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.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

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.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

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.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Yadda Yadda!

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

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.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

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.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

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.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’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.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

No, his theory was dismissed because neither he on this board, nor his website, could make a proper argument in support of it. What we got is empty blustering and word salad.


And yet the author was not able to put up a scientific argument when questioned. There is a reason why "makes sense" does not equate "scientific".


Pot. Kettle. Black.
It is painfully obvious that Jim Mash has very little understanding of the mainstream physics.


His theory has been put to the test just like the theories that are now mainstream. Are you expecting a preferential treatment for Jim Mash?


It would have been easier if Jim Mash had actually addressed the points we made, instead of evading them.


Have you actually looked at what papers are published in mainstream journals?


Empty blustering and word salad is not "expanding the mind".


As long as ATM proponents do not even know what is inside the box, real developments will not come from them.


Have you considered that Jim Mash has invested too much time and effort in his pet theory to admit that he might be wrong?
Or do you prefer applying a dooble standard?

__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Sigh... this response was more or less what I expected:

Cranks often respond to criticism by claiming that anyone who objects to their pet "theory" must believe that "scientists already know everything", or that "science is or should be eternally unchanging", and so on. These assertions all fall under the heading of "straw man argument". (See the ATM stickies.)

Anyone who knows anything about contemporary cosmology or gravitation physics knows very well that nothing in these subjects goes unchallenged, and new ideas (some silly, some quite intriguing) are constantly being proposed.

As it happens, just this week a nice review paper of the State of the Art in gravitation physics came out:

Slava G. Turyshev
Experimental Tests of General Relativity
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1731

See also an earlier review (which has been updated several times):

Clifford M. Will
The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...6-3/index.html

These papers are intended for an audience with standard graduate level physics background, and unfortunately could easily be misunderstood by those who lack that background. I and others would be happy to try to clarify misreadings of these papers in the Q&A subforum.

(No doubt, idgits will try to cherrypick quotations from Turyshev's paper; some of his comments could easily be seriously misunderstood out of context.)

Please start a separate thread if you wish to discuss why you think that "BB" is flawed. However, please make sure that you first carefully study Ned Wright's Tutorial and FAQ at
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
The reason is that most people who say "BB is seriously flawed" actually suffer from multiple serious misconceptions about what "the standard Hot Big Bang theory" actually claims, and about why this theory has remained the cornerstone of modern cosmology since c. 1965. For example, many people confuse HBBT with the Inflationary Scenario, or with the notion of Dark Matter, or Dark Energy, or with notions inspired by M-theory such as "extra compact dimensions", or with other speculations (such as large scale nontrivial homology, such as occurs in discrete quotients of the FRW dust models).

It would be pretty sad if you really believed that. The truth is that mathematics is the best tool we know for filtering out confusion, lies, and fallacies, and for providing simplicity of analysis, clarity of discussion, and so on.

Please reread my post #63. You are currently following a recipe for failure; in that post, I offer some suggestions which do not guarantee success (nothing can do that) but which will substantially improve your chances.

As long as they are not mathematical? That's a self-defeating attitude.

__________________
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, According to Newton, how long does it take an object to impact the Earth when dropped from a height of 16.087 ft, if it has an acceleration of 32.174 ft/sec^2? How long does Einstein say it takes to impact?

Since you are so good at math, and you rant and rave about how Jim doesn't give any of his proprietary information out for free, maybe you would like to show the rest of us what Newton would say, and what Einstein would say about how long it takes an object to impact the Earth when dropped from a height of 16.087 feet with an acceleration of 32.174 ft/sec^2?

Proprietary Information?

So you it looks like you are saying he has a Secret Theory that overthrows all of modern physics but it's 'Proprietary so we just have to take his word for it?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Motor Daddy, you're getting very close to an ad-hom suspension here, argue the theory or shut up.

Incidentally, for Newton the answer to your question is and entering your numbers gives t=sqrt(2*16.087 ft/ 32.174ft/s)=1.000s.
For relativity, your question doesn't have enough information, since you're not specifying the frame of reference you want the answer for.

Note that this answer doesn't mean you should continue asking elementary physics questions in an ATM thread, use Q&A for that.
Ask politely.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

So you're saying, depending on the reference frame, the time to impact changes, according to Einstein? If I observed the drop on Earth from the Moon or Mars, would the object impact the Earth in a different amount of time, or will the time always be 1.000 seconds when the acceleration is 32.174 ft/sec^2 and the object is dropped from 16.087 ft?

The object accelerated for 1 second and impacted the Earth at a velocity of 32.174 ft/sec, and traveled a distance of 16.087 ft in that one second. Why does Einstein not have enough information to answer the question? There is one answer (reality), not two!

BTW, This very math is considered ATM on this site, so I have been told by some mainstream SR loyalists. I fail to see how it's incorrect, and nobody will explain why, they just ban me, close my threads, and say shut up.

Who is measuring the second?

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Actually, people have explained to you about measurement from different reference frames repeatedly. Here's one of your previous threads, where it was discussed to death:

gravity, c and distance

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

This is all taking the thread off topic. Maybe Motor Daddy is using it to further argue his own ATM that was closed?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Since when is a physical theory proprietary information? We are not in the Middle Ages...

__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Thank you Tusenfem, I fully understand you :-)
I couldn't say it better.

Hi Motor Daddy,
obviously you are not aware that the number of realities is actaully equal to the number of reference frames. Even in the newtonian physics. You don't have to cry for Einstien, before you burry old Isaac. For a distant observer the clocks in the approximity of the massive body (read - gravitational field) run slower.
Extreme case : An astronaut falling into the black hole will do that forever for a distannt observer, while himself will eventually feel the gentle grip of the BH.
Since the acceleration and the gravity are the same, any object (accelerated twin) that accelerates will appear like it's clock is running rather slowly (from the reference frame of the remaining twin).
Etc. etc.
I don't understand, why you didn't pay a visit to Google, Wiki or even local library, before
making his own opinion.
You could also ask your physics teacher.
Yoy seem to be quite suprised that :
1) Time flow depends on the reference frame of the observer
2) Einstein said that
3) You never heard of that

Motor Daddy has already had threads on this exact subject, he shouldn't be hijacking another thread.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I thought that you had closed this thread but I have been informed that it is still open.

So here are some more thoughts for you.

A TOE that is different from what has come before not only has to prove its worth but must also be able to show where and why the big bang, quantum theory and relativity are wrong. This is like trying to overthrow a world army and cannot be achieved by a small assault.

Hence I have been building up my case for ten years with the idea that it would match the strike and awe of a certain recent conflict. That conflict ground to a halt because it did not have sufficient planning once the initial strike was made.

My first target is the bb theory as this is very shaky and people such as Eric Lerner have made a magnificent start with his thirty reasons why the big bang never happened. BBT is based upon just one interpretation of the red shift of starlight and the reason that it has survived so long is because there has been no acceptable alternative theory for the red shift. FET now provides this alternative and because you are so adamant that maths proves everything I have given some maths below. While on the subject of maths being the “be all and end all” of proof of a theory I will ask again for your arguments as to how the following can be defended.

Maths and experiment has proved that hydrogen will not condense under gravity if the temperature is above 20K and if helium is also included the temperature needs to fall below 4.22K. The bb theory tells us that the universe did not cool to 20K for over a billion years. So the first stars must have contained only hydrogen. Helium could only have been included in stars after a period of at least 10 billion years. The condensation of one gas from a mixture of gases is one way that they are separated and purified so you cannot claim that the condensation of hydrogen will bring the helium with it. By the way, I spent many years liquefying helium and so you cannot convince me that it can occur in space above 4.22K. It is experimentally and mathematically impossible.

Observations tell us that stars existed as early as 500 million years after the so called big bang. Furthermore, the star called HE 1523-0901 and found in our Milky Way very recently contains the elements thorium, uranium, europium, osmium, and iridium, which can only be produced when stars explode (according to current theory) and therefore there must have been at least one cycle of star formation and death before this one.

Which is wrong? The observations of old stars or the bb theory? I notice that you have not defended this argument saying that this thread is about FET. OK, so I will place it in the QA section or some other thread if you like, but if you can answer it why not here? If this one fact that maths has proved to be correct cannot fit in with bb then surely bb must be wrong. FET on the other hand does explain how clouds of hydrogen and helium gases can condense to form stars.

Quantum theory and relativity are different to the bb theory as their predictions are OK but their concepts fail dismally. I have already given you a few indications of how the FET concepts of quantum theory and relativity differ from current ones, and as these are dealt with in book 2 you will have to wait until then for the maths. Alternatively you could become involved with me now as there are still a few minor points that have not been completed. I will even send you a free copy of my first book but as there are only a few left it will be on a first come first served basis. You can send your addresses privately via the contact form on my web site.

Now for a little FET maths based upon the simple concepts that appear in book 1.

FET predicts that a neutron sucks in fluid energy from the continuum at a rate that varies between zero (when the particle is initiated) to 3.2x10^-18eV/s when it has reached maturity. FET predicts that this inflow of energy is what we see as gravity. Hence the gravitational force increases with the size of a neutron. So regions of space where neutrons are still growing give rise to weaker gravitational pulls. Furthermore, neutrons have no associated electron energy circulating around them and cannot therefore emit radiation, hence these clouds of growing neutrons will be invisible. But this is not the explanation for the majority of dark matter. Thus a neutron with 10^9eV of energy takes around 3.2x10^26s i.e. 10^19 years to be created; a bit different from that predicted by bb.

Assuming the Earth has 3.6x10^51 nucleons then the total flow of energy into the Earth is equal to 1.15x10^34eV/s. The surface area of the earth is equal to 5.1x10^14m^2 and the density of continuum energy around the Earth is equal to 1.97x10^15eV/m^3. Hence the flow rate of continuum energy into the Earth (at its surface) is equal to 11.3km/s, which just happens to be equal to its escape velocity.

Now FET predicts that a photon loses energy at the same rate as a fully grown neutron throughout its lifetime. The reason it stays constant is that a photon grows in size as it loses energy from a minimum diameter of 10^-15m for the highest energy gamma ray to over 100,000 metres for a radio wave. This is why photons grow as they speed through space, not because they are waves that are stretched by expanding space. Using a Hubble constant of 70.1 ± 1.3 (km/s)/Mpc it would take a photon with the same energy as a neutron around 10^19 years to lose all of its energy. This agrees with the creation time of a neutron and is therefore a very reasonable explanation for the red shift of starlight.

A neutron consists of around 10^9eV of energy and for a spherical particle with a diameter of 1.395x10^-15m the energy density comes to 7.81x10^53eV/m^3
Notice that the ratio of the density of solid energy to that of the continuum is equal to 4x10^38. For a disc shaped neutron the energy density may be different of course depending on the thickness of the disc.

The density of solid energy is the same everywhere in the universe but that of the continuum can vary from place to place. The rate of growth of a neutron and the rate of energy loss of a photon both depend upon the ratio of the energy densities of solid and continuum energy. Small changes resulting from the flow of continuum energy into stars results in a small change in the strength of gravity with distance and could well account for the slowing of the Pioneer spacecraft whereas large changes in the density of continuum energy that occur when stars collide result in the accelerated red shift of starlight as already explained for high red shift supernovae associated with low red shift galaxies.

Now for the electromagnetic force. An electron consists of 5.1x10^5eV and this is moving at light speed around a core of solid energy. One way of visualising this flow of energy is as a coherent belt of energy flowing a distance of 3x10^-10m from the core, i.e. the size of a typical atom and then back again. The flow rate of energy is therefore equal to 2.5x10^23eV/s, which is around 8x10^40 times that for the gravitational force. This is higher than the actual flow rate because not all of the energy flows the same distance. Some returns almost immediately to the core and some extends much further because the density of continuum energy varies according to the inverse square law. Hence the actual value is equal to the figure obtained above.

At the moment I am just completing a chapter of book 2 on the FET explanation of why the heat capacity of a gas at constant pressure differs from that at constant volume. I had not then considered Papageno’s question as to how FET can explain the temperature dependence of the thermal conductivities of materials but in just a few minutes I managed to come up with a good explanation. Thanks for the prompt. I am sure there are still other things not yet covered so all suggestions are welcome. But do not expect me to reveal all right now; the battle has not yet started in earnest.

Jim.

Since you are back, address my questions:

If heat flow is due to this "fluid energy" why is the thermal transport so different in metals, insulators and vacuum? For example, can your theory provide the temperature dependence of metals and insulators, like mainstream theories do?

Also, can you provide a quantitative explanation of the discrete spectra of atoms and molecules?
Can you provide a quantitative explanation of why we can distinguish in experiments electrons from protons?
Can you provide a quantitative explanation for the existence of stable alpha particles?

__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)