CrimsonWolf

hehe. Nice to see people are still talking about Final Theory. :doh: I have been away awhile preoccupied with my job and life. I still find Expansion Theory in my thoughts now and then. I have not been here for almost a year.

I am back! My new job has been keeping me busy for awhile. Nice to see things are going along. hehe I strongly suggest new posters read previous posts. We have covered a variety of questions and debates. I also point to my observation by how expansion can be strongly effected by the state and density of the matter in question. Gas planets for example would be expanding from the more dense core. Jupiter for example is believed to be 2.4 G on the surface (if it had one). In expansion theory the core would be like a world 2.4 times the Earth's size. It's expansion pushes the surrounding gas outward (solid matter has more density or push than gas). Since the overall matter expands at the same % then the overall relative size remains the same. Yet the measured acceleration at the "surface" would be less than the size would indicate. Current theory explains gas planets as being less dense than solid planets(made of less matter) and therefore have less gravity. Different explanations for the same observation.

Amusing discussion. Ever read Darwin's Black Box? My choice of references to my earlier post was to make a point. Life does not simply happen and can not be replicated by any known scientific process. No life has ever come into existence under testable or observable conditions. We have only observed life coming from previous life of the same species (parents sex cells carrying genes). You can speculate all you want, but unless someone can make life from scratch using scientific processes then evolution argument will never win out. You can also go the other extreme and try to say the world was made in 6 literal days. Which is nonsense when the Hebrew world for day used in Genesis can also mean period of time of unspecific length. The average English reader never figures that out due to lack of research. Blind faith in any idea leads you no where unless you back that faith with reasonable and accurate knowledge.

So Buffy if your still around would you like to see the how I did the math? Or have you figured it out yourself? To everyone else out there I am beginning to form geometric and motion experiment for ExT version of orbits. I should be able to express it mathematically in data or equation as well as on grid paper (my favorite to use). Need tinker a bit first. Wish I could think of away to get pictures here.:( :(

Well following the book's logic (which is not mine by the way) if you pushed on a object say like a shopping for example here is what happens. As you push on the handle, and apply force by way of chemical reactions that power your muscles and cause them to contract or extend you created kinetic motion. The motion is carried through your hands and into the handle. Your atoms moved by the motion push into the handles atoms. The push comes from the bouncing electrons, which started with chemical reactions that resulted in electrons around atom being compressed, they bounce more vigorously pushing the nucleus in the opposite direction which in turn pushes opposite bouncing electrons of shell toward another atomic nucleus. If the reaction is continuously applied, this results in chain reaction of atoms knocking into each other toward a direction opposite of the applied force (opposite reaction). The atoms in the cart resist being moved of coarse (inertia) but eventually give way if the applied force is great enough. The wheels on the bottom make it easier for the cart to give to motion as well. This implies the kinetic motion spreads outward from the starting point in manner similar to cone or somewhat like inverse square law. Main key here is it takes time to for the object to be moved. Some objects collective mass (atoms) push back more than the force when compressed (pushed on). Like a man trying to push a large bolder. How is that example? To answer your question. In real life expansion usually involves a objects structure being stretched into larger amount of space. Where the theory is talking about a object getting bigger with no relative change to the objects size (compared to other objects at least), and no stretching of any kind. Sort of like each object is a vacuum sucking sucking up all the space around it. :lol: They idea here is that all the objects keep the same proportions when increasing size. Like a planet and a moon is 1/3rd it's size would still be 1 : 1/3 ratio if getting bigger no matter the passing of time. This happens because distance here is described as space between atoms or objects made of atoms. The space inside the atom is independent and cannot be measured according to the theory. That is why the size of atoms does not matter for expansion, nor does it's radius. The atom is mostly empty structure that has electrons in the outer shell (highest bounce) that expand the overall atom by a small amount of roughly a millionth each second. The only difference between atoms is their mass and amount of electrons in the shell. Another concept here is that center of mass and not the geometric center is the direction it expands from. We are talking about the amount of atoms from the center of mass to the objects edge. The distance basically. The second planet in my example has less gravity on dense side because the distance from center of mass is 1,000km as compared to the 9,000km of the opposite side. The dense side is misleading statement. What I was illustrating was that the point of highest density starts 1,000km from one edge and 9,000km on the other, it's off center. The expansion would look weird if you could see it. As you once mentioned sort of egg like! You asked by about the If you want Buffy I can demonstrate how I got the numbers, it was pretty straight forward using the atomic expansion equation.

Whether theory is wrong or right I am having a blast. I have been looking for good logic and math workout to keep me sharp. Practice makes perfect as they say. Maybe we should call it the Expansion Hypothesis, it be a little more accurate and sounds less authoritative. I have read about 60% of the posts on this thread. The unread ones are older stuff before I came around to the forums. But I looked that the main issues. This is my last attempt to speak online about the book. Past attempts were filled with some of the most arrogant and rude kinds of people. What areas to want to explore? Want to make a list? Organize a bit? I am currently working on some mathematical models for kicks and possible insight on several debated issues.

For data on tossed ball using atomic expansion equation. Assuming velocity of 10m upward for ball, assuming zero air resistance vacuum conditions. Keep in mind this is a 0% to 0.00000154% acceleration for the expansion each second, with average increase of 0.00000077% each second. 1m - 2 squared * 0.00000077 * (6,375,000m + 1m) / 1 + n squared * 0.00000077 Simplifies to: -18.63500308 / 1.00000308 = -18.63494568m +20 = 1.365054316m new distance from surfaces Earth radial expansion in 2 seconds: 19.635m (acceleration 0 m/s to 19.635 m/s with a average increase of 14.72625m/s) Tossed Ball expansion in 2 seconds: .00000308m (acceleration 0 m/s to 0.00000308 m/s with a average increase of 0.00000231 m/s) Tossed ball moves upward 20m in 2 seconds. With velocity of 20m/s upward for ball and 4 seconds time, the result of the fall would be: 2.46094296 new distance from surfaces. Earth radial expansion in 4 seconds: 78.54m (acceleration 0 m/s to 38.73 m/s with average increase of 34.30875 m/s) Tossed Ball expansion in 4 seconds: 0.00001232m (acceleration 0 m/s to 0.00001232 m/s with a average increase of 0.00001155 m/s) Tossed Balled moved upward 80m in 4 seconds.

Full equation for atomic expansion is as follows: D' = D - n squared * Xa * (R1 + R2) / 1 + n squared * Xa D' = New Distance from surfaces D = Distance from surfaces R1 = Radius R2 = 2nd Radius n = Time in seconds s = seconds Xa = 0.00000077 /s squared ( or 7.7 x 10 -7th power /s squared) Here is expansion in different time intervals. Example: Expansion in .001 seconds 7.7 x -13th power Expansion in .01 seconds 7.7 x -11th power Expansion in .1 second: .0000000077 Expansion in 1 second: .00000077 Expansion in 10 second: 0.000077 Expansion in 60 seconds: .002772 Expansion in 3600 seconds: 9.9792

Most of Standard and other theories I learned from some science books and college online physics resource and of coarse school. :lol: There are generally two types of personalities when it comes to science. The tech and the dreamer. The tech look for data and application of data. The dreamer asks why things occur and seeks unifying truths. On this board I have purposely made certain statements to everybody on the thread to gain insight on their way of thinking. Seems their are two types here. The curious thinker and the tech. No dreamers though. Hence therefore I will forgo with any quantum complications to reality and stick to pure data. As to references to inverse square law and inertia in experiments according to the author in the Final Theory they data has been misread and misinterpreted by current point of view used for the experiments from the beginning. In other words the other author suggests his idea is correct and everyone else is blindly following models they mistake for truth. Well he is partially correct in a lot of theories are mistaken for the truth, and are actually just models with no deep insight generally. The models are able to explain quite a bit though. I think new insights are coming. Perhaps the TOE will come in my life time or not. Who knows. Given specific conditions down the road of time complete Final Theory will come. Now some of you have mistaken me as Expansionist. That is incorrect. Do I support any theory? No. They are useful tools however. I am able to take whatever logic is needed to apply a theories logic to conclusion, regardless of personal feelings. Which is what I have done here. Just followed the idea to it's conclusion. Final Theory is a fun read. It's like the flat land story. Good read. Just do not take it to seriously I would advise. There are so many experiments out there now that any TOE has terribly difficult task of satisfying millions of results. If your the tech type and just go with data I suggest you move on, you'll find nothing here in the thread of value. However if your the type that likes to discuss what ifs or talk hypothetically then stick around. If the author ever revises the theory I strongly suggest he explain inverse square law, inertia, and orbits with detailed mathematical proofs as to why they are measured as they are now and why they are incorrect. They are the top 3 problems I have seen repeatedly no matter where I look and have mentally noted myself. So if any want to discuss further, I will stick around. If not I will move on. Up to you guys.

They do not know why the forces occur. Why quanta for example? Standard theory describes exchange of quanta quite well. But it does not explain why particles exchange energy in discrete amounts (quanta), just that they exchange particles when they come in contact. Not only that it's not always a sure bet what exact exchange of quanta will occur in some situations, so just a probability of what exchanges could occur is given. Oh here are some interesting readings on the Cavendish experiment and measuring G. http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/04/article6/article6.html This next link is on how about testing Standard Theory did not yield expected results. The properties of Muon (One of the Leptons) were tested thoroughly and were far enough out of Standard Deviation that they do not fit Standard Theory predicted results. http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2004/bnlpr010804.htm Ever email the author? He can sometimes be reached. If your polite that is. Ask him some questions to. After all I did not create the theory or write the book. I do not claim it is right or wrong. Just interesting.:rainbow: I do agree that the theory comes off as a first or early draft, hence needs more work to be taken more seriously.

We are going in circles here. Erasmuss00:) The star orbits of the galaxy or any galaxy do not fit the rules of orbits, this is a fact. That is why Dark Matter idea popped up. You see the entire galaxy core is rotating as if one object (theorized to due to super massive black hole). Then further stars orbit faster! Then slow down further out. Then speed up again at the galaxy edge. Neither GR nor Newton's laws predict that. If dark matter is never found then there is no known explanation. Pretty big deal. The Dark Energy problem is even worse still. Quantum corrections can be ignored on the macro scale mostly. However it reigns in micro scales. Since Expansion Theory is theory of all scales then describing Expansion at scale of particles is quite valid. Standard theory is the most successful theory around. Yet it is also a very incomplete theory ironically as it explains forces that govern matter but is unable to explain where they come from. For example mass is assumed be due to a never detected particle called Higgs Boson. Which brings us to this book in the first place. Looking for a possible origin of forces. It amazes me that few seem to get the fact Expansion Theory would not get different results on most experiments. The numbers should come up the same. The difference from Standard theory is the interpretation of what those numbers both mean and stand for. Now the Cavendish is a mixed bag. Especially since not everyone who has done it gets the same value. It's a difficult experiment to reproduce. But enough have done it to arrive at a accepted value. Expansion theory also has given value for it as well. The reason expanding objects can effect each other even at a distance is the fact it proposes every object has decreasing space between them. They will collide unless: (1)Are in a orbital system (2)They move so fast relative to other objects that they pass by, as long they do not have direct path motion. Even in a orbital system Expansion theory states that each orbit can effect the surrounding orbits constantly, the book discusses this and more. I imagine once again you have not read the book? If so, read it. Then complain or debunk it. I have not posted all the book on this thread. Only a few general areas. Several subjects I skipped over assuming the other book readers already familiar with them. I would be breaking copyright if I posted the whole thing in exact wording on a public forum. So what I can post here is somewhat limited. I have been riding the edge as it is. :rainbow:

By the way, are you refering to the properties of rest mass and relative mass in equivalence when under the influence of gravitational field (or curved space)?

Does galaxy rotation and formation fit any accepted gravity models? No. The pioneer anomaly is so far from any gravity model that a probe is being planned to investigate it. The Dark Energy problem is so baffling to physics it is embarrassing. Now for the record I do not reject data from experiments. But I do not blindly believe them either. I have neutral stance. Some scientists are quite honest. Some however will fudge data and experiments to keep their jobs. Therefore caution should be used for any and all data or media reports. Just a simple fact. I believe what is logical and sound to reason and moderated with data to back it up. Now I am sorry if my rants seemed out of place on the experiment mentioned in previous posts. However Quantum theory clearly challenges the old view that we are separate from the experiment. We can measure inertia for example. But where does it come from? What's it's origin? Expansion Theory suggests it comes from the bouncing electrons of a atom. The measurement of expanding objects of say a marble that is 1cm in diameter would be 0.00000077cm. That is so small that is extremely difficult to measure in under a second. Heck we don't even know how big atoms or most particles are! We know a estimated guess, but no actual measurement. Remember that no person has actually even seen a particle. We have models and more recent some nice looking computer imaging. But no actual direct observation. Just indirect. Even particle accelerators are not a exact science. They observe particle fragments and traced paths of some particles. Then assumed virtual particles not observed but assumed to be there to make the picture complete. Am I saying all experiments are wrong? Of coarse not! The smaller the scale the greater the caution needed. That's all. The search for knowledge is very fine line. In expansion theory, expansion can be less effective at a distance if other expanding objects are in the area. All the orbits in the solar system for example effect each other. Especially if the object is moving enough to go into partial orbits depending it's direction. It's not like anybody as dropped anything on Earth or moon from a great enough distance to see how consistent the drop rate is. You can't. It would be effected by expanding dynamics of other solar system objects to much.

LOL. Indeed. Expansion Theory is among the wildest ideas I have ever heard. Newton however he admitted he had no idea how gravity worked. Just that he seems to follow certain rules. :rainbow: Well we have really weird problem. According to Quantum predictions you cannot get all the actual particle data precisely, but precise averages of what the values could be. Standard theory has 3 repeated particle families and more than a dozen constants that have fudged in, but never measured. Yet they seem to make the calculations work and no one understands why. The quantum corrections at our scale are so small that they can be ignored for the most part.:rainbow: Ask and ye shall receive. I would love to post a picture on here for a complete orbit. I understand why the book does not (pages are to small). The theory needs some bloody good tests. I don't have any art software though. Any suggestions on what i can post here for a illustration. Paint shop maybe?

To Buffy and the curious . . . If you are following me so far then let's continue. Planet number 2 does not have the same matter distribution. It's center of mass lies 1,000km from the surface on the dense side. Watch this carefully as the radius to center of mass is not uniform in this example: Radius: 5,000km Diameter: 10,000km Shortest Distance from center of mass: 1,000km Longest Distance from center of mass: 9,000km Average of Distance from center of mass: 5,000km Expansion of Short Radius: .77m Expansion of Long Radius: 6.93m Average of Expansion of Radius: 3.85m Shortest Radial Total: 1,000,000.77m Longest Radial Total: 9,000,006.93m Average of Radial Total: 5,000,003.85m Diameter Total: 10,000,007.7m Smallest Radial Gravity: .77m/s Highest Radial Gravity: 6.93m/s Average Radial Gravity: 3.85m/s Time: 1 second Radius: 5,000km Diameter: 10,000km Shortest Distance from center of mass: 1,000km Longest Distance from center of mass: 9,000km Average Distance from center of mass: 5,000km Expansion of Shortest Radius: 277,200m Expansion of Longest Radius: 2,494,800m Average of Expansion Radius: 1,386,000m Shortest Radial Total: 1,277,200m Longest Radial Total: 11,494,800m Average of Radial Total: 6,386,000m Diameter Total: 12,772,000m Smallest Radial Gravity: .77m/s Highest Radial Gravity: 6.93m/s Average Radial Gravity: 3.85m/s Time: 600 seconds Did that example help at all?

To Buffy: (1)I have not discussed the whole book. Barely even 50%. I have made simple as possible approach to my posts. With assumption the that someone has read the book. If the information here is to vague for you then read the book or just move on to something else. I am not going to endlessly keep repeating myself or describe something from 500+ page books that someone has not read. Imagine explaining Standard theory to someone unfamiliar with it, it take a hundreds of posts or hours of conversation to cover all bases! Hence the problem here. Do not take of us on our word. Read the information for yourself then make your decision. You actually made your choice when you decided the price of admission was not worth your time. Which is fine. So many books who can decide which one to read and not. Not to mention lot of are not available to checkout. Right or wrong Final Theory is staying in my library. Need a good test to current theory right now. (2)OK picture two equal sized (10,000km diameter) planets with equal mass. The first one has center of highest mass concentration in it's geometric center. Now expand at 0.00000077% acceleration m/s. The atoms each expand by the same amount, and expand into each other at center of mass. The sum total of all the atoms expand and bear down on a central point were highest concentration of atoms are. From this point all the atoms will push off from as they expand. To determine the amount of expansion you simply measure from this point all the way to the edge of the planet. Radius: 5,000km Diameter: 10,000km Distance from center of mass: 5,000km Expansion of Radius: 3.85m Expansion of Diameter: 7.7m Radial Total: 5,000,003.85m Diameter Total: 10,000,007.7m Surface Gravity: 3.85 m/s Time: 1 second Radius: 5,000km Diameter: 10,000km Distance from center of mass: 5,000km Expansion of Radius: 1,386,000m Expansion of Diameter: 2,772,000m Radial Total: 6,386,000m Diameter Total: 12,772,000m Surface Gravity: 3.85 m/s Time: 600 seconds Following me so far?

The tides I understand are merely the author's opinion. It is possible tides are connected to Moon and Earth formation though. The whole planet formation models have proven completely useless for all the newly discovered planets around stars. So we don't really understand how planets form exactly. We know they form from material in space around new stars most likely but the exact process alludes us. The link you posted he's trying to say that the experiment supposedly shows objects fall at the same rate despite mass or size. Quite frankly that is open interpretation. Gravity measured with quantum corrections and at micro scales has proved utterly useless thus far. Gravity does not seem to follow quanta rule. Plus do not forget the quantum rule you can not know more than one quantity of a particle at a time, but never both. Look into the experiment details. Has it been duplicated more than once? Can quantum corrections of other forces create the same observed measurements, if so then the data is meaningless. Oddly enough I am working on a fiction story with Expansion Dynamics for fun.

Newton's laws would predict the Moon to be about 1/4th Earth's gravity. However it is measured at 1/6th. This explained as the moon being less dense than the Earth. Expansion Theory's alternate explanation is the matter in the Moon is not less dense but unevenly dense. In other words the near side is more dense than the far side. Since the center of mass in not at the Moon's geometric center the matter pushing off from center of mass results in uneven expansion accelerations experience. Simply put the radius from the center of mass is short on the near side and longer on the far side. The far side would have 1/3rd Earth's gravity. They average to the expected overall 1/4 Earth's gravity. I realize this is odd, but it is testable. Quantum theory makes even weirder predictions yet is backed by experiments. So just something seems odd does make it right or wrong. It has to be tested.

Hey Buffy! For the record I am neither Expansion Theory, Standard Theory, or any other theory supporter. I am just stating what the Expansion theories logical consequences are. Following the model to it's conclusion. Then I will be ready to hammer the thing for all it's worth like some critics have. You have to look at the whole picture before you look at the art piece. :rainbow: http://www.relativitychallenge.com/index.htm There the SR link. I just saw it recently by accident. Found Final Theory in a similar way when I was not even looking for it! The Relativity Challenge may or may not prove right. Einstein is known to have had basic problems with math. So it does not surprise me that perhaps he made some mistakes that only a sharp eye would spot. It's not like anyone has ever tested the twin paradox for real or anything. SR limits for particle accelerators may be do properties of matter we do not understand. Don't forget Quantum Theory claims we shape reality and our experiments by trying to observe nature! We may have gotten results because that is what we sought from the beginning. I will get to your questions as soon as possible. Sayonara.

But in Expansion Theory light is not a barrier at all, SR rules do not apply in Expansion Theory Model. The expansion as I have previously mentioned is accelerating motion. Not a coasting motion. I am not sure if the subatomic expansion is static or accelerating the book does not clearly say. Atomic expansion however is stated as accelerating.

Hello! Welcome aboard! Datalabs already mentioned this on the prior two pages. The orbits are not actual circle or elliptical paths. They just look like they are. Expansion dynamics do not work with Standard theory. The theories are two totally different ways of describing the universe. Expansion dynamics imply predictions and new math models utterly different than human experience. But Quantum Mechanics did the same thing, it utterly crushed classic views and took a generation to accept it. With hard work and patience, Expansion could possibly be a new theory that will bring down old thought and usher in a new. Remember Standard theory took decades to design and prove. Countless scientists refined it with time. Even now it is still about to altered yet again. Only time will tell if this new idea is the one we have all been waiting for. The author has not earned a lot of money or reputation from the book. He simply printed it for lack of a better way to get into to public hands. Ideally he told me he would like to get it published on a larger and or more readily available scale. Recently he had a interview.

By the way GR is being tested by a orbiting satellite as we speak. It's checking for curved space.

To Buffy: (1)You obviously have not read the book. Expansion theory predicts the amount of matter from the center of mass, not the geometric center, produces the gravity felt. The greater the amount of matter from the center of mass the greater the gravity felt. The lesser the amount of matter from the center of mass the weaker the gravity felt. However the overall volume increase of all of the objects expanding matter would be the same as another object of equal size and mass, but with even matter distribution. The only difference between the two objects would be the different surface gravities. Easy to illustrate. Take 6,375 km long by 600 km wide tower in space. Expanding you would feel only about 2.454375 m/s acceleration on either of it's long ends. Stand at the geometric center and you would experience only 0.231 m/s expansion. Now put an amount of matter in dense form at 1/3rd of the tower that equals the mass of the other 2/3rds of the tower. Thus putting the center of mass at right between the 1/3rd and 2/3 sections. At Dense long end you would experience 1.63625 m/s acceleration. At less dense long end you would experience 3.2725 m/s acceleration. Yet the individual atomic expansion has not changed from 0.00000077 m/s acceleration. Just by changing the matter distribution a little in Expansion Theory and the surface gravity can start to vary greatly. Yet a orbit is concerned with overall shape and size of object and not it's mass. So this theory predicts any orbital measurements will detect only surface variations (non smooth surface) but not the expansion. Either you drop a object or measure surface force (weight of objects) to find the actual surface gravity/expansion. There is absolutely no other way to measure the expansion of the surface. Period. (2)If you can split a Quark into lesser fragments with greater energies than have been previously used then it cannot be a fundamental particle. Higher energies will test this. You obviously skipped my posts. There are no charges in Expansion Theory, it clearly states charges do not exist. They are misconception of the crossover effect of electron flow and electron clouds surrounding atoms. There are only about 3 properties for the fundamental particle (electron), none of which are like any Standard Theory particle property. They are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! (3)I am talking accelerating past light. Not hypothetical tachyons that already speed past light or light moving past c in some instances. According to Expansion Theory the only limit to acceleration or velocity is the method of propulsion and fuel needed to reach such high speed. Not to mention getting a object to survive long enough by slamming into stray particles at speeds high enough to cause nuclear fission! By the way as of 2005 a serious mathematical paper was submitted that proposes large mathematical errors of the original prints of Special Relativity. If proven correct then SR has been wrong and miss used for the last century! This is not from the author of the book either. Someone brave enough to come forward and state SR's original print from Einstein broke several math laws and is incorrect. Look it up. Be interesting to see what happens. (4)Physically hitting electron clusters (photons), to cause a deliberate vibrational kinetic motion down the entire light beam. Like knocking steal balls sort of. Theoretically then you could have FTL communication through light beams, because the vibration conducts through the particles in the beam faster than the beams motion! Well beyond light speed! You quote Standard Theory and old Classical ideas like I am not familiar with them. Guess what? I do know them silly! I am familiar with: Thermo-Dynamics, General Relativity, Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Classical Mechanics, Cosmology, and more. In no way do I claim to be the absolute master of them. But I am all to aware of their strong points and weak points. I didn't come here to discuss what I already know. I am here to simply to discuss a book I happen to enjoy, whether it is true or not. I maybe young, but I am not ignorant person. Far from it. You discussing a book you have not read, is like going to book club discussion without reading the book in conversation! :rainbow:

The most testable observations that come to mind are: 1)Land a probe on the darkside of the moon. According to the theory you cannot tell surface gravity from orbit, but have to measure directly either by surface measurements or by measuring falling object acceleration. If the predicted moon surface gravity of darkside of moon is not the predicted 1/3G then Expansion Theory cannot explain moon graviy and hence is basicly useless. If prediction is correct then it would be the first theory in history to predict a gravitational effect that no other theory predicts. 2)If they ever manage to split a Quark into smaller units then Standard Theory is incomplete and Expansion theory would have evidence that even Quarks are groups of electrons. 3)Accelerate a particle past light. According to Expansion Theory you could do it possibly. However it would require a force other than a magnetic field! That does not sound to feasible right now. 4)You should be theoritically be able to send vibrations through light or any other particle beam.

I agree. More math is needed than the one equation that describes falling objects. No scientist will take the idea seriously without a mathmatical language that descibes it's effects. However String theory and M theory have very complex math that look good on paper but are meaningless in every day language or everyday sense. We need a common ground here. Expansion math models that are accurate, but easy to use or describe or build more complex theorums. Since the author did not provide these, that leaves us the science minded readers to build it ourselves. I am ready for it. Are any of you?