Farsight wrote:I rather think that I and my experimentalist friends will need a lot more patience yet.
You've never done an experiment in your life. You couldn't even do the maths.
Farsight wrote:I rather think that I and my experimentalist friends will need a lot more patience yet.
I've taught classes in both writing in general and scientific writing in particular. Believe me when I tell you that your very style screams crackpot. Hit the books, do some learning, and come back in a couple of years.Farsight wrote:LOL, I've heard some desperate garbage in my time, but that takes the biscuit. My writing style doesn't label me as anything other than precise and empirical, somebody who gives robust evidence and references <snip>
Crank is an extreme label. His style is more like mature student college level without the training you get when doing a heavy thesis.ChildInAZoo wrote:I've taught classes in both writing in general and scientific writing in particular. Believe me when I tell you that your very style screams crackpot. Hit the books, do some learning, and come back in a couple of years.Farsight wrote:LOL, I've heard some desperate garbage in my time, but that takes the biscuit. My writing style doesn't label me as anything other than precise and empirical, somebody who gives robust evidence and references <snip>
The big problem i feel is occurring here is we are just succeeding in pulling out the "gang" mentality orientated members of these forums. This is interesting to perceive the pattern. Notice how on both RS and here, there is a common good cop/bad cop. One guy gives you the expected lip service to rationality, and another sits in the background watching making quips. Here we had coulabridge as the one liner..trying to mock..but mostly watching...on RS it was Gawdzilla on my experiment. We also usually have the earnest member who kicks in with some real knowledge on the subject...but they are usually under the thumb and come out as requested. SO u tend to get this triple member type thing happening,Farsight wrote:I pay close attention, lpetrich. And do remember that this isn't my theory, and it isn't new. And it definitely includes predictions. Sure, I haven't offered any quantitative predictions because I've been explaining the reality underlying the existing mathematics, but others will.
I see you've been bad-mouthing me on http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... 47-40.html. And I see that Darkchilde has been telling porkies too. A lifeboat for the rational mind, cringe. The place is a science-free zone. My test thread was the best in a long while, full of evidence and references, and it was immediately kicked into pseudoscience. This sort of thing can't go on. The censorship and the quackery has to stop. Physics is at stake.
I agree, i wouldn't do farsight any good by his one man everything is OK fanclub.There are points which need clarified, which i asked him on richard dawkins forum....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...)
In regards to turf on peer review..it does happen, in that reviewers are familiar with the material and issues around it....but at least the anonymous nature stops reviewers self organizing into a hierarchy of enforcer, leader and information source as you get on forums.Farsight wrote:It sure is interesting, Brain Man. The "my turf" attempts to suppress/censor scientific debate seems to be endemic, but not just on forums. IMHO there are issues with magazines/media and even journals and peer review. There seems to be a great deal of vested interest which isn't good for physics. To some extent it's always been like this, with far more resistance to scientific progress than is commonly understood.
I think the line is to what degree the person goes over the line in regards to self deceptionPsi Wavefunction wrote:There's a fine line between peddling woo and having an opinion...
Very little of this "thesis" is my own original work, but here's a summary anyway: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 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.Farsight wrote:Very little of this "thesis" is my own original work, but here's a summary anyway: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...)
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.
Im confused. farsight aims are to reconcile holes in fundamental concepts...not solve the standard model.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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests