Comedy courtesy of Farsight

In what capacity? Did you pay for it? Was it a book review? Was some recognised scientist singing its praises?

I see advertisements for creationist books, doesn't make them valid science.

But what is 'your bit'? What exactly are you accomplishing? All you seem to be doing is trying to convince lay persons you're onto something, which is completely pointless because science isn't defined by the popular views of laypersons (as per my example of religion).

Again, in what capacity. Anyone can buy article space, getting a spontaneous mention due to scientific merit is harder. And if your work is so worthwhile why are you confined to adverts in magazines? Even if its a magazine by the IoP its a long way from being published in a reputable peer reviewed journal.

Yes, success is always just around the corner. Zephir said the same. As did SolidStateUniverse. And Terry Giblin. And every other hack whose failed to get anywhere. You just happen to be willing to plow your own money into vanity publishing.

Ah, you're not in it for yourself, you're just fighting the good fight for all those 'unsung heroes'. And if you happen to get 1 (or 5...) Nobel Prizes along the way, as you previously proclaimed, then so be it. You're such an unselfish giving person John.

If you'd got it published in a journal it'd be hosted for you and given a proper reference and catalogued and available for decades, if not centuries, to come.

Such a shame you got turned down by every journal. Even more a shame you didn't take me up on that bet I offered where I said you'd get rejected from any reputable journal. I guess you needed the money to spend on vanity publishing....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I could be in umpteen journals, George, I could be on Horizon. And you'd still be complaining. All the more so I imagine.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This thread has the great potential to get locked without any discussion.

I could say that if its all a matter of time, there's no real reason for, Farsight, not to answer any questions anyway. But then thats not a question its an argument. Which leaves any real questions unanswered or overlooked.

So, we could take baby steps? :truce:

Farsight, you claim that your book is overturning theories that have no experimental proof.

A starting question is: What ones and how? Your book should have to supply testable predictions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is a genuine question: why are you not then? If you've done what you claim I can't see any reason at all why you'd not want to get that published in a journal and get the recognition you deserve.

As much as I like horizon, being on it is not a guarantee of sanity, never mind having a cogent scientific theory.

 

I would appreciate a summary, in 100 words or less, of the most significant portions of your pet theory Farsight. Remember, I'm a layman so use simple language. Is that possible? I just don't feel comfortable watching you being interviewed by the goofball that was talking about anti-gravity drones taking down the 9/11 towers...

 

Keep telling yourself that Farsight. There's plenty of things in journals I am not 100% in agreement with but I don't deny that the authors have at least met basic standards of detail and reasoning. You haven't. You're looking for excuses as to why people don't embrace your work, so you tell yourself that said people (such as myself) are just 'negative Nellys', denouncing anything not in line with their world view. Ironically this is a lot more applicable to people like yourself, since you're immune to reasoned argument.

I asked you many many times to provide just one real physical phenomenon you can accurately model and to demonstrate the derivation of that model. In the years since you've been claiming all you have about your work you've not managed to answer that. I reject your work because it fails to meet any kind of reasonable scientific standard. If you want to tell yourself that means I reject everything then you're deluding yourself.

Can I take from your silence about the IoP magazine that it was a paid advertisement? Its just I imagine if it was a review written by an impartial and knowledgeable physicist you'd be more than happy to answer. Your way of being 'economic' with the truth yet trying to imply groups like the IoP are interested in your work is dishonest Farsight. And good scientists shouldn't need to be dishonest.

 

I wouldn't say my little book is overturning such theories. It's more a case of every little bit helps.

String theory and cold-dark-matter WIMPs spring to mind. It does this by explaining things like energy and the nature of space and how gravity works.

It's an easy-reading popular science book, largely postdiction, with a lot of negatives like "no FTL travel" and "no time travel". There aren't many positive testable predictions. For example, it explains mass and thus why the Higgs mechanism is not reponsible for mass. But it doesn't explain the mass ratios or predict any more baryons. It isn't that sort of book.

My initial answer is because I haven't tried of late. But I haven't tried of late because I'm aware of many professionals who find their papers are rejected by certain journals for dubious reasons such as "of little interest". This is despite their credentials and the rigor and the references. It's a complex issue, but see In Search of the Black Swans for an introduction.

Thinking of certain past episodes: agreed.

The advertisement was paid for. The article I wrote was accepted and published on its merits. I assigned copyright to IoP publishing, so you'll forgive me if I don't repeat it here.

 

I can't summarise it down to 100 words, but here's something that is hopefully useful.

In barest essence energy is a volume of stressed space.

Mass is a measure of the amount of energy that is not moving in aggregate with respect to the observer.

Charge is topological. The electromagnetic field is a frame-dragged region of twisted space, and if we move through it we perceive a turning action which we then identify as a magnetic field.

Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It's a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. So time doesn’t really flow and we don’t really travel through it.

A gravitational field is region of inhomogeneous space. The coordinate speed of light varies because vacuum impedance varies, resulting in gravitational time dilation and attraction through refraction.

Provided we conserve angular momentum via pair production, we can trap stress-energy in "knot" configurations, creating particles with mass and charge. The electron is a trivial knot with a turn and a twist. The positron is the same knot with the opposite chirality.

The proton is a trefoil knot with three turns and a twist. The neutron is the same plus a twist and two turns. The neutrino is a turn, a mere running loop, and muon and tau neutrinos have more loops, as do the muon and tau themselves. The antiparticles are "mirror-image" knots that go the other way, and the unstable particles are not true knots, so they always come undone.

We always measure the in-vacuo speed of light to be the same because we're essentially "made of light". Low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to neutral pions that then decay to gamma photons illustrate this principle.

The common photon amplitude is a spatial extension of 3.86 x 10-13 metres, and is the quantum of quantum mechanics. The wave function doesn't describe where a point particle can be found, it describes where the extension is.

The weak interaction is akin to rotational friction, the residual strong force is neutron linkage. The electromagnetic force is caused by twisted space, whilst the strong force is the bag-model stretch that keeps space together. The gravitational force is the result of a gradient in the relative strength of the electromagnetic force and the strong force.

A black hole is a demarked by an event horizon, where time dilation is infinite. At that location the coordinate speed of light is zero as measured by observers in the universe at large. The proper time of an infalling observer is merely a mathematical abstraction that occurs in a never-never land beyond the end of time. The central singularity is forever in the future, and thus does not exist.

The Universe expands because space behaves like a ghostly compressed elastic solid, and there's nothing outside to hold it in. There is no space beyond the universe, there is no distance, there is no there. So the universe is unbounded, but finite and flat. More space expands more, so the expansion is increasing. Space expands between the galaxies but not within, so space is not homogeneous. It's dark, it's energy, and since it's inhomogeneous around every galaxy, we don’t need dark matter to explain flat galactic rotation curves.

 

Nothing seems to connect your various assertions with each other or with empirical observations. And nothing seems written in the useful language of mathematics. But that doesn't mean that you don't have glaring problems with your world view that can't be solved by wrapping yourself in the mantle of assumed authority.

If time does not exist outside of motion, then why do free neutrons have a well-defined exponential decay law based the same proportion of neutrons decaying per elapsed proper time?

How does mass (and/or possibly energy) produce the "inhomogeneous space" which causes gravitation and how does this account for
1) the observed Newtonian limit
2) the observed advance of the perihelion of Mercury,
3) the observed loss of momentum from closely orbiting binary neutron stars, and
4) the observed discrepancy of atomic clock rates on different floors of the same building?
Be specific, and show calculations from your premises.

If the scale of the photon and quantum mechanics is \(\frac{\hbar}{m_e\, c} \approx 386 \, \textrm{fm}\) then how do you account for quantum mechanics continuing to work below \(0.001 \, \textrm{fm}\) and gamma rays with wavelengths of 60 fm and radio waves with wavelengths in exceess of 10 Mm ?

Why is the weak interaction modeled fundamentally differently from electric charge and how do you account for the observation of electroweak unification? Why is the strong force not modeled at all and how do you account for the finite lifetime of naked neutrons if in your model they are as stable as protons?

And I have just skimmed the deep waters of your disconnect with science. You are making claims about the fundamental nature of reality -- and so you can't expect to palm off these questions on other theories until you show that those theories can be re-written to be founded on your claims.

 

Explaining away string theory byway of explaining how gravity works? :bugeye:

I wouldn't classify that as a little bit.

I mean, that's a very big claim, Farsight.

Like big.




So, explain gravity please.

 

Then your mentioning of the IoP 'article' was disingenuous because it has nothing to do with scientific merit and everything to do with money.

You write and paid for an advert. Getting an advert isn't the same as getting published since the advert isn't assessed for scientific merit. Provided you don't say something like "This book has the personal endorsement of Professor [name], who said 'My god, it's the greatest thing ever and I immediately plan to start developing it'" when said person said nothing of the sort then the IoP is happy to take your money off you if that's how you want to spend it.

Your comments clearly were meant to be read as "I have had this published in a publication run by a reputable scientific group, I've passed peer review" when in fact its nothing of the sort. At best this is deceptive, as you're not fully explaining the nature of the 'article', and at worst its down right lying because people might interpret what you said to mean you've passed peer review, which is what you want people to think.

The company I work for gets people calling up all the time asking if we want to have a 'write up' in some industry magazine or newsletter. This is just marketing code for "If you give us some money we'll let you write a column about how amazing you are in a magazine we publish which we send to people in the industry". They couldn't give a toss if we're good or successful, they are selling something and we're the potential customer, just as you've paid for an advert to try and get some exposure for your 'work'. If you'd passed peer review you'd not need it.

Answer me this, do you think paying for an advert, even if its in a magazine by the IoP, in any way equates to passing peer review? If not why do you try to present it as such when you mention it? If so why do you think that? Do you have evidence a necessary condition to advertise something in said magazine is that its peer reviewed, never mind peer reviewed to the standard of a reputable journal?

Going on that nutty TV show, paying to vanity publish and now spending money to advertise your book. Hardly signs your 'work' is making in-roads into science but rather you're unable to accept your 'work' has been rejected by everyone competent at the relevant physics.

I'd like him to go a step further. He said "Space expands between the galaxies but not within, so space is not homogeneous. It's dark, it's energy, and since it's inhomogeneous around every galaxy, we don’t need dark matter to explain flat galactic rotation curves. ". I'd like him to demonstrate that by showing that his assumptions lead to a quantitative model which can correctly predict the rotation curves of galaxies without the inclusion of dark matter. If he can't do this when he's got no justification for his claim other than wanting it to be true.

It's saying to give a wordy 'explanation'. For instance :

Gravity is invisible fairies pushing things around and the force is proportional to their wing span. This explains galaxy rotation curves without needing dark matter.

There, I've 'overturned' dark matter, just like Farsight has with string theory.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course Farsight has had such examples given to him before to demonstrate the baseless and utterly unjustified (other than 'because I say so') nature of his work but its not sinking in. Farsight, just because you use buzzwords while I say 'fairies' doesn't make your work any more justified. Can you provide a working model of galaxy rotations, so we can all see how you're not just employing the 'because I say so' method?

If you can't explain why anyone should think your claims superior to any other random 'explanation' someone can pull from their backside. Given you've failed to answer this since the time you started touting your nonsense something tells me you'll fail this time too.

 

Because neutrons have an internal motion, as evidenced by their magnetic dipole moment.

A concentration of energy causes gravity rather than matter per se. Matter exhibits the property of mass, which is a measure of energy content and the result of a symmetry between momentum and inertia. As to how energy causes inhomogeneous space, think of a photon as a pressure pulse. Surrounding this is a pressure gradient. This gradient persists when you perform pair production to convert the photon into an electron and a positron both of which exhibit mass.

In the Newtonian limit we disregard the contribution from the pressure gradient.

Via an adaptation of Paul Gerber’s 1902 equation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gerber but note that this isn’t my work and I'd be in breach of confidence if I gave details.

This relates to Strauman’s work on PSR B1534 and the Damour & Deruelle DD model with its parameterized post-Newtonian formalism. Again this isn’t my work.

Atomic clocks rely upon the hyperfine transition and microwaves, both of which are electromagnetic phenomena. The propagation rate varies with gμv, hence clocks run slower nearer the surface of the earth. People talk of it as the coordinate speed of light.

Sorry, no.

The photon is a transverse displacement of 386fm, the wavelength is orthogonal to this.

The weak interaction isn’t modelled fundamentally differently to electric charge, that’s your misreading. Ditto for the strong force and neutrons. The only stable particles with unambiguous mass are electrons and protons along with their antiparticles. Neutrinos are a special case.

I’m very well connected thanks. And remember that these aren’t “my theories”. I’ve given a synthesis labelled relativity+, but the underlying work is by other people who don’t label it thus. That work is continuing, as is other work that employs similar concepts.

There was an advert on the website, and a quite separate article in the printed magazine many months later. Forgive me if I skip the rest of your outrage and abuse. This is a science forum, let’s stick to physics.

The gravity explanation doesn't explain away string theory. But I'd say the sections on space, energy, light, and particles makes a contribution to understanding that the world is not made of tiny vibrating strings or multidimensional branes.

I'll presume you want a potted version. Imagine a swimming pool. Every morning you swim from one end to the other in a straight line. But one day in the dead of night I truck in a load of gelatine powder and tip it all down the left hand side. This starts diffusing across the breadth of the pool, imparting a viscosity gradient from left to right. The next morning when you go for your swim, something's not right, and you find that you're veering to the left. If you could see your wake, you'd notice it was curved. That's your curved spacetime, because the pool is the space round a planet, the viscosity gradient is Einstein's non-constant gμν caused by a concentration of energy "conditioning" the surrounding space, and you're a photon. As to how the gradient affects matter, consider a single electron. We can make an electron along with a positron from light, via pair production. Since the electron also has spin, think of it as light trapped in a circular path. So if you're swimming round and round in circles, whenever you're swimming up or down the pool you're veering left. Hence you find yourself working over to the left. Hence things fall down. See http://ag-physics.org/gravity/ and http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/25/5/014 for more on the same theme.

 

You didn't explain gravity, you just posted two links.

You sound less and less confident about your book.

Do you have any original, testable prediction?

 

Would you prefer the full explanation? It starts as per the sample below. I'm more confident than ever, and yes I do, such as the strong force varies with gravitational potential.

 

You aren't trying to do a 'Terry' are you, where you try to legitemise your nonsense by saying "I have met X" or "I once was in a room with X". Your accomplishments in science aren't measured by who know but what you've done and that is very lacking.

Did you miss the bit where I asked you to demonstrate, with a quantitative model, that you are able to explain galaxy rotation curves without dark matter, as you claim? That's science, that's directly asking you about your work and your claims, and you did as you have ALWAYS done and avoided answering.

Yes, lets stick to the science. In which case none of your posts should have been made. I'm asking you again (god knows how many times in total I've asked you this on various forums) to provide one, just one, quantitative model which follows from your work which is able to accurately describe a phenomenon in the real world. Provide the derivation and demonstrate its accuracy. Until you can do this your claims about "I don't need dark matter to explain...." or "This can be done without...." are just baseless claims you have. And the fact you repeatedly avoid answering (or even acknowledging) such a question is the reason why you've failed to be published in any reputable journal. You have no science in your work.

 

Unconvincing, Farsight.

You could just pile on extra thick dressing on word salad. Or, you could claim I'm just too stupid to understand.

Are you?

 

Let's see your derivation of said prediction, along with a set of quantitative predictions.

Its easy to come up with 'predictions' if all you're doing is giving a single sentence, the fact you're throwing in some buzzwords doesn't make it more legit, you need the show how you arrived as such a 'prediction' and what precise experimental signature should be looked for.

For example no one is really going to argue with a 'prediction' like "There are particles which we haven't yet discovered". Its vague but not discountable. However, for someone making such a claim its essential to then be able to answer the follow up question "What properties do you expect these particles to have and why do you think that?". For instance, we know the energy window to look for the Higgs in via electroweak models, which we have reason to think is worth investigating because electroweak models are accurate in the domain we can presently test them. Or how the third generation of quarks was predicted because those we had seen formed part of a pattern which was only complete if additional quarks existed. That prediction got the authors Nobel Prizes, which they wouldn't have got if they hadn't justified why they made such a prediction. As I tried to explain to Terry Giblin when he said "The answer to the problem I worked on in my PhD was '3'", an answer/prediction without its derivation carries little or no value because the reason for the prediction is extremely important. Sometimes the journey to the answer is more important than the answer itself, so neglecting it severely reduces the worth of the answer.

So the question you should be able to answer if you want to be taken seriously is "By how much does the strong force vary with gravitational potential and how did you arrive as such a relationship?". Can you provide the derivation? If I gave you a mass distribution in space can you provide me with the corresponding strong coupling field in that space? If not, why not? If you have no derivation why should anyone think you're not just making things up because you know you'll be asked to provide predictions?

Come on Farsight, convince us you're not just making up answers when people ask you questions, demonstrate all your claims actually follow from a set of basic assumptions in a clear, logical and rigorous manner. How many times are you going to be asked before you either provide such a derivation or you admit you have none? Providing such derivations is a necessary step towards your work being taken seriously. Without clear and logical methodology in your work no one else can work on it because the entire structure is defined by your whims and preferences, not logic and reason. If you got hit by a bus tomorrow could anyone honestly continue down the road you're on? I wouldn't say so, as you provide no logical methodology. If every single person who knows quantum field theory got hit by a lot of buses tomorrow their work could be continued by others because there's clear methodology and quantitative logic in books and papers on the subject. That's why quantitative stuff is so important, purely qualitative stuff is too susceptible to people just making stuff up or reaching conclusions which have nothing to do with their assumptions.

I'm not being unreasonable asking for this and you'll have to address such issues if you want to break into the mainstream, because people working in the mainstream will have to be convinced there's a good enough reason to put down quantum field theory or general relativity to move onto your stuff. If you can't provide a quantitative framework then there's nothing for said mainstream researchers to work on and develop, its nothing more than you saying "This is how things are, because I say so".

Tell me, do you think I'm being unreasonable asking for you to provide just one quantitative model or derivation of your claims? If so, why? If not, why don't you ever answer such questions/requests?

 

I find Einstein fairly convincing myself. If you're not interest in what he said about how gravity works and prefer to dismiss everything as mere "word salad" that's up to you.

I haven't developed one. And you're moving the goalposts. You don't demand the same of string theory, the subject of your PhD, which offers no predictions whatsoever.

Had we enjoyed a discussion of say gravity, then no, but we haven't, so yes I do. Particularly since it comes on top of specious allegations and the dishonesty and abuse you direct at contributors on various boards across the internet.

 

I didn't dismiss Einstein as word salad.

I want to know what you have added to understanding how gravity works in the 21st century.

 

Missed this.




Ahem

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!