[Merged] Studying Sharma's equation on Linear Field Equations - Page 4

Singularitarian · 8th August 2009, 10:34 PM

You're right.

I'll tell you what i did. I took the equation E=\hbar k^2/2M and divided out k^2 wrongly. Oops.

Singularitarian · 8th August 2009, 10:35 PM

These equations are using natural number systems by the way.

Singularitarian · 8th August 2009, 10:36 PM

You are taking the units of G, M and c^2 far too literal in this case.

Hence why i said ''quantized gravitational charge''.

ben m · 8th August 2009, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

These equations are using natural number systems by the way.

In the natural number system, G, c, and hbar have the same units as always, and true equations still have the same units on both sides.

ben m · 8th August 2009, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

You're right.

I'll tell you what i did. I took the equation E=\hbar k^2/2M and divided out k^2 wrongly. Oops.

What? That's the same as E/k^2 = hbar/2M.

Wowbagger · 8th August 2009, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

There is another thread about this guy. To call him "fringe" would be kind.

Ah, I see it. ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150007 )

Sharma's ideas would probably completely change the world, if they were true. The implications would have had far-reaching effects on power generation and management, space flight, communications systems, etc.

But, for some reason, it's not doing anything. In fact, it's worse than that: It does not even seem interested in predicting any findings.

E=mc² is backed up with experimental evidence. Tell Sharma that you can't contradict the findings of experiment evidence with something incapable of generating any evidence, even in principal.

You can only contradict evidence with better evidence. So, get to it!

Singularitarian · 8th August 2009, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by ben m

What? That's the same as E/k^2 = hbar/2M.

Then the equation is right.

$E_k=p/2M=\hbar k^2/2M$

ben m · 8th August 2009, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Then the equation is right.

$E_k=p/2M=\hbar k^2/2M$

Nope. Perhaps you were aiming for E = p^2/2m = hbar^2 k^2/2M.

catbasket · 9th August 2009, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Either i need to go into a mental institution, or you haven't been keeping up on who is thrashing who here ...

False dichotomy.

Singularitarian · 9th August 2009, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by catbasket

False dichotomy.

I can make a list of five errors, three which i would deem ''pretty bad for scientists,'' - and that was all in just this week. Had great fun noting them down though, because everytime someone brings up who is right the most, at least i have their graces to fall back on.

DazzaD · 9th August 2009, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Who is haunting who? You are only troubling yourself when you infer to me doing something when commanded. If you where my professor, yeh, i'd have to, but not because someone here, who i have never met before, should i bow down to his wish. I am not a skivy of information.

Commanded? Who commanded? Perhaps you misread my polite request.

Specifically I said:

"polite request"

"Could I also trouble you, when you have a moment"

"would it be fair to ask if you understand "

"I would love to see a direct quote from a paper"

Pretty much the opposite of commanding. Those are genuine polite requests.

Or has discussion with other members got your back up so much that you see every post as a personal attack on you and your abilities?

I would have thought that anyone with a genuine interest in science would love to engage in a reasoned exchange of ideas in order for both people to better understand the others thoughts and ideas and thus better understand the world around them.

Those are not personal attacks but an attempt to directly engage with you on the very subject matter of the threads and the ideas that you yourself brought up.

Singularitarian · 9th August 2009, 04:56 AM

when i have a moment? - yeh, but you'll be waiting a while.

Singularitarian · 9th August 2009, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by ben m

Nope. Perhaps you were aiming for E = p^2/2m = hbar^2 k^2/2M.

yes, missed it by a squared value.

Dancing David · 9th August 2009, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

I can make a list of five errors, three which i would deem ''pretty bad for scientists,'' - and that was all in just this week. Had great fun noting them down though, because everytime someone brings up who is right the most, at least i have their graces to fall back on.

Typical, I can accumulate errors of the people on the other side of the debate, the fact that my errors exist is now inconsequential.

Monketey Ghost · 9th August 2009, 05:24 AM

This is like watching a penguin telling feathered birds they don't know how to fly.

This is like a turtle telling a giraffe it's neck isn't long enough.

This is like a tadpole explaining to a whale what the ocean is really like.

Monketey Ghost · 9th August 2009, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Fine.

To be true. What have you.

No, not fine. Don't try to teach if you can't be clear and get even simple aspects of this stuff correct.

sol invictus · 9th August 2009, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by catbasket

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Either i need to go into a mental institution, or you haven't been keeping up on who is thrashing who here ...

False dichotomy.

I'm not sure it is...

~enigma~ · 9th August 2009, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Thrashed?

Either i need to go into a mental institution, or you haven't been keeping up on who is thrashing who here, because i can name five instances off the top of my head, where people here have got things drastically wrong.

Your new theme song....Madhouse by Anthrax

White coats to bind me, out of control
I live alone inside my mind
World of confusion, air filled with noise
Who says that my lifes such a crime?

Trapped, in this nightmare
I wish Id wake
As my whole life begins to shake
Four walls, surround me
An empty gaze
I cant find my way out of this maze

cause I dont care
Fall in, fall out
Gone without a doubt, help me
I cant take the blame
They dont feel the shame

Its a madhouse
Or so they claim
Its a madhouse
Oh, am I insane?

My fears behind me, what can I do
My dreams haunt my sleep at night
Oh no, wont learn their lesson, white fills my eyes
And only then they see the light

Monketey Ghost · 9th August 2009, 07:39 AM

I cannot do the math, but still I try to teach
It's not about religion, is what I try to preach
I admit I'm wrong sometimes, but quickly pedal back
Insulting those who prove me wrong, who show me what I lack--

Humility is hard to come by when you're Sing-Sing-Singing in the rain
The Master does not have to bow, he does not have to train

Of all the faults I've shown since I came here to pretend
That what I know is what I know and never will defend
With clearly spelled out reason, nor with sensibility,
The worst by far is not admitting inability

Humility is hard to come by when you're Sing-Sing-Singing in the rain
The Master does not have to bow, he does not have to train
Each and every poster knows I'm pissing in the wind
I act as though I'm Jesus and insist I have not sinned

He's never gonna prove it, he's never gonna learn
He thinks self-education grants authority unearned
I'm Sing-Sing-Singing' in the rain, time to go inside again
To skim through Wikipedia, my all-too-trusted friend...

drkitten · 9th August 2009, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Either i need to go into a mental institution,

... you said it, not me.

But, yes,I would seriously advise you to check your meds level.

Wowbagger · 9th August 2009, 10:30 AM

Singularitarian,
You never addressed my concerns, yet.

Can you propose some experiments to demonstrate you are correct, and everyone else, here, is wrong?

Can you at least tell us some new and noteworthy findings Sharma's ideas would predict, that mainstream physics would not be able to?

What specific implications would your ideas have on technology? (It sounds, to me, like it ought to be a world-changing proposition, but can you fill in the details?)

(ETA: Ah, I see they merged the threads. So, ignore the first line of my last post in this thread.)

ben m · 9th August 2009, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

yes, missed it by a squared value.

... but before you realized that you declared:

1) It was right
2) Something else (which you thought was different but wasn't) was right
3) It was in natural units (which it wasn't)
4) I was "taking the units too seriously"
5) You had been right all along
6) It was just a typo or something ("missed it by a squared"?)

Yeah, I've seen oral exams that went kind of like that. The word "thrashing" is appropriate, but only in the intransitive, not the transitive.

Singularitarian · 9th August 2009, 05:21 PM

If anyone thinks i am replying to all of this, we can all play de-rail you know?

Wowbagger · 9th August 2009, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

If anyone thinks i am replying to all of this, we can all play de-rail you know?

Am I to assume you will not address issues of testability and scientific significance?

Singularitarian · 9th August 2009, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Am I to assume you will not address issues of testability and scientific significance?

No, you are to assume i will not be part of posts which have intentionally nothing to do with the OP, such a derogatory poems.

ben m · 9th August 2009, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

yes, missed it by a squared value.

OK, so we've cleared up Nonsense Equation #1. Now, I mentioned that the first thing you did with this Equation was to multiply it by *another* nonsense equation with mismatched units. Care to fix that one? Take your time.

Singularitarian · 9th August 2009, 10:04 PM

This equation $\hbar=GM^2/c^2$ was the gravitational charge, and i had it noted from a published paper. Will take me a while to get them, so they must have use natural units.

You will simply have to wait till i find it.

Singularitarian · 9th August 2009, 10:09 PM

Didn't take me too long

postmetric units, human-scale Planck units G = 1.00×10-15 oc mile2 per talent2 elementary charge e = 10-23 dram (exact ... And since it is a solution of GM²=h-bar×c, the formula for it is (hbar×c/G)½ ...
www.planck.com/postmetric1.htm - Cached - Similar -

Here the equation is of the form GM=hbar c - in a different paper, the authors had rearranged the equation, in the form i presented, and they decided to translate it has the gravitationalc quantized charge.

Monketey Ghost · 10th August 2009, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

No, you are to assume i will not be part of posts which have intentionally nothing to do with the OP, such a derogatory poems.

But it was meant to teach you something. You like to teach, don't you? If you feel I'm wrong, why not insult me as you have so freely with other posters?

Get ready, there's someone walking over your bridge...

edd · 10th August 2009, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by ben m

You multiply the left by hbar (units J-s) and the left by GM/c2 (units meters)---what sense does that make? Do you really think hbar = GM/c^2? Anyway, all together that gets us to kg^2 m^2 s^-3 = m^3 s^-1 kg^-1.

Sing: there are no true equations in all of physics with mismatched units. None at all. Zero.

Lessons have not been learnt from singularitarian's statement that p=gamma mv^2 (or whatever it was - it was certainly dimensionally like that though)

sol invictus · 10th August 2009, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Here the equation is of the form GM=hbar c

That equation is dimensionally inconsistent.

Wowbagger · 10th August 2009, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

No, you are to assume i will not be part of posts which have intentionally nothing to do with the OP, such a derogatory poems.

Your OP seems to be making a scientific claim.

Since scientists like to test their ideas, I figured I would ask how you, or Sharma, intend to get these ideas verified through testing.

Without such effort, all you have is mathematics-based philosophy, with no impact on the real world.

You disagree? You think the formulas and ideas in the OP do have an impact on the real world? Then prove it! Figure out what unique things they can predict, that conventional physics would not, then propose a test to see if they were on the right track.

ben m · 10th August 2009, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Here the equation is of the form GM=hbar c - in a different paper, the authors had rearranged the equation, in the form i presented, and they decided to translate it has the gravitationalc quantized charge.

The page you linked to cites GM^2 = hbar c. (Note that the units match). That is different from GM = hbar c^2 from your essay as well as from GM = hbar c from your "correction".

Ziggurat · 10th August 2009, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Here the equation is of the form GM=hbar c - in a different paper, the authors had rearranged the equation, in the form i presented, and they decided to translate it has the gravitationalc quantized charge.

Aside from the fact that you still screwed up the equation, the mass you get from the correct equation, while being uniquely defined, cannot sensibly be thought of as a quantized gravitational charge. Why? Because it's friggin HUGE. It's 2.176x10^-8 kg, or roughly 23,900,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the mass of an electron. And electrons aren't even the lightest particle we know of. Quantized gravitational charge? Nope, not even close.

ben m · 10th August 2009, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Also, the quarks which make the nuclei of atoms actually have more mass than what makes the nucleus. The missing mass in this example is actually transformed into gluon energy. In this case, when the mass of quarks come together, we find the final energy to not be equivalent at all.

And I think I see where this statement is coming from. You are stating that mass is not conserved, and (via E=mc^2) claiming that therefore energy is not conserved.

Sorry: no one ever said mass was conserved. And you overlook that E=mc^2 is not generically energy, but specifically rest mass energy---so, no, "rest mass energy" is not specifically conserved.

Total energy---the sum of rest masses and kinetic energies---is perfectly conserved.

This is why I asked for the full equation for solar fusion. The initial state (p+p+p+p) has lots of rest mass energy and minimal kinetic energy. The final state (4He + 2 neutrinos + photons + kinetic energies) has exactly the same total energy, but this is now divided up between rest masses and kinetic energies.

8th August 2009, 10:34 PM	#121
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	You're right. I'll tell you what i did. I took the equation E=\hbar k^2/2M and divided out k^2 wrongly. Oops.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

8th August 2009, 10:35 PM	#122
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	These equations are using natural number systems by the way.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

8th August 2009, 10:36 PM	#123
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	You are taking the units of G, M and c^2 far too literal in this case. Hence why i said ''quantized gravitational charge''.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

8th August 2009, 10:40 PM	#124
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,653	Originally Posted by Singularitarian These equations are using natural number systems by the way. In the natural number system, G, c, and hbar have the same units as always, and true equations still have the same units on both sides.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,653

8th August 2009, 10:44 PM	#125
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,653	Originally Posted by Singularitarian You're right. I'll tell you what i did. I took the equation E=\hbar k^2/2M and divided out k^2 wrongly. Oops. What? That's the same as E/k^2 = hbar/2M.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,653

8th August 2009, 10:52 PM	#126
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,531	Originally Posted by lionking There is another thread about this guy. To call him "fringe" would be kind. Ah, I see it. ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150007 ) Sharma's ideas would probably completely change the world, if they were true. The implications would have had far-reaching effects on power generation and management, space flight, communications systems, etc. But, for some reason, it's not doing anything. In fact, it's worse than that: *It does not* even seem interested in predicting any findings.** E=mc² is backed up with experimental evidence. Tell Sharma that you can't contradict the findings of experiment evidence with something incapable of generating any evidence, even in principal. You can only contradict evidence with better evidence. So, get to it!
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! Last edited by Wowbagger; 8th August 2009 at 10:53 PM.

8th August 2009, 11:07 PM	#127
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by ben m What? That's the same as E/k^2 = hbar/2M. Then the equation is right. $E_k=p/2M=\hbar k^2/2M$
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

8th August 2009, 11:16 PM	#128
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,653	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Then the equation is right. $E_k=p/2M=\hbar k^2/2M$ Nope. Perhaps you were aiming for E = p^2/2m = hbar^2 k^2/2M.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,653

9th August 2009, 12:56 AM	#129
catbasket atheist godfather Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The naughty step Posts: 1,486	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Either i need to go into a mental institution, or you haven't been keeping up on who is thrashing who here ... False dichotomy.
	__________________ Mathew 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

9th August 2009, 04:44 AM	#130
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by catbasket False dichotomy. I can make a list of five errors, three which i would deem ''pretty bad for scientists,'' - and that was all in just this week. Had great fun noting them down though, because everytime someone brings up who is right the most, at least i have their graces to fall back on.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

9th August 2009, 04:51 AM	#131
DazzaD Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Romford Posts: 303	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Who is haunting who? You are only troubling yourself when you infer to me doing something when commanded. If you where my professor, yeh, i'd have to, but not because someone here, who i have never met before, should i bow down to his wish. I am not a skivy of information. Commanded? Who commanded? Perhaps you misread my polite request. Specifically I said: "polite request" "Could I also trouble you, when you have a moment" "would it be fair to ask if you understand " "I would love to see a direct quote from a paper" Pretty much the opposite of commanding. Those are genuine polite requests. Or has discussion with other members got your back up so much that you see every post as a personal attack on you and your abilities? I would have thought that anyone with a genuine interest in science would love to engage in a reasoned exchange of ideas in order for both people to better understand the others thoughts and ideas and thus better understand the world around them. Those are not personal attacks but an attempt to directly engage with you on the very subject matter of the threads and the ideas that you yourself brought up.

9th August 2009, 04:56 AM	#132
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	when i have a moment? - yeh, but you'll be waiting a while.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

9th August 2009, 05:00 AM	#133
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by ben m Nope. Perhaps you were aiming for E = p^2/2m = hbar^2 k^2/2M. yes, missed it by a squared value.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

9th August 2009, 05:19 AM	#134
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,724	Originally Posted by Singularitarian I can make a list of five errors, three which i would deem ''pretty bad for scientists,'' - and that was all in just this week. Had great fun noting them down though, because everytime someone brings up who is right the most, at least i have their graces to fall back on. Typical, I can accumulate errors of the people on the other side of the debate, the fact that my errors exist is now inconsequential.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

9th August 2009, 05:24 AM	#135
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,807	This is like watching a penguin telling feathered birds they don't know how to fly. This is like a turtle telling a giraffe it's neck isn't long enough. This is like a tadpole explaining to a whale what the ocean is really like.
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

9th August 2009, 05:28 AM	#136
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,807	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Fine. To be true. What have you. No, not fine. Don't try to teach if you can't be clear and get even simple aspects of this stuff correct.
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

9th August 2009, 06:58 AM	#137
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,419	Originally Posted by catbasket Originally Posted by Singularitarian Either i need to go into a mental institution, or you haven't been keeping up on who is thrashing who here ... False dichotomy. I'm not sure it is...

9th August 2009, 07:15 AM	#138
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Thrashed? Either i need to go into a mental institution, or you haven't been keeping up on who is thrashing who here, because i can name five instances off the top of my head, where people here have got things drastically wrong. Your new theme song....Madhouse by Anthrax White coats to bind me, out of control I live alone inside my mind World of confusion, air filled with noise Who says that my lifes such a crime? Trapped, in this nightmare I wish Id wake As my whole life begins to shake Four walls, surround me An empty gaze I cant find my way out of this maze cause I dont care Fall in, fall out Gone without a doubt, help me I cant take the blame They dont feel the shame Its a madhouse Or so they claim Its a madhouse Oh, am I insane? My fears behind me, what can I do My dreams haunt my sleep at night Oh no, wont learn their lesson, white fills my eyes And only then they see the light

9th August 2009, 07:39 AM	#139
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,807	I cannot do the math, but still I try to teach It's not about religion, is what I try to preach I admit I'm wrong sometimes, but quickly pedal back Insulting those who prove me wrong, who show me what I lack-- Humility is hard to come by when you're Sing-Sing-Singing in the rain The Master does not have to bow, he does not have to train Of all the faults I've shown since I came here to pretend That what I know is what I know and never will defend With clearly spelled out reason, nor with sensibility, The worst by far is not admitting inability Humility is hard to come by when you're Sing-Sing-Singing in the rain The Master does not have to bow, he does not have to train Each and every poster knows I'm pissing in the wind I act as though I'm Jesus and insist I have not sinned He's never gonna prove it, he's never gonna learn He thinks self-education grants authority unearned I'm Sing-Sing-Singing' in the rain, time to go inside again To skim through Wikipedia, my all-too-trusted friend...
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

9th August 2009, 07:57 AM	#140
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Either i need to go into a mental institution, ... you said it, not me. But, yes,I would seriously advise you to check your meds level.

9th August 2009, 10:30 AM	#141
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,531	Singularitarian, You never addressed my concerns, yet. Can you propose some experiments to demonstrate you are correct, and everyone else, here, is wrong? Can you at least tell us some new and noteworthy findings Sharma's ideas would predict, that mainstream physics would not be able to? What specific implications would your ideas have on technology? (It sounds, to me, like it ought to be a world-changing proposition, but can you fill in the details?) (ETA: Ah, I see they merged the threads. So, ignore the first line of my last post in this thread.)
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! Last edited by Wowbagger; 9th August 2009 at 10:40 AM.

9th August 2009, 10:46 AM	#142
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,653	Originally Posted by Singularitarian yes, missed it by a squared value. ... but before you realized that you declared: 1) It was right 2) Something else (which you thought was different but wasn't) was right 3) It was in natural units (which it wasn't) 4) I was "taking the units too seriously" 5) You had been right all along 6) It was just a typo or something ("missed it by a squared"?) Yeah, I've seen oral exams that went kind of like that. The word "thrashing" is appropriate, but only in the intransitive, not the transitive.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,653

9th August 2009, 05:21 PM	#143
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	If anyone thinks i am replying to all of this, we can all play de-rail you know?
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

9th August 2009, 07:01 PM	#144
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,531	Originally Posted by Singularitarian If anyone thinks i am replying to all of this, we can all play de-rail you know? Am I to assume you will not address issues of testability and scientific significance?
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

9th August 2009, 09:59 PM	#145
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by Wowbagger Am I to assume you will not address issues of testability and scientific significance? No, you are to assume i will not be part of posts which have intentionally nothing to do with the OP, such a derogatory poems.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

9th August 2009, 10:01 PM	#146
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,653	Originally Posted by Singularitarian yes, missed it by a squared value. OK, so we've cleared up Nonsense Equation #1. Now, I mentioned that the first thing you did with this Equation was to multiply it by another nonsense equation with mismatched units. Care to fix that one? Take your time.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,653

9th August 2009, 10:04 PM	#147
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	This equation $\hbar=GM^2/c^2$ was the gravitational charge, and i had it noted from a published paper. Will take me a while to get them, so they must have use natural units. You will simply have to wait till i find it.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Last edited by Singularitarian; 9th August 2009 at 10:14 PM.

9th August 2009, 10:09 PM	#148
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Didn't take me too long postmetric units, human-scale Planck units G = 1.00×10-15 oc mile2 per talent2 elementary charge e = 10-23 dram (exact ... And since it is a solution of GM²=h-bar×c, the formula for it is (hbar×c/G)½ ... www.planck.com/postmetric1.htm - Cached - Similar - Here the equation is of the form GM=hbar c - in a different paper, the authors had rearranged the equation, in the form i presented, and they decided to translate it has the gravitationalc quantized charge.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

10th August 2009, 05:40 AM	#149
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,807	Originally Posted by Singularitarian No, you are to assume i will not be part of posts which have intentionally nothing to do with the OP, such a derogatory poems. But it was meant to teach you something. You like to teach, don't you? If you feel I'm wrong, why not insult me as you have so freely with other posters? Get ready, there's someone walking over your bridge...
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

10th August 2009, 05:44 AM	#150
edd Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,560	Originally Posted by ben m You multiply the left by hbar (units J-s) and the left by GM/c2 (units meters)---what sense does that make? Do you really think hbar = GM/c^2? Anyway, all together that gets us to kg^2 m^2 s^-3 = m^3 s^-1 kg^-1. Sing: there are no true equations in all of physics with mismatched units. None at all. Zero. Lessons have not been learnt from singularitarian's statement that p=gamma mv^2 (or whatever it was - it was certainly dimensionally like that though)
edd Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,560	__________________ When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz

10th August 2009, 05:51 AM	#151
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,419	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Here the equation is of the form GM=hbar c That equation is dimensionally inconsistent.

10th August 2009, 07:59 AM	#152
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,531	Originally Posted by Singularitarian No, you are to assume i will not be part of posts which have intentionally nothing to do with the OP, such a derogatory poems. Your OP seems to be making a scientific claim. Since scientists like to test their ideas, I figured I would ask how you, or Sharma, intend to get these ideas verified through testing. Without such effort, all you have is mathematics-based philosophy, with no impact on the real world. You disagree? You think the formulas and ideas in the OP do have an impact on the real world? Then prove it! Figure out what unique things they can predict, that conventional physics would not, then propose a test to see if they were on the right track.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

10th August 2009, 08:24 AM	#153
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,653	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Here the equation is of the form GM=hbar c - in a different paper, the authors had rearranged the equation, in the form i presented, and they decided to translate it has the gravitationalc quantized charge. The page you linked to cites GM^2 = hbar c. (Note that the units match). That is different from GM = hbar c^2 from your essay as well as from GM = hbar c from your "correction".
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,653

10th August 2009, 09:33 AM	#154
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,201	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Here the equation is of the form GM=hbar c - in a different paper, the authors had rearranged the equation, in the form i presented, and they decided to translate it has the gravitationalc quantized charge. Aside from the fact that you still screwed up the equation, the mass you get from the correct equation, while being uniquely defined, cannot sensibly be thought of as a quantized gravitational charge. Why? Because it's friggin HUGE. It's 2.176x10^-8 kg, or roughly 23,900,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the mass of an electron. And electrons aren't even the lightest particle we know of. Quantized gravitational charge? Nope, not even close.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

10th August 2009, 10:24 AM	#155
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,653	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Also, the quarks which make the nuclei of atoms actually have more mass than what makes the nucleus. The missing mass in this example is actually transformed into gluon energy. In this case, when the mass of quarks come together, we find the final energy to not be equivalent at all. And I think I see where this statement is coming from. You are stating that mass is not conserved, and (via E=mc^2) claiming that therefore energy is not conserved. Sorry: no one ever said mass was conserved. And you overlook that E=mc^2 is not generically energy, but specifically rest mass energy---so, no, "rest mass energy" is not specifically conserved. Total energy---the sum of rest masses and kinetic energies---is perfectly conserved. This is why I asked for the full equation for solar fusion. The initial state (p+p+p+p) has lots of rest mass energy and minimal kinetic energy. The final state (4He + 2 neutrinos + photons + kinetic energies) has exactly the same total energy, but this is now divided up between rest masses and kinetic energies.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,653