A "Rant " I posted to another site that someone may find indesting.
dean sinclair
GmailCalendarDocumentsPhotosReaderWebmoreSitesOn a Coherent Theory, a “Rant.”
Let me introduce myself, for those who do not personally know me, my name is Dean LeRoy Sinclair. I am a 79 year old, former science teacher whose background includes a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry, Mathematics through Differential Equations and Non-Euclidian Geometry and Electronics Background which includes Radar Repair Training at Ft. Monmouth, a Radio Telephone General Class License and an Amateur Radio Technician”s Class License.
In the last few years. it has become clear, not only to me but to many others, that the current theories and beliefs in the physical sciences can not account for the phenomena which are being discovered every day.
This is quite understandable, considering that perhaps the latest of the commonly accepted ideas is the “Standard Model of Particle Physics” which received a Nobel Prize in the 1970’s. . and, in my opinion, bears about as much relationship to “reality” as the Geocentric Model did to the Solar System.
The sad state of modern physics theorizing is evident in the fact that the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics can be said to have been won by a chemical structure, graphene, which is an extended
mono-layer of graphite.
It has been proposed on one Internet site, of which I am honored to be allowed to be a posting member, that a new basic theoretical approach is needed. I am totally in agreement with this, However, some have said that this must be, “….in the common language of science and considering the tried and true principles that have served us so well.” This last I totally disagree with. To make progress. I feel that we must start over carefully reexamining what we have so long accepted as truths.
The “tried and true principles” have to have errors and misconceptions or there would not be so many conflicting concepts which simply do not fit together, such that people seem to say with straight faces things like, “The electrons in a deflated state of a naught orbital are so highly relativistic that they will cause the quark flavour to penetrate the Coulomb Barrier such as to allow fusion by means of the Strong Force.” The above statement, is. of course, pure nonsense, but theoreticians seem to string together pieces of different approaches which have no connection to one another into pronouncements which actually have no more meaning than the above string or fragments.
I propose that we start over.examining ideas from ”Point Zero.”
Zero, the first number, which in mathematics is considered as representing “Nothing,” or more usefully, the starting point from which to travel, or measure. In mathematical conventions it can be the center of a circle or the “origin point of a set of Cartesian Coordinates.” In reality, then, as compared to mathematical abstraction, Zero, the starting point will have a size and shape, and may be called the “First Dimension,” the Dimension of Existence. The number, One, has, in reality, a number of meanings, it may represent an entire object, or it may represent a line, which has to be made up of two points, hence, a line can be considered as The Second Dimension ‘ Line. Iff we say “one times one equals one,” we are saying that we have done a second mathematical operation, so our new “one” represents one surface, a third dimension. One times one times one adds another dimension, one volume. Since we cannot easily visualize the next form we may consider that we start over with a “Zero Dot” which is now a Volume and go on defining a line of volumes,, a surface of volumes, and a volume of volumes. Etc...
Let us note here that. if we use the convention that any “one” with out a sign attached is the signed number, +1, “Positive One,” use Cartesian Coordinates , and the conventional “positive directions” of right, up and forward, on the “x, y and z axes.,” we might consider that we are describing a potential model which expands counter-clockwise right, up, and forward into the “Totally Positive Number Octant” of the “Cartesian Field.”
Having noted that an automatically accepted mathematical convention may well be excluding at least ⅞ of “Reality” from a model, let us look at another mathematical number, “Infinity,” defined as the number beyond all numbers.... Infinity can be consider in a practical sense as the point, position, number, or whatever, which is just beyond where we stopped measuring or counting, either by choice or because our “tool,” is no longer usable. This should be kept in mind wen we look at things such as the statement, “At the speed of light, mass goes to infinity....”
Having mentioned the Speed of Light, brings us to the idea of “Constants of Nature.” Since most of our information about nature seems to have been transmitted by means of “Electromagnetic Waves. “ two constants of nature which deal with Electromagnetic Waves may possibly be considered as fundamentals for any theory. These are The Speed of Light in a “Vacuum” and Planck’s Constant. Let us realize that a constant is not a limit, it is more likely to be a statistical average. In fact, the term, “Speed” implies an averaged velocity between two points. We may take a logical view that the “Speed of Light” is an averaged velocity of some sort. Likewise, Planck’s Constant has a possible interpretation as an angular momentum. probably, also, an average value.
If we go one step further and guess that these velocity and angular momentum constants are somehow related and related to something about whatever the “Substance of Existence” might be, we may set Planck’s Constant. “h,” equal to a definition of angular momentum and get the equation, “h=mrv. “ Assuming that the average “v” involved is “c,” the speed of light, we can write “h=mcr,” and rearrange this to “mr=h/c.” Since mass times radius is called “torque” the push or pull on a spinning body, we have combined these two constants into another constant, a “torque constant of nature.” We can even go a step further and say that at some point there would be a situation where the value of m equals the value of r equals the square root of “h/c.”
We have come to an expression which can be evaluated to have possible physical reality, in cgs units this “square root set” is about 4.7 x 10^-19 grams at 4.7x 10^-19cm. (In terms of certain “accepted theories” this is interesting, Quantum Mechanics is said to fail at below 10^-18 cm. and String Theory Strings vanish into a 10 dimensional hole at the same value..)
There is another interesting factor, the equation, mr=h/c is an example of am equation which seeems to be the very commonest mathematical relationship in nature, the “balancing equation,” xy=K=yx , which shows up in many guises, and in this case could be taken to possibly define the limits of an oscillator. That is is there has been determined a limiting mass, the corresponding radius could be found from tis equation, and by reversing the coefficients, the corresponding, ”balancing” other limit be determined. As “rest masses” may well be limiting values and are known for such things as electrons and protons, this little equation could lead to many insights.
Planck and others have noted that harmonic oscillators make excellent models for natural phenomena. These gentlemen do not seem to have taken the next step to the possibility that may natural phenomena are harmonic oscillators.
Another speculative leap may be taken about the ubiquity of the balance equation in nature and ask the question, “Since this balancing seems to be everywhere, yet the only thing that seems constant is change, couldn’t a rational theory be developed on the basis or a “Substance of Existence” which was constantly in flux because of its tendency to “regress toward the mean,” to balance all motions throughout. with, however, each action creating a reaction which was in turn is another action--this “Basic Substance” acting something like a physical substance at its Triple Point?
If anyone reading this far sees a theory developing above, which is totally independent of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model of Particle Physics, yet one which might at some point give insights into all of these, that person is absolutely correct, over the past few years, starting in 2004, the writer followed a similar line of reasoning and developed what was first called , “Motion in a Matrix,” and later, the “Oscillator/Substance Model” A Little scouting around on the Internet, will find information on these if anyone is interested, However, I’d like to issue a challenge to intelligent, creative people who have read this far, “Try to ditch your preconceptions as much as possible about what is ‘True’ in physical science, reduce to as few simple basics as you can, and try to put together for yourself a coherent model, one where you will be satisfied that you have an understanding of all those things we’ve taken for granted and never really questioned, mass, energy, charge, gravitation, the proton-neutron nuclear atom, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, ever, perhaps, Elements. See what you can come up with for a model.” Most, if not all, of you are far more intelligent than I, it should take you far less than seven years to put something together. Of course, I expect you to come out about the same place I have, but. also, hope there will be some pleasant surprises....
It is intended to post this several places on the Internet, as a result there is a potential audience of several hundred people. It is hoped that a few will take seriously what I have said and take up the challenge.
Dean L. Sinclar deanls...@gmail.com
ESKI (deanlsinclair@gmail.com)
hoek
Dean Sinclair
I sent you a model Dr. Dean. Here's a more in-depth version which incorporates newer astrolophysical data: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7886084/proton_cosmology.html?cat=58
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Oscillator/Substance Theory" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/oscillatorsubstance-theory/-/hYYEunivItMJ.
To post to this group, send email to oscillatorsub...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to oscillatorsubstance...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance-theory?hl=en.