Feedback on Farsight's RELATIVITY+ "scientific paper"

[Edtharan]

You can't have an internal state change without some motion.

Yes: The Neutrino. It can change from one type to another. No motion, just change. This has been measured.

 

You can't have a particle without motion, never mind a "state change".

Do not use your own conclusions to prove your initial assumptions. It is a Logical Fallacy and does not support your argument.

 

So, does this mean that Time is more fundamental than space and that we then derive space from Time? (please note I have don't know if Time is more fundamental than space, but using your thought experiment it seems to indicate that it is, rather that Time being dependant on motion through space).

No.

If you apply all the reasoning and Maths that you have presented for Time to Space, then space disappears. Do you deny that Space exists?

 

No it doesn't. Come on Ed. I can show you space. We can stretch our arms out across the width of that gap. It's there.

You have used the "perception" argument against TIme. I apply the same argument to Space and you dismiss my arguments.

 

Space could be an illusion, but because you are so caught up in the illusion, you think that space exists. This is the exact same argument you presented for Time, that it is an illusion created from our perceptions. Well I perceive that Space exists, can you prove to me that it does exist independent of my perceptions? Just "showing" me a metre does not prove that Space exists as you are using my perceptions, which might be an illusion.

 

So, can you prove that Space exists independent of perception without being able to use that same argument to prove that Time exists?

 

Note that I say time exists like heat exists. When you look beyond heat you see the underlying motion. Ditto for time.

Prove it. You have made an assumption that Time does not exist. Then you use that assumption to prove that assumption. Give up the Logical Fallacies please.

[Farsight]

But how is that any different from time then?

The motion is through space. Not through spacetime. It means gravity isn't curved spacetime. Instead it's a gradient in the properties of space, and electromagnetism is twisted space.

 

Farsight, besides being too long, wrong about time, and utterly lacking in math, your paper addresses too many topics. Your paper does contain one topic worthy of note, twist, but its not new. Others have beat you to it..

It isn't too long. There's plenty of papers out there longer than this. It definitely isn't wrong about time. And there's lots of topics in here worthy of note. And for many of them, somewhere, somehow, you will find that somebody has come up with the idea before. And not just once. The item I think is most important is Space is a one trick pony and the only trick is distance: the photon is a propagating variation in distance, and just about everything else comes from that. You have read the paper haven't you? Surely you would have spotted that? And the bit about Planck's Constant. And the fine structure constant?

 

Yes: The Neutrino. It can change from one type to another. No motion, just change. This has been measured.

See page 30 of my paper. You haven't read it have you?

 

"The helicity that we call neutrino spin tells us the direction of the running loop. In a neutrino the left-handed spin is a rotation around the running loop that is opposite to the direction of propagation. The antineutrino is the same loop, but running the other way. The neutrino or antineutrino travels, and if it travels slower than light it has mass. That’s because our new view of mass tells us that mass is merely a measure of the amount of energy that is not moving with respect to the observer. It’s a sliding scale: if the energy is moving at c like a photon, we observe none of the energy as mass. If the energy is “going nowhere fast” like an electron, we observe all the energy as mass. Ergo if a neutrino is travelling a little less than c, it has a little mass. Should its speed vary for any reason, such as a weak interaction, its mass will also vary. We can envisage an analogy wherein neutrinos are made of slender spring steel, and the loops tighten or become multiple loops, like a coil. The neutrino can thus oscillate, and an electron neutrino can look like a muon neutrino".

 

Do not use your own conclusions to prove your initial assumptions. It is a Logical Fallacy and does not support your argument.

Whoa. I have a coherent model. You're saying it's a logical fallacy? No it isn't. Everything fits. And I'd be grateful if you could read the paper so that you understand where I'm coming from.

 

If you apply all the reasoning and Maths that you have presented for Time to Space, then space disappears. Do you deny that Space exists?

No it doesn't. The space is there! Look hold your arms out. There it is! And I don't dismiss your arguments. I'm just trying to show you what's there. Now I think I've showed you enough. Please can we move on.

[swansont]

I said off the bat that it is too doggone long.

 

Farsight, besides being too long, wrong about time, and utterly lacking in math, your paper addresses too many topics.

 

I stand corrected.

[Farsight]

Please stop sniping swanson. Please read the paper and help me chase out any errors. Look at page 30 where I say this: "Now follow the loops again starting from the bottom left and continue twice around the knot, noting the directions at the crossing points. Since each crossing point is encountered twice, omit alternate crossing points to only consider crossings over rather than under. The crossing-point directions are: up, omit, up, omit, down, omit."

 

And DH, the first of the three papers you linked to does not mention the word twist. And do look at the dates on the other two. That said, I reiterate that much of what I say has been said before, and for the record I do feel a degree of warmth towards LQG and Lee Smolin.

[timo]

I don't think your problem is how many errors you have made or not; your problem is relevance. Why should anyone be interested in your work?

[Klaynos]

The motion is through space. Not through spacetime. It means gravity isn't curved spacetime. Instead it's a gradient in the properties of space, and electromagnetism is twisted space.

 

I don't quite see how you can say that...

 

Off-topic:

Dunno if it was just a typo or if you really got some fundamental point of relativity wrong. Either way, some others in here will not know, so I think I should comment on it:

 

That is not a lorentz invariant function, you got some (important) signs wrong. The (tc)² term and the x²...z² terms must have different signs, i.e.

[math] s^2 = \pm \left( x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2c^2 \right) [/math], with the chosen sign for [math]\pm[/math] (plus or minus) being a sign convention (an arbitrary choice at some point).

 

eeek! I used that equation correctly yesterday too... must get more sleep methinks...

[swansont]

Please stop sniping swanson.

 

Pointing out that the board's software makes posts longer is sniping? And pointing out that you are requesting that other people behave in a manner that you are not following is somehow objectionable to you? (oh, and admitting that I had erred, which is what seems to have prompted your last post?)

 

Please read the paper and help me chase out any errors.

 

I choose not to. My criticisms of your work (on the occasions you made scientific statements) can be found in the various threads, along with the general comment that it's not science, it's philosophy & metaphysics. Nothing you haven't heard from a bunch of other places as well. If you have changed your approach, great, but if you haven't then they still stand.

[Fred56]

God knows why I'm doing this, but here goes (once more with feeling):

Fred: they used the motion of the earth. Sundials. Or pendulums. Or water.

Doesn't this poke a big hole in your contention that light is the only available "measure" we have? viz:

But the only measure of this separation that we actually have is in terms of the motion of light. We call this separation time...

[Edtharan]

"The helicity that we call neutrino spin tells us the direction of the running loop. In a neutrino the left-handed spin is a rotation around the running loop that is opposite to the direction of propagation. The antineutrino is the same loop, but running the other way. The neutrino or antineutrino travels, and if it travels slower than light it has mass. That’s because our new view of mass tells us that mass is merely a measure of the amount of energy that is not moving with respect to the observer. It’s a sliding scale: if the energy is moving at c like a photon, we observe none of the energy as mass. If the energy is “going nowhere fast” like an electron, we observe all the energy as mass. Ergo if a neutrino is travelling a little less than c, it has a little mass. Should its speed vary for any reason, such as a weak interaction, its mass will also vary. We can envisage an analogy wherein neutrinos are made of slender spring steel, and the loops tighten or become multiple loops, like a coil. The neutrino can thus oscillate, and an electron neutrino can look like a muon neutrino".

But you claim these twists are also the source of Charge and that if there are these twists then it will generate a Mass, which also generates a Charge. You also go on to say that the Neutron must have charges inside it but they balance out because you can't have these twists without generating a charge. But You claim the Neutrino is a Twist without Charge. This does not fit in with the rest of your theory.

 

Either you have a particle that is an exception, a special case where you have had to make a new consideration that in general violates the rest of your theory which leads us to wonder about the predictive (and therefore usefulness and completeness) of the entire theory.

 

So, either the Neutrino is a special case in your theory that hints that it is incomplete or just plain wrong, or the Neutrino can not exist within your theories frame work.

 

The motion is through space. Not through spacetime. It means gravity isn't curved spacetime. Instead it's a gradient in the properties of space, and electromagnetism is twisted space.

If this was the case then either Light would bend less or gravity would be stronger. You can not get the correct behaviour of objects within a gravitational field without using a 4th dimension. The maths just don't work out. It is the reason that Newtonian gravity does not correctly predict the path of an object within a gravitational filed. It is a space only description of gravity. Einstein use 4 dimensions with gravity and it can now accurately predict the behaviours. Therefore Gravity must be a 4 dimensional curvature as that is the only construct that accurately predicts the path of objects in it.

 

This is a fact and just saying it isn't so does not make it wrong. You have to prove it.

 

Whoa. I have a coherent model. You're saying it's a logical fallacy? No it isn't. Everything fits.

Nope, it doesn't. You are saying that because you have a coherent model that it must therefore be correct. Sorry, for your model to be correct it must correctly predict the outcome of experiments. You model does not make any predictions .

 

Also, just because it is coherent, does not mean that it is correct. If you are right about the circular argument in the definition of Time, then that is a coherent model, so it must, by the same argument that coherency make something correct, be correct, if it is correct, then your theory is wrong.

 

So, coherency does not make something correct. To think this is to make a circular argument, which was you problem with the current definition anyway.

 

And I'd be grateful if you could read the paper so that you understand where I'm coming from.

I have read the essay, and as you wanted me to stick to single points, I left the rest for later. Did you want me to post a 40 page response?

[Mr Skeptic]

But you claim these twists are also the source of Charge and that if there are these twists then it will generate a Mass, which also generates a Charge. You also go on to say that the Neutron must have charges inside it but they balance out because you can't have these twists without generating a charge. But You claim the Neutrino is a Twist without Charge. This does not fit in with the rest of your theory.

 

Either you have a particle that is an exception, a special case where you have had to make a new consideration that in general violates the rest of your theory which leads us to wonder about the predictive (and therefore usefulness and completeness) of the entire theory.

 

So, either the Neutrino is a special case in your theory that hints that it is incomplete or just plain wrong, or the Neutrino can not exist within your theories frame work.

 

In this you are correct. This is a big problem with Farsight's idea, because neutrinos don't react with electromagnetism -- and hence cannot be made of and electromagnetic wave AFAIK.

 

You model does not make any predictions .

 

So how did you point out his model's prediction of the neutrino then?

 

Also, just because it is coherent, does not mean that it is correct. If you are right about the circular argument in the definition of Time, then that is a coherent model, so it must, by the same argument that coherency make something correct, be correct, if it is correct, then your theory is wrong.

 

Now you're not being coherent.

 

I have read the essay, and as you wanted me to stick to single points, I left the rest for later. Did you want me to post a 40 page response?

 

You would post a 120 page response, judging by your previous participation in Farsight threads. I don't mind, so long as you keep it all together.

[Farsight]

God knows why I'm doing this, but here goes (once more with feeling): Doesn't this poke a big hole in your contention that light is the only available "measure" we have? viz:

Not at all. The electron is a photon configuration. A photon is a propagating distance variation. You can annihilate a proton with an antiproton, and then annihilate the decay products with other particles to end up with just photons. It means the proton is a photon configuration too. A neutron decays into a proton plus an electron and an antineutrino in circa fifteen minutes. It means that in essence, matter is made of light. The motion of a particle, or collection of particles, can be viewed in terms of the motion of light. See the section on mass where I talk about helical springs.

 

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

But you claim these twists are also the source of Charge and that if there are these twists then it will generate a Mass, which also generates a Charge. You also go on to say that the Neutron must have charges inside it but they balance out because you can't have these twists without generating a charge. But You claim the Neutrino is a Twist without Charge. This does not fit in with the rest of your theory.

No. I claim that a neutrino is turn without twist. It has no twist, and therefore no charge. Without the twist it does not remain in one location, and thus it moves like a photon moves. Since mass is energy that is not moving with respect to the observer, then if the neutrino moves at c it has no mass. If it moves at slightly less than c it would however have some mass.

 

Either you have a particle that is an exception, a special case where you have had to make a new consideration that in general violates the rest of your theory which leads us to wonder about the predictive (and therefore usefulness and completeness) of the entire theory. So, either the Neutrino is a special case in your theory that hints that it is incomplete or just plain wrong, or the Neutrino can not exist within your theories frame work.

Please Edtharan, take more care instead of being so keen to "disprove" me that you make mistakes.

 

If this was the case then either Light would bend less or gravity would be stronger. You can not get the correct behaviour of objects within a gravitational field without using a 4th dimension. The maths just don't work out. It is the reason that Newtonian gravity does not correctly predict the path of an object within a gravitational field. It is a space only description of gravity. Einstein used 4 dimensions with gravity and it can now accurately predict the behaviours. Therefore Gravity must be a 4 dimensional curvature as that is the only construct that accurately predicts the path of objects in it. This is a fact and just saying it isn't so does not make it wrong.

No. "Curved Spacetime" is not a fact, and saying so doesn't make it one. It's an interpretation, a name applied to explain the observed effects. Gravity is a fact. Things fall down. But there is no factual fourth dimension in which this curvature resides. You can't see it, or test for it, or show it to me. And you can get the correct behaviour by simply replacing the 4th dimension with a radial gradient in the permittivity of space.

 

Nope, it doesn't. You are saying that because you have a coherent model that it must therefore be correct. Sorry, for your model to be correct it must correctly predict the outcome of experiments. You model does not make any predictions. Also, just because it is coherent, does not mean that it is correct. If you are right about the circular argument in the definition of Time, then that is a coherent model, so it must, by the same argument that coherency make something correct, be correct, if it is correct, then your theory is wrong...

I offer my model for discussion and feedback. I can do no more.

 

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

I don't think your problem is how many errors you have made or not; your problem is relevance. Why should anyone be interested in your work?

Because they're interested in physics, and I offer a coherent model that perhaps delivers answers to many former mysteries.

[Fred56]

Not at all. The electron is a photon configuration. A photon is a propagating distance variation. You can annihilate a proton with an antiproton, and then annihilate the decay products with other particles to end up with just photons. It means the proton is a photon configuration too. A neutron decays into a proton plus an electron and an antineutrino in circa fifteen minutes. It means that in essence, matter is made of light.

I bet there weren't many H. habilis who knew about this.

[Edtharan]

Gravity is a fact. Things fall down.

Why? Please then explain how gravity effects objects. You have justy made another claim without any support.

[ydoaPs]

You can't see it, or test for it, or show it to me.

Silly me! I thought Relativity was highly tested. Like Gravity Probe B, for example.

 

 

And you can get the correct behaviour by simply replacing the 4th dimension with a radial gradient in the permittivity of space.

How do you know? You haven't provided any maths proving so.

[ydoaPs]

It's been a few days....has Farsight given up?

[Mr Skeptic]

It's been a few days....has Farsight given up?

 

I don't think he will give up until he figures out why he is wrong, proves it is right, or dies, whichever happens first. I think this is a good thing, we need a few crazy ideas so we can have some progress if they are not all completely wrong.

 

---

Farsight, as promised I looked more closely at your electron, and found a specific prediction. This is more general than just the moeibus loop configuration; there will be similar predictions for any photon loop.

 

Prediction: the electron will have a maximum wavelength like a photon of 511 keV in a loop. The actual wavelength depends on how many wavelenths fit in the loop. This is a departure from the de Broglie wavelength [math] \lambda = \frac{h}{p}[/math] for low p. I'm not sure it is measurable, though.

[Fred56]

Farsight:

Maybe you should try an experimental course (of action). Can you get any cheap gear to do some EMR stuff, interference, scattering?

[PhysBang]

You guys have got to archive these Farsight threads. This guy is shopping this crap all over the internet. There has to be a repository so that anyone can simply post to the numerous refutations and blather associated with these ramblings.

[swansont]

You guys have got to archive these Farsight threads. This guy is shopping this crap all over the internet. There has to be a repository so that anyone can simply post to the numerous refutations and blather associated with these ramblings.

 

You're free to link to the threads so people can see the objections and refutations.