Scott, I have a question.
Is the approach you gave in your essay able to make a testable prediction that could be falsified and if yes, what prediction would this be?
I do not want to know that, eventually in the future, your approach would be able to make a prediction or something like that, I ask for whether or not it actually does or does not, as it stands right now.
My theory does predict something that physicists are planning in a future experiment. They predict that neutrino/anti-neutrino interactions will result in annihilation. That will not happen. The mass found in neutrino does not have the same structure of mass found in particle made of E2 energy. (See the hierarchy of energy). Neutrinos are composed of E1 energy. Annihilation occurs when particles containing E2 energy has their energy jump down to the E1 energy state. Neutrinos are already in the E1 energy state, so the neutrino/anti-neutrino interactions will NOT result in annihilation.
Hi Paul -
I have to say you have very diligent in reading my paper - You have made some very important points and I will address the best I can in a post.
You state, "your paper is much like many others that I have seen that fall short of being actually workable because it attributes characteristics to some things that they don't actually possess in reality."
When you really learn my theory - (this is just a very brief essay with very limited math) there is a reason why other papers fall short of reality and why this one does not. You are using your current knowledge and applying it to the entities of spacetime... This is a big no-no... We will never be able to directly see, experiment on, or show the entities of spacetime in ANY physical manner - My theory reveals why that is so --- and to do so (exposing the entities of spacetime) would break the laws of physics. So in a sense you are right - the entities are not workable "particles" in reality, they are entities that cannot be physically exposed because to do so would break the laws of physics. That is why I call them entities and not particles - All of physics deals with particles and to use the physics of particles and apply them to these entities leads to misconceptions of the entities.
You went on to talk about "motion" of the entity of spacetime -- I cannot answer this in a post and I will only refer you to the first chapter of my book that discussed this in detail.
https://www.amazon.com/GOD-Entity-Gordons-Theory-Everything/dp/1457538709/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1514069173&sr=8-1&keywords=the+god+entity See the look inside feature and read the first chapter for free.
I agree with some of your statements - there is no place for the spinning point to go... You are being held back by the same thing that holds every physicist back from finding the theory of everything - "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum" - and that is another big explanation and problem.
I would suggest you read these papers to give you an idea of how the hierarchy of energy plays a key role in addressing all your issues regarding dimensions and "particles" existing "in" spacetime as opposed to entities that exist "as" spacetime.
https://www.academia.edu/30755282/Hidden_Dimensions_..._Not_So_Hidden_After_All
https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New_Math_
This statement you made is something I agree with --"It is an easy calculation, so I will give it. 1,000,000 objects X 0 size of each object = 0 size of dimensional line."
But this statement tells me that you may not have understood how the spinning point entities of spacetime (with their operator fields based on relative spin) collectively create spacetime and the creation of the parameter of distance which was in my essay.
Next item... You state, "This may come as a surprise to you because it appears from your paper that you believe that all of the energy photons came into existence at one time and are all still in existence and by extension I would assume that you also believe that no new energy photons have been created since then. In reality energy photons come into existence and go out of existence all the time around us and we can easily observe this. If you have a car and get in it and start it up, you are starting up an energy photon production device."
But I am not saying that it is these same photons - I'm saying that what we currently know of as energy in our universe was created at that time. When you say "no new energy photons have been created since then" Photon energy (E1 energy) is captured by particles of E2 energy and the energy released in photons again - but the net energy remains the same - the point I made is that the energy we know about (E1 and E2 energy) can never become the energy of spacetime (E0 energy) and the energy of spacetime can no longer create new primordial photons (arising from only spacetime itself) - This is why we have the law of conservation of energy.
It will be a long time for me to get this theory across because people bring their misconceptions from what they know about "particles" and apply them to entities. It is also almost impossible for a person to think outside of the three dimensional box and to understand why there is a three dimensional spacetime in the first place.
In your last statement you said, "When you consider the generation of a balanced static mass effect in matter particles, a two dimensional rotation will not work. You need a three dimensional enclosed motion to produce it. I hope this helps you."
This statement shows that you have not gotten through the Ruby Slipper Conundrum and are using terms and parameters like mass, motion and dimensions which pertain to particle "in" spacetime and not the entities "of" spacetime.
I very much appreciate your comments Paul and the time it took you to respond. It really helps in where I am lacking in getting the theory across - I know you may be thinking I'm just delusional but once you learn the entire theory - there is no way you go back to your current model which for the most part remains the same for E1 and E2 energy. My theory does not change physics, it finishes the model by adding in the missing ingredient required to get past our current theoretical impasse.
By the way - one of the main problems in basic physics is how do particles come to be associated with their energy fields. In a nutshell energy fields are created by the interaction of E1/E2 energy with the E0 energy of spacetime. This is another paper you may be interested in:
https://www.academia.edu/34884714/Dark_Energys_Role_in_Gravity
Thanks for your answer.
I have some further questions.
Do you think that such a future experiment is feasible *in principle* due to the laws of physics?
If yes, then would you agree that until such an experiment is made in the future and the results of it are known, your model is just that, a model, although it may refer in some way or the other to all the hitherto known physical laws?
If no, then would you agree that your model may be elegant and consistent, but cannot prove that logic is *more* fundamental than nothing (the latter in the sense of the absolute non-existence of everything, including space, time, quantum fluctuations, imagination, logic and even your two primordial postulates in your model)?
I do think that a future experiment is possible to support my theory (such as the neutrino/anti-neutrino annihilation experiment planned). And since I answered yes let me address your next question...
One of the very necessary aspects of a new model for a theory of everything is that it is in total agreement with all theories that have not yet been disproven. This is not an easy task to accomplish since we know a lot of physics theory. Currently the best candidate right now for a theory of everything is string theory (M theory to be more specific) but the interesting thing about String Theory is that it did not start with a model... It started with someone noticing that some math somewhat conformed to current knowledge. The conforming of the math continues to today trying to make string theory "work". This is not how a theory of everything should come about.
Once the correct model is found, the math will automatically fall out of the physical model and literally derive itself as the model becomes more complicated. So for now The Gordon Model is just a model but as it derives more and more of everything we know from the bottom up, it should be eventually be recognized at some point as a theory that out-performs string theory.
Now I can also say that there will never be an experiment that can directly reveal the existence of the entity that is the building block of spacetime because the laws of physics itself (according to Gordon's Theory of Everything) will not allow it - to do such a thing would mean breaking the law of conservation of energy. By saying this, means that there is "logic" at the fundamental base of my theory...
If everything in the universe can be perfectly derived from my theory, all the laws of physics, all the particles that exist, all the energy fields that are created, all the forces that exist, and even show why certain particles are impossible to exist (and will never be found... ie. tachyons, gravitons, elementary magnetic monopole particles),... Then it would be logical to say my theory is correct.
There are reason why physicists cannot get past their current impasse in physics and find the theory of everyting, they are locked into their methods:
1) No experiment can ever reveal the entity of spacetime and its associated energy
2) The solution cannot be derived from where our current math stands now because we use basic parameters that we have no idea of how they came to exist... ie. distance, dimensions, the property of "straight", etc...
My model is unique starting with a component building block of spacetime and showing a linear progression of how everything came into being. It is kind of gratifying that my model reveals the last of the energy states where the first two were found by Einstein. He found E=mc^2 and E = (h/wavelength)c^1 but he never found the beautiful and simple math of the hierarchy of energy where the base energy state (where most of the energy of the universe remains) as the energy of spacetime propotional to c^0.
I hope that those who are interested in the solution to what is fundamental give my model a chance and explore it (and scrutinize it) more deeply.
Scott,
I agree that a new form of mathematics is needed to resolve the problems in Physics. However, I do not necessarily think this means that everything must be discarded. After all, both QM and GR work.
It seems to me that you are recreating Euclidian Geometry. Euclid begins with a point, then a line, then a plane, then a 3-D space. You begin with a point that is spinning. But for the point to spin, there must be time. There must also be some way to determine that it is spinning. So, you have not really gotten around space-time. BTW, a point can be viewed as the limit of a sphere where the radius tends to zero. A hyper-sphere could also be used with the limit being an infinitesimal piece of space-time.
I was not able to follow the rest of your argument. That does not make it wrong. It just means I could not follow it.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
Thank you Gary for so elegantly making my point. Don't worry you are no the only one in this situation. The reason why the theory of everything has not been found is because no one can get through "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum". Even though I addressed in my essay what you are questioning in my last post - it is difficult to register. The problem may stem from the question of what is a true void universe, no parameters (time, distance, direction, etc...) no energy, -- I will just post here the paragraphs from my essay that addresses your issue... Anything I add will be in () and then I'll better explain the Ruby Slipper Conundrum.
A universe that has no spinning points is a universe of only points with no way to distinguish one point from another. In this new mathematics, points that cannot be distinguished from each other are considered to be the same point (therefore no distance exists). A spinning point added into a universe of indistinguishable points creates a relative motion of all other points in the universe. Since there is no parameter of distance established yet, the new math uses a new parameter called "length". It is important to keep in mind that the new parameter being called length only depicts whether a point is "relatively closer" or "relatively farther" from the spinning point and is never to be confused with what we know as distance. (it is difficult not to equate this new parameter I am calling length to distance - length is NOT distance)
Distance cannot be defined by points because points do not have the property of distance ( you made this point before and I agree) and between any two different points there are an infinite number of points. Depending on your perspective the surrounding points can be considered moving circumferentially or not moving at all. (If you are on the spinning point, the surround points are moving, if not, the points are not moving at all) Since the circumferential points cannot be differentiated from the perspective of the spinning point they need to be considered the same point with the same value for their circumferential motion. It is not necessary for us to know a specific quantitative value for this circumferential motion; it just has to be the "same value".
We can express the "relative" circumferential movement of the surrounding points mathematically using the relative length (l) and the "relative" angular velocity . The angular velocity is given in terms of another new parameter associated with "time"; but this parameter we are calling "time" is not what we currently conceive as our known parameter of time. (Similar to the relationship of length compared to distance) This new parameter of "Time" is "relative" and is considered to pass "relatively quicker" or "relatively slower" with no quantitative value. The angular velocity is in terms of 1/"time". ( I should have wrote this as 1/"relative time" realizing that the relative time is not the same parameter as we know as time.
The Ruby Slipper Conundrum is explained this way... I coined the phrase "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum" and to understand why - you need to know the story of the "Wizard of Oz". It has to do with the main lesson of the tale.
I love to explain it so here it is... The Ruby Slipper Conundrum basically is this...
Everything we "know", all our theories dealing with all the particles, all the laws of physics, all the parameters we use... are known by the way particles and energy exist "in" spacetime... But we have no idea what spacetime is made of to give it its properties. Let's suppose that spacetime is composed of a single type of structural unit. We shouldn't call this structural unit a particle because all particles we know exist "in" spacetime. We will have to call this building block structural unit an "entity" and say that the entity exists "as" spacetime.
Now comes the hard part... We would need to describe the entity's properties in mathematical terms. To do so you would have to pull an entity out from its structural position "as" spacetime and put it where there is no spacetime and THEN express its properties in mathematical terms. Now I ask you - How do you do that?
There is no distance,
no time,
no dimensions,
and no directions!
Is anyone capable of understanding the mathematics associated with this entity? I assure you that answer is NO! And I also assure you that if you were given its correct math without going through the learning process called the Ruby Slipper Conundrum, you would not believe it and close the book before you got to start learning the correct theory of everything.
In my book, The GOD Entity: Gordon's Theory of Everything, I start with this entity as the building block entity of spacetime and I have to give its mathematics... but to give its real math would not be accepted. So I must use the Ruby Slipper Conundrum learning process. This process starts by artificially putting the entity "in" spacetime like the way we acknowledge all other particles. Doing so gives the reader a chance to wrap their head around some math that they will accept. I do this fully knowing that there are errors introduced at this time (which would not be noticed by the reader). These errors will have to be corrected later.
The math given for the entity can still get the reader through the internal structure of spacetime and the internal energy structure of light. But it will have to be corrected when I get to the internal energy structure of particles containing mass (Chapter 7). When I give the true math of the entity at this time, the reader will have an easier time accepting it because you have already learned enough of the Gordon Model to see why it is correct.
The reason why I call this learning process the Ruby Slipper Conundrum is because at the end of the Wizard of Oz, the wizard takes off in his balloon without Dorothy. She starts to cry that she will never get home and the good witch comes. The good witch tells Dorothy not to cry, that she ALWAYS had the power to go home because she has the Ruby Slippers. Dorothy says But I had the ruby slippers ever since I arrived at Munchkinland, why didn't you tell me this before... And the good witch says -- "Because you wouldn't have believed me!"
This is why every physicists needs to go through the Ruby Slipper Conundrum as it remains the biggest stumbling block to finding the theory of everything.
I can only lead people to this theory -
All the best Gary
Oh I forgot to respond to this Gary...
"I agree that a new form of mathematics is needed to resolve the problems in Physics. However, I do not necessarily think this means that everything must be discarded. After all, both QM and GR work."
You will find that the math I provide in my theory leads to ALL the math we know and to the math that expresses the postulates of GR and QM. In that regard it fulfills the requirement that what we know is correct but needs adjustment when all the pieces of the puzzle are taken into account. (such as dark energy) - This paper may lay some of you concerns to rest:
https://www.academia.edu/34884714/Dark_Energys_Role_in_Gravity
Again all the best!
Dear Scott,
You are right that I am using my current knowledge, but I am not really trying to apply it to space-time because my current knowledge goes beyond the concept of space-time so that concept is no longer required to explain the structure and functioning of the universe. You are right that we will never be able to directly see, experiment on, or show the entities of space-time in ANY physical manner because it doesn't really exist. When I began to look at man's current scientific structure, I found that the understandings that it generated were very vague in nature. I wanted to know the details of the structure and operation of matter particles, energy photons, and fields, etc., but I found that the current theories could not supply this information. It could account for observed interaction outputs of particle interactions and the probabilities of the occurrence of each output result, but it could not give any good indication of the structure that generated those specific outputs and their probabilities of occurrence, etc. When I began to look at all of the observational information concerning matter particles, energy photons, and fields it became obvious that their structures were all connected to some base source entity. The theories backed up that concept since E=MC^2 essentially says that the mass of matter particles is equivalent to the energy of energy photons. The observational data showed that matter particles and energy photons could be converted into each other. It also showed that they could both be converted into simple angular or linear motions. The linear motions seemed to be the simplest in structure, so I began to research the structure of motion. I found that linear motions are very simple and contain only three information structures. These are the motion's position in space, its direction of travel in space and its motion amplitude (speed) of its travel through space. All of the observational data indicated that the total number of energy photons and matter particles are not conserved because they can be converted into each other, which would change the number of them in the universe, but the total amount of motion in an interaction is always conserved. This meant that motions are the true energy entities and are the only entities that contain the ability of action within themselves as part of their structure. All other entities can only act or interact through the motions that are within them. I then began to determine how fields, energy photons, and matter particles can be built up out of simple linear motions. Simple linear motions that travel in three dimensions at the speed of light or less were ideal as the particles that make up fields. An energy photon also contains a linear motion that always has a motion amplitude of the speed of light and it also contains an additional cyclical motion that travels back and forth at ninety degrees to its direction of travel. If you consider that there is a fourth dimension and also consider that if a field particle (I call them sub-energy particles because they hold the position below that of an energy photon) receives enough motion that it would exceed the speed of light, it exceeds the threshold level above which all motion is transferred to this fourth dimension and if this fourth dimension is very small and is connected to the other three dimensions at ninety degrees like the others are to each other, then the back and forth motion of that extra motion in the fourth dimension as it travels to one end of the dimension and bounces off of the end and then travels to the other end and then bounces off of that end can create the observed frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects of energy photons. Matter particles work in a similar, but more complex way. If the fourth dimensional motion exceeds a threshold level it can travel into the fifth dimension. Observational data shows that it does not automatically transfer there though. The presence of an angular motion component, such as that received from the sub-energy field near the nucleus of an atom, is also necessary to allow the transfer into the fifth dimension. The motion contained in the fifth dimension drains back down into the first three dimensions. The interface between the fifth dimension and the lower three dimensions is such that the motion begins to transfer into one of the lower three dimensions and the flow rate linearly increases to a maximum level and then decreases linearly back to zero. When the flow rate in one dimension reaches its maximum level, the flow begins into the next dimension. The flow rate reaches zero in the first dimension just as the rate reaches the maximum level in the second dimension. At the same time the flow begins in the third dimension and reaches its maximum level when the rate reaches zero in the second dimension and flow also then begins again in the first dimension. This cycle continues as long as motion remains in the fifth dimension. When the motion enters into the lower three dimensions from the fifth dimension, it would cause the energy photon to travel faster than the speed of light, but the extra motion is transferred back into the fourth dimension. All that is left of the transfer in the lower three dimensions is the angular component of the motion that continually changes the direction of travel of the photon, so that it takes a three dimensional curved path that encloses upon itself to create a continuous cyclical three dimensional enclosed path. The enclosed path is what we call a matter particle. The great amount of angular motion in all directions creates the matter particle's balanced rest mass effect. When the motion is transferred back into the fourth dimension it will transfer from there back into the fifth dimension if the fourth dimensional wavelength fits properly into the matter particle's enclosed path, such that the proper angular motion component is present to allow the transfer. If it does, the inter-dimensional motion transfer cycle is complete and the matter particle is stable. If it does not fit, the motion completely drains from the fifth dimension through the lower three dimensions and into the fourth dimension. In that case the matter particle's enclosed path disappears and the particle is transformed back into an energy photon, which travels off in some direction at the speed of light. All that is needed to explain everything is motions and a spatial system in which those motions can occupy positions and continually change from one position to the next in and can interact with each other in. This can all be done without breaking the laws of physics, which as you admit your theory requires. I use the word particles to identify the individual entities that exist whether they are field sub-energy particles, energy photons, or matter particles. I am not referring to the wave/particle duality concept in which energy photons are considered to be waves and matter particles are considered to be solid point particles that behave somewhat like little billiard balls with rest mass, etc. Neither of these concepts is true. Both energy photons and matter particles are partially composed of cyclical motion structures that can appear to be wave like during interactions, but they also produce angular motion components that generate mass effects during interactions that would appear to be particle like effects, etc. Such things as wave/particle duality, etc. that cannot be very well understood using quantum mechanics are clearly understood when the underlying motion structures are known. I read the first chapter of your book and I find that some of your logic that you use to justify your concepts appears to be based on assumptions that have no proof of validity. As an example you say that the basic entity must not contain the property of distance, but there is no logical reason that it could not just be the method of introduction of distance into the structure of the system. To put it another way, distance can be a property of the most basic entity and could introduce it into the rest of the structure of the system. The C^0 speed would have a value of one since any number to the zero power equals one. This has no real mathematical significance in the E^0 formula, so I guess you just left it in as a reminder that you are dealing with the lowest energy level compared to the levels where C^1 and C^2 are used. In your example you talk about a spinning point moving toward an adjacent point on one side of it and away from another point on the other side of it. You then say that other spinning points must be added to equal the pressure, so that the point will remain displaced in that new position. I am assuming that you don't actually mean that new points come into existence in those spaces, but only that it would take the amount of energy that those points would provide if they did exist. Is that right? Are you saying that the points can actually move in relation to one another and if so, where does the energy required to do so come from? If the point is to maintain itself in its new position that energy would have to be continually applied to it. This would mean that its source would have to be continuous. It would also seem to me that if a point moved toward another point, it would apply pressure on the point that it was traveling toward and that should then make that point move also in the same direction. In addition to this the point on its other side that it was moving away from should also move toward it because of the reduced pressure that it would experience on that side of it. Are you considering the energy that keeps the points separated from each other to be composed of the motion contained in the spinning points or is it composed of something else? One problem that I see is that in the beginning when there were no dimensions for points to exist in and be spread out or separated from one another in, only one point could possibly exist. If that point somehow began to spin, there would be no other points to create relative spin motion in comparison to it. There would be no place where there could be points that are closer or farther away from the spinning point because that would require at least one dimension to already be in existence that could contain more than one point and allow them to be in different positions from one another in that dimension. How do your account for this in your theory?
You are right that your concept of the structure of space-time does break all of the laws of physics, because you consider that the spin motion at the center of the point would be infinite and would decrease the farther away from the center you get, down to zero at an infinite distance when at all of the structural levels that man has come to understand so far, the rate increases the farther you are from the center and decreases to zero at the center point of the spin. As an example, a point on the surface of the earth at the equator would travel at the rate of about twenty four thousand miles a day, but a point near the north or south axis of spin that is one inch from the center of spin would only travel a little over three inches in a day. Of course, there would not be any place farther out from the center of the point because a point has no extension beyond its center for there to be any place where another point could exist unless the point exists in an already existent spatial system of one or more dimensions. If you have explanations for these things please let me know what they are. When I was talking about the generation of a balanced static mass effect in matter particles I was not talking about space-time level entities, I was talking about the construction of matter particles, such as electrons and protons, etc. I have not seen how you envision them to be constructed yet in your theory because your current paper and the first chapter of your book do not cover that level except a mention that they come from E^2 energy, unless I just missed it somehow. If you can give me that information of how you view matter particles to be constructed that could help me to better understand your theory. As I mentioned above my current model only requires the existence of motions and a spatial system for them to be positioned in, to travel from one position to the next in and to interact with other motions in and it does not require the breaking of the laws of physics, at least those that are truly applicable to reality, such as the laws of motion, etc. My current paper covers the fundamentals of the construction of all eight hierarchical levels of structure, since it is about "What is Fundamental". My other papers on this site's contests give more detailed information in several areas. The internal motions within matter particles entrain sub-energy field particles to travel through them, which generates their internal fields that keep the internal motions of matter particles in an atomic nucleus from interacting directly with each other. There is also an external field structure generated that captures electrons and is the interaction point of elastic interactions and also contains the particles (protons and neutrons) within the nucleus of the atom, etc. I have other questions also, but this is getting long, so I will stop here for now.
Sincerely,
Paul
Hi Scott I like the presentation of your essay as a day of creation of the universe. the times of day breaks it up into readable sections and I think it is an attractive literary tool, making it more than just information. Like some of your other readers I do wonder why after sweeping the board clean, you choose to keep certain theoretical pieces. For me, it is spacetime that needs putting to rest. I think you must consider it indispensable and yet it was Einstein (who is said to have) said-"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Nevertheless you have presented your own model in a nice way and I appreciate the thought that has gone into it. Kind regards Georgina
Thank you for the kind words Georgina. I do not write academic papers - I am not in academia but I did co-write the National Lampoon movie RoboDoc.
Anyway - I know it seems like I swept things away and then re-introduced them... But here is what really happened. I wanted to know why the speed of light was measured the same in all reference frames. We know the properties of light and we know the math of waves. There are no other waves models that has a wave and no medium. So just like Einstein (http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html) I concluded there MUST be a medium for light AND it must be unlike anything we ever were familiar with.
Besides having a master's in engineering - I have an artsy and creative side to me - I composed and arranged and produced the original music soundtrack to RoboDoc. I threw out the notion that spacetime is made of nothing or is just something that should be mathematically expressed without a model that explains how it comes to possess its properties and I worked on how spacetime is constructed and what its building block structural component is along with the math to express it. The math of the component entity is not easy for a trained physicist to grasp. Actually the math is easy, the concept of an entity that builds spacetime and not a particle that exists "in" spacetime is difficult because of the ruby slipper conundrum. The ruby slipper conundrum is the main reason why physicists have not been able to solve the theory of everything for the past 100 years - Einstein came close just by realizing that spacetime had to be a medium when he stated this...
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
Einstein knew that something about spacetime had to be explained. What he never figured out is that spacetime is an energy medium and the base energy state from which the two higher energy states came. It is kind of ironic that Einstein found the two higher energy states but did not realize that there was a hierarchy of energy based on powers of the speed of light. All I did is finished what Einstein started and in doing so stumbled onto the hierarchy of energy and the theory of everything.
It will take a long time for physicists to take my idea seriously but in the immortal words of Mahatma Gandhi...
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win."
I do expect to win because I know why physicists are in the nightmare scenario...
They cannot obtain any data from any experiment that will directly expose the energy of spacetime (to do so would break the laws of physics) and they cannot use any of the current math we have to derive the energy of spacetime. Physicists are really in a bind...
Eric Weinstein put out this video and It seems very likely... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw88utUCx9M
Funny how life takes you places you never thought you would be...
Dear Dr. Scott S. Gordon,
You wrote: "The new math starts by expressing the properties of a component building block ingredient. This ingredient along with energy is the only ingredient required to build our universe and everything in it, starting with the building of spacetime itself. The new math must be simple because the universe starts with one basic ingredient which builds in complexity. The more complex the structures in the universe become, the more complex the math required to describe it."
My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
Hi Joe,
Your research has one aspect similar to mine that being the primordial ingredient that existed long before even our 3 spatial dimensional spacetime. However everyone including physicists have fallen into a certain way of thinking which prevents them from getting to the primodial building block entity.
There are two aspects missing in current theory:
1) The ruby slipper conundrum - where we cannot use our known math to describe the mathematical properties of the building block component entity (I say entity and not particle because we know particles as they co-exist within spacetime as opposed to the entity which exists "as" spacetime)
2) The Hierarchy of energy where physicists know two out of the three Gordon energy states (physicists know the energy of light and the energy of mass but not the energy of spacetime itself).
The reason why the theory of everything has not been found is because there is no way to derive it from our current math. (Our math must be derived from the math of the theory of everything) The other reason is because there is no experiment that will reveal the energy of spacetime and the fact that it is proportional to c^0.
Wishing you the best of luck on your theory.
Hi Paul,
You have a lot of questions for me to answer... I can't post my entire book... I can refer you to this paper which gives a brief manner in which particle contain energy proportional to c^2.
https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New_Math_
I can also tell you that the energy of spacetime is real and it is important. The energy field of particles are created by the interaction of E1/E2 energy with the E0 energy of spacetime. In addition gradients in the E0 energy of spacetime is responsible for the outward force on all matter, so in this regard the energy is real.
There is no constant creation of New energy - the displacement of GOD entities in the examples I gave were purely "what if's" and cannot happen in actuality. These examples were given to derive mathematics of E0 energy being proportional to c^0.
In addition you throw around the term "dimension" as if you are physicist thinking that you know what a dimensions is and how a dimension is created... You should read this paper on dimensions:
https://www.academia.edu/30755282/Hidden_Dimensions_..._Not_So_Hidden_After_All
All the best!
Scott
Dear Dr. Scott S. Gordon,
My contention that the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light am not a theory, it am an easily provable fact. You can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed constantly changing flat looking varied colored surfaces no matter in which direction you look. It logically follows that only infinite surface am observable.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
Hi Joe,
I do not try to get people to who have their own theory of everything to believe in my theory of everything - our job is to convince others of our theory of everything. But it seems you want some feedback on your theory so here it is...
You used words that need to be defined...
Visible (meaning that it can be Seen through some mechanism of experimentation.)
Infinite - Are you referring to an infinite distance on a surface
Surface - what is the surface constructed of?
Dimensions - Is what you are calling a dimension something that was created or just was assumed to exist?
I can't make any sense of the rest of what you wrote about color surfaces, etc...
I wish you luck as I do everyone else but like I said - We need to convince others, not each other...
Scott
Dear Scott,
Reality never has to be defined. Only pretentious humanly contrived finite abstract
misinformation about imaginary reality has to be mis-defined. When I use the word "visible" I mean that only surface can ever be seen by any eye, including both of yours, no matter in which direction you are facing. Real vision requires no "mechanism of experimentation."
There am only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface, There are no finite distances in infinity.
Although scientists persistently pretend to know about finite matter that is somehow immersed in invisible space, actually, all solid, liquid and vapors have a visible surface. There am no invisible space
Abstract finite separate dimensions of length, width, depth and time cannot ever have existed for one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface for it would have to be infinite in all aspects including duration.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Scott,
You were right to think I'd be fascinated to study another 'bottom up' approach. Our start points match; "the universe starts with one basic ingredient which builds in complexity".
You lost me a bit with 'rotating points' as a 'point' has no dimensions so can't rotate, but I agree rotation is key and you quickly reverted to compatibility with 'distinguishability' of rotations.
In 'new maths' I expected new laws rather than just new symbols & meanings, but probably wise as I can't see how most laws can be replaced. A fundamental I agree as very important is that constant 'c' always relates to an ambient frame.
What I found challenging is that what I consider as the two most flawed starting points of present doctrine needing to be discarded are 'space-time' and the 'Big Bang'! However again I quickly found you just used the 'labels' not the inferences, so no problem. However I'd vastly prefer 'dark energy' or 'ambient sub-quntum' medium' as tags. On the BB I've published on a consistent cyclic cosmology to replace it, but again your start point is equivalent to a re-ionization, so seems not a problem. Is it?
All in all quite novel & fun. But now the crunch' Stefan's point is valid. There are thousands of models out there but those of non-zero value to science are predictive and experimentally falsifiable in some way. I tried to think of some way to test yours but there doesn't seem to be one. That means it's probably no help in advancing from (or dispensing with!) current physics, though doesn't make it wrong or invalid.
Do stay with it as I think you may have some interesting foundations, but I should say my own derivations as quite the inverse, resolving anomalies & inconsistencies, predictive and experimentally provable. But do please check through it as I have yours if you have time and identify if & where you may disagree with that or see any flaws.
Also let me know if I've fundamentally misunderstood yours!
Very Best.
Peter
Hi Peter - I think you got the gist of my theory. I lose most people with rotating point but when you think of it - all a rotating point is is a rotating disc taking the parameter of the rotation to the limit of zero. The limit value of the rotation will not be zero. (we are also dealing in a realm where there is no distance, dimensions, time, etc... - the ruby slipper conundrum is a hug stumbling block.)
Interesting that you stated, "That means it's probably no help in advancing from (or dispensing with!) current physics, though doesn't make it wrong or invalid."
Good statement but let me tell you why... My theory will not dispense current physics, actually it backs up most of the physics we know But completes the model. (this paper shows how -- https://www.academia.edu/34884714/Dark_Energys_Role_in_Gravity ) A correct theory of everything has to because most of our current theory is supported by experimental data. My theory derives the postulates used to derive GR and QM. It changes the underlying model and unites GR and QM under my one model where all the mathematics is derived.
You have only the tip of the iceberg - But I can tell you a few things here that may pique your interest even more...
My theory derives the internal energy structure of an electron and an up quark. These are the two building blocks of normal matter. The down quark is NOT an elementary particle. The up quark has the geometry of a cylinder, that is why it has a charge of 2/3 (the charge is in two out of the three spacetime spatial dimensions.) The strong energy field responsible for the strong force is along the axial direction and three up quarks which are joined together to form an up quark ring (toroid). When this ring is stabilized by an electron, you have a proton. When associated with 2 electron, you have a neutron. The first person who succeeds in applying my model's math to these particles will win (or should win) the Nobel Prize.
My model does not go against any known and experimentally proven physics but it completes the model so more detailed math can be revealed. A down quark is a combination particle of an up quark and an electron.
I also reveal the hierarchy of energy and was fortunate enough to trademark the equation... I will take legal action to anyone who claims my equation or says they came up with my theory before I did. The book has been out for two 1/2 years now. There should only be one answer to the theory of everything. If I am right I want the credit and this was a good way to protect my work from physicists who would try to call it their own.
Thanks for your interest - I applaud anyone who comes up with a theory of everything so I congratulate you too.
Hi, Scott. Your essay was fun to read, but I had problems with it all the way through. At the start, you having spinning points prior to space-time. Spinning is rotation in space, and a point has no extension, so what does that concept mean? At the end, you seem to imply that your theory explains the values of fundamental constants. Do you have any numerical predictions that you can offer as a demonstration? I has comparable questions all the way through.
