A single unbreakable dynamic membrane

[Klaynos]

The bookkeeping is important.

 

Without it you've got nothing.

 

You talk of topologies and geometry, both are mathematical terms, so, where's the maths?

 

The "simple physical picture" is a result of the maths.

 

And not everything Einstein said was great... he made alot of mistakes, as everyone does.

[pelastration]

The bookkeeping is important.

 

Without it you've got nothing.

 

You talk of topologies and geometry, both are mathematical terms, so, where's the maths?

 

The "simple physical picture" is a result of the maths.

 

And not everything Einstein said was great... he made alot of mistakes, as everyone does.

 

Bookkeeping is the second step.

First doing business, than the books.

First the concept, the simple physical picture, than the maths.

If you choose first the maths ... you will be busy for 10,000 years.

 

I'm sorry, what is pure energy ?

Why do you think Frank Wilczek asked: “How is it possible to construct heavy objects out of objects that weigh nothing?. Only by “creating mass out of pure energy.”

 

It's because Noble laureate Wilczek knows that's the essential question.

 

So, Snail, put that in an equation and you have the next noble!

Without a simple physical picture ... you just need 10,000 years to do the maths.

[Bignose]

pela,

 

How can your words make any kind of predictions? Because science is all about predictions and testing whether what was predicted happened exactly as predicted or not. Words can describe a scene well -- we've all read good novels -- but they don't describe the exact details particularly well. I.e. the pressure drop through the 90 degree bend was 0.156 atm. The star's core has a temperature of 100 000 000 degrees C. The baseball curved 6 inches. The probe lands on Mars at 69.3454N degrees latitude, 12.802W degrees longitude. Etc.

 

Words cannot describe these precise things. You need math. You need to know that if your equation predicts a pressure drop of 0.2 atm, or a core temperature of 200 000 000, or a curve os 12 inches, or if the probe lands on the equator of Mars, then your equation is wrong. Meaning that the idea the equation is based on is wrong.

 

So, it is fine to have ideas. But, until there is some math to express precisely what the idea is, and make some predictions based on the idea, all you have is an idea. You don't have anything more. It isn't even really a "hypothesis" You have a story. It may be entertaining or you may really think it is right, but that doesn't mean anything about how right or wrong it is. Without math, it is not different than anything written by Arthur C. Clarke, or Stephen King.

 

The right or wrong is determined by the predicitive power of the idea, and that can only be demonstrated through math.

 

And, I'm sorry, but the "First doing business, than the books." analogy is horribly flawed. If you don't do the books right from the beginning, you aren't going to have a business for very long. A business is designed to bring in money. If you aren't keeping track of the money, your business will fail. Pretty much in the same way that if your idea doesn't generate some math and make predicitions, the idea pretty much fails.

 

In summary, if you want to attract more than just a teeny tiny amount of interest from a science-based forum, you better have some math to generate some predictions. Otherwise, don't expect much. You have a story, you have zero evidence that anything you've written represents reality in any way whatsoever.

[pelastration]

pela,

 

How can your words make any kind of predictions? Because science is all about predictions and testing whether what was predicted happened exactly as predicted or not. Words can describe a scene well -- we've all read good novels -- but they don't describe the exact details particularly well. I.e. the pressure drop through the 90 degree bend was 0.156 atm. The star's core has a temperature of 100 000 000 degrees C. The baseball curved 6 inches. The probe lands on Mars at 69.3454N degrees latitude, 12.802W degrees longitude. Etc.

 

Words cannot describe these precise things. You need math. You need to know that if your equation predicts a pressure drop of 0.2 atm, or a core temperature of 200 000 000, or a curve os 12 inches, or if the probe lands on the equator of Mars, then your equation is wrong. Meaning that the idea the equation is based on is wrong.

 

So, it is fine to have ideas. But, until there is some math to express precisely what the idea is, and make some predictions based on the idea, all you have is an idea. You don't have anything more. It isn't even really a "hypothesis" You have a story. It may be entertaining or you may really think it is right, but that doesn't mean anything about how right or wrong it is. Without math, it is not different than anything written by Arthur C. Clarke, or Stephen King.

 

The right or wrong is determined by the predicitive power of the idea, and that can only be demonstrated through math.

 

And, I'm sorry, but the "First doing business, than the books." analogy is horribly flawed. If you don't do the books right from the beginning, you aren't going to have a business for very long. A business is designed to bring in money. If you aren't keeping track of the money, your business will fail. Pretty much in the same way that if your idea doesn't generate some math and make predicitions, the idea pretty much fails.

 

In summary, if you want to attract more than just a teeny tiny amount of interest from a science-based forum, you better have some math to generate some predictions. Otherwise, don't expect much. You have a story, you have zero evidence that anything you've written represents reality in any way whatsoever.

Dear Bignose,

 

Thanks for your long comment! I understand your concern.

 

Do I need a math formula to predict that the speed of light is higher than 300K/sec at the very surface of the emitting device?

I.e. 310K/sec. So sufficient higher than the average (observed) light speed fluctuations.

 

edit: of course read: 300,000 km/sec

Edited September 25, 2008 by pelastration
clearfying

[Royston]

Well I'm done with revision for one night, so I'll address your points...

 

Bookkeeping is the second step.

First doing business, than the books.

First the concept, the simple physical picture, than the maths.

If you choose first the maths ... you will be busy for 10,000 years.

 

You're making the same mistake as many others who come on here making claims. To propose a new theory, you're supposed to show full understanding of the current models, show where they are flawed i.e in principle and mathematically, and show how you're theory improves on the current models. There is absolutely no indication of you doing this.

 

Why do you think Frank Wilczek asked: “How is it possible to construct heavy objects out of objects that weigh nothing?. Only by “creating mass out of pure energy.”

 

I was asking you what pure energy is, i.e I'm asking you to define it, as you have used this to define 'potency.'

 

My advice to you, is go and talk to your mathematician friend, and come back with a mathematical model. There's no need for proofs et.c, just the main equations and how they predict the dynamics of these holons, and an explanation of how this idea can be tested i.e by observation and experiment...until then, there is nothing to discuss.

 

EDIT: Oops I was AFK and missed the last two responses...but once again, math please.

[Klaynos]

Do I need a math formula to predict that the speed of light is higher than 300K/sec at the very surface of the emitting device?

I.e. 310K/sec. So sufficient higher than the average (observed) light speed fluctuations.

 

edit: of course read: 300,000 km/sec

 

Yes, you do, and then you need experimental evidence to back it up... And if you're trying to replace an existing theory your maths (predictions) need to agree with the experiments better than the old stuff...

 

As Bignose said, science (read physics) is the mathematical modelling of reality and the testing of these models.

[mooeypoo]

Thanks Klaynos for helping me find this link again: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03

 

Misconceptions about the "Big Bang". Including a few bits about the difference between explosion and expansion.

 

Explosion has an origin.. if we are "moving" with a particle that exploded, we should, conceptually, be able to see the origin. That's not the situation with the big bang;

 

Expansion is more like standing on a surface of an expanding balloon; there is no "origin". It expands.

 

It might sound petty, but consider the fact that the theory requires some conceptual understanding, and this conceptual change is important to understand it.