illuusio Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 The do the experiment and publish the results - generally those who have an idea are the ones who first test that idea to make sure it's accurate. That's right. My problem is that I'm not working in science world. I don't have resources available neither equipments or time I'm just One man's think tank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 What you're describing is a phenomological method of explanation. Not a theory of everything. Why would anyone conduct the experiment without a prediction. Remember that in modern physics a prediction is numerical not just a story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 What you're describing is a phenomological method of explanation. Not a theory of everything. Why would anyone conduct the experiment without a prediction. Remember that in modern physics a prediction is numerical not just a story. mmm... force mechanism is elementary knowledge. Hard to put that in math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 mmm... force mechanism is elementary knowledge. Hard to put that in math. Come again? Force equations are elementary... you study the basic ones in physics101, and the "advanced" ones in modern physics.... what exactly is hard to put in math? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 Come again? Force equations are elementary... you study the basic ones in physics101, and the "advanced" ones in modern physics.... what exactly is hard to put in math? I mean physical force transfer mechanism, for example for "gravitation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I mean physical force transfer mechanism, for example for "gravitation". So far you seem to post a lot of claims about what you can do without showing us much of what you can do? Can you show us evidence for this idea with the mathematical concepts? If it's doable and easy, you're the one who should produce it, since you're the one making the claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 So far you seem to post a lot of claims about what you can do without showing us much of what you can do? Can you show us evidence for this idea with the mathematical concepts? If it's doable and easy, you're the one who should produce it, since you're the one making the claim. Well I certainly wanted to it by myself or with a team. But funding must be taken care before. I have daytime job outside science world so I need some kind of position in university or grant. I have some contacts in Finland into science world so time will tell Theory is invented rest is pure work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Well I certainly wanted to it by myself or with a team. But funding must be taken care before. I have daytime job outside science world so I need some kind of position in university or grant. I have some contacts in Finland into science world so time will tell Theory is invented rest is pure work. In order to get funding you need to make a proposal, and the propsal has to have a lot more than just a theoretical idea that doesn't SEEM to have evidence. You need to make a strong case that there's merit to your claim. So far, you're not quite as successful... if you can't even convince us, random physicists and science enthusiasts online, how do you expect to convince a funding committee? Do the work, show the process, sit and work on the *basic* mathematical principles, and we can help you see if that works out. ~mooey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) I found this, interesting, http://lofi.forum.ph...down_21692.html and more direct tests http://www.sea3000.net/zhuyonghuan/20081009181348.php My theory predicts this. Edited August 1, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I found this, interesting, http://lofi.forum.ph...down_21692.html and more direct tests http://www.sea3000.net/zhuyonghuan/20081009181348.php My theory predicts this. Predictions must be numerical and have a derivation in modern physics. So, no, your theory does not predict this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Theory is invented rest is pure work. At this point, I would be tempted to use the descriptive term 'crank'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 Predictions must be numerical and have a derivation in modern physics. So, no, your theory does not predict this. My theory (ToEbi) predicts this phenomenon. Math is secondary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 My theory (ToEbi) predicts this phenomenon. Math is secondary. You are misusing both the words theory and predict. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 You are misusing both the words theory and predict. Ok, thanks for your thoughts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Ok, thanks for your thoughts! Okay, look. You came to this forum and signed up in order to share your thoughts with us. By signing up, you agreed to a set of rules that govern this forum. Those rules dictate that you really need to cooperate in the discussion in a scientific manner. You are not doing that, and it's really not going to go well if you continue to insist things go your way. Your theory needs to be substantiated whether you think it's da bomb or not. It has to be, no arguments, no ifs or buts; that's the way it goes. If you can't, that's fine, bow to your efforts and go back to the drawing board, come back when you have something substantial. Otherwise, insisting you have something but insisting you don't have to substantiate it according to the scientific method -- in a science forum -- is just a recipe to either be ridiculed or ignored. I suggest you go over this post "So, you've got a new theory" it might help you see what it is you're missing. What you're missing isn't really negotiable, and it's not going to go well if you insist you don't need to show it. Science isn't about opinion, and it isn't about imaginative wordsalads. You either got the evidence, or you don't. You really need to start cooperating here, it's getting repetitive and tedious. Now really, put up the evidence, or bow out. We're waiting. ~mooey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 Now really, put up the evidence, or bow out. We're waiting. ~mooey Ok. What is the best way to show evidence in case of force transfer mechanism? You tell me. I couldn't get better solution than claiming that without any motion there is no force transfered. In case of gravitation, if Cavendish experiment is done in a way that balls just sit aside each other nothings happens. In real Cavendish experiment larger ball is approaching smaller ball (motion evolved). My theory suggest that same effect can be created purely rotating bigger ball near smaller ball. And this is proved! So no motion no effect. Same applies for example few strange binary stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Ok. What is the best way to show evidence in case of force transfer mechanism? You tell me. You were told multiple times already. Physics is quite good indescribing forces using mathematics. You might not like this, but that's how physics works. A scientist could have the most brilliant imaginative idea ever, and it won't be possible to check its validity until that scientist manages to describe it with math. You don't have to solve complex equations -- just START by showing us how you would go about describing it. That is how we predict; we don't guess, we don't say "it fit" something retroactively. We describe reality with math. I couldn't get better solution than claiming that without any motion there is no force transfered. In case of gravitation, if Cavendish experiment is done in a way that balls just sit aside each other nothings happens. In real Cavendish experiment larger ball is approaching smaller ball (motion evolved). My theory suggest that same effect can be created purely rotating bigger ball near smaller ball. And this is proved! So no motion no effect. Same applies for example few strange binary stars. No claims, no wordsalad, you were told multiple times that whatever you claim can easily be either supported or disproved by math. We cannot (and are not supposed to) do this work for you. At the very least, tell us how you could START this endeavor of describing things mathematically. "Solution" implies you worked something out. What, exactly, would you work out without a mathematical model? Otherwise, quite simply, stop claiming you have a predictable theory. ~mooey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 "Solution" implies you worked something out. What, exactly, would you work out without a mathematical model? Otherwise, quite simply, stop claiming you have a predictable theory. ~mooey I need resources (time, people, money) to create the math for my theory. Force transfer mechanism is described already and it can be used in any scale (atomic to universe). "Solution" implies you worked something out. What, exactly, would you work out without a mathematical model? Understanding of force transfer mechanism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 At this point, I would be tempted to use the descriptive term 'crank'. ! Moderator Note But doing so arguably violates rule 1, so you might want to reconsider this "comment with no substance" approach, both here and in other threads. Ok. What is the best way to show evidence in case of force transfer mechanism? You tell me. I couldn't get better solution than claiming that without any motion there is no force transfered. In case of gravitation, if Cavendish experiment is done in a way that balls just sit aside each other nothings happens. In real Cavendish experiment larger ball is approaching smaller ball (motion evolved). My theory suggest that same effect can be created purely rotating bigger ball near smaller ball. And this is proved! So no motion no effect. Same applies for example few strange binary stars. Since a force typically requires an acceleration, which is a change in velocity, it's hard to envision a scenario where a force measurement doesn't involve motion. Which makes your statement correct but not for the reason you give. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 ! Moderator Note But doing so arguably violates rule 1, so you might want to reconsider this "comment with no substance" approach, both here and in other threads. Since a force typically requires an acceleration, which is a change in velocity, it's hard to envision a scenario where a force measurement doesn't involve motion. Which makes your statement correct but not for the reason you give. How about binary star observations? Too close but not crashing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 How about binary star observations? Too close but not crashing... Binary stars move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 Binary stars move. Yes, but movement is related to us not with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Yes, but movement is related to us not with each other. Do you have an example of this phenomenon you could provide? I am unfamiliar with the concept of binary stars not orbiting their common center of gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 Do you have an example of this phenomenon you could provide? I am unfamiliar with the concept of binary stars not orbiting their common center of gravity. There is reference in my pdf. But faster route is almighty Google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 illuusio, searching for double stars gives loads of hits, but all of them orbit each other, and thereby seem (to me) to have motion related to each other. A circlular motion around a common center of gravity, to be specific. If you suggest that something else is going on, please provide a link, because I cannot get it. Also, from your .pdf article, I do not know which link is the right one (and I am too lazy to try them all). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts