Conundrum

Post Reply New Topic

Is there any purpose behind your seemingly random usage of quotation marks and asterisks, OP?

You cant blame the establishment for assuming that you're a crank.
Apparently you dont have academic creditionals and so forth.


What you should do (atleast with your physics theory) is to try to distill it down to a nub- to a simple question that can be tested with a simple expirament that would yield predictions ( if we do thus and thus then such and such would happen if my theory were right, but the other thing would happen if it were wrong).

Then try to pedal that expirament.

Its still a longshot that anyone in the ivory tower will notice, but atleast saying "here is my theory AND here is how to test it" is better than just "here is my theory".

Cool! Science!

My quotes and asterics are an attempt to clarify . . . I'm *trying* to communicate.

Prove that something doesn't exist?

GPS works on relativity.
Relativity *is* proven.

Time travel, black holes, worm holes, multiple universes are results of the 4th dimensional calculations in Einstein's math.

Einstein thought that all time in the universe is the same as that on earth.
*Very* earthcentric.

So I'm Gallileo 2011.
The universe's clock isn't the same as earth's clock.
Every orbit around any star has it's own timerate.

Particles "last longer" moving at relativistic speed.
But not cesium atoms in an atomic clock?

You really thnk "speed of light" is a logical string of words after relativity is established?
It's constant, but it has speed. Real scientific.

Well ... the thread has a fitting title, anyway.

I'll tell you what your problem is: You have too much to say. If you think you're on to something, start by finding ways to prove or disprove the simplest elements of your theory. A complex theory in insanely difficult to see through.

Consider the evolution of cryptography. In ancient times (World War 2), cryptosystems were complex. It was believed that a cryptosystem was safe until proven wrong. Better cryptosystems were like their predecessors, just with added complexity. They could still be analyzed mathematically and statistically, and with enough time they would fall regardless of their "complexity".
Modern cryptography builds on few and very simple premises. The one used in RSA, AES, and many other modern systems revolves around the factoring problem; that is, that it's easy to multiply, and hard to factor. More precisely, with a binary computer, multiplication takes logarithmic time while factoring takes exponential time (until quantum computers start being awesome). It is easy to reason about the strength of the cryptosystem, because the core part is a simple mathematical problem. No obscurity is needed, and the programs that handle encryption can be open source without any risk of its users.

If you want people to listen, you need the smallest piece of your theory that differs from what is commonly believed today, and prove that it works the way you describe. That's all it takes. Just like quark theory was rubbish until it could be used to predict the next particles to be found in cosmic radiation. :3

My theories are simplifications.

NT science is the process of making things more complicated so that you gain rank in the Church of Science. Publish or perish. If it is to complicated to understand . . . then you can't disprove it.

Time is local.
Humans are pack predators.

http://www.psychforums.com/blog/ScottTh ... -1970.html

others are in the "archive" list to the left.



The predictions:
A permanent magnet of sufficient strength can create electrons by "spinning up" 1D quanta strings.

All dark matter (high timerate matter and energy) in the universe can be observed by creating a high timerate "telescope".
Start with high magnetic flux densities applied to current gamma ray detectors.

Okay, I read the whole thing now.

"This theory matches all observations and experimental data. It does not match the conclusions drawn from the data."

That's what I see. Five pages of ideas, one sentence claiming all data supports your theory, a theory you make very little attempt at explaining. I think this might be overused, but it's certainly relevant:



http://xkcd.com/171/

There are excellent guides online in writing science reports. You should give them a go. With a report you can read what it's trying to prove at the top (almost) and then skip to the last part where the conclusion based on results is summed up. What you wrote is an essay about your string idea. It doesn't matter if what you say is right or wrong if you fail to present it.

You don't accept observation as evidence?

I claim there is no dark energy, that light is two dimensional, that there is no 4th dimension.
Prove me wrong.

I claim to be able to unravel most(all?) astronomical "mysteries" science has using;
space = 0D
quanta strings = 1D
light/radiation = 2D
matter = 3D

Mass is *not* a particle - it is a volume enclosed by 1D quanta strings.
The volume increases as the energy from crossing 1D strings icreases, increasing mass.
Can you explain momentum?

Pack mind repetition makes "believers".
Physics has lots of "believers".
Believe in Einstein, and 80% of the universe is missing.
Some part of his theory *is* wrong.