[Atkhenaken (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

At least some matter has no spin.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

At least some matter has no spin.

No spin creates a black hole attractor (neutron). 

[Ethos_]

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.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

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.

[Ethos_]

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.

[Colin2B]

..... 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.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

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.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

..... 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.

[Colin2B]

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!

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

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.

[Ethos_]

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?

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

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.]

[Colin2B]

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

[GoC]

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.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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?

[GoC]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.

[Ethos_]

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.