qsa

repeatability is the final word when it comes to scientific evidence. and this phenomena is exteremely poor at it.

Urain if you don't define the words properly and state the concepts clearly . You will get a situation like This.

I don't mean anything bad by that.

please answer my question in a very specific manner, one or two lines will do, addressing the question and nothing else.That should also help clarify your thought.

1) empty space 2) Denser space.

So what is space is made of that gets denser.

Yes true confirmation has yet to come, they were only able to confirm past results. For those who are reading this i have not yet abandoned the theory, currently i am working on a few optimizations, talking to a few local professors and building mathmaticall backings. Though i do not disagree with Einstein i would still like to ask , was the earth not proven round multiple times by a greek and denied by the current community even with proof? later on once accepted we marked the older scientist "wrong". Though according to calculus the intergral, as x approaches infinity, of intersecting flat planes on the path |x^2+y^2+z^2=r^2| is a circle.

Confirmation is in. it is an error due to faulty fiberoptics connection.

Here is my story, I have always had this gift of some kind of psychic power thing,like if somebody lost a key or something. but only occusionaly.I used to amuse myself like concentrating on peoples minds and ask them to raise their hands or something and they will do it, only when I had the proper state of mind.One time In a strange kind of mood with nothing much to eat in three days I started predicting real weired accurate stuff like the goals in soccer match to the minute and I predicted the stock market crash for a particular day. On that day the stock market lost electric power. since I told my friends about it few days before ,we had such a laugh. Years later I remembered strangely that I asked God to give me a sign few day prior to these predictions. Now, I am not that religious and never was, but I thought that was realy weired.

Even now with my theory were reality is created as a natural processs ,I wonder. I don't believe in extra terrestials either. I think they would spend their time better that creating us or controlling us with all the intelligence they have devoloped.

I got tired of such games and never engaged in them in the past 20 years. they were mind draining and nothing that great came out of them relative to any hard work.

I think it might have something to do with our evolution, were we could not communicate with vocals. and now only the reminisants of that remains. Mabe some electromagnetic brain wave or something.

rigney,

I think it will be easier if you explain you idea in few lines by answering my post #9

And how did you come to that conclusion.

Than racking your brain about speed and relative. it is like you say the world is a cube because it must have volume and then you stop. what is the point?

Here it is, what I call the most beautiful graph ever, I simulate two particles interacting, with different compton wave lengths for each run. they all converge on the .00054858 the mass of the electron.

also check out this formula (compare with QED derivation)

electron g-factor=(4m_e/3eh)*(2/(3*m_e*alpha) - 2*e^2 -1)

=2.00231934...

e=3(charge square),h actually h_bar=(e/alpha)^.5=20.2758.. m_e=.00054858

All I'm saying is, magnetism is a known factor that can be changed to meet qualifications such as electronics, motors and many other applications. Static electricity can also be altered by speed to include the effects of one material on another, and lightning is only one of them. I'm not knocking gravity. I just cant bring myself to believe it is a force in itself, but a facet of magnetism. Even electricity is only an extension of magnetism.

And how did you come to that conclusion. Any model, or any equation to give even the basic hint. I know of a fringe theory that regards gravity as a risdue of a small difference in electron and proton charge, I will try to dig it up for you.

Rigney,

The "gravity" force that you hear of in superconducters and condensed matter has nothing to do per se with GRAVITY. They just have some common similarities in their behaviour that gives hope in understanding the real one.

pantheory,

I went through your website and found nothing as to how couplings arise and why they take on their values. As a matter of fact your statement in the book in the gravity sectionThe gravitational constant G has been calculated to be ....

is wrong, it is an experimental value and not calculated. What about the mass of the electron .0005485799 where does it come from. mind you it is also experimantal, no known theory has produced it so far.

When I was a fresh graduate and started working in a scientific institute , I used to spend my lunch hour at the library. They had this journal called Speculation in science and technology(google), and you get the craziest ideas about explaining everything in physics in an unconvetional ways. That was really fun. But they were mostly mechanical systems with all kinds of circles and lines and pressure this and pull that sort of words. that was 30 years ago. I think the journal went bust and was bought by The foundation of Physics journal. They still publish unconventional theories but in the fringe class.

Alright, here is the follow up. see attached drawing. In this case I represent each single particle by a box that shoot lines to other boxes. I simplify by not showing all the lines so as to reduce cluterring. Now, if you had reviewed my theory I get interaction going by throwing these green lines in a random fashion and if they don't cross I keep them and add them up to the previous total (they reprent energy). that is done randomly for all the available points. When I do that in 1D that is simple. but if I go to 2D and do the same process but splitting the component in X and Y I immediatly run into contradiction. If I move the particle L to another equal distance(L') but a diffrent location and calculate the energies (also strength of forces between them) I find them different which means the system has created fititious forces. The system should not depend on the coordinates. This illustration is a simplified version of the gray lines that I show as NOT ALLOWED. if you allow for these lines then the same problem will show up with a vengence.

So, if I just deal with the line length from one particle to the other,This will be equivalent to 1D (X-axis) interaction on the distance between them and an interaction which is restricted to the particles width in the Y axis, and this interaction is not affected by distance(this could be the EPR pradox). It is interresting that just like in the relativistic dirac equation the spin appeared as a consequence of relativity, the same has happened in my theory.

why do your 2 point particles of energy not radiate outward spherically,creating interfering waves?

Does your picture represent slices of 3dimensional space?

Very good question. The dimention is 2D in the diagram, but I will say more about dimensions; from the looks of it 3D space is the maximum possible. I will prepare some diagrams for you and I will show what I call the greatest graph ever. Meantime ,please have a look at this thread and my website link in it, so you may have some background which will make it easier to understand my response.

Ok, The short answer is that even in my unconventional theory relativity rears its head. So that forces lines to go from one particle to another otherwise you will get a disaster just like in conventional theories if you do not respect lorentz transformation.

My link

I haven't nearly the intellect required to make sense of all that, but the diagram reminds me of another, the second last here:

http://scienceblogs...._a_multiver.php

 

It may have related ideas?

I'd bet you have a better chance of detecting evidence of your "lines" than others have of finding real physical evidence of a multiverse, so I look forward to hearing about such discoveries!

 

 

As far as the interpretation I think I am going to wait for some more results before I can open my mouth. My theory at this time is purely" shut up and simulate". But the Idea of the space that I presented was easy to produce as an example, and I thought it would be a good visualizing tool for a GR like theory. Also my theory has much to say about gravity and space expansion( which in my theory only the gravitational coupling changes strength and sign). But that is for another time. I will show the results of the simulation that I promised you soon, I've been very hard at work to test many( well maybe few) possibilities. Simultion can be very frustrating because to get some desired accuracy you can do nothing but wait, see the results and tweek the programs parameters , and go in a loop.

Calling loop quantum gravity mainstream made me smile.

 

The number of people working in loop quantum gravity or other canonical attempts to quantise gravity is tiny compared to string theory. Without actually judging if LQG is a good model or not, can we really say it is mainstream based on the numbers?

 

I would say that LQG is established as a genuine active area of research, but I would hesitate to say mainstream.

That was the reason I put mainstream in quotation. But also the defintion is not god given but it does not strongly suggest quantity as the criteria. for example see the

My link

McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Dictionary

Anyway, there is enough war between Lubosh and woit and others. I look upon them in a fatherly love for all of them. Maybe someday I will point to the areas of similarity between them and my theory.

I did not mean to hijack the thread I could have opened a new one. My intention was to do an illustration to give an idea as to how some hypothetical modelling can link space and matter, to get GR like effect (which is hard for many people to imagine). it was an example ,that is all. Essay gave his idea and you did not seem to mind, but I guess mine came accross as a a pet theory advertizing. No problem moving it, I am sure the OP will see it eventually, thanks.

The attached file illustrates how space is produced. Although this is a simplified version of my theory but it is also similar to other "mainstream" theories like LQG and GR. The lines represent energy of the point particles that it starts from. the two points in the right hand figure are concidered higher energy(say a mini blackhole) the lines shoot to the other 9 lower energy particles , a bunch near and a bunch far. the crossing of the lines red dots for the green lines and yellow for the blue lines. You can think of space as these crossings. notice the density and the distribution of the crossings , these are equivalent to space geometry.

As a matter of fact you can infere the existence of the particles from the space "geometry", they are related. that is how we can model one in terms of the other.

Of course , this is a simplified picture (although no too far from the truth). in reality you will have infintly many of these lines crossing and making the geometry of space(not the same as GR but equivalent, Moreover, no space is defined outside of these crossings. so no single particle can exist ,because there will not be lines to other particles and it cannot exist and hence there is no space for it anyway.

So space is defined by the energy lines.

1. all couplings values and their relations and origin. That includes computing the behavior at all energies (and distances-up to edge of the universe if there is one(CC)). and if there is a physical cut-off or not.

2. the theory must predict particles with their masses explained.Inculding light and its clear interaction picture with matter.

3. What is charge exactly and how does the value come about.

4. the origin of Spin and entanglment.

5. how do particles behave in flight, like the double slit experiment.

6. The real source of the effect of relativity. That is of course includes what is Space and time. and what is vacuum made of.

7. the relation between all of the above.

8. the origin and the fate of the universe or(universes)

But Most of all what is existance made of, if not a mathematical imperative.

Please be open, please say why you are asking this?

 

If you would like to discuss about my paper, discuss on this thread

 

http://www.sciencefo...-and-consensus/

 

 

 

I need you to read those material so you can get some idea before I can comment further. I don't expect you to understand it all, I don't, but it will help for any future comments if you become familiar with the basic ideas.

Now I have released my papers on blog http://spaceandconse...-and-consensus/

 

As I understand less denser space split by the movement of high denser mater.

 

About paper you can ask question on the thread

 

http://www.sciencefo...-and-consensus/ after reading full paper.

 

( I don't like to hijack Anilkumar's thread, this thread only related to space curve. You can ask questions on related thread after full reading of paper.)

Do you have any idea what Loop Quantum Gravity is ?

Do you also know about this paper

My link

Also please read page 7 from this pdf link

My link2

Dear Anilkumar,

I sympathies with your endeavor to understand reality, but Iam afraid that you must make an effort to understand how mainstream physics and science works at large. You have admitted that you only have two years of college which is hardly enough to tackle complicated subject like high endphysics.

I have a Masters in EE and very good at math at the level expected of me. As an engineering student and have spent 15 years in actual practice you get to develop a natural feel of how science and particularly howphysics is modeled. Humans have developed this art of experimentation and modeling to make sense of reality and the hard test for a good model is prediction. It takes years with actual experience to sense that. Generally when a model ismade through different means and paths a sort of a language is used which is mostly mathematical. Those in the field develop a sort of norm of what is been said and meant; it is like when you talk to your friend certain things are notunderstood by outsiders. You cannot develop that affinity from outside. You cantell you child all kinds of good advices but the reality is that he will onlylearn them the hard way.

I can give you many hints to the science of space and time,but you will not make any good use of them unless you really understand the basics through lectures by Susskind and others(google), even then you need alot of background. Moreover, physics is also about experiments and in university,especially Masters and above you get to do a lot of that and you get the intuition of the connection between what models (which are very tricky bynature) are and how they connect to experiments. Since you have no accesses to equipment get yourself few books on experiments. Play around with electronicsit helps to get the feel.

Why a billions old guy create a race that spends most of its

time BSing with text messages and useless tweets is beyond me.

Really? There is no reason? If we have to simulate or model this universe then its inevitable that we have to model consciousness, If we have to model consciousness we need non-computable physics because consciousness is non-computable. Science will never be able to find that non-computable physics without bringing God into the picture because I think God holds the key to non-computable physics and therefore our hope of a single fundamental model might never be realized. So what's wrong if I go and explore a new world looking for non-computable physics. There is certainly a need for that, I see it and I think that it might come from God and this is the reason why I want to dedicate my life and explore new worlds and I want to speculate on them. I definitely doesn't want to fall to pseudoscience neither I want to promote or push any false belief systems here. I hope I have answered your questions.

 

I have to quote Roger Penrose on this. Roger Penrose on Non-Computability.

 

but he also says this

A lot of what the brain does you could do on a computer. I'm not saying that all the brain's action is completely different from what you do on a computer. I am claiming that the actions of consciousness are something different. I'm not saying that consciousness is beyond physics, either — although I'm saying that it's beyond the physics we know now.

you are interpreting what he says to your liking. Also, that is just a one man's opinion. And now you are trying to find a loophole to wiggle your way out of creation conundrum. I suggest just have faith and let it go, that is the whole idea (the right one) of god to have peace.

The Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago? But I might be misinterpreting that as the beginning of the universe, and it might just be the beginning of the expansion?

I don't mind the usual answers given that god knows best of why he created the universe and us.But I find it strange that his creation has direct evidence to negate his existence. for example the atoms are formed under strict law , with his powers he could make them do the same thing they are doing now without any properties, you know like magic. the same thing with the sun he could have created any source, maybe even without source for photons to simulate the sun. And to keep us on the ground without gravity, and make the earth flat. This reqular property of nature suggests to me that he had no choice but to create it that way. I could go on for ever. well then who is forcing whom.

Thanks for the reply.

ok,here is the link, not sure why it is not working.

http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=431256

Also studying this one

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/pub/hanson/Siggraph01QuatCourse/ggndgeom.pdf