Dogmatism to the side: Science to the front...

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Reiku, Dec 14, 2007.

  1. Reiku

    Reiku Banned

    I think too many people round here (including myself) have been far too quick to be judgemental, and teprimental towards each others conclusions. Here is a NEW REVOLT: Lets all work together. If we all put our heads together, we might actaully reach some final univesal-site goal.
    Pease Join in. Plus, this is an ALPHA THREAD, so no arguementatives please. :)

    I believe the best place to start would be either Newtonian Dynamics, or Aether Theory... Pehaps even Relativity...

    Let us all put our minds together.

    You never know how our conclusions can change the future, unless we believe that we can. Mind Manifests Reality.

    Reiku :m:
  2. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know?

    You post a thread saying science should be pushed to the front ... that contains no science.

  3. BenTheMan

    BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love

    One of these things is not like the other...

    Anyway, what is it you wanted to discuss exactly, Reiku?
  4. zephir

    zephir Banned

    Well... You can think, the world is the chaotic mixture of many quantities ..Of infinite number of different quantities - simply because of no virtual upper or lower limit exists here. While this word is virtually unlimited, we are limited creatures definitely, so that the number of quantities, which is forming us is finite.

    What such limited creatures are supposed to see from such unlimited world? You should realize, to see something is casual event, based on certain well arranged mass/energy spreading in space and time, so what you can see is just a casual behavior of limited number of quantities from virtually unlimited number of others. The ratio of limited over unlimited is some quite low finite number - the lowest number of such quantities, which are even able to keep some casual relation is just a two. You can call them mass and energy, or space or time, or whatever else. The dynamic equilibrium of them would be our casual sample from chaotic reality.

    The question simply is: how the limited less or more casual sample of chaos (i.e. random fluctuation) can interact with the rest by less or more casual way? From the sample limitation a number of other consequences follows: for example the fact, such sample should be always of positive curvature. So what we can see are always fluctuations of positive curvature, i.e. the particles of matter. The other particles will be perceived as a supersymmetric particles of energy and they would have an disintegration effect for us. Fortunatelly, just due the surface curvature we will tend to aggregate the matter particles, i.e. the positive curvature fluctuations.
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2007
  5. BenTheMan

    BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love

    Well...if we don't start talking about physics soon I see no reason for this thread to be here.
  6. zephir

    zephir Banned

    Can you prove, I'm not talking just about physics?
  7. BenTheMan

    BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love

    zephir I have no idea what you are talking about.
  8. zephir

    zephir Banned

    I can see that.;) To move on further in physics, we should define the common concepts of all theories, which we can all agree together. For example, the string theorists are believing, all particles are composed of 1D strings. Some variants of string theory are considering the string solution for boundary conditions of particles strings, i.e. string field theory. By some latest insight, the string net liquid structure is relevant for the vacuum, too. The LQG theorists are considering, the vacuum has structure of spin foam. The Heim's theory suggests, the particles and space-time is composed of protosimplexes, i.e. the foam composed of 1D elements, so called metrons. Furthermore, we have the quantum foam models of Dirac, J.A.Wheeler for vacuum and Kip Thorne's foam model of black hole interior.

    [​IMG] [​IMG][​IMG]

    The Aether Wave Theory is proposing quite simple model, how to explain the formation of such foamy structures, so conceptually it violates anything from the above, it just adds a new causality level into these models. But the Aether theory isn't the very final step, it just illustrates, how the observable reality CAN be constituted at the even deeper level. The first question can sound, why the foam structure is so general and widespread both at the cosmological scales (the foam of dark matter structures, for example), both the Planck one? What makes the foam artifact so unique?
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2007
  9. zephir

    zephir Banned

    By AWT the observation of every reality is mediated by energy, without energy spreading no reality can be seen at all. Furthermore, the energy concept is pretty general in all theories and it can be easily converted to the inertial momentum. So we can say, despite of you're believing into inertial environment concept, every energy can be expressed in terms of momentum transfer through imaginary matter, forming observable reality, i.e. the Aether. The Aether environment simply serves here as another level of abstraction.

    Now we can ask, how the Aether should appear to be able to spread as much energy as possible to the largest space-time distance scales? What its structure can appear, to enable as intensive energy spreading at the distance, as possible? This is quite relevant question, because the Universe appears huge both at the cosmological scale, both in the Planck one. To be able to see as many Universe, as possible, the inertial environment should be of certain, quite specific structure, which can be found by permutations of trivial computer simulations. During this we can postulate some structure of inertial matter and we will analyze, how such structure can appear to be able to transfer the energy at the maximal distance with minimal distortion.

    From formal point of view such assignment corresponds the optimization problem: finding the geometry of matter enabling the minimal Lagrangian during energy spreading. Such question is quite relevant from both physical, both formal point of view and it has unique, well defined solution. No landscapes 10+500 of different solutions is necessary to consider here. Furthermore, for the case of 4D space-time the qualitative answer can be quite simple and it can be deduced from real-life observations, as we can demonstrate bellow. No blind computer simulations are required here.
  10. Reiku

    Reiku Banned

    Ben... don't get too cocky. My connectin has been exteernky slow. So,,, yes, it SHOULD BE HERE... I'll re-itterate what Zeph was saying:

    String Thoery, indeed all tehories COULD BE the Uniltmate Theory of Everything,...

    Now that my comuter is not, i am rather tired.I willc otinue wy tommorrow this thread,,, but first, before i go, i want to post another, so please be patient.

  11. BenTheMan

    BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love

    Aethers have been disproven long ago.

    This thread is going nowhere.

    Reiku---if you want to start a thread discussing the level of scientific discourse that we adhere to at SciForums, I would suggest that you make a more clearly stated goal in the original post.

    Note to all: If this thread doesn't get some direction soon, it will be moved to the cesspool.
  12. Reiku

    Reiku Banned

    If you really NEED TO KNOW, you nosey little fragmatic firned, i'm not long out of the hospital, so if YOU DO NOT LET ME HAVE SOME SLEEP, i'll hold you in contempt of this forum, which CANNNOT BE refuted.

    Now.. have patience oh little one.
  13. BenTheMan

    BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love

    I didn't need to know, and I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

    If you're not healthy enough to post here, perhaps you shouldn't be...
  14. This is a really weird thread...

  15. 2inquisitive

    2inquisitive The Devil is in the details

    Now that is a bullshit statement, Ben. All M&M showed was that the type of 'ether wind' hypothesized by scientists of the time was not physically detectable. Their experiment does nothing to eliminate other types of aether, such as a dynamical aether. Scientists have not been able to detect 'strings', dark matter, dark energy, or gravitational waves. Shouldn't those hypothesis' be disproven also by your logic? You do know that the winners of the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics are aether physicists, don't you?
  16. Were they? I didn't know that. Do you have any links to that info (news articles or such)? I'm interested now.
  17. BenTheMan

    BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love

    I have a theory which predicts pixies that live on electrons, except that the pixies are too small to be observed and have no other experimental consequences.

    What Michelson and Morrely showed is that if there is an aether, then it doesn't have a preferred reference frame. This means that it has no consequences for experiment.

    Just like my pixies.
  18. Gustav

    Gustav Banned

    if the justification of this thread in this fori is resolved in reiku's favor, i believe plazma has to reevaluate ben's modship.

    enough of the bogus melodramatics. phy and math is no ones sacred stomping grounds
  19. 2inquisitive

    2inquisitive The Devil is in the details

    Sounds like string theory. Is that correct?
    No, what M&M showed was that they failed to detect a stationary aether with physical properties that the Earth is moving through with their simple experiment.

    Sure, super. George Smoot and John Mather won the Nobel Prize for detecting our motion through the universe relative to the preferred frame of the CMB (hint, hint Ben). Here is a link to their homepage and some onfo.
  20. BenTheMan

    BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love

    A rather ill-informed potshot at string theory, and completely tangential to the subject at hand. I can wipe the floor with you twice, if you'd like.

    So if there is an aether, it has to have exactly the same reference frame as earth? Correct? Does that sound reasonable to you---a little...heliocentric? M&M showed exactly what I said, if there is an aether it has to have no reference frame, or (as you pointed out the MUCH less likely probability) that it has to have exactly the same reference frame as an observer on the surface of the earth.

    Life is much easier when you are not burdened with actually having to think about things before you say them.

Share This Page