Sunday, February 3, 2013
Under the blog post
from January 5th you find comments relating to this post from Anonymous/James
and Ta Wan, together with my replies that you may want to catch up with before
reading this. I have been busy with other things since the excitement after the
short video, the face
book spread and Lumo’s tennis racket attack a month ago.
All of that was good,
since there were many downloads of the both the Summary and of the full Theory of Something document, which I hope mean
that some scientists and other interested actually are reading the ToS. Both documents are now updated to version 1.4, including the new electron picture below and some minor adjustments.
Ta Wan gave this
comment about the Theory of Something below:
"if it's dead wrong, it's interesting and
creative." dead right. it is interesting and creative. I'd love for it to be right.
as said above also. in 100 pages and with all the maths it must be easy to
prove wrong if it is wrong.
I think nature works this way. at least it would be cool if it did. come on
those who can review with authority, take a look. just over 100 pages. nothing
to lose, a lot to gain.”
I can only agree. The ToS is clear and simple enough to be understood, challenged or confirmed. Although already more supported than other theories, there are many, many computer simulations that could be done, experiments to do, old data to be checked and continuation, improvements and developments of the ToS to done. Some will come soon.
I can only agree. The ToS is clear and simple enough to be understood, challenged or confirmed. Although already more supported than other theories, there are many, many computer simulations that could be done, experiments to do, old data to be checked and continuation, improvements and developments of the ToS to done. Some will come soon.
Also, the ToS is not a small
incremental advance in a specific field (which seems to be what the peer-review
system is about), but a major rewrite of the last 100 years research of the
fundamentals of Nature. That is like saying that thousands of scientists have
been marching in an ever more complex, obscure direction, missing the obvious,
much simpler solution. That is of course not easily swallowed and digested, but
questioned just by definition.
I guess many still have
the ToS in the unread crackpot pile, for the simple reason it is too good to be
true. Actually, I have received no qualified major objections yet - NO! The ToS
gets some appreciation and of course some “rubbish comments” from those that
has not opened it, and persons like A-Anonymous that has replaced knowledge and curiosity with obscene
language.
I am hoping for some influential
scientists to speak up, but that seems to take time to happen. It is a large
and daring step to take – but one cannot look away and ignore forever, especially
if there is provocation and the ToS is being spread. Next video in progress may
provoke some…
Lumo’s (Lubos Motl’s) review of his self-invented tennis racket theory, the
TrT, gave many Theory of Something visitors and face book friends - and tennis-related
ads on his blog J I am
still awaiting his return though; He does have a brain and knowledge in this
field even if it is very narrowed at string-theory as the only way.
Lumo did one
interesting statement: “A true description of Nature isn't necessarily easy to
be visualized.” That is certainly the general view, and was also mine until a
year ago, since quantum mechanics took over in the last 100 years.
However, I got highly
surprised during the development of the ToS, that the smallest in Nature
actually could be understood and visualized:
- The photon as the rotation
of a negtrino in the Grid (ToS 3.1.3)
- All particle cores just
made up of “negtrino magnets” (ToS 4)
- Grid rooms and the
very nature of mass and gravity (ToS 4)
- Dark energy just
being a tiny charge overpressure in the Grid (ToS 5)
- Gravity – curved space-time
– simply being reduced negtrino density in the Grid (ToS 4.3.5)
- Energy being magnetic
moment density, and its conservation by the Grid (ToS 6.3)
- A black hole just
being positive charge, postrinos, i.e. anti-matter (ToS 4.7.2)
With this visualization
of the electron, the wave-like behavior of an electron can also be understood.
The electron is not just a point particle with < 1 fm (10-15 m) size.
It is an irregular 35 pm (35 x 10-12 m) 35 thousand times larger
structure, shaking up the Grid when moving, thus creating electromagnetic waves
that certainly can move through two slits even if the electron core just goes through
one of the slits.
With a single particle,
the negtrino having only charge and magnetic momentum as qualities (in addition
to its very small size), the ToS becomes simple. The ToS explains far more than
any other theory – even what was thought to be fundamental physical laws that “just
exits” has been derived from the simple ToS model. In the ToS there is just one
force, one fundamental law (ToS 8.2) and no fine-tuned constants at all. The
ToS stays in 3 room dimensions, time and electrical charge and I claim that is all
needed for universes to exist, http://bit.ly/TheCreation.
That should provoke!
Saturday, January 5, 2013
The above article confirms the ToS view that space is a "quite stable and calm" place as discussed at the Viewers Q&A November 19. There is no Quantum Foam when the Grid is in place!
Facebook Page Now Open and Lumo's Tennis
Racket
I have now opened a Theory of Something facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Theory-of-Something/421818067874247. I am not sure how active I will be able to be there though.
And today famous Lubos Motl posted a long blog entry about the Theory of Something, having interpreted the magnifying glass in the picture below (from the video http://youtu.be/q5pyRlqSbeE) as a 2 dimensional tennis racket thing!? I actually believe Lumo's is a lot smarter than that, if he just would open the ToS, which he apparently had not, when writing the blog entry.
Below is my response to: http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/01/theory-of-something-qm-has-reached.html. It was still "awaiting moderation" when I wrote this. Hope he publishes it and responds after reading up on the ToS.
I would like to see real reviews from the scientific community, even if Lumo is a bit controversial after calling scientific colleagues crackpots too many times.
Hi Lumo, G.D. Tosman of Theory of Something is here. Good of you to have a look, but please look deeper! The picture does not show a TENNIS RACKET – It is a magnifying glass and the structure inside is 3 dimensional (even if your screen is 2D…).
The tennis racket view is an original approach though. :) Other approaches yielding similar conclusions are usually based on that “the Theory of Something is too good to be true” (or explains too much and even changes the fundamentals), so it must be crackpot. (long continuation after Read more)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
