[volantis]

I have developed a mathematical Unified Force Theory from the empirical data. The theory is presented here:
http://www.16pi2.com/unified_charge_theory.htm

To develop the UFT required the revision of the foundation of physics such that all charge is notated as distributed charge. Mathematically, the physics are the same, but dimensionally, the new units work better. In fact, there are many more functional units in this new theory than there are in Classical Physics.

The theory quantifies the strong force as being due to the strong charge. The strong charge is also quantified as the angular momentum of the subatomic particle times the conductance of the Aether. The conductance and Aether are also quantified. All the quantifications are based upon empirical data such as the measured masses of the subatomic particles, Coulomb's electrostatic constant, the Newton gravitational constant, the speed of light, permeability, permittivity, Planck's constant, and others.

There is a reason why nobody had found a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory before. The foundation of the physics was wrong. By making a few logical changes, everything falls neatly into place. Not only does the theory unify gravity with the electrical forces, but it also provides a solid basis for quantifying consciousness. This, too, is based upon empirical data.

[dleviwing]

You may want to find out the cause of charge before you start using it as a TOE solution.
If you can find the cause of charge, you should also find the cause of gravity.
You may want to reduce the use of magic properties, the standard model already has too much magic and not enough reality.
Good luck;
Dave

[volantis]

Originally Posted by dleviwing You may want to find out the cause of charge before you start using it as a TOE solution. If you can find the cause of charge, you should also find the cause of gravity. You may want to reduce the use of magic properties, the standard model already has too much magic and not enough reality.

Hi Dave,

Sorry if I take this the wrong way, but it really grates on me after a while. It annoys me to no end that someone will immediately put out their personal opinion without making any effort at all to understand the theory or even ask questions.

What part of the theory made you think there was something "magical" about it? Did I forget to mention that the theory is fully quantified and based on empirical data? There are valid, scientific reasons for presenting charge as a distributed dimension. The first valid reason was offerred by Charles Coulomb nearly 200 years ago. He observed that the inverse square law can only work if charge is distributed. The second is in the quantum dimensional analysis of magnetic moment.
http://www.16pi2.com/magnetic_moment.htm

The third is that a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory results. Um, excuse me, but what is the purpose of this forum? Are you really interested in a valid Unified Force Theory, or is this web site just a big hoax? I'm presenting a valid solution that directly addresses the purpose of this forum. Let's see a little more critical reasoning here. Why don't you actually try to understand the theory instead of blow it off as something worthless?

[dleviwing]

Volantis;
Sorry if you feel picked on. I have read many proposals and web sites that make the same claims you have. As yet I have not found any that have survived real analysis. 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.
What is it about the Standard Model that is wrong that your theory will correct?
Your concept is well presented and may be as good or better than the current gauge theory models.
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.
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. 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.

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??

[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?

[dleviwing]

I do not need to read your site or book in its entirety to recognize you path of logic.
State in 100 words or less the physical cause of gravity and I will buy your book and read it.

We already know the effects, what is the real physical cause? What I read indicates that you simply believe that all you need do is explain effects with other effects. Charge is not a cause nor is it a property; it is an effect. Distribution of charge means absolutely nothing.

Save your salesman indignation method for those intimidated by your attempt to express apparent knowledge. You seem to be convinced that you are the first to propose this type of idea; do more research. If you really believe your idea is new and unique, present it for science peer review. You will find that my opinions are not only mine.
I do find your theory extremely better than "String Theory". I don't have any books on that either.

By the way; I read your web site long before you presented the link to TOEquest.

[volantis]

Originally Posted by dleviwing I do not need to read your site or book in its entirety to recognize you path of logic.

Wow, when I grow up, I want to be as smart as you. You don't even have to learn. You absorb knowledge.

State in 100 words or less the physical cause of gravity and I will buy your book and read it.

??? You already recognize the path of logic? Does that mean you are path of logical? Or is that pathological?

I don't want you to buy the book. All I want is a discussion on the merits of the theory.

The physical cause of gravity is the Gforce acting on the dimension of mass. That's fourteen words, much less than 100. I assume I don't need to explain the Gforce or how it was discovered, you already understand that. I'm sure you already understand that gravity is orthogonal to the strong charge as well, meaning that the strong force and gravitational force are exactly proportional to each other, so I won't go into detail on that either.

But if you already knew that Gforce acts on electrostatic charge to produce electrostatic force and acts on electromagnetic charge to produce strong force, then why did you need me to tell you that Gforce acts on mass to produce gravitational force? Even Newton knew that something had to act on mass to produce the effect of gravity.

We already know the effects, what is the real physical cause? What I read indicates that you simply believe that all you need do is explain effects with other effects. Charge is not a cause nor is it a property; it is an effect. Distribution of charge means absolutely nothing.

You didn't read anything. Charge is a dimension. It is not an effect, nor is it a cause. Charge, like mass, length, and time, is the bare bones "substance" of which non-material and material reality are made from. Charge is not a thing, and yet it can be measured. The same goes for length. There is a length between your eyes and your computer monitor. That length can be measured to a specific quantity. But what is it a quantity of? Length is a non-material dimension, but it is very real. The same goes for mass, time and charge.

I'm sure already knew this from reading my theory, but electrostatic charge is a function of resonance between forward and backward time. Electrostatic charge is created when an Aether unit is created, which is why each Aether unit is an electrostatic dipole and contains both positive and negative electrostatic charge. It is also why Naudin's lifter's can fly. The Aether is polarized and thus the Aether can act directly on the greater charged surface of the asymmetric capacitor. Electrostatic charge is spherical in geometry and has a spin of 1.

Strong charge, on the other hand, is a function of angular momentum spinning within the Aether unit. Once the dark matter is absorbed it fills one of four different spin positions in the Aether unit, thus becoming an electron, positron, proton, or anti-proton. As the angular momentum spins within the conductance of the Aether, it produces strong charge. The strong charge, like the angular momentum, has half-spin and has steradian angle. But even if you multiplied the strong charge by two to equalize the spins, and multiplied the strong charge by 4pi to offset the steradian angle, the equivalent spherical strong charge would be enormous compared to the spherical electrostatic charge. The constant that reduces the magnitude of strong charge is the fine structure constant. Therefore, for the electron, the Unified Charge Equation is equal to:

e^2 = 8pi a e.emax^2

For those who haven't read the web site, e^2 is the electrostatic charge, a is the fine structure of the electron, and e.emax^2 is the strong charge of the electron. I'm sure you already know this, having absorbed all the knowledge, but the gravitational force is shown to be orthogonal to the strong force in the strong charge equation:

h * Cd = e.emax^2

where h is the angular momentum of the electron, and Cd is the conductance of the Aether. And since the mass of the electron is fixed and also part of its angular momentum, then there is a fixed mass to strong charge ratio. And as I'm sure you know, the mass to strong charge ratio is exactly the same for all subatomic particles, as well as for the Aether. Thus when the Gforce acts on mass, it acts proportionally on strong charge as well. The orthogonality of the gravitational force and strong force is seen in the single dimension nature of mass and distributed nature of charge. But I see no reason to explain this in detail, either, since you already understand the path of logic.

Save your salesman indignation method for those intimidated by your attempt to express apparent knowledge.

Actually, I intend to use my "salesman indignation" fully. You deserve every bit of it until you stop your mindless cynicism.

You seem to be convinced that you are the first to propose this type of idea;

Yes, I am convinced. If someone else had come up with this, the race for the Unified Force Theory would have been over already. Prove otherwise.

If you really believe your idea is new and unique, present it for science peer review.

I just happened to have a paper ready to go. It is being previewed by several scientists as we speak. One of them is a Cambridge PhD physicist. I thought I would be nice and stop by to give people here a chance to be in on the ground floor.

You will find that my opinions are not only mine.

I'm fully aware of the enormous challenge for presenting a new paradigm, let alone a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory. That is why I spent a year writing the book first. It just isn't possible to present a completely new paradigm to someone who already thinks he knows everything, as you can see. There are many basics that need to be understood first. One of them is the ability to read, another is the ability to do math. After that, there are the foundations, such as distributed charge, the definitions of dimensions and units, quantum measurements, charge geometry, Aether geometry, angular momentum geometry, the nature of spin, the mechanics of time and frequency, and the nature of dark matter. All this stuff cannot be put in a paper 20 pages long.

So I had to write the book first, and have the full theory ready to go. Now I can write a 20 page paper with a fast track to the theory and reference the book for those who would like to fully understand the underlying concepts.

I do find your theory extremely better than "String Theory".

Wait until you understand how the strong charge equation turns out to be the real form of what Albert Einstein called his Field Equation.

e^2 = 8pi a e.emax^2
G = 8pi T

The above field equation is in the abbreviated form. But it is enough for demonstration purposes. The General Relativity Theory is not about mass at all. As I pointed out, mass is directly proportional to strong charge. And as I also pointed out, the distributed electrostatic charge is spherical in geometry. GR is not the about the equality of the tensors of the curvature of space-time and mass-energy, it is about the balance of spherical electrostatic charge to steradian strong charge. It is just luck on Einstein's part that mass and strong charge are directly proportional to each other. That is how he could mistakenly describe the curvature of space-time in terms of mass and come up with the correct numerical answer.

Anybody in their right mind must realize there is no such thing that can act on mass called "space-time curvature." But then, nobody else had an alternative explanation.

Yes, I'm an indignant salesman toward mindless cynics. But if you take a more scientific approach you will find I'm actually a respectful and gentle guy. Forget about the cynicism I'm going to receive from the rest of the scientific community as I present this theory. This is about you and me. You don't have to be a mindless cynic.

By the way; I read your web site long before you presented the link to TOEquest.

You may have visited, but you obviously haven't read it. Nearly everything I wrote in this post is available on the web site.

[Guille]

hi Volantis,

I have NOT read your link yet but I'll do it today later.

I have some previous questions:

What is, according to you (or your theory), the nature of the spin?

Do you think there are material physical dimensions? Or only the ones you have mentioned and which are un-material (charge, mass, space and time)?

Finally, do you think that there can be interaction of any kind between the material and the non-material?

[volantis]

Originally Posted by <<>> I have some previous questions: What is, according to you (or your theory), the nature of the spin?

Hi Guille, thanks for the questions.

According to my understanding of the Aether Physics Model, the normal expression of time is frequency. We see this even in the macro world. There is no device in existence that measures time. Every device we use for time, actually measures frequency. A clock goes around in cycles. A digital clock can be based upon the 60 cycle AC current. A cesium clock is based on the number of oscillations of the atom. The day is based on the rotation of the Earth, the year is based upon its orbit around the Sun. And on and on.

At the quantum level, there is not just one, but two dimensions of frequency, in addition to the three dimensions of length. The two dimensions of frequency, like the three dimensions of length, are orthogonal to each other. Thus, frequency squared is equal to resonance. This is verified even in classical physics.

The resonance at the quantum level is resonance between forward and backward moving time. In other words, at the quantum level, time never goes anywhere. It moves forward in time just as much as it moves backward in time. This resonance appears to contribute to the spherical electrostatic charge dimension.

The resonance is also part of the quantum Aether unit. When dark matter is absorbed into the Aether, it spins over the surface of this resonance. But, for whatever reasoning, the angular momentum can only move in the forward direction of time. Thus, as the angular momentum spins over this resonance, it experiences forward moving time, but not the backward moving time. The angular momentum then only spins in half the cycle, and thus has half spin.

So subatomic particles are essentially time diodes. They create the appearance of linear, pulsed frames of time. But the frequency dimensions do not only spin in forward and backward time. They also spin in right and left directions of time. So out of the four Aether spin positions in half-spin, forward time there are two that spin left and two that spin right. The left hand spin produces what we perceive as matter (electron and proton) and the right hand spin produces anti-matter.

The direction of the spin also influence the effect of gravity. Since the mass of the electron and proton have the same left hand spin, they experience gravitational attraction. The same goes for anti-matter. But matter and anti-matter are spinning in opposite directions and so experience a repulsive gravitational force.

So spin is a bit more involved than the current theory explains. It is related to the dimension of frequency, and the frequency moves between forward and backward direction of time. Spin also moves in the left and right hand directions of time.

Do you think there are material physical dimensions? Or only the ones you have mentioned and which are un-material (charge, mass, space and time)?

I have no reason to believe there are material dimensions.

Finally, do you think that there can be interaction of any kind between the material and the non-material?

Absolutely. The material matter of atoms is made from the non-material dimensions. The Gforce acts upon the non-material mass dimensions of atoms and causes atoms to experience gravity.

Ultimately, materiality is merely a perception of bound subatomic particles. What we call physical, is physical only because of the binding forces acting on the subatomic particles. There really is no difference between material reality and non-material reality.

At least, that is my understanding of it.

[dleviwing]

Congratulations, the world of physics has another wheel to play with.
I guess you're too smart and your concept is just too complex for this poor ignorant train driver to understand.