zidzad1

Do we know this? The affiliation is Unergy Limited, which doesn't have a big presence on Google other than some "find a business listing" sites, and the email contact is a gmail account. IOW, there is no professional affiliation. There is a patent listing for an inventor by that name in the same area, but the patent is for an osmotic pressure device.

 

Well technically we can, because we have the ability to say silly things that aren't true. But from a more pragmatic view, anyone can write a paper and it's not hard to get stuff published in crappy journals whose peer review has a low bar for publication. This one is on a list of possible/probable predatory journals that will print things just to get the fee from the author.

 

But even that doesn't matter all that much. Even peer review in a well-respected journal is not a guarantor of correctness. Theory isn't accepted as valid until it's confirmed by experiment, and beyond the slipshod explanations in the paper what's missing here is the long list of experiments that confirm that these claims are true, and also that other claims must be false.

 

Good: a specific prediction. Problem: we don't see this when we accelerate electrons, protons or ions to relativistic speeds. The prediction is falsified.

The approach of singling out one effect and basing a theory on it is that it ignores all of the other related effects. Physics (and science in general) is a network of inter-relatedness. Coming up with a neat idea to explain the charge on a quark is only a start. If it's true you have to be able to apply it elsewhere, and you have to be able test it in a falsifiable way, which is missing here. It's like a fitted sheet on a bed. You can't declare victory simply because you got one corner tucked in. If the sheet is the wrong size, the other three corners are still a problem. You aren't done until all four corners are covered.

You cant accelerate an electron the charge gets low... and from the authors view you are not showing respect just because this guy's company isn't on google doesn't mean he is not qualified to do physics. Judge him by the content not by his background.

Do you know any physicist who can explain this, no you refuse to listen to other ideas. You haven't commented about time or the new atomic model and here's the evidence, when any charged particle starts accelerating it's apparent charge becomes less as it approaches the speed of light that's why the quarks charge is higher the mass is less (1/3 and 2/3) you can check.

Sensei mentioned your experience, not your knowledge. You say you're in high school. This means that, regardless of how much extra hours you've put into studying physics, and how much you think you know, you simply haven't worked with it long enough to grasp it at the level that's required.

 

Meanwhile, you have real, live, working physicists explaining to you why the paper is wrong. You'd do well to listen to them, instead of dismissing everything they say and throwing jabs around, like "you probably don't know what quantisation is" or "does it use to much logic for you?". Throwing a fit is a bad argument for any case.

Well the author is a physicist so we can well say the spacetime model and relativity is wrong

 

You don't have needed experience to judge whether it's "great paper" or "piece of garbage"..

And how do you know? you dont even know my knowledge of physics and you're saying that

whats so bad about it ? does it use too much logic?

It was my fault releasing this document on this forum, it appears you have not shown respect or at least attempted to read it, and no it is not my paper I am a high school student and I am obviously not qualified to write such a great paper.

Scientists in CERN, or in other particle accelerators, are calculating what velocity is needed to create certain leptons, mesons, or baryons, accelerating protons (or other charged particles) and getting predictable (more or less) results. If results are stable particles as for example antiprotons, they can be stored in magnetic traps etc, and used in other experiments. If equation would be significantly wrong, as suggested in above paper 25% of our value, scientists wouldn't create new particles with exactly predicted mass and energy, would they?

 

ps. There was 0.994c not 0.94c. That little difference means 312% difference in energy.

Yes, if you have read the whole paper then you will find out that all these particles such as baryons,mesons,leptons,etc. are all originally an electron however the properties of them (UDP'S) are different but then they convert back to an electron after they decay.

 

Author lacks basic knowledge of high energy physics.

If you have access to him, give him this article about particle creation. Especially bottom of it, describing antiproton production.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/particle_creation.html

 

If energy-mass equivalence would be (significantly) different, we wouldn't be able to create antimatter in accelerator

Ok, now i'm no physicist, infact im still going through secondary school but what I can tell you is I think they are saying that you have to accelerate it at 0.94c when actually the speed of light has been modified in the paper so that may have an affect. And he did not conduct this experiment in a lab/accelerator the conclusion of how he got to it is in the paper where he says the quantisation (which I don't think you know what it means) and the particle itself is moving at maxwell's speed of light, therefore the kinetic speed is always equal to Cm or maxwell speed.Accordingly, this result differs from the very famous relation of e=mc2, which is only valid at Planck Condition, where each sphere is in contact with four moving spheres at the Maxwell Speed of Light.

again I try to do my best to answer but if I can get the creator to reply to any questions that I am not qualified I will try to my best

 

Science? Really?

 

Quote from your pdf:

"3.7. Union-Dipole and Mass–Energy Equivalence

E_total=1/4mc²"

 

 

Author of this document is just showing his lack of knowledge.

He has no idea how to calculate Decay Energy, or energy released by fusion.

If he would know science, he would not be proclamating that E=ymc² is wrong.

 

I doubt author ever saw electrons, positrons, muons or other particles in cloud chamber. Doubt he ever saw radioactive decay on his own eyes.

You need to have good understanding of how universe works doing experiments, to create good theoretic work.

 

If you read how he got to these conclusions then you would understand why these equations are like these. What you are doing is extracting any information you can and criticizing it without knowing how it got there.

 

The earliest mention of a sun-centered universe actually dates back to 200 BC by a man named Aristarchus of Samos. Then someone well respected said "oh, that's wrong", and changed it back to the Geocentric modal. Then the Christan's thought that they were special and thought that the same thing, they were the center of the universe, and did all sorts of nasty things to people who opposed them. I don't wish to high jack the thread, but what I said is a fact.

I'm not here to debate history, i'm here to propose this scientific paper which i find quite interesting.

But i think this might help you : http://www.biography.com/people/nicolaus-copernicus-9256984?page=2

Yes there is, and your failure to notice that speaks volumes.

I'm sorry i thought he was referring to that appears near the top right corner:

http://gyazo.com/a82468952c03a35b979c03443d930db0

 

It also contradicts the theory of general relativity. Now, relativity, unlike super string theory, has been proven... You cannot throw out something that works, for something that doesn't work. Everything builds on itself. Einstein didn't disprove Newtonian gravity, he just built upon it... This theory wants to say that our reality is flawed, then goes to say, 100's of years of past observation is junk, and I developed a theory in 20 years that disproves everything else...

Well unfortunately for you that's science. Things get proven wrong and ideas change, just like back in the days they thought everything orbited the earth and then that was proven false. They also came up with supposed clues which you call evidence that suggests it's true although it may be on the opposite side of the spectrum.

 

Where are the resources? I didn't find anything...

 

This theory contradicts Superstring Theory, saying the Union-Dipole Partical is the Universal Building Block. Then it goes on and says that the spheres are infinitesimal. It also claims, and I quote

 

Then it says that positive and negative charges are the same. Then what it says about gravity doesn't even work...

 

Here is what I said about the professional speech that is half crack pot:

 

Oh, and on page 304, his calculation of the golden ratio is wrong.

 

And I will stop there.

Ok there is no page 304, im assuming you mean 34 and if you would have read the whole paper rather than just searching for errors you would have found out that the golden ratio has been talked about.

And YES it contradicts super string theory as i said in my first post it contradicts many theory's and models such as bohrs atomic model or spacetime.

And the quotes that you quoted from the paper that you are trying to make look bad I guess is not doing a good job because the quotes are simply the things that were pointed out that are applied and can be found by calculations in the universe. And he says gravity is electromagnetic just how some other people people believed it is that made an earlier attempt at the theory of everything. So please read the paper carefully before u make any criticisms because you must know what these things mean and how they are applied before you judge them.

 

I agree. I got through the first twenty pages, and it wasn't written professionally. i.e., it was written in a way that someone uneducated would agree with it, but when I read it, it made no sense. I also did a few Google searches, and some of the things it claimed were true were already proved false. Like the particle that it claimed was discovered. I did a few searches, and found nothing other than what the theory said about it.

Its funny you say that although the particle actually has evidence for it and experiments have been conducted that prove it is true.

Hello guys,

This paper contradicts everything we've been told about science and physics from the atomic structure to time , relativity , electric current , gravity and it explains every phenomenon including things like dark matter and dark energy. This paper was not created by me and full credit goes to the creator.

I believe this paper is very interesting

You can view the paper at : http://www.scribd.com/doc/210594145/UDT-By-abdulsalam-Al-mayahi-ToE

if you have any questions,feedback or criticisms please comments.

Short summary:

This groundbreaking theory states that their is a particle that make up what we know as elementary particles; electrons,quarks,etc. and gets its energy from what is called the permeable medium. This theory also describes and explains phenomenons such as gravity, dark matter, dark energy,etc. and it also states that time is a tool created by humans to describe rotation. This theory also describes what an electric current is and changes Bohr's atomic model completely.