Wizardry

Actually, that’s wrong on just so many levels.

First, that’s not how you calculate percent error.

Secondly, even if that was right, you have just calculated an error of 9.6%

Thirdly, you don’t even have the right result for your calculation.

186 228/193 088 = 0.964... The decimal point is in the wrong place. 186 000 is 96% of 193 088, not 9.6%.

It’s wrong, anyway. You actually calculate percent error by dividing the difference between the prediction and the actual data by the true value.

(193 088 – 186 282) / 186 282 = 0.036536 *100 = 3.6536% error.

Basic math, indeed.

Peace out.

Ray K

I don't even need to read Day's theory to know that you are obviously in way over your head.

A basic mathematical error was pointed out to you (it simply could have been a typo in the original paper), and yet you still didn't get the "basic math".

If you don't understand that .0964 represents a 3.36% difference, not 1%, then how can we trust you to understand and explain a theory that is supposed to presumably sweep away relativity and quantum mechanics?

Ray K

Or just 1 minus the .964 figure he cited. It's the wrong denominator, but still close enough in magnitude to make the point.

Automaton

Not a black hole per se, more like an extremely dense Bose-Einstein Condensate. According to the uncertainty principle, if the velocity of the particle was known to be 0, the uncertainty of its position would be very very large (I'm tempted to say infinite, but this would raise all sorts of problems - is this why some say it is impossible for matter to be at 0 K?). Bose-Einstein Condensates are very dense, but I doubt that they are close to black hole density.

BigAl71350

Ok, I was wrong. I don't think this is really about "me". I probably am in 'way over my head'. I don't presume to be the one to explain and defend Mr. Day's work. I find his theories of interest and value without pretending to understand everything. I presented it for others to explore if they were interested. If so fine, if not that's fine too. I attempted to answer some of the questions and comments posed as best I could and obviously did a poor job. I apologise for that but not for defending Day's work. I appreciate the posts and comments for the sake of discussion and expanding my persepective.
Peace,
Al

ohwilleke

For all the additional explaination the question still stands . . . does this theory make it easier to calculate anything? Does it say a planet or photon will turn left instead of right? Does it imply that Andromeda is 2 million miles away instead of several light years?

For example, when relativity was proposed, it showed that Newtonian physics was slightly off in predicting the orbit of Mercury, something that was then shown experimentally.

BTW the explaination given above shows a real misunderstanding of multi-body problems involving masses in space subject to gravity.

Malaclypse the Younger

BigAl71350

This is very important: We must imagine some simple order which shows (allows us to derive) the complex order we witness.

However, Mr. Day goes on to say:

The problem is that under the first premise, we have no way to distinguish imagined conditions that are corrections "from nature" from those that are "contrived" and not from nature.

The remainder of the post merely elaborates on this equivocation. SR is false because it is somehow 'known' that relativistic effects are not actually "from nature". But how is this known? The only argument appears to be from Mr. Day's incredulity and/or revealed knowledge; neither argument is considered scientifically persuasive.

What "new vistas" does this physics open up? What brute facts find themselves amenable to explanation (without positing other, more implausible, brute facts)? What does SR/GR/QM fail to predict (or predict incorrectly) that this theory allows us to predict? Does this theory solve the problem of, say, quantum gravity?

A mere metaphysical or ontological reinterpretation of SR/GR/QM cannot simply call SR "wrong", it must show (if it is not evidentially distinct) that the predictions of SR are accurate but can be reformulated with fewer, more intuitively appealing premises. But calling all motion relative seems intuitively more appealing to me (and, apparently, the vast majority of professional physicists) than the introduction of an independently indetectable "ether" with bizarre physical properties.

Ontological reinterpretations are interesting, because they show us potentially surprising ways to conceptualize what is known from science--the fact that two apparently different ontological interpretations are evidentially identical can either point us to new experiments to distinguish them or perhaps lead us to a deeper understanding of what is known.

However it is not clear that Mr. Day is merely offering an ontological reinterpretation of standard physics. He calls the standard interpretation 'wrong'--implying he has a way to distinguish his interpretation from the standard--and seems to actually imply that actual physics are giving us answers that contradict experiment, without explicating that implication with actual facts. As such, his exposition is at best confusing, and at worst fallacious.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

BigAl71350

ohwilleke and Malaclypse the Younger:
I began this response just prior to seeing Malaclypse most recent post. So we are looking for 'predictions' that Day's theory makes that can be verified (or not) through experimentation and or observational data. Obviously a reasonable inquiry. At this time I am not going to answer it directly.
First I am waiting to get Day's books (The Bridge from Nowhere, The Bridge from Nowhere II, Holistic Physics and A New Physics) to read for myself; perhaps I will find answers there to questions you have posed and those that I have.
Second, I have been corresponding with the Authors publisher and through him indirectly with Mr. Day who has been kind enough to answer some of my questions. I have relayed some of your comments and questions on. If I get a response back I will be happy to share them with you.
Best Regards,
Peace.
Al

Edwin

Why can't cranks be dimensionally consistent?
About as meaningless as saying that I weigh 25cm.

BigAl71350

Edwin,
Honestly I do not understand the equation in question but I gather you are saying it is nonsensical. Could you explain the equation and why you see it as 'comparing apples to oranges'?
Thanks,
Al