Originally posted by russ_watters
The saddest thing about this is that people don't get that fact. And the result is that if one of these guys DOES get lucky, no one will ever know it because no one will ever spend the time to sift through millions of pages of crap to find that one little gem. Elas - if you say 10 things that are wrong in a row and then say one thing correct, no one will hear it because no one will be listening to you by the time you get to it. And that's no one's fault but your own.
And how.
Elas, I finally did look at your website. Not only does not not contain references to any experiments that falsify relativity, it does not even contain evidence that you ever bothered to learn any actual physics.
From the http://elasticity2.tripod.com/s1.htm to your website:
Attempts to describe the underlying structure such as Relativity, String theory and various descriptions of atomic structure do not match the observed universe. Gravity does not operate in the manner predicted by relativity with the result that a new "anti-gravity" force is being proposed to account for the difference; this is being done without any idea as to the nature or cause of either gravity or "anti-gravity".
Where's the justification for that, especially the first sentence?
The electron, long thought to be a point object, is now known to have a nucleus surrounded by a field of quantum pairs; although most textbooks continue to refer to the electron as a point object.
Yes, most textbooks refer to electrons as point objects
in the first approximation in quantum theory. This is understood.
What is your point here?
Quarks and leptons are regarded as "fundamental particles" without any explanation as to why there is more than one fundamental particle or indeed what makes a fundamental particle.
The textbooks do not explain why there is more than one fundamental particle
because no one knows why there is more than one fundamental particle.
As to the second point, you are simply wrong. Both the Electroweak and QCD theories clearly delineate fundamental particles from bound states composed thereof. That is, in the standard model there is no ambiguity between quarks/leptons, and mesons or positronium.
Electromagnetism and light are regarded as being beyond explanation, that is to say it is possible to predict their behavior but it is not possible to explain the cause of that behavior.
I already answered the above point in this very thread. There is no such thing as a full explanation of
anything in science. We can reduce electromagnetic phenomena to moving electric charges, some of which have permanent magnetic moments. To explain further, we have to say what generated the charges in the first place. But then someone can look at the generator of charge and ask, "And where did
that come from?",
ad infinitum.
It is my belief that the inability to properly explain the underlying structure that gives rise to the observed universe is due to the failure to apply Occam's law of economy to the development the Standard Model; this has occurred for historical reasons and a correction is long overdue.
No one failed to apply Occam's Razor to the Standard Model. If that were true, then it would be possible to derive--from the Standard Model[/color]--one or more of the constants that are put into the Standard Model, but it isn't possible.
In any case, how pray tell would
you correct it? You don't even know what it really tells us.
I propose that we should start with one force and one force carrier and not add any other entity until we run out of explanations using just the one force and its carrier; and then only if we can account for the creation of the new entity. The result of this method is, as Newton suggested; that the universe is a thing of great simplicity.
You are stuck in the 19th century. What you propose here has already been done. Starting from the 19th century picture, we have gravity and the EM force.
Then we discover the nucleus and determine that it is positively charged. We know from decay experiments that the nucleus is composed of positively charged constituents, and we know from EM theory that positive charges repel. So why does the nucleus hold together? There must be a strong force that overpowers the EM force, and it must act only over short distances. Enter the Strong Interaction[/color].
Then, we observe beta decay of a nucleus. After years of analysis, we determine that this interaction does not conserve parity. This is a problem because we know that the EM and Strong forces
do conserve parity. Also, this force is a lot weaker than its EM and Strong cousins. The inescapable conclusion is that we are dealing with a different force altogether. Enter the Weak Interaction[/color].
And the fun doesn't end there.
From the section http://elasticity2.tripod.com/s38.htm :
To demonstrate conversion I have used Standard Model data for elements 1 to 92 to construct a graph showing mass and electron binding force 1s.
First of all, what is "Standard Model Data"? The Standard Model is a
theory, and data comes from
experiments.
Second, Standard Model calculations for atoms (especially complex atoms such as Z=92!) simply do not exist[/color]. Theoretical chemists have developed methods based on nonrelativistic quantum mechanics to do such calculations, but that is not the Standard Model.
Third, you stated that you posted the graph to "demonstrate conversion" from the Standard Model to the Vacuum Model, but at no point do you ever mathematically demonstrate it!
One advantage that the Vacuum Model has over the Standard Model is that the vacuum force can be directly related to the volume found using the atomic radii.
How?
Where is the math?
In fact, the only attempt you made at presenting any mathematics was in the section on the http://elasticity2.tripod.com/s26.htm , and you got it wrong:
Note that the total force acting between the plates is F2 plus F2 and therefore the Casimir effect law operates to the fourth power.
No, F
2+F
2=2F
2.
You're confusing addition with multiplication.
In any case, when considering the force on a plate, you cannot add forces do not act directly on the plate you are analyzing. And if you are determining the total force on the capacitor, then that is
zero, because the forces are equal and opposite.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through the rest. I see nothing more than a series of essays that contain:
1. Your misinformed personal opinion regarding currently accepted physical theories.
2. Your vague notions of how to correct the perceived discrepancies.
3. Unreferenced, unanalyzed data presented on graphes.
Furthermore, some essential ingredients that are missing:
1. A mathematical definition of your "Vacuum Field" and its time evolution, interactions, etc.
2. A mathematical demonstration of your ideas, including derivations of its main predictions.
3. Experimental results warranting the changes you espouse.
4. Analysis of the data presented.
Without those, you have not one iota of substance at your site, and you should not be surprised to find that serious scientists ignore you, because what you have right now is just the sort of bullsh*t that Russ was talking about.
edit: fixed color bracket
