@israelsocratus "In the beginning was..." - don't know yet. Physics has 3 HUGE problems. One is the big bang. The solution should be stable mathematically, and give a nice uniform distribution. Classical big bang theory does neither. Inflation is the best working hypothesis.
The rotation profile of galaxies doesn't work with gravitational theory. Favored working hypothesis is dark matter.
Galaxies are accelerating. Working hypothesis: dark energy.
Physics forums is NOT a place to discuss physics. For the record, I was booted without ANY attempt to reason with me by some idiot admin and the EXCUSE they gave was 'discussing non-mainstream threories'>
LOL!
Ok excuse me, until the big bang theory, the temperature of space was being estimated through what was considered GOOD research in it's day towards 50 K! Suddenly it had to be 2.7 K in order to fit with the cmb plot assuming a radiator that has boundaries? lol!! Bad science kids.
There's a metaphor that a man can find a "small pond where to be a large frog". I'm not sure about the origin, but I encountered this when reading about the freemasons in one book. I'm reminded by this metaphor when thinking about the PF moderators.
It would be nice if you'ld giff up your equations so that I could actually read them. On videoed paper like that I can't really see what you wrote. What I could see however was that in free space your field divergence equation implies that the gradient of the electric field equals the gradient of the gravitational field. That result actually matches the result of the exact solution to Einstein's field equations for an arbitrary electric field I recently discovered
You are very critical of non-physicist outside the university setup dabbling in physics. How easy it is to forget that Einstein was not working a professional physicist when he made his discovery of gravity and relativity. Einstein would have been continued working as a clerk at the Swiss Patent office if not for the work of a British astronomer. So don't criticize non- professional physicist. The main reason we don't have a unified theory yet because of people like you,
@doctorpatil Einstein had a Ph.D. in physics at a time when getting a Ph.D. meant more than it does today (harder to do back then, they failed people). Most people who dabble in physics actually babble in physics. What they say makes no sense. I happen to be a non-professional physicist. While I do have a unified field theory hypothesis, it is not accepted by professionals at this time. My complaint was focused on Physics Forums, no one else.
@sweetser Absolutely. I've dealt with drug addicts who read books on 'scaler physics' and that sort of thing. They'll wave their hands wildly and you ask them to back up anything they're saying and they just diverge. lol.
Anyway the management at physics forums banned me for POSTING NON-MAINSTREAM THEORY related stuff! LOL. So we can't even ask, for instance, why M31 and M33 have velocities that can't be explained through any expansion-from-common-point 14By ago? lol. BANNED!
@doctorpatil Einstein was a pro (with PhD and appointment) when he was developing General Relativity. His work on Special Relativity was done prior to his doctoral work.
Things are moving forward. I put some effort into writing a technical paper, and that paid off by clarifying a few issues. I am fishing for skilled folks to read the paper before submitting it to a journal.
Physicsforum is apparently run by the same obnoxious elitist political authoritarian mob running practically everything else with any potential and which is now doing an excellent simulation of swirling down the toilet for everyone but them at light-speed.
And to repeat myself, nurturing that kind of evolution/development is not the purpose of the IR forum, as I see it. Its purpose is purely to provide you the means to present your work (in the opening post) and explain/discuss it (in subsequent posts).
As for post #371 (and my memory of what little I got from your thread is very foggy now), I believe you originally had two (mass and charge) currents whose directions were independently oriented, but GEM is not gauge-invariant, so this led to a logical inconsistency. The work that followed to cut back on one degree of freedom by combining the currents was, in my opinion, an acknowledgment of this problem.
The way GEM is formulated now using 1 current density, quaternions and hypercomplex numbers, it is gauge invariant. I recognize why this is a critical issue. Should the folks running the IR forum write out their ideas for the forum, in particular their closing policies, I will see if they accept my improved formulation accoridng to their rules. Note that the scalar for the action and what it predicts are exactly the same, so these represent refinements of a core idea that has not changed.
1. You say there was a 60 post limit that was waived when your thread reached it. So would you have had no complaints if the thread were locked at 60 posts instead of at 600?
2. In post #371 you write: "I realize there is a logical inconsistency in my proposal, and therefore there is a technical problem that must be addressed or the GEM proposal is wrong." Logical inconsistencies are a disqualifier, aren't they? So should your submission have been rejected in the first place?
The folks who run the forum are free to make whatever rules they want at any time and impose them. To be fair they should inform all interested parties, and take feedback on said rule. There has been no discussion about a 600 post limit, other than you here.
I hope you continued to read that particular post. I was making the move from two currents - one for mass charge, the other to electric charge - to only one charge. That was development work :-) I don't claim perfection nor is it required.
One thing I agree with is that there is little in the Guidelines about what happens to a submission that has been accepted. Making this clear would be useful, and you are free to raise this point (or make any other general suggestion/inquiry) in the Forum feedback section.
Doug, it's very simple. The IR Forum is a place for you to present your work, not a place for you to develop it (and it's certainly not a place for you to advertise your completely unrelated musings on Youtube about God, Art, Diabetes and other such stuff). Having a strict submission process becomes useless if you end up talking about a theory that is not the one that went through the moderated submission. Your thread has been given a whole lot more leeway that the guidelines permit.
I understood and never complained about the strict submission process (unless you count my poking fun at how work on strings would not clear the bar set at the IR Forum). The guidelines were then and are still silent about how they should be closed. That is my complaint, which still stands. One suggestion - having a summary at the end for readers who years later plows through a few hundred of the posts - may also be an improvement. I know how to follow stated rules.
Looks like my initial reply may have missed an important claim, namely that the theory was now different. The scalar for the Lagrange density was not changed. How to write it, and what that implies did evolve. While I may have made an error or two in 3 years about unrelated musings, I did not view the IR Forum as such (and don't appreciate the parenthetical shot). Research means development, otherwise it is just marketing.
The IR forum is a place for you to present your research, not a place for you to develop it. I think PF ought to be more clear is spelling this (and a few other things) out. So, yes, it is my opinion (and I'm not a mod, so this is just my interpretation as a forum member) that the IR forum is indeed for marketing your work, in just the same way that you would consider publishing in a journal or presenting at a conference to be "marketing".
Having the IR Forum be like a journal is a valid position to take. Personally, I think it should be a forum, with give and take, some of which might end up being development. As a concrete example, the coupling constant term JA I learned implies a spin 1 particle. I explained that problem, then went on to develop a solution, where JA is composed of hypercomplex numbers. That did happen under a forum structure, and people could follow it.
I understand Kuhn's view well and in practice I turn out to be ignoring it. I am using an evolutionary model, which has 3 parts: mostly be like the previous generation, be a little different from the previous generation, and if something works, follow that. Sticking to 4D spacetime and Maxwell is the connection to the past. Writing it all with quaternion is my variation. I keep trying to generate pictures of what this all is. Thanks for your comment.
The actions I have for EM, gravity, and the two together all conserve energy. The sheets flashed to the camera has an actions whose terms are _exactly_ the same as the standard approach to EM.
In the beginning was Vacuum.
What is the Vacuum ?
The Vacuum is an Empty space between Galaxies
Is this space really Empty?
No! Physicists say that : 90% or more of the matter in the Universe / Vacuum are unseen ‘dark matter
and dark energy ’ . And nobody knows what they are.
Question:
How can the 90% or more of the Hidden ( dark ) matter / energy in the Vacuum create the few % of the Visible matter ?
=
israelsocratus 6 months ago
@israelsocratus "In the beginning was..." - don't know yet. Physics has 3 HUGE problems. One is the big bang. The solution should be stable mathematically, and give a nice uniform distribution. Classical big bang theory does neither. Inflation is the best working hypothesis.
The rotation profile of galaxies doesn't work with gravitational theory. Favored working hypothesis is dark matter.
Galaxies are accelerating. Working hypothesis: dark energy.
All 3 working hypotheses may be wrong :-)
sweetser 5 months ago
Physics forums is NOT a place to discuss physics. For the record, I was booted without ANY attempt to reason with me by some idiot admin and the EXCUSE they gave was 'discussing non-mainstream threories'>
LOL!
Ok excuse me, until the big bang theory, the temperature of space was being estimated through what was considered GOOD research in it's day towards 50 K! Suddenly it had to be 2.7 K in order to fit with the cmb plot assuming a radiator that has boundaries? lol!! Bad science kids.
sounddoctorin 6 months ago
There's a metaphor that a man can find a "small pond where to be a large frog". I'm not sure about the origin, but I encountered this when reading about the freemasons in one book. I'm reminded by this metaphor when thinking about the PF moderators.
jostpuur 10 months ago
It would be nice if you'ld giff up your equations so that I could actually read them. On videoed paper like that I can't really see what you wrote. What I could see however was that in free space your field divergence equation implies that the gradient of the electric field equals the gradient of the gravitational field. That result actually matches the result of the exact solution to Einstein's field equations for an arbitrary electric field I recently discovered
watch?v=lfWkWpZ6K2A
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 1 year ago
You are very critical of non-physicist outside the university setup dabbling in physics. How easy it is to forget that Einstein was not working a professional physicist when he made his discovery of gravity and relativity. Einstein would have been continued working as a clerk at the Swiss Patent office if not for the work of a British astronomer. So don't criticize non- professional physicist. The main reason we don't have a unified theory yet because of people like you,
doctorpatil 1 year ago
@doctorpatil Einstein had a Ph.D. in physics at a time when getting a Ph.D. meant more than it does today (harder to do back then, they failed people). Most people who dabble in physics actually babble in physics. What they say makes no sense. I happen to be a non-professional physicist. While I do have a unified field theory hypothesis, it is not accepted by professionals at this time. My complaint was focused on Physics Forums, no one else.
sweetser 1 year ago
@sweetser Absolutely. I've dealt with drug addicts who read books on 'scaler physics' and that sort of thing. They'll wave their hands wildly and you ask them to back up anything they're saying and they just diverge. lol.
Anyway the management at physics forums banned me for POSTING NON-MAINSTREAM THEORY related stuff! LOL. So we can't even ask, for instance, why M31 and M33 have velocities that can't be explained through any expansion-from-common-point 14By ago? lol. BANNED!
sounddoctorin 6 months ago
@doctorpatil Einstein was a pro (with PhD and appointment) when he was developing General Relativity. His work on Special Relativity was done prior to his doctoral work.
69erthx1138 1 year ago
this is very interesting, how are your equations coming?
gavinjoaquinolivas 2 years ago
Things are moving forward. I put some effort into writing a technical paper, and that paid off by clarifying a few issues. I am fishing for skilled folks to read the paper before submitting it to a journal.
sweetser 2 years ago
PhysicsForum sucks cows balls!! They have their heads so much up their physics asses they cannot see anything else.
superjaykramer 2 years ago
Comment removed
eedahl 2 years ago
This is some crazy shit, not even physicist forums are safe from flaming trolls?
ShaolinSoldier 2 years ago
Physicsforum is apparently run by the same obnoxious elitist political authoritarian mob running practically everything else with any potential and which is now doing an excellent simulation of swirling down the toilet for everyone but them at light-speed.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
I am not that cynical, yet :-)
sweetser 2 years ago
divorce is immoral and abomination in the face of god. ;-}
jogayot 2 years ago
how old are you?
Alansr10 2 years ago
My age changes every year. Born in 1962.
sweetser 2 years ago
And to repeat myself, nurturing that kind of evolution/development is not the purpose of the IR forum, as I see it. Its purpose is purely to provide you the means to present your work (in the opening post) and explain/discuss it (in subsequent posts).
13tuber13 2 years ago
As for post #371 (and my memory of what little I got from your thread is very foggy now), I believe you originally had two (mass and charge) currents whose directions were independently oriented, but GEM is not gauge-invariant, so this led to a logical inconsistency. The work that followed to cut back on one degree of freedom by combining the currents was, in my opinion, an acknowledgment of this problem.
13tuber13 2 years ago
The way GEM is formulated now using 1 current density, quaternions and hypercomplex numbers, it is gauge invariant. I recognize why this is a critical issue. Should the folks running the IR forum write out their ideas for the forum, in particular their closing policies, I will see if they accept my improved formulation accoridng to their rules. Note that the scalar for the action and what it predicts are exactly the same, so these represent refinements of a core idea that has not changed.
sweetser 2 years ago
Two questions:
1. You say there was a 60 post limit that was waived when your thread reached it. So would you have had no complaints if the thread were locked at 60 posts instead of at 600?
2. In post #371 you write: "I realize there is a logical inconsistency in my proposal, and therefore there is a technical problem that must be addressed or the GEM proposal is wrong." Logical inconsistencies are a disqualifier, aren't they? So should your submission have been rejected in the first place?
13tuber13 2 years ago
The folks who run the forum are free to make whatever rules they want at any time and impose them. To be fair they should inform all interested parties, and take feedback on said rule. There has been no discussion about a 600 post limit, other than you here.
I hope you continued to read that particular post. I was making the move from two currents - one for mass charge, the other to electric charge - to only one charge. That was development work :-) I don't claim perfection nor is it required.
dougsweetser 2 years ago
One thing I agree with is that there is little in the Guidelines about what happens to a submission that has been accepted. Making this clear would be useful, and you are free to raise this point (or make any other general suggestion/inquiry) in the Forum feedback section.
13tuber13 2 years ago
Doug, it's very simple. The IR Forum is a place for you to present your work, not a place for you to develop it (and it's certainly not a place for you to advertise your completely unrelated musings on Youtube about God, Art, Diabetes and other such stuff). Having a strict submission process becomes useless if you end up talking about a theory that is not the one that went through the moderated submission. Your thread has been given a whole lot more leeway that the guidelines permit.
13tuber13 2 years ago
I understood and never complained about the strict submission process (unless you count my poking fun at how work on strings would not clear the bar set at the IR Forum). The guidelines were then and are still silent about how they should be closed. That is my complaint, which still stands. One suggestion - having a summary at the end for readers who years later plows through a few hundred of the posts - may also be an improvement. I know how to follow stated rules.
sweetser 2 years ago
Looks like my initial reply may have missed an important claim, namely that the theory was now different. The scalar for the Lagrange density was not changed. How to write it, and what that implies did evolve. While I may have made an error or two in 3 years about unrelated musings, I did not view the IR Forum as such (and don't appreciate the parenthetical shot). Research means development, otherwise it is just marketing.
sweetser 2 years ago
The IR forum is a place for you to present your research, not a place for you to develop it. I think PF ought to be more clear is spelling this (and a few other things) out. So, yes, it is my opinion (and I'm not a mod, so this is just my interpretation as a forum member) that the IR forum is indeed for marketing your work, in just the same way that you would consider publishing in a journal or presenting at a conference to be "marketing".
13tuber13 2 years ago
Having the IR Forum be like a journal is a valid position to take. Personally, I think it should be a forum, with give and take, some of which might end up being development. As a concrete example, the coupling constant term JA I learned implies a spin 1 particle. I explained that problem, then went on to develop a solution, where JA is composed of hypercomplex numbers. That did happen under a forum structure, and people could follow it.
dougsweetser 2 years ago
doug, i sent you a pm on physicsforums
dethfire1 2 years ago
Good luck, brother...
sguenett 2 years ago
Personally I think you don't have to look further
than Kuhn to see where the current silly
scientism comes from
I love the 6 pages to exclude major thinkers of
the past (like Everett) grin.
tyrbolo 2 years ago
Comment removed
crippled82 2 years ago
I understand Kuhn's view well and in practice I turn out to be ignoring it. I am using an evolutionary model, which has 3 parts: mostly be like the previous generation, be a little different from the previous generation, and if something works, follow that. Sticking to 4D spacetime and Maxwell is the connection to the past. Writing it all with quaternion is my variation. I keep trying to generate pictures of what this all is. Thanks for your comment.
sweetser 2 years ago
should EM be lorentz symmetrized ?
the original maxwell quaternion equations allow 'taking' energy from the environment.
crippled82 2 years ago
Comment removed
crippled82 2 years ago
The actions I have for EM, gravity, and the two together all conserve energy. The sheets flashed to the camera has an actions whose terms are _exactly_ the same as the standard approach to EM.
sweetser 2 years ago
Doug, are you referring to the thread Unifying Gravity and EM
DavidAKZ 2 years ago
Yes indeed.
sweetser 2 years ago