new theroy

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

Is Ring Theroy correct?

Yes
14
19%
No
48
65%
Still thinking
2
3%
Needs to be worked on first
10
14%
 
Total votes: 74

User avatar
shadowslayer
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

new theroy

Postby shadowslayer » Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:50 pm UTC

I have a theroy, but everyone at my school know squat about anything they don't have too know.

Ring Theroy

There are these little "rings" that make up everything, it's not the "god partical" but much smaller, what they look like are, well, rings, they are made of pure energy and because they are made of energy they move faster than light. the Rings are kept togher by "links" that are made of energy also but the diffrence between is Rings have little tentical things off them, they came in all shapes and sizes and diffrent frequnces, thus creating gravity, magnitism and so on. The reason why I believe it is correct because it explains magnitsm and all non-physical interactions between objects, at least more than String Theroy...

Feal free to add or remove things
Last edited by shadowslayer on Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:41 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"For without the darkness, how can we see the light?"

User avatar
antonfire
Posts: 1772
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:31 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby antonfire » Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:11 pm UTC

Jerry Bona wrote:The Axiom of Choice is obviously true; the Well Ordering Principle is obviously false; and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?

User avatar
Woofsie
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:11 pm UTC
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Re: new theroy

Postby Woofsie » Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:29 pm UTC

What you have is a hypothesis, not a theory.

User avatar
oxoiron
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:56 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby oxoiron » Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:48 pm UTC

It's not a hypothesis, it's a theroy (about magnitsm, frequnces and holding things togher with tenticals).
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."-- Mark Twain
"There is not more dedicated criminal than a group of children."--addams

User avatar
diotimajsh
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: new theroy

Postby diotimajsh » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:00 pm UTC

You can never go wrong with theroys that posit tenticals. That's my life's motto, and it's served me well so far.
Osha wrote:Foolish Patriarchy! Your feeble attempts at social pressure have no effect on my invincible awesomeness! Bwahahahaa


Blog type thing

User avatar
Pastinator
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:45 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby Pastinator » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:24 pm UTC

I'm sorry, but what you have definitely not a theory, and probably not a hypothesis.
A theory is what a hypothesis becomes after it has been tested a lot, and has not been disproved, and predicts something new about the nature of the universe.
Alternately, and old theory (such as Newton's Laws of Motion) have been disproved, but are still held in reasonable stead by the scientific community due to their wide applicability.

The brochure from the National Academy of Sciences defines theory.
In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,


Now what is a hypothesis? Wiki says
A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon, or alternately a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between or among a set of phenomena.


Now, your "theory" may make sense in the framework you have provided, and is plausible, however I would contend it is not a theory for two reasons
1) It does not make any observable predictions
2) It is not testable, not only in practice, but also in respect that you have not identified any tests that could disprove it.

It's nice to see people genuinely thinking about things in a scientific framework though, and I'm sorry if I was a little forthright in my deconstruction of your position.

Busdriver
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:04 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby Busdriver » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:39 pm UTC

The best part about this theroy is that it is perfectly consistent with the teachings of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Think about it...the tentacles aren't tentacles: they are the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendages binding the universe together and creating the forces of nature.

Also, in response to this:
Pastinator wrote:I'm sorry, but what you have definitely not a theory, and probably not a hypothesis.
A theory is what a hypothesis becomes after it has been tested a lot, and has not been disproved, and predicts something new about the nature of the universe.
Alternately, and old theory (such as Newton's Laws of Motion) have been disproved, but are still held in reasonable stead by the scientific community due to their wide applicability.

The brochure from the National Academy of Sciences defines theory.
In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,

...

Now, your "theory" may make sense in the framework you have provided, and is plausible, however I would contend it is not a theory for two reasons
1) It does not make any observable predictions
2) It is not testable, not only in practice, but also in respect that you have not identified any tests that could disprove it.


Keep in mind: he said theroy, not theory. They are two fundamentally different concepts! A theroy comes from the gut: it is intuitively true, and we can all understand it. Theories have to hide behind a guise of math and logic that make them incomprehensible all in order to confuse us. And theories, like you said, are disprovable. Theroy's aren't. Which would you rather have governing your universe?

sgt york
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:21 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: new theroy

Postby sgt york » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:14 pm UTC

shadowslayer wrote:I have a theroy, but everyone at my school know squat about anything they don't have too know.



This is actually an important question I'm about to ask....what is your age/grade level in school?

Below a certain age, this displays a good bit of thought about the nature of the physical world. It shows curiosity, creativity, and a desire to explain what you see but don't understand. You have the drive, but not the tools. If this is the case, I would say things to encourage you to hold on to the drive and foster it until you have had the time to acquire the tools you need to use it.

Above a certain age...well....

User avatar
Link
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:33 am UTC
Location: ᘝᓄᘈᖉᐣ
Contact:

Re: new theroy

Postby Link » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:19 pm UTC

My theroy is that the OP is addicted to goatse and tentacle hentai. But that's just a theroy, so it's pretty meaningless. Mostly because "theroy" isn't actually, y'know, a word. :wink:

User avatar
shadowslayer
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby shadowslayer » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:23 pm UTC

[quote="sgt york"]what is your age/grade level in school?[quote]

I am fourteen years of age, and a freshman(9th grade) and I posted this here so I can get some feedback on the "theory/hypothses" or whatever not if I used the correct termenology, I can go to my science teacher if I wanted that. I would like some ideas on the acuall "theory/hypothses" ok?
Last edited by shadowslayer on Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"For without the darkness, how can we see the light?"

User avatar
TaintedDeity
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:22 pm UTC
Location: England;

Re: new theroy

Postby TaintedDeity » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:38 pm UTC

What can anyone say?
When you get to that size pretty much nothing is provable or disprovable.
Ⓞⓞ◯

User avatar
shadowslayer
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby shadowslayer » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:48 pm UTC

TaintedDeity wrote:What can anyone say?


you can point out something, like before I forgot about nonlocationary of whatever has magnitesm in it.
"For without the darkness, how can we see the light?"

User avatar
CNiall
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:52 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby CNiall » Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:22 pm UTC

I'm going to guess this came about as a 'hey, this sounds cool' moment in a lunch break. I also hope that English isn't your first language, though your use of 'freshman' implies that it is.

User avatar
shadowslayer
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby shadowslayer » Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:32 am UTC

Nope, this came to me like it did for Tesla, in one of the inverter moments. I also just have plain bad spelling I always have and I'm too lazy too look up all the words I type. If the form had a spell check that would be a diffrent story, but it doesn't.
"For without the darkness, how can we see the light?"

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby BlackSails » Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:36 am UTC

shadowslayer wrote:Nope, this came to me like it did for Tesla, in one of the inverter moments. I also just have plain bad spelling I always have and I'm too lazy too look up all the words I type. If the form had a spell check that would be a diffrent story, but it doesn't.



Protip: Nobody is going to read anything you write if you come across as a moron.

Matterwave1
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:01 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby Matterwave1 » Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:47 am UTC

Let's start off with 1 concrete question:

How does your model predict gravity to work? Is it consistent with General relativity?

Then let's move to more abstract questions:

So, what advantages does this theory have over any of the other existing theories of the world?

Why do rings with tentacles which vibrate at different frequencies explain all the forces?

User avatar
spdqbr
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:41 am UTC
Location: A shaker of salt

Re: new theroy

Postby spdqbr » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:35 am UTC

shadowslayer wrote:*snip*....The reason why I believe it is correct because it explains magnitsm and all non-physical interactions between objects, at least more than String Theroy...


First off....
THEEEEEEEROOOOY JENKINS!!!!!! (sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

Second, can you elaborate on how it explains magnetism and "all non-physical interactions between objects?" I don't think this is intuitively obvious from the description you gave. Also, the statement "because they are made of energy they move faster than light" is fallacious. One does not follow from the other.

If you elaborate a little more, you'll probably get a few more meaningful replies. If you can't elaborate more, than your hypothesis is too limited to be of much use.
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

Galileo

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: new theroy

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:36 am UTC

shadowslayer wrote:If the form had a spell check that would be a diffrent story, but it doesn't.

Your browser can be made to have a spell check. Why, mine is right at this moment underlining "diffrent" as a word it doesn't recognize.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Wiglaf
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:54 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby Wiglaf » Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:15 am UTC

shadowslayer wrote:move faster than light

This would... break things. What would the implications of this be? What effect do you have in mind that would require them to move faster than light?
shadowslayer wrote:Rings have little tentical things off them, they came in all shapes and sizes and diffrent frequnces, thus creating gravity, magnitism and so on.

Magnetism is part of the electromagnetic force. It is mediated by the photon wave-particle, not some tentacle. In fact, without some other effect, attatching the force to the ring would probably result in a Bad Thing, mess up reference frames when you get into special relativity. Gravity is theorized to be mediated by a graviton particle, but so far we have yet to directly observe one; gravity is a VERY weak force.
shadowslayer wrote:non-physical interactions

Touching something is not really special or different from any other force. When two objects collide, (correct me if I'm wrong) the scale gets down so that the electrons are much closer than the protons, creating a net force electromagnetic force that pushes them apart.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: new theroy

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:22 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
shadowslayer wrote:If the form had a spell check that would be a diffrent story, but it doesn't.

Your browser can be made to have a spell check. Why, mine is right at this moment underlining "diffrent" as a word it doesn't recognize.

Does Opera have a browser? If not, beware, the fact that you don't have spell check may signal that you are committing one of the Internet's cardinal sins.

Anyway, on to the science. Let's look at your theory.

There are these little "rings" that make up everything, it's not the "god partical" but much smaller

You should probably be aware of what a "god particle" is. It's not one particle that makes up everything. It's the Higgs boson, theorized to be responsible for mass.

what they look like are, well, rings, they are made of pure energy and because they are made of energy they move faster than light.

You do realize that, from a physics standpoint, you may as well be made from "pure energy", thanks to equivalence? It doesn't matter--if energy could move faster than light, than waves (which are, in a sense, energy moving through a medium) would all be capable of this.

the Rings are kept togher by "links" that are made of energy also but the diffrence between is Rings have little tentical things off them, they came in all shapes and sizes and diffrent frequnces, thus creating gravity, magnitism and so on.

Again, here we come to "made of energy". But these tentacle things, I'm unsure about. What do you mean by shapes/sizes? How does this cause them to exhibit different interactions? What do you mean, frequencies? Do they vibrate? Why does that matter? Why does something with a lot of mass have one type of tentacle, something with a lot of charge have another kind of tentacle, and if you make the charge move, it gets yet another tentacle?

The reason why I believe it is correct because it explains magnitsm and all non-physical interactions between objects, at least more than String Theroy...

First of all, how much String Theory do you actually know? And how does your theory explain magnetism? "It's tentacles" is not a (very good) explanation for magnetism. "Magnetism is the relativistic correction for the movement of an object that generates an electric field" works a tad better, and comes from Special Relativity, to boot. And non-physical? Physicists study these things...if that doesn't make them "physical" by definition I'm not sure what does.

There is, in other words, a difference between "neat idea" and "theory". In particular, theories tend to have a bit of math behind them, and the predictions flow logically from a few basic axioms, preferably few of which are unproven assertions. (I realize that's actually the definition of axiom, but I can't think of the word I mean. Starting premises, etc.) Take relativity.

Do you accept that all observers at a constant velocity have an equally valid reference frame?
If not, well, we've been doing all our science while moving, and everything we can tell says physics is the same at all velocities.

Do you accept that the speed of light derives from the properties of free space?
If not, please go learn Maxwell's Equations, then come back.

Given that, it seems only logical that, since the properties of free space can't change as you move, the speed of light must be constant for all observers. From there, relativity just falls out. Sorta.

Your "theory", however, makes no testable predictions, has no real motivation behind its formulation, and is really just a bold statement with no real basis in fact, theory, or observation.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

Rentsy
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:13 am UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby Rentsy » Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:26 am UTC

This is why Occam's Razor is important. Scientific models should be as simple as possible.

Look, dude, you might be right. That might be the ultimate nature of the universe.

Your only problem is "How does this relate to things we can test with experiments."

This is a problem many theorists have. Extra-Special Relativity has the same problem: "We have a theory that explains everything. We're not quite sure what that would imply, but we're figuring that out."

Experimental types laugh at the Theoretical sorts, but really we need both to do good science.

My only suggestion to you would be to take a look at current theories as to the ultimate nature of the universe and what experimental observations imply. Like, see what other people are thinking. It's enlightening.

Thus says the guy who has just spent the last 24 hours trying to prove Fermat's Last Theorem the way Fermat might have.

sgt york
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:21 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: new theroy

Postby sgt york » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:36 pm UTC

shadowslayer wrote:
sgt york wrote:what is your age/grade level in school?

I am fourteen years of age, and a freshman(9th grade) and I posted this here so I can get some feedback on the "theory/hypothses" or whatever not if I used the correct termenology, I can go to my science teacher if I wanted that. I would like some ideas on the acuall "theory/hypothses" ok?


First off, I think it's good that you're thinking about these things. It's good to maintain a curiosity and make attempts to explain things. It's also good to present your thoughts for others to review and modify.

To your idea: This is an idea; it's not even really a hypothesis. To be useful, a hypothesis has to make a prediction. Of course, I'm a bench scientist, so it's likely that I'm a bit biased on that point. Pure theoretical types may disagree with me.

It's been said over and over, but that's because it is the next step in the method. What would this predict? What would be a unique physical and directly observable effect of your model? Unique meaning that other models do not predict the same thing. Physical: something that has an impact on the world/universe. Directly observable: It has to be something you can measure or be translated into something that can be measured. After that, you need to test it. Does what you predict hold true?

But, if you want to take this further than what is known and venture out into the unknown, you are going to need more tools.

The first tool I suggest you acquire for this kind of theorizing is more advanced mathematics. As an early high school student, you probably haven't even encountered the math required to really crack open this kind of thing. Think a few steps past calculus. Into the realm the average person doesn't even know exists, the realm very few people understand. But don't ask me; I'm one of those people that doesn't understand it. My math knowledge stops at scratching the surface of the practicalities of physical chemistry.

Another tool you are going to need (and from your posts, you are going to balk at this) is a command of language. Especially scientific language & terminology. If you want feedback on your ideas, you are going to run into walls when you use words in a way that is different than the people you are talking to. It's like speaking Portuguese to an Italian. It looks just familiar enough to be confusing. Misunderstandings are a given. There is a reason scientists get frustrated when people use the wrong words; science is filled with jargon and content-dense wording. One word means something very, very specific and a similar word means something else that may only differ in a small, but very significant way that may only be apparent under certain circumstances.

Regardless, good luck, and keep thinking stuff up. Just get the tools to do it well. Mental tools are just as important as physical ones. You can't build a decent house without tools, and you can't build a theory without tools. And the better and more diverse the tools, the better the construction.

At least get the math; it can serve both purposes. It's a language, too. Even if you can't use English to communicate well, the math will help you talk to your peers at least.

Tac-Tics
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:58 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby Tac-Tics » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:42 pm UTC

shadowslayer wrote:Feal free to add or remove things


Ok. I'll just remove it all.


they are made of pure energy and because they are made of energy they move faster than light


What is "pure energy". Do you understand why "faster than light" leads to nonsense? Don't you find it strange that so many good physical theories require a lot of math and this one requires none?

Take your crackpottery elsewhere =-/

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: new theroy

Postby Tass » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:48 pm UTC

Tac-Tics wrote:
shadowslayer wrote:Feal free to add or remove things


Ok. I'll just remove it all.


they are made of pure energy and because they are made of energy they move faster than light


What is "pure energy". Do you understand why "faster than light" leads to nonsense? Don't you find it strange that so many good physical theories require a lot of math and this one requires none?

Take your crackpottery elsewhere =-/


Dont be so hard on the kid.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5531
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: new theroy

Postby doogly » Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:30 pm UTC

Your theory as you have written it is hopelessly vague and nonpredictive. If I wanted to use your model to calculate, for example, the magnetic force between two wires, I wouldn't even have somewhere to begin. It's understandable for you to think something like this constitutes a physical theory since most explanations of real theories just sound like a picture when they are presented popularly. Like, general relativity might be explained with some bowling ball on a rubber sheet picture, but what GR actually is can be used to calculate things like the orbit of planets to terrific accuracy.

Also you can't have a physical theory purport to explain non physical interactions.

It's good to be curious, and you don't have to learn the entirety of physics to make contributions, but you do have to learn a lot. How to pose and attack problems in a meaningful way is important. I don't mean to be discouraging, but there are some tools you have to get first. What kind of physics readings have you done so far?
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
shadowslayer
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby shadowslayer » Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:39 pm UTC

The rings are made of pure energy because E=MC^2 meaning energy is the purest for of matter, and that creates Rings. The Links however slow the Rings down so that it creates a "barrier", so to speak, so the Rings cannot move as fast as they want. However, tachyons can move faster than light, how so?, because they are Rings without the Links slowing down, and constently going through the world, and I guess if tachyons are proven and we get a good look at them, it proves my idea.
"For without the darkness, how can we see the light?"

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5531
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: new theroy

Postby doogly » Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:59 pm UTC

What do you mean by pure?
Energy isn't a form of matter, it is a property of matter. You can't have some abstract energy hanging around, only stuff that is more or less energetic.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
shadowslayer
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby shadowslayer » Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:05 pm UTC

If you keep adding energy and loosing mass eventually that's not going to be something faintly reconizable as energy. Remember E=MC^2? showing energy is derictally, sorry if you don't understand my spelling, proportional to mass, not something extra thrown around.

EDIT: Oh, by the way this can be proven when scientest create abselote zero, and suddnely whatever they chill dissapears.
"For without the darkness, how can we see the light?"

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5531
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: new theroy

Postby doogly » Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

For low or zero mass you don't want that, you want
[math]E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2[/math]
Most things have much more energy in their rest mass term than in their kinetic term, but for light or some highly energetic things you have to stop using a simple [imath]E=mc^2[/imath]
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
watch_wait_plot
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 2:48 am UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby watch_wait_plot » Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

Where exactly do you think the idea of a tachyon came from?
They were mathematical artifacts that showed up in various theories, and were usually considered to a problem with the given theory. But the point is that they had a mathematical origin.

E=mc^2 was derived mathematically as well. Without the mathematical construction of relativity, we would not have this relation between matter and energy at all.

sgt york is absolutely right. Your interest in these things is wonderful, and I cannot encourage you to pursue them enough.
However, a fundamental grounding in mathematics is not optional in physics. Much of science (or physics, anyway) depends on mathematical descriptions of the system being studied. This is even more pronounced at the fundamental scale that you're talking about; we don't have anything else! Good theories make predictions that can be tested and quantified.

By still attempting to support your idea, you are indicating that you have missed everyone's point entirely. Before you begin to make such proposals, you need to learn of what already exists, and I'm not just talking about what you need to know expressly for this purpose. There are ideas, thoughts, and methods that you never will have encountered before and can show you just how interesting the world really is.

bjgriffin4
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:46 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby bjgriffin4 » Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:16 pm UTC

shadowslayer wrote:
EDIT: Oh, by the way this can be proven when scientest create abselote zero, and suddnely whatever they chill dissapears.



It is impossible to obtain absolute zero: wiki article. Stuff cant just "disappear". if you think this will happen you need to go back and read up on some basic well established physics.
BlackSails wrote:If you expose yourself to a massive dose of gamma rays you get super strength.

User avatar
shadowslayer
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby shadowslayer » Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:18 pm UTC

Right, I need to work on the math first...
"For without the darkness, how can we see the light?"

User avatar
CNiall
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:52 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby CNiall » Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:49 pm UTC

shadowslayer wrote:Right, I need to work on the math first...


I'm hardly an expert on physics or mathematics -- I'm pretty sure I'm the same age as you and pretty much teaching myself -- but what seems logical to me is to learn a reasonable amount of mathematics, particularly calculus, then move onto relatively basic physics. Of course, someone's probably going to come along and propose a better method, but it seems perfectly logical to me.

User avatar
Velifer
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:05 pm UTC
Location: 40ºN, 83ºW

Re: new theroy

Postby Velifer » Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:50 pm UTC

Backread a bit. All these physicist-types are telling you all the ways your model is wrong, because it isn't like their model. Cute. Your model does have some major failings, not least of which being that it doesn't really work as a model. Aside from that (yeah, um...) if it helps you to understand how things work, it is good.

If turtles all the way down is the framework you choose to understand the world, and that framework allows simple, comprehensible ways to predict, then that's the model for you. The Bohr model of the atom works for me. in fact, it's overly complicated. Thompson's model is simpler and works for my purposes. I don't really need string theory. Gravity? I have a useful and simple model: things fall down.

So all the people saying you can't go faster than light, what about gravitons, hey--special relativity, etc. are using their model to attack yours. They've never even seen a graviton! They condemn you for imagining fairies holding hands while they wave their fiction in your face.

Now for the bad news. As you learn more (and learn how to spell, ffs), you'll find places where your model doesn't quite fit reality. You have two choices: admit that your model has limits, or change the model to fit the universe. The more you learn, the more you tinker with the model, the more robust it will become.

Eventually, when you want to figure out the workings of gravity, there is this standard model out there that makes some predictions about gravitons. These are fairies, but they're mathematically predicted fairies that, when invoked, can make some good guesses about how things really happen. Unless your fairies are better at predicting reality than their fairies, your fairies are gonna get beat up.

Don't get disheartened by grad students who think trashing a freshman's first unified model is sport. Do be willing to challenge your model and abandon the parts that don't work or can't be challenged (or else we wander into religion). And again, learn to spell.
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies have nothing to lose but their chains -Marx

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5531
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: new theroy

Postby doogly » Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:06 pm UTC

Velifer wrote:Backread a bit. All these physicist-types are telling you all the ways your model is wrong, because it isn't like their model. Cute. Your model does have some major failings, not least of which being that it doesn't really work as a model. Aside from that (yeah, um...)

Yeah, that is the major problem. What makes you think the physicist types in the thread are less concerned with modeling the universe than we are with having all models look like ours?
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Matterwave1
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:01 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby Matterwave1 » Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:35 pm UTC

But the major point is, even if you disregard all current physical models...his model still doesn't make a logical connection between cause and effect. WHY do rings explain everything, WHY are tentacles necessary, WHY does "pure energy" travel faster than light? etc.

We can take them as axioms, if we wish.

Axiom 1) Rings make up all matter
Axiom 2) Tentacles connect these rings
Axiom 3) Rings vibrate at certain frequencies
Axiom 4) Pure energy is what this is made of, and it goes faster than light

Now, what do these axioms tell us? Do they give us any predictions we can test? As far as I can tell, it doesn't give any testable predictions. If he can show 1 testable implication of these axioms then he is on his way. Otherwise, I may as well describe the universe using invisible spaghetti monster balls.

User avatar
The Boz
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:52 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby The Boz » Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:44 pm UTC

Too good not to do...
Image
:D
MAKE LOVE, NOT SPAM!

User avatar
shadowslayer
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: new theroy

Postby shadowslayer » Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:58 pm UTC

I just like the fact that someone did something for me.
"For without the darkness, how can we see the light?"

User avatar
eternauta3k
Posts: 519
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:19 am UTC
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: new theroy

Postby eternauta3k » Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:41 pm UTC

Am I the only one who thinks the theroy is a silly attempt to parody string theory, like FSM is a parody of ID? (except FSM is funny).

Edit: also, otter/duck?
VectorZero wrote:It takes a real man to impact his own radius

That's right, slash your emo-wrists and spill all your emo-globin

asad137
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:58 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: new theroy

Postby asad137 » Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:08 am UTC

shadowslayer wrote:The rings are made of pure energy because E=MC^2 meaning energy is the purest for of matter, and that creates Rings.


Why? How does the conclusion in this statement follow from the rest of it?

Asad


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests