# Thread: Faster Than Light Neutrino Explanation

1. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2009
Posts
132

## Faster Than Light Neutrino Explanation

I have been working for three months now on an article that describes the Super Relativity explanation of why neutrinos have been found to be moving faster than the speed of light. This recent discovery fits perfectly into the mechanical model described by Super Relativity Theory. In fact the theory predicts that precisely, this type of particle should move faster than light. The paper itself is a bit long so I have decided not to post it here but I will provide a link to it at the bottom of this post. In this comment I will quickly summarize the main concepts and then post a link to the article which has all the details. The article on my website is approximately 27 type written pages long.

To summarize the article, it reintroduces the concept of the aether and makes considerable arguments with quotes from Einstein, John Bell, and Maxwell to name a few. The arguments are laid out for why the aether must exist. Following these arguments I will present the mechanical model that explains the following mysteries.

1. Using all the explanations below. I then explain in detail how and why the neutrino moves faster than light.
2. The perpetual motion of all particles. A physical explanation is provided for why particles move.
3. The origin of gravity is explained. A mechanical model is described that clearly demonstrates why some particles generate a gravitational field while other particles generate little to no mass. This explanation fits in with Einstein’s field equations. General Relativity mathematically defines the field with a formula that accurately describes the geometric structure of the gravitational field in a 4 dimensional space-time. My model provides the explanation for the origin of the gravitational field that emerges from particles.
4. The explanation for inertia is also revealed.
5. A set of simple principles are provided that explain all the above physical phenomena.
6. This article clarifies the meaning of force and action at a distance. All of this is explained with the use of classical mechanics. All that should be needed to form an acceptable Theory of Everything that can be used by modern day science is the development of a set mathematical equations constructed by using the Super Relativity Model as a guide. Since the model is based on aether material that is a continuous interface, differential equations should be used to describe this type of material object.

The Super Relativity Model is a metaphysical, theoretical explanation that is based on intuitive, commonsense philosophy. This leads directly to a mechanical model.

The article that I have composed basically says that a paradigm shift occurred starting in the year 1905. It was initiated ironically enough by Einstein himself who believed that the mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are purely abstract and therefore QM is an incomplete theory. He did not like the indeterminacy inherent in Quantum Mechanics. The paradigm shift happened in two phases. Scientists of that time moved away from the classical physics paradigm using the method of differential calculus which describes objects that are continuous and how they change in time. Scientists eventually moved toward a statistical method that describes objects as discrete objects in a space that is an empty void. The first phase occurred in 1905 with two papers by Einstein, the paper describing the photoelectric effect which Einstein eventually won the Nobel Prize for and the theory of Special Relativity. The first paper introduced the statistical method that became the basis for Quantum Mechanics. The second paper along with the Michelson Morley Experiment helped to convince scientists to mistakenly think that the aether did not exist. The second phase of the paradigm shift occurred in the years of January 1925 through January 1928: when physicists led by Niels Bohr along with Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrodinger dealt the death blow to classical physics. There were many advancements put forth in this time period that helped prove the value of quantum mechanics for analyzing particles as discrete objects and this system very successfully described particle interactions for years to come. The massive success of Quantum Mechanics in the next few decades succeeded in entrancing the entire physics community and luring them down a path that I believe is contrary to the fundamental truth of our physical reality. This method for the analysis of physical objects has led us to a dead end in physics. The Quantum Mechanical method which has provided so many correct predictions and ways to seemingly explain particle interactions is in reality only an approximation of physical reality based solely on statistical probabilities. This method of statistical analysis provides no fundamental explanation for how the Universe works. Quantum theory cannot explain why a particle moves or why the speed of light is the value that it is. Its prediction for the graviton has failed to materialize and it appears that its alternate explanation for gravity the Higgs Boson may either not exist or if it does exist the mechanism of how it confers mass to other particles is most likely incorrect. There are other effects in nature that it cannot explain as well, such as inertia. In the world of Quantum Mechanics existence and occurrences happen as a matter of chance, randomly with no explanation other than a cloud of probability.

I believe that we have found a way to use mathematics to predict the correct results to a very high degree of approximation without providing an explanation or understanding of the actual mechanism that lies behind particle interactions. Basically what I am saying is that Quantum Mechanics allows us to predict the outcome without knowing any of the details of how things physically work. We have been doing this for the last 80 years or so. The best minds in physics have been searching for the Unified Field Theory using a mathematical method that cannot possibly reveal the correct fundamental explanation for our physical reality. The correct mathematical formulation must be done by using differential equations. If we don’t correct our course it will be decades perhaps centuries before some else arrives at this basic truth. The theory of Super Relativity holds great hope for humanity as it predicts that the light speed barrier can be exceeded. The recent discovery that the neutrinos may be traveling faster than light proves that Super Relativity’s prediction is correct. Therefore I feel that we must resume the course Einstein was taking in his final years. All these years physicists were so sure that the speed of light could not be exceeded. This should be a wakeup call for all of us. Many times in history scientists that have supported and maintained the status quo have been wrong and so there is a good chance that we may be mistaken again. I ask that you please give my ideas fair consideration. The ideas presented in my article are important and of great value as I have provided for you a mechanical model which a clever physicist or mathematician should be able to turn into a provable mathematical formulation that will successfully reveal the Theory of Everything. The Theory of Super Relativity exposes for all to see a way to build a technology known as the Slip Wave. The Slip Wave Spatial Bias Drive will provide us with an engine that can propel a ship at many times the speed of light.

I leave you with these final thoughts.

Quotes from article in the NewScientist.com

Here are some comments from David Gross who is a Nobel Laureate and a heavyweight in physics. He earned the Nobel Prize for work on the strong nuclear force. He indicated in the article by Michael Strauss that what is happening today is very similar to what happened at the 1911 Solvay meeting. Back then, radioactivity had recently been discovered and mass energy conservation was under assault because of its discovery. Quantum theory would be needed to solve these problems. Gross further commented that in 1911 "They were missing something absolutely fundamental," as well as "we are missing perhaps something as profound as they were back then." Coming from a scientist with establishment credentials this is a damning statement about the state of current theoretical models and most notably string theory.
Last December ('05), physicists held the 23rd Solvay Conference in Brussels, Belgium. Amongst the many topics covered in the conference was the subject matter of string theory. This theory combines the apparently irreconcilable domains of quantum physics and relativity. David Gross a Nobel Laureate made some startling statements about the state of physics including: "We don't know what we are talking about" whilst referring to string theory as well as "The state of physics today is like it was when we were mystified by radioactivity."

For details on the Super Relativity mechanical model that explains how neutrinos travel faster than light Please see the article on my website.
http://www.superrelativity.org/html/Faster_Than_Light_Neutrino.html
Last edited by mmfiore; 2012-Jan-09 at 07:08 PM.

2. The link does not work.

3. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2009
Posts
132

4. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Question for moderators. Since mmfiore is basing his claim that he can explain superluminal neutrinos, by using Super Relativity, can we go back and request open questions from his previous thread be answered (even if we just re-ask them in the current thread)? After all, he requested the thread be closed without answering those open questions. My reason for asking is that if Super Relativity is shown to be wrong or can't explain current observations, then the explanation for superluminal neutrinos using Super Relativity is wrong.

5. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2009
Posts
132
Its alright by me if you ask questions from the old thread. The two topics are very much related. I have updated the theory since that time. The model I have is much more complete now with explanations of how and why particles move as well as an explanation for inertia. I think what is important is that we all try and get to the truth. I believe that I can proove that Super Relativity is the correct model for our physical reality. Please look at the end of my neutrino article. I propose an experiment that will prove my theory. Super Relativity theory predicts that the neutrinos have a velocity that varies through time. In other words sometimes it is moving slower than light and sometimes faster. As far as I can tell nobody has predicted this.

6. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
While I'm going through the old thread to find all the open questions, how's this. Demonstrate for us the calculations used in Super relativity to predict the Magnetic Moment of the Electron.

7. Is this more attempts to up someone's Google rating? All I see is a lot of word fluff and a bit of history with no actual science here. Can the OP please pick one problem in modern physic that his/her paper solves and describe it here to include formulas to be analysed by everyone? It is a non sequitur to claim that because "string theory" isn't producing anything testable that QM is not correct.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
... The ideas presented in my article are important and of great value as I have provided for you a mechanical model which a clever physicist or mathematician should be able to turn into a provable mathematical formulation that will successfully reveal the Theory of Everything. ...
This statement leads me to believe that this is just another "I'm so smart that I've figured it all out but now I just need someone smart to figure it all out for me" post.

8. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2009
Posts
132
Hello Tensor...
This is not just for you but everyone who is participating in this discussion. I really want to get things off to a good positive start. I realize in the last discussion some feelings got hurt and I got frustrated at times. I don't want that to happen this time. A request to demonstrate calculations to predict the magnetic moment of the electron. Just seems to be an attempt at making me look bad as my background is not in mathematics. It is in philosophy and trouble shooting and critical analysis. No where in any of my documentation do I discuss magnetic moments. This kind of question just takes away from the topic that we should be talking about which are the ideas and concepts that I have put forth in the paper. Lets try and stay on the topic as I want to see if we can get to the truth. I don't want this to become personal. Lets talk about the paper I have written.

9. Originally Posted by mmfiore
... as my background is not in mathematics. It is in philosophy and trouble shooting and critical analysis ...

... the topic that we should be talking about which are the ideas and concepts that I have put forth ...
This, then, simply may not be the place to discuss your claim.

Members will come up with examples to poke at your claims with; this is normal in science. If you can't do the requisite math, then the thread will go nowhere.

You will be required to answer relevant questions. Relevance is not limited to things you mention in your paper.

10. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2006
Posts
1,307
Originally Posted by mmfiore
Hello Tensor...
This is not just for you but everyone who is participating in this discussion. I really want to get things off to a good positive start. I realize in the last discussion some feelings got hurt and I got frustrated at times. I don't want that to happen this time. A request to demonstrate calculations to predict the magnetic moment of the electron. Just seems to be an attempt at making me look bad as my background is not in mathematics. It is in philosophy and trouble shooting and critical analysis. No where in any of my documentation do I discuss magnetic moments. This kind of question just takes away from the topic that we should be talking about which are the ideas and concepts that I have put forth in the paper. Lets try and stay on the topic as I want to see if we can get to the truth. I don't want this to become personal. Lets talk about the paper I have written.
Hello mmfiore.

We already have a theory that predicts two things: 1) the speed of light cannot be broken, and 2) the electron has a magnetic moment.

We have observed the magnetic moment of the electron. We have also, except for a single experiment that has not yet been proven to be accurate, observed that the speed of light cannot be broken.

If your theory cannot predict something that has been observed, such as the magnetic moment of the electron, then it is woefully incomplete, even if it does predict something that has not yet been observed, such as the violability of the speed of light.

11. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by mmfiore
Hello Tensor... A request to demonstrate calculations to predict the magnetic moment of the electron. Just seems to be an attempt at making me look bad as my background is not in mathematics.
My request has nothing to do with your background in mathematics. Current Quantum Field Theory can predict the value of the magnetic moment, of the electron, to 10 decimal places. If Super Relativity can't do as well, then Super Relativity is not as good a theory as Quantum Field Theory.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
It is in philosophy and trouble shooting and critical analysis. No where in any of my documentation do I discuss magnetic moments.
Well, since this is something that is OBSERVED, don't you think this should be discussed?

Originally Posted by mmfiore
This kind of question just takes away from the topic that we should be talking about which are the ideas and concepts that I have put forth in the paper.
It is on topic. If Super Relativity cannot handle this prediction, then it is flat out wrong. And any other discussion concerning neutrinos is just superfluous.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
Lets try and stay on the topic as I want to see if we can get to the truth. I don't want this to become personal. Lets talk about the paper I have written.
Again, it has nothing to do with being personal. Your paper is dependent on Super Relativity being correct. If you can't show Super Relativity can predict the magnetic moment of an electron (as a beginning, other particles also have magnetic moments), then your explanation for superluminal neutrinos, in the paper, is also wrong.

So, could you provide the calculation for the magnetic moment of the electron?

12. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2009
Posts
132
Hello Wayne
There is a lot to discuss in my paper. The first question I have for you is have you read all the way through it? So far all you have done is quoted from the post above. I can address your comment above though just to get the ball rolling.

This statement leads me to believe that this is just another "I'm so smart that I've figured it all out but now I just need someone smart to figure it all out for me" post.
I do not think that I am a so smart or a genius and I really don't want these discussions to be about me. The purpose of this forum is to discuss ideas. Attacking me by implying that I am self involved or egotistical is not going to get things accomplished. What it is about for me is that I love science and I love mysteries. I want to see us advance as a race. I know that I am not a genius. The question I have for you to consider is this. Can a person of average or above average intellect have a good idea? Is it possible that someone other than a world renowned physicist come up with something of value that can help advance the cause. I believe this is possible. I have confidence in the ideas that I have come up with. I will not apologize for that. I believe that scientists and physicists are the best chance we have at proving or disproving my theory. I am hoping someone will seriously consider what I am saying because the benefits if I am proven correct will be good for all. I want to help and contribute and I believe in the model that I have developed over the last twenty years. I hope some of you out there will think about what I am saying and try and see if it can be substantiated mathematically. If I am correct we can break the light speed barrier. That would benefit all of mankind.

The neutrino exceeding the speed of light is something that I had thought was possible for quite some time. It makes perfect sense according to my theory. When you read my paper you will understand why. I was beginning to think that I was wrong because up until a few months ago I had not heard anything exceeding the speed of light. But then the news hit and I became very excited. If it had been any other particle it would not have supported my theory. It had to be a particle more neutrally charged than the photon.

I hope that everyone out there looks at this discussion as a great opportunity to discover something important and wonderful. Lets try and be nice to each other and stay positive.

13. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2009
Posts
132
Hello Tensor

Current Quantum Field Theory can predict the value of the magnetic moment, of the electron, to 10 decimal places.
Yes I read that just the other day. That is very impressive. That demonstrates how good QM is at predicting particle behavior and particle characteristics.

Well, since this is something that is OBSERVED, don't you think this should be discussed?
There are many things that are observed in nature. I think we should remain on the topic of my article because that is what I am defending. Those ideas need to be examined not details of other things not directly relating to my ideas. The universe is expanding rapidly accelerating in fact. That has been observed should I be forced to discuss that as well. Please lets talk about the ideas in the article.

Super Relativity may very well be able to handle the prediction. I do not the skill to calculate this. All you are doing by bringing this up is to steer the discussion away from what I do know and am willing and able to discuss into an area that I am not prepared to discuss. If you could please try and talk about the ideas in the article we can progress.

Again, it has nothing to do with being personal. Your paper is dependent on Super Relativity being correct. If you can't show Super Relativity can predict the magnetic moment of an electron (as a beginning, other particles also have magnetic moments), then your explanation for superluminal neutrinos, in the paper, is also wrong.
Okay lets try this again. Now you know that I can't do that because I do not have the skill to do so. So with that said. Your hope is to disprove Super Relativity by virtue of the fact that I do not have the skill in mathematics. That does not disprove Super Relativity all that proves is that I do not know how to perform such a calculation. Sorry but you are not going to disprove Super Relativity based on my ability to calculate. I firmly disagree with your proposition that I have to calculate the magnetic moment to prove my theory. So lets move on. If you want to believe that, that's fine but that argument is not convincing me. I understand what your saying. I don't agree with it. This topic is too important to get wrapped up in a sidebar issue.

I ask again that you read the paper and lets talk about the mechanical model that I proposing. Don't you have some question about the article.

14. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2009
Posts
132
Hello pzkpfw,

Good to hear from you again. I see what your saying but I thought that against the mainstream was about anything that was out of the ordinary and not main stream science. I thought it was place for fun discussions for all people. Is this forum just for scientists only? There are many posts that do not require mathematics in this area like "Doubts about Modern Physics" "Climate Change" "What are Black Holes" "Veegtron Theory" etc etc... now surely these do not require mathematics. They are just people with questions and ideas that they want to discuss. These seem to be allowed. They are philosophical in nature.
I will answer all questions to the best of my ability. But if someone like "tensor" asks me to calculate something and I say I do not know how to do that or that request is irrelevant to the discussion that will be the answer. Is that acceptable?

15. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by mmfiore
Hello Tensor
Yes I read that just the other day. That is very impressive. That demonstrates how good QM is at predicting particle behavior and particle characteristics.
Yes, it can also predict the hyperfine transition of the hydrogen atom. What is the prediction does Super Relativity make for such a transition?

Originally Posted by mmfiore
There are many things that are observed in nature. I think we should remain on the topic of my article because that is what I am defending.
Does the explanation of the superluminal neutrinos, as your paper explains it, depend on Super Relativity being correct, yes or no?

Originally Posted by mmfiore
Those ideas need to be examined not details of other things not directly relating to my ideas.
But it directly relate to your idea, if you are using Super Relativity to explain the neutrinos moving at faster than c. Are you?

Originally Posted by mmfiore
Super Relativity may very well be able to handle the prediction. I do not the skill to calculate this. All you are doing by bringing this up is to steer the discussion away from what I do know and am willing and able to discuss into an area that I am not prepared to discuss. If you could please try and talk about the ideas in the article we can progress.
Isn't Super Relativity one of the ideas in the article?

Originally Posted by mmfiore
That does not disprove Super Relativity all that proves is that I do not know how to perform such a calculation.
Then you have no way of knowing if Super Relativity is correct, do you?

Originally Posted by mmfiore
Sorry but you are not going to disprove Super Relativity based on my ability to calculate. I firmly disagree with your proposition that I have to calculate the magnetic moment to prove my theory. So lets move on. If you want to believe that, that's fine but that argument is not convincing me. I understand what your saying. I don't agree with it. This topic is too important to get wrapped up in a sidebar issue.
I'm asking you to provide the evidence, based on magnetic moment calculation, that Super Relativity is as good as Quantum Field Theory. If you can't provide this, then Super Relativity is an invalid theory.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
I ask again that you read the paper and lets talk about the mechanical model that I proposing. Don't you have some question about the article.
If you can't show Super Relativity can predict the magnetic moment, then it is invalid. As Quantum Field Theory doesn't use an aether and since your neutrino explanation requires an aether (as determined by your paper using Super Relativity), your paper is wrong. So if you are going to continue to claim you can explain the superluminal neutrinos, please provide the calculation of the magnetic moment of an electron, or retract your claim. It's quite simple really.

16. Originally Posted by mmfiore
Hello Tensor...
This is not just for you but everyone who is participating in this discussion. I really want to get things off to a good positive start. I realize in the last discussion some feelings got hurt and I got frustrated at times. I don't want that to happen this time. A request to demonstrate calculations to predict the magnetic moment of the electron. Just seems to be an attempt at making me look bad as my background is not in mathematics. It is in philosophy and trouble shooting and critical analysis. No where in any of my documentation do I discuss magnetic moments. This kind of question just takes away from the topic that we should be talking about which are the ideas and concepts that I have put forth in the paper. Lets try and stay on the topic as I want to see if we can get to the truth. I don't want this to become personal. Lets talk about the paper I have written.
But this type of science with out maths is like claiming you have an idea for a great desert but you can't tell anyone the ingredients, just that it is the best desert ever.

So you have nothing but a paper of you using fluffy words that make it sound like there is a problem in modern science to the lay person and you want people here to actually try to do something no one has been able to do as of yet, ie over throw modern physics. Geee don't you think if that was going to be done the smart people you've already quoted would be the ones doing it.

17. Originally Posted by mmfiore
Hello Wayne
There is a lot to discuss in my paper. The first question I have for you is have you read all the way through it?
No because I don't drive up people's google rating for no reason at all. Show us something here that makes me think I won't spend a half hour of my life reading your paper to just think to myself "Well I'll never get that 30 minutes back again". Your OP does nothing to make me believe you have any real science going on. All I see is a lot of "Come on guys this is important stuff and I'm going to change the face of science...trust me!" combined with "I'm not really sure about the maths but someone else can figure that out!" Which, historically speaking, equals "big waste of time" for others.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
So far all you have done is quoted from the post above.
And that is all I should have to do. If you don't present it here then it isn't part of the discussion. Far to often people come and say "Go read my [insert article here] on [insert topic here] and everything will be clear....blah blah blah" and if you do go read the link provided is more often then not is just a load of nothing. In this case from your OP you seem to be complaining about String theory then trying to use that as some basis that QM is faulty.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
I can address your comment above though just to get the ball rolling.
Hopefully you'll bring up some science and not bad philosophy that we can discuss.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
Originally Posted by WayneFrancis
This statement leads me to believe that this is just another "I'm so smart that I've figured it all out but now I just need someone smart to figure it all out for me" post.
I do not think that I am a so smart or a genius and I really don't want these discussions to be about me.
Well I'd like it to be about "the science" myself but as of yet I have yet to see any science.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
The purpose of this forum is to discuss ideas.
The purpose of this forum is to discuss scientific hypothesises. If you want to discuss bad philosopy then you are at the wrong forum.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
Attacking me by implying that I am self involved or egotistical is not going to get things accomplished.
Still no science. That is what I'm "attacking". The lack of science in your post. All you did was make a unsupported philosophical claim from what I read. Show me the science.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
What it is about for me is that I love science and I love mysteries.
Thats nice but I don't care what you love. What I want to see is atleast one small part of your claim. Show me a problem with the current theory. Show me the part of your idea that solves this problem. You making claims that your idea solves it but no one can produce any test based on your "description" then your idea isn't scientific. I can claim that IPWUs (Invisible Pink Winged Unicorns) are responcible for faster then light neutrinos but that isn't testable so it isn't scientific and to this point, because you haven't put any science in this thread, my IPWUs hold as much weight as what ever "aether" idea you might be pushing.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
I want to see us advance as a race.
Very noble of you.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
I know that I am not a genius.
Again...I don't care. You could be Joe Bloggs with an IQ of 120 but if you show your idea in a testible manner and it fits observation and fixes some problem that the currrent theory does not or gets wrong then we are getting some where.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
The question I have for you to consider is this.
Seems that you are avoiding the question of "Give us one thing your hypothesis fixes and how it fixes it"

Originally Posted by mmfiore
Can a person of average or above average intellect have a good idea?
Sure, but I haven't seen any evidence of a good idea yet in this thread. I've just seen unsupported claims and non sequiturs.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
Is it possible that someone other than a world renowned physicist come up with something of value that can help advance the cause.
Sure, lots of good science comes from people as you describe. But what you've shown so far isn't even bad science. IE it isn't science. It is, to this point from your OP, bad philosophical discussion seemly based on misunderstanding of the current science.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
I believe this is possible.
I believe this is possible too and I'd be happy to be shown that your idea = good science.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
I have confidence in the ideas that I have come up with. I will not apologize for that.
So tell us...just one little part of your idea(s) that we can discuss and test here before expecting anyone to go off and booster your google rating.
Give us a reason not to think that we'll just be wasting our time reading your paper. Self-aggrandizing isn't the way to do that. Bad history lessons combined with quote mining won't do it either. A clearly described problem in modern science with your clearly described solution that is testable is the way to do that.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
I believe that scientists and physicists are the best chance we have at proving or disproving my theory.
And this is what ATM forum is for. You present your idea in the form where it can be tested and people here pick it apart and it will either sink or float. Typically what happens is ideas are sunk here because of fatal flaws but the original author of the idea disregard said fatal flaws and continue to make false claims.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
I am hoping someone will seriously consider what I am saying because the benefits if I am proven correct will be good for all.
And so far what you are saying is not science. It unsupported claims and non sequiturs.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
I want to help and contribute and I believe in the model that I have developed over the last twenty years.
Ah you have a model. Please show us a bit of this model! Pick a piece of it and show here, in this thread, how it solves a problem in modern science. Let other people discuss with you the pros and cons, if any, of your model.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
I hope some of you out there will think about what I am saying and try and see if it can be substantiated mathematically.
So...you have a model...with no math...that isn't a model. That's like me saying I have a model of a plane in my bedroom but when people go to look at the model you say "Well I haven't actually built it yet, and I don't have the parts for it yet."

Originally Posted by mmfiore
If I am correct we can break the light speed barrier. That would benefit all of mankind.
And if the guy I passed in the city that was babbling about the end of the world on Dec 21st of this year is correct then I should start parting big time. Show me why I should listen to you more then I should listen to him.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
The neutrino exceeding the speed of light is something that I had thought was possible for quite some time.
Really? How long? Before the observations that show a discrepancy?

Originally Posted by mmfiore
It makes perfect sense according to my theory.
Your theory...which has a model...which has no maths yet?

Originally Posted by mmfiore
When you read my paper you will understand why.
NO! bring...just a small part of your theory/model here. Because I'm not going to drive your google rating up until I have reason to believe you are not like the guy I saw in the city today babbling about Dec 21st.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
I was beginning to think that I was wrong because up until a few months ago I had not heard anything exceeding the speed of light.
So show us...here how your idea supports FTL. How it matches current observations to the same or better precision then current theory.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
But then the news hit and I became very excited. If it had been any other particle it would not have supported my theory. It had to be a particle more neutrally charged than the photon.
WHAT? "More neutrally charged"? Thats like saying more non quantity then zero. See this is the problem. You don't seem to even have a good understanding on basic physics. If you don't understand a concept well then how can you say there are problems with it. It would be like me going to a molecular biologist and telling them that their hypoothesis of huntington's disease being a combination of trinucleotide repeat on the HTT gene and another genetic disorder is wrong because I have a much simpler reason people get HD and that my idea explains why HD sets in at different ages for different people with out ever even knowing about the trinucleotide repeat. In fact it would be like if I didn't even understand basic biochemistry.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
I hope that everyone out there looks at this discussion as a great opportunity to discover something important and wonderful. Lets try and be nice to each other and stay positive.
So...I've got through your entire post and haven't seen one bit of evidence that says your not like the guy babbling about Dec 21st.

Show us here, in this thread, a bit of your science. Don't hand wave, don't complain that people aren't giving you a fair chance. They are. I am. Show us. Here in this thread a bit of your science and if it is pointed out to you that you are stepping outside of science and into philosophy or some other area then bring your discussion back to what this forum is about. Science.

WF

18. Originally Posted by mmfiore
Hello Tensor

Yes I read that just the other day. That is very impressive. That demonstrates how good QM is at predicting particle behavior and particle characteristics.

There are many things that are observed in nature. I think we should remain on the topic of my article because that is what I am defending. Those ideas need to be examined not details of other things not directly relating to my ideas. The universe is expanding rapidly accelerating in fact. That has been observed should I be forced to discuss that as well. Please lets talk about the ideas in the article.

Super Relativity may very well be able to handle the prediction. I do not the skill to calculate this. All you are doing by bringing this up is to steer the discussion away from what I do know and am willing and able to discuss into an area that I am not prepared to discuss. If you could please try and talk about the ideas in the article we can progress.

Okay lets try this again. Now you know that I can't do that because I do not have the skill to do so. So with that said. Your hope is to disprove Super Relativity by virtue of the fact that I do not have the skill in mathematics. That does not disprove Super Relativity all that proves is that I do not know how to perform such a calculation. Sorry but you are not going to disprove Super Relativity based on my ability to calculate. I firmly disagree with your proposition that I have to calculate the magnetic moment to prove my theory. So lets move on. If you want to believe that, that's fine but that argument is not convincing me. I understand what your saying. I don't agree with it. This topic is too important to get wrapped up in a sidebar issue.

I ask again that you read the paper and lets talk about the mechanical model that I proposing. Don't you have some question about the article.
You pick something that your "article" solves. Bring it here. Show some of your maths on your mechanical model. Pick one aspect of your model and discuss it here. We shouldn't have to read a whole article of yours to talk about one part of your model.

19. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,059
You don't prove neutrinos would be the ones to be superluminal at all.
The photon is essentially a neutrally charged particle. Therefore it travels at a velocity of 299,792,458 meters (U.S. meters) per second. According to Super Relativity if there were a more equally balanced particle than the photon in nature, that particle would move even faster than the photon. If a particle whose physical construction or configuration is such that it has a more evenly balanced distribution of charge across the x axis than the photon, then that particle should, according to Super Relativity theory, travel faster than the speed of light. I believe that particle does exist and that it is the neutrino.

It has recently been announced that the neutrino has been found to be traveling faster than the speed of light. This is the most neutral and well balanced charged particle. Is it not an amazing coincidence, as Super Relativity theory predicts that this very particle would be the candidate for superluminal speed. Thus, the neutrino must have a physical construction in which the amount of negative to positive charge is more balanced and therefore it must be even more neutral than the photon. The more unbalanced the ratio of positive to negative charge a fundamental particle has, the heavier (more massive) and slower the particle’s maximum velocity will be.
Essentially you just said:

1) If there were a particle more balanced than the photon it would go faster than it
2) Neutrinos go faster than it
3) Therefore neutrinos are more balanced than photons

How is that a proof? Or even a prediction? Essentially you predicted that if there were a particle that fitted your description then it would move faster. You have not shown that the neutrino is more balanced. You have not quantified any of this.

Also you seem to be arguing that photons should have mass and in fact be heavier than neutrinos. If that were the case then QM's predictions would not work - it would really mess up several key elements of it.

20. I don't know where Shaula got this quote but here are some problems with it.

The more unbalanced the ratio of positive to negative charge a fundamental particle has, the heavier (more massive) and slower the particle’s maximum velocity will be.
Why, then, does it take more energy to accelerate a proton then it does an electron. They have the same amount of charge. What, according to your theory, is the maximum velocity of a proton or an electron?
How do you calculate it? Why doesn't a neutron which is also neutrally charged travel at or near the speed of light? Why does it take more energy to accelerate a neutron then it does a proton? The neutron having a "more balanced ratio of positive and negative energy" should be easier to accelerate and should, according to you, have a higher maximum velocity.

I can answer all of those questions just fine with modern theories and they match observation while this idea seems to fall on its face right away.

This is the problem. When someone doesn't even understand basic physics it is hard to listen to them on topics that supposedly overthrow the current models. It would be like a stranger coming off the street into a doctors office while the doctor is explaining to a patient why they needs a tumour removed to hear the stranger say "Go on a lemon detox diet...that will fix it" then in the next breath go "What's wrong with this guy again?"

21. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2009
Posts
132
Hello and good morning,
I appreciate all the comments. I would like to address both Wayne and Tensor in the same response since you both have problems concerning the lack of math in my theoretical ideas. If this forum will allow a discussion about my ideas without the math that would be great to be able to do. I hope that this will be allowed. I am a man that has a philosophy and a belief stemming from the philosophy that the Universe is deterministic and not random or haphazard. In particular to all of Tensors method of attack your approach of poking a hole in my ideas by the introduction of a discussion of magnetic moment calculation for the electron. This is the way I see it. You believe that my ideas on faster than light neutrinos are based on Super Relativity concept. That is true. Therefore the Super Relativity concept should be able to demonstrate a calculation for the magnetic moment of an electron. I understand and agree that ultimately if the theory is correct it should be able to do that. Now with that said. You know as well as I do that that calculation was done only with Quantum Mechanics I know of no one even attempting to do this with classical mathematics. No one is even trying to do it. If my theory is correct and I believe it is. That means that this should be calculable in a classical physics formulation. I believe that this is possible. Now I can't do that and you know that. That is a job for a physicist. The important point is that you are asking a question that is at the opposite end of the rainbow so to speak. I am at the other end of the rainbow. I am at the foundation dealing with metaphysical questions and ideas. Once these are properly formed a mathematical formulation can be created using the physical model. Now the best you are going to get in this forum from me is that I can not do the calculation because I do not know how. That does not necessarily mean my ideas are bad or incorrect. The best you are going to be able to achieve with this approach to poking a hole in my theory is a stalemate. You cannot disprove my ideas because I am not capable of solving for the magnetic moment of an electron. All you have proven is that not only I do not know how to do that but without Quantum Mechanics neither you nor nobody else does either. The important point is nobody is even trying to and I believe that is a big mistake. Just because QM was able to achieve this lofty goal and is able to get an answer that matches our observations does not necessarily mean that Quantum Mechanics is a complete theory beyond being a tool for using a statistical method for approximating reality, albeit even to a high degree of accuracy. Surely you must realize that there is virtually an infinite amount of formulations that can be devised to match an observation or event. The question is which formulation actually represents the truth. Which formulization represents the actual physical reality. I do not believe that the QM formation does.
Any formula that uses statistics as a method to describe physical reality is fundamentally flawed. Therefore I have answered your question about the magnetic moment calculation.

Let me ask you a simple question. Tensor, do you believe in God? I believe in God. This may not seem like a relevant question but it is. If you continue to pursue the QM vs my theory approach you should answer the question. Your answer will be very important to further discussions.

I think that some of the people on this website would like to know how and why a particle moves. Quantum mechanics can't answer that. I can.
I think that some of the people on this website viewing this thread would like to know the centrl cause of inertia. Quantum mechanics can't answer that but I can.
I also think that people would like to know the origin of mass. Quantum Mechanics has failed to answer that question for over 75 years. I can answer it.
I think that everyone would like to know what Space is. Quantum Mechanics can't answer that, but I can.

Aren't you the least bit curious about those items. Wouldn't you really like to know those answers. Thats what I want to talk about. For those of you just viewing speak up if you want to hear a discussion on those topics.

22. Originally Posted by mmfiore
To summarize the article, it reintroduces the concept of the aether and makes considerable arguments with quotes from Einstein, John Bell, and Maxwell to name a few.
This is very worrying. You rely on quotations from people rather than the work they did. For example, you follow a quotation from a speech Einstein made where he muses on the the thoughts of "old school" physicists, and follow this with the statement:
The paragraph above lays out evidence for the existence of a material substance
This is not evidence.

Apart from the fact that is not evidence, you are also taking it out of context. He was talking about what led an earlier generation of scientists to a logical conclusion at the time. In the same way that phlogistion[1] seemed like an eminently sensible explanation at the time.

And apart from the fact it is not evidence, and you are cherry-picking quotes out of context, this also an argument from authority - a well known fallacy. The reason this is a fallacy can be understood from the fact that Einstein's opinions were frequently wrong. I don't believe any of his science has yet been found to be wrong.

This does not bode well for your case.

[1] Why oh why won't any pseudoscientists try and revive the idea of phlogiston? What has phlogiston done to be ignored like this?

23. Originally Posted by mmfiore
HAny formula that uses statistics as a method to describe physical reality is fundamentally flawed.
You mean all those casinos can't possibly make money from gambling?

I also think that people would like to know the origin of mass.
That will be the Higgs mechanism (50 years old this year, I think).

As for the rest, most of it belongs under philosophy not physics.

24. Originally Posted by mmfiore
<snip>
You cannot disprove my ideas because I am not capable of solving for the magnetic moment of an electron. All you have proven is that not only I do not know how to do that but without Quantum Mechanics neither you nor nobody else does either.
mmfiore

You have it backwards. It is not up to anyone on this forum to disprove your idea, though they may if they wish to. It is up to you to prove your idea. You are free to attempt that without mathematics, but given the mathematical nature of even classic physics, that may be difficult.

Let me ask you a simple question. Tensor, do you believe in God? I believe in God. This may not seem like a relevant question but it is. If you continue to pursue the QM vs my theory approach you should answer the question. Your answer will be very important to further discussions.
That is a completely inappropriate question. If your idea depends upon a belief in God, it is probably not an appropriate discussion for BAUT. In any case, you may not ask that of another member.

May I also suggest (a suggestion, not a demand) that you make a little more use of paragraph breaks. The wall of text is very hard to read.

25. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by mmfiore
If my theory is correct and I believe it is. That means that this should be calculable in a classical physics formulation. I believe that this is possible. Now I can't do that and you know that. That is a job for a physicist.
Then leave it for a physicist. You are the one making a physics claim. You are the one that has to defend it.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
The important point is that you are asking a question that is at the opposite end of the rainbow so to speak. I am at the other end of the rainbow. I am at the foundation dealing with metaphysical questions and ideas. Once these are properly formed a mathematical formulation can be created using the physical model.
And until then, your idea isn't valid.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
You cannot disprove my ideas because I am not capable of solving for the magnetic moment of an electron. All you have proven is that not only I do not know how to do that but without Quantum Mechanics neither you nor nobody else does either.
Precisely. Quantum Field Theory can do this. Your idea can't. Your idea is thus wrong. Simple really.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
The important point is nobody is even trying to and I believe that is a big mistake. Just because QM was able to achieve this lofty goal and is able to get an answer that matches our observations does not necessarily mean that Quantum Mechanics is a complete theory beyond being a tool for using a statistical method for approximating reality, albeit even to a high degree of accuracy.
True, but the fact that it can make such an accurate prediction means that any theory that want to supplant it, such as yours, has to meet or better that lofty goal. If the new theory doesn't, the new theory is invalid. Your's doesn't match it or better it, your idea is wrong.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
Surely you must realize that there is virtually an infinite amount of formulations that can be devised to match an observation or event. The question is which formulation actually represents the truth. Which formulization represents the actual physical reality.
Well, which one should we pick? One that matches observations almost exactly, or one that can't even make a prediction about the observations?

Originally Posted by mmfiore
I do not believe that the QM formation does.
It doesn't matter what you believe, this is a science site. It's what you can show. So, show us where the QM formalization is wrong, exactly.

Originally Posted by mmfiore
Any formula that uses statistics as a method to describe physical reality is fundamentally flawed. Therefore I have answered your question about the magnetic moment calculation.
No, you haven't. Just making a statement isn't showing the flaw you claim exists. Why is it fundamentally flawed? What difference between physical experiment and theory (other than the OPERA neutrinos) do you base the statement on?

You missed answering the following question in my last post:

Then you have no way of knowing if Super Relativity is correct, do you?

However, I have made a change in that questions as follows:

While Quantum Field Theory can produce the required calculations and match observations. You have no way of knowing if Super Relativity can provide the correct calculations, do you?

26. Originally Posted by Tensor
I might say "useless", rather than "wrong". It doesn't appear to be science so can't really be demonstrated to be wrong, per se. Although, both judgements end up putting it in the same bin labelled FAIL.
Last edited by Strange; 2012-Jan-10 at 03:28 PM. Reason: clarification

27. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2009
Posts
132
Hello Stange,
Good I appreciate your comment. You have read the article or at least part of it. Thank you for getting the ball rolling and actually talking about the article. That is good. First of all I am not cherry picking quotes I placed the entire address from Einstein except for perhaps the first paragraph or so. So there is no cherry picking. The evidence I am refering to is in the paragraph. That paragraph is not just about old school physics. I even under lined the evidence for you so I am surprised that you did not pick up on it. Perhaps you did not finish reading the paragraph. You either did not comprehend what I was saying or you have chosen to mischaracterize what I was saying. Here is the evidence that I was referring to in that paragraph.

It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarisation that this medium, the aether, must be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in a solid.

This to me is clearly evidence that space is more than a abstraction it is a physical material substance. Also my theory has nothing to do with phlogiston, which is a hypothetical substance formerly thought to be a volatile constituent of all combustible substances, released as flame in combustion. That concept has nothing to do with what I am talking about. In light of my corrections to your commentary I think that your most appreciated comments have been refuted.

28. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2009
Posts
132
Hello Swift,

Thank you for your help. I appreciate you giving me the leeway to not have to use mathematics to make my case.

I also would like to respond to your additional moderating comment. I meant no disrespect in asking the question about God. I am laying the ground work for an argument having to do with quantum mechanics. It would be helpful if I may have the ability or permission to ask questions from time to time. I am asking them so that I can defend my arguments in this debate. I believe that the question of God may be offensive to some. I guess that is why you think it is an inappropriate question.

To me the foundations of all things including and especially our physical reality comes from the source, which is God. This is purely a philosophical point of view. It will be hard to defend my ideas without going into this area. If I cannot ask the question may I speak about it from my point of view and then represent the opposing point of view as well. I just do not want to put words into other peoples mouths. At any rate I do not mean to offend anyone. I wonder how we have, in our society come to the point where discussing the creator has become an taboo.

I will try to make paragraph breaks thanks for the suggestion.

29. Originally Posted by mmfiore
I wonder how we have, in our society come to the point where discussing the creator has become an taboo. .
I don't think it is remotely taboo, and is discussed all over the internet. It just happens to be against the rules of this forum, because it is irrelevant to the science discussed here.

30. Originally Posted by mmfiore
The evidence I am refering to is in the paragraph.
That is not evidence. Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by the word "evidence" because it does not appear to be the same as I understand it to mean.

Perhaps you come from an arts or humanities background and so you consider quoting a part of a speech to be "evidence". In support of a scientific theory, I would expect measurements, observations, results from an experiment, predicted results, statistical analysis, error bars, etc.

That paragraph is not just about old school physics. ... Perhaps you did not finish reading the paragraph. ...
It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarisation that this medium, the aether, must be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in a solid.
And perhaps you missed the "in the first half of the nineteenth century" and the use of the past tense in that quote. He was clearly describing what people thought the aether must be like before it was realised that there was no such thing.

Furthermore, even if "Einstein tried to revive aether theory" as you claim (and I can't be bothered to look up the paper in question) it is irrelevant because he failed. As he failed to overthrow quantum theory. You can't just assume something is true because a great mind shares your opinion.

Edit: I just checked. You say, "Einstein tried to revive aether theory in his famous paper Aether and the Theory of Relativity published on May 5th, 1920". However, I can find no such paper. Was this not just a speech? As such it does not count as scientific evidence. If there was a published paper, perhaps you could provide a link to it.

This to me is clearly evidence that space is more than a abstraction it is a physical material substance.
Not at all. It is evidence of changing attitudes and understanding that could used in a thesis on the history of science. It is not evidence of the nature of space, the existence of the aether or any other aspect of physics. It is just one man's mistaken opinion. Even if that man is Einstein.

Also my theory has nothing to do with phlogiston, which is a hypothetical substance formerly thought to be a volatile constituent of all combustible substances, released as flame in combustion.
I know that. But how is aether different from phlogiston? They were both once thought to be necessary; with more data they were both shown (a) to be unnecessary and (b) to require unphysical properties. Which is why I don't understand why so many pseudoscientists love aether but no one wants poor old phlogiston. Or caloric. Sad.
Last edited by Strange; 2012-Jan-10 at 05:41 PM.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•