0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In writing this paper the vast majority of the work was conceived of and then worked backwards to tie all the ideas into one theory. As such I cannot include a long list of contributing works that led to this theory but I will include those that I can –“Relativity the Special and General Theory ” – Albert Einstein,1916Beyond this all the research for this theory has been completed with just the internet and a lot of searching and head scratching.
The “Big Bang” makes perfect sense when you consider the make up of the Milky Way, our own galaxy, but not when we gaze beyond our galaxy and see other galaxies randomly dotted in all directions and following no particular pattern.
We have also come to agree that the Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago but the observations from cosmology show the oldest light measured, from distant and apparently fully formed galaxies, is up to 16 billion years old.
- Should the source of Gravity be considered an aspect of matter or is it an external force.
- Could Space Time have a particulate framework
- Could EM and Gravity be 2 characteristics of one particle separate to matter
- Is GR accurate in assuming potentially infinite circumstances
- Has QM wandered off the track of reality
- Time cannot move back and forwards
- Wormholes and Black holes aren't possible
I'm a nobody from a little island in the middle of nowhere but that hasn't stopped me writing a “Theory Of Everything”. What I don’t know is if there is any merit to my theory so I’ve written it down and published it as an online PDF, links below! Now I don’t cheat with extra dimensions and I don’t have some crazy religious theory, all I have is a theory that as far as I can tell is plausible. I would appreciate any feedback I can get so you have my thanks if you give me your opinions, good or bad ;-)http://www.scribd.com/rb_bartley/d/87888548-BartleysTOE-1st-Edition
That’s good to know, as I said this is going to be a steep learning curve, but as I point out I really am only trying to flesh out if this idea is worth pursuing or is a waste of time, if I asked you to reference how you came to know English could you provide me a bibliography of texts. This being a "Theory of Everything" it picks apart pretty much every aspect of QM and GR in some shape or form so I don't really want to start singling out individual concepts at this stage. If I get any positive feedback on BartleysTOE as a whole I'll put the time and money into a formal paper.
If you believe galaxies aren't scattered randomly beyond our milky way then that’s fine, I've yet to read of a visible accretion disc for the universe or similar. I also go on to completely readdress how we account for observations regarding matter in the universe by splitting EM and Gravity to one subatomic particle that forms the fabric of Space-Time, that very much alters how we'd view results like Baryon acoustic oscillations.
So I'm grateful for as much feedback as possible but this is a "Theory of Everything" and I would be grateful if people could give me a little grace on referencing this theory till they've read at least 1/2 of the paper. New ideas have a funny way of being hard to reference and I don’t know of anybody that’s conceived or gravity and light being two attributes of the same thing, but again that why I wrote this paper.
Could EM and Gravity be 2 characteristics of one particle separate to matter
Quote from: R B Bartley on 04/04/2012 11:25:00That’s good to know, as I said this is going to be a steep learning curve, but as I point out I really am only trying to flesh out if this idea is worth pursuing or is a waste of time, if I asked you to reference how you came to know English could you provide me a bibliography of texts. This being a "Theory of Everything" it picks apart pretty much every aspect of QM and GR in some shape or form so I don't really want to start singling out individual concepts at this stage. If I get any positive feedback on BartleysTOE as a whole I'll put the time and money into a formal paper. Thinking is never a waste of time - but it is possible you may be better off spending your time on getting a good grounding in maths and physics before looking to overturn basic theories.QuoteIf you believe galaxies aren't scattered randomly beyond our milky way then that’s fine, I've yet to read of a visible accretion disc for the universe or similar. I also go on to completely readdress how we account for observations regarding matter in the universe by splitting EM and Gravity to one subatomic particle that forms the fabric of Space-Time, that very much alters how we'd view results like Baryon acoustic oscillations. My belief is neither here nor there - you stated two facts in the introduction that immediately sprang to my attention as counter to the accepted cosmology of today. For everyone one of these you must give either a proof or some form of explanation.QuoteSo I'm grateful for as much feedback as possible but this is a "Theory of Everything" and I would be grateful if people could give me a little grace on referencing this theory till they've read at least 1/2 of the paper. New ideas have a funny way of being hard to reference and I don’t know of anybody that’s conceived or gravity and light being two attributes of the same thing, but again that why I wrote this paper. How does it fair on predicting the period of Jupiter's moons? Or the fall off gravity relative to the inverse of the radius squared? Or the precession of Mercury? These are tough questions - and require industrial grade maths; and no physicist would dream of replacing GR without first having these and many more answered. It is a steep learning curve indeed (although I am never sure what that really means) - Quote- Should the source of Gravity be considered an aspect of matter or is it an external force. At present it is thought that it is flows from the action of mass/energy on the curvature of spacetimeQuote- Could Space Time have a particulate framework Yes (it could - but it might not) - if you mean that at a very small scale space is quantized; but No - if you mean is there a form of ether backgorund.-Quote Could EM and Gravity be 2 characteristics of one particle separate to matter Unlikely - we can easily shield against photons/emr (cool shades bro!) and we have no concept of gravitational shielding.Quote- Is GR accurate in assuming potentially infinite circumstances GR works very very well - there are problems but...small in the overall scheme of things.Quote- Has QM wandered off the track of reality No - it is one of the most accurate and highly tested theories in the history of science and the correlation between prediction and reality is uncanny.Quote- Time cannot move back and forwards Why not? Just because we haven't noticed it so far? To be honest what time is and does is of great debate - about half the threads recently. Time does not move, just like length does not move. Time is what clocks measure just as length is what a ruler measures; can we have negative length - probably not, but we can have a negative direction in a space dimension. Maybe the same applies to time - we just don't know.Quote- Wormholes and Black holes aren't possible Wormholes hmmm - you might be right, you might not. Blackholes are pretty well documented - there are volumes of space that display a gravitational attraction, and thus a mass energy density, that can only be accounted for by blackholes. Blackholes flow from the ideas of GR - again if you wanna challenge GR you are taking on a very very well proven theory