Lalbatross raises (another) valid point.
Tell me something Zephir.
I have some questions for you to answer:
1. If our Universe is inside a blackhole in another universe, then what's that Universe contained in?
2. If our Universe is inside a blackhole in another Universe, then what's inside our blackholes?
3. If our Universe is inside a blackhole in another Universe, then what happens when matter falls into the blackhole that is our Universe?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 22 2007, 12:46 AM)
1. If our Universe is inside a black hole in another universe, then what's that Universe contained in?
Till now it seems, the black hole concept is infinitely recursive, at least in principle. But it doesn't mean, every BH contain singularities, or even daughter Universes inside it, because the formation of daughter Universe inside it requires to overcome some activation energy. You need a really deep crunch of dense star to create the singularities inside it.
Till now it seems, the black hole concept is infinitely recursive, at least in principle. But it doesn't mean, every BH contain singularities, or even daughter Universes inside it, because the formation of daughter Universe inside it requires to overcome some activation energy. You need a really deep crunch of dense star to create the singularities inside it.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 22 2007, 12:46 AM)
2. If our Universe is inside a black hole in another Universe, then what's inside our black holes?
It depends on their size. The primordial BH can contain some daughter Universes, although I consider it rather improbable. We should realize, most of black holes are simply the dense neutrino stars. They can contain some simple gravitational aggregates inside it, but no singularities.
The fundamental question is, if the BH can contain the more dense matter, then the matter, which is forming it. By my opinion it's possible, but I haven't relevant explanation prepared yet. Such model violates the energy/mass conservation law and whole the Newtonian dynamics, which the AWT is built on. Furthermore it's possible, the infinite Aether density, which is required by classical AWT model can become the sort of optical illusion. Briefly speaking, the further extrapolation of AWT outside of Newtonian mechanic isn't trivial task at all. Conceptually, the LQG, string theory or even Heim's theory are the toy models with compare to AWT.
We can say, while the formal math has nothing to do with AWT invention, without it the AWT cannot be extrapolated further. The question is, if the math laws can remain valid, if the conservation laws aren't valid (1+1=1.3, for example). Until somebody will obtain some new good idea, how to streamline this model, of course.
It depends on their size. The primordial BH can contain some daughter Universes, although I consider it rather improbable. We should realize, most of black holes are simply the dense neutrino stars. They can contain some simple gravitational aggregates inside it, but no singularities.
The fundamental question is, if the BH can contain the more dense matter, then the matter, which is forming it. By my opinion it's possible, but I haven't relevant explanation prepared yet. Such model violates the energy/mass conservation law and whole the Newtonian dynamics, which the AWT is built on. Furthermore it's possible, the infinite Aether density, which is required by classical AWT model can become the sort of optical illusion. Briefly speaking, the further extrapolation of AWT outside of Newtonian mechanic isn't trivial task at all. Conceptually, the LQG, string theory or even Heim's theory are the toy models with compare to AWT.
We can say, while the formal math has nothing to do with AWT invention, without it the AWT cannot be extrapolated further. The question is, if the math laws can remain valid, if the conservation laws aren't valid (1+1=1.3, for example). Until somebody will obtain some new good idea, how to streamline this model, of course.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 22 2007, 12:46 AM)
3. If our Universe is inside a black hole in another Universe, then what happens when matter falls into the black hole that is our Universe?
It mostly evaporates into radiation. The black holes cannot swallow a much more matter, then some 10 millions of Sun masses. The black holes in the core of most galaxies are "matter saturated". The excessive matter will be radiated instead, which is the source of quasar radiation.
But the black holes can swallow more matter in the form of the vacuum itself. After all, this is how, the primordial black holes were created. The didn't swallowed the observable matter, because such matter didn't existed yet. They were formed by the matter of vacuum as such.
It mostly evaporates into radiation. The black holes cannot swallow a much more matter, then some 10 millions of Sun masses. The black holes in the core of most galaxies are "matter saturated". The excessive matter will be radiated instead, which is the source of quasar radiation.
But the black holes can swallow more matter in the form of the vacuum itself. After all, this is how, the primordial black holes were created. The didn't swallowed the observable matter, because such matter didn't existed yet. They were formed by the matter of vacuum as such.
Zephir doesn't want to expose -clearly- his theory.
The real reason is that there is no theory AWT at all, just a collection of unfounded claims and cartoons (most picked up from the web).
One year ago he told me that he would not divulge his theory because he feared to be stolen of his ideas !!!
Recently he found another "good reason":
Of course you can google as long as you want you will never see anything coherent about his pretended theory: just normal it is not a theory.
The funny thing now is the following:
try these two searches:
1) Google: awt + zephir
2) Google scholar: awt + zephir
See my point?
Zephir is not only wrong in physics, but his strategy is totally naïve.
The real reason is that there is no theory AWT at all, just a collection of unfounded claims and cartoons (most picked up from the web).
One year ago he told me that he would not divulge his theory because he feared to be stolen of his ideas !!!
Recently he found another "good reason":
QUOTE
I can show the Goggle or web.archive.org results as well. And the web results are much more accessible, then some book.
Of course you can google as long as you want you will never see anything coherent about his pretended theory: just normal it is not a theory.
The funny thing now is the following:
try these two searches:
1) Google: awt + zephir
2) Google scholar: awt + zephir
See my point?
Zephir is not only wrong in physics, but his strategy is totally naïve.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 21 2007, 12:37 PM)
.....The whole system remains Newtonian......
Zephir, I see that with time you are wiser and wiser. Scientists do not want to understand that also the quantum mechanics can be explained on base of the Newtonian dynamics, also the big bang, also the weak and strong interactions. But in my opinion you should make a step forward and answer, within the AWT, following questions:
-what is physical meaning of the relativistic mass? You should describe the internal structure which leads to the formula m(relativistic)=m(rest)/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2, and you should explain why spins of all particles appearing in the decay of muon have the same direction as the velocity of the muon before the decay.
-what is genesis of the c=const.? Because c=distance/time then you should define the distance and time in such way to obtain the c=const. for all objects in cosmos.
-what is genesis of the gravitational field? You should describe the internal structure of the fundamental source of the gravitational field and the internal structure of gravitational field.
Of course it should be on base of the Newtonian dynamics!!!
I claim that the AWT (i.e. the infinite recursion) does not describe the real nature because within your model we never will be able to answer above listed questions. I claim it because you cannot formulate some equations which tie physical properties of the infinite number of the elementary structures. In my opinion it is the necessary condition to formulate the ultimate theory. My ultimate theory of structures and spaces contains such equations (for example r(d)=r(1)K^(d-1) where K=0.79 . 10^10) - such equations lead to conclusion that the series of the elementary structures is finite.
Zephir, I see that with time you are wiser and wiser. Scientists do not want to understand that also the quantum mechanics can be explained on base of the Newtonian dynamics, also the big bang, also the weak and strong interactions. But in my opinion you should make a step forward and answer, within the AWT, following questions:
-what is physical meaning of the relativistic mass? You should describe the internal structure which leads to the formula m(relativistic)=m(rest)/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2, and you should explain why spins of all particles appearing in the decay of muon have the same direction as the velocity of the muon before the decay.
-what is genesis of the c=const.? Because c=distance/time then you should define the distance and time in such way to obtain the c=const. for all objects in cosmos.
-what is genesis of the gravitational field? You should describe the internal structure of the fundamental source of the gravitational field and the internal structure of gravitational field.
Of course it should be on base of the Newtonian dynamics!!!
I claim that the AWT (i.e. the infinite recursion) does not describe the real nature because within your model we never will be able to answer above listed questions. I claim it because you cannot formulate some equations which tie physical properties of the infinite number of the elementary structures. In my opinion it is the necessary condition to formulate the ultimate theory. My ultimate theory of structures and spaces contains such equations (for example r(d)=r(1)K^(d-1) where K=0.79 . 10^10) - such equations lead to conclusion that the series of the elementary structures is finite.
Funny: Tsolkas is more recognized in physics litterature than Zephir.
Check this:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr...solkas+einstein
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=awt+zephir
Of course this all within the noise.
(btw: I checked for myself and got a better result for my past life in research ... ooops!)
Check this:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr...solkas+einstein
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=awt+zephir
Of course this all within the noise.
(btw: I checked for myself and got a better result for my past life in research ... ooops!)
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 22 2007, 10:27 AM)
..that there is no theory AWT at all, just a collection of unfounded claims and cartoons...
The whole AWT is based on the philosophy, every observed matter is formed by condensation of another observed matter, like the droplets of liquid inside of condensing foam, formed by another droplets of even more dense foam. What this model really means for the Universe understanding has no sense to solve, until we prove some very trivial predictions of it, for example the low energy Lorentz symmetry violation.
If we can detect the Lorentz symmetry violation, it means, if somebody will confirm the Thim's experiments with microwaves, we can move further in its extrapolations.
However, I cannot force the scientists into such fundamental experiments, if they're believing, they'll make more money by the further extrapolations of their formal models. I can just demonstrate, how many less or more ad-hoced concepts of contemporary physics can be explained by such approach, but I cannot change the stance of such people, if the rest of society is believing, the existing way of research is more productive and it brings a better understanding of physics for the rest of human civilization.
Just click to the Add Reply link below and write down some BS.
It's easy.
I'm not sure much else needs to be said, and if this was a joke...
The whole AWT is based on the philosophy, every observed matter is formed by condensation of another observed matter, like the droplets of liquid inside of condensing foam, formed by another droplets of even more dense foam. What this model really means for the Universe understanding has no sense to solve, until we prove some very trivial predictions of it, for example the low energy Lorentz symmetry violation.
If we can detect the Lorentz symmetry violation, it means, if somebody will confirm the Thim's experiments with microwaves, we can move further in its extrapolations.
However, I cannot force the scientists into such fundamental experiments, if they're believing, they'll make more money by the further extrapolations of their formal models. I can just demonstrate, how many less or more ad-hoced concepts of contemporary physics can be explained by such approach, but I cannot change the stance of such people, if the rest of society is believing, the existing way of research is more productive and it brings a better understanding of physics for the rest of human civilization.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 22 2007, 10:27 AM)
..Scientists do not want to understand that also the quantum mechanics can be explained on base of the Newtonian dynamics...
I can understand, why the mainstream scientists don't want to make the physics more transparent for the rest of people, because it makes them a druids of modern era. But why the same want the rest of people?
By my opinion, the people are very religious in its very nature and they simply don't want to understand the observable reality by simple, consistent way. If the belief in abstract mysterious postulates of modern physics is more valuable for such people, then I don't want to change their stance.
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
Do you feel the beseeching thirst for belief from that song? Well, the AWT is definitelly not suited for the people singing such songs, really.
I can understand, why the mainstream scientists don't want to make the physics more transparent for the rest of people, because it makes them a druids of modern era. But why the same want the rest of people?
By my opinion, the people are very religious in its very nature and they simply don't want to understand the observable reality by simple, consistent way. If the belief in abstract mysterious postulates of modern physics is more valuable for such people, then I don't want to change their stance.
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
Do you feel the beseeching thirst for belief from that song? Well, the AWT is definitelly not suited for the people singing such songs, really.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 23 2007, 07:04 AM)
The whole AWT is based on the philosophy, every observed matter is formed by condensation of another observed matter, like the droplets of liquid inside of condensing foam, formed by another droplets of even more dense foam. What this model really means for the Universe understanding has no sense to solve, until we prove some very trivial predictions of it, for example the low energy Lorentz symmetry violation.
If we can detect the Lorentz symmetry violation, it means, if somebody will confirm the Thim's experiments with microwaves, we can move further in its extrapolations.
However, I cannot force the scientists into such fundamental experiments, if they're believing, they'll make more money by the further extrapolations of their formal models. I can just demonstrate, how many less or more ad-hoced concepts of contemporary physics can be explained by such approach, but I cannot change the stance of such people, if the rest of society is believing, the existing way of research is more productive and it brings a better understanding of physics for the rest of human civilization.
I can understand, why the mainstream scientists don't want to make the physics more transparent for the rest of people, because it makes them a druids of modern era. But why the same want the rest of people?
By my opinion, the people are very religious in its very nature and they simply don't want to understand the observable reality by simple, consistent way. If the belief in abstract mysterious postulates of modern physics is more valuable for such people, then I don't want to change their stance.
I'm fairly sure that even Thim says that there could be other explanations for the apparent lack of a signal, and IIRC comparable experiments at other wavelengths have detected a signal, so...
If we can detect the Lorentz symmetry violation, it means, if somebody will confirm the Thim's experiments with microwaves, we can move further in its extrapolations.
However, I cannot force the scientists into such fundamental experiments, if they're believing, they'll make more money by the further extrapolations of their formal models. I can just demonstrate, how many less or more ad-hoced concepts of contemporary physics can be explained by such approach, but I cannot change the stance of such people, if the rest of society is believing, the existing way of research is more productive and it brings a better understanding of physics for the rest of human civilization.
I can understand, why the mainstream scientists don't want to make the physics more transparent for the rest of people, because it makes them a druids of modern era. But why the same want the rest of people?
By my opinion, the people are very religious in its very nature and they simply don't want to understand the observable reality by simple, consistent way. If the belief in abstract mysterious postulates of modern physics is more valuable for such people, then I don't want to change their stance.
I'm fairly sure that even Thim says that there could be other explanations for the apparent lack of a signal, and IIRC comparable experiments at other wavelengths have detected a signal, so...
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 22 2007, 10:13 PM)
.. there could be other explanations for the apparent lack of a signal..
Which "lack of signal" do you mean? Did you read the PDF above linked at all?
The refusal of arguments even before you can make familiar with them is one of the signs of pathological skepticism, which is based on the religion, in fact.
I mean, on the unsubstantial belief, the opponent simply cannot be true.
1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
3. The making of judgments without full inquiry
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks
6. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
7. Pejorative labeling of proponents as "promoters", "pseudo-scientists" or practitioners of "pathological science."
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
12. Tendency to dismiss all evidence
13. Organized skepticism tends to be automatically pathological
Which "lack of signal" do you mean? Did you read the PDF above linked at all?
The refusal of arguments even before you can make familiar with them is one of the signs of pathological skepticism, which is based on the religion, in fact.
I mean, on the unsubstantial belief, the opponent simply cannot be true.
1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
3. The making of judgments without full inquiry
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks
6. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
7. Pejorative labeling of proponents as "promoters", "pseudo-scientists" or practitioners of "pathological science."
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
12. Tendency to dismiss all evidence
13. Organized skepticism tends to be automatically pathological
QUOTE (Zephir+ 22 July 2007, 9.07am)
Just click to the Add Reply link below and write down some BS.
It's easy.
I'm not sure much else needs to be said, and if this was a joke...
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 22 2007, 10:21 PM)
I'm not sure much else needs to be said
Of course. Because of lack of arguments from your side.
You simply have nothing relevant to say, face it...
Of course. Because of lack of arguments from your side.
You simply have nothing relevant to say, face it...
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 23 2007, 07:17 AM)
Which "lack of signal" do you mean? Did you read the PDF above linked at all?
No Zephir. I closed my eyes and didn't even bother reading your post, let alone any link you posted in it before I waved my fingers over the keyboard and spouted a load of BS about it.
Hear the sarcasm in my voice Zephir.
Yes. I did actually read the link. And a couple of other relevant things as well.
No Zephir. I closed my eyes and didn't even bother reading your post, let alone any link you posted in it before I waved my fingers over the keyboard and spouted a load of BS about it.
Hear the sarcasm in my voice Zephir.
Yes. I did actually read the link. And a couple of other relevant things as well.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 23 2007, 07:23 AM)
Of course. Because of lack of arguments from your side.
You simply have nothing relevant to say, face it...
And now he's resorting to lying.
And Zephir, again, if that was meant to be amusing, it wasn't terribly.
You simply have nothing relevant to say, face it...
And now he's resorting to lying.
And Zephir, again, if that was meant to be amusing, it wasn't terribly.
Not only this is irrational and illogical ...
... since any scientist to find a failure in existing theories will certainly be rewarded ...
(remember the symmetry violations as examples)
... but this claim is more like a typical communist disinformation practice: making people believe that scientist are dishonest and deny the truth for money. Claims by Zephir without proof again!
The reality is that most often the dishonest scientist have been proven to be common cranks, and their motivation is mainly their frustation with their own failure and jealousy.
QUOTE
However, I cannot force the scientists into such fundamental experiments, if they're believing, they'll make more money by the further extrapolations of their formal models.
... since any scientist to find a failure in existing theories will certainly be rewarded ...
(remember the symmetry violations as examples)
... but this claim is more like a typical communist disinformation practice: making people believe that scientist are dishonest and deny the truth for money. Claims by Zephir without proof again!
The reality is that most often the dishonest scientist have been proven to be common cranks, and their motivation is mainly their frustation with their own failure and jealousy.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 22 2007, 10:52 PM)
...but this claim is more like a typical communist disinformation practice: making people believe that scientist are dishonest and deny the truth for money...
While this claim of yours is the typical Holy Church, McCarthy or Stalin's KGB argument - if somebody doesn't exhibit the mainstream opinion, he's probably the heretic worth of shutting his mouth, don't you think? By AWT every demagogy is characteristic by the fact, it can be easily reversed against its originator, simply because of its weak causal base.
But unfortunately for you, we can see, the theorists are battling for the grant support money every day. Some naive string fundamentalists (like the L. Motl) aren't interested, how and why the quantum gravity and or LQG theorists (like the L. Smolin) can be right or not. They're not interested about some unification of theories, in fact - what they want is just to defeat the concurrence theories. If they can achieve some money for development of existing theories, why they should care about some alternative theories? Why they should invest some time and qualification into learning of some new methodology?
As you can see, while the stance of mainstream science appears amoral from the rest of society perspective, it's in fact quite logical in the scope of existing funding system...
The main problem is not in scientists so far, but in the system, by which the grant money are redistributed. Of course, some scientists are more asocial then the others, so that the problem is not even fully on the side of the government and grant commissions. But we cannot expect, the people are "bad guys" by their very nature, simply because of validity of Gauss distribution curve. They're "just" pragmatic creatures with their hungry families, unredeemed dreams, payments unsettled, and so on..
Therefore for example, if the mainstream science apparently knows about black hole model of Universe for years (1, 2, 3, 4,5,6,7,7,8), while it's not able to make some relevant conclusion from it (or at least to check the relevancy of such idea), then "something is rotten in the state of Denmark", don't you think?
Of course, we cannot consider, the string theorists are so stupid, they don't know about such idea. On the contrary, they know about it quite well. But they're ignoring it obstinatelly, simply because such idea isn't very consistent with their theory postulates. And such stance is therefore rather close the stance to "deny the truth for money".
While this claim of yours is the typical Holy Church, McCarthy or Stalin's KGB argument - if somebody doesn't exhibit the mainstream opinion, he's probably the heretic worth of shutting his mouth, don't you think? By AWT every demagogy is characteristic by the fact, it can be easily reversed against its originator, simply because of its weak causal base.
But unfortunately for you, we can see, the theorists are battling for the grant support money every day. Some naive string fundamentalists (like the L. Motl) aren't interested, how and why the quantum gravity and or LQG theorists (like the L. Smolin) can be right or not. They're not interested about some unification of theories, in fact - what they want is just to defeat the concurrence theories. If they can achieve some money for development of existing theories, why they should care about some alternative theories? Why they should invest some time and qualification into learning of some new methodology?
As you can see, while the stance of mainstream science appears amoral from the rest of society perspective, it's in fact quite logical in the scope of existing funding system...
The main problem is not in scientists so far, but in the system, by which the grant money are redistributed. Of course, some scientists are more asocial then the others, so that the problem is not even fully on the side of the government and grant commissions. But we cannot expect, the people are "bad guys" by their very nature, simply because of validity of Gauss distribution curve. They're "just" pragmatic creatures with their hungry families, unredeemed dreams, payments unsettled, and so on.. Therefore for example, if the mainstream science apparently knows about black hole model of Universe for years (1, 2, 3, 4,5,6,7,7,8), while it's not able to make some relevant conclusion from it (or at least to check the relevancy of such idea), then "something is rotten in the state of Denmark", don't you think?
Of course, we cannot consider, the string theorists are so stupid, they don't know about such idea. On the contrary, they know about it quite well. But they're ignoring it obstinatelly, simply because such idea isn't very consistent with their theory postulates. And such stance is therefore rather close the stance to "deny the truth for money".
That's just normal life:
Why do you find that unfortunate.
Do these people not deserve to live decently?
Typical neo-communist conception!
Are you missing the communist heaven where nobody had to "battle" for his money ... but life was on the other side of the border?
Or is this simply a demagogic point of view?
Why do you find that unfortunate.
Do these people not deserve to live decently?
Typical neo-communist conception!
Are you missing the communist heaven where nobody had to "battle" for his money ... but life was on the other side of the border?
Or is this simply a demagogic point of view?
As you can see, while the stance of mainstream science appears amoral from the rest of society perspective, ...
For sure you are talking from Stalin's moral point of view!
The rest of the society today simply does not share your opinion for a large majority: you represent only a tiny fraction of frustrated extremists.
All system has its problem.
Those who strive for ideal systems are the fascists and the communist and all extremes.
Extremes cannot admit the reality of life: just as you cannot admit what it takes to make real physics.
Physics need people, money, experiments, theory, errors, hard work, time, ...
All system has its problem.
Those who strive for ideal systems are the fascists and the communist and all extremes.
Extremes cannot admit the reality of life: just as you cannot admit what it takes to make real physics.
Physics need people, money, experiments, theory, errors, hard work, time, ...
Therefore for example, if the mainstream science apparently knows about black hole model of Universe for years (1, 2, 3, 4,5,6,7,7,8), while it's not able to make some relevant conclusion from it
What a joke, Zephir has the conclusions from mainstream hardwork!
See the picture?
Mainstream physicists do the calculations (blindly and mechanically of course),
and the genius named Zephir is the only one to see the conclusions!
The reality is: this conclusion is totally irrelevant for science and can be read in nearly any scifi book.
Another reality is: Zephir does not see what science is really about.
Still a further reality:
Zephir does not earn money but has an easy life spoiling all his time spamming his theory on the net.
This does not make him very happy and he is jaleous of people earning money for (hard) working in physics.
Since he has never learned to work, he hopes to make the illusion he know physics without the hard work.
But it's nevertheless a pain for him: keeping up appearances.
QUOTE
But unfortunately for you, we can see, the theorists are battling for the grant support money every day.
Why do you find that unfortunate.
Do these people not deserve to live decently?
Typical neo-communist conception!
Are you missing the communist heaven where nobody had to "battle" for his money ... but life was on the other side of the border?
Or is this simply a demagogic point of view?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But unfortunately for you, we can see, the theorists are battling for the grant support money every day. |
Why do you find that unfortunate.
Do these people not deserve to live decently?
Typical neo-communist conception!
Are you missing the communist heaven where nobody had to "battle" for his money ... but life was on the other side of the border?
Or is this simply a demagogic point of view?
As you can see, while the stance of mainstream science appears amoral from the rest of society perspective, ...
For sure you are talking from Stalin's moral point of view!
The rest of the society today simply does not share your opinion for a large majority: you represent only a tiny fraction of frustrated extremists.
QUOTE
The main problem is not in scientists so far, but in the system ...
All system has its problem.
Those who strive for ideal systems are the fascists and the communist and all extremes.
Extremes cannot admit the reality of life: just as you cannot admit what it takes to make real physics.
Physics need people, money, experiments, theory, errors, hard work, time, ...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The main problem is not in scientists so far, but in the system ... |
All system has its problem.
Those who strive for ideal systems are the fascists and the communist and all extremes.
Extremes cannot admit the reality of life: just as you cannot admit what it takes to make real physics.
Physics need people, money, experiments, theory, errors, hard work, time, ...
Therefore for example, if the mainstream science apparently knows about black hole model of Universe for years (1, 2, 3, 4,5,6,7,7,8), while it's not able to make some relevant conclusion from it
What a joke, Zephir has the conclusions from mainstream hardwork!
See the picture?
Mainstream physicists do the calculations (blindly and mechanically of course),
and the genius named Zephir is the only one to see the conclusions!
The reality is: this conclusion is totally irrelevant for science and can be read in nearly any scifi book.
Another reality is: Zephir does not see what science is really about.
Still a further reality:
Zephir does not earn money but has an easy life spoiling all his time spamming his theory on the net.
This does not make him very happy and he is jaleous of people earning money for (hard) working in physics.
Since he has never learned to work, he hopes to make the illusion he know physics without the hard work.
But it's nevertheless a pain for him: keeping up appearances.
Trashing out "mainstream physics" has never produced new physics.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 23 2007, 08:07 AM)
...and the genius named Zephir is the only one to see the conclusions...
Nobody is prohibiting to see such conclusions too...
If so, why it's just me, who is proposing it here and not you or, says, AlphaNumeric?
Before understanding the universe, you should learn elementatry physics.
In addition, you should realize that journalists don't make the news, they just write it.
Similarly, you don't do any physics, you just talk about it.
Most often you even don't talk correctly about it, like bad journalists who don't understand the facts.
You should keep your picture and remove the comments, that would be a huge improvement already.
Well, actually, this kind of conclusions physicists discuss them only during cofee-breaks or late in the evening with a beer.
You are the only one to boast yourself full-time from such easy pieces.
In addition most of your comments are wrong and bad physics.
Web-culture and web-training makes web-physics.
Nobody is prohibiting to see such conclusions too...
If so, why it's just me, who is proposing it here and not you or, says, AlphaNumeric?
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 23 2007, 08:07 AM)
...Zephir does not see what science is really about....he hopes to make the illusion he know physics without the hard work....
The question is, whether someone should be interested about science, if he really wants to understand the Universe. My current feeling is, the understanding of Universe is much easier, then the understanding of contemporary science.
Which is somewhat sad, if we consider, the science should simplify such understanding from its very beginning...
Albert Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not even sure about the former."
If the above is true, why to start the understanding of the reality by its apparently more difficult part?
The question is, whether someone should be interested about science, if he really wants to understand the Universe. My current feeling is, the understanding of Universe is much easier, then the understanding of contemporary science.
Which is somewhat sad, if we consider, the science should simplify such understanding from its very beginning...
Albert Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not even sure about the former."
If the above is true, why to start the understanding of the reality by its apparently more difficult part?
QUOTE
The question is, whether someone should be interested about science, if he really wants to understand the Universe.
Before understanding the universe, you should learn elementatry physics.
In addition, you should realize that journalists don't make the news, they just write it.
Similarly, you don't do any physics, you just talk about it.
Most often you even don't talk correctly about it, like bad journalists who don't understand the facts.
You should keep your picture and remove the comments, that would be a huge improvement already.
QUOTE
Nobody is prohibiting to see such conclusions too...
Well, actually, this kind of conclusions physicists discuss them only during cofee-breaks or late in the evening with a beer.
You are the only one to boast yourself full-time from such easy pieces.
In addition most of your comments are wrong and bad physics.
Web-culture and web-training makes web-physics.
Zephir,
Why don't you publish your theory there:
http://www.wbabin.net/
Many cranks have done that already, you should join!
It looks like to best best reference in crankology.
It is indexed by google,
it allows you to write a complete text on your theory,
you will have many readers that will approve you massively.
The ideal place fo you!
Try to beat Tsolkas who has already several entries there!
If you read the Tsolkas contributions, you will realize that no writing skill is even requested!
You will be free of any "formal" gramar!
A dream, isn't it?
Why don't you publish your theory there:
http://www.wbabin.net/
Many cranks have done that already, you should join!
It looks like to best best reference in crankology.
It is indexed by google,
it allows you to write a complete text on your theory,
you will have many readers that will approve you massively.
The ideal place fo you!
Try to beat Tsolkas who has already several entries there!
If you read the Tsolkas contributions, you will realize that no writing skill is even requested!
You will be free of any "formal" gramar!
A dream, isn't it?
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 23 2007, 01:46 PM)
Why don't you publish your theory there: http://www.wbabin.net/
Because from AWT follows, the Socratic discussion is the sort of perturbations, which shifts the understanding by evolutionary process. What I want is not just to present my ideas on the web and go to the bed, but to organize public brainstorming about it at the same time. Furthermore, because the AWT is so distant from the mainstream science understanding perspective, virtually everybody is layman in it by now. Even worse, the well educated theorists have no so opened thinking, as its required for further development of AWT ideas. Even the cranks on the www.wbabin.net are personally motivated to develop their own theories, instead of discussion some new theories.
From this point of view is more advantageous for me not to discuss the AWT with well established group of people at all, but with open-minded thinkers here.
It is not censorship.
It is just that there is a time for work and a time for jokes.
Because from AWT follows, the Socratic discussion is the sort of perturbations, which shifts the understanding by evolutionary process. What I want is not just to present my ideas on the web and go to the bed, but to organize public brainstorming about it at the same time. Furthermore, because the AWT is so distant from the mainstream science understanding perspective, virtually everybody is layman in it by now. Even worse, the well educated theorists have no so opened thinking, as its required for further development of AWT ideas. Even the cranks on the www.wbabin.net are personally motivated to develop their own theories, instead of discussion some new theories.
From this point of view is more advantageous for me not to discuss the AWT with well established group of people at all, but with open-minded thinkers here.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 23 2007, 01:46 PM)
..this kind of conclusions physicists discuss them only during coffee-breaks or late in the evening with a beer...
Such private censorship is not my problem, because I can see or even demonstrate the potential of these ideas for further understanding of Universe. The problem of Aether concept understanding is definitely its complexness, but the psychological barrier, which has been created by its refusal and replacement by relativity theory before more then one hundred years. This is nothing new in physic. The same psychological barrier has created for example at the case of cold fusion research. The few first unsuccessful attempts to reproduce it has started the ignorance of such concept in scientific mainstream.
The mainstream science community has many apparent signs of boson condensate. One of this attributes is, every organized (entangled) group of elements (members of the group) it's quantized, it exhibits certain threshold in reproducibility of some phenomena, required for keeping its interest. From the same reasons aren't studied the other less apparent phenomena, including the gravitomagnetism, telekinesis, telepathy and many others. This is simply the way, how every large quantized system, formed the boson condensate works. The real progress in these areas is matter of individual effort. The interest of mainstream science will become attracted just at the moment, when it can expect some profit (at least in the area of grant support) from it. From AWT perspective, the mainstream science community is the physical object like others, it has even its surface tension, prohibiting the penetration of foreign ideas into it.
Such private censorship is not my problem, because I can see or even demonstrate the potential of these ideas for further understanding of Universe. The problem of Aether concept understanding is definitely its complexness, but the psychological barrier, which has been created by its refusal and replacement by relativity theory before more then one hundred years. This is nothing new in physic. The same psychological barrier has created for example at the case of cold fusion research. The few first unsuccessful attempts to reproduce it has started the ignorance of such concept in scientific mainstream.
The mainstream science community has many apparent signs of boson condensate. One of this attributes is, every organized (entangled) group of elements (members of the group) it's quantized, it exhibits certain threshold in reproducibility of some phenomena, required for keeping its interest. From the same reasons aren't studied the other less apparent phenomena, including the gravitomagnetism, telekinesis, telepathy and many others. This is simply the way, how every large quantized system, formed the boson condensate works. The real progress in these areas is matter of individual effort. The interest of mainstream science will become attracted just at the moment, when it can expect some profit (at least in the area of grant support) from it. From AWT perspective, the mainstream science community is the physical object like others, it has even its surface tension, prohibiting the penetration of foreign ideas into it.
QUOTE
Such private censorship is not my problem ...
It is not censorship.
It is just that there is a time for work and a time for jokes.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 23 2007, 11:12 PM)
From the same reasons aren't studied the other less apparent phenomena, including the gravitomagnetism, telekinesis, telepathy and many others. This is simply the way, how every large quantized system, formed the boson condensate works. The real progress in these areas is matter of individual effort. The interest of mainstream science will become attracted just at the moment, when it can expect some profit (at least in the area of grant support) from it. From AWT perspective, the mainstream science community is the physical object like others, it has even its surface tension, prohibiting the penetration of foreign ideas into it.
Twaddle.
How do you propose to apply the scientific method something (Telepathy/Telkinesis) that, according to the people advocating the study of the phenomena, is sensitive to the attitude of the person studying it? By this claim, a skeptic will never be able to successfully conduct an experiment confirming telepathy. NOt only that but there are many other complicating factors. There just isn't the evidence to support those ideas, there's plenty of hearsay, but no verifiable, repeatable experiments, not only that, but the apparent results are strongly dependent on the opinion of the person conducting the study.
So comparing these phenomena to AWT, and ether theories in general isn't really a valid comparison. Ether theories were discarded for a significantly different reason.
Twaddle.
How do you propose to apply the scientific method something (Telepathy/Telkinesis) that, according to the people advocating the study of the phenomena, is sensitive to the attitude of the person studying it? By this claim, a skeptic will never be able to successfully conduct an experiment confirming telepathy. NOt only that but there are many other complicating factors. There just isn't the evidence to support those ideas, there's plenty of hearsay, but no verifiable, repeatable experiments, not only that, but the apparent results are strongly dependent on the opinion of the person conducting the study.
So comparing these phenomena to AWT, and ether theories in general isn't really a valid comparison. Ether theories were discarded for a significantly different reason.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 21 2007, 12:10 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 20 2007, 11:37 PM)
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 20 2007, 09:26 PM)
I'm not calling for them to be rejected. I am just stating my opinion (Note: My 'opinion') that people should think for themselves and try to come up with their own theories, perhaps even using experiments and results which have already been conducted.
But it's trivial to come up with worthless theories.
Who evaluates the worth of theories? I don't believe it's the right attitude to label all theories, other than mainstream ones, as 'worthless'.
I never said I reject any theories at all. I said it was trivial to invent worthless ones. A worthless theory is a theory that doesn't match any experiment or a theory which you are uncertain if it should match an experiment or not, when that experiment is similar to a previously performed experiment.
Physicists are in a good position to find worthless theories. Here are some classes of worthless theories for any scientific domain:
If you are looking for a fundamental theory of physics, you have other classes of worthless theories, because fundamental physical theories are evaluated by people who want to explain everything:
IF you are in the "Physical Theories must be Beautiful" camp, you reject theories for the reason that the "have too many experimentally determined constants" i.e. "the Universe can't be that complicated." But that is just a metaphysical philosophy and not necessarily a true and valid reason to reject a theory.
Who evaluates the worth of theories? I don't believe it's the right attitude to label all theories, other than mainstream ones, as 'worthless'.
I never said I reject any theories at all. I said it was trivial to invent worthless ones. A worthless theory is a theory that doesn't match any experiment or a theory which you are uncertain if it should match an experiment or not, when that experiment is similar to a previously performed experiment.
Physicists are in a good position to find worthless theories. Here are some classes of worthless theories for any scientific domain:
- Theories with an ad hoc assumption that the theory is correct despite any experiments that disagree with it
- Theories without a defined domain of applicability
- Theories which are contradicted by experiment in their realm of applicability
- Theories that contain mathematical contradictions in their realm of applicability
- Theories that contain no math at all (I don't restrict myself to Algebra -- there are other maths)
If you are looking for a fundamental theory of physics, you have other classes of worthless theories, because fundamental physical theories are evaluated by people who want to explain everything:
- Theories which do not reduce to approximately the dynamics of GR or QFT or Newtonian theory in the appropriate limits.
IF you are in the "Physical Theories must be Beautiful" camp, you reject theories for the reason that the "have too many experimentally determined constants" i.e. "the Universe can't be that complicated." But that is just a metaphysical philosophy and not necessarily a true and valid reason to reject a theory.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 21 2007, 12:10 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 20 2007, 11:37 PM)
I don't respect people who think that thinking about physics is enough.
That's just ridiculous. If it wasn't for people 'thinking' about physics, we wouldn't have physics to begin with.
Not my point. I didn't say thinking was unnecessary, I said thinking, alone, is not sufficient. At a minimum, observation is needed. Galileo and Newton were also experimentalists.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 21 2007, 12:10 AM)
The very work of philosophers and great thinkers, over the millenniums, have been invaluable to physics. The old thinkers of ancient Greece, used to sit around all day debating the nature of the universe, and this is how they came up with such things as Atomism.
Ancient Greek atomism is unphysical. The modern atom is not indivisible. The smallest part of water is not "wet."
In the nineteenth century atoms were largely thought of as an unnecessary hypothesis -- the concept made the chemical "Law of Ratios" conceptually simple, but had no experimental support. Einstein, again in 1905, showed that Brownian motion could be experimental evidence of water molecules of a well-defined size.
In the nineteenth century atoms were largely thought of as an unnecessary hypothesis -- the concept made the chemical "Law of Ratios" conceptually simple, but had no experimental support. Einstein, again in 1905, showed that Brownian motion could be experimental evidence of water molecules of a well-defined size.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 21 2007, 12:10 AM)
The ancient Greeks thought it was enough, and it was often enough for the ideas they came up with, so therefore it's good enough for me or anyone else to simply think about physics.
The Ancient Greeks also approved of slavery and pedastry and racism and blood sports. By your logic, these too are "good enough" for you.
In physics, Aristotle described the motion of ballistic objects as moving in a straight line until their inertial runs out and then they fall straight to Earth. This is the physics of Wile E. Coyote, not Galileo and all who followed. By your logic, this too is "good enough" for you.
Science is progressive -- we build on the past and test the ideas of the past both coming up with new ideas and discarding ideas which don't past the test. In physics, math, ethics, table manners, fashion, medicine and philosophy, the Ancient Greeks are not the last word.
Thinking is not enough. You also need observations and lots of them.
In physics, Aristotle described the motion of ballistic objects as moving in a straight line until their inertial runs out and then they fall straight to Earth. This is the physics of Wile E. Coyote, not Galileo and all who followed. By your logic, this too is "good enough" for you.
Science is progressive -- we build on the past and test the ideas of the past both coming up with new ideas and discarding ideas which don't past the test. In physics, math, ethics, table manners, fashion, medicine and philosophy, the Ancient Greeks are not the last word.
Thinking is not enough. You also need observations and lots of them.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 21 2007, 12:10 AM)
Besides, who knows. An actual scientist may read my ideas, and decide to do some math or experimentation about them. By your intolerance, such events should never occur.
I'm not intolerant. I just have standards.
I would like a theory to be strong enough for me to rely on it.
I'm not intolerant. I just have standards.
I would like a theory to be strong enough for me to rely on it.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 21 2007, 08:17 AM)
Even the absolute space can be deformed locally by many different ways.
That contradicts what "absolute" means. Netwonian space time (like Thomas Acquinas' God) stands outside of Newton's Third Law. Nothing acts on it. Mathematically, it's trivial.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 21 2007, 08:17 AM)
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 21 2007, 06:46 AM)
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 21 2007, 12:03 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 21 2007, 12:09 AM)
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 3 2006, 03:28 AM)
you don't pay me enough for such research.
( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=120660 )
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 11 2006, 11:24 PM)
Sorry, you didn't pay me even for discussion with you, for some proofs of your theory the less...
It's just me, who defines the rules of discussion with me - face it.
It's just me, who defines the rules of discussion with me - face it.
( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=132113 )
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 12 2006, 08:47 PM)
If you want such solution, you should pay me for it.
( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=132475 )
QUOTE (Zephir+Jun 18 2007, 09:08 AM)
Can you pay me for this or something?
( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=227086 )
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 20 2007, 08:45 PM)
Empirical evidence says, the Newtonian dynamics is able to explain every more complex phenomena just by involving sufficiently complex geometry, which is the result of this dynamics as well, after all.
The claim is not physics unless you specify the geometry and are willing to live or die by the consistency of your geometry (mathematical postulates) and experiment. Your claim that you "want to be paid" for your work before you will present the math is bogus: ... You can't patent a law of nature, so your ideas, if true, cannot be owned
The claim is not physics unless you specify the geometry and are willing to live or die by the consistency of your geometry (mathematical postulates) and experiment. Your claim that you "want to be paid" for your work before you will present the math is bogus: ... You can't patent a law of nature, so your ideas, if true, cannot be owned
Nobody wants to patent the law of nature. .
...Terry Giblin wanted to patent the electron....
The electron is not natural law ...
The existence of the electron and all of its properties and all of its rules of behavior are "natural law" as defined by the appropriate standards.
Further, several times in the past you have said you have derived results, but simply refuse to show them unless you get paid. The point of my post is you cannot own AWT if it is true. Further, if it is true, then it seems likely that someone else will publish their version of the math before you. Thus, they will get paid (at least in celebrity and quite possibly money) and not you.
The rest of you post was word salad ("Physics cannot be understood by your surrealist verbiage" -- Lalbatros), unjustified comments about String theory, and completely made-up stuff about my opinion of things. Galileo was an experimentalist. Aristotle used reason unconstrained by observation. That's why Galileo stands the test of time better than Aristotle.
Further, several times in the past you have said you have derived results, but simply refuse to show them unless you get paid. The point of my post is you cannot own AWT if it is true. Further, if it is true, then it seems likely that someone else will publish their version of the math before you. Thus, they will get paid (at least in celebrity and quite possibly money) and not you.
The rest of you post was word salad ("Physics cannot be understood by your surrealist verbiage" -- Lalbatros), unjustified comments about String theory, and completely made-up stuff about my opinion of things. Galileo was an experimentalist. Aristotle used reason unconstrained by observation. That's why Galileo stands the test of time better than Aristotle.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 21 2007, 01:37 PM)
The Woight transform differs from Lorentz transform by 
factor.
And so, experiment shows it is 100% wrong. Experiments and observations have been conducted up to γ factors of 300 billion, with no evidence that the extra factor is present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray
Also, I don't think it's self-consistent. Two Voight transforms do not appear to compose into a transform which is also a Voight transform, because 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 but γ(1/2) × γ(1/2)=γ(√(7/16)).
factor. And so, experiment shows it is 100% wrong. Experiments and observations have been conducted up to γ factors of 300 billion, with no evidence that the extra factor is present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray
Also, I don't think it's self-consistent. Two Voight transforms do not appear to compose into a transform which is also a Voight transform, because 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 but γ(1/2) × γ(1/2)=γ(√(7/16)).
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 21 2007, 04:09 PM)
Theoretical result obtained in 1971 was (for alpha=1/137.036):
1.001159656+-0.000000003
Experimental result obtained in 1970 was:
1.001159658+-0.000000004
So, where you see the accuracy of 0.01%?
????
The theory matches experiment to better than 1 part per 10,000 which is what the claim was.
1/10000 of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment is 0.0001 times 0.001159658 (the 1 is not "Anomalous" but semi-classical by Dirac) or 0.0000001159658, and so any theoretical which matches between 1.0011595420342 and 1.0011597739658 will match experiment to 0.01%. The theoretical number (1.001159656) matches very near the center of the range AlphaNumeric needs it to be to match his claim.
1.001159656+-0.000000003
Experimental result obtained in 1970 was:
1.001159658+-0.000000004
So, where you see the accuracy of 0.01%?
????
The theory matches experiment to better than 1 part per 10,000 which is what the claim was.
1/10000 of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment is 0.0001 times 0.001159658 (the 1 is not "Anomalous" but semi-classical by Dirac) or 0.0000001159658, and so any theoretical which matches between 1.0011595420342 and 1.0011597739658 will match experiment to 0.01%. The theoretical number (1.001159656) matches very near the center of the range AlphaNumeric needs it to be to match his claim.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 23 2007, 10:15 PM)
...a skeptic will never be able to successfully conduct an experiment confirming telepathy...
By the same way, like the cold fusion experiments.
By the same way, like the cold fusion experiments.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 23 2007, 10:15 PM)
...Even the absolute space can be deformed locally by many different ways. That contradicts what "absolute" means....
Even the infinite ocean can have the waves.
Even the infinite ocean can have the waves.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 23 2007, 10:15 PM)
...the existence of the electron and all of its properties and all of its rules of behavior are "natural law" as defined by the appropriate standards...
The law is abstractum, the electron is concretum. If some rule is valid just for the single class of objects, it's not law, but denormalized attribute.
Furthemore, the laws are phenomenologic abstracta, while the electron is not process, but artifact.
The law is abstractum, the electron is concretum. If some rule is valid just for the single class of objects, it's not law, but denormalized attribute.
Furthemore, the laws are phenomenologic abstracta, while the electron is not process, but artifact.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 23 2007, 10:15 PM)
... you are in the "Physical Theories must be Beautiful" camp, you reject theories for the reason that the "have too many experimentally determined constants" i.e. "the Universe can't be that complicated." ...
The beauty has nothing to do with simplicity. The simplicity is not subjective attribute, because the number of postulates can be counted easily.
The beauty has nothing to do with simplicity. The simplicity is not subjective attribute, because the number of postulates can be counted easily.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 24 2007, 09:28 AM)
By the same way, like the cold fusion experiments.
Bad faith (again).
You're quoting me out of context (again).
Bad faith (again).
You're quoting me out of context (again).
Oh, and Zephir? For the record you're COMPLETELY WRONG about cold fusion, and the attitude of mainstream science to it.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 24 2007, 01:43 AM)
For the record you're COMPLETELY WRONG about cold fusion, and the attitude of mainstream science to it.
Can you prove it? From which these white sparks are coming up, after then? While the different measurements can be interpreted in many ways, it's not so easy to fake such visual phenomena at all (compare the WMV or RM video).
Maybe a sort of miracle? And this is the problem with the contemporary science. This video is nearly ten years old. Why nobody tried to reproduce it? What all these scientists waiting for? With the one hundredth of investments into tokamak, Z-pinch and laser fusion research we should expect at least thousand of publications about every possible detail of this process already.
While everything, what we can see is: big blue NOTHING.
Can you prove it? From which these white sparks are coming up, after then? While the different measurements can be interpreted in many ways, it's not so easy to fake such visual phenomena at all (compare the WMV or RM video).
Maybe a sort of miracle? And this is the problem with the contemporary science. This video is nearly ten years old. Why nobody tried to reproduce it? What all these scientists waiting for? With the one hundredth of investments into tokamak, Z-pinch and laser fusion research we should expect at least thousand of publications about every possible detail of this process already.
While everything, what we can see is: big blue NOTHING.
This is nearly true:
Just translate Zephir words to find out the real meaning:
open-minded thinkers = people who don't know a lot about physics, that Zephir can easily fool
(bad luck for him there are still a few physicists here, therefore he needs additional demagogy)
(more bad luck: many non-physicist can understand Zephir is fooling them)
not to discuss the AWT with well established group of people = avoid confrontation with reality and people who know about it
QUOTE
(Zephir at his best of bad faith)
From this point of view is more advantageous for me not to discuss the AWT with well established group of people at all, but with open-minded thinkers here.
From this point of view is more advantageous for me not to discuss the AWT with well established group of people at all, but with open-minded thinkers here.
Just translate Zephir words to find out the real meaning:
open-minded thinkers = people who don't know a lot about physics, that Zephir can easily fool
(bad luck for him there are still a few physicists here, therefore he needs additional demagogy)
(more bad luck: many non-physicist can understand Zephir is fooling them)
not to discuss the AWT with well established group of people = avoid confrontation with reality and people who know about it
Zephir bad faith illustrated:
He made people think "cold fusion" is serious science persecuted by the evil (mainstream science).
He give as reference this site and for sure the book sold by those people:
(ah ah cranks also need money)
site: http://www.lenr-canr.org
book: http://www.lenr-canr.org/Introduction.html#StormsBook
The title of the book illustrate very well how people can be fooled by cranks:
The Science Of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Just think of it:
Most fission reactions in a standard PWR nuclear reactors are caused by thermal neutrons.
Thermal neutrons, by definition have "thermal energies", in the range of 1/40 eV, which is low energy too.
So what would be so new in this title: "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction"? Nothing!
The cheating occurs in two steps:
- have the reader believe Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is a revolutionary topic
- make them believe cold fusion is part of the topic
The reality is:
Fusion is a nuclear reaction occurring between charged particles, while in contrast neutrons are neutral.
The Coulomb barrier must be overcome for fusion to take place.
This implies energies typically above 10000 eV.
No dream can overcome the Coulomb barrier.
Many mainstream laboratories have tested the "cold fusion" in very creative ways.
There has been no convincing results despite the large efforts.
(but for Zephir, this is pure persecution)
I could watch myself such an experiment and testify that we saw absolutely no fusion neutrons being produced. This has not been published: probably only a tiny fraction of the cold fusion negative results have been published while the proponents of "cold fusion" have always rushed to publish any noise they have observed.
Bad faith is the only intellectual gift of Zephir.
He made people think "cold fusion" is serious science persecuted by the evil (mainstream science).
He give as reference this site and for sure the book sold by those people:
(ah ah cranks also need money)
site: http://www.lenr-canr.org
book: http://www.lenr-canr.org/Introduction.html#StormsBook
The title of the book illustrate very well how people can be fooled by cranks:
The Science Of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Just think of it:
Most fission reactions in a standard PWR nuclear reactors are caused by thermal neutrons.
Thermal neutrons, by definition have "thermal energies", in the range of 1/40 eV, which is low energy too.
So what would be so new in this title: "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction"? Nothing!
The cheating occurs in two steps:
- have the reader believe Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is a revolutionary topic
- make them believe cold fusion is part of the topic
The reality is:
Fusion is a nuclear reaction occurring between charged particles, while in contrast neutrons are neutral.
The Coulomb barrier must be overcome for fusion to take place.
This implies energies typically above 10000 eV.
No dream can overcome the Coulomb barrier.
Many mainstream laboratories have tested the "cold fusion" in very creative ways.
There has been no convincing results despite the large efforts.
(but for Zephir, this is pure persecution)
I could watch myself such an experiment and testify that we saw absolutely no fusion neutrons being produced. This has not been published: probably only a tiny fraction of the cold fusion negative results have been published while the proponents of "cold fusion" have always rushed to publish any noise they have observed.
Bad faith is the only intellectual gift of Zephir.
About this picture, Zephir:
Read the original paper:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSpolarizedd.pdf
Or simply use the "Search Pdf" tool, and tell me where the authors claimed these hot spots were fusion reactions.
Also tell me if they claimed to have observed fusion neutrons.
(Did Fleischmann-Pons observe neutrons?)
Then give us your conclusion.
Are you going to invest in "Spawar Systems" to save humanity from the coming energy crisis?
Read the original paper:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSpolarizedd.pdf
Or simply use the "Search Pdf" tool, and tell me where the authors claimed these hot spots were fusion reactions.
Also tell me if they claimed to have observed fusion neutrons.
(Did Fleischmann-Pons observe neutrons?)
Then give us your conclusion.
Are you going to invest in "Spawar Systems" to save humanity from the coming energy crisis?
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 23 2007, 07:23 PM)
......The theory matches experiment to better than 1 part per 10,000 which is what the claim was.
1/10000 of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment is 0.0001 times 0.001159658 (the 1 is not "Anomalous" but semi-classical by Dirac) or 0.0000001159658, and so any theoretical which matches between 1.0011595420342 and 1.0011597739658 will match experiment to 0.01%. The theoretical number (1.001159656) matches very near the center of the range AlphaNumeric needs it to be to match his claim.
You are right only about the anomalous value.
You are not right about the percentage. I wrote:
1.001159658+-0.000000003
It means that the 3 parts per the 1159658 parts it is about 0.0003%, not 0.01%.
Of course your calculations are correct but only for your values, not for mine.
It means that AlphaNumeric is not right, whereas you changed my words and numbers.
Congratulations because of the manipulation.
Because the digit 8 is associated with the order alpha^3, which has the positive value (+), however in the today result there is the digit 2, then today, the order alpha^3 contains less the diagrams. It means that there was the manipulation to obtain theoretical result consistent with the today experimental result.
My theory also leads to conclusion that the all diagrams associated with the order alpha^4 are destroyed by the spontaneous fluctuations in the background of the Universe – it results from fact that the bare electron has the size not equal to zero.
Only starting from my Quantum Geometry (smallest interval=0.95 . 10^-64 m) we can formulate the mathematically and physically coherent ultimate theory.
1/10000 of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment is 0.0001 times 0.001159658 (the 1 is not "Anomalous" but semi-classical by Dirac) or 0.0000001159658, and so any theoretical which matches between 1.0011595420342 and 1.0011597739658 will match experiment to 0.01%. The theoretical number (1.001159656) matches very near the center of the range AlphaNumeric needs it to be to match his claim.
You are right only about the anomalous value.
You are not right about the percentage. I wrote:
1.001159658+-0.000000003
It means that the 3 parts per the 1159658 parts it is about 0.0003%, not 0.01%.
Of course your calculations are correct but only for your values, not for mine.
It means that AlphaNumeric is not right, whereas you changed my words and numbers.
Congratulations because of the manipulation.
Because the digit 8 is associated with the order alpha^3, which has the positive value (+), however in the today result there is the digit 2, then today, the order alpha^3 contains less the diagrams. It means that there was the manipulation to obtain theoretical result consistent with the today experimental result.
My theory also leads to conclusion that the all diagrams associated with the order alpha^4 are destroyed by the spontaneous fluctuations in the background of the Universe – it results from fact that the bare electron has the size not equal to zero.
Only starting from my Quantum Geometry (smallest interval=0.95 . 10^-64 m) we can formulate the mathematically and physically coherent ultimate theory.
Wow, an Euler thread where he is blowing his own horn (or just plain blowing) turn into yet another Zephir bashing thread. 
Although I don't agree with much of what he says I really do hope that someday there is a great break through in physics by "professionals" that proves everything he says to be true to the T (or atleast 90%). [removed]
Euler teach anything???
Coming from the guy that thinks that....
...proves that an endless summation (sequence) sums to its limit when all that it really does is define what the limit is. Someone who can't see the difference there certainly doesn't teach a damn thing.
Oh and...
...proves that an endless summation (sequence) sums to its limit when all that it really does is define what the limit is. Someone who can't see the difference there certainly doesn't teach a damn thing.
Oh and...
He made people think "cold fusion" is serious science persecuted by the evil
...I am totally amazed after centuries of uncovered "cover ups" and the like that people are so naive to think that their world is perfect in every way. That "cover ups" no longer exists. WAKE UP!!!
Centuries ago it was the Church that ruled and science conformed to the church. Those that didn't suffered for it. Are you so arrogant that the world is any different now? There are different parties in power now but the game and how it is being played has not changed, it only modernized.
Mainstream science has yet to become the main party in control and at the moment is no longer influence by the Church but instead influenced by corporations and government.
Science will never be at its full potential unless it becomes the party in control.
But I do hope you are not implying that Cold Fusion is NOT serious science....
Although I don't agree with much of what he says I really do hope that someday there is a great break through in physics by "professionals" that proves everything he says to be true to the T (or atleast 90%). [removed]
Euler teach anything???
Coming from the guy that thinks that....
QUOTE
for every real number ε > 0 there exists a natural number n0 (which will depend on ε) such that for all n > n0 we have | xn − L | < ε.
...proves that an endless summation (sequence) sums to its limit when all that it really does is define what the limit is. Someone who can't see the difference there certainly doesn't teach a damn thing.
Oh and...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| for every real number ε > 0 there exists a natural number n0 (which will depend on ε) such that for all n > n0 we have | xn − L | < ε. |
...proves that an endless summation (sequence) sums to its limit when all that it really does is define what the limit is. Someone who can't see the difference there certainly doesn't teach a damn thing.
Oh and...
He made people think "cold fusion" is serious science persecuted by the evil
...I am totally amazed after centuries of uncovered "cover ups" and the like that people are so naive to think that their world is perfect in every way. That "cover ups" no longer exists. WAKE UP!!!
Centuries ago it was the Church that ruled and science conformed to the church. Those that didn't suffered for it. Are you so arrogant that the world is any different now? There are different parties in power now but the game and how it is being played has not changed, it only modernized.
Mainstream science has yet to become the main party in control and at the moment is no longer influence by the Church but instead influenced by corporations and government.
Science will never be at its full potential unless it becomes the party in control.
But I do hope you are not implying that Cold Fusion is NOT serious science....
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Jul 21 2007, 03:54 AM)
That is a relief that you are not on some anti-relativity campaign. Perhaps some are mixing you up with those. Perhaps because of the word "aether" people are assuming you are in the anti-relativity camp.
It has been rigorously shown that Special Relativity is incompatible with any aether-based theory. It is a defining characteristic of a Crank to be blind to such things.
But I know what you mean. Some here (e.g. Farsight) deny that time gets mixed up with space.
It has been rigorously shown that Special Relativity is incompatible with any aether-based theory. It is a defining characteristic of a Crank to be blind to such things.
But I know what you mean. Some here (e.g. Farsight) deny that time gets mixed up with space.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Jul 21 2007, 03:54 AM)
Even the believers in relativity are still searching the vastness of space for more mysterious substances (or unsubstances) that no one yet knows about.
Searching for stuff they do know about, but don't understand in any detail.
Searching for stuff they do know about, but don't understand in any detail.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Jul 21 2007, 03:54 AM)
Maybe "aether" is just a wrong choice of word to use. Everyone thinks "aether"=19th century, outmoded, old-fashioned, even religious (The Kabbalists use that word).
That actually fits his use of the word. That is, a classic fluid that fills all space and supports waves analogous to sound waves.
That actually fits his use of the word. That is, a classic fluid that fills all space and supports waves analogous to sound waves.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Jul 21 2007, 03:54 AM)
Everyone acts like you think the world is flat.
That is a good analogy in the sense of being so obvious to those who know better because of observation and experience. See this page about two screens down "The Earth is Round" (the site doesn't seem to have any section anchors, argh!).
That is a good analogy in the sense of being so obvious to those who know better because of observation and experience. See this page about two screens down "The Earth is Round" (the site doesn't seem to have any section anchors, argh!).
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Jul 21 2007, 03:54 AM)
Take the term "Intelligent Design." On the face if it, it could describe a perfectly scientific and respectable deist, even Einstein himself perhaps, or the American forefathers. Yet, this term is a hot button buzzword. When people hear the term they think strict Bible literalist fundamentalist that is on a rabid campaign to kick the teaching of evolution out of public school. What would have been an O.K. term is now ruined by some special interest group.
That was their intention. The creationist fundamentalist anti-science crowd chose the word to mislead, to sound reasonable and scientific. But their agenda was always to continue to push their particular creationist belief system. A brief introduction can be found in Skepdic.
That was their intention. The creationist fundamentalist anti-science crowd chose the word to mislead, to sound reasonable and scientific. But their agenda was always to continue to push their particular creationist belief system. A brief introduction can be found in Skepdic.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 23 2007, 11:12 AM)
Even the cranks on the www.wbabin.net are personally motivated to develop their own theories, instead of discussion some new theories.
What you cannot see is that you are one of them. Even those who might be open to your ideas see you as an extreme example. So, you do belong there. You would fit in. You would be their king.
What you cannot see is that you are one of them. Even those who might be open to your ideas see you as an extreme example. So, you do belong there. You would fit in. You would be their king.
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Jul 24 2007, 07:24 PM)
What you cannot see is that you are one of them. Even those who might be open to your ideas see you as an extreme example. So, you do belong there. You would fit in. You would be their king.
I've no problem with incorporating the foreign concepts and theories into AWT, on the contrary. I'm spending a lotta time here by explanations of relativistic Doppler shift, twins paradox, superconductivity, quantum wave, light speed invariance, spin symmetry, Lorentz transform and contraction, abelian and non-abelian transforms, electromagnetic field spreading, charge and electroweak interaction, inflation, space-time expansion, dimensions, Lagrangian and compactification, renormalization, particle generations, , birefringence of vacuum, imaginary and/or multiple time concept, double slit experiment and deBroglie wave, quantum entanglement, Higgs mechanism, motion in the gravitational field, Lie group and string net liquid concept, quarks, neutrinos, electron and proton, gravitons, photons, accretion radiation, cp-symmetry violation and/or quasars formation and black hole interior and Universe generations. While the AWT doesn't require any of them, in fact. From AWT perspective all these artifacts are just differently shaped Aether density gradients, end of story.
I've no problem with incorporating the foreign concepts and theories into AWT, on the contrary. I'm spending a lotta time here by explanations of relativistic Doppler shift, twins paradox, superconductivity, quantum wave, light speed invariance, spin symmetry, Lorentz transform and contraction, abelian and non-abelian transforms, electromagnetic field spreading, charge and electroweak interaction, inflation, space-time expansion, dimensions, Lagrangian and compactification, renormalization, particle generations, , birefringence of vacuum, imaginary and/or multiple time concept, double slit experiment and deBroglie wave, quantum entanglement, Higgs mechanism, motion in the gravitational field, Lie group and string net liquid concept, quarks, neutrinos, electron and proton, gravitons, photons, accretion radiation, cp-symmetry violation and/or quasars formation and black hole interior and Universe generations. While the AWT doesn't require any of them, in fact. From AWT perspective all these artifacts are just differently shaped Aether density gradients, end of story.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 24 2007, 12:10 PM)
Can you prove it? From which these white sparks are coming up, after then? While the different measurements can be interpreted in many ways, it's not so easy to fake such visual phenomena at all (compare the WMV or RM video).
Maybe a sort of miracle? And this is the problem with the contemporary science. This video is nearly ten years old. Why nobody tried to reproduce it? What all these scientists waiting for? With the one hundredth of investments into tokamak, Z-pinch and laser fusion research we should expect at least thousand of publications about every possible detail of this process already.
While everything, what we can see is: big blue NOTHING.
This is exactly my point Zephir.
If you knew anything about Cold Fusion/LENR, you'd realize that scientests have been trying to replicate the results, the problem that it's facing is similar to the problem that high temperature super conductors faced for a time. The results vary significantly, and the evidence is at best inconclusive.
The point (one of them) that I was trying to make was that there have been 21 peer revieweds papers on the topic, and there are still people actively pursing research.
In 1989, they took their research to the DOE to see if they could convince the US government to give them some money for more research - trying for a slice of the fusion funding pie, but the DOE comittee found teh results unconvincing. They went back in 2004 to try again, but the DOE said that the evidence although stronger was still inconclusive. I should point out that the number of people that came out in favour of cold fusion increased from 1989 to 2004 because the evidence was stronger.
However, one of the weaknesses of much of the LENR research, specifically in D/Pd systems is that they have not managed to successfully eliminate all other possible explanations. Low temperature fusion is not the only possible explanation for the excess heat that some experimenters have observed.
THIS is what I mean when I say that you have it all wrong about Cold Fusion, and Cold Fusion research. There are people that take it seriously, there are people working through the scientific process on it, and submitting articles for peer review that are successfully published, so comparing yourself in your martyrdom to the COld Fusion society is so far from valid that it just isn't funny.
Maybe a sort of miracle? And this is the problem with the contemporary science. This video is nearly ten years old. Why nobody tried to reproduce it? What all these scientists waiting for? With the one hundredth of investments into tokamak, Z-pinch and laser fusion research we should expect at least thousand of publications about every possible detail of this process already.
While everything, what we can see is: big blue NOTHING.
This is exactly my point Zephir.
If you knew anything about Cold Fusion/LENR, you'd realize that scientests have been trying to replicate the results, the problem that it's facing is similar to the problem that high temperature super conductors faced for a time. The results vary significantly, and the evidence is at best inconclusive.
The point (one of them) that I was trying to make was that there have been 21 peer revieweds papers on the topic, and there are still people actively pursing research.
In 1989, they took their research to the DOE to see if they could convince the US government to give them some money for more research - trying for a slice of the fusion funding pie, but the DOE comittee found teh results unconvincing. They went back in 2004 to try again, but the DOE said that the evidence although stronger was still inconclusive. I should point out that the number of people that came out in favour of cold fusion increased from 1989 to 2004 because the evidence was stronger.
However, one of the weaknesses of much of the LENR research, specifically in D/Pd systems is that they have not managed to successfully eliminate all other possible explanations. Low temperature fusion is not the only possible explanation for the excess heat that some experimenters have observed.
THIS is what I mean when I say that you have it all wrong about Cold Fusion, and Cold Fusion research. There are people that take it seriously, there are people working through the scientific process on it, and submitting articles for peer review that are successfully published, so comparing yourself in your martyrdom to the COld Fusion society is so far from valid that it just isn't funny.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 24 2007, 10:46 PM)
Low temperature fusion is not the only possible explanation for the excess heat that some experimenters have observed.
Indeed. From practical point of view such excess of heat is even much more pleasant, then the requirement of some neutron shielding.
The more surprising is, the scientists are ignoring such fundamental research.
Indeed. From practical point of view such excess of heat is even much more pleasant, then the requirement of some neutron shielding.
The more surprising is, the scientists are ignoring such fundamental research.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 25 2007, 07:54 AM)
Indeed. From practical point of view such excess of heat is even much more pleasant, then the requirement of some neutron shielding.
The more surprising is, the scientists are ignoring such fundamental research.
Did you actually bother to read my post?
Scientists are not ignoring the research, that is the majority of the thrust of my last post.
And the lack of Neutrons is a crucial issue. Thus far, there has been no evidence of the products of fusion, this includes Neutrons, but more importantly it also includes Helium.
This is partof the reason why the evidence supporting the process of fusion occuring in the fleischmann-pons experiment is considered inconclusive.
The more surprising is, the scientists are ignoring such fundamental research.
Did you actually bother to read my post?
Scientists are not ignoring the research, that is the majority of the thrust of my last post.
And the lack of Neutrons is a crucial issue. Thus far, there has been no evidence of the products of fusion, this includes Neutrons, but more importantly it also includes Helium.
This is partof the reason why the evidence supporting the process of fusion occuring in the fleischmann-pons experiment is considered inconclusive.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 20 2007, 11:19 AM)
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 20 2007, 10:22 AM)
But the theoretical calculations are not in agreement with today experimental data. What made scientists? They exchanged some diagrams in the order alpha^3. In my opinion it is childish game.
Can you provide evidence? The anomalous magnetic moment of the electron is the most verified quantity in all of QED.
If experiments in 1970 could only measure to an accuracy of say 0.01%, then this would only require say alpha^2 contributions and so physicists in 1971 would not need to go much further. Experiments can now go to over 0.0000001% so the inclusion of alpha^3 and alpha^4 contributions is not 'ad hoc', it's just dialing up with accuracy to which we 'round off' our predictions. The amount of work required to compute the totality of a next order contribution increases exponentially! What is one diagram at tree level might be 4 at one loop, 20 at two loop etc. I remember being in a seminar about electroweak processes and the 4 loop process required over 10,000 diagrams to be computed!
So, AlphaNumeric was making not a claim of fact, but a hypothetical argument based on the condition that a low accuracy in the measurement of a experimental value would require only a low accuracy theoretical calculation to match it to the experimental precision.
If experiments in 1970 could only measure to an accuracy of say 0.01%, then this would only require say alpha^2 contributions and so physicists in 1971 would not need to go much further. Experiments can now go to over 0.0000001% so the inclusion of alpha^3 and alpha^4 contributions is not 'ad hoc', it's just dialing up with accuracy to which we 'round off' our predictions. The amount of work required to compute the totality of a next order contribution increases exponentially! What is one diagram at tree level might be 4 at one loop, 20 at two loop etc. I remember being in a seminar about electroweak processes and the 4 loop process required over 10,000 diagrams to be computed!
So, AlphaNumeric was making not a claim of fact, but a hypothetical argument based on the condition that a low accuracy in the measurement of a experimental value would require only a low accuracy theoretical calculation to match it to the experimental precision.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 21 2007, 04:09 PM)
Theoretical result obtained in 1971 was (for alpha=1/137.036):
1.001159656+-0.000000003
Experimental result obtained in 1970 was:
1.001159658+-0.000000004
So, where you see the accuracy of 0.01%?
They clearly match to BETTER than 0.01%, and the theoretical result is known to a BETTER accuracy than the experimental result and the two ranges described overlap significantly. None of AlphaNumeric's statements is demonstrated to be wrong.
The claim was about theory matching experiment. This was demonstrated to match at the 0.01% level.
The numbers which follow are uncertainties, either statistical, experimental or theoretical. Since they are well below the 0.01% level, they do not affect the comparison of theory with experiment at AlphaNumeric's claimed 0.01 level.
Indeed, they support a much stronger claim that experiment and theory circa 1971 have a region where the two overlap at the 0.0003% level.
Further, since YOU didn't do these experiments and you didn't cite where they came from, we are uncertain if the quoted uncertainties are 1-sigma deviations or 95% confidence limits. But theory and experimental uncertainties as quoted overlap, which means they match at the 0.0003% level or AlphaNumeric's weaker claim of 0.01%. Both are true because one claim contains the other.
1.001159656+-0.000000003
Experimental result obtained in 1970 was:
1.001159658+-0.000000004
So, where you see the accuracy of 0.01%?
They clearly match to BETTER than 0.01%, and the theoretical result is known to a BETTER accuracy than the experimental result and the two ranges described overlap significantly. None of AlphaNumeric's statements is demonstrated to be wrong.
The claim was about theory matching experiment. This was demonstrated to match at the 0.01% level.
The numbers which follow are uncertainties, either statistical, experimental or theoretical. Since they are well below the 0.01% level, they do not affect the comparison of theory with experiment at AlphaNumeric's claimed 0.01 level.
Indeed, they support a much stronger claim that experiment and theory circa 1971 have a region where the two overlap at the 0.0003% level.
CODE
They overlap!
| Theory_ _Experiment
| _/ \_/ \_
| / / \ \
| / / \ \
| / / \ \
+------------------
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
. . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
| Theory_ _Experiment
| _/ \_/ \_
| / / \ \
| / / \ \
| / / \ \
+------------------
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
. . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
Further, since YOU didn't do these experiments and you didn't cite where they came from, we are uncertain if the quoted uncertainties are 1-sigma deviations or 95% confidence limits. But theory and experimental uncertainties as quoted overlap, which means they match at the 0.0003% level or AlphaNumeric's weaker claim of 0.01%. Both are true because one claim contains the other.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 24 2007, 08:59 AM)
You are right only about the anomalous value.
You are not right about the percentage. I wrote:
1.001159658+-0.000000003
It means that the 3 parts per the 1159658 parts it is about 0.0003%, not 0.01%.
Of course your calculations are correct but only for your values, not for mine.
It means that AlphaNumeric is not right, whereas you changed my words and numbers.
Congratulations because of the manipulation.
You are not right about the percentage. I wrote:
1.001159658+-0.000000003
It means that the 3 parts per the 1159658 parts it is about 0.0003%, not 0.01%.
Of course your calculations are correct but only for your values, not for mine.
It means that AlphaNumeric is not right, whereas you changed my words and numbers.
Congratulations because of the manipulation.
Congratulations on missing the big picture. Your unattributed numbers say theory matches experiment to the limit of the accuracy of the experimental results.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 24 2007, 08:59 AM)
Because the digit 8 is associated with the order alpha^3, which has the positive value (+), however in the today result there is the digit 2, then today, the order alpha^3 contains less the diagrams. It means that there was the manipulation to obtain theoretical result consistent with the today experimental result.
Check your own post -- it's digit 6, not digit 8. and 6+/-3 overlaps 2.18 if the 3 is a standard deviation. Since you didn't tell us where you got these numbers from, they are ridiculously hard to verify.
You are claiming:
1.001159656+-0.000000003 (theoretical result 1971) doesn't match current theory, but your calculations are predicated on a lower precision value of alpha and in fact overlap with the current results.
Since the terms have definite signs, a symettric uncertainty seems unjustified.
Also, you don't know if your 1971 result has tau and muon contributions, exact calculations or decent error estimation.
Compare this source:
G. Gabrielse, D. Hanneke, T. Kinoshita, M. Nio, and B. Odom, "New Determination of the Fine Structure Constant from the Electron g Value and QED", Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030802 (2006).
http://hussle.harvard.edu/~gabrielse/gabri...ureConstant.pdf
Check your own post -- it's digit 6, not digit 8. and 6+/-3 overlaps 2.18 if the 3 is a standard deviation. Since you didn't tell us where you got these numbers from, they are ridiculously hard to verify.
You are claiming:
1.001159656+-0.000000003 (theoretical result 1971) doesn't match current theory, but your calculations are predicated on a lower precision value of alpha and in fact overlap with the current results.
Since the terms have definite signs, a symettric uncertainty seems unjustified.
Also, you don't know if your 1971 result has tau and muon contributions, exact calculations or decent error estimation.
Compare this source:
G. Gabrielse, D. Hanneke, T. Kinoshita, M. Nio, and B. Odom, "New Determination of the Fine Structure Constant from the Electron g Value and QED", Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030802 (2006).
http://hussle.harvard.edu/~gabrielse/gabri...ureConstant.pdf
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 24 2007, 08:59 AM)
My theory also leads to conclusion that the all diagrams associated with the order alpha^4 are destroyed by the spontaneous fluctuations in the background of the Universe – it results from fact that the bare electron has the size not equal to zero.
Inconsistent! Feynman diagrams can't be destroyed by a finite electron size. Feynman diagrams are just a way to process physical theories by expansion in perturbation theory not a theory of themselves. You are saying you have redefined math not physics.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 24 2007, 08:59 AM)
Only starting from my Quantum Geometry (smallest interval=0.95 . 10^-64 m) we can formulate the mathematically and physically coherent ultimate theory.
Unsupported claim.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 24 2007, 11:28 PM)
..Scientists are not ignoring the research......there have been 21 peer reviewed papers on the topic...
Twentyone? Over fifteen years? Do you know, how many thousands of peer-reviewed articles related just to the YBaCuO superconductors group has appeared only during 1986? Note, that none of these superconductors has usage in technical praxis so far.
Twentyone? Over fifteen years? Do you know, how many thousands of peer-reviewed articles related just to the YBaCuO superconductors group has appeared only during 1986? Note, that none of these superconductors has usage in technical praxis so far.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 25 2007, 08:44 AM)
Twentyone? Over fifteen years? Do you know, how many thousands of peer-reviewed articles related just to the YBaCuO superconductors group has appeared only during 1986? Note, that none of these superconductors has usage in technical praxis so far.
Irellevant.
Research into LENR/Cold Fusion today is probably at about the same level of development as superconductivity/high temperature superconductivity was in the '50s and '60s, so comparing it to 1986 is just bad faith and naive.
This is one of the points that I have been trying to make, it's a relatively new experimental field, so of course there aren't going to be huge numbers of papers yet, of course the experimental evidence is going to be patchy and inconclusive, and no amount of whining by you or anyone else is going to change anything.
Try looking at it from a point of view of common sense for once, instead of as someone who's interested in debunking mainstream science.
Irellevant.
Research into LENR/Cold Fusion today is probably at about the same level of development as superconductivity/high temperature superconductivity was in the '50s and '60s, so comparing it to 1986 is just bad faith and naive.
This is one of the points that I have been trying to make, it's a relatively new experimental field, so of course there aren't going to be huge numbers of papers yet, of course the experimental evidence is going to be patchy and inconclusive, and no amount of whining by you or anyone else is going to change anything.
Try looking at it from a point of view of common sense for once, instead of as someone who's interested in debunking mainstream science.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 25 2007, 12:15 AM)
...Research into LENR/Cold Fusion today is probably at about the same level of development as superconductivity/high temperature superconductivity was in the '50s and '60s...
Irrelevant. Till now we don't understand, how the HT superconductivity is working by the same way, like the cold fusion and the proof of cold fusion is experimentally even simpler and more trivial, then the detection of HT superconductivity.
On the above picture is the piece of plastic, attached to the palladium electrode. Track of charged particles pairs separated by magnetic field are easily visible. You need just a piece of plastic and palladium wire in bit of heavy water to generate and detect the nuclear particles by reproducible way. Amazing stuff.
And the mainstream scientists? They're apparently more interested about pentaquark hunting in trillions priced colliders, which cannot help the life environment not at least...
Irrelevant. Till now we don't understand, how the HT superconductivity is working by the same way, like the cold fusion and the proof of cold fusion is experimentally even simpler and more trivial, then the detection of HT superconductivity.
On the above picture is the piece of plastic, attached to the palladium electrode. Track of charged particles pairs separated by magnetic field are easily visible. You need just a piece of plastic and palladium wire in bit of heavy water to generate and detect the nuclear particles by reproducible way. Amazing stuff.
And the mainstream scientists? They're apparently more interested about pentaquark hunting in trillions priced colliders, which cannot help the life environment not at least...
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 25 2007, 09:59 AM)
Irrelevant. Till now we don't understand, how the HT superconductivity is really working by the same way, like the cold fusion and the proof of cold fusion is experimentally even simpler and trivial, then the detection of HT superconductivity.
On the above picture is the piece of plastic, attached to the palladium electrode. Track of nuclear particles are easily visible. You need just a piece of plastic and palladium wire in bit of heavy water to generate and detect the nuclear particles by reproducible way. Amazing stuff.
And the mainstream scientists? They're apparently more interested about traces of pentaquark hunting on billion priced colliders, which cannot help the life environment not at least...
That doesn't matter, the point is that Cold fusion is in a similar state to Superconductivty 15 years after people started seriously researching that.
Oh, and for the record?
The image which you're showing bad faith with was on one slide in a presentation made in march 2007, so that evidence is only very new evidence, and wasn't taken into consideration in the 2004 or the 1986 hearings by the DOE, so to claim it's being ignored is either ignorance, or lying, and I can't decide which it is.
This is only ocmpounded by the fact that if you had bothered to read the presentation (or section of the presentation) that the slide that that image came from, you would know things like, even in 2004, advocates of cold fusion were getting articles published in prestiqous peer reviewed journals like Thermochimica Acta.
Oh, and for the record? You'd also know that it's not as 'simple' as placing a 'piece of plastic' in the experiment, and i'd almost be willing to wager that you don't actually understand the physical process behind that image, and what those green circles actually represent.
On the above picture is the piece of plastic, attached to the palladium electrode. Track of nuclear particles are easily visible. You need just a piece of plastic and palladium wire in bit of heavy water to generate and detect the nuclear particles by reproducible way. Amazing stuff.
And the mainstream scientists? They're apparently more interested about traces of pentaquark hunting on billion priced colliders, which cannot help the life environment not at least...
That doesn't matter, the point is that Cold fusion is in a similar state to Superconductivty 15 years after people started seriously researching that.
Oh, and for the record?
The image which you're showing bad faith with was on one slide in a presentation made in march 2007, so that evidence is only very new evidence, and wasn't taken into consideration in the 2004 or the 1986 hearings by the DOE, so to claim it's being ignored is either ignorance, or lying, and I can't decide which it is.
This is only ocmpounded by the fact that if you had bothered to read the presentation (or section of the presentation) that the slide that that image came from, you would know things like, even in 2004, advocates of cold fusion were getting articles published in prestiqous peer reviewed journals like Thermochimica Acta.
Oh, and for the record? You'd also know that it's not as 'simple' as placing a 'piece of plastic' in the experiment, and i'd almost be willing to wager that you don't actually understand the physical process behind that image, and what those green circles actually represent.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 25 2007, 01:26 AM)
...the point is that Cold fusion is in a similar state to Superconductivity 15 years after people started seriously researching that...
Well, exactly. Just these 60.000+ publications are missing here...
Well, exactly. Just these 60.000+ publications are missing here...
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 25 2007, 01:26 AM)
...so that evidence is only very new evidence...
Well, exactly. Why the radioactive particles are required to be detectable by the piece of plastic after sixteen years of "research"? Just compare this primitive equipment and the money investments into Higgs or pentaquark research, the sensitivity of detection methods used based on the ultra-detectors supported by arrays of supercomputers in CERN, and so on.
It's evident, the scientific lobby can collect a surprising amount of money when defending the mainstream theories theology. While the research of phenomena, which aren't supporting them so well is ignored in quiet. No matter, such research can help the life environment and social stability due the end of oil supplies.
The scientists are more interested about Higgs boson and their stupid theories about it. The practical problems of civilizations aren't important for these people.
Well, exactly. Why the radioactive particles are required to be detectable by the piece of plastic after sixteen years of "research"? Just compare this primitive equipment and the money investments into Higgs or pentaquark research, the sensitivity of detection methods used based on the ultra-detectors supported by arrays of supercomputers in CERN, and so on.
It's evident, the scientific lobby can collect a surprising amount of money when defending the mainstream theories theology. While the research of phenomena, which aren't supporting them so well is ignored in quiet. No matter, such research can help the life environment and social stability due the end of oil supplies.
The scientists are more interested about Higgs boson and their stupid theories about it. The practical problems of civilizations aren't important for these people.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 25 2007, 10:30 AM)
Well, exactly. Just these 60.000+ publications are missing here...
60,000 my hairy rectum.
Even in 1960, it's barely off the line, which as I have stated repeatedly now is the equivalent of where cold fusion research is.
Cold fusion now is where superconductivity was in the 50s and 60s.
The same goes for semiconductors.
Semiconductors went through a similar phase where they were poorly understood, evidence was inconclusive, and experimental results weren't always repeatable.
But I already know what your answer will be Zephir.
"See how many thousands of papers were published in 1986!"
Well, 1986 was when the first results were published in peer reviewed paper, so again, it's not really comparable.
60,000 my hairy rectum.
Even in 1960, it's barely off the line, which as I have stated repeatedly now is the equivalent of where cold fusion research is.
Cold fusion now is where superconductivity was in the 50s and 60s.
The same goes for semiconductors.
Semiconductors went through a similar phase where they were poorly understood, evidence was inconclusive, and experimental results weren't always repeatable.
But I already know what your answer will be Zephir.
"See how many thousands of papers were published in 1986!"
Well, 1986 was when the first results were published in peer reviewed paper, so again, it's not really comparable.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 25 2007, 10:30 AM)
Well, exactly. Why the radioactive particles are required to be detectable by the piece of plastic after sixteen years of "research"? Just compare this primitive equipment and money investments with Higgs or pentaquark research, the sensitivity of detection methods used based on the ultradetectors supported by arrays of supercomputers, and so on.
It's evident, the scientific lobby can collect a surprising amount of money when defending the mainstream theories theology.
If you knew anything about cold fusion research, you would know that the lack of nuclear products has been one of the major stumbling blocks for 'cold fusion' being an explanation for the observed results, and it has been this way since 1986.
These includes (but are not limited to):
It's evident, the scientific lobby can collect a surprising amount of money when defending the mainstream theories theology.
If you knew anything about cold fusion research, you would know that the lack of nuclear products has been one of the major stumbling blocks for 'cold fusion' being an explanation for the observed results, and it has been this way since 1986.
These includes (but are not limited to):
- The lack of evidence of neutrons.
- The lack of evidence of Gamma Rays.
- The lack of evidence of Helium.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 25 2007, 01:47 AM)
the lack of nuclear products has been one of the major stumbling blocks for 'cold fusion' being an explanation
LOL, which lack are you talking about? Bellow is the radiogram of palladium electrode after finishing of electrolysis. Its radioactivity is clearly apparent.
Are all these mainstream scientists truly imbeciles, they cannot detect by their modern equipments the same particles, which are easily detectable by the piece of plastic or by photographic paper, like at the Becquerel era? How is it possible, they're able to detect one pentaquark in few years standing experiments, while they're not even able to detect the particles, which are turning the photographic paper into black and which are making the holes in the sheet of plastic visible by naked eye? How is it possible, they're able to find such evidences only after eighteen years of nuclear products analysis?
LOL, which lack are you talking about? Bellow is the radiogram of palladium electrode after finishing of electrolysis. Its radioactivity is clearly apparent.
Are all these mainstream scientists truly imbeciles, they cannot detect by their modern equipments the same particles, which are easily detectable by the piece of plastic or by photographic paper, like at the Becquerel era? How is it possible, they're able to detect one pentaquark in few years standing experiments, while they're not even able to detect the particles, which are turning the photographic paper into black and which are making the holes in the sheet of plastic visible by naked eye? How is it possible, they're able to find such evidences only after eighteen years of nuclear products analysis?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 25 2007, 01:47 AM)
The lack of evidence of neutrons. The lack of evidence of Gamma Rays. The lack of evidence of Helium.
Well, exactly. One should expect, the more controversy, the more interesting the anomalous heat and other nuclear effects will become for truly inquisitive scientists. While the exactly the opposite is true, unfortunately: "BEWARE! It seems, here's an unexpected phenomena, which apparently doesn't play well with our established theories! It can make problem to our adored theology or it can even make the idiots from us! Stop to inestigate it immediately, or you're risking our scientific credit, quotation index or even the grant support!"
For me the scientists, who are behaving by such way have lost their scientific credit already. They're sectarian opportunists, but not scientists. The case of cold fusion research is the shame of the whole professional scientific community and the evidence of the deep degeneration of it.
Well, exactly. One should expect, the more controversy, the more interesting the anomalous heat and other nuclear effects will become for truly inquisitive scientists. While the exactly the opposite is true, unfortunately: "BEWARE! It seems, here's an unexpected phenomena, which apparently doesn't play well with our established theories! It can make problem to our adored theology or it can even make the idiots from us! Stop to inestigate it immediately, or you're risking our scientific credit, quotation index or even the grant support!"
For me the scientists, who are behaving by such way have lost their scientific credit already. They're sectarian opportunists, but not scientists. The case of cold fusion research is the shame of the whole professional scientific community and the evidence of the deep degeneration of it.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 25 2007, 10:54 AM)
LOL, which lack are you talking about? Bellow is the radiogram of palladium electrode after finishing of electrolysis. Its radioactivity is clearly apparent.
Are all these mainstream scientists truly imbeciles, they cannot detect by their modern equipments the same particles, which are easily detectable by the piece of plastic or by photographic paper, like at the Becquerel era? How is it possible, they're able to detect one pentaquark in few years standing experiments, while they're not even able to detect the particles, which are turning the photographic paper into black and which are making the holes in the sheet of plastic visible by naked eye? How is it possible, they're able to find such evidences only after eighteen years of analysis of nuclear products?
Well, exactly. One should expect, the more controversy, the more interesting the anomalous heat and other nuclear effects will become for truly inquisitive scientists. While the exactly the opposite is true, unfortunately: "BEWARE! It seems, here's a phenomena, which doesn't play well with our established theories! It can make problem to our adored theology or it can even make the idiots from us! Stop to research it immediately, or you're risking our scientific credit, quotation index and grant support!"
For me the scientists, who are behaving by such way have lost their scientific credit already. They're sectarian opportunists, but not scientists. The case of cold fusion research is the shame of the whole professional scientific community and the evidence of the deep degeneration of it.
The only Imbecile is you Zephir.
I have refuted all of your arguments.
I have shown that Cold Fusion research is active and ongoing, and publications are still being made on the topic in respected peer reviewed journals (for example, thermochimica acta).
The problem is that because the experiments are not neccessarily repeatable, and because there are mechanistic problems with the models, and things that aren't happening like the production of Gamma rays and Helium, the consensus is that the evidence is inconclusive and that further experiments/research/proof are required.
In fact, I believe the DoE even outlined a range of issues that they required addressed to reconsider funding.
So comparing yourself to Cold fusion energy researchers in the hopes of finding some kind of martyrdom is just ridiculous.
Sure, there have been a few loud voices against cold fusion research, but then there have been a few loud voices against string theory (according to you) so are you going to start arguing that we should pour more money into string theory because string theorists are being persecuted my mainstream physics?
You see just how ridiculous your claims are right?
Probably not.
So far, in this thread, the only thing you have really manage to demonstrate is that you have the same almost religous dogmatism against main stream scientests that you claim that main stream scientests have against cold fusion, thus justifying your paranoia and feelings of being persecuted.
Guess what, it doesn't work this way.
Time for a reality check, although I have to wonder - did your reality check bounce?
Are all these mainstream scientists truly imbeciles, they cannot detect by their modern equipments the same particles, which are easily detectable by the piece of plastic or by photographic paper, like at the Becquerel era? How is it possible, they're able to detect one pentaquark in few years standing experiments, while they're not even able to detect the particles, which are turning the photographic paper into black and which are making the holes in the sheet of plastic visible by naked eye? How is it possible, they're able to find such evidences only after eighteen years of analysis of nuclear products?
Well, exactly. One should expect, the more controversy, the more interesting the anomalous heat and other nuclear effects will become for truly inquisitive scientists. While the exactly the opposite is true, unfortunately: "BEWARE! It seems, here's a phenomena, which doesn't play well with our established theories! It can make problem to our adored theology or it can even make the idiots from us! Stop to research it immediately, or you're risking our scientific credit, quotation index and grant support!"
For me the scientists, who are behaving by such way have lost their scientific credit already. They're sectarian opportunists, but not scientists. The case of cold fusion research is the shame of the whole professional scientific community and the evidence of the deep degeneration of it.
The only Imbecile is you Zephir.
I have refuted all of your arguments.
I have shown that Cold Fusion research is active and ongoing, and publications are still being made on the topic in respected peer reviewed journals (for example, thermochimica acta).
The problem is that because the experiments are not neccessarily repeatable, and because there are mechanistic problems with the models, and things that aren't happening like the production of Gamma rays and Helium, the consensus is that the evidence is inconclusive and that further experiments/research/proof are required.
In fact, I believe the DoE even outlined a range of issues that they required addressed to reconsider funding.
So comparing yourself to Cold fusion energy researchers in the hopes of finding some kind of martyrdom is just ridiculous.
Sure, there have been a few loud voices against cold fusion research, but then there have been a few loud voices against string theory (according to you) so are you going to start arguing that we should pour more money into string theory because string theorists are being persecuted my mainstream physics?
You see just how ridiculous your claims are right?
Probably not.
So far, in this thread, the only thing you have really manage to demonstrate is that you have the same almost religous dogmatism against main stream scientests that you claim that main stream scientests have against cold fusion, thus justifying your paranoia and feelings of being persecuted.
Guess what, it doesn't work this way.
Time for a reality check, although I have to wonder - did your reality check bounce?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 25 2007, 02:34 AM)
The only Imbecile is you Zephir. I have refuted all of your arguments.
Did you? It seems, you just replaced the arguments by personal attacks...
Did you? It seems, you just replaced the arguments by personal attacks...
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 25 2007, 02:34 AM)
there have been a few loud voices against cold fusion research, but then there have been a few loud voices against string theory so are you going to start arguing that we should pour more money into string theory.
LOL, the apparently useless string theory exhibits 21 peer-reviewed articles per week, not per eighteen years of research. After you achieve the same frequency of publications and money investments in cold fusion research, you can consider the same approach, based on public feedback.
LOL, the apparently useless string theory exhibits 21 peer-reviewed articles per week, not per eighteen years of research. After you achieve the same frequency of publications and money investments in cold fusion research, you can consider the same approach, based on public feedback.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 25 2007, 02:34 AM)
...comparing yourself to Cold fusion energy researchers in the hopes of finding some kind of martyrdom is just ridiculous...
Yep, and this is exactly why, such comparison is just the naive attempt for demagogy from your side. Because I'm not comparing myself to the cold fusion researchers and I'm presenting the public opinion of many other people here.
Arthur C. Clarke. "The neglect of cold fusion is one of the biggest scandals in the history of science.".
Yep, and this is exactly why, such comparison is just the naive attempt for demagogy from your side. Because I'm not comparing myself to the cold fusion researchers and I'm presenting the public opinion of many other people here.
Arthur C. Clarke. "The neglect of cold fusion is one of the biggest scandals in the history of science.".
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 25 2007, 11:40 AM)
Did you? It seems, you just replaced the arguments by personal attacks...
LOL, the apparently useless string theory exhibits 21 peer-reviewed articles per week, not per eighteen years of research. After you achieve the same frequency of publications and money investments in cold fusion research, you can consider the same approach, based on public feedback.
Yep, and this is exactly why, such comparison is just the naive attempt for demagogy from your side. Because I'm not comparing myself to the cold fusion researchers and I'm presenting the public opinion of many other people here.
Arthur C. Clarke. "The neglect of cold fusion is one of the biggest scandals in the history of science.".
More hypocrisy - so what you're saying is that it's okay for you to refer to mainstream scientests as imbeciles, but it's not okay for anyone from the mainstream to refer to you as one.
I know how this game goes.
And more over, we have Zephir presenting many examples of demagogy himself.
I's hard to argue rationally with someone who is unable to face rational arguments, and presents with an almost psychotic/obsessive - compulsive level of dogmatism.
LOL, the apparently useless string theory exhibits 21 peer-reviewed articles per week, not per eighteen years of research. After you achieve the same frequency of publications and money investments in cold fusion research, you can consider the same approach, based on public feedback.
Yep, and this is exactly why, such comparison is just the naive attempt for demagogy from your side. Because I'm not comparing myself to the cold fusion researchers and I'm presenting the public opinion of many other people here.
Arthur C. Clarke. "The neglect of cold fusion is one of the biggest scandals in the history of science.".
More hypocrisy - so what you're saying is that it's okay for you to refer to mainstream scientests as imbeciles, but it's not okay for anyone from the mainstream to refer to you as one.
I know how this game goes.
And more over, we have Zephir presenting many examples of demagogy himself.
I's hard to argue rationally with someone who is unable to face rational arguments, and presents with an almost psychotic/obsessive - compulsive level of dogmatism.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 24 2007, 08:40 PM)
......Check your own post -- it's digit 6, not digit 8. and 6+/-3 overlaps 2.18 if the 3 is a standard deviation. Since you didn't tell us where you got these numbers from, they are ridiculously hard to verify.
You are claiming:
1.001159656+-0.000000003 (theoretical result 1971) doesn't match current theory, but your calculations are predicated on a lower precision value of alpha and in fact overlap with the current results.
Since the terms have definite signs, a symettric uncertainty seems unjustified.
Also, you don't know if your 1971 result has tau and muon contributions, exact calculations or decent error estimation......
.....Inconsistent! Feynman diagrams can't be destroyed by a finite electron size. Feynman diagrams are just a way to process physical theories by expansion in perturbation theory not a theory of themselves. You are saying you have redefined math not physics.
Unsupported claim.
The result obtained in 1971 by M.J.Levine and J.Wright was
1+alpha/2pi-0.328479(alpha/pi)^2+(1.49+-0.25)(alpha/pi)^3
For today value of the alpha (1/137.0359997) we obtain
1.0011596561+-0.0000000031
It means that the lower limit is 1.0011596530
It means that this result is not consistent with today experimental value
1.00115965218
Creations of the virtual electron-positron pairs cause that relative mass density of the background changes by +-0.0000000011 (for the virtual pairs it is +0.0000000011, whereas for the rest of background it is -0.0000000011) - to such conclusion leads my New QED which takes also into account the interactions of the electrons with the dark energy - without such interactions the Feynman QED it is childish game!!!!! Calculated value, for the fluctuations in background, suggests that all diagrams associated with the order alpha^4 are destroyed (of course if someone assumes that my New QED describes the real nature - it is obvious that the Feynman QED does not describe the real nature because it does not take into account the observational fact i.e. the dark energy!). Described fluctuations are stronger than the order alpha^4 – it means that the field associated with the order alpha^4, is destroyed by the fluctuations (a propos: My theory leads to conclusion that the gravitational field cannot be destroyed by stronger fields).
Once more:
Only Quantum Geometry and Quantum Algebra lead to coherent mathematical objects. It is because on base of the sizeless points we cannot define the smooth mathematical axes, areas, and volumes.
Numbers and points have sizes (smallest interval=0.95 . 10^-64 m)
The nature is only one so the small and large elementary mathematical and physical structures MUST be defined by the mathematical/physical constant K=0.79 . 10^10.
You are claiming:
1.001159656+-0.000000003 (theoretical result 1971) doesn't match current theory, but your calculations are predicated on a lower precision value of alpha and in fact overlap with the current results.
Since the terms have definite signs, a symettric uncertainty seems unjustified.
Also, you don't know if your 1971 result has tau and muon contributions, exact calculations or decent error estimation......
.....Inconsistent! Feynman diagrams can't be destroyed by a finite electron size. Feynman diagrams are just a way to process physical theories by expansion in perturbation theory not a theory of themselves. You are saying you have redefined math not physics.
Unsupported claim.
The result obtained in 1971 by M.J.Levine and J.Wright was
1+alpha/2pi-0.328479(alpha/pi)^2+(1.49+-0.25)(alpha/pi)^3
For today value of the alpha (1/137.0359997) we obtain
1.0011596561+-0.0000000031
It means that the lower limit is 1.0011596530
It means that this result is not consistent with today experimental value
1.00115965218
Creations of the virtual electron-positron pairs cause that relative mass density of the background changes by +-0.0000000011 (for the virtual pairs it is +0.0000000011, whereas for the rest of background it is -0.0000000011) - to such conclusion leads my New QED which takes also into account the interactions of the electrons with the dark energy - without such interactions the Feynman QED it is childish game!!!!! Calculated value, for the fluctuations in background, suggests that all diagrams associated with the order alpha^4 are destroyed (of course if someone assumes that my New QED describes the real nature - it is obvious that the Feynman QED does not describe the real nature because it does not take into account the observational fact i.e. the dark energy!). Described fluctuations are stronger than the order alpha^4 – it means that the field associated with the order alpha^4, is destroyed by the fluctuations (a propos: My theory leads to conclusion that the gravitational field cannot be destroyed by stronger fields).
Once more:
Only Quantum Geometry and Quantum Algebra lead to coherent mathematical objects. It is because on base of the sizeless points we cannot define the smooth mathematical axes, areas, and volumes.
Numbers and points have sizes (smallest interval=0.95 . 10^-64 m)
The nature is only one so the small and large elementary mathematical and physical structures MUST be defined by the mathematical/physical constant K=0.79 . 10^10.
It's better to be a crank, who has created original theories about physics. Rather than someone who comes onto these forums, abuses everyone about their lack of maths knowledge and/or acceptance of mainstream physics, yet has produced absolutely no creative thought, no original theories, in the entire lives. They are worse than cranks, because they are non-conducive to the spirit of debate/discussion.
I, for instance, never claim to be brilliant at maths, I can't even be arsed with maths, nor do I care to do any. Yet I frequently get abused by various math fanatics, who think that they are superior to me, simply on the basis that they use/accept maths, whilst I do not. To those people, I say, take your maths and shove it up your arse, because I don't care for it, I don't want to hear it, and most of all I don't want to be bashed by it, by those who use it as a 'weapon' to cudgel people with.
Such people are scum, and should be told as much.
I, for instance, never claim to be brilliant at maths, I can't even be arsed with maths, nor do I care to do any. Yet I frequently get abused by various math fanatics, who think that they are superior to me, simply on the basis that they use/accept maths, whilst I do not. To those people, I say, take your maths and shove it up your arse, because I don't care for it, I don't want to hear it, and most of all I don't want to be bashed by it, by those who use it as a 'weapon' to cudgel people with.
Such people are scum, and should be told as much.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 25 2007, 04:42 AM)
More hypocrisy - so what you're saying is that it's okay for you to refer to mainstream scientists as imbeciles, but it's not okay for anyone from the mainstream to refer to you as one.
Of course not, my situation is not symmetric.
I'm not taking money for pretending of doing some science - on the contrary. I'm paying this entertainment the other scientists from my taxes.
If somebody is imbecile on my side, then just because I'm not controlling my money flow and because I'm spending it without feedback.
Of course not, my situation is not symmetric.
I'm not taking money for pretending of doing some science - on the contrary. I'm paying this entertainment the other scientists from my taxes.
If somebody is imbecile on my side, then just because I'm not controlling my money flow and because I'm spending it without feedback.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 25 2007, 05:38 AM)
It's better to be a crank, who has created original theories about physics. Rather than someone who comes onto these forums, abuses everyone about their lack of maths knowledge and/or acceptance of mainstream physics, yet has produced absolutely no creative thought, no original theories, in the entire lives. They are worse than cranks, because they are non-conducive to the spirit of debate/discussion.
I, for instance, never claim to be brilliant at maths, I can't even be arsed with maths, nor do I care to do any. Yet I frequently get abused by various math fanatics, who think that they are superior to me, simply on the basis that they use/accept maths, whilst I do not. To those people, I say, take your maths and shove it up your arse, because I don't care for it, I don't want to hear it, and most of all I don't want to be bashed by it, by those who use it as a 'weapon' to cudgel people with.
Such people are scum, and should be told as much.
Math is a language and a tool. It takes a while to reach the point where you really get it. I hated math untill a year ago, once I started applying it in a course on AI everything came into focus. The elegance of reducing something to a tiny equation that would take pages of writing for even a sloppy description is very appealing.
You can express things in math that our minds are simply not capable of grasping.
I, for instance, never claim to be brilliant at maths, I can't even be arsed with maths, nor do I care to do any. Yet I frequently get abused by various math fanatics, who think that they are superior to me, simply on the basis that they use/accept maths, whilst I do not. To those people, I say, take your maths and shove it up your arse, because I don't care for it, I don't want to hear it, and most of all I don't want to be bashed by it, by those who use it as a 'weapon' to cudgel people with.
Such people are scum, and should be told as much.
Math is a language and a tool. It takes a while to reach the point where you really get it. I hated math untill a year ago, once I started applying it in a course on AI everything came into focus. The elegance of reducing something to a tiny equation that would take pages of writing for even a sloppy description is very appealing.
You can express things in math that our minds are simply not capable of grasping.
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 25 2007, 01:21 PM)
You can express things in math that our minds are simply not capable of grasping.
Give an example.
Give an example.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 25 2007, 07:24 AM)
Give an example.
Higher dimensions for example. We are wired to think in terms of 3 dimensions and cause and effect, because that is the way we experience the world. We simply aren't built to be able to think of things in 10+1d space. We can work out metaphores and analogies that let us ponder these concepts based on the math, but without that tool to guide our reasoning we would never conceive these weird concepts.
Higher dimensions for example. We are wired to think in terms of 3 dimensions and cause and effect, because that is the way we experience the world. We simply aren't built to be able to think of things in 10+1d space. We can work out metaphores and analogies that let us ponder these concepts based on the math, but without that tool to guide our reasoning we would never conceive these weird concepts.
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 25 2007, 01:21 PM)
Math is a language and a tool. It takes a while to reach the point where you really get it. I hated math untill a year ago, once I started applying it in a course on AI everything came into focus. The elegance of reducing something to a tiny equation that would take pages of writing for even a sloppy description is very appealing.
You can express things in math that our minds are simply not capable of grasping.
It is true but each mathematical transformation which describes the real nature should have a physical meaning.
But incoherent mathematics (based on sizeless points and numbers) or physical theories based on incoherent mathematics lead astray. It is true for all theories based on the perturbation theory with renormalization.
There are big evidences that the results obtained within the QED and QCD were manipulated to fit them to the experimental results:
QED - the ad hoc selected diagrams - number of them changes when new experimental result is not consistent with the obtained before,
QCD - there was not carried into effect experiment to obtain the <e^2> for sample containing 100% of the protons because such result is not consistent with the quark theory.
Where is the scientific honesty?
You can express things in math that our minds are simply not capable of grasping.
It is true but each mathematical transformation which describes the real nature should have a physical meaning.
But incoherent mathematics (based on sizeless points and numbers) or physical theories based on incoherent mathematics lead astray. It is true for all theories based on the perturbation theory with renormalization.
There are big evidences that the results obtained within the QED and QCD were manipulated to fit them to the experimental results:
QED - the ad hoc selected diagrams - number of them changes when new experimental result is not consistent with the obtained before,
QCD - there was not carried into effect experiment to obtain the <e^2> for sample containing 100% of the protons because such result is not consistent with the quark theory.
Where is the scientific honesty?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 25 2007, 07:53 AM)
It is true but each mathematical transformation which describes the real nature should have a physical meaning.
But incoherent mathematics (based on sizeless points and numbers) or physical theories based on incoherent mathematics lead astray. It is true for all theories based on the perturbation theory with renormalization.
There are big evidences that the results obtained within the QED and QCD were manipulated to fit them to the experimental results:
QED - the ad hoc selected diagrams - number of them changes when new experimental result is not consistent with the obtained before,
QCD - there was not carried into effect experiment to obtain the <e^2> for sample containing 100% of the protons because such result is not consistent with the quark theory.
Where is the scientific honesty?
First I've heard of this, care to back up your claims?
But incoherent mathematics (based on sizeless points and numbers) or physical theories based on incoherent mathematics lead astray. It is true for all theories based on the perturbation theory with renormalization.
There are big evidences that the results obtained within the QED and QCD were manipulated to fit them to the experimental results:
QED - the ad hoc selected diagrams - number of them changes when new experimental result is not consistent with the obtained before,
QCD - there was not carried into effect experiment to obtain the <e^2> for sample containing 100% of the protons because such result is not consistent with the quark theory.
Where is the scientific honesty?
First I've heard of this, care to back up your claims?
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 25 2007, 01:35 PM)
Higher dimensions for example. We are wired to think in terms of 3 dimensions and cause and effect, because that is the way we experience the world. We simply aren't built to be able to think of things in 10+1d space. We can work out metaphores and analogies that let us ponder these concepts based on the math, but without that tool to guide our reasoning we would never conceive these weird concepts.
Higher spatial dimensions they are the science fiction. The real nature is type 3D. There are only illusory additional spatial dimensions - for example the strictly determined radius of the smallest string. Such string can be described in the 3D space.
Higher spatial dimensions have not physical meaning.
Higher spatial dimensions they are the science fiction. The real nature is type 3D. There are only illusory additional spatial dimensions - for example the strictly determined radius of the smallest string. Such string can be described in the 3D space.
Higher spatial dimensions have not physical meaning.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 25 2007, 08:04 AM)
Higher spatial dimensions they are the science fiction. The real nature is type 3D. There are only illusory additional spatial dimensions - for example the strictly determined radius of the smallest string. Such string can be described in the 3D space.
Higher spatial dimensions have not physical meaning.
Care to back this up as well?
The 3d world we experience might exist in higer dimensional space. A fish in the ocean has no concept of water, he can feel its flow, just as we feel gravity, but from his perspective the churning ocean surrounding him cannot be seen.
Also higer dimensions are not necessarily space as we know it, it is just an additional degree of freedom that only certain things possess.
Higher spatial dimensions have not physical meaning.
Care to back this up as well?
The 3d world we experience might exist in higer dimensional space. A fish in the ocean has no concept of water, he can feel its flow, just as we feel gravity, but from his perspective the churning ocean surrounding him cannot be seen.
Also higer dimensions are not necessarily space as we know it, it is just an additional degree of freedom that only certain things possess.
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 25 2007, 02:15 PM)
Care to back this up as well?
The 3d world we experience might exist in higer dimensional space. A fish in the ocean has no concept of water, he can feel its flow, just as we feel gravity, but from his perspective the churning ocean surrounding him cannot be seen.
Also higer dimensions are not necessarily space as we know it, it is just an additional degree of freedom that only certain things possess.
I am not a fish, you also. The higher dimensions are not needed because all known phenomena we can describe on base of the 3D space. Because the real nature (without the free will - but it also can be described in the 3D space) does not behave as most of people – i.e. the real nature chooses the simplest solutions - then the higher dimensions they are the big speculation. The real nature does not need them. We can formulate the ultimate theory without the higher dimensions. The higher dimensions they are only the toy for scientists who cannot explain many basic problems within the Newtonian dynamics – such scientists are too weak to do it. But all is O.K. because the audience applauds.
The 3d world we experience might exist in higer dimensional space. A fish in the ocean has no concept of water, he can feel its flow, just as we feel gravity, but from his perspective the churning ocean surrounding him cannot be seen.
Also higer dimensions are not necessarily space as we know it, it is just an additional degree of freedom that only certain things possess.
I am not a fish, you also. The higher dimensions are not needed because all known phenomena we can describe on base of the 3D space. Because the real nature (without the free will - but it also can be described in the 3D space) does not behave as most of people – i.e. the real nature chooses the simplest solutions - then the higher dimensions they are the big speculation. The real nature does not need them. We can formulate the ultimate theory without the higher dimensions. The higher dimensions they are only the toy for scientists who cannot explain many basic problems within the Newtonian dynamics – such scientists are too weak to do it. But all is O.K. because the audience applauds.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 25 2007, 08:43 AM)
I am not a fish, you also. The higher dimensions are not needed because all known phenomena we can describe on base of the 3D space. Because the real nature (without the free will - but it also can be described in the 3D space) does not behave as most of people – i.e. the real nature chooses the simplest solutions - then the higher dimensions they are the big speculation. The real nature does not need them. We can formulate the ultimate theory without the higher dimensions. The higher dimensions they are only the toy for scientists who cannot explain many basic problems within the Newtonian dynamics – such scientists are too weak to do it. But all is O.K. because the audience applauds.
Please demonstrate. What is the reasoning behind this? Does this reasoning apply at all scales? What research supports your claim?
Please demonstrate. What is the reasoning behind this? Does this reasoning apply at all scales? What research supports your claim?
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 25 2007, 02:46 PM)
Please demonstrate.
See on www.cosmology-particles.pl/files/TheUniverse.pdf
There are new experimental facts consistent with my theory but inconsistent with some mainstream theories. I wrote about them in my prior posts. For example in the very energetic collisions of the ions we see the liquid-like substance (it is consistent with my theory), not the almost free quarks what results from the QCD. We also see that the most distant cosmic objects they are the galaxies, not free stars. It also is consistent with my theory. There also is discovered (2005) the Ketterle surface for Fermi gas - I suggest since 1997 that similar surfaces should be typical for the elementary structures. I also described where the QCD is falsified, and so on.
See on www.cosmology-particles.pl/files/TheUniverse.pdf
There are new experimental facts consistent with my theory but inconsistent with some mainstream theories. I wrote about them in my prior posts. For example in the very energetic collisions of the ions we see the liquid-like substance (it is consistent with my theory), not the almost free quarks what results from the QCD. We also see that the most distant cosmic objects they are the galaxies, not free stars. It also is consistent with my theory. There also is discovered (2005) the Ketterle surface for Fermi gas - I suggest since 1997 that similar surfaces should be typical for the elementary structures. I also described where the QCD is falsified, and so on.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 25 2007, 08:50 AM)
See on www.cosmology-particles.pl/files/TheUniverse.pdf
Thanks I'll go over it later today. It would help if you cited some published papers not authored by yourself.
Thanks I'll go over it later today. It would help if you cited some published papers not authored by yourself.
Nope Sylwester, you leave out time?
How can you describe spacetime without time?
How can you describe spacetime without time?
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 25 2007, 02:53 PM)
Thanks I'll go over it later today. It would help if you cited some published papers not authored by yourself.
References
1. J.Stachel, Has the Quark-Gluon Plasma been seen?; http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0510077 (27 October 2005)
2. M.W. Zwierlein, J.R.Abo-Shaeer, A.Schirotzek, C.H.Schunck and W.Ketterle, Vortices and superfluidity in a strongly interacting Fermi gas; Nature 435, 1047-1051 (23 June 2005)
3. Amy J.Barger, Supermassive Black Holes in the Distant Universe; Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Volume 308; Springer, 2004
References
1. J.Stachel, Has the Quark-Gluon Plasma been seen?; http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0510077 (27 October 2005)
2. M.W. Zwierlein, J.R.Abo-Shaeer, A.Schirotzek, C.H.Schunck and W.Ketterle, Vortices and superfluidity in a strongly interacting Fermi gas; Nature 435, 1047-1051 (23 June 2005)
3. Amy J.Barger, Supermassive Black Holes in the Distant Universe; Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Volume 308; Springer, 2004
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 25 2007, 02:57 PM)
Nope Sylwester, you leave out time?
How can you describe spacetime without time?
Below you can find the definitions of local time, local unit of time, and local unit of length.
Definitions:
Fundamental space: Mathematics in a low voice assumes that the mathematical points have size because we cannot build a mathematical plane from sizeless points even if number of them is infinite. It means that there is the ‘tangent point’ for mathematics and physics – it is the SIZE OF mathematical/physical SMALLEST POINT. My ultimate theory of structures and spaces leads to conclusion that the size of the smallest points is diameter=0.95•10^-64 m (the initial conditions depend on the gravitational constant which is measured with low accuracy – I assume that it is G=6.7•10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2). It is also obvious that without motion we cannot describe the observed nature. So we must assume that the fundamental space it is the ideal very energetic gas composed of the smallest bare points. My theory leads to the linear speed of the smallest point equal to v(linear)=1.2•10^127 m/s. Conservation of the linear speed of the smallest points leads to the conservation laws of spin and energy. From such state of the fundamental space we can derive whole mathematics and physics needed to describe the nature.
Smallest distance is equal to the diameter of the smallest point.
Smallest mathematical/physical circle is built of the smallest points. My theory says that the smallest circle is built of the K=0.79•10^10 smallest points. I call the K the numerical physical constant. In the fundamental space can be created only the smallest/solid/homogeneous/structureless mathematical/physical circles having only the size and linear and spin speeds. They are stable because of the kinetic viscosity.
Gravitational space it is the ideal gas composed of the fundamental speedy bare smallest circles which have only shape and inertial energy - their volume is filled by the eternal primordial/structureless substance. The spin radius is equal to ro(spin)=1.2•10^-55 m. The spin speed is practically equal to the linear speed of the smallest points. It is because the linear speed of the smallest circles (v(linear)= 2.4•10^97 m/s) is much lower than the linear speed of the smallest points. In gravitational space straight trajectories of the smallest circles can have all possible directions (chaos). Fundamental and gravitational spaces fill the infinite and truly empty volume because are composed of the BARE points and circles. It means that there is only one set of physical laws.
Inertial mass of the smallest circles is directly proportional to their volumes. It is equal to 3.8•10^-107 kg.
Gravitational torus is built of the smallest circles. It has the spin radius equal to 0.95•10^-45 m. It has spin and internal helicity (Fig. 1-see on my website) so there are the left- and right-handed gravitational tori. Because of the kinetic viscosity of the smallest circles and because of the internal helicity of the gravitational tori, the gravitational tori transform the chaotic motions of smallest circles onto the divergent field. The divergent trajectories (order) create the gradient of pressure in the fundamental and gravitational spaces (chaos) in such way that pressure is lower in places where the number density of the divergent trajectories is higher. It means that there is created ‘niche’ in the fundamental and gravitational spaces. The attractive gravitational force and the gravitational potential energy are associated with the gradient of pressure in the fundamental and gravitational spaces.
To describe shape and behavior of the gravitational torus we need 3 coordinates, 2 radii, 1 spin speed which is equal to the linear speed of the smallest circles, 1 helicity angular speed which is equal to the spin angular speed of the smallest circles), and time associated with the linear speed, for the rotation of the spin vector we additionally need 2 angular speeds, i.e. we need the 10 ‘dimensions’ – such is the physical meaning of the 10 dimensional space. Because total spin and helicity of the infinite Universe must be equal to zero so the gravitational tori are created as the torus-antitorus pairs so to describe it we need the 11 ‘dimensions’.
All other particles are built of the gravitational tori.
Gravitational field it is the divergent field composed of the moving smallest circles and points. The trajectories of these shapes are divergent (order) because of the internal helicity. Gravitational field has finite range (about 10^41 m) because of the direct collisions of the divergently moving smallest circles and points with the moving smallest circles and points the gravitational and fundamental spaces are composed of. The divergent field composed of the moving smallest circles dominates because we know that interactions associated with more elementary structures are weaker. It means that describing the gravitation we may neglect the fundamental space.
Speed of propagation of the gravitational field is equal to the linear speeds of the smallest circles.
Local time is defined as directly proportional to the ratio of the number of all direct collisions of free smallest circles in some local volume of the gravitational space to the number of the smallest circles in this volume.
Local unit of time it is the mean time between the direct collisions of the free smallest circles the local volume of the gravitational space is composed of. It means that in regions having higher number density of the gravitational tori, the created niche in the gravitational space is deeper (i.e. the mean distance between the free smallest circles is greater) so time is going slower.
Local unit of length it is the local mean distance between the free smallest circles the gravitational space is composed of.
Inertial, gravitational, rest, and relativistic masses of particles are directly proportional to the number of the gravitational tori (or to the total volume of them). It is the reason why the inertial and gravitational masses have the same value. Explanation why relativistic mass is defined by the Einstein’s formula m(relativistic)=m(rest)/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 you can find below – it is derived from the internal structure of particles.
Value of the gravitational constant G is directly proportional to the number density of the free smallest circles the gravitational space is composed of. In very dense gravitational space can be created the gravitational tori but in the infinite Universe probability of creation of such fluctuations is very low. It means that practically we cannot observe some change of value of the G.
Virtual particles look the same as the bare real particles but are sunk in the background of the infinite Universe. It means that the mean density of the background inside virtual particle is lower than the mean density of the whole background.
How can you describe spacetime without time?
Below you can find the definitions of local time, local unit of time, and local unit of length.
Definitions:
Fundamental space: Mathematics in a low voice assumes that the mathematical points have size because we cannot build a mathematical plane from sizeless points even if number of them is infinite. It means that there is the ‘tangent point’ for mathematics and physics – it is the SIZE OF mathematical/physical SMALLEST POINT. My ultimate theory of structures and spaces leads to conclusion that the size of the smallest points is diameter=0.95•10^-64 m (the initial conditions depend on the gravitational constant which is measured with low accuracy – I assume that it is G=6.7•10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2). It is also obvious that without motion we cannot describe the observed nature. So we must assume that the fundamental space it is the ideal very energetic gas composed of the smallest bare points. My theory leads to the linear speed of the smallest point equal to v(linear)=1.2•10^127 m/s. Conservation of the linear speed of the smallest points leads to the conservation laws of spin and energy. From such state of the fundamental space we can derive whole mathematics and physics needed to describe the nature.
Smallest distance is equal to the diameter of the smallest point.
Smallest mathematical/physical circle is built of the smallest points. My theory says that the smallest circle is built of the K=0.79•10^10 smallest points. I call the K the numerical physical constant. In the fundamental space can be created only the smallest/solid/homogeneous/structureless mathematical/physical circles having only the size and linear and spin speeds. They are stable because of the kinetic viscosity.
Gravitational space it is the ideal gas composed of the fundamental speedy bare smallest circles which have only shape and inertial energy - their volume is filled by the eternal primordial/structureless substance. The spin radius is equal to ro(spin)=1.2•10^-55 m. The spin speed is practically equal to the linear speed of the smallest points. It is because the linear speed of the smallest circles (v(linear)= 2.4•10^97 m/s) is much lower than the linear speed of the smallest points. In gravitational space straight trajectories of the smallest circles can have all possible directions (chaos). Fundamental and gravitational spaces fill the infinite and truly empty volume because are composed of the BARE points and circles. It means that there is only one set of physical laws.
Inertial mass of the smallest circles is directly proportional to their volumes. It is equal to 3.8•10^-107 kg.
Gravitational torus is built of the smallest circles. It has the spin radius equal to 0.95•10^-45 m. It has spin and internal helicity (Fig. 1-see on my website) so there are the left- and right-handed gravitational tori. Because of the kinetic viscosity of the smallest circles and because of the internal helicity of the gravitational tori, the gravitational tori transform the chaotic motions of smallest circles onto the divergent field. The divergent trajectories (order) create the gradient of pressure in the fundamental and gravitational spaces (chaos) in such way that pressure is lower in places where the number density of the divergent trajectories is higher. It means that there is created ‘niche’ in the fundamental and gravitational spaces. The attractive gravitational force and the gravitational potential energy are associated with the gradient of pressure in the fundamental and gravitational spaces.
To describe shape and behavior of the gravitational torus we need 3 coordinates, 2 radii, 1 spin speed which is equal to the linear speed of the smallest circles, 1 helicity angular speed which is equal to the spin angular speed of the smallest circles), and time associated with the linear speed, for the rotation of the spin vector we additionally need 2 angular speeds, i.e. we need the 10 ‘dimensions’ – such is the physical meaning of the 10 dimensional space. Because total spin and helicity of the infinite Universe must be equal to zero so the gravitational tori are created as the torus-antitorus pairs so to describe it we need the 11 ‘dimensions’.
All other particles are built of the gravitational tori.
Gravitational field it is the divergent field composed of the moving smallest circles and points. The trajectories of these shapes are divergent (order) because of the internal helicity. Gravitational field has finite range (about 10^41 m) because of the direct collisions of the divergently moving smallest circles and points with the moving smallest circles and points the gravitational and fundamental spaces are composed of. The divergent field composed of the moving smallest circles dominates because we know that interactions associated with more elementary structures are weaker. It means that describing the gravitation we may neglect the fundamental space.
Speed of propagation of the gravitational field is equal to the linear speeds of the smallest circles.
Local time is defined as directly proportional to the ratio of the number of all direct collisions of free smallest circles in some local volume of the gravitational space to the number of the smallest circles in this volume.
Local unit of time it is the mean time between the direct collisions of the free smallest circles the local volume of the gravitational space is composed of. It means that in regions having higher number density of the gravitational tori, the created niche in the gravitational space is deeper (i.e. the mean distance between the free smallest circles is greater) so time is going slower.
Local unit of length it is the local mean distance between the free smallest circles the gravitational space is composed of.
Inertial, gravitational, rest, and relativistic masses of particles are directly proportional to the number of the gravitational tori (or to the total volume of them). It is the reason why the inertial and gravitational masses have the same value. Explanation why relativistic mass is defined by the Einstein’s formula m(relativistic)=m(rest)/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 you can find below – it is derived from the internal structure of particles.
Value of the gravitational constant G is directly proportional to the number density of the free smallest circles the gravitational space is composed of. In very dense gravitational space can be created the gravitational tori but in the infinite Universe probability of creation of such fluctuations is very low. It means that practically we cannot observe some change of value of the G.
Virtual particles look the same as the bare real particles but are sunk in the background of the infinite Universe. It means that the mean density of the background inside virtual particle is lower than the mean density of the whole background.
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 25 2007, 04:21 PM)
you can express things in math that our minds are simply not capable of grasping.
This is true in many cases, but "to express it" doesn't means "to understand it" or even "to explain it". The math is like any other formal language: it's not tool for explanation of things, for development of new ideas, but the formally exact description of these ideas. You can follow the formal derivation of quite mechanically, without bothering about its meaning at all. This is what the math is good for. The development of contemporary physics demonstrates clearly, the physicists have no contact with intuitive understanding of their theories. The math of these theories is so difficult, it's understanding becomes more complex, then the understanding of behavior of reality, which is really describing.
Furthermore the math has many principal problems in description of particular tasks, especially at the case of strongly parallelized multicomponent systems. For example, it's much easier to explain the turbulence, then to describe it mathematically, because the math doesn't handles well the infinities.
This is true in many cases, but "to express it" doesn't means "to understand it" or even "to explain it". The math is like any other formal language: it's not tool for explanation of things, for development of new ideas, but the formally exact description of these ideas. You can follow the formal derivation of quite mechanically, without bothering about its meaning at all. This is what the math is good for. The development of contemporary physics demonstrates clearly, the physicists have no contact with intuitive understanding of their theories. The math of these theories is so difficult, it's understanding becomes more complex, then the understanding of behavior of reality, which is really describing.
Furthermore the math has many principal problems in description of particular tasks, especially at the case of strongly parallelized multicomponent systems. For example, it's much easier to explain the turbulence, then to describe it mathematically, because the math doesn't handles well the infinities.
That's just how far Zephir can go with maths:
Lack of training or lack of understanding or any other reason, doesn't matter.
Maybe he is not better in maths than in english.
Zephir really believes that with the maths you give the input and you get the output mechanically.
Clearly he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Clearly he doesn't know the role language plays in cognition.
Clearly he needs to comfort himself in this idea, and believe his lazy approach has some meaning.
Consider non-collisional damping in plasmas.
The analysis of this question involves a subtility about the Laplace transform.
Zephir would think that landau damping has been obtained by mechanical mathematics.
Actually the mathematics have made the physics clear.
The subtile mathematical rule remarkably match a physical reality.
But that's another story that goes far above the head of Zephir.
No use to explain him: he is too close-minded.
Zephir also usually forget that maths, like physics, is creative production.
QUOTE
You can follow the formal derivation of quite mechanically, without bothering about its meaning at all.
Lack of training or lack of understanding or any other reason, doesn't matter.
Maybe he is not better in maths than in english.
Zephir really believes that with the maths you give the input and you get the output mechanically.
Clearly he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Clearly he doesn't know the role language plays in cognition.
Clearly he needs to comfort himself in this idea, and believe his lazy approach has some meaning.
Consider non-collisional damping in plasmas.
The analysis of this question involves a subtility about the Laplace transform.
Zephir would think that landau damping has been obtained by mechanical mathematics.
Actually the mathematics have made the physics clear.
The subtile mathematical rule remarkably match a physical reality.
But that's another story that goes far above the head of Zephir.
No use to explain him: he is too close-minded.
Zephir also usually forget that maths, like physics, is creative production.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 25 2007, 06:59 PM)
Zephir also usually forget that maths, like physics, is creative production...
Unfortunately, the creativity in math doesn't always help in physics understanding. The progress in physics is quite different game. This is why, we're spending whole centuries in recognition, what the math of relativity and quantum mechanics really means from physical point of view for us.
Unfortunately, the creativity in math doesn't always help in physics understanding. The progress in physics is quite different game. This is why, we're spending whole centuries in recognition, what the math of relativity and quantum mechanics really means from physical point of view for us.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 25 2007, 06:59 PM)
Maybe he is not better in maths than in English...
What the "good" means? My motivation isn't to be "good" in anything, but simply to understand the reality. I'm not professional scientist, so I don't care very much, how exactly the reality is behaving in some particular situation, until I can understand, why it's behaving so at all. I simply want to see the whole logic of such behavior behind my eyes at first, before I'll start to analyze the details.
From practical point of view, the deeper understanding of Universe is difficult task. If you want to make some progress in fundamental understanding, yousimply cannot waste the time with details, my thinking is synthetic. After all, here are many people with analytical thinking, who are liking to analyze the problem in details without bothering about the rest. From my point of view, both these roles are useful/important by the same way.
What the "good" means? My motivation isn't to be "good" in anything, but simply to understand the reality. I'm not professional scientist, so I don't care very much, how exactly the reality is behaving in some particular situation, until I can understand, why it's behaving so at all. I simply want to see the whole logic of such behavior behind my eyes at first, before I'll start to analyze the details.
From practical point of view, the deeper understanding of Universe is difficult task. If you want to make some progress in fundamental understanding, yousimply cannot waste the time with details, my thinking is synthetic. After all, here are many people with analytical thinking, who are liking to analyze the problem in details without bothering about the rest. From my point of view, both these roles are useful/important by the same way.
Just a hint at a bit of moderation:
But the word always in this sentense makes a lot of difference.
It means that this sentense is wrong according now to Zephir:
But the word always in this sentense makes a lot of difference.
It means that this sentense is wrong according now to Zephir:
Unfortunately, the creativity in math doesn't help in physics understanding.
I leave to anyone the task to think further and go beyond the usual simplistic point of view of Zephir.
QUOTE
Unfortunately, the creativity in math doesn't always help in physics understanding.
But the word always in this sentense makes a lot of difference.
It means that this sentense is wrong according now to Zephir:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Unfortunately, the creativity in math doesn't always help in physics understanding. |
But the word always in this sentense makes a lot of difference.
It means that this sentense is wrong according now to Zephir:
Unfortunately, the creativity in math doesn't help in physics understanding.
I leave to anyone the task to think further and go beyond the usual simplistic point of view of Zephir.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 25 2007, 07:28 PM)
... the word always in this sentence makes a lot of difference...
Nope, you just didn't understood the situation of contemporary physics. The physics has stuck in blind alley with its math formalism. We have many theories, which are working well sometimes, sometimes not. And the math won't help us in understanding, why is it so. Simply because any formal model can explain its own postulates.
The physicists have developed the relativity theory and quantum mechanics before years. The relative success of these theories has make them to believe, they can ignore the insights of Newtonian mechanics. It's not true, because just the Newtonian mechanics is able to connect both these theories together. By such way, these scientists have omitted a significant detail in physics understanding.
But the math will remain significant as it was already. Simply because the further progress in AWT will be realized just by the formalization of it, until the AWT will face the same problem, like the existing theories. After then somebody will be required to come with another intuitive solution of cumulated paradoxes and whole the development cycle will repeat again.
Nope, you just didn't understood the situation of contemporary physics. The physics has stuck in blind alley with its math formalism. We have many theories, which are working well sometimes, sometimes not. And the math won't help us in understanding, why is it so. Simply because any formal model can explain its own postulates.
The physicists have developed the relativity theory and quantum mechanics before years. The relative success of these theories has make them to believe, they can ignore the insights of Newtonian mechanics. It's not true, because just the Newtonian mechanics is able to connect both these theories together. By such way, these scientists have omitted a significant detail in physics understanding.
But the math will remain significant as it was already. Simply because the further progress in AWT will be realized just by the formalization of it, until the AWT will face the same problem, like the existing theories. After then somebody will be required to come with another intuitive solution of cumulated paradoxes and whole the development cycle will repeat again.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 25 2007, 03:59 PM)
That's just how far Zephir can go with maths:
Lack of training or lack of understanding or any other reason, doesn't matter.
Maybe he is not better in maths than in english.
Zephir really believes that with the maths you give the input and you get the output mechanically.
Clearly he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Clearly he doesn't know the role language plays in cognition.
Clearly he needs to comfort himself in this idea, and believe his lazy approach has some meaning.
Consider non-collisional damping in plasmas.
The analysis of this question involves a subtility about the Laplace transform.
Zephir would think that landau damping has been obtained by mechanical mathematics.
Actually the mathematics have made the physics clear.
The subtile mathematical rule remarkably match a physical reality.
But that's another story that goes far above the head of Zephir.
No use to explain him: he is too close-minded.
Zephir also usually forget that maths, like physics, is creative production.
I also claim that all phenomena we can describe applying the Newtonian mechanics.
For example we can describe the wave function of the electron within the Newtonian mechanics. To create the wave function real electron should 'disappear' in one place of the background (it melts away in the background) and appear in another place, and so on. Frequency of such processes is about 10^43 Hz. It is possible because the background is composed also of particles and shapes moving with speeds much higher than the 'c' - the Aspect's experiment suggests that such objects are in existence (also my ultimate theory of structures and spaces suggests it - there are calculated the speeds). It means that distant points in the background can quickly communicate so this phenomenon can be explained on base of the Newtonian mechanics.
The same is in the two-slit experiment. Electron cannot go through only one slit because of the very high frequency (10^43 Hz). It means that also the two-slit experiment can be explained on base of the Newtonian mechanics.
Also damping 'without collisions' can be explained on base of the Newtonian mechanics because of the radiation mass/energy and quick polarization of the background.
In prior posts I explained why the very speedy objects (v>c) cannot be observed directly. But behavior of the entangled particles proves that such objects are in existence.
Can you see that all the quantum phenomena can be explained within the Newtonian mechanics if we assume that there are in existence the objects moving with speeds higher than the 'c'? And there are evidences that it is true. Without such particles the QM is INCOHERENT!!!!!!
Lack of training or lack of understanding or any other reason, doesn't matter.
Maybe he is not better in maths than in english.
Zephir really believes that with the maths you give the input and you get the output mechanically.
Clearly he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Clearly he doesn't know the role language plays in cognition.
Clearly he needs to comfort himself in this idea, and believe his lazy approach has some meaning.
Consider non-collisional damping in plasmas.
The analysis of this question involves a subtility about the Laplace transform.
Zephir would think that landau damping has been obtained by mechanical mathematics.
Actually the mathematics have made the physics clear.
The subtile mathematical rule remarkably match a physical reality.
But that's another story that goes far above the head of Zephir.
No use to explain him: he is too close-minded.
Zephir also usually forget that maths, like physics, is creative production.
I also claim that all phenomena we can describe applying the Newtonian mechanics.
For example we can describe the wave function of the electron within the Newtonian mechanics. To create the wave function real electron should 'disappear' in one place of the background (it melts away in the background) and appear in another place, and so on. Frequency of such processes is about 10^43 Hz. It is possible because the background is composed also of particles and shapes moving with speeds much higher than the 'c' - the Aspect's experiment suggests that such objects are in existence (also my ultimate theory of structures and spaces suggests it - there are calculated the speeds). It means that distant points in the background can quickly communicate so this phenomenon can be explained on base of the Newtonian mechanics.
The same is in the two-slit experiment. Electron cannot go through only one slit because of the very high frequency (10^43 Hz). It means that also the two-slit experiment can be explained on base of the Newtonian mechanics.
Also damping 'without collisions' can be explained on base of the Newtonian mechanics because of the radiation mass/energy and quick polarization of the background.
In prior posts I explained why the very speedy objects (v>c) cannot be observed directly. But behavior of the entangled particles proves that such objects are in existence.
Can you see that all the quantum phenomena can be explained within the Newtonian mechanics if we assume that there are in existence the objects moving with speeds higher than the 'c'? And there are evidences that it is true. Without such particles the QM is INCOHERENT!!!!!!
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 25 2007, 11:14 AM)
The result obtained in 1971 by M.J.Levine and J.Wright was
1+alpha/2pi-0.328479(alpha/pi)^2+(1.49+-0.25)(alpha/pi)^3
Aha. Your claim falls apart. Your paper admits a 16% uncertainty in the (α/π)^3 where modern maths give much better numbers.
Compare that to my citation: http://hussle.harvard.edu/~gabrielse/gabri...ureConstant.pdf
1 (exactly known)
+ (1/2) (α/π) (exactly known)
− 0.328478965579... (α/π)^2 (exactly known) + 0.000000519738670±0.000000000000028 (α/π)^2 (Uncertainty from Muon mass) + 0.00000000183762±0.00000000000060(α/π)^2 (Uncertainty from Tau mass)
+ 1.181241456587... (α/π)^3 (exactly known) − 0.00000737394164±0.00000000000029 (α/π)^3 (Uncertainty from Muon mass) − 0.000000065819±0.000000000019 (α/π)^3 (Uncertainty from Tau mass) + 0.000000000000190945±0.000000000000000062 (α/π)^3 (Uncertainty from Muon and Tau mass)
− 1.7283±0.0035 (α/π)^4 (Numerical uncertainty)
+ higher powers of (α/π)
Or, lumping all the terms together
1 + 0.5±0 − 0.3284784440027±0.0000000000006 (α/π)^2 + 1.1812340168265±0.0000000000193 (α/π)^3 − 1.7283±0.0035 (α/π)^4 + 0±3.8 (α/π)^5 higher powers of (α/π)
So the 1971 paper is not especially reliable because not all the terms of the (α/π)^3 had been calculated and the mass of the Tau lepton (or it's existence!) was unknown. The 2006 result is dominated by the numerical uncertainty of the (α/π)^4 and (α/π)^5 terms, with the uncertainty of the Tau and Muon mass mattering not at all.
Without reading the 1971 paper, I will not know if they chose to ignore the Muon loops or deliberately truncated their accuracy before including them. The 2006 paper is exact three-generation QED to (α/π)^3 with exact functions expressing the uncertainty in terms of the muon and tau mass uncertainties. (See http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0606174 ). Beyond this point they need to include the whole of the standard model to include electroweak and strong-force interactions.
For today value of the alpha (1/137.0359997) we obtain
1.0011596561+-0.0000000031
It means that the lower limit is 1.0011596530
It means that this result is not consistent with today experimental value
1.00115965218
That is only true if the +- in the 1971 paper are absolute bounds. It is much more typical that they are standard deviations, which means the authors are only 68% certain that their nominal figure is within the bounds. The 2006 paper says that the 1971's paper was not exact, and did not capture the actual value of the (α/π)^3 term in their error bounds. Moreover, the references in the paper shows that the (α/π)^2 terms were known in the 1950s but progress in the (α/π)^3 terms was made in the 1990s.
The rest of your claims rest only on the logical fallacy of false dilemma.
0) QED is a physical theory.
1) Someone calculated QED inexactly in 1971
2) You misinterpreted the meaning of their stated uncertainty (Mistake)
3) You claim that modern results are inconsistent with the 1971 quotes, therefore QED is wrong (Mistake)
4) You claim that QED being wrong is evidence the rest of your post is right (Mistake)
1+alpha/2pi-0.328479(alpha/pi)^2+(1.49+-0.25)(alpha/pi)^3
Aha. Your claim falls apart. Your paper admits a 16% uncertainty in the (α/π)^3 where modern maths give much better numbers.
Compare that to my citation: http://hussle.harvard.edu/~gabrielse/gabri...ureConstant.pdf
1 (exactly known)
+ (1/2) (α/π) (exactly known)
− 0.328478965579... (α/π)^2 (exactly known) + 0.000000519738670±0.000000000000028 (α/π)^2 (Uncertainty from Muon mass) + 0.00000000183762±0.00000000000060(α/π)^2 (Uncertainty from Tau mass)
+ 1.181241456587... (α/π)^3 (exactly known) − 0.00000737394164±0.00000000000029 (α/π)^3 (Uncertainty from Muon mass) − 0.000000065819±0.000000000019 (α/π)^3 (Uncertainty from Tau mass) + 0.000000000000190945±0.000000000000000062 (α/π)^3 (Uncertainty from Muon and Tau mass)
− 1.7283±0.0035 (α/π)^4 (Numerical uncertainty)
+ higher powers of (α/π)
Or, lumping all the terms together
1 + 0.5±0 − 0.3284784440027±0.0000000000006 (α/π)^2 + 1.1812340168265±0.0000000000193 (α/π)^3 − 1.7283±0.0035 (α/π)^4 + 0±3.8 (α/π)^5 higher powers of (α/π)
So the 1971 paper is not especially reliable because not all the terms of the (α/π)^3 had been calculated and the mass of the Tau lepton (or it's existence!) was unknown. The 2006 result is dominated by the numerical uncertainty of the (α/π)^4 and (α/π)^5 terms, with the uncertainty of the Tau and Muon mass mattering not at all.
Without reading the 1971 paper, I will not know if they chose to ignore the Muon loops or deliberately truncated their accuracy before including them. The 2006 paper is exact three-generation QED to (α/π)^3 with exact functions expressing the uncertainty in terms of the muon and tau mass uncertainties. (See http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0606174 ). Beyond this point they need to include the whole of the standard model to include electroweak and strong-force interactions.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 25 2007, 11:14 AM)
For today value of the alpha (1/137.0359997) we obtain
1.0011596561+-0.0000000031
It means that the lower limit is 1.0011596530
It means that this result is not consistent with today experimental value
1.00115965218
That is only true if the +- in the 1971 paper are absolute bounds. It is much more typical that they are standard deviations, which means the authors are only 68% certain that their nominal figure is within the bounds. The 2006 paper says that the 1971's paper was not exact, and did not capture the actual value of the (α/π)^3 term in their error bounds. Moreover, the references in the paper shows that the (α/π)^2 terms were known in the 1950s but progress in the (α/π)^3 terms was made in the 1990s.
The rest of your claims rest only on the logical fallacy of false dilemma.
0) QED is a physical theory.
1) Someone calculated QED inexactly in 1971
2) You misinterpreted the meaning of their stated uncertainty (Mistake)
3) You claim that modern results are inconsistent with the 1971 quotes, therefore QED is wrong (Mistake)
4) You claim that QED being wrong is evidence the rest of your post is right (Mistake)
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 25 2007, 01:53 PM)
QED - the ad hoc selected diagrams - number of them changes when new experimental result is not consistent with the obtained before
Evidence? The Evidence shows that in 1971 they didn't calculate with all the diagrams. In 1996 we had all the (α/π)^3 diagrams, and in 2006 we had exact numbers (or functions for the mass-dependent diagrams) up to (α/π)^3.
1.49±0.25 is in rough agreement with 1.1812340168265±0.0000000000193 with the second number being only 1.25 standard deviations away, if NIST guidelines are being used. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Uncertainty/index.html
But where is your evidence that the diagrams changed? Show us one example of a neglected diagram.
1.49±0.25 is in rough agreement with 1.1812340168265±0.0000000000193 with the second number being only 1.25 standard deviations away, if NIST guidelines are being used. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Uncertainty/index.html
But where is your evidence that the diagrams changed? Show us one example of a neglected diagram.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 25 2007, 04:50 PM)
I also claim that all phenomena we can describe applying the Newtonian mechanics.
For example we can describe the wave function of the electron within the Newtonian mechanics. To create the wave function real electron should 'disappear' in one place of the background (it melts away in the background) and appear in another place, and so on.
What part of that is Newtonian mechanics?
For example we can describe the wave function of the electron within the Newtonian mechanics. To create the wave function real electron should 'disappear' in one place of the background (it melts away in the background) and appear in another place, and so on.
What part of that is Newtonian mechanics?
Aha! Some diagrams (Fifty!) were Neglected! By Levine!
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v10/i12/p4007_1
Cvitanović, Predrag and Kinoshita, T. "Sixth-order magnetic moment of the electron", Phys. Rev. D 10 4007 - 4031 (1974)
You must live in sitcom version of physics.
What is the difference between the Sitcom Version of Physics and Cartoon Physics?
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v10/i12/p4007_1
Cvitanović, Predrag and Kinoshita, T. "Sixth-order magnetic moment of the electron", Phys. Rev. D 10 4007 - 4031 (1974)
QUOTE (Abstract+)
We have evaluated the contribution of 50 Feynman diagrams of three-photon-exchange type to the electron magnetic moment by two independent methods. The results are mutually consistent and are several times more accurate than previously reported calculations. If we combine the analytic result of Levine and Roskies for 10 diagrams and our numerical result for the remaining 40 diagrams, we obtain the best estimate available at present: (0.922±0.024)×(α / π)^3. Including the contribution from the remaining 22 diagrams calculated previously, the complete theoretical prediction for the electron anomaly up to the order α^3 is 1/2 α/π -0.32848(α / π)^2+(1.195±0.026)(α/π)^3, in fair agreement with the latest experimental result.
Thus the 2006 result is completely vindicated.
1971 22 diagrams M.J.Levine and J.Wright http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v26/i21/p1351_1
1973 10 diagrams M.J.Levine and R.Roskies http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v30/i16/p772_1 and http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i9/p3171_1 and one more paper by M.J.Levine and R.Roskies and R.Perisho I can't find
1974 40 diagrams P.Cvitanović and T.Kinoshita
Total: 72 diagrams
Thus the 2006 result is completely vindicated.
1971 22 diagrams M.J.Levine and J.Wright http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v26/i21/p1351_1
1973 10 diagrams M.J.Levine and R.Roskies http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v30/i16/p772_1 and http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i9/p3171_1 and one more paper by M.J.Levine and R.Roskies and R.Perisho I can't find
1974 40 diagrams P.Cvitanović and T.Kinoshita
Total: 72 diagrams
Just ridiculous:
You must live in sitcom version of physics.
Even in the Reader's Digest you could learn that:
- SR, GR, QM all include Newtonian mechanics in the corresponding limits (v>0, h->0)
- QM explain Newtonian Mechanics and provides a lot of insight on NM, specially on the least action principle
- each of these theories (SR, GR, QM) explain much more observations than Newtonian mechanics alone
- mathematical physics is born with Newton
- we can safely say tha mathematical physics is born with physics
For the rest, just go back to the candle, the Lorentz transformation, and all these things that you miserably failed to explain.
Good luck in the club with Tsolkas and the others ...
QUOTE
The physicists have developed the relativity theory and quantum mechanics before years. The relative success of these theories has make them to believe, they can ignore the insights of Newtonian mechanics.
You must live in sitcom version of physics.
Even in the Reader's Digest you could learn that:
- SR, GR, QM all include Newtonian mechanics in the corresponding limits (v>0, h->0)
- QM explain Newtonian Mechanics and provides a lot of insight on NM, specially on the least action principle
- each of these theories (SR, GR, QM) explain much more observations than Newtonian mechanics alone
- mathematical physics is born with Newton
- we can safely say tha mathematical physics is born with physics
For the rest, just go back to the candle, the Lorentz transformation, and all these things that you miserably failed to explain.
Good luck in the club with Tsolkas and the others ...
The candle?
Sylwester Kornowski,
This would be very interresting:
This is the kind of curiosity I would like to learn ... if it was supported by some substance.
Thirty year ago I was in the heaven when I read the paper by Wheeler and Feynman about action at distance (the absorber theory). This was totally coherent, very stimulating and thought provoking. And this was supported by substance: their analysis was in-depth and they analysed the most crucial aspects of the idea. Today I think (to my knowledge) this idea has not yet delivered anything useful, but I don't care: I enjoyed, I learned, and it was totally rational. And it was substantiated.
Your idea above could be also interresting, maybe not as much as the absorber theory, but this more a question of taste than anything else.
Where I have a problem: your sentense is a starting point and an end at the same time.
It seems you put this idea here just to flame people a little bit more, just to play with Zephir.
What a pitty.
This would be very interresting:
QUOTE
Can you see that all the quantum phenomena can be explained within the Newtonian mechanics if we assume that there are in existence the objects moving with speeds higher than the 'c'?
This is the kind of curiosity I would like to learn ... if it was supported by some substance.
Thirty year ago I was in the heaven when I read the paper by Wheeler and Feynman about action at distance (the absorber theory). This was totally coherent, very stimulating and thought provoking. And this was supported by substance: their analysis was in-depth and they analysed the most crucial aspects of the idea. Today I think (to my knowledge) this idea has not yet delivered anything useful, but I don't care: I enjoyed, I learned, and it was totally rational. And it was substantiated.
Your idea above could be also interresting, maybe not as much as the absorber theory, but this more a question of taste than anything else.
Where I have a problem: your sentense is a starting point and an end at the same time.
It seems you put this idea here just to flame people a little bit more, just to play with Zephir.
What a pitty.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 25 2007, 06:55 PM)
You must live in sitcom version of physics.
What is the difference between the Sitcom Version of Physics and Cartoon Physics?
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 25 2007, 10:06 PM)
It seems you put this idea here just to flame people a little bit more, just to play with Zephir.
The AWT has nothing to say to all these "faster then c", theories, until the role of observer and the whole geometry is explained at first. For example, inside of dense stars the light spreads by the speed a few meters per years, so it's not problem to move by the "superluminal speed" around it.
The AWT has nothing to say to all these "faster then c", theories, until the role of observer and the whole geometry is explained at first. For example, inside of dense stars the light spreads by the speed a few meters per years, so it's not problem to move by the "superluminal speed" around it.
Zephir [removed] You don't have any experimental evidence, you don't have any mathematical workings. All you can give, is verbal explanations, as I tend to do, and even then, when you do, your lack of English skills makes for some rather unpleasant reading at times. So in some respects, I can empathize with your desire not to be seen as a crank, because you think it makes up for your inability to even give verbal explanations.
You can say "By AWT" as many times as you want, but it does not defeat the points I raise here.
You can say "By AWT" as many times as you want, but it does not defeat the points I raise here.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 25 2007, 07:58 PM)
For example, inside of dense stars the light spreads by the speed a few meters per years, so it's not problem to move by the "superluminal speed" around it.
Yes and the question which that raises, is whether it is the gravity of the star which holds the light back, or whether it is the collisions with other matter, which prevents it escaping, just like collisions in wire (resistance) slows down electron movement.
I don't know what you mean about superluminal speed though. What indications have been given to suggest such a thing?
Yes and the question which that raises, is whether it is the gravity of the star which holds the light back, or whether it is the collisions with other matter, which prevents it escaping, just like collisions in wire (resistance) slows down electron movement.
I don't know what you mean about superluminal speed though. What indications have been given to suggest such a thing?
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 25 2007, 07:58 PM)
For example, inside of dense stars the light spreads by the speed a few meters per years, so it's not problem to move by the "superluminal speed" around it.
But you are quoting a theoretical result from QED, not Newtonian physics.
A much more down-to-earth experimental effect is the observation of Cerenkov radiation in transparent dielectrics. I like water, with refractive index n=1.33 or so. In such a medium, the effective speed of light over macroscopic distances at visible frequencies is c/n or about 0.75 c. A charged particle traveling faster than that will tend to emit radiation. From this Cerenkov radiation, you can calculate the momentum of the charged particles.
http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archi...nkov_effect.htm (From a page about special relativity in particle physics: http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archi...Bubblech/mbitu/ )
At microscopic distances, the speed of light is uniformly c, the speed of light in vacuum. That's because the refractive index is an effect cause by the interaction of matter with light. Structured matter, like water, can have a very complex interaction with light, so the relationship of n as a function of frequency can be complex. Hydrogen plasma has a simpler structure, and so the theoretical predictions of QED are strongly relied upon for the optical properties of the center of the Sun.
Also, superluminal compared to the speed of light in matter is nothing particularly interesting. So what if you can run faster than "the fastest man alive" during the times when that guy is impaired. For light, the fair contest is in a vacuum, not in a super dense plasma or refractive medium. One of the reasons 19th century ideas about light fell apart is that it was discovered that n is not a constant, and so the Fizeau drag coefficient is not a constant, and so not a single ether would be capable of explaining the observed results. Instead of one ether, the theories requires a vast number of ethers, one for every distinguishable frequency of light.
But you are quoting a theoretical result from QED, not Newtonian physics.
A much more down-to-earth experimental effect is the observation of Cerenkov radiation in transparent dielectrics. I like water, with refractive index n=1.33 or so. In such a medium, the effective speed of light over macroscopic distances at visible frequencies is c/n or about 0.75 c. A charged particle traveling faster than that will tend to emit radiation. From this Cerenkov radiation, you can calculate the momentum of the charged particles.
http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archi...nkov_effect.htm (From a page about special relativity in particle physics: http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archi...Bubblech/mbitu/ )
At microscopic distances, the speed of light is uniformly c, the speed of light in vacuum. That's because the refractive index is an effect cause by the interaction of matter with light. Structured matter, like water, can have a very complex interaction with light, so the relationship of n as a function of frequency can be complex. Hydrogen plasma has a simpler structure, and so the theoretical predictions of QED are strongly relied upon for the optical properties of the center of the Sun.
Also, superluminal compared to the speed of light in matter is nothing particularly interesting. So what if you can run faster than "the fastest man alive" during the times when that guy is impaired. For light, the fair contest is in a vacuum, not in a super dense plasma or refractive medium. One of the reasons 19th century ideas about light fell apart is that it was discovered that n is not a constant, and so the Fizeau drag coefficient is not a constant, and so not a single ether would be capable of explaining the observed results. Instead of one ether, the theories requires a vast number of ethers, one for every distinguishable frequency of light.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 25 2007, 08:11 PM)
Zephir, you're a crank, and there's no denying that fact. The sooner you accept it, the better. You don't have any experimental evidence, you don't have any mathematical workings.
The irony is inescapable , like in the story with the black kettle
The irony is inescapable , like in the story with the black kettle
QUOTE (Dallas+Jul 25 2007, 09:20 PM)
The irony is inescapable , like in the story with the black kettle
There is no irony, because I don't deny that I am one. In fact, I'm proud to be one. I don't even find it insulting when someone calls me one.
This is essentially how I think Zephir should see himself. It will save him from hopelessly struggling against his own inabilities and having to defend them constantly.
There is no irony, because I don't deny that I am one. In fact, I'm proud to be one. I don't even find it insulting when someone calls me one.
This is essentially how I think Zephir should see himself. It will save him from hopelessly struggling against his own inabilities and having to defend them constantly.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 25 2007, 09:26 PM)
There is no irony, because I don't deny that I am one. In fact, I'm proud to be one. I don't even find it insulting when someone calls me one.
This is essentially how I think Zephir should see himself. It will save him from hopelessly struggling against his own inabilities and having to defend them constantly.
Wow, I am impressed, at least you have a realistic and honest view of yourself. You are the first crank to admit that you are a crank.
This is essentially how I think Zephir should see himself. It will save him from hopelessly struggling against his own inabilities and having to defend them constantly.
Wow, I am impressed, at least you have a realistic and honest view of yourself. You are the first crank to admit that you are a crank.
QUOTE (Dallas+Jul 25 2007, 09:29 PM)
Wow, I am impressed, at least you have a realistic and honest view of yourself. You are the first crank to admit that you are a crank.
Yeah well maybe you might stop giving me negative feedback when I say 'crank' things then? Probably too much to ask though
Yeah well maybe you might stop giving me negative feedback when I say 'crank' things then? Probably too much to ask though
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 26 2007, 12:01 AM)
inside of dense stars the light spreads by the speed a few meters per years... But you are quoting a theoretical result from QED, not Newtonian physics.
Why do you mean this? Such insight follows from Aether concept immediately. The more dense environment is, the slower is the speed of energy wave spreading.
Feedback is not about debate, it is to let you know that you are posting incorrect stuff especially when you persist in posting it after it has been explained to you that it is wrong.
I didn't say it was about debate. I said it was non conducive to the spirit of debate.
Furthermore, I rarely post 'incorrect' stuff, as whenever I speak about something, I speak from a theoretical standpoint, where I am academically disassociated from what I am discussing. If we take time dilation, for example, nothing I have posted, is 'incorrect' about it. As all I have said, is the suggestion that it 'may' be wrong, due to it firstly being a theory, and secondly having insufficient evidence to convince me (But I shall be investigating that Ives exp).
People will often say that I am wrong when I deny there is 'proof' of time dilation. Of course, it is 'they' who are wrong, because there is no proof, there is only evidence. The difference between them and me, is that I understand the difference between proof and evidence, as well as between fact and theory, whilst they do not.
I didn't say it was about debate. I said it was non conducive to the spirit of debate.
Furthermore, I rarely post 'incorrect' stuff, as whenever I speak about something, I speak from a theoretical standpoint, where I am academically disassociated from what I am discussing. If we take time dilation, for example, nothing I have posted, is 'incorrect' about it. As all I have said, is the suggestion that it 'may' be wrong, due to it firstly being a theory, and secondly having insufficient evidence to convince me (But I shall be investigating that Ives exp).
People will often say that I am wrong when I deny there is 'proof' of time dilation. Of course, it is 'they' who are wrong, because there is no proof, there is only evidence. The difference between them and me, is that I understand the difference between proof and evidence, as well as between fact and theory, whilst they do not.
As to an "eye for an eye", this shows that you are taking feedback personally. This way you will never escape the state of "crank" and you will never learn. When people give you a negative feedback, you should try to make efforts to learn, announcing proudly that you are a "crank" doesn't make you a better person.
Of course one takes feedback personally, because negative feedback is generally highly critical, usually in an exaggerated sense. The retort neg feedback is necessary to restore one's integrity, because otherwise it will seem as though what they say in your negative feedback, is correct and that you do not deny it.
I learn perfectly fine, whilst still having what some might consider 'crank' theories. What you actually mean (Reading between the lines), is that "I will never learn" aka. I will never accept something that you believe as true, to be true.
The difference, as noted above, hence between myself and you, Dallas, is that I am able to maintain a balanced and objective view towards such topics as time dilation, whilst you seem to have accepted it completely, almost to the point of fanaticism. Whilst I am trying here, vainly, to try and convince you, just like I try to convince others, that time dilation is still a theory, and there is still the possibility that it may be wrong, and that something you didn't consider, is to blame.
If you do not learn to academically disassociate yourself with theories, then you will never truly be a scientist, because you will always find yourself rejecting anything which contradicts with your unshakeable beliefs in a particular theory, when all the while, what you are believing, may be wrong, whilst something that you would otherwise consider a 'crank' theory, may actually be right.
So in regards to time dilation, you need to disassociate yourself with any 'full acceptance' of it, and learn to acknowledge other theories which attempt to explain the phenomenon of loss of time. Because it would be supremely funny, if in a month's time or so, it was discovered that there was a totally different reason for it, than you currently believe. I, for one, would laugh a heck of alot at you, for embracing it so hard. Realise that if you were academically disassociated from it, that such damage would be minimal.
So for the prospect of laughing at you, I do indeed hope that time dilation has a different reason than you believe. Man, you will never hear the end of it from me; such is the fallout from your unshakeable acceptance of time dilation.
Why do you mean this? Such insight follows from Aether concept immediately. The more dense environment is, the slower is the speed of energy wave spreading.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 26 2007, 12:01 AM)
superluminal compared to the speed of light in matter is nothing particularly interesting.
Of course, but when we admit the hypothesis, we are living inside of black hole, then the existence of superluminal speed outside of our Universe becomes quite apparent.
Of course, but when we admit the hypothesis, we are living inside of black hole, then the existence of superluminal speed outside of our Universe becomes quite apparent.
And then there's media where the refractive indicies are different in different directions (Usually in the directions of the crystollgraphic axes though).
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 26 2007, 01:23 AM)
And then there's media where the refractive indicies are different in different directions (Usually in the directions of the crystallographic axes though).
Such phenomena occurs near rotating dense stars and charged black holes too: the vacuum becomes birefringent here, or even the double event horizon is formed.
Such phenomena occurs near rotating dense stars and charged black holes too: the vacuum becomes birefringent here, or even the double event horizon is formed.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 25 2007, 09:38 PM)
Yeah well maybe you might stop giving me negative feedback when I say 'crank' things then? Probably too much to ask though
Negative feedback is what you deserve for spreading antiscience. I don't single you out, all those who do the same get the same feedback. You seem to take the feedback personally, maybe this will cure you from spreading antiscience. Might do you some good after all ......
Negative feedback is what you deserve for spreading antiscience. I don't single you out, all those who do the same get the same feedback. You seem to take the feedback personally, maybe this will cure you from spreading antiscience. Might do you some good after all ......
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 26 2007, 10:40 AM)
Such phenomena occurs near rotating dense stars and charged black holes too: the vacuum becomes birefringent here, or even the double event horizon is formed.
More bad faith from Zephir.
Here's the page that his image comes form:
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1656.html
As you can see it has nothing to do with the anisotropy of refractive indices in any sense, but is simply a question about the differences between a Kerr blackhole and a Schwarzchild blackhole.
More bad faith from Zephir.
Here's the page that his image comes form:
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1656.html
As you can see it has nothing to do with the anisotropy of refractive indices in any sense, but is simply a question about the differences between a Kerr blackhole and a Schwarzchild blackhole.
QUOTE (Dallas+Jul 25 2007, 11:30 PM)
Negative feedback is what you deserve for spreading antiscience. I don't single you out, all those who do the same get the same feedback. You seem to take the feedback personally, maybe this will cure you from spreading antiscience. Might do you some good after all ......
I don't spread 'anti-science'. I just argue against those who refuse to think outside the box and consider other possibilities. In fact, I have repeatedly admitted that I never reject theories (even mainstream ones), but that I accept them equally with all theories (even those which run contrary to mainstream).
It is an all too common phenomenon, that there are people who literally do not consider anything outside mainstream. It's almost as if anything which is not mainstream, is classified as 'science-fiction' to these people. Such people need to be argued against, in order to force them to be more open-minded.
About the only thing I am, is anti-maths, such that I only think it has a purpose in calculation, calibration and data-gathering, but not at creating new physics/theories/ideas - For these, imagination, creativity and mental reasoning are required.
And I only give neg feedback to those who give it to me. It's the eye-for-an-eye principle, and I think it's wholly fair, since mostly the neg feedback which I get, is related to something I've disagreed with people about, and they've got annoyed, and given me neg feedback to punish me for disagreeing with them.
Personally, I don't think the feedback system is conducive to the spirit of debate, but who am I to change it.
I don't spread 'anti-science'. I just argue against those who refuse to think outside the box and consider other possibilities. In fact, I have repeatedly admitted that I never reject theories (even mainstream ones), but that I accept them equally with all theories (even those which run contrary to mainstream).
It is an all too common phenomenon, that there are people who literally do not consider anything outside mainstream. It's almost as if anything which is not mainstream, is classified as 'science-fiction' to these people. Such people need to be argued against, in order to force them to be more open-minded.
About the only thing I am, is anti-maths, such that I only think it has a purpose in calculation, calibration and data-gathering, but not at creating new physics/theories/ideas - For these, imagination, creativity and mental reasoning are required.
And I only give neg feedback to those who give it to me. It's the eye-for-an-eye principle, and I think it's wholly fair, since mostly the neg feedback which I get, is related to something I've disagreed with people about, and they've got annoyed, and given me neg feedback to punish me for disagreeing with them.
Personally, I don't think the feedback system is conducive to the spirit of debate, but who am I to change it.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 26 2007, 02:51 AM)
I don't spread 'anti-science'. I just argue against those who refuse to think outside the box and consider other possibilities. In fact, I have repeatedly admitted that I never reject theories (even mainstream ones), but that I accept them equally with all theories (even those which run contrary to mainstream).
It is an all too common phenomenon, that there are people who literally do not consider anything outside mainstream. It's almost as if anything which is not mainstream, is classified as 'science-fiction' to these people. Such people need to be argued against, in order to force them to be more open-minded.
About the only thing I am, is anti-maths, such that I only think it has a purpose in calculation, calibration and data-gathering, but not at creating new physics/theories/ideas - For these, imagination, creativity and mental reasoning are required.
And I only give neg feedback to those who give it to me. It's the eye-for-an-eye principle, and I think it's wholly fair, since mostly the neg feedback which I get, is related to something I've disagreed with people about, and they've got annoyed, and given me neg feedback to punish me for disagreeing with them.
Personally, I don't think the feedback system is conducive to the spirit of debate, but who am I to change it.
Feedback is not about debate, it is to let you know that you are posting incorrect stuff especially when you persist in posting it after it has been explained to you that it is wrong. As to an "eye for an eye", this shows that you are taking feedback personally. This way you will never escape the state of "crank" and you will never learn. When people give you a negative feedback, you should try to make efforts to learn, announcing proudly that you are a "crank" doesn't make you a better person.
It is an all too common phenomenon, that there are people who literally do not consider anything outside mainstream. It's almost as if anything which is not mainstream, is classified as 'science-fiction' to these people. Such people need to be argued against, in order to force them to be more open-minded.
About the only thing I am, is anti-maths, such that I only think it has a purpose in calculation, calibration and data-gathering, but not at creating new physics/theories/ideas - For these, imagination, creativity and mental reasoning are required.
And I only give neg feedback to those who give it to me. It's the eye-for-an-eye principle, and I think it's wholly fair, since mostly the neg feedback which I get, is related to something I've disagreed with people about, and they've got annoyed, and given me neg feedback to punish me for disagreeing with them.
Personally, I don't think the feedback system is conducive to the spirit of debate, but who am I to change it.
Feedback is not about debate, it is to let you know that you are posting incorrect stuff especially when you persist in posting it after it has been explained to you that it is wrong. As to an "eye for an eye", this shows that you are taking feedback personally. This way you will never escape the state of "crank" and you will never learn. When people give you a negative feedback, you should try to make efforts to learn, announcing proudly that you are a "crank" doesn't make you a better person.
QUOTE
Feedback is not about debate, it is to let you know that you are posting incorrect stuff especially when you persist in posting it after it has been explained to you that it is wrong.
I didn't say it was about debate. I said it was non conducive to the spirit of debate.
Furthermore, I rarely post 'incorrect' stuff, as whenever I speak about something, I speak from a theoretical standpoint, where I am academically disassociated from what I am discussing. If we take time dilation, for example, nothing I have posted, is 'incorrect' about it. As all I have said, is the suggestion that it 'may' be wrong, due to it firstly being a theory, and secondly having insufficient evidence to convince me (But I shall be investigating that Ives exp).
People will often say that I am wrong when I deny there is 'proof' of time dilation. Of course, it is 'they' who are wrong, because there is no proof, there is only evidence. The difference between them and me, is that I understand the difference between proof and evidence, as well as between fact and theory, whilst they do not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Feedback is not about debate, it is to let you know that you are posting incorrect stuff especially when you persist in posting it after it has been explained to you that it is wrong. |
I didn't say it was about debate. I said it was non conducive to the spirit of debate.
Furthermore, I rarely post 'incorrect' stuff, as whenever I speak about something, I speak from a theoretical standpoint, where I am academically disassociated from what I am discussing. If we take time dilation, for example, nothing I have posted, is 'incorrect' about it. As all I have said, is the suggestion that it 'may' be wrong, due to it firstly being a theory, and secondly having insufficient evidence to convince me (But I shall be investigating that Ives exp).
People will often say that I am wrong when I deny there is 'proof' of time dilation. Of course, it is 'they' who are wrong, because there is no proof, there is only evidence. The difference between them and me, is that I understand the difference between proof and evidence, as well as between fact and theory, whilst they do not.
As to an "eye for an eye", this shows that you are taking feedback personally. This way you will never escape the state of "crank" and you will never learn. When people give you a negative feedback, you should try to make efforts to learn, announcing proudly that you are a "crank" doesn't make you a better person.
Of course one takes feedback personally, because negative feedback is generally highly critical, usually in an exaggerated sense. The retort neg feedback is necessary to restore one's integrity, because otherwise it will seem as though what they say in your negative feedback, is correct and that you do not deny it.
I learn perfectly fine, whilst still having what some might consider 'crank' theories. What you actually mean (Reading between the lines), is that "I will never learn" aka. I will never accept something that you believe as true, to be true.
The difference, as noted above, hence between myself and you, Dallas, is that I am able to maintain a balanced and objective view towards such topics as time dilation, whilst you seem to have accepted it completely, almost to the point of fanaticism. Whilst I am trying here, vainly, to try and convince you, just like I try to convince others, that time dilation is still a theory, and there is still the possibility that it may be wrong, and that something you didn't consider, is to blame.
If you do not learn to academically disassociate yourself with theories, then you will never truly be a scientist, because you will always find yourself rejecting anything which contradicts with your unshakeable beliefs in a particular theory, when all the while, what you are believing, may be wrong, whilst something that you would otherwise consider a 'crank' theory, may actually be right.
So in regards to time dilation, you need to disassociate yourself with any 'full acceptance' of it, and learn to acknowledge other theories which attempt to explain the phenomenon of loss of time. Because it would be supremely funny, if in a month's time or so, it was discovered that there was a totally different reason for it, than you currently believe. I, for one, would laugh a heck of alot at you, for embracing it so hard. Realise that if you were academically disassociated from it, that such damage would be minimal.
So for the prospect of laughing at you, I do indeed hope that time dilation has a different reason than you believe. Man, you will never hear the end of it from me; such is the fallout from your unshakeable acceptance of time dilation.
I personally don't choose by what someone has said to me normally. I tend to just look at those who deserve it for their information that is shared correctly.
For the record...
Myself and a friend of mine came up with both of these ideas while sitting in an A&W. I'd been in contact with Evident Technologies regarding a novel design for their thermal junctions, and they sent me back a paper on solar cells. We sent them back the suggestion for this exact technology two summers ago. I still have the emails on record.
Team sets solar cell record
The same email also covered this manufacturing method:
Researchers develop inexpensive, easy process to produce solar panels
For those of you who can't be bothered to click the link, one is for a method of splitting light into different wavelengths for absorbtion by a gratzel solar cell, which uses different bandgap semiconductors to absorb the different wavelengths.
The other is for a manufacturing process for solar cells that would allow them to be printed by machines resembling computer printers, where the individual ink tanks carry different quantum dots (What Evident Technologies manufactures) allowing them to be printed directly on a substrate and heat sealed to create active circuits.
I've even still got the original A&W placemats we drew out the designs on.
Maybe I'll put them up on *** ebay.
HA-***-HA
Myself and a friend of mine came up with both of these ideas while sitting in an A&W. I'd been in contact with Evident Technologies regarding a novel design for their thermal junctions, and they sent me back a paper on solar cells. We sent them back the suggestion for this exact technology two summers ago. I still have the emails on record.
Team sets solar cell record
The same email also covered this manufacturing method:
Researchers develop inexpensive, easy process to produce solar panels
For those of you who can't be bothered to click the link, one is for a method of splitting light into different wavelengths for absorbtion by a gratzel solar cell, which uses different bandgap semiconductors to absorb the different wavelengths.
The other is for a manufacturing process for solar cells that would allow them to be printed by machines resembling computer printers, where the individual ink tanks carry different quantum dots (What Evident Technologies manufactures) allowing them to be printed directly on a substrate and heat sealed to create active circuits.
I've even still got the original A&W placemats we drew out the designs on.
Maybe I'll put them up on *** ebay.
HA-***-HA
Very Very impressive the unification of physics by AWT:
We are all waiting for a simplified theory of Semiconductor Optics, based on AWT.
Everything forllow immediately from the AWT concept.
Appalling.
QUOTE
Why do you mean this? Such insight follows from Aether concept immediately. The more dense environment is, the slower is the speed of energy wave spreading.
We are all waiting for a simplified theory of Semiconductor Optics, based on AWT.
Everything forllow immediately from the AWT concept.
Appalling.
ACT just predicted and indirectly produced two of the most significant advances in the history of solar cell production.
Cheap manufacturing and a 2% increase in efficency in the already high efficency gratzel cells.
W00T!
The cranks win the day!
Cheap manufacturing and a 2% increase in efficency in the already high efficency gratzel cells.
W00T!
The cranks win the day!
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.