATM’ers. According to my theory it is possible to travel faster than light speed. If you can’t find something in that statement to make me look bad you should hang your head low in shame as a failed and disgraced TM’er.

Basically I think that the discussion should not be about me at all and it should be about the ideas and concepts. These ideas and concepts are in my opinion independent of any person or personality. Either the Theory of Super Relativity describes the way Nature works or it does not. That’s what we should be analyzing.

Happy Easter to everyone I will work on more replies tomorrow.

I have been away for a few days, so I might not be up to date with the thread. But I don't like to leave a reply to me unanswered.


So, do you agree that as a physical system, your photon is a "fundamental" as an atom in mainstream physics?



What "vibrational patterns"?


So, you actually agree that an atom moves as a unit.



Of course they are my words. And I explained why I said them.



I did not assign that argument to you: it is my argument. If you do not agree, please point out where it is flawed.



You mean, apart form the ones already mentioned, like dipole structure and mass?



I don't see an answer to my question.



I put the double quotes around barycentre, because it is not used in the literal meaning. It not unusual in textbooks to use "barycentre" of a charge distribution in analogy with barycentre of a mass distribution.

It is fairly obvious what I mean, if you have read some textbook explanation of the polarizability of atom (for example, the Feynman's Lectures on Physics).


Sorry, but you are not good at all at troubleshooting your pet theory.

In your photon, yo have a charge distribution: one positive charge and one negative charge rotating at a fixed distance from each other The charge-centre of the positive and negative charge distribution do not coincide, therefore you should have a static dipole moment. Since it is rotating, the electric dipole is accelerating with respect to an inertial frame of reference. Therefore, following Maxwell's equation, it should emit electromagnetic radiation, because the electric field of the dipole is observed as oscillating.



You just admitted that "coupled" as used in mainstream physics has not the same meaning in your theory: "To me coupled means joined together rigidly."


My questions are clear and straightforward, and I already explained the reasoning behind them.



And I never put those words in your mouth.
My point is that even if the structure is rigid (whether it is a neutron or something else), the asymmetrical charge distrinution results in a non-zero quadrupole moment.


It looks like you are looking for excuses to avoid addressing my points.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I wonder if you could elaborate on this point, I think we share many opinions on this subject and I (unlike some others) am interested in the meat and potatoes bit. Is there a way of describing this formula you speak of? (mathematics may not be your language but perhaps we can help you)

Hello Cooop,

Yes, I can go into that in more detail. It occurred to me in the early 90s that the key to unlocking the mystery of nature is by careful observation and analysis then the physical universe could be revealed. The problem is now we basically have been miss-reading the signals. The signals or clues are the results of experiments we have been performing to better understand our physical Universe and also within the standard model. There had to be a pattern somewhere. As a trouble shooter that is one of the first things I look for. It is helpful when looking for a pattern to clearly define the problem first. As I see it the problems in physics today are briefly summarized below.

Here is list that I found in an article some time ago that best describes the problem.

1. The problem of quantum gravity: Combine general relativity and quantum theory into a single theory that can claim to be the complete theory of nature.
2. The foundational problems of quantum mechanics: Resolve the problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense.
3. The unification of particles and forces: Determine whether or not the various particles and forces can be unified in a theory that explains them all as manifestations of a single, fundamental entity.
4. The tuning problem: Explain how the values of the free constants in the standard model of particle physics are chosen in nature.
5. The problem of cosmological mysteries: Explain dark matter and dark energy. Or, if they don't exist, determine how and why gravity is modified on large scales. More generally, explain why the constants of the standard model of cosmology, including the dark energy, have the values they do.

I have read books on the 4 of the 5 in this list. Looking for more information, details of the problems and mysteries and for what the people writing the books thought about what the answer might be. The 5th item I have not devoted any time to as I am not sure that dark matter and dark energy actually exist. So until some sort of real evidence shows up I did not want to muddy the water with a possibly fictitious clues.

Step 1. Considerations and observations.
The problem of quantum gravity: Combine general relativity and quantum theory into a single theory that can claim to be the complete theory of nature.

After studying and pondering item number 1 for some time. I came to the idea that perhaps we could not solve this because field theory as expressed as gravity and Quantum Mechanics expressed as particle interaction may not be the same thing. So there can be no bridging, no equation that can be made to equate the two. I realized we were trying to solve for an inequality. Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were two fundamentally different phenomena. That seemed to make sense to me as the best minds in the world have for the last 80 or so years have failed to achieve this goal. Maybe we were trying to do the impossible.

Upon further reading and contemplation about Quantum Mechanics and Classical Field Theory I began comparing what their differences were and what they had in common. The more I studied the two theories the more separate they appeared to be. In particular Quantum Mechanics was completely dependent upon particles, discrete objects. Classical physics used the concept of fields to describe processes. Both have very successful track records so a decision had to be made which one underlies the other. The choice to me was a fairly easy one to make. There had to be an underlying substance that existed in between the particles the fields themselves that caused the particles to interact therefore this must be the foundation of nature. This substance must be the causal nexus of our reality. This is what I chose to study and prove.

Step 2. Considerations and observations.
The foundational problems of quantum mechanics: Resolve the problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense.

I realized that Quantum Mechanics could be used to solve some very difficult particle interaction problems in the world by using clever probability mathematics but it could not answer how things worked or why they worked. While it is an extremely successful tool that has enriched the lives of most all human beings it is not the Theory of Everything. Clearly the spin offs from this technological advancement contributes somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 percent of our gross national product. I still did not see that it should be elevated to being the candidate for the Theory of Everything there were to many phsical things that were not understood and only explained as the result of probabilities. A new separate theory had to be devised. We jumped ship to soon, back in the early 1900s. The paradigm shift had led us astray. Since I was not brought up threw the system and told not to question but to accept Quantum Mechanics just as it is. It was much easier for me to think along a different path than physicists today as the Quantum Mechanics philosophy has become a juggernaut in the realm of science.

Step 3. Considerations and observations.

The unification of particles and forces: Determine whether or not the various particles and forces can be unified in a theory that explains them all as manifestations of a single, fundamental entity.

I choose the "ether" as the most likely candidate for the fundamental entity. After reviewing my ideas about the first two steps I began reviewing the history of the early 1900s looking for an error. That was the Michelson Morley Experiment. All we did with that experiment was to prove Special Relativity. In particular what we proved was that the speed of light is constant. We did not disprove the ether with that experiment. We failed to detect an ether wind because we used the one particle beam guaranteed not to detect the wind. We then mistakenly moved toward quantum mechanics to explain reality. Beyond this point I began trying to explain every mystery using the “ether” concept. The mysteries of nature became my testing ground. Working through them one by one some taking years to figure out and explain.

Step 4. Considerations and observations.

The tuning problem: Explain how the values of the free constants in the standard model of particle physics are chosen in nature. I have read a lot about this topic as well. Super Relativity and the ether should explain all of these mysterious, very specific values as a function of inherent spatial properties. I have written about this on my site as well. If we find the equation that I believe to exist that is the biggest step to solving all of these tuning mysteries of nature, the Goldilocks Phenomenon. If one can predict the masses of particles successfully the other mysteries fall like dominoes. To talk anymore about the equation and what I believe it is composed of is more than I want to go into publically. That is for reason already stated in earlier posts. If I give away my resoning and the terms of the eqaution I would imagine someone with much better math skills than mine could come up with the equation in a matter of hours. I am willing to colaborate privately with any interested individual who is interested though and would be willing to post it on this site if it checks out.

Step 5. Considerations and observations.

The problem of cosmological mysteries: Explain dark matter and dark energy. Or, if they don't exist, determine how and why gravity is modified on large scales. More generally, explain why the constants of the standard model of cosmology, including the dark energy, have the values they do.

I also take on some of the cosmological mysteries as well on my site but I do not use or consider Dark Matter or Energy. They are unproven at this point.

The pattern I found in nature is partially revealed in the Standard Model Fundamental Particle and Interactions chart and also in certain particle collisions. The embedding is subtle but the pattern is there. You just have to be looking for it. The premise being that mass is generated by the accelerated motion of unbalanced charged particles. All that is really needed to see the pattern is to examine the characteristics of the following particles.
1. Photon
2. electron
3. Neutron
4. Proton
5. Up Quark
6. Down Quark

Using my theory, think about how each one works and fits into the model. It then becomes clear how all particles that have mass generate mass.

The key to understanding the photon is to observe the results of matter - antimatter collisions. Study the Feynman diagrams for these collisions.

I realize I still have a lot of other people to answer above and I will get to them as soon as I can. Please don't post more questions if you still have one unaswered. If I miss yours just repost it. To remind me. I know I have 4 or 5 more that I still need to respond to. I will try to get to some more later today.

Hello Grav,

In response to your first paragraph:

If I understand what you are saying correctly Yes, I do believe we are in sync on this philosophical view of time.

The Second paragraph:

As far as I can see we also agree again.

You said in the third paragraph:

I will reply to this paragraph as a whole and not break it down line by line. I think I just need to restate my view to answer your question.

There is equivalence between acceleration through the ether and gravity. The effect of time dilation is exactly the same whether you accelerate through the ether or you are in gravitational field. This has been experimentally verified to mine and everyone else’s satisfaction as far as I know.

I am just going to the direct solution to your question as I see it. I propose a rather elaborate experiment to answer this question as I knew that this would come up at some point. The experiment involves sending space craft in different directions from earth and monitoring their clocks. One of the space craft travelling in a particular direction will have its clock running faster than what is seen here on earth that is the direction that the next set of crafts needs to go in but at lightly different angles from the line of direction that the first one is travelling. Once again one of those will have its clock travelling slightly faster than the others. Each time we do this we are decelerating that craft relative to the stationary ether. Eventually we will no longer be able to make the clock run any faster when we achieve this clock rate we have found zero motion relative to the ether. Now this is probably a very expensive and crude way of doing that experiment maybe there is any better way that someone could think of.

Hello Fortis,

It is a proposed Theory of Everything. In my documents, on my website I make predictions about the results of experiments that I suggest. There is the Time Dilation experiment and Ether wind particle stream experiment.

But are there any quantifiable predictions? As a theory of everything, is your theory able to reproduce the basic results of QM, such as the emission spectra of the hydrogen atom?

It can be better to look for evidence that your idea is wrong. Confirmation bias is hard to guard against at the best of times, but actively looking for confirmation will make it worse.