The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can we build a new Reality Theory?  (Read 21346 times)

Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #75 on: 29/11/2009 15:33:57 »
Quote
It is known from relativity that an absolute frame of reference does not exist. It is therefore obvious that the rest of the maximass can exist only in comparison with other observers.
I find lots of things in your paper that I can agree with. However, the above statement in chapter 14 does not fit well. If by relativity you mean Einstein's theories, about relativity, you could not use it as a logical argument that we know because of Einstein's theory. Theories cannot be the cause of things; at best they can only explain and predict.

If you mean relativity phenomena there is much evidence that this is not so. In that scenario, flat space-time is required in order to  produce relativity phenomena.

Quote
The physical meaning of the formula derives from the ratio of the velocity c of the wavefronts moving in the orbit and the velocity ve of the wave source-electron in the same orbit.

We must remember that we are referring to those wavefronts moving along the ideal tube whose axis is the orbit on which the closed path of the electron-wave source lies.

Figure 95 shows that "137" wavefronts of wavelength le move in the orbit in a resonance state, and that for each revolution made by the wave source the wavefronts coming from it make "137" revolutions.

Also, this from Chapter 24 does not sit well. We have pretty much discounted the notion that electrons orbit atomic nuclei. QM has it as a cloud of probability functions, which I find unnecessary. I would rather consider the Fine Structure Constant to be the ratio of the bend radius of the electron's comprising energy wave to the electron's charge value. In this case we find the cause of electric charge. It is the bend in the path of the energy wave.

Then, knowing this we can predict the value of electric charge that a tighter bend would produce. We can calculate the value of the strong nuclear forces. The force is two times shell 2 plus two times shell 3 electrons worth of force. And then we see that observations agree with predictions. And then we see that the dynamics of the strong force would be as observed. The predicted dynamics are exactly as is observed.

Calculator Source Code in C

« Last Edit: 29/11/2009 21:11:48 by Vern »

Ethos

• Guest
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #76 on: 29/11/2009 17:09:57 »

But just because this is real for electromagnetic amplitudes in empty space, it does  not even suggest that it may have any meaning at all for other things like time and spatial area.
Interesting; For existence to be digital, every quantum action must be in synchronous order. If we can observe one unit of Planck time intersecting another out of sync. then our total existence can not be digital. Maybe it's true that Planck time is a reality but only in terms of our ability to observe it? I think I'll start using my analog watch again, this digital world they're pushing on us dosen't fit my kind of reality.

Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #77 on: 29/11/2009 17:32:46 »
I didn't mean to suggest that space and time can not exist as quantized chunks. They may very well  be. It is just that Planck's constant is a completely different animal with an easily discovered cause which would be different for space and time.

Cause of Planck's constant: The maximum electric and magnetic amplitude of electromagnetic waves is a constant.

This can be derived from E = hv. It says that photon energy is Planck's constant times the rate of change of the electromagnetic field. The change of the electromagnetic field must go to some amplitude. This amplitude is not part of the equation. It must therefore be a constant.
« Last Edit: 29/11/2009 17:37:00 by Vern »

Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #78 on: 30/11/2009 21:25:56 »
I didn't mean to suggest that space and time can not exist as quantized chunks. They may very well  be. It is just that Planck's constant is a completely different animal with an easily discovered cause which would be different for space and time.

Cause of Planck's constant: The maximum electric and magnetic amplitude of electromagnetic waves is a constant.

This can be derived from E = hv. It says that photon energy is Planck's constant times the rate of change of the electromagnetic field. The change of the electromagnetic field must go to some amplitude. This amplitude is not part of the equation. It must therefore be a constant.

I'm afraid vern, that perhaps this is all quantum mechanics is saying right now.

Oh how i would love one which incorporates two models: One which suffices the description of this world, but one equally which suffices our existences.

Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #79 on: 01/12/2009 01:47:20 »
That last one was a little over my head; I didn't quite grasp the meaning of it.

Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #80 on: 01/12/2009 01:51:45 »
That last one was a little over my head; I didn't quite grasp the meaning of it.

Sometimes vern, it even goes past mine :)

Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #81 on: 03/12/2009 12:51:22 »
We should forget Quantum theory in any quest to develop a Reality theory. Quantum theory is philosophically unsound at its foundation. It corrupts the mind making it unable to recognize reality. Keep all observations; forget all theories; develop new hypothesis to explain the observations.

Nizzle

• Hero Member
• Posts: 964
• Thanked: 1 times
• Extropian by choice!
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #82 on: 03/12/2009 14:52:24 »
Hi, sorry to barge in in your dialog thread here. I just wanna vent an opinion, stupid or not...
Higher up in the thread I read that gravity comes from bent photon paths and thus 'deforming' the EM fields.

Could it be that gravity is arising from the bending as heat is arising from (mechanical) friction?
I have this picture in my head, of gravity fitting in your EM-fields-only universe, but these are the best words I find for the picture...

Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #83 on: 04/12/2009 11:03:11 »
I think you may have misread the mechanism for gravity.

Gravity develops from the property of space that limits the amount of electric and magnetic amplitude that any point in space can support. All photons naturally contain two points at this electric and magnetic amplitude. The two points are caused by and are supported and are driven through space by the changing amplitude of electric and magnetic fields that surround the points and extend outward forever through space.

Photon points moving through the fields of other photons reach their maximum amplitude with the help of the the fields of other photons. The result is that maximum amplitude occurs at an offset toward increasing field strength of the fields of other photons.

It is hard to get your mind around it. But once you see it, it is obvious that it must happen given the postulates we have so far proposed.
« Last Edit: 05/12/2009 11:06:50 by Vern »

Nizzle

• Hero Member
• Posts: 964
• Thanked: 1 times
• Extropian by choice!
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #84 on: 09/12/2009 13:18:17 »
Photon points moving through the fields of other photons reach their maximum amplitude with the help of the the fields of other photons. The result is that maximum amplitude occurs at an offset toward increasing field strength of the fields of other photons.

So a photon exists of two points of field saturation (1 electrical and 1 magnetic, coupled and moving together).
When these two points move through a field of another photon (with relative amplitude somewhere between -1 and 1 i guess??), the sum of the field strength at this location exceeds the maximum allowed amplitude for a satured photon point, and the excess EM amplitude translates to gravity?

Or what exactly do you mean with maximum amplitude occurs at an offset ... ?
Do you mean a spatial offset, like an angle change?

Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #85 on: 10/12/2009 13:24:00 »
It's not one point magnetic and one point electric. The electric and magnetic fields occupy planes situated ninety degrees apart. The two planes cross at the centre line of the photon's path. Saturation of both fields occur at two places in a photon wave. Each half cycle of the wave has a point of maximum amplitude. Two half cycles make a whole photon.

Electric and magnetic fields extend outward forever from the points. The fields diminish as the square of distance from their points of origin. However weak the fields, they still contribute toward the saturation amplitude of photon points moving through them. This contribution toward saturation makes the point of saturation happen at an offset toward increasing field strength of the diminished fields.

This is the action of gravity. It is the only cause of gravity. There is not two mysterious kinds of gravity such that one applies to photons and one applies to massive objects. All gravity is of this photon flavour.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2009 13:28:45 by Vern »

Butterworthd

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #86 on: 11/12/2009 02:53:46 »
Can I join in?  Instead of a light-only view of the universe I've been proposing a different view using subspace (OK I'm a Star Trek fan).  A subspace is a dark matter particle that exists in two dimension, smaller on the outside and larger on the inside.  A particle of matter is made out of two subspaces perpendicular to each other.  They create space between them with the perpendicular feature shown in the diagram provided above.
On your model building you forgot to list the givens:  You are thinking that space exists even if matter and light are absence from the universe.  In truth without matter or light, space would not exist.  They are all connected.

When given a choice Always take the theory that's easier to understand.

Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #87 on: 11/12/2009 14:15:49 »
Subspace is a buzz word. Even i could use the word to describe consciousness as a dimension which is sub or hyper to those we physically-recognize and of those we consciously-experience.

Ethos

• Guest
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #88 on: 11/12/2009 16:42:49 »
In truth without matter or light, space would not exist.  They are all connected.
I respectfully disagree my friend. And, BTW, how in heavens name can one ever prove that discription of space/time without the presence of matter and light? I personally think that is the only reason that this particular view is held by any physicist, it's called lazyness.

IMHO, space is just a place where things can be put. And the universe is just that, an infinite place, a void, where matter, energy, and information reside.

Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #89 on: 11/12/2009 18:32:42 »
My view exactly Ethos.

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Can we build a new Reality Theory?
« Reply #89 on: 11/12/2009 18:32:42 »