That was not me, I am sorry to say (or happy).

A centripital force can be ANY force, it can be a Lorentz force, it can be molecular bonding, it can be gravity. You seem to have the strange idea that a centripital force is a very specific, while it is NOT.

Here, you seem to try and explain how molecular bonding works.
The electrons are not doing anything of the kind that you claim here, is reads like an interesting SF story.
Now, interestingly, you can do the same story with the rock just hanging on the rope in a gravitational field. I guess that the electrons then, instead of becoming "centripitals", they become "stretchels" because the force pulling down the rock (gravity) is streching the rope and the molecular bonding holds it together.

You still have no grasp of regular basic physics, so why would we believe that what you write in your books makes any sense?

Once more, the centripital force and the centrifugal force are THE SAME force, depending on the frame that you are looking in. Please, take a introductory physics book on mechanics and dynamics (e.g. Allonso & Finn) and learn something about basic physics.

Oh, I am interested in a lot of stuff, even CMBR, but as I have so much to do, I cannot keep up with CMBR research, it is sad maybe, but do you know how much time is involved in working with data from the Earth's magnetotail (Cluster, DoubleStar, Themis), Venus mangetosphere (Venus Express), the Jovian moons (Galileo).

As far as I have seen, there is nothing specific of the FET, you stated the math is simple, but you have not presented anything. Your explanation of basic physics, like above with the centifugal/centripital force, shows such a lack of general physics education, that I don't think it is very worthwhile spending my limited time on it.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

This is ludicrous!! If this were the case, than I would not have been able to publish anything that I presented on conferences on my posters. It is "bon ton" in scientific circles to discuss your work before you publish it, because that will usually improve your work. This is done at visits, or at conferences (where abstracts are often rather specific as to what will be presented).

Ah, and here I thought you were serious about being busy writing a paper for a journal, silly me, because you told me:

and I was honestly interested on what topic you were working here, although I was rather sarcastic.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

Jim Mash's grandiose claims have certainly suffered the death of thousand cuts in this thread!

Now that he has run off to lick his wounds, it seems appropriate to ponder some general lessons while we mop up the bloody mess.

Mash is only one of (literally) thousands who claim, at various websites, in various languages, that they have invented some grand new "theory" or "philosophy" which turns modern physics/cosmology on its head. More specifically, he is only one of dozens who write in what I call the genre of "simple physics". My intent in helping to expose his megalomanic claims as empty boasts was to employ him as an exemplar, to demolish the whole school by proxy, as it were.

There are perhaps half of dozen math/physics knowledgeable debunkers active at BAUT, but there are thousands of amateur anti-science dissidents out there; clearly we cannot spend the time to correct each misstatement or to debunk each misleading or incorrect claim made by each and every self-deluded individual wandering around the Internet. Efficiency demands that we focus attention on those who, like Mash, are clearly representative of a type.

Let's take a moment to make some general observations concerning individuals who make counterfactual claims concerning subjects they nothing about (without any implication that I neccessarily think any of following might apply to any particular individual):

• Many such individuals are rather obviously not in their right minds.
• In some cases, persons who terribly misunderstand what is required to inititiate a true scientific revolution are simply too young to know better.
• In quite a few cases, one might suspect that a physical problem, such as a severe head trauma or senility, may play a role in the odd speech of some of these individuals, but no-one with any sense (even if, perhaps especially if, he/she has some medical training!) would attempt a diagnosis over the internet, and obviously, you can hardly ask someone you don't know, "have you suffered a debilitating brain injury?!"

In most cases, the precise character of a massive self-delusion must remain murky. It is often not possible to form a clear picture of the age, background, and overall mental state of would-be contenders for the title of "The New Copernicus", especially over the Internet. But one thing is clear: the victims may deserve our sympathy as much as our scorn and contempt.

I decided to help make an example of Mash because he has offered biographical details which imply that he is not a troubled teenager; indeed, he has gone out of his way, both here at BAUT and at his website, to claim long experience working in some "government laboratory". Assuming that Daffyduck was not a sockpuppet for Mash, he has at least one supporter to help him recover from the mauling he received here. And he is not one of those who, from oddities of written style, I secretly suspect may literally suffer from a neurological problem. Thus, it seemed to me that, to the extent that anyone suffering from a certain lack of contact with reality can be said to be fair game, Mash was a good candidate for a more detailed debunking than most of his ilk are likely to receive, even in this subforum.

So, addressing in particular those among the younger generation who dream of becoming "the next Einstein", here is my advice on how to achieve scientific success, rather than becoming known as a crackpot:

• Want to overthrow some theory? Make sure you first understand what a theory is, and that you are familiar with the interplay of theoretical modeling, prediction, and evidence in the "development cycle" of several historically important (and not too old!) theories. Make sure you understand how incredibly difficult it really is to initiate a true revolution in science, and why.
  
• Impatient with the State of Science? That's not neccessarily a bad attitude, but you should keep it to yourself, at least until you really know enough to credibly speak out. There are usually many very good reasons why the dominant theories have achieved and maintained their dominance. Don't fall for the shibboleth that every "standard theory" represents nothing more than a conspiracy of senior scientists. That's almost never remotely close to being true!
  
• Want to overthrow theory T? Make sure you have mastered theory T, including its motivation, notation, terminology, any mathematical techniques commonly employed, any standard examples of mathematical models formulated in theory T, plus of course all the relevant evidence (not just the evidence you think is relevant, but the evidence which textbook authors think is relevant).
  
• Study standard textbooks on theory T, not popular science books. But that's only the beginning; mostly likely, to have any chance of success you will need to master the contemporary research literature concerning theory T as well.
  
• Think hard about why you want to overthrow theory T. If your motivation is impure, your judgement will be clouded, which will probably vitiate all your efforts.
  
• Never forget the most likely place where "the next revolution" will occur in science, is not in overthrowing some well-established cornerstone of physics (at least not directly), but in noticing and making a theory for something completely different from anything previously considered.
  
• There is a very good reason why people go to school in order to become mathematicians or physicists: long experience has shown that formal coursework is the most efficient path to the frontiers of contemporary science. So if you can go to school to study physics/cosmology, do so. (Although that is no guarantee of success, as another current ATM thread demonstrates.)
  
• Don't forget that reading assignments and homework are only a starting point. Serious students read textbooks other than the assigned textbook and work computations which they have not been formally assigned. Most of all, they think about what the authors whose works they read are doing at every stage, and try to understand why they do A and not B. (Quite often, it turns out that B works just as well as A, but even if not, you'll learn something. Indeed, exploring alternative avenues is an essential part of internalizing "standard material", and this activity will give you plenty of scope for exhibiting creativity, ingenuity, and intuition while you pursue your studies.)
  
• Reading standard textbooks doesn't "deaden your creativity", as some ignoramuses desperately want to believe. To the contrary, the more you read, the more you will know, and the more you know and the more you think about what you know, the more wisdom will be reflected in your own work. If you read extensively, you will have more ideas, and you will be much more efficient in separating those worthy of further consideration from those which are unlikely to bear scientific fruit.
  
• Never forget that physical theories belong to the domain of applied mathematics. I like to define mathematics as the art of reliable reasoning about simple phenomena. Used wisely, mathematics never makes things more complicated, as idgits would have you believe. Rather, it helps you to extract the really essential stuff and to ignore any uneccessary distractions. In the end, using mathematics (possibly including sophisticated mathematics) can only makes things simpler. The precision of mathematical definitions, statements, and proofs constitutes the best "magic bullet" we know against confusion. Math is your greatest ally in the search for scientific truth; do not shun it's assistance.
  
• Proof is only a way station on the path to enlightenment. Never forget that the most interesting and rewarding part of mathematical modeling lies in the interpretation of your results. Most likely the math is trying to tell you something important; listen to what it says.
  
• Long experience shows that the very best way to learn about theory T is to try to explain topics in theory T to individuals who know just a bit less than you do. (Forums like BAUT and Physics Forums can be a fun way to get your feet wet, although you would do well to recall what I said above about other participants having to guess your age and background, so don't throw a fit if someone with more experience corrects something you wrote.)
  
• The old notion (often attributed, with some degree of fairness, to Thomas Kuhn) that there is some kind of sharp divide between "ordinary science" and "extraordinary science" has long since been debunked. There is in fact a continuum of "value" in scientific work, and judgements of value tend to be very much context-dependent and to change over time. The important thing to keep in mind is that there is endless room for creativity and individual style in any research career.
  
• Sometimes I suspect that some posters in forums like BAUT have taken some slogan from Star Wars or Wikipedia just a bit too seriously. "Trust in the force?" "Be bold?" "Ignore all rules?" That might work well in some enterprises, such as speculations on the commodities market (if you don't mind a spell in the pen), but in science, long experience shows that it is much smarter to be very knowlegeable and very well prepared. Take Darwin as your model: he knew the stuff he wrote about better than anyone, and everyone else knew it, which made his claims impossible to ignore, however revolutionary.
  
• Follow the customs of good scholarship. Take responsibility for your speech and actions by writing under your real name. Don't misrepresent your background. Cite your sources. Make every effort to write clearly. Above all, never misrepresent the evidence or the nature of the theory you are trying to criticize. And if you want to call yourself a "scientist", don't disparage the scholarship and ability of the leaders in the field, or the nature of the scientific enterprise itself.
  
• Don't be dismayed if you fail. (In the end, even Newton and Einstein considered that they had failed to acheive their dreams. In fact, if you lack unsatisfied ambitions, something is probably wrong.) There are things you can do which will improve your chances, but nothing is ever guaranteed.
  
• Nonetheless, someone has to succeed in initiating the next landmark revolution in science. If you follow the above advice, and if you are sufficiently determined, courageous, industrious, ingenious, lucky and wise, you probably have about as good a chance as anyone!
  

__________________
Chris Hillman

Read these PF posts. Avoid Wikipedia--- except for these versions. Read this and this suggested sticky. When asked for advice, I always say: never take advice!

Chris, Get off your high horse. Nothing is set in stone, and if you stick around long enough you will see most of the presently "known" science change with time. Should I list some examples of things that were "known" at the time by scientists, but have since been reversed and the real truth revealed?

This should be made a Sticky.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Yadda Yadda!

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Thanks! High praise, indeed!

Perhaps the entire thread (less Motor Daddy's two hijacking attempts) can be locked and sticked forthwith, since it can and should serve as warning to those who would play the fool.

__________________
Chris Hillman

Read these PF posts. Avoid Wikipedia--- except for these versions. Read this and this suggested sticky. When asked for advice, I always say: never take advice!

No hijack attempt on my part, just interjecting a thought on your writings. You claim you would like to see some math that debunks mainstream science, but yet my stuff is deleted, closed, I'm banned, and other posters quit replying when my numbers are correct. They simply don't want to hear the truth, or don't have an open mind if it doesn't agree with their opinions.

This is the only board I know of that has a 30 day time limit on a thread, and then the thread is locked. Why is the 30 day limit only for the ATM section? Are we trying to get rid of all new ideas as fast as possible to preserve the current theory? (rolls eyes)

If you go to the About BAUT forum there are several threads that discuss the 30 day limit and why it was imposed.
If you can't make your case in 30 days then you haven't prepared is the nub of it.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Chris,

I think Motor Daddy is right, You should get off your high horse. You seem to think that you know everyhting, yet, as we all know there is so much undiscovered and yet to be changed.

I do not believe in the BB as it is seriously flawed, there will be an alternative that will change the way we look at things.

You think that we are in the era of knowing everything, I'm sure all the past discoveries were made with their creators thinking the same. If you were born a few hundred years ago you would be fighting the corner saying the world is flat !!!

With regards to Maths, You can prove/disprove most things by 'clever' use of maths.

One true, TOE will be simple and will be useable in all situations without 'tweaking' to make fit.

With a closed immagination you will never discover your true abilities, just go along with the sheep.

I'm certainly nowhere nearly educated as most people on this forum but at least I am willing to open my mind to new concepts.

I'm glad I started this thread as it has shown the true pig headedness of some posters.

I thank Jim Mash for contributing, as I posted on here without his knowledge.

I eagerly await his next publication and paper.

DD

Chris : Feal free to pick little bits of this post, chew them up and spit them out to your own interpritation. It will make you feal better about yourself and one step closer to your ultimate goal : GOD complex !!!

Aha... the usual ATM rhetoric: "Mainstream does not know everything, therefore I am right! Muahahahahahahaha!"


The only one claiming to explain everything was Jim Mash, certainly not the mainstream.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

Rule 1 of ATM No Maths allowed.

As for the rest it's the usual 'We don't know everything so I can propose anything' ATM argument.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

That's what you wanted from jim Mash and because he doesn't want to release equations until the second book is published you have dismissed his theory. So far his theory makes sence to me and many others. If you read the whole book not just the snippits from this forum it builds a much wider picture. (I'm not trying to sell you his book).

Just because you don't understand his theory you dish it. Jim Mash has asked for help on this site but none of those who have posted have given any, just critisism.

Its sad that everyone can't work together. You are all too happy just to sit in the mainstream but if/when new breakthroughs are made you will be the first to try and jump on the bandwagon.

With regards to the 'We can propose anything' comment. This is how research and development advances, by expanding the mind beyond what is already known.

Without people willing to look 'outside the box' no real developments would have ever been made.

From your writings it sounds to me that you may be more fearful of change and the knowledge that you have spent the best part of your careers studying the wrong subject.

__________________
"God bless thee, my son; I will give thee the greatest jewel I have ...
"The end of our foundation is the knowledge of causes, and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible."Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

If you want to present a theory that is going to be the new mainstream, you have to show something of the math that goes with it.

Jim wants help? I never noticed that, he has already written his books, working on number 4 or so. He could certainly use some help, because even a small simple thing as centrifugal/centripital forces is beyond the scope of his understanding, and that is very basic physics.

And how can we understand his theory, when asked a question you get some story about a car accelerating and the road moving upward and downward?

Sure, but the break through is not going to come from FET. If it is such a simple theory, why not write it down in simple words and a few equations? Captivate us, tantalize us, get us hungry for more, and then we will buy the book.

I am very willing to look outside the box and would love to see that something new and great is developed. But Jimbo has to give us something apart from words and words and words, and indications that he does not even comprehend regular 1st year graduate physics.

But maybe you Daffyduck can show us the way? Maybe you can explain Jim's theory better than he can himself? Maybe you can show the math that goes with it? But hurry coz wabbitseason is almost over.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )