Scientific theories and reality:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Jul 6, 2014.

  1. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Nice bass boogie beat. I can play that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Sean Carrol is a big-time mainstreamer in physics and on his blog. He is a big supporter of the milti-verse interpretation in QM as is Hawking. Because of this I usually get more cons than pros from viewers and participants when commenting on his blog. Thanks for trying to promote civility and logical responses in this thread.

    best regards, Forrest
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I really enjoy your comments on the history of the literature and those who have contributed to its proliferation. Cranks of all types shun it like its the intellectual component of the plague.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Your statement concerning your use of the words "not official" is completely wrong. The Journal of Applied Physics Research is published by the Canadian Center of Science and Education. Is is a peer reviewed monthly International journal.

    http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr

    Send2Press is a long established press-release service.
    http://send2pressnewswire.com/about/

    Equation (4) is saying that 2 to the power of 2/3 is about 1.5874. Do your dispute this? If not the theory involved explaining this equation is in 6.1. Concerning theory, one cannot simply say it's wrong any more than I could say that the Big Bang model was wrong, without explaining why I thought so. Realize that this is theoretical physics. So what do you think this part of the theory is supposedly violating concerning a fundamental principle?

    Realize again this is theoretical physics, this version of which exists nowhere else. So what do you think is wrong with table 1?

    (underline added)
    What extra energy would be occurring/needed if the universe were not expanding?
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    double posting deleted
     
  8. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    it's not even 10 years old, it has no track record of how their accuracy of publishings is.



    it's incorrect.



    your miscalculations.

    if not expanding then the energy from big bang is used up, which turns to gravity taking over.(big crunch)
    if not, then universe is balanced(steady state of gravity and energy fighting each other)
    then there's extra energy(dark energy)multiplying it's self like a cell or microbe causing the accelerated expansion.(big freeze)
    your alternative theory is missing serious pieces of information.
    the bottom line is,
    this so called theory is inaccurate.

    and again since it was conveniently side stepped,
    how much did you pay for this to be published ?
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    I want to see evidence that cosmological redshift is not what we think it is.
    I want to see evidence that the Universe/spacetime is not expanding.
    I want to see evidence invalidating SR, GR......
    I want to see why this ToE should be considered more valid then the other three ToE's, whose "owners" are just as confident, and just as certain that theirs is the one.
    I want to see why this ToE, does not undergo proper peer review, if it is so exceptional.

    Sorry Forrest, we have heard it all before.
     
  10. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    If you are unaware of the Journal that's Ok, but why criticize it if there is no negative information about it.

    I asked you which aspect of this section 6.1 (4) your thought was incorrect. Your answer: it's incorrect

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Your answer to what's wrong with table 1. your answer, your miscalculations. Again you must say which calculations. There are dozens of calculations related to that page. You're not very good at explaining your meanings, are you?

    If you would read the paper you would realize there would have accordingly been no Big Bang. The model is a type of steady state model. The paper as a whole, and the press release, is all about the non-existence of dark energy. None of your comments apply to this model. It's much simpler than the Big Bang model.

    "and again since it was conveniently side stepped,
    how much did you pay for this to be published ?"

    They have a $50. publishing fee upon their invitation to publish, and no fee after 3 publications. The press release distribution to various news sources costs $300.
     
  11. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Hi paddoboy,

    let's turn it around the other way, what evidence is there that space is expanding other than the observed galactic redshifts themselves?[/quote]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

    Check out this link and tell me what other evidence they think there is for the expansion of space?

    If the universe were expanding, galaxies in the distant past should have been much closer together. There have been no observational studies claiming that the distant universe was more dense, on the contrary the distant universe appears to be steadily less dense the farther we look.

    The link below tries to explain the standard explanation why we cannot observe a denser universe in the past.

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=543

    Quote from the link above.

    This explanation has some merit, but dwarf galaxies on the outskirts of large galaxies like the Milky Way, or simply galaxies too small to observe, cannot explain the total absence of a calculated density of 8 times more dense 7 billion years ago, based upon the Big Bang premise. Instead it would seem to better explain a constant-density of galaxies falling off with distance based upon decreased observability.
    Another common answer/ explanation is that astronomers cannot easily measure density with a telescope, the idea being that the angular separation of a telescope cannot be used to measure density for any significant volume. Still other ad hoc explanations involves proposed mechanisms of the Inflation era, another involving dark energy where the supposed logic presented is that the farther back we look dark energy would have pushed galaxies farther apart. Both of these proposals seem to fail in logic since regardless of the expansion rate at any particular timeframe, if the universe were truly expanding from a denser past then these greatly increased densities in the past should be detectable from large scale galaxy surveys.

    Another answer sometimes given for the lower densities observed for distant galaxies is that according to the standard model most galaxies would not have formed as yet. This seems to be a logical argument, but those galaxies that would have formed in these early epochs, according to the standard model, would have been young blue immature galaxies. Instead, at a distance of 12 billion light years, according to observations as indicated above, astronomers are reportedly finding many galaxies which they say appear to be like old spiral and elliptical galaxies, similar or larger in size, form, and color to the Milky Way. Star production appears to be diminished and imperceptible, similar to the condition in the Milky Way if viewed from this great distance.
    ------------------------------------------------
    Why would the alternative model be preferred (density problem)?
    Steady-State models predict a constant density of galaxies for all distances with a slow falling-off of observable galactic density with distance. This is what is being observed.

    IMO strong evidence against both was presented by me in posting #19 .

    Here's another link explaining that our gravity models including dark matter do not work at galactic scales.

    http://labyl.com/docs/d01HqI8F/

    Here is what the study concludes:

    “There’s a very serious conflict, and the repercussion is we do not seem to have the correct theory of gravity”
    “The group will continue to study tidal dwarf galaxies and whether another alternative to the standard model—modified gravity
    (of various types) —fits what they observe.”

    which other 3 models? For me to consider fault in any I need access to their full detail.

    It has gone through peer review concerning one paper of mine that spells out some detail of my model. There were a few responses to the publication but none as yet have challenged the details of it. It is difficult learning a new model of physics, It's almost like adding a number of new classes to the curriculum that has completely new material in them. Unless required, few would be interested in the required reading and study. It's not like there is a few things to study and consider, the theory challenges much of modern physics -- in detail including newly derived equations based upon the new model. This link to this paper was given in posting #19 but I will give it again here:

    I know you have. Everybody has a theory, but I have done the studies, derived the equations, and my model is now over 50 years old and time tested

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I have and continue to converse with mainstream astronomers and alternative theorists, some well known.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2014
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    [/QUOTE]


    I take it you have no evidence to show otherwise?
    And no, you cannot just dismiss the observed cosmological redshift. That in itself, and the relationship it entails with the distances of these galaxies is evidence enough for me.







    I also have another. It's obvious galaxies were less dense in the distant past, as we would have only had POP 3 stars, and it is thought supernova or some catastrophic cosmological event, was needed to actually "kick start"the gravitational collapses that went into making further stars and further galaxies, plus the different GEN type of stars with the heavier elements.
    That seems an obvious reason.




    Not the way I see it.
    At the BB we had the Inflationary epoch. I explain that by the DE impetus at those very early times. Then due to the higher then average mass/energy densities in the Universe, [not galaxies and stars per se, but the stuff that makes up the galaxies and stars] gravity acted against the CC/DE or whatever the impetus that drives expansion is, thus slowing it down to a more sedate pace.
    As the Universe/spacetime expanded and more and more galaxies formed, the Universe became less dense [same amount of matter/energy spread over a larger Universe/space/time] and so the DE/CC or whatever, then started to accelerate that expansion again.
    This is the current epoch we find ourselves in.


    I have heard of all those excuses when the Pioneer anomaly was the flavour of the month for our alternative people. That also died a natural death.







    The three posters that all claim to have rewritten 20th/21st century cosmology and invalidated the mainstream model did so with great enthusiasm, and promises of books and papers etc just as you have.
    I'm not going through the rigmarole of finding it all, but the posters are undefined, Farsight, and Sylvester.



    How about the more realistic situation where top line cosmologists, physicists and peer review people, are everyday smothered with hundreds and hundreds of papers from "would be's if they could be's" all claiming ToE's to have invalidated SR/GR and shown that all those giants of the past were wrong.

    They probably grow a bit tired of the nonsense and claims, and misinterpretations etc.

    I am not able to answer all your questions Forrest, but I think I have said enough to show that it is really quite unlikely for someone to come to a science forum, with a ToE and claims of re writing all of cosmology.
    I just don't accept that.
     
  13. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    amusing

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    (concerning the universe not expanding)

    This relates to the density problem in that observations indicate that galaxies were not denser in the past. The universe should have been 8 times more dense 7 billion years ago and 64 times more dense 10.5 billion years ago based upon a universe of 13.8 billion years of age and the volume of an expanding sphere 4/3 pi r cubed. The evidence is that observations of expansion seem to indicate otherwise.

    No I do not dismiss galactic redshifts, in fact it is primary evidence for my own model. But instead of space expanding to produce the observed redshifts, I propose that matter is slowly getting smaller, about 1/1000th part every 8 million years. This very small decrease in size accordingly is enough shrinkage to produce the observed redshift. How could we tell the difference between matter getting smaller and space expanding? Here are links to such proposals and discussions.

    http://martinelli.org/rexpansion/
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/astronomy-cosmology/25741-us-shrinking-space-expanding-3.html
    http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=22226
    http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthr...t-Expanding!-Our-Measuring-Stick-Is-Shrinking (in posting #36 she posted the link to my website)
    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=354424

    I don't know if it is obvious but it seems like a logical possibility based upon the Big Bang model.

    Yes, this is the mainstream version.

    As you imply, time will tell. The main argument I gave against GR and present gravitational models, was in posting my #19, whereby there seems no way present models of gravity can explain what's being observed in galaxies unless dark matter is unevenly distributed in some galaxies but non- existent in others. This is total ad hoc usage of a hypothetical entity to explain reality. I don't believe this discrepancy can ever be overcome.

    I've talked to Farsight in this forum. He is interesting enough. I don't recall his particular version of cosmology though. I might be confusing Sylvester with another poster but if he is the same person, you and I had several discussions with him. I was not happy discussing details with him because I believed his postings did not belong in the main forum, and in that thread. If he is the same person I agreed a lot with what he was saying. He had a pushing gravity model, based upon an aether theory where matter displaces the aether and the force of aether pushing back would be gravity. This is similar to my own theories. Several other things he said had kinship with my theories.

    It should be realized that every proposal is different. No one could have come up with my exact model because there and a number of theories and a great many proposed hypothesis to explain greater detail. I think it is more likely that most of these past theories, even when published in mainstream journals, never get read. They are ignored because it would take too much effort to read them if the theory is very different from mainstream.

    You can believe that I have done this in that my theory can be found at pantheory.org. Only its validity is the question, not whether I have done it. One reason I come here is because I am generally a loner and like conversion with civil people like yourself, while listening to all detailed opinions. For being a loner, I am quite gregarious with others. Another reason is that the theory has been written in book form that will be published in maybe the coming year. It has been many decades in the making. Its readership is intended to be for science educated people at about the junior college level and higher. Listening to comments here I get ideas concerning how the material should be presented to keep the reader interested long enough for him to read the entire book. I have had dozens of readers over the many years, and many have provided comments that resulted in an improved book IMO. So there you have it. Those are the reasons I am here.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2014
  15. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    This reminded me of Euclidean geometry and his four mathematical axioms:
    1. A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.
    2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.
    3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.
    4. All right angles are congruent.
    But, as you mentioned, we live in the bottom of a gravity well. And so they don't really apply to our universe. While they approximate reality, these are only mathematical models of reality. Reality itself is made up of curved space.


    This is why, IMO, empirically derived observations trump logical consistency. Though, to a mathematician, I belief the perfection of a system of symbols will always draw them to logic. It's that old dived between 'mathematically' minded people (Pythagoras, Plato, Euclid, Archimedes) and empirically minded people (Aristotle, Locke, Hume).
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    I can see that if stars and galaxies were created at around the same time, early in the Universe.
    What I'm saying is that there were fewer galaxies in the early part, and short lived giant stars, that underwent supernova to produce BH's that gradually merged to form SMBH's.
    I see the situations of stars still forming and probably in time even galaxies.
    All this at least until all available hydrogen fuel is used up.



    This sounds like the possible scenario put to me a long time agao, by a GR/cosmologist expert on another forum. He called it "shrinking rulers"
    He just as quickly though dismissed it.





    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Some would disagree with that description of me...and probably vehemently so.
    I take people as they come. :shrug:
    But at times like others here, I can get short with individuals depending how they put their case.
    You do sound reasonably reasonable from where I sit, but also I must say, that although I disagree with your summation, [within the bounds of my own knowledge] that I may not see all your probable errors as others do, as I'm no professional.
    If and when the more professional people here, see science being riddled with silly obvious errors, which the person putting them just wont except, I can see some reason for less then cordial talk. I'm speaking of what this forum has been subject to in the recent past from some real obvious nutbags.
     
  17. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,809
    Yes I do. The respected science source seems to carry alot of weight for you. So the pehaps 1000+ papers published in the journal supporting evolution must mean that you agree that evolution is a the theory for the diversity of life on earth. Certainly one quote by one scientist cannot trump 1000+ articals, I mean that would be completely stupid, right?
     
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    How about simply examining the evidence?
    • We can see the artiodactyl DNA in the cetaceans, proving that they evolved from primitive hippopotamuses.
    • We can watch bacteria evolve, with their much faster reproductive rate of more than one generation per day. At the end of a year we've got bacteria with mutations that render them immune to our medicines.
    There were humans in North America when the bald eagle speciated from the white-tailed eagle, but unfortunately they didn't have the tools to examine DNA.
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the article smashes everything you've said.
    the unresolved "misquote" just reinforces it.
    get over it origin.
     
  20. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The theory of the constituents of matter, stemming from particle accelerators and colliders, is a place in science where theory and reality appear to separate. In chemistry, material properties are both pressure and temperature dependent. The collider experiments occur under high temperature (equivalence) but low lab pressure. This only represents a certain phase of sub-matter, but not all possible phases.

    Gravitational pressure will cause entropy to decrease, whereas the low pressure collider experiments contain much higher entropy. The result is the variety they see in the lab is connected to the higher entropy conditions in the lab. Lower entropy extreme pressure experiments would define much lower entropy and contain less variety of sub particles and/or particle states.

    As an analogy water at extreme pressure and temperature becomes metallic. This metallic state cannot be simulated under low pressure no matter how much energy you place into the system. The states that result will contain way much entropy because of the energy available, and the lack of confinement by pressure. Don't get me wrong, the current theory is a good applied theory for making weapons or something but ignoring phases diagrams and claiming one phase does it all is not exactly being honest and/or lacks common sense.

    As another analogy, say we light a firecracker. The firecracker goes boom and the paper becomes shredded into confetti. Next, we place a second firecracker in a pipe to keep it under pressure when it explodes. We don't get the same confetti field under the high pressure containment. We would get a different result even if we did this 1000 times, with the new final shape having its own mathematical properties. This would be another phase.
     
  21. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    look into something called,
    exotic matter and mach's principle
     
  22. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Fewer galaxies in the early universe is what is being observed, correct. The short-lived giant stars, and the emergence of SMBH from newly formed black holes is part of Big Bang theory, correct. Of course there had to be a time when stars and galaxies were forming very quickly in a Big Bang scenario. To my knowledge we have not seen such a time as yet. Hydrogen fuel being used up is Big Bang cosmology all right.

    We have observed newly forming galaxies in our neighborhood, and in all past timeframes. According to my model we are using the wrong distance and brightness equations so that our conclusions concerning the most distant observations would accordingly be wrong. Because of this astronomers will claim that the most distant galaxies were much brighter and more condensed. The accordingly is because their calculated distances, based upon the Hubble formula, accordingly would be underestimated. The theoretical problem for observers will then be that because of their over-calculated brightnesses they will also over estimate the mass of these galaxies. In my own model all of these distant galaxies in reality, with the correct equations, will be determined to look just like the variety of old and young galaxies in our neighborhood, according to my version of the cosmos

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If there were some potentially fetal errors in my proposals I would want to be the first to learn of it and determine if there was a theoretical way out of it without scraping a major part of the theory. I have been studying and in conference with a number of professionals for a long time and have made no major changes of theory for about 50 years but have made some important theoretical addendums IMO and have proposed numerous hypothesis to explain greater detail.

    To my knowledge the first one to propose shrinking rulers (shrinking matter) was Robert Dicke about 1956. I proposed the same thing about 1958 or 59 not knowing of Dicke's proposal. I was still in high school. My first related 10 page paper was in 1959. I expect there were others making such a proposal soon after the redshift of galaxies became well known by Hubble's work in the late 20's. If there were others before Dicke proposing shrinking matter I haven't been able to find their proposals. The most famous of shrinking matter proposals was in a paper by Hoyle-Narlikar, about 1964, where they proposed the shrinking of matter to explain the observed redshifts. Their proposal was that the electrons of all atoms were getting closer to the atomic nuclei making atoms in the past of greater diameters. Larger diameter atoms would accordingly have produced longer wavelengths of EM radiation, that to us would appear redshifted. My own model I call the process Matter Diminution. In this model all matter and matter particles would very slowly become smaller. Therefore everything in every time frame would look and measure the same. The evidence for this process accordingly would be fermion spin. In this model particle spin is real, not just angular momentum.

    Matter would accordingly be made up of strings of thousands or millions of attached particles which I call the Ipan bead hypothesis. As time goes on each bead gets smaller but the string it is part of gets longer with more beads created on it. The mass-equivalence and volume of collective beads would remain the same. The the very small increased length of these strings making up atomic matter over time, would accordingly be pruned/ pared away by interactions with other matter giving off these superfluous pieces to the background aether field, something like dark matter excepting the string pieces would be vastly smaller than electrons. On a regular basis surrounding SMBHs new matter accordingly would be created to account for the decreasing size of matter, maintaining a relatively constant density of matter and energy in the observable universe. The conservation of mass-energy would accordingly be maintained.

    I enjoy being totally cordial and dislike seeing snarkisms and sarcasm in threads. I try not to push anybody's buttons and often use abbreviations and words such as IMO, "accordingly" meaning according to the proposal, and cordialities as much as possible. As you stated, it is very difficult for those educated in a particular field for many years to listen to someone proposing something very different, implying that that person has spent many years studying theory that could be wrong and might be replaced. Many would give an angry, aggressive reply.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2014
  23. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    What I could find relates to space-drive proposals. Interesting stuff. I would love to see a breakthrough in space-drive technology, as would almost everyone I expect

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page