Theory of Everything.

[1456200423]

The world is round.

[Unidian]

Rubbish.

[1456200423]

O_o

[Blair]

Questions on this or any other subject are welcome.

Umm, umm, why do I exist??

I think you are smarter than me, so I know that you have the answers!!

[1456200423]

why do I exist??

[Tomas]

The universe (and all matter therein) is composed of uniformly expanding electrons, arranged in fractal interference pattern.
http://www.theresonanceproject.org/imag ... ential.png
There is no particle/wave duality of photons. (Nature of wave is: multitude of particles interacting with each other creating compression bands and interference between particles in motion eg. (Not annihilation of pure energy waves) Sound wave, shock wave etc.

This would be a fine discussion to have with Pincho Paxton. He comments on this in his "Hexagon Universe" thread. Perhaps Kevin Solway, too.

Always marvel when looking to the sky at night. Raised in North Dakota where the city lights didn't drown out the bottomless sea.

[1456200423]

This would be a fine discussion to have with Pincho Paxton. He comments on this in his "Hexagon Universe" thread. Perhaps Kevin Solway, too.

Frankly, from observation I have concluded that Pincho has a chemical imbalance, but thanks for commenting.

[Blair]

omg, thnx, u rck, omg sht u blw my mnd mn, fck awsme

[cousinbasil]

This would be a fine discussion to have with Pincho Paxton. He comments on this in his "Hexagon Universe" thread. Perhaps Kevin Solway, too.

Frankly, from observation I have concluded that Pincho has a chemical imbalance, but thanks for commenting.

You remind me of my friend 2912400846 - but he's twice the man you are.

[1456200423]

omg, thnx, u rck, omg sht u blw my mnd mn, fck awsme

Sez U. Carry on.

[1456200423]

This would be a fine discussion to have with Pincho Paxton. He comments on this in his "Hexagon Universe" thread. Perhaps Kevin Solway, too.

Frankly, from observation I have concluded that Pincho has a chemical imbalance, but thanks for commenting.

You remind me of my friend 2912400846 - but he's twice the man you are.

:-P

[1456200423]

A Broader View of Things
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5suzm1AthI

Platos "True nature of reality".


The the terms "Energy" "Force" "Charge" "Positive" "Negative" are abstractions, invented in the attempt to model behavior of expanding matter without having any knowledge of it.
Matter and expansion are one and the same.

Atomic expansion is completely hidden in a universe where all beings and physical objects are also expanding.

Force, Energy:

(Electric Charge - energy/force)
Effective attracting or repelling force between objects: Caused by the the ongoing expansion of subatomic particles in a crossover effect between subatomic and atomic realms.

(Electromagnetic - force/energy)
Bands of clusters of freely expanding electrons (subatomic clustering ) that continually push one another through space due to their ongoing inner subatomic expansion.
Electric circuits are driven by subatomic expansion.
Electric circuits are NOT driven by mysterious electric "charge" (Benjamin Franklin 33d Mason/Mystic) ;-)

(Positive and Negative - energy/force)
The direction of expanding electrons in a circuit (current) is from "negative -" (high pressure) to "positive+" (low pressure)
The direction of current is NOT from (+) to (-) (aka. theoretical current) as depicted in circuit diagrams.

The atomic model according to (Fractal Expansion Theory ;-P ) is not based on "charged" electrons and protons, but rather on their continual expansion as electrons bounce off the proton nucleus.

(Magnetic - energy/force)
Clouds of expanding electrons surrounding conductive objects, causing attracting or repelling effects via the crossover effect between subatomic and atomic realms

(gravity - force)
(TOE:FET)

Objects always travel in curving or orbiting trajectories towards each other, due to their mutual expansion.

Gravity of object or planet is dependent on its size.

The distance between the surfaces of separate objects continuously decrease as a result of their ongoing expansion into the space around them and between each other.

Objects do NOT travel in isolated straight line trajectories nor do they ever sit still in space because of mystical "force"

Gravity of object or planet is NOT dependent on mass. (but on size)

(Sir. Isac Newton - Mystic) ;-)

(Chemical bond - energy/force )
A manifestation of the crossover effect between subatomic and atomic realms, occurring between individual atoms rather than overall atomic objects.

Chemical bond is NOT a atom with missing electrons, becoming a "positively" "charged" ion.

(Tidal - force)
Ocean tides are due to Earth inner dynamics. The elliptical accretion disk of Earth/Moon formed a asymmetric (off) center rotation that wobbles in sync when the mass of moon is on the opposite side of Earth.

(Strong - Force)
The natural cohesion of protons and neutrons in the nucleus of atom due to their tremendous ongoing subatomic expansion against one another.

(Kinetic - energy)
The appearance that absolute energy of motion is "possessed" by individual objects, but which is actually only a relative motion effect between objects.
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark McCuthion
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/
http://www.avantgravity.com

BTW. There is NO speed limit in space. Light speed is NOT the fastest possible speed. Speed is relative.

Multiples of light speed ("Warp speeds" for trekies. ;-) can be achieved, given enough fuel.

CUL8R. :-)

[cousinbasil]

Multiples of light speed ("Warp speeds" for trekies. ;-) can be achieved, given enough fuel.

According to Special Relativity, it requires an infinite amount of force to accelerate even the tiniest finite mass up to the speed of light. Therefore, it is impossible to accelerate any mass beyond. It is instructive to note that even massless particles, such as the photon, do not travel beyond the speed of light, but precisely at the speed of light.

Logically, then, it would require an infinite amount of fuel to produce infinite force, and this would just be to achieve the speed of light. Therefore, it is not possible to be "given enough fuel."

I am curious to know the sources for your claims here - how they manage to ignore the Special Relativity equations, which have been physically verified many times and never observed to fail.

[1456200423]

Code: Select all

Q: Light slows as it passes through water or glass, causing it to bend, but how can it return to light-speed on its own once it exits?

A: This is impossible in today's science. No object in nature can speed up of its own accord after being slowed. A bullet doesn't spontaneously speed up after it is slowed by passing through a wooden block, so how does a photon of light mysteriously return to its original speed once it exits a glass block? Also, continuously shining a light beam through a glass block will heat it, creating the further mystery that the beam actually loses energy as it passes through the glass, yet still manages to accelerate to its original speed upon exit. Today's science cannot explain this mysterious everyday occurrence. Here is another related mystery: Bounce a light-beam between two parallel mirrors at a slight angle so that the beam bounces along the mirrors in a zig-zag pattern. How many bounces will it take before the light beam loses energy and slows down appreciably? 1000 bounces? 10,000? Of course, we know that the light beam will never slow down no matter how many times it bounces back and forth, despite the well-established fact that light imparts a small momentum punch when it bounces off objects (the principle behind solar sails). So, how does a single beam of light impart countless momentum punches as it zig-zags between the mirrors, yet still manage to emerge afterward at the same unchanging speed of light? According to today's science this is an impossible energy-for-free event.


→ These mysteries are solved in Chapter 5 via the new subatomic principle.

Q: Why is Einstein's Special Relativity Theory so bizarre? Is our universe really that strange?

A: Einstein's Special Relativity Theory is all a mistake. Not only can clear errors be found in all supporting experiments and thought experiments, but even Einstein's own mathematical support for his theory has clear fatal errors. One of the flaws is so striking that two key lines were omitted from Einstein's published Special Relativity derivation found in his own book, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, published in 1961. A closer look at this derivation shows a large leap of logic that cannot be properly followed unless several missing lines are filled in. There is only one mathematically viable way to fill in these missing lines, which is shown below in simplified form:


Line 1: x = a + b                  — note: speed-of-light term, c, has dropped out entirely by this point

Line 2: x = a + b * (c2/ c2)    — the undefined symbol, c, is artificially re-introduced

Now, let the symbol y stand for the expression (b * c2)

Line 3: x = a + y / c2            —  the symbol, c, is kept from cancelling by hiding it within y in the numerator

The two missing lines, now added above as lines 1 & 2, show that the speed-of-light term drops out of the derivation entirely and should never have appeared in the final equations. The above improper mathematical operations are the only way to add it back in, yet do not actually add the speed of light back at all, but only the meaningless letter C from the alphabet. Any letter from A to Z could have been chosen, showing how meaningless and arbitrary it was to choose the letter C, which was used to represent the speed of light earlier in the derivation before it dropped out completely. See if you can spot this yourself around lines 6 and 7 in Einstein’s own derivation.

Further, this is not the only fatal flaw in Einstein's derivation, but one of many. Variables are arbitrarily assigned and reassigned different values, then expressions from earlier in the derivation, which were only valid prior to these arbitrary value changes, are re-used as if they were still valid. In actuality, there is no viable mathematical support for Einstein's Special Relativity Theory at all. Don’t believe it? Again, look for yourself at the link above. Einstein's reputation has grown to such heights and his theories have become so deeply ingrained in our science today that few scientists, if any, are willing to seriously investigate this matter and see the errors that are in plain view.


→ The numerous flaws in Einstein's Derivation are detailed in Chapter 5.

Q: If our universe isn't the bizarre place Einstein claimed it is, why is there apparently so much experimental support?

A: Examine the support for yourself and you will see it vanish. Einstein was a creative thinker who made great contributions to our science, but it is very dangerous to allow his reputation to blind us to the clear logical flaws and highly questionable claims in the apparent support for his theories. Below is a famous thought experiment frequently used to support Einstein’s Special Relativity theory, yet a little critical analysis shows that it not only fails to support this theory, but it actually disproves many of the core claims of both Special Relativity and General Relativity theories. Don’t believe it? Who could blame you, given the supposed mountain of support for Einstein and his theories, so read on and judge for yourself!


The Twin Paradox Thought Experiment
This famous thought experiment claims than an astronaut who speeds off close to light speed would return to find his twin far older than him, due to the mysteries of ‘time dilation’ in Special Relativity theory, where time slows down the faster you go. Yet this same theory shows this claim is impossible. Since all speed is relative in Special Relativity, it is just as valid to consider the twin on Earth to be speeding away from the astronaut instead, making the astronaut the elder one in the end. Two completely different unresolvable outcomes occur simply based on how we think about the situation, which is clearly impossible. Many physicists will either volunteer this famous thought experiment to demonstrate Special Relativity or will allow others do so, but as soon as the obvious fatal flaw above is pointed out they will immediately retract this example, denying the flaw by pointing out that the astronaut was the only one physically accelerating, so there is only one way to look at the situation. Then they will admit that this accelerated scenario actually puts it in the realm of General Relativity, not Special Relativity, reassuring us that this actually does now verify the time dilation claim beautifully. At this point everyone usually agrees that it was silly to question Einstein anyway, and the discussion ends. But wait! Have you spotted the numerous problems already?

Problem #1: This thought experiment famously appears in nearly all introductions to Special Relativity, as evidence for the bizarre truths of this theory, yet it is always retracted when challenged (and usually only if challenged).
 
Problem #2:

The basis for the retraction is that a fatal logical flaw was demonstrated in the very concept of ‘time dilation’ in Special Relativity. This fatal flaw of one specific absolute outcome despite the core concept that "everything is relative" is nevertheless often claimed to have been experimentally verified in apparent support of Special Relativity. It is frequently claimed that satellite GPS systems rely on corrections for ‘time dilation’ according to Special Relativity, or that atomic clocks flown on airplanes have verified ’time dilation’ according to Special Relativity, yet such examples suffer from this same absolute/relative logic error that causes the "Twin Paradox" claim to be retracted. So the retraction of this famous Special Relativity "Twin Paradox" thought experiment, in favor of General Relativity instead, is no small detail, wiping out enormous theoretical and experimental claims of support for Special Relativity, in one fell swoop. Yet the immense implications of this fact are simply ignored as the focus is nonchalantly switched to General Relativity – a classic 'red herring' logical fallacy diversion.

Problem #3:
Since the discussion usually ends with the claim that General Relativity solves the problem, there is often no burden of proof on the expert to back up even this claim. It usually suffices to reference this even less understood intimidating theory by our greatest known scientist, even if the ’expert’ may actually know very little about General Relativity.


Problem #4: General Relativity doesn’t solve this problem either! A core concept of General Relativity is that it is fundamentally impossible to distinguish the 1g effect of gravity on Earth from that of accelerating through space at 1g. This is known as the Principle of Equivalence. So, even according to General Relativity, the astronaut could continually accelerate at the rate of 1g to even 99% of light speed and travel for as long as he wished, and upon return to Earth there would be no mysterious ‘time dilation’ effects whatsoever; his twin would be the same age as him. That is according to both Special Relativity (where there can be no absolute perspective) and General Relativity (where constant 1g acceleration is equivalent to standing still on Earth) – no ‘relativistic time dilation’, no ‘relativistic mass increase’, and no ‘relativistic length contraction’. Further, as stated earlier above, General Relativity fails so completely to explain the motion of stars in galaxies that concepts as wild as mysterious ‘Dark Matter’ filling the universe must be invented to try to retain the theory. So, what exactly is going on with all the claims about Einstein’s Relativity Theories by our scientists?

→ This apparent paradox and "proof" of Special Relativity is clearly debunked in Chapter 5.

Q: The Twin Paradox example above is fairly esoteric and hypothetical. What about the widespread claims that our GPS satellite systems would fail without relativistic corrections?
A: These are actually unverified claims repeated by theorists with vested interests in propagating this belief. The US Dept. of Defense, for example, manually updates GPS satellite times daily. These updates factor in many theoretical and practical adjustments, both large and small. When pure theory alone can't fully account for observations, as is generally the case in real-world scenarios, practical models are created then adjusted with various "correction factors" to better match real-world conditions, and these "correction factors" are then applied. Such empirical correction factors must be adjusted and fine-tuned however may be necessary to achieve the best agreement and modeling of observations, regardless of whether or not any tiny theoretical calculations are part of this picture.

The claims that our GPS systems would not function properly without relativistic corrections, often repeated by Special Relativity theorists and enthusiasts, are based on purely theoretical calculations and claims that have never actually been verified in our GPS systems since they are far overshadowed by much larger real-world issues that satellites encounter while speeding in orbit about a planet, requiring sizable regular overriding manual adjustments. Even if the relativistic adjustments were proven to be unnecessary and counter-productive, their negative effect would be inconsequential considering the daily empirical modeling, fine tuning and adjusting

 
So, technically speaking, are relativistic adjustments present in GPS satellite systems, as claimed? Yes. Are the tiny, purely theoretical calculations of their presumed effect of any consequence in the practical real-world environment of satellite orbits and continual overriding adjustments? No. Could it even be incorrect and counter-productive to include them? Yes – it would make no practical difference either way given the much larger empirical fine-tuning and overriding adjustments. Are the claims from relativity theorists – that relativistic corrections are verified to be required and even critical to GPS systems – true, in view of all other overriding daily correction factors and optimizations? Absolutely not.


→ Even further debunking of this widespread myth is provided in Chapter 5.

Q: Are there really serious elementary problems even with General Relativity?

A: Yes, those mentioned above and more. Consider the central concept of General Relativity itself – 'warped space-time'. We have all seen the graphic of a rubber sheet ("space-time") deformed by a heavy sphere (the Sun), with the planets "following the warp". But there are many serious problems with this notion (neither empty space nor proposed "space-time" are physically anything like a 2-D rubber sheet – a 'false analogy' logical fallacy; gravity must mysteriously pre-exist to pull the sphere downward to create the warping that is said to cause gravity in the first place; what does it even mean to pull the sphere "down" into the "2-D sheet" once this simplified 2-D analogy is properly extended by another dimension to actual 3-D space or 4-D "space-time", etc.). But even allowing this to be a mere visual aid just to capture the imagination, there remains a further glaring problem. Such a "space-time grid" permeating the universe is an absolute universal reference grid no different than the flawed ether theory it replaced over this very issue of absolute references. This leaves it as yet another theory of absolutes and not one of relativity at all; according to "General Relativity", all motion is in reference to a fixed, absolute 'space-time' grid permeating the universe.

So General Relativity's basic definition involves absolutes that completely undo its very reason for existence (much as it was shown earlier that the "everything is relative" creedo of Special Relativity completely undoes claims of experimental verification that rely on specific absolute perspectives). Yet, despite the many serious conceptual flaws at the very core of both relativity theories, such discussions are not even open for sincere consideration in our educational system or science media. Einstein's reputation has been elevated to such heights over the years that to sincerely point out even such clear flaws in plain view is often considered unthinkable heresy today. Perhaps now, more than ever, we need to heed this quote:


     "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth" -- Albert Einstein

Q: Since particles never exceed light-speed in accelerators, doesn't this prove Einstein right?

A: No, this simply reveals the true nature of electric and magnetic fields. These experiments claim that tiny subatomic particles gain so much mass near light speed that they are impossible to accelerate any further, even if the entire power output of a city were put to the task. Sound far-fetched? Yes, of course it is! The only reason particles can't be accelerated past light speed is because that is the limit of the method used to accelerate the particles. If the electric or magnetic fields used for accelerating particles have an inherent speed-of-light acceleration limit themselves then more energy will only make each push more solid, but will never accelerate particles beyond this built-in speed limit of the machine itself. But today's scientists don't truly understand the nature of electricity or magnetism – if they did they would be able to explain how magnets cling endlessly to refrigerators.

→ The true nature of electricity & magnetism is explained in Ch. 5, showing good reason why particle accelerators have a built-in light-speed limit, debunking this apparent evidence for Special Relativity Theory.

Q: What about atomic clocks flown on jets, which seem to show Einstein's Time Dilation Effect?

A: Even Einstein’s own theory shows this is impossible! As shown above in the Twin Paradox explanation, Einstein's Special Relativity Theory has a logical flaw, initially appearing to predict such effects, but a closer examination shows that they should not occur. We could consider either the airplane or the Earth below to be in motion since everything is relative, giving totally opposite results. So, even according to Einstein's own theory there should be no absolute time difference when an atomic clock is flown on a jet. This is a theory that clearly displays its own futility, which should be expected from any theory whose basic mathematical support is propped up by clear errors and improper hidden mathematical operations. So why do we hear reports of success in these atomic clock experiments? Since we have no rational or scientific reason to expect such effects, it stands to reason that these reports are either erroneous or they reflect other effects such as turbulence or acceleration effects on the plane and instruments. Note that although it is commonly stated that atomic clocks operate by reading the inner oscillations of individual atoms, in actuality they are very cumbersome, delicate instruments that operate on the external properties of clouds of atoms as they are accelerated and irradiated by various fields. One could imagine many ways in which the delicate machinery of an atomic clock might be affected by a variety of environmental influences that might occur on an airplane flight. Again, Einstein's own relativity theory states that we could look at the situation from either perspective – a moving atomic clock on a jet or a stationary clock and jet as the Earth moves instead – invalidating any claims that one absolute result was experimentally observed.

Q: Einstein and Relativity wrong? It can't be! What about another famous thought experiment with a bouncing light beam on a passing spaceship. This is used all the time to explain and justify Special Relativity, and seems reasonable and accepted by both experts and the public alike. Are you saying that is wrong too?
A: Yes. Consider two situations:
 A) a rubber ball set bouncing up and down on a cart that is rolling across a room, and
 B) a second ball tossed to bounce across the room beside the cart.
 
Even though both balls may follow similar paths across the room, they are not in the same physical situation. Ball "B" had to be tossed faster and on a different, diagonal trajectory, compared to ball "A", which was just dropped straight down on the rolling cart. It is no paradox that ball "A" managed to travel the same elongated bouncing path across the room as ball "B", and in the same amount of time, despite being bounced at a slower speed. The distance ball "A" travels straight up and down between contacts with the floor of the cart is much less than the distance ball "B" travels on its diagonal path between contacts with the floor of the room. Both balls are doing precisely what they should be doing according to simple mechanics, bouncing with different speeds and trajectories in their different physical frames of reference, while traveling similar paths across the overall reference frame of the room. No special physics or theory needs to be developed to resolve any "paradox".

 
And likewise with a beam of light bouncing straight up and down on a passing spaceship, the light beam merely bounces the expected distance between floor and ceiling of the spaceship in the expected time, at the speed of light. The fact that the light beam also follows an elongated diagonal bouncing path, from an outside observer's perspective as the spaceship passes by, does not mean the light beam simultaneously bounced along in the outside observer's physical reference frame on a far longer path but in the same period of time, exceeding the speed of light. To say this is to make the elementary error of confusing two completely different physical situations and reference frames, creating an apparent paradox where none exists. A light beam that was actually directed in such an elongated diagonally bouncing path across the observer's external frame of reference would, of course, take more time to physically travel this longer path unaided by a speeding spaceship, and would not keep up with the spaceship and its bouncing light beam on board.

 
Yet this is precisely the error Einstein made in his famous "bouncing light beam" thought experiment, repeated daily, uncorrected, in science lectures, textbooks and documentaries around the world – and from which the very core mathematics of Einstein's Special Relativity equations are derived. Yes, that's right .. the origin of Einstein's entire Special Relativity theory and mathematics can be traced to this very thought experiment and elementary reference-frame confusion. But Einstein's theories are one of the main pillars of today's science, educational systems and widespread popular beliefs, supported by all scientists educated in our system, and it is considered an act of ignorance or arrogance approaching heresy to question Einstein now. So science continues to veer far off track, taking all of us along with it, decade after decade, and soon to be century after century if this situation is not righted.


→ See Chapter 5 for more detail on this and many other fatal errors at the heart of today's relativity beliefs.

Q: Isn't there still further evidence that appears to support Special Relativity Theory though?

A: Yes there are still further lab experiments and thought experiments that are commonly touted as proof, each of which can be readily shown to either have clear logical flaws or simple commonsense explanations other than "time dilation", "relativistic mass increase", or "space-time contraction".

→ Try your own hand at this or turn to Chapter 5 for the answers.

Q: Did it really all begin with a "Big Bang" where all the matter in the universe was compressed to a space smaller than an atom?

A: Of course not. Today’s belief in the Big Bang / Expanding Universe theories has even led today’s astronomers to claim that some type of mysterious antigravity force is pushing the galaxies apart – faster and faster the more distant they are. Such a force has never been observed in any experiment or explained by any scientific theory, and it even violates our most cherished laws of physics. Where does this mysterious force come from and how is its ever-accelerating effect powered? Even the term "Big Bang" first arose as a disparaging reference to this theory from the noted astronomer Fred Hoyle.

The only reason this concept ever arose is because light from distant galaxies is Red-Shifted – i.e. it arrives with its colors shifted toward the low end of the visible spectrum where red light resides. It was assumed that this was the same as the Doppler Effect for sound, which describes the shift to lower frequencies in sound waves from objects that are speeding away. However, sound waves are completely different from light. Sound is not pure "sound energy", but compression waves transmitted within a medium of air molecules, while light is considered to be an odd form of pure energy full of "quantum-mechanical" mysteries and paradoxes, and with no transmission medium at all. Not only is there no clear scientific reason to link the Doppler Effect of sound with the Red Shift of light, but it is well known that light is easily red shifted by simply passing it through gases or plastics. The Compton Effect is one very well known cause for shifts in light frequency, and has nothing to do with motion of the light source. And as any astronomer knows, distant starlight passes through billions of light-years of various gases, plasmas, and fields before arriving at our telescopes. Is it any surprise that the further away a galaxy is, the more Red-Shifted its light?

→ The Big Bang Theory myth is debunked further in Chapter 6.

Q: It is often stated that Quantum Mechanics is one of the most accurate and elegant theories in science. Is this correct?

A: Since we have clearly been struggling to understand much in the world around us, we have had little choice but to invent theories and refine – or even hammer – them into experimental agreement. There is no doubt that something very different occurs within the atom (and in the phenomenon known as energy today), and it shouldn't be surprising if we are resourceful enough to invent explanations, even if they are openly admitted to be filled with mysteries and paradoxes, but we have mistaken these models for reality. Quantum Mechanics is merely a very bizarre, mysterious, imaginative mathematical model that has undergone tremendous work by generations of scientists straining to produce experimental validation. Any failures to validate this highly favored and heavily invested theory are merely dismissed as failures by the researchers, while any appearance of agreement, no matter how artificially contrived the experiment may be, are widely published as confirmation. As a result, our science retains quantum theory that makes all manner of counterintuitive, bizarre claims about our world, when in actuality ours is a very simple, commonsense world when seen from the right perspective.

To quote from the article "Was Einstein Right?" by staff writer and editor George Musser in "Scientific American", Sept 2004:
"As Einstein was among the first to realize, quantum mechanics, too, is incomplete. It offers no reason for why individual physical events happen, provides no way to get at objects' intrinsic properties and has no compelling conceptual foundations."


And from "The Master's Mistakes" by Karen Wright, "Discover magazine", Sept 2004:

"In the 1920s quantum mechanics became the rage, and it advanced by leaps and bounds, thanks in large part to Einstein's persistent efforts to discredit it."

→ Quantum Mechanics is debunked, and the subatomic realm properly explained in Ch. 5

Q: Is light really sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle (the photon)?

A: The true nature of light has been hotly debated for centuries. Today's science states light is mysteriously both a wave and a particle, depending on the detection method. This bizarre belief even leads to the conclusion that detecting starlight as either a wave or a particle then instantly reaches back billions of years in space and time to determine the corresponding form in which the light was originally transmitted. Such impossible time travel beliefs show just how lost today's science is due to its blind belief in quantum-mechanical theory as the true physical description of nature.

In fact, it is very easy to debunk even our simplest beliefs about light today. For example, it is currently believed light-waves somehow "cancel" in "destructive interference" when they meet out of phase so that the peaks of one wave coincide with the valleys of another. Yet, a simple experiment crossing 2 light-beams from common laser pointers shows that it is impossible for light to vanish into thin air simply because 2 beams are mis-aligned (out of phase). In fact, it is a violation of the Law Of Conservation Of Energy to even expect this to occur. Light is not a mysterious quantum-mechanical wave-particle entity, but something much simpler to understand.

→ The true nature of light is finally exposed in Ch. 5 since the new subatomic principle from from Ch. 4 also relates to energy of all types.

Q: But don't the famous Double-Slit experiments verify both the wave theory of light and its bizarre quantum-mechanical particle nature?

A: No. In fact, quite the opposite. For generations this erroneous belief has simply been repeated without thinking it through. The wavelike interference pattern in this experiment is always equated to water waves interfering. But water waves are not "waves of pure water energy" in the same manner that we think of waves of light energy; they are a wavelike group behavior of countless particles (water molecules). Interference patterns between water waves are the result of interaction between groups of particles, not "waves of pure water energy". So, why is this analogy used as proof that a similar interference pattern between light-beams is an interaction between "waves of pure light energy"? Simply because our instructors merely accept and repeat what they’ve been told, mentally locking themselves and us into the flawed science legacy that we have inherited. In actuality though, the Double Slit experiment is clear evidence for an interaction between groups of countless particles of light, just as the water-wave analogy would imply. But what is meant by "particles of light"? This is not a reference to today's even more mysterious quantum-mechanical photons, but something much simpler that arises from the same sub-atomic principle that runs throughout The Final Theory. Also, this new perspective solves the mystery of why an interference pattern appears even when individual light photons are shot one by one through the slits. The answer is really quite simple and straightforward, removing all the mysterious and bizarre "quantum-mechanical" myths we are taught today. Further, with the new understanding that this experiment shows group particle interaction and not individual energy wave iinterference, it is now easy to see why experiments with beams of electrons also show a similar interference pattern. Far from proof that even matter (electrons) has a bizarre wave-particle dual nature (as Quantum Mechanics states today), this merely shows straightforward particle interaction, just as we would expect from electrons. But what does this all mean?

→ This is all clearly explained in Ch. 5. Not only is the true nature of light finally explained,  but a definitive end is finally brought to the bizarre theory of Quantum Mechanics.

Q: Where does Einstein's famous E = mc2 equation come from, why does this simple equation apply to the atom bomb, and how is it that matter converts into pure energy?

A: This equation has been largely misunderstood and misrepresented. It is often shown in complex mathematical derivations and is said to literally describe matter mysteriously converting into energy in an atom-bomb explosion – a process that is completely unexplained even today. But, in actuality, this equation is extremely easy to derive in only a few lines of simple math, and does not truly describe a process as mysterious as a transformation of "matter into energy".

For starters, consider that the classic kinetic energy equation, K.E. = ½mv2, is almost identical to Einstein's equation. In fact, it only differs by the factor-of-two term. That is, if we write the kinetic energy of an object traveling at light speed, the classic kinetic energy equation would be E = ½mc2. This is precisely Einstein's equation, only divided by two. So, why are these two equations so similar, and what does this really tell us about the nature of light, energy, and the atomic bomb? Here's a further hint in a simple four-line derivation that can easily be arrived at for Einstein's equation, based on well-known equations for the momentum of light:

p = E/c        — momentum of light, p, equals its energy content divided by its speed

p = mc         — momentum of light, stated in terms of its classical momentum, mass x speed

E/c = mc      — equating the two momentum terms in the two lines above

E = mc2       — rearranging the above line gives Einstein’s famous equation

→ For the full truth about this equation and what it really says about light, energy, and the atomic bomb see Chapter 6.

Q: Science says protons are positively charged and tightly clustered in the nucleus, but like-charges would strongly repel in such close proximity. Why doesn’t the nucleus fly apart?

A: This mystery has no true answer in today's science. Scientists used to scratch their heads over this issue decades ago – until they simply decided the answer must be that some type of mysterious attracting force must appear for some unexplained reason between protons when they are very close, counteracting their mutual repulsion. This mysterious new attracting force is called the Strong Nuclear Force, and is now taught as one of the four fundamental forces of nature in today’s science. Yet, this is clearly just bad science – a closer look shows many serious flaws with this entire picture. First, consider the endless repelling electric charge force that tirelessly pushes the positively charged protons apart. Where is the power source behind this endless repulsion, and how can it be that this mysterious power source is never drained or even diminished in the slightest? Benjamin Franklin invented this Electric Charge Theory to explain why charged objects repel or cling to each other, but his theory overlooked the fact that this concept violates our most basic laws of physics. Objects or particles should not be able to endlessly attract or repel each other, and without even a power source in sight. This is the first problem with positively charged protons in the nucleus, and also with the concept of negatively charged electrons held in orbit about the nucleus by an endless unknown power source. Secondly, this clearly flawed concept in our science legacy was merely glossed over and patched with yet another scientifically unexplained force – the Strong Nuclear Force. Now we have two scientifically unexplained forces behind the stability of the atom (the Electromagnetic Force between charged particles and the Strong Nuclear Force), both acting endlessly and with no known power source.

→ Electric Charge is re-explained in Ch. 4 according to the new subatomic principle, explaining atomic structure and showing the Strong Nuclear Force to be a completely unnecessary invention.

Q: So does this mean our entire atomic theory is wrong -- both the old "solar system" atomic model and today’s quantum-mechanical one?

A: Yes, of course it does. Scientifically impossible theories that violate our common sense and our fundamental laws of physics are the hallmark of bad science and do not belong in our scientific beliefs. There is nothing wrong with creating useful working models to help us to think about our world while we continue searching, but our legacy of working models has been mistaken for true knowledge and understanding.

Many of today’s scientists now take Newton’s working model of gravity literally, as if there were truly an endless gravitational force emanating from the atom. Others literally believe in Einstein's even more mysterious gravitational model of the atom somehow warping a 4-dimensional realm around it. We are also taught to literally accept models of the inner atom in which endless, completely unexplained electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces are at work, now said to act according to bizarre quantum-mechanical" laws. Further, magnetic materials such as iron are said to have atoms that possess inherent magnetism – magnetic energy that operates endlessly and with no known power source, giving us permanent magnets. Taken together, the atom is said to expend endless internal strong nuclear force energy, endless internal electromagnetic energy,  endless external electromagnetic energy (in the bonds between atoms), endless external gravitational energy and endless external magnetic energy – all with no known power source driving these varied forces. This state of affairs is merely accepted as proper science today.

→ The atom is completely re-explained in Ch. 4, removing all of today's scientifically impossible beliefs about the atom.

Q: A major feature of the anticipated Theory Of Everything is that it finally shows where our natural constants originate vs. just measuring them today. Does The Final Theory do this?

A: Yes indeed! At the end of Chapter 3 the new gravity theory is compared with Newton’s at the most fundamental level – the simplest atom in nature: the Hydrogen atom. The theoretical gravitational force of this single atom according to Newton is calculated, with all values filled in except Newton’s gravitational constant, G . Then this is mathematically equated with the gravity of this atom using the new equation of gravity according to the new theory, leaving only Newton’s gravitational constant as an unknown. Solving the equation gives precisely the known measured value for Newton’s gravitational constant.
 
In other words, instead of the usual requirement of using an actual physical experiment to produce the missing constant, the physical experiment was completely replaced by a description of it according to the new theory, producing the same result as the real-world experiment. This demonstrates that the new theory solidly captures the nature and essence of our actual physical world, even functioning as a replacement for it in generating a known physical constant of nature.

→ This is the first time a natural constant has ever been arrived at by pure calculation according to any theory

Source: =====================>>>> http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflawsfaq.html

[cousinbasil]

This is just a shit load of nonsense, you do realize that?

Maybe if the guys and gals at the Large Hadron Collider had read this book, they wouldn't be spending billions of Euros trying to accelerate charged particles asymptotically close to the speed of light the old fashioned way, using a synchrocyclotron. They could exceed the speed of light! What chapter would that be in?

You will note that McCutcheon equates consensus with the fallacy "appeal to consensus." In other words, he is suggesting that the free exchange of scientific information is somehow a failing of the way modern scientific review is conducted.

Q: If The Final Theory addresses all the errors and wrong turns in our science legacy, even providing many corrections and answers, shouldn't its publication solve all the problems and finally bring a new era of understanding?
A: Yes, but only if we break free of this vicious cycle.

This vicious cycle of wrong turns in our science legacy being twentieth century physics, the single greatest scientific flowering in the history of mankind.

Maybe, 1456200423, you would be so kind as to explain the point he is making with his elastic-band thought experiment.

[1456200423]

This is just a shit load of nonsense, you do realize that?

Be more specific, please. Are you saying that theory I posted, is "shit load of non sense?

I don't agree, hence my post, obviously. ;-)

Maybe if the guys and gals at the Large Hadron Collider had read this book, they wouldn't be spending billions of Euros trying to accelerate charged particles asymptotically close to the speed of light the old fashioned way, using a synchrocyclotron. They could exceed the speed of light! What chapter would that be in?

Chapter 6.

You will note that McCutcheon equates consensus with the fallacy "appeal to consensus." In other words, he is suggesting that the free exchange of scientific information is somehow a failing (edit:"because"?), of the way modern scientific review is conducted.

You don't agree, then?

This vicious cycle of wrong turns in our science legacy being twentieth century physics, the single greatest scientific flowering in the history of mankind.

Put another candle on the altar then. Good luck with that.

Maybe, 1456200423, you would be so kind as to explain the point he is making with his elastic-band thought experiment.

Give you two. :-P

Isac Newtons laws of motion are imperfect model for interaction of matter in this universe. <- Point A.

Albert Einstein didn't get it either. <-Point B.

[cousinbasil]

Give you two. :-P

Isac Newtons laws of motion are imperfect model for interaction of matter in this universe. <- Point A.

Albert Einstein didn't get it either. <-Point B.

I mean, paraphrase his thought experiment to show that you understand it. Because I don't know what he is getting at.

Chapter 6.

Why then, perhaps you should fax them a copy of Chapter 6. It just may save the European economy!

Put another candle on the altar then. Good luck with that.

So your contention is that 20th Century science should be jettisoned. "Candle on the altar" sounds suspiciously like superstition.

So far you have linked and you have copied and pasted. Please explain using your own words one failing of "legacy science" and how this breakthrough work addresses it.

[1456200423]

Why then, perhaps you should fax them a copy of Chapter 6. It just may save the European economy!

Economy is fake anyway. Fuck them. ;-)

So far you have linked and you have copied and pasted. Please explain using your own words one failing of "legacy science" and how this breakthrough work addresses it.

Time is too precious for me to carry on this conversation. Figure it out yourself. :-)

[cousinbasil]

That's what I thought.

[1456200423]

TRUE NATURE OF REALITY. (THEORY OF EVERYTHING.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRFbDrMMHEI