Jump to content

Insane Physics Theory (MUST READ)


zidzad1

Recommended Posts

Hello guys,

This paper contradicts everything we've been told about science and physics from the atomic structure to time , relativity , electric current , gravity and it explains every phenomenon including things like dark matter and dark energy. This paper was not created by me and full credit goes to the creator.

I believe this paper is very interesting

 

You can view the paper at : http://www.scribd.com/doc/210594145/UDT-By-abdulsalam-Al-mayahi-ToE

 

if you have any questions,feedback or criticisms please comments.

 

Short summary:

This groundbreaking theory states that their is a particle that make up what we know as elementary particles; electrons,quarks,etc. and gets its energy from what is called the permeable medium. This theory also describes and explains phenomenons such as gravity, dark matter, dark energy,etc. and it also states that time is a tool created by humans to describe rotation. This theory also describes what an electric current is and changes Bohr's atomic model completely.

Edited by zidzad1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't.

 

It is yet another in the long line of crank theories that will change nothing.

 

I agree. I got through the first twenty pages, and it wasn't written professionally. i.e., it was written in a way that someone uneducated would agree with it, but when I read it, it made no sense. I also did a few Google searches, and some of the things it claimed were true were already proved false. Like the particle that it claimed was discovered. I did a few searches, and found nothing other than what the theory said about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree. I got through the first twenty pages, and it wasn't written professionally. i.e., it was written in a way that someone uneducated would agree with it, but when I read it, it made no sense. I also did a few Google searches, and some of the things it claimed were true were already proved false. Like the particle that it claimed was discovered. I did a few searches, and found nothing other than what the theory said about it.

 

Its funny you say that although the particle actually has evidence for it and experiments have been conducted that prove it is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Its funny you say that although the particle actually has evidence for it and experiments have been conducted that prove it is true.

 

Where are the resources? I didn't find anything...

 

This theory contradicts Superstring Theory, saying the Union-Dipole Partical is the Universal Building Block. Then it goes on and says that the spheres are infinitesimal. It also claims, and I quote

 

and precise determination of each of the Universal Constants found in the physical Universe.

 

Then it says that positive and negative charges are the same. Then what it says about gravity doesn't even work...

 

Here is what I said about the professional speech that is half crack pot:

 

UDT unlocks Nature's secrets in such way that the applied sciences' mathematicians can introduce simpler approaches for a more accurate portrayal of how Nature and the entire Universe act in a concert of precise harmony.

 

Oh, and on page 304, his calculation of the golden ratio is wrong.

 

And I will stop there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Where are the resources? I didn't find anything...

 

This theory contradicts Superstring Theory, saying the Union-Dipole Partical is the Universal Building Block. Then it goes on and says that the spheres are infinitesimal. It also claims, and I quote

 

Then it says that positive and negative charges are the same. Then what it says about gravity doesn't even work...

 

Here is what I said about the professional speech that is half crack pot:

 

Oh, and on page 304, his calculation of the golden ratio is wrong.

 

And I will stop there.

Ok there is no page 304, im assuming you mean 34 and if you would have read the whole paper rather than just searching for errors you would have found out that the golden ratio has been talked about.

And YES it contradicts super string theory as i said in my first post it contradicts many theory's and models such as bohrs atomic model or spacetime.

And the quotes that you quoted from the paper that you are trying to make look bad I guess is not doing a good job because the quotes are simply the things that were pointed out that are applied and can be found by calculations in the universe. And he says gravity is electromagnetic just how some other people people believed it is that made an earlier attempt at the theory of everything. So please read the paper carefully before u make any criticisms because you must know what these things mean and how they are applied before you judge them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok there is no page 304, im assuming you mean 34 and if you would have read the whole paper rather than just searching for errors you would have found out that the golden ratio has been talked about.

And YES it contradicts super string theory as i said in my first post it contradicts many theory's and models such as bohrs atomic model or spacetime.

And the quotes that you quoted from the paper that you are trying to make look bad I guess is not doing a good job because the quotes are simply the things that were pointed out that are applied and can be found by calculations in the universe. And he says gravity is electromagnetic just how some other people people believed it is that made an earlier attempt at the theory of everything. So please read the paper carefully before u make any criticisms because you must know what these things mean and how they are applied before you judge them.

 

It also contradicts the theory of general relativity. Now, relativity, unlike super string theory, has been proven... You cannot throw out something that works, for something that doesn't work. Everything builds on itself. Einstein didn't disprove Newtonian gravity, he just built upon it... This theory wants to say that our reality is flawed, then goes to say, 100's of years of past observation is junk, and I developed a theory in 20 years that disproves everything else...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It also contradicts the theory of general relativity. Now, relativity, unlike super string theory, has been proven... You cannot throw out something that works, for something that doesn't work. Everything builds on itself. Einstein didn't disprove Newtonian gravity, he just built upon it... This theory wants to say that our reality is flawed, then goes to say, 100's of years of past observation is junk, and I developed a theory in 20 years that disproves everything else...

Well unfortunately for you that's science. Things get proven wrong and ideas change, just like back in the days they thought everything orbited the earth and then that was proven false. They also came up with supposed clues which you call evidence that suggests it's true although it may be on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Things get proven wrong and ideas change, just like back in the days they thought everything orbited the earth and then that was proven false.

 

The earliest mention of a sun-centered universe actually dates back to 200 BC by a man named Aristarchus of Samos. Then someone well respected said "oh, that's wrong", and changed it back to the Geocentric modal. Then the Christan's thought that they were special and thought that the same thing, they were the center of the universe, and did all sorts of nasty things to people who opposed them. I don't wish to high jack the thread, but what I said is a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The earliest mention of a sun-centered universe actually dates back to 200 BC by a man named Aristarchus of Samos. Then someone well respected said "oh, that's wrong", and changed it back to the Geocentric modal. Then the Christan's thought that they were special and thought that the same thing, they were the center of the universe, and did all sorts of nasty things to people who opposed them. I don't wish to high jack the thread, but what I said is a fact.

I'm not here to debate history, i'm here to propose this scientific paper which i find quite interesting.

But i think this might help you : http://www.biography.com/people/nicolaus-copernicus-9256984?page=2

Yes there is, and your failure to notice that speaks volumes.

 

I'm sorry i thought he was referring to that appears near the top right corner:

http://gyazo.com/a82468952c03a35b979c03443d930db0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well unfortunately for you that's science.

 

Science? Really?

 

Quote from your pdf:

"3.7. Union-Dipole and Mass–Energy Equivalence

Etotal=1/4mc2"

 

Things get proven wrong and ideas change, just like back in the days they thought everything orbited the earth and then that was proven false. They also came up with supposed clues which you call evidence that suggests it's true although it may be on the opposite side of the spectrum.

 

Author of this document is just showing his lack of knowledge.

He has no idea how to calculate Decay Energy, or energy released by fusion.

If he would know science, he would not be proclamating that E=ymc2 is wrong.

 

I doubt author ever saw electrons, positrons, muons or other particles in cloud chamber. Doubt he ever saw radioactive decay on his own eyes.

You need to have good understanding of how universe works doing experiments, to create good theoretic work.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Science? Really?

 

Quote from your pdf:

"3.7. Union-Dipole and Mass–Energy Equivalence

Etotal=1/4mc2"

 

 

Author of this document is just showing his lack of knowledge.

He has no idea how to calculate Decay Energy, or energy released by fusion.

If he would know science, he would not be proclamating that E=ymc2 is wrong.

 

I doubt author ever saw electrons, positrons, muons or other particles in cloud chamber. Doubt he ever saw radioactive decay on his own eyes.

You need to have good understanding of how universe works doing experiments, to create good theoretic work.

 

If you read how he got to these conclusions then you would understand why these equations are like these. What you are doing is extracting any information you can and criticizing it without knowing how it got there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read how he got to these conclusions then you would understand why these equations are like these. What you are doing is extracting any information you can and criticizing it without knowing how it got there.

 

Author lacks basic knowledge of high energy physics.

If you have access to him, give him this article about particle creation. Especially bottom of it, describing antiproton production.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/particle_creation.html

 

If energy-mass equivalence would be (significantly) different, we wouldn't be able to create antimatter in accelerators.

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Author lacks basic knowledge of high energy physics.

If you have access to him, give him this article about particle creation. Especially bottom of it, describing antiproton production.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/particle_creation.html

 

If energy-mass equivalence would be (significantly) different, we wouldn't be able to create antimatter in accelerator

Ok, now i'm no physicist, infact im still going through secondary school but what I can tell you is I think they are saying that you have to accelerate it at 0.94c when actually the speed of light has been modified in the paper so that may have an affect. And he did not conduct this experiment in a lab/accelerator the conclusion of how he got to it is in the paper where he says the quantisation (which I don't think you know what it means) and the particle itself is moving at maxwell's speed of light, therefore the kinetic speed is always equal to Cm or maxwell speed.Accordingly, this result differs from the very famous relation of e=mc2, which is only valid at Planck Condition, where each sphere is in contact with four moving spheres at the Maxwell Speed of Light.

again I try to do my best to answer but if I can get the creator to reply to any questions that I am not qualified I will try to my best :)

Edited by zidzad1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, now i'm no physicist, infact im still going through secondary school but what I can tell you is I think they are saying that you have to accelerate it at 0.94c when actually the speed of light has been modified in the paper so that may have an affect. And he did not conduct this experiment in a lab/accelerator the conclusion of how he got to it is in the paper where he says the quantisation (which I don't think you know what it means) and the particle itself is moving at maxwell's speed of light, therefore the kinetic speed is always equal to Cm or maxwell speed.Accordingly, this result differs from the very famous relation of e=mc2, which is only valid at Planck Condition, where each sphere is in contact with four moving spheres at the Maxwell Speed of Light.

[/size]

again I try to do my best to answer but if I can get the creator to reply to any questions that I am not qualified I will try to my best :)

Scientists in CERN, or in other particle accelerators, are calculating what velocity is needed to create certain leptons, mesons, or baryons, accelerating protons (or other charged particles) and getting predictable (more or less) results. If results are stable particles as for example antiprotons, they can be stored in magnetic traps etc, and used in other experiments. If equation would be significantly wrong, as suggested in above paper 25% of our value, scientists wouldn't create new particles with exactly predicted mass and energy, would they?

 

ps. There was 0.994c not 0.94c. That little difference means 312% difference in energy.

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientists in CERN, or in other particle accelerators, are calculating what velocity is needed to create certain leptons, mesons, or baryons, accelerating protons (or other charged particles) and getting predictable (more or less) results. If results are stable particles as for example antiprotons, they can be stored in magnetic traps etc, and used in other experiments. If equation would be significantly wrong, as suggested in above paper 25% of our value, scientists wouldn't create new particles with exactly predicted mass and energy, would they?

 

ps. There was 0.994c not 0.94c. That little difference means 312% difference in energy.

Yes, if you have read the whole paper then you will find out that all these particles such as baryons,mesons,leptons,etc. are all originally an electron however the properties of them (UDP'S) are different but then they convert back to an electron after they decay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was my fault releasing this document on this forum, it appears you have not shown respect or at least attempted to read it, and no it is not my paper I am a high school student and I am obviously not qualified to write such a great paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was my fault releasing this document on this forum, it appears you have not shown respect or at least attempted to read it, and no it is not my paper I am a high school student and I am obviously not qualified to write such a great paper.

 

You don't have needed experience to judge whether it's "great paper" or "piece of garbage"..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You don't have needed experience to judge whether it's "great paper" or "piece of garbage"..

And how do you know? you dont even know my knowledge of physics and you're saying that

whats so bad about it ? does it use too much logic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello guys,

This paper contradicts everything we've been told about science and physics from the atomic structure to time , relativity , electric current , gravity and it explains every phenomenon including things like dark matter and dark energy.

 

It's wrong. That's why it contradicts these things.

whats so bad about it ? does it use too much logic?

 

Not enough math and not enough experimental confirmation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.