Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: sia on 29/05/2005 02:47:11
-
I have derived the since long desired unifying theory of physics from a simple discovery of
an unmistakable observation that everyone have seen but no one have noticed.
This observation led me to a simple experiment that helped me to understand the quantum anomaly
and the mistakes that have led to the hypothesis such as big bang, quantum theory and relativity.
Look at my web-site: http://www.theuniphysics.info
where you can follow quite the simple mathematical derivations to a new law of nature that is
based on empirical and intelligible facts and well known and proved classical physics formulas.
From now it is easy to understand that there was no big bang creation, because
the acceleration and redshift of the galaxies' radiation has now got its explanation.
We neither need black holes or other ad hoc hypotheses to explain the just apparent giant radiating
very distant sources that we call quasars � it is no mystery at all with help of well known natural laws.
Later I will show the solution of the dark matter mystery and give you the explanation of the
misinterpretation of the spiral-galaxies' flat rotation curve, that led to the idea of lost gravitation.
Hubble and Planck measured the same displacement of electrodynamical radiation, but none of them
understood the entropy-mechanism behind that drives the radiation forward to the MBR's warm deaths.
Edvin Hubble misinterpreted the galaxies' redshifted radiation as expansion of the space, and
Max Planck misinterpreted the continually increasing fractional elongation of the wave-units
as differences between the frequency-units caused by quantified energy multiples (photons).
Consequently, there was no big bang, no modern version of physics relativity, no quanta, no photons,
no quasar-mystery, no dark matter, no dark energy, but an infinitive large and intelligible universe.
I hope that you find this interesting,
Ingvar, Sweden
-
Sorry, but I cannot seem to find any link to the abstract or paper itself.
-
quote:
Originally posted by chimera
Sorry, but I cannot seem to find any link to the abstract or paper itself.
This has happend before. Temporarily about one hour. I don't know why.
I don't know what it means by "exceeded its allocated data transfer".
I have not worked with my file manager, where I have used only half of the capacity.
Welcome back
Ingvar,
PS. I see now (12:49) that it is OK again.
-
Mmm. You misunderstand me. I can access the site ok, but although there are quite a few links (one or two 404's btw) I cannot seem to find a single pdf with your theory in English, that is. Don't read Swedish, so cannot tell if you've got it stashed there or whatever.
Just a single link here to your pdf will be fine, thanks.
The living are the dead on holiday. -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
-
quote:
Originally posted by chimera
Mmm. You misunderstand me. I can access the site ok, but although there are quite a few links (one or two 404's btw) I cannot seem to find a single pdf with your theory in English, that is. Don't read Swedish, so cannot tell if you've got it stashed there or whatever.
Just a single link here to your pdf will be fine, thanks.
The living are the dead on holiday. -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Now again (14:13) the web-site is functioning.
I don't understand the trubble that has happened only once before.
The start page is important, because it shows a new phenomenon
that everybody have seen but not noiced.
From the start-page open "English Page" and then go to the line
TH2002 at UNESCO in Paris(pdf) 2002. (Poster-introduction)
You can also find the PDF-compendium directly at:
http://www.geocities.com/theuniphysics/Paris-intro.PDF
I produced this paper in 500 ex to hand-out as preprints at the
UNESCO-conference TH2002 in Paris with 1200 participants in
theoretical physics. The costs caused it to be so short and compact.
I made many lecturer surprized when I discussed with them after their
speech in their themas near mine about modern physics and cosmology.
I am now preparing papers to send to ESOF 2006 for application.
In this paper my theory will be much more developed, and I will also
lay out this PDF-document on my web-site. So look again a month later.
Ingvar
-
Well, I read it - completely, and several times. I must say this: the original idea may have some appeal, but I can understand that 'normal science' does not accept your calculations, neither can I as they are given in your .pdf.
There are quite a few questions I'd like to ask, and I must add I don't find your way of presenting things very clear, or even as you claim, pedagogic. Far from it, even.
First question: how can you claim the result of one calculation based upon the z of one quasar to lead to a universal constant, or even better, a new law of nature of sorts as you claim?
Why do you correct that term with 0.62^-1, or 0.617 as you claim in the aside? You say something about not agreeing with the way z is derived asymptotically I believe , but no explanation of either is offered. That is highly irregular.
Also, your value of 50 or 50.4 for Hubbles' constant is very arbitrary- why not 70 something, which is supposed to be the latest value I believe -, and it should all lead to a very finetuned number constant, with such large possible deviation? How's that possible? Unless you already have a result and wish to tune it to that, some might say - that cannot be the idea, I take it. You'll have to work on how you choose which value, and consistently defend that. Now I have 3 different statements about the value of the to be z used in the calculation at hand, and that all in 1 graph. Confusing.
Lastly I would urge to revise both the quality and the general tone of your English, you sound like you are not out to make any friends, at times, sorry to say.
If I were you I'd go through it with a fine comb, preferably with a good friend, and maybe even consider taking it off-line in its present stage.
The living are the dead on holiday. -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
-
It is difficult to propose a new theoretical idea without sounding evangelical, I guess. One's emotions tend to get in the way. I certainly would have a rough time composing something that would
a) get read
b) get published
c) avoid defensiveness.
R A Beldin,
Improbable Statistician