The Incremental Universe

[WillieB]

Being a brand new and timid member of this forum I am hesitant to lock horns with some of the braniacs that I have detected. Nevertheless the forum title is Theory of Everything and thus it is an appropriate site to test the waters and so I am posting a link to my site.

Of course I welcome comments suggestions and even criticisms. But I do ask that, before you do comment or criticize, you study the entire paper and be sure that you understnad the constituency and actions and reactions of "the increment." I agree that the language of the paper easily identifies me as a rank amateur in higher physics. That doesn't in any way detract from the conformance of the described conditions to a myriad of accepted scientific facts and theories. The developement of the field forces is long and boring but it was necessary to demonstrate the applicability of the concept.

I am illiterate in higher mathematics so any attacks or comments in this lamguage will go over my head and will be ignored.

One thing. There does remain a misleading statement in the paper. The first four words of discussion item 1 now reads "Space itself consists of.." That should have read "Otherwise empty space contains.." There is also one more comment that should be made. Illustration one, the depiction of the increment, is not as clear as it should be. The artist did an ok job but it was difficult for me to describe what I was looking for. The heavy arrows represent paired charge bundles in their orbits around and through the circular orbit of the single unpaired charge bundle. The shaded area is the paired bundles returning up through the center of this circular orbit. Also there should be more of an indication that the paired bundles are on a corkscrewing spiralling path providing a spin to their motion. I hope that you will be able to picture this.

It is not the intent of the paper to disprove or replace any current theories. The intent is to demonstrate its compliance to the presently generally accepted conditions.

http://www.theincrementaluniverse.com

[mkirkpatrick]

Welcome WillieB,I send you greetings from England,and welcome to this forum,
I have just had a very brief look at your work,will look again later,interesting stuff.
regards michael.

[WillieB]

mkirkpatrick

Thanks for the quick reply and kind words. I have edited the post to add a few clarifications. You may want to check there before spending time at the site

Thanks again .... WillieB

[dleviwing]

WillieB;
Welcome to ToeQuest.
I started to review your paper but I find that when you try to explain one misunderstood phenomena by another misunderstood phenomena, you simply achieve nothing. To try and explain magnetism or anything else by using opposite charges is assuming that charge is an absolute fundamental of the universe. It is NOT. All phenomena have a root cause and effect mechanism and when you find that mechanism you can explain all the forces of nature in pure interactions of fundamental absolutes of nature. You can only use charge to explain something else when you have defined the fundamental cause of charge.

Look for the fundamental root absolutes of cause to explain all the effects called phenomena. Your paper shows a good start but I fear you have many years to go.

[WillieB]

David:

First thanks for your attention to the paper. Yes. the existence of charge, an unexplained physical phenomena, is essential to the operation of the model that the paper proposes and it is fundamental. The attractions and repulsions between like and unlike charges are the mechanisms that allows the establishments of the orbits which permit the existence of the "increment." Without electrical charge the universe simply would not exist. Why are you so adamant that charge is not fundamental to the universe.

I am somewhat bemused by your statement that the use of one unexplained phenomena to justify the existence of another - magnetism - is somehow not permitted or acceptable. You certainly are not denying the existence of either electrical charge or of magnetism. Why can't they be interelated with one supporting or actually creating the existence of the other? Magnetism is simply a force which is generated by the polarization of the flow vectors of the increments.

I do hope that you will read the paper again and try to bring your understanding of its concepts to the point that you can accept its basic thrust.

Most sincerely. WillieB

[Nobody]

I read the whole lot, but going to read it a few more times. Quite amazing as far as I'm concerned. I'm surprised I didn't see zpe somewhere in there, it's somewhat similar to Setterfield's ideas.

Just one question in number 8, "variance of time, mass, and length with velocity," you say acceleration stretches the yardstick. I thought that it would shrink due to opposing inertial mass.

[WillieB]

I read the whole lot, but going to read it a few more times. Quite amazing as far as I'm concerned. I'm surprised I didn't see zpe somewhere in there, it's somewhat similar to Setterfield's ideas.

Just one question in number 8, "variance of time, mass, and length with velocity," you say acceleration stretches the yardstick. I thought that it would shrink due to opposing inertial mass.

To Nobody:

What an unassuming moniker!

Thanks for your interest! No. Acceleration of the increments opens the spacing between them and hence the surrounding space and all that it contains is actually stretched.

Willie B.

PS - I am not at all familiar with Setterfield's work. Can you fill me in?

[dleviwing]

Magnetism is simply a force which is generated by the polarization of the flow vectors of the increments.

WillieB;
This is not even good intellectual gibberish WillieB. Calling something a fundamental of the universe does not make it so even if you were to have a PhD in physics. Give reference to the experiment or data that you feel supports your claims and I will question my knowledge of physics. Unless new experiments have been done to support magnetism and charge as true fundamentals of the universe and not just a fundamental measurement of a phenomena, I can say absolutely that they are NOT fundamentals.

Your paper indicates that you have re-invented the wheel a few times but, at lease each time has pointed you in the right direction. You need to get by the intellectual BS and recognize true fundamentals of nature. You should read volontis' "Aether Dynamics" He has done the real math to define space in terms of charge units.

You have done work that is well worth discussion on ToeQuest but it is far from a GUT and farther from a TOE.

Just one question in number 8, "variance of time, mass, and length with velocity," you say acceleration stretches the yardstick. I thought that it would shrink due to opposing inertial mass.

Nobody;
You are absolutely right.

[Nobody]

I had sent Setterfield an email ironically with an idea of motion being the result of particle states recreated incrementally, based on my idea that any motion at all is an impossibility, but the response I got was in the form of his own ideas of virtual particles and the like from his site.

He essentially counters redshifting concepts by proposing zero-point energy increases over time which slows light speed to give the impression of expansion.

http://www.setterfield.org/zpe.htm

Thanks for the clarification on the other matter. I was thinking that acceleration requires an outside force applied to increments that would be accelerating, whereby the increments would resist the acceleration because internally they're already at c. Like a 50 mph wind blowing against a resisting tornado, but I think I might be looking at your point in the wrong way now that you say internal increments open as well.

[WillieB]

To Nobody:

Nevermind my question about Helen Setterfield. I went to her website and her work really is closely related to mine. I found that I have hour upon hour of study and contemplation ahead of me in an attempt to more closely marry her concepts to my own. Again my heartfelt thanks for leading me to this point.

Willie B