Peer Review: Time Mechanics Unification Theory

[TheNerf]

I currently have a "Fringe" Unification theory called Time Mechanics available for view on youtube. There are certain elements I would like peer challenged and as well new challenges I may not of considered yet.

My question is before I take the 6 hour road trip to UVA, is there anywhere I can post an entire field or am I just out of luck?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not quite following: why do you need to drive to UVA? If you've written a paper, just email it to the appropriate journal(s).

 

[TheNerf]

I'm not quite following: why do you need to drive to UVA? If you've written a paper, just email it to the appropriate journal(s).

The introduction is 2hr 10min. That's not covering details like anti-matter interactions or gravity waves. There have been a lot of experiments over time and there's simply too much to cover to put into a paper.

I have to define terms not used before. I also use something like a tensor and flat out don't use bra-kets. Not that I don't think bra-kets aren't useful, I just don't use them.

 

[K^2]

I looked up your video. First of all, if you present it to any group of serious scientists, you will get laughed out.

1) You make up new terminology. This is a first sign of a pseudo-science, and reason #1 nobody is going to take you seriously. Most people will look at the first slide and leave right then. I got through the middle of 3rd video just to try and give you a benefit of the doubt.

2) Your terminology is poorly defined. In the middle of the 3rd video, I still had no idea what you mean by "observation of Time Region with higher scale factor". Construct clear definitions, stick to them.

3) You insist that physics isn't about numbers and avoid equations. This is normally the part where these few people who were still listening would get up and leave. Yes, string-theory has become too far removed from physics. But the main point of physics is making predictions that you can compare to a measurement. If your theory doesn't let me measure anything, it's not worth it.

4) You seem to be very confused on many well-established topics. You cannot hope to convince anyone that you understand physics better than they do, when you don't understand basic concepts in established theory. If you tell to a serious scientist that quantum mechanics says that things are unpredictable, he's just going to have a laugh. The reason why QM was accepted is because it makes exact predictions which can be measured and tested to 12 decimal places.

5) Your initial 5 laws are really poorly stated. First of all, they fall back on jargon that's defined later. Again, clear sign of false science. Worse, your first two laws are actually parts of established theory, except you replaced standard terminology with your own made up one. First postulate is actually the key element of Many Worlds Interpretation. Second postulate is actually describing Proper Time from General Relativity. The fact that you state these using names you had to make up only points out that you don't understand standard Quantum Theory or General Relativity, in which case you hardly claim to have something better.
Basically, at this point I'm absolutely convinced that it is garbage. Exactly the same that every single scientist is going to be. Most in shorter time.

There is precisely one way you can convince people it's not garbage, and this is actually a test that EVERY SINGLE THEORY has to go through. Make a numeric prediction that disagrees with standard theory, and one that can be verified.

If your problem is that you cannot carry out the tests, you should then first demonstrate that your theory agrees the numbers from experiments already done. Derive the mass of electron, or Gravitational Constant, or something that has a known value. Then somebody might actually take this seriously enough to test a prediction that disagrees with standard model.

But since you yourself claim that you have no formulae in your theory, I guess you'll make up some excuse for why you cannot. In that case, I can only tell you that what you came up with is at best a philosophy, and at worst a theology.

 

[TheNerf]

@ k^2

Thank you for your feedback. You're right it is a philosophy. And that's why this is a bad forum. I don't claim to reject any formula, I'm sorry if that's what I sound like. I don't reject any observation I just don't define it the same way. I probably do overlap with other theories but that shouldn't be a bad thing.

I understand bad mouthing quantum mechanics will you get laughed out of any room, but I do reject that premise that it isn't based on uncertainty of measurement.

 

[cristo]

Sorry, but on this forum you can only discuss published, mainstream theories, as per the rules you agreed to when you signed up.