Jump to content

newts

Senior Members
  • Posts

    188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by newts

  1. newts

    Relativity

    If 2 electrons head towards each other, both at ½ lightspeed; then after 1 second, they will be 1 light-second closer. So based on the definition of speed as distance/time, the closing speed must be lightspeed. If you had never been taught relativity, you would agree with that, and say anybody who disagreed was crazy. That is why I say SR is religion, because it involves people believing in nonsensical things, merely because they have been taught to. SR, like Newtonian mechanics, allows one to calculate things that would be impractical using LET; but it does not describe a possible universe. LET is simple and intuitive, and since it gives similar results to SR, only somebody who prefers to believe in mysticism would favour SR. Uncool, for all his vices, does at least freely acknowledge the equivalence of SR and LET, presumably because he understands the maths. The most vociferous proponents and opponents of SR, surely do not understand the maths; that is why the proponents claim all relativity-deniers must be intellectually inferior, and why the opponents advocate absurdities like aether-dragging and a moving local gravitational field. Well done for correctly interpreting my answer, it was not till I got to bed that I realised it was nonsense. I see why SR and LET are the same for the GPS, but I am not sure about particle collisions. If 2 protons are going at ½ lightspeed, their combined energies would be 2 times (sqrt 4/3 minus 1) = 0.309 times the mass of a proton. So if they were to collide and end up stationary, they could theoretically emit that in the form of photons at right angles to the impact. If a proton was going at 4/5, its mass would be 5/3, thus its momentum 4/3. If it collides with a stationary proton, and they end up moving through space at the same speed, and the emitted photons also remain in line; then by the conservation of momentum: 4/3 = (5/3 + 1)V. so V = ½. The energy of 2 protons going at ½ is 0.309, the original energy was 2/3, therefore .358 could be emitted in photons. Not the same as in the first case? You surely know of many experiments where high energy particles are collided with stationery atomic nuclei to produce exotic particles. You also know this could not happen if the particles and nuclei were heading in opposite directions at ½, so why nitpick? I agree it is not an equal contest. I give your pet theories such a pummelling that the referee has to step in to spare you from further punishment; and then, like Simplicio, you get declared the winner.
  2. Doubtless if you had been around at the time of Galileo; then you would have accused him of lowering the intelligence levels, or rather accused him of the 17th century equivalent of that phrase.
  3. I was not comparing myself to Galileo; I was making the point that the human nature of university professors is no different to what is was 400 years ago. If you compare my work to Galileo's, I am sure you will agree that our contributions to physics are vastly different, even if both are utterly repugnant to the establishment. If you want to discuss quarks and gluons, then it is best to do it on my thread, as Swansont said. This thread is about matter, not about imaginary beings.
  4. newts

    Relativity

    I know that SR is deemed to give the same results as the Lorentz aether, so to make the energies equivalent I would suggest .645. Swansont thinks .8, and is never wrong; so either I have made an error, or perhaps the two theories are not exactly equivalent? I just theorised using the energies of collisions; you presumably have access to proper data, so please correct me if I am wrong. It is fantastic to see you finally produce some evidence, even if it is not exactly physics. The statistic I am interested in, is what fraction of your posts in the past year have been responses to me? When I get banned, will you rejoice at the demise of a heretic, or lament the loss of a sparring partner?
  5. I briefly explained for the unenlightened, how electric forces explain most of what happens on earth. Since nobody is going to argue about that; where else can the thread go, other than to extend the theory of electric charges to the composition of particles such as protons? The discussion was about Gell-Mann's pet theory not mine; even before I joined the fray, quarks had been offered up as a refutation of the OP. True we were rehashing arguments from my thread; but that is largely because even there people were not that interested in my ideas, and rather more interested in saying how incredible quarks are. I do not think that you are saying nobody is allowed to speculate that quarks are wrong; I suspect that you are saying I am not allowed to. Which reminds me of the story that the Catholic Church only took exception to heliocentricity when Galileo started advocating it.
  6. newts

    Relativity

    I think humans have always wanted to believe the world is magical and mystical. With Newton and the enlightenment, it became fashionable for scientists to try to make sense of things; but now people who claim to be scientists, again want to see the universe as incomprehensible. Relativity is a classic example. Lorentz tried to explain the MMX in mechanical terms, but the fantasists won the day with their god of Relativity. Relativity is primarily an experimental fact which needs to be explained; unfortunately physics-believers see it instead as a doctrine than it is sinful to question. The experimental evidence clearly shows that motion is absolute not relative. If you were to fire 2 protons in opposite directions round the LHC both at ½ lightspeed; then repeat the experiment with one going at nearly lightspeed and the other barely moving, the particles produced in the 2 collisions would be very different. I am not saying that disproves SR; but that is because SR is a religious belief, hence unfalsifiable. The inference was based on the fact I was accused of being a prolific offender, despite having seldom contributed to threads other than my own, and that your thread was snipped at my post.
  7. I would just like to apologise for hijacking a thread about matter being nothing but charges, by explaining how matter is nothing but charges. Next time I will try to stay on topic.
  8. newts

    Relativity

    I could not reply immediately, as I was sentenced to house-arrest for repeatedly hijacking threads with my pet theories. Since your thread was apparently one of those I hijacked, please accept my apologies. The problem is that now the thread has been split, if I answer your post, I could be accused of hijacking a thread about relativity with my own pet theories about units, and be burnt at the stake. My post was a model-independent explanation as to why the units kg m²/s² disagree with the experimental evidence. But it drew the most religious relativity-believers out of the woodwork, incensed that I had failed to recite chapter and verse of special relativity. They then recite the physics-believer's version of the Emperor's new clothes, claiming that non-believers are all intellectually inferior to true believers, backed up by the chorus "proved by experiment". However the fact is, all I did was point out generally agreed experimental evidence. I would also remind relativity-believers, that SR is officially deigned to give the same experimental results as the Lorentz aether, so for people without their own ideas, opting for either is just a lifestyle choice. One of the problems with units, is that physics formulae often do not reflect the true nature of the universe. Also, historically physicists were practical people, so then tended to choose units convenient for their own branch, rather than designing them for the benefit of rare people like yourself who want to make sense of the universe.
  9. Your definition of truth, is clearly the current mainstream physics view. I am not interested in scientific authority, but rather concentrate on the experimental evidence. Have you never thought it a bit odd, that all the particles ever discovered have integer charges, but quarks are believed to have fractional charges? And is it not a bit convenient, that this belief can never be experimentally refuted, because quarks have been awarded the unique property of non-isolatability?
  10. Actually James Lovelock shares the view, and he is certainly one of the greatest living scientists; although he does not get proper recognition, presumably because he works outside the scientific mainstream, does not talk nonsense, and is an able-bodied white male. You can search for a BBC programme called 'Beautiful Minds', if you are interested.
  11. No. It is a personal opinion based on the fact that quarks cannot be isolated like real particles; and the fact neutron decay can be explained far more simply by saying a neutron is a proton with an electron stuck to it, than by hypothesising about quarks performing extraordinary transformations.
  12. newts

    Relativity

    For somebody who wants to believe that the universe is mystical and mysterious, and wants to have their mind screwed, I guess it does.
  13. So you are arguing that all points made by non-scientists, can be disregarded, because the people making the points are not true believers? So you would never criticise a political decision because you are not a politician, or a religion because you are not a priest?
  14. newts

    Relativity

    Why would you choose to believe in, and defend, a theory that screws your mind?
  15. Getting a proper answer on here is hard, because mostly all the regulars really want to do, is sneer at people for being ignorant. The terms gas, liquid and solid, only apply to collections of atoms not individual ones. You can create a hydrogen atom, by introducing an electron to a proton. This is because they attract each other, and the process results in the release of an ultraviolet photon of 13.6 eV. The process is reversible, so if you bombard a hydrogen atom with photons of more than 13.6 eV, you can get back a lone electron and a lone proton. For this reason above about 10000 K, hydrogen atoms disintegrate to produce a plasma. If you introduce two hydrogen atoms, there is again attraction due to the electric charges, and when they mate they release an ultraviolet photon of 4.7 eV, producing a molecule of h2. Above 3000 K there are sufficiently energetic photons flying around to break these bonds, and the h2 molecules split into atoms. There is also attraction between h2 molecules, again due to protons and electrons attracting, but this time the binding energy is so small that solid hydrogen only exists near absolute zero. Above about 15 K, there are sufficiently energetic heat photons flying around to break the electrical bonds between the h2 molecules, so the h2 molecules start flying around as a gas. Most things that happen can be explained by gravity, and by the interactions between electric charges and photons. Electrons are lone negative charges; and positrons, which have the same mass, lone positive charges. Protons cannot be lone charges as they are 1836 times as heavy as electrons/positrons. The obvious conclusion, as you implied, is that protons are a just a ball of electric charges, as illustrated by my avatar. Unfortunately nobody considered this idea at the opportune moment; and having once started to believe that protons are made from quarks, physicists are stuck with the idea, despite the experimental evidence to the contrary. Indeed Cardinal Bellarmine has declared the idea that protons are a collection of charges, to be heresy; and has expressly forbidden me to mention the idea again. So this may be my last post, as I am likely to be brought before the inquisition, excommunicated, and sentenced to eternal damnation.
  16. The reason I hark back to epicycles and phlogiston, is that is the last time when we can generally agree as to what is right and wrong in physics. If we discussed recent events, we would be at cross purposes; because you believe that things like quarks, gluons, dark matter and the Higgs field show how incredibly successful modern collaboration is. Whilst to me these things prove that deciding the laws of nature by committee, just weaves a tangled web of garbage. Obviously most theories by lone geniuses are going to be rubbish, because almost all new ideas are wrong whoever comes up with them. But the point is that modern physics is so religiosised that it would surely be impossible for any mainstream physicist to come up with anything really controversial, so the only place a revolutionary idea could come from is an outsider working in isolation. Physicists dismissing the idea of a modern lone genius, is wishful thinking and a self-fulfilling prophesy. The more they say it is impossible, the more they get to believe their own propaganda. So when a lone genius does get it right, they are in a perfect position to ignore the substance of the theory, and instead reject it on the grounds that everybody knows it is impossible nowadays for a lone genius to take on the might of the scientific establishment.
  17. Square seconds are a feature of Newtonian mechanics, which is just a mathematical convenience and not a proper description of the universe. The fact that Newtonian mechanics deals with energy, but never includes the mass of the energy in equations, clearly illustrates this. If you crash a car into a wall at 300 m/s, then you can calculate the energy released, using ½ mv², and you get an answer in kg m²/s² or joules. But you can also use the equation ½ m(v/c)², and get the energy released in units of kg, in this case half a trillionth of the mass of the car. Near the speed of light these equations fail completely, and energy has to be expressed in its proper units of mass. Using ½ mv², the energy attached to an object moving at light speed, would only be half its rest mass. This is clearly nonsense, and shown in the Higgs hunting fiasco, where protons accelerated to nearly the speed of light had a mass 3500 times their rest mass, once the mass of the energy was included. Square seconds represent a mathematical device, which is not a proper description of nature.
  18. If you really meant to acknowledge that quarks are the modern version of epicycles, then it is my turn to congratulate you on finally seeing the light. Most likely you always realised it at some level; but perhaps the fact that I have repeatedly put into words the reasons why quarks cannot be a proper description of nature, may have helped. Unfortunately Higgsmania seems to have convinced most physics-believers to believe even more devoutly in the standard model. Perhaps you will end up as a sort of Gorbachev figure, sticking publicly to the party line until you gain your professorship, then pulling the rug from under the fantasists? My theory does not distinguish between mesons and baryons, because all particles are just collections of charges. Its predictive powers are currently limited; but it is falsifiable in a similar way to nuclear theory, owing to definite masses and predictable binding energies. Quark theory is largely unfalsifiable, owing to indeterminate quark masses, and the fact that most of the mass of particles is attributed to massless gluons and other fudge. Quark theory may be better at predicting the existence of certain particles; but it is clearly an inexact science, as masses can only be estimated very approximately, and also because it predicts a large number of particles which have not been found. Actually I have been wrong most of the time; the only thing that currently remains from my original ideas, is the concept that the universe is just a collection of identical compressible spacebubbles. Without the arrogance to imagine that one can do better than what already exits, it is not possible to create a new theory at all; but my theory certainly stands on the shoulders of the work of the giants. My initial idea is similar to that of Democritus, whilst my particles owe everything to the discovery of electrons and positrons. My theory of the strong nuclear force is based on the attraction between charges, which is also the basis of chemistry. Without the concept of electron/positron annihilation I would have no explanation for neutron decay, or the instability of other particles. My theory is actually in the best traditions of physics, as it involves explaining phenomena on the basis of things that are known to exist; it is the mainstream modern theorists who have deviated from this, by inventing loads of imaginary beings, and then instructing the experimentalists to find them by hook or by crook.
  19. Theoretically the mass of a proton could be deduced from the number of charges it contains less the binding energy, in a similar way that nuclear masses are the result of the number of nucleons less binding energy. Thus the mass of all particles are based on the mass of an electron/positron. In practice I cannot do this; partly due to the limitations of my theory, and partly because the masses of exotic particles are not known to sufficient accuracy. The simplest example of how my theory makes a testable prediction, is here http://squishtheory....-squish-theory/. My full analysis is here http://squishtheory....research-paper/.
  20. You did at least look at my mathematical analysis; but decided to conclude there was no statistical significance to any of it. Perhaps it could be said that you agreed to look through my telescope, but that you put it to your blind eye. My opinions change continually. About a month ago I twigged as to why SR and LET make the same predictions for things like the GPS. It is great that you should be so keen to congratulate me on seeing the light. Surely the hoops are there for the theory, not the inventor. The response I have had is similar to telling Kepler to go away and learn about the predictive power of epicycles, or telling Faraday that nobody is going to be interested in his lines of force until he overcomes his ignorance of maths. My argument is that the universe must reduce to simple units, but not to simple maths. Atoms are complex in that they number about 100, but simple in that they are all made of 3 ingredients. The fact that electrons, muons and anti-protons share some similar properties, should be seen as evidence that they contain some shared ingredients. You were just quoting chapter and verse of standard physics belief. For SR and LET to give the same results, SR must be the same theory except that all references frames consider themselves to be stationary in the aether even though they are not. That is a convenient fiddle to make the maths simpler, but not a possible description of a universe. I prefer thinking things out, to studying. Whilst this is a slow way to learn physics, it does mean I understand almost everything I learn, and I am not taken in by bogus theories. I struggle with magnetic moments, as I cannot visualise a satisfactory mechanism for magnetism. But I have now realised that in the present climate, there is no way my theory could be accepted. I am arguing that the mass of particles is explained by the number of charges present, at a time when the whole physics world is in a state of euphoria because they believe that a blip at 125 GeV is a sign from heaven that particles get their mass from the Higgs. With the whole physics community celebrating that everything they have believed for the last 50 years has just been proved true, how on earth could they be expected to consider a theory that contradicts it?
  21. To a heretic-hunting physics-believer, I might appear to be a relativity-denier, but really I am just trying to make sense of the universe. My theory is that the universe is a solid mass of identical spheres, and it follows from this that particles can only be composed of collections of positive and negative charges. It is clearly an aether theory, so I favour LET over the unphysical SR; but since both theories are deemed to give identical predictions, it seems a bit extreme to object to people favouring LET. I suppose it is natural that people would object to my arrogance and ignorance; but I am puzzled that all anybody is interested in is seeing me jump through hoops, and nobody seems to particularly want to find out if my theory is correct. You presumably have a good understanding of my theory by now, so if you understand things like magnetic moments, spin and strangeness, why not see if my theory can account for the experimental evidence? I said "surely the point of physics should be to make the universe as simple as possible for ordinary people to understand, not so bizarrely abstruse that physics professors cannot understand it, and therefore need to be taught to sing from the same hymn sheet." when referring to the choice between LET and SR, which are deemed to give identical predictions. What I was doing was applying a version of Occam's razor to a specific situation, not defining physics. You are very keen for me to admit my mistakes, so how about an apology for misrepresenting my opinion? For 'all' read 'all I can make sense of'. I accept the existence of muons and lambdas, because experimentalists have been able to measure their masses and charges. The fact that this cannot be done for quarks is prima facie evidence that they do not exist. You say there is complex evidence for quarks' existence, which only an expert quarkologer can comprehend. If you understand this evidence yourself, why not try to explain it to us inexperts? If it is so complex that you cannot get your head around it, should you not be a bit more sceptical? I did not understand the jargon in the abstract you cited, and did not buy the article.
  22. What you say has truth, but is not the whole story. Tide heights can be accurately predicted based on a 19 year cycle, but that is hardly physics. On the other hand Newton's proof that the tides are an inevitable consequence of his law of gravity, is one of the great physics theories, but in terms of predicting tide heights virtually useless. You are not really contradicting me, just saying different things. Certainly modern technology is superb, and proof of physicist's success in modelling the behaviour of atoms. It is hard to understand, and the maths difficult, but is simple in only requiring protons, electrons and photons. That does not apply to quarks and gluons, which are not used in technology, and come in numerous species. Also all the experimental evidence points to their non-existence; for instance the fact that a neutron can be formed by electron-capture, and then decay back to a proton by emitting an electron, is surely proof that a neutron is a proton with an electron stuck to it. Saying the process involves one quark metamorphosing into another, is a religious theory, because it disallows any kind of physical explanation of the process. What I do disagree with, is the idea that if my theory was improved then it would interest physicists. I originally thought that a theory which unifies the strong nuclear force with the electric force, would have been of interest, but the experimental evidence proves otherwise. Nobody is prepared to accept that quarks could be wrong, so the quality of my theory is irrelevant as nobody is going to look at it anyway, so I am thinking of winding down my physics and trying something else. I have spent about a year trying to publicise my idea, but I have found physics-believers so fully convinced that current theories are correct, that carrying on is probably pointless.
  23. Physics is always partly right and partly wrong. Aristotle was right about the earth being spherical, and about space having to be full in order for objects to move; but wrong about the earth being stationary, and things being a combination of earth, air, fire and water. The situation today is not that different, with brilliant theories of atoms and the mechanics of the solar system, but absurdly bad theories about particle physics and the large scale structure of the universe. As was the case when Aristotelian philosophy ruled the roost, almost everybody accepts that the current interpretation is completely correct; whilst those who do challenge have a tendency to either criticise everything, or else criticise the correct theories and accept the nonsense. The standard kinetic energy formula certainly works, and I am not clear what alternative you are considering; but since you disagree, you might find my unsuccessful attempt to persuade Bob Berenz interesting (click 'responses' at the bottom of this page http://squishtheory..../uncategorized/). It seems the real problem was not that he was too eager to challenge existing ideas; but rather that he believed the nonsense that motion is not absolute but relative between objects, and was engaged in the impossible task of trying to make sense of the universe on that basis.
  24. Employing the Lorentz aether theory, it is a simple mathematical fact that the travelling twin ages more slowly; yet physicists prefer to dazzle people with the complexity of the twins paradox, and its nebulous resolution involving acceleration. Herbert Dingle famously spent months or years arguing over SR, and page after page was written essentially debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The result was that the relativists were almost unanimously voted the winners, and Dingle was held up as an example to others of the ultimate fate of an infidel. All that might satisfy human's witch-burning instincts, but surely the point of physics should be to make the universe as simple as possible for ordinary people to understand, not so bizarrely abstruse that physics professors cannot understand it, and therefore need to be taught to sing from the same hymn sheet. Surely, if anyone, it is DoG who is using the fallacy. I cited Hawking and Kaku as people physics-believers would class as physicists, and I pointed to their books as evidence that they believe in the possibility of time travel. I thought DoG was arguing that they were not 'true physicists'; but he has never actually answered that point, so it may be that he does accept them as true physicists, but is merely arguing that they do not believe in 'fantasy time travel' but only in 'true time travel'. It looks like my opponents here have created the new 'true time travel' logical fallacy, whereby people argue that they only believe in the true version of nonsensical idea and not the fictitious type, without defining what the true version entails. I do appreciate that you are much more tolerant of views that contradict your own beliefs than most people, but I do not think you are moderating in an even handed manner.
  25. You seem to be deliberately setting an impossible task to try to justify your own position. Firstly I cannot name a genuine physicist who believes in rubbish, as by definition a genuine physicist would not believe in rubbish. I can name genuine physicists who rejected relativity: Rutherford, Dirac, Essen; but no current ones, as current physics is too religious to allow dissent. Secondly it is impossible to prove what anybody does or does not think. I do not even have any evidence to suggest that the Cool Fox knows what he himself thinks. But I have shown that he is religious because otherwise he would be challenging existing physics belief, rather than ridiculing stuff that has not been treated seriously for hundreds of years. If you think that popsci 'physicists' just pretend to believe in the possibility of time travel to fleece the gullible; perhaps you would like to condemn the practice? Or is it against your religion to criticise a fellow science-believer? I cannot share the clip, firstly because I do not have a working video recorder. I do not recall what the programme was called; but if you watch Polkinghorne on Youtube, you might see him expressing similar or different views. Perhaps I should not have talked about a clip I cannot share. Relativity experts are aware that the Lorentz aether theory gives the same results as special relativity; so if they did not want to make the universe appear mystical surely they would accept the conceptual simplicity of the aether, rather than turning somersaults to justify Einstein-worship. Feynman's comment was probably just a mathematical observation, but it is still in a sense a religious comment because he is showing solidarity with the fantasists. You do not find physicists describing the tides in terms of the sun and moon being in opposition or conjunction, in order to show a kindred spirit with astrologers. Epicycles did actually make good predictions; whilst it could be argued that the fact that things burn is evidence for the existence of phlogiston, or that nucleons sticking together is evidence for gluons. So I guess when I said there was no evidence for these things, what I meant was that there was no true evidence, which just means I do not think they exist. Normally people accept what they are told unless they have reason to disagree. Probably many bible-believers used to think that the earth was about 6000 years old, but now most would accept the sound geological evidence that it is about four and a half billion years old. Many physics-believers accept that the universe is 13.7 billion years old; I consider this a religious belief, because I think astrophysicists' understanding of the universe is so poor that coming up with any kind of estimate is premature. I think physics-believers are far too eager to listen to those physicists who claim that they really understand the universe, especially as all their predecessors who made the same claim turned out to be wrong. What do you meant by issues, surely you either think they are right, or you think they more likely wrong?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.