Bez

Unified Theory?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, beecee said:

Sure, agreed,  I was though referring to the fact of the Sun's Corona being hotter then the photosphere by many orders of magnitude, and the general thought that this was due to magnetic fields emanating from deep within the Sun. And of course that the mechanics of the Sun/stars are fusion based. Perhaps I should have made that more clear. 

Again though, I still fail to understand his [Bez] apparent infatuation with friction?

 

I emailed my equation to my PHd in Astrophysics Nephew. Maybe he can see something in this. 

Funny you should mention my infatuation with friction as while I posted about my Hypothetical Universal Universes I saw where, "friction," was so important (and form). The pieces of that puzzle I couldn't see until I saw my own writings here! Funny how when one has no one to discuss this stuff with and never write anything down how revealing one's own writings can be (even to oneself).

Without friction no electromagnetism!

The part I saw was almost everything is off slightly. Off slightly for a reason. Near sphere/near parallel etc.

Imagine how much energy a slightly off parallel universe (which I know wouldn't be parallel then) could produce spinning and rubbing next to another universe.

The reason it's not all perfect spheres is they need to be off slightly to produce electromagnetism by increased friction.

I believe A perfect sphere will not cause nearly the friction compared to one slightly off.

Perfect spheres may not be able support a magnetic field due to lack of friction.

The near sphere wobbles slightly increasing friction even more.

Edited by Bez
edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bez said:

I emailed my equation to my PHd in Astrophysics Nephew.

It will be interesting to hear what he has to say. I'm sure he'll be kind to you.

Quote

Without friction no electromagnetism!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/electromagnetism.htm#.XNoRrNQzY2w

You understand that light is just a part of the EMS [electromagnetic spectrum] 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beecee said:

It will be interesting to hear what he has to say. I'm sure he'll be kind to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/electromagnetism.htm#.XNoRrNQzY2w

You understand that light is just a part of the EMS [electromagnetic spectrum] 

lol..can't you be nice?

It's ok I still love you!

Sometimes I think perhaps it's better I have no formal training because I don't have all that dogma and restrictions Academia can confine me in my thinking. Because it has to be this way or that way.

I didn't go on to pursue Masters degree in Anthropology because aside from Physical Anthropology IMO the rest of it is much BS (soft social science). People making up stuff and have no idea what actually took place oftentimes in Prehistory. What I learned then many years ago has had to be rewritten several times over now.

When I was there Clovis Man was the oldest (many years ago).

I also don't have the movements where these guys believe this way and these other guys say no it's their way etc.

I get a purely fresh look based upon visual observations mostly. In my opinion that's a good thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Bez said:

lol..can't you be nice?

It's ok I still love you!

Sometimes I think perhaps it's better I have no formal training because I don't have all that dogma and restrictions Academia can confine me in my thinking. Because it has to be this way or that way.

I didn't go on to pursue Masters degree in Anthropology because aside from Physical Anthropology IMO the rest of it is much BS (soft social science). People making up stuff and have no idea what actually took place oftentimes in Prehistory. What I learned then many years ago has had to be rewritten several times over now.

When I was there Clovis Man was the oldest (many years ago).

I also don't have the movements where these guys believe this way and these other guys say no it's their way etc.

I get a purely fresh look based upon visual observations mostly. In my opinion that's a good thing!

My apologies, I thought I was being nice! :rolleyes: Let me correct you again, as nicely as possible. We often have the claims from unqualified people with what they see as bright ideas, that mainstream science is incalcitrant and as you say, dogmatic. That is obviously wrong and is illustrated every day to be wrong. I thought I did mention it in your other thread that science is a discipline in continued progress....There are young physicists and cosmologists trying to find limits, or falsify incumbent theories every day...including Einstein's GR theory. These are of course qualified and professionals doing science. You see that is what science is all about. Making further observations...conducting more experiments...comparing results with incumbent data and theories. Sometimes they succeed. Sometimes they find something better, just as Einstein did before GR [and SR] became accepted. But they need empirical observational evidence...Not just some raw idea or gut feeling. As was mentioned to you more then once, the first step is to know thoroughly what you are trying to falsify or invalidate. Otherwise your hypotheticals are useless, as hard as that is to accept. 

 

Quote

I get a purely fresh look based upon visual observations mostly. In my opinion that's a good thing!

Do you have access to aLIGO? Or the LHC? or a telescope? or the Planck Satellite or any other pieces of the state of the art equipement that scientists do? 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bez I think that both Beecee's earlier post and Phi's post are worth rereading; Having ideas and thinking about science is great, but without enough knowledge it becomes difficult to truly understand a subject AND to explain it clearly. However clearly you see your ideas in your head, you should take criticism of your ideas and use it to further develop your ideas. If you find out you were completely wrong (as explained by people), it may be a good idea to find more information before speculating and asserting. What you see/saw so clearly was wrong and thus proves that your mind isn't infallible. But this isn't a problem on its own, many people have many wrong ideas before they have the right one. 

I feel like you aren't taking people's comments into account and are doubling down on your idea. To you, the dogmatism and rigidness of science may be a hurdle, but in truth it is also the only way to move forward at a steady pace. I don't think that a real formal education is necessary, but basic knowledge on a subject is. 

You need to have enough knowledge to know when you go AGAINST the established scientific theories or most accepted hypotheses and should first show why your theory is more right than the established ones. If we have 2 ideas, and one (1) is supported by A to Z, and you have an idea (2) that is mutually exclusive with or is contrary to idea 1, then it is not enough to just provide evidence AA. You need to show that A-Z ALSO supports your idea AND that AA doesn't happen in idea 1. This is of course only, when A-Z and AA are all real evidence and not assumptions, assertions or new ideas. 

I think a good way to start is; be able to explain, in detail, the theories and hypotheses that are relevant to your idea (so do research into it, Khan academy, Coursera or formal education). Verify if your explanations are correct and if that is all true, formulate your idea (now in the scientific terminology that you have learned) and show why the previous hypothesis isn't sufficient. It is NOT enough to just say "idea x is JUST an hypothesis, so is mine", that's just not how it works.

From my limited time on this forum, I think a lot of people may come off as harsh or impatient, but most are trying to help and it would most likely be very helpful for you to take their comments into account.

-Dagl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bez said:

Without friction no electromagnetism!

Friction plays no part in electromagnetism.

A current flowing through a wire to generate a magnetic field does not involve friction.

Light being emitted by an LED does not involve friction.

A magnet sitting on your desk does not involve friction (unless your desk is not level, in which case, friction will stop it living on to the floor).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bez said:

 

I emailed my equation to my PHd in Astrophysics Nephew. Maybe he can see something in this. 

Maybe you could get your nephew to teach you some physics.

14 hours ago, Bez said:

Wow, OK!

I never said what, "I see," didn't need to be tested! (seems even with the unknowns could plug in some numbers/etc. and see what comes up).

Screenshot everything and email it to myself (computer forensics will date it). And on to the next site (at least I'll be more prepared next time).

Why no dislikes on the equation post?

E=MC squared

F=Friction

E X F = electromagnetism (changed)

electromagnetism X motion X form = everything

and thanks for the info on it's:

Energy times Friction

If at least one person can see something here and run with it then it was worth my posting. Your allowing me to post allowed me to formulate the equation (now I just need to quantify it).

Thank you for your time I won't bother you guys any more.

Units matter in physics equations. Friction and electromagnetism are not entities in physics that have units.

But it does remind me of the joke, what do you get when you cross an elephant with a grape?

Elephant grape sine theta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, swansont said:

But it does remind me of the joke, what do you get when you cross an elephant with a grape?

Elephant grape sine theta.

[Groan....]  :) 

Edited by Bufofrog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bez said:

Sometimes I think perhaps it's better I have no formal training because I don't have all that dogma and restrictions Academia can confine me in my thinking.

It feels that way, doesn't it? But imagine trying to use a box of tools you'd never seen before. Your ignorance wouldn't give you any special insights into their uses, so why do you think it's different with something as complex as science knowledge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bez said:

Sometimes I think perhaps it's better I have no formal training because I don't have all that dogma and restrictions Academia can confine me in my thinking.

And yet, all the major advances in modern science have been made by people with formal training who actually understand the subject.

There are a small number of cases in some fields such as astronomy, mathematics and botany where people who are self-trained and so have the relevant expertise do make occasional contributions. But, basically, it requires an in-depth knowledge of the subject to understand what a new idea needs to do.

Your problem is that you know so little, you can't even see that your own ideas are worthless. They make sense to you because they exactly match your level of understanding (because you made them up, based on that level of understanding). To anyone with a basic grounding in physics, they are clearly nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Strange said:

Friction plays no part in electromagnetism.

A current flowing through a wire to generate a magnetic field does not involve friction.

Light being emitted by an LED does not involve friction.

A magnet sitting on your desk does not involve friction (unless your desk is not level, in which case, friction will stop it living on to the floor).

Friction caused by rubbing a balloon on your hair creates static electricity and then turns it into a magnet or sorts (same principle).

My nephew hasn't gotten back to me yet....(that's a good thing).

Just suppose for a moment all that I write here is correct?

 

If on this 14th day of May in the year 2019 this equation:

E=MC squared

F=Friction

E X F = Electromagnetism

Electromagnetism X Motion X Form = Everything

Form = Geometric shape and size

Form based upon near-sphere's with circular and elliptical orbits from the smallest particles to the largest planetary body.

is correct then here is a list of what I have given you thus far.

1. Why some planets do not have a magnetic field

2. That the Earth is a simple generator due to spinning/wobble producing friction (plus spin...spin makes the difference in some cases but if a planet doesn't wobble enough (if too spherical like the moon then no magnetic field).

3. Super-heated surface of the sun due to unseen friction

4. Dark Matter = Unseen intersecting Universes

5. Dark Energy = Electromagnetism (from Friction X Energy)

6. Black Holes = Galaxy building necessary vents that puncture and regulate the speed of expansion of the universe

7. A new view of the Universe

8. A unified theory/equation

9. A long awaited breakthrough!

I'm sure there is more I have given you but this list not bad IF I am correct!

So those of you that say all this is nonsense might want to what until the juries is in!

Because I don't fit your mold is irrelevant! 

What you think or believe does not effect the reality that is!

I do have to thank this site though as my posting here allowed me to see the equation (from my own writings..both friction and form)

Have a Good Day I'll report back my Nephews findings (maybe he my new partner).

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Your problem is that you know so little, you can't even see that your own ideas are worthless. They make sense to you because they exactly match your level of understanding (because you made them up, based on that level of understanding). To anyone with a basic grounding in physics, they are clearly nonsense.

And because of confirmation bias, Bez is probably even more firmly convinced he's right, and we're just part of hidebound Academia that's trying to suppress his intuitive insights. And he doesn't have to study formally, which many folks dislike.

I think I might be onto something with the alien tool example. If you really think about it, the ONLY thing that would help you figure out unfamiliar tools (besides trial and error) is your prior knowledge of other tools, and experience in situations where you might need them. It works similarly with science. You build your knowledge in layers, and having more layers actually helps you with new layers of knowledge. And of course, mainstream science has the benefits of all that constant testing (which is the opposite of hidebound) to make sure it's providing the best current explanations.

When you have gaps in something where a void can be a weakness, you fill them in, hopefully with high quality material that will make the object stronger for a longer time. It's the same with knowledge. We need to make sure we fill the gaps in our knowledge with good information, not guesswork or made-up explanations.

6 minutes ago, Bez said:

What you think or believe does not effect the reality that is!

Well this is what we've been trying to tell you. Science is the best way to analyze the natural world and determine the best explanations based on what we actually observe. Are you claiming you guessed correctly, and reality isn't what we've been observing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

And because of confirmation bias, Bez is probably even more firmly convinced he's right, and we're just part of hidebound Academia that's trying to suppress his intuitive insights. And he doesn't have to study formally, which many folks dislike.

I think I might be onto something with the alien tool example. If you really think about it, the ONLY thing that would help you figure out unfamiliar tools (besides trial and error) is your prior knowledge of other tools, and experience in situations where you might need them. It works similarly with science. You build your knowledge in layers, and having more layers actually helps you with new layers of knowledge. And of course, mainstream science has the benefits of all that constant testing (which is the opposite of hidebound) to make sure it's providing the best current explanations.

When you have gaps in something where a void can be a weakness, you fill them in, hopefully with high quality material that will make the object stronger for a longer time. It's the same with knowledge. We need to make sure we fill the gaps in our knowledge with good information, not guesswork or made-up explanations.

I don't know if I'm right. I believe I may be right.

If I am wrong merely because I don't fit your mold (lack of academia) that is ridiculous.

I do have an IQ or 160....do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bez said:

Friction caused by rubbing a balloon on your hair creates static electricity and then turns it into a magnet or sorts (same principle).

My nephew hasn't gotten back to me yet....(that's a good thing).

Just suppose for a moment all that I write here is correct?

 

If on this 14th day of May in the year 2019 this equation:

E=MC squared

F=Friction

E X F = Electromagnetism

Electromagnetism X Motion X Form = Everything

Form = Geometric shape and size

Form based upon near-sphere's with circular and elliptical orbits from the smallest particles to the largest planetary body.

is correct then here is a list of what I have given you thus far.

1. Why some planets do not have a magnetic field

2. That the Earth is a simple generator due to spinning/wobble producing friction (plus spin...spin makes the difference in some cases but if a planet doesn't wobble enough (if too spherical like the moon then no magnetic field).

3. Super-heated surface of the sun due to unseen friction

4. Dark Matter = Unseen intersecting Universes

5. Dark Energy = Electromagnetism (from Friction X Energy)

6. Black Holes = Galaxy building necessary vents that puncture and regulate the speed of expansion of the universe

7. A new view of the Universe

8. A unified theory/equation

9. A long awaited breakthrough!

I'm sure there is more I have given you but this list not bad IF I am correct!

So those of you that say all this is nonsense might want to what until the juries is in!

Because I don't fit your mold is irrelevant! 

What you think or believe does not effect the reality that is!

I do have to thank this site though as my posting here allowed me to see the equation (from my own writings..both friction and form)

Have a Good Day I'll report back my Nephews findings (maybe he my new partner).

 

 

 

 

I.... I wanted to say that I think Strange and some other responses were a bit harsh and could have been worded better, but you... just ignored half of what people said here and boil it down to "you criticize me because I don't fit your mold". Dude (or madam), please get a reality check, you have less than complete knowledge of basic physics. Why don't you go and show HOW this is possible seeing as you are saying things which are contrary to so many different theories, hypotheses and general ideas of how stuff works. How is it that there is sooo much evidence for such things.

Get rid of the idea that you have some brilliant insight and at least get some basic knowledge. I honestly wanted to help you and encourage you to learn and then potentially speculate, but if you don't even do the basics of producing new ideas or looking critically at your own thoughts, it may be better for you to just live inside your own bubble, believe what you want to believe and go publish your idea. Just realize that when it is real science (not just a forum), you will be scrutinized endlessly more, possibly by people more in depth into this field than those on this forum (I don't know what Swanson and Studiot do for instance). It doesn't seem like you need this forum....

-Dagl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Bez said:

I don't know if I'm right. I believe I may be right.

If I am wrong merely because I don't fit your mold (lack of academia) that is ridiculous.

I do have an IQ or 160....do you?

Then use that impressive IQ to learn some physics!  

Edited by Bufofrog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Well this is what we've been trying to tell you. Science is the best way to analyze the natural world and determine the best explanations based on what we actually observe. Are you claiming you guessed correctly, and reality isn't what we've been observing?

I agree wholeheartedly!

It's why I came here for help but found little and so my Nephew can quantify my equation!

And I wouldn't say I'm guessing but yes reality is not what you think it is at all! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bez said:

If I am wrong merely because I don't fit your mold (lack of academia) that is ridiculous.

This IS ridiculous. You've been given very specific examples of where your physics are just plain wrong. Nobody is saying you're wrong because you didn't study physics. They're saying you're wrong because your physics is wrong. 

It's probably the EXACT same thing you'd say if one of us got something anthropological wrong. Or another subject where you have a lot of knowledge and expertise. If I tried to simply tell you that 12 is a prime number, and that I'm convinced your hidebound approach to mathematics is wrong, how would you react? Would you tell me my intuition is valid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bez said:

Friction caused by rubbing a balloon on your hair creates static electricity and then turns it into a magnet or sorts (same principle).

Yes, friction can create static electricity but that does not mean that electromagnetism has any connection with friction.

Also, it does not "turn it into a magnet". Not even "of sorts" or even "same principle". This is a laughably ignorant statement and is the reason no one will take you seriously. (This is probably a problem related with relying on "images" rather than facts.)

14 minutes ago, Bez said:

Just suppose for a moment all that I write here is correct?

No thanks. It is more plausible that the Earth is flat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

This IS ridiculous. You've been given very specific examples of where your physics are just plain wrong. Nobody is saying you're wrong because you didn't study physics. They're saying you're wrong because your physics is wrong. 

It's probably the EXACT same thing you'd say if one of us got something anthropological wrong. Or another subject where you have a lot of knowledge and expertise. If I tried to simply tell you that 12 is a prime number, and that I'm convinced your hidebound approach to mathematics is wrong, how would you react? Would you tell me my intuition is valid?

Do we know I'm wrong until we quantify the equation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Phi for All said:

This IS ridiculous. You've been given very specific examples of where your physics are just plain wrong. Nobody is saying you're wrong because you didn't study physics. They're saying you're wrong because your physics is wrong. 

It's probably the EXACT same thing you'd say if one of us got something anthropological wrong. Or another subject where you have a lot of knowledge and expertise. If I tried to simply tell you that 12 is a prime number, and that I'm convinced your hidebound approach to mathematics is wrong, how would you react? Would you tell me my intuition is valid?

Well Phi... I mean the dude does have an IQ of 160... so... I mean, if you had an IQ of 160 (no offence if you do, but I am just going to assume that you don't;p) then I would of course believe that 12 is a prime number, I must have seen it all wrong, just like ALL those other people.... /s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bez said:

If I am wrong merely because I don't fit your mold (lack of academia) that is ridiculous.

That is not the reason you are wrong. It is utterly irrelevant to whether you are right or not. I have very little formal education (my only experience in "academia" was working as a lab technician for a few months).

9 minutes ago, Bez said:

I do have an IQ or 160....do you?

There is no connection between IQ and knowledge/understanding. I am not sure that IQ really means anything much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Bez said:

Do we know I'm wrong until we quantify the equation?

Yes!!!  The equation is nonsensical.  It cannot be quantified!

Edited by Bufofrog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol...some of you have to much time on their hands!

Later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bez said:

Do we know I'm wrong until we quantify the equation?

The equation is mathematically and physically meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bez said:

Do we know I'm wrong until we quantify the equation?

I don't know how someone who is supposed to be so good at maths doesn't understand how your equation lacks proper units. Isn't that one of the first things you do when analyzing an equation? I'm not a maths person like you, so maybe I have it wrong.

4 minutes ago, Bez said:

lol...some of you have to much time on their hands!

Later

You've misinterpreted the science, you've misinterpreted the replies you've been given, and now you misinterpret our concerns. 

I'm guessing if we'd ignored you, you'd be bitching about that. Did you just want us to agree with your guesswork? Sorry, there be skeptics here.

29 minutes ago, Bez said:

And I wouldn't say I'm guessing but yes reality is not what you think it is at all! 

If you can't show evidence to support this, you aren't doing science. It's the kind of claim that a skeptic can never deal with, since "what we think it is" is the only metric we have for the natural world, since it's based on observations. We use these observations because they're more trustworthy than your unevidenced, unspecific claim that we have it all wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now