Saturday, 13 April 2013

Answers to questions about my book part 1

I recieved some questions regarding my book and my theory and so I am posting them here.

Hello alan. let me just start by asking that the photon field expansion that u speak of causing black holes in spaces (nothing), have u ever taken or considered relativistic phenomena that concerns with photons (those having a velocity that no object can physically reach)

Hi, First let me say that I appreciate your interest in my work. I am not fully satisfied with it and I believe I have a few typographical errors. It could be much better and I believe that if someone takes the time to fill in the missing parts that a good solid theory will develop: possibly a theory to change the face of science. I spent many years working on this theory that I know appears very simplistic. I have read a huge volume of books, theories and other sources.

I have of course considered relativity, string theories (so many of them) as well as multiple dimensions, alternate worlds and just about everything else. I have struggled thru some of the most complex theories to some of the most bizarre. I believe that the simplest explanation is usually the best.

To begin with please understand that one of my main points I am trying to make is that words and how scientists use them are the main problems with linking relativity with other theories such as quantum mechanics. Newton's second law of motion says Force is equal to Mass times Acceleration. It is represented by F = M x A. So if we say that if a mass of 1 kilo is lifted at 2 feet per second then it takes x amount of force. For the purposes of engineering this is a perfect formula that has good use.

Scientists then say that because it takes x amount of force to lift this 1 kilo 2 feet per second that we therefore have a “force” acting upon the mass. Scientists then applied this concept of force to everything. For the most part it serves well. There is a major problem with using the term force. If we are studying physics, especially gravity then we have to look at things without including human interaction. Put simply, the kilo of mass is not going to move unless it enters into a state of disequilibrium.  Notice I didn’t use the word force as Newton would have.

We can easily link every scientific theory together in terms of equilibrium, disequilibrium and transitory states between the two. We can link gravity with the strong, weak and electromagnetic “forces” by simply stating that they are all merely different forms of equilibrium or disequilibrium. Working upon this we look at gravity as merely a form of dis/equilibrium. A rock lying on the Earth is in a state of equilibrium. A mass falling towards Earth is in a state of disequilibrium until it lands into a state of equilibrium.

If we theorize the concept of a black hole in terms of “gravitational force” we end up unable to really explain the possibility of such a phenomenon unless we start theorizing other more complex states or theories. If however we look at a hypothetical black hole as merely a form of equilibrium or disequilibrium then the concept can be understood so much better.

If we read a theory that postulates an “infinite” mass (with infinite gravity) then we end up with nothing but paradoxes. A mass with infinite gravity would be a mass that would have to be infinite in size. It is a common hypothesis that I just dismiss as being un-workable. It just doesn’t make sense. If we accept that while there are photons all around us and there are parts of the universe that have no photons then the idea of photons “falling” into this hole in space as some would say makes much more sense.

The Morley-Mitchelson experiment is the biggest reason for most current day views including relativity. What MM do not account for in their experiment is the fact that the photons that surround us are actually the “aether” that they were trying to detect. The photons around us have to be the Aether or medium that transmits “information” such as light and radio vibrations.

I could go into more detail but I am not sure what you want me to answer. Please try this for a while. Look up any theory that contains the term “force” and substitute force for equilibrium or disequilibrium depending on the case. Try to ignore theories that involve consciousness. Stick to looking at scientific theories that look at pure chemical and physical reactions or phenomena. Pretend life does not exist. Do not concern yourself with what an observer would see but rather what actually does happen. Einstein said he thought of relativity when he wondered what things would look like if he travelled at the speed of light. It is a very good question. The answer of course is that it is a hypothetical question to an impossible situation.

Einstein could never connect relativity with the other theories. To me it was simply because he was using the word force incorrectly and like MM he assumed that there was no Aether and failed to recognize that the photons around us are the Aether. 

I like your concept of equilibrium and disequilibrium, especially the way you have explained things with it. However my question was whether the disequilibrium in space (nothing) that you have pointed out, which you say might be the reason for the formation of this universe, do think the photon distribution that you speak of having gone on expand and has resulted in blackholes, requires a relativistic explanation as it concerns photon field and not the classical viewpoint of the field's expansion only? And I also have a thing to say about GUT after this

As far as any theory of how the universe formed I am going on the general agreement that the universe is expanding and supposedly came from an explosion of some sort. A big bang as they say. It is impossible to actually prove what exactly occurred because we always have the  “what happened before that” question. It is very possible that the universe expands, collapses and then smashes and expands again. We have the paradox of how can space end and yet how can it go on forever, hence the spear thrower analogy I have mentioned in the book.
I am not exactly sure what you are asking but I will make a guess. Einstein’s theories are based on things such as mass distorting space. Einstein assumes Morley Mitchelson was correct and that no Aether exists. If we take his theories and say that his concept of space is actually the photon field then we can appreciate his formulas more and they in fact make more sense. Instead of trying to visualize an empty space being distorted all we need to do is visualize that all of the photons that surround us are what gets distorted by mass.
If you look at the commonly known photo of a planet such as Earth or the Sun sitting on a rubber mat that has a grid on it you see that the grid is distorted supposedly because the mass distorts the “space” around it in the same manner. It is an excellent representation. If we assume that the distortion is of space and not of any aether or in my view the photon field then we have a huge number of paradoxes and inconsistencies that we are forced to answer. Einstein answered these of course with relativity and at the time the greatest minds objected but they couldn’t explain for MM experiment. Einstein was a very good mathematician but not the greatest one. In his theory of space being warped he forgot that you cannot divide by zero or nothing. You can only add to it. You cannot distort nothing.
Relativity says that nothing can travel faster than light. What this means is that disequilibrium cannot travel faster than the value c as we understand it to be. I say as we understand it to be because it is entirely possible that at the point of a big bang everything could have originally expanded at a rate faster than c. Expansion of the Universe would have been a simple matter of disequilibrium. It is no different from any other discussion on thermodynamics. Heat moves from a higher value to a lower one until a mean is achieved. In the same way a mass that is surrounded by “nothing” it is in a state of equilibrium within itself but in an extreme state of disequilibrium with its surroundings. At some point the mass expands to fill in the nothing. It expands according to the laws of thermodynamics. Are there relativistic phenomena during the expansion to a human viwer? Of course.
As the universe is expanding the laws of inertia would dictate. In other words the direction of travel outward would be maintained until some other factor came into play. Some say it expands and collapses while others say the expansion will go on until there is true heat death. For the purposes of your question I say that as the universe expands more and more mass turns into pure energy in the form of photons.  Understand I am leaving out stars “dissolving” into atoms etc but I am sure you can imagine the process. As the universe expands the density of the photon field remains pretty much constant as long as you have stars producing more photons that fill in the gaps as we say.
The distribution of stars will of course not be uniform throughout the universe. Because of this as the universe expands there will be areas where the photon field density is thinner than in other areas. We can therefore go on to assume that in some areas there will become spaces of such a low density of photons that any photons traveling into the area  become stuck there simply because they fill in a purely empty space to meet the laws of thermodynamics and equilibrium. Light waves would not penetrate this area but because of the pull of this empty space on its surroundings the effects that it has is equivalent in concept but much stronger than a huge mass. Light waves from distant objects would be distorted around it in the same manner as if it were a huge planet or mass.
There would be an accretion disc around the black holes because once matter or photons reached the edge of the “nothing” there would be at some point a balance between the expanding universe and the “nothing”. Keep in mind that in this area of space there is a condition in which stars are not present to fill in the gaps made by the expanding universe.
Do you understand the concept of oscillational essence that I have made in the book to replace time as a fourth dimension? I think that the debate between classical and relativistic is a debate that came into existence because of the results of the Morley-Mitchelson experiment that failed to understand that the photons that surround us are in fact the Aether or medium that transmits disequilibrium in the form of radio and light waves. Einstien’s concepts of space just need to be replaced with the concept of a photon field “aether” and then it is so much easier to understand what is really going on and how relativity applies to classical explanations.

Tuesday, 19 February 2013


Tools for Creating Artifacts
1. Facebook Interaction Tracker-
2. Timeline-
3. Scoopit- (Laurie Niestrath)
4. Tiki-Toki Timeline - (HB Hessler)
5. Diigo - (Rick Bartlett) (Laaurie Niestrath)
6. Pinterest - (Ary Aranguiz)
7. Glogster -
8. Youtube-
9. Ustream -
11.Mixbook -
12. Storify-
13. New Hive -
14. Slideshare-
15. WebDoc-
16. BlogTalkRadio-
17. Knovio-
18. Google Hangouts - record your hangouts
19. Prezi - (Laurie Niestrath)
20. Voicethread- (Ary Aranguiz)
21. Photostory- (Laurie Niestrath)
22. Thinglink - (Kay Oddone)
23. Animoto -
24. Piktochart -
25. Wix - (Jono Purdy)
26. Popplet - (Jono Purdy)
27. Animaps - (Jono Purdy)
28. Museum Box - (Jono Purdy)
29. Sqworl - (Jono Purdy)
30. Popcorn Maker - (Jono Purdy)
31. Ipiccy - (Anne Robertson)
32. Sketchguru - free android app (Anne Robertson)
33. Picmonkey - (Marina Shemesh)
34. Wordle - (create word clouds) (Marina Shemesh)
35. Adobe Captivate - (authoring tool) (Madhura Pradhan)
36. Articulate Suite - (authoring tool) (Madhura
37. Storybird - (Cristina Silva)
38. ImageChef - (Cristina Silva)
39. Dipity - (Cristina Silva)
40. Livebinders (Eileen Lawlor)
41. Videoscribe: (Angela Towndrow)
42. PearlTrees: (Cathleen Nardi
43. SlideRocket-  (Annie Oosterwyk)
44. Meograph- / (Annie Oosterwyk)
45. Wallwisher: (Ora Baumgarten)
46. Organize anything, together ! ( gianni buspo)
47. Mahara (Linda Pospisilova)
48. Jing (Kay Oddone) - Screen capture and screen casting tool - great for creating tutorials!
49. Zondle - great for creating games for learning
50. Skitch - annotating tool - part of Evernote.
51. Educreations - voice-based presentation tool (Anna Conway)
52. SKYPE - real time face to face contact - (Figen Gulenay)
52. Piktochart - tool for creating infographics (Marina Shemesh)
53. - tool for creating infographics (Marina Shemesh)
54. tool for creating infographics (Marina Shemesh)
55. - site with great free photos (also for commercial use) (Marina Shemesh

Sunday, 27 January 2013

Are blogs worth the time.

I love to write. I wrote a book. I'm always thinking of things to write about when I'm not reading some one elses book or post. Ive had this blog now for a few weeks, not many. I wonder if it is even worth the effort. I've looked at some other blogs and even the few that I have really liked seemed to have no followers, no comments, just heartfelt words languishing in obsurity on the web. In some ways it is a depressing thought. People with some genuinely great things to say but no audience to listen because they are too busy writing instead of promting themselves.
I won't lie. My main reason for starting up this blog was to promote my book and my theory and hopefully change the world of science while hopefully paying off the bills. I have found that if I look at the top of my blog there is a little button that says next blog. I hit it often but for some reasone it only allows me to see a few blogs before I end up stuck at some internet dead end. Most of the blogs I get have nothing to do with my subject matter. One blog i keep meaning to revisit is NOT DEAD YET!  
Sounds like a great name for a blog.Ther's another one called Mifune's ghost. A few hundred posts by a struggling screen writer whi is battling alcoholism. His posts go on for several years and then end in 2010 without another single word and I wonder what may have happened to him. I wonder if he is still alive. So tell me if anyone is reading this right now I wasting my time?

Sunday, 20 January 2013

Promoting a book.

In all of the years I was researching and writing my book, I never put much time into researching self publishing or self promotion. To me that would have been like putting the cart before the horse. I'm learning fast now on how to do this. I've produced a short little animated video using
Storytelling | Xtranormal.
It was basically free for the first video. I took it and then edited it in MS Movie Maker. I've put the link to the video on my Smashwords page and on my facebook page. I came up with "Sand Dancer Publishing" and created a facebook page for it as well. Here's that link.  Sand-Dancer-Publishing

In case anyone is wondering why I chose the name Sand Dancer it is because anyone who is from South Shields, England is referred to as a Sand Dancer. My wife is one. Me I'm a "scouser": someone born in Liverpool, but that's a whole different story. If you can check out my little video and the facebook and if you have any ideas for me on further promotional ideas, feel free to let me know.

Thursday, 17 January 2013

What is a force?

What if you could answer every question in science by simply changing how you use words to describe your findings? What if the biggest problem confronting science today was the lack of attention to the terminology that scientists use? That the point that I hope I am making in my book. most people assume that all scientists are intelligent and educated enough to express themselves thru language. No one ever thinks to analyze the use of some common every day terms such as "force" or "dis-order".
These two terms are so well known that no one except for maybe lawyers have ever had to sit down and analyze them in different contexts. The word force is defined as any influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change, either concerning its movement, direction, or geometrical construction. Sounds cut and dried doesn't it? But what exactly is meant by influence when we are talking about gravitational force? Or how about the strong force that holds atoms together? This is where things get confusing.
When we look at an atom or at gravity we are hard pressed to define what the influence is. Force is a great word when we are talking about mechanics or some human activity but not when we are discussing a force that has no apparent influence but supposedly just exists.
The answer is quite simple though. All forces are actually different forms of equilibrium and dis-equilibrium. An atom stay's together because it is in a state of equilibrium. When we use the words equilibrium and dis-equilibrium we can suddenly do what science has been trying to do for centuries. We can link every force imaginable together. All forces are merely different forms of equilibrium and dis-equilibrium.
Until my next post ask yourself this. Does disorder exist in physics or is it merely an opinion?

Friday, 11 January 2013

Google, languages, and books

Yesterday, thanks to the geeks at Google I was able to translate my book into Spanish. Estado del Verde Dinamica.I know some Spanish but not alot. With a Spanish last name and relatives from Salamanca, Spain you would think I would be halfway fluent in it. I unfortunately have a condition known as wantstoknowitall. Some people have called me a knowitall but at best I'm just a wanna be knowitall. My condition which is fuelled by my ADD causes me to want to learn everything. And so all my life I've wanted to learn every language possible. Considering I am one of those who goes to the kitchen for a coke and comes back with a napkin it hasn't been easy for me to learn much of any language. I am very knowledgeable of linguistics and spell checkers have made me very lazy.  Between calculators and spellcheckers and Google's instant translators I just cannot get too motivated to learn advanced math, new languages or spelling big words.
Some people would think that by relying to much on technology that we will all become dumber. I disagree. I love to learn but there are just too many subjects that are a waste of time. I've written a book that I believe can and one day will change the face of science. It doesn't contain a lot of big words or mathematical equations. It doesn't have to.
 By the time you read this my book will be translated into another language at the rate of hopefully 1 to 2 languages a day. Google translator will help me to do this. There's no doubt in my mind that each translation will have grammatical and spelling errors which is why each foreign language edition will be free until the issues are resolved. Readers will be encouraged to help in translating in exchange for credit. My theory will be able to spread while at the same time promoting my ideas in every language possible. My one book will have a target audience of over 6 billion people. It will even be available in hieroglyphics, Latin, Chinese, Cherokee and Esperanto. Green State Dynamics may not become a household phrase but if you want to read about it you won't have to worry about learning a new language thanks to Google. Now let me run this threw the spellchecker so I can post it :)

Wednesday, 9 January 2013

Science and religion

In an effort to publicise my book I've taken my publishers advice to join mor eonline discussion groups that relate to the topic of my book. Because my book is a theory of everything I'm not short on ideas of which groups to join. One group i chose to join on facebook is the Global Secular Humanist Movement. It seemed like the perfect place to meet scientists or atleast scientific minded people. After just a few days I am simply not impressed with the sites administrator and neither are many others. It just seems as though religious fanatics and atheistic fanatics all seem to have a know it all mean streak in them. You cannot overlook their "Your an idiot because you don't see things my way" attitude.
Hard core atheists always seem to be people who are just angry at life. Don't get me wrong. I roll my eyes and bite my tongue when I hear someone trying to tell me that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that the bible must be taken to be 100% true. To say that the story of Job or Jonah is not metaphorical and intended to be inspirational just doesn't fly with me. But equally so is the assertion that consciousness can not exist absent a body. I'm not saying God but rather stressing consciousness.
String theorists get all excited if you ask them about multiple dimensions. They are not sure how many there supposedly are but their mathematical formulas swear that they exist. In a sense they are just as religious as any Christian or Muslim. I guess one reason why people believe in God is because no one can even remotely answer the question of how everything began or why anything even exists. Our existence is a paradox in itself. We are like a 5 year old who says "why" when told "it all started with a big bang".
Instead of thinking of consciousness residing in a brain I ask myself if there is consciousness in a single celled animal with no brain. Look at any videos of a sperm in fluid and it somehow swims towards an egg and fertilizes it with no brain. Nothing but DNA and fluid. So tell me, is there consciousness in DNA? There sure is something and if consciousness can exist in a fluid or DNA then you have to wonder. Atleast I do.

Tuesday, 8 January 2013

Steven Hawking's Birthday

Today is Steven Hawking's birthday. Ive read all of his books. He's the most famous scientist alive today and I disagree with him on many things. This would make it seem as though I must not have a clue but lets take one example of Hawking's flaws when it comes to reasoning. When asked if time travel, that is traveling back in time were possible, Hawkings replied that because no one has visited us from the future that this is evidence that it is not possible. Perhaps he was just being coy, dismissive or patronizing. Who knows. The answer though is as silly as the question and very incorrectly reasoned.
Hawkings should have said that the idea of traveling back in time is silly and should be confined to science fiction stories. After all the concept of traveing back in time violates every rule of cause and effect not to mention conservation of energy, the impossibility of multiple universes existing much less existing similtaneously in an infinite number of possibilities.Instead he said something that awed the easily amazed. 
Let's assume that time travel is possible. This would mean that if we believed Hawking's explanation then we would have to assume that there is no beginning to time and that everything has already been played out. By this I mean, if time travel were possible then it would become possible the day it were discovered. Only after this point in time would someone be able to return to the past. If we all exist in the present and we discover a time machine then and only then could we go back to earlier versions of ourselves. This of course is just fantasy as if there were a past to go back to then that would mean the big bang would be re-occuring every milisecond and that everything you did would be repeating itself infinitely in aninfinite number of dimensions.
Hawking's didn't say that though and if you take the time to read all of his writings and theories you will find an excellent mathematical mind that, like his physical body, cannot explain correct answers to his correct mathematical results. Black holes? They are areas in space that have a lack of photons which is why the temperature of them are 0 degrees Kelvin. Simple answer but one that Hawkings seem to be unable to fathom. Happy Birthday Professor Hawking's, perhaps you are celebrating this day in an infinite number of dimensions. I doubt it. What do you think?

Sunday, 6 January 2013

Brian Greene is a string theorist who is now holding the teaching position once held by Stephen Hawkins. Greene is a very smart man when it comes to complex mathematical ideas. I bought the book he wrote called "The Elegant Universe". I searched all over for it because some reporter who in hindsite knew nothing about string theory hyped up the book as a solution to the search for a "final unified theory that explained everything". I was sadly disappointed. Nothing is elegant about string theory even if you take the time to understand it.
To me if you are a world famous scientist and you write a book you should never start off by paroting a very illogical stance no matter how accepted it is. If you start off with an explanation of the Earth being flat and then go into that stance being above reproach then your credibility is shot by those who know better. No Greene didn't say the Earth was flat but he did say that eveything seeks disorder and that disorder is called entropy. Let's be clear about something; there is no such thing as disorder. Everything happens for a reason.
Greene used an example of a room that is all nice and tidy. Books and papers and furniture all in order. He says that left alone the room can only go into more and more disorder. This is hardly true in a scientific sense. Disorder is an opinion not a physical condition that occurs on it's own. No matter what happens in the room the laws of physics and chemistry will apply. I'm sure that Green understands this but it is not a minor point. everything seeks equilibrium. Everything. Inorganic matter will always seek the lowest level of  equilibrium while consciousness will always seek the highest level of equilibrium that it perceives as beneficial to it. Watch Brian Greene on talk about string theory

Saturday, 5 January 2013

I love TED. No TED isn't a person. It's a web site full of educational videos at "Ideas worth spreading" is in big print at the top and true to its promise the site has a lot of people with a lot of different ideas. Some of them are real eye openers. Some are by people who ared the most educated people on the planet who unfortunately don't have a clue. I watched on of these people the other day on string theory. .
If you watch it don't worry if you don't understand it because the scientist who proposed the Higg's boson particle, which is the topic of this video, said himself that he has no clue what the discovery of the particle would mean.

Now the reason why i think that this string theorist doesn't have a clue is becausetheir theories (and there are many string theories) just don't make any sense even to those who understand them. There is nothing elegant about them.They rely on different numbers of imaginary unproven dimensions and most importantly they never mention where equilibrium plays into any of there computations. Now you can use a multibillion dollar particle accelerator all day long as they do to smash particles but no matter how pretty or accurate your data is, it is nothing more than data from a man made event. There are no particle smashers in nature. These scientists smash together particles using up enormous amounts of man made energy and then they expect the world to get all excited when they claim that they discovered some particle that has a "life" of less than 1 quintillionth of a second.
How anyone can take this seriously is beyond reason. More tomorrow.

Thursday, 3 January 2013

Introducing Green State Dynamics

So here I am with my very own first blog site hoping to promote my new book  "Green State Dynamics". The name of the book is the name of the theory that I have developed after years of studying and research. I'm very proud of what I have came up with and I believe that my theory is the simplest explanation of everything all wrapped up into one tidy theory. Ill introduce my theory tomorrow. if anyone is reading this right now and is even slightly interested, I'll give you a hint. Take any book on physics and wherever you see the word "force" change it to the word disequilibrium and see what you get. if you have to change the other words too, thats fine but use the word disequilibrium instead of the word force. After all what does the word force really mean? Does an atom really have a force? Or does it have an equilibrium or disequilibrium?