[hdeasy]

I was asked to justify my reaction to the web site at top here. Well, suspicious absence of maths in the blurbs is one point. Another, vague hand waving qualitative ideas. Maybe not bad if they led anywhere, but the feeling in perusing that site is of wading through mental glycerine. The main thing is it seems to be like many TOEs a morass of details, many possibly misleading. The crunch, though, is detailed predicitons where other theories fail. THat's where Heim Theory still seems to be head and shoulders above the other contenders, in predicting elementary particle masses with several decimal place accuracy. Set that against the qualitative, vague predictions of this Aether theory. Heim's Metron lattice is also a sort of aether, but a six, 8 or maybe even a 12 (but no more) dimensional one.

[volantis]

Originally Posted by hdeasy I was asked to justify my reaction to the web site at top here. Well, suspicious absence of maths in the blurbs is one point.

Gosh, you just can't please all the people all the time. I was asked by many people to present a non-technical introduction to the theory. Most people can't do math, or feel their brains are too rusty. If you want to see the math in the theory, look at the book. You can read it free online at Google by searching for "secrets of the aether."

Another, vague hand waving qualitative ideas.

You mean, like the post I'm responding to? You don't provide any quantitative response, it's all handwaving. Point out a specific thing that sounded wrong to you.

The Aether Physics Model is highly quantified. It provides a quantified Unified Force Theory, it quantifies the Aether, it quantifies the exact geometry of subatomic particles. The book provides hundreds of equations, all based upon empirical data.

Maybe not bad if they led anywhere, but the feeling in perusing that site is of wading through mental glycerine.

Perhaps it has something to do with something you ate, or drank?

Without any specific examples, that seems the only reasonable explanation for your personal experience.

The crunch, though, is detailed predicitons where other theories fail.

Every physics theory on Earth has failed at presenting a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory. The Aether Physics Model succeeds at providing a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory. It also succeeds in quantifying the exact source of the fine structure constants, quantifies the first principle of the subatomic particle g-factors, and quantifies the neutron. There are at least a dozen quantified new physics predictions in the theory.

It's amazing what passes for a scientific opinion these days. You go to a web site, read it, and then describe your state of mind as evidence against what you have read.

[hdeasy]

Originally Posted by volantis Point out a specific thing that sounded wrong to you. .

All right - sorry: I`ve browsed through the extracts on google print and it doesn't seem too bad. I suppose I am just a bit prejudiced as I expect to see extra dimensions: Heim has 12, more or less like string theory. Loop Quantum gravity is like a 4-d version of Heim. Yours also appears to stick with the lower dimension number or do I miss something? Some cavils: First, I don't like a theory to be all classical - some quantum mystery must remain - even in Heim some of the dimensions are said to guide probabilities, without determining them exactly, as far as I can tell. Then on the neutrinos - Heim gave exact predictions of masses - already in the '80s: see e.g. my Wikipedia article section : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Th...imental_values

Note that the fractional error in predictions of proton, neutron and electron masses is 1 part in 10,000 - the same fraction occurs for all other known particles such as pions, muons etc. - so it is reasonable to assume that the neutrino predictions will be of similar accuaracy - they are still in the bounds of experimental limits even 20 years after first being calculated. So - do you have similar handy tables with numerical values of predicted masses?

[volantis]

Originally Posted by hdeasy All right - sorry: I`ve browsed through the extracts on google print and it doesn't seem too bad. I suppose I am just a bit prejudiced as I expect to see extra dimensions: Heim has 12, more or less like string theory. Loop Quantum gravity is like a 4-d version of Heim. Yours also appears to stick with the lower dimension number or do I miss something? Some cavils: First, I don't like a theory to be all classical - some quantum mystery must remain - even in Heim some of the dimensions are said to guide probabilities, without determining them exactly, as far as I can tell. Then on the neutrinos - Heim gave exact predictions of masses - already in the '80s:

Thanks for looking a little bit closer.

My theory actually shows their are many dimensions to existence. But as far as the length and time dimensions go, there are only five at the quantum level. At the level of physical matter, one of the dimensions is lost due to the half-spin nature of subatomic particles. Well, it isn't actually lost, we just can't see it.

However, in addition to the three dimensions of length and two dimensios of frequency, there are the dimensions of mass and charge. Mass is a single dimension and there are two different types of charge, each having two dimensions.

So there are the one dimension of mass, two dimensions of frequency, three dimensions of length, and four dimensions of charge, a total of 10 dimensions. There is also the pseudodimension of sphericity, commonly referred to as 4pi. It is one of the strong suits of the Aether Physics Model that it precisely defines dimensions and units, which is something the Standard Model fails at.

As for whether there should be mystery or not, that is not for the scientist to presuppose. The data tells us what is real and what is not. In my experience, through the Aether Physics Model, the presence of mystery seems to indicate an error in understanding the data. So far, I have been able to quantify every aspect of existence without having to resort to mystery, including consciousness.

[hdeasy]

Originally Posted by volantis Thanks for looking a little bit closer. So there are the one dimension of mass, two dimensions of frequency, three dimensions of length, and four dimensions of charge, a total of 10 dimensions. There is also the pseudodimension of sphericity, commonly referred to as 4pi. It is one of the strong suits of the Aether Physics Model that it precisely defines dimensions and units, which is something the Standard Model fails at. As for whether there should be mystery or not, that is not for the scientist to presuppose. The data tells us what is real and what is not. In my experience, through the Aether Physics Model, the presence of mystery seems to indicate an error in understanding the data. So far, I have been able to quantify every aspect of existence without having to resort to mystery, including consciousness.

A somewhat different take on Heim's multi-dimensionality - his arises out of his quantisation of the Ricci tensor and Christoffel symbol. From this process one can construct matrices, the largest of which is 12x12 - the sub-spaces are then defined by decompositon of the non-zero sub-matrices - thus there are 3-space (x1,x2,x3), 1 time(x4), 2 other imaginary time-like coords (x5, x6) and then another subspace (x7, x8 ) and finally less physically interpreted subspace (x9 - x12). He shows that there can't be more than 12. Up to x6 , the first 'Heim-space' is sufficient to derive exact values of the masses: masses arise by interactions of the 6-dim metron space distortions. Additional sub-spaces are added to get more sub-metrics that add 2 more forces to the basic 4 and provide guiding parameters for probability. So you see, your dimensions appear to be associated in a more colourful way with matter properties, but Heim's pop out of quantum relativistic matrix decompostion - to which one may ascribe meaning based on our experience. Spin comes from the directedness of the metron area elements.
Now although the x1 - x12 come out of these equations and matrices, some interpretations of Heim ascribe abstract qualities such as organisation to the x5, x6 etc. - whether this is the case or not is less certain than the purely mathematical machine that grinds out the masses and other properties. As for consciousness, one treads on dangerous ground when one attempts to explain subjective awareness as a pure product of objective correlates. For the objective properties are no more than that - correlations of the ineffability of the colour red, bouquet of a rose or sound of U2, i.e. the 'qualia' of the philosophers.

[infinity]

"A theory that cannot be understood with simple pictures is probably worthless." While there are literally hundreds of opinions about 'this' or 'that' theory I have to believe that a true test of validity must follow what has gone before and simply adds to it. I have also gone to many websites and read different ideas but a lot stray away from the core belief system of physics which is experiment. If no experiment can be performed to prove or disprove a theory than the theory itself will most likely be worthless, at least from a practical point of view. When I studied physics in college a lot of ideas did seem to go against common sense like quantum theory. However, you are never allowed to question the dogma. You either accept it as truth or reject it. In my book The Theory Of Everything(http://www.lulu.com/content/166271) I try to find out if the ideas physicists currently believe are really testable. While supestring theory is the rage these days there is one concept which I believe will prove to be the primary theory of the universe. However, it is up to YOU to solve it. All I do is put the idea at your feet. The choice is up to you to accept it or reject it.

infinity~David Labay

[Guille]

Infinity,

If you look around the forums, around a 90% are threads of members giving their own TOE, and, coincidentially or not, they all claim to have the true, real one unique theory, they claim to have proofs, mathematical background, they claim it's simple and logical....etz. But, again, coincidentially or not, they all either lie or are as stupid as believing their own claims.

What makes YOU so important and why shoudl your theory be better?

[infinity]

Hello Guille,
It is difficult to make a judgement about anyone's theory unless I have read it. I have not read every theory out there. Therefore I cannot say they are wrong. However, I do believe in a T.O.E. that is all encompassing. To say that I have discovered something or to express myself as the authoritarian on such issues would be a bit naive. The idea I express in my book has been known since man could draw it on the cave walls. Why the figure-eight, infinity, lemniscate idea is the geometrical solution to Einstein's unified field theory is simply my opinion based upon reading articles in superstring theory, topology theory, loop-space theory, catastrophe theory, knot theory, twistor theory, chaos theory and the like. At this point it is simply an idea. The math I use in my book is not rigorous enough to be a mathematical proof. I do lay out several approaches which would work in deriving the proper field equation. Don't worry Guille there is plenty of time to solve it. My intention in writing my book was to draw attention to the idea. Solving it will require many physicists working together to solve it. No one can master every discipline in science in their short lifetime. The most we can hope for is to get the BIG IDEA. I think more in terms of geometry. Therefore, I would rely on someone specially skilled in mathematics to prove or disprove this idea. Notice I do not claim to have come up with the idea. This idea existed long before I came along. I am simply pointing at it. Thank you for you reply Guille~

infinity~David Labay

[Guille]

David (by the way, I tihnk this forum is getting quite crowded with davids all around),

As you have responded to me in a proper, intelectual manner, I will read the part of your book that is avaliable in the internet. I'll be looking at the math, if I notice anything I'll tell you, I'm actually also very geometrical, but I have a powerfull number work and equational ability (I do al geebra all the time) anbd my spetiality in maths, at least up to the math I have come up to, is probability.

Can you sumarize the theory in a small paragraph, juSt the basic ideas? And what is the principle that you refer to in your post?

[infinity]

Guille,

Einstein used the principle of eqivalence in his theory of relativity. I believe the figure-eight concept will use the principle of alternation. Just as a standing waves need to oscillate up and down in order to achieve their total form, a figure-eight is simply a manifestation of a standing wave with a single nodal point at its center. In chaos theory we have the Lorentz attractor which looks like a figure-eight, in particle physics we have the Eightfold Way, in knot theory we have nodes which form if we twist a circular loop in half, in cosmology we have ideas like the Torus (figure-eight) universe, in topology we use the Mobius band (a figure-eight) to explain particle spin, and in twistor theory (Roger Penrose's idea) he uses Robinson congruences which resemble a figure-eight. All of these ideas are expressed in the free preview (Chapter 13) of my book. The meat of my book resides on one equation which we can construct and seems rather profound.

nhR = mc^2

It is possible to solve for mass and calculate all the masses of the Standard Model if we allow the frequency (f) to be Rydberg's constant (R). The trouble is, are we allowed to solve for mass? If matter can never reach the speed of light then we are not allowed. Even so, someone would need to come up with an equation similar to Balmer's equation which would substitute for (n). There is a Nobel prize waiting for someone who can figure that out.

The figure-eight concept becomes important to this equation because nodal points follow a type of discreteness that quantum theory requires. Nodes are the geometrical equivalent of mass in this equation. Their location along a string is an implication of how particles of matter would "jump" in their total value. I believe this is the connection between knots in spacetime and matter that Einstein believed to be true. I hope this helps Guille.

infinity~David Labay