Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Final Piece Of The Puzzle!


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#120 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 14895 posts

Posted 02 October 2011 - 10:49 AM

I am sorry Rade, but I think you are reading something into my work which simply isn't there. I am NOT "trying to explain" anything at all! I am trying to discover the constraints on "an explanation" which are solely required by the "definition of an explanation". This cannot by any stretch be thought of as an attempt to explain anything. Explaining is left to others; all I am trying to do is see what constraints can be put on the issue without saying anything at all about what is being explained or what the explanation might be.

In the old days, you could say, "well, the explanation cannot contradict itself". That is a constraint. All I have done is examined the general question of finding constraints a little closer. What I am "trying to explain" is exactly what I have deduced from my thoughts about the issue.

In particular, I am not trying "to explain undefined information". I am merely trying to represent such a thing consistent with the common definition of "an explanation" so that I can make a logical analysis of the situation and discover issues which clearly imply a specific explanation "has to be wrong" in a decent and exact manner!.

See if you can rap your head around that.

Have fun -- Dick


boldenation mine. :reallyconfused: could someone explain represent this apparent direct contradiction? i just can't wrap my head around it in a decent or an exact manner.

#121 Doctordick

Doctordick

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 1043 posts

Posted 02 October 2011 - 05:08 PM

boldenation mine. :reallyconfused: could someone explain represent this apparent direct contradiction? i just can't wrap my head around it in a decent or an exact manner.

Sorry if I have confused you. The two quotes are entirely consistent with one another. What is inconsistent is the interpretations people choose to put on those comments.

As to the comment you quote, that concerns the purpose and foundation of what I have presented. If I have made no errors then my fundamental equation expresses

the constraints on "an explanation" which are solely required by the "definition of an explanation".

which can be taken to indicate that modern physics is no more than a tautological construct based on the definition of an explanation.

However, none of my work has ever been examined by a competent examiner. It follows that the presentation may contain errors. That possibility can not be denied.

On the other hand, if there are indeed no errors in my work then there are indications that

the effect of that extra term in my solution is to make the gravitational field appear to be slightly stronger than estimated via Einstein's field theory.


Another interpretation of that comment is that, if my work is correct, modern physics is not internally consistent with Einstein's solution to General Relativity. This, in no way, contradicts modern physics. It is a well known fact that there are problems regarding quantum mechanics and General Relativity. This is in fact one of the foremost unresolved problems in modern physics.

Thus it is that my work appears to be 100 percent consistent with modern physics in every respect except that unusual term I spoke of: i.e., it implies that modern physics is very close to being an internally consistent construct.

That term is so small as to be close to being unmeasurable (thus leading essentially to exactly the same results given by Einstein's theory). My presentation is entirely consistent with quantum mechanics from the get go. Thus the fact that it gives essentially exactly the same result as his theory implies no experimental conflict at all.

Have fun -- Dick

#122 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 14895 posts

Posted 02 October 2011 - 06:38 PM

Sorry if I have confused you. The two quotes are entirely consistent with one another. What is inconsistent is the interpretations people choose to put on those comments.


i get it. not seeing the glory is my error and not in the writing. my bad. :kick:

...However, none of my work has ever been examined by a competent examiner
...
Thus it is that my work appears to be 100 percent consistent with modern physics in every respect except that unusual term I spoke of: i.e., it implies that modern physics is very close to being an internally consistent construct.

That term is so small as to be close to being unmeasurable (thus leading essentially to exactly the same results given by Einstein's theory). My presentation is entirely consistent with quantum mechanics from the get go. Thus the fact that it gives essentially exactly the same result as his theory implies no experimental conflict at all.

Have fun -- Dick


i can see how not finding a competant reviewer could pose a problem. insert something witty here on the lines of doing the same thing over & over again & expecting different results.

so anyway, your analysis & physics' analysis is mathematical, and mathematics is internally conistent? but if that is so then your analysis and physics' are by gödel's theorem incomplete. oui/no? but you say your analysis applies to any explanation which implies that it is complete. is your analysis incomplete or inconsistent? if you please, in what particular way(s)? :reallyconfused:

#123 Rade

Rade

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 1206 posts

Posted 02 October 2011 - 08:45 PM

That term is so small as to be close to being unmeasurable (thus leading essentially to exactly the same results given by Einstein's theory).

Thank you good Doctor for the explanation.

It is too bad that the effect of your "extra term" on the strength of the gravitational field is unmeasurable, and that your non-theoretical solution leads essentially to exactly the same results given by Einstein's General Relativity theoretical equation.

Given this fact, I do wonder what would be the motivation for any "theoretical" physicist to take your "non-theoretical" approach seriously. Is there some other way that your approach leads to some predictable "and" measurable difference from that predicted by Einstein's theory ?

#124 AnssiH

AnssiH

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 773 posts

Posted 01 March 2015 - 08:48 AM

I just posted some commentary related to this thread at;
http://foundationsof...um-gravity.html

As usual, feel free to respond here or to the blog comments directly.

-Anssi

#125 Doctordick

Doctordick

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 1043 posts

Posted 02 March 2015 - 03:32 PM

Thank you good Doctor for the explanation.

It is too bad that the effect of your "extra term" on the strength of the gravitational field is unmeasurable, and that your non-theoretical solution leads essentially to exactly the same results given by Einstein's General Relativity theoretical equation.

Given this fact, I do wonder what would be the motivation for any "theoretical" physicist to take your "non-theoretical" approach seriously. Is there some other way that your approach leads to some predictable "and" measurable difference from that predicted by Einstein's theory ?

 

Rade, your comments make it  absolutely obvious that you have utterly no comprehension whatsoever of what I am presenting. You apparently cannot comprehend the difference between "a theory" and "a fact".  Tell me what mental state would require a "theoretical" physicist to ignore facts?  If I make any assertion which you believe is not a fact or a direct valid consequence of presented facts, please point it out!. 

 

I have no idea as to why you continue to complain about my posts. And your inability to comprehend their relevance to understanding reality is totally beyond me.

 

Have fun -- Dick


Edited by Doctordick, 02 March 2015 - 03:33 PM.


#126 Rade

Rade

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 1206 posts

Posted 25 March 2015 - 10:29 AM

DD...concerning your last comment in the post above about my <inability to understand the relevance of your posts to comprehension of reality>. 

 

I find this comment to be more than odd because you have many times made it clear to me and others that your presentation has absolutely nothing to say about the ontological nature of reality.   Now I am berated because I cannot comprehend what you have previously claimed to be incomprehensible.  I would delight to read a peer reviewed paper in say Physical Review where a nuclear physicist presented how your posts, or book, lead them to a new comprehension of physical reality.  Have fun with that project. 


Edited by Rade, 25 March 2015 - 03:29 PM.


#127 Rade

Rade

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 1206 posts

Posted 26 March 2015 - 02:42 AM

DD...above you claim that the effect of an extra term required to reach a solution to your mathematical approach predicts a priori that the gravitational field of any object that exists will be stronger than predicted by Einstein field theory.   This is a very important prediction of your presentation. 

 

So, it seems clear to me that the final piece of the puzzle is for experimental physicists to measure the gravitational field for an object and determine which mathematical approach is falsified...your mental model approach or Einstein field theory.  Please do let the forum know when such a study is published. 


Edited by Rade, 26 March 2015 - 02:43 AM.


#128 Doctordick

Doctordick

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 1043 posts

Posted 02 April 2015 - 02:12 PM

Rade, you continue to totally misinterpret what I am talking about! I am putting forth nothing more than a specific logical deduction with extremely astounding consequences. What I am asserting is nothing more or less than the consequences of a universal representation of any finite collection of facts. It is not a theory!
 
If one is to show an error in my assertions, one must first show an internally consistent explanation which can not be represented via my specific representation. You continually avoid even approaching that issue. You certainly show no signs of considering it.
 
Regarding that extra term you refer to. It is extremely small. In fact, that would be clear if you would take the time to look at page 95 of my book where the size of the term is explicitly brought up. To quote my conclusion:
 
"Note that even the correction due to Einstein's solution is very small [that would be the relativistic correction to Newton's result] and my additional correction would certainly be absolutely unmeasurable compared to his."  
 
If you look at equation (4.25) you will see that my correction is in the radial acceleration and yields a term adjusting that radial acceleration by an amount essentially proportional to the term adjusting Newton's angular acceleration.  The consequence of Einstein's term is so small that it's effects can only be seen under extreme gravitational circumstances (light passing close to a large gravitational body) and that result is a variation from "zero" a well known result of Newton's equation. The second result is the slow drift of Mercury's perihelion again from the zero result predicted by Newton. Even today that measurement is so small as to be difficult to predict exactly compared to the gravitational influence of the other planets.
 
Now, to measure my term, you would have to know the exact acceleration of gravity at a specific radius. Again, my term is so small as to make setting up the experiment almost impossible.  
 
Measuring radial acceleration in such a circumstance would be extremely difficult as it would require very accurate measurement of the actual radius. When I first deduced my result (thirty years ago) I simply presumed such a small factor would be impossible to measure; however, I suspect the physics community has already detected the effect.  I have a strong suspicion it is what they presently call "dark matter".
 
Have fun -- Dick 

Edited by Doctordick, 02 April 2015 - 02:23 PM.


#129 Rade

Rade

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 1206 posts

Posted 06 April 2015 - 04:40 AM

DD,

 

But even if we assume you are correct that the added term in your equation is so small to be within experimental measurement error (which is clearly possible), the  fact remains that the added term is predicted by your 'specific logical deduction', and it is not predicted by the 'specific logical deduction' used by Einstein.  In other words, the effect of your added term either exists within our universe or it does not, or are you saying the effect of the added term is only an illusion and is not predicted to be real.   Many aspects of physics are accepted as valid even though they cannot be measured...take Planck time as an example, it is completely outside experimental measurement but is fundamental to explanation of quantum mechanics. 

 

What we have are two equations...Einstein equation  E = (E) and what we can call the Stafford equation S = (E+ added term).  Logically, only one of the two equations can be a true and exact mathematical representation of the circumstance under investigation.  

 

OK, you raise a very interesting suggestion, that the combined sum of the effects of your added term to all possible two-particle interactions within the universe may be related to the issue of so-called missing dark matter and/or dark energy which the Einstein equation cannot explain.  Now, correct me if I error, but it seems to me that someone that works in theoretical cosmology should be able to apply the mathematical effect predicted by your added term such that the effect can be summed over all possible predicted two-particle interactions in the universe.   Of course such a calculation would have measurement error, but that is OK, because error can be put to good use if it can be quantified.  It would be an interesting exercise for someone to verify that the summed effect of your added term predicts the more than 70% of the missing matter matter in the universe.  

 

Here we see an important application of your presentation, something that can be falsified.   Are you aware of any such studies now underway ? 

 



#130 Doctordick

Doctordick

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 1043 posts

Posted 08 April 2015 - 03:14 PM

Rade, you invariably approach what I have presented as a theory which it is not.  You need to put a little thought into that issue.

 

Even Einstein's theory yields only a collection of theoretical expected consequences. The major consequences of his theory, those keeping a whole field of research going, are logical deductions based on the validity of his theory (that mental "space time structure" of the universe he came up with). Hundreds of people have spent their time producing what they believe are logical consequences of his theory. Two possibilities exist: first, their logical deductions might be in error and  second, Einstein's theory might be en error. Both possibilities are taken very seriously by the scientific community and constitute the bulk of relativistic research.

 

What I have put forward is based upon no theory of any kind. It follows that the possibility of "an error in the theory" is totally and completely non-existent. That does not mean I am right but it does reduce the problem to finding an error in my logical deductions. Something no one has made any effort to discover in the last fifty years.  Why has no effort been made? Well you discovered that yourself: my publications have not been approved by "Peer Review".  I have no Peer for the very simple reason that no one has any interest in comprehending what I am talking about.

 

When I was working on my Ph.D. in theoretical physics I discovered what I felt was a serious error in the field itself.  Experimentalists did experiments to see if the theoretical predictions were correct (just exactly what the field asserted they were doing). Theoreticians, on the other hand, did calculations (based on the accepted theories) designed to yield the results the experimentalists should see. Absolutely no one worried about examining the logical basis of the theories. Thinking about such things was totally beyond comprehension as far as the academic community was concerned. That fact was made quite clear to me when I was a graduate student and one of the reasons I left the field.

 

You want to find an error in my work, find an error in my logic; an error in my logic should be easy to find. There is no error in "the theory" as there is no theory there.

 

Have fun -- Dick 


Edited by Doctordick, 09 April 2015 - 02:02 PM.