Gravity without mass ?

[James R]

are these fields of yours discrete, or not?

Explain what you mean by "discrete". What would a discrete field look like, and what would a non-discrete field look like?

And why do you ask?

You don't need any fields, just one space.

What physics can your "one space" give us?

You should start a new thread to explain your New Physics and show us what it can do.

 

[James R]

I was programing for my friends magazine when I got into alternative physics and now into alternative points of view on many other subjects also.

Is "alternative physics" like "alternative medicine"?

i.e. either not proven to work, or proven not to work?

 

[Olga]

Explain what you mean by "discrete". What would a discrete field look like, and what would a non-discrete field look like?

And why do you ask?

Джеймс, вы же сами не знаете, что из себя представляют эти ваши поля. Просто заучили некие тексты, и всё.

Любая материя из чего то должна состоять, верно? Ваше поле Хиггса из чего состоит? Какова его структура?

 

[Olga]

What physics can your "one space" give us?

You should start a new thread to explain your New Physics and show us what it can do.

Я вам уже это объясняла. У вас проблемы с памятью?

 

[James R]

И что? Если дали денег и выписали премию, значит, они правы? Сам факт этого означает, что Нобелевский комитет является "истиной в последней инстанции"?

If you were giving out more than US$1 million dollars as a scientific prize, I think you'd probably want a few people to check that the science is correct before handing over the money.

You are right though. Maybe the scientific community has got it all wrong and Olga in Russia is the one person in the world who can do physics without fields. Maybe Olga will be the next to get the Nobel Prize for physics.

When are you going to publish your work?

 

[Olga]

If you were giving out more than US$1 million dollars as a scientific prize, I think you'd probably want a few people to check that the science is correct before handing over the money.

Your right though. Maybe the scientific community has got it all wrong and Olga in Russia is the one person in the world who can do physics without fields. Maybe Olga will be the next to get the Nobel Prize for physics.

When are you going to publish your work?

Зачем мне это? Пусть публикует кто хочет. Мне мой покой дороже.

 

[James R]

Olga:

James, you don't know what these fields of yours are.

Yes I do. The introductory textbooks I recommended to you explain what they are.

They just memorized some texts, and that's it.

How do you know what I did to learn about fields, Olga? You shouldn't make assumptions.

I will tell you: I have not memorised any texts about fields.

Any matter must consist of something, right?

Matter, by definition, is "something".

What does your Higgs field consist of? What is its structure?

It's a scalar field. What do you mean by "structure", in this context?

I have already explained this to you. Do you have memory problems?

Maybe. Please post a link to the thread in which you explained it to me.

 

[James R]

Зачем мне это? Пусть публикует кто хочет. Мне мой покой дороже.

Oh, I see.

Like many other geniuses, you have a revolutionary new physical theory but you want to keep it all to yourself.

You don't need to publish your ideas. You're content to just know them.

Why are you talking about your ideas here, then, Olga? That's the mystery.

And you don't need US$1 million+. Okay, sure. Whatever you say.

 

[Olga]

Oh, I see.

Like many other geniuses, you have a revolutionary new physical theory but you want to keep it all to yourself.

You don't need to publish your ideas. You're content to just know them.

Why are you talking about your ideas here, then, Olga? That's the mystery.

And you don't need US$1 million+. Okay, sure. Whatever you say.

Джеймс, я достаточно обеспеченный человек. И миллион $ для меня не является "светом в окошке", или мечтой. Почему я говорю здесь? Я сюда случайно попала. Мне стало интересно. До этого я свои идеи на двух русских научных сайтах опубликовала, не сильно подробно, вкратце. Там сначала в штыки приняли, как и здесь, а потом заинтересовались, начали вопросы задавать. Умные люди, доктора наук, которые своё время просто так тратить бы не стали. А потом эти сайты закрыли, без объяснения причин. Но у вас то цензуры нет? Вот и объясните мне, пожалуйста, в чём я не права? Может, у вас получится мою идею опровергнуть?

 

[Olga]

Olga:

Yes I do. The introductory textbooks I recommended to you explain what they are.

How do you know what I did to learn about fields, Olga? You shouldn't make assumptions.

I will tell you: I have not memorised any texts about fields.

Matter, by definition, is "something".

It's a scalar field. What do you mean by "structure", in this context?

Maybe. Please post a link to the thread in which you explained it to me.

Я не помню номер этой ветки, Джеймс. Может, вы мне просто будете задавать вопросы, а я буду на них отвечать? Так было бы проще.

 

[Pinball1970]

Я не помню номер этой ветки, Джеймс. Может, вы мне просто будете задавать вопросы, а я буду на них отвечать? Так было бы проще.

Olga if fields were not a things then electro magnetism and all the technology that surrounds it would not be understood. It is understood. That is why industrial magnets operate, why particles can be deflected in particle accelerators, this is why MRIs work.

 

[Olga]

Olga if fields were not a things then electro magnetism and all the technology that surrounds it would not be understood. It is understood. That is why industrial magnets operate, why particles can be deflected in particle accelerators, this is why MRIs work.

Это не поля. Это свойства самого пространства. Можете называть его полем, если вам так больше нравится.

 

[DaveC426913]

These are not fields. These are properties of space itself.

1. "Space itself" is not a thing. It does not have properties, except figurative ones like distance and darkness.


2. A field simply means anything that has a value everywhere in space.

Gravity, for example. You can go to any point in the universe - be it a billion light years away or a nanometre away - and measure the strength of the gravitational at field at that point.

Likewise, magnetism or electric charge. At any point anywhere in space, there is a value for it.

You can call it a field if you like.

Perfect. We all agree to call it a field then.

 

[Olga]

1. "Space itself" is not a thing. It does not have properties, except figurative ones like distance and darkness.


2. A field simply means anything that has a value everywhere in space.

Gravity, for example. You can go to any point in the universe - be it a billion light years away or a nanometre away - and measure the strength of the gravitational at field at that point.

Likewise, magnetism or electric charge. At any point anywhere in space, there is a value for it.


Perfect. We all agree to call it a field then.

Почему вы решили, что у пространства нет свойств? Эйнштейн с вами не согласился бы. А как же "искривление пространства", "гравитационные волны", и пр.? Да и Максвелл писал свои уравнения для среды, если кто не в курсе.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Is "alternative physics" like "alternative medicine"?

i.e. either not proven to work, or proven not to work?

Like I have said elsewhere, there has been some experimental proof, but reproducibility is low.

 

[DaveC426913]

Like I have said elsewhere, there has been some experimental proof, but reproducibility is low.

There is no "experimental proof".
There are claims.
Those claims have not been verified.

I "claim" I've created a wormhole to the Moon. But you will have trouble reproducing the results. Have I "proved" it?

 

[Olga]

There is no "experimental proof".
There are claims.
Those claims have not been verified.

I "claim" I've created a wormhole to the Moon. But you will have trouble reproducing the results. Have I "proved" it?

Как вы могли, Дэйв?! Ведь вам же запретили есть это яблоко! Кто теперь купит это яблоко с "червоточиной"?!

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

There is no "experimental proof".
There are claims.
Those claims have not been verified.

I "claim" I've created a wormhole to the Moon. But you will have trouble reproducing the results. Have I "proved" it?

Just not verified by anyone you would accept. Your analogy is definitely infantile.

 

[James R]

Just not verified by anyone you would accept.

Science doesn't concern itself with who is making the claims. Scientists are interested in whether the claims are reproducible, verifiable, can withstand outside scrutiny, and such.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Science doesn't concern itself with who is making the claims. Scientists are interested in whether the claims are reproducible, verifiable, can withstand outside scrutiny, and such.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.Neither is going to change the others point of view.