Tests for TOE on a speculation via correct scientific procedure

[ajb]

A. No, I say you can lift a living frog in a very strong magnetic field.

And this proves that photons/electromagnetic field cannot act as a source of gravity how?

 

Anyway, I now wonder if this thread is now in the domain of a troll.

Edited September 9, 2013 by ajb

[kristalris]

And this proves that photons/electromagnetic field cannot act as a source of gravity how?

 

Anyway, I now wonder if this thread is now in the domain of a troll.

I don't know what you are talking about. I've never stated that photons are a source of gravity but I've expressly stated quite the opposite. And I've stated that one can levitate a living frog in a magnetic fieldhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation

 

Why do you feel that I'm just after an emotional response with you? I'm trying to get a rational logical response, yet not always getting such a response. It is a known psychological fact that stating something that should lead to a paradigm shift insights emotional responses. So, that doesn't mean that when you get emotional - if that is indeed the case - that this is the object.

[ajb]

I don't know what you are talking about. I've never stated that photons are a source of gravity but I've expressly stated quite the opposite.

I am not suprised you do not follow what I am saying.

 

You have stated that photons cannot be a source of gravity, this is at odds with general relativity. Anything that carries energy-momentum can be a source. This is why I think your idea of "matterless" is not well founded, and of course you have not really explained what that means.

 

 

And I've stated that one can levitate a living frog in a magnetic fieldhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation

Yes, that is well known and nothing to do with electromagnetic fields being sources of gravity or not.

 

 

 

Why do you feel that I'm just after an emotional response with you?

Well, you don't really seem to be trying to understand what anyone here is telling you. You clearly don't understand physics and the question must be do you really want to understand physics? If you do not what to understand physics, then I see you as a troll. I am not sure I will be posting in this thread much longer.

 

 

. It is a known psychological fact that stating something that should lead to a paradigm shift insights emotional responses

My emotional response to that was to laugh!

Edited September 9, 2013 by ajb

[swansont]

I don't know what you are talking about. I've never stated that photons are a source of gravity but I've expressly stated quite the opposite.

One more thing that contradicts your claim that you aren't at odds with GR.

 

It is a known psychological fact that stating something that should lead to a paradigm shift insights emotional responses

Lots if things incite emotional responses.

 

As Sagan put it, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown"

 

Along with a few other good ones

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

 

Or put another way, while it may be true that all paradigm shift proposals elicit emotional responses, not all emotional responses are the result of presenting paradigm shift proposals. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted.

 

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/logician.php

[kristalris]

A. This is a science site. You need to get used to using scientific definitions. In that context, time dilation has been observed.

 

B. It's a model problem to predict it, but the very fact that you predict it means that your model is not Lorentz invariant.

 

 

C. Restores itself? What crystal?

 

D. Anyway, the very fact that you have terms that should be invariant depending on a frame means this is false.

 

 

E. "We" do?

A. Time dilation has been inferred in indeed a context, this has been done on a verbal logic level as we have established. That is the science of it. In science when you have a dispute if something is correctly inferred you go back to the primary data. In this case the measurement. Which can not only lead but extremely probably leads via the same verbal logic to other conclusions as I've done.

 

B. Again then: as long as you keep the laws of Newton in their domain then these laws are not in conflict with GR.

 

My point is if you keep GR within its domain: namely that of the SM then there is no conflict with my model. Stating otherwise is saying that GR has no limits and no concept may provide such a limit. Because otherwise it becomes impossible to falsify or prove any concept. Because the very means needed to do that is the issue at hand.

 

On what evidence do you base the claim - if any - that GR holds true outside the SM? No one in science says that apart from maybe Krauss et al and then I guess only implicitly.

 

My model shows why if you look through your GR microscope at the problem why you observe that it is Lorentz invariant when observed like that. Reason is simple my model is under your radar so to speak. What you would call two (maybe three if you don't accept the third element o my model: absolute nothing (and a lot of it) unicorns. Yet not magical they are based on logical deduction as the - only - way in making all the apples fall down again in physics where the past hundred years we see more and more observations that can't be explained other than by in effect magic as Krauss et al do. And don't forget all the particles in the SM are former unicorns.

 

That you don't know what I mean by crystal is a pity because the core of the idea is a dynamic crystal that can be tested in the computer simulation in the OP. The first idea was a universe with just one particle in such a crystal and that was a good idea. Only the concept or prototype plane spun out of control because it needed a second particle crystal. Now it is stable. That is what you should do adapt and improve a concept.

 

So facit you claim an infringement on GR based on looking at it via GR. That is logically incorrect. You must look at GR from the perspective of the model. You didn't because you didn't even grasp the main point of the entire model: the dynamic double crystal with two particles > c. One smaller and faster one slower. As we have established and confirmed by ajb it is educated guesswork. You need to fill in the assumed missing pieces of the puzzle. And, like we two have also established this needs to be inferred out of the data and put in a context of verbal logic thus, because we are trying to determine what to put into the mathematics.

 

Not only have you failed to show where my model conflicts with GR or QM for that matter Logic the Lorentz invariance doesn't take in account speeds > c. I do, my model can't be in conflict with any observation concerning this. And it explains why you think you see this invariance. If a crystal restores itself > c the illusion is created by MN quicker than the eye i.e. your observation.

 

BTW a lot of testing has been done on the Lorentz invariance so that is good. But that doesn't disprove this.

 

So

 

1. my model under pressure doesn't get worse it gets better: Atom Ion showed the helicopter analogy get through with flying colors. So does it pass the attack that it would be in violation of Lorentz, it isn't it does one better it explains it. (And many more instances before that) Like with any good idea the pieces of the puzzle fall into place quickly without having to bend over backwards in a pretzel.

2. My model concept is exceedingly simple versus the extreme complexity of what we now have

3. My model explains it all and potentially all there is to explain, whereas you have none at the moment;

4. My model is testable / potentially testable.

 

Because my model does not infringe on anything of current science it can lay claim on the mathematics of current science in support of it. Simple logic if it doesn't conflict it is okay.

 

This proves a concept i.e. that it warrants further effort put into it by science and claim at least the moral backing for that.

 

D. If we observe photons indeed exerting gravity (which would then have to be extremely weak for light traveling for billions of years should then of lumped.) then it would mean that the double dynamic crystal higgs field provides this very slowly at relativistic speeds. Even that wouldn't be in conflict with the model. This model can easily accommodate a lot of side issues and is testable at it's core: the forming (or even near forming of the order of ) a dynamic crystal. And whether or not speeding something up creating the extra amount of gravity needed to explain DM. These two points must be testable.

 

A dictate of logic that takes precedence over any convention asking for anything more in order to start testing.

 

In this I see that I unwittingly already reacted to both posts that were posted while I was writing this. I can't get them opened and dare not for fear of losing what I wrote.

 

edit 2 shall we try and stick to GR and QM insofar it has been verified by observation, because I'm not aware that photons exerting gravity have indeed been observed.

A. I am not suprised you do not follow what I am saying.

 

B. You have stated that photons cannot be a source of gravity, this is at odds with general relativity. Anything that carries energy-momentum can be a source. This is why I think your idea of "matterless" is not well founded, and of course you have not really explained what that means.

 

 

 

C. Yes, that is well known and nothing to do with electromagnetic fields being sources of gravity or not.

 

 

 

 

D. Well, you don't really seem to be trying to understand what anyone here is telling you. You clearly don't understand physics and the question must be do you really want to understand physics? If you do not what to understand physics, then I see you as a troll. I am not sure I will be posting in this thread much longer.

 

 

 

E. My emotional response to that was to laugh!

A & B see my reaction earlier that I posted not yet having read this. The same goes for electrons as for photons.

 

My model does not conflict with any observationally confirmed anything that GR or QM or any other law states or can be made to fit easily. As long as it's testable which it is, that can't be a problem for a concept.

 

Like a prototype (or concept airplane) it is quite normal to alter it like I've kept on doing. The thing is does it subsequently get stronger? It does and has.

 

D. as you see I have done and do.

 

E. Excellent, always good to try and take the mickey out of someone, although I explicitly try not to do that back in this case.

A. The equations provide stunningly accurate predictions of observations.

 

B. To do things properly it takes time. I don't see this as an argument against the current method, your method has achieved nothing.

A. I don't contest that. It is not the issue.

 

B. Look at it like this: the current scientific method has won the national cup, the european and the world cup. Since a hundred years or so the rowing team of science has been in the race for the Olympic gold on TOE. Pity they have been rowing in the wrong direction by diverging instead of converging on a solution for TOE. Why? first of all by not putting it high on the agenda and secondly because they have acted like a doctor with a microscope in front of the head in search for the patient. very high Monty Python level is thus granted. The fact that they won all the other prizes doesn't count in this game as I guess you understand.

 

Furthermore on authority what is the authority of current science on reaching a TOE within the decade given Einstein a 1/10 chance? If you want to give Einstein any other value be my guest. Mine is 1/ 10000 although irrelevant BTW because if a concept or idea is simple and explaines it all without infringing on verified parts of GR / QM / current science and is testable it should be tested. Otherwise you are rowing in an excellent way creating much worthwhile data yet in Monty Python style in the wrong direction.

 

Ajb and I have already established that fundamental research as on TOE saves lives so we are in a hurry.

Edited September 9, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

A. Time dilation has been inferred in indeed a context, this has been done on a verbal logic level as we have established. That is the science of it. In science when you have a dispute if something is correctly inferred you go back to the primary data. In this case the measurement. Which can not only lead but extremely probably leads via the same verbal logic to other conclusions as I've done.

There's nothing wrong with the data. GPS works. Until you come up with an alternative model that actually predicts the amount of dilation and the source of it, you have nothing.

 

 

 

B. Again then: as long as you keep the laws of Newton in their domain then these laws are not in conflict with GR.

 

My point is if you keep GR within its domain: namely that of the SM then there is no conflict with my model. Stating otherwise is saying that GR has no limits and no concept may provide such a limit. Because otherwise it becomes impossible to falsify or prove any concept. Because the very means needed to do that is the issue at hand.

GR is not part of the SM.

 

On what evidence do you base the claim - if any - that GR holds true outside the SM? No one in science says that apart from maybe Krauss et al and then I guess only implicitly.

 

My model shows why if you look through your GR microscope at the problem why you observe that it is Lorentz invariant when observed like that. Reason is simple my model is under your radar so to speak. What you would call two (maybe three if you don't accept the third element o my model: absolute nothing (and a lot of it) unicorns. Yet not magical they are based on logical deduction as the - only - way in making all the apples fall down again in physics where the past hundred years we see more and more observations that can't be explained other than by in effect magic as Krauss et al do. And don't forget all the particles in the SM are former unicorns.

GR is not part of the SM

 

That you don't know what I mean by crystal is a pity because the core of the idea is a dynamic crystal that can be tested in the computer simulation in the OP. The first idea was a universe with just one particle in such a crystal and that was a good idea. Only the concept or prototype plane spun out of control because it needed a second particle crystal. Now it is stable. That is what you should do adapt and improve a concept.

I pretty much ignored the crystal part because your discussion on relativity was so misinformed.

 

So facit you claim an infringement on GR based on looking at it via GR. That is logically incorrect.

No, it's based on your claim that your model doesn't have a conflict with GR. It does. One sees that by looking at GR.

 

 

You must look at GR from the perspective of the model. You didn't because you didn't even grasp the main point of the entire model: the dynamic double crystal with two particles > c. One smaller and faster one slower. As we have established and confirmed by ajb it is educated guesswork. You need to fill in the assumed missing pieces of the puzzle. And, like we two have also established this needs to be inferred out of the data and put in a context of verbal logic thus, because we are trying to determine what to put into the mathematics.

 

Not only have you failed to show where my model conflicts with GR or QM for that matter Logic the Lorentz invariance doesn't take in account speeds > c. I do, my model can't be in conflict with any observation concerning this. And it explains why you think you see this invariance. If a crystal restores itself > c the illusion is created by MN quicker than the eye i.e. your observation.

 

BTW a lot of testing has been done on the Lorentz invariance so that is good. But that doesn't disprove this.

I have to assume what you mean here is that you can replicate the results of GR with your model. That's different. It also means more than just this corner of physics, since there is an inter-relatedness of physics. If you do away with relativity, you also do away with E&M, which is really relativity for charges. You're saying that all of physics works differently than what standard physics says about it.

 

Without a testable model, i.e. math, nobody cares. You don't get a special pass on this just because you're convinced you're right.

 

So

 

1. my model under pressure doesn't get worse it gets better: Atom Ion showed the helicopter analogy get through with flying colors. So does it pass the attack that it would be in violation of Lorentz, it isn't it does one better it explains it. (And many more instances before that) Like with any good idea the pieces of the puzzle fall into place quickly without having to bend over backwards in a pretzel.

2. My model concept is exceedingly simple versus the extreme complexity of what we now have

3. My model explains it all and potentially all there is to explain, whereas you have none at the moment;

4. My model is testable / potentially testable.

Then why is it that getting something specific to actually test (i.e. quantifying an effect) is like pulling teeth? It's because you have no math. No math, no model. What you have are stories, not science.

 

Because my model does not infringe on anything of current science it can lay claim on the mathematics of current science in support of it. Simple logic if it doesn't conflict it is okay.

Your model says that time is absolute and you can exceed c, among many other things. That's in direct conflict with much of science, and you won't be able to use the same math, even though you'll have to come up with the same result. But you are free to try. Let's see it.

 

This proves a concept i.e. that it warrants further effort put into it by science and claim at least the moral backing for that.

Without a testable model, i.e. math, this is a colossal waste of time. Your hand-wavy argument warrants nothing on anybody else's part. It's your thesis. You get to do the work.

 

edit 2 shall we try and stick to GR and QM insofar it has been verified by observation, because I'm not aware that photons exerting gravity have indeed been observed.

It's on the list of contradictions when you say that your claims are not in conflict with current science. GR says that light exerts gravity. You say it doesn't.

[ajb]

Ajb and I have already established that fundamental research as on TOE saves lives so we are in a hurry.

Do not try to drag me into that line of thinking as a motivation for TOE.

[kristalris]

 

There's nothing wrong with the data. GPS works. Until you come up with an alternative model that actually predicts the amount of dilation and the source of it, you have nothing.

 

EQ I've not said that anything is wrong with the data but only in the verbal logic of inferring of part of the data. IAnd no I don't have to come up with anything better concerning GR as far as it is a verified law of physics. I only have to be just as good in the sense that no conflict can be shown. What then is better, well that I at a verbal logical common sense way marry GR to QM in so far both (as an add on based on you failed attempt to contest my model with a dubious at best bit of GR, where even then - my model can accommodate - by - granted - bending over backwards. So in short photons probably don't exert gravity because they have been observed after traveling billions of years that they don't cluster. Probably GR has some defects which is extremely probable because it is accepted that it can't be married to QM. Until now then.

 

So you really have to scrape the bucket in order to find some shit that you hope falsifies my model. Because it failed whichever way you turn it it logically achieves the opposite of strengthening it. Yet again BTW.

 

 

Q

 

GR is not part of the SM.

 

 

 

GR is not part of the SM

 

EQ

 

Never said or even implied it was. But if you trash SM you trash GR and vice versa. GR (and QM) are very closely married to the SM. GR and QM predict relationships between particles of the SM in an astounding accuracy.

Yet GR and QM say can say noting about sub SM particles.

 

Q

 

I pretty much ignored the crystal part because your discussion on relativity was so misinformed.

EQ

 

Well I guess I've deal with that then. Yes I was misinformed and thus should of added "insofar it has been verified by observation." That's solved then. BTW do you honestly think that photons exert gravity? Or do you simply don't know or even dare to guess. You even work with the stuff if I'm right.

 

Yes, well, this concept of scientifically ignoring the main point and concentrating on minor issues and getting that wrong has now been dealt with then.

 

You are so very right in introducing Monty Python to this problem.

 

We get the - very - authoritative person on stage who immediately discards the obvious common sense choice and goes as a matter of course for what the mob likes, the nitwit of the year wants, being a pretzel shaped universe - because the big multi million pound worth machine that says "ping" says so. Subsequently after finally having everything in order, and someone has asked "ëh the patient?" goes into a flurry of activity trying to find the patient via a microscope. Finding alas something that gets one even further of track to "and now we are in the middle of the film." bit. (having any second thoughts on introducing Monty Python? spot on mate keep it coming.)

 

Q

 

No, it's based on your claim that your model doesn't have a conflict with GR. It does. One sees that by looking at GR.

 

EQ

 

I think I've quite effectively dealt with this.

 

Q

 

I have to assume what you mean here is that you can replicate the results of GR with your model. That's different. It also means more than just this corner of physics, since there is an inter-relatedness of physics. If you do away with relativity, you also do away with E&M, which is really relativity for charges. You're saying that all of physics works differently than what standard physics says about it.

 

EQ

 

You still don't get it do you? My predictions on physics are absolutely spot on. Every time. Again and again. I simply ask a physicist what the prediction of current verified physics is on the question. Then I take my super model and think very hard - without having to get undressed BTW - and - after careful deliberations state the same. A wager with you my model is spot on.

 

Q

 

Without a testable model,

 

EQ

 

It is a testable model, what are you talking about?

 

Q

 

i.e. math,

 

EQ

 

Oh dear, now please go back to science / maths class. I paid attention there some thirty years ago. And my old mathematics teacher said all you need for maths is a straight stick and a string on a patch of sand. So true I'll take it as a metaphor for the basic rules of mathematics.

 

Now Swansont et al print this and frame it and put it above your bed:

 

"FIRST SOLVE THE GARBAGE IN PROBLEM WITH VERBAL LOGIC THEN DO THE MATHEMATICS"

 

If you don't as a Dutchman I will have then the privilege of bestowing on you the honorary peeredge of the world renowned Escher Institute. Get it?

 

 

Q

 

nobody cares.

 

EQ

 

Oh dear, problem is you are right! And wrong!

 

First of all with what you mean by "nobody". I guess it clearly doesn't mean my fellow cranks on this site. I guess you mean among the Monty Python worthy authorities who are in charge of funding science and their patronage. I.e everyone who counts.

 

I wonder have you ever bothered your self with psychology and history apart from physics?

 

How do you think a discussion between the French and British generals - all top of their classes - would of gone had you - even knowing what would happen - have gone in march 1940 in trying to explain to them what they were all doing wrong?

 

"No One" would've cared. BTW many many more examples for this. How could it be that they lost big time? I know via current science, do you?

 

Why are the current general / leaders of nuclear physics any better than these generals all highly experienced and knowledgeable.

 

 

Q

 

You don't get a special pass on this just because you're convinced you're right.

 

EQ

 

The only pass I need is the logic pass. Doesn't that work then on this site?

 

BTW I convinced I'm right that my model is to be seen as a proven concept that can morally and logically claim support. Via reproducible verification it can be checked that that it is correct.

 

Q

 

 

Then why is it that getting something specific to actually test (i.e. quantifying an effect) is like pulling teeth? It's because you have no math. No math, no model. What you have are stories, not science.

 

EQ

 

Indeed a current scientific cock up proving that the production department has taken over research. We are slowly but yet accelerating in a downward spiral.

 

Q

 

Your model says that time is absolute and you can exceed c, among many other things. That's in direct conflict with much of science, and you won't be able to use the same math, even though you'll have to come up with the same result. But you are free to try. Let's see it.

 

EQ

 

No it is not in conflict with science when properly applied. First in my model time is what the clock reads. So if it is convenient to have relative time, be my quest. If it works to spec it works. And it indeed works.

 

Q

 

Without a testable model, i.e. math, this is a colossal waste of time. Your hand-wavy argument warrants nothing on anybody else's part. It's your thesis. You get to do the work.

 

EQ

 

The obsession to have the milkman perform brain surgery remains astounding in highly educated and rational people. what are their goals?

 

Q

 

It's on the list of contradictions when you say that your claims are not in conflict with current science. GR says that light exerts gravity. You say it doesn't.

 

EQ

 

Went through that.

 

 

Do not try to drag me into that line of thinking as a motivation for TOE.

?

[Klaynos]

What is this "verbal logic" in reference to the observations of time dilation? SR makes specific predictions, these match the measured numbers. What is verbal about that?

[ajb]

Ineed Klaynos I have no idea what "verbal logic" is. kristalris is very misinformed about science and how science works and shows no willingness to adapt his thinking based on anything anyone here has said. And this comes from people who actually work in science/mathematics research. We have all tried to help kristalris to no avail.

 

So, what is the point of this thread?

 

For sure I am not going to drop my mathematics for "verbal logic"!

[swansont]

EQ I've not said that anything is wrong with the data but only in the verbal logic of inferring of part of the data. IAnd no I don't have to come up with anything better concerning GR as far as it is a verified law of physics.

If it's a verified law of physics, then stop claiming things which contradict it are true, or that things included in it are false.

 

I only have to be just as good in the sense that no conflict can be shown.

That's not how it works. GR has an actual framework with a mathematical model. It' not enough to say you give the same answers but then tell a fairy tale about how it all works, as a substitute for the science.

 

What then is better, well that I at a verbal logical common sense way marry GR to QM in so far both (as an add on based on you failed attempt to contest my model with a dubious at best bit of GR, where even then - my model can accommodate - by - granted - bending over backwards. So in short photons probably don't exert gravity because they have been observed after traveling billions of years that they don't cluster. Probably GR has some defects which is extremely probable because it is accepted that it can't be married to QM. Until now then.

 

So you really have to scrape the bucket in order to find some shit that you hope falsifies my model. Because it failed whichever way you turn it it logically achieves the opposite of strengthening it. Yet again BTW.

Your proposal is trivially false. That you do not recognize this is the problem.

 

 

 

Never said or even implied it was.

Oh good grief, this is a special kind of denial. Your statements are recorded for everyone to see.

 

"On what evidence do you base the claim - if any - that GR holds true outside the SM?" only makes sense if one assumes GR is part of the SM. Otherwise why would one have to worry about the validity outside of the SM?

 

But if you trash SM you trash GR and vice versa. GR (and QM) are very closely married to the SM. GR and QM predict relationships between particles of the SM in an astounding accuracy.

Yet GR and QM say can say noting about sub SM particles.

What sub SM particles?

 

Well I guess I've deal with that then. Yes I was misinformed and thus should of added "insofar it has been verified by observation." That's solved then. BTW do you honestly think that photons exert gravity? Or do you simply don't know or even dare to guess. You even work with the stuff if I'm right.

Photons exerting gravity is part of GR. Yes, I work with photons. And gravity, in a sense. But not for the purpose of testing GR, though we've been able to do that as a result.

 

 

 

Yes, well, this concept of scientifically ignoring the main point and concentrating on minor issues and getting that wrong has now been dealt with then.

 

You are so very right in introducing Monty Python to this problem.

 

We get the - very - authoritative person on stage who immediately discards the obvious common sense choice and goes as a matter of course for what the mob likes, the nitwit of the year wants, being a pretzel shaped universe - because the big multi million pound worth machine that says "ping" says so. Subsequently after finally having everything in order, and someone has asked "ëh the patient?" goes into a flurry of activity trying to find the patient via a microscope. Finding alas something that gets one even further of track to "and now we are in the middle of the film." bit. (having any second thoughts on introducing Monty Python? spot on mate keep it coming.)

Not at all. I think n-1 of everyone reading this can spot the farce.

 

You still don't get it do you? My predictions on physics are absolutely spot on. Every time. Again and again. I simply ask a physicist what the prediction of current verified physics is on the question. Then I take my super model and think very hard - without having to get undressed BTW - and - after careful deliberations state the same. A wager with you my model is spot on.

 

You haven't made any predictions on physics.

 

 

It is a testable model, what are you talking about?

You haven't given any quantified testable predictions. Until you do, I reject the label that it is testable.

 

 

Oh dear, now please go back to science / maths class. I paid attention there some thirty years ago. And my old mathematics teacher said all you need for maths is a straight stick and a string on a patch of sand. So true I'll take it as a metaphor for the basic rules of mathematics.

Of the two of us, only one actually does science.

 

This reminds me of a Josh Billings quote

"It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so."

 

You are claiming a lot of things that just aren't true.

 

First of all with what you mean by "nobody". I guess it clearly doesn't mean my fellow cranks on this site. I guess you mean among the Monty Python worthy authorities who are in charge of funding science and their patronage. I.e everyone who counts.

Funding sources are not an issue in regard to fundamental physics errors.

 

 

The only pass I need is the logic pass. Doesn't that work then on this site?

 

BTW I convinced I'm right that my model is to be seen as a proven concept that can morally and logically claim support. Via reproducible verification it can be checked that that it is correct.

Reproducible verification requires a mathematical model, and a precise prediction.

 

No it is not in conflict with science when properly applied. First in my model time is what the clock reads. So if it is convenient to have relative time, be my quest. If it works to spec it works. And it indeed works.

That's not what you said on page 1 of this thread (emphasis added):

 

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.

 

 

?

I think he means don't misconstrue his posts to mean that he agrees with you.

 

 

I wonder have you ever bothered your self with psychology and history apart from physics?

Yes. I find the Dunning-Kruger effect fascinating.

 

The obsession to have the milkman perform brain surgery remains astounding in highly educated and rational people. what are their goals?

Mine is to keep the milkman out of the operating room, because he has nothing constructive to offer.

[kristalris]

What is this "verbal logic" in reference to the observations of time dilation? SR makes specific predictions, these match the measured numbers. What is verbal about that?

(There has just been a post added that I've not yet read.)

 

The pedantic observation that a measurement was taken giving indeed numbers. Numbers as such do not constitute time dilation. To get there you need to infer what the number means in order to make sense of it. Make sense in the sense that you understand what the numbers show to mean that time actually slows down or just can be taken as to slow down in a certain context. The latter is completely something else than the former. To understand that you must be able to analyse properly.

 

Again: the mathematics dictates that you first get you garbage in problem solved. You and ajb think you can do this by just using numbers on the question of TOE right?

 

Okay then on the chessboard of reason concerning QM or GR or SR you indeed may do that. No qualms in this department as long as the numbers have been properly verified. Which I guess is not the case concerning photons exerting gravity.

 

Now on the chessboard of reason on the probandum of TOE the wizard mr Maths asks you what shall I put in my mathematical equation is the universe infinite or not? Is there pressure in the system or not? So you are only going to answer these questions on the basis of existing data because on the other boards it has been such a success? Oh dear mr Maths will of course comply if you say we don't need to answer these questions on TOE we measure on the two boards that c = max & time is relative. Slight problem that when you take GR true i.e. that the apples fall down then they fall upwards in QM and vice versa. Ergo you are playing the wrong boards.

 

Mr Maths will like a robot take you garbage in and say indeed I can marry GR to QM when something comes from nothing Krauss or when the universe is a pretzel shape. You infer then this is extremely unlikely but the computer says it so it must be true.

 

On the chessboard of reason on TOE you in fact however - infringing on the rules of mr Maths! - haven't answered all the relevant questions. So you haven't even placed all the pieces on the board. You thus don't even get to fools mate. You are disqualified before even the first move. Now ajb in the post he has given in support of yours he again plays the argument of authority card that provides indeed a high value on the GR/QM & SR boards, yet what is that card worth on the TOE board? Please state your claim Klaynos and ajb do you want absolute authority or slightly less? Like I said I give Einstein on this board 1/10 of correctly guessing the garbage 9/10 or non garbage 1/10 in question. By coming up with the right idea as a thought experiment or brain child.

 

Where are BTW these brain childs of current science on TOE? Nowhere.

Where are your concept babies to be worked out?

 

How is current science catering that these come about?

 

You have no successes on the board of TOE because the past hundred years you've diverged in stead of converged on TOE.

 

Inherently all mathematics is linked to a garbage / non garbage in in verbal logic. (= English, dutch chinese etc.)

 

You want the mathematics on observing stated computer simulation go to order or not is like asking for the mathematics on discerning whether an apple falls up or down.

 

Not seeing that this is not only a possible but even fundamental answer on TOE (and a lot more) is breathtaking.

 

Asking a lawyer to do the mathematics is like asking a milkman do brain surgery. Indeed a moment of inspiration on a dynamic crystal followed by a lot of transpiration. Because no one likes sweaty lawyers and because I'd have to bill you isn't it my job but that of science to cater for getting idea's bringing them to fruition. I guess that you wouldn't be very pleased if you were innocently arrested that the lawyer would say to you, oh dear well every citizen should know the law and wish you success and leave. Apart from all the rules this would be dishonourable.

 

Ajb doesn't have to drop his mathematics if he isn't creative enough to work the problem of TOE no dishonour or shame in that. To think however you can fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle only using mathematics is proof of not understanding the fundamental basics of mathematics.

 

To correctly state that it is presently organised differently is a somewhat odd way of reacting to the statement that this is the problem.

 

In short, if you don't state position on the chessboard of reason on TOE, you can't state any position. For he who states position, even in science needs to prove position. There: verbal logic.

[Klaynos]

There are no words in the comparison between observation and prediction only numbers, the measured quantity the observed quantity and there error bounds, they then either agree or disagree which depends only on the numbers.

[ajb]

The pedantic observation that a measurement was taken giving indeed numbers. Numbers as such do not constitute time dilation. To get there you need to infer what the number means in order to make sense of it. Make sense in the sense that you understand what the numbers show to mean that time actually slows down or just can be taken as to slow down in a certain context. The latter is completely something else than the former. To understand that you must be able to analyse properly.

Which you will need some mathematical model to do. You compare nature with your theory and us that to construct interpretations, which are verbal/graphical descriptions of the mathematics. (Not to be confused with graphical notation)

 

Again: the mathematics dictates that you first get you garbage in problem solved. You and ajb think you can do this by just using numbers on the question of TOE right?

Just numbers, no.

 

What we do beleive is that a TOE, if it can be constructed with be formulated in mathematical terms like every other physical theory we have. This is almost a tautology as a TOE is a theory, it must be mathematical in nature.

 

Which I guess is not the case concerning photons exerting gravity.

Not directly I beleive, but as general relativity has passed all other tests asked of it, it would be difficult to understand why photons can't act as a source. If you could really show that they don't then you have found a puzzle. For sure without good reason just saying they don't is not enough.

 

Now on the chessboard of reason on the probandum of TOE the wizard mr Maths asks you what shall I put in my mathematical equation is the universe infinite or not? Is there pressure in the system or not? So you are only going to answer these questions on the basis of existing data because on the other boards it has been such a success? Oh dear mr Maths will of course comply if you say we don't need to answer these questions on TOE we measure on the two boards that c = max & time is relative. Slight problem that when you take GR true i.e. that the apples fall down then they fall upwards in QM and vice versa. Ergo you are playing the wrong boards.

What are you talking about? Apples falling upwards due to QM? The rest of the post is just junk also.

 

 

I guess that you wouldn't be very pleased if you were innocently arrested that the lawyer would say to you, oh dear well every citizen should know the law and wish you success and leave.

Not that this is relevent, but a lawyer is there to make sure that that law is applied correctly to person charged with commiting an offence. This has nothing to do with if the person charged tries to plead ignorence or not.

 

There is a big parallel here with scientists and your analogies. To make sure that science is done "scientifically" is the role of a scientist. There is some element of trust here between scientists and society that we will do our best to do things scientifically and for the benefit of society. Science popularisation also plays a big role in strengthening this trust.

 

So, yes please be interested in science, everyone should be including milkmen and lawyers, but remember that to play the "game of doing science" one needs the rules and it is this that most people don't understand.

 

Ajb doesn't have to drop his mathematics if he isn't creative enough to work the problem of TOE no dishonour or shame in that. To think however you can fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle only using mathematics is proof of not understanding the fundamental basics of mathematics.

I probabily won't make any huge impact on the problem of a TOE, and right now I am not working directly on that so I am not too worried.

 

Anyway, it is you that clearly does not understand the role of mathematics in physics, no shame in that if you were not making such daft claims as you have.

[Klaynos]

Oh, and milkman at least understand what is involved with surgery.

[swansont]

The pedantic observation that a measurement was taken giving indeed numbers. Numbers as such do not constitute time dilation. To get there you need to infer what the number means in order to make sense of it. Make sense in the sense that you understand what the numbers show to mean that time actually slows down or just can be taken as to slow down in a certain context. The latter is completely something else than the former. To understand that you must be able to analyse properly.

Clock slows down (or speeds up) with no mechanical/physical interaction in the clock. i.e. the clock is operating properly. The amount of the change is in accordance with the prediction of relativity. The inference is that time dilation has occurred.

 

If you have an alternate proposal you need to formulate it and do so at the same level of rigor as there is in relativity.

 

Asking a lawyer to do the mathematics is like asking a milkman do brain surgery.

But the milkman is insisting that he knows how to do the operation, is spouting off about bodily humours and insisting that a good bloodletting will fix everything, and keeps ignoring the surgeons (the ones who actually went to medical school) who are telling him otherwise.

[kristalris]

 

Q .If it's a verified law of physics, then stop claiming things which contradict it are true, or that things included in it are false.

EQ

 

So this is untrue (last sentence)? Gravitational redshift has been measured in the laboratory[/size]^%5B52%5D and using astronomical observations.[/size]^%5B53%5D Gravitational time dilation in the Earth's gravitational field has been measured numerous times using [/size]atomic clocks,[/size]^%5B54%5D while ongoing validation is provided as a side effect of the operation of the [/size]Global Positioning System (GPS).[/size]^%5B55%5D Tests in stronger gravitational fields are provided by the observation of [/size]binary pulsars.[/size]^%5B56%5D All results are in agreement with general relativity.[/size]^%5B57%5D However, at the current level of accuracy, these observations cannot distinguish between general relativity and other theories in which the equivalence principle is valid.[/size]^%5B58%5D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Consequences_of_Einstein.27s_theory

Q

 

That's not how it works. GR has an actual framework with a mathematical model. It' not enough to say you give the same answers but then tell a fairy tale about how it all works, as a substitute for the science.

 

EQ

 

Well it is how it should work as a dictate of logic yet we agree it doesn't. Every hypothesis with or without mathematics can be seen as a fairy tale. If you only use mathematics to describe the world you create for yourself the illusion of a world without any assumptions (being just that). In effect you think you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. You always have assumptions because you can't measure everything.

 

In fact you should then also oppose making different scenarios at a crime scene on the basis of very little data. These are fairy tales in effect. Being checked regularly these lead to quick results. They show you where to look for say dna. The police can't swipe the entire crime scene.

 

Q

 

Your proposal is trivially false. That you do not recognize this is the problem.

 

EQ

 

You want someone else to work an idea out until there is hardly any risk anymore. And then you want to claim the success for science.

 

 

Q

 

Oh good grief, this is a special kind of denial. Your statements are recorded for everyone to see.

 

"On what evidence do you base the claim - if any - that GR holds true outside the SM?" only makes sense if one assumes GR is part of the SM. Otherwise why would one have to worry about the validity outside of the SM?

 

EQ

 

Of course not. Let us say that the entire SM is proven wrong. Would that leave GR unaffected? They are interlinked.What I'm saying is you can't say that GR is valid in places where all or even most of the particles of SM can not be assumed to exist.

 

Q

 

What sub SM particles?

 

EQ

 

The ignored ones.

 

Q

Photons exerting gravity is part of GR. Yes, I work with photons. And gravity, in a sense. But not for the purpose of testing GR, though we've been able to do that as a result.

 

EQ

 

Well then do you state that photons exert gravity?

 

And if so has this been experimentally observed?

 

If so,isn't above mentioned wikipedia page wrong?

 

Q

 

 

Not at all. I think n-1 of everyone reading this can spot the farce.

 

EQ

 

0 no data. Very funny. specially that the data we have show mounting questions. Those data scream for an testable explanation. I give that.

 

Q

 

You haven't made any predictions on physics.

 

 

 

You haven't given any quantified testable predictions. Until you do, I reject the label that it is testable.

 

EQ

 

Going to order or not is accurate enough for mathematical testing as is to check whether speeding up raises gravity. Illogical impractical formalism.

 

Q

 

Of the two of us, only one actually does science.

 

EQ

 

So?

 

This reminds me of a Josh Billings quote

"It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so."

 

EQ

 

My words exactly.

 

Q

You are claiming a lot of things that just aren't true.

 

EQ

 

Such as?

 

Q

 

 

Funding sources are not an issue in regard to fundamental physics errors.

 

EQ

 

Got to go.

 

 

Reproducible verification requires a mathematical model, and a precise prediction.

 

agree

 

 

That's not what you said on page 1 of this thread (emphasis added):

 

 

 

 

 

I think he means don't misconstrue his posts to mean that he agrees with you.

 

 

 

Yes. I find the Dunning-Kruger effect fascinating.

 

 

Mine is to keep the milkman out of the operating room, because he has nothing constructive to offer.

[Klaynos]

I still don't see why the universe cares about an ape descendants view of logic. Which cannot make accurate predictions.

[swansont]

Q .If it's a verified law of physics, then stop claiming things which contradict it are true, or that things included in it are false.

EQ

 

So this is untrue (last sentence)? Gravitational redshift has been measured in the laboratory[/size]^%5B52%5D and using astronomical observations.[/size]^%5B53%5D Gravitational time dilation in the Earth's gravitational field has been measured numerous times using [/size]atomic clocks,[/size]^%5B54%5D while ongoing validation is provided as a side effect of the operation of the [/size]Global Positioning System (GPS).[/size]^%5B55%5D Tests in stronger gravitational fields are provided by the observation of [/size]binary pulsars.[/size]^%5B56%5D All results are in agreement with general relativity.[/size]^%5B57%5D However, at the current level of accuracy, these observations cannot distinguish between general relativity and other theories in which the equivalence principle is valid.[/size]^%5B58%5D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Consequences_of_Einstein.27s_theory

I don't see how your proposal conforms to the equivalence principle. I don't recall the topic ever being brought up. Do tell.

 

Regardless, the underlying assumption in that statement is that the the other models aren't contrary to other parts of GR, e.g. being Lorentz invariant. Further, the caveat you present discusses levels of precision, which means math and specific predictions. Every time this subject has come up, you have run off in the opposite direction, screaming that you shouldn't have to do math. We/I have practically begged you to show whether the size of your predicted behavior is capable of being measured. You can't have it both ways. Either put up or shut up.

 

Well it is how it should work as a dictate of logic yet we agree it doesn't. Every hypothesis with or without mathematics can be seen as a fairy tale. If you only use mathematics to describe the world you create for yourself the illusion of a world without any assumptions (being just that). In effect you think you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. You always have assumptions because you can't measure everything.

I don't see where anyone has claimed that you can measure everything. But "all math" vs "no math" is a false dichotomy. You can't deduce the universe, so logic alone is insufficient. There must be a comparison of prediction with experiment, and prediction requires math.

 

 

In fact you should then also oppose making different scenarios at a crime scene on the basis of very little data. These are fairy tales in effect. Being checked regularly these lead to quick results. They show you where to look for say dna. The police can't swipe the entire crime scene.

Crime scene investigation uses science. It is not, itself, a science. Further, legal and scientific argument have very different standards of evidence. You can't swap the two.

 

You want someone else to work an idea out until there is hardly any risk anymore. And then you want to claim the success for science.

Most ideas are wrong. Weeding out the obviously wrong ideas minimizes time wasted. Rigor makes that easier.

 

 

You want someone else to do your work for you. Not my job. I have my own science to do.

Of course not. Let us say that the entire SM is proven wrong. Would that leave GR unaffected? They are interlinked.What I'm saying is you can't say that GR is valid in places where all or even most of the particles of SM can not be assumed to exist.

Yes, it would be unaffected. GR preceded the SM by several decades. It is not dependent on it. The exact nature of the particles does not change the fact that there is energy-momentum present (which is what GR uses) or that relative motion causes time dilation and length contraction.

 

 

The ignored ones.

And these would be what, exactly? Do I really have to ask this? Check your psychology sources to see if being cute in your answers is generally persuasive to people who disagree with you.

 

Well then do you state that photons exert gravity?

 

And if so has this been experimentally observed?

I say (and have said) that photons exerting gravity is part of GR, and that you contradict GR when you claim they don't. The context of this, of course, is your claim that your thesis does not disagree with GR. In that context, it does not matter if it has been experimentally observed — they are contrary predictions The two cannot be in agreement.

 

 

[ajb]

Of course not. Let us say that the entire SM is proven wrong. Would that leave GR unaffected? They are interlinked.What I'm saying is you can't say that GR is valid in places where all or even most of the particles of SM can not be assumed to exist.

Just so many misunderstandings here, once again.

 

Questions;

1. what does "say that the entire SM is proven wrong" mean? Think about this carefully and tell me what it means for any theory to be proven wrong?

 

2. Exactly how are the SM and GR interlinked? Why can't we think about the SM on a general curved space-time? (the first I think is actually a very important question that we simply don't have a good answer to, unless you do? ;-) )

[ACG52]

 

 

Either put up or shut up.

He's a lawyer. He can't do either.

[ajb]

He's a lawyer. He can't do either.

That also explains the walls of text that give the same amount of information that could easily be written in one line. This is absolutely consistent with my experience with lawyers and solicitors.

 

It may be the root of the dodging things and using distractions via long posts!

[kristalris]

He's a lawyer. He can't do either.

Ah Sir Flamealot, weren't you part of the Kruger Dunning triplet as I recall?

That also explains the walls of text that give the same amount of information that could easily be written in one line. This is absolutely consistent with my experience with lawyers and solicitors.

 

It may be the root of the dodging things and using distractions via long posts!

My posts maybe long by your standards but I certainly don't dodge issues. You lot do.

[ajb]

My posts maybe long by your standards but I certainly don't dodge issues. You lot do.

Anyway, I can't see any of the participants getting much more out of this thread.

 

You don't actually have a model and your claims are either just at odds with established physics or as you don't have any actual predictions of measurable quantities impossible to really judge.

 

It has been fun, but unless you really want to talk about science I cannot see myself posting in this thread much longer.

Edited September 10, 2013 by ajb

[kristalris]

Just so many misunderstandings here, once again.

 

Questions;

1. what does "say that the entire SM is proven wrong" mean? Think about this carefully and tell me what it means for any theory to be proven wrong?

 

2. Exactly how are the SM and GR interlinked? Why can't we think about the SM on a general curved space-time? (the first I think is actually a very important question that we simply don't have a good answer to, unless you do? ;-) )

Hm no relation between GR and the SM then in your opinion then?

 

As I understand it it was on the basis of observing some particles (photons) of the now SM that the general rule even law of GR was based. Take away those particles and you have no law left that states how these particles move through space time. Ergo they are interlinked.

 

We know that there are problems in science concerning GR; it doesn't mix with QM and it is at odds with several dark issues. Apart from that as a general rule any formula has its regime in which it is assumed to be valid. So must the law of GR (in so far it has been verified (= found by observation to be true up to the accuracy required because otherwise unverifiable = not as yet to be held true)) have its limits. If the extrapolation of mathematics holds true for many other later discovered particles then one can not hold that GR will hold true in say a black hole where we can't assume that even a photon can exist. Or that it holds true outside our visible universe or holds true given the assumption that there are sub SM particles.

 

Otherwise you want to work it like a robot. What then does man have to offer in your opinion in reaching TOE?

A. I don't see how your proposal conforms to the equivalence principle. I don't recall the topic ever being brought up. Do tell.

 

B. Regardless, the underlying assumption in that statement is that the the other models aren't contrary to other parts of GR, e.g. being Lorentz invariant. Further, the caveat you present discusses levels of precision, which means math and specific predictions. Every time this subject has come up, you have run off in the opposite direction, screaming that you shouldn't have to do math. We/I have practically begged you to show whether the size of your predicted behavior is capable of being measured. You can't have it both ways. Either put up or shut up.

 

C. I don't see where anyone has claimed that you can measure everything. But "all math" vs "no math" is a false dichotomy. You can't deduce the universe, so logic alone is insufficient. There must be a comparison of prediction with experiment, and prediction requires math.

 

 

D. Crime scene investigation uses science. It is not, itself, a science. Further, legal and scientific argument have very different standards of evidence. You can't swap the two.

 

E. Most ideas are wrong. Weeding out the obviously wrong ideas minimizes time wasted. Rigor makes that easier.

 

 

F. You want someone else to do your work for you. Not my job. I have my own science to do.

 

G. Yes, it would be unaffected. GR preceded the SM by several decades. It is not dependent on it. The exact nature of the particles does not change the fact that there is energy-momentum present (which is what GR uses) or that relative motion causes time dilation and length contraction.

 

 

H. And these would be what, exactly? Do I really have to ask this? Check your psychology sources to see if being cute in your answers is generally persuasive to people who disagree with you.

 

I. I say (and have said) that photons exerting gravity is part of GR, and that you contradict GR when you claim they don't. The context of this, of course, is your claim that your thesis does not disagree with GR. In that context, it does not matter if it has been experimentally observed — they are contrary predictions The two cannot be in agreement.

 

 

A.

Challenges to the equivalence principle[edit source]

One challenge to the equivalence principle is the Brans-Dicke theory. Self-creation cosmology is a modification of the Brans-Dicke theory. The Fredkin Finite Nature Hypothesis is an even more radical challenge to the equivalence principle and has even fewer supporters.

In August 2010, researchers from the School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Australia; the Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia; and the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, United Kingdom; published the paper "Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant", whose tentative conclusion is that, "qualitatively, [the] results suggest a violation of the Einstein Equivalence Principle, and could infer a very large or infinite universe, within which our `local' Hubble volume represents a tiny fraction."^[36]

Explanations of the equivalence principle[edit source]

Dutch physicist and string theorist Erik Verlinde has generated a self-contained, logical derivation of the equivalence principle based on the starting assumption of a holographic universe. Given this situation, gravity would not be a true fundamental force as is currently thought but instead an "emergent property" related to entropy. Verlinde's approach to explaining gravity apparently leads naturally to the correct observed strength of dark energy; previous failures to explain its incredibly small magnitude have been called by such people as cosmologist Michael Turner (who is credited as having coined the term "dark energy") as "the greatest embarrassment in the history of theoretical physics".^[37] However, it should be noted that these ideas are far from settled and still very controversial.

 

Those damn Dutch eh? In fact I'm saying the same sort of thing my double dynamic crystal can be seen as holographic having effects and gravity isn't in my opinion either a true fundamental force chaos and order is. Anyway I'm not as alone in this line of thought as you make it out to be.

 

Point I : you seem to have dodged this issue. You make it into legalise. I say photons don't exert gravity at least that to be extremely (and when I say extremely I mean extremely) improbable yet I could accommodate in my model yet bending over backwards to comply. Now I see that it isn't verified at all as you stated earlier.

 

Of course GR is only a law of physics (to which my model complies) in so far it has been verified. Photons exerting gravity isn't amoung that.

 

So again under pressure my model has stood the test.

 

And again: the prediction that an apple will fall upwards from a tree in Kenya is a testable and sufficiently accurate scientific statement for falsification. as is the statement that my stated simulation will go to order. It does or doesn't, absolutely accurate binary problem.

Edited September 10, 2013 by kristalris