Peter Dunn

Hello Brat the Rat I commend you for posting this thread - living, as you do, in one of the most heavily populated countries on the planet with a per capita consumption of Mother Earth's resources way, way below that of Europeans or Americans makes your argument all the more stronger. It should be us westerners that pay the price for the rape of the planet, we've taken it out, therefore its down to us to put it back in. Forget terraforming Mars - we should be making plans to terraform our home planet so that we can survive (as a race) long enough to get the F!!Ck off it. Yours peter Dunn

Can homeopathic SURGEONS perform heart by pass operations? I think not. (S)nuff said.

Hi guys Stop looking for perfection - whether in yourself or the girl of your dreams - it ain't there believe me. For two people to successfully share their lives they need to accept and understand their chosen partner's imperfections (smelly feet whatever) - its the little things - for the most part - that eventually destroy relationships. Forget the soaps, forget Hollywood, this isn'nt a rehearsal (we only come this way once), so make the most of it. Peter Dunn

I'm going for a sqrt

Hi Loki Surely plants do'nt 'base' their structure on anything; they are simply what they are - as nature intended (and hopefully edible). Whatever structure they do possess is probably more to do with structure at the molecular level which is reflected at higher levels (zooming out with your microscope) in fractal fashion. The recurrence of patterns and numbers in nature is a fascinating theme with, I think, the most amazing correlation being between early (neolithic) man's obsession with spiral patterns and the spiral patterns seen in particle accelerator detectors as 'bits' of particles spiral away to non existence (they disappear).

Hi Fafalone Did you actualy type all that stuff? Didn't your digits acquire a few blisters in the process? Your attention to detail and sustained manual dexterity is to be applauded. All the best Peter Dunn

Hi All I take it I'm under house arrest. As for kps to mps conversion Encarta (where I read about the speed of the solar wind etc) gives both - but as I've lost the disc I thought I'd tap into some of the enormous reservoir of grey matter out there and save myself a bit of bother. As for my age - well I'm a bit coy about that when talking to strange men over the ether. All the best Peter Dunn

Hi All I would just like to explain that my theory does not negate the invaluable contributions made to modern physics: such as the inverse square law and special and general relativity, by intellectual heavyweights such as Newton and Einstein etc. What I am trying to accomplish is to integrate all previous theories (theories that I understand in purely an interested layman’s terms) into one principle that explains the totality of existence in a single concept. My theory has a lot say about what I have termed oppositional forces but if you strip away, for a moment, the up-scaling force we are left with only the down-scaling force; it is this force that previous theories of gravitation are, in isolation, actually describing. Now we are all aware of the fact the present model has been seriously undermined by the discoveries that galaxies rotate faster at their rims than ought to be the case leading to the proposal that as much as 96% of matter is dark and not directly detectable (juxtapose this with the concept of critical density – i.e. there is just the right amount of matter in the Universe for it to exist in the first place) and that the expansion rate of the Universe is not slowing down as predicted - this has led to speculation that Einstein’s cosmological constant might, after all, be correct (when he knew, himself, that it wasn’t) or that there is a completely new force out there awaiting discovery. What we lay people, standing here watching from the side lines, are actually witnessing here is a desperate re-jigging of a theory that can no longer predict or account for the empirical evidence provided by the increasingly sophisticated and powerful observational tools being deployed. Who knows – if Einstein had lived long enough to have access to some of this evidence he might indeed conclude that there existed a counterbalancing up-scaling force. The jpeg that I have attached to this post is one that I chose not to include in my theory proper. This is because I could not justify the point I was trying to make with it - i.e. that Einstein’s famous equation could be illustrated in a purely physical manner within the framework of my theory. Perhaps there is, out there, someone who could. All the best Peter Dunn

Hi Sayonara I would be delighted if somebody could inject a bit of math into my theory. Also computer viruses attack computers - a related question - what firewall have you installed? Mine lets it through. All the best Peter Dunn

Question? How do you compute, to an exact value, the area of a circle? Pi is not the answer. The universe is not reducible to an equation. There is much that mathematics can predict because the universe is quantised by oppositional forces (they parcel everything out). Numbers are just another language ie agreed values. They do not invalidate other ways of seeing or understanding. Most importantly i am signing off because the WinBlaster worm is running riot on this side of the pond and its totally doing my head in! All the best Preparing to scan Peter Dunn

Hi Radical Eddy! I'm glad you like the pics. I put them together with Real Draw Pro if you're interested - its not very difficult to produce such images with the fills and other features of the Prog. All the best Peter Dunn

Hi Snorlax I'm a Brit could you run that by me again using mps instead of kps. Also there is no complete theory of gravity (the existence of the graviton is still to unproven) so why a constant for what is still conjecture. As for universal constants (there is now speculation that the speed of light can vary) there are heavyweight theorists out there who are, at last, beginning to call everything based on classical assumptions into question. In other words all bets are off and the field is opening up to new ideas and thinking. Also could you set out your argument in English as I do'nt speak math - I deal in concepts. Thanks for your input. All the best Peter Dunn

Hi Sayo Thanks for the remove! Figure 3 re-visited. I’ve re-posted figure 3, in what - I hope - is a clearer format, because I don’t think that the original adequately illustrates how it relates to all the other elements of my theory. I should also explain that all the figures that illustrate my work are representational and that they should not be construed to be actual depictions of the, as yet, invisible entities that I am describing. Non-space, or non-existence, is a real state or actuality that must be incorporated into any theory that attempts to explain reality for without it the theory would be incomplete. Figure 3, then, is a scale schematic of that reality but it should be understood that non-space is not solely confined to levels 1 and 5 – infinity cannot be demarcated and there can be no punctuations in eternity - rather it should be regarded as being all pervasive throughout the quantum continuum and that our reality: the interloper that destroyed the perfect symmetry of the void, is merely superimposed upon it like a double exposure. I’d like to thank all the readers that have viewed this piece – regardless of whether they agree or disagree with anything that I’ve had to say – for their time and interest. All best Peter Dunn

Now I would like to discuss the geometric continuity of space-time at all levels of scale. There is a basic shape – what I think of as the cosmic paradigm – that recurs at every level and this is the torus. When we look at undistorted particles we are looking at inversionally rotating tori formed by oppositional forces, we see this same pattern again with the magnetic lines of force surrounding a bar magnet, the magnetospheres of planets and stars are, when undistorted, inversionally rotating tori and, at the highest level of scale yet seen, the basic shape of a jet galaxies monstrously accelerated magnetosphere can safely be inferred to be such a torus. So, in fractal fashion – where the part reflects the whole, I think it would be safe to assume that the essential geometry of the entire Universe - a geometry dictated by oppositional forces – is an inversionally rotating torus. At this point I would ask the reader to consider a rather curious correlation, if you run the inverse square law backwards what you get is that, with each halving of the distance between two bodies, gravitational force intensifies fourfold; compare this with Maxwell’s assertion that when a magnetic object is compressed to half its original size, in effect – halving the distance between its composite molecules and atoms, magnetic force also increases fourfold. This is not mere coincidence - this is a direct correlation which tells us that gravity and electromagnetism are related forces. What, then, is the nature of this relationship? With the present: Newtonian, modified by Einstein model, gravity – when fully understood with gravitons captured and classified – would take its place in the unification of forces along with the electromagnetic, electroweak and strong forces etc. With my model gravity – when understood in terms of oppositional forces – is defined as being the overarching unifying force with all forces and phenomena, including matter and energy and the very fabric of space-time becoming merged into a single continuum stretching between the infinity within and the infinity without. The only question, then, that remains to be answered is – how did it all come about? What was it that occurred within non-space that led to the creation of our world with all its ethereal beauty and ordered chaos, its staggering scale and breathtaking sweep across space and time? Well nothing much really needed to happen – all that was required was for non-space to move, for whichever way it moved would be in opposition to itself - and so it was that the symmetry of the void was broken. I personally believe that the Universe has to exist in order to define its very antithesis: the directionless, dimensionless quantum void that I call non-space – in effect the Cosmos exists to quantify absolute nothingness. So what about the future? The Universe had a beginning; will it have an end? There is a bizarre sting in the tail here for the answer to that question is both yes and no. For those of us that live within it the end will come with a combination of heat death: as the Universe flies apart – and mini crunches as the crushing embrace of millions of black holes mop up the residual Universe. But for our sentient non-space entity (remember him?) for whom time cannot pass – the Universe will be a tiny spark shining forever in an otherwise featureless void.

I would like, now, to explain how oppositional forces combine individual particles into atomic structure. I once heard the quark described as being like Lewis Carroll’s Cheshire cat whose smile remains after the cat, itself, has disappeared. This is an apt description for the technology required to view this entity directly is still a long way off for the quark resides at the level of scale where space-time becomes both permeable and particulate (sparticles are the smallest viewable entities; anything smaller cannot exist within space-time). Figure 10 above depicts this level and the structured space-time (sub-atomic scale) level. It takes the combined masses of three quarks to make an entity: such as a proton or neutron, that is stable and possesses enough ‘presence’ to exist in the lower reaches of the microcosmic Universe; combinations of two quarks (virtual particles?) are probably short lived relationships that fall apart because the up-scaling force pushes them away from one another. With three quarks present the down-scaling force has enough mass to get to grips with so the down-scaling matrix centred on them cannot be overcome by their individual up-scaling matrices and so they become, in effect, a single, tertiary entity with overlapping matrices that comprise, at the level above, the focal localities of protons and neutrons. Figure 11 uses cogwheels to represent the focal localities/particles that make up the atom. This is to illustrate why particles of opposite charge ‘mesh’ and particles of like charge rebound from one another. It will be seen that particles of like charge: such as the two protons (see note 1 below) – top left, have the same angular momentum yet, when brought together, at the point of contact they are actually moving in opposite directions so their respective energies cannot ‘mesh’ and they rebound. The respective energies of particles of unlike charge: such as the proton and electron – top right, do mesh and if brought together would explode in a shower of photons. The neutron, however, has no integral spin of it’s own but still rotates as it is forced to adopt negative spin by being in close proximity to the protons in the nucleus. The negative spin of the neutron contributes to the prevention of electrons and protons coming into contact with one another. There is, though, another mechanism which prevents the electrons from approaching the protons in the nucleus too closely; when they approach the nucleus they are also approaching each other so their inability to come together renders them something akin to the bricks in an arch by forming a self supporting structure (see note 2 below). The different charges associated with atomic particles: i.e. positive, negative and neutral, are not dictated by their angular momentum alone but also by whether they are slightly up-scale or down-scale dominant – inversional bias also dictates angularity - with the neutron carrying no inversional bias; this is why it is the least interactive of the three specie and why it rapidly decays outside the nucleus as it cannot relieve the stresses induced by inversional rotation. When energy is introduced into such a system the electrons move away from the nucleus because their energy/mass equivalence has increased and they move to a higher oscillatory state (the bricks in the arch – and therefore the arch – actually get bigger). The, now more powerful (more mass means more force brought to bear), down-scaling matrix centred on the aggregate mass of the entire atom reacts to this situation by contracting which forces photon emission and a return to the more stable ground state. Figure 12 depicts an atomic nucleus with two orbiting electrons. The arrows represent the up-scaling and down-scaling matrices, centred on the nucleus, as they spiral outward and inward. The two electrons depicted – which would, at their ground state, resemble inversionally rotating tori (see note 3 below) - are distorted, or stretched by the actions of the down-scaling matrix as it carries them toward the nucleus and constrained by the up-scaling matrix sliding past them, in the opposite direction, on either side. When an electron’s mass is increased by a close encounter with another electron (mass is transmitted through their overlapping matrices – see paragraphs one and two page nine) - or an induction of electromagnetic energy (e.g. thermal) from an outside source - it becomes up-scale dominant and so must jump across from the down-scaling spiral onto the up-scaling spiral (this equates with a changed quantum state) so that it can move away from the nucleus. What happens next is dependent upon how much extra energy (energy equals stress/mass) the electron has received; below a certain quotient the electron well remain constrained within the down-scaling matrix centred upon the atoms aggregate mass and it will be forced to lower its quantum state by photon emission (an up-scaling event) – above that quotient the electron moves, energetically, away from the nucleus at escape velocity to break free from the system altogether and become either a free radical, one of a pair or, in a molecular environment, dislodge, by stress/mass transferral, an electron from a neighbouring atom into which it then becomes integrated. There will be times, of course, when photon emission and ejection from the quantum system occur simultaneously Atoms, we are aware, combine to form molecules by electron exchange; my model of this process is described above. All the activity depicted occurs at a bewildering speed as the electron is a frenetically busy entity as it careers around the nucleus jumping across quantum states with its oscillatory condition constantly in flux. It is the ability of the electron, however, to both integrate itself into atomic structure and, when in free radical mode, to rip another electron out of a quantum system to form a pair that provides for its most important function: driving forward molecular evolution. When a free radical rips out an electron from a molecule the molecule is forced to recombine or mutate to form a new molecule and it is this process: relentless mutation - that gives rise to complex molecules such as DNA. It would be reasonable to assume that electrons behave in pretty much the same way regardless of where their focal localities happen to be in the Universe; it would also, then, be reasonable to assume that the process described above has been replicated elsewhere in the Cosmos which would, moreover, mean that we are not alone and that there is life out there. Further to this, because the electron’s creational drive is ever toward complexity, some of that life will be intelligent. Perhaps, one day, utilising space ripping technology and quantum transpositioning we will actually get out there to meet them. Notes 1. The repulsive force exerted by the protons in the nucleus is overcome by three factors: 1) At the quark level the down-scaling matrix centred on the aggregate mass of the combination of quark triplets that constitute the nucleic particles is very strong as it is almost at the end of its long journey through space-time and is about to re-enter non-space. 2) The down-scaling matrix centred on the aggregate mass of the entire atom is supplemented by the matrix centred on the nucleus alone and the matrices of the individual nucleic particles. 3) The protons themselves can, momentarily, reduce their repulsiveness by transferring mass to each other - this mass in transit is known to particle physics as pions with the same function performed at the quark level by mass transferrals known as gluons. All of these phenomena – taken together – constitute the strong force. 2. Some readers might, at this point, be thinking ‘What about hydrogen – that has only one electron and proton?’ My answer to this question is that hydrogen atoms are probably self destructing on massive scales in the hearts of stars all the time but hydrogen elsewhere mostly exists in molecular form so the electrons are preoccupied swapping nuclei. 3. All entities are prone to becoming distorted by the actions of other entities in their environment and so will only rarely appear to be tori (doughnut shapes). There will also be occasions when the matrices (field) of a particle have two or more focal localities (superposition). Next post: the geometry of space-time.