[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 54 KB, 1024x768, 1246475660733.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4305387 No.4305387 [Reply] [Original]

so I had this idea of how the universe works that is actually way easier than quantum physics and relativity without all complex explanations and open questions
but I have absolutely no idea what to do with it
any suggestions?

>> No.4305391

Post it here. If you can stand the ridicule, then you MIGHT could try people would could rip the idea to ribbons professionally.

>> No.4305407

I've heard a lot of people say a similar thing, usually they spout off some nonsense philosophy that's dated by a good 100 years.

follow >>4305391 's advice

>> No.4305412

>>4305391
as long as see that the idea is the right way it's still better than nothing
http://alternative-physics.blogspot.com/

>> No.4305419

>>4305412

> implying we have nothing...

Yeah, no.

>> No.4305423

>>4305412
From the first paragraph its obvious you know nothing, of even basic physics.

>> No.4305433

>>4305423
if there's written "read it to the end" why don't you do it?

>> No.4305436

All I ended up getting from that was that electromagnetism causes gravity. Neat.

>> No.4305440

>>4305412
>When scaling up time gravity will pull all those cores into the center of the galaxy and eventually form a giant sphere

This isn't possible because after a couple of stars you would have a black hole. When enough matter collects, the force of gravity exceeds the atomic bonding force and it collapses in on itself.

>> No.4305442

How does your model explain length dilation and the photoelectric effect? Do the strong and weak nuclear forces still act normally across atoms and molecules? What is the core of a dead star made of?

>> No.4305456

>>4305433
because its so obvious you're wrong right from the start

>> No.4305464

>>4305442
length dilation hasn't yet been confirmed directly
photoelectric effect is explainable by applying resonance physics
different explanation for particles makes the need for nuclear forces unnecessary
the core of a dead star is concentrated field only that the reaction has finished

>> No.4305472
File: 341 KB, 1000x778, 500_science.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4305472

>>4305456
500 years ago they said the same to anyone who didn't think that earth looks like this

>> No.4305474

>>4305464
Now refute >>4305440

Before you do, I'll remind you that black holes have been observed, and hugefuckingstars have not.

>> No.4305476
File: 16 KB, 243x200, computer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4305476

OP's theory is a cheap rip off of outdated unsubstantiated ideas from the 70's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

>> No.4305480

>>4305472
>General consensus was that A was right
>However, A was wrong
>Therefore, B

Flawless logic.

>> No.4305482

Whoever wrote that Blogspot post has no clue how stellar evolution or electrodynamics work.

>> No.4305483

>>4305474
have you actually seen one? or do you just say this because scientists interpret dots on pictures from space as possible black holes?

>> No.4305486

Just remember OP. I did warn you about the ridicule, and you don't seem to be able to stand up to it.

Protip: Avoid the professionals.

>> No.4305489

>>4305472
No that's actually mostly hyperbole.

But yeah people like Galilleo who were persecuted actually used systematic experiments to discover how the universe worked, and drew their conclusions from those.

They didn't just intuitively know these things because they were smarter than everyone else.

>> No.4305496

How is your model better than the current one? I don't mean in terms of simplicity; is there a specific example where the accepted models fail and yours produces the correct answer?

>> No.4305505

>>4305483
Seeing something with your own eyes isn't the only way to observe something. For science, it's pretty much the worst way to observe.

>> No.4305517

>>4305496
ftl neutrinos

>>4305505
it still means there's interpretation involved, which could be either right or wrong

>>4305482
stellar evolution is again interpretation

point is: it's an IDEA, not a complete theory, who would I be if I could figure everything on my own?

>> No.4305523
File: 4 KB, 140x140, implying.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4305523

>>4305517

>neutrinos
>implying
>greentext
>ishygddt

>> No.4305526

>>4305496
Even if something can only explain 50% of what a current theory covers, its still interesting

>> No.4305531

>>4305526

>evidence

>> No.4305532

>>4305526
Not when there's another theory that solves everything the first theory does, and 40% more, and which has been explained and backed up with experimental data.

>> No.4305536

>>4305483
>scientists interpret dots on pictures from space as possible black holes
Durp. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast12jan_1/


You're going to need to learn more about the existing theories of the universe, along with physics in general before trying to come up with your own. Science isn't conducted in isolation - it all builds on what has come before.

If you actually think you can pull something out of the air without considering what's already known and observed, then you're only deluding yourself.

>> No.4305537

>>4305517
Show us the math behind your ideas and apply your theory to testable experiments - e.g. what are these forces you talk about that tear the cores down into their basic components? can we observe these forces here on earth? how does an entire core have one electromagnetic spin? what are these cores made of? how does spin affect mass, and can we demonstrate this in lab? what is the time frame on core condensation? why do these cores accumulate? how does electromagnetic radiation fit into this theory? why do opposite spins attract, and how do they bind?


If you can demonstrate mathematically that your theory describes reality in a way that the standard model does not, then you'd be looking at a Nobel Prize. But you'll need math and a lot of careful experimentation, and I don't think this theory will stand up to either of those tests.

>> No.4305541

>>4305532
then tell me how current physics solves dark matter, dark energy and dark flow without just adding another book full of formulas

>> No.4305544

This thread has turned to shit, so let me post my shitty question relating to alternative theories.


What is wrong with String Theory?

>> No.4305550

>>4305544
it needs 11 dimensions and a ton of equations to function

>> No.4305552

>>4305541
How does YOUR theory explain those things? Answer: It doesn't. So why is it a better alternative?

>> No.4305554

>>4305541

They have to be careful about what they say, because they actually care about the scientific method. What you've done is shit in a bowl and called it soup.

>> No.4305559

>>4305544

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it, the math works out. It's just currently untestable, so there's no experimental aspect. This makes it interesting, but not terribly useful.

>> No.4305567

>>4305541
What's wrong with adding another book full of formulas? Why should the behavior of every force in the universe be simple to describe?

>> No.4305576

>>4305537
I'm just a horrible writer, but if I could answer you those questions would you help me to fix it?

>> No.4305587

>>4305576
Sure. But to answer those questions, you'll need to rigorously define and test the mechanisms your theory relies on. That task is beyond me and is probably beyond you unless you're a university researcher with either a large grant or a deep pocket and a very good grasp on mathematics.

>> No.4305612

>>4305587
it relies mostly on reinterpreting known data in the easiest way possible and I have indeed answers for most of that. If you send me a mail with questions I'll try to answer them.

>> No.4305629

>>4305612
let's start with a basic one you can answer here - define gravity quantitatively in terms of electromagnetic interaction.

>> No.4305671

>>4305629
As stated in my script, given two magnets they will always try to align into an attractive position. particles have more than one magnetic axis, but they are bound in predetermined positions to each other so they can't just all align directly. Also those axis are bound by the relation to other particles in the same object. Thus the magnetic axis can't just align right along to other objects but the pulling force still remains.

Each spin of a particle generates a magnetic axis, the weight of a particle therefore is defined by the attractions of its spins to its environment.

>> No.4305675

Early stars do not usually leave cores behind, and if they did the cores would have massive density; they are not the foundation of planets.
many stars explode, entirely; their material spreads over the universe and miniscule amounts of gravity make them coalesce. When a big whirlpool of matter has coalesced, it forms clumps, naturally spinning because of tides of other clumps. This does not happen over a few years. When the central bit gather enough matter it ignites. gases are indeed caught by the planetary bodies, as are many other things.

Gravity indeed might pull solar systems together into black holes; but matter decomposes even in regular stars. When matter decomposes there are no more cores, thus no more spin of core bodies. Rotational spin and magnetic field poles are different. Large masses of matter in regular space are all suns; they are not made of bunches of other spheres inside. Gravity alone would be enough to coalesce your imagined star cores into decomposed-matter cores almost immediately; no rubbing or spinning or mag-field interactionis needed.

However, numerous solar masses bundled together would distort space/time; we call those black holes, and nothing would be visible to us about those. Light couldn't even escape the surface of such an object, we know it wouldn't 'look' like anything.

you haven't decribed any kind of cycle; you gave us dust > stars > star cores > solar systems > galactic bundles.

>> No.4305690

>>4305671

Math bro. We're looking for math.

>> No.4305696

>>4305671
If that's your theory, then you should be able to prove it in a lab relatively easily - but I don't think that's what we observe. Also, how does your theory explain momentum?

>> No.4305710

>Instead of just adding more and more exceptions towards the back end it doesn't need any math at all.
Doesn't it?
You haven't quantified anything; that doesn't mean nothing is quantifiable.
just because you don't have the math to show how any of this would work doesn't mean math isn't needed; you just don't know anything about it.

>And that's why neither deepest space examinations nor biggest particle accelerators will bring you there.
Because you aren't willing to be specific?
Look, if I asked you to calculate of predict something given some valid information, could you give it to me? Quantifying values is why physics uses math; not because nobody thought of a way to describe in generalizations.

>> No.4305714

>>4305671
Are the multiple magnets in each particle all acting together, or do they have independent fields? like magnetism-A and magnetism-B or something like that.

>> No.4305716

>>4305696
there comes my next problem: I don't have a lab.
And what exactly do you want to have explained on momentum? particles still act like particles in classic physics

>> No.4305718

>>4305472
>500 years ago they said the same to anyone who didn't think that earth looks like this

Well, maybe 5,000 -- but you know, since then we have actually learned stuff.
So let me ask: if what we learned contradicts your supposition, why is your supposition worth anything?

>> No.4305722

This thread sounds like every time my grandpa tries to tell me that he thinks he's figured out that dark energy is consciousness, and that that's what quantum physics is all about.
I typically don't try to explain to my grandpa that he's wrong because he's old.

But I will tell you that having a hypothesis is a decent start, but you have to be able to make some predictions with that hypothesis that are empirically verifiable through experiments.
If you can't do that, you don't have science.
If you can do that, check up on your local universities to see if any of the professors in the relevant field(s) can help you out.

>> No.4305734

>>4305710
it doesn't involve math at the backend because anything dimensions you define there are arbitrary
it still follows classic mechanics as defined by newton, actually it tries to build up on newton and maxwell!

>> No.4305739

>>4305483
not dots on pictures, but calculations, predictions, descriptions,
radiations, and behaviors (in many many examples) that fit within the (revised) theory.

Note the _revised_ part: this didn't happen because some dude got high and started talking.
There is evidence, a set of complex and QUANTIFIED theories that support it
(and continue to be tested, even decades later, because that's how we learn).

You seem ready to discard thousands of expert's work using solid research, learning, experimentation, and comparison (with peer review) because you thought you had an idea that seems workable in very narrow contexts and without any quantifiability.

What I am suggesting is this:
You are the perfect candidate for studying theoretical physics; you are interested, fascinated and see it's relevance.
But you need to learn that people have been smart before you.

Go learn what they found out (before you 'suppose' anything, ever) -- I'll bet you like it!

>> No.4305754

>>4305722
was light from distant stars during solar eclipse ever tested on colorshift?

>> No.4305758
File: 58 KB, 431x415, A-cute-ferret-LOL-he-reminds-me-of-my-own-ferrets-10445261-431-415.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4305758

>>4305517
>it still means there's interpretation involved, which could be either right or wrong
>stellar evolution is again interpretation

English major here.

Interpretation is for poetry and priests, son.

>> No.4305759

>>4305517
But it's an idea that ignores all facts that precede it.

Why?
Are you saying that your idea can have merit in spite of all learning previous to it?

I suggest this: learn what is known already, THEN suggest changes.
Then you'll also see why your supposition is extremely shallow and nonsensical.

>> No.4305778

I am also seeing a lot of bandying about of scientific terms.

Theory, in science, has a different meaning than in colloquial English. While a theory in everyday language means some kind of idea that explains something, a scientific theory is somewhat different.
A scientific theory IS an idea that explains something, but it is an idea that has already ran the gamut of rigorous testing and has a lot of scientific evidence backing it up. Simultaneously, it makes observable, replicatable predictions that can be tested and re-tested by anyone and still hold up.
Scientific theories never become laws. That isn't how it works.
However, in science the term 'hypothesis', for the most part, takes on the meaning of the everyday use of the word theory. However, scientific hypotheses must also be falsifiable and testable to be worth a damn at all.

>> No.4305782

What the fuck is with people thinking science can function without math?

Don't those fucks know that one of the fundamental presuppositions of science is that the universe is orderly, and that reducing general rules down to mathematical patterns makes them easier to describe and make predictions off of? If we have no deductive mechanism to serve as a predictive base, then we have nothing to validate those predictions from. Quantified data adds values to abstract concepts because it describes them in logical, intuitive ways the mind can comprehend, and then allows one to work off of them to logically form the correct answer.

So please, to the OP, if you're going to create a new theory, please provide a book of formulas to back it up. That's the best way for us to understand it.

>> No.4305783

>>4305526
is this OP?
Because your supposition (it isn't a theory) doesn't explain 50% of physics. It doesn't explain 1%.
There is SO much more to physics, and what you have there is both unrelated to genuine observation and self-conflicting.

What you have there is FICTIONAL; it doesn't describe ANYTHING. It FAILS.
Is that clear?

Can you answer any questions about it?
(How much of what makes up a basketball?
How much energy is stored in a basketball?
How many basketballs would it take to create a sun?)

>> No.4305795

Reading threads like these literally makes me dumber. OP, I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

>> No.4305804

I think try to find someone who can help me solving it instead of just trying alone. But where would I find someone who has the knowledge and is open to my case?

>> No.4305811

>>4305541
The point is that theoretical concepts like those come from the really thorough depth of knowledge and testing that people already have: they aren't wild concepts created just to confound someone else.

Yes, physics has taken wrong turns, but it also has to correct itself unapologetically. No one gets to hold back a favorite idea just because they like the way it sounded: it has to stand up to tests and quantification.

You are suggesting the opposite:
that we consider a vague idea based on nothing but how good it seems to sound,
without ANY experiments,
without ANY quantification or verification,
and without ANY background in the subject to show why it might be right.
Now that would be truly insane.

>> No.4305816

>>4305550
how is that bad?

Yes, I know it's hard for a person to learn,
but your supposition doesn't cover any of that material at all,
and you seem to think numbers need to be avoided.
Worse, you seem to assume that everyone everyone has put into physics now is flawed because YOU, ALONE do not understand it!

>> No.4305818

>>4305811
Right. Which is why when people like me come up with theories about how the universe works before sleep, I discount them because I know I do not yet have the knowledge to correctly assess the universe, nor the ability to test any of my sleep-deprived theories. Excuse me: suppositions, not theories.

>> No.4305831

OP here
stop it, please, I see the problem
the problem is not my theory but people to actually work with me to fix it!
remember I have just an idea but I admit very few sane moments to do something with it.

The problem is I need people to work with, people I can talk to to fix it. But I don't know where to find them, I barely know anyone at all.

>> No.4305835

>>4305804
>But where would I find someone who has the knowledge and is open to my case?

So.. do you have problems with reading comprehension? In order:

>>4305391
>then you MIGHT could try people would could rip the idea to ribbons professionally.
>>4305587
>a university researcher with either a large grant or a deep pocket and a very good grasp on mathematics.

>>4305722
>check up on your local universities to see if any of the professors in the relevant field(s) can help you out.

>>4305739
>But you need to learn that people have been smart before you.
>Go learn what they found out (before you 'suppose' anything, ever.

>>4305759
>learn what is known already, THEN suggest changes.

>> No.4305845

>>4305671
Those are vague principles;
what we need to see is a quantified formula.
Without quantifying, no one can compare your idea to another.

>> No.4305853

>>4305716
>particles still act like particles in classic physics
Right down to the decomposed matter from your page?

>> No.4305871

>>4305734
Arbitrary?
Didn't you define them right at the start, limit your universe to just those?
And you say it doesn't involve math, but that's all Newton was known for, and you say you are building on his work!

Can you explain what you mean by 'at the backend?'

Any physical statement worth considering has to predict something, so it can be tested: what can yours predict?

>> No.4305879

>>4305804
I can help you:
here is your case:
you have a vague, unfounded, inspecific concept of how the universe MIGHT work.

the very next thing to do, honestly, is to go learn everything else.
You don't need someone else to do anything; you don't even need to start experimenting, since you have nothing you can check.
All you need, and all you can do, is learn more.

But for our sake, and your own sanity, please respect the possibility
that people before you have more expertise and a LOT more knowledge.

>> No.4305885
File: 123 KB, 466x619, fiat_lux.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4305885

>>4305831
Sorry OP, but at this point it's not even an idea. It's just wrong. It's good to ask yourself questions and wonder about the universe, really, but you need to learn what people did before you if you want to create something new.

Your theory has countless flaws, and doesn't have a single equation. But I can see you thought really hard about it. You seem to have a good way to thinking. If you decide to actually learn physics you may become really good !

pic related