A Theory of Everything

[New Science]

Theory of Everything

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/13911-theory-

everything.html

 

A Theory of Everything

 

Albert Einstein was working on a 'theory of everything' and after 30 years of his effort, he failed to develope one.

 

So, through a serendipitous discovery, I got involved in this idea when I bought a second hand book at a library entitled

'Introduction to Atomoc and Nuclear Physics' by Henry Semat, 4th Ed.

On page 588, there was a list of atomic mass numbers (AMN) that included all the isotopes of all the elements up to

bismuth that is the heaviest of the elements that is stable. This is a complete list of all the isotopes from one to beyond

the last stable element that is bismuth at 209.

 

Then I noticed a glaring omission of 2 AMN's. They where 5 and 8. These were the only 2 missing numbers that did

not seem to make sense since the 'strong force' (SF) was strictly an attractive force that could not explain why these

2 numbers were missing.

There was another peculiarity about this SF that was its 'extremely' short range of 10^-15 meters. This is the diameter

of a nucleon! The 'weak force' had a still shorter range of 10^-18 meters.

 

So I decided to evaluate why the SF did not explain this discrepency.

Since the SF is supposed to be created in the star fusion process, I thought about why it did not function as it should.

So evalating the central region (CR) of the stars and their nature of fusion, I came to the conclusion that the real forces

involved in the fusion process were the coulomb force and the magnetic component of these EMF's to bind together

to create the SF.

 

The CR is packed close together to cause the electrons to bypass the protons at very close open orbital passages to

cause the protons to spin at very high spin rates. This causes the protons to have very strong magnetic force fields.

These protons will align to attract but an electron is needed in between the two protons to complete the bind.

This then creates a 'deuteron' nucleus that acts as a powerful 'bar' magnet with an electron sandwiched in between

two protons. So two of these deuteron bar magnets will automatically clamp together to create a helium nucleus.

 

However, these fusion binds do not create any energies!

 

The high velocity electrons bypassing the protons generate strong magnetic pulses because of the high velocity

variations that the electrons have, to create the photons in these CRs and then work their way up to the surface of

the stars to radiate the light that we see.

 

The fusion I described above that involved the fusion of the helium nucleus, explains why a 5th particle is not involved

. A 5th particle here would not fit along this combination as it has no where to be attached to.

Also, 2 helium nuclei will not bind together because their is no electrons attached to the sides of these HN to bind

together to form an AMN 8. So 2 HN cannot attach to each other.

So this fusion process is simply a Quantum effect that involves the EMF's only.

 

So a new Grand Unified Theory is the result because of serendipity.

This solution cannot be solved mathematically because visualization or imaging is required to come to this conclusion.

 

See URL below for a Grand Ubified Theory.:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astrono...ied+Theory\par

 

New Science

[D H]

Neither of your links is valid.

 

The correct link is http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/13911-theory-everything.html

 

You were thoroughly refuted in post #2 in that thread. However, you are repeating verbatim the original post in that thread here in ScienceForums (including incredibly bad spelling), indicating that you have not learned a thing. Therefore, I am moving this thread to Pseudoscience and Speculations.

[mooeypoo]

Also, it's important to note that Einstein wasn't the only one trying to develop a theory of everything. Others did - and still do - too. Many others. That makes the claim of actually finding one quite a lot less plausible (not impossible, of course) and requires much more supporting evidence.

 

but then again - if you ignore peer-review in other forums, I don't hold much hope you'll listen in this one.

 

~moo

[Reaper]

Hey, I remember this guy from a while back over at Hypography (the few days I was there before it annoyed the hell out of me)! He was one of those "Relativity/Einstein is wrong" crackpots, as well as claiming a bunch of other absurd things (such as the existence of perpetual motion).

 

Beware, his Baez index is higher than Farsight's...

[New Science]

 

To All:

 

I do not see any specific criticisms to my article. Just an attack on my general character.

 

I said I am a FREE THINKER.

I have books written by the experts.

So there is no need for me to forage the web.

 

That criticism about me believing in perpetual motion is taken out of context.

I am promoting a Flat Space (FS) universe that had no beginning and will have no end.

I originally was calling it a SSU but Hoyle is credited with that ID. So I had to change it to a FS concept that is not expanding or contracting.

 

That means it refutes the BBT because that theory is not science.

It is cosmoGONY because it promotes a 'creation out of NOTHING'.

 

Have you creationists ever heard of the CONSERVATION LAWS?

 

New Science

[John Cuthber]

Ok, here's a specific crtiticism of your theory.

You have no experimental evidence for this

"The CR is packed close together to cause the electrons to bypass the protons at very close open orbital passages to

cause the protons to spin at very high spin rates. This causes the protons to have very strong magnetic force fields.

These protons will align to attract but an electron is needed in between the two protons to complete the bind.

This then creates a 'deuteron' nucleus that acts as a powerful 'bar' magnet with an electron sandwiched in between

two protons. So two of these deuteron bar magnets will automatically clamp together to create a helium nucleus."

 

So it's guesswork.

 

Also there's a general problem with "flat universe" theories.

We know that the universe is finite in extent or duration or that we are in a very odd bit of it.

(we know this because it gets dark at night) .

 

The evidence (something that you seem short of) sugests that the universe started something like 15 billion years ago (let's not quible about the date) because that's consstent with the observed red shift of distant objects.

 

OK to sum up-

you have no evidence at all.

The evidence sugests that flat (steady state) universe models are wrong (because it goes dark at night)

The evidence sugests that the universe is expanding- so it must have started out small.

 

See, no need to atack your character, your "theory" is junk anyway.

[New Science]

Ok, here's a specific crtiticism of your theory.

You have no experimental evidence for this

 

Quote NS

"The CR is packed close together to cause the electrons to bypass the protons at very close open orbital passages to

cause the protons to spin at very high spin rates. This causes the protons to have very strong magnetic force fields.

These protons will align to attract but an electron is needed in between the two protons to complete the bind.

This then creates a 'deuteron' nucleus that acts as a powerful 'bar' magnet with an electron sandwiched in between

two protons. So two of these deuteron bar magnets will automatically clamp together to create a helium nucleus."

 

So it's guesswork.

 

Also there's a general problem with "flat universe" theories.

We know that the universe is finite in extent or duration or that we are in a very odd bit of it.

(we know this because it gets dark at night) .

 

The evidence (something that you seem short of) sugests that the universe started something like 15 billion years ago (let's not quible about the date) because that's consstent with the observed red shift of distant objects.

 

Are you taling about the sky being totally lighted at night because of the satursation of the space with stars? Can't recall the idea of the author for this?

Well' date=' my FS also has a Cosmological Redsdhift and that is the 'Expansion of the Light Waves'. This has more evidence for its support than the 'expansion of space' that was based on the Doppler RS's but still refuted and replaced with the EoS.

.

OK to sum up-

you have no evidence at all.

The evidence sugests that flat (steady state) universe models are wrong (because it goes dark at night)

The evidence sugests that the universe is expanding- so it must have started out small.

 

See, no need to atack your character, your "theory" is junk anyway.

 

What I write about the central regions of stars requires the imagination as science teaches it.

Electrons cause protons to spin because of the Coulomb attraction.

Magnetic fields will align themselves to attracr always because one of the conponents will 'FLIP' to form an attraction.

Try this with a couple of bar magnets with one freely hanging on a string.

 

So, you believe in 'ceationism? Ha ha.

 

NS

Edited June 15, 2008 by swansont
fix quote tag

[Klaynos]

One of the major problems with a solid state flat universe is, if that was true then there would be an infinite amount of photons hitting the earth at all times.. Which is not what we see, the sky at night is dark...

 

(edit -added) This would still be true with a redshift just the photons would not be of visible wavelength, but we still don't see this.

 

If you wish to propose something other than BBT you need evidence...

 

Science is built on evidence.

 

What I write about the central regions of stars requires the imagination as science teaches it.

 

We know quite alot about the centre of stars...

 

Electrons cause protons to spin because of the Coulomb attraction.

 

In atoms? How does this work, it's news to me...

 

Magnetic fields will align themselves to attracr always because one of the conponents will 'FLIP' to form an attraction.

 

It's a simple energy reduction problem.

 

Try this with a couple of bar magnets with one freely hanging on a string.

 

See above.

 

So, you believe in 'ceationism? Ha ha.

 

NS

 

Not an argument....

[John Cuthber]

For a given value of "creationism" yes I do believe in it.

Since the universe didn't exist a long time ago, but it now does, it must have been created.

 

So what?

It's perfectly obviously true.

 

I don't think it was created by any God; other people do.

That's hardly important here.

[ydoaPs]

Since the universe didn't exist a long time ago

 

Are you sure about that? If this assumption is false, then your conclusion is incorrect.

[mooeypoo]

That's not quite creationism, that's more like Deism.

 

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a personal god according to the story of Genesis. Six days... 6000~ years ago...

 

That's "Creationism". All other faith is not creationism persae, and therefore might not be incompatible with science the way creationism is.

 

~moo

[Radical Edward]

 

In atoms? How does this work, it's news to me...

 

 

it doesn't. That's a load of bullshit.

[New Science]

One of the major problems with a solid state flat universe is, if that was true then there would be an infinite amount of photons hitting the earth at all times.. Which is not what we see, the sky at night is dark...

(edit -added) This would still be true with a redshift just the photons would not be of visible wavelength, but we still don't see this.

If you wish to propose something other than BBT you need evidence...

Science is built on evidence.

 

Whats a solid state universe? Never heard of it.

That statement is applicable to electronic circuits.

 

We know quite alot about the centre of stars...

 

How is that?

We do not see the centers of stars.

We can only imagine what goes on by using our basic knowledge of physics.

The central regions are high energy plasmas.

So here, we imagine the electrons bypassing the protons at high velocities in open orbital passages.

 

In atoms? How does this work, it's news to me...

 

Outside the stars in ground state orbits,

the hydrogen atom (HA) does not collapse. So it is stable in the ground state. This is known physics. I explained this as an intrinsic magnetic field between the electron and the proton that oppose each other to give the orbital momentum of the electron a boost to prevent this collapse.

This can be easily proven with the right and left hand rules.

The proton spins symchroneously in the same direction as the electrons orbital motion

So you can prove this to yourslf. Just cup your hands into fists and bring them close to your body with the thumbs pointing outward that indicate the direction of motion of the particles.

The fingers point upward and outward to indicate the direction of the magnetic field lines. Both fields are moving upward and outward to show that this alignment creates expansion. The right hand represents the electron motion and the left hand represents the proton direction of spin motion.

This opposition boosts the electrons orbital momentum to prevent the collapse of the HA.

 

It's a simple energy reduction problem.

 

This is fusion, not energy reduction to form a helium nucleus.

 

New Science

[Reaper]

Whats a solid state universe? Never heard of it.

That statement is applicable to electronic circuits.

 

Klaynos was referring to the Steady State theory. And don't attempt to dodge the issue here; Klaynos is quite right when he says that your model would be utterly inconsistent with what we observe.

 

How is that?

We do not see the centers of stars.

We can only imagine what goes on by using our basic knowledge of physics.

 

Exactly. We have models, that explain extremely well, what goes on inside of a star. And, we can confirm this empirically too, such as observing stars at various stages of their lives or nebula's. We have a very good idea of what goes on in the core.

 

 

 

 

Outside the stars in ground state orbits,

the hydrogen atom (HA) does not collapse. So it is stable in the ground state. This is known physics. I explained this as an intrinsic magnetic field between the electron and the proton that oppose each other to give the orbital momentum of the electron a boost to prevent this collapse.

 

Wrong. The fact that electrons can only occupy specific energy levels is what keeps it from collapsing. Classical mechanics do not necessarily apply in the quantum mechanical world (i.e. the world of the very small).

 

 

And second, a magnetic field is caused by an electric current. Always. You can have magnetic dipoles, which some atoms become, but never magnetic monopoles.

 

 

 

This is fusion, not energy reduction to form a helium nucleus.

 

New Science

 

:confused::confused::confused:

[Klaynos]

Yes, apologies ,steady state universe!

 

And some points I'd like to add to Reapers comments:

 

How is that?

We do not see the centers of stars.

We can only imagine what goes on by using our basic knowledge of physics.

The central regions are high energy plasmas.

So here, we imagine the electrons bypassing the protons at high velocities in open orbital passages.

 

We create a model, the model makes predictions about what stars would look like, we go and look for stars and lo! what we see matches our models extreamly well. These experiments range from looking for neutrinos from the sun (and soon other individule stars hopefully), as well as looking at stars via their emissions of photons...

 

Outside the stars in ground state orbits,

the hydrogen atom (HA) does not collapse. So it is stable in the ground state. This is known physics. I explained this as an intrinsic magnetic field between the electron and the proton that oppose each other to give the orbital momentum of the electron a boost to prevent this collapse.

This can be easily proven with the right and left hand rules.

The proton spins symchroneously in the same direction as the electrons orbital motion

So you can prove this to yourslf. Just cup your hands into fists and bring them close to your body with the thumbs pointing outward that indicate the direction of motion of the particles.

The fingers point upward and outward to indicate the direction of the magnetic field lines. Both fields are moving upward and outward to show that this alignment creates expansion. The right hand represents the electron motion and the left hand represents the proton direction of spin motion.

This opposition boosts the electrons orbital momentum to prevent the collapse of the HA.

 

If this was true you'd have an accelerating electron (spin is acceleration) so the electron would be giving off photons, accelerating charges radiate, so the electron would lose energy and fall into the nucleus, this is not observed.

 

This is fusion, not energy reduction to form a helium nucleus.

 

New Science

 

My comment was correct it is an energy reduction problem.

[New Science]

To All

 

With all these different critics and long posts, I cannot answer each one individually.

 

The claim of the anti-Bohr faction that the HA is replaced by the Schroadinger version of orbitals in not true,

The HA is a planetary binary as Bohr has shown.

S'sE's are correct for the higher elements and do not apply to the Universe in general but to molecular chemistry(?)

All we need to know is that the HA is THE atom of importance that creates the stars and 95% of the energy in the universe.

 

The concept that the HA would collapse with the Newtonian math is not true.

The HA is 'stable' and does not collapse and we do not need Quantum math to tell us why.

 

The ground state of the HA is the normal state in space because of the balance between the coulomb, magnetic and the electrons orbital momentum that results in this perpetual state.

The HA radiates only after it absorbs a photon.

 

I explained why the HA does not collapse with the right and left hand rules regarding the magnetic interactions that contribute to this HA stability. This is probably overlooked when using Newtonian math.

There is an interaction between the two magnetic fields of these particles.

 

I thin I said enough.

 

New Science

[mooeypoo]

... right. And this was a thread full of claims. All we need is your proof and something to convince us that your claims have any basis in (oh..) reality.

 

We need proof, New Science. Not just opinionated claims.

[Klaynos]

If this was true you'd have an accelerating electron (spin is acceleration) so the electron would be giving off photons, accelerating charges radiate, so the electron would lose energy and fall into the nucleus, this is not observed.

 

You still need to address this.

 

And if you address that satisfactory then we can move onto how classical models of electron orbits do not match their emission spectra. And all the other problems of classical orbiting electrons.

[KALSTER]

New Science, you can't call your philosophical musings a theory. It has none of the requirements. You make a variety of claims, with no supporting evidence or even logic, and then build on them with still more assumptive claims. Did you think you'd be taken seriously? And don't start mumbling about "narrow-mindedness" and "power science" and other pseudoscientist fodder please.

[swansont]

Outside the stars in ground state orbits,

the hydrogen atom (HA) does not collapse. So it is stable in the ground state. This is known physics. I explained this as an intrinsic magnetic field between the electron and the proton that oppose each other to give the orbital momentum of the electron a boost to prevent this collapse.

 

The magnitude of the magnetic interaction between the electron and proton is shown in the hyperfine structure of the atom. In Hydrogen it's equivalent to a 21 cm photon (1420 MHz), i.e. it's very small.

 

It also means that the electron can orient itself with either spin direction. They both can't repel the proton.

[New Science]

You still need to address this.

 

And if you address that satisfactory then we can move onto how classical models of electron orbits do not match their emission spectra. And all the other problems of classical orbiting electrons.

 

The Bohr model (BM) of the Hydrogen Atom is classical physics using Quantum theory.

It shows how photons are created as pulses.

 

The energy levels of the BM has been confirned by the Schroedinger equations.

All the physics books have this included in their contents. Need I say More?

 

NS

[D H]

The energy levels of the BM has been confirned by the Schroedinger equations.

All the physics books have this included in their contents. Need I say More?

An introductory physics text will barely touch on quantum mechanics because a good understanding of classical physics is a prerequisite for any technical understanding of quantum mechanics. The Bohr model is discussed briefly in intermediate undergraduate physics to give historical context and because it forms a nice bridge between the classical physics and quantum mechanics. These same intermediate texts also describe the shortcomings in the Bohr model and proceed to later developments. Advanced physics texts don't cover the Bohr model at all.

 

From an intermediate-level (college sophomore/junior) physics text, Fundamentals of Optics and Modern Physics, Hugh Young, 1968 (yes, I am a dinosaur); bold emphasis mine:

The Bohr model achieved stability by simply postulating that radiation does not occur as long as an electron is in one of its permitted orbits. ... It was not clear how it [the Bohr model] applied to atoms containing more than one electron' date=' and [b']all attempts to predict energy levels of more complicated atoms failed[/b]. Furthermore, later evidence accumulated from a variety of experiments with electrons showed that in many respects the classical picture of an electron as a charged particle in space had to be modified drastically. ... Thus by present day standards the Bohr theory was completely wrong conceptually.

[Klaynos]

The Bohr model (BM) of the Hydrogen Atom is classical physics using Quantum theory.

It shows how photons are created as pulses.

 

The energy levels of the BM has been confirned by the Schroedinger equations.

All the physics books have this included in their contents. Need I say More?

 

NS

 

The Bohr model is wrong though, if you try the same thing for helium you can clearly see it's wrong.

 

This also does not address the radiation and energy loss problems.

[New Science]

The magnitude of the magnetic interaction between the electron and proton is shown in the hyperfine structure of the atom. In Hydrogen it's equivalent to a 21 cm photon (1420 MHz), i.e. it's very small.

 

It also means that the electron can orient itself with either spin direction. They both can't repel the proton.

 

My idea of spin is that it does not have spin. The spin that applies to the HA is not a literal meaning but a word used to identify an electrons location that no other can use.

 

My use of the electron magnetic field in the HA is based on the electrons orbittal movement around the proton.

It does not spin.

I use here the fact that in our solar system, none of the major satellites do not have spin. Intriinsic spin, that is.

My conclusion is that the much less density of the electron in relation to the proton is a slight warp of it spherical shape just as the solar satellites are due to the gravitational pull.

 

In the ground state of the HA, the proton has a synchronous spin caused by the coulomb force between the two and the elecrons motion around it..

 

NS

[swansont]

Electron spin and proton spin are things that have been independently measured. Your model has to incorporate reality.