The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

[astonas]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Before I do, my theories do not relate to mathematics, though I have offered some where I felt it was needed to support my work.

The boldface phrase above is a ridiculous and self-disqualifying statement, full stop. It alone is sufficient indication (though there are also many others) that one needn't waste time on either these ideas, or this book.

It is also supremely arrogant, though I do not believe this was your intent. The tone of your writing makes it clear that you do not intend to be arrogant, and you do not believe you are being arrogant in your claims. But it is not your tone, or intent, that is objectionable. It is your demands themselves that embody, and express, a vast arrogance. (On the other hand, I am fully aware that my own vigorous tone in this post might well come across to those who disagree with me as arrogant. An objective reader, however, may perceive that the content of my argument is not, and I am content to trust in the intelligence and objectivity of the readership on this site to judge it fairly.)

A lack of intent or a modest tone, for example, does not change the fact that it remains arrogant to continue demanding that others should read a book which based on your own words does not meet the minimum standard for such consideration. That minimum standard is its use of the shared mathematically-based definitions and terms which provide the language for discussion in this field.

Mathematics is, simply-put, the only acceptable tool for rigorously exploring and expressing the validity or lack thereof of an idea in the field of physics.

This is because it is the only succinct and lossless way to describe the many complex logical operations and conclusions that must be made in order to have a meaningful discussion in such fields as electromagnetism (wherein the core concepts are sufficiently detailed and precise that when rendered into the comparatively imprecise language of words and text (ungrounded in mathematical definitions) they wind up being at best misunderstood, and at worst entirely wrong.

One can of course use language to discuss a new idea when both parties already know the math that lies behind all the terms being employed (as scientists and engineers do all the time, at times on this site) but the underlying assumption that enables the conversation in the first place is a prerequisite and shared understanding of the underlying math, in which all the terms being employed are defined and derived. For example, discussing whether a proposed new variable has units of energy or momentum is meaningless unless both parties fully understand and agree on the mathematical relation that "energy" and "momentum" have with one another.

Every attempt you have made to have technical conversations over the years has made abundantly clear that you do not possess this shared understanding of existing definitions, and are instead seeking to impose your own, new, definitions of terms on the conversation.

There is never an obligation for any reader to follow an author, but this is especially true when the author imposes excessive and unnecessary barriers to comprehension by failing to learn and use the standard language for a given discussion.

There's a reason that Maxwell's equations are the beginning point of any textbook on the subject of E&M. Without them, one simply does not have sufficiently precise nomenclature and definitions to even conduct the rest of the discussion.

Trying to have a conversation about a topic in physics without these mutually understood, mathematically-expressed definitions and piecewise comprehensible mathematical derivations in place first is like having a conversation with a babbling baby. It tries to converse, it believes it is expressing its ideas, and it believes that it is speaking a language that is just as intelligible as the one it is hearing, but without prior agreed-upon meanings mutually shared with its listener, it can neither communicate its own thoughts, nor comprehend those of others, nor develop complex thoughts that require the exchange of thoughts with other individuals.

So the math isn't something that can come after an idea has been shared, and developed later, after the idea is shared. It must be understood first -- in order for the idea to be expressed and discussed at all. It provides the shared definitions and mutually-understood relations for the words used in the conversation to have meanings that are understood and agreed on by all participants. Saying that others should read your book, and understand and use your own new definitions, is like the baby asking for every person it interacts with to treat it's babble-language as a foreign language, study it for hours upon hours, try to comprehend it in spite of its inconsistency with all existing languages, and then discuss ideas using that. It is simply not a reasonable request, and even if it were accommodated, it would prove nearly useless for discussing ideas. For one thing, in this case, it's been tried, and over time substituted with math. With virtually no exceptions, the physics community has moved away from using pure textual reasoning you insist upon sticking with, and for very good reasons:

Text is sufficiently subject to interpretation, and words have sufficiently many meanings, that one cannot analyze an extended logical sequence of, say, a thousand steps, using only these (english-language) tools to express the logic. It is quite straightforward, however, to do the same in unambiguous mathematical language, since every term, concept, and relationship has been precisely defined, and each step builds on known and finite axioms. The result is that in mathematics -- and ONLY in mathematics -- adding additional complexity of reasoning does not add additional error. A computation of a thousand steps can be conducted by a computer (or a skilled mathematician) with no errors at all. And if there is an error for some reason, another computer (either person or machine) can readily go through the steps as well and find it. By comparison, a logical treatise in text of that length (1000 consecutive logical inferences to reach a conclusion) and complexity simply does not even exist, and it would be unintelligible to read if it did, since one would need to hold all prior pertinent definitions and conclusions in one's mind at the same time to read each consecutive operation.

Thus, when one uses only textual language as a tool for reasoning, additional complexity DOES introduce additional error, as well as an increase in the difficulty of understanding. That is why, however one chooses to express a given idea in physics - using english or math - the only correct way to actually conduct the comparison of the validity of ideas -- is using math.

You are putting forward an idea, and asking it to be compared for validity. To demand that it be evaluated in a textual argument is simply not going to be heeded by anyone who understands how to reason using physics. It is as though a person called on a carpenter to do a repair, but insists when they arrive that the carpenter use a screwdriver to drive a nail into a board, because the customer only knows of the existence of screwdrivers, and not hammers. Any skilled carpenter is going to look at the situation, and reach for a hammer to drive the nail. It's the correct tool for the job. Just because the customer don't understand that fact, doesn't make it less true.

Furthermore, for any idea to pass muster, it must be compared with all prior observed data. Simply put, the era where the existing body of knowledge in this field could be completely and correctly contained and considered using mere text, even 5 million pages of it, has simply passed many decades ago. If one relies on such vague things as textual arguments to obtain one's understanding of the current knowledge in this field, that will likely be only the first of many major sources of error.

For the above reasons (among others) we translate concepts of physics into mathematical terms in order to discuss them (and as a prerequisite of said discussion), as follows:

If an idea, expressed mathematically, results in an obvious fallacy like 1=2, then it can quickly be seen as objectively false. No further time need be wasted evaluating it (or considering the possibility that it is simply an "apparent" discrepancy that arises from a misunderstanding of definitions, or similar vague handwaving).

But if a translation of an idea into mathematics results in a self-consistent predictive expression, that can also be shown to be consistent with the existing body of observed data (also expressed for concision in mathematical terms) then (and only then) does there exist the possibility that the new idea might be true, at which point (and ONLY after which point) it becomes worthy of consideration in any peer-review process. (If an author is able to credibly make that claim, that is also the point at which a publication might be worth spending more than a minute or two on.)

That isn't some arbitrary, lofty, or arrogant assessment on the part of me, or some vague "scientific conspiracy" on the part of physicists worldwide. It is also not an impossibly high barrier of access (literally thousands of papers are published daily, all far surpassing that low standard). It is, however, an inevitable requirement that arises from the fact that it just takes an extraordinarily large amount of time to find the source of errors in any new theory, even when it IS expressed in mathematical terms. Demanding that others spend vast quantities of time reading 500 pages, without bothering to oneself sufficiently prepare the theory for such review by first condensing it into convenient and easily-understood mathematical expressions, is extraordinarily arrogant. You're asking more of others than you yourself are willing to do, and this on behalf of your own theory!

Again, there are thousands of new ideas being published on a daily basis. It is always and everywhere the author's responsibility to justify being read, not the reader's responsibility to give hours of time to each one -- a physical impossibility in any event.

Creating a tome of 500 pages does NOT as you seem to imagine, create more value. A clearly expressed theory is one that is concise. (Again, math is really helpful here, it's hard to be more concise than a few key equations.) All additional length does is increase the expectations for the content held in the writing. Instead of spending an hour, you want me to spend 10, or 100 times as long? Then there had better be 10, or 100 times as worthwhile stuff inside, for it to be worth anyone's time. A lack of concise writing, however, usually indicates a lack of clarity in thought as well, though, which is why the most prestigious journals limit publications to a page or two. (There are long-for journals as well, that permit lots of space, for those who prefer that. Interestingly enough, even quite complex ideas usually don't require them, when they are communicated using appropriate mathematical expressions.)

Furthermore, you're also asking the reader to parse your words to make sense of your re-definition of basic terms that are confusingly named, in direct opposition to existing definitions of those same words. ("Proton" and "field" already have perfectly good definitions, which you seem perfectly content to re-define at will, without clearly stating this to the reader, and therefore implicitly expecting them to keep up with, and accept, your own shifted definitions because you can't be bothered to learn existing ones!)

The bottom line is that when a theory ISN'T clearly stated in mutually-agreed-upon mathematics, the task of finding possible sources of error can become a full lifetime's worth of work for somebody else. Demanding that others put such extensive effort into studying your "theory" when you can't even be bothered to learn a little basic math yourself on behalf of the effort, is the height of arrogance. It necessarily implies that even a couple of years on your part (enough to learn multivariable calculus) is worth more than a far greater span of someone else's time. How dare you treat others with such contempt!?

In the time that I've seen you pushing your "theory" on this website (at least several years now) you could easily have learned all the math you needed to express it sufficiently clearly. Instead, all you've done is repeatedly insist that OTHERS take the time to understand your incredibly vague, imprecise, and consequently necessarily imprecise thinking, in words. In a field that is intrinsically detailed and specific, there simply is no reasonable expectation on the part of any practitioner that such vague language is even capable of containing a correct theory. From a scientific standpoint, it is analogous to the aforementioned babbling of a baby.

Finally, by arrogantly asserting that your theories "do not relate to" mathematics, you are implicitly stating (probably without even realizing it!) that you are claiming that they defy both proof and disproof, and thus you force us to classify them as intrinsically without scientific value. (Science being devoted to the evaluation of falsifiable ideas.)


I should point out that the above criticism of your textual approach is very different from the reasoned assessment of most scientific books for the layman. These take a theory which has already been demonstrated to be mathematically valid, and describe it using words meant for a lay audience (which scientists do with some frequency). In that case the goal is merely to communicate an idea which has previously been demonstrated to have both meaning and value. Serious publishers only print such books after the ideas have first been exposed to peer-review in mathematical form. Do not confuse such printings with your own self-published, non-peer-reviewed, work. Newton worked out the math, and THEN published his Principia (which, by the way, still contained plenty of math). He didn't do it in the reverse order, and for one simple reason: He understood and accepted as necessary the paradigm that no scientific idea is even worthy of consideration until it has first been expressed clearly, by which is meant, in mathematics.

So the justification for a physics theory does not and cannot lie in words, but must be presented in mathematics, to make the demand for consideration a reasonable one. Looking for validation without mathematics can justify only the most primitive, obvious, and uncontroversial of theories. Since you have already made bold claims about how your model does not merely extend, but actually is intended to replace, existing understanding, you have already taken yourself out of this category.

Controversy exists. Now is the time to show the math.

If the proposer can't show the math, the only reasonable assumption a reader can make is that the proposer is so far from knowing what they are talking about that they aren't even capable of comprehending their own ignorance.

The detailed application of E&M theory that would distinguish any new theory from existing theory REQUIRES advanced mathematics, and cannot be fully understood absent that mathematics. Without, for example, a thorough command of Fourier transforms, one would not be able to express or discuss certain properties of wave interference that arise in theory, and by being observed in the world, validate that theory. This means that ANY purely textual understanding, divorced from underlying math, will in general be wildly inaccurate. Thus, a person who possesses insufficient understanding to express their ideas mathematically cannot possibly claim to be able to compare the validity of their theory with existing theory, much less justify a claim to be improving upon existing theory. They would literally lack the ability to even know of the existence of the tests that would prove their theory wrong, and thus could not possibly have given it enough scrutiny to make it worth reading.

In other words, if you CAN'T show the math, then the reader knows (a priori) that your theory has been insufficiently developed to be worth spending time on. It can't have been tested sufficiently thoroughly, since the tests themselves are mathematically intensive.

If the proposer can, but won't, show the math, the only reasonable assumption is that they know that their theory is inconsistent with existing data. (...And are unwilling to provide the falsifying evidence, presumably because they derive some measure of attention from pretending to know what they're talking about, and want to enjoy that attention without risk of actual disproof).

The above is not an unfair or unreasonable standard for consideration!

It is the standard that all current theories have had to surpass in order to be considered at all, and for that reason it is the minimum reasonable standard that any new theory must reach in order to replace them. To demand otherwise is to demand that a less-justified theory should replace a more-justified one! This too, is a ridiculous and arrogant demand, and invites fully-justified mockery of the claimant.

That's simply not how science works. The way one theory replaces another is not by providing a better story (narrative strength should have no sway in science). Providing more, and more precise, evidence that it mathematically predicts experimental results (with mathematically expressed improvement in precision) is the only reasonable expectation. But so far, all that you've even claimed to have is a word-story, which you incorrectly tout as being equally worthy for consideration as a mathematically developed theory. It isn't. And rightly so.

The history of science is clear: Stories do not replace mathematically predictive theories. Mathematically predictive theories replace stories. We've come a long way since Archimedes and Ptolemy. The errors in their textual thinking have been shown -- using mathematics. And yet, the new hypothesis demands that we reason using their primitive mode of thinking, which has been supplanted everywhere it has been examined, by more rigorous study? And to trust it, over and above those ideas which have not only well-developed mathematical framework, but also vast amounts of experimental evidence? Sorry, but not until I see a sign that there's some actual evidence. Everything posted here to date has merely been evidence that the idea has no support at all.

So show the math, or shut up about this garbage already! And yes, until the math has been shown, that remains the correct classification for it:

All ideas claiming to be scientific advances are properly and necessarily considered to be wrong until demonstrated to be otherwise. There is also no "innocent until proven guilty" in evaluating scientific claims. There is no "right to be heard", or "right to a trial". Ideas have to compete on their merits for attention, and I for one have yet to see even the slightest iota of merit in even one of your posts on this subject, and I have read a great many more than I have cared to. Finally, there exists no obligation for anyone to spend time reading 500 pages that don't even claim to contain the minimum mathematical rigor to even be considered for publication in the field. Please stop acting offended when people don't accept having that made-up obligation thrust on them.

The burden of proof ALWAYS and CORRECTLY lies on the person proposing the new idea.

Enough of the bloviating word-salad. It's time to put up, or shut up.

Show the math.

Until you do, there's no justification at all for complaining when others provide well-deserved mockery. Indeed, your incredibly great arrogance, and contempt for the value of others' time, demands exactly that response, and no other.

[vt]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Perhaps science fiction might be a good way for this work to be published.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

The boldface phrase above is a ridiculous and self-disqualifying statement, full stop. It alone is sufficient indication (though there are also many others) that one needn't waste time on either these ideas, or this book.

It is also supremely arrogant, though I do not believe this was your intent. The tone of your writing makes it clear that you do not intend to be arrogant, and you do not believe you are being arrogant in your claims. But it is not your tone, or intent, that is objectionable. It is your demands themselves that embody, and express, a vast arrogance. (On the other hand, I am fully aware that my own vigorous tone in this post might well come across to those who disagree with me as arrogant. An objective reader, however, may perceive that the content of my argument is not, and I am content to trust in the intelligence and objectivity of the readership on this site to judge it fairly.)

A lack of intent or a modest tone, for example, does not change the fact that it remains arrogant to continue demanding that others should read a book which based on your own words does not meet the minimum standard for such consideration. That minimum standard is its use of the shared mathematically-based definitions and terms which provide the language for discussion in this field.

Mathematics is, simply-put, the only acceptable tool for rigorously exploring and expressing the validity or lack thereof of an idea in the field of physics.

This is because it is the only succinct and lossless way to describe the many complex logical operations and conclusions that must be made in order to have a meaningful discussion in such fields as electromagnetism (wherein the core concepts are sufficiently detailed and precise that when rendered into the comparatively imprecise language of words and text (ungrounded in mathematical definitions) they wind up being at best misunderstood, and at worst entirely wrong.

One can of course use language to discuss a new idea when both parties already know the math that lies behind all the terms being employed (as scientists and engineers do all the time, at times on this site) but the underlying assumption that enables the conversation in the first place is a prerequisite and shared understanding of the underlying math, in which all the terms being employed are defined and derived. For example, discussing whether a proposed new variable has units of energy or momentum is meaningless unless both parties fully understand and agree on the mathematical relation that "energy" and "momentum" have with one another.

Every attempt you have made to have technical conversations over the years has made abundantly clear that you do not possess this shared understanding of existing definitions, and are instead seeking to impose your own, new, definitions of terms on the conversation.

There is never an obligation for any reader to follow an author, but this is especially true when the author imposes excessive and unnecessary barriers to comprehension by failing to learn and use the standard language for a given discussion.

There's a reason that Maxwell's equations are the beginning point of any textbook on the subject of E&M. Without them, one simply does not have sufficiently precise nomenclature and definitions to even conduct the rest of the discussion.

Trying to have a conversation about a topic in physics without these mutually understood, mathematically-expressed definitions and piecewise comprehensible mathematical derivations in place first is like having a conversation with a babbling baby. It tries to converse, it believes it is expressing its ideas, and it believes that it is speaking a language that is just as intelligible as the one it is hearing, but without prior agreed-upon meanings mutually shared with its listener, it can neither communicate its own thoughts, nor comprehend those of others, nor develop complex thoughts that require the exchange of thoughts with other individuals.

So the math isn't something that can come after an idea has been shared, and developed later, after the idea is shared. It must be understood first -- in order for the idea to be expressed and discussed at all. It provides the shared definitions and mutually-understood relations for the words used in the conversation to have meanings that are understood and agreed on by all participants. Saying that others should read your book, and understand and use your own new definitions, is like the baby asking for every person it interacts with to treat it's babble-language as a foreign language, study it for hours upon hours, try to comprehend it in spite of its inconsistency with all existing languages, and then discuss ideas using that. It is simply not a reasonable request, and even if it were accommodated, it would prove nearly useless for discussing ideas. For one thing, in this case, it's been tried, and over time substituted with math. With virtually no exceptions, the physics community has moved away from using pure textual reasoning you insist upon sticking with, and for very good reasons:

Text is sufficiently subject to interpretation, and words have sufficiently many meanings, that one cannot analyze an extended logical sequence of, say, a thousand steps, using only these (english-language) tools to express the logic. It is quite straightforward, however, to do the same in unambiguous mathematical language, since every term, concept, and relationship has been precisely defined, and each step builds on known and finite axioms. The result is that in mathematics -- and ONLY in mathematics -- adding additional complexity of reasoning does not add additional error. A computation of a thousand steps can be conducted by a computer (or a skilled mathematician) with no errors at all. And if there is an error for some reason, another computer (either person or machine) can readily go through the steps as well and find it. By comparison, a logical treatise in text of that length (1000 consecutive logical inferences to reach a conclusion) and complexity simply does not even exist, and it would be unintelligible to read if it did, since one would need to hold all prior pertinent definitions and conclusions in one's mind at the same time to read each consecutive operation.

Thus, when one uses only textual language as a tool for reasoning, additional complexity DOES introduce additional error, as well as an increase in the difficulty of understanding. That is why, however one chooses to express a given idea in physics - using english or math - the only correct way to actually conduct the comparison of the validity of ideas -- is using math.

You are putting forward an idea, and asking it to be compared for validity. To demand that it be evaluated in a textual argument is simply not going to be heeded by anyone who understands how to reason using physics. It is as though a person called on a carpenter to do a repair, but insists when they arrive that the carpenter use a screwdriver to drive a nail into a board, because the customer only knows of the existence of screwdrivers, and not hammers. Any skilled carpenter is going to look at the situation, and reach for a hammer to drive the nail. It's the correct tool for the job. Just because the customer don't understand that fact, doesn't make it less true.

Furthermore, for any idea to pass muster, it must be compared with all prior observed data. Simply put, the era where the existing body of knowledge in this field could be completely and correctly contained and considered using mere text, even 5 million pages of it, has simply passed many decades ago. If one relies on such vague things as textual arguments to obtain one's understanding of the current knowledge in this field, that will likely be only the first of many major sources of error.

For the above reasons (among others) we translate concepts of physics into mathematical terms in order to discuss them (and as a prerequisite of said discussion), as follows:

If an idea, expressed mathematically, results in an obvious fallacy like 1=2, then it can quickly be seen as objectively false. No further time need be wasted evaluating it (or considering the possibility that it is simply an "apparent" discrepancy that arises from a misunderstanding of definitions, or similar vague handwaving).

But if a translation of an idea into mathematics results in a self-consistent predictive expression, that can also be shown to be consistent with the existing body of observed data (also expressed for concision in mathematical terms) then (and only then) does there exist the possibility that the new idea might be true, at which point (and ONLY after which point) it becomes worthy of consideration in any peer-review process. (If an author is able to credibly make that claim, that is also the point at which a publication might be worth spending more than a minute or two on.)

That isn't some arbitrary, lofty, or arrogant assessment on the part of me, or some vague "scientific conspiracy" on the part of physicists worldwide. It is also not an impossibly high barrier of access (literally thousands of papers are published daily, all far surpassing that low standard). It is, however, an inevitable requirement that arises from the fact that it just takes an extraordinarily large amount of time to find the source of errors in any new theory, even when it IS expressed in mathematical terms. Demanding that others spend vast quantities of time reading 500 pages, without bothering to oneself sufficiently prepare the theory for such review by first condensing it into convenient and easily-understood mathematical expressions, is extraordinarily arrogant. You're asking more of others than you yourself are willing to do, and this on behalf of your own theory!

Again, there are thousands of new ideas being published on a daily basis. It is always and everywhere the author's responsibility to justify being read, not the reader's responsibility to give hours of time to each one -- a physical impossibility in any event.

Creating a tome of 500 pages does NOT as you seem to imagine, create more value. A clearly expressed theory is one that is concise. (Again, math is really helpful here, it's hard to be more concise than a few key equations.) All additional length does is increase the expectations for the content held in the writing. Instead of spending an hour, you want me to spend 10, or 100 times as long? Then there had better be 10, or 100 times as worthwhile stuff inside, for it to be worth anyone's time. A lack of concise writing, however, usually indicates a lack of clarity in thought as well, though, which is why the most prestigious journals limit publications to a page or two. (There are long-for journals as well, that permit lots of space, for those who prefer that. Interestingly enough, even quite complex ideas usually don't require them, when they are communicated using appropriate mathematical expressions.)

Furthermore, you're also asking the reader to parse your words to make sense of your re-definition of basic terms that are confusingly named, in direct opposition to existing definitions of those same words. ("Proton" and "field" already have perfectly good definitions, which you seem perfectly content to re-define at will, without clearly stating this to the reader, and therefore implicitly expecting them to keep up with, and accept, your own shifted definitions because you can't be bothered to learn existing ones!)

The bottom line is that when a theory ISN'T clearly stated in mutually-agreed-upon mathematics, the task of finding possible sources of error can become a full lifetime's worth of work for somebody else. Demanding that others put such extensive effort into studying your "theory" when you can't even be bothered to learn a little basic math yourself on behalf of the effort, is the height of arrogance. It necessarily implies that even a couple of years on your part (enough to learn multivariable calculus) is worth more than a far greater span of someone else's time. How dare you treat others with such contempt!?

In the time that I've seen you pushing your "theory" on this website (at least several years now) you could easily have learned all the math you needed to express it sufficiently clearly. Instead, all you've done is repeatedly insist that OTHERS take the time to understand your incredibly vague, imprecise, and consequently necessarily imprecise thinking, in words. In a field that is intrinsically detailed and specific, there simply is no reasonable expectation on the part of any practitioner that such vague language is even capable of containing a correct theory. From a scientific standpoint, it is analogous to the aforementioned babbling of a baby.

Finally, by arrogantly asserting that your theories "do not relate to" mathematics, you are implicitly stating (probably without even realizing it!) that you are claiming that they defy both proof and disproof, and thus you force us to classify them as intrinsically without scientific value. (Science being devoted to the evaluation of falsifiable ideas.)


I should point out that the above criticism of your textual approach is very different from the reasoned assessment of most scientific books for the layman. These take a theory which has already been demonstrated to be mathematically valid, and describe it using words meant for a lay audience (which scientists do with some frequency). In that case the goal is merely to communicate an idea which has previously been demonstrated to have both meaning and value. Serious publishers only print such books after the ideas have first been exposed to peer-review in mathematical form. Do not confuse such printings with your own self-published, non-peer-reviewed, work. Newton worked out the math, and THEN published his Principia (which, by the way, still contained plenty of math). He didn't do it in the reverse order, and for one simple reason: He understood and accepted as necessary the paradigm that no scientific idea is even worthy of consideration until it has first been expressed clearly, by which is meant, in mathematics.

So the justification for a physics theory does not and cannot lie in words, but must be presented in mathematics, to make the demand for consideration a reasonable one. Looking for validation without mathematics can justify only the most primitive, obvious, and uncontroversial of theories. Since you have already made bold claims about how your model does not merely extend, but actually is intended to replace, existing understanding, you have already taken yourself out of this category.

Controversy exists. Now is the time to show the math.

If the proposer can't show the math, the only reasonable assumption a reader can make is that the proposer is so far from knowing what they are talking about that they aren't even capable of comprehending their own ignorance.

The detailed application of E&M theory that would distinguish any new theory from existing theory REQUIRES advanced mathematics, and cannot be fully understood absent that mathematics. Without, for example, a thorough command of Fourier transforms, one would not be able to express or discuss certain properties of wave interference that arise in theory, and by being observed in the world, validate that theory. This means that ANY purely textual understanding, divorced from underlying math, will in general be wildly inaccurate. Thus, a person who possesses insufficient understanding to express their ideas mathematically cannot possibly claim to be able to compare the validity of their theory with existing theory, much less justify a claim to be improving upon existing theory. They would literally lack the ability to even know of the existence of the tests that would prove their theory wrong, and thus could not possibly have given it enough scrutiny to make it worth reading.

In other words, if you CAN'T show the math, then the reader knows (a priori) that your theory has been insufficiently developed to be worth spending time on. It can't have been tested sufficiently thoroughly, since the tests themselves are mathematically intensive.

If the proposer can, but won't, show the math, the only reasonable assumption is that they know that their theory is inconsistent with existing data. (...And are unwilling to provide the falsifying evidence, presumably because they derive some measure of attention from pretending to know what they're talking about, and want to enjoy that attention without risk of actual disproof).

The above is not an unfair or unreasonable standard for consideration!

It is the standard that all current theories have had to surpass in order to be considered at all, and for that reason it is the minimum reasonable standard that any new theory must reach in order to replace them. To demand otherwise is to demand that a less-justified theory should replace a more-justified one! This too, is a ridiculous and arrogant demand, and invites fully-justified mockery of the claimant.

That's simply not how science works. The way one theory replaces another is not by providing a better story (narrative strength should have no sway in science). Providing more, and more precise, evidence that it mathematically predicts experimental results (with mathematically expressed improvement in precision) is the only reasonable expectation. But so far, all that you've even claimed to have is a word-story, which you incorrectly tout as being equally worthy for consideration as a mathematically developed theory. It isn't. And rightly so.

The history of science is clear: Stories do not replace mathematically predictive theories. Mathematically predictive theories replace stories. We've come a long way since Archimedes and Ptolemy. The errors in their textual thinking have been shown -- using mathematics. And yet, the new hypothesis demands that we reason using their primitive mode of thinking, which has been supplanted everywhere it has been examined, by more rigorous study? And to trust it, over and above those ideas which have not only well-developed mathematical framework, but also vast amounts of experimental evidence? Sorry, but not until I see a sign that there's some actual evidence. Everything posted here to date has merely been evidence that the idea has no support at all.

So show the math, or shut up about this garbage already! And yes, until the math has been shown, that remains the correct classification for it:

All ideas claiming to be scientific advances are properly and necessarily considered to be wrong until demonstrated to be otherwise. There is also no "innocent until proven guilty" in evaluating scientific claims. There is no "right to be heard", or "right to a trial". Ideas have to compete on their merits for attention, and I for one have yet to see even the slightest iota of merit in even one of your posts on this subject, and I have read a great many more than I have cared to. Finally, there exists no obligation for anyone to spend time reading 500 pages that don't even claim to contain the minimum mathematical rigor to even be considered for publication in the field. Please stop acting offended when people don't accept having that made-up obligation thrust on them.

The burden of proof ALWAYS and CORRECTLY lies on the person proposing the new idea.

Enough of the bloviating word-salad. It's time to put up, or shut up.

Show the math.

Until you do, there's no justification at all for complaining when others provide well-deserved mockery. Indeed, your incredibly great arrogance, and contempt for the value of others' time, demands exactly that response, and no other.

The conventional description of gravity is that "gravity emanates from the centre of a mass and pulls everything toward it".

A large part of "the book" relates to a debate, yes, created by me, that everyone has misunderstood the meaning of three words written by Isaac Newton; that has, in turn, created an incorrect description of how a line of the force of gravity works, regarding what forces are involved and how they should be applied.

All I can do here is quote one small part of my book:

"Just to remind you of what Newton wrote in The Author’s Preface:

“But the errors are not in the art, but in the artificers. He that works with less accuracy is an imperfect mechanic; and if any could work with perfect accuracy, he would be the most perfect mechanic of all; for the description of right lines and circles, upon which geometry is founded, belongs to mechanics. Geometry does not teach us to draw these lines, but requires them to be drawn; for it requires that the learner should first be taught to describe these accurately, before he enters upon geometry; then it shows how by these operations problems may be solved. To describe right lines and circles are problems, but not geometrical problems. The solution of these problems is required from mechanics; and by geometry the use of them, when so solved, is shown; and it is the glory of geometry that from these few principles, brought from without, it is able to produce so many things.”

Even the greatest mathematician of his time, Isaac Newton; can fail to verbally describe a problem accurately before setting out his geometry; which in turn again provided him his confusing mathematical solution."

It is my contention that all of you, yes indeed, all of you; have not taken into account that you have failed to accurately describe your geometry; BEFORE, creating the mathematics. That that simple failure, clearly indicated as possible by Newton above; has taken you all into an intellectual dead end.

Newton uses geometry and words to describe the fundamental basis for his mathematics; all I have done is take his lead and used the same principles to so describe my own theories. The Principia is full of geometry. Indeed, Newton uses geometry and, dare I say so, a lot of words; to set out the basis for all of his mathematics. All that I have done, (as one significant part of my book), is show that he did not fully understand the significance of three words he wrote in Proposition LXX Theorum XXX - and moreover, that no one has done so since.

Anger is the first, very well known stage of the process of learning that we are wrong. May I be so bold as to suggest that you take a break and calm down; you do not do your health any good getting angry like that, and in the end, you will have to calm down when you come to terms with why.

Your anger is nothing to do with me, you need to look inwards, within yourself; all I am here is a suitable target; someone to take a swing at. Please, take a rest and think about that.

[Jam]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

+1 @astonas
(to put it in concise mathematical terms)
Cheers

[DSpencer]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

astonas,

That was very satisfying to read. It won't do anything to convince Chris that he is wrong. Nonetheless, I think it's important that quacks be called out. Hopefully, it at least prevents someone from buying and reading a book that would actually make them dumber.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Perhaps science fiction might be a good way for this work to be published.

It is indeed, ironic, that when, in a conversation over a few beers, at a wireless conference in San Francisco, late 2002, where I had expounded some of my early theories to several other delegates, that the scientist that encouraged me to start writing the first book, Dr. Hamid Gharavi, "Chris, you must publish" as he pounded his fist on the table in front of him, then suggested the same thing; that I should write a science fiction story and include my ideas in that.

He was concerned that science would not receive such unconventional thinking; my reaction then, as now, is that I have every right to present new thinking to science. Yes, indeed, it can be said with certainty today; science has great difficulty with new thinking, outside of the box. That is life. History shows the difficulties faced by new thinkers; Dr. Gharavi was merely reflecting the difficulties he could see ahead of me, a wonderful example being herein.

Such is life as an original thinker. It is the one that chose me and in turn, I made the decision many years ago, to stay in this space; with no regrets.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

astonas,

That was very satisfying to read. It won't do anything to convince Chris that he is wrong. Nonetheless, I think it's important that quacks be called out. Hopefully, it at least prevents someone from buying and reading a book that would actually make them dumber.

I do hope you can show the courage to apologise when you discover that, not only are you wrong, but that you damaged science by taking such a stance.

[DSpencer]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

I do hope you can show the courage to apologise when you discover that, not only are you wrong, but that you damaged science by taking such a stance.

I would gladly do so and I have an even better idea. Let's make a wager. Here is a list of the top 400 universities for physics in the world:

https://www.usnews.com/education/bes...sities/physics

In 6 months, you find 10 physics professors from any of those universities who is willing to write a letter stating that they have read your entire book and they believe that your theory is plausible and worthy of further investigation. Show us the letters and you win. I will not only apologize, I'll buy 100 copies of your book and give them to other people for free.

If you can't, then you lose. You agree to remove your book from Amazon and stop promoting it on itulip.

What do you say?

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

I would gladly do so and I have an even better idea. Let's make a wager. Here is a list of the top 400 universities for physics in the world:

https://www.usnews.com/education/bes...sities/physics

In 6 months, you find 10 physics professors from any of those universities who is willing to write a letter stating that they have read your entire book and they believe that your theory is plausible and worthy of further investigation. Show us the letters and you win. I will not only apologize, I'll buy 100 copies of your book and give them to other people for free.

If you can't, then you lose. You agree to remove your book from Amazon and stop promoting it on itulip.

What do you say?

My marketing is based upon the concept that it may take as much as a decade before there may even be a glimmer of acceptance; indeed, I will not be totally surprised if it takes a half century; till long after I have left this mortal coil. Moreover that which has been the fate of many others with new thinking before me.

So you want me to remove the book from sale. Not a chance. Period!

You seem desperate to prove me wrong; you need to sit back and ask yourself why? What is it that has made you so fearful of a new theory; moreover, one you refuse to contemplate? There is nothing herein this thread, or in the book; that makes any suggestion that I have written, say, an immoral tome. There is no law broken, all you have in front of you is a conjecture of a new theory presented in good faith and reasonably good humour.

Now you are into burning books. Book destruction is the hallmark of closed minds; and you call yourself a scientist. Give me strength. I'd laugh, if it was not so desperately sad.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

‘New ideas pass through three periods:

• It can’t be done.
• It probably can be done, but it’s not worth doing.
• I knew it was a good idea all along.’

– Arthur C. Clarke

‘Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.’

-- Albert Einstein

[DSpencer]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

My marketing is based upon the concept that it may take as much as a decade before there may even be a glimmer of acceptance; indeed, I will not be totally surprised if it takes a half century; till long after I have left this mortal coil. Moreover that which has been the fate of many others with new thinking before me.

So you want me to remove the book from sale. Not a chance. Period!

You seem desperate to prove me wrong; you need to sit back and ask yourself why? What is it that has made you so fearful of a new theory; moreover, one you refuse to contemplate? There is nothing herein this thread, or in the book; that makes any suggestion that I have written, say, an immoral tome. There is no law broken, all you have in front of you is a conjecture of a new theory presented in good faith and reasonably good humour.

Now you are into burning books. Book destruction is the hallmark of closed minds; and you call yourself a scientist. Give me strength. I'd laugh, if it was not so desperately sad.

I never called myself a scientist. I never mentioned burning books. Your imagination has obscured reality once again.

You find 5 professors and I'll apologize. If you can't, you never mention it on itulip again. How can I set the bar any lower? I'm not even asking for you to get people to believe your theory is correct. Just to read the book and say it's even plausible.

My career is not in physics. I have nothing to lose based on your theory being true or accepted. Physics is an interest for me. I want to understand the world around me. If I am fearful, it is that one day I will have the time to try understanding the math behind real physics and will find myself unable to do so. You're selling snake oil. You're pretending to get the answers without putting in the work. You are either so deluded that you truly believe that you have simply out-thought all the great minds of physics without even trying or else you are just a fraudster trying to make money off the ignorant. So you tell me, should I pity you or despise you?

[DSpencer]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

‘New ideas pass through three periods:

• It can’t be done.
• It probably can be done, but it’s not worth doing.
• I knew it was a good idea all along.’

– Arthur C. Clarke

‘Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.’

-- Albert Einstein

You quote Einstein while claiming his greatest achievements are all wrong.

[astonas]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

The conventional description of gravity is that "gravity emanates from the centre of a mass and pulls everything toward it".

A large part of "the book" relates to a debate, yes, created by me, that everyone has misunderstood the meaning of three words written by Isaac Newton; that has, in turn, created an incorrect description of how a line of the force of gravity works, regarding what forces are involved and how they should be applied.

You seem to be deeply confused about how the causality works in science. Newton's words are not important because they were said by a genius named Isaac Newton, who commands respect.

Instead, Newton is considered a genius because the mathematical representations in his works have been demonstrated to be valid through repeated experimentation. So challenging, clarifying, or even discussing his words is irrelevant to the topic of his theory. It is his math that has been validated, and accepted (with later refinement by Einstein) through experimental evidence. Saying that there was an inconsistency between his words and his math can only mean that the words were phrased imprecisely, and should be ignored. They're simply not the part that carries any weight.

By your own words, a large part of your "book", is therefore entirely misbegotten. It is an extensive discussion of an irrelevant straw man, which by its very construction cannot support or detract from any meaningful discussion of gravity.

But you're also saying Newton made a previously undiscovered mistake in his maths (which you wrongly assume to flow from his words). That's an assertion that any idiot can make, and many wrongly have.

So in order for anyone to even bother reading to find out if you are just another of those idiots, you first need to deal with the fact that his math works, experimentally, by predicting the outcome of experiments conducted from its writing until today. That remains true independent of any words he (or anyone else) has written on the subject. If his mathematical framework is in any way wrong, that should show up in experiments. But it doesn't show up. Until you show us data where it does, there really is no need to give you the time of day.

Your inability to address the fact that current mathematical expressions correctly predict experimental data is all the evidence anyone should need that you are nothing more than just another fraud, or uncomprehending idiot. No further word needs to be read to know that, and no mere words can refute it, no matter how good they may sound, or how satisfying they are to write. The only way to refute the proper assumption that you are a fraud is for you to now show the math, and show the data.

It is my contention that all of you, yes indeed, all of you; have not taken into account that you have failed to accurately describe your geometry; BEFORE, creating the mathematics. That that simple failure, clearly indicated as possible by Newton above; has taken you all into an intellectual dead end.

The fact that you can accuse others who actually understand the physics, of failing to frame it correctly in mathematics, while you who so obviously knows nothing at all about the mathematical framework claim to understand it better, is an arrogance that is beyond breathtaking. Fortunately, any arrogance can be forgiven, if one shows the evidence to back it up.

So do so: You assert that there is an error in the structure of geometry itself that stems from Newton's missing ... something, so it is now incumbent on you to describe the math in which this error can be seen. Explain, mathematically, where your claimed effect is manifested in a physical measurement that shows up differently from the math.

Seriously. Put up or shut up. Otherwise your arrogance really IS unforgivable.

Show us the mathematical error you are claiming exists, or admit that you simply don't know what you're talking about. At this point in the discussion, there really is no other alternative. You have exhausted the last shred of assumed credibility usually granted for the purposes of civilized debate. If you show us, the discussion can continue. If you can't, or won't, you are a fraud, and should be referred to exclusively as such from now on.

Because if a deviation DOES exist between experimental observation and existing theory, that really is big news, and there is no scientist that won't want to see it.

But when challenged, do you present evidence? No, instead you respond with garbage like "my theories do not relate to mathematics"! (By the way, the fact that you contradict yourself like this from one post to the next is by now obvious to most readers, so don't pretend that your excessive verbiage is fooling anyone. All it's achieving is making it crystal clear how incapable you are of even the most elementary reasoning, which further underlines the uselessness of any book you may have written.) The simple fact of the matter is that you simply don't have a mathematical error or correction to show us. You don't even have the seed of a valid discussion, much less sufficient rigorous thinking for a whole book!

You cannot claim to have found a flaw in a line of reasoning when you don't speak the language (in this case, math) in which the reasoning is conducted. You can't claim to be describing an error in a mathematical framework without using mathematics to describe it. And you don't appear to possess the minimum capability of even analyzing the math to check for such errors! To claim you have found an error is thus a logical impossibility, as well as unforgivably arrogant.

Newton uses geometry and words to describe the fundamental basis for his mathematics; all I have done is take his lead and used the same principles to so describe my own theories. The Principia is full of geometry. Indeed, Newton uses geometry and, dare I say so, a lot of words; to set out the basis for all of his mathematics. All that I have done, (as one significant part of my book), is show that he did not fully understand the significance of three words he wrote in Proposition LXX Theorum XXX - and moreover, that no one has done so since.

Again, science permits no argument from authority (or, for that matter, narrative causality). Newton earned his respect not because the words he wrote are predictive in some religious sense (meaning that which the words themselves matter, or contain great truth) but because the mathematics that flows from his hypotheses have been proven correct experimentally. So saying "Newton's words were wrong, misunderstood, or incomplete, here or here." has absolutely no value, or pertinence to the discussion. The only meaningful commentary one could make about Newton at this point would be to say "There is new experimental data that has been replicated by independent observers that is not explained by existing theory." You don't do that, therefore you are in fact saying nothing at all (regardless of how many words or pages you use to do so). Reading 500 pages of nothing is not worth anyone's time, no matter how bored they are!

The entire mode of argument and thought that you embark on is simply invalid from the get-go. It implicitly assumes that Newton's authority matters, rather than his agreement with subsequent experiments. It doesn't. It never has. There is no "authority" in science. Not even from the greatest of thinkers. The ideas of any person, great or small, stand or fall based upon their agreement with observable evidence. And you insist on being believed, while showing none at all.

This point is also why no sane scientist would read Newton's words today, parsing them for errors or insights to advance modern theory. The words only ever existed in the first place to explain, very approximately, the more rigorous logical reasoning and mathematics that create predictions. If there is a deviation, inconsistency, or insight in them, that is entirely incidental to the truth or falsehood of the topic at hand, it cannot be central to it, because the words themselves are not central to Newton's reasoning. Without delving deeply into the math, one has not even begun to understand the reasoning itself. And it is perfectly obvious, from the scraps of your "book" that you insist on quoting here, that your depth of understanding of Newton is too shallow to include any in-depth understanding of his math.

Anger is the first, very well known stage of the process of learning that we are wrong. May I be so bold as to suggest that you take a break and calm down; you do not do your health any good getting angry like that, and in the end, you will have to calm down when you come to terms with why.

Your anger is nothing to do with me, you need to look inwards, within yourself; all I am here is a suitable target; someone to take a swing at. Please, take a rest and think about that.

You have entirely misunderstood me. I'm not angry with you at all. Really. I'm in places frustrated with your unwillingness to see what is so obvious, but that is a very different sentiment.

No, when it comes to emotional content of my writings to you, the ONLY sentiment to imagine, and read into my words, is pity. I pity you. I think you've wasted a good chunk of your life chasing a "theory" that is more poorly-conceived and ill-informed than any I've ever encountered, while steadfastly blocking out any and all criticism which, if it had been taken on board at an early stage and used to inform actual study of the subject instead of the sort of textual daydreaming you've indulged in, could have lead to real and joyous understanding.

There is no anger here. I am sincerely and deeply sad, I weep for your wasted time and effort. The gap between what you might have experienced and what you seem to have doomed yourself to experience instead by clinging to this silly notion is simply so ... very ... VAST.

We each only have one life, and I can only imagine how much of yours you have wasted on this pathetic attempt. Physics is a subject that can bring such incredible joy, stemming from a true and working understanding expressed in the world around us! Seeing something move, and really understanding the mathematical relationships that connect all things to all other things is incredibly beautiful, and a moving experience!

Such study has provided an amazingly rich life experience to myself and many others, and it could have provided you with a similar joy in exploring and understanding the concepts that you very clearly only pretend to understand now, apparently doing so in the hopes of fooling even more ignorant people than yourself into providing you with a smidgeon of undeserved respect.

So, precisely because you insist on ignoring any and all valid criticism, to you physics can only ever provide the private humiliation stemming from the pretense of understanding. Every time you imagine that you understand something, or imagine that you are feeling that joy of understanding that I've described, you are merely hopelessly misguided, and at best blissfully ignorant of that fact. Whenever you have encountered "respect" for your ideas or thoughts, it has been merely the stolen and temporary respect given to a charlatan, which evaporates the moment the con is exposed some time later. It is entirely understandable why you seem to feel a desperate need to defend your ideas, no matter how wrong. Such defense postpones the moment that regard for your opinion evaporates entirely. But with ideas this poorly conceived, desperation simply cannot postpone the evaporation of respect indefinitely.

No scientist seeking real understanding responds with defensiveness like this. A scientist seeking understanding welcomes valid criticism, as it gives a chance to refine and improve their ideas. You have only ever responded with defensiveness. And I pity you for not grasping that it is this response that has stolen from you, by now, likely forever, any potential ability to do real science. So no, there is no anger. The emphasis I add to my text is in general added to provide clarity, not express anger. The only thing I feel for you is pity.

So PLEASE stop insisting that others should waste their own time, just so that you can continue to sustain the now-ridiculous delusion that you have not wasted your own. PLEASE stop trying to convince others that this garbage has validity. Please?

That may sound like a cruel thing to say to a man advanced in years, but there are people who might read your words, and mistake them for actual science, and believe that they should follow your example. The only reason I'm responding to you at all is because I want to save them from being similarly trapped in lives of desperate ignorance like yours, and so I feel compelled to clarify for their sake what is really going on here, and what little value you have actually produced. If not for that, I would simply ignore you out out pity, as I have done on numerous occasions before, letting you continue to delude yourself and live in blissful ignorance.

If that is what you would prefer, you can get it at any point by ceasing your posts about this topic here on iTulip. This is something that I, and probably several others, would greatly welcome. But if you continue to insist on perpetrating your fraud, I will continue to point out its nature where I feel I must, and thus help ensure that others see that the ultimate reward of this kind of charlatanism can only ever be pity, or ridicule, or derision. The last thing I want is to see another hopeful potential scientist waste their life's effort, as it appears you have.

There IS real joy to be found in science, but it cannot be found by following garbage thinking. A prerequisite for scientific understanding is a willingness to accept and mathematically explain discrepancies between theory and experiment, so that concepts can evolve over time. You have chosen not to rise to this prerequisite, but instead dig in to your first erroneous thought, and insisted on defending the most indefensible of ideas. That, and not any lack of training or credential, is why you are not treated like a scientist, and why you are not taken seriously by any individuals who do meet and understand that prerequisite, whether they call themselves scientists or not.

You imagine yourself to be contributing to science, but every aspect of your approach is the least scientific one that can exist! Plowing ahead with one damn fool idea for years and years regardless of criticism does NOT advance science, it is literally the exact opposite of the way that science does advance.

I write here to stridently encourage any readers of this to do the opposite of what you have done, as that is the only way to advance the state of man's understanding, as well as the only way to find real individual understanding and scientific joy.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

You seem to be deeply confused about how the causality works in science. Newton's words are not important because they were said by a genius named Isaac Newton, who commands respect.

Instead, Newton is considered a genius because the mathematical representations in his works have been demonstrated to be valid through repeated experimentation. So challenging, clarifying, or even discussing his words is irrelevant to the topic of his theory. It is his math that has been validated, and accepted (with later refinement by Einstein) through experimental evidence. Saying that there was an inconsistency between his words and his math can only mean that the words were phrased imprecisely, and should be ignored. They're simply not the part that carries any weight.

By your own words, a large part of your "book", is therefore entirely misbegotten. It is an extensive discussion of an irrelevant straw man, which by its very construction cannot support or detract from any meaningful discussion of gravity.

But you're also saying Newton made a previously undiscovered mistake in his maths (which you wrongly assume to flow from his words). That's an assertion that any idiot can make, and many wrongly have.

So in order for anyone to even bother reading to find out if you are just another of those idiots, you first need to deal with the fact that his math works, experimentally, by predicting the outcome of experiments conducted from its writing until today. That remains true independent of any words he (or anyone else) has written on the subject. If his mathematical framework is in any way wrong, that should show up in experiments. But it doesn't show up. Until you show us data where it does, there really is no need to give you the time of day.

Your inability to address the fact that current mathematical expressions correctly predict experimental data is all the evidence anyone should need that you are nothing more than just another fraud, or uncomprehending idiot. No further word needs to be read to know that, and no mere words can refute it, no matter how good they may sound, or how satisfying they are to write. The only way to refute the proper assumption that you are a fraud is for you to now show the math, and show the data.



The fact that you can accuse others who actually understand the physics, of failing to frame it correctly in mathematics, while you who so obviously knows nothing at all about the mathematical framework claim to understand it better, is an arrogance that is beyond breathtaking. Fortunately, any arrogance can be forgiven, if one shows the evidence to back it up.

So do so: You assert that there is an error in the structure of geometry itself that stems from Newton's missing ... something, so it is now incumbent on you to describe the math in which this error can be seen. Explain, mathematically, where your claimed effect is manifested in a physical measurement that shows up differently from the math.

Seriously. Put up or shut up. Otherwise your arrogance really IS unforgivable.

Show us the mathematical error you are claiming exists, or admit that you simply don't know what you're talking about. At this point in the discussion, there really is no other alternative. You have exhausted the last shred of assumed credibility usually granted for the purposes of civilized debate. If you show us, the discussion can continue. If you can't, or won't, you are a fraud, and should be referred to exclusively as such from now on.

Because if a deviation DOES exist between experimental observation and existing theory, that really is big news, and there is no scientist that won't want to see it.

But when challenged, do you present evidence? No, instead you respond with garbage like "my theories do not relate to mathematics"! (By the way, the fact that you contradict yourself like this from one post to the next is by now obvious to most readers, so don't pretend that your excessive verbiage is fooling anyone. All it's achieving is making it crystal clear how incapable you are of even the most elementary reasoning, which further underlines the uselessness of any book you may have written.) The simple fact of the matter is that you simply don't have a mathematical error or correction to show us. You don't even have the seed of a valid discussion, much less sufficient rigorous thinking for a whole book!

You cannot claim to have found a flaw in a line of reasoning when you don't speak the language (in this case, math) in which the reasoning is conducted. You can't claim to be describing an error in a mathematical framework without using mathematics to describe it. And you don't appear to possess the minimum capability of even analyzing the math to check for such errors! To claim you have found an error is thus a logical impossibility, as well as unforgivably arrogant.



Again, science permits no argument from authority (or, for that matter, narrative causality). Newton earned his respect not because the words he wrote are predictive in some religious sense (meaning that which the words themselves matter, or contain great truth) but because the mathematics that flows from his hypotheses have been proven correct experimentally. So saying "Newton's words were wrong, misunderstood, or incomplete, here or here." has absolutely no value, or pertinence to the discussion. The only meaningful commentary one could make about Newton at this point would be to say "There is new experimental data that has been replicated by independent observers that is not explained by existing theory." You don't do that, therefore you are in fact saying nothing at all (regardless of how many words or pages you use to do so). Reading 500 pages of nothing is not worth anyone's time, no matter how bored they are!

The entire mode of argument and thought that you embark on is simply invalid from the get-go. It implicitly assumes that Newton's authority matters, rather than his agreement with subsequent experiments. It doesn't. It never has. There is no "authority" in science. Not even from the greatest of thinkers. The ideas of any person, great or small, stand or fall based upon their agreement with observable evidence. And you insist on being believed, while showing none at all.

This point is also why no sane scientist would read Newton's words today, parsing them for errors or insights to advance modern theory. The words only ever existed in the first place to explain, very approximately, the more rigorous logical reasoning and mathematics that create predictions. If there is a deviation, inconsistency, or insight in them, that is entirely incidental to the truth or falsehood of the topic at hand, it cannot be central to it, because the words themselves are not central to Newton's reasoning. Without delving deeply into the math, one has not even begun to understand the reasoning itself. And it is perfectly obvious, from the scraps of your "book" that you insist on quoting here, that your depth of understanding of Newton is too shallow to include any in-depth understanding of his math.



You have entirely misunderstood me. I'm not angry with you at all. Really. I'm in places frustrated with your unwillingness to see what is so obvious, but that is a very different sentiment.

No, when it comes to emotional content of my writings to you, the ONLY sentiment to imagine, and read into my words, is pity. I pity you. I think you've wasted a good chunk of your life chasing a "theory" that is more poorly-conceived and ill-informed than any I've ever encountered, while steadfastly blocking out any and all criticism which, if it had been taken on board at an early stage and used to inform actual study of the subject instead of the sort of textual daydreaming you've indulged in, could have lead to real and joyous understanding.

There is no anger here. I am sincerely and deeply sad, I weep for your wasted time and effort. The gap between what you might have experienced and what you seem to have doomed yourself to experience instead by clinging to this silly notion is simply so ... very ... VAST.

We each only have one life, and I can only imagine how much of yours you have wasted on this pathetic attempt. Physics is a subject that can bring such incredible joy, stemming from a true and working understanding expressed in the world around us! Seeing something move, and really understanding the mathematical relationships that connect all things to all other things is incredibly beautiful, and a moving experience!

Such study has provided an amazingly rich life experience to myself and many others, and it could have provided you with a similar joy in exploring and understanding the concepts that you very clearly only pretend to understand now, apparently doing so in the hopes of fooling even more ignorant people than yourself into providing you with a smidgeon of undeserved respect.

So, precisely because you insist on ignoring any and all valid criticism, to you physics can only ever provide the private humiliation stemming from the pretense of understanding. Every time you imagine that you understand something, or imagine that you are feeling that joy of understanding that I've described, you are merely hopelessly misguided, and at best blissfully ignorant of that fact. Whenever you have encountered "respect" for your ideas or thoughts, it has been merely the stolen and temporary respect given to a charlatan, which evaporates the moment the con is exposed some time later. It is entirely understandable why you seem to feel a desperate need to defend your ideas, no matter how wrong. Such defense postpones the moment that regard for your opinion evaporates entirely. But with ideas this poorly conceived, desperation simply cannot postpone the evaporation of respect indefinitely.

No scientist seeking real understanding responds with defensiveness like this. A scientist seeking understanding welcomes valid criticism, as it gives a chance to refine and improve their ideas. You have only ever responded with defensiveness. And I pity you for not grasping that it is this response that has stolen from you, by now, likely forever, any potential ability to do real science. So no, there is no anger. The emphasis I add to my text is in general added to provide clarity, not express anger. The only thing I feel for you is pity.

So PLEASE stop insisting that others should waste their own time, just so that you can continue to sustain the now-ridiculous delusion that you have not wasted your own. PLEASE stop trying to convince others that this garbage has validity. Please?

That may sound like a cruel thing to say to a man advanced in years, but there are people who might read your words, and mistake them for actual science, and believe that they should follow your example. The only reason I'm responding to you at all is because I want to save them from being similarly trapped in lives of desperate ignorance like yours, and so I feel compelled to clarify for their sake what is really going on here, and what little value you have actually produced. If not for that, I would simply ignore you out out pity, as I have done on numerous occasions before, letting you continue to delude yourself and live in blissful ignorance.

If that is what you would prefer, you can get it at any point by ceasing your posts about this topic here on iTulip. This is something that I, and probably several others, would greatly welcome. But if you continue to insist on perpetrating your fraud, I will continue to point out its nature where I feel I must, and thus help ensure that others see that the ultimate reward of this kind of charlatanism can only ever be pity, or ridicule, or derision. The last thing I want is to see another hopeful potential scientist waste their life's effort, as it appears you have.

There IS real joy to be found in science, but it cannot be found by following garbage thinking. A prerequisite for scientific understanding is a willingness to accept and mathematically explain discrepancies between theory and experiment, so that concepts can evolve over time. You have chosen not to rise to this prerequisite, but instead dig in to your first erroneous thought, and insisted on defending the most indefensible of ideas. That, and not any lack of training or credential, is why you are not treated like a scientist, and why you are not taken seriously by any individuals who do meet and understand that prerequisite, whether they call themselves scientists or not.

You imagine yourself to be contributing to science, but every aspect of your approach is the least scientific one that can exist! Plowing ahead with one damn fool idea for years and years regardless of criticism does NOT advance science, it is literally the exact opposite of the way that science does advance.

I write here to stridently encourage any readers of this to do the opposite of what you have done, as that is the only way to advance the state of man's understanding, as well as the only way to find real individual understanding and scientific joy.

It seems that a children's movie gives the best answer to this debate; taken from Planet 51. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ation/Planet51

"General, I know what you're afraid of, and it's not Chuck. It's not monsters or aliens. It's the unknown. I've spent my whole life running from it, and I think maybe you have too, but I'm telling you the unknown isn't something to be afraid of. It can be your best friend. And just when you think that it means the end of everything you know, it's really just the beginning."— Lem, to General Grawl

The idea that, in "The Land of the Free" the freedom for anyone else, regardless of their background, to quietly sit down and write a book, has now to be vigorously rejected, presents a quite different view of the meaning of the word Freedom...... Where closed minds do their very best to prevent others from reading that which they refuse to read for themselves.

In many ways, I am grateful; you have managed to show so eloquently, exactly what has been holding back science for many decades. Yet, the very week you set out your tirades, New Scientist published a front page with these words:

WHAT'S UP WITH GRAVITY? The force that rules the universe makes no sense. https://www.newscientist.com/issue/3117/

All I have done is set out a new theory; on a subject where there is widespread agreement; no one fully understands what gravity is or how it works.

Tirades against the written word are a hallmark of the rejection of every aspect of what forms the strong foundations of a free society.

You need to overcome your fear of the unknown, (exactly as depicted in the children's movie Planet 51 above), and that is your problem; not mine.

All publicity is good publicity; so please, keep digging; your intellectual hole gets deeper with every tirade, while at one and the same moment; underpinning my ongoing book sales.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

You quote Einstein while claiming his greatest achievements are all wrong.

One small point; nowhere do I rubbish Einstein.

When you read the book you will all discover that, from the Frontispiece onwards, the book argues for a new look at his classic equation where, instead of concentrating upon the release of energy from mass, to look in detail at the potential to convert energy back into mass.

The visible universe is full of objects discharging vast quantities of energy and many dust clouds. All I have done is describe a new model that brings that discharged energy and dust full circle back to mass; resulting in a very ancient and steady state universe.