Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617
Results 481 to 495 of 495

Thread: Forces of nature donít exist

  1. #481
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,319
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    answer posting #432

    Tobin Dax,

    A simple question for forrest noble: What are the dimensions of α and β, per your definition of de Broglie waves?

    α and β are constants based upon the history of observations. They are known as proportionality constants.

    I think it is necessary to realize that De Broglie waves are used in my model only to align atoms in a single direction concerning ferro-magnetism and a piece of iron. Calculating the degree of magnetism is solely based upon the aether field flow which is determined by the inverse square law or the Maxwell equations depending on the required accuracy. As I have said before, calculations are derived from the standard related model and are not a part of this proposal concerning my assertion there is “no such thing as forces of nature.”

    Meaning: no pulling forces, or forces at a distance. All forces accordingly are either contact pushing forces like gravity and magnetism, or mechanical connections that resist separation like the Strong Force, Strong Interaction, and the Weak Force,

    forest noble this is NOT an answer to a very simple question WHAT ARE THE DIMENSIONS OF ALPHA AND BETA, and for that you don't need the stupid epistomology about the how and what of your misconceptions of the de broglie wavelength and what is means.

    JUST ANSWER THE FRAKKING QUESTION!

    This is the last day of this thread, so I (and I can assume more of my co-moderators) do not want to see any report anymore, my mailbox is full.

    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  2. #482
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post

    Oh for crying out loud, give the frakking answer then yourself macaw.

    From e.g. this page


    [/I]Or from Wiki


    [/INDENT]
    Wiki gives the incorrect answer, E is NOT kinetic energy, E is TOTAL energy. So, copying and pasting from wiki doesn't make good physics.

  3. #483
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    response to moderation posting #481

    Because alpha and beta are numerical constants they seemingly would be non-dimensional.

    In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it. Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it.
    If this is not the answer to the question concerning dimensions of alpha and beta then

    I don't know

    what the question is or the answer wanted.

  4. #484
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    response to moderation posting #481

    Because alpha and beta are numerical constants they seemingly would be non-dimensional.



    If this is not the answer to the question concerning dimensions of alpha and beta then

    I don't know

    what the question is or the answer wanted.
    Oh for Pete's sake, learn some math and physics. To do that, recognize the need for an education and then launch a Google search and then do some reading. Dimensions are things like energy, length and time. So Boltzmann's constant has the dimensions of energy per unit temperature. Planck's constant has the dimensions of action -- energy times time. Power has dimensions of energy per unit time.

  5. #485
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,319
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    response to moderation posting #481

    Because alpha and beta are numerical constants they seemingly would be non-dimensional.



    If this is not the answer to the question concerning dimensions of alpha and beta then

    I don't know

    what the question is or the answer wanted.
    dimension does not only refer to spatial dimension (length, width, height) but is also used to refer to the units a variable has, e.g. km/s would be the dimension of velocity.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  6. #486
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    answer posting #476

    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Mathematics aside I believe all of reality, everything is simple enough to be taught in Junior High School.

    What does this mean? Specifically, what does "mathematics aside" mean, in this sentence?

    I have stated on another ATM thread on BAUT that I believe, mathematics aside, that just about every major theory in science today is wrong with the exceptions of Natural Selection and general chemical theory.

    What does this mean? Specifically, what does "mathematics aside" mean, in this sentence?

    What is "general chemical theory"?
    Most mathematical formulations in physics have been derived from many years of precise observations. The results have almost always been very complicated formulations/ equations, requiring higher mathematics far beyond Junior High School. The point I was making was that I consider "the all of reality" (the general outline/ understandings) to be very simple, not including any required math calculations.

    The general overall theories of chemistry I consider to be very valuable perspectives of reality, unlike my opinion concerning many theories in physics concerning their perspectives. "Mathematics aside" here would mean that I consider that most equations in physics are good approximations of reality, some are extremely accurate concerning the tolerance range involved with the answer/ results
    (such as 1,000,000 +/- 2 for instance).

  7. #487
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Does this mean you have a different explanation for non-ferromagentic effects?

    Isn't there something wrong here?
    That's a misquote: I said for ferro-magnetism the mathematics may involve the inverse square law or the Maxwell equations depending on the desired accuracy. My model is a no-force-at-a-distance model so that my explanations of all magnetic effects would necessarily differ from the standard model.

  8. #488
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    My model is a no-force-at-a-distance model so that my explanations of all magnetic effects would necessarily differ from the standard model.
    That's too bad (for your model) since SM is verified by experiment with a very high level of accuracy. This automatically invalidates your model as you've been told repeatedly.

  9. #489
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,461
    You do realize, forrest, that:

    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    answer posting #464



    This model makes different predictions than the mainstream. ...


    The OP is a major part of my overall theories many of which differ greatly from mainstream models including the maths, i.e. I have discussed on thread what I thought was wrong with a number of mainstream models. You remember that thread In this OP proposal only my formulas for gravity differ from the mainstream formulations of GR but GR does not propose a force at-a-distance but instead uses a physical cause, the supposed warping of space.
    Is not only internally inconsistent it is also contradicted and refuted by:
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    reply posting #371 ...
    I have said many times that I use the mainstream equations. ... .
    Since this is the last day of this thread, I must say that I agree with Tobin Dax's last post.
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)
    I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  10. #490
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by AstroRockHunter View Post
    You do realize, forrest, that:



    Is not only internally inconsistent it is also contradicted and refuted by:


    Since this is the last day of this thread, I must say that I agree with Tobin Dax's last post.
    And to that chorus I add my voice.

    On the one hand you, FN, avoided answering many questions about the few (one?) equations by declaring that your "theory" reproduced the same force behaviors as that of the MS. And then later you tried to differentiate your theory from the mainstream by saying your theory makes new predictions. But you never provided any equations. So there is a fundamental internal inconsistency in your position, and an uncharitable soul might even infer that you are being disingenuous. No matter -- whatever the explanation, you have presented nothing that could be remotely mistaken for a scientific theory.

    It's good that this is drawing to an end today.

  11. #491
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic View Post
    Looks like Forrest Noble's "theories" just aren't panning out.
    Much of this thread involves hypothetical mechanisms. I use the word theory to mean that there are a number of observations to support it. The theory involved is that "all forces of nature can be explained mechanically." I use most of the same observations used by the mainstream to support the theory but such observations are interpreted differently.

    The point is that the particular mechanisms that I have used/ chosen to explain these forces may be replaced one day but my contention is that the theory itself "all forces of nature can be explained mechanically" will not change. The OP accordingly will accordingly remain, that the 20th & 21st century forces of nature do not exist. This is the proposal being made here.

    I do however like the inside joke about "not panning out," concerning the theory involved

  12. #492
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Much of this thread involves hypothetical mechanisms. I use the word theory to mean that there are a number of observations to support it.
    Yes, and that number is zero.

    The OP accordingly will accordingly remain, that the 20th & 21st century forces of nature do not exist. This is the proposal being made here.
    And it remains as well-supported as "magic gnomes make it move." But you don't understand what scientific method means, so you don't recognize the intellectual poverty of your proposal. You just like it because it feels good to you. And because it feels good to you, you declare it to be the truth. Ex cathedra declarations have no place in science.

  13. #493
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Here is the concluding sentence (and para) of the OP (sans link):

    Since I have already discussed my theory of gravity here in the ATM section, in this thread my intent will be to discuss my proposal concerning the theoretical/ hypothetical mechanics of magnetism, the Strong Force, the Weak force, and the Strong Interaction.

    Question N5.0: How can anyone, other than you yourself, discuss (or attack, or ...) the theoretical and/or hypothetical "mechanics of magnetism, the Strong Force, the Weak force, and the Strong Interaction" without using equations?
    I consider this question to be rhetorical. I'm sure I'm not the only one that questions the perspectives concerning observations and explanations of mechanisms in physics.
    Question N6.0: What do you mean by "magnetism", in the part of the OP I have quoted?

    Question N7.0: What do you mean by "the Strong Force", in the part of the OP I have quoted?

    Question N8.0: What do you mean by "the Weak force", in the part of the OP I have quoted?
    For all four of these forces, this thread has been about possible mechanisms to replace the ideas of pulling forces and forces at a distance. MY theory again is that all the forces of nature have a mechanical explanation and are therefore not fundamental "a priori" forces, that reality instead is very simple. The hypothesis I've discussed are my proposals of the possible details according to my hypothetical models.

  14. #494
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    For all four of these forces, this thread has been about possible mechanisms to replace the ideas of pulling forces and forces at a distance.
    And again, it's not a theory. It's a feeling that you have.

    My feeling is that your feeling is wrong.

    Now, how does one resolve this conflict between our feelings? Science has a method. What about you?

  15. #495
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,595
    The thread has expired. (October has 31 days, after all.) The mod team will deliberate as to whether or not infractions are required for the tone in this thread.
    "Words that make questions may not be questions at all."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson, answering loaded question in ten words or less
    at a 2010 talk MCed by Stephen Colbert.

Similar Threads

  1. Uniting of the forces
    By Copernicus in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2012-May-25, 05:44 AM
  2. Forces in nature?
    By rigney in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 2010-May-21, 08:23 AM
  3. The Forces?
    By Ionic in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-08, 10:45 PM
  4. Relativistic E&M forces
    By Digix in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2006-May-27, 11:39 PM
  5. So what are the 4 fundamental Forces
    By ChromeStar in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2004-Nov-18, 10:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •