[Ethos]

Ethos, this is good. There is a possibility of a Heat Death for the universe.

Thank you SuperP,......but my only point was to illuminate the fact that those that support the Heat Death Hypothesis should also accept the Photonic Theory. However, my own personal view does not support the Heat Death Hypothesis. I suppose one could still support the Photonic theory without it being necessary to believe in the Heat Death Hypothesis. And in principle, one might also suggest that to support the Big Bang Hypothesis, they should also align themselves with the Photonic point of view. I point this out because, according to my understanding, the first event that occured at the Big Bang was a great release of Electromagnetic radiation. And if nothing came before, all we now see was constructed from that initial radiation.

I personally don't buy into either the Heat Death nor the Big Bang ideas. For what it's worth, I believe the radiation we presently record from the CMBR is only from a local event in an infinate space. Just because we can't see beyond our own location does'nt mean that similar events aren't taking place within the infinity of space. I would suggest that our Big Bang is only a local event visable to us in our little corner of an infinite universe. The question then becomes; What mechanism is responsible for these outbursts of radiation? I believe there is a physical limit to the size a black hole can attain. Upon reaching that limit, it will spontaneously release all that energy in what I might call a "Little Bang". In the grand scheme of things, this Little Bang would appear to us as the, so-called "Big Bang".

I ofcourse have no proof, but to tell the truth, pyhsicists are also very lacking when it comes to proving either the Big Bang or finding sufficient evidence for either the Heat Death view or the Cyclical Universe. To prove my Hypothesis, I realize that I must find evidence to support the limiting factor for the size of a black hole. As yet, this has, ofcourse, not been realized..................Ethos

[SuperPrincipia]

I'm not comfortable with, "Your theory". It's not a theory. The notion is much older than me. I'm interested in proving the notion false.

Vern, I don't mean to be offensive, for you have my utmost respect as a physicist. I remember in 1992 buying a copy of your "Photonic Theory of Everything" from an Ad in the back of the Discovery Magazine. Then in 1994 writing my Master's Thesis in college describing some of your new concepts listed there. So to hear you say that you have "No Theory" is puzzling to me; but not worth debating.

Today most physicist attribute the Electromagnetic Radius/Amplitude (d(Brown) = (1/2π)*(h/(m*c))) to Aurthur Compton. However, from my research Compton was only interested in how the photon wavelength (λ = h/p(momentum))changed as it was scattered off of an electron. Your "Photon Theory" claims that if there is an electron, that electron originated as a photon that has been curled into a resonate orbit with a specific frequency (f = (mc²/h)) whose radius is given by the radius equation that I described above. It is this radius that allows you to have a "Photonic Theory." And in 1995 I determined that you did not understand your own theory, as your own words declare, is why in 1997 I started working with Steven Rado and stopped communicating with you.

[Geezer]

The Counsel has decided that this thread is moving to New Theories.

[peppercorn]

The Counsel has decided that this thread is moving to New Theories.

The Counsel, indeed! [] [] []
'Counsel of Welders' is that? []

[Vern (OP)]

Your "Photon Theory" claims that if there is an electron, that electron originated as a photon that has been curled into a resonate orbit with a specific frequency (f = (mc²/h)) whose radius is given by the radius equation that I described above. It is this radius that allows you to have a "Photonic Theory." And in 1995 I determined that you did not understand your own theory, as your own words declare, is why in 1997 I started working with Steven Rado and stopped communicating with you.

I don't know how I gave the impression that I don't understand my own theory.  But if you came away with that, it's my fault for not explaining better what I do understand.

It was November of 1991 that I found the square-of-shells relationship that predicted the dynamics and strength of the strong nuclear reaction. It showed it to clearly be electromagnetic.

You have expanded on that. Your saturation amplitude was great, but I thought it should be in the form of electric charge. It would then answer a fundamental question about nature. What is the maximum charge amplitude that a point in space can support?

You had the key to find that number, but stopped short. Great work BTW. []

[Vern (OP)]

This topic does seem like a good candidate for the New Theories section. Stay tuned!

Move it there. We can then ignore the tight-rope walking necessary not to offend the BS advocates. Physics is truly in a sad state.

Does it bother anyone that we are not allowed to question the BS?

I would be embarrassed for someone to think that I signed on to the mainstream BS. Especially since future students will see our tracks and wonder how we could be so stupid.

[Vern (OP)]

Movie script presentation went very well. Many re-writes will come before production, however.

Producers want more ridicule of mainstream. They smell raw meat.

[peppercorn]

It was November of 1991 that I found the square-of-shells relationship that predicted the dynamics and strength of the strong nuclear reaction. It showed it to clearly be electromagnetic.

I thought the combining of the strong and EM forces, plus the weak force were already mathematically described by the Quantum Field Theory.  What need is there to reinvent this view?

[SuperPrincipia]

I thought the combining of the strong and EM forces, plus the weak force were already mathematically described by the Quantum Field Theory.  What need is there to reinvent this view?

Peppercorn, the physics community is fooling you, if you think that those concepts are fully understood; they are not! Currently those concepts are so marred in complexity that no high school teacher could explain those concepts to their students. All we know about the "Strong Force" is that it keep protons in the nucleus from flying apart. How does this mechanism work? They invent "Gluons" to make this work. As far as I am aware, no Gluon has ever been detected. The "Weak Force" allows for a heavy nucleus, one with many protons and neutrons, to spontaneously emit or releases a "Beta Particle" which is basically a Helium Atom without the electons. An ionized helium atom. What is the mechanism that makes this work?

[peppercorn]

Peppercorn, the physics community is fooling you, if you think that those concepts are fully understood; they are not! Currently those concepts are so marred in complexity that no high school teacher could explain those concepts to their students.

Why should it be that the maths has to be simple enough for a "high school teacher could explain those concepts to their students"?
I vaguely recollect some of the maths needed for 'standard' quantum mechanics from 'Solid state electronics', 2nd yr Electronic Eng BSc - That made my head spin at the time & I it's lost in the mists now!

Strong force is adequately described by QCD - to the point that is it's self consistent, fits with experiment and can be combined with the other two shorter-range forces.  That doesn't seem too bad for a start!

[SuperPrincipia]

Why should it be that the maths has to be simple enough for a "high school teacher could explain those concepts to their students"?
I vaguely recollect some of the maths needed for 'standard' quantum mechanics from 'Solid state electronics', 2nd yr Electronic Eng BSc - That made my head spin at the time & I it's lost in the mists now!

This is exactly my point. The physics was made so complex that you no longer remember, and except it by faith! When you study all of the great physicists throughout history, those that we still discuss today. They all state that the concepts and mathematics of nature should be simple. I believe that this is a fundamental principle for nature and the universe that the origin of all things and beauty are simple.

Strong force is adequately described by QCD [nofollow] - to the point that is it's self consistent, fits with experiment and can be combined with the other two shorter-range forces.  That doesn't seem too bad for a start!

Most physicist assume that if the physics works then there is only one way to describe that phenomena. I would like to add to Isaac Newton's Scientific Method by adding this to the method. If a theory work there should be at least, and at a minimum three ways to calculate and formulate that physics phenomena. If you ever pick up one of my books, you will see that I include five to ten "different" calculations for calculating the same thing. Most physicist present one equation and state that they have solved the problem. I believe that at least three different equations, are required, but when I write I include many more. And this is the proof that the math works, when you can solve the same problem at least three ways. For example the number nine (9) can be calculated many ways: (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9.....

What other short range forces are you describing? I believe this is called Guage Theory, and becoming Super Symmetry (SUSY) theory?

[peppercorn]

This is exactly my point. The physics was made so complex that you no longer remember, and except it by faith!

But I knew it once! - faith in one's self is about as good as it gets in terms of direct evidence!

All of the great physicists throughout history... state that the concepts and mathematics of nature should be simple.

Really? Give me [only] three referenced examples then.

I believe that this is a fundamental principle for nature and the universe that the origin of all things and beauty are simple.

Believe what you like! Since the time of the QM revolution physics has looked anything but simple or especially beautiful.  The beauty of equations and fundamental ideas is aesthetically pleasing and any logical explanation of nature (or anything) should not be any more complex than necessary; that does not however lead to mean that complex maths is 'naturally' wrong - how arrogant to suppose it does!

Most physicist present one equation and state that they have solved the problem. I believe that at least three different equations, are required, but when I write I include many more. And this is the proof that the math works, when you can solve the same problem at least three ways. For example the number nine (9) can be calculated many ways: (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9.

This (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9  is called (something like) equivalence.  '6+3 = 9' barely counts as an equation as (unlike x+3 = 9) there's nothing to solve. You can write it a dozen ways to Sunday it's still says nothing new and not really a great selling point for your 'book'.

If an equation is proved consistent by writing it in one form, writing it repeatedly in further forms adds nothing.   Maybe you are getting confused with repeating an experiment (the other half of empirical science).  Obviously the more an experiment is reproduced by independent teams, the more solid its findings become.

[Geezer]

This topic does seem like a good candidate for the New Theories section. Stay tuned!

Move it there. We can then ignore the tight-rope walking necessary not to offend the BS advocates. Physics is truly in a sad state.

Does it bother anyone that we are not allowed to question the BS?

I would be embarrassed for someone to think that I signed on to the mainstream BS. Especially since future students will see our tracks and wonder how we could be so stupid.

Vern,

You may not refer to a theory that happens to contradict your ideas a "BS". At least, not on this forum.

[SuperPrincipia]

Really? Give me [only] three referenced examples then.

I am a very humble person, but my physics training and skills makes it hard for me to be bullied by anyone!

What I wanted to say is, I will answer you, when you answer me. I asked you, What other short range forces are you describing? But, I will answer your question anyway!

1) Quote from Einstein - "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html [nofollow]

2) Quote from Isaac Newton - Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam's Razor, as in Leibniz's "identity of observables" and Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/General/occam.html [nofollow]

3)Quote Johannes Kepler - proves that the golden ratio is the limit of the ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers and describes the golden ratio as a "precious jewel": "Geometry has two great treasures: one is the Theorem of Pythagoras, and the other the division of a line into extreme and mean ratio; the first we may compare to a measure of gold, the second we may name a precious jewel." These two treasures are combined in the Kepler triangle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio [nofollow]

I hope that answers your question, and maybe you will humble yourself and answer me.

[Ethos]

Excellent reply SuperP..........At least my hat is off to you sir.

And BTW,........when man thought the earth was flat and popular authority was convinced, it took a much simpler idea a very long time to overcome that belief. It is a fact that the earth is a sphere and that, my friends, is much simpler than this flat earth being perched on the back of a giant elephant or turtle, which ever myth one chooses to reference.

....................Ethos

[peppercorn]

What other short range forces are you describing?

Sorry. Missed that bit:
Strong, Weak & EM - all combined mathematically in QFD.


Thanks for the 3 quotes - haven't the time to read them at present.
Can you respond to the rest of my post also, please?

[peppercorn]

Excellent reply SuperP..........At least my hat is off to you sir.

And BTW,........when man thought the earth was flat and popular authority was convinced, it took a much simpler idea a very long time to overcome that belief. It is a fact that the earth is a sphere and that, my friends, is much simpler than this flat earth being perched on the back of a giant elephant or turtle, which ever myth one chooses to reference.

....................Ethos

There was no maths supporting the argument the world was flat though!
- & It pre-dated empirical study.

[Vern (OP)]

Vern,

You may not refer to a theory that happens to contradict your ideas a "BS". At least, not on this forum.

I mentioned no theory.

[Ethos]

Vern,

You may not refer to a theory that happens to contradict your ideas a "BS". At least, not on this forum.

I mentioned no theory.

And BTW, who's to say what "BS" may stand for at any particular time in history?? I'm on your side my friend, things are getting a bit too testy around here lately IMHO!!

[peppercorn]

Really? Give me [only] three referenced examples then.

I am a very humble person, but my physics training and skills makes it hard for me to be bullied by anyone!

If you take trying to get some usable definition out of what you're writing as 'bullying', there's not much I can do about that. But I'm sorry you feel that way.

1)Quote from Einstein - [Reiterating the spirit of Occam's Razor]
2)Quote from Isaac Newton - [Reiterating the spirit of Occam's Razor]
3)Quote Johannes Kepler - [Irrelevant quote with no mention of how nature should be 'simple' or 'beautiful']
I hope that answers your question, and maybe you will humble yourself and answer me.

In terms of supporting your assertion:

All of the great physicists throughout history... state that the concepts and mathematics of nature should be simple.

It fails.  If you had stated that 'describing nature in the simplest form possible, was key motivator of science I would have agreed with you. In fact I did: "any logical explanation of nature (or anything) should not be any more complex than necessary". But it quite clear to anyone that it isn't what you wrote.

Since you were arguing that generations of scientists somehow support your case that the modern 'standard model' should be thrown out on the grounds of over-complexity then this is extremely important.

Most physicist present one equation and state that they have solved the problem. I believe that at least three different equations, are required, but when I write I include many more. And this is the proof that the math works, when you can solve the same problem at least three ways. For example the number nine (9) can be calculated many ways: (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9.

This (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9  is called (something like) equivalence.  '6+3 = 9' barely counts as an equation as (unlike x+3 = 9) there's nothing to solve. You can write it a dozen ways to Sunday it's still says nothing new and not really a great selling point for your 'book'.

If an equation is proved consistent by writing it in one form, writing it repeatedly in further forms adds nothing.   Maybe you are getting confused with repeating an experiment (the other half of empirical science).  Obviously the more an experiment is reproduced by independent teams, the more solid its findings become.

Do you fancy responding to this as well while you're at it?