On 15 апр, 10:59, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"vps137" wrote in message

...
On 14 ��Ò, 13:52, "Paul Mays" wrote:



"vps137" wrote in message

Lets start from the beginning and that is what was the BB.. Einstein's
pretty much nailed it when he explained that matter can be converted into
energy and energy could be converted into matter... So what was the Energy
of the BB before any of it was converted into matter. Well a writer Alun
Williams dubbed it a chaos Point (CP) in that energy without matter would
be
infinitely chaotic and indefinable.

I have always refereed to it as a Quantum Point and would follow at least
one rule and that was Probability . Other than that the energy of the BB
before time 0 is non definable as there is no matter hence no laws of
physics can apply.

We have as a Quantum Point (QP) an amount of Unified Energy of a
unquantifiable amount and indefinable nature.

My postulate states that according to Probability that QP had the
probability of converting from none to all of its energy into matter or
not.
That conversion could have been from one particle of matter to a billion
billion universes of matter. My contention is that all of the Energy of
the
QP need not be converted, only a small portion was converted at time 0
into
the matter we perceive as the universe around us.

The remaining energy exists all around us and is still indefinable. While
we
can finely define matter in relation to other matter the energy between
matter is still undefinable. We give it constant values as we can measure
it
and model it between any two massive objects so we seek the Grand Unified
Theory to explain the observed which we have yet to define. Gravity is
well
modeled and we can calculate to the Nth degree what its effect is on
massive
bodies we still can't define the cause of effect over distance of
gravitational
fields.

Lets try to get past the inherent Bias of the observer to better
understand
the concepts to follow. The Bias is Intrinsic in that after time 0 the
matter throughout the universe is connected by the remainder of the energy
of the QP when it converted some of its undefinable energy into definable
matter. So the Bias stems from every item used to measure or observe the
universe is connected to that being observed and the data gathered is
Biased
to the observer. This Bias causes us to observe what seems to be a
particle
with a material nature but actually be only energy signatures of waves
measured at a specific time with tools that are connected to that which
they
observe.

Lets consider converting a known amount of matter into energy completely
in
that there is 1X1X1 cube of matter and we magically find a way to convert
all of that matter into energy you would have a QP (Quantum Point, Chaos
Point, Singularity) that occupied no space an since it contains no matter
it
cannot be defined physically. It would have infinite energy density even
though it was converted from a finite amount of matter.

In our thought experiment we have a Quantum of Energy and we convert 2
Smallest Physical Particle (SPP) out of it. The remainder of the energy
exists as a field between those two particles. There is a massive energy
release at the conversion of matter from energy. My contention is that
converted from that Energy is a form of matter that I call a SSP or
Smallest
Physical Partical an that the energy release causes these SSP's to ring
and
produce a EM wave. It also causes the particles to move away from the
point
of origin. Note that the particles could be matter or antimatter in any
ratios as per probibility that would rules the QP before time 0.

With 2 SSP's produced as they move away from each other the Universe
exists
between those two SSP's. That Field has a value and we can define it once
we
have 2 physical particles moving in relation to each other.

Now Lets add 1 additional particle.. only this particle is Anti-Matter.
Its
still connected to the other 2 particles via the Quantum State (QS) But if
it runs into one of those other particles they vanish into a flash of
energy
and the single particle would collapse the universe into it. If there was
several +SSP's and 1 -SSP's you would have a large energy release as the 2
particles annihilate each other which would propel the remaining +SSP's
away
from each other at a higher rate.

This follows the standard theory of a short inflation period followed by
the
expansion period of the Big Bang Theory. At Time 0 the QP converted some
of
its undefinable energy into Matter in the form of +SSP's and -SSP's and
that
shortly after conversion +SSP's and -SSP's annihilated each other causing
the remaining +SSP's to expand at a higher rate.

Now we have lots of SSP'S in a group. They are connected to each other via
the Quantum State which is the same undefined unified energy that was the
Quantum Point (QP) the EM waves interact between each SSP. The EM Waves
heterodyne and interact causing a type of natural selection in that some
SSPs are producing EM Waves that combine with some other SSP's and cause
them to stabilize into bound groups and others have EM wave forms that
cause
them to separate further from some SSP's so over time you have groups of
SSP's that as a group produce a EM Wave that is a unified as a heterodyne
wave form. then these groups can become harmonically connected to other
groups and so on.

This QS (Quantum State) between particles has a variable that has been
dubbed the Universal Constant or the Gravitational Constant. I Know
..Constant Variable? These are the values we call constants as we can
measure and model matter and these values remain constant. I contend that
they are variable in that due to scale and the intrinsic bias of being
within the Quantum State we will always measure and validate them as
constants as we vary at the same rate.

In my view the Gravitational Constant of the Universe varies with the
expansion of the universe but is locally modified by groupings of SSP's.
This also applies to the value of c (The Speed Of Light). I contend that c
is a variable but varies on a scale as to be measured as a constant. Again
locally varied by local groupings of SSP's. The Quantum State acts as an
Inverse Tensor Field between all SSP's on a universal scale. It has a
Strong
attraction which we measure as gravitational or magnetic or nuclear force
effects aspects of separation distance of SSP's. These forces are but
effects of heterodyne waves of groupings of SSP's and the value of the QS
varies with the distribution of SSP's both universally and locally. We
have
modeled Photons taking centuries to escape from the lower sun to the
surface
and theorize that photons are absorbed by matter and re emitted causing
the
long trip . But in my postulate the value of c in reduced locally between
closely grouped SSP's versus widely separated SSP's. So in the dense sun
the
wave form we consider a photon travels at a slower speed locally and
faster
once it exits the mass of the sun.

Paul R. Mays

Your vision is interesting. The process of photon emitting is thought
by me in the same scheme, although without changing of c. It doesn't
need because the length of the particle vortex is supposed to be
rather long.

In my model there isn't BB and the galaxies running-away is explained
in more
plausible way imo.(vps137.narod.ru/article9.html by Russian whiles).
The idea is in following.

There was long ago the collision of the remote universes. The pieces
from the explosion plumped in our Universe. They made the galaxies
with parallel vorteces, tails, in the bulk of our 4D Universe. Due to
curvature of the 3D surface of the Universe they moved. The Habble
constant is equal then at the first approximation c/R, where R is
radius of the Universe.

Moreover, it explained the big dark side of Universe where there are
not any galaxies at all. There was other big universe which has being
between our Universe and explosion. It has shielded our Universe.

Really we can't know anything about other universes because the light
permeates only along the 3D border of Universe. But we really can do
some implied conclusions and "look" outside.

Valery S.

Guess I had a harder time following your logic than my own but your
view complicates that which we observe and the goal is to the simplest
yet compatible theorem.

In your view I would ask where did the matter come from, how does it
explain gravitational wells, and how does it explain expansion we observe.

I agree with SR, GR and QM because we predict then observer what we
predict so any theory must better explain those concepts than existing
theory and I content my postulate goes a long way to unifying those
theories.

In your view you only are seeing the Macro universe but in mine the
construct
is valid from Micro to Macro. It explains from the smallest physical
particle
all the way to the total universe seamlessly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't take myself all that serious. And I'm more than
likely
wrong. But if you try to really understand my postulate and its nuance it
is a TOE and
gives a logical GUT construct.

The basic postulate leads to a few predictions.

1. the universe will expand at an ever increasing rate of expansion.
2. c is variable but only percievable as a constant locally and
is independent of wave source or target.
3. the UGC is not a constant but will reduce as the universe expands

There are several more predictions but thats enough to get me yelled at
by many of the B'Lievers on this forum.

Beg your pardon for the last empty response. I was my fault.

I fully understand how it is hard for me to repersuade the community
and don't intend to do it. I only want to persuade myself. Seriously.

My variant of TOE covers Micro universe too. It's to be published I
hope. Derivation of the Lorentz transformation and all I still have
been placed on my site is just a side effect. And I saw that SR is
just one special solution from the others. So I can't stand for SR.

I have some predictions too. The last is that the doppler formula is
to read as follows: f'/f = (1-(v/c)^2)^2/(1+v/c). It expands our
Universe in more scale than SR.

Valery S.

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
"vps137" wrote in message
...
On 15 ???, 10:59, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"vps137" wrote in message

...
On 14 ÁÐÒ, 13:52, "Paul Mays" wrote:



"vps137" wrote in message

Lets start from the beginning and that is what was the BB.. Einstein's
pretty much nailed it when he explained that matter can be converted
into
energy and energy could be converted into matter... So what was the
Energy
of the BB before any of it was converted into matter. Well a writer Alun
Williams dubbed it a chaos Point (CP) in that energy without matter
would
be
infinitely chaotic and indefinable.

I have always refereed to it as a Quantum Point and would follow at
least
one rule and that was Probability . Other than that the energy of the BB
before time 0 is non definable as there is no matter hence no laws of
physics can apply.

We have as a Quantum Point (QP) an amount of Unified Energy of a
unquantifiable amount and indefinable nature.

My postulate states that according to Probability that QP had the
probability of converting from none to all of its energy into matter or
not.
That conversion could have been from one particle of matter to a billion
billion universes of matter. My contention is that all of the Energy of
the
QP need not be converted, only a small portion was converted at time 0
into
the matter we perceive as the universe around us.

The remaining energy exists all around us and is still indefinable.
While
we
can finely define matter in relation to other matter the energy between
matter is still undefinable. We give it constant values as we can
measure
it
and model it between any two massive objects so we seek the Grand
Unified
Theory to explain the observed which we have yet to define. Gravity is
well
modeled and we can calculate to the Nth degree what its effect is on
massive
bodies we still can't define the cause of effect over distance of
gravitational
fields.

Lets try to get past the inherent Bias of the observer to better
understand
the concepts to follow. The Bias is Intrinsic in that after time 0 the
matter throughout the universe is connected by the remainder of the
energy
of the QP when it converted some of its undefinable energy into
definable
matter. So the Bias stems from every item used to measure or observe the
universe is connected to that being observed and the data gathered is
Biased
to the observer. This Bias causes us to observe what seems to be a
particle
with a material nature but actually be only energy signatures of waves
measured at a specific time with tools that are connected to that which
they
observe.

Lets consider converting a known amount of matter into energy completely
in
that there is 1X1X1 cube of matter and we magically find a way to
convert
all of that matter into energy you would have a QP (Quantum Point, Chaos
Point, Singularity) that occupied no space an since it contains no
matter
it
cannot be defined physically. It would have infinite energy density even
though it was converted from a finite amount of matter.

In our thought experiment we have a Quantum of Energy and we convert 2
Smallest Physical Particle (SPP) out of it. The remainder of the energy
exists as a field between those two particles. There is a massive energy
release at the conversion of matter from energy. My contention is that
converted from that Energy is a form of matter that I call a SSP or
Smallest
Physical Partical an that the energy release causes these SSP's to ring
and
produce a EM wave. It also causes the particles to move away from the
point
of origin. Note that the particles could be matter or antimatter in any
ratios as per probibility that would rules the QP before time 0.

With 2 SSP's produced as they move away from each other the Universe
exists
between those two SSP's. That Field has a value and we can define it
once
we
have 2 physical particles moving in relation to each other.

Now Lets add 1 additional particle.. only this particle is Anti-Matter.
Its
still connected to the other 2 particles via the Quantum State (QS) But
if
it runs into one of those other particles they vanish into a flash of
energy
and the single particle would collapse the universe into it. If there
was
several +SSP's and 1 -SSP's you would have a large energy release as the
2
particles annihilate each other which would propel the remaining +SSP's
away
from each other at a higher rate.

This follows the standard theory of a short inflation period followed by
the
expansion period of the Big Bang Theory. At Time 0 the QP converted some
of
its undefinable energy into Matter in the form of +SSP's and -SSP's and
that
shortly after conversion +SSP's and -SSP's annihilated each other
causing
the remaining +SSP's to expand at a higher rate.

Now we have lots of SSP'S in a group. They are connected to each other
via
the Quantum State which is the same undefined unified energy that was
the
Quantum Point (QP) the EM waves interact between each SSP. The EM Waves
heterodyne and interact causing a type of natural selection in that some
SSPs are producing EM Waves that combine with some other SSP's and cause
them to stabilize into bound groups and others have EM wave forms that
cause
them to separate further from some SSP's so over time you have groups of
SSP's that as a group produce a EM Wave that is a unified as a
heterodyne
wave form. then these groups can become harmonically connected to other
groups and so on.

This QS (Quantum State) between particles has a variable that has been
dubbed the Universal Constant or the Gravitational Constant. I Know
..Constant Variable? These are the values we call constants as we can
measure and model matter and these values remain constant. I contend
that
they are variable in that due to scale and the intrinsic bias of being
within the Quantum State we will always measure and validate them as
constants as we vary at the same rate.

In my view the Gravitational Constant of the Universe varies with the
expansion of the universe but is locally modified by groupings of SSP's.
This also applies to the value of c (The Speed Of Light). I contend that
c
is a variable but varies on a scale as to be measured as a constant.
Again
locally varied by local groupings of SSP's. The Quantum State acts as an
Inverse Tensor Field between all SSP's on a universal scale. It has a
Strong
attraction which we measure as gravitational or magnetic or nuclear
force
effects aspects of separation distance of SSP's. These forces are but
effects of heterodyne waves of groupings of SSP's and the value of the
QS
varies with the distribution of SSP's both universally and locally. We
have
modeled Photons taking centuries to escape from the lower sun to the
surface
and theorize that photons are absorbed by matter and re emitted causing
the
long trip . But in my postulate the value of c in reduced locally
between
closely grouped SSP's versus widely separated SSP's. So in the dense sun
the
wave form we consider a photon travels at a slower speed locally and
faster
once it exits the mass of the sun.

Paul R. Mays

Your vision is interesting. The process of photon emitting is thought
by me in the same scheme, although without changing of c. It doesn't
need because the length of the particle vortex is supposed to be
rather long.

In my model there isn't BB and the galaxies running-away is explained
in more
plausible way imo.(vps137.narod.ru/article9.html by Russian whiles).
The idea is in following.

There was long ago the collision of the remote universes. The pieces
from the explosion plumped in our Universe. They made the galaxies
with parallel vorteces, tails, in the bulk of our 4D Universe. Due to
curvature of the 3D surface of the Universe they moved. The Habble
constant is equal then at the first approximation c/R, where R is
radius of the Universe.

Moreover, it explained the big dark side of Universe where there are
not any galaxies at all. There was other big universe which has being
between our Universe and explosion. It has shielded our Universe.

Really we can't know anything about other universes because the light
permeates only along the 3D border of Universe. But we really can do
some implied conclusions and "look" outside.

Valery S.

Guess I had a harder time following your logic than my own but your
view complicates that which we observe and the goal is to the simplest
yet compatible theorem.

In your view I would ask where did the matter come from, how does it
explain gravitational wells, and how does it explain expansion we observe.

I agree with SR, GR and QM because we predict then observer what we
predict so any theory must better explain those concepts than existing
theory and I content my postulate goes a long way to unifying those
theories.

In your view you only are seeing the Macro universe but in mine the
construct
is valid from Micro to Macro. It explains from the smallest physical
particle
all the way to the total universe seamlessly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't take myself all that serious. And I'm more
than
likely
wrong. But if you try to really understand my postulate and its nuance it
is a TOE and
gives a logical GUT construct.

The basic postulate leads to a few predictions.

1. the universe will expand at an ever increasing rate of expansion.
2. c is variable but only percievable as a constant locally and
is independent of wave source or target.
3. the UGC is not a constant but will reduce as the universe expands

There are several more predictions but thats enough to get me yelled at
by many of the B'Lievers on this forum.

Beg your pardon for the last empty response. I was my fault.

I fully understand how it is hard for me to repersuade the community
and don't intend to do it. I only want to persuade myself. Seriously.

My variant of TOE covers Micro universe too. It's to be published I
hope. Derivation of the Lorentz transformation and all I still have
been placed on my site is just a side effect. And I saw that SR is
just one special solution from the others. So I can't stand for SR.

I have some predictions too. The last is that the doppler formula is
to read as follows: f'/f = (1-(v/c)^2)^2/(1+v/c). It expands our
Universe in more scale than SR.

Valery S.


My position is that Einstine,Maxwell and others make the
same mistake when conceiving of Aether. They have the
same problem most Humans do and conceive it as a commom
Medium where Its independent and massive objects move
Through it. My construct is that it is Intrinsic with matter and
connected to all matter. In such a view it moves with the
Physical Particles its connected to. Which means it is connected
to the observer, any device the observer uses to attempt to
observe, and that which is being observerd leading to an
Intrinsic Bias. As for Detecting It cannot be Directlly as the
Observer is inside that which he attempts to observer.

But Indirectlly I consider Gravitational variance as a Effect Aspect
of Physical Particals seperated by the Quantum State (Aether).

Look at this concept on a 1 dim construct.

X'x = SPP'1, SPP'2,SPP'3 ect.
------ = QS (QP) (Quantum State with matter,
Quantum Point without matter)
or = direction of motion
+ or - = value of QS
^'x = point of observation

...... +.......... ... - .. ...+ ...... - ........
X'1-----------X'2---X'3---X'4---------X'5
^'1.... ^'2 ......^'3 ^'4 ^'5 ^'6 ^'7........... ^'8


If I consider only X'1 and X'8 as they expand the
QS reduces in steady state value ( the analogy I
use is an inverse rubber band where as you stretch
the band its tension decreases and increases as the
SPP's move closer together while always staying
connected no matter the separation distance.)

If I try to observe this variance at say ^'6 I cannot
detect this variance, as I (X'4) exist within that which
is varying. That's the intrinsic bias of which I speak

If X'3 try's to observe X'2 and X'4 it again is biased
and can never detect the variance.

Now set all X'x's to ringing and producing EM waves
propagated along -------- the discreet waves can never
be observed as any observation will be of the heterodyned
waves of all SPP's. Only if a observer was outside
could you observe a discreet wave. Now Lets send
a wave pulse from X'1 to X'5. The tension of the total
QS sets the value of travel on a global scale but as that
wave passes ^'4 its now within a local point where the
value of QS is reduced and the velocity of the wave slows.
But due to the position of say X'2 it would never detect the
variance. Locally it would seem a constant value.

The variance of the QS between SPP's would be undetectable
as a direct value but would have a local effect that would be
detectable and would seem to be a observable force .
This is the causation aspect of local gravity wells and
the mental construct of curved space/time.



I have never stated I am correct. I take this position
as a mental exercise to see if there is a simple view that gives
rational for the existing theory in SR,GR,QM to be valid while
explaining the questions that existing theory has not been able to
explain. I am more than likely incorrect but my postulate does
exactly that. It gives Causation to G, gives a very simple explanation
of Duality, and reduces all the theory down to 4 Dim space/time while
showing how existing Physical Rules can still be valid with a few
exceptions. Those exception are that the Value of c is variable and
Set by the separation distance of Physical Particles, The Value of
UGC is Variable. and there is no such thing as Infinity or Paradox.

In my Postulate I can envision a simple Universe where there is
a Primal Physical Particle that was converted out of a Quanta of
Unified Indefinable Energy and expands following simple Newtonian
rules. And goes down to the basis construct of particles.

The problem is that we as observers are inside the box attempting to
model the outside of the box we can never Directly Observe. Being
so we have to Take into account the Intrinsic Bias of being an observer
connected to and acting upon that which we observe.

Using my view I can explain almost all of physics is very simple terms. Am
I correct, I will leave that for the future to confirm or disprove. As I
said I
have one thing I can hang my hat on. My postulate led me to write that it
predicted that the Universe will expand at an ever increasing rate of
expansion
right from the start in 89. COBI and other experiments seem to validate
that
prediction and gives the rational of Why. The Inverse Tensor nature of the
Quantum State.

Feel free to shred my Postulate and ask how it specifically addresses any
aspect
of existing physical theory. Note that most the time I get yelled at and
called
some nasty stuff while not asked how my view addresses A,B,C ect
specifically.
Generally I get told to read a book on physics, (I have ,Many) Do the Math,
(Don't need to as I think the math's that are used are just peachy) , or
that I
haven't the capacity to understand all the work done by physicist A,B,C or
the
work done at Accelerator A,B,C and never asked how my view addresses
specifically certain aspect of existing physical theory that I actually find
valid.

On 16 ÁÐÒ, 16:13, "Paul Mays" wrote:
--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
šI Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation""vps137" wrote in message

...

Well I think your theory is not worse then others. There are facts
that it describes
and predicts. As usual the struggle with other theories is awaited.
Esp. if you use the aether notion.

I only don't understood about universe expansion. Is it really
increased in 89?
I never heard, beg for my ignorance.
The question is is your theory TOE or not. I see the next lack in it.
You try to use quantum mechanical concepts in building SSP etc but not
to derive QM from your first principles. The same I may say about
energy-mass equivalence you used.
F.e. I derived, or I persuade myself that I derived, it from the
simple model of 4D
whirl - vps137.narod.ru/article7a.html.

Valery S.

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
"vps137" wrote in message
...
On 16 ÁÐÒ, 16:13, "Paul Mays" wrote:
--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation""vps137"
wrote in message

...

Well I think your theory is not worse then others. There are facts
that it describes
and predicts. As usual the struggle with other theories is awaited.
Esp. if you use the aether notion.

I only don't understood about universe expansion. Is it really
increased in 89?
I never heard, beg for my ignorance.
The question is is your theory TOE or not. I see the next lack in it.
You try to use quantum mechanical concepts in building SSP etc but not
to derive QM from your first principles. The same I may say about
energy-mass equivalence you used.
F.e. I derived, or I persuade myself that I derived, it from the
simple model of 4D
whirl - vps137.narod.ru/article7a.html.

Valery S.

I'll try to explain..

In 1989 I came to the conclusion that if my construct was
correct then the universe would expand at an ever
increasing rate of expansion. This was at a time when the
arguments being made were that it was expanding, Static,
would expand then collapse but missing mass would cause
it to do a big crunch and so forth. As I considered my idea
it seemed that due to the inverse tensor nature of the Quantum
State it would expand at an ever increasing rate. In the past
few years many papers have concluded that it is doing just that,
expanding as an ever increasing rate. While that is not the
consensus yet, the arguments I have read give a better explanation
than a static state or a collapsing state.

As far a SPP's ( Smallest Physical Particles) or Primal Matter, Its
a concept that I came up with while considering a paper on Quantum
Nodes and virtual particles. Since I was looking for a concept that
fit existing theories but gave a simple rational and SPP's seemed to
work.

For an example take a hydrogen atom. Current view is a few little
balls of stuff orbited by a little ball of stuff. But when examined we
get uncertety as to either location or energy level, we get the little
balls of stuff being made of other little balls of stuff Up quarks, Gluons
top quarks and so on. And massive mathmatical models to show force
vectors, spin rotations, valance ring jumps, Strong force, weak force and
on and on.

In my construct we have only a number of SPP's, each of which is ringing
from their conversion at the time of the BB. That ringing causes each to
emitt a EM wave. This causes them to self assemble.

Take 2 SPP's, each ringing and connected via the Quantum State, as
the wave forms mix they hetrodyne causeing a complex pattern. If the
wave forms are compatable the SPP's will tend to lock together at some
distance apart. To seperate them will require massive external energy as
they are locked via the Unified Indefinable Energy of the Quantum State.

This concept allows certien SPP's of assorted EM wave functions to
self orginize and those that have wave functions that don't combine to
be seperated.

Now say we have a group of SPP's that group. When we as an observer
attempt to observe them we cannot observer them spicificlly but we see the
Total Hetrodyned wave form from all the SPP's. And since we the observer,
any device we build to observe is also connected to the group we attempt
to observe we affect the wave form just by the act of observing.

So as I observe the wave form I see a point around the group where the
energy signiture peeks and If I try to look at it in 0 time I can percieve
it
as a real massive particle but if I view over time it seems a Wave. This is
the electron. Not a real little ball of stuff bit a wave that is percieved
by
the observer due to the Intrinsic Bias of the Target, Observer and any
device designed to observe being connected via the Quantum State.

This view Unifies the 4 forces and still gives a logical explination for
all aspects of particles observed in colliders. And allows existing
models to remain intact at the same time. All existing theory is still
valid from a real world view as it allows us to use the information to
do real world stuff. But If I am correct existing Theory will never
and can never give causation to Gravitational fields, Magnetic Fields,
or Duality, along with many other yet to be defined aspects of
physics.

My view does just that. Explains TOE from the BB to the dust particle
on my keyboard. All contenuios without multi dimenions, virtual particels,
strings. Its sees a Universe without Constants of any kind, No paradox's,
and explains how the value of c and UGC can vary yet only be percieved
by man as constants.

On Apr 14, 9:55*pm, YKhan wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:29 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:

It [Standard Model] tends to falsify Relativity, doesn't it? Relativity has as a basic
principle, no absolute reference frame, but Standard Model depends on an
absolute reference frame. Background dependence vs. background
independence. Take your pick, both are true depending on which model you
pick.

* * Yousuf Khan

* *Relativity has not been falsified. Show me mathematically how an absolute
* *reference frame has anything to do with the standard model.

The whole QM field is background-dependent. Most of the 10 or 11
dimensional Superstring theories are also background-dependent. If
Superstrings are supposed to be the uniter of the QM and Relativity
fields, then that will mean that Relativity will become the subset of
a background-dependent theory. Once Relativity is background-
dependent, then it's no longer "relative", it then becomes
Absolutivity. :-)

If we're living on a 4 dimensional brane, as Superstring pre-supposes,
then we can't possibly be in a background-independent universe. Just a
universe so large that we can't find its absolute coordinates at our
scale.

* Yousuf Khan

Dependent on the Higgs field (AKA aether), but not relative to it.
IOW, things move in relation to other things, not in relation to the
background. They depend on the background as an energy supply, hence
particle complementarity. Particles emerge as needed or, as
expected... as dictated by spacetime conditions. The aether has a non-
zero vacuum expectation value.

--
Laurent

On Apr 14, 3:59*am, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"Laurent" wrote in message

...
On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" wrote:





"Laurent" wrote in message

...

Aetheris the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Well, that doesn't make much sense. You don't help your case much with
a statement like that. Empty space (the void) is the stage that ether
and *other* quantum objects play on.

Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum.

Also know asaether...

This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

The quantum vacumm moves? Isn't it a void, as in 'not matter'? How can
an immaterial substance move?

It sorta kinda moves .. it is connected to every physical particle and it
acts as
an inver tensor between said particles .. I call it the Quantum State as I
consider
theAetheras the left over energy of the Quantum Point of BB fame. and as
such
matter does not move through it as Maxwell and Einstine conceived and is why
we
cannot detect drag. But it is connected to matter and moves with matter.


What moves are particles, and to take care of this mechanism what we
need is the soon to be discovered Higgs boson.

"This shows us two things: you cannot have parts of the infinite and
the infinite is indivisible. But indeed, even if the One is more like
a Principle, and the one is undivided, then the whole Universe will be
undivided either in quantity or in form." (Aristotle, 340BC)

"A substance cannot be produced from anything else: it will therefore
be its own cause, that is, its essence necessarily involves existence,
or existence appertains to the nature of it." (Spinoza, 1673)

"It need hardly be pointed out that with things that do not change
there is no illusion with respect to time, given the assumption of
their unchangeability." (Aristotle, 340BC)


Aether is One.

--
Laurent

On Apr 5, 8:03*am, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Laurent wrote:

Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Empty space is not asubstance.

Bob Kolker


Then it must be a principle.


"This shows us two things: you cannot have parts of the infinite and
the infinite is indivisible. But indeed, even if the One is more like
a Principle, and the one is undivided, then the whole Universe will be
undivided either in quantity or in form." (Aristotle, 340BC)

"A substance cannot be produced from anything else: it will therefore
be its own cause, that is, its essence necessarily involves existence,
or existence appertains to the nature of it." (Spinoza, 1673)

"It need hardly be pointed out that with things that do not change
there is no illusion with respect to time, given the assumption of
their unchangeability." (Aristotle, 340BC)


--
Laurent

On Apr 16, 11:36*am, "Paul Mays" wrote:
--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
*I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation""vps137" wrote in message

...
On 16 ÁÐÒ, 16:13, "Paul Mays" wrote:

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation""vps137"
wrote in message

...

Well I think your theory is not worse then others. There are facts
that it describes
and predicts. As usual the struggle with other theories is awaited.
Esp. if you use the aether notion.

I only don't understood about universe expansion. Is it really
increased in 89?
I never heard, beg for my ignorance.
The question is is your theory TOE or not. I see the next lack in it.
You try to use quantum mechanical concepts in building SSP etc but not
to derive QM from your first principles. The same I may say about
energy-mass equivalence you used.
F.e. I derived, or I persuade myself that I derived, it from the
simple model of 4D
whirl - vps137.narod.ru/article7a.html.

Valery S.

I'll try to explain..

In 1989 I came to the conclusion that if my construct was
correct then the universe would expand at an ever
increasing rate of expansion. *This was at a time when the
arguments being made were that it was expanding, Static,
would expand then collapse but missing mass would cause
it to do a big crunch and so forth. *As I considered my idea
it seemed that due to the inverse tensor nature of the Quantum
State it would expand at an ever increasing rate. *In the past
few years many papers have concluded that it is doing just that,
expanding as an ever increasing rate. While that is not the
consensus yet, the arguments I have read give a better explanation
than a static state or a collapsing state.

As far a SPP's ( Smallest Physical Particles) or Primal Matter, Its
a concept that I came up with while considering a paper on Quantum
Nodes and virtual particles. Since I was looking for a concept that
fit existing theories but gave a simple rational and SPP's seemed to
work.

For an example take a hydrogen atom. Current view is a few little
balls of stuff orbited by a little ball of stuff. But when examined we
get uncertety as to either location or energy level, we get the little
balls of stuff being made of other little balls of stuff Up quarks, Gluons
top quarks and so on. And massive mathmatical models to show force
vectors, spin rotations, valance ring jumps, Strong force, weak force and
on and on.

In my construct we have only a number of SPP's, each of which is ringing
from their conversion at the time of the BB. That ringing causes each to
emitt a EM wave.

Right, a quantum of energy also known as the Higgs boson.

This causes them to self assemble.

Via the Higgs mechanism?


Take 2 SPP's, each ringing and connected via the Quantum State, as
the wave forms mix they hetrodyne causeing a complex pattern. If the
wave forms are compatable the SPP's will tend to lock together at some
distance apart. *To seperate them will require massive external energy as
they are locked via the Unified Indefinable Energy of the Quantum State.

AKA the Higgs field or Aether.


This concept allows certien SPP's of assorted EM wave functions to
self orginize and those that have wave functions that don't combine to
be seperated.

Now say we have a group of SPP's that group. When we as an observer
attempt to observe them we cannot observer them spicificlly but we see the
Total Hetrodyned wave form from all the SPP's. And since we the observer,
any device we build to observe is also connected to the group we attempt
to observe we affect the wave form just by the act of observing.

So as I observe the wave form I see a point around the group where the
energy signiture peeks and If I try to look at it in 0 time I can percieve
it
as a real massive particle but if I view over time it seems a Wave. This is
the electron. Not a real little ball of stuff bit a wave that is percieved
by
the observer due to the Intrinsic Bias of the Target, Observer and any
device designed to observe being connected via the Quantum State.

This view Unifies the 4 forces and still gives a logical explination for
all aspects of particles observed in colliders. *

Even Gauge theories?

And allows existing
models to remain intact at the same time. All existing theory is still
valid from a real world view as it allows us to use the information to
do real world stuff. But If I am correct existing Theory will never
and can never give causation to Gravitational fields, Magnetic Fields,
or Duality, along with many other yet to be defined aspects of
physics.

My view does just that. Explains TOE from the BB to the dust particle
on my keyboard. All contenuios *without multi dimenions, virtual particels,
strings. Its sees a Universe without Constants of any kind, No paradox's,
and explains how the value of c and UGC can vary yet only be percieved
by man as constants.

You are probably on the right track just be careful in differentiating
between substrate and particle or product. Ontology is most important.

--
Laurent

Laurent wrote:


Aether is One.

What aether? Take some advice. Do not quote Aristotle on issues of
matter and motion. What he did not get outrightly wrong is not even
wrong. He got nothing about matter and motion right. Not a thing.

Bob Kolker

Laurent wrote:

On Apr 5, 8:03 am, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:

Laurent wrote:

Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Empty space is not asubstance.

Bob Kolker



Then it must be a principle.


"This shows us two things: you cannot have parts of the infinite and
the infinite is indivisible. But indeed, even if the One is more like
a Principle, and the one is undivided, then the whole Universe will be
undivided either in quantity or in form." (Aristotle, 340BC)

"A substance cannot be produced from anything else: it will therefore
be its own cause, that is, its essence necessarily involves existence,
or existence appertains to the nature of it." (Spinoza, 1673)

"It need hardly be pointed out that with things that do not change
there is no illusion with respect to time, given the assumption of
their unchangeability." (Aristotle, 340BC)

Aristotle and Science (in the modern sense) do no mix well.

Aside from getting matter and motion wrong, Aristotle was unable to
count the teeth of a human female correctly or get the number of ribs
in the human skeleton correctly.

Bob Kolker