The Observer

These too are a consequence of Noethers theorem, as are all conservation laws. Symmetry seems to be the fundamental concept.

By ~A do you mean the compliment of A?

Shouldn't you be citing sources for those figures? I think it is against the forum rules to lift quotes and graphs from other websites without citing sources.

This has nothing to do with physics and should have been posted in the speculations section.

Have a look at the graph of 1/x and tell me what 1 divided by zero is.

Well keep it up man. Mathematics gets beautiful when you start to really get into it. I am very sure you will find the study of linear algebra necessary, much of mathematics is an attempt to reduce all sorts of different looking problems to linear algebra problems!

If you want to study Maxwell's equations, you will want to familiarize yourself with a bit of vector calculus first. If you are interested in physics, I would highly recommend looking into it.

Royston my response was directed towards Tar's thought experiment about the black holes pulling on each other.

Black holes don't pull each other together for the same reason stars don't pull each other together.

That is why science is designed to ignore personal opinion as best as possible. Although certainly not perfect, over time the personal biases fade. Scientists are humans. How the elements differ is a how question, not a what question. Ie. it is not ontological. The differences between atoms are testable, they have different composition, mass, charge, ect. The nature of "what an atom is", is not a testable question and does not belong to physics. I don't think that most people in this forum think philosophy is useless in general, however it is useless to the actual practice of physics.

SR means special relativity, and it is the theory from which E=mc2 is derived.

Because in its derivation you get a c squared term? Or rather the actual equation you derive is E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 and you get E = mc2 by letting the momentum go to zero. It follows directly from the postulates of SR.

Ok fine, to make thing very easy for you. Use your theory to calculate the radius of the first electron energy level in a hydrogen atom.

Have you ever owned a ferret?

Ok, well what testable, quantitative, falsifiable predictions does your theory make? This is the most essential part of any theory. If you want to know whether your theory is worth anything or not, use it to make a genuine new prediction that could, if wrong, completely invalidate your theory. Also as a word of advice, people like me hate opening a thread titled as a unifying field theory, just to find that it isn't a field theory at all. Don't call it a field theory when it is not. You should avoid using technical words differently than they are used in mainstream science, it is very off putting for people trying to read things that use words differently than they are used to using them.

My argument is that this is not a field theory. A field theory has a formal mathematical definition. Don't claim to have a field theory when you don't.

Can you post some of the mathematical formalism so we can try to find some flaws?

Yeah...see, that's not a field theory, let alone a unifying field theory.

Its always such a random choice too, some strange experiment or something. Why not try to explain the simple stuff first before claiming victory that your idea can explain something to do with neutron diffraction.

The entire point was the notion of x and y coordinates were not known to Euclid. He talks primarily about proportions of lines and such, he did not yet have a notion of (x,y) points on a grid labelled with numbers. A space is called Euclidean if it assumes what they are talking about, the parallel postulate. ie. that parallel lines never cross. Euclid never considered spaces where this postulate did not hold, so we have named this "flat" space Euclidean space in honour of him. Note that he did not ever use such a term himself.

The fine structure constant is basically a number to deal with the fact that our units of measurement are arbitrary. Dimensionless means that it is essentially just a ratio.

There is a very good reason Ontology is a philosophy subject, and not a science subject.

100*0.18181818... - 1*0.18181818... = (100 - 1)*0.18181818... = 99*0.18181818...

In all physical sciences it is absolutely essential to make very explicit the precise definitions for the technical and mathematical terms you are using since it often varies considerably from field to field.

Don't bother dude. I sincerely doubt I will be convinced. Anyways, i'm in university, I have time to study the theories I need to and that's about it right now.