Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Paradigmer on 20/05/2018 15:29:50
-
The scientific method is intrinsically flawed, it is merely meant for pragmatic theory of truth. With the flaw the theory of everything can never be found; the ToE would be dismissed even if it was found.
Check this out: Critiques of the scientific method (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#validity)
Also, the paradoxical effect of nature (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20paradoxical%20effect.htm) would subliminally negate from many aspects to prevent the ToE from being recognised.
For those who are game enough to explore a propositional ToE, check this out:
Universal Vortical Singularity (http://www.uvs-model.com/)
-
I always like to have a look at something different, but after I brief followup of your links I have to say that I will probably not spend much of my very limited time reading a lot more. I found the verbiage off-putting, and wonder about the testability of a theory that has a large number of hyperspheres at its heart; given that, as far as I am aware, no one has shown that a hypersphere is anything other than a mathematical concept.
I'm open to conversion, though.
-
Could this be one of the rare mysteries where philosophy could provide the answer?
If we compare scientific theories to organisms, mutations can happen by several reasons, and what we call philosophy are a source of them. But most of the mutations are failures. The role of natural selection is played by maths and experiments. Some mutations succeed and theories change.
-
I always like to have a look at something different, but after I brief followup of your links I have to say that I will probably not spend much of my very limited time reading a lot more. I found the verbiage off-putting, and wonder about the testability of a theory that has a large number of hyperspheres at its heart; given that, as far as I am aware, no one has shown that a hypersphere is anything other than a mathematical concept.
You must be a very well-read and fast reader for being able to go through the links and picked up so much in such a short time. Am sorry to hear that you found the verbiage off-putting. If you are interested to explore that ToE, my suggestion is please start from its Preface (http://www.uvs-model.com/Preface.htm), which elaborates on how to effectively explore the UVS treatise and skip the mumbo jumbo. Dig into the technical jargons only when you have become interested in the topics you are evaluating.
Nonetheless, in this thread, I would like to keep the discussions to "Will we ever find a theory of everything?"
I'm open to conversion, though.
Glad you are open to conversion.
Let me know what are your thoughts on these cognitive paradox fallacies (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#Kepler) of mainstream physics. These could explain why the mainstream physical science could not find the theory of everything.
Many went through the content had explicitly told me they were converted. But this doesn't happen to everyone.
-
I'm not a fast reader, in fact I'm mildly dyslexic, so reading can be slow. As I said, time is very limited and I would want to base any comments on a thorough look at the material, so, no promises, but I will post any thoughts I might have. Just don't hold your breath. :)
-
This isn’t really a question on a science topic but a presentation of a new theory and an alternative to the current scientific method.
As such it will get better coverage in New Theories section
-
he scientific method is intrinsically flawed,
Would you like to summarise the evidence for that in a few sentences, for those of us who don't want to struggle through some ratehr unreadable text?
-
he scientific method is intrinsically flawed,
Would you like to summarise the evidence for that in a few sentences, for those of us who don't want to struggle through some ratehr unreadable text?
My apology for the very condensed writing, many had also expressed the contents were rather unreadable.
The following was sniped from "Critiques of the scientific method (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#validity)", TBH don't think this summary would reduce the struggle at all:
"With the resolved natural cognitive paradoxes (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#Kepler) for epistemic theories of truth to evaluate the hallmark scientific theories, the science delusions in the theories of justification were elucidated for numerous conventional wisdom, as on how they were fallaciously validated with their criteria of truth. The developments for the hypothetico-deductive models of these scientific theories with the application of the scientific method for pragmatic theories of truth, literally ignore qualitative evaluations on the posits of their hypothetical constructs. The overemphasizing on deductive analyses with extreme obsession on higher measurement precisions for their quantitative predictions, inevitably entails all sorts of science delusions in the mainstream physics with its fallacies of misplaced concreteness."
-
I will probably not spend much of my very limited time reading a lot more.
Thanks for your email explaining your situation. Please take good care of yourself. I wish you good health and speedy recovery. Regards.
-
Could this be one of the rare mysteries where philosophy could provide the answer?
If we compare scientific theories to organisms, mutations can happen by several reasons, and what we call philosophy are a source of them. But most of the mutations are failures. The role of natural selection is played by maths and experiments. Some mutations succeed and theories change.
Thanks for being on the same page.
Galileo famously said “Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe”, and he said it with the convictions of his qualitative analyses. Such as his revolutionary analyses, experiments, and proofs on how Venus revolves around the Sun, and free falling objects on their time taken for their descents, are independent of their mass.
Unfortunately, this is by at large not the situation for the nowadays practices of mainstream physics.
Richard Feynman summarized it: “The more you see, how strange nature behaves, the harder it is for us, to make a model, that explains even how the most simple phenomena works. Theoretical physics has given up on this pursuit.”
-
This isn’t really a question on a science topic but a presentation of a new theory and an alternative to the current scientific method.
As such it will get better coverage in New Theories section
Appreciate your kind intention.
I saw your comments in the other thread discussing on oceanic tides, and admires your analytical skills.
With your knowledge, I believe you could fairly easily digest an analysis of UVS on:
"The UVS case study on the barycenter drivers of the solar cycle (http://www.uvs-model.com/The%20case%20study%20for%20the%20barycenter%20drivers%20of%20the%20solar%20cycle.pdf)".
The analysis cogently illustrates how the barycenters of the Solar System, were driving the solar cycles. I hope you enjoy the presentation and could glean something from it.
I have a bit of time for a while to response if you have any query, or stuff like how to set up the planetarium, I would be happy to correspond, but in the events when I am busy away, please excuse me.
p.s. Please forgive my English, this is not my native language.
-
The scientific method is intrinsically flawed, it is merely meant for pragmatic theory of truth.
Hello Paradigmer, I do not think the above quoted is true in any sense, if scientific method was meerly relating to philosophical or political pragmatism, then we would not have science such as nuclear power etc. Achievements like this showing us that science is not pragmatic theory of truth.
Is there anything In particular of science you are referring too and would like to ''touch'' on ?
-
The scientific method is intrinsically flawed, it is merely meant for pragmatic theory of truth.
Hello Paradigmer, I do not think the above quoted is true in any sense, if scientific method was meerly relating to philosophical or political pragmatism, then we would not have science such as nuclear power etc. Achievements like this showing us that science is not pragmatic theory of truth.
Hello Thebox, appreciate your honest opinion. However, I beg to differ.
It is exactly the merits with the pragmatic theories of truth for science that insofar we have accomplished those achievements. However, science with its current form of scientific method, has no real merit for how the observed natural phenomena actually work.
Is there anything In particular of science you are referring too and would like to ''touch'' on ?
Yes, there is.
Is the scientific method intrinsically flawed?
-
Any one keen to explore a UVS topic on "The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#cosmic_inflation)"?
And let me know why you think the scientific method is not intrinsically flawed?
-
Any one keen to explore a UVS topic on "The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#cosmic_inflation)"?
And let me know why you think the scientific method is not intrinsically flawed?
The bottom line is that all science (talking about atom stuff & cosmic stuff here) is flawed because Einsteinians turn kids into Einsteinians whilst censoring anti-Einsteinians. If i were in charge of a big science project i would have a B-team whose job was to identify all of the shortcomings of the A-team's theory & experiment & data-crunching. The use of double-blind peer review is good, but u need peer review before & during as well as after, u need a B-team.
Re cosmic expansion, the science is rubbish. In the first instance it relies on there being a bigbang. No bigbang then no cosmic expansion. Below i mention four different science facts that each kill cosmic expansion on their own.
(1) Crothers has an article showing that the bigbang is rubbish.
(2) Cahill has an article showing that the latest (Nobel) results dont show expansion.
(3) Ranzan has an article explaining the real cause of redshift.
(4) Arp has pointed out severe inconsistencies in the measured redshift of certain stars & galaxies.
-
Any one keen to explore a UVS topic on "The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#cosmic_inflation)"?
And let me know why you think the scientific method is not intrinsically flawed?
The bottom line is that all science (talking about atom stuff & cosmic stuff here) is flawed because Einsteinians turn kids into Einsteinians whilst censoring anti-Einsteinians. If i were in charge of a big science project i would have a B-team whose job was to identify all of the shortcomings of the A-team's theory & experiment & data-crunching. The use of double-blind peer review is good, but u need peer review before & during as well as after, u need a B-team.
Wished people like you were the in-charge.
Re cosmic expansion, the science is rubbish. In the first instance it relies on there being a bigbang. No bigbang then no cosmic expansion. Below i mention four different science facts that each kill cosmic expansion on their own.
(1) Crothers has an article showing that the bigbang is rubbish.
(2) Cahill has an article showing that the latest (Nobel) results dont show expansion.
(3) Ranzan has an article explaining the real cause of redshift.
(4) Arp has pointed out severe inconsistencies in the measured redshift of certain stars & galaxies.
There is no cosmic expansion; the science for Big Bang theory is indeed rubbish.
Would like to highlight the UVS topic was explicating on the cognitive paradox for the accelerated metric expansion of space as postulated in cosmic inflation, which IMO, is a failure of the scientific method.
-
The scientific method is intrinsically flawed, it is merely meant for pragmatic theory of truth. With the flaw the theory of everything can never be found; the ToE would be dismissed even if it was found.
Check this out: Critiques of the scientific method (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#validity)
Also, the paradoxical effect of nature (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20paradoxical%20effect.htm) would subliminally negate from many aspects to prevent the ToE from being recognised.
For those who are game enough to explore a propositional ToE, check this out:
Universal Vortical Singularity (http://www.uvs-model.com/)
Universal Vortical Singularity.
That can be a "lot" easier done using the Fibonacci sequence for an algorithm of time as a circle. Hit my website to find out how.
-
Universal Vortical Singularity.That can be a "lot" easier done using the Fibonacci sequence for an algorithm of time as a circle. Hit my website to find out how.
You did not provide the link to your website.
Does it explain UVS?
-
You did not provide the link to your website.
Does it explain UVS?
Links are ok except for business/commercial sites. We usually ban users who try to use posts here to advertise themselves.
Your’s appears to be ok.
-
I read this UVS site, fairly completely. The guy has spent some amazing time talking about fundamental principles found everywhere in spacetime, and thus it was a winner to offer that angled approach. Mine is a little more in depth to that pattern, as it provides the basis of fractal topology using the fibonacci algorithm for the concept of time.
The link is in my web icon under my name here (the planet icon next to the envelope icon), apologies.
www.equusspace.com
It's not commerical, nothing is being sold, its really asking for collaboration, and thus money can in time be made by those who think its worth a shot.
My work explains the idea of UVS, yet the idea of UVS used by that theorist is like a kitten playing with a world of single-dimensional time thread, it getts a little knotted (what he is doing). It's easier to suggest that the concept of "time" is a natural UVS itself, as an algorithm, "then" applying that UVS time theory to space. It does work.
Colin, just wondering, were you implying my work as commercial as something that is frowned upon in this forum, and if so how do you make a crust? I'm merely looking for people to join my research work, or at least "converse" without being spooked. I can take down my website if it worries you as a financial making machine, yes? I don't mind, I really don't, I'd rather talk to people than not know how to design an informational website.
As I was saying, the UVS theory is a step closer to formalising a universal code for spacetime, I can't dispute that.
-
I read this UVS site, fairly completely.
TYVM. I hope you enjoyed the read.
The guy has spent some amazing time talking about fundamental principles found everywhere in spacetime, and thus it was a winner to offer that angled approach.
Am in cloud nine. But really, constrained by my limited abilities, I think it could actually be better explicated by people who are more proficient.
Mine is a little more in depth to that pattern, as it provides the basis of fractal topology using the fibonacci algorithm for the concept of time. The link is in my web icon under my name here (the planet icon next to the envelope icon), apologies. www.equusspace.com
Impressive site! I read quite a fair bit for now, much more to digest, will dig further.
It's not commerical, nothing is being sold, its really asking for collaboration, and thus money can in time be made by those who think its worth a shot.
Hopefully organizations like SpaceX could find your work useful, and it then takes off at rocket speed on a world wide stage.
My work explains the idea of UVS, yet the idea of UVS used by that theorist is like a kitten playing with a world of single-dimensional time thread, it getts a little knotted (what he is doing).
UVS does not posit the Einsteinian spacetime, it therefore get quite knotted in its neo classical physics world of single-dimensional time. Take for example, it absolute contradicts the postulations of the Big Bang theory, and crashed with almost everything what the mainstream cosmology are postulating.
It's easier to suggest that the concept of "time" is a natural UVS itself, as an algorithm, "then" applying that UVS time theory to space. It does work.
I do believe the fibonacci algorithm for the concept of time, could work better for its quantitative predictions. Really.
Please have a look at a table in the UVS topic on "Logic and belief systems (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20logic.htm)". Would you consider your EQUUS SPACE posits the type 11 paradigm for the nature of objective reality?
FYI, one MIT associate professor showed me his quantitative analysis with the type 3 paradigm for his posits for the nature of objective reality. And his quantitative predictions for all sorts of electromagnetism phenomena can work, and at times worked better than conventional wisdom. I wish I have the link to show you, but it has disappeared in the forum that had gone defunct.
A physicist also showd me UVS could be mathematically described by a Doubling theory of everything (http://www.garnier-malet.com/en/doubling-theory/). I dug into it and indeed found it could quantitatively describe UVS, this is despite it adopts the Einsteinian spacetime platform of type 1 paradigm for his posits for the nature of objective reality.
FYI, in that table, UVS posits the type 16 paradigm for the nature of objective reality.
As I was saying, the UVS theory is a step closer to formalising a universal code for spacetime, I can't dispute that.
Am elated! Hope your EQUUS SPACE could bring it further. All the best!
-
Thank you for the feedback and having a look at my work also.
You're insight into where the UVS gets knotted is spot-on, and that's with relativity/Einstein spacetime. The solution I found was to change the definition of relativity without losing the concept of relativity, and to do that I had to change the fundamental definition of time to the Fibonacci sequence which, as we know, has two possible results, theta and -1/theta, so it was natural to use the relativity of "time" and not of space, which still fit all the standard dimensions and values of matter-energy and associated equations. As you know, using the Fibonacci sequence has a primary result of swirling fractal patterns in space as a time algorithm.
The paradigm that the theory expresses according to the UVS model is a closed space system, no aether particles, and its a little difficult for me to say if it is variant or invariant for time and space, as using the Fibonacci sequence for time is a variant in itself, which impacts on space, and how that relates to the idea of quantum entanglement (using theta or -1/theta as temporal outcomes for each posit in space).The universe in my model is a closed universe in that space according to the behaviour of time away from a gravitational singularity loses its integrity, and this impacts on matter in that region to suggest everything just whittles away on a perimeter region away from a type of central virtual gravitational singularity. The big bang idea in my work is better explained taking all the evidence for the big bang and explaining it to the effect of time on space, as the effect of time seeking to trace a perfect circle (which is one of the fundamental suppositions of constructing a model for space using time as per paper 2
http://vixra.org/abs/1706.0488). This gives rise to an "eternal" closed universe, time repeating itself in varying sized circles, holding/expressing a dynamic changing reality within/around.
I'm working on an 8th paper which explains how that overall system would "appear" and how matter would behave on those outer limits, shedding light on the nature of the stars as they appear to us. Once again, I'm very glad to have read your work, and seen the feedback, positive, you have received for it. I've had one or two people offer feedback, so its good to know people are still interested in new ideas. Hopefully we can stay in touch.
I'm giving the "doubling" theory a look at now, thank you for that link, and I can't but help think that we have arrived at the same conclusion, namely that modern cosmology and the big bang theory are both dare I saw "wrong". One thing I do know is that if they're "wrong", what is the "right" description? After all my writing work, the "right" description is only just coming to town in papers 6 http://viXra.org/abs/1801.0083 and 7 http://viXra.org/abs/1807.0215, and now paper 8 (and I'm preparing some proof for paper "8"). I think there is "great" value in someone picking up on this work and running computer mathematical modelling for the theory of the stars based on this new algorithm for time re. cosmology presented in those papers; there is strong potential in some high-end computer mathematical modelling available if anyone is interested.
I'll post you again once I get through the doubling theory and offer my view there.
-
Ok, took a look, and yes the doubling theory suggests that time is bound by a circle and has two orientations of movement at right angles according to a circle, which is quite the basis I also take, except I go further than doubling theory to state that time is not only dual in nature regarding a circle, yet at its perfect doubling sense represents the two values of the Fibonacci sequence, theta and -1/theta. I present the simple diagrams and associated equations in papers 1 and 2. Interestingly in paper 1, using the doubling Fibonacci algorithm for time, the Rydberg equation for the atom becomes apparent, and that's the point I realised I really had something, so thus really went hammer and tong with the remaining papers.
I've been a very bad promoter of my work, and rarely speak of it in this forum. In fact, its been years since I have actually sent an email out to someone hoping they could take a look. I think its because I've been busy with the papers and the proof, which has taken nearly all my spare time; my task has been to be better prepared in the event someone stumbles on my work, than promote just one or two papers that give an incomplete account of the basic theory. After paper 8, the paper I am on now, I'm hoping there is some "real" tech value in the offering, as it proposes a new mechanism for demonstrating the hypothetical Alcubierre drive ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive ) concept, except of course in needing to use the new algorithm for time and required mechanical configurations to achieve those results. That's the stage I'm currently at, physical research to demonstrate a new phenomena, namely gravity emerging from electrodynamics, and its been quite a task to explain the results I have so far. I also jump on the forum here to exercise some diplomacy, see where the world of "new ideas" is at. I realised that physics is physics, and physicists would rather hard proof than long theories, which is what I decided to provide, as per the papers leading up to the "proof" paper.
-
The paradigm that the theory expresses according to the UVS model is a closed space system, no aether particles, and its a little difficult for me to say if it is variant or invariant for time and space, as using the Fibonacci sequence for time is a variant in itself, which impacts on space, and how that relates to the idea of quantum entanglement (using theta or -1/theta as temporal outcomes for each posit in space).The universe in my model is a closed universe in that space according to the behaviour of time away from a gravitational singularity loses its integrity, and this impacts on matter in that region to suggest everything just whittles away on a perimeter region away from a type of central virtual gravitational singularity.
IMO, be it physically transformable time, or multi-dimensional time, it is considered variant time in the holistic view of its paradigm. This is despite time in the local reference frame of its hypothetical construct that emulates the objective reality, can be considered as invariant.
It seems to me the cosmos of your EQUUS SPACE hypothesis, despite is a closed system, but beyond the closed system, what forms your hypothetical cosmos, is not defined. Since you mentioned higher dimensional existence in another thread to explicate consciousness, I guessed you could be assuming an open system of the universe that manifest your hypothesized cosmos.
The posit of invariant space for your cosmos, would inevitably invalidate the Big Bang theory.
Just my two cents.
-
The paradigm that the theory expresses according to the UVS model is a closed space system, no aether particles, and its a little difficult for me to say if it is variant or invariant for time and space, as using the Fibonacci sequence for time is a variant in itself, which impacts on space, and how that relates to the idea of quantum entanglement (using theta or -1/theta as temporal outcomes for each posit in space).The universe in my model is a closed universe in that space according to the behaviour of time away from a gravitational singularity loses its integrity, and this impacts on matter in that region to suggest everything just whittles away on a perimeter region away from a type of central virtual gravitational singularity.
IMO, be it physically transformable time, or multi-dimensional time, it is considered variant time in the holistic view of its paradigm. This is despite time in the local reference frame of its hypothetical construct that emulates the objective reality, can be considered as invariant.
It seems to me the cosmos of your EQUUS SPACE hypothesis, despite is a closed system, but beyond the closed system, what forms your hypothetical cosmos, is not defined. Since you mentioned higher dimensional existence in another thread to explicate consciousness, I guessed you could be assuming an open system of the universe that manifest your hypothesized cosmos.
The posit of invariant space for your cosmos, would inevitably invalidate the Big Bang theory.
Just my two cents.
It's difficult from my perspective of the theory, the Gravielectric theory (equus space), to answer questions based on the Schrodinger wave-function, as that wave function takes on an entirely new definition when time is used as a golden ratio. I term it the "phi quantum wave function". And so what follows from that "phi quantum wave function" is a description of the behaviour of light in space, and how the red-shift can be explained, and so on, even the microwave background radiation, both of which things the phi-quantum wave function can accommodate for.
The universal model I present is best described in papers 5-7, which I'm guessing you wouldn't have got to yet, and that's fine, as its a long read to get there. To me its a closed system, as much as going inside the atom has limits (papers 1-4), so too going out of the atom has limits.
The idea of consciousness in the theory is best described by paper 3, then paper 6. Once I've completed paper 8 in a few weeks, I'll be presenting a 9th paper detailing the general overview, the overall pattern, in the simplest description possible, which should be rewarding in itself to the study of philosophy (logic and consciousness), another level entirely to philosophy.
My two cents is this:
In this forum there are two types of new theorists, those who have a scientific backing and are looking to stay on a mainstream track while looking to move ahead perhaps with the odd new idea, and those without a scientific backing who are willing to shake the foundations of science without departing too far from the general equations and tenets. I'm the latter, despite having a background in Medicine. But, in being the latter, I "do" recognise how insulting a theory that discounts other theories in astrophysics (including the BBT, despite replacing it with something else, even without corrupting the nature of the observations of astrophysical research) would seem to those who are held on a conventional path of scientific learning. Which is why I don't say much; "diplomacy". I try to get involved, but this new theories thread is broken glass sometimes, understandably so though.
My future is this: I'll get to prove a new phenomena, sure, but the description of it won't suffice the scientific community, not for a long time. I know that. I've been in the circles long enough to know that. Its how science works. I'm not holding my breathe. I think at best science will call my research work "lucky". Singular time theory can explain anything except for "everything". So, when proof comes along that can offer a link between EM and gravity, I'm thinking science will still try to use singular time theory, even if it means sacrificing a few other theories. But singular time "can't" describe "everything" (and my 9th paper aims to present that case), and thus a theory of everything I'm thinking is a very long way off, as far off as humanity physically finding for itself what the stars are made of.
Its funny though, I don't consider using the golden ratio algorithm for time as invariant. It's still what the arrow prescribes, yet its a key substructure to that arrow, and I explain that in the papers.
-
Its funny though, I don't consider using the golden ratio algorithm for time as invariant. It's still what the arrow prescribes, yet its a key substructure to that arrow, and I explain that in the papers.
My apology I was not clear enough. That I was referring to the Einsteinian spacetime, which the transformation of space or time is interchangeable. When space is treated as variant in a relativistic solution, time becomes invariant.
Your golden ratio reminded me of a neat piece of work: SPIRASOLARIS (http://www.spirasolaris.ca/solexp3.html)
It describes an alternative approach to the structure of the Solar System that employs logarithmic data, orbital velocity, synodic motion, and mean planetary periods.
This page illustrates and elaborates on the vortical structure in the spiralsolaris of celestial objects (http://www.spirasolaris.ca/).
-
Apologies for the delay in responding, I had to give those two links a fair look.
One thing is obvious, the golden ratio and the Fibonacci spiral are no fluke, and they find themselves everywhere, in nature, philosophy, magical ideation, geometrical perfection, everywhere, like one could suggest its a type of conscious code of spacetime influencing everything. As I said, I'm working through that paper currently, despite hinting at the concept in previous papers (eg, The Emergence of Consciousness from Chaos, paper 3). To me the most elegant representation of the golden ratio in nature is the growth in time of an aquatic spiral shell....."a growth in time".....like time's progression has associated with it a natural tendency for life to mimic a golden ratio pattern. Apparently Einstein became fascinated with the golden ratio in his twilight years, although I can't seem to find any resources for that, although I have seen a documentary stating that idea very clearly, his interest in flower petals and the golden ratio.
-
I have a question for you though, "do you think a theory of everything will change the way we think about reality as a people?". A theory of everything ideally should be a neat way to put together all known streams of understanding of time and space, maybe with the addition of something like the UVS or golden ratio for time, yet will it change the way we regard reality compared to how we do know what we know today? The quest to research will still exist, to push the limits, perhaps even to "dispute" the very idea of what a grand theory presents, yet will it, a grand theory, be convincing, or considered as a deterrent to current research activities in space, in astrophysics for instance?
-
(apologies for third post in this series, yet I think this is important)
The idea of a grand unified theory that can prove what we can prove "here" in our solar system, our tangible reality, would of course require an explanation as to the link between gravity and electromagnetism. Yet that idea itself would have "profound" implications on theory relevant to the current astrophysical art. Have we burnt the bridge there, is our need to only accept what we know re. astrophysics too big to lose in considering a local theory of everything that will undoubtedly have a butterfly effect of understanding on what we theorise of the stars?
-
One thing is obvious, the golden ratio and the Fibonacci spiral are no fluke, and they find themselves everywhere, in nature, philosophy, magical ideation, geometrical perfection, everywhere, like one could suggest its a type of conscious code of spacetime influencing everything.
Apology I was busy away. Will be more busy later.
The golden ratio and the Fibonacci spiral are indeed no fluke, and they are ubiquitous in all existences.
-
I have a question for you though, "do you think a theory of everything will change the way we think about reality as a people?". A theory of everything ideally should be a neat way to put together all known streams of understanding of time and space, maybe with the addition of something like the UVS or golden ratio for time, yet will it change the way we regard reality compared to how we do know what we know today?
IMO, the theory of everything of the objective reality, has to describe the universe and all its observed phenomena accurately. It could completely change the way we think about the actualities of the empirical observations as opposed to what conventional wisdom has had purported. I think the theory of everything will change the way people think about the modern physics postulated reality. Nonetheless, I see the paradigm shift would be toward a neoclassical platform, extending the perceptions of the cosmos and everything in it with the concept of UVS, quantitatively explicable with golden ratio for an all pervasive inviscid medium.
This all pervasive inviscid medium, is contorted as spacetime in modern physics for its pragmatic theory of truth. The algorithm treatments with the application of the Golden ratio to spacetime, nonetheless would enhance its explanatory power and predictive power.
The quest to research will still exist, to push the limits, perhaps even to "dispute" the very idea of what a grand theory presents, yet will it, a grand theory, be convincing, or considered as a deterrent to current research activities in space, in astrophysics for instance?
IMO, current research activities in space, astrophysics, etc, suffered all sorts of physical paradoxes for the mainstream worldview of the cosmos. The quest to research of course will still exist to push the limits, but the main drive is on higher precision measurements for more precise quantitative predictions, but not on its accuracy for its actuality at all.
In time to come, after the correct paradigm shift happened, people at then will look back at the modern physics worldview like it was the falsified geocentrism.
Just my two cents.
-
(apologies for third post in this series, yet I think this is important)
The idea of a grand unified theory that can prove what we can prove "here" in our solar system, our tangible reality, would of course require an explanation as to the link between gravity and electromagnetism. Yet that idea itself would have "profound" implications on theory relevant to the current astrophysical art. Have we burnt the bridge there, is our need to only accept what we know re. astrophysics too big to lose in considering a local theory of everything that will undoubtedly have a butterfly effect of understanding on what we theorise of the stars?
The posits of modern physics in the paradigm of its worldview, would never be able to unify gravity with the three other fundamental interactions. Expect the relentless onslaught when you postulate gravity as an electrodynamics effect, but I don't think you have to really burn the bridge by applying the spiral treatment for its explanation from its first principle, and I believe it could pragmatically explain and predict some physics anomalies, such as Largargian points, three-body problem, etc.
I like your phrase on "A local theory of everything that will undoubtedly have a butterfly effect of understanding on what we theorise of the stars." Cool.
-
You've really seen the idea I was painting in my posts.
That's not hard to believe though given the great amount of work you've done with the UVS.
I've conducted a "lot" of research re. the Alcubierre drive (which proposes EM as gravity) in using the updated golden ratio theory for time. I don't know what to call the theory yet, EM and gravity as a link with research to prove it; I decided for a time on the term "gravielectric", but its just a word to shorten a greater set of phrases. My results I'm hoping to post in 2 weeks tops, yet I want it done within a week, as I think its just wrong not to publish the results sooner than later, results I've been sitting on for months. The research will show just "how much" the results depend on "knowing" the new physics at play.....and in that regard it is "completely new". Yet my key concern is, knowing the new physics at play with the new phenomena, is that it is a pin that will burst a great many theoretical bubbles in contemporary physics, especially astrophysics, and even perhaps more concerning, that the idea of the Planck scale will have become nothing more than a mathematical posit, the result of a simple mathematical equation that didn't have the benefit of a golden ratio algorithm for time, a posit with no actual physical bearing for anything. That's scary, I'm thinking, for physics. Worse still, it has had me sit back for months and consider how vastly slow the whole process will be of acceptance owing to a few key issues science will not walk away from, not for perhaps half a century or more. In knowing that's the style of physics, the politics, I've sadly slowed my work down to a more realistic speed. What's got me "up" again was a message from the Aus Patent office saying that my submission is invalid because it uses a physics not familiar with contemporary science. When that ball park doesn't exist anymore given the dynamic at play, there's nothing to lose, completely nothing to lose. Besides, a patent won't stop it being researched around the world anyway.
-
The research will show just "how much" the results depend on "knowing" the new physics at play.....and in that regard it is "completely new". Yet my key concern is, knowing the new physics at play with the new phenomena, is that it is a pin that will burst a great many theoretical bubbles in contemporary physics, especially astrophysics, and even perhaps more concerning, that the idea of the Planck scale will have become nothing more than a mathematical posit, the result of a simple mathematical equation that didn't have the benefit of a golden ratio algorithm for time, a posit with no actual physical bearing for anything
If you agree with the UVS posits, you might have to emphasize what you meant for your postulated spacetime, much like what Einstein had done.
It will nevertheless burst a great many theoretical bubbles in contemporary physics.
-
These are a few of the equations so far:
(https://i.postimg.cc/G2SdzpRQ/grav-image.png)
Linking Avogadro's number was I thought impossible. The Rydberg equation I was thinking could have earned early points. Science is very stubborn sister.
I've had my work cut out for me here.....I'm not perfect.....the image above at the top says table 3, yet below at the bottom it refers to table 5.....aye aye aye. It'd be nice to have collaboration ;)
-
These are a few of the equations so far:
(https://i.postimg.cc/G2SdzpRQ/grav-image.png)
Linking Avogadro's number was I thought impossible. The Rydberg equation I was thinking could have earned early points. Science is very stubborn sister.
I've had my work cut out for me here.....I'm not perfect.....the image above at the top says table 3, yet below at the bottom it refers to table 5.....aye aye aye. It'd be nice to have collaboration ;)
Why is there a need for so many different equations when all that exists is space and matter?
Looks like math malarkey to me.
-
Ok, I didn't get collaboration, as you can tell. The summary above is just a snap-shot of ~120 pages so far, most published circa 2016-2017.
Anyone wanting to follow through with their great idea, I was faced with the need to prove my work, and given the dynamics and dimensions I was required to create research using microwave (~5.8GHz) tech. ~5.8Ghz is expensive, yet its a reasonable dimension, offering ~ 5.1cm wavelength of what I was looking for @~21-22 wavelengths, over a metre. I had to do that......wasn't going to go double that length with a standard microwave oven magnetron. Then I had to design a chamber to take in the field, then the aerial, then purchase all the items....etc etc, et-whatever. I had to do that, because no one else clearly wanted to. Its not pocket money. And it takes time to craft the build.
-
Box, I didn't want to lie to myself. I wanted to be sure. I turn 50 next year and I've spent the better part of my waking life on this work. Why so many equations? Do the math.
I showed my work to someone 10 years ago, and he said that it was the longest mathematical algorithm he has ever seen, a physicist. He said people don't have that train of thought. He said it was a mind job, too hard. So, I had to look for an elegant solution, which was the golden ratio, early 2016. Before that it was complex numbers, and hyper-dimensions with space and time.
In short, I don't think I can simplify it better.....the image above is perhaps 1/12th of the general body of equations.
Think about it though, a "theory of everything"....."what does that ential"? A simple equation and an Ahhh moment?
No, its like the Maccas challenge, 100 cheese burgers ASAP and then presumably crap it out within 24hrs or you'll die.
-
The "simplest" thing I did was decide to come to this forum and call myself "opportunity", because I knew this is a golden opportunity for anyone who wants to, who can, give the scientific whip on this idea a crack, to do something with it. No one has, but I certainly was going to, and with each research step I came up with a new paper.
-
Patents are a commercial affidavit. But think about it, EM doing gravity....EM warping space. That won't be commercial soon.....the need to research this entirely new phenomena is for the safety of humanity...….the results I've seen already with my work make it very clear this is not something you will get on Amazon in 10 years. No way. Why? The ideas, the implications, the side issues. I could be wrong. Maybe the world is sensible and mature? Take the idea of Star Trek, the idea of warp-technology came, in that fictional story, after a global apocalypse. Was that just convenient, or the only way the scripters thought it was logical to consider such a quantum leap in tech? I think we need a sensible planet. Right?
-
My last paper so far is perhaps one of my worst.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0215v2.pdf
It was terrible.
I'll probably upload a better grammatical thing. I was thrown by results I couldn't at the time, a few months ago, explain (and here I refer to object/s that defy normal inertial physics under a certain field influence). I failed to recognise a feature of the theory that is integral to the process of proof. So, I'm explaining that with paper 8. Hopefully within a week or 2 I'll post it.....provided I don't lose myself on a new plot of discovery.
This theory has so many callings, its hard to stay put and document. I'm surprised no one else has decided to jump in.
The last paper, paper 9, well....it explains how to use a philosophical "plug in" to the idea of time and space......a code of philosophy....Maybe by xmas....it's perhaps something I'm still debating about offering, but, I think it has a poetry of its own that, well, is either horrific or welcome.
The theory of everything is already around us...evidence is evidence...we see, we hear, what we see and hear....yet what is the logic codex that brings us to bargain with the greater process of reality to want to have the ability to change things in the greater scheme that always has the final say...? That's philosophy, yet its science too.
-
The good thing about forums is that one can document their journey of correspondence.
How bad would that be if thats all there was for someone?
We all know that physics has always provided the best stuff.....weapons, you name it.
What does physics want with a new idea? A 5* invitation?
-
What is physics without new ideas shed by the positive light of interest of others with new possible solutions to age old problems?
I mulled over to respond to one of your disappeared post in this thread concerning new ideas. Did you recently delete that post?
p.s. Am up to my neck at the moment, and also needs lots of time and efforts with my pea brain to be able to respond to your other posts if at all. Kindly excuse me if I have gone quiet for a while. Thanks for understanding.
-
I deleted a post shortly after posting it as it gave a fairly negative view of how physics politicises their adoption of ideas; I can't use a negative approach, its a bad habit we are all guilty of that I need to keep in check regarding my work.
Understood that you're busy like me. I'll send you a link of the next paper when its up.
-
I deleted a post shortly after posting it as it gave a fairly negative view of how physics politicises their adoption of ideas; I can't use a negative approach, its a bad habit we are all guilty of that I need to keep in check regarding my work.
Noted. Once you done copying the links (if you wish) of my last post, I would delete it.
The negative approach is indeed a bad habit.
-
My last paper so far is perhaps one of my worst.http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0215v2.pdfIt was terrible.
You can't beat me on this. I had lost count of the number of times I faced palm when I looked back at some of my writings for the UVS treatise.
You have neatly keep tracks for the variations of your papers, which are your personal dairy research journal necessary for proof of development, etc. I couldn't be bothered anymore, and so simply present the UVS treatise in its latest updated form, only periodically make archival copies that are not for public reaching.
Interestingly in paper 1, using the doubling Fibonacci algorithm for time, the Rydberg equation for the atom becomes apparent, and that's the point I realised I really had something, so thus really went hammer and tong with the remaining papers.
Such motivations to go hammer and tong, is priceless.
The theory of everything is already around us...evidence is evidence...we see, we hear, what we see and hear....yet what is the logic codex that brings us to bargain with the greater process of reality to want to have the ability to change things in the greater scheme that always has the final say...? That's philosophy, yet its science too.
I agree, and nicely put. All the best to your upcoming paper.