**Posts:**38**Joined:**Tue May 05, 2015 2:55 am**Location:**Yerevan, Armenia

adolf512 wrote:Alexander Unzicket that debunked the higgs 'discovery' also likes the idea of varuable speed of light. With varuable speed of light you no longer need a curved spacetime. Honestly i dont really understand General Relativity but i still like the idea of the space being curved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxnFAbF9fKA

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3518

You claim that this armenian theory leads to force unification but this is just wishful thinking(yes i have read the paper). Unless you can derive fundamental constants with your theory(such as mass ratios, G, k, etc) you haven't arriwed at the funtamental theory. Maybe this armenian theory(currently it is only maths not used for anything good) is a part of the fundamental theory of physocs not yet discovered.

Physicist Peter Woit debunks Unzicker: he says he spent "a depressing and tedious few hours" reading Unzicker's earlier book "Bankrupting Physics", a translation of "Vom Urknall zum Durchknall."

Unzicker’s idea, was that any scientific theory beyond one clear to them must is nonsense. And that any experimental result beyond one where they can easily understand it and analyze the data themselves is also nonsense.

That is a junk science approach.

Unzicker is against 'isospin symmetry'. According to him, symmetries in particle theory are all a big mistake, “the standard model barely predicts anything”, 'the standard model can actually accommodate every result', and similar.

I would also be lying if I said I grasp all things Physics, but the man you are quoting has been labeled a crank by many who are quite respected in the field.

Another example besides Woit, Dr. Richard Carrier, from his blog, a comment re Higgs:

"..I suspect what you mean is that we haven't discovered a natural unit for the kinetic interaction, i.e. how much energy it takes to move one (arbitrary) unit of mass to one (arbitrary) unit of velocity (in a vacuum). The answer will have something to do with how the Higgs boson generates mass (assuming the Higgs mechanism is confirmed), which is answered by the predictions made by different versions of Superstring Theory (the Higgs interaction will be a geometric function of the dimensionality and oscillation of the Higgs boson and how these two facts affect other particles, i.e. why the Higgs boson never collides effectively with certain bosons, like the photon, but collides effectively with everything else).

But in any case, the answer will be presentable entirely in natural units. Since mass is entirely measured in terms of meters and seconds: how many seconds it takes for one (arbitrary) unit of energy to accelerate a body to one (arbitrary) unit of velocity in meters/second, for example, is effectively its mass, and in natural units, again, energy is simply a frequency, which is a number of oscillations per second, so all you have defining mass is a complex geometric relationship among meters and seconds, which are reducible to natural units of length and time.."

One need not believe in God to believe the theory has merit, in other words. Carrier is an Atheist.

Jacob Barnett, all of 17 years old, has yet to be debunked in his expansion of the Theory of Relativity:

http://www.theplaidzebra.com/jacob-is-1 ... l-physics/

Excerpt:

"The year before he entered Purdue University—at all of nine years old—Jacob worked on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. After reviewing his work, Princeton’s Professor Scott Tremaine says that “The theory that [Jacob] is working on involves several of the toughest problems in astrophysics and theoretical physics…Anyone who solves these will be in line for a Nobel Prize.” With a photographic memory, an IQ over 170 – higher than Albert Einstein’s estimated IQ – and having had his research published at the age of 13, there is little doubt in most people’s minds that Jacob Barnett, the boy who still has trouble tying his own shoelaces, is destined for nothing less than greatness."

What's more remarkable, adolf512, is his humility.

It is very White and Western to try and understand the things around you. A Scientist/Physicist/Mathematician approaches all things with the attitude 'I don't know.' Not, 'It can't be that way'.

This is why Europeans experienced an Enlightenment, and the 'Q'uran heads', as one very 'critical- of- his- own -people' Iranian calls them, did not. They would rather stick their head in a Q'uran than explore their own region of the world-it is White Westerners who come and discover what is there to be discovered, which they should find very shameful.

So it's wrong at this stage to be so 'absolute' in an opinion. As Robert J. Low of Coventry University said:

"..Special relativity can be thought of as the situation where we are ignoring the contribution of mass to the curvature of space-time: my point was that we don't really know how to deal with the more general case in which the quantum fields contribute to the space-time curvature. Take a look at http://www.mis.mpg.de/preprints/ln/lecturenote-3908.pdf

to see the effort required to work with quantum field theory on a fixed curved background, without even considering the issue of how the fields themselves then affect the curvature..." "..I'm saying that at the moment the theory isn't developed enough for us even to ask the question, because we don't have a theoretical framework which includes all the necessary ingredients.."

It's quite new and very interesting.