The Day After the “Nightmare Scenario” by Scott S Gordon

Scott Gordon

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.

Scott Gordon

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

Joe Fisher

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

Scott Gordon

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

Joe Fisher

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

Peter Jackson

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

Scott Gordon

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.

Gregory Derry

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.

Scott Gordon

Hi Gregory,

Happy that you enjoyed my essay. I completely understand the problems you had as you made your way through it, you are not the only one - it is practically required. The model I am presenting is very different than anything ever presented. Let me try to get you on the right track.

The spinning point is not made of anything. It is literally a point in the void universe that has the property of a spin (yes the way we would interpret spin). The void universe is not something that we easily understand and ironically it requires an understanding of the theory of everything to realize what the void universe actually is and its properties. (For exanple, the void universe is where the speed of light is infinite AND zero, the proof of this is actually fun to understand) - For now - We should just agree that the void universe would be a universe where there is energy, distance, time, dimensions... etc...

Spinning is NOT rotation in space... Remember spacetime has not been created yet. (This is part of the Ruby Slipper Conundrum problem which is the major stumbling block in solving the theory of everything) There is NO space - there is just the spinning point that is surrounded by other points. Yes, the point has no extension, it is a point but there is a relative motion of the surrounding points.

In applying math to express the surrounding spinning points, it is not possible to apply our current math because our math only applies to particles existing in spacetime. The spinning point of Gordon's Theory of everything does not exist "in" spacetime so we cannot use the parameters of distance, time, the concept of straight, dimensions... etc... Even the way I am presenting it is not quite right but if I presented it the way it really exists... It would never be believed... Hence the Ruby Slipper Conundrum.

Yes - I can show how my model derives the speed of light as 1. The measuring units we use are not important. What is important is what each constant represents. These constants include c, h, unit charge of an electron, and the gravitational constant G (BTW G is actually not a constant, it is a value that is reached asymptotically but it reaches that asymptotic value at extremely small distances, 100 times smaller than the closest distance G was experimentally measured.)

It will take an extremely long time for me to get physicists to even read my theory and then even longer for them to grasp its concepts because of the way they have been trained to think using math and thinking that their currently known math can always be applied. Let's face it, if the theory of everything could have been derived using current math, it would have been found by now. In addition, the theory of everything cannot be found through experiment because of the law of conservation of energy.

The essay is just the tip of the iceberg, the theory of everything cannot be presented in a paper because it required an entirely new foundation in which the field of physics has to be built. The theory of everything is in a 350 page book... and it gets us to our known math. I had advanced the theory as far as I can leaving off at the two building blocks of ordinary matter... the electron and the up quark.

All the best to you as you search for knowledge and reality!

Paul Butler

Dear Scott,

I read your papers and first let me say that I believe that we hold one concept in common although it is expressed somewhat differently in our presented theories and that is that one of the two most basic entities in the observable universe is motion. Because you are locked into the natural creation viewpoint, it is understandable that you feel the need to consider the construction of the spatial system as the other most basic structure to explain the total construction of the universe. I, on the other hand, have decided to limit my current level of information transfer to man here to the construction of the next lower level of hierarchical structure of which man currently does not have a workable conceptual understanding, which is the level of matter particle, energy photon, and field particle structuring. I am doing this primarily for two reasons. First, an understanding of the construction of these entities will clear up many of the quantum and relativity nonsense beliefs, such as that things cannot happen unless they are observed, that the various particle interaction results and there probabilities of occurrence are due to some mysterious random quantum energy fluctuations of spatial vacuum, the concept of multiverses, and the idea from relativity that time is an existent dimension, etc. Once these erroneous concepts are eliminated, the math becomes much simpler and a complete understanding of the universe down to the level of the spatial system that is designed to provide the positions that basic motions can be on, can move from one to another on, and can interact with each other on and the basic motions that inhabit that spatial system can then be more easily understood. I, therefore, start with the existent spatial system and basic motions as the two most basic structures presented in my theory. I leave the mechanisms behind the structure of the spatial system that produces what we perceive as space and the outputs of the motions that are contained in that mechanism that we perceive as basic motions for a later information transfer when man has first been able to understand the levels down to that mechanism. The second reason that I do not provide that information at this point is that man in this world would like to think of himself as god with power over everything and, therefore, would not readily accept that there is someone much greater than him who has constructed the universe and everything in it. The problem is that when you go beyond the simple level of the spatial system and its basic motions to what generates and maintains that system and those motions, the complexity expands outward in the same way that it expands in the other direction when you go from the simple motions to the construction of sub-energy particles, energy photons, matter particles, all of the different atoms that can be constructed of them, all of the great multitude of different possible molecules that can be constructed from the atoms, and the innumerable large scale objects that can be made of them, etc. It is like figuring out after a lot of observation and then putting those observations into a coherent understanding of your world, that you are really just the output images on a very large television screen or computer monitor except that instead of just being made of a light output, you are also made of matter particle and sub-energy field outputs and in three dimensions instead of just the two dimensional TV screen. The organizations of these outputs as they appear in your world require a behind the scenes complex mechanism in the same way that the television also requires to display its image and in addition to that a more complex information structure is needed to generate the actual entities that appear on the screen and to update them as a result of their interactions, etc. The problem is that you have no way to observe those behind the scenes mechanisms. If, on the other hand, the one who made the television and the other needed mechanisms would write a book that gives some of the details of their construction and would then display that book on the screen, so you could read it, you might be able to get some understanding of it. That is what has actually happened, but that is for the next level of understanding, which most people would not currently be able to accept, because of their naturalist outlook on life that prevents them from considering or looking into such things.

To get back to your paper, you either have a problem of lack of understanding of how things work or you have not developed the language to properly express them. First you say that the void contains a very large number of points. If that is the case then these points must be existent entities of some nature. You say that they can possess the property of containing motion. This suggests that in order to contain a motion within themselves they must be composed of some substance that can interact with a motion and contain it. You do not address what the points are composed of, which makes an unanswered more basic concept yet to be developed. You say that the motion contained within the point is in the form of a spin. Basic motions continually move from one point to the next. This requires an existent spatial system of at least one dimension for them to travel in. A spinning motion is a cyclical motion that requires at least a two dimensional spatial system to exist in. This is because a spinning motion is the result of continual interactions between two or more motions acting at directional angles to each other. If the spin that you are talking about does not conform to the laws of motion then you should not use that analogy, but instead make a new word and then define it to describe the details of what is actually happening and also the same thing about the point if it does not conform to the current definition of a mathematical point. If all of these points exist in the void, it seems that the void that you are talking about does not conform to the basic understanding of it as being an empty spatial system. You could also consider the void to be completely nothing, but nothing could not contain anything even zero dimensional points that possess properties such as the ability to spin, etc. Without the existence of any dimensions, the only thing that could exist is just one point because if any more points existed they would create a one dimensional world in that a motion could travel the distance that would be created between them from one point to the other. In reference to a primary spinning point, you talk about the surrounding or adjacent points. In a zero dimensional world, there could not be any other points next to or surrounding the point because there would be no possible positions in existence that were next to or surrounding the point without the construction of at least one dimension to provide positions for those points to exist in. One point could not be relatively closer or farther away from another point without forming a distance between them. You say "Relative motion of each surrounding point represents a circular path". A path is a way that can be traveled from one place to another, which is essentially a distance that can be traveled. A circular path requires the existence of at least two dimensions because a circle is a two dimensional object. When you talk about a god entity's energy field, what is that energy field composed of? Is it something that would exist as part of the entity even if it is not spinning or is it either the spinning motion itself or somehow caused by that motion? When you talk about the existence of an infinite energy field across a god entity's diameter are you saying that the field contains an infinite amount of energy? If the entity is a zero dimensional point it would seem that its diameter would be zero also. When you talk about E2 energy you say "is associated with a particle that displaces the surface of the water medium in a circular motion of the water. This constant circular motion of the water is required for the creation of E2 energy contained in particles". What is the water that you are mentioning and since this is at the scale of entities that exist in space-time and not as those existing as space-time it would seem that their motions should conform to the observed laws of motion, so how is the circular motion generated and maintained in them? I am assuming that the circular motion is what you consider to be the source of the matter particle's rest mass. A normal circular motion is a two dimensional entity. It can exist in a three dimensional object, but it does not produce a three dimensionally uniform mass effect. As an example, If you have two spheres of the same size that are rotating at the same speed in the same direction (counterclockwise), such that the axis of one is parallel to the axis of the other and they move toward each other with the center of one heading directly toward the center of the other and then they interact with each other, the interaction side of one will be moving in one direction that is perpendicular to its direction of travel in one direction while the interaction side of the other will be traveling in the opposite direction in a line that is also perpendicular to its direction of travel. This will cause a mass effect that will tend to cause the spheres to repel each other. If, on the other hand, you bring them together, such that the axis line of one is aligned with the axis line of the other and they are both rotating in the same direction, when they come together their rotation does not introduce a mass effect because the rotation does not exist relative to one another. It requires a three dimensional motion to maintain an equal static mass effect in all directions around the matter particle.

You may have a good point, but it is counterproductive to use examples that exhibit behaviors that are opposite to those that you are trying to convey. It would be better to make up new words for the new objects or concepts and then describe their behaviors as meticulously as you can while at the same time keeping the explanations of your concepts as simple as possible. I will stop for now and wait for your reply to clarify to me about these things.

Sincerely,

Paul

Hans van Leunen

Dear Scott,

In your approach, I miss the efforts of Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann to establish a fundament that emerges into a suitable modeling platform. In their 1936 paper, they introduced a relational structure that they called quantum logic and that mathematicians call an orthomodular lattice. It automatically emerges into a separable Hilbert space, which also introduces a selected set of number systems into the modeling platform. Hilbert spaces can only cope with division rings and separable Hilbert spaces can store discrete values but no continuums. Each infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space owns a unique non-separable Hilbert space that embeds its separable partner. In this way, the structure and the functionality of the platform grow in a restricted way. After a few steps a very powerful and flexible modeling platform evolves. This model acts as a repository for dynamic geometric data that fit in quaternionic eigenvalues of dedicated operators. The non-separable part of the model can archive continuums that are defined by quaternionic functions.

In other words, the foundation that was discovered by Birkhoff and von Neumann delivers a base model that can offer the basement of well-founded theories and that puts restrictions on the dimensions which universe can claim.

Multiple Hilbert spaces can share the same underlying vector space and form a set of platforms that float on a background platform. On those platforms can live objects that hop around in a stochastic hopping path. This adds dynamics to the model.

The orthomodular lattice acts like a seed from which a certain kind of plant grows. Here the seed turns into the physical reality that we perceive.

Stochastic processes generate the hop landing locations and characteristic functions control these processes. These characteristic functions are the Fourier transform of the location density distribution of the hop landing location swarm that represents the elementary particle.

This delivers the holographic control of these elementary modules. Also, higher level modules are controlled by stochastic processes that own a characteristic function.

See: "Stochastic control of the universe"; http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0243 Indirectly via the characteristic functions the universe is controlled in a holographic way.

The Wikiversity Hilbert Book Model Project investigates this approach.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project

http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen contains documents that treat some highlights of the project.

Scott Gordon

Hi Hans,

I read you post with enthusiasm. Please note that I am not physicist or a mathematician. I am an engineer with a good grasp of math and basic physics and then learn more and more physics and then looked at the problem facing physics through the lens of my model.

You have described another model that would be more basic to Hilbert space but there lies the problem... What was presented was more about the math supporting math instead of a physical model from which math emerges.

I am more in tune with physical structure (not mathematical precedence) with the emergence of math from the physical structure - This is what was needed to solve the theory of everything.

Note that just mentioning Hilbert space is startng with known math to express space as a precursor to a theory. I have said this many time, any attempt to solve the theory of everything that starts with known math will fail.

One of the other features of my novel approach is the building block entity is the same entity that creates the primordial photon. So there is a linear progression of events that keeps on building the complexity of the universe which follows (or expresses) by an inevitable course of events.

The key to increasing complexity is the hierarchy of energy.

I appreciate your input - Please keep an eye on my progress in getting this theory out the years to come. It is practically impossible for me as a non-academic and non-physicist to get my work even looked at. Even harder for a physicist to put a review on the record.

Scott

Satyavarapu Gupta

Hi Scott S Gordon,

"The "Nightmare Scenario" as stated by Sabine Hossenfelder in her article, "Finding New Particles at the LHC .....is really more confusing.... "we'd finally have to admit the truth: we're completely lost." Given the current impasse of theoretical physics, it is time to wipe out ourselves of preconceived notions of what we think we know about time and space. In essence we need to "go back to the drawing board". Since we have no idea where the current impasse is rooted, everything we think we know about time and space needs to be questioned. In other words, the drawing board needs to be a clean slate"...................

.......... very nice idea.... The Day After the "Nightmare Scenario" dear Gordon...is the real future vision... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

You may please know that in the Dynamic Universe Model the space time continuum was not there by default. And some more is there...... I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Scott Gordon

Dear S N P Gupta,

Here is my first response in looking at your post and seeing it through the eyes of my theory: (I put my comment next to each line)

No Isotropy ----- True but we would never know any better by experimental findings

-No Homogeneity ----- True but we would never know any better by experimental findings

-No Space-time continuum ------ Incorrect

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy ------- No Comment

-No singularities ------- Correct

-No collisions between bodies ------- All particle interactions need to be redefined as their internal energy structures become known

-No blackholes -------- There probably are black holes

-No warm holes -------- Correct

-No Bigbang -------- Incorrect

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies ------ There could be

-Non-empty Universe ------- Don't know what you are getting at with this

-No imaginary or negative time axis ------- Correct

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes ------- These are mathematical constructs that may be useful

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically ------ Incorrect

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition ------ Very Incorrect

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models ------- Matter was created at Big bang but there is no steady state - the universe has a lifespan

-No many mini Bigbangs ----- Correct

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter ------ Correct but correcting the model will fix the dark matter issue

-No Dark energy -------- Very incorrect

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected -------- Very Incorrect

-No Multi-verses -------- Very Correct

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies ------ No comment

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way ------- No comment

-All bodies dynamically moving No comment

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium ---------- No comment

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe ------- Correct

-Single Universe no baby universes --------- Correct

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only ------- Time only moves forward

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes.. -------- Correct

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass ------- No comment

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step ------- No comment

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering -------- No comment

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet -------- No comment

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy -------- No comment

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data. ------- No comment

The rest of my comment will be at your essay.

Jonathan Dickau

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

Jonathan Dickau

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

Scott Gordon

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.

Jonathan Dickau

Thanks for the thoughtful reply...

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

All the Best,

Jonathan

Joe Fisher

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

James Hoover

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

Scott Gordon

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.

« Previous Page Next Page »