I wrote a scathing response on the Triton Station blog after a few name-calling comments asking Stacy to disallow heretical commenters. I’ve included an edited and enhanced (for pithiness) version below. Stacy has already offered that as long as I keep comments about NPQG brief and post a link to longer content he will allow it. That is very kind of Stacy. I can be a persistent pain in the arse to physicists, but I do feel that I must do my best to transfer knowledge and insight. Stacy is a deep thinker, so my hope is he can recognize something I say as promising. Plus, I am focusing more on trying to learn enough about each of Stacy’s blog posts to engage directly. It’s a challenge considering Stacy and many of his followers are in this field as a long term professionals and have a highly precise language with deep meaning and history baked in.
As long as we are making requests of our host, Stacy, who by all knowledge is a most excellent human bean, I would like to make the following request. Could the commenters please eliminate biting personal words like “crank”, and “crackpot”? It really does have an effect on me and hence my productivity. Perhaps I have a thin skin for personal insults to my thinking, but it is really insulting to be personally attacked as if I am doing something bad or evil. Maybe I’m soft, but I’d much rather that after consideration of my ideas you offer your opinion on the ideas and perhaps some helpful gentle guidance – like a coach. Like you have some idea of where I am going. I’m not sure you all realize how much the enthusiasts or creative thinkers rely on all of the outreaching professionals, technical papers, presentations, books, blogs, youtubes and comments to learn as quickly as we can. It’s just crushing to be continually subject to disdain like this. Especially when you are right! 🙂
The irony of discussing rubber sheets with those who truly believe that spacetime is a stretchy/curvy geometry with no physical basis is not lost on me, but as I object to to the c-words I will stick to pointing out the weaknesses in your arguments. GR and QM have never been unified (by physicists). Scientists don’t have a solid theory on what happens inside black holes, especially where the math breaks down. Yet they will trust that the math of spacetime as described by Einstein’s geometrical equations describes something fundamental.
Then we could go into the long list of all the math physicists have that describe behaviour that fits perfectly with point charges. Here are just a few!
- wave-particle duality
- particles with dipole moments
- particles with DeBroglie wavelength
- the Planck equations and the avoidance of the UV catastrophe
- all these particles transmute
- there are virtual particles
- why is energy transacted in h-bar units of angular momentum?
It all comes down to physicists threw away the actual solution of point charges and left them on the discard pile because they did not imagine a field effect that would establish the Planck scale. I hope I am not being harsh in saying that such lack of imagination is very hard to understand and reconcile from the other side of the paradigm shift, where it looks totally obvious. Maybe “it is what it is”. So close, so many times, yet so far away.
No, I won’t agree to sweeping this tragedy under the rug. That would be a greater travesty than ‘shut up and calculate‘! Many thorough historical studies by professional physics historians will be required to understand what happened. We have a due diligence to analyze the root causes of how the scientific method failed in physics and cosmology. We will also need new tenets in the scientific method that address issues of wrong priors and orthodoxy.
Perhaps the only real wormhole is in the thinking. Before you get to the paradigm shifting wormhole, you don’t even know it is there. Once your mind is spaghettified and rematerialized, then you are on the other side of the wormhole and it is a beautiful new world where nature makes eminent sense. A world where scientific progress is straight forward because we have the architecture of nature as a reference. On the bright side of this thought wormhole it becomes difficult to imagine how we came to believe in the many false priors of the GR-QM-LCDM era.
Astrophysicists may be in the best position to understand orbiting point charges. Imagine a bang of point charges that had been at the density such that the point charges were as close as possible with the closest approach being twice the radius of immutability. So what are they going to do in the maelstrom that ensues when they can breach containment? They are going to start following Maxwells’ equations and classical mechanics. And dipoles will form. And those dipoles are going to have some pretty big magnetic fields as they begin inflating and expanding from the Planck core density.
Does no one else have the feel for what happens with an electrino and positrino chasing each other in a circular orbit (if isolated). You have the opposite charge attraction of course. You have the kinetic energy in momentum and velocity of the point charges. And you have a B field that each exerts on the other and that takes some delta time to propagate and that right there is what makes the magic underneath all your theories. For a more advanced treatment, consider all 10^44 stable states of the dipole geometry.
Eigenvalues and mixing angles. I have a physical intuition that this math ties directly to three spinning dipoles of point charges. Solar neutrinos are sort of like a very low energy core of the type found in other fermions. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.02534
Hi Dr. Paul, I get it that physicists are loathe to talk to outsiders with ideas, but I can explain all of this pretty well. It comes down to the issue that physicists threw point charges on the bone pile of discarded ideas because if they were truly point charges then nothing would prevent oppposites from approaching radius=0 and then all heck breaks loose everywhere in physics due to infinities. The part physicists missed is that there is something, probably a field effect, that gives point charges immutability, specifically that no other point charge can approach within some minimum radius R around the Planck length. This makes all the difference and you can easily see that dipoles will form after a bang and bingo, bango, bongo pretty much everything is based on dipoles, including neutrinos, which are a triplet of point charge dipoles at different energies. Since the overall energy is so low and they are moving so fast, they are not able to maintain 3 dipole confinement where the outer dipole shields the energy of the inner two. Hence we see the oscillation because this geometry is revealing the mass energy combination of all three dipoles when the inner one or middle one is less shielded. This is the same mechanism for generations of fermions. Generation + dipoles in the energy core = 4. That’s not really profound, it just means that we should probably pick numbering nomenclature that ties to the number of dipoles, and to be fair, the order of generations! Capture or be captured!
Please prepare for helping me explain how we need to turn everything we know in physics and cosmology inside out. It is so much easier to understand from below the standard model through to why supermassive black holes bounce rather than have a wormhole or singularity. Basically, we need to turn below standard model through to inflationary bang inside out. And the reason is a series of calamitous misinterpretations that caused physicists to set aside classical mechanics and throw point charges on to the bone pile of discarded ideas. Just like the isle of misfit toys, point charges are fine once you understand that all we really need to do is to pluck out the point charges at +/- e/6 and give them a field effect that makes them immutable at a radius near the Planck length. That’s it. Oh yeah and space really is Euclidean, and Einstein’s spacetime is implemented by point charge structures at lower energy far below what we can currently detect. So, this is obviously going to be huge once the scientists get onboard, so please prepare. It’s so simple from the other side that all of fundamental nature will be taught in high school in the future if not earlier.
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California