kristalris

Hm no relation between GR and the SM then in your opinion then? As I understand it it was on the basis of observing some particles (photons) of the now SM that the general rule even law of GR was based. Take away those particles and you have no law left that states how these particles move through space time. Ergo they are interlinked. We know that there are problems in science concerning GR; it doesn't mix with QM and it is at odds with several dark issues. Apart from that as a general rule any formula has its regime in which it is assumed to be valid. So must the law of GR (in so far it has been verified (= found by observation to be true up to the accuracy required because otherwise unverifiable = not as yet to be held true)) have its limits. If the extrapolation of mathematics holds true for many other later discovered particles then one can not hold that GR will hold true in say a black hole where we can't assume that even a photon can exist. Or that it holds true outside our visible universe or holds true given the assumption that there are sub SM particles. Otherwise you want to work it like a robot. What then does man have to offer in your opinion in reaching TOE? A. Challenges to the equivalence principle[edit source] One challenge to the equivalence principle is the Brans-Dicke theory. Self-creation cosmology is a modification of the Brans-Dicke theory. The Fredkin Finite Nature Hypothesis is an even more radical challenge to the equivalence principle and has even fewer supporters. In August 2010, researchers from the School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Australia; the Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia; and the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, United Kingdom; published the paper "Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant", whose tentative conclusion is that, "qualitatively, [the] results suggest a violation of the Einstein Equivalence Principle, and could infer a very large or infinite universe, within which our `local' Hubble volume represents a tiny fraction."[36] Explanations of the equivalence principle[edit source] Dutch physicist and string theorist Erik Verlinde has generated a self-contained, logical derivation of the equivalence principle based on the starting assumption of a holographic universe. Given this situation, gravity would not be a true fundamental force as is currently thought but instead an "emergent property" related to entropy. Verlinde's approach to explaining gravity apparently leads naturally to the correct observed strength of dark energy; previous failures to explain its incredibly small magnitude have been called by such people as cosmologist Michael Turner (who is credited as having coined the term "dark energy") as "the greatest embarrassment in the history of theoretical physics".[37] However, it should be noted that these ideas are far from settled and still very controversial. Those damn Dutch eh? In fact I'm saying the same sort of thing my double dynamic crystal can be seen as holographic having effects and gravity isn't in my opinion either a true fundamental force chaos and order is. Anyway I'm not as alone in this line of thought as you make it out to be. Point I : you seem to have dodged this issue. You make it into legalise. I say photons don't exert gravity at least that to be extremely (and when I say extremely I mean extremely) improbable yet I could accommodate in my model yet bending over backwards to comply. Now I see that it isn't verified at all as you stated earlier. Of course GR is only a law of physics (to which my model complies) in so far it has been verified. Photons exerting gravity isn't amoung that. So again under pressure my model has stood the test. And again: the prediction that an apple will fall upwards from a tree in Kenya is a testable and sufficiently accurate scientific statement for falsification. as is the statement that my stated simulation will go to order. It does or doesn't, absolutely accurate binary problem.

Ah Sir Flamealot, weren't you part of the Kruger Dunning triplet as I recall? My posts maybe long by your standards but I certainly don't dodge issues. You lot do.

Q .If it's a verified law of physics, then stop claiming things which contradict it are true, or that things included in it are false. EQ So this is untrue (last sentence)? Gravitational redshift has been measured in the laboratory[/size]%5B52%5D and using astronomical observations.[/size]%5B53%5D Gravitational time dilation in the Earth's gravitational field has been measured numerous times using [/size]atomic clocks,[/size]%5B54%5D while ongoing validation is provided as a side effect of the operation of the [/size]Global Positioning System (GPS).[/size]%5B55%5D Tests in stronger gravitational fields are provided by the observation of [/size]binary pulsars.[/size]%5B56%5D All results are in agreement with general relativity.[/size]%5B57%5D However, at the current level of accuracy, these observations cannot distinguish between general relativity and other theories in which the equivalence principle is valid.[/size]%5B58%5D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Consequences_of_Einstein.27s_theory Q That's not how it works. GR has an actual framework with a mathematical model. It' not enough to say you give the same answers but then tell a fairy tale about how it all works, as a substitute for the science. EQ Well it is how it should work as a dictate of logic yet we agree it doesn't. Every hypothesis with or without mathematics can be seen as a fairy tale. If you only use mathematics to describe the world you create for yourself the illusion of a world without any assumptions (being just that). In effect you think you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. You always have assumptions because you can't measure everything. In fact you should then also oppose making different scenarios at a crime scene on the basis of very little data. These are fairy tales in effect. Being checked regularly these lead to quick results. They show you where to look for say dna. The police can't swipe the entire crime scene. Q Your proposal is trivially false. That you do not recognize this is the problem. EQ You want someone else to work an idea out until there is hardly any risk anymore. And then you want to claim the success for science. Q Oh good grief, this is a special kind of denial. Your statements are recorded for everyone to see. "On what evidence do you base the claim - if any - that GR holds true outside the SM?" only makes sense if one assumes GR is part of the SM. Otherwise why would one have to worry about the validity outside of the SM? EQ Of course not. Let us say that the entire SM is proven wrong. Would that leave GR unaffected? They are interlinked.What I'm saying is you can't say that GR is valid in places where all or even most of the particles of SM can not be assumed to exist. Q What sub SM particles? EQ The ignored ones. Q Photons exerting gravity is part of GR. Yes, I work with photons. And gravity, in a sense. But not for the purpose of testing GR, though we've been able to do that as a result. EQ Well then do you state that photons exert gravity? And if so has this been experimentally observed? If so,isn't above mentioned wikipedia page wrong? Q Not at all. I think n-1 of everyone reading this can spot the farce. EQ 0 no data. Very funny. specially that the data we have show mounting questions. Those data scream for an testable explanation. I give that. Q You haven't made any predictions on physics. You haven't given any quantified testable predictions. Until you do, I reject the label that it is testable. EQ Going to order or not is accurate enough for mathematical testing as is to check whether speeding up raises gravity. Illogical impractical formalism. Q Of the two of us, only one actually does science. EQ So? This reminds me of a Josh Billings quote "It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so." EQ My words exactly. Q You are claiming a lot of things that just aren't true. EQ Such as? Q Funding sources are not an issue in regard to fundamental physics errors. EQ Got to go. Reproducible verification requires a mathematical model, and a precise prediction. agree That's not what you said on page 1 of this thread (emphasis added): I think he means don't misconstrue his posts to mean that he agrees with you. Yes. I find the Dunning-Kruger effect fascinating. Mine is to keep the milkman out of the operating room, because he has nothing constructive to offer.

(There has just been a post added that I've not yet read.) The pedantic observation that a measurement was taken giving indeed numbers. Numbers as such do not constitute time dilation. To get there you need to infer what the number means in order to make sense of it. Make sense in the sense that you understand what the numbers show to mean that time actually slows down or just can be taken as to slow down in a certain context. The latter is completely something else than the former. To understand that you must be able to analyse properly. Again: the mathematics dictates that you first get you garbage in problem solved. You and ajb think you can do this by just using numbers on the question of TOE right? Okay then on the chessboard of reason concerning QM or GR or SR you indeed may do that. No qualms in this department as long as the numbers have been properly verified. Which I guess is not the case concerning photons exerting gravity. Now on the chessboard of reason on the probandum of TOE the wizard mr Maths asks you what shall I put in my mathematical equation is the universe infinite or not? Is there pressure in the system or not? So you are only going to answer these questions on the basis of existing data because on the other boards it has been such a success? Oh dear mr Maths will of course comply if you say we don't need to answer these questions on TOE we measure on the two boards that c = max & time is relative. Slight problem that when you take GR true i.e. that the apples fall down then they fall upwards in QM and vice versa. Ergo you are playing the wrong boards. Mr Maths will like a robot take you garbage in and say indeed I can marry GR to QM when something comes from nothing Krauss or when the universe is a pretzel shape. You infer then this is extremely unlikely but the computer says it so it must be true. On the chessboard of reason on TOE you in fact however - infringing on the rules of mr Maths! - haven't answered all the relevant questions. So you haven't even placed all the pieces on the board. You thus don't even get to fools mate. You are disqualified before even the first move. Now ajb in the post he has given in support of yours he again plays the argument of authority card that provides indeed a high value on the GR/QM & SR boards, yet what is that card worth on the TOE board? Please state your claim Klaynos and ajb do you want absolute authority or slightly less? Like I said I give Einstein on this board 1/10 of correctly guessing the garbage 9/10 or non garbage 1/10 in question. By coming up with the right idea as a thought experiment or brain child. Where are BTW these brain childs of current science on TOE? Nowhere. Where are your concept babies to be worked out? How is current science catering that these come about? You have no successes on the board of TOE because the past hundred years you've diverged in stead of converged on TOE. Inherently all mathematics is linked to a garbage / non garbage in in verbal logic. (= English, dutch chinese etc.) You want the mathematics on observing stated computer simulation go to order or not is like asking for the mathematics on discerning whether an apple falls up or down. Not seeing that this is not only a possible but even fundamental answer on TOE (and a lot more) is breathtaking. Asking a lawyer to do the mathematics is like asking a milkman do brain surgery. Indeed a moment of inspiration on a dynamic crystal followed by a lot of transpiration. Because no one likes sweaty lawyers and because I'd have to bill you isn't it my job but that of science to cater for getting idea's bringing them to fruition. I guess that you wouldn't be very pleased if you were innocently arrested that the lawyer would say to you, oh dear well every citizen should know the law and wish you success and leave. Apart from all the rules this would be dishonourable. Ajb doesn't have to drop his mathematics if he isn't creative enough to work the problem of TOE no dishonour or shame in that. To think however you can fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle only using mathematics is proof of not understanding the fundamental basics of mathematics. To correctly state that it is presently organised differently is a somewhat odd way of reacting to the statement that this is the problem. In short, if you don't state position on the chessboard of reason on TOE, you can't state any position. For he who states position, even in science needs to prove position. There: verbal logic.

There's nothing wrong with the data. GPS works. Until you come up with an alternative model that actually predicts the amount of dilation and the source of it, you have nothing. EQ I've not said that anything is wrong with the data but only in the verbal logic of inferring of part of the data. IAnd no I don't have to come up with anything better concerning GR as far as it is a verified law of physics. I only have to be just as good in the sense that no conflict can be shown. What then is better, well that I at a verbal logical common sense way marry GR to QM in so far both (as an add on based on you failed attempt to contest my model with a dubious at best bit of GR, where even then - my model can accommodate - by - granted - bending over backwards. So in short photons probably don't exert gravity because they have been observed after traveling billions of years that they don't cluster. Probably GR has some defects which is extremely probable because it is accepted that it can't be married to QM. Until now then. So you really have to scrape the bucket in order to find some shit that you hope falsifies my model. Because it failed whichever way you turn it it logically achieves the opposite of strengthening it. Yet again BTW. Q GR is not part of the SM. GR is not part of the SM EQ Never said or even implied it was. But if you trash SM you trash GR and vice versa. GR (and QM) are very closely married to the SM. GR and QM predict relationships between particles of the SM in an astounding accuracy. Yet GR and QM say can say noting about sub SM particles. Q I pretty much ignored the crystal part because your discussion on relativity was so misinformed. EQ Well I guess I've deal with that then. Yes I was misinformed and thus should of added "insofar it has been verified by observation." That's solved then. BTW do you honestly think that photons exert gravity? Or do you simply don't know or even dare to guess. You even work with the stuff if I'm right. Yes, well, this concept of scientifically ignoring the main point and concentrating on minor issues and getting that wrong has now been dealt with then. You are so very right in introducing Monty Python to this problem. We get the - very - authoritative person on stage who immediately discards the obvious common sense choice and goes as a matter of course for what the mob likes, the nitwit of the year wants, being a pretzel shaped universe - because the big multi million pound worth machine that says "ping" says so. Subsequently after finally having everything in order, and someone has asked "ëh the patient?" goes into a flurry of activity trying to find the patient via a microscope. Finding alas something that gets one even further of track to "and now we are in the middle of the film." bit. (having any second thoughts on introducing Monty Python? spot on mate keep it coming.) Q No, it's based on your claim that your model doesn't have a conflict with GR. It does. One sees that by looking at GR. EQ I think I've quite effectively dealt with this. Q I have to assume what you mean here is that you can replicate the results of GR with your model. That's different. It also means more than just this corner of physics, since there is an inter-relatedness of physics. If you do away with relativity, you also do away with E&M, which is really relativity for charges. You're saying that all of physics works differently than what standard physics says about it. EQ You still don't get it do you? My predictions on physics are absolutely spot on. Every time. Again and again. I simply ask a physicist what the prediction of current verified physics is on the question. Then I take my super model and think very hard - without having to get undressed BTW - and - after careful deliberations state the same. A wager with you my model is spot on. Q Without a testable model, EQ It is a testable model, what are you talking about? Q i.e. math, EQ Oh dear, now please go back to science / maths class. I paid attention there some thirty years ago. And my old mathematics teacher said all you need for maths is a straight stick and a string on a patch of sand. So true I'll take it as a metaphor for the basic rules of mathematics. Now Swansont et al print this and frame it and put it above your bed: "FIRST SOLVE THE GARBAGE IN PROBLEM WITH VERBAL LOGIC THEN DO THE MATHEMATICS" If you don't as a Dutchman I will have then the privilege of bestowing on you the honorary peeredge of the world renowned Escher Institute. Get it? Q nobody cares. EQ Oh dear, problem is you are right! And wrong! First of all with what you mean by "nobody". I guess it clearly doesn't mean my fellow cranks on this site. I guess you mean among the Monty Python worthy authorities who are in charge of funding science and their patronage. I.e everyone who counts. I wonder have you ever bothered your self with psychology and history apart from physics? How do you think a discussion between the French and British generals - all top of their classes - would of gone had you - even knowing what would happen - have gone in march 1940 in trying to explain to them what they were all doing wrong? "No One" would've cared. BTW many many more examples for this. How could it be that they lost big time? I know via current science, do you? Why are the current general / leaders of nuclear physics any better than these generals all highly experienced and knowledgeable. Q You don't get a special pass on this just because you're convinced you're right. EQ The only pass I need is the logic pass. Doesn't that work then on this site? BTW I convinced I'm right that my model is to be seen as a proven concept that can morally and logically claim support. Via reproducible verification it can be checked that that it is correct. Q Then why is it that getting something specific to actually test (i.e. quantifying an effect) is like pulling teeth? It's because you have no math. No math, no model. What you have are stories, not science. EQ Indeed a current scientific cock up proving that the production department has taken over research. We are slowly but yet accelerating in a downward spiral. Q Your model says that time is absolute and you can exceed c, among many other things. That's in direct conflict with much of science, and you won't be able to use the same math, even though you'll have to come up with the same result. But you are free to try. Let's see it. EQ No it is not in conflict with science when properly applied. First in my model time is what the clock reads. So if it is convenient to have relative time, be my quest. If it works to spec it works. And it indeed works. Q Without a testable model, i.e. math, this is a colossal waste of time. Your hand-wavy argument warrants nothing on anybody else's part. It's your thesis. You get to do the work. EQ The obsession to have the milkman perform brain surgery remains astounding in highly educated and rational people. what are their goals? Q It's on the list of contradictions when you say that your claims are not in conflict with current science. GR says that light exerts gravity. You say it doesn't. EQ Went through that. ?

A. Time dilation has been inferred in indeed a context, this has been done on a verbal logic level as we have established. That is the science of it. In science when you have a dispute if something is correctly inferred you go back to the primary data. In this case the measurement. Which can not only lead but extremely probably leads via the same verbal logic to other conclusions as I've done. B. Again then: as long as you keep the laws of Newton in their domain then these laws are not in conflict with GR. My point is if you keep GR within its domain: namely that of the SM then there is no conflict with my model. Stating otherwise is saying that GR has no limits and no concept may provide such a limit. Because otherwise it becomes impossible to falsify or prove any concept. Because the very means needed to do that is the issue at hand. On what evidence do you base the claim - if any - that GR holds true outside the SM? No one in science says that apart from maybe Krauss et al and then I guess only implicitly. My model shows why if you look through your GR microscope at the problem why you observe that it is Lorentz invariant when observed like that. Reason is simple my model is under your radar so to speak. What you would call two (maybe three if you don't accept the third element o my model: absolute nothing (and a lot of it) unicorns. Yet not magical they are based on logical deduction as the - only - way in making all the apples fall down again in physics where the past hundred years we see more and more observations that can't be explained other than by in effect magic as Krauss et al do. And don't forget all the particles in the SM are former unicorns. That you don't know what I mean by crystal is a pity because the core of the idea is a dynamic crystal that can be tested in the computer simulation in the OP. The first idea was a universe with just one particle in such a crystal and that was a good idea. Only the concept or prototype plane spun out of control because it needed a second particle crystal. Now it is stable. That is what you should do adapt and improve a concept. So facit you claim an infringement on GR based on looking at it via GR. That is logically incorrect. You must look at GR from the perspective of the model. You didn't because you didn't even grasp the main point of the entire model: the dynamic double crystal with two particles > c. One smaller and faster one slower. As we have established and confirmed by ajb it is educated guesswork. You need to fill in the assumed missing pieces of the puzzle. And, like we two have also established this needs to be inferred out of the data and put in a context of verbal logic thus, because we are trying to determine what to put into the mathematics. Not only have you failed to show where my model conflicts with GR or QM for that matter Logic the Lorentz invariance doesn't take in account speeds > c. I do, my model can't be in conflict with any observation concerning this. And it explains why you think you see this invariance. If a crystal restores itself > c the illusion is created by MN quicker than the eye i.e. your observation. BTW a lot of testing has been done on the Lorentz invariance so that is good. But that doesn't disprove this. So 1. my model under pressure doesn't get worse it gets better: Atom Ion showed the helicopter analogy get through with flying colors. So does it pass the attack that it would be in violation of Lorentz, it isn't it does one better it explains it. (And many more instances before that) Like with any good idea the pieces of the puzzle fall into place quickly without having to bend over backwards in a pretzel. 2. My model concept is exceedingly simple versus the extreme complexity of what we now have 3. My model explains it all and potentially all there is to explain, whereas you have none at the moment; 4. My model is testable / potentially testable. Because my model does not infringe on anything of current science it can lay claim on the mathematics of current science in support of it. Simple logic if it doesn't conflict it is okay. This proves a concept i.e. that it warrants further effort put into it by science and claim at least the moral backing for that. D. If we observe photons indeed exerting gravity (which would then have to be extremely weak for light traveling for billions of years should then of lumped.) then it would mean that the double dynamic crystal higgs field provides this very slowly at relativistic speeds. Even that wouldn't be in conflict with the model. This model can easily accommodate a lot of side issues and is testable at it's core: the forming (or even near forming of the order of ) a dynamic crystal. And whether or not speeding something up creating the extra amount of gravity needed to explain DM. These two points must be testable. A dictate of logic that takes precedence over any convention asking for anything more in order to start testing. In this I see that I unwittingly already reacted to both posts that were posted while I was writing this. I can't get them opened and dare not for fear of losing what I wrote. edit 2 shall we try and stick to GR and QM insofar it has been verified by observation, because I'm not aware that photons exerting gravity have indeed been observed. A & B see my reaction earlier that I posted not yet having read this. The same goes for electrons as for photons. My model does not conflict with any observationally confirmed anything that GR or QM or any other law states or can be made to fit easily. As long as it's testable which it is, that can't be a problem for a concept. Like a prototype (or concept airplane) it is quite normal to alter it like I've kept on doing. The thing is does it subsequently get stronger? It does and has. D. as you see I have done and do. E. Excellent, always good to try and take the mickey out of someone, although I explicitly try not to do that back in this case. A. I don't contest that. It is not the issue. B. Look at it like this: the current scientific method has won the national cup, the european and the world cup. Since a hundred years or so the rowing team of science has been in the race for the Olympic gold on TOE. Pity they have been rowing in the wrong direction by diverging instead of converging on a solution for TOE. Why? first of all by not putting it high on the agenda and secondly because they have acted like a doctor with a microscope in front of the head in search for the patient. very high Monty Python level is thus granted. The fact that they won all the other prizes doesn't count in this game as I guess you understand. Furthermore on authority what is the authority of current science on reaching a TOE within the decade given Einstein a 1/10 chance? If you want to give Einstein any other value be my guest. Mine is 1/ 10000 although irrelevant BTW because if a concept or idea is simple and explaines it all without infringing on verified parts of GR / QM / current science and is testable it should be tested. Otherwise you are rowing in an excellent way creating much worthwhile data yet in Monty Python style in the wrong direction. Ajb and I have already established that fundamental research as on TOE saves lives so we are in a hurry.

I don't know what you are talking about. I've never stated that photons are a source of gravity but I've expressly stated quite the opposite. And I've stated that one can levitate a living frog in a magnetic fieldhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation Why do you feel that I'm just after an emotional response with you? I'm trying to get a rational logical response, yet not always getting such a response. It is a known psychological fact that stating something that should lead to a paradigm shift insights emotional responses. So, that doesn't mean that when you get emotional - if that is indeed the case - that this is the object.

A. Oh? Time dilation is in your opinion not inferred out of measurements yet has been observed or mathematically proven? Taking time to be relative in a mathematical formula that works doesn't prove time slowing down BTW. B. Yes indeed. So? It has also not been successful insofar diverging instead of converging on TOE. And put in that way it also encompasses DSM that has been and still is destructive, also in getting present Einsteins and Newtons the education and place in reacherarch by deeming them mad.

A. Ha, ha, it is an adult concept yet a concept is always a baby. You don't even have an embryo for a TOE. B. You don't know that you don't get extra mass for moving because it is a measurement problem to discern how much is needed for to provide for DM. And my model is frame invariant because the crystal restores itself > c. Again a measurement problem. Even if you spin an atom clock (up to a point of course) whilst accelerating it in a straight line will not affect the outcome predicted by GR. At the deepest level it all of course walks out of GR but then you are sub SM. GR only applies to that SM level and not below. I.e. the law of the flat earth concerning paper city charts doesn't conflict with the earth being a sphere. Two different levels of accuracy of measurement. Though it would indeed maybe be worthwhile to see if spinning an atom clock at very high speed might give a measurable effect of it not being invariant to the frame of reference. A. No, I say you can lift a living frog in a very strong magnetic field. B. I guess you missed an earlier point I made. I object to photons to be named massless. Definition problem. That has never been observed. What we know at an extremely high level of certainty is that they don't exert gravity. Something that exerts gravity should per definition be called matter. Particles that don't are thus matterless. Mass then doesn't exert gravity in this model, yet does build it in the sense that the more mass it has the more it takes in causing more of the underpressure being gravity. I think you missed the bit where we established that time deletion et cetera are inferred out of a measurement. This inferring has nothing to do with mathematics yet is a logical exercise. Furthermore you seem to have missed that if my model does not (seriously) infringe on GR & QM et cetera - as I say it doesn't - that I then have all your mathematics of GR & QM etc in the pocket so to speak. I on the other hand am trying to draw your attention to the garbage in problem that ensues when we start talking TOE. That should - logically - first be solved in broad outlines in verbal logic, as a means to quickly ascertain where to start looking for further relevant testing. This is a method that science at the moment leaves out even though it should be the premier method to reach a TOE quickly. This BTW doesn't exclude your way of working either as a fail safe against lack of inspriratio .

A. We agree; B. If you indeed can show that I've gutted GR and / or QM (or any other part of observed science) in a logical verbal way and I can't adjust the side issues to accommodate and barring the rule at this level of a concept that close is close enough for testing my concept is busted. You call this handwaving. Well indeed it is like a baby waving its hands in order to learn. You don't trash a baby for this as being dysfunctional nou do you? Further more please bear in mind that if my concept does not like you say gut GR and what not on a verbal level, that then all your mathematics of GR QM and what not become as good a part of my concept as it would yours, if you had a concept on TOE. So, lets see then: That I use the Higgs field at relativistic speeds isn't that strange because we know it must be omnipresent everywhere the particles of the SM can exist in our visible universe. And we know that at relativistic speeds certain things happen to particles. Nou I say a photon is not massless but matterless because it doesn't exert gravity. It is however affected by gravity as we observe. So my photon I predict will do exactly that what GR says it will do. Letting it accelerate to hold c in the curve and bending in at twice the Newtonian value nowhere infringes on GR. It is the same difference. It pays the price for acceleration by becoming unwound i.e. redshifted. The only thing the Higgs field does at these speeds is keep larger objects like photons < c by having them shorttrack like skaters on an ice rink albeit that they spiral on a large ring. The skaters are thus > c. No problem with SR either because like if I measure a stationary bus at six pases walking by and one passe when the bus drives by, I don't think the bus has length contracted then. Simple doppler effect of the the tops of the waves passing each other. No problem there then. Now for electromagnetic fields it is the same: an electron (or any other particle) in my model is built up of strings containing spinning particles held in a spiraling tunnel with surface tension. This by the Higgs field. You can build the rings of an atom containing electrons with your hands. Index finger to thumb 1 ring. Using two hands index to index thumb to thumb second ring. Using an other hand third ring etc.. An electron in orbit shortracking can not > c. However when forced to jump from one ring to the other it can - like a line of speed skaters - go > c and seem to jump. The atom / ion is kept under the appropriate speed conforming the helicopter analogy. Clearly the orbiting electrons have their strings shave other electrons breaking the surface tension. Then you get normal magnetism. The larger particle in the string like a toy gyro will spin rotate outward. Having a strong field you could move anything that is in sync. I see no problems here. Electromagnetism has the electron (maybe as a counter rotating twin strings?) bounce (=wave) away through the Higgs field at c. No problem there either. The waving explained btw it being an extremely orderly superconductive dynamic crystal. I see no infringement there either. Then the problem of rest mass and frame mass. The Higgs field adds mass in two ways. One if you are stationary a string will keep adding mass like a little black hole. Invariant as you say. This provides gravity because you get an underpressure in the crystal. Drawing other strings in, but also restoring the crystal > c. So the strings only slowly come together. (This does speed up the string in the higgs field because it adds momentum simply Newton = DE) The other way the Higgs field adds mass is when you speed up a string in an Atom clock by speeding up the clock. This is DM and creates the illusion of time slowing down. The clock slows down. No infringement there either. I've got to go but on AJB table top relativity bear in mind the governing force in my model is order disorder and not energy. The latter stays the same in the two fields of the two different particles albeit resonating. It is a movement game whereby all - possible - scenarios are played out for ever. You would have to be more clear where this infringes on any observation. I don't see it.

Quite, we agree then. Within the realms of the laws of GR and QM respectively shore I accept pure mathematical modeling. Why? Well they are laws of physics. But, when trying to marry the two you - must - first go back to the - inferred logic - of the garbage or non garbage in problem instead of extrapolating formulas of mathematics out of their regime. You otherwise predictably end up in the renowned Escher Institute thinking that something can come from nothing i.e. belief in magic or in the extremely improbable such as pretzel shaped universes and what not. Or when taking to only working with what one can observe the extremely improbable notion of a one off. All based on the incorrect - assumption - and thus inferring that this is the best way for speedy progress. It is extremely improbable and thus on any rational norm falsified as the fasted way forward. It is a failsafe for when one has no inspiration. Namely collecting more and more data that predictably will become more and more weird if not put into an integrated context (ie. a TOE). You act as if I don't know that. Of course I do. Granted these cases on the whole in physics I guess only usually occur. In this case when trying for TOE and thus trying to marry GR & QM you leave the safe haven of the exact science of mathematics as a rule: i.e. Then not just usually but always you are thrown back to logic inference based on educated guesswork where to start looking.. Ergo you work it like a crime scene. Make all possible scenarios taking in all observations and answering all questions and start testing the most probable or easy ones first. Not a democratic choice, or one by tradition or authority, but by creative intelligence, knowledge and experience based on these basic rules of logic. The creative guessing that for some is incomprehensible gibberish yet for the others a sketch with a lot of the lines still wrong but close enough. Even if you had 10000 such ideas or concepts it would be worthwhile to test them all. However I see only - one - such inference of the pedantic observations. My given concept. It is thus not so much my lack of understanding what physics is about in the regime that we know, but more of what it should be about concerning what we don't know.

No, my point exactly. Measurements are observed. The rest is logically and not mathematically inferred if any room for interpretation is left. Hence the norm is then logic and not mathematics for the more or less educated guesswork to figure out where to get more data via observations. The norm of mathematics is: FIRST the garbage or non garbage in logically solved and ONLY THEN the mathematics! If in research as you so aptly put it the norm is not being pedantic and shameful doesn't that prove my point of a structural problem in current research, you et al knowing how it is nowadays? Shame and pedantics has - LOGICALLY ! - nothing to do with research and everything to do with proper production. Basic psychology: get the team in order.

I'm Dutch I have a guilt and not a shame culture. Sorry. Further more I'm shamelessly independent in thought. Though honour (without shame) does require a reaction. See my reaction on Swansont.

A. Well covering qualm B. Thank you. It also covers qualm C. Pedantic or not we agree time dilation has been inferred and not observed. And that means a logical inference and not a mathematical certainty. Well logically I can inferre on the same observation that the Atomic clock is not time delayed but has been altered by the Higgs field by adding mass and thus momentum. In so doing immediately solving logically DM and DE. It doesn't touch logically any observation, or any mathematical outcome in GR or QM. These laws remain intact. And it is as an inference extremely more simple being much more common sense inference on Occam and thus much more probable than time deletion. Thus proving on the widely held to be correct norm of Occam most probable and hence the necessity for falsification. Potential falsification given with named tests. B. http://www.wikigender.org/index.php/Gender_differences_in_personalities I'll leave it at that.

Again: I outdo you on this point repeatedly: I agree I even say that GR & QM should not be seen as mere theories but as the best laws of physics we humans ever had (In a way your point isn't it, well mine too as you see Let's call this qualm A shall we.) .My qualms are however that several basic observations are stated by physics that simply may not be claimed. For instance as qualm B (there are more) that when speeding up atom clocks time slows down. That has never been observed. Physicists have observed the atom clock slow down in a very predictable way. That is the essence of the observation. You can't deny that, but will ignore this point (again). ​Another qualm (qualm C) I have concerns the use of mathematics / demanding the use of only mathematics on the question of TOE whilst logic - dictates - that prior to the use of mathematics you first solve the garbage in problem. To do that you must first - by logic - answer all relevant questions. To dodge that you point to current widely held convention that only mathematics is the norm. In science logic takes precedence over convention even if the vast majority thinks otherwise. 2 + 3 =/= 6 because the vast majority thinks so. You are in breach of logic holding on to the wrong convention. The vast majority will only see this when an authority tells them so. (Basic current psychology) I was using the term bureaucracy in its negative form as is more and more common (at least in the Netherlands to do, but I guess also elsewhere in the cutting red tape context.) So in the sense of having too much too inflexible or even daft rules applied in the system. This in the most broad sense of the word. Anyone will agree when I add the "too much"to this. What I want is for society as a whole and for research in particular that the administration thereof is the administration of anarchy i.e. near total freedom. Freedom being thus the norm. It is alas becoming more and more the norm the other way round. You say that I don't know research. Well I do have the first hand account of my dad who pointed towards these problems very explicitly as well. That I fully understand and have seen in action many times also with for instance the solving of crime scenes. People who I thought were cleaver beforehand going by the book and making horrendous mistakes. The reason in fact simple. When they score low on the personality trait openness they simply aren't capable of performing the necessary guesswork. It's a running gag. take the Vogons citing poetry. These people belong on production issues where they indeed don't have to guess. Like in football absolutely always get you team in order for it is relative. Your forward in one level is the back on a higher level. ​As succinct as possible then: Men come from Mars and women from Venus (on average because everybody has both traits to a more or lesser degree) Research is masculine and production is feminine. Research: take risks be brave naughty and daring accept mistakes and learn from them Be focused on the goal and not so much the relationships. (male) Production: Avoid risks behave do as you're told (follow authority)and don't make or accept mistakes. Be accurate. Be focussed on the relationships. Female. So research is male with woman in support and production is female with men in support. Saying that in research we should do it as we do it now, because that is good and the way it is, is a female (men /woman) point of view. It is a female trait to simply ignore what you don't want to see concerning the lines where it is going but nagging about the details or dots. With men (male / female) it is the other way round concentrating on the line where it is heading (or big picture if you like) and ignoring the boring details, unless in super focus on the relevant ones when enthused. Ever since the caveman every individual has had a R&D, production and sales department in the head. Tinkering to make a bow and arrow from a spear and selling it (sales where the Neandertaler fell short as new insights depict, not being verbally proficient and thus having to reinvent it all the time) in order to take it into accurate production when it works in order to survive as the Neandertal didn't. So, several things are at the moment obviously going substandard in R&D in society in general as on the subject of TOE. Same problem, same cure. Get the team in order. To state that I know nothing about how research is done at the moment or physics is beside the point. You are then only pointing at the prior odds of me being incorrect. Yet you probably will again ignore the above qualms A, B & C again. For what are you to say? If I'm right, it proves a structural problem in current R&D on TOE. And if I'm wrong then you can't suffice in just stating that but will have to give reason based on fact and not collective opinion.

Well look what happened when I said that my concept would be bust when an atom would pass 1/3 c. Not knowing that Ions can also still be atoms. It was pure bureaucratic formalism that ensued. Even though the entire context of my thread is not to be too accurate concerning questions that concern large unknowns is based on logic. I was immediately pounced upon in a way that usually is done in courts of law and gives lawyers - justly so - a bad name. Trying to bust an idea on a fringe issue, even if the main issue shows exactly the opposite. Comparing an atoms maximum speed to a helicopter was spot on. (And BTW begs the question what is the observed relation to the orbit of electrons and the maximum speed of set atom? Is it indeed (also) maximised by the electron in that orbit hitting c before the nucleus? ) Look how Higgs was treated by Hawking being ridiculed. Al part of one playing the bureaucratic authority game. Anyone going against the current norm is debunked. Psychologically it is the same mechanism. The more books the more book wisdom as the current authoritative norm even on issues in which we know that we don't know the answer. It's a contradiction. To many scientists think that mathematically extrapolating known facts is scientific and educated guessing is not. On questions where we know we don't know how it is it should be first foremost creative guesswork, yet isn't because otherwise it should be done more. It isn't why not then do we see no TOE? Solution: put the right people in research and let them give advice on the goals to be set. Say a goal TOE within the decade. And provide funding and support for failed attempts. Then you will get going. At the moment no one will dare pose a TOE even in concept because you will be ridiculed and with a (probable for even an Einstein of 9/10 being wrong) when one is backed (which one probably won't be if one hasn't got the backing from others with their agendas) and indeed fails the loss of face and future funding is enormous. Ergo no-one even attempts and remains concentrating on the next step in stead of a dangerous risky "mad" large jump. The past 100 years we have even diverged in stead of converged on a TOE. More and more dark issues. (Although data is data of course) Given that an Einstein would have a 1/10 chance of getting to a TOE when attempting the bureaucracy in this sense has thus prevented that. To risky even for Einsteins who must be out there. All a logical consequence of taking a fact that MN is a mass murderer and an illusionist. So given a simple set of rules like E=mc2 at the heart of it that a present Einstein has a 1/10 chance of guessing correctly. Logic. No fantasy.

Indeed some claim. (edit probably no TOE given that it is probably attainable and due also to society in general) Yet - apart from my lack of authority - simply discernable as an extremely probable educated guess (there is no science to be had on questions like this) by applying what we do know in general on the relevant parameters as widely accepted rules of thumb (sometimes rules of thumb that are claimed to be scientific BTW.)

No it is not getting of topic because the topic is also is on correct scientific procedure. Like you I'm not against administration or rules, but against too much rules and too much unnecessary administration. What is needed is balance. If you don't organise that properly you get more and more rules and stated problems that stand in the way of any goal. That is an important reason why we have not got to a TOE the past hundred years. Not only administration can be a hindrance if this gets out of hand but science as well. Take DSM V the bible of psychiatry / psychology on all diagnoses stating in effect that say 50% to 80% of all humans are mad. So declaring via bureaucratic applying of the DSM system deams all present Einsteins, Newtons mad are in need of pills to provide schooling for them instead of creative schooling. There you go our present Einsteins and Newtons are bureaucratically sent to become milkman etc because they are mad. Another reason why the present scientific procedure is seriously of track. Hence no TOE . Please don't underestimate this effect.

Well I take "bureaucracy" as broader than only what civil servants bestow on us. I'd define it as all formal requirements and objections that logically make the reaching of a stated goal on average extremely unlikely or even impossible. So in a meeting where two thirds of the attendees chose to follow the bosses idea to invest in something that clearly in all probability isn't going to work, is a form of bureaucracy. I.e. it ends up in a rule that must be followed. This is one of the (several) motors of why bureaucracy gets a hold on the social process. People who see as an educated guess that something is wrong and dare object are on average a minority. The way to quickly stem this is to always get the team in good order. Like in football a quick change in the existing team by putting the born forward or striker in a different place than a born midfielder. At the highest level the traits become apparent. It's relative. Always put the team in order and you will at every level quickly start spiraling upwards. Otherwise when you've made a bad job of it on average you will spiral downwards. Same thing in all human societies. Put the most open minded quickest thinkers on hand (it is relative) in a "research department" for advice beforehand and "air crash investigation" afterward. Then the production and sales departments in all societies will stay in balance and spiral upward. (BTW every human has a R&D, production and sales department in the head even the caveman). In a democracy this can be enforced because it is not left, right wing or religious. Only then will you get to a TOE quickly, or any other goal.

Nope, my point is that it is bureaucracy that more and more prevents us reaching important goals such as TOE. (Or name any other goal BTW) It is psychology i.e. the way the illusionist Mother of Human Nature tricks us that causes bureaucracy. This is not inevitable but quickly solvable - in principle -.

Do you think this bureaucracy is bad? clearly you do. Do you think this bureaucracy is inevitable?

Agree, also in your opinion the scientific society and the physics society?

What reality are you talking about? The reality of observations in physics or the reality of human societies to - inevitably - become more and more bureaucratic? Or both?

I agree, but usually no one is untill some one like Kennedy says "we chose to put a man on the moon in this decade", put up the money and got things going with a hough spin off. ISS wouldn't hang there now hadn't it been for the Apollo program I'm sure. You need a common goal to get things going. In science as well. So why not a TOE within this decade as a goal? That everybody in the Apollo programme had other ideas for joining in is irrelevant. That scientists baring such a goal are working on there own goals thats okay. science as a whole should state high goals that are probably in reach and thus could be as important as QM & GR are. And yes QM and GR have saved many lives though that never was their stated object (cost lives as well BTW but that's Bayes for yah.) If humanity organizes to act wisely on that it will probably do far more good than harm. Even if you don't reach TOE the spin off will pay off for shore. So yes saving lives is in itself a sufficient reason to get on with it, the more so since as you say most scientists are not aware of that.

Indeed a dream, or fantasy i.e. imagination is that what feeds the desire to reach any goal by the creative minds that make it possible for the non/less creative minds to have something to learn out of books, after the creative minds have lead the way. All to a greater or lesser extent. Creative minds know that. If we didn't use our imagination we would still be living in caves. The dream or fantasy to build a pyramid to the dream of Einstein in a thought experiment before his study of physics. That sparked it of. And not some book wisdom. Or by people who only point out that it is unwise to difficult, not sure of success. Although this pointing out of problems is also important because this more female trait out of the production department is the usual vast majority if it isn't organised properly you will end up as we do in a mounting bureaucracy, as we observe in science as well. You see this in courtrooms / large businesses / societies more and more major issues are incomprehensibly ruled not on the major issue but on pitty formalistic issues. In a way that gives lawyers - and justly so - a bad name. Hairsplitting and what not. A maths teacher who is helping a client of mine was so shocked but what he has witnessed that he has helped me make some video's as work in progress to tell a story both of the mathematics, the psychology and indeed the current physics on TOE. It is in dutch and still work in progress but anyway on the blackboard on the left you see the mathematical problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8JGUoZvwFg You want to jump over the canyon to the truth on any given probandum. When you have a lot of data you can fill up the gap and have a negligible fault rate. You may be deterministic, say Rutherford. With less and less data the gap gets wider and you go via empirical statistics trough Bayesian - intuitive - statistics to Bayesian probabilistic reasoning ultimately to verbal logic (which you may check via Bayes BTW). In the top you see an eye of MN from the front and a nose drawn from the bottom. Depicting that we usually over there know a lot about very little and what we know doesn't add up. Say QM eye and GR nose. So jumping the divide using QM and GR respectively you have a narrow gap. However if you change the probandum to say TOE you need to marry the two and you will see the gap grow to infinity. Because you need to answer all questions then and can't if you take TOE literally as meaning everything, as you should. Verbal logic is then the norm. And drawing a picture of MN starts off with a sketch. If you can observe and draw you know this. Then busting an idea because in the begin phase some lines are out of place is idiotic. Of course if you look at the drawing of the dogs you will see one is better drawn than the other. Simple we used to have a german pointer so i observed that better hence one line suffices to capture the image. Another point is the dots and making something out of it. To see a line a picture when you have little data (as on TOE). For that you need imagination, or fantasy if you like. If you don't have that you wouldn't have a clue as what and where to start looking for data. Which dots are important? All? For the unimaginative that is the case. They need an authority to tell them what to see. Hence preoccupation with authority questions, and their own authority. And for everyone: too may dots makes that you don't see the forest from the trees. To few dots and you can't make head or tails. if you are creative and see a hare as metaphor for hypothesis true yet more creative also see on the same data duck = untrue. This also shows you where to look for extra data for wing or whiskers. You may of course cross out irrelevant data. Now people with no imagination who are conscientious could deem that irritating and start acting like a nagging bitch. On these details in their eye's of imperfection. very good if relevant i.e. wing or whisker, a pain in the ars if irrelevant. Hence the psychology of the Normal knight (with a normal distribution on his helmet) good in production in his castle of books, narrow minded. Excellent for production. Low risk tacking do as your told hard working. Very much on authority. (Actually one looks in the mirror saying something on someone else.) Nothing wrong with that - on production issues that is - . he looks on the other abnormal knight as a failed knight crusader. A knight that can also perform with little knowledge and experience with a wikipedia print on his head. This one takes risks makes mistakes and uses the L plate shield for the very important formula in research: the formula of OEPS. Learn from the mistake and carry on. This one should go in research department so that the normal knight sees that it has authority. The dogs show the majority minority problem. This is why you always get into a clogging up of any society if you don't organize it properly. In a democracy you can force this upon the normal knights if you get the insight that you want the open minded creative in charge of research. In schooling, law and science, edit: BTW all humans are according to this variant of the Big Five personality traits (that you should see IMO as a rule of thumb) means that everybody is both knights and all dogs. I.e. you play bos dog to your subordinates, yes dog to the boss, and naughty playful dog to your kids. I.e. you score high or low on all five traits. And it is all male /female. edit Then on to physics and TOE. I show that physics infringes on several points explained in the rules of string and stick i.e. evidence and proof: one of which is not deeming GR and QM as the best laws of physics we ever had. Not seeing that we never have observed time slow down but only an atom clock do that (hare / duck?) and a photon speeds up back to c and get redshifted to pay for this whilst curbing in (hare / duck?). No fantasy. Good observation and logic. Al the mumbo jumbo of something from nothing, pretzel shaped universes are clearly seeing MN as a pear shaped something, whereas it is extremely probably an oval. Are we in a hurry for TOE: logically if we want to minimize the risk of say great loss of life yes. You agree not to know that means you don't exclude the possibility. Risk is chance times effect. The effect is mass murder by MN possibly to be dealt with via TOE, ergo we are in a hurry. This has to do with current science and logic. No fantasy. Logic takes precedence over any democratic scientific convention yet doesn't at the moment. That is a major problem in all of society including physics. You can see that in the way you approach the problem of TOE.