illuusio Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Hi everybody! I got an idea and now it's quite a nice theory. It is testable and it unifies all forces. Please read and comment! The theory is already sent to few scientists globally.
imatfaal Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 ! Moderator Note moved to Speculations. Please take a moment to read the special rules of that sub-forum
Klaynos Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Hi illuusio, welcome to the forum. Sorry I'm on my phone, as members often are, it's a little hard to read your document here so can you write a brief summary and make some numerical falsifiable prediction?
illuusio Posted July 30, 2012 Author Posted July 30, 2012 Hi Klaynos! I made smaller version of the ToEbi.
Klaynos Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Not quite what I asked for, but ok. What is x and how do you derive that equation?
illuusio Posted July 31, 2012 Author Posted July 31, 2012 Not quite what I asked for, but ok. What is x and how do you derive that equation? X means wavelength difference when light travels from site A to site B.
ACG52 Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I read it. That's 10 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. 6 pages of woo.
illuusio Posted July 31, 2012 Author Posted July 31, 2012 I read it. That's 10 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. 6 pages of woo. hmm... but you can test it. Modified Cavendish experiments is quite easy to arrange.
illuusio Posted July 31, 2012 Author Posted July 31, 2012 How did you derive your equation? Good question! One part is current knowledge of light. Equation base is classic interference equation. Other part comes known fact that "gravitation" effects lights energy. Rest comes from axiom 2 + intuition.
Klaynos Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 If you don't have a mathematical derivation from first principles I fail to see how you could possibly claim to have a theory of anything let alone everything.
illuusio Posted July 31, 2012 Author Posted July 31, 2012 If you don't have a mathematical derivation from first principles I fail to see how you could possibly claim to have a theory of anything let alone everything. Well, it's quite difficult to create mathematical chain out of "force" mechanism I wish somebody does the modified Cavendish experiment which I described. That result alone would change a lot.
Klaynos Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Well it's a requirement of what you claim to have done. Modern physics requires the maths not just equations plucked out of the air.
illuusio Posted August 1, 2012 Author Posted August 1, 2012 In this case I disagree. "Force" mechanism is THE fundamental issue in physics. It has bothered scientists forever.
Klaynos Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Physics requires numerical predictions and derivations to describe nature. Maths is the language, without it you're not doing modern physics you're telling stories.
illuusio Posted August 1, 2012 Author Posted August 1, 2012 You can use equations from this study -> http://www.icmp.lviv.ua/journal/zbirnyk.15/008/art08.pdf
ACG52 Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 You can use equations from this study -> http://www.icmp.lviv...5/008/art08.pdf You sort of miss the point. You use the equations from that study. It's your nonsense 'work'.
illuusio Posted August 1, 2012 Author Posted August 1, 2012 How hard it to grasp an idea that I'm describing how ALL forces function. I can even show you how to prove it (Modified Cavendish experiment) .
ACG52 Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 How hard it to grasp an idea that I'm describing how ALL forces function. I can even show you how to prove it (Modified Cavendish experiment) . No math, no mas.
illuusio Posted August 1, 2012 Author Posted August 1, 2012 If here is any university staff reading this I beg you to do the modified Cavendish experiment (described in ToEbi document). That single experiment does the trick.
Klaynos Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Without maths you cannot make accurate falsifiable predictions...
illuusio Posted August 1, 2012 Author Posted August 1, 2012 Without maths you cannot make accurate falsifiable predictions... Because of the axiom 2 modified Cavendish experiment will produce gravitation effect. It can't be more accurate than that. You can see it with your own eyes.
Klaynos Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 You'd need to quantify what you mean by gravitation effect. Accuracy by its very nature requires numbers. Anyone can make up a story.
illuusio Posted August 1, 2012 Author Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) You'd need to quantify what you mean by gravitation effect. Accuracy by its very nature requires numbers. Anyone can make up a story. I agree. But at first by demonstrating "gravitation" effect with modified Cavendish experiment my theory proves something new. After series of measurements we can create equation based on spins, rotation speeds, distances, masses, rotation angles. Good starting point for equation is from study I previously mentioned (also referenced from ToEbi). Edited August 1, 2012 by illuusio
Greg H. Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 I agree. But at first by demonstrating "gravitation" effect with modified Cavendish experiment my theory proves something new. After series of measurements we can create equation based on spins, rotation speeds, distances, masses, rotation angles. Good starting point for equation is from study I previously mentioned (also referenced from ToEbi). The do the experiment and publish the results - generally those who have an idea are the ones who first test that idea to make sure it's accurate.
Recommended Posts