Basically all 1/2 spin particles are harmonic oscillators by both quantum and relativistic theory.
I linked the Waves in Milo's paper with the gravity waves of relativity and provided a medium for them to propagate in, energy density.
The spin of the gravity waves at the center of the 1/2 spin particles generate the charge which are carried with the Out gravity wave. EM fields arise just like in Maxwell's equations.
These gravity waves act like the waves of any oscillator. There will be a van der Waals (Casimir) force between particles. So the strong nuclear force is gravity, but the intensity of the waves are much higher due to the high energy density of the nucleus, which is why they are strong despite the low mass.
Distance affects the van der Waals force also, just like it does gravity, and particles are very close in the nucleus, this adds to the strength of gravity waves in the nucleus.
Milo gave a wave equation for pair production from his "scalar waves", but the scalar waves amplitude was based on the mass of the universe, so they are in fact gravity waves. The rest followed from there.
By applying Relativity and Milo's equation of the Cosmos to the quarks, I have arrived at the correct observed mass for the Up and Down quarks. Something quantum theory has been unable to do. Quantum models are off by 30% to 70% or more on this value. To my knowledge, my paper is the only theory to arrive at the correct value for these quarks. This fact alone will support my theory better than anything I could hope for.
I have had some time to return to your paper, and again I find that which I understand to be right on.
I also agree that my drawings in many ways match your descriptions, or your descriptions match my drawings.
I love the quote from the abstract; " ...the way physics has for the most part developed-intuitively and with physical images..."Peter Milonni
OK Postulate #1 Are you describing a membrane here?
Postulate#2 and #3 I'm sorry but I have trouble comprehending a lot in these two postulates. I agree with most if not all of Section 2 of Postulate #3
Postulate#4 I have my own theory about strong and weak nuclear force, which I'll discuss at another thread, in the future.
Postulate#5 p16 OK
Postulate#6p16 I'm still trying to follow why the Euclidian vessel won.( I agree with you about geodesic lines.
Postulate#5p18 OK
Postulate#6p18 I don't know.
Conclusions 1&2 I agree Conclusions 3,4,&5 I don't know.
I sorry I can't give you any real professional input on your wonderful theory L.F. but I'm an accounting professor.
Still the ONE big difference is that I need strings to give the spherical wave a permanent structure. And I'm sorry but I still don't understand why you don't.
#1 Yes you can look at it as a membrane of energy. This method was used in the MIT Bag model for the nucleons. #2 Does not apply to your model, it is only need for standing wave based theories. I should have told you to skip it. #3 Is an exact quantum and relativistic way of saying that quarks are just electrons at a reduced amplitude. In other words they are sub-harmonics of the electron. #4 Was the only explanation for fractional charge value for quarks that I could think of that fit my theory. Other explanations are possible, so disregard if if you wish. #5 Cool #6 As you have a string based model, gravity waves just become a means of transferring information between particles.
As for providing structure, the parts I said you should skip are needed only for wave based electron models like mine to provide structure.
By SWAPing out my electron model for your string placed one, it is not needed. Thus the framework used should work for your model and others.
So my question is, does it help you any with your theory?
I could have made the paper shorter and less complicated by just putting forth my theory. But that is a Me verses Them mentality I do not like. I wanted to also include a framework within my paper that others could use in their work. After all, you may be right, and I may be wrong. But if I can help you with your theory, my work will have value either way it goes.
As for the spaceship example, I am trying to think of a way to word it where it is clearer.
So it is my hope that it may be of some use to you and others.
So my question is, does it help you any with your theory?
I could have made the paper shorter and less complicated by just putting forth my theory. But that is a Me verses Them mentality I do not like. I wanted to also include a framework within my paper that others could use in their work. After all, you may be right, and I may be wrong. But if I can help you with your theory, my work will have value either way it goes.
As for the spaceship example, I am trying to think of a way to word it where it is clearer.
So it is my hope that it may be of some use to you and others.
Little Feather[/quote]
Yes it does Little Feather and thank you. And it does have value to me and I'm sure to others.
You have to write to the audience you want to present it to, in your case physicist, not accountants, and so I wouldn't change anything, except to incorporate your new findings into it.
My idea is really meant for a seventh grader to understand. Far too simplified, mystical, and metaphysical for a physicist to consider.
I would recommend having one of our trained scientist to review. I believe David, RP, Lloyd and some others are better qualified to critique your theory.
Lloyd is an old friend who has followed my work for a long time. From my early ideas in posts on the WSM forum. The probing questions he would ask spurred my early research because WSM could not answer it. He has been very helpful over the last couple of years.
He is not the only one, if I were to give credit to all who have helped me, it would be a long post indeed. After all, I only have a two year degree, so I have had a lot of help along the way.
Do not let being an accountant hold you back. Accountants use a lot of the same mathematical methods that physicists do. Plus they have a keen eye for detail that some physicists lack. This is clear in your case, you have a keen eye for detail and a keen mind. You understood my paper better than some physicists. You do not have some of the preconceived concepts they were taught, thus you are more objective from the outset.
As I pointed out to you before, even leading physicists of the past have used concepts like the Eight Fold Path of Buddha to explain their concepts. Caroline Thompson, a fine physicist, God rest her soul, almost never used equations in explaining her theory. As a famous physicist once said, if you can not explain your theory to your grandmother, you do not really understand it yourself.
I must use math so my paper is acceptable to mainstream readers, but I try to keep it to a minimum so others can follow it also. Your work and ideas are first rate, never doubt that.
I am just glad that my work was of some small help to you.
First and foremost I want to say CONGRATULATIONS on your discovery!!! Being able to derive the mass of the up and down quarks is no small feet and I would say puts you right up there with Volantis and his Aether Physics model which has been able to derive the electrong binding equation, among other feets. I am so delighted for you and am sure that your knowledge will contribute to the possibilities of mankind. I would like to tell you a little bit about what I have discovered as well and also ask you some questions about your theory.
THe base equation for my unified field theory is this
1/0=everything
So my theory is very simple and based upon defining the heretofore undefined number in mathematics as everything. Everything being the total amount of energy/consciousness in existence. So I believe that energy/consciousness is unlimited and that there is an unlimited source of energy which causes the universe to expand. Therefore I believe that the laws of thermodynamics become irrelevant and that it is possible to "create" energy by converting time directly into useable mechanical energy. I believe that this sort of fuel-less, non-polluting power will enable mankind to stop it's oil wars and live in peace as well as clean up the environment. Also I believe this new source of unlimited power will allow us to travel around the universe and even faster than the speed of light.
So here are some questions I have for you. Do you believe the theory of everything will grant us the ability to "create" energy as I believe? Do you believe we will be able to travel faster than TSOL? HOw does your theory describe the big bang. Mine says that time is a causal loop and the reason that the big bang happened is simply because it IS possible to send something faster than TSOL. What do you think of the possibility for magnetic monopoles? Also, has your theory indicated to you any practical applications, such as new technologies for example? I believe that as your theory is sound it might be able to lead you to the design of a new technological device which will help you demonstrate your theory besides just deriving the mass of the up and down quarks, which is very important in and of itself. For example, I believe that the TOE will allow us to transmute one element into another at cold temperatures. In other words, alchemy. So maybe your theory will allow you to discover an alchemical proccess? Or maybe it will give you the design for some other practical technological device. I would be interested to know.
Congratulations again, and I am eager to hear your reply when you have the time
Purveyor of knowledge
Thank you very much for those kind words. I have not seen Volantis and his Aether Physics model. Mine is also a relativistic aether model, so I should check it out.
Because zero has been undefined has lead to a whole host of problems in physics. Renormalization, corrections, and the use of extra dimensions to get around zero without dealing with it. I too believe that energy/consciousness is unlimited. The laws of thermodynamics, and specifically the law of conservation of energy only apply to closed systems. I do not feel that our universe is a closed system.
On energy.
My theory is direct proof of Joe Newman's energy machine. His JN Energy system has been blocked by the government at every turn. While it is not truely energy from nothing, it is very close. More work energy comes out of the system than is put in, but a small amount is needed to run it. My theory is not robust enough yet to make predictions beyond this yet.
On faster than light travel
Even relativity does not exclude faster than light travel, so mine admits it is also a possibility. A good friend of mine, Mansouryar, has worked on this extensively. He has a thread on this forum under the Spacetime section titled "Practical Spacewarp Design" The math behind his theory is way beyond me. When he first published his theory, the press hailed him as the next Einstein, then lost all interest. Only a handful of people have the skill to understand the math behind his theory. As his work is also based on relativity, it would be best to contact him on this matter.
On the BB
My take on the BB is somewhat close to M-brane theory, without the need for extra dimensions, and is caused by the collision of gravity waves on a massive scale.
On magnetic monopoles
If we could stop the spin of electrons or positrons, we would have a magnetic monopole. But my theory is not robust enough to suggest how this may be done.
On practical applications
My theory should allow us to find the minimum amount of energy needed to transmute on element into another, perhaps even into the cold temperature region.
The John Hutchinson effect of anti-gravity can be explained by my theory, I need to contact him in this matter.
The lifter effect, also an anti-gravity effect by a different means, could also be explained by my work. In fact, years ago I stumbled upon this effect while trying to harvest the energy in lighting bolts. My tests showed that my lighting towers wanted to shoot up into the sky and would require massive foundations to keep them rooted. I was unaware of the lifter effect at that time. I need to contact those working on this problem also.
Because of the relation to gravity in my work, I was asked and accepted an offer to join a research group which have been cited by both NASA and Harvard for their work on gravitational abnormalities. This was a great honer for me, as I do not yet have a degree, so I do not know how helpful I will be to them. The offer was made mainly because I used the work of Caroline Thompson in my paper. She was one of the early members of that group.
Well I hope I answered your questions, I shall have to look at your work also. Since the publication of my paper, I have been swamped with replies and links to relevant research. I am suffering from information overload.
Best Regards
Little Feather
Linear Mode
