• [deleted]

www.CIGTheory.com

I have sent my theory off to at least one hundred reknown physicists, and some not so reknown, dozens of Publishers and Journals, Newspapers, Ripley's Believe it or Not!, and the Royal Society. How many comments have I received? Zero.

Does this mean my theory is right or wrong?

The theory explains where Space comes from, it explains Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Red Shift anomalies, Wave Paticle Duality, much more. Is this the way the community works?

Thanks A Lot Guys/Girls,

Mr. Doug

PS: My deepest apologies for venting on Dr. Joanna's article site. She's the best.

    • [deleted]

    Mr. Lipp,

    You wrote, "How many comments have I received? Zero. "

    Even that is no longer true about your theory; you are now receiving a comment.

    We here in the FQXi community generally attempt to treat one another with a basic level of respect, and we try to give one another the benefit of the doubt regarding motives and intentions, until proven otherwise. With this in mind, I went to your website and looked at your theory. Your Postulate II is: "1) If you believe it, it is true. 2) I believe it!"

    You have thereby immediately lost all credibility with me, and I suspect with virtually anyone who would extend to you the respect and the benefit of the doubt which is customary here and who would begin to read what you have written. If I believe that the moon is made of green cheese, that is not true. Sorry.

    You obviously have devoted a great deal of effort to creating your website. Why would you do so, and then lead off with statements such as the one quoted above which are virtually guaranteed to alienate potential serious readers? You appear to be intent on wasting not only your own time, but the time of others as well. I can't help wondering why anyone would do so. Is this your labor-intensive way of trying to "punk" the scientific "establishment," or what? Just curious.

    jcns

    • [deleted]

    Dr. Smith,

    Respectfully, I disagree. We must rely on our beliefs, no matter how strange or bizzare, for only then can we build and trust, no matter how little, our fragile reality. Do you believe that you are existing in the Milky Way, spiraling through Space? How strange. If you believe that the moon is made of green cheese so be it. There are zillions of realities out there. It is what makes the multiverse possible. And it is only the majority that decides what is the correct view, though it would be a most interesting Many World's Universe where the minority decides reality.

    Besides, if you can't get past a little humor to read a thoroughly groundbreaking theory, that is your degree of freedom. I am still waiting for the community to respond to CIGTheory. But, many thanks for at least openng the website! More than I've gotten from anyone else!

    To satisfy your immediate curiosity, "Please Keep Reading" - at least try the Fourth Law of Motion - many years of effort. Or maybe the explanation of the reality behind the wave-particle duality Double Slit experiment. Or maybe the solution to Dark Matter. Or Red Shift Anomalies. Or Dark Energy. Or the Horizon Problem. Fact is, one theory, one view, satisfies each of the above problems simultaneously (the 4th Law is independent of the others).

    Hopefully, you will finish the theory and reply with great thought and after deep contemplation.

    Do you have any better ideas where and how Space manifests itself?

    Does any other theory combine the fundamentals? Or describe Black Holes and Space in one equation, and as manifestations of one another?

    And yet, there are so many things I don't want to believe in, like sickness and poverty, and that become part of my reality despite my tryng not to believe, that I do not feel I have any control over my beliefs whatsoever, for if I did, I would never believe in many of the things I see and hear.

    Please finish reading the theory, and then after you understand it, if you can understand it, if it is understandable, feel free to scientifically disprove it. It is welcome. It is what I want. I have written my discoveries as simply as I can, and with my limited knowledge in the field. Open your mind.

    thank you

    doug

      • [deleted]

      Mr. Lipp,

      I appreciate your honesty. You at least do not pretend to be anything other than what and who you are. That in itself is refreshing. That not withstanding, no, I'm afraid that I couldn't get past a little humor to read your groundbreaking theory. Sorry. Humor, in general, is a good thing, but science is not about humor. Science is about good explanations. If you have a good explanation, don't hide it behind humor, or behind anything. We all have only a limited amount of time to spend trying to figure out how the universe works. We need to focus much of that time on thinking about the work of people who have serious ideas to share with us.

      Please read some good books such as David Deutsch's recent book, 'The Beginning of Infinity.' You don't need to be a science or math whiz to enjoy reading it. Then think about your theory, and then re-write it to make it come across from the get-go as something more than mere humor. We need all the really good explanations we can get. If you have a good explanation, put it out there, in serious language. Trying to figure out how the universe works is hard work. None of us can do it alone. Fortunately, others have helped pave the way for us. Take a good look at what they've already done. And good luck to you.

      jcns

      12 days later

      Hi Steve. In our observation the universe is a sphere, so is everything indeed easily being describde as sphere, because a sphere has a center, the center you can see as a singulairity (a sphere with radius zero) and around this (non existing) singulairity there is space, this space in my opinion needs not to be in the form of a sphere but also can be a "blob" (constitution of several spheres ? , but then you introduce new centers and so new origins). But you are right for making calculations it is easier to accept spheres as blobs, only our universe in my opinion is not constituted of pure mathematical forms as we are aware of, chaos is also a form of order. Neither do I believe (it is like religion because there are no experiments untill now possible) in strings. I like them on the beach with beautiful women, but that is another reason that we all are experiencing what we call "reality" and have CONSCIOUSNESS.

      regards

      Wilhelmus

      2 months later
      • [deleted]

      Hi Joanna,

      Quoting your article: "Scarily, the work may also force us to rethink what time actually is: "If one could construct a theory where the entire spacetime including the time were emergent, then you would discover that time is an illusion and have a more fundamental understanding of why it is there," says Karczmarek. "But that's the holy grail of the field, and I wouldn't be surprised it if takes fifty years to make any progress on it.""

      I hope you won't mind if I share my aether theory with you. I think it will explain everything including time. If the aether is made out of waves, then everything makes sense. I call them aether medium waves.

      I got the idea from atomic clocks. There is an atomic clock that uses Caesium-133 which emits 9,192,631,770 cycles per second. The most accurate clocks in the world are atomic clocks, and they use EM frequency.

      Nature makes available to us an electromagnetic frequency spectrum with radio waves at the low end, and gamma rays at the high end. Nature gives us a frequency range that spans more than 24 orders of magnitude.

      I believe that the fundamental properties of the vacuum are: aether medium waves that span an unknown frequency range (a lot more than 24 orders of magnitude). AM waves are 3D and they move at the speed of light relative to their own existence.

      What do you call 9.1GHz? Answer: a very accurate clock.

      What do you call an EM frequency that spans more than 24 orders of magnitude? Answer: time itself.

      If we make AM waves, which behave like electromagnetic frequencies, the foundation of the vacuum, then quantum mechanics and QCD fall into our laps.

      How does nature define the existence of distance? Care to make a guess?

      4 months later
      a year later
      • [deleted]

      Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search For Scientific Truth] and even more spot-on Unzicker-Jones[Bankrupting Physics: How Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility] critiques shame physics' shameless rock-star media-hype P.R. spin-doctoring veracity-abandoning touting sci-fi "show-biz" trending viral exacerbated by online social networks veritable diarrhea via proliferation of uncritical "pop-sci" science-writers where all is spectacle versus little is truth. Lacking Kant-Popper skepticism and falsification, lemming-like stampedes infect not only "pop-sci" science-writers to the abandonment of reality, quantitatively and much worse qualitatively qualified by adverbs: might, could, should, may,... rather than a simple factual is. Scientific societies and universities and government agencies/laboratories, motivated by their mutually-interdependent but greedy financial needs/wants, are swept up in their very own hype, routinely touting by claiming that whatever is "the next big thing", "cutting-edge" bombast... ad infinitum, ad nauseum!!! Allogorically an Indian tribe where all members are chiefs, with multi-feathered bonnets versus few braves with single-feather bonnets each. The result? Lots of angry naked birds freezing in the bushes. The result turns serious physics into a mere carney sideshow, full of fury but signifying absolutely nothing(except the latest trendiness)!!! Witness recent GIGO claims that string-theory holographic-universe affects high-Tc superconductors Drude-Lorentz optical conductivity. Witness failed Anderson resonating valence-bond(RVB) high-Tc superconductivity theory, at the time denuding the Brazilian rainforest with gazillions of papers published on a mere ego-driven double Nobel prize fantasy, versus Keimer experimental discovery that all cuprates dominant intermediate-coupling-bosons are "paramagnons" aka Overhauser(RIP) spin-density waves. Witness recent Overbye NYTimes article on holographic universe (rediscovery of duality of Stokes-theorem) so full of jargonial-obfuscation to prompt many frustrated comments, including one from emeritus APS journals editor-in-chief, as to its jargonial-obfuscation unintelligibility, full of fury but signifying absolutely nothing INTELLIGIBLE! Witness Bak/BNL/DOE self-organized-criticality(SOC) "tad late" rediscovery of Newton's F = ma mere algorithmic-renaming of Barkhausen-Tatro-Siegel burst acoustic-emission! Witness 2007 physics Nobel-prize Fert-Gruenberg decade-later rediscovery without prior attribution of 1970-1977 Siegel[JMMM 7, 312(1978); https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=GIANT-MAGNETORESISTANCE] granular-GMR. Each was the trendy "latest big thing" modulo either lack of prior attribution or "inadvertent", aka out and out bombastic chicanery!!! Siegel caveat emptor "Buzzwordism, Bandwagonism Sloganeering for Fun Profit Survival and Ego" extant is classic John Bradshaw[Healing the Shame That Binds You, Hazelden(1980s)]-Brian Martin jargonial-obfuscation exacerbated sociological-dysfunctionality!!!Attachment #1: 3_FULL_PAPER_COMPLEX_QUANTUM-STATISTICS_IN_FRACTAL-DIMENSIONS.pdf

      10 months later

      Tom,

      Thanks, but I asked for bread but what you offered me is a stone! I have no dollars to get any info where you linked. I hope you don't mind my posting here...

      Here is what some other sources say:

      "In mathematical physics, Minkowski space or Minkowski spacetime (named after the mathematician Hermann Minkowski) is the mathematical space setting in which Einstein's theory of special relativity is most conveniently formulated. In this setting the three ordinary dimensions of space are combined with a single dimension of time to form a four-dimensional manifold for representing a spacetime".

      "In special relativity, the Minkowski spacetime is a four-dimensional manifold, created by Hermann Minkowski. It has four dimensions: three dimensions of space (x, y, z) and one dimension of time. Minkowski spacetime has a metric signature of (-+++) and is always flat. The convention in this article is to call Minkowski spacetime simply spacetime. (It should be noted, however, that Minkowski spacetime is only applicable in special relativity; general relativity used the notion of curved spacetime to describe the effects of gravity and accelerated motion)".

      Other sources more or less say something similar. Are you comfortable with this definition? If you are kindly help resolve some of my headaches.

      Since Minkowski space applies only to Special relativity, I assume it is part of this world and not the hereafter. This space is said to 1). Apply only to Special relativity. 2). Is said to be always flat.

      My headache is that Minkowski space-time may not exist on Earth surface, since Earth surface is not flat space-time, even if only slightly curved by Earth's gravity. Even the moon's surface would be even flatter. The experiments used to support the postulates of Special relativity were done on same Earth surface, and same Minkowski space used to mathematically support the experimental findings, when it applies only to flat surfaces. How do you do the reconciliation?

      In my innocence, what does not apply somewhere cannot be used as the foundation for what is said to obtain in that same place.

      Thanks in advance for prescribing a right medicine for my headache.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

        Sorry, Akinbo, your thinking about physics and spacetime is so foreign to what I know that I can't help you.

        Dear Tom, that is why I asked you what you know about Minkowski spacetime and whether you agree with what I saw on the web about it. Is it too much to ask?

        Absolutely it's too much to ask, Akinbo. Internet quips and wikipedia do not a physics education make. There are fundamentals to get familiar with.

        Akinbo,

        Your point is a valid one, with no answer except in terms of the unsatisfactory 'domain limits' identified by Einstein. Tom's schema assumes Relativity as it's start point so can't really further address the issue.

        My co-author on a few papers is a Minkowski and we've looked at his antecedent's work in much detail. His view was mathematical, and his concepts are hardly truly reflected in the evolved 'interpretation' of Einstein's theory ("the postulates"). [Tom; You may prefer to stop reading here if 'locked in' as above].

        Some interesting quotes to give food for thought, including on "length contraction";

        Cologne 1908; "Then from here on, we would no longer have space in the world, but endlessly many spaces;" and "Not to leave a yawning void anywhere we will imagine that everywhere and everywhen there is something perceptible...I will use...the word "substance".

        (Axiom;) "The substance at any world-point may always, with the appropriate determination of space and time, be looked upon as at rest."

        "...we may define this magnitude... (c) as the ratio of the electromagnetic to the electrostatic unit..."

        "...cases with a velocity greater than that of light will henceforth play only some such part as that of figures with imaginary co-ordinates in geometry."

        That bit is entirely consistent with the DFM's 2ND ('apparent') case of 'speed'. Of LT's length contraction he wrote; "This hypothesis sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence of resistances in the ether...but simply as a gift from above,"

        Again I agree. There's little there that can't be interpreted as Einstein's 1952 descriptions, distancing his theory from the "interpretive embellishments" so may think IS the theory! Discrete Fields are consistent with his 1952 descriptions, as well as Minkowski's; "endlessly many spaces" which may be in relative motion but within them the substance' is always locally 'at rest'. That's just like 7 'atmospheres' at rest locally but moving at different relative velocities within the solar system.

        Back to your original question, the 'curvature' in deep space equivalent to de-Sitter is well described by the LT, precisely equivalent to from diffuse medium refraction (if not then where the refraction DOES emerge needs identifying!)

        Best wishes

        Peter

          Peter,

          First, since you seem to agree with 'length contraction' and 'time dilation' as mechanisms that keep the arrival time of a wave to observer unaffected by observer motion both of which are mathematically based on Minkowski spacetime, what is your own definition of Minkowski spacetime?

          My proposal is that an earth-bound matter medium makes length contraction and time dilation unnecessary to explain the experimental finding that earth motion has no effect on arrival time of a wave on earth surface (either for sound or for light) completes the similarities of the analogy of the dynamics of light and sound. The 'plasma' as you prefer to call it, if bound to earth as it is therefore does not require LT, time dilation, etc to make light arrival arrival times unaffected by earth motion since it is a light-carrying medium. The dilemma with light is that such earth surface experiments have been done in a vacuum, but I propose that the vacuum secured with baryonic matter as the boundary of the instruments cannot exclude/ constrain dark matter from permeating the light path being not reactive electrically and so not easily repelled or constrained.

          Tom seems to admit that he may sometimes resist not answering honestly and it may be fun "hedging, hemming, hawing or bloviating"

          Regards,

          Akinbo

          Akinbo,

          I agree your description can be interpreted as true. It's capable of different interpretations and more precise specification is needed as it's far from 'complete'. (i.e. light 'arrival' from where? arrival time wrt which other scenario? and; "does not require the LT" ..at all as an observed effect? or just as 'interpreted'. The Lorentz Factor does of course consistently model real findings.

          The 'boundaries' of instruments aren't required to exclude 'dark matter' because the surface transition zones/plasmons/free electron fine structure is MADE OF the fermions (or 'dark matter') at rest in each frame, which do the job by scattering to the local c.

          Light transmitted across a vacuum chamber then does c wrt the emitter. If you blow a few particles around within it you'll find some 'scintillation'.

          If the detector is in motion through the vacuum; it's free surface electrons re-scatter the light to the local (detector) speed c ready to 'measure'.

          Minkowski space-time is simply a convenient mathematical 'short-cut' approximation. Nobody back then thought there was ANYTHING in space so it was a useful formulation. However to cling on to it as a precise model of nature's real mechanisms is quite delusional.

          If you and a pal await a light signal, and he starts moving forward, those clinging on to old myths will think he slows down the speed of light heading for him (not you) at infinite range! The DFM simply points out it doesn't need to change speed until it arrives and interacts!

          Best wishes

          Peter

          Thank you JRC and Tom for directing me to resources on Minkowski spacetime on the 'Why Quantum' blog. These have kept me busy. The 27-pages of I. What to Trust to Avoid Believing in Illusions written by Petkov was very well written and interesting, even if misleading.

          Quoting excerpts from there as well as from II. Space and Time: Minkowski's Papers on Relativity, a few deductions can be made.

          p.5 of I: "However, according to the modern theory of gravitation - general relativity -falling bodies move by inertia since their fall is not caused by a gravitational force, but is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime in the Earth's vicinity (induced by the Earth's mass)".MORAL: Spacetime is NOT flat on Earth surface.

          p.33 of II: "Another example of why special relativity (as we now call the physics of flat spacetime) would be impossible in a three-dimensional world is contained in Minkowski's four-dimensional explanation of the physical meaning of length contraction,..." MORAL: Special relativity and accompaniments like time dilation and length contraction belong to flat spacetime.

          p.4 of II: "Given the fact that it is only Minkowski's four-dimensional physics that provides the correct explanations of the relativistic effects (...), it is difficult to understand the reluctance and sometimes even resistance against explaining the kinematical relativistic effects as manifestations of the four-dimensionality of the world as Minkowski advocated". MORAL: Minkowski spacetime can therefore ONLY provide the correct explanation for experiments on Earth such as the Michelson-Morley results, IF, AND ONLY IF the spacetime in the Earth's vicinity were flat, UNFORTUNATELY it is not.

          Hence Einstein's lamentation, "Since the mathematicians have invaded the relativity theory, I do not understand it myself anymore". Therefore, if V. Petkov wants to be honest, he should realize that there is something in theory and science called 'domain of applicability'. Is it correct science to use what is not applicable in a particular domain to provide 'the correct explanation' for the experimental findings in that domain?

          Is it then a suprise, if physics is yet to recover from this faux pas?

          In Law, if you build an architectural masterpiece on someone else's landed property, you build in vain as what you built no matter how elegant does not still belong to you the builder. SR is a beauty but it is not built on Flat Land so whoever buys such property buys nothing.

          Regards,

          Akinbo

            "MORAL: Spacetime is NOT flat on Earth surface."

            Locally, yes it is. If you know Galilean relativity, you know that objects fall at the same rate in a gravity field, whether they follow a straight path or a curved path. Take, for example, an airplane dropping a bomb; assuming that the airplane continues on course without accelerating, the bomb will remain directly below the craft its entire journey to the Earth's surface. This can only happen in a flat plane, because there is no horizontal acceleration component -- all the acceleration is vertical, the dead weight of the bomb accelerated only by gravity.

            "MORAL: Special relativity and accompaniments like time dilation and length contraction belong to flat spacetime."

            Exactly right. See above.

            "MORAL: Minkowski spacetime can therefore ONLY provide the correct explanation for experiments on Earth such as the Michelson-Morley results, IF, AND ONLY IF the spacetime in the Earth's vicinity were flat, UNFORTUNATELY it is not."

            Um, yes it is. As Einstein relativity shows, the universe is Euclidean on the average. When laymen speak of "curved spacetime" they don't normally envision the actual mathematics, much less try to solve the equations -- they think of a picture, a curved line on a piece of paper. That isn't the case.

            Like Pentcho, you must actually learn what Einstein relativity is, before you can be an effective relativity-denier.

            To prevent me from "hedging, hemming, hawing or bloviating", firstly, what is the size of LOCAL and secondly, what does LOCAL mean mathematically and in physics?

            Then take note that I am not a relativity-denier. On the contrary, I support relativity, but the one in which in the coordinate system

            ct, x, y, z

            c is a vector quantity, while t, x, y, z are scalar, not the one in which

            c is a scalar, while t, x, y, z are vectors. There is a physical, observable and explainable difference, even if mathematicians want to reverse their properties and foist paradoxes and absurdities of time dilation and length contraction on us.

            There is claimed to be no role for gravity or acceleration in SR so no need to introduce it unless you want to propose a variant of SR.

            Regards,

            Akinbo

            "what does LOCAL mean mathematically and in physics?"

            You need to go to primary sources for this, as I told you. You won't believe anything I say. Here is as easy as I can make it:

            Locality, mathematically, refers to the relation between a point of origin -- an initial condition, zero -- and another point or set of points differentiable from the origin.

            Locality, physically, refers to events within causal distance of one another.

            Akinbo, Minkowski space has the metric signature +++- or ---+. You have to understand what that means before you even begin to talk about vectors and scalars and how they relate.

            Go to the sources. Don't get your education in internet blogs.