Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Tfleming's research

  1. Nov 22, 2004 #1
    general relativity is essentially a 'classical' field theory while quantum is not. Quantum theory has a quantization IMPOSED from the start, GR has none anywhere in the maths (although that's not to say there is none). GR is a system of equations with fields imbedded while QT is based on potentials. In this regard, the maths is entirely incompatible unless one transforms either GR to QT or viceversa via integrations or backwards via differentials; then one has to look at probability densities and convert either fields to probabilities, or vice versa. not an easy job.

    how the equations of GR might be quantized is something i'm not allowed to discuss, otherwise mr moderator, integral will come done on me and spit the dummy!! so i won't go there unless integral 'allows' me (?integral? pretty please?? sir??)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 23, 2004 #2

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Tfleming,
    When you can link us to a professional PEER reviewed physics journal which has published your ideas, you will be free to discuss them here. Until that happens please do not post personal theories.
     
  4. Nov 23, 2004 #3
    so, therefore for the moment, we stop at the fact that GR and quantum theory ARE different in that quantization can be IMPOSED as a part of the maths, or it 'can' come about as partof the solution.

    I'm workin' on that peer review process mr integral, sir, but it aint half slow ya know!
     
  5. Nov 23, 2004 #4
    www.cymatherapy.com/articles/ current-events-bems-2004.html

    this link is of a peer reviewed abstract in the area of biophysics-i take it that's a start for you integral??
     
  6. Nov 23, 2004 #5

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I am not impressed. I see nothing on that site which would indicate the work of a physicist. If fact I would be very suspicious that it is pseudo science.

    I see nothing of a peer review that includes a physicist.
     
  7. Nov 23, 2004 #6
    no of course your not, you probably havent heard of BEMS (do a google search); cymatherapy is involved in acoustic therapy and i guess integral while letting your snide remarks about pseudo-science go through to the keeper, this form of therapy is not valid to you and many others becuase in the past it has had no known scientific theory to back it just like many aspects of radiation protection and biomedical applications; but that is now changing;

    this is NOT what i wanted you to check out, look at the BEMS conference proceedings in your library possibly, they're available only to members on-line so i can't help you there. i assure you this work has been peer reviewed by the biophysics community AND it was presented at Kos in Greece; again by the European BEMS community. because it is saying that the FIELD itself has a chemistry (i.e. the fields inside cells for instance) then it shows much light on how the cell cycle works and this has applications to cancer therapy, mental illness, and the aging process. this HAS been written up.

    but not YET by the 'hard' physics community where i spent my earlier working life in antennas and telecommunications (lots of 'regular' uncontroversial papers), although i DO have a paper being reviewed by Physics Essays at present.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2004
  8. Nov 23, 2004 #7

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I split this off from Loren's thread in General Physics as it has not so much to do with that topic as it does with tfleming's personal interests. Since it has to do with the propriety of tfleming posting his personal views, I thought it would be best placed here in the Feedback forum.
     
  9. Nov 23, 2004 #8
    worried about integral

    tom, i'm sincerely worried about the sanity of your moderator integral; he's spat the dummy with me on several occasions now, and i might add without any word of exactly why he doing what he's doing, his judgement seems to be irrational and when i claim to have peer review, he just gets overtly hostile and sends me warnings; i know not what these warning are and have asked on two occasions now what the system is as regards warnings.

    he talks about pseudo-science where i'm concerned and that's not true. i've tried to explain that my work HAS been accepted for various conferences of PEER REVIEW and he won't listen just more warnings!! please could you sort out what's wrong with him and why he's taken to me like a pirahna??

    my work involves cancer, mental illness and aging, not things that aren't iomportant; i'm involved at teh cutting edge of the scientific method because biophysics has tried quantum theory to no avail.

    please help sort this kerfuffle out before integral has a heart attack or worse!!
     
  10. Nov 23, 2004 #9

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What peer-reviewed abstract? I followed your link and didn't find any abstract, not that abstracts would typically be considered peer reviewed anyway. There was a paper there, not published by a peer reviewed journal, but more of a proceedings of the conference, 11 pages long with only 11 references, most of which are also abstracts, so unlikely to get accepted anywhere. I didn't see anything in that paper that related to what you are talking about here, perhaps you could point out the relevance to us?
     
  11. Nov 23, 2004 #10

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What do you mean by a conference of peer review? Abstracts are rarely reviewed prior to being accepted for presentation at conferences, they usually leave that up to the audience to determine for themselves. I've seen some pretty lousy science at conferences, so it means very little to have had abstracts accepted for presentation at a conference.

    All that? Perhaps you should be visiting the biology forum. Any of those topics would be fair game there, as long as you can support your claims.

    What is the cutting edge of "scientific method?" Perhaps you meant methodologies? Everyone in research works on the edge, that's the point, novel discovery.

    I'm wondering, why are you so concerned about posting about your research here? Don't you get good input at those conferences you attend? Surely those are people who understand what you do at a level to be more helpful than anyone here. I don't tend to discuss my own research here, unless it's already published. It's really not worthwhile to discuss here, since there aren't enough people familiar enough with my field to be helpful, and since it's all hypotheses that I'm in the process of testing, I don't want the students here to misinterpret what I'm saying as fact when it's only an hypothesis that I may prove wrong.
     
  12. Nov 23, 2004 #11

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    LOL this is pretty funny stuff, Do you think I am losing a wink of sleep over your tantrums? Who is it that keeps pumping out the childish insulting PMs? Get a life. At your advanced age (you claim to be older then me, so advanced must apply) you should know that insults will get you nowhere. Please stop. I am tiring of your game, and find it easier and and easier to look harder and harder for reasons to warn you. You have made posts which may actually contain a bit of meaningful information, I have given you the benefit of the doubt, and let them stand, it was hard but I did it. I will continue to be as fair as possible, but you are making it difficult.

    Did you ever know a fellow called What_are_electrons?
     
  13. Nov 23, 2004 #12
    i've been searching for a link to the BEMS site; the abstract inside the entire conference proceedings can be downloaded by the public (i think; i could at any rate) .

    when you've downloaded it, see who our 'sponsor' was, and then look up who the next president of the BEMS society is, and then come back to me.

    actually one reason i come to the forum is to LEARN off all the other people out there who have similar TOE ideas, we all see an aspect of the same knowledge; so i need to learn some of the other aspects; i'm currently writing up a 'unified field theory' paper but theres a whole lot of other work to be done before i can publish it in something like phys rev D or similar journal.

    but....you guys i suppose believe you are 'protecting' science from all the maddies 'out there'

    really i need to find collaborators who are willing to listen and help in the jpob of comparing EMSFT with QT; it's all good maths you know, otherwise i wouldn't worry you. seriously. i'm going to ignore integral from here because i've got better things to do than argue with someone who is a 'hostile witness' so to speak.

    glad to talk about what you might think of my work, if you're willing to look at it. there's threads already out there if you want to see it. i see some of you have already.
     
  14. Nov 23, 2004 #13
    thanks moonbear

    thanks moonbear; i guess it takes a female; us males get our testosterone, or is that tostesterone??) in the way and clouding up our eyes!! LOL

    i can't imagine integral is a she!! i take your words kindly, especially about going to the conferences, you're quite right!!

    i'm so 'obsessed' with the fruits of the research (cell cycle etc and its impact on our health, including our mental health, cancer, etc) that i want 'tommorow' to arrive 'today'; horse before the cart and all that.

    i'll try not to misbehave, but i do need you guys, so suffer the poor crazy scientist, i'm not a loon and i do have the credentials to back up my work.
     
  15. Nov 23, 2004 #14
    AND one of the pressing issues that also tends to put a rocket under my backside is that EMSFT WILL lead to breakthroughs in nuclear engineering and hence clean and safe ENERGY production that will depend on TOKAMAK type technolgoies; plus the implications are huge for ecological issues such as cleaner manufacturing processes, greenhouse gases, fuel for cars, etc, etc,

    EMSFT is at the heart of all of this!!
     
  16. Nov 23, 2004 #15
    but i still don't know what these warning levels are and what they mean?
     
  17. Nov 23, 2004 #16

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    moonbear was saying you're not credible.
     
  18. Nov 24, 2004 #17
    i think i answered her, incase you missed it in your cloudy haze!! have a look at the BEMS conference and see who sponsered the work as i suggested above get back to me!! anyway i like her picture much better than your's you ugly mongrel LOL

    and read my work, don't try to stir the pot in ignorance; it wont hurt you, it's not magic nor heresy, nor a challenge to your physical or spiritual wellbeing; i've heard not a word of critique out of any so-called expert (and that goes right across the net, so that is most encouraging) only angry hot air from a few hotheads, a pity!! no worries there's work to be done apart from all this wasted rhetoric.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2004
  19. Nov 24, 2004 #18

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Just picking at random from the indicated site:
    "Energy Medicine and Sound Therapy
    What does cymatherapy, have to do with "vibrational medicine,” or “energy medicine"?

    With Albert Einstein’s famous equation E= mc2 came the understanding that matter (including the body) is energy, generating a new paradigm in healing. Conventional medicine, based on a Newtonian viewpoint, approaches the body largely as a biomechanical system. It sees the parts of the body, controlled by the brain and nervous system, as each having their individual function. This approach looks at symptoms and tries to fix the particular part of the body that has malfunctioned, often by using drugs or surgery. "
     
  20. Nov 24, 2004 #19

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Not at all, I am not concerned about science in general, it will take care of it self. I am, and I believe that the other mentors are of similar mind, protecting our site. We recognize that this is not the correct format to present cutting edge research material. We work hard at keeping close to a loosely defined "state of accepted physics". To me that means we are restricting ourselves to the material that would be presented in college level science or math course. Most of the mentors have completed undergrad degrees and several have graduate level degrees in Physics, Math and Engineering, so we are all pretty much qualified to make this judgment.

    We have found that it is surprisingly difficult to maintain this standard, generally we tend to error toward the conservative side. We all want a site where a high school student can actually learn something useful and not have to sort the wheat from the chafe. Most similar sites to this are so overrun with pseudo science that they are useless for science, we will NOT let this happen here. Your work is easily over the boundary of material we are able to support. Surely there is a different site somewhere on the web that will be more then willing pat your back and tell you how wonderful your work is.
     
  21. Nov 24, 2004 #20
    if a website says sci.physics.RESEARCH it means more than just undergrads and high-school kids; i know because many proffesional colleagues of mine use this and many other similar forums probably a bit quieter than me admittedly. anyway they're probably learning heaps watching the fur fly here.

    in your zeal to prove what an egotistical idiot i might or might not be based on your oh- so-wise 'moderation' over the past decades, try NOT to throw out the baby with the bathwater eh?

    hey listen we could waste each other's time endlessly here, how about you go your way and i'll go mine, i'll let you do your thing, and you let me do mine, ok? i'm learning your rules, although i STILL know nothing about your warning levels!! i'm still waiting for advice; i suppose you aren't going to tell me this side of hell freezing over huh? thanks a lot for your kind assistance mr moderator; perhaps i'll just have to keep looking over your shoulder and others for all the titbits of thought huh?

    get used to me being around will you? i'm really quite a nice guy if only you'd stop chewing on my shoes!
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Tfleming's research
Loading...