Results from the LHC soon?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Results from the LHC soon?

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 13 · Next
Author Message
Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,651,836
RAC: 83
Ireland
Message 1256379 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 12:47:25 UTC

Nick,
My point about IQ is that it doesn't exist. All men were "created" equal. The IQ test was invented by people who "thought" they were more clever than others. So they invented a way to measure just how clever they were. By doing this, they made themselves feel better.

So Nick i have never taken an IQ test, and i never will. But i know that i have an IQ of 100. I also know that you Nick, and Chris also both have an IQ of 100. You, me, all of us have an IQ of 100. We are all the same, we are all dummy's, we are all genius's. IQ is just a measure of "learned" knowledge and environmental upbringing.

I will deal with the answer to the CERN question in another post.

John.
____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3869
Credit: 396,465
RAC: 196
Italy
Message 1256382 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 12:49:22 UTC

Johnney, go to the CERN Bulletin site and you'll find an answer to your questions better than what I could do, I am still running MonteCarlo simulations of p-p collisions in Test4Theory@home. In its message boards a CERN theorist, Peter Skands, is available to explain what a Higgs boson is.
Tullio
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32636
Credit: 14,526,450
RAC: 14,205
United Kingdom
Message 1256397 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 13:24:52 UTC

What I am sure that Johnney meant to convey was, that in terms of his personal research, the average person has an average appreciation of what he thinks he may have found.

That is entirely different to the average intelligence of a person gauged across a whole range of thought processes upon other subjects.

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,651,836
RAC: 83
Ireland
Message 1256455 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 16:21:01 UTC
Last modified: 6 Jul 2012, 16:35:50 UTC

Title;
The problem with the CERN announcement that they found a "Higgs Boson" like particle.

In an earlier message here, i asked if anyone could spot the problem in the big announcement that the CERN scientists just made? We are now 2 days on from the announcement and already its old news.
Why?
Why is it old news?

They spend 40 years looking for this elusive "Higgs Boson", the supposed "God particle". Now they find it and its already old news. Why? Whats wrong?

This is whats wrong here!!!
The Higgs Boson is supposed to be the particle that endows matter with Mass. In other words, the Higgs Boson should be the reason why all matter, atoms, molecules, stuff, and you yourself have mass. When you stand on a weighing scales in the bathroom in the morning, if the theory were correct, it would be the Higgs Bosons inside every atom in your body, that are being tugged by the Higgs Field, is the reason the weighing scales registers your body weight.

But its wrong!!

What they announced was just another particle, no different to any other particle they have in that yoke they call the "standard model".

That particle they just announced DOES NOT explain anything!
It does NOT explain why atoms have mass!
It does NOT explain why your body registers on the weighing scales in the morning!
And it does NOT explain the force physicists call Gravity!!!

And that is why the CERN announcement is old news! Because it explains nothing! After they have discovered this "Higgs Boson" like particle, mankind is no closer to explaining gravity.

And let the truth be known, its not the Higgs Boson that is puzzling everyone. Its Gravity that they still can't tie into the whole equation. This new particle does nothing to help incorporate gravity into the standard model. And for those who don't understand what the standard model is, its just a little table of small "bits" of matter that are inside hydrogen atoms. Its NOT complex at all! Its just bits of stuff that are very small!

Isaac Newton could not explain Gravity!
Albert Einstein could not explain Gravity!
And the scientists at CERN can't explain it either!

Thats why the Higgs Boson is already old news! They have NOT solved the problem! They still have not spotted the error! But i have it. I know where the error exists!

John.
____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3869
Credit: 396,465
RAC: 196
Italy
Message 1256477 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 16:45:48 UTC - in response to Message 1256455.

If you are so sure, publish your solution, don't keep us waiting.
Tullio
____________

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4037
Credit: 2,072,050
RAC: 804
United Kingdom
Message 1256478 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 16:48:29 UTC

Yes, John; it didn't surprise me that you touched on the gravity aspect here.
All the same, finding the Higgs Boson confirmed scientists long held theory
here about it's existence. It also gives an element of credence to the current
direction/path scientists are taking in their thinking and experimental research.
Given time, then along these lines, scientists might come up with an explanation
as to what is gravity.

____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,651,836
RAC: 83
Ireland
Message 1256489 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 17:04:17 UTC - in response to Message 1256477.
Last modified: 6 Jul 2012, 17:15:18 UTC

If you are so sure, publish your solution, don't keep us waiting.
Tullio

Tullio,
I wish it was that simple. When i started doing gravitational physics research, i never thought i would actually solve the problem. I was just doing it for fun, to pass the time.

But i did, i solved the problem, after several years of research, on my own. So i go to the trouble of finding out how to publish scientific results. And it turns out in the end that you need a doctorate or a professorship or something like that to publish in the appropriate journal. I didn't go to university. I learned what i learned on the internet and from reading lots of books.

What i have is worth a lot of money. But only to the right people! Think about it like this - Just because you know how to build a Boeing 747, doesn't mean you have the money or the skills to build one! Its a bit like that. I have the answer to the problem, but i lack the skills to know what is the next step.

So for the time being, i'm just sitting tight, trying to decide what to do with the information i have. Funny thing is, i have been sitting on the solution for about a year and a half now at this stage. And i still don't know what to do.

I could just give it away for free by posting the information on the internet on a website. But i would Be kicking myself for the rest of my days on earth knowing that i never benefited in any way from solving one of the greatest problems in human history. People just steal information on the internet, they just copy information to their own website and say its their idea. So posting the solution on the internet is a last resort. I will only do this if i'm very desperate or if i know i'm dying or something like that.

John.
____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3869
Credit: 396,465
RAC: 196
Italy
Message 1256518 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 17:46:41 UTC - in response to Message 1256489.

Try here:
www.nature.com/scientificreports
Tullio
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,651,836
RAC: 83
Ireland
Message 1256583 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 19:07:52 UTC - in response to Message 1256518.
Last modified: 6 Jul 2012, 19:11:51 UTC

Try here:
www.nature.com/scientificreports
Tullio

Thanks Tullio,
Thats actually a very good possibility. I did read about the Nature reports website recently, its a good one.

Its says;
"What is the article-processing charge (APC)?
The APC to publish in Scientific Reports is $1350 plus VAT where applicable"

So Tullio for starters it would cost me $1350 plus VAT. Secondly, there is the peer-review process.

These things scare me, they make me nervous. Its not that my science is wrong, because its not wrong! But I've never written a science paper for a journal and i might write it up wrong. And my way of explaining things is in plain English. I'm not very good at maths. In other words, here on this message board, i could explain in very plain English how gravity works, and you would understand it. But i really don't know if i could write out a load of mathematical formula's the way the academics might expect from a science paper.

And $1350 is a lot of money. I can raise that money, but its still a risk.

Then there is the peer-review. I fear the peer-review process, not because my science is wrong. I fear it because my science is simple. Its easy to understand but i fear rejection. If some physicist reads my paper, then rejects the paper because i don't have enough maths in the paper. Then the paper is rejected but the guy who read my paper will have the answer. He will have found the solution that i put several year of my life into. And he might not publish my work. But he could go off and tell all his physics professor friends and then they will end up publishing the solution in their names.

So the truth is tullio, i'm scared of publishing. And i'm not sure that i want to just "give it away" by publicly publishing my results. I actually don't really know what i should do. So that is why i am just sitting tight until i decide what to do.

John.
____________

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2645
Credit: 1,181,299
RAC: 90
United States
Message 1256614 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 20:35:14 UTC

So Tullio for starters it would cost me $1350 plus VAT. Secondly, there is the peer-review process.


I just got a message from Purdue
It comes from the learned doctor Zhu
If theories replete, god-like and adaptive are your mete
Then send me your papers for revue




another limerick from Daddio

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3869
Credit: 396,465
RAC: 196
Italy
Message 1256800 - Posted: 7 Jul 2012, 4:52:02 UTC - in response to Message 1256699.

Publish or perish is the motto of Academia.
Tullio
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,651,836
RAC: 83
Ireland
Message 1256837 - Posted: 7 Jul 2012, 5:34:12 UTC - in response to Message 1256699.
Last modified: 7 Jul 2012, 5:54:01 UTC

Sounds to me like Johnney Guinness needs to collaborate with someone
who is of equal Genius in the field of mathematics.

Einstein was famous for his thought experiments but collaborated with
others, who had greater mathematical skills, to help flesh out his theories.

Science Fiction is replete with innovative ideas and hypotheses that, without a
mathematical foundation, are just fodder for fantasy.

Johnney Guinness if you sit on this revolutionary insight too long someone else
will beat you to the Nobel Prize.

Cheers!

guido.man,
That is possibly the best advice anyone has ever given me on these forums. And i know its true. Someone could very easily beat me too it.

It was Bob DeWoody that started this thread on the 28th of June. I never knew that CERN were going to make an announcement about the Higgs Boson. But in the period before the announcement, i was very scared that CERN had discovered what i discovered. I was watching this message here very closely for news. I thought CERN were possibly going to announce that they had finally cracked the Gravity problem. I was frightened that they had beaten me too it.

Wow... I was so relieved when i watched the press conference from CERN and i heard them describe the Higgs Boson. I was so relieved that they still had not found the error that i found. When they described the Higgs Boson, i breathed a sigh of relief because i knew it was just another bloody particle they were describing. In other words, they still had not explained Gravity. So they still have not found the error.

This buys me some time, but not for long. The truth is, if i could figure it out, then someone else could figure it out too. To be honest, when you know where the error is, the science is very simple and easy to understand.

But the reason other scientists have not found it yet is that there is a stumbling block along the way that trips you up. When you go and carry out experiments or if you investigate the problem, there is a load of stumbling blocks that lead you astray. They are very difficult to get past, so you kinda need balls of steel and rock hard nerves just to fight your way past the obstacles that prevent you finding the answer. The science is not hard, its the obstacles along the way in the investigation that are hard to get past.

What do i mean by Obstacles? Questions like "How could all the astronomers, and NASA, be wrong, and i'm right". Now astronomers and NASA have billions of dollars to spend on telescopes and rockets. How could they possibly be wrong? It would seem very unlikely. So its things like that make you quit your line of investigation. But i did not quit. I kept digging for answers in physics that just don't make sense. And yes, thousands of scientists CAN be wrong. Yes, this is possible!

So the CERN announcement has bought me some time, this is good.

There are other ways for me to progress forward. For one thing, i don't necessarily have to publish anything. Many "inventors" protect their inventions through the patent system. So if i put my theory into practise, i could build a machine that flies, but the machine would have no wings. Its would be the long sought after "anti gravity". Then i could patent the machine. Only problem is that its expensive to build prototype experimental aircraft and it takes years to get the exact engineering right. Sound like science fiction, doesn't it? Well not when you know how it works! Radio waves sound like science fiction, but not if you know how they work. Its a bit like that.

And another thing. I have partly collaborated with another scientist, a physicist. But like you guys here, i have not told him the full story either, i'm kinda keeping him in the dark. But he is dam good with maths. Its another option.

John.
____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3869
Credit: 396,465
RAC: 196
Italy
Message 1256899 - Posted: 7 Jul 2012, 7:29:08 UTC - in response to Message 1256846.
Last modified: 7 Jul 2012, 7:36:01 UTC

Maybe you mean royalties. Science has loyalties.
Tullio
PS The search for the Higgs boson had nothing to to with gravitation. It was simply a verification of the Standard Model of elementary particles, which does NOT include gravitation.
____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3869
Credit: 396,465
RAC: 196
Italy
Message 1256902 - Posted: 7 Jul 2012, 7:41:12 UTC - in response to Message 1256901.

No.
i meant loyalties.
Science waits for no man.

Science is made by men, and men do have loyalties and other feelings, which sometimes guide their scientific outlook. Think only of Einstein and his refusal of quantum mechanics, which he had helped to start. God does not play dice. he said.
Tullio
____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3869
Credit: 396,465
RAC: 196
Italy
Message 1256907 - Posted: 7 Jul 2012, 7:53:06 UTC - in response to Message 1256906.

One qualifier.

Science can only have Loyalty to Truth.

Yes, but scientific truth varies, Think of Newton's theory of gravitation and of Einstein's general relativity and of a possible Theory of Everything including all four interactions. Which is truer? Every one was true in its time.
Tullio
____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3869
Credit: 396,465
RAC: 196
Italy
Message 1256914 - Posted: 7 Jul 2012, 8:16:41 UTC - in response to Message 1256913.

Tulio you're absolutely right there are no Truths.

Quantum Physics shows that Truth is limited only by the imagination of the observer.


Yes, the observer is important, and this brings man in the picture. I am a follower of Roger Penrose's ideas, expressed in his books, and I even had an exchange of letters with him. Very nice man.
Tullio
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32636
Credit: 14,526,450
RAC: 14,205
United Kingdom
Message 1256917 - Posted: 7 Jul 2012, 8:33:07 UTC

Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their masses. Gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and coalesced matter to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe.

Gravitation is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for natural convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth.

Gravitation is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature, along with electromagnetism, and the nuclear strong force and weak force. Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity by Einstein, in which it is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects. The simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an accurate approximation for most physical situations.


I can't yet see a fundamental error in the above. Somebody did invent an anti gravity machine once with contra rotating gyroscopes but it wasn't very successful.

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3869
Credit: 396,465
RAC: 196
Italy
Message 1256928 - Posted: 7 Jul 2012, 9:04:24 UTC

Newton's theory is still used to plan spacecraft orbits and study celestial mechanics. Only a shift in the precession of Mercury's perihelion was explained by using general relativity, if I remember well. But the timings of the GPS satellites must take into account the effects of general relativity.
Tullio
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,651,836
RAC: 83
Ireland
Message 1257021 - Posted: 7 Jul 2012, 12:54:55 UTC - in response to Message 1256917.
Last modified: 7 Jul 2012, 13:03:11 UTC


Gravitation is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature, along with electromagnetism, and the nuclear strong force and weak force. Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity by Einstein, in which it is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects. The simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an accurate approximation for most physical situations.


I can't yet see a fundamental error in the above. Somebody did invent an anti gravity machine once with contra rotating gyroscopes but it wasn't very successful.


Now Chris,
I narrowed it down for you. You quoted 3 paragraphs, i assume you got them from Wikipedia page "Gravitation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation. In quoting you, i removed the first two paragraphs because they are 100% truth. But i left the bottom paragraph, which contains so many errors that i would have to re-write the whole paragraph.

Now Chris i have stopped short of spitting out the billion dollar answer. I have stopped short of giving you the winning lottery ticket that will make you the most famous man on earth. If you have a half a brain in your head, and you have read most of my messages i posted in the last year and a half, you could easily solve the problem.

This is what i won't do - I won't give you the solution! Under any circumstances!

This is what i will do - For anyone that chooses to take up the challenge, if you even guess the correct solution, or if you get very close to the correct solution, i will PM you and tell you that you are correct! I give you my word. And i am an honest man.

But to be honest, i seriously doubt that anyone here could even guess what the final outcome is going to be. But like i said, the end result is worth billions of dollars to any man who knows how to sell it! The end result means being able to construct aeroplanes that don't have any wings. In effect, we would be building our own UFO's. Now thats a big prize for anyone!

John.
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32636
Credit: 14,526,450
RAC: 14,205
United Kingdom
Message 1257040 - Posted: 7 Jul 2012, 14:09:55 UTC
Last modified: 7 Jul 2012, 14:12:22 UTC

If I held a block of metal in my hand and then let go of it, it would fall to the ground.

Why?

Because of gravity.

Why?

Because density is mass per unit volume, and the weight of an object is the force on the objects mass due to gravity. Gravity happens because the earth is spinning on its axis, and has a magnetic iron core, which attracts solid objects to it.

Aeroplanes need wings to fly in the atmosphere. The upper curvature of the wing is carefully designed so that the airflow across it will give it lift. Ailerons and flaps modify that effect to enable take off and landing.

Machines that defy gravity and "float" above the earths surface, either have to have negative weight/mass, an external agent i.e. hot air balloon, or have some inboard device that repels the attraction to the earths core.

Better be quick John, they are catching you up!

Anti gravity

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 13 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Results from the LHC soon?

Copyright © 2014 University of California