The Science Forum Dilemma: Nutcases on Physics and Chemistry Forums

[jcsd]

Most of the nutjobs on these boards have a poor understanding of physics and ALL of them have a deficent understanding of the physics in the area in which they are trying to develop their 'theories'.

What you are basically saying UltraPi, is "leave enough monkeys and enough typewriters in a room for long enough and you'll eventually get the complete works of Shakespeare", to extend the metaphor: in general Publishing companies do not get their books from 'monkey rooms'.

 

[spacetravel101]

Sorry to hear that you are an expert on nutcases.

 

[UltraPi1]

Most of the nutjobs on these boards have a poor understanding of physics and ALL of them have a deficent understanding of the physics in the area in which they are trying to develop their 'theories'.

Most of the nutjobs here have a poor understanding of math.

What you are basically saying UltraPi, is "leave enough monkeys and enough typewriters in a room for long enough and you'll eventually get the complete works of Shakespeare", to extend the metaphor:

I would prefer to call them grease monkeys. If you exchange information with them on a mechanical basis - They will understand. You simply can't confer with numbers jargon. It's not their schtick. They need to tool with the universe while others prefer to cipher.

If the universe is not mechanical - A mathematician will do nicely.
If it is - A grease monkey will get the complete works of the universe while the mathematician applies numbers to the parts.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
I beg to differ. The overwhelming majority of lab work, and blackboard scenerios bear no fruit, and carry the name nutjob.

No. Science is largely a negative process. And every "failure" in the lab - IF INVESTIGATED SCIENTIFICALLY - adds more information to the body of knowledge of the human race. A stab in the dark and a random correct guess does not.

Maybe an example would help: Say you were looking for an element or two to mix with steel to make a new alloy. You could just pin the periodic table to a dart board, close your eyes, and throw a couple of darts. Is that a stab in the dark? Not necessarily. If you then do REAL SCIENTIFIC experiments on that new alloy, you WILL gain REAL SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE and push the boundaries of what we know about materials, regardless of whether or not that new alloy proves to be useful. The "stab in the dark" is not the subject you choose to research nor is it the exact direction you choose to take it, its the METHOD by which you research it.

Also, saying one correct thing with the wrong reasons gives us no better understanding.

Yes - the other side of the coin that I forgot about before. Even a lucky guess generally still won't help us any if they are unsupported.

Sorry to hear that you are an expert on nutcases.

We get quite a bit of experience with them here. If you are interested in learning more, you may want to read "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud" by Robert Park. Its an excellent insight into the subject of bad science.

 

[spacetravel101]

We get quite a bit of experience with them here. If you are interested in learning more, you may want to read "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud" by Robert Park. Its an excellent insight into the subject of bad science.

Sorry to hear this. Sounds like only physicst have a monopoly on robust science and engineering?

Have you looked up what the Russians are doing with regard to what the West considers "crackpot science"? Or the patents the US Patent Office has issued?

 

[jcsd]

spacetravel, it gets a bit tiresome hearing crank upon crank's new theory which is 'guarenteed to revolutionize physics', esp. when in many cases they contain incredibly simplistic errors.

 

[spacetravel101]

Originally posted by jcsd
spacetravel, it gets a bit tiresome hearing crank upon crank's new theory which is 'guarenteed to revolutionize physics', esp. when in many cases they contain incredibly simplistic errors.

That agreed, but sometimes you have to bear with the noise.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
Sounds like only physicst have a monopoly on robust science and engineering?

In a sense, yes. When someone does serious work on science and engineering (using a rigorous method and honestly trying to learn what has been done before on the field), he is called a physicist, engineer or scientist.

i.e., robust science is done by scientists by definition.

 

[elas]

To all anti-nutters

What a wonderful response! For over three years I have been submitting polite messages in the hope of receiving constructive criticism of my proposals, without success. Now a few insults and a touch of anger and you emerge like snakes from the grass, with a barrage of much sought after replies, I am delighted.
Replies to your critisisms will require some research and much careful thought. As I can spend only about one hour per day on this work it will probably be next Wednesday before I can make a detailed response, please stay on forum.
Many and genuine sincere thanks,
elas

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
Sorry to hear this. Sounds like only physicst have a monopoly on robust science and engineering?

By definition of course. Not sure why you are sorry to hear that though. It works quite well that way - and likely could not work any other way (it certainly didn't work well at all before the scientific method was invented).

Have you looked up what the Russians are doing with regard to what the West considers "crackpot science"? Or the patents the US Patent Office has issued?

You'll have to be more specific.

What a wonderful response! For over three years I have been submitting polite messages in the hope of receiving constructive criticism of my proposals, without success. Now a few insults and a touch of anger and you emerge like snakes from the grass, with a barrage of much sought after replies, I am delighted.

elas, there is no anger here, nor are we insulting you. This IS the constructive criticism you need. If you followed our advice, your scientific endeavors WOULD be more successful. I honestly wish you luck.

 

[elas]

russ_watters

elas, there is no anger here, nor are we insulting you. This IS the constructive criticism you need. If you followed our advice, your scientific endeavors WOULD be more successful. I honestly wish you luck

I have not made myself clear . It was I who insulted the others in the tone of my reply and their response was the constructive critisism that I have asked for time and time again over the last three years. I am just a little dissapointed that I had to change my atitude in order to get the desired response.
Having said that, I hasten to add that I have the greatest respect for people like Tom and yourself. and hope when my reply is posted you will continue with the criticism.
regards
elas

 

[elas]

Here begins my counter arguement.
I start by quoting several opinions on the question of what is QP. The conclusion drawn by those who study the .Sociology of Scientific Knowledge is that it is "mathematical logic" which, in their view is not quite the same as "Scientific reasoning". That is to say they put on the same level as Archimedes magic triangles and not on the same level as say, medical science.

Extract from Wikipedia
Mathematics is widely believed to be a science, but it is not. It is more closely related to Logic; it is not a science because it makes no attempt to gain empirical knowledge. However, mathematics is the universal language of all sciences.
Some believe that scientific principles have been "solidly" established, beyond question, and are true. Some scientists themselves may indeed feel that way, having come to rely upon many of the results of science without having done all the experiments themselves; after all, one cannot expect every individual scientist to repeat hundreds of years' worth of experiments. Many scientists even encourage an attitude of skepticism toward claims that contradict the current state of scientific knowledge or some easy extrapolation from it; but that only means such claims must meet a higher burden before being accepted, not that they can never be accepted. In the extreme, some, including some scientists, may believe in this or that scientific principle, or even "science" itself, as a matter of faith in a manner similar to that of religious believers.


String Theories and Penrose/Hawking (Blackhole) Theories.

BBC television is currently programming three one hour programs on String Theory based on a book titled “The Elegant Universe”. In the opening program leading academics twice point out that

Because string theory has no foundation in fact, it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science).

In a similar vein, recently one science correspondent contacted leading academics to ask why Stephen Hawking has not received a Noble Prize for Science. The reply he received was that the award was only given to those whose work can be related to known facts. This puts the work of Hawking on the same footing as the work of string theorist and both are correctly defined as philosophy, not science. This I realize will come as a shock to most PF members (it certainly came as a shock to me) so I emphasize that this is not my opinion, but the opinion of leading string theory academics.

Relativity

There are several experiments and observations that are in conflict with the Theory of Relativity.

The experiments of Eric Laithwaite are again raising interest with 384 websites commenting on his experiments (use "Particle physics,Laithwaite" on yahoo). Laithwaite demonstrated that spinning gyroscopes do not obey the laws of gravity as defined by the Standard Model. The force involved is referred to as “anti-gravity”

Hideo Hayasaka and colleagues at the Faculty of Engineering, Tohoku University, Japan with the backing of the Japanese multinational company Matsu****a placed a gyroscope in a vacuum cylinder and measured the rate of fall when spinning and not spinning. They found the results to differ from those predicted using the Standard Model. In their report published in “Speculations in Science and Technology” they write-
“We conclude our previous result (published in 1989) concerning weight-change measurements are substantiated”

Laithwaite had previously made the point that the “anti-gravity” effect only occurs in spinning objects and Robert Matthews, science correspondent to the London Telegraph, wrote that spinning tubs in washing machines are known to display the same force.

Stars are observed to orbit in the outer regions of galaxies, at 5 to 6 times their escape velocity predicted by Relativity. This can be accounted for only if there are vast quantities of dark matter. The latest articles indicate that there is insufficient dark matter to account for the observed stellar speeds.

I will settle for the three examples of failure of Relativity given above and continue with an extract that sums up the professional view of gravity. It is taken from-

Physical Review A, Vol 39 No 5, p39 dated March 1, 1989
Gravitational theory, whether in its scalar Newtonian form or its tensor general-relativistic form, is recognized to be essentially phenomenological in nature. As such it invites attempts at derivation from a more fundamental set of underlying assumptions, and six such attempts are outlined in the standard reference book Gravitation, by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (MTW).
Of the six approaches presented in MTW, perhaps the most far reaching in its implications for an underlying model is one due to Sakharov; that gravitation is not a fundamental interaction at all, but rather an induced effect bought about by changes in the quantum fluctuation energy of the vacuum when matter is present. In this view the attractive gravitational force is more akin to the induced van der Waals and Casimir forces, than to the fundamental Coulumb force.

Now let me compare that professional assessment with my amateur explanation of my proposal.
that gravitation is not a fundamental interaction at all
This is the point at which I begin by claiming that vacuum force is the fundamental force.

but rather an induced effect bought about by changes in the quantum fluctuation energy of the vacuum when matter is present
I show how the interaction between field elasticity and the distribution of force carrier within the field creates a wave system and how changes in the wave system combined with changes in the quantity of force carrier are responsible not only for the gravitational effect but also the electromagnetic and strong force effects in particle form.

This is done by the simple process of using data from a Table of Elements to create tables of carrier force quantities (mass) and tables of vacuum force (anti-mass), and plotting them on a graph to show how they relate to the wave structure. The wave structure is them justified by showing that the same vacuum wave can be found in TFQHE. Note that this is a mathematical theory based on Particle Physics data and not a theory using the predictive Quantum Physics. That is to say my proposal is by definition a scientific theory, not a philosophy.

Puthoff seems to imply that one can have vacuum without the presence of matter; I disagree and take the view that one cannot have vacuum force without the presence of vacuum force carrier.

Puthoff goes on to suggest that
Because of its electromagnetic-ZPF underpinning gravitational theory in this form, constitutes an “already unified” theory.
I use the tables described above to show how by half-wave reduction a graviton can be reduced in volume and increased in density to produce all known stable fundamental particles containing the properties as listed in
The Particle Explosion
Frank Close, Micheal Marten and Christine Sutton
Oxford University Press

This is not the usual Quantum Physics way of describing a unified field theory but, I would argue that it is a perfectly valid way of unifying particle structure in a Particle Physics theory. Furthermore if the force carriers (i.e. particles) are shown to have a particular (Particle Physics) unifying structure then the task of finding a Quantum Physics Unified Field Theory has been made that much easier.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is the nub of your rebuttal:

This is not the usual Quantum Physics way of describing a unified field theory but, I would argue that it is a perfectly valid way of unifying particle structure in a Particle Physics theory. Furthermore if the force carriers (i.e. particles) are shown to have a particular (Particle Physics) unifying structure then the task of finding a Quantum Physics Unified

All you have to do is calculate measurable effects from your theory. These should include
1) All the effects that GR has demostrated successfully
and
2) Some new effects to show your theory is better than GR (and Newton)

As you say there are a lot of wild and crazy ideas coming from inside the physics community, and they are all subjected to this criterion. String theory is also being attacked from within the physics community as you quote -it has been called much harsher things than philosophy - just because of its inability to close with experiment.

So if you want to escape the name crank, if you want to beat out the string theorists, go calculate some measurable efects.

 

[UltraPi1]

If you want to escape the name crank, if you want to beat out the string theorists, go calculate some measurable efects.

I suppose there is some validity to that statement. It would be nice to cut some slack for these individuals though. It's not like they have particle accelerators in their back yard. Few people ever close the deal with a measurable effect.

One must remember - This is a forum for theory development - With emphasis on development. Most people making threads here... show up with the intention of having their theory attacked, and the wolves will not disappoint. Essentially battle lines are drawn from the onset. It is not a cooperative engagement and generally leads to nowhere, for the theory in command is lost in minutiae where the wolves take there first bite.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
It would be nice to cut some slack for these individuals though. It's not like they have particle accelerators in their back yard. Few people ever close the deal with a measurable effect.

No, he didn't say, "Go and measure some effects," he said "go and calculate some measurable effects."

Elas might not have a particle accelerator, but he certainly has a sharp pencil and a pad of paper, no?

edit: fixed quote

 

[elas]

selfAdjoint selfAdjoint has missed the point of my theory. I do not challenge those effects that GR has demonstrated successfully but, seek to explain those things that GR cannot explain or cannot explain without the introduction of yet another questionable entity, namely ‘dark mater.
Neither do I challenge the well proven predictions of QP but rather seek to explain the science that underpins the philosophy.
GR does not explain the origin of mass, Vacuum Theory (VT) does.
GR claims that mass moves and drags gravity along with it. VT claims that the vacuum field moves and drags or adjusts the force carrier.
GR states that gravity is a distortion of ‘spacetime’, but the term ‘gravity’ was thought up by Newton to describe a force that he could not define. VT states that there is no need to create an undefined new entity (gravity) because the fore involved is the force of vacuum that creates particle/fields we know as gravitons. The evidence for this lies in the experiments of Laithwaite and Yakahaka which cannot be explained by GR but can be explained by VT.
Neither GR or QP attempt to explain the creation of fundamental particles in detail but state that fundamental particles ‘condense out’ of plasma at certain temperatures. VT has no argument with these temperatures but adds a detailed mathematical explanation of how the particles form and how there particular properties are determined by the internal wave structure. VT goes even further it explains mathematically, how field elasticity and the distribution of force carrier within the field, are responsible for the creation of the wave structure. But as it is not possible to observe activity within the plasma this must remain an unproven part of VT theory. Having produced fundamental particles that are the same as those used to measure QP movement it is only logical to conclude that VT movement will produce the same result. However look deeper at this and it will be realized that VT explains the act of movement in a way that explains the observed different forms of movement. QP does not do this.
QP accepts that particles move according to the mathematics of wave movement but cannot explain why or even whether the wave actually exists. VT defines the cause of waves and there relationship with the vacuum field and proves this relationship using TFQHE.
So what can VT predict that is different from GR and QP. Firstly that the graviton is its own antiparticle and therefore there is no anti-gravity but only the artificial gravity found by Laithwaite and Yakahata. Secondly that ‘C” is the maximum observable speed and not a constant. The first is I suggest already proven and the second will have to await the discovery of a method of measuring the speed of light in a graviton field without the presence of an electromagnetic wave. At present we have no idea as to how that can be done.
I would like to expand this reply but I have to get my wife’s breakfast ready!
Regards
elas

 

[markci]

>>> If PF theory development manages to foster one significant development in 50 years. I would consider it to be a smashing success.

If it manages to foster one insignificant development in 1000 years it would have to be a ****ing miracle.

 

[Nereid]

elas wrote: Stars are observed to orbit in the outer regions of galaxies, at 5 to 6 times their escape velocity predicted by Relativity. This can be accounted for only if there are vast quantities of dark matter. The latest articles indicate that there is insufficient dark matter to account for the observed stellar speeds.

As far as I know, the discrepancy has nothing to do with Relativity, except in the sense that Relativity encompasses Newton.

The stars (and other matter, e.g. gas clouds) in the outer regions of some galaxies (e.g. spirals) appear to be moving about the galactic centres. If you plug in the mass - closer to the galactic centres than those stars - required for them to move at their observed speeds (using Newtonian physics), you get numbers that are greater than what the observed light emissions would suggest that mass should be (a great deal of observational work has gone into this simple summary). None of the objects is moving at anywhere near relativistic speed, no need for SR or GR.

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying, but it seems to me that if your ideas are consistent with GR (and Newton), then the galactic rotation curves are just as much a problem for your VT ideas as they are for GR (and classical physics)!

Of course, if you've done some calculations which show that VT can account for the observed galactic rotation curves, please say so! There is already one interesting alternative theory getting serious airtime - MOND, and it does a very creditable job of matching the observed data (it fails in other respects, and its author is clear about its limitations).

A suggestion: now is the time to really make a mark in physics - predict the mass of the Higgs, the rest mass of all neutrino flavours, the lighest superparticle, ... the list is long ... and likely within five years you could be truly famous.

 

[elas]

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying, but it seems to me that if your ideas are consistent with GR (and Newton), then the galactic rotation curves are just as much a problem for your VT ideas as they are for GR (and classical physics)!

The article I read showed in diagram form that according to both Newton and Einstein the gravitational force between two galaxies (in a group of galaxies) should decrease with distance from the centre of each galaxy. But by calculating the gravitational force from observed rotations of the galaxies it is found that there is no decrease.
My proposal suggest that the solution lies in looking at the effect that vacuum has on fields where the number of particle/fields in infinity is constant and the quantity of vacuum in each field is constant; but the quantity of force carrier within each field is variable although the total quantity of force carrier in infinity is, of course, also constant.
This creates a universe that has one force (vacuum) and one force carrier. My proposal is that we do not need to invent any other entities in order to explain the universe.
The diagrams on my web page show the relationship between particles produced using vacuum field theory and the QP predictions for the mass of quarks and the standard electron. You will see that the graviton is included in the vacuum theory particle diagram and not in the QP diagram. This is what QP cannot predict and explains why QP and relativity cannot be combined. In vacuum theory they are combined.
Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak forces are all names invented to cover the cause of observations where the cause itself cannot be defined.
My proposal is that they can all be defined as variations of the relationship between vacuum force and vacuum force carrier. That is to say that we can at last define what the forces are instead of just being able to predict what they do.

 

[Nereid]

Source please?

elas wrote: The article I read showed in diagram form that according to both Newton and Einstein the gravitational force between two galaxies (in a group of galaxies) should decrease with distance from the centre of each galaxy. But by calculating the gravitational force from observed rotations of the galaxies it is found that there is no decrease.

Could you please supply a reference to this article? AFAIK, the observations of galaxy redshift (in clusters) are consistent with them being in a gravitational well which comprises the galaxies themselves plus some IGM (inter-galactic medium) plus dark matter. The radial distribution of mass - and esp dark matter - in a big cluster has recently been determined in some detail, using gravitational lensing. See:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0307/0307299.pdf

 

[Nereid]

VT predictions should be easy then!

elas wrote: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak forces are all names invented to cover the cause of observations where the cause itself cannot be defined. My proposal is that they can all be defined as variations of the relationship between vacuum force and vacuum force carrier.

Unless I am mistaken, you should be able to determine measurable quantities such as:
- Higgs particle mass
- neutrino rest masses.

These calculations should be easy for you to do, and would catapault you onto the front pages if subsequent observations showed you were right.

Another thing which I hadn't appreciated until now: under your proposal, ALL new forces can be derived from first principles! Alternatively, you can prove conclusively that there are only four fundamental forces.

Could you please give us the number of new fundamental forces which remain to be discovered? If one of them is similar to what physicists call supersymmetry, please tell us what the mass of the lightest such particle is, and sketch its properties.

 

[elas]

Nereid

Will try and find reference requested.

Higgs boson is something I cannot predict, but note that all fundamental particles except the lightest are short life particles. As Higgs boson is expected to have a large mass I expect it to have an equally short life.
Standard Model starts with a primeval atom containing the mass of the universe. Clearly then we can go on creating ever more massive particles until we reach the primeval atom or the limit of our abilities.
Personally I find the whole proposal to be to preposterous to be worthy of intelligent consideration, preferring to believe that creation starts from or near absolute nothing and builds up from their. For that reason I am more interested in searching for a lighter particle (graviton)than the heavier Higgs boson.
If this makes me something of a nutcase then let it be, it is a position that I find more believable and one that I am happy to pursue.

 

[elas]

Nereid
Ten hours of contemplation and I realize my last reply was far to pessimistic. Your suggestion has inspired a whole new way of extending vacuum theory and I will write at length later today.
regards
elas

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by elas
Nereid
Ten hours of contemplation and I realize my last reply was far to pessimistic. Your suggestion has inspired a whole new way of extending vacuum theory and I will write at length later today.
regards
elas

I suggest you go here first:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311199

And then here:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311197

Alternatly you can fluctuate here:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311412

 

[elas]

Unless I am mistaken, you should be able to determine measurable quantities such as:
- Higgs particle mass
- neutrino rest masses

It depends on whether or not the particles are ZP field particles, as are all fundamental particles; or whether like the photon they are parasite particles without there own ZP. I will attempt to predict a mass for the Higgs which could be either, using graphs 39.4 and 39.5; but not the neutrinos that are definitely parasites.

But if one end of the graph can be extended why not the other more promising end? Going beyond the graviton shown on the graphs and associated tables would create a series of particles on the gravity spectrum. There is no need to stop until the predicted speed of the boson associated with the particle is C squared; This would give the cause of Einstein's constant.
Now compare this with String Theory where there are a number of weird parallel universes. In Vacuum theory there is the possibility of just two interlocking non-parallel universes, one on each spectrum. We are in both universes but can only detect one. Should we cease to exist in the observed universe we do not necessarily cease to exist in the other gravity spectrum universe, but simply detach ourselves from the electromagnetic spectrum universe.
No weird dopplegangers just a straightforward but undetectable particle seperation.
If this is science fiction then so is String Theory, it is a case of either both are acceptable theories or neither is acceptable. But if I am right then we can abandon all the weirdness of String Theory and religous doctrines and get down to a serious debate on the sociology of eternity.

In conclusion then, Vacuum theory holds out the possibility of matching the prediction of the Higgs particle found in QP, finding the cause of Einstein's constant in Relativity, and providing an alternative to the multi-dimensional weirdness of current developements of the Standard Model (in the form of String Theories).

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by markci
Why is it about physics forums always bring out such nutjobs?

Back to the original question: it is not Physics Forums that atracts nut cases, it is physics itself. All physicists and physics professors are constantly approached by nutcases with whacky theories. There was actually a show about this phenomenon on PBS or Discovery about ten years ago: it is not possible to have your name published in connection with physics in the popular media without attracting a horde of nutjobs claiming to have thought of the same thing, to have thought of something better, or to have revolutionary ideas about something else they're sure will impress you.

I believe the reason this type of person is attracted to physics is because of the iconographic image of Einstein as "the smartest man who ever lived". These people want to be compared to him or to be called greater than him, because he was "the smartest". It's as simple as that.

 

[elas]

I believe the reason this type of person is attracted to physics is because of the iconographic image of Einstein as "the smartest man who ever lived". These people want to be compared to him or to be called greater than him, because he was "the smartest". It's as simple as that.

In ten years who will remember me? In a million years who will remember Einstein? What matters is not who did this or that but that the search for truth and progress continues.
Many of the so called greats such as Bell and Marconi actually stole the knowledge of someone else. An Italian count flew a proper figure of eight test flight the day before the Wright brothers glided downhill for a few seconds. Let them have there ill deserved fame be satisfied that we have telephones, radios and can fly.
At least Einstein acknowledged his debt to others by requesting that his Relativity paper be published without an author. Only an error at the printers caused Einstein to get the credit.
Most physicist are I believe, willing to acknowledge that they seek only to make their small contribution to a grand edifice. The joy of trying to succeed and the delight of success, is an inner joy that is far more important than any tempory fame.

 

[Nereid]

neutrinos, dark energy, ...

elas wrote: I will attempt to predict a mass for the Higgs which could be either, using graphs 39.4 and 39.5; but not the neutrinos that are definitely parasites.

In what sense are neutrinos 'parasites'?

Another thing I forgot to mention, dark energy. As you know, the observational evidence for the existence of dark energy has gone from zero (we knew nothing about it) to strong in only a few years. However, we're definitely lacking in understanding of what it is! Perhaps your VT idea predicts its properties?

In conclusion then, Vacuum theory holds out the possibility of matching the prediction of the Higgs particle found in QP, finding the cause of Einstein's constant in Relativity, and providing an alternative to the multi-dimensional weirdness of current developements of the Standard Model (in the form of String Theories).

Proving that VT is consistent with the experimental results of the past hundred years or so is something you also have to do before the possibility can become reality.

 

[elas]

In what sense are neutrinos 'parasites'?

Perhaps the wrong word. I intended to imply that bosons do not have their own vacuum fields, they pass through the fields of other particles. Leptons and baryons always have their own vacuum fields. Therefore one can have a quantum only with a ZP, not without.

Dark matter arises only because Newton and Einstein failed to accurately describe gravity; they got the local maths right but not the description or the deep space maths. Hence the galatic gravity problem and the universal expansion problem.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by elas
In what sense are neutrinos 'parasites'?

Perhaps the wrong word. I intended to imply that bosons do not have their own vacuum fields, they pass through the fields of other particles. Leptons and baryons always have their own vacuum fields. Therefore one can have a quantum only with a ZP, not without.

Er, neutrinos are leptons, so their rest mass(es) should be derivable from your VT idea, the same way e, u, d, s, c, t, b are (from your website). Further, they should be much easier to derive than the rest mass of the Higgs.

BTW, how does your VT idea account for neutrino oscillations?

Originally posted by elas Dark matter arises only because Newton and Einstein failed to accurately describe gravity; they got the local maths right but not the description or the deep space maths. Hence the galatic gravity problem and the universal expansion problem.

Could you please give us some calculations of the rotation curves of well-observed galaxies, according to your VT idea? That way we can see for ourselves how well VT predictions match the actual observations.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
Another thing I forgot to mention, dark energy. As you know, the observational evidence for the existence of dark energy has gone from zero (we knew nothing about it) to strong in only a few years. However, we're definitely lacking in understanding of what it is! Perhaps your VT idea predicts its properties?...
...Proving that VT is consistent with the experimental results of the past hundred years or so is something you also have to do before the possibility can become reality...
...BTW, how does your VT idea account for neutrino oscillations?
...Could you please give us some calculations of the rotation curves of well-observed galaxies, according to your VT idea? That way we can see for ourselves how well VT predictions match the actual observations.

Is it not too much for a one person?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Is it not too much for a one person?

Well, look at elas' claims! A theory which claims to encompass gravitation, GR, the Standard Model, and more; is more fundamental than any physical theory to date; complete (in the sense that ALL fundamental forces - the four known to date, PLUS any and all as-yet-undiscovered fundamental forces); ... if indeed VT does all these things, then elas should be able to at least outline how (in principle) one could go about getting the predictions I listed.

Have you read the material which elas has published on his (her?) website?

 

[elas]

NEreid
Er, neutrinos are leptons,

Sorry this is what happens when I dash off a reply without thinking.


Michael
Well, look at elas' claims! A theory which claims to encompass gravitation, GR, the Standard Model, and more; is more fundamental than any physical theory to date; complete (in the sense that ALL fundamental forces - the four known to date,

You make it sound grander than it really is by ignoring the simple method I have adopted. Which is to start with nothing and not create another entity until forced to.To date I have done no more than outline the possibilities of vacuum, I think the lengthy piece I wrote on this forum explains exactly what and why I am trying to acheive, by comparing my aims with the Standard model.

So far I have shown, clearly I believe, how the structure of the fundamental particles can be explained by vacuum theory. Efforts to go beyond this have not achieved the same degree of clarity. But only this morning I saw a diagram that gave me an idea that might at last allow me to achieve greater clarity in respect of the elements.
Combining this with my explanation of the cause of EM wave structure (off web at present) does I believe lay a solid foundation for a Vacuum Theory, I stress the word 'foundation'.
I would not be so brave as to claim anything more than to have found something worthy of further investigation.

I am now going to take a break from PF and get my website up to date with new diagrams and hopefully a successful way of explaining some aspects of electromagnetism in Vacuum Theory terms. That I regard as a start (nothing more than a start)to explaining the forces in a creditable vacuum manner.

With many thanks for all your help and advise,
regards
elas

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas
Michael
Well, look at elas' claims! A theory which claims to encompass gravitation, GR, the Standard Model, and more; is more fundamental than any physical theory to date; complete (in the sense that ALL fundamental forces - the four known to date,...

You make it sound grander than it really is by ignoring the simple method I have adopted...

You have mixed something elas. You have answered reply Nereid instead of my one. Nevertheless, I wish you successes in your researches. Good luck!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by elas
[You make it sound grander than it really is by ignoring the simple method I have adopted. Which is to start with nothing and not create another entity until forced to.[/B]

Sorry, but you quite simply don't have that prerogative. Enough is known about the topics you are theorizing about that a lot of extension can be done right away and compared to the existing theories. As a result, the validity of your theory can be examined based on its implications regardless of whether or not you've examined those implications.

To try to limit the scope of your theory is a cop out - it shows that you KNOW its flawed but are hoping to avoid scrutiny of the flaws. Cute, but no - can't do that.