Building The TOE In Physics From Scratch

[ThirdWorld]

A brief summary of the new theory that proposes to hold the key to unlocking all physics phenomena is presented in this link: Building The TOE In Physics From Scratch.doc .

What are your preliminary views of this theory?

Roger

[dleviwing]

Lacks continuity. This type of concept has been tried many times and many times it has failed to explain known facts and observations. Sorry Roger but this just doesn’t even make the grade as a possible theory of anything. Is this all you have since your last visit a few years ago?

[Profpat]

A brief summary of the new theory that proposes to hold the key to unlocking all physics phenomena is presented in this link: Building The TOE In Physics From Scratch.doc .

What are your preliminary views of this theory?

Roger

Hi Roger;

I gave it a cursory review and here are my preliminary comments;

1} It is an interesting theory, but I don't fully understand it. I should point out however I am an accounting professor and not a scienctist,

2) When do positive charges attract each other?

3) I know you looked at my Idea and I have the proton and neutron with positive and negative space, and therefore no problem with bonding. In fact I think it explains strong and weak nuclear forces. In other words there is a limit to the bonding.( I think this can be proved through computer simulation to see how many protons and neutrons can be bound before breakdown.)

4) I don't know why so many people have problems with strings as being the fundamental substance.
What could be more fundamental than a one dimensional planck's lenght string?

5) There are a number of other members of this forum that don't like strings either, and therefore may like your theory of UNOMA, but I'll let them make their own comments.

6) Like my Idea your theory isn't a TOE but a GUT, in that I haven't seen where you reconciled gravity, which is the crucial element to a TOE. ( As I have told by others )

I need to peruse your theory before I can offer any additional comments I might have.

Best to you Roger,

Pat

[ThirdWorld]

*** Thanks for showing interest. I must say I am impressed by your CV, I hope I am not being overly optimistic in thinking therefore that no bad science will pass before you as good science neither will good science (though new) escape your acknowledgements.

You said:

Lacks continuity.

*** Extremely brief I will agree but where is the discontinuity?

From the eternal infinite particle of energy that I described to the fundamental particle of matter (the UNOMA) then to electrons, protons, nuclei and atoms with their surrounding field of forces, where have I left anything out?

This type of concept has been tried many times and many times it has failed to explain known facts and observations.

*** This TYPE of concept yes, but not this very concept. Without my going through the tedium of presenting the entire theory to you I give you the privilege of highlighting any so called known fact of physics which in your opinion this theory cannot explain.

And I can almost sense it is going to be a very long day with you bringing up as fact the theory that like (positive) charges ALWAYS repel each other. If this is the "fact" you are talking about I invite you to bring it up let us discuss.

Ask whatever you wish, don't be afraid that I might not be able to answer.

Sorry Roger but this just doesn’t even make the grade as a possible theory of anything. Is this all you have since your last visit a few years ago?

*** I'll mark your words. Let me see if you can be as bold when it all starts to hang out.

I look forward to you trying to prove my theory to be of no substance and to a fruitful debate.

Roger

[jon]

Well, seeing as your theory agrees with my theory I'll vouch for you. My theory is posted in the articles section, and deals with this topic over a longer more explained postulate. Your idea of bouncing back is original, if there is a mathematical proof to this idea, I have not yet found it.


Theunificationtheory.com

~theunify

[ThirdWorld]

Well, seeing as your theory agrees with my theory I'll vouch for you.

*** There are some broad areas of agreement between our theories in that we both seem to agree that force in general is caused by kinetic energy changes of colliding particles.

I can't say, however, that I believe that these forces are mediated by photons or that gravitons are emitted from the earth, orbit it then 'fall' back to the earth as you seem to be saying: I only had a cursory look at your theory so I stand corrected.

The clear picture of what my theory is is outlined very briefly in the link I gave above: if I were to draw analogies I will say that my energy particle equates to your graviton but this particle PROPELS itself through space.

My UNOMA is actually a photon (at rest) but I prefer to refrain from calling it that since those who already confine photons to having no mass, charge etc will have problems with the properties that UNOMAS are proven to have according to my theory.

My theory is posted in the articles section, and deals with this topic over a longer more explained postulate.

*** I don't really know how to access the articles section: apparently it is not included in the links above. I was only able to look at your article by cutting and pasting the link you gave.

If you will like me to critique your theory you will have to direct me to the place where this can be done.

Concerning the length of my postulate, I have a 70 page paper written on the subject. I will not make that paper available however because it only discourages readers from commenting when they see the amount of material and concepts they have to go through.

It will be much easier to discuss it in bits and pieces as I have presented it.

Your idea of bouncing back is original, if there is a mathematical proof to this idea, I have not yet found it.

*** The laws of mechanics for colliding particles can easily be invoked: if two billiard balls traveling at the same speed in opposite directions make a head on (elastic) collision they will rebound in opposite directions with the same speed.

The area of contentious math lies in determining that an object of zero size and infinite density has a finite mass and in other areas where products of zero and infinity must be determined.

I have, however, developed [not invented] mathematics to deal with those situations.


Roger

[ThirdWorld]

Profpat, you asked:

When do positive charges attract each other?

*** Positive charges attract when they are vibrating in phase, ie traveling in the same direction, with each other.

When they are vibrating (180 degrees) out of phase, that is traveling in opposite directions, they repel.

Particle charges such as electrons, neutrinos etc, gyrating 180 degrees out of phase of each other are referred to as anti particles of each other by particle physicist.

I know you looked at my Idea and I have the proton and neutron with positive and negative space, and therefore no problem with bonding. In fact I think it explains strong and weak nuclear forces. In other words there is a limit to the bonding.( I think this can be proved through computer simulation to see how many protons and neutrons can be bound before breakdown.)

*** (i) What is there in those positive and negative spaces that allows the particles to interact?

(ii) Are you saying that neutrons are negative?

We can start a thread to discuss these and other items of your theory if you wish.

I don't know why so many people have problems with strings as being the fundamental substance.

What could be more fundamental than a one dimensional planck's lenght string?

*** There are three things that are established as fundamentals of physics: Mass, Length and Time.

If a string is another fundamental principle then it cannot be dependent of the others, that is, it cannot have length.

If it is a fundamental particle made up of M, L, and T then the author must say how do these fundamentals make up a string. In other words a string is a string of what?

So unless the authors of that theory can tell us what a string is made of they cannot claim to have a theory of everything in physics because the theory still has unexplained elements.

Like my Idea your theory isn't a TOE but a GUT, in that I haven't seen where you reconciled gravity, which is the crucial element to a TOE. ( As I have told by others )

*** As I said, the article is only a synopsis of the theory but it explains all.

The field of force around the nucleus I described is responsible for three of the four forces because force is one phenomenon: there is really no difference in the nature or origin of gravity, electrostatic charge, or nuclear force.

Further, magnetism is similar to them all except it originates from the cores of UNOMAS in electron clouds.

So the field of force of UNOMAS enables them to bond together. The pushed out field from this bonding of UNOMAS provides the forces that keep electrons in orbit about the atom.

Beyond the electron cloud exists the field that has been weakened due to the energy it expended in keeping electrons in orbit. This weakened field holds the atoms together.

Beyond the atoms is the remaining field that has been further depleted of energy from holding atoms together. This field is the gravity or electrostatic field: these two fields are exactly the same only called by a different name.

If the amount of orbiting electrons is altered the strength of this electrostatic/ gravity field is altered accordingly.

Plasma materials such as stars have little or no orbiting electrons hence their electrostatic/ gravity field is very strong.

Finally, the only reason why the weight of an object is not altered when its charge is altered is because the gravity field of the earth can pull no more on the enhanced field of a charged object than it can on a so called neutral one. Further, the earth itself is usually beyond reach of the field of the object's electrostatic field.

If the object is weighed when it is close enough to the earth's surface off course it will weigh more accordingly.

I have said enough, even too much here, so I will leave it here for now.

Best to you Roger,

*** Thank you.

Roger

[Profpat]

Thank you for your response Roger;

" *** (i) What is there in those positive and negative spaces that allows the particles to interact?

(ii) Are you saying that neutrons are negative?"

No I think neutrons are neutral with a balance of 4 positive areas and 4 negative areas. Like the sun I view the proton and neutron to be multipoled, not bipoled like the earth.

As far as binding it would be difficult and that is why most of the universe is hydrogen or helium. To bond beyond that would take the crushing pressure of stars.

Once bound they stay together mostly from the attachment of positive and negative areas.( please refer to my Venn diagram. ) You know opposites attract. But I think only the proton is a stable particle, in that they are unable to free the quarks inside the proton. Though I read where a free proton, and neutron convert to each other every 23 seconds, which is near eternity on a nuclear level. But that is why I view the proton/electron & neutron to be the same particle.

Once again best to you Roger,

Pat

[dleviwing]

*** I look forward to you trying to prove my theory to be of no substance and to a fruitful debate.

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. How does it compare or explain current phenomena better than the Standard Model? Do you really understand the "Standard Model" physics? Show how your concept unifies the forces of nature to combine Relativity and Quantum Physics.

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? 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. 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.

Sorry for the frankness but you really do need it.

[neutralino]

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. How does it compare or explain current phenomena better than the Standard Model? Do you really understand the "Standard Model" physics? Show how your concept unifies the forces of nature to combine Relativity and Quantum Physics.

An excellent response! The proof of a theory always lies upon the person whose theory it is.