Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 17 1 2 3 4 16 17
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
And there is an obvious response to your byline you have Bill S.

"Rome did not become a world power under Caesar by discussing or proving theories it did so by killing and enslaving all those who opposed it"

Last edited by Orac; 08/24/11 05:24 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac

Incorrect it fails badly in ight of recent experiments I doubt you will find anyone buy copenhagen interpretation of light.
How does a particle go through two slits at the same time?
The bigger problem is how do you know the world has 3 dimensions

There has not been any concerted effort to modify the corpuscular theory. One failure cannot be the end.
If you consider light as stream of particles moving along a helical path, surely it will pass through two slits.
We are not aliens who just happened to be here. We have evolved in this universe. That is enough to think that we are not deceived by our sense organs. The laws of physics decide how the sense organs work.

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill

Finiter, if you have a better theory than QM and GR please provide an explanation of the precession of Mercury's perihelion, and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, using your theory. Since you have a way to explain the problems with Newtonian mechanics you must be able to explain those 2 problems.
Bill Gill

In spite of the concerted and coordinated efforts, it has not been possible to incorporate both QM and GR into a single theory. That cannot mean that both are incorrect. However we can suspect that something is wrong. What I am arguing is some alternate attempts can be made. If such an attempt wins, then what I think is that the model will be as per the standards that I have provided.
Does Newton's concept visualize a static orbit? If yes, you should think of an alternate possibility, other than GR. What I say is that no concerted action is being taken to carry forward research in that direction. Not that I have ready-made answers.

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Easy!!!!
The Cosmos is infinite; our perception of it is finite, so there will always be things that don't make sense to us. We find explanations, but they are only more sophisticated versions of the crystal spheres, which Higgs may be about to join.

The Cosmos may be infinite; but our universe is finite(that is what I propose). So within the finite universe, all things ought to make sense.

Last edited by finiter; 08/24/11 11:18 AM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter
In spite of the concerted and coordinated efforts, it has not been possible to incorporate both QM and GR into a single theory. That cannot mean that both are incorrect.


Incorrect totally it has not been possible to integrate QM into GR there are hundreds of ways to integrate GR into QM we even have play worlds (http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1674 commentary if you prefer http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/many_worlds_sausage_correct_quantum_factors-80570)

The problem for science is the same as your problem they prefer the physical world so they would prefer QM to slot neatly into GR.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 8
K
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
K
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 8
IS THE PHYSICAL WORLD REAL?
I PROPOSE MY

TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING!!!

Created and Written by Khalid Masood

“TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING” is ‘The Time Universe Theory!'
I propose, only Time exists in the Universe: “Time Creates Space, Life,
Consciousness, and the Universe Itself.”
"Time tells matter how to create, matter tells time how to survive !"
No particles, no waves, not both and no vibrating or dancing strings! Only
"FLUCTUATING EXTREME LEVELS OF ENERGY" write Everything of the Universe,
including our consciousness and also Theory pf Everything!!!

The only truth about the physical universe is that it is not physical. Life
and matter of this universe, is nothing but a physical illusion.

The smartest thing of the universe is universe itself. Universe is not only
small and finite. Universe ‘on the whole’ is smartest phenomenon of the
Universe. On the whole universe is shapeless, massless and weightless. I CAN
PICK IT UP !!!
Einstein’s “second law,” m = E/ c^2 i.e. m = E/ c2 [ How mass drives from
pure Energy] raises the question whether mass can be understood more deeply
as energy. And can we build, as Wheeler put it, "Mass Without Mass"? are the
best predictions in favour of my "Time Theory of Everything."
In my view the first question is “How pure energy drives from time?”. The
universe is not what it used to be, nor what it appears to be, as Frank W
ilczek of MIT quoted in first chapter ‘Getting to it’ of his book titled "The
Lightness of Being" [ mass, ether, and the unification of forces ] also
supports my theory. Infinity is finity on the whole.
There is nothing original under the physical phenomena. All physical
properties of the universe are secondary in nature.There is a universe behind
the ‘physical universe’ which is ‘dark’ and primary universe. If a “Theory of
Everything” is Holy Grail of cosmology, “Time Theory of Everything” is Holy
Grail of physics!
Physicists are hunting for an elusive particle that would reveal the presence
of a new kind of field that permeates all of reality. Finding that Higgs
field will give us a more complete understanding about how the elusive
universe works!
I believe in bold imagination in research. I believe universe is not acadamic,

and is not bound of our physical theories. Capture Higgs particle, ‘eyes on a
prize particle’, the search for the Higgs boson [God Particle] and creation
of micro black holes is nonsense idea.
Higgs boson is not destiny! We have to rethink TIME and ETERNITY.
Basic and primary stuff of the universe is not physical. All matter, energy
and fundamental forces of nature are secondary and reffered by a unified
primary force of nature. There is a ‘co-ordination force’ in between ‘God’
and all secondary forces of nature, which is more important than Higgs boson.
I suggest this force is time. Time is invisible presence and the only basic
building block of the universe and everything in it.

Time is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final

understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive,

that I have given it a nickname: 'The God Force'!

Time is at the very heart of physical discovery – from the nature of matter

to the origin of the universe.

It is also a fundamental driver of everything in the universe – many of

tomorrow’s discoveries and technologies will emerge from ‘Time physics.’

MOTHER OF ALL FUNDAMENTAL FORCES.
[A union of forces and time]

Time is mother of all fundamental forces.
"Forces-time" in which time exists as fifth force with four fundamental
forces.
Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of
time.
TIME is a coordination force of the universe and multiverse referred by
nature.
Nothing has independent existence except time. All three and extra dimensions
of space are of time’s dimensions. Time is not a 4th dimension of space. Time
is mother of all dimensions.
Password of time is in the Mind of God!
Tell me about the nature of time, I can create the Universe, a Macro Black
Hole, Higgs boson and even Life!
If all cosmologists of the world say a foolish thing it is still a foolish
thing!
I WILL CHANGE THE HISTORY OF TIME !
I have suggested in my "Time Theory Of Everything" that "God does not play
particles game with the Universe!"
Three of space and one of time that three space dimensions and one of time
dimension is wrong idea. Time is included in three space dimensions, but not
as a 4th dimension i.e all dimensions of space are dimensions of time.
TIME IS NOT A MANUFACTURED QUANTITY. Time has independent existence and
fundamental. Space is a manufactured quantity and secondary form of time. I
believe in infinite extra spatial dimensions of time only, and I know what
these dimensions are, but I don’t believe time as extra dimension with space.
I don’t believe in extra dimensions of space, I believe in extra dimensions
of time! Three dimensions of space and one dimension of time is absolutely
wrong idea. Our physical universe exists in three or 11 dimensions of time!
[as string theory proposed,10 of space and one of time dimension] “There
isn’t just one dimension of time,” says Itzhak Bars of the University of
Southern California in Los Angeles.”There are two. One whole dimension has
until now gone entirely unnoticed by us. Two time / 2T Physics” [New
scientist 13 October 2007, Hypertime, Cover story] Why we need two dimensions
of time? Why not we need 11 and many more dimensions of time?
Higgs boson should be named “TIME PARTICLE."

A NEW HYPOTHESIS:
Part2 [TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING]

EXTREME LEVEL THEORY:
The study of the theory that all fundamental particles and vibrating one-
dimensional strings are fluctuations of zero-dimensional and unidimensional
Extreme Levels Of Energy.

I don’t believe particles in any shape or dimensions as basic building blocks
of matter, energy, and everything in the universe. I have an alternative
“Fluctuating Extreme Levels” hypothesis which is a part of my “Time Theory of
Everything” [Extreme Level Theory] Extreme Level Theory suggests that basic
building blocks of everything in the universe are composed of ‘Fluctuating
Extreme Levels’ of energy. In ‘Extreme Level Theory’ of time, Extreme Levels
correspond to different entities and quantities. If Extreme Level Theory
proves correct, photons, electrons and neutrinos are different due to changes
in the fluctuations of extreme levels. Prior to Extreme Level Theory,
subatomic ‘particles’ were envisioned as tiny balls or points of energy.
Extreme Level Theory works on the premise that the tiniest subatomic bits
that make up the elements of atoms actually behave like ‘Fluctuating Extreme
Levels’ and not like vibrating or dancing strings! Higg’s Field is a “Time’s
Field”…….. Photon is no more now a particle, a wave, or has features of both!
Photon exist at fluctuating extreme level of energy.

TIME THEORY OF GRAVITY
Part 3 "TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING"

I believe in my 'physical' motto: "Time tells space how to create, space
tells time how to expand and bend."
Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of
time.
Gravity is a manifestation of time-space.
P.S: It's time-space and not space-time. TIME COMES FIRST.
Our entire research focus must be on "How time interact with matter and
energy?" and "Time, matter and energy, how they interact with each other?"
Time can take the form of motion, light, electricity, radiation, GRAVITY.....
just about anything honestly.
Time theory of gravity is the best rival of General Theory of Relativity and
Quantum Loop Gravity.

“TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING” will change the meaning of Matter, Energy,
Natural Forces, Consciousness, Life & Extraterrestrial Life and Death.

It's not time, it's matter which is disappearing from the universe.

I am part of the universe, as my heart is part of me.

Khalid Masood
khalidcustoms@gmail.com

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: KHALID MASOOD
IS THE PHYSICAL WORLD REAL?
I PROPOSE MY
TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING!!!

Have you developed the theory fully or is it just an idea?

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Great stuff, Kalid, I like good theory!

I think quite a lot of questions will arise from this,but experience says that it is not wise to ask too many at a time; so here are a couple for a start, just to make sure we are all on the same track.

Quote:
I propose, only Time exists in the Universe: “Time Creates Space, Life, Consciousness, and the Universe Itself.”
"Time tells matter how to create, matter tells time how to survive !"
No particles, no waves, not both and no vibrating or dancing strings! Only "FLUCTUATING EXTREME LEVELS OF ENERGY" write Everything of the Universe,


Is time energy in your theory?

Quote:
The only truth about the physical universe is that it is not physical. Life and matter of this universe, is nothing but a physical illusion. …………. I CAN PICK IT UP !!!


How can you pick up an illusion?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Kalid
Infinity is finity on the whole.


I was going to ask only two questins, but I couldn't let this quote pass without asking you for an explanation.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Bill S. You can't really expect a real answer from somebody who doesn't even bother to define his terms when he is making a supposedly scientific statement. Especially since his terms don't seem to match anything in the standard scientific vocabulary.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
One can always hope that he is just posting the outline to test reaction, and that clarity will follow as he answers questions. Perhaps I'm getteng naïve as well as ancient. frown


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
New ideas should be welcomed. In the beginning it will be just 'an idea'. The person himself will not be knowing what it is. So he will be vague. But if he has developed it further, he will be able to explain at lest the fundamentals in a clear way.

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: finiter
New ideas should be welcomed. In the beginning it will be just 'an idea'. The person himself will not be knowing what it is. So he will be vague. But if he has developed it further, he will be able to explain at lest the fundamentals in a clear way.

But if he doesn't even have the fundamentals clear in his own mind there is no way that he can show anybody else how his theory works. Before any body can start telling people about his wonderful idea he needs to get it clear in his own mind.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Bill
Before any body can start telling people about his wonderful idea he needs to get it clear in his own mind.


Unless, of course, that "body" needs some input to help to develop, or see the error of, the original idea; then he/she might be tempted to post the idea on a friendly, receptive forum to kick it around a bit. smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Obviously that body would need to answer questions in order to achieve the necessary feedback!


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Obviously that body would need to answer questions in order to achieve the necessary feedback!

Remember! Archimedes forgot the basics when he got a new idea! The excitement makes one forget the basics.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Remember! Archimedes forgot the basics when he got a new idea! The excitement makes one forget the basics.


Be that as it may, you have to re-focus on those basics if your idea is to develop into anything like a viable theory.

People will ask questions, and unless you answer those questions you run the risk of being written of as, at best, a dreamer, and, at worst, a crank.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Looking back through the thread I suspect we could be heading for a repeat of the ground we covered in posts #39750 - #39770. Rather than do that, lets have some answers so we can get the discussion process under way.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Coming back to the subject, I think that providing mathematical definitions for physical entities is the real problem. All physical quantities should be physically defined. Then the definitions will be simple and understandable. And the end result, I think, will be a 'real physical world' explained fully in unambiguous terms.

However, the most fundamental terms 'energy' and 'force' have no physical definitions. These are defined on the basis of Newton's laws of motion, which are mathematical. Newton, I think, considered his laws to be primarily mathematical. That may be the reason why he named the book as 'principia mathematica'.

The laws of motion, though mathematical, can be used for physical systems. But the physical system should be 'physically' defined before we use the laws. But, newton's laws are erroneously (in my opinion) used as physical laws, and the definitions turned out to be mathematical. So I think the correction should start from there.

Last edited by finiter; 08/31/11 11:19 AM.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: finiter
Coming back to the subject, I think that providing mathematical definitions for physical entities is the real problem. All physical quantities should be physically defined. Then the definitions will be simple and understandable. And the end result, I think, will be a 'real physical world' explained fully in unambiguous terms.

Well, in that case you need to provide a good physical definition of the Newton's laws without using any math. When you can do that, and show how to use them I may be ready to think that you have something worthwhile listening to. Otherwise you sound like one more troll spouting off to be heard.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Page 2 of 17 1 2 3 4 16 17

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5