Universe Expansion

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by hansda, Aug 24, 2017.

  1. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    225
    Darn it, another TOE on the field! I can't keep up!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    Good Luck to you.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    225
    Can you please give me the page-number where you derive the theory of general relativity? Just so I know to pay special attention when I read that point.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    First you read my papers. Then we can discuss further.
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,595
    Oh, and in case it hasn't been made clear enough, there is no compressive force in the Newtonian Model.
    The Newtonian Model makes no provision for near-light-speed velocities.

    According the Newtonian Model, time is static and absolute, and gravity is an instantaneous force, meaning it reaches every in the universe simultaneously. c is also not a barrier.

    A Newtonian object does not experience any compression or dilation below c, at c, or even exceeding c. In fact a Newtonian object can accelerate indefinitely.

    What you are talking about is the Hansda theory. Please refer to it correctly from now on.
     
  9. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,805
    I don't think this can be even casually referred to a theory. This is the 'Handsa Wild Ass Guess Base On A Complete Lack Of Knowledge Conjecture' or for short HWAGBOACLOK Conjecture.
     
  10. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    225
  11. RADII Registered Member

    Messages:
    75
    There are no "hidden forces." None.
     
  12. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    Thanks for reading one of my four short papers.

    As you are taking interest in this discussion, I wanted you to read all these four papers; so that we can have a better discussion. You have read the first paper. Other papers are based on this first paper. From this first paper, I observed two physics and one mathematical applications. My second paper is about these applications. In one of the physics applications, I modified Newton's First Law of Motion. I named this modified Law as "Instantaneous Law of Inertia". Based on this Law of Inertia, I observed four unknown or hidden forces of nature. There are two papers for these unknown forces. Links for these papers are available in my profile page. My profile page can be accessed by clicking on my name in the first paper which you already have read.

    You read about these four unknown forces. Then we can have a better discussion.
     
    river likes this.
  13. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    Einstein himself speculated about hidden variables or hidden forces of nature.
     
  14. RADII Registered Member

    Messages:
    75
    I read your 'papers': they're nonsense. Your 'word' is insufficient to justify "hidden forces."
     
    exchemist and Dywyddyr like this.
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,286
    Do you know the difference between a force and a variable?

    Which of the two was it Einstein mentioned?
     
  16. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    225
    No problem.

    What do you mean by "two physics"? Physics is commonly understood to be a field of study, not something you can have two of.

    I'll get back to you!
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,595
    Read as:
    "From this first paper, I observed two physics applications and one mathematical application."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    225
    Ah, that makes a heck of a lot more sense.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Thanks!
     
  19. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    Two physics applications.

    Correct.

    Good. You are taking interest with this discussion. Let me know, if you have read about those four unknown forces, as observed by me.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017 at 4:57 PM
  20. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,805
    Quite a few people on this site have done there best to help you to understand why your ideas are completely wrong, but unfortunately you seem to be absorbing this information about as readily as a block of steel can absorb water. I am beginning to wonder why anyone continues to waste their time with you. Well really I am beyond the 'wondering stage' and at the 'this is a complete waste of time stage'.

    Come to think of it with your insistence on repeating your silliness over and over, this should be moved well away from the science section IMO. I will ask the mods what they think.
     
  21. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    225
    Let's dig into hansda's paper titled "Three Physics and Mathematical Applications of My Theory of Success".

    Point #1 is a tautology. It just states a reformulation of Newton's First Law, and then says this is compatible with Newton's First Law, falsely claiming the former somehow explains the latter. However, I think the last sentence will turn out to be important: "This statement also can be applied to discover all unknown forces being applied to a particle at any instant of time." I'm not sure about the "all unknown forces", but yes, things like this could prove the existent of unknown forces.

    Point #2 is more doubtful. It basically says "my model can explain gravity, so every model of gravity should be compatible with it." GR for example fundamentally contains no gravitational force, so it's not clear a force-description will provide correct answers. The text simply asserts this without any evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if Quantum Gravity cannot be described in terms of forces at all. The text simply asserts this without any evidence.
    This point contains no new insights or information. So let's continue.

    Point #3 contains some clarification, but no new insights or information.
    And that's the end of the text.
     
  22. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    Here I have developed the "Instantaneous Law of Inertia". Applying this Law I observed four "unknown forces".

    Here I explained, how different models of physics/gravity can be co-related.

    Here I explained, how math can be done with the sets.
     
  23. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    225
    Incorrect. You haven't developed anything. You've taken Newton's First Law, labeled it "Instantaneous Law of Inertia", and then stated it explains Newton's First Law. It's circular reasoning, and just a relabeling.

    (We'll get to this in later papers; I already peeked ahead at their titles.)

    You have explained nothing. You simply assert that all models that describe (part of) gravity must be compatible with each other. While I can see how that might be true (since each model must match reality), it's at best an argument for superficial similarities (mainly their predictions). For example, GR contains no fundamental gravitational force, which completely contradicts your approach. In other words, your approach is incompatible with GR at a fundamental level. Actually, GR is violently incompatible with your II.6. You claim to explain how your approach can be co-related to GR, while in fact proving the opposite.

    You have explained nothing. You just re-iterate something in the first text.

    As I said, there is no additional insight or information here. This entire text should be integrated in the first, since it is so dependent on it, and in itself it contains nothing that would warrant a stand-alone text, IMO.
     

Share This Page