Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics

[Robin]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Ah ok so a bond is a force...

Yes, exactly the same kind of bond that keeps your star together.

Quote:

There is indeed a force between particles. The group of particles create a stronger force and so on. If you see the star as a giant particle then it's exactly the same thing.

No, a star is a large object composed of particles.

Quote:

But the difference is at the atomic level, the subatomic particles aren't linked with gravity but with nuclear forces.

No, gravity is too weak to hold a star together.

In any case it makes no difference. The angular velocity of a star is simply an emergent property composed of all the individual accelerations between particles just as it is in my models.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

No. Spin can exist within a reference frame. It requires an inertial energy and a centripetal force (in the case of a star, that would be gravity).



Spin is one of the few kinds of motion that CAN be detected entirely within a reference frame.



Let me make it easy for you:



Imagine a centrifuge spinning in deep space (but in this universe).



Its spin is easily observable and stuff sticks to the perimeter because of the centrifugal force. Even if you are on board the centrifuge, you will easily observe the spin (centrifugal force, Coriolis force).



Now build a box around the centrifuge. This is a virtual universe; nothing of the outside can be observed from within, nothing of the inside can be observed from without.



Do you think the conditions inside the centrifuge will be changed by that?



Hans

The conditions inside the centrifuge will not be affected by a box. Why would they?

Regarding the spinning star, I can add that if the plasma is successfully ejected then that implies there’s an absolute grid with hardcoded axes in the universe with specific directions. If that’s the case we could “reverse engineer” the plasma speed to figure out the absolute “spacetime grid”.

See that it makes no sense.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

The conditions inside the centrifuge will not be affected by a box. Why would they?

Regarding the spinning star, I can add that if the plasma is successfully ejected then that implies there’s an absolute grid with hardcoded axes in the universe with specific directions. If that’s the case we could “reverse engineer” the plasma speed to figure out the absolute “spacetime grid”.

See that it makes no sense.

Thanks for the tutorial on the physics of your magic universe.

Back in the real universe, collections of boxes containing ejecting plasma will define as many axes as there are boxes. Leading to a spaghetti grid.

[abaddon]

Intriguing. In this thread, we have a proponent of a Finite theory of everything.

In another thread, we have a proponent of infinity as a theory of everything.

What might happen if we put them together?

Suggestions welcome.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Intriguing. In this thread, we have a proponent of a Finite theory of everything.

In another thread, we have a proponent of infinity as a theory of everything.

What might happen if we put them together?

Suggestions welcome.

“Finite” in Finite Theory means that it is a deductive theory and that there is no “leaks” like wormholes and other parallel universes.

But in terms of dimensions, it implies the visible universe to be part of a much bigger invisible universe.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

T
Regarding the spinning star, I can add that if the plasma is successfully ejected then that implies there’s an absolute grid with hardcoded axes in the universe with specific directions. If that’s the case we could “reverse engineer” the plasma speed to figure out the absolute “spacetime grid”.

No, all it implies is that it is possible in any frame to measure acceleration of one body relative to another body.

As I said, angular velocity is simply the high level behaviour that results from lots of particle interactions.

There is nothing that has to figure out how to spin, all it takes is for a bunch of particles to act according to the lower level laws of physics, viewed from any reference frame they will act the same.

With my spinning particles, I can swap in any basis vectors and the result is the same because all that is required for there to be a "spin" is for the particles to accelerate relative to each other, not relative to anything else.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

- All bodies got their own frame of reference
- The importance of the frame of reference is given by the amplitude of the mass of the body

So:
- if you have only 1 star then there will be only 1 frame of reference;
- if you have 1 galaxy in the real visible universe then the galaxy's frame of reference will influence the rotation curve of the galaxy.

That is why:
- it's impossible to have a geostationary altitude with only 1 star;
- it's impossible the plasma will be ejected by a spinning lonely star.

What this tells me is that (a) you aren't able to comprehend the idea that a star is an extended, composite object, and (b) you have no idea what a frame of reference is.

Dave

[Darat]

philippeb8, not direct at your theory but why do you think you alone in the world has come up with this theory and why do you think other people haven't taken up your theory?

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

I know everybody was online so that's why it counted.

You just demonstrated, again, non-critical thinking. People often times leave their computer on and logged onto a website.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Darat

philippeb8, not direct at your theory but why do you think you alone in the world has come up with this theory and why do you think other people haven't taken up your theory?

Because I realized at a young age both politicians and the entire academia have a tendency to brainwash us for their agenda.

Also people haven’t taken up the theory because they are too egocentric to admit they have been playing the game their entire lives.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

What this tells me is that (a) you aren't able to comprehend the idea that a star is an extended, composite object, and (b) you have no idea what a frame of reference is.



Dave

a) I said previously the particles will crash on each other and not rotate around each other. It’s the same thing with a pair of stars in an empty universe; they will crash on each other because the frame of reference is also spinning;

b) again, the most massive object will have the most influential frame of reference. In practice this is because this object emits the most important number of gravitons.

[Pixel42]

"They come here, they all come here. How do they find me?" Max Bialystock.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

a) I said previously the particles will crash on each other and not rotate around each other. It’s the same thing with a pair of stars in an empty universe; they will crash on each other because the frame of reference is also spinning;

b) again, the most massive object will have the most influential frame of reference. In practice this is because this object emits the most important number of gravitons.

There's no need to add further proof, thanks.

Dave

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Because I realized at a young age both politicians and the entire academia have a tendency to brainwash us for their agenda.

Also people haven’t taken up the theory because they are too egocentric to admit they have been playing the game their entire lives.

I predict that none of your “breakthrough” ideas will end up in physics textbooks, except perhaps as exercises to highlight sloppy logic and woolly thinking.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

I predict that none of your “breakthrough” ideas will end up in physics textbooks, except perhaps as exercises to highlight sloppy logic and woolly thinking.

See that’s the difference between the IT industry and “theoretical physics”. In the IT if you create a software that ultra-complex but doesn’t work then you get fired. In theoretical physics you win the Nobel Prize.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

See that’s the difference between the IT industry and “theoretical physics”. In the IT if you create a software that ultra-complex but doesn’t work then you get fired. In theoretical physics you win the Nobel Prize.

In IT, management take the decision to purchase the ultra complex software that doesn't work without consulting the people who have to use it this making the developers rich.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

See that’s the difference between the IT industry and “theoretical physics”. In the IT if you create a software that ultra-complex but doesn’t work then you get fired. In theoretical physics you win the Nobel Prize.

I predict that scientists called physicists will make discoveries that lead to a whole new economic sector, called IT.

No, wait ... that can’t possibly be true, can it?

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

I predict that scientists called physicists will make discoveries that lead to a whole new economic sector, called IT.



No, wait ... that can’t possibly be true, can it?

There’s a difference between physicists and theoretical physicists aka astrophysicists.

I sent countless number of emails to the Perimeter Institute and the Kavli Institute and I never got any answer despite being an honest taxpayer...

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

There’s a difference between physicists and theoretical physicists aka astrophysicists.

I sent countless number of emails to the Perimeter Institute and the Kavli Institute and I never got any answer despite being an honest taxpayer...

Dirac, Heisenberg, Sommerfeld, ... Einstein ... yep, no theoretical physics in any of their papers, and certainly no astrophysics!

But I wonder, how important is their work, in terms of establishing the foundations of what we call IT today?

[Humots]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

There’s a difference between physicists and theoretical physicists aka astrophysicists.

I sent countless number of emails to the Perimeter Institute and the Kavli Institute and I never got any answer despite being an honest taxpayer...

I've read that MIT receives a lot of messages, and that one of them contained a passage saying something like:

Einstein says "E = MC²."

Pythagoras says "C² = A² + B²."

It therefore follows that "E = M(A² + B²)."

I suspect that philippeb8's email was similar.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Humots

I've read that MIT receives a lot of messages, and that one of them contained a passage saying something like:



Einstein says "E = MC²."



Pythagoras says "C² = A² + B²."



It therefore follows that "E = M(A² + B²)."



I suspect that philippeb8's email was similar.

Well it’s better than concluding there are 11 dimensions...

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Dirac, Heisenberg, Sommerfeld, ... Einstein ... yep, no theoretical physics in any of their papers, and certainly no astrophysics!



But I wonder, how important is their work, in terms of establishing the foundations of what we call IT today?

Because of these wrong foundations it become harder to undo them...!

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Because of these wrong foundations it become harder to undo them...!

Of course! Why didn’t I think of that?

The reason why we don’t have semiconductors, MRI machines, or GPS is because, well, E=mc³.

So good to know that is why I can’t write this post and send it using the, um, intermet

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Of course! Why didn’t I think of that?



The reason why we don’t have semiconductors, MRI machines, or GPS is because, well, E=mc³.



So good to know that is why I can’t write this post and send it using the, um, intermet

The GPS is nothing compared to what we could achieve:
- faster than light speed
- time travel into the future
- levitation

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

The GPS is nothing compared to what we could achieve:
- faster than light speed
- time travel into the future
- levitation

Levitation. Oh yeah.

Where's that chair I pulled up for the other thread?

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

The GPS is nothing compared to what we could achieve:
- faster than light speed
- time travel into the future
- levitation

I time travel into the future all the time. Don't you?

(I guess I won't see you there if you don't, so in that case, bye.)

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Myriad

I time travel into the future all the time. Don't you?

(I guess I won't see you there if you don't, so in that case, bye.)

Actually time travel into the future is the easiest to achieve by sending a higher flux of gravitons through a body and therefore achieving perfect cryonics for those who needs to be kept alive for a cure we do not yet have:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Actually time travel into the future is the easiest to achieve by sending a higher flux of gravitons through a body and therefore achieving perfect cryonics for those who needs to be kept alive for a cure we do not yet have:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics

A fifth of tequila is much cheaper, and entertains others while you journey to tomorrow

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Thermal

A fifth of tequila is much cheaper, and entertains others while you journey to tomorrow

Lol. I need a lot of them just to get warmed up... it’s not cheap for me!

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Lol. I need a lot of them just to get warmed up... it’s not cheap for me!

How cheap it ends up being has more to do with your self respect. I don't mind paying the toll with my soul for a wormhole roll.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

The GPS is nothing compared to what we could achieve:
- faster than light speed
- time travel into the future
- levitation

The power of the mind is unbeatable.

Especially if it is left to others to make it really.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

There’s a difference between physicists and theoretical physicists aka astrophysicists.

I sent countless number of emails to the Perimeter Institute and the Kavli Institute and I never got any answer despite being an honest taxpayer...

most astrophysicists are not theoretical physicists

[Darat]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Because I realized at a young age both politicians and the entire academia have a tendency to brainwash us for their agenda.

Also people haven’t taken up the theory because they are too egocentric to admit they have been playing the game their entire lives.

Thank you for answering, that told me everything I needed to know.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

I specifically said the speed of the particle is calculated using SR so obviously the predicted time dilation will match SR's predictions only.

That is wrong, philippeb8. SR is not only time dilation. Einstein in 1905 derived a relativistic theory that replaced classical mechanics and included aspects such as relativistic kinetic energy, E=mc^2, length contraction, and time dilation.. Then we have 114 years of empirical evidence that SR is correct because it works. Frisch & Smith in 1963 had 58 years of evidence that the parts of SR hat they used to calculate muon speeds worked. They used the known to be working parts of SR to test time dilation.

We have other tests that show time dilations works as in SR. Start with Tests of special relativity that show SR in general is correct. Then learn Experimental testing of time dilation

What does your "Kinematical Time Dilation" predict for the Frisch-Smith experiment on time dilation?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Reality Check already threw in the towel so I wish you good luck; I'll wait.

That is wrong, philippeb8. I have read what you have written here and about your FT idea and it is obviously wrong because of ignorance and not matching the real world. I will contuse to point out any more ignorance and errors you write. So far I have

1. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant gibberish that gravitons "technically define the frame of reference"
2. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant "Masses all have their own reference frame" gibberish
3. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: An incoherent scenario that is not really a "thought experiment".
4. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that a spinning star's shape is perfectly spherical? Or an silly attempt to change his incoherent scenario?
5. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that spinning stars will never eject plasma.
6. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: FT Theory: A "Kinematical Time Dilation" delusion (does not match the real world).
7. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: Nonsensical, irrelevant question about his incoherent star scenario.
8. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: Nonsensical, irrelevant question about his incoherent star scenario.
9. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: "Particles going at the speed of light" ignorance and "samplings & statistics" = "great uncertainty" idiocy.
10. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: Cannot understand how his "geostationary altitude" question is nonsense and irrelevant (the question answered !)

To be added: 8 December 2019 philippeb8: A "time dilation" equation that does not match the real world measurements of time dilation.
Plus the error making up an equation and never testing it - that is not science.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

I said the reference frame will be spinning with the star explaining why the fire (or plasma) cannot be ejected.

That is very wrong, philippeb8. We can select a reference frame that is not spinning with the star and plasma will be ejected. According to you, plasma will be both not ejected and ejected !
Rotating reference frame

Quote:

All non-inertial reference frames exhibit fictitious forces; rotating reference frames are characterized by three:[1]

• the centrifugal force,
• the Coriolis force,

and, for non-uniformly rotating reference frames,

• the Euler force.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

- All bodies got their own frame of reference...

8 December 2019 philippeb8: Repeated ignorance about what an frame of reference is (observers have their own frame of reference).

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

That is wrong, philippeb8. SR is not only time dilation. Einstein in 1905 derived a relativistic theory that replaced classical mechanics and included aspects such as relativistic kinetic energy, E=mc^2, length contraction, and time dilation.. Then we have 114 years of empirical evidence that SR is correct because it works. Frisch & Smith in 1963 had 58 years of evidence that the parts of SR hat they used to calculate muon speeds worked. They used the known to be working parts of SR to test time dilation.



We have other tests that show time dilations works as in SR. Start with Tests of special relativity that show SR in general is correct. Then learn Experimental testing of time dilation



What does your "Kinematical Time Dilation" predict for the Frisch-Smith experiment on time dilation?

Reality Check either knows he’s wrong and is in a denial or knows he’s wrong and decided to blur the evidence. Either way Reality Check knows he’s wrong for sure.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

You need to take the "spacetime curvature" out of your mind 1 sec. And also the kappa fudge factor to make Einstein's calculations work correctly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant

8 December 2019 philippeb8: Gibberish about GR in reply to a question about his scenario (why conditions are different)
He has a universe empty except for a star that has plasma and can be spinning. And that is all he says!

A real star in this universe cannot exist with only classical physics. A main sequence star such as the Sun needs nuclear fusion, nuclear fusion needs E=mc^2 from SR ! Neutrons star need more nuclear physics with SR. If this star is a black hole then we have GR!
P.S. One of the first detections of gravitational redshift was by looking at the spectra of a white dwarf star.

A "kappa fudge factor" delusion when he links to Einstein's constant where kappa is a constant introduced to make the Einstein field equation simpler. The Einstein tensor and stress–energy tensor are proportional. We can introduce kappa as the proportionality constant Kappa also has the advantage that if we change the units of the stress–energy tensor, the Einstein field equation does not change.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

In the IT if you create a software that ultra-complex but doesn’t work then you get fired. In theoretical physics you win the Nobel Prize.

8 December 2019 philippeb8: Abysmal "In theoretical physics you win the Nobel Prize" for non-working physics ignorance.

Nobel Prize in Physics

Quote:

The Nobel Prize in Physics is a yearly award given by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for those who have made the most outstanding contributions for mankind in the field of physics.

Nobel prizes are awards to people who have made the most outstanding contributions that have been shown to be working, usually by decades of empirical data. If they do not work, they are not outstanding contributions !

For example, Peter Higgs and François Englert predicted the Higgs boson in the 1960s. They were not immediately awarded the Nobel Prize just because they made a prediction from theory. They got the Nobel Prize 50 years later in 2013 when the Higgs boson was discovered.