Monday, October 22, 2012

The Michaelson-Morely Experiments and Special Relativity

At the Viewer’s Q&A page, I just added a response to the popular question whether the hundred year’s old Michelson–Morley experiments and Einstein’s special relativity are in conflict with the ToS. They are NOT – but they have been misinterpreted. They actually confirm the ToS and remove the mystery around them. There is a reality and we can now understand why the speed of light always has been measured to be the same, independent of movements of the light source (true) and of the observer. That latter is a systematic measurement flaw because the Grid rooms around matter have not been known before the ToS.

New experiments are proposed to show the existence of the Grid rooms surrounding matter objects and that the speed of light certainly varies with movements of the observer – when measured outside of the observer’s Grid room. The speed of light is simply constant in relation to the Grid – just as expected with an “aether” – the medium in which light propagates.

The experiments can also confirm the ToS prediction that most of the mass is outside of an object and that the space contributes with 96.4 kg/m3.

The second most popular question is whether I have confused Weight and Mass, which is best addressed at the previous blog entry. The ToS proves that they are equal, by deriving both F=ma and the gravity law from electricity.

Newton’s fundamental mechanical laws of physics are not fundamental anymore – They are derived from electricity, which is the fundamental law of physics! In addition, the force accelerating distant galaxies (attributed to the dark energy) is predicted and derived. That is a third force acting upon mass, the one and only mass that also gravity and Newton’s second law motion (F=ma) acts upon.

Friday, October 12, 2012


The Theory of Something radically changes our view on reality - It actually provides a reality that is missing in other current descriptions of the Grand Design. Sometimes, the "the Earth can't be round - We know it is flat"-attitude triggers an attack that gives a good opportunity to explain...

I got the following comments:

This stuff is hilarious! Too bad they don't give Nobel Prizes in Physics for comedy. This would win, hands down!

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Time to Bring the ToS Outside the US - Now UK

The press release last month from Theory of Something was only distributed in the US where 75% of the clicks are coming from. Today it is going out to the UK. Viewers from the press release are welcomed here.

I have updated the Summery of the ToS to version 1.1, mainly by adding a summary of the limitations and generalization of electromagnetism and Something out Nothing (ToS 8) and the Creation (ToS 9) as section 2.11 in the Summary.

I have also updated the full Theory of Something document to version 1.2 by adjusting some pictures and texts. I also added some paragraphs in relation to the discussions with TinaK below, like the historic mistake of adding current (A) as base unit in 1933-1946, going from 3 to 4 units, without making kg for mass a derived unit (new ToS 6.2.1). 

kg is As2/mand staying with only 3 base units, would have changed science! Length (m), time (s) and charge (C=As) are the base units in the ToS and there is only One Force, the electromagnetic. 

Another addition to ToS 8.2.2 is the remarkable match of the 1.4 pm reach of the force between negtrinos in composed particles (from simple electromagnetic estimations) compared to the reach of the Strong Force in the Standard Model that TinaK pointed out below.

The Nobel Prize in physics will be announced today. My guess is that the committee awaits the final results from CERN and LHC before giving it to "the Higgs". How will I otherwise handle my suspicion in ToS 4.4.2, that the bump at 125.3 GeV just is four different short lived heavy particles that each happens to have a mass centered in the announced 125.3±0.6 GeV/c2 range?

Saturday, October 6, 2012

New highly interesting comment by TinaK (comment to last post):

Thanks again for your responses. I have read all of the 112 pages of the ToS and we really need to revise our view on reality – You have discovered the reality behind the mysticism and major questions from the smallest particle to the whole universe. I don’t see how the derived mechanical physical laws and much more can be disputed – has anyone done that?”

GD: If some are disputing the ToS reality with all proofs and numbers matching, where are they hiding? 

“When coming to chapter 8.2.2, I really got shocked (again) when you show that simple

Thursday, October 4, 2012

I got a very interesting comment from TinaK (see below, more added now):

"I found this amazing Theory of Something 3 days ago via a WOW remark at Yahoo News. I have not read all yet but to me this looks like you are closing up after Einstein and that quantum physics lead all scientists into a gigantic ghost hunt! You seem to even finishing Maxwell’s work 150 years ago and getting Einstein’s findings into a “Something” that can be understood and you are showing. Isn’t that the case?"

GD: Thanks for your kind and observant observation, even if I would not express it as a “gigantic ghost hunt” :-)  Some things are difficult to understand and grasp when everyone is going in the same direction.

"One of the most amazing things I see is that “there is no mass”. kg = As^2/m^3! When thinking about that, isn’t it strange that kg shows up in a pure simple electric law like Coloumb’s? The force between two charges doesn’t have anything to do with mass, yet both in force F and epsilon-zero the kg comes in. Kg should have been eliminated already then, shouldn’t it? How could that have happened?"

GD: Your comment on Coulomb’s law (that the force between static electric charges of course should not include mass - kg - at all) is very noteworthy and interesting. That should have been observed and sorted out long ago. 

I looked it up and it seems that “mistake” happened when Current (A) was added as a base unit in 1933-1946 (the World War II came in between). Having just the 3 base units Length (m or cm), Time (s) and Mass (kg or g) before (Even for electrical units!) lead to confusing systems, so Current (A) was added. But one should then have made kg a derived unit As2/m3 and stayed with only 3 base units instead of increasing them to 4.

Maybe that would have stopped the “ghost hunt” trying to find mass and gravity in particles, when they are mechanisms.

Maybe I will do a table to show what happens when eliminating one of the four base units - You can actually eliminate anyone of them, but only replacing kg with As2/m3 makes sense and a very beautiful system, see the table at Viewer's Q&A.

More from TinaK, October 4:
"Thanks for your responses! What about Quantum Mechanics and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in 1927, didn’t that contribute to the scientific “ghost hunt” where everyone still is going (String Theory and QLG latest)? I saw some views on that your Q&A page: > Does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Apply?"

GD: Yes, my comment is at Viewer's Q&A.

We electricians know that we cannot understand some things by just looking at frequencies on a spectrum analyzer (like using your ears but closing your eyes) (=Quantum Mechanics). To understand the reality, you also (firstly) need to use an oscilloscope and look at a signal in the time domain (like using your eyes) (=classical electricity or mechanics). You cannot find out how a violin is designed just by analyzing its frequencies, without even knowing whether it is a tape recorder, an iPod or a real violin you are trying to describe! 

I don’t understand why current quantum theories don’t consider that and realize that such methods have their limits. It may never be possible to describe mechanisms such as Einstein’s gravity (and now also Mass in the ToS 4.3) using Quantum Mechanics.

But Quantum Mechanics has made valuable predictions which have been confirmed in experiments when you don’t have a clue of what it is you are describing :-)  But I don’t think it is applicable to more complex things.

Real Time Web Analytics