Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Like Tree1Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Sep 20th 2018, 06:54 PM   #11
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Xinhui Guangdong Province China
Posts: 118
...

So much mathematical commitment and people still feel so much misty, right? That's why sometimes I would rather resort to philosophical thought...
What's the matter concerned in your absorption and emission? And how is the absorption and emission carry out materialistly in your theory?
htam9876 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20th 2018, 07:35 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 10
The matter of emission is in the form of particles. The particles are absorbed through becoming attached (through the absorption of emission) to particles that exist within the object to which they are attached.

Particles of decreasing size exist all the way down to the groundstate (the ultimate microscale) of the Universe.

The dispersion of particles through deconstruction to the groundstate forms the base of the background microwave radiation.

paradigm
paradigm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20th 2018, 10:53 PM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Xinhui Guangdong Province China
Posts: 118
...

What particle and how to attach...
Stay calm..
I admire your courage...
htam9876 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20th 2018, 11:51 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 10
I'm not concerned about naming particles because I see them in level of size with numbers far in excess of those identify by particle physics.

The perspective is strictly materialist and so the emission of a particle is composed on particles of lessor size.

The idea of isolating the ultimate particle on which all matter is built, is see as nonsense.

I continue to refine the essay and build the essay.

Most other forums have banned me from posting the location of the essay and so I haven't been able to engage in any discussion on those other forums.

As far as I'm concerned, the perspective is irrefutable and so will eventually be accepted by the physics establishment.

You are one of a very small number of individuals who are aware of the universal law of matter presented in the essay. I also refer to it as "The "first law of the Universe".

Welcome to the revolution.

paradigm
paradigm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21st 2018, 05:12 AM   #15
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Xinhui Guangdong Province China
Posts: 118
...

I think that I am already mystery...you are more
htam9876 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21st 2018, 06:34 AM   #16
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Xinhui Guangdong Province China
Posts: 118
box philosophy

How to relate the four surfaces of a box(bottom removed)? You are trying to connect them with threads inside while I just put a cover on them...right?
htam9876 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21st 2018, 08:31 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 621
I have had a quick skim through you essay,

My main impression is that you are presenting ways in which current interpretations of the observations of the universe would need to be adjusted,
if one were to adopt your initial paradigm.

However, I was hoping to see a much clearer explanation of your basic idea and the reasoning behind it.

Most physicists will accept that there are problems with the current orthodoxy,
but any arguments to replace it must be exceptionally cogent.
__________________
~\o/~
Woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21st 2018, 10:19 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 234
Originally Posted by Woody View Post
I have had a quick skim through you essay,

My main impression is that you are presenting ways in which current interpretations of the observations of the universe would need to be adjusted,
if one were to adopt your initial paradigm.

However, I was hoping to see a much clearer explanation of your basic idea and the reasoning behind it.

Most physicists will accept that there are problems with the current orthodoxy,
but any arguments to replace it must be exceptionally cogent.
You are being extremely generous Woody!

In my opinion the essay has so many problems with it that it would take me hours to point them out.

Rather than reel off dozens of issues, perhaps it's much more constructive if I give some general points of advice that will allow your second draft to be considerably better than this one.

1. Structure your document. All papers, regardless of content, have some form of structure, such as the following:

Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, References

I understand that you're just writing an essay and putting it on a forum, not submitting a peer-reviewed paper to a journal or anything like that, but if you want people to take you seriously you need to put the effort in.

2. In your introduction, explain everything in detail or cite literature that does. References and citations are very important because it indicates that you're not just making stuff up; your work is relevant, up-to-date and informed. I've read plenty of papers where authors only cite their own work and it's a dead giveaway that the work is terrible. Also, it is the writer's responsibility to inform the reader about other relevant work and how it ties in, not theirs. Do your homework.

3. Don't assume that the reader knows the terminology you are using unless it's common terminology adopted by others. Explain the terms in the introduction clearly or cite literature that explains them (you don't need to reiterate everyone else's finding; just state the matter of fact and cite the author that investigated it).

4. Make sure your citations are up to date. In the essay you talk a lot about historical investigations, but your premises are general ones that can apply to modern physics. Stick to modern physics if you're discussing modern physics and only go back to the old discoveries if they're directly relevant to your arguments. Another dead giveaway that a paper is crap is that all the references are famous scientists from the fast few hundred years (Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, etc.). Only history of science papers should do that!

5. Don't make the title of your paper something that sounds like a Deepak-Chopra website. It should be named something like "A review of current physics research paradigms" or "A new way of thinking about physics research", but feel free to pick something more relevant or accurate to what you're talking about.

6. Presumably you want physicists to read your paper, so write your paper for your target audience. Physicists, in general, despise flowery descriptions, woolly arguments, irrelevant discussions and general musings. Get to the point, makes your points clear and in an order that makes the points clearly lead from one to the next and make sure your arguments are rock solid. Discussions are inevitable, but don't make a meal of it.

7. It's completely reasonable to be honest and admit there are some things that are unknown, difficult to predict or poorly understood. If you're not sure about something, just say it. There is absolutely no shame in admitting it. Stating something as true when you can't demonstrate it (or refer to another author's work where it is demonstrated) is much, much, much, much, much worse.

8. Top tip: whenever you read something in your work, read it back to yourself and ask "is that true? If so, why is it true?" Then:

i) if you know the answer and it's your own work, but it's not in the paper, add it;
ii) if you know the answer and it's someone else's work, cite the work;
iii) if you don't know the answer, find out the answer and then go back to i) or ii); or
iv) if you know the answer and it's somewhere else in the document, then go to the next sentence.

This can really help to identify 95% or so of the holes in your logic in your own work. I do this routinely whenever I am working on peer-reviewed publications. It's a lot of work, but it's worth it.


Hopefully that should give you some idea of where to start with improvements. Give us a shout if you want more specific criticisms.
topsquark likes this.
benit13 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21st 2018, 03:22 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 10
Although I appreciate you taking the trouble, I don't see any need to change the structure of my essay. I also consider the title to be prefect the way that it is. It's aimed at a wider audience than physicists. I have refined and added to the essay and now consider it to be complete.

paradigm
paradigm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21st 2018, 04:02 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 10
Although we live on the same planet and in the same history of that planet, we’re clearly on different wavelengths.

The essay is not presenting a new physics theory. It’s a new perspective on the fundamental nature of the Universe which results in seeing the present perspective of physics (the abstractionist paradigm) as limited in its capacity to explain the Universe.

The perspective is irrefutable regarding evidence and so it will eventually be embraced by most of the physics establishment.

The only issue is bringing the essay to the attention of a wide audience. I can do this by simply placing paid advertisements which gives the location of the essay on the internet.

Whether you’re ready to accept it or not, we have a revolution in cosmology than will have a wide-ranging impact upon science.

paradigm
paradigm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
materialist, perspective, rational



Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed