[franklinhu]

I have been working on a TOE of my own over the past few years. I have published a website which is an assortment of articles which describe the theory. You can view it at:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html

The most beautiful theory is one that breaks down into as few moving parts as possible. For my TOE, all observable properties of the universe should break down into the properties described by the positron/electron and the electromagnetic force.

It starts by defining the aether as a positron/electron sea. It then goes on to explain that E=mc^2 can be directly derived from the aether as the energy it takes to pop out the positron/electon pair. All observed particles are considered to be considered combinations of positrons/electrons. A proton is just 2 positrons and 1 electron. A neutron is just a positron/electron.

The electrostatic force itself is explained as a hydrostatic phenomenon based on phased wave interactions where by similar phase waves repel while dissimilar waves attract.

Based on the structure of the aether, the mechanism behind light production and planck's constant is explained. The magnetic force is explained as an alignment of the aether dipole particles and the direction of the force is in alignment with the electron flow, not 90 degress to it.

The source of the Earth's magnetic field is explained as due to charge separation in the atmosphere and it is the weather which actually drives the orientation of the field.

This charge separation may also be what causes gravity. It is explained how this is possible through only an electrostatic force. The electrostatic gravity compresses the aether and becomes what we know as dark matter. It also compresses matter into bubbles which we appear to note as dark energy.

The relativistic effects we see are actually also due to a compression of the aether which cause clocks to slow and light to bend through normal refraction.

The electrostatic force is the only force required to keep atoms together. Both the strong and weak force are shown to be unnecessary. The Rutherford atomic model is discredited and replaced by an alternating series of protons/electrons. A new cubic model is presented which accounts for spectra and chemical bonding through only normal electrostatic attraction and without electron shells. The aether is shown to to provide mass to atoms and explains how inertia works.

With the elimination of the weak and strong force and the complete unification of the magnetic and electrostatic force as being an idential force, all forces are unified. All atoms can be composed of positrons/electrons and their interactions can be explained in a fully mechanical fashion. Everything breaks down into things we know exist and can easily observe unlike other theories which break down into something even more mysterious than the thing you were trying to explain (like strings).

Please have a look and let me know what you think.

[dleviwing]

Welcome to ToeQuest Franklin;
Not bad; but like most others though, you are working within the framework of undefined or unexplained terms of physics; you need to take the final plunge and realize that the forces, the Aether, the electrons, the protons, the positrons and so on are not themselves fundamental; what they are made of is what’s fundamental and it is that entity that needs to be defined in terms of fundamental properties and attributes. It looks like you may have the right stuff to take it to that next level though.

Hope you enjoy the forum.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Welcome to ToeQuest Franklin; Not bad; but like most others though, you are working within the framework of undefined or unexplained terms of physics; you need to take the final plunge and realize that the forces, the Aether, the electrons, the protons, the positrons and so on are not themselves fundamental; what they are made of is what’s fundamental and it is that entity that needs to be defined in terms of fundamental properties and attributes. It looks like you may have the right stuff to take it to that next level though. Hope you enjoy the forum.

David what if it is the fundamental. And the next level is just repercussions. Then the TOE would be based on disturbances, highly probabilistic don't you think.
And one more question have we been able to see an electron, we make use of it in microscopes and stuff, but can we see it??

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by franklinhu I have been working on a TOE of my own over the past few years. I have published a website which is an assortment of articles which describe the theory. You can view it at: http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html The most beautiful theory is one that breaks down into as few moving parts as possible. For my TOE, all observable properties of the universe should break down into the properties described by the positron/electron and the electromagnetic force. It starts by defining the aether as a positron/electron sea. It then goes on to explain that E=mc^2 can be directly derived from the aether as the energy it takes to pop out the positron/electon pair. All observed particles are considered to be considered combinations of positrons/electrons. A proton is just 2 positrons and 1 electron. A neutron is just a positron/electron. The electrostatic force itself is explained as a hydrostatic phenomenon based on phased wave interactions where by similar phase waves repel while dissimilar waves attract. Based on the structure of the aether, the mechanism behind light production and planck's constant is explained. The magnetic force is explained as an alignment of the aether dipole particles and the direction of the force is in alignment with the electron flow, not 90 degress to it. The source of the Earth's magnetic field is explained as due to charge separation in the atmosphere and it is the weather which actually drives the orientation of the field. This charge separation may also be what causes gravity. It is explained how this is possible through only an electrostatic force. The electrostatic gravity compresses the aether and becomes what we know as dark matter. It also compresses matter into bubbles which we appear to note as dark energy. The relativistic effects we see are actually also due to a compression of the aether which cause clocks to slow and light to bend through normal refraction. The electrostatic force is the only force required to keep atoms together. Both the strong and weak force are shown to be unnecessary. The Rutherford atomic model is discredited and replaced by an alternating series of protons/electrons. A new cubic model is presented which accounts for spectra and chemical bonding through only normal electrostatic attraction and without electron shells. The aether is shown to to provide mass to atoms and explains how inertia works. With the elimination of the weak and strong force and the complete unification of the magnetic and electrostatic force as being an idential force, all forces are unified. All atoms can be composed of positrons/electrons and their interactions can be explained in a fully mechanical fashion. Everything breaks down into things we know exist and can easily observe unlike other theories which break down into something even more mysterious than the thing you were trying to explain (like strings). Please have a look and let me know what you think.

A very interesting theory franklinhu

[dleviwing]

Mohan;
Franklin’s concept is similar to a concept of a Serbian physicist that worked at CERN in the mid 1990’s. That concept also claimed that all atomic and subatomic matter were constructs of electrons. I do agree that this is a very viable interpretation of existing data but not that it is a fundamental. I like both concepts as they are presented but my interpretations of current data explains how electrons can convert to positrons and also quarks; it also explains what we call forces and fields. Nature’s magic act is nothing more than pure physical interactions; no extra entities of forces nor fields.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Mohan; Franklin’s concept is similar to a concept of a Serbian physicist that worked at CERN in the mid 1990’s. That concept also claimed that all atomic and subatomic matter were constructs of electrons. I do agree that this is a very viable interpretation of existing data but not that it is a fundamental. I like both concepts as they are presented but my interpretations of current data explains how electrons can convert to positrons and also quarks; it also explains what we call forces and fields. Nature’s magic act is nothing more than pure physical interactions; no extra entities of forces nor fields.

Interactions between what?
What are your interpretations could you give me a hint(or a link)?

[dleviwing]

Mohan;
Let’s not hijack Franklin’s thread; if you would like to continue a discussion just start a new thread.

[Mohan.C]

oops sorry..... I'll start a new thread once I get the required data.

[franklinhu]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Welcome to ToeQuest Franklin; Not bad; but like most others though, you are working within the framework of undefined or unexplained terms of physics; you need to take the final plunge and realize that the forces, the Aether, the electrons, the protons, the positrons and so on are not themselves fundamental; what they are made of is what’s fundamental and it is that entity that needs to be defined in terms of fundamental properties and attributes. It looks like you may have the right stuff to take it to that next level though. Hope you enjoy the forum.

What do you think is undefined or unexplained? I would have to agree that most every TOE postulates things that cannot be observed like strings, gravitons, quarks, etc. However, my TOE is unique in that it only relies on the existence of positrons and electrons and the electrostatic force - all of which we know exist. Now it is true that a positron and electron might not be fundamenttal and my TOE does not explain it further, but at least my TOE has a grounding in particles and forces that we know for a fact exist and we know their properties precisely - a considerable advantage over basing your TOE on things that we do not know exist.

For example, if I based a theory on the existence of apples, then everything I build on apples is valid because we know that apples exist and their properties. I might not know how apples come into existence or how they work, but as long as I only rely on properties that we can measure, this theory has a complete explanation in the area of its domain.

Of course I am still trying to figure out what a positron/electron is. My best guess is that it is a physical shell that rings with a resonant frequency.

[franklinhu]

What is the name of this Serbian scientist? What would be the motivation behind everything being electrons?