Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Is the physical world real?

If we are allowed to throw QM out the GR explains everything left, it is without fault, so why do we need your theory?

Sorry I can't take anyone seriously who throws QM out as a mistake, no more than I believe the earth is flat and a giant turtle carries it around, those two theories are in the same league they defy any belief at science.

Surely Gauss's law (theorum)relates to electrical charge; so it would apply to gravity only if you could show a real link between the two. You would need to do more than simply state that there was a link, but you probably have done the maths already. You have obviously thought much about it.

In my model any spin is real spin, not just an un-explainable phenomenon. Saying that the two electrons in an orbit have just different spins, without explaining what spin means, is just ridiculous. I propose that the two electrons actually spin, and at any instant, their spins are in the same direction with respect to the direction of motion.

I don't think there is any physical idea regarding the spin of photons at present. In my model, the particles of matter in light follows a helical path; the helix may be clockwise or anticlockwise.

The three real forces, electrostatic, magnetic and gravitational, have fields and obey the inverse square law. Thus there is enough logic to assume that Gauss's law will be valid for gravity.

Of course, I have mathematical proof to show that the electrostatic energy of an electron is mc^2/4. When two electrons touch each other,the force is the maximum and I propose that the whole electrostatic energy is used then. If we use the classical radius of electron, then the above result can be obtained. The gravitational energy of electron is also the same, mc^2/4. So for calculating electrostatic force between electron and a positron, we can use the gravitational constant of electron. And, it is possible to derive the present value of G from the gravitational constant of electron.

That's getting a bit technical for me, Finiter.

I think I see what you are saying, but by my own definition of understanding: "If you can't ask an intelligent question about it, you don't understand it." I need to think about it.

No doubt Orac will come in on it, that might help!

Not me ... no comment ... :-)

To many observations you have to discard to make whats left work and at the end I don't think you have an improvement on GR it explains no more I think probably alot less.

Bill S. The problem with Finiters ideas is that he doesn't really share them. He makes a lot of statements, and doesn't explain how they are generated. Without an explanation of his theory that we can follow we don't really have any way to evaluate it. Keep in mind that any physical theory has to be validated by experiment before it becomes any more than a hypothesis. So far Finiter hasn't even told us in detail what his theory is.

Science requires that any hypothesis must be stated in enough detail so that others can evaluate it. Worked out examples are invaluable, so that people can check the work to see if it is correct. With no more than Finiter has given us the only conclusion I can reach is that he is a crackpot who is trying to push an impossible theory. If he does have a real theory he will have to come up with something more than he has given us so far.

Bill Gill

There you have it, Finiter.

How about silencing any detractors by posting your whole theory. I can't offer to do more than ask naïve questions, but there are obviously others who can do more. Who knows, there could be a Nobel Prize waiting.

I have compiled my findings in the form of a book (nearly 300 pages). If I post just the very essential parts only, then also, the post will be very large and no body will go through it. If I provide just the skeleton work, then as pointed out by Bill, it will not be enough to verify the theory. So I chose to discuss some points where I differ from the existing concepts (to make sure that I haven't gone wrong).

If you are interested, I will give you the name of my book (don't think I am promoting my book; it is available in the market, but has not taken off).

I agree with all you have stated, except the conclusion that you have arrived at. Here I have put forth an alternate view regarding the physical world, just to discuss it. As a part of it, I have put forth some of my differing views, which I consider to be logical (only logical, may not be correct).

Finiter, the problem with your hypothesis is that there are so many experimental results that completely disagree with what you have said. And that is a fact. You cannot just say that the widely disseminated experimental results are all wrong. You have to show how they are wrong and provide a better explanation of what is happening. And you have completely failed to do that. Therefore what you are saying has no basis and nobody should be paying any attention to it.

You say you have written a book about it and it has not taken off, presumably because it is too large. Well, Newton wrote a big book and it was hard to read, but it took off. Maybe if you wrote one that made sense, the way Newton did, it would take off too.

Bill Gill

Finiter, I would certainly be interested to know about your book.

Did you find a publisher willing to commission it, or did you self-publish?

BTW, Finiter, does your book define reality?

I got it self-published. It is available in Amazon.com. Title: "The Realty of the Physical World"
The book contains my findings based on the assumption that the Physical world is real. Starting from the fundamental particle of matter and ending with an Ensemble containing billions of universes, everything is explained verbally (to explain the reality, verbal explanation is enough). To prove that the verbal model is workable, mathematical calculations are required, and so the mathematical part is given as an appendix.

The reality can be defined as follows: "Every object (including light) in the universe is three-dimensional; the mass of the object, the space occupied by it, and the period of time that it remains 'at a particular position/ in any particular form' is greater than zero". That is, the values of mass, space and time cannot be negative.

My hypotheses does not go against any observations(as far as I know). But, explanations differ; certainly, it goes against existing explanations, not against existing observations.

The book has been made available only recently. As a matter of fact, I am not sure that what I have written is correct. However, it is logical and so I claim that it is correct (as an appeal).

Ok, let's step back and look at this answer from some time back. Notice that Finiter doesn't bother to actually try to answer the question. He just waves his hands and goes blithely off in a new direction where he is obviously (by his estimate) right. A sure sign of a crackpot that isn't interested in actually showing how his idea works.

By the way Finiter, I looked up your book on Amazon.com and unfortunately they didn't find anything like it when I did a search. Are you sure it is available?

Bill Gill

He miss spelled (as I just did) "reality" if you cut an pasted

http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Physical-World-Ultimate-physics/dp/1460937481

This 1 has an abstract
http://pothi.com/pothi/book/jose-p-koshy-reality-physical-world


Whats the reasoning behind the time-loop finiter .. the universe is spinning like a big sphere or it just is a big sphere globe?

>>> Light moves along a circular path and takes 12.85 billion years to complete one revolution <<<


I have to give this one some thought after a bit of reading .. tell you what I think.

The universe is not spinning. It is pulsating. The fundamental particle of matter moves along a helical path having a circular axis, and thus returns back. It takes 51.4 billion years for that. The universe, which is the final product of the integration of such particles, takes the same time for one pulsation.

Electromagnetic radiations are streams of pairs of fundamental particles. As the mass of the pair is double, the radius of the circular path is one-fourth, and so light takes only 12.85 billion years for one revolution.

The above value was obtained as follows: First, a three dimensional wave pattern was visualized for electromagnetic radiations; it was followed by models for the internal structures of electron and neutron. The radiation having the highest energy will have a mass of neutron (as per my model). So from the known values such as, the mass of neutron, planks constant and speed of light, the physical constants of the fundamental particle were deduced using my models.

Sorry, I misspelled the word reality. To explain the new model of electromagnetic radiations, I have to start from the very beginning. The net picture is that fundamental particles integrate into pairs which remain at the diametrically opposite sides of a double helix, and they move along their respective helical paths. The motion is wave like, and naturally, an interference pattern will be created when a beam passes through a double slit. This is a theoretical possibility based on my model, and so I think that my model does not go against observation in that case.

Finiter, I think you are confusing to different things here. You are talking about G. G in standard physics is the universal gravitational constant, which you say is so. But then you talk about the measured value of G. In standard physics G is not measured. G is a calculated value based on observations of the interaction of various masses.

Strictly speaking G is the proportionality constant in the mathematical formulation of Newtons law of gravitation.

F = G*(m1*m2)/r^2

So given 2 masses of known value at a known distance apart you can measure the force between them and calculate G.

Also of course this value has been found to be constant for all measurements, including those on Earth and those at large distances from the Earth. It appears that you are speaking of the force between bodies as G. This is incorrect. Of course this doesn't matter, because from what you have told us in this thread your theory is incapable of providing a better explanation of the working of the universe than existing accepted theories, and therefore we can from hence forth ignore it, which is what I plan to do.

Bill Gill