Simply Relativity v2

[AntonioLao]

But my difficulty is understanding the interconnections between all these knowledge that you have accumulated into a single plausible physical theory.

[Max™]

Ah, well, that is a better point.

It's a matter of figuring out what is useful for describing reality, and what is extraneous baggage.

Figure out what is in the baggage, find a better way to do whatever it did, and discard it.

Really, all of these varied ideas came from that one simple tweak of the Gravitational Red Shift equations, moving the Rate of Time = 1 point from infinite distance from a gravitational field/zero mass, to the Planck Mass.

Everything else just keeps unfolding from that.

Hell, get this, you know that photino I'm babbling on about?

It could explain the mysterious prevalence of positively charged matter over anti-matter, if most of the anti-matter which was predicted to have been created, became locked up inside of those stable, non-interactive, photino's.


You are getting towards the point of why I call it simply relativity, because everything is related, and a very simple set of materials and interactions, produces the amazing tapestry we call the universe.

[Farsight]

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/morriss2.pdf

The other thread predates certain realizations I have had, and got derailed into a semi-advertisement for Farsight and his ideas.

Which you're now passing off as your own.

[Max™]

Which you're now passing off as your own.

What?

Please elaborate, if you recall I pointed out that you and I had both reached very similar conclusions on many things, differing specifically in our views of time and light speed.

I appreciate that you are convinced you've found the "holy grail", but again, humility.

If I had gotten any ideas, or new insight from your work, I would have thanked you for it, and told you about it. Imagine how shocked I was when I read many ideas very similar to the ones I was working on in the pdf you sent to me. It goes both ways here, as I've pointed out to most of the authors of the theories I've read on this site.

We're all reaching for the same thing, there have to be overlaps and similar conclusions, otherwise you really have to wonder what went wrong.

[Farsight]

What? Please elaborate, if you recall I pointed out that you and I had both reached very similar conclusions on many things, differing specifically in our views of time and light speed. I appreciate that you are convinced you've found the "holy grail", but again, humility.

Take a look at your original "Simply Relativity" at http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...elativity.html. You read my stuff, and now you start a new thread with a pdf that is totally different to your original text, borrowing from my work without acknowledgement and passing it off as your own.

If I had gotten any ideas, or new insight from your work, I would have thanked you for it, and told you about it...

Oh yes? Well then that clears that up then.

[Max™]

I've been updating the text, editing, adding new ideas as I suss them out myself.

If you're going to make this claim, please, provide some sort of evidence.

[Max™]

<johnduffield@btconnect.com>
Authentication-Results: 		mta145.mail.re3.yahoo.com from=btconnect.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
Received: 		from 213.123.20.120 (EHLO c2bthomr02.btconnect.com) (213.123.20.120) by mta145.mail.re3.yahoo.com with SMTP; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:01:02 -0700
Received: 		from DUFFIELD (host86-128-2-248.range86-128.btcentralplus.com [86.128.2.248]) by c2bthomr02.btconnect.com with ESMTP id IZS10717; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:55:30 +0100 (BST)
From: 		
"John Duffield" <johnduffield@btconnect.com>  
Add sender to Contacts
To: 		<romanticwarriorpoet@yahoo.com>
Subject: 		Lay it on me
Date: 		Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:55:21 +0100
Message-ID: 		<001401c91398$4dceb940$020aa8c0@DUFFIELD>
MIME-Version: 		1.0
Content-Type: 		multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01C913A0.AF932140"
Thread-Index: 		AckTmEpCDYSPnu7oS4m6OioJ9FrffQ== refid=str=0001.0A090209.48C8516D.0085,ss=1,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=86.128.2.248, so=2007-10-30 19:00:17, dmn=5.7.1/2008-09-02
Content-Length: 		12098569
 Message contains attachments
		image002.jpg (69KB), RELATIVITY+.pdf (8789KB)

Re: lol, ok lay it on me - 09-10-2008, 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max™
I still completely disagree about worldlines being abstractions though, I am a 4 dimensional object observing 3 dimensional slices of it's extended shape through time.
Max: I can't access your email address. I've got an 8Mbyte pdf here. It's a draft book, and it will blow you away. I'm johnduffield@btconnect.com, Contact me and I'll send it to you.


Re: Simply Relativity - 09-10-2008, 04:36 PM
Know whats really funny, so far I've been reading your pdf, and it's pretty much what I've written down, so I'm wondering where we diverged in our views of time.

Ah, I see now, you assume that when I say time, I mean the typical one second at a time type of time, to be fair, you should read my Simply Relativity pdf and see that we're really talking about very similar things here.

I summed up the middle quarter of your book in a paragraph in there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Treat the EM tensor direction as a function of the shape of the folded
coordinate sets, which act roughly as stress energy tensors for Gravity. The
directional coordinate adjustment of the EM tensors on other EM tensors,
combined with the coordinate stretching due to Gravity become rather trivial to
visualize and compute. I am still working out the exact mathematical formalism
for this, but I believe the Weak Force can be treated as a simple rotational
handedness distinction in the coordinate bodies. The Strong force is a little more
complex, but would essentially be a function of bodies with a significant amount
of folded coordinates. The shape of the folding required would include an
“overlap” with its nearby coordinate bodies. With the effect that increasing the
distance between the two eventually becomes sufficient to produce another
particle group.
When I say increased interaction with time, to put it into terms you would prefer, I mean that the "direction" which the waveforms of normal quantum theory are spread isn't through the normal 3 space dimensions, but rather through the increased interaction with nearby bodies, at different points from the observed "now".

Now, what EXACTLY is in your pdf that wasn't in mine at the time you sent it to me and I made these posts?

[Farsight]

The knots.

Here's your Simply Relativity thread: http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...elativity.html.

Here's the pdf at the top of this Simply Relativty 2 thread: http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tivity-v2.html

What do we see for the first time? Knots. Loops. You aren't looking for feedback. You're looking for ideas, for material to plagiarise.

Don't talk to me any more.

[Max™]

You have GOT to be kidding me.

You seriously wanna pull that?

Ok.

Re: Simply Relativity - 09-10-2008, 03:43 PM

Spin is a representation of the amount of energy contained within a group of spatial coordinates, and the form they take, in my understanding anyway, with higher spin meaning lower energy.

Lower spin could be thought of in a simple manner.

A thread, a ripple, a loop, a knot.
Graviton, Photon, Electron, Quark.
Spin 2, Spin 1, Spin 1/2

From left to right, the way they interact with time:
High interaction > Low interaction

The more "tangled" the coordinates are, the less temporally spread they are, and the more interaction they have on one another.

If Spin was angular momentum, then gravitons, and therefore empty space would have significant angular momentum?

OH HEY, LOOK AT THAT, I wrote down the exact idea you're claiming I stole from you some 20 minutes before you even sent your PDF to me, just after I sent you the PM to give you my email address, actually.

Anything else?

LOL, I just realized something.

What you're claiming would be an extraordinary proof of my retrocausality conjecture, wouldn't THAT be a trick.

Hell, just to go ahead and totally show how utterly ridiculous your claim is, here is the very first version of my paper, with the description of the folded spacetime.

I think it would be pretty cool of you to man up, admit you were wrong, and apologize now.

[Max™]

Simply Relativity v3: The Signature of the Gardener.