by Joey Lawsin
The Grand Unified Theory, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, is a proposition that attempts to describe all fundamental forces and the relationships between elementary particles in terms of a single theoretical framework.
Although an attempt to unify these various fundamental forces is still ongoing; a theory similar to the GUT Theory known as the Law of Symmetrical Inversion or the Unified Force Equation is providing a solution on how to tackle this problem mathematically.
The Law of Symmetrical Inversion is a universal equation that was derived from the formula S = N². Based on cross-derivation, tabular matrix, and number generation, the formula for Symmetrical Inversion originated from the following results:
1. When 2 numbers are dualpaired, 4 new sets of numbers are generated, namely:
00-01-10-11.
2. When 3 numbers are dualpaired, 9 new sets of numbers are generated, namely:
00-01-02-10-11-12-20-21-22.
3. When 4 numbers are dualpaired, 16 new sets of numbers are generated, namely:
00-01-02-03-10-11-12-13-20-21-22-23-30-31-32-33.
As we continue to increase the numbers of dualpairing, the size of the new sets of numbers increases squarely as well. If we tabulate the numbers and arrange them accordingly where the letter N stands for the number of pairs and the letter S the new sets of generated numbers, then we can proportionally create a formula out of these two variables N and S. To do this, let us first tabulate the results:
N 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
S 4 9 16 25 36 48 64 81 100
From the table, we can say that when N doubles, S becomes four times greater. When N=3, S=9; which means when N doubles as in 3+3 or 6, then S is four times greater as in 9+9+9+9 or 36. On the other hand, if N is reduced to half, S is reduced to 1/4. In other words, if the initial Ni =10 and Si = 100, then the final Nf when reduced to half equals 10/2 or 5, and Sf when reduced to one-fourth becomes 100/4 or 25.
To simply derive the formula for Symmetrical Inversion:
1) S = N²
2) Si / Sf = Ni² / Nf²
3) Si Nf² = Ni² Sf
The Law of Symmetrical Inversion has some similarities with the Inverse Square Law. Other similar laws for Light, Gravity, Electricity, Sound, and Nuclear have been derived from this law as well. Obviously, since all these belong to the Family of Forces, all of them will have the same formula. Likewise, since weak force and strong force are also forces, then logically the formula for them will be the same. Combining them all into one unified formula will take us to the Grand Unified Theory or the Law of Symmetrical Inversion.
Since Light, Gravity, Weak, Strong, Electromagnetic, and Nuclear are all forces and Sir Isaac Newton formulated the equation Force = mass x acceleration, then all the inverse square laws for all these forces originated from Newton. Sir Newton was the pioneer who indirectly formulated the Grand Unified Theory until the Law of Symmetrical Inversion was directly associated with all these unified forces mnemonically dubbed as LGWSEN.
The Inverse Square Law for Light states that "The brightness or illumination of a light bulb decreases as it moves farther away from a surface. For Electricity, "The electric force between two charged bodies increases as their distance decreases. For Gravity, "The gravitation attraction between two masses decreases as their distance increases. This third law is called the Universal Gravitational discovered by Newton. The mathematical formula for gravitational force is Fg = Gm1m²/d² where G is a constant.
Since all equations have their own origin, it is just rational to say that Einstein's famous equation E = mc² was formulated based on previously existing equations as well. His well-known mass-energy equivalence formula actually originated from someone else ahead of his generation. The two notable original proponents of the equation were Sir Isaac Newton and Giovanni Coriolis. These two great scientists were the source of his formula.
Einstein never ever used complex scientific methodology in formulating E = mc². The famous equation: E = mc² was actually extracted from Newton's F= m x a and Coriolis’ W = F x d. By combining the two equations by dimensional analysis and by units of measurement, I figured out that the origin of the formula E = mc² can be derived using the following solutions:
FORMULA >>STATEMENT
W = F x D >>Eq1 – Coriolis equation
F = (M x A) >>Eq2 – Newton’s equation
W = (M x A) x D >>replace F from eq1 with eq2
W = (kg x m/s²) x m >>substitute dimensions w/units
W = (kg x m x m) / s² >>apply laws of exponents
W = ( kg x m² ) / s² >>( X)^A x (X)^B = (X)^A+B
W = kg x (m²/s²) >>combining
W = kg x (m/s)² >>simplifying
W = M x V². >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V
W = m x c². >>c = velocity of light, m=mass
E = m x c² >>since Work(W) = Energy(E)
The main objective of the GUT is all about consolidating the four known elementary Forces - gravity, electromagnetic, weak, and strong - into a single formula. The complete formulation of this unified equation is meticulously discussed in the book Originemology by Joey Lawsin.
Excerpt from Originemology:
Science can't exist without mathematics and logic. However, math and logical truth can exist without science. To prove that 1 + 1 = 2 needs neither science nor the scientific method. Compelling evidence that proves science has also limitations, a claim that belongs to one of the Humans Mental Handicaps. The equation 1+1 = 2 is simply a mathematical fact. The Pythagorean theorem thus likewise. Each doesn't need science to become a mathematical truth. Logic, on the other hand, doesn't need Science as well. If I argue that all dogs bark and all cats meow, I don't need science to prove that these statements are true since they are simply facts of life. A logical truth. Even the statement "if all birds can fly and my pencil can fly, then my pencil is a bird" is a valid logical truth per se. The examples suggest that science is not the only method that can be used to prove if everything is valid, true, or real. There are other ways to prove things without being scientific. One is true Mathematics.
The Paradox of the White Shadow:
1. If I introduce water in a garden hose as input, the water will come out at the other end of the hose as water. (water = water or input = output)
2. If I use marble as input and roll it inside a 12-foot plastic tube, it will exit at the other end of the tube as the same original marble (physical marble = physical marble or input = output).
3. When I speak the input word "hello" in a simple can-string telephone toy, the same word "hello" will come out as an output at the end of the other can. (abstract hello = abstract hello or input = output).
4. However, when I project a real house of my neighbor as an input into a pinhole on a cardboard, the output is not a physical house but a picture of the same house projected as an inverted abstract image on the wall. (the physical house is not equal to the abstract house or output or input != output).
How come in the fourth example, the output is totally different from the input?
Let us see how science explains this phenomenon and why its physics is wrong!
Why light bends or refracts when passing through a prism is because of the speed of light changes. The speed is slowed by the composition of the medium. A convex lens, like found in cameras, magnifying glasses, and the eyes, is a good medium used to focus the rays of the sun into a tiny single bright spot on paper. This spot is the focal point that creates the images in our pictures or photos.
To understand how a lens captures an image, let us use a lighted candle in a dark room and place a magnifying glass between the candle and the wall of the room. By moving the magnifying glass closer to and further away from the candle, a clear image of the candle will be projected on the wall. Notice that the abstract image is inverted, in full color, and in this case smaller than the physical candle. A lens forms a three-dimensional image of a three-dimensional object. However, some scientists argue that the projected abstract image on the wall is two-dimensional. This could not be true since our eyes are naturally inborn to see three-dimensional objects in the first place.
Secondly, if our eyes are made up of lenses, how come all the objects we see are not inverted images. Scientists contested that the brain accommodates these inverted images and makes them upright again. That's why we see all things in upright orientations. If their claims are true and correct, then let us go back again to our previous example found in number 4 and look at the inverted image.
An upright house when seen by the eyes directly is focused as an inverted image and mentally converted as an upright image inside the brain. This is scientifically proven by projecting the same upright house through a pinhole which produces a colored, inverted picture of the house on a wall. Now, here comes the inconsistency, why when you look directly at the inverted image of the house on the wall, your brain doesn't change it into an upright position? Or it does?
Oooppsss, the scenario is a diversification trick. A sophistry. There is nothing wrong with the physics of this model. However, physics ends here. I discovered the brain has its own natural inner intelligence separated from our brain. Proof that we are governed and created by natural laws (Theory of Viegenesis). It can detect consciously and solely decide when an object is inverted or upright whether we like it or not. Humans don't notice this natural inner intelligence. It makes its own "decision". So the Study of the Brain comes in next. And the paradox of the white shadow evolves. The "brain" within our brain, which can manipulate our "outer intelligence", is the intelligence that made the decision to invert the white shadow. It is NOT us. It's The LAW.
Here is another proof of scientific misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.
The Paradox of the Chromatic Particle Wylzan:
If everything that exists is made up of atomic particles and charged spaces, and every space is always made up of the smallest particle and the smallest space, the ultimate particle and space will, therefore, be an ad infinitum. The paradox of Particle (also known as the Lawsinium Particle)".
Scientists, specifically particle theorists, believe that atoms are shaped like points or dots. The idea of a dot, which can be represented by the outline of a circle or a sphere, has been conceptualized far back the ancient times. Even the model of electrons revolving around their nucleus can be traced back to the medieval idea about planets revolving around the sun. This ancient model has influenced the dogma of science until to this day that it is hard for scientists to pick the figure of a triangle, a square, or any polygon for this matter to represent an atom or a quark. Secondly, if they change the shape of the atom, every theory in science will become disorganized and its principles will become disoriented. And obviously, Physics will have to be rewritten all over again. So with all these premises at hand, we may now conclude that the shape of an atom is somewhat like a circle.
Now, before I present the paradox of particle, let me enumerate the five major questions about a particle:
1. Are there more particles smaller than the flavors of quarks that might be discovered in the future?
2. Are atoms shaped like circles, strings, triangles, or hexagons? We answered this already.
3. Are objects made up of matter and energy, matter only or energy only?
4. If matter is different from energy, then energy might be made up of particles totally different from matter's particles. If this is the case then is everything composed of two different particles?
5. Now, If matter and energy are one and the same, then everything is made up of only one particle. Or, is everything still made up of two particles?
If we represent the latest known smallest particles as circles and arrange them inside a rectangular area, a unit of three circles tangent to each other can be extracted and configured as shown in the illustration below. It is noticeable that an empty (blue) space is present at the center of the three (orange) circles in Figure A. The arctriangular space of the blue area is what I coined the arcDelta.
Here is another interesting question. If the smallest building blocks of matter exist, why can we not throw blue dyes or red paint on these objects for us to see their physical existence? In the first place, all matter is made up of the same smallest particles, space, and shape. The Paradox of Paints. LOL.
The Human Mental Handicaps:
And a more fascinating dilemma: "If science is not pseudo-science, why it cannot create a real bird exactly like a real bird in the lab." This human limitation provides us a piece of simple evidence that science is not really an exact science after all. Natural Laws don't permit this to happen. To find other human mental handicaps, please read some of my articles here on my website.
The complete mathematical and scientific explanations of the various paradoxes posted in this blog can be found in the articles "Lawsinium Paradox" and "Dimetrix" published by Joey Lawsin.
...
About the Author :
Joey Lawsin is the author of the Single Theory Of Everything who solved the Grand Unified Theory which Sir Isaac Newton unknowingly derived. He is the brain that wants to change the world by rewriting the textbooks with new concepts that debunk the old scientific, theological, and philosophical ideas of antiquity. He co-authored a book in Physics, created a synthetically engineered life form known as Autognorics, and conceived the theory of "Generated Emergence". The article "Unified Force Equation" is an excerpt from his book "Creation by Laws".
 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment