Is Gravity Caused by the Motion of Particles in the Fabric of Space?

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Nigel
In response to your question, I've added another animated gif to my webpage, containing a sequence of photos from a video camera of bubbles attracting in water. http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

Think about a fish. Does a fish realize that it is in water? A flying fish perhaps, because it sees a contrast with air. But normally to a fish the properties of water are not separated from the properties of space. If you try to go at an infinite speed, say sending a charged particle round an accelerator with plenty of power, you hit a snag: you can't get it to continuously increase in speed with energy. The speed of light acts as a barrier. You can say that the inertial mass of the particle becomes larger, or you say say that space physically becomes a problem. Mathematically, you can do either. But it is useful to see space as a physical medium when dealing with what happens when magnets in a vacuum attract and repel, etc. The same applies to gravity.

If there is only physical space, with nothing moving in it, there would not be any waves to observe. However, the electrons and nuclear particles in the observers would be creating little waves in space.

I see, sort of, now. Space is a physical medium. What else is going to carry magnetic disturbances or particles etc? Where else are we going to put the water, fish, air etc...?

In fact... I can almost see space doing a wave-like action when space is displaced by matter... or plazma... or emfs etc... so that... when the space is displaced... there may even be a wave created in leu of an expansion and accomodation of the matter.

What is constraining the particle traveling at "c" in the cyclotron, linear accelerator or in space? Is it that space causes an impedence or is it that matter cannot hold together at c? Is that an old question?

Your theory of gravity seems to me to rely on a universe that is being held by surface tension. The contents create a pressure that acts on matter that has conjealed out of the original light/radiation of the BB.

The surface tension that holds the space and matter of the universe would... by some accounts... be caused by tension between a "void" and the physical universe.

Does this figure?

(Thanks again, by the by)

 

[subtillioN]

This is from another thread, but I thought it was appropriate here:

My comment is a vast simplification of the mechanism of gravity from a new unified field theory called Sorce Theory. It is more of a deeper level substrate reconstruction than a "gap bridging", but it does accomplish the same function and much more. I will skim across the details of the theory in a second, but first a little background. [More information can be found at this link as well: www.anpheon.org]

--------

“What is this quantum vacuum”?—

The new conception of the "quantum vacuum" is that it is mathematically equivalent to a zero-energy superfluid. Take for instance this quote from G.E. Volovik in “The Universe in a Helium Droplet”.

“According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum.
“Among the existing condensed matter systems, the particular quantum liquid—superfluid 3He-A—most closely resembles the quantum vacuum of the Standard Model. This is the collection of 3He atoms condensed into the liquid state like water. But as distinct from water, the behavior of this liquid is determined by the quantum mechanical zero-point motion of atoms. Due to the large amplitude of this motion the liquid does not solidify even at zero temperature.”

Sorce Theory asserts that this "quantum Vacuum" is a real material fluid which is continuous, compressible and fluid-dynamic. The theory demonstrates how all the dynamics of a basic level superfluid such as, quantized meta-stable vortices, solitons, breathers, transverse wave propagation and harmonic resonances, frictionless rotation and translation of embedded particles and objects (dynamics indistinguishable from that of the observed vacuum)-- can form the quantized shell structure of the atom, the structure of the solar-system, the mechanisms of chemical-molecular bonds, all the forces of nature and the dynamics of physical reality. All the forces become understandable as a product of a single continuous fluid-dynamic pressure in dynamic configurations of harmonically equilibrated wave systems in various forms of interaction with each other.



Ok to answer your questions...

“how does matter wave refraction create the gravitational field?”

The “matter-wave” refractions of the atom do not create the g-field. They are a response to it—-a force. They are a refractive response to the permeating density gradient (a gravitational field) in the zero-energy superfluid which is oxymoronically called the “quantum vacuum”. This density gradient permeates the intrinsic harmonically equilibrated wave-systems of the atoms and skews the internal paths of the wave-systems toward the increasing density of the gradient. The atom equilibrates in the direction of the refraction of its internal wave systems. This is called the force of gravity.

I hope this cursory explanation helps.

 

[yogi]

Your Sorce theory does not simplify anything - it attempts to assert magical relationships between unassociated phenomena - it is non predictive - the theory posted by Nigel at least makes predictions - e.g., the numerical value of G ... and he offers an explanation for why G depends upon the velocity of light and the rate of expansion. If the value of H and the energy density of space were precisely known, these numbers could be plugged into Nigels formula to test whether the equation is correct -- As i have said previously, the result may be off by a factor of 2 - In any event, the issue is Whether Nigels explanations of the physical interactions are correct - for example - how does one transform the mechanical properties of space to a 377 ohm electrical impedance that Nigel claims to be a pressure -

The situation is much like GR - Einstein had part of the answer in the Reinman metric - this, the left side of the equation, he referred to as fine marble - but he had to hypothesize what caused the curvature - so on the right side he threw in everything that had mass energy and postulated this as the cause - but it was incomplete - he could not explain why static matter could curve static space - and to this day - neither can anyone else - this was Einstein's great concern - Nigel has an equation for a dynamic - he has proffered solutions - but they are conclusionary - incomplete at the very point where funtionality is needed

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by yogi
Your Sorce theory does not simplify anything -

Sorry but I know for a fact that you do not know Sorce Theory. Please reserve your criticisms for when you actually have something relevant to say. Unless you just want to blow smoke out your ...

Everything in the rest of your post proves that you don't know what you are talking about wrt Sorce Theory.

Do you often make judgements based in ignorance?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by yogi
the theory posted by Nigel at least makes predictions - e.g., the numerical value of G ... and he offers an explanation for why G depends upon the velocity of light and the rate of expansion. If the value of H and the energy density of space were precisely known, these numbers could be plugged into Nigels formula to test whether the equation is correct -- As i have said previously, the result may be off by a factor of 2 - In any event, the issue is Whether Nigels explanations of the physical interactions are correct - for example - how does one transform the mechanical properties of space to a 377 ohm electrical impedance that Nigel claims to be a pressure -

Sorce Theory does that and much more. Can Nigels Theory explain the physical mechanism of "Time Dilation"? Can it explain the mechanism of the strong and weak forces? Can it unify ALL the forces as a single fluid-dynamic pressure?

I have read through this thread and it is apparent that this theory is sort of on the right track, but it suffers the same problems as do all the radiant-pressure models of gravitation. The shadow effects do not match the experimental data.

Nigel has a decent theory of gravity but is it a Unified Field Theory? Does it explain the nature of the quantum? Does it explain how the continuous fluid is quantized into the electronic shell structure of the atom? Can it explain the mechanism of Bodes Law which unifies the atomic with the planetary scales of energy, force and structure based on the same fluid-dynamic mechanism?

Sorce Theory is MUCH more complete than you have any idea. It has been around since 1965 and its conclusions and predictions have been tested and verified and are stronger than ever in light of the new experiments in condensed matter physics. The theory contains many large volumes (some of them contain thousands of pages each) of quantitative and qualitative explanations of ALL the mechanisms of physical reality.

There is NOTHING magical about Sorce Theory. It uses simple fluid-dynamics and wave-mechanics in a frictionless continuous medium to explain the nature of all the forces and energy mechanisms in observed physical reality.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Sorce Theory does that and much more. Can Nigels Theory explain the physical mechanism of "Time Dilation"? Can it explain the mechanism of the strong and weak forces? Can it unify ALL the forces as a single fluid-dynamic pressure?

I have read through this thread and it is apparent that this theory is sort of on the right track, but it suffers the same problems as do all the radiant-pressure models of gravitation. The shadow effects do not match the experimental data.

Nigel has a decent theory of gravity but is it a Unified Field Theory? Does it explain the nature of the quantum? Does it explain how the continuous fluid is quantized into the electronic shell structure of the atom? Can it explain the mechanism of Bodes Law which unifies the atomic with the planetary scales of energy, force and structure based on the same fluid-dynamic mechanism?

Sorce Theory is MUCH more complete than you have any idea. It has been around since 1965 and its conclusions and predictions have been tested and verified and are stronger than ever in light of the new experiments in condensed matter physics. The theory contains many large volumes (some of them contain thousands of pages each) of quantitative and qualitative explanations of ALL the mechanisms of physical reality.

There is NOTHING magical about Sorce Theory. It uses simple fluid-dynamics and wave-mechanics in a frictionless continuous medium to explain the nature of all the forces and energy mechanisms in observed physical reality.

Yes, the full theory as published in Electronics World explains time-dilation, the mechanism of the electron's spin and magnetic dipole moment, etc. Here are the contents:

Electronics World, Volume 109, Number 1804, pp. 47-52, "AN ELECTRONIC UNIVERSE: PART 2 THE ELECTRONIC BIG BANG."

p. 47: Introduction.
p. 48: Unification of quantum mechanics and relativity, and the spin, magnetic moment, and spherical electric field of the electron giving rise to Gauss's field law (which becomes Coulomb's force law, since force is field multiplied by charge).
p. 49: 16 step mechanism of gravity as the result of the big bang.
p. 50: proof of the electromagnetic force attraction and replusion mechanism resulting from the exchange of continuous (non quantum) electromagnetic energy by charges in the expanding universe. Diagram proves the mechanisms of attraction and repulsion.
p. 51: mathematical proof of the coupling constants and mechanisms of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces.
p. 52: overview of Maxwell's equations and their derivation from the electron.

There are 3 steps in introducing a new theory:
[1] It is ignored
[2] It is ridiculed
[3] It is accepted by those who have already been thinking on the same lines but have not gone the full hog to complete the very hard original mathematical proofs, because they know how disappointing it will be to experience years of steps [1] and [2].

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Nigel

There are 3 steps in introducing a new theory:
[1] It is ignored
[2] It is ridiculed
[3] It is accepted by those who have already been thinking on the same lines but have not gone the full hog to complete the very hard original mathematical proofs, because they know how disappointing it will be to experience years of steps [1] and [2].

I have certainly been there!

Can you please give a brief explanation of the mechanism of "time-dilation"?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Nigel
Yes, the full theory as published in Electronics World explains time-dilation, the mechanism of the electron's spin and magnetic dipole moment, etc. Here are the contents:

Does your theory Unify all the forces of nature? Does it explain the strong and weak forces?

 

[yogi]

ASssertions as to causes are not proofs

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Does your theory Unify all the forces of nature? Does it explain the strong and weak forces?

The proof derives from Ivor Catt's work in electromagnetic theory. When you charge up a capacitor, the energy enters at the speed of light. There is no mechanism for it to slow down. When it discharges, it discharges at the speed of light. Ivor measured this with a sampling oscilloscope in the 1960s while designing early computer chips to minimise interference/cross talk. He published it in his long paper "Cross Talk in Digital Systems" in IEEE Transactions on Electronic Computers, vol. EC-16, Dec. 1967.

Later, when he began to argue that this means that static electricity is reciprocating light speed energy, he was censored out. Journal editors would not publish facts which appeared to contradict some assertions made by Einstein. Catt was furious because he had done the experiments, and Einstein had not.

I point out that time is measured by motion, and the only motion for a stationary particle is its spin. You cannot switch off spin. To explain the light speed static electromagnetic energy proven by Catt's experiments, you have to accept that electron spin is the speed of light. The orbital motion must then be perpendicular to the spin direction to maintain constancy of spin speed around the electron. When you have two things at right angles, they add up by Phythagoras' theorem, square of spin speed plus square of orbit speed equals square of speed of light.

When you rearrange this to give relative spin speed equal to electron spin speed divided by speed of light, the result is the square root of (1 - v squared / c squared), which is the result Einstein got without any mechanism.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Does your theory Unify all the forces of nature? Does it explain the strong and weak forces?

Electro-weak unification efforts for which a Nobel prize was awarded to Abdus Salam, Steven Weinberg, etc., were criticised by Feynman in his book Q.E.D., who pointed out that the various particles they postulate seem to be some sort of photon in terms of their properties. Feynman pointed out that you can "see the glue" they used to stick their theory together. It is messy.

I use the uncertainty principle and sort out the strong nuclear force, proving that it is 137 times stronger than electromagnetism by electromagnetic light speed energy exchange, distinct from electromagnetic force.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
ASssertions as to causes are not proofs

I do not know if you are referring to my paper or the other theory.

My approach takes as axioms the accepted characteristics of physical space from well proven electromagnetic research with magnets, charges, and transmission lines, and the observed recession of clusters of galaxies.

From these two axioms I prove the cause of gravity. If anyone wants to attack the cause of gravity as being a mere "assertion" you will have to say which axiom you consider a mere "assertion", whether you doubt the electromagnetic properties of empty space, or the big bang.

 

[yogi]

Actually Nigel - i was referring to both theories - when I try to pin you down to specifics as Brad and Achron have done with SubtilioN on some of the other threads, the responses are non-sequiter .. If you can't identify those aspects of your proposal which make a jump from fact to faith, neither I nor any other student of cosmology can relate to what you are saying

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Nigel
I point out that time is measured by motion, and the only motion for a stationary particle is its spin. You cannot switch off spin. To explain the light speed static electromagnetic energy proven by Catt's experiments, you have to accept that electron spin is the speed of light. The orbital motion must then be perpendicular to the spin direction to maintain constancy of spin speed around the electron. When you have two things at right angles, they add up by Phythagoras' theorem, square of spin speed plus square of orbit speed equals square of speed of light.

When you rearrange this to give relative spin speed equal to electron spin speed divided by speed of light, the result is the square root of (1 - v squared / c squared), which is the result Einstein got without any mechanism.

Interesting. In Sorce Theory, time dilation is a simple consequence of the absolute speed of electromagnetic waves per unit density of the continuous fluid. The "wave-nature" (a very complicated and detailed harmonically "quantized" structure) of an atom and all wave energy processes, simply slow in response to a denser field (gravitational field) and when an atom is accelerated near c it compresses and condenses thus slowing the wave-energy and all the fluid equilibrations via this wave energy. All processes are at root an effect of the deeper level fluid-dynamic mechanisms, thus the rates of these processes will be slowed by these wave-dependent mechanisms.

Time-dilation is a very simple and strait-forward result of the absolute speed of light per unit density of the basic substance, and is more correctly called "rate-change" since Time is an abstraction for matter in motion.

 

[ofikn]

What is Science?

After spending the greater part of a summer afternoon reading all 27 pages of posts, and referring to the articles referenced, I believe that I do have two cents to add to this debate.

The problem with Nigel's presentation and defense is that he and I do not agree on what science is. My ninth grade teacher told me once, "When you turn on a light switch, it sends a signal to some Martians, who then burn a fire in the light bulb". What that means is that there are the "Models" of science and the science itself. Nigel has presented both a Model and a system of calculations. The math may be correct, and I am sure that if the first step is correct then all of the other 16 steps do not include any errors in algebra or calculus. This does not mean that the Model is correct. Einstein presented models to the general public, which may or not be correct, they are just simplifications to make life easier for the layman. There are an INFINITE number of models that satisfy your equations, therefore you are not on the same playing field as the establishment physics.

As an establishment science teacher I would tell my students to immediatly discard the first part of your paper. NOBODY cares what causes gravity, Newton didn't, Einstein didn't, and Hawkins doesn't. You have found an interesting set of mathematical connections between Hubble's constant, and Cavindish's gravitational constant, this is certainly interesting. BUT I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH the equations have to be DIVORCED from the model!

Let me compare your work with an article published in Scientific American of August 2002 by Mordehai Milgrom. Milgrom found that by changing Newton's force law F=ma to F=ma+0(H) then there will be no need for adding dark matter to the Universe. He got his work published, even though it is "far out" and challanges the very foundations of mechanics, because he did not try to find a "why". He claims that this formula "fits" the data, and explicitly claims not to have a mechanism or a model for his equations.

If you would present your mathematics without the added burden of a model, and claim that you have found a different derivation of Freidmans law then you would be on sounder footing.

HOWEVER your 16 steps have some claims that are MODEL dependent! This is never a good thing.
1) Number 2 and 11 are the same thus there are only 15 steps.
2) Assume G = (3/4)H2/ (ðñ), it doesn't mean that ther are not other derivations as you claim. The problem is that H is not a constant. It is a measured quantity that nobody claims to know. In fact the problem with "H" is that it is easy to identify up to a certain distance, then the function of distance and velocity could be concave, convex, or linear, nobody knows or even claims to know. In fact most books claim that H is a function of &rho, so you cannot use both of them in the same equation!.
3) You claim in part 8 "velocity is really varying as a direct function of time past, i.e., velocity is proportional to time so there is acceleration," This may be true, but it doesn't make the standard version of Hubble's law wrong. If I stand on a line and a car accelerates away from me, and I have tied a tape measure to the car, and it is operating a siren. I can calculate the velocity as a function of distance. From this I can see that the farther away the car is the faster it is going. I can look at this experiment in a different light, with a stop watch instead of a tape measure and calculate the velocity as a function of time. NEITHER is "wrong" or in error. They are just two different ways of looking at the same phenomena. By calling Hubble's law wrong, you just make enemies, couldn't you just state, that this is a different way of looking at the data, and you could make more friends.
4) In equation 7 you talk about the Radius of the Universe "R", this is very problematic. What radius do you mean? Because of Special and general relativity this is a non measurable quantity. You can make some assumptions as to the size, by assuming that the distant galaxies that were measured as to their output 12-13 giga-Y ago and their velocities you can get a general number of about 40-50 glY, but this doesn't solve the main problem, presented in May Scientific American, as to is this just the Radius of the Observed Universe, or is there more after that. If we assume Big-Bang Inflationary cosmology, then we have to assume that the space of the universe is growing at light speed from the initial singularity. Both the Ricci tensor and the materiel in it are expanding! thus
5) Equation 8, falls apart as you have not definition of R that is accepted by any of the establishment.
6) The 377 ohm impendence, is not the same as resistance. This is because of the effects of space, and has you claim not dependent on distance, but always exists! HOWEVER you cannot then turn around and use this as if it were a true resistance! This mathematical beast defined by the Zo of free space is equal to the square root of the ratio of the permeability of free space (µo) in henrys per meter (H/m) to the permittivity of free space (o) in farads per meter (F/m):
Zo = (µo/Eo)1/2 Every other site then Ivor's claims that this cannot be used as resistance as drag. But even if it were you don't use the number.
7) You must either show the fully covariant/contravariant formulation of the Einstein equations, or prove that they are wrong. As your system is simple algebra and calculus, and does not attempt to provide the standard mathematical formulation it will be rejected by all establishment scientists.

In general scientists have a "bull ****" meter, that is set off by certain expressions and claims. By including claims in your paper that sound paranoid, and that claim that certain standard equations are wrong, you almost make sure that you will not be published. Take the example from Milgrom, who made one of the most extravagant claims in modern science and DID get published!

Best of Luck!
Ofek

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by ofikn


The problem with Nigel's presentation and defense is that he and I do not agree on what science is... As an establishment science teacher I would tell my students to immediatly discard the first part of your paper. NOBODY cares what causes gravity, Newton didn't, Einstein didn't, and Hawkins doesn't. You have found an interesting set of mathematical connections ...

Best of Luck!
Ofek

This is false. SOME PEOPLE DO CARE WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY, including Newton who tried long and hard to find it, and failed, as proven by his private papers which were studied by his biographers, particularly Richard Westfall.

Your interpretation of science seems to be MATHS. You want to impose the view of Einstein until 1920 that "God is a mathematician". This makes you think of science as a religion prejudiced in favour of a mathematical solution with no understandable interpretation. Your prejudice is then used to attempt to discredit other people. That such prejudice is manifested in teachers is diabolical, think of what prejudice has done throughout history.

However, you are interpretated to your weird view. I just hope that your students take your arrogant unproven assertions and ignorance of Newton with a large pinch of salt!

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by yogi
when I try to pin you down to specifics as Brad and Achron have done with SubtilioN on some of the other threads, the responses are non-sequiter

The problem is that the theories take quite a bit of fundamental explanation to build the model in your mind. It is not as easy to give you the theory as you seem to believe. Have you ever tried to learn an entirely alternative model? It takes quite a bit of re-programming to modify your preconceptions before your mind will allow the constructions to take shape.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
It takes quite a bit of re-programming to modify your preconceptions before your mind will allow the constructions to take shape.

How would you know? You don't have the original programming.

One could just as easily argue that, for you, the standard model is the alternative, and it is you who are incapable of shedding your preconceptions.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
How would you know? You don't have the original programming.

Right, I did not have the extensive formal training. That's why it was quite easy for me to step outside it and learn the alternative model first. This also explains why my comments and statements seem so alien (incorrect to you). They are coming from an entirely alternate Physics paradigm. A paradigm in which all the forces and fields are united into one continuous, causal field.

One could just as easily argue that, for you, the standard model is the alternative, and it is you who are incapable of shedding your preconceptions.

- Warren

One can argue anything, but one must actually produce an argument to do so.

The fact is that you simply do not know the alternative model that I am referencing. So until you do know it, your arguments against it are meaningless and simply miss the target.

Instead of all this defensive posturing, why not try and understand it before simply claiming that it is incorrect? At the very least you could ignore it in the face of your ignorance of it. Why bother making statements about something that you do not understand?

BTW I do have an in depth qualitative (and quantitative to an extent)understanding of the standard model (as I have shown on this board) despite your baseless claims to the contrary.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Right, I did not have the extensive formal training. That's why it was quite easy for me to step outside it and learn the alternative model first. This also explains why my comments and statements seem so alien (incorrect to you). They are coming from an entirely alternate Physics paradigm. A paradigm in which all the forces and fields are united into one continuous, causal field.



One can argue anything, but one must actually produce an argument to do so.

The fact is that you simply do not know the alternative model that I am referencing. So until you do know it, your arguments against it are meaningless and simply miss the target.

Instead of all this defensive posturing, why not try and understand it before simply claiming that it is incorrect? At the very least you could ignore it in the face of your ignorance of it. Why bother making statements about something that you do not understand?

BTW I do have an in depth qualitative (and quantitative to an extent)understanding of the standard model (as I have shown on this board) despite your baseless claims to the contrary.

Yes. Lawyers, for example, are trained to give a defence (defense for US readers spelling) of anyone who needs a defence.

There are indeed counter-arguments to anything, including a proof. Some people try to defend Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, etc., by claiming that there is no proof that the vast number of innocent people killed during their regimes were their responsibility. With clever propaganda, proof can be dismissed, ignored, and even ridiculed.

This explains why traditionally scientific revolutions have been as nasty as political revolutions. To give a couple of examples, consider Bruno the monk being burned at the stake in February 1600 for arguing against prejudice in cosmology and astronomy, and Ludwig Boltzmann in 1907 committing suicide while on holiday after his physics was shunned and ridiculed (shortly afterwards it was accepted!). When you get past the brief contorted historical comments in physics textbooks, you find that the scene is very ugly.

 

[ofikn]

Thank you for your quick reply!

Quote:
This is false. SOME PEOPLE DO CARE WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY, including Newton who tried long and hard to find it, and failed, as proven by his private papers which were studied by his biographers, particularly Richard Westfall.

RESPONSE:
That it true, he did look for it for a while, but then the light bulb went on and he said the EMPIRICAL result is good enough! Newton sat on his writings for you know how many years and refused to publish, as he could not find the why. Thank g_d that you know who caught him by the neck on his you know which birthday and said, "hey buddy either you publish or what's his name in Switz will" (since I am so ignorant on Newton I will let you fill in the missing bits).

QUOTE:
Your interpretation of science seems to be MATHS. You want to impose the view of Einstein until 1920 that "God is a mathematician".
RESPONSE:
No, it is _you_ who claim over and over again check the math, check my 16 points and so on and so on. Remember just as the drawing of an atom is a model to help students understand, and the flow of current as a drawing in a textbook is a MODEL, it is important to separate the PHYSICS from the MODEL. That is why so many people do not understand quantum physics, they can't get past the difference between the two. Math is only part of the system, there are physical conditions that have to relate to the system as well.

QUOTE:
This makes you think of science as a religion prejudiced in favour of a mathematical solution with no understandable interpretation. Your prejudice is then used to attempt to discredit other people. That such prejudice is manifested in teachers is diabolical, think of what prejudice has done throughout history.

RESPONSE:
Here again the paranoid response, When Whiley published his work on Fermat's theorem people said hokum, but they read the book, and asked for new proofs to different parts of it, and only after Whiley responded with the proofs was his proof accepted. The difference between his response and yours is gigantic. Yes I am prejudiced as to what I present. My religion of science is get it out there, let people present as much critism as they want, and refine the theory according to the responses. Only somebody who puts out a complete "dogma" which cannot be changed, is in my mind not science. I have printed out your article and most of my 12th graders are able to point out the epistimological mistakes. Perhaps in a later posting I will explain them to you. Again, if you fight about MODELS, then any MODEL, explains everything, so just find out in what physical systems the given equations work, and try to find under which conditions they WOULD NOT work (that is the fun part) and then try to modify them to explain.
Again I do not discredit work that is properly presented, as in the Milgrom article, even though in my gut I cannot believe that that is the way that the world works.
When I first read Guth's paper on Inflation I was amazed at convinced, basically because that there _were_ holes in the theory. A good scientist presents the FAULTS of his theory together with its good parts.


QUOTE:
However, you are interpretated to your weird view. I just hope that your students take your arrogant unproven assertions and ignorance of Newton with a large pinch of salt!

RESPONSE
I think you mean WORLD view and not WEIRD view. (and i think you mean entitled not interpreted) What held back science before G. and N. was the attempt to find a Primus Mobilus. I am so glad that you know all of my ignorance about Newton from one posting! How grand you must be that you can tell what I know and don't know!
As to "arrogant unproven assertions" I could think of other examples...

The trick here is that there is no such thing as "Proof" in physics, thus all of my statements are of course unproven. I take your statement as a compliment! Physics is the science of the unknown, once it becomes known, it becomes an engineering problem. The goal of physics is to come up with experiments or observations that can differentiate between two world systems. If two systems can not be differentiated by any known experiment, then they are both equally valid until then. It doesn't matter if gravity if push/pull/or imaginary. Until you can provide (as you try to do with the supernovae data) a compelling experiment or observational prediction then you will not be published.

I notice that, as with many people, you have chosen to argue with points on a personal level. I thought that I was very generous and would like to see your work published, as you may have some interesting results! What I am trying to convey to you is that you present them in a way that will make you unpopular. Read the Milgrom article, read the Multiverse article, or read any article in any refereed publication, (especially the clasics, such as Eugene Parker's 1966 article on solar corpuscular radiation, or Van-Allen's 1948 article on ...) Even Gallelio in the Simplico dialogues presents a demonstration but leaves the conclusion to the reader. As long as you refuse to play by the rules of the game, you will be stuck in an alternative Universe, and even if what you say is true, it will be ignored. Would it kill you to write a paper according to the contemporary standards? WHY were two of the three papers published in 1905 by Einstein adopted almost immediatly by those in the know? People do care about revolutionary theories, when they are presented in a standard form.
Please keep working on your theory, and keep posting here, I am interested to see where it is going from here. (finally remember the Lamb shift, and how that teeny tiny splitting changed history!)

Ofek
(P.S. you still haven't answered the rest of my questions, or solved the model vs reality debate, some words that Newton searched doesn't solve the problem)

 

[chroot]

subtillioN,

The fact is that you simply do not know the standard model that I am referencing. So until you do know it, your arguments against it are meaningless and simply miss the target.

Instead of all this defensive posturing, why not try and understand the standard model before simply claiming that it is incorrect? At the very least you could ignore it in the face of your ignorance of it. Why bother making statements about something that you do not understand?

Originally posted by subtillioN
BTW I do have an in depth qualitative (and quantitative to an extent)understanding of the standard model (as I have shown on this board) despite your baseless claims to the contrary.

As has been pointed out by countless people so far, all you've actually demonstrated is that you really have no idea what the standard model predicts and does not predict. You've demonstrated ignorance of the core, essential elements of the theory, along with the significance of each.

SubtillioN, you've produced what has got to be the silliest chain of arguments I've ever seen on this board, with hundreds of posts! I really thought the physicsforums moderators were more on-the-ball. Where are you, mods?

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
subtillioN,

The fact is that you simply do not know the standard model that I am referencing.

Prove it.

As has been pointed out by countless people so far, all you've actually demonstrated is that you really have no idea what the standard model predicts and does not predict.

It has been said over and over but never has it been effectively argued.

I really thought the physicsforums moderators were more on-the-ball. Where are you, mods?

- Warren

Another plea for help? You are intolerant and ignorant of any alternatives.

 

[yogi]

To correct some of the posts - first both Newton and Einstein were deeply interested in gravitational cause - Newton said ... "but I have not been able to discover the cause, physical or metaphysical, occult or mechanical ..." So any effort to find an acceptable model should be looked upon with unbiased enthusiasm - but as pointed out in the posts - certain statements are red flags - and the transition from one type of mathematical physics (e.g., mechanical physics) to another (e.g., electromagneic factors) such as ohms, impedance and the like are going to require more than just assertions. There needs to be a rosetta stone - something which transforms the mechanical properties of mass, motion, and the like to permeability and permittivity - For those interested in an alternative derivation of G, take a look at the cartoon on page 16 of part I in http://cosmodynamics.com

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Prove it.

We already have. Do you really enjoy just going around and around in cricles?

It has been said over and over but never has it been effectively argued.

Of course it has been. Everyone else here accepted the arguments but you. And after all, since you don't know the standard model, you're not in much of a position to determine whether or not we "effectively argued" it. Shut up.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
We already have. Do you really enjoy just going around and around in cricles?

Of course it has been. Everyone else here accepted the arguments but you. And after all, since you don't know the standard model, you're not in much of a position to determine whether or not we "effectively argued" it. Shut up.

- Warren

chill out what are you so afraid of?

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
chill out what are you so afraid of?

What makes you think I'm afraid of something? I'm just tired of watching these threads go around and around in circles. You're occupying some of the good members here with this futile argument, and other, worthwhile threads are suffering.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
What makes you think I'm afraid of something? I'm just tired of watching these threads go around and around in circles. You're occupying some of the good members here with this futile argument, and other, worthwhile threads are suffering.

- Warren

cop out

What are you the thought police? People are free to ignore what they want.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
cop out

What are the thought police? People are free to ignore what they want.

Cop out? I don't even see how that term applies here. Perhaps you don't really know what it means -- like the Einstein equation.

And sure, people are free to ignore anything -- but you behave the way you do specifically to incense people. It's difficult for anyone with any knowledge of real physics to ignore loud, ignorant people like yourself. You know this, and that's why you're here nearly constantly, posting 30+ times a day. You enjoy the attention. It's also why you sidestep any and all arguments against you. You know when you've been handed your ass, but you just go on like nothing happened -- on purpose -- to fan the flames.

I think it's boring, and would rather talk about something else. Keep in mind that there are thousands of people just like you, all over the web. I've seen so many arguments almost identical to this one that it's just sad.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
And sure, people are free to ignore anything -- but you behave the way you do specifically to incense people.

I do not. I am offering my alternate views when I am not defending myself against the mob.

It's also why you sidestep any and all arguments against you.

I have dealt with them head on. If you have an argument that I have not addressed I will be happy to address it.

You know when you've been handed your ass, but you just go on like nothing happened -- on purpose -- to fan the flames.

That is simply not true. I was making my comments when you attacked me in this thread. Go back and read it. I was not being hostile whatsoever. You just cannot stand diversity in thought. So you try to stamp it out.

I think it's boring, and would rather talk about something else.

Why don't you just ignore it then? Why do you let it upset you?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
but you behave the way you do specifically to incense people.

Who is the one who goes around calling people an idiot if they say something you do not agree with?

Keep in mind that there are thousands of people just like you, all over the web.

Just like there are thousands of you blindly believing whatever the establishment says is true.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Nigel
When you get past the brief contorted historical comments in physics textbooks, you find that the scene is very ugly.

How very prescient!

 

[Hurkyl]

Who is the one who goes around calling people an idiot if they say something you do not agree with?

I don't know, I haven't seen someone do that.

Just like there are thousands of you blindly believing whatever the establishment says is true.

Have you ever considered the remote possibility that people just might be agreeing with the established theories because they're sound?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[I don't know, I haven't seen someone do that.

I have seen chroot do it several times on this board.

Have you ever considered the remote possibility that people just might be agreeing with the established theories because they're sound?

I used to believe in them and that is quite an easy possibility to consider. It is actually the EASIEST possibility to consider. Thus it is the most dangerous, intellectually.

 

[Hurkyl]

I have seen chroot do it several times on this board.

I have never seen chroot insult someone for mere disagreement. Care to back up this statement? (Keep in mind that this entails not only finding a time chroot insulted someone, but also demonstrating that the reason for the insult was mere disagreement)

I used to believe in them and that is quite an easy possibility to consider. It is actually the EASIEST possibility to consider. Thus it is the most dangerous, intellectually.

All of which does not make it wrong. In any case, you seem to refuse to consider this possibility at the present, which was the point of my comment.