mooeypoo Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 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). You need a paper and pencil, some time and dedication. At the very least come up with an initial mathematical representation. We can't examine your theory (or its validity) without it, and you definitely can't claim it predicts anything without showing that. Understanding of force transfer mechanism. No, what you are doing is providing rather empty claims without substantiation. That's not "understanding", at least not yet. Do the work and we can help you examine it. There is reference in my pdf. But faster route is almighty Google. No, we're not supposed to look up YOUR evidence for you. Got a link for us? Post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Yes, but movement is related to us not with each other. Um, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 my theory can explain these http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/360217/20120706/unusual-binary-stars-close-orbit-discovered.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 my theory can explain these http://www.ibtimes.c...-discovered.htm How is that in any way an example of stars that do not orbit each other? It even says they have an orbital period. That's what the whole article is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 my theory can explain these http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/360217/20120706/unusual-binary-stars-close-orbit-discovered.htm Let's see it! An experiment, a mathematical derivation...anything would be an improvement on the evidence you've presented thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 Let's see it! An experiment, a mathematical derivation...anything would be an improvement on the evidence you've presented thus far. Well, experiment, how about modified Cavendish experiment as I wrote in the theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 my theory can explain these http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/360217/20120706/unusual-binary-stars-close-orbit-discovered.htm A bold claim, one that requires maths. So, where is it? If it's not you cannot explain them only tell a story you've pulled out of the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 Haha, I got the equation!!! I update theory and show THE equation later here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 And a derivation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 Ok, here we go! New version of theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 A quick scan shows no derivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 A quick scan shows no derivation. Derivation is from axiom 2 and observations/measurements Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 illuusio, if you have the derivation, can you post it here? We don't get it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 illuusio, if you have the derivation, can you post it here? We don't get it yet. mmm.. you could call it first law of ToEbi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 What we would like to call it is an equation. Do you have one? A concrete, defined equation that illustrates your hypothesis and makes predictions that can be tested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 Yes there is! Take one page back there is second version of my theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Yes there is! Take one page back there is second version of my theory. I see two equations, neither of which shows how you arrived at those equations being correct for usage in explaining your theory. (The derivation Klaynos is asking for). Also, your axiom 2 seems to imply that quantum entanglement shouldn't happen, since purely mechanic forces require locality to be transmitted, and quantum mechanics indicates that the universe at the quantum level is non-localized. How do you resolve this apparent discrepancy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 I see two equations, neither of which shows how you arrived at those equations being correct for usage in explaining your theory. (The derivation Klaynos is asking for). Also, your axiom 2 seems to imply that quantum entanglement shouldn't happen, since purely mechanic forces require locality to be transmitted, and quantum mechanics indicates that the universe at the quantum level is non-localized. How do you resolve this apparent discrepancy? Well, you should call the first equation as the first law of ToEbi. Second part, locality is needed. If quantum mechanics indicate something else than it's quantum mechanics indication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) Well, you should call the first equation as the first law of ToEbi. Second part, locality is needed. If quantum mechanics indicate something else than it's quantum mechanics indication. First of all, your first equation is crap. Rounds per second is not even a useful measure of anything, and you don't define what the rotation axle angle is. Second in your example, you use addition, when there is clearly no addition term in the equation you propose. How did you arrive at this equation, and please explain fully why it even applies. We cannot read your mind, so saying it follows from intuition and observation is like saying "because of blue". Second if you're proposing to replace quantum mechanics with your theory of everything, you need to at least explain the observed results of QM within the framework of your theory. You can't just pretend they don't exist. And if you're not replacing QM, it's hardly a Theory of Everything. Edited August 3, 2012 by Greg H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Just stating things you've made up isn't how science works. Sorry, but that is the way it is. You're just making up poor stories. Also, entanglement is an observed phenomena you can't ignore it as Greg states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 Just stating things you've made up isn't how science works. Sorry, but that is the way it is. You're just making up poor stories. Also, entanglement is an observed phenomena you can't ignore it as Greg states. Entanglement is observed phenomena and I described the mechanism for that. ToEbi might be poor story for you but just wait few weeks it will come back through another route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Entanglement is observed phenomena and I described the mechanism for that. ToEbi might be poor story for you but just wait few weeks it will come back through another route. I doubt that, unless you have some derivations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 First of all, your first equation is crap. Rounds per second is not even a useful measure of anything, and you don't define what the rotation axle angle is. Second in your example, you use addition, when there is clearly no addition term in the equation you propose. How did you arrive at this equation, and please explain fully why it even applies. We cannot read your mind, so saying it follows from intuition and observation is like saying "because of blue". Second if you're proposing to replace quantum mechanics with your theory of everything, you need to at least explain the observed results of QM within the framework of your theory. You can't just pretend they don't exist. And if you're not replacing QM, it's hardly a Theory of Everything. You know what I mean in that first equation Measured gravitation constant is not a constant at all, you can calculate it. It is not universal but depends only on rotation speed of objects. Rotation(al) speed -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_speed I have already explained quite many quantum phenomenon in Finnish science board (tiede.fi). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) Entanglement is observed phenomena and I described the mechanism for that. Could you quote the relevant part of your document that deals with entanglement, because I don't see anything that remotely addresses it, nor do I see any mechanism that could account for it, based on your axiom 2 requiring all interactions to be mechanical (i.e. physical). You know what I mean in that first equation Measured gravitation constant is not a constant at all, you can calculate it. It is not universal but depends only on rotation speed of objects. Rotation(al) speed -> https://en.wikipedia...otational_speed I have already explained quite many quantum phenomenon in Finnish science board (tiede.fi). If I knew what you meant by your equation, and the subsequent example, I wouldn't have asked the question. I generally reserve that activity for times when I do not, in fact, know what was meant. First of all, address what is meant by rounds per second, as I asked. Second, explain where the addition term in your calculation comes from when there is no such term in the base equation. Lastly, I, for one, am getting very tired of our repeated calls for both clarification and exposition of your methods and theory being met with repeated hand waving and vague references to "It's in there" when it clearly is either not in there or is so badly obfuscated, it may as well not be. Unless you are willing to provide actual answers to questions posed to you, I'm finished with this discussion. Edit: In fact, just explain what these numbers are: [math]\frac{1}{60 \times 60 \times 23 + 56 \times 60}[/math] Because as far as I can tell, they're just numbers you made up out of thin air. Edited August 3, 2012 by Greg H. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 from ToEbi It is known that interference pattern can be destroyed even after photon passed through one of the slits by closing other slit. GEP's physical quality (spiked object) is natural explanation for faster than light breakdown of interference pattern. It's like throwing an iron bar between gears. In case of GEP, effect is immediate and GEP waves are broken and so interference pattern is broken, immediately. This same applies to entanglement phenomen (f.ex. in quantum eraser experiment). Aaa.. those numbers are rough estimate for rotational speed of Earth. 23 h 56 min... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts