For the alternative theorists:

How do you know where to draw the line , pad ?

Since you are so conservative and absolute in your mindset

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well that's relative....Probably in relation to your own pseudoscientific views and acceptance of conspiracy nonsense, I may appear conservative, but in actual fact I'm not.
I tread the middle ground.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Einstein's theory of relativity states that there is no preferred reference, because all references are relative. This means the science of the universe, that humans have developed, is relative to our earth reference and may not apply in all universal references. To assume this understanding is universal implies the earth is the center of the universe; universal reference standard. But Einstein said this is just one reference of many.

For example, according to general relativity the mass of the earth, via gravity, will create a local space-time well. The center of the earth is deepest part of the well where space-time is most contracted. As we move toward the surface and then into the space around earth, space-time well expands.

What this implies is the observations from the surface will not be exactly the same as the observations from the Hubble telescope in space. The Hubble will be observing the universe from a more expanded space-time reference and will see the universe appear to be more red shifted than the surface, if GR is correct. We should be able to see this as proof of GR.

Once we started to use satellite telescopes, the universe appeared more red shifted; an accelerated the expansion. If we had started to investigate the universe from space and then we used the earth's surface, second, we would have made the expansion slow down by a reference shift. We infer age, size and energy balance, by a red shift that is unique to our specific reference. If the goal is universal knowledge, we need to pick a new reference, such as the speed of light, which is universal, as the foundation of inference.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Very sensible. But what if the world really isn't flat and your pants are on fire (they are burning you at the stake simply because you noticed it's not)?

 

May I suggest a cold shower.

 

Alternative theorist are those who progress knowledge and therefore science

And have for hundreds of yrs.

 

Only if you're using the term "alternative theorists" in an all-encompassing way to include to mainstream scientists.

 

Of course! And most alternative theorists are mainstream and have aligned with the scientific method, undergone peer review, and run the gauntlet.
It's the only way we have of weeding out the anti mainstream cranks, and those delusional types with unsupported hypothesis including the 3 or 4 ToE claimants we have here.

 

Here is a link to a mainstream scientist with an "alternative theory"

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/09/stephen_hawking_god_particle_destroy_universe.html

 

This is a lay interpretation of what relativity means. We believe physic is the same thru out the universe, mainly because spectral lines are precisely the same (after correction for any Doppler and gravitational shifts). Note for any given source, both these corrections are the same for a multitude of different lines from different atoms and ions. - not a different "fudge factor" for each.

SUMMARY: it does not matter what gravitational field you are in, the universe seems to be the same even if line wave lengths are shifted.

 

I agree, but radical change is resisted as many "experts" have many papers based on false POV.

I had the advantage over most pondering how perception works in that I had zero formal training in this area, when I chose to spend my sabbatical leave scholarship (with full pay) in JHU's cognitive science department. I am a "crack pot" as have an alternate theory of how human perception is achieved. (Not the accepted POV that it "emerges" after many stages of neural computational processing) which BTW is just "hand waving" as "emerges" explains nothing.

My theory explains many observations which contradict the accepted POV. For example how does a visual perception occur with your eyes closed (as in dreams or even awake when you for example "imagine" you are looking at a familiar object, like your stove or dog)? It explains why one small tribe about 50,000 years ago, exploded out of Africa and killed off dozens of others including the bigger brained and much stronger Neanderthals. It explains why there are actually more neural axon coming to the visual cortex for the parietal lobes than from the eyes!* Many other physiological facts too - for example why parietal strokes leave their victim with zero perception of half the world or greatly reduced awareness of it** - For example, even if very hungry they eat only the food on one side of their plate - that on the other side does not exist for them. Read more on my theory of perceptions at: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...it-an-illusion&p=905778&viewfull=1#post905778
That post focuses on free will - shows how it need not be in conflict with fact the discharge of every nerve is deterministically controlled by laws of physics & chemistry, but is best convenient description of my RTS theory of perception.

* This is an almost suppressed fact - rarely mentioned as it is in total conflict with the accepted POV.

** I investigated the visual process capacity of a nice old lady, victim of parietal stroke. I displayed at center of computer's display a small flashing x that she focused on. Then simultaneously with brief tone, my computer program flashed a small small red or green dot to the right or left of the x and asked her to name the color. She protested that there was no colored dot when it was displayed on her negelected side, but I insisted she guess what color was associated with each tone. After a while she played my silly game* (on different days) After the first day, she got 70 to 80% correct even when consciously perceiving nothing! (And about 90% correct when dot was on side she did perceive.) I had to discard all the first day's data, for two reasons: (1) most of the time she did not "guess" for many seconds after tone - but still protested in some cases how silly my request was. & (2) I stood where I could see the screen and I sometimes pushed the red button to enter data when she said "green" as the flash was red. On all other days, if she delayed I did not push either and stood where I could not see what was the correct answer.

This shows the early stages of visual process were functioning well - even up thur the stage of activating her "lexicon" - stored names and other information about how words are used. - She just lacked the ability to perceive due to the parietal stroke.

* She was lonely, living in an "old folks home." She was happy to have a gradate student interested in her for a whole week - played my silly game only to please me - keep me coming back each day. As the stroke was years earlier, she consciously knew she was not perceiving half the world - no longer disturbed by near by voices she could not see any source for. etc.

It is not common, but not rare either, that when first recovering in hospital from their stroke, which even destroys their self image, they will call the nurse and complain that someone's leg had been left in their bed. - When they look at their leg in their preserved field of vision - they of course see it. It just no longer is included in their self image of their body. Conversely, people who have lost a limb, often still have it in their self image of their body - They usually know it does not exist, but to them it is just as "real" in perception as the limbs that do exist. This statement can be tested experientially in some cases - does not depend solely on their assertion, but post is long, so I will describe the test only if asked.

One doctor tells this interesting story (which also illustrates how strongly we are a visually dominated species - "Seeing is believing"):
He picked up the patient's perceived hand by grasping the arm at the elbow and asked: Whose hand is this? Reply was : Mine.
Then he picked up the patient's other hand, again by the elbow and asked: Whose hand is this? Reply: Yours.
Then doctor showed showed his other free hand: Whose hand is this? Reply: yours.
Then the doctor let his hand slide up the arm of the patient to grasp the patient's unperceived hand, directly. Whose hands are these three? Reply: Yours.
Doctor comments: Don't you think it strange that I have three hands?
Reply: No. You should as you have three arms.
"Seeing is believing."

 

If you are in a different place in the space-time well of the earth, such as the Hubble telescope in orbit versus telescopes on the surface of the earth, each reference should see a slightly different shift for the same atom spectra. This could be used as proof of GR. If this is not the case, then all references are the same and GR is wrong

The position of the Hubble, in the earth's space-time well, should see a slightly larger red shift coming from the universe since its space-time is more expanded according to GR. If we had nothing to compare this to, and assumed this was the preferred reference, this larger red shift means less energy seen in the universal energy balance, than on the surface; cooler universe. This means a slightly different theory would need to be created to account for a universe with less apparent energy in its universal energy balance. The red shift we see defines an energy balance, and that amount of energy impacts what can and cannot happen.

If Hubble data is used as raw data, and not converted with GR to the surface reference that hd always been used previously, it will create the illusion that the universe all of a sudden appears to be expanding faster since we see a larger red shift. With the distances further than earth telescopes can see, there is no way to compare the two. Is there a GR adjustment to the Hubble data or is it used raw? The answer will tell us if alternate theories have appeared due to apples and oranges.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Magnetic monopoles are speculated to exist, but we never seem to find any. Let me apply some unorthodox personal alternate theory to this orthodox consensus alternate theory to show how to generate monopoles.

We can create a magnetic field, by simply giving motion to a charge, since a charge in motion will create a magnetic field. The velocity causes the charge to split into both charge and another overlapping magnetic phenomena, with north and south poles. Therefore, to get a monopole, all we need to do we need to reduce the velocity of the electron and approach zero velocity. This causes the magnetic and magnetic dipole to get less and less until at V=0+, we get a monopole called charge/mag.

The positive and negative changes in motion both create magnetic fields but with different polarities. There are two monopoles, one for north and south pole, with each connected to one of the charges when its velocity approaches zero.

The problem is at absolute zero, there is still some electron motion, thereby confounding monopole observations.

One work around, should be connected to relative reference and relative velocity, if all references are relative. Say we move an electron at V to create a magnetic field relative to our fixed reference. If this stationary reference was to also move at V, in parallel fashion, the electron would appear stationary, allowing a monopole.

This assumes there is no absolute reference needed to observe monopoles. If we still do not see the monopole, with zero relative velocity, this suggests there would need to be an absolute reference where monopoles do exists; absolute V=0.

 

Wow, you did not get very far with this particular alternative theory. The charge does not split. Strike one.

As you stated in your first sentence you need velocity to have a magnetic field, therefore there is no monopole and no magnetic field at all. Strike two.

I guess we will call this one a 'ball' since it is not right or wrong it is just gibberish. So we have a count of 2 and 1.

What do you mean absolute zero? Why are you bringing in temperature for? Uh, no pitch?:shrug:

Yes the electron would appear stationary so there would be no magnetic field in your reference frame. And of course there would be no monopole.
Strike three - your out!

By the way a magnetic monopole is a hypothesised subatomic particle it does not have anything to do with a moving charge and its associated magnetic field.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nonsense, typical of most of your posts, but good for laughs. The charge does not "split" A static electon makes a static electric field (in rest frame of the electron - not any magnetic field of any type.)

In my book dark visitor I do the three body problem by standard time step calculations in computer code. The sun, the earth and the dark visitor are the three bodies gravitationally interacting. In one chapter I speculate on what the "dark visitor" might be. The obvious choice is a small black hole, but one of several alternatives is a nearly spherical aggregate of magnetic monopoles. They have an inverse square field and strong mutual attraction over great distances. Thus if they were created after the big bang's dense energy cooled down enough for matter to exist it is very probably they coalesced very rapidly compared to the much weaker gravitational attraction that assembled stars.

I.e. they are now in very dense structures of the form:
NSNSNSNSNS
SNSNSNSNSN
NSNSNSNSNS
SNSNSNSNSN
NSNSNSNSNS with great surface gravity making these small objects nearly spherical. I liked this choice for the "dark visitor" to our solar system as it does explain why no monopole has ever been clearly found.

As each is at least (by theory) 1000 times more massive than a proton with the N-S separation less than the Bohr radius these are very dense structures that probably reflect very little light too - Like an approaching small black hole - Explains why their approach to our solar system is not seen. (Can't be seen by gravitational lens effect as both too close and too little mass, but I will not explain why "too close" creates that effect.)

The book has the dark visitor, with ~2 solar masess but misses Earth by 11 AU. It just gives a small impulse, much weaker than sun's force even at the point of closest approach but enough to make Earth's orbit slightly more eccentric. I timed it to make the winters in N hemisphere milder (Sun about 0.9 AU away when least distant.) and the summers cooler (sun about 1.1 AU away) - sounds great but with ocean rich S. hemisphere now only 0.9 AU from sun in its summer, there is much more evaporation which falls as snow in the N. H. almost every day of their winter. Heavy snow falls happen in mild winter weather, not when very cold.

In a few years there is so much ice in N. H. that all global ports are high and dry. (The milder N. H. summers do not melt all the snow that fell, at first in DC and further north, but soon the increasing albedo has Florida under an ice sheet.) All the coastal cities in the S.H. are washed into the sea by the torrential rains that fall every summer eve but we can still live and grow rice as land here is not ice covered. - I.e. Dark Visitor is a completely possible cosmic horror story. The dark visitor could be real, and approaching now - we would not know.