[force5]

Hi David;

I like the way your right brain works. So far I like everything (agree) you've said. One question, what's your thoughts on vacuum space?

[yogi]

Hi David,
Thanks for the comments, I do agree with you partially. IMHO a true TOE should include everything that would explain all the phenomena in the universe. you said that mathenmatics is abstract - I agree and would also say that abstact symbols of mathematics (object) originate or have foundations in variety of extensive subjects.
can mathematics expalin;

infinity - infinity = infinity

is the formula correct ? or there is no such thing.

sincerely,
yogi

[tony_fleming]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Many people have different views as to what the "TOE" should reveal. My endeavors into this concept has lead me to dought the sincerity of the scientist charged with finding the solutions. I can offer some of the observations and conclusions I've come to over the last 40 years that may provide the answers some of you are looking for. The following comments will give an idea as to where I stand in the debates.
D. Levi Wing

Theoretical physics has advanced to a phase that seems to indicate a truly unbelievable universe. Can it be that the right side of our brain is unable to comprehend the complexities of nature and form a logical perception of reality? Does the ability to understand existence lie only in the few with the remarkable ability to jump beyond the confines of reality and into multiple dimensions. Is this leading to what some believe, that science is becoming another religion with its authorities of the word.

The mainstream media and even several reputable science journals expend time and text to the oddities of our most comprehensive gauge theories and very little to the true functionality of these theories. More time is exhausted promoting concepts of “Time Travel”, “Multiple Universes”, and several other improbable realities extracted from “Relativity” and “Quantum Physics” rather than emphasizing the applications and successes of these theories. The general population usually obtains their information from mainstream media and of course, TV. This results in some people being awed by the science and others who believe scientist must be absolute intellectual morons.

Modern theories are not so much perceptual concepts today as they are mathematical gauge theories. Thus, mathematically, science has combined the four forces of nature using these gauge theories. However, each of these theories has encountered phenomena that irritate the right side of the brain – They challenge logic. Some scientist sooth this irritation by dismissing the phenomena and becoming content that “if the mathematics work, it does not make a difference what is real” – inappropriately referred to as “Positivism”. Is reality as complex and abstract as the mathematics seem to indicate? Are there physical dimensions that exist beyond the known three dimensions of our universe? Science requires a perceptual paradigm of reality that explains the universe in absolute fundamental concepts that do not border the realms of metaphysics and religion.

David

if toequest and similar sites such as www.unifiedphysics.com can do anything, it is to present the 'alternative' views because all to often in history, and it appears, in scientific history also, the 'status quo' become too entrenched and comfortable and will NOT listen to those who go against their righteous acclaimations. In www.unifiedphysics.com we are making a real effort to present the mainstream alongside the alternate view given by em self field theory. I think history should look back on these days as 'dark ages' where the powers that be try to dictate the beliefs of the (scientific) masses. We should always have an eye to the lateral thinkers within our age.

regards Tony

[dleviwing]

Thank you all for your generous comments. John (force5) has suggested the creation of a new forum thread called "Time, Space, Matter, and Motion". This sounds like a good idea for those of us who wish to exchange ideas of reality and the physical universe. Please join our conversations and debates. Maybe something will come of it.

Special note to yogi: The mathematical expression for infinity can be stated several ways. I like the reciprocal of zero when I use a calculator. (ERROR)
It is how the human mind accepts or interprets infinity and eternity that make the real difference. I have come to terms with these concepts such that there is NO ANSWER within the realm of the human mind. If someone gives you an answer; avoid the fool.

Dave
dleviwing

[dleviwing]

Tony;
I checked your web site when Robert added it to his list. It is very comprehensive and will require time if you would like me to evaluate it. Actually I've re-invented the wheel many times looking for a way to comprehend mainstream science dogma. My only success came when I started questioning my academic indoctrinations. You seem to have more to question than I did. Remember that when you recognize the answer, it will be simple and the unification of the four forces will be obvious. Don't be one to add to the complexity. Focus on the reality. Also remember, I'm just an opinionated old fart.

Hope you join the "Time, Space, Matter, and Motion" forum thread.
Dave
dleviwing

[tony_fleming]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Tony;
I checked your web site when Robert added it to his list. It is very comprehensive and will require time if you would like me to evaluate it. Actually I've re-invented the wheel many times looking for a way to comprehend mainstream science dogma. My only success came when I started questioning my academic indoctrinations. You seem to have more to question than I did. Remember that when you recognize the answer, it will be simple and the unification of the four forces will be obvious. Don't be one to add to the complexity. Focus on the reality. Also remember, I'm just an opinionated old fart.

Hope you join the "Time, Space, Matter, and Motion" forum thread.
Dave
dleviwing

Dave please DO evaluate it; but remember it is a work in progress and i haven't yet uploaded the main pdf's for download and many aspects need to be written to the site. this includes the solution to the hydrogen atom.

i'm sorry if it appears too complex; it IS based on the mathematics that is coming directly from solving maxwell's equations which should have been done maybe 100 years ago!! the SFT mathematics IS being checked against the known physics which wasn't known 100 years ago-so the quantum maths came first then the physics was explored-tghey made the copenhagen pronouncement before the physics was known-so they cocked up badly and weren't brave enough to recant their error. to date the SFT maths seems much more based on reality than quantum theory. but i have no doubt that when the maths bowl runs dry, some silly buggers will start invoking the mumbo jumbo gods for help and waving their witch doctor's sticks in the air in front of the masses!!

pardon my sarcasm, i'm a pretty old fart myself and have been around the scientific traps maybe too long; i DO however have faith in the big guy upstairs, his universe and HIS physics are special.

kind regards tony;

PS i'll come to the new forum when it's up, sounds good stuff, we must all thank Toequest for their perspicacity

[davidgow77]

The notion of positivism is one which I find very interesting. The collection of mathematical proofs that are collectively called guage theories should essentially be viewed as "evidence" as would be used in a court of law. What positivism proposes is that we simply need to offer this evidence and we should be able prove our point. However, the genius of those such as Einstein and Newton is that they had the correct conceptual framework with which to present this evidence. The problem today is that we do not have the correct conceptual framework, so much of the evidence is inadmissable because we don't know where it all fits in. I don't think the paradigm shift that will allow us to present this evidence in a clear, cohesive and understandable manner is far off, but that is just the problem; it will probably take the kind of creative problemsolving ability that Einstein or Newton had to uncover it. One thing is for sure, it will be deceptively simple, and readily understandable, and it will not change our mathematical concepts. In this sense, positivism will be preserved and proved wrong at the same time, because positivism will NOT give rise to the paradigm shift, but at the same time the paradigm shift will not alter the current laws of physics and mathematics. To illustrate this point, consider the following idea. Did Einstein do all the maths for special relativity and general relativity, and THEN realise what the mathematics was describing, or did he make the paradigm shift in terms of understanding about frames of reference and the constancy of the speed of light, and the curvature of space-time metric before he sought the mathematical proofs for this. The answer is most definately the latter.

DG

[dleviwing]

David;
I fully understand what you are saying. "Been there, done that." I fully support the mathematics of both QM and GR – String theory, I'm not convinced and I won't be dazzled with BS. Mathematics is a tool; when used properly it works, when abused or used improperly, it produces illusions. I object to those who proclaim that these gauge theories prove or even suggest time travel is possible, other dimensions existing within our 3D universe, and other absurd interpretations of the mathematics. I am not impressed with Einstein as it seems you are. He did not do the math, he plagiarized the idea, and did not acknowledge those who originated the ideas and did the math.

It is possible to show mathematically that the Sun and planets rotate around the Earth; however the mathematics to show the Earth and Planets rotate around the Sun, are simpler an require far less complex functions. This mean that when we find the simple paradigm of reality, the math will become less complex.

For example; Time dilation is not a function of the real concept of time; it is the function of the physical matter of which the physical clocks are constructs of. If interpreted properly, time dilation simply shows that as uniform motion increases, the physical interactions of matter slow down and also physically contract.

I can only suggest that you keep in mind that the requirements for doing scientific measurements are not the same as having a solid perceptual scientific philosophy to explain the meaning of the numbers.

The TOE Quest site points to several great sites for information and excellent reading. Browse around them and I think you will come to see what I'm trying to say.

Good luck;
Dave
dleviwing

[davidgow77]

Thanks man. Essentially I think that vacuum space represents all the space which used to be occupied by energy in its most elementary format during the inflationary period of the universe (this is often referred to as the primordial soup). I am working on a paper to describe this theory propoerly, so Ill post it as soon as it is done. The vacuum energy density is a constant describing the amount of energy that can fit into a cubic metre of space, which in turn suggests that the energy held within matter is not actually occupying space. This sounds like a new and strange concept, but as Einstein stated in Relativity, "Physical objects are not in space, but they are spacially extended, in the respect the concept of empty space loses its meaning." On these grounds, I think finding a definition for empty space is the key to progressing from Einsteins conceptual framework of General Relativity as it is the one thing which he failed to analyse in any great detail. I have also found a mathematical correlation between the vacuum energy density (which I am sure has a negative value) and the gravitational constant, and a paper on this will be in the TOE library (as long as I am granted TOE Researcher status) very soon


DG

[tony_fleming]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

David;
I fully understand what you are saying. "Been there, done that." I fully support the mathematics of both QM and GR – String theory, I'm not convinced and I won't be dazzled with BS. Mathematics is a tool; when used properly it works, when abused or used improperly, it produces illusions. I object to those who proclaim that these gauge theories prove or even suggest time travel is possible, other dimensions existing within our 3D universe, and other absurd interpretations of the mathematics. I am not impressed with Einstein as it seems you are. He did not do the math, he plagiarized the idea, and did not acknowledge those who originated the ideas and did the math.

STUFF CLIPPED HERE
Good luck;
Dave
dleviwing

Dave

I agree with you about GR and QM, and strings, etc. they are correct in so far as they're able. like all theory they are ONLY MODELS and cannot replace reality (i.e the physics). thus they need validation from real world observations and measurements. this concept is one i call 'analytic accuracy', it is similar to numerical accuracy in that the actual equations have an inbuilt ability to be more, or less, accurate against some measure of reality (hence relative error etc)

so with QM they made the ultimate mathematical mistake of saying that reality and QM are the same!! supposedly things get 'bizarre' at small scale, i'm sure you';ve all heard that one. that is why i only see the uncertainty principle as a mathematical accuracy criterion, nothing more. the copenhagen 'interpretation' (dogma) was so wrong in hindsight it is laughable!

the inaccuracy of QM comes about because the E-fields and H-fields are coupled together inside the wave equations, and this mangles ANY CHANCE of getting to the underlying solution. the answer is a smearing of Maxwell's equations, and this is where self-field theory is so much moe tractable than QM because it uses the E- and H-fields. furthermore, because it uses centre-of-motion fields and not point-point fields, it DOES NOT REQUIRE infinite numbers of terms, only two terms per field. hence it can obtain an anaylitic solution for the hydrogen atom;

furthermore, SFT can in principle get analytic solutions for ALL
atomic structures because the radial distances are known to be orthogonal AND are taken to be centre-of motion so we don't get a smearing of the distances involved in the potential terms (1/r type terms). i haven't as yet published a helium paper, but as soon as the hydrogen paper gets into a peer-reviewed journal , i'll follow it up with a helium paper. you can see that SFT is a challenge to many of our most treasured precepts. but it does appear to give a better approximation to reality than its forbears.

looking at GR, it contains a transformation of coordinates, so they ALSO have made the mistake that the maths says that actual space 'warps'. It is only a mathematical model of gravitation, nothing more, for God's sake!! in self-field theory the relativity comes about because of the rotating motion of the photon. as it rotates internally it spends 'elapsed time' and 'total distance travelled' doing INTERNAL motions; simple no brain twisting needed!! this princple of 'internal motion' works for both special and general relativity, and cosmological relativity for that matter!!

Finally i do think you're being hard on uncle al; he had to battle against the tide of his day too you know. so forgive him one or two mistakes; his heart was in the right place for the main (although i wonder if his first wife would like her day at court??) he was a man after my own kidney.