uncool

I'm guessing he means the transverse dimensions - y and z are absolute under x-boosts, while t is not. Alexander: So observer A sees an object which follows the path (t, 0, 0, 0). That is, according to observer A, at time t, the object is at the point (0, 0, 0) for any t. Observer B is moving at velocity v relative to A. If observer A thinks that the object is at (t, 0, 0, 0), what will observer B think the position is? =Uncool-

Velocity is not a field. Velocity is a quantity. You seem to be missing the key word there - it must be identifiably different. That means that it must have some laws of physics different from the other frames. That is why preferred frame means the same thing as absolute frame. You also seem to be missing the fact that the fields, just like the fields in the standard model, would not inherently give any velocity at all. It would create no "reference volume". =Uncool-

I'm not seeing this term (strong hypothesis) anywhere. Does not suggest a particular reference frame in any way. Is a part of the Standard model which is inherently relativistic - it automatically rejects particular reference frames. A preferred reference frame means a reference frame according to which the laws of physics are different than the laws of physics in another frame. None of these would provide that in any way. This is, quite simply, incorrect. None of these hypotheses posit a preferred frame in the least. =Uncool- Please excuse me; I had misremembered the actual number. The closest one, just using the first two numbers, is .3775, not .3875 - this works as 25 charges for 9.42 and 17 for 6.4. And it works for the mesons too - haven't you noticed yet that they are pretty much the same values for the differences? And yes, the reason for that is explained in the Standard model - because you're replacing the same quarks. Just not being consistent with "how [you] visualise things" is not a scientific reason. You cannot simply say that and consider it a final verdict. OK. Then on a small-mass scale, which is the scale at which the Standard Model operates (as it has not yet been unified with gravitational theories), you would agree that the only force is the electromagnetic force? And how, exactly, would it vary? Is the Lorentz force law only an approximation at large distances from the source? So there are different kinds of photons with different builds? Or are all photons elementary particles? This is false; read later. Where real means precisely what? No. That is not the point of a physical theory. The reason is because every test of the theory has confirmed it to be correct. And again, NO. This is absolutely and completely false. Look up relativistic mechanics. This has been around for nearly 100 years. Mechanics is in fact one of the simplest relativistic theories to come up with. Even a classical (meaning non-quantum) relativistic field theory is rather simple, and can be described by a single equation: [MATH]\mathcal{A} = \int_{all space} (\partial_\mu \Phi(x) \partial^\mu \Phi(x) - U(x) \Phi(x)) d^4x[/MATH] I believe that should be correct up to signs and constants. Actually, quantum mechanics is not necessarily based on relativity. Schrodinger's equation is nonrelativistic. You are thinking of quantum field theory, which is inherently relativistic. The fact that you don't even recognize the correct theories here should be an indication that you have much more to study. So do you accept quantum mechanics at all? That is, do you accept that it is an adequate description of the universe that could be refined, as opposed to a description that is simply wrong (a la Aristotlean physics)? =Uncool-

So you no longer think that we already have discovered such stars? Are you agreeing that your example earlier didn't work, and that we have not yet found stars that are older than the currently theorized age of the universe? I'm afraid that the video is a bad introduction to this theory; a good one would get to the point quickly, rather than starting after 5 minutes. I'm not seeing even a single prediction in the other video, so I couldn't tell you that there are any predictions that the "alternate universe model in the video" does not make. You are the one providing a theory that is contrary to the consensus; what is a specific prediction that you think it does make? It is because you postured at the beginning as if you did have all of the answers to the questions that I asked - you were stating, as if it were a fact, that there are holes in BBT, and that such things as dark matter and dark energy had no proof. All of the questions that I asked are ones that, given what you have posted, you should be able to answer. The video is certainly a lot more than 7 minutes; the one linked to in your OP is at least an hour long. I am not going to watch the whole hour of it; you should be able to specifically state the claims that you think are relevant. =Uncool-

And if your theory is correct. You cannot forget to include that point. At the moment, you are religiously holding on to your theory, by your own definition of religious. Until the data is out on whether this evidence corresponds to your theory, you cannot claim that it will correspond. Except it's still not a prediction, because you still haven't made sure that it is a prediction. What happens if the mass is .3875, as I explained would work? Your theory doesn't predict which of those two, or of any of the other possibilities, this could be. And I'm pretty damn sure that pretty much no matter how accurately the mass is measured, your theory allows fractions that allow it to work. There is quite a bit more than just experimental evidence lacking within your theory, which is one reason why theorists will not even consider your idea. Just how much is missing depends on how much current theory you are planning on throwing away, rather than simply refining. Which of the following do you accept: special relativity, quantum mechanics, general relativity? I'm afraid that that doesn't answer my question. Is the entire force between these "space-bubbles" from these "compression waves" or do electrons feel more forces between them? If the former, then you should agree that, since the "compression waves" create the electromagnetic field, the only force between the particles in your theory will be electromagnetic. So you do accept that photons exist, which was one part of my question. Do you then think that photons are made up of electrons and positrons, or do you accept a second "kind" of particle? This wasn't what I meant, but your answer gives rise to another question: If the sun is giving off photons, precisely what process do you think causes that, microscopically thinking? =Uncool-

You have yet to demonstrate any of these so-called "holes". So far, you have claimed precisely one possible hole, and it has already been pointed out that 1) You have mistaken both ages by a factor of 10, and 2) you have mixed up the two ages (as the universe is theorized to be approximately 14 billion years old; no star is theorized to be older than that). As such, you have presented absolutely no holes. Which the big bang has - it made specific predictions, and those predictions were tested and confirmed by experiment. You're right, it doesn't add up - because you are making an assumption which is false. You are assuming that the Big Bang theory is no more than a best guess, when it has made confirmed predictions. As others have asked you, please explain some of these so-called problems. The most you have done is provide 1, and that one turned out to be wrong. I would choose the Big Bang model at the moment because it has made specific, testable, falsifiable predictions which have been borne out, whereas as far as I can tell, your pet "hypothesis" has not. Would you like to make a specific prediction, here and now? =Uncool-

According to whom? I believe the current estimate is 14 billion or so, not 80 billion. Reference? I'm pretty sure cosmologists would have noted an obvious discrepancy like this. That is incorrect. Dark matter is theorized because there are observed discrepancies between orbiting matter and current statistical mechanics calculations of how it ought to be distributed. You may be thinking of dark energy, which is theorized because of evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. You are correct that there is no proof; however, that is true of anything in science. On the other hand, there is a large deal of evidence - both for dark matter and for dark energy, Would you mind providing citations for the above claims (80 billion and 140 billion) then? And additionally, if you have done research, then why are you mixing up three clearly separate theories (dark matter, dark energy, and the big bang)? =Uncool-

The standard model makes it clear that, on the current energy scale, no, there are none. Again, there are several reasons why this does not work, all of which have been stated already: 1) .7 is only one of many masses that "work" according to your theory. 2) You have no specificity on the .7 - that is, should that be .7 plus or minus how much? 3) You yourself have already tried to violate this by allowing some changes to the mass added due to structure. 4) This is not a specific prediction until you have figured out statistical significance levels. Again, a prediction in particle physics requires specific bounds on what you will accept. Learn the theory and its experiments before attempting to criticize. Until you do, and show that you do, you will not get any other response. If you want to discuss that site on a separate thread, feel free; the topics currently covered on that site are far different from the stuff in this thread. On a different tack, newts: Am I correct in saying that in your theory, the only force between electrons is the electromagnetic force? Additionally, do you accept that the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, or do you reject that along with gluons? =Uncool-

I'm asking you to tell me the following: Say observer A sees a timeline that takes up the coordinates (t, 0, 0, 0). Where will observer B (who is moving at velocity v relative to A) think that timeline goes? Under special relativity, the timeline will go to [math](\gamma t, -v \gamma t, 0, 0)[/math]. Where does (t, 0, 0, 0) go under your transformation? =Uncool-

Then can you tell me the correct version of what I posted? =Uncool-

So in that case, let's say that we have two observers A and B, such that B is moving at velocity v relative to A. In the frame of A, A's path is [math](t, 0, 0, 0)[/math]. Under your transformation, that path becomes [math](t, -\frac{vt}{\gamma_v^2}, 0, 0)[/math]. In other words, you get that if A thinks B is moving at velocity [math]v[/math], then B thinks A is moving at velocity [math]-\frac{v}{\gamma_v^2}[/math]. Is this correct so far? =Uncool-

So Alex, what exactly is the full transformation? In relativity, the full transformation is: [math] t' = \gamma (t - \frac{vx}{c^2})[/math] [math]x' = \gamma (x - vt)[/math] [math] y' = y[/math] [math] z' = z[/math] Under your hypothesis, if you're given t, x, y, and z, what are they after your transformation? =Uncool-

Marqq - I don't think your answer works unless you assume a bit more than I think you are. If the guard you ask is one who lies randomly, he could think as follows: Under straight asking (that is, if you were to ask "Which door would you say leads to life?"), he tells the truth. But under this question, he tells a lie. This means that his straight answer would be the door to life, so his answer to the full question could be either of the other doors. I don't think it was specified that he has to act consistently from one time to another, which means that this is a legitimate opportunity. However, if the guard must indicate all relevant doors, then yes, just the question of "Which door leads to life?" is enough. =Uncool-

Does this mean that the station observer will think that the two brushes are closer together than the train observer does? I'm afraid I have no idea what this sentence means. =Uncool-

I'm afraid that your answer does not make sense. I cannot figure out what you are saying. =Uncool-

In that case, I'd suggest getting someone who knows English to write here; it can make communication easier. OK. So the train observer thinks that the lines on the wall are separated by a distance greater than H. Now assume that the observer on the train is holding two paintbrushes. He thinks that they are vertically separated by a distance H. Will the station observer think that they are farther than H apart, or closer than H apart? =Uncool-

I just want to get your answer absolutely clear. Am I correct in saying that English is not your first language? So will the observer on the train think that they are closer or farther apart? Currently, from what I can tell, you are saying the observer on the train will see them as being closer, as H' < H. =Uncool-

It works pretty often, but not always. You still have to check that the output is prime. =Uncool-

So you're saying that the observer on the train will see the lines as closer together, according to your theory? I don't see how. The train observer holds two paintbrushes a distance H apart. How far apart will the station observer think the two lines caused by the paintbrushes are? =Uncool-

Consider a thought experiment as follows: A train moves at velocity v relative to the station. On the wall of the station there are two lines a distance H apart according to any observer at the station. How far apart will an observer on the train see them? Now say the train observer holds out paintbrushes a distance H apart, with the lower paint brush coinciding with the painted line, painting a line on the wall. How far apart will an observer on the station see these new lines? =Uncool-

Not quite. It's that it will never be in isolation. False. Absolutely and entirely false. The idea that they could not be isolated itself creates many predictions - specifically: if you are to try to isolate a quark, jets of particles will be created in certain directions. These directions were predicted and observed. Had they not been observed, it would have been a falsification of the theory. Similarly, the creation of the top quark with the anti-top quark involved specific predictions about cross-sections at accelerators which were predicted before the experiments were run, and observed at those experiments. Had the cross-section not been correct, it would have been a falsification of the theory. So no, disproof would not have been very difficult, as we have been telling and showing you this entire thread. Have you actually read a single response? Perhaps you should read up on the theory first. Not quite; you have explained a particle physics explanation for your "theory", but you are still missing many things that it should have (as explained later). Not quite. They have said that you have no meaningful calculations. And you don't have any meaningful calculations in this thread. Except that not only have they said it, they have shown it. Again, your calculations are meaningless without a statistical backing. You have specifically refused to even attempt to give one. Again, your "theory" has made no specific mathematical predictions from which a statistical model can even be made. You have generally refused to give one. So no, you don't have a theory. Congratulations; you have made one prediction. It doesn't have any statistical analysis, although it could probably be done relatively easily. However, the Standard Model does not predict that any neutral particle will have the same mass as any charged particle either, so you don't have a distinguishing prediction yet. So now you have a single, solitary, extremely basic prediction for your model that doesn't even distinguish it from the Standard Model. Now the Standard model has multitudes of specific, statistically analyzed predictions, and has passed every test thrown at it. So again, why should anyone discard the Standard Model and automatically go over to yours? And finally, your theory is missing nearly every explanation that it should have - again, why is a proton stable? Why is a neutron mostly stable, and how long should it be before it decays? These are things your theory ought to be able to explain, and which have been explained by the Standard Model, but which your model has entirely left out. Newts, the people in this thread have time and time again explained how QCD could be and has already been tested and succeeded. From now on, the only response that you deserve with respect to your criticisms - no, that cannot be the word; that word implies understanding. The only response that you deserve with respect to your wild ramblings about QCD is "Learn the theory and its experiments before attempting to criticize." No, this is not religious. Before you attempt to criticize anything, you should attempt to understand it. Before you attempt to override a scientific theory, you should attempt to understand the experiments which have caused it to be accepted as the current leading theory. Now please try to do 2 things: 1) Learn the current theory; learn how it has been confirmed to the current limits of our ability to measure; learn the mathematically quite elegant background to the current theory; learn that you don't know a thing about the current theory. 2) Learn how to properly create a theory; learn how to properly create a prediction for a theory; learn how to create a statistical analysis that will actually demonstrate your theory; learn that you have done nothing which could even be construed under any circumstances to be a theory. =Uncool-

newts, are you going to stay on topic and specifically show, in any way, that either: 1) Your model does explain the strong nuclear force in a way that matches experiments, or 2) The standard model does not? Because what you are currently saying is far off-topic. You started this thread to specifically talk about your model and the standard model. Now stay on topic, or you cannot get offended when you are dismissed out of hand. =Uncool-

This should not be possible. The answer to the question will either be "Yes" or "No"; that cannot distinguish between 3 doors. =Uncool-

Stop there. You cannot claim that any evidence has been presented. Nothing that you have posted in this thread can be referred to as "evidence"; that is precisely what I have been showing you. That is precisely what the nitpicking is - it was showing you that everything that you thought of as evidence cannot count as such until you back it up. As such, any sentence you write beginning with that statement will be false until you actually do provide evidence. People who you say have understood your theory have asked you for the calculations; is there a reason you haven't provided them? Again, no. No one here is being hostile to the theory. The only hostility which is now being shown is to your attitude to the above refutations - the demonstrations that all of your so-called evidence does not work. And for a third time, no. You think that anyone will "fear for the future" because of what some random guy posts at some random site Do you think scientists are stupid? Do you think they are so blind that they wouldn't notice that they are essentially predicting nothing? What do you think all of the experiments are for? And are you ever going to address the fact that there have been multiple independent experimental vindications of QCD which explicitly required that disproof be quantitatively possible? The mass of the heavy quarks has already been named in this thread; you can see more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics#Experimental_tests False. The theory is that the quarks cannot be seen alone; however, their effects have been widely predicted and confirmed. Again, read up on the theory before making such general statements. Again false; experiments are being done right now which are at approximately the predicted energy level. Again false. The standard model makes very specific predictions; yes, it allows a range of energies, but it has very specific predictions as to how the bosons couple with quarks, which has some very identifiable effects. No. If it were able to include any particle, as you have said, then scientists would say that it has no predictive power. And it does have many falsifiable predictions. Considering that you have not, so far as anyone here can tell, even attempted to understand the theory, you are no position at all to evaluate it. You yourself got angry when other people attempted to criticize your theory and you thought (wrongly) that they did not understand it. But you consider yourself in a position to understand QCD when you haven't even taken the basic undergraduate electrodynamics course? QCD has more than a mechanism. It has a nearly-complete mathematical description, although it has left a few coupling constants (i.e. parameters) unknown at the moment. Now, back to your theory, which you have ignored for the past several pages: So far, all that you have done is post one series of extraordinarily basic calculations and an extraordinarily vague theory; then, when I showed you the flaws in the calculations, and others showed ways in which the theory was lacking, all you have done is claim that others are being "religious" and literally ignore every criticism of your theory. Have you ever considered that you are the one becoming both hostile and religious? You have ignored all of my questions except for one, which you have simply claimed has already been answered. You then ignored my attempt to come up with a specific prediction for your theory, as well as everyone's attempt to show you that unless your theory makes specific, mathematically rigorous predictions which can be statistically tested, as QCD already has for decades, then your "theory" is nothing more than a random thought. So now, newts, are you ever going to stop your hate-fest for QCD and at least consider it? Yes, that would mean that you'd have to learn a lot of physics. But why should that stop you? =Uncool-

I'd say that it is less convoluted . =Uncool-