"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by ImaFungi

As opposed to what? Your method, which seems to be just whining that nobody really knows anything about anything? Except maybe Rodin?

I have noticed there is some delay between a big discovery and awarding the Nobel prize...I suppose they give the peer reviewers enough time to replicate and confirm the discovery. But yes, science is falsifiable, unlike Rodin's proclamation that dark matter is the number 9, which nobody can falsify, since nobody knows what it means.

There have been volumes and volumes written about those topics. I don't know what you expect in a reply to your post when you will just say it's all wrong and nobody knows anything about anything. So what's the point in attempting to answer, hence what's the point in your even asking?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Or maybe it's nothing but nonsense.
On second thought, no. It is nonsense.
Did Whipple answer any of your questions? He didn't answer mine except to say the data is wrong.

edit on 2/18/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

He did answer some of my questions, he did answer some of yours about the suns magnetic pole. You said your self its not known why the suns magnetic poles flip, are there any theories? Do you know how 2 magnets attract one another at a distance without touching? Oh, via fields? Can you describe to me how a field physically exists, what is actually going on to make this mechanism of a field to exist, and how it has the power of attraction at a distance?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Wow this is worse then I thought. This means there may be countless errors in every experiment

How do you know that "this means" that? How many particle physics experiments did you set up and/or analyzed? Puh-leeeze.

and subsequent paper and subsequent particle discovery.

Particle discovery is INVARIABLY verified by more than one experiment. Maybe there are exceptions, but surely they are few. J/Psi has two names for a reason. LEP had four major experiments for a reason. LHC has two oriented towards energy frontier. Neutrino experiments are cross-checked against each other.

I mean you really sound like a person who came to a concert and noticed that the maestro was 1/16 of a tone off in one of the bars of the piece he was playing, based on which you conclude that all musicians in the world are tone-deaf. Duh.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

As opposed to what? Your method, which seems to be just whining that nobody really knows anything about anything? Except maybe Rodin?

I have noticed there is some delay between a big discovery and awarding the Nobel prize...I suppose they give the peer reviewers enough time to replicate and confirm the discovery. But yes, science is falsifiable, unlike Rodin's proclamation that dark matter is the number 9, which nobody can falsify, since nobody knows what it means.

There have been volumes and volumes written about those topics. I don't know what you expect in a reply to your post when you will just say it's all wrong and nobody knows anything about anything. So what's the point in attempting to answer, hence what's the point in your even asking?

Im not saying its all wrong, I think because they are using the best equipment and best minds, parts of the standard model may be the most accurate map drawn of the fundamental universe by man so far. However I also think there could be parts that are overlooked and wrong and its possible some of the hundreds of particles they discover could not be fundamental but 'errors'. I also dont know if there is a consensus from the standard model peoples on what their map of reality means. This is it, maybe they are finally reaching the last turtles, the true essence of this reality, certainly this must say something about the whole of the universe for it is all composed of this small stuff. Are these things knowable? is that the problem? why there are multiple long lasting stable fundamental particles, why there are two opposing charges and what about a particle with positive charge makes it physically fundamentally different then negative, what is EM radiation and why does it have the qualities it does, among other questions I have asked buddhasystem in this thread which he doesnt want to talk about. Im excited about existing in this universe, its ways are the greatest mystery, I want to understand it and know it, I want my curiosity to be resolved, I think by asking questions I can come across answers.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Wow this is worse then I thought. This means there may be countless errors in every experiment

How do you know that "this means" that? How many particle physics experiments did you set up and/or analyzed? Puh-leeeze.

and subsequent paper and subsequent particle discovery.

Particle discovery is INVARIABLY verified by more than one experiment. Maybe there are exceptions, but surely they are few. J/Psi has two names for a reason. LEP had four major experiments for a reason. LHC has two oriented towards energy frontier. Neutrino experiments are cross-checked against each other.

I mean you really sound like a person who came to a concert and noticed that the maestro was 1/16 of a tone off in one of the bars of the piece he was playing, based on which you conclude that all musicians in the world are tone-deaf. Duh.

Ok, so you guys have built all these instruments and tuned them to make a song, im not complaining about your music completely, but maybe the truth dances to the beat of a different drum.

Ok, so one way in which neutrinos come into existence is through neutron decay? and like all particles, a neutrino is a result of nature attempting to stabilize its energy levels? When a neutrino comes into existence, how long can it potentially exist if its doesnt come into contact with anything else? Neutrinos that come into existence usually come into contact with another particle, and then according to the particle it hit will cause another event of particle creations? When a neutron decays into particles including an electron, where does that electron come from, a neutron is 3 quarks, outside of the nucleus it is unstable because im guessing the weakforce kept it stable in the nucleus (why do protons and neutrons attract, or bunch up in the first place?) , any way why does the neutron begin decaing because the 2 heavier down quarks (along with their charges) begin repelling each other, (quarks are held together in a neutron by the strong force which is an exchange of how many gluons?, do gluons have mass? ok so the quarks of the free neutron finally cant bear existing any longer so as it goes to the lower energy state proton, energy is released in the for of a w boson, which is a virtual particle because its very short lived, which then turns into an electron and electron antineutrino, so where does those two particles come from, how does the W boson decay into those two, and why?

Why don't the electrons stick onto the nucleus, or more specifically, a proton?

The motion of an electron causes its negativity?

First the electron moves or metamorphoses, then the electrical force keeps it close to an atomic nucleus.

reply to post by ImaFungi

he did answer some of yours about the suns magnetic pole.

No. He didn't. He denied that reversals occur.

You said your self its not known why the suns magnetic poles flip

I didn't ask him that, did I? My question was aimed at his ridiculous claim that the tilt of the Earth's axis is caused by magnetism. When I pointed out that the Sun's magnetic field reverses every eleven years (which would be very problematic for his "theory") he just denies that it occurs.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Ok, so one way in which neutrinos come into existence is through neutron decay?

Pretty much.

and like all particles, a neutrino is a result of nature attempting to stabilize its energy levels?

What a nonsensical phrase. "Nature attempting". Come on now, demand better of yourself.

When a neutrino comes into existence, how long can it potentially exist if its doesnt come into contact with anything else?

As far as we know, forever, but of course science doesn't think in absolutes, like the pseudo-science does. There are limits on the neutrino lifetime. Funny you neglected to Google it, that would be a hundredth time.

When a neutron decays into particles including an electron, where does that electron come from, a neutron is 3 quarks, outside of the nucleus it is unstable because im guessing the weakforce kept it stable in the nucleus

Why do you have to guess while there is so much interesting info out there? Instead of guessing, have you tried "reading"? I'm told this novel concept really works for most people. I find it amazing that you don't appear to have true interest in improving your knowledge, but rather became accustomed to using ATS as a universal dump.

reply to post by ImaFungi

He did answer some of my questions, he did answer some of yours about the suns magnetic pole.

Were any of the answers correct? Do you even care? Its rather odd how you rail against the mainstream on seemingly difficult issues yet give Wippler a pass on his obviously incorrect answers, just because he gave an answer.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
Were any of the answers correct?

You mean the answers one would have to give in order to pass an exam?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
You mean the answers one would have to give in order to pass an exam?

Answers that would agree with observation, like the sun reversing magnetic polarity every 11 years. Wippler says our observations are wrong.
How does he know this, and what observations has he made to refute this, and how has he made them?
I was looking forward to seeing his explanation but he never gave any.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Serdgiam
In a chicken or the egg scenario, the "mainstream" scientific community tends to immediately discredit all alternative viewpoints and despite knowing that "box" very well, tend to be completely unable to break outside of it (though the individual perception may say otherwise).

This statement is false. There are numerous examples proving that. Look up "November Revolution" in physics, that is mainly due to the discovery and study of the charm quark. If what you said was true, the supposedly ossified science community would find a more conventional explanation for the signal observed. And look at RHIC. The thinking was that there was a "soft" QGP plasma to be formed in these conditions, when the discovery proved otherwise, we didn't waste time looking at the new theory venues and came up with new techniques to measure and quantify these effects. The OPERA experiment which at first saw a superliminal neutrino made a full official presentation of their results at the CERN colloquium, pretty mush a top forum as far as discoveries go. And LEP was built to measure the number of "generations" of leptons. If there physicists were "thinking inside the box", there wouldn't be any need for this exercise. Boxes are built and broken daily in physics. Your ideas about this science are very wrong.

I actually think the tendency which I brought up is a good one. It keeps everything grounded, though it also has the inherent drawback of being myopic to a degree.

To discover something new, someone doesnt even need to go "outside the box." It also doesnt force everyone inside the box to think inside the box, which is what was meant by "tend."

Of course, it must also be at least consistent with most of what we know to be true. If the same experiment were to somehow indicate that oxygen isnt even an element, we would all have questions because that is "too far" outside of the box.

Like I said, its not a bad thing. We could safely assume, usually, that the results were pointing to something unintended. While it may appear at first to be "x," we know the likelihood of that happening (oxygen not being an element) is exceedingly low, so we move to discover what it truly shows inside that box.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Ok, so one way in which neutrinos come into existence is through neutron decay?

Pretty much.

and like all particles, a neutrino is a result of nature attempting to stabilize its energy levels?

What a nonsensical phrase. "Nature attempting". Come on now, demand better of yourself.

When a neutrino comes into existence, how long can it potentially exist if its doesnt come into contact with anything else?

As far as we know, forever, but of course science doesn't think in absolutes, like the pseudo-science does. There are limits on the neutrino lifetime. Funny you neglected to Google it, that would be a hundredth time.

When a neutron decays into particles including an electron, where does that electron come from, a neutron is 3 quarks, outside of the nucleus it is unstable because im guessing the weakforce kept it stable in the nucleus

Why do you have to guess while there is so much interesting info out there? Instead of guessing, have you tried "reading"? I'm told this novel concept really works for most people. I find it amazing that you don't appear to have true interest in improving your knowledge, but rather became accustomed to using ATS as a universal dump.

You really couldnt have just answered my questions with your knowledge... Sheesh, I will admit you know more then me if you can provide some answers to my questions to prove it. and before you respond about how you dont need to prove anything, once again I dont care about the snippy language parts or bad grammar I use, I only care about the questions I ask and whether you answer them or not so we can continue discussing those topics.

Can you answer my question about where the electron comes from in neutron decay? how can a fundamental particle like the electron be created out of particles that arent electrons, if electrons have no components.

What is the physical difference between a negatively charged particle and positive, and what does the W boson do to create a charged particle?

what principle/mechanism is behind the energy levels of photons? is it only the momentum of emitting atoms?

those are basically 3 questions,, I dont care about me or anything else... just please answer them.

reply to post by buddhasystem

What a nonsensical phrase. "Nature attempting". Come on now, demand better of yourself.

Another ridicule without merit. How would you wish it phrased? 'Universe attempting', "'All-that-is' attempting", "Physics-itself attempting", etcetera or what?

A Fermi physicist was quoted saying a statement to such effect as ImaFungi's in a not so far topic of physics.

19 February 2013 Last updated at 08:41 GMT
Cosmos may be 'inherently unstable'

By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News, Boston

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21499765

(...)

A concept known as vacuum instability could result, billions of years from now, in a new universe opening up in the present one and replacing it.

(...)

One idea that it throws up is the possibility of a cyclical universe, in which every so often all of space is renewed.

"It turns out there's a calculation you can do in our Standard Model of particle physics, once you know the mass of the Higgs boson," explained Dr Joseph Lykken.

"If you use all the physics we know now, and you do this straightforward calculation - it's bad news.

"What happens is you get just a quantum fluctuation that makes a tiny bubble of the vacuum the Universe really wants to be in. And because it's a lower-energy state, this bubble will then expand, basically at the speed of light, and sweep everything before it," the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory theoretician told BBC News.

It was not something we need worry about, he said. The Sun and the Earth will be long gone by this time.

Dr Lykken was speaking here in Boston at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

He was participating in a session that had been organised to provide an update on the Higgs investigation.

(...)

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo


Speaking of the higgs, thats something Id also like to hear buddhasystems thoughts on. Im not so sure I understand why the higgs needs to exist to give particles mass.

I wonder at the very beginning of the universe, how long was the universe massless? Or at the first measurable duration of time at the moment of big bang, did mass exist? Or was all that existed massless energy? which then once it inflated and cooled, gained the properties of mass and spin and charge etc.

Also what caused the big bang to occur at the rate/force at which it did. Was there an exact quantity of energy, and 'nothing' happened, and it inflated/expanded at a certain rate into existence as the universe. Or was there some trigger, some force, some energy that caused the universe to inflate/expand at the velocity at which it did. I can picture who you can get all the energy of the universe to move at the velocity it did for free. and then for it to create a relatively long lasting perpetual motion machine. A really important achievement of science will be figuring out what exactly space is.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
and before you respond about how you dont need to prove anything

What I really don't need to do is to re-type pages upon pages of information here, which is freely available to you if you chose to lift you proverbial from that comfy chair and press the "google" button. Often you are asking things which are in fact equivalent of "why wood floats on water?". If you want a summary, it's out there for you basically for free, and if you want a deeper understanding, you need to roll up the sleeves and do a few problems yourself, from a proper textbook. There are no shortcuts.

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

What a nonsensical phrase. "Nature attempting". Come on now, demand better of yourself.

How would you wish it phrased?

I wish it phrased in a way that doesn't sound retarded. Is this too much to ask?


The rest of your post is 100% non-sequitur.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
and before you respond about how you dont need to prove anything

What I really don't need to do is to re-type pages upon pages of information here, which is freely available to you if you chose to lift you proverbial from that comfy chair and press the "google" button. Often you are asking things which are in fact equivalent of "why wood floats on water?". If you want a summary, it's out there for you basically for free, and if you want a deeper understanding, you need to roll up the sleeves and do a few problems yourself, from a proper textbook. There are no shortcuts.

So you are not here to discuss physics and the universe?

Or you cant answer my questions?


I never asked for pages and pages or even a page.. Only the simplest answers you could provide to my inquires. In stead of the reply you just gave me, if you are knowledgeable and capable, you could have easily answered the 3 questions I provided. do you not like talking about physics and the universe? Or do you not want to be forced to think in a manner which may destroy the sandcastle you constructed in your brain?


I was really excited to see that you worked at cern and potentially would be interested in physics and the universe. I was delighted that I may have the opportunity to speak to a real distinguished knower of reality, so that I may ask him from my petty understanding, questions, which the answers would help bring me, if even a smidgen, closer to his towering plateau of truth. I was wrong. Oh well, maybe someone someday will join who is smart and would rather spend their time discussing the exciting details of the universe, rather then trolling.


In a particle accelerator what is the technical mechanism used to track particles trajectory over time, without causing "measurement problems"?

Sorry, just seems like sophisticated numerology to me - which is, obviously, complete nonsense.







(and, yes, I am a mathematician)

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Sorry, just seems like sophisticated numerology to me - which is, obviously, complete nonsense.

(and, yes, I am a mathematician)

Isnt math just sophisticated numerology?