Science-based criticisms of Farsight's Theories

[swansont]

OK I get it. You ask for predictions, I give them, you ignore them, when I push, you dismiss them. Par for the course.

 

I've described what kind of prediction is asked for in science a number of times. That you choose to ignore that is not my fault.

[Farsight]

I also thought this too, but if you read BELIEF EXPLAINED then you begin to see that Mr. Quack really does believe that the scientific community is wrong. He even implies that he does believe that we are somehow delusional for not accepting his theories.

 

You are a perfect example of the Psychology of Belief. As per the BELIEF EXPLAINED essay, I challenge your beliefs, you get hostile. Or didn't you get that far in your quick little skim?

[Severian]

No. I haven't thought about it.

 

Don't you think you should? Why should I throw away a theory which does explain this for a theory which doesn't?

[BenTheMan]

As per the BELIEF EXPLAINED essay, I challenge your beliefs, you get hostile.

 

Hello Pot? This is the Kettle.

 

Or, if you're not familiar with this one,

 

Those who live in houses of glass should not throw stones.

[Farsight]

Don't you think you should? Why should I throw away a theory which does explain this for a theory which doesn't?

 

Yes, I do think I should. But I took the choice to explore wider rather than deeper. I just don't have the time to do it all. I was rather hoping that I could interest others to do this, but as you can see, there are... difficulties. People can be extremely hostile to new ideas, as the history of physics amply demonstrates.

 

I'm not asking anybody to throw anything away. Just take something else on board. Which reminds me, I must spend my time more productively than chatting on this forum. And that involves completing and submitting a formal paper before some astute lurker gets in first. I do however expect to have one or two... difficulties with refereeing.

[BenTheMan]

I'm not asking anybody to throw anything away.

 

4) The Higgs Boson will never be discovered.

 

And that involves completing and submitting a formal paper before some astute lurker gets in first.

 

Let us know how that goes.

[elas]

Farsight

 

Charge is another one of those things you learn about in physics. Well, you think you do, but you don’t. Not really. The textbooks don’t explain it, and they shrug off this omission by telling you it’s fundamental. It isn’t. It’s as fundamental as mass, which is not very fundamental at all. The thing is this: if you understand mass you already understand charge.

 

This is something I left out of my current web page, but previously I wrote that charge is the difference in force between particle and anti-particle.

 

It is a simple matter to show that although force and anti-force add up to the same total at any point within a standard force field, there is nonetheless a difference between total (linear) force and total (linear) anti-force.

 

Because all elementary particles have the same total content, a field where the particles and anti-particles are separated or where the majority of one type is move to a particular area (as in a magnet); creates a density change within which any incoming particle is moved (by the vacuum force) towards its own density level. This is the basis of both the magnetic and strong force.

 

All the so-called forces are simply a vacuum force action by particles in different compaction states. This is why all the force laws are variations on the inverse square law.

 

Mass arises from the compaction of matter by the vacuum force, (so your statement would mean the same). Anti-force is the elastic force of matter which resist the action of the vacuum force and is therefore equal in strength and opposite in direction.

[BenTheMan]

This is why all the force laws are variations on the inverse square law.

 

What about the strong force?

 

What about the weak force?

[Norman Albers]

I treat charge as simply a change of rules: rather than relegating all the sourcing of an electric field to a point, I let there be near-fields characterized by divergence. Naively one might start saying, ah, magic mystery monopole goop. Much more fun, though, to move on to dipole density, because it really does show more essentially how what appears as charge is innies and outties of polarization. Quantum mechanics supplies us with the virtual ingredients needed. Electrons are a stable singularity given a supply of very short-lived and short radius dipole manifestations. This allows a vision of electrons as process. There are near-field circular currents; electrodynamically I started with allowed charge density, and treat it as a massless availability so the current may be written as [math]\rho©[/math].

[swansont]

People can be extremely hostile to new ideas, as the history of physics amply demonstrates.

 

Evidence goes a long way to mitigating this.

[Norman Albers]

Evidence goes a long way to mitigating this.

 

Mitigating is faint praise. In the late 1940's a group at Princeton had to meet secretly and at night to avoid being known as practicing expression of Feynman diagrams. These were ridiculed by most for a few years. Then, rather quickly accepted. Freeman Dyson related this story.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Anecdotes do not make evidence.

[insane_alien]

Ok, its obvious that this has got out of hand and we have strayed a bit from rational discourse. mistakes have been made on both sides. I propose a set of rules that i think both sides will find agreeable.

 

1/ no ad homs. Farsight, this means no claiming we haven't read your essays etc. the rest of you, don't be calling farsight deluded and such. irregardless of the validity of either claim.

 

2/If farsight can kindly present a list of his claims and points without turning it into an essay. bullet points will suffice, one claim per bullet. this will aid a proper discourse and analysis.

 

3/the only thing to be discussed is the claims. a similar bullet structure(or perhaps a numbering system) should be employed.

 

4/If you behave like a kid and violate these rules then you get banned from the thread for a day.(moderators i don't know if this is possible. maybe you can just delete the posts made by that person during te time frame) this will allow time to cool off and reduce the amount of flaming that has been rampant till now. again this goes for both sides.

 

right, lets grow up. stick to the science and not to the person(s). any objections to the rules, post here and we'll sort it out. i personally hope farsight does post the summarized form of his claims. may the debate continue.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Fair enough.

[elas]

BenTheMan

 

What about the strong force?

 

What about the weak force?

 

According to my textbook the mathematical laws of both are variations on the inverse square law - is this wrong?

[insane_alien]

yes elas, that's wrong as the strong force gets stronger with distance antil it rather suddely drops off to zero. i'm not sure about the weak force but i think it acts similarly.

[BenTheMan]

well the weak force is a short range force so it can't be an inverse square law.

 

The strong force has an exponential in it, and it is definitely NOT inverse square law.

[Farsight]

I'm happy with that insane-alien. I don't quite have "bullet point claims", but I hope the summaries I've previously posted up on time and energy are in the right spirit. Here's another one. Sorry it's a bit bulky:

 

Mass, in its barest essence, is a measure of how much energy is not moving with respect to you. A wave in the surf has no mass and it has no surface, because the water has the mass, and the ocean has the surface. But the wave does carry energy/momentum. And it is both intangible and tangible, because it is an action that can bowl you over, so whilst you can’t get hold of it, it can get hold of you. A photon is a different action, a travelling stress that travels through space. The energy of a photon can also be expressed as momentum, a time-based view rather than a distance-based view. And momentum and inertia are related by relative motion. Normally it’s the photon moving, and you feel its momentum when it hits you. But relativity tells us there is no absolute motion, so if it was you moving instead of the photon, you’d feel its inertia when you hit it. But a photon always travels at c, you can't stop a photon can you? Oh yes you can. When we use pair production to convert a photon into an electron, the travelling stress is broken and wrapped into solitons of opposite chirality. The electron is a photon tied in a knot, a moebius loop. In simple terms, it's a photon going round in a circle. It's going nowhere fast, and it isn’t moving with respect to you. Hence momentum is now re-presented as inertia. When you push an object you deform the circle in the direction of motion, creating a partial helix. The travelling stress now moves in a helical path, rather like a spring. The rest mass is the circular component of the path, and the relativistic mass is one turn round the helical path. As you accelerate an object it's like stretching a spring. You can't stretch it straighter than straight, and a particle made out of light can never go faster than the light from which it's made.

[BenTheMan]

Farsight---

 

There is some good insight here. Specifically this

 

Mass, in its barest essence, is a measure of how much energy is not moving with respect to you.

 

is a good way to think of mass at a classical level. This is something that I had never really thought that much about.

 

The trouble happens when you try to define ``mass'' on a quantum level. You probably want to use an equation like

 

[math] E = mc^2 = \hbar \nu[/math]

 

to describe mass. This tells you that photons have an ``effective'' mass---in other words, a photon of frequency [math]\nu[/math] has the same energy as some particle with mass [math]m[/math]. Ok. Then you will tell me that by changing the frequency of the photon, you can create different masses, and explain all of the particles that we observe.

 

First of all, is this correct?

 

If so a question---why do we not observe MORE particles? The Standard Model has something like 15 particles in one generation, with no discernable pattern in their masses. Why only 15? Why not infinity? Presumably any value of [math]nu[/math] can be used in the above equation. Why do electrons have a mass of 511 keV? We should see a HUGE spectrum of electron-like particles, all with masses in units of [math]\hbar[/math].

[elas]

insane-alien

 

yes elas, that's wrong as the strong force gets stronger with distance antil it rather suddely drops off to zero

 

You are not taking into account that the SF is measured within the nucleus of a composite; whereas other forces are external to the nucleus.

[BenTheMan]

You are not taking into account that the SF is measured within the nucleus of a composite; whereas other forces are external to the nucleus.

 

First of all, why does this matter? Second of all, it is shown to be the case in the LHC, because of hadronization. Third of all, this is Farsight's thread.

[elas]

BenTheMan

insane_alien

 

Take the following quote from a university web page:

 

The electromagnetic force is a force of infinite range which obeys the inverse square law, and is of the same form as the gravity force.

 

That settles the electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Now if you research the latest articles on color force you will find that the latest thinking is that has certain similarities to electromagnetism between three particle.

 

The strong force acts in a reverse manner to the em and g because it is a nuclear force not a shell force.

 

Hall fractions show us how particles change, (Fractionally Charged Electrons decrease in wavelength towards infinity[Tsui]) this can only be so if there is a relationship between the forces as all particles are considered to be force carriers. How far does the fractional wavelength of an electron have to decrease before it has the same wavelength as a quark? and then what is the difference between electron and quark?

 

Third of all, this is Farsight's thread.

Agreed, but you keep saying Farsight is wrong, my point is that he is not far from the truth. Farsight claims all particles are made from photons; that is tantamount to saying that charge '1' particles are made from '0' charged particles, my proposal is the reverse of this; but the key point that we agree on is that the two ('0' and '1') are interchangeable. I show that this is because all particles are different states of a single elementary particle and I would like to understand how Farsight derives the solution from '0' charged particles. Only by opening up all avenues do I see any hope of an understanding.

[BenTheMan]

Agreed, but you keep saying Farsight is wrong, my point is that he is not far from the truth.

 

We should be clear and say that Farsight isn't very far from YOUR truth, and YOUR truth doesn't seem to be able to explain the strong force.

[Severian]

Now if you research the latest articles on color force you will find that the latest thinking is that has certain similarities to electromagnetism between three particle.

 

It is similar. They are both based on local gauge symmetries, and are just different groups (SU(3) rather than U(1)).

 

However, the form of the force is completely different in manifestation. The reason for this is that the group structure of SU(3) means that the gluon (which mediates the strong force) has an SU(3) charge (unlike the photon which has no U(1) charge). This means that the gluons attract one another and this drastically changes the form of the field.

 

In other words, we have a very good description of the electromagnetic and strong interactions via essentially the same mechanism. However, this mechanism leads to very different manifestations for each force (as we observe in experiment). You are trying to explain them in a different way, so you are throwing away the mechanism (the similar bit) and need to reconcile that we appear very different in experiment.

 

You can't use the theory you are dismissing to make a deduction in your own theory.

[elas]

Severian

 

You can't use the theory you are dismissing to make a deduction in your own theory

 

I have never dismissed QT I accept that it is (according to all the experts that I have quoted on numerous occasions) an accurate mathematical prediction theory. I am endeavoring to construct a classical scientific explanation theory. View:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=355845#post355845

Farsight and I agree on many points and my submissions on this forum are intended to find out where we agree or disagree, and more importantly, why.