The Future Development of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology by Ken Hon Seto

Ken Seto

Dear Peter,

Yes time is absolute.

The GPS uses absolute time to synchronize the GPS clock with the ground clock. This is done by redefining the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the redefined GPS second represents the same amount of absolute time as the standard ground clock second and makes the GPS clock permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.

I agree that the Pyramid Technique concept is too radical and the ruling paradigms faithful followers will fight against it. I hope in time they will see that Model Mechanics is not a rejection of modern Physics but rather it provides physical explanations for the math of modern physics.

I agree that a correct Binary Code in combination the physical model of Model Mechanics at the top of the Pyramid can be the start of a theory of everything. I will read you essay again.

Regards,

Ken

Hoang Hai

Dear Author Ken Hon Seto

Your suggestion is the most fundamental issue for luggage to come the future.

In this contest I just provided 10 points.

But looks like there has been a breakdown in the assessment grading so I can not give point for you ? I will evaluate you when the problem is fixed .

Hải.CaoHoàng

Ken Seto

Dear Hải.CaoHoàng,

Indeed we need to change our way of doing physics. The mathematical method alone will not lead to the final physical model for the reason that the inventor of the math model will invent a non-physical model to explain his math. The end result: We have a number of different non-physical models of our universe. The Pyramid Technique of doing physics will enable us to arrive at the correct physical model of our universe quickly.

I hope that you will fix your computer problem quickly and give me a rating for my essay. Thank you.

Ken Seto

Hi Aaron,

I will read you essay and give it a rating.

Ken Seto

Michael muteru

ken

nice essay. On the M5 Brane all unifications can be done.we have M-theroy.Model dependent realism of the universe is thus workable on such.please read/rate my essy LIVING IN THE SHADOWS OF THE SUN: REALITIES, PERILS ESCAPADES MAN, PLANET AND KARDASHEV SCALE.MAKING THE GREAT TRANSITION by Michael muteru here http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2101 that shows how 11 dimensional physics potrays our world/s and physics that we observe

James Hoover

Ken,

I cannot pretend to follow your essay with a great deal of understanding. I do observe that the Schrödinger's Cat experiment, you mention, is more metaphorical than real, attributing quantum behavior to mostly macro objects. Perhaps such explains your Pyramid Technique. I also wonder about the detection of cosmic inflation with gravity waves which you mention as invented.

Certainly we tend to look for what supports our pre-conceived theories. What are your thoughts here?

My essay speaks of looking beyond and within, the first to see beyond orthodox science and second to utilized the untapped power of the brain, the microcosm of the universe. Let me know what you think.

Jim

[deleted]

Dear Jim,

I did not mention anything about the Schrödinger's Cat experiment. Also I did not mention anything about using gravitational waves to detect Inflation.

I invented a new physical model of our universe called Model Mechanics that provides new and different interpretations to explain the problematic observations of the current theories. In addition Model Mechanics gives rise to a new physical theory of gravity called DTG and DTG is compatible with the other forces of nature. In addition Model mechanics give rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT eliminates all the paradoxes of SRT and it can be used to replace SRT/GRT in all applications.

Regards,

Hen Seto

Don Limuti

Hi Ken,

I give your essay a high mark because of your statement:

At the microscopic level it is not so easy to see what is going on because the physical objects involved are too small to be seen by our most powerful microscopes. Also, there seem to be no urgent need to know the exact physical processes involved. This is because our equations are able to predict the outcome of our experiments without knowing the exact processes that give rise to the predictions. This led physicists to believe that they can use any processes to explain our equations.

A very clean description of the trouble with physics. You may appreciate my website www.digitalwavetheory.com

Thanks,

Don Limuti

pjackson

Ken,

Doing moderations and have just reviewed your essay for scoring (looking very strong). I haven't yet had the chance to delve deeper into your background work but I will try to soon.

I note you said you'd read mine again. I can't recall if you did or commented (I seem to have more posts than any!) but if not please do. The classical experiment in the end notes was quite conclusive and has been repeated. The issue we both have is how to get a fair assessment in the face of indoctrinated beliefs!

Best of luck in the final melee.

Peter

Ken Seto

Dear Peter,

I enjoy reading your essay especially your discussion on quantum entanglement.

It turns out that my theory Model Mechanics has a physical explanation for quantum entanglement as follows: A photon is a wave-packet in neighboring E-Strings in the E-Matrix. When a photon is chopped into two pieces these pieces become mirror images of each other and thus they become entangled as they travel in the opposite directions in these neighboring E-Strings.

I tried to give your essay a high rating but I was enable to do so. In fact I was not able to give anybody a rating at all. I will contact the administrator to correct the problem.

Regards,

Ken

pjackson

Ken,

Thanks, I hope you get your rating ability sorted. I still seem to be being hit with 1's with no posts! Dishonesty reigns is seems. I've now rated yours but even the top score applied didn't get you into the 5's. I'll point yours out to those who I think may agree your thesis, i.e. Judy Nabb may be one so do read and post on hers if you haven't done so yet.

I agree the mirror image wave-packet model works fine, but the issue then is how to reproduce the quantum correlations, which are really in 2 parts, the +/- 50:50 is only one and has the counterfactuality/ftl issue (Alice seems to change Bob's by changing her own setting) then the 'cosine curve' distribution with relative setting angle (not 'actual angle!) needs to be derived, which supposedly can't be done classically.

However using the different assumptions of reversible ELECTRONS (wave packets if you wish) in the detectors EM field, all then emerges classically. It's a bit like YOU the observer spinning and reporting which way a fixed disc is spinning from YOUR rest frame. If you're spun the other way you'd report it spinning the other way! It's just thinking outside the box the boxes came in. I can't see your model precludes that but do comment.

Well done for yours. I do hope you manage to score mine.

Peter

[deleted]

Peter,

The cosine curve distribution can be attributed to the chopping of the photons at unequal pieces. I am not sure what you mean by "(Alice seems to change Bob's by changing her own setting)". Are you saying that Alice can change the spin of her electron at any time and Bob's electron will respond accordingly?

In my model the assumed electron waves are the results of absolute motion of the electrons in the E-Matrix. A paper in the following link on the double slit experiment illustrates this concept clearly.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011experiment.pdf

Regards,

Ken

« Previous Page