1) I show that you can’t assign a cardinal number to a point, which begins the revolution in both physics and mathematics. The point and the instant are jettisoned from physics, and all math and science since Euclid must be redefined.
2) In my Unified Field Theory, using Newton's gravitational equation as a compound equation, I separate out the foundational E/M field and then reunify, including Relativity transforms. In a related paper, I show that G acts as a transform between these two fields. In another related paper I show that this foundational E/M field is emitted by the central wall in the double slit experiment, creating the interference pattern before a single photon moves through the apparatus.
3) Superposition is explained mechanically and visually, in a rather simple manner. Using the gyroscope, I physically create x and y spins and draw the physical waves created. This explains the wave motion, it dispels many statistical mysteries, and it falsifies the Copenhagen interpretation. Using this same spin model, I am able to show the make-up of all fundamental particles, including the electron and proton, without quarks. I am able to unify the electron, proton, neutron, and all mesons, by developing a simple spin equation. With four stacked spins I can produce all known particles and effects.
4) I correct all the numbers involved in the perihelion precession of Mercury, proving that Einstein's analysis was very incomplete.
5) Calculus is redefined on the finite differential, which will revolutionize the teaching of calculus as well as QED and Relativity. In fact, the fields of all higher math must be redefined. This discovery ultimately bypasses renormalization, making it unnecessary.
6) I show that many of Newton’s important lemmae are false, including his basic trig lemmae. His proof of a = v2/r is compromised by this, which forces us to re-analyze circular motion. The mechanics of his orbit also falls, which requires us to hypothesize a third motion to stabilize the orbit in real time. I have shown that this motion must be caused by the E/M field. This also applies to Kepler’s ellipse. And it explains the mechanics of tides.
7) I also redrew the line between tangential velocity and orbital velocity, showing that the orbital velocity must be an acceleration. This requires a rewriting of many basic equations and cleans up many errors and mysteries, including a few of those in renormalization.
8) I solved the problem of relativity, finding the simple and basic algebraic errors at their inception. I offered corrected transforms for time, length, velocity, mass, and momentum. I exploded the twin paradox, and did so by showing incontrovertibly that relative motion toward causes time contraction, not dilation. I solved the Pioneer Anomaly. I also proved that Newton's kinetic energy equation is not an approximation; it is an exact equation. I explain the cause of the mass limit for the proton in accelerator.
9) I show the error in the interferometer and light clock diagrams, proving that no fringe effect should have been expected. The light clock creates the same mathematical triangle and falls to the same argument.
10) Minkowski's four-vector field is shown to be false, not only because it uses Einstein's false postulates and axioms, but because its own new axiom—that time may travel orthogonally to x,y,z—is also false.
10a) I prove that General Relativity is falsely grounded on the same misunderstandings as the calculus, which is one reason it can’t be joined to QED. I prove that curved space is an unnecessary abstraction and that the tensor calculus is a mathematical diversion, a hiding in esoterica. I prove this by expressing the field with simple algebra, taking five equations to do what Einstein did in 44 pages.
10b) As a bonus, I prove that String Theory is an historical embarrassment.
http://milesmathis.com/central.html
Total Science wrote:Non-Euclidean geometry is a sick joke and contains a theorem which demonstrates itself to be a joke.
It's called Lobachevsky Theorem 20 which proves mathematically that Non-Euclidean geometry is false.
"Theorem 20: If in any triangle the sum of the three angles is equal to two right angles, so is this the case for every other triangle." -- Nikolai I. Lobachevsky, mathematician, 1840
altonhare wrote:So I guess the question, now, is whether there is any actual object that has a 90 degree right angle.
In fact it is impossible to "prove" this through an experiment. You measure 90.00000 degrees, but it's actually 90.0000001. You measure 90.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 degrees, but it's actually 90.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 degrees.
altonhare wrote:This is why geometry is a discipline which studies objects that do not exist, idealized objects like squares and triangles are not found anywhere in reality. However there are objects that are "close enough", so we retain the concepts of squares and triangles for convenience.
altonhare wrote:All Lob's theory is saying is that, if there is an object A whose angles add up to the angles of two other objects B, then every other A will also share this characteristic. If A's angles do not, then every other A's angles will not.
Corpuscles wrote: StevenO (and any others)
If you have some time to educate?, one that is nowhere near your level of expertise, I have some questions.
1.My favourite quote so far:
"Mesons are these same baryons stripped of outer spins. This unifies all hadrons. In this paper, I will show that the electron is also this same baryon stripped of outer spins. In this way, I will prove that electrons, mesons, neutrons and protons are all the same fundamental particle."
http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html
The math concept is brilliant but I do not know how he gets the 4, 8 spins?
especially given this???:
Imagine the Earth spinning about its axis. Call that axis the x-axis. Now go to the y-axis, which also goes through the center but is at a 90o angle from the x-axis. Try to imagine spinning the Earth around that axis at the same time that it is spinning around the x-axis. If you can imagine it, then you have a very vivid imagination, to say the least.
http://milesmathis.com/super.html
I am an expert at either.... but a Baseball "pitcher" and a Cricket "spin bowler"know how to impart both x & y spins similataneously as per the animations shown in this page (refered to me by JL elsewhere)
http://treeincarnation.com/articles/Spin-of-Space.htm
Corpuscles wrote:2. I really have enjoyed Miles' section on relativity. He really deals with the issue of a non existent "space time" fabric with physical properties as is inferred in GR. He reduces it back to the fundamentals of time dilation and Lorenz transforms
BUT
a. sits on the fence regarding the aether
b. Creates a reverse gravity ie the opposite way (OK I can buy that !)
BUT BUT BUT THEN!
Then talks about expanding matter(planets suns everything) !!!! creating his "3rd wave" gravity
Could you explain HOW you can accept such a seeming 'flakey' unsupported hypothesis?
Have you any hints on making it .....make more sense?
I admire his obvious intellect and style but that just seems crazy!
Given particles that are rushing around with opposite charges, we would expect a large number of direct collisions. … The electron is not only on an intersecting path, it is attracted very strongly to the proton. Why does it not hit it?
... The photoelectric effect works both ways: if the photon acts like a particle, the electron must, also. Both the photon and the electron must not only have a discrete energy, they must have discrete positions, otherwise the data would not work like it does. Once again the standard model tries to fudge over this fact with probabilities, but a mechanical explanation requires that both the incoming and outgoing particles must have real position at impact.
... I have shown in a series of papers that if we make the charge force mechanical, we must get rid of the messenger or virtual photon that is now said to mediate it. We must replace that virtual photon with a real photon, and give it mass equivalence. Moreover, we must make all force repulsive. There is simply no way to explain attraction mechanically, so we give up on attraction, at the foundational level. Underlying both electricity and magnetism, we have the charge field, or what I now call the foundational E/M field. Although electricity may be either positive or negative, the foundational E/M field is always positive. It is always repulsive. This means that all protons and electrons are emitting real photons, and that all protons and electrons are repulsing all other protons and electrons, via simple bombardment. Attraction is explained by noticing that protons repulse electrons much less than they repulse other protons. In this way, the attraction is a relative attraction. Relative to the speed of repulsion of protons with one another, electrons appear to move backwards. If protons are defined as the baseline, then electrons are negative to this baseline.
... Classically, this can be explained by the size difference alone. Due only to surface area considerations, electrons are able to dodge much of the emission of protons and nuclei, and so they seem to swim upstream.
... I think it is much preferable, from a theoretical viewpoint, to talk of discrete particles.
... This explains our current problem in a very direct manner, since the orbital distance or shell or level that the electron ultimately reaches is determined by the distance at which the electron is no longer able to dodge the emission of the proton. If we think of the electron and proton as spheres, it makes this very easy to see. The proton is emitting at a constant rate, we assume. But due to spherical considerations, the emission field must dissipate with greater distance from the center. Which is the same as saying that it [the emission of photons] gets denser the closer you get to the proton. The electron simply continues to fall nearer the proton, until the field density of emitted photons gets great enough to stop it. At this point, a level of equilibrium is reached. The proton has always been repulsing the electron, but now the electron gets close enough that the proton can stop it from coming nearer. At greater distances, the field density of photons was not enough to stop the electron, but now it is great enough. It is that simple.
... We can propose a simple bombarding field like this [of emitted photons] and use it to explain protons repelling and also to explain electrons coming close to the protons. One of the great benefits of this new theory is that it explains all at once why the electron does not fall into the proton. It does not collide because it was never attracted to the proton or the nucleus in the first place. Its distance of exclusion is simply much less, based on its size.
..but I see now that he has a lot of good stuff on many aspects of physics etc. He may be the most lucid writer I've read.
Instead, the Sun is both a huge fusion reactor and a huge recycler of the charge field. In fact, it requires this recycling of the charge field in order to feed the fusion process.
Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests