[Spyroe (OP)]

TheBox, this is why its in new theories.. Just because i have no math doesn't mean the idea is nonsense.  Spyroe theory visually explains the paradox's - double slit  and entanglement. I was hoping that people on this forum would be interesting in something new. 

[Spyroe (OP)]

Why use a particle and a pilot wave when you could use waves within a particle.

[guest39538]

TheBox, this is why its in new theories.. Just because i have no math doesn't mean the idea is nonsense.  Spyroe theory visually explains the paradox's - double slit  and entanglement. I was hoping that people on this forum would be interesting in something new. 

Cool diagrams, I am objective and do not rule things out I don't understand thoroughly. I will sleep on your notion and get back to you.

[Colin2B]

I like your site. As Box says, neat graphics.
I think you are a first, i certainly haven’t seen an artistic interpretation of physics here.

[guest39538]

I like your site. As Box says, neat graphics.
I think you are a first, i certainly haven’t seen an artistic interpretation of physics here.

He has basically took Einsteins ''cone'' model, then added ''cone'' models on all ''sides''  ,   physically an impossible event.

[Colin2B]

He has basically took Einsteins ''cone'' model, then added ''cone'' models on all ''sides''  ,   physically an impossible event.

Impossible Mr Box!! That doesn’t sound like you, have zombies taken you over ? 
Anyway, it’s art.

[Spyroe (OP)]

its not impossible. It was produced in a 3d animation program. remember, what appears to be physical to us is limited to our 3 dimensional reality. Imagine if you could step outside the universe and look in, would it look the same? I believe the conflict with merging GR and QM is based on our position. If we could step outside the universe and look in, we would see motions of planets and particles behaving the same. If we could get smaller than an atom and look outside it through to the edge of the universe we would see particles and planets behaving the same.

[guest39538]

He has basically took Einsteins ''cone'' model, then added ''cone'' models on all ''sides''  ,   physically an impossible event.

Impossible Mr Box!! That doesn’t sound like you, have zombies taken you over ? 
Anyway, it’s art.

Lol Colin,

[guest39538]

its not impossible. It was produced in a 3d animation program. remember, what appears to be physical to us is limited to our 3 dimensional reality. Imagine if you could step outside the universe and look in, would it look the same? I believe the conflict with merging GR and QM is based on our position. If we could step outside the universe and look in, we would see motions of planets and particles behaving the same. If we could get smaller than an atom and look outside it through to the edge of the universe we would see particles and planets behaving the same.

Although we can not physical see space time curvature, that does not mean we can't see the affects of space time curvature.

What we ''see'' is not represented by your model sorry.  However it is a cool piece of artwork.


In saying that I am always willing to discuss just in case there is something I am missing or not understanding correctly.  I obviously cannot 'see' your thoughts that are clear in your mind, I can only go off your wording and diagram.


How many vortexes are in your model in total?

How many different forces would be acting in your model?

[Bored chemist]

Put it this way, if the math representing spyroe theory proved to work better than particle theory, the notion of particles making up matter wouldn't be used in science anymore

The biggest word in that sentence is "if".

[Spyroe (OP)]

if, i get it. its all about the numbers. I am well aware of that. Scientists work in expanding the theories with math and not imagination. But that too bad, i think imagination can produce results depending on the person.
My suggestion for the scientific community would be to mix up their researchers with artists, have group discussions, see if a great idea comes out of it.
thebox, you still don't get it, what we see isn't represented in my model but that doesn't mean anything. What we see is what we create with the math we invented. It doesn't make sense to compare present theories to new ones. New theories do not need to follow old ideas.

[Bored chemist]

My suggestion for the scientific community would be to mix up their researchers with artists,

Plenty of researchers are artists.