Why all the nutcases?

  • Thread starter markci
  • Start date
  • #26
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
Originally posted by elas
Tom

Yes, it is a postulate. It has been confirmed, and so have its consequences

Postulate suggest or assume the existence, fact or truth.
What?

All experimenters assume that 'C' is a constant and not a maximum speed. The same sort of error was made by scientist measuring Ozone Depletion but they had the good sense to accept the proposal that there readings were wrong. QP physicists have a closed mind when it comes to alternative possibilities and Relativity physicist flatly reject all experiments (using spinnig objects) and cosmic observations that run contrary to there theories. This is not good science.
You keep referring to these experiments that falsify relativity.

Where are they published?

What's the difference? If it is "apparent" to everyone, then in what sense can anyone say that it is not "real"?

The 'apparent motion' of the planets is orbital, the 'real motion' is a complicated wave pattern. At no priod of time does any planet actually complete an orbit in space; but the 'apparent' motion relative to the Sun is an orbit. Orbits are apparent motion, waves are real motion.
Then this "real motion" you speak of is no less illusory than the "apparent motion". There is no reason I should prefer the frame in which planetary motion is wavelike over the frame in which it is elliptical, and vice versa.

Patantly false. The results apply to weak, strong, and gravitational interactions as well.

I should have written that the graviton is the only particle not subject to the electromagnetic force.
That is not what I was objecting to. What I meant is that all field theories of fundamental interactions are relativistic.

'C' does not apply within a strong force field. According to a report in SciAm attempts to measure the speed of bosons within a strong force field were 'inconclusive' but the report continued with the statement that "there are some reasons to believe that it is about 94 miles per second".
I would need to see the article. I have never heard of anyone directly measuring the "speed" of subatomic particles. Also, what exactly do you mean by "strong force field"? Do you mean the field of the "strong force" or a "strong" EM field? (Either way, I think you're wrong, but it would help to be on the same page).

Given that the speed of light varies???
That is hardly "given". You refer to experimental results and to your website, but if you could give me links to both that would help.

You promised to review my website and get back to me about three years ago (on two seperate occasions!). All members websites can be accessed through the 'Members List". Click on 'Members' > E > elas > www. I have been official rebuked for repeating my site address on Physics Forum, I was accused of advertising by one forum mentor.
Sorry, I get so many emails and private messages from independent theorists such as yourself that I can't keep track of them all. I won't make any more promises that I cannot keep.

Does not the speed of light vary in harmony with time in that clocks slow down when acelerated?. True in all times 'C' is constant but times are not costant relative to one another at different points in space.
You answered your own question immediately after asking it.

No, the speed of light does not vary in harmony with time. Time and space vary in such a way as to be in harmony with an invariant speed of light.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
russ_watters
Mentor
19,946
6,436
Originally posted by elas
russ_watters

The thing that boggles my mind is that if you KNOW that the methodology behind your ideas (and thus the ideas themselves) is considered by scientists to be scientifically flawed, why do you not attempt to FIX your methodology?

Is this not precisely what I am attempting to do on my web page?
No. Quite the opposite. It appears you are trying to use the fact that your ideas are considered scientifically flawed to as a self-justification for not following, not adhering to, not learning, and therefore not "doing" real science. Its more than just a circular arguement - its a death spiral.


But one little specific thing about your ideas:
Does not the speed of light vary in harmony with time in that clocks slow down when acelerated?. True in all times 'C' is constant but times are not costant relative to one another at different points in space.
You quite simly don't understand relativity on the most basic level. The death spiral will continue intil you choose to break it by LEARNING REAL SCIENCE.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
elas
It appears you are trying to use the fact that your ideas are considered scientifically to act a self-justification for not following, not adhering to, not learning, and therefore not "doing" real science.

You keep making this sort of comment without making any attempt to justify them. In the first part of my work I do no more than draw up tables and charts from a standard table of elements to show how the unsolved problems of particle physics can be solved. The key change being the conversion of mass/energy into vacuum force and vacuum force carrier.
These problems are listed in the most elementary of particle physics books, so I assume a person of your obvious knowledge is well aware of them. So let me have constructive criticism in place of your bombastic statements.

You quite simply don't understand relativity on the most basic level.

The second part of my work is an attempt to show how this new particle and atomic structure relates to quantum physics, and here I am open to criticism because QP is the interpretation of predictions, while my suggestions are interpretations based on structure.
If I am not giving the correct QP interpretation of gravitational time delay please outline the correct interpretation, for a person of your brilliance that should be a piece of cake; and if you would deign to use a grammar and spell checker at the same time, you would save your readers the trouble of editing your replies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
russ_watters
Mentor
19,946
6,436
Originally posted by elas
It appears you are trying to use the fact that your ideas are considered scientifically flawedto act a self-justification for not following, not adhering to, not learning, and therefore not "doing" real science.

You keep making this sort of comment without making any attempt to justify them.
Somehow I left out the word "flawed" in that statement. But I guess it was understood. In any case, you yourself said it earlier and I quoted you:
This is the nutcases’ forum and I am permitted herein to stray beyond normal parameters.
Essentially that is both an admission that your ideas are considered to be flawed and a statment that by accepting that they are flawed, you are released from the requirement that they be sound. Sorry, no. You DO have to follow the same rules everyone else does.
for a person of your brilliance that should be a piece of cake
I've said it before, elias: I'm not an expert on this stuff. I'm an engineer, not a physicist. The vast majority of what I know on this particular subject comes from several readings of "A Brief History of Time." But a single pass through the basics of relativity is all that is required to see your most basic errors, such as the one pointed out by Tom. The way you asked and (sorta) answered your own question indicates that maybe you already know the answers and either just refuse to accept them or choose to ignore them. Thats a big pet peve of mine - people who know the truth and ignore or refuse to accept it.
 
  • #30
144
0
Thats a big pet peve of mine - people who know the truth and ignore or refuse to accept it.
In the scientific world - The truth is a moving target. On Physics Forums (Theory development) - People take thier 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.
 
  • #31
russ_watters
Mentor
19,946
6,436
Originally posted by UltraPi1
In the scientific world - The truth is a moving target. On Physics Forums (Theory development) - People take thier 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 thats no one's fault but your own.
 
  • #32
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
736
1
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.
 
  • #33
144
0
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.
 
  • #34
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
736
1
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.
 
  • #35
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
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 thats 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 [Broken] 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--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.

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.

And the fun doesn't end there.

From the section http://elasticity2.tripod.com/s38.htm [Broken]:

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. 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 [Broken], 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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,090
11
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'.
 
  • #37
spacetravel101
Sorry to hear that you are an expert on nutcases.
 
  • #38
144
0
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 thier 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.
 
  • #39
russ_watters
Mentor
19,946
6,436
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.
 
  • #40
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?
 
  • #41
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,090
11
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.
 
  • #42
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.
 
  • #43
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
736
1
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.
 
  • #44
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
 
  • #45
russ_watters
Mentor
19,946
6,436
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.
 
  • #46
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
 
  • #47
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
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.
 
  • #49
144
0
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 thier 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 thier 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.
 
  • #50
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
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 thier 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
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Why all the nutcases?

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
Top