Many ideas in your paper are just "invented" you do not have any experimental data to build such proposals.

Real power of physics is creative imagination based on experimenttal data.

    Hi Edwin,

    Thank you for reading my essay.

    Some abstract math objects or processes can be replaced by Model Mechanics are as follows:

    1. Exchange of virtual particles between interacting objects to give a force between them. This can be replace by the Model Mechanical processes that objects moving in the E-Matrix in the same direction gives rise to an attractive force and in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.

    2. In GRT gravity is the result of objects follows the curvature of space-time. In Model Mechanics, gravity is the combined result of an attractive electromagnetic force and a repulsive CRE force that is derived from the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. That's why the force of gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.

    3. Dark Matters in current theories are the free non-orbiting S-Particles in Model Mechanics.

    4. Dark energy in current theories are the result of the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.

    I did not say that SRT is wrong. I said that SRT is incomplete. However I reject the notion of relativity of simultaneity. Why? Because it is in conflict with the isotropy of the speed of light in all frames.

    I will read your essay again. However, I admit that I am not very knowledgeable in abstract math and will likely not able to offer much constructive comments. CBTW can you give me a brief description of your physical model. Thank you in advance.

    Regards

    Ken Seto

    Hi Al,

    Thank you for reading my essay.

    For the last 100 years doing physics is conducted almost exclusively on an abstractive mathematical basis. It turns out that the physical approach is much easier. In a short time I was able to come up with a physical model that is a viable candidate for a theory of everything. If you are interested please visit my website for more papers on my theory.

    http://www.modelmechanics.org/

    Regards,

    Ken

    Hi Amrit,

    What's wrong with "inventing the model" then do the experiments? All mathematical developments are done this way. Where are the experimental data supporting the String Theories.

    Model Mechanics predicts that the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion in 1995 and this was discovered by two groups of astronomers in 1998.

    This is a true PREDICTION.

    Regards,

    Ken Seto

    Dear Ken Hon Seto,

    I read your essay, proposing model mechanics, in which E-strings rotate around E-matrix....and how attractive and repulsive forces arise. You need to specify the E-strings and E-matrix in detail; with the help of figures.

    I feel, that you may find my essay in the last year's contest useful for further development of your model. The essay is titled: "On the emergence of physical world from the Ultimate Reality" and located at:

    fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2001

    With my best regards,

    Hasmukh K. Tank

      Hasmukh K. Tank,

      The E-Strings are the E-Matrix. The E-Strings do not rotate around the E-Matrix as you interpreted. The S-Particles orbit around the E-Strings to form observable particles such as the electron and different quarks.

      Attractive force and repulsive force are clearly described in my essay. objects moving in the same direction in the E-Matrix give rise to an attractive force. Objects move in the opposite directions in the E-Matrix give rise to a repulsive force.

      Regards,

      Ken Seto

      6 days later

      • [deleted]

      • Post #10

      Hi Joe,

      I disagree with your description of abstract physical processes. By definition

      physical constraint cannot be abstractive....it restricts the math abstractions to conform to physical reality. The example I gave in my essay is a good illustrate of this concept....the physical constraint is that a fraction of a person does not exist in our universe and therefore all the solutions involving a faction of a person must be discarded\I.

      Model Mechanics is a good physical model. It gives physical constraints for all our mathematics.

      Regards,

      Ken Seto

      Re

        Dear Ken Seto,

        I never described "physical constraint." Physical reality cannot have physical constraints. "While Math abstractions can conform to abstract physical constraint, math abstractions confound reality. I agree with you that all fractions of abstract people cannot ever exist in a real Universe.

        Joe Fisher

        Hi Joe,

        I disagree with your claim that physical reality cannot have physical constraint on a math model. Clearly a fraction of a person does not exist physically in our universe and that's the physical constraint placed on the equation x/y=2.

        In the case of the super string theories, the physical reality (constraint) is that we have three dimensions of space. So any math model that requires more than three dimensions of space does not exist in our universe. That's why the String Theories cannot be confirmed experimentally.

        Model Mechanics stay within the observed physical reality of three dimensions of space and one dimension of absolute time. That's why it can be tested experimentally.

        Regards,

        Ken Seto

        Dear Sir,

        You have raised a very vital issue regarding physical constraints on mathematics. Suppose we reverse your example to say every apple is eaten by ½ persons, it is meaningless as there is no such thing as fractional number of persons. Since mathematics is a science of numbers and numbers are a property of all physical objects, it cannot be assigned to unphysical imagery. Hence it is not mathematics. This principle invalidates most of modern 'mathematical physics'. It is not that the physical constraints are not known (like in the above example). But in a hurry to score points, people overlook reason and blindly accept 'established theories'. Thus, even after more than a century of failures to find extra-large or compact dimensions, almost all scientists superstitiously subscribe to such fiction perpetuated by the novel FLAT LANDS. Dimension is the perception of differentiation between internal structural space and external relational space of an object. Since we observe through electromagnetic radiation, where the electric field and the magnetic field move perpendicular to each other and both move perpendicular to the direction of motion, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions representing length, breadth, height that are invariant under mutual transformation.

        Regarding your other example, while we know all about what an electron does, we still do not know 'what an electron is'. So we speculate many things like probability. When a ship moves in sea, it expels water in front to sideways, which reunites at the back. A similar phenomenon is seen in magnetospheric reconnection. Something similar happens with electrons. Positive charge of proton radiates out. Some of it is used up in n-p chain. Whatever escapes is blocked at the orbitals. It becomes visible as electron only at shifting intersections with the right orientation.

        Even Schrödinger has followed wrong mathematics. The Schrödinger equation in so-called one dimension (it is a second order equation as it contains a term x2, which is in two dimensions and mathematically implies area) is converted to three dimensional by addition of two similar factors for y and z axis. Three dimensions mathematically imply volume. Addition of three (two dimensional) areas does not generate (three dimensional) volume and x2+y2+z2 ≠ (x.y.z). Similarly, mathematically all operations involving infinity are void. Hence renormalization is not mathematical. Yet we blindly follow these.

        Recent discovery of galactic blue-shift, galactic merger and the absence of red-shift in galactic or lesser scales should prove dark energy a myth. Energy is perceived through its interactions. If it is not interacting, it cannot be energy. Fluids are also smooth and persistent. Interpretation of M & M experiment is faulty, as light is a transverse wave, which is background invariant. Like the solar system, the universe is spinning around a galactic center. Dark energy is the universal background structure. This implies the galaxy rotation curve and dark matter concept are also faulty. There is a need to review and rewrite physics.

        Regards,

        basudeba

          Hi basudeba,

          Thank you for your informative comments.

          I agree that mathematical development alone outside the constraints of physical reality will not lead to a experimentally verifiable Theory of Everything. That's why I used the Pyramid Technique in the development of Model Mechanics.

          Model Mechanics unifies all the forces of nature (including gravity). In addition it leads to a new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG. The paper in the following link gives a more extensive description of Model Mechanics.

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

          I will read your essay and give it a rating. Hopefully you will give my essay a rating. Thank you.

          Regards,

          Ken Seto

          Dear Ken Hon Seto,

          Contests FQXi - this is a competition for new ideas. You put interesting questions and give original ideas. I agree with your search area. In addition to the idea of a "pyramid" may be considered "heavenly triangle" of Plato, as well as the dialectic of "absolute motion" and "absolute rest" of the matter. In basic science "crisis of understanding" (K.Kopeykin), the "crisis of representation and interpretation" (T. Romanovskaya). To overcome the crisis requires a deeper ontology. Fundamental knowledge - Mathematics and Physics require a deep ontological justification. In fundamental Physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification along with the empirical standard.

          Kind regards,

          Vladimir

            Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

            Thank you for your kind comments.

            Math development alone will not give a ontological physical model of our universe . I hope that future development of theoretical physics and cosmology will place more emphasis on the development of a physical model of our universe. I feel that the physical model of Model Mechanics is a good candidate for a Theory of Everything.

            Regards,

            Ken H. Seto

            Your effort on strengthening the foundations of physical reality is a very good approach.

            Best of luck!

            Sincerely,

            Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

              Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan,

              Thank you for your kind comments. Please give my essay a rating. Thanks.

              Ken Seto

              Dear Ken Seto,

              Congrats on your essay. There are nuggets of truth in your Model Mechanics. I will discuss more later. For now, consider that it is your CRE force that is keeping the Moon and Earth from crashing into each other under gravitational attraction. Same with Earth and Sun, and Electron and the Atomic nucleus.

              More later.

              Regards,

              Akinbo

                Dear Akinbo Ojo,

                Thanks you for your kind comments.

                Indeed the repulsive effect of the CRE force explains why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces. In addition the CRE force in combination with the electromagnetic force generate all the processes of life. A paper on such is available in the following link:

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

                I would appreciate if you will give my essay a rating. Thank you.

                Ken Seto

                8 days later

                Dear Ken Hon Seto,

                I Just finished my essay and have just begun to read the other essays. It is very refreshing to see models to think about. Especially thought provoking is your model of both the strong and weak force. The illustrations of "The stacked-interactions and the electromagnetic interactions in a proton and a neutron." the talk of decay as "de-coupling of the stacked-interactions"

                Found this part of your essay very good. Hope you have a chance to comment on the stacked quarks bonded with gluons making up the mesons and baryons in my essay.

                Many regards and keep up the good work.

                Ed

                  Dear Ken Hon Seto,

                  I wish you success in the Contest and in the promotion of your ideas!

                  I invite you to read and evaluate my essay .

                  Kind regards,

                  Vladimir

                  Dear Ed,

                  Thank you for your comments.

                  I read your essay briefly. The graphic is outstanding. However it will take a more careful reading to understand your model.

                  In my model the stacked interactions of the up-quarks eliminate the need for gluons. Perhaps the processes of stacked interactions are the gluons in your model. In that case we have different interpretations for the same processes and that's to be expected.

                  Regards,

                  Ken Seto