Thomas R. Morrison,
you just wrote something that said none of the physical constant discoveries are valid science
Huh? I think that's a radical interpretation of the text.
The physical constants themselves aren't really discoveries; they're just proportionality constants. The gravitational constant, G, for example - it's the measured scaling constant for the coupling between mass-energy and gravitation. The
discovery was the law of gravitation - first, the approximate gravitational equation by Newton, and then the far more complete Einstein field equation. G had to be determined experimentally. In fact most of the physical constants remain to be explained by some underlying fundamental theory. The speed of light (
c) is one of the exceptions; it can be derived from the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum - two other physical constants.
I was not taking a jab at anything. trying to get you to allow that a new discovery might not be verified with numbers that could be theoretically predicted beforehand.
if I took to heart what you wrote, something like altering gravity with hardware would not qualify as valid research because it would be stumbling upon a new physical constant, and so it could not be verified with numbers that could be theoretically predicted beforehand.
Well it can work in the other direction too - an observational discovery (like the dark energy effect, for example) can compel theoretical explanations. That's much less common than the theoretical predictions leading to observational confirmations, but it does happen. It's trickier though, because first you have to prove that the effect being observed is not an experimental error, which is generally very difficult to do. Typically it requires the publication of the experimental/observational findings with detailed descriptions of the experimental rig and the protocols used, so those can be examined by other experts in the field, and if that holds up, additional experiments are performed to confirm their physical validity. Once that's done, the theorists get to work on explanations.
The best way to go, though, is when an experimentalist detects a new effect in the lab, and then comes up with a credible theoretical model replete with the appropriate mathematical formulation to explain it. A lot of that went on the early days of electromagnetic theory, with geniuses like Faraday devising their own experiments and publishing the equations that explained them.
This is the reason it was rejected by others in the past.
did you want links to the theory and the test ?
or is the entire idea that it would be good science still not valid to you ?
I'm happy to look at anything. I read your qualitative descriptions of the Wimshurst machine experiments, and offered some suggestions on further tests that might clarify the nature of your results. And that's a good start - isolating the effects and doing everything you can to rule out prosaic explanations. At the experimental phase it's crucial to have at least one expert in experimental physics involved to establish the proper controls and experimental protocols, but without quantifying the effects it's impossible to describe them scientifically or model them mathematically.
All i hear is blah blah blah but thanks for your articulated input.I wish i was more into math, but i did score in the top 5% of the nation in who`s who back in high school algebra in 84 so i`m not totally lost to it.
Then you should understand that dimensions are just geometrical directions. This paper gives a good overview of the subject of large higher dimensions, and it has lots of useful references for more detailed inquiry:
“On the dimensionality of spacetime,” Max Tegmark, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, Class. Quant. Grav., 1997
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9702052.pdf
You do realize this sentence contradicts itself...I'm not one to use yoututbe for any true source of information, youtube is entertainment, nothing more in my eyes, so posting a video from youtube for any kind of serious support for a discussion is folly to me...
Yeah there's some legit science on YouTube, but a whole lot more idle speculation, and rubbish. Even papers can be misleading - the link provided earlier for example was to a preprint paper, not a peer-reviewed published article. Which means that it remains to be properly examined for errors, and doing that for yourself is a major project, which is why they pay experts in each field to peer-review papers for the journals. I'm rarely willing to go to that kind of trouble, because as a rule of thumb, papers that don't pass peer-review aren't worth the time.
Think about it guys, We are all Validated in our opinions because no matter who agrees on what, We all retain our own views, Our own opinions. Here is why disagreements are a pointless contradiction, We all really come here for Diverse opinions on topics right? So us getting upset with each other because our views differ is really silly. It's the main attraction for all of us really. We all come here, To hear the other guys opinion. So why should we ever be upset when it's different? I mean, That's what we're looking for.
I see it a bit differently. Discussion forums are often a battlefield for competing memes to lock horns and fight to the death. In this "meme war arena" we should all do our best to advocate for the merit and the truthfulness of our memes, so that in the end, hopefully, the best memes win and everyone can learn something along the way. I don't mind when the heat is on, because that means that everyone is passionately advocating for their memes, which is crucial for the progress of understanding.
