Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by quantum_wave, May 13, 2014.

  1. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Ugh! Philosophy and aether wind yet again. QQ and I have already had this discussion. The aether is something that could not be detected died in 1905, still can't be detected, and is an idea that should be retired along with Roman numerals for anything other than a script that is sometimes used the face of clocks to make them appear much older than they are. Certainly, the terms should never be revived for a discussion bearing on science.. Neither of these topics are current, nor are they likely to be resolved any time soon by more careful articulation or definition of any of the terms that refer to them, directly or otherwise. The aether cannot be broken down into a simpler set of concepts, linguistically or otherwise, because the concept was flawed from the outset.

    So I started a new thread on emerging space, with some NEW science ideas in it, not known or discussed by the likes of Aristotle or Archimedes. Please feel free to chime in there, but if you are going to bring philosophy like this over, well, there's another place "Philosophy" for that. Too many Sean Carroll fans like to equivocate philosophy and science. The former is just too old to be interesting to me, and they are very different. I can't articulate or break it down into more fundamental concepts than that.

    If the "philosophical method" was so great, it would be ranked with the scientific method as a way to solve problems. It isn't. It doesn't. So please, forget about it.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    I know, philosophy is a bit off topic, but I wanted to make conversation with Forrest Noble about boundary concepts.

    The aether fits my model very nicely. If you would be so kind as to name the model of cosmology that you are advocating when you talk down my "aether talk", I will ask you to explain some things for me from the context of that model that I haven't found any satisfactory answers for from the mainstream community. Strangely enough, the aether, as I describe it, fits into the gaps in the mainstream understanding when I start asking about the physical mechanics. I have been asking, listening, reading, and discussing this for years, and the mechanics of how matter physically curves spacetime is not forthcoming; but when you replace spacetime with my hypothesis of gravitational wave energy density, I am satisfied with how it comes together for me.

    You may think I am being "old school" and "behind the times", but the aether I describe is not your grandaddy's luminiferous aether. You even said so yourself in post #432:
    Also, read my response in post #434 to your post #432, so at least you will see my model's alternative to curved spacetime when it comes to explaining why clocks measure time at different rates in different gravitational wave energy density environments.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    (underline added)

    My own model, the Pan Theory, is an aether model -- besides being a steady-state theory of sorts. It is also a mechanical theory of Everything. Why there is no answer to why matter curves spacetime is because it literally doesn't. That was Einstein's explanation to explain the non-linear aspects of his gravity equation without resorting to an aether. In the presence of an aether there is no need for curved space, or spacetime. Essentially it is simply vortex mechanics, the principles of which could be understood by an average person. Gravitational waves could be real, but in my own model they are the results of very strong gravity and are unrelated to its cause, and therefore would have little influence on the universe as a whole.

    Back to boundary concept -- as I said before, the understanding of boundaries is very easy when using a simple definition of space. Why complicate things when it is not needed to explain anything. Definition: Space is the volume that encompasses matter and field (the ZPF, aka the aether.) There would be no such a thing as beyond that boundary.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Aether and steady state are quite necessary features if a theory is to be considered reasonable by anyone with the ability and who makes the effort to think cosmology through like you have.

    Without the aether "explanation" there seems to be no mechanics to correspond to the math. Further, the current math works almost perfectly to quantify the effects we observe, like gravity and EM, whether it is the vortex mechanics that you mention, or the wave energy density mechanics that I imagine. The universe works the way it does, and only one set of mathematics is right, but the mechanical explanation of how the universe works is where our differences are, and that is why I appreciate other models from people who acknowledge the lack of mechanistic explanations in the existing consensus cosmologies.

    I hoped you would respond to my question posed in post #600:
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2014
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    What you have written is suggestive of the reason why I do not post at sciforum's as often as I used to.
    The math does not work as you allude to for if it did we wouldn't need to create fictional entities to fill the gaps, like dark energy and dark mass. In fact most of science is full of fictional entities mostly to fill in for actual hard evidence. Fictional entities like a "photon" for example that defy proper explanation, definition and most importantly observation.
    Write a list of entities constructed to support evidence rather than observed directly and you will have to include atomic theory as well.

    For example:
    Energy can not be considered as an entity as it is only a value or a property of an entity.

    What is wrong with the space between objects of matter being absolutely nothing except volume. Apart from a few dust motes floating around. If you can accept that this void is absolutely nothing you will see that distance is an illusion of separation only (That separation created by inherent energy in the system {time]). If one sees behind this illusion of separation you can see how all objects are effectively one object that is separated by the illusion of distance in to an infinite number of objects. So the question of mechanics is not so hard to resolve once you drop this need for a fictional aether to fill in the gaps and the reliance on misleading fictional gap fillers such as dark energy, traveling photons etc. to justify the flawed math/physics.
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2014
  9. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    It is true that if we drop all of theoretical physics that you describe as "fictional entities" to fill the gaps, we are left with nothingness in between the something that is real, which you refer to as objects that are effectively one object. No photons, expansion, or flawed math/physics, but instead, we would be able to point to a fantasy list of constructed entities that support existing theory, and that list would even have to include the fantasy of atomic theory, right? It is true, science produces and builds on theory about "constructed entities", if we call photons, dark energy, dark matter, atoms, and atomic particles etc. by that name.

    But dropping all of the generally accepted science built around things like photons, and atomic theory wouldn't mean we can all go home though, because it creates a whole new set of questions which you haven't acknowledged or addressed in your complaint. I say that the current math quantifies the observations, and you say no, because it leaves gaps. I say the gaps you refer to are simply not quantifiable yet because of our limited ability to observe at the larger and smaller scales where there certainly are mechanistic actions of nature taking place. You say start over, and I say that what we have fails for it lack of mechanistic explanation. In a sense we are both saying the same thing, there are unexplained gaps/mechanisms in nature, but we are suggesting different approaches as the best path to move forward.

    I propose we start by tying all the objects together by working toward a theory that would eliminate all the gaps and describe mechanisms of nature that would logically make it all work together. What do you propose instead?
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    It just seems to me that theoretical science tends to construct entities to suit theory rather than theory to suit actually observed entities.

    For example there is currently no solid recognized theory to explain the Great Attractor yet it's existence (as observed) immediately and seriously compromises just about all currently held theoretical belief about gravity/mass and energy etc.

    I suppose someone will eventually come up with another fictional entity(s) to explain the Great Attractor that fits in with all the other constructions but this is not science but more science fiction.
    Another glaring example is all that supposed unaccounted for energy propagating universally at any given t=0.
    To see credible scientists decide that things like dark energy are required when surely more than half universes mass is supposedly propagating universally in the form of EMR energy is disappointing.
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2014
  11. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    I'm not sure that you are saying it right ... maybe it is better said that scientific observations are the stimulus for scientific theory, and theoretical science tends to construct entities that are theoretically sound relative to the known alternatives.
    You are right about how science will deal with current issues, i.e. by theorizing, lol, but it is differentiated from science fiction by the scientific method, isn't it. You are being cynical, which I think there is plenty of room for, but you didn't address my question about what you would seriously propose as an alternative.
    True, but there are alternative explanations for it without throwing up our hands and saying all science is fiction.
    True, though maybe not precisely quantified.
  12. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    There are plenty of smart people. The problem IMO is that few completely think on their own and rely to some extent on what they have learned, whether it be religion, or in their schooling. When observations don't match theory, of course the theory should be questioned, but also everything they are based on such as definitions and the fundamental physics. As for me I have not found fault with classical physics but IMO there is much fault with modern physics. In my view, if something seems complicated and not simple and logical, it is probably wrong.

    IMO most of the complications of theory can be explained with an aether. In Quantum Mechanics there is pilot wave theory. This was proposed by Debroglie to explain the double slit experiment. In this model particles are "piloted" by waves to the scintillation screen/ target. The pilot wave for photons would be physical EM waves, and the pilot waves for electrons would be Debroglie waves. Debroglie explained these as physical waves. With an aether EM waves are physical waves in the aether, and Debroglie waves are the same. With an aether everything is simple in quantum theory. A proven aether exists in the form of the Zero Point Field. In that there is proven energy produced and virtual particles are observed. It is theory whether there are other particulates in this field such as in my model. In my theory everything is physical so physical field particles are required. There are accordingly no forces of nature, for instance. They are all explained by physical interactions of matter, and aether. We have hypothesis of dark matter and a Higgs field (although IMO neither exists) so nearly all now believe there are particles in a background field. In my model instead these particles are much smaller, and in density flows they also are the source of gravity.

    As to the warped and curved space of General Relativity, that would be explained by aether density differences and flows. This would not necessarily discount its equations, but it would say that gravity is not exacting because of a somewhat unpredictable aether. But our predictions can be close enough for nearly all practical purposes. The same thing applies to the statistics of quantum theory. As to Special Relativity, it would be wrong because there would be a preferred background field reference frame, whether it be dark matter, a Higgs field, or vastly smaller particles of an aether, as in my model. In its place would be Lorenz transforms which is the same math.

    Sounds good

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Sorry I missed that and this last posting also. OK as to post 600.

    Sounds like a good plan. You start first

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In my cosmology entropy is meaningless concerning the universe as a whole. Entropy is based upon thermodynamics as it relates to the existing heat in a system, like the Big Bang model. In my model entropy would not apply because gravity is continuously creating new stars and galaxies, which results in new heat in the system to replace stars and galaxies burning out. At the same time matter would be shrinking and new matter created which maintains the conservation of matter and energy. And the universe accordingly is not expanding. So entropy would have no meaning or consequence in my cosmology, or any other steady-state model.
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2014
  13. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    I agree.
    The "pilot wave and the particle" concept has pretty close correlation to the wave-particle that I describe. A particle in my view is composed of inflowing and outflowing gravitational waves, traveling at the speed of light. Gravitational waves and light both travel at the same speed. Photons and all particles are complex standing wave patterns that move in the direction of the net highest wave energy density inflow. Therefore, photons, which travel at the speed of light, get all of their inflowing gravitational wave energy from the direction of motion, which is also the direction of emission from the electron, whose gravitational out flow is at the speed of light. I discuss my hypothesized mechanics in my thread, "The Big Wait".

    An important distinction is that the speed of gravity and light are variable relative to the wave energy density of the local environment, and since particles are all composed of the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy, the rate at which they function is also variable based on the energy density of the environment. As a result, as the energy density increases, particles function slower, and both light and gravity slow down proportionately. That makes the mechanical measurement of the speed of light invariant in any local frame.

    The "physical EM waves" that you mention, are the spherical out flow from the photon particle, so the photon particle goes straight, and the photon out flowing wave disburses the directional inflow into spherical out flow. The photon out flowing wave front therefore travels at the same speed as the particle itself, and gives the particle a broadened wave front with goes through both slits while the particle itself goes through one or the other.

    One more point, about virtual particles and the zero point field. In my model it is all gravitational wave energy traveling in all directions, from all directions, at the speed of gravity and light. Virtual particles "pop" into and out of existence when the converging inflow of wave energy reaches a density threshold. There is a momentary high density spot, which is a characteristic of the internal nature of standing wave particles, but the virtual particle is a rogue wave intersection and not a sustained standing wave configuration.
    With this all, I can agree right down to the nature of the aether. The vastly smaller particles "of an aether" that you mention are simple wave energy convergences in my model. With wave energy coming and going at all points in space, there are wave energy convergences taking place at all points in space also. A convergence will produce a high wave energy density peak at each point that is relative to the energy of the converging waves, so each point will potentially have a high density spot whose energy fluctuates from the surrounding spots. Thus the aether is filled with the high density spots in my model that might correspond the the smaller particles that compose the aether in your model.
    Thanks for letting me go first; you are a gentleman

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I'd say that we are into that as we discuss the differences and iron out the terminology.
    Thank you for that explanation. I look forward to getting into it in more detail. First let me ask about the boundary of the universe that you mentioned earlier. As the new matter forms and becomes particles, atoms, stars, galaxies, does that occur only at the expanding boundary, or could they form within and among the existing matter/galaxies?
  14. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Yes, here is another similarity between the models. In mine atoms and atomic particles are comprised of solid particles that spin (fermions) within the aether. This creates an aether vortex which is the part of both atoms and fermions that we perceive. All matter by its spin produces outgoing waves in the aether. These outgoing wave troughs is where electrons reside surrounding the atom. This outflow causes a lower pressure aether volume within the vortex, like the low pressure of a storm vortex. This low pressure causes the continuous influx/ inflow of the surrounding aether field. This continuous aether inflow is the cause of gravity. It would be like a mixing bowl where the egg beaters continuously pushes the liquid away from the beaters and the backflow from the bowl keeps moving toward the vortex center. The outflow would have waves to it, the inflow would be just a difference-in-pressure flow.

    So in both models matter would have an inflow and outflow. In your model there are inflowing and outflowing gravity waves, in mine there are outflowing waves and an inflowing field. Although I have not specified any particular speed, in my model the speed of the out-moving waves would likely be much less than the speed of light, and the inflow would be the same to maintain an unchanging pressure differential.

    This is another strong similarity between the models; photons are waves. In mine they are EM waves which are aether pressure waves; the wave crest is the higher pressure, and the wave trough a lower pressure. Photons would not be real particles in my model. When EM waves accordingly hit a detector, the energy of the waves are absorbed by the atoms within the detester. If the energy is high enough the increased intensity of the vortex spin can cause an electron to energetically leave the atom. If so the electron is conducted within the detector indicating an electron has been detected. We interpret that to mean a photon has been absorbed and detected.

    This also seems quite similar to an explanation I would give concerning relative changes in the speed of light and the passage of time. I haven't considered gravity in this context but agree it would be influenced.

    I will get back to you a little later concerning the rest of your posting, at which time we can continue our discussion concerning similarities and differences between our models.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    regards, forrest

  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    When I think of solid particles making up the atomic particles, I imagine "solid" to imply "infinitely dense". Nothing can be infinitely dense in my model because gravity, which is characterized by the action process of inflow and out flow of wave energy, wouldn't seem to be compatible with infinite density. Where you describe spinning "solid" particles, I describe high density "spots" occurring at the point of convergence of waves traversing the medium of space. The atomic particles are composed of (say) millions and millions of tiny wave convergences within the tiny but finite space occupied by the atomic particle. It is this particle space that I say has stability because the wave energy density within it is so much greater than the wave density surrounding it. When a directionally inflowing wave arrives at the particle space, its progress is slowed significantly by the increase in density. The wave impact works its way through the particle space and flows out of the particle space spherically because of the distributing effect that is caused as its energy proceeds through millions of waves it encounters while moving within the particle space.
    The "aether vortex" of your model would be motion of the particle space relative to the wave energy sources in the surrounding space, in my model. "Field" (gravitational field) is the directional wave energy nature of the medium at all points, and I call that the "gradient" of the medium of space. The gradient is the result of the relative masses and their respective distances, since they are the directional wave energy sources of the wave energy traversing the medium of space.
    When I think of the physical spin of a solid particle, it doesn't happen in my model, and as I mentioned that there are no solid particles, but instead stable particle spaces representing complex converging wave patterns. These standing wave patterns spin relative to each other, and this "spin" is a physical motion that can be depicted as revolution on different axises, not the spin of angular momentum of the standard model, by the way
    In my model, the electrons, protons, and neutrons (all particles) are differentiated by the number of high density spots they have at a given "field" density environment. A stable configuration of converging wave energy can occur only at specific internal wave energy densities; each particle type has it respective operative internal density. The densities between the stable densities are unstable configurations and don't survive. As the particles form in the extreme density of the big bang arena's initial expansion, only the stable configurations can survive because the unstable particles rapidly decay into stable particles, releasing the excess wave energy into the medium of space. The nature of the particles that exist evolves as the density of the environment declines, and eventually we get to the mix of stable particle densities we are now observing in nature, giving us the sub atomic particles was know and love.
    We are on the same page in regard to the cause of gravity being a differential between the low pressure and high pressure flows, with the differences between us being the differences in how we describe how those flows come about.
    Yes, and the discussion of field differentiates our two views.
    This is where a discussion of photons and light would be appropriate. Photons are unique particles in my model. All particles have a wave-particle nature, but the photon is unique because it gets all of its inflowing wave energy from the direction of motion, while slower particles get gravitational wave energy inflow from all directions. It is the net directional gravitation wave energy inflow that determines the particle's path through the medium of space. The direction of photons is solely influenced by inflow from the forward motion, and so they go straight relative to the motion of heavier particles, but curve relative to the energy density gradient coming from the forward direction.
    Do aether pressure waves expand spherically through the aether?
    These differences in mechanics grow out of the differences in how and what we describe, but the overriding factor is that energy is conserved. Our definition of what constitutes energy in various circumstances my differ, but in my model I would phrase it by saying "wave energy" is conserved, and everything is composed of wave energy traversing the medium of space.
    There is room for discussion on this topic as we sort out the specifics of our respective models. Thank you for the discussion so far, and maybe it will continue as time permits.
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2014
  16. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    In my own model, infinities do not exist in reality, only as a valuable mathematical tool. All so-called solid matter would also be comprised of space within it, but the extent of this is not even speculated on within my model. But there would be a distinction between the density of matter and the density of aether field that surrounds it. There would be no such thing as empty space in my model since my definition of space and aether theory do not allow it.

    I think much of the wave model of atoms has validity, but I believe the waves are physical -- as in waves of water, or of a physical aether.

    I see some similarities here but in my own model, a physical particle is creating the waves.

    As you may know, my cosmological model is entirely contrary to the BB model.

    This is where our models interestingly cross. You take the mainstream view that photons are particles, or particle-like. My view is that what we presently call photons, are loose engagements of field particles, as Planck said "small bundles of quanta," and other differences of wave densities that can knock an electron out of orbit upon contact within a detector, for instance. So in my model photons are primarily waves alone.

    Again I see similarities, but in my own model what we call photons do not travel at the speed of light or even close to it. Instead it is the energy of the physical waves themselves that travel at lightspeed.

    Yes, often the waves of EM radiation can be radiated spherically -- but with varying intensities.

    Yes, matter/energy is also conserved in my own model.

    I can see that your model has been well thought out. Hopefully our discussions will continue to provide food for thought for both of us

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Oct 29, 2014
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Ultimately then, we are on the same page, with the differentiation between us being that I formally invoke the infinities of space, time, and energy. Though in each of our models matter will never be infinitely dense because of the presence of aether within, and matter will always be more dense than the aether surrounding it, would it be correct to say that similar matter will have different densities dependent on the energy density of the local environment.

    For example the density of a proton at rest relative to any given point in space will be less than the density of a proton in motion relative to that point. The LHC accelerates protons to near the speed of light and those protons are extremely heavy/dense relative to the same protons at rest. This characteristic of variable density of particles also applies to objects, and a case in point is the effect of relative motion on a clock; the rate at which an accelerated clock measures time changes relative to the rate that an identical clock at rest measures time. Accelerating a clock makes it measure time passing more slowly. In my model time passes at the same rate at all times and places, but the measurement of time changes with the relative energy density of the local environment.

    In my model, the variable characteristic of matter density is the explanation for what is referred to as time dilation in standard cosmological theory.

    I would be interested in your view of the above in case there are any differences on the topic. Do you see a case for the variable energy density of matter relative to rest vs. motion, and the affect of relative motion on the measurement of time by clocks?
  18. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Yes, it could but I don't mention that in my book. Aether particulates would have to have space within them for strings of them to be able to bend and loop. Even so, these aether particulates would accordingly be far more dense than matter particles which are the spinning loops of aether particles that can only become particles when the loops become long enough over many billions of years. In my model there is accordingly only one fundamental particle which would make up the aether and all matter -- and everything in reality. This particle accordingly would have only one internal unwinding/rewinding force that accordingly causes fermions to spin. It would be the only fundamental force in the universe. So the entire universe would be made up of just one fundamental particle, and everything else in reality accordingly could be explained by the combinations and interactions of this one particle.

    I will have to consider these contents and reply in detail later

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I do not necessarily disagree with your statements above but I use a entirely different perspective. In my model time dilation is related to the relative motion of matter to its surrounding aether which, via relative motion, slows the spin of atomic particles, causes more resistance to the spin of nuclei, the orbital velocity of the electrons within atoms, and therefore the internal interactions of atoms and molecules. This is directly related to our counting of the passage of time.

    Gravity accordingly dilates time by the extent/speed of an inflowing/backflowing aether. The more massive the body, the larger its EM radiation and therefore the extent of its inflowing aether, meaning greater relative motion of matter to the aether, in the same way producing stronger gravity and greater time dilation.
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2014
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    I enjoy our discussion, and will try to keep it going, though I have gotten involved in a lengthy project off line. For now, let me link to my recent post to Spellbound which sums it all up when it comes down to comparing models:
    Reality Waves
  20. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    I generally agree with your entire posting but I would have added, concerning my own views, that reality is a perspective whereby there are many ways to explain, describe, and organize it, even if there is no disagreement of its details. So much so that one perspective might not be recognizable to another person who does not disagree on the details, but has a very different understanding of how the details of reality should be organized for its best understanding.

Share This Page