The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: A new "Theory of Everything" – BartleysTOE  (Read 2440 times)

Offline R B Bartley

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
A new "Theory of Everything" – BartleysTOE
« on: 04/04/2012 01:58:33 »
I'm a nobody from a little island in the middle of nowhere but that hasn't stopped me writing a “Theory Of Everything”. What I don’t know is if there is any merit to my theory so I’ve written it down and published it as an online PDF, links below! Now I don’t cheat with extra dimensions and I don’t have some crazy religious theory, all I have is a theory that as far as I can tell is plausible. I would appreciate any feedback I can get so you have my thanks if you give me your opinions, good or bad ;-)

newbielink:http://www.scribd.com/rb_bartley/d/87888548-BartleysTOE-1st-Edition [nonactive]


 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: A new "Theory of Everything" – BartleysTOE
« Reply #1 on: 04/04/2012 09:54:09 »
Can you give the members a brief summary here on the boards - so that questions can be asked without having to go to external sites.  Thanks  imatfaal/moderator

Quote
In writing this paper the vast majority of the work was conceived of and then worked backwards to tie all the ideas into one theory. As such I cannot include a long list of contributing works that led to this theory but I will include those that I can
 –“Relativity the Special and General Theory ” – Albert Einstein,1916
Beyond this all the research for this theory has been completed with just the internet and a lot of searching and head scratching.


A lack of references and bibliography is completely unacceptable in an academic paper of any form - academic work builds on the work of those who went before.  The reason this is not gonna work is that you make factual claims that are counter-cultural, these have to be backed up

Quote
The “Big Bang” makes perfect sense when you consider the make up of the Milky Way, our own galaxy, but not when we gaze beyond our galaxy and see other galaxies randomly dotted in all directions and following no particular pattern.
  This sentence contains facts about the universe and galactic/matter distribution being completely random - this needs a reference, especially in the light of baryonic acoustic oscillations.

Quote
We have also come to agree that the Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago but the observations from cosmology show the oldest light measured, from distant and apparently fully formed galaxies, is up to 16 billion years old.
What research shows that light is older than the universe? - big factual claim, needs big academic references.

Those two examples are just from the introduction - perhaps they are explained later on in the text, but they must still be linked to experimental data
 

Offline R B Bartley

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: A new "Theory of Everything" – BartleysTOE
« Reply #2 on: 04/04/2012 11:25:00 »
That’s good to know, as I said this is going to be a steep learning curve, but as I point out I really am only trying to flesh out if this idea is worth pursuing or is a waste of time, if I asked you to reference how you came to know English could you provide me a bibliography of texts. This being a "Theory of Everything" it picks apart pretty much every aspect of QM and GR in some shape or form so I don't really want to start singling out individual concepts at this stage. If I get any positive feedback on BartleysTOE as a whole I'll put the time and money into a formal paper.

If you believe galaxies aren't scattered randomly beyond our milky way then that’s fine, I've yet to read of a visible accretion disc for the universe or similar. I also go on to completely readdress how we account for observations regarding matter in the universe by splitting EM and Gravity to one subatomic particle that forms the fabric of Space-Time, that very much alters how we'd view results like Baryon acoustic oscillations.

So I'm grateful for as much feedback as possible but this is a "Theory of Everything" and I would be grateful if people could give me a little grace on referencing this theory till they've read at least 1/2 of the paper. New ideas have a funny way of being hard to reference and I don’t know of anybody that’s conceived or gravity and light being two attributes of the same thing, but again that why I wrote this paper.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2012 11:48:03 by R B Bartley »
 

Offline R B Bartley

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: A new "Theory of Everything" – BartleysTOE
« Reply #3 on: 04/04/2012 12:00:08 »
BartleysTOE in brief:
With BartleysTOE I make the following points and it is these I am most interested in.
- Should the source of Gravity be considered an aspect of matter or is it an external force.
- Could Space Time have a particulate framework
- Could EM and Gravity be 2 characteristics of one particle separate to matter
- Is GR accurate in assuming potentially infinite circumstances
- Has QM wandered off the track of reality
- Time cannot move back and forwards
- Wormholes and Black holes aren't possible

and so on, it's a lot so again my greatest thanks to anyone who does read my paper.
 

Offline greeniemax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: A new "Theory of Everything" – BartleysTOE
« Reply #4 on: 04/04/2012 16:57:17 »
Hi Bartley,

Quote
- Should the source of Gravity be considered an aspect of matter or is it an external force.

Currently gravity is considered aspect of matter and that is what we see and test, answers we get is that when we increase mass or matter gravity increases with it its almost 1:1 increase unless you go into details.

Quote
- Could Space Time have a particulate framework
I didn't get the question, what do you want to ask? framework in what sense?

Quote
- Could EM and Gravity be 2 characteristics of one particle separate to matter
Could be but we don't know, problem is EM and Gravity have lots of differences, for instance gravity decreases with square of the distance but EM doesn't.

Quote
- Is GR accurate in assuming potentially infinite circumstances
That doesn't make sense because you can't assume infinite as it doesn't really exists, its just an assumption of human's to say something beyond our understanding. If you want to ask if GR has infinities, no it doesn't have infinity problems like QM.

Quote
- Has QM wandered off the track of reality
Well that depends what you consider reality, Quantum is a place we do not know, we assume and we have math for it, how things really work could be different but with current math we could predict that weird things could happen. Maybe we are missing some aspects of Quantum, something there that is missed if that is added to the calculation it would make sense.

Quote
- Time cannot move back and forwards
Time always moves forward, if time stops we'll all be on pause.

Quote
- Wormholes and Black holes aren't possible
Wormhole is an assumption in case universe is bend but black hole is quiet possible.
 

Offline greeniemax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: A new "Theory of Everything" – BartleysTOE
« Reply #5 on: 04/04/2012 17:00:06 »
BTW I'm reading your paper, its 55 pages i.e. very long but as imatfaal here knows I do enjoy new ideas maybe something in your idea might be really good and could be used.

It takes a lot to come up with something new, that is great, even if some things have to be tweaked to make things work properly.
 

Offline Ćthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: A new "Theory of Everything" – BartleysTOE
« Reply #6 on: 04/04/2012 18:37:41 »
I'm a nobody from a little island in the middle of nowhere but that hasn't stopped me writing a “Theory Of Everything”. What I don’t know is if there is any merit to my theory so I’ve written it down and published it as an online PDF, links below! Now I don’t cheat with extra dimensions and I don’t have some crazy religious theory, all I have is a theory that as far as I can tell is plausible. I would appreciate any feedback I can get so you have my thanks if you give me your opinions, good or bad ;-)

http://www.scribd.com/rb_bartley/d/87888548-BartleysTOE-1st-Edition

For your theory to be accepted, mathematically and fundamentally, you need support, both logically and arithmatically.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: A new "Theory of Everything" – BartleysTOE
« Reply #7 on: 04/04/2012 19:00:32 »
That’s good to know, as I said this is going to be a steep learning curve, but as I point out I really am only trying to flesh out if this idea is worth pursuing or is a waste of time, if I asked you to reference how you came to know English could you provide me a bibliography of texts. This being a "Theory of Everything" it picks apart pretty much every aspect of QM and GR in some shape or form so I don't really want to start singling out individual concepts at this stage. If I get any positive feedback on BartleysTOE as a whole I'll put the time and money into a formal paper.
  Thinking is never a waste of time - but it is possible you may be better off spending your time on getting a good grounding in maths and physics before looking to overturn basic theories.

Quote
If you believe galaxies aren't scattered randomly beyond our milky way then that’s fine, I've yet to read of a visible accretion disc for the universe or similar. I also go on to completely readdress how we account for observations regarding matter in the universe by splitting EM and Gravity to one subatomic particle that forms the fabric of Space-Time, that very much alters how we'd view results like Baryon acoustic oscillations.
  My belief is neither here nor there - you stated two facts in the introduction that immediately sprang to my attention as counter to the accepted cosmology of today.  For everyone one of these you must give either a proof or some form of explanation.

Quote
So I'm grateful for as much feedback as possible but this is a "Theory of Everything" and I would be grateful if people could give me a little grace on referencing this theory till they've read at least 1/2 of the paper. New ideas have a funny way of being hard to reference and I don’t know of anybody that’s conceived or gravity and light being two attributes of the same thing, but again that why I wrote this paper.
  How does it fair on predicting the period of Jupiter's moons?  Or the fall off gravity relative to the inverse of the radius squared?  Or the precession of Mercury?  These are tough questions - and require industrial grade maths; and no physicist would dream of replacing GR without first having these and many more answered. 

It is a steep learning curve indeed (although I am never sure what that really means) -

Quote
- Should the source of Gravity be considered an aspect of matter or is it an external force.
At present it is thought that it is flows from the action of mass/energy on the curvature of spacetime
Quote
- Could Space Time have a particulate framework
  Yes (it could - but it might not) - if you mean that at a very small scale space is quantized; but No - if you mean is there a form of ether backgorund.
-
Quote
Could EM and Gravity be 2 characteristics of one particle separate to matter
Unlikely - we can easily shield against photons/emr (cool shades bro!) and we have no concept of gravitational shielding.
Quote
- Is GR accurate in assuming potentially infinite circumstances
GR works very very well - there are problems but...small in the overall scheme of things.
Quote
- Has QM wandered off the track of reality
No - it is one of the most accurate and highly tested theories in the history of science and the correlation between prediction and reality is uncanny.
Quote
- Time cannot move back and forwards
Why not?  Just because we haven't noticed it so far?  To be honest what time is and does is of great debate - about half the threads recently.  Time does not move, just like length does not move.  Time is what clocks measure just as length is what a ruler measures; can we have negative length - probably not, but we can have a negative direction in a space dimension.  Maybe the same applies to time - we just don't know.
Quote
- Wormholes and Black holes aren't possible
  Wormholes hmmm - you might be right, you might not.  Blackholes are pretty well documented - there are volumes of space that display a gravitational attraction, and thus a mass energy density, that can only be accounted for by blackholes.  Blackholes flow from the ideas of GR - again if you wanna challenge GR you are taking on a very very well proven theory
 

Offline Ćthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: A new "Theory of Everything" – BartleysTOE
« Reply #8 on: 04/04/2012 19:53:21 »
That’s good to know, as I said this is going to be a steep learning curve, but as I point out I really am only trying to flesh out if this idea is worth pursuing or is a waste of time, if I asked you to reference how you came to know English could you provide me a bibliography of texts. This being a "Theory of Everything" it picks apart pretty much every aspect of QM and GR in some shape or form so I don't really want to start singling out individual concepts at this stage. If I get any positive feedback on BartleysTOE as a whole I'll put the time and money into a formal paper.
  Thinking is never a waste of time - but it is possible you may be better off spending your time on getting a good grounding in maths and physics before looking to overturn basic theories.

Quote
If you believe galaxies aren't scattered randomly beyond our milky way then that’s fine, I've yet to read of a visible accretion disc for the universe or similar. I also go on to completely readdress how we account for observations regarding matter in the universe by splitting EM and Gravity to one subatomic particle that forms the fabric of Space-Time, that very much alters how we'd view results like Baryon acoustic oscillations.
  My belief is neither here nor there - you stated two facts in the introduction that immediately sprang to my attention as counter to the accepted cosmology of today.  For everyone one of these you must give either a proof or some form of explanation.

Quote
So I'm grateful for as much feedback as possible but this is a "Theory of Everything" and I would be grateful if people could give me a little grace on referencing this theory till they've read at least 1/2 of the paper. New ideas have a funny way of being hard to reference and I don’t know of anybody that’s conceived or gravity and light being two attributes of the same thing, but again that why I wrote this paper.
  How does it fair on predicting the period of Jupiter's moons?  Or the fall off gravity relative to the inverse of the radius squared?  Or the precession of Mercury?  These are tough questions - and require industrial grade maths; and no physicist would dream of replacing GR without first having these and many more answered. 

It is a steep learning curve indeed (although I am never sure what that really means) -

Quote
- Should the source of Gravity be considered an aspect of matter or is it an external force.
At present it is thought that it is flows from the action of mass/energy on the curvature of spacetime
Quote
- Could Space Time have a particulate framework
  Yes (it could - but it might not) - if you mean that at a very small scale space is quantized; but No - if you mean is there a form of ether backgorund.
-
Quote
Could EM and Gravity be 2 characteristics of one particle separate to matter
Unlikely - we can easily shield against photons/emr (cool shades bro!) and we have no concept of gravitational shielding.
Quote
- Is GR accurate in assuming potentially infinite circumstances
GR works very very well - there are problems but...small in the overall scheme of things.
Quote
- Has QM wandered off the track of reality
No - it is one of the most accurate and highly tested theories in the history of science and the correlation between prediction and reality is uncanny.
Quote
- Time cannot move back and forwards
Why not?  Just because we haven't noticed it so far?  To be honest what time is and does is of great debate - about half the threads recently.  Time does not move, just like length does not move.  Time is what clocks measure just as length is what a ruler measures; can we have negative length - probably not, but we can have a negative direction in a space dimension.  Maybe the same applies to time - we just don't know.
Quote
- Wormholes and Black holes aren't possible
  Wormholes hmmm - you might be right, you might not.  Blackholes are pretty well documented - there are volumes of space that display a gravitational attraction, and thus a mass energy density, that can only be accounted for by blackholes.  Blackholes flow from the ideas of GR - again if you wanna challenge GR you are taking on a very very well proven theory

 there is no such thing as a time-reversal. It's all woo woo.
 

Offline R B Bartley

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: A new "Theory of Everything" – BartleysTOE
« Reply #9 on: 05/04/2012 02:28:57 »
It seems I've really started something hear that I didn't mean to, it is not my intention to try and misrepresent information or criticize anyone, I’m very grateful for every bit of feedback I get. The problem is I’ve tried to cram a theory of everything into 20’000 words and yet I must also account for every statement in the process. There is nothing I would like more than to do just that but it’s taken me 3 months to get this far, I only want to know if it’s worth putting the time in on the hard data to support it.

I don’t mind if you disagree with huge chunks of the theory but the theory as a whole is worth considering. I’m happy to be wrong but I’d appreciate it if I was proved wrong regarding my paper and not a sentence. So I shall rephrase my questions to ask direct opinions of what I’ve written in BartleysTOE so as not to get what everybody already knows sent back to me in response.

Given BartleysTOE
-   Is the concept of a Graviton Grid plausible
-   Is the concept of a Fifth Dimension of scale plausible
-   Is the concept of a Universal Electron or similar idea plausible given the Graviton Grid
-   Most importantly, could the Graviton Grid Concept better explain Electro Magnetism

Please don’t  reply telling me about a Graviton as per String theory or any of the older concepts like an ether of gravity etc. The Graviton as per BartleysTOE repels as opposed to attract because it’s not part of matter so the concepts couldn’t be further apart

Please don’t reply telling me about intangible fifth dimensions as per M theory or similar. The BartleysTOE fifth dimension of scale does not work like that.

Please don’t tell me about electrons or Leptons, Universal Electron is a title I chose to better describe a universal subatomic particle responsible for matter. Universal Electron just sound better than Universal Fundamental Subatomic Particle or some other title

I hope this helps ;-)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: A new "Theory of Everything" – BartleysTOE
« Reply #10 on: 30/05/2012 10:57:25 »
Don't worry so much RB :) just get on with it.
And move the simplest points you can make that you think differ the way you look at it from what others define here, and let's see what we can make of it.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: A new "Theory of Everything" – BartleysTOE
« Reply #10 on: 30/05/2012 10:57:25 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums