The Science Forum Dilemma: Nutcases on Physics and Chemistry Forums

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
In the scientific world - The truth is a moving target. On Physics Forums (Theory development) - People take their best shots. Why should anyone have a problem with this? A blindfolded shot in the dark could very well be a trophy above the mantle of accepted truth.

Because blind shots in the dark is NOT how real science is done. Real science is done through years of thorough and laborious work in a LAB or on a blackboard, searching methodically for that one little answer.

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.

 

[ahrkron]

I completely agree with russ_watters.

Also, saying one correct thing with the wrong reasons gives us no better understanding. To an extent, it is this understanding what science looks for, not just isolated "conclusions", and even less so if they come from unsustainable assumptions.

 

[UltraPi1]

Because blind shots in the dark is NOT how real science is done. Real science is done through years of thorough and laborious work in a LAB or on a blackboard, searching methodically for that one little answer.

I beg to differ. The overwhelming majority of lab work, and blackboard scenerios bear no fruit, and carry the name nutjob. An appearance at a scientist wastebasket shall proffer a mountain of proof. In many cases - Truth is the falsehood of accepted truth. I.E. The accepted truth that an atom is fundamental is proven false by the truth.

The truth be known to those that put a gun to it's head, and questions it's authority. Never question the man with the gun that waits for the truth.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
The overwhelming majority of lab work, and blackboard scenerios bear no fruit

Have you seen the Particle Data Group summary of particle data? It is basically a 1000-page volume with all the info we have obtained about particles and fields. Each one of the numbers there is basically a graduate thesis (developed in a lab somewhere), and each thesis involves new ideas on how to obtain, analyse and interpret the corresponding data.

All that work has allowed us to develop a model that describes pretty much every one of those numbers. Not only that; while trying to get these properties together, "lab-people" have developed many technologies in use today in medicine, communications and what not.

 

[quantumdude]

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, F²+F²=2F².

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

 

[jcsd]

Most of the nutjobs on these boards have a poor understanding of physics and ALL of them have a deficent understanding of the physics in the area in which they are trying to develop their 'theories'.

What you are basically saying UltraPi, is "leave enough monkeys and enough typewriters in a room for long enough and you'll eventually get the complete works of Shakespeare", to extend the metaphor: in general Publishing companies do not get their books from 'monkey rooms'.

 

[spacetravel101]

Sorry to hear that you are an expert on nutcases.

 

[UltraPi1]

Most of the nutjobs on these boards have a poor understanding of physics and ALL of them have a deficent understanding of the physics in the area in which they are trying to develop their 'theories'.

Most of the nutjobs here have a poor understanding of math.

What you are basically saying UltraPi, is "leave enough monkeys and enough typewriters in a room for long enough and you'll eventually get the complete works of Shakespeare", to extend the metaphor:

I would prefer to call them grease monkeys. If you exchange information with them on a mechanical basis - They will understand. You simply can't confer with numbers jargon. It's not their schtick. They need to tool with the universe while others prefer to cipher.

If the universe is not mechanical - A mathematician will do nicely.
If it is - A grease monkey will get the complete works of the universe while the mathematician applies numbers to the parts.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
I beg to differ. The overwhelming majority of lab work, and blackboard scenerios bear no fruit, and carry the name nutjob.

No. Science is largely a negative process. And every "failure" in the lab - IF INVESTIGATED SCIENTIFICALLY - adds more information to the body of knowledge of the human race. A stab in the dark and a random correct guess does not.

Maybe an example would help: Say you were looking for an element or two to mix with steel to make a new alloy. You could just pin the periodic table to a dart board, close your eyes, and throw a couple of darts. Is that a stab in the dark? Not necessarily. If you then do REAL SCIENTIFIC experiments on that new alloy, you WILL gain REAL SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE and push the boundaries of what we know about materials, regardless of whether or not that new alloy proves to be useful. The "stab in the dark" is not the subject you choose to research nor is it the exact direction you choose to take it, its the METHOD by which you research it.

Also, saying one correct thing with the wrong reasons gives us no better understanding.

Yes - the other side of the coin that I forgot about before. Even a lucky guess generally still won't help us any if they are unsupported.

Sorry to hear that you are an expert on nutcases.

We get quite a bit of experience with them here. If you are interested in learning more, you may want to read "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud" by Robert Park. Its an excellent insight into the subject of bad science.

 

[spacetravel101]

We get quite a bit of experience with them here. If you are interested in learning more, you may want to read "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud" by Robert Park. Its an excellent insight into the subject of bad science.

Sorry to hear this. Sounds like only physicst have a monopoly on robust science and engineering?

Have you looked up what the Russians are doing with regard to what the West considers "crackpot science"? Or the patents the US Patent Office has issued?

 

[jcsd]

spacetravel, it gets a bit tiresome hearing crank upon crank's new theory which is 'guarenteed to revolutionize physics', esp. when in many cases they contain incredibly simplistic errors.

 

[spacetravel101]

Originally posted by jcsd
spacetravel, it gets a bit tiresome hearing crank upon crank's new theory which is 'guarenteed to revolutionize physics', esp. when in many cases they contain incredibly simplistic errors.

That agreed, but sometimes you have to bear with the noise.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
Sounds like only physicst have a monopoly on robust science and engineering?

In a sense, yes. When someone does serious work on science and engineering (using a rigorous method and honestly trying to learn what has been done before on the field), he is called a physicist, engineer or scientist.

i.e., robust science is done by scientists by definition.

 

[elas]

To all anti-nutters

What a wonderful response! For over three years I have been submitting polite messages in the hope of receiving constructive criticism of my proposals, without success. Now a few insults and a touch of anger and you emerge like snakes from the grass, with a barrage of much sought after replies, I am delighted.
Replies to your critisisms will require some research and much careful thought. As I can spend only about one hour per day on this work it will probably be next Wednesday before I can make a detailed response, please stay on forum.
Many and genuine sincere thanks,
elas

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
Sorry to hear this. Sounds like only physicst have a monopoly on robust science and engineering?

By definition of course. Not sure why you are sorry to hear that though. It works quite well that way - and likely could not work any other way (it certainly didn't work well at all before the scientific method was invented).

Have you looked up what the Russians are doing with regard to what the West considers "crackpot science"? Or the patents the US Patent Office has issued?

You'll have to be more specific.

What a wonderful response! For over three years I have been submitting polite messages in the hope of receiving constructive criticism of my proposals, without success. Now a few insults and a touch of anger and you emerge like snakes from the grass, with a barrage of much sought after replies, I am delighted.

elas, there is no anger here, nor are we insulting you. This IS the constructive criticism you need. If you followed our advice, your scientific endeavors WOULD be more successful. I honestly wish you luck.

 

[elas]

russ_watters

elas, there is no anger here, nor are we insulting you. This IS the constructive criticism you need. If you followed our advice, your scientific endeavors WOULD be more successful. I honestly wish you luck

I have not made myself clear . It was I who insulted the others in the tone of my reply and their response was the constructive critisism that I have asked for time and time again over the last three years. I am just a little dissapointed that I had to change my atitude in order to get the desired response.
Having said that, I hasten to add that I have the greatest respect for people like Tom and yourself. and hope when my reply is posted you will continue with the criticism.
regards
elas

 

[elas]

Here begins my counter arguement.
I start by quoting several opinions on the question of what is QP. The conclusion drawn by those who study the .Sociology of Scientific Knowledge is that it is "mathematical logic" which, in their view is not quite the same as "Scientific reasoning". That is to say they put on the same level as Archimedes magic triangles and not on the same level as say, medical science.

Extract from Wikipedia
Mathematics is widely believed to be a science, but it is not. It is more closely related to Logic; it is not a science because it makes no attempt to gain empirical knowledge. However, mathematics is the universal language of all sciences.
Some believe that scientific principles have been "solidly" established, beyond question, and are true. Some scientists themselves may indeed feel that way, having come to rely upon many of the results of science without having done all the experiments themselves; after all, one cannot expect every individual scientist to repeat hundreds of years' worth of experiments. Many scientists even encourage an attitude of skepticism toward claims that contradict the current state of scientific knowledge or some easy extrapolation from it; but that only means such claims must meet a higher burden before being accepted, not that they can never be accepted. In the extreme, some, including some scientists, may believe in this or that scientific principle, or even "science" itself, as a matter of faith in a manner similar to that of religious believers.


String Theories and Penrose/Hawking (Blackhole) Theories.

BBC television is currently programming three one hour programs on String Theory based on a book titled “The Elegant Universe”. In the opening program leading academics twice point out that

Because string theory has no foundation in fact, it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science).

In a similar vein, recently one science correspondent contacted leading academics to ask why Stephen Hawking has not received a Noble Prize for Science. The reply he received was that the award was only given to those whose work can be related to known facts. This puts the work of Hawking on the same footing as the work of string theorist and both are correctly defined as philosophy, not science. This I realize will come as a shock to most PF members (it certainly came as a shock to me) so I emphasize that this is not my opinion, but the opinion of leading string theory academics.

Relativity

There are several experiments and observations that are in conflict with the Theory of Relativity.

The experiments of Eric Laithwaite are again raising interest with 384 websites commenting on his experiments (use "Particle physics,Laithwaite" on yahoo). Laithwaite demonstrated that spinning gyroscopes do not obey the laws of gravity as defined by the Standard Model. The force involved is referred to as “anti-gravity”

Hideo Hayasaka and colleagues at the Faculty of Engineering, Tohoku University, Japan with the backing of the Japanese multinational company Matsu****a placed a gyroscope in a vacuum cylinder and measured the rate of fall when spinning and not spinning. They found the results to differ from those predicted using the Standard Model. In their report published in “Speculations in Science and Technology” they write-
“We conclude our previous result (published in 1989) concerning weight-change measurements are substantiated”

Laithwaite had previously made the point that the “anti-gravity” effect only occurs in spinning objects and Robert Matthews, science correspondent to the London Telegraph, wrote that spinning tubs in washing machines are known to display the same force.

Stars are observed to orbit in the outer regions of galaxies, at 5 to 6 times their escape velocity predicted by Relativity. This can be accounted for only if there are vast quantities of dark matter. The latest articles indicate that there is insufficient dark matter to account for the observed stellar speeds.

I will settle for the three examples of failure of Relativity given above and continue with an extract that sums up the professional view of gravity. It is taken from-

Physical Review A, Vol 39 No 5, p39 dated March 1, 1989
Gravitational theory, whether in its scalar Newtonian form or its tensor general-relativistic form, is recognized to be essentially phenomenological in nature. As such it invites attempts at derivation from a more fundamental set of underlying assumptions, and six such attempts are outlined in the standard reference book Gravitation, by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (MTW).
Of the six approaches presented in MTW, perhaps the most far reaching in its implications for an underlying model is one due to Sakharov; that gravitation is not a fundamental interaction at all, but rather an induced effect bought about by changes in the quantum fluctuation energy of the vacuum when matter is present. In this view the attractive gravitational force is more akin to the induced van der Waals and Casimir forces, than to the fundamental Coulumb force.

Now let me compare that professional assessment with my amateur explanation of my proposal.
that gravitation is not a fundamental interaction at all
This is the point at which I begin by claiming that vacuum force is the fundamental force.

but rather an induced effect bought about by changes in the quantum fluctuation energy of the vacuum when matter is present
I show how the interaction between field elasticity and the distribution of force carrier within the field creates a wave system and how changes in the wave system combined with changes in the quantity of force carrier are responsible not only for the gravitational effect but also the electromagnetic and strong force effects in particle form.

This is done by the simple process of using data from a Table of Elements to create tables of carrier force quantities (mass) and tables of vacuum force (anti-mass), and plotting them on a graph to show how they relate to the wave structure. The wave structure is them justified by showing that the same vacuum wave can be found in TFQHE. Note that this is a mathematical theory based on Particle Physics data and not a theory using the predictive Quantum Physics. That is to say my proposal is by definition a scientific theory, not a philosophy.

Puthoff seems to imply that one can have vacuum without the presence of matter; I disagree and take the view that one cannot have vacuum force without the presence of vacuum force carrier.

Puthoff goes on to suggest that
Because of its electromagnetic-ZPF underpinning gravitational theory in this form, constitutes an “already unified” theory.
I use the tables described above to show how by half-wave reduction a graviton can be reduced in volume and increased in density to produce all known stable fundamental particles containing the properties as listed in
The Particle Explosion
Frank Close, Micheal Marten and Christine Sutton
Oxford University Press

This is not the usual Quantum Physics way of describing a unified field theory but, I would argue that it is a perfectly valid way of unifying particle structure in a Particle Physics theory. Furthermore if the force carriers (i.e. particles) are shown to have a particular (Particle Physics) unifying structure then the task of finding a Quantum Physics Unified Field Theory has been made that much easier.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is the nub of your rebuttal:

This is not the usual Quantum Physics way of describing a unified field theory but, I would argue that it is a perfectly valid way of unifying particle structure in a Particle Physics theory. Furthermore if the force carriers (i.e. particles) are shown to have a particular (Particle Physics) unifying structure then the task of finding a Quantum Physics Unified

All you have to do is calculate measurable effects from your theory. These should include
1) All the effects that GR has demostrated successfully
and
2) Some new effects to show your theory is better than GR (and Newton)

As you say there are a lot of wild and crazy ideas coming from inside the physics community, and they are all subjected to this criterion. String theory is also being attacked from within the physics community as you quote -it has been called much harsher things than philosophy - just because of its inability to close with experiment.

So if you want to escape the name crank, if you want to beat out the string theorists, go calculate some measurable efects.

 

[UltraPi1]

If you want to escape the name crank, if you want to beat out the string theorists, go calculate some measurable efects.

I suppose there is some validity to that statement. It would be nice to cut some slack for these individuals though. It's not like they have particle accelerators in their back yard. Few people ever close the deal with a measurable effect.

One must remember - This is a forum for theory development - With emphasis on development. Most people making threads here... show up with the intention of having their theory attacked, and the wolves will not disappoint. Essentially battle lines are drawn from the onset. It is not a cooperative engagement and generally leads to nowhere, for the theory in command is lost in minutiae where the wolves take there first bite.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
It would be nice to cut some slack for these individuals though. It's not like they have particle accelerators in their back yard. Few people ever close the deal with a measurable effect.

No, he didn't say, "Go and measure some effects," he said "go and calculate some measurable effects."

Elas might not have a particle accelerator, but he certainly has a sharp pencil and a pad of paper, no?

edit: fixed quote

 

[elas]

selfAdjoint selfAdjoint has missed the point of my theory. I do not challenge those effects that GR has demonstrated successfully but, seek to explain those things that GR cannot explain or cannot explain without the introduction of yet another questionable entity, namely ‘dark mater.
Neither do I challenge the well proven predictions of QP but rather seek to explain the science that underpins the philosophy.
GR does not explain the origin of mass, Vacuum Theory (VT) does.
GR claims that mass moves and drags gravity along with it. VT claims that the vacuum field moves and drags or adjusts the force carrier.
GR states that gravity is a distortion of ‘spacetime’, but the term ‘gravity’ was thought up by Newton to describe a force that he could not define. VT states that there is no need to create an undefined new entity (gravity) because the fore involved is the force of vacuum that creates particle/fields we know as gravitons. The evidence for this lies in the experiments of Laithwaite and Yakahaka which cannot be explained by GR but can be explained by VT.
Neither GR or QP attempt to explain the creation of fundamental particles in detail but state that fundamental particles ‘condense out’ of plasma at certain temperatures. VT has no argument with these temperatures but adds a detailed mathematical explanation of how the particles form and how there particular properties are determined by the internal wave structure. VT goes even further it explains mathematically, how field elasticity and the distribution of force carrier within the field, are responsible for the creation of the wave structure. But as it is not possible to observe activity within the plasma this must remain an unproven part of VT theory. Having produced fundamental particles that are the same as those used to measure QP movement it is only logical to conclude that VT movement will produce the same result. However look deeper at this and it will be realized that VT explains the act of movement in a way that explains the observed different forms of movement. QP does not do this.
QP accepts that particles move according to the mathematics of wave movement but cannot explain why or even whether the wave actually exists. VT defines the cause of waves and there relationship with the vacuum field and proves this relationship using TFQHE.
So what can VT predict that is different from GR and QP. Firstly that the graviton is its own antiparticle and therefore there is no anti-gravity but only the artificial gravity found by Laithwaite and Yakahata. Secondly that ‘C” is the maximum observable speed and not a constant. The first is I suggest already proven and the second will have to await the discovery of a method of measuring the speed of light in a graviton field without the presence of an electromagnetic wave. At present we have no idea as to how that can be done.
I would like to expand this reply but I have to get my wife’s breakfast ready!
Regards
elas

 

[markci]

>>> If PF theory development manages to foster one significant development in 50 years. I would consider it to be a smashing success.

If it manages to foster one insignificant development in 1000 years it would have to be a ****ing miracle.

 

[Nereid]

elas wrote: Stars are observed to orbit in the outer regions of galaxies, at 5 to 6 times their escape velocity predicted by Relativity. This can be accounted for only if there are vast quantities of dark matter. The latest articles indicate that there is insufficient dark matter to account for the observed stellar speeds.

As far as I know, the discrepancy has nothing to do with Relativity, except in the sense that Relativity encompasses Newton.

The stars (and other matter, e.g. gas clouds) in the outer regions of some galaxies (e.g. spirals) appear to be moving about the galactic centres. If you plug in the mass - closer to the galactic centres than those stars - required for them to move at their observed speeds (using Newtonian physics), you get numbers that are greater than what the observed light emissions would suggest that mass should be (a great deal of observational work has gone into this simple summary). None of the objects is moving at anywhere near relativistic speed, no need for SR or GR.

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying, but it seems to me that if your ideas are consistent with GR (and Newton), then the galactic rotation curves are just as much a problem for your VT ideas as they are for GR (and classical physics)!

Of course, if you've done some calculations which show that VT can account for the observed galactic rotation curves, please say so! There is already one interesting alternative theory getting serious airtime - MOND, and it does a very creditable job of matching the observed data (it fails in other respects, and its author is clear about its limitations).

A suggestion: now is the time to really make a mark in physics - predict the mass of the Higgs, the rest mass of all neutrino flavours, the lighest superparticle, ... the list is long ... and likely within five years you could be truly famous.

 

[elas]

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying, but it seems to me that if your ideas are consistent with GR (and Newton), then the galactic rotation curves are just as much a problem for your VT ideas as they are for GR (and classical physics)!

The article I read showed in diagram form that according to both Newton and Einstein the gravitational force between two galaxies (in a group of galaxies) should decrease with distance from the centre of each galaxy. But by calculating the gravitational force from observed rotations of the galaxies it is found that there is no decrease.
My proposal suggest that the solution lies in looking at the effect that vacuum has on fields where the number of particle/fields in infinity is constant and the quantity of vacuum in each field is constant; but the quantity of force carrier within each field is variable although the total quantity of force carrier in infinity is, of course, also constant.
This creates a universe that has one force (vacuum) and one force carrier. My proposal is that we do not need to invent any other entities in order to explain the universe.
The diagrams on my web page show the relationship between particles produced using vacuum field theory and the QP predictions for the mass of quarks and the standard electron. You will see that the graviton is included in the vacuum theory particle diagram and not in the QP diagram. This is what QP cannot predict and explains why QP and relativity cannot be combined. In vacuum theory they are combined.
Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak forces are all names invented to cover the cause of observations where the cause itself cannot be defined.
My proposal is that they can all be defined as variations of the relationship between vacuum force and vacuum force carrier. That is to say that we can at last define what the forces are instead of just being able to predict what they do.

 

[Nereid]

Source please?

elas wrote: The article I read showed in diagram form that according to both Newton and Einstein the gravitational force between two galaxies (in a group of galaxies) should decrease with distance from the centre of each galaxy. But by calculating the gravitational force from observed rotations of the galaxies it is found that there is no decrease.

Could you please supply a reference to this article? AFAIK, the observations of galaxy redshift (in clusters) are consistent with them being in a gravitational well which comprises the galaxies themselves plus some IGM (inter-galactic medium) plus dark matter. The radial distribution of mass - and esp dark matter - in a big cluster has recently been determined in some detail, using gravitational lensing. See:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0307/0307299.pdf

 

[Nereid]

VT predictions should be easy then!

elas wrote: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak forces are all names invented to cover the cause of observations where the cause itself cannot be defined. My proposal is that they can all be defined as variations of the relationship between vacuum force and vacuum force carrier.

Unless I am mistaken, you should be able to determine measurable quantities such as:
- Higgs particle mass
- neutrino rest masses.

These calculations should be easy for you to do, and would catapault you onto the front pages if subsequent observations showed you were right.

Another thing which I hadn't appreciated until now: under your proposal, ALL new forces can be derived from first principles! Alternatively, you can prove conclusively that there are only four fundamental forces.

Could you please give us the number of new fundamental forces which remain to be discovered? If one of them is similar to what physicists call supersymmetry, please tell us what the mass of the lightest such particle is, and sketch its properties.

 

[elas]

Nereid

Will try and find reference requested.

Higgs boson is something I cannot predict, but note that all fundamental particles except the lightest are short life particles. As Higgs boson is expected to have a large mass I expect it to have an equally short life.
Standard Model starts with a primeval atom containing the mass of the universe. Clearly then we can go on creating ever more massive particles until we reach the primeval atom or the limit of our abilities.
Personally I find the whole proposal to be to preposterous to be worthy of intelligent consideration, preferring to believe that creation starts from or near absolute nothing and builds up from their. For that reason I am more interested in searching for a lighter particle (graviton)than the heavier Higgs boson.
If this makes me something of a nutcase then let it be, it is a position that I find more believable and one that I am happy to pursue.

 

[elas]

Nereid
Ten hours of contemplation and I realize my last reply was far to pessimistic. Your suggestion has inspired a whole new way of extending vacuum theory and I will write at length later today.
regards
elas

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by elas
Nereid
Ten hours of contemplation and I realize my last reply was far to pessimistic. Your suggestion has inspired a whole new way of extending vacuum theory and I will write at length later today.
regards
elas

I suggest you go here first:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311199

And then here:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311197

Alternatly you can fluctuate here:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311412

 

[elas]

Unless I am mistaken, you should be able to determine measurable quantities such as:
- Higgs particle mass
- neutrino rest masses

It depends on whether or not the particles are ZP field particles, as are all fundamental particles; or whether like the photon they are parasite particles without there own ZP. I will attempt to predict a mass for the Higgs which could be either, using graphs 39.4 and 39.5; but not the neutrinos that are definitely parasites.

But if one end of the graph can be extended why not the other more promising end? Going beyond the graviton shown on the graphs and associated tables would create a series of particles on the gravity spectrum. There is no need to stop until the predicted speed of the boson associated with the particle is C squared; This would give the cause of Einstein's constant.
Now compare this with String Theory where there are a number of weird parallel universes. In Vacuum theory there is the possibility of just two interlocking non-parallel universes, one on each spectrum. We are in both universes but can only detect one. Should we cease to exist in the observed universe we do not necessarily cease to exist in the other gravity spectrum universe, but simply detach ourselves from the electromagnetic spectrum universe.
No weird dopplegangers just a straightforward but undetectable particle seperation.
If this is science fiction then so is String Theory, it is a case of either both are acceptable theories or neither is acceptable. But if I am right then we can abandon all the weirdness of String Theory and religous doctrines and get down to a serious debate on the sociology of eternity.

In conclusion then, Vacuum theory holds out the possibility of matching the prediction of the Higgs particle found in QP, finding the cause of Einstein's constant in Relativity, and providing an alternative to the multi-dimensional weirdness of current developements of the Standard Model (in the form of String Theories).