An Idea

[Profpat]

And Prof. the male would have felt threatened if the female would have rich. Their bragging would have stopped...

Hi Dipayankar;

If you were to set up a friend on a blind date, a womans first question would probably be; " What does he do for a living? " The mans first question would probably be; " What does she look like? "

Viva la difference. Yin/Yang eternally onward.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

OK KiGs how about this for human trinity.

Your body, my body, everybodies body, is made up of a trinity of interactions, namely positive, negative and neutral. This is the P, Proton +, the E, Electron -, and the N, Neutron 0.

Thus proving that the PENis mighter than the sword.

Best to you,

Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

If I read your comment right you don't believe in Einstein's Special Relativity Theory.

Hi Profpat

Yes to Relativity - both General and Lorentzian but not Einstein's Special.

If you want justification for this please look back at the posts as you provided the link which convinced me that this was the right path.

regards
Felix

[Profpat]

"Special Relativity": The strongest direct evidence comes probably from particle accelerators, in which subatomic particles such as electrons and positrons are accelerated to within a few inches per second of the speed of light. We can observe very clearly and accurately the changes in, for instance, the apparent masses of the particles. They are observed to increase dramatically, and in fact new and much heavier particles can be created by making counter-rotating beams of, say, electrons and positrons, collide head-on with each other. Special relativity has played a key role in the design and operation of particle accelerators for many decades.

Hi Felix;

The above is from the Goddard Space Flight Center. While both the big bang and SR are theories there is pretty good evidence for both. SR also had the experiment where clocks ran different, when accelerated, as predicted by the theory.

But, needless to say, you are entitled to your own theories.

Best to you Felix,

Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

But, needless to say, you are entitled to your own theories.

Hi Pat

SR describes the way things are to observers and relates that to their relative motion. As a result of its acceptance, the prefered frame of reference was rejected. LR is more intune with a theory which includes an absolute background.

My TOE (http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-th...nce-shiva.html) brings together quantum gravity (as in GR), wave particle duality, plus the strong and weak forces; can you show me how SR does this?

regards
Felix

PS - I am still working on electro magnetism

[dipayankar]

Ha ha I need to try that out...

Hi Dipayankar;

If you were to set up a friend on a blind date, a womans first question would probably be; " What does he do for a living? " The mans first question would probably be; " What does she look like? "

Viva la difference. Yin/Yang eternally onward.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Felix;

" wave particle duality, plus the strong and weak forces; can you show me how SR does this? "

I don't think SR was meant to explain wave/particle duality or the strong and weak nuclear forces Felix, for that explanation you'll have to scroll up to post # 40 above in my An Idea.

SR describes how time/space and motion are relative to one another and that it does beautifully, with much good evidence to support it.

Best to you Felix,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Everyone;

As some of you know, my latest project is an attempt to reconcile gravity with light.

1) Both are infinite in range.
2) Both follow the inverse law, due to their geometry.
3) Both operate at light speed.
4) One is repulsive, the other attractive.

In order to come up with a T.O.E. gravity has to reconciled with the other forces. It is my understanding, that at the beginning of the universe there was only EMR and gravity. In fact my, An Idea only requires EMR, it doesn't need the strong or the weak force, in that I believe them to be part of the EMR force.

That leaves gravity.

So I would appreciate any and all members help in this attempt to reconcile gravity with EMR.

Thank you,

Pat

[dipayankar]

For that Prof, we need to define Gravitational force properly. is it a real force or a pseudo force?

Hi Everyone;

As some of you know, my latest project is an attempt to reconcile gravity with light.

1) Both are infinite in range.
2) Both follow the inverse law, due to their geometry.
3) Both operate at light speed.
4) One is repulsive, the other attractive.

In order to come up with a T.O.E. gravity has to reconciled with the other forces. It is my understanding, that at the beginning of the universe there was only EMR and gravity. In fact my, An Idea only requires EMR, it doesn't need the strong or the weak force, in that I believe them to be part of the EMR force.

That leaves gravity.

So I would appreciate any and all members help in this attempt to reconcile gravity with EMR.

Thank you,

Pat

[Profpat]

For that Prof, we need to define Gravitational force properly. is it a real force or a pseudo force?

A great question Dipayankar ( I've missed your penetrating question BTW )

I've seen it described both ways, i.e. as a force between two massive objects, but also ( which is more to my liking ) as an effect. This I vision, as the spatial warping, that large objects cause in the fabric of space.

What do you think?

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. Negative gravity, such as a quasar being spewed out by a black hole may be a force, due to negative pressure.