- Asked 3 minutes ago
I have a problem. Measurements show the opposite of what convention assumes. It occurred in geotechnics, but could affect all material modelling branches.
I tested soil specimens. Convention interprets materials as things where deformation is created (output) and force is applied (input). So, our task is: decode how much deformation a certain loading (force) will generate.
After 6 years of testing, I noticed the convention is misleading. Reaction force behaves as a function of deformation. Not the other way round. Stiffness hysteresis loop shape, size and position stabilizes within deformation amplitudes. You can control the shape, size and position of stiffness loops - using deformation amplitude. All applied deformation values - have finite answers, unlike the "infinite displacement" paradox...
It's a big problem. All software is designed to model deformation as a function of force applied. But in reality, force (reaction) behaves as a function of deformation. It could be we are stuck in a paradigm, where deformation is modelled as a function of force. But in reality, the reaction force is a function of deformation. F=f(U) not U=f(F).
The observations (empirical evidence) pointed me to an abandoned theory from 40 years ago (strain-space plasticity, by P. J. Yoder 1980). His theory seems to be not only compatible with the observed physical properties, but also GPU - parallel computation compatible (there were no GPU units in 80's... so "parallel spring systems" in FEM caught no one's attention)
So, we have something that is both:
1. Potentially more physically correct
2. For the first time makes elasto-plastic FEM is super computer compatible.
I am stuck building robots for industrial projects at the faculty. For tests which are meant to provide "quick profit" to faculty. "fundamental" research is not funded. Tried applying for radical research EU grant... the topic is way too radical for them.
All observations were made in spare time. Evenings, weekends, at times - using life savings... I tried showing test results to renown experts. They become red in the face, angry, and say "I have not seen anything like it". After an hour of questions - they find no flaws in the testing machines. And.. Leave. Never to hear from again.
The theory of P. J. Yoder was defended in public defenses multiple times in the 80's. It seems "mathematically equivalent". As in - proven able to do "the same" as convention does. Without anyone ever testing what such "reversal of coordinate space" (strain instead of stress envelopes) would imply regarding interpretation of material properties. No one found flaws in it "mathematically". Never proves it wrong. But... Forgot, ignored and abandoned.
I tried asking industries for opinion too. Industry asks for code compatible with existing software (return of investment). And I alone can not code a full software package. Frankly, I would rather keep testing, try to prove my assumptions wrong. But the more I test, the more anomalies and paradoxes are observed, exposed and resolved on the topic..
What is the "antidote" in such situation? Tests showing convention wrong. Nobody find any mistakes. Which leads to silence and being ignored.
Dear Tomas Sabaliauskas ,
you are not alone in this type of experiment. I (and others) are also trying to fight conventional physics but with meager results. I've decided to put my contribution on youtube, to reach some interested people. Youtube videos are not difficult to do (to my surprise).
Good luck (and don't give up)
JES
Dear Tomas Sabaliauskas
A paradigm shift is a significant change in one's worldview, beliefs, and behaviors regarding how something works or is performed. In the manufacturing business, paradigm shifts frequently occur when new technology is introduced that drastically modifies the production process or manufacture of a products or service.
Best Regards
Dr. Fatemeh Khozaei
Tomas Sabaliauskas congratz you have fallen into one of the hardest human error traps to disprove: it is the exact opposite of what everyone believes, you can still hear an example daily: the Sun rises in the East. Fire is oxygen combining with the candle or the wood not releasing magic. The old Fire-air and dephlogistication controversy. There are so many examples. But as Fatemeh Khozaei sort of suggests... can you patent this idea etc. to make some money? Stellan Gustafsson is right that you can get the message out via youtube videos but if you want some scientific acknowledgement I would start by a preprint, presentation, or poster uploaded here and obtaining a DOI number so that technically others can cite you, or at Academia.edu, or both. A great many people are unaware of the revolution that is Researchgate. Look at us, we have an Iranian researcher, two Northern Europeans, and an American collaborating with no paperwork. (no pay either) For the moment, Researchgate has a no censor policy, and is very similar to the early days of Wikipedia when that site delivered more extensive, better quality articles, and was trusted over than paid encyclopedias. Understand search engines can not scan Researchgate, so our articles are ranked by Algorithms and compared to other scientific sites. Google and Scholar (if your paper is cited) rank the corpus (collection of documents) here on a par with Taylor and Francis, Springer, Elsevier and others. I can prove it
Query Google with these key phrases
Microbial Outsourcing
or
Plasma Water Theory
and to see how important Check out the number of results or pages
indexed by Google.
BTW The former is a preprint and the latter is only a presentation.
Then, once your paper or presentation is on line you can try to promote your idea even on Wikipedia itself.
I hope this is of some help to you and perhaps Stellan as well.
Sincerely
Professor Christopher G. Yukna
ps Stellan you might peruse Rutherford Conjecture too
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics