Pulsoid Theory

[swansont]

I do not understand why it would not be possible to test for the phuton effect; and the Europeans are mounting millions of dollars to test for the Pioneer Anomaly. What part of test do you misunderstand?

 

 

You have done nothing to show how your "theory" ties in with any of this. When and where did you predict the Pioneer anomaly.

 

And what, exactly, do you mean by the "photon effect."

[Proof of One]

You have done nothing to show how your "theory" ties in with any of this. When and where did you predict the Pioneer anomaly.

I predicted an effect such as the Pioneer Anomaly at Caltech, on March 11, 1994 with Kip Thorne and John Schwarz. Several years later I discussed it with David Paige and Sorel Fitz-Gibbon with UCLA, while at breakfast. All discussions were before any of them were aware of the anomaly; and in 1994, I was unaware of the anomaly.

 

And what, exactly, do you mean by the "photon effect."

You could crassly refer to the photon effect as that which is observed with the "double slit" experiment.

 

I prefer to think of the "photon effect" as the nonlocality of a light wave that causes it to behave "somewhat" as a particle when it "hits" a photon detector. This "effect" is easily explained with Pulsoid Theory; just as any gravitational "effect" is easily rationalized.

 

The "when" and "where" of predictions is not important. What is important is that the enigmas are rationalized.

[swansont]

I predicted an effect such as the Pioneer Anomaly at Caltech, on March 11, 1994 with Kip Thorne and John Schwarz. Several years later I discussed it with David Paige and Sorel Fitz-Gibbon[/url'] with UCLA, while at breakfast. All discussions were before any of them were aware of the anomaly; and in 1994, I was unaware of the anomaly.

 

And name-dropping aside, where is this documented? What is the actual prediction? The details - i.e. the actual science? (You know, the one thing that has been conspicuously absent in your posts) In this case, the function of acceleration with respect to position, or something similar, and the variables on which this depends.

 

By when and where I meant in a tangible form - what publication and date. Chit-chat doesn't count for much.

 

You could crassly refer to the photon effect as that which is observed with the "double slit" experiment.

 

I prefer to think of the "photon effect" as the nonlocality of a light wave that causes it to behave "somewhat" as a particle when it "hits" a photon detector. This "effect" is easily explained with Pulsoid Theory; just as any gravitational "effect" is easily rationalized.

 

So, it's just back to the handwaving. Oh well.

[Proof of One]

…where is this documented? What is the actual prediction? The details - i.e. the actual science? (You know, the one thing that has been conspicuously absent in your posts)

It is glaringly obvious that you have little training as a theoretical physicist. You probably also lack training in philosophical logic and pure mathematics.

 

Otherwise, you would clearly understand that “documentation,” “details,” “actual science,” are not of importance concerning a prediction from a theory. Such is the function of the research scientist and engineers.

 

What is important is that a theory can rationalize what is observed that otherwise is inexplicable.

 

In this case, the function of acceleration with respect to position, or something similar, and the variables on which this depends.

It is the intervening “dark” matter as defined by Pulsoid Theory as it affects the Relative, Hierarchic Compression (RHC) of the involved objects . . . and all other objects..

 

By when and where I meant in a tangible form - what publication and date.

I believe I mentioned that peer review has not been available to me for over 50 years; certainly not when orthodoxy is at stake.

 

What peer reviewer would ever knowingly permit an institutional Paradigm Shift?

 

With your assist, and that of others, there is no other way around peer review that I have been able to devise. The ultimate judgment is in the hands of the viewers of many forums. As it should be.

 

Chit-chat doesn't count for much.

Judging from my record breaking following among the forums, it has some value. So much value that Physics Forums permanently bans my viewing, while using my acronyms and neologisms to advertise their site.

 

So, it's just back to the handwaving. Oh well.

Hopefully, there are a few open-minded persons that will not agree with you. Persons that are looking for an alternative theory to the voodoo metaphysics of the current Pomo elite theoretical physicists . . . who, for the most part, seem to have little rational theory. Big Bang, indeed !!!

[CPL.Luke]

you know when quoting a dictionary reference it is usually wise to site the dictionary, for that matter this is wise for all quotations.

 

It is glaringly obvious that you have little training as a theoretical physicist. You probably also lack training in philosophical logic and pure mathematics.

 

Otherwise, you would clearly understand that “documentation,” “details,” “actual science,” are not of importance concerning a prediction from a theory. Such is the function of the research scientist and engineers.

 

What is important is that a theory can rationalize what is observed that otherwise is inexplicable.

 

Hopefully, there are a few open-minded persons that will not agree with you. Persons that are looking for an alternative theory to the voodoo metaphysics of the current Pomo elite theoretical physicists . . . who, for the most part, seem to have little rational theory. Big Bang, indeed !!!

 

hmm it seems you have contradicted yourself, first you claim that theoretical physisists don't need to use any sort of evidence, or any mathmatical rigor in order to have a valid claim, yet then you claim that theoretical physics today is pseudoscience, while current theoretical physics does use mathmatical rigor, and evidence. I think you have mixed the definitions of science and pseudoscience up.

 

also, define "pure mathmatics"

 

and since we seem to be using different definitions for "theoretical physics" why don't you define "theoretical physics" for us

[Proof of One]

...it seems you have contradicted yourself, first you claim that theoretical physisists don't need to use any sort of evidence, or any mathmatical rigor in order to have a valid claim, yet then you claim that theoretical physics today is pseudoscience, while current theoretical physics does use mathmatical rigor, and evidence. I think you have mixed the definitions of science and pseudoscience up.

No contradiction in my original statements.

 

...also, define "pure mathmatics"

Do some basic research before you waste everyone's time.

 

Pure Mathematics.

 

...and since we seem to be using different definitions for "theoretical physics" why don't you define "theoretical physics" for us

Theoretical Physicist.

[CPL.Luke]

in order

 

yes there is, unless you provide some actual physics.

 

 

ah I think we call that number theory over here

 

 

I think your idea of what theoretical physics is might be a bit off, from wikipedia

 

Theoretical physics is physics that employs mathematical models and abstractions rather than experimental processes. Theoretical physics attempts to understand the natural world by making a model of reality, used for rationalizing, explaining, and predicting physical phenomena in what are called "physical theories". There are three types of theories in physics: mainstream theories, proposed theories and fringe theories.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physicist

 

So it is still your job to provide some mathmatical rigor to your theory, das part of a model of the physical world.

[YT2095]

POO read this, it`s actualy quite good AND informative with Many usable links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-review

 

if as you claim, you have your proof etc... then I Seriously reccomend reading that article and doing something about it.

I can`t see why it should have taken 50 years at all, if your idea is correct then for petes sake, stop Talking about it, and DO something!

 

there really is NO excuse (well in actual fact there are Only excuses so far), what`s stopping you?

[insane_alien]

hmmm.... methinks i will go through his site and translate his gobbledegook into actual words. i think iwill need several dictionaries in several languagues and some more time...

for now .... i must go and work!

[Proof of One]

yes there is, unless you provide some actual physics.

This comment appears to be meaningless drivel; unless, you can supply some context that gives it meaning.

 

…I think we call that number theory over here

Not sure what you are referring to (see above comment). Number Theory is merely one of many branches of Pure Mathematics. Do you have any training in either?

 

I think your idea of what theoretical physics is might be a bit off, from wikipedia

I agree, entirely, with Wikipedia's excellent definition of theoretical physics. I can find no salient variance concerning Wikipedia’s succinctness and my more elaborate definition.

 

So it is still your job to provide some mathmatical rigor to your theory, das part of a model of the physical world.

I know of no theoretical physics theory that provides more mathematical rigor than Pulsoid Theory.

 

To the best of my knowledge there is no theory in physics that postulates a redefinition of Pure Mathematics to “set” its foundation.

 

I have suggested, before, that you learn some fundamental mathematics or consult some knowledgeable person. I believe that Matt Grime, a member of this forum, who is knowledgeable on the subject, may be able to assist you.

[swansont]

It is glaringly obvious that you have little training as a theoretical physicist. You probably also lack training in philosophical logic and pure mathematics[/url'].

 

Yeah, yeah, whatever.

 

Otherwise' date=' you would clearly understand that “documentation,” “details,” “actual science,” are not of importance concerning a prediction from a theory. Such is the function of the research scientist and engineers.

 

What is important is that a theory can rationalize what is observed that otherwise is inexplicable.[/quote']

 

That's a first step in developing a theory, but a theory has to be testable and falsifiable.

 

Judging from my record breaking following among the forums, it has some value. So much value that Physics Forums permanently bans my viewing, while using my acronyms and neologisms to advertise their site.

 

How do you know that they aren't watching for the entertainment value? 259 views (as of this post) is no big deal anyway.

 

I can't recall if you've addressed this - I know you have said you are shut out of peer-review, and conspiracy theory and paranoia aside, I don't think you've mentioned your actual physics background. Where did you get your various degrees?

 

Hopefully, there are a few open-minded persons that will not agree with you. Persons that are looking for an alternative theory to the voodoo metaphysics of the current Pomo elite theoretical physicists . . . who, for the most part, seem to have little rational theory. Big Bang, indeed [i']!!![/i]

 

I love irony, so I really enjoyed this one.

[Proof of One]

POO read this, it`s actualy quite good AND informative with Many usable links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-review

Thank you very much for your effort and what appears to be sincere concern.

[Proof of One]

POO read this, it`s actualy quite good AND informative with Many usable links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-review

Thank you very much for your effort and what appears to be sincere concern.

 

I am very familiar with peer review concerning more journals than I care to think about.

 

You could say that I am an avid student of peer review.

 

Peer review is, for the most part, entirely closed to “outsiders” and nonorthodoxy. Such is the precise purpose of peer review.

 

Also, many of my close friends fear reprisal if too closely associated with myself or my theories. They upset the “natural order” for which peer review was established to prevent. (An excellent example of this fear, ego, and close-mindedness is the unwarranted censorship at Physics Forum as wielded by a few misguided acolytes of the Pomo elite.)

 

I have spent many 100s of thousand dollars over the last 50 years attempting to “work” within the system, without much success beyond making many close friends.

 

I know of no other way to enlighten mankind than what transpires in my “manner” herein and elsewhere on the internet.

 

if as you claim, you have your proof etc... then I Seriously reccomend reading that article and doing something about it.

I’m so aware of the article that you cite that sometimes I think I wrote it.

 

Can’t you understand; at great personal sacrifice, I am doing something about it.

I can`t see why it should have taken 50 years at all, if your idea is correct

Nor can I; I concur with your logic. Considering all the encouragement that I have received from the highest levels of academia and research, it took many years for me to understand what a Paradigm Shift (a term that I used before Thomas S. Kuhn) entailed.

 

For fifty years, no one has assailed the logic or math, regardless of how I have provoked academia.

 

…then for petes sake, stop Talking about it, and DO something!

I, and you . . . and Elliot, are.

[Proof of One]

That's a first step in developing a theory, but a theory has to be testable and falsifiable.

I absolutely concur. I know of no failure of Pulsoid theory to meet such criteria.

 

How do you know that they aren't watching for the entertainment value?

I am sure that most are.

 

259 views (as of this post) is no big deal anyway.

Now almost 280 a little while after your post. It is a bit of a "deal" when you consider the time involved. Note: "Trsvelling faster than light...", the precursor of this Thread, quickly, more than quintupled in viewers after languishing for almost two months at 400 viewers; since PoO joined it is now more than 2600.

 

I can't recall if you've addressed this - I know you have said you are shut out of peer-review, and conspiracy theory and paranoia aside, I don't think you've mentioned your actual physics background. Where did you get your various degrees?

Cornell University is where I studied (with full scholarship); I consider Philip Morrison as my mentor. This was the McCarthy era. I got into a ton of trouble with Oppenheimer and J. Edgar Hoover.

[Proof of One]

hmmm.... methinks i will go through his site and translate his gobbledegook into actual words. i think iwill need several dictionaries in several languagues and some more time...

for now .... i must go and work!

Thank you for your contemplated effort.

 

I am sure that you will be rewarded.

 

Please advise as you progress; and do not hesitate to ask specific questions regarding the math and logic.

 

I will do my best to quickly reply.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think the main problem with this discussion is that it is going nowhere.

 

Proof of One, if you can give us some sort of math that can PROVE your theory is correct, I think that would fix something. The point with theories is to give evidence that shows it's better than the rest, not attacking the rest and giving yourself no credibility.

 

I hate arguments like these.

[swansont]

Cornell University is where I studied

 

That doesn't answer the question. I also "studied at Cornell," but that doesn't mean I got a degree there or was even a registered student (and I didn't and wasn't). Where did you get your degrees?

[swansont]

I absolutely concur. I know of no failure of Pulsoid theory to meet such criteria.

 

 

You have failed here, despite repeated requests, to provide any testable claims of your "theory." All you have done is link back to your site, and tell us how wonderful it is.

[Proof of One]

259 views (as of this post) is no big deal anyway.

Now almost 280 a little while after your post. It is a bit of a "deal" when you consider the time involved. Note: "Trsvelling faster than light..."[/i'], the precursor of this Thread, quickly, more than quintupled in viewers after languishing for almost two months at 400 viewers; since PoO joined it is now more than 2600.

Update: (A few hours later) Viewers of this Thread are now over 300.

 

In a few more hours this thread, Pulsoid Theory, will be on the first page of all Threads on this topic when the Threads are sorted in descending order of viewers.

 

This interest is very encouraging; particularly, if you consider that it was accomplished in only a few hours longer than one week from when PoO joined the Thread.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You still haven't given us any evidence.

[Proof of One]

I think the main problem with this discussion is that it is going nowhere.

I am in complete agreement.

 

Note that I am not leading this discussion. I have only been responding to others since my first post . . . up to, and including this one.

 

Proof of One, if you can give us some sort of math that can PROVE your theory is correct, I think that would fix something.

I have, over and over.

 

Just a few of many such posts are the "The Mystique of the Ellipse," and Tini Circle Groups.

 

I will post much more extensive mathematical proof concerning subatomic particles, their bonds, and chemical bonds . . . as soon as their is a respite from this nattering.

 

The point with theories is to give evidence that shows it's better than the rest, not attacking the rest and giving yourself no credibility.

There would seem to be merit to your argument.

 

However, I have discovered otherwise. Once the Big Bang was accepted by the Pomo elite, over much objection, about eight years after Einstein’s death, until the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) proved its ludicrousness, I had no credibility. First I had to prove that all Pomo theory was little more than superstition.

 

Since HST, and other research observations, there has been no viable theory other than Pulsoid Theory.

 

That, in itself, does not make Pulsoid Theory correct; but it does make it the only fundamentally sound, alternative theory.

 

I hate arguments like these.

Certainly, no more than I.

[Proof of One]

You still haven't given us any evidence.

Please carefully read this Thread.

 

There is too much for me to post in this reply.

 

After reading this Thread, please cite any one example of logical support that I have given with which you disagree.

 

I am a theoretical physicist/philosopher, not a research physicist or engineer.

 

Should you not understand where I am coming from, please attempt to discuss it with Steven Weinberg.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

However, I have discovered otherwise. Once the Big Bang was accepted by the Pomo elite, over much objection, about eight years after Einstein’s death, until the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) proved its ludicrousness, I had no credibility. First I had to prove that all Pomo theory was little more than superstition.

What exactly was proved ludicrous by Hubble?

 

Since HST, and other research observations, there has been no viable theory other than Pulsoid Theory.

That's not what the rest of science seems to say.

 

That, in itself, does not make Pulsoid Theory correct; but it does make it the only fundamentally sound, alternative theory.

So "my theory is right because it's the only theory that may or may not work at the moment." Just like aether.

[Proof of One]

All you have done is link back to your site....

It is not my site.

 

It is: http://www.physicsmathforums.com. A Physics, Math, Astroromy, Philosophy website . . . much as this forum.

 

...and tell us how wonderful it is.

I do very much enjoy the Renaissance spirit of Dr. Elliot McGucken's site. (If for no other reason than that he was permanently banned with Brunardot from Physics Forum.)

 

I'm quite sure that I have never spoken of Pulsoid Theory as "wonderful." If I ever have, I have misspoken. It is not for me to judge whether it is "wonderful."

[ydoaPs]

Thank you. I thought such was among the most powerful evidence that I could present. You might “Click” and read carefully this time. Of course, you really should be questioning Lawrence M. Krauss[/url'] and his many supporters.

thank you for proving my point. you have zero evidence.....good day.