Jump to content

A Unified Theory - by Dea Patricia Smegmasterson


psmegmasterson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dear Follower of Science Forums.


I invite you to read my unified theory. If you manage it all, or at least, sufficient to comprehend my message, I would be grateful if you would express your opinion, be it good, bad or indifferent, outside of the N.P.A. on an appropriate internet site such as a chat room, book review forum or the Amazon site to assist my publicity. This book will stay on this Science Forums site temporarily and will be available on Amazon's E-book site within the week where it will remain on sale as a download for £15-00. It is most easily found there by writer’s name. Thank you kindly for your interest and help. I look forward to finding and reading your comments on the internet over the next few months. According to your comments I may make this theory available as a hardback book which would have a selling price of approx. £40.00.



The book is available for full viewing here: ...but the author will provide a synopsis for discussion so you don't have to leave the site.


N.B. I am aware that many diagrams within the document are of poor quality - I will be uploading better quality versions of each chapter later this week.


Edited by Phi for All
links removed by moderator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

OK, our rules state that speculative science goes in Speculations, so we'll move there now.

 

Second, we'll need a synopsis of your idea, something to allow members to gauge their interest in digging deeper into your idea.

 

I'm assuming, since you call it a theory, that you have a mathematical model to share. That would be an excellent place to start.

 

Please take the time (this time) to read our rules, and the special rules for Speculations.

 

Lastly, please, no more advertising. That's also against our rules.

 

No need to respond to this in the thread, but you can Report This Post if you object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to use my book's preface as a summary..


Please then can you allow readers to view my book?


THIS BOOK IS WRITTEN FOR THE NON-SCIENTIFIC READER.

Contemporary science has given us a Big Bang origin to the universe, subatomic particles of astonishing diversity and with even more astonishing properties. We have cold dark matter which cannot be found. (Although they are spending a fortune of tax-payers’ money looking for it.) Particles that comprise atoms are also waves and sometimes they are part wave and part particle, although scientists are the first to acknowledge that particle and wave are mutually exclusive. We are also told that each subatomic particle exists everywhere (as a “superposition of wave states”), until it is observed, when it is where you see it, and much more besides.

Worryingly, laypersons who suggest this is nonsense are told, (very politely) that they are too stupid and/or ignortant to understand and scientists further try to protect their hallowed status by surrounding their theories (perhaps ‘encasing’ would be a more appropriate term) in arcane mathematics.

If you have read to here, this book is for you.

The writer takes you on a journey from the smallest scale to the far edge of the cosmos visiting many landmark experiments on the way and from each experiment new conclusions are drawn and these are built up into a complete and cohesive interpretation, what scientists call a, “Grand Unified Theory”. I dislike the “Grand”.

We discover an entirely new way of interpreting the natural world. A new and novel understand-ing of time emerges, and all the strange, indeed incomprehensible facets of quantum mechan-ics and relativity theory assume perfectly mundane explanations. You will also learn why light travels at the speed of light and why nothing else can ever exceed it. How a light wave can wave in a total vacuum, why objects get shorter and heavier as their velocity greatly increases towards the speed of light and much more.

There is a little simple arithmetic herein. It is not important to the revelations I offer you. It is there to show you how and why scientists have so abused it in order to hoodwink you. If you belong to the “I am useless at mathematics group” you can safely ignore the maths altogether. Please scan through the first few pages before you purchase and then buy with confidence. This book is not written for scientists, (I loathe them, as you soon discover), it is for ordinary people who belch, (quietly), when they have indigestion, fart, (discretely), and pick their noses occa-sionally, (in private), plebians, ordinary people just like you and me.

The central ideas for this hypothesis were well formed by 1951 and further refined and devel-oped in the decades up to 2005, when it was first put in writing. Since then I have added sections as ‘friendly scientists’ have pointed out shortcomings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you show from your idea how you would derive the altitude of a geostationary orbit over a planet?

 

 

Isn't a mathematical model more of a proof than theory?

All theories in physics are mathematical models. This is different to a mathematical proof in mathematics or a mathematical theory in mathematics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contemporary science has given us a Big Bang origin to the universe,
Nope, the scientists didn't give us a universe; it was there before we arived.
subatomic particles of astonishing diversity
Fewer then two dozen to explain everything in the universe is actually astonishingly simple.
and with even more astonishing properties.
Yes, some of those properties are very odd.
But they are real measured properties, if you don't like them, hard luck. it just means you don't like the universe you are in.
We have cold dark matter which cannot be found.
It was found- that's why we know it's there
(Although they are spending a fortune of tax-payers’ money looking for it.)
On the authority of politicians who, if the people chose otherwise, would not have paid for it. Have you a problem with democracy as well as reality?
Particles that comprise atoms are also waves and sometimes they are part wave and part particle, although scientists are the first to acknowledge that particle and wave are mutually exclusive.
No they are not, and thus no we do not.
We are also told that each subatomic particle exists everywhere (as a “superposition of wave states”), until it is observed, when it is where you see it, and much more besides.
And again, that's how the universe behaves. It's not as if the scientists told it to act like that, we just report the results. Nobody says you have to like it; it will carry on acting the way it does, whether you are happy about it or not.
Worryingly, laypersons who suggest this is nonsense are told, (very politely) that they are too stupid and/or ignortant to understand
Well, what would you suggest telling people who disagree with observed reality?
There is an alternative to "you are ignorant or stupid"
Most people don't like the third option- " you are insane because you don't accept the world for what it is"
and scientists further try to protect their hallowed status by surrounding their theories (perhaps ‘encasing’ would be a more appropriate term) in arcane mathematics.
OK, so your problem is that, because you can't do the maths, you assume it's some strange conspiracy.
Well, unless you actually have any evidence (and here's a hint; you don't) this thread is not going to be here long.
Also you need to change the title. this isn't a theory; at best it's a hypothesis.
I suspect it's actually a rant.
Here's what a scentific theory is
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3][4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature[citation needed]and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability" from
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I invite you to read my unified theory.

 

Let me quote myself from other thread with similar subject:

 

"Then you should have no problem of showing us how you are calculating f.e. decay energy of Tritium. Please show calcs."

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Allow me to use my book's preface as a summary..
Please then can you allow readers to view my book?

 

!

Moderator Note

Please address some of the reservations and refutations offered by the members. This is why we ask for a synopsis, to find the trivially wrong bits, point them out to you so you can strengthen your hypothesis or recognize that it's wrong. This is how science works.

 

I hope you can see why nobody is interested in investing their time without some assurance of return on that investment? If you only came to plug your book, I'm sorry, that's not our function. If you came for some loose peer review by science-minded professionals and amateurs in a discussion-type format, then let's talk some science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you came here to try to debunk science (I think things like "This book is not written for scientists, (I loathe them, as you soon discover)" suggests you might )then you already failed.

Do you understand that you are posting via a communication system, the design of which relied on all that science stuff in which you don't believe?

 

Every time you use the web you prove the science is right.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

DevilSolution's question "Isn't a mathematical model more of a proof than theory? " has been split http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92791-model-vs-proof-split-from-unified-theory/

 

 


 

This book is not written for scientists, (I loathe them, as you soon discover), it is for ordinary people who belch, (quietly), when they have indigestion, fart, (discretely), and pick their noses occa-sionally, (in private), plebians, ordinary people just like you and me.

 

I'm a scientist and I belch, fart, and occasionally pick my nose. I think you only know a caricature of who scientists are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Particles that comprise atoms are also waves and sometimes they are part wave and part particle, although scientists are the first to acknowledge that particle and wave are mutually exclusive.

You have misrepresented the situation here, and I think wilfully. Any physicist will tell you that classically particles and wave properties are mutually exclusive. However, they will point out that the distinction is not so in quantum theory. Elementary particles have properties of point-like objects and extended waves, depending on the experimental question asked.

 

Worryingly, laypersons who suggest this is nonsense are told, (very politely) that they are too stupid and/or ignortant to understand and scientists further try to protect their hallowed status by surrounding their theories (perhaps ‘encasing’ would be a more appropriate term) in arcane mathematics.

This is now getting offensive. There are several professional scientists here who give up their free time to help guide laypeople and students alike.

 

I also object to the term 'arcane mathematics'. While it is true that large parts of mathematics are understood only by a small number of people, the whole process is open. There is nothing secret about it.

 

A new and novel understand-ing of time emerges, and all the strange, indeed incomprehensible facets of quantum mechan-ics and relativity theory assume perfectly mundane explanations. You will also learn why light travels at the speed of light and why nothing else can ever exceed it. How a light wave can wave in a total vacuum, why objects get shorter and heavier as their velocity greatly increases towards the speed of light and much more.

It would be nice to see one of these explanations here. That said, if you really have new results or a new formulation of physics then it should be presented in a peer-review journal. That is what the rest of us do.

 

There is a little simple arithmetic herein.

I fear that will not be enough.

 

It is there to show you how and why scientists have so abused it in order to hoodwink you.

Please present some argument of that here. I am bewildered and offended by this comment.

 

If you belong to the “I am useless at mathematics group”...

That is me... though somehow I am making a living out of this ;-)

 

This book is not written for scientists, (I loathe them, as you soon discover), it is for ordinary people who belch, (quietly), when they have indigestion, fart, (discretely), and pick their noses occa-sionally, (in private), plebians, ordinary people just like you and me.

It is clear you have some disagreement with scientists. However, much like swansont, I too have some quite normal bodily functions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dates of each page are just referring to the dates of the original post - and the reason it's showing up on google is because this topic has shown up as the most recent thread under "New Posts" on the right hand side.
So none of those links reference me or my book, despite the google dates of the page. Check even the cache of the pages.

Goodness, you are quick to dismiss things aren't you. Can't even be bothered to look at a google result. Now you look like an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dates of each page are just referring to the dates of the original post - and the reason it's showing up on google is because this topic has shown up as the most recent thread under "New Posts" on the right hand side.

So none of those links reference me or my book, despite the google dates of the page. Check even the cache of the pages.

 

Goodness, you are quick to dismiss things aren't you. Can't even be bothered to look at a google result. Now you look like an idiot.

We've not dismissed, we've asked for some basic information and provided done feedback. Your lack of follow up is not what we expect from the minimum standard for speculations let alone someone claiming to have a unified theory.

 

Please review the speculation specific rules and forum rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodness, you are quick to dismiss things aren't you. Can't even be bothered to look at a google result. Now you look like an idiot.

So far your work has not exactly been dismissed. Though, you are clearly penitentially offensive in your wording. That will not warm scientists and mathematicians to you or your work.

 

Okay, so let us discuss some science...

 

You claim "You will also learn why light travels at the speed of light and why nothing else can ever exceed it."

 

With some provisos we understand that light travels at the maximum speed limit, this is both experimentally observed and part of the modern description of physics. The 'why' is always a little misleading and cannot really be answered. Mathematically we know that the speed c 'falls out' of Maxwell's equations and that this was really the start of special relativity. So, we mathematically know how to encode this speed limit: in special relativity this is really the statement that the Poincare group is the isometry group of space-time. (I.e. c is just written into the causal structure of space-time).

 

So that is more-or-less the standard physics answer. Can you now do something similar with your framework?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dates of each page are just referring to the dates of the original post - and the reason it's showing up on google is because this topic has shown up as the most recent thread under "New Posts" on the right hand side.

So none of those links reference me or my book, despite the google dates of the page. Check even the cache of the pages.

 

Goodness, you are quick to dismiss things aren't you. Can't even be bothered to look at a google result. Now you look like an idiot.

Actually, it was a valid search at the time because Google hadn't indexed the site yet so the references were to your work (rather tan the recent page citations).

Now, what was that about looking like an idiot?

 

Now, what's even more puzzling is that a search on Smegmasterson doesn't get any hits.

It's also an odd choice for a pseudonym.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you show from your idea how you would derive the altitude of a geostationary orbit over a planet?

 

 

 

All theories in physics are mathematical models. This is different to a mathematical proof in mathematics or a mathematical theory in mathematics.

 

The answer to this is the question is irrelevant, as it's my idea's concern of the structure of the atom. I have no argument with scientists who use the unsoundly based science to draw sound and excellent conclusions. My ideas concern theoretical matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to this is the question is irrelevant, as it's my idea's concern of the structure of the atom. I have no argument with scientists who use the unsoundly based science to draw sound and excellent conclusions. My ideas concern theoretical matters.

 

Theory eventually has to match observation to be accepted. What predictions do you make that can be evaluated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this being my first read of this thread my take on it is merely a rant... so far you've not answered a single question.

 

I also didn't see a single explanation on the basis of your unified theory. Sounds to me like your a salesman pitching a yarn without any facts or disclosure of the relevant information.

 

Not too impressive.

 

Tell me do you even know what is involved in a unified field theory, can you even understand the older SO(5)*SO(3)*SO(2)*U(1) standard model? (Georgia-Glashow model).

 

Do you even understand lie algebra or what a coupling constant is?

 

Judging from what you wrote about little math involved the answer is "your tooting your horn over nothing"

 

Perhaps you should Google the term grand unification and include pdf.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Via the Report feature, the OP has suggested that this work MUST be viewed as a whole, without picking at the individual threads in the process. This would require each participant in the discussion to have read the OP's book, from which our members have requested to be spared (Rule 2.7).

 

Further, this is not how even loose peer review works. You can't expect scientists in any field to let you get away with "Read the whole thing in its entirety or you won't understand" when you start out with something like "First mix the cement with adequate amounts of milk". Picking at inconsistencies and errors, especially early on in an idea, is what makes a scientific hypothesis strong, or shows it's wrong.

 

We require a synopsis of this idea. We're here to discuss the science of it, but we aren't here to broaden your readership, or listen to you gripe about past treatment. We want to discuss any viable science in your idea. We don't want to spend any more of this year or next on hearing how stupid scientists are, or how any bull-headed/curmudgeonly/stuck-in-the-mud stereotype you dream up keeps you from being able to discuss the science.

 

We're waiting to discuss the science.

 

Again, if you have problems with this post (or my "methodology"?), Report it rather than waste further Unified Theory discussion time on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it was a valid search at the time because Google hadn't indexed the site yet so the references were to your work (rather tan the recent page citations).

Now, what was that about looking like an idiot?

 

Now, what's even more puzzling is that a search on Smegmasterson doesn't get any hits.

It's also an odd choice for a pseudonym.

I am just a friend putting on Mr Smegmasterson's book online here for viewing.

That was me posting the reply about Google's cache of the page. My argument still stands.. when "Studiot" stated it goes back 10 years, this is rubbish since when you view the google cache of one of the hits, it doesn't reference Smegmasterson or the book name anywhere, apart from "recent posts", and it wasn't a recent post back in 2007 for example, but that 2007 date is the date of the last post on that thread, but new threads are cached alongside the thread in the "New Posts" window at the side.

 

 

I was with Mr Smegmasterson the other day, and had answered MANY questions on here with him dictating replies to me, only to discover that they seem to have been removed, possibly by the Admin?

Edited by psmegmasterson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was with Mr Smegmasterson the other day, and had answered MANY questions on here with him dictating replies to me, only to discover that they seem to have been removed, possibly by the Admin?

 

!

Moderator Note

One of the Admin's Rules for Moderators is not to delete anything. Moderators only "hide" posts for valid reasons, like when people keep talking about everything BUT the science. They show up gray for us, and we can toggle them back into view if another Mod thinks it's unfair.

 

No posts have been hidden in this thread.

 

If you posted in this thread and it's not here now, I would fire your computer guru today.

 

A reconstruction of what you lost would be more constructive than talking about losing it, at this point, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.