Bignose

you write in 1 that there are no units and then in 2 that their areas have to be equal -- area clearly has a unit of length squared. So which is it? And why is it that the areas have to be equal -- why not the volumes? I am not looking for an answer of "meters" or "feet", but "length" or "time" or "mass" -- these are the fundamental units see http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/sifundam.html This is why I think that +1 and -1 have to have some kind of units. Without units, you can't really measure it, and if you can't measure it, how do you know what value it really has? If it isn't measurable, then as above, there is no point in discussing it on a science forum. you write "The hole and the shell must be together else the particle suddenly becomes something." -- but that doesn't answer the question WHY they much be together. There must be some interaction that keeps them together, and then some disturbance that separates them "to become something". There needs to be details about this interaction given. Again, what are these 'properties' you keep talking about? Please be very specific. what the heck is 'entropy safe'??? Again, please define ANY terms explicitly that are not in common scientific use. Heck, I'd rather you just defined every single term as you use them, feel free to assume I have no knowledge of any scientific term. How can "It shares the same X/Y/Z as it's opposite" this be true? At any specific point, it can only be 'hole' or 'shell', right? How can it be both? Do you mean that the center of the 'hole' and the center of the 'shell' are the same point? Finally, please refrain from making snotty-sounding comments like "You can't pick, and choose maths that you want to hear." I am not debating whether +1 -1 = 0. I just don't understand your interpretation of the equation. And I have been very patient asking you questions over and over again, and not just dismissing you out of hand. I've been trying to get you think about your idea more, and about science as a whole. Again, considering how many direct questions in this thread you've ignored, I am actually a little surprised with myself that I still have patience. But, as above, at this time I'm willing to keep giving you chances and the help to think about your idea more. It is just that your explanations have been somewhat incomplete, so I really don't understand what you're trying to say. And, you don't need two opposites to be 'nothing'. I don't need a gold brick and a negative gold brick on my desk to have no gold bricks. I just don't have any gold bricks on my desk. Similarly, two things that sum to 0 can still be something. A sodium ion has a charge of +1 and a chlorine ion has a charge of -1. Put together and they have zero charge, but they are still something -- it forms table salt. As another example, the sum of all the forces on the girders of a building can be zero -- and the building remains standing -- but it certainly isn't nothing. The example of NaCl is especially pertinent, because the compound NaCl has no charge, but is made up of two things with charge. I am asking is the 'hole' and 'shell' similar? And then, back to the very first question, what is the unit that is summed to 0? In the case of NaCl, it is electrical charge. What is it in your case?

OK, so this prompts some questions: 1) +1 and -1 what? provide units, please. 2) what properties are we talking about? and then what reverse properties? 3) how does the 'hole' and shell stay together -- that is, what interaction keeps them together. 4) how can something 'equal' nothing? There is clearly something there, so it isn't nothing. The sum of the forces or charge or X can be zero, but I'd avoid saying 'nothing'. 5) I guess you are supposing that such compound particles exist, because while I certainly am not familiar with all of physics literature, I haven't heard of such a particle before. 6) what size is this particle? that should be enough, and good answers to each and every one of these questions will more than likely prompt more questions, so I think it is a good enough start for now.

Picho, to be frank, this is an awfully warped view of math. Math isn't 'forcing', it is a tool to take knowns and discover unknowns. If I apply a force of 100 N to an object, how fast will it accelerate? Well, you use F = ma, and if you know the mass of that object then you know the answer to your question. The math isn't 'forcing' it -- the mathematical relationship F = ma has been shown to be correct almost countless times so we just accept that it will be true. It isn't perfectly correct. For example, if the mass of the object is changing, then it isn't right, and this comes into play in mathematically describing the flight of rockets, for example. This is the point of describing things mathematically -- to take known inputs and use the tool (math) to find outputs. And then you compare those outputs to what is actually observed, and hence you determine how good you mathematical description is. In other words, math is just another way of describing what is happening. It has its own syntax and rules, just like written languages, but in the end it is just a description. But, with the added benefit of making objective precise descriptions. Again, applying a force of 100 N, this time to an object that weighs 100 kg -- the math predicts that the acceleration will be 1 m/s/s. Not "kind-a slow", not "pokey", but 1 m/s/s. And, not 0.95 or 1.05 m/s/s -- exactly 1 m/s/s. This is great because then one can go out and actually apply a force of 100 N to an object of 100 kg mass, and see that it does indeed accelerate at 1 m/s/s. Math is a description that is more exact than the everyday language that is common. this is incorrect -- in this example the neural network has to be using mathematics to evaluate how good of a solution to the problem it has at each stage. Without an evaluation, and being driven towards better, it wouldn't do anything at all. And, mathematics have to describe what is 'better'. You do realize that entropy is a defined mathematical quantity, don't you? There is no such thing as an entropy-meter (akin to how a thermometer measures temperature). So, making a statement like 'use entropy to simulate a universe' is completely meaningless without the mathematics behind it. And how are these interactions described? Again, you don't answer questions directly, how does your 'simulation' work without math? Pincho, I am really growing weary of not getting very clear straightforward answers to the questions I am asking. There are probably more than a dozen questions I've asked in this thread that don't have straightforward answers to them, partly because you redefine your own terms, but largely because you are answering like we all have familiarity with your model and your ideas. We don't. ----------------------------------- Perhaps rather than make another laundry list of questions that history suggests won't get very clear answers, you should describe your model from the very beginning. Specifically, your simulation. I want to know the origins of your simulations. Who wrote it. How I was written. Etc. I want to get to the very heart of the simulations and know what is in fact being simulated. I really am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I am also really losing interest because of the incomplete, obfuscated, confusing, and frankly arrogant way in which you answer questions -- especially when you actually DON'T answer the questions asked. You may be doing something fairly interesting, but it is impossible to get to it the way you present it -- and since there is a noticeable lack of objective testable predictions, I think that you'll find that most will share my lack of interest. Again, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but a lot will hinge on your next reply.

This makes no sense at all. How does the computer 'simulator' work without math? (Frankly, how does a computer work without math?) What could it possibly simulate? And, the mathematics are important because they make objective testable predictions. That way, one can say that model X predicts exactly Y. Not 'a little bit hot' or 'over yonder' or 'deflects somewhat'. But specific values of temperature, distance, or deflection. This is only way to see just how good a model is. To see how closely the mathematical values agree with the experimental values. The better the agreement, the better the model. This is how we have the very successful models we have today. Without mathematics, again you have a story. That story can be the first step towards developing a theory that makes good predictions, but without prediction and comparison with experimental evidence, it isn't science. It is story telling. And without a tremendous amount of objective verified agreement between prediction and experimental evidence, it is really quite ludicrous to call anything a theory, much less and theory of everything. You have a story.

If what you are saying here is that your theory has electrons behaving the same way as current theory -- they why would we want to adopt your theory? Because the current theory is doing just fine. If your theory doesn't do any better, who cares. So propose a clear prediction that would falsify your theory. Some way to discriminate between current and yours. AND, ANSWER THE ORIGINAL QUESTION ASKED -- since you claim to have a theory of everything, and that in your theory your interactions make it looks like an electron has a certain mass, this should be easily mathematically described by your so-called theory of everything. You should be able to demonstrate how your interactions are just strong enough to make the electron appear to have a certain mass.

You don't just get to say this -- an electron HAS a mass. A very well experimentally verified mass. It is were massless, it wouldn't behave in the ways we know it behaves. How can you just ignore that?

This is because you define well-established terms willy-nilly. And then when asked, you don't put your definitions in terms understandable by people who know the established definitions. Define everything CLEARLY, only using established terms in the established ways, please. Call anything with a non-standard definition something knew or otherwise CLEARLY denote when your term is different than the the established one. This "Gravity is a flow force of Aether, so mass is a vector rotation of that flow force. The electron is bump propagated, it doesn't exist long enough to have a mass established. You are just seeing a strobe effect of movement." does not answer my question how a mass can be a force. Please define CLEARLY and with units what you mean by mass_PP (The sub PP denotes that this is your and only your definition) and force_PP and how they relate to the established definitions. And by the established definitions, I know that the mass of an electron is 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kilograms. I never claimed to know how that is the mass, but we do know with pretty darn good precision that that IS the mass. But, it is YOU that claimed to have a theory that answers everything, so YOU answer why. And, if your theory really does EVERYTHING as you claim, you should also easily be able to translate your use of the word 'mass' (mass_PP) into the everyday ordinary accepted way that the word mass is used.

How does this answer the question about the prediction of the mass of an electron? If you can't answer it, perhaps you should change the title of the thread to "ask me the questions that usually don't get answered and I vow that they will remain unanswered"

This uses words that have precise definitions in accepted physics in an incompatible way. A mass cannot be a 'force' in the definitions of physics today. In fact, mass is in the definition of force. F=ma. Please do not use these same words, as it will only lead to confusion. Furthermore, please show how and why mass should be considered a vector quantity. Everything I know about it shows that treating it as a scalar quantity seems wot work pretty darn well. how does adding an invisible and massless particle make things simpler? if it is a vector, what in what component is the 1 in? a vector cannot be a scalar as you have written here. you'd have to write something like the vector is equal to 1x where x is the unit vector on the x coordinate. What are all these variables in your equation? you didn't define what any of these mean. Also, how did you get this equation? Lastly, YOU DIDN'T FREAKING ANSWER THE QUESTION! Your reply does not show how to calculate the mass of an electron from your model. Please directly answer the question asked (it is the rule of this forum, BTW) or tell us how long you need to do the calculation and thusly when you will be able to directly answer this question. Just to be clear, this is the question:

Ok, I'll bite, post your predictions. I'll even look at the ones you 'predicted' in the past (you do realize how silly that can be right -- anyone can claim to have made predictions back in 2004 that has since been discovered today, unless you have dated publications that show your predictions). And, since you've done so well since 2004, there must be other good ones for the future, right? Let's see those, too. Get them posted with a time stamp so that you don't run into the issue in the ()'s above.

not without specific testable predictions, you won't.

this doesn't answer my question. Specifically, "So, again, without predictions, why should anyone on a SCIENCE forum care apart from reading a creative fiction?"

Ok, great, pretty picture and all. But if such an 'aether' particle existed with the properties you assume, there are implications about that -- how it interacts with other particles, the energy it needs for those interactions, etc. and this leads to predictions about the type of radiation that should be present from those interactions, etc. This is why the current model is what it is -- the physicists make some educated guesses about the state of matter and energy very soon after the Big Bang and how it is all interacting with one another -- this results in a certain amount and type of radiation at the time, and for all time going forward. Then they compare the prediction of how much of this radiation is left today with the actual measurements of the cosmic background radiation. Without any of these predictions -- mathematical in nature -- again, what GOOD is a story? An enjoyable read? Sure. Science? NO. Science is the making of predictions and comparing them to actual evidence. Trying to skip some of these steps results in story telling, nothing more, nothing less. Without exploring and making specific predictions about what values measurements would have if your story was true, it is no different than a John Grissom or Stephen King or Isaac Asimov fiction novel. And, yep, the math is hard. But, I don't see anywhere a requirement that the Universe has to be easily describable by math. To insist it does is just being willfully naive and ignorant of all the work done to date. There is not a single working scientist today or ever that actually wanted something to be more mathematically complex. And seeking to try to simplify or unify things has proven fruitful in the past, and is work that should continue. But, ultimately, it follows the evidence and predictions made by the simplifications and unifications. Without specific testable predictions, how can one know if a simplification or unification is valid? There have been dozens and dozens proposed that sure looked good -- sure would have helped explain things if they were true -- sure would have made the math easier if they were true -- and a lot of people wanted them to be true: but the evidence wasn't there. The predictions were simply wrong. So, again, without predictions, why should anyone on a SCIENCE forum care apart from reading a creative fiction?

So, then, why do you think anyone on a SCIENCE forum would be interested? Without specific testable predictions -- most always involving math -- what is the point? Furthermore, without having checked specific testable predictions, how can you be so confident in your answers to questions like 'what is dark matter'? Most members of a science forum like fiction stories, but they like to keep the stories and the science separate. In many regards, I am not so much interested in the answers to your questions as much as knowing how you validated the answers to your questions -- once I have confidence in the science done to validate your answers, then the answers become interesting...

I noticed the math mistake here... is that what you wanted me to notice? Please take all the time you need. Because I need a very detailed explanation. I need to know why each and every number you've picked has meaning and where it comes from. Because I literally just typed some random numbers out. Hey, while you are taking your time to answer that, go ahead and ponder this too: I am typing this on one computer. Not an infinite number of computers. Clearly 1 does not equal infinity.

challenge accepted. 2.71828182845904523536028747135 * 3.14159265358979323846264338328 = 8.5397342226735670654635508695465744950348885357651 erf(8.5397342226735670654635508695465744950348885357651) = 1.3971161324848120486438955428453916924159213372001*10^-33 1 / 10e32 = 100000000000000000000000000000000 1 / 100000000000000000000000000000000 = 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 * 11 = 0.000000000000000000000000000000011 0.000000000000000000000000000000011^2 = 1.21 e-64 Ummm, yay? Again, seemingly randomly doing mathematical operations on some numbers...... Perhaps you'd like to actually EXPLAIN what your numbers are supposed to mean? With units? Otherwise, this is nothing more that someone with access to a decent calculator can 'discover' just by putting numbers in. Without any meaning attached to the numbers, they are just ... numbers. I am willing to read it and be open minded about it, but so far, I don't see anything that really has any meaning, nor any reason to think that infinity = 1. It may be obvious to you, but the rest of us need some help. What does this even mean? How exactly does 1/2 'loop' into 1? Please define your terms, clearly, explicitly, and in terms well-defined or accepted by mathematics, please.

I too can just multiply random numbers together. 4*5 = 20. yay! I don't think that I've proved any more or less than you have. Perhaps you should actually tell us what your equations mean, and why you think that they prove anything about infinity? And include units on the equations, too.

So, now you're also going to need a preferred reference frame with which to do your calculations? What about all the results that pretty strongly indicate that there are no preferred reference frames? You sure are piling on the need for an awful lot of extraordinary evidence needed to overthrow so much of the evidence that already supports the current ideas. Again, before you get your hackles up about this being too 'religious' let me just point out that this is how science works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How soon until we can see extraordinary evidence?

Well, you have 3 points. You have the formula of distance between points, so you have the lengths of three sides. If you can make those 3 sides fit into Pythagoras' Theorem, then you're done.

thanks, I thought so, but I wasn't sure.

the story is great and all, but to really get somewhere, there needs to be mathematical predictions. By the way, the idea of increasing the dimension count isn't new, and has been tried many different ways as unification schemes. You probably would want to study those failed attempts in order not to repeat the same mistakes that have already been made.

I can be very patient. But, until you can demonstrate specific predictions made by your model, compare them to the prediction made by the current model, and show how your model is superior to what we have today, I don't think you're going to get much interest. The promise of the unification of the forces is pretty huge, too. You best collect a mountain of strong evidence to support that claim. Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all that. Good news is that if you can do what you claim, there's a Nobel in it for ya, as physicists have been looking for a unification of the 4 forces for quite, quite some time now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem

you could see if the side lengths obey the Pythagorean Theorem. If it is a right triangle, it has to obey PT, but I am not sure if obeying the PT is necessary and sufficient for the triangle to be right, however... The side lengths can be used in the trig relations, however, which would be necessary and sufficient for finding a 90* angle.

So, please show the unification of the gravity, electromagnetic, and strong forces, then.