[protheory]

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton I agree there is no point in creating a theory that doesn’t work. Any theory of this Universe should be mathematically testable and if it is correct then it should never break down at the extremes of this universe. Unfortunately General Relativity and all other well known theories do break down at the extremes, especially at the Big Bang. Mathematically True Relativity does not break down at the Big Bang or inside black holes but the physics community still ignores it, why? The reason is simple. It is because the physics they have all been taught will need to be completely revised. They all will have to dump their so called knowledge because it does not agree with what they believe to be true. The majority of the science community are hard working and creative but the way our science is structured means innovation is stifled because even if experimental evidence shows some anomaly against known physics, it gets the cold shoulder by the establishment. I will take the example of the Irish company who came up with a way of generating power using only magnetic fields. Apparently the technology works and the scientists who tested it agreed that it works, in private, but refused to go on record because the result of gaining energy from nothing goes against known physics and they are frightened of being shunned by their peers. This is no way to conduct science in general. If the results show that energy can be created this way then there is a reason why? A true scientist would want to find out the reason. You can’t just dismiss the experimental evidence because the results shatter your belief in known physics and you are frightened of upsetting your peers. I know this happens because many registered physicists have read True Relativity but are unwilling to comment on it, let alone actually test it. Why? Is it because all their fundamental beliefs will be shattered or the fact, in accepting True Relativity, they will be shunned and ridiculed by their peers? It’s sad to see science done this way.

Hi Tony, thanks for the reply on this topic.

The reason that I wrote "there is no point creating a theory that doesn't work" is because like you say, I too don't believe that any theory of the universe should break down at the extremes of the said universe.

I have written about General Relativity on my site http://www.protheory.com/Relativity.htm but this essay is only my own interpretation of Relativity, it's an exploration of the unchanging laws of physics and how they are currently regarded by the scientific establishment.

To be honest I've not yet read True Relativity before but I think it's on a thread here isn't it?

I'll try to find an article about it anyway, it sounds interesting, although as you know, I have my own ideas about the true TOE.

I agree with what you said about the necessary revision and perhaps re-writing of all physics as we currently know it and it's definitely a pity that some people refuse to acknowledge any ideas other than those that are accepted by the establishment.

The Irish company you mentioned sounds interesting too, I managed to find a "free energy" thread yesterday and the idea seems like an excellent one to me, I really hope to see it go into development some day as I would certainly use such a product myself.

I live near three major "power stations" in England and they all burn coal to turn their generators, the smoke is terrible and if there is a way to create "free" energy I would love to support it in every way that I can.

Perhaps we're slightly off topic here but though I agree with your point about intellectual arrogance and unwillingness to change, I also think that the big energy companies have something to do with keeping free energy under wraps.

I have read many of Nikola Tesla's original works, the bladeless turbine among them, and the Tesla coil, I can't help but think that Tesla himself was a victim of such a conspiracy of silence, most likely from the large power companies with a business interest in fossil fuels rather than green energy sources

Back to the big bang and the TOE then, I used to feel quite bitter myself with regards to the TOE and my attempt at such a theory (Pro theory).

I sent off some of my rough notes to Stephen Hawking, and many other scientific journals a few years back, I suffer from manic depression so at the time my work seemed quite logical but I'm not really suprised that I never really got a satisfactory reply due to spelling mistakes and things.

I felt that they were ignoring my ideas and were unwilling to change what they thought they knew for certain and my original intention was for them to read my work so that I could discuss Pro theory with them face to face.

It never worked I'm afraid so eventually I decided to teach myself physics, well at least the physics I write about on my own site, and I hoped that by explaining these essays that somebody would see what I meant.

I've just recently re-written my site completely so it makes a bit more sense but now I'm just waiting to see if it will be accepted by anybody.

I taught myself the Claymath Millennium Problems too and answered every one on my site just to show how literally my TOE can be interpreted http://www.protheory.com/Millenium%20Problems.htm

Anyway, that's enough about me for now, thanks again for the reply Tony, I look forward to many interesting discussions in the future.

PRO

[Tony Stanton]

Hi Protheory,

If you would like to read and test TR you can find my papers at www.wbabin.net just search for the author ‘Tony Stanton’.
You are right about big business getting in the way of new ideas about energy production but unfortunately this seems to be the way of the world.

Sending off papers to physicists is a waste of time. They never read anything unless it is of a certain academic standard which means amateurs are shut out of the physics community even if their ideas are mathematically correct.
Unfortunately mathematics has taken the lead and the mind has to follow the math which Einstein himself is partly responsible for.

I have modelled the big bang using only the geometry of True Relativity and the ideal gas law. True Relativity has not only modelled the events after the big bang but has modelled the events leading up to the big bang itself. No other theory in the history of physics has ever been able to do this.

I must admit I do not understand your site because there is no ‘in depth’ discussion of the points you are trying to make but I will take more time to look at it a little more closely.

I do agree with Halton Arp the radical astronomer at the Max Plank institute. Redshift only gives information about relative velocity, not distance. The introduction of cosmological redshift was needed because otherwise it broke the rules of known physics, that being nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. In my opinion physics has this point wrong as well.

The reason nothing can travel faster then light is supposed to be because the mass increases as you gain velocity but physics has no idea what causes mass. They believe it is down to the elusive Higgs boson, which has never been detected, but if they are wrong, which they are, faster than light travel may well be a distinct possibility.

The need to truly understand space and time therefore gravity is of paramount importance, otherwise our planet will die under the weight of pollution. This will never happen if physics is taught as a set of facts where it has become like a religion. General Relativity is wrong because of these few facts that physics seems to ignore as and when it suits them.

· The accuracy drift in the GPS
· The lack of direct evidence for dark matter
· The lack of direct evidence for gravitational waves
· The lack of direct evidence for dark energy
· The inability to link General Relativity with quantum mechanics
· No explanation for the arrow of time
· The pioneer anomaly
· No explanation for the inflow of space in towards the Sun
· The need for the elusive particle called the graviton
· The need for the elusive particle called the Higgs boson
· The lack of evidence for the Higgs field
· GR breaks down at the extremes of this Universe
· GR is not a quantum theory of gravity

These are just a few problems with known physics so there is a definite need for a paradigm shift in the way we view time and space otherwise we will never conquer gravity.

TS

[dleviwing]

Protheory;
The mathematics of Relativity and Quantum Physics brake down only due to the fact that science does not as yet realize the true properties and interaction behavior of the fundamental substance that our universe is made of. Once these are realize, Relativity and Quantum Physics do not have any anomalies except to become so simple the scientist do not wish to admit they’ve wasted their money and time listening to hyped up BS.

[Tony Stanton]

I totally agree with you David

Tony

[protheory]

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton Hi Protheory, If you would like to read and test TR you can find my papers at www.wbabin.net just search for the author ‘Tony Stanton’. You are right about big business getting in the way of new ideas about energy production but unfortunately this seems to be the way of the world. Sending off papers to physicists is a waste of time. They never read anything unless it is of a certain academic standard which means amateurs are shut out of the physics community even if their ideas are mathematically correct. Unfortunately mathematics has taken the lead and the mind has to follow the math which Einstein himself is partly responsible for. I have modelled the big bang using only the geometry of True Relativity and the ideal gas law. True Relativity has not only modelled the events after the big bang but has modelled the events leading up to the big bang itself. No other theory in the history of physics has ever been able to do this. I must admit I do not understand your site because there is no ‘in depth’ discussion of the points you are trying to make but I will take more time to look at it a little more closely. I do agree with Halton Arp the radical astronomer at the Max Plank institute. Redshift only gives information about relative velocity, not distance. The introduction of cosmological redshift was needed because otherwise it broke the rules of known physics, that being nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. In my opinion physics has this point wrong as well. The reason nothing can travel faster then light is supposed to be because the mass increases as you gain velocity but physics has no idea what causes mass. They believe it is down to the elusive Higgs boson, which has never been detected, but if they are wrong, which they are, faster than light travel may well be a distinct possibility. The need to truly understand space and time therefore gravity is of paramount importance, otherwise our planet will die under the weight of pollution. This will never happen if physics is taught as a set of facts where it has become like a religion. General Relativity is wrong because of these few facts that physics seems to ignore as and when it suits them. · The accuracy drift in the GPS · The lack of direct evidence for dark matter · The lack of direct evidence for gravitational waves · The lack of direct evidence for dark energy · The inability to link General Relativity with quantum mechanics · No explanation for the arrow of time · The pioneer anomaly · No explanation for the inflow of space in towards the Sun · The need for the elusive particle called the graviton · The need for the elusive particle called the Higgs boson · The lack of evidence for the Higgs field · GR breaks down at the extremes of this Universe · GR is not a quantum theory of gravity These are just a few problems with known physics so there is a definite need for a paradigm shift in the way we view time and space otherwise we will never conquer gravity. TS

Hi Tony, thanks for the information and the link.

What you said about mathematics taking the lead and it not being worth me sending off my papers sounds about right to me.

Einstein was good with mathematics and he had some new ideas but in a similar point to your own, I think we're still stuck with his ideas as Gospel somehow when in reality we need a different approach to truly understand our universe.

I know that on my site I have given no in depth explanations but in fact I have avoided 'depth' purposely as I feel that all details are ultimately relative and may serve to confuse things when we're looking for the TOE.

If I were to use many complicated details and definitions it would make my site difficult to understand for the amateur reader in my opinion and I've written it for the widest possible audience, at least that was my original intention.

I also agree that we need a paradigm shift within physics, and that the general consensus within physics is like a religion that is sort of 'preached' to students as somehow unchanging.

I found your points about space-time and gravity interesting too, I have long been interested in gravity, not least because I live roughly 30 miles from Newton's birth place of Woolsthorpe, I've been to the room in which he was supposed to have split light for the first time and it was fascinating from a historical point of view.

I've seen the apple tree too

With gravity and space-time in mind I will describe some of my ideas about the four fundamental forces to aid in our discussion here.

Thanks once again for the information and link.

PRO

[protheory]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Protheory; The mathematics of Relativity and Quantum Physics brake down only due to the fact that science does not as yet realize the true properties and interaction behavior of the fundamental substance that our universe is made of. Once these are realize, Relativity and Quantum Physics do not have any anomalies except to become so simple the scientist do not wish to admit they’ve wasted their money and time listening to hyped up BS.

I feel similarly to you on this point David, though I also feel that even when (and if) we discover the TOE there will still be some room for theoretical physics, perhaps just not in the same fundamental and esoteric sense that is is currently studied by some.

Even though I say this, I admit that a part of me still wants to see the points you mention about "hyped up BS" proven to the public at large

[protheory]

These are my views on the four fundamental forces, including gravity.

Originally Posted by protheory.com The Problem

Originally Posted by protheory.com The problem is to create a theory that can successfully unify these four forces and explain every possible interaction found within physics. The Answer Forces Any force or interaction of any type may simultaneously exert an attractive force, the opposite and the point between. Truth This is true regardless of how they may be relatively perceived or described by us. Forces 1. The strong force The strong interaction can be explained as the opposite to a repulsive force, without considering its neutral potential. 2. The weak force The weak interaction can be explained as the opposite to an attractive force, without considering its neutral potential. 3. The electromagnetic force The electromagnetic interaction may be attractive, repulsive, and neutral in its potential. 4. The gravitational force The gravitational interaction is an attractive force that is observed without considering its opposite (repulsive) and neutral potentials. Atoms Atoms are subject to the same three simultaneous potentials as everything else. Atomic Atomic energy may be attractive, repulsive, and neutral. Simultaneously. Singular The singular force that unifies all of these separate interactions is what we call change. Description Change is a word used to describe something that defies definite and singular description. Opposite Change is composed of opposite and neutral potentials and may change in three ways simultaneously. Can we unify the four fundamental forces? 1. We can unify the four fundamental forces and create a theory of everything. 2. We cannot unify the four fundamental forces and create a theory of everything. 3. There is a neutral possibility. Simultaneously. Am I wrong? I simultaneously oppose, agree with, and neutralise all criticism ad infinitum. My point is literal. There is no point creating a theory of everything that doesn't work.

This post is just to illustrate how simple (non-hyped up BS) I think we can go with physics.

Once again, I must apologise for the "Am I wrong?" statement at the end but I include this only to make a literal point about Pro theory and the fact that in my opinion the/a TOE should be able to answer literally "everything."

PRO

[Tony Stanton]

Protheory

In all discussions of TOE the most fundamental subject must surely be the flow of time. We all experience the flow of time yet it still remains subjective.

There is no explanation for the flow of time in known physics yet space and time are supposed to be the same entity. If time flows then space must also flow because they are the same entity.

Do you agree?

TS

[protheory]

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton Protheory In all discussions of TOE the most fundamental subject must surely be the flow of time. We all experience the flow of time yet it still remains subjective. There is no explanation for the flow of time in known physics yet space and time are supposed to be the same entity. If time flows then space must also flow because they are the same entity. Do you agree? TS

An interesting point Tony, and one of the most fundamental things to affect us humans...time itself.

When you ask if I agree I'm not quite sure how to proceed with my answer.

I have decided instead to answer you twice here, once from my human point of view and once from my TOE point of view.

My Human View
As a conscious human with a body and such, yes, I do agree with you that time and space must flow, and also that they are perhaps the same entity.

It seems absolutely logical to me to state this as conjecture with a likely basis in truth, from a human point of view (relative to human existence of course).

My TOE View
When it comes down to the TOE I think somewhat differently to what I said above about space and time/space-time.

Like I said, I experience "time" and "space" every second of my life but I regard these words as relative and singular concepts which due to their singular nature are not 100% accurate so to speak.

Some of my favourite films were the Back To The Future trilogy and the idea of time travel has always fascinated me.

It certainly seems as though we cannot travel backwards in "time" doesn't it, after all by the time you read these words I will have written them in the past won't I.

The True TOE
Ok, so now we've got the concepts of "space" and "time" defined as such and so we ned to talk about their relation to the TOE.

Please forgive me for repeating...again, something that I have already written in another thread but I think it is important to explain clearly my three points of view.

This debate arises from my "but what if there were no "humans" and no "consciousness" to "behold" or "create" the concept of "everything" thoughts.

It's a handy way to think extremely clearly about the TOE, beyond the relative guarantee of humans and the "existence" of any kind of anything

Debate Imagine a debate between myself and another person. The person says "what does Pro theory have to say now that we've removed consciousness and we literally have nothing, absolutely nothing?" I say "well, theoretically there is the possibility that there is nothing, something, and a neutral potential also." The person says "well now I've got you on a technicality, for if there is literally 'nothing' then how can you possibly say that there is the theoretical potential for something, even in abstract theory?" I say "I can state the three potentials of nothing, I cannot state the three potentials of nothing, plus neutral." The person says "but you can't say that, we're talking about NOTHING here, so you can't say that there is the chance for something within NOTHING." I say "well, theoretically I can say that, not say that, and neutral simultaneously." The person says "but that's ridiculous, you can't possibly be so delusional as to believe that anybody would actually ACCEPT this as a TOE. I say "well, it may be accepted as a TOE, it may not, plus neutral simultaneously." Am I singularly and unchangingly right, wrong or neutral? Talking Normally All I'm saying is that if you want to get really, really, really literal and technical about the TOE, everything has three simultaneous potentials plus the opposite plus neutral. Like it, or not, or neutral, this is how it is (but it also isn't plus neutral). I apologise for my childish style of illustration here but to be understood Pro theory must be taken literally with no holds barred (plus the opposite plus neutral). Whatever anybody says or states, I will ask them about the opposite and neutral potentials within their answer or statement, be it a TOE or otherwise. The Crux Summing up my points here, all I'm saying is that in pure theory there will always be the theoretical potential for three answers and/or potentials. It's extremely simple, three simultaneous potentials, and Pro theory is a thought experiment, an exploration of pure technicalities, rather than a theory that might serve much practical everyday purpose. Pro theory is a theory that covers the absolute and fundamental potentials of everything, it doesn't mean for example that I meet people and introduce myself thus "my name is Pro, not Pro, and neutral, pleased to meet you." I could do this in theory if I wanted to be totally and literally "accurate" but obviously I don't need this level of accuracy in everyday conversation. When it comes to physics and the TOE though, I do use this approach to illustrate the possible potentials, I think that we should be aware of this concept and try to realise that whatever we say or do there are two other possible potentials also, without exception so to speak. Accuracy Pro theory is about the literal technicalities of "everything" and therefore the TOE also. The "proof" of Pro theory comes when anybody states anything singular, on a pure technicality it is always theoretically possible to imagine an opposite and neutral point for any singular thing. If you doubt this important point then try and prove me as singularly wrong.

When we apply this theoretical concept to the relative words "space" and "time" we see that in pure theory, no matter what "words" we use to try and illustrate our ideas, there will always be the theoretical potential for two other options...in pure theory.

What I'm saying is that my own words of description "positive, negative, neutral" are just the most appropriate method in my opinion to show what I see in my mind's eye.

I honestly think that "space" and "time" have theoretical opposite and neutral potentials, when viewed through the eyes of a TOE.

If we wanted to discuss this in a non-TOE sense then I imagine that time and space do "flow" perhaps as one.

I have a real life too, and real feelings that are singular (as such) but when it really, really, really comes down to the most accurate possible TOE I think that this is the correct approach (plus the two other possible potentials, just to cover myself).

I'm just interested in how far we can push knowledge and description really, I suppose I'm a philosopher at heart, always waiting for someone to say something then saying "yes ok, and what next..."

I hope this answers your question adequately anyway Tony, I don't mean to be a pedant about the TOE in a negative sense, I only search for the truth, so far as it may or may not be known.

I could illustrate this further but for now I'll wait and see what you think about Pro theory and its relevance and/or accuracy as a possible TOE.

Kind regards.

PRO

[Tony Stanton]

Protheory

Thanks for reply.

For the first time I see where you are coming from because when I relate it to True Relativity it is amazing how the logic of pro theory slots in with what I have discovered when studying this concept of space and time.

Pro theory is a literal theory if I have it right and if this is so then I certainly agree that any true theory of TOE will have pro theory at its heart because although philosophical it has to be literal.

If you are willing to learn I will show you the opposite and neutral of my theory because both are natural consequences of True Relativity.

It has a ‘mirror image’ and a null, in fact without these the theory falls down. That may sound confusing but if you learn TR all will become clear.

First I will relate pro theory to the discussion about the flow of time as I understand it.

• We all have a past and I will equate as the positive or potential 3
• We all have a future (hopefully!) and I will equate this as negative or potential 1
• And the present is the neutral or potential 2

Potential 2 is point between potential 3 & 1or you can describe it as; the present is the point between the future and the past.

We have already agreed there is a flow of time from the future into the past which we can now relate as a flow from potential 1, through potential 2 and into potential 3 from negative through neutral and into positive.

According to TR.
The past has an estimated age of 13.75 billion years and the future, although uncertain, may carry on for another 1 x 10^200 years according to my first model of the big bang using TR.
The ‘present’, according to TR and because we use seconds and meters to measure time and space is about 8.86 x 10^-27 s.

The main point here is time has a flow, do we agree on this so far?

TS