[ThirdWorld]

I don't believe that's the way it works Roger. You provide the proof your theory works and I will comment on its validity.

*** The theory itself is the proof that I am tendering. In math many theorems are shown to be true or proven just by presenting the analysis as proof.

I don't see them performing experiments to these theorems. There is no experimental proof that the velocity of light relative to any other moving frame of reference is a constant and yet some hold to the theory that purports this error.

But if you are seriously concerned about experimental proof to satisfy YOUR [not my] mind I ask you to hang two small metal spheres by conducting wires from an electrode charged positive by rectifying the voltage output of a 20,000 V transformer.

The spheres need only be a few [about 6] millimeters apart. Despite the erratic behavior of the spheres [attracting and repelling each other] if you now place a drinking straw between the spheres but just beneath them you will be able to stabilize their movements and cause them to kiss each other and stay bonded even after the straw is removed.

Now switch off the transformer and the two equally charged conducting spheres will remain kissing each other for up to 75 seconds.

When you have done this you may comment to me on the validity of my claim that positive charges can attract each other.

Notice I said that this is to satisfy your mind and to disabuse it of the errors of some of the erroneous conclusions of classical electrostatics.

How does it compare or explain current phenomena better than the Standard Model? Do you really understand the "Standard Model" physics?

*** No, I don't really understand the standard model but tell you what, neither do they that propose it. They will confess that there are too many loose ends in that theory and that it does not explain gravity. Further they talk of theoretical particles and phenomenon like quarks and spin without being able to say how spin could arbitrarily cause attraction and repulsion at a distance from the particle.

They further talk of force being mediated by particles [bosons and fermions I think] but can't explain how can a sub-particle jumping from one particle to the next [ie proton to proton say] cause attraction.

I cannot even correctly represent that theory because I think I already know what is right so I need not fill my brain with their errors and they have not asked me for a review of their work except for one scientist from CERN who eventually aborted the discussion for reasons known only to himself when I began to pry into the concepts of "virtual quantum field" I think and other aspects of his work.

But off course my theory explains it better than the standard model as I have outlined above. Maybe it sounds too simple to you to be true, but the earlier post explains all forces although I haven't made the distinctions that they are making: I have not referred to strong and weak forces because I need not. I have however explained how the protons etc [made up of UNOMAS] are held together.

Show how your concept unifies the forces of nature to combine Relativity and Quantum Physics

.


*** Why do I need to clean up the mess that is relativity etc, let them sort out their own errors. I say this with a small amount of reservation because there are a few elements of all those theories that are correct but for the most part they are flawed.

What I have presented is a consistent set of ideas that are supported by scientific observations and that explains the forces [including gravity] and matter.

Are you the type that would prefer to have smoke blown up your ass and told your brilliant or are you looking for honesty and truth?

*** Oh I see, I saw in another thread someone being pressed to publish his TOE so it can be reviewed even though he said he wanted to keep it secret. Here am I presenting mine and you are viewing that as my efforts to get you to say that I am brilliant.

If you are not up to the task of reviewing a TOE say so. Don't try to make the author of the TOE feel guilty of being high minded, that's a cheap cup out.

I repeat, what I want is a review by experts, if that is not what this site is about well then maybe I am in the wrong place.

If you don't recognize that you are repeating old ideas then you haven't applied yourself to the study required to comprehend the science.

*** There are very correct old ideas like those simple Newtonian mechanics laws and theories and some very incorrect new ideas like relativity, quarks , strings, uncertainty principle etc as far as I understand them. So nothing is wrong with repeating what is correct in fact even the E=mc^2 equation that is mystified as some new type of quantum physics that defies Newtonian mechanics is nothing more than the ke equation for matter particles of mass 'm' and velocity 'c' as they rebound after elastic collision with an object or particle.

And this is proof via ARGUMENT that I am rendering: I am not trying to impress upon you how smart I am.

Stop asking others to prove you wrong; your own study should be able to point out most of your problems! You cannot get a science education here or anywhere else on the internet. If you don't believe me then take your theory to your local college physics professor.

*** My study has revealed only solutions not problems. But I am aware that I might be less than objective in reviewing my own work although I don't think that I am because the hard questions I have asked myself and answered no one has yet ventured near to asking me.

I can ask everyone else hard questions about their theory that they can't answer but no one will ask me questions too hard to answer. I am looking for the best in the business to question me, the man on the street is of no use to me in this respect.

If you are up to it please let me have your services or recommend someone to me who can.

Sorry for the frankness but you really do need it.

*** I want more than frankness, I need a critical review of the contents of my theory.

Roger

[ThirdWorld]

You know opposites attract.

*** No I don't "know" that, in fact what I know is that positives attract, negatives repel but *opposites do not occur simultaneously in nature but if they did they will have no effect on each other.

Here's why. A simple mental experiment: say you and your wife are standing on roller skates. Then if your wife is pulling you and you her you both will come together ie be attracted like positive charges do.

If she is pushing you and you her you will both separate like negative charges repel.

But if she is pushing and you pulling with the same force or vice versa, nothing doing because opposite charges/ forces have no effect on each other: action and reaction are always equal and opposite according to the old adage.

*Matter switches back and forth between positive and negative many trillion times per second so that at any one instant the whole universe is positive and at another it is negative. The force exerted during the positive state is greater than that of the negative so that the net state of matter is positive.

A negatively charged particle or object is made by increasing orbiting electrons that absorb /use up some of the pulling force of atoms leaving them net negative.

And yes, contrary to what the Uncertainty Principle says electrons DO orbit nuclei.

But that is why I view the proton/electron & neutron to be the same particle.

*** Tell me in your own simple way of understanding these particles, how can these particles all be the same but yet have different masses and charges?

Roger

[theunify]

Thirdworld, it sounds like the theory is unpolished and not ready for experts to read it.

1. Experts would not read it because it contains formatting errors.
2. Experts would not read it because it does not contain your full name.
3. Experts would not read it because it contains no contact information.

I suggest you read my theory, your PM suggested that you think gravitons do not circle the earth and simply fall causing gravity, I apologize if you think this is the common veiw on TOEQUEST, it is not the common veiw. Actually if you would read "Quantum Theory" by David Bohm he suggest that idea, and it is not supported by evidence. On Toequest many of believe that any discussion of gravity is secondary to the discussion of the origin of matter. Your idea of "self propulsion" of particles is quite accurately described in Dlvwing's theory on Toronics, in which motion is a consquence of a symmetry break and further more, this is conclusive enough mathematically to disprove that particles are ever at rest, ever.

Who suggested that photons did not move? Please answer this, I mean no disrespect.

[ThirdWorld]

Thirdworld, it sounds like the theory is unpolished and not ready for experts to read it.

1. Experts would not read it because it contains formatting errors.
2. Experts would not read it because it does not contain your full name.
3. Experts would not read it because it contains no contact information.

*** I'm not sure I know what you are referring to as my theory. Do you mean the abstract of sorts I presented at the beginning of this thread?

I presented that summary expecting that preliminary comments would be made on the contents of my theory in this forum. If something more formal is required I will be only to happy to come up with that but some feedback on the ideas I presented here could provide me with a good guide as to what of the presentation of a theory really catches the eyes of the experts.

Like I said I already have a 70 page paper that outlines the theory so I can customize it to suit what the experts find palatable.

So far it does not seem to me that much interest is paid to content, but much seems to be given to appeal.

I suggest you read my theory, your PM suggested that you think gravitons do not circle the earth and simply fall causing gravity,

*** I browsed through the chapter you provided but I made the mistake the first time I looked at it of thinking that David Bohm's ideas were yours.

Your idea of "self propulsion" of particles is quite accurately described in Dlvwing's theory on Toronics, in which motion is a consquence of a symmetry break and further more, this is conclusive enough mathematically to disprove that particles are ever at rest, ever.

*** I haven't read that theory but it is nice to know that we have some common ideas: my particle of energy, though of zero size, has the space parameter of orientation. This means that there is asymmetry within it and I have conceptualized it as such. So maybe and hopefully indeed Dlvwing's ideas and mine agree here.

Those energy particles are constantly accelerating and I have estimated that they might reach the speed of light within fractions of a mm. For large objects they travel hundreds of thousands of kilo meters so the speed they attain is unimaginable.

Who suggested that photons did not move? Please answer this, I mean no disrespect.

*** I am not sure what you are referring to here, however, photons are UNOMAS in my theory and these are not the energy particles that are in constant acceleration. UNOMAS have finite size and may easily contain billions of the energy particles.

UNOMAS can come to rest and combine to form electrons, protons, nuclei and all other intermediate particles and atoms.

So I am claiming that photons can and do come to rest and therefore I might have referred to photons at rest earlier.

For information, I also said that these UNOMAS [photons] are gyrating constantly, so when I say photon at rest I mean photon that is not in translational motion. It is however in motion of vibration.


Roger