Squashed Star Flattens Solar Theory

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by subtillioN
The math works but it is based on incorrect fundamental assumptions.

Easy to say. Name two.

Sorce Theory does offer corrections and alterations to the basics of physics, but it only achieves further qualitative, semantic and quantitative accuracy.

In order to "achieve further quatitative accuracy", it needs to yield different predictions. This can only happen if there is at least one equation which is different. Which is it, and why?

It does not abandon the mathematics nor necessarily supplant them just yet.

Make up your mind. Does "sorce th." use the same math as the SM, or not?

Again this is a mathematical procedure to describe and simplify a very complex fluid-dynamic process.

Some questions here:
1. What is the fluid you are talking about?
2. What is it made of?
3. If it is "fundamental", it seems as a more complicated object than particles. Why can it be regarded as a preferable substrate?
4. What equations govern such fluid? Navier-Stokes'?

And a request: Show us the details of how such "complex fluid-dynamic process", as you call it, produces the apparent (in your view) wavefunction collapse.

Much of the mechanisms have been worked out,

Show us the simplest one, so that we can see that it produces the same experimental predictions as QM.

In Sorce Theory the entire reasoning and the experiments that led to the quantum hypothesis of Planck and its subsequent re-enforcment by Einstein and others are explained by the complex fluid-dynamic processes in a frictionless continuous medium.

Honestly, it is my impression that all you have is this kind of descriptions, with lots of "complex fluid-dynamic processes" mentioned here and there, but no working model.

I'd certainly welcome your proving me wrong by showing here even a (mathematically sound) sketch of a proof, showing how the fluid dynamic description naturally produces the QM "appearances".

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Easy to say. Name two.

There are many. First and foremost is the assumption of the point-particle in the void. This assumption leads directly to the assumption of Quantum Uncertainty and the assumption of wave-particle duality both of which are incorrect.

In order to "achieve further quatitative accuracy", it needs to yield different predictions. This can only happen if there is at least one equation which is different. Which is it, and why?

In 1965, Sorce Theory calculated that there should be slight deviations in the change of rate of the gravitational field of the Earth. In the 1980's these were detected and there was a big deal about it in the New York Times saying that Physics had to invent a 5th and 6th force. This finding is mostly forgotten and there is still no explanation of how those measurements could be yeilded by the known force of gravity.

In a gravitational field there are slight deviations due to resonance mechanisms in the magnetic field of the planet or star. These mechanisms are the cause of the pervasive square of the distance patterns of Bode's Law and the same pattern is seen in the electron shell spacing of the atom.

Make up your mind. Does "sorce th." use the same math as the SM, or not?

It uses the same math but it is a tool for fine-tuning or supplanting the math by knowing the physical mechanisms involved.

Some questions here:
1. What is the fluid you are talking about?

It is a continuous and compressible fluid.

2. What is it made of?

Not everything can be made of something else. It is made of itself. It is the fundamental level.

3. If it is "fundamental", it seems as a more complicated object than particles. Why can it be regarded as a preferable substrate?

Because it Unifies the forces directly as a consequence of its basic assumptions.

4. What equations govern such fluid? Navier-Stokes'?

There are many equations that can approximate the motion of such a fluid. In its amorphous state it is quantitatively equivalent to a zero-energy superfluid, but the equations at this level need to be worked out through simulation to fine-tune the constants.

And a request: Show us the details of how such "complex fluid-dynamic process", as you call it, produces the apparent (in your view) wavefunction collapse.

The collapse is purely a problem of description. It does not happen in reality.

Show us the simplest one, so that we can see that it produces the same experimental predictions as QM.

If you are interested I can send you the book, but it is far too detailed and complex with essential diagrams to go into here.

BTW, I am posting this information for those who see the potential that such a qualitative description can acheive. I don't really care if you are interested or not.

Honestly, it is my impression that all you have is this kind of descriptions, with lots of "complex fluid-dynamic processes" mentioned here and there, but no working model.

Your impression is understandable, but it is wrong.

I'd certainly welcome your proving me wrong by showing here even a (mathematically sound) sketch of a proof, showing how the fluid dynamic description naturally produces the QM "appearances".

It really is far too complex to demonstrate here, but don't take my word for it!

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by subtillioN
First and foremost is the assumption of the point-particle in the void... Quantum Uncertainty and the assumption of wave-particle duality both of which are incorrect.

In what sense do you say they are "incorrect"?

In 1965, Sorce Theory calculated that there should be slight deviations in the change of rate of the gravitational field of the Earth.

Great!, so sorce theory has different equations. Please post one here, together with the one it replaces from mainstream physics.

This finding is mostly forgotten and there is still no explanation of how those measurements could be yeilded by the known force of gravity.

Which means that the "extra terms" existing in sorce theory, and non-existent on mainstream physics, represent a physical effect unaccounted for as of yet. Post such terms here.

It uses the same math but it is a tool for fine-tuning or supplanting the math by knowing the physical mechanisms involved.

Oh, well... so, are they the same or not? You keep contradicting youself. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one loosing interest on this.

Because it Unifies the forces directly as a consequence of its basic assumptions.

What are (explicitly) its "basic assumptions"?

In its amorphous state it is quantitatively equivalent to a zero-energy superfluid,

Just post the equations here, that will settle it (even if you don't).

but the equations at this level need to be worked out through simulation to fine-tune the constants.

Just post the equations with letters for the constants. I'm not interested on the value of every single parameter, but only on the functional formp of the equations.

The collapse is purely a problem of description. It does not happen in reality.

In any case, you should agree that it describes things perfectly. What I asked from you is a description of how sorce theory's processes "look like" a collapse.

If you are interested I can send you the book, but it is far too detailed and complex with essential diagrams to go into here.

Ok, send it. I'm interested in looking at the math details. I'll PM you my email address.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

I'll be interested if you actually get a book or any equations posted here.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by ahrkron
In what sense do you say they are "incorrect"?

In the sense that they are wrong. There are no point-particles. There is no void. And there is no wave-particle duality. Such assumptions only lead to an inability to understand the deeper causality.

Great!, so sorce theory has different equations. Please post one here, together with the one it replaces from mainstream physics.

The exact equations for this have not been completely worked out. They are slight deviations to Einsteins equations which were deduced by mainly qualitative means.

Oh, well... so, are they the same or not? You keep contradicting youself. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one loosing interest on this.

Sorce Theory explains the causality beneath the equations. That is all. An understanding of reality can be used to modify the equations describing reality. Quite simple really.

What are (explicitly) its "basic assumptions"?

That a frictionless, continuous, fluid, compressible substance is the core level of reality and that everything including atomic matter and energy is made up of organizations of this substance.

Just post the equations here, that will settle it (even if you don't).

Like I said it does not modify the equations, though they undoubtedly need modification. The same equations that model zero-energy superfluids (The Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation, Navier Stokes, whatever) are likely a good start, but they need to add a serious amount of compressibility in the mix to account for e=mc^2.

This is the whole point of my posts here. If we had these equations we would have a set of unified field equations because the fundamental fluid is the unified field.

In any case, you should agree that it describes things perfectly.

I don’t agree. It simply describes how things look to us through our crude measurement processes.

What I asked from you is a description of how sorce theory's processes "look like" a collapse.

They don’t look like a collapse. They look like particle collisions and fluid-dynamic resonance processes that form the properties of the particles. The collapse is simply a measurement process which uses wave-functions to simplify the problem and then gets confused by interpretations of the simplified mathematics itself.

Ok, send it. I'm interested in looking at the math details. I'll PM you my email address.

Sent, but you will be disappointed if all you are looking for is math.

Edit: Note that the book I sent you is an introductory book and does not get very deep into the more complex quantum mechanisms, though he does explain how the fluid is quantized and how this quantization reacts to give us the results of the major quantum experiments. He has since written many much more detailed books that examine these things in very great detail. He has also written a book that reinterprets the basic laws of physics in terms of these initial premises.

 

[elas]

The Squashed Star can be explained in the same manner as Brauthewaite's gyroscope demonstrations and the Japanese falling cylinder demonstrations . They are all physical proofs that we live in a Corpuscular universe as first proposed by Newton.
They demonstrate the effect of spin on corpuscular gravity, as does every spiral galaxy and planetary system.
Because it has proved impossible so far to wrap these observation together in one neat mathematical theory the concept of
corpuscular particle fields remains in the background getting only occassional casual reference as a possibility; but of all the ideas on the structure of the universe it is the simplest to grasp and needs only a new theory of gravity to bring it to the forefront.
(see Scientific American special issue on 'The edge of physics').

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by elas
The Squashed Star can be explained in the same manner as Brauthewaite's gyroscope demonstrations and the Japanese falling cylinder demonstrations . They are all physical proofs that we live in a Corpuscular universe as first proposed by Newton.
They demonstrate the effect of spin on corpuscular gravity, as does every spiral galaxy and planetary system.
Because it has proved impossible so far to wrap these observation together in one neat mathematical theory the concept of
corpuscular particle fields remains in the background getting only occassional casual reference as a possibility; but of all the ideas on the structure of the universe it is the simplest to grasp and needs only a new theory of gravity to bring it to the forefront.
(see Scientific American special issue on 'The edge of physics').

Please tell me how they are proofs that we live in a corpuscular universe.

BTW, the wave nature of all matter denies this claim and says that at root is a wave-transmitting fluid.

 

[neutroncount]

Great. Two crackpot theories collide. This should be good.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by neutroncount
Great. Two crackpot theories collide. This should be good.

Great another elitist who thinks any idea different from the established religion is "crackpot".

 

[elas]

Great another elitist who thinks any idea different from the established religion is "crackpot".
I am not submitting ideas but quoting experiments conducted and were repeated at top universities in the UK and Japan. The current standard theories are not religions but 'predictive theories; In the case of gravity the theory has been proven wrong by at least two confirmed observations.
It is accepted that at present there is no satisfactory explanation of long range gravity; It is also accepted that current theory does not tell us anything about 'cause'.
True, the comments on the experiments are my own and are open to dispute, but please not by fanatical nut cases; let us have a reasoned debate.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by elas
The current standard theories are not religions but 'predictive theories; In the case of gravity the theory has been proven wrong by at least two confirmed observations.

Very much agreed that they aren't religions, but people do tend to treat them as such, refusing to believe falsifying data etc..

Can you give me more information about those experiments invalidating the standard model of gravity?

It is accepted that at present there is no satisfactory explanation of long range gravity; It is also accepted that current theory does not tell us anything about 'cause'.

Yes and that is why "Dark Matter" and Black Holes are invoked so often in cosmological explanations. They have become the "duct tape" of the standard model.

 

[elas]

As an amateur I have to rely on reports in papers and magazines.

There have been several reports (including TV progs) about the orbital speeds of stars in the outer regions of galaxies, they are all exceeding the escape velocity given by current theories.

Braithwaite of Cambridge University demonstrated the ability of gyroscopes to defy gravity, his lectures were also shown on BBC TV in the 1970's.

Recently a Japanese University team demonstrated by repeated experiments that a spinning cylyder falling in a vacuum does not obey the law of gravity (it falls to slowly), the report was in New Scientist.

Add to this the exansion of the universe as measured by Hubble telescope and there is considerable evidence that relativity is not an acceptable theory.

Last week there was yet another report in the London Daily Telegraph of a conference held to discuss the possibility of producing a new theory based on either anti-gravity or vacuum. I am at present re-writing my article on the possibilities of vacuum and my partially revised work is on my site as listed in Theory Developement.