1

New Theories / Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 31/10/2018 09:33:30 »

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.

2

New Theories / Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 30/10/2018 10:22:12 »

(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?

3

New Theories / Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 30/10/2018 09:42:36 »

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?

4

New Theories / Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 30/10/2018 09:31:26 »

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.

5

New Theories / Re: Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 28/10/2018 06:33:06 »

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.

6

New Theories / Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 28/10/2018 01:07:30 »

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.

7

New Theories / Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 27/10/2018 23:29:31 »

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.

8

New Theories / Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 26/10/2018 10:18:26 »

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.

9

New Theories / Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 22/10/2018 12:27:24 »

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

Also, the paradoxical effect of nature 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

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.

10

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Tides is the result of the rotation of the Earth and whirlpools?

« on: 10/09/2018 15:31:03 »

Yusuf has made it clear to me about the reality of the seasonal variation of tides owing to the seasonal axial shift of the planet.....that's not something earth-moon tide theory thinks about......if of course science can pick this up, as it should.

11

New Theories / Where are the greatest ideas in science today?

« on: 10/09/2018 14:56:46 »

Anciently, science was the word financially.
Egypt, buildings, angles, geometry, and gold. Gold was the go for the S and P of that time. The S and P was the buildings and the gold associated to those buildings, clear evidence of worth.


Today, is science swamped by bankers, every new idea, by speculation, new silicon valley tech, and fiat?


Is science a gritty hard endeavour that allows those their time of achievement?


What are the risks of overt optimism in ideas?

The dot.com crash of the 90's. Easy to forget.
 
So, the 2008 GFC: that was America....that was banks and housing, that was banks out leveraging themselves.
 
Building a house is ok, yet a "gadget" house is what we've now become. Who wants a "hut", right?

Isn't that the case right now, America has out leveraged itself as a global bank, decades long run, major tech interest, and now it is calling in its debts, like the banks were back then, out-leveraged, houses back then, tech and emerging markets are today?
 
Yet the world can't afford to pay the way America wants it to pay....who would buy the US with the USD so high?
 
Sure, the banks were wrong back then, yet is not the situation America is in "globally" very suspicious of a divided America?

China is becoming great because they're not imposing tariffs and their currency is so low, and they keep the spin to a minimum.

Did America take its eye off the ball....."Apple" became "Apple" because it wasn't possible to make iPhones in the US, they needed China to manufacture the design so very very cheaply.....that's a small example.

Economic forecasters say the US economy is "humming", so why the tariffs?

Its like they have a humming car driving towards a global cliff, right?


So, where's science? Is it hedging the world economy?


Where are the greatest ideas in science today?

12

That CAN'T be true! / Re: What is the mechanism for the formation of floods?

« on: 10/09/2018 13:57:26 »

Yusup has got that, Colin. The issue isn't the idea of the general tides, but the variations of tides, the variations more towards the poles, and in a seasonal context.

No he hasn’t got it. Look at #1 to #7, he is arguing a whirpool hypothesis which isn’t supported by actual observations.
He is consistently confusing circulating waves with circulating currents.
You can’t have a discussion on seasonal variations which denies the obvious link between sun/moon and tidal periodicity, as it is the superposition of all the effects which gives rise to what we observe.
Until he accepts that the sun+moon are responsible for the primary tidal effects it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation about tides.

Colin, its the reference of the fundamentals, chicken or the egg, large scale effects or small scale first.


As I said in another post:

Yusuf is an "Oceanographer". He knows his stuff. He's asking the question of tides with the aim of presenting "local" tidal sources, not basic earth-moon dynamic.

13

That CAN'T be true! / Re: What is the mechanism for the formation of floods?

« on: 10/09/2018 13:32:23 »

The reason for the seasonal rise in sea level is sought by all the institutions of oceanology of the world.
But they do not know what the answer is at this forum.

It isn’t sought by the major institutions, and I know because I studied at one, they are able to predict tides to a high degree of accuracy.
The answer is know, but you fail to understand it because you are locked into a hypothesis which gives incorrect answers.

Yusup has got that, Colin. The issue isn't the idea of the general tides, but the variations of tides, the variations more towards the poles, and in a seasonal context.

14

That CAN'T be true! / Re: What is the mechanism for the formation of floods?

« on: 10/09/2018 11:03:10 »

I think oceanography is going to be a buzz-subject, a growth science, in years to come, and the effect of the ocean in the context of global warming. The idea of scientific and mathematical modelling of tides and the like will be crucial to social planning.

The reason for the seasonal rise in sea level is sought by all the institutions of oceanology of the world.
But they do not know what the answer is at this forum.

I'm thinking the seasonal rise is because of how the earth oscillates "as" the seasons. Sure we have the spin of the earth and those currents and tidal activity (with the Moon, apologies, but the gravity is there), yet "perpendicular" to the spin of the planet is the axial to and fro tilting which would "have to" create a type of up and down seasonal tidal wash effect, right?

15

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Tides is the result of the rotation of the Earth and whirlpools?

« on: 10/09/2018 10:49:08 »

That's pretty.

It's not a model, it's the Mediterranean.
Write the appropriate comment.
--------------------------------------------
The waters of the Mediterranean rotate counterclockwise, forming a huge hydromassage gyroscope, which, precessing, reflects tidal waves around the perimeter of the Mediterranean Sea.
But in Gabes Bay, off the coast of Tunisia, the height of the tides reaches three meters, and sometimes more, and this is considered one of the secrets of nature. But at the same time in the Gulf of Gabes the vortex water turns, precessing the reflecting additional tidal wave.

https:/.../en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Gabès
https: /.../ youtu.be/FDht0vDmqdc
https: /.../ youtu.be/wlvkrRdYNZ0

It's pretty whether it's a model or not.

Now, can you explain how the tides arrive every 12 hrs 25 min?

When the moon hangs over the Atlantic Ocean, a tidal hump is often found somewhere in the Indian or Pacific Ocean, partly this inconsistency can be eliminated with the help of the applied clock, the tools for bringing the lunar theory of tides to real reality.

And, in accordance with the theory of tidal tides, the applied hour and the alternation of high and low tides occur for the following reason.
In the system of coordinates of the solar system, a whirlpool rotating with the Earth around the Earth's axis and in orbit from the sunset zone to the dawn zone overcomes a larger path per unit time than from the dawn to sunset,
At night, the velocity of the whirlpool in the Earth's orbit is 1600 km / h above the speed of the center of the Earth and up to 1600 km / h in the afternoon.
At night, the whirlpool moves toward the orbital motion of the Earth and in the second half of the day against the orbital motion of the Earth.
The reason for this is the rotation of the Earth and the radius of the Earth.
Above, it is easy to verify based on experience with the globe.
As we see, according to the theory of whirlpools of tides, each maelstrom has its own tidal calendar.
"Moon theory of tides," the reason for the alternation of large and small tides (why the amplitude of the tides at night is greater than in the daytime) does not write anything.

Yusup, I think I understand the problem here.


The problem is one of "initial conditions", "initial causes", leading to effects; "cause and effect".

There is no doubt there is a gravitational effect betwen the moon and the earth. If the earth were a perfect sphere with a uniform body of water, there would be a "perfect" tidal demonstration would there not?

Yet the world is not a perfect sphere with 100% water coverage, hence there are other factors at play effecting tidal activity with the earth we have.

Correct me if I am wrong forum members, but Yusup is coming across as saying that "those other factors" endemic to the Earth's condition (land mass shapes and so on) are the "primary" reason for the shape of the tides we see.

"That" may be true though, its a matter of perspective. Sure, using a fine tooth comb, the fine tooth comb of tides is more related to the earth and its landscape as opposed to a perfect sphere surrounded by water effected by the tides, so on that count Yusup is correct.

16

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Tides is the result of the rotation of the Earth and whirlpools?

« on: 09/09/2018 12:41:01 »

The clear feature of the video is the "pulsing" nature of red (high tide) on both sides of the planet. Yes there are definite rotations playing out with the tides, contouring to the geography of the tides.

The nature of the planet with its body of water and the spin associated considers the general spin of the planet with a greater water mass around the equatorial axis of spin. As the planet has a far greater "mass" than the water alone, the water would be effected similarly closest to the moon in the spin and furthest from the moon in the spin. That's fine, yet some scratch their heads re. the idea of a high tide away from the Moon, on the other side of the planet. Yet, as per the reasoning here, its understandable, yet the "greatest whirlpool needs to be recognised, and that would be the idea of a planet "mass" carrying the water as it spins. Is that a fair observation?

From one great event of space and time, many events are sent, and thus from one great whirlpool, many whirlpools arise.

Its "ballet". Any ballerina or trapeze artists knows that to balance a spin there needs to be a "flywheel", a counterweight. The Earth spins 28 or so times faster than the Moon rotates around it, yet the mass of the moon is relevant as a gravitational effect. That's a part of the gravitational flywheel of earth.

Consider Saturn:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=esraPtFX&id=404BD0161C6AAC14ECDC790A915CB9CF5C20C331&thid=OIP.esraPtFXan9juw8lNiWp2gHaEK&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fwww.universetoday.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2016%2f09%2fPIA21046-16.jpg&exph=900&expw=1600&q=saturn&simid=608018014166190596&selectedIndex=4&ajaxhist=0

A uniform satellite, and almost uniform appearance of lines on the surface.

17

Just Chat! / Re: Invitations...

« on: 29/07/2018 15:50:29 »

Will do.

Neuro-security I've researched, and I am happy to share my ideas there.

18

Just Chat! / Re: Invitations...

« on: 29/07/2018 14:25:18 »

Well....

It doesn't look like the standard "let them eat cake" media that can so piss off a lot of people...right?


Minions....

19

New Theories / what is the game today, globally?

« on: 25/07/2018 11:57:30 »

Not sure if this is a new theory or not.

I'm thinking todays game is all about money, taking as much as one can, so one can buy a holiday and use nature as a selfie backdrop to make everyone else think they've been left behind, right?


Is that nuts or what?

Surely in a game of life the name of the game is to preserve the life/environment of one's own habitat, one's own life sphere? That should be paramount, not a back-drop, especially so the closer we get to unlocking the code of time and space.

That only works when people are able to get over all of the other stuff.....right?

Does anyone know any good books I can read on this theme?

I think we as a people are close to cracking the code of time and space. But whats our behaviour there, our message.....it can't be a simple backdrop anymore. Going with an electronic media crowd as a leadership can't really say anything beyond what the electronic media is deigned to do, right? So what can leaders say in defence of life?

20

New Theories / who hates people being pre-emptive?

« on: 02/07/2018 13:34:18 »

Anyone?


Like someone is talking about something.....like a song....


A new idea comes along, and its hits tunes we haven't used before....not science we're use to.


Its going to hurt despite how well it works.