Er. No it isn't.
String Theory is Doomed - offshoot from Null Physics thread
- Thread starter MainframeX
- Start date
Er. No it isn't.
Erm. Why the mass of Jupter in kg?You do realise that the kg is a unit of human conveinience right? And thus of no fundamental significance to physics whatsoever.
So what if I choose to measure the mass of Jupiter in ounces?
my_wan
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,074
He's right about scale. It doesn't have to be kg or ounces. Scale is the relative difference. If you compare Jupiter to the sun you get the same answer in either kg or ounces.
@MainframeX
I have issues with string theory myself and Lee Smolin's articulated it quiet well. I have just as many issues with the way many anti-string theorist rail against it. sol invictus was technically correct in the OP quote. Quote selections from Lee Smolin's can be selectively used as debate fodder in a string theory sling match. However, remember that Smolin's is a string theorist and is not "against" string theory. He spends quiet a bit of time in the first chapter of his book explaining this. By no means would I suggest a wholesale abandonment of everything string theorist have contributed.
For these reasons I am slow to consider jumping on your wagon and discussing issues with string theory without knowing more about your reasoning. Since you did plug your theory in the OP it is perfectly legitimate for me to go there for clues to your perspective, and take issue with it here.
I was willing to download the eBooks but... uh.. never mind. So I watched the video and went over the flash version. The superfluous content did not make it any easier, such as pg. 58:
I'm not sure how that relates to a theory of any kind.
Then there are straight up misquoted empirical details like pg. 79:
I couldn't read the exponent. This is exactly the opposite of what Relativity says. No observer of any kind can observe anything moving faster than the speed of light. There is even an addition of velocities equation that explains this. For instance suppose your sitting in ship A. Ship B and C are moving away from you in the same direction. You see B moving away from you at 160,000 km/sec. The captain of ship B sees C moving away from B at 160,000 km/sec. Under Relativity that means C is moving away from you at 250,000 km/sec.
You--------------------B-----------------------C
^---160,000 km/sec--> ^---160,000 km/sec--> ^
^---------------250,000 km/sec--------------> ^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula
I don't even want to know what you meant by quoting the myth of the "stationary observer". You state that your density operators are not necessarily in contradiction with General Relativity (GR). Yet do you have a clue how the curvature of space, as defined by GR, relates to density operators?
I prefer direct points rather than argue esoteric concepts that may or may not be relevant to the central thesis. This was provided in your youtube video when I caught a statement that cuts the the heart of your theories claim (video ucRuZ9lKM0s at time stamp 5:35):
Ever heard of the Eotvos experiment? In fact every laboratory level experiment I have any knowledge of to measure the Gravitation constant used essentially identical masses. They do not repel. It is such a fundamental empirical fact (not theory) that this claims exceeds all bounds of credulity. In fact this irrevocably breaks your theory. I therefore submit that my reticence toward discussing string theory issues is well founded.
MainframeX
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 52
I think all physicists are crackpots...I know a lot of them. Especially those that decide to support string theory which included me actually. The term "crackpot" is scapegoat-generalizing terminology and used loosely in order to classify anyone generally if they "appear" to be outside the norm even if the claim is very elementary a 12 year old can understand it. Dr Smolin (quantum gravity theory) is therefore a crackpot and especially so is Dr. Kaku (books like "Physics of the Impossible") with their own sites to boot. To be "crackish" you have to be an individual who is unwilling to change his opinion on his own theories or modify them even if overwhelming evidence and logical reasoning is given to the contrary. Does that include everyone who blindly believes in string theory where the most overwhelming evidence countering string theory is its own 40s years of untestable existence. Trust me, I'm easily swayed if the reasoning is good. Fortunately Canadians are a little more intelligent and reserved in the use of the term "crackpot".
The truth is 40s years of unsupported testable physics is a huge farce and a pity many of you have been brainwashed to it, but I know its allure. It, just like Mr Witt's book, has been promoted extensively sparked in the 80s by the media before it had any testable and verified merit. You should never go the media before you can test your theory right? Wrong! You decide. The math in string theory may have been inspirational to mathematicians but not physicists. It's coupling is absolutely imaginary in order to tie together independent verified physics theories but yet it doesn't explain forces (any of them) what they really are. Instead it a maps them geometrically. An analogy is like asking someone to fuse together 5 lead blocks. So he sets out and builds a geometric contraption (rig) made of iron and inserts the lead blocks and calls that fusing but what he should have done was melt the lead blocks for form one uniform big lead block. The individual in this analogy missed the fact that lead can be melted a key component to fusing. It's like screwing metal rods together instead of welding them and then forming a car from it and calling it safe. It's like the gentleman who's been building a flying car for the last 20 years (who's been in popsci numerous times) claiming the flying car is finished but hasn't had a successful test flight in 20 years...does he really have a flying car? No if it doesn't fully work.
You guys are fun.
Anyway that's my take.
MainframeX
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 52
Sorry you're misinterpreting the Eotvos experiment completely. That's a test for inertial mass vs gravitational mass. All gravity experiments are variations of the Cavendish experiment that uses a small lead sphere with another much bigger lead sphere. All Cavendish type experiments are the same in structure. The big sphere is used because its gravitation force (acceleration) is stronger and results in better experimentation. This does contradict the current norm, but is exact as it pertains to wave theory and my theory that all matter vibrates space-time thus two exact matter objects produce the same vibrations that cancel (total destructive interference) each other out resulting in repulsion. Object of different size (same material) attract because their vibration of space-time results in constructive interference (just like static charge).
My relativity theory is very, very close to that of Einstein's but considers space-time as a "distortable" aether substance. As A moves away from B, A's velocity increases via acceleration and acceleration (in my theory) distorts space-time making it denser for A (more kinetic energy) as opposed to it's own previous velocity in relation to space-time aether and point B. It's a slight modification with big ramifications.
Last edited:
MainframeX
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 52
Coulomb is a Metric unit just like Kilogram and they are both unitarily symmetrical due to the Metric System which the Empiral system lacks.
MainframeX
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 52
Really?
MainframeX
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 52
No I don't have a length of time that a theory should be developed without predictable results before it gets exuberant media attention than joe blow's theory and is preferred by mainstream science as an acceptable field of research over other "crackpots". That is actually a good question to ask me since I am denouncing string theory. Honestly. What is an acceptable time limit? 10, 20, 30, 40 years? ... An average person's life span? Do the originators of string theory have to die in order for it to be testable? How about the whole generation of string theorists? Or do they have to pass away in order for science to progress in a much more fruitful direction ... say quantum gravity theory. My beef is that if all the wonderful brainpower of our smartest scientists were released in a different direction (away from string theory) with acceptance from mainstream science (not giving preference to string theory's further continuation in the form of institutional funding and even private industry) then perhaps the wonders of the universe would have been better revealed. So many of our brightest minds are being limited due to fear of being ostracized by mainstream science because they're livelihoods depend on them being accepted. That's a biasness that cannot be tolerated in science but it is human nature and an unfortunate fact though it is a great pity.
Last edited:
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Mainframe, you do realize that what you're saying is totally insane, right? First of all, Tubby is of course completely correct - to relate a mass to a charge you need a constant with units of mass/charge. You can define one if you want - like I said before, M = (M/Q)Q, for any M and any Q, and that's an exact relation.... but of course it's totally meaningless unless that (M/Q) factor comes from somewhere else.
As for relating mass to charge, that is not and never has been the holy grail of physics (because it doesn't make sense, especially not the mass of Jupiter, of all things).
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Why don't we focus on some of the concrete claims you've made.
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).
Second, you claimed that it was in some way unusual in that it hasn't been confirmed experimentally. That's totally untrue - there are literally hundreds of theories in mathematical physics which are regarded as "toy models" for various phenomena. For example, there's a community of hundreds of physicists that work on supergravity, even though we know it doesn't describe the world. No one expects these theories themselves to model the world, but they are interesting anyway for various reasons I can explain if anyone asks.
Third, you claimed that it had wasted a "generation" of physicists. That's patently absurd for reasons I already explained - string theorists are a tiny fraction of physics faculty, most of them worked on and continue to work on other topics as well (and some made very major contributions to other subfields, like Nobel laureate David Gross). The truth is that a good theoretical physicist knows many techniques and understands many mathematical models. String theory might be one of those, but people that work only on that are very rare (so this whole notion that there are all these "string theorists", as distinct from other physicists, is silly and false).
Fourth, you claimed that string theorists dominated the job market and physics departments. Try asking a string theorist how the job market is and has been. There are hundreds of them in any given year applying for faculty positions in the US, and around one of them gets one. These are people that, if they didn't love physics, could easily get jobs in many other fields for much, much higher pay. For laypeople to criticize them for the field they happen to find most interesting is truly absurd - it's actually insulting, and woo-ishly anti-intellectual. Try looking at some physics department faculties, and see how many have even one string theorist.
Fifth, you claimed it wasn't science. That's obviously untrue - the most widely accepted definition of a scientific theory is that it be falsifiable, and string theory is falsifiable in multiple ways with current technology - it could happen tomorrow.
Enough for now. Try reality-based living for a while - you might find it refreshing.
technoextreme
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,785
Nice of you to mention a field of science that actually took seventy years before parts of it were verified/falsified. The Bose-Einstein condensate was predicted by Bose and Einstein in the 1920s. The problem being that no one produced a condensate until seventies years later. Be patient because time is not historically represenative of a theory being crap or not.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
No. Crackpot has a specific meaning especially in this forum. It is not a person who appears "to be outside the norm". It is a person whose ideas are easily demonstrated to be incorrect. This is the case with the author of the web site that you sited.
"Dr Smolin (quantum gravity theory) is therefore a crackpot" is wrong. He is a well respected mathematical physicist. He does have some controversial opinions but that is part of scientific debate.
Please do not refer to "Mr Witt's book" as this suggests that you are easily influenced by the pretty pictures and big words in it. I assume that you have already wasted your money by buying it.
Once again you should read these web pages reviewing "Our Undiscovered Universe , Introducing Null Physics, The Science of Uniform and Unconditional Reality" by Terence Witt:
From Ben Benjamin Monreal (a professional physicist):
http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html
From me (an amateur physicist):
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html
And a few of the many flaws on the book:
- Redefining the concept of infinity as a length with magnitude.
- Defining a line as a series of points written as zeros and separated by plus signs, treating them as numbers so that they add up to zero and then treating the number zero as a point again!
- A really bad atomic model "proving" that a electron orbiting a proton has a ground state that it cannot decay from by creating a new physical law.
- Using the high school description of a neutron as a proton plus an electron and not realizing that this is just his atomic model!
- Postulating that galaxies have "galactic cores" which are super massive objects that are not quite black holes and not realizing that the centre of the Milky Way is well observed. These recycle stars into hydrogen. Oddly enough astronomers have not noticed dozens of stars vanishing from the galactic centre in the many images that they have taken over the last few decades.
my_wan
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,074
D
Duh.. That's what I get after being up all night, but it changes nothing. If mass, even by an extremely tiny amount, repelled when equal it would be unmistakable in either the Eotvos or Cavendish experiments. It would also throw off all our orbital calculations in the solar system.
I'll put it this way:
1) Your claim if true is an essentially guaranteed Nobel Prize (even, or especially, without the theory).
2) You claim can be trivially validated for less than $10 (or a junk pile).
3) Your claim is absolutely absurd!!!!
So prove me wrong and do this experiment.
Just use the same brick weights on the foam also, as I did years ago.
So what are you waiting on? With some scraps from a junk pile you can be nearly guaranteed a Nobel prize and as much money as Randi is offering tax free.
If equal masses repel then presumably as the difference increased it would repel less and less until it started attracting, then it would attract more and more as the difference increased. This means the Gravitational constant cannot be constant. So tell me what the mass ratio must be for the attraction and repulsion to cancel? What you are saying is that 3 marbles of equal mass will repel, yet if you put 2 of the marbles next to each other they will attract the 3rd. Hogwash. The claim that your theory is close to Relativity is also hogwash, but given your claims it appears your understanding breaks down even at the pre-math level. I therefore despair of offering proof other than the experiment itself.
Duh.. That's what I get after being up all night, but it changes nothing. If mass, even by an extremely tiny amount, repelled when equal it would be unmistakable in either the Eotvos or Cavendish experiments. It would also throw off all our orbital calculations in the solar system.
I'll put it this way:
1) Your claim if true is an essentially guaranteed Nobel Prize (even, or especially, without the theory).
2) You claim can be trivially validated for less than $10 (or a junk pile).
3) Your claim is absolutely absurd!!!!
So prove me wrong and do this experiment.
Just use the same brick weights on the foam also, as I did years ago.
So what are you waiting on? With some scraps from a junk pile you can be nearly guaranteed a Nobel prize and as much money as Randi is offering tax free.
If equal masses repel then presumably as the difference increased it would repel less and less until it started attracting, then it would attract more and more as the difference increased. This means the Gravitational constant cannot be constant. So tell me what the mass ratio must be for the attraction and repulsion to cancel? What you are saying is that 3 marbles of equal mass will repel, yet if you put 2 of the marbles next to each other they will attract the 3rd. Hogwash. The claim that your theory is close to Relativity is also hogwash, but given your claims it appears your understanding breaks down even at the pre-math level. I therefore despair of offering proof other than the experiment itself.
MainframeX
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 52
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! 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. I have also conducted the Water Gravity Vibration experiment (W.G.V experiment) in the book proving that vibrations in a medium (a medium made up of "condensed space-time") results in attraction and repulsion depending the frequency difference used between the vibrating sources. Yes the Gravitational constant isn't constant! Verify it for yourself and tell me after if I'm wrong.
For the record, I don't care about getting a Nobel Prize...I'm really "crazy" that way. If you knew me you'd understand. My only purpose is to share this information freely and to inspire.
If the simple math in my ebook eludes you ... well I can't help you there. My understanding of physics (of our physical existence) runs very deep not only mathematically but especially as it pertains to "real" physical context. When I wrote my ebook (The General Principles of Reality A) it was a personal project to document and simplify my physics theories (and physics philosophy) for my own personal record cleanly and to share it with a fellow colleagues, friends and family. That was it! My ultimate intent was to make it as simple to understand as I could possibly could make it in order for the average man to understand without loosing any of its merit and to make it somewhat entertaining because it is still thick for the average dude. In fact by simplifying it I believe I actually increased its merit. What happened after was that I was urged to publish my theories, over some cold beers, specifically the Jupiter is an Electron theory. I waited a whole bloody year as I conducted experiments and then I found out my ebook had been circulating the Internet via email and torrents without my knowledge for sometime so as of several months ago put together a website for it. Also I submit one of my papers for publishing and filed a patent recently.
Not all stories are clean cut.
Hey I respect all of you. I actually find this forum fun and you guys are definitely intelligent which is like a breath of fresh air, but before you re-buckle my theories think very carefully and do your own research to my claims.
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 aware of that! But he's trying to compare the mass of Jupiter with the charge of the electron. The ratio is then entirely dependent on the units chosen for each.
shadron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 5,918
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Not for over a century, no.
MainframeX
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 52
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.
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.