Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / July 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

A Theory of Everything that explains Gravity, Magnetisim, Electrostatic force

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
franklinhu@yahoo.com - 24 Jul 2005 06:18 GMT
This article will attempt to describe a "Theory of Everything" that
draws a single unbroken thread through many unexplained physical
phenomenon. It will start with the very structure of space and expand
to provide possible explanations for the matter/energy relationship,
anti-matter, Planck's constant, hydrogen spectra, atomic structure,
magnetism, electrostatic force, gravity, dark energy, time-dialation,
strong force, mass, inertia, and atomic chemical properties. This
theory is only described here as a high level summary and each
paragraph deserves a more detailed treatment and justification, so this
is just a start. This theory generally summarizes ideas that I have
previously posted on the usenet. These can be found by searching for
franklinhu@yahoo.com.

So here goes (this is a long post) . . .

The fundamental building blocks of the universe consist only of the
proton and electron. Bound together, these form a neutral neutrino-like
particle. This particle fills all of empty space and makes up the
aether of empty space. It can be thought of as a matrix of alternating
protons and electrons and forms a crystal structure like salt (NaCl).
Electromagnetic waves travel through the crystal neutrino sea.

Due to the almost completely neutral nature of the neutrino sea, we do
not detect it. We can only detect extra protons and electrons which do
not belong to neutrino sea. If you send a sufficiently high energy
electromagnetic wave (gamma ray) though the aether, you can break apart
a neutrino and eject an electron from the matrix and it also leaves
behind a hole in the matrix which we see as positively charged because
of the surrounding aether particles. The hole is what anti-matter is.
The energy required to generate a matter/anti-matter pair goes
according to E = ½ mv^2 where the velocity is the speed of light
because at this scale, everything happens at the speed of light.  This
generally reduces to E = mc^2 since the ½ is only a constant of
proportionality and this is the fundamental reason behind the
energy/matter relationship.

Since anti-matter is truly an "empty hole" space in the aether
matrix, it is unlikely that these holes would group together to form
bigger holes or clumps like real matter does. Emptiness does not
attract other emptiness. So this may explain why we do not see much
anti-matter in the universe and why we don't see larger anti-atoms
than anti-hydrogen.

Since electromagnetic waves travel through the aether, the aether
determines a fundamental unit of length and of energy. The size of the
aether particle determines the smallest possible dimension. Nothing
which moves can move in a unit which is smaller than the dimension of
the aether particle. Since distance is quantized, this also quantizes
the amount of energy that can be stored in the aether. The aether acts
as if it were attached with tiny springs and the energy is stored in
the springs when they are stretched or compressed. Since distance comes
in fixed amounts, the amount of energy stored in the springs also comes
in fixed amounts.

This fixed amount of energy expresses itself in Planck's constant.
All electromagnetic energy must come in some fixed multiple of
Planck's constant and is a direct consequence of the dimensions of
the aether particle. Planck's constant itself fundamentally expresses
the minimum amount of energy contained In a single electromagnetic wave
cycle of any frequency. The amplitude of a wave can be greater by some
multiple of Planck's constant, but can never be less.

The fixed dimension of an aether particle also controls the position of
an electron around a proton. An electron's distance can only exist as
multiples of the size of the aether particle. The electrostatic force
is proportional to 1/r^2 where r is the width of an aether particle.
The Rydberg constant ( R ) represents the amount of energy an electron
has when it is separated from a proton by 1 aether particle. The energy
for positions further away trivally follows the equation E = R/n^2
where n represents any integer since the distance can only come in
whole integer values. The Balmer formula follows from this relationship
and explains the spectra of the hydrogen atom.

The spectra is only generated while a hydrogen atom is ionized and the
path of the electron is a random vertical movement from level to level
around the proton like a jumping bean. It emits electromagnetic
radiation as long as there is enough energy to ionize the electron.
When there isn't enough energy to ionize the electron, it falls back
to the center of the atom as is classically predicted. At this point,
the proton and electron are statically bound together like two magnets.
The electron is not moving around the proton in any manner in the
ground state which explains why electrons do not emit electromagnetic
energy in the ground state. All electrons fall back to the center of
the atom in the ground state.

The aether also mediates the magnetic force. The aether particles have
a small dipole which causes one side to be slightly positive and the
other to be negative. This causes them to tend to line up positive
facing negative. Moving electric charges tend to line up the aether
particles in a particular direction. Where ever we see an alignment of
the aether particles, we see a magnetic line of force. When the aether
particles are lined up facing positive to positive, it causes a
repelling, while when lined up positive to negative, causes an
attraction. So the magnetic force is created by the electrostatic
forces generated by alignment the aether. This unites the magnetic
force with the electrostatic force.

The basic electrostatic force between protons and electrons is caused
by protons and electrons oscillating out of phase. Particles which
oscillate in phase, repel while particles that oscillate out of phase
attract. The oscillation of the particles is caused by random thermal
energy which makes the particles ring like bells at a specific
frequency and phase. These oscillations are carried by the aether out
through space and are the fundamental cause of electrostatic
attraction.

The proton and electron are not symmetric. The protons are typically
bound to a material while the electrons are relatively free to wander.
The asymmetry leads to situation where a typical mass will have more
protons than electrons, or will somehow have a slightly positive
charge. This slight charge imbalance added up over the mass of the
Earth makes for a very large positive charge field coming from the
Earth and other massive objects. This positive field pulls on any
neutral matter like a charged balloon attracts neutrally charged pieces
of paper. This causes any uncharged matter to stick to the Earth like a
bad case of static cling. This is the fundamental cause of gravity.
Gravity is nothing more than a strong electrostatic field and therefore
this unites the electrostatic and gravity force.

The evidence for the electrostatic field comes from direct measurements
of the field at 120 volts/meter at ground level and the 300,000 volt
difference between the Earth and space. Viewing the Earth as a
positively charged ball would also explain why charge separation occurs
in thunderclouds whereby the negative charges are attracted to the
bottom of the cloud while the positive charges are attracted to the
top.

This overall charge separation may explain the origin of Earth's
magnetic field. As charges are separated in the atmosphere, they are
driven at different speeds and directions in the upper and lower
atmosphere. These unbalanced charges act as moving charge masses which
generate their own magnetic field. Charts of movement and direction of
the Earth's local magnetic field match charts of the wind currents on
the Earth. This magnetic field caused by the atmospheric jump starts
the main magnetic field in the iron core of the spinning Earth. In this
way, the primary direction of the North/South poles is determined by
the overall sum of the atmospheric currents. A reversal of the poles
could just be a matter of a change in the weather to drive the poles in
the opposite direction.

Since gravity is caused by an overall positive electrostatic charge on
an object, this would mean that all astronomical objects like the Earth
and Moon would be positively charged. They do not repel each other
since most of the mass (99.999999999%) of astronomical objects still
neutrally charged. The neutrally charged matter is still attracted to
any strong electrostatic force. The attraction of the neutrally charged
matter overwhelms the repulsion created by the tiny amount of charged
matter. So similarly charged objects, do not necessarily repel. The net
force is the result of the attraction of the neutral matter versus the
repelling of the similarly charged matter. So the Earth and Moon can
both be net positively charged, but still attract.

At larger intergalactic scales, the net positive charge of all objects
may not get cancelled out by the presence of neutral matter because at
this scale, galaxies begin to look like one huge positively charged
particle and they repel each other at intergalactic distances. This may
explain why matter appears to repel each other at this scale and form
into bubbles and sheets from a sort of anti-gravity effect which has
been described as the dark energy.

The electrostatic gravitational force bears down on all normal matter,
but it also affects the aether since the aether is made up of dipoles
which are attracted to the electrostatic charge of the Earth. This
causes the aether to build up much denser closer to the Earth than
farther away. It does this in a manner which is similar to how the
atmosphere is denser towards the ground. The aether may act exactly
like the atmosphere in that it is normally dragged along with the Earth
and if you are in a room with no air movement, the aether is still as
well. This could explain the null results of the Michelson-Morely
experiment which is used to disprove the existence of the aether but
really only showed that the aether was not moving.

The changing aether density also produces time dilation effects. Clocks
in a higher density aether, run slower than clocks in a lighter density
aether. The reason for this is that every activity (like atoms
resonating in an atomic clock) is mediated by the aether and if there
are more aether particles between point A and point B, it takes longer
for any effect from point A to reach point B simply because it has to
go past more particles. So this explains why clocks run slower on the
Earth, than they do in orbit. The rate that a mechanical clock runs is
a function of the density of the aether that it is running in. This
also explains the bending of light around massive objects since the
density changes produce a simple refraction effect through the aether.

Another time dilation effect may also be caused by an object traveling
through the aether. As an object goes faster through the aether, this
also has the effect of putting more particles between any fixed point A
and B. This will also slow down any mechanical clock and may explain
the time dilation effects seen on atomic clocks which are placed in
motion.

At the smallest scale, atoms are formed from free electrons and protons
that are not bound into the aether matrix. They also tend to form into
an alternating proton/electron matrix. They tend to form the most
compact form possible but are always an evenly spaced alternating
checkerboard matrix of protons and electrons. The atom is not a compact
nucleus containing only protons and neutrons with the electrons on the
outside. Since there is not need to compress all of the protons into a
tiny space, there is not need to have a "strong" force which keeps
the protons together at close range.

The normal electrostatic force is sufficient to keep an alternating
array of protons and electrons together. Therefore, the strong and weak
forces can be eliminated as faulty figments of our mistaken view that
the nucleus is a compact structure which only contains protons and
neutrons. The view that atom contains a compact nucleus come from
comparatively crude scattering experiments and are a very indirect
measure of the size of the atom and its components.

Atoms, protons and electrons exist within the matrix of the aether, so
in order to move, they must push the aether out of the way. The aether
has a slight dipole, so it takes some energy to separate the aether
particles. The amount of energy depends on the effective size of the
particle. A larger sized particle takes more energy. In the case of a
proton and an electron, the effective size of a proton is about 1800
times as large as an electron. This size is proportional to what we
call "mass", so a proton is about 1800 times as massive as an
electron.

What we call mass is really a measure of how difficult it is to push an
object through the aether. If we assume that the protons and electrons
in atoms are separated and surrounded by at least 1 aether particle on
all sides, then the total effort required to push an atom through the
aether is just the sum of the efforts required for the protons and
electrons that make up the atom. However, the binding of protons and
electrons into neutrons may reduce the effective size of the pair and
thus the mass. This would help explain why atoms have less mass than
their individual components.

When a particle moves, it breaks apart an aether bond, but as it passes
by, the aether bond will reform after the particle passes. When the
bond reforms, it will propel the particle forward with the same energy
it took to separate the aether bond in the first place. This is like a
pea shooting out between two round attracting magnets. Since the energy
is returned back to the particle, it can continue its forward movement
by constantly breaking and reforming aether bonds. This keeps the
particle in motion, once it is put into motion. This is the fundamental
cause of inertia.

Since inertia only depends on the total number of particles in an
object and since the force of gravity depends only on the number of
proton/electron pairs which are contained in an object, the force of
inertia and the gravitational force will be proportional to one
another. The total number of particles in an object is generally twice
the number of proton/electron pairs (which form a dipole which is
attracted to a charge source). This is the reason for the linkage
between inertial mass and gravitational mass.

The chemical properties of the atoms are determined by the geometrical
shape of the atom formed by alternating protons and electrons. This
shape also determines the ionization energy for the electrons in the
atom. Electrons which are contained on the outside of the atom have a
lower ionization energy than for those on the inside of the atom. The
particular shape of the outside of the atom determines how many atoms
can be attached. This is more like a tinker-toy model where each piece
only has so many places where pegs can be attached. The atoms
physically touch and mate together when they form chemical compounds.
fhutoe

That's all folks, have fun with it.
Sam Wormley - 24 Jul 2005 06:24 GMT
 *Plonk*
satya - 24 Jul 2005 07:23 GMT
I too have been thinking about the structure of the universe and am not
satisfied with the explantion for why our  place in space is epanding
at an excelerating speed. does any one know if antimatter has
antigraveity. The last time i cecked no one had ever made enough
antimatter to measure its effect. Please, let me know.
EinsteinHoax - 24 Jul 2005 18:08 GMT
>I too have been thinking about the structure of the universe and am not
> satisfied with the explantion for why our  place in space is epanding
> at an excelerating speed. does any one know if antimatter has
> antigraveity. The last time i cecked no one had ever made enough
> antimatter to measure its effect. Please, let me know.

It doesn't.
franklinhu@yahoo.com - 25 Jul 2005 06:15 GMT
In my TOE (theory of everything), antimatter only exists in small
pockets and actually has no characteristics at all since it is
literally an empty hole in an otherwise completely filled space. So it
would not emit any kind of anti-gravity. Since no one has been able to
make anything other than anti-hydrogen for a fleeting moment, it has
been impossible to measure it's gravity/anti-gravity effect.

You mention the effect that space is expanding at an excellerating
speed. This can have 2 meanings. One meaning is the observed reshift
gets larger the further you look out into the galaxy. This means that
the further you look out, things get faster. I personally do not
believe that the redshift is due to the doppler effect and indicates
speed. If you look at waves in water, the frequency decreases
(redshifts) the further you go away from the source. I see no reason
why light might not do the same thing. This is generally known as the
tired light theory, but I have not seen it convincingly denounced. In
fact, I would find it more amazing if the frequency of a photon didn't
change at all from the time it was emitted after travelling trillions
of miles through 'god knows what' to reach the Earth.

The other meaning is that at larger scales, the galaxies appear to push
away from each other. I have provided an explanation that the repulsion
is due to each galaxy being positively charged and thus they repel due
to simple electrostatic repulsion.
Bill Hobba - 24 Jul 2005 06:46 GMT
franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote 'The fundamental building blocks of the universe
consist only of the proton and electron.'

DOA - can not explain for example the photoelectric effect.

Bill
franklinhu@yahoo.com - 25 Jul 2005 06:04 GMT
What does the photoelectric effect have to do with the universe being
made up of protons/electrons? A photon which is a wave carried through
the aether hits an atomic surface and emits electrons, where's the
contradition. Please elaborate.
Bill Hobba - 25 Jul 2005 11:16 GMT
> What does the photoelectric effect have to do with the universe being
> made up of protons/electrons?

It also contains photons.

> A photon which is a wave carried through
> the aether hits an atomic surface and emits electrons, where's the
> contradition. Please elaborate.

That is the exact point - the photoelectric effect shows it can not be a
wave.

Bill
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) - 25 Jul 2005 14:32 GMT
Dear franklinhu:

> What does the photoelectric effect have to do with the
> universe being made up of protons/electrons? A photon
> which is a wave carried through the aether hits an
> atomic surface and emits electrons, where's the
> contradition. Please elaborate.

Provide a "monochromatic" light source.  Impinge the light on a
surface used for photoelectric detection.  If the wavelength is
below a threshold, no photoelectrons are emitted.  At-or-above
the threshold, the numbers of photoelectrons liberated is
proportional to incident light intensity.  Note that "resonance"
fails, since a system has a finite series of resonant
frequencies.

Waves add for higher energies.  But you can increase the
intensity of a light source with too long a wavelength for
photoelectron release, and no photoelectrons are released (unless
you manage to heat the surface).  So waves-on/in-aether is simply
a model with limited domain of applicability.

David A. Smith
franlorin@mail.com - 27 Jul 2005 23:26 GMT
FYI, Franklinhu, your thread discusses a "Theory of ... that explains
Gravity..." - but why not consider a recently patented "Gravitational Wave
Generator Utilizing Submicroscopic Energizable Elements"? (US Patent Nos.
6160336, 6417597 and 6784591) - it would seem to be already practical to
manipulate gravity (in the form of waves) based on these patents

Patentee Dr. Robert M. L. Baker, Jr. (www.drrobertbaker.com, and
www.gravwave.com) has very impressive credentials, so it seems that these
patents may be based on concrete concepts - of course the military should be
impressed with the concept of a "gravity wave generator" and may want to
apply the concepts - is a "theory" very far away?

Fran Lorin
www.patent.0catch.com

x--   100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
x--   30+ Days Binary Retention with High Completion
x--   Access to over 1.9 Terabytes per Day - $8.95/Month
x--   UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD
John Sefton - 24 Jul 2005 16:30 GMT
> This article will attempt to describe a "Theory of Everything" that
> draws a single unbroken thread through many unexplained physical
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> not detect it. We can only detect extra protons and electrons which do
> not belong to neutrino sea.

OK, whoa. We gotta change some terminology, but
I like this first part.
Instead of proton and electron, think
charge.
A volume of space like a 'charge droplet'
which can be positive or negative.
Now, like you say, these naturally overlie
each other and cancel each other out.
Is this the Dirac charge sea- no, this is a
sea of matched charge-pairs.
So drop neutrino- it's already in use anyway,
and call them charge pairs.
Now spin your charge pair and they separate
into some sort of particle
and you're off! Have fun. :-)

John
Galaxy Model (Charge pair model)
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
franklinhu@yahoo.com - 25 Jul 2005 06:40 GMT
I took a brief look at your website http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/

You start with the postulate that the charge-pair exists, but you do
not say what it consists of and how it comes into existence. All
theories have to start with some postulates, but theories which have
fewer or more basic posutlates are considered better. I think my TOE
does go deeper to explain what the charge pairs are made up of and how
they come into existence, so I think it is superior to think of protons
and electrons which we are familiar with and know with certanty they
exist, rather than the vauge term 'charge'. I would agree that the
charge-pair might not be a neutrino, but since it is a physically
observed particle, it must fit somewhere into the framework of the
theory, so I think it really may be the neutrino is nothing more than
an aether particle in motion.

Your theory relies on spin to give a particle wave characteristics.
However, your model assumes an almost completely particle like model.
It cannot explain how a photon when acting like a wave, emits a
spherically shaped electromagnetic wave in all directions which
decreases in strength 1/r^2. This is similar to how a sound wave from a
clap expands in all directions. A single charge-pair cannot expand out
into all directions simultaneously. This is why my TOE reduces all
phenomenon down to only wave phenomenon. I believe that all of the
experiments showing that light acts as a particle as being inconclusive
or have been incorrectly interpreted. For example, in previous
discussions, it was agreed that if a photon was a wave train, that this
could explain the photoelectric effect. A wave train is still made of
waves and not particles. The other experiment is the Compton Effect
which I have been working on a solution based on my TOE. I have not
found the solution yet, but my intuition is telling my that the effect
can be more simply explained in terms of the aether matrix.
Tim Golden - 25 Jul 2005 14:43 GMT
I prefer the abstract charge.
It is more theoretical.
The use of empirical particles makes less sense.

-Tim
The Ghost In The Machine - 24 Jul 2005 17:00 GMT
In sci.physics, franklinhu@yahoo.com
<franklinhu@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 23 Jul 2005 22:18:51 -0700
<1122182331.926238.53740@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> This article will attempt to describe a "Theory of Everything" that
> draws a single unbroken thread through many unexplained physical
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> The fundamental building blocks of the universe consist only of the
> proton and electron.

Whoops.  Proton is uud.  Neutron is udd.  Electron is a primitive
component.  Put them together and one get nothing strange, charming,
toppish, or bottomish, all of which have been indirectly shown in various
experiments.

> Bound together, these form a neutral neutrino-like
> particle.

Try "NEUTRON-like" and you might have a case.  As it is, a
proton + an electron does, for some reason, make a neutron,
by converting an up quark to a down.  I'm not entirely
certain I can explain why.

As it is, the neutrino (any of the three types) has far
too little mass to be the combination of a proton and
an electron.

(It makes up for it by going really really fast. :-) )

> This particle fills all of empty space and makes up the
> aether of empty space. It can be thought of as a matrix of alternating
> protons and electrons and forms a crystal structure like salt (NaCl).
> Electromagnetic waves travel through the crystal neutrino sea.

This is perilously close to a rigid luminiferous aether.
Watch your step!

> Due to the almost completely neutral nature of the neutrino sea, we do
> not detect it. We can only detect extra protons and electrons which do
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> behind a hole in the matrix which we see as positively charged because
> of the surrounding aether particles. The hole is what anti-matter is.

Hmm...you've been reading semiconductor literature, I take it. :-)

> The energy required to generate a matter/anti-matter pair goes
> according to E = ½ mv^2 where the velocity is the speed of light
> because at this scale, everything happens at the speed of light.  This
> generally reduces to E = mc^2 since the ½ is only a constant of
> proportionality and this is the fundamental reason behind the
> energy/matter relationship.

Strike three, you're out.  The E = 1/2 m v^2 is the second term of
the formula E = m_0 * c^2 * g, where m_0 is an outdated concept
(the rest mass), g is the gamma corrective factor (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)),
and c is the speed of light.  This is readily verifiable in
particle accelerators, although at this point the updated formula
is more along the lines of E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, where p is
the particle's momentum.

Expand it out and one gets:

m_0 * (c^2 + 1/2 v^2 + 3/8 v^4/c^2 + 5/16 v^6/c^4 + ...)

Note the second term.

[rest snipped]

Signature

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

franklinhu@yahoo.com - 25 Jul 2005 07:12 GMT
> Try "NEUTRON-like" and you might have a case.  As it is, a
> proton + an electron does, for some reason, make a neutron,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> (It makes up for it by going really really fast. :-) )

My TOE does have the limit that it doesn't explain the breakdown of
protons and electrons into quarks. However, these quarks do not exist
by themselves and because of that, I do not consider them fundamental
particles. No one knows what a neutrino is really made of. All we
really know is that carries energy and can pass through practically
anything. This mysterious particle must fit into a TOE, so I place it
as the fundamental aether particle. It could either be an aether
particle traveling within the aether matrix, or it may just be a very
short wave packet travelling through the aether. This would be like if
you line up some billiard balls and you hit one end, it ejects a
billiard ball at the other end. Nothing moves, but energy is
transferred. The observed reactions and properties of the neutrino
would be consistent with aether explanation. It has not mass since no
movment of mass is involved, and it can travel through anything since
it is only a very local shock wave through the aether and whether it
passes by another aether particle or the matrix of an atom makes little
difference.

The aether particle, neutrons and neutrinos may in fact be exactly the
same proton/electron charge pair. This provides a nice unification for
my TOE. The properties are different due to their different geometric
placement. The aether particle is like a sugar cube in a box of sugar
cubes. A neutron is like what would happen if you attempted to stuff
another sugar cube into the box. It simply doesn't fit and locally
distorts the arrangement of cubes within the box. A lone neutron cannot
exist by itself due to the strain of this arrangement and is likely to
disintegrate. The neutron within the atom is really a trapped aether
particle. It finds support among the alternating proton/electron pairs
in the atom and so it can remain stable. The neutrinos are like if you
hit one of the sugar cubes in the box really hard on one side. It
transfers the shock through the cubes in the box to the other side.

> This is perilously close to a rigid luminiferous aether.
> Watch your step!

Perilously close??? No, I totally mean the rigid luminiferous aether. I
think it will go down in history that the rejection of the the rigid
luminiferous aether will be seen as one of the biggest blunders of the
modern scientific age. It will be as big a blunder as thinking the
Earth is flat or that the Earth was the center of the universe. The
aether gives a physical framework onto which you can hang all other
physical phenomenon. The early wholesale rejection of the aether has
lead science down a blind alley. The alternative is what we have with
the standard theory which has no framework for space since space
consists of absolutely nothing. The standard theory can mathematically
explain the physical phenomenon, but cannot intuitively explain how it
happens. We get things like string theory which is little more than a
mass of equations which are physically untestable.

> Strike three, you're out.  The E = 1/2 m v^2 is the second term of
> the formula E = m_0 * c^2 * g, where m_0 is an outdated concept
> (the rest mass), g is the gamma corrective factor (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)),
> and c is the speed of light.

I think you might be splitting hairs here, but I think I have a lot
more than three strikes. The key to my TOE is that it draws a thread
through so many physical phenomenon. That alone, is striking. While you
could nit-pick here or there, I have not seen any theory which so
intuitively joins together these various phenomenon. The sum of the
whole work would tend to indicate that there must be some truth to it
eventhough some individual details may be missing or wrong.
Jim Black - 24 Jul 2005 17:43 GMT
Exercise for the reader:

Show that a "theory" which simply states,

"There is an attractive force between objects, the strength of which
depends only on the masses of the objects and the distance between
them.  It is stronger for objects with larger masses, and gets weaker
as the objects are moved farther apart."

does not uniquely predict that if I let go of a ball, and other forces
on the ball can be neglected, that the ball will fall to the ground.
franklinhu@yahoo.com - 25 Jul 2005 07:14 GMT
> Exercise for the reader:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> does not uniquely predict that if I let go of a ball, and other forces
> on the ball can be neglected, that the ball will fall to the ground.

I believe I explained exactly that phenomenon in my TOE. The attractive
force is due to the electrostatic force. The amount force depends on
the mass which is proportional to the total number of proton/electron
pairs in the mass. The force gets weaker since it is the electrostatic
force which drops with distance.
franklinhu@yahoo.com - 27 Jul 2005 17:59 GMT
OK, I see what you are saying now. What I answered
explained the "theory" part between the quotes. You
wanted to show that this doesn't mean that a ball will
drop to the ground.

I would agree that the "theory" statement alone does
not predict the path of a ball to the ground. If the
Earth passed by some other equally massive object, the
ball could be in a weightless, or could be attracted
to the other object. The object is simply attracted to
the largest mass in the area, which may not
necessarily be the mass below your feet.

While this is an interesting riddle, I don't think it
is nearly as interesting as explaining why the ball
should move at all in the presence of a gravitational
field. Aren't you interested in this question more
than your riddle?
Jim Black - 31 Jul 2005 20:05 GMT
> OK, I see what you are saying now. What I answered
> explained the "theory" part between the quotes. You
> wanted to show that this doesn't mean that a ball will
> drop to the ground.

That's right.

> I would agree that the "theory" statement alone does
> not predict the path of a ball to the ground. If the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> the largest mass in the area, which may not
> necessarily be the mass below your feet.

You haven't quite got it yet.  The "theory" does not predict that the
ball will fall to the ground even under completely normal
circumstances.  Can you see why?

> While this is an interesting riddle, I don't think it
> is nearly as interesting as explaining why the ball
> should move at all in the presence of a gravitational
> field. Aren't you interested in this question more
> than your riddle?

The riddle is designed to get across a point.  When you understand the
answer to the riddle, you will be more prepared to think about your
other questions.
Uncle Al - 24 Jul 2005 21:46 GMT
> This article will attempt to describe a "Theory of Everything" that
> draws a single unbroken thread through many unexplained physical
> phenomenon.

Cite one "unexplained" physical phenomenon.

> It will start with the very structure of space and expand
> to provide possible explanations for the matter/energy relationship,
> anti-matter, Planck's constant, hydrogen spectra, atomic structure,
> magnetism, electrostatic force, gravity, dark energy, time-dialation,
> strong force, mass, inertia, and atomic chemical properties.

Idiot.

> The fundamental building blocks of the universe consist only of the
> proton and electron. Bound together, these form a neutral neutrino-like
> particle. This particle fills all of empty space and makes up the
> aether of empty space. It can be thought of as a matrix of alternating
> protons and electrons and forms a crystal structure like salt (NaCl).
> Electromagnetic waves travel through the crystal neutrino sea.
[snip 650 lines of crap]

Hey stooopid - radius ratios.  You cannot get a rock salt crystal
lattice, space group Fm3m (225), from packing protons and electrons.
Molecular hydrogen is P63/mmc (194), heagonal close-packed.  Tour
remaining 253 lines are also loathsome reprehensible execrable putrid
ignorant boring untutored crap.

> Since gravity is caused by an overall positive electrostatic charge on
> an object, this would mean that all astronomical objects like the Earth
> and Moon would be positively charged. They do not repel each other
> since most of the mass (99.999999999%) of astronomical objects still
> neutrally charged.

If it were in iambic pentameter it would be Shakespeare.  Shakespeare
didn't know sh.t about physical science, nor do you.  One doubts you
could wipe your own bung to a socially acceptable conclusion
discretely or by successive approximation.  Yukawa potential skid
marks don't cut it in real life.

Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Ken S. Tucker - 24 Jul 2005 22:28 GMT
> > This article will attempt to describe a "Theory of Everything" that
> > draws a single unbroken thread through many unexplained physical
> > phenomenon.
>
> Cite one "unexplained" physical phenomenon.

UNCLE AL!

What is his/her wave equation?

Does his/her conscious have weight?

As rumoured is it able to laser people
at a distance?

and much more....:)
Androcles - 25 Jul 2005 01:38 GMT
| > > This article will attempt to describe a "Theory of Everything" that
| > > draws a single unbroken thread through many unexplained physical
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
|
| and much more....:)

etc., etc.,etc.,  I agree.
But I think the point is it must be an observed phenomenon for which
no satisfactory explanation has been given, and a conscious conscience
wouldn't qualify as a physical phenomenon.
After all, we can explain everything and anything by saying
"god made it like that", which is an explanation, if not a satisfactory
one.

How about this one?
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap950621.html

Androcles.
Ken S. Tucker - 25 Jul 2005 07:26 GMT
> etc., etc.,etc.,  I agree.
> But I think the point is it must be an observed phenomenon for which
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Androcles.

Thank you for the photo...very nice, a must see.
Hey I'll venture that looks like a star that
got smacked by a planet, neck out, flames ok!
Ken
Androcles - 26 Jul 2005 14:27 GMT
| > etc., etc.,etc.,  I agree.
| > But I think the point is it must be an observed phenomenon for which
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
| got smacked by a planet, neck out, flames ok!
| Ken

That's ok, but it doesn't explain why god built
a spherical planet. If she wanted to smack a star
in the chops, she could have used a better shape.
http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/bomb.gif

Androcles.
franklinhu@yahoo.com - 25 Jul 2005 07:30 GMT
> Cite one "unexplained" physical phenomenon.

Certainly the dark energy is totally unexplained. See:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/cosmic_darknrg_020115-1.html

"SPACE.com -- Dark Energy: Astronomers Still 'Clueless' About Mystery
Force Pushing Galaxies Apart"

I think just the title says it all. My TOE neatly explains this effect
as a replusion from positively charged galxies.

> Hey stooopid - radius ratios.  You cannot get a rock salt crystal
> lattice, space group Fm3m (225), from packing protons and electrons.
> Molecular hydrogen is P63/mmc (194), heagonal close-packed.

I didn't say that the aether consisted of molecular hydrogen atoms. The
aether would be closer to a neutron in characteristics, so we cannot
assume a specific space lattice.

> > Since gravity is caused by an overall positive electrostatic charge on
> > an object, this would mean that all astronomical objects like the Earth
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> discretely or by successive approximation.  Yukawa potential skid
> marks don't cut it in real life.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
How about some scientific reasoning? Can you refute my assertion that
similarly charged bodies like the Moon and Earth cannot attract? If you
can't then you're the one being unscientific. I have been very careful
to match my TOE with all known physical evidence. As far as I can see,
it is consistent with physical experimental results.
Ken S. Tucker - 25 Jul 2005 08:15 GMT
...
> I think just the title says it all. My TOE neatly explains this effect
> as a replusion from positively charged galxies.

and says,

"The aether particle is like a sugar cube in a box of sugar
cubes. A neutron is like what would happen if you attempted to stuff
another sugar cube into the box."

That's a wrap, Frankin has finally solved the
universal riddle, I'm retiring. Sugar cubes,
why we all missed that simple genious I don't
know, probably because of saccurin.
Ken
franklinhu@yahoo.com - 26 Jul 2005 07:09 GMT
> That's a wrap, Frankin has finally solved the
> universal riddle, I'm retiring. Sugar cubes,
> why we all missed that simple genious I don't
> know, probably because of saccurin.

Naturally, you think this TOE is crazy, but have you seen any
explanations crackpot or not that can draw together so many physical
phenomenon? Even if it is a totally wrong theory, it is still
interesting to see how various phenomenon might be explained. However
if any of my TOE is correct, it would be a major paradigm shift. It
would basically say that all of the anti-aether science that has been
developed over the past 100 years is wrong. The standard model cannot
unify physical phenomenon because it lacks a physical foundation which
is the aether. While you make jokes about sugar cubes, it is the
ability of my TOE to be explained in obvious mechanical terms that
makes the theory simple and elegant.
MorituriMax - 26 Jul 2005 17:33 GMT
> Naturally, you think this TOE is crazy, but have you seen any
> explanations crackpot or not that can draw together so many physical
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> ability of my TOE to be explained in obvious mechanical terms that
> makes the theory simple and elegant.

Anybody can say anything about everything..  but doing the hard work to come
up with something that actually works, that's a different beast.. how about
you get down and come up with the math that can back up your opinion..  then
it might be an hypothesis, able to at some future point be termed a theory
when other people can use it to make valid predictions in science.

"Birds wouldn't mess with worms if they had machine guns" is elegant too,
but it's not a valid scientific theory.
franklinhu@yahoo.com - 27 Jul 2005 18:14 GMT
You are right that I can say anything. I supposed my TOE could be
considered as a work of science fiction rather than of science since I
could also come up with an explanation of star trek transporters that
makes sense, but that wouldn't make it real.

Yes, there is much work and mathematics should be able to backup my
hypothesis since it is based on a physical model and should require no
more than classical mechanics to do the calculations. So that will be
my next project to justify and find evidence to support my claims. The
TOE should eventually:

1. Explain all existing experimental phenomenon
2. Explain it in a manner which is simpler than existing theory
3. Explain why the equations in existing theory work, or derive them
from new theory
4. Unify existing phenomenon in a manner not possible through existing
theory
5. Explain phenonmenon that cannot be explained through existing theory
6. Should predict new phenomenon with experimental confirmation which
conflicts with existing theory
7. Allow a greater understanding which will enable us to control
natural phenomenon like gravity

Since I'm not a professional scientist, it will take time to come up
with even pieces of this. Some of this is already satisfied by my
original post, but others like 6 and 3 would be required to convince
conventional science that I'm on to something.
Bill Hobba - 28 Jul 2005 02:09 GMT
> You are right that I can say anything. I supposed my TOE could be
> considered as a work of science fiction rather than of science since I
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> my next project to justify and find evidence to support my claims. The
> TOE should eventually:

You might like to include an explanation of the photoelectric effect without
the existence of a photon as an actual particle in violation of your claim
that only protons and electrons exist.

Bill

> 1. Explain all existing experimental phenomenon
> 2. Explain it in a manner which is simpler than existing theory
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> original post, but others like 6 and 3 would be required to convince
> conventional science that I'm on to something.
sue jahn - 24 Jul 2005 23:54 GMT
This article will attempt to describe a "Theory of Everything" that
draws a single unbroken thread through many unexplained physical
phenomenon. It will start with the very structure of space and expand
to provide possible explanations for the matter/energy relationship,
anti-matter, Planck's constant, hydrogen spectra, atomic structure,
magnetism, electrostatic force, gravity, dark energy, time-dialation,
strong force, mass, inertia, and atomic chemical properties. This
theory is only described here as a high level summary and each
paragraph deserves a more detailed treatment and justification, so this
is just a start. This theory generally summarizes ideas that I have
previously posted on the usenet. These can be found by searching for
franklinhu@yahoo.com.

So here goes (this is a long post) . . .

The fundamental building blocks of the universe consist only of the
proton and electron.

http://wwwpdg.cern.ch/pdg/particleadventure/

Sue...

snip
Richard Schultz - 25 Jul 2005 13:07 GMT
In sci.physics.particle franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:

: Electromagnetic waves travel through the crystal neutrino sea.

Isn't "The Crystal Neutrino Sea" the title of a book by Rod McKuen?

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
Bjoern Feuerbacher - 25 Jul 2005 17:53 GMT
[snip all]

I had several long discussions with you, explained your errors
patiently, pointed out again and again that wild speculations aren't a
physical theory, that something isn't automatically right because it
appeals to common sense and isn't automatically wrong because it
contradicts common sense, etc.

You simply don't listen.

*plonk*
Bill Hobba - 26 Jul 2005 03:05 GMT
> [snip all]
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> *plonk*

Cranks seldom do Bjoern.  Reply to them if you want to make an attempt to
correct their error(s) - but do not expect to succeed.  Reply to them if you
want to assure people reading it that they can be refuted - but it is for
their benefit - not the posters.  Reply to them if it amuses you or you find
it interesting pointing out where they have gone wrong.  However if none of
the above appeals then ignore them.  BTW I always enjoy your posts.

Thanks
Bill
Chris - 27 Jul 2005 00:02 GMT
You can't explain anything with science. All science is only a description
of what happens and the ability to predict what might happen if....

So quit trying to explain anything!

Chris.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.