String Theory is Doomed - offshoot from Null Physics thread

MainframeX

Scholar
M
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
52
Because it was suggested to start a new thread from the following:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4296847&posted=1#post4296847

sol invictus said:
Don't worry, you're not capable of making me look bad.

First of all, "currently unverifiable" is completely different from "untestable and thus unverifiable and concludes with no predictable results", which is what you said. That's called shifting the goal posts.

Second, the wiki is wrong for several reasons.
  1. every new theory is not verified when it is proposed - how could it be, if it's a new theory? So when it's first proposed it's always "currently unverifiable".
  2. string theory is not really one theory - it's a collection of theories - and some of those are verifiable as soon as the LHC starts up, which will be soon, and some others are verifiable using cosmological data right now.
  3. the Popperian definition of scientific theory, which is probably the best one, is not that at theory be verifiable, it's that a theory be falsifiable. All versions of string theory could be falsified tomorrow, in quite a few different ways.
  4. no theory can every be truly "verified" - one can have very high confidence in it, but it can never be proven. In fact if any theory was every truly proven it would no longer be falsifiable, and hence not science.

Anyway, this discussion is completely off topic in this thread. If you want to continue it, start a new thread and quote these posts. Otherwise it should stop, as it violates the rules of this board.
Click to expand...

In order for string theory or any scientific theory to be "falsifiable" or "verifiable" it must be "testable" and for it to be testable it must conclude with "predictions" either mathematically or experimentally (both relating to physical context) so that the predictions can be proven false or positive. It isn't that hard.

What?! The LHC is testing predictions in the Standard Model (one specifically is the Higgs boson) not string theory predictions of which none exist. There is only one test, if they decide to run it or observe (or can observe it) that can possibly disprove string theory based on some imaginary, poor, choppy string theory mathematics and interpretations of this math. If the LHC detects short-lived "mini black holes" then maybe it will hold some merit, but honestly I think its doomed on this claim. I think its an publicity effort in order to be involved somehow with the multi-million dollar LHC project. My opinion string theory is dead and I for one have gone elsewhere in search for my answers to existence. I hold much more promise in my own theories than string theory (www[dot]gpofr[dot]com) because you can at least test them and the math is more compelling...no it's not a theory of everything but in my opinion it unites charge with mass essentially quantum physics with Newtonian, Einsteinian physics at a very fundamental level (at least the math shows this very simplistically that a 12 year old can easily understand it) which string theory has never done with any mathematics to prove it, but you don't have to take my word for it and it is just a "theory". I research physics for the shear pleasure of it and I do get very passionate about it. I do respect the string theories mathematical contributions and work of doctors Smolin and Kaku and even that of Mr. Witt (once I get to reading it). I actually don't think anyone is wrong in the approach to deciphering physics and strongly advocate different perspectives, but what I am strongly against are institutions favoring one theory over another especially if the "favoured" theory has run 40 years untested. Statistically perhaps I'm not as well informed as you, or perhaps I'm putting to much emphasis in relation to my own personal experiences with string theory and my own knowledge of the scientific market.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm not trying to make you look bad by countering your opinion but I am entitled to mine opinion.

I did lookup some other sources to support my claims to string theories "unverifiableness". Wikipedia under the classification of "theory" states the following:

en[dot]wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/Theory

"Currently unverifiable theories
The term theory is regularly stretched to refer to speculation that is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything. In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable). It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future."

Though I'd take Wikipedia with a grain of salt as well so consider the following:

www[dot]google[dot]ca/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMI_enCA306CA306&q="string+th eory"+unverifiable&btnG=Search&meta=

And the only reason I said "I know" is because I've worked with string theory.
 
con't the thread transfer

MainframeX said:
I dont know where you're getting your information, but string theory, under the scientific method, is untestable and thus unverifiable and concludes with no predictable results...I know. String theory has not predicted a single thing that can be verified over the last 40 years so no there has been no "viable" applications arising from it. Under all intents and purposes it shouldn't be considered a scientific "theory" at all. You got one thing right, it was popular and has been championed by individuals like Dr. Michio Kaku who walks a fine line on fringe science with books such as "Physics of the Impossible", which I found fascinating though highly "imaginary" and yes I know it was an exploratory work. If you're going to talk about Dr. Lee Smolin might as well bring Dr. Kaku up. Both research what they want and perhaps both conclude with "imaginary mathematics" but I seriously doubt that Dr. Kaku is more respected than Dr. Smolin and I for one respect both of them.

You know imaginary mathematics I can guarantee this (you're a smart individual) though you might not be obviously aware of it. I was fortunate that one of my physics professors instilled this in me many years ago. "Imaginary" mathematics has to do with the context of the math. A very simple example that describes imaginary mathematics is the following: "Johnny has (or dreams of) 3 pink flying elephants." The math is correct (there are 3) but the context is completely imaginary. To make this a bit more complex, physics is not a direct representation of math. Math is a direct representation of physics. If it doesn't exist in the physical, mathematics cannot readily define it and runs the risk of becoming imaginary contextually. And this is where string theory has fallen in regards to its coupling of individual verifiable physics theories. Without any verifiable experimentation, string theory's context has become imaginary. No mainstream physics theory, even theoretical should be unverifiable and much less run for 40 years under this same premise. Einstein's theory of relativity ran many years without verification but it wasn't 40 years and besides that Einstein never lost touch with the physically "real" of his physics context. I'll be the first to say string theory had a good start. The idea of string theory was highly promising before everyone and their uncle decided to add their own interpretation. It has become very ugly and highly imaginary.

And in regards to mathematical awards. Good for them. The mathematics in string theory is complex and the fact it has "sparked a revolution in a major field of mathematics - algebraic geometry" is good for mathematics but not for physics. You can't lose touch with the physical context in physics otherwise it's just math...most likely imaginary.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by MainframeX said:
If you're apt enough to understand the complexity of string theory then it is a definite nice to have on any resume demonstrating a level of intelligence in abstract thinking and mathematics, but the unfortunate aspect is that those who study string theory are taught to think that string theory will result in a grand unification theory for all of physics but has so far only resulted in a very ugly disjointed ensemble of imaginary mathematics with no practical possibility for application.
Click to expand...

That's a very bold claim you're making! String theory is "imaginary mathematics" - whatever in the world that means - with "no practical possibility for application". And precisely how are you in a position to know that? Is that what Smolin told you to think?

Quote:
Perhaps Dr. Smolin is overzealous in his string theory claims but you can't absolutely disprove his claims especial in regards to preference of one candidate over another unless you work for a national job board catering to physicists.
Click to expand...

Smolin has made claims as extreme as that no one but a string theorist had been hired in years - I'd have to dig up the precise quote, but it was blatantly false. Most of the time he's talking to people that have no other immediate source of information and believe him based on his credentials, so he can get away with it.

Quote:
I will stick to the fact that string theory has been promoted by mainstream physics as an acceptable field of theoretical research while alternative venues are frowned upon such as Dr Smolin's quantum gravity theory.
Click to expand...

That's a far cry from your original claim. Now tell me - who, precisely, would you like to have making such decisions if not physicists? Would you put Smolin in charge, to decide who to hire and what people should work on? Or a committee of non-experts? What will they tell young Ph.D. students that decide on their own that they want to study string theory - no, it's forbidden? You seem to find physicists and their professional opinions - the people whose careers depend on this, who are the experts, spend their days and nights working on the topic, struggling for jobs and publications, who have the most at stake - to be misguided fools in need of some advice. It's really weird.

Quote:
You can't content the masses from thinking outside the box of mainstream opinion especially in regards to theoretical research. My main point here is that string theory has failed to produce anything predictable or application worthy over the course of almost 40 years but an ugly mishmash of imaginary mathematics.
Click to expand...

Again, "imaginary mathematics". FYI string theory has produced several Fields medalists - that's the highest award in math, analogous to the Nobel prize (there isn't one for math), except awarded only once every four years rather than every year. Two string theorists got it, and at least one other mathematician working on string theory. The truth is that ST sparked a revolution in a major field of mathematics - algebraic geometry - and has lead directly to some of the most exciting developments in the entire field in the last two decades.

Moreover it's had broad and far-reaching applications to many areas of physics, from QCD (which was its original purpose) to gravity to nuclear physics to superconductivity and the quantum Hall effect. It's an extremely powerful and versatile theoretical tool - whether it is the correct theory of everything is another question entirely, but without doubt it has had a major impact and made major contributions to theoretical physics and mathematics.

None of that is true for loop quantum gravity. It has produced no mathematical insights, and it has no application to other fields. It is an obscure and small subfield that has gone nowhere.
 
Perhaps this is a derail of your derail, but you brought up your theory as "hugely significant" and in better shape than string theory, so here goes:

Oh, my. I went out and watched the video. You decided, for no particular reason that is stated, that the solar system is equivalent to an atom of beryllium, and using that as a basis to rationalize Newtonian and quantum mechanics, comparing the inner planets and the sun together as the nucleus and the four gas giants with electrons. You essentially did a numerologist's exercise and derived a magical constant S from that. No units mentioned - you seem to think of it as an absolute basic constant, not needing units. However, then we get to the part where you derive understanding equating Jupiter's mass with charge on an electron (in your own, slightly paraphrased words):

(4:36 in the video) I made another discovery, which was hugely significant and validated the initial premise that Jupiter and gas giants are electrons at the celestial scale. I grabbed Jupiter's mass and divided it by S squared and got 1.56e-19 kg. That value is very close, numerically to 1.6e-19 coulombs - an electron's charge. So, the mass equation, basically stated, is that mass at the celestial scale is charge at the quantum scale.
Click to expand...
This is just wonderful. Above and beyond the glaring inanity of this way of conducting physics, it would appear that S has the units of the square root of (mass divided by (current x time))? How does that work? In our mass equations you say it has no dimension, as you are using it to proportionalize mass to mass. Dimensionality is always preserved in physics; for example, e = mc^2 can be analyzed dimensionally as

Dimensionality of energy is mass x length^2 / time^2

velocity ("speed of light") is (length/time)
so mc^2 dimensionally is mass * length^2 / time^2. QED

How come you are exempt from such analysis?

Second question: have you tried it out on any other planetary systems? I admit a bit of a beg-the-question there, but I only point out that grand theories derived from a single case (when there are billions of potential cases remaining to be tested) are not very convincing. What are you going to say when the next planetary system turns out to have gas giants up close and comets on the outer orbits? Who becomes an electron then?

The truth of the matter is, you don't know what you are doing. The first chapter in the first college physics course addresses units and measurement, and at least tangentially, dimensional analysis. You failed that. And it goes on and on from there - your apparent disbelief that we know the orbit of Jupiter to greater accuracy than +/- 10%, even though we have satellites in orbit around it and have used its gravity to slingshot to Saturn and Uranus. Just amazing.
 
Last edited:
shadron said:
The truth of the matter is, you don't know what you are doing. The first chapter in the first college physics course addresses units and measurement, and at least tangentially, dimensional analysis. You failed that. And it goes on and on from there - your apparent disbelief that we know the orbit of Jupiter to greater accuracy than +/- 10%, even though we have satellites in orbit around it and have used its gravity to slingshot to Saturn and Uranus. Just amazing.
Click to expand...

No no no - you have it all wrong. MainframeX has discovered the profound connection between the mass of Jupiter and the charge of an electron that all those dumb string theorists (and the one or two other physicists there are) have been missing, with their "units" and "dimensional analysis". Their blind insistence on basic logical consistency has hampered us for too long!

If only s/he were in charge, none of those idiots would have been allowed to do their research - everyone would be working together on relating the mass of Saturn to the charge of the up quark!
 
Last edited:
shadron said:
Grumble - I still want to know what the square root of mass is. I suppose it'll wind up drafted into the SI, with honorary units named DeMelos.
Click to expand...
That one's easy - the square root of mass is the mass that when multiplied by itself gives you mass.:D
 
Personally I would like to know which elemental particle the International Space Station is "equivalent" to (or any of the many other man-made things that are in space).
Or what about the asteroid belt, the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud?
Why does his theory ignore Pluto? What about the larger moons such as Titan and Ganymede which are both heavier than Mercury?

This atom of beryllium is sure getting crowded!
 
shadron said:
Perhaps this is a derail of your derail, but you brought up your theory as "hugely significant" and in better shape than string theory, so here goes:

Oh, my. I went out and watched the video. You decided, for no particular reason that is stated, that the solar system is equivalent to an atom of beryllium, and using that as a basis to rationalize Newtonian and quantum mechanics, comparing the inner planets and the sun together as the nucleus and the four gas giants with electrons. You essentially did a numerologist's exercise and derived a magical constant S from that. No units mentioned - you seem to think of it as an absolute basic constant, not needing units. However, then we get to the part where you derive understanding equating Jupiter's mass with charge on an electron (in your own, slightly paraphrased words):

This is just wonderful. Above and beyond the glaring inanity of this way of conducting physics, it would appear that S has the units of the square root of (mass divided by (current x time))? How does that work? In our mass equations you say it has no dimension, as you are using it to proportionalize mass to mass. Dimensionality is always preserved in physics; for example, e = mc^2 can be analyzed dimensionally as

Dimensionality of energy is mass x length^2 / time^2

velocity ("speed of light") is (length/time)
so mc^2 dimensionally is mass * length^2 / time^2. QED

How come you are exempt from such analysis?

Second question: have you tried it out on any other planetary systems? I admit a bit of a beg-the-question there, but I only point out that grand theories derived from a single case (when there are billions of potential cases remaining to be tested) are not very convincing. What are you going to say when the next planetary system turns out to have gas giants up close and comets on the outer orbits? Who becomes an electron then?

The truth of the matter is, you don't know what you are doing. The first chapter in the first college physics course addresses units and measurement, and at least tangentially, dimensional analysis. You failed that. And it goes on and on from there - your apparent disbelief that we know the orbit of Jupiter to greater accuracy than +/- 10%, even though we have satellites in orbit around it and have used its gravity to slingshot to Saturn and Uranus. Just amazing.
Click to expand...

S is a scale value and scale doesn't have units. It's the scale difference between a Beryllium atom and the solar system...there's no magic it's that simple or perhaps it's too complicated for you. The math involved is soo elementary that you'd have to be pretty simple minded not to understand it.

By finding a relation between Jupiter and an electron, even if it sounds crazy, is a direct link between mass and charge...the holy grail of physics.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
No no no - you have it all wrong. MainframeX has discovered the profound connection between the mass of Jupiter and the charge of an electron that all those dumb string theorists (and the one or two other physicists there are) have been missing, with their "units" and "dimensional analysis". Their blind insistence on basic logical consistency has hampered us for too long!

If only s/he were in charge, none of those idiots would have been allowed to do their research - everyone would be working together on relating the mass of Saturn to the charge of the up quark!
Click to expand...

Beats the hell out of me why this relation wasn't discovered before...I mean it is really simple. And I am a string theorist...correction I was.
 
Jesus Christ! Scale values don't have units! If you watched the video...and hear it...you'd know I said "scale".
 
This so far is hilarious. We're digressing away from string theory viability and 40s years of untested existence to nitpick my theories. That's ok. You can nit pick at my theories it doesn't matter to me...and really it doesn't especially if you missed the fact that S is a scale value and far more importantly that you don't realize scale has no units. I have several Canadian institutions looking at them right now with a bit of interest. Will this little discovery lead to something...I don't know. Perhaps. I for one find it fascinating at how interesting our universe might be in this regard.

Accounting for Pluto and other smaller celestial masses (dwarf planets), rock planets and the asteroid belts (dwarf planets are part of the asteroid belts including pluto) it's all in the theory. Only gas giants are relative electrons. It sounds all crazy, but it's a hypothesis that was validated with the simplest of mathematics. The two outer gas giants are relative valance electrons and do have a significant size difference from Jupiter and Saturn. Beryllium has 2 valence electrons.
 
Last edited:
Er, if you don't want your theories to be nitpicked, or specifically, viewed to see if they're reliable or not, then what chance in hell do you think they have?
 
Reality Check said:
Personally I would like to know which elemental particle the International Space Station is "equivalent" to (or any of the many other man-made things that are in space).
Or what about the asteroid belt, the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud?
Why does his theory ignore Pluto? What about the larger moons such as Titan and Ganymede which are both heavier than Mercury?

This atom of beryllium is sure getting crowded!
Click to expand...

You're poking fun, but actually those are good questions and I am wrestling with them. So, based on a lot of research, I believe that satellites orbiting any planet forms a collective system and thus contribute to the collective perception of the planet's mass just as the inner solar system is relative to the nucleus of an atom. Basically orbital systems are perceived as unitary objects much like an atom (with all of it's orbiting electrons) is a fundamental unitary element.

Honestly I do believe I stumbled on something and I am looking for legitimate assistance to further develop this theory (one of many in my ebook).
 
Last edited:
Lonewulf said:
Er, if you don't want your theories to be nitpicked, or specifically, viewed to see if they're reliable or not, then what chance in hell do you think they have?
Click to expand...

No you got me wrong. I do expect criticism and and it ultimately it is constructive but I do expect it to be somewhat intelligible by individuals who understand scale has no units. Physicists tend to be though on each other so perhaps my defense can be a bit rash.
 
So are we going to discuss string theory and 40 years of untestable existence? And the claims, which I share somewhat, from Dr. Lee Smolin that string theory has stagnated a generation of physicists by pursing an idea which has lead to no predictable results and that preference if given to physicists that know string theory in regards to theoretical research jobs over the course of this claimed generation. Sol (forum member) has put up some interesting counter arguments which I don't exactly share does anyone else have anything to say?
 
MainframeX said:
So are we going to discuss string theory and 40 years of untestable existence? And the claims, which I share somewhat, from Dr. Lee Smolin that string theory has stagnated a generation of physicists by pursing an idea which has lead to no predictable results and that preference if given to physicists that know string theory in regards to theoretical research jobs over the course of this claimed generation. Sol (forum member) has put up some interesting counter arguments which I don't exactly share does anyone else have anything to say?
Click to expand...
Yes we are (now that we have poked fun at the crackpot physics site that you pointed us to).

It is more exact to say that string theory is nice mathematical framework for what may be the next step in physics. It has produced a large body of interesting mathematics. Its problem is that is has not (yet) produced testable and falsifiable predictions. It may or may not produce results in the future. The fact that the many theories in the "string theory" umbrella has have produced results in the last 40 years does not mean anything.

If you have a figure for the length of time that a theory should be developed without predictable results before being discarded then perhaps you should enlighten us.

Dr. Lee Smolin's opinion is just that - an opinion. "stagnated a generation of physicists" is definitely wrong and possibly a misquote since the number of string theorists is a small faction of the number pf physicists working in the last 40 years.
 
MainframeX said:
By finding a relation between Jupiter and an electron, even if it sounds crazy, is a direct link between mass and charge...the holy grail of physics.
Click to expand...

Erm. Why the mass of Jupter in kg?You do realise that the kg is a unit of human conveinience right? And thus of no fundamental significance to physics whatsoever.
 
Tubbythin said:
Erm. Why the mass of Jupter in kg?You do realise that the kg is a unit of human conveinience right? And thus of no fundamental significance to physics whatsoever.
Click to expand...

He's right about scale. It doesn't have to be kg or ounces. Scale is the relative difference. If you compare Jupiter to the sun you get the same answer in either kg or ounces.

@MainframeX

I have issues with string theory myself and Lee Smolin's articulated it quiet well. I have just as many issues with the way many anti-string theorist rail against it. sol invictus was technically correct in the OP quote. Quote selections from Lee Smolin's can be selectively used as debate fodder in a string theory sling match. However, remember that Smolin's is a string theorist and is not "against" string theory. He spends quiet a bit of time in the first chapter of his book explaining this. By no means would I suggest a wholesale abandonment of everything string theorist have contributed.

For these reasons I am slow to consider jumping on your wagon and discussing issues with string theory without knowing more about your reasoning. Since you did plug your theory in the OP it is perfectly legitimate for me to go there for clues to your perspective, and take issue with it here.

I was willing to download the eBooks but... uh.. never mind. So I watched the video and went over the flash version. The superfluous content did not make it any easier, such as pg. 58:

We are our own worst enemy. Why? Everything we touch, ends up damaged or killed including our neighbors. We've been like a virus on this planet and most certainly would be one in the Universe.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that relates to a theory of any kind.

Then there are straight up misquoted empirical details like pg. 79:
As symmetrically elegant as the Lorentz equations are, they have one significant problem, velocity of an object can be greater than c as seen by an observer from a stationary location and it has been postulated in this collective theory that an object traveling near c would appear to the stationary observer to be reduced in scale by a factor of S=c^?.
Click to expand...

I couldn't read the exponent. This is exactly the opposite of what Relativity says. No observer of any kind can observe anything moving faster than the speed of light. There is even an addition of velocities equation that explains this. For instance suppose your sitting in ship A. Ship B and C are moving away from you in the same direction. You see B moving away from you at 160,000 km/sec. The captain of ship B sees C moving away from B at 160,000 km/sec. Under Relativity that means C is moving away from you at 250,000 km/sec.

You--------------------B-----------------------C
^---160,000 km/sec--> ^---160,000 km/sec--> ^
^---------------250,000 km/sec--------------> ^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

I don't even want to know what you meant by quoting the myth of the "stationary observer". You state that your density operators are not necessarily in contradiction with General Relativity (GR). Yet do you have a clue how the curvature of space, as defined by GR, relates to density operators?

I prefer direct points rather than argue esoteric concepts that may or may not be relevant to the central thesis. This was provided in your youtube video when I caught a statement that cuts the the heart of your theories claim (video ucRuZ9lKM0s at time stamp 5:35):

So if I put two Jupiter's together they would also repel each other.
<snip>
Objects of similar size and density would repel each other and object of significantly different size and density would attract each other.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the Eotvos experiment? In fact every laboratory level experiment I have any knowledge of to measure the Gravitation constant used essentially identical masses. They do not repel. It is such a fundamental empirical fact (not theory) that this claims exceeds all bounds of credulity. In fact this irrevocably breaks your theory. I therefore submit that my reticence toward discussing string theory issues is well founded.
 
Reality Check said:
Yes we are (now that we have poked fun at the crackpot physics site that you pointed us to).

It is more exact to say that string theory is nice mathematical framework for what may be the next step in physics. It has produced a large body of interesting mathematics. Its problem is that is has not (yet) produced testable and falsifiable predictions. It may or may not produce results in the future. The fact that the many theories in the "string theory" umbrella has have produced results in the last 40 years does not mean anything.

If you have a figure for the length of time that a theory should be developed without predictable results before being discarded then perhaps you should enlighten us.

Dr. Lee Smolin's opinion is just that - an opinion. "stagnated a generation of physicists" is definitely wrong and possibly a misquote since the number of string theorists is a small faction of the number pf physicists working in the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

I think all physicists are crackpots...I know a lot of them. Especially those that decide to support string theory which included me actually. The term "crackpot" is scapegoat-generalizing terminology and used loosely in order to classify anyone generally if they "appear" to be outside the norm even if the claim is very elementary a 12 year old can understand it. Dr Smolin (quantum gravity theory) is therefore a crackpot and especially so is Dr. Kaku (books like "Physics of the Impossible") with their own sites to boot. To be "crackish" you have to be an individual who is unwilling to change his opinion on his own theories or modify them even if overwhelming evidence and logical reasoning is given to the contrary. Does that include everyone who blindly believes in string theory where the most overwhelming evidence countering string theory is its own 40s years of untestable existence. Trust me, I'm easily swayed if the reasoning is good. Fortunately Canadians are a little more intelligent and reserved in the use of the term "crackpot".

The truth is 40s years of unsupported testable physics is a huge farce and a pity many of you have been brainwashed to it, but I know its allure. It, just like Mr Witt's book, has been promoted extensively sparked in the 80s by the media before it had any testable and verified merit. You should never go the media before you can test your theory right? Wrong! You decide. The math in string theory may have been inspirational to mathematicians but not physicists. It's coupling is absolutely imaginary in order to tie together independent verified physics theories but yet it doesn't explain forces (any of them) what they really are. Instead it a maps them geometrically. An analogy is like asking someone to fuse together 5 lead blocks. So he sets out and builds a geometric contraption (rig) made of iron and inserts the lead blocks and calls that fusing but what he should have done was melt the lead blocks for form one uniform big lead block. The individual in this analogy missed the fact that lead can be melted a key component to fusing. It's like screwing metal rods together instead of welding them and then forming a car from it and calling it safe. It's like the gentleman who's been building a flying car for the last 20 years (who's been in popsci numerous times) claiming the flying car is finished but hasn't had a successful test flight in 20 years...does he really have a flying car? No if it doesn't fully work.

You guys are fun.
Anyway that's my take.
 
my_wan said:
He's right about scale. It doesn't have to be kg or ounces. Scale is the relative difference. If you compare Jupiter to the sun you get the same answer in either kg or ounces.

@MainframeX

I have issues with string theory myself and Lee Smolin's articulated it quiet well. I have just as many issues with the way many anti-string theorist rail against it. sol invictus was technically correct in the OP quote. Quote selections from Lee Smolin's can be selectively used as debate fodder in a string theory sling match. However, remember that Smolin's is a string theorist and is not "against" string theory. He spends quiet a bit of time in the first chapter of his book explaining this. By no means would I suggest a wholesale abandonment of everything string theorist have contributed.

For these reasons I am slow to consider jumping on your wagon and discussing issues with string theory without knowing more about your reasoning. Since you did plug your theory in the OP it is perfectly legitimate for me to go there for clues to your perspective, and take issue with it here.

I was willing to download the eBooks but... uh.. never mind. So I watched the video and went over the flash version. The superfluous content did not make it any easier, such as pg. 58:



I'm not sure how that relates to a theory of any kind.

Then there are straight up misquoted empirical details like pg. 79:


I couldn't read the exponent. This is exactly the opposite of what Relativity says. No observer of any kind can observe anything moving faster than the speed of light. There is even an addition of velocities equation that explains this. For instance suppose your sitting in ship A. Ship B and C are moving away from you in the same direction. You see B moving away from you at 160,000 km/sec. The captain of ship B sees C moving away from B at 160,000 km/sec. Under Relativity that means C is moving away from you at 250,000 km/sec.

You--------------------B-----------------------C
^---160,000 km/sec--> ^---160,000 km/sec--> ^
^---------------250,000 km/sec--------------> ^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

I don't even want to know what you meant by quoting the myth of the "stationary observer". You state that your density operators are not necessarily in contradiction with General Relativity (GR). Yet do you have a clue how the curvature of space, as defined by GR, relates to density operators?

I prefer direct points rather than argue esoteric concepts that may or may not be relevant to the central thesis. This was provided in your youtube video when I caught a statement that cuts the the heart of your theories claim (video ucRuZ9lKM0s at time stamp 5:35):



Ever heard of the Eotvos experiment? In fact every laboratory level experiment I have any knowledge of to measure the Gravitation constant used essentially identical masses. They do not repel. It is such a fundamental empirical fact (not theory) that this claims exceeds all bounds of credulity. In fact this irrevocably breaks your theory. I therefore submit that my reticence toward discussing string theory issues is well founded.
Click to expand...

Sorry you're misinterpreting the Eotvos experiment completely. That's a test for inertial mass vs gravitational mass. All gravity experiments are variations of the Cavendish experiment that uses a small lead sphere with another much bigger lead sphere. All Cavendish type experiments are the same in structure. The big sphere is used because its gravitation force (acceleration) is stronger and results in better experimentation. This does contradict the current norm, but is exact as it pertains to wave theory and my theory that all matter vibrates space-time thus two exact matter objects produce the same vibrations that cancel (total destructive interference) each other out resulting in repulsion. Object of different size (same material) attract because their vibration of space-time results in constructive interference (just like static charge).

My relativity theory is very, very close to that of Einstein's but considers space-time as a "distortable" aether substance. As A moves away from B, A's velocity increases via acceleration and acceleration (in my theory) distorts space-time making it denser for A (more kinetic energy) as opposed to it's own previous velocity in relation to space-time aether and point B. It's a slight modification with big ramifications.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
If you have a figure for the length of time that a theory should be developed without predictable results before being discarded then perhaps you should enlighten us.
Click to expand...

No I don't have a length of time that a theory should be developed without predictable results before it gets exuberant media attention than joe blow's theory and is preferred by mainstream science as an acceptable field of research over other "crackpots". That is actually a good question to ask me since I am denouncing string theory. Honestly. What is an acceptable time limit? 10, 20, 30, 40 years? ... An average person's life span? Do the originators of string theory have to die in order for it to be testable? How about the whole generation of string theorists? Or do they have to pass away in order for science to progress in a much more fruitful direction ... say quantum gravity theory. My beef is that if all the wonderful brainpower of our smartest scientists were released in a different direction (away from string theory) with acceptance from mainstream science (not giving preference to string theory's further continuation in the form of institutional funding and even private industry) then perhaps the wonders of the universe would have been better revealed. So many of our brightest minds are being limited due to fear of being ostracized by mainstream science because they're livelihoods depend on them being accepted. That's a biasness that cannot be tolerated in science but it is human nature and an unfortunate fact though it is a great pity.
 
Last edited:
MainframeX said:
S is a scale value and scale doesn't have units. It's the scale difference between a Beryllium atom and the solar system...there's no magic it's that simple or perhaps it's too complicated for you. The math involved is soo elementary that you'd have to be pretty simple minded not to understand it.

By finding a relation between Jupiter and an electron, even if it sounds crazy, is a direct link between mass and charge...the holy grail of physics.
Click to expand...

Mainframe, you do realize that what you're saying is totally insane, right? First of all, Tubby is of course completely correct - to relate a mass to a charge you need a constant with units of mass/charge. You can define one if you want - like I said before, M = (M/Q)Q, for any M and any Q, and that's an exact relation.... but of course it's totally meaningless unless that (M/Q) factor comes from somewhere else.

As for relating mass to charge, that is not and never has been the holy grail of physics (because it doesn't make sense, especially not the mass of Jupiter, of all things).
 
MainframeX said:
No I don't have a length of time that a theory should be developed without predictable results before it gets exuberant media attention than joe blow's theory and is preferred by mainstream science as an acceptable field of research over other "crackpots". That is actually a good question to ask me since I am denouncing string theory. Honestly. What is an acceptable time limit? 10, 20, 30, 40 years? ... An average person's life span? Do the originators of string theory have to die in order for it to be testable? How about the whole generation of string theorists? Or do they have to pass away in order for science to progress in a much more fruitful direction ... say quantum gravity theory. My beef is that if all the wonderful brainpower of our smartest scientists were released in a different direction (away from string theory) with acceptance from mainstream science (not giving preference to string theory's further continuation in the form of institutional funding and even private industry) then perhaps the wonders of the universe would have been better revealed. So many of our brightest minds are being limited due to fear of being ostracized by mainstream science because they're livelihoods depend on them being accepted. That's a biasness that cannot be tolerated in science but it is human nature and an unfortunate fact though it is a great pity.
Click to expand...

Why don't we focus on some of the concrete claims you've made.

First, you claimed that string theory has been around for 40 years. That's true, but it's only been taken seriously as a theory of quantum gravity since the mid 1980's. Prior to that it was an obscure theory that was originally intended to model the strong interactions (which it succeeds at to some significant extent, by the way).

Second, you claimed that it was in some way unusual in that it hasn't been confirmed experimentally. That's totally untrue - there are literally hundreds of theories in mathematical physics which are regarded as "toy models" for various phenomena. For example, there's a community of hundreds of physicists that work on supergravity, even though we know it doesn't describe the world. No one expects these theories themselves to model the world, but they are interesting anyway for various reasons I can explain if anyone asks.

Third, you claimed that it had wasted a "generation" of physicists. That's patently absurd for reasons I already explained - string theorists are a tiny fraction of physics faculty, most of them worked on and continue to work on other topics as well (and some made very major contributions to other subfields, like Nobel laureate David Gross). The truth is that a good theoretical physicist knows many techniques and understands many mathematical models. String theory might be one of those, but people that work only on that are very rare (so this whole notion that there are all these "string theorists", as distinct from other physicists, is silly and false).

Fourth, you claimed that string theorists dominated the job market and physics departments. Try asking a string theorist how the job market is and has been. There are hundreds of them in any given year applying for faculty positions in the US, and around one of them gets one. These are people that, if they didn't love physics, could easily get jobs in many other fields for much, much higher pay. For laypeople to criticize them for the field they happen to find most interesting is truly absurd - it's actually insulting, and woo-ishly anti-intellectual. Try looking at some physics department faculties, and see how many have even one string theorist.

Fifth, you claimed it wasn't science. That's obviously untrue - the most widely accepted definition of a scientific theory is that it be falsifiable, and string theory is falsifiable in multiple ways with current technology - it could happen tomorrow.

Enough for now. Try reality-based living for a while - you might find it refreshing.
 
MainframeX said:
No I don't have a length of time that a theory should be developed without predictable results before it gets exuberant media attention than joe blow's theory and is preferred by mainstream science as an acceptable field of research over other "crackpots". That is actually a good question to ask me since I am denouncing string theory. Honestly. What is an acceptable time limit? 10, 20, 30, 40 years? ... An average person's life span? Do the originators of string theory have to die in order for it to be testable? How about the whole generation of string theorists? Or do they have to pass away in order for science to progress in a much more fruitful direction ... say quantum gravity theory.
Click to expand...
Nice of you to mention a field of science that actually took seventy years before parts of it were verified/falsified. The Bose-Einstein condensate was predicted by Bose and Einstein in the 1920s. The problem being that no one produced a condensate until seventies years later. Be patient because time is not historically represenative of a theory being crap or not.
 
Last edited:
MainframeX said:
I think all physicists are crackpots...I know a lot of them. Especially those that decide to support string theory which included me actually. The term "crackpot" is scapegoat-generalizing terminology and used loosely in order to classify anyone generally if they "appear" to be outside the norm even if the claim is very elementary a 12 year old can understand it. Dr Smolin (quantum gravity theory) is therefore a crackpot and especially so is Dr. Kaku (books like "Physics of the Impossible") with their own sites to boot. To be "crackish" you have to be an individual who is unwilling to change his opinion on his own theories or modify them even if overwhelming evidence and logical reasoning is given to the contrary. Does that include everyone who blindly believes in string theory where the most overwhelming evidence countering string theory is its own 40s years of untestable existence. Trust me, I'm easily swayed if the reasoning is good. Fortunately Canadians are a little more intelligent and reserved in the use of the term "crackpot".

The truth is 40s years of unsupported testable physics is a huge farce and a pity many of you have been brainwashed to it, but I know its allure. It, just like Mr Witt's book, has been promoted extensively sparked in the 80s by the media before it had any testable and verified merit. You should never go the media before you can test your theory right? Wrong! You decide. The math in string theory may have been inspirational to mathematicians but not physicists. It's coupling is absolutely imaginary in order to tie together independent verified physics theories but yet it doesn't explain forces (any of them) what they really are. Instead it a maps them geometrically. An analogy is like asking someone to fuse together 5 lead blocks. So he sets out and builds a geometric contraption (rig) made of iron and inserts the lead blocks and calls that fusing but what he should have done was melt the lead blocks for form one uniform big lead block. The individual in this analogy missed the fact that lead can be melted a key component to fusing. It's like screwing metal rods together instead of welding them and then forming a car from it and calling it safe. It's like the gentleman who's been building a flying car for the last 20 years (who's been in popsci numerous times) claiming the flying car is finished but hasn't had a successful test flight in 20 years...does he really have a flying car? No if it doesn't fully work.

You guys are fun.
Anyway that's my take.
Click to expand...
No. Crackpot has a specific meaning especially in this forum. It is not a person who appears "to be outside the norm". It is a person whose ideas are easily demonstrated to be incorrect. This is the case with the author of the web site that you sited.

"Dr Smolin (quantum gravity theory) is therefore a crackpot" is wrong. He is a well respected mathematical physicist. He does have some controversial opinions but that is part of scientific debate.

Please do not refer to "Mr Witt's book" as this suggests that you are easily influenced by the pretty pictures and big words in it. I assume that you have already wasted your money by buying it.

Once again you should read these web pages reviewing "Our Undiscovered Universe , Introducing Null Physics, The Science of Uniform and Unconditional Reality" by Terence Witt:

From Ben Benjamin Monreal (a professional physicist):
http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html

From me (an amateur physicist):
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html


And a few of the many flaws on the book:
  • Redefining the concept of infinity as a length with magnitude.
  • Defining a line as a series of points written as zeros and separated by plus signs, treating them as numbers so that they add up to zero and then treating the number zero as a point again!
  • A really bad atomic model "proving" that a electron orbiting a proton has a ground state that it cannot decay from by creating a new physical law.
  • Using the high school description of a neutron as a proton plus an electron and not realizing that this is just his atomic model!
  • Postulating that galaxies have "galactic cores" which are super massive objects that are not quite black holes and not realizing that the centre of the Milky Way is well observed. These recycle stars into hydrogen. Oddly enough astronomers have not noticed dozens of stars vanishing from the galactic centre in the many images that they have taken over the last few decades.
 
D

MainframeX said:
Sorry you're misinterpreting the Eotvos experiment completely. That's a test for inertial mass vs gravitational mass. All gravity experiments are variations of the Cavendish experiment that uses a small lead sphere with another much bigger lead sphere. All Cavendish type experiments are the same in structure. The big sphere is used because its gravitation force (acceleration) is stronger and results in better experimentation. This does contradict the current norm, but is exact as it pertains to wave theory and my theory that all matter vibrates space-time thus two exact matter objects produce the same vibrations that cancel (total destructive interference) each other out resulting in repulsion. Object of different size (same material) attract because their vibration of space-time results in constructive interference (just like static charge).

My relativity theory is very, very close to that of Einstein's but considers space-time as a "distortable" aether substance. As A moves away from B, A's velocity increases via acceleration and acceleration (in my theory) distorts space-time making it denser for A (more kinetic energy) as opposed to it's own previous velocity in relation to space-time aether and point B. It's a slight modification with big ramifications.
Click to expand...

Duh.. That's what I get after being up all night, but it changes nothing. If mass, even by an extremely tiny amount, repelled when equal it would be unmistakable in either the Eotvos or Cavendish experiments. It would also throw off all our orbital calculations in the solar system.

I'll put it this way:
1) Your claim if true is an essentially guaranteed Nobel Prize (even, or especially, without the theory).
2) You claim can be trivially validated for less than $10 (or a junk pile).
3) Your claim is absolutely absurd!!!!

So prove me wrong and do this experiment.


Just use the same brick weights on the foam also, as I did years ago.

So what are you waiting on? With some scraps from a junk pile you can be nearly guaranteed a Nobel prize and as much money as Randi is offering tax free.

If equal masses repel then presumably as the difference increased it would repel less and less until it started attracting, then it would attract more and more as the difference increased. This means the Gravitational constant cannot be constant. So tell me what the mass ratio must be for the attraction and repulsion to cancel? What you are saying is that 3 marbles of equal mass will repel, yet if you put 2 of the marbles next to each other they will attract the 3rd. Hogwash. The claim that your theory is close to Relativity is also hogwash, but given your claims it appears your understanding breaks down even at the pre-math level. I therefore despair of offering proof other than the experiment itself.
 
my_wan said:
Duh.. That's what I get after being up all night, but it changes nothing. If mass, even by an extremely tiny amount, repelled when equal it would be unmistakable in either the Eotvos or Cavendish experiments. It would also throw off all our orbital calculations in the solar system.

I'll put it this way:
1) Your claim if true is an essentially guaranteed Nobel Prize (even, or especially, without the theory).
2) You claim can be trivially validated for less than $10 (or a junk pile).
3) Your claim is absolutely absurd!!!!

So prove me wrong and do this experiment.


Just use the same brick weights on the foam also, as I did years ago.

So what are you waiting on? With some scraps from a junk pile you can be nearly guaranteed a Nobel prize and as much money as Randi is offering tax free.

If equal masses repel then presumably as the difference increased it would repel less and less until it started attracting, then it would attract more and more as the difference increased. This means the Gravitational constant cannot be constant. So tell me what the mass ratio must be for the attraction and repulsion to cancel? What you are saying is that 3 marbles of equal mass will repel, yet if you put 2 of the marbles next to each other they will attract the 3rd. Hogwash. The claim that your theory is close to Relativity is also hogwash, but given your claims it appears your understanding breaks down even at the pre-math level. I therefore despair of offering proof other than the experiment itself.
Click to expand...

The video you presented is the Cavendish experiment utilizing larger masses in relation to the smaller spheres on the foam which is exactly my point! I have conducted this experiment (a variation of the Cavendish experiment) using equivalent masses and it did repel plus I am waiting for verification from a legitimate third party. I have also conducted the Water Gravity Vibration experiment (W.G.V experiment) in the book proving that vibrations in a medium (a medium made up of "condensed space-time") results in attraction and repulsion depending the frequency difference used between the vibrating sources. Yes the Gravitational constant isn't constant! Verify it for yourself and tell me after if I'm wrong.

For the record, I don't care about getting a Nobel Prize...I'm really "crazy" that way. If you knew me you'd understand. My only purpose is to share this information freely and to inspire.

If the simple math in my ebook eludes you ... well I can't help you there. My understanding of physics (of our physical existence) runs very deep not only mathematically but especially as it pertains to "real" physical context. When I wrote my ebook (The General Principles of Reality A) it was a personal project to document and simplify my physics theories (and physics philosophy) for my own personal record cleanly and to share it with a fellow colleagues, friends and family. That was it! My ultimate intent was to make it as simple to understand as I could possibly could make it in order for the average man to understand without loosing any of its merit and to make it somewhat entertaining because it is still thick for the average dude. In fact by simplifying it I believe I actually increased its merit. What happened after was that I was urged to publish my theories, over some cold beers, specifically the Jupiter is an Electron theory. I waited a whole bloody year as I conducted experiments and then I found out my ebook had been circulating the Internet via email and torrents without my knowledge for sometime so as of several months ago put together a website for it. Also I submit one of my papers for publishing and filed a patent recently.

Not all stories are clean cut.

Hey I respect all of you. I actually find this forum fun and you guys are definitely intelligent which is like a breath of fresh air, but before you re-buckle my theories think very carefully and do your own research to my claims.

As it pertains to Relativity, try super imposing Einstein's Relativity on a space-time aether medium and that's where my theory of Relativity came from.
 
my_wan said:
He's right about scale. It doesn't have to be kg or ounces. Scale is the relative difference. If you compare Jupiter to the sun you get the same answer in either kg or ounces.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that! But he's trying to compare the mass of Jupiter with the charge of the electron. The ratio is then entirely dependent on the units chosen for each.
 
Scale values are all well and good - I didn't attack your scaling between the mass of the solar system and the mass of a beryllium atom, though I totally disagree with our reasons for thinking that value is significant. What I disagreed with is your taking a mass, scaling it twice, and equating it the CHARGE of an electron. That's no longer scaling - that's equating, and totally inappropriate in several contexts, but most immediately (to my engineering mind) in that of dimensional analysis. It is, essentially, numerology. You will find no equivalent process used anywhere else in physics, chemistry, geology or biology. You are trying to infer a relationship between two independent measurements of the universe because you found some numeric relationship in your thrashing, and with no further rationale. And you use this to suffice for a marriage of Newtonian/Einsteinian mechanics with that of the quantum.

So, explain to me - what is the equivalent of a comet in terms of quantum theory? What is the equivalent to the electron mass/density probability function in astronautics? The quark, the neutron? Tell me what predictions you can make about either world based on your relationship of the two.

And I do think it is totally appropriate to look into it. You are setting it up as your replacement for string theory (and much, much more).

my_wan - I never stated anything about the units he chose to use, although he did choose units, and his equations depend upon the units he chose. Equating kilograms to coulombs is nonsensical, and I don't care what units you choose to use - they simply don't "SCALE". There is no relationship between those two dimensions in the universe that I know of, in basic SI or any other system. He says S is important, then he uses it like HPs wand to "smash on through". He uses it twice when once doesn't suffice. Simple math, my uncle's left foot. Numerology is what we call it in a rational universe. Show many any equation from any peer-reviewed paper in physics that does not dimensionally work out. Just one, where it is involving a scaling relationship or not.
 
Last edited:
MainframeX said:
Coulomb is a Metric unit just like Kilogram and they are both unitarily symmetrical due to the Metric System which the Empiral system lacks.
Click to expand...

I don't really know what you mean by unitarily symmetrical but it certainly doesn't solve the problem. Chose to measure in grams and/or nC and you'll still get a different value to when you measure in kg and C.
 
Reality Check said:
No. Crackpot has a specific meaning especially in this forum. It is not a person who appears "to be outside the norm". It is a person whose ideas are easily demonstrated to be incorrect. This is the case with the author of the web site that you sited.

"Dr Smolin (quantum gravity theory) is therefore a crackpot" is wrong. He is a well respected mathematical physicist. He does have some controversial opinions but that is part of scientific debate.

Please do not refer to "Mr Witt's book" as this suggests that you are easily influenced by the pretty pictures and big words in it. I assume that you have already wasted your money by buying it.

Once again you should read these web pages reviewing "Our Undiscovered Universe , Introducing Null Physics, The Science of Uniform and Unconditional Reality" by Terence Witt:

From Ben Benjamin Monreal (a professional physicist):
http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html

From me (an amateur physicist):
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html


And a few of the many flaws on the book:
  • Redefining the concept of infinity as a length with magnitude.
  • Defining a line as a series of points written as zeros and separated by plus signs, treating them as numbers so that they add up to zero and then treating the number zero as a point again!
  • A really bad atomic model "proving" that a electron orbiting a proton has a ground state that it cannot decay from by creating a new physical law.
  • Using the high school description of a neutron as a proton plus an electron and not realizing that this is just his atomic model!
  • Postulating that galaxies have "galactic cores" which are super massive objects that are not quite black holes and not realizing that the centre of the Milky Way is well observed. These recycle stars into hydrogen. Oddly enough astronomers have not noticed dozens of stars vanishing from the galactic centre in the many images that they have taken over the last few decades.
Click to expand...

Yes Dr Smolin is respected. That was my claim to begin with until Sol counter argued me so I went with it to prove a point. Sol called him a liar. I called him overzealous and not well informed with some of his claims against string theory but not a liar.

I haven't bought Mr Witts book and will not so thanks Reality Check though I'd still like to see it for myself and give it an objective review. DON'T EVER ASSUME ANYTHING! Assuming tells me you are easily prone to subjective biasness. :)

Another point is that quantum gravity theory is more radical than string theory as perceived by some mainstream physicists but string theory horribly lacks in any form of verification over 40 years. What's horribly wrong with this picture? I can argue that all physicists that are "crackpots". Mainstream physicists that refuse to question the norm are "crackpots" since the purpose of science is to evolve, find flaws in the current model and fix it. And then there are "crackpots" that reject the norm all together without any analysis. I for the record don't reject the norm just a couple of small things I've found wrong that needs fixing. We are all "crackpots" to varying degrees. All of us have theories. I have theories about you and with all my assuming and you have theories about me with all your assuming. Well are any of them correct? I don't know you and you don't know me so they'd have to be tested. Right? But you can argue that interpersonal theories about people isn't scientific in nature and isn't required to follow scientific method. Why? As it pertains to psychology it should. Everything is science but there's a problem...the human nature. We assume things, jump to conclusions, act bias, presume conclusions, act with ill intent, find pleasure in demeaning a fellow human and so on...why? I say it's fear. Fear of being less, being left behind, not meeting the standard, not being accepted and so on. Out of fear arrises ill intent of varying degrees. At the less degree, we ignore. Slightly hirer, we respond with verbal action. A little higher, we respond physically. A little higher, we affect the livelihood of the individuals causing us fear. An example, someone at work is promoted ahead of you. You think he doesn't deserve it so you cause rumors, ignore him, put glue in his coffee. Why? Because your feeling of self entitlement and fear of being left behind. Now what if the person is promoted because he has skills you don't but you've been there longer? Oh ill intent just bubbles to the surface. This is human nature at its finest. Oh and how about taking credit for the work of others? What are the psychological implication revolving around that as it pertains to human nature. Opportunity or action due to fear? You decide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom