Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Atkhenaken on 30/08/2016 15:26:10
-
The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based. I came to this conclusion by observing that galaxies spin, planets spin, suns spin and that atoms must spin also. The universe is divided into fractal dimensions, like a series of Russian dolls. These dimensions extend to infinity both outwards and inwards directions forever.
The universe is made of only one basic sub-atomic particle. This particle has 3 states - left spin (clockwise), right spin (anti-clockwise) and no spin (black-hole). The left and right spin could be interpreted as positive and negative, while the no spin particle could be interpreted as a black –hole or neutron.
These 3 forms make up space and matter. Space is made of alternate left and right spin aether particles which I would call ‘ethons’. The no spin ethon forms the centre of all matter and atoms (neutrons). Neutrons could be regarded as black holes which attract aether particles into rotation similar to how planets rotate around a sun. Aether particles spin at the speed of light.
The speed of light is a dimensional signature of the sub-atomic world. In the sub-atomic world, things happen very fast and don’t obey our laws of time and space. Light is a product of the sub-atomic world and travels at light speed because the ethons are naturally rotating at this speed and are thus conveyed like a conveyor belt. The ethons in space are not attached. They only engage one-another when light passes or they are united by a no spin ethon or neutron. When light passes through aether the ethons engage, as do the cogs in a clock or watch and cause the wave to move at the speed of light. Thus, light is two dimensional. It has both spin and wave energy.
The universe is energy rich. Aether particles spin at the speed of light. When 2 aether particles approach a large body like a sun, they are pushed together and stop spinning. This releases their energy. Thus – E=MC squared.
Using this concept the forces of the universe can be unified. Thus, spin becomes the common denominator which unites matter, light, electricity, gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces.
-
At least some matter has no spin.
-
At least some matter has no spin.
No spin creates a black hole attractor (neutron).
-
The universe is a simple place
If that were true, why are so many credible physicists still struggling to understand it's complexities? Frankly, after scrutinizing your explanation, the only thing I see spinning are the heads of those credible physicists.
-
The universe is a simple place
If that were true, why are so many credible physicists still struggling to understand it's complexities? Frankly, after scrutinizing your explanation, the only thing I see spinning are the heads of those credible physicists.
Most physicists don't want the universe to be simple because you can't make a living out of explaining how a simple universe works because it is simple. On the other hand, a complex universe with hundreds of sub-atomic particles is a far more attractive a proposition, with lots of complications and lots of explaining to do and research grants in finding out how these particles behave.
-
The universe is a simple place
If that were true, why are so many credible physicists still struggling to understand it's complexities? Frankly, after scrutinizing your explanation, the only thing I see spinning are the heads of those credible physicists.
Most physicists don't want the universe to be simple because you can't make a living out of explaining how a simple universe works because it is simple. On the other hand, a complex universe with hundreds of sub-atomic particles is a far more attractive a proposition, with lots of complications and lots of explaining to do and research grants in finding out how these particles behave.
You make a fair point there sir, but now what you need is the evidence in support of this "simple" theory. Science requires more than a philosophical explanation. While I agree that spin is significant when studying the subatomic world, I doubt that a peer review will be successful by incorporating said Aether into your Hypothesis.
-
..... what you need is the evidence in support of this "simple" theory.
You have offered conjecture that this single particle exists in the forms you describe. To have your ideas taken seriously you will need details of experiments you have performed and show how the results support your ideas. There is a lot of advice on the net regarding methodology and examples from the work of Faraday, Newton, Galileo etc.
Good luck in your venture.
-
You make a fair point there sir, but now what you need is the evidence in support of this "simple" theory. Science requires more than a philosophical explanation. While I agree that spin is significant when studying the subatomic world, I doubt that a peer review will be successful by incorporating said Aether into your Hypothesis.
[/quote]
I have already submitted my theory but it was rejected because it contained the word "aether" which is a big no no in the science world. That doesn't matter. I know my theory is right because everything fits together perfectly and there is no wastage. The universe is very frugal in its allocation of particles and it wouldn't create hundreds of sub-atomic particles when one particle can do the job.
You could try Robert Distinti's website. He has similar ideas and understands the mathematics behind it as well. My theory differs somewhat from Robert's theory though. I have taken his concept one or two steps further.
-
..... what you need is the evidence in support of this "simple" theory.
You have offered conjecture that this single particle exists in the forms you describe. To have your ideas taken seriously you will need details of experiments you have performed and show how the results support your ideas. There is a lot of advice on the net regarding methodology and examples from the work of Faraday, Newton, Galileo etc.
Good luck in your venture.
My theory is based on logic and observation. For example - The electric plug has 3 connection points. A sphere can only do 3 things - left spin, right spin and no spin. The cogs in a clock spin alternate left and right. Put it all together and you have my theory. Note - No experimentation is required - the evidence already exists, its just a matter of seeing it and putting it together like a jigsaw puzzle.
-
My theory is based on logic and observation.
Really?
Shaver plugs have 2 pins, 3 phase plugs have 4
for a sphere I can think of at least 9 movements, not counting movement through space
Don't understand the cogs bit, that's only 2 directions!
-
My theory is based on logic and observation.
Really?
Shaver plugs have 2 pins, 3 phase plugs have 4
for a sphere I can think of at least 9 movements, not counting movement through space
Don't understand the cogs bit, that's only 2 directions!
My theory requires a little common sense. The basic concept of positive, negative and neutral is all pervasive throughout nature and you can't discount its importance. Electricity is a positive negative and neutral force regardless of how many pins there are. Note - 99% of all plugs have 3 pins.
-
My theory is based on logic and observation.
Really?
Shaver plugs have 2 pins, 3 phase plugs have 4
for a sphere I can think of at least 9 movements, not counting movement through space
Don't understand the cogs bit, that's only 2 directions!
My theory requires a little common sense.
If I may be so blunt, that sounds very much like you have determined that we are lacking Sir. But that aside, could you please tell us exactly how one should define "common sense"? I suggest that there may be as many definitions as there are members here at our forum. It's all a matter of personal perspective..........................right?
-
My theory requires a little common sense.
If I may be so blunt, that sounds very much like you have determined that we are lacking Sir. But that aside, could you please tell us exactly how one should define "common sense"? I suggest that there may be as many definitions as there are members here at our forum. It's all a matter of personal perspective..........................right?
[/quote]
common sense - The ability to grasp the essential elements without being distracted by - preconceived ideas, rigid formats, unrelated matters, red herrings, unnecessary details, ego related issues, career and peer related concerns. [To cut through the bullshite and get to the crux of the matter.]
-
Here you are welcome to discuss whatever you feel is common sense. Some science fora limit their discussions to the currently accepted view, here we offer a platform for anyone as long as they respect the way we divide our forum up into sections.
See http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0
-
I would say yes. I put your view into a mechanical form of relativity where the observations of Relativity fit the mechanics described. I suspect this is possibly what you meant as a common sense approach. But I would not want to speak for your interpretation without knowing your full understanding. Mechanical Relativity in new theories.
-
I would say yes. I put your view into a mechanical form of relativity where the observations of Relativity fit the mechanics described. I suspect this is possibly what you meant as a common sense approach. But I would not want to speak for your interpretation without knowing your full understanding. Mechanical Relativity in new theories.
The concept of time changing with speed is illogical. I can't accept relativity in this case. It would be more logical for the measuring clocks to change but not for time itself to change. Thus, relativity is just a measurement of aetheric compression due to speed. Note - Its the compression that causes the clocks to slow down. This is another aspect of my theory which does away with all magical forces and fields and replaces it with mechanical actions. Thus, the universe has no fields or forces but only has mechanical actions. This is the Simple Universe Theory.
-
I would say yes. I put your view into a mechanical form of relativity where the observations of Relativity fit the mechanics described. I suspect this is possibly what you meant as a common sense approach. But I would not want to speak for your interpretation without knowing your full understanding. Mechanical Relativity in new theories.
The concept of time changing with speed is illogical. I can't accept relativity in this case. It would be more logical for the measuring clocks to change but not for time itself to change. Thus, relativity is just a measurement of aetheric compression due to speed. Note - Its the compression that causes the clocks to slow down. This is another aspect of my theory which does away with all magical forces and fields and replaces it with mechanical actions. Thus, the universe has no fields or forces but only has mechanical actions. This is the Simple Universe Theory.
You are invoking absolute time which would require an absolute frame of reference. This frame would require absolute zero velocity relative to all other particles within the universe and be fixed with respect to expanding spacetime. So which point in the universe do you suggest we anchor this frame to? Earth? Some remote galaxy? Shangri La?
-
Posted by: Atkhenaken
« on: Today at 18:09:15 »"
The concept of time changing with speed is illogical. I can't accept relativity in this case. It would be more logical for the measuring clocks to change but not for time itself to change. Thus, relativity is just a measurement of aetheric compression due to speed"
Apparently I have forgotten how to do quotes so here goes the long way.
What is your definition of time? For me time = motion. So speed changes the total possible motion available to the electron cycle time (depending on your understanding of cycle or if you even have one). There is total motion available c and speed reduces the available energy of total motion. Simple Relativity.
"Note - Its the compression that causes the clocks to slow down."
What is causing compression and why is it causing clocks to slow down? Fundamental energy c is being used for speed. Allowing less to be available because of the increased distance the electron covered in space.
"This is another aspect of my theory which does away with all magical forces and fields and replaces it with mechanical actions. Thus, the universe has no fields or forces but only has mechanical actions. This is the Simple Universe Theory."
You seem to be trading one magic for another. What moves the electrons?
Posted by: jeffreyH
« on: Today at 18:25:02 »
"
You are invoking absolute time which would require an absolute frame of reference. "
Hardly, I am invoking absolute motion as a reference frame. That is a postulate of relativity. c is the fastest motion possible. You cannot go faster than c (fundamental energy) speed limit. Only I give it a mechanical basis. A grid pattern of complimentary spin offset by a second set with a 90 degree complimentary spin at ~ 45 degrees of angle. Geometrically this is impossible to have equidistant legs.
Obviously you have been taught there is no rest frame without being taught why there is no rest frame. What you are claiming as a zero rest frame is actually the highest fundamental energy state where mass does not exist. So the highest energy state in space is the highest available energy for motion. Where mass and the inverse square exist time energy being used cannot be related to a resting state. Its funny mass itself reduces the energy density of space it occupies. One atom in space between galaxies floating in an equidistance place would have the electron moving the fastest. We view everything backwards. We are biological clocks and age slower the faster our speed through space. All reactions slow to the frame speed of our clocks. There is no absolute frame of fundamental energy.
-
I honestly don't know why I bother sometimes. There is a wall to my immediate left that I could easily bang my head against.
-
I honestly don't know why I bother sometimes. There is a wall to my immediate left that I could easily bang my head against.
I've been considering my wall as well Jeff, but mine is stationed to my immediate right.........................What would please me even more would be to bang some sense into someone else's head but because I abhor violence, I'm left with only mine to take out my frustration upon.
-
You are invoking absolute time which would require an absolute frame of reference. This frame would require absolute zero velocity relative to all other particles within the universe and be fixed with respect to expanding spacetime. So which point in the universe do you suggest we anchor this frame to? Earth? Some remote galaxy? Shangri La?
Time is just a human intellectual construct. It doesn't exist as an entity by itself. Time is just a measurement of spin and rotation. If there was no spin or rotation, then nobody would have a clue what the time was.
Relativity joins space and time as a unit of action. This is plain crazy.
-
"Note - Its the compression that causes the clocks to slow down."
What is causing compression and why is it causing clocks to slow down? Fundamental energy c is being used for speed. Allowing less to be available because of the increased distance the electron covered in space.
Aetheric compression. Its the same as driving a car and getting increased wind resistance the faster you go. Thus, the faster you travel in a space ship the slower the clocks will run due to aetheric pressure on the mechanism of the clock. Time, itself, remains unaltered.
"This is another aspect of my theory which does away with all magical forces and fields and replaces it with mechanical actions. Thus, the universe has no fields or forces but only has mechanical actions. This is the Simple Universe Theory."
You seem to be trading one magic for another. What moves the electrons?
Who said electrons move? Its only the aether flow that moves.
-
Hey guys, Science has been hitting a brick wall for some time. And those of you who do not take in the full observations of relativity will find the wall the fastest. You think others do not understand and that is true none of us understand everything. What makes anyone believe their understanding is correct? My criteria is theory fits all observations with the same set of parameters used for all observations. Current science uses magic to fit their theory.
Both of you might as well bang your heads physics could care less about what you think you understand. Most are just parrots of the same magic dance. You went down a branch of the learning tree. So yes why do you bother? The most important questions you don't bother giving any thought about.
1. Why do electrons move?
2. Why are the electron and photon confounded in every frame?
3. why do you think there is a perpendicular view when understanding Relativity you recognize there is no such thing possible as a perpendicular view because light is independent of the source. You would have to have a fixed frame for a perpendicular view. There are no fixed frames?
4. How can a photon be a particle and a wave? If the particle is moving at the speed of light the wave motion would have to be greater than the speed of light. The blind are teaching the blind. Virtual particle is a weasel word to maintain current understanding not following the math. If it does not follow the math it is wrong.
I could go on with many more examples of the accepted theory without a cause. But please go bang your heads.
I agree many make statements without any backing. Any theory without the mechanical backing is useless including the currently accepted one.
All of these questions are meaningless to main stream because accepted theory cannot answer them. There is a fundamental energy that allows motion up to but not including c. Speed of mass reduces that available energy to c. because all energy of the electron is used up with none left for the cycling of the electron. Follow Relativity or the theory will fail.
-
Hey guys, Science has been hitting a brick wall for some time. And those of you who do not take in the full observations of relativity will find the wall the fastest. You think others do not understand and that is true none of us understand everything. What makes anyone believe their understanding is correct? My criteria is theory fits all observations with the same set of parameters used for all observations. Current science uses magic to fit their theory.
Both of you might as well bang your heads physics could care less about what you think you understand. Most are just parrots of the same magic dance. You went down a branch of the learning tree. So yes why do you bother? The most important questions you don't bother giving any thought about.
1. Why do electrons move?
2. Why are the electron and photon confounded in every frame?
3. why do you think there is a perpendicular view when understanding Relativity you recognize there is no such thing possible as a perpendicular view because light is independent of the source. You would have to have a fixed frame for a perpendicular view. There are no fixed frames?
4. How can a photon be a particle and a wave? If the particle is moving at the speed of light the wave motion would have to be greater than the speed of light. The blind are teaching the blind. Virtual particle is a weasel word to maintain current understanding not following the math. If it does not follow the math it is wrong.
I could go on with many more examples of the accepted theory without a cause. But please go bang your heads.
I agree many make statements without any backing. Any theory without the mechanical backing is useless including the currently accepted one.
All of these questions are meaningless to main stream because accepted theory cannot answer them. There is a fundamental energy that allows motion up to but not including c. Speed of mass reduces that available energy to c. because all energy of the electron is used up with none left for the cycling of the electron. Follow Relativity or the theory will fail.
What is the purpose of this reply?
(1) Are you trying to hi-jack my post with your own ideas?
(2) Do you agree or disagree with my hypothesis?
(3) Reasons for agreeing or disagreeing.
-
The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based.
Ok, I have thought about this myself in the past, spin is not the primary although in principle spin/rotation is a ''huge'' part of the activity of the Universe.
However spin/rotation is surely a process of acting force(s)?
-
The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based.
Ok, I have thought about this myself in the past, spin is not the primary although in principle spin/rotation is a ''huge'' part of the activity of the Universe.
However spin/rotation is surely a process of acting force(s)?
The only possible source of energy that the universe has is spin energy. Logic dictates that sub-atomic particles must spin at the speed of light. This is the source of all energy. The universe is energy rich.
-
The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based.
Ok, I have thought about this myself in the past, spin is not the primary although in principle spin/rotation is a ''huge'' part of the activity of the Universe.
However spin/rotation is surely a process of acting force(s)?
The only possible source of energy that the universe has is spin energy. Logic dictates that sub-atomic particles must spin at the speed of light. This is the source of all energy. The universe is energy rich.
No , spin is a process of energy , not energy.
-
The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based.
Ok, I have thought about this myself in the past, spin is not the primary although in principle spin/rotation is a ''huge'' part of the activity of the Universe.
However spin/rotation is surely a process of acting force(s)?
The only possible source of energy that the universe has is spin energy. Logic dictates that sub-atomic particles must spin at the speed of light. This is the source of all energy. The universe is energy rich.
No , spin is a process of energy , not energy.
Where does this "energy" come from? Answer - Sub-atomic spin!
-
The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based.
Ok, I have thought about this myself in the past, spin is not the primary although in principle spin/rotation is a ''huge'' part of the activity of the Universe.
However spin/rotation is surely a process of acting force(s)?
The only possible source of energy that the universe has is spin energy. Logic dictates that sub-atomic particles must spin at the speed of light. This is the source of all energy. The universe is energy rich.
No , spin is a process of energy , not energy.
Where does this "energy" come from? Answer - Sub-atomic spin!
The electron ''spin'' is not as you imagine it. Atoms of a ''solid'' do not individually spin , the entirety of the inertial reference frame ''spins''.
Energy is light related and the initial fusion process of stars that ''feeds'' all other matter that is not a star, if it were not for stars the energy in/of the Earth would soon dissipate leaving a dormant like rock.
What is gained is equally lost to the entropy of free space, thus allowing equilibrium of the matters entropy.
Spin is not energy , although spin can produce work , but the spin is created rather than being.
-
The electron ''spin'' is not as you imagine it. Atoms of a ''solid'' do not individually spin , the entirety of the inertial reference frame ''spins''.
The atom exists in its own fractal reference frame. We do not exist in the sub-atomic reference frame but we just feel its existence from our reference frame. The speed of light is a sub-atomic reference frame. it signifies the speed at which the aether spins.
What is gained is equally lost to the entropy of free space, thus allowing equilibrium of the matters entropy.
The energy can never be lost. Its called 'background radiation'.
Spin is not energy , although spin can produce work , but the spin is created rather than being.
If the aether didn't spin at the speed of light the universe would be totally dark and completely dead. Thus, energy without spin is impossible. Thus, no spin, no energy, no universe, no nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
The electron ''spin'' is not as you imagine it. Atoms of a ''solid'' do not individually spin , the entirety of the inertial reference frame ''spins''.
The atom exists in its own fractal reference frame. We do not exist in the sub-atomic reference frame but we just feel its existence from our reference frame. The speed of light is a sub-atomic reference frame. it signifies the speed at which the aether spins.
What is gained is equally lost to the entropy of free space, thus allowing equilibrium of the matters entropy.
The energy can never be lost. Its called 'background radiation'.
Spin is not energy , although spin can produce work , but the spin is created rather than being.
If the aether didn't spin at the speed of light the universe would be totally dark and completely dead. Thus, energy without spin is impossible. Thus, no spin, no energy, no universe, no nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But there is no known aether of space , there is nothing to spin, things spin in space. To have any chance of your theory you would have to prove the aether to begin with.
Thus, no spin, no energy, no universe, no nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hmmm! big bang my friend not spin.
-
But there is no known aether of space , there is nothing to spin, things spin in space. To have any chance of your theory you would have to prove the aether to begin with.
I wouldn't waste your time in this thread, he doesn't have anywhere near your observational and analytical skills. And I'm being serious.
-
But there is no known aether of space , there is nothing to spin, things spin in space. To have any chance of your theory you would have to prove the aether to begin with.
I wouldn't waste your time in this thread, he doesn't have anywhere near your observational and analytical skills. And I'm being serious.
Avoidance of issues is the first sign of deception. Now seeking peer group ratification and back patting from colleges to disguise feelings of insecurity and doubt. lol!
-
But there is no known aether of space , there is nothing to spin, things spin in space. To have any chance of your theory you would have to prove the aether to begin with.
I wouldn't waste your time in this thread, he doesn't have anywhere near your observational and analytical skills. And I'm being serious.
Avoidance of issues is the first sign of deception. Now seeking peer group ratification and back patting from colleges to disguise feelings of insecurity and doubt. lol!
Well! I wouldn't be to sure he was not ''speaking'' to you . Peer, college? not me, I am banned from all sections except this one. I ''argue'' more than most .
My objective does not allow itself to do ''god'' theories, in other words you can't base theory on a Aether if there is no Aether proven to begin with .
p.s Colin, waste my time? I am hardly overwhelmed with conversation so I will take what discussion I can get. (presuming your post was aimed in my direction).
-
Well! I wouldn't be to sure he was not ''speaking'' to you . Peer, college? not me, I am banned from all sections except this one. I ''argue'' more than most .
My objective does not allow itself to do ''god'' theories, in other words you can't base theory on a Aether if there is no Aether proven to begin with .
The aether has many different names to disguise its aetherness. (dark matter, dark energy, space-time continuum, virtual photons, non energy quantum fluctuations and Planck's constant). You obviously don't understand that the aether is just a political football of the science world. Its the elephant in the room which nobody is allowed to talk about. People only whisper its name in secret places because they are all afraid of being thought of as old fashioned and not with it. But as soon as they discarded it, they had to immediately reinvent it under a different name because the universe doesn't make any sense without it.
-
Well! I wouldn't be to sure he was not ''speaking'' to you . Peer, college? not me, I am banned from all sections except this one. I ''argue'' more than most .
My objective does not allow itself to do ''god'' theories, in other words you can't base theory on a Aether if there is no Aether proven to begin with .
The aether has many different names to disguise its aetherness. (dark matter, dark energy, space-time continuum, virtual photons, non energy quantum fluctuations and Planck's constant). You obviously don't understand that the aether is just a political football of the science world. Its the elephant in the room which nobody is allowed to talk about. People only whisper its name in secret places because they are all afraid of being thought of as old fashioned and not with it. But as soon as they discarded it, they had to immediately reinvent it under a different name because the universe doesn't make any sense without it.
Ok , looking at this in ''light'' of your explanation of an Aether I sort of get where you are coming from and I have explained this Aether plenty of times before in various forms.
I do prefer the term Dark energy these days. The term alone allowing me to ''see'' the dark energy.
-
Ok , looking at this in ''light'' of your explanation of an Aether I sort of get where you are coming from and I have explained this Aether plenty of times before in various forms.
I do prefer the term Dark energy these days. The term alone allowing me to ''see'' the dark energy.
So, you are quite happy to accept that dark energy exists but still are unhappy with the aether. Even though the existence of dark energy has no scientific proof either and is just a scientific hypothesis.
-
Ok , looking at this in ''light'' of your explanation of an Aether I sort of get where you are coming from and I have explained this Aether plenty of times before in various forms.
I do prefer the term Dark energy these days. The term alone allowing me to ''see'' the dark energy.
So, you are quite happy to accept that dark energy exists but still are unhappy with the aether. Even though the existence of dark energy has no scientific proof either and is just a scientific hypothesis.
No, I said I understand your point now about the aether but would rather call it dark energy.. None of the ''aether'' is proven to exist, they build a picture from nothing, except somethings need a beginning, 1.
-
I'm with you Atkhenaken
Been hiding from this forum while delving into my own postulations. I've contrived a similar postulation to yours. But I think your off by two spin. There's perpendicular forces ie. electro-magnetism.
That suggests theres 4 spin. up/down - left/right... Which makes your universe a little less simple (not much tho).
I understand your desire to use the term aether. I don't quite see it as an aether. Space the final frontier, is difficult to explain, because we simply cannot see it. Doesn't mean it's "nothing", but if you cannot examine a thing, it makes it hard to describe...
I've been working on describing all of the forces as I understand them, to myself with a similar thesis. You're eaton I refer to as photon in my thoughts, w/out the speed of light.
I don't agree with your neutron - blackhole hypothesis. I've haven't worked out the math, but I think electrons have electric polar spin alignment and protons have perpendicular (magnetic) polar spin alingment. I think neutrons have both combined in harmony.
These are some of the ideas I've been working on. Theres a lot more details that need to work out, but I think you & I are on the right track.
Instead of 10 dimensional strings, it all boils down to a buckyball universe. :) Describing the bucky ball is difficult when you cannot ever hold one still and look at it nor, measure it's properties, etc... That's where the math will come in handy.
-
I'm with you Atkhenaken
Been hiding from this forum while delving into my own postulations. I've contrived a similar postulation to yours. But I think your off by two spin. There's perpendicular forces ie. electro-magnetism.
That suggests theres 4 spin. up/down - left/right... Which makes your universe a little less simple (not much tho).
I understand your desire to use the term aether. I don't quite see it as an aether. Space the final frontier, is difficult to explain, because we simply cannot see it. Doesn't mean it's "nothing", but if you cannot examine a thing, it makes it hard to describe...
I've been working on describing all of the forces as I understand them, to myself with a similar thesis. You're eaton I refer to as photon in my thoughts, w/out the speed of light.
I don't agree with your neutron - blackhole hypothesis. I've haven't worked out the math, but I think electrons have electric polar spin alignment and protons have perpendicular (magnetic) polar spin alingment. I think neutrons have both combined in harmony.
These are some of the ideas I've been working on. Theres a lot more details that need to work out, but I think you & I are on the right track.
Instead of 10 dimensional strings, it all boils down to a buckyball universe. :) Describing the bucky ball is difficult when you cannot ever hold one still and look at it nor, measure it's properties, etc...
The Universe is not hard to understand in terms of forces, direction, up, down, left and right are just the figurative of speech. There only exists at this ''time'' relatively +ve direction and -ve direction relative to each independent observer, by observer I do not just mean things that can see and observe, I mean the entirety of matter in free space observing and experiencing their affects on each other.
Spin is a process rather than a cause of ''things'', forces acting on forces etc.
I consider the universe is compressing and decompressing simultaneously, I consider unlike the present information, dark energy is the compressor and also in close relationship to the strong nuclear force and gravity.
I consider that ''light'' energy is the decompress, things that gain more ''light'' expand. Likewise charges repel.
However I also consider that both a dark energy and a light energy could occupy a void and absolute space.
-
I'm with you Atkhenaken
Been hiding from this forum while delving into my own postulations. I've contrived a similar postulation to yours. But I think your off by two spin. There's perpendicular forces ie. electro-magnetism.
That suggests theres 4 spin. up/down - left/right... Which makes your universe a little less simple (not much tho).
Left and right spin is all that there can be. You can rotate the left or right spin in any direction which includes up and down. Thus, both up and down are already taken into consideration as part of my theory. Rotation is only possible when considering neutrons. Space doesn't have any rotation which differentiates itself from matter. Thus, what we call "matter" are ethons in rotation around a neutron. Dimensionality is the complicated part. Fractal dimensions differentiate atoms from galaxies. Time and dimensional differences make it impossible to see inside an atom.
I understand your desire to use the term aether. I don't quite see it as an aether. Space the final frontier, is difficult to explain, because we simply cannot see it. Doesn't mean it's "nothing", but if you cannot examine a thing, it makes it hard to describe...
I've been working on describing all of the forces as I understand them, to myself with a similar thesis. You're ethon I refer to as photon in my thoughts, w/out the speed of light.
Think of the universe as a kind of Photoshop which has layers which are invisible but can influence other layers depending on the programming. The speed and nature of light are two important keys to understanding the universe. Light being two dimensional can only travel as a spin/wave through a medium. Thus, light has spin torque which gives it its intensity. Note - The sun burns your skin slowly. How? Spin torque! Get a long round and narrow stick and spin it fast on your skin and your skin will burn. Same thing!
I don't agree with your neutron - blackhole hypothesis. I've haven't worked out the math, but I think electrons have electric polar spin alignment and protons have perpendicular (magnetic) polar spin alingment. I think neutrons have both combined in harmony.
Recent research has found that galactic shapes are very similar to atomic shapes. Most scientists will say that galaxies don't resemble atoms but they don't take into consideration the dimensional time shift.
Further research see - Robert Distinti's website.
-
The sun burns your skin slowly. How? Spin torque!
The Sun does not burn your skin, your skins reaction to the radiation is the burning you feel.
-
The sun burns your skin slowly. How? Spin torque!
The Sun does not burn your skin, your skins reaction to the radiation is the burning you feel.
Radiation equals spin torque. Thanks for your confirmation!
-
The sun burns your skin slowly. How? Spin torque!
The Sun does not burn your skin, your skins reaction to the radiation is the burning you feel.
Radiation equals spin torque. Thanks for your confirmation!
There is no confirmation in that post, please do not misinterpret my posts and put in your own words that you want to hear.
Radiation = pressure
You skin becomes Saturated in radiation, the greater the radiation intensity the greater the ''heat'' you feel. The atoms/molecules/chemicals of you interact with the radiation and reacting in some way. I still do not see why you are applying spin although ''light'' spins according to theory, (I have no idea how true that is).
The greater the pressure and intensity of ''light'' the denser the ''layers'' of Photons are at the surface point of permeability of the surface, the electromagnetic field and resonating ''signal'' from the surface structure obstructing and creating a ''bottleneck/congestion of ''light''.
-
The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based.
Ok, I have thought about this myself in the past, spin is not the primary although in principle spin/rotation is a ''huge'' part of the activity of the Universe.
However spin/rotation is surely a process of acting force(s)?
Spin is the primary source of all energy.
-
The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based.
Ok, I have thought about this myself in the past, spin is not the primary although in principle spin/rotation is a ''huge'' part of the activity of the Universe.
However spin/rotation is surely a process of acting force(s)?
Spin is the primary source of all energy.
No, compression and ''storage'' ability is the rudiment of E. Spin has nothing to do with it.
-
No, compression and ''storage'' ability is the rudiment of E. Spin has nothing to do with it.
How is energy stored??????????
What is the storage mechanism????????
-
No, compression and ''storage'' ability is the rudiment of E. Spin has nothing to do with it.
How is energy stored??????????
What is the storage mechanism????????
Similar to magnetic storage the same has a hard drive works. A magnetic field can stop some hf getting in, but it also captures some light and stops it escaping.
The storage mechanism is the field, and all matter generates a field , contains a field. The Hf within a field, is pushed to the center of the field where it then is forced to rotate by a sort of mini magnus effect.
Entropy is just a technical term for capacitance.
The K max of S of an isolated ''power cell''= hf/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s..........................................................................
-
No, compression and ''storage'' ability is the rudiment of E. Spin has nothing to do with it.
How is energy stored??????????
What is the storage mechanism????????
Similar to magnetic storage the same has a hard drive works. A magnetic field can stop some hf getting in, but it also captures some light and stops it escaping.
The storage mechanism is the field, and all matter generates a field , contains a field. The Hf within a field, is pushed to the center of the field where it then is forced to rotate by a sort of mini magnus effect.
Entropy is just a technical term for capacitance.
The K max of S of an isolated ''power cell''= hf/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s..........................................................................
"pushed to the centre where it is forced to rotate" Thus, we are in total agreement that spin is the ultimate action of the universe. Thanks for confirming my hypothesis.
-
No, compression and ''storage'' ability is the rudiment of E. Spin has nothing to do with it.
How is energy stored??????????
What is the storage mechanism????????
Similar to magnetic storage the same has a hard drive works. A magnetic field can stop some hf getting in, but it also captures some light and stops it escaping.
The storage mechanism is the field, and all matter generates a field , contains a field. The Hf within a field, is pushed to the center of the field where it then is forced to rotate by a sort of mini magnus effect.
Entropy is just a technical term for capacitance.
The K max of S of an isolated ''power cell''= hf/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s..........................................................................
"pushed to the centre where it is forced to rotate" Thus, we are in total agreement that spin is the ultimate action of the universe. Thanks for confirming my hypothesis.
You keep doing that, that does not confirm spin is the ultimate action of the Universe although spin is a key thing of the Universe , it is not the ultimate. Other actions occur before spin.
-
"pushed to the centre where it is forced to rotate" Thus, we are in total agreement that spin is the ultimate action of the universe. Thanks for confirming my hypothesis.
You keep doing that, that does not confirm spin is the ultimate action of the Universe although spin is a key thing of the Universe , it is not the ultimate. Other actions occur before spin.
Spin is the logical end game of the universe. There is no other way for the universe to save energy over a long period of time. Think of the billions of years that atoms spend not doing anything and then suddenly releasing energy. To do this they must have an internal spin mechanism for storing large amounts of energy. Thus, they must spin at the speed of light in order to store enough energy to power the universe. Thus, spin is a logical certainty because there are no other logical explanations which fit all the required criteria. Spin energy is the missing link that all the great scientists of the past have overlooked. Spin energy explains, gravity, light, mass, space and everything else in a logical and coherent order. These three spin states create a simple order and interlocking characteristics which are not present using the current theories.
-
"pushed to the centre where it is forced to rotate" Thus, we are in total agreement that spin is the ultimate action of the universe. Thanks for confirming my hypothesis.
You keep doing that, that does not confirm spin is the ultimate action of the Universe although spin is a key thing of the Universe , it is not the ultimate. Other actions occur before spin.
Spin is the logical end game of the universe. There is no other way for the universe to save energy over a long period of time. Think of the billions of years that atoms spend not doing anything and then suddenly releasing energy. To do this they must have an internal spin mechanism for storing large amounts of energy. Thus, they must spin at the speed of light in order to store enough energy to power the universe. Thus, spin is a logical certainty because there are no other logical explanations which fit all the required criteria. Spin energy is the missing link that all the great scientists of the past have overlooked. Spin energy explains, gravity, light, mass, space and everything else in a logical and coherent order. These three spin states create a simple order and interlocking characteristics which are not present using the current theories.
End game? I thought you said it was the start?
Spin is a product of process and acting forces.
Let me paint you a new picture to consider.
Imagine a void with a single stationary particle or stationary entity, there is no mechanism/force to give the particle any sort of motion.
We then a short length away introduce a second stationary particle or entity, the second particle will then have affect on the first particle/entity, the particles , entity attracted to each other but never allowed to touch, the particles/entities rotate around each other.
It always takes two to tango.
-
End game? I thought you said it was the start?
Spin is a product of process and acting forces.
Let me paint you a new picture to consider.
Imagine a void with a single stationary particle or stationary entity, there is no mechanism/force to give the particle any sort of motion.
We then a short length away introduce a second stationary particle or entity, the second particle will then have affect on the first particle/entity, the particles , entity attracted to each other but never allowed to touch, the particles/entities rotate around each other.
It always takes two to tango.
Why are they attracted to one-another? Your theory doesn't have a logical story line. One thing must always lead to another thing in a logical sequence of events and you can't use magic to fill in any voids or spaces. My theory is logical in all respects and all the parts fit together like a jigsaw puzzle with no empty spaces in between. Left spin - Right spin and Black hole attractor is all the universe is made of.
-
End game? I thought you said it was the start?
Spin is a product of process and acting forces.
Let me paint you a new picture to consider.
Imagine a void with a single stationary particle or stationary entity, there is no mechanism/force to give the particle any sort of motion.
We then a short length away introduce a second stationary particle or entity, the second particle will then have affect on the first particle/entity, the particles , entity attracted to each other but never allowed to touch, the particles/entities rotate around each other.
It always takes two to tango.
Why are they attracted to one-another? Your theory doesn't have a logical story line. One thing must always lead to another thing in a logical sequence of events and you can't use magic to fill in any voids or spaces. My theory is logical in all respects and all the parts fit together like a jigsaw puzzle with no empty spaces in between. Left spin - Right spin and Black hole attractor is all the universe is made of.
I don't know everything my friend, all's I can say is a Law of motion, I am not sure if this is new,
Law-For any motion to occur there must be at least two ''participants''.
participant
pɑːˈtɪsɪp(ə)nt/Submit
noun
plural noun: participants
a person who takes part in something.
Edit - an entity that takes part in something
added -
edit - a thing with distinct and independent existence that takes part in something
I am basing this assumption on that a single ''dot'' in a void has no mechanism for motion.
-
I am basing this assumption on that a single ''dot'' in a void has no mechanism for motion.
You are assuming that the universe has a size limit but there are no size limits to the universe. The universe extents forever outwards and forever inwards. Thus, what you call a single dot may contain an entire universe within itself. The universe works like Photoshop, in that, there are invisible layers which can influence other layers depending on their instructions or intrinsic programming.
-
"You are assuming that the universe has a size limit but there are no size limits to the universe. The universe extents forever outwards and forever inwards. Thus, what you call a single dot may contain an entire universe within itself. The universe works like Photoshop, in that, there are invisible layers which can influence other layers depending on their instructions or intrinsic programming."
You have a good logical mind
-
End game? I thought you said it was the start?
Spin is a product of process and acting forces.
Let me paint you a new picture to consider.
Imagine a void with a single stationary particle or stationary entity, there is no mechanism/force to give the particle any sort of motion.
We then a short length away introduce a second stationary particle or entity, the second particle will then have affect on the first particle/entity, the particles , entity attracted to each other but never allowed to touch, the particles/entities rotate around each other.
It always takes two to tango.
Why are they attracted to one-another? Your theory doesn't have a logical story line. One thing must always lead to another thing in a logical sequence of events and you can't use magic to fill in any voids or spaces. My theory is logical in all respects and all the parts fit together like a jigsaw puzzle with no empty spaces in between. Left spin - Right spin and Black hole attractor is all the universe is made of.
Perhaps the awnser lies into not try to consider the particles point of view, let's agree onto ignore such probabilities as charges...
what doe we know? We have two particles only, we have a medium that was static "on it's whole" as long only one particle was presented, it theoricaly had a only center for pressure...
Also the whole medium had a high density and temperature, probably the two factors gave born to the particle we introduce on the scenario, maybe not, the fact is, both are now interacting, not coexisting on the same place at the same time. The particle is occuping place on the medium, for this one could presume that the presence of the particle is pushing back the medium by its very existence, independantly of charges, it is physicaly there...
The medium is static on its whole, homogeneous, but static doesn't mean that something is stoped, only stopped in comparison to something else, nothing can be static on its own existence... And we're assuming that the medium no matter its size is selecting the existence of the particle as a center, it is resonating on it's own due the presence of the particle, assume that the particle is static when in comparison to the medium, but when both are interacting, as on the example, the medium and particle add momentum and share everything, one need the other to it, so both of them aren't static in comparison to eachother anymore... At this point there is no spin, only existence, we can advance to accept such existence as causing dilatation, expansion and compression, from each point of view...
Now one introduce a secund particle, one will seem to be "atracted" by the other, we will try to atest that is due charges, and maybe it is but lets ignore the particles properties for a moment and focus on the medium...
As long as there was only one particle, the medium was focused only on one center of presure, it was condening the particle to act and be as a sphere, rotation of the particle itself was also probably null. At the moment the secunt particle came to exist, the whole medium, have just found another center of presure, as the original one, we wouldnt be able to see with nacked eyes, but there was waves focused on the first particles, the presence of the secund one, disrupted those waves by start to create its own fluctuations due its presence, and supposing that the particles where of the same type, they would create equal waves...
What I eman is that like two bubbles of gas under a liquid, one that has not limits nor surfaces, only be, the gas bubble would remain static, adding a secund one, both of them would be recieving the whole density of the lake over themselves, but the lake, and the bubble are not the same think, so they can't share the same place, the lake is compressing the bubble constantly, the bubble will achieve a point that it will start to expand back towards the pressure it is recieving...
If both particles come to be compressed homogenously nothing would happen, but the precense of two particles sharing the same lake, will force not the particles to be atracted to each other, but the waves they are producing would start to interact one with the other, the lake(medium) would inevitable set the path for both particles to move toward eachother, not the particles, the medium does not know what they are, simple that they are there, something is there ocupy space, the fluctuations of anything, this case particles, are interacting and unbalancing each other...
Not the two particles cannot also fuse one with the other, by the same principle above, compression of the whole individualy over them, they will start to spin not because of charge, but caught one on the other fluctuation, see?
Maybe is the case that the "whole medium" is trying once again and constantly to re-designate a static center of presure, but now the interaction between two particles that where set in motion by eachother presence and are now sppining, will onyl increase the sppining, a center of compression is no longer an option but the medium keeps trying, as more as it tries more speed the two particles will recieve from the medium, as faster the sppin occurs more certan that the two particles will not be able to fuse, not even stop, they are already sppining and nothing will change...
At some point, since there is motion, the two particles will be interpreted as the unique center of compression, there gravity will be born, local gravity... The motion will increase along with the spining, a greather area of the medium will start to be affected by this motion, causing dilatation of it, lowering its own density, because the spining on this binary center is being able to push back, expand the own medium... Consider that outside the reach of the spin the density of the medium is returning to its normal, and the whole "galaxy" is being compressed by the universe from outside in, and the spining of the black hole is dealing with the density of the medium using it's own speed...
Its not like a statical universe or aether, the universe outside the galaxy and inside are of the same type, are the same thing, but as long as the black hole is spining each time the whole universe try to force, to imposse its static center of compresion on the blackhole for this penetrating the edge of the galaxies, at this very moment it is caught on the acceleration, deliniating the galaxy shape, not as a statical one, but as a invisible eliptical, spiral, spheric shape, depending only on the type and power of the black hole at the center....
Now of corse consider that a much bigger body, we call greath atractor, is also submiting the whole galaxies presented on it's own spiral disk to the same process and so own and own, maybe even beyond the great atractor, the same thing only increassing in scale, with the smalest as being the atom...
All this for consider that the two particles are not atracting one towards the other due charges or properties of its own, but isntead being pushed agains the other by the medium for simple being presented there, between the medium, not coexisting on the same place, instead the medium compressing the particle with it's whole density, forcing it to keep it self as it it and not as energy, and also the interaction of many of those particles, disruption one another, proportional to their individual tyes, one being pushed against the other, but as for the individual pressure, never being able to join one with the other, always trying to joing different types of particles for being feeling different sorts of vibrations, not on themselves due charges, but vibrations on the medium...
All this would only be possible in a scenario were everything is being oriented, the universe does not seems to be cause we can't feel the dilatations in our scale, seems to be a static place, but as for local the orientation we are folowing is the one of the greath atractor, so as for limit of our local gravity we gave the own earth as it is, as for system earth has the sun, as for the sun has another start until it reaches the blackhole at the center, and the black hole at the center the great atractor, so since the big bang, motion started and everything has a point of reference....
If something cannot atract something else, it must be being pushed by something else...
-
If something cannot attract something else, it must be being pushed by something else...
The universe can only push, it can't pull. Pulling requires magic, and the universe doesn't do magic. The universe is pure logic. Only humans are illogical. Thus, if the universe doesn't make any sense its only because the humans that are thinking about it are illogical in their methods of interpretation of the universe's clues and messages.
-
My theory is based on logic and observation.
Really?
Shaver plugs have 2 pins, 3 phase plugs have 4
for a sphere I can think of at least 9 movements, not counting movement through space
Don't understand the cogs bit, that's only 2 directions!
My theory requires a little common sense. The basic concept of positive, negative and neutral is all pervasive throughout nature and you can't discount its importance. Electricity is a positive negative and neutral force regardless of how many pins there are. Note - 99% of all plugs have 3 pins.
To say that the universe is made up of three electrical entities, positive,negative, and neutral (bipolar) is excellent. Then you can get a huge assortment of various combinations or percentages of these three things. Then you want to add spin which is angular momentum. That is good. But you are lacking linear momentum and one more less obvious momentum is spherical momentum. then you have three things for each polarity giving you nine combinations. One you add various amounts of each thing you have an infinity of different things. The basic structure of the universe is very simple but once we add these nine things in various combinations and percentages, you need the scientists to understand how things work. I agree that the basic sub structure of the universe is very simple but once you add all the sub structures together you get a 747 airplane which requires tremendous scientific and engineering ability to produce.
-
The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based. I came to this conclusion by observing that galaxies spin, planets spin, suns spin and that atoms must spin also. The universe is divided into fractal dimensions, like a series of Russian dolls. These dimensions extend to infinity both outwards and inwards directions forever.
The universe is made of only one basic sub-atomic particle. This particle has 3 states - left spin (clockwise), right spin (anti-clockwise) and no spin (black-hole). The left and right spin could be interpreted as positive and negative, while the no spin particle could be interpreted as a black –hole or neutron.
These 3 forms make up space and matter. Space is made of alternate left and right spin aether particles which I would call ‘ethons’. The no spin ethon forms the centre of all matter and atoms (neutrons). Neutrons could be regarded as black holes which attract aether particles into rotation similar to how planets rotate around a sun. Aether particles spin at the speed of light.
The speed of light is a dimensional signature of the sub-atomic world. In the sub-atomic world, things happen very fast and don’t obey our laws of time and space. Light is a product of the sub-atomic world and travels at light speed because the ethons are naturally rotating at this speed and are thus conveyed like a conveyor belt. The ethons in space are not attached. They only engage one-another when light passes or they are united by a no spin ethon or neutron. When light passes through aether the ethons engage, as do the cogs in a clock or watch and cause the wave to move at the speed of light. Thus, light is two dimensional. It has both spin and wave energy.
The universe is energy rich. Aether particles spin at the speed of light. When 2 aether particles approach a large body like a sun, they are pushed together and stop spinning. This releases their energy. Thus – E=MC squared.
Using this concept the forces of the universe can be unified. Thus, spin becomes the common denominator which unites matter, light, electricity, gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces.
I would doubt spinning particles are causing much of anything, if they are even spinning. Science was wrapped up pretty much in the sixties both being finished as a perfected tool, and then being wrapped up by man made laws prohibiting its study in schools.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
-
There are some true facts about spinning point particles but I have a different opinion.
You can build a virtual world made of particles that don't spin on their own axis. Only add mass and gravity and they will start spinning around each other. However it doesn't mean particles don't spin in reality. It only means it is possible without spin. Plus particles like electrons show a behaviour as if they spin.
I am investigating the possibility that space itself is a sort of aether. It seems to me that it has some elasticity, it can contract and dilate. But acording to GR spacetime actually does that. Every point in space, I suspect, has some properties. Mass might not be a property but only a different spacetime density.
When we look at light we see that magnetic field has a orientation. It means it can be any value, so it can be rotated. However it keeps its orientation while traveling. On the other hand, the electric field can have a different phase (circular
Polarization) and creates a twisting effect, but orientation doesn't change.
Space points can be seen as particles that don't move too much but only to allow dilation or contraction, like a perfect elastic skin.
The properties don't move from one point to another, but the values creating waves.
Electrons around atoms can bee seen as stationary waves. Every space point has a charge property. The charge creates electric field, which is simply values of charge of each point spreading out. But the values spread out like pulling a certain amount, an infinitely long, perfect elastic band at speed c.
The quarks in an proton can be seen as waves of values spinning around each other.
I need to investigate how magnetic and electric field interract with each other and still be consistent with relativity, in this context.
Any wave needs fairly stationary positions each one linked by the surrouning ones by a force inversely proportional with the distance between them. I can't think of another possibility.
In our world, these points have a fixed number of overlaping and interacting properties.
These are only personal ideas/speculations. That's all.