The current group of posts is to provide a counter-point to a course I am taking on the Higgs-Boson (see prior posts for a link).
Since I only have 1200 words for comments there, the longer responses will appear here, often (like this one) spread over two posts.
One thing about AuT is that while it was largely possible at any point in time, the proofs that guided the way are fairly recent, particularly stable black holes and a better understanding of individual forces even though neither in itself are particularly relevant.
The Higgs Boson (and by extension all of Quantum Particle Theory) was a particular case which I attack with relish throughout my blog going back before its "discovery." Even after the professed discovery, I said it was an illusion and gloried in the stories that questioned what was being discovered.
Why? AuT eliminates the Higgs boson by providing a different place from which gravity and mass arise.
Einstein and other conservation theories (AuT is decidedly NOT a conservation theory) allow the illusion of counting what you end up with in two or three places and saying that the sum total provides for existence. AuT on the other hand allows for creation of energy, which it must, otherwise at some point in time the universe could never have arisen.
So we're going to cover the current article "Why Newtonian dynamics is a good starting place to understand the scientific methods used in particle physics and show why it is a terrible place to start."
Before I even start, I want to point out that Parmenides, the true father of AuT, and Zeno knew this many years before Newton starting stealing his math from the Gauls (debatable historically and only mentioned in passing) and explained why. While the predecessor of AuT was largely complete, it was the science of the ancient greeks (or their logic, strictly speaking) that provided the correct path rather than the misdirection largely started with Newton.
My science would not exist without something to play the concepts off of, something largely accurate, but with subtle problems, like Newtonian Dynamics.
Only 1200 words of each of these can be provided, but I'm going to include some responses.
Here is a response to this question: "My understanding is that the Standard Model is "one of the most successful theories physicists have derived," a quote from "The Economist," July 13th, 2018. I also recognize it has problems of sorts, but do you think those justify calling it a "complex fallacy."
Reality is a complex fallacy. Now don't get me wrong, this isn't my idea. Parmenides and Zeno pointed this out 2500 years ago. Indeed, my work is but an extension of theirs. I've written 10 books on this subject, the last 6 (Algorithm Universe Theory) being the most up to date version, the first "The Einstein Hologram Universe" had some of the basics, but not the requisite math. I cannot summarize that or even the solution to Zeno's paradox of the Turtle and Achilles (in book 5 or 6); but over the course of my participation in this class, I will provide a counterweight for the amusement of all and offered without malice if the moderators don't mind. If you read my blog, you'll see that I took the position that the Higgs boson did not exist many years before its "discovery" and discounted that discovery regularly after it was published. This is not just because the Standard Model is flawed, it is because our entire perception of the universe is flawed-and I might add "IN MY OPINION."
Time is not what you think, the distance between points doesn't exist, existence arises before dimension, and black holes are matter solved with Fibonacci's math in five places vs 4.
And
My argument is that you can learn as much from a flawed theory as you can from an accurate one if you approach it as an object to be determined. During this exercise, I would encourage you to pick apart my arguments. That will help refine the theory if it doesn't eliminate it (think of all the time it would free up for me!). Over the course, I will discuss the experiments presented (1200 words at a time) and you can be the judge. The "fails" question is the easiest to address, so for now let me discus that one. From the course material: "we will start to describe phenomena at the subatomic scale, where the laws of classical mechanics no longer apply". It is appropriate to say something like "Newton's laws fail because..." but Newtons laws are great approximations. How can they work on a macro level but fail on a sub-atomic level? The subtle answer is that they do not if you apply the right solutions at each level. What are those solutions? You've actually worked with most of them all your life if your involved in math, starting in high school. The first answer is an answer to the question, "Why Pi?" (hint-is not, why not)
No comments:
Post a Comment