0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

My original Question and discussion "Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible" aroused quite a lot of interest. and has helped me greatly to find out where the sticking points in the arguments are, and encouraged me to create a different approach to what I am trying to get over. If you are a new reader you can find this via this link https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78110.new#new It has also encouraged me enough to "go the whole hog and complete the thinking on this subject. In the hope that it may stimulate a few more innovative minds to do some serious work on it "The complete Theory of everythingHere is a brief explanation on what I mean.Many people talk about a "Theory Of Everything" and mean a complete understanding of all the laws of physics that define how our universe works. This is in effect only part of the story. A true theory of everything should include a reasonable model describing how and why these physical laws exist and how and why they work together to produce our universe and any others if there are good reasons why they should exist. This is what I will call "A Complete Theory of Everything"What follows requires several steps of innovative thinking that work together so it is a good idea to try and read and understand all of it before nit picking on detail.My wish is for people with a good solid knowledge and understanding of this range of subjects to analyse seriously What I am saying and find any real fundamental errors in the analysis and synthesis I propose.

In my experience,

For example, time is current;y considered a reference variable.

In this model, time is the relativistic potential associated with time.

Distance is considered another reference convention; meters.

But in this model, relativistic distance or distance potential, which I call it, also has to

Dark matter would be an example of mass potential. It does the same things as mass.

In this model, photons are a combinations of time and distance potential, without mass potential.

Distance is considered another reference convention; meters.No, it is a dimension.

Are you saying that SR has been disproven, and the twin paradox was a hoax?

Quote from: puppypower on 28/12/2019 12:35:56Are you saying that SR has been disproven, and the twin paradox was a hoax?No, I am saying you do not know what a dimension is and you making up stuff that makes sense to you, but is wrong.

In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it. Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it.

Our brain define our immediate reality in terms of five dimensions; sight, sound, touch, smell and taste.

I am trying to put the popcorn back into the kernel.

Quote from: puppypower on 30/12/2019 00:03:48Our brain define our immediate reality in terms of five dimensions; sight, sound, touch, smell and taste.Those are senses, not dimensions. They don't align with the definition of dimension that you supplied.

Quote from: puppypower on 30/12/2019 00:03:48 I am trying to put the popcorn back into the kernel.It would be better to learn a little physics first.

However, I do have classic training which is why I know the gaps and concerns and can see where things can improve.

For example, I saw a seam in Special Relativity. Velocity causes changes which Einstein called relativistic mass, distance and time. The twin paradox and relativity experiments, demonstrated these three variables are dynamic appear to be able to weak all the laws of physics. So why not simplify and use this for the same things?

The main difference between applied science and theoretical science is applied science depends more on verification with our five sensory systems. This type of verification is common to all humans; external data, and this is why the philosophy of science makes use of these five dimensions as the final arbitrator; science must be reproducible and verifiable via the sensory systems of others besides yourself. This factors out subjective affects that math can create. Even new math has to go to the lab for sensory verification.The brain has been using sensory space for eons. Mathematical space is a spinoff from this neural foundation. Math takes the place of the sensory processing. Instead of sight and sound, we have x,y,z. If you were hunting, sight and sound allows your brain to calculate distances and directional vectors, as well as calculate forces needed to throw your spear. Math space evolved in the brain, eons before there was external math.There is more than one way to do the same things. I am trying to add another way. It is not about right or wrong, but about more ways to do the same things. This new way is more compact. String theory uses ten dimensions or ten mathematical sensory systems. This is more impressive for the theoretical mind, but not as useful to the applied mind. Compact is more practical.

Quote from: puppypower on 30/12/2019 11:26:36The main difference between applied science and theoretical science is applied science depends more on verification with our five sensory systems. This type of verification is common to all humans; external data, and this is why the philosophy of science makes use of these five dimensions as the final arbitrator; science must be reproducible and verifiable via the sensory systems of others besides yourself. This factors out subjective affects that math can create. Even new math has to go to the lab for sensory verification.The brain has been using sensory space for eons. Mathematical space is a spinoff from this neural foundation. Math takes the place of the sensory processing. Instead of sight and sound, we have x,y,z. If you were hunting, sight and sound allows your brain to calculate distances and directional vectors, as well as calculate forces needed to throw your spear. Math space evolved in the brain, eons before there was external math.There is more than one way to do the same things. I am trying to add another way. It is not about right or wrong, but about more ways to do the same things. This new way is more compact. String theory uses ten dimensions or ten mathematical sensory systems. This is more impressive for the theoretical mind, but not as useful to the applied mind. Compact is more practical.None of that was a refutation of what I just said.