Greetings Scott...

It is a noble attempt, but it falls short of the bar for such efforts. I would label your theoretical construct as a flawed application of some possibly brilliant insights in Physics. I cite the imposition of a cubic lattice as an ad hoc assumption, for example, and posit that a more natural one would be close packing where a hexagonal lattice is the most dense. But some of your key insights put you in good company.

The opening section sounded very much like the lead-in given by Lee Smolin for Energetic Causal Sets in his talk at GR21. And the section about spinning points being fundamental hearkens back to Lee's work on Spin Foam Networks with Fotini Markopoulou. But there are some possible missteps, or transitional assumptions that need closer examination, and should be adjusted.

All the Best,

Jonathan

    I should add this...

    Even a naive approximation to a brilliant insight is better food for thought than rehashing the same tired ideas again and again. And you do give your readers a lot of good material to work with.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    I appreciate your input Jonathan - And with your last statement in mind you amy want to reconsider your assessment as you take a deeper look into what my theory proposes...

    The problem is the theory of everything is a theory where everything is created from one building block component ingredient and energy. There is no way to get readers or students of this theory to get through the Ruby Slipper Conundrum. This is the problem that is faces when trying to mathematically express the building block entity of spacetime when we cannot use the parameters of distance, time, direction, and dimensions.

    You noted correctly that a hexagonally alignment would be more correct and that is absolutely true IF we were only creating a parallel planar universe (which is the initial alignment of these entities). However after my initial ingredients and their starting alignment, I do not assume anything... Everything is a result of an inevitable course of events that is mathematically sound.

    The cubic lattice of planar operator fields where the center of the entity occupies a center point of the cubic sides is the most stable alignment of these entities. It is then the collective property of this alignment that gives us our three spatial dimensional spacetime, the "relative" speed of light through that region od spacetime (defining distance and time), and what we would determine as straight lines.

    I assure you that my theory does not fall short but the nature of the theory of everything makes it very difficult for the physicist to superficially look at at realize the right answer even when put right in front of their faces. That is why I know I need to be in this for the long run.

    I will give you a heads-up... In the future the model of the proton will change to the model predicted by Gordon's Theory of Everything (rememeber I will not be changing known physics theory or data - just refining the model since I work everything from the bottom up) A proton is composed of three up quarks and one electron as its elementary particles. A down quark is not an elementary particle, it is a combinant particle of an up quark and an electron. In addition, an up quark is in the shape of a cylinder where the electric field radiates out in 2 out of the three dimensions and the strong force energy field exists along its axial direction. The strong force energy field will align head to tail three up quarks to create an up quark toroid. The electron then stablilizes the ring. Two electrons associated with the ring creates a neutron.

    If you want a Nobel Prize, find the exact math... I am only able to advance my theory to the math of the up quark and the electron. Keep an eye on my progress - The hierarchy of energy makes tremendous sense and my theory does not change the math of current theories - it compliments our theories by giving them a more secure foundation by telling how the postulates of our theories came to exist in the first place.

    Dear Fellow Essayists

    This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

    Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

    All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because 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.

    Only the truth can set you free.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Thanks for the thoughtful reply...

    I like what you did. Keep plugging away. I wish you luck!

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    15 days later

    Scott,

    How does space expand faster than the speed of light? From your website: "This little equation explains why light always travels at c^1, because no matter how much energy is contained in the underlying spacetime we occupy, that energy will always be proportional to c^0. Any photon we determine the speed of within our underlying spacetime will always be measured at c^1."

    Your ideas are not illogical and in keeping with many who believe that GR and quantum theory cannot be united. Your concepts seem new but what new math will help us unite them?

    When E reorganized into 3 dimensions, does this explain the superforce separating into 4 forces?

    My essay speaks of ToE being fundamental and keeping an open mind about concepts of fundamental that change with discovery. Your essay makes a contribution to all of us. Hope you can check mine out.

    Jim Hoover

      Hi Jim,

      It is very difficult for the novice being introduced to my theory to see all the consequences of the model. The statement is true and it is very logical. The entire theory is contained in a 350 page textbook so you can imagine there is a lot to learn.

      Anyway in answer to your concern... When spacetime expands, what is happening is the energy of spacetime is expanding and is "relatively" decreasing in E0 energy concentration. But no matter what level of E0 energy is in the underlying spacetime, light will be measured at c. But light becomes a relative constant - light will relatively move faster when the energy of the E0 energy of the underlying spacetime decreases, but when we measure light while "in" that spacetime, it will still be measured at "c".

      In regards to forces... I bring physics back to a more simple model of forces by showing that all forces are a result of energy fields... We know this but my theory reveals exactly how each energy field is created and why certain energy fields are associated with the particles they are associated with.

      The paper I submitted is only the tip of the iceberg of a much bigger picture of how everything was created (except the primordial ingredient and its associated energy). I will look at your theory but all theories I look at the try solve the theory of everything fail for the same reasons... They use known math taking existing parameters for granted (ie distance, charge, dimensions, etc...) and they never get through the Ruby Slipper Conundrum, the biggest stumbling block for physicists in finding the theory of everything.

      Scott,

      Time grows short so I am revisiting those I have commented on to see if I've rated them. I find that I rated yours on 2/12. Hope you have time to check mine out.

      Jim Hoover

      Dr. Gorden,

      A couple of thoughts to consider;

      What if time is not so much the point of the present, moving past to future, but change turning future to past, as in tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. So duration is not a dimension, but the state of the present, as events coalesce and dissolve. Time is asymmetric because it is a measure of action and action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not both.

      Different clocks run at different rates and remain in the same present, because they are separate actions. All things being equal, a faster clock is simply burning more energy. Like metabolism.

      It's just that our thought process is that sequence called time, but it is really just an effect of activity. Like temperature. Time is individual frequency, while temperature is masses of frequency and amplitude.

      As for Big Bang Theory, when they first realized all those galaxies were redshifted proportional to distance, making us appear as the center of the entire universe, then they decided it was really an expansion of space, not just in space, because Spacetime! Then every point would appear as the center. Unfortunately they forgot the central premise is that light is always measured at C, in any frame and if it is taking light longer to cross the universal frame, in order to redshift, it is NOT Constant to that frame. Basically two metrics of space are being derived from the same intergalactic light. A stable one, based on its speed and an expanding one, based on the spectrum. Given C is being used as the denominator, otherwise it would be "tired light," something deep got overlooked. Too much math and not nearly enough logic.

      Now we are the center of our point of view, so maybe an optical effect might be worth considering. Though that is not likely to occur, at least until the Webb discovers the CMBR has even more and more distant galaxies buried in it and is really the solution to Olber's paradox. Though it might just be another excuse to add another enormous force of nature, because BBT can never be falsified, just patched.

      Sorry if this seems a bit touchy, but trying to wade through so many sincere efforts, that just don't appreciate just how far back the train left the tracks, gets frustrating.

      Regards,

      John B. Merryman

        8 days later

        Gorden,

        Not Bad try at all. better than most here. Some similarity with Anastasi

        Study my essay for a similar setup but with direct results, by thinking of the "points" as numbers.

        cheers

        Your comments are appreciated.

        Just for clarity... It is very difficult for a person to grasp the huge impact of a model that proposes a structure of spacetime built from component building block entities. It requires a lot of time and effort. This theory does address what you brought up as we appear to be in the center of the galaxy... This is because it defines the property of straight.

        Straight is defined in Gordon's Theory of Everything a balance of energy on either side of a path. The energy of spacetime is NOT equal everywhere and it is much less at the periphery of the universe showing that what we would consider straight is curved.

        IN addition, it does not matter the Gordon energy state of the energy along a path in spacetime... That is why particle that contain E2 energy (mass) which does extend out infinitely bends the light on a path through this energy. Light will slow on the side of the path with greater energy and that is why light bends towards objects containing mass.

        This is a completely new theory and it will take a long time to catch on but it explains a lot and is completely consistent with GR and QM.

        Hi Adel,

        I see where you would have some affinity to my work after reading yours. I never set out to solve what is fundamental or the theory of everything. I wanted to know the answer to the question: Why is the speed of light the same in all reference frames? the postulate used by Einstein to derive special relativity. When I found the answer to this, I realized I stumbled onto the theory of everything.

        We have similarities in our approaches... We both claim that the properties of particles and spacetime must have physical reasons for them to exist and we set out to find those reasons. You also realized something that I call "The Concept of Infinite Scales" but where you realize that a parameter must be relative.

        I like you comment "Not Bad try at all. better than most here." I don't try to convince other people of my theory who have a theory of their own. But I will address why I used the Spinning point with an infinitely extending relative spin of surrounding points as a consequence.

        In one of you papers you found a way to assign a parameter a relative value between two numbers. In my theory, I too have two numbers... The numbers are infinite at point zero and zero infinitely away. This is presented by an inverse function. Where the two parameters equal each other, it has a value of one.

        This in itself is not enough to solve the problem presented with the Concept of Infinite scales. One of the key components in my theory is the hierarchy of energy... You say you have found the internal energy structure of particle and how they come to possess charge, spin, mass, etc... I have also advance the math of my theory that reveals what charge is, spin, mass etc...

        I applaud your efforts - but I am very certain that the hierarchy of energy is the key to solving all the mysteries.

        All the best!

        Scott

        Hi Scott...

        Mathematical physics that preserves "Scientific method" by providing visually verifiable kinematics, from what we empirically observe, to a single operative/mechanism underlying observation of Universal fundamental unification, "can offer a coherent 'assembly' of the evidence needed to advance understanding that already exists", REF: Richard Kingsley Nixey essay https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3042, but it is doubtful that mathematics as semantics, which have been diluted to the exclusion of logic inference, are up to the task.

        In that perception of motion requires Space, how can a point Spin without defining direction... i.e. direction is a Spatial property?

        What differentiates "all the spinning point entities" from any one spinning point entity... i.e. location is a Spatial property?

        How can mathematical relationships of spatially undefined entities... i.e. a point, spinning or otherwise... establish a mechanism/operative for Energy creation... i.e. can Energy emerge without a Spatial definition?

        If Energy requires a Spatial definition, what mechanism provides impetus such that Space emerges from a conglomerate of spatially undefined differentiateable entities... i.e. density is a Spatial property?

        What intelligence emerges such that "spinning point entities reorganized into a cubic lattice"... i.e. a lattice is an information framework.

        A Digital SIM, animating pulsed distribution of unified minimum units of Energy (QE), within a CAD environment quantized by a 3D unified field single point Source encapsulation geometry... i.e. unified field empirical virtuality mechanix... is my computational analysis tool of choice for emergence and distribution/propagation analysis.

        I have been unable to derive a "mathematical representation for the base energy state that is associated with spacetime ", but I have mathematically, specifically CAD/SIM visual geometry, derived a model that demonstrates "a base state"... i.e. Energy distribution equal in all directions from a single point... and visually verifies definition of unified/uniform minimum units of Space (QT) and unified/uniform minimum units of Energy (QE)... i.e. unified/uniform minimum unit implies scale invariance and no subsequent fraction of... associated with a Space/Energy model in which unified/uniform minimum units of Time and unified/uniform minimum units of Information are inherent.

        The Unifed Quantization of a Singularity (UQS) coordinate math supports, by digital codec, derivation of Cartesian coordinate math, but it does not conversely insure "our current knowledge of physics" can be derived from Cartesian coordinate maths.

        REF: Geometry Paradigms http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSReTB.php

        REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

        Thanks Scott for sharing your insights, and your comments on my essay would be read with those insights in mind.

        Sue Lingo

        UQS Author/Logician

        www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

          Hi Sue,

          I appreciate your comments and I will try to answer the questions you have posed.

          Question #1) In that perception of motion requires Space, how can a point Spin without defining direction... i.e. direction is a Spatial property?

          Answer #1) One of the most baffling stunbling blocks to finding a theory of everything is what I call "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum". Your question is an example of the problem. The point is not a point that is spinning "in" spacetime. The spinning point is a component entity "of" spacetime. This is quite a difficult concept to grasp because I am asking people to think of a spinning point where no spacetime exists... no dimensions, no distance, no directions and no time. The ruby slipper conundrum is a teaching tool where I place the spinning point "in" spacetime so that a notion of the concept can be grasped. I later have to correct the error introduced by this manuveur but that would be after you have learned a significant part of my theory. By that time I can tell you the truth in how the spinning point exist "as" the component of spacetime and you would believe it. This is the biggest stumbling block to physicists who are trying to figure out the theory of everything and the nature of spacetime.

          Question #2: What differentiates "all the spinning point entities" from any one spinning point entity... i.e. location is a Spatial property?

          Answer #2: All spinning point entities are the same. Collectively they require energy where the closer these spinning points are to each other, the more energy they are associated with. It can be compared to electrons, the closer you put electrons together, the more energy you need. In addition, location is a spacial property but the property of distance in spacetime has to do with the amount of E0 energy along a path in spacetime. This paper may help you with this concept... https://www.academia.edu/30755282/Hidden_Dimensions_..._Not_So_Hidden_After_All

          Question #3: How can mathematical relationships of spatially undefined entities... i.e. a point, spinning or otherwise... establish a mechanism/operative for Energy creation... i.e. can Energy emerge without a Spatial definition?

          Answer #3: My theory has two postulates that create everything in the universe, the huge number of spinning point entities that are the component building blocks of spacetime and the E0 energy (energy proportional to c^0) that is required for their initial alignment. The points do not create energy, they are associated with energy in their alignment with each other. The E0 energy is also a prerequisite postulate.

          Question #4: If Energy requires a Spatial definition, what mechanism provides impetus such that Space emerges from a conglomerate of spatially undefined differentiateable entities... i.e. density is a Spatial property?

          Answer #4: You worded this question backwards... The space (or the parameter of distance) is composed of E0 energy. In my theory the postulates of the spinning points and the associated energy means that a form of spacetime already exists. That means that distance in this spacetime already exists. The original alignment of these entities created distance along two dimensions... The parallel planar universe. However the axial direction of spin could also have energy aligned in that direction. The realignment of the planar arrangement to the cubic alignment is what the big bang was all about and created our three spatial dimensional spacetime in our universe.

          Question #5: What intelligence emerges such that "spinning point entities reorganized into a cubic lattice"... i.e. a lattice is an information framework.

          Answer #6: I have no opinion of whether intelligence emerges or is present at this stage of our universe's evolution. I can only say that the parallel planar universe does become unstable in favor of the more stable three dimensional universe.

          I appreciate your interest... I hope these answers make some sense. The key to the theory of everything is the hierarchy of everything. All the best on your quest to seek out knowledge and reality!

          Write a Reply...