With "UNDETECTABLE" things anyone can invent any theory!

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by martillo, Nov 22, 2017.

  1. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    With the assumption of UNDETECTABLE things in a theory any theory could be developed since it could never be proven wrong!
    This way anyone can invent any theory!
    To sustain Relativity Theory the concept of UNDETECTABLE "dark matter" was developed but about hundred years have passed without experimental confirmation...
    To sustain Quantum Physics the concept of UNDETECTABLE "virtual particles" was developed but there's no experimental confirmation on them...
    Don't you think is time for a totally new theory in Physics?
    I have a very good start-point for one without any undetectable thing.
    For those that could be interested I cannot post the link here but it can be found in my profile ("A New Light In Physics").
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,675
    Thought they "found" Dark Matter from its gravitational effects. Just not eyeballed it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,236
    You've got it sort of backwards.

    The things are observable (see bullet cluster for Dark Matter), we just don't know what we are observing.
    These empirical observations will have to be explained by any theory that is put forth, so the fact that one of our leading theories does not yet explain it doesn't set it back any more than it sets back every other theory.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    and:
    Davec426913 wrote:
    Newton presented the inverse square law of gravitation by 1686 explaining the movement of the planets of our solar system. I guess he called it something like "Universal Law of Gravitation" while the actual vastness of the Universe was discovered much after that. The first proposition of the existence of our own galaxy and some other ones came by 1750. Newton knew nothing about galaxies when he formulated the law so, why not to consider that the gravity field could be more complex than Newton's Law. Just for instance, stars velocities in spiral galaxies seem to obey a simple inverse law of gravitation (not squared) then, why not to consider that the gravity field could have one term similar to Newton's formula but vanishing at galactic scale and another term which inversely approximates to a simple inverse law while vanishing at planetary scale? Actually, the complete law for the entire Universe could be yet more complex with other factors and/or terms. Why this possibility is not taken into account by current Physics Science? I can only think in that is because Relativity Theory can't become compatible with that. Here is where "dark matter" come into place: why to modify the gravitational law if the odd things could be explained with a very mysterious kind of thing for which there's not even a good description of what it actually could be? "Dark matter" is the chance to not question Relativity Theory. That's the point for me. I think things could only change when a really good alternative to Relativity Theory could appear and I think I have a very good start point for one. That's why I'm posting here.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  8. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    549
    If a theory contains undetectable things, you can leave those out. In fact, Occam's Razor pretty much demands it. Since they are undetectable, their removal (by definition) has no effect. And you are left with a theory without detectable things.

    Hypothesis, yes, but it won't (shouldn't) be accepted as a scientific theory, as it contains unfalsifiable things.

    As has already been pointed out, there's plenty of evidence for dark matter, so this statement is simply wrong.

    Even if virtual particles are not detectable directly, their mathematics certainly are measurable. I think the huge success that is QED strongly suggests the idea of virtual particles is not without merit.

    Yes, I actually do, but not based on anything you've said so far.

    Sounds good, let's take a look!

    Section 1.1A, sentence 4 contains a reference to an absolute frame of reference: "The mother-ship goes there, brakes and stops remaining there." Stops with respect to what?
    The rest of section 1.1A is a modified version of the twin paradox, without a proper treatment of the acceleration that the twins experience when they turn around. This set-up is thus not compatible with the theory of relativity, as infinite acceleration is not allowed in it.
    Missing are a lot of calculations; only a couple of results are mentioned.
    In the end, it just boils down to the usual twin paradox, and its resolution is the same. I'm not going to produce it here; there are many good sources for this out there.

    Section 1.1B just refers to an appendix, and then claims that \(E=mc^2\) is "well verified experimentally", but also makes "no sense", which is quite contradictory. But without any derivation, nothing more can be said about it.

    Section 1.1C argues that there must be an absolute reference frame, and a center to the universe with any evidence or argumentation.

    Section 1.1D starts by stating that magnetism must be considered from an absolute reference frame, again with any evidence or argumentation.

    So far, there's nothing here. No proper derivations, no in-depth calculations, just assertions and misinterpretations of mainstream physics.

    We did, and the theory of relativity is the result of that.

    Because it actually doesn't resolve many of the other problems associated with dark matter, such as the Bullet cluster.

    It is. What do you think statements like "we know the theory of relativity is incomplete" mean? The fact that QFT and GR are incompatible, but yet both seem to work, is a strong hint that there's something more going on.

    In the same way Newtonian gravity cannot become compatible with measurements we currently have. For example: Mercury's precession.

    No alternative that can describe as much as GR has been proposed (so far), so GR is the best we've got. And there's ample of evidence for dark matter nowadays, as has already been pointed out.

    Actually, dark matter is a perfect time to question the theory of relativity. Come up with an alternative that can explain as much as GR can, but without the need for dark matter, and scientists will listen.

    I fully and whole-heartedly agree.

    The opening section to your text is missing so many derivations and proofs, I can hardly call that a good start.
     
  9. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,675
    If you have a good start for one congratulations

    When you have a good ending publish

    Dark Matter is a place marker. Somewhat like maps of olden times with the notations in areas unknown "Here be Monsters"

    If your theory can banish the monsters, with or without Dark Matter it matters not one whit

    It could start with anything ie the moon is made of cheese and end with the sun is a flashlight

    If evidence supports your idea you are home and hosed and ready to accept the Nobel prize. Just don't forget us minions here who helped you get there with helpful comments like this

    Looking forward to the nomination dinner

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,236
    Worth repeating.

    AFAIK, GR does not actually posit dark matter. DM itself is a relatively new observation. We just don't know what it is yet. We do know it exerts gravitational influence - on tiself as well as on regular matter - and that pretty much means it's probably matter of some sort. And we know it doesn't interact electromagnetically with other matter or with EMR. So...
     
  11. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    Surely I appreciate lot of comments received in the forum, "good" and "bad" ones and I would not forget but actually nowadays I'm not interested in Nobel Prize in Physics. That's a dream for Physicists not an Engineer. I have other dreams now...
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  12. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    Not so new, about hundred years and you insist in looking for it. With a different approach I looked for flaws in the current theories like Relativity thinking in alternatives and I must mention I think I have found interesting results...
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,236
    It is not very hard to find what one might call flaws, in a theory that is acknowledged to be incomplete.
    It will get tweaked.

    It is quite another to come up with alternatives that cover all the ground GR has covered to-date, let alone go further.
     
  14. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,675
    Don't be a spoil sport. Even if you are not interested this self serving Minion is interested in a slap up dinner. Accept the nomination, go to the dinner to meet your Sciforum minions, and you can always leave before the festivities begin

    Wish you well in all your dreams whatever they are

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    DaveC426913 wrote:
    May be popular appropriated quotes:
    "Sometimes we don't see what we are not looking for..."
    "Sometimes we don't see what we don't want to see..."
    I'm very aware about, but you, I doubt...
     
  16. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,675
    True

    I'm happy they used "Dark Matter" as place marker instead of
    "Here be Monsters" although "Here be Monsters" appeals to my (non)sense Monty Python humour and it might get more press coverage

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    Surely you would be invited.
    Thanks. I wish you good luck in your things.
     
  18. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    549
    Can your ideas explain each and every point of evidence mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence without the need for dark matter?
     
  19. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    My work is a start point for a new theory. It shows how several important experiments and phenomena can be interpreted in other ways giving alternative explanations to that of Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics ones but not all of them of course. The other remain for further future study. In relation to gravity it proposes what I mentioned above, to modify the "Universal Gravitational Law" to take account the dynamics of the spiral galaxies. Other gravitational phenomena would require other explanations that could be accomplished with other corrections in the gravitational field or with other interpretations of the phenomena. These, of course, also remain as further development of the theory. Still much work remains to be done. I cannot make it all. I show a new approach, a new way that could be taken in Physics with many problems already solved with a totally new point of view, but as I said, is a start point. What would you expect? Someone alone replacing the entire achievement in Physics Science? Sorry, miracles don't exist.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  20. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    549
    For one, I expect someone that introduces absolute reference frames to give some good, strong arguments as to why they are doing that.
    I also expect some detailed derivations when someone claims to have found an inconsistently in the theory of special relativity.

    And that's not what I'm asking of you. All I'm asking is that you actually back up the claims that you make with derivations and evidence.
     
  21. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    NotEinstein wrote:
    I think I already did that with all the formalism and rigorousness I know in Physics and Mathematics. The problem I think arises in reading my manuscript is that is misunderstood and due to two main reasons. One is that I always try to solve the things in the simplest possible way presenting them as concise as possible and I have such success in this that what is written is misinterpreted as incomplete. May be to accomplish that conciseness I also assume sometimes some results as implicitly known and not mentioned what could be ignored by the reader. The second, which would solve the first, is that nobody gives the necessary attention to what is written what demands some time dedicated to it (something scarce nowadays).
    For instance in your post #5 you say: "Section 1.1B just refers to an appendix, and then claims that E=mc^2 is "well verified experimentally", but also makes "no sense", which is quite contradictory. But without any derivation, nothing more can be said about it."
    Clearly your misunderstanding here since what I say that makes no sense is not the equation itself but its derivation from the initial assumption of the formula F=dp/dt for the force which I do demonstrate wrong in Appendix A (which you obviously didn't read at that time). And when I mention that derivation I assume it known by the reader aware that is not always the case.
    I apologize for such conciseness if you judge it inconvenient but I found it necessary to complete the manuscript in time and form.
    By the way and obviously, English is not my first language what could complicate things a little more...
    Sorry if this is not the way you would expect a new theory should come but things don't come the way supposed to be sometimes. You can't imagine how much I got of that in my researches...
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  22. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    549
    Indeed, the points you have made in the text I've read so far are presented so concise as to be unfollowable. Somebody once said: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." Your text cannot be followed properly, because there's too much missing. I suggest you add back the derivations and arguments in more detail.

    Yes, and that is very confusing. I suggest you try to avoid that, or at least add a note when you do it, to point to the section where you prove your assumptions.

    (I think the grammar of the last part is broken, but I think I understand what you are trying to say.)

    Ah, I think I was confused due to the broken grammar. "has no sense" should have been "makes no sense", I take it?

    True; I read the text front to back. If whatever is in Appendix A is so fundamental to your arguments, it should not be in an appendix.

    But why? What use is a manuscript if nobody can understand it? I strongly advise you to put in the full derivations and arguments, because without it, people are going to dismiss it after reading just a couple of paragraphs.

    I am not judging; I'm not natively English-speaking either.

    I don't doubt that, but when you claim to be ready to present your work to the world (which is what this thread is doing), you'd better come prepared. Right now, you are potentially causing the very people that needs to support you to turn away from your work, because it bears a close resemblance (in the way it is presentation) to typical crackpot work.
     
  23. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    Unfortunately for me seems you are right in your comments. Actually the manuscript is more a compilation of all the problems I could solve and all the things I could develop for the new theory rather than a good presentation of the theory. I must mention that it initially had many errors which where corrected and new things were developed and included with time. Many thanks to the participation in the forums since 2005 when the site was created. This way it evolved in a non pre-planned manner and so it could even look as not well organized. To make the things yet worse I'm an Electrical Engineer not a Physicist and I would have a different viewpoint on how things should be presented. I know all that and that's why I claim at the main page:
    "I already had a very hard work. Still much work remains to be done. Many things wait for a definitely proof. Many things wait to be developed further. Some new experiments must be done.
    A list of some further developments that would be needed by the new theory is presented in the “Further Developments” section.
    I have no more time, no more resources and no expertise to develop it further. I'm claiming for physicists to take that work and develop it further. I cannot do that."
    You know, at this time, I feel too tired to improve more the work. My hope is that other ones could do that. I feel to only have energy to post in the forums times to times when I find something interesting to comment about...
    Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them more than you could think.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2017

Share This Page