Farsight, your theories fit Martin Gardner's pseudoscience criterion #4 VERY well.
Here are the inversions in your theories:
- Mainstream: motion a function of time. Farsight: time is somehow a byproduct of motion.
- Mainstream: stability has nothing to do with elementariness. Farsight: unstable particles cannot be elementary.
- Mainstream: decays happen by creating new particles. Farsight: decays happen by releasing trapped particles, or something like that.
- Mainstream: mathematics is an important part of theories. Farsight: it is secondary if not outright irrelevant.
I also notice this progression of physics crackpottery:
- Anti-Newton
- Anti-Einstein: claims to restore Newton's physics
- Farsight: claims to restore Maxwell's and Einstein's physics
Farsight wrote:lpetrich wrote:Farsight, you must justify your claims that your photon-loop theories represent the "underlying reality". At the very least, you must be able to get the Standard-Model Lagrangian out of your theories:
Standard Model (mathematical formulation). You must also make predictions of observable departures from the Standard Model.
The
scientific evidence justifies my claims, Loren.
You have to show how the Standard Model and other mainstream theories fail to account for that evidence. Otherwise your theories don't deserve to be taken seriously.
And when I mean the Standard Model, I mean mathematics and all. Like what's in that page I linked to.
How you can miss this and demand mathematics instead is something I find surprising.
Why do you think that mathematics is irrelevant? It's VERY relevant, or else we wouldn't have gotten anywhere beyond Aristotelianism.
Particularly when you demonstrate that you haven't read the OP and exhibit confusion about mass. Now come on, read that Einstein paper too, and look at the symmetry between momentum and inertia. There is no need for anybody to cling to all that irrational, mystic, "mystery of mass" hype when the real explanation is so simple.
Einstein-thumping. He claimed the opposite of your pet theories about time and inertia. I quoted
The Meaning of Relativity and you refused to acknowledge that he believed that time and space are co-equal as space-time.
lpetrich wrote:Farsight, I'm not asking very much by the standards of mainstream physicists. They consider departures from the Standard Model all the time -- supersymmetry, GUT's, extra dimensions, etc. Instead of whining about how difficult it is to get into print, you ought to try to come up with something that's worth printing.
Other people are doing that. People with far better credentials and mathematical skills than me. When they're in print, I'll let you know.
I'll believe it when I see it. Unless they can cough the Standard Model's Lagrangian out of it, I'll find it hard to take seriously.