intellectual fads

[Euler]

Yes, I only made it to the third year, but I fail to see why that matters.

Ha! Now why did you only make it that far? If you actually had any talent, the University would have done everything in their power to keep hold of you.

Perception you idiots. That's your flaw.

Ouch - that one cut deep.

No I will not answer your silly questions, and not because I don't know the answers either, It's because it's all wrong.

Not true. For example, the equations I posted are results from Differential Geometry. They have applications in GR. But it doesn't matter anyway, you clearly don't have a clue what they mean.

Come on now sunshine, you can't seriously think we believe you have anything? You don't even have a grasp of some of the most basic concepts in Mathematical Physics. My pre University 18yr old brother has pointed out so many of your mistakes to me. I would have a little think about what you're saying - as it's starting to become slightly embarressing. If you really do think you are going to change the face of modern physics, then you have some serious issues.

 

[PGTips]

It's because it's all wrong.

There's 80 years of experimental evidence to back up E = mc², which in turn means there's 80 years of experimental evidence refuting E = md^m. Use your head, which do you think people will take to be right? Nothing to do with profound new insights, diffrential geometry or the like, simply which one actually works in reality?

As Euler points out, the mathematical equation he has posted previously is actually a result from Diffrential Geometry. The result itself is mathematical, not physical.

AN We all make mistakes, mine was actually thinking you'd listen, and were open to my idea. Second was messaging you after I got high. Actually that should be third, getting high should be the second.

I attempted to be nice in my PMs, giving comments on why threads like this appear, and what you could do to aleviate at least some of the tension you cause, but if you do not wish to take friendly advice, so be it.

Perhaps your state of "highness" would explain where you got your theory from. That and your numerous errors like think Einstein got E = mc² from Maxwell's results, which you claim he then disproved As Euler mentions, 18 year old pre-university students could notice the level of errors and contraditions in your posts.

Perception you idiots. That's your flaw.

You are beginning to sound more and more like this. Why? Because you and the person in that link post nothing but "I think this is true", use science words erroneously and offer absolutely no explaination as to why you are supposedly right.

Remember the 16 year old kid I mentioned I said you reminded me of, but I didn't think you were that bad? I was wrong. You're just as bad, and I don't think its exagerating it comparing you to a 16 year old because you are making mistakes I knew were wrong at 17!

 

[Cex]

Perception you idiots. That's your flaw.

I care not for what anyone says. It all comes down to one thing in the end, will you guys be able to obtain a permenant tenure, or just judge those, that go against the flow.

No I will not answer your silly questions, and not because I don't know the answers either, It's because it's all wrong.

I'm simply tired of arguing with you. You think you can revolutionise an area in which you have absolutely no grasp of the current theories, except for some hazy ideas that you've probably picked up from reading a pop science book or two. You have neither the mathematical prowess or the physical intuition to come anywhere near it - as you've said yourself, you could work on this for your entire life and not get anywhere.

Your post seems like you want to play the arrogance game. Okay then, I'll bite. You sit there and pansy around with your crazy whacked-out ideas, telling everyone else that they're wrong, and dreaming up fantastical new equations in your blissed-out brain. In the mean time, we'll all sit here and laugh at you while we get on with learning some serious physics, completing our degrees and perhaps going on to do some actual research. Notice that I said research there, rather than just making up shit and hoping that someone equally clueless might believe that we're right.

 

[PGTips]

Notice that I said research there, rather than just making up shit and hoping that someone equally clueless might believe that we're right.

David probably would have no time for experiments, actual results would "muddy the water" of his amazing insights.

By "muddy the water" I mean "completely contradict"

 

[Achaemenian]

Maybe David would feel more comfortable in some other field, like showing us irrefutable proof of israeli use of nuclear weapons against arabs. We could also get an update on the plug in which turns mozilla firefox into a bit torrent client. He was working on that too.

 

[Cex]

I've got a bottle of water here, I'm thinking if I wait long enough then David will figure out how to turn it into wine. And then walk on it. And use it to feed the 5,000.

Am I wrong?

 

[PGTips]

Maybe David would feel more comfortable in some other field, like showing us irrefutable proof of israeli use of nuclear weapons against arabs. We could also get an update on the plug in which turns mozilla firefox into a bit torrent client. He was working on that too.

I'd also like Santa's address, the phone number of God and perhaps a way of turning my microwave into a time machine. All should be possible to someone who seems capable of so much

David, your supervisior/professor/whatever told you your theory was tosh, from what I've seen of your ideas, I agree (and put money on Compact, Zorn, Cex and Euler doing the same if they read it), you make elementary mistakes, admit to having very little mathematical ability (essential in the field of theoretical physics!) and even the most basic of your equations contradict every experiment ever done.

The only way you can possibly still think you are on to something is you're deluding yourself. Sorry to say it, but thats about it. You must think that somehow every nuclear reactor and weapons test has been incorrectly measured, CERN and Fermilab have never noticed that supposedly E = mc² is completely wrong, and the GPS satellite system (which is corrected using GR) works by complete fluke. You claim "All the problems are at the beginning", but all the basic predictions of relativity are backed up with enormous quantities of evidence. Your theory not only doesn't have anything to say about the basic predictions of relativity, it talks about things which are just flights of fancy, which no experiment has ever suggested.

I could say "At a high enough energy level I meet the Easter Bunny". That is just as valid a "theory" as the one you PM'd me, because it has about as much experimental and theoretical back up as yours does.

If you've really spent 5 years working on it, I'd just give up and consider that time "wasted", before you waste another 5 years. Thats not being biggoted or elitist, thats actually trying to be a bit of friendly advice.

 

[Achaemenian]

a way of turning my microwave into a time machine.

I figured that one whilst returning from a store 10 minutes ago, but I'm not telling you anything so you could steal it from me. Oh, and I'm still working on it.

 

[compact]

I care not for what anyone says. It all comes down to one thing in the end, will you guys be able to obtain a permenant tenure, or just judge those, that go against the flow.

No I will not answer your silly questions, and not because I don't know the answers either, It's because it's all wrong.

I've tried to stay out of this thread and in general give you some credit and "breathing room" in threads in the past, but you've really gone too far.

Refusing to answer any questions or even participate in discussion because "it's all wrong!!" is just childish. If you're not going to discuss your ideas, why do you even post in this forum? Why are you even interested in science at all for that matter? Yes, this thread is vitriolic enough that I understand your unwillingness to participate here, but you've had plenty of chances to join in discussion in the past.

I've also lost patience with your implicit posturing that somehow anyone who disagrees with you (despite your unwillingness to supply any kind of depth to your ideas) is some sort of brain dead stooge of the international General Relativity conspiracy. Considering the line of work I'm in and the direction in life I've chosen, it's hard to not intepret this as an insult.

 

[protovack]

Ok, I have a question:

The inability of GR to explain the infinite density of a black hole seems to be kind of a metaphysical criticism.

Because doesn't that beg the question of whether we can ever discover the "smallest" particle?

I guess I'm looking for something that will tie this debate down in reality for a layperson such as myself

What is it that Quantum theories give us that GR does not?

Also, what GR force is it that creates a black hole? Does the gravitational force initially create it? Is there a point at which the forces holding all the matter together are stronger than the "strong nuclear" force?

Would this mean that the barriers between the nucleuses of atoms break down? Are there still protons, neutrons, and electrons inside of a black hole? Or do melt together or something?

 

[PGTips]

What is it that Quantum theories give us that GR does not?

A basic description would be that GR says "On a big scale everything is smooth" and QM says "On a small scale everything is bumpy". Hence when you try to describe small things with GR you get problems, but a black hole is so massive you must use GR at least in part. QM is about probabilities, uncertainties and individual particles, GR generally looks at a lot of things from a distance and gives general behaviour.

The most extreme situations in physics are black holes, loads of mass and energy, but confined to a space comparable in size to an atom. Which do you use, GR or QM? You've got to use both, but they aren't completely compatible with one another, here in lies the problem. For the last 30 years developlment on a combined replacement has been worked on, out of which String Theory and M-Theory have appeared and all the talk of 11 dimensions.

Also, what GR force is it that creates a black hole? Does the gravitational force initially create it? Is there a point at which the forces holding all the matter together are stronger than the "strong nuclear" force?

Would this mean that the barriers between the nucleuses of atoms break down? Are there still protons, neutrons, and electrons inside of a black hole? Or do melt together or something?

There is a principle called The Pauli Exclusion Principle. It says (in more exact and technical terms) that 2 fermions (electrons, protons and neutrons are fermions, gravitons and photons are not) cannot be in the same place/energy state at the same time. This is what holds neutron stars up, the neutrons normally cannot combine into one energy state or point in space. Neutron stars form when a large enough star dies, cools and gravity is strong enough to create such a high pressure it crushes the electrons into the nucleus.

For a sufficently massive object the crushing force of gravity can actually over power the natural "Fermi Degeneracy Pressure" which keeps even the neutrons apart, and crush them together. It's too late in the evening for me to get my cosmology lecture notes and type them out here, but suffice to say, enough gravity will make it happen. At this point the neutrons are crushed into a single point (from the view of GR), creating an object with infinite density and with sufficent gravitational force to prevent light from escaping, which is called a black hole.

Yes, this thread is vitriolic enough that I understand your unwillingness to participate here, but you've had plenty of chances to join in discussion in the past.

We tried being vaguely polite, and I was honest but polite in my first PM reply to David but patience is not something I am blessed with when dealing with stubborn people whose logic resembles swiss cheese, so my tone turned to being more acidic sarcasm, and will remain so whenever David decides to stick his neck out and say "Its all wrong, my theory is right, but I'll be damned if I'll tell anyone" in a thread in future.

He can either stop what is effectively trolling or I call him on his lack of understanding and unwillingness to even answer the simplest of questions every time he brings it up.

 

[zorn]

Ok, I have a question:

The inability of GR to explain the infinite density of a black hole seems to be kind of a metaphysical criticism.

Because doesn't that beg the question of whether we can ever discover the "smallest" particle?

I guess I'm looking for something that will tie this debate down in reality for a layperson such as myself

What is it that Quantum theories give us that GR does not?

It is sort of a metaphysical criticism. There is nothing wrong with GR in the sense of there being experimental evidence contradicting it. As far as anyone has been able to determine, GR is a perfectly adequate at explaining all observed gravitational phenomena. The 'problems' with GR are all sort of metaphysical. Mainly they revolve around the relationship between it and quantum theory.

Basically speaking, the foundation of physics today is made up of two 'fundamental' theories. General Relativity describes the force of gravity. Quantum mechanics (actually, quantum field theory) describes all other forces. The two theories are written in entirely different language, so to speak -- GR describes how the distribution of mass/energy curves spacetime, quantum theory describes how particles and fields interact on flat spacetime.

But this doesn't cause practical problems because their domains of applications are quite separate. We can use GR to determine the behavior of matter on very large scales, because quantum effects become negligible; and we can use quantum theory to determine physics at small scales, because the general relativistic bending of space from individual particles is negligible. We would only need a combined theory of "quantum gravity" where there are extremely strong gravitational fields over tiny spaces -- eg, black holes, or the very very very early universe. But almost all physicists believe such a theory exists. And for a number of reasons we believe such a theory might clear up a variety of 'metaphysical' problems in the current theories, such as singularities in GR.

Also, what GR force is it that creates a black hole? Does the gravitational force initially create it? Is there a point at which the forces holding all the matter together are stronger than the "strong nuclear" force?

Would this mean that the barriers between the nucleuses of atoms break down? Are there still protons, neutrons, and electrons inside of a black hole? Or do melt together or something?

1) Black holes are created by gravity. GR is a theory of gravity, nothing else.

2) If you believe GR, as you approach the center of a black hole the strength of the gravitational "force" becomes infinite. To say what actually happens there, we need a theory of quantum gravity.

3) The barriers betwen nuclei do break down at high enough pressures, even below those needed to create a black hole. This is what has happened in a neutron star: inside the star, the pressure is so high that separate atoms no longer exist, just a paste of neutrons. A typical neutron packs roughly the same mass as our sun into a region only ~10 miles across.

see http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html

cex said:

I don't see how information could possibly be radiated back out. If you take "information" to be photons in some sequence which we know the ordering of (this may be a completely wacky definition, I don't know, but bear with me!) then as I understand it, they would be lost forever. When black holes radiate, don't they do so by quantum fluctuations resulting in the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs just on the limit of the event horizon, with one particle entering the event horizon and the other entering the "outside universe". If this is the case, then the information encoded in the ordering of the photons that went into the black hole would be lost because the photons that are radiated would have no relation to the photons that went in. What am I missing?

Nothing. This is the root of what has been known as the "black hole information loss paradox" (because the rules of quantum mechanics do not allow for information to be lost) and is a topic of very active controversy among theoretical physicists. Here's a good general seminar-level talk on the problem by an old prof of mine, if you want to learn more...

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/talks/blackholes.pdf

 

[michael]

david has no response? surprise!

btw, if he does respond, it will be "i knew this is how you would react and i proved my point."

i know, it makes no sense - you'll have to ask him.

 

[PGTips]

I've had a few PMs back and fore between him and he's basically said he never planned to tell us anything serious and that "he gave up on humans a long time ago".

Someone who posts something specifically to start arguments and who refuses to back up any random claims they make is a troll, plain and simple. There are numerous links in this thread where he's done the same on other threads, and several threads on the 1st page of T&A right now he's made claims he's not backed up and when asked to he ignores the request and claims he doesn't have to back up anything he says. And he wonders why noone takes him seriously?

Mind you, when he does attempt to back up what he's saying (once in a blue moon) its so blatently wrong it wasn't worth the wait.

Something as simple as how he thinks his "E=md^m" is correct even though its contradicted in every known experiment and by simple rules of mathematics. And he says its "perception". Yes, its perception, the rose tinted glasses he must be wearing.....