Where does your "blasted" hostility come from, David?
If you want people to think you have actual theories, post links to them, or at least do some SEO so Google can point people to them.
My "home page" link takes you to one of my videos. In the comments section are my full name, the name of my theory, the web page on my site related to each video.
At two points in our sub-thread I linked to articles on my web site.
Do you really want me to believe you were unable to find my web site?
I have not mentioned the name of my theory -- Spring-And-Loop Theory -- in this sub-thread with you, David. What kind of SEO would be needed to help people find a theory they don't know the name of?
By the way, when you type "Spring-And-Loop Theory" into Google, every one of the first ten hits is to my web site.
Your more recent link was to something that had a handy link to a web page describing the speed of light, and that made it perfectly clear that you are a crackpot, even without considering the tone of the writing.
And now my links are "handy"...
Wikipedia defines a crackpot as:
a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false. A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.
With "pejorative" wiki-defined as:
A pejorative (also term of abuse, term of disparagement, or derogatory term) is a word or grammatical form of expression that expresses contempt, criticism, hostility, disregard and/or disrespect.
So far I've enjoyed the challenge of maintaining a respectful dialogue with you, David, despite your contempt, criticism, hostility, disregard and disrespect.
Getting back to your "crackpot" descriptor, I would not define my thoughts about my theory as (1) unshakable, nor (2) a belief. In fact I accuse many physicists of those two things. As to (3) what contemporaries consider of my theory, it would be difficult for me to care less than I do. They have shown their cards, their loyalties, their biases and their agendas. I have shown my theory. Let the better theory decide. Nothing else matters. (4) "wildly at variance" is at times true of my theory. Just as QM is at times "wildly at variance" with relativity, etc. I don't for a second consider that a drawback. Rather than comparing only differences, it is wiser to consider that I am proposing a model that works...unlike other theories...when it comes to gravity. And the first completely unified theory. And yet with a level of simplicity that puts the ludicrous hacks of other theories to shame. If that makes me a "crackpot", I am quite comfortable accepting that moniker.
You listed some things not known about light. We know why gravity bends light.
No. Since physicists don't know what gravity is, we can not possibly fully understand how gravity bends light. You are confusing the ability to calculate an effect and confirm the calculation with a measurement, with an actual understanding of what is going on at the lowest level.
Einstein, Feynmann and countless others have tried to figure out what gravity actually is. That quest continues today.
I think I have figured it out.
And where physicists today think they have light all figured out, I think they do not. For starters, they have fixed the speed of light, when I say it is in fact changing (i.e. decreasing) with time. Specifically, at the present measured expansion rate of space, the SoL is decreasing by about 0.25 mph per hundred years.
We know why the speed of light is lower in different materials.
I would make the same point as I did above. You are confusing the ability to calculate & measure, with having a fundamental understanding.
You ask how we know that, if we traveled at the speed of light, photons would appear to come towards us at the speed of light. If we traveled at the speed of light we actually wouldn't notice anything.
I take it you meant to say that you wouldn't notice anything _different_ about the speed of the photons. That they are in fact traveling at the expected speed. The speed of light. Just as I said in my article.
You also forgot to comment on why this would be true. Since no one has ever ridden on a beam of light, it is just a thought experiment, with the presently accepted "answer" coming from a theory. None of that reflects that relativity, or any other current theory, has a full understanding of what is going on.
Relativity is a starting point. Exactly as Quantum Mechanics is.
The problems of both are legion. QM reduces everything to probability, which is the opposite of having a full understanding. More like psychology or psychiatry, than science. Relativity is all well and good, until you get to endpoints...or the rotation rate of stars in a galaxy (forcing the introduction of a dark matter crutch).
Unlike most physicists, I wasn't content to settle for broken theories.
In short, you're ignorant of some fairly basic physics.
The closest you have come, David, to actually saying anything about my theory, are the remarks you make based on my "what we don't know about the speed of light" preamble at the beginning of my SoL article.
They were "set up" remarks. To show where we are at today.
Honestly, I don't think you realize how deficient modern theories are, David. Ironic, considering the thread we are commenting in.
Safe to say, if one does not see deficiencies, one is not capable of conceiving a new theory.
I saw them. I still see them. I came up with something better.
In order for a theory to be accepted, it needs to deal with the things we already know. It either needs to agree with accepted theory, or show why that theory is wrong. You clearly don't know enough of what we already know to do either.
It either needs to agree with accepted theory, or show why that theory is wrong.
Not quite right. The choices are (1) agree with current theory,
(2) show the flaw in the current theory, or (3) make a prediction (like Einstein did about light being bent by gravity) that can be confirmed by experimentation.
My prediction about the SoL decreasing does exactly this.
Yet, once again, you show your contempt and disrespect.
At this point I can see no point in conversing further with you, David. Your mind is quite obviously closed.
Have a nice day.
I'm not sure what your definition of well defined is.
The original theory is 15,000 words of html.
The references section is 2,000 words of html.
The extensions (consequences) of that theory are another 40,000 words of html.
I do make the repeated point in, for example, this 25,000+ word document, that my theory needs to be developed through simulation. Each and every new theory of the Planck scale will need this, for what should be obvious reasons. Atom smashers can only take us so far -- we are already at the practical limit of those.
My Bachelor's Thesis in Chemical Engineering involved the ground-breaking for its time use of simulation to determine the feasiblity of a two-stage spouted-bed coal pyrolysis plant. The simulations needed for this theory are considerably beyond what I am able to do today. But there is always tomorrow.
(2) but apparently different from standard physics,
Absolutely right here.
But given the flaws in every major "standard" theory of physics, is it seriously a drawback that my theory is different?
Consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. - Margaret Thatcher
I don't believe that a house of anything but cards can be built on faulty foundations.
If I were advocating warp drives, 10^^500 universes, or an inflation miracle, I would concede point (2).
(3) with no obvious reason to believe them?
You are completely wrong here.
(a) numerous flaws & gaps in our present "understanding" are explained by my new theory -- your choosing to ignore those puts you in the flamebait category,
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding
because I think, well, if they attack one personally,
it means they have not a single argument left. - Margaret Thatcher
(b) many people have had similar ideas in the past (e.g. particulary obvious regarding the ether) or wanted to achieve what my theory does (i.e. unification of the four forces, an actual explanation of how gravity works and of what exactly is the speed of light),
(c) predictions made by my theory alone (e.g. regarding the decreasing speed of light) would/will have profound consequences.
(4) The opinions expressed on the only site referencing it I could find?
Einstein was so alone at the start that it took 30 years for his theory to be widely accepted.
If it is one again one against forty-eight,
then I am very sorry for the forty-eight.
- Margaret Thatcher
If you know a place, other than at the beginning, where a new theory can start, I'd be appreciative if you would share it.
- - - - -
By the way, isn't it interesting how you didn't point out a single flaw in my theory?
Wikipedia's definition of Pseudoscience as
a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status...
appears to apply to your comments, David.
One of the greatest pains to human nature
is the pain of a new idea.
- Walter Bagehot
You point out one of the differences between Einstein's theory, and those he liberally "borrowed" from. You ignore that others had insights, in the same field, at the same time and even before Einstein's relativity was published. Poincare was the giant of his day, and published within a year of Einstein.
Since you are apparently fond of showing how Einstein's theory was different, let's point out another way he differed. Einstein decided to discard the ether. I suggest this will prove to be a major mistake, and that we must "get it back" for physics to continue to get better at describing our world.
science is trying to better understand the world, by making models predicting something. It isn't engineering.
I think you may have unintentionally identified our present scientific folly. Scientists are lost in engineering, and fantasizing. Everything but science.
It is exactly an engineering mindset that is needed to come up with a new theory. Why? Because engineering starts with a "what works?" mentality, then tries to define why it works, to quantify it and remove the uncertainty.
What works (i.e. is needed) today is (1) to discard relativity, field theories and the standard model due to their glaringly intractable failings (i.e. their bridges keep falling down), (2) start at the Planck scale (i.e. it should be empirically obvious that we need to start with the bottom level of the building) and (3) embrace the ether.
"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote."
- Michelson, 1903
The more dominant theories trying to describe the fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been selected, and these are so firmly locked in that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote. Thank goodness.
Complete and utter wastes of time like string theory are useful at creating employment, while guaranteeing that nothing will ever be gained/learned/discovered.
Instead of resolving theory conflicts, or encouraging new theories, we have "status quo" stagnation. There is no money in a new theory, especially one that is better than the old ones.
Rather than costing $5B/year, like the LHC, a new theory could appear at zero cost. Luckily the pay-to-publish system should ensure its stillbirth.
Opera, with 17 tabs, and it has been running for a few days, is only using 323MB
Interesting that my non-patched XP system is and always has been clean, whereas the Win 7 systems I support...that receive all patches and have current & working A/V...get infected regularly.
TV is also my radio. Optional background "noise".
ESPN is my channel of choice because it is the real world, as opposed to fake sit-coms, even worse "dramas", hideously depressing CSI type shows, and trailer trash reality shows.
My father played cricket, so there is a back story that adds to this live event.
I've played numerous sports, and love a few of them enough to watch them on TV. For the rest, it is about the human spirt. Amazing feats of endurance, athleticism and will.
Besides, TV is part of our "bundle", coupled with two things we absolutely need -- iNet + WIRED phone service.
To each his own. TV is not needed by some (especially those who are not interested in sports). TV works for others who find something good in it.
This thread is really about Comcast, and Comcast is really about monopoly. If there wasn't one, Comcast wouldn't be playing billing games. They would be offering things customers want, in a bid to _earn_ customers.
I don't agree with your premise. For one thing, it would depend on what the podcast you are listening to is about.
Regarding the movie I linked to, I happen to know more about that movie than I let on. Inside story type of info, but I want to preserve confidentiality.
In any event, it is not the movie but the information the movie reveals, that should be debated, attacked or learned from. Instead of doing this you ask if I am "for real". Since this is a pressing question for you, I shall endeavour to reassure you by saying I am quite real, with the usual numbers of fingers and toes.
I await you actually talking about the three or four points I brought up in my original post...
To the grandparent poster, check out "The Greater Good". Will totally change your view of vaccinations. One of the most profound things I learned was that in "vaccine vs no vaccine" studies, the "no vaccine" people in some cases still received the mercury (!) and in other cases received a different vaccine (!). That's right, there was no "control" group so they compared the health effect of a mercury-containing vaccine with...a mercury-containing control and/or a different vaccine.
Other juicy bits from that documentary:
- The number of vaccines given to kids these days is TEN times what was given 30 or 40 years ago.
- some vaccines still use mercury.
- some autistic individuals became so at the same time they (1) got a bunch of vaccinations and (2) were then tested and found to have toxic levels of mercury in their system, prompting (3) a successful lawsuit, and resulting compensation.