Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by matthew809, Jul 21, 2010.
"Hovering laws"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I already know your reason for posting. You are trolling and you mistakenly hallucinated that I am a juicy victim.
And now you have admitted that you are woefully ignorant of how QED describes and explains electric attractive force.
You make the biggest mistake possible when you dream that you can manipulate me. Since you obviously have "special" relations with a few of the more powerful inhabitants of this surly faux forum, I am much more vulnerable to being banned (for no real reason) than you. That is not manipulation, since I decided a good while ago to never publish anything of newsworthiness in this swamp, anyway. For a long time now, I have ALREADY BANNED YOU (ALL).
Rather than me to cower before your truly unreasonable demand, it indeed is you, math monkey, who is demanded to post for us your interpretation of the attractive electric force mechanism, according to your apparently virtually non-existent understanding of QED. Tell us how you dream that the exchange of virtual photons cause the electron to rush toward the positron.
Do you really believe that they SUCK each other closer? Maybe you are thinking too much about SUCKING.
Yes, an action is an effect of laws. Thus my question: which came first?
Its like a home builder. First comes an image of the house [the thought/will], then the means of building it [blueprints], then the assembling of its materials, than the action of building the house. The action [effect] is the final stage.
Which explains nothing.
What do you mean by "hovering laws"?
How does gravity, as defined within GR, not make sense? Once you visualize the idea that gravity is the warping of space in response to the presence of mass, that objects fall towards Earth because they are effectively falling down a 3 dimensional slope, it all makes perfect sense. Perhaps there is a yet to be discovered "graviton" that is responsible for this warping of space, or perhaps it is a more fundamental property of space that we will come to understand more completely one day. Either way, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than all this pushing bullshit.
Many of the well defined and widely understood concepts in physics are not immediately accessible to the average person. Anyone who is reasonably intelligent however can easily wrestle these ideas into focus if they spend enough time learning about them and reflecting upon them. You need to actually do this before you decide that something doesn't make sense.
Furthermore, it seems to me that some people have a disturbing lack of respect for some of the greatest minds of our age. People who make great contributions to science don't do so by accident, or because they just happen to get lucky. They are highly intelligent people with an incredible amount of talent, and they spend years fully immersed within their particular disciplines before they emerge with something tangible to present to the world. I mean seriously, how does someone sit there, looking at Einstein and the many arguably equally brilliant physicists and mathematicians that came after him, and simply state that they all got it wrong? It's not just arrogant. It's laughable.
Having said that, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that they all did get something wrong. It happens. So if you're convinced that this is the case, prove it. That's how science works. But in order to show that a model is flawed, you have to do two things. First, you need to understand that model. Second, you need to develop an alternative model that makes quantitative predictions that can be tested, and are subsequently found to provide a more accurate description of reality. Unfortunately people often seem to get stuck at the understanding the existing model stage, and then move on to an even greater blunder by creating an alternative model that isn't a model at all. If your goal is to bring scientific progress to a complete standstill, shift it into reverse and then drive it all the way back to the dark ages, then you're doing the right thing.
All I am saying here is that it isn't too much to ask to demonstrate a proper understanding of an existing model before you try to replace it. If you can accurately describe Einsteins' theory of gravity (which is of course a prerequisite for any subsequent legitimate criticism), then you'll get a much better response on forums like these. People will be more willing to buy into a critical examination if you can demonstrate that you've bothered to get your head properly around the existing physics.
You make is sound like I haven't repeatedly demonstrated a working understanding of quantum field theory. Unlike yourself I can put my maths where my mouth is.
Let me know when you have anything which manages to be published in a reputable journal. Yes, you aren't 'publishing' anything here but then you aren't publishing anything anywhere.
It is unreasonable me to ask for a single reference for your claim, which doesn't gel with what I know about theoretical physics? Its unreasonable to ask someone to justify themselves? Where did you learn science? Oh yeah, you didn't.
I'm not claiming to have some model of my own here, I asked you to provide a citation because those citations I am aware of do not describe things as you claim they do. For instance, the attractive/repulsive nature of scalar, vector and tensor fields is discussed in Peskin and Schroder (I find the page reference if you wish), as they demonstrate a quantum spin 0 or spin 2 fields cannot be repulsive (hence why gravity only attracts). Further more, given they are the defacto textbook on quantum field theory they go into detail about such processes like two particles scattering off one another. Processes are described either in position space or momentum space. Personally I prefer momentum space, where you make no reference to the path the particles actually take (though obviously they are determined via the momentum). Even in the position space formalism the dynamics do not describe the photon (or whatever the intermediate particle is) looping around behind an electron.
You clearly don't like the notion of somehow there being an attractive force between two particles if the photons don't loop around the back of the particles, yet you fail to realise that such a notion would violate momentum conservation. How could the photon turn around all on its own? It'd be changing momentum without having interacted with anything else.
The process by which an electron is attracted to a positron is covered using Feynman diagrams. The power of them is that you don't need to trouble yourself about the position of the particles when in the momentum space, you simply input the initial momenta of the particles and then their outgoing momenta. The change represents the momentum the photon carried and the differential cross section (ie the function related to probabilities) is non-zero for negative momentum exchange.
Now anyone who wishes to check what I'm saying can check Wikipedia or the book I mentioned. I can even provide some links to some lecture notes. I've got enough knowledge of quantum field theory to have convinced professors I can do it, so your opinion of my ability is irrelevant. I can and have provided some references, now you provide yours. If you think being asked to justify a claim is 'unreasonable' then you really have no knowledge of science, never mind quantum field theory.
Yes and very throughly discussed. Your link was new to me and I thank you for it. MacM never mentioned it AFAIK and certainly to me gave the impression that he had conceived of the idea himself.
In my many posts trying to shoot down what I understood then to be MacM's model of gravity, I failed to bring up the internal heating problem. (transfer of momentum by simple flux particles must cause reduction of their translational energy.) This was understood long ago by Kelvin et. al. to quote from your link:
"Kelvin re-iterated an idea that Fatio had originally proposed in the 1690s for attempting to deal with the thermodynamic problem inherent in Le Sage's theory. He proposed that the excess heat might be absorbed by internal energy modes of the particles themselves, based on his proposal of the vortex-nature of matter. In other words, the original translational kinetic energy of the particles is transferred to internal energy modes, chiefly vibrational or rotational, of the particles. Appealing to Clausius's proposition that the energy in any particular mode of a gas molecule tends toward a fixed ratio of the total energy, Kelvin went on to suggest that the energized but slower moving particles would subsequently be restored to their original condition due to collisions (on the cosmological scale) with other particles."
With internal energy storage modes (becoming "hotter") during the total energy elastic collision, momentum, I think, could be transferred without internal heating of struck object. It is also reasonable these hotter internal modes would in subsequent collision with other like gravitational flux particles be cooled down to the translational temperature of the sea of these particles filling in the universe - I.e. on average transfer the excess internal enegy back into translation energy. I.e. transfer of moment without either internal heating of the struck object or any ultimate decrease in the gravitational particles mean velocity.
More later, hopefully after your comments, but this does seem to be the best mechanistic explanation of how gravity works. Saying gravity force does not exist but that mass warps space is nothing but words describing a more modern mathematical POV. That is not explaining how the "warping by mass" is achieved.
Thus I object to this thread being in Pseudosciences. That sort of implies ANY NON STANDARD THEORY MUST GO THERE, EVEN IF IT PROVIDES THE SAME OBSERVATIONAL RESULTS.* In this case it makes calculation, from the theory much more difficult, but it provides, AFAIK, the ONLY mechanistic model of gravity.
*Not exactly the same as very massive object can not reduce the "darkness" of their flux shadows more than 100%. Thus, huge black holes may, by this model, have more mass than we calculate from their effects on orbiting stars. I.e. gravity is not strictly proportional to mass, but the difference is too small to measure. This could be an advantage in that some gravity of mass is disappearing as mass is eaten by black holes. Thus on a universal scale, mutual gravitational attractions are growing weaker with time - just the effect that increasing dark energy is claimed to produce. I.e. ever more rapid expansion of the universe falls out of this mechanistic model of gravity!
Except that the "theory" doesn't give ANY results. Don't forget this thread is about matthew809's "theory", not LeSage's and the OP has given NO calculations whatsoever.
I suggest that would be a contributory factor in this thread being assigned to Pseudo.
the title of thread clearly includes all pushing gravity theories. Even the first part of the OP does:
I don't think it common or reasonable for threads to be restricted to only the ideas the author of the OP states. I agreed he has nothing that should be called a theory, no calculations etc. but certainly there have been many calculations even posted, by me and others on what we called "MacM's theory of gravity" (as I at least was ignorant of the long history of "pushing gravity.")
Again I am mainly interested in getting post 28 exposed in a physic forum thread so if only it moves, that is fine with me.
I agree with Einstein's sloping analogy except for one thing- it's hurts my brain to switch back and forth between thinking of the third dimension as two different things- yet the same thing. It's confusing. So let's stop treating the 3rd dimension like a whore, and come up with a new analogy.
I've done some deeper thinking since my original post. To describe gravity as just a pushing force or a pulling force is inaccurate. I agree that "gravity is the warping of space in response to the presence of mass". I think of mass as mostly empty, and of space as more full. I imagine that the empty space of matter bunches up the space around it.
Imagine a thick sheet of rubber spread across the floor. This will represent what we perceive as empty space. If you poke a hole in this rubber and then spread this rubber apart with your fingers, that empty hole would represent matter. The localized bunching of the rubber around the hole would represent the gravitational field of that piece of matter. Now instead of a flat sheet of rubber, imagine a 3-D block of rubber.
I think all forces in nature are just different manifestations of the same force- gravity. It just happens to be that the most obvious manifestation of this force happens in a scale that we can easily observe and model. I think gravity is just the universe trying to close up space around the "holes" of matter. The attraction of bodies into larger bodies, the orbits of planets around suns, and the formation of black holes all represent the path of least resistance in the universe's attempt to close in around the empty holes of matter. Perhaps the end result of the universe's design would be one huge empty hole of nothing surrounded by pressurized space. After all, a sphere would represent the most stable and compact configuration.
Atoms are a bit more tricky because there is also a force which keeps them apart. But I think this can be easily explained. Here's my basic idea for the configuration of an atom: an inner core of pressurized space(without a gradient field), with a hole of empty space surrounding it(such like the hole in a rubber sheet which I talked about), and then pressurized space surrounding that(with a gradient field- or gravity field).
This configuration for an atom would allow other atoms to gravitate towards it to an extent, but would also usually prevent atoms from getting too close due to the pressure-space trapped within the atom acting as a pushing force.
What we would perceive as energy- such as light, electromagnetic fields, radio waves- would all be smaller "empty holes" flying about space, all with their own little gravity fields. Maybe these smaller particles are entirely empty space, or maybe they also have pressurized space trapped inside- such like an atom of matter.
I like to think of these empty holes in space as energy, even though it is actually the pressurized space around it which contains the energetic component.
While I don't have any issue with hypothesising about qualitative concepts, I think you should be aware that simply pitching such ideas is only an exercise in imagination. You can't claim anything which required detail or quantitative workings and seriously consider yourself to be doing physics.
Its an analogy, no one doing GR actually works using that as some kind of fundamental point of view. This is the point I'm making, that you can't work by analogy and arm waving if you want to do actual physics, you need details. Physicists who do GR don't need to rely on analogies when they can do the mathematics. Cranks don't like maths, they prefer the arm waving, blaming physicists for not providing them with perfect and exact analogies which they can grasp. Two people researching GR exchange understanding view mathematics and technical terminology, it makes it easier to avoid misunderstandings. If you don't like analogies and you want to get your head around GR then learn some GR. I'd read plenty of pop science books on GR before I began learning actual GR and so I can speak from experience that you couldn't do anything with only the pop science knowledge, you vaguely grasp the superficial layer of other peoples' work but you couldn't do anything yourself.
I'm trying to be generally more polite about this with you than I would be with someone like Farsight as I haven't yet determined if you're someone with an interest in understanding GR or someone who thinks he's doing 'science' if he can come up with a buzzword filled post. The former I'm fine with, the latter (aka people like Farsight) I'll be less pleasant as time goes on....
You're completely right. I am only throwing a general idea out there for people to consider. I am not trying to prove that I am right, and I am nowhere near qualified to be delving much deeper into the subject. I'll leave that to the professionals.
Although it's interesting that you are questioning my qualifications rather than my idea; attempting to "be polite" with me rather than attempting to ask me any pertinent questions.
I'm just curious though... what did you think about my idea? Do you think it necessarily conflicts with your understanding of physics, or could there be something to it?
You blatantly obviously do not understand the basic principles of Quantum ElectroDynamics. You are the classic example of the highly over-educated ignoramus who has luckily memorized everything but understands nothing.
You blatantly obviously do not understand the chief cornerstone of Physics, the rule of Conservation of Momentum.
I have already given you much more of my time than you deserve. Suffice it to be said that you need to study Feynman's dumb down layman book QED. When you understand, if ever, the principle of Sum Over Histories, then, you will be able to start UNDERSTANDING Physics, rather than your chronic addiction to memorizing maths.
You and me are standing face to face one yard apart. I am holding a 16 pound regulation bowling ball. I doubt you could do likewise, but, for sake of argument, we imagine that you are holding up one also. Going first, I throw mine at your gut. One way or another, it impacts your body. Your previously stated confusion about momentum transfer leaves me in doubt about whether you think that I will knock your silly ass backward or forward. I claim that momentum transfer will knock your silly ass backward. You, the best I can figure out, claim that it will knock your silly ass forward, toward me.
Then you roll your ball to me. I capture it with my hands. I claim its momentum will try to knock me backward. The best I can figure out, you claim its momentum will SUCK me toward you.
I am wasting no more time on you, no matter what kind of Bitch insult you write next.
You need to learn Basic Physics momentum transfer.
You need to learn QED Sum Over Histories. You will discover that Feynman teaches (teaches ME, anyway) that virtual photons go every path, including those paths that go round the back and hit the negatron or anti-electron from behind.
You are personal representative of the scourge of Science. The person (or AI) who can easily memorize much, but, who UNDERSTANDS little or nothing.
I keep asking you to justify your position but you fail. Can't you provide any reference to back up your claims?
I hardly think you're in a position to preach about 'cornerstones of physics'. Can you provide a link to even one thread on this forum where you demonstrate a working understanding of this kind of physics? For instance, recently I spent considerable time explaining conservation of momentum via Noether's theorem in QED.
Then why come back and post? Besides, you haven't given anything other than an unjustified claim. If I'm so wrong and you're so right and you're short on time why post a lengthy reply? Why not just provide a single citation to a reputable physics source which backs up your claim? That's both be quicker and put me in my place. Instead you simply assert something.
Ah, the "You know some maths therefore you can't do physics". If you'd ever learnt Feynmans path integral formulisation you'd know its extremely mathematical. Yes, you can superficially understand it without doing maths but to actually predict things, so as to test the model, you need to use a lot of mathematics. I know you want to believe your lack of mathematical ability isn't a hinderance but it completely prevents you from making any quantitative testable predictions.
You tell me to read things, yet you obviously haven't ever done anything like path integrals and second quantisation yourself. By the way, the book I mentioned devotes hundreds of pages to precisely that.
Yet another demonstration of your lack of experience with non-classical physics, you're only able to think in terms of everyday analogies. If you'd ever actually done that path integral formulation you mentioned you'd know that you don't formulate the problem in a classical way (that's pretty much a tautology). Why don't you actually do the calculation and see for yourself. Oh yeah, you don't actually know any of the maths to see it for yourself. In fact you don't know any of the maths required to do the prerequisite courses!
Your assumption you can word quantum physics in terms of everyday experiences is naive. But you fail to realise this since you've never done any actual physics.
You claim the ball would loop around behind me and hit me in the back. How does the ball change direction and momentum without interacting with anything? That is a change in momentum without conservation, precisely as I eluded to in my previous post but obviously it went over your head.
The fact paths exist doesn't mean they are the main contribution. When you do the path integrals (ie do the maths, not just look at pictures in a pop science book someone else did for you) then you find that the superposition principle gives a peak along the classical path, this is why we get the classical behaviour of particles at large distances or in large groups. You've taken a wordy explanation someone else has provided you (because you can't do the details yourself) and assumed that no other understanding is required. If you did the calculations you'd see it all comes out in the wash.
For instance, an interaction which would cause particle attraction is electron+positron -> electron+positron. If you think of this as an electron throwing a photon at a positron (or vice versa) then you might think it seems strange that the particles attract. However, in quantum field theory this is not the only tree level calculation (look up what 'tree level' means). That is the s channel contribution, there is a t channel one too, where the electron and positron combine into a photon and then the photon splits into a positron and an electron again. This allows the particles to seem like they attracted one another. Of course without actually doing the mathematics its next to impossible to see this is a consistent formulation which gives an accurate model of nature but that's why physicists do the mathematics. And the calculation is so basic its standard homework for people doing their first course in quantum field theory. Obviously you didn't get past the pictures in your pop science book and naively think that you have a working grasp of all the relevant details.
Its always humerous when cranks try desperately to convince themselves that their complete lack of working understanding isn't a problem, that all they need to claim understanding is to have read a pop science book or Wikipedia. If you'd done even the simplest course in QFT you'd have seen the different channels processes go by (known as t, s and u channels) and the different ways they can contribute. You talk about Feynman path integrals but you've never done anything close to them, only read about them, and yet you're silly enough to try to tell me by business, literally. I know you want to convince yourself you're somehow 'doing science' but you're not. You claim you're not publishing stuff here but you aren't publishing it anywhere.
And by the way, I am now gainfully employeed as a professional mathematician and I got the job precisely because I demonstrated creative mathematical skills and novel approaches to problems, both during my PhD and the lengthy interview process. Academic and private people, who themselves have PhDs in the sciences, seem to think I'm capable enough. My achievements and employment shows how much that chip on your shoulder is obscuring your views Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
But feel free to let me know when you get anything published anywhere reputable.
My dearly beloved AI Alph: You somehow missed one in your majestic Bitch parsing.
"I am wasting no more time on you, no matter what kind of Bitch insult you write next."
You spent more time typing that post than you would have needed to provide a link to a single source which backs you up and proves me wrong.
But perhaps you're too busy not publishing anything to be able to justify your argument Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Should anyone else want me to back up my comments further I'm more than happy to, I have nothing to hide.
Separate names with a comma.