Tests for TOE on a speculation via correct scientific procedure

[kristalris]

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.

 

 

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.

Q

And yet you probably don't critique a doctor in the way s/he goes about practicing medicine.

 

EQ

 

Of course I would so would you when this going about practicing medicine entails leaving a patient to an amateur in staid of helping the patient to see a doctor. That is the casus.

 

Q

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.

EQ

 

The Higgs mechanism is the one I gave, and no not just rotating systems but any higher speed will result in this up to a point say 1/3 c. The Higgs mechanism is at the moment I gather seen as mainstream most probable on basis of – trust – reliable observational science.

 

Q

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.

EQ

 

You stated earlier on that my effect equals zero. Now let’s see then. If I understand your position correctly seeing what you repeatedly state in other threads as well is that you as a scientist physicist are not in the business of answering questions such as: “is there pressure in the system, or whether or not the cosmos is infinite or not.” Logic dictates then that if there is pressure in an infinite cosmos that is at the heart of getting to a TOE that you will never be able to observe this, and thus will never get a testable answer.

 

Now the probandum is, to see which scientific way will be quickest to get to a TOE. This because indisputably MN is a mass murderer that needs to be caught sooner instead of later, and getting to a TOE will help stem the on-going mass murder by getting many cures sooner.

 

Furthermore you state as a scientific fact that we from the outset know that we won’t see the predicted effect. Based on what evidence then? Because we never observed this. Have we ever looked properly then? No we haven’t.

 

Now you state you don’t see a model. I guess you mean by that that you don’t accept a concept for a model based on verbal logic? You don’t base this on logic, but as said on a convention.

 

Now I’ll prove to you that this convention is wrong. Something isn’t scientifically true because some majority thinks it’s true that 2 + 3 = 6. I guess you agree?

 

So your position on the probandum is not zero but close to 1 / infinity of being correct because you rigorously don’t want to answer all relevant questions. Being the latter a dictate of logic and this even mathematics. Even if I were to estimate you 10 times better than Einstein in getting to a verbal concept of a TOE and a current Einstein a 1/10 then still you (and the ones that agree with you as well) would have an a priori probability of near 1 / infinity of getting there. Pure logic, you will never get there if you don't answer all the questions given that MN is an illusionist as most current scientists agree she probably is .

 

This is thus far less than Krauss et all who believe in something from nothing. They at least answer all relevant questions. However they extrapolate mathematics out of its regime and thus end up in the Escher Institute. Predictably they indeed end up believing in stated contradiction and thus in magic with an estimated probability of say less than 1 / trillion to the trillionth. Being this better than you. And they say rightly so that it is thus possible (contrary might I add to your position that is near infinitely improbable)

 

Krauss looks down on people who believe in God. Well at least they don’t believe in contradictions, because a God isn’t in contradiction with anything we observe. There is no evidence or need for it and I strongly feel thus am convinced there is no God (depending on the definition of God, i.e. as a collective thought that exerts a power for good or bad, it IMO exists as a physical reality, like any thought. Being IMO particles bouncing around.) Yet as a bearded entity I would give it a probability of less than 1 / trillion of being correct. I.e. far more probable logic then dictates than what Krauss has to offer or you including all the mathematics in the world.

Your major error in reasoning lies in getting your norms mixed up. With GR and / or QM your mathematics reigns supreme, as long as you stay within the assumptions that both laws of physics entail. As soon as you try and marry the two, which you do when you state any position whatsoever on stated probandum your mathematics no longer apply. You are immediately logically and mathematically thrown back to the primary bottleneck of the problem garbage or non-garbage that you put into the logic / mathematics. You simply try to dodge this.

 

You apply the correct end norm yet inappropriately to a situation in which you haven’t even clarified the garbage problem. A democratic convention won’t help you there. Creative intelligence if you allow yourself to use this human trait like Einstein Newton etcetera will.

 

Now let’s have a look at the probabilistic reasoned mathematics of me being right:

 

A priori (though irrelevant for researchers yet relevant in sales) let’s say I’m a 1 / 1000^th Einstein having a 1 / 10 chance of getting a verbal thought experiment being correct on TOE so for me 1 / 10000.

Not in dispute is the ultimate need for the test of logic the test of mathematics and the test of checking stated predictions. Ergo no correction needed.

For spotting every incorrect definition / observation I get a conservative LR 10 on the probandum.

A further LR 10 for every provided correct way of doing that.

Same LR 10 for every current observation I can plausibly explain in verbal logic with my concept.

For the first inconsistency I get LR 1 / million a second 1 / 10 million third 1 / trillion.

Do feel free to change the estimates, Bayes’ mathematics subsequently will show your error in reasoning, don’t worry.

Okay here goes:

QM defined as a theory wrong 10 right being the best law we ever had: 100 (= 10 x 10)

GR idem: wrong 1000 (= 100 x 10) right 10000 (BTW Parity given the a priori)

Massless particles never observed 10000 being matter less 100000

Time dilation never observed in clocks 1000000 atom clocks slowing down have 10.000.000

Length contraction never observed 100.000.000 doppler-effect more probable 1000.000.000

Photon time dilation in GR never observed 10 up 10 speeding up holding c curving in has 10 up 11.

I could go on for quite a bit.

 

BTW since I started all revealing further evidence have made the probability rise, all corrections the same. A very good sign worth far and far more than just another LR 10 wouldn't you say?

 

Now your turn, like other scientists / physicists who came up with for me:

How do you explain electrons jump?

How do you explain electrons make 90 degree turns?

How do you explain not observing interference with light beams crossing?

How do you explain ……. Be my guest.

 

(edit: silly me I forgot to mention the fact that science the last hundred years has been diverging instead of converging on the issue, as one would expect when one isn't prepared to look at the whole integrated picture. It has become stranger and weirder still. Not strange if you persist in only looking at details.Like trying to find the loo in time using a microscope. I.e. wrong instrument / norm)

 

I claim that my creative composition is an adult educated guess that takes all the essence of what we observe in science (contrary to what you do) and answer all the questions (contrary to you) via the correct norm logic and not convention dictates.

Bayes’ mathematics proves me right and you et all wrong.

Yet history and psychology shows the problem.

Again you state to already know that the tests will not render a result, based on nothing more than a gut feeling. Even though all latterly all problems have been elegantly solved on the probandum albeit in verbal logic. There is no disputing that other than via the method used in the course on discussion by Monty Python (q.v.).

 

What are you scared of? I don’t need your time, I need your support in having the tests done. As logic dictates. Again logic presides in science proper over ANY convention.

 

​(Edit2 BTW if you mean to say that it isn't testable in the way that I stated myself earlier on i.e. if the mathematics show that we need to spin the moon at 1000 rpm to get a measurable result, then that does that mean you did the mathematics in that respect. If so will then give them. And again then still it is potentially testable, it then only constitutes a creative challenge.)

 

Yet I’m working on the mathematics.

Edited September 2, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

The Higgs mechanism is the one I gave, and no not just rotating systems but any higher speed will result in this up to a point say 1/3 c. The Higgs mechanism is at the moment I gather seen as mainstream most probable on basis of – trust – reliable observational science.

We routinely get particles moving faster than 1/3 c and see no effect. Particles in accelerators get up to better than 0.99c in systems designed to only worry about regular gravity.

 

 

Now you state you don’t see a model. I guess you mean by that that you don’t accept a concept for a model based on verbal logic? You don’t base this on logic, but as said on a convention.

 

Now I’ll prove to you that this convention is wrong. Something isn’t scientifically true because some majority thinks it’s true that 2 + 3 = 6. I guess you agree?

That's math, not science. Science is valid/true if it agrees with experiment. In this matter one needs a more specific prediction. I can spin a basketball, or drive a car, and not notice any change in gravity. Obviously the purported effect is smaller than that. So, the question remains, what are the mass and speed requirements? Is the effect linear with speed (i.e. if the speed doubles does the effect double?)

 

What I am requesting is that you do a little science and come up with a testable prediction. It's a science site, and it's also what the rules require (the two are related).

[kristalris]

 

A. We routinely get particles moving faster than 1/3 c and see no effect. Particles in accelerators get up to better than 0.99c in systems designed to only worry about regular gravity.

B That's math, not science. Science is valid/true if it agrees with experiment. In this matter one needs a more specific prediction. I can spin a basketball, or drive a car, and not notice any change in gravity. Obviously the purported effect is smaller than that. So, the question remains, what are the mass and speed requirements? Is the effect linear with speed (i.e. if the speed doubles does the effect double?)

 

C What I am requesting is that you do a little science and come up with a testable prediction. It's a science site, and it's also what the rules require (the two are related).

(Could it be my updated software because I can't get the quote boxes to work whereas they worked fine in the past?)

 

ad A: We routinely get non massless (i.e. matterless) particles past 1/3 c? If so the effect I'm looking for should be testable although it also provides a serious problem for my model. Large particles should somewhere along the line run into problems: humongous amounts of energy to make it go it bit faster and instability increasing. My model can only provide room for small particles to get anywhere near c. I.e. can we get an atom to 0.99c or even close or past 1/3 c? Edit if we can get atoms near c then my idea is busted. What we should see in this model is that the smallest can reach c and the larger it becomes the slower it can go thru the Higgs field.

 

ad B: because my concept - contrary to many other ideas I've seen on this - simply doesn't (as far as I'm aware (unless ad A)) - infringe on any current experiments / observations / mathematics. I've simply rearranged the pieces of the puzzle without doing that (unless ad A then). So my model incorporates present scientific experiment based evidence. And thus can claim it for backing itself.

 

ad C I like BTW two nuclear physicists who commented on my concept make a distinction between what is readily testable and what is potentially testable.

I'm still unclear on your position? I'll readily accept that no feasible contraption at the moment can be built to easily falsify my position. Is that what you state? I.e.the necessity of spinning the moon at 1000 rpm to get a measurable result is still a potentially testable issue.

 

That then would pose a challenge like Einstein had to contend with finally solved when someone (Einstein?) dreamt up the solution of measuring the light when a star moves behind an other celestial object. And Lorentz sent his famous telegram confirming the prediction.

 

I.e if true what I'm saying it must be falsifiable by observation / experiment.

 

Edit2 even the question whether or not the cosmos is infinite or not is (on an appropriate norm) testable: if taking it to be infinite (like I do ) and it then provides an elegant and simple explanation of it all, and it proves to be impossible to do the other in that way then you can claim proof.

Edited September 2, 2013 by kristalris

[Klaynos]

Lead ions have been accelerated at CERT up to 287 TeV per beam. That's a pretty bit ion pretty close to c. In your own words, your idea is busted.

[swansont]

Yep. There's also the RHIC. Idea is busted.

[ajb]

Bayes’ mathematics proves me right and you et all wrong.

WOW, a mathematical proof that all of science is wrong ;-)

[kristalris]

Yep. There's also the RHIC. Idea is busted.

Oh dear oh dear, first of all please you both brush up on your probabilistic reasoning (i.e. proper reasoning). You don't trash an idea for one error especially not on a side issue. Further more we left that game with you being near infinitely incorrect and me the same so in being correct on the probandum of having a compelling reason to further research into this idea via the test of verbal logic, the test of mathematics, the test of experiment and or the test of observation.

 

For instance your best opposition lies in the problem of interference. But even there I had on another site an idea on the double slit experiment, that was shown to be wanting because someone had a better explanation. My idea thus not ending hanging on by the nails but having been improved.

 

And sorry, ions and RHIC don't form a problem but they are strong support of my idea. So like shouting a false Bingo you go 1/10 down and I go - again - LR 10 up as a conservative estimate.

 

An ion is an atom with less or no electrons. Well that is like a helicopter (see above) with all or part of the rotors gone. Yes, then the helicopter could go close to the speed of sound, like an ion close to c.

 

In order to go faster in the Higgs field the atom has to shed its electrons. Right up my ally you see?

 

BTW typical production department state of mind to want to trash an idea for having (seemingly even) made one mistake. That is indeed good in production. This however is a research question on TOE where you accept making mistakes and try to learn from them (see above double slit example). Yet I didn't make any mistake in regard to Ions (although I didn't know exactly what they where and that they can reach near c)

 

Further more in trying to find the mathematics I came across a NASA site on which is said that in reference to all space are galaxy is not only spinning but also on the move in a specific direction at 200 km/s. That would be the common sense way of looking at it. On Occam's razor thus probably better than looking at it via SR. Again right up my ally LR 10 again. And if so it should be possible to do the same from the vantage point of other galaxies. They should if (this part) of my idea is correct all be moving outward. That is another test for going through already available observational data.

 

Again my idea is not busted, yours is. Obliterated even.

WOW, a mathematical proof that all of science is wrong ;-)

Nope. You to brush up on your Bayes. (On what probandum was it again?)

Edited September 3, 2013 by kristalris

[ajb]

Anyway, kristalris we should try to keep this all as civil as possible.

 

The problem as I see it with your idea is that there is no actual prediction here. Swansont would like to have a clear idea of what he is looking for before designing his experiment and then asking for a potentially a lot of money from a funding body. To do that you will need some proposed mechanism that allows you to calculate what you would expect to see. He will of course allow some range due to approximations and similar.

 

But without some mechanism and some numbers no one is likely to try to test your ideas.

 

That is the truth of it...

[ACG52]

When lawyers believe they're arguing physics, there's seldom any sense being made.

[Klaynos]

I.e. can we get an atom to 0.99c or even close or past 1/3 c? Edit if we can get atoms near c then my idea is busted.

You are now backing away from this clear statement? Why should we trust any other "prediction" you come up with?

[kristalris]

You are now backing away from this clear statement? Why should we trust any other "prediction" you come up with?

If I say that helicopters can't fly faster than say 1/3 mach 1 because the tip of the rotor passes mach 1 and then the opponent showing a helicopter that has shed three of its four rotor blades going near mach 1 clearly doesn't bust the stated idea. You get an instable helicopter. I.e. you don't get a fully blown atom even close to c that still stands. I was not aware that ions can still be called atoms. You're trying to make it into dialectics. A helicopter with one blade left is a dubious helicopter and clearly not what was meant by the statement. Same goes for ions. It was / should of been to you as well on forehand clear that if you can get an atom with all its electrons in place near c my idea is busted. That it might be possible to get one near c with one or two electrons still clinging on doesn't disprove my point.

 

Furthermore a helicopter with a very small blade can in theory go close to mach 1 so to speak because the tip of the rotor will reach mach 1 later. The same goes for ions with an electron near by spinning around the nucleus.

 

Again not only does my idea still stand it is strengthened by what was stated. The electrons close to the nucleus clearly prevent the Ion atom reaching c because the electron can't pass c.. So I'm not backing down one iota or ion for that matter.

 

edit: the correct norm based on logic is that this problem should be dealt with in verbal logic and not mathematics. I showed this with the mathematics of Bayes. First deal with the garbage or non garbage in problem, then do the mathematics. The convention that mathematics is required to diced on the garbage issue is illogical.

Anyway, kristalris we should try to keep this all as civil as possible.

 

The problem as I see it with your idea is that there is no actual prediction here. Swansont would like to have a clear idea of what he is looking for before designing his experiment and then asking for a potentially a lot of money from a funding body. To do that you will need some proposed mechanism that allows you to calculate what you would expect to see. He will of course allow some range due to approximations and similar.

 

But without some mechanism and some numbers no one is likely to try to test your ideas.

 

That is the truth of it...

Don't worry I'm always civil.

 

Well the problem is there is a prediction that is sufficient to warrant further investigation. Not indeed to the extent that we should go about building a new collider, but sufficient to have science backing further investigation.

 

The problem is incorrect / illogical norms on stated probanda.

 

The actual core of my idea is the computer simulation showing it all going to order or not. Not expensive to do but for me impossible because for one the lack of the necessary computer etc etc.. That would bust my idea if it doesn't prove possible assuming we can simulate superconductivity in a present computer.

 

Same goes for the possibility of seeing on existing data if indeed from stated reference galaxies are all more or less moving in the same direction.

 

And again, you are in effect asking a layman to perform brain surgery of a clear patient in need of surgery. The latter is my argument for which I don't have to be a doctor in order to make.

Edited September 3, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

You don't trash an idea for one error especially not on a side issue.

It depends on the kind of error. When a theory predicts something can't happen, and it does, the theory is trashed. But really this is moot

 

can we get an atom to 0.99c or even close or past 1/3 c? Edit if we can get atoms near c then my idea is busted. What we should see in this model is that the smallest can reach c and the larger it becomes the slower it can go thru the Higgs field.

 

(emphasis aded) You said that if this was true, the theory is busted. Don't go chiding me for simply quoting you on this.

 

Again not only does my idea still stand it is strengthened by what was stated. The electrons close to the nucleus clearly prevent the Ion atom reaching c because the electron can't pass c.. So I'm not backing down one iota or ion for that matter.

 

 

There is nothing clear about an hypothesis that hasn't been presented except in very vague terms. I thought the issue here was mass. (Why is that? Because you said so) A lead ion is much more massive than anything below it on the periodic table.

 

The reasoning here is backwards. If the electrons are the problem with getting close to c, that's a problem with atoms as well. And this points to another reason fro requiring a model instead of a few hand-wavy sentences, which I mentioned before: it makes a clear prediction and doesn't allow the claimant to backtrack or weasel out of a claim.

[kristalris]

It depends on the kind of error. When a theory predicts something can't happen, and it does, the theory is trashed. But really this is moot

 

 

(emphasis aded) You said that if this was true, the theory is busted. Don't go chiding me for simply quoting you on this.

 

There is nothing clear about an hypothesis that hasn't been presented except in very vague terms. I thought the issue here was mass. (Why is that? Because you said so) A lead ion is much more massive than anything below it on the periodic table.

 

The reasoning here is backwards. If the electrons are the problem with getting close to c, that's a problem with atoms as well. And this points to another reason fro requiring a model instead of a few hand-wavy sentences, which I mentioned before: it makes a clear prediction and doesn't allow the claimant to backtrack or weasel out of a claim.

I say there is a patient still breathing lying on the ground with a seeming bulletwound to the head in need of quick medical attention, preferably a brain surgeon. Then the brain surgeon comes along with his microscope on asking me to be more specific as a layman on what's wrong. So to the best of my knowledge I say it's a wound in the temporal lobe. The brain surgeon looks with his microscope and sees nothing wrong. Then I say well maybe not the temporal lobe but in the head. Sorry says the brain surgeon we can't have this vague hand waving bit, for you to backtrack or weasel out of it. There is no proof of a patient in need. I'm going.

 

I guess everyone agrees that this would be ludicrous, and that the brain surgeon has his norms mixed up. In general don't look for patients in need of help with a microscope, use your eye's and if need be specs.

 

Furthermore my model as a concept is vague because in this phase it isn't allowed to be anything else. I say the face of the picture observing MN is a circle Krauss says it is pear shaped and you say you see nothing. Well there is nothing vague about it being either pear shaped, round or nothing. That we are not yet so far with this picture to draw eyes and a nose has got nothing to do with it. Yet you demand me to do so.

 

The required norm even for physicists working out an idea on TOE or a concept thereof is to go from the integral rough outline towards fine. So don't be like mentioned brain surgeon, because that is evidently wrong. Even given that the brain surgeon performs brilliantly in specific fields. You are out of those fields in this topic.

 

My model is clear enough to be compelling for further research. I even gave the mathematics on why that is so.

 

I'n not weaseling out of anything, you are by trying to be formalistic about something that doesn't warrant that.

[swansont]

You made a make-or-break prediction, and your model failed. The response here makes me less inclined to look for another experiment, since my fears that you'll just say "that's not a contradiction" seem to be very well-founded.

 

My model is clear enough to be compelling for further research.

The people reading it don't seem to think it's clear.

 

I even gave the mathematics on why that is so.

Where?

[ajb]

The brain surgeon analogy is not good. It is more like someone with no medical training or reasonable knowledge of anatomy telling a brain surgeon to cut more of the brain out during an operation!

 

That said, I am sure many brain surgeons would be happy to tell you why one needs to be careful doing so.

[kristalris]

A You made a make-or-break prediction, and your model failed. The response here makes me less inclined to look for another experiment, since my fears that you'll just say "that's not a contradiction" seem to be very well-founded.

 

 

B The people reading it don't seem to think it's clear.

 

 

C Where?

A I did and my model succeeded brilliantly where it should count: the material substance. Your formalistic fears are inherently ill founded. You are into dialectics. With my simple example using the brain surgeon I make this clear. You don't say that this example is wrong or where it fails in the comparison. The reason is simple: you can't because it is correct.

 

B. Some people should take off there microscopes whilst reading it. Again wrong norm. Logic dictates this and logic in science takes precedence over the convention of studying everything via the microscope concerning physics. That is evidently wrong.

 

 

 

C. The Bayes bit earlier on.

The brain surgeon analogy is not good. It is more like someone with no medical training or reasonable knowledge of anatomy telling a brain surgeon to cut more of the brain out during an operation!

 

That said, I am sure many brain surgeons would be happy to tell you why one needs to be careful doing so.

Nope. The analogy is spot on. MN is a mass murderer reaching TOE in time will save lives. Seeing therefore the search for TOE as a patient is correct and my concept for TOE as the diagnose that the patient has an apparent bullet hole in the head is correct. You say there is nothing wrong with any patient because I as a layman can't pinpoint the hole in the head with enough accuracy for a brain surgeon wanting to use a microscope.

 

My position is this explicitly not one in which I tell the brain surgeon how to perform surgery, but to do the surgery and not let me do it. Yet I am telling him not to use a microscope in search for a patient. And rightly so might I ad.

 

Again even a layman can tell a brain surgeon to first use his eyes in search for a stated bullet hole and later on decide if a microscope is in order when the eye has caught on the apparent bullet hole. Denying the bullet hole that any layman can see is ludicrous even if with closer inspection it might prove not to be the problem. In this case I pointed just beside the bullet hole and that is seen as a uncorrectable error.

Edited September 3, 2013 by kristalris

[ajb]

You say there is nothing wrong with any patient because I as a layman can't pinpoint the hole in the head with enough accuracy for a brain surgeon wanting to use a microscope.

Where has anyone said that we know everything there is to know in physics and that there are no open problems?

 

Your analogy is weak and especially if we look at not so obvious injuries.

 

 

My position is this explicitly not one in which I tell the brain surgeon how to perform surgery, but to do the surgery en not let me do it. Yet I am telling him not to use a microscope in search for a patient. And rightly so might I ad.

I now really fail to see the analogy.

 

Generally, people focus in on small areas of science. This is partly because it would be an impossible task to lean all the tools used across science. This includes specific sciences like physics or indeed mathematics. There are some over reaching principals but in order to progress science needs people to be focused on specific problems.

 

So, why call a brain surgeon for your patient and not say a dermatologist?

[Bignose]

Edit if we can get atoms near c then my idea is busted.

A I did and my model succeeded brilliantly where it should count: the material substance.

Wow, just wow. He actually tries to make a definitive statement, and then he tries to weasel out of it. Just admit you made a mistake. It's nothing personal, every single one of us has made mistakes. What is important is to learn from them and learn how to make our models stronger.

 

And your Bayesian reasoning is utter nonsense. The words you use demonstrate that you don't even know how the tool works. A Bayesian analysis never 'proves' anything. It demonstrates when one scenario may be more probable than another, but that is never a 'proof'. The fact that you misunderstand this basic idea from the analysis calls into question whether the analysis is in any way correct.

[kristalris]

A. Where has anyone said that we know everything there is to know in physics and that there are no open problems?

 

B. Your analogy is weak and especially if we look at not so obvious injuries.

 

 

 

C. I now really fail to see the analogy.

 

D. Generally, people focus in on small areas of science. This is partly because it would be an impossible task to lean all the tools used across science. This includes specific sciences like physics or indeed mathematics. There are some over reaching principals but in order to progress science needs people to be focused on specific problems.

 

E. So, why call a brain surgeon for your patient and not say a dermatologist?

A. I don't state that neither does this analogy. The analogy is about using the correct norms concerning the correct phase one is in. This is the concept phase so don't be too exact. You need people with the personality trait of openness to work that. Someone short of that simply can't do that. Be pliable, like a doctor should be examining a patient. You go from the integral broad problem and then narrow it down and differentiate.

 

B &C . My concept marries GR to Newton to QM in a common sense verbal logic way (and more) pointing to an as yet not seen bullet hole in the head. The patient without having GR and QM married is still lying there. Any layman can see that. So it is a strong analogy.

 

D. Precisely that is what is wrong in general. Nobody dares to take into account the whole integral picture anymore because no one is capable of being exact enough across the integral board. Yet TOE is an inherent integral problem / patient.

 

E. The brain surgeon in this case stands for physicist / astronomer / any exact scientist. Later on when these have more accurately found the patient and the stated bullet hole will more specific questions come in order if any specialists are needed such as a dermatologist (being a doctor first and foremost as well)

A. Wow, just wow. He actually tries to make a definitive statement, and then he tries to weasel out of it. Just admit you made a mistake. It's nothing personal, every single one of us has made mistakes. What is important is to learn from them and learn how to make our models stronger.

 

B. And your Bayesian reasoning is utter nonsense. The words you use demonstrate that you don't even know how the tool works. A Bayesian analysis never 'proves' anything. It demonstrates when one scenario may be more probable than another, but that is never a 'proof'. The fact that you misunderstand this basic idea from the analysis calls into question whether the analysis is in any way correct.

A. I admitted to the mistake of not knowing that an ion can be an atom. So? That doesn't bust my idea one bit old boy. You don't admit that my concept with the analogy of the helicopter works just fine in explaining what you observe shooting lead ions to near c. And why it doesn't get to c. You admit to that. The helicopter analogy was given beforehand BTW.

 

B. A Bayesian analysis most certainly does prove something according to the applied norm. So if you set your posterior odds at more than 1000 / 1 then when the prior odds times all the LR goes beyond that it is proof.

 

Being exactly spot on the problem in this whole discussion you don't know about any other applicable norms then the highest. Norms must be correct not too high or too low.

[Bignose]

My concept marries GR to Newton to QM in a common sense verbal logic way

But it apparently sucks as making predictions, and hence is really of very, very limited value.

 

I'll stick with the domains where QM & GR make excellent predictions (and stay away from the known limitations) instead of having 1 single theory that doesn't make good predictions everywhere.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Bignose

[ajb]

Precisely that is what is wrong in general. Nobody dares to take into account the whole integral picture anymore because no one is capable of being exact enough across the integral board. Yet TOE is an inherent integral problem / patient.

There is just too much to become an expert in it all. That is the way it is and I see no way out of that.

 

A TOE is an interesting problem, but not everyone works on that and it is not necessarily of great direct impotence to all areas of physics, let alone science. It would revolutionise our fundamental understanding of physics at high energy, but for the most part people will still be using more "mundane" physics everyday.

 

Anyway, you are right we don't have such a TOE, that is "your bullet". We see that.

[kristalris]

A. I don't state that neither does this analogy. The analogy is about using the correct norms concerning the correct phase one is in. This is the concept phase so don't be too exact. You need people with the personality trait of openness to work that. Someone short of that simply can't do that. Be pliable, like a doctor should be examining a patient. You go from the integral broad problem and then narrow it down and differentiate.

 

B &C . My concept marries GR to Newton to QM in a common sense verbal logic way (and more) pointing to an as yet not seen bullet hole in the head. The patient without having GR and QM married is still lying there. Any layman can see that. So it is a strong analogy.

 

D. Precisely that is what is wrong in general. Nobody dares to take into account the whole integral picture anymore because no one is capable of being exact enough across the integral board. Yet TOE is an inherent integral problem / patient.

 

E. The brain surgeon in this case stands for physicist / astronomer / any exact scientist. Later on when these have more accurately found the patient and the stated bullet hole will more specific questions come in order if any specialists are needed such as a dermatologist (being a doctor first and foremost as well)

A. I admitted to the mistake of not knowing that an ion can be an atom. So? That doesn't bust my idea one bit old boy. You don't admit that my concept with the analogy of the helicopter works just fine in explaining what you observe shooting lead ions to near c. And why it doesn't get to c. You admit to that. The helicopter analogy was given beforehand BTW.

 

B. A Bayesian analysis most certainly does prove something according to the applied norm. So if you set your posterior odds at more than 1000 / 1 then when the prior odds times all the LR goes beyond that it is proof. It is the hole bloody object of bayesian probabilistic reasoning old boy. To use a tool to better understand when to hold something for true: i.e. for being proven.

 

Being exactly spot on the problem in this whole discussion you don't know about any other applicable norms then the highest. Norms must be correct not too high or too low.

A. But it apparently sucks as making predictions, and hence is really of very, very limited value.

 

B. I'll stick with the domains where QM & GR make excellent predictions (and stay away from the known limitations) instead of having 1 single theory that doesn't make good predictions everywhere.

A. What is sucking in the prediction that the stated computer simulation will go to a predicted order of a dynamic crystal? It either does or doesn't.

 

B. You want to stay away from TOE, but why then state position? On what do you base the notion that a TOE can't be relatively easy to reach within say this decade?

On what do you base the notion that working it like a crime scene won't work? It is proven to work with crime scenes and in science for that matter.

 

The problem is your definition of "good". You want microscopic accuracy before hand. Now that can't be had. Yet you can't leave it at that. There are Einsteins / Newtons out there that can perform the trick but don't for fear of being ridiculed if they fail in the attempt. I see no valid reason that a present day Einstein can't get to a TOE with a 1/10 probability. Thus 9/10 fail rate. On what do you base that he can't? (Like I stated earlier, though irrelevant: I'm but a 1/1000 Einstein.)

[ajb]

I see no valid reason that a present day Einstein can't get to a TOE with a 1/10 probability.

The probability you give is meaningless. Anyway, you do acknowledge, even if you don't really understand why, a TOE is a very difficult and technical problem?

[kristalris]

There is just too much to become an expert in it all. That is the way it is and I see no way out of that.

 

A TOE is an interesting problem, but not everyone works on that and it is not necessarily of great direct impotence to all areas of physics, let alone science. It would revolutionise our fundamental understanding of physics at high energy, but for the most part people will still be using more "mundane" physics everyday.

 

Anyway, you are right we don't have such a TOE, that is "your bullet". We see that.

You could and probably are wrong there. With a TOE I suspect just the same revolution as GR & QM made possible. Understanding the fundamentals makes it all much easier.

 

My point is for a first testable concept you don't need to be an expert again you are applying to high a norm. Like solving a crime scene you need imagination and not so much in the first place accuracy to quickly solve it. The required accuracy comes later on in the game.

 

 

I'm only pointing you where to look for TOE in a granted broad sense, based on the objectively verifiable rule of addressing all problems and taking in all observations in their essence.

 

And, you can't discount the fact that I do so in an integrated way.

The probability you give is meaningless. Anyway, you do acknowledge, even if you don't really understand why, a TOE is a very difficult and technical problem?

Oh I do understand that it is breathtakingly complex. Even if say for the argument my computer simulation is done and it goes to order of a dynamic crystal. Even then TOE is a bloody long way off. A hell of a lot of very complicated and hard work will have to ensue. Because you then have only a glimpse of the solution needed.

Edited September 3, 2013 by kristalris

[Bignose]

You want to stay away from TOE, but why then state position? On what do you base the notion that a TOE can't be relatively easy to reach within say this decade?

I don't state any such position.

 

My stated position is that I want theories that make good predictions. And that I in no way will support any concept that makes worse predictions just for the sake of being a theory of everything. Lack of accurate predictions severely limits the usefulness of any idea. This is no different.

 

And lastly I have always stated that when someone wants to replace a theory, they need to show up with more accurate predictions than the current theory. At face value, this is an exceptionally easy hurdle to understand: the model that makes the most accurate predictions is favored. But, do understand that the current theories, GR & QM, have been supremely successful in their respective domains.

 

I have no doubt that there is something missing. QM & GR are known to be incorrect in that they are at least missing something. But, no self respecting scientist is going to just toss them out until there is a replacement that is at least as good.

 

And since your supposed better idea has already been busted -- been show to be significantly worse than the ideas was have currently -- it really has very little scientific value. Scientific value is almost wholly based on how accurately predictions can be made.