Strange Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 conservation laws are not written in stone by the finger of God. Thou shalt conserve momentum. Thou shalt conserve energy. Thou shalt conserve lepton number. Thou shalt conserve baryon number. No, but there is no evidence they are violated (despite intensive research). So ... still no evidence for any of your ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 By the way that response is precisely the hand waving Swansort is referring to. It means your ignoring any advise and math or theories that conflict to your idea. Not very scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 ! Moderator Note granpa You made some bold claims in not uncertain terms - yet when challenged you have resorted to vague assertions that are completely unfounded and sweeping statements which if true would change science irrevocably. Please try to pick up on the numerous questions and challenges posed and attempt to counter them with reasoned and precise argument. If this is not attempted then closure of the thread will follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 conservation laws are not written in stone by the finger of God. Thou shalt conserve momentum. Thou shalt conserve energy. Thou shalt conserve lepton number. Thou shalt conserve baryon number. Continuous symmetries are synonymous with conservation laws. Momentum is conserved in systems where there is translational symmetry. Energy is conserved under time translation symmetry. Angular momentum with rotational. There are mathematically proven. (Noether's theorems) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) I've said all I have to say. People can either listen or they can not listen. It doesn't concern me one way or the other Edited January 3, 2015 by granpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Fine we choose not to listen to your fantasies. Have a good life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) saying that my theory must be wrong because it conflicts with the conservation laws is like saying relativity must be wrong because it conflicts with Newtonian physics Edited January 3, 2015 by granpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) saying that my theory must be wrong because it conflicts with the conservation laws is like saying relativity must be wrong because it conflicts with Newtonian physics The difference is that we had evidence for a long time that Newtonian physics was violated (e.g. the precession of Mercury was known for a long time), but we've never found a violation of a conservation law yet. Not saying that they are 100% iron clad, but so far given the millions of tests they have passed, you need to present incredibly extraordinary evidence for this incredibly extraordinary claim. I've said all I have to say. People can either listen or they can not listen. It doesn't concern me one way or the other Not to beat a dead horse here, but if you didn't want constructive criticism of your idea, then why post it to a discussion forum? People are just trying to help shape your idea to conform to knowledge we already have. If you really didn't care, why bother posting it? Ergo, I conclude that you do care at least a little, and if you take a few moments to engage with people here, they can help you in making your idea better, stronger, and more rigorous. But if you really don't care about a stronger, better, more accurate idea, then I guess "adieu". Edited January 3, 2015 by Bignose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Whoever told you relativity conflicts with Newtonian laws in incorrect. Newtonian laws works just fine in euclidian non relativistic conditions By the way both Newtonian and relativiy follows the conservation laws Edited January 3, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 saying that my theory must be wrong because it conflicts with the conservation laws is like saying relativity must be wrong because it conflicts with Newtonian physics Your theory can be summarized to: "neutron is proton + electron + antineutrino" Right? Then what you will say when you will analyze Beta Decay Plus (Positron emission)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission [math]p^+\rightarrow n^0 + e^+ + V_e[/math] Which happens in proton-rich isotopes, like f.e. Carbon-11? Unlike neutron-rich isotopes, where Beta Decay Minus happens [math]n^0\rightarrow p^+ + e^- + \bar{V}_e[/math] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Whoever told you relativity conflicts with Newtonian laws in incorrect. the fact that you are willing to resort to such dishonesty is exactly why I refuse to be dragged into an argument with you Edited January 3, 2015 by granpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Dishonest because you refuse to understand it. Yeah right. Tell me why you claim everyone that is telling you your wrong is dishonest. Read it for yourself mate http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau If you think I'm lying to you on the conservation laws pick up "Introductory to particle physics" by Griffith Euclidean means flat space no spacetime curvature. Non relativistic conditions means you do not need General or special relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I've said all I have to say. People can either listen or they can not listen. It doesn't concern me one way or the other The point is that knowledgeable people DID listen. The person who isn't listening is...you! If you post nonsense and knowledgeable people correct you, you should.....listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 The point is that knowledgeable people DID listen. The person who isn't listening is...you! If you post nonsense and knowledgeable people correct you, you should.....listen. To add to this statement, if a poster makes a mistake in a correction or reply,we fully expect other forums to correct our mistakes. If I make a wrong statement I trust other respected members to point out my mistakes. For example xyzt is far better at relativity than I. If I make a mistake I know he will supply a correction 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 To add to this statement, if a poster makes a mistake in a correction or reply,we fully expect other forums to correct our mistakes. If I make a wrong statement I trust other respected members to point out my mistakes. For example xyzt is far better at relativity than I. If I make a mistake I know he will supply a correction ...and Mordred is far more knowledgeable in terms of particle physics than me. So, if I make a mistake and Mordred corrects me, I will....listen! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 ! Moderator Note granpa I asked you to follow the rules of this forum and to start answering the challenges and questions to your idea. Since my post you have posted 3 times - none are the reasoned and precise argument requested - one was dismissal of the membership, the second a meaningless parallel with relativity and newtonian mechanics, and the third was a imputation of dishonesty towards a respected member who had posted at length with citations and links during this thread. You have not abided by the rules of this forum - thread locked. Do not reopen a similar thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 ! Moderator Note granpa After further reading of the thread it is clear that you are not only in breach of the Speculation's Rules and Guidelines; you are outside the bounds of acceptable posting for the forum in general. Claiming that two senior members are dishonest in their dealings with you is insulting, unacceptable, and untrue. Please do not continue to use this form of rhetoric in future threads. the fact that you are willing to resort to such dishonesty is exactly why I refuse to be dragged into an argument with you I would have been happy to answer some of your questions but if you're just going to be flat out dishonest like this then I see no point in even trying to discuss it with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts