Superrelativity, new Theory of Everything

Superrelativity
Reflections of a commonsensible primitive mind

A. We are a group that is challenging the current paradigm in physics which is Quantum Mechanics and String Theory. There is a new Theory of Everything Breakthrough. It exposes the flaws in both Quantum Theory and String Theory. Please Help us set the physics community back on the right course and prove that Einstein was right! Visit our site The Theory of Super Relativity:
Super Relativity
http://www.superrelativity.org/

Mark Fiorentino Mar. 18, 2009


B. Reflections of a commonsensible primitive mind

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry373127

I think you'll find this link of "complementary interest" to you, even if without math, and not that you need complementary ideas...

However, "my ether" is being laid with galactic-clusters expansion...


Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Life's Manifest
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/pos...st/112.page#578
EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...05&#entry396201
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/pos...0/122.page#1407

Gravity And The Other Forces, Commonsensible Conception


A. A note about "new Theory of Everything Breakthrough"

"We are a group that is challenging the current paradigm in physics which is Quantum Mechanics and String Theory. There is a new Theory of Everything Breakthrough. It exposes the flaws in both Quantum Theory and String Theory. Please Help us set the physics community back on the right course and prove that Einstein was right! Visit our site The Theory of Super Relativity:
Super Relativity
http://www.superrelativity.org/

Mark Fiorentino Mar. 18, 2009"


B. My note, of a commonsensible primitive mind, about the above note

I think you'll find this link of "complementary interest" to you, even if without math, and not that you need complementary ideas...

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry373127

However, "my ether" is being laid by the expanding galactic-clusters...


C. Commonsensible conception of gravity

According to the standard model, which describes all the forces in nature except gravity, all elementary particles were born massless. Interactions with the proposed Higgs field would slow down some of the particles and endow them with mass. Finding the Higgs — or proving it does not exist — has therefore become one of the most important quests in particle physics.

However, for a commonsensible primitive mind with a commonsensible universe represented by
E=Total[m(1 + D)],
this conceptual equation describes gravity. It does not explain gravity. It describes it. It applies to the whole universe and to every and all specific cases, regardless of size.


D. Commonsensible conception of the forces other than gravity

The forces other than gravity are, commonsensibly, forces involved in conjunction with evolution:
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=4770

The farthest we go in reductionism in Everything, including in Life, we shall still end up with wholism, until we arrive at energy. Energy is the base element of everything and of all in the universe. At the beginning was the energy singularity, at the end will be near zero mass and an infinite dispersion of the beginning energy, and in-between, the universe undergoes continuous evolution consisting of myriad energy-to-energy and energy-to-mass-to-energy transformations.

The universe, and everything in it, are continuously evolving, and all the evolutions are intertwined.


Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Life's Manifest
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/pos...st/112.page#578
EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...05&#entry396201
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/pos...0/122.page#1407

Then you're a group which doesn't even understand what the current state of particle physics is. String theory depends on quantum mechanics, so you cannot say they are two separate paradigms. Also, string theory is the main avenue of research into next generation physics, but the current paradigms are quantum field theory (specifically, the Standard Model) and general relativity.

If you don't even know the current state of physics I doubt your ignorant mumblings about your own amazing physics are worth listening to.

HenisDov ???

The whole of A is by Mark Fiorentino

Mar. 18, 2009, http://www.superrelativity.org/


DH

(reprint, with complemented para C)

(reprint, with complemented para C)

G'day from the land of ozzz

Alphanumeric said

I tend to agree with alpha to some extent.

If your ideas can be supported by science than why not.

Regardless HenisDov, I'm open to discussion and want to learn new ideas.

Again ???

This "quoted" para does NOT quote me...

Enough's enough!

DH

G'day HenisDov

So! tell us more of your ideas.

Harry,

I concentrate my "telling ideas" in Creation / Evolution .

Except in regards to genes reproduction, to life, i.e. to reproducing temporary energy backlashes constrained energy constructs, there is no difference between living and inanimate material behaviour-evolution-fate.

Since our life-culture-cognition are strictly virtual realities I find it more interesting and challenging and diverting to "think" about evolutionary biology than about physics, i.e. about the grammer of inanimate material culture-evolution...

Best regards,

Dov

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Hello HenisDov

What you say maybe fine.

How do you expalin the evolution of our Solar System?

How was the solar system built


I'm unqualified and unable to suggest-conjecture more than:

(1) Summary of present reasonable conjectures status
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012...stem-built.html
How was the solar system built.

(2) A bit more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71030105347.htm
Work published Oct. 19, 2007, issue of Science.

Analysis Of Solar Wind Helps Illuminate How Our Solar System Evolved. Based on NASA's Genesis mission, launched in 2001, orbited the sun for more than two years, collecting samples of solar wind, crush landed in Utah in 2004.

(3) And a bit more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80103182851.htm
ScienceDaily (Jan. 8, 2008)

The Stardust spacecraft’s 7-yrs mission returned to earth in January 2006 with particles that are the same material that accreted along with ice to shape comet Wild 2 about 4.57 billion years ago, when the sun and planets formed.


I'll stick to where I feel qualified and able to contribute, to evolutionary biology.

Dov Henis

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Hello HenisDov, what are your ideas.

I have read those links that you gave, they are written well, but very elementary.

More in the line of journal writing.

The origin of the solar sytem has much more complexity.

Energetic Origin Of Mass and Gravity,Commonsensible Conception,More

At D=0, E was = m and both E and m were, together, all the energy and matter the Universe will ever hold. Since the onset of the cataclysm E remains constant and m diminishes as D increases.
The increase of D is the inflation, followed by expansion, of what became the galactic clusters.

At 10^-35 seconds, D in E=Total[m(1 + D)] was already a fraction of a second above zero. This is when gravity started. This is what started gravity. At this instance starts the space texture, starts the straining of the space texture, and starts the "space texture memory", gravity, that will eventually overcome expansion and initiate re-impansion back to singularity.


Suggesting,

Dov Henis

G'day Henis dov

I respect your thinking, but for one thing.

The universe is infinite in time and matter.

Harry,

I respect your thinking, but for two things:

The universe is infinite in time and matter?

- For the universe there is no "time", but "distance" from origin reference point; time is a local cognizance term.

- Matter is just a form of constrained energy. This is a common ubiquituos observation.


Dov Henis