0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Myself included, but I have wrote big theories and tried maths, it got me nowhere in science except banned from most forums, which is rather strange when it is open discussion.
There is one reason only , the future does not exist, the past does not exist , only the now exists and the now is always the now and the past is a memory of the now which is now the future.
Quote from: TheboxMyself included, but I have wrote big theories and tried maths, it got me nowhere in science except banned from most forums, which is rather strange when it is open discussion. Perhaps you should give some thought to what "open discussion" means. Those trying to conduce a genuine discussion tend to be wary of unsubstantiated dogmatic pronouncements, like this one of yours from another thread. Quote There is one reason only , the future does not exist, the past does not exist , only the now exists and the now is always the now and the past is a memory of the now which is now the future.
I think the underlying issue is that all three of the great modern physics theories SR, GR, and The standard model contain elements that are weird to normal observation. Throw in the Copenhagen Interpretation, dimensionless, and massless particles all predicted by probability and most technical minded people go tilt. Then we are told that all these predictions have been proved by experiments in LHC and Fermilab. All sorts of particles and forces have been discovered so that's alright. But GR and SM don't fit and proofs and discoveries are based on probabilities and interpretation. If you ask a physicist why is c absolute, he will say because its nature or philosophy. He will answer the same for a whole number of questions. Why are there so many fundamental particles? Why does the atom have four separate forces? where do they come from? Even what is time? This leads to inevitable questioning and speculation. Most of these speculations contain errors of such magnitude that they are easy to dismiss but some ( a very few ) are based on different fundamental assumptions to the standard theories, but may still appear particularly to the author to cover or explain the experimental results obtained by mainstream physics. If these hypothesis were produced within a structured physics learning environment they would be discussed, examined and any errors established. Amateurs don't have this luxury, we have no access other than this type of forum. It may just be, that a different primary assumption might be the key, unlike Paul Dirac I am very suspicious of mathematics relating to physical situations that cannot be represented graphically regardless of their accuracy. I believe it is encumbered of mainstream to not only promote the established theories but consider and review properly presented ideas from outside. The other constraint of peer review also prevents radical ideas from emerging from within mainstream. Most of us speculators have no illusions that we are the new Einsteins. We just want to know what's wrong with our ideas. You never know just maybe the key to the TOE might just pop out
We live in a world of specialists. A world of specialists can create problems when it comes to theory. In some cases, the left hand may not know what the right hand is doing. One can lose track of the forest because of so many trees. Often it can be hard to reach the person who is not a specialists. As an example, aspects of physics deal with the essence of matter; sub-particles. The main form of matter we know is chemical matter; hydrogen. Our bodies are made of chemicals. Do any sub particle theories of matter predict chemical reactions? These have become two specialty areas, that act as though they are not connected. Neither theory needs the other to work. I believe there should be an educational path, called the generalists, whose education and even PhD thesis, is designed to cross the boundaries between specialists. A generalists is educated to see the bigger picture. They can see the forest, but they may lose track of trees. They may not know all the latest research in all the specialities; trees, but they can maneuver the forest making sure A, B and C are in the same forest. Let me present a mental exercise to show you a potential pitfall due to too much specialty science; discontinuities. This example will also show the possible impact of the generalist POV. Picture this. We have a large mural on the wall. The mural is analogous to all of science, which a generalist might see. He is not close enough to see all the details, but he does see the big picture. To simulate a speciality, I will zoom into a random place on the mural and then blank out the rest with a masking tool.At the point of zoom, all we can see is what appears to be an eye. Based on our speciality knowledge of eyes, one infers this is a female eye. Since eyes are the center of their specialty universe; most weighted knowledge, they will try to formulate the theory for the entire mural based on this center. The mural is about a young women sitting in grassy field. This is reasonable based on the eye and some of the light reflecting. Next, we zoom out, somewhat. We can still see the eye, but now we also can see the face. It is a women and her face looks strained. From this wider POV, the theory changes. We were right about the girl, but now it appears she is laboring, in the field of grass. Maybe she is mowing. Next, we zoom out more and now we can see she is wearing athletic sweats, that are sort of beat up with holes. We were right about the female and her laboring, but now it appears she is working out at a gym with some odd grasscloth wallpaper; so much for the grassy field theory. Next, we zoom out further and we notice what appears to be a stage, with dancers sitting, stretching and practicing. Our female now appears to be doing a dance move. We were sort of right. She is working out, but not in the gym, but on a stage with a dance group. Maybe she is trying out for a part. Her old sweat clothes and the strained look on her face make us think, she may not be doing very well, following her dream. Next, we zoom out even more and notice this is the stage at Carney Hall. Now she is not just some poor girl with a dream, but she must be a dancer of superior skill, trying out for a tough part. Next, we zoom out further and notice her coach, sitting a few rows back. He is the dance director of the NY ballet. He is focusing all his attention on her, with a smile on his face. Now, she is the prima ballerina of a major dance group giving it her all. This exercise shows, when you extrapolate outward from the center of any specialty POV, theory from that center does not always extrapolate to the biggest picture. As we open the field of view, a theory can change. Now that we know the eye belongs to the prima ballerina of the NC ballet, if we go back to the specialists in eyeballs, he now sees her eye in a different way. Now the eye reflects the soul of a talented artist. He never saw that but see it now.
I deem some things, not worth discussing when there is an obvious answer, the future is not written. there is no more to it.
QuoteI deem some things, not worth discussing when there is an obvious answer, the future is not written. there is no more to it.This seems to leave the questions: Why join a discussion on a subject that is "not worth discussing"? Why join a discussion when you know with certainty "there is no more to it."? There's nothing for you to learn, and no one is likely to accept your dogma, so aren't you wasting your time?
Like the box I have studied the best I can the status quo and as a retired chartered engineer my basic maths and physics is not bad( I took both at A level and refined them at university) I can sum a series, calculate a probability, and differentiate and integrate ( when I can remember the standard integrals) just fine. Like The box I found a different way to join up the experimental dots, but unlike The box I don't believe my way can be right. My frustration is that I cannot find any way to discover why it is not right. Lectures on the internet don't do it. Careful descriptions of the main accepted theories won't do it. Only a discussion with some one more knowledgeable will help. This proves impossible to arrange even if paying, because the physics community operates a one way valve form of communication. These forums are great and I am becoming addicted, but you still don't get an honest critique of any theory or idea put forward.
Well thank you for that. You probably will regret it. I posted the whole meandering idea based on Democritus's minimum piece of matter on the 12th DEC in its correct location of new theories. Just find one mis-step any where will do. ( I am still working on the maths but Einstein took 10 years and he was a hell of a lot brighter than I am).
Thanks Jeffrey H I am much indebted. I hadn't realized (shows my inexperience ) that I had theorized the elusive monopole, but I had noticed how I had arrived at a similar type of structure to string theory but with one crucial difference my string has three dimensions not two, even if the third dimension is the minimum possible. Can you now see why I need access to physics brains. There are several questions in my mind. My treatment and ideas about nuclear charge are a bit of a fudge and I need some help with the nature of it. The Rydberg constant in my model comes from a smoothing adjustment of rotating fields. the beads need to reduce their orbits slightly from the empirical calculated orbits to allow for the null areas between the circular fields. In two dimensions at the centre this gives Rb=1.15, Three dimensions will reduce this to some where close to 1.09 but the maths is horrible. The field is a three dimensional doughnut shaped parabola,over lapping these and balancing moments is a nightmare. The other area is to calculate how many beads there are. We know that Hydrogen has a mass of 1.66kg Χ 10‾24. So it should be possible to calculate the number by comparing Newton's gravitational constant with the binding force. All this is of course conjecture I am expecting you to find an error or at least no way of substantiation, but if it makes just one physicist think that maybe I am worth talking to, I'm happy.