Yeah. Right.
Unbelievable velocity mass variation!
- Thread starter martillo
- Start date
Ignoring these points:
is not rational.
Making self serving guesses instead of actually looking things up is also not rational. That's just you having faith that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
martillo
That you first show that you understand what you are saying is wrong, you haven't. And what you are doing is not challenging anything except in your own mind. It doesn't even rate as an informed question. Given what you have claimed I am not expecting anything of value from you about the topic of physics.
Only in your dreams, it's crap as physics.
Grumpy
That you first show that you understand what you are saying is wrong, you haven't. And what you are doing is not challenging anything except in your own mind. It doesn't even rate as an informed question. Given what you have claimed I am not expecting anything of value from you about the topic of physics.
Only in your dreams, it's crap as physics.
Grumpy
martillo
Registered Senior Member
It's not a matter if I like or not like the replies. Is a matter to find the right conclusions and the truth whatever if liked or not. Very honestly, if I would have found something that would really invalidate what I'm proposing I would have abandoned it. And sending something to peer review at journals I would not get anything different from I got here. Worst, it would be just in a more political way only and without the possibility of discuss things what let me test if I could be actually wrong and if not correct things, develop new things, verify things, improve, as I have been done for years in this and other forums. So I think I'm doing the right way, the appropiated one to my case.
You all say you haven't taken me seriously not even read my manuscript properly so without really "challenging" (I couldn't find better word) your minds I still have chance...
Of course, when the discussions become irrational, agressive or out of topic I have no other option than to get away.
Last edited:
Where the "truth" is whatever you choose to guess it is based on belief, actual experiments be damned?
Except that's not how you reacted when you were actually given information that didn't fit what you were proposing. At best, you admitted you couldn't analyse the facts and decided to just shrug it off anyway.
You in no way act like you're interested in the truth. You act like someone who decided what you wanted the "truth" to be long before you started this thread. It never occurs to you that what you don't know might not come out in your favour.
Your choice of terminology is strange, too. I'm sure it's been explained to you before that there is no real "truth" in science. There are only theories that fit all known data and ideally predicted some of it before the experiment was done.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
I will comment just this:
Sorry, I disagree. The truth exists and is only one. Not different truths are possible. And "absolute truths" exists like that I'm "martillo" here in the forum and that we live in a round planet that orbits around a star. Of course the truths can be described in different degrees of abstraction and precision and sometimes with informal language what can sucessive leave to other subjects... What you say can only hold when the truth is not really known. I know you will ask: "And you believe you have the truth?". I believe I have found some truths I tried to explain the better way I could. Not well enough for you, I know, but you know different people needs different things and ways... Is impossible to satisfy evreyone at the same time with one description. Always different questions surge...
Last edited:
The problem is you lack sufficient knowledge in maths and physics to understand the vast majority of papers. Since you don't know any quantum field theory you don't know what is is built upon, so you don't know what tests of QFT also test. Doing a QFT test tests both quantum mechanics and special relativity since if one is wrong then so is QFT. Thus if the part of QM which de Broglie contributed was false then it would require a sequence of ludicrous coincidences to not show up in things like accelerator experiments. Your ignorance is blinding you from your ignorance!
Out of interest, what is your formal education in maths and physics? It's obviously not to research level, nor PhD level and I would be very surprised if it's to even masters or degree level. Of course it's not essential someone has these things, Rpenner doesn't have a masters in physics but he's got a very good grasp of some things which would put plenty of students to shame. So what level are you at?
Shouldn't that be a hint? Just like I'd be very happy to put my name on a paper which contradicted quantum mechanics or special relativity in a clear experimental way a journal would LOVE to publish such a paper because it would become a HUGE hit.
The cost to read just a single paper from journals like Physics Review or JHEP is around $30. 30 ****in' dollars! Top cited papers in theoretical physics can have thousands of citations, meaning many times more people read the paper. A paper killing special relativity or quantum mechanics would get orders of magnitude more, we're talking about millions of dollars of revenue and a place in history for the journal. So if nothing else there's plenty of commercial incentives for a journal to publish a paradigm killing paper. Provided it's accurate.
The very fact you're using forums to develop your ideas is an illustration how far from decent research you are.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not above asking the occasional question on a forum when I'm after a specific bit of information or doing a sanity check but no one on this forum could help me with the specifics of my research. Nor could anyone help other researchers like Cpt, Guest or przyk*, we're too far into specific details. I can count on one hand the number of people on this forum who even know a smattering of stuff pertaining to say my PhD. This isn't an arrogant statement, pretty much every researcher is going to be so deep in details people outside their area don't know much about any of it. But I can't even find a page on your website which uses calculus! Calculus! It's the most used tool in all of physical sciences! It's taught to teenagers in high school! Do you even know any?
Discussion with other people is essential to good research, if only to organise your thoughts, but the people you talk to need to be on the same page. A recent study in the UK showed 50% of people have the mathematical capabilities of an 11 year old. 50%! Fifty ****in' percent! And it's usually people in that group which over estimate their abilities, it's the Dunning-Kruger effect. Given your assertions about things you demonstrably don't understand I think you're suffering from it.
* I've just realised I'm not entirely sure what przyk does. przyk, you are a researcher in some areas of physics aren't you? I'm sure I've read you say something to that effect but I can't think of what the specific area is.
I've looked through your website on a number of occasions, it's not very impressive. Furthermore part of our evaluation of your claims will be based on direct discussion with you. Like you just said, you feel its important to have a discussion with someone evaluating your work. You've not only failed to make your case, you've weakened it with your baseless assertions and reliance on "It could just all be massive coincidences!" reasoning (a word which I use in an almost inappropriate manner).
If your work is the attempt to formalise the reasoning you put forth in this thread (and others) then our conclusions about you stand.
You complain about irrational discussion when you're putting forth things like Z and W bosons being made by 90 particles simultaneously colliding? It's easy to work out beam density and collision likelihoods yet you not only having done it, you've tried to build up an argument upon your unchecked assertion.
As I said before, people like przyk and I are the sorts of people you need to convince, people with formal education in relevant areas and active researchers. You have failed utterly in that regard.
This is something discussed recently in a philosophy class I go to. Absolute truth for things other than tautology does not really exist. You are martillo because you define yourself as such but how do you know we're on a round planet? Couldn't we all be in the matrix? Couldn't you be a figment of my imagination? Couldn't we be on a disk and it's all a weird coincidence or magic that satellites seem to orbit us? Perhaps the Earth goes around Jupiter but a series of coincidences mean all our astronomy observations and rocket launches feed us information which makes it seem like Earth goes around the Sun.
Of course all of that is a ridiculous notion to entertain but it is still possible. This is the crux of your issue. You are building an argument based on "It could be possible" yet at the same time you readily assert the certainty of things which, in principle, could not be true. You reject the notion of the Sun going around the Earth because it's so unlikely but you're not applying that logic to the subject at hand. Your "It's 90 particles colliding at once" is rejected by przyk and I for precisely the same reason you reject geocentricism, it's ludicrous in the face of evidence, even if it's not theoretically impossible.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
I can't believe myself but becoming totally out of topic I have worked some little things on Phylosophy. They are:
Main principle in the Universe:
"The purpose of the existency is to enjoy life and if we can't, we can think and work to make it possible."
Philosophic principle for intelligent beings:
"Everything must make sense in the Universe and if something doesn't, is because we haven't understood it properly or because there's something wrong."
Can you fit this with any philosophic tendency you know? Me neither.
Something trying to match Aristoteles with Descartes and Classical Physics with some kind of powerfull improvements to also match with something about ideality and perfection what I cannot even think in try to make something else about...
Main principle in the Universe:
"The purpose of the existency is to enjoy life and if we can't, we can think and work to make it possible."
Philosophic principle for intelligent beings:
"Everything must make sense in the Universe and if something doesn't, is because we haven't understood it properly or because there's something wrong."
Can you fit this with any philosophic tendency you know? Me neither.
Something trying to match Aristoteles with Descartes and Classical Physics with some kind of powerfull improvements to also match with something about ideality and perfection what I cannot even think in try to make something else about...
Last edited:
Are you drunk? You've become much less coherent and your spelling has gone out the window.
And you failed to respond to any of the points I raised or questions I asked. Is there some reason you're unwilling to reveal how much actual experience with maths and physics you have? Embarrassed?
And you failed to respond to any of the points I raised or questions I asked. Is there some reason you're unwilling to reveal how much actual experience with maths and physics you have? Embarrassed?
martillo
Registered Senior Member
No, it's just that I don't want to discuss your points. It's useless.
I will just comment one thing:
You didn't get the real point. I'm talking of collisions between many particles in arrangments of trains of particles what is different of what you thought. I mean collisions between trains where the energy of the individual particles sum to the total energy of the train which is the working one to produce new subatomic particles.
As I said in post #136:
The concept of trains of linked particles is very important in my theory and it also expalins how them can produce diffraction patterns solving the "wave-particle mystery" in favor to the particles' approach.
Sections 3.3 and 3.4 study the forces in the interactions of the particles and the equilibrium states that they can reach in trains-like structures but they available on the printed book version only. They are reserved for those who really want to enter deep in the theory and, I think, would not mind to pay $25 for it. You know, the book deserves something...
By the way, the main problems in Physics are not mathematical ones but conceptual ones, like this of trains of particles something I think, never considered before. And just for you to have an idea how things can fit the distance between the particles is half the De Broglie wavelength although in the new theory is just a length related to the distances between the particles nothing to do with waves.
May be you would like to take a lok at sections 4.2 and 4.3 wich treats how photons and electrons diffraction can be explained with the concept of trains of particles. You should also take a look, even before, in the proposed structures for the photon and the electron to understand the thing (sections 4.1 and 4.4). Yet, you also should look at the definition of the elementary particles which they are made of (sections 3.1 and 3.2) to understand how all this could be possible. And you should take a look at section 4.11 to see how the Standard Model of subatomic particles would be replaced because the elementary proposed particles are different from the "quarks".
Just for the case here is the link to the web site: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/
Last edited:
I'm a graduate student in quantum information. So far I've mostly done work related to quantum cryptography, but I'm expecting to touch on a few other topics in the coming months. A couple of years ago, as my masters thesis, I also did some theoretical support work for a quantum optics experiment (specifically a Bell experiment testing frequency entanglement in photons) that was performed soon afterward.
He is describing the philosophy and standards of debate that are a part of the way science is done in general.
That is obvious. You remember all the times I said you just didn't understand science? Well now you know why.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
I understand Science. I understand its main principles and methodologies and I agree with them. But you know what is failing here? You are failing. You as scientist (and otherones in the forum) are failing. You are not recognizing some "big" thing right in front of your eyes.
I have been asking for physicists to analyze my theory properly (I say that at the main page) for years and, as you said, I havent't ever been taken seriously. Particularly in this thread I'm putting something "big" in front of you what you deny in recognize. It was shown here that De Broglie formula haven't been validated properly at relativistic speeds what is something strange because everything must be verified scientifically is possible, and you just don't pay attention just believing it can't be true. Not anyone said that actually si something that needs to be done. I think a proper scientist would recognize it and more, would try to do something about.
Science is right but you as scientists, as members of it, are failing in detriment of it.
You seems to being asking for me to be a scientist and I'm not and I don't pretend to be. I think I'm a pioneer. A pioneer that have came up with something "big" and worked hard to put it the best way I could for scientists to make the rest. I think I made the "dirty job" for you but you just don't realize it.
You, know there are rules to validate things and they are known as the "Scientific Methodology". But there are no rules to make discoveries. Many discoveries have happened in very unusual and unexpected ways and Science came later for them.
I think I came up with one and gave what I think enough arguments to be physicists to consider and analyze it scientifically. You don't realize the possibility of validity of it. The chance it has. You are failing.
Last edited:
No you don't. First and foremost, you obviously don't understand the general agreement that the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. That's why you don't get to attack experiments based on guesses for example: you don't get to claim the experiment did something wrong unless you can actually show it, and guessing isn't showing. It is up to you to support any assertions you make, not up to others to disprove them.
You don't understand the principle in rational debate that "extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof". When you say that the ideas on your website can explain all the experimental results we've seen in the last century or more, that's an extraordinary assertion, and you don't have extraordinary support for it. On your website you only look at a few simple special cases, and even those you often don't analyse fully.
You don't understand Occam's razor, which is the principle that we should favour theories that require few special assumptions compared with what they can explain. Quantum mechanics is impressive for example because it's just one theory, based on a few axioms, that can explain a wide range of experimental phenomena in detail, many of which were only first observed long after quantum mechanics was first formulated. That's one of the main reasons it isn't impressive that you only look at a few special cases on your website, especially because you seem to need a new explanation for each one of them.
You don't understand that theories are supposed to be falsifiable, the more so the better. You show this in two ways: 1) your confidence that your ideas will be compatible with all the experimental data collected over the last century, irrespective of the details, even though you don't know most of it, and 2) the fact you don't care that mainstream theories make detailed quantitative predictions and not a single experiment has contradicted any of them so far.
This is a flat out lie. rpenner cited an experiment that set out to do just that, and you basically just ignored it. Additionaly, the de Broglie formula is built into and is central to the dynamics predicted by relativistic quantum physics. As AlphaNumeric pointed out, that makes just about any experiment with relativistic particles an implicit test of the relativistic de Broglie relation, so it's actually supported by a wealth of experimental results (e.g. from accelerator physics) as well as considerable industrial experience with relativistic electrons (e.g. in electron microscopes and medical accelerators). You haven't addressed that fact in any meaningful way.
Look in the mirror here. Your dismissal of the paper rpenner cited, as well as our collective experience with relativistic electrons, is based only on you believing relativity just can't be true and experiments just can't really be supporting it. That's why you dismiss them based on handwaving and guesses.
You are in no position to judge that. Your entire judgement is just based on you not liking some theories, despite how successful they've been, which is actually what matters in science. As you yourself said before, whether you like a theory or not is irrelevant in science. So when we take away that you just don't like relativity and quantum physics, based on the little you've heard about them, what's left?
In reality, there are no logical or conceptual issues with special relativity. There is one generally agreed upon conceptual issue with quantum physics (though a few resolutions for it have been proposed), and it isn't even mentioned on your website.
Incidentally, did you notice above where I said I was doing a PhD in quantum information? And that I had worked with an experimental group? Do you realise this means you are effectively telling me I'm doing my job badly, despite the fact you don't know anything about it? So I regard your comment above as a baseless personal insult.
I know very well what you think of yourself. You are not a pioneer. A pioneer is someone who explores new territory (physical regimes) and makes maps (theories) describing what they see[sup]*[/sup]. What you're doing is plunging into already explored territory blindfolded (you ignore most previous experimental results) and without bringing along the maps previous pioneers constructed (you ignore well established theories) just because you didn't want to believe the land actually looks like that (you reject established theories for superficial and entirely subjective reasons), and you return with a map of only a few square metres drawn with crayons (you only superficially analyse a very few special cases and experiments).
[sup]*[/sup] Except that in physics we sometimes propose possible maps and then see how well the territory fits.
What "dirty job"? I did more intensive work in my master's thesis, predicting the results of just one experiment, than you present on your entire site! I don't believe for a second you could have done the calculations I did, partly because you don't know the theory I applied and partly because (as your page on electromagnetic waves suggests) you seem to be unaware of any such thing as Fourier series and transforms (an odd thing for an electrical engineer not to understand, but there you go).
That's up to actual physicists to decide. Not you. As physicists our job is to determine the theories that best fit known experimental results with the least possible postulates and special assumptions (see Occam's razor above). Our job is not to pick the ideas that make martillo happy.
You have no reason to believe it has any validity or chance. The coverage of physics on your website is absolutely abysmal. Even the very few cases you look at, you often don't offer a complete explanation.
Simple example: I told you I worked with an experimental group that performed a quantum optics experiment testing frequency entanglement in photons. Well, absolutely nothing on your website is remotely relevant to what they did. Nothing on your website would be useful to them, or anyone else working in quantum optics for that matter.
Last edited:
Dare I hope! Don't toy with us...