What do you guys think of this? There is no such thing as 'attraction', only path of least resistance

[andrewcellini]

To what extent do I need to explain each variable? To what extent do I need to include variables from other equations? You could keep deconstructing variables in any equation to the point they no longer make sense.

to the extent to where people understand what you mean. it helps when the equation is actually a model of what you're trying to say.

[metacogitans]

Dude, it's your equation. Shouldn't you know?

 

And what is H now? There isn't even an H in your equation. Just R's and capital lambdas.

 

Are you just making things up? That isn't scientific at all. You should know what your equation's terms actually are. Science isn't just making up equations and hoping they are right. Science is the creation of models -- almost always mathematical -- and seeing what predictions those models make.

 

As I actually listed in my post (had you bothered to read it) that 1/le

 

to the extent to where people understand what you mean. it helps when the equation is actually a model of what you're trying to say.

 

are the units the cosmological constant has. And since you've talked about in this thread, and the cosmological constant is usually written as a capital lambda, I just assumed that that was what your capital lambda was. I could be wrong, but this is on you because of your failure to communicate anything about your equation, and based on the question in your quote above, even understand what you wrote/

Here's the thing: you can make lambda whatever you want! It will always be an average/estimate. And that is true with all equations and solutions of equations which attempt to use it!. Some even just consider it dark energy. I don't know what else you'd like me to do.

The sense I'm using it for R requires it to be an average of energy from background radiation in a given spherical volume of space.

Lambda(mitigated) is the level of background radiation coming from a certain direction that was mitigated by a massive object -- again, it's going to be as accurate as you make it, but needs to at least consider the main points I mentioned in the post introducing it.

Edited August 17, 2014 by metacogitans

[andrewcellini]

Here's the thing: you can make lambda whatever you want!

right, but you didn't define lambda as anything.

[Bignose]

Here's the thing: you can make lambda whatever you want! It will always be an average/estimate. And that is true with all equations and solutions of equations that attempt. Some even just consider it dark energy. I don't know what else you'd like me to do.

Really? Really?!? Lambda can be whatever I want? Even a million dollars? Sweet. I'm going to buy so many Lamborghini's now...

 

metacogitans, I am sorry, but none of this is meaningful in a scientific sense. I tried to help. At least I think I did. But you're clearly not willing or able to discuss your idea scientifically.

 

Science doesn't accept "you can make lambda whatever you want". It needs well defined models, with well defined terms, which generate well defined predictions, and so on. We can't even get to the prediction step, because you don't even know what the terms in your own models are.

 

In short, if you really are serious about this, you need to take some time and learn about what actually makes for a good scientific model. Because this isn't it. Sorry.

[studiot]

 

For 0 dimensions:

and for 3 dimensions:

 

 

You really shouldn't produce parts of formulae when you don't know what they mean so they appear as nonsense.

 

I assume you mean one not zero dimensional for the first one. In which case the use of the partial derivative is inappropriate.

 

Nabla² in the second equation is an operator that takes an argument, and you have provided none.

 

Please don't post maths because it looks pretty or impressive or something.

Of course, the Hamiltonian itself is an operator and under the same requirements.

Edited August 17, 2014 by studiot

[metacogitans]

right, but you didn't define lambda as anything.

I don't have the equipment to go out in my yard and measure background radiation and approximate lambda for you, sorry.

Please don't post maths because it looks pretty or impressive or something.

Hence, I put a disclaimer before and after it stating that I don't know.

Really? Really?!? Lambda can be whatever I want? Even a million dollars? Sweet. I'm going to buy so many Lamborghini's now...

 

metacogitans, I am sorry, but none of this is meaningful in a scientific sense. I tried to help. At least I think I did. But you're clearly not willing or able to discuss your idea scientifically.

 

Science doesn't accept "you can make lambda whatever you want". It needs well defined models, with well defined terms, which generate well defined predictions, and so on. We can't even get to the prediction step, because you don't even know what the terms in your own models are.

 

In short, if you really are serious about this, you need to take some time and learn about what actually makes for a good scientific model. Because this isn't it. Sorry.

When you take the roughest, most conflicting interpretation on the text in my post that comes to mind, it can't be meaningful. I need you to collaborate with me: I didn't come here to be the 'teacher'.

What I meant is that your estimate of Lambda is going to be as precise as you make it. Unless you have a shuttle that can take us to regions beyond the observable universe or a time machine to take us back to the universe's origin, we're probably not going to figure it out right here tonight

Edited August 17, 2014 by metacogitans

[Bignose]

I need you to collaborate with me: I didn't come here to be the 'teacher'.

I've been trying. My collaboration has been in trying to get you to make your work more scientific. You've been unwilling or unable to do that.

 

I started all the way back with giving a trivial falsification of the supposed EM nature of gravity. Then you moved to repulsion (not sure if that is still part of EM or not). Then when asked for a simple example -- a geostationary orbit -- you've been noticeably quiet.

 

You're right. You don't have to be here to be the 'teacher'. However, if you intend to try to get other people to understand you idea, don't you think the onus is on you to describe it well? I don't see how you think you can put this back on me because you are the one creating equations with terms you don't even know that they mean. You are the one claiming you're right despite no evidence presented. You are the one claiming to do better than the current mainstream ideas despite it being very obvious you don't even know what they are.

 

You're absolutely right. You don't need to be the 'teacher', you need to put some work in at being a student for a while and learn what it actually means to propose something in a scientific manner and understand the current ideas before declaring they are wrong.

 

Also, p.s. the Lamborghini's crack was meant to be a joke. Obviously sports cars aren't really on the topic at hand, but was intended more to point out that you need to define your terms better.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Bignose

[andrewcellini]

I don't have the equipment to go out in my yard and measure background radiation and approximate lambda for you, sorry.

not what i meant by define your terms. what i meant was it makes no sense to assume lambda is the cosmological constant in your equation because it has no real explanatory value of repulsiveness (as previously pointed out). i didn't know if you were following the conventional use or presenting another meaning for the symbol. either way it's hard to understand what you're trying to say in your model unless you can adequately explain it.

[metacogitans]

I'm burnt out on this for today, but I have a few things I thought you guys might find interesting;

This was Einstein's General Relativity before it became Einstein's General Relativity:

http://aefind.huji.ac.il/vufind1/Digital/EAR000034432#page/21/mode/2up

 

Most people would look at that and think of it as the scribblings of a madman.

 

 

Here is Newton's Laws of Motion as written by Newton:

http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/diplomatic/NATP00105

The Lawes of Motion
How solitary bodyes are moved.

Sect: 1[1]. There is an uniform extension, space, or expansion continued every way wthout bounds: in wch all bodyes are, each in severall pts of space possessed {illeg} adequately felled by their pts of it: wch pts of space possesse {illeg} adequately filled by ym are their places. And their passing out of one place or pt of space into another, through all ye intermediate space is their {p}|m|otion. Which motion is done wth more or lesse velocity acordingly {sic} as tis done through more or lesse space in equal times or through equall spaces in more or lesse time. But ye motion it selfe & ye force to p3severe in yt motion is more or lesse accordingly as ye factus of ye bodys bulk into its velocity is more or lesse. And yt force is equivalent to that motion wch it is able to beget or destroy.

2[2]. The motion of a body tends one way Figure directly & severall other ways obliqly. As if ye body A move directly towards ye point B it also moves obliquely towards all ye lines BC, BD, BE & wch passe through yt point B: & shall arrive {illeg}to yt|ym| all i|a|t ye same time. Whence its velocity towards ym is in such proportion as its distance from them yt is, as AB, C|A|C, AD, AE &c.

3[3]. If a body A move towards B wth Figure the velocity R, & by ye way hath some new force done to it wch had ye body rested would have propeld|{e}|d it towards C wth ye velocity S. Then making AB∶AC∷R∶S, & Completing ye Parallelogram BC ye body shall move in ye Diagonall AD & arive {sic} at ye point D in ye same time wth this compound motion in ye same time it would have arrived at ye point B wth its single motion.

4[4] In every body there is a certaine point, called its center of motion about wch if ye body bee any way circulated ye endeavours of its pts every way from ye center are exactly counterpoised by opposite endeavours. And ye progressive motion of ye body is ye same wth ye motion of this its center wch always moves in a streight line & uniformly wn ye body is free from occursions wth other bodys{illeg}|.| And so doth ye common center of two bodys; wch is <81v> found by dividing ye distance twixt their propper centers in reciprocall proportion to their bulk. And so ye common center of 3 or more bodys &c. And all ye lines passing through these centers of motion are axes of motion.

5[5]. The angular quantity of a bodys circular Figure motion & velocity is more or lesse accordingly as ye body makes one revolution in more {or} lesse time but ye reall quantity of its circular motion is more or lesse accordingly as ye body hath more or lesse power & force to p3severe in yt motion; wch motion divided by ye bodys bulke is more the reall quantity of its circular velocity. Now to know ye reall quantity of a bodys circular {illeg}|m|otion & velocity about any given axis EF; Suppose it hung upon ye two end E & F of yt axis as upon two poles: And yt another globular body of ye same bignesse, whose center is A, is so placed yt ye circulating body shall hit it in ye {illeg}|p|oint F & strike it away in ye line BAG (wch lyeth in ye same plane wth one of ye circles described about ye axis EF) & thereby just loose all its owne motion. Then hath ye {illeg} Globe gotten ye same quantity of progressive motion & velocity wch ye other had of circular, {wch} /its\ velocity being ye same wth yt of ye point C wch describes a circle touching ye line BG. The Radius DC of wch circle I may therefore call ye radius of Circular motion or velocity about yt axis EF. And ye circle described wth ye said Radius of Circulation in that plane wch cuts ye axis EF perpendicularly in ye center of motion I call ye Equator of circulation about that axis, and those circles wch passe through ye poles, me{d}ridians &c.

6[6]. A body circulates about one axis (as PC) Figure directly & about severall other axes (as AC, BC, &c) obliquely. And ye angular quantity of its circulations about those axes (PC, AC, BC &c) are as ye sines (PC, AD, BE, &c) of ye angles wch those axes make wth ye Equator (FG) of ye principall & direct axis (PC).
<82r>

7[7]. If a body circulates about ye axis AC wth Figure ye angular quantity of velocity R: & some new force is done to it, wch, if ye body had rested, would have made it circulate about another axis BC, wth ye angular quantity of velocity S. Then in ye plane of ye two axes, & in one of those two opposite angles (made by ye axes) in wch ye two circulations are contrary one to another, (as in ye angle ACB). I find such a point P from wch ye perpendic{illeg}{la}rs \(PK, PH)/ let fall to those axes are bee reciprocally proportional to ye angular velocitys about those axes, (yt is PK∶PH∷R∶S). And drawing ye line PC, it shall bee ye new {ab} axis about wch ye compound motion is p3formed. And ye summe of CHCP×R & {CD} CRCP×S when ye perpendiculars PH & PK fall on divers sides of ye axis PC, otherwise their difference, is ye angular quantity of circulation about yt axis: Wch in ye angle ACPBCP tends contrary to ye circulation about ye axis AC.BC.

8[8]. Every body keepes ye same reall quantity of circular motion & velocity so long as tis not opposed by other bodys. And it keeps ye same axis too if ye endeavour from ye axis wch ye two opposite quarters twixt ye Equator & every meridian of motion have, bee exactly counterpoised by {on}|th|e opposite endeavours of ye 2 side quarters; & yn also its axis doth always keepe parallel to it selfe. But if ye said endeavours from ye axis bee not exactly counterpoised by such opposite endeavours: yn for want of such counterpoise ye p3valent pts shall by little & little get further from ye axis & draw nearer & nearer to such a Counterpoise, but shall {illeg}|n|ever bee exactly counterpoised. And as ye axis is continually moved in ye body, so it continually moves in ye space too wth some kind or other of spirall motion; always drawing nearer & nearer to a center or parallelisme wth it selfe, but never attaining to it. Nay tis so far from ever keeping parallel to it sel selfe, yt it shall never bee twice in ye same position.

He keeps going: I linked the full text above.

 

It's worth noting that Newton wrote about as many papers on esoteric subjects such as alchemy, religion, and sacred geometry as he did on math and physics.

Also most of his papers were lost in a fire started by his dog knocking over a candle.

 

I guess one point I'm making is that the thinkers who have advanced math, physics, and science throughout history often did so in their own terms, in a way fitting with their own style of thinking. Most were just as great of philosophers as they were mathematicians and physicists.

Edited August 17, 2014 by metacogitans

[andrewcellini]

i wouldn't describe that as scribblings of a madman it's his personal research notebook that wasn't published. for one, you probably can't read german and/or his handwriting. another thing is he is actually (it seems) doing experiments, describing what he is talking about, then abstracting that into an equation and doing work with it that can be replicated. you're trying to equate yourself with people who did real work.

Edited August 17, 2014 by andrewcellini

[studiot]

I don't think either Newton or Einstein ever said anything to remotely suggest there is no force of attraction, either in German or Olde Englishe.

[Bignose]

I guess one point I'm making is that the thinkers who have advanced math, physics, and science throughout history often did so in their own terms, in a way fitting with their own style of thinking. Most were just as great of philosophers as they were mathematicians and physicists.

They also did a good job when presenting their results, to be very clear in their communication, define all the terms, and presented evidence that supported their claims.

 

At this point in time, your citing them is disingenuous at best because even if one concedes the first part, you have done virtually nothing anything scientifically meaningful after that. Your citing Newton and Einstein is a logical fallacy. If that was meant to convince us, logical fallacies are not how to to it.

[metacogitans]

They also did a good job when presenting their results, to be very clear in their communication, define all the terms, and presented evidence that supported their claims.

This is what Newton's 'good job presenting results' looked like

 

.. just saying

Your citing Newton and Einstein is a logical fallacy.

The act of citing someone itself couldn't be a logical fallacy. A defendant could go before a courtroom and begin reciting cookie recipes and it would not be a logical fallacy.

In declaring I committed a logical fallacy, you would be assuming intentions of mine in the absence of verbal evidence, and would be committing a fallacy of your own.

 

Anyways, I think you've all missed a point - that the concepts of an idea supercede the terminology used to express that idea.

[andrewcellini]

good job, you can take images out of the notebooks original context.

 

this has been reduced to nothing more than logical fallacy. i don't know if you're delusional or trolling. you seem to forget that newton had several mathematical models which work under certain physical parameters to describe reality, something which you refuse to actually put the effort in to do. if you did put the effort to research papers and conceive of a way to demonstrate physically what you mean as well as make equations that can make predictions then you might find that science isn't about "i'm right" it's "i'm probably wrong, back to the drawing board."

Edited August 17, 2014 by andrewcellini

[studiot]

 

science isn't about "i'm right" it's "i'm probably wrong, back to the drawing board."

 

 

Like it +1

[metacogitans]

Oh boy, a reputation function on a science forum..

 

science isn't about "i'm right" it's "i'm probably wrong, back to the drawing board."

I like that idea too, but in this case the 'drawing board' cost about $6.4 billion USD

 

good job, you can take images out of the notebooks original context.

You understand of course that you're defending a 17th century alchemist who wrote essays on such topics as "symbolism of Biblical prophecy" and "concerning Solomon's Temple and the sacred cubit"?

Edited August 18, 2014 by metacogitans

[andrewcellini]

Oh boy, a reputation function on a science forum..

I like that idea too, but in this case the 'drawing board' cost about $6.4 billion USD

i don't know how you could come up with an estimated cost when you don't even know how to express and test your ideas. your above claim that concepts "supercede" the means to explain/express such concepts, that having all these ideas you can conceive of is more important than being able to allow others to see if such ideas even have physical significance or are valid, is pretty much the antithesis of science. you can come up with ill defined concepts all day but until you can communicate what you mean and show how it can be tested by other observers their validity cannot be assessed.

Edited August 18, 2014 by andrewcellini

[metacogitans]

 

The cost for the machine alone is about 4.6 billion CHF (about 3 billion Euro). The total project cost breaks down roughly as follows:

} 4.6 billion CHF total cost of the accelerator

} 1.1 billion CHF total CERN contribution to the experiments (about 20% of the detector costs, supported by large collaborations of institutes worldwide)

} 0.26 billion CHF total contribution to computing (manpower and materials and both CERN’s and external contributions).

The experimental collaborations are individual entities, funded independently from CERN. CERN is a member of each experiment, and contributes to the budget of CMS and LHCb at the 20% level, 16% for ALICE and 13% for ATLAS. TOTEM is a much smaller experiment, with a total material cost of about 6.5 million CHF. The CERN share of this is, however, 30%.

NB: 1 billion = 1 thousand million.

 

 

http://askanexpert.web.cern.ch/AskAnExpert/en/Accelerators/LHCgeneral-en.html#3

[andrewcellini]

what does that have to do with what you're talking about?

 

do you see why expressing your ideas coherently is helpful yet?

[Bignose]

You understand of course that you're defending a 17th century alchemist who wrote essays on such topics as "symbolism of Biblical prophecy" and "concerning Solomon's Temple and the sacred cubit"?

He also wrote Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, when you write something that seminal, then you've earned the right to compare yourself to Newton.

 

So, any chance of something scientific? Or should this thread be closed now because you're refusing to answer questions (in direct violation of the rules)?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

metacognitans,

This thread will be closed in T minus your next post if you do not adequately respond with scientific answers and evidence to the questions that have been asked of you.

Do not respond to this mod note in the thread.

[metacogitans]

!

Moderator Note

metacognitans,

 

This thread will be closed in T minus your next post if you do not adequately respond with scientific answers and evidence to the questions that have been asked of you.

 

Do not respond to this mod note in the thread.

 

The exit please, butler

Nice broken BBcode for a forum by the way; dealing with quotes as an image without brackets is like pulling teeth

Edited August 19, 2014 by metacogitans

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Alright, closed. You are not permitted to reintroduce this topic again.