|
Published by Farsight 10-04-2007
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | |||||||||||
|
#2
By
Buffy
on
10-30-2007
| ||
| Re: Relativity+ Quote:
But in order to understand these two questions, requires that one reads your paper. Unfortunately I think you may lose quite a few readers at: Quote:
And you know what they say about things that "sound too good to be true"... When introducing revolutionary breakthroughs, probably the worst approach is to say "everything you know is wrong, and I'm about to prove it to you." It may sound more sneaky, but you'll find that you have a much easier time if you introduce what you're talking about as a "slight improvement" on existing theory--something that you almost do up until you hit the excerpted quote! Let someone *else* characterize your astounding breakthrough as such: when you say it yourself, it pretty much guarantees that it will be dismissed out of hand, even by those who should know better. Successful Physics requires good Marketing,  Buffy | ||
 |
|
#4
By
Farsight
on
11-07-2007
| |
| Re: Relativity+ OK. I toned it down a tad: RELATIVITY+ Quote:
| |
|
Last edited by Farsight; 11-07-2007 at 09:27 AM.
|
|
#5
By
InfiniteNow
on
11-07-2007
|
| Re: Relativity+ Show us your predictions (remember, they must be falsifiable and specific), and how your model is better than what we have already. Where's the math that supports your rhetoric? |
| |
|
#6
By
HydrogenBond
on
11-07-2007
|
| Re: Relativity+ Math does not prove anything more than the assumptions used. I have done this example before, but here it goes again. Say I falsely assume that gravity is due to the repulsion of matter by space. Someone with good math skills can take sort of an reverse of the existing gravity equations to turn the attraction into a type of space repulsion. When the math is done, it would appear to prove my premise, even though it is erronoeus and out of touch with reality. Irregardless the model may have practical value, if the math conversion was done well. It can be used to make predictions, and could even send a man to the moon. It satifies the system, without ever having to be in touch with reality. In this particular case, the whole analysis would be nipped in the bud, because one would recognize the preliminary assumption is wrong. But this one is obvious. If it was more nebulous and hard to prove or disprove, easily, then do the bells and whistles automatically make it true? I don't mean to single out string theory, but this is an easy one to see. One can not prove or disprove its basic assumption. But once it was made, the model satisfies the math protocol and is a good correlation. The new problem can be seen, using the reverse gravity model. If this model had been nebulous enough, not to be easily nipped in the bud, and because it correlates so well, then results from the math can be mistaken as being true. These would then become the premises for mathematical extrapolation. One can see reality is getting lost in the math. The invention of computers compunded the problem since one doesn't even has to solve equation directly, but can use a high speed numerical approximation, that can also correlate very well. The easy explanation would not allow one to justify the biggest computer made. The question is how does one prescreen before the math? This is no longer easy, since we can not easily tell if and when departure occurred. If it did occur, how many levels of departure we are dealing with, such that the loop may have closed on itself, severing its early tail. The only approach I could see was to take a stroll backwards into time and start at a place where physics had convergence of thought. That was a time when chemisty and physics were part of the same thing. It was when they could make A-bombs and H-bombs without computers, using a blend of chemisry and basic physics. After that divergence. The reason I bring this up is because new theories should not be limited by the math. This horse can go anywhere one wants it to. |
| |
|
#7
By
InfiniteNow
on
11-07-2007
|
| Re: Relativity+ Until you have specific and falsifiable predictions based on a mathematical model of what you are proposing, your thesis is no better than another which says "purple unicorns did it." If you want your unicorn to become real, you need to describe it mathematically then confirm your mathematical predictions empirically. Until then, you are just another quack with an unproven quack theory. |
| |
|
#8
By
Erasmus00
on
11-07-2007
| |||
| Re: Relativity+ Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You also seem to be suffering from the delusion you can prove anything you want with math. This is not the case. To keep this on topic- farsight, I cannot see how your theory helps much, without mathematics, how can you predict anything in detail, and without predictions, how is this testable/falsifiable? Also, some of the gross features of your theory don't work out. Consider your knot type configuration for a neutron and a proton. By rotating a proton, you can turn it into a neutron! This is obviously not true in reality. There are other problems, but this is the easiest to delve into. -Will | |||
| |
|
#9
By
Farsight
on
11-10-2007
|
| Re: Relativity+ It's a model rather than a theory, Erasmus. It doesn't qualify as a theory, what I present here is a starting position that needs a deal of development to get anywhere. Most of the testable/falsifiable elements are negatives, like "no time travel" and "no higgs bosons", all rather mundane and unsatisfactory. But the lack of prediction hasn't been a problem for String Theory where "the maths is ten years behind the theory", so shouldn't be seen as a showstopper that invalidates this re-examination of basic concepts. I offer what I can, and so far have gone for width rather than depth. I hope to interest others to contribute some rigor and convert it into something more acceptable. I'm particularly interested in tackling this via computer modelling, and will be emailing various people to see if I can entice them to look into it. I say this because it's a way of dealing with the mathematics at a very low level that yields a visible result - it's rather difficult to describe three-dimensional geometrical action with static linear lines of mathematical expression. The point you make about the proton and the neutron is the same point I could make by saying you can turn an "up" quark into a "down" quark by turning it upside down. It's too simplistic. This three-dimensional geometry of twist and turn only involves the three normal dimensions, but it involves relationships rather than absolutes, and it's amazing difficult to grasp unless you play around with some hands-on experience. For example, make a moebius strip. Start with a long strip of paper, draw arrows on it like this →, turn it over, and trace the arrows on to the other side. Now turn one end round through 360º before twisting it 180º and sellotaping. That's basically an electron. Now make a positron by twisting the other way, or by starting with the arrows going this ← way. Then try converting the positron into the electron as per page 30 of the paper. Which way do the twists go? What's up, or down, or left or right? You know there are 180º and 360º angles here, but you can't measure any with a protractor. All very confusing. If you want more, instead of making a moebius strip, do what I said above but apply three 360º turns and three 180 degree twists before taping. Or try cutting the moebius strip down its length a couple of times. Note that there are a few professional physicists thinking along similar lines. I don't know if you read New Scientist, but see page 36 of the 3rd November issue and the Quantum Unentanglement article. Joy Christian's papers are here: arXiv.org Search in particular see 0703179. Note these excerpts: ...It is crucial to note that the ej appearing in the above definition are not the usual self-adjoint operators on a complex Hilbert space, but are the ordinary 3-vectors in the real physical vector space... ...appearing therein is not the unit imaginary i = √−1, but a real geometric entity... ...a volume form... ...a classical relation... ...a local realistic model can be constructed to exactly reproduce quantum mechanical correlations... ...spacelike separated... ...sharper geometrical meaning... ...classical, local realistic framework... ...orthogonal directions in the physical space... ...algebraic properties of the physical space... It's pretty exciting stuff actually. |
|
Last edited by Farsight; 11-10-2007 at 08:26 AM.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Article Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Article | Article Starter | Category | Comments | Last Post |
| Relativity+ | Farsight | Physics and Mathematics | 7 | 04-19-2007 05:27 AM |
| The BB and relativity | HydrogenBond | Physics and Mathematics | 14 | 04-11-2007 09:30 AM |
| New Relativity | arkain101 | Strange Claims Forum | 51 | 08-17-2006 02:24 PM |
| A thought on relativity. | Colby | Physics and Mathematics | 12 | 05-22-2006 02:01 PM |
| Relativity | Lightbender | Physics and Mathematics | 20 | 06-26-2003 08:42 AM |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:42 PM.
