I'll quote from wiki which appears to give a reasonsable account of the Higgs. Notice the bits that are highlighted. ...and yet there appears to be no mention of how the Higgs generates the constancy of Gravity. Nor how the Higgs can accommodate Cosmic Expansion and maintain the constancy of gravity universally and simultaneously whilst adhereing to the relative simultaneity issues generated by SRT. Given that the proposed Higgs Bosun has mass up to and beyond 1.4TeV plus. Would you agree that the universe as a whole is expanding uniformally and universally?
Regarding my theory I have tried in the past to discuss it, but unfortunately it proved impossible to do so. I am certainly not going to bother again. I am just a web designer and not so good one at that trying to find a way to explain the evidence I have in a way that makes sense to you guys. That's all... I have no ability nor time to spend 8 years plus in University courses that wouldn't guarantee success any way given the calibre of the math , calculus and physics languages skills needed to compete on the scientific stage. So we shall wait until the evidence is presented and you guys can ask your questions then.
What you don't get is we are not interested in your meaningless words. Derive some very well confirmed equation from you non-standard models. Calculate some numerical result that agrees with experimental measurements with your meaningless words. It does not increase your creditability as a physicist to just keep repeating words. Your words have the same validity as this explanation: "Magic makes it so." That, like your words, can calculate no result, predict nothing, and explain nothing because neither your words nor "Magic makes it so" can produce any numeral results. Yet even though you have no numerical computation power, you CLAIM your theory is 100% accurate! That claim should be posted in the thread: "Jokes and funny stories."
Link to said thread. I have asked you repeatedly to provide the work related to one, just one, phenomenon in the universe which your work can actually model accurately. You haven't provided any such example. I asked you to provide justifications for your claims and you refused. If you think that me asking you to justify your claims is making discussion 'impossible' then you're a hypocrite, because you're demanding someone provides you with evidence for mainstream claims and models. You've made huge claims like saying you can model consciousness and you provide nothing. The reason its proved impossible to discuss your 'work' is because you won't answer any questions on it which ask for anything beyond vacuous superficial arm waving. You never bothered in the first place. That explains it, you're making a website about something in physics so you can convince yourself you're doing science, not just wasting your time playing with HTML. You've got the time to write webpages and come up with your own theory but you haven't got time to open a short introductory book on anything relevant? Bull. Though that's assuming you even have the capacity to understand university level physics or maths, which I don't believe for one second. Pathetic excuse. If everyone thought like that no one who isn't the best in the world would bother to learn anything. I'm not able to compete with the best people in physics but the knowledge I've learnt certainly has helped me, both in my understanding of the world and in getting employment. Learning is not about becoming the best or competing on the world stage, its about expanding your horizons, challenging yourself and ultimately providing you with useful tools and understanding you can make use of. Stop trying to give excuses as to why you've done absolutely zero work or reading before then spouting ignorant claims on a subject you know nothing about. And now you have another reason to ignore any and all things people say to you about your challenge, as you are using it as an excuse not to back up your own claims. Excuse after excuse, you are trying to convince yourself you haven't failed at science because its someone else's fault. After all, why bother reading a book on a subject you know to be wrong? Of course one might ask how you can know something to be wrong when you won't read it?
my theory is 100% accurate because it has to be.. any way this is not about physics but more about paranoia.
If I am wrong I loose the money... the existing $100 usd is out of my own pocket the rest will be someone elses and all will be secure knowing you will never be able to support your physics. and that just pisses you off doesn't it? your constant ranting is ample evidence of that. I can prove my theory but you can't... now aint that a joke!
And why does it 'have to be'? If I'd provided that as a response to your challenge, "QED is 100% right because it has to be" you'd never have accepted that. You're oozing hypocrisy by demanding the mainstream provide evidence (and then ignoring any and all things put in front of you) yet you make BIGGER claims, like 100% accurate models of consciousness, and provide nothing. Its about your inability to accept you're not very good at maths and physics so you're trying to convince yourself you don't need to understand it, you've made up your own. I'll bet $1000 your work won't get published in a reputable theoretical physics journal. Your convoluted construction of an unwinnable challenge doesn't void all the experimental evidence for photon based phenomena in science. There's plenty of experimental evidence for the photon and its properties (which are accurately modelled without 'total confusion' in the mainstream models), you're having to make so many caveats which have no basis in mainstream models in order to avoid accepting evidence. I'll make my challenge much simpler, all you need to do is get published in a reputable physics journal.
ah ha... gotta ya.... $ 1000.00 is that usd or something else...you is on Alphanumeric you is on.... work published in a reputable theoretical physics journal... yes...care to list the titles you consider reputable so that we can nail this bet down? btw the HIggs and consciousness including unconsciousness are essentially the same thing....
well for starters the gravitational constant is 100 % constant so it obvously has to be predicted 100% accurately doesn't it. Hint: and there is only one possible way that can be formulated that includes every single bit of matter in this universe simultaneously and allows for inperceptable and perceptable cosmic expansion and contraction. go on have a guess ?
Running any sort of competition can be problematic, after all offering up a prize requires someone to act as a mediator, the overall "rules" have to be plainly written so as not to cause misinterpretation and the overall Judgement would normally be done by a panel or some sort of peer review (like a Jury system) If it's left to a persons own "Prove me wrong and you'll get $100" it becomes problematic, after all your pet theory might change depending on what arguments are sought, which means you'd never part with your $100 on the grounds that your theory has room for growth. You can get an idea of just how pulled apart such contest are by looking at the Randi prize and how the rules and documentation over the years have changed to attempt to deal with all the people that would otherwise try to find loopholes. I would suggest not betting that, after all the Nobel prize have been given to persons of ill repute before that have no way benefited Science or global stability. It would be very easy to suggest that various journal's could easily be swayed to print pseudoscience (especially if the Yes men have anything to do with it.)
It is a bit silly because as already agreed by many posters, including Alphanumeric and Billy T, the prize, no matter how big it is or how many independent jusdges are involevd will never be won. Simply because it is impossible to win. In fact on the currently developing web site front page it states to the effect of such quite clearly. But it also states why such an absurd award is needed given the impossibility of it. However the general public do not know this and that is the target audience or at least those who believe incorrectly that light is as modelled and science has evidence to support it's position. Which it does not and can not. I would bet even the President of the US of A believes that light effect model has been evidenced as all literature even remotely related presumes this to be the case. It is the attitude of posters such as Alphanumeric and his cohorts at JREF that have provoked me into talking this step and that is all I can say about it. With a bit of luck I will make some money on top of it simply because of the sheer arrogance and paranoia demonstrated. [ I may donate that money if worth doing so to the research for an alternative.] These details are yet to be decided upon, and depend on other parties involved in the marketing and implimentation of the campaign. Of course transperancy of assessment and awarding the prize has to be spot on. However it is simlpy the need to provide the evidence demonstrating how matter is not implicated in a way that would compromise the clarity of the result. I can tell you now and I think most would agree this is utterly impossible to do. After a while of the "no end unil resolved" campaign sure I am going to look like a fool to some but I can assure you I wont be the only one....and to be honest I have nothing to loose anyway. As far as my alternative theory [zero point theory] is concerned this may very well be resolved prior to launching the web campaign making the whole idea of a photon challenge redundent and obsolete. I end up with a great web site template to use [ if I remain interested as a hobby] and get $1000 from Alphanumeric if he repeats his offer, when he and every one else sees the evidence and it's generalised explanation on probably all the journals and not just a select few. and I may consider donating the $1000.00 to the mathematical interpretations needed to ensure technological advancement. as the aquisition of money will not be an issue because as you can imagine what sort of money is involved far exceeds any possible comprehension and you know what I couldn't give a hoot. Why? Global Mental Health budget to start with...not to mention the energy market but it is essentially about the mental health of this planet that is involved most of all....as zero point theory and the evidecne to go with it alters the understanding of mental health, asthma and a whole host of health issues dramatically. Yeah Asthma and similar respiratory [throat] conditions are actually mental health issues - along the lines of respiratory paranoia. [ linked almost directly to the oppressive behaviour similar to that demonstrated by a certain nasty poster in this thread. and no they are currently totally unaware of their contribution to the Asthma pandemic]
Here is an print screen review of the developing opening or landing page of www.photonchallenge.com Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well I have a theory on zero-point energy, it's based upon Smale's horseshoe and takes into consideration that spacetime has been stretch and folded. As for the number of times, well I couldn't say, as these folds aren't necessarily localised to a Universe frame of reference but a smaller composite acting as the universe. (say on a per atom proximity.) It's very similar to how fragmentation occurs on a computer's harddrive, smaller composite programs take up a certain amount of space only leaving some areas of free space, when a larger datafile is applied it has to be split between free spaces around those already taken, causing fragmentation. Fragmentation in a way is a good argument for relativity and non-locality, since it places things in different spaces while being maintained as one instance.
nice, I am glad you are demonstrating an interest in physics as the critical thinking required can do wonders for your computer skills...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
fragmentation or breaking of sym-etry [e23t] also offers a certain protection against viruses, did you know that?
Well my analogy is slightly flawed because computer fragmentation "Splits" files, when dealing with a universe of "folded" spacetime, you wouldn't "split", instead you would fold and create a vector that is maintained as an instance. From it's perspective however it would be oblivious to the spacetime distortion, unless of course by design, it's suppose to be observed from that perspective. It's actually part of my argument for identifying that the Universe is actually an Emulation since to my knowledge it's functions can be replicated mathematically and applied to simulations. (I define emulation since people play games and shoot at sims, I wouldn't want everyone to reason since we are a sim we could be shot at, so emulation makes more sense. Emulations also open the way for emulative tunneling, that would be tunneling between recursive emulated layers.)
but the sims are somewhat entangled are they not, all those relationships going 0n as they have been...hmmm....Stryder, Gandaf may wish to speak to you given your knowledge of the.......wait for it....... three sim rings....:bugeye:
Ah but Fragmentation can also allow for Stenography, upon defragmentation you'll lose your secret message and even your cereal packet decoder ring won't be able to help. In the case of the universe that wouldn't be so much a secret message as the viability to observe another parallel universe, as when you defragment, you would be fragmenting it from observation.
