View Full Version : New Physics

2012-Mar-06, 08:53 PM
I would like to have a sincere opinion, of the content of these web pages.

Or .... Is this a Joke ?? Does he think this theory explains everything?

CERN's neutrinos ?
Supernova 1987 ?
Pioneer Anomaly ?
rotation of the Spiral Galaxies ?

For me, this is a too simple explanation to be true! If this is true, we have here a new physic!

This is the link: www.quantumgravity.us

In the case that you think that this is too speculative, please, delete this topic !

2012-Mar-07, 06:18 PM
The Pioneer anomaly, and the recent 'speeding' Nutrinos have both been explained

Ergo - if this theory (that I can't even see, as that website is blocked at work) attempts to explain these, then it must also explain some means of eradicating the proven mainstream process by which these effects are caused and replace it with it's own ATM version that just happens to be at the same magnitude.

Unlikely, no?

2012-Mar-07, 07:48 PM
Since the OP isn't (so far) actually pushing the ATM theories, this thread doesn't sit well in the ATM forum, so has been moved to Q&A where mainstream science commentary can be added.

2012-Mar-07, 08:15 PM
... Is this a Joke ?? Does he think this theory explains everything? ...
We do not know what is in the mind, or the intent of this person, and can only speculate. Given this forum's policies against ad hom attacks, we'd like to avoid becoming a place where new people show up, drop off a link to an alternative description of the universe, and ask us to analyse and dissect the whole thing. It really isn't what we are about.

However, if you'd like to study his proposals, and try to tell us about them, and ask specific questions that seem like they need clarifying or some third-party analysis, we'd be delighted to help.

I spent about ten minutes skimming several of his chapters, and to me, I didn't see anything giving me testable numbers or scenarios, but I could have missed it.

2012-Mar-07, 08:46 PM
Little red lights are coming on... Am I being unfair ? probably.

Having looked at the link and read of it elsewhere I conclude a motive to this line of thought..

That things are simpler than they seem.. or that being designed is part of the answer.

and if that is a over simple answer I am sorry. I do see a ATM factor that I find disturbing.

There is nothing wrong with the discussion. I would not call it a new physics.

2012-Mar-07, 08:59 PM
roiwallace, your second post was moved here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/129281-next-technology-effect

BAUT has a style that is largely one-topic one-thread, and that post didn't seem to have much to do with this thread. Also, it was rather too speculative to fit in with the Q&A section of the forum (not that this thread fits all that well, either).

2012-Mar-07, 10:01 PM
For me, this is a too simple explanation to be true! If this is true, we have here a new physic!

This is the link: www.quantumgravity.usWell, I briefly checked out the link and tried the program code he gave in "Simplifying the General Relativity", but it only gave about 1/8 of the precession for Mercury, which should have worked out if GR were as simple as altering the Newtonian speeds as he shows, so yes, it's too simple an explanation.

2012-Mar-07, 10:18 PM
Finding the lensed angle of a particle travelling at near c and passing near the sun using his program also only gives sqrt(2) times the classical angle, not twice, although using 1 / (1 + vx^2/c^2) and 1 / (1 + vy^2 / c^2) instead of the square root of those values as he has would give twice the classical angle, but still only about 1/4 the precession for Mercury.