2020: Physics Nobel Prize:

POVphysics2 said:
Where is the closest black hole?
Click to expand...
Cygnus X-1 at last reports.
POVphysics2 said:
Maybe we should work on the interstellar drive so that we can visit it and perform some experiments.
Click to expand...
More weird emotional responses.
That would be worth another 3 day layoff at the other place.

And while you are playing being weird, perhaps you should also verify for us all [in your eyes that is] what drives the Sun and stars. I mean we have yet to grab a piece and show empirically it is nuclear fusion! :rolleyes:
Perhaps that is also explained in your "new physics" :D
 
I mean, we appreciate their contributions to physics with regard to black holes. But sooner or later, the physics community is going to have to get down to figuring out what spacetime is made, so that we can go beyond rocketry to interstellar travel.
 
Last edited:
POVphysics2 said:
I mean, we appreciate their contributions to physics with regard to black holes. But sooner or later, the physics community is going to have to get down to figuring out what spacetime is made, so that we can go beyond rocketry to interstellar travel.
Click to expand...
You still here? Changed your mind, apparently.

You might find this interesting: https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/resea...theoretical-physics/what-is-spacetime-made-of

But I don't think you have the necessary tools to follow something like this up. You need a physics course.
 
POVphysics2 said:
I mean, we appreciate their contributions to physics with regard to black holes. But sooner or later, the physics community is going to have to get down to figuring out what spacetime is made, so that we can go beyond rocketry to interstellar travel.
Click to expand...
Physics is doing pretty well with regards to spacetime and BH's thank you very much.
We have pretty successful theories that show how spacetime is warped, twisted, curved, and gravitationally waved in the presence of mass/energy. We see that geometry as gravity.
Gravity is geometry.
 
exchemist said:
You still here? Changed your mind, apparently.

You might find this interesting: https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/resea...theoretical-physics/what-is-spacetime-made-of

But I don't think you have the necessary tools to follow something like this up. You need a physics course.
Click to expand...
Nice article. Why is it like pulling teeth with you people around here? The physics community has made physics so unnecessarily complicated that leading physicists admit that they can't make new progress. That doesn't make anyone smart! The way you make progress in physics is by making the process easier to do, easier to understand. I've tried to help with that, but all I've gotten are a bunch of people with shitty attitudes! But finally, a two paragraph article about how physicists ask a lot of questions. Nice!

BTW, my model comes with experiments.
 
POVphysics2 said:
The physics community has made physics so unnecessarily complicated that leading physicists admit that they can't make new progress.
Click to expand...
Absolutely wrong. It is made as easy as possible. These are difficult concepts, you can't magically make them easy.
That doesn't make anyone smart! The way you make progress in physics is by making the process easier to do, easier to understand.
Click to expand...
That's like saying, scientist should make it easy to make a CPU, so everyone can make there own.
I've tried to help with that, but all I've gotten are a bunch of people with shitty attitudes!
Click to expand...
You can't help anything in physics, you don't have the knowledge to understand current physics let alone bring any new ideas.
BTW, my model comes with experiments.
Click to expand...
You don't have a model, you have a mish-mash of half understood concepts combined with made up stuff resulting in a nothing worth looking at.
 
POVphysics2 said:
Nice article. Why is it like pulling teeth with you people around here? The physics community has made physics so unnecessarily complicated that leading physicists admit that they can't make new progress. That doesn't make anyone smart! The way you make progress in physics is by making the process easier to do, easier to understand. I've tried to help with that, but all I've gotten are a bunch of people with shitty attitudes! But finally, a two paragraph article about how physicists ask a lot of questions. Nice!

BTW, my model comes with experiments.
Click to expand...
Well what do you expect? You show up claiming to have a new model of physics, but making statements that immediately betray a lack of knowledge of physics (wave functions, de Broglie's relation etc).

No one can make a new model with any credibility, unless it can fit with the rest of physics - which you obviously do not understand. Nobody is going to be interested in a new model that fails to account for all the stuff the current model already explains. That should be obvious. If you don't know much physics you can't make that check.

Relativity cranks are two a penny on the internet. Many of them complain that current physics is too complicated, by which, it turns out, they mean they can't follow the maths. We get about one a month of these people. There are several on the go in this forum already, in various places.

Then you arrive. What are we to think?
 
origin said:
Absolutely wrong. It is made as easy as possible. These are difficult concepts, you can't magically make them easy.
Then why can't you answer simple questions like: what is dark matter, what is dark energy, what is spacetime made of in terms of measureables? Why can't you come up with evidence for string theory, quantum loop gravity, MWI?

That's like saying, scientist should make it easy to make a CPU, so everyone can make there own.
Why do we Kaluza Klein bottles? They're not measurables? Why do we need 26 dimensional superstrings? They're not measurable? Why don't strings and QLG look like the big bang? I mean, bowls of spaghetti and cheerios don't "explode" from a point. The leading physics theories don't look like actual physics. They look like "ooh ahh math is soooooo cooool!" The leading theories are all fluff!

You can't help anything in physics, you don't have the knowledge to understand current physics let alone bring any new ideas.
But why is it that my theories look like actual established physics? They were based on actual physics. So if you don't think my model looks like physics, then you don't actually know physics.

You don't have a model, you have a mish-mash of half understood concepts combined with made up stuff resulting in a nothing worth looking at.
Prove to me that you know something about my model? I will tell you that my model is an improvement over string theory and QLG. I mean, your ability to think is highly questionable, I certainly don't respect
Click to expand...
 
exchemist said:
Well what do you expect? You show up claiming to have a new model of physics, but making statements that immediately betray a lack of knowledge of physics (wave functions, de Broglie's relation etc).

No one can make a new model with any credibility, unless it can fit with the rest of physics - which you obviously do not understand. Nobody is going to be interested in a new model that fails to account for all the stuff the current model already explains. That should be obvious. If you don't know much physics you can't make that check.

Relativity cranks are two a penny on the internet. Many of them complain that current physics is too complicated, by which, it turns out, they mean they can't follow the maths. We get about one a month of these people. There are several on the go in this forum already, in various places.

Then you arrive. What are we to think?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're just making stuff up. Can you be specific? Why are you mentioning de Broglie's relationship? I haven't actually talked about it in years. Yes I talked about wave functions, but you're comments are so thick headed, it's like you're attacking on autopilot without really engaging. Seriously, you're just saying things that have nothing to do with reality.

You're calling me a relativity crank, but it sounds to me like you are hallucinating things that I never said.

Hey! Exchemist! Snap out of it! Focus!
 
Anyway, the physics community needs to get off their butts and do some real physics now. Real physics is empirical physics. You can't just rely upon the LHC to fix everything. You have to be creative. And calculating absurdly irrelevant things like: how long do protons last before they decay, how long will the universe exist, all these questions are a waste of time, waste of careers. You've spent enough time contemplating your navels about black holes. Either figure out what spacetime is made of and invent the interstellar drive, or give back your research grants! Stop wasting taxpayer money on nonsense projects!!!
 
Learn some physics and then your posts may be worth reading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top