The irony of it all!
new physics model
- Thread starter RJBeery
- Start date
Much of the paper is circular nonsense, unmotivated by physical, mathematical or philosophical reasoning.
A photon is a particle so you define a particle in terms of a particle.
Likewise you define position of a photon relative to itself.
To every particle you assign a degree of freedom, T, but that is not distinguished from the world-line concept.
You mention, but never relate wavelength and frequency to each other or anything.
Likewise you mention but never use any property of mass.
If weights may differ by direction, then it is not a graph but a digraph with two weights per arrow. Your notations for distance, weight and r' vary greatly.
If r_k is a radius and w_j,k is a weight, then r’_j,k = w_j,k r_k is an “area” of contact with dimensions of length. Your formula for weight has a domain of applicability which modern physics has crossed. Specifically, we have a viable model of electrodynamics which remains valid for distances much less than the Compton length of the electron.
r_k / d_j,k = tan θ
r’_j,k / r_k = w_j,k = sin θ
tan θ / √( 1 + tan² θ) = sin θ for 0 ≤ θ < π/2
w_j,k = r_k / √( r²_k + d²_j,k ) for 0 ≤ r_k < d_j,k
Having written down a formula for w, you make one and only one attempt at a calculation with it and fail, because your model is incoherent and you attempt to prove the following formula as an identity:
√( 1 + d / r ) = ( d / ( 2 π r) )
Nothing compels w_j,k = w_k,j. But in your one example you assume r_1 = r_2 and d_1,2 = d_2,1.
A photon is a particle so you define a particle in terms of a particle.
Likewise you define position of a photon relative to itself.
To every particle you assign a degree of freedom, T, but that is not distinguished from the world-line concept.
You mention, but never relate wavelength and frequency to each other or anything.
Likewise you mention but never use any property of mass.
If weights may differ by direction, then it is not a graph but a digraph with two weights per arrow. Your notations for distance, weight and r' vary greatly.
If r_k is a radius and w_j,k is a weight, then r’_j,k = w_j,k r_k is an “area” of contact with dimensions of length. Your formula for weight has a domain of applicability which modern physics has crossed. Specifically, we have a viable model of electrodynamics which remains valid for distances much less than the Compton length of the electron.
r_k / d_j,k = tan θ
r’_j,k / r_k = w_j,k = sin θ
tan θ / √( 1 + tan² θ) = sin θ for 0 ≤ θ < π/2
w_j,k = r_k / √( r²_k + d²_j,k ) for 0 ≤ r_k < d_j,k
Having written down a formula for w, you make one and only one attempt at a calculation with it and fail, because your model is incoherent and you attempt to prove the following formula as an identity:
√( 1 + d / r ) = ( d / ( 2 π r) )
Nothing compels w_j,k = w_k,j. But in your one example you assume r_1 = r_2 and d_1,2 = d_2,1.
No part of it is motivated by a desire to model the behavior of reality. Therefore it is pseudoscience.
actually, yes, it is... because sometimes the MODS are not watching.
again, i disagree: far too many people who are scientifically illiterate come to these forums to learn about science... if they instead learn about the latest aether wave delusional belief systems, or the electric universe, they leave with a skewed or delusional belief that said arguments are valid and scientific...
so it is imperative that pseudoscience and non-scientific posts are outed as being exactly what they are before they're believed as legit
actually you should be ashamed of your reprehensible behaviour for the argument that placing a known unfalsifiable delusional belief in a legit science thread is ok and that just because someone is sincere it should be overlooked
AND you should be doubly ashamed for not pointing out that said argument (who's OP states is not falsifiable) is not legit science
more to the point, placing it here smacks of attempting to seem legit when there is no evidence nor a means to falsify the hypothesis (and the OP noted that themselves)
- which means, again, by definition, it is pseudoscience and not legitimate science (AKA- fringe or alternate)
have you no responsibility for your own actions?
how about we report your posts for baiting and trolling as they're obviously designed to do exactly that????
this is a science thread, not a pseudoscience or religion thread. read the wiki link about what constitutes the scientific method ... do i need to post it again?
also note:
what is the history of the OP?
has he done this type behaviour before?
this isn't scienceX or phys.org... there is no room to allow delusional belief the same legitimacy as proven or validated science, especially when said arguments directly contradict valid known legitimate science in an effort to "redefine" something
the only person who deserves shame here, The God, is you for defending pseudoscience in a science thread, directly against the stated thread description and the expectation of legitimate science discourse
This isn't true. QM interpretations are not falsifiable, for example, because there is no way to distinguish between them (currently), and choosing between them is a subjective matter. I am not claiming that something in this paper is unfalsifiable in the sense that "you can't prove that it's wrong", I'm stating that there is no way to distinguish between the following two equations:
$$\gamma= \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^c}}$$
$$\gamma = \sqrt{1 - \frac{a*d}{c^c}}$$
precisely because
$$a*d = v^2$$
The reader is left with having to decide, for aesthetic reasons, which is preferable. I make the case that the latter is preferable because velocity plays no role in gravitational time dilation, but acceleration and distance do, which have been interpreted as "gravity wells".
Who are you? Why this "we report...." Speak for yourself.
You are unnecessarily spewing venom. I objected to Toad's shameful behavior. I also asked couple of pertinent questions to OP, I did not support his views. It is quite silly on your part to give 'likes' to those abusive posts of Toad.
I feel Mods are there to use their wisdom to shift the thread to any section, members can prompt or report, but members certainly should not use abusive language like Toad was doing. Toad must be infracted.
Confused2, in terms of dimensional analysis it is not falsifiable.
$$a * d = \frac{m}{s^2} * m= \frac{m^2}{s^2}$$
$$v^2 = {(\frac{m}{s}})^2 = \frac{m^2}{s^2}$$
RJBeery
for starters, i'm not talking about "interpretations", i'm talking about the actual science and Theories (not "theory" as in the colloquial term, but "Theory" as in the scientific term). as a computer science major (as noted on your profile page) you're likely are misusing this term due to lack of knowledge.
and QM is definitely falsifiable. it is also "testable" (something that is often used as a substitute for "falsifiable").
QM is also proven and the single most successful Theory we've aver had, moreso than even GR/SR (as it is QM that allows us to actually test GR/SR etc in the form of it's extrapolated application via computers, electronics, etc)
this is not true either.
basic research will tell anyone capable of using google that there is no evidence supporting your claim... what you've posted is, for starters, a Hypothesis (not a Theory - see: http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-theory-and-a-hypothesis.htm )
while you are at it, also read the following: http://www.auburn.edu/academic/education/reading_genie/Fact-opinion.html
so we will not be arguing what the difference is between a fact, opinion, false claim etc in the future.
thanks
now for The God
are you illiterate? my moniker is posted and i'm not anonymous
I am speaking for myself... but i also know that the members will likely give tit-for-tat when you threaten others with "reporting" when you yourself are spamming and baiting and or supporting pseudoscience in a science thread
i happen to know a lot of them here - don't let my numbers fool you. when the changeover happened a while back, i lost a few thousand posts
like what?
what have i said that is unfactual? or even "venomous"?
i stated fact and argue that you should be responsible for your own actions before condemning others
i do not now, nor will i ever, support the posting of pseudoscience and alternative hypothesis/delusion in science discourse threads
you may as well post religion in the thread as it is every bit as unverifiable as religion.
also note: people who come here to discuss science want to discuss science, not belief, religion, or current fictitious arguments (which include opinion, false claims or untested claims - it just aint science, and that is why there is another thread for it that isn't under the science header - literacy is important in the ability to communicate)
this means members who use subtle argument for support of pseudoscience should also be reported
like yourself
it's called "baiting" and realitycheck used to do it a lot, which was why i posted it above
PROTIP - if you can't follow the rules of the thread, perhaps you should consider leaving the forum? as noted: when you disregard the rules of basic conduct per the thread (like posting untested claims as legit, or arguing a hypothesis is the same as a theory, or pseudoscience is legitimate) then said faux pas is worse than any "venomous" outing of said faux pas
there is the expectation of scientific discourse in science threads. you wouldn't tolerate religion here, so why tolerate any other non-science?
Says another crank...
You are an idiot.
you have the right to not view my profile whenever you want... i suggest you use said right
that has been my avatar for more than 4 years...
rpenner, thanks for taking the time. Many of your objections stem from the "EM mass" component of the model which is not my work, but a topic explored in depth in a variety of peer-reviewed journals so your dismissal seems premature. Please note under the references section:
[1] J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark. 1997. Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133. http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/homepg2/electron.pdf
Your semantic and notational objections will be reviewed, but sometimes it is done intentionally for ease of reading (e.g. d for distance unless centrifugal forces and a radius are being discussed); the respective weights between two particles would be identical if their radii are identical; the paper did not give an explicit formula for the surface area of contact but mentions "weight of a connection determines the local area of contact with another particle" with the assumption that a calculation of a circular area, given a radius and a scaling factor, would be obvious; I need to study your equations because it is not immediately clear to me what you are referencing. I may consider numbering the paragraphs and equations.
Puff yourself up a little more while you're at it, buffoon.
RJBeery
noted on your profile page in a conversation one person states you're a computer science major... perhaps your problem is that you're limited by your lack of exposure to evidence based science. more to the point, you've chosen to publicly define yourself as a "Natural Philosopher". there is a huge difference between philosophy and science. philosophy doesn't require evidence or even fact: it only requires an argument that you feel is justified.
science uses the scientific method.
there is a huge difference... take that into consideration before taking your paper any further.
also - may i point out that if you want to put out a paper, especially a study, with references, that is supposed to link macro and micro Theory in reality, then you should start by first being very, very, very well versed in the subjects...
then you should be as absolutely specific as possible (this is one reason that there are separate lexicons for professions: to insure clear, concise communication between professionals who want to convey a specific message and meaning... this is very important when dealing with any scientific paper. you don't see climate scientists stating that all water vapor is rain, do you?). the last thing you want to be is vague. even in matters of unknowns the papers tend to be specific to narrow the possibilities for said unknown.
case in point: the Higgs Bosun wasn't "just another particle", there were specific constraints used by CERN to narrow the search and insure there was a 5Sigma result.
i would suggest starting here: https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
1- i am being sincere
2- i am presuming nothing. i base my arguments on evidence.
history has demonstrated that just because you have a STEM degree doesn't mean you understand all STEM fields.
for instance: you can see some of the greatest stupidity when dealing with Climate Change and the denier camp who still can't wrap their head around the overwhelming evidence. when a person ignores validated evidence then said person is not only actively refusing to accept reality, they're also exercising confirmation bias (or delusion - it's much like religion. they see what they want to see)
your major is in computers: that means, by definition, you've not been able to study physics to the degree necessary for your paper to be clear, concise or even 100% accurate. had you taken more physics courses or majored in physics, i would see not only the effects in your writing style and paper but also in your descriptions in your own write up. (My daughter majored in physics, then switched to Electrical Engineering & Aeronautical Engineering, minoring in computers and programming, and following her career has allowed me some special insight to this topic)
you can tell the difference
look at the difference between your paper and the following random arXiv papers: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+quantum+AND+special+relativity/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0703593v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0701778v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0701266v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0203033.pdf
even a layman could tell the difference between your paper and the above published papers.
one thing that you show in your presentation is inexperience in how experiments work and lab investigation in science. this isn't presumption. it's demonstrated by your own posts.
you are seeking feedback.
if you are sincere in seeking a reconciliation between macro and micro, what you should be doing is talking to professionals in the field, not posting to a science forum asking for feedback from random sources that can't be validated.
also note: typical responses to your post
you get positive feedback from someone who is known to support pseudoscience, but harsh criticism from those who don't like pseudoscience.
that is a key piece of evidence you should pay far, far more attention to if you want to sincerely work in the science fields
there is no restraint in philosophy like there is in science.
philosophy is entirely subjective.
science is not. and it takes great pains to remove bias and subjectivity to insure reality.
if you combine the two you will end up having a large portion of subjective material in your paper thus condemning it to pseudoscience as well as interpretations that aren't what you thought or that you could even consider potentially viable. this is why subjectivity is a bad thing in science and why it takes such measures to insure reproducible experiments, etc
so start with picking what you will write up: philosophy or science
then go from there