Already posted this one a few years ago. A lot has changed since then. At confrontations on fora the article bettered itself, I'm now satisfied that is is a rather coherent theory based on looking at the whole of what's been written. Since the article has bettered and changed a lot since my last post I thought it might be worth to repost a link to the article 'Metric Science'. The theory might be a bit out of the ordinary, in it's basic it is a non-symmetric string theory, with a few of it's practical consequences worked out in the article. To summarize the contents of the article: "In this article a particle is being presented that explains all known forces of nature. The particle has no dimensions, it is a dimensional basic particle. Hence it gets the following name: 'dimensional basic' (db) particle. The core of this discovery is that the separate fundamental forces of nature: - the strong interaction, the electromagnetic interaction, the weak interaction and the gravitational interaction - are calculatable with one formula out of one principle. The statistical math of the quantum theory is set aside in favor of a goniometric approach. Gravitation is the only force that matters and the strong force, the electromagnetic force and the weak force can be explained out of gravitation while gravity itself is only caused by the curvature of db's. The formula for the extent of curvature around a db is: sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) × Kr = 1. In the formula: x, y, z, are coordinates in spacetime [m], Kr = curvature [m^-1]." The title of the article is 'Metric Science', it is in .pdf format, and it can be downloaded from: https://www.vixra.org/pdf/2106.0155v1.pdf The article has not been peer-reviewed.

Orion68, Can you please show me how your theory reduces to approximately Newton's law of gravitation in the appropriate limit, or point me towards the relevant proof in your document?

A whole chapter is devoted to this subject, based on the following question of a reader we've tried to combine curvature and Newton's laws: Question: As you know gravitation could be considered in two different ways (Einsteins equivalence principle), like Newton "masses perform forces to each other" or like general relativity "masses warp space-time and masses move (free-falling) on geodesics in space-time". Do you think the curvature of db and photons and electrons you talk about, add additional curvatures (besides their masses) to space-time? Answer: In our view every single particle will add additional curvatures, always. We don’t speak about masses in this case. We tried to build a bridge between Einstein’s curvatures and the Newtonian gravitation laws. We did that in the chapter “Gravitation in relation to curvature”. We hope our effort makes sense. The point is: How to get the values (constant) we have to put into our formula? For this we had to use the known values on earth. As a result our formula gives an outcome that meets the outcome as calculated in the traditional Newtonian way. There is the possibility that we have a circle reasoning. But still it seems to make sense. The chapter is described on pages 7-12. The final following substitution (and what might more ore less answer your question): Newton's traditional formula for the calculation of the apparent weight of an object in peace is: W object = G * (m1 * m2 )/r^2 - (m2 * v^2)/r . Based on the formula for the curvature around a dimensional basic and after using various new variables and a few substitutions one comes that it translates to: W object = Se * (1/r) * E . (Both outcomes are in Newton).

Have you ever read the contents of the article itself instead of this summary? If yes: 'I don't understand your remark'. If no: In dutch there is a saying 'de beste stuurlui staan aan wal.'

Since the theory is regarded as pseudoscience and isn't taken seriously I thought I could as well paste my personal spiritual journey of the mind (probably leading to this theory) at the end of the article (written in dutch though). So for those who might be interested, the document 'Metric Science and Mono Ur' is downloadable at: https://metric.science Best regards!

Just stumbled on this interesting proposition. I want to address the concept itself in relation to another thread. Excerpt: It might accidentally prove consciousness itself? Mind, I am not advocating creationism inasmuch as I believe that a dynamic mathematical field itself possesses a form of quasi-intelligence and the fundamental logical state from which "consciousness" might be emerging and evolving. Penrose as an eminent mathematician made an observation that took me totally by surprise: "Consciousness does not emerge from physics, but physics emerge from consciousness" I am certain he did not mean any religious implication, but a more mundane generalized interpretation of "consciousness" inherent in the quantum realm. Then I recall the musings of other great minds who all describe the same phenomenon from different perspectives. I keep thinking of Bohm's "Implicate Order" which describes a probable "expectation" of a possible future event. Then Lorentz develops "Chaos Theory" which predicts "regular patterns" to emerge from dynamical chaos. Then Maxwell, Einstein, and Higgs develop "Field Theory" where physics emerge from a dynamical state of mathematical equations. Then Tegmark proposes a "Mathematical Universe" and the dynamical deterministic "interaction" of relational values. expected value noun Definition of expected value What do all these intersecting perspectives suggest? Is consciousness just another dimension of spacetime? An inherent expectation of future probabilities?

Why should you care? As you keenly observed it is a dead thread so there is no hijack involved. Hijack is only of live threads. Can't hijack a corpse. You are now hijacking a live thread,. Reported!!

Moderator note: Write4U has been warned for spamming a pet theory to yet another thread where it is completely off topic. Due to accumulated warning points, Write4U will be taking some time out from sciforums.

For an easy read on the basics of the theory the webpage https://metric.science/metricscience.php?page=resume has been created.

Thanks for the occasional reply. Guess the 'bridge too far' is imagining a particle with an infinite curvature. Most people stop reading at that point, as you did probably (if ever read at all), otherwise your reply could be different.

PS. The final version of the article 'Metric Science', now named 'About Dark Matter and the Nature of Elementary Particles' has been published on https://www.vixra.org/abs/2106.0155 .