The Indivisible Atom - A Unified Field Theory by Ronald L Bennett

I just read through all of these abstracts and I don't think any of these papers really addresses the topic which are fundamental assumptions which are wrong. Instead, I see lots of people coming up with their own theories and largely ignoring the main topic.

I was thinking this was going to be like something I wrote long ago about physics wrong turns. I put it on my web site:

http://franklinhu.com/wrongturn.html

Our basic fundamental assumptions are based on a handful of experiments done 100 years ago and interpreted wrongly - like the Michaelson MMX experiment that discredited the aether. It would have been more interesting to see how you would dismiss this experiment. I am a bit late to the party since I didn't know about this until after the essay closed, but I present this as an example of showing what assumptions are flawed without going too much into alternative explanations.

At least your essay is challenging one of the most basic foundational assumptions which is that "there is no aether".

You present the axion as the fundamental particle and this is the fundamental flaw of most alternative science explanations. They rely on something that we don't know exists and there doesn't appear to be any way to prove that it does exist - kinda like the strings of string theory. You could easily replace "axions" with "little green faries" and you would begin to see why this isn't such a good idea.

If you're looking for something fundamental, then why not the electron and positron which is truly indivisble as far as modern science can tell? This has the great advantage that we know they exist and we know their properties.

My own musings on this topic are far too complex for this short post but if you are interested in explaining everything in terms of just positrons, electrons and the electrostatic force, you will have to visit my main web site

http://franklinhu.com/theory.html

Dear Hoang Cao Hai

Thanks for your interest in my essay, plan to read yours soon. My essay is from a labor of thought that is rooted in the idea that everything must be a lot simpler in design than we think. My main theses is of my essay using the standard model as a tool to help define my reasoning says that; just like we can create complicated programs out of binary numbers that designed this webpage, matter and therefore all of us must be made from a very similar simple beginning, from a indivisible atom which is the gluon.

Regards

Ron

Dear Ronald,

I agree with you that aether must exist. I am sure in aether a lot of gravitons and nuons according to the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay). The nuons form the dark matter and their mass about the mass of proton. See also Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

Sergey Fedosin

Thanks Ron for your last remarks explaining your views which I have just seen.

------

Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

Vladimir

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

This rating system here is pure BS, not because I had such a low score after wasting my valuable time on this but most everyone here has a low score it shows that most people wasn't trying to rate people's essay honestly, they were giving everyone's essay a 1 just to promote their own essay. It was a smooching contest full of deceitful people that rated other people's essay with contempt. The best 35 essay's here may mostly be the worse essays, their better kiss-ups or a life-long member of FQX1. I have never been associated with so many two faced people, that after they talk to you favorable they insert a knife in your back when they leave. This is just a brain draining place to steal ideas from. I am posting my essay on my website. I would say have a good day but I wouldn't mean it because I don't know which face you have on today.

Dear Ron,

just wanted to let you know that I have now read your essay. I'm sorry it was one of the ones I didn't get to before the end of community voting. There are just too many essays in this years contest.I have tried very hard to read and respond to lots of essays. It is feedback from other people on my ideas and constructs that I have mostly sought from the FQXi community, so I think it is fair to also attempt to give feedback to others where I feel able to do so.

You are not alone in your quest to have the aether reinstated, rather a lot of the essays seem to ask for an aether of some kind. It is unfortunate that with the widespread acceptance of Einstein's relativity the idea of the aether was too hurriedly dismissed as unnecessary. IMHO There is a place for some kind of material medium at the foundational level of reality but not in the space-time that we observe. A few years ago I entered the Gravity Foundation competition with an essay in which I proposed a Bose-Einstein condensate type aether. Though I realise it was unsubstantiated speculation on my part, as I did not have the evidence or background knowledge to make it more than that. So that particular idea does not seem so strange to me.

I found your discussion of programming the universe a little odd but that is probably because I don't have a background in computing so do not think in that way. Your scroll was an amusing interlude. You've done a good job of setting out some interesting ideas in a readable and quite informal way, with good illustrations. A good thing about this contest is that the entries that do not go through to the final round remain visible for people to continue reading or to refer back to. Making your work visible was presumably one of the motivations for entering.

Although the voting system is imperfect it was left to the community to decide which essays would go through. There has been a lot of discussion about possible improvements for next year on the Competition 2012 blog. We all have different backgrounds,interests and preferences when it comes to presentation. I did try hard to be fair but I know that there are others who would disagree with my personal differentiation of the essays. I gave very high marks to the essays I thought best suited to be on the final list, middling marks to the ones I thought less suitable but still a good quality and low marks to the essays that I thought were really unsuitable for the next round.I did not vote for any essays I had not read through.

Regards Georgina : )

You can post links from this thread. There is a link help page, find it by looking under the 'Reply to this Thread' heading, point two. If you link to your web site anyone checking out this essay thread, and interested in learning more, would be able to find your web site too.

Ron

Just got to your essay. Sorry it wasn't in the first 200 I read. I saw your complaint about voting, but you should realize we get back what we put in. Reading all before the deadline was impossible. If you'd read and commented (politely!) on mine I would from courtesy alone have read and scored yours, and highly as it happens. The community IS you. If none of us bothered to read, understand and comment on other essays none would get ANY scores!

So the great value in yours has been missed (but also true of many others). Even mine, well read and scored, was too dense and complex to be followed by most. I like and agree with most of your theory, and your writing style and fig's were good. In particular your conclusion; "When an object leaves earth it takes its boson condensate field with it that is strongly embedded around and in the mass of that object." closely match my own ontology. Certainly most is consistent, if of mainly smaller scale nature and from a different angle. My own removes the chasm between SR and QM, with wide 'bigger picture' consequences, and infers a fundamental fractal toriod at all scales up to universes (see also the end notes and last years essay, also community 7th).

I hope you'll read mine and comment, but I flag up points of possible inconsistency and questions wrt yours. i.e. Where is the electron? I disagree with; the 'Big Bang, 'single pointlike states,' and that "The reason why SR needs no aether to explain propagation of light is that we are using the same 1's and 0's from the aether throughout the universe to program SR." but I show how SR can logically emerge FROM background ether frames, so agree; "The geometry of SR is a precise geometrical formulation because of the aether. As a result general theory of relativity, special theory of relativity, and classical physics would not exist today without the aether, neither would everything else."

You should be aware that mu essay asks you to assimilate a sequence of replacement assumptions, and built those elements into a kinetic ontological construction. As an engineer I hope you may grasp this abstract concept and apply it dynamically. I hope you can develop your theory to provide falsification and unique predictions. These are basic essentials if to be taken seriously. Though mine has them in abundance it's still not yet 'noticed' (last years was passed over in the results).

There are a number of other good and consistent essays herein. Look also at Kinsley Nixeys Fig 2 for an analogue of my 'fluid dynamic coupling' boundary mechanism equivalent to your 'local field around matter.' I look forward to your thoughts with interest.

Best wishes

Peter

My final thought.

I don't kiss up and force my ideas on others, I read over 50 papers and voted on the ones I liked. I'm not into politics just have thoughts that I would like to share with other people without smooching too much. Judging from some of the papers I read and how they were voted on, my conclusion is that this forum is all about politics not about a fair exchange of ideas...