Oscillator/Substance Theory

Welcome to an experiment. This site is an attempt to recruit serious comment in development, or refutation. of ideas as to the basis of reality.

The status of the ideas of the "Founder of this Site" are covered in the page, "The Current Paper..."and in other pages posted on the site. Perhaps the quickest overiview is in the short "page," OLD DATA/NEW MODEL.

This is an open site, feel free to express your opinions and to add information. ( I shall reserve the right to edit out anything which I consider as "garbage" or personality comments that are not pertinent.) Dean L. Sinclair Group Founder/Manager

A LETTER TO SITE VISITORS

Dear Visitor:

Here is the situation. As the model has evolved, the Oscillator/Substance Model seems to be the simplest--yet most inclusive--model of Existence yet to appear.

In its present form, it suggests Existence to be within a substance of undetermined---possibly indeterminable--size, which is organized into and/or by oscillators of a "constant torque" family defined by the equation, m x r = h/c. This little equation, mass times radius equals Planck's Constant divided by the Speed of Light, can describe any oscillator from smaller than an electron to a Universe.

The examination of the ideas over the last five years, as the model has evolved, indicates that the model should be able to correlate date from below the atomic level to the cosmological scale. It needs further development and testing.

as the Space-Time Model implies in its name something moving in cycles, someone familiar with Einsteinian Space-Time Mathematical Modelling most likely would be able to reconcile the two approaches to mutual profit. Likewise, it would seem that the concepts might well allow expansion/extension of the Quantum Mechanical approach, perhaps with some understanding of the physical basis of the model.

Dr. Mills Grand Unification Theorem may possibly fit more closely than it at first appears to. Dominion Cosmology which postulates Matter/Antimatter repulsion is some what echoed in the splitting of oscillators that arises naturally in O/S Modelling.

One of the biggest and most difficult areas that needs be reconciled is the Elements, Isotopes, Periodic Chart Situation. By O/S. although these, ideas are useful and valuable, they also are somewhat in error, being-- at least partially--responsible for the splitting of molecular chemistry from nuclear chemistry.

O/S suggests strongly that the "nuclear atom" is a logical structural result of the differences in size and motion characteristics of the electron ad the proton, and that the presence of neutrons, as such, in the vast majority of atoms, is an illusion. Therefore, there is a need for a complete revision of chemical thinking to account for the existence of "Elements." This is to say, without the handy bookkeeping afforded by the proton/neutron concept of atomic nuclei.

The Standard Model of Particle Physics which won a Nobel Prize in the 1970's. needs to be critically re-examined. The probable true nature of "Quarks" as an observational phenomenon rather than actual entities needs to be demonstrated. Where the "fundamental particles" that arise from "atom-smashing" fit in needs to b worked out. In other words, the Standard Model needs to be dismantled, keeping what parts are valid and discarding those which turn out to be illusional.

At the Cosmological Scale reconsideration of stars, constellations, even our Universe, itself, as oscillators and combinations of oscillators should lead to new analyses and insights.

It might be a good idea to redo a set of "Universal Values," ala Max Planck, updating and refining the concept.

Gravitation and electromagnetism need to be relegated to their proper positions as observational phenomena . ( Seeing the "Four Forces of Nature " as aspects of one "Substance" greatly simplifies things.)

The simple O/S approach has implications for literally every area of scientific theorisation. Its development is far too big a job for any one person. This is particularly true when the discoverer, current "major developer," is at an age when time is rapidly catching up/running out.

It is hoped that some younger people will pick up on the ideas and be able to develop, extend or even refute them... The writer would like to see this model either generally validated or refuted within his lifetime.

I hope that you will find the information in this site interesting and informative.

Dean L(eRoy) Sinclair (BA, MS, PhD)

Additional note:

Even if your science background was limited to a high school basic science class, or less, we still need your help to keep us "grounded." Most of us "Scientist Types" tend to use so much jargon as to be incomprehensible to anyone except our closest colleagues.

PPS. Try brousing the titles of the pages. There is quite a diversity of things there, You might find a title that would interest you. I still do, even though I wrote most of them.

I'll let you in on a little secret. I have probably as broad a science background as 99/100 people; but, most "advanced" scientific papers are a complete "Snow Job" to me, too. So, read our stuff, tell us what you "hear" us saying, Let us know what you think.

. Don't go away, we need all the help we can get...

. DLS aka "Eski," "The Oldster," and various unmentionable sorbiquets....

PPPS. If you do have advanced scientific background, we can use help in a multitude of topics. For instance, I suspect that the math. of Space-Time theory will fit in because of the inherent implication of movement and circular motion in the concept of time; however, I do not have the expertise in the particular mathematics used therein to correlate that set of concepts to the ones used here. It would be great if someone could do that. Same thing holds for Quantum Mechanics.

Actually, here I am only re-emphasizing what I implied in the "Letter..."

BON VOYAGE, wherever you go from here...