Michelson and Morley solved, relativity gone

[wisp]

Paul

Yes, there is something interesting here. Although I think that there is something more fundamental that is responsible for the MM "near null" result.
You are correct in that the light does not behave the way MM thought it did, i.e. it does not meet back at the centre of the mirror. This is an interesting observation and needs further investigation.
I will run mathcad on a model using your findings and see what happens.

 

[paulanevill@fsmail.n]

Paul

Yes, there is something interesting here. Although I think that there is something more fundamental that is responsible for the MM "near null" result.
You are correct in that the light does not behave the way MM thought it did, i.e. it does not meet back at the centre of the mirror. This is an interesting observation and needs further investigation.
I will run mathcad on a model using your findings and see what happens.

I use the term MM to refer to all experiments. With the true speed of the Earth being 5500m/s on MM's day, and it varying sinusiodally during the year, this model (given the exact prediction of amplitude, phase and offset of MM original experiment) will undoubtably predict all the other experimental results.
With such an exact fit, the chances of it not matching other experiments is very unlikely.

Paul

 

[chroot]

Doesn't that violate the conditions of being a PF member (maybe not specifically in terms of clause b sub-clause iii, but in terms of what PF is clearly about)?

I don't believe we have enough evidence to conclude that Paul here is really trying to send anyone a virus. More than likely, he just fell victim to MyDoom a while back like many other innocent people.

This guy seems harmless, though a little daft and suffering from a scorching superiority complex.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Well,Well, I was certain that 90% of all products, were developed by the engineer, along with most great discoveries, mathematical or otherwise.

That's simply one of the funniest statements I've ever read on pf. Engineers making mathematical discoveries?

(And I hold an engineering degree, but I'm objective about engineers' training. It certainly doesn't prepare an engineer to make mathematical discoveries, of all things!)

- Warren

 

[Antonio Lao]

Dirac was an engineer before he made giant contributions in quantum mechanics, a turning point in modern physics.

 

[Severian596]

Well,Well, I was certain that 90% of all products, were developed by the engineer, along with most great discoveries, mathematical or otherwise.

Dirac was an engineer before he made giant contributions in quantum mechanics, a turning point in modern physics.

Most engineers create.
One engineer was responsible for a great discovery.
Therefore most engineers are responsible for most great discoveries.


hmm...

 

[Antonio Lao]

The ancient builders of the pyramids are foremost engineers and second mathematicians. It took them many years to find out the stability angle of the slope to the pyramids which is about 54? degrees. The mystery of how they built the pyramids still remains to these days.

 

[Severian596]

The ancient builders of the pyramids are foremost engineers and second mathematicians. It took them many years to find out the stability angle of the slope to the pyramids which is about 54 degrees. The mystery of how they builts the pyramids still remains to these days.

It also took Thales (the Greek philosopher/scientist) to teach them how to calculate a pyramid's height, because they didn't know how

PS Sorry, even further OT, but interesting nonetheless! The abstraction of numbers was an invention and we take it for granted.

 

[Antonio Lao]

I didn't realize there were exchange students between Greece and Egypt at that time?

What happens when one needed new math to describe new physical concept?

 

[Severian596]

I didn't realize there were exchange students between Greece and Egypt at that time?

What happens when one needed new math to describe new physical concept?

I should definitely quote my source, as I'm not a history scholar (especially not the history of geometry). But the book Euclid's Window is very interesting, and discusses the progression of geometry from ancient civilization to modern theory.

Not "exchange students" per se, but traveling men who were interested in the pursuit of knowledge and truth. But these men (Pythagoras in particular) found different systems of math everywhere they traveled.

The author (Mlodinow) explains that few cultures looked for meaning behind the numbers, and instead applied them immediately to applications. Babylonians engineered canals and projected anticipated man hours to dig a canal based on the area of its trapazoidal cross section, its anticipated length, and how much dirt a man could shovel per hour. The egyptians crafted the pyramids utilizing the crucial 3, 4, 5 triangle. But only the greeks were interested in finding the answer to the following connundrum:

Given a triangle with sides measuring one unit of length, what's the length of the third side?

In Thales' elder years he was affraid of his own growing bewilderment, and offered some guidance to Pythagoras (in whom he must have seen some of himself). Thales was named one of the 7 wisest men in the world (one of the seven sages) by the Greek civilization.

Good stuff!

 

[Antonio Lao]

Thanks for these information. I will look them up more thoroughly.

 

[Severian596]

Sure! It really was my pleasure. The book is very entertaining, and you can get a used copy pretty cheap :)

 

[elas]

The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most accurate scientific theory ever developed.

Wrong. SR is not a scientific theory and recently books and TV progs on related subjects (such as "The Planets", "Universe" "Neutrinos" and "The elegant universe") are careful to draw a distinction between mathematical prediction theories that are properly classified as philosophies and scientific theories that are theories related to reality. Greene in "The elegant universe" makes the point on several occassions. If you do not have the book, you will find the quotes on my webpage (see 'Strings and vacuum' forum).

 

[Antonio Lao]

Einstein used to say that the objective reality has its independent existence. All physical theories can do but to approximate this reality to only a very trivial degree of model (mathmatical or physical) building. All empirical data can help in understanding the reality but not fully in the sense of complete understanding.

 

[russ_watters]

SR is not a scientific theory...

elas: The Scientific Method. Learn it, live it, love it.

 

[2clockdude]

---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Mattson wrote, in part:
"The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most
accurate scientific theory ever developed."

"Do you SR critics have anything to say about that?"
---------------------------------------------------------

2clockdude replies:
Well, here's what this particular SR critic has to say:
Which part of QED has anything to do with the basis of SR,
namely, Einstein's light postulate?

(Both Maxwell's equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment
predated SR, so their results were not predicted by Einstein;
his specific and sole prediction was the invariance of light's
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks.)

In fact, who has ever tested Einstein's light postulate?

And the answer is, no one.

Indeed, how can it be tested?

I challenge anyone who believes in SR to simply show on paper
how light's speed can be experimentally measured by using two
clocks (which are at rest wrt the table upon which they sit).

And here is my firm prediction:
No one will rise to this challenge.

 

[elas]

elas: The Scientific Method. Learn it, live it, love it.

russ waters
I agree and according to leaders in the field of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge and to leaders in the field of physics (including Prof. Greene author of The elegant universe), the Standard Model fails that test. I wrote at length on this subject in a forum titled 'Why all the nutcases'. If you really want to learn something look up SSK and physics on the web, it's a real education for those who mistakenly believe ST is a science subject.

 

[paulanevill@fsmail.n]

---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Mattson wrote, in part:
"The best tests of SR are tests of <acronym title='Quantum Electrodynamics' style='cursor:help;'>QED</acronym>, which is the most
accurate scientific theory ever developed."

"Do you SR critics have anything to say about that?"
---------------------------------------------------------

2clockdude replies:
Well, here's what this particular SR critic has to say:
Which part of <acronym title='Quantum Electrodynamics' style='cursor:help;'>QED</acronym> has anything to do with the basis of SR,
namely, Einstein's light postulate?

(Both Maxwell's equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment
predated SR, so their results were not predicted by Einstein;
his specific and sole prediction was the invariance of light's
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks.)

In fact, who has ever tested Einstein's light postulate?

And the answer is, no one.

Indeed, how can it be tested?

I challenge anyone who believes in SR to simply show on paper
how light's speed can be experimentally measured by using two
clocks (which are at rest wrt the table upon which they sit).

And here is my firm prediction:
No one will rise to this challenge.

That is what the interferometer does, by comparing path times. The answer is clear, just give me your email address and you shall receive a copy of the discovery.
PAN

 

[wisp]

2clockdude

Well put. The only person that I know of who carried out a similar test - using an electrical pulse instead of light - was Roland DeWitte, in 1991, and his finding show SR to be wrong. His test ran for 178 days and used a set of 3 caesium standard clocks at point A and 3 at point B.
Krisher et al, in 1990, did a 5-day test using two clocks and light traveling down a fibre optic cable. Their result has too much noise to be conclusive, but they say it supported SR!

 

[russ_watters]

(Both Maxwell's equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment
predated SR, so their results were not predicted by Einstein;
his specific and sole prediction was the invariance of light's
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks.)

That's his postulate, not a prediction. The predctions based on SR are extremely broad in scope.

And the answer is, no one.

We've been over this oh, so many times. Which one of the dozens of examples already given would you like to discuss?

I challenge anyone who believes in SR to simply show on paper
how light's speed can be experimentally measured by using two
clocks (which are at rest wrt the table upon which they sit).

This is absolutely trivial: so trivial in fact, that most scientists wouldn't consider it useful. We are far, far beyond that. GPS (designed and built by engineers using Einstein's math), for example uses the one-way invariance of the speed of light, combining SR and GR time dilation predictions. Far more sophisticated than what you suggest.

And the methodology of the test you suggest is self-evident: synchronize two clocks on a table and fire a laser between them. Simple.

wisp, I find it ironic that in some threads you trumpet how ether theory makes accurate predictions (which is to say it is mathematically equivalent to Relativity in some cases) and in other threads you say Relativity is wrong. You can' have it both ways.

 

[2clockdude]

russ_watters wrote:
"That's his postulate, not a prediction.
The predctions based on SR are extremely broad in scope."

You are extremely confused here.
You don't even know the meaning of the word postulate.
Let me clue you in, sir:

Postulate (verb):
a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary
b : to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

Axiom (noun):
a statement accepted as true

How can a statement be "accepted as true" or "assumed to
be true" when it makes a physically impossible claim?

Einstein's light postulate is his claim that "The law in
the one-way, two-clock light speed case is invariance."

SR is based entirely upon Einstein's light postulate.

However, as I hinted at above, there cannot be such a
postulate because it calls for that which cannot happen.

That is, it calls for nature to give us the natural or physical
law in the one-way, two-clock case, but this, as anyone should
be able to see, simply cannot be.

If you think otherwise, then please tell me how - given two
clocks which are not even started - nature can give us her
law in the one-way case. Indeed, I will even let you give her
started clocks, as long as you don't force them to obtain
what you think should be the result (as did Einstein).

Einstein's clock synchronization involves forcing clocks to
obtain one-way invariance and isotropy. This is not a result
from nature. This is a mere convention.

No matter how man may synchronize the two clocks, this step
is interference by man, and is not allowed during a proper
scientific experiment because clock synchronization controls
the result.

Man's input is disallowed because this controls the output.

Only Nature's input is allowed because we are looking for
the natural law when we experiment.

russ_watters wrote:
"And the methodology of the test you suggest is self-evident:
synchronize two clocks on a table and fire a laser between them.
Simple."

Simple but wrong. Try again!

 

[russ_watters]

You are extremely confused here.
You don't even know the meaning of the word postulate.
Let me clue you in, sir:

Heh - you used the word correctly in the very next sentence:

In fact, who has ever tested Einstein's light postulate?

Perhaps you use the two interchangeably. There is a difference.

Simple but wrong. Try again!

Care to elaborate on why? A common theme in all of these threads is you guys make a lot of assertions but very few actual arguments.

 

[2clockdude]

russ_watters wrote:
"Heh - you used the word correctly in the very next sentence:"

Let me go over it in more detail, as follows:
A statement that is accepted as true is a definition of a
postulate. Of course, if that which has been (properly)
postulated has yet to occur and involves science, then the
postulate is a scientific prediction. However, if that which
has been (allegedly) postulated simply cannot possibly occur,
then we have a problem; i.e., there cannot be a scientific
postulate or prediction of that which cannot happen.

russ_watters wrote:
"Care to elaborate on why? A common theme in all of these
threads is you guys make a lot of assertions but very few
actual arguments."

If you had fully read my last post, then you would have had
what you just asked for.

I wrote:
No matter how man may synchronize the two clocks, this step
is interference by man, and is not allowed during a proper
scientific experiment because clock synchronization controls
the result.

As I also explained, only if nature can give us her result
during an experiment will the result be a law of nature.
Which part of this do you not understand?

I also explained that man cannot be allowed to interfere in
any critical way (no input from man) or we will not have
a law of nature, but a law tainted by man. (This is what
would happen if man sawed off the end of one of the rods
in the Michelson-Morley experiment during the experiment.)

It is an SR claim that two clocks will experimentally yield
light speed invariance as a law of nature. I don't care if you
call this claim an axiom, a postulate, a hunch, a wild guess,
a hypothesis, a theory, or a corn dog; it doesn't matter because
this claim calls for that which is impossible.

I hope you know the meaning of the word "impossible."

 

[elas]

UK newspapers are laughing at a recent schools football league ruling that no team shall be allowed to win by more than 14-0 (to avoid humiliation). So the team that won 29-0 was recorded at 14-0.
Now consider all the debates about the speed of light and assume that our instruments are not allowed to record a greater speed than X; if all light traveled at a speed of 2x or greater, then all instruments will record a speed of X regardless of direction. This will not alter the red shift, so the distance calculations using red shift will remain the same, but any use of the measurements to calculate time will be open to question.
Next assume that light traveling in particle form is restricted to speed X (the maximum speed of particles) and light traveling in a purely wave form does so at a speed of 2X or greater and you have a possible explanation to the behaviour of light.
All our experiments are conducted using particles or the waves created when photons collide with electrons. But over the vast distances of inter-galatic space the photons disperse leaving the released wave to travel through the gravity frame or graviton field, indendently of electromagnetic particles. Hence the problems of inter-galatic light transmission.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Elas, I think you're on to an idea that deserves more attention and study.

 

[Nereid]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record ... a bunch of dudes and dudettes go to uni, learn about SR and GR. They get jobs working for EDO Corporation, Lockheed, etc. These companies win contracts to build and maintain the GPS system. The dudes and dudettes work hard for many months, the GPS satellites are tested, launched, tested, etc. The FAA (or whoever) pays EDO, Lockheed etc lots of $$ for delivering on their contracts; the dudes and dudettes keep their jobs, some even get paid bonuses.

Does the GPS system work as advertised? Yes.

Did the dudes and dudettes who designed, built and maintain it use GR and SR in their work? Yes.

Did they use some alternative theory/theories instead? No.

Is there a better theory/theories of physics than SR/GR? Depends what 'better' means:
-> if 'within its domain, gives predictions that match observations and experiments more closely than GR does in its (and the two domains overlap significantly)', then we're all waiting to hear;
-> if 'has a domain broader than GR's, and defaults to something very close to GR in the limit of GR's applicability' then several approaches may become such (e.g. String/M Theory, LQG), but they've a long way to go.

Lots of Greeks and Egyptians in the world today.
(Edit: fixed formats)

 

[Nereid]

*SNIP
All our experiments are conducted using particles or the waves created when photons collide with electrons. But over the vast distances of inter-galatic space the photons disperse leaving the released wave to travel through the gravity frame or graviton field, indendently of electromagnetic particles. Hence the problems of inter-galatic light transmission.

What 'problems of inter-galactic light transmission'?

The inter-galactic medium (IGM) isn't empty, just has a very low electron, proton, etc density. There are a number of predictions from this low density - e.g. a mean free path of charged cosmic ray particles, inverse Compton scattering of the CMBR - many of which can, in principle, be tested (and several have been). Does elas have a prediction re what may be observed? Perhaps distant point-sources will appear different at different wavelengths (anywhere from radio to ~>1 TeV gammas)? Perhaps there will be differential travel times from distant objects, depending on wavelength, or maybe smeared images of such objects as seen through gravitational lenses (again, depending on wavelength)?

And why limit ourselves to the IGM? One effect of supernovae, esp in a young cluster, is to blow a giant bubble in the ISM (inter-stellar medium), inside that bubble the electron density may be lower than that in the IGM. Then too there are the radio lobes of QSOs and AGNs, which are also enormous regions of ultra-low density gas ...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Personally my mind is boggled at the fact that if I were to be traveling at 99% the speed of light I would still meaure a ray of light passing me to be passing me at c.

I do not know enough about SR and GR to know if you would have to contradict them to explain this. I would, however, like to know why it is.

 

[Antonio Lao]

I think, one way to explain this is by the following invariant spacetime interval.

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2

as your speed increases to .99c, your ds approaches zero so that you become light itself because only light (photon) has ds=0 exactly.

 

[Antonio Lao]

As one's speed approaches .99c, one's mass approaches infinity and one's physical dimension approaches zero. But if one becomes pure energy in the form of light, no such restrictions are imposed.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think the way to explain this is by the following invariant spacetime interval.

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2

as your speed increases to .99c, your ds approaches zero so that you become light itself because only light (photon) has ds=0 exactly.

The equation looks simple enough that I might be able to make some sense out of it. What do all the variables stand for?

 

[Antonio Lao]

The x-y-z stands for a Cartesian coordinate system. the t stands for time coordinate. The c is the speed of light in vacuum.

The equation is a four dimensional quadratic form for the determination of a four-dim distance ds. This form is Lorentz invariance. It is the same in any coordinate system.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Do me a favor and show me what it would look like with some real numbers plugged into all the variables.

 

[Antonio Lao]

It's not going to be easy for me since there are more equations needed for a complete description.

I can refer some books on special relativity if it's easier for you?

But we can start by saying that ds=0, therefore

dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 = c^2 dt^2

and

dr^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

so that

dr^2 = c^2 dt^2

and

\frac {dr}{dt} = c

 

[zoobyshoe]

Formulas and equations generally mean little to me until I plug numbers into them and try them out. I had good luck with this when I plugged some actual numbers into the lorenz transforms in SR, and came away with a much more concrete understanding of the slower clocks and shorter rods. I'm not sure what would be realistic, useful values to plug into the equation you gave. Chroot and Ambitwistor spent some time once explaining the importance of the spacetime interval to me, but I haven't ever worked one out, so it remains too vague for me to understand how it applies to the situation where going at 99% of the speed of light, I would still measure light passing me in the same direction to be passing me at c.

 

[Antonio Lao]

As you already have done, if you replace all v's in the Lorentz transformation equations for a Cartesian system with .99c and then calculate the spacetime interval you will not get a value of zero for the interval.

 

[elas]

]Nereid

What 'problems of inter-galactic light transmission'?

According to Encyclopedia Britainica one of the outstanding unsolved problems of light is the transmission of light between galaxies. It does not give details.

Perhaps you give the reason yourself in your reply "There are a number of predictions from this low density". Do they all give the same answer? If not there is a problem.

My main interest is in finding an explanation that fits the observation rather than accepting that the transmission of light is belond explanation or an act of magic. I usually get reffered to the standard explanations but, to date no one has been prepared to state why my explanation is unaceptable. Surely a debate should do more than repeat current teaching?

 

[russ_watters]

So your explanation fits observation better even though you don't know what the problems are with the accepted explanation? Hmm...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

The speed of light c is only locally proven, it might just change outside of our solar system, we do NOT know yet...

As for MM, there is an experiment that can be conducted that rectifies this appearance of a problem...

BTW it was a Janitor who came up with it!

 

[Antonio Lao]

After reading a book on entanglement, I am not so sure whether the photons we detected by our astronomical instruments are the original photons that transmitted the information.

Entangled photons are verified by experiments to propagate beyond light speed but still cannot send a message faster than light. Entanglement is controlled by a property of no-choice. No one can choose the resulting quantum state of the photon but only the input direction for the spin or polarization. The moment one photon takes a state, the other entangled photon although light-years away, instantly takes the "opposite" state.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

BTW paulanevill@fsmail.n I find your Idea of someones intellect as being a measuable function from their employ(s), rather silly, childish, and especailly & intently ignorant...

 

[Nereid]

]Nereid

What 'problems of inter-galactic light transmission'?

According to Encyclopedia Britainica one of the outstanding unsolved problems of light is the transmission of light between galaxies. It does not give details.

Perhaps you give the reason yourself in your reply "There are a number of predictions from this low density". Do they all give the same answer? If not there is a problem.

My main interest is in finding an explanation that fits the observation rather than accepting that the transmission of light is belond explanation or an act of magic. I usually get reffered to the standard explanations but, to date no one has been prepared to state why my explanation is unaceptable. Surely a debate should do more than repeat current teaching?

I have no idea what the Encyclopedia Britainica is referring to! Without any specific problems identified, let's assume there are no problems.

The 'low density' predictions refer to different phenomena, and AFAIK there are no inconsistencies nor observations that don't match theory. Later I'll post a few more details.

Maybe I missed your explanation (I'll read this thread again); are there *predictions* from this explanation which differ from 'the standard explanations'? If there are, and if those predictions are inconsistent with observations, then your explanation is unacceptable.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Well there is a problem intergalactically, sorta, closer to home two of the probes that were sent out, to explore the outer planets, have been leaving our solar system, and it is being remarked upon that they appear to be slowing down...

This begs a great question, is this appearance of slower motion simple a reality of the speed of light actually being different as we progress away from the Sun's gravitational field, or is the Sun's gravitational field somehow more active, or stronger, as you get farther away from it?...is it lightspeed changing, or gravity getting stronger? (or both?)

 

[Nereid]

*SNIP
My main interest is in finding an explanation that fits the observation rather than accepting that the transmission of light is belond explanation or an act of magic. I usually get reffered to the standard explanations but, to date no one has been prepared to state why my explanation is unaceptable. Surely a debate should do more than repeat current teaching?

Here's the only elas explanation that I found on this thread:

*SNIP
Now consider all the debates about the speed of light and assume that our instruments are not allowed to record a greater speed than X; if all light traveled at a speed of 2x or greater, then all instruments will record a speed of X regardless of direction. This will not alter the red shift, so the distance calculations using red shift will remain the same, but any use of the measurements to calculate time will be open to question.
Next assume that light traveling in particle form is restricted to speed X (the maximum speed of particles) and light traveling in a purely wave form does so at a speed of 2X or greater and you have a possible explanation to the behaviour of light.

I really don't follow this explanation.

Let's go back to a time way before Einstein and Maxwell, to the 17th century.
Olaus Roemer calculated the speed of light by measuring a time difference and a (calculated) distance difference. Similar methods, of the kind

(calculated) speed = known distance/measured time

gave reasonable values for the speed of light, again well before Einstein or the publication of Maxwell's equation. Notice: no 'instrument' measures the speed, so the idea that any such is 'not allowed to record a greater speed than X' is meaningless, IMHO.

I also cannot follow the second part of your explanation - Young's double slit experiment shows that light has both a wave and particle nature. If, under your assumption that light has two forms - wave, and particle - which travel at different speeds, how to account for the results of the Young double slit experiment?

 

[wisp]

2clockdude:
No matter how man may synchronize the two clocks, this step
is interference by man, and is not allowed during a proper
scientific experiment because clock synchronization controls
the result.

Agree. This is how the GPS works and it is not proof that the speed of light one-way is invariant.

Nereid:
Does the GPS system work as advertised? Yes.

Did the dudes and dudettes who designed, built and maintain it use GR and SR in their work? Yes.

Did they use some alternative theory/theories instead? No.

Have any of these dudes and dudettes done a 2 clocks one-way light speed test? No.

 

[russ_watters]

No matter how man may synchronize the two clocks, this step
is interference by man, and is not allowed during a proper
scientific experiment because clock synchronization controls
the result.

Agree. This is how the GPS works and it is not proof that the speed of light one-way is invariant.

If we aren't allowed to set up the initial conditions of the experiment, then no experiment we ever do has any meaning.

Have any of these dudes and dudettes done a 2 clocks one-way light speed test? No.

Every person who has ever turned on a GPS reciever has done a 1 way speed of light test, an SR time dilation test, and a GR time dilation test all at the same time.

 

[paulanevill@fsmail.n]

BTW paulanevill@fsmail.n I find your Idea of someones intellect as being a measuable function from their employ(s), rather silly, childish, and especailly & intently ignorant...

Don't get me wrong, I'm really alright. It's just a case of the only way to motivate the intellectual is to wind him or her up a little. It was all done on purpose. Sorry folks.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Don't get me wrong, I'm really alright. It's just a case of the only way to motivate the intellectual is to wind him or her up a little. It was all done on purpose. Sorry folks.

Hummm so you assume that everyone' intellect needs "winding up"...and if your wrong, then people react to your "winding up" attempt and not to the actual question/answer needs, good dodge (I suppose) but I really do not believe that that is why you did that, but have 'no proof', soooooo...have a nice life!

 

[petrichor]

No journal submission?

If your idea is really all that great, why are you harassing people on an internet forum, rather than submitting a detailed paper to a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Even Einstein as a patent clerk submitted papers.

 

[russ_watters]

If your idea is really all that great, why are you harassing people on an internet forum, rather than submitting a detailed paper to a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Even Einstein as a patent clerk submitted papers.

Good inisight for a newbie (to this forum anyway). Welcome to the site.