The foundations of AWT are -supposedly- to be found on this web site: http://superstruny.aspweb.cz .
All further questions and explanations are -supposedly- to be found in the 7000+ posts on this forum by the "founder of AWT".
Is there really anything useful to learn?
If yes, where should I start my reading?
If no, why all these 7000+ posts then?
I don't know anything about AWT, since -I think- it has never been explained anywhere.
But the numerous posts and the blend of knowledge and ignorance shown by its founder (in my opinion) is quite a surprising phenomena.
In this sense AWT has to be understood, and this is why I am asking here.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 27 2007, 01:15 PM)
The foundations of AWT are -supposedly- to be found on this web site: http://superstruny.aspweb.cz.
Well, it seems, I'm not required to introduce a new topics about AWT anymore, as it has started to live it's own life in the minds of its opponents.
Arthur Schopenhauer:
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Frankly, I hope, the AWT never reach the third stage. It would violate it's own postulate, based on the conceptual plurality.
Well, it seems, I'm not required to introduce a new topics about AWT anymore, as it has started to live it's own life in the minds of its opponents.
Arthur Schopenhauer:
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Frankly, I hope, the AWT never reach the third stage. It would violate it's own postulate, based on the conceptual plurality.
Zephir sounds like he has exhausted to the point of possible ending.
I wonder if he will continue with another approach?
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 11:38 AM)
as it has started to live it's own life in the minds of its opponents.
As nothing more than a series of animated gifs which say nothing about reality, put together by a fraud.
It's funny, Lalbatros asks for you to put forth some kind of validation or justification for the validity of AWT and rather than putting forth a series of results and derivations to show how good AWT is, you have to resort to "No, I don't have to do anything" and a quote.
Every time someone asks you for a result or justification you ignore them or avoid answering. I'm certain that in this thread you will never derive a concrete result from your postulates. You will never justify in a systematic way any of your claims.
Prove me wrong.
As nothing more than a series of animated gifs which say nothing about reality, put together by a fraud.
It's funny, Lalbatros asks for you to put forth some kind of validation or justification for the validity of AWT and rather than putting forth a series of results and derivations to show how good AWT is, you have to resort to "No, I don't have to do anything" and a quote.
Every time someone asks you for a result or justification you ignore them or avoid answering. I'm certain that in this thread you will never derive a concrete result from your postulates. You will never justify in a systematic way any of your claims.
Prove me wrong.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 27 2007, 01:15 PM)
If yes, where should I start my reading?
When I'm explaining some particular question, I'm preferring to repeat the whole logical chain of extrapolations from the introductory concept, listen in my subscription. Therefore you're not required to understand all the possible motivations and extrapolations of AWT, just those, which are relevant to the particular topic.
The conceptual organization of AWT is important, but currently I'd prefer to dedicated my full mental capacity to generalization of AWT, then organizing the mental havoc, which is the (often intended) consequence of the discussion with my oponents.
After all, here are many criterions, how to organize the ideas of AWT and it can be done by everybody, who understands the AWT and is willing to do so.
When I'm explaining some particular question, I'm preferring to repeat the whole logical chain of extrapolations from the introductory concept, listen in my subscription. Therefore you're not required to understand all the possible motivations and extrapolations of AWT, just those, which are relevant to the particular topic.
The conceptual organization of AWT is important, but currently I'd prefer to dedicated my full mental capacity to generalization of AWT, then organizing the mental havoc, which is the (often intended) consequence of the discussion with my oponents.
After all, here are many criterions, how to organize the ideas of AWT and it can be done by everybody, who understands the AWT and is willing to do so.
Yes, you are right, Alphanumeric:
Instead, Zephir is now taking the coothes of the misunderstood genius.
Is there still a proof needed that awt is totally fake?
QUOTE
It's funny, Lalbatros asks for you to put forth some kind of validation or justification for the validity of AWT and rather than putting forth a series of results and derivations to show how good AWT is, you have to resort to "No, I don't have to do anything" and a quote.
Instead, Zephir is now taking the coothes of the misunderstood genius.
Is there still a proof needed that awt is totally fake?
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 27 2007, 01:53 PM)
Is there still a proof needed that awt is totally fake?
The same valuation we can hear from the opponents of evolutionary theory, for example...
Can such stance prove something?
Just a few thoughts:
The same valuation we can hear from the opponents of evolutionary theory, for example...
Can such stance prove something?Just a few thoughts:
- By Big Bang theory, the Universe has appeared from singularity. The black holes are considered to be a singularities, too. Any ideas?
- By some latest theories the vacuum has foamy structure. By some latest theories the black hole has a foamy structure. Any ideas?
- The energy is spreading through foam via transversal waves. The light is spreading via transversal waves. Any ideas?
- The spreading of energy along water surface in tiny capillary waves tends to be a background independent. The spreading of light through vacuum appears as background independent, exhibiting so called Lorentz invariance. Any ideas?
- At the case of surface water waves such independence is violated at the case of long wavelengths. At the case of light the dependence manifests for microwave background radiation. Any ideas?
- The soap foam tends to become more dense after introducing of energy. The vacuum creates the particles after introducing of energy. Any ideas?
- Whenever the soap foam becomes too dense, the curvature of foam increases and the surfaces of foam will separate mutually. Whenever the sufficient energy is introduced into vacuum, it becomes birefringent, exhibiting the multiple radiative time arrows. Any ideas?
- The energy wave spreading through foam interferes with the foam structure under formation of wave packets. The light wave spreading through vacuum tends to fragmentate itself into photon particles. Any ideas?
- Tiny particles of matter inside of water exhibits perpetual motion. The atoms of helium exhibits the perpetual motion, so that the helium never freeze. Any ideas?
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 11:59 AM)
[*]By Big Bang theory, the Universe has appeared from singularity. The Black Holes are considered to be a singularity, too. Any ideas?
Relativity, since it predicted both black holes and describes expanding and contracting space-time. It also has tons of experimental validation.
Relativity, since it predicted both black holes and describes expanding and contracting space-time. It also has tons of experimental validation.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 11:59 AM)
[*]By some latest theories the vacuum has foamy structure. By some latest theories the black hole has a foamy structure. Any ideas?
Loop quantum gravity or string theory. String theory predicts both the general relativistic nature of gravity and it also allows a 'stringy' construction of a black hole which reproduces the entropy of the black hole found in GR. LQG can do a similar thing but struggles to get the proportionality constant between entropy and event horizon area correct. This is an example of a theory getting the qualative result easily but the quantative result is difficult. You fail to understand that when you advocate the qualative nature of AWT.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 11:59 AM)
[*]The energy is spreading through foam via transversal waves. The light is spreading via transversal waves. Any ideas
Quantum field theory predicts the transverse nature of light and gluons and also derives their existence. String theory also predicts the transverse nature of oscillations in the strings, it's known as the no ghost theorem.
You also fail to realise that simply having transverse waves doesn't mean you've described light. Fluid dynamics is awash with transverse wave systems which doesn't describe light at all. So simply having transverse waves in your theory means nothing if you can't demonstrate those waves are light. I've asked you to show your equations lead to Maxwell's equations, as any description of light must do in the classical limit (which QED does) and you've failed to provide. You fail to even understand why such a thing is needed.
You also fail to realise that simply having transverse waves doesn't mean you've described light. Fluid dynamics is awash with transverse wave systems which doesn't describe light at all. So simply having transverse waves in your theory means nothing if you can't demonstrate those waves are light. I've asked you to show your equations lead to Maxwell's equations, as any description of light must do in the classical limit (which QED does) and you've failed to provide. You fail to even understand why such a thing is needed.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 11:59 AM)
[*]The energy is spreading through foam via waves. The light is spreading through vacuum via waves, too. Any ideas?
Yes, classical electromagnetism and quantum electrodynamics both describe photons going through vacuums. 5 dimensional relativity compactified on a circle gives the same.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 11:59 AM)
[*]The spreading of energy along water surface in tiny capillary waves tends to be a background independent. The spreading of light through vacuum appears as background independent. Any ideas?
LQG and string theory both attempt background independence with string theory being the more developed of the two.
Also you fail to show that capillary waves appear in AWT. Their governing equation is not the wave equation.
Also you fail to show that capillary waves appear in AWT. Their governing equation is not the wave equation.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 11:59 AM)
[*]At the case of surface water waves such independence is violated at the case of long wavelengths. At the case of light the dependence manifests for microwave background radiation. Any ideas?
This is a lack of understanding on your part. The dipole shift in the CMB is not due to Lorentz violation or evidence of an absolute rest frame since it's compatible with the expanding space-time model of cosmology.
You also fail to realise that the 1.7cm value of capillary waves you like to mention so much is dependent on the density of the medium and the gravitational acceleration on the medium. Hence the 1.7cm is true for water on Earth, not aether in space. Also, the 1.7cm is not a phase transition of some kind, it's just the cross over point where one term in the capillary wave solution is bigger than the other. It's the difference between 'mostly capillary waves' and 'mostly gravitationally governed waves'. The transition is smooth and would not show up as a sudden marker at a given wavelength.
But it's irrelevent for AWT, since you've never demonstrated AWT can even describe such waves.
You also fail to realise that the 1.7cm value of capillary waves you like to mention so much is dependent on the density of the medium and the gravitational acceleration on the medium. Hence the 1.7cm is true for water on Earth, not aether in space. Also, the 1.7cm is not a phase transition of some kind, it's just the cross over point where one term in the capillary wave solution is bigger than the other. It's the difference between 'mostly capillary waves' and 'mostly gravitationally governed waves'. The transition is smooth and would not show up as a sudden marker at a given wavelength.
But it's irrelevent for AWT, since you've never demonstrated AWT can even describe such waves.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 11:59 AM)
[*]The soap foam tends to become more dense after introducing of energy. The vacuum creates the particles after introducing of energy. Any ideas?
Every formulation of quantum field theory.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 11:59 AM)
[*]The energy wave spreading through foam interferes with the foam structure under formation of wave packets. The light generated by the harmonic source of electromagnetic field tends to fragmentize itself into photon particles. Any ideas?
QED again.
Besides, not once have you demonstrated your postulates lead to such a description. You simply invent a qualative description of some dynamics you don't actually understand and pretend the ad hoc result you've claimed AWT does is valid. Can't derive it from postulates, it's unjustified.
Besides, not once have you demonstrated your postulates lead to such a description. You simply invent a qualative description of some dynamics you don't actually understand and pretend the ad hoc result you've claimed AWT does is valid. Can't derive it from postulates, it's unjustified.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 11:59 AM)
[*]Tiny particles of matter inside of water exhibits perpetual motion. The atoms of hellium exhibits the perpetual motion, so that the hellium never freeze. Any ideas?
Helium does freeze, it just needs to be above something like 10MPa of pressure. Besides, even in solid form the particles of helium (or any other substance) are still moving. In fluid form, we have models which describe superfluids. They are a union of fluid dynamics, statistical field theory and quantum theory.
You've never once shown you can describe phase transitions, either physical or quantum (ie from fluid to superfluid). You simply claim that because you have a theory based on a fluid you must be able to describe it. Well fluid dynamics is a theory based on fluids but without other things it can't describe superfluids properly. But again, you fail to realise this.
So it turns out every one of your claimed effects has a description or place within mainstream theories. And even worse (for you), none of those points imply that AWT is a theory which can describe them all because not once have you derived any such descriptions or effects from within your theory. You just claim AWT can do it and assume we'll believe you. Just shows how big a fool you are.
You've never once shown you can describe phase transitions, either physical or quantum (ie from fluid to superfluid). You simply claim that because you have a theory based on a fluid you must be able to describe it. Well fluid dynamics is a theory based on fluids but without other things it can't describe superfluids properly. But again, you fail to realise this.
So it turns out every one of your claimed effects has a description or place within mainstream theories. And even worse (for you), none of those points imply that AWT is a theory which can describe them all because not once have you derived any such descriptions or effects from within your theory. You just claim AWT can do it and assume we'll believe you. Just shows how big a fool you are.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 27 2007, 02:39 PM)
Relativity... also has tons of experimental validation
The AWT doesn't violate the relativity theory within the scope of its postulates by any way. The relativity is considered to be a special case of AWT formalization. But the experimental validation of relativity postulates cannot never replace the causal explanation of them and to reconciliation of them with Newtonian dynamics by the correspondence principle. The same is valid about quantum mechanics, which is considered dual to the relativity theory within the scope of AWT, describing the different aspects of Aether foam. Therefore is not very surprising, some of the derived theories can formalize the very same behavior, like the AWT. The problem is, you're still required to consider many theories, whereas the AWT is proposing the single consistent explanation.
BTW It's marvellous to observe your struggle to refute every causaual explanation of your favorite theories. It's evident, you're sectarian, whose stance is based on the religion and therefore you don't want to listen any logical reasoning of it, even if it supports your theories perfectly.
Give me that old time religion
Tis the old time religion,
Tis the old time religion,
And it's good enough for me.
It was good for our mothers.
It was good for our mothers.
It was good for our mothers.
And it's good enough for me.
Give me that old time religion
Tis the old time religion,
Tis the old time religion,
And it's good enough for me.
Makes me love everybody.
Makes me love everybody.
Makes me love everybody.
And it's good enough for me.
Give me that old time religion
Tis the old time religion,
Tis the old time religion,
And it's good enough for me.
It has saved our fathers.
It has saved our fathers.
It has saved our fathers.
And it's good enough for me.
Give me that old time religion
Tis the old time religion,
Tis the old time religion,
And it's good enough for me.
It will do when I am dying.
It will do when I am dying.
It will do when I am dying.
And it's good enough for me.
Give me that old time religion
Tis the old time religion,
Tis the old time religion,
And it's good enough for me.
It will take us all to heaven.
It will take us all to heaven.
It will take us all to heaven.
And it's good enough for me.
Give me that old time religion
Tis the old time religion,
Tis the old time religion,
And it's good enough for me.
The AWT doesn't violate the relativity theory within the scope of its postulates by any way. The relativity is considered to be a special case of AWT formalization. But the experimental validation of relativity postulates cannot never replace the causal explanation of them and to reconciliation of them with Newtonian dynamics by the correspondence principle. The same is valid about quantum mechanics, which is considered dual to the relativity theory within the scope of AWT, describing the different aspects of Aether foam. Therefore is not very surprising, some of the derived theories can formalize the very same behavior, like the AWT. The problem is, you're still required to consider many theories, whereas the AWT is proposing the single consistent explanation.
BTW It's marvellous to observe your struggle to refute every causaual explanation of your favorite theories. It's evident, you're sectarian, whose stance is based on the religion and therefore you don't want to listen any logical reasoning of it, even if it supports your theories perfectly.
Give me that old time religion
Tis the old time religion,
Tis the old time religion,
And it's good enough for me.
It was good for our mothers.
It was good for our mothers.
It was good for our mothers.
And it's good enough for me.
Give me that old time religion
Tis the old time religion,
Tis the old time religion,
And it's good enough for me.
Makes me love everybody.
Makes me love everybody.
Makes me love everybody.
And it's good enough for me.
Give me that old time religion
Tis the old time religion,
Tis the old time religion,
And it's good enough for me.
It has saved our fathers.
It has saved our fathers.
It has saved our fathers.
And it's good enough for me.
Give me that old time religion
Tis the old time religion,
Tis the old time religion,
And it's good enough for me.
It will do when I am dying.
It will do when I am dying.
It will do when I am dying.
And it's good enough for me.
Give me that old time religion
Tis the old time religion,
Tis the old time religion,
And it's good enough for me.
It will take us all to heaven.
It will take us all to heaven.
It will take us all to heaven.
And it's good enough for me.
Give me that old time religion
Tis the old time religion,
Tis the old time religion,
And it's good enough for me.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 12:44 PM)
The relativity is considered to be a special case of AWT formalization.
Prove it. String theory proves it by deriving the Einstein Field Equations within itself. Can you do the same for AWT?
I bet you can't.
Prove it. String theory proves it by deriving the Einstein Field Equations within itself. Can you do the same for AWT?
I bet you can't.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 12:44 PM)
The same is valid about quantum mechanics, which is considered dual to the relativity theory within the scope of AWT, describing the different aspects of Aether foam.
Prove it. Derive Maxwell's equations within AWT. Derive the QED Lagrangian within AWT.
If you can't, then you are unjustified in your claim.
Remember, claims aren't important, results are.
If you can't, then you are unjustified in your claim.
Remember, claims aren't important, results are.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 12:44 PM)
BTW It's marvellous to observe your struggle to refute every causaual explanation of your favorite theories. It's evident, you're sectarian, whose stance is based on the religion and therefore you don't wan't to listen about any logical reasoning of it,
Your hypocrisy is amazing.
Noone with even the slightest bit of physics learning believes your crap, yet you still try to fool people.
Noone with even the slightest bit of physics learning believes your crap, yet you still try to fool people.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 12:44 PM)
...long irrelevent quote.....
Still the same as ever, rather than showing the scientific and logical validity of AWT you have to resort to an irrelevent quote.
Not once have you justified any of your claims. Just as I predicted.
Not once have you justified any of your claims. Just as I predicted.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 27 2007, 02:59 PM)
Noone with even the slightest bit of physics learning believes your crap, yet you still try to fool people...
It's evident, I came with the trivial explanation, which whole generations of scientists have missed successfully. No wonder, you're raging against it and trying to marginalize it by all (im)possible ways, because of your chance to bring up the similar explanation disappeared.
Do you think, I dunno, what's your real problem? Oh, my dear.
It's evident, I came with the trivial explanation, which whole generations of scientists have missed successfully. No wonder, you're raging against it and trying to marginalize it by all (im)possible ways, because of your chance to bring up the similar explanation disappeared.
Do you think, I dunno, what's your real problem? Oh, my dear.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 27 2007, 02:59 PM)
String theory proves it by deriving the Einstein Field Equations within itself...
The string theory is completely marginal case in this discussion, because it considers the Lorentz symmetry as one of its introductional postulates - so it cannot NEVER EVER derive the Lorentz symmetry violation by causal way. It's a shame - but this is a logical result of the copydown of the equations from other theories without understanding its deeper physical meaning.
It's like the bad situation of those, who had plagiarized the bad school work. Now its more and more evident, the string theorist have loose their control over further development of physics. The new ideas apparently doesn't require the string theory at all for its reasoning.
The string theory is completely marginal case in this discussion, because it considers the Lorentz symmetry as one of its introductional postulates - so it cannot NEVER EVER derive the Lorentz symmetry violation by causal way. It's a shame - but this is a logical result of the copydown of the equations from other theories without understanding its deeper physical meaning.
It's like the bad situation of those, who had plagiarized the bad school work. Now its more and more evident, the string theorist have loose their control over further development of physics. The new ideas apparently doesn't require the string theory at all for its reasoning.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 10:59 AM)
As you can see, it's not so difficult to invent and propose the AWT theory.
As I already mentioned and despite total lack od quantitative analysis which is hard to accpet for "grounded physicist", your natural insight is valuable one. Your idea of "recursivity" can be seen as a part of a deep paradigm change in general. Final question is about "live", holistic picture of the world, about, say, a net of "n-dimensional interconnections" on all level of existence.
In the end, that picture is "ancient", "dialectic one" anti-shematic so to speak, and I can trace its trail towards Heraclitus, Lao-Tse even Budha or Jesus, modern Goethe or Nietsche (you are free to extent the list). Or in words of divine poem "Medju javom i medj snom" (say "In between the dream and the wakeness") of our famouse poet Laza Kostic (I hope you will be able to understand a bit and sorry to all who are not):
"Ko pletilja ona stara
sto dan splete, noc opara,
medju javom i medj snom..."
It is the concept of Clothe (one of three "pletilje") and between its cloting really is "nothingness" similary to Lao-Tse's "the emptyness of a room as the real meaning of a room".
Is "awt" a "physical" that is for everyone for himself to decide.
Regards
As I already mentioned and despite total lack od quantitative analysis which is hard to accpet for "grounded physicist", your natural insight is valuable one. Your idea of "recursivity" can be seen as a part of a deep paradigm change in general. Final question is about "live", holistic picture of the world, about, say, a net of "n-dimensional interconnections" on all level of existence.
In the end, that picture is "ancient", "dialectic one" anti-shematic so to speak, and I can trace its trail towards Heraclitus, Lao-Tse even Budha or Jesus, modern Goethe or Nietsche (you are free to extent the list). Or in words of divine poem "Medju javom i medj snom" (say "In between the dream and the wakeness") of our famouse poet Laza Kostic (I hope you will be able to understand a bit and sorry to all who are not):
"Ko pletilja ona stara
sto dan splete, noc opara,
medju javom i medj snom..."
It is the concept of Clothe (one of three "pletilje") and between its cloting really is "nothingness" similary to Lao-Tse's "the emptyness of a room as the real meaning of a room".
Is "awt" a "physical" that is for everyone for himself to decide.
Regards
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 01:07 PM)
It's evident, I came with the trivial explanation, which whole generations of scientists have missed successfully.
If it's so trivial where are your results? Where are your 'trivial derivations' from postulates? Where are your physical predictions allowing us to test your claims?
You have none. Why, if it's so trivial, is it so impossible for you to produce any concrete results? Could it be you're a fraud?
Prove me wrong. I keep asking and I've been asking for months and you have never ever shown me wrong.
If it's so trivial where are your results? Where are your 'trivial derivations' from postulates? Where are your physical predictions allowing us to test your claims?
You have none. Why, if it's so trivial, is it so impossible for you to produce any concrete results?
Could it be you're a fraud?Prove me wrong. I keep asking and I've been asking for months and you have never ever shown me wrong.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 01:07 PM)
No wonder, you're raging against it and trying to marginalize it by all (im)possible ways
I'm 'raging against' your arrogance and stupidity. I don't have to 'rage against' AWT because you've no results to rage against 
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 01:07 PM)
Do you think, I dunno, what's your real problem?
My current problem in physics is that I'm unable to come up with an efficent program which computes the Groebner basis of ideals defined by the partial derivatives of a supergravity potential which includes gaugino non-perturbative contributions. Somehow I doubt you were thinking of that (or even understood it).
Do you think I don't know what your real problem is? Mind boggling stupidity, ignorance and arrogance along with mind delusions of self grandeur.
Do you think I don't know what your real problem is? Mind boggling stupidity, ignorance and arrogance along with mind delusions of self grandeur.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 01:07 PM)
The string theory is completely marginal case in this discussion, because it considers the Lorentz symmetry as one of its introductional postulates - so it cannot NEVER EVER derive the Lorentz symmetry violation by causal way. It's a shame - but this is a logical result of the copydown of the equations from other theories without understanding its deeer physical meaning.
Given your complete lack of understanding of effective theories and how GR is the low energy limit of string effects on and in space-time, you probably don't grasp how string theory is able to talk about violations of GR while at the same time reproduce it's results.
String theory doesn't copy GR's postulates, it derives the same results from a different set. But since you've never done such mathematical physics and you have no understanding of any of the inner workings (or even much of the qualative workings!) of string theory or any theoretical physics for that matter you stick to your usual misconceptions, that if you don't understand something it is everyone else's fault but yours.
It's amazing how much one another all you cranks are.
String theory doesn't copy GR's postulates, it derives the same results from a different set. But since you've never done such mathematical physics and you have no understanding of any of the inner workings (or even much of the qualative workings!) of string theory or any theoretical physics for that matter you stick to your usual misconceptions, that if you don't understand something it is everyone else's fault but yours.
It's amazing how much one another all you cranks are.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 27 2007, 03:18 PM)
Where are your 'trivial derivations' from postulates?
This is just a deep hypocrisy at the situation, the string theory has no fixed list of postulates at all, so it can claim virtually everything (and it does so occasionally). With compare to string theory, the AWT is quite transparent and easy theory, which supplies the relevant explanations immediately, i.e. without need of incorporating of formal math ballast at all.
The usage of consecutive logic of formal math at the case of deeply parallelized process, like the foam formation in the field of inertial particles is not easy task at all, but such difficulty of formal description of reality is mainly an artificial problem, as we can solve these systems by many other ways.
I wouldn't call the attempts to use the improper formalism for description of particular model "the science" at all, what do you think about it? It's like the attempt to develop the analytical solution of Victoria fall at the moment, when everybody can use the numeric solution. You can spend the time on it, but you should pay such effort from your sources. Anyway, at the current situation we have a much more important tasks to do, then to support some dumb theories, based on the lack of understanding of reality.
This is just a deep hypocrisy at the situation, the string theory has no fixed list of postulates at all, so it can claim virtually everything (and it does so occasionally). With compare to string theory, the AWT is quite transparent and easy theory, which supplies the relevant explanations immediately, i.e. without need of incorporating of formal math ballast at all.
The usage of consecutive logic of formal math at the case of deeply parallelized process, like the foam formation in the field of inertial particles is not easy task at all, but such difficulty of formal description of reality is mainly an artificial problem, as we can solve these systems by many other ways.
I wouldn't call the attempts to use the improper formalism for description of particular model "the science" at all, what do you think about it? It's like the attempt to develop the analytical solution of Victoria fall at the moment, when everybody can use the numeric solution. You can spend the time on it, but you should pay such effort from your sources. Anyway, at the current situation we have a much more important tasks to do, then to support some dumb theories, based on the lack of understanding of reality.
QUOTE (Turya+May 27 2007, 03:18 PM)
Is "awt" a "physical" that is for everyone for himself to decide
The particle Aether concept of Descartes was always a firm part of the physics an physical description of reality. The AWTjust uses it in its original, pure meaning, not scrambled by the formal attempts to adjust it by the commonly spreaded misinterpretations of this brilliant idea.
The particle Aether concept of Descartes was always a firm part of the physics an physical description of reality. The AWTjust uses it in its original, pure meaning, not scrambled by the formal attempts to adjust it by the commonly spreaded misinterpretations of this brilliant idea.
Zephir,
Taking the hat of Darwin doesn't make a Darwin of you.
Your stand indded doesn't prove anything, and we are still asking you for just the hint of a proof.
With arguments as quoted here above, anything could be true.
And the reality is that truth is very precise and unique. You don't even approach it.
This one also is very funny:
Taking the hat of Darwin doesn't make a Darwin of you.
Your stand indded doesn't prove anything, and we are still asking you for just the hint of a proof.
With arguments as quoted here above, anything could be true.
And the reality is that truth is very precise and unique. You don't even approach it.
This one also is very funny:
Therefore you're not required to understand all the possible motivations and extrapolations of AWT, just those, which are relevant to the particular topic.
Some people might believe from this quote that there is something to understand or to learn in AWT, while it is an empty shell. Some people might even think it is difficult to understand awt, and you spare us the effort. Only your grandma might understand ...
... you are very very vreative, Zephir, ... in the ways to avoid reality.
And there is even more, like this one:
which is wrong, since a blackhole is not a sigularity.
And this one is one of your other pittyful tricks:
which is wrong, since a blackhole is not a sigularity.
And this one is one of your other pittyful tricks:
... some latest theories ...
This is an attempt at associating awt with some "latest theory", obscure, misterious, advanced, to be believed ...
Note how, now, it doesn't matter anymore if it is mainstream or not.
Note also that no detail is given.
And if one asks for details, you get some, but when reading the references, you will discover that it does not support any claim by Zephir.
Just keeping up appearances, always keeping up appearances.
And I can't resist to quote this one:
Here there are many interresting points.
First, what does "background independence" means: mystery, awt is intuition, it doesn't need any definition and any precision.
Second, I like to highligh the abusive use of analogies: this is the most anachronic aspect of AWT. It is clear that analogy is a dangerous tool, not to be used in science. Analogy shortcuts the brain and only produces nonsense.
Further, to illustrate this danger, we could ask Zephir: "should we use the speed of light in the Lorentz transformation, or should we use the speed of surface water capillary waves?". Most people see the irony of this question, but Zephir doesn't, maybe lacking some background ...
And we could ask further to Zephir to compare the dispersion relation of capillary waves with the dispersion relation of light in vacuum. But this would really be unfair to him: he would have to learn physics, capillary waves, dispersion relation, ... That's not very kind to ask him to learn mainstream science. And, most important, this would totally annihilate his childish analogy.
And Zephir, above, himself, listed many other of his poor analogies o false questions.
I would like to stop and leave the fun to the reader, but I can't resist to quote this one:
Here there are many interresting points.
First, what does "background independence" means: mystery, awt is intuition, it doesn't need any definition and any precision.
Second, I like to highligh the abusive use of analogies: this is the most anachronic aspect of AWT. It is clear that analogy is a dangerous tool, not to be used in science. Analogy shortcuts the brain and only produces nonsense.
Further, to illustrate this danger, we could ask Zephir: "should we use the speed of light in the Lorentz transformation, or should we use the speed of surface water capillary waves?". Most people see the irony of this question, but Zephir doesn't, maybe lacking some background ...
And we could ask further to Zephir to compare the dispersion relation of capillary waves with the dispersion relation of light in vacuum. But this would really be unfair to him: he would have to learn physics, capillary waves, dispersion relation, ... That's not very kind to ask him to learn mainstream science. And, most important, this would totally annihilate his childish analogy.
And Zephir, above, himself, listed many other of his poor analogies o false questions.
I would like to stop and leave the fun to the reader, but I can't resist to quote this one:
Tiny particles of matter inside of water exhibits perpetual motion. The atoms of helium exhibits the perpetual motion, so that the helium never freeze. Any ideas?
I am almost ashamed to give a comment, so obvious the answer is to anybody who knows a bit of physics.
Just for the fun.
Electrons in an atom also are in "perpetual motion".
And even funnier: take 1kg of iron at 1000°C, in adiabatic conditions. Enrgy is conserved, therefore the kinetic energy of the iron atoms is also constant. Therfore, this is also "perpetual motion".
The point with superfluids or supraconductivity (I assume this guy alludes to these things) is about the coherence, not about "perpetuity of motion".
Really, this Zephir is ridiculous.
QUOTE
The same valuation we can hear from the opponents of evolutionary theory, for example... Can such stance prove something?
Taking the hat of Darwin doesn't make a Darwin of you.
Your stand indded doesn't prove anything, and we are still asking you for just the hint of a proof.
With arguments as quoted here above, anything could be true.
And the reality is that truth is very precise and unique. You don't even approach it.
This one also is very funny:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The same valuation we can hear from the opponents of evolutionary theory, for example... Can such stance prove something? |
Taking the hat of Darwin doesn't make a Darwin of you.
Your stand indded doesn't prove anything, and we are still asking you for just the hint of a proof.
With arguments as quoted here above, anything could be true.
And the reality is that truth is very precise and unique. You don't even approach it.
This one also is very funny:
Therefore you're not required to understand all the possible motivations and extrapolations of AWT, just those, which are relevant to the particular topic.
Some people might believe from this quote that there is something to understand or to learn in AWT, while it is an empty shell. Some people might even think it is difficult to understand awt, and you spare us the effort. Only your grandma might understand ...
... you are very very vreative, Zephir, ... in the ways to avoid reality.
And there is even more, like this one:
QUOTE
The black holes are considered to be a singularities, too. Any ideas?
which is wrong, since a blackhole is not a sigularity.
And this one is one of your other pittyful tricks:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The black holes are considered to be a singularities, too. Any ideas? |
which is wrong, since a blackhole is not a sigularity.
And this one is one of your other pittyful tricks:
... some latest theories ...
This is an attempt at associating awt with some "latest theory", obscure, misterious, advanced, to be believed ...
Note how, now, it doesn't matter anymore if it is mainstream or not.
Note also that no detail is given.
And if one asks for details, you get some, but when reading the references, you will discover that it does not support any claim by Zephir.
Just keeping up appearances, always keeping up appearances.
And I can't resist to quote this one:
QUOTE
The spreading of energy along water surface in tiny capillary waves tends to be a background independent. The spreading of light through vacuum appears as background independent, exhibiting so called Lorentz invariance. Any ideas?
Here there are many interresting points.
First, what does "background independence" means: mystery, awt is intuition, it doesn't need any definition and any precision.
Second, I like to highligh the abusive use of analogies: this is the most anachronic aspect of AWT. It is clear that analogy is a dangerous tool, not to be used in science. Analogy shortcuts the brain and only produces nonsense.
Further, to illustrate this danger, we could ask Zephir: "should we use the speed of light in the Lorentz transformation, or should we use the speed of surface water capillary waves?". Most people see the irony of this question, but Zephir doesn't, maybe lacking some background ...
And we could ask further to Zephir to compare the dispersion relation of capillary waves with the dispersion relation of light in vacuum. But this would really be unfair to him: he would have to learn physics, capillary waves, dispersion relation, ... That's not very kind to ask him to learn mainstream science. And, most important, this would totally annihilate his childish analogy.
And Zephir, above, himself, listed many other of his poor analogies o false questions.
I would like to stop and leave the fun to the reader, but I can't resist to quote this one:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The spreading of energy along water surface in tiny capillary waves tends to be a background independent. The spreading of light through vacuum appears as background independent, exhibiting so called Lorentz invariance. Any ideas? |
Here there are many interresting points.
First, what does "background independence" means: mystery, awt is intuition, it doesn't need any definition and any precision.
Second, I like to highligh the abusive use of analogies: this is the most anachronic aspect of AWT. It is clear that analogy is a dangerous tool, not to be used in science. Analogy shortcuts the brain and only produces nonsense.
Further, to illustrate this danger, we could ask Zephir: "should we use the speed of light in the Lorentz transformation, or should we use the speed of surface water capillary waves?". Most people see the irony of this question, but Zephir doesn't, maybe lacking some background ...
And we could ask further to Zephir to compare the dispersion relation of capillary waves with the dispersion relation of light in vacuum. But this would really be unfair to him: he would have to learn physics, capillary waves, dispersion relation, ... That's not very kind to ask him to learn mainstream science. And, most important, this would totally annihilate his childish analogy.
And Zephir, above, himself, listed many other of his poor analogies o false questions.
I would like to stop and leave the fun to the reader, but I can't resist to quote this one:
Tiny particles of matter inside of water exhibits perpetual motion. The atoms of helium exhibits the perpetual motion, so that the helium never freeze. Any ideas?
I am almost ashamed to give a comment, so obvious the answer is to anybody who knows a bit of physics.
Just for the fun.
Electrons in an atom also are in "perpetual motion".
And even funnier: take 1kg of iron at 1000°C, in adiabatic conditions. Enrgy is conserved, therefore the kinetic energy of the iron atoms is also constant. Therfore, this is also "perpetual motion".
The point with superfluids or supraconductivity (I assume this guy alludes to these things) is about the coherence, not about "perpetuity of motion".
Really, this Zephir is ridiculous.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 27 2007, 03:55 PM)
Your stand indded doesn't prove anything, and we are still asking you for just the hint of a proof.
The scientific theory can never be proven, you can just to collect the evidences.
The scientific theory can never be proven, you can just to collect the evidences.
- By Big Bang theory, the Universe has appeared from singularity. The black holes are considered to be a singularities, too. This can serve as an evidence for AWT
- By some latest theories the vacuum has foamy structure. By some latest theories the black hole has a foamy structure. This can serve as an evidence for AWT
- The energy is spreading through foam via transversal waves. The light is spreading via transversal waves. This can serve as an evidence for AWT
- The spreading of energy along water surface in tiny capillary waves tends to be a background independent. The spreading of light through vacuum appears as background independent, exhibiting so called Lorentz invariance. This can serve as an evidence for AWT
- At the case of surface water waves such independence is violated at the case of long wavelengths. At the case of light the dependence manifests for microwave background radiation. This can serve as an evidence for AWT
- The soap foam tends to become more dense after introducing of energy. The vacuum creates the particles after introducing of energy. This can serve as an evidence for AWT
- Whenever the soap foam becomes too dense, the curvature of foam increases and the surfaces of foam will separate mutually. Whenever the sufficient energy is introduced into vacuum, it becomes birefringent, exhibiting the multiple radiative time arrows. This can serve as an evidence for AWT
- The energy wave spreading through foam interferes with the foam structure under formation of wave packets. The light wave spreading through vacuum tends to fragmentate itself into photon particles. This can serve as an evidence for AWT
- Tiny particles of matter inside of water exhibits perpetual motion. The atoms of helium exhibits the perpetual motion, so that the helium never freeze. This can serve as an evidence for AWT
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 27 2007, 03:55 PM)
which is wrong, since a blackhole is not a sigularity.
Unfortunatelly, the relativity theory cannot prove your stance, as it leads to the singular solution. The AWT can.
Unfortunatelly, the relativity theory cannot prove your stance, as it leads to the singular solution. The AWT can.
Ooh yes, one more.
This one is both true and funny:
Since, indeed, AWT is an empty shell, it could not violate anything.
It is just a parody.
This one is both true and funny:
QUOTE
The AWT doesn't violate the relativity theory within the scope of its postulates by any way.
Since, indeed, AWT is an empty shell, it could not violate anything.
It is just a parody.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 27 2007, 04:29 PM)
Since, indeed, AWT is an empty shell, it could not violate anything. It is just a parody.
The relativity theory is just a formal derivation from introductory postulates. By AWT every gradient is the source of inertia. Therefore even the center of singularity, which expects the relativity theory is not the most dense place of black hole. Simply because at the center of every massive object the gravitational field is flat, therefore the highest curvature is somewhere near the surface. Therefore the black hole cannot be formed by the pinpoint singularity: it's formed by the undulating quantum wave, because the surface of black hole tends to become more dense, then the center of BH.
The trick of gradient driven description of reality is, when some function goes to the infinity, it becomes narrow, the higher derivations will always go to the zero. Therefore the influence of higher derivations prevails less or more lately and the true infinity is never reached.
The relativity theory is just a formal derivation from introductory postulates. By AWT every gradient is the source of inertia. Therefore even the center of singularity, which expects the relativity theory is not the most dense place of black hole. Simply because at the center of every massive object the gravitational field is flat, therefore the highest curvature is somewhere near the surface. Therefore the black hole cannot be formed by the pinpoint singularity: it's formed by the undulating quantum wave, because the surface of black hole tends to become more dense, then the center of BH.
The trick of gradient driven description of reality is, when some function goes to the infinity, it becomes narrow, the higher derivations will always go to the zero. Therefore the influence of higher derivations prevails less or more lately and the true infinity is never reached.
Zephir,
It is well know that the Schwarzschild geometry of a black hole is not singular.
Just like cartesian geometry does not become a singular geometry by performing a singular change of coordinates.
What happens, is simply that the Schwarzschild choice of coordinate is singular, but the geometry is not.
As you should know, it is possible to chose other coordinates to prove easily that the Schwarzschild geometry is not singular.
You should understand that the physics does not depend on the choice of coordinates, and the nature of the geometry doesn't either.
So, if AWT can prove that the Schwarzschild geometry is singular, then AWT is proven to be wrong. (assuming it is not an empty shell)
QUOTE
Unfortunatelly, the relativity theory cannot prove your stance, as it leads to the singular solution
It is well know that the Schwarzschild geometry of a black hole is not singular.
Just like cartesian geometry does not become a singular geometry by performing a singular change of coordinates.
What happens, is simply that the Schwarzschild choice of coordinate is singular, but the geometry is not.
As you should know, it is possible to chose other coordinates to prove easily that the Schwarzschild geometry is not singular.
You should understand that the physics does not depend on the choice of coordinates, and the nature of the geometry doesn't either.
So, if AWT can prove that the Schwarzschild geometry is singular, then AWT is proven to be wrong. (assuming it is not an empty shell)
Zephir,
We know it, as you told it yourself.
Your intention is to build the AWT by refuting the arguments of your opposers.
That's really a new way in science, and you indeed have a lot to do.
Yet, I think this will lead you nowhere.
We know it, as you told it yourself.
Your intention is to build the AWT by refuting the arguments of your opposers.
That's really a new way in science, and you indeed have a lot to do.
Yet, I think this will lead you nowhere.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 27 2007, 04:39 PM)
It is well know that the Schwarzschild geometry of a black hole is not singular
This is just another manifestation of the complete lack of relativity theory understanding from your side. The singularity of gravitational equation solution has nothing to do with Schwarzschild or any other particular geometry. It's well known, the Schwarzschild geometry is the geometry of space-time, not the gravitational field profile.
The Schwarzschild radius is just the place, where the escape speed of light due the curvature of gravitational field exceeds speed of light - no less, no more. The general relativity says nothing about Einstein equation solution bellow the Schwarzschild radius, with the only exception: its singular.
This is just another manifestation of the complete lack of relativity theory understanding from your side. The singularity of gravitational equation solution has nothing to do with Schwarzschild or any other particular geometry. It's well known, the Schwarzschild geometry is the geometry of space-time, not the gravitational field profile.
The Schwarzschild radius is just the place, where the escape speed of light due the curvature of gravitational field exceeds speed of light - no less, no more. The general relativity says nothing about Einstein equation solution bellow the Schwarzschild radius, with the only exception: its singular.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 27 2007, 04:39 PM)
your intention is to build the AWT by refuting the arguments of your opposers.
Which arguments? The incoherent babbling of yours cannot be considered as a relevant argument at all.
Did you ever realize, you didn't even touch the AWT over hundred posts of yours, disprove the less?
After all, what did you expected from the science evolution at all? Are you really expecting, the people will believe in the postulates of mainstream theories for ever like sheeps without any attempt to find some explanations of them? How can you even expect something like this?
While I highly appreciate every attempt to disprove the AWT by relevant arguments, we should define the boundary, where the scepticism becomes pathological and based on religion.
Which arguments? The incoherent babbling of yours cannot be considered as a relevant argument at all.
Did you ever realize, you didn't even touch the AWT over hundred posts of yours, disprove the less?
After all, what did you expected from the science evolution at all? Are you really expecting, the people will believe in the postulates of mainstream theories for ever like sheeps without any attempt to find some explanations of them? How can you even expect something like this?
While I highly appreciate every attempt to disprove the AWT by relevant arguments, we should define the boundary, where the scepticism becomes pathological and based on religion.
I now wonder to whom Einstein's reply--"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"--would apply to in this posting? May be me?
Again flawed:
If you are referring to the 1/r behaviour of a point mass, you should try to be clearer when expressing yourself.
You -textually- said the following: "The black holes are considered to be a singularities, too" and it is clear that alluding to a black hole is alluding to the Schrtzchild geometry.
If your point is about the 1/r behaviour of a gravitational field from a point mass, then your pretentions become really laughtable.
And most importantly, this is in no way a problem specific to the gravitational theory.
And is it even not really related to the black hole concept since the Schwartchild radius precisely cuts-off this singularity !
So once more Zephir, you are talking with your keyboard, not with your brain.
And you are right to say that I never really proved a flaw in AWT: there is indeed no content in AWT. I simply proved again and again that AWT is an empty shell and that your claims that it explains something is just a fraud.
How could I falsify a theory that has no principles and no prediction and that still awaits a publication (even on a crackpot web site)?
AWT in a nutshell: all the maths of existing theories are right and confirm AWT, showing therefore the superioty of AWT over all past paradigms. Looks like pure Zephirology, isn't it?
QUOTE
This is just another manifestation of the complete lack of relativity theory understanding from your side. The singularity of gravitational equation solution has nothing to do with Schwarzschild or any other particular geometry. It's well known, the Schwarzschild geometry is the geometry of space-time, not the gravitational field profile.
If you are referring to the 1/r behaviour of a point mass, you should try to be clearer when expressing yourself.
You -textually- said the following: "The black holes are considered to be a singularities, too" and it is clear that alluding to a black hole is alluding to the Schrtzchild geometry.
If your point is about the 1/r behaviour of a gravitational field from a point mass, then your pretentions become really laughtable.
And most importantly, this is in no way a problem specific to the gravitational theory.
And is it even not really related to the black hole concept since the Schwartchild radius precisely cuts-off this singularity !
So once more Zephir, you are talking with your keyboard, not with your brain.
And you are right to say that I never really proved a flaw in AWT: there is indeed no content in AWT. I simply proved again and again that AWT is an empty shell and that your claims that it explains something is just a fraud.
How could I falsify a theory that has no principles and no prediction and that still awaits a publication (even on a crackpot web site)?
AWT in a nutshell: all the maths of existing theories are right and confirm AWT, showing therefore the superioty of AWT over all past paradigms. Looks like pure Zephirology, isn't it?
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 27 2007, 07:31 PM)
How could I falsify a theory that has no principles and no prediction and that still awaits a publication
By AWT the observable reality consist from density fluctuation of infinitely dense and hot Aether particles and it follows the recursive solution of wave equation. These principles are the first principles of AWT. The AWT predicts the Lorentz symmetry violation for long wavelength, the recursive evolution of Universe by collapse of nested black holes and many other predictions. From when the publication on the Internet is not publication?
By AWT the observable reality consist from density fluctuation of infinitely dense and hot Aether particles and it follows the recursive solution of wave equation. These principles are the first principles of AWT. The AWT predicts the Lorentz symmetry violation for long wavelength, the recursive evolution of Universe by collapse of nested black holes and many other predictions. From when the publication on the Internet is not publication?
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 27 2007, 07:31 PM)
since the Schwartchild radius precisely cuts-off this singularity
By relativity theory gravitational singularity still exists beneath the Schwartzild radius and your unconscious babbling cannot change anything about it.
According to general relativity the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity, or single point. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed
By relativity theory gravitational singularity still exists beneath the Schwartzild radius and your unconscious babbling cannot change anything about it.
According to general relativity the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity, or single point. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed
Zephir,
Stay outside the black hole, otherwise we will miss all your nonsense.
You are a very funny guy: talking about a singularity inside a black hole, this is really a good one.
For your other remarks, besides other misunderstandings that I will skip, you should know that I have nothing against publishing on the net. The problem is rather with the content: you probably would pretend that your "references" are clear, but actually, these are just a decorated sketch of an empty shell. If you don't have more to show, then it is very weak indeed:
- a few line of scientific delusion (one linear equation to explain our universe!)
- 17 claimed consequences that are unrelated to the few preliminaries
- a psychedelic animated gif to let people believe there is more behind
What a joke.
But I take note that this text ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry117116 ) is the foundation of AWT.
Do you confirm?
It is good to know that, so I know where I should refer to explain people what is behind the nude king that you are.
QUOTE
By relativity theory gravitational singularity still exists beneath the Schwartzild radius and your unconscious babbling cannot change anything about it.
Stay outside the black hole, otherwise we will miss all your nonsense.
You are a very funny guy: talking about a singularity inside a black hole, this is really a good one.
For your other remarks, besides other misunderstandings that I will skip, you should know that I have nothing against publishing on the net. The problem is rather with the content: you probably would pretend that your "references" are clear, but actually, these are just a decorated sketch of an empty shell. If you don't have more to show, then it is very weak indeed:
- a few line of scientific delusion (one linear equation to explain our universe!)
- 17 claimed consequences that are unrelated to the few preliminaries
- a psychedelic animated gif to let people believe there is more behind
What a joke.
But I take note that this text ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry117116 ) is the foundation of AWT.
Do you confirm?
It is good to know that, so I know where I should refer to explain people what is behind the nude king that you are.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 27 2007, 09:34 PM)
... talking about a singularity inside a black hole, this is really a good one...
This is article from Wikipedia, you can dispute it there and don't waste OUR time by senile babbling. Because not just me is interested about reading the discussion about trivialites.
According to general relativity the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity, or single point. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed
If the AWT has nothing for you, it's not my problem. Why I should take care about you?
This is article from Wikipedia, you can dispute it there and don't waste OUR time by senile babbling. Because not just me is interested about reading the discussion about trivialites.
According to general relativity the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity, or single point. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed
If the AWT has nothing for you, it's not my problem. Why I should take care about you?
Zephir,
This is not a very scientific attitude:
If you are using this reference from Wikipedia, this means that you agree with the opinion expressed there. (otherwise you would contradict yourslef, evidently)
On the other side, if you don't want to waste your time, just don't answer, this would relief this forum from your nonsense and make time for you to study physics, if you could.
Regarding this question of singularity, my opinion is that all trajectories of particles starting from outside the black hole will always remain outside the black hole or at most reach the event horizon. No trajectory even reach inside the black hole. Therefore, the inside structure of a black hole is a pure abstraction. And at least there is no way to check the existence of a singularity: the 1/r behaviour can only be probed from outside, so where would there be any problem.
In this last answer you illustrated excellently your poor critical sense and your capability to believe anything that you would read anywhere as long as you think that it support your view. There you precisely fail where you claim to be different. And moreover, you only read the sentenses that suit your aim. Have you noticed this other sentense from the same reference:
If you are using this reference from Wikipedia, this means that you agree with the opinion expressed there. (otherwise you would contradict yourslef, evidently)
On the other side, if you don't want to waste your time, just don't answer, this would relief this forum from your nonsense and make time for you to study physics, if you could.
Regarding this question of singularity, my opinion is that all trajectories of particles starting from outside the black hole will always remain outside the black hole or at most reach the event horizon. No trajectory even reach inside the black hole. Therefore, the inside structure of a black hole is a pure abstraction. And at least there is no way to check the existence of a singularity: the 1/r behaviour can only be probed from outside, so where would there be any problem.
In this last answer you illustrated excellently your poor critical sense and your capability to believe anything that you would read anywhere as long as you think that it support your view. There you precisely fail where you claim to be different. And moreover, you only read the sentenses that suit your aim. Have you noticed this other sentense from the same reference:
An example is the Schwarzschild solution which describes a non-rotating, uncharged black hole. In coordinate systems convenient for working in regions far away from the black hole, a part of the metric becomes infinite at the event horizon. However, spacetime at the event horizon is regular.
In bold, the sentense that you missed.
A good one again, Zephir. Soon we will lose our breath, so funny you are.
This is not a very scientific attitude:
QUOTE
This is article from Wikipedia, you can dispute it there and don't waste my time here.
If you are using this reference from Wikipedia, this means that you agree with the opinion expressed there. (otherwise you would contradict yourslef, evidently)
On the other side, if you don't want to waste your time, just don't answer, this would relief this forum from your nonsense and make time for you to study physics, if you could.
Regarding this question of singularity, my opinion is that all trajectories of particles starting from outside the black hole will always remain outside the black hole or at most reach the event horizon. No trajectory even reach inside the black hole. Therefore, the inside structure of a black hole is a pure abstraction. And at least there is no way to check the existence of a singularity: the 1/r behaviour can only be probed from outside, so where would there be any problem.
In this last answer you illustrated excellently your poor critical sense and your capability to believe anything that you would read anywhere as long as you think that it support your view. There you precisely fail where you claim to be different. And moreover, you only read the sentenses that suit your aim. Have you noticed this other sentense from the same reference:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is article from Wikipedia, you can dispute it there and don't waste my time here. |
If you are using this reference from Wikipedia, this means that you agree with the opinion expressed there. (otherwise you would contradict yourslef, evidently)
On the other side, if you don't want to waste your time, just don't answer, this would relief this forum from your nonsense and make time for you to study physics, if you could.
Regarding this question of singularity, my opinion is that all trajectories of particles starting from outside the black hole will always remain outside the black hole or at most reach the event horizon. No trajectory even reach inside the black hole. Therefore, the inside structure of a black hole is a pure abstraction. And at least there is no way to check the existence of a singularity: the 1/r behaviour can only be probed from outside, so where would there be any problem.
In this last answer you illustrated excellently your poor critical sense and your capability to believe anything that you would read anywhere as long as you think that it support your view. There you precisely fail where you claim to be different. And moreover, you only read the sentenses that suit your aim. Have you noticed this other sentense from the same reference:
An example is the Schwarzschild solution which describes a non-rotating, uncharged black hole. In coordinate systems convenient for working in regions far away from the black hole, a part of the metric becomes infinite at the event horizon. However, spacetime at the event horizon is regular.
In bold, the sentense that you missed.
A good one again, Zephir. Soon we will lose our breath, so funny you are.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 27 2007, 10:29 PM)
However, spacetime at the event horizon is regular. In bold, the sentence that you missed.
I'm not saying, the space-time at the even horizon is not regular. What I'm saying is, the relativity theory predict the gravitational singularity BENEATH this horizon.
While you are saying [Today at 3:55 PM], the black hole is not a singularity.
Which is BS from relativity theory point of view... I'm just correcting the crank's opinion, because even women and little childs can visit this forum.
I'm not saying, the space-time at the even horizon is not regular. What I'm saying is, the relativity theory predict the gravitational singularity BENEATH this horizon.
While you are saying [Today at 3:55 PM], the black hole is not a singularity.
Which is BS from relativity theory point of view...
I'm just correcting the crank's opinion, because even women and little childs can visit this forum.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 08:35 PM)
I'm just correcting the crank's opinion, because even women and little childs can visit this forum.
Oh the hypocrisy. You plaster this forum with non-mainstream nonsense you've just made up and you regularly make completely ignorant incorrect statements about a multitude of mainstream theories. When you are corrected on them by people like Lalbatros, myself, Rpenner etc you ignore us and continue to make the same nonsense and flawed claims again and again and again.
You spent several pages of a recent discussion claiming that jets flying in opposite directions around the globe wouldn't experience time dilation due to their motion, despite there being experimental evidence otherwise! You fail to grasp the difference between local and global constraints in relativity. You claim that relativity is unable to account for the dipole shift in the observed CMB.
You constantly post incorrect comments on mainstream physics as well as your unjustified, ad hoc'd, flawed, inconsistent and vacuous nonsense called AWT and you have the hypocrisy and arrogance to tell Lalbatros, one of the best read posters here (many many times more knowledgable than you in relativity) that you take it upon yourself to keep mainstream information correct?!
My god you're a idiot of unspeakable proportions (I am literally having trouble finding a viable adjective or noun to use which describes the proportions of your arrogance and stupidity in a succinct way).
Oh the hypocrisy. You plaster this forum with non-mainstream nonsense you've just made up and you regularly make completely ignorant incorrect statements about a multitude of mainstream theories. When you are corrected on them by people like Lalbatros, myself, Rpenner etc you ignore us and continue to make the same nonsense and flawed claims again and again and again.
You spent several pages of a recent discussion claiming that jets flying in opposite directions around the globe wouldn't experience time dilation due to their motion, despite there being experimental evidence otherwise! You fail to grasp the difference between local and global constraints in relativity. You claim that relativity is unable to account for the dipole shift in the observed CMB.
You constantly post incorrect comments on mainstream physics as well as your unjustified, ad hoc'd, flawed, inconsistent and vacuous nonsense called AWT and you have the hypocrisy and arrogance to tell Lalbatros, one of the best read posters here (many many times more knowledgable than you in relativity) that you take it upon yourself to keep mainstream information correct?!
My god you're a idiot of unspeakable proportions (I am literally having trouble finding a viable adjective or noun to use which describes the proportions of your arrogance and stupidity in a succinct way).
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 27 2007, 11:28 PM)
You plaster this forum with non-mainstream nonsense
All my claims unsupported by mainstream science are quoted carefully by the phrase "By AWT...". The Lalbatros didn't said, the black hole is not singularity by his opinion, so I corrected him as a any other crank.
Can you spot the difference? Apparently not.
The fact, you didn't understood something from AWT doesn't means, it's nonsense. For example, my dog doesn't understand the Pythagoras formula, but this still doesn't mean, it's nonsense. BTW I don't know, why do you want to play the negative role in the history of science evolution so much. Don't you know, all our stupid claims are recorded for further publishing as an example of narrow-minded and grudging stance of mainstream science proponents? You can serve as a learning textbook of the Pathological disbelief and you'll do so. Because my plan is not only to reintroduce the Aether theory into publicity, but to explain all the reasons and mechanisms, why such important idea was refused and ignored by mainstream science for so long time. Because the very same problem appears at the case of cold fusion, Heim's theory and many other important ideas.
The mainstream theoretical physics has transformed gradually into very conservative lobby out of public control, which slovens the further development of science, or it can even become dangerous for the rest civilization (compare the LHC experiments planned) - so the rest of society is required to solve this unpleasant situation.
You've been warned.
All my claims unsupported by mainstream science are quoted carefully by the phrase "By AWT...". The Lalbatros didn't said, the black hole is not singularity by his opinion, so I corrected him as a any other crank.
Can you spot the difference? Apparently not.
The fact, you didn't understood something from AWT doesn't means, it's nonsense. For example, my dog doesn't understand the Pythagoras formula, but this still doesn't mean, it's nonsense. BTW I don't know, why do you want to play the negative role in the history of science evolution so much. Don't you know, all our stupid claims are recorded for further publishing as an example of narrow-minded and grudging stance of mainstream science proponents? You can serve as a learning textbook of the Pathological disbelief and you'll do so. Because my plan is not only to reintroduce the Aether theory into publicity, but to explain all the reasons and mechanisms, why such important idea was refused and ignored by mainstream science for so long time. Because the very same problem appears at the case of cold fusion, Heim's theory and many other important ideas.
The mainstream theoretical physics has transformed gradually into very conservative lobby out of public control, which slovens the further development of science, or it can even become dangerous for the rest civilization (compare the LHC experiments planned) - so the rest of society is required to solve this unpleasant situation.
You've been warned.
Zephir, the key word is justify. You must justify your rhetoric in regards to AWT with some mathematics. If you cannot do so at the present time, you must learn what ever type of mathematics is necessary so as to present your thoughts mathematically. If you someday do succeed in a mathematical presentation of AWT, you are a genius. If not and, if you do not even try and take the time to learn and then to present AWT within a mathematical framework, well ...?
The last great hurdle for Zephir is the mathematical hurdle. Don't be lazy. Don't think the thoughts that turn yourself into your own worst enemy. Think positive Zephir. Do it ...!
QUOTE
Some men are born great. Some men achieve greatness. And some men have greatness thrust upon them. - William Shakespeare, in Hamlet (I thunk.)
The last great hurdle for Zephir is the mathematical hurdle. Don't be lazy. Don't think the thoughts that turn yourself into your own worst enemy. Think positive Zephir. Do it ...!
QUOTE (mergatroid+May 28 2007, 12:41 AM)
You must justify your rhetoric in regards to AWT with some mathematics
Nope, everything what I'm required is just to die. Don't you believe me? For example, the Heim's theory is full of math, it's very close to the Aether foam description and it's ignored by mainstream science as well. So the lack of math is not crucial problem here.
After all, the same "dummy rhetoric" was used in refusal of Aether concept before one hundred years. Because here's no formal proof of the Aether nonexistence. On the contrary, even the c=const postulate and Lorentz transforms were originally derived from Aether theory, no other theory can derive such result - so what we are talking about here? It's just the mainstream science, who is expected to explain its stance by now - the math model of Aether done by Maxwell is explicitly clear, concerning the prediction of the constant speed of light.
The important math was done already before years, so the obstructions concerning the Aether theory are completely unjustified political problem of lobbyism in mainstream science.
The reason simply is, the mainstream physicists are having it's own money source in the development of their own theories. They invested into it whole years time and education - so why they should change their paradigm? Who cares, if some better theories exists, if the money are going well? The problem is the lack of public control, because the publicity has no clue, which model is correct. The AWT has a chance to change this situation - just because it doesn't requires any math for its reasoning.
For the rest of society some math background of theory is completely unimportant. The publicity asks for unambiguous explanations, not the math games. The AWT is designed not just to help the scientists, but all the people to understand the reality and the contemporary physics.
Another problem is completely practical: the AWT is based on the multi particle system description. Such heavily parallel system is not very opened to the consecutive logic of formal math. I'm not saying, it's impossible, but it's very ineffective to develop the formal solution of some complex elastic fluid, if the much more easier approach exists. The usage of improper tool for description of reality it's not science - it's just stupidity, because the mainstream science has never realized, the field concept is about heavily parallel system. Why the rest of civilization should pay such things, like the sequential modeling of the parallel system?
It's all about money. I'm not asking for glory and/or Nobel prices - just for more conscious and effective functioning of science.
Nope, everything what I'm required is just to die. Don't you believe me? For example, the Heim's theory is full of math, it's very close to the Aether foam description and it's ignored by mainstream science as well. So the lack of math is not crucial problem here.
After all, the same "dummy rhetoric" was used in refusal of Aether concept before one hundred years. Because here's no formal proof of the Aether nonexistence. On the contrary, even the c=const postulate and Lorentz transforms were originally derived from Aether theory, no other theory can derive such result - so what we are talking about here? It's just the mainstream science, who is expected to explain its stance by now - the math model of Aether done by Maxwell is explicitly clear, concerning the prediction of the constant speed of light.
The important math was done already before years, so the obstructions concerning the Aether theory are completely unjustified political problem of lobbyism in mainstream science.
The reason simply is, the mainstream physicists are having it's own money source in the development of their own theories. They invested into it whole years time and education - so why they should change their paradigm? Who cares, if some better theories exists, if the money are going well? The problem is the lack of public control, because the publicity has no clue, which model is correct. The AWT has a chance to change this situation - just because it doesn't requires any math for its reasoning.
For the rest of society some math background of theory is completely unimportant. The publicity asks for unambiguous explanations, not the math games. The AWT is designed not just to help the scientists, but all the people to understand the reality and the contemporary physics.
Another problem is completely practical: the AWT is based on the multi particle system description. Such heavily parallel system is not very opened to the consecutive logic of formal math. I'm not saying, it's impossible, but it's very ineffective to develop the formal solution of some complex elastic fluid, if the much more easier approach exists. The usage of improper tool for description of reality it's not science - it's just stupidity, because the mainstream science has never realized, the field concept is about heavily parallel system. Why the rest of civilization should pay such things, like the sequential modeling of the parallel system?
It's all about money. I'm not asking for glory and/or Nobel prices - just for more conscious and effective functioning of science.
Zephir. Your theory talks about instead of a vacuum, an aether that is full of quantum foam. The universe has expanded from a point source to over a hundred billion light years in diameter. This means from ultimately dense, the aether foam has become ever less dense. This would change the laws of your AWT universe. No such change has ever been seen. Your explanation?
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 09:55 PM)
Nope, everything what I'm required is just to die. Don't you believe me? For example, the Heim's theory is full of math, it's very close to the Aether foam description and it's ignored by mainstream science as well. So the lack of math is not crucial problem here.
After all, the same "dummy rhetoric" was used in refusal of Aether concept before one hundred years. Because here's no formal proof of the Aether nonexistence. On the contrary, even the c=const postulate and Lorentz transforms were originally derived from Aether theory, no other theory can derive such result - so what we are talking about here? It's just the mainstream science, who is expected to explain its stance by now - the math model of Aether done by Maxwell is explicitly clear, concerning the prediction of the constant speed of light.
The important math was done already before years, so the obstructions concerning the Aether theory are completely unjustified political problem of lobbyism in mainstream science.
The reason simply is, the mainstream physicists are having it's own money source in the development of their own theories. They invested into it whole years time and education - so why they should change their paradigm? Who cares, if some better theories exists, if the money are going well? The problem is the lack of public control, because the publicity has no clue, which model is correct. The AWT has a chance to change this situation - just because it doesn't requires any math for its reasoning.
For the rest of society some math background of theory is completely unimportant. The publicity asks for unambiguous explanations, not the math games. The AWT is designed not just to help the scientists, but all the people to understand the reality and the contemporary physics.
Another problem is completely practical: the AWT is based on the multi particle system description. Such heavily parallel system is not very opened to the consecutive logic of formal math. I'm not saying, it's impossible, but it's very ineffective to develop the formal solution of some complex elastic fluid, if the much more easier approach exists. The usage of improper tool for description of reality it's not science - it's just stupidity, because the mainstream science has never realized, the field concept is about heavily parallel system. Why the rest of civilization should pay such things, like the sequential modeling of the parallel system?
It's all about money. I'm not asking for glory and/or Nobel prices - just for more conscious and effective functioning of science.
Zephir has put forth a very clear explanation of his reasons for none mathematic posting. Even though we wish to have him show some math, it is simply not what he is trying to show us.
I admit I have not understood along the way,however just like Zephir says about not needing to put math on the forum, I do not have to totally understand.
After all, the same "dummy rhetoric" was used in refusal of Aether concept before one hundred years. Because here's no formal proof of the Aether nonexistence. On the contrary, even the c=const postulate and Lorentz transforms were originally derived from Aether theory, no other theory can derive such result - so what we are talking about here? It's just the mainstream science, who is expected to explain its stance by now - the math model of Aether done by Maxwell is explicitly clear, concerning the prediction of the constant speed of light.
The important math was done already before years, so the obstructions concerning the Aether theory are completely unjustified political problem of lobbyism in mainstream science.
The reason simply is, the mainstream physicists are having it's own money source in the development of their own theories. They invested into it whole years time and education - so why they should change their paradigm? Who cares, if some better theories exists, if the money are going well? The problem is the lack of public control, because the publicity has no clue, which model is correct. The AWT has a chance to change this situation - just because it doesn't requires any math for its reasoning.
For the rest of society some math background of theory is completely unimportant. The publicity asks for unambiguous explanations, not the math games. The AWT is designed not just to help the scientists, but all the people to understand the reality and the contemporary physics.
Another problem is completely practical: the AWT is based on the multi particle system description. Such heavily parallel system is not very opened to the consecutive logic of formal math. I'm not saying, it's impossible, but it's very ineffective to develop the formal solution of some complex elastic fluid, if the much more easier approach exists. The usage of improper tool for description of reality it's not science - it's just stupidity, because the mainstream science has never realized, the field concept is about heavily parallel system. Why the rest of civilization should pay such things, like the sequential modeling of the parallel system?
It's all about money. I'm not asking for glory and/or Nobel prices - just for more conscious and effective functioning of science.
Zephir has put forth a very clear explanation of his reasons for none mathematic posting. Even though we wish to have him show some math, it is simply not what he is trying to show us.
I admit I have not understood along the way,however just like Zephir says about not needing to put math on the forum, I do not have to totally understand.
QUOTE (rethinker+May 28 2007, 03:30 PM)
Even though we wish to have him show some math, it is simply not what he is trying to show us.
The math didn't helped me to bring up the AWT, so I don't expect, it will help me to extrapolate it. By my opinion, the math is not required for basic understanding of AWT at all. Most of deeper extrapolations of it are the subject of expensive simulations. My motivation is to try to generalize this model even more, not to elaborate the details. Currently the AWT simplifies the understanding of contemporary physics, but it's not so sure, it can simplify its extrapolation. Maybe we'll found at the end, no Aether or even duality theory is required for the explanation of Universe at all.
The math didn't helped me to bring up the AWT, so I don't expect, it will help me to extrapolate it. By my opinion, the math is not required for basic understanding of AWT at all. Most of deeper extrapolations of it are the subject of expensive simulations. My motivation is to try to generalize this model even more, not to elaborate the details. Currently the AWT simplifies the understanding of contemporary physics, but it's not so sure, it can simplify its extrapolation. Maybe we'll found at the end, no Aether or even duality theory is required for the explanation of Universe at all.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 28 2007, 02:55 PM)
...This means from ultimately dense, the aether foam has become ever less dense...
The Aether is always ultimately dense, but ultimately energetic (hot) at the same time. These mass density and energy density will compensate mutually from the inner observer perspective to a nearly empty environment - just a very sparse density fluctuations remains. Only these density fluctuations of Aether can undergo mutual phase transforms, because they're attracted mutually by shielding effect similar to Casimir force. The rest of Aether has no reason to change.
When we would clean-up all these density fluctuations artificially, every observable matter would disappear again. This is similar process of wave formation in the wind. On the smooth water surface no wave can be formed actually. Just the elevation of tiny waves can serve as the driving force for the another wave creation. By such way, the formation of Universe is avalanche-like, auto-catalytic process. But the speed of condensation is limited by the speed of energy spreading, which transfers the gravitational pressure from one generation of universe into another. It's not so easy to break-up or collapse the black hole, because the energy is spreading very slowly inside of such environment. Therefore the Universe appears conditionally stable.
The Aether is always ultimately dense, but ultimately energetic (hot) at the same time. These mass density and energy density will compensate mutually from the inner observer perspective to a nearly empty environment - just a very sparse density fluctuations remains. Only these density fluctuations of Aether can undergo mutual phase transforms, because they're attracted mutually by shielding effect similar to Casimir force. The rest of Aether has no reason to change.
When we would clean-up all these density fluctuations artificially, every observable matter would disappear again. This is similar process of wave formation in the wind. On the smooth water surface no wave can be formed actually. Just the elevation of tiny waves can serve as the driving force for the another wave creation. By such way, the formation of Universe is avalanche-like, auto-catalytic process. But the speed of condensation is limited by the speed of energy spreading, which transfers the gravitational pressure from one generation of universe into another. It's not so easy to break-up or collapse the black hole, because the energy is spreading very slowly inside of such environment. Therefore the Universe appears conditionally stable.
Zephir,
You have no right and no reason to tell such things:
Physics is a human activity like any others.
Money is just accounting of resources.
Resources are needed for all activities.
And resources are not infinite and have to be shared for different objectives.
Moreover, new lines of thought that would really give an advantage would be highly welcome in the "mainstream". There would be a big competition to take advantage of it. Examples of this are numerous. Scientists are by nature attracted by new ideas and powerful methods.
Finally, why are you pretending that "it's all about money"?
Are you pretending that our opposition to AWT is for that reason?
If this is what you mean, then you are wrong. I gave my reason, and it doesn't bring me one cent. My reasons is that I prentend to have a good understanding of physics and that I cannot make sense of your posts here. I explained you why and you never took my arguments seriously.
Conversly, if this is not what you mean, then you have no reason to say that in this discussion.
Why don't you stick to a scientific discussion.
The first positive step would be to explain us AWT step by step and without hiding anything.
The second step would be to accept the rules of science in the discussion: facts, verifications, and proofs only matter.
Sorry for my "obstruction" ... but if you ask me I can stop posting here. Just ask.
You have no right and no reason to tell such things:
QUOTE
It's all about money.
Physics is a human activity like any others.
Money is just accounting of resources.
Resources are needed for all activities.
And resources are not infinite and have to be shared for different objectives.
Moreover, new lines of thought that would really give an advantage would be highly welcome in the "mainstream". There would be a big competition to take advantage of it. Examples of this are numerous. Scientists are by nature attracted by new ideas and powerful methods.
Finally, why are you pretending that "it's all about money"?
Are you pretending that our opposition to AWT is for that reason?
If this is what you mean, then you are wrong. I gave my reason, and it doesn't bring me one cent. My reasons is that I prentend to have a good understanding of physics and that I cannot make sense of your posts here. I explained you why and you never took my arguments seriously.
Conversly, if this is not what you mean, then you have no reason to say that in this discussion.
Why don't you stick to a scientific discussion.
The first positive step would be to explain us AWT step by step and without hiding anything.
The second step would be to accept the rules of science in the discussion: facts, verifications, and proofs only matter.
Sorry for my "obstruction" ... but if you ask me I can stop posting here. Just ask.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 28 2007, 04:49 PM)
And resources are not infinite and have to be shared for different objectives.
Well, exactly. For example, the building of hadron collides on the Earth is not highest priority for me at all. Even the USA government had come to the same conclusion before years. The collider experiment on the Earth are both expensive, both dangerous. We cannot notify the strangelet formation at all, such particle can survive inside of Earth core for years and swallow the Earth gradually. While the collider experiments in the cosmic space are quite safe and paradoxically a much more cheaper. You are not required to build up the hellium refirgerators, the high vacuum pumps and the whole collider can be a much more larger, thus much more effective. The collider in free space can even have the direct usage, as it's able to destroy the dangerous asteroids at the distance and convert them into gravitational energy. With respect of Heim's theory, here's no need to carry out such experiments, as we can predict and compute the particle mass with high precision even without Higgs boson and or supersymmetry concept. We can simply wait for better technology and we can improve the existing theories to understand the vacuum behavior better. The high energy physics can be extrapolated much more cheaper way from low energy physics, the gravitational waves and axion/neutrino physics research.
What we can do is to invest into cold fusion research, because we are destroying the life environment by burning of fossil fuels. We wasted the last fifteen years by voluntaristic, but completely useless project.
Well, exactly. For example, the building of hadron collides on the Earth is not highest priority for me at all. Even the USA government had come to the same conclusion before years. The collider experiment on the Earth are both expensive, both dangerous. We cannot notify the strangelet formation at all, such particle can survive inside of Earth core for years and swallow the Earth gradually. While the collider experiments in the cosmic space are quite safe and paradoxically a much more cheaper. You are not required to build up the hellium refirgerators, the high vacuum pumps and the whole collider can be a much more larger, thus much more effective. The collider in free space can even have the direct usage, as it's able to destroy the dangerous asteroids at the distance and convert them into gravitational energy. With respect of Heim's theory, here's no need to carry out such experiments, as we can predict and compute the particle mass with high precision even without Higgs boson and or supersymmetry concept. We can simply wait for better technology and we can improve the existing theories to understand the vacuum behavior better. The high energy physics can be extrapolated much more cheaper way from low energy physics, the gravitational waves and axion/neutrino physics research.
What we can do is to invest into cold fusion research, because we are destroying the life environment by burning of fossil fuels. We wasted the last fifteen years by voluntaristic, but completely useless project.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 28 2007, 04:49 PM)
The first positive step would be to explain us AWT step by step and without hiding anything.
The AWT has nothing to hide. Whole theory is built upon the assumption, the universe is composed from black hole, consisting from highly compressed particles. Despite of conceptual simplicity, the behavior of such particle system is apparently nontrivial. We are just required to do the simulation of such system and reconcile it with existing theories. After then we can extrapolate this concept further. After all, currently at least a two research groups exists, which are analyzing the behavior of particle systems from quantum mechanic perspective and from black hole structure and dynamics perspective.
The AWT has nothing to hide. Whole theory is built upon the assumption, the universe is composed from black hole, consisting from highly compressed particles. Despite of conceptual simplicity, the behavior of such particle system is apparently nontrivial. We are just required to do the simulation of such system and reconcile it with existing theories. After then we can extrapolate this concept further. After all, currently at least a two research groups exists, which are analyzing the behavior of particle systems from quantum mechanic perspective and from black hole structure and dynamics perspective.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 03:05 PM)
While the collider experiments in the cosmic space are quite safe and paradoxically a much more cheaper. You are not required to build up the hellium refirgerators, the high vacuum pumps and the whole collider can be a much more larger, thus much more effective.
Completely wrong and demonstrates no idea about the actual mechanics of the colliders and the size of space budgets.
The current collider at the LHC is millions of tons and more than 30km is diameter. Budget? Somewhere around €6 billion. International Space Station is not even 500m long and it's budget has spiralled to be dozens of times more expensive.
Even in the 'cold' of space, the magnets would require cooling and so would still need some kind of coolant system. Also, while space is very close to a vacuum, you would still need seals and vacuum pumps because the vacuum inside the collider is BETTER than the vacuum in space. The seals are so good, it would take 10,000 years for a car tyre to deflate!
The current cost of assembling the LHC in space would exceed $1 trillion without a doubt.
Completely wrong and demonstrates no idea about the actual mechanics of the colliders and the size of space budgets.
The current collider at the LHC is millions of tons and more than 30km is diameter. Budget? Somewhere around €6 billion. International Space Station is not even 500m long and it's budget has spiralled to be dozens of times more expensive.
Even in the 'cold' of space, the magnets would require cooling and so would still need some kind of coolant system. Also, while space is very close to a vacuum, you would still need seals and vacuum pumps because the vacuum inside the collider is BETTER than the vacuum in space. The seals are so good, it would take 10,000 years for a car tyre to deflate!
The current cost of assembling the LHC in space would exceed $1 trillion without a doubt.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 03:05 PM)
The collider in free space can even have the direct usage, as it's able to destroy the dangerous asteroids at the distance
It's not some kind of all powerful ray gun. The energies of the individual particles are powerful but the energies of the beams in total is quite low on 'normal scales'. It'd be cheaper, easier and more viable to thump an asteroid with a couple of gigaton nukes.
You also forget momentum conservation. For an orbitting installation to alter the momentum of an asteroid, it has to push on it somehow, such as by a particle stream. This particle stream, by Newton's 3rd law (which clearly slipped your mind), would push on the installation too. The momentum transfer applied to the asteroid would 'feed back' to the installation and you'd have to expend MORE energy keeping the installation in a stable position, or you'd end up just accelerating it like ion drives do. What good is pushing a 1km asteroid out the way when you end up pushing a 100km long nuclear powered accelerator into a decaying orbit instead?!
You don't even think about the basic mechanics of such claims!
You also forget momentum conservation. For an orbitting installation to alter the momentum of an asteroid, it has to push on it somehow, such as by a particle stream. This particle stream, by Newton's 3rd law (which clearly slipped your mind), would push on the installation too. The momentum transfer applied to the asteroid would 'feed back' to the installation and you'd have to expend MORE energy keeping the installation in a stable position, or you'd end up just accelerating it like ion drives do. What good is pushing a 1km asteroid out the way when you end up pushing a 100km long nuclear powered accelerator into a decaying orbit instead?!
You don't even think about the basic mechanics of such claims!
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 03:05 PM)
With respect of Heim's theory, here's no need to carry out such experiments, as we can predict and compute the particle mass with high precision even without Higgs boson and or supersymmetry concept.
Three problems.
1. Heim theory's predictions are a mixture of ad hoc results and experimentally invalid results.
2. You use experiments to check theories. You don't just say "The theory predicts X=4, don't bother to check". If we took that attitude noone would do any experiments, we'd just guess at the answer. There are a series of stringent bounds on the Higgs mass within the Standard Model and a loarge quantity of work when it comes to supersymmetry breaking scales and the LSP mass. So while quantities are predicted, they have to be tested otherwise you have no idea if the predictions are true. If you don't know if the predictions are true, you'd be an idiot to use such predictions for practical means.
3. If the Higgs exists, then Heim theory is incomplete since it doesn't predict is. If supersymmetry exists then Heim theory is nonsense since it is incompatible with such a notion. Since mainstream theories point strongly to the existence of the Higgs and supersymmetry is pointed to by a number of different methods, it's crucial it's searched for.
1. Heim theory's predictions are a mixture of ad hoc results and experimentally invalid results.
2. You use experiments to check theories. You don't just say "The theory predicts X=4, don't bother to check". If we took that attitude noone would do any experiments, we'd just guess at the answer. There are a series of stringent bounds on the Higgs mass within the Standard Model and a loarge quantity of work when it comes to supersymmetry breaking scales and the LSP mass. So while quantities are predicted, they have to be tested otherwise you have no idea if the predictions are true. If you don't know if the predictions are true, you'd be an idiot to use such predictions for practical means.
3. If the Higgs exists, then Heim theory is incomplete since it doesn't predict is. If supersymmetry exists then Heim theory is nonsense since it is incompatible with such a notion. Since mainstream theories point strongly to the existence of the Higgs and supersymmetry is pointed to by a number of different methods, it's crucial it's searched for.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 03:05 PM)
The high energy physics can be extrapolated much more cheaper way from low energy physics, the gravitational waves and axion/neutrino physics research.
While true in part, it isn't true in general. Some things either do not feed down at all to low scales or cannot be accurately measured. If you knew much particle physics you'd know this.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 03:05 PM)
What we can do is to invest into cold fusion research, because we are destroying the life environment by burning of fossil fuels.
Numerous independent groups invested vast sums of money into cold fusion after it was claimed to have been done and they call found nothing. Why waste money on something which has absolutely no reason to be believed other than as a holy grail pipe dream when hot fusion technology is within our grasp and known to be viable?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 28 2007, 08:10 PM)
The current cost of assembling the LHC in space would exceed $1 trillion without a doubt.
Maybe. What's the cost of the whole Earth, if it will be destroyed by first "successful" experiment?
Maybe. What's the cost of the whole Earth, if it will be destroyed by first "successful" experiment?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 28 2007, 08:10 PM)
Heim theory's predictions are a mixture of ad hoc results and experimentally invalid results.
Say's who? Why it should be? The string theory never predicted testable result correctly. Cosmological constant? Wrong. ISL violation? Wrong. Mini-black holes? Wrong. Cosmic strings? Wrong. And so on....
Say's who? Why it should be? The string theory never predicted testable result correctly. Cosmological constant? Wrong. ISL violation? Wrong. Mini-black holes? Wrong. Cosmic strings? Wrong. And so on....
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 28 2007, 08:10 PM)
If the Higgs exists, then Heim theory is incomplete since it doesn't predict is. If supersymmetry exists then Heim theory is nonsense since it is incompatible with such a notion.
The Heim's theory doesn't excludes the supersymmetry of Higgs bosons concepts, because the Heim's protosimplex lattice corresponds the Higgs lattice, the interior of Heim's protosimplex lattice corresponds the super-partners. It simply doesn't require such concepts for anything meaningful.
It's quite evident, even when the Standard Model confirms the Higgs boson and or supersymmetry existence, it wouldn't be able to compute the mass or lifetime of elementary particles from fundamental constants anyway.
Furthermore, the Heim's theory was mostly just an one-man show so far, its development has stopped effectivelly after Heim's death before ten years effectively - while the Standard model of String theory is developed by hundreds of scientists. Nobody knows, how the Heim's theory can be extrapolated and improved. If we just compare the effectiveness of development, the Heim's theory clearly wins.
The Heim's theory doesn't excludes the supersymmetry of Higgs bosons concepts, because the Heim's protosimplex lattice corresponds the Higgs lattice, the interior of Heim's protosimplex lattice corresponds the super-partners. It simply doesn't require such concepts for anything meaningful.
It's quite evident, even when the Standard Model confirms the Higgs boson and or supersymmetry existence, it wouldn't be able to compute the mass or lifetime of elementary particles from fundamental constants anyway.
Furthermore, the Heim's theory was mostly just an one-man show so far, its development has stopped effectivelly after Heim's death before ten years effectively - while the Standard model of String theory is developed by hundreds of scientists. Nobody knows, how the Heim's theory can be extrapolated and improved. If we just compare the effectiveness of development, the Heim's theory clearly wins.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 28 2007, 08:10 PM)
Numerous independent groups invested vast sums of money into cold fusion after it was claimed to have been done and they call found nothing.
Many others have founded a clear evidences of cold fusion. If the cold fusion would reach the commercial phase, it would be a total shame of the contemporary science and the final evidence of its jobbery and failure. The animation bellow is the record of palladium cathode under infracamera.
Many others have founded a clear evidences of cold fusion. If the cold fusion would reach the commercial phase, it would be a total shame of the contemporary science and the final evidence of its jobbery and failure. The animation bellow is the record of palladium cathode under infracamera.
Zephir,
We can built many sentenses starting with if. None of then will ever prove a fact.
Example:
"If Zephir knew a bit of physics, he would post less nonsense."
Zephir, are your nonsensical theories driven by the fear of the "final evidence"?
This would not be a very scientific attitude, again.
It would be more sensible to start from facts.
QUOTE
If the cold fusion would reach the commercial phase, it would be a total shame of the contemporary science and the final evidence of its jobbery and failure.
We can built many sentenses starting with if. None of then will ever prove a fact.
Example:
"If Zephir knew a bit of physics, he would post less nonsense."
Zephir, are your nonsensical theories driven by the fear of the "final evidence"?
This would not be a very scientific attitude, again.
It would be more sensible to start from facts.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 28 2007, 09:37 PM)
It would be more sensible to start from facts.
AWT: Facts doesn't exist, only the interpretations of the facts, depending on the observer perspective.
AWT: Facts doesn't exist, only the interpretations of the facts, depending on the observer perspective.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 07:02 PM)
Say's who? Why it should be? The string theory never predicted testable result correctly. Cosmological constant? Wrong. ISL violation? Wrong. Mini-black holes? Wrong. Cosmic strings? Wrong. And so on....
The experimental predictions of Heim theory fall outside the experimental results. Have a look at Wiki.
As for string theory, it predicts general relativity. It also predicts supersymmetry which will be within our reach soon if it exists. It also allows for a description of the CMB, since it's compact dimensions lead to inflation. The cosmological constant is wrapped up within that inflation description and is an active area of research (part of the research I do involves constructing viable vacua with positive cosmological constant). The inverse square law I have explained to you many many many many times, you obviously don't bother to learn things. The maximum distance any ISL violation could occur on was a fraction of a millimeter. That's been experimentally ruled out but there's still a large range of values consistant with various theories which predict such a violation. You don't understand the difference between "We've restricted the range this theory can work in" and "We've utterly falsified it". It's basic physics understanding but you appear not to have it.
Same goes for mini black holes. If certain parameters take certain values, then some theories predict mini black holes. The lack of observations just means the parameter space is restricted it. If you knew anything about how physicists link theory to experiment you'd understand.
But suprise, suprise, you don't.
The experimental predictions of Heim theory fall outside the experimental results. Have a look at Wiki.
As for string theory, it predicts general relativity. It also predicts supersymmetry which will be within our reach soon if it exists. It also allows for a description of the CMB, since it's compact dimensions lead to inflation. The cosmological constant is wrapped up within that inflation description and is an active area of research (part of the research I do involves constructing viable vacua with positive cosmological constant). The inverse square law I have explained to you many many many many times, you obviously don't bother to learn things. The maximum distance any ISL violation could occur on was a fraction of a millimeter. That's been experimentally ruled out but there's still a large range of values consistant with various theories which predict such a violation. You don't understand the difference between "We've restricted the range this theory can work in" and "We've utterly falsified it". It's basic physics understanding but you appear not to have it.
Same goes for mini black holes. If certain parameters take certain values, then some theories predict mini black holes. The lack of observations just means the parameter space is restricted it. If you knew anything about how physicists link theory to experiment you'd understand.
But suprise, suprise, you don't.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 07:02 PM)
The Heim's theory doesn't excludes the supersymmetry of Higgs bosons concepts, because the Heim's protosimplex lattice corresponds the Higgs lattice, the interior of Heim's protosimplex lattice corresponds the super-partners. It simply doesn't require such concepts for anything meaningful.
Can you demonstrate as much? The Wikipedia article describes them as mutually incompatible.
I thought you said that Heim doesn't need the Higgs boson. If it predicts the Higgs boson, that means it needs it to be experimentally valid. Can't even be consistent!
I thought you said that Heim doesn't need the Higgs boson. If it predicts the Higgs boson, that means it needs it to be experimentally valid. Can't even be consistent!
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 07:02 PM)
It's quite evident, even when the Standard Model confirms the Higgs boson and or supersymmetry existence, it wouldn't be able to compute the mass or lifetime of elementary particles from fundamental constants anyway.
The mass and lifetime of numerous quark composites can be predicted by supersymmetry and by more theoretical models like the AdS/CFT correspondence.
I know you and I have been over this before but like you always do, you forget you've had your misconceptions explained to you and you try to BS your way past the same people who explained your errors last time! How stupid are you?! (that's retorical, the obvious answer is extremely).
Why do you think things like the proton half life are such an important issue? Because theories exist which make statements about such things. For instance, an SU(5) GUT would predict the proton has a half life of less than experimental observations imply due to unifying gauge bosons within the theory. An SO(10) model doesn't suffer from this.
I know you and I have been over this before but like you always do, you forget you've had your misconceptions explained to you and you try to BS your way past the same people who explained your errors last time! How stupid are you?! (that's retorical, the obvious answer is extremely).
Why do you think things like the proton half life are such an important issue? Because theories exist which make statements about such things. For instance, an SU(5) GUT would predict the proton has a half life of less than experimental observations imply due to unifying gauge bosons within the theory. An SO(10) model doesn't suffer from this.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 07:02 PM)
Many others have founded a clear evidences of cold fusion. If the cold fusion would reach the commercial phase, it would be a total shame of the contemporary science and the final evidence of its jobbery and failure.
Do you think big business would give a damn what the scientific community says or wants to keep quiet if there were literally TRILLIONS of dollars to be made?
If cold fusion worked it would make the developing companies fantastically rich and powerful. This simple fact coupled with the fact that many companies want to make money demonstrates cold fusion isn't found to work. The scientific community isn't some kind of Illuminati who control everything, because there's no way they could keep such a thing silent. But you have to make such claims because it makes you feel somehow more valid and makes you think there's a reason AWT and other BS is 'suppressed', not because it's nonsense.
If cold fusion worked it would make the developing companies fantastically rich and powerful. This simple fact coupled with the fact that many companies want to make money demonstrates cold fusion isn't found to work. The scientific community isn't some kind of Illuminati who control everything, because there's no way they could keep such a thing silent. But you have to make such claims because it makes you feel somehow more valid and makes you think there's a reason AWT and other BS is 'suppressed', not because it's nonsense.
This is quite true, Alphanumeric:
In the end, fusion is Applied Physics Research, it is even engineering by most aspects.
(the main engineering problem is the high power density and the interaction with materials) (°)
The conspiracy theory from Zephir is just a joke.
On such subjects we can distinguish the believers from the scientists, those who hope in better world (infinite energy e.g.) and those who go beyond hope (nuclear engineering, energy technologies that work, telecommunications, computing, ...).
________________________________________________________________________________________
(°) for cold fusion, the problem is more fundamental: distinguishing the power density from the noise
QUOTE
If cold fusion worked it would make the developing companies fantastically rich and powerful.
In the end, fusion is Applied Physics Research, it is even engineering by most aspects.
(the main engineering problem is the high power density and the interaction with materials) (°)
The conspiracy theory from Zephir is just a joke.
On such subjects we can distinguish the believers from the scientists, those who hope in better world (infinite energy e.g.) and those who go beyond hope (nuclear engineering, energy technologies that work, telecommunications, computing, ...).
________________________________________________________________________________________
(°) for cold fusion, the problem is more fundamental: distinguishing the power density from the noise
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 28 2007, 10:19 PM)
...It also allows for a description of the CMB, since it's compact dimensions lead to inflation...
Nice story... What is it the "compact dimension of the radiation"?
Nice story... What is it the "compact dimension of the radiation"?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 28 2007, 10:19 PM)
... If certain parameters take certain values, then some theories predict mini black holes...
Simply the Theory Of Everything What You Want...
Simply the Theory Of Everything What You Want...
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 09:03 PM)
Nice story...
Once again, you go with the crank logic that if you haven't heard of something, it's made up. If that were true, most of science wouldn't exist since you're obviously very ignorant of it.
I have mentioned the notion of compact dimensions leadning to a description of the CMB on these forums before, I've even mentioned it's related to the work I do.
Here is a published paper which uses flux stabalisation and racetrack inflation of the inflaton field to get viable spectra for the microwave background. There's plenty more papers like that available on ArXiv too.
Once again, you go with the crank logic that if you haven't heard of something, it's made up. If that were true, most of science wouldn't exist since you're obviously very ignorant of it.
I have mentioned the notion of compact dimensions leadning to a description of the CMB on these forums before, I've even mentioned it's related to the work I do.
Here is a published paper which uses flux stabalisation and racetrack inflation of the inflaton field to get viable spectra for the microwave background. There's plenty more papers like that available on ArXiv too.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 09:03 PM)
What is it the "compact dimension of the radiation"?
I was referring to the compact dimensions which are found in string theory, typically Calabi Yau spaces. I'm sure you've got an animation for such a thing but I'm certain you have no clue about them.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 28 2007, 11:18 PM)
I was referring to the compact dimensions which are found in string theory, typically Calabi Yau spaces.
The Calabi Yau spaces are the compact dimensions of the radiation? Where these Calabi Yau spaces are residing?
The Calabi Yau spaces are the compact dimensions of the radiation? Where these Calabi Yau spaces are residing?
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 09:43 PM)
The Calabi Yau spaces are the compact dimensions of the radiation? Where these Calabi Yau spaces are residing?
Do you even bothering to read and think about what I'm saying? You have heard of the compact dimensions, you even post a picture of them, yet you ask naive questions as if you've never heard of them before. It's as if you go out of your way to look like a *****.
The C-Y are the compact dimensions of space-time, not of radiation. I didn't even say that term. Radiation and particles move through space-time and so if space-time is undergoing variation like inflation then it'll affect the matter within it. Inflation can be described by the moduli fields of compact dimensions. The moduli can be thought of as parameterisations of the size and shape and structure of the compact dimensions. If these moduli undergo certain dynamics, it leads to inflationary models via one of the moduli being an 'inflaton'.
They then settle down to a stable configuration and stay that way for at least many orders of magnitude longer than the universe's current age. This is needed since the moduli also alter gauge couplings and since the coupling strength of things like electromagnetism hasn't changed a measurable amount for billions of years, this is an experimental requirement.
Do you even bothering to read and think about what I'm saying? You have heard of the compact dimensions, you even post a picture of them, yet you ask naive questions as if you've never heard of them before. It's as if you go out of your way to look like a *****.
The C-Y are the compact dimensions of space-time, not of radiation. I didn't even say that term. Radiation and particles move through space-time and so if space-time is undergoing variation like inflation then it'll affect the matter within it. Inflation can be described by the moduli fields of compact dimensions. The moduli can be thought of as parameterisations of the size and shape and structure of the compact dimensions. If these moduli undergo certain dynamics, it leads to inflationary models via one of the moduli being an 'inflaton'.
They then settle down to a stable configuration and stay that way for at least many orders of magnitude longer than the universe's current age. This is needed since the moduli also alter gauge couplings and since the coupling strength of things like electromagnetism hasn't changed a measurable amount for billions of years, this is an experimental requirement.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 29 2007, 12:45 AM)
Do you even bothering to read and think about what I'm saying?
Yes, thank you. So, where these Calabi Yau spaces are residing?
Yes, thank you. So, where these Calabi Yau spaces are residing?
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 10:49 PM)
Yes, thank you.
You manage to give the distinct impression you don't. You might want to work on that.
You manage to give the distinct impression you don't. You might want to work on that.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 10:49 PM)
So, where these Calabi Yau spaces are residing?
And you know the answer to this, since you clearly have heard of Calabi Yau spaces before. You have a number of pictures of them you post from time to time, such as the one a few posts up.
They are everywhere in space-time. Is there somewhere your questions are leading?
They are everywhere in space-time. Is there somewhere your questions are leading?
So, where these Calabi Yau spaces are residing? In the vacuum?
QUOTE (Zephir+May 28 2007, 11:16 PM)
So, where these Calabi Yau spaces are residing? In the vacuum?
Everywhere in space-time. What about that did you not get? I assume by your 'wink' you are trying to lead this somewhere but I am in no doubt you'll be lead there by your ignorance of this part of physics and your arrogance that AWT is anything more than BS.
Everywhere in space-time. What about that did you not get? I assume by your 'wink' you are trying to lead this somewhere but I am in no doubt you'll be lead there by your ignorance of this part of physics and your arrogance that AWT is anything more than BS.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 29 2007, 01:25 AM)
Everywhere in space-time.
OK, so we can suppose, the CY exists in vacuum, too. How large are these artifacts? Can we observe them? If not, why? If yes, how?
OK, so we can suppose, the CY exists in vacuum, too. How large are these artifacts? Can we observe them? If not, why? If yes, how?
The CY spaces are space-time, they are not 'things' any more than left and right are things. Their size would be roughly that of the Planck length. Detecting them is difficult but things like the signature left on the CMB by the compact dimensions during inflation is one of the most viable ways. Additional methods would be things like black holes in the LHC, which could point to hidden dimensions.
You have heard all this before since you've obviously heard of CY spaces, otherwise why do you have a number of pictures of them on your website? But rather than asking something specific you seem intent on dragging out tedious questions you could quickly have answered by places like Wikipedia. That's why such websites exist!
You have heard all this before since you've obviously heard of CY spaces, otherwise why do you have a number of pictures of them on your website? But rather than asking something specific you seem intent on dragging out tedious questions you could quickly have answered by places like Wikipedia. That's why such websites exist!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 29 2007, 03:32 PM)
Their size would be roughly that of the Planck length.
OK. How the CY spaces are related to strings of string theory?
Can these strings exists without CY spaces and/or vice-versa?
OK. How the CY spaces are related to strings of string theory?
Can these strings exists without CY spaces and/or vice-versa?
There is another version of aether theory called -quantum aether dynamics- which has equations behind and one can find it under the same name on the internet.
QUOTE (Majkl+May 29 2007, 04:02 PM)
There is another version of aether theory called -quantum aether dynamics- which has equations behind and one can find it under the same name on the Internet.
There is a large number of another variants of Aether theories - most of them have nothing to do with the Aether concept at all, being based on the formal abstract postulates.
"The structure of the Aether is such that it appears there are two toroids spinning in opposite directions, which contributes to the structure of subatomic particles and atoms. "
The assumption of some particular structure leads to the over-parametrization of every theory.
There is a large number of another variants of Aether theories - most of them have nothing to do with the Aether concept at all, being based on the formal abstract postulates.
"The structure of the Aether is such that it appears there are two toroids spinning in opposite directions, which contributes to the structure of subatomic particles and atoms. "
The assumption of some particular structure leads to the over-parametrization of every theory.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 29 2007, 01:52 PM)
OK. How the CY spaces are related to strings of string theory?
Can these strings exists without CY spaces and/or vice-versa?
String theory predicts more than 4 dimensions. As such, the extra dimensions must be too small to see, hence you have compactified dimensions. Given a requirement to do with coupling spinors to curved space-time and the required 'holonomy' of the compactified space, the 6 dimensional compact space must be Calabi Yau, which has the required holonomy group for spinors.
While strings can exist without the compact spaces, it wouldn't be a viable theory of physics since it'd have the wrong space-time layout.
Calabi Yau spaces can exist without strings, but there'd be no reason apriory other than putting them in by hand to a theory.
Can these strings exists without CY spaces and/or vice-versa?
String theory predicts more than 4 dimensions. As such, the extra dimensions must be too small to see, hence you have compactified dimensions. Given a requirement to do with coupling spinors to curved space-time and the required 'holonomy' of the compactified space, the 6 dimensional compact space must be Calabi Yau, which has the required holonomy group for spinors.
While strings can exist without the compact spaces, it wouldn't be a viable theory of physics since it'd have the wrong space-time layout.
Calabi Yau spaces can exist without strings, but there'd be no reason apriory other than putting them in by hand to a theory.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 29 2007, 04:58 PM)
Calabi Yau spaces can exist without strings, but there'd be no reason apriory other than putting them in by hand to a theory.
The logical conclusion is, the vacuum is full of strings and it cannot be massless.
The logical conclusion is, the vacuum is full of strings and it cannot be massless.
Zephir, my problem with AWT, can be refined to two issues.
1. You exclude the concept of a true beginning. You say that universes result from black holes within other universes, and as such, is somewhat like a chain reaction model. However, you never once answer the very apparently problem of what the very first universe was. If you go back, in AWT, from the black hole in a universe, that apparently gave birth to this universe, and then back beyond the black hole in the universe which gave birth to the universe before ours, and so on... how many times, you never say. But whatever number it is, it will be a finite number. There will have to be the 'first' universe, which had black holes, which gave rise to all the universes and then their subsequent black holes. Yet, this is where AWT fails.
If there was a first universe, with these first black holes which gave rise to the subsequent universes, then how did 'that' universe, come into existence, if it wasn't because of a black hole. You do not answer this, and indeed, this is where AWT fails to provide an answer. It's only ok, so far as that first universe. I've never read anything you've said, which provided an answer to this.
2. Your use of the term 'aether foam', suggests 'foam', as in, matter which has bubbles of air in it. Yet you never provide an answer to what this 'foam' is made of, and what is between the spaces of this foam. You only go on about 'state changes', which is totally irrelevant to the question at hand. Eventually, you're going to have to provide an answer to what this foam is, what whatever the foam is made from, is
made from, and so on, until you get to whatever is fundamental.
These two problems say to me that AWT theory is like foam - Lots of holes in it.
1. You exclude the concept of a true beginning. You say that universes result from black holes within other universes, and as such, is somewhat like a chain reaction model. However, you never once answer the very apparently problem of what the very first universe was. If you go back, in AWT, from the black hole in a universe, that apparently gave birth to this universe, and then back beyond the black hole in the universe which gave birth to the universe before ours, and so on... how many times, you never say. But whatever number it is, it will be a finite number. There will have to be the 'first' universe, which had black holes, which gave rise to all the universes and then their subsequent black holes. Yet, this is where AWT fails.
If there was a first universe, with these first black holes which gave rise to the subsequent universes, then how did 'that' universe, come into existence, if it wasn't because of a black hole. You do not answer this, and indeed, this is where AWT fails to provide an answer. It's only ok, so far as that first universe. I've never read anything you've said, which provided an answer to this.
2. Your use of the term 'aether foam', suggests 'foam', as in, matter which has bubbles of air in it. Yet you never provide an answer to what this 'foam' is made of, and what is between the spaces of this foam. You only go on about 'state changes', which is totally irrelevant to the question at hand. Eventually, you're going to have to provide an answer to what this foam is, what whatever the foam is made from, is
made from, and so on, until you get to whatever is fundamental.
These two problems say to me that AWT theory is like foam - Lots of holes in it.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 29 2007, 03:31 PM)
The logical conclusion is, the vacuum is full of strings and it cannot be massless.
I thought you were referring to a theory having Calabi Yau spaces without it being string theory, not "In string theory, can the Calabi Yau spaces exist without having strings wrapped around them".
Yes, they can exist without strings wrapped around them, though in many cases of particular interest it's D branes which wrap around the various holes within the space-time and give rise to important things like gaugino condensates. These relate directly to the fate of the stabalised moduli.
However, they can exist entirely without the need for strings, to the best of my knowledge.
As for the mass of the vacuum, depending on the specific Calabi Yau and the superpotential involved, the vacuum expectation value varies. At present the route of research is to accurately construct and describe deSitter vacuum spaces, since that's what observations of the universe imply. There are various ways to do this and that's the area I work in.
I thought you were referring to a theory having Calabi Yau spaces without it being string theory, not "In string theory, can the Calabi Yau spaces exist without having strings wrapped around them".
Yes, they can exist without strings wrapped around them, though in many cases of particular interest it's D branes which wrap around the various holes within the space-time and give rise to important things like gaugino condensates. These relate directly to the fate of the stabalised moduli.
However, they can exist entirely without the need for strings, to the best of my knowledge.
As for the mass of the vacuum, depending on the specific Calabi Yau and the superpotential involved, the vacuum expectation value varies. At present the route of research is to accurately construct and describe deSitter vacuum spaces, since that's what observations of the universe imply. There are various ways to do this and that's the area I work in.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 29 2007, 06:03 PM)
You exclude the concept of a true beginning.
The problem is, you're expecting the single true beginning of Universe... But I can ask easily - which one do you mean, exactly?
The problem is, you're expecting the single true beginning of Universe...
But I can ask easily - which one do you mean, exactly?QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 29 2007, 06:03 PM)
..yet you never provide an answer to what this 'foam' is made of, and what is between the spaces of this foam..
The foam is formed by Aether, the hypothetical matter of infinite mass and energy density. The bubbles are the areas of more chaotic/high dimensional Aether, then the rest. The Aether is probably of infinite mass and energy density, because we are observing it through many density fluctuations/inhomogeneities of it, which are multiplying mutually on the principle of bumpy glass or hall of mirror.
The foam is formed by Aether, the hypothetical matter of infinite mass and energy density. The bubbles are the areas of more chaotic/high dimensional Aether, then the rest. The Aether is probably of infinite mass and energy density, because we are observing it through many density fluctuations/inhomogeneities of it, which are multiplying mutually on the principle of bumpy glass or hall of mirror.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 29 2007, 06:03 PM)
Yes, they can exist without strings wrapped around them.
Therefore just the C-Y spaces concept is the most fundamental concept in the string theory, not the strings itself.
How such C-Y spaces should appear by string theory?
Therefore just the C-Y spaces concept is the most fundamental concept in the string theory, not the strings itself.
How such C-Y spaces should appear by string theory?
QUOTE (Zephir+May 29 2007, 06:09 PM)
The problem is, you're expecting the single true beginning of Universe... But I can ask easily - which one do you mean, exactly?
Well, your own theory, suggests beginnings to each universe. Hence, by doing this, you are leading yourself to the first beginning, the true beginning, the beginning of time.
But I can ask easily - which one do you mean, exactly? Well, your own theory, suggests beginnings to each universe. Hence, by doing this, you are leading yourself to the first beginning, the true beginning, the beginning of time.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 29 2007, 09:18 PM)
Well, your own theory, suggests beginnings to each universe.
The well defined, unique unidirectional time arrow appears as just a very local illusion, something like the boundary of fractal. We can observe the number of sparse daughter Universe generations in the form of well black holes as well. If we will extrapolate such model into beginning, these black holes will become larger and more similar to mutually dissolved foamy density fluctuations, where the boundaries and the beginnings and ends of each Universe generation will not be very sharp at all. The beginnings and ends of such Universes will become quite similar and mutually reversible. Such Universe will appear and dissolve again freely. The very same behavior we can expect somewhere inside of dense clusters of black holes.
The well defined, unique unidirectional time arrow appears as just a very local illusion, something like the boundary of fractal. We can observe the number of sparse daughter Universe generations in the form of well black holes as well. If we will extrapolate such model into beginning, these black holes will become larger and more similar to mutually dissolved foamy density fluctuations, where the boundaries and the beginnings and ends of each Universe generation will not be very sharp at all. The beginnings and ends of such Universes will become quite similar and mutually reversible. Such Universe will appear and dissolve again freely. The very same behavior we can expect somewhere inside of dense clusters of black holes.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 29 2007, 07:09 PM)
Therefore just the C-Y spaces concept is the most fundamental concept in the string theory, not the strings itself.
No, that's like saying "Relativity talks about space-time, it doesn't need particles to talk about the universe". Calabi Yau spaces are about the shape of space-time. While they play a critical role in how things within space-time behave, they are not 'fundamental', replacing strings.
This is a classic thing of yours, you don't understand or know anything about this part of a mainstream theory yet you like to pretend you've understood it all. 'Apparently' you didn't even know what a Calabi Yau space was yesterday, so it's unlikely you've suddenly grasped the finer points of differential geometry, quantum field theory and topology.
No, that's like saying "Relativity talks about space-time, it doesn't need particles to talk about the universe". Calabi Yau spaces are about the shape of space-time. While they play a critical role in how things within space-time behave, they are not 'fundamental', replacing strings.
This is a classic thing of yours, you don't understand or know anything about this part of a mainstream theory yet you like to pretend you've understood it all. 'Apparently' you didn't even know what a Calabi Yau space was yesterday, so it's unlikely you've suddenly grasped the finer points of differential geometry, quantum field theory and topology.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 29 2007, 07:09 PM)
How such C-Y spaces should appear by string theory?
Section 15.1.3 in Volume 2 of Green, Schwarz and Witten's "Superstring theory" covers it in detail.
Simple version :
To cut a complex story short, the compact space must have a property such that if you parallelly transport a spinor along a closed curve, it leads the spinor invariant, it's covariantly constant. The symmetry group which describes transformations which leave a spinor invariant is SU(3). Therefore the compact space must have an holonomy group of SU(3) and this is precisely the Calabi Yau spaces.
Complex version :
The compact space is 6 dimensional, therefore it's holonomy group will be a subgroup of SO(6). SO(6) is isomorphic to SU(4) and spinors live in the 4 (or it's conjugate) of SU(4). The subgroup which leaves such a multiplet constant is SU(3). The SU(3) holonomy group implies that the manifold is Kahler (it has a closed Kahler form) and is Ricci flat. The class of Kahler Ricci flat manifolds is known as the Calabi Yau manifolds after the conjecture and subsequent proof relating Chern forms and Ricci flatness. A simplified and slightly slapdash proof of the conjecture is to be found in Nakahara - Geometry, Topology and Physics and a full description and proof of the conjecture in Joyce - Riemannian Holonomy Groups and Calibrated Geometry (warning, extremely mathematical in natural! I did a maths degree and it's very heavy going! Worth it though).
If you are unsure about such things as holonomy Zephir, I suggest opening a book and learning, though I'm sure such a thing is way too much effort for a lazy ignoramus like yourself.
Simple version :
To cut a complex story short, the compact space must have a property such that if you parallelly transport a spinor along a closed curve, it leads the spinor invariant, it's covariantly constant. The symmetry group which describes transformations which leave a spinor invariant is SU(3). Therefore the compact space must have an holonomy group of SU(3) and this is precisely the Calabi Yau spaces.
Complex version :
The compact space is 6 dimensional, therefore it's holonomy group will be a subgroup of SO(6). SO(6) is isomorphic to SU(4) and spinors live in the 4 (or it's conjugate) of SU(4). The subgroup which leaves such a multiplet constant is SU(3). The SU(3) holonomy group implies that the manifold is Kahler (it has a closed Kahler form) and is Ricci flat. The class of Kahler Ricci flat manifolds is known as the Calabi Yau manifolds after the conjecture and subsequent proof relating Chern forms and Ricci flatness. A simplified and slightly slapdash proof of the conjecture is to be found in Nakahara - Geometry, Topology and Physics and a full description and proof of the conjecture in Joyce - Riemannian Holonomy Groups and Calibrated Geometry (warning, extremely mathematical in natural! I did a maths degree and it's very heavy going! Worth it though).
If you are unsure about such things as holonomy Zephir, I suggest opening a book and learning, though I'm sure such a thing is way too much effort for a lazy ignoramus like yourself.
Zephir,
Here is a quote from you, notice the sentence I have put in bold:
This quote comes from the following thread: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8738 .
My question now is the following:
Were you telling me the truth at that time?
If yes, are your equations still a private ownership, or is it to be published somewhere?
Or were you playing the fool with me?
My second question is:
Are you not playing the fool here with everybody?
And if yes, how long will you continue this game?
Here is a quote from you, notice the sentence I have put in bold:
QUOTE
Zephir Aug 28 2006, 07:21 PM
For example, if you'll observe some particle, you'll become entangled with it due the energy exchanged. But it's just the matter of content of internal energy inside the particle, how pronounced such entanglement will be. The equations will remain in my private ownership, this forum is just for explanation of concepts. It doesn't replace the scientific publications.
For example, if you'll observe some particle, you'll become entangled with it due the energy exchanged. But it's just the matter of content of internal energy inside the particle, how pronounced such entanglement will be. The equations will remain in my private ownership, this forum is just for explanation of concepts. It doesn't replace the scientific publications.
This quote comes from the following thread: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8738 .
My question now is the following:
Were you telling me the truth at that time?
If yes, are your equations still a private ownership, or is it to be published somewhere?
Or were you playing the fool with me?
My second question is:
Are you not playing the fool here with everybody?
And if yes, how long will you continue this game?
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2007, 01:49 PM)
While I highly appreciate every attempt to disprove the AWT by relevant arguments, we should define the boundary, where the scepticism becomes pathological and based on religion.
Hahaha! I love it! Thanks for this link. I hope you don't mind if I use this in the future.
By the way, this post has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. It's useful for a completely different topic.
Hahaha! I love it! Thanks for this link. I hope you don't mind if I use this in the future.
By the way, this post has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. It's useful for a completely different topic.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 29 2007, 06:03 PM)
...you exclude the concept of a true beginning...
Continued from Zephir at 9:39 PM :
.....very same behavior we can expect somewhere inside of dense clusters of black holes...
This similarity is not accidental, indeed. If we'll found the place with the highest concentration of galaxies and black holes, it would be most probably the "geographical center" of our Universe generation. Surprisingly enough, it can be its surface, at the same moment.
By AWT, the time arrow is reversible and it's connected with the prevailing curvature inside of nested Aether foam. The direction of causality determines the thermodynamic time arrow based on the entropy density.
Because the space dimension is the dual to the time dimension, we should expect the causality direction of the space as well. Well, such causality arrow can really exist and it's determined by space curvature, which defines the term "inside" and "outside". We can imagine the nested foam composed from mixture of red and green bubbles the whose size will be undulate at the half-period phase shift. Briefly speaking, while the red bubbles will expand, the green bubbles will collapse and vice-versa.
At the moment, the size of both groups of bubbles becomes equivalent, the local causality time and space arrows will become reversed. The red bubbles surrounding the green bubbles will become surrounded, instead. And the inside green bubbles will appear outside. This transform corresponds the topological inversion of surfaces. The same R-1/R transform can be expected at the scope of the whole Universe generation: the beginning of Universe becomes it's end and the Universe interior becomes its exterior and vice-versa. Therefore the Universe as a whole cannot have the beginning or the end and its space and time dimensions have character of Uroboros aka Klein bottle.
Continued from Zephir at 9:39 PM :
.....very same behavior we can expect somewhere inside of dense clusters of black holes...
This similarity is not accidental, indeed. If we'll found the place with the highest concentration of galaxies and black holes, it would be most probably the "geographical center" of our Universe generation. Surprisingly enough, it can be its surface, at the same moment.
By AWT, the time arrow is reversible and it's connected with the prevailing curvature inside of nested Aether foam. The direction of causality determines the thermodynamic time arrow based on the entropy density.
Because the space dimension is the dual to the time dimension, we should expect the causality direction of the space as well. Well, such causality arrow can really exist and it's determined by space curvature, which defines the term "inside" and "outside". We can imagine the nested foam composed from mixture of red and green bubbles the whose size will be undulate at the half-period phase shift. Briefly speaking, while the red bubbles will expand, the green bubbles will collapse and vice-versa.
At the moment, the size of both groups of bubbles becomes equivalent, the local causality time and space arrows will become reversed. The red bubbles surrounding the green bubbles will become surrounded, instead. And the inside green bubbles will appear outside. This transform corresponds the topological inversion of surfaces. The same R-1/R transform can be expected at the scope of the whole Universe generation: the beginning of Universe becomes it's end and the Universe interior becomes its exterior and vice-versa. Therefore the Universe as a whole cannot have the beginning or the end and its space and time dimensions have character of Uroboros aka Klein bottle.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 29 2007, 08:09 PM)
At the moment, the size of both groups of bubbles becomes equivalent, the local causality time and space arrows will become reversed. The red bubbles surrounding the green bubbles will become surrounded, instead. And the inside green bubbles will appear outside. This transform corresponds the topological inversion of surfaces. The same R-1/R transform can be expected at the scope of the whole Universe generation: the beginning of Universe becomes it's end and the Universe interior becomes its exterior and vice-versa. Therefore the Universe as a whole cannot have the beginning or the end and its space and time dimensions have character of Uroboros aka Klein bottle.
I shall have to concede the arguement to you, because I have no idea what you're on about with most of your reply
No offence, but I have no idea what R-1/R transforms are, or what Klein bottles are, except for perfume, or space arrows, or what is meant by red/green bubbles. You'll have to give your explanations to me in far simpler English, in terms of use of concepts anyway, for me to stand a chance of retorting. It's why I have trouble replying to you, because I just don't get half of what you're on about, most of the time.
You know, I'd love you to write an AWT explanation of your entire theory, in simple English, so the average guy off the street can understand it. That, I think, would help me and others, alot.
I shall have to concede the arguement to you, because I have no idea what you're on about with most of your reply
No offence, but I have no idea what R-1/R transforms are, or what Klein bottles are, except for perfume, or space arrows, or what is meant by red/green bubbles. You'll have to give your explanations to me in far simpler English, in terms of use of concepts anyway, for me to stand a chance of retorting. It's why I have trouble replying to you, because I just don't get half of what you're on about, most of the time.You know, I'd love you to write an AWT explanation of your entire theory, in simple English, so the average guy off the street can understand it. That, I think, would help me and others, alot.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 30 2007, 12:58 AM)
Klein bottles are, except for perfume
It's Felix Klein bottle, not Calvin's one. Can you spot the difference?
It's Felix Klein bottle, not Calvin's one. Can you spot the difference?
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 29 2007, 10:58 PM)
No offence, but I have no idea what R-1/R transforms are, or what Klein bottles are
Neither does Zephir, but he (like a number of people here) throw in fancy words he doesn't know the meaning of in order to make his nonsense seem more acceptable.
Neither does Zephir, but he (like a number of people here) throw in fancy words he doesn't know the meaning of in order to make his nonsense seem more acceptable.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 29 2007, 10:58 PM)
ou'll have to give your explanations to me in far simpler English, in terms of use of concepts anyway, for me to stand a chance of retorting. It's why I have trouble replying to you, because I just don't get half of what you're on about, most of the time.
Zephir deliberately makes his 'simple explainations' extremely convoluted because it's the only way he can make his nonsense seem viable, if he just deluges people with stuff they (and he) don't understand.
Zephir mentioned Klein bottles and topology but he's never done any mathematics related to either of them.
Zephir deliberately makes his 'simple explainations' extremely convoluted because it's the only way he can make his nonsense seem viable, if he just deluges people with stuff they (and he) don't understand.
Reading some of Zephirs 'explanations' is like trying to wade through treacle.
I pondered that possibility, but I thought that since he writes so much in reply, it must mean something relevant to what was asked. I don't think it's purpose deception, I think that he just needs to write stuff about his theory, without adding weird concepts that average people will often not understand or know about. For instance: If I pick any random post he makes, I will at least find one concept he talks about, which I have no idea about - In conclusion: This is not a good way to do Physics, because you have to be able to explain yourself to people, so that they understand. It's just a waste of time, if they don't understand anything you've said.
I pondered that possibility, but I thought that since he writes so much in reply, it must mean something relevant to what was asked. I don't think it's purpose deception, I think that he just needs to write stuff about his theory, without adding weird concepts that average people will often not understand or know about. For instance: If I pick any random post he makes, I will at least find one concept he talks about, which I have no idea about - In conclusion: This is not a good way to do Physics, because you have to be able to explain yourself to people, so that they understand. It's just a waste of time, if they don't understand anything you've said.
Despite his claims of trying to make things as transparent and simple as possible, he doesn't actually do that. Any quantitative explanation is avoided and qualitative explanations are vacuous.
I must agree. This is one of Zephir's major failings.
Why, I asked him several posts ago, how his theory could do away with the concept of a beginning of time or of the first universe in his chain reaction universal birth system, and I still don't have an answer to my question, simply because the ones he provided, I have no idea what the hell he was talking about.
I read his replies, but I had to concede defeat to him, simply on the basis of not understanding his answer. I would 'like' to receive answers to my questions, simply because I keep an open mind in regards to all theories, and Zephir argues so ferociously about his own, that it merits investigation.
Maybe it's a language barrier, maybe it's deceptive language, maybe I'm not intelligent enough....who knows.
I noticed that he uses spin as much as possible on his answers. He seems to want to not answer with any simplicity.
The molecules will create aggregates, after then they create the aggregates of aggregates, and so on. As the pressure increases, the density fluctuations will flatten and the whole system will become filled by the cellular structure of dense particle fluctuations, similar to foam.
Translation: Molecules will compress together for an unspecified reason, and as the density increases, some unspecified fluctuations relating to density somehow, will proceed to flatten the molecules somehow, which somehow results in a cellular structure of molecules which have become compressed and for an unspecified reason, will fluctuate somehow, and that all of this, is similar to foam...somehow.
Makes no sense to me..
Translation: Molecules will compress together for an unspecified reason, and as the density increases, some unspecified fluctuations relating to density somehow, will proceed to flatten the molecules somehow, which somehow results in a cellular structure of molecules which have become compressed and for an unspecified reason, will fluctuate somehow, and that all of this, is similar to foam...somehow.
Makes no sense to me..
At the moment the normal gas will start to condense into fluid, but if the temperature will increase correspondingly, the mixture can be compressed even more. As the increasing of both the temperature, both pressure will continue, the resulting foam will become more and more dense and it's bubbles will be more and more smaller. At the certain moment, the resulting mixture will behave like the dense elastic gas, which will exhibit the new generation of density fluctuations. If the pressure increases, the fluctuations will condense into new aggregates, aggregates of aggregates and whole the process will repeat again. After many cycles we'll obtain a nested foam, filled by many levels of cellular structures. And this is our vacuum. The density fluctuations of vacuum are the elementary particles.
Translation: During condensation, if the temperature increased, the mixture (unspecified) would somehow compress even more. (Note: Usually condensation occurs when the temperature decreases, not the other way around, like on cold windows). As the temperature increases, the pressure continues, but continues where, nobody knows. Anyway, as a result of all of this, some unspecified foam which resulted somehow from all of the above, will become denser, and the bubbles will become smaller and smaller. At some moment in time, the mixture of whatever was being mixed (unspecified) will behave like an electric gas, which I have no idea of how it behaves, or if it can exist, but anyway, this so-called electric gas, will exhibit some new type of density fluctuation (unspecified), what is a density fluctuation anyway? The pressure of whatever has compressed the compressed thing, will repeat again, to do what, nobody knows. After this has all repeated over and over, in a completely confusing manner, we'll obtain a foam which has been nested (Nested?), and this foam will be filled with many cellular structures of an unspecified cellular material. But basically, this is what a vacuum is...for some reason (Someone give me a translation of this translation?...hello?) Finally, the unspecified density fluctuations of this unspecified and highly confusing and unjustified vacuum, is what elementary particles are.
Right. I'm confused. Alpha, help!
Zephir mentioned Klein bottles and topology but he's never done any mathematics related to either of them.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 29 2007, 10:58 PM)
You know, I'd love you to write an AWT explanation of your entire theory, in simple English, so the average guy off the street can understand it.
Reading some of Zephirs 'explainations' is like trying to wade through treacle.
Despite his claims of trying to make things as transparent and simple as possible, he doesn't actually do that. Any quantative explaination is avoided and qualative explainations are vacuous.
Despite his claims of trying to make things as transparent and simple as possible, he doesn't actually do that. Any quantative explaination is avoided and qualative explainations are vacuous.
QUOTE
Zephir deliberately makes his 'simple explainations' extremely convoluted because it's the only way he can make his nonsense seem viable, if he just deluges people with stuff they (and he) don't understand.
Reading some of Zephirs 'explanations' is like trying to wade through treacle.
I pondered that possibility, but I thought that since he writes so much in reply, it must mean something relevant to what was asked. I don't think it's purpose deception, I think that he just needs to write stuff about his theory, without adding weird concepts that average people will often not understand or know about. For instance: If I pick any random post he makes, I will at least find one concept he talks about, which I have no idea about - In conclusion: This is not a good way to do Physics, because you have to be able to explain yourself to people, so that they understand. It's just a waste of time, if they don't understand anything you've said.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Zephir deliberately makes his 'simple explainations' extremely convoluted because it's the only way he can make his nonsense seem viable, if he just deluges people with stuff they (and he) don't understand. Reading some of Zephirs 'explanations' is like trying to wade through treacle. |
I pondered that possibility, but I thought that since he writes so much in reply, it must mean something relevant to what was asked. I don't think it's purpose deception, I think that he just needs to write stuff about his theory, without adding weird concepts that average people will often not understand or know about. For instance: If I pick any random post he makes, I will at least find one concept he talks about, which I have no idea about - In conclusion: This is not a good way to do Physics, because you have to be able to explain yourself to people, so that they understand. It's just a waste of time, if they don't understand anything you've said.
Despite his claims of trying to make things as transparent and simple as possible, he doesn't actually do that. Any quantitative explanation is avoided and qualitative explanations are vacuous.
I must agree. This is one of Zephir's major failings.
Why, I asked him several posts ago, how his theory could do away with the concept of a beginning of time or of the first universe in his chain reaction universal birth system, and I still don't have an answer to my question, simply because the ones he provided, I have no idea what the hell he was talking about.
I read his replies, but I had to concede defeat to him, simply on the basis of not understanding his answer. I would 'like' to receive answers to my questions, simply because I keep an open mind in regards to all theories, and Zephir argues so ferociously about his own, that it merits investigation.
Maybe it's a language barrier, maybe it's deceptive language, maybe I'm not intelligent enough....who knows.
I noticed that he uses spin as much as possible on his answers. He seems to want to not answer with any simplicity.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 30 2007, 12:58 AM)
...I'd love you to write an AWT explanation of your entire theory, in simple English, so the average guy off the street can understand it..
The Earth's atmosphere is blue, because of dispersion of blue light on the density fluctuations of the atmosphere molecules. How these fluctuations will change, if we increase the pressure?
The molecules will create aggregates, after then they create the aggregates of aggregates, and so on. As the pressure increases, the density fluctuations will flatten and the whole system will become filled by the cellular structure of dense particle fluctuations, similar to foam.
At the moment the normal gas will start to condense into fluid, but if the temperature will increase correspondingly, the mixture can be compressed even more. As the increasing of both the temperature, both pressure will continue, the resulting foam will become more and more dense and it's bubbles will be more and more smaller. At the certain moment, the resulting mixture will behave like the dense elastic gas, which will exhibit the new generation of density fluctuations. If the pressure increases, the fluctuations will condense into new aggregates, aggregates of aggregates and whole the process will repeat again. After many cycles we'll obtain a nested foam, filled by many levels of cellular structures. And this is our vacuum. The density fluctuations of vacuum are the elementary particles.
The Earth's atmosphere is blue, because of dispersion of blue light on the density fluctuations of the atmosphere molecules. How these fluctuations will change, if we increase the pressure?
The molecules will create aggregates, after then they create the aggregates of aggregates, and so on. As the pressure increases, the density fluctuations will flatten and the whole system will become filled by the cellular structure of dense particle fluctuations, similar to foam.
At the moment the normal gas will start to condense into fluid, but if the temperature will increase correspondingly, the mixture can be compressed even more. As the increasing of both the temperature, both pressure will continue, the resulting foam will become more and more dense and it's bubbles will be more and more smaller. At the certain moment, the resulting mixture will behave like the dense elastic gas, which will exhibit the new generation of density fluctuations. If the pressure increases, the fluctuations will condense into new aggregates, aggregates of aggregates and whole the process will repeat again. After many cycles we'll obtain a nested foam, filled by many levels of cellular structures. And this is our vacuum. The density fluctuations of vacuum are the elementary particles.
QUOTE
The molecules will create aggregates, after then they create the aggregates of aggregates, and so on. As the pressure increases, the density fluctuations will flatten and the whole system will become filled by the cellular structure of dense particle fluctuations, similar to foam.
Translation: Molecules will compress together for an unspecified reason, and as the density increases, some unspecified fluctuations relating to density somehow, will proceed to flatten the molecules somehow, which somehow results in a cellular structure of molecules which have become compressed and for an unspecified reason, will fluctuate somehow, and that all of this, is similar to foam...somehow.
Makes no sense to me..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The molecules will create aggregates, after then they create the aggregates of aggregates, and so on. As the pressure increases, the density fluctuations will flatten and the whole system will become filled by the cellular structure of dense particle fluctuations, similar to foam. |
Translation: Molecules will compress together for an unspecified reason, and as the density increases, some unspecified fluctuations relating to density somehow, will proceed to flatten the molecules somehow, which somehow results in a cellular structure of molecules which have become compressed and for an unspecified reason, will fluctuate somehow, and that all of this, is similar to foam...somehow.
Makes no sense to me..
At the moment the normal gas will start to condense into fluid, but if the temperature will increase correspondingly, the mixture can be compressed even more. As the increasing of both the temperature, both pressure will continue, the resulting foam will become more and more dense and it's bubbles will be more and more smaller. At the certain moment, the resulting mixture will behave like the dense elastic gas, which will exhibit the new generation of density fluctuations. If the pressure increases, the fluctuations will condense into new aggregates, aggregates of aggregates and whole the process will repeat again. After many cycles we'll obtain a nested foam, filled by many levels of cellular structures. And this is our vacuum. The density fluctuations of vacuum are the elementary particles.
Translation: During condensation, if the temperature increased, the mixture (unspecified) would somehow compress even more. (Note: Usually condensation occurs when the temperature decreases, not the other way around, like on cold windows). As the temperature increases, the pressure continues, but continues where, nobody knows. Anyway, as a result of all of this, some unspecified foam which resulted somehow from all of the above, will become denser, and the bubbles will become smaller and smaller. At some moment in time, the mixture of whatever was being mixed (unspecified) will behave like an electric gas, which I have no idea of how it behaves, or if it can exist, but anyway, this so-called electric gas, will exhibit some new type of density fluctuation (unspecified), what is a density fluctuation anyway? The pressure of whatever has compressed the compressed thing, will repeat again, to do what, nobody knows. After this has all repeated over and over, in a completely confusing manner, we'll obtain a foam which has been nested (Nested?), and this foam will be filled with many cellular structures of an unspecified cellular material. But basically, this is what a vacuum is...for some reason (Someone give me a translation of this translation?...hello?) Finally, the unspecified density fluctuations of this unspecified and highly confusing and unjustified vacuum, is what elementary particles are.
Right. I'm confused. Alpha, help!
Zephir,
Is that true?
The scattering particles in the sky are not density fluctuations (lumps of gas, so to speak).
The scattering particles in the sky are the molecules themselves.
You can read a web page by John Baez on this topic: Why is the sky blue? .
You will notice this paragraph that is totally clear in this respect:
The scattering particles in the sky are not density fluctuations (lumps of gas, so to speak).
The scattering particles in the sky are the molecules themselves.
You can read a web page by John Baez on this topic: Why is the sky blue? .
You will notice this paragraph that is totally clear in this respect:
Dust or Molecules?
Tyndall and Rayleigh thought that the blue colour of the sky must be due to small particles of dust and droplets of water vapour in the atmosphere. Even today, people sometimes incorrectly say that this is the case. Later scientists realised that if this were true, there would be more variation of sky colour with humidity or haze conditions than was actually observed, so they supposed correctly that the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen in the air are sufficient to account for the scattering. The case was finally settled by Einstein in 1911, who calculated the detailed formula for the scattering of light from molecules; and this was found to be in agreement with experiment. He was even able to use the calculation as a further verification of Avogadro's number when compared with observation. The molecules are able to scatter light because the electromagnetic field of the light waves induces electric dipole moments in the molecules.
The best proof of this fact is underlines above: it was even possible to check the value of the Avogadro number from the observations.
You could also check this general physics site: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html .
There you will see the result obtained from the Rayleigh Scattering theory where the number of scatterers appear. By comparing the theory with the observations it can be seen that the scatterers are individual molecules and from the perfect gas law the Avagadro number can be checked.
Is that true?
QUOTE
The Earth's atmosphere is blue, because of dispersion of blue light on the density fluctuations of the atmosphere molecules.
The scattering particles in the sky are not density fluctuations (lumps of gas, so to speak).
The scattering particles in the sky are the molecules themselves.
You can read a web page by John Baez on this topic: Why is the sky blue? .
You will notice this paragraph that is totally clear in this respect:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Earth's atmosphere is blue, because of dispersion of blue light on the density fluctuations of the atmosphere molecules. |
The scattering particles in the sky are not density fluctuations (lumps of gas, so to speak).
The scattering particles in the sky are the molecules themselves.
You can read a web page by John Baez on this topic: Why is the sky blue? .
You will notice this paragraph that is totally clear in this respect:
Dust or Molecules?
Tyndall and Rayleigh thought that the blue colour of the sky must be due to small particles of dust and droplets of water vapour in the atmosphere. Even today, people sometimes incorrectly say that this is the case. Later scientists realised that if this were true, there would be more variation of sky colour with humidity or haze conditions than was actually observed, so they supposed correctly that the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen in the air are sufficient to account for the scattering. The case was finally settled by Einstein in 1911, who calculated the detailed formula for the scattering of light from molecules; and this was found to be in agreement with experiment. He was even able to use the calculation as a further verification of Avogadro's number when compared with observation. The molecules are able to scatter light because the electromagnetic field of the light waves induces electric dipole moments in the molecules.
The best proof of this fact is underlines above: it was even possible to check the value of the Avogadro number from the observations.
You could also check this general physics site: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html .
There you will see the result obtained from the Rayleigh Scattering theory where the number of scatterers appear. By comparing the theory with the observations it can be seen that the scatterers are individual molecules and from the perfect gas law the Avagadro number can be checked.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 30 2007, 08:11 AM)
The scattering particles in the sky are not density fluctuations (lumps of gas, so to speak). The scattering particles in the sky are the molecules themselves.
The temperature dependence derived from Boltzmann equation demonstrates the kinetic origin of Rayleigh scattering. The higher temperature is, the smaller are density fluctuations and the corresponding wawelength of scattered light. This dependency can be even used for long distance temperature measurements. As an another evidence can serve the fact, the glass (frozen amorphous liquid) doesn't exhibit the Rayleigh scattering, although its molecules density is much higher.
The temperature dependence derived from Boltzmann equation demonstrates the kinetic origin of Rayleigh scattering. The higher temperature is, the smaller are density fluctuations and the corresponding wawelength of scattered light. This dependency can be even used for long distance temperature measurements. As an another evidence can serve the fact, the glass (frozen amorphous liquid) doesn't exhibit the Rayleigh scattering, although its molecules density is much higher.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 30 2007, 03:26 AM)
Molecules will compress together for an unspecified reason... Makes no sense to me..
This is the condensation of supercritical vapor of sulfur hexafluoride inside of glass capillary tube (by clicking on the picture you can download/observe the animation in better resolution). Try to describe/explain by your own words, what we can see.
This is the condensation of supercritical vapor of sulfur hexafluoride inside of glass capillary tube (by clicking on the picture you can download/observe the animation in better resolution). Try to describe/explain by your own words, what we can see.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 30 2007, 08:59 AM)
Try to describe/explain by your own words, what we can see.
Bryn says he doesn't follow how such an effect will occur without cause. Clearly that experiment involves things like changing pressure and temperature of the apparatus and it results in a phase change. There are thermodynamics, fluid dynamical and quantum models for such things.
For all your parading of that animation you have never once demonstrating AWT can model anything like that.
Bryn says he doesn't follow how such an effect will occur without cause. Clearly that experiment involves things like changing pressure and temperature of the apparatus and it results in a phase change. There are thermodynamics, fluid dynamical and quantum models for such things.
For all your parading of that animation you have never once demonstrating AWT can model anything like that.
Zephir,
I have doubts about you last answer:
Before further analysis of this answer, you should clarify it first, specially these points:
- Which "temperature dependence" are you talking about?
- Which "Boltzmann equation" are you talking about, there are several.
- Are you sure that the density fluctuations decrease with temperature, don't you mean the contrary?
- What do you mean by "smaller are density fluctuations"? Are you talking about the level of the fluctuations (their power spectrum) or are you talking about the wavelength?
- What do you mean by "long distance temperature measurements"?
- Are you sure one can talk of Rayleigh scattering in condensed materials?
I am sorry, Zephir, but anytime you give me an answer, I just have the feeling that you are not serious.
Please give a serious answer now.
I have worked several year on measuring density fluctuations by scattering.
I have never studied the blue sky question, and I am interrested.
However, by my background I cannot admit a discussion baser on approximative communication and approximative ideas.
I have doubts about you last answer:
QUOTE
The temperature dependence derived from Boltzmann equation demonstrates the kinetic origin of Rayleigh scattering. The higher temperature is, the smaller are density fluctuations and the corresponding wawelength of scattered light. This dependency can be even used for long distance temperature measurements. As an another evidence can serve the fact, the glass (frozen amorphous liquid) doesn't exhibit the Rayleigh scattering, although its molecules density is much higher.
Before further analysis of this answer, you should clarify it first, specially these points:
- Which "temperature dependence" are you talking about?
- Which "Boltzmann equation" are you talking about, there are several.
- Are you sure that the density fluctuations decrease with temperature, don't you mean the contrary?
- What do you mean by "smaller are density fluctuations"? Are you talking about the level of the fluctuations (their power spectrum) or are you talking about the wavelength?
- What do you mean by "long distance temperature measurements"?
- Are you sure one can talk of Rayleigh scattering in condensed materials?
I am sorry, Zephir, but anytime you give me an answer, I just have the feeling that you are not serious.
Please give a serious answer now.
I have worked several year on measuring density fluctuations by scattering.
I have never studied the blue sky question, and I am interrested.
However, by my background I cannot admit a discussion baser on approximative communication and approximative ideas.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 30 2007, 11:13 AM)
Please give a serious answer now...
This discussion is completely irrelevant to AWT, as these density fluctuations can be observed directly in supercritical conditions, i.e. when they reach the macroscopic size (note the animation above). Therefore their existence is out of discussion.
This discussion is completely irrelevant to AWT, as these density fluctuations can be observed directly in supercritical conditions, i.e. when they reach the macroscopic size (note the animation above). Therefore their existence is out of discussion.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 30 2007, 11:13 AM)
Are you sure one can talk of Rayleigh scattering in condensed materials...
Of course, the blue haze of air or water has the same origin.
Of course, the blue haze of air or water has the same origin.
Sorry Zephir,
But, Yesterday at 11:52 PM, you posted this is this same current thread:
And now, as I answered to this claim, you give this comment:
And now, as I answered to this claim, you give this comment:
This discussion is completely irrelevant to AWT, ...
I am not saying that there is no density fluctuations, I have made my job of observing them for years. They can have various origin and are related to many different aspects of physics, quite an interresting subject.
But you said that density fluctuations explain why the sky is blues, and I challenge this claim. Read my questions in the respect, and try to answer.
Once again, Zephir, I have the feeling that you never give real answers.
Just the illusion of answers illustrated with off-topic and often wrong comments and animated gifs.
As for this blue sky question, thatr you have raised, if you are using it in a discussion, you should at least weight all your statements and be ready to discuss their validity. And if these statement are not relevant, then just shut up!
Not only you never give any correct answer and explanation concerning your pet theory, so-called "awt", but in addition you give a lot of side-comment and statement that most often don't resists the analysis.
You are loosing any credibility, if you could still lose some.
Noise is not good communication! Nor is it a way if thinking.
But, Yesterday at 11:52 PM, you posted this is this same current thread:
QUOTE
The Earth's atmosphere is blue, because of dispersion of blue light on the density fluctuations of the atmosphere molecules.
And now, as I answered to this claim, you give this comment:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Earth's atmosphere is blue, because of dispersion of blue light on the density fluctuations of the atmosphere molecules. |
And now, as I answered to this claim, you give this comment:
This discussion is completely irrelevant to AWT, ...
I am not saying that there is no density fluctuations, I have made my job of observing them for years. They can have various origin and are related to many different aspects of physics, quite an interresting subject.
But you said that density fluctuations explain why the sky is blues, and I challenge this claim. Read my questions in the respect, and try to answer.
Once again, Zephir, I have the feeling that you never give real answers.
Just the illusion of answers illustrated with off-topic and often wrong comments and animated gifs.
As for this blue sky question, thatr you have raised, if you are using it in a discussion, you should at least weight all your statements and be ready to discuss their validity. And if these statement are not relevant, then just shut up!
Not only you never give any correct answer and explanation concerning your pet theory, so-called "awt", but in addition you give a lot of side-comment and statement that most often don't resists the analysis.
You are loosing any credibility, if you could still lose some.
Noise is not good communication! Nor is it a way if thinking.
I'm probably going to get called a crank for this, but...
Once upon a time, I asked Zephir a bunch of questions about his AWT, after spending irretreivable hours trying to pull some structure and sense out of his posts, and his website.
I asked him a bunch of questions relating to predictions that AWT seemed to make, or at least seemed to be raised by AWT... Somehow, I think.
The answers I got were empty, or nearly empty, so, once things had settled down for me in my personal life enough for me to actually be online consistently again, I raised those questions, or at least, reference them again.
Once upon a time, I asked Zephir a bunch of questions about his AWT, after spending irretreivable hours trying to pull some structure and sense out of his posts, and his website.
I asked him a bunch of questions relating to predictions that AWT seemed to make, or at least seemed to be raised by AWT... Somehow, I think.
The answers I got were empty, or nearly empty, so, once things had settled down for me in my personal life enough for me to actually be online consistently again, I raised those questions, or at least, reference them again.
QUOTE (Trippy Jan 14 2007+ 09:29 PM)
1. How does AWT predict the observed quantized nature of spectra?
2. How does AWT account for the generation of photons by accelerated positive charges?
3. How does AWT account for things such as the Mossbauer effect?
4. How do you contend with a recent re-analysis of the Michelson-Morley Experiment that suggested that they may have been mistaken in dismissing the results as negative, and that the results may have been positive, and simply masked as experimental error?
5. Do you agree that AWT predicts that if we observe photons of sufficiently high energies (thus short wavelengths) that we should see a signature of some sort representing the interaction of Photons with these vortices that you mentioned?
6. Do you contest the statement that as of the Wilkinson Mapping Anisotropy Probe, there is no detectable evidence of Red shifting indicating a preferred reference frame?
7. Do you contest that AWT predicts that if observed at sufficiently long wavelengths, there should be evidence of some form of structure, or positive evidence of some prefered reference frame (based on your repettitive references to capillary waves).
8. How does AWT deal with the observed invariance of things such as the Fine Structure constant, as per the observations made at Lake Oklo.
9. How does AWT propose to predict the masses of elementary particles, or explain the observed 'Heirachy' in particle physics?
And the last, but in my opinion, perhaps the most important question of all.
10. How does AWT deal with the very recent observation that the expansion rate of the Universe has changed multiple times over the different epochs, including a breif epoch where the Universe appears to have been contracting?
His Reply (after having to chase him up for the third time)?
2. How does AWT account for the generation of photons by accelerated positive charges?
3. How does AWT account for things such as the Mossbauer effect?
4. How do you contend with a recent re-analysis of the Michelson-Morley Experiment that suggested that they may have been mistaken in dismissing the results as negative, and that the results may have been positive, and simply masked as experimental error?
5. Do you agree that AWT predicts that if we observe photons of sufficiently high energies (thus short wavelengths) that we should see a signature of some sort representing the interaction of Photons with these vortices that you mentioned?
6. Do you contest the statement that as of the Wilkinson Mapping Anisotropy Probe, there is no detectable evidence of Red shifting indicating a preferred reference frame?
7. Do you contest that AWT predicts that if observed at sufficiently long wavelengths, there should be evidence of some form of structure, or positive evidence of some prefered reference frame (based on your repettitive references to capillary waves).
8. How does AWT deal with the observed invariance of things such as the Fine Structure constant, as per the observations made at Lake Oklo.
9. How does AWT propose to predict the masses of elementary particles, or explain the observed 'Heirachy' in particle physics?
And the last, but in my opinion, perhaps the most important question of all.
10. How does AWT deal with the very recent observation that the expansion rate of the Universe has changed multiple times over the different epochs, including a breif epoch where the Universe appears to have been contracting?
His Reply (after having to chase him up for the third time)?
QUOTE (Zephir May 11 2007+ 06:57 AM )
I'm so sorry, maybe you expected some oral satisfaction. Why didn't you claim my answers three months ago?
Now you cannot get your money back.
As if Science were some sort of... Pizza delivery service, or had a 3 month gaurantee...
Now, I have another question for him, I believe this is number 11, and Zephir? I'd really appreciate an answer to this one, as it's the first of a series of questions on the topic.
What does AWT predict about Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, or does it do away with these concepts?
Now you cannot get your money back.
As if Science were some sort of... Pizza delivery service, or had a 3 month gaurantee...
Now, I have another question for him, I believe this is number 11, and Zephir? I'd really appreciate an answer to this one, as it's the first of a series of questions on the topic.
What does AWT predict about Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, or does it do away with these concepts?
QUOTE (Trippy+May 30 2007, 02:05 PM)
... asked Zephir a bunch of questions about his AWT...
In general, I'm not answering machine or free on-line support to AWT. You got my answers on these questions here and here. You left these answers uncommented for three months - now you're claiming repeatedly, you've got no answers at all. What I should think about it?
In general, I'm not answering machine or free on-line support to AWT. You got my answers on these questions here and here. You left these answers uncommented for three months - now you're claiming repeatedly, you've got no answers at all. What I should think about it?
QUOTE (Trippy+May 30 2007, 02:05 PM)
... recent re-analysis of the Michelson-Morley Experiment that suggested that they may have been mistaken in dismissing the results as negative, and that the results may have been positive, and simply masked as experimental error...
It's possible, because the absolute reference frame is clearly observable by microwaves and the wavelength of observable light doesn't differs so much from CMB. On the other hand, some drift can be observed even without absolute reference frame, as here other explanations of positive result, too. So I consider, just the experiments with microwaves can serve as a relevant proof of Lorentz symmetry violation.
Can you show the formulas that back up your above statement.? Why true only for short wavelength and no true for long? How did you calculate the value for which the effect can be observed? Please show .
Can you show the formulas that back up your above statement.? Why true only for short wavelength and no true for long? How did you calculate the value for which the effect can be observed? Please show .
For light of longer wavelengths, the speed of waves will depend to the Aether absolute speed by the more pronounced way, the longer is the wavelength used.
Can you show the formulas that demonstrate the dependency of the "speed of waves to the Aether absolute speed" ?
No experiment to date has detected "the absolute reference frame for microwave and cosmic microwave background." So, your statement has no basis.
No experiment to date has detected "the absolute reference frame for microwave and cosmic microwave background." So, your statement has no basis.
The wavelength limit is somewhere around 1.27 cm,
How did you calculate this? Where are the formulas?
It's possible, because the absolute reference frame is clearly observable by microwaves and the wavelength of observable light doesn't differs so much from CMB. On the other hand, some drift can be observed even without absolute reference frame, as here other explanations of positive result, too. So I consider, just the experiments with microwaves can serve as a relevant proof of Lorentz symmetry violation.
QUOTE (Trippy+May 30 2007, 02:05 PM)
... Do you agree that AWT predicts that if we observe photons of sufficiently high energies (thus short wavelengths) that we should see a signature of some sort representing the interaction of Photons with these vortices that you mentioned...
Yes, the pair production by gamma ray photons can serve as an evidence of the energy wave interraction with Aether lattice.
Yes, the pair production by gamma ray photons can serve as an evidence of the energy wave interraction with Aether lattice.
Zephir,
Indeed:
this is a good question.
Don't you have any clue after this huge majority of comments and posts supporting the same view as Trippy?
It is so simple: never you have given any satifactory answer to any question.
You have mutiple tactics to avoid answering, this was also explained to you many times.
Generally you simply make a lot of noise and communicate no valid information.
Would that mean that noise increases when the possibility to answer decreases?
Indeed:
QUOTE
What I should think about it?
this is a good question.
Don't you have any clue after this huge majority of comments and posts supporting the same view as Trippy?
It is so simple: never you have given any satifactory answer to any question.
You have mutiple tactics to avoid answering, this was also explained to you many times.
Generally you simply make a lot of noise and communicate no valid information.
Would that mean that noise increases when the possibility to answer decreases?
Zephir, my last post above, demonstrates how I read anything you say. I just read it as completely confusing and nonsensical language.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 30 2007, 03:32 PM)
... never you have given any satisfactory answer to any question...
The true satisfactory answer should give the answer to the whole tree of causality logic, which is virtually impossible. Furthermore, as I can always say, somebody's answers are "unsatisfactory", here's no objective criterion, of what the "satisfactory" answer is, and what not. If I'd try to explain the Pythagoras formula to my dog, it's highly probable, no explanation will be completely satisfactory for him.
Try to think about it....
The true satisfactory answer should give the answer to the whole tree of causality logic, which is virtually impossible. Furthermore, as I can always say, somebody's answers are "unsatisfactory", here's no objective criterion, of what the "satisfactory" answer is, and what not. If I'd try to explain the Pythagoras formula to my dog, it's highly probable, no explanation will be completely satisfactory for him.
Try to think about it....
I don't ask you to try with your dog ... just try your grandma ...
Not so long ago you claimed that was one virtue of awt: at least a theory that you could explain to your grandma ...
What a joke, you not only fail in awt, in physics, but also in your basic principle of math-free "simplicity".
Soon we will only perform a gramatical check of your posts, since the meaning check has failed definitively.
Not so long ago you claimed that was one virtue of awt: at least a theory that you could explain to your grandma ...
What a joke, you not only fail in awt, in physics, but also in your basic principle of math-free "simplicity".
Soon we will only perform a gramatical check of your posts, since the meaning check has failed definitively.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 30 2007, 12:56 PM)
Soon we will only perform a gramatical check of your posts, since the meaning check has failed definitively.
A semantics check is better.
All you have to do, is break down his posts, sentence by sentence, making note of each part which doesn't make sense. List them, if you want.
A semantics check is better.
All you have to do, is break down his posts, sentence by sentence, making note of each part which doesn't make sense. List them, if you want.
Richards,
Sounds funny:
but this would be a huge job !
Sounds funny:
QUOTE
All you have to do, is break down his posts, sentence by sentence, making note of each part which doesn't make sense. List them, if you want.
but this would be a huge job !
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 30 2007, 01:25 PM)
but this would be a huge job !
Well, I did it at the top of page 6. It's pretty easy, but just time consuming. I don't think he really read that reply, but it does demonstrate quite aptly the mental processes one has, when reading his replies. Maybe if I do this enough to him, he will start to reply in an understandable manner. At the end of the day, that's all I want; just to understand what he says. Is this too much to ask?
Well, I did it at the top of page 6. It's pretty easy, but just time consuming. I don't think he really read that reply, but it does demonstrate quite aptly the mental processes one has, when reading his replies. Maybe if I do this enough to him, he will start to reply in an understandable manner. At the end of the day, that's all I want; just to understand what he says. Is this too much to ask?
Regarding the poem Medju javom i medj snom mentioned on 27/5/2007. It's written in Serbian i think. There are plenty of Slavic languages: Polish, Czech, ,Belarus, ,Slovenian, Serbian, ,Bulgarian, Macedonian. Things rhyme together but pelt differently with different grammar.
Slavic within our languages is SLAVIAN and pronounced SWOVIAN meaning the makers of words: swovo means word.
The Serbian Poem:
Laza Kostic
Srce moje samohrano,
ko te dozva u moj dom?
neumorna pletisanko,
sto pletivo pletes tanko
medju javom i med snom.
Srce moje, srce ludo,
sta ti mislis s pletivom?
k'o pletilja ona stara,
dan sto plete, noc opara,
medju javom i med snom.
Srce moje, srce kivno,
ubio te zivi grom!
sto se ne das meni zivu
razabrati u pletivu
medju javom i med snom!
Slavic within our languages is SLAVIAN and pronounced SWOVIAN meaning the makers of words: swovo means word.
The Serbian Poem:
Laza Kostic
Srce moje samohrano,
ko te dozva u moj dom?
neumorna pletisanko,
sto pletivo pletes tanko
medju javom i med snom.
Srce moje, srce ludo,
sta ti mislis s pletivom?
k'o pletilja ona stara,
dan sto plete, noc opara,
medju javom i med snom.
Srce moje, srce kivno,
ubio te zivi grom!
sto se ne das meni zivu
razabrati u pletivu
medju javom i med snom!
Recently Zephir posted this ..
Alphanumeric commented along the lines of "I don't see how your Aether can model that" - My impression is (Zephir?) .. Z's Aether is exactly that.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Alphanumeric commented along the lines of "I don't see how your Aether can model that" - My impression is (Zephir?) .. Z's Aether is exactly that.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Russian, Moldovian, Ukranian are also Swovian(Slavic) languages
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 30 2007, 03:40 PM)
Zephir, my last post above, demonstrates how I read anything you say. I just read it as completely confusing and nonsensical language.
You just never read my previous answer (Zephir Jan 30 2007, 08:24 AM), although you've asked for it.
From Newtonian mechanics follows, the energy spreads through dense particle system in transversal waves along the surfaces of cellular density fluctuations. The speed of transversal waves is not dependent on the background speed, therefore you cannot observe the absolute reference frame in M-M experiment. This is true for short wavelength, though. For light of longer wavelengths, the speed of waves will depend to the Aether absolute speed by the more pronounced way, the longer is the wavelength used. Therefore you can detect the absolute reference frame for microwave and cosmic microwave background. The wavelength limit is somewhere around 1.27 cm, therefore is not very probable, the absolute reference frame can be detected for visible light reliably.
You just never read my previous answer (Zephir Jan 30 2007, 08:24 AM), although you've asked for it.
From Newtonian mechanics follows, the energy spreads through dense particle system in transversal waves along the surfaces of cellular density fluctuations. The speed of transversal waves is not dependent on the background speed, therefore you cannot observe the absolute reference frame in M-M experiment. This is true for short wavelength, though. For light of longer wavelengths, the speed of waves will depend to the Aether absolute speed by the more pronounced way, the longer is the wavelength used. Therefore you can detect the absolute reference frame for microwave and cosmic microwave background. The wavelength limit is somewhere around 1.27 cm, therefore is not very probable, the absolute reference frame can be detected for visible light reliably.
QUOTE
This is true for short wavelength, though.
Can you show the formulas that back up your above statement.? Why true only for short wavelength and no true for long? How did you calculate the value for which the effect can be observed? Please show .
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is true for short wavelength, though. |
Can you show the formulas that back up your above statement.? Why true only for short wavelength and no true for long? How did you calculate the value for which the effect can be observed? Please show .
For light of longer wavelengths, the speed of waves will depend to the Aether absolute speed by the more pronounced way, the longer is the wavelength used.
Can you show the formulas that demonstrate the dependency of the "speed of waves to the Aether absolute speed" ?
QUOTE
Therefore you can detect the absolute reference frame for microwave and cosmic microwave background.
No experiment to date has detected "the absolute reference frame for microwave and cosmic microwave background." So, your statement has no basis.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Therefore you can detect the absolute reference frame for microwave and cosmic microwave background. |
No experiment to date has detected "the absolute reference frame for microwave and cosmic microwave background." So, your statement has no basis.
The wavelength limit is somewhere around 1.27 cm,
How did you calculate this? Where are the formulas?
QUOTE (Zephir+May 30 2007, 02:37 PM)
You just never read my previous answer (Zephir Jan 30 2007, 08:24 AM), although you've asked for it.
From Newtonian mechanics follows, the energy spreads through dense particle system in transversal waves along the surfaces of cellular density fluctuations. The speed of transversal waves is not dependent on the background speed, therefore you cannot observe the absolute reference frame in M-M experiment. This is true for short wavelength, though. For light of longer wavelengths, the speed of waves will depend to the Aether absolute speed by the more pronounced way, the longer is the wavelength used. Therefore you can detect the absolute reference frame for microwave and cosmic microwave background. The wavelength limit is somewhere around 1.27 cm, therefore is not very probable, the absolute reference frame can be detected for visible light reliably.
Firstly, I never read your other AWT thread, mostly for the reasons stated, relating to said confusion about anything said by you about AWT.
Secondly, the rest of your reply here, makes no sense to me...
Thirdly, I have expressed a request many times now, for you to try and explain yourself in a far simpler manner than I have ever seen you do, yet the replies you then give, are themselves confusing and often featuring unspecified concepts, values or reasoning.
From Newtonian mechanics follows, the energy spreads through dense particle system in transversal waves along the surfaces of cellular density fluctuations. The speed of transversal waves is not dependent on the background speed, therefore you cannot observe the absolute reference frame in M-M experiment. This is true for short wavelength, though. For light of longer wavelengths, the speed of waves will depend to the Aether absolute speed by the more pronounced way, the longer is the wavelength used. Therefore you can detect the absolute reference frame for microwave and cosmic microwave background. The wavelength limit is somewhere around 1.27 cm, therefore is not very probable, the absolute reference frame can be detected for visible light reliably.
Firstly, I never read your other AWT thread, mostly for the reasons stated, relating to said confusion about anything said by you about AWT.
Secondly, the rest of your reply here, makes no sense to me...
Thirdly, I have expressed a request many times now, for you to try and explain yourself in a far simpler manner than I have ever seen you do, yet the replies you then give, are themselves confusing and often featuring unspecified concepts, values or reasoning.
Zephir,
Not only this is not clear:
... but this is also totally wrong as far as the MM experiment is concerned.
At least as long as you provide no further information, which I doubt you can provide.
Indeed, without further information, we can only assume that:
- the speed of these transversal wave are the speed with respect to the aether as this is how you describe them: wave supported by aether
but if an observed is moving with respect to this aether, then he will just observe another speed. Therefore, there is no relation between your aether assumption and the MM experiment, as long as you don't introduce additional assumptions.
This is precisely the historical reason why the aether theory disappeared long ago. Physicians from that time tried to reconcile Newtonian mechanics and this strange aether, they tried to give this aether strange properties in order to reconcile the whole physics. In the end, the easiest was to drop the hypothesis and simply replace Euclidian geometry by spacetime. Simple as that, although an aether could still survive but not as the solution to the old problem which are solved now.
Again, Zephir, do you realize how weak and unjustifed your numerous answers are.
Have you never learned how to prove something or what a proof is?
A proof is not just refuting roughly a counter-argument, a proof must be positive and fully explained and motivated on clear hypothesis.
Not only this is not clear:
QUOTE
From Newtonian mechanics follows, the energy spreads through dense particle system in transversal waves along the surfaces of cellular density fluctuations. The speed of transversal waves is not dependent on the background speed, therefore you cannot observe the absolute reference frame in M-M experiment.
... but this is also totally wrong as far as the MM experiment is concerned.
At least as long as you provide no further information, which I doubt you can provide.
Indeed, without further information, we can only assume that:
- the speed of these transversal wave are the speed with respect to the aether as this is how you describe them: wave supported by aether
but if an observed is moving with respect to this aether, then he will just observe another speed. Therefore, there is no relation between your aether assumption and the MM experiment, as long as you don't introduce additional assumptions.
This is precisely the historical reason why the aether theory disappeared long ago. Physicians from that time tried to reconcile Newtonian mechanics and this strange aether, they tried to give this aether strange properties in order to reconcile the whole physics. In the end, the easiest was to drop the hypothesis and simply replace Euclidian geometry by spacetime. Simple as that, although an aether could still survive but not as the solution to the old problem which are solved now.
Again, Zephir, do you realize how weak and unjustifed your numerous answers are.
Have you never learned how to prove something or what a proof is?
A proof is not just refuting roughly a counter-argument, a proof must be positive and fully explained and motivated on clear hypothesis.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 30 2007, 07:28 PM)
...do you realize how weak and unjustified your numerous answers are....
The AWT is not based on formal models, but the observable reality. The supercritical phase transform and critical opalescence is illustrated on many places of the web.
You can click to the animation bellow to get the original video, another very good one you can found here. The "red sky effect" due the Rayleigh scattering is clearly observable here.
The AWT is not based on formal models, but the observable reality. The supercritical phase transform and critical opalescence is illustrated on many places of the web.
You can click to the animation bellow to get the original video, another very good one you can found here. The "red sky effect" due the Rayleigh scattering is clearly observable here.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.