String theory is advanced

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by dummy_, May 21, 2012.

  1. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    Not disheartening

    The miracle popped up somewhere around the time of Maxwell. We just haven't owned up to it yet. The exciting thing is that any of you who are proficient with string theory have the capacity to take physics to the next level by advancing the concept of that miracle.

    The miracle?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    A claim which not only has not evidence but actually has evidence against it. When accelerators started allowing us access to what we now called weak and strong forces people tried, really tried, to frame them in terms of electromagnetism but it just doesn't work.

    The strength of weak and strong forces don't scale in the same way as electromagnetism. There's additional degrees of freedom for quarks which would not be possible in electromagnetism as it would then violate the Exclusion Principle. Scattering cross sections show particular ratios which electromagnetism cannot explain. There are bosonic particles which carry force and interact directly with one another, something electromagnetism cannot explain.

    When weak and strong phenomena were observed people didn't just throw electromagnetism in the bin and say "Let's come up with something more complicated!". No, they tried to fit the data into pre-existing models but they couldn't. Making more models was a necessity, not a choice.

    Can you provide evidence for your claim? Can you explain why quark-quark interactions get weaker as you increase the energies involved, while electromagnetic interactions get stronger? Can you explain how flavour changing neutral currents occur, as photons cannot carry the necessary charges. Can you explain using electromagnetism the rather specific scattering cross section ratios in regards to quark interactions? Can you explain using electromagnetism the meson and baryon mass-hyper charge multiplets? In QCD they follow from an su(3) weight structure induced by su(2) subalgebras. The gauge potential of electromagnetism doesn't have such a structure, it's algebra is trivial so it cannot explain such things.

    You said it was done around the time of Maxwell but it is a very straight forward thing to show that electromagnetism doesn't have the underlying structures I just outlined. So while there might well be some crazy photon behaviour going on to give what we think are additional weak and strong forces those photons do not obey, at their most fundamental, the equations Maxwell wrote down. Hell, we know photons don't obey the equations Maxwell wrote down. Maxwell's equations are to photon physics what Newtonian models are to gravity, they are simple first order approximations and we have demonstrable proof they are insufficient to explain/model certain observed phenomena. Just as Newton was improved to relativity, Maxwell was improved to quantum electrodynamics. But QED still suffers the inability to model certain things, as I just outlined.

    So, can you provide something more than just opinion for your claim? Or are you just saying "It's all electromagnetism done by Maxwell" because anything post 1870 is too complicated for you and you don't understand?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    They (you) didn't try hard enough to explain nuclear forces in terms of EM. The dynamics of the strong force does fit the old idea exactly.

    All of relativity phenomena does exactly fit. I haven't seen evidence that anyone tried to explain it and failed.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Alphanumeric: Maxwell wasn't perfect, but you should read things like The Maxwell wave function of the photon by Raymer and Smith. And have a think about low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation. The pions don't last, forget 'em. Follow the decay chain down and chuck in an electron to annihilate the odd positron and you're left with neutrinos and photons. The strong force appears to have vanished. Think about the bag model, then open the bag out, flatten it into a sheet, and then send ripples running through it. The strong force hasn't vanished, it just isn't so obvious any more.
     
  8. dummy_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    45
    Strings are real.
     
  9. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Prove it. Let's see you do it, showing QED can exactly explain all the observed dynamics of things currently said to be the strong force.

    If you can't then you are just making stuff up to suit your preconceptions.

    Sorry Farsight, until you can disspell the STAGGERING hypocrisy of earlier posts you made by providing a single working model for a single real observed phenomenon based on your own work everything you say boils down "Because I say so". All the criticisms you've levelled at string theory in regards to it's applicability and real world relevance are many times more valid criticisms of your work.

    As for you quoting ArXiv papers at me I don't for one picosecond think you can read and understand the average ArXiv paper. Stick to the IT, physics obviously isn't for you, no matter how rose tinted the alternative universe your ego resides in might be.
     
  10. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    What are they made of?
     
  11. dummy_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    45
    Something extra special.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2012
  12. dummy_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    45
    Strings are made of something extra special.
     
  13. dummy_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    45
    Thoughts?
     
  14. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Farsight, I asked you a direct question. You asked for people to return to the physics and for what must be the 50th time in 5 years I asked you to provide some physics from your own work, to show that the criticisms you believe apply to string theory, ie a lack of real world applicability, do not apply to your own work.

    The fact you will deliberately ignore parts of my post which ask that while responding to other parts, a behaviour you do every time I ask you that while responding to other comments you've made, is extremely dishonest.

    Enough is enough, seeing as this is something I've been asking you for the better part of a decade. Next time you ignore my question when it's a relevant question, such as if you complain string theory provides no working models and I point out yours doesn't, then I'm handing you a warning. This behaviour of you dropping in, pretending to be 'farsighted', making hypocritical comments about string theory, ignoring direct relevant questions, lying about the supposed unwillingness of string theory PhDs here to discuss string theory, deluding yourself about the job implications it has for us and the many other wrong/dishonest/ignorant/hypocritical things you've done in this thread, has gone on long enough.

    This thread is not the first time your complaints/comments/claims have been countered. You claimed Prom and I amount to little more than programmers when I have told you otherwise on a previous occasion. Remember you asking me "Got a job? Is it in physics?" and my reply was "Yes and yes". You conveniently forgot that for this thread, just like you conveniently forget about string theory's gravity models and gauge theory contributions, while also ignoring your work's complete failure. The only redeeming feature of your work is that it hasn't had millions of man hours poured into it but that's because you're the only one putting any time into it.

    Start behaving with a little more intellectual honesty.
     
  15. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Alphanumeric: in answer to your question:
    My work is mainly a synthesis of the work of others. At one point I thought I'd done a lot of original thinking, but when I went back through everything I'd collected, I realised that nine times out of ten it was in something I'd read years before. But if you must have some kind of an example, one of the papers that impressed me was "Is the electron a photon with a toroidal topology?" by Williamson and van der Mark. The picture below is from it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There's a somewhat similar description in The nature of the electron by Qiu-Hong Hu. A medical doctor called Andrew Worsley wrote a paper that ties in with this. It’s Harmonic quintessence and the derivation of the charge and mass of the electron and the proton and quark masses. It's only in Physics Essays and like the other papers hasn't had much attention. But I think that's a real shame, because he’s applying spherical harmonics, usually applied to electron orbitals, to the particles themselves. Look at the depiction above, and imagine an "equatorial" rotation going round at c and another orthogonal "polar" rotation at ½c. It's a bit like a moebius strip, and the electron is a spin ½ particle where 720 degrees are required to return to the original state. He gives the electron Compton wavelength as λ = 4π / n c^1½ metres, where n is a dimensionality conversion factor with a value of 1. He also gives the proton/electron mass ratio r = c^½ / 3π. Both expressions are subject to small binding-energy adjustments, here's the numbers:

    4π = 12.566370
    c = 299792458
    c^½ = 17314.5158177
    4π / c^1½ = 12.566370 / (299792458 * 17314.5158177)
    λ = 2.420910 x 10ˉ¹² m
    Actual = 2.426310 x 10ˉ¹² m

    c^½ = 17314.5158177
    3π = 9.424778
    c^½ / 3π = 17314.5158177 / 9.424778
    r = 1837.12717877
    Actual = 1836.15267245

    This isn't "my work", but I think it's stunning, with explanatory power that takes the breath away. I think it leaves string theory in the dust. Despite all the thousands of man years of work that's gone into it, string theory offers nothing like this. I also think it's a crime against physics that people like Williamson, van der Mark, Hu, and Worsley have to struggle to get their ideas into print because of attitudes like yours. You can't answer the simple questions, you can't offer unique testable predictions, and when somebody else offers something promising, you fly into a rage. What is it? Hubris? Professional jealousy? Arrogance? Fear? Doubtless your retort will be another tiresome tirade, making threats and dismissing all this as pseudoscience. When it isn't pseudoscience. When string theory is pseudoscience, and a busted flush.

    OK. So, what are strings made of?

    PS: Not forgetting Vern. He worked a lot of this out twenty five years ago, and has been studiously ignored whilst M-theory quacks have peddled nonsense. Talk about injustice.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2012
  16. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    How do you know any of it is "stunning"? Like I said in the other thread, physics is a quantitive science, and a theory is only any good if it makes quantitative predictions with enough breadth and accuracy for it to be competitive with what we already have. But you've already admitted you're "weak" at math, so how do you know the papers you're so impressed by actually accomplish what they say they do? Also, how can you really gauge how impressive the results are compared with the results of theories we already have? How do you know you're not getting duped, or that the authors aren't duping themselves?

    You keep telling us to look at and admire certain papers, and I'd like to see you explain just how you're managing to be a good judge of the scientific merits of a paper without being able to judge their technical accuracy or how they stack up against the mainstream.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2012
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    So you don't have any base postulates you derive conclusions from, you combine the concepts you like from other people's work in an ad hoc manner, never showing that they can all be put in the same consistent quantitative framework.

    I know you like that work, the problem is all you've done is say "I had the same qualitative idea therefore I assume all the quantitative predictions someone else's work has must follow in mine". Again, you haven't shown these separate ideas can be put together consistently. This is something which is very important, just look at how GR and QFT both work very well in their respective domains and qualitatively they can be combined, hence the notion of gravitons, but when people actually formalise everything problems arise.

    If all the motivation you have for combining other people's concepts and qualitative results is "Because I like the sound of them" then you have nothing but arm waving. You aren't being led by the logic, following step by step from postulates to some inevitable and non-arbitrary conclusion. Instead you're just taping together things guided by your whims.

    If you think that is valid science then you're deeply mistaken about science.

    This illustrates another problem your 'work' has. You like the qualitative concept and so you'll just borrow the quantitative. You don't actually know how to do anything with spherical harmonics, you haven't anywhere shown that your initial suppositions lead to such things, you just assume that if someone filled in all the quantitative gaps such things would follow.

    Given you haven't got the mathematical capabilities/knowledge to understand and work with the differential equations involved in spherical harmonics you are lifting, without understanding or reason beyond your own opinion, work from other people.

    Likewise with spin. You're trying to present yourself as understanding this material, linking to it and using superficial analogies others have constructed via their understanding of the details, when you don't. As with spherical harmonics, you lack the mathematical grounding to understand the quantitative side, so you're unable to show all of this follows from any initial postulates you might have (which it's not even clear whether you do or not).

    Taping completely separate models together and calling it some 'explanation' is like someone saying "The Standard Model plus GR is a single theory of everything". Obviously it doesn't work in that case and you present no overarching quantitative framework to bind all these things together.

    I'm glad you think it's so stunning because you've just shown you, and the author, fail to grasp a very essential principle in physics taught to school children, namely that of correct units. Looks like you need a refresher.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 gained from years of working with actual physics equations, changing units, calculating predictions. You have none of that and so you are blind to even the most basic mistakes. The fact units is something taught to GCSE students makes it all the more delicious.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 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?

    Already addressed.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    *sigh* See this is the problem, you have this completely skewed view of the world in your head.

    What do I have to fear? What do I have to be jealous over? 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. 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? 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.

    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.

    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.

    A rational person, an intellectually honest and grounded person, wouldn't be acting as you are. This constant "Oh you are all just jealous/threatened, I'm so farsighted!" thing is, frankly, worrying.

    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.

    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. :rolleeys:
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2012
  18. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Looks like przyk has a similar point to raise. Unfortunately I imagine this will cause Farsight to think there's some ingrained prejudice against him. After all, when many people on many forums independently raised the same criticisms of his 'Relativity +' he didn't see this as a sign the criticisms aren't valid but rather everyone else was jealous or too entrenched in their mindset. And here we are 5 years later, everyone else has moved on in their research and Farsight is still peddling the same snake oil....
     
  19. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Pryzk's points are expressed in a civil fashion, and are a credit to this forum. Yours aren't.

    Because my maths isn't that weak, 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 - plus the original Maxwell where he talking of "molecular vortices" and a screw mechanism.

    Because they match the scientific evidence and have an explanatory power which other theories lack. 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. They provide ample information to make it clear that some of the other theories, or at least their interpretations, are doing the duping.

    When I do explain something and show how it stacks up against the evidence, people like you say things like "I doubt entering this thread is a good idea" and people like Alphanumeric boot it psuedoscience without addressing it. Some elements of "the mainstream" brooks no dissent, and is enraged by it, as you can see from Alphanumeric's further anonymous rant above. Most unbecoming.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2012
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Farsight, I typed a lot to enter into a discussion with you. If you're unable to retort my demonstration what you quoted is pseudoscience then you should admit it. But trying to portray a long thought out reply where I explain in detail why you are wrong is dishonest of you.

    I also explained why you consistently misrepresent people and you go and do it immediately in your next post.

    I also wanted to know what I have to be jealous or angry about. You keep trying to portray me as someone who is jealous and angry at you and who is abhorred by deviations from the mainstream. The fact I'm able to compose lengthy lucid replies and explain my position shows otherwise.

    Please tell me what I have to be jealous about. I honestly see nothing in you which I have to be jealous of, please enlighten me.

    Now this is a case of being wilfully dishonest. I did address your post and I didn't kick it to pseudo. The problem is that the flaw in your post was very simple, undeniable and you're unable to retort it.

    You don't simultaneously say "AlphaNumeric never addressed what I say" and acknowledge a long response from me.

    If you're unable to retort my demonstration what you posted is pseudoscience at least have the honesty to admit it. Other people can read the posts, it's not like if you ignore me my posts are invisible to everyone. If you really want to be taken seriously as a physicist you need to learn to accept criticism and accept you can be wrong.

    If you're clearly dishonest like that again I'm giving you a warning. This is precisely the behaviour I said you'd done enough of. If you can't response to lucid and clearly explained criticism and questions there's no reason to allow you to post here.
     
  21. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Pretty much, though use the phrase logically consistent rather than ad-hoc. At one point I thought I'd worked it all out myself, but then I checked up saying Was that my idea? No. Was that my idea? No. I wasn't left with much. I reckoned I'd added 15% by joining the dots.

    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.

    Because the graviton is the wrong qualitative notion. It's easy to understand why.

    My motivation is the dumbing down I see, and your "arm waving" insult reminds me that I've got work to do.

    Oh here we go.

    I don't "lift" other people's work, I publicise it.

    I understand spin, and the harmonics enough for the electron. It's really simple, but you aren't listening.

    No, but others will. It's coming.

    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. That's what harmonics is all about.

    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.
     
  22. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Huh? You demand something of me, then you dismiss it as arm-waving pseudoscience?

    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?
     
  23. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    With the retreat into the useless picture and the numerology, isn't Farsight plagiarizing his own sterile posts of the past?

    From October 2011:
    http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2844337#post2844337
    http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2846910#post2846910
    From December 2011:
    http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2866366#post2866366
    http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2869875#post2869875
    From January 2012:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2888264#post2888264
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2888276#post2888276

    Naturally, the numerology was debunked -- it was a side show that depended on massaging expressions with constants until they were close to certain SI unit quantities and then knocking out the scaffolding. Thus, these numerological tricks of Andrew Worsley are completely sterile when they come to physical relations in the universe.

    http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2867130#post2867130
    http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2868144#post2868144

    And the torodial motion indicated in the picture by Williamson and van der Mark is not a natural motion on the surface of a toroid -- it is just a pretty picture.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2888770#post2888770
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2889363#post2889363
     

Share This Page