Strange

Does it say that? I couldn't see it anywhere in that article.

Yes.

I'm not sure many scientists are really working on a "theory of everything", anyway(1). Unless that is limited to mean creating a theory which successfully merges GR and quantum theory. About the only place I see "theory of everything" used is on science forums like this. But then it is usually used to describe rather incoherent rambling along the lines of(2) "something ... fractal ... energy ... circle ... nothing ... logic ... magnets ... vibrations ... existence ... + 1 ... -1 ... quantum ... vortices ... consciousness ... therefore everything" and totally devoid of any theory or evidence. (1) A quick check of Arxiv produces just 16 papers with "theory of everything" in the title. About half of those seem to be general discussions of the concept, with few actually claiming to have a "theory of everything". (2) A few buzz words picked from some of the "theory of everything" threads on this forum.

Interesting. I assume that is because the high kinetic energy allows muon-antimuon pairs to be produced. However, it is not an example of "disintegration into constituent stuff".

It wouldn't be a black hole. A black hole is caused by a concentration of matter in otherwise (approximately) uniform space.

Photons are their own anti-particles: http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1153 I am fairly sure that a neutron and an anti-proton will annihilate "dramatically" as one is composed of quarks and the other antiquarks. As far as I know, all fundamental particle-antiparticle annihilations result in photons - i.e. a complete conversion of mass to energy. No "constituent stuff" to be seen.

This is what I have been trying to do. Let's just go through this again... The only way of testing your theory (as with any theory) is by experimental data. Unless you can think of an existing or new experiment that could detect the changed acceleration for a given force caused by gravity (I can't), then we need to find an alternative scenario where we can use the data to compare theories. My reasoning was as follows: You say that the difference in horizontal acceleration is due to a change in the effective mass due to its acceleration due to gravity. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) We therefore need to find a case where large enough accelerations are involved so that the effects of the decreased mass that you propose can be easily detected. (Do you agree with that?) Not at all. Unless I have misunderstood, your theory predicts a change in effective mass caused by acceleration. Please correct me if I have misunderstood. On the other hand, the theory we wish to compare this with (the currently accepted theory) is SR. This predicts a change in mass caused by velocity. That is the only reason for mentioning both acceleration (the critical factor in your theory) and velocity (the critical factor in SR). So we need an experiment where we can compare the effects of acceleration (your theory's predictions) and the effects of velocity (SR's predictions). I know you gave an answer before, but I'm afraid I am still not sure what anomaly you are referring to. (My reference to the equation for distance was just a guess about what you might have been describing. Apparently I guessed wrong. Sorry.) Can you please explain exactly what anomaly you are referring to? Is this anomaly described anywhere (e.g. in a science magazine or web site or on Wikipedia)? Also, you mentioned an experiment for measuring the newton. Can you say exactly what experiment you are referring to? (Who did it, when, etc.)

Maybe it is easier to think of it by "winding the clock back" so that points in space get closer and closer together. As you approach time 0, the distance between any two points will approach zero no matter how far apart they were originally. I was under the impression that the topology could be such that the universe was finite in size although still unbounded.

There seem to be two different things here. One is that a universe can go from zero size to some non-zero size (as described by elfmotat's equation). That non-zero size can be infinite. Or it could be finite. It makes no real difference either way. (And it isn't clear that "zero sized" was ever a realistic description of our universe). The other is whether a universe can go from being of finite but non-zero size to infinite. I used to believe the answer to that was no, but I have been told that there are solutions where that is possible.

Observations of distant phenomena appear, so far, to be consistent with the physics we know locally being the same everywhere. So I wouldn't say it is speculation, just a working assumption that hasn't yet been shown to be wrong. People are constantly looking for exceptions to that (because "new phsyics" is always exciting) but so far ... nothing. However, as there are certainly observations of (near and far) galaxies and galaxy clusters which do not behave as predicted from their inferred mass, then something is needed to explain this phenomenon. This "something" is labelled "dark matter" as a placeholder. It could be a difference in the laws of gravity on large scales, it could be some non-visible matter, it could be something else (do you have a specific suggestion?). Of course, that isn't the only evidence for dark matter and as more evidence is collected it looks more and more likely that some form of non-baryonic matter is the main explanation for dark matter.

As the article points out, it could work above a copper or similar surface and their web page says it needs a "special surface". They rather optimistically (if not unrealistically) hope that one day it can work on any surface. Their wording also rather implies that it can't yet support the weight of a person. So it sounds real, for suitable values of the word "real".

Yes, it is ambiguous; either "original post" or "original poster" ... Source please. Otherwise I have no reason not to assume you are just mistaken. Or even making it up.

Because you often make this claim (even after people have spent time trying to discuss your idea) I deliberately set aside my “prejudices” for several posts in order to make sure I understood what you were claiming. Unfortunately, as soon as this led me to pointing out some basic flaws in your argument, you simply reverted to calling this an “attack” and a “trap”. I had no “desired outcome”. I simply wanted to make sure I understood your idea so we could investigate the consequences. The reason I did not dive in to the convoluted answer you gave is because past experience has shown me that leads to ever more complex and hard to follow responses. I don’t see how asking for a yes/no answer to a binary question can be considered a “trap”. A property is either quantised or it isn’t. It can’t a be “slightly quantised” any more than you can be “slightly pregnant”. I simply wanted to make sure I understood what you mean with you repeated references to “unit of mass”. So are you now saying that mass is not quantised? Or maybe that it is quantised but the electron mass is not the quantum of mass? Either way, that makes my objection to that point invalid. However, you could have replied with “no, that is not what I mean by quantised” or some other explanation of where I had misunderstood. Instead you went off on a bizarre and irrelevant rant about quarks. But lets forget that and move on. There is still the substantial point that your theory predicts a decreasing effective mass with increasing acceleration, while SR predicts an increase in effective mass with increasing velocity. These are clearly contradictory and, sadly, experiment supports SR and not you. <shrug> Not much we can do to help you in that case. Also, can you clarify what "experiment" you are referring to with respect to the "anomaly" in the measurement of the newton?

Oh yes he was:

<cough>

I don't really know what would be appropriate as a general term. "Predictable" "Complex" "Boring" or "exciting", depending on exactly what the 20 chemicals were. Just stop saying "random" and we can move on to the substantive part of ypour argument (whatever that is). You seem to be saying that "life is just chemistry" as if this was some great breakthrough. But it is just an obvious fact.

I am assured by people who know about this stuff that there are models where a finite universe can become infinite. But, as I say, not something I know anything about. The standard assumption (the cosmological principle) is that the universe is pretty much the same beyond the observable universe. The big bang model makes no distinction or preference for a finite or infinite universe. It works identically in either case.

I agree completely. And I am glad that you see this as a learning opportunity. I too have learnt a lot from this and other forums - often by having my own (mis)understandings corrected and often by seeing other people given explanations. However, there are, sadly, still a subset of people who will resist any attempt to learn and will insist they are right in the face of any amount of evidence or calculation. These are the ones who get labelled crackpots.

You are right. I don't understand. It is quite simple. You claim that the electron is the quantum of mass. In which case the mass of a muon, for example, should be some integer multiple of the mass of the electron. It isn't. Therefore your hypothesis is wrong. It is as simple as that. Bringing quarks into the matter is just bizarre. I have no idea what you are talking about. You will have to be more specific. Except that two of its predictions have shown to be wrong. So why would anyone put any faith in more of your wild and, frankly, ignorant guesses. OK. Thinking about this a bit more... I don't know what "experiment" you are referring to, but I see nothing anomalous in what you say here. You realise, of course, that accelerating a 1kg mass with 1 newton will mean that, by definition, it achieves a speed of 1m/s after 1 second. The distance travelled by an object under uniform acceleration is given by [math]s = v t + \frac{1}{2} a t^2[/math] In this example, v = 0 m/s, a= 1 m/s2, and t = 1 s and so the distance travelled is 0.5 m. I realise this is pretty advanced stuff but perhaps you could make an effort to understand it. http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-calculate-time-and-distance-from-accelerati.html https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=116 http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/acceleration-velocity-d_1769.html http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/acceleration-formula.html The anomaly appears to be in your level of understanding rather than the definition of the newton. Instead of making up pseudo-science to fill the gaps in your knowledge, why not learn a little bit.

And it is important to note that Feynman did a lot of speculative (and highly creative) thinking about possible "meanings" of quantum theory. But unless those lead to some insight that allows a new theory to be developed they are essentially useless. You can still use quantum mechanics whether you subscribe to some particular interpretation or none.

One of the recent visitors to my profile was a user called "YOUTUBE HITLER WMAP". It will be interesting to see what he posts about!

Another great (counter-)example from a recent thread: This is exactly the thing that distinguishes those with a scientific interest in trying to understand and find an explanation for things: a) The ability and, more importantly, willingness to test the idea. b) the willingness to admit the idea is wrong, rather than trying to bend the facts to fit.

I am going to quote this in the "why so many crackpots" thread! (As a counter-example, of course. )

Because there is no evidence they don't. That is just movement of mass. Why would it violate energy conservation? The whole concept of virtual particles coming and going is founded on conservation of energy. It doesn't matter. The mass (and therefore energy) of a black hole is independent of what goes on inside the event horizon. With no evidence that energy conservation is violated, you just have a series of "what if" questions.

All of those conserve energy.