[thebrain13 (OP)]

The fact that you don't think anybody has political and social biases in science,

That's not a "fact" it's just dross you made up.

Dude you're totally right boredchemist. Politics and social standings have nothing to do with science. Science has totally persevered over the natural biases of mankind because of like the scientific method or something.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Do you guys know anything I don't know? It's clear you have no ability to synthesize or judge new theories. Sorry for interrupting your afternoon tea of condescending to people who actually have the guts and heart to make new theories and put them out there. To me you guys are just bullies and you deserve to get a taste of your own medicine. I miss guys like Soul Surfer as I used to talk about science mostly when I was young on this site. He could disagree while showing compassion and actually respond to what you are trying to say, not just look for gotcha moments. He actually makes theories, and had compassion for the process, that's why he was so good. And for the record, I will always write theories because I'm not pretentious. I will only condescend if you start it.

[Bored chemist]

Do you guys know anything I don't know?

Apparently.

It's clear you have no ability to synthesize or judge new theories.

We know exactly how to make that judgement.
If the new "idea" contradicts reality then it isn't a theory- it's just wrong.

I never heard the diatribe that electromagnetism is orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. Oh wait yes I did.

So, why are you ignoring the fact?

[hamdani yusuf]

This is what I mean and Einstein means by a field, its just spread out energy/mass. Whatever it is.

How does the field create electric charges?

[thebrain13 (OP)]

This is what I mean and Einstein means by a field, its just spread out energy/mass. Whatever it is.

How does the field create electric charges?

Thank you Hamdamni for actually asking questions about things I actually said. It's not exactly accurate to say that fields create electric charges, but it is meant more as an analogy. I'm suggesting that if the idea (that there are fields undercutting and forming into particles) is true like Einstein visualized with the equivalence of mass and energy then there must be something keeping the masses relatively steady, that's not exactly the same as electric force, but it worked with Einstein's analogy.

What is it exactly is a super loaded question. In order to think like this you need to abandon the notion that we know everything about physics, we are not even close. It's an illusion, never obvious to the people living through it, always obvious to the people who come after.

In school, teachers say this is how everything acts, this math equation. The students memorize that equation and believe with no doubt in their minds that everything works exactly like that. In real life science is much messier and not everything follows neat simple math equations. If you deviate from that mentality you will probably hate it and pay for it on the exam. Anybody less than excellent at math would get weeded out of a physics education. Physics for the vast majority is a math major with physics sounding story problems.

Einstein is totally different, he takes shots at an over-reliance of math repeatedly, and is deeply critical of this style of thinking. He has a vision that everything is a fields and was wildly more successful doing it than anybody else. I think as Einstein suggested there may be a way to build a physics using fields only. I don't think this will ever be mainstream because  although I'm not sure, not because it's not true but because it takes too much work to be able to begin using that logic and people will laugh at you for a very long time before you have an opportunity to put it to use people won't make that choice. 

Really what I wanted to demonstrate here is there is a messier more realistic framework for viewing things Einstein put to use and I use for everything as well, at least mentally in structuring my theories. When I think and, I structure everything into these field concepts and think about everything that way to the best of my ability. When the exam comes, I reconvert my field concepts into particle concepts because I know that's the only thing they will accept. I can come up with something new no matter what you say because I already put the work in tirelessly over decades to be able to do that. It takes all of your efforts to pull off. My doubters have no ability to be flexible with their concepts because they have never done anything like that.

I use these ideas only to be able to invent, I don't give a **** whether somebody likes it or not, it's a waste of time. If they are flexible enough to get it, I will mention that I have a group of biologists from different fields if you'd like to watch me put together a new theory of genetics over zoom, I'll show you whatever you want to know. I moved to the bay area, I was thinking about maybe going to Cambridge or Stanford as well. My therapist suggested Cambridge because of the personal tutors and ability to kind of do what you want which I love.

I'll answer another question for you since like I said, these other guys are chicken.

First off I have three ideas I will use. Fields, Relativity and my Universal Principle.

A good standard for "why" according to the Universal Principle is always the same. It says everything is a feedback pattern of some sort, Identify it and that's a good answer.

This "force" is not really a force it's two different forces pushing against each other.

Like the Countries have rules that best describe the actions of countries, there are also bound to the aggregate of the wills of the people.

I look at wave-particle duality like this. There's things governing the nature of the fields giving particles wave like characteristics, and there's things governing particles giving them quantum like characteristics. If you can combine both you have a more complete view. Never complete, that's arrogance, but you are likely closer to the truth than if you only use one.

Quick answer cause I got to leave soon and am writing quickly. A particle "pulls" fields together to make more particles, just like life "pulls" together energy and water and so forth to create more life. Fields on the other hand may not want to be confined and I would say they may maintain a desire to leave if they are being condensed too much. Where the rubber meets the road of these two "forces" may control how much mass a particle has. The desire to leave is proportionate in strength to the escape velocity and this is where time dilation comes from in G.R.!!!

So what the hell?!?!

Remember when I pointed out earlier to that challenge Origin dodged that you can plug in the escape velocity to the derivative of arcsin to get the exact math for G.R. and likewise velocity to S.R.?

The reason this works may be a clue to this "force" that stops things from being too dense.

I'm going quick, I'll follow it up more. But I think that time is just a reflection of what objects are interacting with. Motion is simply an object absorbing the same coordinates of more objects/masses further away.

I'm going to suggest that in order to move in any direction in relation to others means that you are interacting asymmetrically with that direction.

This means the faster I travel the more I am also interacting with objects that view me in the past. This creates an inevitable connection between velocity and time.

Where the derivative of arcsin comes into play is that time does not always flow linearly away in each direction. I'm sure Ill get *hit for it but picture this.

The enigmatic great attractor somehow gets enormous amounts of galaxies to flow towards it. Look up Laniakea to see our own. How does it do this and why?

I'll suggest gravity.

I'd like to note a concept of relativity and gravity that "objects will flow in the direction time is the least".

If you look at a picture of Laniakea and the other galaxy superclusters you realize galaxies don't just flow directly towards the great attractor, they take a circular path. The flow seems more like a magnetic field flow. If you were at the north side of a magnet the field lines are all traveling directly away from you, but as you travel further they tend to bend over become perpendicular and eventually flow the other way.

What if we suggested that just like the flow of the galaxies in superclusters that time also took a curved path.

We could represent this like a clock hand.

Imagine the clock hand at nine o'clock to twelve oclock.

We could suggest that on ultra far distances that time is oriented the same way. Just like the numbers of the clock bend circularly so may timelines at further distances.

Now picture this, take your finger and move it straight up and imagine that the tip of the clock hand stays at the same height as the tip of your finger. When you are around nine o'clock the clock hand will move as fast as your finger, but as you get closer and closer to 12 it will speed up to infinity.

How can we represent how fast the arrow changes in response to your finger? That's exactly modeled by the derivative of arcsin. The derivative of arcsin is a measure of how the angle changes with respect to a change in y.

We can now say, if time is governed by what you are interacting with the speed of light is the point where the curvature becomes infinite. The speed of light is where the average interactions of the field reaches the 12 hand.

As far as general relativity. We could suggest that the strategy of fields from the Universal Principle perspective is that fields will tend to interact with objects more and more in further distances as a relation with their escape velocity. With more gravity they interact further away. The point where escape velocity reaches the speed of light is where the interaction reaches the 12 hand.

This is why you can plug in escape velocity to 'arcsin for G.R. time dilation and you can plug in velocity to 'arcsin in S.R. to get  the twin paradox version of time dilation.

That's the nature of the "force" you were asking about. Fields don't want to be confined. If things are confined and defined, they get turned into something else and will no longer exist.

Feel free to flame away though guys, the mapping of superclusters is a newer thing, there's no page in Einstein's book where he writes about this when you call me a moron. You're Safe. I'll answer respectful follow ups though.

[hamdani yusuf]

In order to think like this you need to abandon the notion that we know everything about physics, we are not even close. It's an illusion, never obvious to the people living through it, always obvious to the people who come after.

It reminds me of Columbus'egg.

[Origin]

In school, teachers say this is how everything acts, this math equation. The students memorize that equation and believe with no doubt in their minds that everything works exactly like that.

LOL, no university physics is not like grade school, you do not memorize math equations that you don't really understand.  In physics classes you derive the equations and then you do experimention to prove to yourself that the equations match experimental data.

In real life science is much messier and not everything follows neat simple math equations.

Translation - you can't understand the math.  There is no doubt in my mind that you could understand the math and physics but that would take time and effort, it is much easier to watch some youtube videos and make up some stuff and try to arm wave your way through it.  You just end up with pseudoscience that way though.

Einstein is totally different, he takes shots at an over-reliance of math repeatedly, and is deeply critical of this style of thinking.

Seriously?  Here is a little secret that's bull crap.  Tell you what, try doing some tensor calculus, which is at the center of General Relativity, and then get back to me.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

In school, teachers say this is how everything acts, this math equation. The students memorize that equation and believe with no doubt in their minds that everything works exactly like that.

LOL, no university physics is not like grade school, you do not memorize math equations that you don't really understand.  In physics classes you derive the equations and then you do experimention to prove to yourself that the equations match experimental data.

In real life science is much messier and not everything follows neat simple math equations.

Translation - you can't understand the math.  There is no doubt in my mind that you could understand the math and physics but that would take time and effort, it is much easier to watch some youtube videos and make up some stuff and try to arm wave your way through it.  You just end up with pseudoscience that way though.

Einstein is totally different, he takes shots at an over-reliance of math repeatedly, and is deeply critical of this style of thinking.

Seriously?  Here is a little secret that's bull crap.  Tell you what, try doing some tensor calculus, which is at the center of General Relativity, and then get back to me.

Name drops tensor calculus to try to sound smart without explaining anything. Typical. Also, what youtube video did I watch to formulate that calc based math argument? I'd love to know since I invented the whole mathematics of it. It would be fun to find somebody who actually has talent instead of somebody who says "inventings easy" and then wusses out to the challenge.

[Origin]

Name drops tensor calculus to try to sound smart without explaining anything.

Name drops?  You made a claim about Einstein and I was refuting that bogus claim, that's all.

I'd love to know since I invented the whole mathematics of it.

Hmmm, I didn't see any math in your posts.

It would be fun to find somebody who actually has talent instead of somebody who says "inventings easy" and then wusses out to the challenge.

I absolutely think it is easy to make up nonsense, your example of temperature being 'pieces of fields' is a case in point.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Name drops tensor calculus to try to sound smart without explaining anything.

Name drops?  You made a claim about Einstein and I was refuting that bogus claim, that's all.

I'd love to know since I invented the whole mathematics of it.

Hmmm, I didn't see any math in your posts.

It would be fun to find somebody who actually has talent instead of somebody who says "inventings easy" and then wusses out to the challenge.

I absolutely think it is easy to make up nonsense, your example of temperature being 'pieces of fields' is a case in point.

Did you read my post? DERIVATIVE of arcsin. That's calc buddy.

And what "bogus claim" did I make about Einstein? Because I also remember quoting what page he said it on pretty much everything. And if I didn't I'll do it for you once you tell me this "bogus" claim.

[Bored chemist]

This is why you can plug in escape velocity to 'arcsin for G.R. time dilation and you can plug in velocity to 'arcsin in S.R. to get  the twin paradox version of time dilation.

You didn't talk about the derivatives; you talked about the arcsin itself.
Or are you so good at calculus that you forgot where to put the prime?

[Origin]

And if I didn't I'll do it for you once you tell me this "bogus" claim.

This bogus claim.

Einstein is totally different, he takes shots at an over-reliance of math repeatedly,

[Origin]

I'd love to know since I invented the whole mathematics of it.

Could you give an example of the mathematics you invented?

[thebrain13 (OP)]

This is why you can plug in escape velocity to 'arcsin for G.R. time dilation and you can plug in velocity to 'arcsin in S.R. to get  the twin paradox version of time dilation.

You didn't talk about the derivatives; you talked about the arcsin itself.
Or are you so good at calculus that you forgot where to put the prime?

No, I was talking about the derivative of arcsin the whole time which is 1 over the square root of 1-x^2. Which if you've seen the math of time dilation, you could easily see why that may be relevant.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

And if I didn't I'll do it for you once you tell me this "bogus" claim.

This bogus claim.

Einstein is totally different, he takes shots at an over-reliance of math repeatedly,

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain they do not refer to reality." -Einstein-

"Fundamental ideas play the most essential role in forming a physical theory. Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae. But though and ideas, not formulae, are the beginning of every physical theory. The ideas must later take the mathematical form of a quantitative theory, to make possible the comparison with experiment." -Einstein-

I should also note, he drops this paragraph on page 277 of his book the evolution of physics directly after explaining Louis de Broglies concept that matter can be waves.

These last two especially sequentially I find more than a little ironic.

"Before relativity there were books full of complicated mathematical formulae about the ether that would make your head hurt"
-Einstein-

"Once mathematicians got a hold of my relativity theory, I know longer understood it." -Einstein-

I understand you guys don't question math or science, it's a political archetype, but I try to spend as much time as possible learning from people who can actually invent. Because that's what I do on a daily basis, pretty much every day of my life. People who actually invent talk very differently about math than people who don't. I feel very strongly about this.

Math is what gives people grades and allows them to claim part of the academic social heirarchy, it's the game we play to decide who gets a degree and who gets weeded out. They do it from grade school and it gets WORSE in college not better. People who benefit from it love it, people who don't hate it.

Most people are not keeping track of where all that math they are learning comes from, not really. It's all about ideas. I don't even feel like debating it anymore, it's clear now this thread is a giant waist of time. I feel foolish for even spending this much time out of my day to respond, as it's blatantly clear, you guys want to "win" the argument and feel smart. You are not even representing what I'm writing even remotely. I doubt you are even reading my posts, cause there is a zero percent chance you could make it through a university with that level of reading comprehension.

[Origin]

"Before relativity there were books full of complicated mathematical formulae about the ether that would make your head hurt"
-Einstein-

"Once mathematicians got a hold of my relativity theory, I know longer understood it." -Einstein-

OK, he does take shots at math, but the reality is that his mathematical formulation of gravity is extremely difficult and complicated.  Most of his negative comments about math are directed at quantum theory which he never embraced, which was really too bad. 
 

I understand you guys don't question math or science, it's a political archetype,

Huh?

but I try to spend as much time as possible learning from people who can actually invent.

The scientists that I know who invented things and processes used math and math modelling to a high degree.

Because that's what I do on a daily basis, pretty much every day of my life. People who actually invent talk very differently about math than people who don't. I feel very strongly about this.

All you have shown on this site are fantasies that are not science.

Most people are not keeping track of where all that math they are learning comes from, not really. It's all about ideas. I don't even feel like debating it anymore, this thread is a giant waist. I feel foolish for even spending this much time out of my day to respond,

I agree this thread is a waste.

as it's blatantly clear, you guys want to "win" the argument and feel smart.

No, that is not the issue.  The issue is that this is a science site and when someone starts writing pseudoscience and tries to pass it off as science, it will be challenged, it's that simple.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

I'm sick of wasting time with you guys. I'm so damn glad I quit physics after my major. I outwork absolutely everybody since I was ten yet get attacked for thinking different, its always been gross to me. I feel bad for the other people you do it to who aren't as good as me though. Luckily people don't do this as much to me in real life. But quick question. If I erase the brain13 profile, will it erase all records of what I wrote? I'd rather they not be on the internet down the line.

[Bored chemist]

If I erase the brain13 profile, will it erase all records of what I wrote? I'd rather they not be on the internet down the line.

Are you not proud of your work?

[thebrain13 (OP)]

I'm literally 100 times more talented right now than any of you three ever were. That is 100 percent the truth. I feel like an idiot ruffling my own feathers trying to show you arm chair theorist hacks how Einstein thinks about anything.

Maybe the thing that pisses me off the most is thinking about me as a younger kid, and all the turmoil a**holes like you put me through gaslighting. Knowing how good I actually am today after fighting the long road of wondering if I should remain alive makes me want to put you in your place, now that I'm 100 times stronger than you. But it's foolish and impossible because you're a giants in your own minds.

You, Origin, Lord Calvert are not better me, not even close. You know NOTHING about me or science, and I see right through your little game even if there are 3 of you that want to play it.

[Origin]

I erase the brain13 profile, will it erase all records of what I wrote?

No, that is not how it works.  You could PM the mods to see if they would delete your threads, but I don't think they'll do that.

I'm literally 100 times more talented right now than any of you three ever were. That is 100 percent the truth.

It is a good thing to have self confidence, but there is nothing wrong with asking questions.

You, Origin, Lord Calvert are not better me,

I whole heartedly agree, I have never even met you and for all I know you may be the finest gentleman that I could ever meet.

You know NOTHING about me

Almost true, all I know about you are the few words you have written on this forum, which is a bit more than nothing, but just a bit.

You know NOTHING about ... science

I have to disagree with that.  I know a fair amount about science.  I am certainly not a scientist or expert and there are many here that have way more knowledge me, but that is part of the fun, I learn new things on this site and others every day.