[Jimbo]

Hi everybody

Like many others I too have come up with a theory of everything.

It must be the simplest theory ever proposed because it explains everything, and I mean everything, with just one substance, one particle and one mechanism for all forces.

It has no new mathematics because it uses the same maths as quantum theory and relativity but it allows everything to be visualised in a logical way.

I did not start out looking for a TOE, only to explain my surface energy studies carried out at a government laboratory in the UK.

When I accomplished this I found that the same thinking allowed me to describe how neutron particles are created but the best bit was that it allowed me to calculate the correct size of the particle and its spin rate. It then turned out that the surface speed of this particle was light speed and I went on to show how photons are generated by emission from the surfaces of these particles, hence the correct speed of light for photons.

I then discovered how the neutron becomes a proton/electron pair and found that the flow rate of electron energy around the proton was 10^39 times the flow rate for gravitational energy. Hence their respective strengths.

The cornerstone of the theory though is that there is another force that is well known but not yet recognised for what it is. It is the centripetal force that is the strongest force in the universe and is responsible for the creation of particles, stars and galaxies. Hence it is no wonder that gravity cannot describe the motions of stars within galaxies.

I have just published the first book on my theory, which is called Fluid Energy Theory, and it describes the cosmological aspects of the theory. The second book is almost finished and this explains how photons interact with matter.

I have a few copies left of my first book and I am willing to send them out free to anyone interested in reviewing it. You can send me an address privately through the contact form on my website.

It can be accessed by searching under fluid energy theory or from the title Wot, no bang?

I look forward to having lively discussions with like minded people, i.e. those with an open mind and who believe that current theories are progressing down avenues that are about as believable as those held by the flat earth society.

Regards

Jimbo

[mkirkpatrick]

Welcome Jimbo,sounds like you have a great theory to share with us,look forward to seeing more,I have thoughts on centerpetal force too,as being part of the twin serpent
of Ying and Yang.


warmest regards michael.

[dleviwing]

Welcome to ToeQuest Jimbo!
It’s nice to see you’ve discovered some of the theory but I think you need to refine your cause and effect concept. If you want the rest of the story, check out my blog pages called “Toronics” (link below). I think we can have a rather lively discussion. You can start your own thread in the "Your TOE Theory" forum or join those already in progress. Let's have some fun!

Toronics

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Jimbo;

You are very welcome here. With just a quick overview of your theory and and thoughts, I see we think very alike. Even though your knowledge far outweighs mine.
Just in the last weeks, I have been very excited about the potential of the vortex being at the centre of all matter. I have been over viewing all the knowledge on sub atomic matter to see how it fits this idea. Now I see that you have already done this, and have come to conclusions, that at a glance, have great agreement with I.

I look forward to reading more and discussing more.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Yes, indeed, Poppa.

As Jim Marsh says,

"…its [Our universe] initial state was motionless and timeless but has since developed into an equilibrium state where the conversion of fluid energy into solid energy is now balanced by the reverse process."

[PoPpAScience]

Hi again Jim;

I have posted in many forums that the TOE has to be, the "Simplest of all Simplicities"

I am reading your web site and find myself very excited. All the thoughts I have been spinning in my head for the last weeks, and the stress of how am I going to refine them in to a coherent explanation, have been eased by the fact that you have already refined them into a much more advance explanation. What a relief, thanks.

You have achieved what I have been discussing with Vincent Wee-Foo in private messages, that he should study up and bring the sub atomic world into his study of the Vortex. I think he will, as I am, happy that we do not have to go to great detail to do this, because you already have.

I ask if you could at least for starters, post a thread with your TOE theory so that I can respond to your theory, as I know many will. Introductions is not the right place to go into detail.

Your new fan, Allen.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Jim;

One last post before I go to bed. I find it so extraordinary how you have written something so SMOOYHLY, that I have been spinning in my head for weeks now, wondering how I was going to express it. I even expressed to my mother how I wish I had the educational background to express what I see in my mind, but you have seemed to have done that for me, thanks.

This is very important to your theory, how an individual of a very different background, can be thinking about the make up of the Universe in such a like minded nature. Over the night I have read off many passages from your web site to my wife, who has to listen to my thinking, and asked her if that did not sound exactly what I have been saying for the last month or so, but of course much more eloquently.

I see it took you a month to post since you joined this forum, I sure hope that you can find time to join us here, in the best forum on the web for expressing ones TOE theories, no matter where they lead.

I sure have a lot to express about your theory, and hope you start a thread soon, out side this introduction, so I and others can interact with your incites.

[Profpat]

Hi Jimbo:

I would think your theory of continuous energy, would fly in the face of the standard model of quantum mechanics and relativity. Which is OK since they too are theories.

I agree with David and suggest you post more about it with your own thread under YOUR TOE THEORIES.

That is where my, An Idea, is posted and many others. Some, like David, post their theories under their blog.

I personally would enjoy further discussion on it, but think a theory thread would be more appropiate than an introduction thread.

Best to you,

Pat

[GodofReason]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Hi everybody

Like many others I too have come up with a theory of everything.

It must be the simplest theory ever proposed because it explains everything, and I mean everything, with just one substance, one particle and one mechanism for all forces.

It has no new mathematics because it uses the same maths as quantum theory and relativity but it allows everything to be visualised in a logical way.

Only one comment. Won't the mechanics of centripetal force have to be modified a little? I saw no math on your website. I mean, Newton used centripetal force to explain gravity as a precise countering force. If gravity does not follow Newton's equations at the galactic level, and we base this observed deviation the known centripetal forces from the rotation of the stars around the galactic center that is supposedly countering said gravity, and there is no dark matter (from your website), wouldn't centripetal forces have to be modified from the current F = v^2/Rm?

Don't get me wrong. I've always thought that rotation of matter is somehow responsible for our perception of mass, but, I guess I'd like to see your equation for how the basket ball I'm spinning on my finger generates more micro gravity per unit mass than the one in at rest in my other hand.

It seems to me that a purely flow rate associated gravity would be distributed by a roughly similar to a distance squared rule, whereas intra-galactic motion indicates a ten-fold increase in attractive forces. Even right outside of our own Solar system the Viking spacecraft (2 of em) have shown a greater pull than was predicted. I think I got just the opposite indication from your website, that the planetary pull was mitigated by galactic centripetal forces.

Anyway, on the balance I really like your approach. Let's tussle with it.

-Mike

[Jimbo]

Let me explain why why my first book contains very little mathematics.

Throughout my life I have been fascinated by science and discovering why things are the way they are. At school and university I was always drifting off during lectures into my own thoughts as I tried to visualise the processes being described. I wanted to know for example by what process light was bent when it entered glass, why it slowed down and then sped up again as it emerged. I just could not accept things unless I could visualise them in my mind.

My heroes of the past are Newton, Faraday and Young. Newton declared that the universe operated like clockwork with effect following cause. I discovered only recently that he though gravity was the condensation of aether into bodies, which is exactly what FET predicts. Faraday believed in forces emanating from wires carrying an electric current, which again is predicted by FET. Young described contact angles of liquids upon solids in just the way I imagined must be occurring in order to explain my experimental data.

Einstein started off brilliantly with his analysis of Brownian motion and the release of electrons by photons. His trouble came when he taught himself mathematics and let the maths dominate his thoughts. Although he argued against the Bohr model of an atom where nothing appeared definite or real, he seemed to have lost touch with reality when he proposed spacetime.

His biggest blunder was when he stated that a mechanical acceleration cannot be distinguished from a gravitational acceleration. In fact they are very different although they are numerically the same. A gravitational acceleration operates simultaneously upon every atom in an object and this is why our bodies cannot sense the acceleration when we are in freefall. A mechanical acceleration, such as in a rising elevator, pushes upon our feet and then sequentially through every atom of our bodies. It is this flow of energy through our bodies that gives us the sensation of acceleration. FET shows in both cases just how these flows of energy are achieved.

When we stand upon the ground the gravitational energy flows into every atom simultaneously but because it cannot be used as kinetic energy to move us downwards, the energy has to flow out of our body and into the ground. It is this flow of energy through our bodies that gives us the sensation of weight.

I therefore decided that I would not use anything but the simplest of maths in my development of FET as it might prejudice my logic. Only when I reached the limits of the theory would I start to perform a mathematical analysis.

Take for example whirlpools. As far as I know, no one has tried to calculate the forces in a continuous substance. I could have spent a long time calculating the forces and their distribution in whirlpools but instead satisfied myself with the analogy of a water whirlpool, where, when items are dropped into it they would circulate around with the flow and speed up as they moved towards the centre.

I later realised that there is a difference between an energy and water whirlpools in that when an object is dropped into water it immediately adopts the same speed as the water. With energy whirlpools it takes time to accelerate to the speed of the energy. At the Earth's surface I calculated the flow rate of gravitational energy to be 11.2km/sec. i.e. equal to its escape velocity. If you jumped out of a plane at 1km and immediately took on the speed of the energy then you would hit the ground in less than 0.1sec. I have shown in book 2 how and why the acceleration is only 9.8m/sec. This rate depends upon the actual energy density of the continuum and this varies from a minimum at the outermost edge of a whirlpool to a maximum at its centre.

Because the Sun draws in continuum energy, it causes the density to decrease slightly the nearer you approach it. Thus, the inverse square rule for Newton's gravity has to be modified slightly to allow for the increased density with distance. This would account for the mysterious slowing down of the 2 Pioneer spacecraft.

I hope this explains the lack of mathematics in book 1 of FET. However, the time is now ripe for a much more detailed analysis. I am still very busy trying to get book 2 ready before the end of this year but if anyone wants to attempt to calculate how stars might behave in a galaxy sized whirlpool you have my blessing and appreciation.

I have been receiving many questions privately as well as from this excellent site and will try to give a weekly update on the most frequently asked aspects of FET.

Jimbo