The Way I-try Views Energy [Split from The Essence of Energy]

[swansont]

the basic fundamental dynamic reality we refer to as energy requires impact derived from opposing the speed C of a unit quantity of a universal ability of movement.

 

That's some top-flight gibberish there. Lots of buzzwords and no meaningful content to it.

[I-try]

Swansont.

The stand alone part sentence you quoted and cut from my statement on post 25 could be fairly described as you implied. However, the lack of “meaningful content to it” was provided in preceding sentences.

 

In answer to your statement “That's some top-flight gibberish there. Lots of buzzwords and no meaningful content to it”. I will refer you to my post number 15 in the thread; Gravity according to I-try. If my total statement concerning intrinsic energy on post number 25 is as you described, then the prediction made regarding my expectation of the thermal activity of the comet being investigated by the Rosetta spacecraft will not be found to be correct. The immediate above statement is relevant because the totality of my work is based on the concept that at the fundamental level of reality, motion is the basic reality and proportional intrinsic energy must accompany motion however slight the motion may be.

[I-try]

It appears that I have been unable to convince those posters to the speculations part of this forum regarding the fundamental nature of energy. Even so, there has been no responders to my challenge to provide an example of motion, of an ability to move that did not require the presence of energy, irrespective of whatever name is used to refer to its potential attributes. Therefore, I will issue a further challenge regarding the use of the word Pull when scientist are referring to gravity or gravitation, such as the pull of gravity or gravitational pull. The manner in which I view the fundamental dynamic nature of motion and potential intrinsic energy forbids the concept of a pulling force. Einstein stated that gravitation is an illusion and gravity resulted from matter being compelled to follow geodetic pathways in space-time. Even so, those who valiantly attempt to prove Einstein to be correct regarding gravity, have a habit of referring to the pull of gravity or to gravitational pull. The concept of a pulling force requires adherence between the individuals making up the interconnection, and a winding or contracting concept. My challenge to those who dismiss the push concept of gravitation is for them to provide a physical description of a pulling force.

[Strange]

Einstein stated that gravitation is an illusion and gravity resulted from matter being compelled to follow geodetic pathways in space-time. Even so, those who valiantly attempt to prove Einstein to be correct regarding gravity, have a habit of referring to the pull of gravity or to gravitational pull.

 

You seem to be confusing "theory" and "informal discussion". These are quite different things. (And Einstein never stated that gravitation is an illusion.)

 

 

The concept of a pulling force requires adherence between the individuals making up the interconnection, and a winding or contracting concept.

 

Er, no.

 

 

My challenge to those who dismiss the push concept of gravitation is for them to provide a physical description of a pulling force.

 

It is the way we perceive the curvature of space time.

[I-try]

Thanks Strange for your correction regarding Einstein not actually making the statement that gravitation is an illusion. I should have stated as I have on other posts that he was correct in his belief that gravitation as a Force is an illusion, and he provided the compulsion to matter to follow geodetic pathways as a dynamic physical reason for his belief. Even so, the sum total of his use of geometric mathematics relegated both gravity and gravitation to only resulting because matter is compelled to follow geodetic pathway. Geodetic pathways that result from matter’s ability to self generate that referred to curvature of space-time. As stated on other posts, my work on the subject agrees that matter can be crudely referred to as curving space-time, and explains how the curvature occurs. .

I too have access to the WWW, and am aware of the many arguments and counter arguments concerning whether Einstein’s work regarding gravity amounted to a geometric description of that phenomena.

 

Regarding your other comments; is there any physical significance backing ER,no that you can supply. Also, can you provide more details regarding your statement: It is the way we perceive the curvature of space-time. How do you perceive that which provides reality to space other than distance between entities, and do you have a definition of the fundamental nature of Time? If you do; how does it provide evidence of the physical realities inherent with the concept of a Pulling Force?

[I-try]

During my 40 year attempt to have my work evaluated, words ranging from stupid to arrogant have been relatively recently used on other forums to describe my continued belief in the value of the information it provides. Replies to my posts on this forum have been mild in comparison.

I continue to attempt to contact those with an interest in subjects such as a fundamental dynamic base for physics, because my work which I will refer to in future by the use of ?, appears to provide a logical base for physics, and explanation for anomalies.

Information pertaining to motion, to an ability to move and the potential intrinsic energy that accompanies and provides reality to all physical phenomena is attempted to be explained by ?. In that regard I will challenge all interested persons to provide an alternative to motion and the potential intrinsic energy resulting from the magnitude of motion with regards to the basic realities supporting our ideas of the creation of matter. According to ?, all force that we are aware of, originates from what in ?, is referred to as primeval energy, results from a universe wide ability of microscopic waves to travel at speed C.

 

I find that as science has progressed over the years by experiment and measurement, the results regarding the production of heat energy all point in a similar direction to that of The Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect required by ?. The return of heat energy to an external recipient in a change of state from steam to water without a change of temperature, or heat energy generated by the combining of atoms to form more complex molecules, the most violent being the combining of hydrogen isotopes to form helium, all have a common cause in the form of a limit to which particles are allowed to approach each-other. In that regard, we are all familiar with the heat energy generated when hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water, or carbon combining with oxygen to form carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. ? explains and requires that within strict limits, the changing of proximity particle to particle or star to star all demand an accounting for such changes.

The almost instantaneous destruction of the British battle ship Hood during the Second World War was a dramatic example of the energy locked up in matter. Although that ship was heavily armoured with steel, it was torn to pieces while attempting to confine the rapid expansion and heat generated by the exploding unstable material confined within its hull. The rapidly expanding gasses were being successively and instantaneously brought to a stationary state resulting in a conversion of some mass to a heat energy state. Due to the large amount of expanding gas being amassed to a density that resulted in intense heat and pressure; thereby the heat weakened steel gave way in such a dramatic display of the latent energy locked in matter. Particle to particle or molecule to molecule physical contact is not allowed in nature without the explosive generation of heat energy. A gas confined within a cylinder and the pressure increasing, only the coulomb force of the electrons interact and produce some heat energy; there is no further physical contact.

[physica]

40 years. wow you could have learnt a lot of maths in that time. Come up with measurable predictions and done experiments in general working towards proving your work. part-time physics degree and masters would have only taken up 8 years. Adding a phd to that part-time would have taken 14 years. In fact I'm shocked that a person has spent so long "working" on physics and hasn't actually learnt the maths. You must have actively avoided a lot of learning or spent about 2 hours a year working on your theory. I hope for your sake that you haven't spent too much time on your theories. Physics without maths is very limiting. Can you even name me one successful physics contributor in the last 100 years who didn't use maths.

[I-try]

physica.

Thanks for the criticism and advice regarding my lack of mathematical ability. However it is a little late to be of advantage to me considering I am 92 years of age. The 40 years referred to were spent attempting to get an evaluation of my work and failed to gain even adverse criticism.

You may be underestimating my knowledge regarding the basic nature of mathematics. As far as I can ascertain, my post stating that the energy pertaining to a unit of mass is equal to C², and that statement was not contested. Also, if you care to go to the other thread Gravity by I-try, you will find a mathematical statement regarding the maximum rate at which an electron could oscillate.

Also, there were no comments when I stated that the concept of relativistic mass resulted from a miss-reading of mathematics and is a physical mistake. In future, the statement should refer to relativistic momentum, and physical reasons were supplied to back that belief. Do you agree or not with those statements.

 

I have made statements on this thread and others that don’t conform to mainstream physics; would you care to provide comments and criticism of those statements.

[I-try]

The information to be posted here and later on the thread Gravity by I-try, relates to the fundamental dynamic nature of that which I believe underlies and indirectly provides the recognised physics at our level of reality. The information is derived from my almost lifetime attempt to provide physics with a logical conceptual idea of the dynamic nature of that from which our level of reality was and continues to be instantly re-created. The last statement is not to be understood as implying a belief in the Steady State Theory proposed by Professor Fred Hoyle, whereby new particles are to be imagined to be continually created throughout the Universe. To refer to my work, a question mark ? will be substituted.

 

The previous attempt at providing an understanding of the fundamental dynamic nature of the potential intrinsic energy essentially associated with motion however slight the movement, was not accepted mainly because mainstream science appears to perceive the reality of energy and motion as directly resulting only from the motion and presence of matter. That concept appears to result from a belief that the original creation of matter particles was completely accomplished so that they were enabled to self create all the attributes now believed attributed to them. In that regard, the opposing argument regarding the creation of matter to be later explained relative to ?, is not an attempt to revise the practical application of physics. The attempt is to provide an insight to the present mysteries extant in physics by a revision of the how and why that is presently lacking because physicists regard referring to the unmeasurable as unscientific. In that regard, ? closely relates the measurable to the unmeasurable by the use of the measured microwave background radiation.

 

Although an idea of the fundamental dynamic nature of the proposed foundation for physics has been attempted on other posts, a more complete explanation will be attempted on my next post to this thread. In that regard, my challenge to those who have an interest in contemplating the nature of the reality underlying physics at our level of reality, is to provide a logical concept that does not include the potential intrinsic energy essentially accompanying an ability to move.

[I-try]

Mainstream science has various concepts pertaining to matter considered to be either at rest, in uniform motion or undergoing acceleration. The concepts of the fundamental dynamic nature of mass and energy being the least understood of the concepts referred to when motion of matter is being discussed. In that regard and perhaps provide logical information that may promote a more complete understanding of mass and energy, it therefore becomes necessary to direct our thoughts towards the basic level of that we refer to as reality. To do so requires a step or two away from science based on the measurable, by attempting to imagine the fundamental dynamic nature of the not measurable but essential phenomena required to provide an understanding of mass and energy.

 

Presently, reference is made to the gravitational mass, the inertial mass, rest or invariant mass, and at high velocity to the relativistic mass. Professor Albert Einstein went to considerable effort to indicate that the inertial mass was exactly equal to the gravitational mass. Also, his conclusions drawn from his statements regarding inertia and energy indicated a similarity when he stated that: The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. The referred to statement was further emphasized by his equation E = MC². He indicated that there was an apparent difference by stating that the energy is measured in ergs and the mass in grams. There are a number of subtleties pertaining to how the concept of mass became a measure of the energy content of matter, and also with regard to their relationship.

 

Because this thread is concerned with a discussion concerning the fundamental dynamic nature of energy, then for that reason, and assisted by ?, there will be an ongoing attempt to provide an analysis of its fundamental dynamic nature, and of the mysteries pertaining to its association with matter. An explanation why the speed of light is involved and requires to be squared will also be attempted.

 

In compliance with the statements of the last paragraph above, I invite you to accompany me on an imaginary journey involving descending several levels of reality to that of the fundamental dynamic level. Extant at the basic level of reality being analysed, the only pertinent concept most prominent in our knowledge of physical reality is motion, an ability to move, and the potential energy known to be essentially associated with all motion. At the referred to level of reality, there is a need to relinquish concepts relevant at our level except for the intrinsic potential energy essential to enable an understanding of the fundamental dynamic nature of an ability to move.

 

In compliance to the statements made in the paragraph above, ? postulates that the only logical fundamental dynamic concept suitable to explain physics at our level of reality is the intrinsic potential energy that must accompany a primeval ability to move. Therefore, ? requires the universe wide existence of primeval motion in the form of microscopic short wavelength waves that are propagating at speed C in all directions, and thereby bestows reality to that we refer to as space. ? makes no attempt to provide an explanation regarding the original creation of that which bestows reality to space except to say the following: If an electron can produce an electric field, and an electron is created from the intrinsic potential energy extant with a primeval ability to move, then there is logical reasons to believe that the intrinsic potential energy accompanying a primeval ability of movement at speed C, encompasses the fundamental attributes necessary to enable an electric nature.

 

The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation that was eventually observed to arrive at the antenna from all directions, was fortunate to enable a measurable macroscopic example of the not-measurable microscopic wave-energy concept that ? attempts to explain. Before continuing with the attempted explanation of what ? refers to as primeval motion and energy, a statement regarding the CMBR is important to an understanding of the postulated fundamental dynamic reality.

 

Because relative to any small volume in that we call space, both the CMBR and the postulated primeval energy are to be viewed as arriving at and crossing those referred to volumes from all directions at speed C, it is now necessary to request that in the case of the CMBR, you imagine a spherical volume with a radius equal to the wavelength of the CMBR, and temporarily stop all motion at the surface of the sphere. You should find that at the surface referred to, small sections of CB microwaves are poised to travel at speed C towards a center point of the spherical volume. By allowing motion to continue, then at the crossing of the center point and relative to the energy extant to CMBR, there would be a instantaneous temporary reinforcing of that center volume approximately equal to C² ; thereby fleetingly forming a unit of virtual matter. If you continue to imagine the progress of the energy extant in the C² central volume amassing, there is an expansion in all directions that culminates in the referred to intrinsic energy of motion taking part in the constant repetition of the amassing-expansion cycle in similar volumes throughout the universe.

The above amassing is required in the reality of space despite the fact that the antenna utilized to make the discovery was only capable of receiving incoming microwaves from less than half the spherical directions referred to above, even so, the reception magnitude of primeval energy would have been much greater than provided from a single CB microwave.

 

By the assistance of the oscillatory amassing of the CMBR as described above, it is easy to imagine universe wide activity being constantly generated in all such volumes. In that regard, the explanation provided for the CMBR becomes a macroscopic example that is exactly similar to that which transpires in the microscopic case postulated by ?. The microscopic case requires the universe wide existence of primeval motion in the form of microscopic short wavelength waves that are propagating at speed C in all directions, and thereby bestows reality to that we refer to as space. The short description provided above regarding the momentary C² amassing of primeval energy in the form of units of virtual matter, is the base on which all phenomena irrespective of reality level is attempted to be explained by ?.

 

By the statements presented above, I am open to a challenge regarding the synchronizing of the CMBR. In that regard, the fact that irrespective of the direction the antenna responsible for the discovery was pointed, no change to the wavelength of any of the incoming waves was detected. Also, irrespective of how chaotic wave action may be when first created, interaction between the energy extant in each wave would eventually result in synchronisation. Energy amassed to a magnitude of C² would require synchronization as is evidenced by the well proven equation E = MC² .

[I-try]

Returning now to continue with regards to the attempted description of the formation of a unit quantity of virtual matter, and further to a description regarding the propagation of photons. Perhaps on this forum, a later explanation of the creation of an electron and the exactly equal but entirely opposites nature of positrons and negatrons may be provided. That ability is substantially enabled by the relevant information provided in post number 35.

 

An inventive analysis of the information supplied in post number 35 regarding the fundamental dynamic mechanics of the amassing of primeval energy, (thereby assisting towards a final amassing to C² when a matter particle is created) also provides evidence of a universe wide existence of a parameter capable of allowing the straight-line propagation of photons.

 

When we give our attention to a point in space that is a wavelength distant from the primeval energy amassed center point of the larger imagined sphere described in post 35 for CMBR, and serving as an example of that which transpires at the microscopic level of reality – a point at the center of the next adjacent spherical volume- then a wavelength later following the central amassing of energy, the point referred to would experience an amassing of energy, and the amassing would be out of phase with regards to the amassed energy of the originally referred to center point by a time period of a wavelength. In the example referred to, each immediate adjacent amassing of energy would form a unit of virtual matter that is exactly equal to all other units by the manner of primeval energy density amassing. Therefore exactly equal with regards the primeval energy amassing process and opposite in time. Adjacent volumes would experience an expanding of energy whilst the other is experiencing the contraction of energy towards its center point. Thereby allowing a preview of the existence of and explanation of equals and opposites. It is absolutely imperative for the reader to understand the time-rate-of-change between the primitive version of positive or negative referred to by ? as primary energy – virtual matter - to arrive at an understanding of a later attempted explanation of the creation of dissimilar matter particles. The idea of destructive wave interference is not relevant because the intrinsic force due to motion however minute is never lost.

 

Presently, the propagation of a photon through space is described due to its wave-particle nature. The electromagnet field of the photon producing its particle nature and as the particle progresses through implied empty space, the moving particle produces an electromagnet field, and so on until the photon is compelled by circumstances such as collision, to transform to another form of energy. There is no explanation given with regards to the how or why of the referred to ability of a photon. In that regard, imagination is required for the reader to gain an understanding of the dynamic mechanics as the photon progresses instant by instant (time relative to virtual matter) via the parameter established by the alternating nature of virtual matter. To begin, then in our imagination we witness the creation of a light photon, whereby a unidirectional reinforcing of the primeval energy involved in the alternating creation of several units of virtual matter has occurred. By allowing a slowing of all motion, we can follow the instant by instant zigzagging deviations from a straight line direction taken by a photon that on our level of reality becomes a strait line propagation. We can also witness in fine detail, the gradual condensing of what is referred to as the photon's electromagnetic field to fleetingly assist to form what is referred to as a particle, (unbalancing of virtual matter) that immediately transforms back into a magnetic type of field. In the process referred to, the reinforcing of primeval energy by the directional energy of the photon, would be in the form of a constant, directional unbalanced alternating partial compression and expansion that is exactly unidirectional transferred. In the explanation provided above, units of virtual matter are to be considered to be stationary in space during the propagation of a photon, and only the uni-directional unbalanced energy is undergoing rectilinear propagating.

 

The magnitude of path deflection of a photon would be mainly dependent on the gravity indued speed and direction of the parameter responsible for the dynamic nature of virtual matter.

 

If in the light of the above, if we imagine a volume of space consistent with that involved with the measurement of the deflection of starlight when passing close to the Sun, then the inward speed of motion of the Sun's gravity field has already been measured for that starlight passing distance. If the mathematicians posting to this forum compared the magnitude of deflection that resulted due to the inward motion of the Sun's gravity field that occurred at that distance during the passing time, and applied the inverse of the square of the distance law, they would find that the magnitude of deflection would be totally inadequate relative to the E = MC² of the Sun. ? requires the inadequacy and automatically supplies a logical answer that is consistent with well known physical phenomena.

 

The reference to a magnetic type of field in this post has a much later required explanation regarding the generation of a magnetic field by the motion of an electron.

Although at this stage in the many explanations of phenomena provided by ?, the magnetic field of electrons cannot presently be attempted to be explained, even so, the universally eternally present underlying dynamic parameters referred to above and in post 35, allowing for an eventual explanation.

 

The posts in this and other thread provides an indication for the original statement that ? is comprehensive throughout, whilst providing explanation for phenomena ranging from the fundamental dynamic level of reality to that consistent with conditions pertaining to our galaxy.

[I-try]

Imateaal.

I have been concerned for some time now regarding the lack of comment regarding controversial statements made in several earlier posts.

In post 36 there is a deliberate error made (attempting to test interest and quote provided below) regarding the out of phase of the central points of adjacent volumes, and because there are people claiming to be a physicist or engineer posting to this forum, I confidently expected to congratulate them for providing a correction. In that regard, there appears to no interest concerning a possible glimmer of credence or attempt at a critical analysis of ?. The fact that there seems to be an eager willingness to mainly provide dissenting criticism on all other threads appears to indicate a total lack of interest in ?. If I am correct in that belief, then to continue would be a wasting of time that I most certainly cannot afford to do. I would appreciate any comment you or others may care to make and will act accordingly.

 

Quote.

When we give our attention to a point in space that is a wavelength distant from the primeval energy amassed center point of the larger imagined sphere described in post 35 for CMBR, and serving as an example of that which transpires at the microscopic level of reality – a point at the center of the next adjacent spherical volume- then a wavelength later following the central amassing of energy, the point referred to would experience an amassing of energy, and the amassing would be out of phase with regards to the amassed energy of the originally referred to center point by a time period of a wavelength. In the example referred to, each immediate adjacent amassing of energy would form a unit of virtual matter that is exactly equal to all other units by the manner of primeval energy density amassing. Therefore exactly equal with regards the primeval energy amassing process and opposite in time. Adjacent volumes would experience an expanding of energy whilst the other is experiencing the contraction of energy towards its center point.

 

 

the amassing would be out of phase with regards to the amassed energy of the originally referred to center point by a time period of a wavelength. Not correct, it would be in phase at all referred to time period of that point in the ongoing cycle referred to.

 

 

the amassing would be out of phase with regards to the amassed energy of the originally referred to center point by a time period of a wavelength. Very obviously not correct.

[Strange]

You expect people to spot errors in gibberish?

[Endy0816]

I know personally I tend to ignore longer threads unless I see that someone besides OP has posted. Either OP is talking to themselves or they are engaged in a rapid fire discussion.

 

Obviously there are exceptions, those threads where the thread starter is presenting ongoing research(located well outside of Speculations).

[physica]

The problem is that I-try doesn't really understand what science is. A classic example between the difference between science and philosophy was quantum entanglement. There was a problem. Experimentally they couldn't work out if the act of measurement caused the 2 particles to spin in opposite direction. Because of this it was also hard to determine if there was entanglement or that the particles were already opposite the time there were separated like gloves. Because they couldn't develop and experiment with testable predictions the whole thing got put down to philosophy not science. It came back into science when Bell

 

The problem is I-try's waffle is that it offers no testable predictions. In fact the building blocks of the theory offer no predictions so we can't even tell if it is consistent with previous experiments.

[I-try]

Strange.

Your comment of post number 38 is typical of you because you require that only the measurable can be regarded as scientific. Attitudes similar to that belief are part responsible for the lack of mainstream knowledge regarding the how or why regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of phenomena such as gravity and gravitation.

You have demonstrated an ability to consistently spot errors in many other posts that you obviously consider to be gibberish, so I have provided two errors that should have been obvious to the scientific qualified who actually read and attempt to understand the proposed dynamic base underlying our concepts of that we call reality.

It is very significant that you have avoided providing any semblance of an answer to my questions to you that are located in the bottom paragraph of post 30.

[hoola]

hello I try....I would think there would be little ability to understand concepts without the math to delineate them. I have no real understanding of what you write as far as the thermo-gravity thing, but I do tend to think that the universe originated prior to math construction, and assert there is no formal mathematics to relate to prior BB events. I propose that logic itself must have developed before formal math, along with 2 precursor states that led to logic. To attempt to provide thought on any supposed entity that cannot be held up to the rigors of math is probably not going to be well received anywhere. This I see for two reasons, either the idea doesn't hold water in the current thinking on the accepted mathematically based evidence providing a modern physical model of the universe, or there is no math provided, or even possible to provide, to support the idea. To even infer that math is not always associated with every phenomena, is disquieting. However, you are attempting to describe a possible gravitational effect, which I see as interesting, as I see the mechanism of gravity possibly having originated from the logic that underlies the maths, and it was that fundamental computing ability of logic itself that began the gravitation framework...this is within the bounds of philosophy and rightfully placed in speculations. In short, I am saying that gravity mechanism may have originated before the BB under the rubric of logic, then evolved further to physical behavior post BB with the completion of the data set with formal math development...I see the BB as the transition point between pre and post mathematical existence...

[I-try]

Endy0816.

Thanks for providing the reason for your lack of interest in my posts. I am surprised because as far as I can ascertain via the www, I am attempting to provide the only comprehensive explanation in the literature of the fundamental dynamical nature of phenomena underlying our concepts of that we call reality, and appearing to be capable of providing logical answers to phenomena now referred to as anomalies.

To date, I have posted (in post number 36) information derived from ? that requires and attempts to explain why light is proportionally deflected from its line of travel when travelling at an angle across the direction of travel of a gravity field. In the other thread Gravity by I-try, an abbreviated attempted description of gravity and electric field of an electron is provided along with other information that I expected would have qualified for at least one reply. Had there been a reply, I would not have been talking to myself. In that regard, it appears that and due to replies provided on Speculation, most threads in Speculation are automatically regarded as suspect and rightly so.

 

[imatfaal]

Imateaal.

I have been concerned for some time now regarding the lack of comment regarding controversial statements made in several earlier posts.

In post 36 there is a deliberate error made ....

 

There is a dreadfully terse but wonderfully descriptive internet neologism which sums up, I believe, most members attitude to your posts: tl;dr

 

And please don't wax lyrical about the youth of today being unable to take in large doses of facts and subsisting on only soundbites; I am no youth, I have read both Clarissa and Remembrance of Things Past, and rejoice in good prose; but there is a time and a place for everything. Scientific discussion is not the place for WoTs (walls of text) - most questions can be answered with short answers and pointed references.

[Strange]

Your comment of post number 38 is typical of you because you require that only the measurable can be regarded as scientific.

 

Yep. That is kind of the definition of science.But you aren't interested in science and I'm not interested in pages of waffle with no apparent meaningful content. In other words: tl;dr.

[I-try]

Quote. The problem is that I-try doesn't really understand what science is. A classic example between the difference between science and philosophy was quantum entanglement. There was a problem. Experimentally they couldn't work out if the act of measurement caused the 2 particles to spin in opposite direction. Because of this it was also hard to determine if there was entanglement or that the particles were already opposite the time there were separated like gloves. Because they couldn't develop and experiment with testable predictions the whole thing got put down to philosophy not science. It came back into science when Bell

 

The problem is I-try's waffle is that it offers no testable predictions. In fact the building blocks of the theory offer no predictions so we can't even tell if it is consistent with previous experiments.

 

Physica.

Judging from your comments in the quote above, it is obvious you have not read or attempted to understand ?. A person when deeming themselves qualified to be adversely critical of a post, they should at least read and attempt to understand the information provided. In that regard and to stay relevant to each of the threads The way I-try Views Energy, and Gravity according to I-try, I have been posting relevant to the title of each thread. It would make for an easier understanding of what I am attempting to explain if they were combined under a title such as The Fundamental Dynamic Nature of Physics by I-try. The reason being that in one thread the information provided regarding the basic nature of motion and potential intrinsic energy at the fundamental dynamic level of reality, is vital for an understanding of the phenomena now not understood at our macro level of reality, and attempted to be further explained on the thread titled Gravity by I-try.

For instance, in a post already provided in the thread titled The Way I-try Views Energy, there is a description of the amassing of primeval energy at the fundamental dynamic level of that we call reality, then if that post had been critically examined, the following phenomena would have had a fundamental base for an understanding at our level of reality.

The phenomena referred to includes that we refer to as mass, energy in all forms, gravity, and a fundamental reason leading to an understanding why an electron and a positron are exactly equal but entirely opposite. To test interest, I provided an inaccurate statement regarding equal but opposite that should have been easily spotted because it was so obviously incorrect. The referred to incorrect statement should not have prevented a physicist from extrapolating that concept as providing a potential explanation of electrons and positrons at our level of reality.

Also, the posted description in the thread Gravity by I-try regarding the gravity field of an electron that half an instant later (time relative to an electron) results in that electron's electric field, is only relevant to an electron free of the affects imposed on an electron forming a part of bulk matter. There is a dominant physical reason why when forming a part of bulk matter, the continuance of the electron's electric field cannot be provided by gravity. It was for that reason why I expected the descenting replies that did not eventuate: thereby instilling the belief that by continuing attempting further communication is a waste of time that I cannot afford. However, if you or others are sufficiently interested to read and attempt to understand ?, I will attempt to answer and provide clarification to all questions of a physical nature.

Your statements regarding entanglement are noted, and in reply I would suggest that post number 36 may be of interest because despite the deliberate mistake, a photon can be propagated in any single direction and oscillates between having a wave nature to that of a more dense energy state. Irrespective of the deliberately incorrect information supplied, electromagnetic generated photons have either a quasi positive or negative nature. A photon split into two parts would both be either quasi positive or negative in nature; interference to one photon by magnetic measurement would have a high potential to retard, accelerate or deflect, and therefore could change its nature. According to ?, when generated, a photon has only a uni-directional nature, and unlike a massive particle, a photon cannot generate a gravity field to cause the gravitational effect.

According to ?, at the fundamental level of reality and universe wide, there are only the above referred to equal but opposite two time-like periods.

[physica]

Your statements regarding entanglement are noted, and in reply I would suggest that post number 36 may be of interest because despite the deliberate mistake, a photon can be propagated in any single direction and oscillates between having a wave nature to that of a more dense energy state. Irrespective of the deliberately incorrect information supplied, electromagnetic generated photons have either a quasi positive or negative nature. A photon split into two parts would both be either quasi positive or negative in nature; interference to one photon by magnetic measurement would have a high potential to retard, accelerate or deflect, and therefore could change its nature. According to ?, when generated, a photon has only a uni-directional nature, and unlike a massive particle, a photon cannot generate a gravity field to cause the gravitational effect.

You clearly didn't understand my point about entanglement. The point wasn't about entanglement mechanics is was about what constitutes science. Because entanglement couldn't be tested it was classed as philosophy until the maths was completed and an experiment could be done. I'm not going to go through your posts with a fine tooth comb. Your posts offer no numerical predictions. How can we test it? How can we compare it to previous experiments and readings to see if it's consistent? We can't. I'm shocked that someone has spent decades on this and hasn't learnt the maths so they can validate it. It's like speculating on your bank balance by the tone of the bank letters and bills you receive as opposed to bothering to look at the figures and carry out basic accounting. Yes you will get an idea if you're in debt or not but the changes of guessing the right amount that's in your bank account is very unlikely. I'm interested in science. I'm not going to invest much time in something that doesn't give any testable predictions. I'm guessing this is why your theories have generally been dismissed.

 

Ok let's say I'm really interested in your theory. Lets look at some basic energy predictions and you can explain how your theory mimics these outcomes. A theorist should be able to show how their theory is consistent with previous readings.

 

A particle (a) with a mass of 3kg is moving at 25ms^-1 along the x axis when it collides with a particle (b) of 2kg travelling at 35ms^-1 in the negative y axis. We can say that the collision is elastic.

 

what predictions does your theory give for the speeds and directions of both particles?

 

A particle with a mass of 55kg is 2 meters from the ground on earth. It is released from rest. Negating air resistance what prediction does your theory give on the particle's kinetic energy?

 

These two problems are very basic. You'd fail first year undergrad physics if you couldn't get these right. If your theory cannot get these basic predictions right how can we say it's consistent with observed phenomena?

[physica]

As I thought nothing. If your theory cannot make predictions that can be measured and tested it cannot be put through the scientific method to see if it is correct, therefore it isn't scientific. Anyone reading it would be wasting their time. The issue is that i-try doesn't understand what science is. They treat science as if it's a religion.

 

People who do this usually quote Einstein saying rubbish like "without religion science is lame." The thing is that Einstein was human, he got stuff wrong as he is not a god. Einstein was wrong about quantum entanglement for instance. This is why science is so successful. No matter how intelligent you are, no matter how reasonable your theory sounds it is put to the test to see if it's right.

 

Maths is for the humble. It acts as a guide. I have lost count on the amount of times I think I'm on the right path only to be shown that my method doesn't make sense due to the sheer simple fact that the units don't add up. What i-try has done is display extreme arrogance. He has spent decades on this but he hasn't bothered to apply maths to it as if his brain is so amazing that it doesn't need maths to guide him. It is very arrogant to chuck a theory at the scientific community without even bothering to show how it could be tested. It's as arrogant as a doctor chucking out a diagnosis and not even bothering to consider what blood tests or scans will confirm this.

 

Any idiot can read and come up with an idea. Writing it down doesn't make the idea any stronger (unless you're a religion). Scientific work and skill comes in developing an idea that can be measured and thus tested and utilised. Your theory offers no predictions (even for first year undergrad energy problems) therefore it's trash. I just hope you haven't dedicated too many hours per year on this.

[I-try]

Physica.

 

I, unlike a lot of posters, make an attempt to answer the relevant details contained in all posts directed to me. Also , I have other commitments besides answering posts. I will provide answers to your two posts when time permits.

 

And hello again to you hoola.

 

Thank you for your information on post number 42. It appears that you are the only person posting to Speculations prepared to ask me a question pertaining to the physical realities attempted to be explained in my posts.

I have always held the belief that a person with a genuine interest in attempting to understand the presently unknown regarding the how and the why that provides the basic reality of physics and mathematics, would display an interest irrespective of the lack of mathematical equations. There is no lack of interest in the how or why of gravity and gravitation being indulged in on this and other forums, and the lack of discussion regarding the general absence of mathematical explanation is not surprising. To date, the mathematics pertaining to gravitation supplied by Newton and Einstein mainly refer to measurements derived entirely from the gravitational effect that is also mistakenly referred to as gravity. The present concept appears to be that gravity and gravitation are one and the same phenomenon that originates from matters intrinsic ability to generate a mysterious attractive phenomena generally referred to as the pull of gravity. Also, there are no mathematics attempting to explain the fundamental how or why simply because science can function efficiently without that knowledge. The mathematical derived curvature that lead to the concept space-time, and idea of gravity provided by Einstein, can perhaps be regarded as an exception. Even so, I am not aware that QM has measured and supplied the mathematics regarding the energy in a single fundamental quantum wave, graviton or gluon. If QM has not, then why should I be expected to do so.

The lack of knowledge regarding the nature of gravity and the gravitational effect, unfortunately leads to misconceptions such as the existence of constantly reoccurring gravitation induced waves emanating from two relatively rapid orbiting, excessive massive bodies.

 

Your statement regarding your lack of understanding of the referred to Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect is not surprising because it demands a strict instant by instant compliance of all phenomena with the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. Relative to the Earth's mostly accelerating state during its orbiting of the Sun, (also Io's relatively rapid orbiting of Jupiter) mainstream science appear to believe that its ok if momentum is only conserved when the Earth returns to any given point in its orbit.

Presently, mainstream science believes that the excessive volcanic activity on Io is due to what is referred to as gravitational squeezing, and the unexpected heating registered by the spacecraft Rosetta with regards the comet it is orbiting, results from the general sooty nature of the comet's surface. In that regard, then if the sooty nature is the correct reason for the unexpected heating, then as the comet travels away from the Sun, equal heating should be expected for any comparable distance to the Sun, when the different due to the direction of motion is allowed fore. If after the referred to allowances are made, then instead of the now expected heating there is unexpected cooling, then perhaps mainstream science may be prepared to examine ?.

You would need a reasonable understanding of the fundamental pertaining to ?, to have an understanding of the GTE.

 

In answer to the last couple of statements you made in post number 42, then on my posts numbers 34,35.36, 37 and 46 you can find information concerning development of physics. Post number 46 provides a 1 + I = 2 basic foundation for the human invention of mathematics. Post number 46 also contains a logical physical reason why the phenomenon of entanglement can be explained as occurring due to measurement; then so like on the other posts referred to, all have been ignored with regards the provision of comment.

[Strange]

 

You would need a reasonable understanding of the fundamental pertaining to ?

 

I have noticed this a lot in your posts. What does the "?" represent?