The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

[bungee]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

but you will need a cage with a hole size less that the distance between the protons. You have to prevent the positive field seeking the negative potential. That is the challenge.

Is that the distance between protons in the same atom or the distance between protons in different atoms?

Again, I repeatedly make it clear that all I have produced is a debate.

But debate is just that, debate. If you want to change science you need hard facts not debate. That is why I asked about experiments or predictions that would prove your theory and disproved current physics. It's not about building an $100M institution but just listing out the predictions and experiments that would prove or disprove your theory.

You could then identify those which were cheap and decisive. If you don't have the money there are lots of websites now to get funding. As has been said previously it's not upto existing scientists to prove your theory right and the current theories wrong but if you have some hard experimental data that does not fit with current physics models but fits with your model then you have something you can wave infront of physisists which they will need to try to explain using current physics.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Well, thank you for showing your true colors. Now I know that doing harm (to society) is not merely incidental, something you don't care about. It's your actual goal.

Do you realise that you are one step away from having me imprisoned, my crime being that I harm society, as you see it? And what next?

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Here is something that might help. Consider that the three centuries since the publication of Newton's Principia saw an explosive growth in science and technology, unprecedented (as far as we know) in human history. A lot of that development finds its roots in the results and ideas published by Newton and his contemporaries, but at least as much, if not more, is owed to the scientific method developed then and further refined in the intervening time. The application of scientific method demands precision of thought and expression. The best language that humans came up with to achieve this requisite precision is the language of mathematics. The most successful application of the scientific method using the language of mathematics is in the field of physics. For example, theoretical predictions of quantum electrodynamics (a mathematical model) agree with experimental results down to ten parts per billion. On a more mundane level, your ability to read these words the way that you do (on a computer screen, or a smart phone, or a tablet, etc.) is a testament to the success of the approach applied in science: it is only possible because our predecessors insisted on using math in the description of physical reality. The approach is fundamentally based on math as the only language we have available that affords the required precision of expression and the discipline of thought. Common language is simply too ambiguous to afford reliable reasoning and communication among different parties. Where common language is used in the context of physics, there is a tacit understanding that precise math stands behind words.

To summarize: the success of science and technology over the last few centuries is due to the the extensive use and development of mathematics in the description and modeling of physical reality.

The success of physics in elucidating the material world is due to its reliance on math. In fact, every theory in physics is math-based. There is no such thing as a non-mathematical theory in physics. To say 'mathematical theory' in the context of physics is redundant since every theory in physics is mathematical. Now, Chris insists that he built a 'theory' of the physical world without math, which he dismisses out of hand. To this I say "No, he did not." Words and pictures are simply not enough to call it a theory. Furthermore, Chris claims that everybody (except him) since Newton was wrong. Well, in this case I must be hallucinating as I type these words on my laptop, getting ready to send them over the internet, as apparently the scientific and technological progress of the last three hundred years has been an illusion.

To be sure, I am not saying that we fully understand the physical reality. There are certainly areas defying explanation within the framework of the present theories. Also, there are lots of (mathematical) theories that have been abandoned by physics as they proved inadequate in describing reality. However, there exist to my knowledge not a single successful non-mathematical theory in physics. None. In other words, whenever a theory worked, it was math-based. (BTW, one can use simple formal logic (math!) to see what a statement equivalent to the last sentence looks like for non-math based approaches.) Since one approach (math-based) worked thousands of times before, and the other (non-math) never did, why would one expect this to change now?

Excuse the question; have you read, (and I do mean read, not just scanned a few pages), The Principia?

Even more importantly, have you published a detailed paper analyzing his wording, breaking down his thoughts into useful stages? Mine is in the book, show me yours please.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

But I would argue your strategy, particularly around the human equation, in achieving your goal may be quite seriously flawed and in need of a pivot.

Quite deliberately I have reduced your post to what I feel is the most important aspect of it. You may well be correct! Equally, I may be correct too! That is life.

We are all different in our outlook, such difference is what makes us human. I can no more become you as you me. Freedom of thought requires we each accept each others perceived flaws as human beings. My point of view is expressed from my viewpoint which inevitably stems from a lifetime of my own thoughts and experiences.

All humanity is flawed, if we try and see humanity from a single attitude of mind, of thinking. I am as human as anyone, deeply flawed too. That does not invalidate the questions I have raised, nor the solutions I have proposed. You simply have to accept that I do not speak in what you might describe as your language.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Here is Feynman talking about (the likes of) you.

Thank you. At the end, he says; "I read them to make sure". Just like a number of aspects of this debate, it is the very fine detail that will catch you out. You used this youtube video to admonish me, yet it ends with; "I read them to make sure" to the background laughter of the audience.

"I read them to make sure"

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Chris must be burned at the stake.....
(and of course I don't have the least idea if he is right or wrong)

Perhaps, in a very real sense, your comment strikes right at the heart of this debate; what one may well describe as a fundamentalist attitude to anyone who has an "outside" opinion. One of my hobbies is collecting old books and one of my favourites is; English Seamen in the Sixteenth Century by James Anthony Froude. The lectures printed in this volume were delivered at Oxford in the Easter terms of 1893 and 1894. Froude describes how English seamen that were, for example, shipwrecked on the shores of Spain and who could not show evidence of their adherence to Roman catholic scriptures; were indeed, burned at the stake.

The theme of a need to punish anyone who does not abide by a generally, (amongst the adherents), accepted viewpoint; runs right through human history to this very day.

Gosh! I smiled back at someone calling me what are dreadful names and am admonished for my smile.

Fundamentalism is the antithesis of freedom of thought; where science is supposed to be the engine of open debate about the ongoing search for knowledge; fundamentalism demands adherence to one line of thinking to be held above all others without any argument.

Dammed if one so much as dares to disagree; regardless that they have not read that of which they so ardently reject.

History is repeating itself here in the 21st Century; right here on the pages of iTulip.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

I have a great deal of sympathy for your dilemma. All of you have been taught that the only way to describe anything in science is with the use of complex mathematics and some idiot yokel leans over the fence and says: "Your peers made some very simple mistakes, not in their mathematics, but in their interpretation of the physical events they have been observing, and that all I have done is set out what I believe those mistakes were, and thus have set out a detailed description, using words and 216 illustrations, of a new way to look at the observations"

Scream and shout as much as you like, mistakes were indeed made, very simple mistakes too.

Calling me names does nothing to address those mistakes.

My lifetime of work has brought me an international reputation as an original thinker; not as a mathematician.

Railing against me does much more harm to yourselves; anger is a very destructive influence.

Yes, I agree, reading my book will be an almost impossible exercise for those of you fully grounded in mathematics; where the book deals with every aspect of the physics of gravity and cosmology, in words and pictures; as the book was written with a much wider audience in mind.

With the greatest of respects, that is your problem, not mine.

You're losing me Chris.

Let me explain why.

If I understand you correctly you claim there is what I would describe as a "cosmic Intel Pentium floating point error".

I use that mashup analogy because:

it relates to underlying architecture(silicon or cosmic makes no difference)

it is the architecture that resulted in a minor math error

it was argued as to whether it was a genuinely critical or trivial flaw

-----

Professor Tom Nicely discovered the flaw in the Pentium architecture, sent an email, and it resulted in
a problem that shook the semicon industry pretty much to its core(at least the Intel semicon equipment supply chain I worked in).

But here's where it gets interesting.

Pentium had been in production and used broadly for a year, without problem outside of extremely rare esoteric heavy metal number crunching.

Did the floating point architecture problem exist?

Absolutely.

Did it matter?

Not really, no. Other than costing a fortune and increase Andy Grove's(and all his minions') paranoia.

How is your "cosmic Pentium floating point architecture error" anything more than an unsubstantiated accusation if untested/proven?

Especially when you're positing a genuinely "cosmic floating point error" where the math works and no error has actually been detected, and more importantly, consistently replicated.

-----

I completely understand the "thinking" over the "number crunching".

I myself have shifted from being a coal face doer to a light blue sky-ish thinker.

I spend my days and nights thinking "What would Master Yoda say?" Before opening my mouth to try and challenge the smart kids doing all my heavy mathematical and engineering mental lifting. One of the benefits of making it out of the trenches and into command is I get to focus on both the people and the macro, rather than just the micro, problem.

But that doesn't change or excuse the existential need for evidence, otherwise your hypothesis is just an unsubstantiated accusation.

Or the desperate need for champions and influencers.

I have never come cross an example of a successful shift in architectural/doctrinal thinking that didn't involve limitless patience and exclusively positive engagement in lobbying champions and influencers.

This is a repetitive battle I am most familiar with.

I'm not here to debate or argue if you're right or wrong, that's outside my scope of expertise.

But I would argue your strategy, particularly around the human equation, in achieving your goal may be quite seriously flawed and in need of a pivot.

[Jam]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

[...] some idiot yokel leans over the fence and says: "Your peers made some very simple mistakes, not in their mathematics, but in their interpretation of the physical events they have been observing, and that all I have done is set out what I believe those mistakes were, and thus have set out a detailed description, using words and 216 illustrations, of a new way to look at the observations"

Here is Feynman talking about (the likes of) you.

[Jam]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

(and of course I don't have the least idea if he is right or wrong)

Here is something that might help. Consider that the three centuries since the publication of Newton's Principia saw an explosive growth in science and technology, unprecedented (as far as we know) in human history. A lot of that development finds its roots in the results and ideas published by Newton and his contemporaries, but at least as much, if not more, is owed to the scientific method developed then and further refined in the intervening time. The application of scientific method demands precision of thought and expression. The best language that humans came up with to achieve this requisite precision is the language of mathematics. The most successful application of the scientific method using the language of mathematics is in the field of physics. For example, theoretical predictions of quantum electrodynamics (a mathematical model) agree with experimental results down to ten parts per billion. On a more mundane level, your ability to read these words the way that you do (on a computer screen, or a smart phone, or a tablet, etc.) is a testament to the success of the approach applied in science: it is only possible because our predecessors insisted on using math in the description of physical reality. The approach is fundamentally based on math as the only language we have available that affords the required precision of expression and the discipline of thought. Common language is simply too ambiguous to afford reliable reasoning and communication among different parties. Where common language is used in the context of physics, there is a tacit understanding that precise math stands behind words.

To summarize: the success of science and technology over the last few centuries is due to the the extensive use and development of mathematics in the description and modeling of physical reality.

The success of physics in elucidating the material world is due to its reliance on math. In fact, every theory in physics is math-based. There is no such thing as a non-mathematical theory in physics. To say 'mathematical theory' in the context of physics is redundant since every theory in physics is mathematical. Now, Chris insists that he built a 'theory' of the physical world without math, which he dismisses out of hand. To this I say "No, he did not." Words and pictures are simply not enough to call it a theory. Furthermore, Chris claims that everybody (except him) since Newton was wrong. Well, in this case I must be hallucinating as I type these words on my laptop, getting ready to send them over the internet, as apparently the scientific and technological progress of the last three hundred years has been an illusion.

To be sure, I am not saying that we fully understand the physical reality. There are certainly areas defying explanation within the framework of the present theories. Also, there are lots of (mathematical) theories that have been abandoned by physics as they proved inadequate in describing reality. However, there exist to my knowledge not a single successful non-mathematical theory in physics. None. In other words, whenever a theory worked, it was math-based. (BTW, one can use simple formal logic (math!) to see what a statement equivalent to the last sentence looks like for non-math based approaches.) Since one approach (math-based) worked thousands of times before, and the other (non-math) never did, why would one expect this to change now?

[Southernguy]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Chris must be burned at the stake.....
(and of course I don't have the least idea if he is right or wrong)

[Jam]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Wow! so now I am a sociopath. Forgive me for smiling.

Well, thank you for showing your true colors. Now I know that doing harm (to society) is not merely incidental, something you don't care about. It's your actual goal.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

I have a great deal of sympathy for your dilemma. All of you have been taught that the only way to describe anything in science is with the use of complex mathematics and some idiot yokel leans over the fence and says: "Your peers made some very simple mistakes, not in their mathematics, but in their interpretation of the physical events they have been observing, and that all I have done is set out what I believe those mistakes were, and thus have set out a detailed description, using words and 216 illustrations, of a new way to look at the observations"

Scream and shout as much as you like, mistakes were indeed made, very simple mistakes too.

Calling me names does nothing to address those mistakes.

My lifetime of work has brought me an international reputation as an original thinker; not as a mathematician. Just one example being the award of an Honourable Mention for the Tour Eiffel de la Space Competition, where the French Government, live on French TV, stated that myself and my collaborator, Alan Jefferson, (led the team that configured Concorde for fatigue, Vice Dean of the Aero and Astronautics Department, University of Southampton), as having the same technological foresight as Gustav Eiffel a century before. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1575232?...n_tab_contents

The last chapter in the book relates a conversation with the then Emeritus Professor of Alans department, Professor G. M. Lilley, where prof Lilley had invited me to lunch and told me about something he had been told, that he felt might be of interest to me. He did not talk in mathematics across the table, he used the English language.

Railing against me does much more harm to yourselves; anger is a very destructive influence.

Yes, I agree, reading my book will be an almost impossible exercise for those of you fully grounded in mathematics; where the book deals with every aspect of the physics of gravity and cosmology, in words and pictures; as the book was written with a much wider audience in mind.

With the greatest of respects, that is your problem, not mine.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

No you have not (set out a new theory). Nothing you have presented here indicates that you set out a new theory in the sense understood by practitioners in the field--physics. If you want to see how a theory in the field of physics may look like, check out this link where the author actually describes a new theory of gravity and points out hypotheses that can be tested quantitatively. I want to draw your attention to the dozens of equations in his paper that make Verlinde's writing precise, so as to enable intelligent discussion about the (testable) consequences of his theory. By dismissing math, you conclusively demonstrated that whatever you have written does not belong in the field of physics. Don't know what it is, but a theory (in physics) it aint.

So, I repeat astonas' demand: Either put up or shut up. Either produce math to allow quantitative predictions (and, therefore, intelligent discussion), or stop promoting your writing as a 'theory.'

Of course, it's a free society, so, in the end, you can write whatever you want. However, know this, by engaging in this activity, you do harm to society: you divert the most precious resource, time of people, from fruitful pursuits. Knowingly harming society would make you a sociopath.

Wow! so now I am a sociopath. Forgive me for smiling.

[Jam]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

All I have done is set out a new theory; on a subject where there is widespread agreement;

No you have not (set out a new theory). Nothing you have presented here indicates that you set out a new theory in the sense understood by practitioners in the field--physics. If you want to see how a theory in the field of physics may look like, check out this link where the author actually describes a new theory of gravity and points out hypotheses that can be tested quantitatively. I want to draw your attention to the dozens of equations in his paper that make Verlinde's writing precise, so as to enable intelligent discussion about the (testable) consequences of his theory. By dismissing math, you conclusively demonstrated that whatever you have written does not belong in the field of physics. Don't know what it is, but a theory (in physics) it aint.

So, I repeat astonas' demand: Either put up or shut up. Either produce math to allow quantitative predictions (and, therefore, intelligent discussion), or stop promoting your writing as a 'theory.'

Of course, it's a free society, so, in the end, you can write whatever you want. However, know this, by engaging in this activity, you do harm to society: you divert the most precious resource, time of people, from fruitful pursuits. Knowingly harming society would make you a sociopath.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

I am no physicist.

The closest I ever got to being one was learning Uni Physics with a professor who led the effort to develop the flight control system on the Saturn 5 with thousands of other great unknown Americans.

I am leaning strongly towards Astonas and DSpenser.

I'm not bad at mathematics and have had an interesting and successful career cutting my teeth in semicon and at Amazon where math/data is king.

I firmly believe math underlies and explains both what we know, and it's highly likely it explains what we don't yet know.

Most recently I've been developing subject matter expertise over the past year in Lean Start Up methodology(including right from the very source in the form of Steve Blank) and applying it with considerable success across multiple domains.

How does Lean Start Up fit into this?

It's a pretty solid analog to the scientific method, but for innovation.

If the innovation hypothesised by Chris is valid, then a method of measuring validity is absolutely necessary.

As a book, as a business, as a movement, as a theory......it all starts with a hypothesis(or as I tell my soldiers, sailors, and airmen I teach Lean Start Up "just a f**king guess").

But the hypothesis MUST be followed by "BUILD( as in MVP = minimum viable prototype), MEASURE, LEARN".

Then it's a question of Pivot or Persevere.

A poorly formed and/of untested hypothesis combined with an inability/unwillingness to follow a logical and necessary journey of learning whether the hypothesis is valid or invalid is probably the leading cause so many people and their hypothesis stuck in eternal limbo.

My personal calling seems to be changing.

In the last year it has pivoted dramatically into championing a framework upon which I can train individuals and build special duties teams to solve complex problems that were initially focused on tactical problems that could be executed within 12 months.

Now we are already looking out beyond 2035, which with the speed of Moore's Law is just short of forever.

I can empathise with Chris from the respect that non linear, non conformist, diverse, and unconventional thinking is what I aggressively recruit for in building problem solving teams.

And going further in that direction I am acutely aware of what we commonly refer to as mental illness, clustering and correlating in the apex of the arts and sciences(John Nash's "beautiful mind").

This was brought to my attention by the husband of Dr Nancy Andreason the world renowned brain scientist(her husband is a VERY interesting fella famous in his own right) whose work I was introduced to.

I'm certainly not claiming Chris "suffers" from mental illness as we commonly call it like Nash or Edvrd Munch.

I'm of the growing belief based on Dr Andreason's work that it just might be nature's version of Lean Start Up iteration.

From a casual observer's viewpoint based on postings, I suspect that the greater risk for Chris is risk of developing a martyr complex, which would be extremely unhealthy, as well as a very high risk of sunk cost fallacy.

I know I am NOT the person who will find eternity, fame, or gratification through the discover of a new scientific theory, and I am the last person who would dissuade someone from following their life's passion, because that is what makes getting out of bed in the morning worthwhile.

But I also know that we only have 1 short life(until also proven otherwise) so we need to apply our time appropriately and with great care, lest we waste 1 precious second.

Me?

I'm going to live forever because Ray Kurtzweiler says I'm probably young enough for Moore's Law to beat my aging, factoring in a healthy "kurtzweiler margin of predictive error".

Then I'll know who's right 1000 years from now, when I bask in the glow of not having really done much with my millennium other than blatantly taking the credit as "the" teacher of all my young nerd ninjas who go and do bigger and better things I could ever possibly conceive of.

If Chris continues his pursuit I only hope he pursues the experimental and not just the low probability hypothetical.

And that he does so with the help of a diverse small team that includes devil's advocate and premortem emphasis.

It's not failing if we're learning.

Thank you; a very thoughtful post.

The underlying message being that one needs to create experiments to demonstrate, rather than continuously hypothesize.

The debate was opened, in Chapter 8 with direct correspondence with prof. Derek Sears. The Foreword is written by Donald L. Birx; he is now President of Plymouth State University. Part 2 underpins the opening of the debate with, as a significant part of the opening chapter, 13, a direct, visual demonstration involving 19 photographic images of balanced forces using a simple apparatus designed and implemented by me, followed by a further detailed debate regarding what are the forces involved and their precise location and Part 6 of the book contains many experiments designed to allow any other to follow my lead and see for themselves.

It seems to me that, before anyone adds further here, that they come to terms with the very simple fact, I already have had and do have supporters. When one sets out on what became a very long intellectual journey, some 15 years; many of my earlier mentors are now, very sadly, dead. That is life.

Where I strongly object, is when people that have not read the book come out with statements that create the idea that another, on the other side of the planet, might, even in an aside, question my mentality. Yes, as an original thinker, it is true that we do have to carry a burden with a brain that, as one very public figure here in the UK , (at the time my local Member of Parliament, with regard to another matter entirely), once described me as a "Visionary". More recently, last year, at a conference about innovation at Cambridge University, attending as a guest of Don Birx, the Chinese academics involved were sufficiently impressed with my input as a part of the audience, they titled me as a "Critical Thinker" and insisted that I join in the last session on stage.

Today, I am a respected member of my local community. In the past, have worked with many academics at the highest level over many years.

With the very greatest of respects, the outbursts here have been outrageous. Yet, again, I say; they demonstrate a deep problem within science; where zealots seem to think that existing knowledge is the be all and end all, to be defended using every emotive and personal reference available.

The question remains unanswered; who and for that matter, why, did the existing academics teach students to so vigorously resist new thinking? That I will leave for the historians to answer, for we can be certain that this thread will figure in their future deliberations.