
granchio


Total Posts: 1541 
Joined: Apr 2004 

 

Maggette


Total Posts: 1167 
Joined: Jun 2007 


Come on. That must be a joke.
"Questions Posted At : November 26, 2014 8:31 AM  Posted By : Espen Haug Related Categories: Projects What are the ultimate building blocks of everything? What is time?
Why does Einstein synchronization of clocks lead to a synchronization error? (Poincare suggested same procedure, also he misunderstood several aspects of what could be done)
Why is Einstein's relativity of simultaneity just an apparent effect?
Why must absolute simultaneity be reintroduced?
What exactly is energy, and how is it related to matter?
What is the ultimate origin of memory and intelligence?
What is the true cause of gravity?
Unified Revolution answers these and many more questions."
I think Espen isn't that much of an idiot. This sounds like 
Ich kam hierher und sah dich und deine Leute lächeln,
und sagte mir: Maggette, scheiss auf den small talk,
lass lieber deine Fäuste sprechen...



pj


Total Posts: 3469 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Is anything to read available? I would love to see some excerpts before forming an opinion. Although the quackometer is in red.

OFFENDERS WILL BE TERMINATED




EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


Hi hi, yes of course any good scientist or critical thinker should be skeptical when someone claiming they have a Unified Revolution theory!
Still please keep your mind open still. It took 12 years to write this book (naturally not full time, but in periods 7 days a week from early morning to bed time.). I had no plan even to derive one new result in physics, but then my book contains several hundred new formulas/equation. As so much is new I show all derivations step by step. Unlike much or at least parts of modern physics everything also follows simple logic and can be explained and only have one interpretation.
My theory is basically uncovering a whole new layer of mathematical results that gives a much deeper understanding of physics. Deeper in the sense that I start out with simple assumptions about what everything is made of. My assumptions are incredible simple. I thought such a simple theory not could lead to much at all, so I was surprised myself how extreme simplicity lead to so much.
Many of the existing results in physics stands, but many of existing interpretation is according to my theory wrong or incomplete. This because little if anything of modern physics is derived from the ultimate building blocks of everything.
I also spent considerable time digging out old ignored masters, and looking into the original texts. So part of my book is also of interest from a historical perspective, but it is mainly about a new theory, but my theory is rooted in ancient principles that was ignored way to early, and no one developed a mathematical framework before now.
Many of my results are compared to well known experiments, my results agree very well with these. I am also discussing a series of less known experiments that have been published in academic journals, but that have been ignored and not understood  that now suddenly seem to make sense. I am also suggesting and explaining a series of new experiments that can distinguish between my theory and main frame physics.
I will be happy to post much more info later. I will also lay out more info on my home page. The next few weeks I will put out the table of contents and preface there. I also have considerably amount of spreadsheets and mathematica code, this I made for myself to check my formulas. I however derived all formulas by hand or in my head, mathematica could in no way simplify equations as well as manually. I did a lot of work to get the final results on very compact form (if possible, just a few of the end rests are ''ugly''). I will need to clean up the code a bit and add some comments in the code and spreadsheets, so over the next few months I will also put out a lot of free spreadsheets and some mathematics code on my website, this mainly so people easily can play around with the many formulas in my book and check numerical output as well as 3D graphics for themselves. There is no CD with my new book, I think the time for CD´s are over, spreadsheets and mathematica code will be put out for free on my homepage for anyone to download, play around with or criticize.
The math background needed is much simpler than for example in options. What is needed is to come up with the idea, and I stumbled up on it 12 years ago, and Eureka! I had to refresh my knowledge somewhat on simple things such as cosine and sinus functions as they are very much used, then quadratic equations (only a few of them requires a few pages to be solved), pythagoras theorem often used, and I had to use Taylor expansion once. So yes mostly high school math skills is needed for all the derivations. I only have one chapter on uncertainty, how ''quantum randomness'' can explain macroscopic observed randomness, and this chapter is mainly empirically and based on a large scale (3 years) very simple photon experiment we did.
Any 'quant' or person decent in math should be able to check my derivations and also to understand the math. I talked with a few theoretical physicist that when I asked them about some equations in physics they told me they could not really explain the equations, but that I just had to trust the math. This is partly how part of theoretical physics has got on the wrong track I think. All equations and results should be understood, yes there are several counterintuitive effects such as timedilation, length contraction, quantum tunneling, but all these should be understood and explained. How can mass take up energy, what exactly is this energy? Feynman was right when he somewhat populistic said:
'In modern physics, mass is somewhat diffusely distinguished from matter because matter and energy are poorely defined concepts'
This will now change, read chapter 2 in my book, introduction to energy and mass (only text) and then jump to chapter 20 where I derive energy and mass relationships from this much deeper understanding. Chapter 21 and 22 also about energy and matter, but to understand relativistic mass and energy relationships one first need to study also the mathematical chapters 5 to 10 at least.
Some people have already got copies of the book, the first print run was 1000 copies. Unfortunately the printing house (one of the large UK ones) had some technical problems and have to redo a large number of copies, these should be ready soon, but shipping and all will take time before volume is up at amazon. I hope much is resolved next few weeks. So the main batch is likely a couple of weeks delayed. Some people in UK, US and Netherland and Norway already got the book, but yes behind on feeding the many hungry minds (and critics) of this word :)
(and my english is much better in my book than here, as I there had editors cleaning up my NorEnglish.)
I expect my critics in future to be polarized. All the people not understanding my book will give me 1 star, and the three people in the whole world understanding my book will give me 5 stars. And I bet no one will criticizing me for being Humble!
Sincerley Yours,
Espen Gaarder Haug, best known as Mr Humble, or did I hear someone whisper Mr Ego^3, can a (Big) Ego exist in less than 3 Dimensions, I strongly doubt so :)
Yes naturally be skeptical, I am going out with a professor in theoretical physics this week, he said he was very skeptical, but he said he also was curious, I think this is good start! Only time will tell if I will become Mr quack^3 (the quackometer should indeed still blink Red).
PS today I also donated a few copies of my book to the National Library, I do not know how long the bureaucrats use to properly register them and then handle them out again. So my book can be borrowed for free possibly already next week. (people living outside Norway will have to consider the price of flight ticket up against it.) 



EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


Maggette, I actually like your formula, because we do not need to quantify Taleb´s ego to find my Ego relative to his.
So yes e^(pi)=23.14
This is actually correct, how could you know :? At least it fits empirical data quite well the last few days :)
So we can conclude Taleb has a small Ego (relative to EGH), people should be careful claiming Taleb has big Ego in a world where most things are relative! 




FDAXHunter

Founding Member

Total Posts: 8372 
Joined: Mar 2004 


As Einstein said: "If you cannot explain it in simple terms, you don't understand it well enough." 
The Figs Protocol. 


EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


okay I give you one of the first pages in my book for free
"Enough of this. Newton forgive me; you found the only way which, in your age, was just about possible for a man of highest thoughts — and creative power. Albert Einstein 1946"
"Enough of this. Einstein forgive me; you found the only way which, in your age, was just about possible for a man of highest thoughts — and creative power. Espen Gaarder Haug 2014"
So yes I am afraid this actually confirms the formula given by Maggette. The big and unsolved question will I be able to defend my small Ego? Are my formulas correct? Will they stand the test of time, what chances do I have against the academic establishment (that for sure many of them will fight for their current world view).
By the way I claim the Einstein math is correct, but that many of the interpretations are wrong and or incomplete and that there is an extra 'layer' of math derived from a deeper fundament that gives better insight and opens up for understanding some ignored experiments already done, as well as some experiments that should be done. 




chiral3

Founding Member

Total Posts: 5101 
Joined: Mar 2004 


Good for you Espen. Nobody locks themselves away for twelve years and thinks anymore. Also, it's been twenty years since physicists have thought about comparing their work to experiments. It's all categories and cosmic Galois groups and shit. 
Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ 


EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


Thanks chiral3.
Well I only locked myself away last six years or so, the first six years I used a lot of the quiet time at the prop trading desk to get going on this project (and naturally free time). first I wanted to publish some papers on it, but since the theory was kind of original the papers got very long, I had to explain everything from scratch, and then I could suddenly see almost everything fundamental came out from this, and then I wanted to keep quiet about the whole concept and just derive and derive, and publish it all at once. It took many more years than expected, but I am happy with it.
I talked with one professor in math that now was semiretired. He told first now he could finally work on the math research he always wanted to work on, because before semiretirement he had to publish a paper or two almost every year, publish or perish. And to publish a paper or two a year he had to focus on minor ideas (well I guess he generalized a bit, but much too it I think). So he claimed most young postdocs in academia these days not had chance to focus on things that "really matters" (with a few exceptions).
Luck also plays a big role I think. Again I never suspected I would derive even a single formula in physics, I just felt I stubbled over something that got me going. And the Judges has not looked at my work yet, so I have to keep my Ego high now, before it gets under attack :).





chiral3

Founding Member

Total Posts: 5101 
Joined: Mar 2004 


"Well I only locked myself away last six years..."
Wow, a perfect example of time dilation. We used to work near each other. That was about 10 years ago. Your team's numbers were very good that last year, hence why I was fortunate enough to enjoy the crisis and you were able to lose time. 
Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ 


EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"Wow, a perfect example of time dilation. We used to work near each other. That was about 10 years ago. Your team's numbers were very good that last year, hence why I was fortunate enough to enjoy the crisis and you were able to lose time."
Yes without those good years I would be delayed in my physics research many more years. I could indeed afford to lose time (money)...deriving deriving equations do not pay in short run at least, but when feeling one understand one thing after another it is an amazing feeling. 




pj


Total Posts: 3469 
Joined: Jun 2004 


> I will be happy to post much more info later
Please do.
BTW, amazon doesn't have your book so it doesn't exist. Will you make notice on your homepage when it arrives?
And let me thank you for your option formulas book.

OFFENDERS WILL BE TERMINATED



EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


Yes it looks like it will take some weeks before amazon gets it, hard to predict exactly when. I will update my homepage along the way. 




pj


Total Posts: 3469 
Joined: Jun 2004 


One thing from Maggette's formula bugs me. If NTT ego is imaginary EGH ego is negative

OFFENDERS WILL BE TERMINATED



benji


Total Posts: 197 
Joined: Feb 2005 


A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics
This being said, I'm all ears. From the homepage I gather that you have Lorentz violations in your theory ("The Lorentz transformation and also the Einstein transformation still holds anywhere in the universe (with a few exceptions)"),
Given that there is so far no evidence of Lorentz violations, there will be testable predictions from your theory and that's a very good thing. 




Maggette


Total Posts: 1167 
Joined: Jun 2007 


Obviously I wasn't thinking deep and hard enough about my equation :)
It reminds me a little bit of a sign an Atlanta Hawks fan held during the season when Michael Jordan took his baseball time out, intending to diss Scottie Pippen.
It showed:
Scottie Pippen  MJ = 0
The fan made the same mistake I did:)

Ich kam hierher und sah dich und deine Leute lächeln,
und sagte mir: Maggette, scheiss auf den small talk,
lass lieber deine Fäuste sprechen...



EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


'Given that there is so far no evidence of Lorentz violations'
there is indeed a handfull of published experiments strongly indicating (but not fully conclusive yet) Lorentz transformation is incomplete. These studies are however not understood from theoretical point before, and therefor never got any attention. I discusses them in detail. They are in a series of my chapters discussion experiments that already have been performed. Some of these experiments need to be repeated, but three different types of experiments (that few have heard about) that actually we now can see are in the same class all point in the same direction.
The later Lorentz transformation (and Einstein transformation, I actually like to distinguish between them, as Lorentz before he got too much influenced by Poincare actually not is the same transformation as Einstein) are correct mathematically for roundtrip experiments and for oneway experiments (one also have to distinguish very carefully between for example oneway time dilation and roundtrip time dilation) when direcyl or indirectly relying on Einstein (and Poincare) synchronization, but the interpretation in relation to several experiments are wrong. Also there are a few classes of experiments that indeed can distinguish between the different theories here. Slow clock transportation synchronization gives for any practical purpose always same experimental results as Einstein synchronization. Very special experimental set ups are needed to get around these synchronization procedures and uncover the deeper reality.
There is also one type of experiments that is much more powerful (more robust and ´easy' to perform :) to show this. This is a experiment that require very expensive equipment that also is discussed in my book (expensive, but much much cheaper than LHC). A multi billion dollar company with this expensive equipment is now considering performing it, both from technical point of view, and how to expense/fund it (I am 99% confident in the result we will see). If the experiment will be done the next 6 months or in 10 years I do not know yet, all the equipment is standard well tested, but there are challenges on expenses and certain licenses etc that need to be in place. If the experiment not show what I predict I will eat my socks (well possibly I need to buy some eatable socks first, but I promise will wear them before I eat them .)
My book indeed gives the math and logic explanation around a series of testable predictions. So this is much more than just some philosophical ideas. My theory is consistent with the well known experiments, and also with a handful off less known experiments. Main frame physics is in my view in conflict with this handful experiments that not have been understood before, but as a minimum these experiments need to be repeated, and I would hope my suggested and much more robust experiment to be performed asp (most to convince others, I am very convinced myself, but may be not the first person convincing himself :).
Please also take a close look at the Larmor time dilation equation and the Einstein and Lorentz time dilation equation (time transformation). I will explain you the differences in detail later on, also it is in my book of course.
I am holding back on information a little now (on the internet, not in my book), I want my book to have reached a certain amount of distribution before I go in details about my ideas on the internet. Further I have used years to explain it properly in my book, any explanation I use 10 minutes on here will be less well formulated (and I never wrote this book to make money, it is mostly a technical book that I put quite some money into (I had in my view a very good illustrator for example, all illustrations in colors.), if I am lucky I get my direct expenses back after some thousand copies (if it ever sell that much), my hourly pay will at very best dream scenario likely be $2). Yes naturally let the Red lamps blink until my book has been carefully studied.... 




jslade


Total Posts: 1195 
Joined: Feb 2007 


I will share Chiral3's respect for your having a testable experiment. It seems most physicists don't bother these days. FWIIW, are you familiar with Sommerfeld's relativistic aether theory? I think he talks about it in his "Mechanics of Deformable bodies." I used to be familiar enough with it to argue with people that there was nothing in Michaelson Morley which "proved" special relativity is the correct theory of nature. There are actually some obvious holes in special relativity (group velocity in dispersive media), and large parts of it remain untested (who knows, maybe Joao is right).
I have no idea of the contents of this book will be crazypants, but new ideas are scarce on the ground, and physics has been ruined by "careerification." If EGH has the leisure to pursue such things, more power to him. More people with tenure should have crazy ideas, and stop flying to dumb conferences.

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." 


Martingale

NP House Mouse

Total Posts: 2643 
Joined: Jun 2004 


I guess kayaking with half naked girls does not do you good 24/7, EGH, good to see you back. 




EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


''I used to be familiar enough with it to argue with people that there was nothing in Michaelson Morley which "proved" special relativity is the correct theory of nature.''
you are right, I give several new mathematical proofs on this rooted in my much more fundamental theory, and also explain this from a new and deeper perspective. The Michelson Morley experiment just rejected preMichelsonMorley ether theories before one thought about length contraction and time dilation. Several other theoretical physics also claim the MichelsonMorely in no way proved Einsteins SR, or even distinguished the Lorentz and Poincare interpretation from SR, for example several ether based theories. Also it dose not distinguish between SR and Larmor.
I for fun repeated the Michelson Morely experiment myself with amateur equipment inside my barn, just to get a feel for it (my equipment was cheap and my accuracy worse than Michelson Morely), but at least I have a feel for the experiment also from a practical perspective. But to understand it is mostly about having a good theory. There is no doubt about the Michelson Morely null result as it has been repeated a large number of times by many different research gropes, the interpretation by many physicist is still wrong, as jslade and several ether theorists claims it is in no way ''proving'' SR. The accuracy in the Michelson Morely was incredible good (I think one would need to have clocks with close to 10^(18) seconds (close to attosecond accuracy) to do it 'equivalent' with clocks, not even atomic clocks today I think can do this (if so only the super expensive ones), but yes likely the more recent optical clocks). Relaying on fringe shifts is a cheap way to get very high accuracy. I was so happy the first time I got the inference pattern up on the screen (a white card board) just to get a small feel for experimental physics, not to detect anything new in that case.
The Michelson Morely experiment only rejected the old ether theories (preMichelsonMorely experiment ether theories). My theory is not a ether based theory, or partly in some way, the ether in my theory is void (empty space, but empty space is very very important and discussed up and down in chapter one), ether theories alone are not enough to get to the depth of reality, but some of the ether theories mentioned in my book are close.
The null result in the Michelson Morley experiment came as a shock to the scientific community at that time. PreMichelsonMorely Ether theories clearly predicted a fringeshift that easily should be detected by the very high accuracy in the experiment. FitzGerald then tried to solve it (get it consistent with ether based theories) by introducing length contraction, that all observable objects including planets underwent length contraction when moving against the ether. Natrually one could not easily observe length contraction directly as any measure stick would shrink in same fashion as the mass one tried to measure. It came clear than length contraction alone not could explain the null result. Larmor then came to rescue and combined Length contraction (where he refer to Lorentz that had more formally described length contraction) with time dilation.
The Larmor theory was the first mathematically theory consistent with the MichelsonMorely experiment. Larmor never accepted the Einstein interpretation on relativity, and I think neither the Poincare interpretation. Larmor's space and time transformation published 1900 is written in very original notation, after rewriting it into the Lorentz and Einstein notation (also shown in my book) it looks at first eye sight identical, and several physicist have mistakenly described it as identical. However it is not mathematically the same (the input is different), it is a ''special case'' of the Lorentz and Einstein transformation, but with a very different interpretation on both inputs and outputs. The Poincare influenced Lorentz transformation that is identical to the Einstein transformation holds for any two frames, the Larmor transformation only holds for a special case that also includes any type of MichelsonMorley type experiments, but do not hold for a long series of other experiments, simply because it only was derived for a ''special case''.
Important was naturally that Einstein also was able to derive and come up with key insight concerting energy and mass and also relativistic Doppler shift. Larmor, Lorentz and Poincare contributed with little here.
I recommend the book by Larmor published in 1900, but I would say it is very cryptic (due to his notation that is very different than Lorentz and also his writing style that can be hard to get). Also Larmor clearly had a limited understanding in interpretation. Still Larmor is indeed the first to derive timedilation (and I am not the first to point out this). As a minimum he should have been given more credit. I do not extend on the Larmor theory directly, but show that also his mathematical theory was right for the special case that he derived it for. His assumptions where closer to reality, his math was more incomplete than Einstein and Lorentz. The Lorentz theory before he got too much influenced by Poincare (around 1905) was closer to Larmor.
Larmor also gets a few other mathematical results that actually holds true that no modern physicist even mentions today, likely because they never understood his insight. But even Larmor was vague and diffuse on his explanations on several topics (as expected from one of the first that truly starts to uncover the deeper realty with counter intuitive effects such as his timedilation (1900)).
All these (basically 3 theories, the Larmor, the Poincare influence Lorentz theory and SR) theories are special cases of the transformations that I have derived from the ultimate depth of reality, but I am standing on the shoulders of a series of brilliant physicists :) Larmor was in my view in many ways closer to truth conceptually than Lorentz and Einstein and Poincare, but Einstein and the Poincare influenced Lorentz transformation is more robust as it holds for any two frames. But there is so much more to this....




EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


''I guess kayaking with half naked girls does not do you good 24/7, EGH, good to see you back.''
Thanks Martingale! Yes it is quite some years ago I was kayaking, but you are right there was a half naked girl on board one time, how did you know, I told you years back? or was that you, that guy on the beach with the big binoculars? :). I was indeed transporting a bikini girl on a hot summer day in front of my kayak. What happened? Now only transformations and derivations and 3D figures in mathematica. 




pj


Total Posts: 3469 
Joined: Jun 2004 


(Courtesy of Douglas Adams)
It is the first book of the trilogy: "Where Einstein Went Wrong," "Some More of Einstein's Greatest Mistakes," and "Who is this Einstein Person Anyway?"

OFFENDERS WILL BE TERMINATED




People still use mathematica? 




EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


''People still use mathematica?''
I used mathematica to make a series of 3D figures for my book. (I guess I also could have mede them in Maple or Matlab and some other software, but not in Excel) (There is about 100 illustrations from my illustrator, and also a considerably amount of mathematica 3D illustrations, I think a totally of about 200 illustrations, all in color.)




goldorak


Total Posts: 1065 
Joined: Nov 2004 


> Yes it looks like it will take some weeks before amazon gets it, hard to predict exactly when. I will update my homepage along the way.
It looks like physics is still not able to predict everything...

If you are not living on the edge you are taking up too much space. 







