1. Originally Posted by Farsight
Because my maths isn't that weak
Really? You know linear algebra, real and complex analysis, tensor calculus, Riemannian geometry, and at least a smattering of group theory and a bit about matrix Lie algebras? Because that's what mainstream theories are defined in terms of, and that's the math you'll need to understand in order to recognise that some new proposal is capable of reproducing all the results of mainstream theories.

and because the papers match the scientific evidence of pair production, electron diffraction, Einstein-de Haas, etc, and tie in with Einstein's E=mc² paper where a radiating body loses mass
But all of these are already accounted for by mainstream theories, among many other things that you and the authors you cite have an annoying habit of ignoring completely.

Because they match the scientific evidence and have an explanatory power which other theories lack.
And the reality here is one of the biggest problems I see with your attitude to science, as well as some of the authors you cite. Suppose I draw a table of what some mainstream theory can explain, like this:
Code:
             |      H atom       |    Double slit    |    Mandel dip     |  Bell violation   | Pair production   |   Electron mass
-------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------
Mainstream  |         X         |         X         |         X         |         X         |         X         |
This is oversimplified, because the Standard Model can explain a much larger range of observed behaviour than I put in the table. But you get the idea. Now let's say for argument's sake someone comes along and claims that they can explain the electron mass. Then in order to be impressed I need to see it stack up against the mainstream it is competing with like this:
Code:
             |      H atom       |    Double slit    |    Mandel dip     |  Bell violation   | Pair production  |   Electron mass
-------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|------------------|-------------------
Mainstream  |         X         |         X         |         X         |         X         |        X         |
New proposal |         X         |         X         |         X         |         X         |        X         |         X
But in my experience, what we tend to see from you are a bunch of disparate proposals that stack up like this:
Code:
             |      H atom       |    Double slit    |    Mandel dip     |  Bell violation   | Pair production  |   Electron mass
-------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|------------------|-------------------
Mainstream  |         X         |         X         |         X         |         X         |        X         |
New proposal |                   |                   |                   |                   |        x         |
I.e. they recover some result we can already explain, only in less detail, and ignoring everything else we use mainstream theories for. Obviously, that's not impressive.

They don't label spin as "intrinsic" with no classical equivalent, or advance the idea that the electron is pointlike and so create mysteries and end up proposing an unfalsifiable unscientific multiverse.
I've already addressed this with you in the past: logically, there can be no such thing as a theory that explains everything. It is silly to complain that spin or anything else is intrinsic in a theory, unless you have actual evidence that it is not. At least a few things have to be intrinsic or axiomatic in any theory anyway, and if it is not spin, it will be something else.

A lot of people inexperienced with science and physics seem to get this one wrong.

people like Alphanumeric boot it psuedoscience without addressing it.
AlphaNumeric is actually doing a very thorough job describing things you and some authors you cite are doing wrong.

2. Originally Posted by Farsight
Pretty much, though use the phrase logically consistent rather than ad-hoc.
You can only say it's logically consistent and not ad hoc if you're working with a set of postulates which you are deriving the implications of. If you're just bolting things together with the argument "They don't contradict one another" that isn't enough. Newtonian gravity and non-relativistic quantum mechanics don't contradict one another but they aren't any more valid when you put them together.

Originally Posted by Farsight
I didn't. I read that paper along with Qiu-Hong Hu's and understood what they were saying. Remember this thread? What I've done is make such work easy to understand for the layman and offer insight to others. Who don't always want it.
Making pseudoscience more accessible to a layperson, which incidentally you are too, isn't contributing to science.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Oh here we go.
Me stating that it's a fact you don't have the mathematical grounding to understand spherical harmonics might not be something you want to hear but it's a relevant criticism. Simply dismissing it as insults isn't going to negate the point I raise. You're telling people "Oh this is good, it uses spherical harmonics" when you don't actually understand spherical harmonics. You don't know how to use them on a working level, you don't understand their applications, your only understanding comes from qualitative summaries other people have had to provide you. You lack the ability to properly evaluate any piece of work which uses them.

Me saying this is just fact. Unless you would like us all to believe you have sufficient mathematical grounding to work with Sturm-Liouville operators?

Originally Posted by Farsight
I don't "lift" other people's work, I publicise it.
You have obviously 'lifted' Hu's work. You haven't critically evaluated it for accuracy because you don't have the ability to due to poor grasp of quantitative physics expect of school children. You then incorporate it into your work wholesale. Whether or not you give citations to them since you obviously do not understand how the work works you can do nothing but mindlessly repeat it. The fact you didn't spot that glaring mistake shows you lack such capabilities so it's not like I'm making baseless accusations here.

Originally Posted by Farsight
I understand spin, and the harmonics enough for the electron. It's really simple, but you aren't listening.
Come now Farsight, do you expect us to believe you can do such mathematics? Or are you instead saying you understand their 'barest essence' or whatever phrase it is you like to use? If the former than you're dishonest. If the latter then you're just arm waving, saying you understand some vague qualitative concept which you have no evidence for.

Now if you were an experimental physicist working with electrons etc then I might think you have justification for saying you understand something of their behaviour beyond myself or others here but you aren't. You have no practical experience, you have no theoretical knowledge, you have only your opinion of layperson analogies and simplifications.

Originally Posted by Farsight
No, but others will. It's coming.
You've been making such claims for years and you've gotten no closer. Look at people like Sylwester, he's been doing it for decades? Do you really want to be doing this, claiming amazing insight no one else has on forums, in 1, 2, 5, 10 years time? You're exactly where you were 5 years ago, only with a lighter wallet after you paid for your self published book and adverts for it in physics magazines. Even if you aren't going to give up your 'dream' clearly you need a different approach.

Originally Posted by Farsight
No I don't. Light moves, and we use that to define the second and the metre. Then we use that second and the metre to say the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. If the light moves slower we still use it to define the second and the metre, and we still use the second and the metre to say the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. If we defined our second and our metre some other way the Compton wavelength of the electron would still work out at 4π / c^1½. It isn't numerology, it's ratios.
This just shows how completely non-existent your grasp of such concepts here. This has nothing to do with whether we define a metre by light or by a steel rod, clearly the equation $\frac{m_{p}}{m_{e}} = \frac{\sqrt{c}}{3\pi}$ is nonsense. You obviously need to have it explained again.

The left hand side, $\frac{m_{p}}{m_{e}}$ doesn't care what units of mass you use. Kilograms, tons, AMUs, jellybeans. It's a dimensionless quantity and will be around 1850 in any units. The right hand side, $\frac{\sqrt{c}}{3\pi}$, has units of $\sqrt{m/s}$ which in itself is dubious. It depends on the units we use. Now it doesn't matter how you define that length in practice, so the whole "We define metres of light" issue is a completely irrelevant point. I define my units of time to be measured in bobs. I define my units of length to be measured in jeffs. It just so happens that in such units the speed of light is $3 \times 10^{8}$ jeffs per bob. Thus the numerical value of $\sqrt{c}$ is as in SI units. But now I define a dave to be 100 jeffs. In these new units c is measured in daves per bob and the numerical value of $\sqrt{c}$ will be one tenth of what it was in jeffs per bob. So $\sqrt{c}$ has had it's value changed. But obviously I haven't changed anything to do with masses and even if I had $\frac{m_{p}}{m_{e}}$ wouldn't change. So the equation equating these two expressions is meaningless.

You've clearly failed to grasp a very basic but essential concept in how quantities are described in physics. The only time you can start saying things like "Wow, these two numbers are really close to one another, maybe that means something?" is when both numbers are dimensionless. There's nothing special about metres, seconds, kilograms etc, they are all convenient scales humans defined to help quantify the universe. Nature doesn't care what we use to quantify things so anything with units includes this arbitrary choice. Only when you compute dimensionless quantities can you remove this bias.

This is why physicists developed natural units. You construct combinations of dimensional quantities to define dimensionless quantities. It's a way of avoiding this type of mistake. Again, this is something you'd be all too familiar with if you'd spent some time in the past 5+ years actually learning working physics models. Unfortunately you've been peddling the same mistaken inconsistent nonsense for all that time. I do hope you have something else to try to justify your work because if you don't then you really do have absolutely nothing to show for the last 5 years.

Out of interest how many hours and how many pounds have you put into this endeavour of yours? All the forums you posted on, all the "[something] explained" threads, all the books you paid to be printed, all the money for the physic magazine ads. If you'd just invested some time and effort at the start you could have saved so much of that. You could have put it towards a pension, you could have learnt a language, you could have learnt actual science, you could have helped with a child's college fund. You could have avoided squandering it.

Originally Posted by Farsight
That's what harmonics is all about.
Clearly you don't know about harmonics because that isn't what they are about. Do you realise you're just throwing out words you don't know the meaning of or do you really think you're saying something insightful?

Originally Posted by Farsight
I've got to go. And I do have some work to do. I'll get back to the remaining physics content of your post later. I'll ignore the ad-hominem content. Meanwhile, try to be more like pryzk.
As others have pointed out, I'm not throwing a tirade of abuse at you in some fit of rage. I'm going to the trouble of explaining your mistakes at length. The fact you don't like hearing that you've made a mistake a child should know better of doesn't make it an ad hom, it is just an unpleasant statement of fact. I'm demonstrating that your complete avoidance of quantitative models, both in learning mainstream physics and trying to develop your own 'work', has left you with some fundamental and fatal gaps in your understanding. Part of the reason known to be false models are taught in educational establishments is to help people understand the development of ideas, the types of mistakes made in the past and the ways to avoid them. You have missed out on this critical part of science education and unfortunately it's one of things things where not knowing it often makes you not know you don't know.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Huh? You demand something of me, then you dismiss it as arm-waving pseudoscience?
You make it sound like I dismissed it out of hand. I explained at length (as you like complaining about) why it was nonsense.

If you think what you provided answers the thing I've been asking you for years you're mistaken. I've been asking you to provide one, just one, phenomenon in reality which you're able to model accurately using your work and to show it's derivation. What you have provided doesn't come close to that.

Originally Posted by Farsight
I'm not the one being dishonest here. Go look to that scientific evidence I referred to. You can diffract electrons. And annihilate them with positrons to yield photons. How do you think that works? Magic?
Utter non-sequitor. Electrons diffracting and electron-positron annihilation are things you haven't been able to show your work can accurately model. Instead the example you gave wasn't really your work and wasn't actually valid physics for reasons I explained.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Because my maths isn't that weak
I simply don't believe you. If you really believe what you're saying I can only conclude that you're one of those people who doesn't realise just how much they don't know. It's sometimes said education is the process of learning you know less and less than you thought. Unless you've been working through dozens of textbooks and lecture notes you simply do not have sufficient mathematical capabilities to grasp the details of things like quantum field theory or relativity. There's a reason GR and QFT are 3rd, 4th, even later year topics at even the top universities, they rely on a huge platform of more fundamental mathematics. You don't do GR unless you know SR, differential geometry, tensor calculus, linear algebra, vector calculus, PDEs, a smattering of electromagnetism, basic group theory. You don't do SR unless you know linear algebra and vector calculus. You can't do differential geometry till you've done vector calculus, non-Euclidean geometry and tensor calculus. You can't do PDEs until you've done some ODEs, linear algebra and a smattering of analysis doesn't go amiss. You can't do group theory until you've done some abstract algebra. You can't do.... well you get the point.

Someone only needs to look at the prerequisites university courses in GR or QFT have to see the cascading avalanche of courses they build upon. Most of those courses also allow you to work in things like electrodynamics, fluid mechanics, quantum mechanics, numerical analysis etc.

This shows something else you've shown you don't understand. The same sorts of courses required to be able to do string theory, which basically requires a firm grasp of both relativity and quantum sides of physics, also are needed for more 'practical' areas of physics and engineering. The same types of problems needed to solve the Schrodinger equation numerically arise in fluid mechanics. An expert in one can contribute to the other. Quantum mechanics can be used to model, via some rather technical transformations, population dynamics in animals. Some of the more crazy mathematics used to prove fundamental results in GR also allow some clever video analysis things to be done. The type of problem I spent about a year looking at during my thesis can arise in feedback control system design! The web of interconnectivity between various areas of mathematical physics is extremely dense and it's partly the reason a string theory PhD can be viewed as very useful even in the eyes of some employer outside of theoretical physics research.

But this interconnectivity also means that there's an awful lot of grunt work which needs to be done before you get a strong enough mathematical capability to tackle the sorts of problems people find 'cool'.

Of course this is all a bit of an aside, I felt it was important to highlight just how long a slog it can be to get to what would be considered a 'non-weak' mathematical capability. Even getting a degree doesn't get you very far. And you're not even there. So when you say your maths isn't necessarily weak I think you don't realise the scale which actual mathematical physicists work on. If someone says to me "I'm not weak at PDEs" then I'd expect them to have a working understanding of basic PDE theory, be able to solve many classic type problems, know about common methods and be able to pass a reasonable exam on them, typically at least 2nd, more often 3rd or 4th year level.

Since your mathematical capabilities are not even sufficient to notice the glaring mistake you and Hu are peddling I'm sorry (well, not really) to say that your evaluating capabilities for your maths skills is just as rose tinted as for your physics skills (or lack thereof).

And I'll close with a piece of advice : Don't try to argue about the units thing. Just put up your hands, say "I was wrong" and walk away. If you don't then you're going to be arguing about something so basic that anyone here who remembers their high school/secondary school physics lessons will know you're wrong. At least when you talk about the stress-energy tensor only a few people have worked with it. In the case of units a much wider group of people will see your mistake and unwillingness to swallow your pride and accept the calamitous mistake you've made.

3. Will nanotechnology and quantum computing allow us to put String Theory to the test? as i am new to this forum, anyone let me know about this.

4. No, they won't. Quantum computing is well within the realms of standard quantum mechanics, the problems are mostly technical rather than theoretical. Nanotechnology has many aspects not yet understood even theoretically, due to issues with things like quantum chemistry calculations, but it would serve as an interesting testing ground for several theoretical concepts string theory also includes. For example, graphene is an essential component of many nanotechnologies and to describe the behaviour of electrons in it you use a 2 dimensional field theory. 2 dimensional field theories come up a lot in string theory, so there's a lot of cross over in terms of mathematical machinary.

That's an example of how doing some very abstract mathematical research in string theory can prepare someone for doing more 'down to earth' physics without having to retrain. It's an example of how Farsight's regular claim string theory PhDs are black marks on CVs and useless is patently false.

5. Where was I?

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
... c is a speed, it has units of length per unit time. Since it isn't dimensionless it's value changes when you change units. For example if you work in units of length 'light seconds' and units of time 'seconds' then c=1. If you work in units of furlongs and weeks then c = $9 \times 10^{11}$ (ask Google, it can change well known constants to be in almost any units you can think of). The whole $c = 3 \times 10^{8}$ is because we use metres and seconds. Neither of them have any fundamental meaning, for example 1 metre was originally defined as the distance from the North Pole to the Equator via Paris. Hardly a universal concept and thus anything which relies on using metres as your units is going to reduce to laughable numerology. This is why real physicists remove all units at the start so not to fall into such a trap.
Try working out the fine structure constant $\alpha = \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi \varepsilon_0)\hbar c}$ using furlongs per week. If you change c you have to change everything else to get back to the 1/137 ratio. NB: it's a running constant anyhow, tending to 1/128. It isn't constant.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
This invalids the notion of c^½ as it has gibberish units. Of course if you took some other speed v and considered (c/v)^½ that would be fine, it really is a dimensionless quantity not dependent on your choice of units. So already what you have said is 'stunning' is invalidated. The paper, and you, equate c^½ to 3pi r. There's no 'n' in that to have any unit cancelling role, you've equated something with 'units' of sqrt(metres) per sqrt(seconds) to something with no units. Obviously a mass ratio doesn't care what units you are in but c^½ does. If I work in furlongs per week then c^½ = $\sqrt{9 \times 10^{11}} \approx 948683$, which is quite different from $\sqrt{3 \times 10^{8}} \approx 1,750$ your numerology needs.
You could be similarly dismissive about the e² in the fine structure constant, and say "charge squared is nonsense". It isn't, it's there because of the interaction between one charged particle and another. Ditto for $E = m c^2$. The c cquared isn't nonsense. The power is there in the wavelength expression because in the electron it's light interacting with itself, and the electron has spin half. Inflate the torus to a quasi-spherical apple and thing of it as a 4 pi sphere being swept by two concurrent orthogonal rotations.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Then there's the other equation, λ = 4π / n c^1½ . This at least makes some effort to deal with units by saying n is some dimensional quantity with numerical value 1. Except it's value would have to change depending on the units then so if I changed to furlongs and weeks the numerical value of n would have to change, just as the numerical value of the speed of light would. Of course if we weren't working in metres and seconds you could still make λ = 4π / n c^1½ valid but obviously you'd be putting in some unpleasant value for n and then it would be obviously just a twiddle factor. However, you and the author have kidded yourselves it's okay because the value is approximately 1 in metres and seconds. Since n becomes something unpleasant in any other units it is obvious this is not valid.
See what I said yesterday. Light moves as fast as it moves, and we use the motion of light to derive our units of length and time. It doesn't matter how fast it moves, we use the motion of light to derive the second and the metre and then use them to measure the speed of light. So we always get the same value.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Thus the conclusion is this is nothing but numerology, unless you wish to claim that metres and seconds are somehow fundamental scales? I hope even you aren't that daft.
I've already said metres and seconds are derived from the motion of light. That's the "fundamental scale". Think it through.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
This highlights something you have even had the hypocrisy to say to other people, the quote by Feynman that the easiest person to fool is yourself. You called those results 'stunning' because you believe them to show how the qualitative concepts you find palatable lead to something physically insightful. You have fooled yourself. And the reason you've been able to fool yourself is something I've already commented on, you lack the experience and working understanding of someone who actually does physics. Immediately on seeing something like c^½ = 3pi r I think "Something is wrong there", it's an automatic response...
Yes, it is automatic. If you were thinking about this you'd be looking at the evidence I've referred to and saying "Farsight, isn't there an n in r = c^½ / 3π ?". You don't do that, you dismiss everything.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
As just explained, you are looking for anything to give justification to your whims and personal opinion, including to take pot shots at string theory. You are failing to do the necessary fact checking before hand. Whether you're doing this because you're incapable of doing even the most rudimentary secondary school maths and physics or whether it's because you're just dishonest and intellectually lazy I don't know. The clear fact is that you lack the capabilities and understanding to properly evaluate even very basic physics. Instead you're going with what superficial things sound good to you, lifting equations you don't understand from sources which you haven't checked the accuracy of.
And you're justifying your dismissal with abuse.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
If you're going to be saying "My work produces this" then you really should be checking whether what you've lifted from someone else's work is accurate. If you're unable to understand it and check it yourself you have no business claiming your work produces such outputs. Since you didn't check it you obviously haven't been able to derive it from some set of base postulates your work is built from. By mindlessly lifting someone else's work without checking it you're showing you're not very bright, both in terms of mathematical physics capabilities to do the calculations yourself and in terms of just lifting other work wholesale.
Like this. It harms your case.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Checking the calculations for yourself is something any scientific researcher would get into the habit of doing. I can spend days working through a paper I don't understand, trying to get from equation 1 to equation 2, then to 3 etc, even if all I'm ultimately going to do is make use of the final result. If I don't understand the conditions on the derivation of the result, the assumptions it relies on, I have no business using it because it'll be building a house on non-existent foundations. That's precisely what you've done. You were peddling precisely that paper 5 years ago and in all that time you haven't checked the calculations? Any honest competent researcher would consider that pretty disgraceful.
The foundations are the hard scientific evidence. Pair production, electron diffraction, Einstein-de Haas, and so on. How much evidence do you need before you'll even consider the idea that the electron is a standing wave structure? No evidence will suffice, will it? It's all just "hand waving" and "numerology" to you.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
No, it doesn't because it offers something more than numerology. String theory research is done precisely because we can't just wave our arms and say "Gravity + quantum mechanics is solved", the devil is in the details.
Research? It's "research" that has gone on for decades and consumed thousand of man years of effort for diddly squat. That isn't research, that's intellectual arrogance, and it has cost physics dear.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
And you know damn well it's provided more than nothing. I know you know because I've told you on many occasions some examples. Earlier in this thread you LIED and said people like Prom and I weren't willing to talk about string theory for the reason it provides nothing. Let this be the final time I need to remind you you're wrong on that.
List the testable predictions of string theory.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
String theory gives first order quantum gravity corrections to general relativity. It provides a single framework for cosmology, gravity and quantum field theory. It allows study and accurate modelling of condensed matter physics like quark-gluon plasmas. It's the origin of MHV methods, which allow a huge reduction in gluon-gluon scattering calculations. It gives meson spectra in a non-perturbative domain, something we can't do in QCD. And all of those are things quantitative and logically derived from the initial starting assumptions of string theory, not just the product of arm waving and laughable numerology. The fact you are so impressed by 2 pieces of numerology but ignore being able to study strongly coupled nucleon plasmas shows that you aren't being honest in your evaluations. You're looking for a reason, any reason, to dismiss things in the mainstream because you need to try to convince people to look at your work. You have lied repeatedly about string theory and string theorists. The number of times you've repeated the same retorted nonsense is ridiculous. The only explanations are either you have some issue with medium term memory or you're knowingly lying.
I'm not lying, I'm standing up for physics.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
I think it's a crime that someone can spend most of a decade talking about physics and not be able to spot a mistake so basic a child could see it. Clearly the work you linked to is worthy of rejection. Unfortunately you couldn't see it, you even trumpeted something fundamentally flawed as 'stunning'. You weave this narrative about how string theory is dying, it'll be a black mark on people's CVs, it doesn't accomplish anything, but the foundations you use to build this story are a mixture of ignorance and lies. You obviously lack the critical evaluation skills to distinguish valid from vapid. How you haven't picked up some knowledge just by pure osmosis I don't know. Perhaps you don't want to, lest you realise how far short of viable your work falls?
I've learned an awful lot.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
This post isn't 'a rage'. I'm perfectly calm and relaxed, I'm just explaining myself fully. If your attention span isn't long enough or you don't want to hear criticism then so be it.
I'm perfectly willing to hear criticism, I'm here aren't I? But your criticism is based upon dismissal of scientific evidence and is way too personal. You should try to be more objective.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
The only thing I find somewhat annoying is how completely unrealistic and warped your views are. For years you've been trumpeting that paper and not seen such a basic mistake. I simply cannot believe you're that bad at basic maths and physics. Rejecting that paper doesn't require rage, it requires basic understanding of physics.
I'm far more grounded in reality than you are. I look at the evidence and say What's going on in pair production and annihilation? Why can we diffract an electron? What's the significance of its Compton wavelength and its spin half?. You don't give a fig about any of that, and when I try to get you to look at it you start being abusive.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
The reason I type long posts to you is that I have a lot to say to you. You've spent so much of your time and money on stroking your ego and accomplished nothing. Someone needs to explain to you the reality of your situation, to explain just how mistaken and poorly informed you are. If you're reading this and imagining me yelling, don't. Imagine me instead saying it in a slightly soft voice as someone trying to explain a mistake to a 5 year old. Slow and patient, having to reiterate so many things.
That's how I speak to you.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
*sigh* See this is the problem, you have this completely skewed view of the world in your head.
I don't. You do. You elevate mathematical abstraction above empirical evidence.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
What do I have to fear? What do I have to be jealous over?
You don't have to fear anything. But you sound very much as if you're afraid of being shown to be wrong.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
I have a degree, masters and PhD in subjects I love. I have a job doing research for a great employer, I'm even head of the research group. I get to work on things I couldn't have dreamed about even 5 years ago, during my PhD. I have respect from coworkers and employers for the novelty and volume of my research.
I'm genuinely happy for you. Really. I know too many people with physics qualifications who aren't in physics any more.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
The group I work in rejects 99+% of applicants, all of whom have doctorates. Clearly others have evaluated my capabilities and found them more than sufficient. So please, what do I have to be jealous of you?
My intelligence, and my ability to explain things that you can't.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
You can't even do GCSE physics. You have not had any work accepted for publication in a reputable journal. You pay to try to bring your work to the attention of actual researchers, while they pay me.
But I'm not abusive.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
I am not dismissing you out of jealousy or anger, I'm giving the reasons why your claims are laughable. Yes, laughable. You don't insight anger or jealousy, you are literally a joke to myself and a few of my friends. We laugh out loud at some of the things you say.
LOL, it's incite. But of a Freudian slip eh? Tell your friends about that will you? And tell them I said this: Farsight is my name, insight is my game. LOL! I like that! Oh, and tell your friends I said this too: I'll be having the last laugh.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Honestly, there is nothing at all maths and physics related where I have any reason to be jealous or angry about in regards to you. Honestly, I can't think of anything. Please enlighten me as to what you think I have to be jealous or angry about.

I think the fact you automatically assume that because I'm able to explain myself in detail that I'm on a 'tirade' says more about you than you realise.

Besides, I just explained why what you posted was pseudoscience, nothing but numerology. I didn't make threats beyond the duties I have as a moderator to make people answer questions when they are asked relevant ones and to stop trolling when I see it.

I really do think you need to get past this view you have of other people. You aren't perceived as a threat, you're perceived as a joke. Unfortunately that joke has warn thin http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=11824&st=15]after 5+ years[/url]. How you keep going, despite all the rejections, pointing and laughing and explanations of your mistakes, is a mystery and not in a good way.
What explanations of my mistakes? All you've ever done is find some specious reason to dismiss all the scientific evidence and logic. You're fooling yourself that you haven't.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
A rational person, an intellectually honest and grounded person, wouldn't be acting as you are.
I'm rational, honest, and grounded. And I know that shifting conviction is like shifting a tooth.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
This constant "Oh you are all just jealous/threatened, I'm so farsighted!" thing is, frankly, worrying.
No it isn't. My tenacity is worrying. The evidence is worrying. Now stop being abusive and stick to the physics.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Originally Posted by Farsight
OK. So, what are strings made of?
I don't know. I don't pretend to have answers I don't have. My inability to answer that question doesn't negate what I've just said or the numerology nature of what you posted. Even if string theory were killed tomorrow your work would still be unscientific nonsense.
Not so. Here's why: What are electrons made of?

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Vern has already demonstrated he has no problems making claims he can't back up. More arm waving with no substance. If you see in him another kindred spirit fine. Perhaps you can band together and start your own journal.
Vern's a good bloke. He's honest, he's sincere, he's selfless, and he doesn't go round being abusive. Whilst he and I don't agree about all the details, I think that in terms of the bigger picture, he's right, and his name will go down in the history books.

6. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
...That's an example of how abstract mathematical research in string theory can prepare someone for doing more 'down to earth' physics without having to retrain. It's an example of how Farsight's regular claim string theory PhDs are black marks on CVs and useless is patently false.
I didn't say that. A physics PhD isn't a black mark on a CV. What I said is that somebody looking for a research post in physics would be better off doing something other than a string theory PhD. If it was say phenomenology they'd increase their chances of getting a post. That wasn't the situation five years ago. See Woit's blog re hirings.

7. Originally Posted by przyk
Really? You know linear algebra, real and complex analysis, tensor calculus, Riemannian geometry, and at least a smattering of group theory and a bit about matrix Lie algebras? Because that's what mainstream theories are defined in terms of, and that's the math you'll need to understand in order to recognise that some new proposal is capable of reproducing all the results of mainstream theories.
No, I don't know all that, but I'm no dummy. My formal maths education goes past A level and there's the internet if I need to look something up. My focus however is on the scientific evidence.

Originally Posted by przyk
Originally Posted by Farsight
and because the papers match the scientific evidence of pair production, electron diffraction, Einstein-de Haas, etc, and tie in with Einstein's E=mc² paper where a radiating body loses mass.
But all of these are already accounted for by mainstream theories, among many other things that you and the authors you cite have an annoying habit of ignoring completely.
Not satisfactorily. If you dispute that, try describing what happens in pair production. How does an electromagnetic wave transform into two particles with mass and charge that can be diffracted? In your own time.

Originally Posted by przyk
And the reality here is one of the biggest problems I see with your attitude to science, as well as some of the authors you cite. Suppose I draw a table of what some mainstream theory can explain, like this:
Code:
             |      H atom       |    Double slit    |    Mandel dip     |  Bell violation   | Pair production   |   Electron mass
-------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------
Mainstream  |         X         |         X         |         X         |         X         |         X         |
This is oversimplified, because the Standard Model can explain a much larger range of observed behaviour than I put in the table. But you get the idea.
Sure. But can you really explain the double slit experiment? Without resorting to a multiverse or to a godlike act of observation? Magic and mysticism is not allowed.

Originally Posted by przyk
Now let's say for argument's sake someone comes along and claims that they can explain the electron mass. Then in order to be impressed I need to see it stack up against the mainstream it is competing with like this:
Code:
             |      H atom       |    Double slit    |    Mandel dip     |  Bell violation   | Pair production  |   Electron mass
-------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|------------------|-------------------
Mainstream  |         X         |         X         |         X         |         X         |        X         |
New proposal |         X         |         X         |         X         |         X         |        X         |         X
But in my experience, what we tend to see from you are a bunch of disparate proposals that stack up like this:
Code:
             |      H atom       |    Double slit    |    Mandel dip     |  Bell violation   | Pair production  |   Electron mass
-------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|------------------|-------------------
Mainstream  |         X         |         X         |         X         |         X         |        X         |
New proposal |                   |                   |                   |                   |        x         |
I.e. they recover some result we can already explain, only in less detail, and ignoring everything else we use mainstream theories for. Obviously, that's not impressive.
You're applying the wrong logic, przyk. If somebody comes up with something that ticks all the boxes, you'll be impressed, but then you'll be out of a job. Nobody will need you any more. And nobody will trust you any more.

Originally Posted by przyk
I've already addressed this with you in the past: logically, there can be no such thing as a theory that explains everything.
But there can be a theory that combines say optics and gravity. Light bends.

Originally Posted by przyk
It is silly to complain that spin or anything else is intrinsic in a theory, unless you have actual evidence that it is not.
I do. It's the Einstein-de Haas effect. It "demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". Imagine a glass clock. It features a clockwise rotation. But go round the back and it looks anticlockwise. Now spin the clock like a coin using your left hand. You can no longer say whether the first rotation is clockwise or anticlockwise. But you can say that this spin is different to what you get if you spin the clock like a coin with your right hand. Replace the clock with a sphere of light, and then replace the sphere with a fat torus like an apple for the spin ½. Let's say you're representative of the mainstream: you don't need to be impressed by that, you need to be interested in it for physic's sake.

Originally Posted by przyk
At least a few things have to be intrinsic or axiomatic in any theory anyway, and if it is not spin, it will be something else.
The ideal is to minimise the axioms. For example one of the axioms of the original SR was the constant speed of light. A better version of SR would do away with this, and provide a clear explanation of why we always measure the local speed of light to be the same. I like The Other Meaning of Special Relativity in this respect, and the way it links to quantum mechanics via the wave nature of matter. We can diffract electrons, and neutrons. It isn't pseudoscience. Nor is pair production, and nor is the orbital. See this bit from the wiki article: "1.The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves. The lowest possible energy an electron can take is therefore analogous to the fundamental frequency of a wave on a string. Higher energy states are then similar to harmonics of the fundamental frequency".

Originally Posted by pryzk
A lot of people inexperienced with science and physics seem to get this one wrong.
I'd venture to say that a lot of people in physics don't examine their axioms closely enough.

Originally Posted by pryzk
AlphaNumeric is actually doing a very thorough job describing things you and some authors you cite are doing wrong.
No he isn't. He's dismissing patent evidence and piling on the abuse. I'm the one who refers to scientific evidence and describes things that aren't axiomatic after all. All he's doing is dissing the competititon.

I have to go. One last thing: much as I like talking about the things above, we really ought to stay on topic.

8. Originally Posted by Farsight
My focus however is on the scientific evidence.
And like it or not, this is where the average physicist leaves you in the dust. You boast about referring to a handful of experiments. But I know mainstream theories. I can boast knowing a quantitative summary of countless thousands of experiments. We're not even on the same playing field in this regard. I have orders of magnitude more to work with than you do. Any physicist does.

This, by the way, is a tipoff that many of the authors you cite are amateurs who don't really understand what they should be doing. They shouldn't be trying to explain one or two experiments, because there are so many of those that I'll always be able to point out the vast majority of experiments and behaviour that they haven't dealt with at all. What they should be doing is trying to recover mainstream theories in their entirety, as approximations. Then they'd automatically have explained most of the history of experimental physics in one fell swoop.

Not satisfactorily. If you dispute that, try describing what happens in pair production. How does an electromagnetic wave transform into two particles with mass and charge that can be diffracted? In your own time.
How is that "not satisfactory"? I could criticise any theory you or anyone else could come up with in exactly the same way. Ultimately, every physical theory is just a description of what's going on. The point is just to come up with as condensed a description (i.e. fewest axioms) as possible, and quantum physics does exceedingly well in this regard.

Sure. But can you really explain the double slit experiment?
To the extent that anything can be explained, quantum physics already does this.

You're applying the wrong logic, przyk. If somebody comes up with something that ticks all the boxes, you'll be impressed, but then you'll be out of a job. Nobody will need you any more. And nobody will trust you any more.
What? If my job depended on not all the boxes being ticked (it doesn't) and someone ticked all the boxes in one go, then I damn well should be out of a job.

It is silly to complain that spin or anything else is intrinsic in a theory, unless you have actual evidence that it is not.
I do.
No you don't. The Einstein-de Haas effect shows that spin is a type of angular momentum in the sense that it contributes to the angular momentum conservation law. Nothing more. I went through this with you in the last few pages of a previous thread, culminating in this post.

The ideal is to minimise the axioms.
That's only half the story. The ideal is to minimise the axioms while still being able to explain at least as many phenomena.

For example one of the axioms of the original SR was the constant speed of light. A better version of SR would do away with this, and provide a clear explanation of why we always measure the local speed of light to be the same.
It's only an improvement if a) the explanation actually works and b) the explanation needs less axioms than the one it is replacing. And in this case you're talking about doing better than one axiom.

I like The Other Meaning of Special Relativity in this respect, and the way it links to quantum mechanics via the wave nature of matter.
I've already rebutted that paper a couple of times, specifically about half way through this post and in the discussion following this post. If you were referring to the idea of everything being made of waves, then that doesn't imply invariance of c because not all wave equations are Lorentz invariant.

I'd venture to say that a lot of people in physics don't examine their axioms closely enough.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. I've seen you accuse theoretical physicists of basically being mathematicians before. If there's one thing they're going to grasp well, it's the logical and axiomatic structure of their theories.

No he isn't. He's dismissing patent evidence and piling on the abuse. I'm the one who refers to scientific evidence and describes things that aren't axiomatic after all.
AlphaNumeric is doing an excellent job explaining why your explanations aren't actually as good as you make them out to be.

9. Originally Posted by Farsight
Try working out the fine structure constant $\alpha = \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi \varepsilon_0)\hbar c}$ using furlongs per week. If you change c you have to change everything else to get back to the 1/137 ratio. NB: it's a running constant anyhow, tending to 1/128. It isn't constant.
Firstly the fine structure constant is a dimensionless object so it doesn't matter whether you use metres or furlongs. That's why physicists use it, it doesn't matter the units.

As for running that's to do with the energy scale and something entirely different. Remember Farsight, you aren't going to be able to just throw out buzzwords and get away with it. Some of us paid attention in school.

Besides, none of that negates the fundamental flaw in your 'stunning' result I pointed out. You provided something which is dimensionless, the proton-electron mass ratio, being equal to something which has units, a multiple of the square root of c. This is flat out wrong. The fact you don't grasp this shows just how poor your physics understanding is. For all your talk of understanding fundamental concepts you couldn't grasp something a child is taught!

Originally Posted by Farsight
You could be similarly dismissive about the e² in the fine structure constant, and say "charge squared is nonsense".
No, I couldn't. Well done on not understanding.

Originally Posted by Farsight
See what I said yesterday. Light moves as fast as it moves, and we use the motion of light to derive our units of length and time. It doesn't matter how fast it moves, we use the motion of light to derive the second and the metre and then use them to measure the speed of light. So we always get the same value.
You still don't get it. It doesn't matter how you measure the length scale in practice the fact remains you cannot equate something without units to something with units. It's meaningless. It's like saying 5 seconds = 12. 12 what? To make sense it would have to be 12 units of time. You can say 1 minutes = 60 seconds because they both involve units of time. You cannot say 60 seconds = 60. If I change units of time from seconds to minutes such an equation would become 1 minute = 60. Demonstrably nonsensical.

I told you, you should just walk away but you couldn't help yourself.

Originally Posted by Farsight
I've already said metres and seconds are derived from the motion of light. That's the "fundamental scale". Think it through.
Wow, you really think metres and seconds are fundamental scales? Wow....

Originally Posted by Farsight
Yes, it is automatic. If you were thinking about this you'd be looking at the evidence I've referred to and saying "Farsight, isn't there an n in r = c^½ / 3π ?". You don't do that, you dismiss everything.
Except there isn't an n. And if there is it is just a twiddle factor designed to hide numerology, as Rpenner has explained.

Originally Posted by Farsight
And you're justifying your dismissal with abuse.
No, I justified it by explaining why you were wrong. The fact you want an excuse to avoid facing up to your mistake doesn't negate the mistake.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Like this. It harms your case.
No, it doesn't hurt my case. If all I gave was abuse then it would but I explain why you are wrong and doing nothing but numerology. I note that nowhere in your lengthy reply to you actually address that.

Originally Posted by Farsight
The foundations are the hard scientific evidence. Pair production, electron diffraction, Einstein-de Haas, and so on. How much evidence do you need before you'll even consider the idea that the electron is a standing wave structure? No evidence will suffice, will it? It's all just "hand waving" and "numerology" to you.
It's demonstrably numerology. This isn't opinion, I've shown it!

Originally Posted by Farsight
Research? It's "research" that has gone on for decades and consumed thousand of man years of effort for diddly squat. That isn't research, that's intellectual arrogance, and it has cost physics dear.
What you mean to say is physics isn't going in the direction you deem appropriate. But then you've been shown to be a terrible judge of what is valid physics.

Originally Posted by Farsight
List the testable predictions of string theory.
The entirety of gravity. It's also provided unparalleled tools into the modelling and understanding of meson spectral structures and multi-gluon interactions.

I'd compile a list of things your work can do but currently it's utterly empty. In fact if you put forth those equations then you have shown you're doing nothing but numerology, pretty much falsifying your work. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Farsight
I've learned an awful lot.
And yet you appear to be unable to understand stuff children know.

Originally Posted by Farsight
I'm perfectly willing to hear criticism, I'm here aren't I? But your criticism is based upon dismissal of scientific evidence and is way too personal. You should try to be more objective.
I'm able to be both objective and give my opinion. I ask hacks to provide something formal because the evaluation of something formal can be done without needing to have personal opinion input. An equation is consistent or not. A quantitative prediction is either accurate or it is not. A model is either provided or it is not. Unfortunately you provide nothing of any quantitative value, seeing as numerology is not valid science. As such we have nothing to discuss but your opinion on things. Your opinion about the electron. Your opinion about photons. Your opinion about quantum phenomena. How can I be entirely objective when you can't offer anything but opinion?

Originally Posted by Farsight
I'm far more grounded in reality than you are.
Which of us produces viable solutions to real world physics problems and gets paid to do it by large multinational corporations and industries? I forget.....

Originally Posted by Farsight
I look at the evidence and say What's going on in pair production and annihilation? Why can we diffract an electron? What's the significance of its Compton wavelength and its spin half?. You don't give a fig about any of that, and when I try to get you to look at it you start being abusive.
I do give a 'fig' about it. I care whether someone can offer more than just opinion. Consider pair production and annihilation. You have no hands on experience with that experimentally and you have no understanding of any quantitative model which works. As such your understanding can only come through the filter of layperson explanations and simplified analogies others have provided you. You have no access to or understanding of quantitative details. Yet you try to tell those of us who do that you understand it more than anyone else in the world. You claim to understand electromagnetism more than Dirac, the man who got a Nobel Prize for his development of quantum mechanics and was instrumental in developing quantum electrodynamics, the most accurate and tested model of physical phenomena ever devised by human thought. And you claim you are more grounded in reality? You can't even get units right!

I make comments about your attitude and your mindset because you offer nothing else to talk about. You offer no working models for me to evaluate. You offer no quantitative predictions derived clearly and logically from postulates. You just have your opinion. Thus when I dismiss your opinion, with explanation, you take it as a personal attack. I'm sorry that you haven't provided anything but opinion and thus a rejection of your 'work' is a rejection of your views but that's your fault, not mine.

Originally Posted by Farsight
That's how I speak to you.
Except I'm able to demonstrate a working understanding and others, independently, verify my capabilities. You simply assume your views are worth listening to.

Originally Posted by Farsight
I don't. You do. You elevate mathematical abstraction above empirical evidence.
Remember how I said you invent this rose tinted view of the world and you seem to live within it? This is an example. The fact I value mathematical abstraction as a way to make precise predictions and models doesn't mean I am blind to all else. You keep complaining string theory makes no testable predictions but it's the formal mathematics which leads to quantitative testable predictions. And that is why you don't have any, you have an extremely poor grasp of mathematics and its application to physics. Seriously, I don't think you could pass an A Level exam in it.

Originally Posted by Farsight
You don't have to fear anything. But you sound very much as if you're afraid of being shown to be wrong.
I like to be shown to be wrong. It's when I learn the most. Intellectual sparing with people is quite enjoyable, it's part of the reason I like my job and respect people I work with, they can stand up to having their ideas challenged and aren't afraid to return the favour.

Much as you may wish to think you intimidate people, you don't. I suspect you realise this, deep down, given comments like how you could beat people at arm wrestling you once made. It's a "If I can't intimidate you intellectually I'll do it physically" mentality. I don't find you intellectually intimidating, I find you comical. I really do wonder if you're going through some mid life existential crisis and this "I've done stuff worth 4 Nobel Prizes!" thing is a way of convincing yourself you matter in the grand scheme of things.

Originally Posted by Farsight
My intelligence, and my ability to explain things that you can't.
Sorry, I don't see you as particularly intelligent. You might be slightly more intelligent than the average person on the street but nothing you've ever done makes me think you're particularly smart.

Originally Posted by Farsight
But I'm not abusive.
Do you think I treat you like I treat everyone? You and I have been around the block enough times that I deal with you in a particular way, knowing how you respond (or rather don't) to patient explanations alone. If I need to push a button or two with you to get a response so be it. I'm hardly calling for you to be killed or calling you dirty words, I just don't think you're particularly bright and I don't think you have a rational view of yourself and others.

Originally Posted by Farsight
LOL, it's incite. But of a Freudian slip eh? Tell your friends about that will you? And tell them I said this: Farsight is my name, insight is my game. LOL! I like that! Oh, and tell your friends I said this too: I'll be having the last laugh.
Now the question is, are you trying to put on a brave face, realising that people laugh at you, or do you really believe what you just said?

Like I said, people laugh at you.

Originally Posted by Farsight
No it isn't. My tenacity is worrying. The evidence is worrying. Now stop being abusive and stick to the physics.
I think when you come out with "and stick with the physics" it's code for "I can't come up with any retorts, let's change the subject".

Originally Posted by Farsight
Not so. Here's why: What are electrons made of?
This line you're taking reminds me of the theist "Where did everything come from? Can't answer? God did it!" line of argument. The fact you can offer a completely unjustified vapid answer to something someone else is honest enough to say "I don't know" to doesn't make your answer valid. It just makes you dishonest when you pretend someone else's inability to answer somehow elevates your random guess.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Vern's a good bloke. He's honest, he's sincere, he's selfless, and he doesn't go round being abusive. Whilst he and I don't agree about all the details, I think that in terms of the bigger picture, he's right, and his name will go down in the history books.
Is that how you see yourself? Going down in the history books? That's very telling. It's an historical fact that those who go looking for fame, particularly in science, rarely find it. Often the biggest breakthroughs are made by those who come upon them unexpectedly, working quietly and consistently. This shows how you don't really have an agenda of truth, you have an agenda of personal glory.

10. Wow, dimensional analysis.

I can't remember what it was like not to know how to do that, anymore.

11. Originally Posted by Farsight
OK. So, what are strings made of?
They are made of something extra special. And it too is a reality.

12. Strings are made out of classical objects.

13. Originally Posted by dummy_
Strings are made out of classical objects.
Braided fishing line? Or perhaps turtles?

14. Stringium.

Page 3 of 3 First 123

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•