a Thinking Man's discussion

[galaxyblur]

Good evening all,

 

I enjoy reading your forums very much. I am looking for a group of users who may be interested in doing some amateur research in Theoretical Physics.... kinda vague, I know.

 

Basically, if you consider yourself more a philosopher than a physicist, enjoy a metaphysical approach, consider our current knowledge of the physical world to be full of useful information but WAY off the mark of a TOE, but are prepared to do some mathematical work and experimentation when we're ready, then you're what I'm looking for

 

I want outside-of-the-box thinkers... I want a person who can take his nose out of a book and lift his finger off a calculator and use his capacity to think for himself.

 

Some may laugh at this approach. I ask, what contribution have you made to modern science other than being a math-monkey? Haha, I mean not to offend But seriously, I'd be curious to know everyone's experience.

 

I have some fresh ideas and I need some trustworthy people to discuss them with and develop even further.

 

TOTALLY joking about the math-monkey thing, by the way.

[Phi for All]

I'm getting the impression you don't want to hold these discussions here. Where are you taking this trustworthy bunch?

[lucaspa]

Basically, if you consider yourself more a philosopher than a physicist, enjoy a metaphysical approach, consider our current knowledge of the physical world to be full of useful information but WAY off the mark of a TOE, but are prepared to do some mathematical work and experimentation when we're ready, then you're what I'm looking for

 

I want outside-of-the-box thinkers... I want a person who can take his nose out of a book and lift his finger off a calculator and use his capacity to think for himself.

 

All you need do is go to any physics faculty at any university in the world! How do you think the current theories were devised? By people thinking outside the box!

 

I think what you want are some uncritical people who won't bother seriously testing the ideas outside the box. You won't find that here.

 

I ask, what contribution have you made to modern science other than being a math-monkey?

 

Multipotent adult stem cells that can make new tissues.

 

I have some fresh ideas and I need some trustworthy people to discuss them with and develop even further.

 

And what happens if we show the ideas to be wrong? Are you willing to accept that or will you just say we are "stubborn" and "untrustworthy"?

[galaxyblur]

I'm getting the impression you don't want to hold these discussions here. Where are you taking this trustworthy bunch?

 

I just want some minds to exchange ideas with, over email or something like that.

[YT2095]

I`m not too sure Email or the likes is a good idea, it`s better to keep the conversation Open to all, hence I moved this into Speculations.

 

here is the Arena for all such matters.

[galaxyblur]

All you need do is go to any physics faculty at any university in the world! How do you think the current theories were devised? By people thinking outside the box!

 

that's a great suggestion, except that I can't just walk into a university and strike up a conversation, can I?

 

I think what you want are some uncritical people who won't bother seriously testing the ideas outside the box. You won't find that here.

 

I think you sound like you've heard this from other people before. Except that I specifically mentioned testing in my post

 

 

Multipotent adult stem cells that can make new tissues.

 

that's awesome and very admirable work.

 

And what happens if we show the ideas to be wrong? Are you willing to accept that or will you just say we are "stubborn" and "untrustworthy"?

 

Once again, you seem jaded. Forgive my comment about trustworthiness, but you know that ideas are stolen all the time, and although I'm not in this for money, someone else may be.

 

And, if I were to call you stubborn, I believe I'm entitled to that. And you may call me stubborn. And we shall agree to disagree... nothing wrong with that?

 

Pretty much, I'm not ready to get up in front of a lecture hall and talk about my ideas. I've spoken w/ my close friends, etc, but I need to take the next step and talk to some people who have experience and knowledge of the field. This is why I'm here... did I come to the wrong place? Is this a forum of close-minded book-readers who believe everything their professors taught them to be true? Or can you be open-minded? I haven't even shared my ideas yet and I already face ridicule simply based on the fact that I propose "new" ideas. Perhaps I came off a little to smug. I am not.

 

But I digress... is there anyone who'd be willing to work on some "edgy" and maybe "fringe" proposals with me? For all I know, these ideas in my head could be common knowledge amongst physicists, and though I haven't read them anywhere else yet, that doesn't mean that's not the case. Yet I have no other way of finding out.

[lucaspa]

that's a great suggestion, except that I can't just walk into a university and strike up a conversation, can I?

 

Why not? Walk in and get the seminar schedule. Attend the seminars. Ask questions. Stick around for the cookies and coffee afterwards and strike up conversations.

 

I think you sound like you've heard this from other people before. Except that I specifically mentioned testing in my post

 

You mentioned "experimentation when we are ready". Testing starts LONG before then.

 

Once again, you seem jaded. Forgive my comment about trustworthiness, but you know that ideas are stolen all the time, and although I'm not in this for money, someone else may be.

 

I've had some ideas of mine stolen. But if that is your concern, then e-mail isn't going to help. My ideas were stolen by a few people I approached.

 

And, if I were to call you stubborn, I believe I'm entitled to that. And you may call me stubborn. And we shall agree to disagree... nothing wrong with that?

 

In science, there is something wrong with that. In science, you must be prepared to give up ideas when the data shows them to be wrong, and that includes data that has already been gathered. Most people who try to give us a new "ToE" on the boards will not give up their idea when it is shown to be wrong.

 

Pretty much, I'm not ready to get up in front of a lecture hall and talk about my ideas. I've spoken w/ my close friends, etc, but I need to take the next step and talk to some people who have experience and knowledge of the field.

 

And that means getting up in a lecture hall. Or writing an abstract and submitting it to a physics meeting. THIS is not the next place to go.

 

This is why I'm here... did I come to the wrong place? Is this a forum of close-minded book-readers who believe everything their professors taught them to be true? Or can you be open-minded?

 

This is where you make us suspicious. We don't "believe" what our professors taught us (remember, I am a professor) because they said so, but because the professors were summarizing DATA that supported what they said and falsified other ideas. You don't seem to understand enough about science to appreciate that. Science isn't about "believing" people, but accepting DATA.

 

For all I know, these ideas in my head could be common knowledge amongst physicists, and though I haven't read them anywhere else yet, that doesn't mean that's not the case. Yet I have no other way of finding out.

 

There are several ways to find out. One is to go to http://www.archivx.org and look at the papers. There are other search engines such as "sciencedirect" that you can use to search the physics literature. Or even some basic textbooks in the area. If you haven't tried any of those yet, then this is a waste of our time and yours. I've done this before: you give us "your" theory, we find falsifications, and you think we are being "closed-minded" because we won't think "outside the box". I suggest going to a university library and ask the librarian to help you use their search engines.

[galaxyblur]

Why not? Walk in and get the seminar schedule. Attend the seminars. Ask questions. Stick around for the cookies and coffee afterwards and strike up conversations.

 

That's not bad advice. Thanks.

 

You mentioned "experimentation when we are ready". Testing starts LONG before then.

 

Only if you have a hypothesis, correct? I do not yet have one.

 

I've had some ideas of mine stolen. But if that is your concern, then e-mail isn't going to help. My ideas were stolen by a few people I approached.

 

Well I was hoping to build a trusting partnership... naive you think?

 

In science, there is something wrong with that. In science, you must be prepared to give up ideas when the data shows them to be wrong, and that includes data that has already been gathered. Most people who try to give us a new "ToE" on the boards will not give up their idea when it is shown to be wrong.

 

I absolutely agree, but that wasn't what I meant. I'd gladly put down my argument if the data was irrefutable. But name me a modern theory that has irrefutable data one way or the other. If Einstein gave up when he first faced adversity, he'd of died a poor patent clerk.

 

And that means getting up in a lecture hall. Or writing an abstract and submitting it to a physics meeting. THIS is not the next place to go.

 

I have no solid theory yet, and never claimed to. Just ideas. I am NOT ready for a lecture hall, or even ready to write a paper.

 

This is where you make us suspicious. We don't "believe" what our professors taught us (remember, I am a professor) because they said so, but because the professors were summarizing DATA that supported what they said and falsified other ideas. You don't seem to understand enough about science to appreciate that. Science isn't about "believing" people, but accepting DATA.

 

Don't be presumptuous about my knowledge of science and the way it works. You can accept data until you're blue in the face, but it will never PROVE your theory correct. It will only NOT prove it wrong. There is always room for a new idea, that may reach further than the previous one was able to.

 

There are several ways to find out. One is to go to http://www.archivx.org and look at the papers. There are other search engines such as "sciencedirect" that you can use to search the physics literature. Or even some basic textbooks in the area. If you haven't tried any of those yet, then this is a waste of our time. I suggest going to a university library and ask the librarian to help you use their search engines.

 

Thanks for the links... I will check them out. If I'm wasting YOUR time, then please move on to the next thread. If you are the town crier and speak for everyone, then you can ask me to leave, or simply let my thread die. That's fine. But somehow I doubt that is the case. Just because I am an amateur scientist does not give you the right to speak to me in a condescending tone. Some of the greatest minds in science came from non-scientific backgrounds, no?

[Sayonara]

Just because I am an amateur scientist does not give you the right to speak to me in a condescending tone. Some of the greatest minds in science came from non-scientific backgrounds, no?

 

I think people are just confused because you are looking like a crackpot, but not quacking like a crackpot.

[insane_alien]

if you present your ideas on the forum publically, there will be a record of the idea being yours which should be enough for you to be credited with the idea. if you are really paranoid, you can talk to a lawyer and they will advise you.

 

also, if you want people to volunteer themselves, you'll need to be a bit more specific about the field. physics covers a whole lot of things. the way your asking is like walking into the biggest library ever and asking a librarian for a book with pages in it.

[Sayonara]

It's more like walking into a library and asking the librarian for a book relating to the subject that you have in mind. IOW, "pick a number between 1 and 10,000".

[galaxyblur]

Good points. Let the discussion begin!

 

 

I have a lot of ideas and questions, but let's start with this:

 

We all know that Principle of Relativity kind of destroys the traditional definition of "energy"... why then, is it still thought of in the same way? Shouldn't we replace this term with something like "relative velocity"?

[insane_alien]

how, exactly, does it destroy the traditional definition of energy?

 

or are you referring to the mass energy equivalence principle?

[galaxyblur]

Not referring to that at all.

 

If you take the basic idea of Galileo's Relativity, how can you then define energy has something that matter "gains" and "loses"? Energy will not transform across different frames of reference. It should instead be referred to as "relative velocity", which seems more accurate, right?

[insane_alien]

ahhh you mean the fact that energy is not conserved when changing coordinate systems.

 

if you stick with one set of coordinates then everything works out fine, the frame of reference is arbitrary and can be moving, accelerating or stationary.

 

this is why we don't suddenly decide to switch frames in the middle of working out a problem.

 

it is also within the scope of the 'traditional' view of energy.

[galaxyblur]

Right.

 

So yes, we should always stay within one frame when working out a problem.

 

But does this not have implications on collisions? Momentum? Total momentum of a system is not always conserved, unless you're in an external, absolute, frame of reference. That, to me, throws momentum COMPLETELY out the window; apart from classical mechanics, it is now totally useless. Same goes for "energy".

 

So now, if we are to take Einstein's word as gospel, that energy is equivalent to mass, then what we're really talking about is relative velocity. How, then, do you equate mass to relative velocity with static objects?

[Sayonara]

There's actually a thread developing right now that may shed some light on the question of reference frames:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27341

[insane_alien]

But does this not have implications on collisions? Momentum? Total momentum of a system is not always conserved, unless you're in an external, absolute, frame of reference. That, to me, throws momentum COMPLETELY out the window; apart from classical mechanics, it is now totally useless. Same goes for "energy".

 

not really no. if you work out the problem in one frame, energy and momentum are conserved. then you repeat the problem from another frame entirely you will get the same answer that all energy and momentum is conserved. all valid frames will return the same answer with all physical laws obeyed.

[galaxyblur]

not really no. if you work out the problem in one frame, energy and momentum are conserved. then you repeat the problem from another frame entirely you will get the same answer that all energy and momentum is conserved. all valid frames will return the same answer with all physical laws obeyed.

 

You would think, but actually no, that is not the case, at least from what I've deduced.

 

Picture this:

 

Two lone billiard balls in the emptiness of space. Let's make one the cue ball (white) and one the (1) ball (yellow). Let's also assume they weigh exactly the same.

 

The scenario from an outside (absolute) perspective is:

-The cue ball is traveling at 20km per hour; the (1) ball is at rest.

-The cue ball collides with the (1) ball in a perfect, one-dimensional collision, completely transferring its velocity/energy to the (1) ball.

-The cue ball is now at rest, and the (1) ball is now traveling at 20km per hour.

 

Standard stuff, right? Momentum conserved.

 

Ok, now try the frame of reference of the (1) ball:

-the (1) ball sees the cue ball traveling towards it at 20km per hour.

-the cue ball collides with the (1) ball, as before.

-the (1) ball now sees the cue ball traveling away from it at 20km per hour.

 

Again, momentum conserved.

 

Now, let's add another ball, the (5) ball... orange. It lies at rest with the (1) ball, not touching, but beside it on a different plane than the collision occurs:

-From the absolute frame of reference, momentum is still conserved, because the (5) ball never moves.

-From the perspective of the (1) ball, its collision with the cue ball has caused the (5) ball to fly away from it at 20km per hour as well!

 

Momentum, not conserved! Am I missing something here?

[swansont]

Now, let's add another ball, the (5) ball... orange. It lies at rest with the (1) ball, not touching, but beside it on a different plane than the collision occurs:

-From the absolute frame of reference, momentum is still conserved, because the (5) ball never moves.

-From the perspective of the (1) ball, its collision with the cue ball has caused the (5) ball to fly away from it at 20km per hour as well!

 

Momentum, not conserved! Am I missing something here?

 

The 1-ball is two reference frames - one before the collision, a different one afterward. It undergoes an acceleration when it collides.

 

You need to look at it in terms of and observer at rest wrt that ball before the collision.

[lucaspa]

Only if you have a hypothesis, correct? I do not yet have one.

 

Of course you do. You say you have ideas. Those are hypotheses.

 

Well I was hoping to build a trusting partnership... naive you think?

 

No. I've had those as well.

 

But name me a modern theory that has irrefutable data one way or the other. If Einstein gave up when he first faced adversity, he'd of died a poor patent clerk.

 

I said falsifying data. Because of the nature of deductive logic, you never get "irrefutable" data FOR a theory. You wanted a modern falsified theory? Steady State universe. Irreducible Complexity. Multiregional for origin of H. sapiens. "The only multipotent adult stem cell is the hematopoietic stem cell". MOND

 

I am NOT ready for a lecture hall, or even ready to write a paper.

 

Meetings are where you present ideas. And you probably won't get a platform session, but a poster.

 

Don't be presumptuous about my knowledge of science and the way it works. You can accept data until you're blue in the face, but it will never PROVE your theory correct. It will only NOT prove it wrong. There is always room for a new idea, that may reach further than the previous one was able to.

 

See above for your "knowledge" about science. However, you overlook that data WILL prove a theory wrong. BTW, it's best not to think of it as "your" theory. Don't get too emotionally attached. The attitude I'm trying to get you to see is Milgrom's in reference to "his" theory of MOND:

1. C Seife, Radical gravity theory hits large scale snag. Science 292: 1629, June1, 2001 "As its inventor, I would like it [MOND] to be a revolution, but I look at it coolly," says Milgrom. "I will be very sad, but not shocked if turns out to be dark matter."

 

Just because I am an amateur scientist does not give you the right to speak to me in a condescending tone. Some of the greatest minds in science came from non-scientific backgrounds, no?

 

Yes, but I am saying what I'm saying due to what YOU are posting. It has nothing to do with your "amateur" status. Just the statements I see you write. For instance, it is taking you forever to present your ideas. You should have started the thread with the ideas, not taken this long to get to them.

 

The 1-ball is two reference frames - one before the collision, a different one afterward. It undergoes an acceleration when it collides.

 

You need to look at it in terms of and observer at rest wrt that ball before the collision.

 

With all respect, Galaxyblur said that, with respect to the 5 ball (the observer at rest) momentum is conserved. The issue is with the perspective from the 1 ball.

 

1. Before collision it sees the cue ball coming toward it at 20 kph. That's one momentum.

 

2. After the collision, since the 1 ball is moving and the cue ball has come to rest, both the cue ball and the 5 ball appear, from the one ball, to be moving away from it at 20 kph. Yes, momentum with the cue ball is preserved from the 1 ball perspective, but what about the "added" momentum of the 5 ball? You haven't addressed that.

 

I'm sure there is an answer, since this situation would have been obvious to Einstein and all people working on Relativity since. It had to be dealt with in the past. The issue is whether WE know the answer.

 

Never mind! Found it! Galaxyblur, I like learning new things, but it didn't take me long to find this by simply doing a Google search on "relativity conservation momentum". The question is: why didn't you do the Google search before you asked us?

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

 

This seems to be, in general, what you have done: " In GR, one must always guard against mistaking artifacts of a particular coordinate system for real physical effects."

[swansont]

With all respect, Galaxyblur said that, with respect to the 5 ball (the observer at rest) momentum is conserved. The issue is with the perspective from the 1 ball.

 

1. Before collision it sees the cue ball coming toward it at 20 kph. That's one momentum.

 

2. After the collision, since the 1 ball is moving and the cue ball has come to rest, both the cue ball and the 5 ball appear, from the one ball, to be moving away from it at 20 kph. Yes, momentum with the cue ball is preserved from the 1 ball perspective, but what about the "added" momentum of the 5 ball? You haven't addressed that.

 

Yes I did. It's a different frame of reference, since it undergoes an acceleration during the collision.

[galaxyblur]

The 1-ball is two reference frames - one before the collision, a different one afterward. It undergoes an acceleration when it collides.

 

You need to look at it in terms of and observer at rest wrt that ball before the collision.

 

If velocity is relative, is not also acceleration? If you were measuring the gravitational attraction of two identical balls, you could equally say one was static and the other accelerating, vice versa, or that they both moved and met at some arbitrary point.

 

Therefore, acceleration is a relative measure. You cannot have two reference frames for one object. Your coordinate origin should never change.

 

If so, when do you decide the "new" frame starts? When the object has reached its full speed? Now you're basing your point of reference on the two stable systems, and ignoring acceleration all together! What happens in the "time" during the acceleration?

 

Of course you do. You say you have ideas. Those are hypotheses.

 

I'm not here to debate semantics with you. I am now presenting my ideas.

 

I said falsifying data. Because of the nature of deductive logic, you never get "irrefutable" data FOR a theory. You wanted a modern falsified theory? Steady State universe. Irreducible Complexity. Multiregional for origin of H. sapiens. "The only multipotent adult stem cell is the hematopoietic stem cell". MOND

 

I understand that you can falsify a theory... perhaps my wording was incorrect. My point was that, accepted data may prove theories wrong, but never prove them right. This is why I continue.

 

 

See above for your "knowledge" about science. However, you overlook that data WILL prove a theory wrong. BTW, it's best not to think of it as "your" theory. Don't get too emotionally attached. The attitude I'm trying to get you to see is Milgrom's ...

 

I will be the first one to admit that I'm wrong if it is shown to be the case... I've no other goal than the rest of us do. I'm not doing this for kicks, to help me sleep at night, or to make my mommy and daddy smile.

 

 

Yes, but I am saying what I'm saying due to what YOU are posting. It has nothing to do with your "amateur" status. Just the statements I see you write. For instance, it is taking you forever to present your ideas. You should have started the thread with the ideas, not taken this long to get to them.

 

If you had shown more interest in my ideas, maybe I would have shared them. You did notice that I shared them with the other posters, right? Instead, I was left defending myself and trying to establish credibility because apparently everyone is presumed an idiot. I'll admit, my first post was slightly pompous, but it was in jest. I will now refrain from humor.

 

 

...but what about the "added" momentum of the 5 ball? You haven't addressed that.

 

I'll assume you were addressing swansont, because that was the whole point of my argument.

 

I'm sure there is an answer, since this situation would have been obvious to Einstein and all people working on Relativity since. It had to be dealt with in the past. The issue is whether WE know the answer.

 

The sooner you stop assigning divine qualities like omniscience to Einstein and the like, the better off we'll all be. There is the possibility that they were wrong, right?

 

Never mind! Found it! Galaxyblur, I like learning new things, but it didn't take me long to find this by simply doing a Google search on "relativity conservation momentum". The question is: why didn't you do the Google search before you asked us?

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

 

Oh golly gee, Beave! Thanks for speaking to me like a 5 yr old again! You know what, I read that document already! But just for you, I'll read it again. But I do remember last time around, being completely unsatisfied with the explanation.

 

This seems to be, in general, what you have done: " In GR, one must always guard against mistaking artifacts of a particular coordinate system for real physical effects."

 

The "artifacts" of a particular coordinate system? WTF does that mean? You mean the things that are there that we can't explain? Real physical effects? How can Einstein (don't know if that was his quote, but he-has/his-interpreters-have done this as well) in one breath, swear allegiance to the principle of relativity, and in the next, disregard it when convenient?

 

I mean no disrespect to anyone. I'll be lucky to come up with one iota of what Einstein did for his time. And lucaspa, I mean no disrespect either. I'm sorry if you got the wrong vibe from me. I'm simply here to discuss these things I'm unclear about, and honestly, the whole reason for the "trustworthy" email thing was because I knew that trying to uproot some of these dogmatic standards in science would be an uphill battle. You may offer a rebuttal and I'll gladly read it and consider every point, but I will now refrain from any discussion that does not involve the analysis of the problem directly.

[swansont]

If velocity is relative, is not also acceleration? If you were measuring the gravitational attraction of two identical balls, you could equally say one was static and the other accelerating, vice versa, or that they both moved and met at some arbitrary point.

 

Therefore, acceleration is a relative measure. You cannot have two reference frames for one object. Your coordinate origin should never change.

 

If so, when do you decide the "new" frame starts? When the object has reached its full speed? Now you're basing your point of reference on the two stable systems, and ignoring acceleration all together! What happens in the "time" during the acceleration?

 

No, acceleration is not relative — you can do measurements to tell who is accelerating.

 

But, under the scenario you described, where you want the 1-ball to be your coordinate system: During a collision, there is a force. Momentum is not conserved when the net force is nonzero.

 

If you want momentum to be conserved, you must define an inertial coordinate system (which is another way of saying what I said previously)

[galaxyblur]

No, acceleration is not relative — you can do measurements to tell who is accelerating.

 

Measurements... from a frame of reference...

 

But, under the scenario you described, where you want the 1-ball to be your coordinate system: During a collision, there is a force. Momentum is not conserved when the net force is nonzero.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "force". The whole point of the conservation laws is to say that the total measurements of a system persist across any possible interaction, including collisions. It's only supposed to "fail" when an external force is involved. And remember, this was all first implied by Newton, who believed that we live in a universe with an absolute frame of reference.

 

If you want momentum to be conserved, you must define an inertial coordinate system (which is another way of saying what I said previously)

 

Yes, an inertial coordinate system... meaning an absolute one. But it still fails relativistically.

 

Never mind! Found it! Galaxyblur, I like learning new things, but it didn't take me long to find this by simply doing a Google search on "relativity conservation momentum". The question is: why didn't you do the Google search before you asked us?

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

 

Oh, right. Now I remember. This has nothing to do with my example. The author clearly states that conservation laws seemingly fail with curved spacetimes in General Relativity. And then he goes on to dig his way out of the paradox. My example doesn't even involve curvature/gravity/mass. Its much simpler than that.

 

So, the question is, why didn't you read this before you posted it?