Science-based criticisms of Farsight's Theories

[elas]

BenTheMan

 

Do you have a cite for this? Baryon number isn't conserved. What happened to all the quarks?Do you have a cite for this? Baryon number isn't conserved. What happened to all the quarks?

 

Neutron decays to Proton + electron + positron You left out the proton.

 

There was a forum titled The missing photon that has all the details. The professional explanation is that the photon does not exist long enough to be observed.

I found some mathematical evidence for Farsight in that calculating the radius of the proton and neutron (using my theory) produces answers close to the experimental measurement only if the neutron has 5 elementary particles. As only three are observed, the other two (p and e) must be in the their photon state (p+e=pi). To understand why this is so would mean introducing my work in this forum and that would not be fair to Farsight

[Farsight]

elas: I don't think you'll get very far with it here. People will read as far as something they don't like, then spend forever afterwards calling you names. I'm sorry I haven't responded to the stuff you've posted, I am interested, and I will give some sincere feedback. But I'm run off my feet at the moment. I've printed your 37-page document to read offline.

 

You need to explain HOW you come to these conclusions, which are predictions and therefore should be mathematical. It seems to me that you're just plucking ideas out of the air, which is not science. We can't critise your ideas as science, because they are NOT science.

Why should they "therefore" be mathematical? I do explain HOW I come to these conclusions. But you won't read my explanation. And yet you ask for explanations? I've said it before and I'll repeat it: these essays examine basic concepts, which are treated as mathematical axioms. There is no way to deal with mathematical axioms mathematically. Now read TIME EXPLAINED, respond with relevant points, and let's have a Science-based criticism of Farsight's theories. All this pathetic flak I'm getting certainly isn't science-based criticism.

 

editing, please wait

[Klaynos]

How can you predict something successfully without using maths?

 

Your explination is NOT an explination you are just plucking ideas out of the air, there is no scientific thought process.

 

We can't have a "Science-based crticism" of your 'theories' because, THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE!

[Farsight]

If photons make up matter, via these stable configurations, then there must be some energy in binding them---that is, it should take some energy to force it from its classical path (i.e. a geodesic) into a closed loop. In order to create different particles, the photon in the loop has to have a different frequence. (Again I point out to the exprets---not to Farsight---that this is exactly the same situation in string theory.)

 

Wrong. It takes force. No energy is used to keep a tetherball going round in a circle. There's tension on the string and a force, but no work is being done.

 

So in a sense you can excite different particles by adding energy to the loop. The problem is, however, that the act of exciting things requires energy, so there are some states that have higher energy than other states. This COULD explain why pions are not stable (if it weren't for the other problems when it comes to pions, that you STILL haven't addressed)---they are not a lowest energy configuration.

 

The point of all of this is, though, that the lowest energy configuration of a photon IS a photon, and not an electron, because making an electron by forming a little loop out of a string, (sorry, photon), costs energy. The second law of thermodynamics (which I'll assume you believe)says that things tend to their lowest energy states. Why, then, does matter exist?

 

If you believe the validity of the second law of thermodynamics, shouldn't the universe be filled with photons, and NO matter?

 

Wrong. See above.

 

If you say that there is NO energy required in binding the photon, then the entire universe should be in equilibrium with ALL particles. But there are clearly more photons than anything else.

 

So? Do you really expect the same number of photons as protons? There are lots of photons because it's the most fundamental entity.

 

Einstein is saying that the ether is frame independant, and very much an abstract idea. This may be what you were saying earlier, you never really clarified the point. I always hear...alternative scientists...using this quote when talking about their ideas. This and "Remeber Gentlemen---we haven't shown that the ether doesn't exist, we have only shown that we don't need it for calculations.'' Either way, both of these quotes are out of context.

You brought up aether, not me. It was just another of your attempts to discredit my model without examining it rationally.

 

I will ask, do you derive the number of space-time dimensions, or just put it in? You will be forced to answer (as will ALL non-string quantum gravity people) that you just put it in. I will ask, wouldn't it be nice if we could DERIVE 3+1 dimensions from some fundamental theory? The correct answer is yes. Then I will point to the fact that the requirement for ghost cancellation (i.e. quantum consistency) in string theory GIVES a prediction for the dimension of space-time.

I derive it. But I'm not telling you how.

 

Terribly sorry for the digression there, but I have spent several years studying the subject, and you appear to get all of your information from Lee Smolin. Either way, what you are describing is very similar to string theory, whether you like it or not.

 

Important note to all: This represents a turning point for BenTheMan. This is where he starts saying that everything I've been saying is just String Theory, and before you know it String Theory is trying to claim RELATIVITY+ as its own. I have actually had people telling me that General Relativity is part of string theory. As the band EMF might say: Un-be-liev-able.

 

Farsight, you continue to whine about nobody reading your work. I ask you---if you were sitting next to Einstein, wouldn't you rather have him explain things to you personally, than have to read it written in a book that is intended for a wide audience? I read mass explained and time explained once, and I found it very vague, with quotes like "Do you think you understand time? You don't. I do''. This is one of the reasons that I haven't read any of your other essays---I have learned more about your ideas by talking to you. Plus there are no equations, and I rarely ever read the words in a physics paper anyway, unless the guy who wrote it is a good writer.

 

I do understand time. You don't. It's that simple. And LOL. Very rational. You haven't actually read my stuff, but you think you can give a Science-based criticism of Farsight's Theories? Oh, you just have to laugh! Dow dow, dow de dow de de dowde dow: Un-be-liev-able.

 

When I say "your theories'', I am specifically referring to the ansatz that all particles are some topological excitations of photons.

 

Come off it. Now you're wriggling to try and get off your own hook. My "theories" are given in the various essays, not in some single item you've plucked from them.

 

As of yet I have seen no acceptable clairfications of the following ("scientific'') points.

=>Why do pions decay into different numbers of photons?

=>How do you explain neutrinos, which have no observed decays into photons?

=>Why is the universe not filled with photons?

=>How can one force a photon from its classical path (a geodesic) into a closed loop?

 

These are four experimental results which challenge your theories, namely

=>Pions decay into 2, 3, or four photons, see http://pdg.lbl.gov/

=>Neutrinos don't couple to photons, see above.

=>The universe contains matter.

=>Photons always travel along geodesics, a well-known result from GR.

 

This entire post, I hope you realize, has been a "science-based'' challenge to the idea that all particles are made of photons.

 

Oh geddoutofit. You will declare any explanation I give to be unsatisfactory. Or you'll move the goalposts and ask me something else. I notice Lorentz Variance has disappeared off the list. Looks like I've knocked that old chestnut on the head then. And let me remind you: we were talking on the TIME TRAVEL AND WORMHOLES thread, you said time travel is possible, I said time travel is impossible, and could explain why. But we still haven't even touched TIME EXPLAINED, the first of "Farsight's Theories". So if you want to give us a rational, science-based criticism, be my guest:

 

TIME EXPLAINED

 

***********************************************************

How can you predict something successfully without using maths?

 

It isn't easy. That's why you don't see many predictions in my essays. And note that the model examines axiomatic base concepts, and thence challenges interpretation of experiments like the Shapiro Time Delay, not the results. That means I wouldn't predict any different results.

 

Your explination is NOT an explination you are just plucking ideas out of the air, there is no scientific thought process. We can't have a "Science-based crticism" of your 'theories' because, THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE!

 

There's a darn sight more scientific thought in my model than in the "science-based criticisms" on this thread. And besides, what are you going to tell me? We can travel in time because you've done the maths? When your axiomatic concept of time is plumb wrong? And therefore you don't need to even read TIME EXPLAINED, let alone some rational thought to it. Jeez. Lucky for you that I'm the Duracell Bunny eh?

 

************************************************************

Time travel in the forward direction most certainly is possible. and in fact for there to be any time at all there must be time travel. that's what time is. going in reverse is different.

 

Wrong. Things move through space. That's what we see. That's what we have evidence of. We have no evidence things move through time. It is a presumption, an axiom, and you "proof" employs circular reasoning.

 

whether or not we are made of light possibly depends on how you look at it. plants go through photosynthesis, i eat plants. does that mean i am made of light? maybe you could say light enters a plant and changes configuration...

 

Sorry, work calls, so I have to cut this short, but in essence: A photon is energy.

[swansont]

BenTheMan

 

Do you have a cite for this? Baryon number isn't conserved. What happened to all the quarks?Do you have a cite for this? Baryon number isn't conserved. What happened to all the quarks?

 

Neutron decays to Proton + electron + positron You left out the proton.

 

That was me, actually.

 

Now you don't conserve charge.

 

Wrong. It takes force. No energy is used to keep a tetherball going round in a circle. There's tension on the string and a force, but no work is being done.

 

So what's exerting the force that makes the photon go around in a circle?

 

Wrong. See above.

So? Do you really expect the same number of photons as protons? There are lots of photons because it's the most fundamental entity.

 

If the proton or electron are just photon states, you have three choices: they are the same energy, they are higher energy, or they are lower energy. If they are the same energy, what keeps one from changing into the other? If they have different energy, why don't they spontaneously transform to the lowest energy state?

[Farsight]

Swanson: Apologies, I choose not to answer your questions above. Notwithstanding my Duracell Bunny remark earlier, I've decided I've given enough of my time here to people who feel quite so very rational and learn-ed that they are able to offer a "science based criticism" of my RELATIVITY+ model without actually reading it. This thread is simply one long insult rather what it pretends to be, and I now realise that I don't want to persuade you guys that I'm right. So please can you delete the recent threads I've posted that contain no meaningful responses. Again, like last time, it's been "fun", but there are things I need to do and this is not a productive use of my time.

[insane_alien]

wow, funny how you turn tail when confronted by science isn't it?

 

swansonts points are valid and they would lead to a different conclusion with your 'theory' than conventional science. don't you see? this is a TEST that could be in your favour or discount everything.

 

so, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and make a commitment.

[Klaynos]

wow, funny how you turn tail when confronted by science isn't it?

 

swansonts points are valid and they would lead to a different conclusion with your 'theory' than conventional science. don't you see? this is a TEST that could be in your favour or discount everything.

 

so, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and make a commitment.

 

Maybe he's realised he's wrong and what he's doing is not science?

[BenTheMan]

elas:

 

Neutron decays to Proton + electron + positron You left out the proton.

 

You don't conserve charge in this reaction. My diagram is right.

 

I found some mathematical evidence for Farsight in that calculating the radius of the proton and neutron (using my theory) produces answers close to the experimental measurement only if the neutron has 5 elementary particles...As only three are observed...

 

You predict five particles and three are observed. Because we have been doing the experiments on neutrons and protons for 70 years, I'd say this pretty well rules your theory out.

 

Why should they "therefore" be mathematical?

 

Because math is the framework in which we describe nature. If nature cannot be described with math, then it cannot be understood. Period.

 

We can't have a "Science-based crticism" of your 'theories' because, THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE!

 

Careful:) Some consider this flaming.

 

Wrong. It takes force. No energy is used to keep a tetherball going round in a circle. There's tension on the string and a force, but no work is being done.

 

Ok, what exerts the force?

 

So? Do you really expect the same number of photons as protons? There are lots of photons because it's the most fundamental entity.

 

The point, which you have again missed, is that if there is no energy required to form particles, as you JUST said above, one expects the particles to be in equilibrium. Thus we should see that there are just as many photons as particles in the universe. This is simple physics really---I learned about equilibria in high school, and could have formed this argument then.

 

What keeps particles from falling into equilibrium with photons?

 

I derive it. But I'm not telling you how.

 

Awesome.

 

This is where he starts saying that everything I've been saying is just String Theory, and before you know it String Theory is trying to claim RELATIVITY+ as its own. I have actually had people telling me that General Relativity is part of string theory.

 

Farsight, I can assure you, most vigrously, that I want my name to be NO PART of Relativity+. I have shown you where it was wrong. And I actually said that what you are saying resembles string theory, in that all particles are excitations of one fundamental entity.

 

I promise to you Farsight---Relativity+ is (and never will be) part of the edifice which is string theory.

 

Plus, GR has been shown to be a low energy limit of string theory. This is done in many textbooks on the subject, and is completely expected, because (after all) it IS a theory of gravity. In fact, if it DIDN'T give GR, we'd probably have tossed it out in the eighties.

 

You will declare any explanation I give to be unsatisfactory. Or you'll move the goalposts and ask me something else. I notice Lorentz Variance has disappeared off the list. Looks like I've knocked that old chestnut on the head then.

 

Likewise, Farsight, you will declare any criticism I give you irrational and unscientific, despite the experimental data to back it up. You still violate Lorentz Invariance, you still haven't explained pion decays, you still haven't explained neutrinos, you still haven't told me why photons should go into little mobius strips... You haven't answered any of these questions.

 

Apologies, I choose not to answer your questions above.

 

At least he's appologizing you you swanson. Perhaps I can command the same respect one day:)

 

Maybe he's realised he's wrong and what he's doing is not science?

 

Fat Chance.

[Farsight]

I have shown you where it was wrong.

 

Er, no you haven't shown me where it was wrong. All you've done is thrown up a pile of red herring irrelevant questions, claimed that my answers are unsatisfactory, and LOL, you still haven't actually read RELATIVITY+.

 

Dow dow, dow de dow de de dowde dow: Un-be-liev-able.

[iNow]

Er, no you haven't shown me where it was wrong. All you've done is thrown up a pile of red herring irrelevant questions, claimed that my answers are unsatisfactory, and LOL, you still haven't actually read RELATIVITY+.

 

Dow dow, dow de dow de de dowde dow: Un-be-liev-able.

 

Farsight... Sorry to break it to you bud, but it's not some vast conspiracy to keep you down. You haven't addressed a single objection to your theory in an accurate and repeatable way, and you are guilty of the exact tactics you acuse of others of.

 

I actually enjoyed reading your articles, and was excited to see some new thoughts. However, watching your responses in this thread has made me completely reject your work.

 

You cannot present your work to a knowledgable group then cry and scream when they point out errors. This isn't a day care, and your ideas are crap if they cannot stand up to existing evidence.

[YT2095]

Er, no you haven't shown me where it was wrong. All you've done is thrown up a pile of red herring irrelevant questions, claimed that my answers are unsatisfactory, and LOL, you still haven't actually read RELATIVITY+.

 

Dow dow, dow de dow de de dowde dow: Un-be-liev-able.

 

erm.... Dude, everything ok there?

you`re beginning to sound 12 short of a Dozen!

[insane_alien]

You cannot present your work to a knowledgable group then cry and scream when they point out errors. This isn't a day care, and your ideas are crap if they cannot stand up to existing evidence.

 

he is also selective with which arguements he acknowledges. he will only accept invalid arguements and will reject all valid ones as invalid.

[swansont]

Er, no you haven't shown me where it was wrong. All you've done is thrown up a pile of red herring irrelevant questions, claimed that my answers are unsatisfactory, and LOL, you still haven't actually read RELATIVITY+.

 

Anything that predicts or requires that everything is made of photons is wrong, for the many reasons already discussed. No need to read further. It fails the test. (psst: that's how science works)

[BenTheMan]

I guess Farsight's definition of ``red herring'' must be ``it kills my theory completely''.

[someguy]

Wrong. It takes force. No energy is used to keep a tetherball going round in a circle. There's tension on the string and a force, but no work is being done.

a string IS energy.

 

**

 

 

Wrong. Things move through space. That's what we see. That's what we have evidence of. We have no evidence things move through time. It is a presumption, an axiom, and you "proof" employs circular reasoning.

 

 

 

 

I think you just don't like the word traveling for some reason. I could say that i travel from website to website, though i never changed my position in the 3 dimensions of space. when i look at an object displacing, i can see it is displacing through space. the fact that it is moving is evidence there is a 4th non-spacial dimension that allows for objects to move. time is basically the proportional movement of objects. these can increase and decrease relative to one another. my body functions somewhat like a mechanical clock things move at a certain rate in proportion to each other. compared to you as well here on earth. if i go really fast for a while my proportional movement of my parts remains the same, but compared to those people on earth they are moving differently, if i arrive back on earth and they have all aged i have traveled through time at a greater rate then they did. since i age that alone is traveling through time. time is not a substance it is a 4th dimension which we cannot perceive properly perhaps. i am not travelling through it like a window or like water, i am traveling through it like the way you travel in the 4th dimension, the time one. it's different travelling then spacial travelling. i don't see why you can't understand that.

 

I didn't employ circular reasoning. that's why i said before by definition. time is the 4th dimension, it is not spacial, it is different from the others. everybody knows that. but we still call it 4 dimensions because a dimension is not necessarily a spacial one it just so happens the first 3 are. there's no reason to say 3+1. you can if you want to, nobody can say you're wrong it's 3 space plus one time, no kidding, not news to anybody. but aging is moving through time. time could be put on an axis just like space can, but you couldn't draw it, you couldn't make that axis on your computer, that's why the 4th dimension is a little tough. you can't look at the travelling like if you look at a rolling ball. but there are different values of time on the time axis, things are moving at different proportions to each other, and that has many implications, one of which is that they move along the time axis at different rates. those changes in forward progression along the time axis are travelling through time at different rates. that's what time is. travel in the 4th dimension. a result of travel in the first 3, or that which allows travel in the first 3 whichever way you wanna look at it. the reason you wouldn't say 3+1 is because if you making graph using equations you can draw a 3 dimensional object and then a 4 dimensional representation. but the 4 dimensional representation is difficult to understand unless you know that the 4th axis is time, and then it makes sense. you didn't have to change anything about the equations from space to time except for the number of dimensions your object has. time is THE 4th dimension, the 4th dimension among perhaps a larger number, if there is a fifth perhaps it is even more different then both time and space, perhaps it is mass even, who knows, but you will want to call it 3+1+1. but really it is just the fifth dimension, one that differs from the previous 4 in some fundamental way. you can call it whatever you want 3+1 dimensions or 4 dimensions it doesn't change what they are. i don't want to argue with you about whether or not we can travel forward through time. it looks like just semantics to me, or you are just being difficult, maybe you think i am saying something different. 4 dimensions, each different and we travel through all of them in different ways.

[blike]

Swanson: Apologies, I choose not to answer your questions above.

Please do.

[Farsight]

Farsight... Sorry to break it to you bud, but it's not some vast conspiracy to keep you down. You haven't addressed a single objection to your theory in an accurate and repeatable way, and you are guilty of the exact tactics you acuse of others of.

 

I actually enjoyed reading your articles, and was excited to see some new thoughts. However, watching your responses in this thread has made me completely reject your work.

 

You cannot present your work to a knowledgable group then cry and scream when they point out errors. This isn't a day care, and your ideas are crap if they cannot stand up to existing evidence.

 

Knowledgeable group? LOL. And they haven't pointed out any errors. They haven't even read my material. They won't read it, and yet there's this pretence of giving a science-based criticism of something they haven't read. It's totally absurd. And now we get this fiction that my ideas are crap because they can't stand up to the existing evidence? Really, it's comical.

 

Please do

 

I'm sorry blike, but no.

[someguy]

how can you know what others have read?

 

frequently your responses are individual attacks, you are talking about people what they have done, what they are doing, whether or not they read your posts. often if someone asks you a question directly you come up with some excuse why not to answer it. and that's certainly not adding to your credibility, you ask us not be simply believers and then you give us nothing to support your claims and you only ask for our blind belief... weird. why would you bother attacking people? if they are just disagreeing with you for spite, which i don't think they are for the most part, at least i don't think they began that way, then your personal attacks are just making it worse. your attitude incites that people disagree with you just for spite. you don't discuss casually you do not ask questions in your explanations, you do not display patience, you just talk at length. you remind me of -I- more and more. look at your attitude, you should consider yourself lucky and be grateful if anybody would still lend you an ear.

 

why are you having so much trouble convincing me you are right? i am listening, i am searching for a paradigm shift, you must know exactly how to prove it to me since you have proven it to yourself. let's go, formulate an argument, slowly, not some big huge essay, start with your fundamental principles, if they can hold we can move further. without being sidetracked by personal attacks or whatever. but i'm sure that you will respond with something like, "well nobody here will even listen to me so what's the point" or "I have wasted enough time talking to these people that just refute me without even reading what i say" or "I have better things to do with my time" or something else completely ludicrous. all you need to do is start small, short posts, of just the fundamental principles, discuss those. you may find that you are slightly wrong, which if i were you so involved in finding "truth" i would look forward to because it is necessarily a sure step in the right direction.

 

I look forward to your lame remark as to why this method is not appropriate for you. but i would look even more forward to your next thread opening one of your fundamental principles for debate.

[insane_alien]

Knowledgeable group? LOL. And they haven't pointed out any errors. They haven't even read my material. They won't read it, and yet there's this pretence of giving a science-based criticism of something they haven't read. It's totally absurd. And now we get this fiction that my ideas are crap because they can't stand up to the existing evidence? Really, it's comical.

 

seriously, are you BLIND? several times your essays have been analysed paragraph by paragraph. the questions raised were uniformly ignored by you and you trundled on regardless. it is you who has not read our posts. or, if you have, you choose to ignore them.

 

I'm sorry blike, but no.

 

well, farsight, if you said this to a peer review journal, they would laugh at you. do you know why they would laugh at you and throw your paper out?

because science HAS to ANSWER questions. it is not allowed to pick and choose what to answer and what to ignore.

 

you will not get blind faith here, if you want that go to one of the nuttier boards. but here, you will need to provide substantiation. we ask for evidence, you provide none, you point to your essays again as if they are the be all and end all of science. we ask for the maths you used to come to your conclusions, you say you are bad at maths and didn't do this yet you also claim to have derived the theory. we ask you to explain well observed phenomenon that would behave differently under your theory and you ignore us.

 

you are not doing science. your are asking for us to reject current theories in favour of yours with no evidence, proof or mathematics. to steer clear of the gaping holes in your theory and pretend they don't exist.

 

there is one other group of people who employ these exact same tactics and it is at this level i have finally come to rank you. the 'Intelligent Design' people. you have lost every shred of credibility and patience i've had with you. and i have tried to be generous. but unless you start playing by the rules of science, GTFO.

[BenTheMan]

the 'Intelligent Design' people.

 

Alien---I have pointed this out in other places where I've come across Farsight. He even says some of the same things, i.e. ``The higgs boson is just a theory.''

 

I'm glad that I'm not the only one to notice this.

[elas]

swansont and BenTheMan

 

Now you don't conserve charge.

 

Charge conservation is a rule not a law. I could ask you to define charge but you know as well as I do that this has not yet been done.

 

Alternatively I could point out that I conserve mass, but then I would have to admit that mass also has not been defined.

 

The CLF model conserves the number of elementary particles and the linear vacuum force (both are constants of infinity - i.e. not just the universe). This means that the CLF model conserves two clearly definable entities; we know what vacuum force is and the CLF model defines what particles are. What we do not know is the origin of vacuum force.

 

Farsight

 

I've printed your 37-page document to read offline.

 

Thanks for the effort you are making. Note that the paper deals only with charged particles. Zero charged particles have been dealt with in earlier web-pages and I intend to revise them and add to existing site as soon as possible.

 

Basically it involves using well known experiments to show that we observe only the force field. Particles with collapsed force field (i.e. matter with a zero point force field) do not register in a bubble chamber; but are observed indirectly as in the twin slit experiments where their effect on electrons is recorded.

 

The important achievement of the current revision is, (in my opinion, of course); that every value used in the CLF model is matched with the appropriate experimental result.

[BenTheMan]

Charge conservation is a rule not a law. I could ask you to define charge but you know as well as I do that this has not yet been done.

 

Show me an experimental result which violates conservation of charge.

 

Alternatively I could point out that I conserve mass, but then I would have to admit that mass also has not been defined.

 

Conservation of mass is not a symmetry of nature.

[swansont]

Really, it's comical.

 

Yes, it is, but more of a sad way rather than a "ha ha" way. But that's probably not what you meant, though.

 

you will not get blind faith here, if you want that go to one of the nuttier boards.

 

He gets the same "that's not science" response over at another board (cough *physorg* cough) that, in my brief visit there, appeared to be a nuttier one, run by the crackpots.

 

I'm continually amazed at the consistency of crackpots in treating the request for evidence as a personal affront. I'm not amazed at their unwillingness to present any, but unfortunately it's never because they realize that their thesis is untenable.

[BenTheMan]

The thing is, they read quotes by Galileo that invigorate them---the persecution vindicates them, in some sense:

 

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

 

When they should be reading this one:

 

Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regard to matters requiring thought: the less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgement upon anything new.