Alternative Models of Reality

time and space are negative energy tachyons - time and space decrease mass and energy of positive energy particles - shape of time and space around mass creates a force away from mass - gravitons create attraction gravitons are tachyons with negative momentum

for years I have talked about this - if there is dark matter it needs to have a certain size a certain shape and a certain density to work - tidal forces between galaxies would change size shape density - there is not any dark matter

for years I have talked about this - kill cancer - give photoactive dye and nano particles to person - send particles like protons and ions through person particles hit photoactive dye and nano particles photoactive dye excited state kill cancer - it could be true this can save almost any person who gets cancer

Kurt Stocklmeir

Thank you Jose, I enjoyed the read.

I'm curious about your atomic structure being entirely a composite assemblage of positron - electron pairs. If you have something further to add about this, I would be interested plz? Matter being a composite antimatter structure, it solves the absent universal antimatter problem doesn't it? So you propose they exist together within Neutrons obeying an exclusion principle?

Steve

Dear Steven,

My theory, whether it is right or wrong, is complete in nearly all respects. Gravity and electrostatic force are similar. So both should be calculated using mass. However we use charge (a relative value for mass) for calculating electrostatic force, and the difference is adjusted in the constant used. But for proton and nuclei, the charge- mass ratio is different, and so using charge leads us to the wrong conclusion that proton and nuclei have a smaller size. I argue that size of neutron is proportionally larger that it can contain 919 electron-positron pairs. So exclusion principle is not applicable.

Here, it may be noted that in spherical-packing, 1838 smaller spheres are required to obtain a larger sphere having minimum imperfection and perfect symmetry, if the smaller spheres come in pairs. That is, 919 is not an arbitrary number. The structure of neutron is explained here.

The strong nuclear force is actually gravity at the level of electron/positron, and is as strong as the electrostatic force. When an electron and positron remain touching, the electrostatic force is completely used. The pair can either disintegrate, or integrate into neutron using whole gravity, forming a closed chain of electrons and positrons with alternate gravitational and electrostatic bonds.

Neutron being unstable, changes into a proton-electron system. Here, one electron-positron pair splits, the electron comes out, and the lone positron remains at the center thus forming a proton. Some radiations (particles along with the natural energy) are released as a consequence.

Jose P Koshy

Hello to you 3 and happy new year 2017 also,

Mr Koshy,

Do you consider quantum gravitation like an emergent electromagnetic force?

Regards

Hi Steve D, and yes happy new year all.

Jose, I'm reading some tech detail which clearly makes sense to you. You understand it takes practice to realize your view, so I and everybody else have to find short cuts for rudimentary assessment. So we can decide if its worth the greater effort necessary to realize.

What are the top five advancements to scientific understanding that your theory offers? I'm not asking for a detailed account. I just want a plainly spoken conversational type summery plz? Something for the lazy listener

What do you think Jose, Joe, Steve, are people thinking about my earlier post, or is it just a bit to unfamiliar?

Hi Steven, thank you for sharing your interesting idea. You have specified Darwinian evolution. I don't think Darwinian evolution is exactly what you require. While there are environmental selection pressures, as in Darwinian evolution, as some structures are able to persist and others are destroyed or dismantled, I don't see self replication at the astronomic scale. Seems to me there are just more of some kinds of structure than others; those for which the environment is conducive. Regards Georgina

Hi Georgina, nice to meet you, and thank you for your reply. Although I haven't read your work, I note your interest in the nature of time. I intend to look through your above linked piece, and to see if perhaps it gives our works a common footing in some respect. The concept I present for you here, does prescribe to a particular treatment of the property of time. Hopefully a constructive conversation with this community, will allow me to progress my explanation that far.

I understand and yes, you do make a very reasonable comment. However I do very specifically refer to Darwinian principles as being responsible for universal orders and complexity, photonic, atomic and cosmological. I have an analogy which will make my intended meaning clear, but first I would like to touch on the nature of our Dark Energy observations. I'll try to raise a particular question in your mind.

It cannot be said that conventional theory is not brave! It does after all openly confront this extraordinary circumstance, an observation that universal space everywhere, is growing in extent. Furthermore, convention acknowledges that this observation must be attributed to something of an energy content, because of the nature of its energetic kinetic interaction with the material universe, hypothesized Universal Expansion. Occasionally you hear whispers toward the obvious implications this has for conventional interpretation of energy conservation laws. No energy created of destroyed within a closed system. Dark Energy a cause without prior cause? It does have the ring of fundamental force, don't you think? I have the feeling these issues are generally well considered, after all they are obvious enough. But I also have the sense mainstream considers these troubles under somewhat hushed whispered tones, so as not to arouse to much public attention while it stands as such an intractable issue of physics and cosmology. But still, brave for confronting and not shying away from this obscure Dark Energy observation.

In addition, how many different methods of energy creation, can it be expected that the universe has in its employ? Big Bang and Dark Energy emergence both? It is only a speculative assumption, but I feel a very reasonably aimed assumption, that the universe might only ever have possessed one mechanism for energies emergence. And if we have a direct observation that hints at energies fundamental emergence, then that source should be investigated as being that possible sole universal mechanism. An aimed assumption.

So what I will attempt to do, is have you view the potentials for Dark Energies emergence in a fresh light. I am going to have you confront the realization, that there are very few fundamentals required for a system to engage Darwinian principles. Perhaps as few as two, an entity might require an energy potential to exploit, and direct that energy potential towards replicating itself. Some might argue semantics, that generationally compounded change is another fundamental requirement, but actually, it might be that perfect copy making isn't impossibly, and that change is therefore inevitable. And even if perfect copy making is possible, systems will still adopt an evolutionary progressive stance for obvious benefit. Darwinian systems evolve to progressively evolve.

To be continued............

Hi Steven, you wrote "However I do very specifically refer to Darwinian principles as being responsible for universal orders and complexity, photonic, atomic and cosmological." Could you please give the Darwinian principles you are talking about? As inorganic matter is different from organic matter with mutable code allowing different phenotypes and different expressed phenotypes on which selection can act. Just would like to understand at the outset what you are taking and leaving from the Darwinian model.

Steven, sorry I meant to say -different genotypes and different expressed phenotypes..... No edit tab available today: )

Kurt,

Sorry, the above reply was wrongly posted in your thread.

Jose P Koshy

Steve,

At the most basic level, force exists as reaction to motion (of the the most fundamental particle). When electron-positron pairs are formed, this force splits exactly into two, gravity and electromagnetic force. So both are emergent forces. As all matter that we can see are made up of atoms, and atoms in turn are made up of electron-positron pairs, the division of force is final. However, magnetic force emerges from electrostatic force, and so gravity and electromagnetic force are separately conserved.

What at present is considered as strong nuclear force is quantum gravity. Gravitational energy is finite and so the left-over gravity from the quantum-level is weaker, and the left-over gravity after formation of bodies like stars, planets, etc. is very weak. This very weak force is now identified as gravity.

In fact, it is the same gravity that is present at the quantum level and the cosmic level. But the available gravitational energy decreases as matter integrates and so the constant decreases. The constants at different levels can be theoretically deduced.

Jose P Koshy

Steven,

My theory offers the following:

1. Unifies gravity and electromagnetic force.

2. Removes singularities and infinities completely.

3. Removes all physically meaningless (in my opinion) concepts like, dark matter, dark energy, independent fields, wave-particle duality, metric expansion, mass-less particles, mass-giving particles, force particles, space-time, etc. from the domain of physics.

4. The number of arbitrary physical constants is the barest minimum, only four.

5. A single unified theory encompassing everything from the quantum-level to the cosmic level.

Regarding your hypothesis, my reply is posted under that thread.

Jose P Koshy

Steven,

You start from an arbitrary assumption: an expanding space. OK. Then you say everything emerges from the space, again arbitrary. The second arbitrary assumption, in my opinion, is invalid, because it is a change and you have to logically explain that change. In physics, what we can do is just explain the changes; we cannot say why space or matter or fields exist.

You view an evolution from simple to complex. Why is it in that direction, and not in the reverse direction? You have to account for that.

Why do you prefer Bosons? May be you just call it bosons.

So what I get from the post is that you have an 'idea' that now remains as a seedling. As a seedling, its consistencies/inconsistencies remain unexposed. As it sprouts, these will emerge in a visible form, and you will be pruning out the inconsistencies one by one, until you get the perfect structure. This is a hard job, but that is what makes it worth attempting.

As long as the present theories are incomplete, there is justification for alternate models. However the alternate model has to be more perfect than the present ones. I would like to know whether you are a beginner in the academic field or not.

Jose P Koshy

Thank you Georgina. Your original meaning was well received, I do understand your question. Phenotype, great word by the way. I think the main effort of this undertaking I do here now, will answer this question. I am drafting it afresh, so will submit it soon.

Thank you for your input Jose. Your comments and critic are well received.

Yes, a number of arbitrary assumptions, which I will ask you to judge within context of what is to follow. I have drafted these explanations before, but I find the process of rewriting leads to refinement, and I'm constantly advancing my conceptualizations which need to be incorporated. So I'm writing it afresh for this presentation. This also allows me to be responsive in my explanations, to the questions put forward to me.

In answer to your question, why simple to complex?

Darwinian systems tend to be progressive in this way, driving towards ever increasing levels of articulated complexity. But of course there are exceptions to this general rule. But the evolutionary circumstance I am describing is progressive, driving towards higher levels of complexity.

Light is a Gauge Boson, Gluons are Gauge Bosons. I will provide a fuller account as my explanation develops, however here it is in brief. Every universal energetic interaction owes its explanation to a Gauge Boson. Even gravitational interaction which points squarely at mass, mass generating Gluons, which are Gauge Bosons. Mass drives gravitational acceleration with the same general mechanism, or function that light employs to propel voids of space. It is so simple, it should be evidently so. But I don't expect this will yet be enough to convince people, so I will provide the explanation of how this is achieved by nature, and why this is so of nature. Sounds unlikely and impossible right! Plz stay tuned

I would describe my seedling as a young but established plant. It has taken root, and in my mind at least, looks likely to advance. But that doesn't mean it couldn't use some assistance, and pruning. I know you cannot judge this from what I have presented so far, but I have substantial more to say on the subject. It is a brave and assertive hypothesis, and does not dwell in the safety of obscurities that cannot be proven or disproven. And if I am wrong, there will be myriad opportunities to pull me up short.

Yes, I entirely agree with your sentiment. Nature is up to something, and people haven't worked out what that something is yet. I think people have this natural tendency to assume the unknowns are unknown, because they are hard to realize shrouded in complexity. So they look towards complex ideas for solutions, like string theory for example. They delve into the complex math hoping to learn something new and inspirational about nature. Assuming all the while that masterminds will progress science with brute brain computational power. I on the other hand am searching in the other direction, I presume the universe emerges from simpler configurations, I presume scientific advancement will be achieved through natural insight, inspired from natural observations. Whether that ultimate insight will come from a Brainiac, or somebody less presuming, time will tell.

Am I a beginner in the academic field? I am not a member of academia and nor have I been. Judging from my qualifications, I would be judged least likely to contribute to science. But that would be disregard of my personality, and natural aptitude.

Actually Jose, I have to retract my earlier concession, that emergence of space is purely an arbitrary assertion. It is aligned with an observation, redshift, which corresponds to Auv.

Then I draw on an association which has been known for many years, and is inspiration for Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis. It allows me to draw this relation between the rate of emergent dark energy, and atomic forces, mass Auv = Tuv.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o8mUyq_Wwg&t=196s

And so my hypothesis is supported by these rather extraordinary correlations of nature. What you will find, is that my interpretation draws on the direct and simplest possible association, without adding degrees of theoretical inference. Dirac notes the value of redshift, associates it with a recessional velocity and expanding universe, further again infers the universes age, then scratches his head at why there might be a correlation between force of gravity and the age of the universe. Several inferences to many, it would seam to me.

Hi Steven, you wrote "Darwinian systems tend to be progressive in this way, driving towards ever increasing levels of articulated complexity." But importantly they don't have to be if there is no need or if conditions are not conducive. Think about the crocodiles doing very well, coelacanths and many simple life forms that remain simple. And with environmental conditions, such as massive global warming or ice age the progress of adaptation will stop, as conditions are beyond adaption for most and worst case only simple forms may remain viable.

"no need" isn't really clear enough. I should have said without the necessary selection pressure. As Darwinian evolution involves culling of the maladapted or less well adapted from the reproductive gene pool, either through death or competition.