[volantis]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Volantis;
Sorry if you feel picked on. I have read many proposals and web sites that make the same claims you have.

Come on. My problem isn't my feelings, it's the way you trashed my idea without looking at it. Show me one single other web site or theory that makes the same claim I do.

What do you suppose this forum was established for? Is this just another fishtank for mindless cynics?

Originally Posted by dleviwing

As yet I have not found any that have survived real analysis.

I can see why, you haven't learned how to do a real analysis yet. I'm not presenting a philosophy. I have presented a quantified model that produces the result of a Unified Force Theory. In order to analyze this theory it would require someone who does actual math to read the theory, understand the variables, and verify the math. And since the results I produce are dimensional, it is very easy to determine whether or not the equations and results are correct.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

It would be nice if you would state your fundamental axioms and hypothesis as to what you are attempting to show with your new terms and the redefining of existing terms.

I knew you didn't read my post or the web pages I linked to. Why don't you read what I have provided and ask questions about things that you particularly need further explanation on.

What is it about the Standard Model that is wrong that your theory will correct?

I'm not going to get dragged into a conversation that immediately turns the tables and presents me as someone trying to trash the Standard Model. I have presented a quantified Unified Force Theory on a board where this is specifically the topic. I would like to discuss why this new quantification method works or does not work. I'll leave it to you to figure out what is wrong with the Standard Model.

Your concept is well presented and may be as good or better than the current gauge theory models.

Thank you. But let's not stop at presentation. Let's find the specific errors in this theory that will prevent it from becoming a useful scientific tool. What is it that will prevent this theory from being recognized as the first, valid, mathematically correct, Unified Force Theory? Is there an error in the math? Do the results agree with reality? Does the quantification of the strong force as being mediated by strong charge reflect reality? To me, those are the questions that a true critical analyst would ask and try to answer.

I am an Aetherist also. Your theory attributes properties to the Aether and particle matter that are actually interactions of matter, not attributes of the entities.

An example, please? Let's see if there is a flaw in the theory, but you need to be specific. What is an "entity" and how do you define "matter?" Matter is not quantified in the Standard Model, it is merely a philosophical concept in that theory.

The Aether, electrons, protons, neutrons, and all physical entities are the same fundamental substance. If you can define the fundamental properties of this substance, then you will truly have a unification of the forces.

That is exactly what my theory does. The substance of the Aether and the subatomic particles, however, are not the same, unless you want to reduce down to the level of dimensions. Both the subatomic particles and Aether are made of dimensions with values. That is a valid statement of itself, but it doesn't help us much.

I quantify the Aether as the product of Gforce acting on the dimensions of distributed length (area) per charge. The Gforce is quantified by observing it within Coulomb's electrostatic constant and Newton's gravitational constant. The Aether is itself the electromagnetic constant.

The Gforce is derived from the electrostatic and gravitational constants as being equal to 1.21 x 10^44 newton. The quantum Aether unit is quantified as Coulomb's constant times 16pi^2 and has the dimensions that make a unit of rotating magnetic field.

Gravity, strong force, and weak force are caused by the same process of matter interactions, we do not need more properties, we need to reduce the properties to their fundamental axiomatic terms. When this is done, a unifying TOE concept will be quite obvious to everyone, not just to those of us who can speak the language of mathematics.

Physics is what nature is. Contrary to popular belief, physics is not man made. The properties of the mathematics and measurements are defined by the data. The fact that we have the freedom to describe these properties in English, French, Greek, Zeta Reticulan, or whatever, is not the same thing as inventing physics. No matter what the language or paradigm, the physics will be what the physics is.

The axioms are that dimensions are real. A particular group and value of dimensions called Gforce pre-existed physical existence, hence the Gforce produced the forces of gravity, electrostatics, and electromagnetism by working on mass, electrostatic charge, and electromagnetic (strong) charge, respectively. Dark matter exists outside of the Aether units in the form of primary angular momentum, and it too has dimensions. Due to the Casimir effect, dark matter is absorbed into a newly generated Aether unit and produces photons. There are electron-positron based photons and there are proton-antiproton based photons. The Casimir equation for the proton-antiproton based photons is of a different magnitude for the electron-positron based equation.

So that is the very beginning of the physical processes. Where the dimensions, Gforce, and dark matter come from is anybody's guess at this time. Since all of the these are non-material in nature, they are naturally beyond material observation. We can only deduce those things by observing their effects.

I will point out that the Standard Model does not quantify where the electron and proton come from, they are givens. My theory explains where the electrons and protons come from and how they are made and maintained in the Aether.

But that is not the point of this forum. The mission of this forum is to discover the mathematical unification of the forces, and that is what my theory does. We can discuss the binding energy equations, origin of the g-factors, origin of the fine structures, the predicted correction to neutron magnetic moment, the predicted correction to the Casimir equation, the structure of space-time, the cause of spin, and dozens of other questions I answer in later posts. Right now, I am interested in sharing a solution that those on this list are interested in finding, or so I thought.

I am not saying your concepts are wrong, just incomplete.
What is your purpose of presenting this on the TOEquest site, discussion or book sales??

There is nothing incomplete about my theory that you have pointed out. The only thing incomplete is your understanding of it. And that is why I came here, to help you undersand a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory. Why would you think I was here to sell books? Did you see something in my posts or on my web site that would indicate that? You don't need to buy an expensive printed version of the book to talk to me here. You don't even need to buy the $5 ebook version. You can simply do a search of Google for "secrets of the aether" and read just the parts you are interested in for free on Google Print.

Now let me ask you, do you think there is something unethical or immoral about writing a book and charging for it?