tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post1091133280223764226..comments2023-12-27T00:49:31.972-08:00Comments on Aether Wave Theory: Higgs boson and fourth generation of quarksZephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-42869342933420698112015-08-04T06:25:54.247-07:002015-08-04T06:25:54.247-07:00The mass of Higgs boson found was at 4*PI/alpha. A...<a href="http://quantoken.blogspot.cz/2013/10/i-am-vindicated-on-my-prediction-eight.html" rel="nofollow">The mass of Higgs boson found was at 4*PI/alpha</a>. Alpha being the fine structure constant: 1/alpha = 137.03599911. So 4*PI/alpha = 1722.045.<br /><br />The mass unit equals electron mass divided by alpha, or 137.03599911 times electron mass, or 137.03599911 * 0.510999 MeV = 70.0252585 MeV.<br /><br />Thus the resonance state <a href="http://quantoken.blogspot.com/2005/03/mass-of-top-quark-calculated.html" rel="nofollow">Quantoken predicted</a> was 1722.045 * 70.0252585 MeV = 120.58666 GeV. That’s precisely where the “bump” occurs.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-82860619820753088752014-01-17T15:56:24.800-08:002014-01-17T15:56:24.800-08:00It is not Higgs - The basic concepts, principles a...<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302013v3" rel="nofollow">It is not Higgs</a> - The basic concepts, principles and statements of the electroweak and the quark-gluon theories and the theory of gravitation are deduced from properties of the point-like events probabilities. Higgs, strings, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are not required. Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-4436087320868377362012-09-08T14:11:37.559-07:002012-09-08T14:11:37.559-07:00Higgs mechanism for students<a href="http://128.84.158.119/abs/1207.2146v1" rel="nofollow">Higgs mechanism for students</a>Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-84258245044868860852012-07-13T16:10:28.789-07:002012-07-13T16:10:28.789-07:00The fraction of the proton mass which comes from i...The fraction of the proton mass which comes from its interaction with the Higgs mechanism is less than 1%. When gluons are bosons and they're supposed to have the zero rest mass in Standard Model (which is not true in dense aether theory), then the mass of proton is apparently higher than the sum of quarks masses. If the binding energy is not hidden in the qluons, where it actually is? And vice versa - if we can have a mass generated just with binding energy, for what the Higgs mechanism is actually good for? The binding energy of weak nuclear force mediated with W/Z bosons is sufficient to "explain" the mass of these bosons even without need of some Higgs field.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-15691097711870789582011-04-22T07:01:49.662-07:002011-04-22T07:01:49.662-07:00Dear Zephir,
I'm still waiting for a rectific...Dear Zephir,<br /><br />I'm still waiting for a rectification on this post ;-).Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-61461584118816634232010-12-29T09:09:04.215-08:002010-12-29T09:09:04.215-08:00Does Peer Review Work?
Peer review is important...<a href="http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/12/does-peer-review-work.html" rel="nofollow">Does Peer Review Work?</a> <br /> <br />Peer review is important for professional scientific community, as it should prohibit earning money with complete BSs. But for truly innovative and independent scientists its just a brake of evolution, as Einstein <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_9/43_1.shtml">already noted</a>. BTW Most of string theory publications were presented just at ArXiv, simply because of lack of independent reviewers.<br /><br /><a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43691" rel="nofollow">http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43691</a><br /><br />Peer review cannot work well under the situation, when the density of informations and the degree of specialization increases up to level, only experts which are very close to authors can judge their article in qualified way. It violates the anonymity of referees and their objectiveness undeniably. The problem is, scientific community needs to decide about grant and money flow faster, then the completely objective process could enable. In general, I'd recommend, the works of independent researchers shouldn't be a subject of peer review. Only if scientists need a money from the rest of community for their research, they should accept rules of this community. The more public money is involved into research, the more strict should be its rules for publication.<br /><br />For example, I'm developing AWT in my free time, I don't require money of tax payers for it - so it's solely in my competence to decide, where and how I will present it. Of course, professional scientists don't like it, because of my dumping price policy, but this is a life. Every community needs a competition from outside, or it will degenerate in less or more distant future. Actually I'm helping to increase effectiveness of scientific work for my own money, thus helping whole civilization.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-53863276520768031092010-09-06T16:09:57.025-07:002010-09-06T16:09:57.025-07:00Oh, I almost forgot,
You can enjoy the fire with ...Oh, I almost forgot,<br /><br />You can enjoy <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGYFlitLXGk&feature=related" title="" rel="nofollow">the fire</a> with the art, the best manner.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-12101074936754282272010-09-06T16:09:24.204-07:002010-09-06T16:09:24.204-07:00So, you can simulate a complex motion with or with...So, you can simulate a complex motion with or without physics. With or without academic science. But a physicist barely admits this evidence, that's the truth.<br /><br />Do you understand now, why AWT, Heim's Theory or Le Sage's theory of gravitation are banned by physicists?Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-45124531885183637192010-09-06T16:08:52.987-07:002010-09-06T16:08:52.987-07:00- The second paper proposes to make a simulation w...- The second paper proposes to make a simulation without physics. The results are even better.<br /><br />Specifically,<br /><br />“<i>We introduce a set of techniques that are used together to produce realistic-looking animations of burning objects. These include a new method for simulating spreading on polygonal meshes. A key component of our approach consists in using individual flames as primitives to animate and render the fire. This simplification enables rapid computation and gives more intuitive control over the simulation without compromising realism. It also scales well, making it possible to animate phenomena ranging from simple candle-like flames to complex, widespread fires.</i>“<br /><br />See “<i>Realistic and Controllable Fire Simulation</i>“ for more details it's also free.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-77083294818569640072010-09-06T16:08:28.827-07:002010-09-06T16:08:28.827-07:00- The first paper proposes to make a simulation ba...- The first paper proposes to make a simulation based on physics, including the three laws of classical mechanics plus an immense halo of tools or new concepts. The results are indeed very good. See “<i>Depicting fire and other gaseous phenomena using diffusion processes</i>“ for more details, it's free.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-22853021894432474822010-09-06T16:07:48.561-07:002010-09-06T16:07:48.561-07:00Exactly, Zephir, thanks for the link,
This simula...Exactly, Zephir, thanks for the link,<br /><br />This simulation has nothing to do with physics, but rather with a graphic description of fire using kinematics tools. You don't have to know any physics in order to make a realistic simulation of fire. The tools using to make these simulations are kinematics quantities. You don't need forces, stresses, energies and other concepts used in mechanics, plasma physics, ... . Although, you could use them, if you wish, with good results.<br /><br />As an example, we have two papers:Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-59926186781209651332010-09-06T16:04:01.427-07:002010-09-06T16:04:01.427-07:00Exactly, Zephir, thanks for the link,
This simula...Exactly, Zephir, thanks for the link,<br /><br />This simulation has nothing to do with physics, but rather with a graphic description of fire using kinematics tools. You don't have to know any physics in order to make a realistic simulation of fire. The tools using to make these simulations are kinematics quantities. You don't need forces, stresses, energies and other concepts used in mechanics, plasma physics, ... . Although, you could use them, if you wish, with good results.<br /><br />As an example, we have two papers:<br /><br />- The first paper proposes to make a simulation based on physics, including the three laws of classical mechanics plus an immense halo of tools or new concepts. The results are indeed very good. See “<i>Depicting fire and other gaseous phenomena using diffusion processes</i>“ for more details, it's free.<br /><br />- The second paper proposes to make a simulation without physics. The results are even better.<br /><br />Specifically,<br /><br />“<i>We introduce a set of techniques that are used together to produce realistic-looking animations of burning objects. These include a new method for simulating spreading on polygonal meshes. A key component of our approach consists in using individual flames as primitives to animate and render the fire. This simplification enables rapid computation and gives more intuitive control over the simulation without compromising realism. It also scales well, making it possible to animate phenomena ranging from simple candle-like flames to complex, widespread fires.</i>“<br /><br />See “<i>Realistic and Controllable Fire Simulation</i>“ for more details it's also free.<br /><br />So, you can simulate a complex motion with or without physics. With or without academic science. But a physicist barely admits this evidence, that's the truth.<br /><br />Do you understand now, why AWT, Heim's Theory or Le Sage's theory of gravitation are banned by physicists?Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-11385407416430694822010-09-06T04:54:12.295-07:002010-09-06T04:54:12.295-07:00Simulation of flame
http://www.youtube.com/watch...Simulation of flame <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vm5FTMPxz0Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-43635448731073345022010-09-05T15:06:15.298-07:002010-09-05T15:06:15.298-07:00What theory explains the movement of fire?What theory explains the movement of fire?Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-2596360734344034782010-09-04T16:05:40.315-07:002010-09-04T16:05:40.315-07:00/*..why the scientists accept some theories and di.../*..why the scientists accept some theories and dismiss others?..*/<br /><br />Scientists prefer theories, which are enabling them writing another theories. Some explanation or understanding or even ability to compute something plays there no role at all.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-59154550603445962852010-09-02T14:45:14.514-07:002010-09-02T14:45:14.514-07:00Then, why the scientists accept some theories and ...Then, why the scientists accept some theories and dismiss others? In the same manner why does the human beings embrace a particular religion?<br />I don't know, but for example Le Sage's theory can be used as a model of plasma and could have been used to predict cosmic microwave background. See the Wikipedia's article for more details. I think the science community has to pick up a theory as basis of a phenomenon and Le Sage's theory of gravity or Heim's theory had not luck.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-72203141740406448382010-09-02T14:44:20.992-07:002010-09-02T14:44:20.992-07:00Moreover, what is exactly a force F? the only thin...Moreover, what is exactly a force F? the only things that are objective in classical mechanics are the concepts using in kinematics to describe the motion, namely, position, time, velocity and acceleration. The other concepts including force, momentum, energy ... are simply resources using by human mind to explain the motion in an approximate manner. To describe more complex motions, you need to add more tools in the halo, and so on. But this concepts don't exists in nature. You could use another concepts or human resources to describe the same motion.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-16151802423832648762010-09-02T14:43:31.264-07:002010-09-02T14:43:31.264-07:00For example, is classical mechanics the correct th...For example, is classical mechanics the correct theory to explain the motion of the macroscopic bodies with low speeds with respect to speed of light? Any physicist would say, sure without any doubt :-D. But it's simply false. What is the movement of a towel of mass m under a rap in vacuum?. The acceleration of the centre of mass of the towel, only a point :-(, is approximately described by the Newtons laws if you model the rap as a adequate force F. What about of the geometry of the towel? Well, the physicists would start to build the halo to salve classical mechanics, the towel presents <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity_(physics)" title="" rel="nofollow">plasticity</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ2lWyTi0oY" title="" rel="nofollow">bla bla bla</a>. Ask to a physicist, (Lubos i.e.)<br /><br />“<i>... the towel is a macroscopic body with low speed so, what is the evolution with the time of the geometry of the towel? ...</i>“ :-OCiudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-37735225266625916882010-09-02T14:42:13.746-07:002010-09-02T14:42:13.746-07:00Well the problem is not solved, so I give my perso...Well the problem is not solved, so I give my personal point view. For me science is primarily an activity done by human beings. And activity that lets us to make tools to interact with nature. Any theory is unable to depict the reality. All theories are wrong and are inconsistent by themselves. You need to build an halo around the postulates of the theory to cover it.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-24730832281725064822010-09-02T14:41:03.301-07:002010-09-02T14:41:03.301-07:00Zephir,
The answer to your question is very diffi...Zephir,<br /><br />The answer to your question is very difficult. It's the main problem of the philosophy of science. What is science and what is non-science? Where is the demarcation criterion?Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-3948944142018251282010-09-02T14:35:23.886-07:002010-09-02T14:35:23.886-07:00For me science is primarily an activity done by hu...For me science is primarily an activity done by human beings. And activity that lets us to make tools to interact with nature. Any theory is unable to depict the reality. All theories are wrong and are inconsistent by themselves. You need to build an halo around the postulates of the theory to cover it. For example, is classical mechanics the correct theory to explain the motion of the macroscopic bodies with low speeds with respect to speed of light? Any physicist would say, sure without any doubt :-D. But it's simply false. What is the movement of a towel of mass m under a rap in vacuum?. The acceleration of the centre of mass of the towel, only a point :-(, is approximately described by the Newtons laws if you model the rap as a adequate force F. What about of the geometry of the towel? Well, the physicists would start to build the halo to salve classical mechanics, the towel presents <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity_(physics)" title="" rel="nofollow">plasticity</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ2lWyTi0oY" title="" rel="nofollow">bla bla bla</a>. Ask to a physicist, (Lubos i.e.)<br /><br />“<i>... the towel is a macroscopic body with low speed so, what is the evolution with the time of the geometry of the towel? ...</i>“ :-OCiudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-34997648737368539732010-09-02T14:26:02.834-07:002010-09-02T14:26:02.834-07:00Zephir,
The answer to your question is very diffi...Zephir,<br /><br />The answer to your question is very difficult. It's the main problem of the philosophy of science. What is science and what is non-science? Where is the demarcation criterion?<br />Well the problem is not solved, so I give my personal point view. For me science is primarily an activity done by human beings. And activity that lets us to make tools to interact with nature. Any theory is unable to depict the reality. All theories are wrong and are inconsistent by themselves. You need to build an halo around the postulates of the theory to cover it. For example, is classical mechanics the correct theory to explain the motion of the macroscopic bodies with low speeds with respect to speed of light? Any physicist would say, sure without any doubt :-D. But it's simply false. What is the movement of a towel of mass m under a rap in vacuum?. The acceleration of the centre of mass of the towel, only a point :-(, is approximately described by the Newtons laws if you model the rap as a adequate force F. What about of the geometry of the towel? Well, the physicists would start to build the halo to salve classical mechanics, the towel presents <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity_(physics)" title="" rel="nofollow">plasticity</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ2lWyTi0oY" title="" rel="nofollow">bla bla bla</a>. Ask to a physicist, (Lubos i.e.)<br /><br />“<i>... the towel is a macroscopic body with low speed so, what is the evolution with the time of the geometry of the towel? ...</i>“ :-OCiudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-56345715127231065312010-09-02T14:16:18.422-07:002010-09-02T14:16:18.422-07:00Zephir,
The answer to your question is very diffi...Zephir,<br /><br />The answer to your question is very difficult. It's the main problem of the philosophy of science. What is science and what is non-science? Where is the demarcation criterion?<br />Well the problem is not solved, so I give my personal point of view. For me science is primarily an activity done by human beings. And activity that lets us to make tools to interact with nature. Any theory is unable to depict the reality. All theories are wrong and are inconsistent by themselves. You need to build an halo around the postulates of the theory to cover it. For example, is classical mechanics the correct theory to explain the motion of the macroscopic bodies with low speeds with respect to the speed of light? Any physicist would say, sure without any doubt :-). But it's simply false. What is the movement of a towel of mass m under a rap in vacuum?. The acceleration of the centre of mass of the towel, only a point :-(, is approximately described by the Newton's laws if you model the rap as a adequate force F. What about of the geometry of the towel? Well, the physicists would start to build the halo to salve classical mechanics, the towel presents <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity_(physics)" title="" rel="nofollow">plasticity</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ2lWyTi0oY" title="" rel="nofollow">bla bla bla</a>. Ask to a physicist, (Lubos i.e.)<br /><br />“<i>... the towel is a macroscopic body with low speed so, what is the evolution with the time of the geometry of the towel? ...</i>“ :-O<br /><br />Moreover, what is exactly a force F? the only things that are objective in classical mechanics are the concepts using in kinematics to describe the motion, namely, position, time, velocity and acceleration. The other concepts including force, momentum, energy ... are simply resources using by the human mind to explain the motion in an approximate manner. To describe more complex motions, you need to add more tools in the halo, and so on. But this concepts don't exists in nature. You could use another concepts or human mind's resources to describe the same motion. Then, why the scientists accept some theories and dismiss others? In the same manner why does the human beings embrace a particular religion?<br />I don't know, but for example Le Sage's theory can be used as a model of plasma and could have been used to predict cosmic microwave background. See the Wikipedia's article for more details. I think the science community has to pick up a theory as basis of a phenomenon and Le Sage's theory of gravity or Heim's theory had not luck.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-73271799079932343742010-09-01T03:28:29.586-07:002010-09-01T03:28:29.586-07:00Hi ElCid,
Why these theories should be dismissed?...Hi ElCid,<br /><br />Why these theories should be dismissed? In particular Heim's theory is the only theory, which can calculate mass of electron and LeSage theory is the only one, which can predict inverse square law for gravity. We've no better theories yet.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-56477208254935350552010-08-31T10:52:36.494-07:002010-08-31T10:52:36.494-07:00Zephir,
The science needs money. Science is not f...Zephir,<br /><br />The science needs money. Science is not free. Scientists need jobs to sustain to their families and themselves. It's legitimate to look for money, even if you need to think up a God's particle. The life is not a bed of roses, despite all the things that were said to you by the liars communists, when you were a child.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.com