A Large Speculative Theory

[Dr Who]

I was just wondering if anybody knew how to get a discussion going on a speculative theory? I have been working on one for a few years now and have been trying to break it, by looking at various experimental data, but everything I find just re-enforces the theory. I am quite happy for anybody to read it, but it is approximately 100 pages, although I have written a few short papers, if that is of help. In fact the reason I wrote the papers in the first place was to try and discuss my idea with lecturers at various universities, as well as seeing whether journals would publish them. However I’m currently having no luck.

 

 

Therefore any comments and suggestions would be much appreciated. Conversely, if you have any questions, then just let me know, and I will do my best to answer them. Finally, if you are after reading my work or the papers, then I will upload them, and give you the link.

 

Thanks

 

 

[imatfaal]

In my non-scientific field the first thing to do is to write short abstracts that can be posted at conferences and meetings - if your abstract is enough above average you might well be asked to speak on it. I find it very unlikely that any academic will invest the time to read 100 pages of writing from an unknown author. I cannot believe that you cannot produce a few paragraphs that would get interest raised if the theory is sound.

[Phi for All]

Does your hypothesis (don't jump the gun on calling it a theory yet) attempt to overturn an existing principle or theory?

 

Can you suggest an experiment that would test your idea?

 

Is your hypothesis capable of making any predictions that could be tested?

 

Are you using standard scientific terminology, or are you making up phrases that best describe the differences between your idea and accepted science?

 

Are you trying to "prove" your concept is right, or do you have evidence that supports it?

 

These are the most often abused areas when someone posts speculative ideas here at SFN, imo. If you can address these issues and make sure to have some valid explanations that cover these points, you will meet with more interest and less outright negativity. It's nothing personal, but imatfaal is right, no one is going to want to delve too deeply into your hypothesis if early on they see that you have no predictive power or you claim that general relativity is wrong or you assert that force vacuoles in the primary elemental cosmophysics are what generate gravity.

[rigney]

Does your hypothesis (don't jump the gun on calling it a theory yet) attempt to overturn an existing principle or theory?

 

Can you suggest an experiment that would test your idea?

 

Is your hypothesis capable of making any predictions that could be tested?

 

Are you using standard scientific terminology, or are you making up phrases that best describe the differences between your idea and accepted science?

 

Are you trying to "prove" your concept is right, or do you have evidence that supports it?

 

These are the most often abused areas when someone posts speculative ideas here at SFN, imo. If you can address these issues and make sure to have some valid explanations that cover these points, you will meet with more interest and less outright negativity. It's nothing personal, but imatfaal is right, no one is going to want to delve too deeply into your hypothesis if early on they see that you have no predictive power or you claim that general relativity is wrong or you assert that force vacuoles in the primary elemental cosmophysics are what generate gravity.

 

I have read and listened to just about every cockamamie idea concerning differences between gravity and magnetism, and while having nowhere near the smarts of a physicist or rocket scientist; I believe an understanding should be prevalent among all people with common sense. Firstly, to assume that a force exists simply because its power can be calculated; is a stupid premise. People do that with God. Science has probed the depths of each and every atom known to man and has determined exactly how many electrons; protons, neutrons and positrons each of them contain. So why then do we continue trying to explicate a power that we can only calculate? One reason is conjecture! Without total knowledge of a condition or situation, conjecture is the only motivation for shuffling on.

Take for instance planets and moons in this solar system, including our sun. Scientists have calculated almost to a grain of sand how much each of them weigh; their diameter, circumference, magnetic poles and strengths, along with composition in many cases. Why then is “Gravity” the only unknown that must play by an entirely different set of rules and be calculated by formula alone? It really shouldn’t, since it is simply another facet of the single and intrinsic unifying force in the universe, magnetism.

Let me explain it this way. At some point, time as we know it; began. The who, why, how, when and where will always be open to conjecture, but I personally believe things did happen quite suddenly at the beginning. Science can give you a plethora of reasons for it, but I can only give you is mine.

Like a good machine builder, things were planned out well in advance of the initial undertaking. Such as, materials, an engine, drive train, fuel, tires and safety equipment were taken into consideration long before the “Start your Engine” signal was ever given. Then the signal came and our world began.

It was the first time such a machine had ever been built. That first instant alone at startup would have sent most good men back to farming or fishing. But the supreme power over everything that exists had no thought of giving up on the project. The roar must was been horrendous! Things that had lain dorment for an eternity instantly began to reverberate, even though a governor controlling the acceleration had been well thought out long in advance of this beginning. So, Pedal to the metal!

Again, science can give you all of the details. For me, It will be facts as I see them. During that first few moments it was a matter of getting the right fuel mixture, throttle control and a firm but gentle hand on the wheel. Piece of cake!.

Edited April 27, 2012 by rigney

[Dr Who]

Does your hypothesis (don't jump the gun on calling it a theory yet) attempt to overturn an existing principle or theory?

 

Can you suggest an experiment that would test your idea?

 

Is your hypothesis capable of making any predictions that could be tested?

 

Are you using standard scientific terminology, or are you making up phrases that best describe the differences between your idea and accepted science?

 

Are you trying to "prove" your concept is right, or do you have evidence that supports it?

 

These are the most often abused areas when someone posts speculative ideas here at SFN, imo. If you can address these issues and make sure to have some valid explanations that cover these points, you will meet with more interest and less outright negativity. It's nothing personal, but imatfaal is right, no one is going to want to delve too deeply into your hypothesis if early on they see that you have no predictive power or you claim that general relativity is wrong or you assert that force vacuoles in the primary elemental cosmophysics are what generate gravity.

 

I will answer your questions, one by one, Phil. Also I understand that these are not personal attacks against me, but general questions that need to be asked.

 

• Does your hypothesis attempt to overturn an existing principle or theory? I would have to answer yes there, but it is based upon relativity and old quantum mechanics.

• Can you suggest an experiment that would test your idea? Yes, I can suggest a couple of experiments that would test the idea and I have even written a paper talking about the more major of the two.

• Is your hypothesis capable of making any predictions that could be tested? Yes, there are several predictions that could be tested, even though the theory currently is qualitative rather than quantitive.

• Are you using standard scientific terminology, or are you making up phrases that best describe the differences between your idea and accepted science? I am using standard scientific terminology, so that everyone (including me) can understand what it is I’m trying to put forward.

• Are you trying to "prove" your concept is right, or do you have evidence that supports it? I have lots of evidence that support my concept and it does seem to be able to answer a wide number of questions.

[Dr Who]

I have read and listened to just about every cockamamie idea concerning differences between gravity and magnetism, and while having nowhere near the smarts of a physicist or rocket scientist; I believe an understanding should be prevalent among all people with common sense. Firstly, to assume that a force exists simply because its power can be calculated; is a stupid premise. People do that with God. Science has probed the depths of each and every atom known to man and has determined exactly how many electrons; protons, neutrons and positrons each of them contain. So why then do we continue trying to explicate a power that we can only calculate? One reason is conjecture! Without total knowledge of a condition or situation, conjecture is the only motivation for shuffling on.

Take for instance planets and moons in this solar system, including our sun. Scientists have calculated almost to a grain of sand how much each of them weigh; their diameter, circumference, magnetic poles and strengths, along with composition in many cases. Why then is "Gravity" the only unknown that must play by an entirely different set of rules and be calculated by formula alone? It really shouldn't, since it is simply another facet of the single and intrinsic unifying force in the universe, magnetism.

Let me explain it this way. At some point, time as we know it; began. The who, why, how, when and where will always be open to conjecture, but I personally believe things did happen quite suddenly at the beginning. Science can give you a plethora of reasons for it, but I can only give you is mine.

Like a good machine builder, things were planned out well in advance of the initial undertaking. Such as, materials, an engine, drive train, fuel, tires and safety equipment were taken into consideration long before the "Start your Engine" signal was ever given. Then the signal came and our world began.

It was the first time such a machine had ever been built. That first instant alone at startup would have sent most good men back to farming or fishing. But the supreme power over everything that exists had no thought of giving up on the project. The roar must was been horrendous! Things that had lain dorment for an eternity instantly began to reverberate, even though a governor controlling the acceleration had been well thought out long in advance of this beginning. So, Pedal to the metal!

Again, science can give you all of the details. For me, It will be facts as I see them. During that first few moments it was a matter of getting the right fuel mixture, throttle control and a firm but gentle hand on the wheel. Piece of cake!.

 

Here is further information on my previous comment:

 

An abstract of the work, would be:

 

Atoms are the building blocks of the universe; however they themselves consist of protons, neutrons and electrons. It is these sub-atomic particles though, that are the foundation of matter. Conversely electromagnetic waves are a form of energy and not only give us visible light but everything from radio waves to gamma rays. The electromagnetic force is also one of the four fundamental forces of the universe, the others being gravity, the strong force and the weak force. We propose a qualitative model that shows how electromagnetic waves can form all the different sub-atomic particles. It then goes on to explain how these fit together to form the nucleus of all the different elements and their isotopes, as well as their electron structures. In building up the structure of the atoms, the model naturally explains why the ratio of neutrons to protons required for stability increases, as the elements get heavier. Additionally we are able to explain the variation in the number of stable isotopes each element has, as well as the variations in the abundance of each element. The model also takes into account and/or explains various other atomic features, for example the uncertainty principle. Furthermore, from these nuclear structures, we are able to show how the strong and weak forces can be combined into the electromagnetic force.

 

Once the basic structure of the atom explained, we show how this agrees with and explains various phenomena, which include antimatter, quantum mechanical spin, radioactivity, chemical bonding plus thermal and electrical conduction. So for example the model explains why matter and antimatter would have all the same properties, but be equal and opposite in charges. Also in terms of radioactivity, the model is able to reproduce the radioactive decay tree for all the elements, showing a consistent structure for the nucleus at each step. Furthermore, it is able to explain why a particular nucleus can have multiple decay paths and why sometimes these may go through a stable isotope (for example potassium-40 decaying to calcium-40 and then to argon-40). Additionally the model proposes an answer as to why the radioactive decay of a single atom is a random process. Furthermore, when investigating superconductivity the model is able to explain why external magnetic fields would affect a superconductor's critical temperature.

 

Experiments that would test the idea:

 

One of the predictions is that electromagnetic waves would have mass, dependent upon the speed it was travelling. So, if the wave was travelling at the speed of light, then it would have no mass (which correlates with relativity). Conversely, if the wave stops (i.e. it hits something) then at that moment (before its energy is transferred) it would have its maximum mass. I would note at this point, that the mass of an individual wave would be extremely small and below the currently measured threshold. Thus, one experiment would be to try and measure the mass of the waves and check whether it changes depending upon its speed.

 

Another prediction is that in a perfect body centred cubic crystal structure; electricity can flow independently on the top and bottom of the cube. Thus, there can be the situation where electricity flows in two opposite directions at the same time. With the new nanotechnology we are able to create, I would have thought this prediction could be experimentally tested.

 

These are a couple of the predictions, which I feel could be experimentally tested. What do you think?

 

(Note, although it sounds as if I am treading on quantum mechanics toes, so to speak and to some extent I am, the idea is based upon old quantum mechanics.)

 

In my non-scientific field the first thing to do is to write short abstracts that can be posted at conferences and meetings - if your abstract is enough above average you might well be asked to speak on it. I find it very unlikely that any academic will invest the time to read 100 pages of writing from an unknown author. I cannot believe that you cannot produce a few paragraphs that would get interest raised if the theory is sound.

 

I do like you idea imatfaal. Do you think the abstract above, would be something that would grab your attention?

[imatfaal]

Just to mention - of the three particles you say are fundamental only electrons are actually fundamental. there is experimental evidence of quarks. No I don't think you will get any response to that as an abstract - it is far too ambitious. Personally, and working only off instinct, I find it hard to believe that a theory that would go down in history has been or will ever be developed by a non-academic. To counter that knee-jerk reaction you need to formulate a few hundred words that leave the reader in no doubt that there is substance and not just word salad. ie you do not need to rehearse the fact of the four forces, or the concept of emr. take a read of a few abstracts on arxiv.

 

I am a bit hesitant to ask - but is your theory mathematically sound or is it more text based? Physics is now so deeply mathematical that any theory that is not mathematical will really struggle to find any recognition.

[Ophiolite]

Unfortunately I was turned off by the opening phrase: atoms are the building blocks of the universe. This, as imatfaal points out, is simply wrong as far as current evidence suggests and theory maintains. If you wish to overcome the prejudice that will exist against your idea because of this seemingly faulty statement you will have to present a well argued case, supported by evidence, to explain why quarks are illusory. I should be amazed if that could be done and if it cannot be done, then your hypothesis falls at the starting gate.

[Dr Who]

Just to mention - of the three particles you say are fundamental only electrons are actually fundamental. there is experimental evidence of quarks. No I don't think you will get any response to that as an abstract - it is far too ambitious. Personally, and working only off instinct, I find it hard to believe that a theory that would go down in history has been or will ever be developed by a non-academic. To counter that knee-jerk reaction you need to formulate a few hundred words that leave the reader in no doubt that there is substance and not just word salad. ie you do not need to rehearse the fact of the four forces, or the concept of emr. take a read of a few abstracts on arxiv.

 

I am a bit hesitant to ask - but is your theory mathematically sound or is it more text based? Physics is now so deeply mathematical that any theory that is not mathematical will really struggle to find any recognition.

 

Unfortunately I was turned off by the opening phrase: atoms are the building blocks of the universe. This, as imatfaal points out, is simply wrong as far as current evidence suggests and theory maintains. If you wish to overcome the prejudice that will exist against your idea because of this seemingly faulty statement you will have to present a well argued case, supported by evidence, to explain why quarks are illusory. I should be amazed if that could be done and if it cannot be done, then your hypothesis falls at the starting gate.

To answer your last question first, the theory does contain some maths, but it is not mathematically dominated (i.e. it has not been expanded to its fullest extent as of yet), which is why I refer to it as a qualitative rather than quantitive theory. However, it does have predictive powers. I do understand though, that physics is highly mathematical these days and to some extent that is what academics expect.

 

In terms of quarks, my theory can deal with them, but is just as complete without them, which is why I left them out in the previous abstract. In terms of experimental evidence of quarks, I thought they had never been seen in isolation and so there existence had been inferred from experimental results. For example, let us discuss the deep inelastic scattering of high energy electrons by protons. From my theory, if a wall of protons were lined up and electrons fired at them, then most of the electrons would pass straight through the wall, with only a tiny deflection. A few of them though will be deflected through a large angle and in rare causes some of the electrons may even be deflected backwards. The reason for this is that my theory does not consider the proton (or the neutron for that matter) to have a uniform distribution of mass or charge. Moreover, it is my understand that it was this result, of protons not having a uniform distribution of mass or charge that helped to confirm the theory of quarks in the first place. The theory also explains the whole raft of other sub-atomic particles currently considered.

 

I also understand that Dirac theory predicts that any fundamental spin-half fermion with charge Q and mass m, should have a magnetic moment of Q*(h bar) / (2m). However, since the magnetic moment of protons and neutrons differ from the values that would be obtained from this equation, then it has been considered that they cannot be fundamental particles. My theory would state though, that the structure of protons and neutrons are significantly different from electrons, that it would have be very surprising, if the same equation for magnetic moments would hold for both types (i.e. electrons and protons/neutrons).

 

If there is other experimental evidence of quarks, then please let me know. I will then see if my theory is able to explain it and then I will post a reply.

 

Finally, thank you for your comments about the abstract, I will re-write it and be more concise and to the point next time. Previously, I was just trying to portray the width of the research, to give people an understanding of what it contained.

 

Anyway, thanks for your comments and I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

[rigney]

Unfortunately I was turned off by the opening phrase: atoms are the building blocks of the universe. This, as imatfaal points out, is simply wrong as far as current evidence suggests and theory maintains. If you wish to overcome the prejudice that will exist against your idea because of this seemingly faulty statement you will have to present a well argued case, supported by evidence, to explain why quarks are illusory. I should be amazed if that could be done and if it cannot be done, then your hypothesis falls at the starting gate.

 

It's really a question of semantics whether atoms are building blocks or not. There are definitly smaller sub-particles that constitute "all matter", but without the right combination of how they form atoms, there would be no Periodic Table. And without that table it's likely nothing in the universe would exist as it does, especially us. Not being arbitrary, but I think this link is something to look at.

 

Edited May 2, 2012 by rigney

[Dr Who]

It's really a question of semantics whether atoms are building blocks or not. There are definitly smaller sub-particles that constitute "all matter", but without the right combination of how they form atoms, there would be no Periodic Table. And without that table it's likely nothing in the universe would exist as it does, especially us. Not being arbitrary, but I think this link is something to look at.

 

Yes, I understand what you are saying about semantics and to a certain extent it is these semantics that I am trying to learn, from a scientific point of view. In terms of atoms being the building blocks, although I understand that they consist of smaller particles, at least chemically atoms cannot be broken down. Thus from a chemical prospective they are the building blocks of everything.

 

Just to mention - of the three particles you say are fundamental only electrons are actually fundamental. there is experimental evidence of quarks. No I don't think you will get any response to that as an abstract - it is far too ambitious. Personally, and working only off instinct, I find it hard to believe that a theory that would go down in history has been or will ever be developed by a non-academic. To counter that knee-jerk reaction you need to formulate a few hundred words that leave the reader in no doubt that there is substance and not just word salad. ie you do not need to rehearse the fact of the four forces, or the concept of emr. take a read of a few abstracts on arxiv.

 

I am a bit hesitant to ask - but is your theory mathematically sound or is it more text based? Physics is now so deeply mathematical that any theory that is not mathematical will really struggle to find any recognition.

 

Maybe a better abstract of the work would be:

 

Current theory states that there are four fundamental forces in the universe. However, we propose a qualitative model whereby all the forces can be incorporated into the electromagnetic force. Firstly, we combine the electromagnetic and gravitational forces and in doing so show now electromagnetic waves can form all the different sub-atomic particles. Secondly, we show how these sub-atomic particles fit and stay together, and thus incorporate the strong force. At this point our model is able to describe the nuclear structure of all the elements, including all their isotopes. Finally the weak force is incorporated and in doing so, we are able to explain why radioactivity for a single atom is a random process, as well as why on larger scales a half life can be determined. The model is also able to explain various other atomic features, for example the uncertainly principle, quantum mechanical spin, why the neutron to proton ratio required for stability increases with atomic number, why the number of stable isotopes changes between each element. Furthermore, we show how the model increases our understanding of various physically phenomena. Examples of these include, describing exactly where a unstable nuclear structure will radioactively decay, why some radioactive decay chains go through stable isotopes, what thermal energy is at a nuclear scale and how this would affect electrical conduction. Finally, we discuss several testable experiments that would be able to prove whether some of the models predictions were valid.

 

Do you think that this abstract sounds as if the model has substance and not (as imatfall puts it) just word salad?

 

I would also state that at this stage, although I could spend more time producing all the maths for the model, am I more interested in seeing whether the concept as a whole is correct (or at least going in the right direction). This is one of the reasons, I am more than happy to answer questions on it including pointing out mistakes in the way I am trying to put it forward and "have you considered …" questions. So please ask away. Finally, if you would like to read some of this idea, then let me know and I will upload it and send you a link.

[imatfaal]

Yes, I understand what you are saying about semantics and to a certain extent it is these semantics that I am trying to learn, from a scientific point of view. In terms of atoms being the building blocks, although I understand that they consist of smaller particles, at least chemically atoms cannot be broken down. Thus from a chemical prospective they are the building blocks of everything.

No it's not semantics it's physics. you are gonna have a hard job selling a theory that states that protons and neutrons are fundamental particles.

 

 

Maybe a better abstract of the work would be:

 

Current theory states that there are four fundamental forces in the universe. However, we propose a qualitative model whereby all the forces can be incorporated into the electromagnetic force.

Ok - so this is the holy grail of modern physics. You have to have really good evidence and logic to show that you have even made an advance, let alone solved this problem

 

 

Firstly, we combine the electromagnetic and gravitational forces and in doing so show now electromagnetic waves can form all the different sub-atomic particles

OK so can you show what the mistakes of GR and QT are? These theories work brilliantly seperately - but when we get to the very small and highly energetic we have problems - how does your new theory deal with these problems; ie where are GR and QT are wrong

 

Secondly, we show how these sub-atomic particles fit and stay together, and thus incorporate the strong force. At this point our model is able to describe the nuclear structure of all the elements, including all their isotopes. Finally the weak force is incorporated and in doing so, we are able to explain why radioactivity for a single atom is a random process, as well as why on larger scales a half life can be determined. The model is also able to explain various other atomic features, for example the uncertainly principle, quantum mechanical spin, why the neutron to proton ratio required for stability increases with atomic number, why the number of stable isotopes changes between each element. Furthermore, we show how the model increases our understanding of various physically phenomena. Examples of these include, describing exactly where a unstable nuclear structure will radioactively decay, why some radioactive decay chains go through stable isotopes, what thermal energy is at a nuclear scale and how this would affect electrical conduction. Finally, we discuss several testable experiments that would be able to prove whether some of the models predictions were valid.

 

Do you think that this abstract sounds as if the model has substance and not (as imatfall puts it) just word salad?

Yes this is word salad - you need to give an idea of how you would be accomplishing this miraculous feet.

 

I would also state that at this stage, although I could spend more time producing all the maths for the model, am I more interested in seeing whether the concept as a whole is correct (or at least going in the right direction). This is one of the reasons, I am more than happy to answer questions on it including pointing out mistakes in the way I am trying to put it forward and "have you considered …" questions. So please ask away. Finally, if you would like to read some of this idea, then let me know and I will upload it and send you a link.

You need to do the maths. What data would you need me to provide to correctly calculate the orbit of planet around a star? and for calculating the decay rate of a radioactive element? And as this is a unified theory - how does gravity effect the decay rate ?

[Dr Who]

No it's not semantics it's physics. you are gonna have a hard job selling a theory that states that protons and neutrons are fundamental particles.

 

 

Ok - so this is the holy grail of modern physics. You have to have really good evidence and logic to show that you have even made an advance, let alone solved this problem

 

 

OK so can you show what the mistakes of GR and QT are? These theories work brilliantly seperately - but when we get to the very small and highly energetic we have problems - how does your new theory deal with these problems; ie where are GR and QT are wrong

 

Yes this is word salad - you need to give an idea of how you would be accomplishing this miraculous feet.

 

You need to do the maths. What data would you need me to provide to correctly calculate the orbit of planet around a star? and for calculating the decay rate of a radioactive element? And as this is a unified theory - how does gravity effect the decay rate ?

 

The only way for me to answer your questions, is to let you read the work; as your questions are too expansive to answer here. Therefore, my question to you is, are you willing to read the work and find out the answers?

 

However, I will try to give some very brief answers to your questions.

 

Firstly you ask where GR and QT are wrong. One place where I would say QT is wrong is by considering everything as a particle, whereas I deal with everything as a wave.

 

Secondly, you say the abstract needs to give an idea of how I have accomplished this unified theory. However, the abstracts that I have read, give you a taste of the work that is contained and the conclusions/results it gives, which is what I have done. Furthermore, I have surely given you an idea of how I have gone about producing this theory, by explaining how I have grouped the forces together one by one.

 

Thirdly, after stating that I had not done all the maths, you ask two questions relating to maths. Now I understand that the maths will eventually need to be done, assuming the concept is right. However, from your first question, I am assuming that you are leading into the perihelion of Mercury, to which my theory is able to deal with; just as it is able to calculate the deflection angle of an em wave as it passes the Sun. Going back to your question though, my theory would be able to give the orbit of a planet, given all the correct information, like the mass of the star, etc. Also "how does gravity effect the decay rate", is not a straight forward question to answer, as time is not a unique quantity in normal terms. Therefore to start with we would need to define, how to we measure time and then what our frame of reference is.

 

In terms of semantics, I was referring to the comment about atoms being the building blocks of the universe. Here, it comes down to your opinion of where you are going to draw the line. For example, I mentioned atoms, because chemically they cannot be broken down, others might say no, its electrons, quarks and the other QT fundamental particles that are the building blocks. One could go even further and say that the big bang is the fundamental building block of the universe, since without it, the universe would not exist. As I say, it all about where to we draw the line, in this context.

[imatfaal]

I don't have time to read 160 pages - sorry; and I am pretty certain that no one else will. Your use of fundamental as something we know is divisible is a misuse in modern physics - this not sematics it is communication. I have the radius and two masses in mind - how do I calculate the orbit? If the maths isn't there yet - how do you know you have anything yet?

[Dr Who]

I don't have time to read 160 pages - sorry; and I am pretty certain that no one else will. Your use of fundamental as something we know is divisible is a misuse in modern physics - this not sematics it is communication. I have the radius and two masses in mind - how do I calculate the orbit? If the maths isn't there yet - how do you know you have anything yet?

 

OK, I understand your point about communication, and this is one of the reasons I came on this site. I understand that you haven't got the time to read it all, but reading http://www.sciencefo...magnetic-waves/ may give you a better understand, of a small part of this work.

 

In terms of how do to calculate the orbit, then assuming that the two masses are uncharged, travelling slowly (with respect to the speed of light), and sufficiently far away from the Schwarzschild radius, then the formulae become the standard Newtonian ones.

 

How do I know whether I have got anything yet? The simple answer is I'm not 100%, but I have got confidence in the idea. This confidence comes from the fact that it is able to explain things that current theories cannot. Examples of these include, why some radioactive decay trees go through stable isotopes, why the magnetic moment of some isotopes (e.g. nickel-59) are unknown and isotopes with the same structures have the same radioactive decay type, which all follow the same decay rate trend (e.g. the heavier the nuclei the faster the decay rate or vice versa). Furthermore, I have not found anything for which the model does not fit, and I have looked at electric flow through crystal layers, superconductivity (and how magnetic fields affect it), quantum mechanical spin, time dilation, length contraction, to name a few. As I have already stated, there is some maths in this, but it is not exhaustive.

[rigney]

OK, I understand your point about communication, and this is one of the reasons I came on this site. I understand that you haven't got the time to read it all, but reading http://www.sciencefo...magnetic-waves/ may give you a better understand, of a small part of this work.

 

In terms of how do to calculate the orbit, then assuming that the two masses are uncharged, travelling slowly (with respect to the speed of light), and sufficiently far away from the Schwarzschild radius, then the formulae become the standard Newtonian ones.

 

How do I know whether I have got anything yet? The simple answer is I'm not 100%, but I have got confidence in the idea. This confidence comes from the fact that it is able to explain things that current theories cannot. Examples of these include, why some radioactive decay trees go through stable isotopes, why the magnetic moment of some isotopes (e.g. nickel-59) are unknown and isotopes with the same structures have the same radioactive decay type, which all follow the same decay rate trend (e.g. the heavier the nuclei the faster the decay rate or vice versa). Furthermore, I have not found anything for which the model does not fit, and I have looked at electric flow through crystal layers, superconductivity (and how magnetic fields affect it), quantum mechanical spin, time dilation, length contraction, to name a few. As I have already stated, there is some maths in this, but it is not exhaustive.

 

Even though I don't understand the theory, I like it. Only an idiot doesn't have ideas, so I thought that I might run this one by you. Do lodestones and permanent magnets have wave frequencies? If so, what are they and how do we detect them? If not, again; why. Thanks Edited May 7, 2012 by rigney

[Dr Who]

Even though I don't understand the theory, I like it. Only an idiot doesn't have ideas, so I thought that I might run this one by you. Do lodestones and permanent magnets have wave frequencies? If so, what are they and how do we detect them? If not, again; why. Thanks

 

I'm not sure, I totally understand your question, but my theory proposes that all the sub-atomic particles are composed of a fixed frequency of electromagnetic waves. In fact a particles magnetic moment (which can be experimentally measured) is produced by the orientation of the magnetic component in the electromagnetic waves. However these magnetic moments of the different particles can either constructively work together or cancel each other out. This is why some nuclei have magnetic moments, whilst others do not. The same also holds true for the electrons and overall therefore a single atom can have a magnetic field. In magnetic objects, the magnetic field of all the atoms align together, producing an observable magnetic effect.

 

I hope this has answered your question. Also, sorry its taken me a while to answer you but I've been busy.