What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by paddoboy, Jul 11, 2016.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,754
    Gravity releases photons?
    The weak force does?
    How about the strong force?

    What?

    No it doesn't.

    Meaningless terminology.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    11,274
    What is needed is compared to other theories .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,639
    wellwisher:

    You misunderstand relativity. The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame of reference. Therefore, there is no "speed of light reference".

    You misunderstand the term "ground state". Ground states have nothing to do with frames of reference.

    You misunderstand the term "potential". Potential has nothing to do with speed.

    You misunderstand. The two things you mention here are not connected in any way.

    That sentence doesn't make much sense if by "inertial references" you mean "inertial reference frames".

    Repetition of one of your previous errors.

    Sea level is a unique elevation - namely, the elevation of the sea surface.

    It sounds like you're struggling to understand that the zero level of potential energy can be set arbitrarily.

    Right, because one is a speed and the other is an energy (or perhaps a reference frame - it's hard to tell what you mean from what you write). You don't seem to have got the various definitions straight in your head.

    You should try to be specific when advancing a new idea. Tell us what property or properties of photons are "impacted", and how they are impacted. "Impacted" is an imprecise choice of language there.

    You misunderstand. Energy, reference frames and ground states are three very different concepts. You seem to think you can freely mix and match them.

    Wow. You've put the entire word salad that you've been constructing into two sentences, using all of the terms ground state, speed of light, potential, reference, energy and red shift in a way that makes it almost sound like those things are connected. The uneducated would probably be utterly bamboozled by you by this point.

    Sounds like a very broad statement with little explanation or support.

    Not to my knowledge. But perhaps you can justify your claim (?)

    You realise you're off in fairyland by this point, don't you?

    Always good to leave your readers with a non sequitur. It sums up your theme.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    11,274
    Wellwisher you are a little bizarre in your thinking ; not saying your wrong so much ; I just don't know what the heck you saying ; at all .

    Perhaps explain it better ; just saying .

    river
     
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The ground state is the place of lowest possible potential.

    As an analogy, if water was raining from the clouds, it will fall to earth where it is absorbed by the earth and plants. The water will now be at lower potential, but this is not the ground state, since there is more potential for change. If there was excess water, beyond what the earth can absorb, the excess water will act as activation energy allowing the water to continue to flow into a creek or stream, where it may then may pool. This pool is now at lower potential, but it also is not the ground state, even though the water has stopped. If the pool fills and starts to overflow; activation energy, once again the water will continue to flow, now into a river. The river may evenly pool and form a lake. Although this lake is at even lower potential, it is still not the ground state. The lake can also overflow and/or tunnel, to reform another river. It then may keep flowing until it reaches the ocean.

    Even though the water may stop at various waypoints along the way, the ground state is not reached until there is longer any more potential for change, even under optimism conditions of activation energy. The ground state of the universe is at C-level. All roads; forces and energy head there, however, not all paths all get to the ground state in one step. Most things will reach waypoints and stop, for now.

    In our universe, there is a net conversion of matter to energy. This is the spontaneous direction of the lowering of universal potential. We move from inertial based waypoints, to inertial based waypoints plus energy. There is a net increase in energy reference over time. There is not a net increase in inertial reference. Our sun has lost inertial substance due to its content fusion and energy production.

    I understand the tradition of using relative inertial references, but these all change with time and will require fudge factors. The current trend is to pick a waypoint, somewhere between the cloud and the ocean and define that as the ground state. The difference I propose is cut out all the middle men and pick the ocean, even if this is not evident in all cases, since this is the final unchanging ground state. This makes things very easy, since all relative references, anywhere in time, can use the same common ground state.
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,754
    No.
    Excess water is not "activation energy".

    You persist in stating this. So far you haven't shown it to be true (or even meaningful).

    Really?

    Word salad.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Say we wanted to create stable matter from energy. Stable matter will be defined as lasting as long as the universe. We will start with radio waves. You can't make stable matter, as defined, from radio waves, since the potential is too low. We will need to increase the potential of the energy, to near the upper end, until electrons and positrons appear. Stable matter appears at the upper end of energy, not at the bottom end. This is the reason why matter to energy is the direction of lowering potential.

    If we begin with matter and anti-matter; upper end of energy, but remove the anti-matter, there is no easy reversible path for the matter to return to energy. Instead, the matter has to step down potential, via waypoints, before it can once again return to the ground state of energy. Not all energy is at the ground state, since different quanta have different potential. Infinite wavelength energy is closest to the ground state.

    Let me ask Dywyddyr to explain where matter being created faster than energy so the net direction is energy to matter?
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,754
    So, basically, yet more unsupported claims[1] rather than providing some explanation (or support) for your previous drivel?
    Got it.

    1 Which, in part, directly contradict earlier nonsense stated by you.
     
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The BB created matter, which has been cooling and changing; giving off energy, since, via the forces of nature. The energy, is red shifting and lowering potential. If we extrapolate these bulk observations, this is heading in the direction of the ground state, via waypoints. Using a waypoint as the grounds state will only lead to the need for addenda as technology finds exceptions to the rule. The problem may be the inability to visualize the ground state at C.
     
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I did ask you a question, but you don't seen to have an answer. Is your opinion, based on nothing but a pretentious rant? Prove to us, you are not pretending to be smarter than you are; critic, by answering the simple question I posed. I will assume that your refusal to answer, means you are not qualified. I would suggest starting with an easier topic where you may have more luck with credibility.
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,754
    "Explain where matter being created faster than energy so the net direction is energy to matter?"
    It's predicated (again) on a false premise
    YOU initially claimed "net conversion of matter to energy" - but didn't bother to support it - I asked if that were true. I didn't, however, claim the reverse - therefore there's requirement for an "explanation" from me for something I didn't state.
    And could you please tell us where this (claimed but not supported) conversion of matter to energy is taking place?

    Given that - for the most part - I (and others) have asked you to SUPPORT your claims (which you have failed to do throughout) aren't you the one "pretending to be smarter than you are"?
    It's a consistent trait of you to make claims but not provide evidence (e.g.
    wellwisher said: All the forces of nature releases energy; photons at C, when they lower potential.
    Me: Gravity releases photons? The weak force does? How about the strong force?
    Post #281).
    In short the topic is only "easy" because it is -almost entirely - made up bullsh*t. (For which I freely admit I am not qualified).
     
    exchemist likes this.
  15. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    184
    Arguments, purporting to address the basic mechanisms of linear energic processes like light and electrical transmissions, which are based on observational quantum mechanics, just go round in a circle. Our earth-world's quantum forces operate via spin, vectors, and waves, and these mechanisms cannot represent the true underlying basis of linear transmissions. Physicists are just "proving that quantum processes exist" by repeatedly deriving slightly different mathematical approaches based on measuring quantum forces, which actually represents going round in a similar circle, but does not address the basis of energy.

    The true basis of those transmissions occurs at an elemental etheric level of energy, which is beyond our quantum observational radar. At a vastly more fine-tuned level of first-cause formative energy, same-sized elemental units in intimate proximity to each other resonate perfectly-linearly (as they vibrate.) -The quantum systems we observe exist in a state of subliminal vibratory resonance with more-fundamental energy units, which is where linear transmissions derive their linearity from.
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,754
    Stop posting crap.
    Keep your insane nonsense to a separate thread please.
     
  17. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    184
    To try to clarify my last Post, another way to conceptualize this ether-model would be to think of the Ether as a universal (from first cause) unstructured background energy-matrix, which operates via vibrations between elemental energy units. -Our structured world of atoms and quantum forces was built up from, and retains its vibratory resonances with, the underlying ether matrix.

    I submit that this is the only way to understand quantum entanglement, as an example.
     
    river likes this.
  18. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,579
    I submit that randomly throwing sciencey sounding words into a meaningless sentences is not science. It is not even communicating....
     
    exchemist, paddoboy and Beer w/Straw like this.
  19. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    Paddo;

    If Prof. Thorne answers (about Q-reeus's G4v question, I'd be interested in reading about that. Thanks for asking him. I felt disqualified from asking Prof. Thorne about it because I was so nasty to him in the past. It is my shame to bear.

    Q-reeus, I think it is a legitimate question, for what it is worth. Please have some patience with paddo. He is worth it.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    I actually received two replies as follows.......
    I wish I could read his case and comment, but I am so overwhelmed that I cannot do so. But I will remark that the measured waveform agrees beautifully with the predictions of general relativity for a black hole binary. And this is so not just for the first signal to be discovered, GW150914, but also the second one 16151226.

    Best wishes
    Kip

    ==================================================
    Kip S. Thorne: kip@tapir.caltech.edu
    350-17 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
    Phone: +1 626 395-4598; Fax: +1 626 796-5675

    Administrative Assistant --
    JoAnn Boyd: joann@caltech.edu; +1 626 395-4280



    and................
    David Blair: davidblair@uwa.edu.au

    Dear Barry, the trouble with trying to refute such claims is that the proponents always then say that it is a conspiracy to keep their views from being heard. I have learnt over the years that it is best to ignore these people unless they are able to put something sufficiently coherent together that it gets refereed and published. You can’t prove ideas such as these by words alone.

    I get something like this at least one time per week! There is a very nasty person called Crothers who pesters the GW community incessantly.

    Sorry I can’t shed any more light on it,

    Best regards

    David
     
    danshawen likes this.
  21. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,080
    The motivations for reopening dormant threads can vary. Anyway, paddoboy in #297 maybe innocently just clean forgot about another such post of his:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/si...ws-are-impossible.157012/page-14#post-3397097
    See last main para there. Still the case afaik. Elsewhere I had previously listed links to a number of physics.stackexchange.com articles relating to status of G4v, and in fact above linked post was a response to my doing that. Chasing up the LIGO researcher mentioned in one or more of those articles, with the likely expectation for some update that would refute G4v. That was not the case, however frustrating that may have been.
    Just to reiterate - I like G4v but have never endorsed it as THE correct classical gravity theory. Of recent my general position re GR GW's has shifted to some extent but not interested in pushing the topic further here.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2016
    danshawen likes this.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    I had a busy day yesterday having to attend two funerals, and could not find Professor Isi's post within the time I had to answer Dan.......simple as that.
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    11,274
    Objective peers
     

Share This Page