Theory of everything

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

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...


That is the whole of it. Only the minor details of formulating it
remain.

Not anymore... http://www.stolmarphysics.com

The collision density does the magic: it defines the lightspeed as
lightspeed and connects the Planck's constant as Planck's constant to
"Big G = Big G simultaneously" - with all of their corresponding
deformations in the gravitational fields.

Cheers!
Aladar

Aladar wrote:

The collision density does the magic: it defines the lightspeed as
lightspeed and connects the Planck's constant as Planck's constant to
"Big G = Big G simultaneously" - with all of their corresponding
deformations in the gravitational fields.


Looking at: http://www.stolmarphysics.com/ , Aladar starts on a
laundry list of refutations:

1. What is dark matter? - No such thing.
A: Dark Matter Background
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DM
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101matter.html

2. What is the nature of dark energy? - Nothing, no such thing.
A: What is the Ultimate Fate of theUniverse?
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101fate.html
Some Theories Win, Some Lose
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_limits.html

3. How did the Universe begin? - It did not.
A: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

etc.

Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
Aladar wrote:

The collision density does the magic: it defines the lightspeed as
lightspeed and connects the Planck's constant as Planck's constant to
"Big G = Big G simultaneously" - with all of their corresponding
deformations in the gravitational fields.


Looking at: http://www.stolmarphysics.com/ , Aladar starts on a
laundry list of refutations:

A long overdue tabula rasa, yes!


1. What is dark matter? - No such thing.

This is where I spent my second week in Sydney: the conclusion formulated
is that the motion of galaxies inside the spirals and compacts very
well could be described by changing G as I suggest G(m,r)=G(1-fi)^2
where fi=(G/(c^2))*m/r and in the outside limbs (bars) of galaxies enough
Hydrogen detected to explain the motions. No need for CDM! Period.
(Only bigbangology toys with it, as a transition from...? what???!)

2. What is the nature of dark energy? - Nothing, no such thing.
A: What is the Ultimate Fate of theUniverse?

Special thaks for that nonsense!

You really should spend some time with philosophy...

3. How did the Universe begin? - It did not.
A: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

What a shame! On taxpayers money!

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

etc.

Dear Sam!

Don't you see that Ockham's rasor takes care of these?!
There is only one test needed: check the energy loss of photons
during their propagation through empty space! (Its been done with
Pioneer 10, but lied about it...)

You are welcome to initiate discussions on any of the ten answers.
Not just pointers, but points. What is your point?

My point is: nonsense is being promoted as science, and the real
science is ignored! Science, following the scientific method, not
dreams, lies and allegations!

Cheers!
Aladar
http://www.stolmarphysics.com
where the real science is

"Aladar" schrieb im Newsbeitrag m...
Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
Don't you see that Ockham's rasor takes care of these?!
There is only one test needed: check the energy loss of photons
during their propagation through empty space! (Its been done with
Pioneer 10, but lied about it...)
Are you referring to the pioneer anomaly?
Well, I'm probably pretty clueless about the whole thing but do you
mean to propose an alternative explanation for the doppler frequency
shift?
If yes, then the distance integrating from the doppler speed measurements
should not match the range data, right?
If I've calculated correctly, the pioneer probe would now be anout 8h late
relative to its original flight plan. I'm sure this would habe shown up as
a discrepancy between doppler integration and ranging.

Greetings!
Volker

Volker Hetzer wrote:

"Aladar" schrieb im Newsbeitrag m...
Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
Don't you see that Ockham's rasor takes care of these?!
There is only one test needed: check the energy loss of photons
during their propagation through empty space! (Its been done with
Pioneer 10, but lied about it...)
Are you referring to the pioneer anomaly?
Well, I'm probably pretty clueless about the whole thing but do you
mean to propose an alternative explanation for the doppler frequency
shift?
If yes, then the distance integrating from the doppler speed measurements
should not match the range data, right?
If I've calculated correctly, the pioneer probe would now be anout 8h late
relative to its original flight plan. I'm sure this would habe shown up as
a discrepancy between doppler integration and ranging.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205059
Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0307042
Rationalized Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9810085
Believable rationalized Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/gr-qc/0310088
Believable Pioneer anomaly updated

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

Uncle Al wrote:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205059
Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0307042
Rationalized Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9810085
Believable rationalized Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/gr-qc/0310088
Believable Pioneer anomaly updated


Thanks Uncle Al

Key Words: Pioneer Anomalous Acceleration

"Uncle Al" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9810085
Believable rationalized Pioneer anomaly
I liked that one. Has any of this appeared in the mainstream scientific press?

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message
...

Well, I'm probably pretty clueless about the whole thing but do you
mean to propose an alternative explanation for the doppler frequency
shift?
If yes, then the distance integrating from the doppler speed measurements
should not match the range data, right?
If I've calculated correctly, the pioneer probe would now be anout 8h late
relative to its original flight plan. I'm sure this would habe shown up as
a discrepancy between doppler integration and ranging.

You are right, it would not have matched, but the
ranging system was not operational for Pioneer 10
after the Jupiter encounter, they could not keep
the signal locked with the ranging modulation on.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message
...

Well, I'm probably pretty clueless about the whole thing but do you
mean to propose an alternative explanation for the doppler frequency
shift?
If yes, then the distance integrating from the doppler speed measurements
should not match the range data, right?
If I've calculated correctly, the pioneer probe would now be anout 8h late
relative to its original flight plan. I'm sure this would habe shown up as
a discrepancy between doppler integration and ranging.

You are right, it would not have matched, but the
ranging system was not operational for Pioneer 10
after the Jupiter encounter, they could not keep
the signal locked with the ranging modulation on.

George


And they - conveniently - did not keep a good record of signal sent/
recieved times as well?!

This is how you make the discovery of the Hubble redshift is tired light
caused disappear! Because you want so!

Cheers!
Aladar
http://www.stolmarphysics.com

"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message ...
"Aladar" schrieb im Newsbeitrag m...
Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
Don't you see that Ockham's rasor takes care of these?!
There is only one test needed: check the energy loss of photons
during their propagation through empty space! (Its been done with
Pioneer 10, but lied about it...)
Are you referring to the pioneer anomaly?
Well, I'm probably pretty clueless about the whole thing but do you
mean to propose an alternative explanation for the doppler frequency
shift?

No. In 1994 JPL started to report that they found an anomaly in the
Doppler data. The anomaly is in the accumulated - some times call it
averaged - residuals, which shows a trend if represented as a function
of
ACCUMULATED light time: it is an excess redshift, a linear function of
the distanc the photon traveled (as if it would travel a total of 10
1/2
years).

Again, the data shows the Hubble redshift, which could be only, if the
Hubble redshift is caused by the energy loss of the photon,
proportional
to the distance it traveled! nu(t)=nu_0/2^(t/Hd) with Hd=4.2 billion
years
Hubble wavelength doubling time constant!


If yes, then the distance integrating from the doppler speed measurements
should not match the range data, right?

Correct! Cosmognomia's way out: there is no range data or its not good
enough!

If I've calculated correctly, the pioneer probe would now be anout 8h late
relative to its original flight plan. I'm sure this would habe shown up as
a discrepancy between doppler integration and ranging.

Greetings!
Volker

The actual difference is much smaller, since the 'acceleration"
reported relates to the light time and not to the calendar time.

Cheers!
Aladar
http://www.stolmarphysics.com