Complete Unified Theory Model Developed.

[arkain101]

I have read through (most) of this thread. I'm sorry, but I cannot help you. I've had QM and GR in college, and I recognize the Maxwell Equations and some others, but there doesn't seem to be any "continuity" that I can understand. In text books, the author usually goes... "from eqn 1 and eqn 2, we derive eqn 3. from eqn 3 and the assumption of the Hamiltonian from chapter 7, we derive eqn 4. ..." etc. That's what I mean by continuity; a logical flow of derivations and conclusions. Sorry, KAC & Arkain, but I just can't follow this stuff.

 

There is a reason you are'nt able to follow it. Since I have not yet presented the groundwork and details of the theory I do not expect anyone to comprehend, since there has not been anything presented from me in the first place to comprehend.

 

What I have presented is a visual summery and take it or leave predictions the model makes. I am working on the derivatives and logical continuity to check the models validity.

 

What I could use help on is of the previous post. Are these facts accuratly correct?

 

-The 'speed' of light is observably constant in respect to a short period of observation. The speed of light although is not a constant distance coverage in an amount of time.

 

-ie, A planet that travels away from you contains a velocity. The light that comes from that planet is measured to come towards you at velocity C. C + ( - planet velocity) = Velocity Added, to distance / time of a photon from the source of emmition which then modifies C in means of vector observation.

 

-Therefore, in direct observation the speed of light is maintained. However on outside observation of vector analysis, the speeds or velocities of distance to time relationships are variable.

 

-The speed of light has measured to increase.

 

-The universe is expanding.

[ughaibu]

Arkain101: I suggest you start a new thread so the ideas are kept seperate.

[arkain101]

By 1970, three British astrophysicists had combined to produce a deeper solution of the equations of General Relativity. They culminated the paper, The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology, published in 1970. You should all go get it - its exciting reading.

 

It closes with the Space-Time theorem of General Relativity, which states that if the universe is governed by the equations of General Relativity, not only are we faced with an ultimate origin, we are all of the matter in the universe, and all of the energy in the universe. But we're faced with a coincident ultimate origin for even the dimensions of length, width, height and time.

[IDMclean]

[deleted]

[arkain101]

I am having difficulty forming an equation. I wish I had better mathamaticall skill, but I lack in that area badly.

 

It contains;

U=size of the universe in some type of unit.

Vx=the velocity of the expansion of the universe

pi=to work in the spherical expansion change in diameter.

DeltaC=the measured change in C of C(final)-Co(previous)

delta D= the increase of distance in the expansion in the given time passed in the measurments. Velocity expansion*time<-->delta C

 

To solve for possible radius of the universe in repsect to our relativistic observation of the universe at a presumed rest using the measureable data.

 

 

The equation should be similar to this(?). U(radius) =[Vx(velocity expansion)*t*2pi ]/ [(delta)C / (delta)D(expansion)]

 

Although I KNOW that is far from written right.

 

I am interested in the possible number. It is a sketchy prediction.

[IDMclean]

According to Relativity c is the same in all frames of reference.

[Jay-qu]

Sorry for just gutting this thread, but it did need to be done. Now Arkain can have his thread back and KAK gets his own ;) also I apologise if you think that I have moved some of the wrong posts, I did the best I could to draw the line.

 

to see KAK's CUFT model go to his thread on ...

 

Jay-qu

[arkain101]

According to Relativity c is the same in all frames of reference

 

Kick, I acknowledge this. To an observer light remains as C. This is the description of its constancy.

 

However, Light can be measured to cover a given distance at a time that works out a velocity greater than C. Such as you see light come at you from a star at C on earth. I am on planet X and I see this star moving quickly away from you and I would measure those results of yours and the given distances and etc to a value of greater than C.

 

So dialation must occur individually to each atom in space. So C can be different in all linear vector scenarios. Although it is measured to traverse a distance in the same time in all reference frames. Which is part of why I propose lights electro magnetic wave is a illusion we see of the passage of anti-space-time rippling in space-time, and as this occurs light emmits from within the zero-point of the point particle like system.

 

As Electric and Magnetic join and go into zero-point electro-magnetic light waves are formed. As Electro-magnetic light waves spread out into spacial perpendicular orientation gravity waves are formed and each are constant.

 

But back to the point.

 

The only article I have of value of C changing so far is this one.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html

 

But I am looking for other evidence. If this is true, it can be applied into the theory to find the tensor size, universe size, or some other properties.

[arkain101]

Check this out.

 

 

Quantum dots device counts single electrons

19:00 15 June 2006

NewScientist.com news service

Kurt Kleiner

 

 

A device capable of counting the individual electrons in an electric current, by feeding them through a pair of quantum dots, has been developed by scientists in Japan. The device can even spot the "backscattering" that occurs when electrons travel the wrong way through a circuit.

 

 

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn9343-quantum-dots-device-counts-single-electrons.html

[arkain101]

Sounds good keep it open.

 

It was getting messy, but from here on in I hope it stays on track.

[Jay-qu]

I can close it, but I wont delete it. There is valid discussion here and you may wish to refer back to it.

[EWright]

Don't give up quite yet. It is interesting seeing your thoughts and theory devolop. I believe you are on track with a couple of aspects that are similar to my own idea, but I have trouble following your logic on some others. I'd say keep digging and things will begin to make more sense to you. You're apparently working through this theory as you're still developing your ideas, which are probably evolving as you do, making it hard to feel as though you have a complete and thorough idea that you're ready to share. Personally, I don't understand the mathematical apects that you and KAK were discussing, but I'm surprised the thread hasn't generated more responses from others who are familiar with those concepts. Keep up the momentum though, and the results will follow.

[arkain101]

This is a representation of lights independency. In current postulate and law of lights constant. We call the distance / time of a photons path C in all reference frames but independent of the matter.

 

 

The balls are a reference frame of an observer. The ball enclosed in boxes are boxes of motion frames to display its movement over time.

 

The forward horizontal strait black line is the light leaving the ship.(all viewed from observer 3 top view -will be mentioned later-)

 

The black angled lines is the path of the light between observer rest and motion.

 

The blue line is the path of the light leaving the front of the 'ship' for the moving observer and the paths it must cover to reach the rest observer.

 

The entire observation of this entire scene is from a top birds eye view of a third reference frame and is not to be forgotten for it is the only reason we see this particular view but it aswell must take in account of its own views of light.

 

As you place yourself independently into each observation frame you will measure the speed of light to be at what we call C -but any light you see must be a photon emitted to you that has traveled a path to reach your eye-.

 

As the moving observer you will measure the light leaving in front of you to leave at C. We assume the observer in motion is traveling in a high percentage of C. Lets say 0.8C to get build the scene, RELATIVE TO THE OTHER FRAMES OF REFERENCE.

 

As we place our self in the 2nd observation frame -at rest-. We see the light path needs to cover varying distances from a varying velocity source. However, the speed at which we measure this wave of light will remain constant. Keep in mind that in order for the light to come from the moving light source path, it needs to be reflected from an atom and sent towards us. This atom could be like a dust particle, considering this light source to be a lazer light beam shot in the direction of travel of the moving ship.

 

Now the only reason we have this particular picture and point of view (of this image) is from including -remembering- that from this view we are a 3rd reference frame. Fomr this view we call it a top view. Here we see the paths of this lazer light for each observer, but we too must consider the varying velocities of light source and light paths as the light reflects to us from dust particles along its way.

 

In each reference frame; moving ship, observer at rest, and you from space in birds eye view, light is said to act independently from each frame and observer -to be measured as C to each observer-.

 

We can never actually see the light making a path. We can only see the light that becomes reflected to us from along its path and from there determine its distance over time, but also include its total travel of distance. The total distance traveled is of many angles in any of these 3 reference frames.

 

However, the light that is reflected us, the light we see that shows its wave front posistion is going to be behind in posistion of the actual source of this light path. We can not see the wave front unless we are truly infront of its path. So it is much further ahead than we can measure it to be. -this should be included into vector measurements-

 

In a vector sense the light is actually moving faster than we can see it when watching from observation frame 1, 2 and 3.

 

The light we see must be redirected in the opposite direction while the source of this reflection continues in at the speed of C.

 

So as we see the front of the lazer moving through space at C, considering out angle of view, the wave of light is actually going to be ahead of where we can actually see thus, allowing it to appear into the future, but it is not.

 

In the observer frame 1 of the moving frame. The measured velocity of the lazer beam he shoots, -parrallel infront of him- has a posistion that is only measurable by the reflection this beam makes from a particular chunk of matter. Be it dust or tiny mirrors.

 

As he measures the posistion of the light wave and its velocity, the true front of the light wave will be further ahead.

 

This is because the as the light does 180degree direction turn to display its posistion to observer 1, it contunies moving 180 degrees the opposite direction of its reflective counterpart and is actually pulling ahead from what can be view or measured.

 

If we add a part 4 observer to be in the path of this lazer beam parrallel to it, this observer can not measure the velocity of this lazer beam without knowing the sources velcity -which he can not know unless he is getting informatino from these other frames of reference-.

 

He can only determine the frequency of this light and he will see this lazer reach him before the ship observer is able to.

 

Questions and Considerations:

 

 

Does this break down the constant velocity of light? Does it add any unexpected details?

 

How do we really measure the velocity of light from an incoming source without knowing the velocity of the source?

 

 

 

[EWright]

This is a representation of lights independency. In current postulate and law of lights constant. We call the distance / time of a photons path C in all reference frames but independent of the matter.

 

 

The balls are a reference frame of an observer. The ball enclosed in boxes are boxes of motion frames to display its movement over time.

 

The forward horizontal strait black line is the light leaving the ship.(all viewed from observer 3 top view -will be mentioned later-)

 

The black angled lines is the path of the light between observer rest and motion.

 

The blue line is the path of the light leaving the front of the 'ship' for the moving observer and the paths it must cover to reach the rest observer.

 

The entire observation of this entire scene is from a top birds eye view of a third reference frame and is not to be forgotten for it is the only reason we see this particular view but it aswell must take in account of its own views of light.

 

As you place yourself independently into each observation frame you will measure the speed of light to be at what we call C -but any light you see must be a photon emitted to you that has traveled a path to reach your eye-.

 

As the moving observer you will measure the light leaving in front of you to leave at C. We assume the observer in motion is traveling in a high percentage of C. Lets say 0.8C to get build the scene, RELATIVE TO THE OTHER FRAMES OF REFERENCE.

 

As we place our self in the 2nd observation frame -at rest-. We see the light path needs to cover varying distances from a varying velocity source. However, the speed at which we measure this wave of light will remain constant. Keep in mind that in order for the light to come from the moving light source path, it needs to be reflected from an atom and sent towards us. This atom could be like a dust particle, considering this light source to be a lazer light beam shot in the direction of travel of the moving ship.

 

Now the only reason we have this particular picture and point of view (of this image) is from including -remembering- that from this view we are a 3rd reference frame. Fomr this view we call it a top view. Here we see the paths of this lazer light for each observer, but we too must consider the varying velocities of light source and light paths as the light reflects to us from dust particles along its way.

 

In each reference frame; moving ship, observer at rest, and you from space in birds eye view, light is said to act independently from each frame and observer -to be measured as C to each observer-.

 

We can never actually see the light making a path. We can only see the light that becomes reflected to us from along its path and from there determine its distance over time, but also include its total travel of distance. The total distance traveled is of many angles in any of these 3 reference frames.

 

However, the light that is reflected us, the light we see that shows its wave front posistion is going to be behind in posistion of the actual source of this light path. We can not see the wave front unless we are truly infront of its path. So it is much further ahead than we can measure it to be. -this should be included into vector measurements-

 

In a vector sense the light is actually moving faster than we can see it when watching from observation frame 1, 2 and 3.

 

The light we see must be redirected in the opposite direction while the source of this reflection continues in at the speed of C.

 

So as we see the front of the lazer moving through space at C, considering out angle of view, the wave of light is actually going to be ahead of where we can actually see thus, allowing it to appear into the future, but it is not.

 

In the observer frame 1 of the moving frame. The measured velocity of the lazer beam he shoots, -parrallel infront of him- has a posistion that is only measurable by the reflection this beam makes from a particular chunk of matter. Be it dust or tiny mirrors.

 

As he measures the posistion of the light wave and its velocity, the true front of the light wave will be further ahead.

 

This is because the as the light does 180degree direction turn to display its posistion to observer 1, it contunies moving 180 degrees the opposite direction of its reflective counterpart and is actually pulling ahead from what can be view or measured.

 

If we add a part 4 observer to be in the path of this lazer beam parrallel to it, this observer can not measure the velocity of this lazer beam without knowing the sources velcity -which he can not know unless he is getting informatino from these other frames of reference-.

 

He can only determine the frequency of this light and he will see this lazer reach him before the ship observer is able to.

 

Questions and Considerations:

 

 

Does this break down the constant velocity of light? Does it add any unexpected details?

 

How do we really measure the velocity of light from an incoming source without knowing the velocity of the source?

 

 

 

 

I've read this a couple of times, and although it is interesting to me, I find it difficult to follow. I also don't understand how it is we're to look at the entire thing from a 'birds eye view' and still consider other reference frames because we must change our view to do so. But like I said, it's difficult to follow, so perhaps I'm not conceiving it right. Anyone else?

[arkain101]

You are right it is difficult to follow.

 

The so called birds eye view is the reference frame of you looking at this scene (which happens to be you looking at the computer screen). I am calling it birds eye view because of how the scene is drawn out. The view you have looking at this diagram is you in space.

 

We can not see this scene without 3 reference frames;

 

-the first, the one in motion

-the second, the one at rest

-the third, the one viewing the scene

 

Each reference frame can only see the lazers path from photons reflected from the main path of light.

 

As the reflection portion of the light makes its way to your eye or instrument which displays its posistion, the main lazer is actually continuing onward beyond where we see the front of the lazer to be.

 

So the lazer beam you see will always be further along in its path than you physically measure it to be.

 

This may make the lazer appear to be in versions of 'time' to seperate reference frames.

[HIENVN]

Those who are members here may be aware I have been working on a new theory for quite some time. I've reached a point where I've began constructing a model.

 

I look forward to discussing the theory with you all here and working on how valid it is. I am obviously excited but I am just eager to put it to through rigorous testing and questioning.

 

There will be some time before it is put together clearly for the picking.

You may in the way of a Unified Theory of two scientists ( one is an American and one is an Pakistan) that received an Award of Nobel Prize for Physics about 30 years ago.

This Unified Theory is still far to the Einstein's Unified Field Theory, because Unified Theory just limit in an atom while Unified Field Theory go to the universe.

However, We can disscuss together for your model and I wish that will learn form your experience.

Because my Enlish skill is not good, my response to you will be very slow.

[arkain101]

I am sure there is language translation programs out there to download.