A Steady State Theory

[Bignose]

It is a pretty one sided affair if you are not also abliged to answer questions to claims made.

 

I didn't realize this was my speculations post that I started.

 

...

 

Oh that's right, it isn't. I'm not making any claims here, you are. All I am doing is asking you to compare your idea to the current mainstream idea and show me how your idea makes better predictions than what we have at the moment.

 

If you can't even handle a few questions from an anonymous person over the Internet, how will you ever handle a real scrutiny of your idea? I am asking questions to try to get you to think about the answers to them -- and if you can provide solid answers to them, it can only strengthen your idea. Please quit taking my asking questions as a personal attack.

 

And ultimately, if there aren't predictions based on your idea compared to measurements, then all this is rather uninteresting to me.

 

...

 

Lastly, please don't lecture me about not backing up claims. You really haven't answered a single one of my questions all the way to the 4th post in this thread. Again, you are the one making the claim here, the onus is on you to back it up.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Bignose

[Pymander]

I didn't realize this was my speculations post that I started.

...

Oh that's right, it isn't. I'm not making any claims here, you are. All I am doing is asking you to compare your idea to the current mainstream idea and show me how your idea makes better predictions than what we have at the moment.

...and I have done so from many angles. But your answers sound like they are coming from Eliza's nerdy brother that's a long way from passing the Turing test. A certain amount of creativity is required to comprehend the answers, which I am quite put out to supply in a comprehensible form. I need to straddle contemporary prejudices, and these are required to be addressed for answers to make sense.

If you can't even handle a few questions from an anonymous person over the Internet, how will you ever handle a real scrutiny of your idea? I am asking questions to try to get you to think about the answers to them -- and if you can provide solid answers to them, it can only strengthen your idea. Please quit taking my asking questions as a personal attack.

Now you sound human. The concept of a gravitational dipole has been with me since before Probabilistic Ratings. Likewise, the key was hard to find for completion of ASST, but the identity of the neutrino as a necessary antiparticle to the photon was the breakthrough, which has since accumulated nothing but positive reinforcement from astronomical information. My Windows 7 desktop is every "Picture of the Day" since it began, 10 seconds each.

And ultimately, if there aren't predictions based on your idea compared to measurements, then all this is rather uninteresting to me.

Is that how it should be? Do I have access to such instruments? That stuff comes AFTER hypotheses are formulated from evidence, which seems to be forgotten.

Lastly, please don't lecture me about not backing up claims. You really haven't answered a single one of my questions all the way to the 4th post in this thread. Again, you are the one making the claim here, the onus is on you to back it up.

And on this point, which I believe is incorrect, I would appreciate specific questions, not general remarks which I have no way of addressing. Unless you are clear about what you have not understood, I can neither correct you nor myself, as the case may be. If this is a flaw in your software (for when the human side is busy), please consult your programmer.

[Bignose]

And on this point, which I believe is incorrect, I would appreciate specific questions, not general remarks which I have no way of addressing.

 

I wrote

 

To wit, you can declare that there are no such things as quarks -- <snipped a bunch here, go see the original>

 

with

 

Because there is a mysterious player that has confused many, that has not stopped being modified and continues to baffle since way back in 1969, the neutrino. Quarks have hardly had a chance to start playing in this tag-team of controversy, and may turn out quite the neutrino itself. Who needs them with the six fundamental particles proposed here? Can you seriously differentiate between these alternatives? Primacy is the least reliable criterion for confidence in scientific hypotheses!

 

this does not answer my question (again, all the way back to post #4) about how your idea can lead to results such as those reported by Briedenbach 1969. Nor any of the work that has come after it. I figured we'd start from day 1, which is that you need to demonstrate using your idea that when you bombard a proton with electrons, you get scattering that acts like there are 3 point-like bodies inside the proton.

 

From there, you can demonstrate how your idea replicates all the successful results of quantum chromodynamics, which has made many successful predictions with very good accuracy with measurements.

 

You don't get to just declare that quarks don't exist without explaining how every single experiment where there is ample evidence that they do exist has been done/interpreted/conducted wrong. The data those experiments created doesn't just disappear. The data are fact, and are measurements that you need to demonstrate your model can make predictions that agree with the measurements.

 

Because we have such a model now. QCD. Why would we reject QCD -- with its many successful predictions -- in favor of a model that hasn't demonstrated any predictions at all?

 

-----------------

 

Also, the thinly veiled insults about my being a bot are unnecessary. I haven't insulted you in this thread, there is no need to insult me. Please drop them.

[Pymander]

And on this point, which I believe is incorrect, I would appreciate specific questions, not general remarks which I have no way of addressing.

I wrote

To wit, you can declare that there are no such things as quarks -- <snipped a bunch here, go see the original>

with

Because there is a mysterious player that has confused many, that has not stopped being modified and continues to baffle since way back in 1969, the neutrino. Quarks have hardly had a chance to start playing in this tag-team of controversy, and may turn out quite the neutrino itself. Who needs them with the six fundamental particles proposed here? Can you seriously differentiate between these alternatives? Primacy is the least reliable criterion for confidence in scientific hypotheses!

this does not answer my question (again, all the way back to post #4) about how your idea can lead to results such as those reported by Briedenbach 1969. Nor any of the work that has come after it. I figured we'd start from day 1, which is that you need to demonstrate using your idea that when you bombard a proton with electrons, you get scattering that acts like there are 3 point-like bodies inside the proton.

I define as fundamental particles all such as appear to last indefinitely in free space unless interacted with by some other agent besides time, and include neutrinos with energy ranges the same as photons have. Quarks, whatever they are, may be relevant to this theory. Can we explain the separation of charge and mass from electric fields? Can we explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass? Do we know the ultimate fate of photons and neutrinos? Is the universe going to become one big 'black hole' and Bang again when it is big enough, for some unknown reason? How does a Bang create a homogeneous universe where the speed of light is almost reached so far as it is visible? If quarks become an explanation for such things, great! What use is a model that explains none of these things? Because that is what I am attempting. The number of ways in which it is contestable is large. Many astronomical phenomena yield to this theory for explanations. The crux of them all rest on symmetric (matter & energy)/(dark matter & dark energy) as defined. A simple test is to disprove antigravitational effects on antimatter.

From there, you can demonstrate how your idea replicates all the successful results of quantum chromo dynamics, which has made many successful predictions with very good accuracy with measurements.

What do these have to do with my theory, if they cannot be used as cited above?

You don't get to just declare that quarks don't exist without explaining how every single experiment where there is ample evidence that they do exist has been done/interpreted/conducted wrong. The data those experiments created doesn't just disappear. The data are fact, and are measurements that you need to demonstrate your model can make predictions that agree with the measurements.

Again, I wouldn't mind seeing the exact quote you are flailing me with, I can't find it per se. What I did say, you have quoted.

Because we have such a model now. QCD. Why would we reject QCD -- with its many successful predictions -- in favour of a model that hasn't demonstrated any predictions at all?

More accurately I have said that it may lead to something, like explanations for larger questions. My model doesn't deserve "hasn't demonstrated any predictions at all". It does produce explanations for larger questions, but in competition with alternative explanations that don't need quarks. Unless these theories are the same with different guises, they should be capable of being distinguished by their predictions, which will be easier with mine, since imaginary entities are not being used for real ones.

Also, the thinly veiled insults about my being a bot are unnecessary. I haven't insulted you in this thread, there is no need to insult me. Please drop them.

I guess it won't help if I said I really thought you had software standing in for you, because your answers seemed so pat and repetitive. You may be comforted to know that it is nice to meet you after all this time, in full colour. My usual associates are quite colourful too. And so are the quarks by all accounts.

[Bignose]

I define as fundamental particles all such as appear to last indefinitely in free space unless interacted with by some other agent besides time, and include neutrinos with energy ranges the same as photons have.

 

This is the danger in re-defining terms that are already in common use. The above is NOT related to the way physics calls "fundamental" particles. When you do stuff like this, it does nothing but confuse people.

 

My model doesn't deserve "hasn't demonstrated any predictions at all"

 

I have yet to see a prediction based upon your idea as presented here. That qualifies as none at all in my book.

 

It does produce explanations for larger questions, but in competition with alternative explanations that don't need quarks.

 

Another poor word choice, using the word 'explanations'. To me, that implies at least confirmation of agreement between measurement and experiment. To me, that agreement is a necessary condition to declare explanation, though it is not sufficient. E.g., mankind was able to accurately predict eclipses without really having the explanation why.

 

Without specific predictions, how can we judge how good of a model you have here? You can write a story and call it an 'explanation', but how does anyone know if it is right or wrong? The way we do this in the modern era is that the model has to make specific, unambiguous, objective, clear predictions. And then measurements are taken which demonstrate the accuracy of that prediction.

 

Look back at my post #8 in this thread. You talk about interactions between photons and neutrinos. Then I asked you very specific questions about that interaction.

 

Interact in what way? With what energy? What is the result of the interaction? How strong of an interaction is it?

 

And then, the sun is both a source of neutrinos and photons -- your proposed interaction should be happening quite a lot. Show us how your interaction can be measured and results in the known measurements of the sun.

 

These require very specific predictions that should be based on your model. Please post these predictions AND how you arrived at those predictions. That will go a very long way to gaining support for your model.

[Pymander]

This is the danger in re-defining terms that are already in common use. The above is NOT related to the way physics calls "fundamental" particles. When you do stuff like this, it does nothing but confuse people.

It has taken some time to consider an intelligible nomenclature for this theory. The immediate reaction to it displays the difficulty in comprehension of its mechanisms. Using names of competing elements may be helpful here. I feel that alternatives would have been worse.

I have yet to see a prediction based upon your idea as presented here. That qualifies as none at all in my book.

Okay. Consider this scenario. Hubble has just shown that the universe is not only expanding but has accelerating expansion. He has no recourse, under such circumstances but to seek the explanation for this. Obviously. clusters attract their own components but repel other clusters. Why? Here are the alternatives that immediately come to mind:

1. Gm_1.m_2/r^2 is too simple, and G is not a constant.

2. Gm_1.m_2/r^2 is correct, but the signs of m_1 and m_2 are opposite for a cluster's closest neighbours.

3. BigBangium is some mysterious new substance, 'accelatron', which evolves as a 'black hole' ages or gets larger, perhaps by soaking up all the spent energy when space collapses into the same 'singularity', and the 'accelatron' is a low explosive which continually produces the required forces for an indefinite time yet to conclude.

Which of these sounds the more ad hoc? Which is, by Einstein's principle, the simpler explanation? The point is, that the Big Bang was hypothesised before all the evidence had been gathered. Again there are choices:

1. Abandon the initial hypothesis;

2. Generate an hypothesis, consistent with the first, to explain the anomaly.

Each time the second option is chosen, should anomalies compound, the initial hypothesis is rendered more doubtful.

Concerning the initial hypothesis or hypotheses, though, it is more difficult to find the inductive starting point of a theory, when the number of initial hypotheses required is larger, and more evidence may be needed to create such a basis. It is not unlikely, however, that the ad hoc additions will approximate correct solutions to some extent, which is what we have with TBBT & ASST.

Another poor word choice, using the word 'explanations'. To me, that implies at least confirmation of agreement between measurement and experiment. To me, that agreement is a necessary condition to declare explanation, though it is not sufficient. E.g., mankind was able to accurately predict eclipses without really having the explanation why.

As an aside, were it not for the date of Easter, based on the phases of the moon, ancient Greek learning would have been unimportant and lost. The burning of the library at Alexandria, though, has all but lost its origins. For this reason, the Church maintained a template for learning and schools through the dark ages.

To answer the question - the Michelson-Morley Experiment was evidence of the need for 'explanation'. 'c' was an hypothesis.

x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

y' = y

z' = z

t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

was the mathematics. Predictions from this was the verification of the 'explanation' which was 'c'. A counter example will falsify 'c', or at least, limit it to conditions set by variables not being considered. Such a variable and condition, v << c, was required by Newtonian space/time. Thus:

 

"There could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on as a limiting case." - Einstein.

Without specific predictions, how can we judge how good of a model you have here? You can write a story and call it an 'explanation', but how does anyone know if it is right or wrong? The way we do this in the modern era is that the model has to make specific, unambiguous, objective, clear predictions. And then measurements are taken which demonstrate the accuracy of that prediction.

* Expansion rates of (anti/)galactic clusters can be compared with estimated of materialisation based on cosmic ray protons reaching the upper atmosphere. Does this gel with a steady state situation?

* Using m and -m in the gravitational force law, and estimates of the masses of (anti/)galactic clusters, compute the forces involved and their contribution to universal acceleration. Does this gel with Hubble's constant (a changing one with time, to be sure, but best we have).

* Could core recycling account for gamma ray bursts.

* Does antigravity account for Hoag's object.

* Could antigravitational effects of massive neutrino generation in globular clusters disconnect these from the universal Coriolis effect, cause hydrogen generation in spirals perpendicular to the galactic plane, account for barred (anti/)galaxies, facts associated with fossil clusters, and such.

Astronomers and astrophysicists may be delightfully surprised by agreement with this theory, where current hypotheses regarding dark matter and energy are failing them. Such considerations are way beyond my knowledge base.

Look back at my post #8 in this thread. You talk about interactions between photons and neutrinos. Then I asked you very specific questions about that interaction.

These require very specific predictions that should be based on your model. Please post these predictions AND how you arrived at those predictions. That will go a very long way to gaining support for your model.

1. "Neutrinos and photons interact with each other"

2. "Light matter does not interact with dark energy and vice versa"

This is what I suspect completes the picture for ASST. I will not hide the problem with understanding how this exactly works. With 1. the mechanism for recycling and materialisation seem clear, but several questions remain:

* Is transformation of photons to neutrinos (and vice versa) a continuous process when passing through a changing G field?

* Is dematerialisation (recycling) likewise continuous for (anti/)matter?

* Are the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass a consequence of photon/neutrino fluxes across their spectra throughout space, and throughout the two types of matter, where only one type impedes each? Consideration of collision between a photon and an electron in frames where e is at rest, and where it comes to rest, seem to bear this out.

With 2. the puzzling situation exists that the charged components of antimatter are not affected by the oscillating electric field of the photon, and vice versa again. This is a problem for which answers may be:

1. that induced magnetic fields do the work;

2. other dimensions exist;

3. both;

4. other.

I don't know. These are areas for research, should confirmations begin to indicate validity for ASST.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2012 by Pymander

[ACG52]

Yeah, this is gibberish.

[Bignose]

I think I clarified several times. I used the word 'specific' many, many times.

 

Look. You can write "interact" as in your sentence "Neutrinos and photons interact with each other". But that doesn't mean bupkus.

 

I also "interact" with my father-in-law. Without any other context or information there, is my relationship with the FIL good or bad? Without detailed information, the word interact is very vague.

 

That's why I tried to lead with questions like "Interact in what way? With what energy? What is the result of the interaction? How strong of an interaction is it?" Can you answer these questions? I noticed you (deliberately?) didn't include them in the quote in the reply...

 

Lastly, I still don't see a single prediction. Let me give you can example. "When a neutrino and a photon interact (when you clearly define what is meant by that word), 745.3 J of energy is given off." Note the specific prediction there. Then you cite an experimental result and see how well it agrees with this prediction. E.g. "the measured interaction was 750 +- 25 J."

 

Now, in this example, I just plucked that number out of the air. But, part of your responsibility is to show every step from the beginning of your model as to how you calculate that prediction.

 

Can you provide something like this?

[Pymander]

I think I clarified several times. I used the word 'specific' many, many times.

 

Look. You can write "interact" as in your sentence "Neutrinos and photons interact with each other". But that doesn't mean bupkus.

 

I also "interact" with my father-in-law. Without any other context or information there, is my relationship with the FIL good or bad? Without detailed information, the word interact is very vague.

 

That's why I tried to lead with questions like "Interact in what way? With what energy? What is the result of the interaction? How strong of an interaction is it?" Can you answer these questions? I noticed you (deliberately?) didn't include them in the quote in the reply...

Sorry. I didn't realise that my theory was so poorly understood.

Materialisation may occur when a photon and a neutrino can interact in such a way that one of the fundamental particles of matter, and its antiparticle, can be created in such a way that momentum and energy are conserved.

Lastly, I still don't see a single prediction. Let me give you can example. "When a neutrino and a photon interact (when you clearly define what is meant by that word), 745.3 J of energy is given off." Note the specific prediction there. Then you cite an experimental result and see how well it agrees with this prediction. E.g. "the measured interaction was 750 +- 25 J."

 

Now, in this example, I just plucked that number out of the air. But, part of your responsibility is to show every step from the beginning of your model as to how you calculate that prediction.

 

Can you provide something like this?

Okay. I have supposed that there is essentially no difference between photons and neutrinos, except that instruments made of light matter will not be able to detect dark energy directly. This may be overcome by causing dark energy to interact with light energy so that we may obtain measureable results. Given this much has been achieved, we may have a photon with energy E = hf and a neutrino with energy E' = hf', in a particular frame of reference S. If (E + E') = 2m_e_0.c^2, then an electron and a positron of masses m_e_0 and -m_e_0 respectively will separate with the kinetic energy m_e.c^2 - m_e_0.c^2. This kinetic energy may need to overcome electrical attraction. The frame of reference S will most likely be the inertial one where E = E', unless other particles should become involved.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Pymander

[Bignose]

Ok. A few more formulas with no derivations and no specific predictions made. And some more words used vaguely.

 

I give up, I am no longer interested. Without specific predictions, this isn't science; it is story telling. I tried to direct you toward a path that maybe some of the science would come out, but all I see is a reluctance to post it, or an implicit confirmation that you don't have any actual science.

[Pymander]

Ok. A few more formulas with no derivations and no specific predictions made. And some more words used vaguely.

 

I give up, I am no longer interested. Without specific predictions, this isn't science; it is story telling. I tried to direct you toward a path that maybe some of the science would come out, but all I see is a reluctance to post it, or an implicit confirmation that you don't have any actual science.

You don't appear to have followed me, but fair enough. If mathematics is your thing, see if you can follow my Probabilistic Rating Theory, just to prove to yourself that you weren't talking to a fruit loop. Simulation has proven it beyond doubt, and the program is also written by myself.

http://swissimmaculate.com/

Still, thanks for your efforts. You have helped me put out there what I wanted to say, before I shuffle off this planet.

Science, to me, is the attempt to interpret the agreed upon evidence of the senses to understand our source, and thereby ourselves. The mystic may be inclined to reverse these last two. Technology just wants to exploit rather than understand anything, and is an axe in the hands of a psychopath (Einstein).

The dark entities have brought us to an impasse. The ASST versions (antimatter and neutrinos)are not yet sufficiently amenable to our technology to measure their mass or frequency, and settle matters. The TBBT versions though are only effects, used to explain themselves. This seems to beg the question, from my idea of science. Then Hubble's initial postulate was already a contradiction of "black holes", which defies even my logic.

My money is on technology conquering my dark entities first. They seem much more real.

[Pymander]

It has been a while...time to think. Okay, we need to continue seeking explanations for a universe apparently accelerating in its expansion, a Nobel Prize winning conclusion lately reached, and not explained by an explosion. We may need to reconsider a great many hypotheses put forward to explain anomalies. We may need to consider the astronomical phenomena that are unexplained even so, and which are the topic of research at present. We may need to consider how much more complex a Steady State Theory would need to be, and that its rival has the advantage of a very simple explanation (prima face). Much has been addressed before, but some new ideas have begun to occur to me. I looked into magnetism, and managed to grasp that it is not one of four forces accepted in the mainstream. It is electrical. While the velocity of moving electrons is small compared to light, (about 1m/s) the coulomb charge moving is immense. The result is that the special relativistic effect of relative motion, contracting space, increases flux. The resultant imbalance of the influence of positive and negative charges not only manifests and magnetism. It also allows a calculation of the relation between the permeability and permittivity constants in terms of c. This is the clue I was looking for. General relativity considerations of acceleration, while not so simple to compute, do indicate that the revolution of electrons captured by atomic nuclei constitute acceleration. Furthermore, the energy of so called electromagnetic radiation leaving a wire that is carrying an alternating current is directly proportional to the acceleration of electrons. Lastly, that energy is directly proportional to the mass equivalent. Concurrently, the orders of magnitude difference between the permittivity constant and the Gravitational constant(?) seem to be consistent intuitively.

 

Two facts emerge as a consequence. Antimatter has all charges reversed. Thus gravitational forces would be reversed also, explaining Albert Einstein's self confessed "greatest blunder", that forces causing universal expansion result from antimatter and matter repelling one another once in the atomic state. A consequence will be that, while inertial forces are proportional to mass but double signed oppositely and relative to the universe itself, electrons will experience a gravitational force that is in the opposite direction to that of protons, and 1830 times smaller. This implication of the theory presented here will be much easier to contest than the negative gravitational influences on atomic antimatter. The nature of light, though, as the Magneto-Gravitational radiation of quanta, essentially electrical in nature, with a necessary antiparticle to complete the symmetry, is most certainly misunderstood. The three neutrino types presently understood to exist may be little more than members of a full spectrum likewise. Let's face it, we are at present implying that photons are made up of quarks? Does that really fit very well in this scheme? Anyway, those are my thoughts at present. Would anyone like to cast their own light on this matter? Looking forward to some interesting discussion.

[Strange]

 

I looked into magnetism, and managed to grasp that it is not one of four forces accepted in the mainstream. It is electrical.

 

That magnetism is electrical (and caused relativistic effects) is entirely mainstream, so in what way is this not one of the four fundamental forces?

 

 

Thus gravitational forces would be reversed also, explaining Albert Einstein's self confessed "greatest blunder", that forces causing universal expansion result from antimatter and matter repelling one another once in the atomic state.

 

There is no evidence that matter and anti-matter repel. So far the ALPHA projects results are consistent with antimatter acting like matter with regards to gravity -exactly as expected.

 

Also, if this were the cause of expansion, then you need to explain why the expansion predicted by GR is wrong.

 

And, if there were equal amounts of matter and antimatter, why don't we see the distinctive spectrum of radiation their annihilation would cause.

 

 

Let's face it, we are at present implying that photons are made up of quarks?

 

How can massless photons be made up of massive quarks?

[Pymander]

Dos not E = hf = 2m c^2 produce 2 electrons, one antimatter, or two protons likewise, if E is sufficient? Is this not massless = mass?

[Strange]

It is. But that is not the same as a photon being made up of quarks. Quarks and anti-quarks can annihilate and convert their mass to photons. But you can't combine them into a composite particle and lose the mass.

[Pymander]

A proton and an antiproton combine into a pair of composite particles and lose mass. They become (presumably) gamma rays. More likely they become a gamma ray and its antiparticle, a neutrino of energy even beyond that of the Tau neutrino. But what is solved by maintaining that photons (and possibly antiphotons) create quarks in the exact number and type to create electrons or protons (and their antiparticles, always in exactly the same numbers), rather than just forming the only stable particles known to physics, directly? More to the point, how is this achieved, either way? It seems to me that the real issues here are only being obscured, rather than being explained. Is it possible that relativistic effects alone are entirely responsible for converting electric forces into magnetic and gravitational forces, and that these interact to produce all the phenomena of the universe? In chemistry these alone create the elements and all their properties. It could be that the same types of laws apply at the subatomic level also. A deuterium nucleus may well be two protons covalently bonded by a shared ultra high energy electron likewise. All the other nuclei, the neutron, and everything up to the Higgs Boson, may be nothing more than electrons, protons, their antiparticles, and the required energy the create them; by supplying electrons and positrons with sufficient energy to form the necessary bonds. This seems to answer more questions than it raises, but for the laws we seek to explain it. And it seems that in chemistry we have done so. Here we may be dealing with geometries as well.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Pymander

[Strange]

Sounds like your entire "theory" is based on not knowing much about current physics. Most of your questions can be readily answered. Maybe you should start by asking some questions in the relevant parts of the forum before making stuff up that is obviously wrong.

[Pymander]

Wow. The real problem is that I do know a great deal about 'modern' physics by most standards but am too diverse in my interests to become narrowly focused & highly specialised. Much of it seems counter-intuitive to my mind, and probably for that reason. I believe that the electrostatic force is the only one in existence, that light is not really understood, neither is the singularity, or gravity/inertia itself, which I believe is a dipole, that the neutrino makes no sense at all as a player in a designed universe (refer Fred Hoyle for instance) and the rest of my last two posts have raised questions that are most certainly not answered. As for the "obviously", it is based on highly questionably substantiated conjecture at best, since Albert Einstein passed on. Incidentally, you may remember that the antiproton was not discovered until 1955, and his monopole gravity misconception could easily been voided had he lived past that date, and completed the unified field theory that I am presently about finding a basis for. I do not deny that the mathematics is beyond me. We are talking about a courtroom where so many lies have been flung about that the jury is reeling. How is everyone so sure each and every hypothesis is ironclad? and there are many! If any number are incorrect, we are seriously diverted. The Geocentric universe had only one. For instance, without even accepting design at all, how is "asymmetric matter-antimatter reactions" even reasonable, in the face of so much identity. On this premise, we must defend the Big Bang! Look at the evidence! The antimatter reactions differ in a part of the universe where forces are reversed. Matter and antimatter must separate upon materialisation from energy in extremely rarefied condition, and segregate long before galaxies can form. Of course statistics will differ under the circumstances. This is just grasping at straws to maintain credence.

[Mordred]

Sorry mate, sounds like a ton of misdirection to me.

Hint buy textbooks, you want to sort through the pop media garbage, learn the textbook models first.

Trust me I originally tried, learning internet only... only got highly mislead.

 

As your into the particle physics aspects math is needed. Physics is math... plain but true. For example if I state....

 

The [latex]O(3)_{3.1}[/latex] is the Lorentz group the 3 denotes a 3*3 matrix with 1 rotation symmetry. Would you understand what I meant.

 

The details of any good peer review paper is not the verbal descriptive. It is in the mathematics.

[Strange]

The real problem is that I do know a great deal about 'modern' physics by most standards

 

 

That sounds about right.

 

Much of it seems counter-intuitive to my mind, and probably for that reason.

 

 

An argument from incredulity/ignorance, in other words. Not a good start.

 

I believe that...

 

 

As you beliefs apear to based on your lack of knowledge and incredulity, they have approximately zero value.

 

two posts have raised questions that are most certainly not answered.

 

 

Maybe you are gnorsnt of the answers. That is not quite the same thing.

 

As for the "obviously", it is based on highly questionably substantiated conjecture at best, since Albert Einstein passed on.

 

 

Argument from authority - another fallacy particularly favoured by physics cranks.

 

How is everyone so sure each and every hypothesis is ironclad?

 

 

Not every hypothesis is ironclad or correct. Their predictions are tested again experiment. Those that fail are rejected. Those that pass repeatedly eventually become accepted as theories. This is the basis of sceince that you seem to rehject.

 

This is just grasping at straws to maintain credence.

 

 

That does seem to be what your are doing.

[Bignose]

Wow. The real problem is that I do know a great deal about 'modern' physics by most standards but am too diverse in my interests to become narrowly focused & highly specialised.

So, you're saying that you don't want to take the time to learn the current best descriptions of the universe, but you also aren't going to believe the people who have taken the time to learn the current best descriptions? Kind of painted yourself into a corner, then, haven't you?

 

I don't have much more to say than I did several years ago. Science marches on regardless of your personal opinions about its results. Real science, that is, wherein predictions are made and compared with what is actually measured and those ideas that lead to the most accurate predictions are considered best. How logical, or tasteful, or aesthetically pleasing, or complicated, or mathematical, or acceptable to an person or people really doesn't enter into it. If it is extremely complicated but makes accurate predictions, then it is accepted as the current best description we have. People will always look to make it simpler, but the universe is under no obligation to be simple or easy to understand to us.

 

So, in short, your ideas still conflict with what is known. For example "I believe ... that the neutrino makes no sense at all as a player in a designed universe." Yeah, ok, but nonetheless neutrinos have been experimentally confirmed many, many times over. You don't get to just disbelieve them. If you want to change the situation, then you need to present a model that will result in the same measured values occurring. Same thing all the way back to be beginning of this thread with quarks. There have been a lot of experiments that confirm them -- you need to actually read the literature to see this. You don't get to just disbelieve them. There is something inside a proton that scatters bombarded electrons, and there is something that reacts with chlorine gas that makes excess argon. The models we have today call these quarks and neutrinos, and the predictions based on these models keep turning out to be correct.

 

If you want to change that, just start using your model to make even better predictions. It really is as simple as that. But, if you aren't going to do that, and persist on telling us stories, then I am sorry, but I am going to put my belief in the group that is actually making predictions that agree with measurements. We are past the dark ages of believing in flat earths and moons made of cheese. Science is now about making predictions that agree with measurement.

[swansont]

A proton and an antiproton combine into a pair of composite particles and lose mass. They become (presumably) gamma rays. More likely they become a gamma ray and its antiparticle, a neutrino of energy even beyond that of the Tau neutrino.

 

The antiparticle of the photon is also a photon. It is not and cannot be a neutrino.

A deuterium nucleus may well be two protons covalently bonded by a shared ultra high energy electron likewise. All the other nuclei, the neutron, and everything up to the Higgs Boson, may be nothing more than electrons, protons, their antiparticles, and the required energy the create them; by supplying electrons and positrons with sufficient energy to form the necessary bonds. This seems to answer more questions than it raises, but for the laws we seek to explain it. And it seems that in chemistry we have done so. Here we may be dealing with geometries as well.

 

By all means, come up with a falsifiable model that explains this, and is consistent with our other observations.

[Pymander]

I've said what I wanted to say for anyone interested and with the resources to investigate it. Special Relativity explains magnetic fields as imbalance fluxes due to relative space contraction, and relates the permittivity constant to the permeability constant and the speed of light. Maxwell suspected it intuitively, and Einstein's work has proven it. In a similar fashion, General Relativity may do the same for gravitational fields and the Gravitational constant, explain inertia's relationship to the universe as a whole, and as Electromagnetic radiation evolved an opinion, its understanding is obviously incomplete in explaining materialisation into matter and antimatter. Acceleration of charged particles in oscillating or circular motion may also be contributing a 'gravitational' component to EM. I do not see how this can be simply denied as a fact, but I have not yet seen this course of investigation materialise as science. If I have a valid insight here, great. If not, that's okay too. It's an idea. Thank you again for responding. I guess further discussion must be left to the experts. Ta ta.

[xyzt]

More likely they become a gamma ray and its antiparticle, a neutrino of energy even beyond that of the Tau neutrino. But what is solved by maintaining that photons (and possibly antiphotons) create quarks in the exact number and type to create electrons or protons (and their antiparticles, always in exactly the same numbers), rather than just forming the only stable particles known to physics, directly

 

yet,mainstream physics shows the above to be total rubbish

Edited February 23, 2015 by xyzt

[hypervalent_iodine]

I've said what I wanted to say for anyone interested and with the resources to investigate it. Special Relativity explains magnetic fields as imbalance fluxes due to relative space contraction, and relates the permittivity constant to the permeability constant and the speed of light. Maxwell suspected it intuitively, and Einstein's work has proven it. In a similar fashion, General Relativity may do the same for gravitational fields and the Gravitational constant, explain inertia's relationship to the universe as a whole, and as Electromagnetic radiation evolved an opinion, its understanding is obviously incomplete in explaining materialisation into matter and antimatter. Acceleration of charged particles in oscillating or circular motion may also be contributing a 'gravitational' component to EM. I do not see how this can be simply denied as a fact, but I have not yet seen this course of investigation materialise as science. If I have a valid insight here, great. If not, that's okay too. It's an idea. Thank you again for responding. I guess further discussion must be left to the experts. Ta ta.

!

Moderator Note

This is a good place to close the thread. If you can't produce a model and some actual evidence, there is nothing really to discuss. You are not permitted to reintroduce the topic.