# UNIFIED PHYSICS BEYOND GENERAL RELATIVITY by Peter Rodgers

1. Mar 9, 2004

### peterrodgers

A dyslexic mathematics genius who, at 16-years-old,
considered physicists to be entirely wrong, I am
Peter Rodgers, now 49-years-old, of Australia.
Although my physics-paper has been condensed
to a few A4 pages, Unified Physics required
about 7,000 unpaid hours of my life to create. I tried
many thousands of possibilities, and crossed them
off as impossibilities. This enormous struggle,
using calculus, has led me to the inspirations
of my Unified Physics paper. Although Albert Einstein
achieved wonderful physics theories, I believe
this paper is the greatest revolution in Physics
for a hundred years. Please click on
Unified Physics

......Peter D Rodgers (10/March/2004)

Last edited: Mar 28, 2004
2. Mar 9, 2004

### Janitor

I see that your paper lists your bank account number. I keep getting these emails from a Christian Bapku who lives in Nigeria. It seems he is owed $20 million as a result of a military coup's takeover of the former government which caused the freezing of assets that properly belong to him. He needs a small sum ($10,000 should do nicely, he says) from some investor to act as a lever to pry the $20 million loose. He would be greatly obligued if you could lend him some leverage money, and he will repay you with$10 million later this year. That is a thousand-to-one return on your investment, he rightly points out.

May I forward your account information to Mr. Bapku?

3. Mar 10, 2004

### peterrodgers

Unified Physics paper = VIP

Please concentrate on my Unified Phyics paper.

Last edited: Mar 28, 2004
4. Mar 12, 2004

### Janitor

I appreciate your sense of humor!

Some folks say they saw a man who looked a lot like me throwing something off the Tallahatchee Bridge. But I digress.

There are a number of things about your paper that puzzle me. Let me start with an item near the beginning. You say, "The famous ‘Twin Paradox’ has existed because, rather than the twins' motions being relative to each other, all should be relative to an imaginary observer at the center-of-mass of the two-mass system. If the system consists of the twins only, the twins age the same amount relative to an observer at the center-of-mass of their binary system."

Okay, so let's imagine 3 people floating together out in intergalactic space somewhere. They have synchronized their watches. Two of them, Matthew and Mark, are twins. A third party, Luke, is going to act as observer. Mark and Luke have fuel tanks strapped to their backs, and rockets strapped to their legs, while poor Matthew is rocketless, but he keeps a bag of shot puts strapped to himself so that his mass will match the mass of either one of the other two. This symmetry regarding their masses is just to make it a little easier to talk about the center-of-mass situation. (We will assume the rockets have very high specific impulse, so that the mass of fuel burned during the powered part of the flight amounts to a negligible change in the mass of the two rocketeers, and all three fellows can be taken to have constant mass throughout this experiment.) On the count of three, Mark and Luke light up their combustion chambers, and away they go in the same direction as one another. Luke is careful to go easy on his throttle so that at all times he is half way between the twins, Matthew and Mark. That is, Luke remains always at the position of the center of mass of the other two.

The two powered fellows eventually reverse their orientations so as to head back toward Matthew. As always, Luke keeps himself half way between the brothers. At some point in time Luke and Mark reverse rocket directions one more time so as to be able to come to a halt when they get back to Matthew.

It seems pretty clear to me that you believe that when they compare watches, the twins Matthew and Mark will report the same time as one another, but it will not necessarily match the time on Luke's watch. For you claim: "the twins [Matthew and Mark] age the same amount relative to an observer [Luke] at the center-of-mass of their binary system."

But that is at variance with Einstein's prediction. Einstein would say that Luke's watch would not have advanced as much as Matthew's, and that Mark's will not have advanced as much as Luke's.

So are you flat-out saying Einstein was wrong?

Last edited: Mar 12, 2004
5. Mar 13, 2004

### Michael D. Sewell

No, he's saying that Einstein could afford a better watch.

6. Mar 13, 2004

### peterrodgers

Thanks to Janitor for the problem posed

Please visit my Unified Physics .
Janitor, I was not being humorous.
I am very pleased that you posed the problem
about my physics-paper. I want to delve deeply
into this before I give an answer. I have found
minor errors with the latter superscripts I have
typed into my physics-paper. Further, although
I have created superb revolutionary equations,
I believe that I can improve them due to pondering
upon the problem you have posed: The mass of the
observer does matter. Thanks! Please visit my Unified Physics .