Thread: scientific wording V scientific equations

Does anyone agree that modern science is becomming a delicatessen of theories that are not based on any mathematical proof, that the theories we are bombarded with are based on equations that suggest "other" theories are faulty, and that the newly worded theory represents a type of avenue we should go down, because other theories and associated equations didn't work?

Does anyone agree that most of modern science today is a house of cards of worded theories that lacks equation-substance?

Take the curvature of space-time: it was a proposition, a worded proposition, based on equations that "suggested" such a possibility could exist. There are no direct "equations" though that say, "space-time is curved", yet it is one of those modern held belief systems of science, namely that space-time is curved.

If there are no equations that directly suggest space-time is curved, but other equations suggesting that by default it is, would it be of any interest to the scientific community that equations could exist that directly point to the curvature of space-time?

One would be foolish to suggest that the theories today are not well-thought out. But there are iceberg ideas out there that, like the curvature of space-time and more importantly the absence of direct relevant equations to the curvature of space-time, have the ability to take the entire axiom structure of physics out to the bottom of the ocean.

I have noticed in this forum there is much excitement over understanding relativity, an old drive, really, when one considers the more relevant structure of equations directly pointing to the curvature of space-time.

Does anyone think lay people should stop confusing scientific theory with baseless stabs in the dark?

Scientific theories are extrapolated from known science ,only become so after standing up to testing, and are dropped if and when they fail to do so. Even theories that are relatively uncertain i.e. M-theory obey these standards

Big News: that YOU don't know the maths, does not mean there are no maths. They are. The trouble is, if WE where to grasp them, then we would be scientists ourselves... not laymen.

What is boring is that the forum is so full of people who believes that they can derail a scientific theory by just write against it, usually based on their poor understanding of the worded, popularized explanations of the theory. They CAN'T understand that the REAL theory is written as Mathematics, and its those Mathematics what must be proven wrong... if they can.

I mean, it's nice when someoen (each now and then, not very often) comes and says "I don't get that" and then knowledgeables can help understand. But usually is "I couldn't get that and so I've figured why <enter popular bit of science here> must be wrong". Any effort to prove the problem is with THEM and their inabbility to grasp some counter-intuitive bit of Science is sentenced to fail: they usually take it personal or just insist spreading the "word" to those too dumb to get how professional scientist are wrong and a dude who maybe not even studied Calculum found a deadly hole in a revered theory...

Grows boring.

Curvature of spacetime is real, or something very similar. Various experiments have been taken and do show light to 'bend' around the sun when there is an eclipse. Einstein's equations and development for general relativity have been created-the reason for spacetime curving is due to momentum and the stress energy tensor, which are very complicated but work, they break down under extreme circumstances such as black holes, but thats no wonder since all Einsteins work was on the dominance of the speed of light, and of course this changes in a black hole, hence the c part of Einsteins tensor won't work, thats why it breaks down as the constant for light varies. Stephen Hawking noticed this years ago and works on it today, we have all learned of black body radiation and other gravitational niceties such as more depth explanation of frame dragging. Black holes are the limits of our perception of the universe in at least physics terms.

I have read some of your ideas stream systems and personally agree that some other dimensional influence is occuring and personally beleive that these occur in black holes, which is why time travel and other non-common events occur around them. I think scientists should yes as you said stop thinking of wacky ideas with no mathematics and should only continue if they can concieve some new mathematical principles to explain them as Einstein did. I think a time has come to really look outside the box once again as no-one since Einstein has done so. Let's expand on Einsteins ideas and help general relativity become even greater, a new theory of the universe based on spacetime and not on quanta as the world has become so fixated on. We have to consider why though light cannot escape a black hole. In our suns gravitational field light slows down as it has a longer distance to travel, so in a black hole maybe it has an infinite distance and hence we never see it. Spacetime could loop inside it, which coincidently is relative to frame dragging. Let's really think hard, because once Stephen Hawking passes on, we will need a new great theorican to take his place.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Does anyone agree that modern science is becomming a delicatessen of theories that are not based on any mathematical proof, that the theories we are bombarded with are based on equations that suggest "other" theories are faulty, and that the newly worded theory represents a type of avenue we should go down, because other theories and associated equations didn't work?

Does anyone agree that most of modern science today is a house of cards of worded theories that lacks equation-substance?

Take the curvature of space-time: it was a proposition, a worded proposition, based on equations that "suggested" such a possibility could exist. There are no direct "equations" though that say, "space-time is curved", yet it is one of those modern held belief systems of science, namely that space-time is curved.

If there are no equations that directly suggest space-time is curved, but other equations suggesting that by default it is, would it be of any interest to the scientific community that equations could exist that directly point to the curvature of space-time?

One would be foolish to suggest that the theories today are not well-thought out. But there are iceberg ideas out there that, like the curvature of space-time and more importantly the absence of direct relevant equations to the curvature of space-time, have the ability to take the entire axiom structure of physics out to the bottom of the ocean.

I have noticed in this forum there is much excitement over understanding relativity, an old drive, really, when one considers the more relevant structure of equations directly pointing to the curvature of space-time.

am i too texan?

If I remember correctly, Einstein described gravity as a geometric phenomenon. That would mean than inside the event horison of a black hole, the fabric of space is curved in onto itself. So light propegating through space would follow this curve and never move beyond the event horizon.

In our suns gravitational field light slows down as it has a longer distance to travel

Are you sure about that? Does'nt it just undergo red-shifting? I also read recently that Hawking has admitted to having made a mistake about black holes radiating energy, but I still agree that he is one of our finest. Some people contend that he has aquired an aura of brilliance as a result of his illness and his public popularity, but that he would barely make the top ten of theoretical physicists. I'm not sure I agree, but there it is.

I will not leave whatever I* can xplain......

Time 2 make more known.

My cousin.

u.

Steps inn.

I thought i had a qest-tion.

Simple, it would seem.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Does anyone agree that modern science is becomming a delicatessen of theories that are not based on any mathematical proof, that the theories we are bombarded with are based on equations that suggest "other" theories are faulty, and that the newly worded theory represents a type of avenue we should go down, because other theories and associated equations didn't work?

Does anyone agree that most of modern science today is a house of cards of worded theories that lacks equation-substance?

Take the curvature of space-time: it was a proposition, a worded proposition, based on equations that "suggested" such a possibility could exist. There are no direct "equations" though that say, "space-time is curved", yet it is one of those modern held belief systems of science, namely that space-time is curved.

If there are no equations that directly suggest space-time is curved, but other equations suggesting that by default it is, would it be of any interest to the scientific community that equations could exist that directly point to the curvature of space-time?

One would be foolish to suggest that the theories today are not well-thought out. But there are iceberg ideas out there that, like the curvature of space-time and more importantly the absence of direct relevant equations to the curvature of space-time, have the ability to take the entire axiom structure of physics out to the bottom of the ocean.

I have noticed in this forum there is much excitement over understanding relativity, an old drive, really, when one considers the more relevant structure of equations directly pointing to the curvature of space-time.

am i too texan?

Steer or queer?

Dead.

or dread

Is this not an example of imbecilies who casually derail a thread (like myself)?

Originally Posted by Lucifer

What is boring is that the forum is so full of people who believes that they can derail a scientific theory by just write against it, usually based on their poor understanding of the worded, popularized explanations of the theory.
...
But usually is "I couldn't get that and so I've figured why <enter popular bit of science here> must be wrong". Any effort to prove the problem is with THEM and their inabbility to grasp some counter-intuitive bit of Science is sentenced to fail: they usually take it personal or just insist spreading the "word" to those too dumb to get how professional scientist are wrong and a dude who maybe not even studied Calculum found a deadly hole in a revered theory...

I totally agree. All these people who think that, say, relativity is wrong even though they couldn't get through the first chapter of an actual university textbook on relativity are really annoying. I mean, if you can't get through the first chapter of an introductory textbook on a subject (and no, "Brief History of Time" is not a textbook) then clearly you don't understand it at all. I suspect that all these relativity-haters know damn well that they wouldn't have a prayer of actually understanding the first chapter of a relativity textbook, much less the entire book. So why are people trying to claim that a theory that they know they don't understand is wrong? Don't you think that you should maybe, you know, actually understand what you are criticizing before you announce that it's wrong?

Go try to read Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity by Sean Carroll and get back to me when you finish it. If you can't understand it, realize that you don't have a f***ing clue about relativity and stop trying to "fix" it.

Hear here.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

realize that you don't have a f***ing clue about relativity and stop trying to "fix" it.

Relativity doesn't need fixing! It has been shown to be consistent by all subsequent scientific measurement.

You seem to latch on to Physicists saying they have yet to explain everything
by relativity and Quantum mechanics and use it to say relativity needs "fixing".

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

realize that you don't have a f***ing clue about relativity and stop trying to "fix" it.

Relativity doesn't need fixing! It has been shown to be consistent by all subsequent scientific measurement.

You seem to latch on to Physicists saying they have yet to explain everything
by relativity and Quantum mechanics and use it to say relativity needs "fixing".

He was talking about the "I've found relaitvity is wrong" kooks, I think. :?

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

You seem to latch on to Physicists saying they have yet to explain everything
by relativity and Quantum mechanics and use it to say relativity needs "fixing".

Are you talking to me? I don't have a problem with relativity.

Ok, all you Einsteins.

I appreciate your responses.

But what if I were to tell you that in black hole conditions light bends so well it forms a perfect sphere, and I have the equation to prove that?

Now do you understand my madness?

It's trying to get through to all of you.

Correct me if I am wrong, but one of you suggested light bends almost completely on itself in black hole conditions.

I have that equation, not that stab in the dark with words.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Ok, all you Einsteins.

I appreciate your responses.

I think there is only one here who thinks she can match Einstein, can you guess who Im referring to?

Correct me if I am wrong, but one of you suggested light bends almost completely on itself in black hole conditions.

Yes but only because light bends proportionally to gravities influence on its otherwise straight path. I fail to see any way that this would suggest anything more sinister than general relativistic principles.

If I can go back to the title of the thread, I was emphasising that maybe scientific wording can get itself lost withuot the real meaty equations, and that if we stripped down all the excessive wording of contemporary physics, and revealed the real nuts and bolts, the equations that constitute a type of space-time certaity, we are missing one very important equation, namely an equation directy accountable to the curvature of space-time. Otherwise, the curvature of space-time is a default opinion based on "other" non-direct equations.

Correct me if I am wrong, but ultimately, on the very limit of the Universe, on that shockwave front, presumably, is it not as though light has failed to escape, that we are technically in a black hole itself, and thus the curvature of space-time would ultimately be as such?

Something else relavent to this discussion, and I've seen this happen a number of times. People come claiming they have some new science and they have the equations to prove it but they don't post the equations anywhere. It's impossible for us to take them at their word on something like that.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

I have that equation, not that stab in the dark with words.

Present it here and now, or desist.

Ophiolite, please bear with me while I introduce some required theory and equations before I introduce the upgrade equations.

It goes like this:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A worldline through a light cone in 2D space plus a time dimension.In special relativity, a light cone is the pattern describing the temporal evolution of a flash of light in Minkowski spacetime. This can be visualized in 3-space if the two horizontal axes are chosen to be spatial dimensions, while the vertical axis is time.

(you are all intelligent enough to be able to picture these light cones, I trust).

The light cone is constructed as follows. Taking as event p a flash of light (light pulse) at time t0, all events that can be reached by this pulse from p form the future light cone of p, whilst those events that can send a light pulse to p form the past light cone of p.

Given an event E, the light cone classifies all events in spacetime into 5 distinct categories:

Events on the future light cone of E.
Events on the past light cone of E.
Events inside the future light cone of E are those which are affected by a material particle emitted at E.
Events inside the past light cone of E are those which can emit a material particle and affect what is happening at E.
All other events are in the (absolute) elsewhere of E and are those that will never affect and can never be affected by E.
If space is measured in light-seconds and time is measured in seconds, the cone will have a slope of 45°, because light travels a distance of one light-second in vacuum during one second. Since special relativity requires the speed of light to be equal in every inertial frame, all observers must arrive at the same angle of 45° for their light cones. This is ensured by the Lorentz transformation.

Elsewhere, an integral part of light cones, is the region of spacetime outside the light cone at a given event (a point in spacetime). Events that are elsewhere from each other are mutually unobservable, and cannot be causally connected.


[edit] Light-cones in general relativity
In general relativity, the future light cone is the boundary of the causal future of a point and the past light cone is the boundary of its causal past.

In a curved spacetime, the light-cones cannot all be tilted so that they are 'parallel'; this reflects the fact that the spacetime is curved and is essentially different from Minkowski space. In vacuum regions (those points of spacetime free of matter), this inability to tilt all the light-cones so that they are all parallel is reflected in the non-vanishing of the Weyl tensor.

(the same with diagrams can be found at p276 from the download at the www feature below)

Now, to answer your question, Ophiolite, and anyone else seriously interested in the new three dimensional space equations for the "before" and "after" light cone zones (and for those who have seriously reviewed my work, you will know what equations I am taking about and how they were derived), my claim is that I have been able to establish the equations for that circular propagation of light in the before and after light cone regions, and further to that, the curvature of space-time, ultimately as a sphere, that connects those light cones, "without" contradicting comtemporary ideas of cutting edge physics other than caiming to have the "next-step" equations.

However, the equation takes roughly 200 or so pages to explain (available at the www feature below). You see, the mathematical equation proposed is not a mathematical equation as one would understand it, because it requires the use of an extra space-axis for each of the before and after light cones, which is why it is a next-step equation. The equation actually is a type of "origami" of space-time, space-time folding, such that relativistic equations, as you would understand them, are not compromised. The relativistic equations are accommodated for by using a "universal reference" as a common perception reference, the algorithm of which is best explained in the Appendix sections.

I can hear the outcry already: if it is not taught at school, if it is not taught at University, it is not valid. However, one should not forget that cutting edge research never IS taught at school or University, because it is too "cutting edge".

You are all a good lot of posters, and I thank you for your patience, but I don't have any confidence this answer will change the minds of those who have found great fault in my presence in this forum. Such is life. But please can we not make this personal. This is science.

In your defense, there is one thing about what I am presenting as a forum topic, this new level of equations, and that is the exact nature of the link between the current and the new. It seems I have rushed it. But, in the opening chapters of the theory, it was stated that the work of Einstein was assumed knowledge. I also stated midway through the theory the concept of lightcones and the "before" and "after" circular geometry. I did also state what was being presented was a "new concept" mathematics designed for the "universal observor reference" in mind.

One does not need to be a physicist to understand Einstein, to understand relativity, to understand astrophysics. It helps, but one does not need to be a physicst. You need to be a physicst to TEACH Einstein, and so on, but I am not teaching Einstein. I am presenting a "next level" mathematical calculus that equates, that factors, for the before and after light cones. Ideally, in presenting that universal observor reference mathematical algorithm, I would need a degree relevant to a "universal observor". 5 or so years of medicine with that idea in mind I believe grants me at least some credibility. Still, I don't consider anyone in this forum would be convinced.

If I can add, I represent the responsibility of sharing cutting edge research when it is available, an instinct I am sure we all well appreciate and foster.

Don't you get it.

You're a grown up.

Grown's ups aren't welcome here.

That wouldn't surprise me.

Originally Posted by maxHeadroom

Don't you get it.

You're a grown up.

Grown's ups aren't welcome here.

I dare say you recognise grown ups, since these are the ones who change your diapers [nappies for my UK colleagues].

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by maxHeadroom

Don't you get it.

You're a grown up.

Grown's ups aren't welcome here.

I dare say you recognise grown ups, since these are the ones who change your diapers [nappies for my UK colleagues].

Wit can only take you so far in life (take me for example (think 80's)).

But taking full account for the questions you ask of others, that is something else entirely.

It doesn't become of someone such as yourself, presumably, with your "try-hard I'm an adult use of words" to ask a person a question and then just ignore their answer.

It looks bad, don't you think. If you are a moderator, show some maturity, if not respect.

stream systems gave you a thorough answer, yet with no response from the one who questioned so intently. Kick them out of the forum if you despise that person so much. Effectively, you are derailing a well constructed answer. Kick ss off the forum. have the spine. Or, show a little leadership and answer the provided question.

(gee, and to think I had to say that).

You see, sheriff, you and others have accused ss of being pseudo, and then all of a sudden you offer an ultimatum question, the answer is provided, and you shut up. But, that is not in keeping with your wish, as the wish of others, to kick ss off the forum.

What gives?

I thought this was part gladatorial?

I'm just a citizen in your town here.

What gives, sheriff?

Is ss right, or somethin?

We have a right to know!!

You guide our opinions, o great one!

Do not keep us in the dark with this pseudo freak.

Stream, I know you're plannin somethin.

Let me in.

The silence is eeerie.

The more you reply to me, the more unpopular you will become.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

The more you reply to me, the more unpopular you will become.

That's right.....unless you use the PM.

(this is getting boring)

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Originally Posted by streamSystems

The more you reply to me, the more unpopular you will become.

That's right.....unless you use the PM.

(this is getting boring)

Are we now offering them an excuse for this "what could have been good thread" the chance of seeing the trash can?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Originally Posted by streamSystems

The more you reply to me, the more unpopular you will become.

That's right.....unless you use the PM.

(this is getting boring)

Are we now offering them an excuse for this "what could have been good thread" the chance of seeing the trash can?

I think so.

Originally Posted by maxHeadroom

You see, sheriff, you and others have accused ss of being pseudo, and then all of a sudden you offer an ultimatum question, the answer is provided, and you shut up. .

If SS's answer was a good answer I am indeed the village idiot. All I see from the pair of you is childish wordplay and the very, very occasional flash of coherent thought.
I asked for equations, and I get excuses.
Dream on.

Ophiolite, you are looking for pure mathematical equations, right? There are equations, but I think they are "hidden" behind all the explanations.

I agree with Ophiolite, he is very clear in what he is saying.

Please provide us with a MATHEMATICAL argument of your work, Streamsystems. I admire your imagination, but unfortunately mathematics is the only tool that can provide us with any form of competent cohesion in our ideas.

Mathematics is cold, hard, FACT, and therefore if we cannot sensibly express our scientific ideas/objections in terms of it, then we cannot possibly have a concrete, definitive, FACTUAL explanation of what we are refering to. In such as case you only have speculation....which is no use to nobody.

The trouble with today's youth is that your attention span is too short to read an equation over 100 or so pages long.

One could put that down to drugs, commercial television, or perhaps a list of other things the children of this world harbor deceitfully from their parents.

Please scroll back a page or two, find where Ophiolite asked emphatically for an equation, look at the response, citing Wikipaedia, download the theory with that mathematical algorithm that highlights how the light cones of BEFORE and AFTER can be associated to the curvature of space-time via the equations, derived from that new algorithm, of a sphere, together with the equation, derived from that algorithm, for pi.

THEN get back to us.

Don't act like some street gang in some science forum who are being childish.

You see, Ophiolite, the theory behind Einstein's own equations was more than can be put in a forum post. The theory leading up to Einstein (Newton, et al) of course a lot more than a number of posts in this forum. Rearanging the axioms of space-time, doing lead-up work for a new algorithm, constructing that algorithm, and then doing the necessary space-time folding to then EQUATE the equations (and in this case, pi, sphere, and circle), well, it just seems a little tough on you.

Fear not; finish your exams, and ask a parent or guardian.

The key is to be concise. A good scientist can say a novel of words in a few sentences plus a few equations. You seem to have that skill completely the wrong way around SS.

I agree (with my brother).

If it's a little above you, don't reply. Leave it for the adults.

From page 189:


Pi, as we know, with the error calculated in, is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it diameter.


SURFACE AREA OF A CIRCLE:

The circumference of a circle times it's radius divided by 2……….one can perceive that AS LOGICAL, as the SURFACE AREA of a CIRCLE: pi r squared, given the way a stream system atom moves, one’s perception can easily perceive that. It’s OBVIOUS, and we’ve used right-angles, “squares”, to prove this.


SURFACE AREA OF A SPHERE:

Of the sphere though, it would simply be pi times d times d (4 pi r squared), or even more simply, the circumference times the diameter: once again, the purpose is visualizing HOW, and with the theory proper, that is possible…..using the PERCEPTION feature of the theory, it is visualized. It is OBVIOUS, and we’ve used right-angles, “squares”, to prove this.


VOLUME OF A SPHERE:

The volume of a sphere can ALSO be derived, no problems: 4/3 (the third axis RATIO OF EFFECTIVE tracing of a circle, 4/3) times r times pi r squared…………it is basically the surface area of a circle times by the ratio 4/3 (swinging arc) times r…………once again, EASY to visualize, using one’s own mind as the drawing board. It is obvious, and we’ve used right-angles, “squares”, to prove this.


The concept of "visualising" the equations, or rather, the folding of space-time, the lengths involved, was completely entrenched in the lead-up pages, so we simply suggested, "just visualise what this theory of perception has embarked upon with the 189 page lead-up dialgue and space-time mechanics". The lead up pages with the diagrams of the lengths of the folds, they're in the theory. They don't disappear when we're not watching. Basically, the theory became so mathematical and connected to space-time, the next step was to be able to visualise the mathematics to then highlight how it is actually possible to see in one's mind's eye, with the human process of reasoning and thought, the construct.

Now, most of that is complete JACK to you, because you haven't read the pages leading up to those equations. The page number for those equations is 189, meaning that if you can count to 189, well, that's the ideal number of pages you need to read to understand HOW those equations were derived. The concept here is using a new grid for space-time, not the old 3-d space, 1-d time euclidean grid, which you are all familiar with.

What those equations symbolise is how the folding of space-time is "curved", because research in mathematics suggests that the equations for a circle and sphere are remarkably identical, as final equations, to the ones above. The gross implication is that with a new axiom structure of space-time, space-time is curved, it has those essential BEFORE and AFTER circular light cone structures, conforms with relativity, and a whole host of other things modern science has yet to theorise.

As for having the process the wrong way around, I am not sure if that (the wrong way around) would pass as a scientifically termed assessment.

We look forward to our next correspondence.

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

The key is to be conscience. A good scientist can say a novel of words in a few sentences plus a few equations. You seem to have that skill completely the wrong way around SS.

No, you mean a contemporary scientist relying on the definitions of those before him (good scientist).

In the case of rewriting the axioms of space-time though, much, one would think, needs to be reworded. And rewording usually implies a lot of rewriting. And a lot of rewriting requires, one must consider, many challenging pages of new theory.

Still, we are assuming you already knew that.

Yes,

We are.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Fear not; finish your exams, and ask a parent or guardian.

Not an easy task. can you recommend a decent medium?
I rarely sit exams today. I think the last one I sat was almost four decades ago.
Nice to see you actually are capable of posting a cohesive string of words that convey an idea. Now that we have your format in shape we just have to work on the content.

Nice to see your content, which we greatly admire, all 4 decades worth.

Yes.

"Nice" to see.

We are blinded by your 4 decades of charm.

You have humbled us.