Universe Expansion

DaveC426913 said:
I have a theory that all forces and particles in the universe are a result of the Swishing of the Tail of The Cosmic Unicorn.

Now, STCU cannot explain how these things interact - the masses, charges, forces, or virtually any other observed phenomena - but that's OK, I attribute these to STCU's hidden properties - to be examined some time later.

In the meantime, my STCU is competitively equivalent to Hansda's NewAgeNewton theory.
Click to expand...
Darn it, another TOE on the field! I can't keep up!:p
 
DaveC426913 said:
I have a theory that all forces and particles in the universe are a result of the Swishing of the Tail of The Cosmic Unicorn.

Now, STCU cannot explain how these things interact - the masses, charges, forces, or virtually any other observed phenomena - but that's OK, I attribute these to STCU's hidden properties - to be examined some time later.

In the meantime, my STCU is competitively equivalent to Hansda's NewAgeNewton theory.
Click to expand...
Good Luck to you.
 
hansda said:
First you read my papers completely. Then I can answer all your queries. So have some patience.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
DaveC426913 said:
What you are talking about is the Hansda theory. Please refer to it correctly from now on.
Click to expand...
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.
 
hansda said:
Here I mostly focused on the hidden forces in NM. I observed four such hidden forces. I haven't yet focused on the math part of these forces. That part I will do later. It may require more time.
Click to expand...

There are no "hidden forces." None.
 
Thanks for reading one of my four short papers.

NotEinstein said:
I have now done so; see: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/co...-with-einsteins-gr.159332/page-2#post-3478918

hansda, why have you misled me?
Click to expand...

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.
 
hansda said:
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.
Click to expand...

I read your 'papers': they're nonsense. Your 'word' is insufficient to justify "hidden forces."
 
hansda said:
Thanks for reading one of my four short papers.
Click to expand...
No problem.

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

hansda said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'll get back to you!
 
Last edited:
hansda said:
Good. You are taking interest with this discussion. Let me know, if you have read about those four unknown forces, as observed by me.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
NotEinstein said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here I have developed the "Instantaneous Law of Inertia". Applying this Law I observed four "unknown forces".

NotEinstein said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

NotEinstein said:
Point #3 contains some clarification, but no new insights or information.
And that's the end of the text.
Click to expand...

Here I explained, how math can be done with the sets.
 
hansda said:
Here I have developed the "Instantaneous Law of Inertia".
Click to expand...
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.

hansda said:
Applying this Law I observed four "unknown forces".
Click to expand...
(We'll get to this in later papers; I already peeked ahead at their titles.)

hansda said:
Here I explained, how different models of physics/gravity can be co-related.
Click to expand...
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.

hansda said:
Here I explained, how math can be done with the sets.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top