Bignose

Perhaps, then, you need to explain it better. Reaching the point where you are telling us that we can't understand after a mere 11 hours since your first post is pretty ridiculous. If you really cared about your ideas, you'd learn how to make them understandable.

So, ready to answer the questions I asked before, then? You are still claiming that your model predicts a certain number, but I still see you cherry picking that number because it is right, not because of any significant reason.

Even if you are not a 'genius', you can still do good science. You are still responsible to see if your model is actually any good. You get measurements, you see what your equation predicts, and see how well they match. This is elementary stuff. Just posting yet ANOTHER random mishmash of t and gamma and v (at least the 6th one recently, much less the rest of the thread) is literally MEANINGLESS. Is that what you are aiming for, meaninglessness? If so, what is the point?

This exactly. There is a whole business built around this. Though when looking at Vegas odds, you do have to remember that they set the lines so that betting is more or less equal on both sides, not necessarily to make the end result as close to equal. Some fan bases are more likely to bet on their team than be rational about the odds.

Did you even read and comprehend my post? Because after another few weeks, yet another equation. And no evidence posted that this one works any better or worse than the other random combinations of gamma and t you've thrown against the wall here. Please re-read my previous post and understand what I am asking before just slapping together another permutation of symbols.

It would be nice (and compliant with the rules, I might add) if you didn't force us to download anything. Can't you put something on this forum for us to discuss without forcing a download? 'Theory of Everything' is awfully broad, too. Posting here should help you focus on something specific. I have a few suggestions 1) Demonstrate, using your ToE, how to derive the equations for a geostationary satellite. 2) Demonstrate, again using your ToE, how accurately you can predict the cosmic background radiation. 3) Demonstrate, using your ToE, how to estimate the drag of the Eppler E193 airfoil at a Reynolds numbers of 2 and 200,000 4) Using your ToE, show us the temperature profile of our sun, including the corona.

So, DM, seriously, which one is it? 4 posts, 4 different equations: and then a head smacking smiley at the end. This is now how science goes. 1) equations are normally derived. start from first principles, and then make and justify some assumptions, and then see where it leads. Not "let's add and x here, a 2 there, take away a t there" as you seen to be doing 2) equations do change. Especially as assumptions change. But you know how we tell if those assumptions are any good? By testing the equation. Using the equation to make predictions and then comparing those predictions to measurements. Again, not just adding and removing terms and throwing the result up and seeing what reactions it gets... which really is none here because you aren't doing science. Instead of going another 2 weeks and posting another random equation, take some time and see if the equation is any good yourself by seeing if it makes good predictions.

So, you go around talking about them like some kind of expert, yet when asked for them, conveniently 'I dont't have time'. Give me a break. It is obvious that you don't understand the math. That's fine, man, we all started somewhere. But remaining willfully ignorant is not fine. You want to promote your ideas? That's great. Science always welcomes new ideas. But you need to show us, using math, how your idea is improved over the current best ideas. That means you need to understand the current best ideas, first. That means you need to understand the math. This constant use and misuse of words had lead to this thread being almost 400 posts long now. Words are fungible, and take different meanings to different people. But math is objective. When one writes F=ma, everyone knows exactly what that means. But words can be different to different people -- leading to long threads like this. People in this thread have tried to help you, but you have to put some work in too. 'I don't have time' is an insufficient excuse. There is no time limit here. How long do you need? If you really cared about your idea, you'd be putting work in to make it understandable to as many people as possible. Take the time necessary to actually learn how to write out exactly what your model does so that we can undertake a proper investigation of your idea instead of this constant guessing game about what word choice you've made each time.

So you get to tune your model for each galaxy? It will have awfully limited predictive power for an unknown situation then, won't it? The real power of models is that they make predictions about situations that they haven't seen, yet.

This is actually a terrible example. Because in order to describe the motion of the sun and the planets asuming the earth was the center, the best model used the concepts of epicycles. That is, the planets moved in small circles as they moved around the earth. This was decent enough for records keeping for the ancient Greeks. But as the tools and the records keeping got better and better, in order to work, they were having to introduce epicycles inside of epicycles and so on... sometimes up to 3 or 4 layers deep to match observations. What you're really missing here is that when the model was introduced of earth and the rest of the planets going around the sun, suddenly the accuracy of all those measurements agreed very well with the new model. So, you're actually quite, quite wrong in this example. The measurements were the same, but the models were quite different. The real problem with your saying that you're using the exact same math as GR is that you're immediately ceding away any reason to even consider your model. At least from a scientific point of view. You seem to forget that science is almost wholly about making as accurate prediction as possible. If your math is the same as GR (a big if, since you haven't demonstrated it at all), your predictions are identical too. All you're arguing about is philosophy or interpretation. Your model has to be different in some way so that it can be tested to really see if it is better or not. So, to bring this all back, to actually show us your model is better, you should use the observations we have. And show us a plot of the current best data, the best current model or models, and your model. Show us how closely your predictions fall on the measurements. If you're closer than the current best models, then you'll have some scientific interest.

Hmmmm. Herrmann, S.; Senger, A.; Möhle, K.; Nagel, M.; Kovalchuk, E. V.; Peters, A. (2009). "Rotating optical cavity experiment testing Lorentz invariance at the 10−17 level". Physical Review D 80 (100): 105011 This is a modern test of aether theory. They found null result to within 10^-17. Your 10^-11 should have very, very, very easily shown up. Explanation?

People are asking you questions because they are trying to understand. You haven't demonstrated very strong support for many of your statements, so people are asking why. So, you're right, they are not understanding. I'd like to suggest that you do your utmost to answer the questions being asked because that will help further both your understanding and our understanding.

Seriously dude? This is science. People bat ideas around all the time. As a 'published author', you should know this. Unless it was a pure 'pay-to-publish' journal with no credibility whatsoever: https://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/20/bogus-journal-accepts-profanity-laced-anti-spam-paper/ 1) you can't take it personally. They are attacking the idea, not the person. There is no such thing as a perfect idea, every idea goes through this. 2) Instead of lashing out, why don't you address the points with more rigor? People are asking pointed questions because you don't seen to care to answer them. Maybe try that?

You can believe anything you want. The current standard model of particle physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model is based on particles that appear to be indivisible. Your beliefs appear to be in conflict with the current best scientific knowledge. How you rectify that is your personal choice. But you should know what the current best scientific ideas are.

Nope. Just knowledgeable about science and how it works.

Without predictions, there is nothing scientific at all. Sorry, but really, comparing prediction and measurement is pretty much the definition of science. In addition, religion is in many ways very different from science as religion demands you believe in things without evidence, or possibly even in spite of evidence. This is not to say that religion and science are necessarily incompatible, but the way you've used the words here make it almost irreconcilable that your idea could be both at the same time.

1) no theory in science is ever proven. 2) As I showed above, you use your idea to make predictions, and then demonstrate that the predictions from your idea are the most accurate. When your predictions are the ones with least amount of error, your idea becomes the best.

UI, science isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It is about prediction an evidence. For example, using Newtonian mechanics, I can throw a ball at a certain speed, direction, angle and make a prediction when and where that ball will land. For example: 145 feet away 5.2 seconds from now. Science then takes this prediction, and compares it with measurement. So, we get someone to throw the ball at a certain speed, direction, and angle. Even better, we get a machine to do it so it is more repeatable. And then we compares where and when the ball really lands. Newtonian mechanics has been very successful as doing this, hence is a very widely accepted theory. But if someone came along and created an even more accurate way of predicting things, then it would become the best theory we have. By comparison, you are saying "well, the ball, will, ummmmmmm, kinda go off in this direction, I think, and uhhh, land some time." Quite simply, not very useful compared to "145 feet away 5.2 seconds from now." There are modern ideas about the universe, particles, etc. that make very specific predictions as opposed to the vagaries you've written here. In short, you have a story and not much more. Now, if you work on developing that story to make specific testable predictions, well then we can compare them to measurements that have already been made and will be made. But right now, your idea as present can't do that. That's the level of detail people are looking for.

Apparently the vice is improved accuracy? Just curious, do you feel the same way about calculators? If your employer calculates your paycheck by hand and makes an arithmetic error, are you ok with that? Just accept it as part of the cost of doing thing 'organically'? How about when you buy a plot of land, no need for surveyors and their fancy electronic measuring gadgets, right? Just trust that the walked-off line from the farmer next door is close enough. Fortunately, the manufacturer and designer of the device you're using to type your responses to us didn't just accept 'good enough', lol. The number of highly accurate devices used to make your computer there would probably blow your mind... Look, I can appreciate the Luddite point of view. I am almost never an 'early adopter' myself. But that is on things like newest smartphones or CPU processors, etc. But regarding measuring devices, please look through that link I posted above. The ISO makes sure that these devices aren't just claimed to be more accurate. It tests and verifies that they really are as accurate as they claim. Intentionally using a device that is less accurate means you intentionally introduce more error into your measurements. If you have the resources to minimize error, there is literally no good reason not to use the most accurate device possible. High errors lead to false correlations and seeing effects that aren't really there or missing effects that are there and causes numerous repetitions of experiments. Seems silly to make things harder on purpose, doesn't it?

Gee, if only there was an organization that certified that these devices have a certain accuracy. Oh wait! there is! http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html Most respectable labs ensure their devices are tested to meet or beat the ISO standards on the calibration schedule each device needs to ensure accuracy. You act like no one has thought of these issues before, but frankly, there is a tremendous amount of work done to ensure the necessary accuracy. However, if you're going to start assigning 'hidden motives' to people, then you've clearly drifted to conspiracy woo woo land; I do hope you'll come back to the real world.

Hey, congratulations, you've made a prediction. Kind of like real science. Too bad the same hasn't been done with metaphysics. But really, feel free to try to prove us wrong. Just demonstrate useful, correct predictions and you'll get people's attention. That's what you're missing. Science is wholly about usefulness, where usefulness is correct predictions. Just show us how your ideas make predictions as well as current science. Otherwise, people will continue to use the most useful things, which is the current physics. In the end, it really is that simple.

All I have to say: http://bfy.tw/6O7K Fudge, the 40th one down is subtitled 'more than 40 years of research'!!!! I can't help but feel you didn't look very hard at all.

Learning how to read and research your own questions in the scientific literature is a valuable skill; this seems like a perfect time for you to learn or practice it. I guarantee that many people have looked into these types of questions, you would do well to read what they have already discovered rather than just spitballing on your own. 'On the shoulders of giants' and all that, ya know?

So, you have a very first step, an idea. Start developing it. Estimate how much light you need to transmit a useful amount of energy. I'd suggest doing this as back of envelope order-of-magnitudes style calculation. e.g. how much energy does a photon have? in what condition? How efficiently can that energy be captured and used? How efficiently can that light be created? What flux density would be needed to transmit enough energy to run your phone? etc. Doing this should help you get an idea of what you need for this idea to happen.

So you're back after 7 1/2 years http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33261-jerrygg38s-dot-wave-unified-field-theory and http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33265-equivalence-of-mass-and-charge which were closed because of your total lack of evidence and willingness to participate scientifically. Have any evidence yet? You didn't then, however 7 1/2 years is a good amount of time now. You should have made plenty of predictions and collected evidence since the last time you posted here.