"Laurent" wrote in message
...

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

...

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.

I tend to see no need for subset physical particles, I content (
and I get so much crap for it) that the heterodyned EM waves
cause the observer to perceive all kinds of real stuff where
it only the instant energy signature of the wave as it is intersected
with the EM wave forms produced by the observer and any
devices designed to observe. In my simply view its the position
of the observer within the quantum state that causes him to
model objects that are only EM waves as real physical particles,
some that would seem to have mass.

I very well know that this view is radical and is not fully formed but
just consider it from a external stand point.

2 SPP's ( Smallest Physical Particles) Each observing the other and
each transferring information.. Particle 1 will produce a EM wave and so
will Particle 2. So what Particle 1 observes is the heterodyned wave
forms and never can observe the other particle directly. But If Particle
1 builds a device to try it will add additional complex heterodyned wave
forms as additional EM emitting particles are added to the mix. At any
point particle 1 is Intrinsically Biased due to the connection with all the
other
particles. So this bias will cause particle 1 to model what it observes to
explain
what it perceives as reality , This view says that all matter is just a
single type
of physical particle that can never be directly observed and that all ring
at assorted
freq sending out EM waves through the interconnected quantum state.

This sounds weird I know very well. and I'm fairly well versed on existing
GR,SR,QM theory and all (including some of the bit off the wall views) and
from this view ever aspect can be explained in a unified way. Strong Nuke
becomes a direct local locking of the EM waves as they heterodyne and the
SPP's , Weak force becomes the less local locking of EM waves of groupings
of Strong locked particles, G can be defined by the separation distance of
the
local groupings and Magnetic fields created by the directing of EM waves by
local groupings in relation to other external groupings.

In this view there is need only for a Quantum State that has a Inverse
Tensor
and a single real physical particle ringing at assorted freq's , The ability
of the
wave forms to cause some particles to lock in place due to convergent wave
forms and some to be rejected when wave forms oppose causes the self
organization of more complex structures. Structures that produce wave shells
around them of a complex nature that would be perceived as Real Physical
"stuff" to an observer due to the observers interconnected status.

Its very difficult to explain this view with out being able to draw the
interactions
out but have describe it to several professors while using a black board and
have generally get the Prove It line but at the same time every one has
been at a loss to explain where I have not agreed with existing rules and
theory.
With the exception of variability of c,UGC and the mental constructs of
Infinity
and Paradox.


This causes them to self assemble.

Via the Higgs mechanism?

That I can't adress as I need to bone up on existing theory on the
construct of the Higgs Boson and assoiated concepts but it may be
a matter of termonology.


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.

Higgs field sounds closer than the general existing view of Aether.
You would have to take a look at what I mean by Quantum State
as the remainder of the Unified Indefinable Energy Quanta that was
the Quantum Point of the BB.


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?

Yup... even Gauge, String, Dark Energy and Quantum Node theory

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.

Only to an Intrinsiclly Biased observer...

--
Laurent


--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
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"