Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

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

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

    Messages:
    6,677
    CptBork, you are not an honest agent in my estimation. Your first post in this thread, #5, took us completely off topic by bringing up an old discussion, and I felt you we had both reached the end of presenting our positions in that thread, and were just repeating our selves about differing understandings. I simply backed out of the thread, which was not mine, and said I was going back out to AltTheories, which I did. I posted out there making reference to my views on hidden variables and no one, not you anyway, came out to discuss.

    I started this thread in P&M, which I know does not like layman speculation, and so these layman threads can quickly devolve into off topic banter and worse. My request of you was to stay on topic here, and start a thread or go to the thread where the discussion you want to talk about was held, or you could even go out the AltTheories and read my posts, and respond out there.

    But instead, in post #7, your response to my civil request was to re-up your off topic post #5 with a cut and past from the old thread, a link to the old thread, and this quote: You didn't make or defend any points in that post, you just said "there's another explanation, derp" and took off.

    That is why I don't see you as an honest agent in our discussions. The words you put into my mouth included what looked like some form of name calling on my part, but they were your words, enclosed in quotes, saying I said them. That was not true, and mischaracterized me as a quitter who left in a huff, and called you a "derp" on my way out.

    I responded with another request that you post to the thread where we discussed the topic, and asked that we stay on topic here, knowing how sensitive the members are about layman speculative ideas. I presented the OP as a question about a scenario where the Big Bang event was surrounded by preexisting space, and asked for comments on the speculation that such conditions might give us a possible explanation for dark energy.

    In post #9, you replied, "I'm assuming that when you speak about vacuum energy density and such, you're speaking about it with your own personal ideas at least partially in mind. If I'm completely wrong and you're just looking for someone to answer questions about the current state of theoretical physics as studied by accredited, knowledgeable professionals, then I apologize. On the other hand, if you're looking to brainstorm and speculate without any technical know-how, this isn't the appropriate forum in which to do it."

    In that quote, you made assumptions about my intentions in the thread, and about me speaking about personal speculations, and reminded me that this was not the place for me to brainstorm and speculate without any technical know-how.

    You are not coming across to me as an honest agent, or in discussing the OP, you are assuming I am being dishonest about my intentions and accusing me of using P&M for brainstorming on my layman ideas, with no technical know-how, and you for one are going to make the discussion about your assumptions of my intent, and not the actual OP. And that is your third post, all taking place without addressing my question about the "preexisting space" and a possible cause of dark energy.

    In post #12, I clarified the OP, and my intent to try to get this this back on topic. The last paragraph of that post said, "I'd like to start by asking specifically for your responses to my speculation that dark energy might be able to be explained if a higher density portion of the universe, the expanding high energy density from the hot dense initial event described as the Big Bang, is surrounded by lower energy density pre-existing space?"

    You replied in post #13, "The answer is that it depends on what you mean by "energy" and "space", so you need to give concrete definitions of those terms before we could logically deduce what they imply. If the speculation involves a strictly localized theory, then the answer is almost certainly "no", since it would already fail to reproduce established experimental results as I've been saying above."

    My feeling was that you again refused to respond to the intended question about speculation that preexisting space might give us a possible explanation for dark energy. Instead of answering that, you used the ''definition" tactic, and we know the intent of that. You want me to do the impossible and when I can't you then point out how ignorant I am of what science is, and start the endless stream of posts with other members who are always willing to take a thread off topic, especially if it is an opportunity to proclaim P&M as a special place where high level science is discussed, and that certainly doesn't include layman ideas that have no technical know-how behind them. Off to the Fringe, and maybe the cesspool might be suggested after the vocal members get worked up in agreeing with each other that there has been a major offense committed by a layman, right there in P&M.

    In post #15, you replied, after a post from Paddoboy, about some ideas you have had, and linked us to the explanations of a few topics referring to how dark energy was viewed, and how the mathematics of GR, and BBT dealt with observations like the redshift, CMB, vacuum energy density (the cosmological constant), and dark energy. Very technical information which does nothing to answer the question I re-asked in post #12.

    In post #17 I agreed with part of that saying something like, there was more to it than could be explained by vacuum energy density, and again asked you to go on topic and give us your answer to the question posed.

    In post #22 you then used the tactic of implying I was about to go off into la la land and equated the topic to fantasy, which is rejected by the scientific method as it is not considered science. You equate the idea of space surrounding the Big Bang to fantasy. The feeling of you not being an honest agent in addressing my OP was reinforced, and we are only to post #22.

    There was some back and forth posts with AqueousID about hubris, and Christians, cranks, and galactic clustering in passing, with an exchange of off-topic videos, just for fun.

    Then your are back in post #40 with this: "Until you have a working model that can correctly and precisely predict these phenomena, I'd argue that they constitute evidence against whatever you're proposing rather than evidence for it, when GR with a few tweaks already works almost perfectly."

    That looked like a tactic to justify not answering the question in the OP, but instead to set the stage for, if I couldn't make the OP into a scientific paper with predictions, forget it, because GR works almost perfectly. You didn't seem to be wanting to discuss the topic in the context presented, but wanted to talk about an old thread, have disparaging off-topic banter with other members, and build on your already strong case that this topic was not being present in the form that could be considered as a paper qualified for peer review. I was just asking for input about a simple speculation about space preexisting the Big Bang, and how such a condition might lead to an explanation for dark energy.

    Now, I could go on with why I don't consider you as a person I would want to have a discussion with about my layman science enthusiast hobby-model, that is presented in Alternate Theories. Do I make any sense to you about why I don't consider you an honest agent for such discussion?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    @ quantum_wave,
    I believe Cpt Bork has all good intentions however as a very intelligent person he/she is reading way too much into what you are posting IMO and getting into a fickle in the process. I have observed that it seems to be the nature of people that have incredible intellectual resource, to often have difficulty in dealing "superficially" with any topic.. their thoughts being miles ahead of themselves so to speak...

    Just thought I'd mention my thoughts on this issue.. I hope you and Cpt Bork do not mind too much...as I was just starting to enjoy reading your discourse...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    quantum_wave,

    I believe that QQ's post above is accurate, as I see it. If you expect Alternative Theories to be anything above Pseudo Science or science fiction and fairy tales.., and you want anyone with any understanding of current scientific theory to comment, you have to expect that when they read your "Hobby Thoughts" they will be doing so from a basis in their understanding of what ever science they might associate with what you present.

    There is also a tendency for you to want any thread you start to stay restricted to how you interpret the OP. The problem there is that what you present or the way you present it does not often match up with any currently accepted theoretical basis. The result being that anyone with any understanding of current theory is seldom going to read what you are saying in exactly the same way you think it. They are reading through a filter of what their understanding of what ever science they can connect with it, is.

    One last thing and I have mentioned this before. Once you begin a thread it takes on a life of its own. What different people see in the OP and subsequent posts is a reflection of what the OP and following posts raise in their interpretation. Threads on this cite if they last very often involve more than one topic of discussion. Often at the same time. This is for the reason I mentioned above, different people see different things I what they read, especially if what is being talked about is speculative and/or theoretical.

    It seems to me that when you constantly ask people to answer or discuss only what you introduce in an OP and even then only from the interpretation that you intended, you would be better off breaking your OPs down in to simple questions and posting them on Physics Forums, where you will get two or three direct replies/answers and the thread will end or be closed. One of the advantages here at SciForums is that they do allow fairly open discussion, of even alternative ideas.., but the trade off is that you have to accept that if you are going to have any discussion at all, most of those who respond are not going to agree and are going to be presenting an argument closer to the mainstream.

    If you want discussion you need to understand that anyone willing to discuss your ideas with you will most often not be interpreting what you present from the same knowledge base.

    Even though Alternative Theories wound up OnThe Fringe, it was understood that when you post there you should expect that there might be persons responding with real scientific background.

    It seems to me that CptBork has gone a long way toward trying to discuss science with you. And no I don't think you are going to get any scientific discussion here that agrees with your beginning premiss.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Frankly, I'm very curious about this "hobby" motivation: what do you get out of it? Is it pure pointless entertainment like a video game or do you expect to get something out of it, like Gardening?
     
  8. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    OK, no members can or want to share their visualization of a Big Bang event occurring out of preconditions that include preexisting space. I can visualize it, and can't visualize the Big Bang out of nothingness.

    QQ, I know you mean well. Later I'll discuss your post if you want, but the post was to CptBork, and stands as is.

    Russ, I discuss my motivations for my hobby-model in my threads. I can't go back and reiterate everything I have said in over 4000 posts, every time someone new realizes I'm out there in AltTheroies. Most are not interested. Read all you can stand, lol.

    The threads I do out here are often just updates of the model, with much of the current content residing in past threads. It would be hard for anyone who hasn't read them over the years to get a good idea of the details, but each new update thread is usually enough to inform people of the general overview.

    OnlyOne, The model is based on the axioms and premises that I describe early in the threads, and I inform the reader that if they can't endure a discussion of a model based on those premisses, that they shouldn't read on. I don't have the energy or the inclination any more to defend them time and time again against consensus theories that are inconsistent, incompatible, incomplete, or inscrutable. If I can't visualize them, I can't discuss them as if they were real, any more than anyone can discuss my model if they can't visualize it.
     
  9. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I guess I was hoping you could articulate it in a simple one or two sentence answer. Seems odd to say I need to read thousands of posts to get a simple question answered.
     
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    It is a simple question, and if you look at my message to CptBork, how would you answer it if you were me and every tactic he uses were multiplied and repeated by all of the members who hold the same views.

    Would you listen, and be sure to post mostly in AltTheories, and not claim to be doing science? Would you still be interested in physics and cosmology? Would you still do your own research, learn all the physics and cosmology that you found interesting? Would you stick to it long enough to develope personal views that addressed the inconsistencies and incompatibilities, but not try to make any claims that you were doing science? Would you put it together and call it a model, a so-called model, or a hobby-model? Maybe you'd quit? Did you read even the OP in my 2014 model update?
     
  11. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I'm really at a loss here - nothing you just said seems to have anything to do with the question I asked. Indeed, the questions you asked back I can't answer unless I already know the answer to my question!

    I don't know or care anything about your conflict with CptBork. Again, it seems odd to me you are willing to write ten sentences to avoid posting the two-sentence answer to the question. It makes me wonder if there is something wrong with your "hobby motive" that makes you not want to answer the question.

    Regarding the 2014 model update - do you mean this thread

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ite-Spongy-Universe-Cosmology-2014&highlight=
    Yes, I've read the OP. It doesn't answer my question.
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Really, like what? What are you thinking could be wrong with my motive?
     
  13. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I don't know and decline to speculate. I just find your evasiveness odd and off-putting.
     
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Suits me, it just seems if you could speculate enough to wonder what was wrong with my motive, you could speculate about what it could be.
     
  15. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I'd rather just have the question answered than to spend time trying to figure out why it isn't being answered. I suppose that makes for a second question though why you are playing this evasive game instead of answering what should be a simple question. Heck, if you answer the question I'll better be able to speculate about your motive for evading telling me!
     
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    For someone who doesn't like games, you seem to be persistent at it.
     
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I know this off topic banter is annoying to members and modertors. I'll keep my eye on the thread for any on-topic responses or pertinent questions. Other than that, I will look at other posts, and may request that any off-topic post be removed if appropriate.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543



    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    The Schwarzschild metric admits negative square root as well as positive square root solutions for the geometry.

    The complete Schwarzschild geometry consists of a black hole, a white hole, and two Universes connected at their horizons by a wormhole.

    The negative square root solution inside the horizon represents a white hole. A white hole is a black hole running backwards in time. Just as black holes swallow things irretrievably, so also do white holes spit them out. White holes cannot exist, since they violate the second law of thermodynamics.

    General Relativity is time symmetric. It does not know about the second law of thermodynamics, and it does not know about which way cause and effect go. But we do.

    The negative square root solution outside the horizon represents another Universe. The wormhole joining the two separate Universes is known as the Einstein-Rosen bridge.

    Do Schwarzschild wormholes really exist?
    Schwarzschild wormholes certainly exist as exact solutions of Einstein's equations.

    http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html

    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
     
  19. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Actually, I'm being quite persistent in repeating that I asked a legitimate question - you acknowledged that - and I'd like it answered. You are the one insisting on turning it into an evasiveness game. The only reason I'm following you on it at all is I don't really have much of a choice other than to drop my original question. So:

    1. I'm very curious about this "hobby" motivation: what do you get out of it?
    2. Why are you unwilling to answer this question?
     
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    It is Friday night, and there used to be some members who hung around after hours and generally chatted on various threads; AN, Prometheus, Quest254, as I recall, before they were moderators. Is anyone around who wants to look at the link in Paddoboy's post and notice that it says the white hole forms outside the universe's horizon. Makes me wonder if in that solution there is space that the white hole emerges into surrounding the initial Big Bang event? Maybe we are on to an example that fits the question in my OP, in an exotic way of course

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    "The negative square root solution outside the horizon represents another Universe. The wormhole joining the two separate Universes is known as the Einstein-Rosen bridge."
     
  21. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    That's beyond speculation. There is no way to know what really happens to the Lorentz factor when v>c . . . but then there is no plausible scenario for v>c either. (Using SR as a dual for GR).


    Also, back at #70:

    (emphasis added)

    I think you have a misconception about gravity waves. On average throughout the universe the magnitude of the waves will never be significant in comparison to the static or near-static gravitational fields. That is, no object at standard distances (say > 1 LY) is capable of moving far enough and fast enough to produce a measurable variation (a wave/ripple) in the average static field. Consider if you wish the waves produced by planetary motion around our sun as they might be measured somewhere in Alpha Centauri. The entire static field of our solar system is ridiculously small at that distance; but the waves created by planetary motion are infinitesimally smaller. For Earth, for example, the wave amplitude is the square of (2/15,000*) which is about 17 billionths as strong as the average field strength, which is ridiculously small to begin with. And the wave amplitudes drop drastically as you move to systems not right next door to us.

    The key to this is that the gravitational fields that would slow inflation should be treated as essentially static in nature, and even so they are extremely weak (for the regions of space with a density like that of the vicinity of our solar system). In regions of high density, there is no reason to expect a significant wave component adding to the field vector. In any case, all wave components vanish at large distances.

    I mention this because I think you are operating under the assumption that gravity is principally transmitted in waves. It's not. It's transmitted in static fields, and then there is some very slight modulation on top of that due to things like orbits. Waves may always be there, but they are "down in the noise" of the "gravitational signal", far too weak (on average) to make a difference).

    This is one of the reasons aether is nonsensical. It can't sustain static fields, much less the superposition of static fields.

    _____
    * That's 2 AU deviation in the Earth's distance from a remote heliocentric observer as compared to 15,000 AU to Alpha Centauri.
     
  22. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Well let's talk about honesty. You wanted to have a scientific discussion about prospective new ideas in physics, and you offered some speculative concepts that I even tried to play around with a little bit (on the false assumption that you wanted it to match the rules of the presently-known laws). When you specified that you weren't looking for the model to match existing theories and yet you wanted someone to magically conjure up working equations for it, I felt it was fair to challenge whether your ideas could meet the basic, responsible scientific criteria of not violating well-known results. I didn't follow you out to your threads in Alternative Theories because when you left I was under the impression you weren't actually interested in having a detailed discussion about that specific subject (Bell's Theorem).

    And in post #6 squeezed inbetween those two, you asked for a reference to the old discussion and mentioned your attempted rebuttal, so I gave you one and pasted a snippet of context.

    Derp is sort of like the younger generation's "duh". In my eyes you just waved your hands in the air, insisted that everything works out fine and took off. Maybe I should have included "Derp!" as a second sentence.

    Was I wrong to presume that your request for your speculation to be considered in the science sections had a connection to your hobby modeling? I figured you can't have it both ways, asking us not to challenge a model you're just working on as a hobby and yet asking for scientific discussions about some ideas you're toying with outside of existing theoretical rules.

    When you start arbitrarily making up the rules without any means or willingness to check them against known reality, la la land is exactly where the discussion goes. I say if you want to make up rules for a model, let's start by checking their basic details against Bell's Theorem and its experimental tests, and that way we'll all know whether it's worth bothering with any further.

    Galactic clustering is a perfectly valid topic to mention, since the speculation you're proposing seems to fly in direct contradiction to it and your proposed workaround doesn't lay out any workable specifics.

    That's how science works, you have competing theories and ideas, and see which ones do a better job in what areas. You (oh so humbly) pronounce repeatedly that your speculations meet the criteria of being reasonable and responsible, including not contradicting with any known evidence. Until you can show how your ideas predict a piece of existing evidence better than other theories, that piece of evidence suggests that the theories which already predict it are far better than yours. So if you're posting in the science section asking scientists to throw out the existing understanding including all the bits that lead us to understand what the Big Bang and particles are in the first place, then no.

    I'm an honest agent for genuine scientific discussion, and I'm ready to have it with you any time. When you proclaim that you seek for only reasonable and responsible speculation, why would you want to waste yours or anyone else's time on a model which can be mathematically proven to contradict a known experimental result? Then if it's indeed shown to be a problem, you could refocus your efforts on correcting the contradiction, before proceeding further.
     
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    AI, good post. It does however make some claims that I need to have observational evidence for, and I don't mean right now; later. I'm sure that we agree that there are gravitational waves, we wouldn't agree that the theories that include them are fact, and I'm also sure, even though we both would then agree that some form of gravitational waves exist, we have not yet detected them, nor have we seen the field that you mention as if it was fact. Do you think you could acknowledge those things with a simple "true"?

    Also, would you mind answering the OP question: In its simplest form, do you think that the Big Bang event could have had preconditions, including the preexistence of space? I know you can justify a "no" answer based on theory, or unless I define space, but just think of me as a laymen using the word space, and don't invoke any theory about spacetime at this stage.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2014

Share This Page