A new interpretation of energy and matter

You may only be in the "Alternative Theory " section of a science forum, but a science forum it is.
If you are interested in science, as I am, then as a layman like myself, it would have been prudent to have done some reading/research to familiarise yourself with the scientific methodology and terminology.
Making up terms of your own, based on non mainstream interpretations of observations is doing nothing but confusing the already confusing quackery you seem to be espousing.
I call it quackery because anyone who starts off denying GR and particle physics, is behind the eight ball right from the word go.



I refer you to the OP in the "For the alternative theorists:" thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In reply to paddoboy, re: content of my replies.

Which words have I "made up?" All of it is in English, and in English, it is easy to form compound words and phrases that may have special meanings.

Where have I DENIED "General Relativity?" (besides your interpretations of it)

There is no "making up of things of my own", just a different interpretation of physics theory which you don't agree with.

As for "Topic" rules, I have complied with them.

I notice you use the word CONFUSED in your missive...could it be you are the one who is confused? I think so, since, as you say, you are a layman and your comprehension of my concepts

proves you have no idea what I am "espousing".


Which aspect of particle physics am I "denying?" I am not in denial of atoms, or any constituents that may be orbitals of a nucleus. I AM stating that I do not believe that electrons are being

converted into photons as individual packets of light energy which then are radiated.

It seems you deem ANYTHING that is not a direct quote from a textbook is "quackery", and according to your rules or guidelines, NO ONE could "Post" anything that you either don't approve

of, or don't understand!


I don't need lectures from a pedantic school-teacher, or a layman.

As for study, I have, and don't agree with the idea of "matter into energy". I think my concept works, and you don't. What of it?

The only thing quacking here is YOU.



(Thanks for reading!)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He denied relativity in the first post: "Never mind Einstein and "Relativity", just throw him and his quaint "know-nothing" ramblings into the "delete" file".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How about this.

 

In reply to "Hide in the Earth", re: your assertion.

You took this "quote" COMPLETELY out of context of the subject matter, which makes YOU a complete LIAR, and a member of the "A.A." Club. (no, the first word does not refer to alcohol)


If you have a problem with me, take it to the mods. you "A.A".

 

What were you saying about quacking, ducky?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In reply to origin, re: your #104 reply.

"How about what?" Do you have ANY effective rebuttal to any of my concepts, or do you just enjoy writing smart-ass comments of opinion? If you want to engage in semantics, find someone

else, because I have no interest in it.

Why not just ask the Moderator to move my "Topic" to the cesspool, it's fine with me! I will still have what I consider a valid concept, regardless of where it is posted.

Yes, under YOUR mandate, Relativity is "word salad" and also a generous amount of "calculus salad" as well.

YES..."Relativity" is still unproven as an ACTUAL FACT. (A.E. has yet to be awarded the Nobel for his masterwork, despite a century of knowing that it is CORRECT)

Take yourself and your 4,847 posts of quote-mining and a word or two of comment to some other thread.



(Thanks for reading, and understanding so little!) Ta-ra!

 

In reply to paddoboy, re: my topic thread.

If you have an effective rebuttal (which you do not and will not have) to any of my concepts, then please write them I out.


Replying with "quotes" is a form of harassment and trolling. Aside from being a "valued member?" by virtue of thousands of "nothing" posts, what else have you?

 

Quote mining...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The only other person ever to accuse me of that was one of our delusional alternative pushers who claimed he had a ToE.
You actually sound a lot like him.

Your own rebuttal of GR and particle physics is ample effective rebuttal of your own nonsense.

 

FYI...E=MC2 does NOT imply "matter has energy", it implies energy EQUALS matter. Do you not understand that? By the way, matter exists in any form that conditions dictate.

 

Matter exists "GENERALLY" in four forms, solid, liquid, gas and Plasma.

Matter certainly has energy, as well as being equal to it as per E=Mc2

Do you understand that? Do you understand semantics and pedant?
That's nice.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The following is a little more difficult to understand, but still relatively basic....
http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...tter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

 

You have not done a stellar job of presenting any concepts. The only one I can identify so far is this:

This is rather difficult to understand since you made up compound words to apparently represent what you think are new properties but you did not define these terms. You also talk about 'potentials', 'actuality' and 'manifestations' of energy in a unique way without going into any detail. You talk of the 'amplitude' of Fdf which seems like you just like the sound of the word amplitude so you added it to the coversation. 'Metric of potential' is another neat sounding buzz word that seems ot have no meaning in the context you are using it.
However, after a bit of proding I think I understand what you are trying to say based on your example. You said about your Friction-density factor:

So we have a bit of a definition. As the pressure increases heat will be produced. Hyper-thermic excitation means hot. If the heat is high enough molecular bonds will break. At truly enormous pressures and temperatures fusion will occur.

The problem is that this is nothing new, it has been known for hundreds of years. Do you think making up new compound words to describe well known phenomena is science? Atoms increase in temperature as compression occurs in a molecular cloud because as the 'outside' moves towards the center the atoms in the material gain translational kenetic energy from the 'outside' atoms moving in. In a piston and cylinder arrangement the piston moving adds the kenetic energy. Another way to look at this is that work is being done to the system and the result of that work is an increase in the internal energy of the system.

So defining one of your other terms, dimensional-energy, you said:

So again for reasons I do not understand you have taken a well known phenomena and made up a new compound word to describe it. Why?

Anyway lets use the earlier example of the temperature rising due to an increase in pressure. If the material is in a vacuum the heat can only be radiated from the material as electromagnetic radiation. So this is called blackbody radiation which you have decided to refer to as 'dimensional-energy'.

So, as near as I can tell, you have done nothing other than assign your new made up terms to a known phenomena.:shrug:

You have also made the rather remarkable statement:

This is simply a contention as you state with no reason or explanation. I asked you how your contention would explain the following phenomena, but got no response:

If there are no photons and no emitted electrons how do you explain the photoelectric effect, photovoltaic cells, beta radiation detectors, blackbody radiation, cathode ray tubes, etc., etc...?

That is nice that you consider it valid, but for anyone else to consider it valid it needs to explain what we observe and it should be supported with evidence, math would be nice but I do not think if is going to be forthcoming. Any evidence supporting your contentions would certainly help to show your contentions are valid.

This is 100% wrong. Saying relativity is word salad shows that you have no understanding of it at all.

This shows a misuderstanding of the scientific process. Relativity will never be a fact it will stay a theory that has stood up to every test to date. In science we know that as more discoveries are made theories will be modified. It will probably never be considered wrong, but I assume there will come a time where it will be modified. Just like Newtons theory on gravity is not wrong, but general relativity has modified the theory of gravity.


So if you want to show how your conjectures explain some phenomena (anything) better than the current theories - go for it.

 

In reply to origin, re: your #112 reply.

I did explain already. But you find it inadequate and inherently wrong. Okay. Only your definition of "scientific process" counts, or what you think it means.

I have no intention of debating with you on a "me student, you sensei" platform.

I notice that you use the phrase "we as scientists" meaning you include yourself among them! Good for you! I am not a scientist, at least according to you. I never said I was a scientist, or

have ambitions of becoming one.

Do I have further opinions of "modern physics?" (post 1955) Yes, I do...and I will write them in the "cesspool", since they deviate from my original Topic, and don't belong as part of my

concept models.



(Thanks for reading!)

 

Too bad you feel that way, I am not trying to come off that way. You stated your conjecture, I respond with my understanding of how your conjecture does not correspond with current science. So at this point you are quiting without further clarification of your conjecture. OK, do what you want.:shrug:

I did not say we scientist because I am not a scientist. I am an engineer and as such I work in the relm of science.

Opinons and conjectures are fine but they have little relevence in science unless they can be backed up with real evidence.

If you refuse to even try back up your conjectures with evidence then perhaps you are correct that your posts belong in the cesspool.

 

In reply to origin, re: your various replies to me.

Save the b.s. apology for someone who will buy it! I'm not going to respond any longer to you. All you really want is for me to keep responding so you can use my thread for your own

amusement and whatever else your agenda of the day might be!



What evidence do I use, or will show you? It wouldn't make ANY difference.

Tell you what...you show ME a quark! I want to see it! Where do you keep it? A Mason jar, maybe? How about a single photon? Can you or anyone else on this World or any other show me

a single photon? How about a handful? I can't seem to see your "evidence" or your "proof" either one! WHY is that, "Knower of all things in Physics?"


( I really have to blame myself for these antics with you, the "Let's be friends and play nice" and then you s**t on my shoes and say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it!" replies of yours. I fell for it,

so really it's all on me...my bad for be willing entertainment for a "thread-troll") But, it's all good.



(whatever)

 

I don't know what evidence you should use it is your conjecture. Evidence that supported your conjecture would make a difference.

Go to google and in the search block type in "evidence for photons" or "evidence for quarks".

I didn't 's**t on your shoes', I just pointed out that your conjectures either do not make sense or are just making up new names phenomena that is already known. If you just wanted people listen to your conjectures and say, "gee, that's great", without question, I think you came to the wrong place.

 

Remember when the whole world was as a cracked pot? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Let he (or she) who is without shadow cast the first aspersions...

 

Hah! It's RC, back again. Going to be banned soon again are you, mate?

 

DR_Toad, you "quoted" Post #113 by the Member "Gerry Nightingale".
Since you are possibly fairly "new" to SCiForums, you may not realize that the solid line through the Members name means that that Member is already "Banned".

 

Correction accepted, I didn't note the date of the post, or the strikethrough.

I'd noted that before, but didn't see it this time. Blame it on font selection by my browser, why don't you?