Theory of everything

Aladar wrote:

[I post to not moderated groups, because my response was
not allowed by the moderators of sci.physics.research...]

Odd - they readily post Uncle Al. Maybe it was a content issue.

Uncle Al wrote in message ...
"Ralph E. Frost" wrote:

What must it look like? What needs to be included? What properties or
attributes must it have?

Okay, maybe not the final theory of everything, but in an improved theory of
more of the system we're aware of, what needs to added, included, or
revised?

It seems to me that the following may be related to some of the changes:
[snip]

Complete physics will be any mathematical model of reality that is
consistent with empirical observation and
explictly accomodates lightspeed=lightspeed, Planck's constant =
Planck's constant, and Big G = Big G simultaneously. No existing
workable theory accomodates more than 2 of 3, approximating the small
outlier(s) as zero and/or lightspeed as infinity.

You should consider the good old - ancient - colliding atoms theory,
which does just that! Yes, if you limit the "workable" to the
academia, you are right! I'm currently still in the "in your face"
phase, but on my way into the academia, which means that there is a
workable theory existing... The problem in your receptor, only...
[snop]

sci.physics.research rejected that? I'm surprised they didn't have
you castrated to improve the species next round.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Uncle Al wrote in message ...
Aladar wrote:

[I post to not moderated groups, because my response was
not allowed by the moderators of sci.physics.research...]

Odd - they readily post Uncle Al. Maybe it was a content issue.

They don't percieve you as a threat, but me. Rightfully!

[...]
Complete physics will be any mathematical model of reality that is
consistent with empirical observation and
explictly accomodates lightspeed=lightspeed, Planck's constant =
Planck's constant, and Big G = Big G simultaneously. No existing
workable theory accomodates more than 2 of 3, approximating the small
outlier(s) as zero and/or lightspeed as infinity.

You should consider the good old - ancient - colliding atoms theory,
which does just that! Yes, if you limit the "workable" to the
academia, you are right! I'm currently still in the "in your face"
phase, but on my way into the academia, which means that there is a
workable theory existing... The problem in your receptor, only...
[snop]

sci.physics.research rejected that? I'm surprised they didn't have
you castrated to improve the species next round.

I thought that I already deserved the burning at the stake... That is
the usual punishment for this idea...

Let's make the connections and accomodations: with the collision
progression we get a regularity in the increase of density - virtual
photons, virtual mass - around a massive body as we see; also,
there is that conservation power of photons (energy loss rate),
gravitational deformation power of massive body and the very basics
'zero point energy' of empty space - all equal for the
mass-equivalent photon!
2/3(mc^2/Hd)=G*h*ro=2/3(h*nu/Hd) - where m=2/27*m_e and Hd=4.234
billion years, (look-up the rest at http://www.stolmarphysics.com)

So dear Uncle, do you want to see your wishes fullfilled?!

Cheers!
Aladar

Aladar wrote:

Uncle Al wrote in message ...
Aladar wrote:

[I post to not moderated groups, because my response was
not allowed by the moderators of sci.physics.research...]

Odd - they readily post Uncle Al. Maybe it was a content issue.

They don't percieve you as a threat, but me. Rightfully!
[snip]

You misspelled "idiot," top-poster.


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

"Aladar" wrote in message
om...
[I post to not moderated groups, because my response was
not allowed by the moderators of sci.physics.research...]

Gee, I wonder why?

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/