GUT
James Wanless
TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z - electromagnetism, weak, strong
(hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)
[3D due to FLT]
Uncle Al
SUMMARY: "ACK! THBBFT!"
Any GUT must set as its boundary conditions h=h, c=c, G=g. No
extant theory can accommodate more than two without setting
either h or G to zero, or c to infinity. And if you want to
truly pull your thumb out, also accommodate Boltzmann's constant
at its measured value.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H
> - mass/gravity (see relativity)
Huh? what have mass/gravity to do with what you wrote before?
> TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z
You claim that there are 3 time dimensions? What's your reason and your
evidence for that?
> - electromagnetism, weak, strong
What has that to do with three time dimensions?
> (hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)
Huh???
> [3D due to FLT]
Faster than light travel? What's your evidence that that exists, and
what has that to do with 3 time dimensions?
Bye,
Bjoern
James Wanless
> James Wanless wrote:
>
>> SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H
>
>
>
>> - mass/gravity (see relativity)
>
>
> Huh? what have mass/gravity to do with what you wrote before?
>
>
>
>> TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z
>
>
> You claim that there are 3 time dimensions? What's your reason and your
> evidence for that?
dimensions
>
>
>> - electromagnetism, weak, strong
>
>
> What has that to do with three time dimensions?
>
>
>> (hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)
>
>
> Huh???
>
>
>> [3D due to FLT]
>
>
> Faster than light travel? What's your evidence that that exists, and
> what has that to do with 3 time dimensions?
remember I'm primarily a mathmo, so try the other meaning!!
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
Thanks again for your post.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>> James Wanless wrote:
>>
>>> SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> - mass/gravity (see relativity)
>>
>>
>>
>> Huh? what have mass/gravity to do with what you wrote before?
>
> They are purely functions of space
Mass is not a function of space. If you mean mass *density*, then
that is a function of space - but it also is a function of time.
OTOH, "gravity" is a bit vague. What do you mean? The gravitational
force? The gravitational potential? Or what? (both these things
are functions of space *and* time, BTW).
>>> TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z
>>
>>
>>
>> You claim that there are 3 time dimensions? What's your reason and your
>> evidence for that?
>
> There are 3 dimensions of space, and humans naturally imagine three
> dimensions
How do you get from that to "there are 3 time dimensions"? (you *do*
claim that, don't you?)
>>> - electromagnetism, weak, strong
>>
>>
>>
>> What has that to do with three time dimensions?
>
> There might be one type of force associated with each imaginary
> dimension
Associated in what way?
And how do you explain then that the electromagnetic and the weak
force have been unified to the electroweak force?
>>> (hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)
>>
>>
>>
>> Huh???
>
> elementary particles tend to come in groups of three
What do you mean?
>>> [3D due to FLT]
>>
>>
>>
>> Faster than light travel? What's your evidence that that exists, and
>> what has that to do with 3 time dimensions?
>
> Ah, here you have misunderstood me - not entirely your fault :-) -
> remember I'm primarily a mathmo, so try the other meaning!!
1) What's a mathmo?
2) Sorry, I can't think of another meaning for "FLT".
Looking here
<http://www.acronymfinder.com/>
does not help either. You probably did not mean Fermat's last theorem,
did you?
Bye,
Bjoern
Mike Helland
> James Wanless wrote:
> >
> > SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H - mass/gravity (see relativity)
> > TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z - electromagnetism, weak, strong
> > (hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)
> > [3D due to FLT]
>
> SUMMARY: "ACK! THBBFT!"
>
> Any GUT must set as its boundary conditions h=h, c=c, G=g.
I think you mean "The GUT we expect has the boundary conditions..." as
opposed to "Any GUT..."
I'm not sure if you're a betting man, Schwarz, but we could wager on
this.
I bet that relativity's solution to the problem in Newtonian physics
is overly ad-hoc, that the final solution won't require a constant
speed of light, or a speed limit in the universe. Essentially, we'll
be able to eliminate the constant c and make finding the GUT much
easier.
Whatever is wagered must be paid in full when you and I agree that the
GUT is found. Which very well could be never.
Interested? What shall we wager?
Uncle Al
You have already lost. Your spews are non-physical.
Mike Helland
> Mike Helland wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:<4123C6AB...@hate.spam.net>...
> >
> > I think you mean "The GUT we expect has the boundary conditions..."
as
> > opposed to "Any GUT..."
> >
> > I'm not sure if you're a betting man, Schwarz, but we could wager
on
> > this.
> >
> > I bet that relativity's solution to the problem in Newtonian
physics
> > is overly ad-hoc, that the final solution won't require a constant
> > speed of light, or a speed limit in the universe. Essentially,
we'll
> > be able to eliminate the constant c and make finding the GUT much
> > easier.
> >
> > Whatever is wagered must be paid in full when you and I agree that
the
> > GUT is found. Which very well could be never.
> >
> > Interested? What shall we wager?
>
> You have already lost. Your spews are non-physical.
What I spew has nothing to do with whether or not you win.
For you to win a GUT needs to be found where c=c, h=h, and G=G.
After all, you said: Any GUT must set as its boundary conditions h=h,
c=c, G=g.
For me to win, a GUT needs to be found without the boundary conditions
you described.
My point with this is that statements like "Any GUT must have the
boundary conditions we expect" is probably whats wrong with the search
for a GUT. If you disagree, you'll willing take the bet as its a sure
win for you.
Are you hesitant to make a wager over your claims?
eric gisse
wrote:
>Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<4123C6AB...@hate.spam.net>...
>> James Wanless wrote:
>> >
>> > SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H - mass/gravity (see relativity)
>> > TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z - electromagnetism, weak, strong
>> > (hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)
>> > [3D due to FLT]
>>
>> SUMMARY: "ACK! THBBFT!"
>>
>> Any GUT must set as its boundary conditions h=h, c=c, G=g.
>
>I think you mean "The GUT we expect has the boundary conditions..." as
>opposed to "Any GUT..."
>
>I'm not sure if you're a betting man, Schwarz, but we could wager on
>this.
>
>I bet that relativity's solution to the problem in Newtonian physics
>is overly ad-hoc, that the final solution won't require a constant
>speed of light, or a speed limit in the universe. Essentially, we'll
>be able to eliminate the constant c and make finding the GUT much
>easier.
The speed of light is constant. You already lost, too bad.
Mike Helland
> On 19 Aug 2004 11:42:52 -0700, mhel...@techmocracy.net (Mike
Helland)
> wrote:
>
> >> Any GUT must set as its boundary conditions h=h, c=c, G=g.
> >
> >I think you mean "The GUT we expect has the boundary conditions..."
as
> >opposed to "Any GUT..."
> >
> >I'm not sure if you're a betting man, Schwarz, but we could wager on
> >this.
> >
> >I bet that relativity's solution to the problem in Newtonian physics
> >is overly ad-hoc, that the final solution won't require a constant
> >speed of light, or a speed limit in the universe. Essentially, we'll
> >be able to eliminate the constant c and make finding the GUT much
> >easier.
>
> The speed of light is constant. You already lost, too bad.
The only experiments that indicate this may be true in all actuality
only indicate that there is no "aether wind", or in other words a
medium for light.
And it should be noted that the speed of light is not constant
according QED, where amplitudes of light allow it to travel slower or
faster than c.
eric gisse
<mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote:
>eric gisse wrote:
>> On 19 Aug 2004 11:42:52 -0700, mhel...@techmocracy.net (Mike
>Helland)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Any GUT must set as its boundary conditions h=h, c=c, G=g.
>> >
>> >I think you mean "The GUT we expect has the boundary conditions..."
>as
>> >opposed to "Any GUT..."
>> >
>> >I'm not sure if you're a betting man, Schwarz, but we could wager on
>> >this.
>> >
>> >I bet that relativity's solution to the problem in Newtonian physics
>> >is overly ad-hoc, that the final solution won't require a constant
>> >speed of light, or a speed limit in the universe. Essentially, we'll
>> >be able to eliminate the constant c and make finding the GUT much
>> >easier.
>>
>> The speed of light is constant. You already lost, too bad.
>
>The only experiments that indicate this may be true in all actuality
>only indicate that there is no "aether wind", or in other words a
>medium for light.
What about SR and GR and the experiments that support them?
>
>And it should be noted that the speed of light is not constant
>according QED, where amplitudes of light allow it to travel slower or
>faster than c.
I can't speak about QED, so I will let someone else attack that.
James Wanless
> James Wanless wrote:
>
>> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>>
>>> James Wanless wrote:
>>>
>>>> SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - mass/gravity (see relativity)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Huh? what have mass/gravity to do with what you wrote before?
>>
>>
>> They are purely functions of space
>
>
> Mass is not a function of space. If you mean mass *density*, then
> that is a function of space - but it also is a function of time.
particle(s) over the 3 dimensions of time. [eg total mass = sqrt(sum of
squares of(electrostatic charge + weak charge + strong charge))] As such
it has no direction any more, and so the warping of space it produces is
always just equivalent/proportional to the mass => GR and IM=GM
>
> OTOH, "gravity" is a bit vague. What do you mean? The gravitational
> force? The gravitational potential? Or what? (both these things
> are functions of space *and* time, BTW).
>
>
>>>> TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You claim that there are 3 time dimensions? What's your reason and your
>>> evidence for that?
>>
>>
>> There are 3 dimensions of space, and humans naturally imagine three
>> dimensions
>
>
> How do you get from that to "there are 3 time dimensions"? (you *do*
> claim that, don't you?)
dimensions of time. Once this is understood, current string
theory/theories can be dramtically simplified/corrected
>
>
>>>> - electromagnetism, weak, strong
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What has that to do with three time dimensions?
>>
>>
>> There might be one type of force associated with each imaginary
>> dimension
>
>
> Associated in what way?
>
> And how do you explain then that the electromagnetic and the weak
> force have been unified to the electroweak force?
>
>
>
>>>> (hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Huh???
>>
>>
>> elementary particles tend to come in groups of three
>
>
> What do you mean?
>
>
>
>>>> [3D due to FLT]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Faster than light travel? What's your evidence that that exists, and
>>> what has that to do with 3 time dimensions?
>>
>>
>> Ah, here you have misunderstood me - not entirely your fault :-) -
>> remember I'm primarily a mathmo, so try the other meaning!!
>
>
> 1) What's a mathmo?
> 2) Sorry, I can't think of another meaning for "FLT".
>
> Looking here
> <http://www.acronymfinder.com/>
> does not help either. You probably did not mean Fermat's last theorem,
> did you?
>
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
James Wanless
By FLT, 3 dimensions are the minimum number for a stable space in which
"volumes" do not spontaneously dissolve and (re)combine, thus allowing
particles to exist.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>> James Wanless wrote:
>>
>>> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>>>
>>>> James Wanless wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> - mass/gravity (see relativity)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Huh? what have mass/gravity to do with what you wrote before?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They are purely functions of space
>>
>>
>>
>> Mass is not a function of space. If you mean mass *density*, then
>> that is a function of space - but it also is a function of time.
>
> Mass is an effect produced by summing the other properties of the
> particle(s) over the 3 dimensions of time.
That's a total unsupported assertion. And: that does make it in no
way a function of space, BTW.
> [eg total mass = sqrt(sum of
> squares of(electrostatic charge + weak charge + strong charge))]
That totally contradicts the known values of mass, electrostatic,
weak and strong charge for quite a lot of particles, and yet again,
the dimensions in this formula aren't even right.
> As such it has no direction any more,
How does that follow?
> and so the warping of space it produces is
> always just equivalent/proportional to the mass
Err, "it" in this sentence refers to "mass". So you just said that
"mass is always jusr equivalent/proportional to the mass". Say, do
you plan to *ever* make sense?
> => GR and IM=GM
How on earth does this follow?
>> OTOH, "gravity" is a bit vague. What do you mean? The gravitational
>> force? The gravitational potential? Or what? (both these things
>> are functions of space *and* time, BTW).
Care to answer that?
>>>>> TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You claim that there are 3 time dimensions? What's your reason and your
>>>> evidence for that?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are 3 dimensions of space, and humans naturally imagine three
>>> dimensions
>>
>>
>>
>> How do you get from that to "there are 3 time dimensions"? (you *do*
>> claim that, don't you?)
>
> Absolutely! - that is the main part of my thesis - that there are THREE
> dimensions of time.
You did not answer my question. How do you get from "there are 3 dimensions
of space, and humans naturally imagine three dimensions" to "there are 3
time dimensions"?
>> Once this is understood, current string
>> theory/theories can be dramtically simplified/corrected
Present evidence for this assertion, please.
>>>>> - electromagnetism, weak, strong
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What has that to do with three time dimensions?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There might be one type of force associated with each imaginary
>>> dimension
>>
>>
>>
>> Associated in what way?
>
> Vibration in a particular direction epitomizes a particular type of
> particle
How can something vibrate into a time-like direction?????
And what do you exactly mean by "epitomize" here?
And why a type of particle? We were talking about *forces* here,
remember?
>> And how do you explain then that the electromagnetic and the weak
>> force have been unified to the electroweak force?
>
> A kludge
In other words: you choose to ignore this.
> (atm)
Huh?
>>> elementary particles tend to come in groups of three
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you mean?
>
> Look up a table of elementary particles eg on Wikipedia...
I know the elementary particles quite well. Nevertheless, I am
not sure what you mean (there are several ways to interpret what
you say). So, please answer the question.
>>>> Faster than light travel? What's your evidence that that exists, and
>>>> what has that to do with 3 time dimensions?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, here you have misunderstood me - not entirely your fault :-) -
>>> remember I'm primarily a mathmo, so try the other meaning!!
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) What's a mathmo?
>
> Mathematician
What's your education?
>> 2) Sorry, I can't think of another meaning for "FLT".
>>
>> Looking here
>> <http://www.acronymfinder.com/>
>> does not help either. You probably did not mean Fermat's last theorem,
>> did you?
>
> YES!! That's exactly what I meant
What on earth has Fermat's last theorem to do with three time
dimensions????????????
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
> By FLT, 3 dimensions are the minimum number for a stable space in which
> "volumes" do not spontaneously dissolve and (re)combine, thus allowing
> particles to exist.
Please tell me how that follows from FLT.
Bye,
Bjoern
Uncle Al
Idiot.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
Try reading books instead of burning them.