A new spin on an old topic

[zerotwoone]

Please read if you like. Feel free to disagree or to agree. Discourse is welcome. Thank you.

 

http://www.zero-2-one.com/

[Ophiolite]

There does not appear to anything of substance in your proposal, rather a lot of arm waving an word salad. For example, what does it mean to involute space? You do not define this; you do not detail its results; you provide no mathematical description of the involution process. The latter point, the absence of mathematics, permeates your whole proposal.

 

On the plus side your exposition is mercifully short. I suggest, if you wish your proposal to gain traction, that you need to build the argument more carefully. At each step you must

a) Define your terms

b) Be specific in your claims

c) Explain how your proposal provides a better explanation of observations

d) Provide a means of falsifying your hypothesis

 

Good luck.

[zerotwoone]

Thanks for your tip.

[zerotwoone]

a: I will try to be more precise, I realize that every term has to be specific. I do not have a phd, so I have no experience in writing a dissertation.

b: In process

c: My proposal unifies QM with Relativity*

d: Falsifiable Prediction: The volume or diameter of the nucleus of an atom should decrease as it approaches decay (as "h" approaches "0"). The volume or diameter of the nucleus of an atom will be the same when "h = 0" for equally massive particles. Suggested experiment: measure two or more radioactive atoms independently overtime until decay. If energy levels of atoms remain constant, the entire atom should decrease in volume or diameter as "h" approaches "0."

 

*I do have a complete Mathematical Framework, but I do not wish to release it at this point in time. I know it sounds like a copout, and I do not blame you or anyone else for being skeptical. Most everybody I'm seeming to discover has their own pet unification theory. I understand my claim from your viewpoint as beyond belief. I want people to know that I know, but I don't want you to know how I know. That is why I am hopefully releasing experimental predictions to validate my theory. It's like the veritable pandora's box, once it's open, it can never be closed. And I don't think that something like this should be common knowledge. My intentions are to predict unanswered questions in science as I understand my math. I am not claiming I understand it's full power. Look at the products of CERN or LHC, my math can track that in one equation. If my mathematics is not representative of nature, then at the least it will revolutionize computive power by allowing a solution to be found by an "explosion" by following an infinite number of paths rather than linearly. Some chip makers are trying to do this with multi-core solutions, but this is a finite solution due to inefficiencies in materials and energy consumption. Another reason I am so reluctant to show my mathematics is because it is so simple. All it takes is one glance to understand the undeniability of it's product. Whether you start at "0" or "1" the whole page explodes with motion. Instead of seeing strings of equations, you see infinite motion. The beginning of the equation at "0" starts with alpha-sub one is less than alpha-sub two. And at "1" the equation starts with h equals zero. If you can solve the next step of either expressions, then you have solved it all, the rest falls into place.

Edited October 25, 2011 by zerotwoone