What your TOE must have - Page 3

Guille · 04-14-2005, 12:06 PM

battybat,

does your theory unify the forces?

do you have a major concept that is the basic of your theory (resumed in asingle sentence)?

battybat · 04-15-2005, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Do you have some mathematical descriptions for these vorticles? Say, using divergence and curl of vector or tensor calculus similar to what's been used in all field theories (EM, QFT, gravity, Yang-Mill field, etc.).

No, I haven't got round to that yet, Antonio. I imagine the maths for a vortex in the shape of an open spiral torus could be borrowed from fluid mechanics. My problem is that to get a complete picture of what's happening I need to be working in an expanding frame of reference and I don't know of anybody whose done that as yet. If you know of any workers in this field, please put me in touch. I've attempted this on a primitive level in the 'Gravity - the Maths' page of my website and was pleased to be able to show that a body expanding exponentially produces a constant acceleration at its surface. I think this was important as, to produce this surface acceleration, you would expect, intuitively, that the expansion of matter would also have to accelerate and this would obviously be impractical. If you have any maths skills please check out the logic and let me know if it makes sense.
As I can visualise how the theory works, I'm happy with it, but I understand that , to satisfy people like yourself, I'll have to authenticise it with more maths at some point.

Battybat

battybat · 04-15-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by <<>>

battybat,

does your theory unify the forces?

do you have a major concept that is the basic of your theory (resumed in asingle sentence)?

I'm not sure what you mean by your first question, Guille. The theory explains all four in kinetic terms, so in that sense it unites them, but it does this in different ways - see items 2 and 3 in my last posting. It doesn't do what con-phys does and invent phoney particles, like gravitons to try to get all four forces conforming to the same modus operandum.
To answer your second question, I'll quote from my last post:-
"1. Matter is a type of electro-magnetic radiation, like light, but because it is a more concentrated form of energy it radiates in spiralling vortices or vorticles. Time is just the state of this radiation."
Clever, eh? - answering your question before you asked it - time travel is a great asset.

Dr. Battybat Who

AntonioLao · 04-15-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by battybat

My problem is that to get a complete picture of what's happening I need to be working in an expanding frame of reference

Try using an Archimedean spiral whose general polar equation is given by

$r=a\theta^{\frac{1}{n}}$

when n=-2, it's called lituus spiral; n=-1, hyperbolic spiral; n=1, Archimedes' spiral; n=2, Fermat's spiral. Look more about it at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ArchimedeanSpiral.html

I am also trying to use the spiral to justify my own Lorentz invariance expression given by

$\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{r}=c^2$

a is generalized acceleration, r is the metric, c is the speed of light.

Guille · 04-15-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by battybat

I'm not sure what you mean by your first question, Guille. The theory explains all four in kinetic terms, so in that sense it unites them, but it does this in different ways - see items 2 and 3 in my last posting. It doesn't do what con-phys does and invent phoney particles, like gravitons to try to get all four forces conforming to the same modus operandum.
To answer your second question, I'll quote from my last post:-
"1. Matter is a type of electro-magnetic radiation, like light, but because it is a more concentrated form of energy it radiates in spiralling vortices or vorticles. Time is just the state of this radiation."
Clever, eh? - answering your question before you asked it - time travel is a great asset.

Dr. Battybat Who

That who can travel in time is nothing compered to that who controls it. (me)

zeroca · **To Guille and to Omny -** 04-16-2005, 04:35 AM

To say the truth, I don’t participate in forum for educational or discussional purposes, but anyway have to explain my ideas theoretically, because I need and try to find partnership.

Guille! Nobody can demonstrate nothing, it’s useless, because it doesn’t exist, or take a picture of the process its separation as well, but if the universe is result of separation of nothing, no needing in demonstrating it, as we have got it around and can analyze it!
(I definitely think that separation of nothing is the universe, but I know my thinking so is not a valid argument, but your denying it isn’t as well)

Omni! All is clear to me with nothing and I don’t doubt a bit. Even I got 10-year experience of practicing of system, based on nothing and this system works on all levels of universe, but I understand that told by me above isn’t as well proving argument for others, until we don’t set up some experiment, so I have to invent some method to explain it to others, and when I say that process of explanation is difficult, it doesn’t mean that separation of nothing is impossible. If nothing can be a possible container, the sum, the unity of an opposite equal phenomenon, then why this possibility couldn’t be the reason for arising of a separation within it?
I will try once again:
Let’s assume that it really was so, i.e. nothing existed before arising of the world.
Nothing means no 3-D space, no time, no existing changes, i.e. no existing motion…
How long can last such state?
I say such state can’t last during the time, i.e. if any “changes” are expected they are expected at once, immediately. To say figuratively: as time doesn’t exist, no matter how long such state lasts: “millions of years”, or “infinitesimal part of second” and I repeat that if any “changes” are expected, they must happen at once.
The most peculiar question, the stumbling-block is the possibility or credibility, or probability of arising of these changes. A lot of people assert that nothing can’t experience separation because it doesn’t exist.
Really I can’t prove or deny impossibility of told assertion:
The only way I found so far is indirect, but very weak: if we take the cold water and add to hot water these two qualities of water will neutralize each other, so the probability that zero can be unity or sum of opposite equal phenomenon doesn’t equal to 0, i.e. the probability that this universe arose from nothing doesn’t equal to 0, i.e. it’s more than 0. Practically you can’t cite any phenomenon, the opposite of which couldn’t be found:

Up - down, summer – winter, love – hatred,
Left - right, day – night, prosperity – adversity,
Before – after, consolidation – rarefaction, friend – enemy,
Man – woman, spring – autumn, inside – outside,
Male – female, left eye – right eye, center – periphery,
Cold – warm, misfortune – happiness, wealth – poverty…

But I understand that this also isn’t a proving argument and all from above phenomenon can be interpreted otherwise, (for instance - the phenomenon of summer and winter can be explained with different location of the Earth towards the Sun etc...),
So briefly I can’t prove anything to anyone, or rather nobody can prove anything to anyone, but I only try to find a mind with similar, coherent understanding to mine and try to make a partnership:
I need the organization or scientist, which/who’s connected with observing and studying of ozone layer, or observing and studying reasons of national disasters and cataclysms and make a consortium of some kind based on using of system “Active zero”
The results will be credible proving arguments…
And if I will not manage finding of partner, I’ll resume its operation alone.

Omni · 09:26 AM

@zeroca: All I can say for now is that this looks like...I can say it in words so it must be possible when you've got the right conditions. Conditions we don't know (yet) but that doesn't say a whole lot because..who says we are able to know everything? I agree that you can say "nothing splits" and I know that it might be possible, but just doesn't fit our way of thinking. My TOE also has some points that aren't reality for sure. In fact the whole thing isn't for sure, but it is imaginable very easy and for me that's something a TOE must meet with. I will think about it further because it's interesting....trying to imagine the unimaginable. Haven't got much time though so it will take me some time but I will get back on this one for sure.

battybat · 04-17-2005, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Try using an Archimedean spiral whose general polar equation is given by

$r=a\theta^{\frac{1}{n}}$

when n=-2, it's called lituus spiral; n=-1, hyperbolic spiral; n=1, Archimedes' spiral; n=2, Fermat's spiral. Look more about it at $\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{r}=c^2$

a is generalized acceleration, r is the metric, c is the speed of light.

Thanks for the suggestion, Antonio, but the vortex that makes up vorticles is an open spiral torus like in a mollusc shell or an ammonite fossil.

In the second expression, what do the 'a' and 'r' represent?

Battybat

AntonioLao · 04-18-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by battybat

In the second expression, what do the 'a' and 'r' represent?

$\mathbf{a}$ is the generalized acceleration and $\mathbf{r}$ is a radius vector in a particular spacetime coordinate system.

Felix Schrodinger · **Re: What your TOE must have -** 02-17-2008, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeroca

The basical aspects of the system and theory are shown at

http://autorestore.gol.ge/index.html

Hi Zeroca

Some interesting stuff there but not, I feel a TOE. I'm interested in the necessity for movement and that all motion is in the form of curves due to the gradual bending of spacetime. Circles are just a special kind of curve. Without motion (The Dance of Shiva) there is nothing as particles cannot exist in a state of rest.

I would like you to clarify what you mean by 'ear'? Do you mean 'aether'?

regards
Felix