FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

The “Nightmare Scenario” as stated by Sabine Hossenfelder in her article, “Could No New Particles at the LHC Be Exactly What Physics Needs?” is upon us where “we’d finally have to admit the truth: we’re completely lost.” Given the current impasse of theoretical physics, it is time to expunge ourselves of preconceived notions of what we think we know about time and space. In essence we need to "go back to the drawing board". Since we have no idea where the current impasse is rooted, everything we think we know about time and space needs to be questioned. In other words, the drawing board needs to be a clean slate, a "Tabula Rasa." Consider a thought experiment that does just that. Imagine the origin of the universe. The universe as it existed before the Big Bang, before there was light, before there was matter and most certainly before there was a written equation that the universe somehow needed to be configured to or conformed with. Now imagine this thought experiment which begins with only one structural component and energy that is used to derive everything that is currently known about Quantum theory and Relativity as well as everything that is otherwise not yet known about Dark Energy, Dark matter and Gravity. This fundamental theory exists and is presented. Another preconceived notion that needs to be expunged is the thought that such a theory would arise from within the physics academic community.

Author Bio

Scott S Gordon was born and raised in Brooklyn. After earning a Master’s in Biomedical Engineering, he worked his way through his medical education as a keyboard musician. Scott married Dianne Zullow, MD and raised three wonderful children. He has been a practicing orthopedic surgeon for the past 30 years.

Download Essay PDF File

First you say create a new paradigm, then you say keep the Big Bang model and all that goes with it. There are other models such as the continuous creation or steady state or cyclic universe concepts that could be further explored. I suggest mine - the Scalar theory of everything that corresponds to both GR and Qm and solves some problems and has made predictions and has performed a diffraction experiment that rejects all wave models of light.

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 22:31 GMT

Hi John... It is not that I wanted to keep or not keep a "Big Bang" in my theory. The new paradigm is finding a starting point that only includes one ingredient and energy for its initial alignment. I really have no control of where my theory brings me after the initial conditions. I know about the other ideas of continous creation or steady state or cyclic universe but there is a specific...

view entire post

Hi John... It is not that I wanted to keep or not keep a "Big Bang" in my theory. The new paradigm is finding a starting point that only includes one ingredient and energy for its initial alignment. I really have no control of where my theory brings me after the initial conditions. I know about the other ideas of continous creation or steady state or cyclic universe but there is a specific reason why these other possibilities cannot be possible.

Before the Big Bang, the alignment of the building block entities that collectively compose spacetime (these are spinning point that create a planar of field of operator values) all exist on each other's planar operator field. This creates the parallel planar universe which only has 2 spatial dimenions. It is very unstable because of a relative wobble in the planar can occur that gradually increases to the point where a spinning block entity's planar operator field lies "off" the plane.

This puts energy along the "hidden" axial direction of the other entities and creates distance along newly created direction (the third spatial dimension) sending the parallel planar universe into choas as all the entities composing the parallel planar universe undergoes a vacuum decay phenomenon to try and balance out the energy now in a universe that contains three spatial dimensions.

As the new cubic lattice forms, some of the entities are accelerated to a speed where they cannot settle into a position of the lattice. That speed in the speed of light which in my theory is defined as the speed required for energy to make the jump to the next higher energy state and remain as an independent energy. An entity that reached c is transformed into the primordial photon. In my theory Light was first created during the big bang. The energy associated with the photon is proportional to c^1 in the equation E = (h/wavelength)c^1 or E = hv.

If this is true, then there is no way for the universe to ever have another big bang because you can't return to a parallel planar universe and there are no more "hidden dimensions" that would allow for another vacuum decay phenomenon. Once spacetime stabilized into its new lattice all the photons created can never have their energy go back to the energy state of spacetime which is proportional to c^0. Nor can new photons be created, so the transition between E0 to E1 energies are forever blocked in both directions. That is why we have the law of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. It is also why the LHC will never find new math - the E0 energy of spacetime can never be exposed, we cab only see its effect.

One of the key aspects of my theory is the hierarchy of energy (See the equation below). It reveals that no matter how much energy is present in our spacetime, the energy of spacetime will always be proportional to c^0. That means that no matter how much energy is in our underlying spacetime, any photon moving through our underlying spacetime will be measured moving through it at c^1. This is why we got the results of the Michelson Morley experiment.

I can go on and on with other things that are derived from my theory, all in line with our well-established laws and theories of physics. So like I said - the only reason why there is a Big Bang in my theory is because there was no choice, from the starting postulates of my theory, it was inevitable. :)

view post as summary

attachments: The_GOD_Equation_bold_with_trademark_r.jpg

Hi again Scott,

I read your essay and now realize we have a great deal in common. We have alternative “theories of everything”. You are a young surgeon and I am old “inventor” R&D engineer but we both decided to “help” science. I know that you would never be convinced to think along the lines I do and visa versa. Philip Gibbs wrote about this in his essay. It explains in general why science doesn’t converge. I suspect you enjoy working on this; I certainly do. We would probably agree that others should read our work, comment and adopt our perspective. For example, like you I publish on Academia.edu and vixra.org. People read the work but seldom say anything. This robs us of feedback we need to improve our work or present it in a more appealing way. We both realize that we are outsiders in a field dominated by university physicists and funded government projects. They never see our work because they operate in different circles with different access to information. I sometimes think this is sinister. Would solving some of the problems in science curtail their funding? How would they justify the next huge space exploration device or high energy collider if they admitted that would only extend their thinking a small amount? But it is their thinking that counts…not ours.

That said, I enjoyed your essay and your graphics were well done. Actually, I can see similarities between our theories. I am curious about the motivating force for the big bang. I view consciousness as a structure that supported transition from information to reality. We develop consciousness and hope it is, in the end, inclusive. As a TOE Doc, what are your thoughts?

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 22:43 GMT

You are so right Gene that we will not convince each other of our theories but that is not necessary - what is important is that we have the opportunity to see what other's have done and have these collegial chats.

My theory is a physical model (not mathematical one) where the math of the model must come from the model and progression of the model must follow the rules of mathematics.

The difference in my theory is the hierarchy of energy and if it is correct would literally be the last extension of and completion of Einstein's work. We know of two energy states where one is E = mc^2 (by Einstein) and E = hv (By Einstein and Planck). However hidden from us is the base energy state where all the energy of the universe existed in this form before the big bang... That was the energy associated with the entities that collectively contruct spacetime and this energy is proportional to c^0. Plrease read my response to John Hodge where I explain this a little better and where I answered your question about "the motivating force" or what I would call the conditions that existed to create the Big Bang. All the best!!!

Philip Gibbs replied on Dec. 23, 2017 @ 15:01 GMT

Gene is right about the difficulty of getting feedback. When the WWW first appeared there were fewer of us publishing ideas in this way and I found I did get some comments, but now the FQXi essay contests are one of the few places where this seems possible. Some authors get feedback on viXra but it is the exception rather than the rule.

I think anyone in this game has to accept that they will be their own greatest fan and will probably have to work alone and largely unappreciated to take the ideas as far as they can. If someone seems to get some inspiration from what I write I am happy about it, even if I don't get any credit. The joy for me is the development of my own ideas and the inspiration I get from others. Any appreciation is just a nice bonus.

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Dec. 23, 2017 @ 18:26 GMT

Gene - You a noble man - But what if you found the actual solution to the theory of everything by way of re-building the entire field of physics from a new, true, solid foundation? I am sure you would want the credit... and why not - YOU would deserve it.

I totally agree with you that this essay contest is an excellent way to get some ideas out from the non-professionals and hopefully to the people in physics academia. But I wonder if they would consider referencing any work published here?

Dear Scott,

I read your paper and it has some good understandings and concepts, such as the understanding that we must question everything that we know about time and space and I would add that we must also question everything that we know about the structure of the fields, energy photons, and matter particles that exist in that space and the concept that space could be composed of zero...

view entire post

Dear Scott,

I read your paper and it has some good understandings and concepts, such as the understanding that we must question everything that we know about time and space and I would add that we must also question everything that we know about the structure of the fields, energy photons, and matter particles that exist in that space and the concept that space could be composed of zero dimensional points. On the other hand, your paper is much like many others that I have seen that fall short of being actually workable because it attributes characteristics to some things that they don’t actually possess in reality. You do rightly hold that motion is very important in the structure of the universe, but its use in your theory in the form of spinning zero dimensional points is contrary to the way that motion actually works in reality. First, all motions travel in a straight line in the absence of an interaction with another entity. Secondly, a zero dimensional point cannot spin. It has a point about which to spin, but does not possess any extension to spin about that point. A zero dimensional point cannot move in a zero dimensional world because it has nowhere to move to in any direction. A zero dimensional point could possibly move in a one dimensional world, but it would have to be different in some way from the other zero dimensional points that make up the space on that one dimensional line world. That difference could be that it is in motion, but it could only move in one direction at one motion amplitude rate (velocity) along that line by itself. For it to move in a cyclical manner back and forth in that dimension, so that it would become a stationary motion (particle) it would have to interact with another motion that would periodically reverse its direction of travel or have its direction reversed by interactions with the ends of the dimension, etc. This is because a given motion can only read its direction and motion amplitude information and use that to update its current position information to the next spatial position that it moves to. All that it can change by itself is its current spatial position. Its current direction of travel and its motion amplitude level can only be changed by an external interaction with another entity. This means that even a back and forth cyclical motion requires an interaction at each end of the motion’s back and forth travel to reverse the direction of travel of the motion. An interaction requires some form of contact between entities to transfer the information changes between them. The probability of an interaction between two entities is dependent on the potential interaction cross section. The greater the cross section, the greater is the probability of interaction. This is why entities that contain angular motions, such as energy photons and matter particles, are much more likely to produce interactions than those that contain only linear motions, such as sub-energy particles. A zero cross section size results in a zero probability of interaction. This cross section depends on the potential maximum range or distance of motion at the intersection point and the actual size of the interacting entities within that range. A zero dimensional entity has a zero size and, therefore, can have no possible contact surface through which interaction information could be transferred and would, therefore, not be able to interact with another entity. This is why considering matter particles to be point objects makes no logical sense. It is also why believing that they actually can be point objects results in the extension of that idea into other areas of thought such as your concept of space being composed of zero size point objects. You could have a one dimensional entity that could interact with one or more other one dimensional entity(ies) to create a back and forth cyclical motion that would contain it within a specific location range of the dimension to make a form of a matter particle, but it still could not spin because spin is a two dimensional cyclical motion structure that requires at least a two dimensional world to function in. Even in a two dimensional world, a zero dimensional entity could not spin because as mentioned above, it contains a point about which a spin could occur, but it does not possess any extension that can spin about that point. A one dimensional entity could spin in a two dimensional world because its line would provide the extensions necessary for it to spin about its center point. It would still require the continual interactions of at least two motions to generate and continue its spin, however, because a single motion can still only travel in a straight line regardless of how many dimensions exist in the world. Let’s say that you want to make a simple one dimensional spatial system using your zero dimensional spatial components. If you take one million of them and align them up against each other in a single line, how long will that one dimensional spatial line be? It is an easy calculation, so I will give it. 1,000,000 objects X 0 size of each object = 0 size of dimensional line. This shows that you can’t generate size or distance from objects that contain no size or are zero size objects. This is probably why you quickly change from the point entities to the space between them to define distance. The problem with this concept is that in order for there to be a distance between the points a separate spatial system must already exist to produce the space between the zero dimensional points. Since you end up with a spatial system anyway, it appears that the only reason to envision the zero dimension entities to exist in that space is to support the vacuum energy concepts of quantum mechanics instead of following things back far enough to see that those concepts are also unneeded and unworkable. Of course, it could be that you also believe that motions can’t exist by themselves, but are only characteristics of some other non-motion object that only possesses the motions as only an attribute of that object. When you look at interactions in reality at all size scales, you will find that the only thing that is truly conserved in an interaction is the total amount of motion content. This may come as a surprise to you because it appears from your paper that you believe that all of the energy photons came into existence at one time and are all still in existence and by extension I would assume that you also believe that no new energy photons have been created since then. In reality energy photons come into existence and go out of existence all the time around us and we can easily observe this. If you have a car and get in it and start it up, you are starting up an energy photon production device. It not only converts the chemical energy stored in the sub-energy fields of the gasoline molecules into the mechanical or motion energy that propels the car down the road, but also generates large quantities of new energy photons mostly in the infrared frequency region of the spectrum. That is why the engine requires an engine cooling system that circulates liquid antifreeze coolant through a radiator that is cooled by the air flow of a fan to keep it from overheating. When you desire to stop the motion of the car you press your foot on the brake petal which engages four other energy photon generators (one in each wheel) to convert the cars kinetic motion into energy photons. These photons are also mostly in the infrared frequency region. Of course, stars produce very large amounts of new energy photons as a byproduct of fusion, etc. Energy photons are continually going out of existence also. They can be absorbed by electrons in atoms and their motion is converted into the angular motion of the electrons that allows them to move to a higher level in the atom. Energy photons in the visible light spectrum can transfer enough motion to an electron in an atom to allow the electron to completely escape the atom and also have additional kinetic linear motion to allow it to travel away from the atom. Note that the photons are created from motion and also give up that motion when they are absorbed and cease to exist as photons. Matter particles and, therefore, their total mass are also not conserved. When a matter particle and its antimatter particle are allowed to come together at low kinetic energy levels, they are converted into energy photon(s). Also energy photons with a high enough frequency so that they contain enough motion to produce matter particles can produce them if they come into contact with an adequate angular motion component, such as the sub-energy spheres of an atom. This means that they are also composed of motions. Fields are also composed of motions that I call sub-energy particles. Once you can get your head around the concept that all things are composed of motions and once you have analyzed how motions work, it becomes easy to see that all that they require is empty space with positions in which they can be positioned and move from one to the next. One other thing that needs to be mentioned is that there is no time dimension. We live in a motion continuum. The present is the current condition of all motions in existence. The past is the motion conditions that did exist, but no longer exist because the motions have moved on from those conditions to their now present conditions. The future is the motion conditions that will exist, but do not yet exist because the motions have not yet moved into those conditions. From this you can see that there is no past to go back to because it is erased by the continuation of the movement of motions and there is no future to go to either because the motions are where they are now and do not exist in the positions that they will later exist in. This understanding greatly simplifies the generation of structural understanding. This comment is getting long so I will end it, but I will just mention one more important thing. When you consider the generation of a balanced static mass effect in matter particles, a two dimensional rotation will not work. You need a three dimensional enclosed motion to produce it. I hope this helps you.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Dec. 23, 2017 @ 23:06 GMT

Hi Paul –

I have to say you have very diligent in reading my paper – You have made some very important points and I will address the best I can in a post.

You state, “your paper is much like many others that I have seen that fall short of being actually workable because it attributes characteristics to some things that they don’t actually possess in reality.”

When...

view entire post

Paul N Butler replied on Dec. 29, 2017 @ 23:31 GMT

Dear Scott,

You are right that I am using my current knowledge, but I am not really trying to apply it to space-time because my current knowledge goes beyond the concept of space-time so that concept is no longer required to explain the structure and functioning of the universe. You are right that we will never be able to directly see, experiment on, or show the entities of space-time in...

view entire post

Dear Scott,

You are right that I am using my current knowledge, but I am not really trying to apply it to space-time because my current knowledge goes beyond the concept of space-time so that concept is no longer required to explain the structure and functioning of the universe. You are right that we will never be able to directly see, experiment on, or show the entities of space-time in ANY physical manner because it doesn’t really exist. When I began to look at man’s current scientific structure, I found that the understandings that it generated were very vague in nature. I wanted to know the details of the structure and operation of matter particles, energy photons, and fields, etc., but I found that the current theories could not supply this information. It could account for observed interaction outputs of particle interactions and the probabilities of the occurrence of each output result, but it could not give any good indication of the structure that generated those specific outputs and their probabilities of occurrence, etc. When I began to look at all of the observational information concerning matter particles, energy photons, and fields it became obvious that their structures were all connected to some base source entity. The theories backed up that concept since E=MC^2 essentially says that the mass of matter particles is equivalent to the energy of energy photons. The observational data showed that matter particles and energy photons could be converted into each other. It also showed that they could both be converted into simple angular or linear motions. The linear motions seemed to be the simplest in structure, so I began to research the structure of motion. I found that linear motions are very simple and contain only three information structures. These are the motion’s position in space, its direction of travel in space and its motion amplitude (speed) of its travel through space. All of the observational data indicated that the total number of energy photons and matter particles are not conserved because they can be converted into each other, which would change the number of them in the universe, but the total amount of motion in an interaction is always conserved. This meant that motions are the true energy entities and are the only entities that contain the ability of action within themselves as part of their structure. All other entities can only act or interact through the motions that are within them. I then began to determine how fields, energy photons, and matter particles can be built up out of simple linear motions. Simple linear motions that travel in three dimensions at the speed of light or less were ideal as the particles that make up fields. An energy photon also contains a linear motion that always has a motion amplitude of the speed of light and it also contains an additional cyclical motion that travels back and forth at ninety degrees to its direction of travel. If you consider that there is a fourth dimension and also consider that if a field particle (I call them sub-energy particles because they hold the position below that of an energy photon) receives enough motion that it would exceed the speed of light, it exceeds the threshold level above which all motion is transferred to this fourth dimension and if this fourth dimension is very small and is connected to the other three dimensions at ninety degrees like the others are to each other, then the back and forth motion of that extra motion in the fourth dimension as it travels to one end of the dimension and bounces off of the end and then travels to the other end and then bounces off of that end can create the observed frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects of energy photons. Matter particles work in a similar, but more complex way. If the fourth dimensional motion exceeds a threshold level it can travel into the fifth dimension. Observational data shows that it does not automatically transfer there though. The presence of an angular motion component, such as that received from the sub-energy field near the nucleus of an atom, is also necessary to allow the transfer into the fifth dimension. The motion contained in the fifth dimension drains back down into the first three dimensions. The interface between the fifth dimension and the lower three dimensions is such that the motion begins to transfer into one of the lower three dimensions and the flow rate linearly increases to a maximum level and then decreases linearly back to zero. When the flow rate in one dimension reaches its maximum level, the flow begins into the next dimension. The flow rate reaches zero in the first dimension just as the rate reaches the maximum level in the second dimension. At the same time the flow begins in the third dimension and reaches its maximum level when the rate reaches zero in the second dimension and flow also then begins again in the first dimension. This cycle continues as long as motion remains in the fifth dimension. When the motion enters into the lower three dimensions from the fifth dimension, it would cause the energy photon to travel faster than the speed of light, but the extra motion is transferred back into the fourth dimension. All that is left of the transfer in the lower three dimensions is the angular component of the motion that continually changes the direction of travel of the photon, so that it takes a three dimensional curved path that encloses upon itself to create a continuous cyclical three dimensional enclosed path. The enclosed path is what we call a matter particle. The great amount of angular motion in all directions creates the matter particle’s balanced rest mass effect. When the motion is transferred back into the fourth dimension it will transfer from there back into the fifth dimension if the fourth dimensional wavelength fits properly into the matter particle’s enclosed path, such that the proper angular motion component is present to allow the transfer. If it does, the inter-dimensional motion transfer cycle is complete and the matter particle is stable. If it does not fit, the motion completely drains from the fifth dimension through the lower three dimensions and into the fourth dimension. In that case the matter particle’s enclosed path disappears and the particle is transformed back into an energy photon, which travels off in some direction at the speed of light. All that is needed to explain everything is motions and a spatial system in which those motions can occupy positions and continually change from one position to the next in and can interact with each other in. This can all be done without breaking the laws of physics, which as you admit your theory requires. I use the word particles to identify the individual entities that exist whether they are field sub-energy particles, energy photons, or matter particles. I am not referring to the wave/particle duality concept in which energy photons are considered to be waves and matter particles are considered to be solid point particles that behave somewhat like little billiard balls with rest mass, etc. Neither of these concepts is true. Both energy photons and matter particles are partially composed of cyclical motion structures that can appear to be wave like during interactions, but they also produce angular motion components that generate mass effects during interactions that would appear to be particle like effects, etc. Such things as wave/particle duality, etc. that cannot be very well understood using quantum mechanics are clearly understood when the underlying motion structures are known. I read the first chapter of your book and I find that some of your logic that you use to justify your concepts appears to be based on assumptions that have no proof of validity. As an example you say that the basic entity must not contain the property of distance, but there is no logical reason that it could not just be the method of introduction of distance into the structure of the system. To put it another way, distance can be a property of the most basic entity and could introduce it into the rest of the structure of the system. The C^0 speed would have a value of one since any number to the zero power equals one. This has no real mathematical significance in the E^0 formula, so I guess you just left it in as a reminder that you are dealing with the lowest energy level compared to the levels where C^1 and C^2 are used. In your example you talk about a spinning point moving toward an adjacent point on one side of it and away from another point on the other side of it. You then say that other spinning points must be added to equal the pressure, so that the point will remain displaced in that new position. I am assuming that you don’t actually mean that new points come into existence in those spaces, but only that it would take the amount of energy that those points would provide if they did exist. Is that right? Are you saying that the points can actually move in relation to one another and if so, where does the energy required to do so come from? If the point is to maintain itself in its new position that energy would have to be continually applied to it. This would mean that its source would have to be continuous. It would also seem to me that if a point moved toward another point, it would apply pressure on the point that it was traveling toward and that should then make that point move also in the same direction. In addition to this the point on its other side that it was moving away from should also move toward it because of the reduced pressure that it would experience on that side of it. Are you considering the energy that keeps the points separated from each other to be composed of the motion contained in the spinning points or is it composed of something else? One problem that I see is that in the beginning when there were no dimensions for points to exist in and be spread out or separated from one another in, only one point could possibly exist. If that point somehow began to spin, there would be no other points to create relative spin motion in comparison to it. There would be no place where there could be points that are closer or farther away from the spinning point because that would require at least one dimension to already be in existence that could contain more than one point and allow them to be in different positions from one another in that dimension. How do your account for this in your theory?

You are right that your concept of the structure of space-time does break all of the laws of physics, because you consider that the spin motion at the center of the point would be infinite and would decrease the farther away from the center you get, down to zero at an infinite distance when at all of the structural levels that man has come to understand so far, the rate increases the farther you are from the center and decreases to zero at the center point of the spin. As an example, a point on the surface of the earth at the equator would travel at the rate of about twenty four thousand miles a day, but a point near the north or south axis of spin that is one inch from the center of spin would only travel a little over three inches in a day. Of course, there would not be any place farther out from the center of the point because a point has no extension beyond its center for there to be any place where another point could exist unless the point exists in an already existent spatial system of one or more dimensions. If you have explanations for these things please let me know what they are. When I was talking about the generation of a balanced static mass effect in matter particles I was not talking about space-time level entities, I was talking about the construction of matter particles, such as electrons and protons, etc. I have not seen how you envision them to be constructed yet in your theory because your current paper and the first chapter of your book do not cover that level except a mention that they come from E^2 energy, unless I just missed it somehow. If you can give me that information of how you view matter particles to be constructed that could help me to better understand your theory. As I mentioned above my current model only requires the existence of motions and a spatial system for them to be positioned in, to travel from one position to the next in and to interact with other motions in and it does not require the breaking of the laws of physics, at least those that are truly applicable to reality, such as the laws of motion, etc. My current paper covers the fundamentals of the construction of all eight hierarchical levels of structure, since it is about “What is Fundamental”. My other papers on this site’s contests give more detailed information in several areas. The internal motions within matter particles entrain sub-energy field particles to travel through them, which generates their internal fields that keep the internal motions of matter particles in an atomic nucleus from interacting directly with each other. There is also an external field structure generated that captures electrons and is the interaction point of elastic interactions and also contains the particles (protons and neutrons) within the nucleus of the atom, etc. I have other questions also, but this is getting long, so I will stop here for now.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 19:13 GMT

Hi Paul,

You have a lot of questions for me to answer... I can't post my entire book... I can refer you to this paper which gives a brief manner in which particle contain energy proportional to c^2.

https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New
_Math_

I can also tell you that the energy of spacetime is real and it is important. The energy field of particles are created by the interaction of E1/E2 energy with the E0 energy of spacetime. In addition gradients in the E0 energy of spacetime is responsible for the outward force on all matter, so in this regard the energy is real.

There is no constant creation of New energy - the displacement of GOD entities in the examples I gave were purely "what if's" and cannot happen in actuality. These examples were given to derive mathematics of E0 energy being proportional to c^0.

In addition you throw around the term "dimension" as if you are physicist thinking that you know what a dimensions is and how a dimension is created... You should read this paper on dimensions:

https://www.academia.edu/30755282/Hidden_Dimensions_..._Not_
So_Hidden_After_All

All the best!

Scott

show all replies (1 not shown)

Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 16:48 GMT

Dear Scott,

I read your papers and first let me say that I believe that we hold one concept in common although it is expressed somewhat differently in our presented theories and that is that one of the two most basic entities in the observable universe is motion. Because you are locked into the natural creation viewpoint, it is understandable that you feel the need to consider the...

view entire post

Dear Scott,

I read your papers and first let me say that I believe that we hold one concept in common although it is expressed somewhat differently in our presented theories and that is that one of the two most basic entities in the observable universe is motion. Because you are locked into the natural creation viewpoint, it is understandable that you feel the need to consider the construction of the spatial system as the other most basic structure to explain the total construction of the universe. I, on the other hand, have decided to limit my current level of information transfer to man here to the construction of the next lower level of hierarchical structure of which man currently does not have a workable conceptual understanding, which is the level of matter particle, energy photon, and field particle structuring. I am doing this primarily for two reasons. First, an understanding of the construction of these entities will clear up many of the quantum and relativity nonsense beliefs, such as that things cannot happen unless they are observed, that the various particle interaction results and there probabilities of occurrence are due to some mysterious random quantum energy fluctuations of spatial vacuum, the concept of multiverses, and the idea from relativity that time is an existent dimension, etc. Once these erroneous concepts are eliminated, the math becomes much simpler and a complete understanding of the universe down to the level of the spatial system that is designed to provide the positions that basic motions can be on, can move from one to another on, and can interact with each other on and the basic motions that inhabit that spatial system can then be more easily understood. I, therefore, start with the existent spatial system and basic motions as the two most basic structures presented in my theory. I leave the mechanisms behind the structure of the spatial system that produces what we perceive as space and the outputs of the motions that are contained in that mechanism that we perceive as basic motions for a later information transfer when man has first been able to understand the levels down to that mechanism. The second reason that I do not provide that information at this point is that man in this world would like to think of himself as god with power over everything and, therefore, would not readily accept that there is someone much greater than him who has constructed the universe and everything in it. The problem is that when you go beyond the simple level of the spatial system and its basic motions to what generates and maintains that system and those motions, the complexity expands outward in the same way that it expands in the other direction when you go from the simple motions to the construction of sub-energy particles, energy photons, matter particles, all of the different atoms that can be constructed of them, all of the great multitude of different possible molecules that can be constructed from the atoms, and the innumerable large scale objects that can be made of them, etc. It is like figuring out after a lot of observation and then putting those observations into a coherent understanding of your world, that you are really just the output images on a very large television screen or computer monitor except that instead of just being made of a light output, you are also made of matter particle and sub-energy field outputs and in three dimensions instead of just the two dimensional TV screen. The organizations of these outputs as they appear in your world require a behind the scenes complex mechanism in the same way that the television also requires to display its image and in addition to that a more complex information structure is needed to generate the actual entities that appear on the screen and to update them as a result of their interactions, etc. The problem is that you have no way to observe those behind the scenes mechanisms. If, on the other hand, the one who made the television and the other needed mechanisms would write a book that gives some of the details of their construction and would then display that book on the screen, so you could read it, you might be able to get some understanding of it. That is what has actually happened, but that is for the next level of understanding, which most people would not currently be able to accept, because of their naturalist outlook on life that prevents them from considering or looking into such things.

To get back to your paper, you either have a problem of lack of understanding of how things work or you have not developed the language to properly express them. First you say that the void contains a very large number of points. If that is the case then these points must be existent entities of some nature. You say that they can possess the property of containing motion. This suggests that in order to contain a motion within themselves they must be composed of some substance that can interact with a motion and contain it. You do not address what the points are composed of, which makes an unanswered more basic concept yet to be developed. You say that the motion contained within the point is in the form of a spin. Basic motions continually move from one point to the next. This requires an existent spatial system of at least one dimension for them to travel in. A spinning motion is a cyclical motion that requires at least a two dimensional spatial system to exist in. This is because a spinning motion is the result of continual interactions between two or more motions acting at directional angles to each other. If the spin that you are talking about does not conform to the laws of motion then you should not use that analogy, but instead make a new word and then define it to describe the details of what is actually happening and also the same thing about the point if it does not conform to the current definition of a mathematical point. If all of these points exist in the void, it seems that the void that you are talking about does not conform to the basic understanding of it as being an empty spatial system. You could also consider the void to be completely nothing, but nothing could not contain anything even zero dimensional points that possess properties such as the ability to spin, etc. Without the existence of any dimensions, the only thing that could exist is just one point because if any more points existed they would create a one dimensional world in that a motion could travel the distance that would be created between them from one point to the other. In reference to a primary spinning point, you talk about the surrounding or adjacent points. In a zero dimensional world, there could not be any other points next to or surrounding the point because there would be no possible positions in existence that were next to or surrounding the point without the construction of at least one dimension to provide positions for those points to exist in. One point could not be relatively closer or farther away from another point without forming a distance between them. You say “Relative motion of each surrounding point represents a circular path”. A path is a way that can be traveled from one place to another, which is essentially a distance that can be traveled. A circular path requires the existence of at least two dimensions because a circle is a two dimensional object. When you talk about a god entity’s energy field, what is that energy field composed of? Is it something that would exist as part of the entity even if it is not spinning or is it either the spinning motion itself or somehow caused by that motion? When you talk about the existence of an infinite energy field across a god entity’s diameter are you saying that the field contains an infinite amount of energy? If the entity is a zero dimensional point it would seem that its diameter would be zero also. When you talk about E2 energy you say “is associated with a particle that displaces the surface of the water medium in a circular motion of the water. This constant circular motion of the water is required for the creation of E2 energy contained in particles”. What is the water that you are mentioning and since this is at the scale of entities that exist in space-time and not as those existing as space-time it would seem that their motions should conform to the observed laws of motion, so how is the circular motion generated and maintained in them? I am assuming that the circular motion is what you consider to be the source of the matter particle’s rest mass. A normal circular motion is a two dimensional entity. It can exist in a three dimensional object, but it does not produce a three dimensionally uniform mass effect. As an example, If you have two spheres of the same size that are rotating at the same speed in the same direction (counterclockwise), such that the axis of one is parallel to the axis of the other and they move toward each other with the center of one heading directly toward the center of the other and then they interact with each other, the interaction side of one will be moving in one direction that is perpendicular to its direction of travel in one direction while the interaction side of the other will be traveling in the opposite direction in a line that is also perpendicular to its direction of travel. This will cause a mass effect that will tend to cause the spheres to repel each other. If, on the other hand, you bring them together, such that the axis line of one is aligned with the axis line of the other and they are both rotating in the same direction, when they come together their rotation does not introduce a mass effect because the rotation does not exist relative to one another. It requires a three dimensional motion to maintain an equal static mass effect in all directions around the matter particle.

You may have a good point, but it is counterproductive to use examples that exhibit behaviors that are opposite to those that you are trying to convey. It would be better to make up new words for the new objects or concepts and then describe their behaviors as meticulously as you can while at the same time keeping the explanations of your concepts as simple as possible. I will stop for now and wait for your reply to clarify to me about these things.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Scott, I have a question.

Is the approach you gave in your essay able to make a testable prediction that could be falsified and if yes, what prediction would this be?

I do not want to know that, eventually in the future, your approach would be able to make a prediction or something like that, I ask for whether or not it actually does or does not, as it stands right now.

report post as inappropriate

My theory does predict something that physicists are planning in a future experiment. They predict that neutrino/anti-neutrino interactions will result in annihilation. That will not happen. The mass found in neutrino does not have the same structure of mass found in particle made of E2 energy. (See the hierarchy of energy). Neutrinos are composed of E1 energy. Annihilation occurs when particles containing E2 energy has their energy jump down to the E1 energy state. Neutrinos are already in the E1 energy state, so the neutrino/anti-neutrino interactions will NOT result in annihilation.

Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 24, 2017 @ 06:09 GMT

Thanks for your answer.

I have some further questions.

Do you think that such a future experiment is feasible *in principle* due to the laws of physics?

If yes, then would you agree that until such an experiment is made in the future and the results of it are known, your model is just that, a model, although it may refer in some way or the other to all the hitherto known physical laws?

If no, then would you agree that your model may be elegant and consistent, but cannot prove that logic is *more* fundamental than nothing (the latter in the sense of the absolute non-existence of everything, including space, time, quantum fluctuations, imagination, logic and even your two primordial postulates in your model)?

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Dec. 24, 2017 @ 20:04 GMT

I do think that a future experiment is possible to support my theory (such as the neutrino/anti-neutrino annihilation experiment planned). And since I answered yes let me address your next question...

One of the very necessary aspects of a new model for a theory of everything is that it is in total agreement with all theories that have not yet been disproven. This is not an easy task to...

view entire post

I do think that a future experiment is possible to support my theory (such as the neutrino/anti-neutrino annihilation experiment planned). And since I answered yes let me address your next question...

One of the very necessary aspects of a new model for a theory of everything is that it is in total agreement with all theories that have not yet been disproven. This is not an easy task to accomplish since we know a lot of physics theory. Currently the best candidate right now for a theory of everything is string theory (M theory to be more specific) but the interesting thing about String Theory is that it did not start with a model... It started with someone noticing that some math somewhat conformed to current knowledge. The conforming of the math continues to today trying to make string theory "work". This is not how a theory of everything should come about.

Once the correct model is found, the math will automatically fall out of the physical model and literally derive itself as the model becomes more complicated. So for now The Gordon Model is just a model but as it derives more and more of everything we know from the bottom up, it should be eventually be recognized at some point as a theory that out-performs string theory.

Now I can also say that there will never be an experiment that can directly reveal the existence of the entity that is the building block of spacetime because the laws of physics itself (according to Gordon's Theory of Everything) will not allow it - to do such a thing would mean breaking the law of conservation of energy. By saying this, means that there is "logic" at the fundamental base of my theory...

If everything in the universe can be perfectly derived from my theory, all the laws of physics, all the particles that exist, all the energy fields that are created, all the forces that exist, and even show why certain particles are impossible to exist (and will never be found... ie. tachyons, gravitons, elementary magnetic monopole particles),... Then it would be logical to say my theory is correct.

There are reason why physicists cannot get past their current impasse in physics and find the theory of everyting, they are locked into their methods:

1) No experiment can ever reveal the entity of spacetime and its associated energy

2) The solution cannot be derived from where our current math stands now because we use basic parameters that we have no idea of how they came to exist... ie. distance, dimensions, the property of "straight", etc...

My model is unique starting with a component building block of spacetime and showing a linear progression of how everything came into being. It is kind of gratifying that my model reveals the last of the energy states where the first two were found by Einstein. He found E=mc^2 and E = (h/wavelength)c^1 but he never found the beautiful and simple math of the hierarchy of energy where the base energy state (where most of the energy of the universe remains) as the energy of spacetime propotional to c^0.

I hope that those who are interested in the solution to what is fundamental give my model a chance and explore it (and scrutinize it) more deeply.

view post as summary

Scott,

I agree that a new form of mathematics is needed to resolve the problems in Physics. However, I do not necessarily think this means that everything must be discarded. After all, both QM and GR work.

It seems to me that you are recreating Euclidian Geometry. Euclid begins with a point, then a line, then a plane, then a 3-D space. You begin with a point that is spinning. But for the point to spin, there must be time. There must also be some way to determine that it is spinning. So, you have not really gotten around space-time. BTW, a point can be viewed as the limit of a sphere where the radius tends to zero. A hyper-sphere could also be used with the limit being an infinitesimal piece of space-time.

I was not able to follow the rest of your argument. That does not make it wrong. It just means I could not follow it.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Dec. 25, 2017 @ 17:18 GMT

Oh I forgot to respond to this Gary...

"I agree that a new form of mathematics is needed to resolve the problems in Physics. However, I do not necessarily think this means that everything must be discarded. After all, both QM and GR work."

You will find that the math I provide in my theory leads to ALL the math we know and to the math that expresses the postulates of GR and QM. In that regard it fulfills the requirement that what we know is correct but needs adjustment when all the pieces of the puzzle are taken into account. (such as dark energy) - This paper may lay some of you concerns to rest:

https://www.academia.edu/34884714/Dark_Energys_Role_in_
Gravity

Again all the best!

Thank you Gary for so elegantly making my point. Don't worry you are no the only one in this situation. The reason why the theory of everything has not been found is because no one can get through "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum". Even though I addressed in my essay what you are questioning in my last post - it is difficult to register. The problem may stem from the question of what is a true...

view entire post

Hi Scott I like the presentation of your essay as a day of creation of the universe. the times of day breaks it up into readable sections and I think it is an attractive literary tool, making it more than just information. Like some of your other readers I do wonder why after sweeping the board clean, you choose to keep certain theoretical pieces. For me, it is spacetime that needs putting to rest. I think you must consider it indispensable and yet it was Einstein (who is said to have) said-"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Nevertheless you have presented your own model in a nice way and I appreciate the thought that has gone into it. Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 22:56 GMT

Thank you for the kind words Georgina. I do not write academic papers - I am not in academia but I did co-write the National Lampoon movie RoboDoc.

Anyway - I know it seems like I swept things away and then re-introduced them... But here is what really happened. I wanted to know why the speed of light was measured the same in all reference frames. We know the properties of light and...

view entire post

Thank you for the kind words Georgina. I do not write academic papers - I am not in academia but I did co-write the National Lampoon movie RoboDoc.

Anyway - I know it seems like I swept things away and then re-introduced them... But here is what really happened. I wanted to know why the speed of light was measured the same in all reference frames. We know the properties of light and we know the math of waves. There are no other waves models that has a wave and no medium. So just like Einstein (http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.h
tml) I concluded there MUST be a medium for light AND it must be unlike anything we ever were familiar with.

Besides having a master's in engineering - I have an artsy and creative side to me - I composed and arranged and produced the original music soundtrack to RoboDoc. I threw out the notion that spacetime is made of nothing or is just something that should be mathematically expressed without a model that explains how it comes to possess its properties and I worked on how spacetime is constructed and what its building block structural component is along with the math to express it. The math of the component entity is not easy for a trained physicist to grasp. Actually the math is easy, the concept of an entity that builds spacetime and not a particle that exists “in” spacetime is difficult because of the ruby slipper conundrum. The ruby slipper conundrum is the main reason why physicists have not been able to solve the theory of everything for the past 100 years - Einstein came close just by realizing that spacetime had to be a medium when he stated this...

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Einstein knew that something about spacetime had to be explained. What he never figured out is that spacetime is an energy medium and the base energy state from which the two higher energy states came. It is kind of ironic that Einstein found the two higher energy states but did not realize that there was a hierarchy of energy based on powers of the speed of light. All I did is finished what Einstein started and in doing so stumbled onto the hierarchy of energy and the theory of everything.

It will take a long time for physicists to take my idea seriously but in the immortal words of Mahatma Gandhi...

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

I do expect to win because I know why physicists are in the nightmare scenario...

They cannot obtain any data from any experiment that will directly expose the energy of spacetime (to do so would break the laws of physics) and they cannot use any of the current math we have to derive the energy of spacetime. Physicists are really in a bind...

Eric Weinstein put out this video and It seems very likely... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw88utUCx9M

Funny how life takes you places you never thought you would be...

view post as summary

Dear Dr. Scott S. Gordon,

You wrote: “The new math starts by expressing the properties of a component building block ingredient. This ingredient along with energy is the only ingredient required to build our universe and everything in it, starting with the building of spacetime itself. The new math must be simple because the universe starts with one basic ingredient which builds in complexity. The more complex the structures in the universe become, the more complex the math required to describe it.”

My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 16:21 GMT

Hi Joe,

Your research has one aspect similar to mine that being the primordial ingredient that existed long before even our 3 spatial dimensional spacetime. However everyone including physicists have fallen into a certain way of thinking which prevents them from getting to the primodial building block entity.

There are two aspects missing in current theory:

1) The ruby slipper conundrum - where we cannot use our known math to describe the mathematical properties of the building block component entity (I say entity and not particle because we know particles as they co-exist within spacetime as opposed to the entity which exists "as" spacetime)

2) The Hierarchy of energy where physicists know two out of the three Gordon energy states (physicists know the energy of light and the energy of mass but not the energy of spacetime itself).

The reason why the theory of everything has not been found is because there is no way to derive it from our current math. (Our math must be derived from the math of the theory of everything) The other reason is because there is no experiment that will reveal the energy of spacetime and the fact that it is proportional to c^0.

Wishing you the best of luck on your theory.

Dear Dr. Scott S. Gordon,

My contention that the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light am not a theory, it am an easily provable fact. You can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed constantly changing flat looking varied colored surfaces no matter in which direction you look. It logically follows that only infinite surface am observable.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 01:39 GMT

Hi Joe,

I do not try to get people to who have their own theory of everything to believe in my theory of everything - our job is to convince others of our theory of everything. But it seems you want some feedback on your theory so here it is...

You used words that need to be defined...

Visible (meaning that it can be Seen through some mechanism of experimentation.)

Infinite - Are you referring to an infinite distance on a surface

Surface - what is the surface constructed of?

Dimensions - Is what you are calling a dimension something that was created or just was assumed to exist?

I can't make any sense of the rest of what you wrote about color surfaces, etc...

I wish you luck as I do everyone else but like I said - We need to convince others, not each other...

Scott

Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 15:57 GMT

Dear Scott,

Reality never has to be defined. Only pretentious humanly contrived finite abstract

misinformation about imaginary reality has to be mis-defined. When I use the word “visible” I mean that only surface can ever be seen by any eye, including both of yours, no matter in which direction you are facing. Real vision requires no “mechanism of experimentation.”

There am only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface, There are no finite distances in infinity.

Although scientists persistently pretend to know about finite matter that is somehow immersed in invisible space, actually, all solid, liquid and vapors have a visible surface. There am no invisible space

Abstract finite separate dimensions of length, width, depth and time cannot ever have existed for one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface for it would have to be infinite in all aspects including duration.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Scott,

You were right to think I'd be fascinated to study another 'bottom up' approach. Our start points match; "the universe starts with one basic ingredient which builds in complexity".

You lost me a bit with 'rotating points' as a 'point' has no dimensions so can't rotate, but I agree rotation is key and you quickly reverted to compatibility with 'distinguishability' of...

view entire post

Scott,

You were right to think I'd be fascinated to study another 'bottom up' approach. Our start points match; "the universe starts with one basic ingredient which builds in complexity".

You lost me a bit with 'rotating points' as a 'point' has no dimensions so can't rotate, but I agree rotation is key and you quickly reverted to compatibility with 'distinguishability' of rotations.

In 'new maths' I expected new laws rather than just new symbols & meanings, but probably wise as I can't see how most laws can be replaced. A fundamental I agree as very important is that constant 'c' always relates to an ambient frame.

What I found challenging is that what I consider as the two most flawed starting points of present doctrine needing to be discarded are 'space-time' and the 'Big Bang'! However again I quickly found you just used the 'labels' not the inferences, so no problem. However I'd vastly prefer 'dark energy' or 'ambient sub-quntum' medium' as tags. On the BB I've published on a consistent cyclic cosmology to replace it, but again your start point is equivalent to a re-ionization, so seems not a problem. Is it?

All in all quite novel & fun. But now the crunch' Stefan's point is valid. There are thousands of models out there but those of non-zero value to science are predictive and experimentally falsifiable in some way. I tried to think of some way to test yours but there doesn't seem to be one. That means it's probably no help in advancing from (or dispensing with!) current physics, though doesn't make it wrong or invalid.

Do stay with it as I think you may have some interesting foundations, but I should say my own derivations as quite the inverse, resolving anomalies & inconsistencies, predictive and experimentally provable. But do please check through it as I have yours if you have time and identify if & where you may disagree with that or see any flaws.

Also let me know if I've fundamentally misunderstood yours!

Very Best.

Peter

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 00:30 GMT

Hi Peter - I think you got the gist of my theory. I lose most people with rotating point but when you think of it - all a rotating point is is a rotating disc taking the parameter of the rotation to the limit of zero. The limit value of the rotation will not be zero. (we are also dealing in a realm where there is no distance, dimensions, time, etc... - the ruby slipper conundrum is a hug...

view entire post

Hi Peter - I think you got the gist of my theory. I lose most people with rotating point but when you think of it - all a rotating point is is a rotating disc taking the parameter of the rotation to the limit of zero. The limit value of the rotation will not be zero. (we are also dealing in a realm where there is no distance, dimensions, time, etc... - the ruby slipper conundrum is a hug stumbling block.)

Interesting that you stated, "That means it's probably no help in advancing from (or dispensing with!) current physics, though doesn't make it wrong or invalid."

Good statement but let me tell you why... My theory will not dispense current physics, actually it backs up most of the physics we know But completes the model. (this paper shows how -- https://www.academia.edu/34884714/Dark_Energys_Role_in_Gravi
ty ) A correct theory of everything has to because most of our current theory is supported by experimental data. My theory derives the postulates used to derive GR and QM. It changes the underlying model and unites GR and QM under my one model where all the mathematics is derived.

You have only the tip of the iceberg - But I can tell you a few things here that may pique your interest even more...

My theory derives the internal energy structure of an electron and an up quark. These are the two building blocks of normal matter. The down quark is NOT an elementary particle. The up quark has the geometry of a cylinder, that is why it has a charge of 2/3 (the charge is in two out of the three spacetime spatial dimensions.) The strong energy field responsible for the strong force is along the axial direction and three up quarks which are joined together to form an up quark ring (toroid). When this ring is stabilized by an electron, you have a proton. When associated with 2 electron, you have a neutron. The first person who succeeds in applying my model's math to these particles will win (or should win) the Nobel Prize.

My model does not go against any known and experimentally proven physics but it completes the model so more detailed math can be revealed. A down quark is a combination particle of an up quark and an electron.

I also reveal the hierarchy of energy and was fortunate enough to trademark the equation... I will take legal action to anyone who claims my equation or says they came up with my theory before I did. The book has been out for two 1/2 years now. There should only be one answer to the theory of everything. If I am right I want the credit and this was a good way to protect my work from physicists who would try to call it their own.

Thanks for your interest - I applaud anyone who comes up with a theory of everything so I congratulate you too.

view post as summary

Hi, Scott. Your essay was fun to read, but I had problems with it all the way through. At the start, you having spinning points prior to space-time. Spinning is rotation in space, and a point has no extension, so what does that concept mean? At the end, you seem to imply that your theory explains the values of fundamental constants. Do you have any numerical predictions that you can offer as a demonstration? I has comparable questions all the way through.

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 03:04 GMT

Hi Gregory,

Happy that you enjoyed my essay. I completely understand the problems you had as you made your way through it, you are not the only one - it is practically required. The model I am presenting is very different than anything ever presented. Let me try to get you on the right track.

The spinning point is not made of anything. It is literally a point in the void...

view entire post

Hi Gregory,

Happy that you enjoyed my essay. I completely understand the problems you had as you made your way through it, you are not the only one - it is practically required. The model I am presenting is very different than anything ever presented. Let me try to get you on the right track.

The spinning point is not made of anything. It is literally a point in the void universe that has the property of a spin (yes the way we would interpret spin). The void universe is not something that we easily understand and ironically it requires an understanding of the theory of everything to realize what the void universe actually is and its properties. (For exanple, the void universe is where the speed of light is infinite AND zero, the proof of this is actually fun to understand) - For now - We should just agree that the void universe would be a universe where there is energy, distance, time, dimensions... etc...

Spinning is NOT rotation in space... Remember spacetime has not been created yet. (This is part of the Ruby Slipper Conundrum problem which is the major stumbling block in solving the theory of everything) There is NO space - there is just the spinning point that is surrounded by other points. Yes, the point has no extension, it is a point but there is a relative motion of the surrounding points.

In applying math to express the surrounding spinning points, it is not possible to apply our current math because our math only applies to particles existing in spacetime. The spinning point of Gordon's Theory of everything does not exist "in" spacetime so we cannot use the parameters of distance, time, the concept of straight, dimensions... etc... Even the way I am presenting it is not quite right but if I presented it the way it really exists... It would never be believed... Hence the Ruby Slipper Conundrum.

Yes - I can show how my model derives the speed of light as 1. The measuring units we use are not important. What is important is what each constant represents. These constants include c, h, unit charge of an electron, and the gravitational constant G (BTW G is actually not a constant, it is a value that is reached asymptotically but it reaches that asymptotic value at extremely small distances, 100 times smaller than the closest distance G was experimentally measured.)

It will take an extremely long time for me to get physicists to even read my theory and then even longer for them to grasp its concepts because of the way they have been trained to think using math and thinking that their currently known math can always be applied. Let's face it, if the theory of everything could have been derived using current math, it would have been found by now. In addition, the theory of everything cannot be found through experiment because of the law of conservation of energy.

The essay is just the tip of the iceberg, the theory of everything cannot be presented in a paper because it required an entirely new foundation in which the field of physics has to be built. The theory of everything is in a 350 page book... and it gets us to our known math. I had advanced the theory as far as I can leaving off at the two building blocks of ordinary matter... the electron and the up quark.

All the best to you as you search for knowledge and reality!

view post as summary

Dear Scott,

In your approach, I miss the efforts of Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann to establish a fundament that emerges into a suitable modeling platform. In their 1936 paper, they introduced a relational structure that they called quantum logic and that mathematicians call an orthomodular lattice. It automatically emerges into a separable Hilbert space, which also introduces a...

view entire post

Dear Scott,

In your approach, I miss the efforts of Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann to establish a fundament that emerges into a suitable modeling platform. In their 1936 paper, they introduced a relational structure that they called quantum logic and that mathematicians call an orthomodular lattice. It automatically emerges into a separable Hilbert space, which also introduces a selected set of number systems into the modeling platform. Hilbert spaces can only cope with division rings and separable Hilbert spaces can store discrete values but no continuums. Each infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space owns a unique non-separable Hilbert space that embeds its separable partner. In this way, the structure and the functionality of the platform grow in a restricted way. After a few steps a very powerful and flexible modeling platform evolves. This model acts as a repository for dynamic geometric data that fit in quaternionic eigenvalues of dedicated operators. The non-separable part of the model can archive continuums that are defined by quaternionic functions.

In other words, the foundation that was discovered by Birkhoff and von Neumann delivers a base model that can offer the basement of well-founded theories and that puts restrictions on the dimensions which universe can claim.

Multiple Hilbert spaces can share the same underlying vector space and form a set of platforms that float on a background platform. On those platforms can live objects that hop around in a stochastic hopping path. This adds dynamics to the model.

The orthomodular lattice acts like a seed from which a certain kind of plant grows. Here the seed turns into the physical reality that we perceive.

Stochastic processes generate the hop landing locations and characteristic functions control these processes. These characteristic functions are the Fourier transform of the location density distribution of the hop landing location swarm that represents the elementary particle.

This delivers the holographic control of these elementary modules. Also, higher level modules are controlled by stochastic processes that own a characteristic function.

See: “Stochastic control of the universe”; http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0243 Indirectly via the characteristic functions the universe is controlled in a holographic way.

The Wikiversity Hilbert Book Model Project investigates this approach.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_
Project

http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen contains documents that treat some highlights of the project.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 00:45 GMT

Hi Hans,

I read you post with enthusiasm. Please note that I am not physicist or a mathematician. I am an engineer with a good grasp of math and basic physics and then learn more and more physics and then looked at the problem facing physics through the lens of my model.

You have described another model that would be more basic to Hilbert space but there lies the problem... What was presented was more about the math supporting math instead of a physical model from which math emerges.

I am more in tune with physical structure (not mathematical precedence) with the emergence of math from the physical structure - This is what was needed to solve the theory of everything.

Note that just mentioning Hilbert space is startng with known math to express space as a precursor to a theory. I have said this many time, any attempt to solve the theory of everything that starts with known math will fail.

One of the other features of my novel approach is the building block entity is the same entity that creates the primordial photon. So there is a linear progression of events that keeps on building the complexity of the universe which follows (or expresses) by an inevitable course of events.

The key to increasing complexity is the hierarchy of energy.

I appreciate your input - Please keep an eye on my progress in getting this theory out the years to come. It is practically impossible for me as a non-academic and non-physicist to get my work even looked at. Even harder for a physicist to put a review on the record.

Scott

Dear S N P Gupta,

Here is my first response in looking at your post and seeing it through the eyes of my theory: (I put my comment next to each line)

No Isotropy ----- True but we would never know any better by experimental findings

-No Homogeneity ----- True but we would never know any better by experimental findings

-No Space-time continuum ------ ...

view entire post

Greetings Scott...

It is a noble attempt, but it falls short of the bar for such efforts. I would label your theoretical construct as a flawed application of some possibly brilliant insights in Physics. I cite the imposition of a cubic lattice as an ad hoc assumption, for example, and posit that a more natural one would be close packing where a hexagonal lattice is the most dense. But some of your key insights put you in good company.

The opening section sounded very much like the lead-in given by Lee Smolin for Energetic Causal Sets in his talk at GR21. And the section about spinning points being fundamental hearkens back to Lee's work on Spin Foam Networks with Fotini Markopoulou. But there are some possible missteps, or transitional assumptions that need closer examination, and should be adjusted.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 20:12 GMT

I should add this...

Even a naive approximation to a brilliant insight is better food for thought than rehashing the same tired ideas again and again. And you do give your readers a lot of good material to work with.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 20:51 GMT

I appreciate your input Jonathan - And with your last statement in mind you amy want to reconsider your assessment as you take a deeper look into what my theory proposes...

The problem is the theory of everything is a theory where everything is created from one building block component ingredient and energy. There is no way to get readers or students of this theory to get through the Ruby...

view entire post

I appreciate your input Jonathan - And with your last statement in mind you amy want to reconsider your assessment as you take a deeper look into what my theory proposes...

The problem is the theory of everything is a theory where everything is created from one building block component ingredient and energy. There is no way to get readers or students of this theory to get through the Ruby Slipper Conundrum. This is the problem that is faces when trying to mathematically express the building block entity of spacetime when we cannot use the parameters of distance, time, direction, and dimensions.

You noted correctly that a hexagonally alignment would be more correct and that is absolutely true IF we were only creating a parallel planar universe (which is the initial alignment of these entities). However after my initial ingredients and their starting alignment, I do not assume anything... Everything is a result of an inevitable course of events that is mathematically sound.

The cubic lattice of planar operator fields where the center of the entity occupies a center point of the cubic sides is the most stable alignment of these entities. It is then the collective property of this alignment that gives us our three spatial dimensional spacetime, the "relative" speed of light through that region od spacetime (defining distance and time), and what we would determine as straight lines.

I assure you that my theory does not fall short but the nature of the theory of everything makes it very difficult for the physicist to superficially look at at realize the right answer even when put right in front of their faces. That is why I know I need to be in this for the long run.

I will give you a heads-up... In the future the model of the proton will change to the model predicted by Gordon's Theory of Everything (rememeber I will not be changing known physics theory or data - just refining the model since I work everything from the bottom up) A proton is composed of three up quarks and one electron as its elementary particles. A down quark is not an elementary particle, it is a combinant particle of an up quark and an electron. In addition, an up quark is in the shape of a cylinder where the electric field radiates out in 2 out of the three dimensions and the strong force energy field exists along its axial direction. The strong force energy field will align head to tail three up quarks to create an up quark toroid. The electron then stablilizes the ring. Two electrons associated with the ring creates a neutron.

If you want a Nobel Prize, find the exact math... I am only able to advance my theory to the math of the up quark and the electron. Keep an eye on my progress - The hierarchy of energy makes tremendous sense and my theory does not change the math of current theories - it compliments our theories by giving them a more secure foundation by telling how the postulates of our theories came to exist in the first place.

view post as summary

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 04:36 GMT

Thanks for the thoughtful reply...

I like what you did. Keep plugging away. I wish you luck!

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Scott,

How does space expand faster than the speed of light? From your website: "This little equation explains why light always travels at c^1, because no matter how much energy is contained in the underlying spacetime we occupy, that energy will always be proportional to c^0. Any photon we determine the speed of within our underlying spacetime will always be measured at c^1."

Your ideas are not illogical and in keeping with many who believe that GR and quantum theory cannot be united. Your concepts seem new but what new math will help us unite them?

When E reorganized into 3 dimensions, does this explain the superforce separating into 4 forces?

My essay speaks of ToE being fundamental and keeping an open mind about concepts of fundamental that change with discovery. Your essay makes a contribution to all of us. Hope you can check mine out.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 03:18 GMT

Hi Jim,

It is very difficult for the novice being introduced to my theory to see all the consequences of the model. The statement is true and it is very logical. The entire theory is contained in a 350 page textbook so you can imagine there is a lot to learn.

Anyway in answer to your concern... When spacetime expands, what is happening is the energy of spacetime is expanding and is "relatively" decreasing in E0 energy concentration. But no matter what level of E0 energy is in the underlying spacetime, light will be measured at c. But light becomes a relative constant - light will relatively move faster when the energy of the E0 energy of the underlying spacetime decreases, but when we measure light while "in" that spacetime, it will still be measured at "c".

In regards to forces... I bring physics back to a more simple model of forces by showing that all forces are a result of energy fields... We know this but my theory reveals exactly how each energy field is created and why certain energy fields are associated with the particles they are associated with.

The paper I submitted is only the tip of the iceberg of a much bigger picture of how everything was created (except the primordial ingredient and its associated energy). I will look at your theory but all theories I look at the try solve the theory of everything fail for the same reasons... They use known math taking existing parameters for granted (ie distance, charge, dimensions, etc...) and they never get through the Ruby Slipper Conundrum, the biggest stumbling block for physicists in finding the theory of everything.

Scott,

Time grows short so I am revisiting those I have commented on to see if I've rated them. I find that I rated yours on 2/12. Hope you have time to check mine out.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Gorden,

A couple of thoughts to consider;

What if time is not so much the point of the present, moving past to future, but change turning future to past, as in tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. So duration is not a dimension, but the state of the present, as events coalesce and dissolve. Time is asymmetric because it is a measure of action and action is...

view entire post

Dr. Gorden,

A couple of thoughts to consider;

What if time is not so much the point of the present, moving past to future, but change turning future to past, as in tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. So duration is not a dimension, but the state of the present, as events coalesce and dissolve. Time is asymmetric because it is a measure of action and action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not both.

Different clocks run at different rates and remain in the same present, because they are separate actions. All things being equal, a faster clock is simply burning more energy. Like metabolism.

It's just that our thought process is that sequence called time, but it is really just an effect of activity. Like temperature. Time is individual frequency, while temperature is masses of frequency and amplitude.

As for Big Bang Theory, when they first realized all those galaxies were redshifted proportional to distance, making us appear as the center of the entire universe, then they decided it was really an expansion of space, not just in space, because Spacetime! Then every point would appear as the center. Unfortunately they forgot the central premise is that light is always measured at C, in any frame and if it is taking light longer to cross the universal frame, in order to redshift, it is NOT Constant to that frame. Basically two metrics of space are being derived from the same intergalactic light. A stable one, based on its speed and an expanding one, based on the spectrum. Given C is being used as the denominator, otherwise it would be "tired light," something deep got overlooked. Too much math and not nearly enough logic.

Now we are the center of our point of view, so maybe an optical effect might be worth considering. Though that is not likely to occur, at least until the Webb discovers the CMBR has even more and more distant galaxies buried in it and is really the solution to Olber's paradox. Though it might just be another excuse to add another enormous force of nature, because BBT can never be falsified, just patched.

Sorry if this seems a bit touchy, but trying to wade through so many sincere efforts, that just don't appreciate just how far back the train left the tracks, gets frustrating.

Regards,

John B. Merryman

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 19:01 GMT

Your comments are appreciated.

Just for clarity... It is very difficult for a person to grasp the huge impact of a model that proposes a structure of spacetime built from component building block entities. It requires a lot of time and effort. This theory does address what you brought up as we appear to be in the center of the galaxy... This is because it defines the property of straight.

Straight is defined in Gordon's Theory of Everything a balance of energy on either side of a path. The energy of spacetime is NOT equal everywhere and it is much less at the periphery of the universe showing that what we would consider straight is curved.

IN addition, it does not matter the Gordon energy state of the energy along a path in spacetime... That is why particle that contain E2 energy (mass) which does extend out infinitely bends the light on a path through this energy. Light will slow on the side of the path with greater energy and that is why light bends towards objects containing mass.

This is a completely new theory and it will take a long time to catch on but it explains a lot and is completely consistent with GR and QM.

Gorden,

Not Bad try at all. better than most here. Some similarity with Anastasi

Study my essay for a similar setup but with direct results, by thinking of the "points" as numbers.

cheers

report post as inappropriate

Hi Adel,

I see where you would have some affinity to my work after reading yours. I never set out to solve what is fundamental or the theory of everything. I wanted to know the answer to the question: Why is the speed of light the same in all reference frames? the postulate used by Einstein to derive special relativity. When I found the answer to this, I realized I stumbled onto the theory of everything.

We have similarities in our approaches... We both claim that the properties of particles and spacetime must have physical reasons for them to exist and we set out to find those reasons. You also realized something that I call "The Concept of Infinite Scales" but where you realize that a parameter must be relative.

I like you comment "Not Bad try at all. better than most here." I don't try to convince other people of my theory who have a theory of their own. But I will address why I used the Spinning point with an infinitely extending relative spin of surrounding points as a consequence.

In one of you papers you found a way to assign a parameter a relative value between two numbers. In my theory, I too have two numbers... The numbers are infinite at point zero and zero infinitely away. This is presented by an inverse function. Where the two parameters equal each other, it has a value of one.

This in itself is not enough to solve the problem presented with the Concept of Infinite scales. One of the key components in my theory is the hierarchy of energy... You say you have found the internal energy structure of particle and how they come to possess charge, spin, mass, etc... I have also advance the math of my theory that reveals what charge is, spin, mass etc...

I applaud your efforts - but I am very certain that the hierarchy of energy is the key to solving all the mysteries.

All the best!

Scott

Hi Scott...

Mathematical physics that preserves "Scientific method" by providing visually verifiable kinematics, from what we empirically observe, to a single operative/mechanism underlying observation of Universal fundamental unification, "can offer a coherent 'assembly' of the evidence needed to advance understanding that already exists", REF: Richard Kingsley Nixey essay...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 03:00 GMT

Hi Sue,

I appreciate your comments and I will try to answer the questions you have posed.

Question #1) In that perception of motion requires Space, how can a point Spin without defining direction... i.e. direction is a Spatial property?

Answer #1) One of the most baffling stunbling blocks to finding a theory of everything is what I call "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum". Your...

view entire post