An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby lamare » Wed Oct 12, 2016 12:14 am

Hi all,

Just posted my "theory of everything" article:

Abstract

In a previous article, we stated that all currently known areas of Physics' theories converge naturally into one Unified Theory of Everything once we make one fundamental change to Maxwell's aether model. In that article, we explored the history of Maxwell's equations and considered a number of reasons for the need to revise Maxwell's equations. In this article, we will make the mathematical case that there is a hole in Maxwell's equations which should not be there, given that we started with the same basic hypothesis as Maxwell did:

A physical, fluid-like medium called "aether" exists.


Maxwell did not explicitly use this underlying hypothesis, but abstracted it away. This leads to a mathematically inconsistent model wherein, for example, units of measurements do not match in his definition for the electric potential field. By correcting this obvious flaw in the model and extending it with a definition for the gravity field, we obtain a simple, elegant, complete and mathematically consistent "theory of everything" without "gauge freedom", the fundamental theoretical basis for Quantum Weirdness which we must therefore reject.

[...]

Conclusions

By working out standard textbook fluid dynamic vector theory for an ideal, compressible, non-viscous Newtonian fluid, we have established that Maxwell's equations are mathematically inconsistent, given that these are supposed to describe the electromagnetic field from the aether hypothesis. Since our effort is a direct extension of Paul Stowe and Barry Mingst' aether model, we have come to a complete mathematically consistent "field theory of everything". And we found "Maxwell's hole" to be the original flaw in the standard model that led to both relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which should thus both be rejected.


Read more: http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/ ... Everything

Comments and reactions welcome, of course.

Regards,

Arend Lammertink, MScEE.
lamare {at} gmail [dot] com
User avatar
lamare
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: Goor, The Netherlands.

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby Mjolnir » Sat Oct 15, 2016 3:34 pm

Unfortunately, I am not able to follow the formulas and the mathematics, and so I cannot really comment on this article, but I read your "historical" article, and I must say, it is fascinating.
To me, it does not only make sense, but it also makes sense of the apparent nonsense of relativity by showing that it really made some sense given the historical context.

I always enjoy fresh perspective on the standard vesion of history, like when Chomsky says: "Newton made the notion of 'body' untenable," or something to that effect. It really shakes things up.

Even if it is wrong, it is the right kind of wrong, I think.

Mjolnir
Mjolnir
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:09 pm

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby seasmith » Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:34 pm

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/ ... Everything

Having read this article a few times, the question arises:
As a proposed ToE, hasn't one "non-sequiter" been replaced by another?
Starting with the basic hypothesis that, "A physical, fluid-like medium called "aether" exists",
without defining what you mean by existence.

Then you use Helmholtz Decomposition™ to vector an aetheric "space".. .
Now Helmholtz was a pioneer, and a giant in his day, but his 'decomposition' was incomplete and therefor any Recomposition based upon it will necessarily be incomplete.

Next, this derived space is populated with 'fields'; which are then apparently populated with 'waves' and 'vortexes'.
With the above artifices, you all sucessfully devise an alternate mathematica to describe many observed forces and actions.
All fine, but then you conclude that:
...the combination of gravity, longitudinal standing waves, and magnetism, curl or vorticity, are the dominant phenomena responsible for shaping atoms, molecules, solar systems, galaxies, etc., etc.

without explaining why these derivative fields, waves and vortices are generated by the hypothesized aether in the first place.

An exceptionally elegant revision of Maxwell, no doubt; but a Theory of Everything?
?
seasmith
 
Posts: 2623
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby JouniJokela » Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:18 am

This theory is principally correct. It's basically the same as this idea from Year 1690, just three years after Newton's Principia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%2 ... ravitation

This doesn't mean the theory is wrong. -It's correct. Totally correct. It doesnt actually matter, how the interactions are named; " ultramundane corpuscles" "photons" or "Electromagnetic" or what ever...

The MAIN PROBLEM in all these theories is, that it changes the Gravitational PULL to a PUSH. And this causes certain logical problem's in thermodynamics. Like allready "Maxwell and Poincaré showed, inelastic collisions lead to a vaporization of matter within fractions of a second and the suggested solutions were not convincing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%2 ... ion#Energy

But "not convincing" doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means that if we want to produce a "Theory of everything", we need to work an anwer to these issues, which the claim "it's push and not Pull" brings.

I've done this work in this paper;
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Everything
And there is ie. Figures 19 and 20 on page 26-27 which clearly PROVES that Earth is under continuous PUSH.

Image

Image

Because you can't explain these gas stratifcation anomalies any other way.
And the most convincing observation to me was, that this not convincing HEAT, is there. And the current explanation for this heat (Solar XUV radiation) is not even close of the correct order-range. (4.2.2. page 23 in m paper)

Yet, I must admit, that the Heat is less than it Should be, but whilst working with this paper a year ago, it was just too easy to explain it with the increase of impact radius. This idea of Impact radius can be most easily explained with Newtons cradle, which moves like this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JadO3Ru ... u.be&t=131

As, you see the ball in the middle lies very peacefull, though there is huge kinetic energies bombing it from two directions.

But thereafter, I have worked this model further, and Now I am quite convinced, that the energy of the sun is not caused by Fusion, because Fusion is always Endothermic process. Much rather is produced by this "Gravity" and the sun is merely the place where the huge enrgy of these waves is condeced to matter. From these issues, I dont have completely worked papers, but you find the drafts here;
https://www.researchgate.net/project/QE ... everything
"nucleosynthesis" and "Chemie" are the ones,,,

So conclution for the Thread. Yes, it's that elegant and simple. So now, When you have the "theory of everything" can you answer to all these questions;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_u ... in_physics

I can.
The fusion was missing when I wrote this paper in March;
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 16_version
But as now when I sorted out also Fusion, checked out this paper, I noticed that it's valid-enough to be published. As it gives principally correct answers. I was writing better version of this paper, but whilst writing the Broad answer to "Quantum Gravity", I worked with Einsteins Field equations, and I suddenly got an Idea which lead to this paper;

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... H_07102016

And there is shown, how the Planck constant can be calculated from the speed of light -ONLY!

.... I think I've write allready too much in one message.
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby lamare » Sun Oct 16, 2016 3:08 am

seasmith wrote:An exceptionally elegant revision of Maxwell, no doubt; but a Theory of Everything?
?


Thanks for pointing that out. I've expanded a bit on that in the article, by referring to WikiPedia:

Herewith, we have established that with the equations derived above, we have indeed come to a complete "field theory of everything" covering all known fundamental forces of nature, namely the electromagnetic.

Now let us consider what a Theory of everything is considered to be:

A theory of everything (ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe. Finding a ToE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, as a whole, most closely resemble a ToE. These two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT). GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large-scale and high-mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, QFT is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. QFT successfully implemented the Standard Model and unified the interactions (so-called Grand Unified Theory) between the three non-gravitational forces: weak, strong, and electromagnetic force.

Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed with tremendous accuracy virtually every prediction made by these two theories when in their appropriate domains of applicability. In accordance with their findings, scientists also learned that GR and QFT, as they are currently formulated, are mutually incompatible – they cannot both be right. Since the usual domains of applicability of GR and QFT are so different, most situations require that only one of the two theories be used. As it turns out, this incompatibility between GR and QFT is apparently only an issue in regions of extremely small-scale and high-mass, such as those that exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang). To resolve this conflict, a theoretical framework revealing a deeper underlying reality, unifying gravity with the other three interactions, must be discovered to harmoniously integrate the realms of GR and QFT into a seamless whole: a single theory that, in principle, is capable of describing all phenomena. In pursuit of this goal, quantum gravity has become an area of active research.


Our theory undoubtedly qualifies as being "a theoretical framework revealing a deeper underlying reality" and it is also "a single theory that, in principle, is capable of describing all phenomena" and therefore it qualifies for being called a "Theory of everything", especially since it is also testable. Paul Stowe and Barry Mingst have already shown that with this framework, a number of anomalies can be resolved and we propose a number of experiments as well.

Furthermore, in our background article, we have explored the history of how the current standard model came to be and explained the fundamental ideas which led to the discovery of "Maxwell's hole" and explained how the "mutually incompatibility" between GR and QFT traces right back to "Maxwell's hole" as well as how this led to the concept of "compressibility of the medium" having been expressed by GR in the form of "compressibility of time".

In other words: we have proposed that with a simple and straightforward revision to the foundational framework of the standard model, Maxwell's equations, we can naturally reveal a deeper underlying reality which, in principle, is capable of describing all phenomena.
User avatar
lamare
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: Goor, The Netherlands.

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby lamare » Sun Oct 16, 2016 3:18 am

seasmith wrote:
...the combination of gravity, longitudinal standing waves, and magnetism, curl or vorticity, are the dominant phenomena responsible for shaping atoms, molecules, solar systems, galaxies, etc., etc.


without explaining why these derivative fields, waves and vortices are generated by the hypothesized aether in the first place.


This is implied by the math being used. The whole theory is nothing but standard textbook fluid dynamics vector theory. See for example: http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Materi ... Theory.pdf

All we did is take the standard fluid dynamics flow velocity field [v] for an ideal fluid, and worked out the standard math (Laplacian) from which wave equations follow. For gravity, we did the same thing.

In other words: this is all textbook fluid dynamics vector theory. All we really did was give the components of the textbook fluid dynamics Laplacian their familiar names and compared them to Maxwell's equations.
User avatar
lamare
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: Goor, The Netherlands.

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby lamare » Sun Oct 16, 2016 3:28 am

JouniJokela wrote:The MAIN PROBLEM in all these theories is, that it changes the Gravitational PULL to a PUSH. And this causes certain logical problem's in thermodynamics. Like allready "Maxwell and Poincaré showed, inelastic collisions lead to a vaporization of matter within fractions of a second and the suggested solutions were not convincing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%2 ... ion#Energy

But "not convincing" doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means that if we want to produce a "Theory of everything", we need to work an anwer to these issues, which the claim "it's push and not Pull" brings.


In our model, gravity is considered as the second order Laplacian for the aether flow velocity field [v]. This implies gravity to consist of standing longitudinal waves, completely analogous to what is shown with "cymatics", whereby the standing wave of course is an interference of two waves going back and forth.

In our model, gravity is not considered to be a separate force, but a natural consequence of standing longitudinal sound-like pressure waves, whereby "matter" naturally moves from the "high pressure" areas in the standing wave interference pattern towards "low pressure" areas in the interference pattern.
User avatar
lamare
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: Goor, The Netherlands.

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:27 am

lamare wrote:
JouniJokela wrote: The MAIN PROBLEM in all these theories is, that it changes the Gravitational PULL to a PUSH. ...


In our model, gravity is considered as the second order Laplacian for the aether flow velocity field [v]. This implies gravity to consist of standing longitudinal waves, completely analogous to what is shown with "cymatics", whereby the standing wave of course is an interference of two waves going back and forth.

In our model, gravity is not considered to be a separate force, but a natural consequence of standing longitudinal sound-like pressure waves, whereby "matter" naturally moves from the "high pressure" areas in the standing wave interference pattern towards "low pressure" areas in the interference pattern.

High pressure is a push. So why don't you agree that gravity is a push, instead of a pull?
Where are these high pressure waves? Are they waves in the aether? Where are measurements of these waves that we can all observe? What causes the waves? Does the aether consist of photons?

By the way, if you start a forum website, I'd join.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby lamare » Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:26 am

Lloyd wrote:
lamare wrote:
JouniJokela wrote: The MAIN PROBLEM in all these theories is, that it changes the Gravitational PULL to a PUSH. ...


In our model, gravity is considered as the second order Laplacian for the aether flow velocity field [v]. This implies gravity to consist of standing longitudinal waves, completely analogous to what is shown with "cymatics", whereby the standing wave of course is an interference of two waves going back and forth.

In our model, gravity is not considered to be a separate force, but a natural consequence of standing longitudinal sound-like pressure waves, whereby "matter" naturally moves from the "high pressure" areas in the standing wave interference pattern towards "low pressure" areas in the interference pattern.

High pressure is a push. So why don't you agree that gravity is a push, instead of a pull?
Where are these high pressure waves? Are they waves in the aether? Where are measurements of these waves that we can all observe? What causes the waves? Does the aether consist of photons?

By the way, if you start a forum website, I'd join.


You are correct, so I have no other choice but to agree that gravity IS a push. From a fundamental perspective, it is also rather strange to consider the possibility of pulling forces, given the fundamental hypothesis of the existence of a fluid-like medium called aether.

While in general this assumption is being regarded as "disproven", this is actually not the case, as has been argued by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D., in his article "A Dissident View of Relativity Theory":

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazi ... tview.html

Given that the nothingness of a perfect absolute vacuum is bestowed with the physical properties of a permittivity, epsilon_0 of 8.854 pF/m, a permeability mu_0 of 4pi x 10-7 H/m, and a characteristic impedance of 377 ohms, is the concept of an aether really that outlandish?


From our model, gravity is predicted to be standing longitudinal waves, while the electric field is predicted to be "ordinary" sound-like longitudinal waves trough the aether, 100% analogous to the sound waves we observe in the waters and air all around us.

There is some measurement data available which suggests these waves are for real, considering that theoretically longitudinal waves propagate at a factor of sqrt(3) faster than "transverse" waves. A while ago, I started writing two articles/notes regarding these measurements, but they are not finished:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/ ... eChallenge
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/FastLight

Wheatstone's 1834 is the first experiment I know of, wherein propagation speeds much faster than c have been measured, although this is mostly been regarded as a "measuring error". It could be very interesting to repeat this experiment with modern equipment. Another highly interesting anomaly is "fast light", associated with "anomalous dispersion". So far, my work on that goes no further than a number of notes and considerations, as well as a small collection of articles including experiments with radio waves propagating faster than c:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/


However, these measurements all concern "faster than light" waves, which are implied by our model to be longitudinal in nature. Regarding gravity, I know there are some measurements regarding "gravity waves", but I have not looked into that.

However, a practical way to investigate the correctness of our prediction would be to study the "Biefeld Brown" effect and see how well our model holds up in correctly predicting that effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E ... own_effect

I have taken a look at Tjamar's paper, one of the most recent studies into that effect AFAIK:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AIAAJ..42..315T
https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwese ... evised.pdf

I suspect that the topology of his capacitor construction is problematic and that with our model one can come to a better topology, which I fully expect to lead to results which differ from Tjamar's. I received an e-mail from Zbigniew Modrzejewski, which contains a very interesting picture overlayed on TT Brown's patent, suggesting just what kind of topology could be considered:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/RecevedConsidera ... jewski.pdf

In other words: AFAIK at this moment, no measurement data is available which is directly interpreted as evidence for longitudinal waves, but a re-interpretation of some of the data might very well lead to supporting evidence. Further, we have proposed a number of experiments to validate our model. The simplest one is repeating Wheatstone's experiment.

More complicated experiments involve follow-up research of the work of the Erdmann brothers, Pappas and Obolensky (listed in the above Fast Light directory) and Wesley Monstein:

Monstein, Wesley - Observation of scalar longitudinal electrodynamic waves(2002).pdf

In our model, the aether is described as consisting of what you could think of as small spheres obeying Newton's laws of motion and not much more. Fundamentally, all known particles and electromagnetic waves contain a magnetic component, which implies that some kind of vortex is present in the phenomenon. And therefore, fundamentally, the aether cannot exist of any kind of known particle or photon.

The equations I have given, are all continuum mechanics equations, which therefore have a lower limit with respect to their validity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum ... _continuum

Materials, such as solids, liquids and gases, are composed of molecules separated by "empty" space. On a microscopic scale, materials have cracks and discontinuities. However, certain physical phenomena can be modeled assuming the materials exist as a continuum, meaning the matter in the body is continuously distributed and fills the entire region of space it occupies. A continuum is a body that can be continually sub-divided into infinitesimal elements with properties being those of the bulk material.

The validity of the continuum assumption may be verified by a theoretical analysis, in which either some clear periodicity is identified or statistical homogeneity and ergodicity of the microstructure exists. More specifically, the continuum hypothesis/assumption hinges on the concepts of a representative elementary volume and separation of scales based on the Hill–Mandel condition. This condition provides a link between an experimentalist's and a theoretician's viewpoint on constitutive equations (linear and nonlinear elastic/inelastic or coupled fields) as well as a way of spatial and statistical averaging of the microstructure.


In other words: the equations I have given, do not explain what the Aether is made of, although Stowe did some work on that, too. From my notes:


http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/ ... ectedPosts

OK, let's look at "Continuum Mechanics", T. J. Chung, Prentice Hall 1988. On page 1&2 we find:

"To distinguish the continuum or macroscopic model from a
microscopic one, we may list a number of criteria. ... A
concept of fundamental importance here is that of mean free
path, which can be defined as the average distance that a
molecule travels between successive collisions with other
molecules. The ratio of the mean free path L to the
characteristic length S of the physical boundaries of interest,
called the Knudsen number Kn, may be used to determine the
dividing line between macroscopic and microscopic models."

Bottom line, the limit of validity of the continuum model is when L/S < 1 period. If our boxes become smaller that L we simply can't use the continuum mathematics.

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/ ... sonalEMail

The basic physical quantities in this system are the medium properties identified by Maxwell in his 1860-61 "On Physical Lines of Force". We quantify the mean momentum (quanta) [ß], characteristic mean interaction length (quanta) [L], the root mean speed [c], and a mass attenuation coefficient [¿].

Their values are,

ß = 5.154664E-27 kg-m/sec
L = 6.430917E-08 m
¿ = 3.144609E-06 m^2/kg
c = 2.997925E+08 m/sec

In other words, all of the major observed and measured constants of physics can be derived from the above terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength

"The CODATA 2010 value for the Compton wavelength of the electron is 2.4263102389(16)×10−12 m."

So, when considering properties of the electron, we get an L/S of:

5.154664E-27 / 2.4263102389e-12 = 2.12448676899e-15,

which means we can safely use continuity mechanics at sub-atomic scales.

For Planck's length however, we get an L/S of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616199(97)×10−35 metres.

5.154664E-27 / 1.616199e-35 = 318937457.578

So, we certainly cannot use continuity mechanics at the Planck scale....
--::--


Oops, wrongly took the value of beta in my calculations. Should have been L....
For the electron, we would then get an L/S of 6.430917E-08/2.4263102389e-12 = 26504.9 , which means our model would already be invalid at that scale.

However, I don't know how Stowe determined the value for L, so further study is required in order to determine the lower limit of validity of our model. Stowe's value for L would be our lower limit, but I would need to know how he determined this value before being able to vow for it's correctness.
User avatar
lamare
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: Goor, The Netherlands.

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby lamare » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:12 am

JouniJokela wrote:This theory is principally correct. It's basically the same as this idea from Year 1690, just three years after Newton's Principia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%2 ... ravitation

This doesn't mean the theory is wrong. -It's correct. Totally correct. It doesnt actually matter, how the interactions are named; " ultramundane corpuscles" "photons" or "Electromagnetic" or what ever...

The MAIN PROBLEM in all these theories is, that it changes the Gravitational PULL to a PUSH. And this causes certain logical problem's in thermodynamics. Like allready "Maxwell and Poincaré showed, inelastic collisions lead to a vaporization of matter within fractions of a second and the suggested solutions were not convincing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%2 ... ion#Energy

But "not convincing" doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means that if we want to produce a "Theory of everything", we need to work an anwer to these issues, which the claim "it's push and not Pull" brings.

I've done this work in this paper;
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Everything
And there is ie. Figures 19 and 20 on page 26-27 which clearly PROVES that Earth is under continuous PUSH.


Only now do I understand your statement:

The MAIN PROBLEM in all these theories is, that it changes the Gravitational PULL to a PUSH


However, I think our theory shows that the following does matter:

It doesnt actually matter, how the interactions are named; " ultramundane corpuscles" "photons" or "Electromagnetic" or what ever...


As long as you consider gravity to be a force separate from the electric field, you will get yourself in trouble, one way or the other. The Biefeld-Brown effect clearly shows there is a relation between the electric field and gravity.

Our model defines gravity (in differential notation) as the gradient of the divergence of the electric field E, while the electric field is predicted to consist of longitudinal sound-like waves.

So, gravity is an effect caused by the presence of interfering longitudinal waves, which therefore need to be taken into consideration when modelling and describing gravity. I would fully expect problems like "certain logical problem's in thermodynamics" to just vanish when considered from our simple and elegant proposal, because it's all just fluid dynamics wherein problems with thermodynamics are non-existent AFAIK.

So, why would they occur with our model?
User avatar
lamare
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: Goor, The Netherlands.

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:20 am

seasmith wrote:http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegantTheoryOfEverything

Having read this article a few times, the question arises:
As a proposed ToE, hasn't one "non-sequiter" been replaced by another?
Starting with the basic hypothesis that, "A physical, fluid-like medium called "aether" exists",
without defining what you mean by existence.


As I understand his theory from the reading that I've done thus far, the "aether" is essentially composed of an almost infinite number of photons on various wavelengths, the moving kinetic energy that they contain and transfer, including the photons that carry the EM field. He is ultimately giving the aether a physical substance, namely moving photon patterns.

The other really intriguing aspect of his theory is that it explains the concept of "tired light" quite nicely too, and there's no need for a "bang" at all. It lends itself quite nicely to a static universe interpretation of photon redshift, as photons pass on some of their kinetic energy to the atoms that are embedded in the moving aether.

I've only skimmed the math so far, and the devil is in the details, but it's certainly an interesting idea, and the concept seems pretty sound in terms of returning to Maxwell's equations for answers as to how to tie the four known forces together again.

I'd also point out that when we smash electrons and positrons together in the lab, they create subatomic particles. This suggests that the atom may ultimately be explained by the EM field and moving electrons/positrons, so there's a lot of promise in terms of how the idea might apply to particle physics too.

Interesting stuff IMO.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:11 pm

Aether as Photons, or Not?
Lamare said above: In our model, the aether is described as consisting of what you could think of as small spheres obeying Newton's laws of motion and not much more. Fundamentally, all known particles and electromagnetic waves contain a magnetic component, which implies that some kind of vortex is present in the phenomenon. And therefore, fundamentally, the aether cannot exist [consist?] of any kind of known particle or photon.


Re: http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegantTheoryOfEverything
Michael Mozina said: As I understand his theory from the reading that I've done thus far, the "aether" is essentially composed of an almost infinite number of photons on various wavelengths, the moving kinetic energy that they contain and transfer, including the photons that carry the EM field. He is ultimately giving the aether a physical substance, namely moving photon patterns.


Michael, can you quote where in the linked article Lamare (i.e. Arend Lammertink apparently) said what you said there? I ask, because it sounds to me like he said the opposite above. So I'd like to see if he contradicted himself in the article, or if you misunderstood him.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:21 pm

`
...without explaining why these derivative fields, waves and vortices are generated by the hypothesized aether in the first place. -s


Michael, "Interesting stuff", yes, but if generation of these "photon patterns" is not explained, it's not a real ToE.
"Implied by the math" doesn't work either. The math can only describe numerically some action that has already been observed,
or else it is just hypothesis based on a priori assumptions.

Not trying to be negative here, merely realistic.
Last edited by seasmith on Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2623
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby lw1990 » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:22 pm

This is all very congruent to my conclusions on the aether, but there are so many convoluted terms and math concepts I have no idea how you people can comprehend and talk about this in an objective/coherent way. I think your "ToE" desperately needs a summary which explains in laymans terms what the actual heck you are trying to propose/explain.

In math, it's just symbolism. 20 angels + 20 angels = 40 angels works on paper, but it doesn't prove angels exist. Furthermore, merely saying that you 'discovered' the notion of angels was flawed, and there are actually angels and devils in the equation, does not make the original equations or yours any more real. 20 angels + 20 devils - 10 devils = 20 angels and 10 devils, but that doesn't really mean anything, but the math works. You can invent abstractions on top of abstractions to make the math work in different scenarios, just like orthodox science did by copy and pasting 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' out of their collective a-hole's to make galactic rotation mathematically work for their mathematical model of the universe. Math is symbolic relations, it does not have to be based in reality at all.

How do we know that anything new that you added to existing equations is based in reality?
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby JouniJokela » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:45 am

lamare wrote:
JouniJokela wrote:The MAIN PROBLEM in all these theories is, that it changes the Gravitational PULL to a PUSH. And this causes certain logical problem's in thermodynamics.

Only now do I understand your statement:
The MAIN PROBLEM in all these theories is, that it changes the Gravitational PULL to a PUSH

However, I think our theory shows that the following does matter:
It doesnt actually matter, how the interactions are named; " ultramundane corpuscles" "photons" or "Electromagnetic" or what ever...

As long as you consider gravity to be a force separate from the electric field, you will get yourself in trouble,
I would fully expect problems like "certain logical problem's in thermodynamics" to just vanish when considered from our simple and elegant proposal, because it's all just fluid dynamics wherein problems with thermodynamics are non-existent AFAIK.

So, why would they occur with our model?


Lloyd wrote:Aether as Photons, or Not?


Well, first of all, nice dialogue! My thoughts (not the holy truth) are as follows; In fluid dynamics it doesn't really matter which is the name of the fluid, as long as you are only considering the basic how some system works. This means ie. that you can test the waterturbine functionality also with air, or with syrup. It just doesn't matter.

So if we call this fluid ie. as "Aether" and this word means "photon-particle emulsion" I am totally fine with it. And that these particles do carry charge, is also Ok to me. These particles can also be described as a "plasma", as they do fill that description too.

But the Problems with thermodynamics; they do not disappear. I try to point this out with a simple example; imagine a sand-ball formed from suitably wet sand. It's solid and holds easily in one piece. You can throw it in air and catch it without any "thermodynamical problems". But this doesn't mean there isn't any. The low energy air particles do produce these problems, but they are just not observable. If you place this sand-ball in flowing water, these problems are very visible.

I try to not write too long. But this is actually the turbulence problem. A sand ball can hold together even in flowing water, if it's flowing in exact same velocity and the water is not turbulent. I can prove this with few videos;
Reversibilty of Laminar flow;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p08_KlTKP50
And my own observation how "laminar" is not velocity dependent;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoBO93 ... FE&index=7

Gravity with PUSH has thermodynamical problems. But these are explainable. The Push can be accepted as a correct answer.

The concequences of this all, is that there is no mass. Mass is just the feeling we experience, when we are pushed.
But this brings a problem; how the light can be pushed? Well it can't. But when it intracts with matter, which moves, it also "goes with the flow", as nicely shown by this experiment;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment

lw1990 wrote:In math, it's just symbolism. 20 angels + 20 angels = 40 angels works on paper, but it doesn't prove angels exist.

How do we know that anything new that you added to existing equations is based in reality?


^This is Fun. I propose you to watch this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mhkYb ... .be&t=1030

These "angles" are visible in pictures I posted before to this treath. The reality of gravity is visible in these pics.
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest