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

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby lamare » Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:17 am

Lloyd wrote: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.


Yes, lamare is me. First three letters of my last name, first three letters of my first name. Use "lamare" pretty much everywhere. Sometimes l4m4re, if lamare is already taken.

The math I used in my article is textbook continuum fluid dynamics. See for example Prieve:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Materi ... Theory.pdf

The equations are used are continuum mechanics equations:

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

Continuum mechanics is a branch of mechanics that deals with the analysis of the kinematics and the mechanical behavior of materials modeled as a continuous mass rather than as discrete particles. The French mathematician Augustin-Louis Cauchy was the first to formulate such models in the 19th century. Research in the area continues today.


A rather short introduction to fluid dynamics can be found here:

http://community.dur.ac.uk/suzanne.fiel ... T/sec1.pdf

The basic equations of fluid dynamics

The main task in fluid dynamics is to find the velocity field describing the flow in a
given domain. To do this, one uses the basic equations of fluid flow, which we derive
in this section. These encode the familiar laws of mechanics:

• conservation of mass (the continuity equation, Sec. 1.2)
• conservation of momentum (the Cauchy equation, Sec. 1.3)

at the level of “fluid elements”, defined in Sec. 1.1. In any domain, the flow equations
must be solved subject to a set of conditions that act at the domain boundary, Sec. 1.5.
If the flow leads to compression of the fluid, we must also consider thermodynamics:

• conservation of energy.

However we defer this complication until later in the course, Sec. 5, assuming initially
that the flow remains incompressible, Sec. 1.4.

1.1 The continuum hypothesis; fluid elements

At a microscopic scale, fluid comprises individual molecules and its physical properties
(density, velocity, etc.) are violently non-uniform. However, the phenomena studied
in fluid dynamics are macroscopic, so we do not usually take this molecular detail into
account
. Instead, we treat the fluid as a continuum by viewing it at a coarse enough
scale
that any “small” fluid element actually still contains very many molecules. One
can then assign a local bulk flow velocity v(x, t) to the element at point x, by averaging
over the much faster, violently fluctuating Brownian molecular velocities. Similarly one
defines a locally averaged density ρ(x, t), etc. These locally averaged quantities then
vary smoothly with x on the macroscopic scale of the flow.


My equations are based on Stowe's aether model, who describes the "molecular detail" of the aether as follows, whereby a "quantum entity" is a model for a "molecule" in macroscopic fluid dynamics. Note that the word "quantum" has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. For simplicity, one can think of it as a small marble having a mass and a certain velocity, which together give it a certain momentum p = mv:

http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237

We will start by postulating a single vector entity (a single quantum entity) which:

• Has a defined momentum (p),
• occupies space of volume (s),
• and obeys Newton basic laws of motion

These quanta therefore can move through four dimensional space (x,y,z,t) with any velocity
(v), and have a mass (m p ) equivalent to (p/v).

We will further postulate that these quanta form toroidal, fluid structures (vortex rings) as indicated by Maxwell’s electrodynamics. Starting with these two postulates, we shall attempt to describe and derive the key properties of such a media and compare the results with known physical properties.


So, from this basic postulate, the aether does NOT consist of any kind of known particle or photon.

Particles and photons are considered to consist of a number of "vortex rings", as illustrated in this picture, which says more than a 1000 words or equations:

Image

This picture also illustrates the difference between the "discrete particles" model at the bottom of the model, which would be the blue balls, and the continuum approximation, which would be the pinkish, more vage "shadow" left by the blue balls.

So, in continuum mechanics, we consider this "pinkish shadow" whereby we describe the "flow" of the fluid as a fluid and we do not worry about the details, i.e. each individual "molecule" or "quantum" in Stowe's terms.

Of course, the continuum mechanics description has a lower limit of validity. According to Stowe's calculation, the lower limit of validity for this model lies at distances of 6.430917E-08 m, his parameter L. (see post above). This value may or may not be correct, but what's important is that there is a lower limit and for now this is the only number we have available. I have the feeling this number is too big, but time will tell.

To sum this up:

1. In my equations, the aether is considered as a continuum, whereby no statements are made about the detailed behavior or properties of the "molecules" c.q. "quanta" of which the aether consists;
2. All 'real' particles and photons are considered to be some kind of structure, consisting of at least one vortex (ring).

So, there is a fundamental distinction between the aether, the medium, and the phenomena we observe as particles, photons or waves. These are considered to be manifestations of flowing aether, 100% analogous to the waves, vortex or smoke rings, etc. we observe in the air and waters around us.
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 » Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:26 am

seasmith wrote:`
...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.


Let's not bother too much about the definition of what a ToE should be. What really matters is that what we have here, IMHO, is a revolutionary adjustment to the foundation of physics. I don't mean this to applaud myself, I seriously believe these 9 (if I counted correctly) equations to be that powerful. Besides, it's Paul Stowe who deserves most of the credits for all of this. Let's also address lw1990's point:

lw1990 wrote: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?


The power of this model is not in the math itself. As you say, the math itself is just symbolism, and the difference between (abstract) math and physics is the meaning of the math. And this is the point I made in what I intended to become part 2 of my extensive background article, although it is not completely finished:

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

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

That is an excellent question, which comes down to:

How do we know you did not "invent abstractions on top of abstractions to make the math work in different scenarios"?

The short answer is: because I started out with a model which is based in reality, namely a single hypothesis:

A real, physical medium called aether exists and it behaves like an ideal fluid or gas.

This immediately explains the sheer power of this model, without the need for any math whatsoever:

Because the aether is considered to behave like an ideal fluid or gas, all phenomena we observe in the air and waters around us are 99% analogous to the phenomena considered to occur in the aether.

The major difference between macroscopic fluids and gasses is that the aether is considered to be loss-free and non-viscous, hence the 99% and not 100%.

Now, because the math essentially describes the aether exactly the same as any other fluid or gas, the math actually has a clear and precisely defined meaning based in reality.

Of course, one can argue that the aether hypothesis is just an hypothesis and one can therefore argue whether or not the aether itself is based in reality, which is a valid argument that cannot be settled by theoretical considerations alone. We need experimental proof in order to settle that argument and we have proposed a number of experiments for that purpose:

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

However, aside from the settlement of "verification by experiment", at least this model is a 1:1 match to the reality of real physical media, namely fluids and gasses.

So, what does a "flow velocity field" mean? Exactly the same as what you would think of as the velocity of a flowing gas or liquid.

What does a "longitudinal wave" mean? Exactly the same as a soundwave in the air, under water, etc.

What does a "vortex ring" mean? Exactly the same as a smoke ring or vortex ring in water:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8

In other words: this model is so simple and elegant because it is based on "real" media, which makes it possible to consider exactly the same phenomena, just on a different scale.

Also, because the units of measurement used in the math are exactly the same as in real media, the math in this model has precisely defined units of measurements, or meaning, contrary to the currently popular method of defining "abstractions on top of abstractions to make the math work".

So, to answer the question: all "units of measurements" are mathematically derived from the unit of measurement of the basic continuum mechanic "field", the velocity field, which is measured in meters per second [m/s]. So, you can check whether or not I correctly derived the units of measurements for the derived fields. I could have make a mistake there, so I would actually welcome anyone to do these checks and see for themselves whether or not I did it correctly.

It is from this simple, intuitive basis, that we come to new units of measurements for the electric and magnetic fields. And these show there is an error in Maxwell's definition for the electric potential field Phi, because the units of measurements in his equation, when checked from a theory "based in reality" do not match.

Further, because these same equations, the ones defining the magnetic vector potential A and the electric scalar potential Phi, are now derived from a field "based in reality", namely the flow velocity of the medium, there is no longer "gauge freedom" which removes the mathematical freedom to "invent abstractions on top of abstractions to make the math work" aka "Quantum Field Theory":

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

Gauge theory and the standard model

In the beginning of the 1950s, QED had become a reliable theory which no longer counted as preliminary. It took two decades from writing down the first equations until QFT could be applied to interesting physical problems in a systematic way. The new developments made it possible to apply QFT to new particles and new interactions. In the following decades QFT was extended to describe not only the electromagnetic force but also weak and strong interaction so that new Lagrangians had to be found which contain new classes of ‘particles’ or quantum fields. The research aimed at a more comprehensive theory of matter and in the end at a unified theory of all interactions.

New theoretical concepts had to be introduced, mainly connected with non-Abelian gauge theories (the effort of developing such theories started in 1954 with the work of Yang and Mills) and spontaneous symmetry breaking. Today there are trustworthy theories of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions of elementary particles which have a similar structure as QED. A combined theory associated with the gauge group SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) is considered as the standard model of elementary particle physics which was achieved by Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg and Abdul Salam in 1968, and Frank Wilczek, David Gross and David Politzer in 1973.
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 » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:44 am

JouniJokela wrote:
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.


Well, the subject of "carrying charge" is actually one of the key differences between our simple aether model and Maxwell's equations, which I described as a "recursive" problem, traced back to a "non sequitur" issue which is encountered a few times over in my extensive background investigation:

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

As we saw, electromagnetic radiation has been found to be quantized. It does not exist as continuous waves, but rather as some kind of distinguishable "packets" called photons:

Electromagnetic waves are produced whenever charged particles are accelerated, and these waves can subsequently interact with any charged particles. EM waves carry energy, momentum and angular momentum away from their source particle and can impart those quantities to matter with which they interact. Quanta of EM waves are called photons, which are massless, but they are still affected by gravity. Electromagnetic radiation is associated with those EM waves that are free to propagate themselves ("radiate") without the continuing influence of the moving charges that produced them, because they have achieved sufficient distance from those charges. Thus, EMR is sometimes referred to as the far field. In this language, the near field refers to EM fields near the charges and current that directly produced them, specifically, electromagnetic induction and electrostatic induction phenomena.


This illustrates the "non sequitur" issue we encountered above, namely that electromagnetic waves are considered to be produced by moving "charged particles", while these particles show this "wave particle duality" behavior themselves, as does "EM radiation" on it's turn. In other words: electromagnetic radiation is essentially considered to be produced by movements of "quanta" of electromagnetic radiation, called either "photons" or "particles". Kind of a dog chasing it's own tail, or recursion as software engineers call it:

Code: Select all
   
    whatIsRecursion():
        if you understand Recursion:
              return
        else:
             whatIsRecursion()



With our model, this recursive problem is resolved. Charge is no longer considered to be the cause for the electric field nor electromagnetism. That does not mean that the concept of "charge" is completely thrown overboard, but it is considered to be a consequence of the (vortex) structured fluid flows particles and photons are predicted to consist of.

In other words: it's not charge which causes electromagnetism, but the dynamic flowing structures we call particles or photons are predicted to be "constructed" in such a way that they "emit" electric and magnetic fields as has been measured.

Stowe did this for a single "vortex ring" topology, which what the electron is thought to be, and showed that from that topology we can indeed calculate the elementary charge of the electron, e.

To sum this up: charge is not considered to be something fundamental, but a consequence of the dynamic phenomena, i.e. vortex rings, predicted to occur in the aether, just as they can be observed in water and other fluids.

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.


Very cool experiment, that "Reversibilty of Laminar flow" video. Almost unbelievable. Wow!

I guess I stand corrected. However, the point is that with the deep understanding our model gives, because it is analogous to similar phenomena observed at the macro scale, these kinds of problems can be resolved exactly the same way as the macro scale, as you are describing with the sand ball analogy. And that goes for all phenomena associated with fluid dynamics. The model holds from somewhere around a (sub-)atomic scale (exact lower limit to be determined) all the way up to the galactic scale.

In other words: if the thermodynamical problems associated with PUSHING gravity are explainable on the macro scale, they are also explainable down to the lower validity limit scale of the model, although that exact limit is not known at this moment.

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 interacts with matter, which moves, it also "goes with the flow", as nicely shown by this experiment;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment


In our model, mass is considered to be "aether mass", modeled as the bulk mass of the "fluid" medium we call aether. In Stowe's paper, it is shown that this view enables us to derive both the relativistic energy equation (E=mc^2) as well as the Quantum Mechanics one (E=hf).

Light is indeed predicted to "go with the flow" in our model.

Regarding the question "can light be pushed", or, "is it influenced by gravity", let me state the following:

Gravity is considered to be a standing longitudinal wave between two bodies. For such a wave to be produced, there must be two "ordinary" longitudinal "sound" waves bouncing back and forth between the two bodies exchanging a "gravitational" force.

So, either the normal (electric field) longitudinal wave must reflect between the bodies, or there must be a shared or common harmonic oscillation frequency (range) between the bodies.

When we consider the gravity waves between the Earth and the Sun, for example, these could easily have wavelengths in the range of hundreds of meters if not (tens or hundreds of) kilometers. Given the wavelength of an average photon, somewhere in the nanometer range, it does not seem likely the gravitational waves emitted by heavenly bodies would enact any significant force on a photon.
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 » Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:02 am

lamare wrote:
Lloyd wrote: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.


Yes, lamare is me. First three letters of my last name, first three letters of my first name. Use "lamare" pretty much everywhere. Sometimes l4m4re, if lamare is already taken.

The math I used in my article is textbook continuum fluid dynamics. See for example Prieve:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Materi ... Theory.pdf

The equations used are continuum mechanics equations:

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

Continuum mechanics is a branch of mechanics that deals with the analysis of the kinematics and the mechanical behavior of materials modeled as a continuous mass rather than as discrete particles. The French mathematician Augustin-Louis Cauchy was the first to formulate such models in the 19th century. Research in the area continues today.


A rather short introduction to fluid dynamics can be found here:

http://community.dur.ac.uk/suzanne.fiel ... T/sec1.pdf

The basic equations of fluid dynamics

The main task in fluid dynamics is to find the velocity field describing the flow in a
given domain. To do this, one uses the basic equations of fluid flow, which we derive
in this section. These encode the familiar laws of mechanics:

• conservation of mass (the continuity equation, Sec. 1.2)
• conservation of momentum (the Cauchy equation, Sec. 1.3)

at the level of “fluid elements”, defined in Sec. 1.1. In any domain, the flow equations
must be solved subject to a set of conditions that act at the domain boundary, Sec. 1.5.
If the flow leads to compression of the fluid, we must also consider thermodynamics:

• conservation of energy.

However we defer this complication until later in the course, Sec. 5, assuming initially
that the flow remains incompressible, Sec. 1.4.

1.1 The continuum hypothesis; fluid elements

At a microscopic scale, fluid comprises individual molecules and its physical properties
(density, velocity, etc.) are violently non-uniform. However, the phenomena studied
in fluid dynamics are macroscopic, so we do not usually take this molecular detail into
account
. Instead, we treat the fluid as a continuum by viewing it at a coarse enough
scale
that any “small” fluid element actually still contains very many molecules. One
can then assign a local bulk flow velocity v(x, t) to the element at point x, by averaging
over the much faster, violently fluctuating Brownian molecular velocities. Similarly one
defines a locally averaged density ρ(x, t), etc. These locally averaged quantities then
vary smoothly with x on the macroscopic scale of the flow.


My equations are based on Stowe's aether model, who describes the "molecular detail" of the aether as follows, whereby a "quantum entity" is a model for a "molecule" in macroscopic fluid dynamics. Note that the word "quantum" has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. For simplicity, one can think of it as a small marble having a mass and a certain velocity, which together give it a certain momentum p = mv:

http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237

We will start by postulating a single vector entity (a single quantum entity) which:

• Has a defined momentum (p),
• occupies space of volume (s),
• and obeys Newton basic laws of motion

These quanta therefore can move through four dimensional space (x,y,z,t) with any velocity
(v), and have a mass (m p ) equivalent to (p/v).

We will further postulate that these quanta form toroidal, fluid structures (vortex rings) as indicated by Maxwell’s electrodynamics. Starting with these two postulates, we shall attempt to describe and derive the key properties of such a media and compare the results with known physical properties.


So, from this basic postulate, the aether does NOT consist of any kind of known particle or photon.

Particles and photons are considered to consist of a number of "vortex rings", as illustrated in this picture, which says more than a 1000 words or equations:

Image

This picture also illustrates the difference between the "discrete particles" model at the bottom of the model, which would be the blue balls, and the continuum approximation, which would be the pinkish, more vage "shadow" left by the blue balls.

So, in continuum mechanics, we consider this "pinkish shadow" whereby we describe the "flow" of the fluid as a fluid and we do not worry about the details, i.e. each individual "molecule" or "quantum" in Stowe's terms.

Of course, the continuum mechanics description has a lower limit of validity. According to Stowe's calculation, the lower limit of validity for this model lies at distances of 6.430917E-08 m, his parameter L. (see post above). This value may or may not be correct, but what's important is that there is a lower limit and for now this is the only number we have available. I have the feeling this number is too big, but time will tell.

To sum this up:

1. In my equations, the aether is considered as a continuum, whereby no statements are made about the detailed behavior or properties of the "molecules" c.q. "quanta" of which the aether consists;
2. All 'real' particles and photons are considered to be some kind of structure, consisting of at least one vortex (ring).

So, there is a fundamental distinction between the aether, the medium, and the phenomena we observe as particles, photons or waves. These are considered to be manifestations of flowing aether, 100% analogous to the waves, vortex or smoke rings, etc. we observe in the air and waters around us.[/quote]
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 lw1990 » Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:54 pm

Thank you for explaining further lamare, all I can say is that this is extremely intriguing to me because it mirrors my own theory so closely, but I don't have the physics background knowledge to really delve in too deep. I do have some tangential questions though, out of curiosity.

If a baseball was ejected out of earth's atmosphere and out of the solar system, even out of the milky way, it would still be traveling through the medium of the aether, right? If that is so, then is it moving aether-marbles out of its way, or is it absorbing them and processing them around its boundary (temporarily growing in size itself as it absorbs, then shrinking in size as it ejects) which continues until the baseball is stopped for some reason?

I theorize the latter happens from my own theory, but it is important to address this basic question 'does the aether interact with matter, and how does it allow movement of matter through it'.

I also postulate in my theory that the space between marbles is filled by a fluid, that there are no voids in the universe. The 'marbles' compose the aether, and collectively behave like a fluid (or rather, fixed-size bubbles in an ocean), but a bunch of marbles have gaps between them, it's a geometric certainty. What does your theory say about 'the volume in between marbles'?
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby seasmith » Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:27 pm

seasmith wrote:
`
...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.

Lamare wrote:
Let's not bother too much about the definition of what a ToE should be. What really matters is that what we have here, IMHO, is a revolutionary adjustment to the foundation of physics. I don't mean this to applaud myself, I seriously believe these 9 (if I counted correctly) equations to be that powerful. Besides, it's Paul Stowe who deserves most of the credits for all of this...



So forget the "Everything" part.

Yes, Fluid Dynamics is a very appropriate paradigm to describe many phenomena within the larger paradigm of an Electric Universe. Quite a few others have used the mechanics of fluid dynamics to do so successfully.
Even going well back into the history of science, many fluid analogies have been made to electricity, gravity, aether and even light; without having to conflate a concept of discrete "photons and particles" (btw, where is the quantum fluctuation in your animated version of the old 'heart vortex' image above?)
with the concept of fluid "waves".

Bottom line, no problem with the "exceptionally elegant" claim',
but until you folks address the cause and/or generation of your Fields, Particles, Rings and Waves, it is a bit of a miss.
imo

http://www.tuks.nl/img/dualtorus.gif
seasmith
 
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby JouniJokela » Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:54 am

lamare wrote:
JouniJokela wrote: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.


Very cool experiment, that "Reversibilty of Laminar flow" video. Almost unbelievable. Wow!

I guess I stand corrected. However, the point is that with the deep understanding our model gives, because it is analogous to similar phenomena observed at the macro scale, these kinds of problems can be resolved exactly the same way as the macro scale, as you are describing with the sand ball analogy. And that goes for all phenomena associated with fluid dynamics. The model holds from somewhere around a (sub-)atomic scale (exact lower limit to be determined) all the way up to the galactic scale.

In other words: if the thermodynamical problems associated with PUSHING gravity are explainable on the macro scale, they are also explainable down to the lower validity limit scale of the model, although that exact limit is not known at this moment.


I wouldn't say "stand corrected", but rather "stand with a broader view".
I think it must work down to the planck-constant, I mean a particle absorbing a weakest possible photon. Atleast the analogy for a hydrogen atom absorbing photons which firt excites the Electron but finally leads to ionization. (loss of electron).

lamare wrote:Particles and photons are considered to consist of a number of "vortex rings", as illustrated in this picture, which says more than a 1000 words or equations:

Image

This picture also illustrates the difference between the "discrete particles" model at the bottom of the model, which would be the blue balls, and the continuum approximation, which would be the pinkish, more vage "shadow" left by the blue balls.


Have you made this picture? Could you make similar according to this math;
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... H_07102016
( Page 7) pls. Don't mind about the units, I can explain them, but it's a longer story which I havent written open yet.
This math might be most easily available here;
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... ecule-size
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss


Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby lamare » Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:37 am



Yes, I found it on Haramein's site, too. Never found a bigger one, so thanks a lot!
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 » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:19 pm

Arend, are you planning to discuss more here soon or somewhere else?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:26 pm

Lloyd wrote: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.


I fear I may have started off with my foot in my own mouth. I'm still trying to figure out the nature of his quantum particle, but since he's participating in the thread, it would clearly be best if I let him explain it himself. :) My apologies if I have mispresented the work. It's interesting, and I just haven't had time to study it properly.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:21 pm

Michael, I haven't heard from him here for several months.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests