The living universe by J Carter

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by curious45, Mar 21, 2013.

  1. curious45 Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    Okay, I cant post a link to the website yet, and I haven't read the book either. I cannot be sure of the experimental basis of this theory, but it seems, on a very surface level, to be detailed, and sometimes elegant.

    There are some strange implications, but at the same time far less strange than other theories.

    So far ive only skimmed a few pages of the website. Things I like so far, is these -

    1) No feilds, no uncertainty principle, no plank - the shape observed of the "feild" is not a feild, but the interacting shape of the "particle", which is not a point, but a "circulon", and kinda wavey donut thing. Seems so intuitive and non-abstracted. Dunno if its right, but +1 for the direct simplicity of the idea

    2) Photons have a mass

    3) Very little speculative dimensions, forces, kinds of matter, feilds etc...Despite his assertions there are some postulates, and ponderances, but very little.

    One negative so far is this, and maybe I have gotten this wrong. He seems to imply that gravity does not exist, and its merely a product of the slow expansion of matter. Which is conceptually weird. Maybe equally weird compared to some SR and QM, phenomena of which there is a much greater number of things though.

    Conceptually, surprisingly straight forward in some aspects, still working others out.

    I have no idea how valid this is, but in many ways it seems less speculative than other theories. Would be interested in hearing others thoughts as I read more about.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,829
    It is full on woo woo pseudo science. Matter expanding and resulting in gravity is not only more speculative it is absurd. It presents all sort of problems. It seems less speculative because it does not use math and is more concrete to think about. It is as goofy as saying the night sky is a black sheet with holes in it instead of stars and galaxies in the night sky.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rita Registered Member

    Messages:
    210
    Personally, I do not like the new science dogma which to me seems as faulty as the dogma of church when it burned people for being heretics. I think we need to be careful about confusing opinions with science, and labeling something woo woo pseudo science is opinion not a logical argument to the points made.

    I do not know what is wrong to think in terms of circulons enacting with what is around it. I think this more animated concept is lacking in science, and should not be lacking. I think we are dealing with a materialistic cultural bias that is preventing us from having a better understanding of what is so. What I have said is opinion, not science.

    A materialistic mind set makes it essential for a photon to have a mass, because existence means having mass. If it is not a thing, it does not exist, and this is problematic because forces are not exactly things. We can not have gravity without having a particle of some kind that creates it. Science is as thrilled to find a particle for gravity as the church was thrilled to find proof its truths. Witch hunts were actually a scientific adventure, with serious text explaining how to identify a witch with physical evidence, as the science of the day lead people to understand their reality. I think the need to identify a particle for everything we can observe, has put science out on a limb. There is so much we can not think about, because it is not confirmed science, and if we can't think about it, we can never know of it. Only when we can question it and think about it and discuss it, is there hope of knowing. This is the importance of freedom of speech. There is some much I want to discuss, but I feel insulted when some some says it is woo woo pseudo science, and then I get defensive and from there things go very badly.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. curious45 Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    What kind of problems does it present?

    He claims that the math is able to calculate the same adjustments for the GPS system, using the newtonian force equation, plus the lorentz transformations and that it is mathematically equivilant to relativity gravity, only that it is "in reverse".

    I probably find his slow expansion of matter for gravity the hardest to swallow, but id prefer a mathematical or observational basis for that, rather than conceptual basis for that.

    The circulon idea itself seems conceptually, and logically "elegant" compared to point particles, uncertainty and feilds, but again, id like to see some math, or experimental predictions, some way of assessing the idea, outside of the imagination.

    Also not being a physics mathematician, I cannot assess what math he does produce.
     
  8. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    That is correct. You do not know what is wrong to think that way. That is because you believe it is acceptable to have an opinion on a matter you have not studied.

    You may feel this observation is aggressive and needlessly rude. I feel that having an opinion based on ignorance is rude, offensive and antisocial. That is an opinion, but I'm fairly sure that, given the resources, I could prove it true scientifically.
     
  9. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,829
    Some guy on the internet says he figured it all out... right. There also is a guy from Nigera that has 342 million dollars that he wants to give you. The mainstream is the mainstream for a reason, not because it is a rigid religion, but because the best and the brightest are constantly questioning each others discoveries through peer review. Some clown on the internet who 'studied' physics on his own (a wiki wonder) has almost no possible chance of having anything worth considering - is it possible that he does, well almost anything is possible.

    If there is some guy on the internet who never went to medical school but studied on his own and says he has come up with a drug that will make you live to 300 years old would you take the drug? I sure a hell wouldn't, is it possible he actually has something, maybe but odds are really, really high that he is just a clown selling god only knows what.
     
  10. curious45 Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    You said it presents all sorts of problems.

    I thought you might have had something specific in mind *shrugs*

    Personally I put no stock in this, but hey, i put stock in very few things.

    I would be interested to learn about an actual clown physicist, if you know of one

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page