David LaPoint's Theory of the Structure of All Matter

reply to post by hisshadow


Maybe Phage will join us.

reply to post by hisshadow


I LOVE your enthusiasm.

I just read a Comment by LaPoint on Facebook that I can relate to because of the book I read by Bill Gaede Why God Doesn't Exist. That book title is a sarcastic referral to mathematical physics. Gaede believes that physics has reached the point where the mathematical physicists are viewed as gods dictating what reality is made up of when actually they're not describing anything physical at all. It's just math for math's sake.

Here's the Comment:

Primer Fields In a quick review of the paper on gravity, I am not buying it. Too many out on a limb unprovable positions are taken by the authors. They have to introduce curved space time to explain things that we can now explain without curved space time. Then it also introduces the fractal side which I also find unnecessary. It is greatly complicating things from where we are now. Simple is more likely correct. The solution that is offered also does not predict bubble formations from what I can see and in fact miss the bubbles inside of M2-9 that they show. They are simply predicting the ejection of matter, but we now know thanks to the recent Chandra movies of the Vela pulsar that the treatment given pulsars in this paper is not correct. I believe we will find that it all breaks down under careful examination and that is why this paper has not gotten more coverage. It is all just math. I need more than just math or words to get me to believe when a physical solution is required. The solution needs to make sense in the physical world and I find that this paper does not do that. I presume that the math is correct, but does the math truly represent reality? . . .

I have been very mystified about the use of math in physics and the demand members post for "show me the math!" when someone posts alternative theories. To me, the math is only a tool to use to represent the theory and is not the theory itself, which should stand on the interpretation of what we observe - not on math "proofs."

LaPoint says in that Comment that he's presuming that the math is correct! I'm amazed that correct math can mean absolutely nothing!

I dont touch math... unless im banking lol

I do it the einstein way, i visualize it. and just occured to me if we are wrong about field lines on a childs magnet..

then what the heck does gravity fields actually look like...

Wonder if there is a way to make a safer version of this to play with. Ive always believed if something works then it should work on a simple principle

wonder if you can create smaller ammounts of plasma with some dc voltage, use smaller magnets.. make a mini setup like that safe to test at home.

im too scared of a/c to be tesla

reply to post by hisshadow


But wasn't Einstein a mathematician?

think i could actually use that as the heart of a plasma cannon. i think it would actually work, more like a pulse cannon

I always heard he was bad at math, he said himself he visualized space to come up with spacetime

reply to post by hisshadow


I read a biography of him and I seem to recall that he had a mentor in his teenage years who was a mathematician. I could be remembering wrong, though.

I also recall a funny anecdote about him that he was at someone's house having dinner and he spontaneously started calculating on the hostess's tablecloth. She washed the tablecloth and destroyed a little piece of history!

Anyway, he loved geometry, also, I understand. And that is visual.

Originally posted by Mary Rose


I have been very mystified about the use of math in physics and the demand members post for "show me the math!" when someone posts alternative theories. To me, the math is only a tool to use to represent the theory and is not the theory itself, which should stand on the interpretation of what we observe - not on math "proofs."

Math is important in any new theory, but math cannot stand on its own without experimental verification.
String theory is an example just as is einsteins space - time GR.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Math is important in any new theory, but math cannot stand on its own without experimental verification.

Shouldn't the math originate from observation - either observation of nature itself in action, or observation of experimental outcomes? And shouldn't that observation be delineated clearly before mathematical tools are generated to map it out?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Math is important in any new theory, but math cannot stand on its own without experimental verification.

Shouldn't the math originate from observation - either observation of nature itself in action, or observation of experimental outcomes? And shouldn't that observation be delineated clearly before mathematical tools are generated to map it out?

Not necessarily, math can come first with predictions that will be verified by either experiment or
observations in nature.
Any new therory if correct, ought to be able to make predictions

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


So, if the math comes first, what does the mathematician base it on?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

So, if the math comes first, what does the mathematician base it on?

Education, hunch, gut feeling, inspiration also observation and basically
having a notoriously inquisitive mind.
Maybe genetic makeup could also be a cause

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


I don't mean to be arguing with you. But doesn't some previously validated observation have to be included?

Or does a mathematician simply sometimes make up stuff? Sort of like painting an abstract?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

I don't mean to be arguing with you. But doesn't some previously validated observation have to be included?

Or does a mathematician simply sometimes make up stuff?

Sort of like painting an abstract?

Not necessarily, look around and you will see oddities not yet observed by any1 else let alone validated.
Yes i suppose you can play around with math and come up with some bizzarre stuff as well.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


Okay but it's still an observation, correct?

In other words, the mathematician starts with his/her own observation as a starting point or at least it's included at some point in the sequence of events culminating in a mathematical representation?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Appeals to the authority of the mainstream don't impress me.

That's fine. What is not fine that appeals to common sense do not have any effect on your either. You can be actively engaged in posting something that, as is easy to check, is patently absent from reality. So in essence you are divorced from the real world around you. Protons are not black holes. There is no black hole inside a donut covered in sudoku puzzle. And, alpha particles are not monopoles. Just to name a few of the bullcrap notions you are so happy to entertain.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by Mary Rose


I have been very mystified about the use of math in physics and the demand members post for "show me the math!" when someone posts alternative theories. To me, the math is only a tool to use to represent the theory and is not the theory itself, which should stand on the interpretation of what we observe - not on math "proofs."

Math is important in any new theory, but math cannot stand on its own without experimental verification.
String theory is an example just as is einsteins space - time GR.

What is your problem with Einstein's space-time? Do you think this system of universe began at some point? if so big bang? Is the energy/matter of the universe traveling through/in a nothingness of space? If the universe began at the big bang, did it exist in a nothingness of space? After the universe began was the new space in between energy/matter space that already existed outside the universe?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

Okay but it's still an observation, correct?

In other words, the mathematician starts with his/her own observation as a starting point or at least it's included at some point in the sequence of events culminating in a mathematical representation?

Mary not necessarily. Observation is only one of the many motivations.