Orion68 0 Posted July 13 Report Share Posted July 13 (edited) The accompanying article is called ‘Metric Science’ and it’s about a hypothised particle called the dimensional basic and it’s consequences when exisiting. Well, up to you if you even have the stomach to read it, but I would be very thankfull. Feedback is very welcome. I do give you the first paragraph of the article, maybe it will catch your interest: In this article a particle is being presented that explains all known forces of nature. The particle has no dimensions, it is a dimensional basic particle. Hence it gets the following name: 'dimensional basic' (db) particle. The core of this discovery is that the separate fundamental forces of nature: - the strong interaction, the electromagnetic interaction, the weak interaction and the gravitational interaction - are calculatable with one formula out of one principle. The statistical math of the quantum theory is set aside in favor of a goniometric approach. Gravitation is the only force that matters and the strong force, the electromagnetic force and the weak force can be explained out of gravitation while gravity itself is only caused by the curvature of db's. The formula for the extent of curvature around a db is: sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) × Kr = 1. In the formula: x, y, z, are coordinates in spacetime [m], Kr = curvature [m^-1]. Download: https://www.vixra.org/pdf/1803.0750vN.pdf (or https://dbphysics.com for the latest revision). Edit: Some implications:- The properties of dark matter can be described with the introduction of the dimensional basic, this introduction leads to new deductions in various fields of physics;- the observed cosmic redshift is a gravitational redshift;- the cosmic background is formed through the mutual interactions of the 1-db-particles;- neutron consists -notwithstanding the current insights- of a foursome of quarks (2 quarks up, 2 quarks down);- complex particles -rationalized from the basis- can be mathematically determined and simulated;- the entanglement of particles is caused by curvatures, changes that one of the “partner-particles” experiences will instantaneously be experienced by the other “partner-particle(s)”;- electromagnetic fields around energized wires are being caused by aspirating 1-db particles. By winding of an energized wire in a coil the electromagnetic fields are being cumulated, this resulting in the fields as observed around an energized coil. Edited July 13 by Orion68 Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Orion68 0 Posted August 6 Author Report Share Posted August 6 (edited) Since there is not any response so far to the article 'Metric Science' it might be that there is no interest.I'm aware it's a rather unusual piece of work, trying to rewrite physics is not quickly appreciated, let alone taken seriously. If you do want to read the about the theory of the dimensional basic and its implications one could read 'Metric Science'. So to make it even more easy, it's a single PDF booklet free for download, about 50 relevant pages with text and images concerning the theory directly, the total document has 112 pages, this is including patents and computer source listings.And by clicking https://dbphysics.com/download.php?file=Metric_Science.pdf one has the document on one's computer. Hope someone will read 'Metric Science' and give peer-review alike feedback. Edited August 6 by Orion68 Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Flummoxed 220 Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 (edited) Since there is not any response so far to the article 'Metric Science' it might be that there is no interest.I'm aware it's a rather unusual piece of work, trying to rewrite physics is not quickly appreciated, let alone taken seriously. If you do want to read the about the theory of the dimensional basic and its implications one could read 'Metric Science'. So to make it even more easy, it's a single PDF booklet free for download, about 50 relevant pages with text and images concerning the theory directly, the total document has 112 pages, this is including patents and computer source listings.And by clicking https://dbphysics.com/download.php?file=Metric_Science.pdf one has the document on one's computer. Hope someone will read 'Metric Science' and give peer-review alike feedback. I am not saying I am going to read all 112 pages. I never saw your original post, this looks interesting. I note the paper was first published in 2018 where else has it been posted/commented on ? Edit found this" The was devised by Gerhard Jan Smit during the years 1986 to He shared the theory of the, the character of dark matter, electromagnetic radiation, electrons, quarks, curvature phenomena of complex particles, the relative variable speed of light through various curvature fields, the aging of a photon, the improbability of the hypothetical expansion of the universe, the s responsibility for the movement of galaxies and its responsibility for the cosmic background on the 7 th October 2016 with Jelle Ebel van der Schoot. Further deductions of the theory applying to photons, electrons, positrons, black holes, the cosmological constant and the deuterium core were developed jointly. Jelle Ebel van der Schoot has posited the theory of the proton and the neutron and their decay. In December 2016 Gerhard Jan Smit has calculated and described the properties of a deuterium core while on the 7 th of January 2017 Jelle Ebel van der Schoot has found and described an explanation for electromagnetic fields, both starting from the then present theory. During 2017 several subhypotheses have been worked out, leaning on more insights from both of us. All this has resulted in the present article. We express special gratitude to Democritus, Newton, Einstein, and for the remainder to God, who does not play dice. © Gerhard Jan Smit, Jelle Ebel van der Schoot, 21 st Januari 2018, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Contact: Website: 41" They have been working on this theory for a long time. Edit 2 This is more manageable 15 pages https://vixra.org/pdf/1701.0639v2.pdf "Summary In this article a particle will be presented through which all forces are explained in a satisfactory way. It concerns the so-called dimensional basic (db or ). After much reflection, Gerhard Jan Smit and Jelle Ebel van der Schoot are of the opinion that with this theory, the foundation of the observed particles and forces has been found." Edited August 6 by Flummoxed Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Orion68 0 Posted August 6 Author Report Share Posted August 6 (edited) Thanks for the interest! The original article (About dark matter and the nature of elementary paricles) was published on November 20th 2016 but was in hindsight a very rough draft of the later article 'Metric Science'. In 2017 a few subhypotheses have been worked out. 'About dark matter and the nature of elementary particles' and the subhypotheses from 2017 have been compiled to the 'Metric Science' article which was published on the 21st of January 2018. I posted it myself once in the alternative theories section of sciforums: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/theory-of-everything.162280/ .Furthermore it can be found on vixra: (2016) https://www.vixra.org/abs/1701.0639 and (2018) https://www.vixra.org/abs/1803.0750And on my own website which is essentially split in an old half for the original article (behind the dbphysics menu option) and a new interface for the the download of the 'Metric Science' article (and some extra) on https://dbphysics.com Edit:In case you did not know, I am Gerhard Jan Smit myself, and yes, the base of this theory originates in my teenage years, a long time indeed. Meeting Jelle van der Schoot was a serendipity. Together we brought the theory on the level it is now. Edited August 6 by Orion68 Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Flummoxed 220 Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 Thanks for the interest! The original article (About dark matter and the nature of elementary paricles) was published on November 20th 2016 but was in hindsight a very rough draft of the later article 'Metric Science'. In 2017 a few subhypotheses have been worked out. 'About dark matter and the nature of elementary particles' and the subhypotheses from 2017 have been compiled to the 'Metric Science' article which was published on the 21st of January 2018. I posted it myself once in the alternative theories section of sciforums: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/theory-of-everything.162280/ .Furthermore it can be found on vixra: (2016) https://www.vixra.org/abs/1701.0639 and (2018) https://www.vixra.org/abs/1803.0750And on my own website which is essentially split in an old half for the original article (behind the dbphysics menu option) and a new interface for the the download of the 'Metric Science' article (and some extra) on https://dbphysics.comI have found www.sciencefroums.net is one of the best forums for serious answers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Orion68 0 Posted August 6 Author Report Share Posted August 6 I hope there will be serious answers. And if any questions posed, I hope I can answer them in a proper way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Orion68 0 Posted August 6 Author Report Share Posted August 6 Edit 2 This is more manageable 15 pages https://vixra.org/pdf/1701.0639v2.pdf "Summary In this article a particle will be presented through which all forces are explained in a satisfactory way. It concerns the so-called dimensional basic (db or ). After much reflection, Gerhard Jan Smit and Jelle Ebel van der Schoot are of the opinion that with this theory, the foundation of the observed particles and forces has been found."On edit 2: The original article 'About dark matter and the nature of elementary particles is full of errors. Only version 1_8.2 is already a lot better so if you want to read this manageable version please read version 1_8.2. For the version with the least errors and the most complete information I recommend reading 'Metric Science'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Flummoxed 220 Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 OK I have started reading your paper. Which are you Gerhard or Jelle ? Can you expand on the Dimensional Basic. It sounds to me that you are explaining a dimensionless membrane connecting all points in space. From an entanglement point of view this is an interesting view point. "Dimensional Basic The axiom is that the most elementary particle in existence is the dimensional basic (db or ). The itself has no dimensions (no length, no width and no height). The is found everywhere in the universe and is always moving through spacetime, where the speed of the movement of the , in respect to its surroundings, can have any value. The curvature of space on the location of the is infinite while time on the location of the stands still. The behaves like a black hole without dimensions. The is the building block of all that we perceive."Why does the dimensional basic move through space time with speed, if it is dimensionless membrane? Were you trying to describe a particle as a part of the dimensional basic with space time coordinates, connected to other particles via the dimensional basic. ie via infinite curvature are you suggesting that all particles are interconnected by a wormhole, ER = EPR type of idea? Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Flummoxed 220 Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 The concept of all particles being little black holes isnt a new one https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/05/14/31114/could-all-particles-be-mini-black-holes/https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/05/14/31114/could-all-particles-be-mini-black-holes/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Orion68 0 Posted August 6 Author Report Share Posted August 6 The concept of all particles being little black holes isnt a new one https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/05/14/31114/could-all-particles-be-mini-black-holes/https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/05/14/31114/could-all-particles-be-mini-black-holes/Thanks for the link to the article. I've read it and for what I can see the idea does not include the non-spatial-dimensional idea. So, a lot of processes that are possible in a db world are not possible in a micro black hole world. Those little black holes will behave quite differently from db's because they do have spatial dimensions. Furthermore Coyne and Cheng think about varying energy levels for the individual little black holes, while in the db theory db's have an infinite cuvature, not a specific energy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Orion68 0 Posted August 6 Author Report Share Posted August 6 OK I have started reading your paper. Which are you Gerhard or Jelle ? Can you expand on the Dimensional Basic. It sounds to me that you are explaining a dimensionless membrane connecting all points in space. From an entanglement point of view this is an interesting view point. "Dimensional Basic The axiom is that the most elementary particle in existence is the dimensional basic (db or ). The itself has no dimensions (no length, no width and no height). The is found everywhere in the universe and is always moving through spacetime, where the speed of the movement of the , in respect to its surroundings, can have any value. The curvature of space on the location of the is infinite while time on the location of the stands still. The behaves like a black hole without dimensions. The is the building block of all that we perceive."Why does the dimensional basic move through space time with speed, if it is dimensionless membrane? Were you trying to describe a particle as a part of the dimensional basic with space time coordinates, connected to other particles via the dimensional basic. ie via infinite curvature are you suggesting that all particles are interconnected by a wormhole, ER = EPR type of idea?In the theory the dimensional basics are particles seperated in distance from each other in spacetime, they are not a membrane on itself but infinitely curved spacetime points in/on the three dimensional spacetime surface. The db's are all alike with one difference, their location in spacetime. Those locations are ever changing through the speed of a db relative to all the other db's in the universe, the why is unclear, but if there was no movement we would have a very static universe. All db particles are indeed connected via their mutual curvatures, so one could speak of an infinite curvature membrane which would be the perceived spacetime itself. All db's influence every other db in the universe by their own curvature. I'm not suggesting interconnection by wormholes, although the parallels with two or more db's interconnected by a, relative to their surroundings, heightened curvature are clear. Btw. I'm Gert, Jelle is not amongst us anymore, regrettably. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Flummoxed 220 Posted August 7 Report Share Posted August 7 (edited) In the theory the dimensional basics are particles seperated in distance from each other in spacetime, they are not a membrane on itself but infinitely curved spacetime points in/on the three dimensional spacetime surface. The db's are all alike with one difference, their location in spacetime. Those locations are ever changing through the speed of a db relative to all the other db's in the universe, the why is unclear, but if there was no movement we would have a very static universe. All db particles are indeed connected via their mutual curvatures, so one could speak of an infinite curvature membrane which would be the perceived spacetime itself. All db's influence every other db in the universe by their own curvature. I'm not suggesting interconnection by wormholes, although the parallels with two or more db's interconnected by a, relative to their surroundings, heightened curvature are clear. Btw. I'm Gert, Jelle is not amongst us anymore, regrettably. Hi Gert. I note a number of trolls on sciforums suggested coming to this forum. I would suggest scienceforums.net blows sciforums and this one out of the water. It would be an excellent forum to try your theory. Your infinite curvature of db space, might I think equally be described as infinte volume ie an interconnecting membrane not unlike string theory. Before I go any further, the math? srqt(x^2+y^2+z^2)*curvature=1. x,y,z are I assume a pin point location in space of your db particle, what are these measured with reference too. curvature = infinity ? any number multiplied by infinity = infinity not 1. How do you get 1 as the answer, i see it would be a dimensionles number, due to the units cancelling, but how do you get 1? The oniometric particle model is not totally new, the surfer guy has a E8 eight dimensional particle model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Garrett_Lisi . EDIT How have you defined your units for curvature? normally reciprocal of radius 1/r, ???? Radius of 0 implies curvature is infinite. Maybe I just answered my own question :) Edited August 7 by Flummoxed Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Orion68 0 Posted August 7 Author Report Share Posted August 7 Before I go any further, the math? srqt(x^2+y^2+z^2)*curvature=1. x,y,z are I assume a pin point location in space of your db particle, what are these measured with reference too. curvature = infinity ? any number multiplied by infinity = infinity not 1. How do you get 1 as the answer, i see it would be a dimensionles number, due to the units cancelling, but how do you get 1? curvature=1/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) is the original formula. Here you can see that the formula only breaks up when dividing by zero. So formula (0) only applies to ranges exlcuding zero, this is the surrounding spacetime and always a fraction of the infinite curvature of the db itself. The 1 has been derived because of the programmed simulation models of a db moving in spacetime, it is the most simple implementation of formula (0). One could play around with other numbers than the 1, the only thing that happens is that spacetime curvature on a point on a specific distance from a db is more or less strong curved depending on the given value of now 1.For example a value of 2 would be evenly correct, as a value of .5 does, only the given curvature outcomes differ in that situation as compared to the value 1. So relatively spoken a lot of numbers other than 1 are valid. The reason for picking 1 here in the formula is because it is the most simplified form of the formula (0) in three dimensional spacetime. What it means when you exchange the 1 for another number is still unclear. What it does to the curvature is obvious but it does not have a real meaning in the db world where everything is relative to each other. So in the end every positive value is valid, because it's only calculating the relative curvatures. If one uses for example 2 the distance formula (0) has a more strong curvature while an outcome with a smaller number than 1 leads to a less stronger curvature. This is no problem whatsover in the db-model only. As long as the formula (0) is equal for each db one just shifts the range of curvature strength on the infinite curved spacetime between the db particles. The system of db's as a whole would produce a less or stronger curvature imprint on the surrounding spacetime when using a number different than 1. And what happens when each db has a different value for 1? Then it get's ever more complicated. But diving is those sort of models is uncharted terrain for me and will not give the obvious outcome as described on the basis of a fixed number (for example 1) for each db. What I can say that a number bigger than 1 might be the way to describe macro particles (clusters of db's) so for example if one would like to calculate the surrounding curvature of a quark (3 db's) one could use the number 3 and in such a way get a rough approximation for the curvatures around a quark. But be aware, in this case you are approaching the quark as a point particle which is not the case. Calculating the quark based on 3 db's individually (number = 1) would be more complex, but also more accurate... Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Flummoxed 220 Posted August 7 Report Share Posted August 7 (edited) curvature=1/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) is the original formula. Here you can see that the formula only breaks up when dividing by zero. So formula (0) only applies to ranges exlcuding zero, this is the surrounding spacetime and always a fraction of the infinite curvature of the db itself. The 1 has been derived because of the programmed simulation models of a db moving in spacetime, it is the most simple implementation of formula (0). One could play around with other numbers than the 1, the only thing that happens is that spacetime curvature on a point on a specific distance from a db is more or less strong curved depending on the given value of now 1.For example a value of 2 would be evenly correct, as a value of .5 does, only the given curvature outcomes differ in that situation as compared to the value 1. So relatively spoken a lot of numbers other than 1 are valid. The reason for picking 1 here in the formula is because it is the most simplified form of the formula (0) in three dimensional spacetime. What it means when you exchange the 1 for another number is still unclear. What it does to the curvature is obvious but it does not have a real meaning in the db world where everything is relative to each other. So in the end every positive value is valid, because it's only calculating the relative curvatures. If one uses for example 2 the distance formula (0) has a more strong curvature while an outcome with a smaller number than 1 leads to a less stronger curvature. This is no problem whatsover in the db-model only. As long as the formula (0) is equal for each db one just shifts the range of curvature strength on the infinite curved spacetime between the db particles. The system of db's as a whole would produce a less or stronger curvature imprint on the surrounding spacetime when using a number different than 1. And what happens when each db has a different value for 1? Then it get's ever more complicated. But diving is those sort of models is uncharted terrain for me and will not give the obvious outcome as described on the basis of a fixed number (for example 1) for each db. What I can say that a number bigger than 1 might be the way to describe macro particles (clusters of db's) so for example if one would like to calculate the surrounding curvature of a quark (3 db's) one could use the number 3 and in such a way get a rough approximation for the curvatures around a quark. But be aware, in this case you are approaching the quark as a point particle which is not the case. Calculating the quark based on 3 db's individually (number = 1) would be more complex, but also more accurate... I thought you were implying the radius of a sphere in srqt(x^2+y^2+z^2) hence dividing by curvature, would equal 1 unless it is undefined. Mathematically 0 x infinity is undefined,not 1 :( Edit x,y,z are points in a sphere are they not, with 0 dimensions. They are not points in space, as I originally guessed with out thinking about it too much. Edit 2 Who wrote the Borland C computer programs Newton, Einstein? Edited August 7 by Flummoxed Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Orion68 0 Posted August 7 Author Report Share Posted August 7 I thought you were implying the radius of a sphere in srqt(x^2+y^2+z^2) hence dividing by curvature, would equal 1 unless it is undefined. Mathematically 0 x infinity is undefined,not 1 :(Formula (0) is in essence just a line length comparison equation. Yes, when all number are filled you get a sphere, but it was just meant to get the distance between two points. For programming the in the article proposed third model you have a very interesting comment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Orion68 0 Posted August 7 Author Report Share Posted August 7 Edit x,y,z are points in a sphere are they not, with 0 dimensions. They are not points in space, as I originally guessed with out thinking about it too much. Edit 2 Who wrote the Borland C computer programs Newton, Einstein?They are points in space and part of a specific curvature strength shell sphere. So one can say that each db is an infinite in 3 dimensional curvature sphere. I wrote the programs, though 25 years ago and that time hinders me to have all the details still clear in my mind. Though the program Einstein was rewritten by me two years ago so I dived into that code again and became aware of what I've programmed al those foggy years ago. So if you go into code questioning, my answers will take some more time... Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Orion68 0 Posted August 7 Author Report Share Posted August 7 EDIT How have you defined your units for curvature? normally reciprocal of radius 1/r, ???? Radius of 0 implies curvature is infinite. Maybe I just answered my own question :)The unit for curvature = m^-1. Thank you for the extra mathematical insight. You also answered a question I had not thought of :). Quote Link to post Share on other sites

## Recommended Posts

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.