Tests for TOE on a speculation via correct scientific procedure

[swansont]

Atoms do NOT meet this requirement because at the temperatures that they would fit the bill they crystallize in normal crystals.

You haven't answered the (very straightforward) question: what is the temperature necessary?

 

 

 

You need to emulate - extremely accurately! - the collision of two billiard balls that don't strike at high speed. But then done an enormous amount of times.

 

So I'm striving for an idealised a purely mathematical sim as possible. That is the easiest way to show it going to order. Only after that introduce deforming to see how that affects the outcome.

 

Edit: try playing billiards with soft clay or tennis balls. It won't be very accurate. That specific enough?

 

Not at all. These have inelastic collisions, i.e kinetic energy is lost. A tennis ball does not bounce back up to the same height when you drop it onto a surface. Soft clay would have completely inelastic collisions when it sticks. Ideal gases do not have a loss of kinetic energy. So this example does nothing to explain why ideal gases (which are modeled in exactly the way you have described)don't fit the bill.

[kristalris]

All right, I'm a glutton for punishment. I'll ask the question. What does your (heretofore proven untrained) eye think is wrong?

 

You keep talking about absolute rigidity, and yet don't seem to believe that THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IDEAL GASES ARE. That the sims you are describing have been done in the simulation of ideal gases. If you really think this isn't so, please explain.

Okay I'll explain: if you raise the temperature atoms "vibrate more "see link" so you need a low temperature to simulate it properly yet then they become solid. BTW ever noticed that crystals have something to do with waves?

 

Now try to understand what we are trying to simulate. Particles that build the SM. Now you think that they will behave like the particles of the SM. Bit silly, no?

 

lhttp://web.mit.edu/mbuehler/www/SIMS/Thermal%20Expansion.html

 

 

I'll explain the model some more than you might see the problem. Both fundamental particles - by logical deduction which I can provide - should be seen as: basically the same stuff best called mass. It is unsplittable in the sense that absolutely (there is a reason why this is) no scenario is possible to split them. I.e. true atoms. They have mass = kg. They are incompressible yet can deform. In a field of these particles they will thus on average in a short time frame given a dynamic crystal of only one field become a perfect sphere. Akin the forming of hail as a sphere. Chaos will deform the sphere. The elasticity is thus external and not internal because the mechanism of the crystal restores order and thus a perfect sphere.

 

On the other hand chaos deforms the sphere like a golf ball especially if you have both dynamic crystals working against each other (which happens in the entire cosmos). The small sphere can exert a higher pressure on a point of the larger one apart from being faster. This makes it possible to work as a toothed wheel getting into spin quickly: i.e. the Higgs mechanism. Akin the air flow around a golf ball (as a rower I hate this part of my idea).

 

Looking at a cube of space at one point in time it looks nearly absolutely void. In a very short time frame both particles each would create a solid: i.e. being everywhere.

 

If you look at a deformed particle of mass after impact moving through the void it is absolutely still = extreme order => on its way to order of the dynamic crystal.

 

Your rigid atoms at a high temperature in a perfect gas are when seen vibrating like hell = disorder => no crystal. Lower the temperature they become a solid crystal.

 

My fundamental particles of course don't do the latter they don't stick.

 

So your sim does NOT do the trick, and yes I can play billiards and my eye observes something far less accurate than a billiard sim what you show. It is an approximation.

 

However taking the average perfect state it is a billiard ball under pressure. A slow game of 3 D billiards extremely accurately simulated should do the trick as an idealised mathematical way of finding the formula of a dynamic crystal and hence the heart of the Higgs mechanism.

 

Edit: Oh, and BTW this is also superconductive i.e. the resistance caused by the surfaces of the particles is nil, yet the deforming is resistance that only causes a change in the movement of any interacting particle, or further deformation or reformation or spin or change in vector of the obeserved particle.

You haven't answered the (very straightforward) question: what is the temperature necessary?

 

EQ

 

just did

 

 

 

 

 

Q

 

Not at all. These have inelastic collisions, i.e kinetic energy is lost. A tennis ball does not bounce back up to the same height when you drop it onto a surface. Soft clay would have completely inelastic collisions when it sticks. Ideal gases do not have a loss of kinetic energy. So this example does nothing to explain why ideal gases (which are modeled in exactly the way you have described)don't fit the bill.

Well okay I needed to explain the mechanism some more and just did.

 

 

 

Now on another point. Earlier on you said - if I remember correctly - that photons have been verified to exert gravity as GR states. Am I now correct in stating that you mean this has been researched quite a bit but is unconfirmed i.e. unverifiable?

Edited September 13, 2013 by kristalris

[Klaynos]

You're still using well defined (in the context of physics) words incorrectly, don't you think that it just shows common courtesy to try and use the correct terms? Your text reads as a list of contradictory science sounding random sentences. I return to my previous suggestion else you are unlikely gk ever see the flaws in your thought process which seem to be apparent to those who are trained in the sciences to see trivially.

[kristalris]

You're still using well defined (in the context of physics) words incorrectly, don't you think that it just shows common courtesy to try and use the correct terms? Your text reads as a list of contradictory science sounding random sentences. I return to my previous suggestion else you are unlikely gk ever see the flaws in your thought process which seem to be apparent to those who are trained in the sciences to see trivially.

Agree bit of a problem when a brain surgeon insists that the milkman tell exactly where the stated bullet hole is at. No, it isn't the temporal lobe.

 

In casu it is only the milkman telling the brain surgeon to use the mark 1 mod 1 eyeball or, if need be, specs.

[Klaynos]

It's more the milkman insisting the surgeon operate on a chest wound when the only injury the casualty is suffering from is decapitation. But the milkman keeps saying "I'm right now ventilate into the sudated triage artery. "

 

It makes no sense the very concept and framework is wrong but the outsider no only insists he is right but that he doesn't need to have the same standards as the rest.

 

You're analogy is flawed and pointless. And you're not even prepared to do enough work to understand the framework.

[Bignose]

A slow game of 3 D billiards extremely accurately simulated should do the trick as an idealised mathematical way of finding the formula of a dynamic crystal and hence the heart of the Higgs mechanism.

So why don't you do this then?

 

The temperature of an ideal gas is given by [math]\frac{1}{2}m\overline{C^2} = \frac{3}{2}kT[/math]

 

where T is the temperature, k is Boltzmann's constant, m is the mass, and C is the peculiar velocity, so [math]\overline{C^2}[/math] is the velocity fluctuations.

 

All you have to do is start and ideal gas sim with low velocity fluctuations and you have a sim running at low T. Use really small time steps if you want to be 'extremely accurate'.

 

Why don't you do this?

 

I still seriously doubt that any order will form.

 

And, really, it is up to you to show us that it does.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Bignose

[ajb]

I will echo what Klaynos has said.

 

kristalris, you are mixing and confusuing terms to the point that we really have little idea of what you are talking about; what we do think you are talking about is simple well understood physics, but you reject this. This clearly shows that you have little understanding of physics and as such we have no reason to really entertain your poorly stated ideas.

 

Your analogy of a head wound and a brain surgeon is false. It appears more like someone telling the brain surgeon that a man with a gun shot wound to the head is having a heart attack, no let me rephrase that "an acute myocardial infarction"!

Edited September 14, 2013 by ajb

[kristalris]

It's more the milkman insisting the surgeon operate on a chest wound when the only injury the casualty is suffering from is decapitation. But the milkman keeps saying "I'm right now ventilate into the sudated triage artery. "

 

It makes no sense the very concept and framework is wrong but the outsider no only insists he is right but that he doesn't need to have the same standards as the rest.

 

You're analogy is flawed and pointless. And you're not even prepared to do enough work to understand the framework.

Oh no, the milkman sees someone lying on the floor in a pool of blood with what looks to him a bullet wound, yet gasping for air (= metaphor for having an idea on TOE given that fundamental research in general saves lives, and thus already constituting an urgent situation for a doctor to start acting); then because it takes too long for the doctor to react the milkman starts providing first aid to the best of his ability (= metaphor for working an idea up to a concept).

 

Then the doctor arrives with a microscope in front of his eyes asking the milkman to be more precise in his wording. (= metaphor for being too accurate and demanding the use of incorrect norms both in the used wording as to the use of mathematics in the idea / concept phase.)

 

A milkman is not only fully entitled but even morally and even by law required to act in this way, as is he allowed to criticize the doctor for using a microscope in search for a patient.

 

Now this doesn't mean to say that the patient indeed has a bullet wound to the head and in need of the brain surgeon to do brain surgery then correctly using the microscope of course.

 

It might of course be that the guy was drunk fell on his head hence the pool of blood and only suffering from a serious skin disease. (The patient of TOE is of course per definition lying around, only this is then not that patient.)

 

Now when the milkman files a complaint on the silly way the doctor went about his business, then he's confronted by the medical board a vast majority of whom have microscopes in front of their heads and thus not understanding what all the fuss is about. Saying well milkman also put a microscope in front of your head and see how we do this in research nowadays.

 

Even if further investigation would show that there is no bullet wound but only a dermatology problem with this patient then still the milkman acted scientifically correctly and all the doctors with microscopes incorrectly.

 

This is the only logical way to work it and the proof lies in the fact that the past hundred years you in science have been diverging instead of converging on getting to a TOE.

 

You have and are applying production norms instead of research norms to the problem. You don't keep your eye on the ball: i.e. the goal TOE.

 

 

Now on the wording I used. If I use for instance the word "mass" you lot immediately think ah ëxerts gravity" whereas in my model it doesn't. What word to use then?

 

And if I say external elasticity: you think that is wrong for elasticity is per definition internal.

 

If I were to say that atoms get excited when the temperature rises you think in terms of electrons changing position etc. whereas I'm talking the stuff that ultimately builds the atoms.

 

You act like "good" lawyers do via the following simple algorithm: "can I misunderstand this?" if so do so.

 

You have in no way decapitated my concept and where I'm told that I'm required to work out my concept myself you ask the milkman to perform brain surgery and where the milkman has done first aid you criticize him for not having done proper resuscitation using a microscope.

 

I've shown where you definitions are failing, and what my dad warned me about that is even experts using formulas out of their regime and in so doing making a hell of a mess.

 

GR is a law of physics in so far it has been validated yet not in so far it is unverifiable as in where GR states that photons exert gravity. Swansont hasn't reacted yet. So I ask you. Do you believe that photons exert gravity?

Edited September 14, 2013 by kristalris

[ajb]

You act like "good" lawyers do via the following simple algorithm: "can I misunderstand this?" if so do so.

Quite the opposite, I know I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say to us. You mix terms and string things together that just don't make sence. Your notion of superconductivity for example seems nothing to do with the standard use of the term. So you must forgive us if we are very confused, you are speaking using a very broken dialect.

 

 

...milkman to perform brain surgery ...

Can we drop this analogy, I don't think it is a very useful.

 

 

I've shown where you definitions are failing, and what my dad warned me about that is even experts using formulas out of their regime and in so doing making a hell of a mess.

Your dad is correct, one has to be careful using theories outside their expected domain of applicability. I think everyone here has echoed this?

 

You have not shown any failings in our definitions as you clearly don't understand our current definitions. Again, superconductivity is an example of this.

 

 

GR is a law of physics in so far it has been validated yet not in so far it is unverifiable as in where GR states that photons exert gravity. Swansont hasn't reacted yet. So I ask you. Do you believe that photons exert gravity?

I don't want to speak for swansont here. I will only repeat what I have already said. It would be very difficult to understand how photons and/or the electromagnetic field could not act as a source of gravity within the framework of general relativity. Photons contibute to the energy-monentum tensor in the field equations and thus contribute to the local geometry of space-time. Now, as general relativity has passed all the tests we have ever asked of it why would we expect it to fail when it comes to this question? How would we formulate this?

 

The gravitational effects of light are very weak. We know that we would need very intence fields to see any effect. There have been some experiments that confirm that static EM fields act as sources of gravity. These are very unfamiliar to me, I don't know if someone else here knows about them? See

 

Kreuzer, Phys. Rev. 169 (1968) 1007.

 

Which I belive is discussed in Clifford M. Will, The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment, Living Rev. Relativity 9 (2006), 3.

 

I will stress again, I am not familiar with Kreuzer's work or its interpretation.

[swansont]

Edit: Oh, and BTW this is also superconductive i.e. the resistance caused by the surfaces of the particles is nil, yet the deforming is resistance that only causes a change in the movement of any interacting particle, or further deformation or reformation or spin or change in vector of the obeserved particle.

That's still not superconductive

 

Well okay I needed to explain the mechanism some more and just did.

I sked about the temperature you would need to see the effect in atom, if they didn't stick.

 

Now on another point. Earlier on you said - if I remember correctly - that photons have been verified to exert gravity as GR states. Am I now correct in stating that you mean this has been researched quite a bit but is unconfirmed i.e. unverifiable?

That's the advantage of a written record — you don't have to rely on your incorrect recollection.

 

———————

 

ajb is right, these analogies are pointless. The simple fact is that someone who has a very poor grasp of physics (or any topic) is often not able to properly assess their mastery of the subject. Anyone has taught can confirm this — the number of students who do poorly on an exam but were supremely confident they had "aced" it up until the test was returned is frighteningly large.

[kristalris]

Quite the opposite, I know I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say to us. You mix terms and string things together that just don't make sence. Your notion of superconductivity for example seems nothing to do with the standard use of the term. So you must forgive us if we are very confused, you are speaking using a very broken dialect.

 

EQ

 

Like I said you can not expect me to invent completely new words for in effect a totally new situation that arises with mentioned particles. You only have these two particles and absolute nothing. I.e. no gravity, magnetism, waves or anything else because it (including gravity, magnetism and waves) is all built if you like from just these three elements. It is thus in principle extremely simple. Now per definition conductivity = 1/resistivity if I'm correct. If we have thus a Higgs field of particles in my model forcing a photon to bounce around for billions of years as we observe than having resistivity must be nil or near nil of all particles concerned. I.e. at least superconductivity or more is required to comply. Now this can't be that hard to understand. In effect it all becomes Newtonian physics with this twist of super conductivity. And with it all being push and no pull. Extremely elegant thus.

 

Q

Can we drop this analogy, I don't think it is a very useful.

 

EQ

 

One short elaboration. On the one side you are too exact where logic dictates that you may not be as exact when you know that you don't know. We know that we don't know what particles that are smaller and faster than the SM ones should look like given that they exist and that everything is built up by them. I.e. logic dictates that you may not measure or require measurements on the thousandth of a millimeter knowing that the deviation will be in meters. Then the norm should be measurements in meters. You use this as the broad outline to get - ALL- the pieces of the puzzle roughly in order. This just to find out where to look for testing. This is not a beautiful or not beautiful affair on which there is any room to disagree. It is a logical dictate. Like discussing whether you agree that 2 + 3 = 5 or not.

 

On the other side you are too inexact. Once you do a test you must be as accurate as is required by the test. (then the brain surgeon should not use a normal microscope but an electron microscope.) Why? It is a logical given that if the to be tested particles are - much - smaller than anything the SM has to offer and faster yet interacting in an orderly way you need to be more exact than ever was required before. It is then silly to think that any easy test would suffice. Again a dictate of logic.

 

Q

 

Your dad is correct, one has to be careful using theories outside their expected domain of applicability. I think everyone here has echoed this?

 

EQ

 

Most certainly not! All tests that were put up and formulas shown where far too inexact. Again it might even prove to be too complicated for present computers to get round the problem. That is why I try to idealize the problem towards a purely mathematical problem that might indeed be testtable. again and logically obvious it requires extreme precision. Yet I guess and - extremely - accurate sim of billiard balls shot slowly should do the trick, given some tinkering on how large the balls must be and how much room is required and how many balls are needed. A job for computer experts using supercomputers with the aid of creative mathematicians.

 

Q

 

You have not shown any failings in our definitions as you clearly don't understand our current definitions. Again, superconductivity is an example of this.

 

EQ

 

Above given definition is the one I used and the one given the model could easily be understood.

 

Q

 

I don't want to speak for swansont here. I will only repeat what I have already said. It would be very difficult to understand how photons and/or the electromagnetic field could not act as a source of gravity within the framework of general relativity. Photons contibute to the energy-monentum tensor in the field equations and thus contribute to the local geometry of space-time. Now, as general relativity has passed all the tests we have ever asked of it why would we expect it to fail when it comes to this question? How would we formulate this?

 

EQ

 

I see GR as a law of physics, defining it thus differently - and logically better - than science does at present. I only do so concerning the part that has been verified of course and not the unverifiable part. The more so because GR is at odds with another law of physics: QM. You may thus expect something to be wrong with GR and/or QM. Well just at this point of photons exerting gravity or not we are concerning ourselves with the very small as does QM. Furthermore the observation of photons traveling billions of years without observing any gravitational effect is dubious to say the least. This doesn't gut GR in any way other than that GR & QM haven't gutted the laws of Newton either because these are still to be seen as laws of physics not just on historical but on systematic - i.e. logical - reasons as well. So GR remains the law even with my model saying that photons don't exert gravity.

 

Q

 

The gravitational effects of light are very weak. We know that we would need very intence fields to see any effect. There have been some experiments that confirm that static EM fields act as sources of gravity. These are very unfamiliar to me, I don't know if someone else here knows about them? See

 

Kreuzer, Phys. Rev. 169 (1968) 1007.

 

Which I belive is discussed in Clifford M. Will, The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment, Living Rev. Relativity 9 (2006), 3.

 

I will stress again, I am not familiar with Kreuzer's work or its interpretation.

[ajb]

Like I said you can not expect me to invent completely new words for in effect a totally new situation that arises with mentioned particles.

But at the same time you should not use well established terminology to mean something else. If you do you should make this very clear, you did not and we suspect the reason is that you did not understand the usual usages of the terminology.

 

Now per definition conductivity = 1/resistivity if I'm correct. If we have thus a Higgs field of particles in my model forcing a photon to bounce around for billions of years as we observe than having resistivity must be nil or near nil of all particles concerned.

What?

 

Please define your use of the word conductivity.

 

Most certainly not! All tests that were put up and formulas shown where far too inexact.

I think you are missing the point that we all accept that theories and experiments have limits.

 

Again it might even prove to be too complicated for present computers to get round the problem.

The problem of rigid balls going under elastic collisons is well studied, this has been pointed out to you.

 

Above given definition is the one I used and the one given the model could easily be understood.

Please state it again very clearly so that we can all be on the same page.

 

I see GR as a law of physics, defining it thus differently - and logically better - than science does at present.

What is a law of physics?

 

 

I only do so concerning the part that has been verified of course and not the unverifiable part.

Okay, so GR has been tested to a huge degree of accuracy for a wide range of scales. We have lots of things you do thrust about GR then?

 

The more so because GR is at odds with another law of physics: QM.

Not at odds as such, rather they don't "talk to each other" in the sense that both constructions answer rather seperate questions and find it difficult to both answer the same questions simultaneously.

 

In short we have no quantum theory of gravity. Meaning applying quantum mechanics to gravity is not properly understood nore is applying gravity to quantum mechanics, yet both are fine in their own domains.

 

You may thus expect something to be wrong with GR and/or QM.

Okay, so most approaches to quantum gravity basically try to modify either GR or QM. the reality maybe both need to be modified to uncover the wider theory in which both these well tested theories arise as limits.

 

 

Furthermore the observation of photons traveling billions of years without observing any gravitational effect is dubious to say the least.

There is some evidence from cosmology that photons do act as sources of gravity. You should hunt the literature on this.

 

This doesn't gut GR in any way other than that GR & QM haven't gutted the laws of Newton either because these are still to be seen as laws of physics not just on historical but on systematic - i.e. logical - reasons as well. So GR remains the law even with my model saying that photons don't exert gravity.

Classicsal mechanics comes out of both GR and QM in certian limits, as you would expect otherwise we would not understand why classical mechanics works so well where it does. GR would need some serious modifications if you exclude EM fields as being sources. And you would have to do this in such a way as not to mess up the theory completley. You would need to explain why the energy-momentum tensor of the EM field does not come into the field equations, as where the energy-momentum tensor for everything else does.

 

 

I have never come across any attempt to do this. One often assumes that the gravitational effects are small and then you can consider the EM fields on a fixed curved space-time. This is common, but you can also look at the Maxwell-Einstein field equations.

 

Anyway, you need to learn some more correct languange and some gravitational physics. You should get to grips with what we do know works before trying to fix physics. ;-)

[kristalris]

 

That's still not superconductive

 

EQ

 

I dealt with this in my answer to ajb.

 

Q

I sked about the temperature you would need to see the effect in atom, if they didn't stick.

 

EQ

 

I don't know whether it might be possible to do the test with atoms at low temperatures when the don't stick. A simulated billiard ball hitting another billiard ball in a simulated absolute void in a computer is something else than atoms bouncing around.

 

So I wouldn't know at what temperature that is. To understand my model you have to start thinking in terms of a yin and yang of order and chaos. Maybe some atoms remain chaotic and don't stick at very low temperatures because they remain inherently chaotic.

 

 

Q

 

That's the advantage of a written record — you don't have to rely on your incorrect recollection.

 

EQ

 

Bit cryptic your reaction. So do you now state that it is unverifiable that photons exert gravity?

 

———————

 

ajb is right, these analogies are pointless. The simple fact is that someone who has a very poor grasp of physics (or any topic) is often not able to properly assess their mastery of the subject. Anyone has taught can confirm this — the number of students who do poorly on an exam but were supremely confident they had "aced" it up until the test was returned is frighteningly large.

 

Are you implying Kruger Dunning again?

 

But at the same time you should not use well established terminology to mean something else. If you do you should make this very clear, you did not and we suspect the reason is that you did not understand the usual usages of the terminology.

 

EQ

 

It is a bit difficult not to use the term mass for my particles. Even though every current physicist will immediately think: "ah, it thus exerts gravity" whereas I've provided a stipulative definition for it: it has a volume is incompressible yet mouldable and it doesn't exert gravity yet can build it as an underpressure in the field in a way the more mass the more gravity is built via a push scenario. With hardly any chaos in the field it forms a near perfect extremely rigid sphere, and with more chaos it deforms.

 

Q

 

What?

Please define your use of the word conductivity.

 

EQ

 

Conductivity is the opposite of resistivity. The only form of resistivity at this level is the deforming or change in direction or speed of the interacting particles. Because I'm talking two particles of above mentioned mass that is it. You can't have this mass starting to vibrate or have bits fly of or heat up, It simply can't logically do that if it is to fit the missing pieces in the puzzle. This would be causing resistance or mounting non conductivity. Nothing as such to do with electricity magnetism or waves.

 

Q

 

I think you are missing the point that we all accept that theories and experiments have limits.

 

EQ

 

OK

 

Q

 

 

The problem of rigid balls going under elastic collisons is well studied, this has been pointed out to you.

 

EQ

 

Not at the required level of extremely higher accuracy that is a logical given via stated model.

 

Q

 

Please state it again very clearly so that we can all be on the same page.

 

EQ

 

Just did on conductivity (was it?)

 

Q

 

 

What is a law of physics?

 

EQ

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laws_in_science seems alright. Anything that is correctly derived may also be seen as such.

 

Q

 

 

Okay, so GR has been tested to a huge degree of accuracy for a wide range of scales. We have lots of things you do thrust about GR then?

 

EQ

 

Given that what I say is true on the mentioned two particles you need to work even more accurately the same way as Newton is less accurate as QM.

 

Q

 

 

Not at odds as such, rather they don't "talk to each other" in the sense that both constructions answer rather seperate questions and find it difficult to both answer the same questions simultaneously.

 

In short we have no quantum theory of gravity. Meaning applying quantum mechanics to gravity is not properly understood nore is applying gravity to quantum mechanics, yet both are fine in their own domains.

 

EQ

 

Well I provide you with the probable answer to this gravity problem.

 

Q

 

 

Okay, so most approaches to quantum gravity basically try to modify either GR or QM. the reality maybe both need to be modified to uncover the wider theory in which both these well tested theories arise as limits.

 

EQ

 

As far as verified you can leave it alone as long as it remains the simplest way to work the problems To change that is not the aim of my model. If it works it works. well it works within its limits. Fine. My model doesn't touch that.

 

Q

 

There is some evidence from cosmology that photons do act as sources of gravity. You should hunt the literature on this.

 

EQ

 

Found this and right up my ally http://www.livescience.com/34180-gamma-ray-photons-quantum-spacetime.html

 

Q

 

 

Classicsal mechanics comes out of both GR and QM in certian limits, as you would expect otherwise we would not understand why classical mechanics works so well where it does. GR would need some serious modifications if you exclude EM fields as being sources. And you would have to do this in such a way as not to mess up the theory completley. You would need to explain why the energy-momentum tensor of the EM field does not come into the field equations, as where the energy-momentum tensor for everything else does.

 

EQ

 

I don't exclude anything. I build everything you need: waves, magnetism and all the rest we observe. These two particles of my model are under your radar so to speak. They don't touch anything we have verified to be observed.

 

I.e. we haven't observed massless particles, yet have matterless particles as not exerting gravity. We haven't observed time slow down but the clocks do so. We have observed photons accelerate to hold c in a curve thereby curving in at twice the Newtonian value thereby becoming red shifted as if they are a toy car having its spring becoming unwound. Gravity we observe as an underpressure whereby all matter acts like little black holes gaining momentum and speeding up.

 

Q

 

 

I have never come across any attempt to do this. One often assumes that the gravitational effects are small and then you can consider the EM fields on a fixed curved space-time. This is common, but you can also look at the Maxwell-Einstein field equations.

 

Anyway, you need to learn some more correct languange and some gravitational physics. You should get to grips with what we do know works before trying to fix physics. ;-)

 

EQ

 

How come you insist to use a language that fits the SM level when I'm talking sub SM particles?

 

At this level resistance is to be seen as everything that prevents / resists these two particles to do what they want to do => fly in a straight line.

[Bignose]

Q

 

 

The problem of rigid balls going under elastic collisons is well studied, this has been pointed out to you.

 

EQ

 

Not at the required level of extremely higher accuracy that is a logical given via stated model.

Considering that you didn't even know about the models until a few days ago, how do you justify calling them not accurate enough?

 

And then, what are you doing to make a model that is accurate enough for you? I notice you keep ignoring me when I tell you to follow the existing literature and make your own model. I wonder why that is... My initial thought is that it is easy for you to try to sit back and call things wrong, but ever time you are asked to put forth a model and pointed out where that model fails you have some excuse -- but never a plan to actually address that excuse.

 

So I am directly asking you, what is stopping you from following the literature of simulations of rigid spheres that have been done at the parameters, temperature, and accuracy you claim is needed?

[swansont]

I don't know whether it might be possible to do the test with atoms at low temperatures when the don't stick. A simulated billiard ball hitting another billiard ball in a simulated absolute void in a computer is something else than atoms bouncing around.

I don't care whether you know/think it might be possible.

 

So I wouldn't know at what temperature that is. To understand my model you have to start thinking in terms of a yin and yang of order and chaos. Maybe some atoms remain chaotic and don't stick at very low temperatures because they remain inherently chaotic.

So this was all just more handwaving.

 

 

Q

 

That's the advantage of a written record — you don't have to rely on your incorrect recollection.

 

EQ

 

Bit cryptic your reaction. So do you now state that it is unverifiable that photons exert gravity?

Now you're asking a different question.

 

 

Are you implying Kruger Dunning again?

Implying? Again? My one mention of the effect was in response to a direct question you asked, about psychology.

 

I'm stating an observation. You aren't in a position to assess your knowledge of physics.

[ajb]

Conductivity is the opposite of resistivity. The only form of resistivity at this level is the deforming or change in direction or speed of the interacting particles. Because I'm talking two particles of above mentioned mass that is it. You can't have this mass starting to vibrate or have bits fly of or heat up, It simply can't logically do that if it is to fit the missing pieces in the puzzle. This would be causing resistance or mounting non conductivity. Nothing as such to do with electricity magnetism or waves.

Are you talking about thermal conductivity? I am at a loss here.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....laws_in_science seems alright. Anything that is correctly derived may also be seen as such.

So in physics we require these laws be written down mathematically. In short they are no different to theories, but typically they form a part of some wider theory.

 

 

I.e. we haven't observed massless particles, yet have matterless particles as not exerting gravity. We haven't observed time slow down but the clocks do so.

We have experiments that involve small numbers of photons and even single photons. So we have observed massless particles. And how would you see any time dilation if you did not use some kind of clock?

 

We have natural clocks we can use to observe time dilation, such as the observed decay rates of particles from cosmic rays. The effects of time dilation are very real.

 

 

How come you insist to use a language that fits the SM level when I'm talking sub SM particles?

 

Because it is most likely the correct language, or for sure better than your mixed up and confused language or just hand-waving assertions.

 

 

Anyway Swansont is right, you have not shown us any real understanding of physics and for sure not at the level of the kinds of questions you would like to tackle. You lack knowledge. You tend not to use standard terminology or misunderstand standard terminology. You have shown some resistance to amending your thinking such as actually reading a physics book and learning what we do know. You have well over emphasised the importance of your ideas.

 

I don't want to offend you, but you have shown some clear signs of crackpot-ism. This psychology (and we know you are fond of psychology) is probably linked to Dunning–Kruger effect, but I think it is more than that. It often comes with a large amount of arrogance-"I without any formal education or training can do better than all these scientists".

 

There is a cure. It is called hard work studying physics and mathematics. I can write you a prescription if you want ;-)

[kristalris]

Q Bignose

So I am directly asking you, what is stopping you from following the literature of simulations of rigid spheres that have been done at the parameters, temperature, and accuracy you claim is needed?

 

EQ

 

Sorry that you feel ignored, it wasn’t my intention dear Bignose.

 

Swansont, ajb, and you are scientists, actual researches even, and all no doubt well versed in the mathematics and physics concerning the question at hand. Now one slight question crossed my mind. Would all the literature of simulation of rigid spheres et cetera take into account the fact that the mass I’m talking about doesn’t exert gravity?

 

I.e do you think if (or don’t these? You are the experts.) the atoms you use in the simulation exert gravity and that this might prevent reaching a dynamic crystal?

 

BTW in my model pressure and temperature are the same at the deepest level. I.e. you simply don’t grasp what it – logically - means to have two such particles and why logic - taking it in a broad sense - dictates that they are required. (Again broad outline shows you where to look, there you mustn’t get hung up on details.)

 

Having acquired where to look you (your psychology permitting) go into super focus. What are we looking at? ……. Well, basically MN continuously shooting guns with particles so small any string as part of any matter like an atom, acts like a little black hole that can hold much more than trillions of these.

 

Whereby MN hits these bullets (> c) shot from several guns every time over great distances spot on, subsequently following the flight path to do it continuously. Then you ask me why the required accuracy? So here you do get hung up on the details. You three get it?

 

Now ajb & Swantsont on the psychology of crack pots and Kruger Dunning.

 

Let me tell the tale of Sir Flamealot on Charcoal his crusted steed long time ago in a time thread on a faraway site. In many gallant attempts to kill the Crystal dragon he miserably failed time and again because he missed out in openness to oversee the problem in defending his paradigm written boldly on the crest of his shield.

In fact what he thought was the crystal dragon was sir Oepsalot, who he normally saw as a failed knight crusader bearing not a nice cross like He, but an L plate as shield. Waving not – like He - the magnificent sword of literature but having a childish string and stick.

This to the point that even though two went before him attempting to Kruger Dunning sir Oepsalot and thus becoming the Kruger Dunning twins after being explained what it meant, he charged and became one of the KD triplit. The nitwit.

 

Ending in sulking with his bookwise KD mates in another thread on the word wizardry that had befallen them.

 

KD measures humour, grammar and logic. I must admit I’m not the humorous type and you can range that from no humour at all, like not getting irony – to laughing when it explained, too copying jokes from others and – “you too” jokes all scoring low on the KD scale to originally and quickly amending jokes from others or compiling them yourself. (Now try and figure out why it is that measuring humour has anything to do with what KD is about?)

Then we have grammar. Well again I’m at a loss indeed for English is not my native tongue. (BTW do you want me to comment on your grammar? Be glad to.)

And last but not least is logic. Well, now you three have been making a lot of fallacies on your own stated fields of expertise. The opening point I made in this post shows this yet again.

This begs the question will we have a quartet? Get it?

 

Then on the crackpot bit. According to DSM V now Newton, Einstein et cetera and 50 to 80 % of the population are suffering from some sort of mental illness. This is due to the fact that the Flamealots have taken over in research from the Oepsalots.

The latter dare to make mistakes and owe up to them and quickly learn from them and carry on. The former belong in production. (BTW everybody has both the flamealot and the oepsalot trait.)

 

On the logical procedure:

 

You three are playing a different ball game. You keep on playing GR golf and QM midget golf whereas you should be playing marbles much like Newtonian bonkers of old. (If you care to lose points on the KD scale you can now say that I lost my marbles or that I’m bonkers.)

You keep on criticizing me for my bad swing at (midget) golf, and I keep on trying to point out that no clubs are allowed in this game of MN of which we yet have to find the rules of the game she is playing. And you don’t get the fact that the (black) hole in which to throw the marble is much smaller than with bonkers or golf, and so requires more accuracy.

 

In short all three – like my dad warned me – are experts at extrapolating formulas of GR and QM etc out of their respective regimes.

 

Furthermore I’ve put my finger on the sore spot of GR: photons extremely probably don’t exert gravity. Take that out and you simply link GR to Newton, to QM.

Newton with a twist of superconductivity and matter being a little black hole. You simply can’t get your heads round the simple implications, and insist on hitting the problem with your clubs.

Try logical humorous creative vocabulary as a remedy against KD’ism. What does super conductivity mean in that given context? Don't try and read it in some book but: Think!

 

BTW I'm fully aware of the extremely complex mathematical / physics problem that will ensue if either of my tests shows a positive result and even to get such a result at all. Rheology and what not. I would be a KD if I tried to go it myself. Your job not mine. Mine is to provide science with first aid seeing that it undeniably has been diverging instead of converging on TOE. Get your act together this is costing lives. Get it properly organized.

How can it be that I who place myself irrelevant as it might be at a 1/1000^th of an Einstein can get in principle falsifiable tests for TOE in and zoom in and plug in at GR . In effect nicking all your mathematics via a I plug you play method? How did I find this weak spot in GR? A lucky guess?

No, just applying what I learnt from my dad and in math’s and science classes. You three are undeniably in a strangle hold of string and stick. No hand waving needed. Simply logic.

Show a better idea on TOE or falsify this one.

[ajb]

Would all the literature of simulation of rigid spheres et cetera take into account the fact that the mass I’m talking about doesn’t exert gravity?

All the simulations no, I am sure people have added gravtational forces between the spheres and background forces in some simulations.

 

I.e do you think if (or don’t these? You are the experts.) the atoms you use in the simulation exert gravity and that this might prevent reaching a dynamic crystal?

No, because a simple model of a gas in a box is not going to include gravitational forces due to very light objects.

 

According to DSM V now Newton, Einstein et cetera and 50 to 80 % of the population are suffering from some sort of mental illness.

Comparing yourself to Newton and Einstein is another sign of a crackpot, though it usually is Galileo. So, just be warned.

 

 

The latter dare to make mistakes and owe up to them and quickly learn from them and carry on.

Like all scientits, but rarley crackpots.

 

You three are playing a different ball game.

A game you do not know the rules of.

 

In short all three – like my dad warned me – are experts at extrapolating formulas of GR and QM etc out of their respective regimes.

So again you have made it clear you are not listening to anyone of us. For the record none of us hear has advocated the use of GR or QM in regimes that they are not expected to be a good theory.

 

Furthermore I’ve put my finger on the sore spot of GR: photons extremely probably don’t exert gravity.

I does not seem to be a very controversial issue, unless you can point to publications on the issue that I am not aware of.

 

You are putting too much importance into your ideas, another clear sign.

 

Take that out and you simply link GR to Newton, to QM.

Prove it.

 

 

Newton with a twist of superconductivity and matter being a little black hole.

That your notion of superconductivity or the standard one?

 

Your job not mine.

We agree on that!

 

Mine is to provide science with first aid seeing that it undeniably has been diverging instead of converging on TOE.

delusional self-importance, another sign.

 

Get your act together this is costing lives.

Misunderstanding of what science and again placing too much importance on your ideas.

 

How can it be that I who place myself irrelevant...

What?

 

This is the most incorrect thing you have ever said!

..as it might be at a 1/1000^th of an Einstein can get in principle falsifiable tests for TOE in and zoom in and plug in at GR . In effect nicking all your mathematics via a I plug you play method? How did I find this weak spot in GR? A lucky guess?

No, just applying what I learnt from my dad and in math’s and science classes. You three are undeniably in a strangle hold of string and stick. No hand waving needed. Simply logic.

You have done no such thing.

 

Show a better idea on TOE or falsify this one.

I though people have had done that.

 

Anyway, I am sorry I call CRANK, CRACKPOT, CHARLATAN and refuse to contribute to this drivel any longer.

[swansont]

Would all the literature of simulation of rigid spheres et cetera take into account the fact that the mass I’m talking about doesn’t exert gravity?

All of them? probably not. But then, that's really the wrong question. Are there simulations out there that ignore gravity? Yes. One of the assumptions of ideal gases is that the only interaction between them occurs in the collision, i.e. there is no gravity in the model.

 

Then on the crackpot bit. According to DSM V now Newton, Einstein et cetera and 50 to 80 % of the population are suffering from some sort of mental illness. This is due to the fact that the Flamealots have taken over in research from the Oepsalots.

The latter dare to make mistakes and owe up to them and quickly learn from them and carry on. The former belong in production. (BTW everybody has both the flamealot and the oepsalot trait.)

It would be nice for crackpots develop the trait of owing up to mistakes and learning from them. Very nice indeed.

[kristalris]

All the simulations no, I am sure people have added gravtational forces between the spheres and background forces in some simulations.

 

 

No, because a simple model of a gas in a box is not going to include gravitational forces due to very light objects.

 

 

Comparing yourself to Newton and Einstein is another sign of a crackpot, though it usually is Galileo. So, just be warned.

 

EQ

 

I said it was irrelevant and 1/1000 well even 1/ 100000 if you like. Then you are still wrong because you are looking for authority, I only as a a priori you make in to the posterior. That is a fallacy.

 

Q

 

Like all scientits, but rarley crackpots.

 

EQ

 

Well I've shown to do that, you haven't. You three wanted to simulate my model using gravity as such and between the particles. That isn't my model. So you made a mistake. Owe up to it then.

 

Q

 

 

A game you do not know the rules of.

 

EQ

 

Yes I do I follow yours concerning GR and QM as far as verified. Don't have to do it myself though.

 

Q

 

 

So again you have made it clear you are not listening to anyone of us. For the record none of us hear has advocated the use of GR or QM in regimes that they are not expected to be a good theory.

 

I does not seem to be a very controversial issue, unless you can point to publications on the issue that I am not aware of.

 

EQ

 

Yes you have you've used GR against my idea stating that GR says that photons exert gravity and my idea states it doesn't. So you conclude my idea is wrong. Whereas while you were pointing out what was in favour of GR being correct on that point you unwittingly have shown that it is it weak spot. Because GR works brilliantly - nearly - everywhere else. And the communis opinio in science is that there is something wrong with GR and / or QM because they don't match.

You are putting too much importance into your ideas, another clear sign. What more literature do you want, I use your own reasoning.

 

Q

Prove it.

 

EQ

 

Circular argument and thus a fallacy on your part. You know I need the test to do that. If (and thus not when) it goes to order the mathematical proof will most probably follow. Asking proof on the standard what you are clearly demanding is circular, i.e. only testing for validation in stead of discovery.

 

Q

 

 

 

That your notion of superconductivity or the standard one?

 

EQ

 

The logical one following what is a given hypothesis.

 

Q

 

 

We agree on that!

 

EQ

 

Great.

 

Q

delusional self-importance, another sign.

 

Misunderstanding of what science and again placing too much importance on your ideas.

 

EQ

 

Well current science holds TOE to be as far as I'm aware to be very important yet as I understand not directly reachable. That gives the importance of any idea stated on TOE that is testable. No delusion verifiable fact, mate.

 

Q

 

 

What?

 

This is the most incorrect thing you have ever said!

 

EQ

 

Brush up on your Bayes. The a priory authority I hold is irrelevant i.e. 1. But if you like 1 / 1000000. Okay.

 

Q

 

You have done no such thing.

 

EQ

 

Oh yes I have.

 

Q

 

 

I though people have had done that.

 

H'm a testable TOE is there already in your opinion?

 

Q

 

Anyway, I am sorry I call CRANK, CRACKPOT, CHARLATAN and refuse to contribute to this drivel any longer.

 

EQ

 

I forgive you what else can you do being cornered .

All of them? probably not. But then, that's really the wrong question. Are there simulations out there that ignore gravity? Yes. One of the assumptions of ideal gases is that the only interaction between them occurs in the collision, i.e. there is no gravity in the model.

 

EQ

 

Well then if it has no earth gravity or gravity between the atoms of the gas and the pressure of the box was right and the walls and balls absolutely rigid it all was simulated to the standard of enough good billiard balls hitting then my idea is indeed falsified.

 

Please show me the exact simulation.

 

Q

 

 

It would be nice for crackpots develop the trait of owing up to mistakes and learning from them. Very nice indeed.

 

EQ

 

Well I have owed up to my mistakes on this site, show me where I didn't. and learned from them. For instance where the weak point of GR is at.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2013 by kristalris

[ajb]

 

Like talking to a brick wall.

[kristalris]

 

Like talking to a brick wall.

Logic is indeed for some felt as a brick wall.

 

Of and BTW on conductivity = 1/ resistibility => a fundamental particle in a absolute void experiences no resistance so the absolute void is absolutely conductive. When it hits another fundamental particle it experiences a resistance deforming and deflecting both. For a much larger photon the term is that the Higgs field is at least superconductive it only gets deflected and red shifted in gravitational fields thus experiencing a resistance of the stretched Higgs field to fly at c in a straight line. Experiencing no gravity the Higgs field is for a photon thus absolutely conductive. It flies in a straight line (or probably nearly so?). So it also depends in what context you want to use the word. If you only want to use it in the context of GR / QM then you are extrapolating rules (on GR /QM) outside their regime.

[ajb]

For those that might be following this and are interested in science;

 

The Higgs mechanism is a kind of superconductivity. The vacuum condensate of the Higgs field carries weak charges, in exactly the right way so that the electric charge is zero. The Higgs condensate is neutral. This is why the photon remains massless and the EM force is long ranged.

 

This could be the source of someones confusion.

 

Now, this has nothing to do with particles being able to be deformed or not.

[kristalris]

For those that might be following this and are interested in science;

 

The Higgs mechanism is a kind of superconductivity. The vacuum condensate of the Higgs field carries weak charges, in exactly the right way so that the electric charge is zero. The Higgs condensate is neutral. This is why the photon remains massless and the EM force is long ranged.

 

This could be the source of someones confusion.

 

Now, this has nothing to do with particles being able to be deformed or not.

And again you put knowledge & formulas on GR / QM on my model. Thus extrapolating these formulas out of their regime for my model is in this thread a given probandum to be tested. It would only be relevant if my model couldn't cater for what you find. I don't see why my model would be in any way having a problem explaining that.

 

You clearly are not familiar with the duck / rabbit analogy that is widely used in mathematics and psychology as well. Depicting that there can be two ways of looking at the same evidence. Your way (the current way) works brilliantly - I agree - I call it a law of physics as far as that it has been verified to be brilliantly correct. Yet then you can't marry GR to QM without resorting to believing in magic. I.e. contradictions like something from nothing. So I plug in where you showed me where GR isn't brilliantly correct by current science, and there we differ. Photons are then not massless but matterless because they don't exert gravity.

 

In science then the test should decide the issue.

 

I can do exactly the same as GR and QM but then in an integral plausible and testable way. Albeit only via a computer simulation on a supercomputer that I for a start don't have.

 

Logic can lay demands wich have been met, convention is subordinate in science to logic. Risk = chance X consequence. If you don't test what is reasonably testable you run the unnecessary risk of never reaching TOE at all. If my test goes to order it is relevant on TOE and if my test on mounting gravity at higher speeds is measured as well. Logic, old boy.

 

Unless of course you can state that if it goes to order or indeed shows a rise in gravity would not be relevant on TOE, or prove - given - my model that it can't work.

[ajb]

Yet then you can't marry GR to QM without resorting to believing in magic. I.e. contradictions like something from nothing.