knowerastronomy Posted December 21, 2011 Author Posted December 21, 2011 Don't lose sleep over it! An advantage of string theory is that, while it is also based on tiny made-up things, it corresponds with other theories and observations of reality. That is, it explains what we actually observe, in addition to a bunch of things we don't. I think it'd be better to try to explain things the way they're observed (even if it doesn't seem to make sense) rather than explain how you imagine them to be (ideally you'd devise an experiment that shows it's both). Not corresponding with other theories is a problem for your theory, not a benefit. I don't know how far you have gone into The Logical Universe Theory but that is exactly what I have tried to do. . . For instance the Double Slit Experiment, the propagation of Light Waves, the expansion and accelerating Universe, are all explained in a logical way using only known science. . . With the exception of the invention of U1 Particles and Cold matter everything is known and verifiable. . . I feel a lot of common science has been ignored, such as resonance, which plays a key roll in Hydrogen Fusion, Particle Formation and Black Holes Merging. . . Then we move into prediction which is purely speculation and not provable by any stretch of the imagination, such as the existence of Cold Matter, then colliding with a Universal Class Black Hole. The collapse of Space Time because of the extreme cold. . . The Theory is Unified in its explanations, meaning all its parts support one another. . . Also I haven't found a better definition of Dark Matter and Dark Energy any where. . .
Klaynos Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Ok fare enough. . . In the current model of physics please explain the status of matter with more energy and then with less energy. . . Energy is a property of stuff, it is the capacity to do work. I don't know how far you have gone into The Logical Universe Theory but that is exactly what I have tried to do. . . For instance the Double Slit Experiment, the propagation of Light Waves, the expansion and accelerating Universe, are all explained in a logical way using only known science. . . With the exception of the invention of U1 Particles and Cold matter everything is known and verifiable. . . I feel a lot of common science has been ignored, such as resonance, which plays a key roll in Hydrogen Fusion, Particle Formation and Black Holes Merging. . . Then we move into prediction which is purely speculation and not provable by any stretch of the imagination, such as the existence of Cold Matter, then colliding with a Universal Class Black Hole. The collapse of Space Time because of the extreme cold. . . The Theory is Unified in its explanations, meaning all its parts support one another. . . Also I haven't found a better definition of Dark Matter and Dark Energy any where. . . In modern science to have made any of the predictions you claim would require maths. The only maths you have shown is dimensionally unsound, I therefore fail to see how you could have made the predictions.
Bignose Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Wouldn't it be fairly easy to shoehorn the equation to be dimensionally sound? It is really important to say that dimensional soundness is merely a first check. The units of work and torque are the same (mass*length^2/time^2), but they are certainly not the same thing. If you use one over the other in an equation, that equation will be dimensionally sound, but still wrong. The next step is, of course, to see what predictions your equation makes and compare them to measurements.
knowerastronomy Posted December 21, 2011 Author Posted December 21, 2011 Energy is a property of stuff, it is the capacity to do work. In modern science to have made any of the predictions you claim would require maths. The only maths you have shown is dimensionally unsound, I therefore fail to see how you could have made the predictions. The Higgs Boson is a prime example of mathematics gone astray. . . as you know very well there are wrong answers in mathematics. . .
Bignose Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 In the current model of physics please explain the status of matter with more energy and then with less energy. . . I was curious so I literally just pulled out my old undergrad physics text (Serway 1996). Chapter 7 is entitled "Work and Energy". You may want to review this before thinking that physicist don't know anything about energy.
knowerastronomy Posted December 22, 2011 Author Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) I was curious so I literally just pulled out my old undergrad physics text (Serway 1996). Chapter 7 is entitled "Work and Energy". You may want to review this before thinking that physicist don't know anything about energy. In 1996 we were using Windows 95. . . Seems long ago. . Don't misunderstand me. I don't criticize physicists knowledge about energy in 1996. . I was trying to make a point that Energy is variable and has many forms such as heat, motion, attraction and repulsion, all of which are variable but the route of energy is still motion. . . So I put to your logic, if you have matter that is at at absolute zero, is not moving and none of it particles are moving, does it have energy? I say no. What do you say? One more question. Where does Energy come from? I say all the energy we know of originated in the Big Bang. . . I am curious about your thoughts. . . Edited December 22, 2011 by knowerastronomy
Bignose Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 In 1996 we were using Windows 95. . . Seems long ago. . Don't misunderstand me. I don't criticize physicists knowledge about energy in 1996. . I was trying to make a point that Energy is variable and has many forms such as heat, motion, attraction and repulsion, all of which are variable. . . So I put to your logic, if you have matter that is at at absolute zero, is not moving and none of it particles are moving, does it have energy? I say no. What do you say? It has no thermal energy, but why should that prevent most of the other forms? Like potential or chemical energy? And, it may very well be that all energy came from the Big Bang. As near as we can tell, conservation of energy has never been violated, so the logic there is sound. But really, if you don't want to 'criticize physicists [sic] knowledge about energy in 1996' why even make the comment? I can guarantee that the basic definitions of work and energy were well established in 1996 and haven't changed since. Maybe this is just something that I'm missing in the tone b/c of the written word over the forum.
Klaynos Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 The Higgs Boson is a prime example of mathematics gone astray. . . as you know very well there are wrong answers in mathematics. . . Everything is compared to experiment. That's a big part of science. You've picked very carefully to find something on the edge of.what is known. Does the Higgs exist, I don't know, yet. But we will find out. If it does that shows the assumptions made are broadly correct. If it doesn't well that's even more exciting we would need something new to fill the gap from the current experiments to the new ones.
knowerastronomy Posted December 22, 2011 Author Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) All that being said why would E=MR be wrong? foot note U1 Particles couldn't have lateral speed only rotational speed because they are all touching each other. . . Edited December 22, 2011 by knowerastronomy
Klaynos Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 All that being said why would E=MR be wrong? Because it is dimensionally unsound. As explained above.
knowerastronomy Posted December 22, 2011 Author Posted December 22, 2011 Because it is dimensionally unsound. As explained above. please explain dimensionally unsound more. . . It is to vague. . .
Klaynos Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 please explain dimensionally unsound more. . . It is to vague. . . It fails the process of dimensional analysis I applied above. The two sides of the equations are not the same quantities. It is like asking how many chickens are there in an hour, it makes no sense. Dimensional analysis is a key tool employed in physics for easily and quickly checking whether equations make sense, if they fail the process they can be disregarded as not representing the universe. If they pass then further investigations are required.
knowerastronomy Posted December 22, 2011 Author Posted December 22, 2011 It fails the process of dimensional analysis I applied above. The two sides of the equations are not the same quantities. It is like asking how many chickens are there in an hour, it makes no sense. Dimensional analysis is a key tool employed in physics for easily and quickly checking whether equations make sense, if they fail the process they can be disregarded as not representing the universe. If they pass then further investigations are required. I disagree Matter = U1 particles Energy = motion U1 particles in motion have energy
Klaynos Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 I disagree Matter = U1 particles Energy = motion U1 particles in motion have energy Please review my above post. That's not dimensional analysis, Energy doesn't equal motion. Kinetic energy is related to motion, but motion is not itself a measurable quantity. I agree that particles which have a velocity relative to a rest frame have kinetic energy. I do not agree that that means that E=mR.
JustinW Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) So I put to your logic, if you have matter that is at at absolute zero, is not moving and none of it particles are moving, does it have energy? I say no. What do you say? It is my understanding that anything with mass at least holds potential energy due to gravity. Edited December 22, 2011 by JustinW
swansont Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 In 1996 we were using Windows 95. . . Seems long ago. . Don't misunderstand me. I don't criticize physicists knowledge about energy in 1996. . I was trying to make a point that Energy is variable and has many forms such as heat, motion, attraction and repulsion, all of which are variable but the route of energy is still motion. . . So I put to your logic, if you have matter that is at at absolute zero, is not moving and none of it particles are moving, does it have energy? I say no. What do you say? Relativity says yes. Experimentally confirmed, many times over. The masses of individual protons and neutrons is greater than when you have a bound system of them. Independent of any motion they might have.
knowerastronomy Posted December 22, 2011 Author Posted December 22, 2011 Relativity says yes. Experimentally confirmed, many times over. The masses of individual protons and neutrons is greater than when you have a bound system of them. Independent of any motion they might have. This would be true in the sub atomic world. . . In the logical Universe (sub, sub, atomic world if you will) U1 particles make up Protons Neutrons and Electrons and have energy because they are a specific grouping of particles in communal resonance. . .
swansont Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 This would be true in the sub atomic world. . . In the logical Universe (sub, sub, atomic world if you will) U1 particles make up Protons Neutrons and Electrons and have energy because they are a specific grouping of particles in communal resonance. . . I don't see the connection between this and your claim that there is no energy when something is at rest. How do you test your idea? What specific predictions can you make?
knowerastronomy Posted December 22, 2011 Author Posted December 22, 2011 Please review my above post. That's not dimensional analysis, Energy doesn't equal motion. Kinetic energy is related to motion, but motion is not itself a measurable quantity. I agree that particles which have a velocity relative to a rest frame have kinetic energy. I do not agree that that means that E=mR. In the Logical Universe (sub, sub, atomic world) U1 particles would never have kinetic energy because they are all touching each other, (matrix like) but would have potential energy when compressed with no rotation inside a Black Hole. . . I don't want to beat a dead hoarse but using your logic Einsteins equation E= MC ^2 fits the non dimensional analysis criteria. . .
Klaynos Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 In the Logical Universe (sub, sub, atomic world) U1 particles would never have kinetic energy because they are all touching each other, (matrix like) but would have potential energy when compressed with no rotation inside a Black Hole. . . I really don't get where you get this from. Have you just made it up? I don't want to beat a dead hoarse but using your logic Einsteins equation E= MC ^2 fits the non dimensional analysis criteria. . . No, E=mc2 passes dimensional analysis, I run through the analysis several posts above.
knowerastronomy Posted December 22, 2011 Author Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) I really don't get where you get this from. Have you just made it up? No, E=mc2 passes dimensional analysis, I run through the analysis several posts above. This thread is a theory of the Universe explained in a logical way using plain English. . . Too long Physicists have complicated things to the point where only a few people knew what the heck they were talking about. . . It is for everyone not just the playground of the intellectual. . . The only rules were, the theory's science had to conform to all known observations and proven experiments. . . As you can see it broke some of the laws of physics but that was to be expected because I feel some are wrong. . . Also some of the mathematics is not correct. . . The Universe doesn't play by our flawed rules it is its own master. . . Its not that complicated to figure out when you are on the right path. . . I think the Logical Universe has found it, otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time with a foolhardy half baked theory. . . With the exception of U1 Particles and Cold matter all other science can, and has been, proven. . . U1 particles were hypothesized to explain Light Wave propagation through empty space and Cold Matter explains the collapse of Space Time. . . I am fully prepared to answer all questions on how it all works. . . Just don't ask for formulas and mathematics, that to me is a waste of time because you can tweak them to mean just about anything. . . That road has led to Worm Holes, Time Travel, Multi Universes, Brains, Strings and what ever the mind can think up. . . Mathematics is a useful tool but to many rely on it as the last word of proof. . . http://www.youtube.com/user/rknower/ https://sites.google...ogicaluniverse/ Edited December 23, 2011 by knowerastronomy
Klaynos Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 You can't be supported by all the observations and experiments and be counter to modern physics. I think you need to spend some time researching the scientific method and modern physical predictions. Also dimensional analysis isn't a hypothesis that can be disregarded in the way you have. Please review all the previous replies to you. If there is something you don't understand please ask. The point of.using maths is you can't just tweak it.
knowerastronomy Posted December 22, 2011 Author Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) You can't be supported by all the observations and experiments and be counter to modern physics. I think you need to spend some time researching the scientific method and modern physical predictions. Also dimensional analysis isn't a hypothesis that can be disregarded in the way you have. Please review all the previous replies to you. If there is something you don't understand please ask. The point of.using maths is you can't just tweak it. Then this theory is not for you. . . I think your rules are clouding real science. . . I will always ask why and then figure out the answer with experiments and observations. . . That's the trouble with modern thinking it suppresses real curiosity and makes it to difficult to explore and discover new science. . . Time is I all need to confirm weather the theory was right or wrong, not rules. . . No one has the right to suppress one human thought because he didn't confirm to the "scientific method and modern physical predictions or dimensional analysis ". Edited December 22, 2011 by knowerastronomy
swansont Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 Then this theory is not for you. . . I think your rules are clouding real science. . . I will always ask why and then figure out the answer with experiments and observations. . . That's the trouble with modern thinking it suppresses real curiosity and makes it to difficult to explore and discover new science. . . Time is I all need to confirm weather the theory was right or wrong, not rules. . . No one has the right to suppress one human thought because he didn't confirm to the "scientific method and modern physical predictions". It's not about suppressing the thought. It's whether one can claim that the result is true that is in question.
knowerastronomy Posted December 22, 2011 Author Posted December 22, 2011 It's not about suppressing the thought. It's whether one can claim that the result is true that is in question. In my mind no author of a theory can claim its true they can only present it for consideration. . . On the other hand they can believe it's true. . .
Recommended Posts