Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 68

Thread: Faster Than Light Neutrino Explanation

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,168
    I don't know where Shaula got this quote but here are some problems with it.
    From the website linked.

  2. #32
    Hi perikles,
    Thank you for your comment. Yes, I see your point as coming from the scientific perspective. God is a difficult concept to prove so why should He be a part of a scientific discussion. Ah, but there is a problem. Even though we cannot prove something exists. As I have pointed out in my article: He further stated that the aether was wrongly rejected on purely philosophical grounds: "what is unobservable does not exist"
    God is unobservable but I believe that he exists and if he does exist then he is most likely responsible for creating our reality. Right now on this planet there are 6 billion people. Of that population almost the entire group believe in some sort of Diety. Those people can't all be wrong. There is still a chance that even though we cannot observe or sense God directly he still exists. Therefore he should not be excluded from this conversation. As Einstein said "we must try and read the mind of God." He was a believer. I do not mean to preach in a religious sense. I mean to say that Intelligent design is the most logical, sensible explanation for our Universe. Therefore, if that is true then the Universe cannot be random and non-deterministic, QM is therefore incomplete. Ultimately this article I have written and Super Relativity answers the question of "What is space?

  3. #33
    Hello Strange,

    Excellent response. I don't know if the moderator will allow this but I am going to ask a question of you and then I am going to answer the question for you. I am doing this because I think that I may not be allowed to ask questions. I hope that I am wrong about that but to be on the safe side.

    I ask you do you believe that space is a mere abstraction or an empty container. I believe that your answer to that will be yes. If you do believe that then I can respond by saying that nothing could be further from the truth. As you said
    "It is just one man's mistaken opinion. Even if that man is Einstein."
    Einstein was not mistaken and I can prove it to you. If space is as you believe a void an empty container it means that it is equivalent to nothing. To be clear then nothing means - One that has no substance, something that has no quantitative value; zero, something that has no existence. So tell me this. How can such a thing, a thing that does not exist contain objects that do exist? How can objects that exist in reality reside in something that does not exist? How can I place a something into a nothing?

    I’ll answer that for you as well. It can’t be done. How can a non existing object have properties such as permittivity and permeability? These are properties of space that have non-zero values if space was not a material substance the values for these properties would be zero. Einstein was not wrong but you are. That my friend is evidence. You may not want to accept it but that is the common sense truth. Checkmate.
    Thank you for your comments they are very much appreciated.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    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.
    I'd go with both. To quote from his Super Reativity page:

    "All types of physical phenomena, including he so-called paradoxes, including such as the EPR paradox and Wave Particle duality, are explained using the axioms of Super Relativity. The axioms are based on the principles set forth from classical physical theory with the additional ones developed by Albert Einstein(Special and General Relativity), and Hendrick(sic) Anton(sic) Lorentz (Lorentz Transformations)."

    Since we know that several different observations depend on Quantum Effects, his claim is that Super Relativity is based on Classical Physics. Without showing how his idea can account for those observations, I think wrong has to be in there somewhere. Not to mention he seems to have missed that Lorentz's version of the transformations requires an absolute rest frame or failing that, an absolute time. But if he uses that, it is in complete complete contradiction to Special Relativity. Unless, of course, he is using Poincaré's 1906 redo of Lorentz's 1904 theory, which is mathematically equivalent to SR. So, either way you look at it, there are science claims in the paper that can be falsified.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    "All types of physical phenomena, including he so-called paradoxes, including such as the EPR paradox and Wave Particle duality, are explained using the axioms of Super Relativity. The axioms are based on the principles set forth from classical physical theory with the additional ones developed by Albert Einstein(Special and General Relativity), and Hendrick(sic) Anton(sic) Lorentz (Lorentz Transformations)."
    mmfiore, can you list for us, in this thread, the axioms of Super Relativity?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,524
    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    I’ll answer that for you as well.
    Thank you. Most kind.

    If space is as you believe a void an empty container it means that it is equivalent to nothing. To be clear then nothing means - One that has no substance, something that has no quantitative value; zero, something that has no existence. So tell me this. How can such a thing, a thing that does not exist contain objects that do exist? How can objects that exist in reality reside in something that does not exist? How can I place a something into a nothing?
    That kind of word play might be useful in a debating society but if you have no evidence to present then I guess there is nothing to discuss.

    You may not want to accept it but that is the common sense truth.
    Another sure sign of the psuedoscientist is the appeal to "common sense".

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    38,560
    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    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.
    Perikles had it right, but I'll make it official.

    It has little to nothing to do with society at large. Our rules, with very few exceptions, forbid discussion of religion or politics, and Quantum Mechanics is not one of our exceptions (rules - particularly see rule 12). The rule is mostly in place because such discussions always turn nasty or personal and we don't wish those kinds of discussions.

    We also have a rule against discussing moderation in thread. If you have further thoughts, comments, or questions about moderation, you may Report the post in question (the black triangle with the ! in he lower left corner of the post), you may PM a moderator or several, or you may start a thread about it in Feedback.

    Lastly, you may ask questions of other members, but in ATM they are under no obligation to answer them. And such questions are usually limited to clarifying something they are saying or asking you.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,361
    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    I mean to say that Intelligent design is the most logical, sensible explanation for our Universe.
    Just because something seems logical and sensible to you does not make it scientific fact.

    Therefore, if that is true then the Universe cannot be random and non-deterministic, QM is therefore incomplete.
    But you're not saying if that is true; you're really saying since that is true in forming your conclusion that the Universe cannot be random and non-deterministic, QM is therefore incomplete. That leap of logic has no place on a board that deals in scientific evidence as a basis for determining fact. As has already been noted, you really should take your ideas to a philosophy or religion board or learn the science required to back up your ideas before presenting them here.
    "There are powers in this universe beyond anything you know. There is much you have to learn. Go to your homes. Go and give thought to the mysteries of the universe. I will leave you now, in peace." --Galaxy Being

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    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.
    No one tries to use peanut butter to bind bricks together for a house either. Would you let a some guy, off the street, build a house for you using peanut butter instead of cement? Because you are that peanut butter guy in here. You come offering an alternative to cement but the only support you have shown us is "Trust me! Peanut butter works better then cement. Think how it sticks to the roof of your mouth and you know how wet the inside of your mouth is!"

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    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.
    A belief or disbelief in any "God(s)" is not applicable here. You are evading the issue. Not only are you refusing to bring any maths, the language of physics, to a physics discussion but you are unwilling, as of yet, to bring even any small part of what ever "model" you think you have to the thread to discuss.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    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.
    Do you think this might be more that you don't understand why particles move and thus you project your ignorance onto others? Or are you using some metaphysical reasoning like "Why did the chicken cross the road?"

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    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.
    What? Do you mean why something once set in motion will stay in motion? It is because you have to introduce energy to slow it down. You've introduced energy into the system. Do you want it to go no where and have the system stop? I'm not getting what your question is. This is probably because I'm seeing you having problems with basic physics and or trying to bring "meaning" into systems that do not need "meaning" A rock thrown through space doesn't have any self purpose of why it is travelling a geodesic through space.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    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.
    Well you seem to not want to talk about it here. You keep making claims you can answer everything. But without maths....so your answers would not be testable and then just as good as my IPWUs.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    I think that everyone would like to know what Space is. Quantum Mechanics can't answer that, but I can.
    BLAH BLAH BLAH. Bring a claim here that we can test. You're talking metaphysical garbage and hand waving.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    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.
    As of yet all you have done is try to drive your Google rating up and a lot of self-aggrandizing. Please stop and bring just one part of your "model" here to discuss it. Because as of right now all you are doing is a lot of avoiding questions and trying to make it seem unfair that we are trying to hold your "scientific claims" and I use that term VERY lightly ...no not lightly sarcastically... up to scientific standards.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    From the website linked.
    Yes, I figured that but I notice mmfiore has avoided my questions why the proton takes more energy to accelerate then the electron and why the neutron actually takes more energy to accelerate then the proton which, according to his "model" shouldn't be the case.

    I for one refuse to drive up his/her Google rating until he/she brings something to this thread that isn't a bunch of self-aggrandizin hand waving.

    So mmfiore why does the proton take more energy to accelerate then the electron? Why does the neutron, while being electrically neutral, take even more energy to accelerate then the proton? Please via the rules of the forums tell me how your model, which doesn't match observation, explain that?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    Hi perikles,
    Thank you for your comment. Yes, I see your point as coming from the scientific perspective. God is a difficult concept to prove so why should He be a part of a scientific discussion. Ah, but there is a problem. Even though we cannot prove something exists. As I have pointed out in my article: He further stated that the aether was wrongly rejected on purely philosophical grounds: "what is unobservable does not exist"
    God is unobservable but I believe that he exists and if he does exist then he is most likely responsible for creating our reality. Right now on this planet there are 6 billion people. Of that population almost the entire group believe in some sort of Diety. Those people can't all be wrong. There is still a chance that even though we cannot observe or sense God directly he still exists. Therefore he should not be excluded from this conversation. As Einstein said "we must try and read the mind of God." He was a believer. I do not mean to preach in a religious sense. I mean to say that Intelligent design is the most logical, sensible explanation for our Universe. Therefore, if that is true then the Universe cannot be random and non-deterministic, QM is therefore incomplete. Ultimately this article I have written and Super Relativity answers the question of "What is space?
    You get this wrong on so many levels but I'll point out that you are grossly mistaken about Einstein's religious beliefs and it doesn't matter how many people believe in something it doesn't make them right. So yes, all the people that believe in a "God" or "Gods" could be wrong just like all those people that don't believe in any "God" or "Gods" could be wrong. So not only do you push lies about stuff like Einstein's religious beliefs and bad science about "More neutrally charged" you now clearly bring bad logic and philosophy to the table. Please stop with the religious bent as it is just a over blown, and very bad, argument from authority.

    Please start to answer actual questions that have been asked. I've asked questions that don't even require you to do maths at this point.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    Hello Strange,

    Excellent response. I don't know if the moderator will allow this but I am going to ask a question of you and then I am going to answer the question for you. I am doing this because I think that I may not be allowed to ask questions. I hope that I am wrong about that but to be on the safe side.

    I ask you do you believe that space is a mere abstraction or an empty container. I believe that your answer to that will be yes. If you do believe that then I can respond by saying that nothing could be further from the truth. As you said

    Einstein was not mistaken and I can prove it to you. If space is as you believe a void an empty container it means that it is equivalent to nothing. To be clear then nothing means - One that has no substance, something that has no quantitative value; zero, something that has no existence. So tell me this. How can such a thing, a thing that does not exist contain objects that do exist? How can objects that exist in reality reside in something that does not exist? How can I place a something into a nothing?

    I’ll answer that for you as well. It can’t be done. How can a non existing object have properties such as permittivity and permeability? These are properties of space that have non-zero values if space was not a material substance the values for these properties would be zero. Einstein was not wrong but you are. That my friend is evidence. You may not want to accept it but that is the common sense truth. Checkmate.
    Thank you for your comments they are very much appreciated.
    Space is filled with fields, is that good enough for you? Your ignorance is really wearing thin. You are creating a straw man. How about instead of asking questions of others you start answering questions put to you?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,168
    I'd quite like an answer to this question too:
    In the absence of the faster than light neutrino experiment can you show any evidence, reasoning or derivations that make a neutrino "more neutral" than a photon?

    Wayne:
    I will add that the page does say that protons and neutrons are not subject to the rule you are questioning because they are composite particles. Swap in Top/bottom quark for proton and Z boson for neutron and the question works better. Although IIRC Z bosons are 'discussed' and in another superb bit of circular reasoning explained as composite. The logic is:
    1) More neutral things are lighter unless they are composite
    2) Z bosons go against this rule
    3) Z bosons must therefore be composite

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    I will add that the page does say that protons and neutrons are not subject to the rule you are questioning because they are composite particles. Swap in Top/bottom quark for proton and Z boson for neutron and the question works better. Although IIRC Z bosons are 'discussed' and in another superb bit of circular reasoning explained as composite. The logic is:
    1) More neutral things are lighter unless they are composite
    2) Z bosons go against this rule
    3) Z bosons must therefore be composite
    Which is why the whole, "I can't do the math" is a cop out. I can put together a string of words that make sense, without the math. But, if you try to actually use some math, with the observed masses, the circular reasoning you pointed out, falls apart. But if the math is claimed as can't be done, then circular reasoning is just fine and dandy, because you'll never be able to show the reasoning wrong, quantitatively. Although, after doing a quick skim of the pages, there is enough wrong, on those pages, to keep someone busy for weeks in pointing out the errors, based on observations.

  15. #45
    Hello Stutefish,

    Thank you for your very good comment. The Axioms or principles of Super Relativity can be summed up in a few paragraphs.

    Foundational Principles

    1. Space is all there is. It is an elastic solid. Space provides the topology or geometry for our overall reality. It is the medium and the material substance that provides the place in which the 3 primary fields are manifested. It should be noted that Einstein's field equations properly describe this space-time continuum. They describe the topology properly where the gravitational field is concerned.

    2. All particles. All matter and energy are geometric configurations of space. They are not separate from space they are within it. They are part of it. These geometries are composed of charge.

    3. There are 3 primary forces or fields. In Super Relativity forces stem from the 3 primary fields. These fields cause action at a distance. The fields are 3 different forms of spatial deformation in the topology of space or the aether.

    4. The Electrostatic Field - The most important field is the electrostatic field (the Coulomb force). This field type is a spatial inversion, a twist in the aether. This idea comes primarily from Maxwell. Many others have also considered this as the origin of the electrostatic field. All of the fields extend through space in a continuous way declining in strength in a way inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of the physical quantity be it a electrostatic, magnetic or gravitational quantity. The electrostatic field deformation causes the aether to be stretched when it is twisted. As you will soon see this leads to all particle motion.

    5. The Magnetic Field – This field is caused by the motion of the electrostatic charge. When the charge moves within the aether there is a torsional reaction to the moving spatial inversion. It also causes space to stretch. In other words space turns or rotates a little as the charge moves within the aether. This combinational process is origin of the electromagnetic field. This is also properly defined mathematically by Maxwell’s equations.

    6. The Gravitational Field – This field is a spatial contraction. The topological field description is defined properly by Einstein’s field equations for Gravity. The final part of this definition comes from Super Relativity. It will be listed below.

    7. The Origin of Particle Motion - Super Relativity states that charged objects are spatial inversions. When the charge is distributed across an x axis of any particle in an uneven fashion this causes a charge asymmetry, this irregularity of charge distribution causes an asymmetry of spatial density. The uneven distribution of spatial density along the x axis causes the perpetual motion of the particle. The direction of motion is in the direction toward the portion of the particle with the lesser spatial density and larger charge density. So the particle geometry forms a self sustaining pressure wave. This pressure wave is called the Slip Wave.

    8. Central Cause of Gravity – In Super Relativity Theory Unification to gravity is caused by motion through the aether or as Einstein would call it space-time continuum. Einstein noticed that acceleration was equivalent to gravity. This was the key to unlocking the final link as to the central cause of the gravitational field. Follow this simple line of reasoning. Electrostatic charge causes motion , the motion of the electrostatic charge causes magnetism. Therefore to link gravity to the other two forces the answer must have to do with the motion of electromagnetic field.

    A quote from Einstein,
    “Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of Matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational Aether and electromagnetic field, or as they might also be called space and Matter.”
    Einstein’s final conclusion was that matter is a condensate of electromagnetism. I simply agreed with this and took it to the next step.

    Here comes the good part.

    The only unification we need is that of electromagnetism to gravity. According to Super Relativity there are three states of material existence in our physical reality.

    1. The unconfigured aether, which is underlying material, it is mediator of the three primary field deformations - electrostatic, magnetic, and gravitational, ie. the primary forces of nature.
    2. Energy particles - These are massless balanced neutral charges traveling in a linear fashion.
    3. Matter particles - Unbalanced charges that generate a gravitational field as they move.

    Quite simply the origin of the gravitational field comes from the motion of unbalanced charges moving in an accelerated motion through the aether. The greater the unbalance of charge a particle possesses the lower the maximum velocity will be and the greater its mass. The key to solving the problem was acceleration of unbalanced charge through the aether. This type of motion creates a contraction of space surrounding the particle in motion. This is Super Relativity’s extension to Einstein’s Relativity. It is the missing link.

    There is an interesting exception or deviation to the above stated rule. This exception is what messed everything up back in 1905. When a particle is composed of a balanced charge composition with equal amounts of positive and negative charge the particle does not accelerate as it travels through space. It travels in a straight line with no acceleration. Without the acceleration there is little to no contraction surrounding the particle. If there is no contraction the particle generates no mass. Hence the constancy of the speed of light and the failure to detect the aether wind in the Michelson Morley experiment. The way to detect motion through space can only be achieved by using the accelerated motion of unbalanced charges.

    Inertia Definition - The detection of absolute space is revealed by inertia. Whenever a massive object is in the act of accelerating through the aether, space’s reaction to this acceleration is the act of contraction about the accelerating object. This act of contraction causes the resistance to movement which we feel as inertia.
    These are the primary principles of Super Relativity.

  16. #46
    Hello Strange,

    Thank you again for your comments. I would like to take a moment to thank everyone who has taken the time to comment and view this thread. It has meant a lot to me. I live in a place where there is no one interested in such matters as we are discussing here. I have no one I can talk to so thanks to the internet and this website I have found an outlet to discuss these things that I am interested in. Even the negative comments are much appreciated.

    That kind of word play might be useful in a debating society but if you have no evidence to present then I guess there is nothing to discuss.
    Ahh, how nice, you know I am right but you choose to call it word play. I am curious what do you consider the rest of us society people as? Are we a bunch of dumb non-scientists? Are we lowly creatures incapable of thought or understanding? Prove me wrong then. Demonstrate for all of us how a real physical object can reside within nothing. This is not word play. This simply reveals for all to see that scientists many times just don't know what they are talking about. It is what your team believes. There are loads of the inconsistencies in modern day scientific beliefs and Quantum Mechanics. You better get used to the idea because more is going to becoming forthwith.

    What we need today is people willing to question things. We seem to have lost that ability somewhat.

    So I guess your statement above says you surrender.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    You missed answering the following question in my last post:

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    I do not believe that the QM formation does.
    T1 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    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.
    T2 No, you haven't. Just making a statement isn't showing the flaw you claim exists. Why is it fundamentally flawed? How is it fundamentally flawed? n jmWhat difference between physical experiment and theory (other than the OPERA neutrinos) do you base the statement on?

    T3 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?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    The Axioms or principles of Super Relativity can be summed up in a few paragraphs.
    Foundational Principles

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    1. Space is all there is. It is an elastic solid.
    T4 What is the compressibility of space?

    T5 What is the permeability of space?

    T6 What is the permitivity of space?

    T7 What is the tensile strength of space?

    T8 What is the elasticity of space?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    Space provides the topology or geometry for our overall reality. It is the medium and the material substance that provides the place in which the 3 primary fields are manifested. It should be noted that Einstein's field equations properly describe this space-time continuum. They describe the topology properly where the gravitational field is concerned.
    T9 There are no examples of the Einstein Field Equations being applied to elastic-solid materials. Since you claim you have no math ability, how have you verified that the Einstein Field Equations are compatible with elastic-solids, as you claim?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    2. All particles. All matter and energy are geometric configurations of space.
    T10 Define exactly what you mean by geometric configuration of space.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    They are not separate from space they are within it. They are part of it. These geometries are composed of charge.
    T11 What type of charge is what geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    3. There are 3 primary forces or fields. In Super Relativity forces stem from the 3 primary fields.
    T12 Since you are including gravity, how does Super Relativity explain the observation of FOUR forces?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    4. The Electrostatic Field - The most important field is the electrostatic field (the Coulomb force). This field type is a spatial inversion, a twist in the aether.
    T13 Define exactly what a spatial inversion is. How much of a twist.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    5. The Magnetic Field – When the charge moves within the aether there is a torsional reaction to the moving spatial inversion.
    T14 Define exactly what a torsional reaction is.

    15 How large of a reaction occurs?

    T16 How is the value of the reaction determined?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    It also causes space to stretch. In other words space turns or rotates a little as the charge moves within the aether.
    T17 How much does space turn, rotate, or stretch?

    T18 How is the amount of turn, rotation, or stretch determined?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    7. The Origin of Particle Motion - Super Relativity states that charged objects are spatial inversions. When the charge is distributed across an x axis of any particle in an uneven fashion this causes a charge asymmetry, this irregularity of charge distribution causes an asymmetry of spatial density. The uneven distribution of spatial density along the x axis causes the perpetual motion of the particle.The direction of motion is in the direction toward the portion of the particle with the lesser spatial density and larger charge density. So the particle geometry forms a self sustaining pressure wave. This pressure wave is called the Slip Wave.
    T19 Is the speed of the particle dependent on the size of the charge asymmetry? And if so, can you provide us with the exact relationship between the charge size and speed? In other words, what value of charge, equal what speed?

    And, of course, there is this:

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    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.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    So I guess your statement above says you surrender.
    What he is saying is you have no quantitative evidence and if you can't provide numerical predictions, you're not doing science. Since this is a science board, were not discussing science. His statement is no more a surrender than not wanting to answer math questions is a surrender.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,524
    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    Ahh, how nice, you know I am right
    I know no such thing. Until you are able to bring some evidence to show you may be right. So far everything suggests you are wrong.

    Demonstrate for all of us how a real physical object can reside within nothing. This is not word play.
    It may not be word play, but it ain't physics. I see this sort of "how can nothing which is 'no thing' be something; how can something come from nothing; all is one; and one for all" a lot. Maybe it means something to those who study philosophy, I wouldn't know. to me it is just words strung together with the appearance of meaning.

    I'm sure there are interesting discussions to be had about whether space is a "thing" or not; after all it has measurable properties and our best theory describes it terms of geometry. But any such debate derives from our knowledge of physics; it does not define it. It is not a discussion I have any great interest in.

    There are loads of the inconsistencies in modern day scientific beliefs and Quantum Mechanics.
    You haven't demonstrated your knowledge of any such inconsistencies. All you have shown is that you don't understand the currently accepted theories to any great depth.

    What we need today is people willing to question things.
    I know that people who invent their own ad-hoc pseudo-scientific theories don't believe it, but this is exactly what scientists do all the time. That is how we ended up with the theories we have at the moment. I'm sure some of them will be modified in future but that will be on the basis of real evidence not because someone "believes" some alternative.

    So I guess your statement above says you surrender.
    Another mistaken belief on your part.

  20. #50
    Hello Tensor,

    Before I reply to your last comments I would like to make a couple of observations. Just as a friendly note. I just noticed that you are from Sarasota, Florida. We are practically neighbors. I am in…, God help me, Polk County, Florida. I love Sarasota. Someday I would like to retire there. I also noticed that you seem to be on this site all the time. Do you work for Bautforum? I work two jobs and so I am coming on at different times and you always seem to be here. Just some friendly observations.

    Now onto the very serious tones that are your comments. I am referring to the large full of question reply to my comments on Super Relativity Principles. I sense from you and “Strange” that you have a great deal of angst about my theory or perhaps it’s me you have a problem with. I think in your cases that it has much more to do with it feels wrong to you rather than it is wrong. I sense this mainly because in just about every reply you use words like “it’s wrong” It’s not true “It’s incorrect” It’s flawed” it’s to the point of being excessive. It is kind of humorous almost if you look at it from afar.

    This pretty much demonstrates your opinion

    “It doesn't matter what you believe, this is a science site.“
    Basically you are pounding the same message over and over. Because there is no math in my discussions and that I am not adhering to a scientific method I must be wrong. Those are some very strong charges. First let’s examine your premise that I am copping out because there is no math. I have been very upfront about who I am and what I am about. I freely admit I am not a scientist. I am a man with some ideas that I have compiled into a philosophical Theory and a Mechanical Model. That seems to give you great distress. I do not mean to distress you. I came to this website to talk about these ideas because I think they are good ideas and they are important to be considered. I informed you as well as the moderator that I have no math to support them. The moderator gave me the okay to continue. I think that the purpose of this site is to invite people to come and talk about things in science that they are interested in. Now I don’t think there is a rule stating that non-scientists cannot put forth ideas for conversation. Especially in the “Against The Mainstream” category. If I were violating the rules they would stop the conversation. This site is very well moderated and that is why I chose this site to introduce my ideas. The people that moderate here are fair and professional.

    This is the way I see it. Since the discussion is allowed to continue I think that I have the permission to talk about my ideas and to answer questions posed to me to the best of my ability. That’s my responsibility on this website. I do not have to adhere to your standard. I have to adhere to the standards of this website. That is what I intend to do until my 30 days are up. I am very grateful for the opportunity that the Internet and this website have provided me. So despite your objections I am going to continue to answer and discuss these ideas as long as I am allowed to do so.

    You seem to feel that since I am talking about science on a science website that I should have to strictly adhere to the scientific method or shut up. Here is a bit of news flash. I am not a scientist or a pseudo-scientist as Strange likes to call me. I love science, I am interested in Science and I have spent the last 20 years studying this problem because it is interesting and I want to help. So despite your frustration I am going to continue discussing the topic for as long as I can and answer all of the questions put to me to the best of my abilities, as limited as those abilities may in fact be.

    I have tried to submit my ideas to places that take papers like magazines and Arxiv they will not accept my papers. I believe that is exactly the right thing to do. My papers do not meet the standards required.

    Here’s the real problem there is a possibility that someone out there without the proper credentials or back ground may stumble upon something profound and never be heard because no one would listen and because there was nowhere, where they were allowed to speak. Here at least I am allowed to have a say. I may be completely wrong or I may be right. The only way to know for sure is to create a mathematical formulization that coincides with my model and then see it proven by test and observation. I agree with you on that point. In order to achieve this lofty goal and since I was not blessed with the gift for mathematics is to look for help. I do this by exposing my ideas to people who might believe that I am on to something and so maybe willing do the work if they so choose. I risk being scoffed at and ridiculed. That comes with the territory and I have no problem with that. You may not think what I am doing is right. It is the only choice I have. It is not unethical and it is not immoral it is logical and sensible considering my situation.

    Twenty years ago I assigned myself this problem and to answer this question. Why have the best minds in the world including Einstein not been able to discover the Unified Field Theory. I made 2 assumptions after I took on this task.

    1. Mankind is smart enough to comprehend the Universe and solve this problem. It is not out of our reach.
    2. We are not solving the problem because we are looking in the wrong place. In other words we are chasing a red herring and therefore we are trying to prove something that is not true. In this way we will be stuck until we realize we are on the wrong path.
    This is when I began searching for the error in history that created a paradigm shift which catapulted us into the wrong direction. I believe I found the error and I am trying to rectify the situation.

    So with all of that being said I will do my best to communicate my ideas to the best of my ability. You and some others may not like it but that is my prerogative and my duty. I have a great passion for this problem but I strive not to be egotistically attached to it. I just simply do the best I can do.

    I know I won’t be able to answer many of your questions because they either require math skills or are outside of my expertise. I will do the best I can. I will not be silenced.

    “It doesn't matter what you believe, this is a science site.”

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    38,560
    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    I informed you as well as the moderator that I have no math to support them. The moderator gave me the okay to continue. I think that the purpose of this site is to invite people to come and talk about things in science that they are interested in.
    Actually, I said the following:
    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.
    That means you are not required by the rules of this board to use math to provide proof or evidence of your idea. But it does not relieve you from the burden to provide evidence of some form, mathematical or otherwise. And your beliefs or speculations are not proof.

    And while the general purpose of this site is for people to come and talk about things in science that interest them, it is not the purpose of ATM. Proponents of ATM ideas are held to a standard requiring them to prove their ideas. It is not for unfounded speculation of non-mainstream ideas. There is no part of BAUT in which we allow that - that is just the way it is here.
    I will not be silenced.
    You may be on BAUT. By participating here, you agree to our rules. If those don't work for you, it is a big Internet and I wish you well with promoting or speculating on your idea.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,524
    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    I sense from you and “Strange” that you have a great deal of angst about my theory or perhaps it’s me you have a problem with.
    No "angst" with either your theory or you. I have a vague hope that you might learn how science works (it is based on objective, measurable facts and mathematics rather than abstract "I think" ideas) and learn to think critically about your theory and the support it has. Based on previous posters presenting their ideas in the ATM forum, I actually don't expect to get very far. People are wedded to their ideas and don't want to imagine they may be either wrong or just not scientific.

    I think in your cases that it has much more to do with it feels wrong to you rather than it is wrong.
    The thing about science, unlike most other human endeavours, is there are right and wrong answers. Feelings don't come into it. Einstein never liked quantum theory (despite getting his Nobel for ground-breaking work in the field). That doesn't make it wrong though.

    This pretty much demonstrates your opinion
    “It doesn't matter what you believe, this is a science site.“
    I'm afraid that is just the way science is. It really doesn't matter what you believe, it is about what the evidence tells you.

    Basically you are pounding the same message over and over.
    Because you don't "get it".

    Because there is no math in my discussions and that I am not adhering to a scientific method I must be wrong.
    Pretty much, yep.

    I have seen cases where someone with almost no understanding of mainstream science comes along and says "is it possible that ... " and they just happen to have hit on something very close to the standard (mainstream) explanation. That may be just by chance, or based on whatever limited understanding they have accumulated, but either way it is impressive. However, they couldn't provide evidence that their idea is correct and couldn't take it any further. It is just a lucky hit (like a stopped clock being right twice a day). And 99% of the time people ask a question like that, they have got completely the wrong end of the stick.

    So your idea is not necessarily wrong just because you are not a scientist, but it does not bode well. The fact that it contradicts observation, cannot make testable predictions, has no mathematical formalism and is based on what you think is right rather than evidence, all tend to confirm the idea it is both useless and wrong. Sorry, but that is just the way science works. It doesn't care about how much you (or I) like your theory.

    I am a man with some ideas that I have compiled into a philosophical Theory and a Mechanical Model.
    And that may be the problem. Perhaps you need to discuss these ideas on a philosophy forum. They are not scientific but I get the impression that philosophers can make up any old stuff to argue about. (I'm sure that is unfair to philosophy but ...)

    That seems to give you great distress. I do not mean to distress you.
    I'm not distressed and I doubt Tensor is either. A little sigh of "here we go again" is as bad as it gets

    I came to this website to talk about these ideas because I think they are good ideas and they are important to be considered.
    But they are not scientific ideas, and that is mainly why you are getting a negative reaction.

    Non-scientists who have only read popular books and magazine articles about science often seem to think that scientists just "make stuff up"; as if Einstein said "hey, imagine space was kinda curved" and every went "cooool. and what if you could have holes in it like 'black' holes", "wow", etc.

    That is just isn't how it works. The math in general relativity is complicated for a reason. It is not just because some mathematicians got hold of it and decided to add some "twiddly bits"; it is required to be that way to match observations, measurements and experiments.

    I think that the purpose of this site is to invite people to come and talk about things in science that they are interested in.
    If you just wanted to discuss an idea - and were willing to accept it when told that it contradicts out current best theories - then you could do that in any of the relevant areas of the forum. It is when you say "this is my theory and it is right and mainstream science is wrong" that you will be challenged; in the same way that any scientist would be challenged if he presented a new theory. Actually a lot more gently than a real scientist would be treated (because the moderators make sure we stay nice, and because we know you don't have a mathematical background).

    Now I don’t think there is a rule stating that non-scientists cannot put forth ideas for conversation.
    You, and non-scientists in general, can discuss ideas. That is very different from saying "current science is wrong, I am right".

    Imagine going to your motor mechanic and saying, "there is a problem with the frobulator"; he being an expert in automobiles says, "there is no such thing". You insist that he has been misled by all those years of conventional training on how engines work. You on the other hand are open minded and have spent some time thinking about it; you are sure there is a frobulator and it is broken. Would you expect him to take your word if you can't take the thing apart and say, "see that is the frobulator". To which you reply, "but I can't take it apart, I am not a mechanic and don't have the tools. But you should take my word for it because I have given a lot of thought to it and it seems very logical".

    I had better stop there before I get infracted for going off topic, metadiscussion, and a dozen other violations

    The people that moderate here are fair and professional.
    They are saints!

    You seem to feel that since I am talking about science on a science website that I should have to strictly adhere to the scientific method or shut up.
    I don't think you should shut up. But I would like you to understand why the scientific method is important.

    I have tried to submit my ideas to places that take papers like magazines and Arxiv they will not accept my papers. I believe that is exactly the right thing to do. My papers do not meet the standards required.
    I am glad you understand that. We see an awful lot of people who accuse the mainstream journals (and science in general) of being a closed shop, a conspiracy, closed-minded, etc. It is a good sign that you realise a more rigorous treatment would be needed in a published paper. The thing is, informally, we expect people presenting a supposed scientific idea here, to meet similar standards of evidence.

    Anyway. Enough. Carry on trying to explain and convince....

    p.s. if you want to discuss these topics in more detail you might want to start a new thread in "Feedback" or somewhere so we don't both get into trouble!

  23. #53
    In my paper "Theory of Faster Than Light Neutrinos", available at http://transpower.wordpress.com, I apply the Reciprocal System of theory to the task. The neutrinos involved in the experiment are "cosmic", meaning that they are the inverse of normal material neutrinos. They "see" our matter as very diffuse cosmic matter and so there is inverse refraction, meaning that, from our perspective their speed is slightly increased. The ratio of my calculation to the observed value from CERN is .999999794. Now I realize that Tensor would like the answer to agree to 10 decimal places, but please understand there is experimental error to consider. (v_nu_calc-c) / c = .00002472 which compares with the experimental CERN value .0000248 +/- .0000028 (statistical error) +/- .0000030 (systematic error). The Reciprocal System accepts the Lorentz transformations of the Special Theory of Relativity, and all I had to do was to apply them, in an inverse fashion, to the cosmic sector.
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-Jan-12 at 01:37 AM. Reason: Kill live link

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    Hello Tensor,

    Before I reply to your last comments I would like to make a couple of observations. Just as a friendly note. I just noticed that you are from Sarasota, Florida. We are practically neighbors. I am in…, God help me, Polk County, Florida.
    Well, actually I live in southern Manatee County, but Sarasota is the closest city.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    I also noticed that you seem to be on this site all the time. Do you work for Bautforum?
    I do not work for BAUT forum. I present some new papers from arXiv on Thursday mornings. But that is a combined effort of several posters. Those posters, the moderators and two of the admins are all volunteers on a "as able" basis, as far as I know.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    I work two jobs and so I am coming on at different times and you always seem to be here.
    I am considered totally disable by the VA and Social Security. As a result, I happen to have a lot of free time. I am involved in some volunteer work in several different organizations, when able. I do some work around the house and some woodworking, again, when able. Depending on the when ables, and the time my wife spends on the computer, I spend more or less time on BAUT, a VA site, and several other sites involving astro, particle, and gravitational physics, and climate. I usually have each open in different tabs.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    Just some friendly observations.
    No problem. Friendly is cool. It's your idea that is the problem, not you.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    Now onto the very serious tones that are your comments. I am referring to the large full of question reply to my comments on Super Relativity Principles. I sense from you and “Strange” that you have a great deal of angst about my theory or perhaps it’s me you have a problem with. I think in your cases that it has much more to do with it feels wrong to you rather than it is wrong. I sense this mainly because in just about every reply you use words like “it’s wrong” It’s not true “It’s incorrect” It’s flawed” it’s to the point of being excessive. It is kind of humorous almost if you look at it from afar.
    Well, those comments are excessive because there is an excessive amount of wrong with it. Actually, Pauli's quote "Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong" comes to mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    Basically you are pounding the same message over and over. Because there is no math in my discussions and that I am not adhering to a scientific method I must be wrong.
    To claim a scientific method, your idea have to be able to be falsified. To be falsified, you have to be able to make specific predictions. In the case of physical theories, this means values, numbers, directions, etc. To make specific numerical predictions, you have to be able to produce the calculations that produce those numbers. You can't. Quantum Field Theory(QFT) can. So until you can produce the equations that produce the numbers that are better than QFT, your idea is wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    Those are some very strong charges. First let’s examine your premise that I am copping out because there is no math. I have been very upfront about who I am and what I am about. I freely admit I am not a scientist. I am a man with some ideas that I have compiled into a philosophical Theory and a Mechanical Model.
    Yeah, a mechanical model that makes no numerical predictions. Of what use is that?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    That seems to give you great distress. I do not mean to distress you. I came to this website to talk about these ideas because I think they are good ideas and they are important to be considered. I informed you as well as the moderator that I have no math to support them. The moderator gave me the okay to continue. I think that the purpose of this site is to invite people to come and talk about things in science that they are interested in. Now I don’t think there is a rule stating that non-scientists cannot put forth ideas for conversation. Especially in the “Against The Mainstream” category. If I were violating the rules they would stop the conversation. This site is very well moderated and that is why I chose this site to introduce my ideas. The people that moderate here are fair and professional.
    It gives me no distress. You idea can be shown to be wrong, and that's what I'll do.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    This is the way I see it. Since the discussion is allowed to continue I think that I have the permission to talk about my ideas and to answer questions posed to me to the best of my ability. That’s my responsibility on this website. I do not have to adhere to your standard. I have to adhere to the standards of this website. That is what I intend to do until my 30 days are up. I am very grateful for the opportunity that the Internet and this website have provided me. So despite your objections I am going to continue to answer and discuss these ideas as long as I am allowed to do so.
    The standards of the website also require you to answer the questions put forth by other posters. "I don't know" is an appropriate answer. However, the more you state I don't know, the more you can't explain your idea, the more you can't provide specific numerical predictions, while those other posters are providing links to experiments that agree with QFT, the less likely and more wrong your idea will look.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    You seem to feel that since I am talking about science on a science website that I should have to strictly adhere to the scientific method or shut up. Here is a bit of news flash. I am not a scientist or a pseudo-scientist as Strange likes to call me. I love science, I am interested in Science and I have spent the last 20 years studying this problem because it is interesting and I want to help. So despite your frustration I am going to continue discussing the topic for as long as I can and answer all of the questions put to me to the best of my abilities, as limited as those abilities may in fact be.
    And we'll be here to point out where you idea is simply wrong, and why.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    I have tried to submit my ideas to places that take papers like magazines and Arxiv they will not accept my papers. I believe that is exactly the right thing to do. My papers do not meet the standards required.
    That should tell you something right there.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    Here’s the real problem there is a possibility that someone out there without the proper credentials or back ground may stumble upon something profound and never be heard because no one would listen and because there was nowhere, where they were allowed to speak.
    Yeah, that's a common complaint from people who don't do things correctly, and it's just silly. There is a poster here on the board, who had no university credentials, whose conclusion was somewhat ATM, and yet his paper was published in a rather well known journal. His second paper attracted a well known professor as his co-author. So, you have to come up with something else. If the paper is written well, and the support shows a strong causation for the conclusion, it will get published.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    I know I won’t be able to answer many of your questions because they either require math skills or are outside of my expertise. I will do the best I can. I will not be silenced.
    Well, many of my questions are not math intensive and question your claims. You should be able to answer them.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    38,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    In my paper "Theory of Faster Than Light Neutrinos", available at http://transpower.wordpress.com, I apply the Reciprocal System of theory to the task. The neutrinos involved in the experiment are "cosmic", meaning that they are the inverse of normal material neutrinos. They "see" our matter as very diffuse cosmic matter and so there is inverse refraction, meaning that, from our perspective their speed is slightly increased. The ratio of my calculation to the observed value from CERN is .999999794. Now I realize that Tensor would like the answer to agree to 10 decimal places, but please understand there is experimental error to consider. (v_nu_calc-c) / c = .00002472 which compares with the experimental CERN value .0000248 +/- .0000028 (statistical error) +/- .0000030 (systematic error). The Reciprocal System accepts the Lorentz transformations of the Special Theory of Relativity, and all I had to do was to apply them, in an inverse fashion, to the cosmic sector.
    Absolutely not, no way.

    Tranpower - ATM is for a single person to present their ATM idea. It is not for collaborative efforts and they are not a general discussion. DO NOT hijack this thread with your ideas or you will be seriously infracted. Go worry about your own thread.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  26. #56
    Hello Swift,

    Thank you for your clarification above.

  27. #57
    Hello Strange,

    Thank you for your post.

    No "angst" with either your theory or you. I have a vague hope that you might learn how science works (it is based on objective, measurable facts and mathematics rather than abstract "I think" ideas) and learn to think critically about your theory and the support it has. Based on previous posters presenting their ideas in the ATM forum, I actually don't expect to get very far. People are wedded to their ideas and don't want to imagine they may be either wrong or just not scientific.
    I am glad that there is no bad feelings. It’s good that you are concerned about teaching people about how science works. My only suggestion is soften the tone some. You can say something is wrong without blurting out things like "Failed Theory" etc etc. I put my heart and soul into this work. I can take criticism and I do expect to get plenty of it here and that’s okay. I also agree with what you say about people being wedded to their ideas. I am trying hard not to be that way. This is the rule I have adopted for this endeavor. It is more important to find the truth than it is to be right.

    The thing about science, unlike most other human endeavors, is there are right and wrong answers. Feelings don't come into it. Einstein never liked quantum theory (despite getting his Nobel for ground-breaking work in the field). That doesn't make it wrong though.
    I agree again with what you say about science. There is truth (correctness) and there is lack of understanding (things we get wrong). Feelings should not get into it. But you know they do at times. Look at the Bohr Einstein debates. Even the greats get emotionally and egotistically involved. Even though with all the disagreement they still liked each other.

    I'm afraid that is just the way science is. It really doesn't matter what you believe, it is about what the evidence tells you.

    It doesn't matter what you believe, this is a science site.
    Now look at the difference between the two statements above. They both say the same thing essentially. One is said in a kind and stately manner and the other sounds.... well ... not so nice. It’s not only important to learn about the scientific method. It’s also important to learn to be nice. That is all I'm trying to say.

    And that may be the problem. Perhaps you need to discuss these ideas on a philosophy forum. They are not scientific but I get the impression that philosophers can make up any old stuff to argue about. (I'm sure that is unfair to philosophy but ...)
    Yes I am I have been thinking the same thing actually as my ideas are more metaphysical and philosophical then they are straight science. They are especially focused on the Unified Field theory problem though. I thought it would be good to try here because I am looking for people to try and poke holes in it. I want to be sure that I am on the correct path. If people can challenge the concepts I have in a convincing manner I can learn if I am wrong or I can improve my ideas. Either way is good. Here in this place I am going to get a lot of critical analysis which I think is a good thing.

    As a side note that you probably already know, physics really got its start and its origins from philosophers. Einstein studied philosophy intensely. I will try a philosophy site after my cycle here is complete.

    I have seen cases where someone with almost no understanding of mainstream science comes along and says "is it possible that ... " and they just happen to have hit on something very close to the standard (mainstream) explanation. That may be just by chance, or based on whatever limited understanding they have accumulated, but either way it is impressive. However, they couldn't provide evidence that their idea is correct and couldn't take it any further. It is just a lucky hit (like a stopped clock being right twice a day). And 99% of the time people ask a question like that, they have got completely the wrong end of the stick.

    So your idea is not necessarily wrong just because you are not a scientist, but it does not bode well. The fact that it contradicts observation, cannot make testable predictions, has no mathematical formalism and is based on what you think is right rather than evidence, all tend to confirm the idea it is both useless and wrong. Sorry, but that is just the way science works. It doesn't care about how much you (or I) like your theory.
    I have given these last few statements considerable thought. I understand science in general is the way you say and operates as you say above. For the most part the system works very well. I guess my personality type is one that operates differently than most people. I believe in the long shot. I believe in the underdog. I believe that anything is possible. I believe in the Theory of Super Relativity. My logical mind and more than that my intuition tells me I am on the right track. Pursuing my dream is my job and responsibility I will continue until I am convinced that my ideas are incorrect.

    My expertise is not so much in physics or science as it is in trouble shooting. This is what I did at IBM when I worked there. I solved a lot of problems for the company. That success is what gave me the confidence to try and solve this problem. I approached this problem as an analytical trouble shooter. I read as much documentation as I could on the subject and then I decided what I thought was correct and pursued the problem in that way. I continue reading and studying it’s an ongoing process.

    But they are not scientific ideas, and that is mainly why you are getting a negative reaction.
    Non-scientists who have only read popular books and magazine articles about science often seem to think that scientists just "make stuff up"; as if Einstein said "hey, imagine space was kinda curved" and every went "cooool. and what if you could have holes in it like 'black' holes", "wow", etc.

    That is just isn't how it works. The math in general relativity is complicated for a reason. It is not just because some mathematicians got hold of it and decided to add some "twiddly bits"; it is required to be that way to match observations, measurements and experiments.
    Here is where we disagree a little. This is a website that allows non-scientists types as well as scientist types to engage in conversations and exchange ideas. These concepts I have do concern science so to some degree they are scientific. Now here is the point that I am trying to get you and tensor to see. If in fact this is a purely scientific site that only wants to allow scientific communications and ideas to be presented in a purely up to standards of a professional scientist way then I and others who do not meet these standards should not be allowed to post theories ideas or anything that does not meet the rigorous scientific standard that you and tensor have in mind. Yet, some how this thread has not been shut down and neither have threads with titles like bulldozers on Mars etc etc. I think that you both are missing the point of this site. It is about not just allowing professional scientists to put forth ideas. My God look at the name of the website. Bad Astronomy .com It beckons to those who are on the fringe of science. That’s me all the way. I could not resist the call of the sirens. That may not be the creator of the websites originally desired but the name implies that. Here is my advice to you and tensor and other serious science types. It’s okay to say our ideas are not up to the scientific standard but you are not going to tell me or anyone else they must be wrong simply because they don’t meet your idea of a scientific standard. In this place you need to loosen up a little. I think you are missing the point of the site which is not just a science website but it is an equal opportunity website. Just go with it.
    If you just wanted to discuss an idea - and were willing to accept it when told that it contradicts out current best theories - then you could do that in any of the relevant areas of the forum. It is when you say "this is my theory and it is right and mainstream science is wrong" that you will be challenged; in the same way that any scientist would be challenged if he presented a new theory. Actually a lot more gently than a real scientist would be treated (because the moderators make sure we stay nice, and because we know you don't have a mathematical background).
    Okay now I am going to say here we go again. I am fully aware that my Theory contradicts what the best current main stream theories say. Believe me I am very aware of that. Yes and I do feel that I am correct but that of course does not mean that I am correct. So this is for everybody out there let’s just get right down to it and just pick one thing you have a problem with and we will discuss them one at a time. You can’t just say to me hey you your saying the exact opposite of what everyone believes and so you are wrong. Do you really think I don’t know that I am going against the main stream. That’s what this part of the forum is for! I am challenging you and tensor to stop saying that I have bad form therefore I am wrong or that my theory contradicts everything we know or I should say everything you think you know.

    You know what, let me just put things into perspective for you. A little over 3 months ago you and every other professional scientist out there was so sure that nothing could go faster than the speed of light. I have been saying for about five years the light speed barrier can be broken. It appears as if you and every other serious professional scientist have been proven wrong. You have been wrong for the last century. You might want to start listening to us non-professionals maybe we can teach you a thing or two. I really like scientists and physicists but sometimes you guys can be arrogant and many times you guys just don’t know what you are talking about. But who the hell out there is going to dare to stand up to you guys and tell you that. Rogue intruders like me that’s who. Ha ha… For God sake’s let me have a turn at making a fool of myself. You guys are having all the fun. So tell me again about how nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. As Wolgang Pauli would say that’s “Not Even Wrong”

    Any way Strange it has been a pleasure getting things straightened out with you and hopefully tensor. Tensor everything I said here is for you as well. I don’t want to have to write these opinions and ideas twice over. I think enough has been said about our feelings about science as we need to get back to the topic at hand there is much to discuss and I have to respond to other folks as well. Time is running out and I am tired.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,570
    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    ... I think that you both are missing the point of this site. ...
    No, you are. Strange et al are well aware of how things work here. My goodness, if you put as much effort into providing a scientific basis for your ideas as you do commenting on how the site (which you only recently joined) works, you might get somewhere.

    Now, as you say, back to the topic (don't even reply to this post - you've made enough off-topic posts). Please start answering questions - not with philosophy; with something approaching science.
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,168
    Could you please answer my questions about the logic behind your "More neutral is faster" arguments? I've added a few I think may be useful:
    1) How did you determine neutrinos to be a more neutral configuration than photons?
    2) Do you propose photons have mass?
    3) Can you explain how your arguments about the Z boson are not circular?
    4) Can you explain how electrons are lighter than 3rd generation quarks?

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    Tensor everything I said here is for you as well. I don’t want to have to write these opinions and ideas twice over.
    No need to repeat it, most of it has nothing to do with science anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmfiore View Post
    I think enough has been said about our feelings about science as we need to get back to the topic at hand
    Yeah, like when are you going to answer the questions I asked in post #47?

Similar Threads

  1. Could faster than light neutrino's be used to transmit messages?
    By we are not alone in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2011-Oct-27, 10:33 AM
  2. How can neutrino's travel faster than light?
    By we are not alone in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2011-Oct-25, 12:31 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-Oct-15, 08:00 PM
  4. Possible explanation faster than light neutrinos
    By Thomas(believer) in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2011-Oct-14, 04:33 AM
  5. Light travels backward and faster than light
    By Titana in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2006-Jul-24, 01:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: