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)
It does that, but it is NOT! You won’t believe until you read the ToS document, but I suggest you start with the Summary document http://bit.ly/ROyJJf that also lists the support for and proofs of the ToS, especially since you repeatedly assume that there is lack of evidence and understanding.

Was my picture really that bad or are you just joking? 2D structure!? The Theory of Something has actually 3 dimensions plus time, while you (M-version of string theory, isn’t it?) have 11 – Do you need 12 now and want to take one from me? :)

In the era of everyone running in the same direction, often with little thought of why, where only incremental deviations from established ideas “are allowed” or regarded, I am proud to be childish and infantile. It was a child that said the emperor was nude…

You write a lot without having noticed “ToS 8.2” etc. - Those are section references into the Theory of Something document http://bit.ly/OcPPFt. There were such references even in the “bizarre” video http://youtu.be/q5pyRlqSbeE, in the 3D pictures following my magnifying glass/your tennis racket picture. For example, under the Grid picture it said “See ToS section 3 for details.” Those references you also find under the “amazing statements” and “infantile pictures”. Check them up!

Now to some clarification in relation to what you wrote (with the misinterpreted tennis racket perspective, we may forgive…):

You wrote> “Now, look at the complicated pattern. Could it arise naturally? Why? Why don't you draw another grid, a hexagon grid with three holes, each containing a pair of concentric elephants? This is not just a satirical rhetorical question; I am totally serious about this question.”

- That is in ToS section 3. A brief guide of why particles (negtrinos), with only two qualities, charge and magnetic momentum, arrange themselves in a structured cubic Grid is: The structure is outlined in Figure 14, which leads to the forces outlined in Figure 18 and some classic electromagnetic calculations give that with a charge of -1/3e and a magnetic energy (corresponding to the magnetic moment) of 57keV (1/9 of the electron mass energy), the negtrinos arrange themselves in a balanced energy-less cubic structure with 10 pm between them. 

These numbers then appear at several places in the ToS, making everything fall into place. You, of course, have to read up on the ToS to get the full understanding. – You won’t get it all in a 3 minute video. 

That is why the Grid and Grid Room is not “a pair of concentric elephants” :)

To be serious, this part of the ToS was quite difficult to figure out. At first I only considered the repelling charges (without the balancing attracting magnetic forces), but then I came into the now popular super symmetry problem or why vacuum energy is 10^100 times larger than the dark energy seen. That was resolved by the balanced energy-less Grid that does not blow up the universe. (A charge-only Grid would be unstable anyway – Earnshaw's theorem, ToS 3.1.)

In this context, it not so far away to consider what the dark energy actually is: A tiny overpressure in the Grid leftover from the additional charge that was injected at the Big Bang, but that is in ToS 5 – not on the magnifying glass picture – as you say “there is no evidence on that page that the author has understood”.

And, to state that everything isn’t 100% proved (yet), this part requires computer simulation for further support. I don’t think there is an analytical solution, not even if you make Fourier transforms of it and look at it from a frequency domain perspective (which is the QM perspective).

Maybe you can figure out if such an underlying reality (the Grid structure) could fit any of the 10^500 possible solutions of string theory? (I am serious here also.) If that is possible, could it take into account the slight non-symmetries shown in Figure 14? I believe those are essential for forming the spherical Grid rooms that are essential for atoms. If my first riddle in ToS 4.5.9 is solved, I think it will be a break-through in the understanding of the atom. Currently I just have a clue to the answer of that riddle.

I also want to say that you do general statements that I definitely agree with, such as: 

“Nature simply has reasons explaining why the things are the way they are and they're often reasons that may only be accurately formulated in the language of mathematics.” (Check section ToS 8) and “Nature isn't man-made. The laws of physics that dictate the shape of patterns are natural mathematical laws. Why would they produce something so similar to complicated man-made objects such as modified "tennis rackets"?”

Read how I actually derived Newton’s mechanical laws (Don’t just say it is not possible – that they are fundamental physical laws that cannot be derived – I also thought so, but with classic electromagnetism as the top fundamental law in the ToS, it became a necessity!) http://bit.ly/A-Anonymous. There I say almost the same thing (but with no tennis racket…). 

There is also one thing you say that I had to revise during the development of the ToS. You state “A true description of Nature isn't necessarily easy to be visualized.” but I have been very surprised how much that actually can be visualized and understood in detail. With my “odd assumptions”, things just fell into place! In the middle of http://www.theoryofsomething.com/p/introduction.html there is quite an amazing table of what could be visualized and understood if you read the ToS. Do it!

The ToS is simple and beautiful http://bit.ly/TheCreation, vastly less complicated that other theories not achieving a third. But it takes some reading, efforts and understanding to deviate from 100 years of “side-tracking”.

So, now when I have exposed the secret of that a magnifying glass is not a tennis racket, maybe you can be more careful with the number of dimensions that we don’t have so many of in the real world and give the people that asked for your view of the Theory of Something a better go through? I will be quite interested to see which holes you actually find. Please make a reference into the ToS then! :)

And if you don’t do your homework until next review, I will ask how you explain that in the ToS you can actually CALCULATE Planck’s “constant” http://bit.ly/PlanckProof and the gravitational “constant” (ToS 5.5.1) from the dark energy in the universe. The numbers match up! Explain that without the ToS and I will be impressed.

/G.D.

7 comments:

  1. What a nice ”peer review” you got from Mr Lubos.

    Lubos: It’s 2D, tennis racket, crazy, childish, dismissed. People now days are so stupid that they don’t see that immediately. I saw that from just looking at one picture, didn’t even need to read it.

    Tosman: It’s not 2D nor a tennis racket. Please read the full theory and check the listed proofs.

    Reader: Please don’t read it and you must not answer Tosman.

    Lubos: I know it’s 2D and a tennis racket. (End of discussion)

    What are people so afraid of? That if somebody takes the time to read and try to understand the Theory of Something they could see that it actually makes sense.

    It’s a bit strange that people need to misinterpret it (on intent?) and make up their own errors to find flaws in the Theory of Something. For something being 100+ pages long and contains a lot of calculations and data it shouldn’t that hard to find flaws, if it’s as crazy as they say…

    ReplyDelete
  2. I got very disappointed at Lupos when reading his response to you Derek (after Tosman had replied) and I tried to post this comment:::::
    Lupos, below you replied to Derek “shows a tennis racket and the wording makes it very clear that the grid in the tennis racket is a part of the "theory", not just a visualization tool. That's why they count the 2D space as an integer amount of "grid room".

    So, after being unable to see that it is a magnifying glass – not a tennis racket – You don’t even read Tosman’s reply? First paragraph says “It is a magnifying glass and the structure inside is 3 dimensional”.

    If you change the theory you are reviewing into your own, are you not reviewing yourself then?
    ::::::
    But Lupos did not let it through. I tried twice! Still imposing his weird 2D vision on that picture must mean he doesn’t read at all, or can we hope that he actually opened the theory and saw that it is not crackpot at all and is coming back, but just don’t know how to handle the situation after being lectured by Tosman?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree Lupos is not trustworthy to me after that, because there's no way he looked into this at all, and he is too arrogant to correct his blatant misrepresentation. When the physicists and mathematicians are silent about the mathematics and physics of it, I can only assume that the ones that want to debunk it are still stuck trying to debunk it, and are too afraid to say something like, "well, maybe this is worth looking at ... I'm not sure" to the world, lest they are wrong. So they remain silent or attack the surface of it - the presentation, the images, misinterpret things and say, F=ma is not "derivable", but ignore the question, if m is derived from As (which I don't know, but IF) then F=ma would logically be derivable from something. So it's the big IF this is true, and IF the math gives us a model that is useful, even if it's wrong, then it's still a model that may give insight into reality. I hold my judgments on it for now. Even if it's dead wrong, it's interesting and creative.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ta, I agree and commented in the February 3 blogpost.

      Delete
  5. In my not so humble opinion, the explanations of those things that I researched are either in complete agreement or completely opposite to what I learned. There are things I still need to learn, but as of now, I find that this "Theory of Something" has a much simpler explanation that is much easier to understand. Using Occam's Razor and all of its derivatives indicate that it is the more correct explanation. Photon explanation is right on. Gravity explanation is the opposite, but it works as well as both claim that it is the binding energies that create the bend in spacetime/grid.

    My examination is still incomplete as I have yet to see anything about time or dimensional dilation.

    {[(It wants me to select a profile and I have no idea how any of the items in the list, with the exception of anonymous, have anything to do with putting a comment here. Making it tough to comment is a problem, so I choose anonymous as it implies the least number of problems. My name is James and until the barriers are lifted, I must always log in as anonymous. I do not know why I should create an account elsewhere just to log in here. I am willing to wager that ninety percent of the people that may wish to comment here are unable or unwilling because of the obstacles placed in their way. What is wrong with a simple sign-in?)]}

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a continued reply to James comment below, under the October 6th, 2012 blog post – Read that first!

      After admitting below, that I developed the ToS with my hand-on detailed reality descriptions first, before linking to the more general terms and consequences, it is good, that you starting from the more general and overview terms find that they agree with the ToS.

      Regarding “spacetime is a form of energy”: Understanding energy was one of my larger eye-openers and a big surprise! I, like most others, had thought Energy and its Conservation was something that “just existed” and could not really be understood. But when ToS 1.0 was ready and was looking at the new unit for Energy A/m=Am^2/m^3=C/s*m^2/m^3, I realized “it is only the magnetic momentum density” (ToS 6.3)! The Grid simply keeps the movement of charge constant in space – That is the law of Energy Conservation!

      Your best compromise “that molecules are composed of atoms are composed of quarks are composed of superstrings are composed of twisted or knotted spacetime.” is the ToS model if a superstring is the cylindrical like negtrino with its charge moving in the cylinder wall (described by the equation of everything in 8.2.1, which gives the relation between space, time, charge and force).

      I will comment more regarding simplicity and 'mainstream theories', trying to disprove the Theory of Something etc. in the blog post of today, February 3rd. I surely would welcome “attempts to disprove it” or the opposite. The ToS is concrete and simple enough to disprove or support for those in the field – but of course very far from the last 100 years of ‘mainstream theories’, so it seems to take some time.

      Delete

Real Time Web Analytics