illuusio

Nucleons are ~10^-15m (=1 fm) across. The gluon-field between the three quarks, in nucleons, accounts for 99% of the mass-energy of the nucleon; "bare naked" quarks only mass ~3-4 MeV. And, the gluon field can be described by a potential energy, which increases linearly, with inter-quark separation distance ®, approximately U = +(1GeV / fm) x r. Ipso facto, if neutronized matter, in a relativistically compact object, were to collapse beyond the neutron-star stage; then gravity would compress the quarks, within the neutrons, together, reducing their separation distances, and so weakening their gluon fields. In effect, gravity would "take over" for the strong force, confining quarks without need for any Strong-Force-gluon-field. Compressing neutronized matter, by a factor of ~100, would reduce the mass-energy of nucleons, by the same factor, i.e. eliminate the gluon-field, reducing total effective mass-energy, down to the raw "bare naked" quarks themselves, whose total combined raw mass-energy is ~10MeV (=0.01GeV).

 

 

Few pointers... If gravitation can take over strong force to me it sounds that they both are based on same phenomenon. Another thing is compressing quarks together. Because baryons do have rotation frequency, compressing them together (into contact), would cause them to annihilate before compressed together. Same applies to quarks (because quarks generate baryons rotation frequency). To some extend you can compress baryons together but there is a limit for sure.

Obviously you Nobrainer suffer from the same space dementia as I do

I like your wave theory, partially. Waves and interference are everywhere even within gravitation BUT (and this is big but) waves alone won't do it. Those waves are blown away when two objects interact violently in space. Waves might take part in smaller scale gravitational events like with satellite orbiting Earth and so forth.

With bigger events I would count on Magnus effect in ether.

Edit: waves and Magnus effect are not exclusive... so what a heck, no buts, I like your wave theory. I do have my own theory as you know but waves fit in nicely.

So, any peer reviewers in tha house? ajb? Phi?

Absolutely right. Everyone should have in their minds that the electric and magnetic fields can carry momentum and thus "transmit a force".

OP was asking the mechanism. It's vague to say that those fields can carry momentum etc at least to me.

Hi all,

 

Recent thoughts have led me to the question 'What is the actual physical mechanism which transmits force between objects?'

 

I'm referring to forces which act over a distance, so electric force or magnetism.

 

I'm familiar with the concept of the electric and magnetic field, where the force is proportional to the distance between the objects. But this doesn't explain how the force is actually transmitted between the objects through space between them.

 

Thanks

Dan

There is the same topic in speculations area already. It concluded nothing.

Same nonsense as before.

Question was to Phi. I do know your attitude already. But if you read it, what is your reasoning behind that statement? What part is nonsense and why?

This idea has already been peer reviewed.

The peers though it was hogwash.

Read the latest version. If you refer to two months old discussions you will be badly informed.

 

You wasted that chance, and then you sent a foul-mouthed PM to one of the staff members. It was only your earlier efforts at being civil and attempting to learn that kept you from being banned instead of suspended. It made me wonder though, was that just a lapse in judgement or was that the real you?

You mean that iodine pm? Well, that was pure frustration due to my own time resource restrictions. My bad, no question about it. I'll make it up to iodine in the future, cos she did something that saved me from a lot of possible trouble. I learned during the ban that if I disclose my patent application premature there won't be any change to get any serious compensation in case of someone is violating my invention before patent is given. Only given patent allows me to get serious compensation in case of patent violation. So... there was something good from my stupid behaviour. But as I said, I'll make it up to iodine and it won't happen again.

Thanks for not listening.

I have listened you alright. It's quite hard to conclude that you sincerely are excited about my theory. But if I'm wrong then my apologies. I give you a new opportunity

So, have you read the latest version? What you think about it?

Think about it. If your idea had any merit you could demonstrate, and we could analyze and reproduce successful results, and if it then went on to become peer-reviewed and part of mainstream science, don't you think we'd all be anxious to be part of it? What you say makes no sense here.

 

 

Interesting to see your reactions when my theory is either published or I have made commercial product(s) based on it. I bet you haven't read the latest version, have you?

We hate that you refused to follow the rules of the forums, and specifically those of Speculations. You were given several chances to comply, and you refused. You even got a rare second chance, and you blew it. This is just shifting the blame, making your failure to do something resembling science somehow be our fault. Blaming us isn't going to garner any sympathy for your cause among the people who decide things. It certainly doesn't show contrition or learning.

I did mistakes in every way, sure! I'm a human being, making mistakes come as a feature

I understand why you feel the need to say this, but it isn't true, none of it. You simply failed to support your claims, after being given multiple chances to provide such support. Nobody on staff "hates" your ideas, they simply don't find them valid. We even helped in developing experimentation, so thanks very much, Mr Ungrateful, for your "hateful" remarks.

Yep, you indeed helped, thanks for that! At that time I wasn't ready with my theory. In current version there is third law which must be used in case of experiments like the bike wheel experiment, so no problem with bike wheels anymore

So you don't hate my theory... I don't buy that. For example you don't allow own topic for ToEbi, even it's much more mature and powerful. To me, you hate it.

In the interest of full disclosure:

 

Discussion #1

Discussion #2

Thanks! Those bring some golden memories You can see how my theory develops in time.

What you have to do, unless they have asked you to resubmit to them, is take the advice to improve your paper and submit it somewhere else. You do run the risk of the same referees reviewing your paper, so you should not just submit exactly the same thing elsewhere. You should ask an expert in your field for advice on this.

 

You should be aware that some journals charge you per page published. This is okay if you have some funding to cover this, otherwise you should submit to journals that do not charge the author, but rather charge the reader (usually in the form of a library subscription).

 

Can you outline what your paper is about? I can then see if I can help you, though unless it is something close to my area of expertise I might not be able to offer any real advice or act as a reviewer.

Well... few modes hate the thing but the paper is about the theory of everything. Originally I tried to explain only gravitation but soon I realized that the same phenomenon applies to strong interaction and EM interaction. I realized that there is torsion field (ether) even it's banned from science at least the term ether I found some evidence to support my ideas and I did more experiments of my own. You can download the paper from my signature or I can send it to you.

The main point in my theory is that gravitation constant G isn't constant at all. It is totally depended on object's rotational frequency. With that idea the rest was "easy".

MDPI? From a quick browse they don't really have a journal that would fit this sort of article - and I am not sure about a publisher who wants over a thousand bucks for the privilege of publishing an article.

That's true there wasn't proper journal for my paper but I thought technologies journal would be close enough. Thousand bucks? I'm not aware of this

If your submission has not even got as far as a referee, then it is likely to be in rather bad shape.

 

Usually once you submit a paper for publication one of the editors will have a quick look at it to gauge if it seems appropriate for the journal. If it is obviously not on a subject they are interested in or if the work is clearly not of the accepted standard then they will reject it at this stage.

 

The next stage is that the paper will be passed on to two or three referees, who will make a more informed report on the submission. The length and details of the reports can vary a lot. Some times you get a few lines, sometimes a few pages. Anyway, they typically state one of three things: the paper is rejected, the paper needs a little more work before it is accepted or it is accepted as is. The first and second options are more common than the last.

 

On a personal anecdote, I have had papers rejected, all scientists do. But I have not had one rejected before it has been sent to the referees.

 

 

 

 

 

Don't use viXra, just brows some of the preprints there and you will see why I say that. The arXiv is much better, though as you note you need an endorsement. Try and find someone who has worked on something similar to you. For example who have you talked to about your work?

I managed to get an endorsement rather easily after sending work and discussing things with a leading expert in my field. You should do the same.

 

 

 

 

I am not familiar with MDPI. However, I do know that some journals ask you to recommend suitable people to review your paper. Is this all you are asking for? If you cannot recommend anyone, then just tell them so and they will find people.

Excellent post! With one journal, panel of people (referees?) checked the paper but at that point they rejected with few tips with the paper. But that happened two months ago, so my paper wasn't that good at that point.

MDPI 's submission process requires that you must fill five reviewers otherwise you can't submit. And yes that's all I'm asking for.

You submit your theory to a reputable journal and they do the peer review. You don't go out and find reviewers.

I do know that. But editors in those journals are too damn busy and they don't take chances with speculative theory. I have tried couple of those. viXra is one option also but I don't think it has as much weight than for example arXiv.

MDPI requires five names but they necessarily don't use them all if any.

WOW! Put "theory of everything" into Google search and be amazed!!! ToEbi at the first page! It seems that that happened only in Finland

If I go public in MDPI I would need a five qualified peer reviewers to my theory. Do we have objective candidates here? I mean by objective that you can have any opinion on my work but it has to be reasonable. Actual theory is like only eight pages so it's not too much of a work.

So fellows... I need five names and your email addresses (in PM). I think that I'm not allowed to offer any kind of reward for doing peer reviewing BUT the reward is got by other means (from involvement). I can info anonymous head count in this thread almost real-time. Lines are open!

Aaa... arXiv is an other option! I think that I need only one person who can give endorsement for me. So I can use that also if I can find endorser. Actually I asked endorsement from Garrett Lisi, I had to

What do you suppose about the parts that be being ingedients of physics like gravity

Thanks

Hmm... should I answer to this one? Maybe not

What a heck.. here we go...

I think that those parts, at the first place, are physical, tiny but physical. They are shaped like a toothed spheres. Rest is easy.

In short, in electrodynamics the electromagnetic field "induces" a time delay into the motion: The EM field carries momentum at a finite speed. This already makes Newton's third law very unclear as it assumes instantaneous action of the forces between a pair of bodies. In electrostatics, you do still have Newton's laws.

 

 

However we still have conservation of energy and momentum in electrodynamics, which is today understood as being far more fundamental than the notion of a force. In modern theoretical physics force is not a central concept, symmetries and conservation law are.

Very nicely answered

For example, the electromagnetic field can carry energy and momentum and so we can have violation of third law.

How come? I mean first of all, electrons orbiting nucleus weaken the strong interaction's ability to keep nucleus in one part. Second, magnetized material crystal can be demagnetized. To me that tells magnetic field experiences third law.

W

 

 

Basically the Schafftarian field is a field that acts almost like an attraction force, but is not an attraction force. It allows these energy particles to become relative to that Phesron. What happens is when these energy particles transfer between Phesrons, this affects the Schafftarian field. However, there is a certain speed that this transfer can occur at, being the speed of light.

Right... can I have definitions for those terms? or link? please.

Amazing information was absent from everyone

 

 

Marilyn Manson is antichrist? And the news is? If you are from Europe, shame on you! You could do better.

Here is a video I made about my theory.

 

 

 

Based on purely seeing that video clip first frame... How object knows that it shouldn't go faster and dangering itself? Sounds weird to me, can you answer that? I didn't watch the video (I'm too lazy and I have too short attention spin).

Thank you for your response. Would you consider answering another question? Do you realise that your posts make you appear like a deluded, self-righteous, ignorant, poorly educated fool? Is that actually the way you wish to come across? (Oops. More than one question, but you get my drift.)

No it's not.

My problem is ( hehe) that I'm not involved in science world in profession. I do have a degree (M.sc.) but my daytime job is with commercial softwares (and btw I'm NOT a programmer, at least for 10 years). My time resources are limited but to my curse I'm impatient person. Nice combination... not. So out of pure frustration I might be quite provocative from time to time. That ain't helping me either Result is that most people here in SF think that I'm as you described deluded, self-righteous, ignorant and poorly educated fool. What can you do?

Another thing is, even that I'm right with my theory, I do accept that my ideas and theory is somewhat ahead of it's time. But I do have an ace in my sleeve I have few inventions which prove me right and as a bonus generate some serious cash flow. Time will tell which happens first, serious attention to my theory or commercial products based on my theory.

Illusio, do you have any intention to answer my post #6? You've managed several other responses since I posted it. I'm starting to feel unloved.

Join the club

I'll answer you now...

I don't think that todo-list is a problem, quite contrary, it's an opportunity for physics to develop. Current foundation in physics will create limits for understanding of nature. Good example is galaxy arms anomaly. Traditional gravitation constant forces us to come up with things like dark matter. Good luck with that one You ain't gonna find it, cos there isn't one. But if you accept that G is not constant (as stated in my theory) you can simulate galaxy arms "anomaly" nicely and say goodbye to "dark matter".