Results from the LHC soon?
Results from the LHC soon? |
|
| log in |
Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Results from the LHC soon?
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 13 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
Yes, maybe, but if you don't publish it I cannor judge it. Hic Rhodus hic salta. I published here in front of you Tullio, what more do you want? I can't go back to collage, i'm too old and i don't have the money. I can't publish in astronomy journals because i don't have a degree in astronomy, nor do i have institutional backing. So i publish my work right here on the good old SETI@home forums. Good old SETI@home!! So this project really is good for something after all! John. ____________    | |
ID: 1260517 ·  Reply
Quote
| |
|
I need some equations, not just words. | |
| ID: 1260522 · Reply
Quote
| |
|
Johnny, despair not, there are a number of amateur astronomy journals around - have a dig and see if there is one that covers the subject you are trying to get published. | |
| ID: 1260581 · Reply
Quote
| |
Dam, there's that word again that i dislike so much; They Infer the black hole exists. I think that scientists "Deduce" not "infer" !!! A deduction is not a wild guess or inference, it is a reasoned conclusion given all the evidence available, and within the limitations of current knowledge. If there is other evidence or knowledge there, that we do not yet have, then our reasoned deduction will be wrong, but we won't know that. Therefore the deduction is as valid as it can be at the time it was made. You cannot visibly "see" a black hole within the human sight spectrum, but we can observe the "effects" of the black hole by other methods e.g. X Ray emanations. There clearly has to be "something" there to cause the effects that we are observing. Science has dubbed this something a "black hole", mainly because it is believed that the gravity within it is so great, that even light cannot escape. Scientific deductions like these based upon observed or detected effects, often lead to physical discoveries. Take for the example the outermost planets of the Solar System, it was deduced that they had to be there based upon the effects being caused to other planets, and in time we found them. Maybe this something in the middle of the galaxy will be fully explained in the future, until then we may as well call it a black hole as anything else. I have stated my own pet theory before. I think the universe is truly in-finite, which is a concept very difficult for us humans to grasp, given that we live in a finite world. At various places in this vast universe, LOCAL black holes occur. They could start from a collapsed star or something else, but over time the gravity increases, until at some point they absorb so much matter, that it cannot be contained any more, and it massively explodes. Some of the matter ejected from that explosion will in time be collected by other black holes elsewhere, and the chain will continue. It's like a pan of soup bubbling on a hob. We are living through the aftermath of our own LOCAL black hole exploding which we call the "Big bang". There are countless billions of other big bangs happening elsewhere all the time. Can I prove it? Not a cat in hells chance! Does anyone else agree? I shouldn't think so for one moment! Do I really care? Not a lot, keeps me out of mischief on a boring Sunday. Is it beer o'clock yet? | |
| ID: 1260601 · Reply
Quote
| |
I need some equations, not just words. Tullio, I want some equations too!... LOL I told you before, i'm really bad at maths. I can explain it in plain English, but i can't write out the maths. Just because i have the solution doesn't make me any better at maths. Rob Smith said: Johnny, despair not, there are a number of amateur astronomy journals around - have a dig and see if there is one that covers the subject you are trying to get published. Rob Smith, Your right, there are a few left-wing amateur journals that i could publish in. I have considered this. But i hum and i haw about what to do. 1. I'm not sure yet if i want to publish this right now 2. Like i said to Chris, i'm bad at maths. So if i did publish, they would claim that i didn't have enough maths in the paper to get the credit for the work. So i'm holding off for the time being Rob. Chris S, You have some fine theories yourself. Maybe you should publish something. And Chris, to "Deduce" or "infer"?? To me, these mean roughly the same thing. The point i am making is that the astronomers use maths as proof that black holes exist. They can't see them with any telescope. And i found an error in their maths, a big error. Yes, i know it sounds like a contradiction that i'm bad at maths but i can correct other peoples maths. But i don't look at their maths, i look at the pictures they take with their telescopes. and i watch how they interpret the information in the image. Thats how i know they are making mistakes. John. ____________ | |
| ID: 1260624 · Reply
Quote
| |
|
Ok so, | |
| ID: 1260632 · Reply
Quote
| |
Ok so, You not getting tripped up by the "speed of gravity" conundrum are you?... And yes, galaxies do appear to rotate faster than that suggested by the mass of the stars seen... Hence the various ideas as to why that might be so... So what's the clincher for your version? Keep searchin', Martin ____________ Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS! See new freedom Mageia2 The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3) | |
| ID: 1260656 · Reply
Quote
| |
You not getting tripped up by the "speed of gravity" conundrum are you?... The videos are really good martin, aren't they? They are not just a boring old maths lecture, they are cool videos and they go into massive detail to explain all the problems. And they offer many solutions, by very credible scientists that professionally work on this problem. So Martin would you agree, i'm not talking rubbish, there is a very real and distinct problem here that needs to be solved. Martin you ask what's the deal clincher for me? Hmmmmmmm........ I need to be careful here what i say. I need to explain this without giving you the true answer. But i also want to be as honest with you as i can. I'm not going to give this away. If you want it, you have to work for it! Let me put it to you like this - What have i already said in this thread? Martin if you, or anyone else, is clever enough and driven enough, i have given you all the information you need in this thread to solve the problem. Its up to any individual if your driven enough to read back through this thread and see what i have said. I have handed you the answer to the problem on a silver platter in this thread! The answer is in what i have posted in this thread. John. ____________ | |
| ID: 1260659 · Reply
Quote
| |
|
Science is not a quiz game, it is something else. | |
| ID: 1260662 · Reply
Quote
| |
Science is not a quiz game, it is something else. No Tullio, Your wrong there! Science is very competitive, in some cases, its more competitive than many sports. Just look at the two separate teams they had working in CERN. It was a competition between the ATLAS and the CMS teams to see who could find the Higgs Boson. And they were not allowed to share information about their experiments. And the prize? Nobel prizes all round for the winning team! Now thats competition Tullio! Science is very cut-throat. Quite literally scientists will try to beat each other to see who gets their results published first. It happens in all areas of science. So as i say, if someone wants the answer, they will have to work for it. John. | |
| ID: 1260666 · Reply
Quote
| |
|
I've always published my works, submitting them first to peer review and then to all scientists. Once I wrote a paper that I thought nobody would publish and I sent a copy of it to prof.Roger Penrose of Oxford University. He answered within one week saying he had found it "very interesting". I consider this more than a Nobel prize, given the scientific status of Penrose. | |
| ID: 1260671 · Reply
Quote
| |
Chris S, You have some fine theories yourself. Maybe you should publish something. Thanks for the compliment but I rather think not. They are merely opinions which I can't back up with any mathematical or scientific knowledge. They seem logical to me, and I may be right or I may be wrong, I will never know in my lifetime. I am quite happy to give my opinions here in Setiland, but I wouldn't chance my arm anywhere else. | |
| ID: 1260744 · Reply
Quote
| |
I've always published my works, submitting them first to peer review and then to all scientists. Once I wrote a paper that I thought nobody would publish and I sent a copy of it to prof.Roger Penrose of Oxford University. He answered within one week saying he had found it "very interesting". I consider this more than a Nobel prize, given the scientific status of Penrose. Thats interesting Tullio, I watched some TV show that said Stephen Hawking gets several thousand science papers in the post every week. All people asking Hawking for his opinion on every science topic under the Sun. Poor man just doesn't have the time to read them all. Tullio when you wrote to Roger Penrose, those were different times back then. Today everybody has a computer and the internet. These are powerful research tools and there are now millions of people doing research on millions of topics. It means that today, in the popular sciences like astronomy and physics, tens of thousands of people are all researching these topics. Buried among all that research by thousands of people, we have the answers to many of these unsolved problems. But its hard for people to know who to tell when you really do have a solution. Chris S, Setiland is a good place to publish your work. Post it into messages here on these boards. If people are looking for answers, they will find it through Google. John. ____________ | |
| ID: 1260752 · Reply
Quote
| |
|
Back to the Higgs Boson and the Standard Model for one moment; | |
| ID: 1263305 · Reply
Quote
| |
|
No accelerator has ever solved any problem. They always raise more problems and those to solve which they were built are soon forgotten. This was stated by Nobelist Emilio Segre', whom I have personally known, in an article published on "Endeavor" magazine in 1972. | |
| ID: 1263342 · Reply
Quote
| |
|
Yea Tullio, | |
| ID: 1263436 · Reply
Quote
| |
|
Special and general relativity are part of our life. No experiment has proven them wrong. GPS would not work without them. Experiments are the litmus test of every theory. | |
| ID: 1263491 · Reply
Quote
| |
Special and general relativity are part of our life. No experiment has proven them wrong. GPS would not work without them. Experiments are the litmus test of every theory. There is a mistake in the GPS system Tullio. There is a mistake in the maths they are using to make their calculations for the GPS system. So they compensate for the mistake by kind of "adding in time" to make up for the time that appears to get lost. You have read enough of my messages here Tullio. If you were clever, you would be able to find that mistake. Einstein's SR and GR are works of science fiction. You will find this out in time. Remember who told you this information Tullio! John. ____________ | |
| ID: 1263522 · Reply
Quote
| |
|
No particle accelerator would work without special relativity, including those used for tumor therapy. My daughter was working on the project of a medical accelerator using hadrons to cure cancer. The OPERA fiasco demonstrated once more that Einstein was right. I repeat, there is no experiment or observation that contradicts Einstein. | |
| ID: 1263568 · Reply
Quote
| |
Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Results from the LHC soon?
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |
