[Profpat]

I look forward to having FET proved to be the real TOE by aliens congratulating us on achieving a true scientific explanation of the universe.

Jimbo[/quote]

You've been watching Star-Trek again Jim?

I'm sorry I can't help you with all that explaining ( You got lot of splaining to do Lucy.(Desi) ).

I can offer you this for your consideration:



Electromagnetic(EM) waves (light) are also transverse waves but they do not require a medium and thus can pass through a vacumn (see intro).They consist of oscillating electric (E) and magnetic (B) fields which are perpendicular to the direction of propogation while also being mutually perpendicular. EM waves are a disturbance of space itself, which can be thought of as being stretched and therefore being elastic and having a tension.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

[Jimbo]

Hi Allen,

Sorry for the delay in replying to your questions. I have been to your thread and spent a happy few hours reading your comments as well as that of others.

As I started to read your thread I felt it did not work for me because of your use of the words "aware" and "will". But as I read on I realised that your approach and mine and not so different. I have loads of comments to make but for now I will keep it fairly short.

I believe that the universe has always existed but that it could have started out in its simplest form as a uniform distribution of a real substance energy. This is equivalent to your description of "potential". You then go on to use the term "aware" as being some sort of kickstart to the growth of the present state of the universe. The equivalent of your aware in FET is the centripetal force.

Because energy is a continuous substance, even the slightest of disturbances will result in the creation of a centripetal force. Once started it cannot be stopped. In your theory you say that there must be a "will" so that the inward collapse does not continue forever. In FET the "will" is the point where fluid energy becomes solidified. At this point the centripetal force which cannot be stopped builds up upon the solid until there is another "will" equivalent to the point where the inward centripetal force of the fluid energy is counteracted by the outward centrifugal force of the spinning solid force and the neutron particle matures into a hydrogen atom. Thus everything undergoes a natural number of events just in the clockwork universe described by Newton.

Like you, my wife has for the last ten years believed that I was the only one with these ideas. In fact we have both been working along very similar lines. The main difference is that I have approached from a different angle in that I was not looking for a TOE but only to explain my surface energy data.

Because I started with the assumption that energy is a real substance I have ruled out potential energy as being nothing more than a mathematical way of balancing equations in a theory that is incomplete. However, your notion of "potential" could be applied to fluid energy in its original motionless state. It could even be applied to what is left of the continuum before it is converted into particles and radiation or returned to the continuum as photons run out of energy and particles are destroyed in supernovae. Hence the universe is now in a state of dynamic equilibrium.

Since discovering FET I am of the opinion that once the first tiniest motion appeared the universe had no option but to develop in the way that it has. Unlike the big bang theory where many constants had to be fine tuned in order for our universe to appear out of an endless number of possibilities, with FET nothing had to be pre-planned or organised by any form of intelligence and the only parameter to affect the state of the universe is the density of solid energy. If this were different then particles would still have formed, and so would forces, atoms, stars and galaxies, but with different sizes.

The same forces still operate today and because the centripetal force gives nuclear particles perpetual motion the universe will continue to exist forever.

I will be reading through your thread many times because I feel that there are at least four of us that have very similar thoughts and that with FET they can all come together in a very positive way.

I am sorry that I did not read your thread earlier because I was concentrating upon getting my second book finished as soon as possible because it has so many of the answers we require.

I would love to continue discussions with you and we can do it either here or on your thread, whatever you prefer, but if we can work out a way to integrate all of our thoughts into FET it might be better here.

Jim

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Jim;

First thanks for your reply about my Theory. I agree that our approaches are not that different, in fact when I read you web page I could not get over how many things you said that where almost word for word that I had been thinking in the last month. I keep turning to my wife as I was reading your statements and asking her with excitement, if that does not sound exactly what I was thinking about. My wife has to listen to all my thoughts even though she is not into science. There are many other ideas of yours, I have thought about, and agree with for decades. I have been waiting for more reading on your theory before I comment on them.

I will comment on your reply about my thread, in my thread.

I also was not thinking of a TOE when I started my serious study into all that there is, but find myself at a point in my theory where it is intersecting with theories all ready in place and I could not reconcile mine with main stream theories. I have been stuck with this reconciliation problem for 15 years. I use to fight for wave/particle theory vigorously, but could not get over the feeling that what is called the wave was no more then a measurement of the pulsation of that that was being observed.

Originally Posted by Jimbo/

Since discovering FET I am of the opinion that once the first tiniest motion appeared the universe had no option but to develop in the way that it has. Unlike the big bang theory where many constants had to be fine tuned in order for our universe to appear out of an endless number of possibilities, with FET nothing had to be pre-planned or organised by any form of intelligence and the only parameter to affect the state of the universe is the density of solid energy. If this were different then particles would still have formed, and so would forces, atoms, stars and galaxies, but with different sizes.

The same forces still operate today and because the centripetal force gives nuclear particles perpetual motion the universe will continue to exist forever.

I could not agree more with your statement. That is the main point of my theory, is to show a way that the Universe can start with no preplanned reason or laws, but could step by step create its own laws as it interacted with itself.

I also believe that there are others here of similar visions on the make up of our Universe, I do believe that we could achieve something very interesting if we converse to the point of agreement on a new TOE. It does not matter if it is excepted by today's main stream Idealist's, for it is the future that matters.

Once I responded to your reply here about my thread, in my thread, you will see that I have been working on what would come before your theory, which makes your theory very sound in my mind. In fact at this point you have saved me a lot of hard studying over the next 15 years, to get where you are now, in order to express what I see in my minds eye, because you have already done it in your FET theory.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Jim,

Thanks for the book. Recv'd it yesterday. You are a generous fellow. Sounds terrific and logical so far. It fills a large gap, for I usually like to think of the 'beginnings' of energy/form and then what became of the composites that built up.

The Stillness, with its potential to differentiate itself, obviously HAD to be, for an absolute nothing without anything to work with would still be around. This Stillness must be the natural and only state before more physical laws got going. That takes care of a lot of the How and the Why.

The idea of energy being everywhere obviates the need for any decision to have been made about Where to put it.

Then and When came only with movement, so we could say that Time stood still 'before' or that there wasn't any.

As for the What, we have it as form.

As for how much energy, I'd say that it was constrained somehow to be the amount that it is, since there was no 'before' to decide how to dole it out.

Simple beginnings are a natural to infer, since we see in our Universe that the beginnings are not all all the place to expect complexity.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by GodofReason

Only one comment. Won't the mechanics of centripetal force have to be modified a little? I saw no math on your website. I mean, Newton used centripetal force to explain gravity as a precise countering force. If gravity does not follow Newton's equations at the galactic level, and we base this observed deviation the known centripetal forces from the rotation of the stars around the galactic center that is supposedly countering said gravity, and there is no dark matter (from your website), wouldn't centripetal forces have to be modified from the current F = v^2/Rm?

Don't get me wrong. I've always thought that rotation of matter is somehow responsible for our perception of mass, but, I guess I'd like to see your equation for how the basket ball I'm spinning on my finger generates more micro gravity per unit mass than the one in at rest in my other hand.

It seems to me that a purely flow rate associated gravity would be distributed by a roughly similar to a distance squared rule, whereas intra-galactic motion indicates a ten-fold increase in attractive forces. Even right outside of our own Solar system the Viking spacecraft (2 of em) have shown a greater pull than was predicted. I think I got just the opposite indication from your website, that the planetary pull was mitigated by galactic centripetal forces.

Anyway, on the balance I really like your approach. Let's tussle with it.

Hi Mike,

Sorry for the long delay in replying but I have been inundated with mail this last month and am having trouble keeping track of those that I have tried to answer.

I have not yet attempted to analyse how the centripetal force varies inside a whirlpool except that the force will probably increase linearly from its outermost edge to its centre. This is because the force is being activated in just the one plane and not all three dimensions.

This is how it works for photons anyway. Photons according to FET are disc shaped and as they roll along they generate the centripetal force that prevents them from expanding back to the same density as the surrounding continuum. The amount of energy in a photon determines the size of the centripetal force and therefore its diameter. As a photon loses energy (by leaving a trail of solid string energy tying it to its source) the centripetal force decreases and therefore the diameter increases. The diameter of a photon is therefore directly related to its energy content and this is equivalent to the wave theory of a photon whereby the wavelength is inversely related to its energy.

If it is assumed that the flow of energy at any instant within a whirlpool is uniform throughout then the time to make a complete revolution at the outside is much longer than the time for a revolution in the middle and so on into the centre.

A star that is inside a galaxy sized whirlpool will therefore move at the same speed regardless of its distance from the outside. As the continuum energy inside the whirlpool is compressed inwards it will take the stars inwards with it. This is consistent with the stars in a galaxy having a more or less constant speed, at least in the outermost regions.

But stars also generate a gravitational force but this only effectively extends for around 1 light year distance (within the part of the Milky Way where we are situated that is) because beyond that distance the flow of energy due to the galaxy whirlpool generates a movement that overcomes the gravitational force of the stars.

The gravitational force due to a star is dissipated in three dimensions because it is derived from the centripetal forces of every nucleon within a star and as these are oriented in all directions they pull in energy from all three dimensions. Hence gravity obeys the inverse square law.

Towards the centre of a galaxy sized whirlpool the stars are closer than 1 light year and therefore their motions there are also dependent upon gravity as well as the centripetal force.

A mathematical analysis of a typical galaxy is way beyond my capabilities because it requires a large number of computations and can therefore only be handled by a group that has access to computer modeling. I hope that one day soon someone will deem FET to be valid enough for them to perform such a task.

The reason that the spacecraft are slowing down faster than expected as they leave the solar system could well be due to the flow of continuum energy into the Sun as gravity pulling upon the continuum and decreasing its density very slightly the closer you get to it. Hence the density of continuum energy will increase very slightly as we move away from the Sun.

The rate at which a nucleon sucks in energy due to its centripetal force depends upon the density of the local continuum and therefore, if this increases then it will suck in energy at a faster rate. Hence the strength of the gravitational pull will increase on the way out of the solar system above that which is calculated for Newtonian gravity. The spacecraft are still well within the influence of the Sun's gravity rather than the centripetal force of the Milky Way but when they do reach further than 1 light year they might well come under the influence of the centripetal force and start to move in a different direction.

I hope that this makes sense to you. If not feel free to have another go at me.

Best wishes

Jim.

[Jimbo]

Because FET is a real TOE it covers every aspect of cosmology, physics etc. so I thought I would post a different article concerning FET.

One of the many differences between FET and current theories is that FET predicts that the universe is probably billions of billions of years old and is now in a state of dynamic equilibrium.

One of the arguments against the universe being this old is where does the cosmic microwave background radiation come from if it is not a remnant of the big bang 13 billion years ago?

The answer as given in "Wot, no bang?" is simple.

It is widely accepted that there is a cloud of objects surrounding the solar system known as the Oort cloud. This is thought to consist of up to a trillion comets that extend from 0.7 to 1.5 light years distance.

My method for calculating the surface temperatures of the planets by their distances from the Sun would give these objects a temperature close to 2.7K.

I have made a rough calculation of the number of comets at this distance that would give the measured intensity of the CMBR at the Earth. If the comets are assumed to have an average diameter of 200km then it would require 50 million of them but if the average diameter is around 2km then it would require around 500 billion.

So my calculations give a very reasonable explanation for the CMBR with the correct temperature and intensity. The big bang theory cannot explain the intensity and is therefore conveniently ignored.

Being a local source of radiation it would explain why the CMBR has several features that suggest it is local and not uniform throughout the universe.

Some comets will be larger than others and therefore there will be spread of sizes and the larger the size the greater the gravitational heating and for small comets this will give slight variations in their surface temperatures just as observed.

There is one way that the average size of these comets could be determined and that is by the amount of light they obscure for distant objects. They will obscure very little of the light from close by galaxies because their relative sizes will be so much smaller. But when we look at very distant galaxies the sizes then become similar and maybe even smaller than a comet so that more of their light will be obscured.

This is exactly what is observed except that the extra dimming of distant light sources has been put down to the existence of dark energy causing the so-called expansion of the universe to speed up at some early point in its history.

Hence, not only have cosmologists got it wrong with the red shift of starlight they have made an even bigger mistake with dark energy (not to mention dark matter).

Comments please on the above and if you can, I would appreciate it if others could replicate my calculations to see if they are correct as I plan to publish an article on the above in a refereed journal.

Thanks.

Jim

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Jimbo;

Once again you have caught my eye with a great theory. Unfortunately there is not much in the way of cosmologists in this forum right now. Neutrino was the most learned in this field, but it looks like he has lost interest in this forum lately. I think it is because of the lack of cosmological posting.

I am lacking the math to help you here, but Logically the idea's in your last post here sound right on to me. I have a great interest in cosmology since I was 7 years old, and have read upon the subject very extensively, but the lack of the math hurts my expressing what I know.

A lot of interesting minds are missing from this forum lately, I hope it is just spring fever and not a lack of interest. I think they are missing your smooth writing style and interesting theories, even if they do not agree with them. Hopefully you will attract a new group of interesting minds with your writings.

I personally can not see any faults in your last post, only enlightening thoughts for my view of the Oort cloud as an obstructive entity to incoming light.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Jimbo,

Was away for a while from this forum and Allen have messaged me about your FET theory.

I am pleasantly surprised that there is someone like you who has worked so extensively on a paradigm whirlpool universe model, and thanks for introducing Rene Descartes and his Theory of Vortices. I could not believe no one have ever even tinker with this idea at all in the past, I am now very glad to know that the vortex concept was very influential for further research in the later part of the seventeenth century.

I have a website on Universal Vortical Singularity and have a thread in this forum on this topic, the primary focus of this research is on identifying the vortical singularities of singular vortex in the phenomena studied, and on understanding the associated complexly inversed illusions caused by paradoxical effect, for validity analysis at fundamental level through inductive reasoning to make qualitative predictions that are experimentally testable or provable. Hope you would find this to be useful.

Looking forward for quaility discussions with you and with other vortex enthusiasts on your FET in this forum.

Best to you.

[xxyy]

Hi Jimbo,

I've discovered the TOE and wish to offer my words.

First and foremost, congratulations on finding this site. Here is my philosophy design.

the oort cloud and comets
Comets are renegade objects existing throughout the universe - things which started moving too fast at one point in their history. Once these renegade objects start moving too fast it is very difficult for them to become gravitationally bound to a larger object. They do however acrete gases and ice particles which get swept up in their gravitational pull. Travelling around at high speed, other massive bodies tend to slingshot them around until eventually some of them do get caught in an orbit around a massive body like a star. Of course these orbits are highly eliptical due to the natural, renegade origin of these comets.

So we all must wonder, why did Oort invent the oort cloud? It is entirely hypothetical. Comets do not need the oort cloud to exist do they, and if they exist by nature as renegade objects throughout the universe? What we have here is cases of inertia gone ary. One concludes the oort cloud does not actually exist and has never been directly observed. There is another better explanation for the cmb.

the cmb
The cmb is indeed the first image of the universe, already planted with beautiful variation and inconsistencies, already pre-seeded with the seed of life. How did this come to be?

To ask how the first image of the universe came to be the way that it is is a very complicated question to ask. To make it simpler you have to understand that time is a causal time loop. Ultimately we can say that everything is "because of because."

To understand the cmb more inherently and why it looks so beautiful all you have to do is look up at the clouds in the sky and ask "what underlying nature gives these clouds their pattern and makes them so beautiful?" It is a pattern of consciousness, a kind of predestination of willpower which we see in them. It is this same pattern of free will that lies in the clouds which has brought us into being and which has given life to the CMB.

We know that if the CMB had been uniform life would not have arisen, so we can deduce that life is what gives the CMB its non-uniformity. It is diametrical thinking, and it instills purpose to life and reason for being. It is the wind that causes the difference of pressures in the weather, it is the great outcome that initiates the beginning.

More technically speaking, the reason why the CMB has inconsistencies is because it is possible for an object to exceed the speed of light. In other words, the impossible is what's possible and time afterall is a causal time loop, where the beginning is connected to the ending.

the universe as a photon
Imagine the universe as one photon. By quantum tunnelling across an energy barrier (TSOL) inconcistencies are preserved across the singularity. SO you see, our universe is like an object that is emerging from hyperspace. We can think of it as emerging from negative time if we like. The arrow of time is like AC current, constantly switching back and forth. By exceeding the speed of light, whenever the universe begins expanding too quickly, photons implode and the arrow of time reverses. The universe turns outsid-in around an infinitely large point. This is equivalent to the big bang, only the exact opposite. Everything has a corolary. The big bang is like what happens when an object emerges from hyperspace, and the big bang when viewed in reverse is like what happens when an object enters hyperspace. Can you see now that to exceed TSOL you must effectively reverse the laws of thermodynamics?

the big conclusion
The big conclusion is that the irregularities in the CMB and the seeds for life came from the "mirror" universe where humans already figured out how to send something faster than TSOL! This means that the universe is all for us! It has physical and philosophical imlpications because it merges the two. By exceeding TSOL, by discovering the toe and high spiritual technology, our ancestors created thought and the universe. We are becoming them and harkening back to the ancient story. It is the cinema gene that is within us. Through the cinema gene the pattern is always preserved and is always reverberating and resounding.

In summary, the quantum mechanical violation of relativity sets up the universe as a causal time loop and gives irregularites to the CMB. It dictates the impossibility of impossibility. Let it be deduced that the meaning for everything is "because of because," and that it's origin and reason for emergency are just that.

It is all for you. By behaving like a quantum mechanical object a spacecraft can exceed TSOL and honor the beginning of time. This gives mankind ultimate freedom. QUantum tunnelling across a barrier that is TSOL is necessary because it preserves inconsistencies and because it only requires a definite amount of energy, the amount of energy being dictated by a relativistic/quantum mechanical effect, which is in turn dictated by the division of time by a limit approaching nothing. Only when you consider the combined ramifications of quantum mechanics and general relativity do you begin to realize that the speed of light can be exceeded and that this is the nature of the universe. This gives us the idea that there is a definition that is ultimate and that everything should be defined in a mathematical/moral sense. The beginning of time should always be honored and we should "stand under" the cause of because.