Found in 9 comments on Hacker News
poelzi · 2019-10-31 · Original thread
This one:

Never could have come up with such a brilliant theory, took me a year to understand it. Now I understand 137 ^^

poelzi · 2018-03-29 · Original thread
One thing I can say for certain: I could have never come up with this model. I'm merely a student of it and so far, it was not contradicted like most other models I encountered so far. Models that are not falsifiable, like string theory go directly to the trash bin for me.

Secondly, I know for absolute certainty that most models we believe in, are wrong if you take the combined perceptive into account. There are nutjobs out there how actually believe there is a difference between physics, chemistry and astrophysics. Every model that has paradoxes must have errors.

So, please, falsify it for me, I take logical or mathematical arguments as well as publicly accepted measurements interpreted under this model. Everything else is just bullshit. Just because many people believe something does not make it right, in fact history has shown the opposite (if it concerns natural sciences).

This is the only more or less complete description of the model, if you think it's to expensive, and still want to falsify it (please do), I can give you a pdf. Take into account that you will need a year or so to really grasp it, it's a thick book with quite dense content.

poelzi · 2016-09-17 · Original thread
For those who do not care about paradigms and use the Solomonoff induction (Occam's razor) and falsification as a guiding principle:

After carefully checking basic assumptions made long ago against newer research, als well as using a different interpretation of the measured effect - you can build up a fully deterministic and logical model compatible with GR, SR while also explaining quantum mechanical effects and cosmology.

I take falsification very seriously - if there are multiple unexplainable phenomena or different measurements contradicting a theory, it's of the table for me and I don't care if the rest of the world still believes in it. History has shown that theories die slowly despite contradictory evidence. Secondly, nature does not care about the artificial borders in science we humans create - there is exactly zero difference between quantum mechanical world, chemistry, classical physical objects and cosmology - there is only physics. Every proposed theory must also be paradox free - paradoxes should make your internal alarm ring that something is wrong and should never be ignored.

Now the fun fact: We already have a unified theory that only requires the most minimal and logical assumptions you can possible do. But as it breaks many beloved paradigms and is obviously not a weekend read as every complete physical model is at least very complex - it is not even discussed in contemporary physics. The name of the model is: "Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory" by Dr. Stoyan Sarg.

There are some papers about this theory, but I have to say, when I started with them, I did not really understand it well from them. I got some raw picture, but no real understand of the model - the large book is the only source for this model - unfortunately.

When I explain this model these days, I usually take a different order and explain many parts of Chapter 12 right at the beginning. How those fundamental particles crystallize into higher structures that later build up protons/neutrons/electrons/... is one of the most beautiful processes I have ever understood and actually so simple once understood. So I usually start there now and then explain the CL space, electrons, protons/neutrons and then some chemical topics.

My perspective changed quite dramatically while understanding this model. The world is now so much more complex and much much deeper then the standard model. In fact, the standard model and even quantum electrodynamics now look like very rough approximations. To give you a perspective, a electron has easily 2.44e+19 fundamental particles with very complex arrangement (the very exact number unknown due some missing facts not yet determinable. There is a partially finite recursive process involved those depth is not clear yet, only the minimum depth is clear.

I asked many scientists about this theory, my old physics professors, famous ones, local ones - also those who clearly state that something in our current understand must be wrong. Sad truth is, they either don't know the model or simply don't care.

So far, I have not found anything wrong with this model. Apart from the many typos and sometimes a index error that you can easily spot, I only stumbled upon one equation so far that I don't understand or is wrong - can't say yet. But this would in the worst case, only change the distances between two neutrons in tritium and that can't cause larger problems with the model itself.

For those open minded people that have a deep interest in a true revolutionary model, read this book. If I could only have one book, that's the one I will pick ;)

poelzi · 2016-05-28 · Original thread
You pulling most out of context. The theory is here:

Most of your points are taken out of context. If you don't understand the model, they don't make much sense.

First this are the basic assumptions:

- 3 dimensional eucledian space without physical properties

- 2 types of very small fundamental particels. Basically balls that are indestructible and vibrate

- 1 law of attraction valid in empty space. F_sg = G_0 * (m1*m2)/r^3. Which makes logical sense in our 3 dimensions. - classical logic

>> The energy is inseparable attribute of the matter.

You don't understand the difference between Newtonian mass and matter in this model. Newtownian mass is a derived effect of all high level structures that are impassible by CL space - eg. a certain size.

>> The Bohr atomic model is a correct mathematical model when assuming that the space is void.

After certain constants from the standard model are derived, eg. chapter 2,3,5,6 you can put up a mathematical model that is like the Bohr one, but this is not what the BSM model actually shows. Once you understand the geometric structure of protons/neutrons/electrons you will understand that even quantum mechanics is very close to the Bohr model compared to the BSM one.

>> The intrinsic matter could never disappear.

Yes. It would violate the energy conservation and it has been shown that this is the golden rule. As said mass != matter !!!!

>> The vacuum is not a void space, but contains a unique grid structure. This grid structure named a Cosmic Lattice (CL) is built by two types of alternatively arranged nodes, each one containing 4 sub-elementary particles with shape of six sided prisms.

It becomes obvious once a super massive black hole is understood, how a crystalization process will first create those complex formed prisms with it's substructures and later high level structures like protons/neutrons/electrons. Unfortunately apart from one type of GRBs as the last signature of the process, it is mostly hidden from observation due physical reasons.

> The Newton’s gravitation (universal gravitational law) is a propagation of the IG field in CL space

So, you neigher will be able to understand CL space nor the IG field by now and the first thing you cry is crackpottery.

> Even if you're not a physicist, you can see what kind of a "scientist" he is by checking his publication history (0 papers in any respectable physics journal).

you are very bad at searching I have to say.

Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics

Annales Geophysicae

Indian Journal of Physics

Canadian Journal of Physics

Applied Optics

Physics Essays

Advances in Space Research

Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering


To deduce a complete new model, you need to have a look in all areas of physics/chemistry and not just at one, especially theoretical ones. And you need to read a lot of papers and especially the ones that contradict the status quo.

And yes, the model explains much more then the standard model through fewer assumptions. Most of your "constants" are just derived.

poelzi · 2016-03-30 · Original thread
Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory by Dr. Stoyan Sarg.

Uses the most minimal basic assumptions and fits experimental data very well. Of course, the book analyzes many parts simplified, therefor small differences to the observed values.

We have a long term plan to implement a numeric simulator to get better values and check the model in more details. Also, there are some questions that can't be answered otherwise - but those are corner cases in the universe (merger of anti-matter galaxy with matter one - the result is different in this model)

poelzi · 2016-02-24 · Original thread
From the BSM-SG perspective it's very clear what it is:

2.9.6.B Fine structure constant as embedded feature of the twisted prisms

12.A.5.3. Hypothesis of embedded fine structure constant in the lower level structures of matter organization

It gets derived later to: α_c = 2 ⁄ [ ( n^2 + 2/2 )^1⁄2 + n ] = 7.29735194 × 10–3

where n =137 results in a very accurate value of α. It is important to understand that the fine matter constant has it's origin in a geometrical organization of the prisms. A very low level building block of matter in the BSM-SG model. It is 1/6th the size of a neutrino (neutral or positive flavor) - those 2 neutrinos are composed of 6 prisms of either large or small prisms an rectangular geometry j but the prisms is itself a very large structure compared with the ultimate building blocks, the fundamental particles.

The prism itself is quite complex in it's internal structure but there is a very logical explanation for its existence. On the first level of organization or you could see it as the first crystallized structure is the Primary Tetrahedron. You basically take a bunch of Fundamental Particles - just very, very small balls, and create a tetrahedron with same length sides out of it.

Very simplified explanation: This tetrahedron has a very complex vibrational mode - like every layer of our physical world. You end up basically with 2 overlaying vibrational modes, where you need n cycles of the small cycle to result in one cycle of the larger one. Alpha is the Energy relation of those cycles. Through alpha, you end up with 2 Energies in the prims, CP and TP.

Alpha is very fascinating feature as it is basically the driving force of most of the complex behavior of nature, it is everywhere in the BSM-SG model.

Funny side-node: In the BSM model, the cosmological redshift is not of Doppler kind (also no space expansion) and you can find the fine matter constant in the periodicity of the red-shift.

Please note, that you have to do a proper Doppler correction in the BSM model if you measure galaxies. It also explains the Lyman-Alpha-Forest phenomena very well.

From the standard model perspective: I have no clue what it could be, like most constants.

poelzi · 2015-12-21 · Original thread
I studied philosophy and physics and was really shocked how little the "philosophy of science" most scientists know.

The question of: "what is true" is NOT so easy as most people think. It is in fact a damn hard question and depends on the basic axioms you accept. First you need a logic, and there are many logics out there, classical logic and mathematical logic as one of the most accepted ones. Classical logic as humanly understandable is for example much more accepted in philosophy then the mathematical one, because it is much more stricter.

This question was also part of physics in the till 1920s but basically got forgotten there and the blind accepted of mathematical logic due QM became standard. Blind, because this is not a questions young physicists get confronted with.

Every good physicist was also a philosopher, simply, you can't separate those. You can't build a physical model without basic assumptions. You have to at least assume there is "stuff" of some sort, you have to assume there are dimensions of some sort.

Roughly a year ago, I stumbled about the BSM-SG model from Dr. Stoyan Sarg.

I got intrigued, it only needs 2 fundamental particles, 3 Euclidean dimensions and one law of attraction. As a philosopher I heart was instantly: WOW, I have to give it a try. Never could accept more the 3 dimensions due thought experiments into lower ones.

I really spend month thinking about this theory, pah, once I had to take holidays from work because I could not think about anything else ;) And then I clicked and everything started to make sense, really everything. Each quantum effect, general relativity, atoms, spectral lines, like everything. In fact, once you understand the crystallization process of a galaxy, how such complex structures like protons, neutrons and electrons come to be.

It is funny to have an answer to this super old philosophical question: why, why this complex world. Because it is bound to be. Enough fundamental particles, and those bulks are bound to be, they crystallize in a quite complex but simple process into protoneutrons (protons/neutrons) & electrons that are bound to build a stable galaxy. The laws inside a galaxy are always stable and behave the same with matter made from the same galaxy.

(There is a corner case but i highly irregular one).

Anyway, I started to promote this model because nobody else seems to. Started a non profit for it etc. I knew that promoting alternative physical models gets strong opposition compared to all other sciences, but knowing what bad assumptions are in the Standard Model I just laugh silently about their ignorance.

This hole understanding made me personally much more critical. I tend to distrust everything that requires mathematical logic - when I have a physical model that requires only classical one, why should anything else in nature be true when not. I look much more openly at fringe sciences, the explanaitions make usually no sense for me now, I understand the process is quite fast tho.

Btw, pulsars are not so hard to understand: Chapter 12.B.6.4 but you need to understand chapter 1,2,3,6 at least, otherwise it will not make any sense.

poelzi · 2015-11-26 · Original thread
There is a more detailed paper about it:

I don't expect you to understand, took me month before it clicked and started to make sense. In fact, at some point I had to take a week off because I was so into the theory, I could not think about my dayjob ;)

Currently the main book is the only way to understand the theory more deeply, but one of our projects is, to do a video series explaining the model in a simple way. As a scientists, you will need the book until somebody writes a comprehensive one as well.

The papers helped me to get into the theory, but real deep understanding is not possible from them.

What you see in the atlas are the proton and their geometric structure as they grow. These are not electrons ! There are some electrons drawn in on the H atom to show some of the different energy states.

You seem to be acquainted in physics, so, whats your explanation for our well tuned universe. The number of basic constants in the standard model is so high and simulations have shown, that small changes cause an unstable universe. In the BSM-SG model, all those constants and relations are derived. In fact, after some month you understand this: the fundamental growth principle and the geometric configuration nearly always lead to stable atomic structures and galaxies as we know them.

(There are some open questions and there is the possibility that when a matter - antimatter galaxies collide, some unstable galaxy could result. Maybe ill-formed galaxies are an result of such mergers).

Anyway, if somebody gives me a theory that is self stabilizing, derives all constants with very high rescission, fits so well to observed data and uses only 3 dimensional euclidean space. 1 fundamental force and 2 fundamental particles. Sorry, this is just the better theory.

Many people are not firm with logic and only know mathematical logic. Every logic is based on different fundamental assumptions, this is something you have to believe in for a logic to have a truth value for you. Classical logic is simply stricter then mathematical logic and has therefor a higher truth value.

In classical logic this you can't do:

poelzi · 2015-11-12 · Original thread
Dark Matter is apparently 84.54% of our Universe. If this is so abandoned, why did the millions we spend looking for it did not yield anything ?

Lets see:

If you go through the list of papers on the Michelson-Morley experiment, you will see that it is not that clear. In fact, they did a lot of things wrong then. Averaged values that should have not been, missing information about the movement of the solar system around the galaxy core (~360 km/s), gas mode instead of vacuum,...

There are many critical papers published over the years:

This is a very nice list of better experiments, looking into those is very interesting:

Einstein only later understood, that general Relativity without aether is unthinkable (Sidelights on Relativity): """ Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. """

He did not need aether for SR, but GR without aether, simply does not make sense. Also radial waves as predicted by Lord Kelvin and discovered by Tesla are not really understandable without. You can explain many virtual particles by creating a zoo like the standard model did, but radial waves you can't.

Dark Matter is the aether, without it's mass, spiral galaxies and many other cosmological phenomena are not explainable - or at least not classical.

The problem with most aether theories is, that they assume it as some sort of superfluid, or some special substance, which both do not make so much sense, as the complexity of the vacuum is simply to great. It must at least implement all virtual particles (β+/β-/photons/...), electric and magnet fields (Hertz & Tesla waves, as both exist),...

The BSM-SG model has a completely different aether model, instead of some special substance, it is made of the same building materials as protons/electrons, just in a much smaller and different geometric structure.

It has only one fundamental force and 2 very simple fundamental particles (balls). It becomes clear, that already quite large crystals, that look like prisms, under this one law of attraction, build a grid that looks like a 3d honey web.

In this grid, you can find all the physical properties we can measure. Electric and Magnet Fields, Speed of Light, Photons, Vacuum Fluctuations, Gravity, Coulomb Barrier, Quantum Entanglement, Virtual Particles (without rest-mass)....

Of course, many of those are iterations between the extremely complex geometrical structure of electrons/protons/neutrons and the Cosmic Lattice as its called in BSM-SG.

Best physics book I read and most sensible unified theory I have encountered so far:

Needs an open mind tho and some months of heavy thinking for really getting into this theory, but once you grasp the basic interactions, geometric structures etc the universe starts to make so much sense. So far, every phenomena I encountered was explainable after some minutes-days of thinking and I always came to the same conclusion as Stoyan Sarg.

The universe is classic logical :)

Fresh book recommendations delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday.