Tests for TOE on a speculation via correct scientific procedure

[kristalris]

A few testable questions based on a scientific procedural must, given an alternative scientifically viable speculation :

1. Simulation for a dynamic crystal:

If we take a very strong computer and simulate as many and as highly conductive and identical as possible perfect spheres each traveling at identical speeds in random directions in a large as possible cube with as high as possible conductive walls, will these balls then go to order in the centre forming a dynamic crystal? Accuracy being more critical than speed.

 

A dynamic crystal being that each ball will remain in its virtual cube by hitting its neighbor exactly on the virtual wall of the cube.

If so would it then be possible to infer a formula for forming such a dynamic crystal out of the simulation?

 

This is not an extremely costly experiment with potentially great gain.

 

The speculation isn't that far-fetched as you might expect. We observe waves without knowing what they exactly are. And we know the relation between normal crystals and waves by observation. Furthermore we observe a Yin and Yang of extremely high order and also disorder in Nature. With observing extremely large energies in atom’s it is strange why we don’t see atom’s or even galaxies not disintegrate much faster than they seem to be doing. There are dark forces (matter and energy) at work. That we observe.

 

Reason for the question: a dynamic crystal might be at the heart of the Higgs field and the deepest reason for having waves . Why that might be the Higgs field? Lifting a tip of the veil in question 2.

 

1. Would a large massive spinning sphere cause a rise in gravity?

If we were to spin a large as possible massive sphere (say a large steal sphere with compartments filled with water (because it's un-compressible in order to negate deforming as much as possible) as fast as possible would that lead to a very small yet measurable rise in its gravity?

 

Reason for the question: if the Higgs field ads mass when an object is accelerated then the decay of say Caesium could slow down when speeded up through the Higgs field. That speculation would imply that decay and not time slows down when speeding up an atom clock. It also would mean speeds > c possible (and for sub atomic particles to hold c in a curved space, yet slowed down in the Higgs field at c, assuming we observe acceleration instead of length contraction).

 

If the Higgs field is a dynamic crystal it will then cause an under pressure that is perceived as gravity when mass is taken from it.

 

I.e. it goes to order see question 1. Also causing the object to accelerate further akin the law of Hubble by adding momentum. In so doing solving the dark energy and dark matter enigma. No conflict with GR, SR FT or QM then because the same observations and predictions will follow.

 

So assuming smaller yet unobserved particles instead of assuming something from nothing, and marrying all observations. Looking at the whole picture this is much more probable and should thus be tested especially if the tests are relatively easy. Yet assuming acceleration of own accord by “massless” particles possible, why? See question 3.

1. One test both proving and disproving length contraction.

If you substitute all length contraction parts out of the algorithms of a Tom Tom navigation device and change it into a formula whereby the pulse is accelerated keeping c in curved space, will the Tom Tom then work just as well as with LC?

 

I assume that it is exactly known what formula's need LC of the GPS system in order to work. So as such it shouldn't be that difficult to change the algorithms. Seeing the amount of different I guess the algorithms are no great secret. And I guess that when you have changed those getting the encrypted codes of the satellites won't be a great problem in order to do the test.

 

Reason for the question:

Length contraction only works for each separate Tom Tom, and cannot be integrated in one model without going > c if more than one Tom Tom shares the same say three satellites. Otherwise the satellites will have to length contract in different directions at the same time, or both Tom Toms will have to be seen doing this.

 

Disproving or proving length contraction as being anything but an as yet usable mathematical trick to describe a limited part of reality. Which physics should be trying to falsify as long as we don’t have a TOE including law of Hubble in one elegant non contradictory way.

 

So:

 

If all these tests show what I expect it by - granted more speculation - gives rise to the following explanation:

 

Furthermore: first the observations and all the assumptions addressing all the problems and then the mathematics. Otherwise its garbage in garbage out.

 

There is by the way no other way to start of any alternative without speculation at this point in time. And yes we are in a hurry. And yes it will require teamwork, of which providing good speculation is the start. And yes it still requires mathematics to do the tests. That can’t be the issue for answering the question whether or not the tests should be done, for that would be circular reasoning. So assuming positive test results:

 

Acceleration of say a photon whereby it becomes unspun i.e. more red shifted in a gravitational field in order to accelerate in the curve holding c, curbing in at twice the Newtonian value, like a car accelerating in a curve to hold its speed alleviates the need for length contraction. A photon curves in the Higgs field. Photons of all wavelengths hold c but expend energy in order to do that. All particles except “mass less particles” act like little black holes: hence gravity.

 

I.e. the mathematics of current physics that are involved can be used by simply assuming acceleration before any predicted test. So do the mathematics of current science with say length contraction and give a prediction. Then do the test. I predict the same result with this idea as is done with current science. Only the end result can just as well be acclaimed for acceleration instead of length contraction. No conflict with current science. Proof to be found in the Tom Tom test.

 

How can a photon get the energy? That is a question to which there is an elegant answer albeit that we then have to address problems that are inherently un-testable such as the question whether or not the cosmos is infinite and like most scientists agree to find most probable is a multiverse. And whether or not we have a one off of something coming from nothing and ending in nothing or that it what I find most probable we are talking a cyclic event.

 

If so it will always remain speculation to derive a logically consistent explanation that is also consistent with all observations.

 

I have that in the form of two different sorts of as yet unobserved particles but can leave that out for the moment. First the tests then the rest of the story that being just a speculative sketch undoubtedly will inherently remain a lot of extremely difficult work in progress to work out. Although it provides on a concept level an elegant explanation for the Double slit experiment, the floating of a living frog in a magnetic field and the symmetry problem etc..

 

Let’s leave that discussion of that because it will cloud the issue.

 

So:

 

Observations + Dark problems => (Scientific / pseudo-scientific speculation & feasible tests) + (Risk = chance x effect) => doing tests = science & not doing tests = pseudo-science.

 

So unless the answer to the questions can be scientifically given not doing the tests is pseudo-scientific.

 

If this falls outside current scientific method then the current scientific method is pseudo-scientific.

 

The actual reason being that you are then working a production department method towards a research department question. In production it is wisdom to be conscientious and go by the book in order to keep the status quo don’t take risks (or very little) and do as your told.

In research it should be open-minded bold risk taking, don’t care what the book says because the book says it, because you are trying to rewrite the book.

History shows that the production method always becomes more and more the norm in so doing slowing progress to an extremely costly and time-consuming irrational bureaucratic affair. (Flat earth)

 

The communis opinio of the science of psychology (Big Five personality traits) states the same.

 

So don’t study all there is to study in being afraid to make silly mistakes, go on a openly stated hunch or speculation (= thus not pseudo-scientific) but do it in a falsifiable practical way (= per definition scientific) and keep at it, until all dark problems are solved via a rigorous scientific scrutiny including the mathematics.

 

That is the only correct way in research, albeit that you should always also address the same problems via slow doggedly persistent boring production methods.

 

In short proper scientific method dictates facilitating both.

 

Stating a best practice is anything different, is pseudo-scientific, for it takes too long and is thus not best practice.

 

Do the tests or prove them irrelevant or already falsified by explaining that.

[swansont]

Atomic clocks don't rely on the decay of cesium and GPS devices ignore length contraction effects, since they are small compared to the positioning error from other effects. The relativistic effects are smaller than a part in 10^9, which gives you tens of microseconds per day of timing error, which is very important to correct, but for a distance of 10^7 m, that's a 1 cm error, which can be ignored. (this is not meant to imply that your interpretation of how length contraction manifests itself is correct. I think it's not)

[kristalris]

Thank you Swansont,

 

This is a very useful reaction. What you say makes much more sense to me.

 

For on an other science forum I got the reaction from "scientists" that GPS proves LC. This they did to counter an earlier point I made to them that LC should be deemed falsified by your eye lens not popping out your head in order to length contact towards the light coming to your eye from - the far side - of two galaxies. For then the light must have gone through a lot of gravitational fields and thus got more and more length contracted. They didn't react to that point other then saying that GPS proved LC. I was surprised that they stated GPS worked on LC to which I also found some backing on the internet. So I countered that point in the way I stated in this thread. But indeed it's a very short distance then for a very great effect. So I take your position to be correct.

 

But then still why doesn't your eye lens LC in two (actually much more) different directions when looking at the stars?

 

Then the decay of cesium: well on that point your post also makes much more sense.

 

I took the fact that if time slows down that so the decay would slow down instead of time. Yet this is not central to my idea.

 

Central to my idea is that by adding mass when speeding up the atom clock the time reading accurately slows down (for what ever exact further reason isn't directly important). Science concludes thus relative time. I say no: time is absolute, which is consistent with the fact that the decay of cesium would remain the same irrespective of speeding up of the clock or not or the time the clock portrays.

[swansont]

But then still why doesn't your eye lens LC in two (actually much more) different directions when looking at the stars?

 

Why would it? Your eye is at rest in your frame. Only moving objects length contract.

 

Central to my idea is that by adding mass when speeding up the atom clock the time reading accurately slows down (for what ever exact further reason isn't directly important). Science concludes thus relative time. I say no: time is absolute, which is consistent with the fact that the decay of cesium would remain the same irrespective of speeding up of the clock or not or the time the clock portrays.

 

There is a tremendous amount of evidence to tell us that this is not so. The speed of light being invariant is not limited to relativity, and is the reason time cannot be absolute. Toss invariant c and you not only lose relativity, you lose electrodynamics as well.

[kristalris]

Well in order to have LC work, as I understand it, not only the say photon must length contract but also the route it took must do so.

 

Because otherwise the photon when holding c by curving in a gravitational field will have exceeded c. I.e. if the route through space were lined with posts and ultimately your stationary eye lens everything along the route must contract. All posts and you eye lens need to get closer to each other, yet the photon that also LC's does move to the eye lens. If only the photon length contracts it would have exceeded c if it keeps (as we observe) c all along the route, whilst taking a curve.

 

In so doing solving the problem that in effect the photon otherwise would of accelerated just like a car does in a curve holding the same speed in a curve yet curbing in at twice the Newtonian value. It will solve it as long as you only do the trick along one (length) of route. That's why LC indeed works, as long as you keep to the exact relative distances.

 

There is no way to logically frame it that you tackle this otherwise. The longer a photon has been in a gravitational field the more LC problem that can't be fixed by the small LC of a photon could maximized have, being only a small particle.

[swansont]

There's still no contradiction when accounting for gravitational effects. Your eye is in one location, not extended along some path in a gravitational field.

[kristalris]

There's still no contradiction when accounting for gravitational effects. Your eye is in one location, not extended along some path in a gravitational field.

Impossible. If you don't LC the whole route the particle is > c.

 

And sorry I missed the second part in your other reaction. Yes, there is an enormous amount of evidence for GR, SR, QM and FT working perfectly in there respective fields. Yet they can't be integrated. And LC is one of the IMO obvious problems.

 

Having smaller (speculative) particles > c readily can elegantly explain electrodynamics & magnetism as well.

 

Take the symmetry problem. Producing two particles at c going in opposite directions then doing a toss that at both sides gives he same result. Producing the two particles breaks the string in which these small particles > c are contained by the crystal. (How is another story). The broken string in part forms smaller strings to form the two particles that seemingly instantaneous accelerate to c in the crystal, being then short tracked (like speed-skaters) and held at c. Other small particles don't form strings but fly of through the much and much more void of the dynamic crystal reaching and influencing the outcome before the two larger subatomic particles at c reach that point. Ergo not only no problem with the electrodynamics and magnetism. It solves it. It also explained why we can float a non magnetic living frog in a very string magnetic field.

 

In this speculation the reason why we perceive a magnetic field to form at c is like pushing against a large boat when standing on a jetty. At first nothing seems to happen and then when the movement becomes measurable we think it happened at a speed conforming to the constant ©. It is a measurement problem. In the symmetry experiment this becomes apparent because it is like pushing a small dingy. It moves instantly. If the particle that left the string is not in sync then it misses the extreme void of the crystal. Like pushing beside the dingy.

 

But now I've gone into the rest of my idea, to which there is much more.

 

Most central to the idea is however seeing if it is possible to simulate a dynamic crystal. If not, this idea is fundamentally busted.

 

Sorry I said the whole route, I of course meant the whole route through the curved gravitational fields.

[kristalris]

I've been rereading Wikipedia on SR and LC and I think I'm getting there. My perception of what current science means with LC is incorrect, though correct with what it should mean. Anyway: Although science talks about Doppler effect in the context of GR I think that is actually what we are talking about concerning SR seen from the viewpoint of my idea.

 

If you pass a waving photon in a certain frequency at a certain speed the frequency will go up. Because a photon has a certain length you will thus perceive it as length contracted. Now the great point of difference is that there thus then is no actual length contraction in reality needed in any frame.

 

Anyway my idea will yield exactly the same results as SR. Its interchangeable. The differences being however my idea has the potential to be integrated with GR & QM etc..

 

In my idea a photon has very little mass, and is so small that it has seemingly instantaneously accelerated to c through the crystal of the Higgs field being so fast that the Higgs field can't add more mass. So two photons don't have a gravitational pull towards each other, yet are effected by a gravitational field. In which the crystal of the Higgs field is stretched losing grip on the energies stored in the spinning photon. I guess a photon being two interlocked counter rotating super symmetric strings spiraling through the crystal. The strings containing a lot of spinning identical particles of which the Higgs crystal is built up. (How this can work and why they are in spin can be elegantly explained, granted speculation, but still.) These being however not in spin. The particles in the Higgs field are more conductive than the photon which is more than super conductive. I.e. a photon can travel billions of years through the crystal. Yet there is an end to it. Ergo then we only can look so far into our universe.

 

 

I learnt that there are scientists who think that photons when not in a gravitational field don't wave. I don't agree with that because there is no reason to assume a photon does that and it is inherently un-observable either way, because all observable instruments have mass exerting gravity.

Now I'm still a bit puzzled at the use of SR. According to Wikipedia SR is only applicable outside gravitational fields (wherever that me be? Is it that SR takes care of an inherent non-Euclidean space where the gravitational pull isn't strong enough? ). Yet it is used in GPS in order to keep the clocks in sync. What can SR do in that respect that GR can't in a gravitational field? Or does SR take care of the short period of weightlessness because GPS is geostationary?

[swansont]

Impossible. If you don't LC the whole route the particle is > c.

Which has nothing to with what I said. Your eye is not distributed along the route. Your eye is in one place.

 

 

And sorry I missed the second part in your other reaction. Yes, there is an enormous amount of evidence for GR, SR, QM and FT working perfectly in there respective fields. Yet they can't be integrated. And LC is one of the IMO obvious problems.

QM and GR don't mix, but SR and QM have been integrated.

 

Now I'm still a bit puzzled at the use of SR. According to Wikipedia SR is only applicable outside gravitational fields (wherever that me be? Is it that SR takes care of an inherent non-Euclidean space where the gravitational pull isn't strong enough? ). Yet it is used in GPS in order to keep the clocks in sync. What can SR do in that respect that GR can't in a gravitational field? Or does SR take care of the short period of weightlessness because GPS is geostationary?

 

GR takes care of the effect of being in different gravitational potentials. SR takes care of relative motion, and can be applied wherever space is locally flat enough to ignore gravity.

[kristalris]

 

Which has nothing to with what I said. Your eye is not distributed along the route. Your eye is in one place.

 

 

QM and GR don't mix, but SR and QM have been integrated.

 

 

GR takes care of the effect of being in different gravitational potentials. SR takes care of relative motion, and can be applied wherever space is locally flat enough to ignore gravity.

 

 

Sorry and thanks, I already tried to concede that I misunderstood what SR (and you have) stated.

 

Thanks for informing me that GR and SR aren't in conflict, I missed that point.

[kristalris]

I found a nice link on crystals and the similarity to the distribution of galaxies to that at all very small scales based on crystals.

 

 

http://gavrog.org/leipzig.pdf

[kristalris]

This was brought to my attention concerning my idea:

 

Quote:

 

When Earth crosses a domain wall, the Global Network of Optical Magnetometers for Exotic Physics (GNOME) could detect the event using four magnetometers (Northern Hemisphere in this sketch) to determine the normal velocity of the wall and predict its passing at other locations. One or more remaining magnetometers would verify the prediction and the measurements. (Phys.org)—Researchers from Canada, California, and Poland have devised a straightforward way to test an intriguing idea about the nature of dark energy and dark matter. A global array of atomic magnetometers – small laboratory devices that can sense minute changes in magnetic fields – could signal when Earth passes through fractures in space known as domain walls. These structures could be the answer to the universe's darkest mysteries.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-ran-wall-nature-dark-energy.html#jCp

 

EQ

 

It makes me wonder if this concerns the same as an Australian team is doing stating to expect to see space as ice in which cracks can be detected?

 

Anyway: if so it's up my street.

[kristalris]

EVIDENCE & PROOF in SCIENCE and PHYSICS

 

As I already stated there’s a problem in the way physics is currently doing research.

 

In short the production department has taken over the research department. This was already so in Newton’s day. The price we pay for this is that this inherent scientific bureaucracy does not only cost too much time, it also costs too much money and it leaves a lot of problems that could have been solved unsolved for far too long.

Actually an old discussion.

At the heart of this is IMO psychology, and that the problem as such exists is clearly shown in history. Relatively new insights in psychology shed light on what is the problem and thus also who to solve it.

 

But let’s first look at the problems of mathematics.

 

MATHEMATICS IN SCIENCE and Physics

 

On the other hand also the place of mathematics in science should be looked at. Historically physics has been looking at it of the reputed maxim of Rutherford on tests and statistics.

 

I.e. not that long ago statistics were looked upon by mathematicians and physicists alike as a sort of unscientific guesswork. Now we can conclude that these old school advocates have lost that argument and that we have moved from a deterministic approach to having an empirical statistical approach to physics as well. In fact what has happened is that the standard of proof has dropped when running into problems. Quite normal and proper.

 

Now I’m going to invite the physicists to come all the way down via intuitive Bayesian statistics and ditto probabilistic reasoning via Bayesian networks etc. being the mathematics of common sense, to the word salad level of logical reasoning.

Although science strives to get a deterministic explanation of everything in Nature, it is a priori quite clear we are never going to get there. So you need to use the appropriate way of reasoning based on the amount of data that you have.

 

If you overstate your position, i.e. reason deterministically where you could only pose a statistical based argument, to that degree you are selling more than you can deliver. To that extent you are thus acting in a pseudo-scientific way.

Thus it is not allowed in properly executed mathematics to measure something with an accuracy in a thousandth of a mm and a deviation of meters. And then pretending it is better to work that accurately. Working too accurate costs too much time, and money and leads to errors in reasoning for losing sight of the big picture etc. and leads too unjustified hopes. The price of the latter is that people lose their trust in science, when it is proven wrong.

 

The same is true if the standard of proof that is demanded for any new idea is placed unreasonably and thus too high. In fact that is the seemingly reasonable trick to get rid of unwanted idea’s. Simply apply an unreasonable standard of proof on the one that carries the burden of that proof.

Also the reasonable attribution of the burden of proof is a point. The one that states a position should prove that position. Yet the division of labour also comes into play. A taxpayer like I pays taxes in order to have science done. If a guy like Krauss comes along selling me idea’s as if it is established science that particles can be here their everywhere and nowhere at the same time and that everything is in fact moving nothing, then he can’t place the burden of proof on me too provide the mathematics on a proven concept to the contrary that hasn’t the mathematics yet, if it is testable.

 

The reason is, that the concept level is the word salad level of logic at which level it only can be decided what garbage or non-garbage to put into the subsequent mathematics. Mathematics doesn’t provide that. You are only allowed to counter with mathematics taking the stated assumptions as a fact and showing it logically (internally) inconsistent or inconsistent with observations. Both to the extent that it can be deemed irreparably improbable.

 

If you say to Mr Math’s c = max then if Mr Maths subsequently says that you can mathematically travel back in time, then I have fulfilled my burden of proof by pointing out the possibility of a garbage in problem, and a word salad concept that is consistent with all observations and that addresses all relevant problems. As a tax payer I can subsequently oppose funding research into the possibility of traveling back in time.

 

Science is or at least should be primarily about finding the truth. In order to do that it however needs a degree of order.

In order to provide that it is essential to get the definitions into a practical order. I.e. one can use stipulative (new) definitions to do that.

As shown deterministic reasoning doesn’t / can’t deal with everything in science but logic can. So if we have to take a decision for instance what idea’s to fund in physics you use word salad logic.

 

Now before we go into that let us first look at a practical example of the difference between research and production:

 

CHUCK “Right stuff” YEAGER

 

Just to add a nice true story showing the difference between research and production.

Alas I can't find the book of Chuck "Right Stuff" Yeager. You know the guy that broke the sound barrier.

As far as I can remember then:

 

The USAF had a problem of the Sabre jetfighter crashing and killing pilots. It was the cold war so it was deemed an urgent problem. Crash investigation had narrowed it down to all the aircraft being out of the same production batch.

They had torn the aircraft to bits but couldn't spot the problem. So they went to test-pilot Yeager and said: look there is an as far as we know airworthy aircraft from that batch, take it for a spin and try and find out what's wrong.

So Yeager took along his helmet kicked the tires did a real accurate pre-flight check and gingerly took off. Very gingerly taking it to a considerable height. There he started doing aerobatics.

And, shore enough when he was making a manoeuvre he unexpectedly spun to the right. So he did what the flight manual dictates and pushed his stick hard to the left. He's controls froze up on him. Now if you're doing say 800 km/h at say ten km height (not to use knots and feet) you are in a bit of trouble time wise to sort things out.

So Yeager let go of the controls to get himself out of the loop (of the system). And sure enough the spinning resided. So he then again tried to push the stick conforming the manual, yet again the controls froze up. Then he let go and did it very gently, and the aircraft responded.

So he landed safely albeit red-eyed and with leaves in the ailerons.

Now this narrowed it down: further investigation revealed that there had been a guy in production who thought it a good idea to put a bolt in the aileron upside down, because it was easier. And the aileron still had maximum deflection, so why bother. Alas, when the wing flexed under pressure it could no longer give maximum deflection when just that was needed.

 

The moral of the story: In production: do as your told, be conscientious and don't be creative;

 

In research: the realm of the test pilot: it takes guts and fast guess work and a don't follow the book attitude or you will auger in like all those other conscientious pilots who ended up doing what the manual said pushing the stick hard left all the way down.

 

Psychology dictates what personalities go where.

 

I.e. Yeager shouldn’t of said: now you be more concise, what is wrong with the plane. In research you get on with it, quick and dirty if necessary.

We are trying to find TOE better sooner than later. Why? Because knowing more now will cost less lives later via enhanced medicine and what not (if we start acting wisely with the knowledge that is)

 

PSYCHOLOGY the BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS

 

In part repeating and elaborating on what I stated in this respect in another thread:

 

The communis opinion in psychology holds that every human can be placed in one of five personality traits. I.e. everyone scores higher or lower on all five but always one trait is dominant. As a rule of thumb I can concur with this. It fits the way I see the world. On this issue two of the traits are relevant the conscientious on the one and openness on the other. These traits are without a doubt in the core genetic.

Someone who scores high on conscientiousness is good at organizing, planning and seen as being rational. These people tend towards a directive communication method. This trait is very important in our western society in being successful. Via damage to the brain we know it resides in the front of the brain. Someone who scores low on this trait isn’t bothered in getting things organized and lets things be.

Someone who scores high on openness is inquisitive, creative and is seen by others as strange (crank). Someone who scores low on this does everything as it is supposed to be done. Giving rise to a more reflective less concise way of communicating when a high here is coupled to a low score on conscientiousness. Where openness resides in the brain is more of a mystery. The most broadly held view is that it resides everywhere in the brain: i.e. the tendency to use the whole brain in order to solve a problem.

Being extremely open and extremely low on conscientiousness would be nice for say an artist. Just generating idea’s, views that are new and could be inspiring for a scientist in order to use it to further science and thereby contribute to the survival of our species.

Now being high on openness and fairly high on conscientiousness or high on conscientiousness and fairly high on conscientiousness are ideal traits for scientists. The former in research the latter in production of science. Does science have a production department then? Yes. When teaching current science for instance.

The great minds in science Newton, Darwin, Einstein etc. most would of scored high on the personality trait openness and would be seen as crank. And indeed according to DSM IV & V they are all certifiably mad, geniuses. Or are they? Or has science of psychology gone haywire in deeming the current society as normal as have done the protagonists of DSM taking themselves as normal and conscientiously measuring any greater deviation and branding that abnormal and thus crank. Yet in fact only measuring their own lack of creative intelligence.

Production minded people think in terms of authority and are preoccupied in attaining and holding and following authority. Fully committed in not making mistakes. Everything must be communicated as succinct as possible. Avoiding discussions because these are disorderly. Do as your told, don’t rock the boat. Excellent in production. A disaster in research. Then they crash the plane when in a test flight situation. They seem rational up to the point where they are forced out of their comfort zone. They feel that they are of independent thought because no group pressure unless from peers will make them change their mind. They look on open minded people as lazy and or loose cannoned delusional megalomaniac cranks.

Research minded people simply answer the stated questions without notions of grandeur, or what not. And accept making mistakes. They are of independent thought in the sense that they aren’t susceptible to peer pressure or authority. They can only work together well with conscientious people if it is in a clear organised way so that it is clear they are the research department.

 

On the mathematics of creative intelligence and evidence and proof:

 

DUCK or RABBIT?

 

Collecting data is like putting dots on a piece of paper. If you collect sufficient dots that are sufficiently spread across the entire subject of study at a certain point one can draw a line between the dots. Akin to what Krauss pointed out that Hubble did ultimately showing the expanding universe now known as a Law. According to Krauss Hubble first got it wrong insofar that it showed the earth being older than the universe. However on the basis of very few dots Hubble saw the correct line.

Good creative intelligent guesswork based on a very limited amount of data by Hubble.

As for any high school kid in science class learns to draw the line between the dots is allowed to ignore the dots that are too far off. (As long as you show to have deleted them and don’t add dots that haven’t been observed this is scientifically correct.)

Let’s say the dots are at a moment sufficiently spread to draw the picture as in this link. You might then see a rabbit if you have some imagination. With more imagination you could also see a duck. With even more imagination you might even see a hare or a goose. This is the inductive part of the process. This needs the personality trait of openness, especially if we know that we might come across a new never yet observed dark species.

It is this imagination of the human mind that makes it possible to investigate the different hypothesis. If it is a hare or a rabbit one would more closely scrutinise via extra testing the dots around the area where whiskers might be expected. And likewise see where the dots might give a wing. This is the deductive part of the process that needs a rigorous scrutiny and thus needs the personality trait of conscientiousness. Matching it to everything we already know.

Now another phenomenon also comes into play. If you have too many dots you wouldn’t see the forest through the trees as we Dutch say. You lose sight of the big picture. Apart from that if the brain consciously or even unconsciously sees ears then it is extremely difficult to see hypothesis rabbit or hare.

Another problem that can be illustrated this way is that the one with a lot of knowledge and experience on the subject senses that it is a mammal and thus strikes off the idea of duck and goose as being crank.

The one with far less knowledge and experience on the subject has in these both respects a strength that lies in that weakness. That is correctly spotting the wing and thus yet incorrectly thinking it could possibly be a duck yet probably is a goose.

It could namely ultimately be a bat hanging upside down in the cave of Plato. Being then a bat in this metaphor for an as yet unobserved dark beast.

It is thus correct scientific procedure to combine the research and do testing into hypothesis wings, even though the stated duck or goose is correctly sensed to be incorrect. Because it leads to indeed finding a wing.

So you are not allowed to fill in dots where no observations have been done. You are however allowed to fill in the line in those areas as long as it is presented as speculation.

 

A very important common mistake of this is also the focusing too much on the parts of the beast that can be well observed (say the ears) and ignoring the parts that inherently can’t or can only marginally be observed (say the wings).

How wide or narrow one should take the problem depends on the question one askes. If the question is in fact on a TOE then it is a very wide question.

TOE

When asking the TOE question you must answer for instance the following questions:

1. Is the cosmos to be assumed infinite?
2. Is the cosmos to be assumed not infinite?
3. Are the questions A and B to be assumed irrelevant?

A lot of physicists would state C. That is alright if it were a production situation. Production is only about all that where science is available as knowledge. On TOE that is not the case, thus it is a research question. As it is a research question the answer C is incorrect. You have to go through both hypothesis A and B.

Are you then not allowed to try and solve this research question via a production department method? Yes, as long as that is not the only method used. I.e. do both.

Like solving a crime scene, you should both go by the book: i.e. methodically step by step without having a prior notion on the one and on the other try to figure out what scenarios have probably taken place i.e. jump to conclusions and investigate these.

If you only go by the book in trying to solve a crime scene, you get a very thick book. It becomes a costly very bureaucratic exercise costing a lot of time ending up in silly mistakes being made. I could go into length’s showing examples of this.

The latter scenario driven way you do via the system of looking at all available evidence (i.e. dots) at that point in the investigation and try and build scenarios (hare, rabbit, goose, duck.) In an open mind setting.

There are of course far more questions that should be addressed on TOE (that should now include Hubble.)

Because physics is performed in an area where it is possible to do a lot of measurements slowly moving forward as in the production department yields a sure and steady furtherance of science. Yet at the same time it also more and more clogs up the system in preventing addressing the larger questions in a direct way.

It is clear where quantum physics is going: slowly but gradually shooting the SM to bits. Ultimate conclusion it is observed all being built up of nothing. At least according to the production department.

The production department simply ignores all awkward fundamental questions:

What are waves? Is that moving nothing?

What is energy? A telekinetic nothing that can provide a force? Haven’t we seen this way of reasoning in the Middle ages concerning the force that blows in the sail of ships?

Is the Higgs field that probably exists omnipresent everywhere where atoms can exist?

What is mass? Higgsfieldian nothing?

Where is the order coming from? I.e. why doesn’t it disintegrate much faster?

Is it all just a one off, because that is all we can observe?

 

DEMOCRATIC SCIENCE : FEAR OF LOSING FACE AND FUNDING

 

This all adds up to the following problem: like three puppy dogs with one venturing out too see what happens if you put your teeth in the couch is the research dog. With the other two staying trembling in their dog basket. The latter two are deemed good dogs by their boss because they behave and do as their told. The two get their dog diploma, the other one flunks this due to other interests. Subsequently one of these becomes Top dog and in charge of the cookies (i.e. funding).

 

As any mathematics teacher will know given a certain problem in a class year in year out a group of students makes the same error in reasoning. Let’s say thinking two plus three equals six. The problem is, when these aren’t students but the Top dog managers of funding who usually have a majority. With our dogs in the basket two against one. So going about this we get the rule 2 + 3 = 6. People of a certain creative intelligence have a click with each other. People less creatively intelligent further of are deemed stupid and sentimental, and on the other side people who are far more creative intelligent are deemed insensitive psychopaths. especially if the Top dog is told that he's got it wrong and this also becomes clear. Then it becomes threatening for a scared Top dog.

 

Subsequently this goes wrong. Now everybody knows Top dogs don’t make mistakes. So change the rules. Think, think, (how do I do this without having risks are so.) Problem with doing so leaves 2 + 3 = 9. (If interested I can show this for the Lucia de B case.) Simply not grasping that it is wrong. The Top dog as distributor of cookies will hold power even after horrendous mistakes. Psychology and history shows this to be true. You can only change this by organizing it differently.

 

Problem with the scared dogs is they remain dogs that shrike for risks. Which is good. If a bear attacks the scared ones flee and the brave (research) one goes into the attack against the problem. Mother Nature organized it so that the genes have a maximum chance of maintain the species.

 

IDEA => CONCEPT => THEORY => LAW

 

An idea that can be scribbled on the back of a beermat can be the start. One moment of inspiration followed by a lot of transpiration.

 

When an idea is in word salad on the common sense level it is a concept. It should address all problems and be stated to be in line with all known observations. The probability of it rises if it remains standing after scrutiny.

 

The one posing an idea not being a professional or educated in the topic means that you have a very low a priori probability of this being – most certain completely – correct. That this doesn’t prove it wrong, because that is the fallacy of authority. You must look at all the evidence. I.e. likelihood ratio’s and posterior odds past the norm. That norm is you standard of proof. You don’t need to do the numbers because word salad logic suffices at this level.

If it is presented in a falsifiable way it is per definition scientifically valid on research questions.

 

If part of it is proven by mathematics, it still is only a proof of concept. Yet on a higher standard of proof.

Risk = chance x consequence. A cost for gain question.

 

Because for risk of an error due to the Top dog problem everyone is correctly concerned or even in fear for losing face and thus funding. Yet proper research requires trial and error.

 

Now if indeed there is a communis opinio that all the science has been put to it including the mathematics it should be could a scientific valid theory. There can be opposing theories and thus hypothesis.

 

If one theory remains without a possible way to further investigate and there is broad acceptance of it being correct (always within explicit or implicit boundaries) it should be called a Law. I.e. E = mc2 should not be called a theory but a law of physics. No-one contests its applicability within the area where it works. The same goes not only for historic reasons for the laws of Newton.

 

I.e. a law is only valid within a given or to be assumed field (Sir Karl Popper in fact.).

 

GETTING IT PROPERLY ORGANISED

 

Division of labour also shows what can be asked as burden of proof and what standard of proof should apply in order to have a maximum chance of getting problems solved.

Now some scientists say that this would clog the system. Not true.

 

I've now seen many idea's on TOE on other forums. All that I've seen on TOE are either:

1. Extremely improbable at a concept level (having God or spinning washing machines as particles. Or Krauss cum suis with all is nothing.)
2. Inwardly obviously inconstant thus illogical;
3. Un falsifiable;
4. Not addressing all relevant issues on the stated problem (current science hasn't either)
5. In conflict with observations; (Which is possible to contest but provides an extremely high standard of proof. For science can and must be trusted.)

If someone has fulfilled these criteria this someone can claim proof of concept at the appropriate level. Science should organize an investigation into it. Even if no scientist is yet convinced it is correct, this because of the Top dog problem. It should be a matter of course.

However it can be necessary to decide which idea’s to investigate first and which later. Therefor a different set of rules apply. First the formal status of an as yet proven concept should be bestowed in order to further chances of this actually happening. It also alleviates the problem of scientist loosing face when the test fails. “I did it even though I was convinced it wouldn’t work. Now we know I was right, its busted because….” And publish that so that we don’t have to do it again.

 

THE STRENGTH OF A CONFIRMATION BIAS

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

Take the story of Billy Mitchell: protagonists of battleships would rather rig the tests and die in their battleships in the then coming war than admit that airpower was already the dominant factor. History showing what in fact is psychology based on the different DNA together forming of human nature. Rogue dog Mitchell didn't follow the order to miss the ship but sunk it and got fired. In the war a bomber was named in memory of him.

 

Science needs to get this organised in a way that scientists can brainstorm etcetera without fear of having their idea’s stolen or have fear for not being funded anymore.

The fact that Higgs was deemed an idiot or what not by Stefan Hawking should have led to the Dean of Cambridge giving him a caution. This directly when he stated it. Whether Higgs is proven right or wrong is immaterial. Yet it provides yet again strong evidence for my case that science needs to reorganize itself. It is a flaming culture that stems from the production department.

 

(As goes for the law systems my actual topic BTW that got me into this quantum stuff etc..)

 

This site doesn't allow flaming and lets proper argument count. Correctly so.

[kristalris]

Been very busy with other things. Anyway this post in science news is right up my ally: a surface tension scenario in which particles out of the Higgs field bounce in strings in a surface tension scenario.

 

Like a string of marbles (being the larger of the (only) two fundamental particles in spin rotation) in a tunnel that spirals through the double dynamic crystal of the Higgs Field, slowed down by it and acquiring mass when the strings form a larger particle. Gaining mass by bringing un spun larger particles in spin rotation adding it to the string. Thus speeding up the string by gaining momentum. Simply Newtonian physics marrying GR to QM and solving DE and DM at the same time.

 

I.e. it is not bouncing in a 2D plain but in a 3D plain.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77872-when-fluid-dynamics-mimic-quantum-mechanics/#entry759033

Edited August 8, 2013 by kristalris

[kristalris]

My concept shows why speeding up an atomic clock slows down the clock and not time. That the mathematics of relativity add up by assuming timedelation, doesn't mean that time slows down either. The alternate hypothesis remains that the clock slows down, which is the only thing we can say that we observe.

 

In my idea a photon speeds up because it becomes unspun yet held under c by the double crystal of the Higssfield. Further more the Higgs field in this idea literately adds mass to the atom clock as it is speeded uip in such an accurate way that you can set your (atom) clock to it.

 

Other clocks like grandfather clocks are not time effected by being speed-ed up.

 

Further more the convention that an idea or a concept need mathematics before it becomes a scientific valid proven concept that should be tested is based on erroneous reasoning.

 

Seeing my concept marries in concept QM to Newton to GR in an elegant testable way. If we look at science as bridging a canyon from what we know to what we want to find out, the rift is extremely small when we are talking a QM or GR related problems separately. Then one must use mathematics. When we however want to join GR to QM the divide is enormous. So you go from deterministic reasoning with an extremely small divide to empirical statistics through Bayesian statistics to Bayesian probabilistic reasoning and ultimately verbal logic when the divide becomes bigger and bigger. So when we are talking marrying GR to QM as I in fact do in my thread the correct scientific norm for doing so is verbal logic. The reason is it all becomes easily pliable which is needed because the primary problem then is not so much accurate logic but the garbage in problem. I.e. you must work it from an integral rough sketch and get it more and more accurate by testing and observing instead of extrapolating mathematics all over the place assuming that because you are extremely correct in the in fact laws of GR and QM that this is the way to go when trying to marry the two. Logic goes before the current scientific convention.

[swansont]

Seeing my concept marries in concept QM to Newton to GR in an elegant testable way.

Don't leave us in suspense. What are these tests?

[kristalris]

 

Don't leave us in suspense. What are these tests?

Test 1: make a computer-simulation with say a million (anyway as much as is currently possible) identical superconductive sphere's that move at the same speed in a random way in a large super conductive box. Accuracy is critical. And see what happens.

 

I predict they will go to order. The order of a dynamic crystal "far" away from the (disturbance of the) walls. I.e. each ball will be and stay in its own virtual box around the center of the large box. If so it will immediately constitute a paradigm shift for current science would predict chaos. This however would immediately form a bases for explaining the currently inexplicable amount of order that we observe. (And a lot more as well BTW. it then explains the heart of the Higgs field when you make a double crystal of two such fields with a large and a small particle: Yin and Yang of order of the one causing disorder in the other and vice versa.)

 

I guess that current computers are capable of computing this. Anyway it is testable.

 

Test 2: Simulate a galaxy by accelerating the spin of a large gyro. I predict its gravity will rise comparable to the amount needed to explain DM.

 

Test 1 and 2 when both give a positive result readily explain DM & DE gravity and waves conforming to GR, QM and Newton.

 

 

Infinite amount of both sorts of balls in an absolute void and having the small one faster then the large one both above c would immediately and easily form the bases of explaining everything we observe in a simple way. In a way any high school kid would understand. So best on Occam. Like the SM is filed with former unicorns, these two are the only way of explaining it al.

 

Logical deduction shows that you then must assume four stages of the Higgs field. A multiverse in which our universe is one. The entire universe can then be seen as cubes (small particle) or spheres (large one). Pressure in the system having virtual boxes with infinitely thick walls. And all matter acting as little black holes. This because logically the large particle will have a standard deviation horizontally and vertically for every forward movement. It will spiral mathematically into the skin of a huge sphere. The beginning of the curved space we observe. A cut away drawing of our universe then would look like a cut away drawing of earth. This entire composition (concept) is built up of analogies we readily observe in nature. (And provides more testable points as well BTW)

 

You can logically deduce that the too many large particles will be pressed into each other, causing them to spin in the center the core of every universe. The energy needs to remain the same. A large blob will be shot up as a yet to form galaxy into the crust of the double crystal, where it will nearly stop. There it will form strings kept in a surface tension scenario.(Thus big squirts in stead of a big bang) Strings picking up mass out of the double crystal via the Higgs mechanism. Adding mass causes a under pressure perceived as gravity between these strings. Adding mass also adds momentum and speeds the strings up. Explaining DE. And DM because the more you speed up the more mass you acquire per time frame the more gravity you exert.

 

The expanding visible universe is thus an illusion. To our sides we see the angular momentum, mathematically the same acceleration due to mathematics of the same stuff. It looks like a flat expanding space cake with raisins. Just like the earth looks flat standing on the beach. Life in the center of the crust creating the illusion further. Normal distribution. Small chance of life in the beginning yet to form When we speed up to much we will disintegrate because of rising entropy which we also observe. A 1/3 c I'd say for the same reason why a helicopter can only reach a third of the speed of sound. I.e. the electrons of atoms can't exceed c whereas the nucleus keeps speeding up.

 

Mass less particles don't exist. They are mater-less i.e. don't exert gravity because they are to fast for the Higgs mechanism. Yet are held under c by the Higgs field. Becoming unspun i.e. red-shifted in gravitational fields accelerating to keep c in a curve and arcing inward at twice the Newtonian value like a toy wind up car would do as well. bouncing around in a wave like fashion.

 

Any way I can explain all observations thrown at me in a nice elegant way. Albeit in verbal logic. Thus providing a proven testable concept at that level.

 

I even can explain life as being one of the possible scenario's that is being played out all the time. No beginning no end not even in our universe. We will end however then. All information erased when the black hole in the center of our universe pops out of our universe and disintegrates and falls back to form the double crystal again moving as a glacier inward, forming cracks that should be detectable BTW.

 

The like a waterfall it will fall inward. The particles of the SM and the laws of QM and GR only apply in the double crystal.

 

Mater anti mater is two strings hitting head on. When they are shrugging they form magnetism for the surface tension is broken. When interlocked and counter-rotating they can form say a photon traveling in a straight line through the double crystal.

 

I.e. I can elegantly explain it all. The whole shebang. And: testable.

 

All done by following the back to basics rules of logic and mathematics when confronted with an unknown problem. take all observations in their essence. Answer all relevant questions by guessing. And do this in a testable way. This system takes precedence over any convention in science BTW.

 

Just as you should do in solving a crime scene. MN is a mass murdering jack the ripper. cancer MS and what not. Getting to a TOE will help solving those diseases etc. So we are in a hurry. I say she's an illusionist. As a testable suspect. BTW this is the way we quickly sent a man to the moon. Educated tested guesswork. So like Kennedy said: we chose to put a man on the moon in this decade. Well do so with TOE as well. Get to TOE this decade. Keep guessing, keep testing. Trial and error. So if I'm wrong I'm wrong.

Edited August 30, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

 

Test 2: Simulate a galaxy by accelerating the spin of a large gyro. I predict its gravity will rise comparable to the amount needed to explain DM.

 

 

 

Let's say I can spin up a small sphere quite a bit. Many RPMs. How much will gravity change based on the rotation rate?

[kristalris]

 

 

Let's say I can spin up a small sphere quite a bit. Many RPMs. How much will gravity change based on the rotation rate?

I guess an extreme amount of spin is required in order to get a measurable difference in gravity with a small sphere. The amount of change should coincide with DM in relation to the spin of a galaxy which is as I understand a known.

 

Your job / i.e. the job of scientists, not mine, to calculate how much that should be if you down size a galaxy to the size of your small sphere in order to provide the needed DM or even a measurable rise in gravity.

 

If you measure any rise in gravity then it would for current science be like observing an apple falling upwards. Like observing DM and DE is also observing apples doing just that. Hence "dark". The trick is to change all the pieces of the puzzle in such a way using verbal logic that all the apples fall down again. Yet do that in a testable way. I do that. No accuracy needed: it falls up or it doesn't. Getting it subsequently more accurate is for doing after that.

 

BTW what I state is that if you speed up matter its gravity will rise. It doesn't have to rotate. The same matter at a higher speed exerts more gravity than the same amount of matter at a lower speed / rest. A test an other guy proposed was have two massive identical spheres in a geostationary orbit and having a small droplet in between the two of which one is in a as high as possible spin. See if the droplet moves towards the spinning sphere.

 

I guess that we are very apt in detecting even the slightest changes so measuring any rise what so ever in the accelerated spin of the sphere will already prove concept. Albeit at a very much higher level of proof warranting more effort put into it. I don't know how accurate we can measure this in an I guess cluttered environment. That is for people like you to do or to support doing. What I provide you with my composition (akin like making a scenario in a crime scene in this one trying to catch MN as a mass murdering illusionist) is to guess where to start looking. I do that.

 

So to provide a norm on to say when it is busted will require indeed mathematics and knowledge of physics and what we can measure at the moment. I guess that can't be that hard taking it via some quick and dirty mathematics on some known rules of thumb.

Edited August 31, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

I guess an extreme amount in order to get a measurable difference in gravity.

 

Your job / i.e. the job of scientists, not mine, to calculate how much that should be if you down size a galaxy to the size of your small sphere in order to provide the needed DM or even a measurable rise in gravity.

It's your claim, therefore it's your job. What is the dependence of the gravitational force on the rotational speed? Experimentalists have to know what to look for. If they can achieve a certain speed where you would see a 10% change in gravity, that should be easy to see. But if that rotation only changes it by 0.0001%, then the measurement needs to be done a different way, if it can be done at all.

 

It's a waste of effort doing an experiment where you can't measure the result you hope to see.

[kristalris]

It's your claim, therefore it's your job. What is the dependence of the gravitational force on the rotational speed? Experimentalists have to know what to look for. If they can achieve a certain speed where you would see a 10% change in gravity, that should be easy to see. But if that rotation only changes it by 0.0001%, then the measurement needs to be done a different way, if it can be done at all.

It's a waste of effort doing an experiment where you can't measure the result you hope to see.

That it is my claim and thus my job is incorrect. It is the job of medics to do medicine, of bakers to bake and of scientists to do science or to support in it being done. (I can't get the boxes to work. Sorry.)

 

You know what to look for: more speed = more gravity. It doesn't have to be angular, although I guess doing it via rotation is the easiest.

 

Another guy came up with an experiment for my idea in which you take two identical massive spheres in a geostationary orbit. One spinning the other in rest in see if a droplet moves towards the moving one. And then repeat it when it is turning the other way round. Does the droplet move towards the spinning one every time? Yes? proof. No? then you need to do the mathematics. Because the latter is much cheaper and relatively easy you should do or support the doing of just that. Come on that must be relatively easy to do quick and dirty to see if it is quickly feasible to test or not.

 

Now how large the spheres must be in order to get a measurable result must be easy for any experimentalist to work out before hand. Size and mass in movemnent of galaxies is a known as is the amount of DM that is missing. You simply have to down size it all. Then you will know how hard it is going to be to measure. It is I'm quite shore not going to be that easy because otherwise we would of noticed it sooner. But if you don't know where to look then it will escape you even if it shows to be relatively easy to measure.

 

How important is it to reach a TOE quickly? Extremely.

 

How many proven testable concepts for a TOE do you have at a verbal logic level? As far as I can see only one: this one. Should be easy to prove that wrong. However even if you show 10000 of such concepts then it is so important that science should attempt to bust them all. Most probable ones first: i.e. the simple ones like mine.

 

Edit: and BTW if more speed = DM it certainly is measurable.

Edited August 31, 2013 by kristalris

[kristalris]

Okay I've been pondering a way to do the mathematics, although it is more then thirty years ago that I've been doing science classes / maths so I'm a bit rusty. Hence I'll assume quick and dirty then a galaxy being a stainless steel circular ring at say two thirds diameter of the galaxy containing all its mass/ matter in rest. Spun at the appropriate speed it exerts DM. Well then these are known quanta, right?

 

Now then down size the whole shebang by a factor that we are left with a replicate-ble ring at a replicate-ble speed and see what order of magnitude of DM we are then talking about.

 

If it is not replicate-ble because we need a ring the size of the moon spun at 10000 rpm then we must get creative in solving that problem. But maybe it isn't that difficult. Now I guess the required mathematics is simple for you and a bloody headache for me.

[swansont]

That it is my claim and thus my job is incorrect. It is the job of medics to do medicine, of bakers to bake and of scientists to do science or to support in it being done. (I can't get the boxes to work. Sorry.)

Then you are admitting you aren't doing science. After all, it is the scientists who do science.

 

It's also one of the rules of speculations that you present a model, or a way to test your claim.

 

You know what to look for: more speed = more gravity. It doesn't have to be angular, although I guess doing it via rotation is the easiest.

That's not good enough. To do science one needs to know how much — a specific prediction. One reason (among several) is so that if an experiment has been done, you can't come back and deny that your idea has been refuted.

 

Another guy came up with an experiment for my idea in which you take two identical massive spheres in a geostationary orbit. One spinning the other in rest in see if a droplet moves towards the moving one. And then repeat it when it is turning the other way round. Does the droplet move towards the spinning one every time? Yes? proof. No? then you need to do the mathematics. Because the latter is much cheaper and relatively easy you should do or support the doing of just that. Come on that must be relatively easy to do quick and dirty to see if it is quickly feasible to test or not.

But I don't know the principle you think is behind this. I have no math to do, beyond setting your effect equal to zero.

[kristalris]

Then you are admitting you aren't doing science. After all, it is the scientists who do science.

 

It's also one of the rules of speculations that you present a model, or a way to test your claim.

 

 

That's not good enough. To do science one needs to know how much — a specific prediction. One reason (among several) is so that if an experiment has been done, you can't come back and deny that your idea has been refuted.

 

 

But I don't know the principle you think is behind this. I have no math to do, beyond setting your effect equal to zero.

(Still can't get the boxes to work.)

 

I admit not being a scientist. I claim to be doing science properly to the appropriate level that is / should be the norm in science. I.e. the same applies when one sees someone on the floor still breathing and a seeming bullet hole in the head. Stating that he should that he should see a doctor to a doctor shouldn't then get the reply that I thus admit in not being a doctor and that I should first solve the medical problem for the doctor before any surgery can be done. Anyway that doctor maybe doesn't have to do all the surgery himself yet be helpful in first aid and getting the ambulance and having the hospital call up the brain surgeon.

 

 

So this model is presented in such a way that should be good enough . Speed up mass and see if the gravity rises. If that happens it is an immediate paradigm shift.

 

In science proper you go from rough to fine and don't start off with fine. rule of logic that takes precedence in science - per definition - to any convention that is taken as the rule. Logic is the rule.

 

 

The several reasons to be more exact / precise only start applying more and more as you go along. You've got your norms mixed up. (reason: psychology, history repeats itself of course.)

 

The because then you can't come back is correct if you mean "in the same way". Research is about trial and error and keeping at it. Ergo coming back in different way.

 

 

Anyway, some rough estimates to see if we agree on the start data I took from Wikipedia on Dark matter and some (rusty) arithmetic :

 

galaxy (Milky Way) mass 2 X 10 up 42 kg

 

diameter galaxy 10 up 19 m

 

our position 1/2 center

 

our rotation speed 200 km/s (excluding DE)

 

our DM gravity constant ? kg m / s up 2 (still working om that, anyone know this?) Should for us be 1/2 that of what is exerted on average to keep the whole thing from disintegrating.

 

I guess that I already spot a problem that what is given as the mass of the visible matter is to high to be true because downsizing it to a galaxy of 1 m diameter would be somewhat more massive than any known matter. Probably an error in my arithmetic, or Wikipedia or DM has been added to what we think is the visible universe.

 

What I want to do is downsize the whole thing to a 1 m ring with the appropriate mass representing a ring where we are at assuming all the visible mass of the galaxy in that ring. At rest this should account for the normal gravity when spun at the appropriate speed for the DM.

[swansont]

(Still can't get the boxes to work.)

 

I admit not being a scientist. I claim to be doing science properly to the appropriate level that is / should be the norm in science. I.e. the same applies when one sees someone on the floor still breathing and a seeming bullet hole in the head. Stating that he should that he should see a doctor to a doctor shouldn't then get the reply that I thus admit in not being a doctor and that I should first solve the medical problem for the doctor before any surgery can be done. Anyway that doctor maybe doesn't have to do all the surgery himself yet be helpful in first aid and getting the ambulance and having the hospital call up the brain surgeon.

And yet you probably don't critique a doctor in the way s/he goes about practicing medicine. The analogue here is asking if rotating systems change gravity, and the answer is that there is no mechanism for this to happen and it has never been reliably observed.

 

So this model is presented in such a way that should be good enough . Speed up mass and see if the gravity rises. If that happens it is an immediate paradigm shift.

And I am a scientist and I have been telling that this is not good enough. I don't see a model, or any compelling reason to do an experiment. I don't owe you my time, and there's no point in doing an experiment if you know from the outset that you won't see the predicted effect.