Q-space theory. 3rd article has been published.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

I agree that there is much absurd in conventional physical theories. Some of these absurds generate troubling contra-intuitive descriptions of nature. This is one of the main issues that my theory deals with. Nevertheless, If you have specific comments or examples from my work to such absurdities I am interested to hear about them and discuss them. I am not claiming for a monopoly on truth. My work has been brought in to the public domain in order to be examined and your criticism is welcome.

Roi

Hi Roi,

Your articles are very well organized and it was a breeze to read. I went through article I and article II and focus on some topics of interest in in article III such as infinity, infinitesimality and some topics on geometry.

And I look forward to reading your "It will provide solutions to the greatest theoretical problems of present physics and will do so in a surprisingly intuitive way!". Somehow, Your article 3 did not load up for me today.

I hope you would enjoy this ToeQuest forum and gets useful feedback from the friendly members here like I do.

Like yourself I too find that in conventional physical theories there are much absurdities.

contra-intuitive? Did you mean counter-intuitive?

If you meant counter-intuitive descriptions of nature in conventional physical theories, I would have much to share with you. This is an area I am pursuing with intense interest to intuitively understand natural phenomena through inductive reasoning to solve cognitive paradoxes and make qualitative predictions.

Have you reviewed the fundamentals of modern physics in an opposite approach with classical physics in your intuitive way?

I have the same opinion as David that both Relativity and Quantum theories have lead scientist to make absurd assumptions of reality. Have you ever considered that general relativity could be fundamentally erroneous?

I have an Internet publishing on Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS) with some articles on relativity that you might be interested to have a look:
- UVS on time dilation
- UVS clarifies the concept of gravity

As for your study on intuitive way to provide solutions for natural paradoxes, you might want to take a look at paradoxical effect of UVS.

If you are interested to an idea on how eternity, infinity and infinitesimality could be possible in nature in a metaphysical view, have a look at conceptual framework of universe.


Best to you.

[Qspacer]

Hi Vincent,

It is great to read that you enjoyed reading my articles and thanks for your complements. You gave me many interesting links to read, but it will take me some time to get to them, since I am currently occupied with urgent family matters. But I do intend to check your links. Meanwhile, I'll try and do my best to answer your questions.

You asked:
"Have you reviewed the fundamentals of modern physics in an opposite approach with classical physics in your intuitive way?
I have the same opinion as David that both Relativity and Quantum theories have lead scientist to make absurd assumptions of reality. Have you ever considered that general relativity could be fundamentally erroneous?"

In article 1 ( chapter 1.2 starting from line 319), I specified several intuition problems, which were generated by the relativity and Quantum theories: time dilation/ contraction, length dilation/ contraction, bent space-time, the non-deterministic nature of quantum physics, the duality of light and particles and the tunnel effect. In Q-space theory, it seems that all of these problems can be solved and explained intuitively; I do not remove the existence of these phenomena from physics. I do support the basic determination that these phenomena do exist like most physicists do. In my opinion and as far as these specific phenomena are concerned, physicists are not mistaken in their conclusions. Time and space are flexible, nature is not deterministic, light and particles do have duality and the tunnel effect does reflect reality.
However, I claim that although these phenomena seem totally counter-intuitive at present days, Q-space theory does have an intuitive solution. The reason that we presently view these phenomena as counter-intuitive is due to a geometric misunderstanding of the universe.
As an approximation for macro scales, general relativity is not erroneous according to Q-space theory. It is merely inaccurate. However, I will read your links and give you a better response later on (once again it will take some time).

Meanwhile feel free to ask more questions.

Roi

[Qspacer]

...About Hadamard matrices, Moebius, and Hopf please see the following links: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HopfLink.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MoebiusStrip.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HadamardMatrix.html

Hi Antoniolao,

I have checked your links.
In order to properly understand these issues it seems that I need to study knot theory in greater detail. I think that I got some sense of what the mobiustrip and hoftlink are and how they may be combined. I can't say that I understood how this combination together with hadamard matrices may describe the space-time quanta, but once again I lack much knowledge in this domain. The fact that I do not yet understand your intention does not mean that there is some contradiction between our theories, since there may be many ways to describe the same thing.
However, one issue is crucial: Do you use a continuous space or a discrete one? As far as I understood the mobiustrip and hoftlink are continuous entities. Am I right?

Roi

[AntonioLao]

Their topologies are equivalent that is of genus unity. All 8 directional invariance can be mapped into the surface of a Moebius strip and its 1D equivalent is that of a Hopf link (the simplest knot). Expressed as square of energy is described clearly by Hadamard matrices which combined both Pauli spin matrices and Dirac spinors of quantum mechanics. Moreover, Hadamard algebra described both discrete and continuous spacetime manifold continuum in 1D and 2D but discrete in 3D and higher dimensions.

[Qspacer]

Their topologies are equivalent that is of genus unity. All 8 directional invariance can be mapped into the surface of a Moebius strip and its 1D equivalent is that of a Hopf link (the simplest knot). Expressed as square of energy is described clearly by Hadamard matrices which combined both Pauli spin matrices and Dirac spinors of quantum mechanics. Moreover, Hadamard algebra described both discrete and continuous spacetime manifold continuum in 1D and 2D but discrete in 3D and higher dimensions.

Once again, I am not presently in a state where I can conclusively determine the full value of your propositions. But
they do sound promising as long as you understand that the final and accurate description must be discrete rather than continuous (according to my conclusions from Q-space). May I ask: have you managed already to reach a totally unified theory with these tools or is your work still in process?

Roi

[Qspacer]

...I have an Internet publishing on Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS) with some articles on relativity that you might be interested to have a look:
- UVS on time dilation
- UVS clarifies the concept of gravity

As for your study on intuitive way to provide solutions for natural paradoxes, you might want to take a look at paradoxical effect of UVS.

If you are interested to an idea on how eternity, infinity and infinitesimality could be possible in nature in a metaphysical view, have a look at conceptual framework of universe.


Best to you.

Hi Vincent,

Thanks for all your links. I have surfed around your website. It contains a massive amount of material and it can be seen that a lot of serious work has been put into it. With many of your ideas I tend to agree, but some of them stand in contradiction to my conclusions. It was difficult for me to determine the clear logic structure of your theory. I didn't understand from where your theory begins. Where can I find the initial postulates? What I mean is that it seems unclear when entering your website as a beginner from where to start if I wish to study your theory from its foundations.

A critical issue in your theory, which I can already say that it cannot coexist with mine, is your relation to time dilation as an optical illusion:

"The philosophical idea of omnipresence time for the two clocks that are in motion with respect to one another during the course of the observations is identical, the clock that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation merely appears to be slower as a result of the image of the moving away clock takes increasing time to reach the observer in the inertial system. A moving away clock would therefore appear to be slowing down perpetually; the effect of time dilation as postulated with special relativity is caused by an optical illusion that is subjected to the speed of light."

In Q-space theory, time is a type of energy. When moving faster, more energy is transformed to spatial energy and less remains for time-energy. This generates a real (and not an illusionary) time dilation that is approximately coherent with special relativity. But since I have not yet found logic faults in your theory I cannot discard it. Maybe you are right and I am wrong.

I do wish to check the logic foundations of UVS. Can you please write me from which page to begin?

Best for you too

Roi

[AntonioLao]

managed already to reach a totally unified theory

I wont put it quite that way since I am not achieving unity but more of classification of forces into primary and secondary. Primary forces are always equal in magnitude while directions are different. Secondary forces can both be different in magnitudes and directions.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Roi,

I do wish to check the logic foundations of UVS. Can you please write me from which page to begin?

Thanks for your interest to explore UVS. The foundations of UVS is the existence of luminiferous aether in perpetual vortical motion. Have a look at a review on Michelson-Morley experiment from the perspective of UVS. Also see a topic on "Aether vortical motion". The UVS approach is emphasized on qualitative evaluation of natural phenomena based on empirical observations.

The basic logic foundation of UVS is elaborated in "Paradoxical effect of UVS", which is mentioned in my previous post, see an illustration for paradoxical effect in a topic on "A flat world event" that elaborates on opposite observations in localized perceptions of a common event.

What I mean is that it seems unclear when entering your website as a beginner from where to start if I wish to study your theory from its foundations.

You can start from "The model of UVS", the starting paragraph is its synopsis and the first section summarizes the model.

Also have a look at "The dipole anisotropy pattern of CMBR".

In Q-space theory, time is a type of energy. When moving faster, more energy is transformed to spatial energy and less remains for time-energy.

You might also want to check out on "Fluid Energy Theory" by Jim Mash, his postulation of energy is real is similar to your ideal and he writes on particle creation based on this analogy. He also have a FET thread in this forum.

A critical issue in your theory, which I can already say that it cannot coexist with mine, is your relation to time dilation as an optical illusion

In your thread, I would be focusing on discussing time dilation with you for your Q-space theory. You should be aware that time dilation effect and gravitational time dilation are fundamentally two different concepts and they are basically incompatible. IMHO, I believe your theory would also work as well in Euclidean space with the concept of absolute time by substituting spacetime with aether. And all the best to your intuitive approach to address anomalies of modern physics.

Kind regards.

p.s. The link for your article 3 works for me today, will explore into it on Greek geometry. Currently I am exploring on 3,6,9 harmonic code in sacred geometry.

"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe." - Nikola Tesla

[Qspacer]

I wont put it quite that way since I am not achieving unity but more of classification of forces into primary and secondary. Primary forces are always equal in magnitude while directions are different. Secondary forces can both be different in magnitudes and directions.

Hi AntonioLao,

The information you gave me so far about your work is very interesting. I would be glad to read your research when you publish it. If you have a mailing list, then please may add me to it.

Roi

[AntonioLao]

You would be one of the top ten in the list.