Dear Lockie Cresswell,

Thanks for reading my paper.

Your theory sure is an antithesis of my thinking. I guess I am backwoods practical thinker. What I see and experience is what I know and assume throughout. . Your ideas are just difficult for me to follow. The philosophy of life is separate from the activities 'now'. The ideas of Le Place, and Maxwell are too philosophical. Wave duality is wrong due to mis-defining waves rather than an invalid determinism.

Perhaps the philosophical theme of your paper limit the interest in your theories, but you did get high ratings. I also have no peers in the journals and little connection within FQXi. My challenge is that physicists have to give up too much to contemplate the pieces of my model. For your paper, Philosophy allows speculating in too many directions.

I don't accept nor care about determinism , nor any total effect of the past or future causes. The hard topic you cover is 'time' including as the arrow of time and your extension to consciousness. For me the topic of time is just for speed analyses.

I did contemplate a bit about your lost memories topic.

Best wishes to you,

.

Paul Schroeder

    15 days later

    Dear Paul,

    Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. My essay was based on how the 3 Un's have impacted on my physics, so it was a bit philosophical and not really touching my TOE, which is, of course, my main topic.

    My TOE is based on matter particles and aether particles. By the combination of the two I can produce a fundamental description of reality. One particle and one force acting between particles - that is very simple, and like your theory requires very little math. From this theory I can easily produce most of the Standard Model's players (without the quantum field theories). The particles I leave out are the bosons of the strong and weak forces as I explain them simply with another method (structural physics). Gravity comes as a mechanical byproduct of particles spin property. Needless to say it is a 'pull gravity', but different to anything else that has been proposed to explain gravitational action at a distance.

    So there we are! We have the Standard Model, we have my 'Structural TOE' and we have your TOE, and maybe there are many other well developed models that do the job. As I said before it is a pity that the hurdles for publication are so difficult for newcomers not affiliated with any organisation. I tried 'Foundations of Physics' but was knocked back on the third occasion with just a brief comment that 'proof' is needed. That wasn't helpful at all! What we seem to need is a mentor who is in the system, who knows the ropes, and who can encourage and suggest, without putting his or her biases to the front. What we all need is open and honest dialog.

    May be some FQXI'er reading these posts may come to the party. Time is running out for many of us retirees.

    Good luck on your endeavours,

    Lockie Cresswell

    Dear Lockie Cresswell,

    You have identified the frustration that many of us theorists feel:

    was knocked back on the third occasion with just a brief comment that 'proof' is needed. That wasn't helpful at all! What we seem to need is a mentor who is in the system, who knows the ropes, and who can encourage and suggest, without putting his or her biases to the front. What we all need is open and honest dialog.

    I have also dealt with this for years. But I have a tool others don't have. The Standard Model of Physics is full of holes. If you recall my paper is built around pointing out the errors. I have another major key point today, "the Doppler indefensible as a redshift source". Copying my transverse discussion hasnt worked. The color and figures get lost. See Wiki. For now after reading the summary here. I can e-mail you the whole revelation if interested.Meanwhile:

    Important!

    Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches). This article concerns itself only with Doppler shifts.

    Note that the third source here is cosmological expansion which is the fantasy that came from circular reasoning and may have never existed.

    The second source here is the always ignored gravitational redshift which overrides the idea of a constant speed c. The exit from a gravitational field results in a slowing of the speed, thus red shift.

    The first source here is Doppler shifts which can arrive from various relative motions of stars. So we can choose 'the sky of all-stars' is in circular motion around earth. (or any other central body one chooses)

    Best of luck Lockie.

    Paul Schroeder

    Write a Reply...