Results from the LHC soon?


log in

Advanced search

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

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 13 · Next
Author Message
Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,560,492
RAC: 2,246
Ireland
Message 1260517 - Posted: 15 Jul 2012, 2:55:24 UTC - in response to Message 1260514.

Yes, maybe, but if you don't publish it I cannor judge it. Hic Rhodus hic salta.
Tullio

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.
____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3732
Credit: 386,392
RAC: 443
Italy
Message 1260522 - Posted: 15 Jul 2012, 3:14:40 UTC - in response to Message 1260517.

I need some equations, not just words.
____________

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8425
Credit: 57,504,197
RAC: 73,665
United Kingdom
Message 1260581 - Posted: 15 Jul 2012, 7:10:55 UTC

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.
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31767
Credit: 13,194,774
RAC: 37,595
United Kingdom
Message 1260601 - Posted: 15 Jul 2012, 10:19:46 UTC

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?







Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,560,492
RAC: 2,246
Ireland
Message 1260624 - Posted: 15 Jul 2012, 12:00:57 UTC - in response to Message 1260522.
Last modified: 15 Jul 2012, 12:09:16 UTC

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.
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,560,492
RAC: 2,246
Ireland
Message 1260632 - Posted: 15 Jul 2012, 12:32:14 UTC
Last modified: 15 Jul 2012, 13:00:51 UTC

Ok so,
Would anyone like to see how i solved part of the problem here? I will take you through how i solved the problem of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. This is what lead me to solving the Black hole problem!

After about 2 years investigating Dark Matter and Dark Energy, i found these videos made by Dr. Damian Pope of the Perimeter Institute for physics in Canada;

I watched these 4 Youtube videos about Dark matter and Dark energy; (About 7 minutes per video)
Part 1. The Dark Matter Mystery: Stars Are Moving Too Fast; (6 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx1Wf84bC2M

Part 2. The Dark Matter Mystery: 39 Billion Missing Suns; (8 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrxXxkdN1w

Part 3. The Dark Matter Mystery: Gravitational Lensing (9 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xKFrdzhM2Y

Part 4. The Dark Matter Mystery: Most Of The Universe Is Missing (7 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvQz2eWBkmg

Its 4 parts of the same 30 minutes video!

Dr. Damian Pope explains the Dark Matter and Dark Energy problem in great detail in those video. He goes through all the maths involved in exactly how they calculate the mass of the dark matter and dark energy.

It was from those video that i made part of the break through that led to my discovery. It was in those videos that i saw the mathematical error. After watching those videos i went off to try prove and verify if i was right or wrong about my theory. This is how i knew that i definitely had found a real error in the maths they use.

I might have watched those same 4 videos on Youtube maybe 10 or 12 times. I studied those videos for weeks on end. I watched them, then went away and did some thinking, then watched them again, and kept doing that for several weeks.

See if you can spot the error in Dr. Damian Pope's maths in the video! If you can find the error in Dr. Damian Pope's maths in the video, then you will be very famous!!

John.
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8452
Credit: 4,152,367
RAC: 1,771
United Kingdom
Message 1260656 - Posted: 15 Jul 2012, 13:24:43 UTC - in response to Message 1260632.

Ok so,
Would anyone like to see how i solved part of the problem here? ...

Part 1. The Dark Matter Mystery: Stars Are Moving Too Fast; (6 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx1Wf84bC2M

Part 2. The Dark Matter Mystery: 39 Billion Missing Suns; (8 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrxXxkdN1w

Part 3. The Dark Matter Mystery: Gravitational Lensing (9 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xKFrdzhM2Y

Part 4. The Dark Matter Mystery: Most Of The Universe Is Missing (7 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvQz2eWBkmg

...

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

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,560,492
RAC: 2,246
Ireland
Message 1260659 - Posted: 15 Jul 2012, 13:45:21 UTC - in response to Message 1260656.
Last modified: 15 Jul 2012, 13:47:18 UTC

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

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.
____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3732
Credit: 386,392
RAC: 443
Italy
Message 1260662 - Posted: 15 Jul 2012, 14:10:51 UTC

Science is not a quiz game, it is something else.
Tullio
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,560,492
RAC: 2,246
Ireland
Message 1260666 - Posted: 15 Jul 2012, 14:26:45 UTC - in response to Message 1260662.

Science is not a quiz game, it is something else.
Tullio

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.

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3732
Credit: 386,392
RAC: 443
Italy
Message 1260671 - Posted: 15 Jul 2012, 14:49:42 UTC - in response to Message 1260666.

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.
Tullio
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31767
Credit: 13,194,774
RAC: 37,595
United Kingdom
Message 1260744 - Posted: 15 Jul 2012, 18:24:48 UTC

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.


Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,560,492
RAC: 2,246
Ireland
Message 1260752 - Posted: 15 Jul 2012, 18:53:41 UTC - in response to Message 1260671.
Last modified: 15 Jul 2012, 18:58:23 UTC

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.
Tullio

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.
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,560,492
RAC: 2,246
Ireland
Message 1263305 - Posted: 22 Jul 2012, 10:57:13 UTC
Last modified: 22 Jul 2012, 10:58:30 UTC

Back to the Higgs Boson and the Standard Model for one moment;

I like the following article because it highlights the "problems" we now face after finding this new Higgs-like particle;

The Higgs boson ‘nightmare scenario’ by Boston Globe;
http://bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/07/21/the-higgs-boson-nightmare-scenario/XH3FfnZpjYYpu1gtRmwM6J/story.html

The article is good because it discusses the fact that finding the Higgs Boson doesn't actually solve some of the bigger problems!

Its a well written article!
John.
____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3732
Credit: 386,392
RAC: 443
Italy
Message 1263342 - Posted: 22 Jul 2012, 14:12:18 UTC - in response to Message 1263305.

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.
Tullio
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,560,492
RAC: 2,246
Ireland
Message 1263436 - Posted: 22 Jul 2012, 18:52:12 UTC

Yea Tullio,
But the article is good because the guy who wrote the article can see things the same way i do. The guy who wrote the article knows full well that finding that Higgs-like particle solves nothing. He knows and i know that they are no closer to marrying atomic physics with Einstein's fairy tales, special and general relativity. Einstein's works of science fiction.

John.
____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3732
Credit: 386,392
RAC: 443
Italy
Message 1263491 - Posted: 22 Jul 2012, 21:18:04 UTC - in response to Message 1263436.

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.
Tullio
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,560,492
RAC: 2,246
Ireland
Message 1263522 - Posted: 22 Jul 2012, 23:51:12 UTC - in response to Message 1263491.
Last modified: 22 Jul 2012, 23:59:19 UTC

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.
Tullio

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.
____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3732
Credit: 386,392
RAC: 443
Italy
Message 1263568 - Posted: 23 Jul 2012, 3:53:02 UTC - in response to Message 1263522.

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.
Tullio
____________

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1438
Credit: 691,826
RAC: 374
Message 1263635 - Posted: 23 Jul 2012, 11:10:49 UTC
Last modified: 23 Jul 2012, 11:13:56 UTC

Everyone should agree that Albert Einstein was a physicist who was very concerned about the subject or notion of time.

First he came up with the special theory of relativity in 1905, followed by the general theory of relativity of 1915.

Try to make an understanding of these subjects and you are very good at it.
Both of these theories are dealing with several different subjects which are thought to be related to each other.

If I am not wrong, he was not always that fond about the subject of quantum theory. Still, one might assume that time could be quantisized.

Time to me does to me not appear to be a constant on its own, but rather is a variable.

But perhaps I am wrong. Time may be viewed from one particular observers point of view. If someone is traveling at the speed of light for a long time, you end up returning back to the future.

Is time possibly related to its surroundings, like perhaps gravity?

Really, gravity makes time slow up. Therefore gravity relates to quantum theory. Some people think that gravity could be explained by means of waves.

Also quantum theory is related to particle physics. But gravity is thought to be a universal force.

Many years ago, I watched a television documentary about Albert Einstein and his work.

There were given some examples about how things would appear to an observer when traveling at the speed of light, or at least close to this speed. I do not remember the details, but things which look specific to us in ordinary life take quite another appearance when being observed from such a vantage point.

Perhaps Albert Einstein was trying to unify these theories within a single framework, starting with the concept of time?

In the end he was unsuccessful, because quantum theory did not go well with him.

Which means that unifying quantum physics with the subject of time is still one of the main problems.

Still, we are dealing with both the subject of gravity and time when it comes to the subject of quantum physics as well as quantum mechanics.

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 13 · Next

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

Copyright © 2014 University of California