GF

When I said classical physicist I mean Classical Mechanics. Gravitons aren't needed in Technicolor because I believe as Einstein did that gravity isn't a force and the Technicolor model seems to me the most simplistic and uncomplicated model in my opinion

Wow, I just re-read that Technicolor information and do you realize EVEN IT DISMISSES A HIGGS BOSON/MECHANISM ... lol so I guess your Technicolor suggestion not only doesn't require a graviton or tachyon, but it ALSO DOESN'T NEED A HIGGS. Funny, but isn't that exactly what I have been saying? Sure, literally the hypothetical particles called a graviton and a tachyon act different than the other BUT that is only direction/orientation which I never ever claimed to have any relevance since the real issue IS WHETHER THEY EXIST. I, as a classical physicist, consider something as non-existent until it can be proven to be real. If you give the Technicolor theory any credibility then you'd see what I have been trying to say about eliminating all these extra hypothetical particles. Yes, but it has nothing to do with the fact I'm saying that the Higgs/Higgs Mechanism IS THE ONLY PARTICLE that COULD be required to complete a system of physical laws that satisfy all known particle qualities. I am saying that we do not need a graviton (remember Einstein doen't even consider gravity a force) or a tachyon or even possibly a Higgs if we consider that perhaps the fermion condesate can represent the vacuum expectation value ( where the technifermion condensate is renormalized at the ETC boson mass scale) as the Technicolor theorys are proposing!

and you shouldn't accept a hypothetical theory as fact so easily

Anyways, we are talking about the most complicated and hypothesized topics known to man so don't expect us to make any progress until further experiments are done or a better physical model of the mechanics of matter is proposed

Well I'm not alone .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon_condensation "In particular, tachyon condensation is such a process which eliminates the tachyon which many physicists believe does not exist." http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/50304 "Gravitons cannot exist in reality, because they would represent a paradox, and violate the Law of Non-Contradiction." http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-327621.html "Higgs Boson = Graviton ?" http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~rudolf/GUT.pdf "Stop looking for gravitons" http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=25335.0 "Gravity as a separate force is wrong" http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-482.html OHH AND CHECK THIS OUT; http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/94759-gravitons.html "Einstein considered gravity a warping of spacetime not a force." Wow, I just pondered that very same thought my very last post - I like that Einstein fellow Also, I can easily eliminate the tachyon and graviton in my mind, and I said they may be one and the same as the Higgs boson but one complication from that idea is the fact there are more than one Higgs boson ... there are 5 ... so again this is all just speculation but I am saying we should not be over-complicating things.

I'm hypothesizing that a particle that gives MASS (Higgs) and the particle that gives GRAVITY (graviton) WHICH ARE BOTH HYPOTHETICAL, THAT YA THEY COULD POSSIBLY HAVE THE SAME QUALITIES. Do you see how MASS and GRAVITY could possibly be the same thing or is this just too complex a thought? Personally, I think gravity is simply a direction (or end result) and has no power whatsoever other than philosophically being "a final destination" ... but that lecture is yet to be written and not a priority for me to expand on right now). I'm saying that gravity is one of the most fundamentally debated qualities of reality EVER discussed, It's not good practice to assume that we know what gravity is ajb SINCE ITS ONE OF THE MOST DEBATED AND THEORIZED FORCES OF WHICH NOONE HAS MADE ABSOLUTE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT YET. The tachyon happens to also be hypothetical and so assuming that its propertys are what you think they are is also, ofcourse, conjecture. All I'm saying is I feel Occams Razor (the simplest solution prevails) is needed and I think we have over-complicated phyiscs today with too many particles and I feel it is possible to explain all the fundamental forces by eliminating a graviton and a tachyon. Thats all I said but I want to atleast applaud you ajb for finding questions to ask without provoking confrontation. I know when a person comes to a forum with confidence and theorys that we can expect debate, I just hope that when that person "sticks to his guns" because he strongly believes his position that you people don't become frustrated and abusive because you cannot change that persons mind. Use all opportunitys to learn whether you feel they are legitimate or not and I promise you that you will benefit more often than not. I only post on one vid game forum regularly. I won't be a regular here because I just made the occasional post out of boredom here if something caught my eye. Anyways, what happened to the author of this thread? I'd like to hear his further comments. OH, and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE Dr. Who ajb !

I'm in shock. It took almost 6 of my posts to get someone to finally see BOTH SYSTEMS ARE EQUAL. Every point I made was to prove BOTH SYSTEMS are not infallible and therefore "not a perfect system". NOT ONCE did I say Quantum physics was wrong. Infact, I should just restate again I AM ONLY TRYING TO SHOW YOU THAT ARGUING WHETHER QUANTUM PHYSICS IS BETTER THAN CLASSICAL IS A POINTLESS AND RELATIVE ARGUMENT. I'm glad Klaynos now understood what I was saying. As far as Quantum physics goes, most don't realize that some things are physically impossible so please don't consider every new theory as "empirical". Again philosophically, the quantum dimension is not a real dimension. We live between the 4th (time) and 5th(quantum/ether) dimension. Reality works the way it does because it sets limits. Once you start to believe things that are impossible, your grasp of the material world will slip away.

FOLKS, I'VE USED THE HEISENBURG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE TO CLEARLY SHOW THAT NO MATH SYSTEM CAN BE PERFECT AND I ALSO USED THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION TO SHOW THAT QUANTUM MECHANICS IS NOT PERFECT ONLY TO PROVE MY POINT THAT CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS ARE EQUAL YET I NOW HAVE FOUND 3 PEOPLE THAT CAN'T GRASP THAT SIMPLE POINT AND KEEP DISCUSSING COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND POINTLESS ARGUMENTS. Klaynos ... I see what you found wrong in my post - I editted it because I forgot to put in the word PERFECT. I know Quantum physics can be seen in macrocosmic observations - just like Classical laws can be seen in microcosmic observations - I was trying to say that NEITHER WORK PERFECTLY FOR BOTH SO WHY SAY QUANTUM PHYSICS IS BETTER WHEN IT IS JUST AS INFALLIBLE AS CLASSICAL? Are you going to tell me the Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong lol? Are you going to tell me the Theory of Relativity is wrong? Folks, all these Quantum magicians do is try to talk you into illusions. If you want to blame anyone or anything ... blame zero ..... it's the cause of pretty much all the problems and paradoxes we find in math. Quantum physicists think they can defeat zero but I have found only the most intelligent on the internet know the difference between illusion and fact. Only the most intelligent recognize a relative argument when they see one.

well being told by 2 people now that I need to watch what I say AFTER SOMEONE GAVE ME ATTITUDE THAT I WAS RESPONDING BACK TO and yet he wasn't warned at all is kind of a double standard don't you think? Again, PEOPLE PLEASE READ WHATS BEEN SAID BEFORE RESPONDING. ajb and the guy who made this thread are the only people actually discussing the topic so far Did you know that quantum theorys don't apply to macrocosmic observations perfectly? If you say yes they do THEN YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT PHYSICS. So, since BOTH Quantum mechanics AND Classical mechanics don't work both for macrocosmic and microcosic solutions .... then you are saying that just Classical mechanics is wrong?? LOOOOLL amigo do you realize people are reading what you are saying and they are going to evaluate your education on what you said lol? I really don't get why me proving by using the Copenhagen Interpretation that Quantum physics has not solved the Bell Inequalities and therefore is still no better than Classical mechanics AND THUS PROVING MY POINT THAT BOTH SYSTEMS ARE NOT ANY BETTER OR WORSE THAN EACH OTHER STILL HASN'T BEEN GRASPED BY YOU In the wiki on Heisenburg Uncertainty principle it says the HUD and Observer Effect are mixed up all the time because OBVIOUSLY they are so similiar in wording. We know everyone but you knew I was referring to the HUD since it clearly is about how ALL math systems can't be perfect which was obviously my point but I'm glad you needed to argue some technicality that had no bearing on the topic whatsoever. ajp - I could explain how the Higgs, Graviton, and Tachyon are all the same USING CLASSICAL MECHANICS but that would be an enormous task and require a few pages (not that I'm not up for the challenge). I thought maybe you would see very clearly all the similiarities in those particles by my THREE links showing this but you do need to be able to simplify (good 'ol Occams Razor - another philosophers staple) and think relatively. *hint - they all equal zero. I really think its possible but sorry I'm not in the mood today to solve all of maths toughest paradoxs... but I will try eventually soon! Hey Swansont, sorry for the caps. I'm sure the soldier in Iraq with a bayonet getting stuffed up his a$$ feels sorry for you that you haveto read caps .... I'm not so anal you'll discover.

Duuuuuude Swansont, I guess me mentioning TWICE now that once the guy said "that is not a good way of looking at it" I didn't appreciate the attitude so I responded in kind. PLEASE READ THE THREAD AND UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED FIRST TY - sorry you need to demonstrate that Einstein was wrong. If QM was perfect we'd all be using it wouldn't we but the unfortunate folks of this forum have now found 2 people in this thread that completely missed my point THAT WHEN USING QUANTUM MATH VS CLASSICAL, ONE IS NOT ANY BETTER OR WORSE THAN THE OTHER (see Heisenburg Uncertainty principle) -speaking of the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle "According to the uncertainty principle, it is, for instance, impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty." FUNNY BUT I KNOW I SAID "MEASURER" AND NOT "OBSERVER" BUT ARE YOU JUST GRASPING FOR ANY IRRELEVANT POINT JUST TO WASTE OUR TIME? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton "In physics' date=' the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson "Experimental detection of the Higgs boson would help explain the origin of MASS in the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_neutral_particle "In physics, a real neutral particle is a particle that is its own antiparticle. Examples are the photon, the Z boson, the neutral pion, the hypothetical Higgs boson, the hypothetical neutralino, hypothetical sterile neutrinos, and the hypothetical graviton." THATS HOW I EXPLAIN IT Anyone have any clue what he just said? For the record, I've read lots of posters here who can handle a mature intellectual conversation. Yet, unfortunately its too easy to find the token couple *&() disturbers who will do anything to disrupt a thread.

well you missed that he started it but you want to mess with me whatever...

if a person says "that is not a good way of looking at it" to you then you haveto correct him I'm sorry. If you prove me wrong then hey I am pleased but people get hasty and tell us we are wrong and so you haveto repeat the facts. my forum life is just kid mods having to use their commands and the best threads are killed

How is the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle a seperate issue lol??? The HUP clearly tells us that no mathematical system is perfect and therefore my point is Quantum mechanics is not perfect and therefore it's no more better than Classical mechanics. You still haven't grasped what the word RELATIVE means. - Einstein wasn't wrong at all. - DeBroglie didn't destroy the particle nature of matter you newbie (its simply a LENGTH of wave easier seen in smaller particles). - It seems theres lots of vagueness to Bell's Theorem and its only technicalities that determine whether Bell Inequalities are seen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation "The insight that quantum mechanics does not yield an objective description of microscopic reality but that measurement plays an ineradicable role is probably the most telling characteristic of the Copenhagen interpretation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bells_Theorem "There have been two loopholes found in the earlier of these experiments, the detection loophole[1] and the communication loophole[1] with associated experiments to close these loopholes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism "Superdeterminism is a theoretical escape route from Bell's theorem(which states that a local hidden variable theory cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics). Since the types of measurements at each detector can be known in advance, the results at one detector can be affected by the type of measurement done at the other without any need for information to travel faster than the speed of light." Recap: - you were redundant in stating something we already knew about the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle - you told us String Theory is part of Quantum Mechanics for who knows what pointless reason - you told us by some incomprehensible example that Classical mechanics and Quantum mechanics aren't equal YET EVERYONE KNOWS THEY ARE JUST 2 DIFFERENT SYSTEMS THAT CAN'T BE PROVEN ANY BETTER THAN THE OTHER. So, you trolled me and said that my explanation "was not a good way of looking at it" and you said nothing other than your attempt at telling us Quantum mechanics is better than Classical mechanics which even philosophically can't be proven. Please make better points and don't troll. and this is my relative link of the day; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_theorem

Wow, you left lots for me to clear up. I'm going to guess you are a young person and new to physics since you aren't stepping back and seeing the relativity to these things and plus you are relying on Wikipedia to debate me. 1st to start: "A disciple asked, "What is the difference between the enlightened and the unenlightened man?" The Master replied, "The unenlightened man sees a difference, but the enlightened man does not." " 2nd: You do know what the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle is right?? The Heisenburg Uncertainty principle states that NOTHING can be measured 100% accurately because the measurer effects whats being measured. 100% ACCURACY IS IMPOSSIBLE. CAN'T BE DONE SO GRASP THIS BEFORE YOU START THINKING THERES SOME MAGIC MATHEMATICAL SYSTEM. A. Did you know that Einstein hated quantum physics? Odd how one of the most brilliant mathematical minds ever DIDN'T EVEN CONSIDER QUANTUM PHYSICS LEGITIMATE. What you are saying is that if we find some property of matter that can't be explained by Classical Mechanics then there must be something wrong with Classical Mechanics .... well no IT SIMPLY MEANS WE HAVEN'T UNDERSTOOD ALL THE PROPERTYS OF MATTER YET WITH CLASSICAL MECHANICS. You use Quantum Tunnelling as an example (very similiar to the Casimir Effect) - both effects require A 100% PURE VACUMM BUT HOW ODD WHEN I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER THAT THERES NO SUCH THING AS A 100% VACUUM. You people don't realize that the addition of "ZERO" or a "vacuum state" causes errors in the calculations. This is, by the way, one of those things I meant to clear up some day but have yet to officially put it in writing. Newtons Laws apply to both macrocosmic and microcosmic particles. There are some exceptions that ARE YET TO BE IRONED OUT. My point is I believe we can use one math to understand all matter. If you don't think that's possible then you must not have a very open mind. B. What a waste of an argument C. It happens to be EXACTLY how you need to see those particles for you to make progress. The Higgs boson ("god particle") is the most speculated particle ever theorized. You shouldn't refer to it as something completely understood yet. You are believing things before they are proven. D. Quantum physics deals with "waves and probability" while Newtonian Classical physics deals with "particles". BOTH CAN BE USED TO PREDICT SPEED AND TRAJECTORY. BOTH ARE EQUALLY AS ACCURATE AND BOTH CANNOT BE PROVEN TO BE ANY LESS ACCURATE THAN THE OTHER. APPLES AND ORANGES. The fact you don't even know this tells us lots about you wasting my time making me respond to your posts. I recommend you grasp the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle (a staple fundamental item to be learned for any wannabe philosopher next to the words relative, esoteric, and existential).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568528,00.html "Large Hadron Collider 'Being Sabotaged from the Future'" Leave it to Fox news to sensationalize these things as usual. Realistically, all these physicists are simply contemplating is "dark matter" or the effects of temporary black holes. You people won't believe me but in my other thread I said I may add a 3rd installment and it was going to include thoughts on the LHC and it was LITERALLY GOING TO BE WHAT THIS FOX NEWS ARTICLE EXPLAINS ABOUT 2 PHYSICISTS THEORIES CONCERNING "MISFORTUNE" AND REASONS WHY THE LHC WON'T WORK OR THE HIGGS WON'T BE FOUND. I believe we can find evidence of something but I believe it will only show itself randomly - random enough to be considered "inconclusive". I believe the Higgs will display chaotic/unpredicatable tendancies and its appearance may bestow misfortune/malfunction or "warps in the probability field" making it a very difficult thing to verify. My proposal would be to do "blind tests" requiring a 2nd or even 3rd LHC as best way to have the chance to spot it. My other proposal would also be to move the experiments to the moon where the radiation of these experiments is much less harmfull to us.