Farsight

Thanks. Edtharan: I have to go now, so I'll get back your post later. Perhaps you might wish to rephrase some aspects of it once you've talked with others. Yes. But I am not unique. This idea goes back to Aristotle, was raised as Presentism in 1908, by Godel and Einstein in 1949, and by many others. Please can you elaborate. This is important. yourdadonapogos: try tackling t mathematically. You just can't. It's axiomatic.

Noted. This is of course something of an issue. But there's not a lot I can do about it because it really is an analysis of basic concepts wherein I'm looking at mathematical terms, axioms, postulates. For example the initial section is examining t, and there's just no way I can tackle it mathematically. Again, noted. I've tried to cut it down to a minimum here. Thanks for the input. Noted. Noted. I've thought long and hard about this, and I am happy with my decision. * * * * * * * * * Ideally we'd see a mixture of mathematics and concept. IMHO I think there's a lot of the former and not enough of the latter. For example I've been struggling with geometry this morning, tying knots and moebius strips and performing various transformations. Whilst the mathematics of trigonometry and knot theory is essential, seeing it and grasping and really understanding it is essential to. I do. What's to say about twist?

Here's the "scientific paper" version of RELATIVITY+ on a publicly-available website: http://www.relativityplus.info/ Click on the link at the bottom of the single page to download the PDF file. Personally I think it's better to then print it and read it offline, but some prefer to read material like this directly on the screen. Each to his own. Note that this is a "qualitative model", more commonly known as a "toy model". It doesn't qualify as a theory, and it certainly isn't a "Theory of Everything". Doubtless there will be some errors in there, perhaps even a couple of howlers. Please can I have your feedback to help spot anything that's incorrect, or any other feedback, including opinion. I hope there's at least some good value in there that advances the cause we're all rooting for.

String Theory is a dead duck now Ben. The show's over. Time to move on. There's a new kid in town. Martin, here's that paper I referred to re the fine structure constant. http://www.relativityplus.info/ See page 27. Yes, it's all back of a fag packet stuff, but it offers a "reasonable" concept. It's a start.

Elas, you can read my paper on http://www.relativityplus.info

Please do. I'll be only too happy to discuss it. But do sit down and read the paper first, and raise relevant points. Hopefully Captain will ensure that good order is maintained. Best check with him first though.

You mean you actually tried it? http:\\http://www.relativityplus.info

LOL, this thread! I'm still laughing at: gib65: listen up. An electric field is the same thing as a magnetic field. That's why we call it an electromagnetic field. A magnetic field is how you see an electric field if you're moving through it. Or if it's moving through you. An electric field is a "twist field". It's twisted space. A magnetic field is a "turn field". Imagine that you’re flying through space like an aeroplane with your arms outstretched, but the space ahead of you is twisted like a catherine wheel because an electric field is present. When you encounter the twisted space, your wings will tilt. The twisted space will make you rotate. In other words it will cause you to turn. Now use Relativity to work out that if you aren’t travelling through space but you find yourself turning, then the twist must be travelling through you. That's all it is. It's as simple as that. Inside that magnet there are electrons travelling around in little weeny circles, all going the same way, and they're like the earth going round the sun. A day lasts 23 hours 56 minutes not 24 hours. There's a little bit of "turn" left over. So you get some of it spilling out, and voila you've got a magnetic field. You can think of a battery to a clockwork spring, but where the twist is in space rather than in steel. The electric twist extends forward with a flowing current, and causes a turning motion akin to a pump-action screwdriver, so demonstrating the principle of the electric motor. But we can equally turn a screw with a manual screwdriver, extending the twist forward, so demonstrating the principle of the dynamo. Applying a forward motion to the twist achieves a turning motion, and vice versa. Cross my heart and hope to die, that's how it is.

Here's my paper Edtharan: http://relativityplus.info Dowload the pdf file, print it, sit down, read it, then you can apologise, and then we'll talk again.

All points noted, ajb. I put "scientific paper" in quotes in my earlier post because I'm conscious that the lack of mathematics is an issue. I rather thought "toy" was being honest, but I take your point. I've spoken with some of the people in my acknowledgements, but not all. Thanks for the feedback. Any feedback anybody can offer will be gratefully received.

Here's the "scientific paper" version of RELATIVITY+ on a publicly-available website: http://www.relativityplus.info/ Click on the link at the bottom of the single page to download the PDF file. Personally I think it's better to then print it and read it offline, but some prefer to read material like this directly on the screen. Each to his own. Note that this is a "qualitative model", more commonly known as a "toy model". It doesn't qualify as a theory, and it certainly isn't a "Theory of Everything". Doubtless there will be some errors in there, perhaps even a couple of howlers. But I hope there's at least some good value that advances the cause we're all rooting for.

Oh, whatever, Edtharan. You ask for explanations, I offer them, you reject them because they're not "peer reviewed", then deliberately smother moot points in your mega-posts whilst accusing me of circular straw man arguments. OK, that's enough, I've given you a fair crack of the whip, again. You can wait until my paper is available. I was mistaken in thinking it might be worthwhile to engage you in dialogue. That's a mistake I won't make again.

Here's a round up from the wiki page on Unsolved problems in physics saying what I think I've covered in my paper. It's only 40 pages and 22,726 words, so much of the coverage is thin and I wouldn't say I've convincingly "dispelled" everything in this list: Accelerating universe and the Cosmological constant. Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the universe? What is dark matter? Entropy (arrow of time). What is the mechanism responsible for generating neutrino masses? Is the neutrino its own antiparticle? Pioneer anomaly. High-temperature superconductors. Is string theory (M-theory) the correct approach? Do black holes really exist? Do they radiate, as expected on theoretical grounds? (I've now deleted this) Does this radiation contain information about their inner structure? What happens to the information stored in it? Is there another way to probe their internal structure somehow? Extra dimensions - Does nature have more than four spacetime dimensions? Cosmic inflation - Is the theory of cosmic inflation correct? Multiple universes - are there physical reasons to believe in other universes.. ? Why is gravity such a weak force? Magnetic monopoles - Do particles that carry "magnetic charge" exist? Proton decay and Unification As the lightest baryon, are protons absolutely stable? Is there a preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics? How does the quantum description of reality... give rise to the reality we perceive? Are there physical phenomena... which irrevocably destroy information..? Do "fundamental physical constants" vary over time? Are string theory and the anthropic principle correct directions? But I do think there's some value in the paper, even if some aspects of it are incorrect. I really do explain time, energy, mass, charge, gravity, space, and particles. For example, I know what a neutrino actually is. I'm suffering a delay in getting the paper up on the internet, so if you'd like a copy PM me and I'll mail you one.

Sorry if this is perhaps a little off topic, but somebody was talking about Planck's Constant. I know why Planck's Constant is what it is. Yes, it's a constant of action, but I know why, and why it's really something else. Oh, and guess what, it isn't actually constant. Think Pound-Rebka.

Golden rule: there are no infinities in nature.

Spookily enough, that's where I've got to. Here's a picture of my one-trick pony. It's like Google. It can only do one trick. But it's pretty darn brilliant.

Time to dredge up one of my essays, chaps.

Skeptic, it's not as complicated as you maybe think. In pair production you need a 1022KeV gamma photon to make an electron and a positron. But if that's all you've got they don't fly apart. They just annihilate straight away. You need a bit more oomph so that they fly apart. If you catch hold of the electron and positron and put them back close together to make some positronium, it will last a microsecond before annihilating to give you two 511KeV gamma photons. But in catching hold of them you nicked a bit of their fly-apart energy. The negative is just accounting convention. All the energy is conserved. It gets a little confusing because initially you're looking at things from the rest frame of the nucleus, and afterwards people tend to fuzz over the electron motion and the positron motion.

Why thank you Ed. I'm blushing. Look, I'm cutting my replies down a little. Why do you always have to write an essay when you're talking to me? Just deal with one point at a time. Do you want a copy of my paper? PM me and I'll send you one. It should be on the internet soon, maybe later today. I don't suppose you remember MASS EXPLAINED? I've moved on a bit since then. Yes it does. Here you go: Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It is a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. So time has no length, time doesn’t flow and we don’t travel through it. The atoms move, and they only move through space, not time. Hot atoms do it more. No it doesn't. It most definitely matches observations. Your concept of time allows for moving through time, and time machines, and all sorts of stuff that definitely don't match observations. And it's a toy model, not a theory. Light defines our time, and light defines our distance. The world is painted in light, Ed. And so is the canvas. It would take me too long to explain it here.

Come off it, swanson. You've never heard me talking about perpetual motion machines. Antigravity maybe, but that isn't "shielding", and there's no free lunch.

It isn't false, BenTheMan. They have plenty to do with each other. But note my use of quotes and my comment involving the unification of the forces that explains electromagnetism and basically blows it away like a puff of smoke. You, know, Kaluza/Klein theory was that close to getting it right, but they both missed a trick - you don't need an extra dimension. But let's park that, we're getting off topic.

They've maybe got an inbuilt compass, Lawless: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/pmagnet.html

Mr Skeptic, here's an excerpt that may prove useful:

Einstein's my hero Skeptic. For all I know it was some translator at fault. Re your experiment, if you place the light clocks back to back like this: |__||_| and start the pulse at the left of both clocks, then your bounces happen at the same location and the same time for all observers. Note though that there is a problem with "Einstein clock synchronisation", wherein the "time taken" for the light to traverse the smaller clock one way is not necessarily the same time taken to traverse the other way. Yes, and some time to explain it properly. Sorry, I'm a bit pushed at the moment. To the earth. Or some similar body. He isn't talking about light sources. He's talking about gravity. Oh yes it is. A pendulum is made out of atoms. Atoms are made out of electrons and protons and neutrons. These are all "electromagnetic" in nature, as is gravity. I put "electromagnetic" in quotes because there's a deeper truth to this, involving the unification of the forces that explains electromagnetism and basically blows it away like a puff of smoke. I know that sounds incredible, but I mean it. No. You just can't have a change without a movement. Somewhere somehow, there's always motion. All you're measuring is motion, like in Fred's watch with its Swiss "movement", in terms of other motion. The motion of light. And your ruler is, in barest essence, made of light. I've really worked this through, Edtharan. And it is just so beautifully simple.

Edtharan: I replied at length to your long post this afternoon, but had some kind of Internet problem and lost it. I don't feel like doing a long reply again. Please can you pick one subitem to discuss, and then can we move on to the next subitem please. It's related to the way you feel a "tidal" force in a gravitational field. If you move towards a star the tidal force increases. Ditto if the star moves towards you. And if the star is a neutron star in some fast orbit the tidal force will vary in a cyclic fashion. It's getting a little off topic, and it's only relevant because it relies on motion. It does, Fred. Cross my heart and hope to die. Light slows down. Hence "time slows down". In Special Relativity both observers see the other observer with slowed-down light. It's a trick of perspective. In General Relativity it's no trick. It's absolute. And the man himself said this: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (eg of light)". I know he said velocity, but he meant speed. If he didn't, what he said translates to "light curves because it bends". I can't comment on "stopped light", Fred. But light doesn't slow down when it passes through a transparent medium. It's just got further to go. Trust me on this. Sorry, I guess that's off topic too.