Recently, I polled users of the Physics & Math forum on their thoughts and ideas concerning non-mainstream or "alternative" theories on this forum.

Two-thirds of respondents said that they would prefer that such theories be posted in a new "Theory Development" or "Alternative Theories" forum separate from the current forum. However, in a poll asking whether people would post to such a forum if it were created, half of the respondents said they would not.

What are we to make of this? It seems to me that some people want simply to move "alternative" theories out of Physics & Math. They don't really mind where they go, as long as they aren't here. Most of the people who see value in a separate Alternative Theories forum are themselves pushing what would be classified as "alternative" ideas. My guess is that they do not really want rigorous scientific examination of their ideas.

I sent a message to Porfiry regarding the idea of creating a separate forum. So far, he has not replied one way or the other, so I assume he is still thinking about it.

My personal view is that such a forum is not necessary. If alternative ideas are worthy of serious consideration, I am quite happy for them to stay in the Physics & Math forum. On the other hand, if they cannot stand up to scientific inquiry, then the existing Pseudoscience forum is a better place for them.

I asked posters to comment on a list of guidelines for dealing with posts on alternative theories and theories in the development phase. Given that there were no comments on my suggested list, I assume that posters were happy with what I suggested. So, here are the guidelines as I intend to implement them unless or until a separate forum is created:

1. Theories and ideas which depart from the mainstream of Physics and Maths will be given a fair run on this forum. As long as discussion of these ideas is constructive and involves scientific concepts which are testable or otherwise defensible, such ideas will be allowed to stay on this forum.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, I hope that the educated members of the forum can teach people who are confused or mistaken about accepted physics and maths. Secondly, I do not wish to prejudge ideas which may turn out to have some merit, even if they are not clearly expressed initially.

2. When a poster asks a question about Physics or Mathematics, as opposed to expounding a personal theory, the poster should be given answers based in conventional physics and mathematics in the first instance. I think it is fair to assume that when somebody asks about black holes, for example, they want to know the views of the mainstream scientific community rather than somebody's alternative theory. If they specifically ask for alternative ideas, then such ideas will be welcome. Where alternative ideas are posted in response to a straightforward question, particularly a "newbie" question, I will consider splitting the thread and putting the unconventional answer into a new, clearly-labelled thread.

3. Posters who are critiquing accepted physical or mathematical ideas should clearly point out what is wrong with those ideas, providing clear examples showing where the accepted theories are or may be incorrect. Preferably, such examples should be testable, backed by evidence of some kind or (in the case of mathematical criticisms) accompanied by proof.

4. Posters putting forward alternative theories should clearly explain the basic ideas of their theory, how their theory differs from conventional theories, and how their theory is likely to improve on accepted theories. Explanations should be backed by evidence. Theories should be testable and falsifiable. In short, alternative theories must be classifiable as science rather than pseudoscience.

5. Threads which are blatantly unscientific, which push ideas which are unfalsifiable (at least in principle), will be immediately moved to the Psuedoscience forum. Ideas which have been widely rebutted elsewhere, such as "pyramid power", alien visitations and so on, will be moved, as will discussions which are primarily religious in nature.

6. Threads which contain alternative ideas which have previously been effectively rebutted on this forum in replies to the particular poster concerned will be moved to the Pseudoscience forum. If a poster cannot accept legitimate criticism of his or her pet theory, discussion on this forum is not going to be of much value.

As usual, I welcome further discussion and/or comments from contributors.

James,

I strongly disagree with your attempt to make this forum conservative. People will fear to post any new ideas on this forum because they will fear that their idea may break one of your rules. As I said before, your rules will make the "Physics and Math" forum into a ghost town.

I hope that Porfiry creates a seperate forum for new and unconventional ideas because it appears that very few of my posts will pass your rigid rules (and I sure won't be discussing length contraction and time dilation in pseudoscience).

Tom

James R.,

It appears the policy is objected to primarily by those of us with alternative ideas and I can understand the response that that is because we don't have our S___ together.

But that isn't the only reason.

I for example WILL post the results of UniKEF gravity testing for it is supportable and I think pursuasive. But even though this small area of the concept seems viable your policy limits any further discussion of the genral principles of UniKEF for there is no further underpinnings.

Yet the mere fact of its gravity view being suportable should (in my opinion) make the MSB more tolerant to sunsupported aspects of the concept to be open to general discussion or debate.

But under these rules, I would not attempt to post them for I am sure there isn't simply one flaw but many. Your policy will tend to short circuit many generally good alternative views because of one (1) failure.

MacM,

Your policy will tend to short circuit many generally good alternative views because of one (1) failure.

Good point.

MacM and Prosoothus,

I don't see anything in the policy that would affect you or your ideas. Very roughly summarized, the policy comes down to: "You can post anything related to science here, as long as you don't shout "Conventional scientists are idiots" without backing it up scientifically".

I assume that you both post your ideas here to let people interested in science talk about it. So I somehow assume that you want to walk the scientific way, and back up what you say with a reasoning or calculation (which is more or less what I think you both did, even though not everybody always agree with it ;)). Where does this exactly violate the proposed policy ?

Bye!

Crisp

James

Two-thirds of respondents said that they would prefer that such theories be posted in a new "Theory Development" or "Alternative Theories" forum separate from the current forum. However, in a poll asking whether people would post to such a forum if it were created, half of the respondents said they would not.

What are we to make of this?

It appears there is a majority who wish to see the creation of a “Theory Development” board. That would suggest conventional science members would rather not have un-conventional theories clogging up the Math & Physics board and/or un-conventional science members would rather have their theories posted in a separate forum for critique.

Half of the respondents said they would not post in a “Theory Development” forum. Its quite possible those same members probably don’t post in the Pseudoscience forum either, so that statistic really isn’t indicative as to whether an alternative forum is a good idea or not.

However, after reading your policies, I think that you’ve covered everything fairly well. If it serves to decrease the general bickering, name-calling and profanity from the Math & Physics forum, I’m all for it!

I can presume we’ll be seeing a lot more of Prosoothus and his anti-relativity theories in the Pseudoscience forum. ;)

Q,

I can presume we’ll be seeing a lot more of Prosoothus and his anti-relativity theories in the Pseudoscience forum.

Don't bet on it.

Crisp,

MacM and Prosoothus,

I don't see anything in the policy that would affect you or your ideas.

If not our ideas, than who's. Who did you think the members of this forum were referring to when they said that they don't want to see any more "crackpot theories" in this forum? MacM and me, that's who.

So if these "rules" aren't directed at us, who are they directed at? When I present a theory I try to make sure that it is logically and mathematically consistent, and that the experimental data supports it, but regardless, I'm labeled a crackpot who just doesn't want to learn because my theory isn't mainstream.

Tom

Hi Tom,

I voted "Yes" on a seperate forum creation, and I didn't think "so we can finally get rid of Tom and his theories"... I voted yes because I have the impression that this forum is being flooded by people with the wierdest plans and ideas that they absolutely want to promote.

As a matter of fact, I enjoy talking to you about relativity, since this gives me an opportunity to get that rusty machine called "brain" starting again every now and then. The reason why it is enjoyable is because you thought about a problem and tried to/got to understand it, and want to see what other people have to say about it... I wouldn't call that theory development --- theory development would be your quantisation scheme of gravity you once talked about...

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

I voted "Yes" on a seperate forum creation, and I didn't think "so we can finally get rid of Tom and his theories"... I voted yes because I have the impression that this forum is being flooded by people with the wierdest plans and ideas that they absolutely want to promote.

I have to admit that I did read some weird ideas on this forum, but I can't say that the posters of those ideas were willing to bet their lives on them. I've been on sciforums for 11 months now and I don't believe that I've met a member yet that doesn't take arguments against his/her ideas into consideration (OK, maybe 1 or 2).

I'm trying to say that although everybody is complaining about crackpots on the Physics and Math forum, I haven't seen many. (I think they're all hiding in the Pseudoscience forum :)).

Anyway, if I was Porfiry, this is how I would divide "Physics and Math":

1) Pseudoscience: Little proof, a lot of imagination

2) New and Unconventional Theories: Scientifically acceptable amount of proof, moderate imagination.

3) Conventional Science : Overwhelming proof, no imagination.


Based on these three groups, I would put relativity in group 2 (because it is based on a few assumptions). Because I believe that most theories in theoretical physics are in the grey area (between groups one and three), it would be innappropriate to place them in group one or three. For example, where would you place the String Theory? Or what about models suggesting the composition of black holes, or interactions inside event horizons? When you think about it, you'll realize that there are a lot of crackpot theories out there that are considered legit by the scientific community. A number of them wouldn't even pass James' rules.

Tom

Hi Tom,

"Because I believe that most theories in theoretical physics are in the grey area (between groups one and three), it would be innappropriate to place them in group one or three. For example, where would you place the String Theory? Or what about models suggesting the composition of black holes, or interactions inside event horizons? When you think about it, you'll realize that there are a lot of crackpot theories out there that are considered legit by the scientific community. A number of them wouldn't even pass James' rules."

I just couldn't supressing a slight smile when reading this because I think I would agree with it, but aside from that, I will not give any official comment :D.

Bye!

Crisp

Tom and MacM:

You seem to share similar concerns. Let me pick up on what Tom said:


<i>I strongly disagree with your attempt to make this forum conservative. People will fear to post any new ideas on this forum because they will fear that their idea may break one of your rules. As I said before, your rules will make the "Physics and Math" forum into a ghost town.</i>

I'd say - wait and see before you start complaining.

The aim is not to make the forum "conservative", but to keep it as a science forum.

<i>I hope that Porfiry creates a seperate forum for new and unconventional ideas because it appears that very few of my posts will pass your rigid rules (and I sure won't be discussing length contraction and time dilation in pseudoscience).</i>

Actually, I imagine that very few of your previous posts on relativity would have been moved under this policy. They stimulated discussion of valid physics, and challenged people who believe that relativity is correct to explain why they think that. That's good stuff for a physics forum, in my opinion.

You've thought about the theory, and you post reasons why you think it is wrong. Even if you turn out to be wrong, it still makes for a valuable discussion.

<i>...this is how I would divide "Physics and Math":

1) Pseudoscience: Little proof, a lot of imagination

2) New and Unconventional Theories: Scientifically acceptable amount of proof, moderate imagination.

3) Conventional Science : Overwhelming proof, no imagination.</i>

It is a pity that you see conventional (or generally accepted) science as lacking in imagination. I can't see why anybody would hold such a view, considering that some of the best theories in science are weird beyond the wildest dreams of fiction writers. Scientists are actually among the most imaginative people there are.

Unconventional theories must establish their credentials. Whether they have a "scientifically acceptable amount of proof" must always be tested. I am quite happy for that to continue to happen in this forum.

<i>Based on these three groups, I would put relativity in group 2 (because it is based on a few assumptions).</i>

All scientific theories are based on assumptions. The question is whether those theories make accurate predictions. Relativity is, after 100 years, conventional science through and through. It has stood up to every test leveled at it so far.

<i>For example, where would you place the String Theory? Or what about models suggesting the composition of black holes, or interactions inside event horizons?</i>

These are all scientifically viable ideas which have not been disproven by experiment or observation. Again, they are quite valid topics for discussion on the Physics forum.

<i>When you think about it, you'll realize that there are a lot of crackpot theories out there that are considered legit by the scientific community. A number of them wouldn't even pass James' rules.</i>

Examples?

Tom,

Good point.

Based on these three groups, I would put relativity in group 2 (because it is based on a few assumptions). Because I believe that most theories in theoretical physics are in the grey area (between groups one and three), it would be innappropriate to place them in group one or three. For example, where would you place the String Theory? Or what about models suggesting the composition of black holes, or interactions inside event horizons? When you think about it, you'll realize that there are a lot of crackpot theories out there that are considered legit by the scientific community. A number of them wouldn't even pass James' rules.

I think in the final analysis however, it comes down to the presentation. I have little doubt that String Theory, TOE (as it stands), M & P Theory are all wet - BUT they are being presented by some very sharp minds with a lot of mathematical manipulation behind them. My objection would still be that consistant math doesn't mean reality.


I wouldn't hesitate for one second to believe that if you or I came here and posted "String", etc, (assuming others hadn't aready done so) but without the credentials and math it would be "Crackpot" at first glance.

And I think that is where I see the problem with the rules as they are. It may not be feasible as one said in past posts, that conventional physicist aren't interested in helping develope new ideas. They have their hands full using the ones they have that work. The same concept therefore from you or I will be rejected because it isn't as well presented. It can be the same idea as held by fully qualified scientist. It one case it will be considered serious science in our case it is pseudo-science.

James,

It is a pity that you see conventional (or generally accepted) science as lacking in imagination. I can't see why anybody would hold such a view, considering that some of the best theories in science are weird beyond the wildest dreams of fiction writers. Scientists are actually among the most imaginative people there are.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I am stating that when there is overwhelming evidence supporting a theory, then imagination isn't needed. Imagination is only needed to fill the holes in a theory where evidence is lacking. Let me explain:

Let's say that I drop a rock on my foot. I can clearly see that there is force causing the rock to accelerate toward the ground. This force is overwhelming evidence, so there is no need to use imagination. The "theory" that two masses attract each other belong in group three because no imagination is necessary.

Now, what causes the Earth to attract the rock? Some would say that this attraction is the result of curved spacetime. There is no evidence supporting that space is actually curved, it was an assumption obtained using imagination. As a result, I would put the curved spacetime theory in group two, because evidence doesn't fully support it.

Let me conclude by saying that after reading your reply in this thread and your posts in the "Science and Pseudoscience - A Primer:" thread I am convinced that your rules aren't as strict as I originally thought. Therefore, I support your rules on this forum if a seperate forum for unconventional science is not created. This misunderstanding was the result of your poll. Even though you may find most of my theories scientifically viable, the poll clearly indicates that other members do not. I thought that the purpose of your rules was not to objectively judge MacM's and my unconventional theories, but to "please" the majority.

Note: One more thing, I'm still having a problem with rule two. I know that if I was new to sciforums, and I asked a question, I would want the conventional answer and all the unconventional answers as well. If the second rule applies, most new members won't know that the answers to their questions are "filtered", so they may not get all the information they desire. Also, if people who disagree with the conventional answers are forced to remain silent, the member who is asking the questions may feel that everyone agrees with the conventional answer. This would be misleading. It appears like this issue is a dilemma.

Tom

Tom:

<i>Let's say that I drop a rock on my foot. I can clearly see that there is force causing the rock to accelerate toward the ground. This force is overwhelming evidence, so there is no need to use imagination. The "theory" that two masses attract each other belong in group three because no imagination is necessary.</i>

You can't see force. All you can see is that the rock accelerates towards your foot. You need to imagine force as being a cause, just as you would have to imagine curved spacetime being a cause. If curved spacetime goes into category 2, then so do Newton's ideas about forces, surely?

<i>Now, what causes the Earth to attract the rock? Some would say that this attraction is the result of curved spacetime. There is no evidence supporting that space is actually curved, it was an assumption obtained using imagination.</i>

There is no evidence supporting that forces actually exist, either.

On another issue...

<i>Note: One more thing, I'm still having a problem with rule two. I know that if I was new to sciforums, and I asked a question, I would want the conventional answer and all the unconventional answers as well. If the second rule applies, most new members won't know that the answers to their questions are "filtered", so they may not get all the information they desire.</i>

Filtering may or may not occur, depending on the flow of the thread. But if it does occur, filtering won't mean that unconventional answers are censored. The discussion will simply be split so that the unconventional answers are in one place and the conventional answers are in another. (I'll only split a thread if I can clearly tell the difference.)

My advice is: post whatever response you think is appropriate and don't worry about it being moved. Again, wait and see how things work.

James R.,

I know it might take a lot of the fun out of some threads but it would be good if some posters would try to remain on point and forgo cute personal remarks.

My complaint isn't about being called names, that isn't a problem. The problem is one never resolves an issue and the thread goes off on a tangent and never discusses the concept.

Lethe, recently posted a string about clocks. That string went the way I think most should, new understandings if not total agreement have come from that string and it was appreciated, unlike some other posts on the same subject.

MacM:

Posts which attack somebody personally are not tolerated in this forum. However, there is sometimes a fine line between commenting on a person's ideas or understanding of a topic and commenting on the person. Generally, I try not to be too strict.

The bottom line is: if a post offends you, hit the "report" button and I'll take a look.

James R.,

I don't think I would ever use the "Report Button". I view such attacks as diversionary when the attacker feels threatened by the issue.

However, my complaint is that it generally circumvents addressing the issue. I would rather see the issue stay the primary focus.

I have just ran a sample test and frankly "You" (while not being offensive) became my first example.

I ran the current post "Relavistic Mass" with a legitimate question:


*************
"Is there any evidence of relavistic mass change in gallactic recession velocities?"
*************

But the question got ignored because I premised the question outlining the reason for the question as being related to UniKEF theory.

Your response was all about OK lets tear into UniKEF. And your question shows infact that you didn't read the material that closely. The Quasar velocity data was not my calculations.

I am genuinely interested to see if there is any such data and if not why not, so please don't blow off the question because it was part of my demonstration of what is wrong with this MSB.

Many members here are more interested in trashing an idea than they are exploring it.

MacM:

I answered your question in the relevant thread.

James R.,

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify what I am saying. It is not directed at Sciforums in contrast to any other forum. It is a general observation that such forums seem to be incapable of exploring new concepts.

I took the opportunity to follow chroot over to Physicsforum.com to have a look at what is over there.

What I saw was that they have a "Theory Development" forum. I was genuinely encouraged but then I went and looked at each entry.

I found none that appeared to be serious concepts that the poster wanted to work through. There were few if any responses and the entire group of postings were more in the form of lampoons on the idea of having an idea.

So I now am afraid the effort to have such a forum here might also be less than successful. It is a shame that aternative ideas cannot be allowed to flow through logical criticisim on their own merit without the distractions of inappropriate questions and demands being made at the outset.

IF an idea is presented as being "I have proof" then and only then should the tone be "Show me the proof".

If an idea is presented in a general way the challenge should also be in a general way. Many "Ideas" are not and will not be formalized with supporting "Proof". That is the reason for posting or floating the general concept.

The general concept is never evaluated because it spawns this line of "Show me the math", "Show me the proof".


CHALLENGE:
************************
1 - In that regard, though it is not your theory "Show me the PROOF that gallatic recession is exempted from relavistic mass increase because of relavistic velocity to us as observers."

2 - Show me PROOF that computed proper traverse velocities of quasars is not ACTUAL velocity relative to other objects in their line of vector of motion."

3 - Show me PROOF that these observations do not imply failure of Relativy on a grand scale.
*************************

When you can do that then I will indeed not post UniKEF related questions here.

Not trying to be a thorn but trying to make a point. It would be great indeed if this or some other science oriented forum were to establish a bonifide forum to explore alternate ideas but as it stands I see none.

Hi MacM,

Alternative ideas are great. But everybody can have their own idea and opinion on everything. In physics, nobody is interested in ideas and opinions: physical facts are either reproducable experiments or mathematically backed up reasonings.

You are free to talk about ideas as much as you like, but if you ever want to go the scientific highway, you will need to come up with calculations to back your case. You don't seem to want to present them here - I am afraid that until you do, nobody will want to talk about your theory seriously. The reason is simply: words are not reproducable experiments; they can be interpretted in many ways and are hence too subjective to "prove" or "motivate" anything scientific.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

We are in substantial agreement but not 100%. The difference is in what I would view as being Theory Development vs what appears to be the majority view here.

It is their board however, and I will want to comply with the majority in any case.

The difference is you and others seem to feel Theory Development is "Peer Review".

"Peer Review" in my mind is when a theory is presented as a finished concept. THEN it is time to tear it apart and see if it stands.

When an "Idea or Concept" is presented they are not to that stage. That is why it is called Theory Development. It is NOT time to pick it apart, it is time to offer constructive critisisim or ask clarifying questions but not demand absolute experimental data or mathematical proof of the entire concept.

With regard to your comment that I seem to not want to provide support for the theory, that is only partially true. The fact is I don't dare until it is further developed.

Frankly, I have had a number of persons come over to my site from the many sites that I am circulating in and actually spend a bit of time reading what I have written.

I can't think of one that has said "WOW you've done it". But most have contacted me by e-mail, etc. to congratulate me on what has been done. Some have offered and are actively working on the concept with me now.

Believe me when I say I know just how far the road ahead is; which is why I decided to post UniKEF for others to view. I have already made editing changes for screw ups and clarifications and have even given credit to two of my members that have, in my view offered ideas that have advaced the concept.

So my intended process is working but not nearly as well as I had hoped. :mad:

Thanks for your input.;)

MacM:

Following from what Crisp said...

A lot of people, especially amateur physicists, have the impression that a theory is the same thing as an idea which sounds plausible. In fact, a scientific theory is something which is supported by evidence, which fits into the existing framework of pre-established truths and so on.

New ideas are great, but as I said in the "Science and Pseudoscience" primer thread, they must be testable. It is not enough that they sound good.

It would be very easy for me to say something like:

"I have a great new theory. All fundamental particles in the world are really like ping-pong balls with fuzzy hair attached to them. Fundamental particles which attract each other do so because the hairs on the particles grip together like velcro."

That's a picture of what reality might conceivably be like, but the first question a physicist will ask me is "Show me how you can derive the inverse square law of electrostatics using your theory.", or something along those lines.

The idea itself is simply not enough. It is not useful unless it is backed by quantitative calculations and supported by experimental or observational evidence - no matter how nice a picture it paints.

James R.,

I would have to say I agree with one stipulation. We seem to have substantial difference of opinion of this.

A lot of people, especially amateur physicists, have the impression that a theory is the same thing as an idea which sounds plausible. In fact, a scientific theory is something which is supported by evidence, which fits into the existing framework of pre-established truths and so on.


Your above quote states "Evidence". Not supporting testable mathematics or experimental proof.

In my view UniKEF has substantial "Evidence", virtually no mathematics and is only testable to a very limited degree and it fits the existing framework of "Tested" truths.

It does disagree with some "Untested" truths claimed by current theories and it offers alternative interpretations of some experimental data of current theories but I don't know of where it denies any known principle or observation.

That being the case where is it outside your definition above?

The definition above does not require mathematidcal support or proof as you have stated elsewhere.

I find the above a good definition for a standard for a Theory Development forum. That is the dividing line between pseudo-science and science almost exactly. But that is not the standard you are applying.

MacM:

<i>Your above quote states "Evidence". Not supporting testable mathematics or experimental proof.</i>

What other types of evidence are there?

<i>In my view UniKEF has substantial "Evidence", virtually no mathematics and is only testable to a very limited degree and it fits the existing framework of "Tested" truths.</i>

I am very interested in what kind of evidence you're referring to.

<i>It does disagree with some "Untested" truths claimed by current theories and it offers alternative interpretations of some experimental data of current theories but I don't know of where it denies any known principle or observation.</i>

Maybe you should start a thread to discuss whether the aspects of current theories which you think are untested actually are untested.

<i>That being the case where is it outside your definition above?</i>

I haven't said it is. That remains to be seen.

You haven't given enough detail for anybody here to be able to judge whether UniKEF is worth even considering as an alternative theory. You haven't told us what the main postulates of the theory are. You haven't told us what it predicts. You haven't told us how those predictions follow from the postulates.

What are we to make of this? One possible conclusion is that UniKEF doesn't actually make any real predictions of its own. Another possible conclusion is that you want to keep UniKEF secret in order to claim some kind of priority, or to prevent others from stealing your ideas. In fact, the best way to prevent that is to publish your ideas. You automatically own the copyright to anything you post on this forum, for example.

James R.,

I think we are developing a parallel string. So I won't repeat much of what I have just posted over on "Relavistic Mass", which addresses many of the same questions here.

To keep this short I will only respoond to a couple of points in this string.

What are we to make of this? One possible conclusion is that UniKEF doesn't actually make any real predictions of its own.


*****************
Reply: What should I make of that remark since I have posted the Introduction from UniKEF which gives an abstract view of what it is based upon; including a number of predictions which have since been found to exist and several predictions that remain to be found. I have gone back looking for that post. I was not under the heading UniKEF. It was posted (with your permission) in another string about a month ago. I believe in a string by Prosoothus, but I am looking for it). UniKEF was posted to move the diatribe that ensued after it was posted out of the original string and other strings because people were getting upset that their strings were getting hijacked.

I found it. It was posted under the topic "Relativity", page 2,4th entry, 2/17/03
*****************************



Another possible conclusion is that you want to keep UniKEF secret in order to claim some kind of priority, or to prevent others from stealing your ideas.

****************************
Reply: I would wonder if that were true why I have opened my web site and have others already contributing to the advancement of the concept. Those contributors are being given credit for their contributions. While I have what you call "Crackpots" over there as well, some of them are starting to produce some decent ideas. I also have some skilled persons participating as well. I have what I believe is a proper forum for Theory Development. let the ideas flow but when something is way off course vs acceptable physics clarify it for them. When it sort of fits tell them so. So far I have added two addendums to the concept since I opened the site.
******************************


In fact, the best way to prevent that is to publish your ideas. You automatically own the copyright to anything you post on this forum, for example.

********************
Reply:That is good news I didn't realise that but there is already copyright notice for "Unpublished Work" posted on the UniKEF site which gives me (5) years to publish and maintain that date.
*******************

And finally "Evidence" to me is something observed, test results, mathematics, suggestive logic (although that is the weakest), etc. It seems you exclude "Observation" from your list. Otherwise why would you not consider Quasar traverse proper velocity of v>c as evidence that v = c is not a limit in absolute terms?

Hi MacM,

"It seems you exclude "Observation" from your list. Otherwise why would you not consider Quasar traverse proper velocity of v>c as evidence that v = c is not a limit in absolute terms?"

Repeatable observations are also on the list of evidence... Notice that James said "and so on..." ;).

I know you have already done this, but could you give us a reference for that quasar velocity thing again ? You have been mentioning this over and over and over again, and I have come to a point that I really want to know about it.

Furthermore, I agree with James that you should post a list of "untested truths from current theories" as you call them. I think you would be suprised of how many things have already been explained and written down.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

Here is the general info and link. You can find much more by searching "Quasar Proper Velocity".



Extract:
*********************
Purely as an academic exercise, we calculate the transverse velocities required for the four quasars PHL 1033, TON 202, LB 8956 and LB 8991 on the cosmological red shift hypothesis. We take the smallest value of proper motion within the uncertainty range and assume the Hubble Constant to be 50 km/s/Mpc and q0=0. Then we find that in terms of the velocity of light c, the transverse velocities would correspond to

Vt = 760, 1000, 5200 and 2300 times the speed of light !

for PHL 1033, TON 202, LB 8956 and LB 8991 respectively. Needless to say these values are without physical significance and clearly indicate that the cosmological red shift hypothesis is completely untenable.

http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1982/NewMotion.html

***********************


As I have said before, they deny the implication of these findings by attacking the Red Shift hypothesis but I find it incrediable that such conclusions could be reached by a theory, generally accepted and used, that would produce results that show 5,200 c.

It seems more likely that the untested idea that v = c is some sort of absolute limit is in fact in error. The v = c limit is only implied by the acceptance of the concept that v = c produces infinite mass.

Hi MacM,

"As I have said before, they deny the implication of these findings by attacking the Red Shift hypothesis but I find it incrediable that such conclusions could be reached by a theory, generally accepted and used, that would produce results that show 5,200 c.

It seems more likely that the untested idea that v = c is some sort of absolute limit is in fact in error. The v = c limit is only implied by the acceptance of the concept that v = c produces infinite mass."

Red Shift HYPOTHESIS...

This means "assumption"... This does not mean "prediction by theory"... This means that it can be shown to be invalid (as the people of the website you linked to claim). Any violation of the hypothesis implies nothing on the theory within which the assumption was made.

I commented in another thread on your statement that "the v=c limit is only implied by the acceptance of ..."

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

Red Shift HYPOTHESIS...
This means "assumption"... This does not mean "prediction by theory"... This means that it can be shown to be invalid (as the people of the website you linked to claim). Any violation of the hypothesis implies nothing on the theory within which the assumption was made.

I commented in another thread on your statement that "the v=c limit is only implied by the acceptance of ..."

***************
Reply: You may very well be right but that is unfortunate. Until others stat to look beyond the covers of current texts (based on 100 year old theories) in comparison to current technology, observations and understandings, the status quo is leading us nowhere.

I understand tha a theory being 100 years old does not make it wrong. But when it flies in the face of new observations and they are denied because they are prohibited then I suggest it is time to have another look.

Doing so is not going to be mathematical proof from the start. It must evolve from a workable concept to determine what mathematics need to be developed.

That is where I am at. I have a basic concept the flows but is not supported mathematically.
***************************

Perhaps all 'alternative' theories should have to fulfil the requirements of 1) not disgreeing with accepted scientific and observational facts (however much it disagress with the current scientific theory) and 2) that its poster should be able to derive (and post) one clear, simple and testable prediction from it that would differ from the expected predictions of current scientific theories. (In other words it should be demonstrably a potential improvement of current theory if true).

If it can do both these things then it's hard to see why it shouldn't be discussed seriously, at least until it shows itself to fail one of these tests.

There needs to be an Alternative Theories section or someone needs to aggressively patrol the General Science and Math & Physics forums and move inappropriate posts to the Pseudoscience section. These forums are filling up with crap. I'll probably stop coming here soon if it doesn't improve.

Here's a simple suggestion for all you crackpots out there: before you post about how current theories are wrong, ask yourself 'do I have a degree in physics?' If you don't, you almost certainly don't understand what you're talking about. Hey, I'm not picky – you don't need a PhD. A simple BS or BA in physics would suffice. I don't care how much 'research' you've done, if you don't know tensor calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra you don't really understand relativity or quantum physics and you shouldn't be posting about how they are flawed theories.

Nasor:

I only moderate the Physics & Math forum, not General Science. I move pseudoscience as appropriate to the Pseudoscience forum, as set out in the first post of this thread.

Most often, though, I will not move pseudoscience until somebody has clearly pointed out why it is pseudoscience. If nobody can do that, then perhaps it isn't pseudoscience at all.

To wit:

"The earth round? What rabble! What heresy! Why anyone can plainly see that it is flat. How dare thee speak of such blasphemous twaddle in thine midst! Be banished thou with thine strange notions!"

-Pompus Assus 1491

You sound like a pack of politicians. James R, don't worry about the crackpots and there ideas. If they are full of it, most people ignore their posts and they will move on. If Tom was a total basketcase then no-one would reply to his posts. But obviously his posts are full of passion and opinion, and what fun is a forum without some controversy and arguement, it's all good fun. Don't try to over administer the forum as things will usually work themselves out. To often people just want to change things because they're old and haven't changed for a while, or they want to leave thir own mark (just as Tom wants to prove relativity wrong, which it isn't).:)

ryans:

Most people seem to complain about how I <b>under</b>-administer the forum, rather than the reverse.

I think the fact that I get criticism from both sides of the fence probably means I'm sitting on that fence in the way that a good moderator should. :)

After reading posts submitted by peter2003, I am all for the creation of a psuedo-science post (maybe that's being nice)

Stay tuned, ryans. If Peter2003 can't come up with a reasoned response to the questions I asked, then future threads on his pet theory will be moved to Pseudoscience - no questions asked.

Originally posted by Nasor
I don't care how much 'research' you've done, if you don't know tensor calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra you don't really understand relativity

Einstein understood relativity before he knew tensor calculus.

one could always develop their theories over at physicsforums as they have a forum just for that!

:D

Hi James,

I seek in your words opinion of prof. Kuhn. Problem is not "Science is better then anti-science"; problem is "Science contains anti-science, it is very usefull for science, long time, but in some short time, general "paradigma" is changed. New paradigma gets on, it build new "dogma". Truth borns better from "non-truth", as chaos.
It is lot of critics, but a few master-builder only.
Did I understand it?

Emil Smejkal

Uh, yeah.

See, people like you are the reason this sticky exists in the first place. :)

- Warren

You do know that I created the thread that started all of this... dont you?

Originally posted by ChildOfTheMind
You do know that I created the thread that started all of this... dont you?

Shut up.

Originally posted by ChildOfTheMind
You do know that I created the thread that started all of this... dont you?

So, what, do you want us to give you a brownie?:rolleyes:

Anybody cares to reopen this discussion ? The amount of crackpottery has risen beyond recognition at this point, both in the Physics & Math, as in the Astronomy forum.

It's not clear to me whether I'm a crackpot or not. (You may have an opinion, I'm still trying to find out). However I sympathise.

I suspect that the problem will never go away. People are interested in these topics, and people come in all sizes. I find that there's enough sanity to make it all worthwhile, but that's just me.

Considering it's a group of people with different opinions who don't know each other discussing complicated topics about which they feel strongly by typing to each other via a machine it's a wonder it isn't a veritable Tower of Babel.

As a newcommer to this thread I've come across the word "UniKERF"
I wonder if MakM could briefly explain what it stands for. So that I may have the oportunity to agree or disagree with the concept (or theory or hypothesis) or whatever it is.
Thamk you

APOLO

Since no one apears to want to answer the question in my last post, and
since there has been no postings on this thread for a while, I'm going to inject a bit of humor, to se what happens.

A friend of mine who is a physics profesor in Calefornia send me the following, and he swears on a stack of books it is true.
The following is an actual question given on a university of Wasington midterm exam.
BONUS QUESTION
Is Hell exothermic (gives of heat) or endothermic ?
Most of the students wrote proof of their beleifs using Byole's law (gas cooles off when it expans and heats up when it is compressed)
One student however wrote the following.

First we need to know how the mass of hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving in to hell, and the rate they are leaving. I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell it will not leave.
Therefore no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering hell, let's look at the different religions of the world today. Most of these religions state, that if you are not a member of their particular religion, you go to hell.And since there are many different religion we can project that all souls go to hell. With the birthrate we have today we can expect the souls in hell to increase exponentialy.
Now we look at the rate of change in the volume of hell. Because Boyle's Law states, that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the volume of hell has to expand as souls are added.


this allows 2 possibilities.
1. If hell is expandig at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure will increase untill all hell breaks loose.
2. Of course, if hell is expanding at a rate faster than the rate of increase of souls, the the temtperature will drop untill hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate by Ms Banyan during my freshman year that"...it will be a cold day in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I have still not succeded in sleeping with her,
the No2 cannot be true, and I'm sure that hell is exothermic and will not freeze.

APOLO Any one want to contradict the logic in the above.
PS The student got the only A

I am not sure why people are jumping on James- he said he wants the alternatibve theories to stay her eand get a fair airing.

As someone who is more likely to ask a question than give an answer in physics and maths, i am very interested in both traditional and non traditional answers.

The answers i am interetste din most however are those pushing the boundaries, new ideas to describe observatiuons, things that tie together things other theories dont and explained a t a pop physics level so i acn underatnd the, i would love to see such stuff.

And the problem then is whne the new is garbage and when it is just ground-breaking new research and interesting alternatives.

So i gues sit is important if people can explain to others how their theories do better explain observations or better tie together current ideas at extremses of physics or whaetever.

<i>
Most of these religions state, that if you are not a member of their particular religion, you go to hell.And since there are many different religion we can project that all souls go to hell. </i>

this is the logical error in the argument. No reason to assume that what religions state is true, so the consequence doesnt follow at all.

Apolo,


UniKEF
As a newcommer to this thread I've come across the word "UniKEF"
I wonder if MacM could briefly explain what it stands for. So that I may have the oportunity to agree or disagree with the concept (or theory or hypothesis) or whatever it is.
Thank you

(edited a couple typo's - MacM)

APOLO

It is an acronym for "Universal Kenetic Energy Field". It is the basis for my own personal view of gravity; plus other possibilities.

Since I have been admonished for discussing my views here let me merely direct you to my site for further information.

http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm

I also host an "Other Theories" forum where new concepts are put for response by others. Sort of a "Crackpot" peer review.

We are currently rated #1 out of 333 Physics MSN sites and I would like to draw your attention to David B's "Unification Theory" available from the left menu on the Home Page. He is currently working with a recognized Journal for publication and has the mathematics (which I have lacked) to advance a UniKEF type concept.

Mac

You might like this. The book is worth a read, although I can't judge it's credibility.

http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Books/TheOrb/TheOrb_Preface.htm

Canaute,

Thanks I'll have a look. Can't say yet since when I tried to download I got the message "Done" but had a blank page. When I tried to "Close" my computer locked up. I saved the URL and will try again.

This may be better - www.anpheon.org

Canute,

Thanks. Your new link seems to be working.

http://www.anpheon.org/


Within it the following subject is of great interest to me. We have discussed this issue on this MSB but according to the information on this link the explanations given have now all been found untrue and the biggest change is that two other dis-simular craft designs are starting to show the same affect making it appear universally applied as opposed to craft design specific, which it originally did.

*********************************
Pioneer deceleration mystery solved!
*********************************

http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html

Now I didn't like the solution they propose in that at one point they stated the energy of the sun is "Externally" generated. That made no sense what-so-ever but may be because this was a short article devoid of mathematics showing their cause and affect.

My interest is because I have predicted this affect long before space flight was even achieved.

See "D = V * T Invalid" in the "Summaries" menu of my home page http:/groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm .

Which states that distance is variable and is a function of the mass of observer and observed. i.e. It is only 4.3 ly to A.C. (our nearest neighboring star) for a photon traveling at v = c but for a bowling ball the distance will be less.

In this case objects removed from the mass/distance affect of the earth and now the bulk of the solar system is resulting in distance Pioneer sees to deep space objects as increasing, making it appear to us (bound to distance as viewed from earth) that the vehicles are slowing down.


Really crazy stuff. And I didn't like Relativity because it is counter intuitive - Go figure. :D

Originally posted by MacM
Canute,

Thanks. Your new link seems to be working.

http://www.anpheon.org/


Within it the following subject is of great interest to me. We have discussed this issue on this MSB but according to the information on this link the explanations given have now all been found untrue and the biggest change is that two other dis-simular craft designs are starting to show the same affect making it appear universally applied as opposed to craft design specific, which it originally did.
:D
Hmm. I don't know what craft you're refering to. Is that the right link? I meant you to get to the book of the theory called 'The Orb', a fairly detailed theory of cosmology and matter based on an ether. It's under 'books', but the site is slow and quirky.

Canute,

It seems to be working differently now. The first time the graphics on the home page was pulsing, when I clicked on it it went to another page with the same name but had a list of topics of which the second link I posted was one.

Now the home page graphics are not pulsing and I get a different link when I enter.

In any case thanks.

Look I am the first to recognize and admit that I know little about physics. But I am trying to learn more and this forum is seeming to help. I am an engineer and can usually peice different parts of somehting together. When I have a question and get both conventional, and new ideas tossed at me I can take them and usually get the answer, however I believe I learn more that way, having different options to follow.

By spliting up the forums I think that this will stifile continued learning for those of us who admit to a knowledge defficiency.

I think this come down to two questions I have some general questions sometimes, therefore where would I go for them, compared to my more 'off-the-wall' ideas that end up in questions. And if I read something related to both conventional and new ideas where does that pertain.

I belive the spirit of making multiple areas to post is a good idea for organization, I do not believe that it would promote, further understanding of each-other and our ideas, as well as further learning for all.

Recently, I polled users of the Physics & Math forum on their thoughts and ideas concerning non-mainstream or "alternative" theories on this forum.

Two-thirds of respondents said that they would prefer that such theories be posted in a new "Theory Development" or "Alternative Theories" forum separate from the current forum. However, in a poll asking whether people would post to such a forum if it were created, half of the respondents said they would not.



I am new to the forums and probably already considered (at least by Crisp and several others) as one of the leading crackpots, my choice of word not Crisp's). I understand their reason for this belief and an not concerned. By being in the "mainstream" forums, I have an opportunity to have some response from very credible physicists and mathematician to my unorthodox views, where if "banished" to a separate alternative theory thread would probably never get looked at (by those most trained in the present mainstream theory and beliefs).
Therefore, I would hope it remains the way it is at present but if the preference is for majority determining the structure, then this idea should be considered.
Sincerely
deweyb
I

I don't think that there is a need for alternative theories forum, however I think that there should be a Physics forum.
The problem here is that almost every thread becomes an alternative theory thread.
If someone asks a questions, maybe one or two persons are trying to answer the question, and immediately after that, it appears that SR is wrong. There is an aether. BigBang is wrong and Quantum mechanics is of course wrong. And most of these answers are given by people who do not have a clue of what is General or Special Relativity. Never solved even the one dimensional time independent Schrodinger equation. Never heard of the basic axioms (or principles) of cosmology.

So, as I said, instead of asking if there should be a crackpots forum, maybe the question should have been if there should be a physics forum.

There is an aether.
So, as I said, instead of asking if there should be a crackpots forum, maybe the question should have been if there should be a physics forum.

I am glad to see 1100f confirm "There is an aether." or was he just quoting someone else? Problably me. Why is the question of aether considered alternative theory and not mainline physics? Because modern physics has lost the thread?
I brought the aether concept in to discuss speed of light - where is a more appropriate forum for aether?? So for this, one becomes a crackpot? So be it.
But aether and I am sure many other of the ideas are still physics but if you're not in the presently subscribed to bible, don't bother to show up or speak up (this is the attitude I'm feeling.)
The modern day physics belief that an aether is unnecessary and has been proven so. As I mentioned I have read Einstein's Leyden lecture, "Ether and the Theory of Relativity (http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html)." [It is also linked on my site.] I don't find it convincing, of course, there are those who know I don't understand relativity so my opinion is irrelevant. That being said, this lecture merely states ether doesn't need physical characterics because we can assign physical characteristics to space with our math (Maxwell's) EM formula. How vague is that? Later on, even Einstein was disturbed about the direction the direction physics was taking with lack of causation, the well known "God doesn't roll dice" comment.[But he sort of set up this scenario with his dispensing of aether.] (My opinion)
Of course, others would argue that Michelson-Morley null result is what dispensed with the aether. It was done in the wrong location. I have mentioned this earlier and this was the same conclusion presented by prominent physicist-author, Adair in his text, The Great Design.
Put it on the ISS (externally of course) and you may get some disturbing results, like ether (actually carrier of light) exists.
What's this have to do with alternative theory.
Crackpots on the extreme left (often with poor math and calc concepts like me), Physicists and Mathematician on the extreme right (with perhaps too much faith in the math based on potentially corrupt foundations which no one on the "inside" bothers to review), you need an open forum to get them together.
Sincerely
deweyb

ISS = International Space Station sorry about the vagueness.
dew

... Physicists and Mathematician on the extreme right (with perhaps too much faith in the math based on potentially corrupt foundations which no one on the "inside" bothers to review) ...

Why do people think this ? Do you really think that all physicists conspire together to keep the general public from the truth, so we can all say how great we are and how the "plebs" has absolutely no understanding of what we do ?

The truth is that our world is quite competive, with many people trying to look for the "holy grail" in their field. And believe me (if you have never been to a scientific lecture) ... everytime "the great minds of our time" in a specific field meet, you get very heated discussions on the meaning and interpretation of new scientific results. Basically everybody is trying to debunk everybody.

I don't understand where people get this distorted view of science. There are libraries full of scientific books, there are universities with people who are more than glad to explain their work to visitors. Ofcourse you do not have to run in, say they are all fools and that their theories are wrong, and then not be able to communicate with them properly. If you want to talk to somebody in another country with another language, you also try to learn his language first, no ? And to get around in another country doesn't mean you need to speak the language fluently, now does it? Same situation applies here!

Bye!

Crisp

I am glad to see 1100f confirm "There is an aether." or was he just quoting someone else?
Don't be glad too soon. I just confirm that people are saying this (which doesn't make it true).


Problably me.
Do you really believe that you are the first, in this forum that says that there is an ether?
I can assure you that you are not the first and, unfortunately, not the last.


Why is the question of aether considered alternative theory and not mainline physics?
Because mainline Physics is done at the universities and research institutes and not in the internet or in sciforum, and nobody is doing research on ether theories. If you look at the arxiv site (http://arxiv.org), where almost all physicists post preprints of their papers before submitting them to publication, you will see that among the thousands of papers since 1991, only 13 of them use the word aether in the title or in the abstarct.
You may not be happy with it, but ether theory is not mainline physics, and this is a fact of life.


Because modern physics has lost the thread?
I see you have read my answer to the previous sentence, even before I wrote it.


I brought the aether concept in to discuss speed of light - where is a more appropriate forum for aether?? So for this, one becomes a crackpot? So be it.
But aether and I am sure many other of the ideas are still physics but if you're not in the presently subscribed to bible, don't bother to show up or speak up (this is the attitude I'm feeling.)
On the contrary, all theories, all paper are public. Everyone can read it, criticize it, and I can assure you that all physicist are happy when people want to learn it. This is opposite to the bible. In physics, words that are used have an accurate meaning. If you use these words without understanding their meaning, that does make of you a physicist, and what you say is not physics.
Droping ideas out of the blue, just like that, with no experimental evidence, or mathematical assumptions, using Maxwell's equations, without understanding them, in order to claim that you are right and physics community is wrong, yes, it makes of you a crackpot.

The modern day physics belief that an aether is unnecessary and has been proven so. As I mentioned I have read Einstein's Leyden lecture, "Ether and the Theory of Relativity (http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html)." [It is also linked on my site.] I don't find it convincing, of course, there are those who know I don't understand relativity so my opinion is irrelevant.
You said that:"This means, for example, since the farthest up galaxy is alleged to be receding by 1/3 the speed of light and thd farthest down galaxy is the same, they are moving at 2/3 the speed of light relative to each other.

This shows that you don't have any basic understanding of special relativity. Explain me why your opinion on relativity should be relevant?




That being said, this lecture merely states ether doesn't need physical
characterics because we can assign physical characteristics to space with our math (Maxwell's) EM formula. How vague is that?

Well, even if you don't believe in relativity and only on galilean relativity and aether, that doesn't mean that space-time doesn't have a structure, which is a fiber bundle structure, with time as the base space, x, y and z as the fiber and particle trajectories as the sections of this fiber bundle. Special Relativity has just changed the fiber-bundle structure into a metric one.


Later on, even Einstein was disturbed about the direction the direction physics was taking with lack of causation, the well known "God doesn't roll dice" comment.[But he sort of set up this scenario with his dispensing of aether.] (My opinion)
How did Einstein set-up this scenario with his dispensing of aether. you are talking about two different things. The dispensing of aether was related to macroscopic objects traveling close to the speed of light, while quantum mechanics is related to microscopic objects. These are two completely different regimes of modern physics. And if you want to combine the theory of relativity with quantum theory of light (QED), then, you should know that the measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron is the most accurate measurement performed in physics that agrees with the theory (perturbative QED ).
And by the way, although most crackpots believe that the physics community follows Einstein like the bible, I have news for you. When Einstein said that he didn't believe that god rol dice, it was a sentence against the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. And believe it or not, the majority of physicists believe that in this case, Einstein was wrong, and that the nature is probabilistic, governed by the laws of Quantum theory.


Of course, others would argue that Michelson-Morley null result is what dispensed with the aether. It was done in the wrong location. I have mentioned this earlier and this was the same conclusion presented by prominent physicist-author, Adair in his text, The Great Design.
Put it on the ISS (externally of course) and you may get some disturbing results, like ether (actually carrier of light) exists.
It was not only the Michelson-Morley null result that dispensed the aether. But all the subsequent physics that came after the theory of relativity. All the mathematical structures that are based on the theory of relativity.
I understand that maybe you think that gauge field theories are wrong, that there are no such things like half integer particle spin (which is enterd by hand in non relativistic theory but is a consequence of the representations of Poincare group, the group of Lorentz transformation and translations).


What's this have to do with alternative theory.
As I told you, nobody seriously deals with it.


Crackpots on the extreme left (often with poor math and calc concepts like me), Physicists and Mathematician on the extreme right (with perhaps too much faith in the math based on potentially corrupt foundations which no one on the "inside" bothers to review), you need an open forum to get them together.

Read Crisp's answer.
I just want to add to his answer, "crackpots on the extreme left" is mediocrity (from the physics POV, not the person). "Physicis and mathenmaticians on the extreme right" is hard work, difficult but interesting and fun. I don't believe that there should be a forum to attract physicists and mathematicians toward mediocrity.

Do you really believe that you are the first, in this forum that says that there is an ether?
I can assure you that you are not the first and, unfortunately, not the last.
Yeah, I could certainly use some help here. Where are all of them?


I see you have read my answer to the previous sentence, even before I wrote it.
On the contrary, all theories, all paper are public. Everyone can read it, criticize it, and I can assure you that all physicist are happy when people want to learn it. This is opposite to the bible. In physics, words that are used have an accurate meaning. If you use these words without understanding their meaning, that does make of you a physicist, and what you say is not physics.

You're right, I shouldn't have used "bible", it should have been more generic, like religion. I am not speaking of all physics, mainly cosmology and atomic structure. The electrical, mechanical and computerized physics structure are awesome, that's why we can have this conversation.


You said that:"This means, for example, since the farthest up galaxy is alleged to be receding by 1/3 the speed of light and thd farthest down galaxy is the same, they are moving at 2/3 the speed of light relative to each other.

This shows that you don't have any basic understanding of special relativity. Explain me why your opinion on relativity should be relevant?

I disagree, Unless absolute time and space exist, which they do.
Einstein didn't correct for Doppler movement of his moving observer, I know (I think Crisps) says he does. He doesn't, show me his correction in his text.
Put the correction in and both observers see the result as the correct time, simultaneous.


And by the way, although most crackpots believe that the physics community follows Einstein like the bible, I have news for you. When Einstein said that he didn't believe that god rol dice, it was a sentence against the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. And believe it or not, the majority of physicists believe that in this case, Einstein was wrong, and that the nature is probabilistic, governed by the laws of Quantum theory.

It's a tool (Lorentz said the same thing about relativity.) Just because we can use probability to determine where things are or where things might appear to be, or will eventually be, does not rule out the real possibility that the entire event actually occurred according to classical equations. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
If you have an aether, of which I have no doubt, then From D.W.Sciama's The Physical Foundations of General Relativity(Anchor Books, 1969, page15), "In the inertial case we would want to say that inertial forces are exerted, not by space, but by other bodies. If this makes sense, then inertial forces are not fictitious after all, but are just as physical as any other forces. In consequence, Newton's laws of motion would hold in all frames of reference, and the problem of the preferred role of inertial frames would be solved."
Quantum theory is a tool. Tony Rothman, "Instant Physics" Quantum mechanics--the theory that explains phenomena on the size of atoms--is right. It is also so conceptually weird that physicists to this day feel uncomfortable with it. " Evidently not a problem in your case. :)


It was not only the Michelson-Morley null result that dispensed the aether. But all the subsequent physics that came after the theory of relativity. All the mathematical structures that are based on the theory of relativity.
I understand that maybe you think that gauge field theories are wrong, that there are no such things like half integer particle spin (which is enterd by hand in non relativistic theory but is a consequence of the representations of Poincare group, the group of Lorentz transformation and translations).

If Lorentz is on it, it probably is good, but of course relativity theory is in part based on the Lorentz(Fitzgerald) contraction so it has an empirical foundation.


Read Crisp's answer.
I just want to add to his answer, "crackpots on the extreme left" is mediocrity (from the physics POV, not the person). "Physicis and mathenmaticians on the extreme right" is hard work, difficult but interesting and fun. I don't believe that there should be a forum to attract physicists and mathematicians toward mediocrity.
As I told you, nobody seriously deals with it.

with it? with Aether? But that's the problem, it's a foregone conclusion the minute you hear the word. I know you think I can't tell that Relativity, Quantum, and aether can come together. I can't put them together mathematically, yet, but I know geometrically they do without a doubt.
Take a day off from "AETHER is Dead" build a carrier to transmit angular impulse a speed c, (HINT you have to use spheres to maintain supersym in all directions)..
Ok I apologize for the "extreme right" comment, and everyone should know that Plato put the mathematician(~ physicist) as prerequisite of Philosopher-Ruler. So you have prominent supporters, even from the metaphysical heirarchy.
You guys are so much fun [But I am serious about the aether, big mistake by Einstein - I believe his greatest blunder.]
deweyb

Wow, how weird is this, :m: the alternative theory policy thread has turned into a full out alternative theory controversy :eek: . Unless one considers carrier of light theory as non-alternative. I guess only 13 papers since 1991 makes aether alternative. very sad. :(
Sorry James R
It's the adrenaline.
If nothing else it has to be entertaining, and remember, humor, increases the immune respones increasing your ability to resist disease. This is a well documented scientific conclusion.
sincerely
deweyb

could someone point me to a forum regarding the effects of perception on the world around us. is this universe just a mix of perceptions based on laws that we as a human species percieve as true. could another species that has similar intelligence to our own come to the same conclusions about the universe and physics as we have? is that why our understanding of physics breaks down at so called singularities, and why spacetime seems to bend or curve to us. any help would be appreciated. thanks

It's simple really:

Some known scientifc theories maybe wrong
Some alternative scientific theories maybe right

And I think you should leave that for us to decide, rather than decide yourselves, otherwise what is the point of having such a discussion forum?

Hence, make a forum, called "Alternative theories of science" for open-minded scientists to discuss new advanced physics and science. You can either rename the "pseudoscience" forum to "Alternative theories of science" or add a new one in the science section.

All up to you, oh masters ;)

Yeah, I could certainly use some help here. Where are all of them?
Well, for set-theroretic reasons there must be a meta-system. How could there not be, as you say. However whether my idea of it accords with yours I'm not sure yet.

Recently, I polled users of the Physics & Math forum on their thoughts and ideas concerning non-mainstream or "alternative" theories on this forum.

geistkiesel edited the James R. thread leaving proposed rule #6 intact.

6. Threads which contain alternative ideas which have previously been effectively rebutted on this forum in replies to the particular poster concerned will be moved to the Pseudoscience forum. If a poster cannot accept legitimate criticism of his or her pet theory, discussion on this forum is not going to be of much value.

As usual, I welcome further discussion and/or comments from contributors.
a
geistkiesel and alternative theories forum.
Everybody is here for their own prsonal reasons and as far as I can tell everybody 'understands the rules', but before we write these rules in some book to use as an objective standard why don't we just individually do what we can to improve our individual levels of understanding. Someone might suggest that everything is "technique". So rather than limit or direct a 'protocol', and I see nothing compelling a a response in the form of a complaint, but rule #6 is termed in words of a "threat", as mild as it is.

I suggest we simply see how threads develop. and act as we feel is appropriate. As interesting as the concept of Santa Claus performing any real scientific function of any kind may be, all know the technique of no response for reasons of "instantaneous least interest in the thread under consideration", coupled with the "positive response for interest in the thread" attachment. A pet peeve of mine, as I strip myself bare, here and now, are dogmatic statements supported claims of immunity from ihaving any tenet of the subject matteragainst from one claiming interest in science to arbitrarily exclude input challenges to the "standard model" under discusion. If there is cedible scientific information having some measurable affect on some asserted statement of fact the statement is fair game.

Here is what I mean by this. I privately and casually suggested to an aquaintence that there was strong scientific evidence that the ice age never occured, ever. After mulling over the statement, with some hemming and hawing for a moment or two, you get the drill, my aquaintance heatedly demanded that, "someone can have an ice age if they want to".

What can one say against such overwhelming and scientifically irrefutable experimental results? Do we need an iinf :cool: ormational gulag?

geistkiesel:

If you look at the forum, you will see many examples of threads which question the "standard model" in certain areas of physics. Those discussions are valid and allowed in this forum.

geistkiesel:

If you look at the forum, you will see many examples of threads which question the "standard model" in certain areas of physics. Those discussions are valid and allowed in this forum.

Doctordick
I have no quarrel with this and you are absolutely correct. It is the direct assault that is the real subject of this thread. From my perception the question for a "development thread" comes when a post directly challenges the fundamental concepts of QM or SR/GR; for instance a thread that has been progressing in terms of assumed QM or SR/GR authenticity that is suddenly ambushed from a sneaky poster. I am exagerating somewhat, but not excesively.

I have this syndrome, but I recognize that with "the predictive successes" each exhibit, "full attacks" aren't useful for any reason.

As an example I have been posting arguments demonstrating the fatal weakness of the derived posulate of simultaneity. I was corrected by James R. who informed me that simultaneity concept was derived from the fundamental postulates of relativity. So, I say, if simultaneity goes, what part of SR/GR must be restructured or amended such that the experimental "validations" are not compromised. In other words, that high energy acceleration of electrona show within experimenal error the "predicted" mass increase, then the problem must extend to an explanation outside the limits of current SR/GR theory.

The real problem, I say, is the reluctance to explore in this context. Ptolemy's "circles within circles" did not need proof of the model conforming to the real structure of he solar system because it worked wihin the accuracy limts of those using the information. Realism was aproblem that only concerned the church, as "does it work" only concerns the dogmatic moderns.

What is different here? I suppose it is technique and a careful assessment of the egos invovled. In physicforums it was stated expressly that visitors were entitled to discussion themes on subect matter where they had accepted or assumed the "truth" of QM or SR/GR or whatever, hence the creation of the theory development forum.

And while we are her, doctordick, I would like your assessment of my "simultaneity is in error" thesis, proved by simple algebra and physics. The bare bones argument can be compressed to three or four paragraphs. If you are amenable please let me know. I am one of those who have only a glimmer of understanding of the dynamics of "what we all want to know". I think this is tempered by an instinctive built in warning systems of 'cure all" philosophy, which yours certainly is not, but it is in that direction or so I conclude.
Thanks.
geistkiesel :cool: :cool: :cool:

geistkiesel:

I think you have me confused with somebody else. I am not "doctordick".

geistkiesel:

I think you have me confused with somebody else. I am not "doctordick".

No confusion here James R, I was speaking to doctordick when he arrives at this point in his readings.

I can tell from your Australian accent who you are. :D

[
Originally Posted by aetherdew

Why is the question of aether considered alternative theory and not mainline physics?

”
Because mainline Physics is done at the universities and research institutes and not in the internet or in sciforum, and nobody is doing research on ether theories. If you look at the arxiv site (http://arxiv.org), where almost all physicists post preprints of their papers before submitting them to publication, you will see that among the thousands of papers since 1991, only 13 of them use the word aether in the title or in the abstarct.
You may not be happy with it, but ether theory is not mainline physics, and this is a fact of life.

The fact that mainline physics has excuded aether theories, is this 100%. Are you suggesting here that mainliners have some exclusive road to determining physical law? Are you suggesting the mainliners are smarter and more knowledgeable and able to determine the truth of physical law to a higher degree of scientific integrity than some one who isn't a mainliner? Do political funding sources dictate directions of scientific scrutiny?

Is it someshing about the mainliners to recruit only those best qualified to determine truth? or is it something peculiar about those recruited by the mainliners that sets them apart? I mean this in the sense do recruited mainliners enjoy these special charateristics since birth, were they born with it(?) or is it a learned and aquired talent? Do mainliners have an "Do you believe in aether theroies?" question on their employment application? Does the mere past exposure to aether theories disqualify one from tenure in the mainline? Do recruits have to sign affidavits swearing on their oath that "not now or in the past have I ever believed in any aether theroies which I hereby unconditionally reject. I file this affiidavit under the penalty of perjury knowing all the aforesaid is the truth the whole truth and to the best of my information and belief I swear them to be true and as to those matters not submitted under information and beief , I believe them to be true"?.

Is the 13 papers on aether theory submitted a measure of the integrty of the description of physical law, or is it a measure of some propaganda effective-efficiency profile, or rating? Are you aware of any prolonged stretch of history when descriptions of physical law was exclusively reserved to that institution that enjoyed the right, power and willingness to burn heretics at the stake?

Did I ever see your name associated with a "good riddance" attitude regarding diminishing appearance of aether theories? Do you hold those who project determination to discuss aether theories to whatever the prevailing custom happens to be, with scorn, derision, disdain? At any level of seriousness?

Will you demonstrate the "void" you use as a replacement of aether theories, by whatever you use, to support a belief in the positive moral propriety of consciously excluding all, the total erasure from human contemplation and consideration, past, present and future aether theroies?

No confusion here James R, I was speaking to doctordick when he arrives at this point in his readings.

I can tell from your Australian accent who you are.

So, you addressed me in that manner to insult me, is that correct?

So, you addressed me in that manner to insult me, is that correct?

Absolutely not. It was just my ill framed attempt at a humorous response. I remembered a connection with James R and an Australian Educational Institute and assumed the first obvious choice, hence I can tell [from your computerized posts that] you have an Australian acccent, get it?.

For future references, when I insult anyone there is never, I mean ever, any ambiguity in determining what ends and intentions the communication was so directed. This is such a rare event I cannot remember anything close to such dialog from myself'. I once talked back to my first wife, I suppose that could be considered an insult. She seemed miffed.

If you felt insulted from my post, then please accept my humble apology.


:rolleyes:

I don't understand your humour, geistkiesel, but thankyou for the apology. I'm happy to forget this for now.

I don't understand your humour, geistkiesel, but thankyou for the apology. I'm happy to forget this for now.


I don't understand it either, but that is my problem.

I am posting this as a question. I authored a thread that I meant to post in the running "simultaneity' thread and attempted to edit and delete it. Can you tke a look and please advise?
thanx

I'd try just about anything, that is if it would share in ideas and/or viable notions, such as for the following topic: "Superconducting Photons via Atomic Oort Zones"

? The individual resting photon mass = 6.4555e-83 gram

Photons/m3 and of photons at rest: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photons-m3.htm

QUESTIONS;
how many photons/m3 are there ?

How weak, in terms of mass, are regular photons ?

How about the mass of a given resting photon ?

How many such photons (resting or otherwise) may exist or coexist/m3 ?

Could a blackhole worth of resting photons surround a seed of anti-matter ?

Are photons individual travelers, or are they being superconducted along by way of FIFO nodes of atomic Oort zones ?

QUESTIONS;
how many photons/m3 are there ?

How weak, in terms of mass, are regular photons ?

How about the mass of a given resting photon ?

How many such photons (resting or otherwise) may exist or coexist/m3 ?

Could a blackhole worth of resting photons surround a seed of anti-matter ?

Are photons individual travelers, or are they being superconducted along by way of FIFO nodes of atomic Oort zones ?
***************

I haven't got a clue. It looks like some inserts to a cartoon. I could be wrong, but this stuff is new to me. "atomic Oort zones"? All of your questions make the most diverse and ergo outlandish assumptions regarding Special Relativity and Quantum mechanics. If there someone there putting all this together? How do you monitor the value of the working theory? Not in twenty lifetimes will these qustions ever be tested, but then this is just my opinion.

<EMBED SRC="http://chatsoba.sprawl-vr.com/images/wave.swf">
The above is not a particular brilliant Flash file, however I just thought I would create it to show something to those that occasionally refer to lightspeed being different in regards to different frequencies.

The animation just shows two arc sizes to represent different frequencies. Even though the arc's are different sizes in relationship to one another, notice as they shift in the animation they are moving at the same speed in relation to each other. This is what everybody points out to be the Lightspeed constant and why one frequency is not faster than another.

[Hope it might aid in the future if people query this anymore.]

[QUOTE=geistkiesel]QUESTIONS;
how many photons/m3 are there ?

-> You will never be able to tell; The photon has dual properties; So it's not a 'real' particle which you can count. You can count energy density's (Google: photon energy density). Also the quantum vacuum will give you immense problems in counting photons.
***************
How weak, in terms of mass, are regular photons ?
-> Regular photons (well all photons, as far as i'm concerned) travel at the speed of light and -by special relitivity- MUST have a mass of exactly 0.
***************
How about the mass of a given resting photon ?
-> tell me how a photon can be at rest....

**************************

Could a blackhole worth of resting photons surround a seed of anti-matter ?
-> No; Even if you would be able to isolate some antimatter, and if you where able to bring photons to rest; If you then miraculously make a black hole (?) out of this; Most matter-antimatter interactions Go by electromagnetic interactions. So all your antimatter would be annihaleted within milliseconds...
*****************

Are photons individual travelers, or are they being superconducted along by way of FIFO nodes of atomic Oort zones ?
-> i dont know what oort zones are, but photons are not individual travelers. They are both particle and wave.
***************

Bo

Regular photons (well all photons, as far as i'm concerned) travel at the speed of light and -by special relitivity- MUST have a mass of exactly 0.


Interesting. I would like to hear your explanation for the fact that here at SciFi, Opps, SciFo. :D I have been in discussions involving the perspedtive reality of "infinity" and "Nothingness" or "0".

It was argued by physicists that the "0" state or condition of "Nothingness" is an impossibility.

Just how is it then that when you want something to be "0" you claim it, but when not, it becomes impossible?

well Nothingness doesn't really exist. Even in vacuum particles are created and annihilated continously. ( i suppose that's what you're referring to? ) But Physical properties can have any value*. If the photon would have had a mass=/0 then special relativity requires it to have infinite energy (which is clearly not the case; it would ruin everything basicly :)).
Of course extensions of the theory may change this requirement; but i have never seen anything promising in this direction. (loop quantum gravity, supersymmetry, string theory all require the photon mass to be 0 and exactly 0)
Bo
*Well many values are in fact by quantum mechanics 'quantised' so they can only have a fixed set of values. In quantum gravity theory's (e.g string theory) mass is also quantised; but still the massless particle always exist

well Nothingness doesn't really exist. Even in vacuum particles are created and annihilated continously. ( i suppose that's what you're referring to? ) But Physical properties can have any value*. If the photon would have had a mass=/0 then special relativity requires it to have infinite energy (which is clearly not the case; it would ruin everything basicly :)).

I understand that Relativity requires a photon to have "0" mass. However, I also understand that your comments above have not resolved the issue.

You state on one hand that the photon MUST be "0" mass but in the same paragraphs claim that "Nothingness" or "0" does not exist and still that "Physical Properties" can have any value inferring "0" is possible.

These claims are oil and water. You cannot mix them. Either "0", Nothingness" exists or a photon has mass. Which side of the fence do you choose. This isn't politics, no straddeling of the fence is allowed.

A photon isn't nothingness.

A photon isn't nothingness.

We of course agree on that issue. However, you are trying to seperate "Nothingness" and its mass being "0" into different issues and they are not.

If "0" (Nothing) does not exist then "0" mass does not exist. The simple truth here is that I am trying to show the disengenious responses that were made here months ago regarding the issue of "Nothing".

The idea seems to be that if you continue to look closer and closer into a maller and smaller +/- around any data point, you can no more be precisely "0" than you can become infinite.

Now not to confuse my position. I see this as a "Zeno" type problem. But it is a false position. It assumes an analog physical reality whereas it appears we have a Quantum Reality.

In a QM case one can most certainly achieve "0" as a physical reality. End of arguement I would hope.

MacM:

You have some strange ideas about "physical reality".

We of course agree on that issue. However, you are trying to seperate "Nothingness" and its mass being "0" into different issues and they are not.

A photon has many properties, including energy, frequency, momentum, spin, polarisation etc. Presumably, "nothing" would have none of these properties. Therefore, it would seem obvious that a photon is not nothing. Therefore, the mass of a photon has nothing to do with the concept of "nothingness", except possibly where "nothingness" means "no mass".

If "0" (Nothing) does not exist then "0" mass does not exist.

Only if zero mass is the same as nothingness. You can always have a philosophical discussion about that, if you like.

The idea seems to be that if you continue to look closer and closer into a maller and smaller +/- around any data point, you can no more be precisely "0" than you can become infinite.

I don't really understand your point here.

In a QM case one can most certainly achieve "0" as a physical reality. End of arguement I would hope.

That's not unique to QM, of course.

Therefore, the mass of a photon has nothing to do with the concept of "nothingness", except possibly where "nothingness" means "no mass".

That was infact the very issue. These other qualkities have no bearing on mass = "0" or "Nothing".

Only if zero mass is the same as nothingness. You can always have a philosophical discussion about that, if you like.

Only if you feel you must use symantics to justify your position. :D

I don't really understand your point here.

I really think it is clear to anyone actually thinking about it. Hitting a precise number, be it "0" or "99"; as in 0.00000000000000000000000 vs 0.00000000000000000000000001 or 99.00000000000000000000000 vs 99.000000000000000000000001 is the issue.

You have an infinite number of theoretical decimal points to be precise since infinity (infinite number) is not a physical reality one cannot every preciesly hit "0" or any other number.

i.e. -0.00000000000000000001 or +0.0000000000000000001 are not zero.

(Note: I have not counted "0's" here to insure the numbers are on the same scale.)

That's not unique to QM, of course.

No but pointing out a physics principle seems more apt for the discussion than making some other point which could then be argued as philosophy.