Tests for TOE on a speculation via correct scientific procedure

[ajb]

Indeed some claim. (edit probably no TOE given that it is probably attainable and due also to society in general) Yet - apart from my lack of authority - simply discernable as an extremely probable educated guess (there is no science to be had on questions like this) by applying what we do know in general on the relevant parameters as widely accepted rules of thumb (sometimes rules of thumb that are claimed to be scientific BTW.)

I added the bold emphasis.

 

You have no experience of research nor the bureaucracy of research groups. You are making claims about things you do not have any real knowledge of; can this really be an educated guess? I don't see how we can take this claim seriously based on what you have said.

 

This is a separate issue to whether the current amount of bureaucracy is a hindrance to scientific research. I can argue that it is with some evidence based on the increase of the amount of time researchers and university lecturers spend on administration. It is a big leap to say that this is the reason why we have not discovered X or cured Y.

[kristalris]

I added the bold emphasis.

 

You have no experience of research nor the bureaucracy of research groups. You are making claims about things you do not have any real knowledge of; can this really be an educated guess? I don't see how we can take this claim seriously based on what you have said.

 

This is a separate issue to whether the current amount of bureaucracy is a hindrance to scientific research. I can argue that it is with some evidence based on the increase of the amount of time researchers and university lecturers spend on administration. It is a big leap to say that this is the reason why we have not discovered X or cured Y.

Well look what happened when I said that my concept would be bust when an atom would pass 1/3 c. Not knowing that Ions can also still be atoms. It was pure bureaucratic formalism that ensued.

 

Even though the entire context of my thread is not to be too accurate concerning questions that concern large unknowns is based on logic. I was immediately pounced upon in a way that usually is done in courts of law and gives lawyers - justly so - a bad name. Trying to bust an idea on a fringe issue, even if the main issue shows exactly the opposite. Comparing an atoms maximum speed to a helicopter was spot on. (And BTW begs the question what is the observed relation to the orbit of electrons and the maximum speed of set atom? Is it indeed (also) maximised by the electron in that orbit hitting c before the nucleus? )

 

Look how Higgs was treated by Hawking being ridiculed. Al part of one playing the bureaucratic authority game. Anyone going against the current norm is debunked. Psychologically it is the same mechanism. The more books the more book wisdom as the current authoritative norm even on issues in which we know that we don't know the answer. It's a contradiction. To many scientists think that mathematically extrapolating known facts is scientific and educated guessing is not. On questions where we know we don't know how it is it should be first foremost creative guesswork, yet isn't because otherwise it should be done more. It isn't why not then do we see no TOE?

 

Solution: put the right people in research and let them give advice on the goals to be set. Say a goal TOE within the decade. And provide funding and support for failed attempts. Then you will get going.

 

At the moment no one will dare pose a TOE even in concept because you will be ridiculed and with a (probable for even an Einstein of 9/10 being wrong) when one is backed (which one probably won't be if one hasn't got the backing from others with their agendas) and indeed fails the loss of face and future funding is enormous. Ergo no-one even attempts and remains concentrating on the next step in stead of a dangerous risky "mad" large jump. The past 100 years we have even diverged in stead of converged on a TOE. More and more dark issues. (Although data is data of course) Given that an Einstein would have a 1/10 chance of getting to a TOE when attempting the bureaucracy in this sense has thus prevented that. To risky even for Einsteins who must be out there.

 

All a logical consequence of taking a fact that MN is a mass murderer and an illusionist. So given a simple set of rules like E=mc2 at the heart of it that a present Einstein has a 1/10 chance of guessing correctly. Logic. No fantasy.

[Bignose]

At the moment no one will dare pose a TOE even in concept because you will be ridiculed and with a (probable for even an Einstein of 9/10 being wrong) when one is backed (which one probably won't be if one hasn't got the backing from others with their agendas) and indeed fails the loss of face and future funding is enormous.

This is so very very wrong.

 

No one working in science would dare pose a TOE that conflicts with known results. Let me repeat that conditional statement -- that conflicts with known results.

 

String theory has been proposed for many years now as an attempt towards a TOE. So has quantum loop gravity. People are trying to improve the models we have all the time. But no one who actually does research in this sits around, spouts off-the-cuff wild-ass ideas and then asks for funding for them. They may have a wild-ass idea, but then they start to test the predictions from that wild-ass idea and see if it makes good predictions. THEN once the theory is making good predictions, THEN they start to seek funding.

 

And while there are problems with bureaucracy, no one instituted a bureaucracy with the sole purpose of making results harder to get. Bureaucracies are put in place to attempt to maximize the effect of limited resources -- money, manpower, etc. If resources were unlimited, it would be okay to remove the bureaucracy, but in the meantime, they are in place to do their best at distributing the resources. I don't think that it all bad.

[ajb]

I am sorry kristalris, but you are just wrong on many points, as Bignose points out. You clearly have no understanding of physics resarch or how it is conducted.

[kristalris]

This is so very very wrong.

 

No one working in science would dare pose a TOE that conflicts with known results. Let me repeat that conditional statement -- that conflicts with known results.

 

String theory has been proposed for many years now as an attempt towards a TOE. So has quantum loop gravity. People are trying to improve the models we have all the time. But no one who actually does research in this sits around, spouts off-the-cuff wild-ass ideas and then asks for funding for them. They may have a wild-ass idea, but then they start to test the predictions from that wild-ass idea and see if it makes good predictions. THEN once the theory is making good predictions, THEN they start to seek funding.

 

And while there are problems with bureaucracy, no one instituted a bureaucracy with the sole purpose of making results harder to get. Bureaucracies are put in place to attempt to maximize the effect of limited resources -- money, manpower, etc. If resources were unlimited, it would be okay to remove the bureaucracy, but in the meantime, they are in place to do their best at distributing the resources. I don't think that it all bad.

 

 

 

Again: I outdo you on this point repeatedly: I agree I even say that GR & QM should not be seen as mere theories but as the best laws of physics we humans ever had (In a way your point isn't it, well mine too as you see Let's call this qualm A shall we.) .My qualms are however that several basic observations are stated by physics that simply may not be claimed. For instance as qualm B (there are more) that when speeding up atom clocks time slows down. That has never been observed. Physicists have observed the atom clock slow down in a very predictable way. That is the essence of the observation. You can't deny that, but will ignore this point (again).

 

​Another qualm (qualm C) I have concerns the use of mathematics / demanding the use of only mathematics on the question of TOE whilst logic - dictates - that prior to the use of mathematics you first solve the garbage in problem. To do that you must first - by logic - answer all relevant questions. To dodge that you point to current widely held convention that only mathematics is the norm. In science logic takes precedence over convention even if the vast majority thinks otherwise. 2 + 3 =/= 6 because the vast majority thinks so. You are in breach of logic holding on to the wrong convention.

 

The vast majority will only see this when an authority tells them so. (Basic current psychology)

 

I was using the term bureaucracy in its negative form as is more and more common (at least in the Netherlands to do, but I guess also elsewhere in the cutting red tape context.) So in the sense of having too much too inflexible or even daft rules applied in the system. This in the most broad sense of the word. Anyone will agree when I add the "too much"to this. What I want is for society as a whole and for research in particular that the administration thereof is the administration of anarchy i.e. near total freedom. Freedom being thus the norm. It is alas becoming more and more the norm the other way round.

 

You say that I don't know research. Well I do have the first hand account of my dad who pointed towards these problems very explicitly as well. That I fully understand and have seen in action many times also with for instance the solving of crime scenes. People who I thought were cleaver beforehand going by the book and making horrendous mistakes. The reason in fact simple. When they score low on the personality trait openness they simply aren't capable of performing the necessary guesswork. It's a running gag. take the Vogons citing poetry. These people belong on production issues where they indeed don't have to guess.

 

Like in football absolutely always get you team in order for it is relative. Your forward in one level is the back on a higher level.

 

​As succinct as possible then: Men come from Mars and women from Venus (on average because everybody has both traits to a more or lesser degree)

 

Research is masculine and production is feminine. Research: take risks be brave naughty and daring accept mistakes and learn from them Be focused on the goal and not so much the relationships. (male)

 

Production: Avoid risks behave do as you're told (follow authority)and don't make or accept mistakes. Be accurate. Be focussed on the relationships. Female.

 

So research is male with woman in support and production is female with men in support.

 

Saying that in research we should do it as we do it now, because that is good and the way it is, is a female (men /woman) point of view. It is a female trait to simply ignore what you don't want to see concerning the lines where it is going but nagging about the details or dots. With men (male / female) it is the other way round concentrating on the line where it is heading (or big picture if you like) and ignoring the boring details, unless in super focus on the relevant ones when enthused.

 

Ever since the caveman every individual has had a R&D, production and sales department in the head. Tinkering to make a bow and arrow from a spear and selling it (sales where the Neandertaler fell short as new insights depict, not being verbally proficient and thus having to reinvent it all the time) in order to take it into accurate production when it works in order to survive as the Neandertal didn't.

 

So, several things are at the moment obviously going substandard in R&D in society in general as on the subject of TOE. Same problem, same cure. Get the team in order.

 

To state that I know nothing about how research is done at the moment or physics is beside the point. You are then only pointing at the prior odds of me being incorrect.

 

Yet you probably will again ignore the above qualms A, B & C again. For what are you to say? If I'm right, it proves a structural problem in current R&D on TOE. And if I'm wrong then you can't suffice in just stating that but will have to give reason based on fact and not collective opinion.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2013 by kristalris

[Klaynos]

A. A theory in science is a well tested falsifiable mathematical model of some aspect of the universe. Theories are the best of the best.

 

B. Your lack of understanding about sone aspect if physics is not a problem with the physics. There are may sources online for evidence of time dilatation.

 

C. Mathematics allows accurate falsifiable predictions, no other tool has been found to allow this. Any new idea must be more acvurate or as accurate and work in a wider regime than existing ideas, thus maths is required. Logic does not allow this, and why does the universe care what a group of ape descendents feels is logical or not?

 

You make many fundamental misinterpretations of modern svience and it's workings, it is therefore very difficult to accept your other points as you have dameged your own credibility. This is a great shame for you.

[swansont]

Again: I outdo you on this point repeatedly: I agree I even say that GR & QM should not be seen as mere theories but as the best laws of physics we humans ever had (In a way your point isn't it, well mine too as you see Let's call this qualm A shall we.) .My qualms are however that several basic observations are stated by physics that simply may not be claimed. For instance as qualm B (there are more) that when speeding up atom clocks time slows down. That has never been observed. Physicists have observed the atom clock slow down in a very predictable way. That is the essence of the observation. You can't deny that, but will ignore this point (again).

Time slowing down is an inference made from the data. The majority of physics experiment is inference from data rather than direct observation, because we can't directly observe many things. I see a flash on a phosphor screen and I infer that's where an electron hit. I don't see the electron directly. (In a more pedantic view, we observe nothing directly anyway. We interpret the signal of photons hitting our eyes). Clocks measure time. We check them to make sure that they are operating properly. When properly operating clocks slow down with no mechanical fault or reason, it means time has slowed down.

 

To claim that we have never observed time slowing down technically, pedantically correct, since time isn't a physical object, but only if you use a definition of "observe" that is different than what scientists use. We have observed the effect of time slowing down. Most people understand this distinction, or can learn it once this is pointed out to them. To apply the wrong definition intentionally is to commit the fallacy of equivocation.

 

 

​As succinct as possible then: Men come from Mars and women from Venus (on average because everybody has both traits to a more or lesser degree)

 

Research is masculine and production is feminine. Research: take risks be brave naughty and daring accept mistakes and learn from them Be focused on the goal and not so much the relationships. (male)

 

Production: Avoid risks behave do as you're told (follow authority)and don't make or accept mistakes. Be accurate. Be focussed on the relationships. Female.

 

So research is male with woman in support and production is female with men in support.

 

Saying that in research we should do it as we do it now, because that is good and the way it is, is a female (men /woman) point of view. It is a female trait to simply ignore what you don't want to see concerning the lines where it is going but nagging about the details or dots. With men (male / female) it is the other way round concentrating on the line where it is heading (or big picture if you like) and ignoring the boring details, unless in super focus on the relevant ones when enthused.

I strongly suggest you keep your (outdated) gender role observations out of the conversation.

[kristalris]

 

A. Time slowing down is an inference made from the data. The majority of physics experiment is inference from data rather than direct observation, because we can't directly observe many things. I see a flash on a phosphor screen and I infer that's where an electron hit. I don't see the electron directly. (In a more pedantic view, we observe nothing directly anyway. We interpret the signal of photons hitting our eyes). Clocks measure time. We check them to make sure that they are operating properly. When properly operating clocks slow down with no mechanical fault or reason, it means time has slowed down.

 

To claim that we have never observed time slowing down technically, pedantically correct, since time isn't a physical object, but only if you use a definition of "observe" that is different than what scientists use. We have observed the effect of time slowing down. Most people understand this distinction, or can learn it once this is pointed out to them. To apply the wrong definition intentionally is to commit the fallacy of equivocation.

 

 

 

B. I strongly suggest you keep your (outdated) gender role observations out of the conversation.

A. Well covering qualm B. Thank you. It also covers qualm C. Pedantic or not we agree time dilation has been inferred and not observed. And that means a logical inference and not a mathematical certainty.

 

Well logically I can inferre on the same observation that the Atomic clock is not time delayed but has been altered by the Higgs field by adding mass and thus momentum. In so doing immediately solving logically DM and DE.

 

It doesn't touch logically any observation, or any mathematical outcome in GR or QM. These laws remain intact. And it is as an inference extremely more simple being much more common sense inference on Occam and thus much more probable than time deletion. Thus proving on the widely held to be correct norm of Occam most probable and hence the necessity for falsification. Potential falsification given with named tests.

 

B. http://www.wikigender.org/index.php/Gender_differences_in_personalities I'll leave it at that.

[ajb]

You make many fundamental misinterpretations of modern science and it's workings, it is therefore very difficult to accept your other points as you have dameged your own credibility. This is a great shame for you.

 

You have put this very well.

[kristalris]

A. A theory in science is a well tested falsifiable mathematical model of some aspect of the universe. Theories are the best of the best.

 

B. Your lack of understanding about sone aspect if physics is not a problem with the physics. There are may sources online for evidence of time dilatation.

 

C. Mathematics allows accurate falsifiable predictions, no other tool has been found to allow this. Any new idea must be more acvurate or as accurate and work in a wider regime than existing ideas, thus maths is required. Logic does not allow this, and why does the universe care what a group of ape descendents feels is logical or not?

 

You make many fundamental misinterpretations of modern svience and it's workings, it is therefore very difficult to accept your other points as you have dameged your own credibility. This is a great shame for you.

I'm Dutch I have a guilt and not a shame culture. Sorry. Further more I'm shamelessly independent in thought. Though honour (without shame) does require a reaction. See my reaction on Swansont.

[ajb]

Pedantic or not we agree time dilation has been inferred and not observed.

 

And this is fundamentally different to other measurements in physics?

[kristalris]

And this is fundamentally different to other measurements in physics?

No, my point exactly. Measurements are observed. The rest is logically and not mathematically inferred if any room for interpretation is left. Hence the norm is then logic and not mathematics for the more or less educated guesswork to figure out where to get more data via observations.

 

The norm of mathematics is: FIRST the garbage or non garbage in logically solved and ONLY THEN the mathematics!

 

If in research as you so aptly put it the norm is not being pedantic and shameful doesn't that prove my point of a structural problem in current research, you et al knowing how it is nowadays?

 

Shame and pedantics has - LOGICALLY ! - nothing to do with research and everything to do with proper production. Basic psychology: get the team in order.

[ajb]

No, my point exactly. Measurements are observed. The rest is logically and not mathematically inferred if any room for interpretation is left. Hence the norm is then logic and not mathematics for the more or less educated guesswork to figure out where to get more data via observations.

It is usually mathematical as just about all the notions of physics are, and one is usually trying to understand data in the context of some mathematical model.

 

Again, you show lack of understanding of what you are trying to fix!

[kristalris]

It is usually mathematical as just about all the notions of physics are, and one is usually trying to understand data in the context of some mathematical model.

 

Again, you show lack of understanding of what you are trying to fix!

Quite, we agree then. Within the realms of the laws of GR and QM respectively shore I accept pure mathematical modeling. Why? Well they are laws of physics.

 

But, when trying to marry the two you - must - first go back to the - inferred logic - of the garbage or non garbage in problem instead of extrapolating formulas of mathematics out of their regime. You otherwise predictably end up in the renowned Escher Institute thinking that something can come from nothing i.e. belief in magic or in the extremely improbable such as pretzel shaped universes and what not. Or when taking to only working with what one can observe the extremely improbable notion of a one off. All based on the incorrect - assumption - and thus inferring that this is the best way for speedy progress. It is extremely improbable and thus on any rational norm falsified as the fasted way forward. It is a failsafe for when one has no inspiration. Namely collecting more and more data that predictably will become more and more weird if not put into an integrated context (ie. a TOE). You act as if I don't know that. Of course I do.

 

Granted these cases on the whole in physics I guess only usually occur. In this case when trying for TOE and thus trying to marry GR & QM you leave the safe haven of the exact science of mathematics as a rule: i.e. Then not just usually but always you are thrown back to logic inference based on educated guesswork where to start looking..

 

Ergo you work it like a crime scene. Make all possible scenarios taking in all observations and answering all questions and start testing the most probable or easy ones first. Not a democratic choice, or one by tradition or authority, but by creative intelligence, knowledge and experience based on these basic rules of logic.

The creative guessing that for some is incomprehensible gibberish yet for the others a sketch with a lot of the lines still wrong but close enough.

Even if you had 10000 such ideas or concepts it would be worthwhile to test them all. However I see only - one - such inference of the pedantic observations. My given concept.

It is thus not so much my lack of understanding what physics is about in the regime that we know, but more of what it should be about concerning what we don't know.

Edited September 7, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

A. Well covering qualm B. Thank you. It also covers qualm C. Pedantic or not we agree time dilation has been inferred and not observed. And that means a logical inference and not a mathematical certainty.

Nothing in science is a certainty, so this is merely stating the obvious, and is not confined to this instance.

 

Well logically I can inferre on the same observation that the Atomic clock is not time delayed but has been altered by the Higgs field by adding mass and thus momentum. In so doing immediately solving logically DM and DE.

Not without a detailed model you can't. Relativity is based on exceedingly well-tested basics: electrodynamics. Electricity and magnetism behave a certain way, and more importantly, electromagnetic waves behave a certain way. From this, it is seen that time and length must behave a certain way. Relativity is not a hand-wave, "I think it's like this" missive.

One of the main technical problems is that the Higgs doesn't behave as you describe. It preserves the Lorentz invariance, i.e. it doesn't depend on the frame of reference, or the speed of the particle. So what you are proposing can't be due to the Higgs field. Mass from the Higgs is invariant.

 

It doesn't touch logically any observation, or any mathematical outcome in GR or QM. These laws remain intact. And it is as an inference extremely more simple being much more common sense inference on Occam and thus much more probable than time deletion. Thus proving on the widely held to be correct norm of Occam most probable and hence the necessity for falsification. Potential falsification given with named tests.

You've just said that things change in accordance to some new mechanism, and that relativity is wrong as a result. How can you possibly contend that "these laws remain intact"? You've gutted them, and not proposed a replacement.

[ajb]

Granted these cases on the whole in physics I guess only usually occur. In this case when trying for TOE and thus trying to marry GR & QM you leave the safe haven of the exact science of mathematics as a rule: i.e. Then not just usually but always you are thrown back to logic inference based on educated guesswork where to start looking..

All resarch is really based on educated guesswork, you then do the hard work to see if your initial ideas are alright and how they need modifying. In theoretical physics, this is inhrently an mathematical exersise as one wants to build models that can describe aspects of nature. There is then also a lot of mathematics involved in comparing the theory with nature.

 

One should of course take into account existing observations the Universe when constructing new theoreis. In particular any new theory must give the same results as an existing well established theory taking into account domains of validity and experimental accuracy etc. Any TOE would have to have general relativity and the standard model as its limits. That is seting some parameters to zero or infinity should produce established physics + maybe small corrections.

 

With a TOE or quantum gravity the annoying thing is the nature does not want to give us any hints. Both the standard model and general relatvity are well tested and so deviation from the theory has been found, taking into account the domain of validity and experimental accuracy.

 

As the energy scale of a TOE is near the Planck scale one will not expect to see effects of a TOE at more mundaine scales. The possible exception to this is that one maybe able to see residual effects from the very early Universe in cosmology, such as in the CMBR or maybe in astrophysics via detailed observations of black holes.

 

Experimentally/observationally cosmology is probabily the best bet for seeing any TOE and quantum gravity.

 

Spinning massive balls in the lab is very unlikely to give us hints on quantum gravity. That said, people are working towards "table top" tests of general relativity. This is cool, but I would expect them to just agree with general relativity, but we can all live in hope that they find some real deviation.

[kristalris]

A. Nothing in science is a certainty, so this is merely stating the obvious, and is not confined to this instance.

 

 

B. Not without a detailed model you can't. Relativity is based on exceedingly well-tested basics: electrodynamics. Electricity and magnetism behave a certain way, and more importantly, electromagnetic waves behave a certain way. From this, it is seen that time and length must behave a certain way. Relativity is not a hand-wave, "I think it's like this" missive.

One of the main technical problems is that the Higgs doesn't behave as you describe. It preserves the Lorentz invariance, i.e. it doesn't depend on the frame of reference, or the speed of the particle. So what you are proposing can't be due to the Higgs field. Mass from the Higgs is invariant.

 

 

C. You've just said that things change in accordance to some new mechanism, and that relativity is wrong as a result. How can you possibly contend that "these laws remain intact"? You've gutted them, and not proposed a replacement.

 

A. We agree;

 

B. If you indeed can show that I've gutted GR and / or QM (or any other part of observed science) in a logical verbal way and I can't adjust the side issues to accommodate and barring the rule at this level of a concept that close is close enough for testing my concept is busted. You call this handwaving. Well indeed it is like a baby waving its hands in order to learn. You don't trash a baby for this as being dysfunctional nou do you?

 

Further more please bear in mind that if my concept does not like you say gut GR and what not on a verbal level, that then all your mathematics of GR QM and what not become as good a part of my concept as it would yours, if you had a concept on TOE.

 

So, lets see then:

 

That I use the Higgs field at relativistic speeds isn't that strange because we know it must be omnipresent everywhere the particles of the SM can exist in our visible universe. And we know that at relativistic speeds certain things happen to particles. Nou I say a photon is not massless but matterless because it doesn't exert gravity. It is however affected by gravity as we observe. So my photon I predict will do exactly that what GR says it will do. Letting it accelerate to hold c in the curve and bending in at twice the Newtonian value nowhere infringes on GR. It is the same difference. It pays the price for acceleration by becoming unwound i.e. redshifted.

 

The only thing the Higgs field does at these speeds is keep larger objects like photons < c by having them shorttrack like skaters on an ice rink albeit that they spiral on a large ring. The skaters are thus > c.

 

No problem with SR either because like if I measure a stationary bus at six pases walking by and one passe when the bus drives by, I don't think the bus has length contracted then. Simple doppler effect of the the tops of the waves passing each other. No problem there then.

 

Now for electromagnetic fields it is the same: an electron (or any other particle) in my model is built up of strings containing spinning particles held in a spiraling tunnel with surface tension. This by the Higgs field.

You can build the rings of an atom containing electrons with your hands. Index finger to thumb 1 ring. Using two hands index to index thumb to thumb second ring. Using an other hand third ring etc.. An electron in orbit shortracking can not > c. However when forced to jump from one ring to the other it can - like a line of speed skaters - go > c and seem to jump. The atom / ion is kept under the appropriate speed conforming the helicopter analogy.

 

Clearly the orbiting electrons have their strings shave other electrons breaking the surface tension. Then you get normal magnetism. The larger particle in the string like a toy gyro will spin rotate outward. Having a strong field you could move anything that is in sync. I see no problems here.

 

Electromagnetism has the electron (maybe as a counter rotating twin strings?) bounce (=wave) away through the Higgs field at c. No problem there either. The waving explained btw it being an extremely orderly superconductive dynamic crystal.

 

I see no infringement there either.

 

Then the problem of rest mass and frame mass. The Higgs field adds mass in two ways. One if you are stationary a string will keep adding mass like a little black hole. Invariant as you say. This provides gravity because you get an underpressure in the crystal. Drawing other strings in, but also restoring the crystal > c. So the strings only slowly come together. (This does speed up the string in the higgs field because it adds momentum simply Newton = DE)

 

The other way the Higgs field adds mass is when you speed up a string in an Atom clock by speeding up the clock. This is DM and creates the illusion of time slowing down. The clock slows down. No infringement there either.

 

I've got to go but on AJB table top relativity bear in mind the governing force in my model is order disorder and not energy. The latter stays the same in the two fields of the two different particles albeit resonating.

 

It is a movement game whereby all - possible - scenarios are played out for ever.

 

You would have to be more clear where this infringes on any observation. I don't see it.

Edited September 8, 2013 by kristalris

[ajb]

Nou I say a photon is not massless but matterless because it doesn't exert gravity.

The electromagnetic field can act as a source of gravity. What does it mean to have mass, but be "matterless"? This sounds like pure crankdom to me.

 

 

 

The only thing the Higgs field does at these speeds is keep larger objects like photons < c by having them shorttrack like skaters on an ice rink albeit that they spiral on a large ring. The skaters are thus > c.

I have no idea what you are talking about or later on.

[Klaynos]

You're telling stories not doing science. It is difficult to have a scientific conversation where one party flatly refuses to understand what science is about, the mathematical modelling of the universe and the comparison of those modes with the universe. I say you refuse to understand what science is about as people have tried to draw your attention to certain aspects that are required and you just carry on regardless.

[swansont]

B. If you indeed can show that I've gutted GR and / or QM (or any other part of observed science) in a logical verbal way and I can't adjust the side issues to accommodate and barring the rule at this level of a concept that close is close enough for testing my concept is busted. You call this handwaving. Well indeed it is like a baby waving its hands in order to learn. You don't trash a baby for this as being dysfunctional nou do you?

 

We don't let babies into situations where you are expected to be an adult, we get a babysitter. If you want to sit at the grownups table, you have to act like a grownup. In this case, follow the rules of speculations (a much lower threshold than in the grownup science community)and give us a testable model. You don't get a free pass because you don't know the science you are critiquing. Quite the opposite. You are expected to learn it. That's all on you.

 

I already have given you a violation in verbal form. The Higgs mechanism, like all of physics, works the same way in all inertial frames. You don't get "extra" mass or momentum for moving, you get what relativity tells you. That invariance is a basic tenet of relativity. You can't simultaneously say that this is present, and that relativity works just as before. The two claims are contradictory. Your claim fails basic logic.

 

Further more please bear in mind that if my concept does not like you say gut GR and what not on a verbal level, that then all your mathematics of GR QM and what not become as good a part of my concept as it would yours, if you had a concept on TOE.

That ship has already sailed. Your model is not Lorentz invariant, putting it at odds with GR.

 

 

I see no infringement there either.

As you have demonstrated a lack of an understanding of physics, I suppose you wouldn't. But ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating it.

[kristalris]

A.We don't let babies into situations where you are expected to be an adult, we get a babysitter. If you want to sit at the grownups table, you have to act like a grownup. In this case, follow the rules of speculations (a much lower threshold than in the grownup science community)and give us a testable model. You don't get a free pass because you don't know the science you are critiquing. Quite the opposite. You are expected to learn it. That's all on you.

 

B. I already have given you a violation in verbal form. The Higgs mechanism, like all of physics, works the same way in all inertial frames. You don't get "extra" mass or momentum for moving, you get what relativity tells you. That invariance is a basic tenet of relativity. You can't simultaneously say that this is present, and that relativity works just as before. The two claims are contradictory. Your claim fails basic logic.

 

 

C. That ship has already sailed. Your model is not Lorentz invariant, putting it at odds with GR.

 

 

 

D. As you have demonstrated a lack of an understanding of physics, I suppose you wouldn't. But ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating it.

A. Ha, ha, it is an adult concept yet a concept is always a baby. You don't even have an embryo for a TOE.

 

B. You don't know that you don't get extra mass for moving because it is a measurement problem to discern how much is needed for to provide for DM.

 

And my model is frame invariant because the crystal restores itself > c. Again a measurement problem. Even if you spin an atom clock (up to a point of course) whilst accelerating it in a straight line will not affect the outcome predicted by GR. At the deepest level it all of course walks out of GR but then you are sub SM. GR only applies to that SM level and not below. I.e. the law of the flat earth concerning paper city charts doesn't conflict with the earth being a sphere. Two different levels of accuracy of measurement. Though it would indeed maybe be worthwhile to see if spinning an atom clock at very high speed might give a measurable effect of it not being invariant to the frame of reference.

A. The electromagnetic field can act as a source of gravity. B. What does it mean to have mass, but be "matterless"? This sounds like pure crankdom to me.

 

 

 

 

I have no idea what you are talking about or later on.

A. No, I say you can lift a living frog in a very strong magnetic field.

 

B. I guess you missed an earlier point I made. I object to photons to be named massless. Definition problem. That has never been observed. What we know at an extremely high level of certainty is that they don't exert gravity. Something that exerts gravity should per definition be called matter. Particles that don't are thus matterless. Mass then doesn't exert gravity in this model, yet does build it in the sense that the more mass it has the more it takes in causing more of the underpressure being gravity.

You're telling stories not doing science. It is difficult to have a scientific conversation where one party flatly refuses to understand what science is about, the mathematical modelling of the universe and the comparison of those modes with the universe. I say you refuse to understand what science is about as people have tried to draw your attention to certain aspects that are required and you just carry on regardless.

I think you missed the bit where we established that time deletion et cetera are inferred out of a measurement. This inferring has nothing to do with mathematics yet is a logical exercise.

 

Furthermore you seem to have missed that if my model does not (seriously) infringe on GR & QM et cetera - as I say it doesn't - that I then have all your mathematics of GR & QM etc in the pocket so to speak.

 

I on the other hand am trying to draw your attention to the garbage in problem that ensues when we start talking TOE. That should - logically - first be solved in broad outlines in verbal logic, as a means to quickly ascertain where to start looking for further relevant testing.

 

This is a method that science at the moment leaves out even though it should be the premier method to reach a TOE quickly.

 

This BTW doesn't exclude your way of working either as a fail safe against lack of inspriratio .

[Klaynos]

 

I think you missed the bit where we established that time deletion et cetera are inferred out of a measurement. This inferring has nothing to do with mathematics yet is a logical exercise.

No I didn't miss it. Logic has nothing to do with it. This is further evidence you do not understand how science works.

 

Furthermore you seem to have missed that if my model does not (seriously) infringe on GR & QM et cetera - as I say it doesn't - that I then have all your mathematics of GR & QM etc in the pocket so to speak.

Swansont has shown this not to be the case and your attempts to hand wave your way out will not hold much weight.

 

 

I on the other hand am trying to draw your attention to the garbage in problem that ensues when we start talking TOE. That should - logically - first be solved in broad outlines in verbal logic, as a means to quickly ascertain where to start looking for further relevant testing.

See my previous post as to why this is foolish.

 

This is a method that science at the moment leaves out even though it should be the premier method to reach a TOE quickly.

 

Should is a strong word for someone who seems to have fundamental misunderstandings of physics and research.

This BTW doesn't exclude your way of working either as a fail safe against lack of inspriratio .

Science as is has been phenomenally successful up to this point.

[kristalris]

A. No I didn't miss it. Logic has nothing to do with it. This is further evidence you do not understand how science works.

 

B. Science as is has been phenomenally successful up to this point.

A. Oh? Time dilation is in your opinion not inferred out of measurements yet has been observed or mathematically proven? Taking time to be relative in a mathematical formula that works doesn't prove time slowing down BTW.

 

B. Yes indeed. So? It has also not been successful insofar diverging instead of converging on TOE. And put in that way it also encompasses DSM that has been and still is destructive, also in getting present Einsteins and Newtons the education and place in reacherarch by deeming them mad.

[Klaynos]

A. The equations provide stunningly accurate predictions of observations.

 

B. To do things properly it takes time. I don't see this as an argument against the current method, your method has achieved nothing.

[swansont]

A. Oh? Time dilation is in your opinion not inferred out of measurements yet has been observed or mathematically proven? Taking time to be relative in a mathematical formula that works doesn't prove time slowing down BTW.

This is a science site. You need to get used to using scientific definitions. In that context, time dilation has been observed.

B. You don't know that you don't get extra mass for moving because it is a measurement problem to discern how much is needed for to provide for DM.

It's a model problem to predict it, but the very fact that you predict it means that your model is not Lorentz invariant.

 

And my model is frame invariant because the crystal restores itself > c.

Restores itself? What crystal?

 

Anyway, the very fact that you have terms that should be invariant depending on a frame means this is false.

 

we know at an extremely high level of certainty is that they don't exert gravity.

"We" do?