SUGGESTIONS / CRITICISMS / COMPLAINTS, To help improve/conduct our project

Hi Folks!

Any SUGGESTIONS/CRITICISMS/COMPLAINTS to do with this special project? If so, submit same to help improve our COMPLETE COSMOLOGY THEORY special project.

Anyone, even non-participants (or even anyone just passing-through PhysOrgForums) may post their suggestions/ideas/criticisms etc. here (but keep it clean, folks!...as this special project may be history-in-the-making; in which case, the world may soon be watching! hehehe).

RealityCheck.
.

Long time RealityCheck,

What can a person say, that just reads? Eh! Well, maybe more than that. This is a harmless question, OK?

Question: Dealing with your project, awesome job by the way from my humble point of reference, but it only deals with 4% of what we know is cosmologically testable, correct. So can a person really call it a complete theory?

How do you factor in the other 73% give or take on the darkmatter/energy we have no idea of what it is less alone how it affects us in our 4d space-time?

ciao_
yquantum

Hello RealityCheck,
I am in two minds about this so I offer it as a suggestion for you to judge - possibly yet another section for people to maintain their own TOE's in... there are a few already but either they disappear off the topics or clutter up the active topics - neither is particularly satisfactory. There would only be a few and I suspect all would welcome 'peer review' ..
Best wishes - C2.

Hello RealityCheck!
I have been waiting ... now that your here I don't know if I can contribute... It's scary!!
I think that Confused2 has a good point. I'm sure that there will be "incomplete" "ideas" that should be left open for review/evaluation/looking/comparison.
Maybe a place where they can put a "link" with a short description.
I know that I have a folder full of "other theories". A one stop shopping place.
jal

Hi yquantum! Recovered OK?
About that 4%. Who knows what will 'shake out' of our Cosmology Theory project, heh? After all, what you say is 'correct' only for partial theories based on relative 'beginnings'...and which therefore can ONLY ever be 'partial' by default, hehehe. Whereas our Cosmology Theory was based on a totally independent absolute beginning, and so may have the possibility of becoming 'complete' at some stage; something which other theories can never become. As for Dark Matter/Energy etc....'stay tuned', mate...I think you and others will be pleasantly surprised by what is to come (after all, a theory begun as ours was MUST, by its very 'absoluteness' nature, be capable of coming up with things which other theories have 'missed' because of THEIR very 'relativeness' nature. In other words, I would bet that our TOE will be closer to being 'complete' than ALL other 'partial' theories combined, hehe. Let's wait and see, heh YQ! Thanks for the 'heads up' though, mate!

Hi Confused2....You're right, of course! I had such a 'plan' for other theories...but it was too unwieldy and I was 'tossing up' between a dedicated thread in this sub-forum just for others' theories (like our "COMPARISONS etc..." thread) or a "LINKS-ONLY" thread where participants can post a brief 'abstract' of their respective theories with a 'link' to their own ('usernamed') thread in the main "Relativity etc..." forum....so no matter how far down their thread 'falls' in the listing there, it will be accessible directly by anyone active in the TOE sub-forum. I'm in discussions with Neutron and Tor about any other alternatives/suggestions. Stay tuned...we will finalise this aspect and resume project operations any day now. Thanks for your suggestion, mate (everyone seems to be on the same wavelength when it comes to this project and its 'set-up' requirements, hehehe)

Hey jal! You were reading my mind! That makes two of us with the same idea, hehehe...so it MUST be a good one, heh? And if nothing else eventuates in discussions with Neutron and Tor, we WILL do JUST that! Thanks! Ciao.


EVERYONE: ONE MORE 'THREAD' IS BEING SORTED OUT (as you can read in my replies to Confused2 and jal above). AS SOON AS THIS IS 'SORTED', WE WILL RESUME 'SPECIAL PROJECT' ACTIVITIES IN EARNEST...stay tuned!

RealityCheck.
.

RealityCheck,

This mission that you have taken on has been a pleasure to read. Thanks for stopping by on the other thread, I just look to see if you are in the mix anywhere else. Your a great scientist & no one will ever put you in the box/set rules. Awesome!

Question, do you still have the same web site. You gave it to me once, but I go through computers, like some do shoes. HA!

They do not like to much information on the old hard drive. Eh!

Let me know if you have the time, I am sure I could find it, but I will try this first by asking on the forum.

Awesome job, ciao_
yquantum

It was just a question, I do not get to read everything and it was not intended to cause concern, that is for sure. We must use what is at hand/reality 4d the rest will one day work itself out, yes?

.

Hi yquantum!

Thanks, mate. The reason I have only 'rarely' referred to the website (and then only when absolutely relevant to some particular topic discussion elsewhere in these forums) is that I don't want to prejudice anyone's potentially-very-original/crucial input to the T.O.E project...this is why I haven't 'plastered' that website address 'all over the shop' hehehe. But since you asked, it is www.earthlingclub.com .

By the way, the Earthling Club has a few copies left of my book (entitled "THEORY & WORKS: The Nature, Origin, Structure & Mechanics of Everything") containing two associated lectures (The Theory; The Works) by me delivered at the club; and which was published and distributed to clubmembers and selected Universities/Academics around the world in 2002 (I note that, within less than two years, Steven Hawking, Roger Penrose and certain other recipients of the book have since 'changed their tune' to come more to my way of thinking in many areas, hehehe...coincidence?).

Anyhow, the Explanatory Papers appearing on the website are based on the work/theory explained in more detail in the book (which was originally intended only as an in-house 'condensed progress report' publication for clubmembers, their families, friends, associates etc; rather than as a 'commercial publication', hehehe). Anyway, I would be only too happy to send you one (or more if required) free complimentary copy(s) of same as a Xmas present!

My 'problems' with the Physorg email/Personal-Messaging system are now resolved, so if you want the book(s), you only have to PM me an address to forward it/them to...postage prepaid, of course! If you don't wish to divulge such info, perhaps you can give a 'dummy' or 'on-forwarding' address, heh? Anyway, please advise; and happy holidays! And don't forget, you're very welcome anytime to make any observations/inputs you like to our little project! Ciao, mate!

RC.
.

Hi RealityCheck and Torr,

Another tentative suggestion..

A 'useful physics page' (or thread). The most pressing need seems to be for some background on dimensional analysis so people don't spend too much time arguing that the velocity of light is the square root of a kilogram. Wikipedia seems particularly poor on this subject at the moment - I'd be happy to have a go if someone else would volunteer to referee the page..

Best wishes, C2.

I concur with Confused2.

Here are just a couple of my bookmarks for on-line reference.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html

http://pdg.lbl.gov/pdg.html

Enjoy

Hi RealityCheck and Torr (and others),

Another tentative suggestion..
The TOE problem is so huge I feel it would be helpful if even the contributing threads were a forum for reasonably developed ideas rather than just another place to ask puzzling questions - to the point that puzzling questions are edited out to preserve the flow of the main threads.

Best wishes, C2.

Montec...
Your reference...http://pdg.lbl.gov/pdg.html..has in it Reviews

GRRRRRR I hit the wrong button.
To continue...... I would like to have a resource person capable of explaining what is there. There is just too much info....
jal

Hi jal

A "review" is like a paper on the current state of affairs. So a review is a description/expose on a subject using the latest thinking and data. There are a lot of reviews at this site http://pdg.lbl.gov/pdg.html covering the state of physics as a whole.

There are reviews at this site for each year since 1995.

After reading the new Heim stuff and Penrose's opinion:

I think the key to everything is going to be treating GR with a discrete math to kill the infinities.

One thing about Heim that I really like is his use of difference calculus and his expansion into discrete tensors or selectors. I can't imagine a ToE working without this as a starting point

beyond Schwarzschild radius pressure and temperature are infinite, but density of space D is not infinite.
(1). D = m x G
where m is a mass of the black hole and G is a grav constant

Beyond Schwarzschild Radius gravity is so strong that prevails above all other forces. All elementary particles transform back into the energy of cosmic space. Matter and space are made out of the same “stuff”. Black holes are the “fabric” where matter transforms back into space. In big explosions of AGN space transforms back into matter.
Universe is composed by one energy. The basic packets of this one energy are QS. Energy is circulating continuously “space-matter-space-matter-…”. Universe is a self-renewing system. There was no beginning and there will be no end.

Schwarzschild Radius Rs is:

Rs = (2G x m) / (c x c)

G is gravitational constant
m is mass of the stellar object

According to the formula (1) D = G x m


Rs = 2D / (c x c)

Inside Rs gravitation has no direction, density of space does not increases towards the centre of the black hole. The area inside of Rs is a fabric where matter transforms back into the QS of cosmic space.

amrit