Welcome to the PFs !

I do not know how many requests you got so far
but I assume that it's only a few. The reason is probably
because people here do not yet know you and
it seems highly suspicious when someone says he's
got it all figured out. So, as intriguing as your suggestion
is, it mostly looks like a waste of online time for most
people, no offense. Since you are prepared to share
parts of your insights with people already, I advise you
to post at least some basic stuff, not enough to
reveal everything, but at least to allow people to
appreciate whether they are talking to an expert physict
or a complete crackpot, again - no offense. I'm sure that
if the first becomes abvious - everyone will want a copy !

Live long and prosper.

I graduated at the top of my class from MSU with a degree in chemical physics. I then went on to graduate school at IU where I took several graduate level courses in physics.

It has been several years since I have been involved in physics.

To think out of the box sometimes you have to get out of the box.

My theory actually doesn't contain many new assumptions (just 2). Most of it is just different but equally correct formulizations of present theories.

It does nicely unify many concepts and I can actually get Newton's Law of gravity out of it.

The really neat thing is that it is simple. A high school calculus student could understand it.

This thing is either a great theory or I have gone totally mad. I am prepared to axcept either.

The trick is to get something that can produce Einstein's General Relativity on the universal scale (at least the bits that have been confirmed), and can produce Quantum Chromodynamics on the small scale.

But I guess if you have done that already you wouldn't be asking for help from others!

I'll take a look at it if my qualifications are suitable to you, but keep in mind my skepticism is a good match for my intellectual curiousity. :)

Hurkyl

Hey, what coincidence my skills don't go
beyond basic calculus either. I still doubt it's
enough though. I've an idea - why don't you guys
post general progress updates here. At least, say
this will work/this won't work.

Live long and prosper.

I don't use general relativity or any portion of it. General relativity would have to be considered an approximation theory in my much simpler explanation of gravity.

As for quantum effects, I have done little with it as of yet, but my theory clearly predicts the cyclic nature of things on a small scale. I am working on these other aspects but could use help.

Valid theories match experimental data.

Therefore valid theories must match GR, at least in the circumstances that GR has been confirmed. :D

I didn't mean to imply your theory has to have the same form as GR... but it does have to agree with the experimental data that supports GR.

Also, it is likely that any valid theory would approximate GR as a limiting case (just like Special relativity approximates classical mechanics when velocities are sufficiently small). This, of course, isn't a requirement of a valid theory, it only needs to agree with data.

Hurkyl

I would just remind you of the many times general relativitistic calculations have been changed to fit observation.

The most recent is the appearance of anti-gravity. At least one physicist has modified it to explain an appearant observation, while other say thet theory does not allow anti-gravity. Which description survives depends on experiment.

Einstein himself didn't think it predicted black holes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dr_strangelove:
I have developed a theory that seemss to be unifing things faster than I can handle on my own.

---

Hello Dr. S.

By "unifying", are you referring to the "unified force field" that A.E. spent his final years in fruitless endeavor? Sinderely, Jim Osborn

No. It has nothing to do with a unified force field.

The things it brings togetner so far are:

Relativistic quantum mechanics, gravity, the hubble equation, the black holes at the center of galaxies, and the intrinsic spin angular momentum of particles.

All theses things are manifestations of the same theory, which by the way is simple.

I'm expect more things to be unified soon.

I'm not dure if I can calculate planks constant but no one else can either. I can show that it is related to the gravitational constant, which is a new concept.

My theory makes time and space properties of objects not some assumed void so I really don't deal in dimensions.

My theory does clearly explain the Hubble equation.

I am sorry, but general relativity is simply not needed to explain gravity.

My theoryu predicts black holes at the center of galaxies. General relativity just predicts tthem.

thanks for all the constructive critisim

Best regards.

So far my comments (else i might break my pledge of secrecy). If you want a complete review of your article with comments we might do that by mail

I know this may seem radical, but the initial idea of time running at different rates was radical.

At any rate I have made the theory availabe to anyone.

Please feel free to be as critical as you can.

To view go to+: http://members.triton.net/daveb/

It is in microsoft word format. I wrote it with the XP version.

In fact if we lived in a world where people traveled very fast then there would indeed be problems under the present interpertation of special relativity, and our economy very well may colaspe unless everyone was adept at using lorentz transforms. My method would provide a simpler way of calculating times in a high speed world.

I am posting answeres to frequently asked questions on my web site.

http://members.triton.net/daveb/

My next question would have been: Why do you assume that there is a relation between time and energy?

All these transformations are independent of the object itself. What SR says is that when you make a lorentz transformation to another REFERENCE SYSTEM, the elapsed time changes. This has nothing to do with energy.
What SR tells you is that the elapsed time is different for observers moving at different speeds. There is no such thing as universal time. Every object has it's eigentime. This is the time as measured by an observer when he is at rest relative to the object.
You're definition, by the way, is not in agreement with GENERAL relativity. Deep in a gravitational well clocks run slower then without gravity.(this is an additional time dilation)

Now imagine that you have your clock and throw it in to a well. The total energy of your clock will stay the same at first(gravitational energy will be reduced, kinetic energy will increase by the same amount). Then it hits the bottom and if we assume it doesn't break, the total energy of your clock is reduced by a lot. According to your def. it will run faster. It should however start running slower

Secondly, there is a relationship between time and energy even in special relativity as presently formulated.

Fact: Any object moving relative to an observer will have it's total energy increased.

Fact: Any object moving relative to an observer will have it's observed time rate decreased.

That is a relationship. What is the cause and what is the effect?

Here's a good example.

Let's say we lived in high velocity world and everyone drove space ships.
Carl stopped at a filling station and asked the attendant how to ge to Alpa Centauri. The attendant showed him the direction and told him that if he doubled his total energy, he would get there in 1 hour. Carl understood this to mean that if he quadrupled his energy he would get there in one half hour.

If he was interested in the time it took as observed from a refference time, he would simply take the ratio of his rest energy to that of the refference object.