String Theory is Doomed - offshoot from Null Physics thread

[MainframeX]

I don't really know what you mean by unitarily symmetrical but it certainly doesn't solve the problem. Chose to measure in grams and/or nC and you'll still get a different value to when you measure in kg and C.

Dude, are you for real?! Look go study the Metric system and take some physics 101.

 

[shadron]

Coulomb is a Metric unit just like Kilogram and they are both unitarily symmetrical due to the Metric System which the Empiral system lacks.

The fact that they are both SI units doesn't infer any other relationship. A coulomb is not the number of electrons in a kilogram of copper, or water or anything else. Their choice of the magnitude of the units in SI have no relationship, and therefore it makes no more sense to equate them in any way than it does to equate the coulomb to the English slug mass. Or the mass of any object, in any system you care to name.

None whatsoever.

I can find no definition of the term "unitarily symmetrical" outside of pure mathematics. What do you mean by the use of that attribute in a physical sense? Do you mean that they have no relationship, one to the other? With that I'll agree, but I can't see how that works for metric and not for English. Please explain, in math soooo simple that a mere engineer can follow.

 

[shadron]

That's easy.

The square root of mass is the pope.

Damn. I should have known someone would find a relationship, but not one that I could understand so easily.

OKay, then, lets work on he square root of (1/current*time).

 

[MainframeX]

Scale values are all well and good - I didn't attack your scaling between the mass of the solar system and the mass of a beryllium atom, though I totally disagree with our reasons for thinking that value is significant. What I disagreed with is your taking a mass, scaling it twice, and equating it the CHARGE of an electron. That's no longer scaling - that's equating, and totally inappropriate in several contexts, but most immediately (to my engineering mind) in that of dimensional analysis. It is, essentially, numerology. You will find no equivalent process used anywhere else in physics, chemistry, geology or biology. You are trying to infer a relationship between two independent measurements of the universe because you found some numeric relationship in your thrashing, and with no further rationale. And you use this to suffice for a marriage of Newtonian/Einsteinian mechanics with that of the quantum.

So, explain to me - what is the equivalent of a comet in terms of quantum theory? What is the equivalent to the electron mass/density probability function in astronautics? The quark, the neutron? Tell me what predictions you can make about either world based on your relationship of the two.

And I do think it is totally appropriate to look into it. You are setting it up as your replacement for string theory (and much, much more).

my_wan - I never stated anything about the units he chose to use, although he did choose units, and his equations depend upon the units he chose. Equating kilograms to coulombs is nonsensical, and I don't care what units you choose to use - they simply don't "SCALE". There is no relationship between those two dimensions in the universe that I know of, in basic SI or any other system. He says S is important, then he uses it like HPs wand to "smash on through". He uses it twice when once doesn't suffice. Simple math, my uncle's left foot. Numerology is what we call it in a rational universe. Show many any equation from any peer-reviewed paper in physics that does not dimensionally work out. Just one, where it is involving a scaling relationship or not.

First off you've proven you have no understanding of how the unit of coulombs was created. It is a derivative of kilograms...and Metric is symmetrical that's how it was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb

Download my 6 page paper from the site. It run through it step-by-step. The "scaling it twice" is the due to the spheres volume equation coming from a density equation. All my equations deal with spherical objects.

Neutron's are rock planets. Quantum comets are very small possibility undetectabe. Quarks perhaps eludes to the common properties in all the interior of planets after they're shattered....perhaps they commonly crack in 3 parts.

 

[MainframeX]

The fact that they are both SI units doesn't infer any other relationship. A coulomb is not the number of electrons in a kilogram of copper, or water or anything else. Their choice of the magnitude of the units in SI have no relationship, and therefore it makes no more sense to equate them in any way than it does to equate the coulomb to the English slug mass. Or the mass of any object, in any system you care to name.

None whatsoever.

I can find no definition of the term "unitarily symmetrical" outside of pure mathematics. What do you mean by the use of that attribute in a physical sense? Do you mean that they have no relationship, one to the other? With that I'll agree, but I can't see how that works for metric and not for English. Please explain, in math soooo simple that a mere engineer can follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb
"A coulomb is then equal to exactly 6.241 509 629 152 65×1018 elementary charges. Combined with the present definition of the ampere, this proposed definition would make the kilogram a derived unit"

 

[sol invictus]

Dude, are you for real?! Look go study the Metric system and take some physics 101.

Mainframe, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because you seemed capable of conversing rationally on other topics. But what you are saying here is 100% totally and completely wrong, for an extremely basic and obvious reason that every other poster in this thread recognizes. Faced with something like that, you need to step back and re-evaluate.

Charge and mass have different units. You are wrong that the coulomb is derived from a kilo - read the wiki more carefully. What it says is that under one proposed definition of Coulomb, combined with the ampere the kilogram would become a derived unit. That's possible because the ampere is a unit of electric current, charge per time - and so by e.g. dividing coulombs by amperes one gets a unit with no charge in it.

You cannot relate the mass of anything to the charge of anything without an additional dimensionful constant, because they have different units - they measure fundamentally different properties. To put it another way, if you had actually studied string theory (or any kind of high-energy physics) as you claimed you'd know that in "natural units" charge is dimensionless and mass has units of energy. Hence their ratio cannot ever be 1, because it has dimensions.

What you are saying is as senseless as ascribing some significance to the fact that the number of seconds in a year is almost exactly pi times 10^7. (I hope I haven't just started something there...)

 

[Reality Check]

Yes Dr Smolin is respected. That was my claim to begin with until Sol counter argued me so I went with it to prove a point. Sol called him a liar. I called him overzealous and not well informed with some of his claims against string theory but not a liar.

I haven't bought Mr Witts book and will not so thanks Reality Check though I'd still like to see it for myself and give it an objective review. DON'T EVER ASSUME ANYTHING! Assuming tells me you are easily prone to subjective biasness.

Ditto for you (assuming that I assumed that you had read the book when it was a deduction from your statement "It, just like Mr Witt's book, has been promoted extensively sparked in the 80s")

Another point is that quantum gravity theory is more radical than string theory as perceived by some mainstream physicists but string theory horribly lacks in any form of verification over 40 years. What's horribly wrong with this picture? I can argue that all physicists that are "crackpots". Mainstream physicists that refuse to question the norm are "crackpots" since the purpose of science is to evolve, find flaws in the current model and fix it. And then there are "crackpots" that reject the norm all together without any analysis. I for the record don't reject the norm just a couple of small things I've found wrong that needs fixing. We are all "crackpots" to varying degrees. All of us have theories. I have theories about you and with all my assuming and you have theories about me with all your assuming. Well are any of them correct? I don't know you and you don't know me so they'd have to be tested. Right? But you can argue that interpersonal theories about people isn't scientific in nature and isn't required to follow scientific method. Why? As it pertains to psychology it should. Everything is science but there's a problem...the human nature. We assume things, jump to conclusions, act bias, presume conclusions, act with ill intent, find pleasure in demeaning a fellow human and so on...why? I say it's fear. Fear of being less, being left behind, not meeting the standard, not being accepted and so on. Out of fear arrises ill intent of varying degrees. At the less degree, we ignore. Slightly hirer, we respond with verbal action. A little higher, we respond physically. A little higher, we affect the livelihood of the individuals causing us fear. An example, someone at work is promoted ahead of you. You think he doesn't deserve it so you cause rumors, ignore him, put glue in his coffee. Why? Because your feeling of self entitlement and fear of being left behind. Now what if the person is promoted because he has skills you don't but you've been there longer? Oh ill intent just bubbles to the surface. This is human nature at its finest. Oh and how about taking credit for the work of others? What are the psychological implication revolving around that as it pertains to human nature. Opportunity or action due to fear? You decide.

What is your evidence that "Mainstream physicists that refuse to question the norm"?
When I look at papers (e.g. in arxiv) I see plenty of mainstream physicists that question the norm.

Could you state what the "just a couple of small things I've found wrong that needs fixing" are?

My guess (and yes it is an assumption) is that you have never been involved in scientific academia and so do not know that questioning the norm is one way that scientists make their reputations. The response to their questioning is vigorous since that is the way that we can make sure that the science is correct.

 

[shadron]

S is a scale value and scale doesn't have units. It's the scale difference between a Beryllium atom and the solar system...there's no magic it's that simple or perhaps it's too complicated for you. The math involved is soo elementary that you'd have to be pretty simple minded not to understand it.

By finding a relation between Jupiter and an electron, even if it sounds crazy, is a direct link between mass and charge...the holy grail of physics.

A scale value sure as hell better have units if you intend to scale mass into charge. Particularly if you scale it twice (as you say, you divided the mass by the square of your magic number to get a number close to the electrons charge.) I want to know why you think equating mass to charge has any significance in the world at all, let alone Indiana Smith class status. It resolves no puzzle that I'm aware of, even if it were true, most particularly in the marriage of quantum mechanics to Newton/Einstein. None at all. You are equating apples to Sumerian religion.

But you are right about the crazy. I am just a simple engineer, I only took a bare 30 semester hours of math in undergrad school, so I guess maybe this is all going over my head. I do know enough that if you say 1 + 1 = 3 then I want to know the details.

 

[MainframeX]

Ditto for you (assuming that I assumed that you had read the book when it was a deduction from your statement "It, just like Mr Witt's book, has been promoted extensively sparked in the 80s")


What is your evidence that "Mainstream physicists that refuse to question the norm"?
When I look at papers (e.g. in arxiv) I see plenty of mainstream physicists that question the norm.

Could you state what the "just a couple of small things I've found wrong that needs fixing" are?

My guess (and yes it is an assumption) is that you have never been involved in scientific academia and so do not know that questioning the norm is one way that scientists make their reputations. The response to their questioning is vigorous since that is the way that we can make sure that the science is correct.

Some mainstream physicists. All at varying degrees. Of course there are those that question that's silly to say there isn't and not what I said.

My background is very diverse so don't assume.

 

[sol invictus]

I am just a simple engineer, I only took a bare 30 semester hours of math in undergrad school, so I guess maybe this is all going over my head. I do know enough that if you say 1 + 1 = 3 then I want to know the details.

Nothing's going over your head, shadron.

 

[MainframeX]

A scale value sure as hell better have units if you intend to scale mass into charge. Particularly if you scale it twice (as you say, you divided the mass by the square of your magic number to get a number close to the electrons charge.) I want to know why you think equating mass to charge has any significance in the world at all, let alone Indiana Smith class status. It resolves no puzzle that I'm aware of, even if it were true, most particularly in the marriage of quantum mechanics to Newton/Einstein. None at all. You are equating apples to Sumerian religion.

But you are right about the crazy. I am just a simple engineer, I only took a bare 30 semester hours of math in undergrad school, so I guess maybe this is all going over my head. I do know enough that if you say 1 + 1 = 3 then I want to know the details.

Oh dear lord get a clue! scaling twice no! Scale once on density equation and from that equation using a sphere's volume equation results in a final mass equation that appears to be "scaled" twice. Its a result equation after several steps.

If you're an engineer please don't sign off or build anything that might put peoples live in jeopardy.

 

[MainframeX]

Nothing's going over your head, shadron.

Haha! You guys kill me.

Unfortunately the very, very, very simple mathematics is going over your head.

 

[sol invictus]

Oh dear lord get a clue! scaling twice no! Scale once on density equation and from that equation using a sphere's volume equation results in a final mass equation that appears to be "scaled" twice. Its a result equation after several steps.

Total gibberish.

Haha! You guys kill me.

Unfortunately the very, very, very simple mathematics is going over your head.

OK, Mainframe - whatever you say. You're evidently the latest in a long list pf physics cranks that haunt this forum. I guess string theory is safe for now...

 

[MainframeX]

Mainframe, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because you seemed capable of conversing rationally on other topics. But what you are saying here is 100% totally and completely wrong, for an extremely basic and obvious reason that every other poster in this thread recognizes. Faced with something like that, you need to step back and re-evaluate.

Charge and mass have different units. You are wrong that the coulomb is derived from a kilo - read the wiki more carefully. What it says is that under one proposed definition of Coulomb, combined with the ampere the kilogram would become a derived unit. That's possible because the ampere is a unit of electric current, charge per time - and so by e.g. dividing coulombs by amperes one gets a unit with no charge in it.

You cannot relate the mass of anything to the charge of anything without an additional dimensionful constant, because they have different units - they measure fundamentally different properties. To put it another way, if you had actually studied string theory (or any kind of high-energy physics) as you claimed you'd know that in "natural units" charge is dimensionless and mass has units of energy. Hence their ratio cannot ever be 1, because it has dimensions.

What you are saying is as senseless as ascribing some significance to the fact that the number of seconds in a year is almost exactly pi times 10^7. (I hope I haven't just started something there...)

Sol, I've been at this for may years...with this one specifically for two years. I've asked myself the same question 2 years ago and researched it extensively. Couloumb is derived from force measurements using mass through electric force experimentation over the course of several hundred years...since Coulomb himself. The introduction of the Metric system derived a coulomb charge elementary charge that would fit into the Metric system and have kilogram as a derived unit.

What you guys are missing is how this whole value of S was derived and how "magically" it resulted in 1.6x10^-19. Nothing was magical or massaged in order for this number to be derived. S is a scale value. Sphere's density and volume equation are as old as time and from them 1.6x10^-19 came out validating the initial hypothesis that Jupiter is an Electron because an electron charge has the same numerical value. Units aside that is one big coincidence!

 

[MainframeX]

Total gibberish.



OK, Mainframe - whatever you say. You're evidently the latest in a long list pf physics cranks that haunt this forum. I guess string theory is safe for now...

Dude I meant no malice so forgive me if I've offend you. The gibberish is a 4 step equation of a sphere's density and volume.

 

[MainframeX]

Dude I meant no malice so forgive me if I've offend you. The gibberish is a 4 step equation of a sphere's density and volume.

I honestly don't know how to make it any simpler.

 

[MainframeX]

Anyway I have to go for now. You guys have been fun. Talk to you in the new year. I'm off on a small vacation. Have a Happy New Year!! If I've offended any of you I sincerely apologize. Let me extend warm wishes and if you guys are ever in TO drop me n email and we can go get some cold beer. Hopefully the bottom of the economy doesn't fall out from underneath us. Later!

 

[Reality Check]

Some mainstream physicists. All at varying degrees. Of course there are those that question that's silly to say there isn't and not what I said.

My background is very diverse so don't assume.

I do not assume since there is no information given to assume with.
Can you give us a clue about your background, e.g. from some comments it looks like you have some experience with string theory so have you published many papers on it?

Also you missed the question: Could you state what the "just a couple of small things I've found wrong that needs fixing" are?

 

[sol invictus]

Dude I meant no malice so forgive me if I've offend you. The gibberish is a 4 step equation of a sphere's density and volume.

Mainframe, I've seen many people with symptoms extremely similar to yours over the years. Physics departments tend to be littered with self-published monographs describing their author's theories of everything. Professional physicists used to receive them in the mail regularly. With the advent of the internet, most of these have moved to electronic form, and there are even more now.

They all have certain features in common - a belief that they have made a great discovery which was missed by everyone before them, a tendency to work alone (I've never seen physics cranks collaborate), no references, and very often a belief that the mainstream is suppressing their work. Based on the quantify of different versions of this I've seen, I think it's a specific (but relatively mild) form of mental illness.

My suggestion is that you see a good doctor, or if you find that too extreme, try to forget about this for a while. Go outside, meet friends, live your life - this kind of obsession can ruin you.

 

[my_wan]

The video you presented is the Cavendish experiment utilizing larger masses in relation to the smaller spheres on the foam which is exactly my point!

Which is why I said to use the same bricks on the foam.

I have conducted this experiment (a variation of the Cavendish experiment) using equivalent masses and it did repel plus I am waiting for verification from a legitimate third party.

So why was this not in the pdf document? Or did I miss it trying to get around the 60 some odd pages of irrelevance? Outline the basic experimental setup and I'll test it myself, in spite of previous personally conducted experiments to the contrary. I'm calling hogwash, but this is exactly why it is your ticket. It totally rewrites every thought on gravity in the history of science.

With such an extreme new prediction why then did you post this on sciforums.com (08-08-08):

Can you or can you not derive physical predictions for those systems?

If not, how can you claim to have explained them?

I've calculated and derived currently observed results using my equations so my theories don't negate current physics at all, just changes our perception of the phenomena behind physics and gives insight into yet unknown physics (which we've always known just never related or pieced together).

I have approached several journals and book publishers but honestly I just want to share it with everyone. My motives for sharing is genuine in hopes of advancing physics and the sciences.

Your theory does in fact negate current physics, severely!! Now here you have claimed to actually experimentally verified that prediction!!! So give those freaking specs on your site if that last paragraph meant anything at all!!!

As it pertains to Relativity, try super imposing Einstein's Relativity on a space-time aether medium and that's where my theory of Relativity came from.

I'm calling hogwash again. In fact it is trivial to superimpose Relativity, both Special and General, on an ad hoc aether medium without a change in empirical content. That is so long as you don't get too specific about the aethereal structure. The problem is that it is messy and without empirical meaning. You are therefore adding more than just an aether medium to get your predictions. I didn't see any anything in your paper about specifically how this aether is supposed to be structured either.

You conveniently skimmed past the addition of velocities issue, not to mention the stationary observer. The curvature of space-time in GR I eluded to earlier can be trivially related to a change in relative density. I'm guessing you did an ad hoc fit to data you thought was standard physics when in fact it was an ad hoc fit to your misconceptions of physics. Now your faced with a massive empirical deviation that a child can verify. This makes it falsifiable. An excellent thing in physics. It means you have what you need to bash me for calling hogwash. It would be an honor to get bashed so where are those specs?!