Particle / wave duality on a scale of light frequencies.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by pallidin
OK, guys, let's cut the crap, NOW.
The theory in question is dependent, entirely, on a validation I have not convincingly seen.
Move towards an experimental mode and I am all for it.
Either we seek, and demand, to establish veracity of claim(physically or mathematically), else I can see no further use of my own or anyone else's time to go any further.

Pallidin

Here a quote from
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1066_1.asp
Quote:
The result: a tiny extra frequency shift in Cassini’s radio signals.

It is the establishment physics at which the most powerful equipment is available.
I have already told above, that I have no such equipment. Why you demand from me more exact result than observable effect which for the establishment physics is allowed?
About mathematics. Look my initial post once again. There you’ll see the formula determining direct dependence of mass (gravity) from a photons frequency.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I have already told above, that I have no such equipment. Why you demand from me more exact result than observable effect which for the establishment physics is allowed?

We demand evidence because the claims you make require it. If you have no such evidence, then there is no basis for your claims.

Also, I don't really see the point of posting that quote. That quote refers to a GR effect and the fact that their measurements validated it to within 1 part in 40,000. If you're saying that your predictions would be outside the ability of such an experiment (or any experiment) to detect, like I said above, that means you have no evidence to support your hypothesis.

 

[pallidin]

Michael, my last post may have been a little harsh, and I certainly do not want to "sour" your experience and communication in these forums. Though I definitely stand by the gist of my message, I feel compelled to offer my apologies of the tone I used.
I was getting irritated, and it resulted in a generally unprofessional communication from me to you.
So again, please accept my apologies.

Michael, it is quite clear to me that you are a very creative person with a passion for new discoveries in science. I do not know your levels of education in physics or the sciences in general, but I am convinced from your writings that if you were further educated(formally or self-taught) you would have the potential to go far.

Since this is Theory Developement, everyone is free to offer speculations. Even "full-blown" speculations. This is totally fine and WELCOME. After all, that's what this particular forum in PF is for.

If you haven't noticed, Russ, Nereid, myself and others have been trying to help you: Help you to validate your theory and methods of approach. We are simply trying to assist you develop your own theory under acceptable standards. Yes, expect to be challenged here! How else can proper development proceed! Most importantly, Michael, one should welcome the challenge, as do we not both learn through it?

Please listen carefully to what Russ(and others) have written to you; there is some great information and advise that will assist you now, and in the future.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Here the spectrum of radiation of the stars and fogs in dependence from a value of gravity and magetic fields.

Also at
http://myscale.narod.ru/Table.png

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by pallidin
Michael, my last post may have been a little harsh, and I certainly do not want to "sour" your experience and communication in these forums. Though I definitely stand by the gist of my message, I feel compelled to offer my apologies of the tone I used.
I was getting irritated, and it resulted in a generally unprofessional communication from me to you.
So again, please accept my apologies.

Michael, it is quite clear to me that you are a very creative person with a passion for new discoveries in science. I do not know your levels of education in physics or the sciences in general, but I am convinced from your writings that if you were further educated(formally or self-taught) you would have the potential to go far.

Since this is Theory Developement, everyone is free to offer speculations. Even "full-blown" speculations. This is totally fine and WELCOME. After all, that's what this particular forum in PF is for.

If you haven't noticed, Russ, Nereid, myself and others have been trying to help you: Help you to validate your theory and methods of approach. We are simply trying to assist you develop your own theory under acceptable standards. Yes, expect to be challenged here! How else can proper development proceed! Most importantly, Michael, one should welcome the challenge, as do we not both learn through it?

Please listen carefully to what Russ(and others) have written to you; there is some great information and advise that will assist you now, and in the future.

Thanks for the kind words at my address, pallidin.
This is unusual occurrence at forums, unfortunately. You are one of few gentleman which I met here within two years.
Probably it is difficult to present for you, but more than implicit insults I am afraid of the silence which comes after I have proved my correctness. It was already not once. I see the reason I am not the citizen of USA or the Western Europe. For inhabitants of this forum I am the representative of the wild country who has dared to be engaged with not inherent to him business. But, fortunately, God distributes his grants without consideration of residences. Thus I want to notice, that the residence it is an easily changeable size.
BTW, my son (25 years old) is a citizen of USA.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Here the spectrum of radiation of the stars and fogs in dependence from a value of gravity and magetic fields.

Also at
http://myscale.narod.ru/Table.png

That pic has no numbers on it, just qualitative statements. Its certainly nothing you can base a theory on or make predictions from.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
That pic has no numbers on it, just qualitative statements. Its certainly nothing you can base a theory on or make predictions from.

May be you have not understood something? This table is not the basis for my theory or predictions. On the contrary, it grows out of the properties of my scale of light frequencies.
I ask highly skilled experts in the field of astrophysics such as Nereid and pallidin to compare the results received by me with existing catalogues and to draw conclusions about conformity.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Can I interpret this silence as the consent with my theory?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Can I interpret this silence as the consent with my theory?

not from me! I've had very limited internet access these last two weeks, and am only now catching up (there's a really important thread in Biology, on the 6th extinction, that will take a lot of my time to address).

To your idea: sorry to say that I don't understand your diagram.

You have 16 boxes, which are all possible combinations of 'magnetic' and 'gravity' fields, as grouped into four ranges each.

However (as Russ said), there are no numbers against either scale, so there's no way to refute anything; what are the quantatitive values for both scales/classes? OOM (order of magnitude) is sufficient for now.

Also, what do the {X,Y} notations mean? (X = gamma, X-rays; Y = microwave, radio, ..). Are these the bands in which an object with a magnetic and gravity character will emit (absorb?)?

Finally, what are the "color" icons? I can't even guess.

Finally, re the kind words on being a "highly skilled expert in the field of astrophysics", you should remember that this is the internet, so I may be a dog (do you have that joke in your country?)

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid

Finally, re the kind words on being a "highly skilled expert in the field of astrophysics", you should remember that this is the internet, so I may be a dog (do you have that joke in your country?)

I hear this joke for the first time, but I guess it speaks about the probable infringement of my copyrights. I think, that my idea so differs from existing theories, that hardly who’ll risk to be looked as crackpot (having appropriated it). Besides I have left something in a shadow.
I am going to publish the theory and to patent an inventions on behalf of citizen USA. He is my son and only to him I’ll transfer copyrights in full. If on this way there will be insuperable problems... Well.
Then it will appear in Uzbekistan or may be in Russia, or in another country, which will show an interest to my researches.

 

[vlamir]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev

I am going to publish the theory and to patent an inventions on behalf of citizen USA. He is my son and only to him I’ll transfer copyrights in full. If on this way there will be insuperable problems... Well.
Then it will appear in Uzbekistan or may be in Russia, or in another country, which will show an interest to my researches.

Michael,
You, probably, have forgotten, that it is impossible to patent discoveries in no country.
Earlier, in Russia (USSR) this right was applied, but it had been canceled at Gorbachev.
Now, it is possible to patent every poppycock. Would be money. And besides, it is necessary to prove utility and applicability of the invention for household needs (ïîõîòåé) of Homo sapiens.
Excuse me, that I use unscientific expressions, but I have all bases so to speak.
I had personal experience in successful patenting of poppycock, but it was necessary for my research work. At that time I wrote my monograph “Bounds of human intelligence”. In this monograph I have precisely shown, how and from what components are formed new hypotheses in a human brain.
As to forums, it would be useful, if concerning to all original hypotheses the official right of priority operates. It, at least, would bring moral satisfaction.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

As to forums, it would be useful, if concerning to all original hypotheses the official right of priority operates. It, at least, would bring moral satisfaction.

Seems this forum is the tomb for ideas. Here I was warned by participants of a forum, but not by administration, that “any claims can be proven correct by submitting them to a peer-reviewed journal only, not an internet message board.”
Hence, having placed the idea or the theory at forum, we deprive ourselves opportunities of its any further development. All of a peer-reviewed journals are warning, that they accept on consideration an original papers anywhere earlier not published.
Therefore I would like to hear answer of a forum’s administration on the following questions:
- why there is no warning of all negative consequences of accommodation of idea or the theory at this forum?
- why it is impossible to transform TD forum in independent a peer-reviewed journal or in an branch of existing one?
If I am mistaken then correct me, please.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Therefore I would like to hear answer of a forum’s administration on the following questions:
- why there is no warning of all negative consequences of accommodation of idea or the theory at this forum?
- why it is impossible to transform TD forum in independent a peer-reviewed journal or in an branch of existing one?

What negative consequences?

Your second question doesn't make any sense.

This forum is not associated with any technical journal, so nothing you do here will have any impact for or against your chances of getting your ideas published (aside from the opportunity to develop or receive feedback on your ideas).

 

[vlamir]

Theory Development is the most popular forum in Physics Forums.
Anyone peer-reviewed journal can envy.
It is not casual. Here it is possible to hear the most fantastic hypotheses and to suggest own. And, you can see the hypothesis in its initial form, without proof-readings.
In many of the suggested ideas there are particles of true.
But the technique of filtering of these particles is very imperfect.
As a matter of fact, the technique of estimation of hypotheses does not differ from what is used by magazines – if the hypothesis contradicts the official theory, it means this hypothesis is bad.
We frequently forget simple true, the new true appears at first only in one head.
And, as a rule, this new true seems fantastic for others.
While this idea will reach others, passes a lot of time. If you do not understand idea, it means a problem of your head, but not head of the author of idea.
Therefore, it is necessary to think of how to reduce the period of comprehension of non-ordinary ideas.
I don’t doubt, that the forum possesses huge advantages in comparison with magazines and, therefore, it should have more high status, than has now.
We excellently see, that the team of the forum applies many forces for improving it and we must be grateful for them.
As to association with magazines, I think, it is unnecessary.
Each of members of forum can make own site, to place in it his works after discussion in forums.
I, for example, have created own site three months ago. Now my site read more than 300 visitors among whom there are also popular scientific magazines and scientific institutes.
I am confident, that soon the life will force magazines to use the information from the forums in their publications.
But, it seems to me, we look aside from the basic idea of this topic.

 

[Nereid]

vlamir wrote: As a matter of fact, the technique of estimation of hypotheses does not differ from what is used by magazines – if the hypothesis contradicts the official theory, it means this hypothesis is bad.

I can't speak for anyone else (duh!), but IMHO few of the ideas posted here in T&D pass muster on the most basic of tests - consistency with well-established observations, not 'official theory'. Goodness me, in most cases it's quite difficult to get the person who proposes the new idea to even give an OOM estimate of how well their idea matches some of the iconic physics experiments of the last century! In fact, IIRC, only wisp has done his homework (am note sure about andrew grey yet).