0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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 [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!

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

All of the great physicists throughout history... 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.

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.

Quote from: Geezer on 16/10/2010 22:02:38This 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.

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

What other short range forces are you describing?

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

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

Quote from: GeezerVern,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.

Quote from: peppercorn on 18/10/2010 15:42:57Really? 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!

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.

Quote from: SuperPrincipia on 18/10/2010 14:38:39Most 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.