Forums  > Books & Papers  > espen haug unified revolution  
Page 6 of 6Goto to page: 1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6 Prev
Display using:  


Total Posts: 63
Joined: Nov 2014
Posted: 2019-10-02 21:32
"537.88 "

that is right (+ transport, and the book is heavy), the price of my unsigned book is no more pricy than some books of the President of USA (signed). "Aquaman", doubt he can afford it when he finally decides to buy it. The long term price trend is up?

Just in print

Why the Sagnac effect favors absolute over relative simultaneity

"Since Einstein and absolute synchronizations can be discriminated, the conventionality of the one-way speed of light holds no longer."

"Any attempt to justify relative simultaneity will not modify the fact that absolute simultaneity provides a simpler and more coherent way to interpret the linear Sagnac effect."


Total Posts: 63
Joined: Nov 2014
Posted: 2019-10-02 21:58
In my (underpriced) book I had no gravity theory, but looks like atomism gives a quantum gravity theory that unifies gravity and quantum mechanics, soon to be submitted to journal (will likely be rejected due to controversial idea, modern physicists have not studied atomism)

Collision Space-Time Unified Quantum Gravity Gravity is Lorentz symmetry break down at the Planck scale

Both Lorentz symmetry and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle breaks at the Planck scale, and gravity is remarkably the Planck scale. Modern physics have been searching for effects from the Planck scale, they have failed to see all of gravity is the Planck scale. They have failed to see there is a mass-gap that is linked to time.


Total Posts: 3461
Joined: Jun 2004
Posted: 2019-10-03 08:14
General relativity.
By the way, does the GPS work in your system?

> Heisenberg uncertainty principle breaks at the Planck scale

Would you care to expand?

Aquaman reference

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken


Total Posts: 63
Joined: Nov 2014
Posted: 2019-10-03 10:47
"By the way, does the GPS work in your system?"

I am not an expert on GPS, but yes GPS clocks are adjusted for the Sagnac effect, and the Sagnac effect is still the same in our model (as first predicted by Sagnac), but we claim at least the Linear Sagnac experimental set up gives inconsistence between assumption of also one-way speed is isotropic together with assumption of relativity of simultaneity. In other words we claim other explanation for Sagnac. Sagnac himself claimed the Sagnac effect was inconsistent with SR. Among supporters of standard theory they cannot agree if the Sagnac effect can be explained only from SR or if one needs GR, and for the ones claiming one need GR they cannot fully agree, as reflected in recent papers

"Despite countless explanations, in more than a hundred years, there are still different interpretations of Sagnac experiment in the framework of the GTR."

E. B. Fabiano, Hooman F. L., and M. C. Corda. On the general relativistic framework of the sagnac effect.
The European Physical Journal C, 79, 2019.


Total Posts: 63
Joined: Nov 2014
Posted: 2019-10-03 10:56
> Heisenberg uncertainty principle breaks at the Planck scale

Would you care to expand?

In my model there is only one 100% mass, the Planck mass. The Planck mass is simply the collision between two indivisible particles. The Planck mass only last one Planck second (before the indivisibles move away from each other), and it can therefore only be observed inside one Planck second. To observe it one need to be it basically, and it stands absolute still. In my model at the deepest level there is only Planck mass particles (colliding indivisible particles) and energy (non colliding indivisible particles, moving at the speed of light). All masses we observe such as electrons are in reality both energy and mass, they are the Planck mass c/BarLambda per second, where BarLambda is the reduced Compton wavelength of the electron. This gives the correct electron mass.

The uncertainty in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in my model simply comes from that the indivisibles are moving back and forth over the Compton wavlength at the speed of light (except when colliding when they stand still).

The quantum- probabilities I get out from my model (as well as from QM) are one (1) at the observation of Collisions (the Planck mass). There is no uncertainty of the position of a Planck mass. However in for example an electron there is uncertainty.

Well this is better explained in my working papers

Collision Space-Time. Unified Quantum Gravity. Gravity is Lorentz Symmetry Break Down at the Planck Scale.

Finally a Unified Quantum Gravity Theory! Collision Space-Time: the Missing Piece of Matter! Gravity is Lorentz and Heisenberg Break Down at the Planck Scale. Gravity Without G

Better and Deeper Quantum Mechanics! Thoughts on a New Definition of Momentum That Makes Physics Simpler and More Consistent (this working paper still needs more work)

Modern physics have missed a few points.

1. De Broglie came up with the matter wave-particle duality idea in 1923 or so. One soon observed wave like properties of matter in experiments. And it was assumed that de Broglie where right, and one developed much of QM around the de Broglie wave. However the same year about; Compton actually observed the Compton wavelength of the electron.

de Broglie (relativistic version)

versus Compton (relativistic version)

Why on earth should one have two different matter waves? If a particle stand still, then the de Broglie wavelength is infinite. This has been interpreted by some/many physicists that the electron can be anywhere in the universe until observed (even if we observed it one millisecond ago inside a small area). This is of course insane interpretations. As I have shown the de Broglie wavelength is just a mathematical derivative of the real matter "wave", which is the Compton wavelength. de Broglie is ComptonWave*c/v. So yes when v=0 the de Broglie gives infinite wavelength, (which leads to nonsense interpretation if one not understand this is just a mathematical derivative of the physical wavelength: Compton).

Building a QM around the de Broglie wave gives correct prediction (except at the Planck scale), but it is a unnecessarily complex way to do it. One goes through a derivative that one falsely think represent something real. Much simpler is (in particular interpretation wise as logic again is restored, and all the esoteric magical interpretations then disappear) when one built theory from the real observed matter wave, Compton. In my model it is not even a wave, it is just the average distance between the indivisibles in the matter type we are working with, but yes all the wave math works on this.

2. Modern physicists ignored Newton. Newton was clear on matter where indivisible particles. And his gravity formula F=Mm/r^2 is consistent with this mass view. Newton NEVER EVER mention a gravity constant, nor dose he use one. He predicts correctly the relative masses of planets, their orbital velocity etc. His model simply did not took into account relativistic effects for fast moving objects. Modern physics had to re-define Newton to F=GMm/r^2 (in the 1800). Because their incomplete mass definition they had to get in a magic gravity constant G that they do not really know what represent, only empirical calibrate without understanding what it is. Well it contains embedded the Planck length, the speed of light, and the Planck constant. This to get the Planck constant out from their incomplete (anti-Newtonian) mass definition, and get the Planck length in. If they had understood this they would have understood Gravity is the Planck scale they have been searching for but not found. It has been just ahead of their nose all the time.

Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 6 of 6Goto to page: 1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6 Prev