Who know who is Ted Mellem author of book "New Theory of Everything"

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
21,159
Papabravo,
yes I read this book in Polish (I bought the EBook from PWN). Reading take me log time because I had to brush up my math (especially differential and calculus), because I don't use it lately intensively. The book is difficult, but afer spending some time and understanding introduced ideas in my opiion it is exploratory.

BTW: I am ataching short fragment of this book (five pages) in order to others users of forum can take a look at style in which it is written - see pdf file:
This fragment is in original Polish language. I hope that this not be perceived as Copyright infringement.


Best Regards
My problem is the reverse. I've forgotten more mathematics than most people have an opportunity to learn. On the other hand I can read and understand Russian. Polish is very similar to Russian in spoken form, but I've never learned the use of the Latin alphabet in place of the Cyrillic alphabet. The book in it's present form is inaccessible to me.
 

Jose Harris

Joined Apr 15, 2022
1
Hi Papabravo,

I think you are a bit prejudged. The "PWN" is most noble scientific publishing house in Poland (translation of PWN means "National Scientific Publishig House") - they brig out only valuable scientific books. In the past (many years ago) when I was learning programinng most of my textbooks were from PWN (for example such titles translation to Polish: "The C Programming Language" by Kerningan and Ritchie, "The C++ Programming Language" by Bjarne Stroustrup). I understand that you might think that this book is not valuable (because we don't know the author), but I am sure that you would change your mind after reading this book (it is rather difficult because of using high math - differential calculus and calculus). This book is very strict and thera are many
equations (also differential equations) together with their solutions. This is the reason why it is difficult to find a translator for such book.

Best Regards
Same here, agree.
 

Rafalp

Joined Jan 25, 2022
10
Hi nsaspook. Book is discussing pool of conditions necessary to create consistent explanation out of phenomena observed and not explainable by present theories, instead proposing computer simulation model respecting observed data. So, if we create computer simulation with proposed set of conditions (this set is the biggest author achievement including explanation of both observed data and confirming experiments) all observed phenomena and calculations are starting to make sense. Author is using in extensive manner Einstain Special Relativity theory for whole book discussions. "Unfortunately" as one of the side effects general relativity theory is in depth discussed with potential issues it creates in case of such computer simulation creation, on top, if there is a simulation then somebody did it, that somebody according to the author might be a person we commonly call God. As a result, claiming this kind of comment and questioning some aspects of general relativity, author is automatically being expelled from physics world and is placed in parapsychology and esoteric, being on top blended with those funny intelligent project individuals who has a tendency for magic thinking in explaining whatever cannot be explained. This “intelligent project sticker” is a real burden with this book as it has nothing to do with each other, this book is Pure Science and Pure Physics and Pure Mathematics and as a small tip, author philosophical opinion, which in my opinion author of the book has a right to express. However, based on present physics there is only one true, all the rest is BS, does not matter it do not fit to experiments, the more official general relativity doesn’t fit the worse for experiment. Above is also one of the reasons author is not using its real name, especially his grandson is physics student now.
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
Hi nsaspook. Book is discussing pool of conditions necessary to create consistent explanation out of phenomena observed and not explainable by present theories, instead proposing computer simulation model respecting observed data. So, if we create computer simulation with proposed set of conditions (this set is the biggest author achievement including explanation of both observed data and confirming experiments) all observed phenomena and calculations are starting to make sense. Author is using in extensive manner Einstain Special Relativity theory for whole book discussions. "Unfortunately" as one of the side effects general relativity theory is in depth discussed with potential issues it creates in case of such computer simulation creation, on top, if there is a simulation then somebody did it, that somebody according to the author might be a person we commonly call God. As a result, claiming this kind of comment and questioning some aspects of general relativity, author is automatically being expelled from physics world and is placed in parapsychology and esoteric, being on top blended with those funny intelligent project individuals who has a tendency for magic thinking in explaining whatever cannot be explained. This “intelligent project sticker” is a real burden with this book as it has nothing to do with each other, this book is Pure Science and Pure Physics and Pure Mathematics and as a small tip, author philosophical opinion, which in my opinion author of the book has a right to express. However, based on present physics there is only one true, all the rest is BS, does not matter it do not fit to experiments, the more official general relativity doesn’t fit the worse for experiment. Above is also one of the reasons author is not using its real name, especially his grandson is physics student now.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Another very high score.

It's been said already.

https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/...-new-theory-of-everything.184541/post-1702817
"You have got to be pulling my leg here. Do you really expect to be taken seriously?"

https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/...-new-theory-of-everything.184541/post-1702821
"I don't really care one way or the other, but yes extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
 

Ya’akov

Joined Jan 27, 2019
9,069
Because of the complexity of the claims and the inevitable incompleteness of a single book concerning "everything" I can only judge it based on probabilities weighted with whatever I already know about the subject.

I have not read the book, and don't intend to because:

  1. It deviates severely from the standard model, which while not sacrosanct, has amazing and proven predictive power, and;

  2. It has no experimental backing, only an appropriation of other work that used experimental evidence. I don't know if it offers some suggestions for experimental confirmation of the thesis though I suspect it does not. Because of this it can, at best, be an interpretation of data, an isomorphic repurposing of the consensus which it eschews, and;

  3. As a colleague of mine, a prominent research scientist in applications of quantum mechanics to electronics put it, "I used to worry about the various interpretations of QM and took sides but then I realized it was a waste of time and did nothing to advance my research". Similarly, this book and its thesis will do nothing to improve my life and the bit of philosophy it promotes indicates to me, after many years of serious study of philosophy, a very naïve and uninformed philosophical outlook.

Based on the foregoing my best approximation of the likelihood the content of the book are a valid refutation of the standard model is 2%, which is as good as nothing.

Of course, I could certainly be wrong but this is the best I can do and unlike the author I put a lot more weight on the life's work of the hundreds of brilliant men that shaped the current model than I do on my own deviant interoperation of their work.

[EDIT: fixed a ' ,' and a '"', and deleted a spurious 't']
 
Last edited:

Rafalp

Joined Jan 25, 2022
10
There is one guy (myself not included), literally ONE in this thread (author of that thread FlyingDutch) that read a book, was interested in it and was posting a questions due to the fact that he found content to be interesting. Everyone else responding to that has never read that book but seems to be an expert from grammar, scientific content, probability estimations for content value etc. so…



Let it be a thread like zillion of them around a globe, what is a probability, a chance that despite total chaos of modern physics delivered by present standard model, somebody will put some light extra, suggesting small deviation (I know it is small as I have read a book). And I know the answer, a chance is extremally small. Well 2% I assume:) so…



Yes, Ted Mellem can be a total scam, worthless example of worthless content, he might be totally wrong, but if you did not read a book you simply cannot say so, otherwise in best case scenario it is minimum not polite, but one can say even arrogant to discuss a book content.



I know Ted did in depth investigations of his theory, very powerful computer was also running a lot of data & simulations that were allowing him for certain statements at the book. There are at least 3 major experimental check ups proposed in the book that can validate parts of his theory, also observation data experimental content was employed for some of the book theories. He spent 10 years working on that, being man of physics, it is not a small effort. He did not do that for fame, or money, or some stupid points, he did it as he felt obliged to share and he put a lot of hard work into that respecting potential readers, delivering very high quality, inspiring, honest content.



Every single, even tiniest discovery is against status quo (otherwise how can you call it discovery), and there are always some haters defending status quo no matter what and also some constructive critics (at least small shade of the last one is in Yaakov post, all the rest is cat. 1). Watch guys your American movies with your American dream in them, you will see always those against status quo hijacking losers, strange individuals with own opinions, crowd is laughing at them. Mellem can be wrong but it can be another good scientist/Einstein#2 simply due to magnitude of the subject discussed, you will never know because you are this laughing crowd.



As a publisher I have came to conclusion that I have to go out and pay some physics professionals on universities in order to find out what comes out of this book, you are all so sure&busy that probably you have to be paid to read such a “scientific BS” (until you have noble name on the cover), and at least discuss on the content and not what you presume it is. I am relatively new in physics world but this level of arrogance that is present in that field of science is overwhelming to me, like IQ level is the best excuse to be Egocentric emotional retard on any occasion. For the same reason I have suggested to Mellem a present title of the book, guess why - it speaks your language. You left me guys speechless... do not bother to answer. I am welcoming myself to be kicked out of here. Stay happy with your genius.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
1650295980987.png

I trust the experienced book sellers to know what category to place a book for maximum exposure to possible customers.
The book being listed under Parapsychology and esoterics was done by people who read the book in the native language so I trust their expertise.
 

Ya’akov

Joined Jan 27, 2019
9,069
As a publisher I have came to conclusion that I have to go out and pay some physics professionals on universities in order to find out what comes out of this book, you are all so sure&busy that probably you have to be paid to read such a “scientific BS” (until you have noble name on the cover), and at least discuss on the content and not what you presume it is. I am relatively new in physics world but this level of arrogance that is present in that field of science is overwhelming to me, like IQ level is the best excuse to be Egocentric emotional retard on any occasion. For the same reason I have suggested to Mellem a present title of the book, guess why - it speaks your language. You left me guys speechless... do not bother to answer. I am welcoming myself to be kicked out of here. Stay happy with your genius.
I am allowed to choose how I spend my time and on what basis. If research scientists find this theory useful, they can incorporate and then I will be able to tell if it has value. I just don’t have time to devote to trying to understand where it might be right or wrong, hence my use of probabilities to decide how I should deal with it.

If there is just a ”small deviation“ from the standard model, which, despite your assertion does not ”total chaos”, then it should be presentable in the form of scientific papers written for the audience that can do something about it. People here are not those people and the complexity of the subject matter means we must choose which opinion to follow.

No matter how powerful the computer a model is only as good as the data it is given. If the results appear to agree with the current empirical findings then it is a matter of working out if the theory is necessary or auxiliary to that result. If the results are less predictive than the standard model, you have to show there is potential to explain some of the things the standard model, in its current state, cannot. Even then, you have to explain why it is superior to a model that has proven itself empirically to not only predict the behavior of the observable world, but be used to manipulate it to human advantage.

As far as experimental evidence goes, if there are actually three experiments that can validate the theory, then perform them. If there is a chance that this theory can improve the standard model, there will be research groups happy to perform them.

I am trying to reconcile the paradoxical admission that you don’t know physics with your promotion of a book that as you have also said is only “slightly deviant” and also that it is so threatening to the physicists that are part of the current consensus this man must write under a nom de plume for the academic safety of this grandson.

Why do you so heavily weight the opinion of the author of this book that you choose its theory over the model that has allowed you to write these messages and distribute your book? Yes, the standard model has been the basis for the creation of the semiconductor technology we all depend on.

Please excuse me if someone who says it is (apparently) fundamentally wrong and his idea will clean of the ”chaos” of the standard theory does not convince me to spend the time slogging through a text that I could not possibly verify. I am too aware of the complexity of the interlocking specialties that have lead to the standard model and I am very skeptical (not just incredulous, but unconvinced for a reason) that one person and some computer simulations can find the flaws that have evaded thousands of researchers intimately involved in advancing it.

I have no ill will towards you of the anonymous author, just what is to the best of my ability reasonable skepticism. I wish you well and if this is a breakthrough that the right people see it and do the confirming experiments so we can get closer to understanding everything.
 

Thread Starter

FlyingDutch

Joined Mar 16, 2021
83
View attachment 265390

I trust the experienced book sellers to know what category to place a book for maximum exposure to possible customers.
The book being listed under Parapsychology and esoterics was done by people who read the book in the native language so I trust their expertise.
Hello @nsaspook,

I am reading books from time I had been 4 yaers old (yes I learned to read myself in order to don't get my mum nervous). I am reading mostly four to six books a month. I think that I can say about myseff that I am sophisticated reader. I didn't think that my post awake so much controversy. I am absolutely sure that putting this book in category "esoterics" is completly wrong. I am native Polish speaker and Polish is my mother tounge. I suspect that this is marketing trick made in order to attrack more average readers to this book.
I must agree with @Rafalp that it is ridiculous to discuss book not reding it.

Best Regards
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
Hello @nsaspook,

I am reading books from time I had been 4 yaers old (yes I learned to read myself in order to don't get my mum nervous). I am reading mostly four to six books a month. I think that I can say about myseff that I am sophisticated reader. I didn't think that my post awake so much controversy. I am absolutely sure that putting this book in category "esoterics" is completly wrong. I am native Polish speaker and Polish is my mother tounge. I suspect that this is marketing trick made in order to attrack more average readers to this book.
I must agree with @Rafalp that it is ridiculous to discuss book not reding it.

Best Regards
What's ridiculous IMO is thinking this book is worth the effort to read if you're the least bit serious about General Science, Physics & Math with the available background information about the book. It rings all the bells of being someones personal theory with the same level of scientific authority as a Saturday cartoon show about chasing a Road-runner.

I trust their expertise in putting the book in the correct category.
 

MrSalts

Joined Apr 2, 2020
2,767
I must agree with @Rafalp that it is ridiculous to discuss book not reding it
If you are a native speaker, please talk about this author (story teller) with people who can read the book. Are there no polish language forums about physics, engineering or literature/sci-fi?
 
Top