Jump to content
Science Forums

Cut The Bullshit In Physics


Vmedvil2

Recommended Posts

 

    A very fundamental problem with physics is Special Relativity (SR).  It turns out that SR is a 1:1 mathematical transformation of ordinary Newtonian Mechanics (NM).  ....

 

And it keeps getting deeper ...  :blahblahblah:

 

Cut the equation crap. Equations are used to describe a measurable effect, not define a model. You shot yourself in the foot within the first 2 sentences and lost my interest shortly thereafter.  :yawn: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, nothing that isn't already predicted by standard physics?

 

If not, what is the advantage of your theory? 

 

"So, nothing that isn't already predicted by standard physics?"

Standard physics didn't predict anything because [most] currently accepted theories on what causes gravity are not particle based. 

 

Anybody with a pulse can predict anything; Einstein predicted gravity waves and he didn't use 'standard' physics; he did so without one shred of physical behavior in what causes gravity to back his prediction up. He never discovered what causes gravity, but he had a hunch it was particle based. He predicted 'gravitational lensing' too without thinking about what really causes a lens to refract light. But you can achieve the same effect with an atmosphere made of transparent gas, or a solid material composed of clear particles. You get my point?

 

I made the supposition that [if] gravity is caused by a particles interacting with mass, and that mass has nothing to do with the existence of that particle, then a relatively homogeneous field of identical particles (like water molecules in the ocean) should be capable of wave propagation when those particles are displaced with a physical force. Walla! We detected gravity waves. But, since we have detected gravity waves, it means that I am closer to the unifying theory than most others.

 

There are a number of theories that make the supposition that the force of gravity is based in particle physics (we call this particle Graviton for no better word), however I have made the supposition that mass does not create gravity, nor does it have anything to do with the creation or existence of the [Graviton] particle. Period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So, nothing that isn't already predicted by standard physics?"

Standard physics didn't predict anything because [most] currently accepted theories on what causes gravity are not particle based. 

 

Anybody with a pulse can predict anything; Einstein predicted gravity waves and he didn't use 'standard' physics; he did so without one shred of physical behavior in what causes gravity to back his prediction up. He never discovered what causes gravity, but he had a hunch it was particle based. He predicted 'gravitational lensing' too without thinking about what really causes a lens to refract light. But you can achieve the same effect with an atmosphere made of transparent gas, or a solid material composed of clear particles. You get my point?

 

I made the supposition that [if] gravity is caused by a particles interacting with mass, and that mass has nothing to do with the existence of that particle, then a relatively homogeneous field of identical particles (like water molecules in the ocean) should be capable of wave propagation when those particles are displaced with a physical force. Walla! We detected gravity waves. But, since we have detected gravity waves, it means that I am closer to the unifying theory than most others.

 

There are a number of theories that make the supposition that the force of gravity is based in particle physics (we call this particle Graviton for no better word), however I have made the supposition that mass does not create gravity, nor does it have anything to do with the creation or existence of the [Graviton] particle. Period. 

Yes, standard physics has predicted gravity waves for decades. (They have been searched for for years. It was only recently that a detector is thought to have picked them up.) So if your theory predicts gravity waves, that does not constitute an advantage of your theory, it just means it has not fallen at the first fence.

 

You still have not said what it predicts that distinguishes it from current physics, i.e what is its advantage and how someone could test its validity.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lightstorm,

    I am a newbie as a poster.  I glanced (literally) at your "The Story of Our Universe".  You commented negatively about mass supposedly changing according to the famous E=mc2.  You might wish to look at my second (literally, again) post.  E=mcis actually incorrect Special Relativity (SR), even if Einstein did come up with it.  The correct SR form is E=gmc2. where g is the gamma function [i couldn't get the Greek letter to type].   m does not change with velocity or kinetic energy.  However, g, which is a function of velocity, does change the value of E.  This fact does not prevent the possibility of mass interchanging with energy; only that mass does not change with velocity (kinetic energy).

    If you read the whole post, you will realize that Special Relativity (SR) itself should be considered silly and dropped.  The basics are all in that post.  There are other articles on my website which expand on the post.

 

Sherwood, thanks for glancing at my work. As I understand it, mass of an object increases when it moves because its overall energy is greater when it moves. Here's how Wikipedia says it:  "When the body is in motion, its total energy is greater than its rest energy, and equivalently its total mass (also called relativistic mass in this context) is greater than its rest mass." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lightstorm,

    You are correct in what Wickepedia says.  And that is the way it is generally interpreted.  However, consider this.

    Nothing in the universe has velocity or kinetic energy per se.  Everything in the universe has velocity and kinetic energy with everything else in the universe except those things which are not changing distance with respect to it over time.  

    This means that everything has approaching an infinite amount of ‘relativistic masses’.  This makes no sense, particularly since the  correct explanation is fairly simple.  

    The Relativistic Interval (I) equation can be considered the basic equation of Special Relativity (SR).

I2 = (ct)2 – x2 = (ct´)2 – x´2 = (ct´´)2 – x´´2 = …

The SR transform equations (two of them) are

x´ = g(x + ut)    and    t´ = g(t + gux/c2)

in which g is the SR gamma function and which equations can be written

x´ = g(u/c)ct + gx    and    ct´ = gt + g(u/c)x

If you square both of these equations and subtract the first from the second, you will get

(ct´)2 – x´2 = (ct)2 – x2 = I2

because all the g’s and u’s on the right side will cancel out.

This shows the fundamental nature of (I) for SR.

I=ct when x=0.  If you multiply (I) by mc/t (or I2 by (mc/t)2) you get

(mcct/t)2 = (mcct´/t)2 – (mcx´/t)2

(mc2)2 = (mc2(ct´/ct))2 – (mcx´/t)2

g = (ct´/ct) as well as = 1/(1 – (u/c)2)(1/2)

Rearranging:

(gmc2)2 = (mc2)2 + (p/c)2

E2 = E02+ (p/c)2

where g is the gamma function, p is momentum, m is (rest) mass, c is light speed.  E=gmc2is SR energy, E0=mc2is rest mass energy.

    SR takes Newtonian Mechanics (NM) and scrambles the concepts of time, distance, and velocity together in such a way that what is really going on is difficult to recognize.  For example, according to the time transform equation above, SR ‘time’ is a function of NM time, velocity, and location.  Time as we know it is (I/c) in SR.  This is sometimes called ‘proper time’ and is the same value as in NM.  This is all explained in the post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it keeps getting deeper ...  :blahblahblah:

 

Cut the equation crap. Equations are used to describe a measurable effect, not define a model. You shot yourself in the foot within the first 2 sentences and lost my interest shortly thereafter.  :yawn: .

Thinker,

    I’m sorry you lost interest so soon.  Perhaps you will find my second post on 4/20/19 at 11:40 PM more helpful.  It does use equations however.  It examines how multiple ’Special Relativities’ (SR) derive directly from Newtonian Mechanics (NM) because the ‘ultimate speed’ of the SR math can be anything. 

    Can you answer these two questions:

Why can no thing go faster than the speed of light in SR?

If a light beam has traveled 300 meters in the reference frame in which its source is not moving, what is the greatest distance that light beam can have traveled in another reference frame moving with respect to it?

    These two questions, among others, are answered using the SR equations which were derived from NM in a simple manner in the post mentioned.

    To quote from the post:

"The (SR) math, not reality, is what creates time dilation, maximum velocity limit of c, and light rays in every direction traveling the same speed with respect to everything in the universe moving in every direction

with various velocities."

 

    I hope you find the second post more interesting.  It is more complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lightstorm,

    You are correct in what Wickepedia says.  And that is the way it is generally interpreted.

 

The general interpretation gives rise to a paradox. Two objects on a moving platform attract each other with force of weight/gravity of say, X. But for someone on the platform the objects aren't moving and therefore the force of attraction is less than X. E =mc^2 changes the meaning of weight/gravity and mass. You get a situation where each observer based on his relative velocity with respect to the platform predicts a different weight/gravity and mass. This is a paradoxical situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Math and logic are the same in that sense.   They are indifferent to content.  They can't tell you what's "true."  You have to figure that out for yourself.  You can perform the most complex mathematical manipulations perfectly and the answer will be "correct."  Mathematically, that is.  It can be wrong as hell from an empirical standpoint.

 

That's one reason I said above that math is overly relied on and trusted in theoretical physics these days. Many seem to think that math IS physics.  They no longer seem to care much about physical "soundness."  The just want to know if the "math works out."

 

I found this thread interesting and enlightening. However, even I failed to address the fundamental points of this thread, discussing what changes to physics I think are necessary and why…and what needs improvements and what needs to be fixed.

 

IMO there is not much (if anything) that needs to change in physics; it is, and has been, stable in its existence for 14+ billion years. It think what needs to change is ours and yours (our knowledgeable field of bloggers herein) perception of what physics is. We all have need to define every branch of science in our own way (if we truly want to call ourselves scientists) so those of us that wish to make improvements in this forum and cut the bullshit in physics need to be more definitive in our questions and answers to those questions.

 

More importantly, to fix these threads we (I included) needs to do a better job of moderating this, and other threads we engage in. A good start would be what we learned in school.

We learned in school never to ask the instructor to prove his point of view or justify his subject of discourse during his lecture; neither should we. We should never stand up (in an open forum lecture) and ask the speaker to stop his lecture and prove why our interim questions & ideas are right and his wrong, or to prove his point from our point of view (or to prove his point of view to our satisfaction). And never give Ignorance a point of view.

 

(There is nothing wrong with asking the right question at the right time, just don’t make the question the new ‘subject’ of the lecture. And we as a moderator should not allow tangent interrogatives to be interjected and answered in this, or any other thread in this forum. If you have a related question that you feel must be answered for your own narrative find it in another thread or start a new one.)

 

Last, in order to fix the problem that was first posed in the first thread, we (as the moderators and lecturers in the forum we chose to engage in) need to highlight, and then deflect these tangents and distractions from our lecture. (That doesn’t mean be spiteful, or ignore the response, just direct the response in a different direction).

 

Moronium posted the ‘fix’ needed in this thread (about physics) early on and I didn’t see it nor heed it:

 

Math and logic are the same in that sense.   They are indifferent to content.  They can't tell you what's "true."  You have to figure that out for yourself.  You can perform the most complex mathematical manipulations perfectly and the answer will be "correct."  Mathematically, that is.  It can be wrong as hell from an empirical standpoint.

 

That's one reason I said above that math is overly relied on and trusted in theoretical physics these days. Many seem to think that math IS physics.  They no longer seem to care much about physical "soundness."  The just want to know if the "math works out."

 

So, how do you cut the bullshit in physics, and keep your definitions narrow in scope but broad in coverage? Start with the correct framework.

 

I stated early on that for a proper framework (and to keep the horse in front of the cart) you need to understand that ‘physics’ is simply the observed physical interaction between elements of our universe, matter and energy. Nothing more. So the construct of any unifying framework in physics should start with the KISS principle. So, if I wanted to propose a unifying framework it needs to be simple and factual. IF there are mathematics and equations that follow they should only support the framework and nothing else. Do not ask the framework to support non-relevant theories and other frameworks.

 

I’ll conclude this post with an example for you to consider:

 

If I wanted to build a unifying framework for the physics of Fire I would start with this simple theory: Fire is the side product of the reaction with oxygen, therefore oxygen must be present in order to produce fire.

 

There may be a myriad of supporting facts (and equations) to this framework but until we observe a physical phenomenon that negates this theory it will stand as a unifying framework for the physics of Fire, and Fire alone. It may even evolve to be a statement of fact, but that's for others to determine for themselves.

 

I will leave this thread now. In another thread I will attempt to answer VictorMedvil’s original supposition, “I will start [:] I think all the forces of nature should be unified into a single framework,…” I’m going to assume by ‘nature’ he was referring to the ‘physics of nature’, and in a forthcoming thread I will build a unifying framework for physics. (I did start it in this thread but I've learned to do otherwise)

 

I’m sorry I’ve keep you so long in this response but I think it was necessary to help fix the problem of bullshit, both in physics and in this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I wanted to build a unifying framework for the physics of Fire I would start with this simple theory: Fire is the side product of the reaction with oxygen, therefore oxygen must be present in order to produce fire.

 

There may be a myriad of supporting facts (and equations) to this framework but until we observe a physical phenomenon that negates this theory it will stand as a unifying framework for the physics of Fire, and Fire alone. It may even evolve to be a statement of fact, but that's for others to determine for themselves.

 

I will leave this thread now. In another thread I will attempt to answer VictorMedvil’s original supposition, “I will start [:] I think all the forces of nature should be unified into a single framework,…” I’m going to assume by ‘nature’ he was referring to the ‘physics of nature’, and in a forthcoming thread I will build a unifying framework for physics. (I did start it in this thread but I've learned to do otherwise)

 

I’m sorry I’ve keep you so long in this response but I think it was necessary to help fix the problem of bullshit, both in physics and in this forum.

not to be a pedant, but fluorine is better at making fires than oxygen. :) There's actually a lot of elements that will "burn" and one of those interesting chemical frameworks that leads to redox as an important thing. Then you can expand on that to include reaction speeds, Brownian motion and how it relates to that kinda mix and reaction...and end up staring wave functions in the face because of how the experiments run their course. 

 

 

Everyone wants to find a good "big TOE" Really would be nice if we could find out why certain things play the games they do...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not to be a pedant, but fluorine is better at making fires than oxygen. :) There's actually a lot of elements that will "burn" and one of those interesting chemical frameworks that leads to redox as an important thing. Then you can expand on that to include reaction speeds, Brownian motion and how it relates to that kinda mix and reaction...and end up staring wave functions in the face because of how the experiments run their course. 

 

 

Everyone wants to find a good "big TOE" Really would be nice if we could find out why certain things play the games they do...

 

 

Great post GAHD. To your point [researching the new knowledge that you presented] Physicsforum.com tells us:

 

Fire can (and does) exist without the presence of oxygen. All that is required is a strong oxidizing substance. There are other substances, like flourine or chlorine that can be good substitutes for oxygen.

 

So now, all we need to do is change my unifying framework of Fire to say: Fire is the side product of the reaction with oxidizing substance, therefore an oxidizer must be present in order to produce fire.

 

Wallah! With your help I have developed a near perfect unifying framework for Fire (Theory of Fire [ToF]) and I am by NO MEANS and expert on Fire. But with your input at least we didn't have to throw it in the scrap bin.

 

As for the 'big ToE' I learned long ago that it starts with physics. Starting from there I started building a much better understanding of 'why certain things play the games they do..'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general interpretation gives rise to a paradox. Two objects on a moving platform attract each other with force of weight/gravity of say, X. But for someone on the platform the objects aren't moving and therefore the force of attraction is less than X. E =mc^2 changes the meaning of weight/gravity and mass. You get a situation where each observer based on his relative velocity with respect to the platform predicts a different weight/gravity and mass. This is a paradoxical situation. 

LightStorm,

    Yes, but if E=mc2 is wrong (it is) and the correct form is E=gmc2 (g is the gamma function), that solves that problem.  The mass doesn't change but the kinetic energy does in the two situations because of the g (gamma) velocity function.

    My  4/20/19 at 11:40 PM post explains in detail why Special Relativity (SR) is a clever transformation of Newtonian Mechanics (NM) but is not physics.  Because any SR description can be converted to its equivalent NM description (equations), SR is able to 'solve' problems but it is not physics.  To quote from that post:

"The (SR) math, not reality, is what creates time dilation, maximum velocity limit of c, and light rays in every direction traveling the same speed with respect to everything in the universe moving in every direction with various velocities."

   The "bullshit" in physics starts with Special Relativity (SR) theory.  Anyone reading this, you can read the post and learn the 'mathematical', not physical, reason why nothing can go faster than c. and why SR and NM are simply 1:1 mathematical transformations of each other.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thinker,

    I’m sorry you lost interest so soon.  Perhaps you will find my second post on 4/20/19 at 11:40 PM more helpful.  It does use equations however.  It examines how multiple ’Special Relativities’ (SR) derive directly from Newtonian Mechanics (NM) because the ‘ultimate speed’ of the SR math can be anything. 

    Can you answer these two questions:

Why can no thing go faster than the speed of light in SR?

If a light beam has traveled 300 meters in the reference frame in which its source is not moving, what is the greatest distance that light beam can have traveled in another reference frame moving with respect to it?

    These two questions, among others, are answered using the SR equations which were derived from NM in a simple manner in the post mentioned.

    To quote from the post:

"The (SR) math, not reality, is what creates time dilation, maximum velocity limit of c, and light rays in every direction traveling the same speed with respect to everything in the universe moving in every direction

with various velocities."

 

    I hope you find the second post more interesting.  It is more complete.

 

I apologize for not noting that the 'second post' referred to above was missing all the gamma function characters and thus was unreadable gibberish.  The Greek letter did not show.  I have just edited it by using g for the gamma function of SR so now it should make easy sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LightStorm,

    Yes, but if E=mc2 is wrong (it is) and the correct form is E=gmc2 (g is the gamma function), that solves that problem.  The mass doesn't change but the kinetic energy does in the two situations because of the g (gamma) velocity function.

    My  4/20/19 at 11:40 PM post explains in detail why Special Relativity (SR) is a clever transformation of Newtonian Mechanics (NM) but is not physics.  Because any SR description can be converted to its equivalent NM description (equations), SR is able to 'solve' problems but it is not physics.  To quote from that post:

"The (SR) math, not reality, is what creates time dilation, maximum velocity limit of c, and light rays in every direction traveling the same speed with respect to everything in the universe moving in every direction with various velocities."

   The "bullshit" in physics starts with Special Relativity (SR) theory.  Anyone reading this, you can read the post and learn the 'mathematical', not physical, reason why nothing can go faster than c. and why SR and NM are simply 1:1 mathematical transformations of each other.   

I apologize for not noting that the 'second post' [4/20/19 at 11:40 PM] referred to above was missing all the gamma function characters and thus was unreadable gibberish.  The Greek letter did not show.  I have just edited it by using g for the gamma function of SR so now it should make easy sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm only showing the rookies how to do just that. But, heck, we all know you can lead a horse to water, prove to him it's water, and you still can't make him drink! Right?! :bounce:

 

You do realize that horses don't understand mathematical proofs...but their back ends do apparently.  :spin:

Edited by fahrquad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize for not noting that the 'second post' [4/20/19 at 11:40 PM] referred to above was missing all the gamma function characters and thus was unreadable gibberish.  The Greek letter did not show.  I have just edited it by using g for the gamma function of SR so now it should make easy sense.

Just FYI, standard unicode should work just fine. EG γ Γ

 

have some tables"

1 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Cut the equation crap. Equations are used to describe a measurable effect, not define a model.

 

 

I beg to differ, an equation is used not only to approximate measurable effects, but they certainly define a model, the model doesn't need to be right for an equation to define it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg to differ, an equation is used not only to approximate measurable effects, but they certainly define a model, the model doesn't need to be right for an equation to define it.

 

I'm no sentence structure expert, but doesn't that statement just imply that if the model is crap, isn't the equation defining this model also crap? Or am I missing something here?

 

And how can an equation just 'approximate' measurable effects? It does or it doesn't mathematically describe net observations and/or measurements. 'Approximation' equations are mathematical equations, not physics equations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...