Mike Smith Cosmos

i am only describing a measurement , within the context of " things happening " . However that is quite a big sphere as unless you sit still and do absolutely nothing, things happen . The desire is to have things happen that you want to happen . What I am saying is A) State it B) what you want..........what is to happen.I( which may not be possible, ) C) find a space that offers no restriction to its happening

I understand the difficulties you express, but whether I like it or others don't like it the universe functions in a way that we like to understand to some degree. Observations of the way the universe works can be contained in our mind and communicated to others. All I have done is to try to encapsulate in language a particular phenomenon that I observed happening about me in the universe. The observation that particularly caught my eye or experience gave me was :- Being an engineer i was used to forcing things to happen that I was asked to design. That's fine but as time went by I noticed that if you designed around the way things themselves actually wanted to 'flow' , the design became better the function better,the reliability better etc,etc. From these observation I made an hypothesis that: " if you found a space that had NO restrictions to the designed function , then the flow would be absolute " I went on to test my hypothesis via various experiments. One landmark experiment was described a few posts ago to do with stone selection from an almost infinite supply of curvy stones. Thus no matter how I use these words to describe this phenomenon, it seems to hold up under scrutiny, which it would do if true .

. ---------- Michel ---------- . Are we going to live.? or are we all going to die ? . ---------------------------------------- .

Well funnily enough , The first experiment I tried out my theory was with one of those Billions and billions of chances for something to happen. I was sitting on a beach, in south of England at 7am one morning, having just had a refreshing early morning swim. I looked at the beach to the left of me and the right. It extended uninterrupted for miles in both directions. The top part of the beach contained billions and billions of pebbles of all sorts of shapes and sizes, smoothed edges by erosion. Step 3 . I started the initiative " that I wanted a spherical stone" say like a golf ball. Step 1 I was a a location in space and time, where step 2 ' there was no reason why this could not occur. Billions of years of eroding history on rocks, and billions of pebbles. I have the pebble , to this day . Round, Spherical, Size of a Golf Ball. If you like , I will photograph it and upload it. You might well ask how I obtained it. However There was Space ( Space and Time ) for the pebble to be eroded to shape .......1 Step1 There was a thing to happen that there was no reason for it not to happen .........2 Step 2 . There was As I Raised it, The Initiative ( in this particular experiment ) .........3 Step 3 Moving on to Stars My chemistry only goes so far, but as I understand it Early Stars were mainly Hydrogen with one proton. All sorts of Pressure and Temperature and we have fusion through heavy Hydrogen with one proton one neutron nucleus. Two of them makes Helium. Ok so we have stars with Hydrogen & Helium. Some time later, we can have Two of these fusion into Beryllium 4, But oops Beryllium has a very short half life so decays back very quickly . We have to have 3 of the helium 2 nuclei , to jump the Beryllium block, in order to fuse to make Carbon 6 ( helium X 3) and onward to Oxygen 8 ( helium X 4 ). And onward, with decays back to odd valued elements Like Nitrogen 7. Etc Etc at least all the way to Iron 26. After that we have to have another method like Super Novas, to blow up with immense energy, to take us up to Uranium 92. Getting over the Beryllium problem required a lot of Attempts. Hydrogen to Helium itself takes a lot of attempts as hydrogen + has a problem with being too close to another H+ to fuse but plenty of shots will do the job. Now getting all those hydrogen and all 3 helium to jump over beryllium and get to carbon , I understand takes Billions on Billions of Shots. No ' problemo ' Billions upon billions of atoms in a sun , all hot and moving about under pressure. Bingo we have jumped the Beryllium problem of short half life and ' got to Carbon and Beyond and got ourselves a universe ' Steps 1, 2 & 3 Initiative Step 3 , space and to happen Step 1 , given numbers and time no reason for it not to happen Step 2 Just a couple of Examples First Experiment and Current Science example . .

I am still interested in understanding, quite what happens at the attraction, repulsion interface. To me it seems a fairly fundamental question. most things in science and life are often about " Attraction" and /or "repulsion " yet it all seems a bit vague quite what is going on? There is talk of photon interchange, but even that is a bit vague.

Certainly interesting viewing ! Has anybody yet confirmed or disproved a link between the Russian Exploding meteor and the passing asteroid skimming the upper satellite orbits. It otherwise seems remarkably coincidental !

The reason I got Gazzotted was actually when I was trying to answer your 2011 inquiry about getting something from nothing. 36grit, on 13 Mar 2011 - 22:51, said: I myself had tried to think this through about 20 years ago. I sort of came up with the three line statement of the B.. obvious, as some of my colleagues have said to me. So it is no supprise for you to say " Your theory sounds like common sense " which it does. But as I tried it out it became very powerful. And it was able to handle some big issues and some big questions. To give you a taster . The secret number 1 of having things happen easily is to find " Space " for them to happen . In other words , Things happen more easily if there is plenty of space for them to happen . You might require some form of small drive or initiative to start the process, but then "if there is no reason for it not to happen " eg the really clear space , then it will happen. Eg Atomic particles do it, Suns do it , Galaxies do it , There is lots of Space. People do it. Unfortunately we find in today's society, which is driven by Stuff, Materials , Money, and goodness knows what else, there always seems to be reasons why we cant do something. Not enough space. So maybe why things dont happen , is " there is a reason for them not to happen " Secret number 2 . Go find things to happen where there is no reason for them not to happen. However it can happen with small things. And it can happen with very powerful things. Don't forget the initiative bit secret no 3. If you find the experiment works, Then you can go and observe it happening in the natural world of science.

Good I hope you are right !

Yesterday (Friday 15th February 2013 ), very coincidentally;- . Two space objects came mighty close to Earth . One of them ( the size of a Bus ) in fact impacting near the Urals Russia, exploding near the ground ( many people with minor injuries ) and there is a big hole in the Ice. The Second larger object an asteroid ,( approx the size of a large swimming pool ) , came thundering by in approximately the opposite direction at ( now this is the point ). A news Item in the UK said " asteroid passes at 17,400 miles per hour ". Now I am not a NASA scientist, and there are a lot of Mathematicians in the forum better able than I , to do the maths. :- But that number 17,400 mph is just below the down range launch velocity, or orbital velocity of a LOW EARTH ORBIT CRAFT usually going at approx 17,700 miles per hour. ( lower than the escape velocity ) Is that not a bit close for comfort ( or lack of comfort). If there is any way the Asteroid can sling shot back ( which historically they have a habit of doing ) on some form of return trip into a low earth orbit pass by (or not pass by but get caught up) 100-500 miles up approx . ( yesterday was nearer the outer satellite orbits, Geo-synchronous orbits approx 22,000 miles), then : - Could we end up with a Low Earth Orbit asteroid in our communication orbits 100-500 miles up. ? .. EEk !

The said opening statement :- You are correct, if read in isolation. However the first posting associated with the title , explains the context in some detail. The statement does not say that " Observation and Hypothesis should lead. ,but asks the question should.....? The sentiment behind the question, was that , there appears to be a disproportional emphasis on maths as a source of advancement in breaking new boundaries in physics, where it is proposed that creative conceptual thinking could possibly provide leading new avenues of research , which would not be found by more logically based , maths orientated research. Ground Breaking Intuitive ideas, quite often do not come from a current , subject based line of research, but often come from cross discipline , observation and thinking. This has echo,s of the way that genetic mixing in reproduction can produce improved characteristics in the next generation. !

The subject of assumptions are being raised again, . These are made in connection with Relativity ( The laws of Physics are assumed to be the same in all the universe [All frames of reference] )

No. That is not what I think or in fact know is currently happening. In fact it is the new things that many of us are interested to hear. We then may make a personal decision " oh that sounds interesting" or " that's a bit too far out for me " and leave it alone. Not posed as a list by any means but a couple of areas that come to mind , as new areas ( islands ) possible for further expansion or more to the point new directions are for instance ( which I am sure you are aware of ) are :- Emergence- where complex structure emerges NOT from reductionist science but from an emergent activity. Genetic Algorithms - Solutions by results rather than by calculation etc Very interesting article about Poincare, Einstein and Picasso. In some respects it seems to endorse this thread argument. Obviously , as you have said there is no ONE single way in which science has progressed over the centuries We have had the entire spectrum, From individuals jumping out of baths, apples on heads, down right hard thinking about it, individuals slogging it out through maths, walks in helegoland , teams in university , the whole caboodle. The emphasis that I was suggesting might help,whether in this forum, or elsewhere was to give creative thought a bit of 'air space'. A few years ago when Prof Lee Smolin, was trying to get Loop Quantum Gravity going as a contender for the Quantum- gravity merger, he was given a fairly rough ride by the String Theory contingent , when string theory was where everybody that counted was at. Similarly with 'Emergence ' Prof Laughlin ( not sure of spelling ) has had to push hard against the establishment, As has the new style of Maths man ( game theory ) James Lovelock with the Giah hypothesis hit the nail right on the head with "Earth Science " battering his head against a brick wall of established thought , Now right up to the point Where us in England are under water or thereabouts. Everything ,everywhere squidges mud under foot, its wet all the time, and a few weeks ago a major flood pulled down Devonian sandstone and deposited in my road , outside the front door, , cars abandoned, railway lines washed away, And still the establishment does not accept IMMEDIATE ACTION ( like next Month ) is required . And so it goes on ... Creative thinkers are not being given the space they deserve, and in fact, the world at large deserves. Hence my thread proposal is not that , any one distinctive style of scientist be given the steering wheel , But that the establishment is not giving due credence to Scientists with creative vision.

Yes. Well I see what you are saying, and mainly agree in principle. I still stand by my suggestion to dignify the " speculation- Trash can set up" is not a dignified presentation, it looks more like a 'TV show' style of setting. However se-la-vie ( that's life if that's how you spell it )

I am not sure I want to be seen as a complainer. I am making a suggestion, to dignify discussion of members ideas which are not yet fully ironed out. This is prompted by a number of members feeling they were handled a bit roughly. I agree you have to be swift to handle invasive and clearly destructive, disruptive posts. But those that are genuine , need not be treated in the same way. However this is offered only as a suggestion.

The aspect of EXPLORATION that I am discussing in this thread is: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That if there is an area of science ( as yet undiscovered) sitting in a sea of scientific existence , out there somewhere. We exist on our island of known scientific understanding , together with all our current maths, used as you say as a mechanism of science, well spread across our isolated island of experience. Here we all sit with scientific understanding and mathematical rigor right up to the shore line all the way round the island. Now what . How do we get to have a go at that NEW island of Scientific knowledge ready to be developed, possibly with a new set of maths. Maths is just like a mat of underground roots. covering our island. But it needs a medium to exist in like land. Can not get to the new island of knowledge.! Now , as opposed to this island confinement, our Conceptual thinking scientists can go anywhere, fly across the water, Concepts don't need any medium like maths does. Maths is like a living cell, ,bacteria, or virus, it needs a host to live in, infect ,or perhaps even kill its host. Having gained access to this new island area of as yet undiscovered scientific knowledge , The maths can either be shipped across or new maths invented to explore this new island of knowledge. All maths can do at the moment is continue to explore our CURRENT ISLAND of knowledge and reality. It is trapped. And if we let maths call the tune, saying to science " you can't go anywhere without me " we will remain trapped ! We need to make a flight to a whole new island of reality, science and its obedient faithful good old maths will ALL benefit . ( as we both sniff and take a breath of fresh new discovered air ) . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know this sounds like I have gone completely off my trolley. But I was just trying to paint a rather emphatic picture as to why it would be good to let some concept based science thinkers loose to ( Fly the waters to the next Island.)

This was the post that I put a reply to your " Something from nothing " thread , and got Gazzotted . . So they have moved me to here as a separate , thread. Well I am an " Anybody , and I did say that. " But I have played with it for about 20 years. It does work for a very wide range of activity, including the big bang, and some of the things you were discussing in your post , " something from nothing ". Although it sounds simple , it can be very, very,very powerful. And yet it can equally work at very gentle, weak levels. I have tested it at various levels. . Interesting Wickapedia Quote , A lot of variety and depth there. When I originally started working up the idea in the 1990's . It was just a germ of an idea. But over the years it became very exciting and very powerful. Like anything else that touches on a truism, the strength of the theory is embedded in reality itself, rather than we who notice the reality. ( if that does not sound too garbled. Not intended to.) To refer to it as a TOE ( theory of everything ) is probably a bit of a pretension ( again not intended ) . It is just I realised I was working with " ANYTHING " which has connection with "EVERYTHING" . It started with my mind as a personal quest for a universal "theory" . The scientific community was talking about TOE's at the time ( theories of everything) so I latched on to the name. However TOE in the scientific community are really talking about the combining of all forces and particles into ONE master Force or whatever. Perhaps I should call it something else . Like a useful theory. I do not wish to tread on peoples toes ( oops! Pun )

Fine. I accept your comment. But surely this Science Forum is not set up as a sorting house for main stream research . is it. I thought it was a welcome for all science orientated individuals who respectfully may have contact with colleagues and individuals. with more expertise .

Physics Chemistry Biology etc etc Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla TRASH CAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------end--------------------------------------------------- . How about this as a suggestion ? . ? Also Swansont said Surely you can deal with this by your normal moderation process. However allowing the freedom to discuss subjects as I have remarked in " maths post " namely:- Thanks for even considering it ! Please see my response to Swansont below. I have come up with what I feel may be a worthwhile solution . which dignifies discussion yet leaves the trash can for those that behave really badly , down at the bottom in the badlands, in the darkness, where wild beasts roam , and every creeping thing.

Unless I am loosing my marbles, I do not believe I have leveled such an Idea at you personally Swansot, In fact I keep saying that I personally have been treated well by your good self. Twice now , if not thrice. I was describing a very widespread attitude amongst academia , and other established professions, often in areas of technical specialism, of superiority and protectionism about their position. If you feel you are in that class, I have certainly not leveled it at you as an individual. As I have said and now yet again ,I have been treated by you in the way I feel comfortable with. Now enough of the compliments. This is the point I am trying to make in my thread " should Maths pioneer .........or observation, hypothesis...etc" Maths is one of the tools, a very precise tool such as a micrometer to an engineer, but if what is required is to blast a hole through a mountainside , a well placed set of dynamite would be a more suitable tool than a micrometer, which in these circumstances would be useless. Such might be the case with breaking new ground in science when 90% of the universe is not understood what with dark matter and dark energy. We may need to dynamite our way through scientific dogma to get to the other side of these mountainous 'ignorance ' of understanding. , break new ground, find new concepts , then hand the framework of ideas to the mathematicians with their micrometers to put some detailed flesh on the NEW yes CRUDE THESIS. Stand aside for a moment and let the roughneck dynamite scientists in for a moment . Stand back a little and give them room. I am here proposing a clearly marked BLUE section Identified as a discussion and debate forum for NEW, Blue sky style ideas, which may be freely discussed , yet able to be challenged by others who have difficulties with coming to terms with these ideas. It can be noted that these ideas are as yet unproven and only of "work in progress" status. I think to demand that only 'papers to be quoted' and only Maths to be used as a test. would be to cramp the style of ambitious thinking. The style you say is necessary for PHD style research.

I am taking ALL in good humor and taste. No. It is not meant as an insult. I am quite convinced that leaning on maths as a pioneer of new ideas is a "wrong turn" , This has currently strangled major creative thinking by the 'establishment' giving too much elevation to mathematical prowess , at the expense of scorn being heaped on creative thinking.. Be it that such creative thinking does not sit 'center stage' with current established theory.

Ha HA !

Thanks. I appreciate you have your job to do.

I have obviously hit a nerve. Go and look at "discussion" I have actually praised you there ! . . Look I have had Maths coming out of my ears , ( six years in University with Physics with Maths ) but it still does my head in ! I am obviously not a born Maths person or i would love it , and I don'T , it hurts ! I can OBSERVE, THINK, EXPERIMENT and HYPOTHESIZE all day forever But maths does not do it for me ! I can do it , if I am forced and probably get a temporary sense of achievement ! But do it forever NO WAY HOSAY

Swansont I do NOT have any major criticism, of the way you are handling things ! Apart from my post on " something from nothing" being put in the trash can today which was a bit uncalled for , and an example of ' being shot out of the water' which I find a bit confrontational ( but that was Phi for all ). Incidentally my post was a theory thought up over a period of years and has in fact partly also surfaced with other scientific commentators. So I would appreciate it being re- installed. Thank you in anticipation. As regards my comments with our Polish Colleague , I was one of the first to answer his proposal in the main Physics forum . I gently warned him that he would probably be moved to speculations and not to be alarmed. Despite that and several PM to him not to be discouraged he took his banishment pretty hard for a time. I persuaded him to proceed PM . I was pleased the way you took on his challenge and in fact looked forward to following the case. You got a little blunt toward the end. But I suppose you can be forgiven that, as it was obvious you had had enough. No I thought you handled it fine. However , not pointing any particular fingers, I do think, and others have remarked that having, what to their owners is often (not always) a serious idea, theory , or hypothesis kicked around with a certain amount of disrespect, banished to something with the name Speculations, next door to the trash bin , is a somewhat undignified approach. Sincere scientifically orientated individuals , who have had the courage to offer their ideas publicly , I believe deserve more respect. O.K. So with one of my theories I would expect to be cross examined, asked for examples, arguments , explanations etc etc, and it might get a bit heated at times. That's fine. But I think keeping things up at a 'gentlemen ' level would not go amiss. You seem to have dealt with me in a gentlemen way. But, I think what would go down well over this speculation idea would be to A) elevate the title from speculations to " Science Debates". B) put it right up there in the main science group Physics, Biology Chemistry etc Or maybe a Whole Blue Section marked Debates after Sciences but before Philosophy (,By all means mark it up as still being in the discussion mode Gov health warning ) C) DONT have a trash can nearby. By all means have one at the end or there abouts. D) Welcome new ideas, debate them as if you were sitting with the stoic philosophers on top of the Acropolis in Athens Greece in the sun , looking like Aristotle or Socrates. Thesis and Anti thesis . I am trying to be positive. Yes there will be some you have to bin ban shoot out of the water, but there are a lot of sincere science orientated individuals who I believe would rise to such an opportunity to discuss with some higher caliber scientists as you have in your membership. I do hope I havn't spouted off too much . Constructive criticism !

I don't in a way disagree with what you say. I keep getting shudders, thinking about how the middle ages was rank by keeping the population at bay , in ignorance by keeping the sacred truths in Latin , saying " you are not able to read the sacred text , come to us and we will interpret the sacred truths for you " Echos of " only if you are in the field can you understand" , " this can only be understood by maths " Common people want to understand, The scientific priests are saying " you can't understand, because you don;t know the maths, you are not in the field" It seems symptomatic of specialisms like for example computer software. Despite comments made, I take my hat off to Prof Brian Cox , and his model Karl Sagan who popularised what was and is clearly a passion to them - Their Love of the COSMOS . Don,'t get me wrong . I am not knocking Einstein, he was a prodigy , by heck he got it right, even his brain when examined had his spacial lobe joined to his time perception lobe. Perhaps he left school because he was ahead of his teachers.. I am attempting to tease out of his life, what made his life so scientifically enlightening . But despite triple integrals appearing on his notes he still came up with easy to understand models, even though he was a great thinker..