Could Physics Be *Terrifically* Wrong?

Euclid’s Fifth Postulate states there is one and only one line parallel to a given line. This is pretty good stuff that stood invulnerable for a very long time. Elliptic (no parallel lines) and hyperbolic (infinite parallel lines) geometries work just as well. Plane geometry is not wrong, but it is incomplete.

The Equivalence Principle postulates that all bodies fall identically - inertial and gravitational masses are fundamentally indistinguishable. General Relativity is the immediate result. Tests accurate to one in ten trillion agree. Can physics be incomplete?

Could be. Do left and right hands fall identically? Nobody has ever looked. Admittedly there are some footnotes and technical blather. It could be settled in existing apparatus using commercial materials and run by the usual academic personnel. There is one bench top test nobody has ever tried,

Uncle Al
(Do something naughty to physics)

You’re one of those guys who’s always sending me email, aren’t you? “I may be working out of my garage, but I’m pretty certain that I’ve come up with something that no one else has thought of and it means that everything up until now is wrong! Check out my webpage!”

Why do you believe that the Equivalence Principle may be wrong, apart from the fact that it would be cool if it was? Experimentalists typically wait a bit before testing every crazy-ass prediction theorists come up with, especially if those theorists are publishing solely on their web page and message boards…

Oh boy, Hiryu’s kid brother has discovered how to use internet explorer…

oh c’mon guys, it’s his second post, let’s be nice.

Hell, I think the science world could use some *WTHN type experimentation *Why The Hell Not

Everything these days is so damn expensive, scientists can no longer get a wild hair and try something goofy. We know some good might just come out of it, but the probability that we waste a bunch of money on a dud is too great.

I Propose a U.S. Department of Goofy Ass Wild Hair Experimentation.

okay, my tongue was kinda in my cheek there, but I think we can agree that some of the spontinaity and creativity have, by and large, been lacking in the Scientific Community these days

As a member of the Scientific Community, I’d like to reassure you that wild hair is still the norm among most of our members. Go to a physics conference sometime – it’s bed-head city.

All this time we thought gravity pulled and it was just a blip; a statistical fluke; we need a larger sample.

Remember the forum you’re in, guys. Behave.

UncleAl, welcome aboard. I, errrr, disagree with just about everything on your website. I also think I ought to warn you: this board tends to frown upon crackpot theories, so your ideas, if published like you did in the OP, will be challenged by our membership. You will be asked to provide evidence, cites, and logic.

Good luck. :slight_smile:

But what about the Golden Ratio. Will nobody think of the Golden Ratio?

Nobody is ever gonna make me go to a physics conference!

Try being stuck in a room for 2 hrs with 6 herpes virologists.

:frowning: Baby Jesus would have gotten some kung fu action going on there.

Is it just me or is there something wrong with the conclusion of that site?

And, to prevent his further discouragement…

If you can provide cites and back up, you won’t find a better place to discuss your theories than right here (at least not on the Internet). If it appears that you’ve really got something I like to think that the members will be more than willing to acknowledge and applaude you for doing something unique.

Be warned, though. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But we’re willing to listen.

this is just a classic case of the right mass not knowing what the left mass is doing.

I think I’m going back to the news article about the guys in Oz who think that C is not so constant (on a long enough time line) after that a little quantum mechanics to warm down the overworked brain.

Scienctists are looking for strange, unexpected things.

Example: tracking some of the space probes leaving the solar system has revealed that they are moving slightly faster than expected. They’ve looked at everything, propulsion leaks, solar wind density, etc.

This seems to suggest that the current theory of gravity may be off ever so slightly. Coupled with observations about galactic motions, they’re a lot of new ideas floating around about “fifth forces”, Higgs bosons, and such.

No one is trying to cover up anything. Quite the opposite. Some of the best minds on the planet are excited and working on exactly these issues.

OTOH, if you don’t know Higgs bosons from a hole in the ground (or space :slight_smile: ), you aren’t anywhere close to understanding what the current state of research is.

Moderator, “If you can provide cites and back up,”

Do you mean that 121 footnotes leading to some 250 refereed literature cites, cites, and websites aren’t enough? Click on a number in brackets - those are the footnotes. "8^>)

Do you mean that listing 17 fundamental mathematical symmetries within spacetime and the conserved properties thereby evolved through Noether’s theorem wasn’t comprehensive? Physics missed a property to test against the Equivalence Principle. Shouldn’t somebody look?

Do you mean that working for 18 months with the French mathematician who derived quantitative parity (and finding a bug in his software, and a few loopholes to exploit speed of calculation, and creating 14 examples of perfect divergent molecules) leaves some doubt as to the relevance of the measure?

Do you mean that working with an x-ray crystallogprapher who explicity hand-built all 65 chiral spacegroups on a lark and investigated whether they remain volumetrically chiral when the unit cell contents are achiral points isn’t sufficiently rigorous?

Do you mean that getting NASA’s senior big honcho on epheremides to do a little recreational calculation isn’t good enough to calculate solar acceleration at Earth’s orbit?

Do you mean that proposing a benchtop experiment to challenge physics at the Planck level is somehow insufficiently interesting? I propose doing it all in existing academic apparatus, you know. Gotta watch that budget - and no Podkletnov excuses.

If you espied a technical error, TELL ME! You will have beaten out a few dozen folks who do this sort of thing for a living. I’m submitting a four-page paper to “Physical Review Letters” embodying the net content of the site. I thought you folks might be interested in the big picture. It may or may not work, but it is fiendishly clever in knocking away the foundation from all physics while contradicting no existing observation.

Parity explorations have turned physics on its ear before,

and I didn’t even begin to touch the really weird stuff,

“If it is not forbidden then it is allowed.”
Somebody should look - or at least tell me why they shouldn’t.

Uncle Al
(Do something naughty to physics)

I think this is a thread for Great Debates. I am now moving it from MPSIMS to Great Debates.

Could physics be wrong? Sure, in this aspect or that. In fact people work like mad to prove that the existing model is wrong so that they can be remembered as the originator of a fundamental paradigm shift.

It’s a fundamental logical fallacy to think that because ideas that were first thought to be “off the wall” revolutionized some aspect of science that an idea will revolutionize science just because it is “off the wall.”

Welcome to the Board, UncleAl0

I’m going to separate your question into two separate questions:

*1. Could Physics Be Terrifically Wrong in some way

  1. Could Physics Be Terrifically Wrong in the specific way mentioned in your cite.*

My guess FWIW is that #1 is possible. After all, there are zillions of imaginable and unimaginable ways in which Physics could conceivably be wrong.

However, my guess is that #2 is totally remote.

I don’t know crap about physics, but I do know debate. NOBODY has made one argument in response to the theories postulated in the OP. One comes close, but devolves to ad hominem.

If this guy is so wrong, why can’t you High Cranium types refute the substance of his arguments?

—If this guy is so wrong, why can’t you High Cranium types refute the substance of his arguments?—

I am sad to report, in my case, it’s because I have no idea what he’s talking about. Too High Cranium for me to be able to judge anything.
I do think people have a bad reflex whereby they assume that website == crackpot. Of course, nine times out of ten, it might (Alex Chiu?) but it’s always still worth looking, for goodness sake.

—Do left and right hands fall identically?—

Perhaps: but I’ll be damned if anyone is going to cut off MY hands to find out!



First, your original OP did not state your arguement very well. You meantioned Euclidian geometry and then claim that plane geometry is incomplete. You then go on about (blather, to use your word) General Relativity.

At that point you ask if physics is wrong and link to your website. You Never stated explicitly in the OP what you thought was wrong with physics. From the OP I think that you believe that EP might be violated based on the “handedness” of a falling object. If my guess is correct you still do not explain why you believe that handedness matters. You provide a link that most Dopers won’t have the time to read. In fact, as far as I can tell, your OP is nothing more than a way to get people to hit your site.

After reading your site for a bit I sent the link to a good friend of mine. My Friend, I’ll call him Harry, has a PHD in Physics. Harry taught at two universities, worked with Feynman and started his own company. Harry IM’d me awhile later. He said that you are suffering from BWS (Big Word Syndrome)and that you are basically an idiot. (His words, not mine)

If you want to discuss your ideas put the idea in simple terms. If you cannot state your idea in simple terms then you are probably nothing more than a faker looking to baffle people with BS.


Is physics incomplete?

Well, of course it is. Duh.

Is our working model of the laws of the universe, commonly called “physics”, terrifically wrong? I seriously doubt it, since that model has served adequately in the construction of interplanetary spacecraft and nuclear reactors. Nothing the OP says on his website makes me inclined to dismiss the model we now have, though I’ll admit he might have some contribution toward the reconciliation of relativity and quantum mechanics.

It’s kind of hard to tell, since the paper is jargon-heavy and lacks an abstract.

I’d have to see some practical application. The hoverboard from Back to the Future II would help.