Re: Seeking open-minded physicist
From: Paul Draper (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/28/04
- Next message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Did Einstein Repeal Newton's Second Law?"
- Previous message: puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Space, time, the works."
- In reply to: Rick: "Re: Seeking open-minded physicist"
- Next in thread: Rick: "Re: Seeking open-minded physicist"
- Reply: Rick: "Re: Seeking open-minded physicist"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Sep 2004 06:56:30 -0700
rick_sobie@hotmail.com (Rick) wrote in message news:<3fed6299.0409271822.724a43da@posting.google.com>...
> dharder@bnl-dot-gov.no-spam.invalid (DAH) wrote in message news:<41587916$1_2@127.0.0.1>...
>
> > The GUT is stuck. Perhaps it will be an openminded amateur who will
> > break through the ramparts of intellectual inbreeding in theoretical
> > physics, and lead the way. The Chinese have a saying: "The fish rots
> > from the head". In comparison to arrogance and pomposity,
> > open-mindedness is a blessing, and creativity is the smell of flowers
> > wafting in a musty room.
>
> I don't think the GUT is stuck at all. In fact I think it has been
> realized. It is funny though that no one has been able to bring it forward.
>
> I was listening to Timeline today, the movie where the archaeologist
> goes back in time using a teleportation type device developed by
> a high tech company.
>
> The author, Micheal Crichton
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345417623/103-1963779-4597401
> must have had some some help from physicists because he gives
> a rather winded explanation of the principals which led to this
> time travel method which they use. The fax themselves through a
> wormhole in the quantum foam. Supposedly.
>
> The author goes on to describe how Max Plank discovered that
> energy was not continuous and was in quanta, and then how Einstein
> brought out the photon, and how particle physics were born, and even
> went on about the two slit experiment and the multiverse.
> Then about the quantum foam.
>
> Great pat perhaps text book explanations, and almost all misconceptions.
>
> Beginning with the idea that a particle, is a little pice of rock
> or something.
>
> How many people here, lets see your hands, believe that a particle,
> is a small piece of solid matter made up of smaller hard rocklike
> bits called quarks?
>
> I see. Well that is where your problem lies.
>
> An instantaneous point particle, is nothing more than a mathmatical
> description. It is the free frame of a wave interaction.
>
> A wave packet is a photon. a short stretch of a wave. A pulse.
>
> There is no little rock like pieces of dust like particles at all.
>
> Is it any wonder people do not understand?
>
> Here is the GUT in a nutshell.
>
> The nucleus is a bubble, which wants to expand along with the universe
> into the void of the 5th dimension because like any gas the universe
> expands, the things in it, want to expand as well.
>
> Universally the universe is like a gas, almost equal in pressure,
> and almost static.
>
> So these little bubbles called nucleii want to expand but the pressure
> of the universe prevents this expansion from happening all at once.
>
> So it goes pop. popopopopopopopopopopopopop
>
> As it does, it sends out spherical waves. These spherical waves at
> the electron radius are called electrons. Further from the
> radius they are called EM waves when they combine to make measurable
> amounts divisible by e. Otherwise they are called black energy.
> Like black body radiation. Examine a manet, and this energy is
> pouring out at the poles as seen with iron filings.
>
> At one pole the waves combine and create positive pressure,
> and at the other the waves cancel and create negative pressure.
>
> But all values of energy of these waves are discreet. Because the
> elements are each of a constant distinct frequency and hence,
> the combinations, of values from interactions of these waves
> which we call particles if you freeze the frame where they
> interact, are distinct values, from a matrix or set of
> possible values.
>
> In our universe. The values of the interactions can only be in the
> set of values that is made up by the elements and the values of the
> electron e, speed of light c, and the force of gravity G.
>
> When the nucleii expands pop, and sends out a wave, this expansion
> is the force of G. Everything expanding along with the universe
> causes the force of gravity. The earth expanding into hyperspace.
> Becausde the universe does not just expand at its outer edges, it
> expands everywhere like a loaf of raisin bread.
>
> So although time is an arrow, it is not an arrow from the center
> of the universe to the outer edges. It is lot of little arrows,
> from the center of every nucleus, towards the electron shell radius.
>
> That is why time is in accordance with relativity. Because time
> is a local phenomena.
>
> And that is why gravity also, is like time, because although
> the force of G is constant in the universe because the pressure
> of expandsion in the universe is equal, the lines of force
> of gravity change in proximity to mass. Where there are
> concentrations of nucleii, you have more observable effects
> of gravity. Why? Because gravity itself, is caused by the
> expansion of matter into hyperspace. What is hyperspace in this
> analogy? It is the space between things. Where there are no em
> waves. Keeping in mind that all the values in our physical universe
> are in a set. And that is again due to the fact that the elements
> which make up our physical universe are themselves constant values
> in a set.
>
> So the nuclear force is the force of that same spherical em wave
> which becomes the electorn at the shell radius, but when it is
> close to the center of the nuclues bubble, it is very strong.
> This wave, reduces in value in accordance with the inverse square
> law.
>
> Very strong near the nucleus, strong at the e radius, and weaker
> past that, but the value of that wave predictable, by using the
> force of expansion of the nucleus as G, and the wave travels at
> the speed of light.
>
> Thats the GUT my friends. Thats all it is.
Well, I'm sure hopeful that isn't Tony's idea, because this one's
pretty squishy.
Rick, if you want some advice on where to go with this, respond in a
reply post. If not, I'll know you just like to hear yourself talk.
PD
- Next message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Did Einstein Repeal Newton's Second Law?"
- Previous message: puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Space, time, the works."
- In reply to: Rick: "Re: Seeking open-minded physicist"
- Next in thread: Rick: "Re: Seeking open-minded physicist"
- Reply: Rick: "Re: Seeking open-minded physicist"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
