1

New Theories / Re: Vortex hypothesis of earthquakes

« on: 12/04/2019 03:33:18 »

Vortex hypothesis of earthquakes.

It is a fact that Io, a moon of Jupiter, is periodically causing tides and earthquakes on a 42-hour cycle as it orbits Jupiter.

https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/327.php

2

New Theories / Re: Could solar cycle be dominated by the barycenters of the Solar System?

« on: 30/01/2019 16:16:19 »

I suspect that this means that the Sun's orbit around the SSB is not an ellipse.

It is indeed not.

As a matter of fact, Dr. Ivanka Charvátová with her work on  solar inertial motion, illustrated that the Sun cyclically orbits the SSB in a trefoil-like trajectory.

3

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

« on: 01/11/2018 03:40:15 »

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.

4

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

« on: 31/10/2018 04:09:03 »

(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.

5

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

« on: 31/10/2018 03:45:54 »

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.

6

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

« on: 27/10/2018 08:16:08 »

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". 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. 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!