Theory of Everything going no where fast!

The non amateur stuff. Hawking, black holes, that sort of thing

Moderators: joe, Brian, Guy Fennimore

davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

Cliff wrote:But with regards to Hoagland I personally do nor recall having mentioned him and from what I remember I do not think the New Scientist article mentioned Hoagland either.
:roll: I didn't say you or the NS article did mention it. If you're unsure as to why it got introduced I'd suggest going back up this thread and re-reading it. It was an interesting aside in one of a number of interesting comments posted to a page I linked to a couple or so days ago.
Cliff wrote:However, I did think that the simple principle (Heim's idea really I think) on which the Hyperdrive seems to based seemed quite easy to understand and neat.
Easy to understand? That's good to hear. Could you give us the potted version of your understanding as it stands at the moment?
Cliff
Posts: 6604
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Post by Cliff »

Dear Davep
Thanks for yor further comments.
The Heim matter you ask about I think I covered in my initial summary of the New Scientist article. The New Scientist comment was not an extensive explanation of all Heim's Theory just a very very brief simplistic description of the part of Heim's ideas of how a Hyperdrive could work.
I personally think it is very unlikely the Hyperdrive will work for two reasons.
1. I suspect our current technology is not up to the task (as also suggested by some scientists and space propulsion technologists in the New Scientist article.
2. I am something of a sceptic about extra dimensions.
As I said though I want to try to keep a fairly open mind about the dimension issues and certainly not open my big trap too much untill Joe has finished reading his book.
However, as I also said as far as I am concerned Hoagland is irrelevant to this issue. And from what little I have heard about him irrelevant to pretty well anything astronomical I might want to discuss.
Best wishes from Cliff
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

Cliff wrote:The Heim matter you ask about I think I covered in my initial summary of the New Scientist article.
It wasn't that I was asking about (I own that copy of NS too and have read the article). It was your understanding of it that I was asking about because many people don't seem to follow it that well (the idea, not the article) and you said that it "seemed quite easy to understand and neat". Did you mean that, for example, you found Heim's mass formula easy to understand and neat?
Cliff
Posts: 6604
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Post by Cliff »

Dear Davep (and Joe)
Unfortunately the New Scientist referred went to the paper bank so I only have my summary to refer to. From What I recall I think the neat bit of Heim's idea related to the possible effects that Heim and others suggested about electrons having both mass and charge and the potential effect that might result (see about half way through my summary). Me saying that Heim's idea seemed neat does not necessarily mean I think Heim was correct in either his theories or his hyperdrive ideas in particular. But his basic idea suggested a neat simplicity. Of course neat ideas do not always work.
Joe;- Warped Passages less than 50 pages to go!
Best wishes from Cliff
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

Cliff wrote:Unfortunately the New Scientist referred went to the paper bank so I only have my summary to refer to.
The whole article is still available online.
Cliff
Posts: 6604
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Post by Cliff »

Dear Davep
I'm afraid do not like chasing around the web for information too much. However, in this case perhaps the exact wording of what New Scientist said (or me for that matter ) is not important. I was just commenting that as far as I could see from the New Scientist article that Heim's idea in particular with regards Hyperdrives seemed neat. As I have already said me saying the idea is neat does not mean to say that I think it will work. Had I lived a few centuries ago I might well have said that Leonardo's idea for an helicopter was rather neat, but that does not necessarily mean I would have thought it would work. As I have said before (perhaps with respect to a different matter,. One man's meat is another man's poison. What I think rather neat, you might think about completely differently.
Best wishes from Cliff
jck100
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:11 am
Location: Cardiff
Contact:

Post by jck100 »

Hi,

I wonder if anyone wants a theory of everything?

The problem is that unless it agrees with everyone then those who are left out will not accept it as a proper solution.

I have a solution but it is not for the fainthearted.

It is clear that any solution will come from within science, or rather that is what is expected. In that case my solution which requires a starting from scratch approach will fail that test.

Far from trying to prove anything I have used a certain logic, science has covered a 50% chance that the universe was created with zero energy and there was no time or space before big bang.

Yes, some may call this a 100% certainty or at least 99.9% bet and that is fine with me. Still if by some chance this is wrong then taking the opposite view gives a consideration.

So there you go, my solution is initially based on a consideration and a certain logic.

john
If I have seen further than others it is because I moved the giants out of the way.
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

jck100 wrote:The problem is that unless it agrees with everyone then those who are left out will not accept it as a proper solution.
That goes without saying. But why do you think this is important? There are always people who don't agree with any given scientific theory (and even with some observable facts). What of it?
jck100 wrote:Far from trying to prove anything I have used a certain logic, science has covered a 50% chance that the universe was created with zero energy and there was no time or space before big bang.
Where does the figure of 50% come from?
jck100 wrote:So there you go, my solution is initially based on a consideration and a certain logic.
Did I miss your "solution"? What was it exactly?
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

davep wrote:
jck100 wrote:So there you go, my solution is initially based on a consideration and a certain logic.
Did I miss your "solution"? What was it exactly?
Doesn't seem to be on your website either, jck100 :? .
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
jck100
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:11 am
Location: Cardiff
Contact:

Post by jck100 »

Hi,

Joe and Dave,

The 50% comes from science being correct and the other 50% comes from science being wrong.

This is with respect to a fundamental consideration.

Either there was no time or space before big bang or there was.

As science has the monopoly on nothing before big bang I have considered a previous universe in the same space as this one existed and worked things from there.

The problems arising from this consideration start at once.

It is no longer possible to simply include theories that did not predict this previous universe. Then zero point energy is not required as the energy/mass of the previous universe is causal.

The initial consideration does work forwards and backwards around big bang to establish exactly what science states that seems a requirement for the considered solution.

Requirements include black holes and singularities, dark energy and dark matter, an expanding universe.

Where I meet the real conflict is that this runs with particle gravity rather than GR. Quantum uncertainty also fails.

Yet it can destroy the 35% matter in a previous universe in a giant black hole creating a big bang scenario and repeat the same thing with this universe as it is and create another big bang and another recycled universe.

Although particle gravity has been around for a long time it is thought there is no way around the ether and conservation of energy problems but I feel there is as long as the condidered results apply.

It also causes a problem with the standard model as the fundamental particles must be composites of the energy particles at big bang.

Significantly all the energy particles at big bang would be the same so the only way to get to different particles used by the standard model would require composites.

This solution is based on a previous universe and any answers are the considered answers following the logic required to end up with the universe we have now.

I am the first to realise that not many people are interested in this consideration for comparison but for me personally I wonder why everything has an answer provided by the solution obtained and in the main the answers stem from a single particle, the gravity particle.

If you ask me what proof there is then as with the Higgs boson I require the detection of a free flowing differential gravity particle.

If gravity in this form is dark energy then that agrees with the 65% free flowing gravity that would be roughly needed to stabilise the universe as far as it is stable.

Dark matter would constitute the earliest fusions of these gravity energy particles as the building blocks for the hydrogen atom.

Gravity would flow in only one direction down a black holes where mass would be reduced to gravity energy particles in a singularity.

The universe would be closed on the inside and open on the outside, recycled gravity particles at the singularities would be used to expand the universe from the outside.

The energy at big bang would need to be gravity particles and would need to accelerate towards each other in opposite directions in a closed universe.

That is the considerations arrived at after careful comparison to mainstream science.

Concepts such as mathematics and time were not introduced into the consideration at any point and the solution relies on logic based on the findings first and foremost that were compatable with the earlier considerations.

I appreciate that many of you will be learned in physics and will have much to support the findings that support the main theories but having debated to great lengths on another forum with similar views I am not short on advice in that direction.

What I am short of is anyone who can appreciate that it is at least worth working through how things would work using a previous universe as a consideration.

If I have not made myself clear then there is not much more that I can add to help matters. Perhaps I have a solution simply because I was willing to consider a previous universe.

The last thing I should point out is that no one has to agree with my solution, that is not the object, all that is required is a person works things out using only a previous universe and only when results are obtained compare them to mainstream theory.

As I say from the start you cannot use theories except for comparison or you will miss the point of the excercise.

thanks,
john
jck
If I have seen further than others it is because I moved the giants out of the way.
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

jck100 wrote:The 50% comes from science being correct and the other 50% comes from science being wrong.
Okay. Can you give me an example of how this works out? Can you give me an example of this 50/50 thing in action?
jck100 wrote:Either there was no time or space before big bang or there was.
Why just those two options?
jck100 wrote:It is no longer possible to simply include theories that did not predict this previous universe.
This line makes me suspect that you might have missed the point of the purpose of the search for the GUT. A GUT that explains the workings of this Universe is permissible even if it doesn't explain the cause of this Universe. The best analogy I can think of is that it's permissible for me to write an computer elegant programme, based around a single "equation", that does some neat things. That programme doesn't need to know about the inner workings of the operating system that launched it.

Perhaps you could explain why you need assume a "previous universe" and why any theory that seeks to explain the workings of this one has to take this into account?
jck100 wrote:I appreciate that many of you will be learned in physics and will have much to support the findings that support the main theories but having debated to great lengths on another forum with similar views I am not short on advice in that direction.
Which forum was that?
brian livesey
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Riddle of the Universe..

Post by brian livesey »

Heard about Prof. Wurzelkopf's "Integrated Bubble" Cosmology? :shock:
brian
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

A Google search for this seems to turn up nothing (other than a single hit that points to a page that doesn't seem to exist any more). Got any more information?
brian livesey
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Tongue in cheek..

Post by brian livesey »

Prof. Who? :wink:
brian
jck100
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:11 am
Location: Cardiff
Contact:

Post by jck100 »

Dave,

Here are my replies to your questions.

An example of 50/50 would be the earth orbits the sun or the sun orbits the earth. It is not the example itself but the fact that if one is correct then the other must be wrong.

If there is no space then the only other option is to have space.

Einstein`s search for the GUT had one objective, to prove uncertainty was not correct. The specifics for a theory of everything is for one solution with one set of rules that can apply to everything. As you point out all the answers do not have to be worked out but the solution must be able to answer all questions.

A previous universe assumed initially must then be compatable with every step the solution takes towards a complete answer to how that previous universe was there in the first place, so it is not intended as an unanswered question.

I had every reason to assume a previous universe in order to start from scratch but without any other considerations it is easier to show this when the solution provides the same destruction of this universe to corellate the same scenario for comparison.

As far as the other forum is concerned things deteriated from the start where no one was willing to accept a consideration but simply wanted to promote mainstream theories as correct in as much as anything else was of little value.

I consider this perspective of great value in a comparitive sense that gives a different perspective that no one has to accept. I may be the only one who thinks this so I am merely asking if things are any different on this forum.

regards,
john
If I have seen further than others it is because I moved the giants out of the way.
Post Reply