Total Field Theory

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Kaiduorkhon, Feb 13, 2014.

  1. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Without further ado, and with quantum_wave's suggestion, please peruse the 310 pp. (condensed from 600+ pages) book, 'Total Field Theory'.

    There's very little math, since that requirement is historically accommodated and basically up to date.

    Graduates from the relatively quick read of this book are cordially invited to say what they think in this thread.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/42821561/Total-Field-Theory

    (Thank you for being...)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    That does look pretty hodge-podge.

    Did you do that, and if so, why?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Your response reveals only one dimension. There are at least six. You don't have to read the book. Then again, Truly Yours need not take you seriously.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cornel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    137
    Aight, as long as you don't take anyone who is either asking questions or is not praising you seriously, you'll only get the braindead believers, smart man ^_^
     
  8. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    When reading claims, I usually stop as soon as I hit the first wall. In your case it was one of the first sentences:

    All this says is that you either never studied the topic material or else you had a fatal encounter with it at the high school or early college level. The tyranny that's bothering you is entirely self-inflicted.

    Which is an admission that it solves nothing.

    Meh, cop-out. If you don't speak the language of physics, how do you expect to preach against its message?

    If the math of mainstream physics is up to date then the preceding statement, that it's the product of dogma, falls apart; the entire premise necessarily falls and the "book" just evaporates into the thin air from whence it came.

    There's nothing cordial about anti-science rant. It's the intellectual equivalent of assault and battery. Most of us graduated from that kind of thinking somewhere between the terrible twos and the day we passed our entrance exams, so there's no advancement to be made by reading it. We gain much more from revisiting The Elements or even The Almagest, and those were done in depths of global darkness in such matters. Look at where we are today and how irrelevant these complaints are.

    Of course maybe you could start at the beginning and tell us where folks like Euclid got it wrong. Talk about dogma; there's simply no room for negotiating with those tyrannical geometers! Yeah, there's a bone to pick. Why don't you give that a shot? Forget the fancy footwork and start with the basics. Tackle the conic sections; we've been up in arms about that for millenia and would really like to see some fur fly. The audacity of it all! I mean: c'mon, hyperbolas?. Gimme a break.

    For being what?

    You can thank our parents for that. And the maniacs they referred us to . . . like Euclid (damn him) and all the rest of the doctrinaires they unleashed on us.

    In a nutshell, I think there is indeed tyranny in having to pick up a pencil and work actual problems. What makes scientists scientists is that they don't mind. In fact the productive ones rather enjoy it. *Ouch* (Whoa - that hurts so good. ) Kind of makes you wonder what the anti-science cranks' preferred instrument of torture is. Hmmm . . how about the rack? I've got a real sadistic book my classmates congenially referred to as Thermogoddammits. Or can I interest you in a nice pair of thumbscrews: Electromagnetics back to back with Stochastics, Probability and Random Variables? Sorry, we're sold out on waterboards, but if you were to get really loud enough you might get some attention from the wrecking crew, replete with their firehoses (actual research). . .

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    It is clear that you spent a tremendous amount of time on this. Unfortunately the small amount that I read of your work does not seem to be supported by experimentation, math or observation. I hope that writting this and the 600 page book brought you enjoyment.
     
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    There are conceptual problems with some assumptions of physics, which is why I generate a lot of scenarios. For example, particle accelerator data, which is the basis for the standard model, is generated at high energy/temperature/EM force but very low gravitational pressure. It is done on the surface of the earth and not in the core of a star where pressure fields are much high. The conclusions might be useful in a vacuum, but tells us little about the phases of matter at extreme gravity. It is extrapolated beyond where the experiment is valid.

    My conclusion that these experiments cannot be extrapolate beyond low gravity is based on the observation that phase data show the properties of matter is a function of temperature and pressure and not just temperature. As an example, if take water and heat it to 5000C at the same pressure as the lab for a collider experiment, it will ionize and break down. But if we add enough pressure, while we heat, it turns to metal. One would not have guess water would become metal, if all we did was high temp and low pressure experiments.

    Another problem has to do with math in the light of physic game engines. Math allows you to model anything, real or imaginary. This makes games more enjoyable to play increasing appeal. Physics is big bucks in terms of toys and needs the herd to have fun.

    If you look at natural perception of the universe, such as from the POV of a dog, he uses space-time but also scent to orientate himself. With scent, he can infer position, direction and time lag between himself and the prey he is tracking. He bases the unknown and unseen position of the prey, on matter, which in this case are the tangible chemicals of scent. Nature puts substance before space-time. Space-time being place first allows us to contrived. If the dog did this first he might imagine food before he smells anything thereby becoming a crap shoot.

    When you place space-time first, before tangible matter, it is analogous to visualizing a bridge on paper, or how it will need to exist in space and time, but before it is built. We build it secondarily, after the plan is already in place. After the bridge is built we call that natural, since it has substance and anyone can see by the data it is there. This is different from finding a stone bridge based on a natural formation, which would create a different scenario of formation than space-time first.

    Magic is a form of science, since it needs to make use of the principals of tangible science (matter first), to create an experimental design that can generate an unexpected result which follow our explanation. The magician will start with the result he needs in space-time (levitation) and then add the tangible equipment later, so the two mesh and one can't tell which came first.

    How about physics that has to begin with only tangible. For example, what is tangible in this universe are protons, electrons and neutrons. This is the scent of the universe and represents its ground state. The substructure data is generated at low pressure so its range of applicability is limited more than the above which can be found in more place under more conditions.

    I am/was an engineer and appreciate good contrivances. But how do you tell the difference between natural and contrived? The main way is if substance comes first and sets all the practical limits this is natural. If planning is first and needs non tangible substance it is contrived. But one can also contrive using real substances like when building a bridge from a plan. But in this case, we first have to engineer or contrive the substances such as melting ore to make steel, which is not part of nature, until after it has been performed by humans.

    I generate a lot of scenarios, many of which would work. I do this to show one how easy it is to contrive. If contrivance is acceptable, then the best contrivances should be the simplest and require the least resources. In engineering, cost effective is important to contrivance. Elaborate contrivances than needs tons of resources are more their for the prestige effect.
     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Based on your rambling, ignorant, anti-science rants, I find it highly unlikely that you are an engineer. By that I mean that you do not have a college degree in engineering. You might have been a technician, and 'consider' yourself an engineer.
     
  12. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I started reading, and found myself taking issue with things like "gravity is the 4th dimension". Then I stopped reading, because it isn't. Gravity is the result of what's usually called "curved spacetime" which is caused by a concentration of energy usually in the guise of the matter of a star or planet. This affects the surrounding space making it inhomogeneous. I'm confident that this is right, and that Einstein was right about gravity. So when people come up with stuff like "gravity is the 4th dimension", IMHO it's cry-wolf clutter that gets in the way of scientific progress. Because people then think that every guy who comes up with something unfamiliar is talking out of his hat.
     
  13. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I read it a couple of years ago, and as I was reading it I carried on a discussion with you on one of your threads. You were very responsive to my questions, and your explanations were internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. I enjoyed the book for those reasons, and not because of any commentary that might be taken as disenchantment with the mainstream community. It is my view that the mainstream consensus is the best science we can support with experimentation and mathematical quantification. However, there aren't any (or very many) mainstream authorities who will declare that science is finished experimenting and quantifying, or who will say that the tentativeness of science no longer applies to hundred year old science theories. Tentativeness of science means that even widely tested and generally accepted theory can be superseded or redefined with new findings and better technology.

    Your central premise, as I recall, and you can correct me on this, is that the finite universe is in continual expansion. In addition, it is not just the occupied space that is expanding, but the space occupied by particles within that greater finite space is expanding as the universe expands, meaning that the disturbed patches of space that represent the presence of particles is expanding as well. Relatively speaking, as the universe continues to expand, the particles in the universe expand proportionately, and so we cannot detect the physical expansion locally.

    Gravity then is the result of mass expanding proportionately, and so a relatively tiny mass will appear to be attracted and accelerated to a greater mass, while in accord with the premise, gravity is simply the mutual effect of universal expansion of space and particles in it; infinite expansion undetectable because everything is occupying more space at the same rate relative to its mass.
     
  14. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Reading you 5 x 5 q_w. One of our fairly recent while bygone serious addresses to the feature OP issue of this thread was also based on the fact that you had read the offered work, which, once again, is an abandoned premise at the foreground of the predicted Groucho Marx affirmations, already dominating the rap herein.

    The diversionary, emotionally recreational rhetoric was very evident among the 'armed with a degree' wielders in what was at that time the 'psuedoscience' section here - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?97999-TOTAL-FIELD-THEORY-w-out-mathematics - which the boxed in naysayers celebrate not having read and defiantly refuse to read for 32 pages and 319 Posts (slamming the door on the closed thread with a steaming stack of 'tough shit') while very predictably insisting that 'non-mathematical physics' is a non sequiter. The rudimentary toughness which does Elmer Gantry's evangelical tent meeting format proud, places dog and pony showmanship above reading the - albeit deluged - instructions which critics certainly are not obliged to agree with, while tenaciously disqualifying themselves from being qualified to disassemble. Giving another import to the saw that you gets out of it what you puts into it. You know, when proof readers don't read the offered cubicle dimensions they're disqualified from meaningfully running off out of the offered square parameters. That category of dissent is referenced to the character armor of vaudeville.
     
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
  16. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    I think it can be boiled down to:

    You no like book. Me mad.

    I personnaly think it was kind of a mean for Q_W to suggest to Kaiduorkhon to put this in the science section.
     
  17. Maxila Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    That is where I stopped reading. There is too much wrong with that statement to even put into words in a forum such as this.
     
  18. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    "That is where I stopped reading."

    Dear Maxila:

    Your first sentence is the operative *dismissal of your authority to disagree with the physical (metric) geometrical definition of dimensions. You are preceded (since 1916) by nearly a century of identical-remiss observations short of recognizing Einstein's statement that time & motion are integral of the (alleged, 'non-mathematically incomprehensible') 4th dimension: extrapolating from that misunderstanding (and consequent *false disqualification), is the failure to recognize electricity (moving at right angles out of 4-D matter) and magnetism (moving at right angles out of electricity) as the 5th & 6th (consequently - and likewise - unrecognized) dimensions, respectively.
     
  19. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    That's pure POPPYCOCK! Ask any - ANY! - physicist an they will tell you that no such "right angles" as you've just described even exist.

    You have now crossed the line from babbler to crank. (Sheesh!)
     
  20. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Until you make a case disqualifying metric geometry's definition of dimensions you're regressed to name-calling and referencing 'any physicist (who's prepared to appear publicly incompetent)'.
     
  21. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Hardly. From this point forward I'm not even going to bother with this idiocy. You're welcome to wallow in it without me!
     
  22. el es Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    322
  23. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    The link ('bump of a thread') you provide here (in the preceding Post, #19) is Posted in this thread at the top of page 2, and beginning of Post #11. It's of 32 pp. 319 Posts duration. The defiantly unscientific, group-aggression-bonded adversaries slammed the door on the closed thread with the last statement in the last entry 'tough shit'. Nobel Prize material for sure. All that mileage and they don't even attempt to make a case. 'They' say it isn't worth it and dismiss the OP premise out of hand. Very notably: 'they' do not - and have yet to - make their (what?) case.

    You know, 'they' could be wrong. Hey. Why don't 'they' just polish it off, since it's so worthy of very extensive derisive mileage?

    Why not transform the much brandished, smug, profane annoyance into a parody of Snoopy, standing on the roof of his dog house, swatting flies: thought ballooning: "Happiness is a confirmed kill". If yer so damned formidable.

    Well?
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2014

Share This Page