How Should Humanity Steer the Future? by Stephen Tuck

Dear Mr. Fisher,

I appreciate the kind comments and the politeness of the presentation of your theory. I doubt either of us would easily abandon our own theoretical views so we may have to maintain a difference of opinion (which is perfectly okay). Often I've gotten into debates where it helped my theory grow because others brought up a different perspective or additional research material. Personally, I see mathematics as the most important way to figure out the nature of the universe. I can see why it is your belief that light doesn't move from a visual perspective, but I don't know what your distinction is between light and "radiant." I also don't know how you account for absorption, reflection, or refraction. From my knowledge, I see light around the source of a bulb as a scattering of light. There are times that you cannot see beams of light (in concentrated beams like lasers) unless there is interference dust particles. From my equations, I know that light has mass because I have been able to calculate that is what slows it down from 300,000,000 m/s for a massless particle to the recorded speed-of-light of 299,792,458 m/s. I see it as the string in String Theory and that all Matter and Space is composed of photons as the fundamental component. I also see the Lorentz Mechanism giving rise to mass by converting frequency-energy into wavelength (Photonic-String Length). Therefore, I would say that light has a surface because I see Electrons as being vibrating, rotating balls of string (that is made-up of a photon). However, I see the c-constant as an Energy Constant rather than a speed because I know that light slows down in mediums. If anything the experiments where they slowed the speed-of-light down to very small speeds should be a good example. Nowadays, light is used commonly in fiber-optic cables to transmit data at near light-speed accross vast distances. I really don't see Einstein's Theories as being abstract when I look at them mathematically. I know that he made some mistakes (which I have corrected). What was really incredible to me is how Special Relativity does not require the speed-of-light to be constant. In fact, in the Tuck-Einstein Equation Time is represented as a c-constant that decreases in value whereas Mass increases (with the c^2 energy never changing). I believe my mathematics helps to solve observer issues because the universe must be deterministic and consistent. There might be some variation in observation like Doppler Shifts in the Color Temperature of light, but I believe that observers see the same thing (perhaps at different speeds of perception). Anyways, that is a brief description of what I believe in regards to light. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Stephen Tuck

Dear Mr. Jackson,

Thank you so much for your honest, glowing review. I've dealt with the narrow, close-minded, politics in the academic community and it is refreshing to hear such inspiration for all my hard work.

I'm still working out the orbital dynamics so I cannot be 100% confident in some of my Quantum Theory until I have labeled every magnitude and applied tried and true Trigonometry to all the angular and orbital momentum, but I feel that I have progressed my work well beyond the range of conventional scientific work. I was ecstatic when I discovered that Elementary Charge was itself due to Electron Spin Momentum. I really believe that I am close to modeling atoms with the Bohr Model using Classical Mechanics. It is kinda hard sailing uncharted territory in Science, but mathematics is definately the compass guiding the way.

You know, you have really heightened my interest into your work. I really want to check it out because since you have given me such an enthusiastic review, I know that you must be on the right path towards understanding the TOE yourself. I wish Scientists were the selfless noble undertakers of expanding truth and knowledge that they are portrayed, but it seems that money, power, and career-minded ambitions get in the way to cloud their judgement. Even FQXi for what it stands for may have difficulty not catering to the crowd rather than the truth at times. Christian was going to review my work, but I haven't heard from him. However, I gave him a way out from the pressure of a public review. I'm sure he has also found some intregue in my mathematical equations. It is hard to dispute mathematical proof of one's work when you have the answers on your side. That is one of the great beauties about mathematics!

Thank You Kindly,

Stephen Tuck

What I was showing here is that connection between the time that it takes the earth to revolve around the sun (1 full Revolution) in seconds and the Ampere. The value for an Ampere is 2 x 10^-7 Newtons per meter. The value that you obtain when you divide 2PI Radians (equal to 6.28319) by 31,536,000 seconds is exactly 2 x 10^-7 Radians per second. Now of course, one could say well these values are in different units and you can't convert between Newtons per meter and Radians per socond. However, many do not understand that the finished equation of Special Relativity defines the dimensionality of the very systems of measurement. Every unit is a form of Space and Time. James Maxwell thought that it should do this when he developed Dimensional Analysis, but Time is still mistreated by him and within Science. All units are mathematically related to each other. You could measure electricity in mass if you could calculate the mass of the electrons it took to flow through your wires. There is a reason why mathematical equations work so that you can calculate units from the variables of other units. I have had to analyze a lot of these conversions in order to derive and integrate equations so successfully. The reason that I believe in math so highly is that I knew something very simple. I knew that our reality could not be coherent if the Laws of the Universe were not absolute and deterministic. Our universe could not function as precisely as it does if there are completely different laws governing Quantum Mechanics without a mathematical bridge to Classical Mechanics. I searched for 2-3 years constantly making observations, developing theories, and deriving equations until everything fell perfectly into place and I figured out the Equation of Everything that unites Gravitation and the Electromagnetic Force.聽

This is hot off the press. I haven't even posted it on ToeQuest. Did you know that 1 second is equal to the value 1.85509e+43 in Planck Time? Take a look at the Planck Unit called Angular Frequency. It is equal to 1.85487 x 10^43. That is pretty close (neglecting calculation rounding error) to say that they are one and the same. That means that the second represents Angular Frequency on the Planck Scale. It would be fair to say that the second could be representative of distance in the terms of Angular Frequency because every rotation or revolution is equivalent to the circumference of an orbit. It is also well substantiated that 2PI Radians is representative of the Newton since a full-rotation exerts a force. After all, Centripetal Force exactly opposes the force of Gravity within a satellite's orbit. I have recently written more than explains things even clearer, but I will prepare it for a post on my forum thread.

Kimmo, I hope that this help satisfy your question as well as satisfying Peter's curiosity. It might take me the rest of my natural life, but by the time I am through I want nothing less than a complete mathematical simulation of the Quantum Mechanics of at least Matter and Photons. It would greatly help if I was afforded the rewards that one would expect be owed to someone that has accomplished so much for Science. However, it seems that all you hear from professional Physicists is silence when they encounter my work. I take the silence as "I can't disprove your mathematical work but I won't go on record for supporting it. Therefore, the best recourse is just to stay absolutely quite." I'm sure there are very few Ph.D's that want to go toe to toe with me on my equations. Their butt sure would be sore from me kicking it!

Kimmo, you know what I was saying. So I misspoke saying Centripetal Force when I should have said Centrifugal Force. I strive to be technically accurate but if you don't make a few small mistakes then you aren't trying very hard. My equations are absolute and I've verified them repeatedly. I don't often use Centripetal Force when I am referencing Gravitation because it isn't really a variable of any of my equations. I don't like it when others make a big deal out of some minor technicality. Words can only convey so much meaning and can easily be misapplied to concepts. That is one reason that I like mathematics as it is absolute and perfectly describes the mechanics without any flaws. At least that us the case when you use the correct mathematics. The most important thing is what I've accomplished in greatly expanding our knowledge and understanding through my equations. There are many amateur and professional theories but few that have such a mathematical basis and that can be proven. Truly theories are a dime a dozen, if you want cold hard facts then you want mathematical equations like my Equation of Everything, which is the Unified Field Equation!

Kimmo, I really don't care what Matt Strassler has written on the topic. I am not wrong on this issue. Satellites like any object revolving in an orbit are subject to Centripetal and Centrifugal Force, which are really made-up of component vectors. Scientists consider them pseudo-forces for that reason but it isn't inaccurate to reference them when discussing the mechanics of orbiting satellites. I wasn't talking about the fundamental force vectors or offering them as the underlying mechanics. I was making a generalization. You are getting more into theoretical or philosophical arguments. Personally, I wouldn't characterize a satellite as a "constantly-falling" object because such phrases imply that it is a Linnear Velocity rather than an Angular Velocity (where an Angular Velocity is really a Linear Velocity affected by Rotational Subspace Field Components). If you say that something is falling then you are implying that there is a bottom. Now I know that Matt would probably say that I am being too technical like I have accused you of being. You know what, he would be right because personally I know what he is trying to say and I wouldn't criticize his exact phrasing unless his understanding of what was going on was way off-base. That just drives my point in the fact that you are trying to make something out of nothing. We are getting into Syntax rather than real Substance. I subscribe to Matt's posts but I have seen him ignore my comments probably for the same reason other Ph.D's have ignored them. They don't want to admit that I am right and that I figured out the Unified Field Equation that describes the underlying Quantum Mechanics of Gravitation. Nobody wants to concede that they got all those years of education and are supposedly looking for the unification of Gravity and the Electromagnetic Force and then someone figured it out who just has a natural gift and no formal college education because it doesn't make them look so great anymore. They don't want to be on the losing-end of an argument or hurt their reputation with their peers who would despise them lending their support so instead they chose to conveniently ignore the truth!

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

I really appreciate the comments that you made in support of my mathematical and theoretical work. I feel honored that an engineer like yourself would agree with my findings. I am unsure of what forum that you have invited me. I do have my own forum on ToeQuest called, "Tuck's Theory of Everything." However, I have strayed from presenting just logic as emotions have often been the driving-force behind my accomplishments. I do agree with the statement that you presented of Alexander Zenkin. I took the effort to find some of your papers on FQXi. I greatly enjoyed the one titled, "Paradigm of the Part Vs. Paradigm of the Whole...The Absolute Generative Structure." It made aware of some of ideas (previously unknown to me) from great philosophers that lend support to my theories. I have included some excerpts below that I felt were particularly insightful. Thank you again. I hope to read further awesome papers from you in the future. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Stephen Tuck

Here are the interesting excerpts:

The Space disappears as something complete, eternal, and materially existing according to Galileo. There is a gap between "the matter" and "the space". "Absolute rest" and world hierarchy disappears from the world view. The space of Galilee is a closed, empty repository of the world, a set of trajectories of the bodies. The structure of the Space is defined by uniform聽circular motions [4].聽The category of "Space" is mathematized, and mathematics itself ("the language of nature" - geometry) is deontologized. Mechanistic theory is gradually replacing the image of the world as a "Living Cosmos" (Greek-K蠈蟽渭慰蟼). A single "Logos" is divided into the "laws of the nature"; the era of experimental and mathematical natural science begins. With disappearance of the World as a whole, the "purpose" in the broadest sense disappears. But it should be noted that to "grasp" the desired structure of the Space, the idea of Galileo on "the passage to the limit" is extremely important, which is, albeit distantly, mathematization of the principle of "coincidence of opposites" of N. Kuzansky.

The matter is not detached from the Space; it is the space itself - anisotropic and inhomogeneous. Vortex matter determines curvilinear nature of motion of bodies.

The first task of philosophy according to Schelling is the construction of matter as a spatial phenomenon, based on the deepest forces of Nature. Schelling described such constructing as the overall deduction of the dynamic process. The space according to Schelling is a form of things without relationship. The Time is the manifestation of the uniform as opposed to the variety of the eternal. Space and Time are two relative but not absolute negations of each other [8].

G.V.F. Hegel deepens and concretizes the dialectics of Space and Time. The Space, as Hegel thought, is inextricably linked with matter, motion and time. Hegel's Space is the dialectical unity of discreteness and continuity. Hegel's Space is "discrete in itself" [9]. The Space encompassing "opposites", discrete and continuous, static formation. Hegel makes extremely important finding about the Time for the understanding of its nature, believing that "time is the truth of the space". According to Hegel, "the space becomes time... the space turns into it".聽

The researchers of the first half of the XIX-th century considered the problem of the structure of Space and Time primarily in relation to the concept of "the action" and its transmission to a distance, namely "short range" and "long range". The dialectics of "short range" and "long range" eventually led to the concept of the field, which is extremely important from the point of view of "the Paradigm of the whole".

The great step forward to the "Paradigm of the Whole" in the middle of the XIX-th century was carried out by James C. Maxwell. He conducts "compression" and restructuring of knowledge, concludes space-time laws of electromagnetic phenomena as a system of vector equations for the electromagnetic field. By carrying out the synthesis of optics and electricity, Maxwell creates an electromagnetic theory of light. He introduces the fundamental concept of displacement current. Maxwell's re-ontologization of "Vector" category is significantly important (Latin Vector-"Carrier"). In physics, the second phase of Archimedes' Second Revolution begins. An era of "electromagnetic" picture of the world聽was established, Maxwell's plan was carried out more and more insistently: "The basic rule of this plan is stubbornly refuse to leave anything unexplored. Nothing should be "holy land", the sacred Unshakable Truth, whether positive or negative" [10].

After developing the relativity theory and development of quantum theory, the "Space" becomes more "tight" - "hidden", "folded" dimensions are introduced, the Space "splits" and "extended" objects - "strings" are introduced instead of "point". They are introduced purely mathematically, without ontological justification with semantic, essential incompleteness of both "Theory of Space" and "Theory of Measure".聽

Construction of the desired "ideal formation" is based on the method of ontological constructing, based on meta-mathematical symbolization of Cartesian conclusion "Cogito, ergo sum" (Descartes' "formula" comprises the idea of integrity, intentionality, and "vectorness" of consciousness: Consciousness is a vector quantity) based on the ancient idea of the trinity of the World structure and the idea of I. Kant on conceptual- figure synthesis, which origins lie in the philosophy of Plato and his "Platonic solids".

B.Rauschenbach noted that the "trinity literally permeates all the nature" [22]. He introduces "mathematical model of the trinity" - a vector with its origin in the orthogonal system of Cartesian coordinates. But B.Rauschenbach, unfortunately, did not link mathematical "vector" to the fundamental concepts of physics - "state" and "state vector", and in its ontological limit understanding, with the absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest, absolute formation, absolute motion.

"Theory of Everything", which includes the entire hierarchy of the World, can only be represented in vector form. Consciousness ("vector quantity") through Logos and Eidos of the Whole is necessarily included in the full picture of the World: "The true physics is that can include a comprehensive man in the whole view of the World" [26].