New study furthers Einstein's 'theory of everything'

Feb 08, 2013
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein

(Phys.org)—Sussex physicists have taken a  small step towards fulfilling Einstein's dream of proving there is only one fundamental force in nature.

Following last year's discovery of the – the so-called "" that answers how the particles have masses -  Dr Xavier Calmet and PhD student Michael Atkins looked at how the Higgs field interacts with gravity.

Besides giving masses to all known particles, it's possible that the Higgs boson played a significant role in the after the Big Bang.

Dr Calmet says: "The  discovery at CERN's Large Hadron Collider last year of the Higgs boson particle was very exciting. Although its existence had been predicted, nobody knew for sure. Now we're looking to see if the way it behaves is also as scientists have predicted – and early results look promising."

Through playing with their equations and using data from the Large Hadron Collider, the Sussex scientists have been able to constrain the Higgs boson's interaction with gravity. The results are published this month in the journal Physical Review Letters.

Dr Calmet says: "The discovery of the Higgs boson has deep implications for gravitational theories that explain the evolution of our universe."

"Einstein's dream, which we are still trying to fulfil, consists in unifying all interactions of nature – gravitation, electromagnetism, and - into one framework. The idea is that there is actually only one fundamental force in nature and that the forces we see on a daily basis are just different facets of this fundamental force of nature. Understanding the properties of the Higgs boson and in particular its will be a key factor on our path to this grand unification."

Explore further: Neutrino trident production may offer powerful probe of new physics

More information: 'Bounds on the non-minimal coupling of the Higgs boson to gravity' is published in Physical Review Letters on 01 February 2013. prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i5/e051301

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Interview: CERN chief firmer on Higgs boson

Jan 27, 2013

The world should know with certainty by the middle of this year whether a subatomic particle discovered by scientists is a long-sought Higgs boson, the head of the world's largest atom smasher said Saturday.

The hunt for the Higgs steps up a gear

Aug 28, 2008

The hunt for the Higgs boson, the most highly sought-after particle in physics, received a boost this month with the release of two new results from the Tevatron particle collider at the US Department of Energy's ...

Physicists closing in on the elusive Higgs boson

Aug 17, 2011

Scientists at a meeting in Grenoble, France, recently stoked speculation that physicists at the world's biggest particle accelerator may soon provide a first look at the elusive Higgs boson - the final piece of evidence needed ...

Z-prime search may hurdle Higgs hunt

Aug 25, 2011

If you're bummed about humanity's biggest accelerator not producing a Higgs particle yet, maybe the latest effort to find a Z-prime will make you feel better. ...

Recommended for you

And so they beat on, flagella against the cantilever

10 hours ago

A team of researchers at Boston University and Stanford University School of Medicine has developed a new model to study the motion patterns of bacteria in real time and to determine how these motions relate ...

Tandem microwave destroys hazmat, disinfects

14 hours ago

Dangerous materials can be destroyed, bacteria spores can be disinfected, and information can be collected that reveals the country of origin of radiological isotopes - all of this due to a commercial microwave ...

Cornell theorists continue the search for supersymmetry

16 hours ago

(Phys.org) —It was a breakthrough with profound implications for the world as we know it: the Higgs boson, the elementary particle that gives all other particles their mass, discovered at the Large Hadron ...

How did evolution optimize circadian clocks?

Sep 12, 2014

(Phys.org) —From cyanobacteria to humans, many terrestrial species have acquired circadian rhythms that adapt to sunlight in order to increase survival rates. Studies have shown that the circadian clocks ...

User comments : 192

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (44) Feb 08, 2013
This would answer a lot of questions, if only gravity actually exists...... but it doesn't.
vlaaing peerd
3.8 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2013
aha... and this steady state universe doesn't bother you?

I mean, you know with reality and stuff...
rubberman
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 08, 2013
What is the force that prevents energy from collapsing into a dissipating wave form? What is the minimum energy density required to prevent this? The results from the experiments at cern show a sea of very shortlived quanta of energy for a fraction of a nano second after particle collision. I would surmise that the shorlived nature of this energy is due to it's inability to generate a "field" to hold itself together. Counter intuitive to the point of the experiments I know, but if the point was to detect the Higgs at the energy we thought it should be at and we did...now what?

Just typing and pondering at the same time.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (15) Feb 08, 2013
I still have a sneaking suspicion that gravity is something more complicated and not directly related to the other forces. Though I am confident that at some point all the other forces will be unified in a single theoretical framework.
Tausch
1.2 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2013
Dear Dr. Calmet,
["Einstein's dream, which we are still trying to fulfil, consists in unifying THE FOUR interactions of nature – gravitation, electromagnetism, strong interaction and weak interaction - into one framework."

All will understand why I replaced your word "all" with the words "the four".
I will give you the benefit of doubt. This was obviously a typo that misquoted you.
Your only answer can only be yes.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
EyeNStein
2.3 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2013
If this research can create a mathamatical understanding of how the Higgs confers a property (called mass) which bends spacetime: We will be an important step closer to understanding the nature of space itself and the physical and quantum laws which arise out of it.
Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (34) Feb 08, 2013
Dear Modernmystic and EyeNStein
The whole problem with "gravity", defined as the force of attraction between two masses, is that it doesn't actually exist, it was "invented" to explain what we observe and make the mathematical representation work. I have long sought any single logical proof of its existence without success. There are several other explanations for the "gravity effect", e.g. www.amazon.com/Th...0ADUHH9O
Judgeking
3.8 / 5 (16) Feb 08, 2013
Reg Mundy:
I have long sought any single logical proof of its existence without success

Ha! How about this: 1) pick up an object 2) let go 3) observe
Disproselyte
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2013
Economic explanatory power should trigger curiosity.
The gauge fields can be constructed in the Weyl way as manifestations of the dilations of the scale variables induced by space-time displacements. This allows one to give a geometric meaning to the charges: they are defined as the conservative quantities that are built from the new scale symmetries. Moreover, since the Planck length-scale becomes invariant under dilations in the framework of special scale-relativity, the quantization of charges is ensured because the possible scale ratios become limited. As a consequence one can theoretically predict the existence of relations between coupling constants and mass scales, whose validity is supported by experimental data, reinforcing the concept of fractal space-time.
Anda
2.8 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2013
Ok. Again... Higgs is not confirmed yet. Waiting...
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (22) Feb 08, 2013
Dear Modernmystic and EyeNStein
The whole problem with "gravity", defined as the force of attraction between two masses, is that it doesn't actually exist, it was "invented" to explain what we observe and make the mathematical representation work. I have long sought any single logical proof of its existence without success. There are several other explanations for the "gravity effect", e.g. http://www.amazon...0ADUHH9O

"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." Henri Poincaré, Science and Method

One of these days Einstein will be proven correct, the unifying force will be that of electromagnetism.
ValeriaT
2.1 / 5 (18) Feb 08, 2013
If this research can create a mathematical understanding of how the Higgs confers a property (called mass) which bends spacetime
"Mathematical understanding" is an oxymoron. The math is a language for exact description of reality, not understanding. Mathematical model is just the regression of reality with function - no less, no more. The physicists are answering the HOW question with mathematical models, not the WHY questions.

Albert Einstein: You don't understand the problem, until you cannot explain it to your grandmother. Apparently, the formal math has nothing to do with it.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 08, 2013
We recognize two types of mass: the inertial and gravitational one. The equivalence principle of Einstein's general relativity assumes, they're very same - but it doesn't explain, why it should be so or when it may not. Actually it seems, this principle gets broken for wide range of phenomena.

Currently only dense aether model can explain both these concepts and their difference to your grandmother.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 08, 2013
The violation of equivalence principle with dark matter can be illustrated quite easily with dense aether model, if we consider, that the most of dark matter is formed with neutrinos, which do behave like tiny bubbles of space-time. The negative refraction index of vacuum inside of these bubbles compensates the positive refraction index of vacuum forming the walls of bubbles, so as a whole the dark matter lensing is considerably weaker, than it corresponds the total inertia of neutrinos, which are forming it. The dark matter exhibits higher inertial mass, than the gravitational mass, actually it exhibits negative gravitational charge and it's repelled from gravity field to its boundaries. To have pile of equations is one thing, to imagine it is the another one. What's worse, the equations will depend on reference frame, which gets quite undefined inside of such system. You should be really able to imagine it for being able to say, what will happen under certain situation.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 08, 2013
The violation of equivalence principle with quantum gravity phenomena indicates, that the inertial mass has different origin, than the gravitational one. But we should still be able to explain, why they remain the same for wide range of phenomena. In dense aether model the tiny density fluctuations of vacuum are responsible for mass of energy waves. But their gravitational shielding depends on the density of gravitational waves too. Because in dense aether model the gravitational waves manifest itself just with density fluctuations of vacuum in strictly 3D flat space, the equivalence principle remains valid, until space will not get curved. For curved space-time the gravitational wave shielding will get weaker, than the inertial effects and for high space-time curvature around black holes the gravity field intensity curve will limit to zero and it will get separated from inertial density curve completely. This effect is called the complementarity of black holes.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 08, 2013
The classical general relativity theory considers, that for black hole the intensity of gravitational field will get into infinite values, but because of divergence of gravitational and inertial mass, the gravity field will get to zero at the even horizon and the gravitational singularity inside of black hole will be never formed. Actually the curvature of space-time will get undefined there due the foamy character of space-time there (the negative and positive curvature will fluctuate and alternate mutually there). The existing low-dimensional models of relativity and quantum mechanics could never describe such a hyperdimensional geometry reliably, because their outcome will depend on the reference frame chosen.
Moebius
2.5 / 5 (16) Feb 08, 2013
The Higgs boson was required by the standard model which is pretty good so the Higgs discovery was virtually a certainty. It doesn't mean it actually exists, it just means it exists in the context of the standard model which may be only an approximation of reality or even downright wrong. Just because we can imagine something doesn't make it real and just because a theory covers the known facts doesn't make it right. Like Newtonian physics.
EyeNStein
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 08, 2013
valeriaT. I like my term "mathematical understanding" - even Dirac said his equation knew more than he did. Creating a maths to discribe what we find in physics then experimenting to test the limits, exceptions and unexpected solutions to equations is how we advance understanding.
vacuum-mechanics
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2013
"Einstein's dream, which we are still trying to fulfil, consists in unifying all interactions of nature – gravitation, electromagnetism, strong interaction and weak interaction - into one framework. The idea is that there is actually only one fundamental force in nature and that the forces we see on a daily basis are just different facets of this fundamental force of nature. Understanding the properties of the Higgs boson and in particular its gravitational interactions will be a key factor on our path to this grand unification."


Here is a realistic toe one...
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (30) Feb 08, 2013
Reg Mundy:
I have long sought any single logical proof of its existence without success

Ha! How about this: 1) pick up an object 2) let go 3) observe

Oh dear, you are confusing the "effect" with the "force"! Please think about it before commenting, then make a logical suggestion for the proof of the existence of the force. I very much look forward to reading it.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (26) Feb 08, 2013
Oh dear, you are confusing the "effect" with the "force"! Please think about it before commenting, then make a logical suggestion for the proof of the existence of the force. I very much look forward to reading it.


Oh dear, yet "another" simpleton who thinks he is the master of word games. All forces, bar none, are defined by their effect. That's what separates them from matter. Bet ya didn't know that did ya? Well now ya know.

Or are ya so simple that ya think that because forces are only manifest in their effects, there is no such thing as a force? Of any kind, at all, any where?

Pssst, ya try so hard,,, and never fail to fail in your experiments. If ya want to sell some e-books, ya might want to hide the fact that ya are a fool, your posts here don't reflect well on the superb quality of the material in it.

Toot-A-Loo, I'll let the really smart people school (embarrass)ya. I see no real entertainment in what ya might be able to offer.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2013
Creating a maths to describe what we find in physics then experimenting to test the limits, exceptions and unexpected solutions to equations is how we advance understanding.
Well, it's time to embrace and extend this method. Even in formal math the theorems must be validated with predicate logics, before they can be used in subsequent derivations. But the formal physics somehow avoids the application of logic in its theories. IMO the main reason is, such a blind approach helps the occupation of physicists and private companies involved.
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (26) Feb 09, 2013

Oh dear, yet "another" simpleton who thinks he is the master of word games. All forces, bar none, are defined by their effect. That's what separates them from matter. Bet ya didn't know that did ya? Well now ya know.
Or are ya so simple that ya think that because forces are only manifest in their effects, there is no such thing as a force? Of any kind, at all, any where?
Pssst, ya try so hard,,, and never fail to fail in your experiments. If ya want to sell some e-books, ya might want to hide the fact that ya are a fool, your posts here don't reflect well on the superb quality of the material in it.

Electric and magnetic forces result from the movement of electrons. Radiation is the movement of photons. What particle is associated with gravity? The "invented" particle the graviton? Its "invented" symmetrical partner the gravitino? Why don't you employ your brain cell in thinking about it and come up with a logical refutation rather than resorting to silly insults?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2013
In classical physics lectures the teachers usually asking their pupils to draw the picture before solving their homework. But the professional physicists somehow forgot this important workflow, as it helps to pile them various nonsensical models blindly without unwanted feedback of their peers, not to say layman publics, which is paying all this fun from their taxis. If the physicists would model the space-time with water surface, the light waves and gravitational waves with transverse and longitudinal waves on it, they would never build the billion dollars priced detectors of gravitational waves and the layman publics would never allow it. The lack of intuitive understanding therefore helps the physicists to spend the money of publics into nonsensical projects. From the same reason every troll engaged in research or study of mainstream physics downvotes my posts here obstinately.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2013
The main motivation for persecution of Galielo with Holy Church in medieval times was just the fear of its priests from lost of job and social status. The contemporary people usually believe, that this primitive motivation just waned after centuries, but they're wrong: the persecution of new ideas just transformed into milder, but the more widespread form and new reasons for their ignorance were invented. The ignorance if not open dismissal of dense aether analogies, cold fusion and another findings of the recent years just helps the influential groups of people to maintain their income and relative power.
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (19) Feb 09, 2013
Electric and magnetic forces result from the movement of electrons. Radiation is the movement of photons."


I thought ya said "results" were off limits, but I believe the word ya used was "effects",,,,,, not very consistent of ya,,, that's why ya simpletons can't get anyone to take your musings very seriously.

Why don't you employ your brain cell in thinking about it and come up with a logical refutation rather than resorting to silly insults?


If ya would present a logical thing for someone to refute, I'll give it a go.

So ya posit that there is no such thing as gravity? Am I right so far? Okay, then please explain what causes this "force" which everyone else is calling gravity. The "process" that explains what we are really seeing, but misunderstanding so completely? And no, I don't want to buy the book.

By the By: Ya still have that force & particle thing mixed up. The photon is a particle, not a force. An EM field is a force. Ya need to learn the difference
Osiris1
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2013
Just maybe we can create and manipulate a Higgs force and make it into a warp field around a space faring craft. If the ship basically stands still in its own delimited space and the field collapses space in front as a kind of wave front that passes around the ship to re-expand in the back..... a small disturbance in space time. Space has LOTS of disturbances in spacetime.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2013
Wrong.

"Electric and magnetic forces result from the movement of electrons" - Reg Mundy

Electric forces are called electromagnetic fields and are a property of charge.

There are many particles that carry the electromagnetic charge. Not simply electrons.

a review of your SELF PUBLISHED book....

"Cutting edge science is done by people who know science, especially at the fundamental level. This author has no knowledge of science so his ponderings on Gravity are completely confused. His total lack of a foundation in any science is apparent from the first page, and he prominently displays it on every subsequent page."
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2013
Given that Higgs particles are inferred from second order effects, how do you propose to do that?

Do you have a very fine pair of tweezers?

"Just maybe we can create and manipulate a Higgs force and make it into a warp field around a space faring craft" - Osirus

Maybe a mixture of the proper proportions of bubblegum, cheese, and Neucleophontardic radiation will work. After all, it produced Godzilla, didn't it?
Nanowill
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2013
The three MAIN "forces" all stem from the strong force as shown and published several years ago.The Higgs has nothing to do with gravity. Check out "Rethinking Physics", second edition, a low cost e-book from RedLeadbooks.com. Also available for free on the web. It explains how the electron generates the effects of charge and mass, and a lot more. Unfortunately for any complex theory lovers the answers are embarrassingly simple once you know how, and violate no physics. Fully consistent with QED and GRT.
This will all get a lot of PR in the near future, you can be ahead of the crowd if you try. Good luck.
baudrunner
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2013
What horse's ass! There is no evidence that this newly discovered particle in any way confers mass on all other particles. In fact, there is nothing to distinguish the so-called 'Higgs boson" from any other of the third generation particles that also hang around for only a few billionths of a billionth of a second, and that have to be coaxed into existence using humungous amounts of energy. Calling the photon background the Higgs Field is just so much more bogus "science". Explain, for the gods' sake.
ValeriaT
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2013
There is no evidence that this newly discovered particle in any way confers mass on all other particles.
Most of physicists even aren't saying it. In Standard Model the Higgs boson accounts for some 2% of baryonic mass.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (23) Feb 09, 2013
Check out "Rethinking Physics", second edition, a low cost e-book from RedLeadbooks.com.


Are ya Will Sr.? Or Will Jr? Or Will III?

Are ya still running that "company" out of your parent's townhouse?

I don't know about "This Week In Physics",,, but this site is starting to get overrun with cranks, crackpots and moral miscreants.
brt
2.6 / 5 (17) Feb 09, 2013

""Electric and magnetic forces result from the movement of electrons. Radiation is the movement of photons. What particle is associated with gravity? The "invented" particle the graviton? Its "invented" symmetrical partner the gravitino? Why don't you employ your brain cell in thinking about it and come up with a logical refutation rather than resorting to silly insults?""

-
-
I guess Q-star was right, you're really ignorant. Someone didn't invent the electron? Someone didn't invent the photon to help describe nature? Both took many years to confirm after theoretical publications. How could anyone get through your level of ignorance?

Now; I'd like to order a number 5 no sauce, medium fries, and a coke...
DavidW
2.7 / 5 (21) Feb 09, 2013
No, it's not about whether or not Qstar is right.

It is about the truth.

Just like that guy shooting people people over the truth and how he discards the very thing he calls important when he ignores that the truth says all life is important.

So, people are not simple or fools. What people are is defined by the truth alone.

When qstar calls others fools, he makes the same basic mistake that the person killing others does. He tries to switch the conversation from the truth and its importance to what he says is the truth and so we should listen to him and that what he says is what really matters.

No qstar, we are not above the truth. Keep it real.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (19) Feb 09, 2013
that the truth says all life is important.

It does? Where?
Fogive me if I can't take a claim that something makes about itself seriously. Because it's the most basic of all logical failures: Solipsism and tautological argument.

It is only YOU who think that life is important and you just SAY that 'the truth says so' because you want to imbue your vague, personal feeling on that matter with something that carries more authority. Well, you're little 'trick' fails.
When qstar calls others fools, he makes the same basic mistake that the person killing others does.

And I must really join him in calling you a fool if you really think that this kind of 'argument' would hold up with people who have even a basic understanding of logic.
Keep it real.

What does that even mean?
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (22) Feb 09, 2013
It is about the truth.


I suppose ya are one of really smart people who think truth is a relative thing? If someone is posting gobbledegook to me, must I believe it to be truth? Must I pretend that I believe it? Or can I be TRUTHFUL and say that I think it is gobbledegook?

Just like that guy shooting people people over the truth and how he discards the very thing he calls important when he ignores that the truth says all life is important.


Shooting people? Can ya say HYPERBOLE? What does shooting people have to do with noticing gobbledegook? Or commenting on it?

So, people are not simple or fools.


New Age gobbledegook. The TRUTH is, many people are simple & fools.

He tries to switch the conversation from the truth and its importance,,,,


No it is the other people who keep dancing around trying out philosophical word games. I only respond.

Sir, ya have attracted my attention. I truthfully hope ya enjoy it.
Whydening Gyre
2.1 / 5 (15) Feb 09, 2013
And so sayeth the Master of that dance.
Silan
5 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2013
"Following last year's discovery of the Higgs boson particle"
Are you 100% sure of that statement? I wish I was.
AmritSorli
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2013
Higgs Boson as any other particle diminishes energy density of space and this causes inertial mass and gravitational mass which are equal.
Reg Mundy
2.1 / 5 (22) Feb 10, 2013
VendicareE
"Cutting edge science is done by people who know science, especially at the fundamental level. This author has no knowledge of science so his ponderings on Gravity are completely confused. His total lack of a foundation in any science is apparent from the first page, and he prominently displays it on every subsequent page."

Either you have read the book or you haven't.
If you have, you will know that I am a Physics graduate of a World-Class university, and your insults are as stupid as you are.
If you haven't read the book, both you and your comments are beneath contempt.
Which is it?
And if you are going to do a critique, try making up your own, not copying it almost word for word from someone else's regarding a different book by another author. But I suppose expecting some original thought from you is asking too much.
There's an old saying about innovation, "First they laugh at you, then they ridicule you, then you win!" -glad you are past the laughing stage!
Reg Mundy
2.2 / 5 (23) Feb 10, 2013
brt

I guess Q-star was right, you're really ignorant. Someone didn't invent the electron? Someone didn't invent the photon to help describe nature? Both took many years to confirm after theoretical publications. How could anyone get through your level of ignorance?

No, someone didn't invent the electron, they discovered it.
No, someone didn't invent the photon, they discovered it.
We wait for someone to discover the graviton, but don't hold your breath...
By the way, like your "light touch" humour, this site could do with more of it instead of rants from the likes of Q-star.
Q-Star
2.4 / 5 (20) Feb 10, 2013
By the way, like your "light touch" humour, this site could do with more of it instead of rants from the likes of Q-star.


Rants? Another word ya don't know how to use properly. I'm still waiting for ya to make a post so I can logically refute something.

Why don't you employ your brain cell in thinking about it and come up with a logical refutation rather than resorting to silly insults?


So tell what this thing we mistakenly call gravity is? This non-existent force? Surely ya can give me something to give a "logical refutation" to? Be sure to remember YOUR constrain, not in terms of effects, causes?

If ya can't, just say so, and move on. If ya won't, just say so and move on.

I will await ya your schooling with bated breath.....
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (20) Feb 10, 2013
If you have, you will know that I am a Physics graduate of a World-Class university,
]

I'm sorry, but I have to ask: Make one post, in your own words, that might lend credence to that absurd statement.

"First they laugh at you, then they ridicule you, then you win!" -glad you are past the laughing stage!


We skipped that stage,,, and it is a stage that no one will get past in your case. World Class? Physics Graduate? Ya provide too much material for us to pass the "ridicule" stage.

Psst, maybe if ya would post something about science, instead of what a great physicist ya are and how mean we are for not realizing it,,,, ya could find yourself back in the laughed at stage rather than stuck in the ridicule stage.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (21) Feb 10, 2013
No, someone didn't invent the electron, they discovered it.
No, someone didn't invent the photon, they discovered it.
We wait for someone to discover the graviton, but don't hold your breath...


Okay physics graduate from a World Class university,,, let's talk physics, discoveries and inventions.

How was the electron "invented/ er,emm discovered"? How long after it was posited was it actually confirmed?

How was the photon "discovered"? Who "discovered" it? What device did they use to "discover" it? Is it a real thing? Or a virtual thing? What sets it apart from other things?

Is there any way, in your profound understanding of World Class physics, you could put succinctly into words, why a photon might "discovered" rather easily compared to a graviton? Why a graviton compared to photon is like a bacterium compared to an elephant?

I give ya a hint so ya'll have something to work with,,,, think several dozens orders of magnitude. 10^40 or so,,,,,,
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (24) Feb 10, 2013
Q-Star
I do wish you would stop signing-on with your numerous aliases and boosting your comments Rank while dissing everyone who disagrees with you - its so transparent. Pathetic, really.....
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (22) Feb 10, 2013
Q-Star
I do wish you would stop signing-on with your numerous aliases and boosting your comments Rank while dissing everyone who disagrees with you - its so transparent. Pathetic, really.....


Oh,,, that's on topic, and completely wrong. I could care less about ratings. Q-star is just an anonymous person on the internet,,, why would he care about something as silly as ratings?

But I thought ya wanted to discuss "logical" physics? I put to ya a couple of very rudimentary, simple and fundamental questions. If ya only want to steer the debate away from how little ya know, ya are doing a very poor job of it.

Are ya going to answer me about the photon's discovery? Are ya going to explain WHY ya think there is on force called gravity? Will ya please explain what causes this thing which we mistakenly refer to as gravity?

Ya can keep trying to dodge the questions with distractions, but I'll just keep asking. It is apparent that ya don't want to "logically" discuss the science
Noumenon
2 / 5 (41) Feb 10, 2013
@Reg Mundy,... I think you are bringing this on yourself by using a poor choice of words. For example it makes no sense to say there is no "force" of gravity. The term "force" is a means of conceptualizing the phenomenon of gravity. It is measurable as defined, in such a theory, so is not something deniable.

For example, clearly a force of gravity exists as formulated by Newton very accurately. Einstein did even better, but did not make use of the force concept, but instead formulated the phenomenon of gravity in differential geometry, as a curved space-time.

Why don't you summarize your ideas here rather than expect one to pay for your conversation?
Noumenon
2 / 5 (37) Feb 10, 2013
The whole problem with "gravity", defined as the force of attraction between two masses, is that it doesn't actually exist, it was "invented" to explain what we observe and make the mathematical representation work.


Um, ya,...That's what physics is. Help us out here. What are you saying doesn't exist? Surely you're not saying that the phenomena which we call gravity doesn't exist? Drop a stone on your foot. Surely you're not saying that the mathematical formulation that describes that phenomena as a force, doesn't exist? Newton and his work did exist.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (22) Feb 10, 2013

Um, ya,...That's what physics is. Help us out here. What are you saying doesn't exist? Surely you're not saying that the phenomena which we call gravity doesn't exist? Drop a stone on your foot. Surely you're not saying that the mathematical formulation that describes that phenomena as a force, doesn't exist? Newton and his work did exist.

You are right, that's what physics is! What I'm saying is that the force of attraction between two uncharged masses does not exist. In physics, we currently use "gravity" to explain this non-existent force to make our equations work. There are other ways of doing this.....
However, they won't stop the stone from falling on your foot (as we perceive it, when actually your foot is being thrust up by the mass of the Earth to strike the stone).
Its pleasant to see a comment from someone who is actually prepared to think about it. I would be quite happy to be proved wrong, all you need is a proof that the graviton exists or something similar
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (21) Feb 10, 2013
What I'm saying is that the force of attraction between two uncharged masses does not exist. In physics, we currently use "gravity" to explain this non-existent force to make our equations work. There are other ways of doing this.....


Could you suggest a better way to model gravity than Newton or Einstein? The numbers Sir. Show us how you would calculate and predict planetary motions? Show us another way to calculate and predict the acceleration between two bodies?

However, they won't stop the stone from falling on your foot (as we perceive it, when actually your foot is being thrust up by the mass of the Earth to strike the stone).


Ya are close to right there,,, but if the force is not in the stone, it must be in the "mass of the Earth". I content it is FORCE acting mutually between the two. By what name would you call that force? And how would model it with numbers to predict the behavior of the Earth and the stone. Name the quality, and quantify it.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (20) Feb 10, 2013
I would be quite happy to be proved wrong, all you need is a proof that the graviton exists or something similar


Before anyone can prove ya wrong, ya must first posit a model of something that can tested experimentally. Any proposition in science must be subject to falsification. Newton and Einstein have be subjected to experiment countless times over the centuries, and have passed every single test conducted within the framework of their models.

To say something is not right is meaningless unless ya can show why it is not right.

If it is not gravity, then what pray tell us what it is? What construct works better?

See it's this dilly-dallying ya do that draws negative attention. Ya need to explain why ya say and think certain things. Just getting mad because someone disagrees with some comment ya make only draws more attention to the remark and why ya can't explain it.
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (21) Feb 10, 2013
I would be quite happy to be proved wrong, all you need is a proof that the graviton exists or something similar


There is no proof that the photon you keep referring to as proven to exist. There is no more "proof" of the photon than there is for the hypothetical graviton. Only the effects of it existence are KNOWN. Only it's interactions are observed, it's existence is only inferred from the maths and models. The same with the hypothetical graviton.

The gravity force as posited by the Standard Model is 10^-40 weaker than the EM force,,,, that is a very tiny number,,, that is why that it hasn't been pinned down yet,,,, but the gravity fields have been measured directly during the last decade.

World Class university ya say?
Reg Mundy
1.9 / 5 (27) Feb 10, 2013
Oh,,, that's on topic, and completely wrong. I could care less about ratings. Q-star is just an anonymous person on the internet,,, why would he care about something as silly as ratings?

Funny how my comments always start with a Rank of 1/5(1) and then improve, and your comments always start with a Rank of 5/5(1) then dive into the floor as actual people with brains start to rank them. I think the facts speak for themselves, and am content to let others draw their own conclusions. I think you "could care less" about your rankings, and if you aren't doing it yourself, you must be getting your mother to do it for you (as opposed to your father, who you have probably never met). I advise you to desist, as you are making yourself a laughing stock.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (17) Feb 10, 2013
Funny how my comments always start with a Rank of 1/5(1) and then improve, and your comments always start with a Rank of 5/5(1) then dive into the floor as actual people with brains start to rank them.

Hmm.. I just checked your ratings page. Seems like you get straight 1's all the way.
Then I had a look at Qstars page and couldn't see the 'nosedive' you describe at all.
I can't really see how you arrive at that argument of yours. Care to explain further?
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (23) Feb 10, 2013
Funny how my comments always start with a Rank of 1/5(1) and then improve, and your comments always start with a Rank of 5/5(1) then dive into the floor as actual people with brains start to rank them. I think the facts speak for themselves, and am content to let others draw their own conclusions. I think you "could care less" about your rankings, and if you aren't doing it yourself, you must be getting your mother to do it for you (as opposed to your father, who you have probably never met). I advise you to desist, as you are making yourself a laughing stock.


So that is your theory of gravity which doesn't exist? I can see why ya can sell so many books.

Desist ya say? Not until ya can tell us why there is no force called gravity.

So the conspiracy science has spilled over into the comment ratings. Why do cranks and crackpots ALWAYS fall back on that? Why not just present and defend their crackpot gobbledygook? Can't a graduate from a World Class university do better?
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (42) Feb 10, 2013
In physics, we currently use "gravity" to explain this non-existent force to make our equations work. There are other ways of doing this.....


You have this backwards. Gravity is the name of the observed phenomena, while force is a means of modeling that phenomena. As I said it makes no sense to deny either one.

It IS valid to use some other means of formulating a model to describe gravity. Einstein did this in general relativity in which he used no force, but he did not deny that gravity exists as a phenomena.

Are you trying to say that gravity is an epiphenomenon and not one of the four fundamental forces of nature?
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (25) Feb 10, 2013
Noumenon
Are you trying to say that gravity is an epiphenomenon and not one of the four fundamental forces of nature?

Wow, did you swallow a dictionary? Here's the Oxford definition:-
"Definition of epiphenomenon
noun (plural epiphenomena /-nə/)a secondary effect or by-product, in particular: •Medicine a secondary symptom, occurring simultaneously with a disease or condition but not directly related to it.
•a mental state regarded as a by-product of brain activity."
However, I understand what you mean, and the answer is yes.
It IS valid to use some other means of formulating a model to describe gravity. Einstein did this in general relativity in which he used no force, but he did not deny that gravity exists as a phenomena.

So "Einstein used no force". He knew that gravity (the attraction between two masses) didn't exist, he explained its effect using a dimple in the space/time continuum. I don't use imaginary dimples in an invented space/time.

Q-Star
3 / 5 (24) Feb 10, 2013
I don't use imaginary dimples in an invented space/time.


One day would ya deign to attempt to explain to us really stupid people what it is ya do use? Newton's Universal Gravitation works, we've landed spacecraft on the moons of Saturn using it. Einstein's General Relativity works,,,, we can locate objects on scales to small to see using it.

What can ya do?

(Pssst, is it some secret knowledge only to be given to the select few who are worthy of such power? If it is, just say so and I'll the subject drop, I'd hate to have the Templars come visit me in the dead of night.)
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (43) Feb 10, 2013
So "Einstein used no force". He knew that gravity (the attraction between two masses) didn't exist, he explained its effect using a dimple in the space/time continuum.


That Einstein used curvature of space-time rather than a force in describing the phenomenon we call gravity, does not imply he thought that gravity didn't exist. In fact one of the best texts on his theory is called "Gravitation".

However, I understand what you mean, and the answer is yes.


I used the word correctly,.... 'gravity is an artifact of a more fundamental force', yes? Would that more fundamental force be electromagnetism? As pointed out by Q-Star , the differences in strength are enormous.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (43) Feb 10, 2013
,... for the sake of discussion, Reg_Mundy, just accept that "gravity" is not a theory itself. It is a phenomenon, irrespective of how it is modeled, be it General Relativity or Newtonian mechanics or Langrangian or Hamiltonian, or ???

Ultimately the aim is , (QFT), is to descibe all forces as a manifestation of broken symmetries in nature. So the goal is to unify the laws of nature. Gravity is the result of,.......... (?)
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (24) Feb 10, 2013
There are people associated with LochNess in Scotland who promote the existence of The LochNess Monster. Call them the LochNess MonsterMob(LNMM). Their evidence for its existence is the numerous sightings over the years by people ranging from labourers to eminent scientists.
Its existence could be proved by catching it, physically, or photographically in an unfakeable way. Its non-existence can never be proved - didn't look for it properly, the equipment was faulty, it flies away and only comes back occasionally, and so on... Some of the LNMM are genuine, others make a lot of money out of it.
Similarly with gravity, except that I can choose not to give the LNMM my money, but you and I have to pay our taxes which the governments then throw at the academics for yet another figurative sweep of the Loch.
I can't condense the logic for the non-existence of gravity to 1000 chars, you need the context of quantum time/matter/mass/momentum. Read the book, cheapskates.
ASIN: B00BBF71PU
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (42) Feb 10, 2013
You must provide enough information to peak my interest in your book,... so far you have only provided grainy footage of what looks like hand waving in murky waters.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (22) Feb 10, 2013
Similarly with gravity, except that I can choose not to give the LNMM my money, but you and I have to pay our taxes which the governments then throw at the academics for yet another figurative sweep of the Loch.


Very germane, ah yes, be sure to get the conspiracy mention in,,, another fine description of why gravity does not exist.

I can't condense the logic for the non-existence of gravity to 1000 chars, you need the context of quantum time/matter/mass/momentum. Read the book, cheapskates.


If ya only produce gobbledegook with 1000 characters, why would someone be enticed to pay money for a pamphlet of it?

ASIN: B00BBF71PU


Can't argue with, must have been something ya learned in that World-Class university.

What do ya call it when two massive bodies start drifting towards each other? We realize that ya don't call it gravity, but what is it that ya call it? Can it even be named with less than 1000 characters? (That would make for a long title to your book.)
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (24) Feb 10, 2013
[
ASIN: B00BBF71PU

Can't argue with, must have been something ya learned in that World-Class university.

It stands for Amazon Standard Identification Number, useful for identifying e-books. Perhaps I should have used ISBN-13: 978-1482364408 (that's International Standard Book Number in case you have never read a book).

What do ya call it when two massive bodies start drifting towards each other? We realize that ya don't call it gravity, but what is it that ya call it?

For you, I would probably need to call it something between "Love" and "Hard Porn" to get you to read it.
If you had been paying attention, I am saying that, in my opinion, there is NO force between two massive electrically-neutral bodies to start them drifting towards each other. Get it? NO gravity! NO name, it doesn't exist!
You'll just have to read the book for the explanation - I hope it doesn't give you a headache, its written in laymens' terms with minimal maths.
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (23) Feb 10, 2013
For you, I would probably need to call it something between "Love" and "Hard Porn" to get you to read it.
If you had been paying attention, I am saying that, in my opinion, there is NO force between two massive electrically-neutral bodies to start them drifting towards each other. Get it? NO gravity! NO name, it doesn't exist!
You'll just have to read the book for the explanation - I hope it doesn't give you a headache, its written in laymens' terms with minimal maths.


Oh, well then, since ya went to a World Class university where ya studied physics,,,,,,,

Thanks for the entertainment. Now that ya have my attention, I can't wait until ya make your next foolish statement so I can ask ya to explain, and the many ways ya'll say "I don't know".

There's an old saying about innovation, "First they laugh at you, then they ridicule you, then they keep on ridiculing ya if all ya got is gobbledegook."

World Class university? Sort like that no gravity thing? Both worthy of ridicule.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (22) Feb 10, 2013
If you had been paying attention, I am saying that, in my opinion, there is NO force between two massive electrically-neutral bodies to start them drifting towards each other. Get it? NO gravity! NO name, it doesn't exist!


Pardon, but that deserves a double dose of ridicule.

So the neutral charged stone, and the Earth beneath your feet, won't start drifting together? Nothing pushes, pulls or moves them except some "thing" only be found in a pamphlet to bought on the internet?

How can ya say such a thing as "I was a graduate in physics from a World-Class university"? Ya have not even shown us anything here that would hint that ya even made it past the ninth grade.

Maybe I missed something ya wrote these last few days, that sounds like it came from the product of a World Class university? If so, point to that comment, please?

I went to a World Class university. I actually took classes from three Nobel Laureates. The groundskeepers there were smarter than ya.

SethD
2.1 / 5 (15) Feb 10, 2013
"Following last year's discovery of the Higgs boson particle – the so-called "God particle" that answers how the particles have masses"

Higgs boson has been discovered?! What a gigantic leap from the last summer's actual announcement!

Now Rothschilds' own clergy aka "mainstream physicists" (oxymoron) have switched into the highest gear, using outright lies and manipulation.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2013
Gravity comes from energy, not mass. That is what Einstein said. Photons certainly understand this. What's the problem here?
Whydening Gyre
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 10, 2013
Gravity comes from energy, not mass. That is what Einstein said. Photons certainly understand this. What's the problem here?

Gravity is just one of forms of energy that is useful to draw mass to other mass, yes?
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2013
From the Amazon review of Mundy's self published book.

"If you know science, this book is a waste of your time and money. If you don't know science, this book will cause more harm than good, unless you might want a prime example of what to beware of in writers of the NEW "Theory Of Everything."
vlaaing peerd
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2013
hm, at least mr World class university has one positive 5-star review. A certain Mr Maritimejack has nothing but appraisal for this totally 100% asian-level-physics book which could only be produced from the likes of world class university physics graduates.

Mr maritimejack and Regs Mundi also seem to have remarkable consonant resemblances in how bets of not discovering a graviton before 2014~2015 apparently proves the point of this book.

Regs Mundi on daily galaxy:
"I will take any wager that no such gravity-conferring particle will be found (lets say by 2015 for the purposes of the wager"

maritimejack on Amazon:
"I'll take any bets anyone wants to place with me that no particle conferring "mass" or "gravity" on matter will be found, say, by 2014 for the purposes of the bet"

The mere fact of claiming any truth depending on such particles to be found before 2015 should say enough about mr Mundi's understanding of gravity.
vlaaing peerd
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2013
not impying any abuse of using fake aliases here, just letting up some balloons. ...oh no sorry, I do.

nevertheless it's a rude insult to real scientist that you even remotely dare to compare your crackpot pov about gravity with Erik Verlinde's view on gravity.

I do admit Mr Maritime jack's words in the book review are mildly amusing "Anyway, I can visualise the "t-rds" and "t rds" interacting with each other"
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (20) Feb 11, 2013
I wonder why Q-Star keeps harking back to "World Class University"? Is it jealousy? OK, Q-Star, what formal qualifications do you have? Which university did you attend? Who were the three Nobel Laureates at whose feet you worshipped - or did they worship at yours, presumably having arrived from the East? From the quality of the writing in your comments, I can't imagine any university admitting you...
As for comments on Amazon, I wonder who Quinn is - with the accent on the Q.
Maritime jack on dailygalaxy, the only comment I recall he made (and it took some finding) was back in December 2012 in an article on Quantum Entanglement when he said "The only explanation for "quantum entanglement" I have ever understood is in Reg Mundy's "The Situation of Gravity", but the rest of it just gave me a headache." Hardly a ringing endorsement, but his review was kind, at least he had read the book with an open mind - something I sadly regret seems to be missing from a few of the comments here.

antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2013
I wonder why Q-Star keeps harking back to "World Class University"?

Probably because it's pretty funny that someone who very obviously has no clue as to physics would vaunt themselevs with having been at one?

People who produce nothing but hot air deserve top be ridiculed at every turn. That's not some little faux pas. If you can't put up (as you refuse to do here by refusing to set forth your 'theory') then shut up.

Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (21) Feb 11, 2013
antialias phyorg/Q-Star
[q}If you can't put up (as you refuse to do here by refusing to set forth your 'theory') then shut up.
I didn't refuse to refuse to set forth my theory, as you so ineloquently put it, I pointed out that it couldn't be set forth in 1000 characters as it needs to be considered in the context of quantum time etc.
I have "put up" by directing you to a book which explains the theory. Perhaps you/antialias physorg/Q-Star/etc. would care to direct everybody to an original book/pamphlet/paper/or even poem that you have published, so that we would know you are capable of original thought and are not just an internet troll who gets his kicks from criticising and insulting those of us who try to make a contribution to the eternal scientific debate.

brt
3.1 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2013
""" I didn't refuse to refuse to set forth my theory, as you so ineloquently put it, I pointed out that it couldn't be set forth in 1000 characters as it needs to be considered in the context of quantum time etc.
I have "put up" by directing you to a book which explains the theory. Perhaps you/antialias physorg/Q-Star/etc. would care to direct everybody to an original book/pamphlet/paper/or even poem that you have published, so that we would know you are capable of original thought and are not just an internet troll who gets his kicks from criticising and insulting those of us who try to make a contribution to the eternal scientific debate. """

nobody wants to buy a book from a delusional and ignorant troll.
brt
3.4 / 5 (17) Feb 11, 2013
""" I wonder why Q-Star keeps harking back to "World Class University"? """

because apparently your peers think you're a complete crackpot as well. Even Laurent Nottale has peers who will at least discuss his theory of scale relativity; and they all think scale relativity is complete crap. You don't have a single mention from anyone in the physics community across the entire internet. Which means that not only are your ideas and your book a complete scam, but you are such an intolerable person that people aren't even discussing you or your "theory". My 2 cents, you are probably a complete liar trying to scam people into buying your bogus book and none of what you claim is true.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2013
I pointed out that it couldn't be set forth in 1000 characters

I for one would give you permission to use several posts. Take as many as you like. I'm sure it's possible to give at least an abstract INCLUDING some substance within n times 1000 letters.

I have "put up" by directing you to a book which explains the theory.

You seriously think I'm going to buy your book? After the hogwash you post here? You must be out of your friggin' mind.

would care to direct everybody to an original book/pamphlet/paper/

When we discuss my specialty I'll be pleased to. But since we're not dicussing Quantitative CT of the knee for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis (and since I doubt you could read it, because it's published in german), I don't see how that pertains.

gets his kicks from criticising

Kicks? No. I for my part criticize when I see people make untenable claims. It's just in my nature to speak out against liars.
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2013
"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." Henri Poincaré, Science and Method


So energy m*c^2 is an "appearance". Poincare wrote this (I believe) before Einstein proved that mass is energy. Thus, all electro-magnetic fields automatically have mass. Where the hell does the need for a Higgs-boson come into this? I have not seen any experiment that can prove or falsify the claim that the noisy blip "observed(?)" at CERN "gives other particles mass". The theory on which claim rests is "not even wrong"!

One of these days Einstein will be proven correct, the unifying force will be that of electromagnetism.
Amen!
rubberman
3 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2013
Gravity comes from energy, not mass. That is what Einstein said. Photons certainly understand this. What's the problem here?


Perhaps Reg should explain the mechanism for "gravity" as it relates to magnetism and WHY there is no attraction between massive neutral bodies. For one I agree with that statement, but a physicist from a top University should be able to show this mathematically. ( And I would really like to see if it can even be done)....or at least a verbal description of the processes at work.
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (21) Feb 11, 2013
Its amusing to see Q-Star/antialias_phyorg/brt/etc. jumping about, pulling their hair out, coming up with puerile insults, everytime I post a comment. Its a bit like poking a drunken sailor with a stick and listening to him swear. Anyway, gentlemen (that's sarcasm, by the way), I must apologise for upsetting you. While not being religious myself, I do know that every major religion on the planet teaches us that it is wicked to mock the afflicted, so I will desist for the time being.
For all you genuine contributors, please accept my thanks for an interesting discussion, its been fun.
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2013
"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." Henri Poincaré, Science and Method


So energy m*c^2 is an "appearance". Poincare wrote this (I believe) before Einstein proved that mass is energy. Thus, all electro-magnetic fields automatically have mass. Where the hell does the need for a Higgs-boson come into this? I have not seen any experiment that can prove or falsify the claim that the noisy blip "observed(?)" at CERN "gives other particles mass". The theory on which claim rests is "not even wrong"!

One of these days Einstein will be proven correct, the unifying force will be that of electromagnetism.
Amen!


Accurate and to the point as usual, Good to see you back Johan!
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 11, 2013
You must provide enough information to peak my interest in your book,... so far you have only provided grainy footage of what looks like hand waving in murky waters.


Look who is talking! The person who are not able to give any straight answer when asking him a question about physics. So let me ask him again: When an entity is measured to follow a definite path through space, is it "acting" like a "particle" or "acting" like a wave? Please answer this simple question or just admit that you are too stupid tom argue physics!
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 11, 2013
@ Reg Mundy,
I have not yet read your book and can therefore not judge its content. The same is true for the morons on this thread who are attacking you in such an unfair and horrible manner. Just accept that it is not worthwhile to take note of them. For example, Q-Star has less brains than an earthworm.

Your book review by Quinn has probably been done by VendicarE: Another certifiable idiot. Amazon should not allow a book review in which wild criticisms are thrown about without motivation. I just looked; and each one of Quin's wild incoherent statements is not motivated by him/her; which proves that this person is lower than a the lowest scum that ever existed on earth.

So keep your chin up. You have a right to your opinions: Even though the mainstream physics-Vatican will do anything to excommunicate you and burn you at the stake. NO wonder we are wasting billions of dollars to hunt for "particles" for which there is no exp. evidence that they do what is claimed that they do.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2013
because apparently your peers think you're a complete crackpot as well. Even Laurent Nottale has peers who will at least discuss his theory of scale relativity; and they all think scale relativity is complete crap. You don't have a single mention from anyone in the physics community across the entire internet. Which means that not only are your ideas and your book a complete scam, but you are such an intolerable person that people aren't even discussing you or your "theory". My 2 cents, you are probably a complete liar trying to scam people into buying your bogus book and none of what you claim is true.


Only the lowest of lowest scumbags will post this. I hope this person will die a horrible death which he got from his mistress!
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2013
"Thus, all electro-magnetic fields automatically have mass." - Johanf

The m in E=mc**2 represents rest mass. The direction of the equation is from right to left.

There is no universal left to right interpretation.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2013
"Thus, all electro-magnetic fields automatically have mass." - Johanf

The m in E=mc**2 represents rest mass. The direction of the equation is from right to left.


No it does NOT!! Stupid!! When an entity moves past you its TOTAL energy is m*c^2 and you obtain its kinetic energy T by subtracting its rest-mass m(0) so that you have that:

T=(m-m(0))*c^2

In fact this is proof that ALL moving entities are waves. This proof can be derived directly from the Lorentz transformation. It is simple to do this but probably FAAAR above your mental capability!
brt
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 11, 2013
so johanfprins is Reg Mundy? Just like any positive feedback to Reg Mundy's pathetic book is obviously a fake account created by Reg to shamelessly promote himself. I'm sure Amazon.com could care less given that only 10 people per 5 years frequent the page. It's pathetic to see how truly stupid Reg allows himself to be through his alias. I wouldn't even call it childish because most children don't act like that. It's just a flat out, personality disorder.

And nobody is pulling their hair out at what you're saying. We're all just amazed at how disconnected from reality you are. Not necessarily physics, but that you are obviously a bratty child in a grown man's body. I'm not saying these things to be mean, but because they're true. You probably do work some job that has nothing to do with physics. You probably barely graduated from a university (probably not "world class", probably very average). You are so amazingly transparent that your ignorance is only matched by your arrogance
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2013
so johanfprins is Reg Mundy eh?


I am not Reg Mundy. But at least Mundy has not proved himself to be scumbag as you have proved yourself to be on this thread!
brt
2.1 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2013
so johanfprins is Reg Mundy eh?


I am not Reg Mundy. But at least Mundy has not proved himself to be scumbag as you have proved yourself to be on this thread!


I seriously doubt that. Get a life dude.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2013
I seriously doubt that. Get a life dude.
What does an stinking entity like you who obviously crawl around in sewage pipes know about "life"?
Q-Star
3 / 5 (18) Feb 11, 2013
so that we would know you are capable of original thought and are not just an internet troll who gets his kicks from criticising and insulting those of us who try to make a contribution to the eternal scientific debate.


The only contribution ya have made is some vague statement that there is no gravity. Beyond that your only contribution has been to show us that ya easily get your feelings hurt, that ya don't understand much about physics as it stands today, and that like 99% of the delusional "geniuses" with a perfect new theory everyone victimizes ya get hypersensitive when people point out your flawed logic.

Oh yeah, I left out,,, everyone who points out any absurdity ya write is stupid, if they don't recognize ya as a brilliant thinker and master of gobbledegook, then they are really, really stupid. Put that up there with the things ya have contributed.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (18) Feb 11, 2013
What does an stinking entity like you who obviously crawl around in sewage pipes know about "life"?


I commend ya Sir, spoken like a truly deep and profound thinker. That's even more profound than your scientific greatness.
Gawad
3 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
Q-Star, AA, brt...that bit about "your foot is being thrust up by the mass of the Earth to strike the stone" should tell you everything you need to know about Reg's...ahem..."theory". He's another variant on the "expansion theory" crackpot. If you're not familar with "expansion theory" pseudo-science have a look at http://www.mathpa...h077.htm
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (19) Feb 11, 2013
He's another variant on the "expansion theory" crackpot.


His theory preceded him here,,,,, he has been tweaking it in various guises for a long time at different places. But it's not nearly as entertaining as his jumping through hoops trying to deflect criticisms. He has a long & varied history of that also.

Not much science, but he is big fun. The more fun ya have with him, the madder & more shrill he gets,,, but of course he keeping pretending he really isn't getting angry, & he'll keep telling ya how mad ya are getting.

Yeppers, he's as dumb as moon-rock, and as predictable as the moon's orbit.

His other favorite tactic, is as predictable as the acceleration due to gravity, is his fondness of creating several voting sock-puppets & calling anyone with the temerity to mock him a single sock-puppet. He hasn't figured out that profile join date & voting patterns can be analyzed by anyone with a third grade education.

But then we are all stupid for not seeing his genius.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2013
everytime I post a comment. Its a bit like poking a drunken sailor with a stick and listening to him swear.

All right. Weasel out of it.
Every opportunity was given to you to do more than stamp your foot and goo "no, no, no - gravity ain't there" - and you blew it. As a world renowned scientist you might be aware that that type of reacton doesn't cut it in scientific circles.
Your feeble sales-pitch has failed here. Not even our resident unsung Einstein PrinceAlbert-Piercing has bought it. And I'm sure he'd find it fascinating (though incompatible with his crackpot theory).
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (17) Feb 11, 2013
Your feeble sales-pitch has failed here. Not even our resident unsung Einstein PrinceAlbert-Piercing has bought it. And I'm sure he'd find it fascinating (though incompatible with his crackpot theory).


Shoot, even Zephyr, in his many guises is always willing to attempt to share his theories. He doesn't answer anyone who asks for an explanation with cries of: "foul" "foul", "everyone (who are all actually one person) who asks me what I mean are picking on me", or "there can't be more than one person who can't see my brilliance so ya'll are one person."

Zephyr is no coward in defending his "theories", but this character (Reg Mundy this month) is as cowardly as I have ever seen on this type of venue.

Oh yeah,,, By the By: His "book", which was issued in December 1st Ed?? Here two months latter he's come out with the 2nd Ed,,, but then it has been a work in progress for a long, long time, and "preliminary" opuses have been issued under various names over the years.

jaxFrost
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2013
"If you have, you will know that I am a Physics graduate of a World-Class university"

no, you aren't.

"Electric and magnetic forces result from the movement of electrons. Radiation is the movement of photons."

a physics graduate from a world-class university would know that PHOTONS are responsibly for transmission of the electromagnetic force. a physics graduate would also know that "radiation" is not a "force".

"We wait for someone to discover the graviton, but don't hold your breath..."

a physics graduate of a world-class university would know that the graviton is essentially undetectable pursuant to the utterly minuscule interaction cross-section. indeed, a physics graduate of a world-class university would understand that a "particle" is nothing more than a mathematical construct for a disturbance in as associated force field (and thus that the graviton is just QFT's description of something that EVERYONE can feel), but we'll start with baby steps.
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (18) Feb 12, 2013
Despite my retirement from commenting on this thread, it seems I must make one last comment.
If you decide that you want to make a bet that gravity exists (the graviton or gravitino are discovered, or Higgs Boson is proved to confer "gravity"), then do so with a reputable bookmaker. I STRONGLY advise you not to use Maritine Jack's website, an opportunistic attempt to take advantage of the situation. If you track the hosting location of the site, you can use your own commonsense (though probably sadly lacking if you think gravity exists!) to evaluate your chances of actually collecting any winnings. DO NOT provide personal or account data, if you have I advise you to take preventative action against fraud immediately.
PS johanprins - thanks for your support, but you are wasting your time addressing those lunatics.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (41) Feb 12, 2013
Retirement from what ? You haven't actually said anything of substance here. It appears that you're only interested in physics to the extent of enabling you to sell books to less knowledgable people than you ,... which is not going to work at a physics site. I would suggest hitting up the knitting forums.

P.S. The Higgs [Field] doesn't confer "gravity",.. it's thought to confer mass. You see, energy of any sort, 'confers gravity', not just mass as a result of the Higgs field.
rubberman
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 12, 2013
Jax - On this link is a model of the EM field of a Photon, it is 56 minutes, the EM structure portion is 35-40 minutes in. This video also explains the how and why behind the observations of the double slit experiment, edge diffraction, and single slit observations. I would recommend watching the whole thing...

http://www.youtub...6ikj1G-s

When you see the field complexity of a single photon, it's pretty mind blowing.
Gawad
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2013
I STRONGLY advise you not to use Maritine Jack's website, an opportunistic attempt to take advantage of the situation.


Euh...yeah, o.k. Thanks for the tip. I Guess. You know, your selection of publisher doesn't exactly inspire a whole lot of confidence in your...

Aw hell, never mind.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (39) Feb 12, 2013
What a complete charlatan. Mundy even linked to this thread in reply to a negative review at Amazon, and used Johan f. Prins as a positive reference,... even though johanfprins never read his book. LOL.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (18) Feb 12, 2013
What a complete charlatan. Mundy even linked to this thread in reply to a negative review at http://www.amazon...mp;tag=, and used Johan f. Prins as a positive reference,... even though johanfprins never read his book. LOL.


Did I say this guy was as dumb as a moon-rock? A moon-rock should be insulted by that characterization. Are ya saying he linked this thread for potential buyers? That would take delusional ideation to a whole new level. They should study this guy.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (39) Feb 12, 2013
Yes, incredibly he must think this thread is an improvement upon Quinn's review. LOL. He accuses Quinn of not reading the book, while it should be clear that johanfprins didn't either.

Hey johanfprins, how do you like your name being used? Perhaps you would like to add to the Amazon comments.
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 12, 2013
Did I say this guy was as dumb as a moon-rock? A moon-rock should be insulted by that characterization. Are ya saying he linked this thread for potential buyers? That would take delusional ideation to a whole new level. They should study this guy.


Nobody in ALL the multiverses, if they are possible, can EVER be as dumb as YOU are Q-Star!
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (18) Feb 12, 2013
Nobody in ALL the multiverses, if they are possible, can EVER be as dumb as YOU are Q-Star!


Thank ya Sir, that makes me so much more remarkable than ya could ever wish to be, so will ya quit pretending that ya are somehow a special mind?

Out of all the people in the entire multiverse, nay,, ALL THE MULTIVERSES, I surpass all others, I'll wear it as a badge of honor that ya bestowed upon me.
YouAreProbablyDumb
4 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2013
Forums on physics websites are indeed the saddest locations in the universe.

Although I must admit seeing the links to self published books obviously by the poster do give me a good chuckle. I should join Quinn in commenting on them to assist in saving our world.
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (17) Feb 12, 2013
Although I must admit seeing the links to self published books obviously by the poster do give me a good chuckle. I should join Quinn in commenting on them to assist in saving our world.


It's not saving the world that draws me out. Science and the world can't be hurt by the crank or crackpot science dressed up in gobbledegook and misused jargon.

It's mostly for the benefit of sincere lay reader who might find their way here through Google. In their innocence they may be abused by false gurus of "theoretical" science.

I have fun in jousting with them (us of the Irish race are like that), and they get to show in their own irrational rambling ponderings, how utterly non-knowledgeable they are.

And then there are the misanthropic geniuses who take every opportunity to tell some very smart posters that they are stupid, moronic and idiotic. They may know some little or great thing about science, but they know nothing of the humanity over which they think they tower.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 12, 2013
P.S. I really do have a graduate degree from a very prestigious university. Honest. And I really do have a very good position at a major university. No, I'm not a tenured professor, but it's a good position.

Someone keeps baiting me with something to the effect "anonymous lying coward" or some such. Only a really stupid person would engage in these shenanigans with their real name, address, and personal information. From the demeanor of some the characters on this site, wouldn't ya think it foolish of me if I posted a means of annoying me in my own space?

But for all ya people who come in by way of Google, there are a lot of really smart posters here, much smarter than I am,,, ya can learn a lot from them, I do. But beware of anyone who has all the answers, and particularly if they posit the new great true "Theory of Everything"....

As soon as they hint that they have the true "Theory of Everything",, ya can be sure they don't know what they are talking about.
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (19) Feb 12, 2013
Seems like I gotta make another comment - I am making more comebacks than an old rock group--
I unreservedly apologise to Maritin Jack, and acknowledge that he has no connection whatsoever with the website. I have endorsed his complaint to the relevant authority and it is being taken down.
The depravity of people like Q-Star/brt/antialias-physorg/Noumenon beggars belief.
While I'm on the subject, a gentle poke at Noumenon who cant' tell the difference between a Higgs Boson and the Higgs Field, hence when I talk about the Higgs Boson he replies:-
"P.S. The Higgs [Field] doesn't confer "gravity",.. it's thought to confer mass. You see, energy of any sort, 'confers gravity', not just mass as a result of the Higgs field."
To help you understand the difference, Noumenon, try visualising yourself eating a meal of baked beans in tomato sauce on toast. You can pick up the beans with your fork, but not what they are floating in. Meanwhile, you're toast....
Bye-bye.
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (17) Feb 12, 2013
The depravity of people like Q-Star/brt/antialias-physorg/Noumenon beggars belief.


Thank ya for putting me in that group,, some of the smarter than me posters I refereed to in the previous post.

If it's depravity that ya are rating,,, then yeah, I should be at the front of the line, but if ya are ranking us smartness, then the others really should be in front of me.

Toot-A-Loo and Bye-Bye to ya too.

Oh yeah, almost forgot, how are the "book"'s sales going? Best seller list yet?
Gawad
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 12, 2013
The depravity of people like Q-Star/brt/antialias-physorg/Noumenon beggars belief.


Aw hell, now I feel left out.

I'm depraved! Really! Trust me! I'm even worse than they are...I speak French! O.k., A_A and Noumenon speak German I think, which is hard to beat for depravity, but French, FRENCH can't be beat for perversion! Does that count Reg?
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (17) Feb 12, 2013
The depravity of people like Q-Star/brt/antialias-physorg/Noumenon beggars belief.


Aw hell, now I feel left out.

I'm depraved! Really! Trust me!,,,,,, Does that count Reg?


To make that list, ya must make him look foolish using his own word as the substance of your vicious, criminal, psychopathic assault.

I know it sounds like a challenge, but with time ya can master it. Pick out any post he makes, see if ya can find some really outlandish line of verbiage in it (there is about a 99.99% chance that ya will if he uses more two words) and merely ask him what that means. If ya can do that once or twice, ya'll make the depraved list with all privileges that a true miscreant is entitled.

(And like some of the others around here whom I won't mention, ya won't have to put the obligatory "Honorary" with your title, ya'll be a fully tenured Depraved Individual.)
Silverhill
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 12, 2013
For your next comeback tour, Reg Mundy, explain the Cavendish experiment in terms of Earth pushing up on, or accelerating toward, the test masses. It will be a bit difficult, though, since the masses move horizontally (essentially tangent to Earth's surface). Keep in mind that it works with any masses, even electrically neutral ones. "Eppur si muove...."
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (39) Feb 12, 2013
While I'm on the subject, a gentle poke at Noumenon who cant' tell the difference between a Higgs Boson and the Higgs Field, hence when I talk about the Higgs Boson he replies:- "P.S. The Higgs [Field] doesn't confer "gravity",.. it's thought to confer mass. You see, energy of any sort, 'confers gravity', not just mass as a result of the Higgs field." ....[at which Mundy describes his lunch']....


Actually your original statement that 'it was thought that the Higgs boson conferred gravity', didn't even qualify to be wrong.

The Higgs Boson require an enormous machine like LHC to produce one, so they're not existent all around us all the time giving mass ...

I emphasized "field" when correcting you because in the standard model it is "virtual" particles which are the mediators of fields, existing within the limits of the uncertainty principal and are more calculation than being Real observable excitations of the field, like the Higgs Boson Particle.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 13, 2013
@ Q-Star

P.S. I really do have a graduate degree from a very prestigious university. Honest. And I really do have a very good position at a major university. No, I'm not a tenured professor, but it's a good position.


Let me guess. You are the toilet cleaner? That is a good useful (non-tenured) position for you to have. Combining your work with your hobby: You like to wallow in excrement!

Noumenon
2 / 5 (39) Feb 13, 2013
Wow, ok, you're like the Don Rickles of physics,... or maybe Triumph the insult dog has found a new outlet.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 13, 2013
It's no good, I can't resist it! I just have to respond to Q-Star's comment :-
P.S. I really do have a graduate degree from a very prestigious university. Honest. And I really do have a very good position at a major university. No, I'm not a tenured professor, but it's a good position.

Hilarious!
Which backwoods "yoonyvarsity" would that be? What's your degree in, Car Park Management? I suspect that johanfprins is being too kind to you, unless you have been recently promoted! The only good position you are likely to have is horizontal. "Honest"? You? That's a good one!
Meanwhile, I would like to welcome Silverhill to our little contretemps, its refreshing to see someone actually ask a sensible question. The answer is that its all to do with the nature of time, Silverhill, but its pointless elaborating further in this thread.
Now, I'm going to try once again to give up commenting on it, so good luck in your encounters with the deluded lunatics like Q-Star.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 13, 2013
The answer is that its all to do with the nature of time, Silverhill, but its pointless elaborating further in this thread.

Stationary masses move sudenly because of th "nature of time". That sonuds rather vague. Would you care to be a tad bit more specific what 'nature' of time is responible for this effect if masses are brought in close proximity? And why this nature has an inverse square law?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 13, 2013
Because of shielding mechanism of force

That's where it all falls apart, of course - because a mass does not shield the gravitational attraction of a mass behind it.

If extra dimensions were involved then we wouldn't see an inverse SQUARE law because the ((hyper)volumetric surface of expansion would then not be two dimensional).
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (19) Feb 13, 2013
Which backwoods "yoonyvarsity" would that be?


The one where we learned to discuss such deep and intricate topics like forces, time, and gravity. (And to insult based on the receiver's display of ignorance of physics.) We've tried to get ya to discuss physics, but for some reason ya can't. Why?

I would like to welcome Silverhill to our little contretemps, its refreshing to see someone actually ask a sensible question.[


Would it trouble ya much to provide a sensible answer?

The answer is that its all to do with the nature of time, Silverhill, but its pointless elaborating further in this thread.


What pray tell us is the nature of time?

,,,,, so good luck in your encounters with the deluded lunatics like Q-Star.


Ya haven't had such good luck with that, eh?

There is no gravity, it's actually the nature of time,,,, that is the sum of what ya provided us with. Really, is that the best ya can do? Really?
Q-Star
3 / 5 (18) Feb 13, 2013
Because of shielding mechanism of force, which applies to three-dimensional space. In AWT all forces which don't follow the ISL are manifestation of extradimensions.


Zeph, I rate ya a five because ya are at least bold enough to attempt an answer,,,,,, I disagree with ya, but ya will discuss the topic.

Some people do a weird dance to hide their ignorance, but only draw more attention to.
brt
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 13, 2013
Forums on physics websites are indeed the saddest locations in the universe.

Although I must admit seeing the links to self published books obviously by the poster do give me a good chuckle. I should join Quinn in commenting on them to assist in saving our world.


johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 14, 2013
@brt

Although I must admit seeing the links to self published books obviously by the poster do give me a good chuckle. I should join Quinn in commenting on them to assist in saving our world.


Judging by your posts on this forum you do not have the brains nor the knowledge to comment an any book: Not even one written for Kindergarten kids.

I can understand why you post under an alias: If I were a criminal and idiot like you, I would also not have revealed who I am. No forum on the internet should allow anybody to post opinions on science without revealing who they are and what their qualifications are. Only anonymous questions should be allowed.

There are excellent reasons why courts of law do not allow anonymous "expert" opinions, since they know that anonymity is the last refuge of a scoundrel, the liar and the criminal: i.e. a person like YOU!

Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (38) Feb 14, 2013
This isn't a court of law, nor is it a scientific journal (which is why your theories and insults are relayed here rather than there). It is a science news site oriented to amatuers,... of which I am one. You should be embarrassed by this fact,... that you debate with and lose to ametuers so resoundingly and repeatedly.

Insert rabid insults while foaming at the mourh,..... in,..... 1.......2........
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 14, 2013
This isn't a court of law,
I am pointing out that criticism and insults should only be allowed on a scientific forum when the person dishing it out is forced to establish that he/she has the required background to do so. In your case, your parents (if you know who they are) did not teach you what honorable behavior entails.

..nor is it a scientific journal (which is why your theories and insults are relayed here rather than there).
Oh it is a scientific journal even though it is not peer reviewed by scumbags!
It is a science news site oriented to amatuers,... of which I am one.
I am glad you at least now admit that you are a nincompoop: Although it has been clear from your posts that you are brainless!
You should be embarrassed by this fact,... that you debate with and lose to ametuers so resoundingly and repeatedly.
When and by whom? This nincompoop assertion based on an amateurish knowledge of physics, illustrates how mentally disturbed you really are
Gawad
3 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2013
..nor is it a scientific journal (which is why your theories and insults are relayed here rather than there).
Oh it is a scientific journal even though it is not peer reviewed by scumbags!

Holy $h1 ! You're completely insane!
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2013
..nor is it a scientific journal (which is why your theories and insults are relayed here rather than there).
Oh it is a scientific journal even though it is not peer reviewed by scumbags!

Holy $h1 ! You're completely insane!


YOU are insane! If you publish on the internet and allow people to post on science, then you surely fulfill the same function as any other science journal! Gawad heh? Gawad, ValeriaT, Natello Noumenon etc. You see how criminal it is to allow anonymity in any physics journal?
PhineasFogg
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2013
@RegMundy
Interesting book, can't say I agree with your theories even if they are logically consistent - as you say, they are either all right or all wrong, and destroying the fabric of time, defining the way matter, dark matter and momentum are created, debunking String Theory and vindicating the Uncertainty Principle all in one go is just a tad too far for me. But thank you (and Quinn) for directing me to this site, I haven't laughed so much for ages. I never suspected there was so much venom in the physics community!
I have a suspicion who you are, and your motivation for writing the book. Your sudden "cold feet" on taking bets, and directing would-be punters to the bookies, is a dead give-away! You know the not-yet-public results from the Gravity Wave Detection Experiment, and it is going to cost you a lot of dough! Perhaps the money you think should have gone to your proteges projects wasn't completely wasted after all!
I will rate your book either 1 or 5 after I see the results!
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Feb 14, 2013
@RegMundy


Welcome to the "Physorg Sock-Puppet Rehabilitation Clinic". Were ya referred by Maritime Jack? Or Reg Mundy? It's qualifies them for a discount.
Gawad
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2013
You see how criminal it is to allow anonymity in any physics journal?


To put a newsite on the same level as a peer reviewed journal only shows how completely disconnected from reality you are (as in schizoid).

You only demonstrate how necessary the possibility of anonymity is when having to interact with the batshit-crazy-need-to-bounce-around-in-a-padded-room-maniacs likes of you.

I sincerely hope that those in your entourage (if there are any left) can find a way to get you (back?) into treatment.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 14, 2013
To put a newsite on the same level as a peer reviewed journal only shows how completely disconnected from reality you are (as in schizoid).


Can you not see what a criminal liar you are!? Where did I put it on the SAME level. In fact it is probably on a better level since the censorship by anonymous scumbag referees is eliminated. Unfortunately, there are still anonymous scumbags on a news site who post criticism without having any background or knowledge in physics. Nonetheless one can engage the latter scumbags, like you, which you cannot do in a peer reviewed journal.

You only demonstrate how necessary the possibility of anonymity is when having to interact with the batshit-crazy-need-to-bounce-around-in-a-padded-room-maniacs likes of you.


You are just demonstrating that you are a scumbag who should not be allowed as a member of any decent society! No person with integrity will be willing to criticize another person's science criminally-anonymously.
Gawad
3 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2013
Nonetheless [here]one can engage the latter scumbags, like you, which you cannot do in a peer reviewed journal.


Scumbag? Please, I am a PERVERT. I sot vee had settled zat already. [said in a sick French aK-sent.]

And if this is so, it is only so because this site has been so completely overrun with crackpot lunatics like yourself in the last two years that the owners have completely given up at any attempt at moderation (which they used to do, if imperfectly). Sad, but not really my problem as I actually come here for the articles in the first place.

So what the hell...by all means enjoy yourself, Johnny.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2013
And if this is so, it is only so because this site has been so completely overrun with crackpot lunatics like yourself


You mean like you! Where is the proof that you are not a lunatic! You hide behind anonymity; I do not. My CV is there for anybody to see. Would I have achieved in physics what I have achieved if I were a lunatic?

What have YOU achieved except to reveal yourself on this discussion forum not just as a lunatic, but also a moron without any honesty or integrity! Obviously you are too ashamed to come out of the closet; and this is not surprising: I would also have acted like you if I were to be have been an idiot like you. Thank God, I have integrity and honesty!
Gawad
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2013
Would I have achieved in physics what I have achieved if I were a lunatic?

Absolutely. You see, I HAVE taught in university and I HAVE seen the various kinds of people that frequent such places, so I know that while most are highly interesting, motivated but stable personality types, a higher than average percentage are also pretty much on the margins behaviourally speaking, though not usually to the point of being criminal or violent.

One strong hint that they are capable of such extremes however-when dealing with the small percentage that actually would be-is that those particuar ones KEEP HARPING ON IT and insisting on identifying their so called "tormentors". Sound familiar?

To provide an example: you sound very much like the poster-child of violent crackpots. Ever hear of Valery Fabrikant? I have. Very much so. Here, educate yourself:
http://en.wikiped...abrikant

Again, sound familiar? Thought so. Have a nice life, and please, try to stay out of prison.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2013
Absolutely. You see, I HAVE taught in university and I HAVE seen the various kinds of people that frequent such places,
Which university, where and when? The fact that you pontificate without giving this information, proves compellingly that you are a crackpot scumbag!

Thus to even respond to your arguments which are clearly those of a scumbag without any integrity, is a waste of time.

Prison? YOU who are a person who obviously has no integrity and honesty, is so arrogant to advise ME to stay out of prison? You are a disgusting criminal.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2013
You are a disgusting criminal.


Busted. And that's "disgusting criminal PERVERT" to you, johnny boy.

Oh and, pssst! It's Cell Block D. Bring a file.
EverythingsJustATheory
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2013
In your case, your parents (if you know who they are) did not teach you what honorable behavior entails.


These are some of the sayings (all in the last 24 hours) of how to act honorable by johan's parents:

-Thus to even respond to your arguments which are clearly those of a scumbag without any integrity, is a waste of time
-YOU are insane!
-I am glad you at least now admit that you are a nincompoop:
-Judging by your posts on this forum you do not have the brains nor the knowledge to comment an any book: Not even one written for Kindergarten kids.
- completely disconnected from reality you are (as in schizoid).
-You only demonstrate how necessary the possibility of anonymity is when having to interact with the batshit-crazy-need-to-bounce-around-in-a-padded-room-maniacs likes of you.

And I must say your above arguments completely describe your position and the maturity, and complexity it entails.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2013
because a mass does not shield the gravitational attraction of a mass behind it
Why do you think so? Even the object in shadow can block the another light. And the shielding is additive (two semitransparent glass plates absorb more, than the single one).
If extra dimensions were involved then we wouldn't see an inverse SQUARE law because the ((hyper)volumetric surface of expansion would then not be two dimensional).
Expansion of what? In AWT the space is three-dimensional, because just the 3D density fluctuations (which are forming it) exhibit largest surface/volume ratio during their packing.
EverythingsJustATheory
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2013
Johan,

If you claim to be so much better than everyone, show it by not feeling threatened when someone (by your claim) so beneath you challenges you or insults you.

If you're insulted without provoking the other person first, ignore it. You'll get a lot more respect if you explain/show how your argument is correct rather than returning insults with more insults. It just denegrates down to a shouting match that nobody mature wants any part of. Maybe that's what you want.

I for one have enough self-confidence to not give a shit what you or anyone thinks of me outside my family, friends, and professional circle. You should feel the same.

And no, I'm not Q-Star or anyone else that has disagreed with you on this board. It just seems to me that every thread you get involved in follows the same predictable script and turns into a shouting match where nothing of substance gets discussed.
Gawad
3 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2013
@EtJaT (geez, did ya have ta come up with such a long nick?)

- completely disconnected from reality you are (as in schizoid).
-You only demonstrate how necessary the possibility of anonymity is when having to interact with the batshit-crazy-need-to-bounce-around-in-a-padded-room-maniacs likes of you.


Hey! No fair! Those were insults levelled by ME.

Care for some popcorn?

@ValeriaT:

because a mass does not shield the gravitational attraction of a mass behind it
Why do you think so? Even the object in shadow can block the another light.


Face. Palm.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2013
Face. Palm
Look, antialias_po tried to find some logical argument against LeSage shielding model of gravity and I just provided another counter-argument of the same cathegory. If you're not enjoying logical discussions based on matter of fact arguments and physical analogies, then you should find a better place for void rhetorical gestures, like the 4chan...
Gawad
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2013
Not "enjoying"? Well, ya, I suppose you could say I enjoy "logiacal discussion" with jigga enough to keep a pack of Gravol not too far. So let's see, you've just claimed that when, for example, the Earth eclipses the moon as far as, again for example, a geostationary satellite the moon's gavitational influence disappears as far as the satellite is concerned? And then the moon's gravitational influence reasserts itself after the eclipse? And we've never noticed that in the case of satellite orbits? Inspite of the fact that we have such accuracy on sattelite orbits that we can and do take into account SR and GR for GPS sats?

Oh no, let me guess, you mean something else by "shielding" something that only crackpots like you and johnny understand? Or something other than that...or wait, we (or somebody) DID notice, but...there's conspiracy! Or there just too dumb to see it...and Oh what about their GRANTS...and Oh LOOK, a cow!
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 15, 2013
These are some of the sayings (all in the last 24 hours) of how to act honorable by johan's parents:

And I must say your above arguments completely describe your position and the maturity, and complexity it entails.


In the interest of physics I have no other choice but to level these arguments since in all the cases where I posted real physics, which should have been answered in terms of real physics, these anonymous scumbags refused to argue real physics. When you are honorable and you encounter a criminal scumbag, it is your duty to expose him or her, no matter what language is required. So I am not ashamed for posting the truth.

We can can easily stop these unpleasant encounters, if those who disagree with my physics, state what they know of physics (give their CV's as I am doing) and then argue physics-logic. The people criticizing me on this forum refuse to follow this honorable, non-criminal path: And thus deserve all the expletives directed from me to them.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 15, 2013
If you claim to be so much better than everyone,

Do you see what a scumbag liar you are? Where have I claimed that "I am so much better than everyone"?
If If you're insulted without provoking the other person first, ignore it.

By doing this I will allow this person to sabotage honorable discussions in physics.
You'll get a lot more respect if you explain/show how your argument is correct rather than returning insults with more insults.

This is exactly what I have been doing. If you go back in the posts and you have any brains you will see that the responses to these posts have been insults by scumbags: I did not start the insults but had to, in the interest of the future of physics, respond in kind.
It just denegrates down to a shouting match that nobody mature wants any part of.

Correct! This will not happen if those who disagree with my physics do so in non-scumbag fashion.
Maybe that's what you want.

This is NOT what I want: You are a fool
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 15, 2013
I for one have enough self-confidence to not give a shit what you or anyone thinks of me outside my family, friends, and professional circle.

Neither do I: But I do give a shit when moron-scumbags scupper honorable debates on physics, since this affects the future of humankind. Obviously you also do not give a shit for the latter!
It just seems to me that every thread you get involved in follows the same predictable script and turns into a shouting match where nothing of substance gets discussed.

To a fool who does not do his/her homework, it will "seem" like what it "seems" to you. It always happens after I have posted something of substance that the anonymous scumbags are not able to follow up with physics-logic. Not in one case did I start a "shouting match".

If you want to preach to another person, the honorable route is to first identify yourself. If you are not willing to do this you are just dishonestly firing cheap shots in a criminal scumbag manner.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2013
If you are not willing to do this you are just dishonestly firing cheap shots in a criminal scumbag manner.

Nope, and this is what you will never get: it's not about who you are here, it's about what you post. Even a "criminal scumbag" (and you obviously don't even understand what that is) can post good physics. YOU CAN'T, which puts you beneath "criminal scumbags". You shall henceforth be...felon turd.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2013
then you should find a better place for void rhetorical gestures, like the 4chan...


So Jigga? How about that "logical discussion"? Or have you blessed us with a departure for 4chan perchance? Are satellites not reacting to "mass eclipses" too much for you?

I reiterate: FACE. *PALM*.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 15, 2013
Even a "criminal scumbag" (and you obviously don't even understand what that is) can post good physics.


I have not once seen such posts from the criminal scumbags, like you, on this forum!

YOU CAN'T, which puts you beneath "criminal scumbags".


Where were my posts on physics not good physics. If criminal scumbags like you were willing to argue physics, I might have been proved wrong by now: But not once did the criminal scumbags, like you, argue any physics at all.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 15, 2013
I ask again: When you measure a path for a freely moving electron, is it "acting" like a "particle" or "acting" like a "wave"?

According to the Copenhagen interpretation the electron cannot simultaneously act as a "particle" and act as a "wave". So which one is it when one measures a free path for the electron?
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 15, 2013
When you measure a path for a freely moving electron, is it "acting" like a "particle" or "acting" like a "wave"
When you observe the duck swimming at the surface of river, does it behave like particle or like wake wave? At the case of lightweight particles their wave character manifests itself for example with so-called quantum oscillations: the particle emerges and dissolves in vacuum like wave.
johanfprins
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 15, 2013
When you measure a path for a freely moving electron, is it "acting" like a "particle" or "acting" like a "wave"
When you observe the duck swimming at the surface of river, does it behave like particle or like wake wave?


I did not ask a question about a duck in water but about an electron passing by. Since when has an electron a flat beak and two feet paddling in the "ether"? Please propose an experiment which can be used to prove or falsify your "duck-hypothesis". Note: Using LSD is not a valid experiment!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2013
You needn't have a flat beak and two feet for to create a wave in particle environment... The experiment which is proving it is quite famous double slit experiment: despite its miniature size the particle is able to interfere with both slits at the same moment. It's evident, what interferes there cannot be the particle itself (it would be visible as a black hole) - but a wave of vacuum formed around it.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (10) Feb 15, 2013
You needn't have a flat beak and two feet for to create a wave in particle environment...


In your model of electron-diffraction the electron must have a flat beak and two paddling webbed-feet: How else will it move through the ether?

The experiment which is proving it is quite famous double slit experiment:


With what speed does your "duck-electron" move relative to the ether in which it paddles, and relative to the double slit screen? What is the speed of the double slit screen relative to your ether (sorry aether)?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2013
How else will it move through the ether?
Like the vortex ring I guess.. No beak is really needed.
With what speed does your "duck-electron" move relative to the ether in which it paddles, and relative to the double slit screen?
The wake wave around electrons does more than just a particle wave interference. It adjusts the density of vacuum around electron in such a way, its speed can never exceed the speed of light. The electron becomes surrounded with blob of more dense vacuum, which increases its mass with respect to the electron at rest. And it makes the electron shorter along direction, in which the electron is moving. In this way, the wake wave around electron connects the predictions of quantum mechanics with predictions of relativity. Such a wave is therefore very useful.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 15, 2013
How else will it move through the ether?
Like the vortex ring I guess.. No beak is really needed.


But the paddling feet are needed or else there will be no power to act as a source for your so-called aether-waves.

With what speed does your "duck-electron" move relative to the ether in which it paddles, and relative to the double slit screen?
The wake wave around electrons does more than just a particle wave interference. etc.


I did not ask for bullshit!

The questions I am asking are simple:

1. What is the speed of your "electron-duck" relative to the ether?
2. If the above speed is v, what is the speed of the aether-waves relative to your aether?
3. What is the speed of the diffraction screen relative to your aether.
4. Relative to what is your aether stationary?

Just give straightforward answers in terms of the speed v.

johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 15, 2013
And it makes the electron shorter along direction, in which the electron is moving. In this way, the wake wave around electron connects the predictions of quantum mechanics with predictions of relativity.


I have posted on this forum an irrefutable derivation by using the Lorentz transformation that a passing electron becomes LONGER (NOT SHORTER) and that this increase occurs to give the electron its de Broglie wavelength. So if your model claims that the electron becomes shorter, it violates the Lorentz transformation and thus Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2013
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2013
What is the speed of your "electron-duck" relative to the ether?
The aether manifests itself just with CMBR noise. You can therefore measure the speed toward CMBR reference frame only.
If the above speed is v, what is the speed of the aether-waves relative to your aether?
Dense aether model recognizes transverse (c) and longitudinal waves (~10E10 c). At the CMBR wavelength both types converge each other mutually (the scalar component of one wave type decreases, of another type increases).
What is the speed of the diffraction screen relative to your aether
Speed of electron
Relative to what is your aether stationary?
Relative to anything, as it's in neverending motion.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2013
I have posted on this forum an irrefutable derivation by using the Lorentz transformation that a passing electron becomes LONGER (NOT SHORTER) and that this increase occurs to give the electron its de Broglie wavelength
Because you're using inverse reference frame than just me. It's very common mistake - for example, for general relativity the photon is always moving like the photons inside of flat space-time (the speed of light is always constant, so that the path of light is never curved, only the space-time) - despite the space-time is curved heavily around massive body. So that the general relativity predicts gravitational lensing formally, although it claims exactly the opposite logically! With compare to it, AWT always remains consistent logically.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2013
When the electron is traveling with respect to some observer, it's de Broglie wave isn't spherically symmetrical anymore: it becomes flattened in the motion direction. After all, the wake wave formed around duck swimming at the water surface isn't symmetrical as well. So we have area of vacuum, which has different density gradient in direction perpendicular to motion direction and another one in another direction. Increased density means, that the energy propagates more slowly through it. Now we have two options: to consider the space-time around electron flat and electron expanded along path of it motion, which is essentially the inner perspective of electron in motion. Or we can consider the human observer perspective, in which the electron becomes flattened, because the energy of electron wave is propagating more slowly in direction of motion. AWT is always human perspective centric.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2013
Your perspective is correct for electron, but this perspective isn't directly measurable. In the same way, like the curved space-time around massive object. Maybe its curved maybe not - but until we will not place some clocks into that curved space-time, we will not detect anything. The only way, how to detect the space-time curvature from distance is to pass some light ray trough it and to observe its curvature. But such an approach is logically inconsistent, because in relativity the speed of light is always invariant, so that the path of light must be alway straight and the space-time curved - so we should never ever observe some deform of path of light - only changes in speed of clock. The contemporary formally thinking physicists (including you) are quite insensitive toward such "subtle" subtleties of semantic logics. They're using relativistic approach for detection of phenomena, which is actually quantum mechanical and it belongs into reciprocal perspective of space-time.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2013
How the hell it's possible, the gravitational lensing is quantum mechanical effect, when the only theory, which is able to predict it quantitatively is the theory or relativity? A quite easily: the gravitational lensing violates the determinism of observable reality in similar way, like the quantum mechanics. During observation of objects through Einstein's gravitational lens it's quite common, we can see multiple images of the same star and not just only it. Because all images travel different time to observer, we can observe the remote star at different situations, which differ with many days or even years from the central image. This is exactly what the common quantum mechanical perspective mediates for us at the small distance scale: a multiple time arrows for the single phenomena.

The memo is, in AWT the logical deductions which are using single line of reasoning are logically dual to formal derivations, which are using multiple theorems. It's an example of 1:1/N duality.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2013
I have posted on this forum an irrefutable derivation by using the Lorentz transformation that a passing electron becomes LONGER (NOT SHORTER) and that this increase occurs to give the electron its de Broglie wavelength
It's very common mistake -
You are really a clown you know.

If a stationary electron has a diameter D and it is stationary relative to you its diameter will be D?
Now the electron passes you by, and what YOU will see is the Lorentz transformation (LT) from the IRF in which the electron is stationary into the reference frame in which you see it passing by with speed v. When you LT the diameter D along the direction of motion, the length of the electron along this direction is:

L=(gamma)*D

(gamma) is larger than unity so that L>D.

So! The electron becomes longer: And as I have already posted more than once, there is a time difference across this increased length which is the phase-time difference owing to the deBroglie wavelength.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2013
@ ValeriaT

I am not going to waste my valuable time to even try and correct all the garbage you are posting! You really do not have a clue about mathematics and physics! At one stage I posted that I am going to ignore you in future! I should have stuck to this decision.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2013
BTW How is it possible, you derived contraction of electron with using of special relativity, which predicts exactly the opposite? Did you try to think about it (maybe some Matrix error, or something similar)?
Reg Mundy
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 18, 2013
How the hell it's possible, the gravitational lensing is quantum mechanical effect, when the only theory, which is able to predict it quantitatively is the theory or relativity?

I can't let this one go without comment. Gravitational Lensing is yet another false concept foisted upon us by the LNMM. If the light from a distant galaxy arrives here after passing thru/around a huge blob of matter on its way, then any physics student at elementary level can see that, the closer the light passes to the centre of mass of the blob, the MORE it will be deflected and the result will be dispersal of the light. Light passing thru a roughly spherical/lens-shaped object, just like light on Earth passing thru a glass lens, will be focussed. What has this got to do with the non-existent force GRAVITY! For heavens sake, THINK about it, don't just accept this gravitational crap! See http://www.amazon...337&
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2013
Consider the time reversed path of light flowing from my eye past the blob, being deflected by the blob and then striking the object behind.

For small deflections, I can always find an angle away from the blob in which to look such that the light from my eyes will hit the object behind. By adjusting where I look, and at which angle from the blob, I can illuminate the entire object behind.

"the MORE it will be deflected and the result will be dispersal of the light." - QuackMundy

Hence it follows that in real time. Light from an object behind will illuminate my eye, and where on my eye the light of illumination will originate from will be determined by it's origin on the object behind the blob.

In other words the object behind will cast an image - distorted - into my eye, causing an image.

This is grade school science, and Quack Mundy fails.

I would give his self published book of quackery a pass. Unless of course you wish to pollute your brain, or have a good laugh at it.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2013
Because electrons are magically different from meter sticks.

"The electron becomes longer:" - Johanfprins

Meter sticks shrink but according to JohanBoy Electrons elongate.

What nonsense.

The reality of the situation is that the electrons contract along the line of motion just like meter sticks do.

What is not generally appreciated is that charge distribution also changes around the electron, and this non-spherical charge distribution is what produces the apparent force of magnetism.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2013
I have no idea how Johanfprns is going to quack about it, but the "curvature" of space is in reality due to a condensation of the particles comprising he vacuum. The greater the particle density, the greater the transit time of a light beam through that media, and the longer the apparent distance.

Light bends as it passes through such an environment because with more apparent space on one side or the other, the greater the probability of finding it in that region, so a photon or any other particle will deflect toward a region of higher vacuum density.

This is true even for stationary particles, and results in them apparently "falling".

"How the hell it's possible, the gravitational lensing is quantum mechanical effect, when the only theory, which is able to predict it quantitatively is the theory or relativity?" - ValeriaT
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2013
BTW How is it possible, you derived contraction of electron with using of special relativity, which predicts exactly the opposite? Did you try to think about it (maybe some Matrix error, or something similar)?


I did not derive "contraction" of the electron but "lengthening" of the electron AND I posted the derivation above: Why can you not follow simple mathematics? I know that I derive "lengthening" while the mainstream theoretical physicists claim that it must be contraction. This just proves how mediocre and stupid the mainstream theoretical physicists have been: Over the past 100 years they did not pick up that Einstein made a mistake when he derived "length contraction" of a rod.

You can find the correct derivation at http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

Einstein also made a mistake when he derived time-dilation: See
http://www.cathod...tion.pdf
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2013
Because electrons are magically different from meter sticks.

"The electron becomes longer:" - Johanfprins

Meter sticks shrink but according to JohanBoy Electrons elongate.

If you had any brains you will note that the derivation is also valid for a meter stick. Thus a meter stick also becomes longer and acquires a deBroglie wavelength.

The reality of the situation is that the electrons contract along the line of motion just like meter sticks do.
The reality is that both the meter stick and the electron elongates. If you can do grade 5 algebra you can do the derivation yourself.

What is not generally appreciated is that charge distribution also changes around the electron, and this non-spherical charge distribution is what produces the apparent force of magnetism.
That is an interesting statement: Can you quantify it? Or are you just hallucinating as usual?
VendicarE
3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2013
You derrived nothing of course. You simply wrote an equation.

"I did not derive "contraction" of the electron but "lengthening" of the electron AND I posted the derivation above" - Johanfprins

And it is wrong.

Quack... Quack.... Quack.....

"Einstein also made a mistake when he derived time-dilation" - Johanfprins

One that has apparently been repeated by every scientist over the last 100 years, until an uneducated boob like yourself showed up to inform us all that we are wrong.

The experimental particle guys who rely on length contraction every day will be amused that they need to adjust their targets in the opposite direction thanks to your special genius.

Snicker.
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 18, 2013
@VendicarE/Q-Star/your other aliases/etc.
For small deflections, I can always find an angle away from the blob in which to look such that the light from my eyes will hit the object behind. By adjusting where I look, and at which angle from the blob, I can illuminate the entire object behind.

Presumably, you whiz about a couple of light-years either side of Earth to collect your image?
P.S. Thank you for my book review, but you might try reading books before you review them, it might stop people thinking you are a complete asshole - though I doubt it!

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
And the fact that length contraction has been experimentally verified doesn't alter your faith in your fantasy univese you live in.

"If you had any brains you will note that the derivation is also valid for a meter stick" - Johanfprins

Quack... Quack... Quack...
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
No need. The width of the retina of my eye is all that is needed.

Cameras of course can do much better at resolving angular differences.

"Presumably, you whiz about a couple of light-years either side of Earth to collect your image? " - TardMundy

I have provided you with a detailed explanation as to why you are wrong.

Through what manner of brain death you continue to believe otherwise?
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2013
You derrived nothing of course. You simply wrote an equation.
I did not: As I stated any grade 5 pupil have enough mathematics to do so; except ValeriaT, even when you hide behind VendicarE: You are still too stupid to even do kindergarten mathematics.

"I did not derive "contraction" of the electron but "lengthening" of the electron AND I posted the derivation above" - Johanfprins

And it is wrong.
Then prove my mathematics wrong if you are able to do so!

"Einstein also made a mistake when he derived time-dilation" - Johanfprins


One that has apparently been repeated by every scientist over the last 100 years,
Yes this is what happened!

The experimental particle guys who rely on length contraction every day will be amused that they need to adjust their targets in the opposite direction thanks to your special genius.
Where do they rely on length contraction? That the "particle physicists" do not know artha from martha is well established.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2013
And the fact that length contraction has been experimentally verified doesn't alter your faith in your fantasy univese you live in.


Where has it been verified? If it has been verified this result will mean that the Lorentz transformation is wrong!
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 18, 2013
@VendicarE/Q-Star/your other aliases/etc.
Light from an object behind will illuminate my eye, and where on my eye the light of illumination will originate from will be determined by it's origin on the object behind the blob.

I have provided you with a detailed explanation as to why you are wrong.

And this was it?
In other words the object behind will cast an image - distorted - into my eye, causing an image.

Try drawing a diagram, three points A,B and C where you (the observer, or twit in your case) are A, the blob of matter is B, and the distant galaxy is C.
Draw a line from C near B being bent by the "gravity" of B to continue to A.
Now draw another line, similar, but passing B a little further out.
It needs to be bent a little more, doesn't it?
But if gravity was the cause of the bend, the greater distance between the line and B would reduce the force, and thus bend the line LESS!
Schoolboy stuff, but probably far beyond your comprehension level!
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2013
O.k., Reg, so what's the problem? No one claims that at position A you whould see the light that's further out from B (in your example). In such a case the observer A would also have to be further out from B. No one claims any different. You would still see the light bent by B that went by at the appropriate distance to be deflected to A by the gravitational lens produced by B's mass. Again, what's supposed to be the problem here?
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 18, 2013
@Gawad
Only light from a point source C that passes B at an EXACT distance will be seen at A with a gravitic lens, i.e. a tiny fraction of the light. As the blob of matter at B must by definition be an area of greater mass density than the surrounding space and we know that light slows down when it passes thru' matter be it glass, water, or any other matter (in this case, probably hydrogen), if the blob is in any way roughly sperical or convex, the light will be bent towards us in a similar manner to a glass lens. There will be far more "paths" for the light to follow to get to A. If the blob is between Earth and a distant galaxy, we will receive more light due to the lensing effect. Who needs gravity?
There is a proof. For the gravitic lens, it should be theoretically possible to collect light from different points in the "image" and construct a computer picture of a galaxy at C. With the non-gravitic solution, the fuzzy shape of the "lens" will produce a fuzzy image at best.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2013
Only light from a point source C that passes B at an EXACT distance will be seen at A with a gravitic lens, i.e. a tiny fraction of the light.


Yes, but so what? Exactly the same is true of any ray you would draw out from C even if there was no matter (B) to bend them.

The fact that there is a blob (B) to bend light rays simply means that although some rays will be obstructed by B as it lies between the target C and the observer A (well depending on the precise alignment), others will reach A anyway. And depending on the alignment of A, B and C, the observer A may even get multiple images of C to the sides of B, or arcs or even a ring image, but only for those light rays (from and essentially infinate set) that go by B at just the right distance on every side to be deflected to A. In that sense you do get more light from C at A than if there were no B.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2013
There is a proof. For the gravitic lens, it should be theoretically possible to collect light from different points in the "image" and construct a computer picture of a galaxy at C


I don't know if I'd call this a "proof", actually, but in any case, this actually gets done and the images' degree of "fuzziness" is only matched by our optics.

Again, I don't see what your problem with this stuff is. You seem to actually understand it, but then you also seem to need to turn it into a problem when it's not. Weird.
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2013
@Gawad
Lets just stick to one solitary fact. For a gravitational lens, only light passing from C thru the very thin ring at the correct distance from B will reach A. Light passing inside the ring will be deflected too much, light passing outside the ring will not be deflected enough. Only a tiny portion heading anywhere near enough to B will meet the criteria. Contrast this with the amount being focussed by a blob of denser gas which causes far more light to be focussed towards A if the alignment is correct. In the extreme case where the blob is a perfect lens and A and B are in focus, it would be like looking at C thru a giant magnifying glass. So, it should be easy to work out whether or not we at A are receiving the correct amount of light from a known C for gravitational lensing, or the greater amount associated with being anywhere near the focal point of a lens-shaped B.
So it is a problem. Not weird!
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2013
Actually, that WOULD be weird:

1) What you describe in
For a gravitational lens, only light passing from C thru the very thin ring at the correct distance from B will reach A. Light passing inside the ring will be deflected too much, light passing outside the ring will not be deflected enough. Only a tiny portion heading anywhere near enough to B will meet the criteria.
is actually what we see.

2) the "blob" B is a massive galaxy or a cluster; what do you propose this "blob" is made of-what kind of "dense gas"-that it actually acts like a solid lens and focuses light to a point (rather than along a focal line as a gravitational lens does) instead of obstructing the light as baryonic matter would (for that part of the matter that is baryonic rather than dark).

See we know its grav lenses BECASUE there's no amplification (except for microlensing) just multiple or distorted images. Not a problem. Not even close. Even your solitary, cherry picked fact fails.
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 21, 2013
@Gawad
It's not "dense gas", it is probably very thin hydrogen, but denser than the vacuum further from B. Light passes thru gas.
There is no amplification as the "lens" is far from perfect and has no "focal length". The question is, in any one example of this effect, is there more light "focussed" in our general direction than there should be from a gravitic lens? YES or NO? Go check the results.
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 21, 2013
@Gawad
I'll save you the trouble. Here's a quote from Evalyn Gates, an astronomer at the University of Chicago, and the author of a great new book on the science of gravitational lensing, Einstein's Telescope: The Hunt for Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Universe (Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Powell's).

The model of the lens outlines the (projected 2D) mass profile of the cluster – which doesn't seem to agree with numerical simulations for clusters, assuming a standard ΛCDM cosmology. The mass concentration in the center of the cluster is higher than predicted, a result that has also been found for other massive clusters studied with gravitational lensing. This implies that we're either missing some physics in our simulations, or we may need to modify our cosmological model.

See http://blogs.disc...lrB3Gq8A
for the complete article.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2013
You're cherry picking again, and apparently forgetting the
This implies that we're either missing some physics in our simulations
in
This implies that we're either missing some physics in our simulations, or we may need to modify our cosmological model.


There may be lots of reasons for an outlier like MACS J1149.5plus2223 but tossing out gravity and gravitational lensing is not one of them, even according to your own source. Besides, what you're insisting on is even worse, as the observer has to be at a precise point for your lens to work (or close to it) rather then along a focal line.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2013
Oh and incase it wasn't clear from your quote
modify our cosmological model.
doesn't mean scrapping gravity or gravitational lensing (however much you so desperately what that) even according to your source. "Modify" here is more akin to "tweak".
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 21, 2013
the observer has to be at a precise point for your lens to work (or close to it) rather then along a focal line.

No he doesn't, only somewhere in a fairly wide cone with B as its apex.
And the garavitic lensing solution doesn't work for any of the situations described in the article, so while I grant you that it doesn't prove the non-existence of gravity, neither does it point to gravitational lensing as the cause. Its just a matter of opinion, so you are entitled to yours and I am entitled to mine.
I guess we must wait for the results from the gravitational wave detection experiments (LIGO et al) to see who is right. Perhaps they will explain the galactic rotation anomaly at the same time....