Bigger Ape Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 The new theory explains difficult concepts with mathematical simplicity - it does not require the reader to stretch or convolute their imagination. It tackles the problem of the gravitational interactions between matter and space giving accurate solutions including a mathematical definition for inertia. It employs common sense potential field laws, Maxwellian electromagnetism and a space similar to (though independent of) that postulated by Dirac in his concept of the particle - antiparticle relationship. The reasons for the seemingly anomalous relations between matter and space are arrived at naturally ...no curved space, no 4th dimension It's at; http://www.acadjournal.com/Articles.asp?article_id=90 Please head out there and let's discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Tycho?] Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 "Time tends to be addressed as a fundamental of nature, but for this to be so, time would have to have a beginning or a "zero" point." "No science theory or observation has proven the existence of nothingness." "This rigid and unexplained mathematical solution has led to a lot of confusion accross mordern physics. (reffering to relativity)" Plus, he didn't spell check the damn thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Tycho?] Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Oh yeah, and it said it was published in 1997. That is not new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigger Ape Posted July 12, 2004 Author Share Posted July 12, 2004 Yep Tycho ...but logic is central here. I didn't spell check and I'm well aware of that, but where's your argument against the meat of the paper? ...and yes it's been written since 97 - perhaps there are reasons why its only published in 04, but these too do not add or detract anything from the logic of the paper and neither will those reasons be given here (or for that matter anywhere else except it is absolutely necessary). So Tycho, tell me something about the papers logic, then we can start talking, until that time I'll ignore your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Tycho?] Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Alright. Why does time have to have a zero point? Since when is relativity an unexplained mathematical solution? Also, since when has it caused a lot of confusion, any more than any other theories? And proven the existance of nothingness? I'm not even sure what you are getting at here. edit: Oh yeah. And why is logic central here? I would not consider c being constant to be logical. Most of quantum mechanics seems quite illogical to me. That doesn't mean its not true, and physics most certianly does not have to be logical to be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigger Ape Posted July 12, 2004 Author Share Posted July 12, 2004 Yes, logic must indeed be central. Sorry to dissapoint you on all counts Tycho. You have totally misunderstood my arguments; that is because you've taken a cursory glance and reached a super quick and super wrong conclusion. On time having a zero point? I claim the exact opposite - the whole construct of time is a mathematical convenience to measure the flow of energy. Time, length, speed and direction are derived from energy flows and not vice-versa. As for the existence of nothingness? It ties up with our concept of zero, to have a starting point, there has to be a zeroth point (a point of total emptiness devoid of energy). In any event, what does zero really mean? If theres no measurable zeroth point ...and there's none; zero goes out the window like the mathematical construct and mental bound that it is. You have to start from an equilibrium. C is constant for a medium, just as the speed of sound is contant for a medium. I do not argue that does not vary with condition, to the contrary, if you pay close enough attention to the papers logic, you'll find that I don't treat C as a rigid constant. Yes, logic must indeed be central. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Tycho?] Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Yes' date=' logic must indeed be central. Sorry to dissapoint you on all counts Tycho. You have totally misunderstood my arguments; that is because you've taken a cursory glance and reached a super quick and super wrong conclusion. On time having a zero point? I claim the exact opposite - the whole construct of time is a mathematical convenience to measure the flow of energy. Time, length, speed and direction are derived from energy flows and not vice-versa.As for the existence of nothingness? It ties up with our concept of zero, to have a starting point, there has to be a zeroth point (a point of total emptiness devoid of energy). In any event, what does zero really mean? If theres no measurable zeroth point ...and there's none; zero goes out the window like the mathematical construct and mental bound that it is. You have to start from an equilibrium. C is constant for a medium, just as the speed of sound is contant for a medium. I do not argue that does not vary with condition, to the contrary, if you pay close enough attention to the papers logic, you'll find that I don't treat C as a rigid constant. Yes, logic must indeed be central.[/quote'] Dissapoint me on all accounts? You explained remarkably little. "Time tends to be addressed as a fundamental of nature, but for this to be so, time would have to have a beginning or a "zero" point." For time to be a fundamental of nature does not mean that it must have a zero point. You have not explained yourself on this. "No science theory or observation has proven the existence of nothingness." You really havn't explained yourself on this, only talking about no measurable zeroth point... in refference to what? There is no zero point to anything? "This rigid and unexplained mathematical solution has led to a lot of confusion accross mordern physics. (reffering to relativity)" You didn't address this. Relativity is rather the opposite of unexplained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 I agree with some of the point of the paper, but honestly i didn't read it all cause i don't understand physics language and formulas. I imagine they are simple principles, but it just seems to me that they are packaged into deliberately complex and mysterious form. that's the way most physics is . . . . hmmmm let me go back though and TRY to understand. BTW, WHY does logic have to be central, and what is your defintion of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now