The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« previous
next »
Print
Pages:
1
...
13
14
[
15
]
16
17
...
19
Go Down
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
378 Replies
132357 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Vern
Naked Science Forum King!
2072
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #280 on:
19/06/2009 15:31:41 »
The server is down a lot for me here, so when I finsih a reply, I may or may not be able to send it. But here goes again.
I am trying to find some reasoning that forces your conclusions. So far I see your guesses about nature, but I don't get the reasoning that forces nature to conform to your guesses. I'll spend some time on your previous posts.
Logged
witsend
(OP)
Sr. Member
418
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #281 on:
19/06/2009 15:40:12 »
Sorry to hear the server's collapsing. Have you got more tornedos? NOT guessing. There is perfect consistency. But maybe really badly explained. Shall I try again?
Logged
witsend
(OP)
Sr. Member
418
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #282 on:
19/06/2009 16:00:44 »
Vern - are you there? Must I give this another go? If I don't hear from you I take it you're off line.
Logged
Vern
Naked Science Forum King!
2072
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #283 on:
19/06/2009 17:00:08 »
Its 100 degrees and sun shine out today, so that is not the problem.
No need to start over; I'll just wade through the posts and your web site until I get the picture. It is not going to fit the way I think nature works, but I want to understand it anyway.
Logged
witsend
(OP)
Sr. Member
418
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #284 on:
19/06/2009 17:04:35 »
Ok Vern. I'll hold back. I think -somehow - things are better explained in this thread. I'm afraid I've gone out of sequence with the blog. Fire only comes at the end of that exercise.
Thanks for trying to bend the mind. I'm here if you want explanations.
Logged
witsend
(OP)
Sr. Member
418
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #285 on:
20/06/2009 07:02:51 »
Vern. How's it going? I've been obsessing all night. I think, by now, you possibly see that I am literally identifying a magnetic particle as the 'thing' that transfers energy. I hope so anyway. It's profoundly simplistic. But by adding this particle into the 'soup', and by allowing for those extra dimensions, we still get a perfect reconciliation of observed phenomena - but with the dubious advantage of a conceptual frame to support it and explain it.
The only real advantage to this is that - if it is true, and if 'boken symmetry' is the thing that actually accounts for all the forces, including gravity and the strong forces, then both gravity and the strong nuclear force can be better understood and, possibly defeated. I am not sure that it would be wise to try and decouple the proton - as it may result in some serious unravelling of matter. But the process of fusion would then be better understood and it's physical applications more readily achieved.
Gravity I've given two properties. The one is related to the casimir effect. That gives matter weight. The other is the actual movement of matter through magnetic fields. This latter should be defeated by the application of different magnetic fields. Always remember that the only thing that can defeat one magnetic field is another magnetic field. I believe we have a clue on this in the axial spin of our earth. If my proposals are half way right, then the axial spin is the result of our earth being trapped between two alternate energy levels from the sun. That spin is usable. I don't mean using the earth's spin. I mean the alignment of magnets in fields to induce that axial spin. And we all know what changing magnetic fields do (edit) when they move through time.
«
Last Edit: 20/06/2009 07:11:54 by witsend
»
Logged
Vern
Naked Science Forum King!
2072
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #286 on:
20/06/2009 15:19:45 »
I think I understand your concepts, but I can not reconcile them with the way I suspect nature behaves.
Logged
witsend
(OP)
Sr. Member
418
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #287 on:
20/06/2009 15:22:31 »
The question is DO THEY CLASH with nature?
Logged
Vern
Naked Science Forum King!
2072
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #288 on:
20/06/2009 16:25:15 »
We can't really know if your concept clashes with nature. You haven't adopted numerical relationships that can be tested.
Logged
witsend
(OP)
Sr. Member
418
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #289 on:
20/06/2009 16:29:12 »
Have been giggling again. Your argument sounds familiar. I need YOU to establish the numerical thingamebobs.
«
Last Edit: 20/06/2009 23:38:57 by witsend
»
Logged
Vern
Naked Science Forum King!
2072
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #290 on:
20/06/2009 17:52:21 »
I am pretty busy playing with my own toys. [
]
Logged
witsend
(OP)
Sr. Member
418
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #291 on:
25/06/2009 17:31:10 »
Sophiecentaur, in fairness to Socratus I think it would be more appropriate to answer you on this thread.
I started by trying to write a synposis on the model - but the post became way too long. So. I must please ask you to read the blog. I develop a model of the magnetic field. Broadly I propose that the field may comprise a particle and, with this concept I then propose that this same particle may form composites that could then describe stable particles.
I believe that the model is logical and that the concept is developed clearly. You do not need to read the abstract nor the introduction. Just the magnetic field model itself. If - having read this - you then wish to critise - not ME - but the model itself - I would be very glad to address those criticisms.
And, unless and until you actually address the points in that model you CANNOT accuse me of arm waving. If however having read it and digested the points, and then you are still anxious to accuse me of arm waving - then I think your criticism would be valid. But it would necessitate a reasonable grasp of the proposal. I am not sure that you're up for it.
If you don't want to read the blog and can put up with my loosely described concepts - as Vern could manage them - then perhaps you'd like to read through this thread. Of the two, it's possibly easier to read the blog.
I think that is fair.
«
Last Edit: 28/06/2009 20:54:44 by witsend
»
Logged
lyner
Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #292 on:
25/06/2009 19:00:36 »
I seem to remember asking for some Maths and some figures.
I found a small numerical section in which you arrive, by various combinations of rather arbitrary numbers at an integer value the Proton rest mass in terms of the Electron mass. Amazing! you managed to find it an integer multiple.
The published value, 1836.1526724718(80) has been measured pretty accurately (the figure in brackets represents the possible uncertainty of the last two sig figs. I am not sure how you reconcile your value with that.
It is true to say (and Dan Brown will confirm) that you can take nearby integer numbers to most pairs of measurements and find a convincing set of integers which can be manipulated to produce an approximate relationship between the two measurements. (pi = about 22/7 is a popular approximation, for instance) The process is called Numerology and has been practiced by alternative Science enthusiasts for years. The fact is that there are very few whole numbers in Science, at all levels and that ratio is no exception.
You propose that a photon should have mass - of the same order asthe electron mass. That, again, is strange, bearing in mind for how many years they have been looking at and measuring photons. With all that equipment, they have always found that photons go past and across each other without any gravitational effects. How could they have got it SO wrong? Perhaps they were trying to prove that there was no mass and only looked for confirming evidence. Someone missed a trick there then, didn't they?
The artihmetic (6X6X3= 108 and 24X24X3 = 1728 and the rest) is impeccable except that it does not tie in with measured evidence. I could not believe that was all you had to say on the matter. Is that really all your logical reasoning?
Look a bit harder and you could probably fit in the size of the Great Pyramid and the Five Regular Solids.
I give up. I was expecting a glimmer of sense. I should have known better.
I have had my differences with AKF (still do, as a matter of fact!) but he, at least, quotes serious scientific literature at me to support his ideas and uses it as more than just as a source of buzz words.
I'm sorry but I just can't take this stuff seriously.
Logged
witsend
(OP)
Sr. Member
418
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #293 on:
25/06/2009 22:37:11 »
Hi SophieC. I actually sent a copy of your last post together with some of your others to a couple of friends. Both academics. The one asked why was I promoting the model on a forum??? Good question. The other isn't entirely repeatable but suggested that archeologists would be interested in studying your copralites.
Me, I make allowances. I know that concepts defeat you.
Logged
lyner
Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #294 on:
25/06/2009 23:33:52 »
But do you have an answer to the non integer reality?
If a concept is nonsense then I have a problem.
«
Last Edit: 25/06/2009 23:36:52 by sophiecentaur
»
Logged
witsend
(OP)
Sr. Member
418
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #295 on:
25/06/2009 23:38:34 »
The artihmetic (6X6X3= 108 and 24X24X3 = 1728 and the rest) is impeccable except that it does not tie in with measured evidence
Sophiecentaur
If you cannot see the correspondence to the known features of the proton, neutron, photon and electron, then NO, I have no answer of any nature to give you. As a physicist I would have thought you could see it for yourself.
Logged
lyner
Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #296 on:
25/06/2009 23:41:52 »
The "known features" include the actual masses. Your ideas do not correspond to measured reality. How can my objection to that be wrong?
Logged
lyner
Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #297 on:
25/06/2009 23:46:17 »
Remember, they 'nearly' managed to fit the planetary orbits to the five regular solids. But they got it wrong. Only they had an excuse in that the measurements were not very good in those days.You could at least try a theory that fits the measurements.
Do you not realise how much you are debasing the worth of the work that has gone before you when you dismiss that so lightly? Are you really setting yourself above Pauli, Bohr, Rutherford.. . .?
All I am doing is questioning your admittedly amateur idea. You are rejecting all the rest in what you suggest.
Logged
witsend
(OP)
Sr. Member
418
Activity:
0%
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #298 on:
25/06/2009 23:47:59 »
Your ideas do not correspond to measured reality. How can my objection to that be wrong?
Sophiecentaur
They quite simply DO. Perfectly. In every possible respect. Entirely and completely. Do you know anything at all about particle physics?
??
EDIT
You are rejecting all the rest in what you suggest.
AND I REJECT NOTHING OF KNOWN PHYSICS.
«
Last Edit: 26/06/2009 00:32:01 by witsend
»
Logged
lyner
Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
«
Reply #299 on:
25/06/2009 23:49:51 »
Do you?
How come the mass calculation comes out wrong then?
Logged
Print
Pages:
1
...
13
14
[
15
]
16
17
...
19
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...