kristalris

Agree. You (as in "we" , but you understood that in this way) simply don't know. My position on this is that only via imaginative guessing as a fantasy if you like (done best by that minority that is open minded) wil you on an integral topic as TOE see where you should start testing in order to see if a TOE can be reached and what it holds. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. So why be in a hurry? Well we don't know (thus neither do I ) if it will not render great gain for humanity. (Apart from it being fun trying And the attempts give spin offs worth while.) Now for sake of the argument say my concept on TOE is absolutely true. Would that mean that we get to a TOE? No, it might prove even though being absolutely true unverifiable due to insurmountable measurement problems. even if the proposed simulation of the balls in the box go to order. But now lets say we do succeed within the decade via also high energy research to get a bunch of formulas and constants that are extremely accurate predictors. Although even if true part of the exact truth will remain then undetectable i.e. the smallest particle. What would that potentially hold? Well maybe a magnetism "radar" to detect meteorites at extreme ranges, because it is > c in between the crystal. Stronger beams to deflect or destroy. That might work if you work accurately enough just above the chaos threshold. Because in my concept there is a level of chaos that is inherently unpredictable. If you have the fundamental formulas then you might get extremely fast computers to simulate our environment to an extreme degree of accuracy. And had a reaction in the making on the previous post but seem to have lost it because the system invited me to look at a new post in my thread So I looked and lost. Anyway I'm not making a reductionist argument in my concept IMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism) I see these as worthwhile models to look at the problem from one perspective. And yes that fails IMO. A cure for cancer? See my reaction to AJB. Along those lines if my concept is correct and you thus get to work much more fat and accurate just above a level of chaos, and get super super computers then a cure for many diseases comes with reach. De dream or fantasy sure. Like what QM has held for humanity is mindboggling. had Einstein not leapt that wouldn't of happened. Any way I'm convinced a TOE (maybe not a law of everything though) is reachable within the decade. And that it holds potential enormous gain.

Sorry got to go, was in process of answering to more but here a link between QM and medicine: https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bss.phy.cam.ac.uk%2F~rea1%2FTalks%2Fphysics_of_mri_print.pdf&ei=EpEoUtauJbSb0AXp5ICwAg&usg=AFQjCNHp27rpL8QFku6vpkQgkOXZThT0bQ&sig2=QcknJBrh2L56weK8n1PC-Q&bvm=bv.51773540,d.d2k Further more fundamental physics has always had an effect outside physics take the laws of Newton leading to legalism in law (belief that a Just sttae would be possible following strict laws. failed miserably but we are doing it again. And the fact that we started using strict spelling. You simply don't know what will come out of it all, just as I guess Einstein couldn't and wouldn't have foreseen what QM would bring. Got to go/

Ultimately if TOE is reached it will be of course done by an outsider who knows physics, like Einstein IMO. I believe in the need for speed as I said before because MN is a mass murderer: cancer, MS, meteors super volcanoes climate change you name it. I'm convinced that reaching TOE will have just a large an impact as QM and GR.

You seem to have missed my point that I agree with you in this respect. My claim doesn't infringe on either GR or QM I even elevate them both to the - BTW logically correct - status of laws of physics. I claim to marry the two in a verbal logical even common sense potentially testable way.

Correct, yet logic dictates that you chose a most probable, and then logic dictates you start investigating this one thus most simple. So what is your prime suspect or do you have no clue as to who? BTW "must" is linked to "then"

Well "too" implies something is wrong so then you are always right. But if you mean that too independent in the sense of ignoring objective data or being illogical I don't agree. I.e. do you think if a TOE is reached that that will be by mainstream science or by some odd ball that at first no one understood what he / she was on about? (And only later on being accepted and claimed by mainstream science as their own.) Well history shows on and on again as does mainstream psychology that the vast majority doesn't care. So? Do you care? I mean do you understand the need for reaching TOE quickly? I mean the possibility that it very probably - must - be within grasp of humanity? A. ? B. As far as I know - maybe with the exception of Krauss et al - no-one has claimed or published a theory of everything to date. (could be wrong though. Enlighten me) Look, you know the psychological tests where you have to fill in the missing bit? You know: Circle Circle .... right answer Circle. Well then on TOE: MN says: Sphere, Sphere I say Sphere most physicists say ......(zilch)... Krauss says Pretzel and religious people God; MN says: Cube, Cube I say Cube " " " zilch " " something """ God MN says Crystal, Crystal I say Crystal """"""" zilch Nothing """""""""" God MN says Wave, Wave I say Wave """""""" zilch Here """"""""""God MN says Common sense Common sense I say Common sense "" zilch There and nowhere God I could go on for quite a bit along these lines. Get it? You are a mathematician right? Then how can it be that we are arguing what is logic or not? Given that MN is probably a mass murdering illusionist then there must be some simple rules akin E = mc2 that govern it all. Do you dispute that? If not your position is busted (the rest is pure deduction.). If you do dispute that on what evidence then? A. Again, I simply openly answered a question that I deemed then already as irrelevant. So, you show relevance in the question on the topic. B. Whether anecdote or not the only question is do you believe it to be true or not? I do. Why? well it fits all my observations afterwards as well. That aspect might be relevant. C. You threw the boomerang don't whine when it comes back. You imply to be creative open minded yet only show with the rest that you are extremely narrow minded via the busted blues brother sing along followed by the peer choir singing out of key. (Formalism = extremely narrow minded ergo the extreme opposite of openness linked - undisputed - in psychology to creativity.) Now I stand in awe of people like you who are capable of using the laws of GR and QM etc.. Als long as you stay within those fields that is. As I stand in awe of the pyramids, cathedrals, the Apollo program. The latter as you should but didn't hence the boomerang. Get it? Well then you claim - as do the others - expertise on TOE. That then being outside the fields of GR and QM respectively. Because it should marry the two. Okay then state your claimed authority as I've done: I say I'm a 1 / 1000 Einstein on TOE him being in my estimate 1/10 given as most probable MN to be an illusionist with a simple E = mc2 style answer to be found. (So I'm a layman a priori at 1 / 10000 of being right so a priori probably wrong. Now then what do you (lot) claim? And if you don't claim, where is this busted blues then based on?

A Incomprehensible. I state beforehand that my roots in this respect are irrelevant. So LR =1. Where then do I make a statement based on an argument of authority? I gave an a priori of 1 / 1000 of an Einstein on TOE of 1 / 10 thua 1 / 10000. I have not given this in evidence as posterior so no argument of authority in any way on my part. Apart from the fact that had I given it as such it would of given evidence of being more likely wrong than right and on a reasonable norm for deciding then proven me wrong. I - contrary to you cun suis - have thus not committed this fallacy. B. Boy oh boy do you get your stuff mixed up. Research per logical definition is about out of the box trying to solve the unknown. Unanimous current science of psychology holds that then the personality trait of openness is required for that feat in order to be creative: i.e. generate testable idea's given the inherent limited data. also it is inherently on TOE striving for a paradigm shift. For that you need to be of independent thought and thus have nothing in the form of an argument of authority. Authority only provides an a priori. In my case we had already established that I'm a layman. So it isn't a sort of mean in which you see 80% of people doing it wrong that provides you with a nom as you obviously think. In production however - or in the production department within research for doing the hard work of checking everything where no creativity is required - authority is a necessity for determining what to do. You can only logically correctly reject something out of hand if you have a position on TOE yourself. Because otherwise where is it based on. Experience and knowledge on TOE? There is none, that is the point. C. My own words give what probative value on being exactly the correct term for an expert given the a priori knowledge that I'm a layman? Especially if the main point is that you may - not even as an expert - concerning - any - question regarding TOE be to exact. Why? Logic! If you know you don't know, well ten don't be more exact about it. What probative value do you want to give my error in not knowing the exact difference between an atom and an ion? LR 1,0000001? And how does that way in on your conclusion "busted?" especially so because earlier on you said you don't work with proof. Doesn't busted mean for you "disproven"? But we had a posterior odds for you being correct 1 / near infinity and for me the other way round remember? Apart from that isn't the LR of this mistake not been dealt with in the a priori fact that I'm a layman? Of course it is so LR 1. BTW my words? So what? What rule are you applying to what end? If it is about finding the truth you're in a sorry state. For the fact that the helicopter analogy that was given before those words and after the claimed disproof in all objectivity fits like a gem. It shows something you scientists agree in not knowing why it is that a lead ion can only be brought close to c. My explanation that the electron hitting c is a brilliant explanation. LR 1000000 / 1. Yet you on a double counted LR 1,00000something want to disprove it without using proof? Yes says you but all of us - who are very authoritative - agree so we know this to be wrong as an explanation where we ourselves don't have an explanation. BTW apples fall down from the tree. Taking this literally implies that I'm not talking QM or trees on the other side of the earth seen from here. Every apple that is observed falling down adds to the evidence that this is indeed a correct law of physics that was taken thus as being proven ages ago. Ergo you have proven the opposite from what you state. You've used production norms in stead of reasearch ones. It follows logic and not what a group of people bestow on themselves think to know that. The peer review entails nothing more than stating "busted" without bases, for my own words can't logically form that bases as I've just pointed out. No, the probandum is to get to a TOE ASAP. The system is getting more and more formalistic. Proof they formalistic was of trying to bust my concept based on a slight misunderstanding that should of been clear from the outset by you knowing me to be a layman. Formalism clogs up the system getting anywhere ASAP. Oh dear the Apollo program was not a great scientific achievement everybody thought but just an engineering problem solved. I guess you want to rephrase that but any way: No mate not just an engineering problem solved Grumman couldn't get it to work and failed so went to the guy they knew had done the job at Fokker in research. I guess if you where the researcher involved you would have done a better job and done real scientific research getting the formula for shading? And how long would that have taken you? For ever if you are not very creative because as far as I know the formula is still out there unsolved. Do you think you could of tinkered this, where Grumman failed and my dad succeeded without the formula? Not just an engineering problem then eh? The Apollo program was an ant heap of engineers getting the job done. Indeed not doing science in the sense you are clearly at. This was risk taking flying with stuff that was not tested to the extent that one had the formula that could be tested further. The entire program had many many of these shortcuts taken. If you are not open minded (like we know Einstein, Newton, darwin etc all where) to a degree, you simply can't compute this. Above average ideas worth testing never spring to mind or are seen for what they are worth. Neither then good creative observation. What is it that I am actually observing. Is it indeed what the authority wants me to believe? Or something else? That is what was needed to observe what the machine was doing whilst cutting it. Excellent observation mixed in with a lot of knowledge and experience and the creative touch to try it in a different way not at random. You are preoccupied with my authority, yet that is irrelevant. You prove the problem.

Well we finally agree on something then.Where I got my information on how scientists work? Well not that it is relevant, because it is a variation on an argument of authority, yet it for some poses a valid argument in sales and of course for others against in sales, I'll tell you where I got my information. As a six year old I can remember my dad who I thought to be someone internationally selling glue in a tie was working a large machine with another guy. Both looking extremely concentrated. Later my dad told me he was in the process of getting the saw to work cutting the aluminium honeycomb for the shock absorbers of the lunar module in the weekend for Grumman. He had sold this to Grumman that he could on an educated guess. Taking the saw in the weekend with several very expensive blocks to try. It - the educated guess - worked first time. Later he told me that the problem lay in not having the formula for what was later known as shading. Carpets with long hairs pointing in the wrong direction. Anyway what made it all work was Kennedy stating he wanted to put a man on the moon within the decade. And put up the money to boot. That, and the balls of the guys who knowingly took extreme risks got the job done. especially the astronauts. Had the strut failed due to shading or what not it would of been a sorry sight. Especially for the families of the astronauts. Anyway ever since I have been taken along on business trips by my dad during my holidays who was an ex pilot and aeronautical engineer in the research department of Fokker who made it possible to glue the F27. On these trips I as a kid saw the Concorde and Airbus at Toulouse being ripped apart etc etc. That and what I was taught in science classes taught me the basics of science, mathematics, physics research production and sales from a very young age. I myself successfully worked crime scenes. In effect same difference. Problem is in our western society that the research department has been taken over by production and sales. It thus becomes more and more bureaucratic. This because born researchers who are capable of making adult guesses are always in the minority at any meeting or in any democratic society. Hence the running gag of the Vogons in a hitchhikers guide to the galaxy (beware of Vogons sighting poetry because you are then in mortal danger i.e. non creative people make childish guesses, yet seem intelligent on basis of book wisdom) and many other famous literary works. As history repeatedly shows. Take the repeated statement that my idea has been busted whereas in truth the only error I made was in not knowing the definitions of atom and ion. And then say they accept trial and error? Clearly not then because it was only a formal mistake. Materialy in truth it fits brilliantly on a analogy given beforehand of the helicopter. Yet they keep on stating this blatant lie s a fact. I don't blame anyone it is psychology at work. They can't help themselves. Anyway we must state goals like getting to a TOE within the decade and organise research departments in schooling, science and law with the creative open minds in the lead therein that will get us where we in wisdom should go. Be it to the moon or to TOE.

Still hurting are we, after the repeated mauling you got? As usual no argument anywhere in sight only cookey monstering. Agree with all you say, yet it is wrong not to try and change this. Problem is indeed that the production department has taken over the research department because the researchers who dare to make mistakes by trial and error are always in the minority. They need to be organised differently.

Your position is inwardly contradictory. I incorporate GR & QM and thus don't best them within their respective regimes as you demand. I only marry them in a broad way and show you where to start looking in a broad way. (GR and QM just as newton are laws of physics. Like the law of the flat earth is still a law when making a paper chart of a city.) Problem is you scientists have not been trained to work vague areas such as crime scenes. You see someone lying on the floor still breathing with what seems a bullithole. What should you then do? Well see as a layman if it is a patient in need of medical attention and two also alert the police on a possible crime. Both could be wrong assumptions based on the evidence with hindsight. A crime scene is worked not with a priori precision. It is worked best with making a scenario with the evidence at hand. From broad to fine. Where are the present day Einsteins and Newtons? Statistically they are there in science and physics as well. Given that the fundamental rules of TOE are simple like E = mc2 then it must be possible to reach TOE within this decade. Like Kennedy pledged to put a man on the moon within the decade. In order to do that you must jump by accurately tested inherently inaccurate guesswork of the creative minds to the moon or to TOE. I.e. it will take on average given a 1/10 for an Einstein twenty Einsteins to jump in order of one getting there in the first attempt. Knowing that even Einstein will only have a 1/20 chance in the second attempt. The latter due to psychology that everyone including Einsteins are prone to tunnelvision. But if you trash everyone at the first mistake you will have no-one try anymore. This no TOE within the decade. All I state is that my concept is an adult guess not infringing on any scientific observation and answering all questions in a testable way. I see none other BTW doing that. Inaccurate as it may be. Inherently so like a crime scene in first instance when you still have no clue. AND BTW my idea has not been busted. Only have I been proved wrong concerning the present definition of an atom and a ion. Given that I admit that mistake that has no relevance against a layman, like not knowing what a temporal lobe is, proves nothing. It only proves that you don't know the rules on evidence and proof concerning areas with little as yet data. On which you have clearly not been trained.

You could and probably are wrong there. With a TOE I suspect just the same revolution as GR & QM made possible. Understanding the fundamentals makes it all much easier. My point is for a first testable concept you don't need to be an expert again you are applying to high a norm. Like solving a crime scene you need imagination and not so much in the first place accuracy to quickly solve it. The required accuracy comes later on in the game. I'm only pointing you where to look for TOE in a granted broad sense, based on the objectively verifiable rule of addressing all problems and taking in all observations in their essence. And, you can't discount the fact that I do so in an integrated way. Oh I do understand that it is breathtakingly complex. Even if say for the argument my computer simulation is done and it goes to order of a dynamic crystal. Even then TOE is a bloody long way off. A hell of a lot of very complicated and hard work will have to ensue. Because you then have only a glimpse of the solution needed.

A. What is sucking in the prediction that the stated computer simulation will go to a predicted order of a dynamic crystal? It either does or doesn't. B. You want to stay away from TOE, but why then state position? On what do you base the notion that a TOE can't be relatively easy to reach within say this decade? On what do you base the notion that working it like a crime scene won't work? It is proven to work with crime scenes and in science for that matter. The problem is your definition of "good". You want microscopic accuracy before hand. Now that can't be had. Yet you can't leave it at that. There are Einsteins / Newtons out there that can perform the trick but don't for fear of being ridiculed if they fail in the attempt. I see no valid reason that a present day Einstein can't get to a TOE with a 1/10 probability. Thus 9/10 fail rate. On what do you base that he can't? (Like I stated earlier, though irrelevant: I'm but a 1/1000 Einstein.)

A. I don't state that neither does this analogy. The analogy is about using the correct norms concerning the correct phase one is in. This is the concept phase so don't be too exact. You need people with the personality trait of openness to work that. Someone short of that simply can't do that. Be pliable, like a doctor should be examining a patient. You go from the integral broad problem and then narrow it down and differentiate. B &C . My concept marries GR to Newton to QM in a common sense verbal logic way (and more) pointing to an as yet not seen bullet hole in the head. The patient without having GR and QM married is still lying there. Any layman can see that. So it is a strong analogy. D. Precisely that is what is wrong in general. Nobody dares to take into account the whole integral picture anymore because no one is capable of being exact enough across the integral board. Yet TOE is an inherent integral problem / patient. E. The brain surgeon in this case stands for physicist / astronomer / any exact scientist. Later on when these have more accurately found the patient and the stated bullet hole will more specific questions come in order if any specialists are needed such as a dermatologist (being a doctor first and foremost as well) A. I admitted to the mistake of not knowing that an ion can be an atom. So? That doesn't bust my idea one bit old boy. You don't admit that my concept with the analogy of the helicopter works just fine in explaining what you observe shooting lead ions to near c. And why it doesn't get to c. You admit to that. The helicopter analogy was given beforehand BTW. B. A Bayesian analysis most certainly does prove something according to the applied norm. So if you set your posterior odds at more than 1000 / 1 then when the prior odds times all the LR goes beyond that it is proof. Being exactly spot on the problem in this whole discussion you don't know about any other applicable norms then the highest. Norms must be correct not too high or too low.

A I did and my model succeeded brilliantly where it should count: the material substance. Your formalistic fears are inherently ill founded. You are into dialectics. With my simple example using the brain surgeon I make this clear. You don't say that this example is wrong or where it fails in the comparison. The reason is simple: you can't because it is correct. B. Some people should take off there microscopes whilst reading it. Again wrong norm. Logic dictates this and logic in science takes precedence over the convention of studying everything via the microscope concerning physics. That is evidently wrong. C. The Bayes bit earlier on. Nope. The analogy is spot on. MN is a mass murderer reaching TOE in time will save lives. Seeing therefore the search for TOE as a patient is correct and my concept for TOE as the diagnose that the patient has an apparent bullet hole in the head is correct. You say there is nothing wrong with any patient because I as a layman can't pinpoint the hole in the head with enough accuracy for a brain surgeon wanting to use a microscope. My position is this explicitly not one in which I tell the brain surgeon how to perform surgery, but to do the surgery and not let me do it. Yet I am telling him not to use a microscope in search for a patient. And rightly so might I ad. Again even a layman can tell a brain surgeon to first use his eyes in search for a stated bullet hole and later on decide if a microscope is in order when the eye has caught on the apparent bullet hole. Denying the bullet hole that any layman can see is ludicrous even if with closer inspection it might prove not to be the problem. In this case I pointed just beside the bullet hole and that is seen as a uncorrectable error.

I say there is a patient still breathing lying on the ground with a seeming bulletwound to the head in need of quick medical attention, preferably a brain surgeon. Then the brain surgeon comes along with his microscope on asking me to be more specific as a layman on what's wrong. So to the best of my knowledge I say it's a wound in the temporal lobe. The brain surgeon looks with his microscope and sees nothing wrong. Then I say well maybe not the temporal lobe but in the head. Sorry says the brain surgeon we can't have this vague hand waving bit, for you to backtrack or weasel out of it. There is no proof of a patient in need. I'm going. I guess everyone agrees that this would be ludicrous, and that the brain surgeon has his norms mixed up. In general don't look for patients in need of help with a microscope, use your eye's and if need be specs. Furthermore my model as a concept is vague because in this phase it isn't allowed to be anything else. I say the face of the picture observing MN is a circle Krauss says it is pear shaped and you say you see nothing. Well there is nothing vague about it being either pear shaped, round or nothing. That we are not yet so far with this picture to draw eyes and a nose has got nothing to do with it. Yet you demand me to do so. The required norm even for physicists working out an idea on TOE or a concept thereof is to go from the integral rough outline towards fine. So don't be like mentioned brain surgeon, because that is evidently wrong. Even given that the brain surgeon performs brilliantly in specific fields. You are out of those fields in this topic. My model is clear enough to be compelling for further research. I even gave the mathematics on why that is so. I'n not weaseling out of anything, you are by trying to be formalistic about something that doesn't warrant that.

If I say that helicopters can't fly faster than say 1/3 mach 1 because the tip of the rotor passes mach 1 and then the opponent showing a helicopter that has shed three of its four rotor blades going near mach 1 clearly doesn't bust the stated idea. You get an instable helicopter. I.e. you don't get a fully blown atom even close to c that still stands. I was not aware that ions can still be called atoms. You're trying to make it into dialectics. A helicopter with one blade left is a dubious helicopter and clearly not what was meant by the statement. Same goes for ions. It was / should of been to you as well on forehand clear that if you can get an atom with all its electrons in place near c my idea is busted. That it might be possible to get one near c with one or two electrons still clinging on doesn't disprove my point. Furthermore a helicopter with a very small blade can in theory go close to mach 1 so to speak because the tip of the rotor will reach mach 1 later. The same goes for ions with an electron near by spinning around the nucleus. Again not only does my idea still stand it is strengthened by what was stated. The electrons close to the nucleus clearly prevent the Ion atom reaching c because the electron can't pass c.. So I'm not backing down one iota or ion for that matter. edit: the correct norm based on logic is that this problem should be dealt with in verbal logic and not mathematics. I showed this with the mathematics of Bayes. First deal with the garbage or non garbage in problem, then do the mathematics. The convention that mathematics is required to diced on the garbage issue is illogical. Don't worry I'm always civil. Well the problem is there is a prediction that is sufficient to warrant further investigation. Not indeed to the extent that we should go about building a new collider, but sufficient to have science backing further investigation. The problem is incorrect / illogical norms on stated probanda. The actual core of my idea is the computer simulation showing it all going to order or not. Not expensive to do but for me impossible because for one the lack of the necessary computer etc etc.. That would bust my idea if it doesn't prove possible assuming we can simulate superconductivity in a present computer. Same goes for the possibility of seeing on existing data if indeed from stated reference galaxies are all more or less moving in the same direction. And again, you are in effect asking a layman to perform brain surgery of a clear patient in need of surgery. The latter is my argument for which I don't have to be a doctor in order to make.

Oh dear oh dear, first of all please you both brush up on your probabilistic reasoning (i.e. proper reasoning). You don't trash an idea for one error especially not on a side issue. Further more we left that game with you being near infinitely incorrect and me the same so in being correct on the probandum of having a compelling reason to further research into this idea via the test of verbal logic, the test of mathematics, the test of experiment and or the test of observation. For instance your best opposition lies in the problem of interference. But even there I had on another site an idea on the double slit experiment, that was shown to be wanting because someone had a better explanation. My idea thus not ending hanging on by the nails but having been improved. And sorry, ions and RHIC don't form a problem but they are strong support of my idea. So like shouting a false Bingo you go 1/10 down and I go - again - LR 10 up as a conservative estimate. An ion is an atom with less or no electrons. Well that is like a helicopter (see above) with all or part of the rotors gone. Yes, then the helicopter could go close to the speed of sound, like an ion close to c. In order to go faster in the Higgs field the atom has to shed its electrons. Right up my ally you see? BTW typical production department state of mind to want to trash an idea for having (seemingly even) made one mistake. That is indeed good in production. This however is a research question on TOE where you accept making mistakes and try to learn from them (see above double slit example). Yet I didn't make any mistake in regard to Ions (although I didn't know exactly what they where and that they can reach near c) Further more in trying to find the mathematics I came across a NASA site on which is said that in reference to all space are galaxy is not only spinning but also on the move in a specific direction at 200 km/s. That would be the common sense way of looking at it. On Occam's razor thus probably better than looking at it via SR. Again right up my ally LR 10 again. And if so it should be possible to do the same from the vantage point of other galaxies. They should if (this part) of my idea is correct all be moving outward. That is another test for going through already available observational data. Again my idea is not busted, yours is. Obliterated even. Nope. You to brush up on your Bayes. (On what probandum was it again?)

(Could it be my updated software because I can't get the quote boxes to work whereas they worked fine in the past?) ad A: We routinely get non massless (i.e. matterless) particles past 1/3 c? If so the effect I'm looking for should be testable although it also provides a serious problem for my model. Large particles should somewhere along the line run into problems: humongous amounts of energy to make it go it bit faster and instability increasing. My model can only provide room for small particles to get anywhere near c. I.e. can we get an atom to 0.99c or even close or past 1/3 c? Edit if we can get atoms near c then my idea is busted. What we should see in this model is that the smallest can reach c and the larger it becomes the slower it can go thru the Higgs field. ad B: because my concept - contrary to many other ideas I've seen on this - simply doesn't (as far as I'm aware (unless ad A)) - infringe on any current experiments / observations / mathematics. I've simply rearranged the pieces of the puzzle without doing that (unless ad A then). So my model incorporates present scientific experiment based evidence. And thus can claim it for backing itself. ad C I like BTW two nuclear physicists who commented on my concept make a distinction between what is readily testable and what is potentially testable. I'm still unclear on your position? I'll readily accept that no feasible contraption at the moment can be built to easily falsify my position. Is that what you state? I.e.the necessity of spinning the moon at 1000 rpm to get a measurable result is still a potentially testable issue. That then would pose a challenge like Einstein had to contend with finally solved when someone (Einstein?) dreamt up the solution of measuring the light when a star moves behind an other celestial object. And Lorentz sent his famous telegram confirming the prediction. I.e if true what I'm saying it must be falsifiable by observation / experiment. Edit2 even the question whether or not the cosmos is infinite or not is (on an appropriate norm) testable: if taking it to be infinite (like I do ) and it then provides an elegant and simple explanation of it all, and it proves to be impossible to do the other in that way then you can claim proof.

Q And yet you probably don't critique a doctor in the way s/he goes about practicing medicine. EQ Of course I would so would you when this going about practicing medicine entails leaving a patient to an amateur in staid of helping the patient to see a doctor. That is the casus. Q The analogue here is asking if rotating systems change gravity, and the answer is that there is no mechanism for this to happen and it has never been reliably observed. EQ The Higgs mechanism is the one I gave, and no not just rotating systems but any higher speed will result in this up to a point say 1/3 c. The Higgs mechanism is at the moment I gather seen as mainstream most probable on basis of – trust – reliable observational science. Q And I am a scientist and I have been telling that this is not good enough. I don't see a model, or any compelling reason to do an experiment. I don't owe you my time, and there's no point in doing an experiment if you know from the outset that you won't see the predicted effect. EQ You stated earlier on that my effect equals zero. Now let’s see then. If I understand your position correctly seeing what you repeatedly state in other threads as well is that you as a scientist physicist are not in the business of answering questions such as: “is there pressure in the system, or whether or not the cosmos is infinite or not.” Logic dictates then that if there is pressure in an infinite cosmos that is at the heart of getting to a TOE that you will never be able to observe this, and thus will never get a testable answer. Now the probandum is, to see which scientific way will be quickest to get to a TOE. This because indisputably MN is a mass murderer that needs to be caught sooner instead of later, and getting to a TOE will help stem the on-going mass murder by getting many cures sooner. Furthermore you state as a scientific fact that we from the outset know that we won’t see the predicted effect. Based on what evidence then? Because we never observed this. Have we ever looked properly then? No we haven’t. Now you state you don’t see a model. I guess you mean by that that you don’t accept a concept for a model based on verbal logic? You don’t base this on logic, but as said on a convention. Now I’ll prove to you that this convention is wrong. Something isn’t scientifically true because some majority thinks it’s true that 2 + 3 = 6. I guess you agree? So your position on the probandum is not zero but close to 1 / infinity of being correct because you rigorously don’t want to answer all relevant questions. Being the latter a dictate of logic and this even mathematics. Even if I were to estimate you 10 times better than Einstein in getting to a verbal concept of a TOE and a current Einstein a 1/10 then still you (and the ones that agree with you as well) would have an a priori probability of near 1 / infinity of getting there. Pure logic, you will never get there if you don't answer all the questions given that MN is an illusionist as most current scientists agree she probably is . This is thus far less than Krauss et all who believe in something from nothing. They at least answer all relevant questions. However they extrapolate mathematics out of its regime and thus end up in the Escher Institute. Predictably they indeed end up believing in stated contradiction and thus in magic with an estimated probability of say less than 1 / trillion to the trillionth. Being this better than you. And they say rightly so that it is thus possible (contrary might I add to your position that is near infinitely improbable) Krauss looks down on people who believe in God. Well at least they don’t believe in contradictions, because a God isn’t in contradiction with anything we observe. There is no evidence or need for it and I strongly feel thus am convinced there is no God (depending on the definition of God, i.e. as a collective thought that exerts a power for good or bad, it IMO exists as a physical reality, like any thought. Being IMO particles bouncing around.) Yet as a bearded entity I would give it a probability of less than 1 / trillion of being correct. I.e. far more probable logic then dictates than what Krauss has to offer or you including all the mathematics in the world. Your major error in reasoning lies in getting your norms mixed up. With GR and / or QM your mathematics reigns supreme, as long as you stay within the assumptions that both laws of physics entail. As soon as you try and marry the two, which you do when you state any position whatsoever on stated probandum your mathematics no longer apply. You are immediately logically and mathematically thrown back to the primary bottleneck of the problem garbage or non-garbage that you put into the logic / mathematics. You simply try to dodge this. You apply the correct end norm yet inappropriately to a situation in which you haven’t even clarified the garbage problem. A democratic convention won’t help you there. Creative intelligence if you allow yourself to use this human trait like Einstein Newton etcetera will. Now let’s have a look at the probabilistic reasoned mathematics of me being right: A priori (though irrelevant for researchers yet relevant in sales) let’s say I’m a 1 / 1000th Einstein having a 1 / 10 chance of getting a verbal thought experiment being correct on TOE so for me 1 / 10000. Not in dispute is the ultimate need for the test of logic the test of mathematics and the test of checking stated predictions. Ergo no correction needed. For spotting every incorrect definition / observation I get a conservative LR 10 on the probandum. A further LR 10 for every provided correct way of doing that. Same LR 10 for every current observation I can plausibly explain in verbal logic with my concept. For the first inconsistency I get LR 1 / million a second 1 / 10 million third 1 / trillion. Do feel free to change the estimates, Bayes’ mathematics subsequently will show your error in reasoning, don’t worry. Okay here goes: QM defined as a theory wrong 10 right being the best law we ever had: 100 (= 10 x 10) GR idem: wrong 1000 (= 100 x 10) right 10000 (BTW Parity given the a priori) Massless particles never observed 10000 being matter less 100000 Time dilation never observed in clocks 1000000 atom clocks slowing down have 10.000.000 Length contraction never observed 100.000.000 doppler-effect more probable 1000.000.000 Photon time dilation in GR never observed 10 up 10 speeding up holding c curving in has 10 up 11. I could go on for quite a bit. BTW since I started all revealing further evidence have made the probability rise, all corrections the same. A very good sign worth far and far more than just another LR 10 wouldn't you say? Now your turn, like other scientists / physicists who came up with for me: How do you explain electrons jump? How do you explain electrons make 90 degree turns? How do you explain not observing interference with light beams crossing? How do you explain ……. Be my guest. (edit: silly me I forgot to mention the fact that science the last hundred years has been diverging instead of converging on the issue, as one would expect when one isn't prepared to look at the whole integrated picture. It has become stranger and weirder still. Not strange if you persist in only looking at details.Like trying to find the loo in time using a microscope. I.e. wrong instrument / norm) I claim that my creative composition is an adult educated guess that takes all the essence of what we observe in science (contrary to what you do) and answer all the questions (contrary to you) via the correct norm logic and not convention dictates. Bayes’ mathematics proves me right and you et all wrong. Yet history and psychology shows the problem. Again you state to already know that the tests will not render a result, based on nothing more than a gut feeling. Even though all latterly all problems have been elegantly solved on the probandum albeit in verbal logic. There is no disputing that other than via the method used in the course on discussion by Monty Python (q.v.). What are you scared of? I don’t need your time, I need your support in having the tests done. As logic dictates. Again logic presides in science proper over ANY convention. ​(Edit2 BTW if you mean to say that it isn't testable in the way that I stated myself earlier on i.e. if the mathematics show that we need to spin the moon at 1000 rpm to get a measurable result, then that does that mean you did the mathematics in that respect. If so will then give them. And again then still it is potentially testable, it then only constitutes a creative challenge.) Yet I’m working on the mathematics.

(Still can't get the boxes to work.) I admit not being a scientist. I claim to be doing science properly to the appropriate level that is / should be the norm in science. I.e. the same applies when one sees someone on the floor still breathing and a seeming bullet hole in the head. Stating that he should that he should see a doctor to a doctor shouldn't then get the reply that I thus admit in not being a doctor and that I should first solve the medical problem for the doctor before any surgery can be done. Anyway that doctor maybe doesn't have to do all the surgery himself yet be helpful in first aid and getting the ambulance and having the hospital call up the brain surgeon. So this model is presented in such a way that should be good enough . Speed up mass and see if the gravity rises. If that happens it is an immediate paradigm shift. In science proper you go from rough to fine and don't start off with fine. rule of logic that takes precedence in science - per definition - to any convention that is taken as the rule. Logic is the rule. The several reasons to be more exact / precise only start applying more and more as you go along. You've got your norms mixed up. (reason: psychology, history repeats itself of course.) The because then you can't come back is correct if you mean "in the same way". Research is about trial and error and keeping at it. Ergo coming back in different way. Anyway, some rough estimates to see if we agree on the start data I took from Wikipedia on Dark matter and some (rusty) arithmetic : galaxy (Milky Way) mass 2 X 10 up 42 kg diameter galaxy 10 up 19 m our position 1/2 center our rotation speed 200 km/s (excluding DE) our DM gravity constant ? kg m / s up 2 (still working om that, anyone know this?) Should for us be 1/2 that of what is exerted on average to keep the whole thing from disintegrating. I guess that I already spot a problem that what is given as the mass of the visible matter is to high to be true because downsizing it to a galaxy of 1 m diameter would be somewhat more massive than any known matter. Probably an error in my arithmetic, or Wikipedia or DM has been added to what we think is the visible universe. What I want to do is downsize the whole thing to a 1 m ring with the appropriate mass representing a ring where we are at assuming all the visible mass of the galaxy in that ring. At rest this should account for the normal gravity when spun at the appropriate speed for the DM.

Okay I've been pondering a way to do the mathematics, although it is more then thirty years ago that I've been doing science classes / maths so I'm a bit rusty. Hence I'll assume quick and dirty then a galaxy being a stainless steel circular ring at say two thirds diameter of the galaxy containing all its mass/ matter in rest. Spun at the appropriate speed it exerts DM. Well then these are known quanta, right? Now then down size the whole shebang by a factor that we are left with a replicate-ble ring at a replicate-ble speed and see what order of magnitude of DM we are then talking about. If it is not replicate-ble because we need a ring the size of the moon spun at 10000 rpm then we must get creative in solving that problem. But maybe it isn't that difficult. Now I guess the required mathematics is simple for you and a bloody headache for me.

Do you believe in the need for rules or "order"? Yes Read history: (continuing) disorder has without exception as far as I know caused great hardship and toil for many. You should organize freedom in a way that needs an as little amount of rules on logically reaching a collective goal as possible. Say a collective goal as living ones life in a most agreeable way causing the least bother to others including future generations. This can IMO be reached by organizing all education, science and law in having R&D departments with the open-minded, quick thinking ones, that are relatively available, in the lead of those departments to provide advice and to do investigation afterwards if things a thought to have gone wrong. In production the conscientious take lead and the others in support. All ventures in life can be seen in this context of R&D, production and sales. All critical and requiring rules and organisation. So wisdom can be organised by us apes. This is not in any way undemocratic for it has as such little to do with politics given any parliamentary democratic just society. It is not left, or right wing or religious.

That it is my claim and thus my job is incorrect. It is the job of medics to do medicine, of bakers to bake and of scientists to do science or to support in it being done. (I can't get the boxes to work. Sorry.) You know what to look for: more speed = more gravity. It doesn't have to be angular, although I guess doing it via rotation is the easiest. Another guy came up with an experiment for my idea in which you take two identical massive spheres in a geostationary orbit. One spinning the other in rest in see if a droplet moves towards the moving one. And then repeat it when it is turning the other way round. Does the droplet move towards the spinning one every time? Yes? proof. No? then you need to do the mathematics. Because the latter is much cheaper and relatively easy you should do or support the doing of just that. Come on that must be relatively easy to do quick and dirty to see if it is quickly feasible to test or not. Now how large the spheres must be in order to get a measurable result must be easy for any experimentalist to work out before hand. Size and mass in movemnent of galaxies is a known as is the amount of DM that is missing. You simply have to down size it all. Then you will know how hard it is going to be to measure. It is I'm quite shore not going to be that easy because otherwise we would of noticed it sooner. But if you don't know where to look then it will escape you even if it shows to be relatively easy to measure. How important is it to reach a TOE quickly? Extremely. How many proven testable concepts for a TOE do you have at a verbal logic level? As far as I can see only one: this one. Should be easy to prove that wrong. However even if you show 10000 of such concepts then it is so important that science should attempt to bust them all. Most probable ones first: i.e. the simple ones like mine. Edit: and BTW if more speed = DM it certainly is measurable.

I guess an extreme amount of spin is required in order to get a measurable difference in gravity with a small sphere. The amount of change should coincide with DM in relation to the spin of a galaxy which is as I understand a known. Your job / i.e. the job of scientists, not mine, to calculate how much that should be if you down size a galaxy to the size of your small sphere in order to provide the needed DM or even a measurable rise in gravity. If you measure any rise in gravity then it would for current science be like observing an apple falling upwards. Like observing DM and DE is also observing apples doing just that. Hence "dark". The trick is to change all the pieces of the puzzle in such a way using verbal logic that all the apples fall down again. Yet do that in a testable way. I do that. No accuracy needed: it falls up or it doesn't. Getting it subsequently more accurate is for doing after that. BTW what I state is that if you speed up matter its gravity will rise. It doesn't have to rotate. The same matter at a higher speed exerts more gravity than the same amount of matter at a lower speed / rest. A test an other guy proposed was have two massive identical spheres in a geostationary orbit and having a small droplet in between the two of which one is in a as high as possible spin. See if the droplet moves towards the spinning sphere. I guess that we are very apt in detecting even the slightest changes so measuring any rise what so ever in the accelerated spin of the sphere will already prove concept. Albeit at a very much higher level of proof warranting more effort put into it. I don't know how accurate we can measure this in an I guess cluttered environment. That is for people like you to do or to support doing. What I provide you with my composition (akin like making a scenario in a crime scene in this one trying to catch MN as a mass murdering illusionist) is to guess where to start looking. I do that. So to provide a norm on to say when it is busted will require indeed mathematics and knowledge of physics and what we can measure at the moment. I guess that can't be that hard taking it via some quick and dirty mathematics on some known rules of thumb.

Test 1: make a computer-simulation with say a million (anyway as much as is currently possible) identical superconductive sphere's that move at the same speed in a random way in a large super conductive box. Accuracy is critical. And see what happens. I predict they will go to order. The order of a dynamic crystal "far" away from the (disturbance of the) walls. I.e. each ball will be and stay in its own virtual box around the center of the large box. If so it will immediately constitute a paradigm shift for current science would predict chaos. This however would immediately form a bases for explaining the currently inexplicable amount of order that we observe. (And a lot more as well BTW. it then explains the heart of the Higgs field when you make a double crystal of two such fields with a large and a small particle: Yin and Yang of order of the one causing disorder in the other and vice versa.) I guess that current computers are capable of computing this. Anyway it is testable. Test 2: Simulate a galaxy by accelerating the spin of a large gyro. I predict its gravity will rise comparable to the amount needed to explain DM. Test 1 and 2 when both give a positive result readily explain DM & DE gravity and waves conforming to GR, QM and Newton. Infinite amount of both sorts of balls in an absolute void and having the small one faster then the large one both above c would immediately and easily form the bases of explaining everything we observe in a simple way. In a way any high school kid would understand. So best on Occam. Like the SM is filed with former unicorns, these two are the only way of explaining it al. Logical deduction shows that you then must assume four stages of the Higgs field. A multiverse in which our universe is one. The entire universe can then be seen as cubes (small particle) or spheres (large one). Pressure in the system having virtual boxes with infinitely thick walls. And all matter acting as little black holes. This because logically the large particle will have a standard deviation horizontally and vertically for every forward movement. It will spiral mathematically into the skin of a huge sphere. The beginning of the curved space we observe. A cut away drawing of our universe then would look like a cut away drawing of earth. This entire composition (concept) is built up of analogies we readily observe in nature. (And provides more testable points as well BTW) You can logically deduce that the too many large particles will be pressed into each other, causing them to spin in the center the core of every universe. The energy needs to remain the same. A large blob will be shot up as a yet to form galaxy into the crust of the double crystal, where it will nearly stop. There it will form strings kept in a surface tension scenario.(Thus big squirts in stead of a big bang) Strings picking up mass out of the double crystal via the Higgs mechanism. Adding mass causes a under pressure perceived as gravity between these strings. Adding mass also adds momentum and speeds the strings up. Explaining DE. And DM because the more you speed up the more mass you acquire per time frame the more gravity you exert. The expanding visible universe is thus an illusion. To our sides we see the angular momentum, mathematically the same acceleration due to mathematics of the same stuff. It looks like a flat expanding space cake with raisins. Just like the earth looks flat standing on the beach. Life in the center of the crust creating the illusion further. Normal distribution. Small chance of life in the beginning yet to form When we speed up to much we will disintegrate because of rising entropy which we also observe. A 1/3 c I'd say for the same reason why a helicopter can only reach a third of the speed of sound. I.e. the electrons of atoms can't exceed c whereas the nucleus keeps speeding up. Mass less particles don't exist. They are mater-less i.e. don't exert gravity because they are to fast for the Higgs mechanism. Yet are held under c by the Higgs field. Becoming unspun i.e. red-shifted in gravitational fields accelerating to keep c in a curve and arcing inward at twice the Newtonian value like a toy wind up car would do as well. bouncing around in a wave like fashion. Any way I can explain all observations thrown at me in a nice elegant way. Albeit in verbal logic. Thus providing a proven testable concept at that level. I even can explain life as being one of the possible scenario's that is being played out all the time. No beginning no end not even in our universe. We will end however then. All information erased when the black hole in the center of our universe pops out of our universe and disintegrates and falls back to form the double crystal again moving as a glacier inward, forming cracks that should be detectable BTW. The like a waterfall it will fall inward. The particles of the SM and the laws of QM and GR only apply in the double crystal. Mater anti mater is two strings hitting head on. When they are shrugging they form magnetism for the surface tension is broken. When interlocked and counter-rotating they can form say a photon traveling in a straight line through the double crystal. I.e. I can elegantly explain it all. The whole shebang. And: testable. All done by following the back to basics rules of logic and mathematics when confronted with an unknown problem. take all observations in their essence. Answer all relevant questions by guessing. And do this in a testable way. This system takes precedence over any convention in science BTW. Just as you should do in solving a crime scene. MN is a mass murdering jack the ripper. cancer MS and what not. Getting to a TOE will help solving those diseases etc. So we are in a hurry. I say she's an illusionist. As a testable suspect. BTW this is the way we quickly sent a man to the moon. Educated tested guesswork. So like Kennedy said: we chose to put a man on the moon in this decade. Well do so with TOE as well. Get to TOE this decade. Keep guessing, keep testing. Trial and error. So if I'm wrong I'm wrong.