Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 19th January 2020, 10:57 AM #1281 Lukraak_Sisser Illuminator   Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 3,592 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Either this journal does not publish novel theories or they will understand it very quickly. I like how this precludes the option that you are just plain wrong.
 19th January 2020, 11:00 AM #1282 Pixel42 Schrödinger's cat     Join Date: May 2004 Location: Malmesbury, UK Posts: 11,635 I predict they will understand very quickly that it's worthless rubbish. __________________ "If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
 19th January 2020, 11:21 AM #1283 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser I like how this precludes the option that you are just plain wrong. See by yourself if you can...
 19th January 2020, 12:46 PM #1284 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Either this journal does not publish novel theories or they will understand it very quickly. Making up some stuff, misapplying other stuff and just packing it all with fudge, ain't a novel theory. Often about 2 or 3 active threads here, where someone is doing exactly that, at any given time. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 19th January 2020, 01:41 PM #1285 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by The Man Making up some stuff, misapplying other stuff and just packing it all with fudge, ain't a novel theory. Often about 2 or 3 active threads here, where someone is doing exactly that, at any given time. Those who rather go back to General Relativity and spend the rest of their lives wondering about wormholes are welcome to. The Earth won’t stop rotating!
 19th January 2020, 03:53 PM #1286 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Those who rather go back to General Relativity and spend the rest of their lives wondering about wormholes are welcome to. The Earth won’t stop rotating! No one need "go back" to something still in use. While you are free to fudge up anything you want you shouldn't welcome it. The issue's not wormholes, the Earth stopping rotation, general relativity or people spending "the rest of their lives wondering". It is your apparent inability to just think critically about your own notions as well your own perceptions of other notions. It is incumbent on you primarily to be the most critical and thus least welcoming of your own notions and perceptions. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 19th January 2020, 04:40 PM #1288 Steve Philosopher     Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,855 Originally Posted by philippeb8 I hear a lot about how things should be done. In computer science it’s not about how you do things it’s about getting something that works, period. I’ve done all the hard work which appears to be easy but nobody else has done it yet nonetheless. If you cannot digest the fudge factor and admit GR is the biggest hoax humankind ever experienced then my advice is to change your mind and fast if you want to survive in this jungle. There is a very mundane reason why nobody has done the “work” that you have done. It has been explained to you numerous times. __________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
 19th January 2020, 05:04 PM #1289 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 I hear a lot about how things should be done. In computer science it’s not about how you do things it’s about getting something that works, period. Then actually "getting something that works" is "how you do things". The latter only reinforces the need to "hear a lot about how things should be done" ("getting something that works") in that context. How do you know it's "something that works" unless you test it and try diligently to find its flaws? Originally Posted by philippeb8 I’ve done all the hard work which appears to be easy but nobody else has done it yet nonetheless. If you cannot digest the fudge factor and admit GR is the biggest hoax humankind ever experienced then my advice is to change your mind and fast if you want to survive in this jungle. Again that's the wrong "hard work", you need to be the stanchest opponent of your own notions first. Otherwise you're just going easy on yourself. You need to do the due diligence. It is incumbent on no one to digest your fudge for you. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 19th January 2020, 05:07 PM #1290 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by Steve There is a very mundane reason why nobody has done the “work” that you have done. It has been explained to you numerous times. Deadlocked conversation here.
 19th January 2020, 05:19 PM #1291 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by The Man Then actually "getting something that works" is "how you do things". The latter only reinforces the need to "hear a lot about how things should be done" ("getting something that works") in that context. How do you know it's "something that works" unless you test it and try diligently to find its flaws? I did find a flaw in the gravitational redshift and I corrected everything else, remember? Quote: Again that's the wrong "hard work", you need to be the stanchest opponent of your own notions first. Otherwise you're just going easy on yourself. You need to do the due diligence. It is incumbent on no one to digest your fudge for you. There are things that remain unsolved like the quantification of the lateral acceleration but we’re entering quantum physics. And a 21 pages manuscript is good enough for a start.
 19th January 2020, 05:42 PM #1292 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 I did find a flaw in the gravitational redshift and I corrected everything else, remember? You used a relation for gravitational potential outside of a body or collection of bodies for what you call a 'gravitational potential' inside the universe (your fudged factor), "remember". You can't even agree with your own assertions and applications, in just fudging. Originally Posted by philippeb8 There are things that remain unsolved like the quantification of the lateral acceleration but we’re entering quantum physics. And a 21 pages manuscript is good enough for a start. The balderdash of your fudge factor has already been resolved, as a result you've simply entered the realm of quantified bull crap. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 19th January 2020, 06:30 PM #1293 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by The Man You used a relation for gravitational potential outside of a body or collection of bodies for what you call a 'gravitational potential' inside the universe (your fudged factor), "remember". You can't even agree with your own assertions and applications, in just fudging. The balderdash of your fudge factor has already been resolved, as a result you've simply entered the realm of quantified bull crap. Deadlocked conversation again... Last edited by philippeb8; 19th January 2020 at 06:32 PM.
 20th January 2020, 10:05 AM #1294 Blue Mountain Resident Skeptical Hobbit     Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg Posts: 5,843 I'd like to give some kudos to phillippeb8 for actually writing and submitting the paper. That's a step beyond what most proponents of alternative theories do. I rather doubt the paper will make much of an impact on physics overall, but it's exactly one more paper than I've ever submitted to a journal. __________________ The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French) Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
 20th January 2020, 11:46 AM #1295 wea Critical Thinker     Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: EU, IT Posts: 405 Originally Posted by JeanTate ... it would be interesting to read the reviewers full comments (perhaps you could post them here, philippeb8?). +1
 20th January 2020, 12:36 PM #1296 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Originally Posted by The Man You used a relation for gravitational potential outside of a body or collection of bodies for what you call a 'gravitational potential' inside the universe (your fudged factor), "remember". You can't even agree with your own assertions and applications, in just fudging. The balderdash of your fudge factor has already been resolved, as a result you've simply entered the realm of quantified bull crap. Deadlocked conversation again... Wait, so when advised of a fault with your 'fudge factor' and related claims, you simply assert "Deadlocked conversation again...?" Is that how you went about "getting something that works, period" "In computer science"? If not then "how you do things for your" FT ain't how your were doing things "In computer science" ("getting something that works, period"). __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 20th January 2020, 02:49 PM #1297 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,516 A "historical milestone" with repeated ignorant garbage Originally Posted by philippeb8 ...Enjoy this historical milestone! 21 January 2020 philippeb8: A "historical milestone" with repeated ignorant garbage and maybe additions. You use classical kinetic energy which is experimentally wrong. ! The idiocy that replacing constants in GR's gravitational redshift with a h fudge factor = a new theory. "Kinematical time dilation" insanity when you know the measurements of time dilation matching SR (that includes the experiments showing kinetic energy is not classical!) not your equation. A "Explanation of the perihelion shift" from FT lie. Newtonian gravity is not FT. General relativity is not FT. The idiocy of replacing constants in GR's explanation for the perihelion shift with a h fudge factor ! Additions? Some "gravitons pulling the body in the opposite direction of their velocity" gibberish. "1.3.1 Inverse square law" gibberish. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 20th January 2020, 03:27 PM #1298 Steve Philosopher     Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,855 Originally Posted by Reality Check 21 January 2020 philippeb8: A "historical milestone" with repeated ignorant garbage and maybe additions. You use classical kinetic energy which is experimentally wrong. ! The idiocy that replacing constants in GR's gravitational redshift with a h fudge factor = a new theory. "Kinematical time dilation" insanity when you know the measurements of time dilation matching SR (that includes the experiments showing kinetic energy is not classical!) not your equation. A "Explanation of the perihelion shift" from FT lie. Newtonian gravity is not FT. General relativity is not FT. The idiocy of replacing constants in GR's explanation for the perihelion shift with a h fudge factor ! Additions? Some "gravitons pulling the body in the opposite direction of their velocity" gibberish. "1.3.1 Inverse square law" gibberish. So he will not be published then? __________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
 20th January 2020, 04:00 PM #1299 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,452 Conventional fudge: rots your teeth, expands your waistline, contains calories. FT fudge: rots your brain, expands your ego, contains no calories.
 20th January 2020, 04:24 PM #1300 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by Reality Check 21 January 2020 philippeb8: A "historical milestone" with repeated ignorant garbage and maybe additions. You use classical kinetic energy which is experimentally wrong. ! The idiocy that replacing constants in GR's gravitational redshift with a h fudge factor = a new theory. "Kinematical time dilation" insanity when you know the measurements of time dilation matching SR (that includes the experiments showing kinetic energy is not classical!) not your equation. A "Explanation of the perihelion shift" from FT lie. Newtonian gravity is not FT. General relativity is not FT. The idiocy of replacing constants in GR's explanation for the perihelion shift with a h fudge factor ! Additions? Some "gravitons pulling the body in the opposite direction of their velocity" gibberish. "1.3.1 Inverse square law" gibberish. Because Reality Check doesn't like fudge factors is enough to disprove FT. Case closed after 10 years, I give up! (sarcasm)
 20th January 2020, 04:29 PM #1301 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Because Reality Check doesn't like fudge factors is enough to disprove FT. Case closed after 10 years, I give up! (sarcasm) That your "fudge factor" doesn't represent anything and specifically not what you have claimed it to represent, is enough to disprove FT. Again, no sarcasm. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 20th January 2020, 04:33 PM #1302 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,516 A lie about my post where what disproves FT is empirical evidence Originally Posted by philippeb8 Because Reality Check doesn't like fudge factors is enough to disprove FT. 21 January 2020 philippeb8: A lie about my post where what disproves FT is empirical evidence with the idiocy of a fudge factor just emphasizing how bad it is. 21 January 2020 philippeb8: A "historical milestone" with repeated ignorant garbage and maybe additions.Classical kinetic energy at relativistic speeds has been shown to be wrong by empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is that time dilation matches SR. Thus FT's including classical kinetic energy and invalid time dilation equation makes it ignorant garbage because it does not match empirical evidence. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 20th January 2020 at 04:35 PM.
 20th January 2020, 04:45 PM #1303 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,516 Originally Posted by Steve So he will not be published then? It is highly unlikely. The match of relativistic kinetic energy and time dilation with empirical data is undergraduate physics. A peer reviewer would know that and should reject the paper because the theory is obviously invalid. But it may not even be in peer review! Astrophysics and Space Science surprisingly publishes papers on astrophysics and space science. Quote: Papers in mathematical physics or in general relativity which do not establish clear astrophysical applications will no longer be considered Ignore the clear errors and he has a paper mostly on mathematical physics/general relativity with no astrophysical applications. On the other hand the current issue has a general relativity paper with no apparent astrophysical application and a cosmology review. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 20th January 2020 at 04:55 PM.
 20th January 2020, 05:41 PM #1304 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 According to philippeb8, the "h" fudge factor is suppose to be proportional to some gravitational potential. It's only "proportional", a asserted, because the G is left out of the equation GM/r for a gravitational potential outside of mass M at distance r from the center of M. Leaving out that this is an outside of mass M relation, as noted before, used for, well, inside the universe. Let's just see what it would be. The 'emulated' "h" is given as c2/2G. Which works out to 6.73 x 1026 kg/Meter. If we then put the G back into the gravitational potential equation we get 4.49 x 1016 Joule/Meter as the purported gravitational potential "h" is 'proportional' to. The Earth with a radius of 6.38 x 106 Meters at the equator and a mass of 5.97 x 1024 kg. Gives the gravitational potential at the surface of the Earth (ETA) as 9.80 Joule/Meter. So philippeb8's "h" 'gravitational potential' (supposedly at the 'solar system scale') is 4.59 x 1015, or 4.59 quadrillion, times greater than the gravitational potential at the surface of the Earth. That's a heck of a lot of fudge. So much so that not only would we be ripped off the surface of the Earth, the whole solar system would be ripped apart. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ Last edited by The Man; 20th January 2020 at 06:02 PM. Reason: Forgot to square the Earth radius
 20th January 2020, 05:42 PM #1305 abaddon Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 19,837 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Deadlocked conversation again... Nope. That is merely your excuse for having no meaningful reply. Why you think nobody sees that crapfest is anyone's guess. __________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes...
 20th January 2020, 06:00 PM #1306 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by The Man According to philippeb8, the "h" fudge factor is suppose to be proportional to some gravitational potential. It's only "proportional", a asserted, because the G is left out of the equation GM/r for a gravitational potential outside of mass M at distance r from the center of M. Leaving out that this is an outside of mass M relation, as noted before, used for, well, inside the universe. Let's just see what it would be. The 'emulated' "h" is given as c2/2G. $h_{solar} = c^2/G$ Quote: Which works out to 6.73 x 1026 kg/Meter. If we then put the G back into the gravitational potential equation we get 4.49 x 1016 Joule/Meter as the purported gravitational potential "h" is 'proportional' to. The Earth with a radius of 6.38 x 106 Meters at the equator and a mass of 5.97 x 1024 kg. Gives the gravitational potential at the surface of the Earth as 6.25 x 107 Joule/Meter. So philippeb8's "h" 'gravitational potential' (supposedly at the 'solar system scale') is 7.19 x 108, or over half a billion, times greater than the gravitational potential at the surface of the Earth. That's a heck of a lot of fudge. So much so that not only would we be ripped off the surface of the Earth, the whole solar system would be ripped apart. Last edited by philippeb8; 20th January 2020 at 06:04 PM.
 20th January 2020, 06:27 PM #1307 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,452 Originally Posted by philippeb8 $h_{solar} = c^2/G$ $h_{lunar} = d^3/H$ $i_{Vulcan} = e^1/F$ Etc.
 21st January 2020, 06:27 AM #1308 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 $h_{solar} = c^2/G$ OK, so that just makes it twice as bad or over 9 quadrillion times the gravitational potential at the surface of the Earth. Any other parts of your claims you would like to make twice as bad? Also I misidentified the units of gravitational potential, it should be Joule/kg not Joule/Meter. None of the numerical values change as this was simply a misidentification of the units for those values. ETA: As I noted some pages ago philippeb8's "h" gravitational potential is just the Planck energy over the Planck mass which reduces to simply the speed of light squared. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ Last edited by The Man; 21st January 2020 at 06:32 AM.
 21st January 2020, 08:34 AM #1309 Steve Philosopher     Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,855 Originally Posted by The Man OK, so that just makes it twice as bad or over 9 quadrillion times the gravitational potential at the surface of the Earth. Any other parts of your claims you would like to make twice as bad? Also I misidentified the units of gravitational potential, it should be Joule/kg not Joule/Meter. None of the numerical values change as this was simply a misidentification of the units for those values. ETA: As I noted some pages ago philippeb8's "h" gravitational potential is just the Planck energy over the Planck mass which reduces to simply the speed of light squared. Didn't some other guy already use that in a formula? I don't think he called it "h". __________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
 21st January 2020, 08:45 AM #1310 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 88,909 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Enjoy this historical milestone! Please do get over yourself. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 21st January 2020, 09:25 AM #1311 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,452 Originally Posted by philippeb8 $h_{solar} = c^2/G$ Why? If it's just c (squared) over G, why should it vary, anywhere in the universe? What, for example, is hRefsdal? Where "Refsdal" refers to the planetary system that existed around SN Refsdal (WP) before it went supernova. The galaxy in which this star existed has a redshift of 1.49. So perhaps "h" is universal fudge?
 21st January 2020, 11:58 AM #1312 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by JeanTate Why? If it's just c (squared) over G, why should it vary, anywhere in the universe? What, for example, is hRefsdal? Where "Refsdal" refers to the planetary system that existed around SN Refsdal (WP) before it went supernova. The galaxy in which this star existed has a redshift of 1.49. So perhaps "h" is universal fudge? Please read the “mass of the invisible universe” in the manuscript and you will see how useful this notion is...!
 21st January 2020, 12:01 PM #1313 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 88,909 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Please read the “mass of the invisible universe” in the manuscript and you will see how useful this notion is...! You seem to have a lot of difficulty explaining your "theory" in simple and clear terms here, even after multiple weeks of probings by many posters, so I doubt your actual theory is any better. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 21st January 2020, 12:09 PM #1314 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by Belz... You seem to have a lot of difficulty explaining your "theory" in simple and clear terms here, even after multiple weeks of probings by many posters, so I doubt your actual theory is any better. We’re talking simple algebra and undergraduate calculus here so it is extremely simple to understand.
 21st January 2020, 12:11 PM #1315 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 88,909 Originally Posted by philippeb8 We’re talking simple algebra and undergraduate calculus here so it is extremely simple to understand. Marvelous. Then I'm sure you can explain it here. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 21st January 2020, 02:38 PM #1316 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,516 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Please read the “mass of the invisible universe” in the manuscript and you will see how useful this notion is...! Emphasizes: 21 January 2020 philippeb8: A "historical milestone" with repeated ignorant garbage and maybe additions. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 21st January 2020, 02:43 PM #1317 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,516 Originally Posted by philippeb8 We’re talking simple algebra and undergraduate calculus here so it is extremely simple to understand. Emphasizes: 21 January 2020 philippeb8: A "historical milestone" with repeated ignorant garbage and maybe additions. The idiocy that "algebra and undergraduate calculus" is a scientific theory which Belz... was writing about. His crack paper starts with deep ignorance about reference frames being defined by gravitation and gets worse from there. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 21st January 2020, 05:11 PM #1318 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Please read the “mass of the invisible universe” in the manuscript and you will see how useful this notion is...! Everyone here already knows how useful you think just making up crap is, anyone can do it. As I noted before we generally have about three or four active threads here of people doing exactly that at any given time. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 21st January 2020, 08:18 PM #1319 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by The Man Everyone here already knows how useful you think just making up crap is, anyone can do it. As I noted before we generally have about three or four active threads here of people doing exactly that at any given time. Then why don't they try to publish their manuscript?
 21st January 2020, 08:19 PM #1320 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by Belz... Marvelous. Then I'm sure you can explain it here. That's what I've been doing for the last 40 days here on IS + former 90 days of CQ...

International Skeptics Forum