nstansbury

I wouldn't focus too much on my original thread, although my broad thoughts remain much the same, there are errors and unsatisfactory assumptions in that thread that I can no longer edit out, specifically involving the Bohr Radius & Rydberg constant et al. Additionally the waves I describe would no longer need to be "magically" superluminal - as by interacting as per above, their group velocities would only need to be - for which there already is experimental data with photons.

Sure [math]G=\frac{Lp^3}{Mp.Tp^2}[/math] [math]Lp[/math]=Planck Length (m) [math]Mp[/math]=Planck Mass (Kg) [math]Tp[/math]=Planck Time (s) Gravity=[math]\frac{d^{3}}{m.t^{2}}[/math]

Ok, interesting. I'll stick this more fully in my own thread so as not to obfuscate yours, but FYI attached is a diagram of what I've been considering. The figures keep popping out of my calculations, and I'm not always sure why yet. Given [math]G=\frac{Lp^3}{Mp.Tp^2}[/math] it is interesting that a cone of propagation described by a [math]\varphi[/math] spiral always preserves the proportions of the Planck length cubed. Also, given it describes a cone, at [math]1^{-35}[/math] the circumference of one rotation is almost exactly [math]\frac{1}{3}\hbar[/math] ..and at [math]1.00115^{-10}[/math] the radius of a full curve is exactly G. I'm still trying to understand how it all fits together, and what impact a negative refractive index would indeed have, but thought you might be interested! This was my initial thread that got me here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33431 N

Norman I've read some of your papers on your laps.noaa.gov link with interest. I am struggling to totally keep up with all your assertions. However, amongst others, one statement in your "Photon Localization" paper especially intrigued me: "we would expect this energy to expand adiabatically with light". I have been working trying to understand how quantas of energy might interact with each other, and whether it could explain Gravity and mass. My calculations lead me to think that Gravity & mass is caused by these monochromatic quanta interacting and refracting each other into a propagating algorithmic spiral. Interesting, following the equations through, both the Planck Constant and Planck length fall out - Lp to within [math]1.4^{-38}[/math] My current issue is it implies these quanta have a negative refractive index with each other, and I am as yet unsure of these implications. However, it would indeed expect energy to "expand adiabatically with light" Do you have any thoughts on how your quanta might propagate, and whether they indeed might interact with each other? N

Firstly, apologies to mooeypoo for somewhat hijacking her thread - it wasn't intentional! Secondly, I've been very careful about never calling my idea a "Theory" only ever a "proposal". I fully accept you start from a position of untruth and earn any validity with solid science. I'd also like to say it was never an ego thing about not being in a "mainstream" forum. I'd be quite content being in a: "This is sheer speculation forum, but the poster behind it isn't a total plank, suggesting the world is flat/Einstein is wrong et al and has at least a modicum of solid scientific knowledge behind their ideas, and genuinely wants to discuss and find any potential flaws in the idea so they can get on with their lives and/or refine and improve their knowledge or proposal" But if you look at the sheer number of posts against say for example one of MotorDaddy's threads - some go into 6 pages based on repeated nonsense, yet my thread (as an example) got barely into 2 pages - and then fell of the first page list. It's almost like the least intellectually worthy of discussion (IMO) are the one's at the top of the forum listing. How many of us click through to the 2nd/3rd page listing? I confess I've done it once - twice perhaps. If the desire is to keep a combined PS & S forum my suggestion is this: In the same way we can give a poster positive feedback points based on their posts, a thread can be given negative feedback points by other members. The default sorting of the forum is not "Most recent", but "Least Negative", with perhaps a colour coding to imply some sort of BS-o-meter When you first start a new thread you have zero BS points, and you will drop or stay in place relative to the BS in other threads. When a thread reaches x BS points it is automatically closed/deleted, the poster gets a warning as their BS points are used up. That way the more BS points you have the more likely your thread is to slip off to the 2nd/3rd pages - it's still there but no censoring, and a troll can't hijack a top forum position by posting stuff that winds everyone up. Additionally, the mods don't have to keep deciding when enough is enough PS. I appreciate that using my thread as an example sounds somewhat arrogant, but I genuinely don't want [my ideas] to be associated with a MotorDaddy or NewScience.

I did - it got moved into the PS & S forum, and my requests for it to be moved out never amounted to anything

Yet something like 30+ institutions around the world have repeated the experiment now with the similar results. The "establishment" keep saying that they are cranks and it can't be fusion because there are no neutrinos. Who cares - P&F never claimed CF, they claimed "excess heat" in an experiment that should have had none - that's the real question that needs to be answered, not whether it is/isn't CF. After I addressed and reposted nothing. As I said there was nothing - the thread just fell off to page x, despite me re-editing on a number of occasions. No, I'm suggesting no-one made any critique of the core proposal, aside from the (retrospectively) obvious typos in my equations. The refined work happened because of my own criticism of my work, and also a desire for a more elegant solution. Hence the reason, I've not bothered re-posting and gone down the academia route instead. I can only progress or drop the proposal if I get to discuss it - and that wasn't happening here. I even sent a PM to your good self requesting that due to lack of comments it get moved somewhere else: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/member.php?u=1473 This was the reason I suggested that my overriding impression is that if any new idea here can't be immediately seen to be flawed, interest wanes rather quickly. That may or may not be a consequence of thread overload in the PS forum. N

I quite agree - and understand, but this is exactly why I felt the BS Pseudo-Science forum should be separate from the Speculation forum, specifically so genuine posters arn't dammed by association. However, on a point of order - I did provide the equivalent of 3x A4 pages of formulas with explanations to backup my idea. It is very disappointing to come to a forum such as this, make a significant effort in time to frame the discussion, and end up walking away with the feeling that if it can't be obviously dismissed by others immediately then no further discussion takes place. I haven't bothered posting my refined work and calculations, because I don't honestly believe it will be discussed seriously here - I think that's a genuine shame. (Though please don't misunderstand me - I'm in no way implying that there is some form of obligation on other members to invest their time to go over someone else's calculus!) N

That's not exactly what I meant - I was specifically referring to how certain members of the "scientific" community have treated many new ideas - Pons & Fleishman, heck even Einstein when he first published SR and many many others. Unfortunately, ignorance & short sightedness are not the sole provenance of those outside the scientific community. The one thing I've learned as an engineer is, thinking you have all the answers is almost always a sure fire way to ensure that you don't. To quote Arthur C. Clarke: "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible he is almost certainly right, but if he says that it is impossible he is very probably wrong." I would again repeat what I said: This isn't meant as a specific dig at anyone here - just an example of perhaps not pausing enough to consider. The ideas I presented a month or so ago have since been refined and worked on. Not one person, commented along the lines of "that's an intriguing idea" -let's genuinely discuss the evidence - yet two Quantum Physicists and a Astro-Physicist - one from a well regarded UK University have since commented in exactly that fashion, and suggested it needs further looking into. Maybe there's something in them - maybe there isn't. Don't be so anxious to challenge & disprove something that you lose sight of the reason for doing so. N

Apologies I'm rather late to this thread and for the longish post. I think any "censorship" of this fashion needs to be done *very* carefully otherwise it becomes a slippery slope. There are in my view, far too many "scientists" who are so closed minded to new/awkward ideas that they arn't much different to the local priest - they just preach from a different handbook. That in my view is just as much bad science as being "so open minded your brain falls out". I would also add, I have personally gained something from MotorDaddy's posts, in that they forced me to re-examine how I framed my arguments, and encouraged me to do more research to better explain my thoughts - even if he ignored them completely and also given me the opportunity to read other posters ideas and perspectives. (I love the irony that I got more out of his threads than MotorDaddy did!) This is something I believe all advocates of a rigorous, repeatable, peer-reviewed, evidential approach to life's questions should encourage in themselves, and ensures that you don't end up in an intellectual sewer along with the trolls & "3G" believers (Ghouls, Ghosts & Gods). I would make two suggestions that might help sedate the Trolls. 1) Firstly, split threads that are reasonable speculation from pseudo-science. I'm personally still smarting that ideas that I have genuinely spent many hundreds of hours working through the theories and calculus, are associated with "Rocks are alive" & "Einstein got it wrong" et al threads. It de-values both by association and thread clutter, any ideas that are at least of intellectual curiosity, and worthy of further discussion in a forum such as SFN. It also clearly indicates to any "Googlers" and trolls that the Pseudo-Science (PS) forum is in reality the BS science forum, and this is where you get put when you elect not to engage the 4 million years worth of evolution sitting in between your ears. 2) Secondly, perhaps the partially locked thread suggestion could be enhanced by a mod listing the 10 best/most relevant posts made in a "troll birthing" thread, and lock it until the OP has *CONCISELY* & and intelligently addressed these point by point. This way the freedom of speech and ideas principles are preserved and any potential troll mis-classifications are given the opportunity to address the major points without 10 other posters sidetracking and perhaps diluting the key issues that the poster must first address. My tuppence worth. N

Ok, so take this spiral as a 3 dimensional object and extend the centre point outward perpendicularly to the rest of the spiral. You'll effectively end up with an infinitely decreasing "pig tail" cork screw, whose volumes should be able to be described as a "cone". In a spiral defined by [math]\varphi[/math], each quarter turn of the spiral the radius reduces by a factor of 0.61803 (90o), so for every 360o the imaginary "cone's" radius reduces by a factor of 2.47212 for [math]n[/math] height.

Hi, I am looking to take a logarithmic spiral defined by [math]\varphi[/math] and calculate it's volume as a "cone". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_spiral I know it's effectively a fractal so it tends to [math]\infty[/math], but within a reasonable level of accuracy I should be able to calculate its' volume, but its' flat side I think always throws my calculations from the value I'm expecting by a small value.

Except the speed of light.

Ahem... apologies but I believe.... [math]F=G(\frac{m_1\cdot m_2}{r^2})[/math]

Oh for christ's sake - convert them then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at the graphic forget the numbers - Mars goes around SLOWER than the Earth - a Martian year is LONGER than an earth year. Therefore 1 Martian Year / 365 will be different to an Earth Year / 365 Therefore a Martian second cannot be the same as an Earth second!

Are you just trying to really really really hard to be obtuse???? I've already said - we are in the same frame of reference - we have agreed on the size of a table in our frame of reference Make an effort and look at that link I sent you!!! A year is NOT a year absolutely - it is arbitrary based on how quickly we go round the sun.

Well unless you've just done an experiment to prove that - no, it doesn't But..... if you and I are in the same frame of reference you don't need to know the distance of my TL and the duration of my MR - because they are the same as yours! (Though bear in mind the speed of light is the exception - and is the same in ALL frames of reference, whether we measure in [math]T^R/M^R[/math] or [math]m/s[/math] MD - look at this animation - how does your/my "year" compare to a Martian "year": http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/mars/mars_orbit.html

I've already given it to you: [math]v=\frac{T^L}{M^R}[/math] Find out how many ([math]n[/math]) tables light travels per mailbox and [math]c[/math] will be: [math]c = \frac{nT^R}{M^R}[/math] Instead of light being measured in [math]m/s[/math] it will be measured in [math]T^R/M^R[/math] An arbitrary point of measurement - in other words what ever you want it to be! We, on earth in our frame of reference have defined it as 3 paces - but that doesn't mean 2 paces isn't a table, any more that a round table is any less of a table than a square one. Look, a second isn't some magical mystical number cosmically defined by God or the big bang - it's something humans have made up to give us a standard to measure against. Remember, our notion of a Year, a Day, an Hour, a Second are defined by how quickly we rotate around the Sun, if we rotated faster our years, days, seconds would be different, so how can a second be absolute?

NO IT DOESN'T!!!!!!!!! Science uses A table for it's calculations - your table definition is no more right or wrong than mine. A table is a table whether it is 2 paces long or 3 paces long - IT IS STILL A TABLE!

Given: [math]Time == M^R[/math] and [math]Distance == T^R[/math] [math]2 M^R[/math] Given: [math]\frac{10 Paces}{1 Mailbox}[/math] [math]\frac{3 Breathes}{1 Pace}[/math] then: [math]\frac{10 x 3}{1 x 1} = \frac{30 B^R}{1 M^R} = \frac{1M^R}{30 B^R}3B^R = 0.1 M^R[/math] Is your table the same length as mine? Given: [math]\frac{1 Table}{2 Paces}[/math] then: [math]\frac{1}{2} T^r[/math] Only if our tables are. ..and that's why its' called "Relativity" - because "stuff" is only ever relative to what YOU know. Seriously MD, re-read the maths above - because I have every idea of the DISTANCE of my table, and the DURATION of my mailbox run.

And if: [math]v=\frac{d}{t}[/math] then: [math]v=\frac{T^L}{M^R}[/math] The equation is the same, the units involved are only applicable when you add dimensions to them. So: The table is 2 paces There are 10 paces to the mailbox and you take 3 breathes per pace Your speed - measured in tables per mailbox is: [math]\frac{1 Table}{2 Paces}[/math] [math]\frac{10 Paces}{1 Mailbox}[/math] Thus your speed is: [math]\frac{ 1 x 10}{2 x 1} = 5 T^L /M^R[/math] or 5 tables/mailbox Your speed to the mailbox in breathes per table is: [math]\frac{2 Paces}{1 Table}[/math] [math]\frac{3 Breathes}{1 Pace}[/math] thus: [math]\frac{ 2 x 3}{1 x 1}= 6 B^r/T^L[/math] ..and we already know your table can shrink because of the Lorenz Contraction, so lets say the table is now only 1.5 paces, therefore: [math]\frac{1.5 Paces}{1 Table}[/math] [math]\frac{3 Breathes}{1 Pace}[/math] thus: [math]\frac{ 1.5 x 3}{1 x 1}= 4.5 B^r/T^L[/math] Time has still slowed down and no seconds were involved.

Absolutely, and your velocity (not speed) is 0m/s

A model spaceship in a vacuum chamber. There is still a vacuum - only it has a model spaceship in it. MD - read experiments: http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/exp/experiment2.html http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/exp/experiment3.html

That link provides some really interesting reading, Motor Daddy this is specifically relevant to this discussion: "1. The Principle of Relativity: One cannot tell by any experiment whether one is at rest or moving uniformly (that is, moving in a straight line with constant velocity). In other words, there is no such thing as absolute rest. All motion or rest is only in relation to other observed objects (i.e. I can consider myself not to be moving with respect to the earth while at the same time I am moving very rapidly with respect to the sun)."

I thought this was a great post, and summed up the issues very well: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33576&p=416381