Oldand Dilis Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Strange said: This is not snobbery. It just a fact that you cannot make predictions to test your idea without math. If you can't make testable predictions then there is no reason to consider your vague claims. It can be measured and it matches the mathematics of the theory. Until you can do that, you have nothing but "just so" stories, which are worthless. I don't have money or privilege, and I don't think I am superior. I am just pointing out that no one can tell if your idea is correct or not unless you can make testable predictions. I don't think I am particularly intelligent. And I don't have much formal education. My highest qualification is a diploma from a part-time course when I was working. You haven't provided "solutions" because you haven't provided anything that can be tested. You have just told some stories (that make sense to you) about what you think is happening. This is not science. Citation needed. Stop playing the victim and provide some science. (This is a science forum, after all.) Lies, everything I have provided can be tested. I provide tests for the double slit, quantum entanglement, orbitals, the problem is you people with the privelege (relative for some still privelege compared to some who have no running water or electricity or primary education) won't to the tests, you are a snob, rarely does a true snob ever say yes I am a snob. When they do they are usually racists and bigots too. The solution to redshift and the horizon problem I'll be continuing on my website blog and elsewhere, not in the mood for more insults "playing the victim" your snobbery and arrogance shines through even when you try to refute it. Lying, snob. Edited July 31, 2019 by Oldand Dilis Anger at lies and arrogance holding back science -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 OK, let’s talk about why science and math are important to test ideas. You have come up with an idea that you think it is correct. You think it is correct because it makes perfect sense to you. It makes perfect sense to you because you created it based on what you know. So it exactly matches your expectations. Now you want other people to accept your idea. But here’s the thing. Science forums like this one are full of people with their personal theories. These are all different, relying on aether, vortices, springs, waves, new particles, new types of energy, superfluids, supersolids, supercrystals, harmonic resonance, etc etc. All these different ideas cannot all be right. And yet, their proponents are all as equally convinced that they are correct as you are. And then there are hundreds of “real” scientists with their ideas based on things like symmetry groups, string theory, causal dynamical triangulation, topological defects etc (all of which are completely over my head). So, how can we decide which of these ideas are correct or not? We need some way of testing them. In order to test these ideas (or hypotheses) humans have developed, over several centuries, the idea of science as a process for testing things based on objective quantitative evidence. This requires the theory to make testable predictions. This means they need to be precise. Not just “this will happen” but exactly how large the effect will be and how much it differs from existing theories. Producing such quantitative predictions requires mathematics. Sorry, but that is just a fact. Without testable predictions, and therefore without mathematics, you are not doing science. 6 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: I provide tests for the double slit, quantum entanglement, orbitals I have not seen any such tests from you that would objectively distinguish your idea from existing explanations. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 2 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said: I don't have a computer, (or a home), I'm using a phone with a broken screen which has a "mind of its own". The problem here on this forum seems to be snobbery like this, that's whats blinding you the colonial superiority complex, "oh the native can't speak our language so she must be stupid, every intelligent person speaks English(or maths) haw haw chuckle chuckle" Snobbery also at the core of strange's blindness. Science, and physics in particular, requires quantifying results. Which means you need maths to differentiate between competing ideas, and to measure results against predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) The simple truth can often hurt, that doesn't change the truth. Math is fundamentally vital in physics. You must be able to quantify interactions such as orbitals. We have been pointing this out for good reasons. Without the proper details such as the required math your theories will be wasted. Calling us snobs for pointing out thus truism will not change this. My very first day of physics and pretty much everyday after that involved learning math graphs etc. Edited July 31, 2019 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldand Dilis Posted August 1, 2019 Author Share Posted August 1, 2019 Some maths explaining the weight of atomic nuclei. I'm not even going to reply to Strange any more you showed you were out of your depth when you stated that watched or not watched is the most important element of the double slit experiment (cringe). I thought I was talking with proper physicists not people with part time diplomas in science so it makes sense why this is over your heads and you are crying mathematics, because you can't understand the PRINCIPLE which always comes before the maths confirm it. Also why none of you are able to do the modelling or maths that has been sitting waiting to be explained for 100 years. but just in case there are any actual physicists in this forum here's some maths explaining how the action around the quantum balls forms neutrons and protons the video with the visual representation is available on the subscript giving the maths is here A visual example of quarks movements always 2 against one. Each quark made up of 13 quantum balls in Newtons 13 "kissing balls" shape. One "quantum ball" lost by each as a gluon shared or stretched equally between another. All quantum balls essentially the same carrying energy travelling as vibrations/waves as gluons, electrons and collectively as quarks. Hence why the weight of a neutron or proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron. 1728 (12³) being the cumulative spin "weight" of the 12 balls in each quark plus the cumulative spin of the qluons binding them by shared pull and why their weight is not equal to the other 12 balls 12 x 3 directions of 3 objects 12x3x3 108 giving us 1836 altogether. More information about the full unified field theory and the solution to the double slit experiment available on please stop advertising your site here Give me another negative point if you want if you're all only part time diploma level science students. I just post in the off chance there's someone who will understand this among you. -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 10 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: I'm not even going to reply to Strange any more you showed you were out of your depth when you stated that watched or not watched is the most important element of the double slit experiment (cringe). I find that pretty implausible. I don't even know what "watching" would mean in this context (it is all about what is measured or observed). 30 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: I thought I was talking with proper physicists not people with part time diplomas in science so it makes sense why this is over your heads Oh, so first of all we were "snobs" because we were too educated. Now my humble diploma (in loudspeaker design) is not good enough for you! But don't worry, there are some "real" scientists here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 I think you missed my post regarding multiple time dimensions. Here is a shorter version for you: As you introduce new time dimensions you need to start from scratch. You need to redefine photons, atoms, electrons and all other particles. General and special relativity needs to be replaced. You cannot use additional time dimensions to explain concepts that requires exactly one time dimension. With multiple time dimensions there exists no photons*. And no atoms exists to create double slits from. Redefining physics is a huge task, but new models have emerged in the past so it is possible that future discoveries will change our current theories. You could begin by reading my analysis above; focus more on science than on other members diplomas On 7/31/2019 at 10:14 AM, Oldand Dilis said: Lying, snob. Your style of discussion does not add credibility to your ideas. 1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said: I just post in the off chance there's someone who will understand this among you. My earlier statements applies to atomic nuclei as well. *) As defined in current models. There are speculations about other possibilities in other possible universes and/or at very early times. I do not know of mainstream evidence supporting such ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 13 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said: Some maths explaining the weight of atomic nuclei. I'm not even going to reply to Strange any more you showed you were out of your depth when you stated that watched or not watched is the most important element of the double slit experiment (cringe). I thought I was talking with proper physicists not people with part time diplomas in science so it makes sense why this is over your heads and you are crying mathematics, because you can't understand the PRINCIPLE which always comes before the maths confirm it. Also why none of you are able to do the modelling or maths that has been sitting waiting to be explained for 100 years. but just in case there are any actual physicists in this forum here's some maths explaining how the action around the quantum balls forms neutrons and protons the video with the visual representation is available on the subscript giving the maths is here A visual example of quarks movements always 2 against one. Each quark made up of 13 quantum balls in Newtons 13 "kissing balls" shape. One "quantum ball" lost by each as a gluon shared or stretched equally between another. All quantum balls essentially the same carrying energy travelling as vibrations/waves as gluons, electrons and collectively as quarks. Hence why the weight of a neutron or proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron. 1728 (12³) being the cumulative spin "weight" of the 12 balls in each quark plus the cumulative spin of the qluons binding them by shared pull and why their weight is not equal to the other 12 balls 12 x 3 directions of 3 objects 12x3x3 108 giving us 1836 altogether. More information about the full unified field theory and the solution to the double slit experiment available on please stop advertising your site here Give me another negative point if you want if you're all only part time diploma level science students. I just post in the off chance there's someone who will understand this among you. Do you honestly believe there is anything remotely scientific in this post? Would you like to try again because very to nill of this post has anything to do with how to model atomic orbitals... it literally reads as a word salad thrown into a blender. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 14 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said: Give me another negative point if you want if you're all only part time diploma level science students. OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldand Dilis Posted August 4, 2019 Author Share Posted August 4, 2019 (edited) On 8/1/2019 at 11:48 AM, Ghideon said: I think you missed my post regarding multiple time dimensions. Here is a shorter version for you: As you introduce new time dimensions you need to start from scratch. You need to redefine photons, atoms, electrons and all other particles. General and special relativity needs to be replaced. You cannot use additional time dimensions to explain concepts that requires exactly one time dimension. With multiple time dimensions there exists no photons*. And no atoms exists to create double slits from. Redefining physics is a huge task, but new models have emerged in the past so it is possible that future discoveries will change our current theories. Simply incorrect my theory is consistent with relativity of you looked at it properly you would see that. Maybe you too are a part time diploma scientist out of your depth. My style of argument is in response to the snobbery, condescention and lies you hypocrite to comment on my style, I have been more than patient and respectful for too long with your snobbery. I also solve the seemingly unspoken elephant in the room with science WHAT causes redshift? EXPANSION OF WHAT in the Universe? The popular accepted explanation is that redshift explains the expansion of the Universe and because objects nearer us show more redshift than more distant objects the universe must have been expanding slower in the past. I say this is incorrect, no one I have seen gives an exact explanation given as to WHY an expansion changes frequency or even why the speed of light remains constant despite wavelength and frequency changes, longer wavelength should logically increase the speed but it doesn't. I explain why, yes redshift is caused by expansion but not of the Universe but by gravity causing curvature, leading to path change. Consider the spring like analogy I used before, light travels in it's spring/corkscrew like spiral through the quantum balls/particles (looking like a sound wave from the side and a spin from the front) when gravity causes curvature then one side of the spring contracts as it is pulled in and the other side expands. So as it passes through curvature light's path/frequency changes because its angle of entry to each next quantum particle is changed giving it a different frequency. When we see objects far away exhibiting less redshift in the past it is because there were less large objects to curve light's path. As the Universe ages objects grow larger creating more gravity more curvature and more redshift as light is pulled off its path changing its frequency. When the light passes the curved path its frequency has been changed so even if it is back on a straight path again its frequency does not return to its original spiral width it continues on its new one. It has taken a different path through the quantum particles. Larger angle of entry (to the axis) means paths spiral route is wider with less rotations/bends to travel through, smaller angle means route has more bends but closer together/higher frequency so the path from entry to exit is the same giving us the constant speed regardless of wavelength (very rough photo of the drawing explaining the theory on a very beaten jotter is on my website blog). So it is not necessarily that the Universe is expanding and even if it is redshift is not caused by such an expansion but it is the contraction of the spacetime fabric by large objects gravity that causes redshift (if it is not then explain why freqency change? EXPANSION OF WHAT? Fudge?) Once the lights frequency has been changed it will continue in its new frequency when it reaches a straight path again (relatively straight as we know that the observable Universe is almost but not quite flat). As it travels through space it gets continually turned onto new paths with curvature until eventually it gets bent to "fall in a spiral" eventually down towards the centre of the universe again. This supports the theory that we are at the surface of the spacetime fabric and light reaching the edge curves back down towards the centre. Perhaps this may explain the distribution of the CMB also?? Maybe not but......maybe.... I have to watch some more videos, the flatness problem is likely just one of scale, the Universe is humungulonguloungous and compared with Earth our visible Universe is to the universe probably something like as a plate or coin is to the Earth, I provide the Unified Field Theory that explains everything from teleportation, quantum entanglement, structure of quarks, orbitals of electrons all which can all be TESTED FOR so stop lying and I give a VERIFIABLE solution to the double slit experiment and a SECOND new simpler variation to cross check (no probabilities, no potentials, no dead cats, or Copenhagen lager fuelled waffle but a certainty every time) The good news it kind of rules out the big freeze.....phew ...panic over. I might get some bubbly... Edited August 4, 2019 by Oldand Dilis addressing snobbish hypocrisy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 2 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: The popular accepted explanation is that redshift explains the expansion of the Universe Red shift was the first evidence to support the theory of expansion. But it wasn't until much more evidence was found that the theory was generally accepted. 6 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: objects nearer us show more redshift than more distant objects the universe must have been expanding slower in the past. Red shift increases with distance. 6 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: no one I have seen gives an exact explanation given as to WHY an expansion changes frequency Then you should learn a little science before making stuff up. 6 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: why the speed of light remains constant That is just a observed fact. 7 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: I explain why, yes redshift is caused by expansion but not of the Universe but by gravity causing curvature, leading to path change. Can you show that this quantitatively matches the observed red shifts? (As the current theory does?) As you think red shift decreases with distance, it sounds like your theory must be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said: Simply incorrect my theory is consistent with relativity I see no multiple time dimensions in your last post, did you abandon that idea? Edited August 4, 2019 by Ghideon missing quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 2 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said: Simply incorrect my theory is consistent with relativity You don’t have a theory. No math, no model, no testable predictions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 3 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said: my theory is consistent with relativity As you can't do any math for your model, there is no way you can know if that is true or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazing Random Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 17 minutes ago, Strange said: As you can't do any math for your model, there is no way you can know if that is true or not. It doesn't need . If it doesn't disobey any law and is a result of law/combination of laws it is correct. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 5 minutes ago, Amazing Random said: It doesn't need . If it doesn't disobey any law and is a result of law/combination of laws it is correct. Without math, how do you know if it violates a mathematical law or not? Oldland Dills can assert that it doesn't. But with equal validity, someone else can assert that it does. That is why we need to see the mathematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazing Random Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 Just now, Strange said: Without math, how do you know if it violates a mathematical law or not? Oldland Dills can assert that it doesn't. But with equal validity, someone else can assert that it does. That is why we need to see the mathematics. If it disobeys mathematical laws and doesnt disobey physics laws it still is correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 17 minutes ago, Amazing Random said: If it disobeys mathematical laws and doesnt disobey physics laws it still is correct 1. How do you know if it disobeys those laws with math? 2. If it disobeys laws know to be correct how can it be correct? And, even without math, Oldland Dills idea appears to be incorrect (as he has redshift decreasing with distance instead of increasing). So it is qualitatively wrong, never mind any quantitative details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazing Random Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 Just now, Strange said: 1. How do you know if it disobeys those laws with math? 2. If it disobeys laws know to be correct how can it be correct? And, even without math, Oldland Dills idea appears to be incorrect (as he has redshift decreasing with distance instead of increasing). So it is qualitatively wrong, never mind any quantitative details. I never said it is right , you have propably misunderstood (as always) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 1 minute ago, Amazing Random said: I never said it is right You said: 21 minutes ago, Amazing Random said: it still is correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazing Random Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 Just now, Strange said: You said: You are just taking fragments of my comments and put them seperately to enforce your position . No comments. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldand Dilis Posted October 14, 2019 Author Share Posted October 14, 2019 On 8/4/2019 at 11:07 PM, Strange said: And, even without math, Oldland Dills idea appears to be incorrect (as he has redshift decreasing with distance instead of increasing). So it is qualitatively wrong, never mind any quantitative details. Not true I said any outward expansion or in other words stretch would have decreased redshift which is caused by pathchange. It turns out the expansion is inward causing pathchange and thats how I solved the vacuum catastrophe, now added to my list along with solving/correcting charge parity violation, quantum entanglement, gravity, black holes, gravitational waves....and got the mathematical formula that solves the double slit experiment. On 8/4/2019 at 10:40 PM, Amazing Random said: On 8/4/2019 at 10:22 PM, Strange said: As you can't do any math for your model, there is no way you can know if that is true or not. It doesn't need . If it doesn't disobey any law and is a result of law/combination of laws it is correct. At last thinking outside the box, actual imaginative intelligence, the same which helped me find the mathematical formula. Word bro! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 14, 2019 Share Posted October 14, 2019 9 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said: At last thinking outside the box, actual imaginative intelligence, the same which helped me find the mathematical formula. Word bro! You found one? When will you post it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 14, 2019 Share Posted October 14, 2019 On 7/30/2019 at 10:02 AM, Oldand Dilis said: The two extra dimensions of time provide the solution to the double slit. I see no multiple time dimensions in your last two posts, did you abandon that idea? 9 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said: I solved the vacuum catastrophe, now added to my list along with solving/correcting charge parity violation, quantum entanglement, gravity, black holes, gravitational waves....and got the mathematical formula that solves the double slit experiment. Can you post the version of your model that these claims are based on, including the mathematical formulas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldand Dilis Posted October 16, 2019 Author Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) On 10/14/2019 at 3:27 PM, Ghideon said: Can you post the version of your model that these claims are based on, including the mathematical formulas? Yes but it is copyrighted under CC licence and the weblink and author must be quoted anywhere it is used. Do moderators agree to see it with such conditions? On 10/14/2019 at 2:38 PM, swansont said: You found one? When will you post it? When the moderators agree to the conditions of the CC licence and do not remove it later after gaining the information themselves only to withhold that information from others. And just to be clear the site is not monetised, contains no porn, violent, racist, sexist etc content it is suitable for all ages. The reason for this is the CC terms have been set, if this forum is where the formula and theories are understood and go viral from generating hits and business for the forum from my work the original work must also be generating hits even though I do not want any money or business of any kind. My interest is only to spread the information fairly I have no interest in business. Edited October 16, 2019 by Oldand Dilis register shift Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts