Farsight

DH/Swanson/Severian: thanks for the advice.

Thanks for the information guys. All points noted. tree: I tried arial and helvetica plus univers, including narrow/condensed versions, and none look particularly satisfactory either on-screen or as hard-copy. I've currently gone back to Times New Roman 11-point justified, the general appearance is something like this one plucked at random: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0709/0709.3248v1.pdf Any particular advice you can offer would be most welcome.

I know you're incredulous, Sisyphus, but IMHO I really have got something here. As to how valuable it is I don't know. We'll see.

Phil: It's just a word document converted to PDF. There's virtually no mathematics, and it's single spaced. I've used Times New Roman, and was just about to increase the font size. iNow: Here's my references. As to whether it's an editorial or a scientific paper, that's why I'm looking for advice. Klaynos: Any advice you can give will be welcome. I can clear up about half of these: Unsolved_problems_in_physics References [1] Turin, Luca ; “A spectroscopic mechanism for primary olfactory reception”, Chemical Senses 21(6):773-791 (1996). [2] Folsing, A.; “Albert Einstein: A Biography”, page 261, Penguin Books (1998). [3] The collected papers of Albert Einstein, volume 6, the Berlin years, writings 1914-1917, document 30, “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity”. Translator Alfred Engel, Edited by A. J. Kox, Martin J. Klein, and Robert Schulmann. Princeton University Press (1997). [4] The collected papers of Albert Einstein, volume 7, the Berlin years, writings 1918-1921. Translator Alfred Engel. Edited by Michel Janssen, Robert Schulmann, József Illy, and Christoph Lehner, and Diana Kormos Buchwald. Princeton University Press (1997). [5] Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Albert Einstein, chapter 22: "A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity" (1920). [6] Yourgrau, P; “A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein”, page 113, Basic Books (2005). [7] Yourgrau, P; “A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein”, front flap, Basic Books (2005). [8] Eaton, P. E. ; Zhang, M. ; Gilardi, R. ; Gelber, N. ; Iyer, S. ; Surapaneni, R. ; “Octanitrocubane: A New Nitrocarbon”, Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 27, 1-6 (2002). [9] Williamson, J. G. ; van der Mark, M. B. ; “Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?” Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133 (1997) [10] Kiehn, R. M. ; (2004-2nd edition 2007 ) Cosmology, Falaco Solitons and the Arrow of Time, "Non-Equilibrium Systems and Irreversible Processes Vol 2", Lulu Enterprises, Inc., 3131 RDU Center, Suite 210, Morrisville, NC 27560. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): (http://www.lulu.com/kiehn). [11] Ashby, N. ; “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”, Living Reviews in Relativity, Volume 6, 2003-1. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1 [12] Pound, R. V.; Rebka Jr. G. A. ; "Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance", Physical Review Letters 3: 439-441 (1959). [13] Shapiro, Irwin, I. ; "Fourth Test of General Relativity", Physical Review Letters 13: 789-791 (1964). [14] Moffat, J. ; “Superluminary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Initial Value Problem in Cosmology”, Int.J.Mod.Phys. D2 351-366 (1993). URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:gr-qc/9211020v2 [15] Albrecht, A. ; Magueijo, J. ; "A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles", Phys.Rev. D59 (1999) 043516. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:astro-ph/9811018v2 [16] Magueijo, J. ; "New varying speed of light theories", Rept. Prog. Phys. 66 (2003). URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:astro-ph/0305457v3 [17] Brown, P. M. ; “Einstein's gravitational field”, URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:physics/0204044v2 [18] Will, Clifford M. ; “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment”, Living Rev. Relativity 9, (2006), 3. URL (cited on 29 September 2003): (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2006-3) updated at arXiv:gr-qc/0510072v2 [19] Davis, T. M. ; Lineweaver, C. H. ; “Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe”, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 21, 97—109. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:astro-ph/0310808v2 [20] Neil J. Cornish, David N. Spergel, Glenn D. Starkman, Eiichiro Komatsu, “Constraining the Topology of the Universe”, Phys.Rev.Lett. 92 (2004) 201302. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:astro-ph/0310233v1 [21] Milgrom, M. ; A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 270, July 15, 1983, p. 365-370. [22] Nieto, M. M. ; Anderson, J. D. ; “Seeking a solution of the Pioneer Anomaly”, Fourth Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetry, 8-11 Aug. 2007. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:0709.1917v1 [23] Saffari, R. ; Rahvar, S. ; “f® Gravity: From the Pioneer Anomaly to the Cosmic Acceleration”. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:0708.1482v1

I've now completed my paper. It's 40 pages long, 22,730 words, and 873k in PDF format. The title and abstract is below. Canybody give me any advice regarding submission or endorsement? I'm registered with arXiv, and have printed the arViv.org > help > submit_pdf and related pages.

Not really. I develop a model that explains what we already see. There are a few "predictions" dotted about, like "time travel is impossible" or "protons do not decay" but none that are readily testable.

It can't. I said this earlier. See post #104. Read MASS EXPLAINED. A fermion like the electron is merely a bosonic configuration, a soliton, as evidenced by pair production and anihilation. What gravity waves? Show me one. There are no gravity waves. They are hypothetical, and I know why they cannot exist. Gravity tides can exist, but not waves. And everything we use to measure time demands some form of motion. I said cofounded. Not confounded. No problem about burden of proof. That's why we have discussion forums. And for an event to occur, we have to have motion. Stop banging on about strawman arguments. It's an an insiduous ad-hominem. If nothing moved, there's no events, and no time. It's really simple. It really does follow. The hyperfine transition is an electromagnetic event. Light is electromagnetic. That flipflop electron is a 511KeV photon tied into a soliton configuration. It has every bearing on it. And I'm not trying to "disprove" time, just show it for what it is: Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It is a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. So time has no length, time doesn’t flow and we don’t travel through it. Please try to be more succinct. Osiris: agreed. The speed of light varies, but this can never me measured locally. Here's an excerpt from something I've written about gravity: Fred: I understand the expansion of the universe. Dark Energy drives it, it doesn't oppose it. Entropy is just sameness, I touch on it in Time Explained with "the Arrow of Beans".

IMHO the "Many Worlds Interpretation" is far more speculative than the material I've been panned for on this forum. I've now finished my paper, and hope to make it available shortly. The conclusion includes this sentence:

Yes, but the neutron decays because inside it something is moving. If this wasn't the case, it wouldn't decay. I agree that if the photon couldn't move we wouldn't recognise it as a photon. We'd think of it as a bump of electromagnetic field variation stuck at some point of the wave cycle. We'd think of it as something akin to an electron or positron. (Of course if all photons were like this we couldn't even see or think). We do use oscillations of the electromagnetic field to mark time. That's why we only measure the speed of light in terms of the speed of light. We only measure the speed of light in terms of the speed of light. I said it's cofounded with motion. Movement happens. We see it. Events occur. Light moves. It moves through space inside a caesium atom. We count nine billion movements and call it a second, and use that as "a period of time". But all it really is, is an expression for a distance moved by light. When we measure a speed all we're really doing is comparing it with the speed of light. That's why we always measure the speed of light to be the same. Things move through space, not through time.

Error, post deleted.

With great difficulty. Hence my comment earlier including events within the mechanism of observation. That's why I didn't use the word "observer" with the two-object universe. No.

Mr Skeptic: Things have got to move in your brain for you to have thoughts. Electrons, whatever. It's similar for a Turing machine. Edtharan: a neutrino changing into another type of neutrino involves some motion. I say this with confidence because I actually know what a neutrino is. I'm sorry but I find the rest of your very long post somewhat confusing. Please can you raise succinct points.

Mr Skeptic, if you're asking me: no. A black hole that has been fed on matter will merge happily with a black hole fed on antimatter, and you just end up with one bigger black hole.

Thanks Spyman.

If the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could hold a concept of space. But if those objects do not move, we can hold no concept of time. When those objects do move, then and only then can we conceive of time, for it is not space and time that are cofounded, it is motion and time that are cofounded. Sorry Edtharan, but the interval between events is measured in terms of other events, and the interval between those events is measured in terms of other events. Eventually there are no more events, merely intervals. These intervals are frozen timeless moments. In a universe that is totally frozen with no events, including events within the mechanism of observation, the concept of time can not apply. We require events, not frozen timeless intervals to mark out time. The events are not “in” time, the time is in the events. Time is merely the measure of events, or change, or motion, measured against some other events, or change, or motion. You don’t need time to have motion, you need motion to have time.

Some of you may recall that I've been writing a scientific paper, which I hope will be taken seriously. Within it I use the words "dispels many former mysteries". I hope I do so - I cover a large number of matters to varying degrees, ranging from mass and charge through particles and The Standard Model, all the way to the expansion of the universe, dark energy, and dark matter. The paper is now complete, and I am happy with it. But as a last sweep, I thought it might be worthwhile if I ask this: Can anybody name some "mysteries of physics" that I can take a look at?

Because of the method I employed to derive that deep equivalence. This was my starting point:

Thanks for the feedback Billy. It's good to talk, and if we all agreed about everything life would be dull. But here's a potted version why I think space is fundamental while time is not: If the universe consisted of no objects whatsoever, we could not say the universe even existed. We could hold no concept of time, and no concept of space. If the universe consisted of one object and that object alone, we could hold no concept of space, for that object is the whole universe. If the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could then hold a concept of space. But if those objects do not move, we can hold no concept of time. When those objects do move, then and only then can we conceive of time, for it is not time and space that are cofounded, it is time and motion that are cofounded.

Tom: there is a deep equivalence between special and general relativity with respect to time dilation. I can explain what gravitational time dilation actually is. Unfortunately I'm seen as something of a crank and receive much opprobium for making such claims. I have, for example, been banned from PhysicsForums, even after a long absence when I returned as "Voltage". Please give my regards to Marcus and Carl Brannen. The other threads on this section of this forum are quite appalling, and I resent being forced to keep such company, particularly when threads in the physics section are overly dominated by lazy juniors asking homework questions. Note that in about a week I hope to make available a significant paper that I hope will change perceptions.

No, it isn't. We have plenty of examples of light being refracted, and the result is not invisibility: Thus your "quicksilver" man would look like a silvery glassy distorted outline of a human figure. Somewhat disconcerting, and if he remained motionless he might pass notice, but he wouldn't be invisible. No. One could make a person more difficult to see, but not invisible.

Just to clarify my position: There are black holes. But there are no black hole singularities.

Thanks for the input guys.

Can anybody give me any advice on submitting a formal paper?

There's some good stuff here elas. Commiserations that you've been working on it since 1989. I see some similarity of concept, and hope to be able to give you what I hope you'll consider to be useful information in a week or so.

I know all that Swanson. But this is a discussion forum. But somehow we can't discuss my ideas. They are ideas. Mine is a toy model. It's qualitative not quantitative. I've gone for width not depth. I haven't calculated neutrino masses. I was talking to Carl Brennan about it on Physics Forums, but I got banned there because a moderator took a dislike to me, a moderator who thinks I'm a heretic, and just didn't want to know. Like you. But neutrino mass follows from this: Mass, in its barest essence, is a measure of how much energy is not moving with respect to you. When energy is moving at c like it does, like a photon does, you measure no mass. If it's moving at zero velocity with respect to you, you observe all the energy as mass. If it's moving at less than c, it's a sliding scale. Neutrinos are a configuration of energy travelling at less than the speed of light. That's why they have mass. You skimmed it, and dismissed it. You sneered at the key that unlocks all the doors in physics. Oh yes it is the problem. And don't you sneer at philosophy or metaphysics. What the hell do you think PhD stands for? Have you ever even looked at Metaphysics to see what it's all about? And where are the questions on TIME EXPLAINED and the rest? They're just not here. And they aren't on the other absurd thread either.