Oh wo is me!

[imagine]

If anyone is interested:

 

"do you have a new theory"? YES, lots.

 

Can I tell you about them? NO; not here unfortunately, too much censorship appears to be the rule.

 

 

 

Look for me in due course at frostcloud.

 

I can take the calculus and pendulum equation tests there.

 

(Thank God for Captain Panic; how do you survive this place? )

 

See ya all

 

Imagine (Why does almost nobody? have apparently any lack of cowardice here????

Trying to be nice but dictatorship hacks me off ...)

[iNow]

imagine - You'll be missed.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

imagine - if you disappear from this site. That would be the greatest day ever.

[Klaynos]

imagine, I'm sorry you couldn't learn something about what modern science (and physics especially) is, I think reading the first post in this thread might have helped...

 

Very often people come to these fora with a belief that our current theories of physics, such as the Standard Model or relativity, are flawed and present some alternative of their own. On the whole, this is a fine attitude to take - we should always be skeptical, and it is good if people can think a little 'out of the box' and generate ideas which more standard thinkers may not have come up with. I have always thought that genius was not an ability to think 'better' than everyone else - it is an ability to think differently from everyone else.

 

However, when coming up with a new theory it is important that it should be better than the old one. Therefore the first step of coming up with a new theory is a sufficient understanding of the old one. You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory, otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions.

 

Let me give an example: the magnetic moment of the electron.

 

If we look at the energy (Hamiltonian) of an electron in an electromagnetic field, we find that there is a contribution from the interaction of the electron's angular momentum and the magnetic field. For an orbital angular momentum [math]L[/math], this is [math]\vec{\mu}_L \cdot \vec{B}[/math] with a magnetic moment

 

[math]\vec{\mu}_L = - \frac{e \hbar}{2mc} \vec{L}[/math]

 

(The charge of an electron is [math]-e[/math] and its mass is [math]m[/math].)

 

However, if the particle has 'spin' (intrinsic angular momentum) [math]\vec{s}[/math], we also have a contribution to the magnetic moment of

 

[math]\vec{\mu}_s = - g \frac{e \hbar}{2mc} \vec{s}[/math]

 

[math]g[/math] is known as the gyromagnetic ratio, and its value depends on the theory. Since this can be measured in experiment very accurately, it is a good test of a theory to check if it predicts the correct gyromagnetic ratio.

 

For example, simple QM (the Dirac equation in an em field) predicts a gyromagnetic ratio [math]g=2[/math]. Experiments shows that [math]g[/math] is very close to 2, so this is good news, but since experiment shows that it is not quite 2, the Dirac equation cannot be the whole answer.

 

Quantum Field Theory, in the form of the Standard Model, predicts a deviation from 2. It is usual to write down the prediction for this deviation from 2 rather than the gyromagnetic ratio itself. For the SM this is:

 

[math]\frac{g_{\rm th}-2}{2} = 1159652140(28) \times 10^{-12}[/math]

 

The experimantal result is:

 

[math]\frac{g_{\rm exp}-2}{2} = 1159652186.9(4.1) \times 10^{-12}[/math]

 

(A note on errors: the numbers in brackets denote the error on the prediction/measurement at the same precision to which the value is specified. For example [math]1159652140(28)[/math] means [math]1159652140 \pm 28[/math] and [math]1159652186.9(4.1)[/math] means [math]1159652186.9 \pm 4.1[/math].)

 

You can see that the theory predicts the correct experimental value to incredible precision (although the experimental error is still better than the theory one). If you want to persuade scientists that the Standard Model is wrong, then you have to explain why this is a coincidence or show that your new theory predicts [math]g-2[/math] to at least this accuracy.

[iNow]

Imagine - I find it funny how claims of cowardice are put forth, yet it is you running away after your ideas were challenged and critiqued. There was no censorship, just peer review, and you've failed. Now, if you'd rather take your ball and go home than learn where and why you're mistaken, then so be it.

[imagine]

I'm not running away; the hoverboard and the censorship threads were closed; preventing me from responding to critiques. I welcome and in fact seek out the toughest REAL critique I can

 

for you;

 

 

Simplifying the concepts gives me:

 

"electron" as "modification"

"the atmosphere at the stadium before the game was electric": people are constantly un-balancing (modifying) their view of the game result (as different from a game whose result is widely predicted?)

 

A modification creates a "tipping point" e.g. "a + b" modified to become "a + b, + c" "un-balances "a + b" by introducing a third element; by definition it can only modify "a + b" if there is something rigid about "a + b". So "modification" itself implies a "rolled up" geometry; i.e. the very fact that something CAN be modified requires that it DID HAVE a fixed (at least relatively) structure of some sort.

 

In base ten; the hundreds column allows some interchange between "one" and "ten" (i.e. is an "electron" for base ten)(one ten; or ten ones!)

 

Hence "electron" is referred to as a point in geometry; because it is in fact "a geometry" in a point!

 

"Moment" is an instant in time. "time" as seen from "what time did the moon rise? Before or after the sun set?" or from a pendulum path; appears to fit the idea "anywhere within limits".

 

"In stant" is also "in a stance" i.e. the idea "anywhere within limits"?

 

"Instant in time" then requires "a magnetic moment" i.e. a specification moment ("magnetic" involves the idea "the overlap region where two sets overlap in e.g. a Venn diagram; i.e. "specification" e.g. sets of "tables" and "chairs" overlap at "have ground support"; or "dogs" and "animals with tails" overlap with criteria common to both sets (so the overlap region "points beyond the horizontal integration of these sets" ).

 

I can call this "a vertical space" as "ground support" must be a stand-alone idea INDEPENDENT of "chair" and "table" to have any meaning as where these two sets intersect; unless this region is disturbed by another way that the overlap can happen (so at least TWO electrons) in which case you have "a horizontal/ vertical space equation" (or artifical horizon).

 

(A gyro; but to have "gyromagnetic" would require "a constant bias" or "lopsidedness" in defining how these sets get together; so "the illusion of an additional electron" or "electron uncertainty" in principle...

 

actually a ratio (i.e. an artificial balance; i.e. at least two on one side and one on the other; so an imaginary third set....

 

but to define "gyromagnetic ratio" would make the imaginary third set ( a chair-table hybrid say: like a unicorn: something cobbled together)

reversible so that it becomes like how "chairs" and "tables" can be four sets (two of each).)

 

If "moment" requires "magnetic moment" then how to define "magnetic moment" ? Would need to be "para-magnetic" (surrounding magnetism: i.e. a vertical and horizontal integration of the sets by outside data).

 

But that IS an electron, isn't it? To modify something requires some sort of fixed structure; which the two aspects of "chairs" and of "tables" give.

 

To modify a page with a dot on it; requires at least two places the dot can be; AGAIN; so four possible locations for the dot!

 

So the minimum definition requirement for "electron" appears to be "four possible locations, during time" ...

 

To define "electron" AND "magnetic moment" would require "at least two electrons"...

given "gyro-magnetic" seems to involve the same idea as this; you would need (formally: at least) one less electron to define "gyro-magnetic + electron + magnetic moment"; SO "electron interchangeability"?

 

(? Could call this "Dirac non-equation" or where NOT to find an electron)

(a "fuzzy electron" is a fuzzy fuzzy; so which is "electron" and what is "electron room"?)

 

 

That allows "ratio" to be seen?

 

 

So to also define "ratio" would need:

 

 

"electron NON-interchangeability" i.e. electron group theory i.e. fixed boundaries on where you can place an electron i.e. the Dirac equation!!!!!!!!!

 

Can you define also the Dirac equation if you have got "electron" and "magnetic moment" and "gyro magnetic" plus "ratio"?

 

You would need a "+ ratio" i.e. "a certainty re: electron location"?

 

An electron standing wave.

 

Which is also in the idea of "quantum field theory":

 

"quantum" as in "quantity" as in "at least two" so "meeting": "field" as in "skip-around-place";

"theory" as "more than one possibility";

"quantum field theory" as "meeting skip-around-place more than one possibility" so implies an internal subdivision (or fence)

 

so "a space swap" or time integral;

 

an experiment IS a "time integrated" (it is an attempt at organising objects in space so they have more than one option)(or it wouldn't be an experiment, i.e. if it was too predictable?)

 

An "electron standing wave" is "a fixed rate of exchange" (the intersection of two sets is already "standing via group"; to define all this would require a specified sequence of juggling of information between the two sets to create a third view of the two sets (or analysis of their structure via-a-vis their overlapping so "taking notes").

 

To define all this would require ability to swap "experiment" with "quantum field theory"; so "electron standing wave" now becomes concrete-like (able to be measured without being overly disturbed)?

 

I.e. "an electron standard"!?

 

BUt if have a "standard model" then you need a standard model: so that just leaves you with a whiole lot of numbers to juggle

 

11 as 59 ("5 as accommodation ("a" accommodates "b", and "b" accommodates "a" gives 4; an outside view needs give and take with these 4 so "5"; chemistry = accommodation so "5" is significant in chemistry)

 

"9" as one place removed from "5" in "59"; as "5 + 4" is "already one place removed; gives you another way to say "5" in the earlier space EXCEPT for the space itself (i.e. this number 1159 etc. IS a "space equation" it demarcates the boundaries in writing a number in base ten, such as to write it as a multi-part juggling of ten x ten i.e. "ten x ten" could be x another ten, all that could be x another ten

 

it's Rubik's cube!

 

Tell Ernesto Rubik!

[DrP]

of course!

[insane_alien]

imagine, the threads were closed for the reasons given. what you have posted here is also a rule violation as you are attempting to hijack yet another thread and turn it to your purposes of spouting what has been debunked.

[Klaynos]

Word salad, completely meaningless...

[YT2095]

If anyone is interested:

 

Look for me in due course at frostcloud.

 

See ya all

 

not really.

don`t hold your breath.

not if we see you 1`st!

[Sayonara]

I'm not running away; the hoverboard and the censorship threads were closed; preventing me from responding to critiques.

You had every chance to put forward your ideas in a readable state, and to reply to questions or criticisms in a direct and rational manner. You chose to respond with gibberish.

 

There is a difference between simply replying to a thread and actually responding to the discussion.

 

If you are going to go, just go. Nobody here is interested in reading your own forum eulogy and I sincerely doubt anybody will be following you or your ideas to another site, unless it is out of morbid fascination.

 

PS - the word is "woe".

[Klaynos]

PS - the word is "woe".

 

That'd be my fault I even googled it damnit!

[Edtharan]

Can I tell you about them? NO; not here unfortunately, too much censorship appears to be the rule.

The only censorship here is the censorship of reality. The scientific method is dedicated to describing reality. If something is not a description of reality, then it has no place in science. That is the only censorship.

 

It is a very common misconception about science that people who practice it don't want their pet theories overturned. It is the exact opposite actually. Science and scientists love disproving any theory, and the more commonly accepted the theory, the more "thrill" the scientists get for over turning it.

 

All theories of science are constantly subject to this "Reality Check". No matter how famous the scientists that proposed it.

 

For instance, If I, or anyone here, could actually disprove Newtons laws of motion we would be overjoyed at the prospect. But these things have been subject to centuries of people trying to disprove them and they have withstood these tests.

 

Actually, there was one scientists that disproved the Pure Newtonian gravity, and that was Einstein, and this is the theory of relativity. Newtonian gravity had existed for over 100 years, but as soon as someone was able to disprove it and show that their theory was better, science accepted it.

 

ANY new theory is questioned, ANY new proposal about the laws of physics and what you can do with them is question with equal vigour. It doesn't matter who proposes it, ANY new theory must be subject to the scientific method (that is if the proposer claims that it is science and has to do with reality).

 

THE goal of science is to describe reality.

 

Just because you come up with a plausible sounding idea, it does not mean that people who think scientifically will just and say: "I wish I thought of that". However, if you can show that your idea is real, then they will most certainly do that.

 

When you are working by inductive reasoning as is the case with theories and science, then you can not actually prove that what you claim is true. What you can do is prove it is false. If it can't be proved false, then it is likely to be true.

 

So in any discussion about science and proposed ideas, the only thing that we can do is attempt to prove it false. If we can't prove it false, then it could likely be true.

 

What you have assumed as being censorship, is just this. There is no way that we can prove the theory is true, so we have to try (and if the theory is correct fail) to prove it false.

 

This is not censorship, this is science. ALL scientific theories that are accepted have had to go through this "trial by fire" where scientists try to disprove it. the ONLY reason that they are accepted is that they have not been proven false (yet).

 

If you are willing to accept this methodology, the attempt to prove theories false (and posting your ideas on a scientific forum then it will be subject to it), then I have no problem with outlandish theories. Some of the really great moment in science have come about because of such things:

 

Who would have though that there could be some action at a distance without any physical contact that could pull objects together. There is no physical contact, so how could it do it?

 

Well because someone proposed this outlandish theory, we have the theories of Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Nuclear forces.

 

This theory of "Spooky action at a distance", when it was proposed, was completely nuts. But, because it could not be disproved, it eventually became accepted (it took time and a lot of effort but it eventually did).

 

We need these outlandish ideas, but they must be subject to the reality check that is the scientific method.