[NotStein]

Originally Posted by neutralino

Well, I don't understand it enough to say whether it is a grand unified theory (i.e. I don't know whether it "works"). But, you do realise that including gravity in any theory like this is the hard part, right? That's where we're currently at!

It could be a TOE if you simply throw out the idea that gravity is a force. I believe that gravity is just the centifugal effect we feel of the surface of our universe in motion. Einstein showed we can't tell the difference between the two. All points in a 1D or 2D universe lie on the surface when viewed from our 3D (no spacetime for now) universe. Similarily, all points in our 3D universe lie on a 3D surface when viewed from higher dimensions. Think of the 2D balloon universe. Put it in rotation. Lumps of matter on the inside surface will cause dimples; will ultimately cause it to stretch. Imagine it stretching out farther & farther, folding over and over again back onto itself; like a cantor or julia set, or like 'taffy', while still keeping the rotational motion aspect. The re-folded surfaces sliding past each other.

If our 3D universe behaves the same way viewed from higher dimensions, with us on the 'inside' surface, gravity just becomes centrifugal force, with matter falling into the 'fold-points'/dimples. At what speed does it rotate? Why, 'C' of course, which would simply explain why matter can't achieve 'C'; because it's motion (relative to the surface) would cease, which Propfat has pointed out before, is impossible. It also could explain where all the anti-matter is. It's on the 'outside' surface, each anti-particle tied to it's particle twin 'through' the surface! Width of the surface, why PLanck's 'H', of course.

Sure would enjoy some feedback on why this vision I see can't work.

Jeff.

[Profpat]

Hi Jeff;

It's an interesting theory, I know I like antimatter to be accounted for somewhere, to reestablish the symmetry of the big bang.

Your theory would do that, but I thought our universe didn't have an inside, only relatively speaking flat,

So while it is a good idea, as with so many good ideas, no evidence yet. That in itself doesn't make it wrong, only speculative. My Idea would fall in this category.

Best to you Jeff,

Pat

Pat

[NotStein]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Hi Jeff;

It's an interesting theory, I know I like antimatter to be accounted for somewhere, to reestablish the symmetry of the big bang.

Your theory would do that, but I thought our universe didn't have an inside, only relatively speaking flat,

So while it is a good idea, as with so many good ideas, no evidence yet. That in itself doesn't make it wrong, only speculative. My Idea would fall in this category.

Best to you Jeff,

Pat

Pat

Speculative is putting it modestly! I wish I could grab ahold of it & turn it inside out to prove it. It sits well in my gut, though, and meshes with the other crazy ideas it shares space with (head-space, that is!). I need some help to see if it violates any basic physical or quantum laws, which if it did, might push me on another track or new (in)sight. I apologize for not yet absorbing your take. As amends, know I will in time. Thanks,
Jeff