Welcome to the ToeQuest.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    The Thinker
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    3,278
    Blog Entries
    7
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 12x in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioLao
    I am developing it into a theory of spacetime quantization and one of the results that I was able to get out of it is the calculated mass ratio of proton and electron within 1% discrepancy of the experimental value.
    Did you send me a paper with this result?

    Could you send it to me?

  2. #12
    Blue Belt
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    114
    Thanks Given
    2
    Thanked 14x in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioLao
    I am developing it into a theory of spacetime quantization and one of the results that I was able to get out of it is the calculated mass ratio of proton and electron within 1% discrepancy of the experimental value.
    This is something I have also done, but to an accuracy of three decimal places. The full explanation is in my book, but the final equation for the mass ration of the proton to electron is:

    2^5*pi^3*Phi^2/sqrt(2)

    I have a web page that briefly describes the number as well.
    http://www.16pi2.com/particle_gap_number.htm

    Dave

  3. #13
    Raider of the lost time
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,784
    Blog Entries
    10
    Thanks Given
    1,106
    Thanked 1,474x in 1,194 Posts
    Rep Power
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by GUILLE
    Could you send it to me?
    I'll send it at a later date since it needs reprocessing.

    Quote Originally Posted by volantis
    I have a web page that briefly describes the number as well.
    I'll look at your calculation more carefully at a later date. Similarly, I did have a factor of square root of 2 but the other factors are from matrix multiplication of H+ and H-, which are singular matrices (determinants are zero).
    Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²

  4. #14
    The Thinker
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    3,278
    Blog Entries
    7
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 12x in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Antonio,

    Let me know when you are going to send it (I don't always check my e-mail).

    Volantis,

    I read the small page you gave linked to, but, my question arises:

    Do you have an explenation about why each figure and operation is where it is?

  5. #15
    Raider of the lost time
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,784
    Blog Entries
    10
    Thanks Given
    1,106
    Thanked 1,474x in 1,194 Posts
    Rep Power
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by GUILLE
    Let me know when you are going to send it (I don't always check my e-mail).
    I could send you part of it at the latest by end of this week. This coming Sunday.
    Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²

  6. #16
    Orange Belt
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    23
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 0x in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by volantis
    I understand quite well where you are coming from. For the past three and a half years I have been developing a mathematical, empirically based TOE. It didn't start that way, but it turned out that way.
    Paolo Budinich wrote a theory of everything and published it.
    See hep-th/0311045 "Internal Symmetry from Division Algebras
    in Pure Spinor Geometry".
    Even though he is a member of the physics community, nobody has
    accepted what he wrote.

  7. #17
    The Observer
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,140
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks Given
    25
    Thanked 146x in 97 Posts
    Rep Power
    59

    Download

    If you would like to read the original paper go here:
    http://www.imath.kiev.ua/~snmp2003/Proceedings/budinich.pdf
    David

  8. #18
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    11,625
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks Given
    296
    Thanked 896x in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    154

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by thomas cuny
    Paolo Budinich wrote a theory of everything and published it.
    See hep-th/0311045 "Internal Symmetry from Division Algebras
    in Pure Spinor Geometry".
    Even though he is a member of the physics community, nobody has
    accepted what he wrote.
    Why do you think this is then?
    Is there a valid reason that you could think of.Maybe his idea was too
    off beam for them?


    kind regard michael.
    Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
    reveal herself?

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. will the truth set me free?prehaps.
    By mkirkpatrick in forum Profound Thoughts
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-11-2006, 07:26 PM
  2. Neutrinos have mass, that means ...
    By Mike 5 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-02-2005, 06:06 AM
  3. The Second Theory of Everything
    By david44 in forum Introductions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11-24-2005, 06:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top