Mr Newton's Classroom

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby Farsight » Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:56 pm

Psi Wavefunction wrote:K Farasight, how about a nice short 500 word abstract of your thesis there? I don't understand what your theory is in the first place, and from experience, lack of understanding on my part is very often related to lack of clarity on the writer's part. A good writer can be understood by anyone making an effort, regardless of the complexity of the subject. On the other hand, a poor writer can even obfuscate tying shoelaces. Let's see your abstract. (I don't have time to read walls of text outside my discipline at the moment...)
Very little of this "thesis" is my own original work, but here's a summary anyway:

In barest essence energy is a volume of stressed space.

Mass is a measure of the amount of energy that is not moving in aggregate with respect to the observer.

Charge is topological. The electromagnetic field is a frame-dragged region of twisted space, and if we move through it we perceive a turning action which we then identify as a magnetic field.

Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It's a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. So time doesn’t really flow and we don’t really travel through it.

A gravitational field is region of inhomogeneous space. The coordinate speed of light varies because vacuum impedance varies, resulting in gravitational time dilation and attraction through refraction.

Provided we conserve angular momentum via pair production, we can trap stress-energy in "knot" configurations, creating particles with mass and charge. The electron is a trivial knot with a turn and a twist. The positron is the same knot with the opposite chirality.

The proton is a trefoil knot, three turns and a twist. The neutron is a proton plus a twist and two turns. The neutrino is a turn, a mere running loop, and muon and tau neutrinos have more loops, as do the muon and tau themselves. The antiparticles are "mirror-image" knots that go the other way, and the unstable particles are not true knots, so they always come undone.

We always measure the in-vacuo speed of light to be the same because we're essentially "made of light". Low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to neutral pions that then decay to gamma photons illustrate this principle.

The common photon amplitude is a spatial extension of 3.86 x 10^-13 metres, and is the quantum of quantum mechanics. The wave function doesn't describe where a point particle can be found, it describes where the extension is.

The weak interaction is akin to rotational friction, the residual strong force is neutron linkage. The electromagnetic force is caused by twisted space, whilst the strong force is the bag-model stretch that keeps space together. The gravitational force is the result of a gradient in the relative strength of the electromagnetic force and the strong force.

The Universe expands because space behaves like a ghostly compressed elastic solid, and there's nothing outside to hold it in. There is no space beyond the universe, there is no distance, there is no there. So the universe is unbounded, but finite and flat. More space expands more, so the expansion is increasing. Space expands between the galaxies but not within, so space is not homogeneous. It's dark, it's energy, and since it's inhomogeneous around every galaxy, we don’t need dark matter to explain flat galactic rotation curves.
Farsight
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 am

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby Brain Man » Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:25 pm

Farsight wrote:
Psi Wavefunction wrote:K Farasight, how about a nice short 500 word abstract of your thesis there? I don't understand what your theory is in the first place, and from experience, lack of understanding on my part is very often related to lack of clarity on the writer's part. A good writer can be understood by anyone making an effort, regardless of the complexity of the subject. On the other hand, a poor writer can even obfuscate tying shoelaces. Let's see your abstract. (I don't have time to read walls of text outside my discipline at the moment...)
Very little of this "thesis" is my own original work, but here's a summary anyway:

In barest essence energy is a volume of stressed space.

Mass is a measure of the amount of energy that is not moving in aggregate with respect to the observer.

Charge is topological. The electromagnetic field is a frame-dragged region of twisted space, and if we move through it we perceive a turning action which we then identify as a magnetic field.

Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It's a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. So time doesn’t really flow and we don’t really travel through it.

A gravitational field is region of inhomogeneous space. The coordinate speed of light varies because vacuum impedance varies, resulting in gravitational time dilation and attraction through refraction.

Provided we conserve angular momentum via pair production, we can trap stress-energy in "knot" configurations, creating particles with mass and charge. The electron is a trivial knot with a turn and a twist. The positron is the same knot with the opposite chirality.

The proton is a trefoil knot, three turns and a twist. The neutron is a proton plus a twist and two turns. The neutrino is a turn, a mere running loop, and muon and tau neutrinos have more loops, as do the muon and tau themselves. The antiparticles are "mirror-image" knots that go the other way, and the unstable particles are not true knots, so they always come undone.

We always measure the in-vacuo speed of light to be the same because we're essentially "made of light". Low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to neutral pions that then decay to gamma photons illustrate this principle.

The common photon amplitude is a spatial extension of 3.86 x 10^-13 metres, and is the quantum of quantum mechanics. The wave function doesn't describe where a point particle can be found, it describes where the extension is.

The weak interaction is akin to rotational friction, the residual strong force is neutron linkage. The electromagnetic force is caused by twisted space, whilst the strong force is the bag-model stretch that keeps space together. The gravitational force is the result of a gradient in the relative strength of the electromagnetic force and the strong force.

The Universe expands because space behaves like a ghostly compressed elastic solid, and there's nothing outside to hold it in. There is no space beyond the universe, there is no distance, there is no there. So the universe is unbounded, but finite and flat. More space expands more, so the expansion is increasing. Space expands between the galaxies but not within, so space is not homogeneous. It's dark, it's energy, and since it's inhomogeneous around every galaxy, we don’t need dark matter to explain flat galactic rotation curves.


very interesting for me, as i am interested in this stuff at a basic level. sounds like about six papers at least. At some stage if you broke each of these down into the format.

Introduction : introduce the topic background
Problem: What is the problem with the current state of the topic
Hypothesis: what does yours, (or somebody elses) solution help with the problem
Summary or Findings: What has experiment, debate etc produced in the way of results about the hypothesis or points regarding that go from here.

If you do this for each point, then you have the structure for a clear presentation which should be easily digested in most formats, from paper to video.
Brain Man
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby Farsight » Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:36 pm

Noted, Brain Man. But I must say I rather feel that the dogmatic dishonesty and vested interest you see here is symptomatic. It isn't limited to internet forums. The problem is deeper than that, and the recurrent theme is the prevention or trashing of clear presentation coupled with the promotion of mysticism. It has continued for years, or even decades. There's no easy solution. I'm now wondering if the solution is going to turn out painful.
Farsight
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 am

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby lpetrich » Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:35 pm

Farsight, congratulations for laying out your theories the way you did in this thread.

But to add to Brain Man's comments, you have to try to show that your theories do a better job of explaining observed phenomena better than mainstream theories. More theoretically elegant, having fewer fudge factors, getting better numerical agreement, etc.

A way of doing that is getting the mathematics of existing theories in appropriate limits. Thus, Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of both relativity and quantum mechanics. So if you want to do better than the Standard Model, you must be able to show that your theories yield the mathematics of the Standard Model over where it has been successfully tested.

Here are the fudge factors of the Standard Model:
Lepton masses: 3
Quark masses: 6
Quark mixing angles: 4
Gauge coupling constants: 3
Higgs parameters: 2
Strong CP parameter: 1
Total: 19
Neutrinos being massive adds 7: 3 masses and 4 mixing angles.
That does not cover the SM's rather baroque gauge-multiplet structure, of course.
lpetrich
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:59 pm

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby Brain Man » Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:41 pm

lpetrich wrote:Farsight, congratulations for laying out your theories the way you did in this thread.

But to add to Brain Man's comments, you have to try to show that your theories do a better job of explaining observed phenomena better than mainstream theories. More theoretically elegant, having fewer fudge factors, getting better numerical agreement, etc.

A way of doing that is getting the mathematics of existing theories in appropriate limits. Thus, Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of both relativity and quantum mechanics. So if you want to do better than the Standard Model, you must be able to show that your theories yield the mathematics of the Standard Model over where it has been successfully tested.

Here are the fudge factors of the Standard Model:
Lepton masses: 3
Quark masses: 6
Quark mixing angles: 4
Gauge coupling constants: 3
Higgs parameters: 2
Strong CP parameter: 1
Total: 19
Neutrinos being massive adds 7: 3 masses and 4 mixing angles.
That does not cover the SM's rather baroque gauge-multiplet structure, of course.


Im confused. farsight aims are to reconcile holes in fundamental concepts...not solve the standard model.

this stuff u posted all appears to be garret lisi territory.

Really..It just appears like you wanted to misrepresent what Farsight is trying to do in a polite manner, partly i suspect to show your own technical ability.

garret lisi gives regular online updates on his progress in the above areas.
Brain Man
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby Farsight » Mon Jul 12, 2010 1:12 am

lpetrich wrote:Farsight, congratulations for laying out your theories the way you did in this thread.
Thank you. But again, they're not mine. I've contributed a little, but it's essentially a synthesis of material originally written by "unsung heroes" who do not enjoy much in the way of journal success or media acknowledgement.

lpetrich wrote:But to add to Brain Man's comments, you have to try to show that your theories do a better job of explaining observed phenomena better than mainstream theories. More theoretically elegant, having fewer fudge factors, getting better numerical agreement, etc. A way of doing that is getting the mathematics of existing theories in appropriate limits. Thus, Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of both relativity and quantum mechanics. So if you want to do better than the Standard Model, you must be able to show that your theories yield the mathematics of the Standard Model over where it has been successfully tested,.,
Noted. But my mathematical abilities are limited, I have no credentials, and I've witnessed the frustration of others who have attempted this course of action. So instead my aim is to offer insight that others can use to address the standard model, hopefully preserving it as the standard model in some shape or form. I don't wish to bring it down. I seek to help physics, not expose the elitism and arrogance that bedevils it. This is why relativity+ was advertised on the IoP website, and why my article was in their magazine. I have to get through to physicists.
Farsight
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 am

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby lpetrich » Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:01 am

Farsight wrote:
lpetrich wrote:Farsight, congratulations for laying out your theories the way you did in this thread.
Thank you. But again, they're not mine. I've contributed a little, but it's essentially a synthesis of material originally written by "unsung heroes" who do not enjoy much in the way of journal success or media acknowledgement.

Why don't you list them and describe where their ideas can be found?
lpetrich
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:59 pm

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby Farsight » Mon Jul 12, 2010 2:27 pm

I've got a list somewhere. Some of the URLs are now defunct. I'll have a look. Meanwhile please demonstrate that it will be worth my while by reading say How gravity works and giving considered comment.
Farsight
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 am

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby lpetrich » Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:58 pm

Farsight wrote:I've got a list somewhere. Some of the URLs are now defunct. I'll have a look.

Good idea. But since you've been advocating it as if you invented it, you have no right to complain about it being called "Farsight physics".
Meanwhile please demonstrate that it will be worth my while by reading say How gravity works and giving considered comment.

Lots of quote mining and VERY little understanding. I've worked with general relativity, so that's how I know.
lpetrich
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:59 pm

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby Farsight » Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:02 am

You don't understand it at all.
Farsight
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 am

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby colubridae » Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:03 am

Farsight wrote:You don't understand it at all.
Fuck me is that it. :sighsm:

no pages fo rambling drivel... so it goes. :funny:
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders
User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
 
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
Location: Birmingham art gallery
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby ChildInAZoo » Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:09 pm

Yeah, that's a pretty moronic answer. Effectively, Farsight has been telling everyone who has ever studied relativity theory that they do not understand it because they studies the theory and that Farsight understands the theory because he has never studied it.
ChildInAZoo
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:53 pm

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby lpetrich » Wed Jul 14, 2010 6:44 pm

Farsight wrote:You don't understand it at all.

Your post on that subject? Or general relativity?

Farsight, your quote mining in your "Gravity Explained" post would make a creationist proud. You ought to address theories *directly*, rather than argue from what Newton or Maxwell or Einstein or Feynman or whoever have stated. If you continually fail to do so, you don't deserve to be published in a reputable journal.
lpetrich
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:59 pm

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby harleyborgais » Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:40 am

To Farsight and Everyone,

My Math abilities also are limited, in my case, limited to trigonometry.

A true theory of everything must be presented with video, audio, words, numbers, and graphs and other images for all to understand. It is necessary to have 3d computer modeling, satellite images of black holes, of other galaxies, pulsars, nebulae, etc., and microscopic images of atoms, to complete such a theory. Myron Evans has the mathematics that are needed to prove these theories. I am working on these things.

Myron Evans wave equations, and Tetrad Postulate explain the math we need. Those are calculus however, and I am working now on learning that, but finding a better source of income is my top priority for now.


The Standard Model is fundamentally flawed, and everyone knows it, so lets all just loosen up and let go of the belief that it is the answer, because it is not. Let us instead focus on HOW it is flawed.

Those arrogant elitists will not be able to compete with those who actually understand how the forces of nature work. If "The Genesis of Relativity" is correct, than we can manipulate objects according to Faraday's law: Send a magnetic pulse past the target object -the target must be within a high-voltage potential which is at90-degrees to the direction and polarity of magnetic pulses-, and that target object should react. John Hutchison has recorded such effects, and Faraday's law is the key to repeating them. If the pulses are resonant with the target object the reaction will be maximized. Levitation at a distance is the key technology to replicators, transporters, impulse drive, inertial control&dampening, warp-drive, and every other technology you can imagine. The trick is to use interferometry, and different wave forms (like Tesla's 'Radiant' longitudinal waves instead of just the common 'Hertzian' transverse waves). We need to understand Electronics and Myron Evan's math to achieve these goals.

"just accept charge is charge, gravity and time is a mystery"
According to The Genesis of Relativity:
Charge is pressure on 3D space itself; i.e.: Negative Charge = Positive Pressure = Compression of 3D space. Positive Charge = Negative Pressure = Expansion of 3D space. Note: it is the centrifugal and centripetal forces of complex patterns of spin in 3Ds which maintains the pressure (which maintains any particle -and only the harmonic ones are stable: Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons inside stable Atoms).
Gravity is a total curvature divided by volume, or energy divided by space. Add up all the negatives and positives (not canceling the opposites), and you get the local curvature of gravity. Its effect stretches over a long distance, so it is the weakest force.
Time is the simultaneous progression of all the curvatures in our Physical 3Ds, through a fourth dimension, which we call the timeline. According to the map of existence in "How We Exist" (The Ancient Geometric Tree of Life -explained in modern terms) time is really the last one, the tenth one. To see how each dimension, and force of nature took form, in logical order, read the 22pg article: "How We Exist" at: freeornottobe.org.

"a neutron somehow contains a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. Here are the reactions observed; which one happens depends on what is energetically favorable.
n -> p + e- + nu*
p -> n + e+ + nu
p + e- -> n + nu (electron capture)"


Clearly a Neutron DOES contain an Electron and Proton. Here is the confusion: a proton and electron combine into a neutron and emit a Neutrino. A Neutrino is a neutral curvature (momentum from each particle), which is momentum spinning in a flat curve, but traveling 90-degrees to that flat plane. This is why it is its own anti-particle, because you can just flip it around and two exactly oppose. You cannot do this with spherically spinning curvatures. HOWEVER: When a Neutron Breaks apart into a Proton and Electron, there is another particle emitted, an anti-neutrino. Also there is when a proton turns to a neutron, leaving an anti-electron/positron and another neutrino.
Consider that these are all pressure waves in motion, and when they form into a new entity, there is either an ejection or consumption of extra momentum. Either way, a wave effect is caused to radiate. When you do the opposite cause, you get an opposite effect -neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. The three basic particles here are stable because they are harmonic with each other. To reach a different form, which is still harmonic, extra momentum must be taken from or given out to the surrounding environment, giving us these temporary particles like neutrinos.
harleyborgais
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Postby JimC » Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:42 am

Oh deary, deary me...

So many physics-sounding words...

All combined at random...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
 
Posts: 42113
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology & Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests

cron