illuusio

I calculated the mass of photon. If I make hypothesis that there is a mass, then E_tot = E_kinetic + E_rotational. I chose wavelength and it's energy (122 nm & 10.16 eV). I approximated that radius of photon is roughly 0.8 fm. The result was 3.6e-35 kg.

Current estimates say that upper limit for photon's mass is roughly 1-e54 kg. Problem with current measurements is that they are based on current knowledge of gravitation and EM. Therefore those limits are not valid.

Actually if I reduce kinetic energy (and use only "rest mass") from total energy my result agrees with E=mc^2 nicely (within appr accuracy). More details can be found from my signature. To be more clear. Photon energy is purely rotational energy if mass is at rest.

It's taking the PRH a long time to let you know you don't meet the requirements for patentability. In the US, perpetual motion is one of the first things that gets your application kicked out.

I did not applied patent for PMM. It just happens to be a byproduct.

It is possible to build PMM, I have done it already. I have applied patent (not for PMM) but PMM is byproduct of the invention. You can thank Iodine, when she gave me a ban I was almost releaving my experiment on ether, which has a big part in my invention. During the ban, I got informed that I shouldn't disclose my experiment because of patent laws.

I just thought if it was like pot, that might be why it wasn't more widely used. Nobody wants something that's easy to grow that takes the place of several more expensive substances. That would just be... horrible.

Dude... I mean.. dude! What was I saying... ou.. dude!... shoorms are for free

You've nothing to offer but a box of hopes and wishes, why would anyone consider a collaboration when you've shown that you cherry pick evidence?

It's not too late for you to catch up the train. You are living in the past, dude.

Wow, it's like a watching painted wall to dry Only one maybe. I have a little teaser with me, actually two.. Coulomb law redo and I calculated photon's mass

edit: I give four more days to step up. After that I go solo or with available members.

Well, you and I think so, but that's why I quoted what illuusio said about "huge arguments when it's time to cash collected credits, maybe even lawsuits".

Yes, in case of open thread collaboration. Written contract is needed before collaboration can proceed and the work is done in privacy. At least I prefer private collaboration.

Let me ask you a few questions.

 

Your original idea was poorly supported and had many flaws that kept it from being taken seriously, you've said this yourself. If nine more people were to come on board your collaboration, take the work you started and really make it work, doing all the things you're unable to do, make the calculations, develop the model and present the paper to peer review in a way that gains it a true standing within the scientific community, is your share of the credit going to be an equal tenth, or would you require more because it was your concept originally?

 

How are you going to justify to your fellow collaborators that you've already applied individually for patents based on the idea you're collaborating on?

 

If your original concept gets abandoned but leads the other nine collaborators to something much more productive that eventually becomes accepted theory, what should your share be?

Good questions! To the first question, yes, my share would be an equal tenth.

Patents have nothing to with the theory. Having patent even don't need any theory as long as it works. However there is few other patent ideas (not applied yet) which I'm willing to share with my collaborators. Those ideas need more investigation (time & money) than previous ones.

To the last question, be my quest If I'm right, there is no fear of your scenario. And besides that, I have my previous patent application on my name.

The result is more important, or is it not? ...Maybe the dividends are more important, and glory.

To me glory is secondary. Of course it would be awesome to pick up Physics Nobel and give a speech (with my collaborators of course). But the main driver is money. Nobel prize money at the moment is about 1 MEur so that won't do the trick, so dividing it with few other people is just fine with me. I'm after bigger bucks.

I believe you have seen:

http://www.sciencefo...field-collapse/

This guy showed us the theory, the maths (that is consistent is units, and uses maths that is not self created out of nowhere.) , the predictions.

Now that is the proper way the present a scientific theory.

Unfortunately, you showed us the theory, the maths(if that was even maths...), and the predictions....the predictions were wrong, the maths were convoluted, and the theory hinges on an effect that describes the 'ether' as a fluid, without explaining the mechanism of ether production. You simply stated some strange particles produce them, without explaining why they haven't been found yet.

Faraday did not maths. He did the experiments and let peers do their evaluation on them. Maxwell did the maths. But the Faraday experiments were consistent with the predictions of his hypothesis.

Your experiments were not self-consistent, unexplainable by your own theory, and we can't repeat it. Are you taking random results of experiments that seemed to be correct?

And still you did not in any way answer our criticisms rationally.

You didn't even to attempt to answer.

You saw no need.

You thought that we are seeing this wrongly.

 

当者则迷,旁观则清-->Seeing things in your own eyes doesn't compare to the objective eyes of others.

 

Your hope to 'collaborate' is like gathering a cult of ToEBi...with you as the cult leader.

 

Dude...just...........dude!

Obviously somebody has been left on the station Train went away... a lot has changed since we last talked on the thing.

So all you have in the way of explanation for the nonsense you make up is the nonsense you make up.

You have rights to your opinion.

From Wiki:

 

 

Not anything having to do with gravity, the strong force or electromagnetism.

That's right we should call that the ToEbi effect or with my name... Xxxxxxx effect.

Which is what?

Magnus effect.

And what exactly is this "deeper nature"? You think you have some mystical understanding of the properties of the universe, but you don't, about you and millions of other people have already been there and think/thought that.

Do I really have to answer? The deeper nature is phenomenon common to gravitation, EM and strong interaction.

Since particles can be thought of as fields, do you think a distortion in the fabric of space that creates a gravitational field "moves" within itself?

At some level you might think particles as a fields. If you want to understand nature deeper, that thought won't cut it. And yes, field "moves" within itself.

If that error was keeping you from productive and meaningful progress, why would you object to giving them credit?

 

Again, it sounds like you want a space where you can work with nobody to point out your mistakes. You may think that would be productive, but history proves you wrong. Small, like-minded, isolated groups often come up with some fairly hideous collaborations.

It will generate huge arguments when it's time to cash collected credits, maybe even lawsuits. I think that nobody wants that.

Open collaborating is nice idea, but only with certain restrictions. No credit is given anybody else but original members of the collaboration team. Do you think that there is any person (outside from team) who is willing to give feedback with previous stated restriction? I doubt it. Only mud throwing is guaranteed.

Further I can't promise anything from behalf of future collaboration team. At the moment there is one person interested in collaborating (if the goal is reasonable with time resources).

The electron as a point doesn't move, your only knowledge of an electron is simply a point in space at the instant you measure it, and a point in space at one instantaneous time does not travel distance over time, because there is no change in time in one instantaneous moment.

Furthermore, a lot of quantum physical models are based on mathematics, and in mathematics as in nature itself, there is a clear difference between "correlation" and "causation". Causation requires cause and effect over time, correlation is just an equals sign. An electron doesn't move because it's position isn't ever changing, but is mathematically already equal to a superposition of all possible states, and when the momentum is completely unknown, as it when it's measured, then it's probability is only equal to one specific point.

I don't know mathematically know it works exactly, and swan can call me out if I'm too incorrect, but if you can think of momentum as the coefficient of a sine function, 0*sine(x) always equals 0. But, if you have any non-zero coefficient, the probability varies as x varies, only there's some more direct function that models electron probability which has a horizontal asymtote at x=0, it looks kind of like a bell curve, i suspect it's something to do with sine and x squared ([math]x^2[/math]) because of the symmetry around the y axis that I remember.

Well, sounds like a hand waving to me. There is movement for sure. If QM doesn't care for it, QM won't need it. That has it's consequences.

To me, this sounds like, "Give me a place where everyone agrees with me and no one points out mistakes."

 

 

Paranoid and crotchety (whoever that is).

 

 

If you make enough money from your applications to drive the Thing, make sure to get the convertible.

 

 

If you truly learn something, it's all worth it. That's why we're all here.

To that first part, you may think in that way. But there is one other problem with open thread collaboration. When somebody contributes a bit, like pointing an error in calculus, should (s)he get equal amount of credit for that? It would be simpler way to have a private thread collaboration. Let the science community do the peer reviewing

I meant obviously Iodine!

BTW, is here even technically possible to have a private area?

Yeah...no one not likely going to get anything big on a science forum, and who would do all the mathematical work just for the idea of some guy? It's also hard to take you seriously when you use so many smilies.

I'm gonna fight against the odds (sorry about that smiley) Math is all ready existing, at least in it's rudiment form.

What's with the smilies? They look a bit silly but so what? Is it generation issue? or just a personal preference? Actually I came up with that same claim of being seriously taken argument in Finnish science forum (tiede.fi). What else? Can I drive my SUV or does it me less good (at least selfish because of collision safety)? If I use suit, is it ok? if I use sneakers and sweatsuit when I'm on my yard and so on...

It would be extremely nice if you could bring together some people in this forum that regularly engage in interesting speculative debates with another. I would in fact be very impressed, because in my opinion neither sfn nor any other location on the Internet offers the personal resources for such a discussion - I believe there is a reason why academic outsiders are academic outsiders. I don't quite see what you mean with "private section", given that (a) sfn is a private website in the first place, and (b) the speculations subsection probably already has its "private audience", already (I almost never read speculation posts - the only reason I clicked on this thread was the thread title that promised sensible content). You should probably start to create a recognizable social structure in the speculations forum before you ask for VIP treatment (or lay out the document detailing the sharing of the fame that comes with the Nobel Prize).

What I had in my mind was an area or thread only accessible to collaborators. Only to prevent unnecessary angle shooting and distractions. There are benefits in case of "open" thread collaboration but is the price too high? And Iovane is after me all the times... I'm so afraid of her.

Mmm... sharing fame. I don't know, to me equal amount is sufficient. How come? Well, I'm not after the fame, I really don't. Life after brought to spotlight ain't easy. Some people don't realize that but I do. There is all kinds of people out there who can do stupid things in order to get their faces into a fame of some kind Also your privacy is reduced if you are a public figure. I'm at the money and that I'll get mostly from my applications. Why that money isn't enough to you, why driving the Thing? Good question... I don't know exactly. Maybe after getting engaged to it I can't get rid of it. Hmm.. why indeed?

 

As tmpst says, we need an idea that is worth the effort. It might even be worth it to teach something to those who don't understand, but in virtually every case, the one who originates the speculation leaves in a huff after having been shown where they went wrong, convinced fully that they were never wrong in the first place. If we could overcome that attitude somehow, I think this section would be a lot less abrasive. I also think it's the Speculator's job to capitulate; I don't see any of the serious scientists here giving up on theories they fully understand that have a proven track record of being correct.

I have came back time after time But I have learn as a byproduct.

I'm not looking anybody to give up current theories. I'm looking further, more detailed understanding, the theory behind current theories.

I presume you need some of us to distract the security guards while you grab the prize. Is that the collaboration you had in mind?

Of course not! I need person(s) capable of creating solid scientific articles, experiments and so on. Fame and money is split equally. When things go as planned we have to have written agreement on everything. I'm a honest man (Finnish people are) so no need to be concerned of anything bad or hidden agenda.

Actually some time ago I thought naively that was the aim of a scientific forum...

Haha... This is serious topic, so please, give me some respect here I'm looking for people ready to collaborate with me. Or do you really want me alone collect physics Nobel prize in the near future?

What makes you think that a hypothetical "ToE" (I actually hate that phrase, it's too sensational) won't be quantum mechanical? So far, all signs point to the fact that it will be.

Join the club! I hate that too. Better phrase would be the Grand Theory or XXXXX. Well... you know me and my ideas. Because my thing is powerful in means of prediction power, I must conclude that thing is the Thing. QM is subset of it and same goes with the relativity theories.

And the current mathematical formulas which are accurately used will be a subset of the theory of everything. As Newton's laws in a single reference frame can be deduced from Einstein's general relativity.

That's correct. I predict that few constants will be explained and will be calculated, like G and magnetic constant. Otherwise life goes on

As evidenced by all of the discoveries that aren't happening?

If you insist Actually it might be much easier with current theories. I mean when ToE is found (in science world) there will be awful amount of work at hand Actually I predict that when ToE is found we'll live with the new theory but we'll continue using old theories because they are practical.

"Of course there is" isn't a valid basis; you need to measure it, either directly or indirectly. And QM is a fantastically successful theory.

I was too hasty. Theory itself is not wrong. It works great to it's limits. But ripping off physical basis from elements leads current and future physicists into dead end.

I got an idea! Yes another one. Could we do history here at SF? In means of collaboration (on the Thing)?

Here is very educated and smart people. Obviously many of you likes speculations Could we create a private section here for the collaboration? Everybody capable of distributing (math, knowledge, hardware resources, experiments, articles and so on) is welcome. I'm serious here.

Only open mind is required.