Theory of everything

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on June 13th, 2016, 7:04 am 

Something beautiful is happening in physics. It is experimentally proved that universe is expanding at faster rate than GR predicted & LHC may find massive particle beyond standard model of physics. Means, we cannot explain even 5% of known matter correctly. We do not know, what is dark matter?
Now, if I proved that SR is mathematically wrong then we have to write down whole physics again. Read paper on web site http://www.maheshkhati.com which gives answer to some of these problems (or the possible way to find the solution of these problems).
Now, I start discussion by placing my 1st mathematics of 1st chapter of my paper which mathematically proved that SR is wrong. SR gives much important to observer & only kinematics (or state of motion) relative to observer changes time, mass & space. This gives result that applied force is less than acting force in SR. This additional force does not obey the Pythagoras theorem separately. Details are given in the paper.
Force without acceleration in S.R.
& acceleration without force in S.R.
& applied force is less than acting force in S.R.

STEP 1:-This problem can easily be understood by following paradox.
{Before starting this paradox, I want to put some relativity formulae’s
In any frame, for force in X-direction by S.R.


So, after differentiation


We know,

So, after differentiation



from (A) & (B)

So,


Now, Paradox:-
On frictionless platform, object is moving with constant velocity in X-direction & only magnetic force is acting in Y-direction & there is acceleration in Y-direction only with velocity

If we apply eq(1) to this case then result will be

as this force is form due to [/itex] only
Mean’s even there is no magnetic force acting on object from outside in x-direction & no then also above force will act on object in +ve direction of x-axis due to
Important point (1):-
Mean’s applied magnetic force on object in X-direction is 0 & acting force in X-direction is
or
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEP 2:-Now, Force acting in X-direction is


Now, after this happen, very small magnetic force of same intensity
-fx =- or start acting on object in direction opposite to above force (but velocity is still positive ) & cancel that above force.
Mean’s equation (1) becomes

Or
(Here as )

Mean’s
Mean’s there must be acceleration in –ve X-direction to fulfil above equation of S.R.
Now, see above equation carefully, it is of nature

Important point (2):- Mean’s applied magnetic force on object in X-direction is -fx & acting force in X-direction is or 0.
Here, resultant force in X-direction is zero but there is acceleration.
STEP3:- same things happen for +ve force in X-direction (for less than or more)
Now, I am generalising above result.
This clearly shows that when we apply any magnetic force (Fmx) in X-direction on the object, actual force acting on object is more & that quantity is (Fmx+)
Similarly,
If we apply any magnetic force (Fmy) in Y-direction on the object then actual force acting on object is more & that quantity is (Fmy+)
This is completely complicated results, which says that applied force & acting forces on objects are different in S.R.
STEP4:- Force does work, consume energy, gain energy & we must know that energy cannot be created. It can be transferred only:-
From above setup it must be clear that energy get transfer from magnet to object but if applied force is less than acting force then energy gain by object will be more than energy loose by the magnet. Means due to more work done by more force for same displacement, more energy get generated.
HERE, more energy(& force) is the problem.
Where does this additional energy (& force) comes from?
Some says that this is apparent force but it is not because it is the part of acting force.

This clearly shows that something is seriously wrong in Special theory of relativity. There are some additional mathematics which proves SR wrong are also given in chapter 1.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on August 5th, 2016, 6:06 am 

2nd chapter "WHAT IS MATTER & DARK MATTER MADE UP OF?" & 3rd chapter in paper on my web site http://www.maheshkhati.com gives answer to following problems in physics
1) What is dark matter?
2) Dual nature of particles (Wave & particle)
3) Why antimatter is not present in world abundantly?
4) Total energy of photon is kinetic energy, still it is moving of electromagnetic vibration & rest mass or energy of photon is zero & also, it has wave nature? How all this is possible at one time?
5) How can photon disintegrate into electron & positron pair and electron, positron get combine to form photon?
6) Why does charge less particles like photons & neutron have more velocity?
7) Many heavy but unstable particles are forming in LHC at CERN.
I know this theory can be develop further into theory of everything. I need your help to develop it.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby neuro on August 5th, 2016, 9:21 am 

First, I imagine your gamma is not

but the square root of this.

Second, you just do not use the concept of "force" correctly.
If you have a body of mass m moving at velocity v along X axis (no force acting on it), it will have a kinetic energy m·v²/2.
If you were to suddenly change the mass to m1, the kinetic energy would change to m1·v²/2.
Applying a magnetic force perpendicularly, thereby producing an acceleration (normal to X), will increase the mass to m1 (gamma increases). And the kinetic energy of the body will consistently increase.
Still, you are not applying any force along the X axis.

How do you explain this?
Your answer is: SR must be wrong.

Mine is: you must be wrong.
In particular, F = m·a = m·d/dt(v) which is different from F = d/dt(m·v).
See the point?
You do not need any force along the X axis to change the mass. Only to change the velocity.
Try and perform your derivations by considering that you must differentiate ux only, and not the mass term (which includes gamma): everything will turn out correct.

Let me know.
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on August 6th, 2016, 5:51 am 

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30181
first thanks
read this topic, "applied force is less than acting force in S.R." by me
on sub-forum physics,
this is settle & accepted mathematics.
I have done one LATEX error only for correct formula for Fx is

other differential mathematics are true
I can give reference of lot of books for this formula, for example.
Page no. 135 of Elements of special relativity” by Dr T.M. Karade, Dr K S Adhav & Dr Maya S Bendre. or even formula on wiki
Force in X-direction is rate of change of moment in that direction. So, we have to differentiation complete relative momentum in that direction.
You will surprise to read that in SR, direction of force & acceleration may not be same. This will create lot of basic problems in physics. I do not know why scientist has not consider these problems in SR..
Even I can prove that at some condition, there is no force acting in X-direction but there will be acceleration in X-direction. This is magic.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on August 8th, 2016, 6:47 am 

In special relativity. It can be proves that there can be acceleration without force in X-direction.
Example is given below
In prime frame S,
if Fz =0 & ratio Fx/Fy is equal to then after transformation in S’ frame
F’x becomes F’x = 0 because
F’x = Fx – ----transformation equation in relativity (refer any book of SR)
Now,consider event:-
In frame S :- Now, just consider that on frictionless platform magnetic forces are acting in X-direction & in Y-direction. Magnetic force Fx is so adjusted by software program that ratio
Fx/Fy is always equal to
Then, Forces Fx (very small) & Fy in this frame will create acceleration ax & ay in direction x & y.
Observer frame S’ is moving with velocity V with relative to frame S then in frame S’ :-
There is acceleration in X’ direction because ax’=
where r = but there is no force in X’- direction because
as F’x = Fx – & as
Fx/Fy =
So, F’x =0
Means, in this case in frame S’ there is acceleration in X’-direction but no force is present in X’-direction.
Means, some ghost force will accelerate substance in direction X’ in frame S’. Can you call this as physics?

This happens due to nature of transformation equation of force & acceleration in SR.
Acceleration in one frame create acceleration in all frames in X-direction but this is not for force.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby neuro on August 8th, 2016, 7:01 am 

You must certainly be right, given your certainty, and I must be wrong since I am a physician and not a physicist.

Still, to change the velocity of an object you need mechanical force.

To change its moment you have two choices:
- either you change its velocity by applying a mechanical force
- or you change the "m" factor in moment by adding energy to the object (e.g. an orthogonal gravitational or magnetic field).

If you choose the second option you cannot consider you are applying a mechanical (spatially oriented) force.
You are simply changing the kinetic energy of the system by changing its mass.

Actually, if you tried and suddenly stop the object along the x axis, you would get more energy out of it when it moves faster in an orthogonal direction (with a non-negligible ratio u/c) because its mass would be greater.

Thus, when you accelerate along the y axis, you do change the momentum along the x axis (without applying any further force along the x axis). Now, if you wish to maintain fixed the momentum along the x axis you must apply a counterforce, so that the continuous increase in mass is compensated by a continuous decrease in speed.
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy
mahesh liked this post


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on August 8th, 2016, 9:05 am 

sorry, I will reply after due to some tech problem.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on August 9th, 2016, 4:00 am 

You are doing two things.
1) You are accepting my calculations.
2) You are justifying problems in it without calculation.
In world of kinematics, you can increase kinetic energy, potential energy or loose energy in friction only by doing work. Work require force & displacement & total work in X-Y plane is
Work done = (Fx i + Fyj) . (dx i + dy j) = Fx dx + Fy dy

If I use SR & prove that in SR, applied force in X & Y direction is less than actual force acting on substance in that direction.
For example, fx & fy are applied forces in X & Y direction & acting forces are more
i.e. Fx=fx+Fmay & Fy =fy + Fmax
then this will create additional work done by additional force.
Interesting thing is this additional force do not take part in acceleration.
This additional force will create additional energy.
This is problem.
Work done, change in momentum, change in kinetic energy etc are the effect of same thing.
From where this additional energy comes from.
When ever you accept my mathematics, you accept that there is problem in SR.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SR is definitely wrong. I can prove that velocity of stars on equator moving from West to East has a velocity more than thousand of C.
But biggest problem in SR is, it is experimental proven. For example,
relative mass increases, time slow down,velocity of light is constant etc
simple explanation to it is all this happen not due to SR but due to other some other reasons.
Visit:- http://www.maheshkhati.com
Thanks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby neuro on August 9th, 2016, 10:39 am 

mahesh » August 9th, 2016, 9:00 am wrote:From where this additional energy comes from.


From the increase in velocity along the y axis.
The mass of the object is not sensitive to velocity in one specific direction.
Any change in velocity will produce a decrease in gamma and an increase in mass.
The increase in mass will determine an increase in kinetic energy.

Or, in SR terms, the increase in mass will CONSTITUTE an increase in energy:
delta E = delta sqrt(m2·c4+m2·c2·v2).

(this last equation may be inaccurate, as I did not check it)
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy


Re: Theory of everything

Postby hyksos on August 9th, 2016, 5:46 pm 

Important point (2):- Mean’s applied magnetic force on object in X-direction is -fx & acting force in X-direction is or 0.
Here, resultant force in X-direction is zero but there is acceleration.
STEP3:- same things happen for +ve force in X-direction (for less than or more)
Now, I am generalising above result.
This clearly shows that when we apply any magnetic force (Fmx) in X-direction on the object, actual force acting on object is more & that quantity is (Fmx+)
Similarly,
If we apply any magnetic force (Fmy) in Y-direction on the object then actual force acting on object is more & that quantity is (Fmy+)
This is completely complicated results, which says that applied force & acting forces on objects are different in S.R.


mahesh,

It might at first appear that electromagnetism is deeply at odds with Special Relativity. Please watch the following video starting at the the 43 minute mark ( 43:00 )

He first writes Lorentz Force ,
Image

Note that the v there is the velocity of a particle. He then asks -- But it is a velocity relative to who? In order to find out, we will attempt a transformation of coordinates from a stationary observer, to an observer that is moving, by using the u to u-prime, and the t to t-prime. The theory of Special Relativity proposes that there is no ether medium in which light propagates. Because there is no ether, transformation of coordinates from observers must follow a Lorentz transformation, NOT the regular transformation given by euclidean coordinates.

Surprisingly, (or not so surprisingly,) when you substitute back into the energy derivative, using the correct transformation, you get the exact equation back at the bottom of the chalkboard.

energywave.png


So SR gives a transformation that ends up accidentally confirming Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism.

https://youtu.be/JJZkjMRcTD4?t=2581
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1173
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on August 11th, 2016, 6:40 am 

Thanks for best video. It is true.
This wave equation & M-morley experiment are the primary problems solved by SR of Einstein. Einstein is so great mathematician that he satisfies both problems by considering velocity of light is constant for all observers.
This is a problem for me also
If SR is wrong then velocity of light will not be same with different observer then how will we satisfy Maxwell wave equation by alternative mathematics & M-morley experiment.
This all problem can be solved by simple way. For example, Electron in the Atom of substance always expresses our velocity with relative to electromagnetic flux of atom acting on it. Whatever may velocity of substance be with related to anybody. Velocity of electron around nucleus remains same until exited.
This is true for Photon also, when Photon is in glass substance, it express our velocity with related to electromagnetic flux of glass (combine balance fields of all particles of glass). So, when glass may have any velocity with related to other substance this velocity of photon with relative to glass remains same in all direction inside the glass.
Same thing happen on earth, just consider only negative charge of electrons of earth then very high –ve electrical flux is present around it. This flux is balance by +ve protons flux & resultant is balancing of opposite flux. This balance electromagnetic flux & gravity is present all around Earth. All elementary particles & photon express our velocity with related to this flux. This is reason for getting velocity of light C on earth in all direction. This is not due to SR but due to property of photon.
One of my friend said that he is in train moving with velocity V then what will be velocity of photon with related to me in train?. I said according to my theory of local relativity, velocity photon in all direction will be C because Photon is so sensitive that if you want to find its velocity with instrument, it express our velocity with related to balance electromagnetic flux present around measuring instrument.
So, whenever there is photon or light near to you its velocity with related to you or measuring instrument will be same in all direction i.e. C. This is simple solution which satisfies both above problems. Not require SR.
How did I get this thought?
I was writing something on paper. I got this idea. We cannot write anything in vacuum. We require some paper. Same is with the world. We require some frame to express our activity. For all elementary particles, this paper is balance field acting on it.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby hyksos on August 11th, 2016, 4:56 pm 

One of my friend said that he is in train moving with velocity V then what will be velocity of photon with related to me in train?. I said according to my theory of local relativity, velocity photon in all direction will be C because Photon is so sensitive that if you want to find its velocity with instrument, it express our velocity with related to balance electromagnetic flux present around measuring instrument.

It turns out that , even in classical EM, we never measure voltages absolutely. The framework only gives us differences in voltage ("electric potential") between two points. That is to say, science does not know what voltage the universe is actually occupying in the vacuum of space. This is very important to understand, because it also applies to gravitational potential. In any given simple textbook problem about gravity, we assume that the gravitational potential energy = 0.0 at ground level. Somehow, this causes the predictions of falling objects to work out correctly, in a way that matches experiment.

(this relativity of field potentials happens all over physics. It undergirds a mathematics called Gauge Theory. But we are getting ahead of ourselves...)

I was writing something on paper. I got this idea. We cannot write anything in vacuum. We require some paper. Same is with the world. We require some frame to express our activity. For all elementary particles, this paper is balance field acting on it.

I agree with this in principle. You might want to check out the article that Einstein wrote for Scientific American in 1950.

http://web.mit.edu/jwk/www/docs/Einstei ... Sci-Am.pdf
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1173
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on August 16th, 2016, 5:12 am 

I have just visited to your post. I will read your link of great scientist Einstein's writing ( in night). Thanks, Please give such selective link to me.
I am against SR but I am not completely against GR. GR says that matter bends the space. I say that matter create the space around it.
My SR loving friend said that if we are in the train of moving with velocity V then velocity of photon in all direction will be C & this can be explain by SR only.
I said that just consider THERMODYNAMICS, train is the closed system, if velocity of photon increases after reflecting in perpendicular direction without adding any external energy into the system. Total energy of the system will not remain same. To keep total energy of system same, photon must have same velocity in all direction in same system after reflection.
Means, for velocity of light to constant in any system do not require SR. Even thermodynamics proves that things.
I am against SR because SR give much important to observer than space.
Read:- paper on http://www.maheshkhati.com
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on August 22nd, 2016, 7:30 am 

neuro » August 9th, 2016, 9:09 pm wrote:
mahesh » August 9th, 2016, 9:00 am wrote:From where this additional energy comes from.


From the increase in velocity along the y axis.
The mass of the object is not sensitive to velocity in one specific direction.
Any change in velocity will produce a decrease in gamma and an increase in mass.
The increase in mass will determine an increase in kinetic energy.

Or, in SR terms, the increase in mass will CONSTITUTE an increase in energy:
delta E = delta sqrt(m2·c4+m2·c2·v2).

(this last equation may be inaccurate, as I did not check it)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The correct equation is

E = sqrt(mo2·c4+c2·p2).
So, we can easily proved that
delta E = u. delta P
Now, change in energy depends on velocity & change in momentum.
& change in momentum per second is force.
delta E = u .F . dt = F . ds = work done
So, change in energy & work done in that direction is same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is well establish concept that change in total energy in kinematics is equal to work done.
Work happens only due to applied force in that dorection.
My Problem is additional force in my mathematics in X & Y direction creates additional work done.
from where this additional energy comes from.
because these additional forces are not applied from some one.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on August 25th, 2016, 6:53 am 

Consider that old man is pulling cart for small distance ds on platform with velocity U & applying force f. Now, I want to use
E = sqrt(mo2·c4+c2·p2).
This equation for work done calculation as you say
So,
dE/dP = u ---- This calculation can be find in any text book of relativity
dE = u . dP
Now, we Know f=dP/dt
So, dE =f. u .dt =f. ds
So, change in energy= work done = f. ds = fx .dx+ fy.dy
This is the work done by old man or energy loose by the old man for observer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the problem started for SR
because according to my mathematics from post 1, energy gain by cart will be
change in energy= work done = F. ds = Fx .dx+ Fy.dy
& Fx = fx+Fmay , Fy = fy + Fmax
because acting forces is more than applied forces.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, for observer
energy gain by cart will be more than energy loose by old man. Hence from where this additional energy or force comes from. This problem remain as it is in SR.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In kinematics, energy increases only by doing work.


Now, in next post, I will prove that energy caring capacity of space decreases if that space is moving with respect to observer. This is again against relativity.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby neuro on August 25th, 2016, 11:12 am 

mahesh » August 22nd, 2016, 12:30 pm wrote:
neuro wrote:delta E = delta sqrt(m2·c4+m2·c2·v2).

(this last equation may be inaccurate, as I did not check it)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The correct equation is

E = sqrt(mo2·c4+c2·p2).
So, we can easily proved that
delta E = u. delta P
Now, change in energy depends on velocity & change in momentum.
& change in momentum per second is force.
delta E = u .F . dt = F . ds = work done
So, change in energy & work done in that direction is same.


You are just playing with words, mahesh:
you rewrote my equation substituting "p" for "m·v".
The point is that momentum has TWO components: one is vectorial (v) and the other is not (m).
Changing the mass of a body changes its kinetic energy (which is obtained by an input of ENERGY, not velocity and non vectorial, into the system=body) in any direction you would like to consider it.

You keep being confused by the assumption that a change in momentum can only be generated by a change in velocity (acceleration), which must be vectorial, and therefore by the application of a (vectorial) force. This is obviously NOT the case.
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on August 26th, 2016, 5:04 am 

neuro » August 25th, 2016, 9:42 pm wrote:
mahesh » August 22nd, 2016, 12:30 pm wrote:
neuro wrote:delta E = delta sqrt(m2·c4+m2·c2·v2).

(this last equation may be inaccurate, as I did not check it)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are just playing with words, mahesh:
you rewrote my equation substituting "p" for "m·v".
The point is that momentum has TWO components: one is vectorial (v) and the other is not (m).
Changing the mass of a body changes its kinetic energy (which is obtained by an input of ENERGY, not velocity and non vectorial, into the system=body) in any direction you would like to consider it.

You keep being confused by the assumption that a change in momentum can only be generated by a change in velocity (acceleration), which must be vectorial, and therefore by the application of a (vectorial) force. This is obviously NOT the case.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your are not wrong. Only 1st part of equation is not m2·c4 but mo2·c4 & it is constant.
You are true & I am also not confused. For change of momentum in X-direction, we do not need any external force in that direction.
This is the main problem. This work done or change of energy or creation of internal force happens automatically due to effect of ay & ux in X-direction.
Same extra energy is created in Y-direction, if ax & uy is in existence.
What did I have proved in 1st post that this extra additional energy is not generated due to external force?
That is the problem.
Applied External Force in Y-direction creates some additional extra energy in X-direction.
& Applied External Force in X-direction creates some additional extra energy in Y-direction.

This is the main problem in SR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In SR internally automatically develop force due to change in mass get added to externally applied force in X & Y direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not only problem in SR but there are some other problem exist in SR.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby neuro on August 26th, 2016, 5:38 am 

mahesh » August 26th, 2016, 10:04 am wrote:That is the problem.
Applied External Force in Y-direction creates some additional extra energy in X-direction.
& Applied External Force in X-direction creates some additional extra energy in Y-direction.

This is the main problem in SR.


This is NOT a problem.
Energy is not vectorial (directional).

If you heat a moving body I imagine the same would occur (please somebody contradict me if I'm wrong).
'Cause this would increase the internal energy of the body and therefore its mass. I bet somebody did the experiment.
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on August 26th, 2016, 7:08 am 

This is not the problem of internal energy.
Internal energy remain same as mo is fix.
This is the problem of relative energy. Which depends on velocity &
Change in relative energy.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby neuro on August 26th, 2016, 7:46 am 

mahesh,
you do not win arguments by bolding words.

Think of my analogy with heat.
When you change internal energy (by heating up) the mass increases (m0 as well).
Such increase in mass produces an increase in momentum (vectorial, directional), although no force has been applied in that direction.

If you accelerate a body along any direction, you increase its overall velocity (the module of the vector), which also decreases the denominator in the gamma factor (relativistic mass increases). Thus, the momentum is increased by the change in both velocity and relativistic mass.

In particular, the component of the momentum in the direction you have accelerated the body increases according to the force you have applied. However, since the relativistic mass of the object simultaneously increases, the factor a/F (acceleration over force = 1/resting mass) decreases: the same force produces a lower acceleration. And that is because part of the force goes into increasing the energy=mass of the body (and consequently its momentum along other directions).

Bye, mahesh.
I do not hope to convince you and am not particularly fond of picking errors in SR...
Hope for you that you find other people interested in discussing this issue with you.
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on September 2nd, 2016, 5:32 am 

This is not the single issue for which I oppose Einstein & form this new theory. I remember, when I was in school, my teacher was teaching a chapter on light.
He said that light photon is the bundle of energy.
I just stood up & asked that what is mean by energy? Definition of energy is the capacity to do work. We cannot make bundle of any capacity for example I have capacity to pick the book from ground,& do work, I cannot make bundle of that capacity. Means, to say that light photon is the bundle of energy is wrong. It must be something else.
When I think, I got simple answer.
Einstein has created wrong physics which is reach to the point of road block for physics. We cannot even satisfactorily explain 5 % of matter in the world. Just consider about light.
Modern physics are sure that:- 1)Light photon is the bundle of energy?

2) Light has dual nature but silent about how is this possible. How is single photon creating interference?
There is no answer to this problem in today’s physics.
3) Rest mass, rest energy of photon is zero. Means, for photon its existence is zero.
4) Total energy of photon is kinetic energy & bundle that kinetic energy is impossible.
5) Light is moving electro-magnetic vibration spreading in all direction from slit but photon moves in specific direction.
6) Why does photon has superior power than any other elementary particles & its velocity is constant C in all direction for all observers.
7) Electron & positron collides & form heavy photon and how does heavy photon split up in to electron, positron pair.
Modern physics do not try to find answer of these questions in realistic way because they believe in SR. Which believe on some magic happen in world? There is some parallel world, there is some 5th dimension, energy has existence away from matter, back to future & past, worm hole, super symmetry etc.
This problem gives some other additional problems like
8) What is dark matter? (Whose existence is more than visible matter)
When did I ask above question? & not getting answer to above problem. I create one theory which gives answer to all these problems.
World is simple, Read paper on http://www.maheshkhati.com You will get answer of all these problem in very simple way.
I believe that that at primary level, world is form by the relative motion of fields & interaction of fields, at very primary level, particles & fields are not different..
Thanks.
& SR is consistent & can not be proves mathematically wrong is also wrong.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016
hyksos liked this post


Re: Theory of everything

Postby hyksos on September 4th, 2016, 3:37 pm 

World is simple, Read paper on http://www.maheshkhati.com You will get answer of all these problem in very simple way.
I believe that that at primary level, world is form by the relative motion of fields & interaction of fields, at very primary level, particles & fields are not different..
Thanks.

You are very welcome! Thanks for contributing.

I was just about to thank you for reading Einstein's 1950 article, but then I stopped myself. I do not believe you have actually read it yet. Here let me show you something...

same_as_einstein.png


You are drawing the same conclusions as Einstein did. I hope this can be a source of pride for you.

Means, for velocity of light to constant in any system do not require SR. Even thermodynamics proves that things

I have always been excited about this possibility. The mainstream `interpretation` is that because light propagates in a vacuum, there does not exist a medium of propagation of light (ether). So observers cannot move relative to it. But a thermodynamic interpretation has often yielded surprising insights for me. I expect that it could do more.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1173
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Making Light of the Medium

Postby Faradave on September 4th, 2016, 5:37 pm 

hyksos wrote:The mainstream `interpretation` is that because light propagates in a vacuum, there does not exist a medium of propagation of light (ether). So observers cannot move relative to it.

Considering the degeneracy of inertial "frame c", it would seem reasonable to consider adjacency as the "medium" for all communication at speed c.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Theory of everything

Postby EasternWind on September 7th, 2016, 2:03 pm 

Mathematics can be a good thing and it can be a terrible thing. You can hide a lot of errors and false claims in mathematics formulas. God knows how many long formulas have been written - and revered for some time - that produced no result and did not improve our understanding of anything. But they looked cool!

My question is why are we not dealing with the very simple underlying question of how could space or mass even exist? Mass is compressed energy - sounds great except it leave us scratching our heads. So energy hits compressed energy and that's how we know energy exists? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Scientist spend countless hours and resources on trying to find various types of particles. Yet we can easily see that particles cannot possibly exist! First, particles are nothing more than energy - there's nothing there - it's just energy (no mass). So how can a particle exist? Unless by particle we mean a concentration of energy. So why are we ignoring such simple basic questions?
EasternWind
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 16 Aug 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby neuro on September 8th, 2016, 7:28 am 

What surprises me most in this discussion is the recurrence of the association (energy but no mass) = non existence.

Are you all kidding?
So if you cannot touch it and weight it it does not exist?
So ENERGY does not exist?
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy
vivian maxine liked this post


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on September 12th, 2016, 3:47 am 

Read my paper on my web site http://www.maheshkhati.com which gives answer to all this problem specially chapter 2 i.e. WHAT IS MATTER & DARK MATTER MADE UP OF?

Now, I am very clear about world.
1) Energy is the capacity of doing work. So, we can not make bundle of any energy or any capacity.
2) Existence of photon is very clearly explain in it. Which is not simply the bundle of energy.
3)Space & vacuum are different things & it is explain in it.

I think that the world is simple.
thanks
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby EasternWind on September 12th, 2016, 11:33 am 

mahesh: I took a look at your site. You have not explained what your elementary particles are made of? No matter how small a particle is, it still occupies some space, does it not? It has dimensions. So then the question becomes what is that particle itself made of? If we start from one side of your particle and travel to the other side of, will we see a whole universe? What's in between? Can we then break your particle into trillions of smaller ones and then do the same with each of those new particles? There seem to be no end to this. And I think that is why our sciences are going through a non-stop loop and trying to come up with new particles. But if you think about it, it is clear that there is no end to this. So the search seems to be completely futile, is answering what the world is made of.
EasternWind
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 16 Aug 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on September 15th, 2016, 4:47 am 

I am sorry. I was away from the city for inspection of bridges. So, I was not available for discussion.

Particle which I consider is the final dot of fields. Read chapter 3 i.e. HOW IS THIS MODEL COMBINE WITH STANDARD MODEL OF PARTICLE PHYSICS?
Where fields (charge, gravity etc) & particle are not different. The structure which I consider solve all our problems. This gives structure to photon, dark matter & explain how light is electromagnetic vibration at the same time it is particle. It also gives explanation why total energy of photon is kinetic energy & mathematically, rest photon has zero mass & energy.

This is nice theory. This theory will open window to new world beyond light. This theory is very flexible also & you can add your structure & improve it by your own way.
I welcome to physicist to improvise this theory by there own way but final truth must be simple.

Thanks
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby EasternWind on September 15th, 2016, 8:27 am 

Hmmm. I don't see an answer to my question. As far as I can see, your "final dot" still has dimensions and occupies space. So the question becomes what is that made of? It doesn't seem very "final".
EasternWind
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 16 Aug 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on September 17th, 2016, 4:15 am 

I have also given possible structure of this original particle in my paper. It may have repulsive field core, surrounded by strong attracting field & then general fields of charge and gravity.
This gives answer to your problem because core field is continuous & not discrete in region. So, no need for dividing it again.
& at very original state, particle & fields are not different.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Next

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests