Theory of Everything "Prime Mechanics"

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

single-cell organisms and the transition to muti-cell.

Just for clarification,Can you briefly explain an overview of how this happens?.... especially the transition part.

[MigL]

Seems very convenient that Prime Mechanics does most of its 'heavy lifting' prior to the Big Bang, in the Planck era at t=10^-43 s; an era we can probably never investigate, it is akin to saying 'God did it'.

As for the other post Big Bang effects, most can be explained by conventional accepted Physics, and while I've read your claims, you still haven't presented anything quantitative regarding Dark matter and galactic rotation, nor about Black Holes.
( what does "keep the Dimension flowing" even mean ? )
And our rules require that you present it here; I shouldn't have to read your book.

Until then, I'm going to have to call bullsh*t.

[Baron d'Holbach]

15 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Just for clarification,Can you briefly explain an overview of how this happens?.... especially the transition part.

I will not give you a overview. I will give everything I wrote on it in the book. Its only 1/10th of Prime Selection  

Prime Mechanics

Prime Selection

Prime Principles 

Those are the three Parts of my Theory of Everything. 

One of my favorite quotes, and its by me  

"One of the first is in the family group of ‘flagellate species,’ which looked like serpent dragon monsters. At this point, the reader should know that alien species can evolve into monstrous-humanoid species. A zoo of universal alien (monstrous) species can easily be replicated throughout the cosmos." 

                                                                                                  -Prime Mechanics 

Edited May 17, 2023 by Baron d'Holbach
1/10th or more, s

[MigL]

Look.

It is relatively simple to estimate the visible mass-energy distribution of a galaxy, compare it to the galactic rotation curve and get a reasonably good estimate of the amount of Dark Matter which must be in the spherical halo surrounding that galaxy and account for the deviation in rotation.

Your job is then simple.
Take that same galaxy's visible mass-energy distribution, extract the relevant gravitational parameters from it, plug them into your Prime Mechanics equation , and see if it produces the same 'ball-park' number for the amount of Dark Matter, which you say is produced by gravity. If it doesn't, it's a non-starter ( even if the math is pretty ).

The Nobel committee does not hand out prizes for vanity and grandiose boasting.
Only for theories which predict actual physical observations.

[Mordred]

The most commonly method to estimate DM rotation curve due to DM is the NFW profile. It a mass power law method.  The essence that it shows is that in order to avoid Kelper curve you must have a uniform distribution of mass surrounding a Galaxy in particular spiral galaxies to offset the bulge.

I can't recall the name of the most common DM modelling for early LSS formation beyond it involving Jean's instability.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Mordred

[Baron d'Holbach]

20 hours ago, Mordred said:

Needless to say I'm not developing a GUT I am applying SO(10) MSM, the FLRW metric, QFT and GR.

That is sad to hear. With your knowledge, experiences, and data, GUT should be the final end goal. 
You do realize that humans at the moment have an expiry date. 

I made sure, Prime Mechanic is out. I wrote a book as it is symbolic and a tool that lives forever. I know how to use the blockchain, so it will be tattooed into the internet sphere forever. 

Once A.I is build they will know Prime Mechanics as I created “Omnigear” 
A Yes to "A P=NP, martial artist robot."

“If I was going to write, I make sure it’s a masterpiece.” 
 

Prime Principle 

[Mordred]

The only thing missing from a GUT is how to keep gravity renormalizable. That may sound easy but merely quantizing spacetime or applying a regulator operator hasn't worked. There are valid SM model theories for DM and DE. What is lacking is the ability to verify the theories. However their are countless viable theories waiting for verification. Inflation is another good example. The Aspic library has tested over 70 viable inflationary models. Narrowing down which ones fit observational data the best via Monte Carlo as well as datasets.

 One essential step in a successful GUT involves "running of the coupling constants " it is a critical step. Particularly to match thermal equilibrium data.

Just because I don't require a new  mathematical method and use existing gauge groups via SO(10) does not inhibit my ability to make new findings. If anything it improves my chances by simply looking at each particles thermal equilibrium dropout and projected number density with regards to the expansion history of our universe and trace evidence in the CMB.

If I cannot produce accuracy to current datasets then I know something is still missing. I will only be successful if I can match current datasets. Simply claiming to do so isn't sufficient. I must ensure any other person can take my work and reproduce the same results with nothing more than the mathematics and zero verbal explanation. Other than identifying any used variables etc.

Hence the necessary mathematical proofs, 

This simulation for example simply tested our models for accuracy.

https://www.illustris-project.org/

So consider this metal exercise take BB at \[10^-43\] seconds. You have a temperature roughly 10^19 Kelvin. the volume is so miniscule that you couldn't have any spacetime curvature aka gravity. How do you have curvature with a volume approximately one Planck length ? How would gravity even make sense ? Literally you can describe that state simply by its temperature and volume everything is in thermal equilibrium so one can apply the Bose-Einstein statistic for photon number density at Blackbody temperature 10^19 Kelvin. You should get roughly 10^90 photons. That is how that calculation comes about that is oft included in Cosmology textbooks.

Another interesting detail is neutrinos today. Our universe has a blackbody temperature of 2.7 Kelvin. so ask yourself what the Blackbody of neutrinos are today?

Now I can answer that question using nothing more that QM and classical physics ? can your model produce the correct answer? As you have already mentioned the required formula possibly but is that formula an integral aspect of your model or simply employing it to fill the gaps of what your GUT doesn't produce ? I really don't know as I know of 3 different methods to get the correct answer in 3 different theorem. All three are part of the standard model.

 Now it doesn't really matter if you choose to answer or not. That isn't the point. he point is a good GUT needs to be able to match observational evidence but also be able to match results at ATLAS and other particle accelerators. Given that why would I want any NON standard theory when my very goal is to match data that directly applies Standard theory.

aka those Wilson coefficients I mentioned which apply to the QCD range not strictly Higgs. The datasets I need employ them so I need to be able to do so as well

 

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

Thanks,

 Given the way you have answered my questions; 6&7.

About FTL particles and Transition from single cell to multicellular organism...I feel that my concepts and yours have clear distinctions.

I published my concepts a month earlier than you,after working for the concepts for a while..my devices I think were bugged for sometimes given the type of glitches I encountered while looking for info in the internet.

My math background is not as strong as such, I rely on pure reasoning, following just simple scientific principles as my rail guard.I feared someone with strong math can easily decipher what am doing and formulate that without even attributing me anywhere.

Your closer to what I have been doing but I feel am in a deeper layer.....the funny thing is your talking of Terminator A.I and monstrous aliens and am dealing with how to hide in spacetime fabric when such thing as you mention will ever appear.

[Baron d'Holbach]

7 hours ago, Mordred said:

new  mathematical method

This is it. This is what I meant by my Prime Field. 

This is why I do my jabs and punches. We need a new math, a new method, a new idea. A new way figuring this out. So, I build a system, a tool, a new but well known old math structure. 

The equilibrium point is between 0 and 1, located at 1/2.  The distribution of matter is within a 1 dimensional line. 

1/2 is a concentrated area, a place of congregation, the location of Dark Matter. A density spot for the origin of the physical universe. The origin of spins, the origins of where Gravity gravitates. 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Baron d'Holbach

[Mordred]

So you believe I for one have never come across a single physics related system or state in neither cosmology or particle physics that I cannot model.

So I have never seen the point in attempting to rewrite physics at any stage.

[Baron d'Holbach]

@Mordred

Prime Mechanics is not a ‘convenient’ scapegoat in not explaining the exact measurement of particle creations, especially the strong energy force. It is not about rewriting physic but providing the origin of time, the creation of the big bang, and our existence. It provides a new systematic tool, a program that can create Gravity and find the distribution of Matter.
1.    New Model
2.    Particle accelerators
3.    Mathematical feasibility
4.    Observational compatibility

1.    The New Model is the Prime Field. A place that is based on ζ(1/2)
We are creating Gravity without particles. We pin-pointed Dark Matter and creating a physical system, “Aether.”
2.    We are not using a particle accelerator, as they are obsolete. We are building a Gravity Machine. The technologies of the Aliens. A type 3 civilizations machine. The works of PM is not of today, but for the future seekers. 

Particle Accelerators are War mongers, WW2, military-industrial complex trash pet projects. 

3.    I said this before, Mathematical feasibility? Prime mechanics can be easily debunk, by disproving Riemann hypothesis, P versus NP problem, Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, Hodge conjecture, Navier-Stokes equation, Yang-Mills theory, Poincaré conjecture, and so many others like Prime Numbers. 

Prime Mechanics is Yes to them all, and needed to prove them as ‘Yes’ for the creation of the Prime Field. 

As I said, Prime Mechanics math is not ordinary but extremely complex and beyond the traditional norm. Again a Type 3 alien civilization math as I kept on describing it. 

4.    The very first observation was the Google discovery of “Gravity created Light.”  And the funny thing is it discover 3 weeks after I published Prime Mechanics. 

Overall, no one knows what the true theory of everything is. I am literally saying a dozen times we are stuck in the 1960s with models and math that are not getting us anywhere. We are only explaining the zoo of particle physics. That’s narrow, and what Einstein said, “Quantum Mechanics is incomplete.”

So yes, as you noticed, my model and yours are completely different but the same in other areas. 
 

Here are prophecies:
“Of course, we all knew that Gravity created everything. Well, duh, we all knew this.”
Another prediction,
“Well duh, the Universe is a Steady State hosted by Gravity that converged towards the equilibrium point that initiated Aether, and our 4D existence was created. Well, duh, we all knew this.”
Another prediction,
“G=EM, Gravity generated, within itself electromagnetism, the weak and strong force, creating ‘Aether’ the Big Bang and producing our 4D Universe. Well, duh.” 
Let it be known; Prime Mechanics stated it first.
 

For fun anyone wants to challenge my Darwin Science I posted on top? It is beyond a master Biologist 😊 

"I wrote the exact origins of a unicellular organism. Prime Mechanic explained, it is not a mystery anymore." 

                                                                                                                           — Prime Mechanics                                  

[Mordred]

  You know you keep stating Physics in stuck in the 60"s and yet I could show you a universe model that applies known physics where the universe can arise from in essence positive matter energy. and negative gravity energy. That was designed back in the 60's. The model employs mathematics developed initially in 1920's Relativity and the FLRW metric 1939. Work still continues to this very day with papers still being written about it.

  The point you do not seem to grasp is that science never ever closed the book on a given viable theory. Every viable theory will always develop and improve each and every year. They do so with known physics they do not need to reinvent physics. As new research leads to new discoveries those discoveries get included into the applicable theories.

 You evidently do not seem to be aware of this detail and as such scorn the scientific process as a result. You claim you do not have the funds to get interest from the scientific community. Yet one doesn't require any funds to get a professional Peer reviewed paper published on arxiv or even require a degree. Provided you can convince a PH.D to sponsor your work anyone can get a peer review. This however doesn't mean the paper is correct.  It simply means that the paper conforms with its standards and is on the topic being described.

 I could post papers describing numerous pre-universe models that have 11 dimensions. The Strong pre-universe, the gravitational pre-universe, the Charged pre-universe, the four stage universe. The universe from nothing, the zero energy- universe, the universe from a BH (countless numbers of those) same for the universe from white holes. The time reversal\time forward multiverse pair.

The list is literally endless. All of them however have one thing in common. They are all viable in the mathematics they show with known physics. They all deploy a collection of formulas from a collection of any related theories and models. Thermodynamics, the FLRW metric, relativity, QM/QFT some with string theories some without. Some are schotastic other conformal or canonical.

 However none of them ever saw the need to reinvent any known and well tested physics.

so no matter what you claim you never convince me physics is stuck in the 60's. Your wasting your breath on that score. I've watched too many theories develop from one form to later improvements in nearly every theory I have ever studied.

 That is the very essence of the scientific process and if you believe the idea of the SM particles arising from gravity is something new well that is essence of string theory. Its entire fundamental process applies the graviton as the fundamental string. This was the initial development long before M theory.

lol the FLRW metric today isn't even in its original form...

Lets take an example exercise. at 10^-43 seconds. The observable universe if you reverse expansion is less than an atom in volume. Actually much smaller than that. Yet we know its an extremely hot, dense state of low entropy.

Now myself I would describe this state by the only meaningful mathematics. How would curvature even apply in such a miniscule volume. Why would gravity even be a factor  with such a limited volume ? So really the only applicable geometry is simply 

\[ds^2=g_{ij}dq^idq^j\] which is simply denoting the Kronecker Delta under Cartesian coordinates. At that volume you wouldn't have any time dilation. Everything else is in thermal equilibrium (thermodynamics). So the only other meaningful detail is literally the temperature. Temperature is part of the EM field so one can employ gauge photons as the mediator.

Now I can bet dollars to donuts your going to claim differently as from what you described that is not your model. Yet that is how the majority of the physics experts in cosmology will describe the state at that time.

One could also use a generalized spacetime (coordinate independant form) ie Euclid, Polar, spherical, Cylindrical.

\[ds^2=g_{\alpha\beta}dx^\alpha dx^\beta\] but that is an arbitrary choice with the given volume

just a side note on unusual mathematical treatments in older models (still under development to this very day) is to describe particles in binary lattice space.

\[|\Psi\rangle=\sum^n_{i=1}|\phi_i\rangle\] where the dimensions can b any arbitrary number from 4 to 11. (part of the zero energy universe model, or one of the numerous variations of the same theme). This equation then works with the nilpotent Dirac equation where the sum of energy, momentum, time and space=0. The model also has specific formulas for particles arising from those factors. for example the fermion mass formula given by that model is

\[M_{d,a}=\sum_{M_f}\frac{3M_{b_{d-1,0}}}{2}\sum^a_{a=0}a^4\]

this is work once presented by Bohr_Sommerfeld. In essence it is a universe from nothing model where particles arise from spacetime where spacetime equates the potential and kinetic energy terms via the nilpotent Dirac equation and the sum of the potential energy and kinetic energy terms is balanced at zero.

Hope that gives you an idea of just a few of the NOT FOUND in textbooks professionally peer reviewed models your competing against.

here is the reference for further detail. It is merely 1 out of literal hundreds of professional peer reviewed universe creation models I have come across

https://arxiv.org/ftp/hep-th/papers/0201/0201115.pdf 

  I have greater faith in this model that what I have seen of yours simply because there are no grandiose claims that are made. Not that I accept this paper as one I would fully trust this particular paper either. It is simply 1 variation of the theme. I've seen far better variations of zero energy universe treatments. 

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by Mordred

[Trurl]

Baron, did you use A.I. to write Prime Mechanics?

To me it is an attempt to explain the World nonsensically. Like a pun. Like something Stanislaw Lem would write.

It would make a good sci-fi story. Or an excellent alternative world for fantasy or video game.

I don’t say that to make fun of your work. I don’t know higher physics. And it could be higher physics sounds like a fantasy world anyway.

I am interested in the Prime number aspect. How are you relating Primes to physics? Do Primes exist naturally or did man create them? To me your theories are just a thought experiment. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. You ideas are uncanny, but that is good when it comes to Primes.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Trurl
Spelling

[Baron d'Holbach]

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

It would make a good sci-fi story

My favorite scientists are Wallace and Darwin. Started originally writing a Darwin book, Prime Selection (Called it something else before, systematic progression). Look up here in page 4, you can see my Darwin work, 1/10th+ of it. Explain and answer in full detail how single cell was created to how religion was form on Planet Earth. A full work on Darwin, but it was only 50+ pages and knew that was not enough. And outside the internet people kept on saying, nonsense like, Big Bang what a joke, and no one knows, god did it and stop with this nonsense Baron you will never figure it out... I was like okay hold my beer. Like literally.   15 years later in 2023... here I am  

Also, spare time in 2021 I published a Political sci-fi Novel, 400pgs, setting the year 2076. So yes, I am aware.  

In the book lots of A.I inventions and Ideas, so I incorporated that into Prime Mechanics as Prime Principles. 

In total Prime Mechanics is 340pgs. 

So to answer your question, I mention it here before, Thesis papers and everything on arvix are so boring and dry and explain why the layman average person hates science and stays away from it.

I remember Lex Fridman said, all these thesis and papers are not intuitive with no graphs, diagrams. How can it inspire the average person to be passionate and spark a eureka in them with no creative expression in those papers.

And most importantly, Einstein, "If you cant explain it simply, you do not understand it enough."

"Gravity Generated and Created."

                                                                              —Prime Mechanics '

Prime Mechanic was not written as a Story, but I made sure it was easy to digest, with the hardest unsolved ideas of math and ideas incorporated in it. From Gravity to Single Cell to Lucy to a Type 3 civilization. 

"In other Planetary Systems with life, we will encounter many monstrous, dangerous species. We must reach type III civilization before anything happens to us."

                                                                  —Prime Mechanics

14 hours ago, Trurl said:

I am interested in the Prime number aspect.

You ask the heart and soul of Prime Mechanics. 

Pg, 9

The Prime Field will be our architectural model of Gravity. It is based on the world equation, Prime ½. It is part of the Riemann Zeta Function Re(ζ) = ½, as it is the distribution of Prime Numbers (Matter) and Zeros (Constants). This will lead to renormalization and invariant systems within our model. 

pg, 10

They are well-known, established numbers that are not probabilistic but deterministic that create functions, actions, and motions. Below the pages, we will go through all the constants and explain that each one acting as one to create a singular constant, the Prime Field. A fixed and well-defined constant combined will create a physical property like Aether. Throughout the chapter, you will see Prime Numbers as a representation of Nature, Forces, and Constants;

                    Prime is “Prime” in reverse order. 
pg, 14

The book’s layout will show Prime Numbers and dedicated numbers to represent how to create Gravity, solve singularities and showcase determinism. With the laws of Prime, recognizable, repeated numbers are shown such as Permutable Prime Numbers. 

Pg, 14

Let us take two numbers from all Prime Numbers, 37 and 73, and use them throughout the book as an example. 73 is a permutable Prime Number that can be switched like a rubric square rotation to 37. This operation follows the essential step of the loop system of Prime Field of going upwards from 37 to 73 and then looping back downwards as part of the Prime Laws—Prime Laws are 3n + 1 into the Xn + 1 repetition loop to cause a state of balance in a continuous fundamental repetitious function throughout the 11 Dimensions. 

Pg, 16

Gravity as zeros based on Prime Numbers gravitates towards Prime ½, a place between 0 and 1. This region is a confinement area, a placeholder that densifies and creates Prime Matter, a vessel, and a place to build a rarefication called Aether, Prime Energy.

14 hours ago, Trurl said:

Do Primes exist naturally

Hell yeah, its the math of the ALIENS! 

                                                  —Prime Mechanics

[Genady]

59 minutes ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Let us take two numbers from all Prime Numbers, 37 and 73, and use them throughout the book as an example. 73 is a permutable Prime Number that can be switched like a rubric square rotation to 37. This operation follows the essential step of the loop system of Prime Field of going upwards from 37 to 73 and then looping back downwards

You haven't mentioned that the decimal system has a special significance in your theory. Does it?

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

 

Hell yeah, its the math of the ALIENS! 

                                                  —Prime Mechanics

 

2 hours ago, Genady said:

You haven't mentioned that the decimal system has a special significance in your theory. Does it?

Better to ask the aliens assuming they even use the decimal system lol.

In all seriousness the more you describe your theory Baron the wilder and more unlikely it becomes. 

Edited May 21, 2023 by Mordred

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 

Better to ask the aliens assuming they even use the decimal system lol.

It is a Prime Law that all advanced civilizations use ten fingers for counting.

[Mordred]

43 minutes ago, Genady said:

It is a Prime Law that all advanced civilizations use ten fingers for counting.

Lol the aliens with tentacles might object in favor of the binary system.

[Baron d'Holbach]

Hey, don’t make fun of my homeboys, Aliens. They will zap you all. LOL!

The decimal system is only used as time intervals, distances, masses, concentrations and such. 

On 5/20/2023 at 12:05 AM, Mordred said:

Physics in stuck in the 60"s

Quantum field theory a 1920 breakthrough and 1940s and 1950s breakthrough.
Standard Model of particle physics, is a 1960s breakthrough.
Electroweak Theory in the 1960s.
Cosmic microwave background radiation is a 1965 breakthrough.

All models and papers and ideas are still being worked on that was discover 70+ years ago. 

Almost all significant advancements happen from 1900 to 1960s. Everything afterwards were minor discoveries of particles findings, and research areas in topics. All theories are worked on a old traditional yesterday model that everyone think is perfect and bulletproof but yet close to zero real advancements have happen. 

On 5/20/2023 at 12:05 AM, Mordred said:

However none of them ever saw the need to reinvent any known and well tested physics.

Good, let Prime Mechanic be the original contribution to this field. As stated by you many times now, prime Mechanic will lead this field on its own. 

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

The decimal system is only used as time intervals, distances, masses, concentrations and such.

No, not only. You use decimal system here, in your "essential step":

10 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Let us take two numbers from all Prime Numbers, 37 and 73, and use them throughout the book as an example. 73 is a permutable Prime Number that can be switched like a rubric square rotation to 37. This operation follows the essential step of the loop system of Prime Field of going upwards from 37 to 73 and then looping back downwards as part of the Prime Laws

 

[Mordred]

19 minutes ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Hey, don’t make fun of my homeboys, Aliens. They will zap you all. LOL!

The decimal system is only used as time intervals, distances, masses, concentrations and such. 

Quantum field theory a 1920 breakthrough and 1940s and 1950s breakthrough.
Standard Model of particle physics, is a 1960s breakthrough.
Electroweak Theory in the 1960s.
Cosmic microwave background radiation is a 1965 breakthrough.

All models and papers and ideas are still being worked on that was discover 70+ years ago. 

Almost all significant advancements happen from 1900 to 1960s. Everything afterwards were minor discoveries of particles findings, and research areas in topics. All theories are worked on a old traditional yesterday model that everyone think is perfect and bulletproof but yet close to zero real advancements have happen. 

Good, let Prime Mechanic be the original contribution to this field. As stated by you many times now, prime Mechanic will lead this field on its own. 

Uh huh and yet every particle of the standard model today was predicted using the methodologies you describe as old fashioned.There is a reason those models stick around to this day.

They work extremely well in making testable predictions. 

 Anyways that's really your hangup and opinion not mine. I stick to what I know has been successful and is still capable of being sucessful. Using proven successful methodologies.

 Thus far this thread has been far more claim than proving your mathematics work. So your not presenting anything convincing. Words and claims are essentially meaningless. 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Mordred

[Baron d'Holbach]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

They work extremely well in making testable predictions. 

 I think you missed the whole point, the zoo of particles is archaic and old school. Sure, do more testable predictions on the zoo of particles with no real advancements until the year 2100. 

It is time to reinvent physics. 

[MigL]

One thing that has happened since the 60s, is the inability of experimental Physics to keep up with theoretical Physics.

Even the Glashow, Salam and Weinberg Electroweak unification took 10 years for the detection of neutral currents in neutrino scattering , and 20 years for the dscovery od W  and Z gauge bosons in proton/proton collisions.
It is only lately that the LHC allows us to go beyond unification energies.

Other theories, developed since then, have no hope of being tested experimentally anytime soon, and additionally, some ( SString and M theory ) are so vague, that we have no idea which universe they actually describe.

As with your Prime theory, it is extremely easy to make fantastical/outlandish claims ( beyond belief, you could say ), when you know it cannot be supported by experiment or falsified.

I get the impression not too many people are impressed by your claims.

Edited May 22, 2023 by MigL

[Baron d'Holbach]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

claims.

Of course!

I am literally challenging existing paradigms. I am developing new theoretical frameworks, and exploring novel experimental techniques. 

We have gatekeepers in the science world if you haven't noticed. Saying the say old stuff and the same old ideas and using the same old models. 

 

[Mordred]

19 minutes ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

 I think you missed the whole point, the zoo of particles is archaic and old school. Sure, do more testable predictions on the zoo of particles with no real advancements until the year 2100. 

It is time to reinvent physics. 

under more modern thought via QFT particles don't exist. Modern enough for you ?

12 minutes ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Of course!

I am literally challenging existing paradigms. I am developing new theoretical frameworks, and exploring novel experimental techniques. 

We have gatekeepers in the science world if you haven't noticed. Saying the say old stuff and the same old ideas and using the same old models. 

 

good luck with that as you have described too many claims arising from fantasy land in your descriptives. By that I mean untestable and easily falsifiable. One claim for example involved how you described gravity counter to experimental evidence with regards to Newtons shell theorem which in turn falsified your claim of General Correspondance. which literally means any theory must be reducible to known Newtonian physics. Another claim I didn't bother wasting time challenging is you continual references to some Aether. One can readily contest that in regards to M&M type experiments which have advanced to a far greater precision than you will find in any textbook.

 

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

 

I get the impression not too many people are impressed by your claims.

myself included in that list

The best advice I could give you is to literally sit down and study those old school models and theories you find too boring to bother with. If you did in all honesty you would quickly learn to realize just how falsifiable you theory sounds as you presented here

Edited May 22, 2023 by Mordred