General Principles of Reality - new theory

[MainframeII]

You don't even know what a Planck length or time is. It's the only natural combination of G, h and c which give units of length and time. They aren't theories, they are new units of length and time. It's equivalent to you saying "Anyone who works in imperial units is wrong, you should work in metric units!" as if the answer "The distance is 30 centimeters" is more correct than "It's 12 inches".

Sorry I wasn't clear. Plank had doubts about the constant h which is used to derive his length and time units. Plank constant is used to calculate the energy of a photon (E=hf) of "visible" light. What about invisible light as it pertains to gravity as described in my book and theories. In my theory, all measurable "electromagnetic" light falls under a specific range of light frequency and "amplitude" which travel "roughly" around the speed of light (c). Together frequency and amplitude of light "vibration" in space-time substance would trully express the energy of that space-time vibration (photon). Current physics does not account for space-time vibrations (photons) of very low frequency and large amplitude or high frequency and very low amplitude. Current physics "locks" photons into it's own category and negates any relationship between a photon and say a ripple running through water. This locking of space-time vibration (space-time vibration is itself a theory too just to be clear) in current physics is assisted by Plank constant h. This "locking" of our understanding of light is wrong. We shouldn't be "blindly locking" natural effects we still don't truly understand by using constants. We should understand that constants are place holders for the true reason behind the effect. To truly understand the physics, in my opinion, Plank's constant has to be removed completely.

 

[Vkothii]

One little detail, MainframeII, that seems to have been overlooked:
photons have a constant, invariant amplitude - every photon has the same 'height' as every other; the frequencies can vary though.

But that's the only physical part that does, except for other geometrical properties like polarisation (along various axes, including the direction of propagation, i.e. 'longitudinal' polarisation), momentum in some spatial direction, a finite worldline, and I can't be 100%, but that might be about her, except that photons that we observe are actually composite things, like all waves are - just ask Fourier.

 

[MainframeII]

One little detail, MainframeII, that seems to have been overlooked:
photons have a constant, invariant amplitude - every photon has the same 'height' as every other; the frequencies can vary though.

But that's the only physical part that does, except for other geometrical properties like polarisation (along various axes, including the direction of propagation, i.e. 'longitudinal' polarisation), momentum in some spatial direction, a finite worldline, and I can't be 100%, but that might be about her, except that photons that we observe are actually composite things, like all waves are - just ask Fourier.

Yes, in our "current" definition of light, photons, have the same amplitude (intensity) as the next. That's because the source of all photons, under current convention, is the same...excited atoms. My thoery on light is described in the book, but essentially all vibrations, fluctuations, in space-time constitude under my definition as light including transverse sound waves, ripples through water, a string vibration all are the same effect at different frequencies and amplitudes. And most important, each one of these representations of space-time vibration have different velocities. Read Velocity chapter in my book for a more indepth explanation. Again, these are my theories and yet to be proven, but I'm more inclined to believe my theories in regards to the actuality of photonic physics than current convention.

 

[Reiku]

That's just rude and yes I have calculated and verified many, not every, observed results and they do match. Read my book objectively and then conclude if its "blowing smoke". You completely have the right to disagree with all my theories and I actually expect that many people would. There is a lot of work put into these theories I didn't pick them out of thin air and many of the derived numbers validate this such as the value of the reality scale S.

Oh, you'll just have to get use to his rudeness. Trust me.

 

[MainframeII]

explaining gravity

The following was a reply to a question at got at www(dot)toequest(dot)com from member Mikal about gravity and how it works in my gravity theory explained and formulated in much more detail and in my book.



"Certainly I'll briefly explain it.



Essentially, all matter, where geometric configuration plays a significant part (ex. spheres), vibrates space-time. The range of frequency is virtually infinite but there is a difference between the infinite ranges of frequency due to the objects mass, density and size. Also, these vibrations superposition themselves from the central core of the object to it percievable surface. The superpositioning of these vibrations radiate outward at an infinite range of velocities including faster than the speed of light and slower than the speed of light again depending on the mass, density and size of the object. Basically all matter are sources of space-time vibrations so when these emitted vibrations interact, they superposition constructively, destructively or a mixture of both (take a look at the W.G.V. experiment in the book). Constructive superposition attracts and destructive repells. This accounts for interaction of quantum particles or different "charges". Charge is a perception of a misunderstood and misclassified interaction. Charge at the celestial scale is mass. Also, this superposition of space-time vibration is the cause for why celestial objects rotate.



If you want more detail and to understand the new gravitational force equation (with Q transfrom in place for G constant) download the book and goto chapter 12 also take a look at principles listed in chapter 18 which is a summary of the all the theories presented in this version of book ("The General Principles of Reality A")."

 

[MainframeII]

"Jupiter is an Electron" theory

Checkout the video:
http[colon]//in[dot]youtube[dot]com/watch?v=ucRuZ9lKM0s

not my best video, but its the content that matters.

Download a tangible document explaining this:
www[dot]gpofr[dot]com/portal/SharedFilesDownload.aspx?pageid=10&fileid=13&mid=25