Mr Newton's Classroom

Post Reply
User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by colubridae » Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:55 pm

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. :funny: :funny: :funny:
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

ChildInAZoo
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:53 pm
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by ChildInAZoo » Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:04 pm

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>
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.

Brain Man
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by Brain Man » Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:47 am

ChildInAZoo wrote:
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>
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.
Crank is an extreme label. His style is more like mature student college level without the training you get when doing a heavy thesis.

Ive been through that, but all that happens is tone and language becomes dry and clipped, loaded with more stats, maths, refs etc.. I presume you have too. you know fine well PostDoc is just a style, and you have to make more effort to get a good idea through that format, than if you didn't do the training.

Thats the whole idea. If its a good idea and it makes it makes the transition to remain clear on a PHD level paper..its represents a good degree of power to do that, and it also makes it easier on those at the same level.

Still that does not mean good ideas remain outside that playing field. How many shithot amatuers have you seen in sports, who would do great at pro level, but they cant, because they dont have various combinations of resources, time, money, motivation etc,,

To only percieve that anything in professional level represents all that is off value is a sign of lack of intelligence itself...but is more often pure laziness in my experience.

Brain Man
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by Brain Man » Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:01 pm

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.
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,

Common in gang behaviour...your right hand man who stands in the background, looking threatening as you try to tell somebody else in a cool manner why they need to get off your territory, comply etc. They tend to lead, and will often call on their more tame expert to provide some information as needed.

But all of this is no good farsight...if you can put up with the leader and enforcer, occasionally you get some good information from their expert...like a peer review...but what a process. In peer review you get straight access to 3 experts without going through all this crap. Its designed so that none of these politics arise.

User avatar
Psi Wavefunction
Cекси техническая лаборатория
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:06 am
About me: I kill threads WITH SCIENCE!

I like Crascuits. :coffee:
Location: Vancouver
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by Psi Wavefunction » Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:13 pm

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...)

Farsight
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 am
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by Farsight » Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:20 pm

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.

Brain Man
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by Brain Man » Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:26 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...)
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....

It takes a long time to gain the skill to be that clear, and thats what peer review (and to some degree maths itself) tries to iron out.

But in regards to the accusations of his intentions to be a seller of woo, taking in people to deceive...this is complete nonsense.

User avatar
Psi Wavefunction
Cекси техническая лаборатория
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:06 am
About me: I kill threads WITH SCIENCE!

I like Crascuits. :coffee:
Location: Vancouver
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by Psi Wavefunction » Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:29 pm

There's a fine line between peddling woo and having an opinion...

Brain Man
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by Brain Man » Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:32 pm

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.
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.

The above suggestion of a 500 word abstract is a good idea. You would have to do this for a paper anyway.

Basically set out the problem, the hypothesis, solution and result in 500 words. If you can do this and its understood half the battle is done.

Also writing out your ideas into the paper format headings helps not only others but clarifies the subject for yourself.

Brain Man
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by Brain Man » Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:33 pm

Psi Wavefunction wrote:There's a fine line between peddling woo and having an opinion...
I think the line is to what degree the person goes over the line in regards to self deception

Farsight
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 am
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by 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.

Brain Man
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by 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.

Farsight
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 am
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by 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.

lpetrich
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by 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.

Brain Man
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.
Contact:

Re: Mr Newton's Classroom

Post by 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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests