• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

String Theory is Doomed - offshoot from Null Physics thread

MainframeX said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're the one who squared your S, not me. So - you took a mass in kilograms, divided by the square of your scaling constant, "using a sphere's volume equation" (doesn't that imply s^3? I'm really having to reach here...), and got charge. The more 'splainin' you do, the odder it gets.

Trying to say that mass is derived from charge is a crock. It might be if you could bring current into it, but you can't - one or the other is relatively independent of mass. FYI, the SI fundamental dimensionalities are mass, length, time, electric current, temperature, amount and luminous intensity. These are fundamental, and cannot be derived, one from another. See http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html. All you need to do to prove this to yourself is to consider a kilogram of steel that I have prepared in a vacuum. Now, derive the charge on that lump of metal using only the known mass (or even using the mass, length, time, temperature, amount and/or luminous intensity it possesses in any combination). Remember that accuracy counts.

As for professions, you tend to your own knitting (and whatever professional credentials you possess), and I'll tend to mine. You don't want it criticized, then don't proclaim it as the answer to string theory on a website with a video. And I'll damned well sign off on anything I'm qualified to do so on which I think is justified. Your theory is, unfortunately for you, not so qualified, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
shadron said:
Grumble - I still want to know what the square root of mass is. I suppose it'll wind up drafted into the SI, with honorary units named DeMelos.
Click to expand...


The square root of mass, in SI units, would be a Second Newton0.5 Meter-0.5 (or a Kilogram0.5), although a “DeMelos” is a lot easier to say, has a nice ring to it making it almost sound meaningful and could catch on.
 
MainframeX said:
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!
Click to expand...

Don't worry about offending, crackpots can't do that.

As someone living in TO, I would like to please request: Stay the heck away from me!

PS I taught physics at Ryerson U, and in my opinion, you are not understanding anything being said to you. And what you've been saying is riddled with errors that have been pointed out, yet you still cannot comprehend.
 
General Principles of Reality

I have just downloaded the PDF from the General Principles of Reality web site and would like to share a few bits of crackpot from a few pages:
Based on this whole theory and its derivative paths of thought, black holes are stars or just like them and thus also like planets. In this theory, there is no difference between the construct of all space objects because relatively, they are all the same. They are just vibrating at different frequencies and generating different amplitudes of vibration. The frequency of black holes is outside our visible range, but if we could see their frequency, they would be as bright as any star or brighter.
Click to expand...
Aren't astronomers silly just looking at the stars in "our visible range"!
The Earth is also a star at a completely different frequency and amplitude range compared to other celestial bodies including the Sun. This means it radiates light also, just as Sun Light. We can’t see Earth Light because our eyes, just like our sensation towards what we perceive as “heat”, has evolved to see only a certain range of light frequencies, specifically a certain range that the Sun radiates. So why don’t we burn up? Because we are part of the ecology of this planet and thus our own bodies vibrate close to the frequencies and amplitudes of that of the Earth thus can handle the Earth’s “heat”.
Click to expand...
I guess the author thinks that satellites use eyes to do surveys of the Earth.
All matter radiates light, but again, our eyes cannot see it. This light, which again are ripples in ζ, are the cause and effect of the force of gravity between all “matter”. A device known as electromagnetic spectrum analyzer is capable of translating these lights we cannot see into light frequencies we can see, but no device is able to visual see extremely high frequencies and low amplitudes of quantum and sub-quantum particles. These vibrations can only be seen by measuring the forces between these particles (as will be explained later).
Click to expand...
(where ζ is what he calls a "spacetime tensor" that is not a tensor or a spacetime but really a thing that may exist (or not) with a list of assumed properties such it "Looks like a string").
An assumption that scientists are incapable of building instruments to detect "extremely high frequencies and low amplitudes".
Relatively speaking, we consider the Sun a burning ball of flames and that’s true, but it’s not actually burning anything. The Sun, and again all matter, is actually vibrating the surrounding ζ so intensely at a large accumulative (superposition) amplitude at it’s surface generating low density ζ compared to Earth’s surrounding ζ and this vibration is observed by us, humans, as flames, heat, and most importantly, light. Light has a vibration amplitude less than that of fire flames, thus light generates more dense ζ than the space-time density generated by flames. This being the case, the Sun will “burn” indefinitely since it will never exhaust any fuel, then again, the Sun is sharing its energy with it surroundings which in theory would lower its energy level over time; essentially decaying.
Click to expand...
I guess he has never heard of solar neutrinos, nova, supernovaor the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram.
The cause of planetary spin is partially due to density of ζ between a planet and its star being lower density (higher energy) than the ζ between the planet and outer space. Essentially, a planet rolls over less dense ζ; high amplitude ripples, perceived as “heat” and considered photonic light, which require the absorbing mass to be able to absorb it at a specific rate of absorption which translates into repulsion and can literally be translated as buoyancy. That isn’t all of it. The spin of the Earth is also partially due to the different absorption levels of Sun Light on different parts of the Earth. Basically, the Earth has no two surfaces that look the same and in fact have huge surfaces that “absorb” Sun Light at vastly different rates. These surfaces are the oceans and land, but spin alone isn’t sustainable by this effect alone and, if anything, this effect would diminish over time. For a current, standard physics perspective, gravity “pulls” at a different force between the oceans and land on Earth causing it to spin. But again, this isn’t the complete reason why the Earth spins. It also spins independent of the Sun, and the for the same reason the Sun also spins, due to the internal superposition of ζ vibration contributing to the spinning of the planet or celestial object as it does with all objects of matter. The superposition of ζ vibration at the surface of the Earth that is emitted is at a slanted vector to the Earth’s surface (less than 90 degrees) and these waves push against the surrounding space-time (ζ) resulting in perpetual spin. This is the cause why planets spin and especially why the Sun spins perpetually and could possibly be used as a mechanism to develop a perpetually spinning, energy producing machine. I see this device being constructed by a uniformly built magnetic sphere but this will require more thought, but in theory it would produce unlimited free energy in the form of electric energy.
Click to expand...
Goodbye conservation of angular momentum!

I can feel my brain cells dying just reading this.

ETA: I have just seen his calculation of the scaling factor S on page 71. No wonder that he "finds" that the Solar System is an atom of beryllium - S is "derived from the Beryllium atom relation to our Solar System.". Can he spell circular reasoning?

On page 160 he states that a solar system is a "celestial relative" of an atom with electrons being gas giants, protons being rock planets and neutrons being something else. For the Solar System he only considers the current 8 planets as currently defined. He ignores the fact that "planets" are an fairly arbitrary designation used by human beings and has little meaning in physics.
For some reason the Sun despite containing most of the mass of the Solar System has the same "atomic" mass as the 4 relatively tiny gas giants!

The nucleus is then described by ignoring all of the atomic physics discoveries of the bas 50 years (quarks!).
Essentially, the nucleus of the atom is akin to the inner system of any star system. The problem with this notion is that we have conceptualized for a very longtime that the nucleus is a “solid” mass when in actuality, it is another rotational system of other quantum particles we have labeled neutrons and protons. The relativistic fact is that at the core of all atoms is a large single or binary quantum particle resembling a star but at the quantum scale. It is circled by what we have again miss labeled as protons, neutrons or even electrons.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I just want to see the system that relates to Uranium. Gees. Even Kepler wasn't this far out with his polygonal solids.
 
MainframeX,

I was wondering if you could help me out, here. I am trying to reproduce your calculations, and I'm having a bit of trouble duplicating your results.

I'm using 112 pm for the radius of beryllium, and 4,498,252,900 km for the solar system. Are those the values you used?

With those values, I get 4.01630x1022. That's no where near the 5.625x1022 you claimed.

You didn't use 5,913,520,000 km for the radius of the solar system did you? That would be the mean distance to Pluto, not Neptune. Your hypothesis clearly demands using the mean distance to Neptune. Besides, Pluto isn't even a planet.

Also, to get your S value using the incorrect solar system radius, you must have used the empirical value for the atomic radius of beryllium (105 pm) rather than the calculated value. Is there any reason to favor the empirical value?

Oh, by the way, it is worth noting that your hypothesis compares solar system values with those of the 8Be isotope and not the naturally occurring 9Be. I couldn't find any published numbers for the isotope's radius, but it does have a half-life of 7x10-17 seconds. From that, can we not predict the solar system has a half-life of about 45 days?
 
shadron said:
I just want to see the system that relates to Uranium. Gees. Even Kepler wasn't this far out with his polygonal solids.
Click to expand...
I would also like to see the systems that correspond to unstable isotopes like 7Be and 9Be!
A stellar system undergoing alpha decay must be interesting.
 
Reality Check said:
I have just downloaded the PDF from the General Principles of Reality web site and would like to share a few bits of crackpot from a few pages:
<choice bits of loonytunery snipped>
ETA: I have just seen his calculation of the scaling factor S on page 71. No wonder that he "finds" that the Solar System is an atom of beryllium - S is "derived from the Beryllium atom relation to our Solar System.". Can he spell circular reasoning?
Click to expand...

See - I told you so! Q = (Q/M) M!! It works for every M and Q!!! Everything is connected!!!!

Oh my god, it's full of stars///////-/--[][][][]\]\][/////////--------.....
 
sol invictus said:
First, you claimed that string theory has been around for 40 years. That's true, but it's only been taken seriously as a theory of quantum gravity since the mid 1980's. Prior to that it was an obscure theory that was originally intended to model the strong interactions (which it succeeds at to some significant extent, by the way).
Click to expand...

Indeed. Who would have guessed* the Euler beta function had such a gem hidden within.

*other than Veneziano and Suzuki, that is.
 
jsfisher said:
MainframeX,

I was wondering if you could help me out, here. I am trying to reproduce your calculations, and I'm having a bit of trouble duplicating your results.

I'm using 112 pm for the radius of beryllium, and 4,498,252,900 km for the solar system. Are those the values you used?

With those values, I get 4.01630x1022. That's no where near the 5.625x1022 you claimed.

You didn't use 5,913,520,000 km for the radius of the solar system did you? That would be the mean distance to Pluto, not Neptune. Your hypothesis clearly demands using the mean distance to Neptune. Besides, Pluto isn't even a planet.

Also, to get your S value using the incorrect solar system radius, you must have used the empirical value for the atomic radius of beryllium (105 pm) rather than the calculated value. Is there any reason to favor the empirical value?

Oh, by the way, it is worth noting that your hypothesis compares solar system values with those of the 8Be isotope and not the naturally occurring 9Be. I couldn't find any published numbers for the isotope's radius, but it does have a half-life of 7x10-17 seconds. From that, can we not predict the solar system has a half-life of about 45 days?
Click to expand...

the radius is upto the middle of the kepler belt and used 112pm. again later people and happy new year.
 
MainframeX said:
the radius is upto the middle of the kepler belt and used 112pm. again later people and happy new year.
Click to expand...


Is that any where near the Kuiper Belt? I also noticed you mispronounce Euler in your video, but what of that.

Why did you use the Kuiper Belt as your solar system boundary? Since you are equating the gas giants to electrons, shouldn't your model stop at the orbit of the eighth planet?

On the other hand, even if you use the Kuiper Belt for your boundary, and even if you use its outer edge, you do not get any where near the C^e you claim. The error bars on your initial measures do not let you include C^e as a value for S. In other words, you fudged it.

Also, your whole reasoning for scaling mass-density is bogus. You waved your hands to get Rho(p) = S x Rho(o). Your argument that since the linear distances are scaled by S, so must the density is baseless. Density is volume-related, so S should enter as cubed. A question remains about the masses involved. Do they scale in similar fashion, in which case the S^3's cancel out, or is the whole thing a pipe dream and there is really no relationship to be had.

Fortunately, we can calculate both Rho(p) and Rho(o) directly and compare the result with your model. You did that, right? (I did. Can you guess what result I didn't get?)

Finally, by your hypothesis, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune must all have the same mass. This is an easily tested prediction.
 
Last edited:
MainframeX:
While you are away perhaps you should learn about falsifiable predictions - you know the ones that make a theory false if they are not true.

GPofR: Gas giants are celestial electrons. They move at a low velocity and so we can use a simplified version equation on page 81: S2C = 1kg.
For Jupiter (if we ignore basic physics and make a value in mass equal to the same value in charge) the result is your Jupiterquantum = 1.898*1026kg/S2 = 1.56*10-19kg.

This is of course nowhere near the real value of the charge on an electron which just happens to be negative, i.e. -1.602176487(40)*10-19C.

The next problem is that Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have much lower masses than Jupiter (which is 317.8 Earths), e.g. Saturn has a mass of 95.152 Earths. This means that they are even worse matches (ignoring the sign problem above) than Jupiter.

Thus your theory fails its predictions and is false.
I will not even get into the way off values for rocky "planets" considered as protons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom