pantheory

Thanks, got it. Summerwind, I think the insight of the article has a lot of validity. Hope you get some comments other than mine

Summerwind, quote from your article: http://www.atlanticd...=science&id=109 Yes, I believe this is close to the correct model and understanding of the mechanics of the universe that not only explains away Dark Energy but also explains away the expansion of the universe, as being simply a misunderstanding of galaxy redshift data. Here is my own paper on the subject: http://pantheory.org...ical-papers.pdf I think it was premature to give the Nobel Prize concerning the "discovery" of Dark Energy when I believe there is a far simpler explanation. If valid this model would also eventually do away with the BB model. Evidence for the diminution process would be to show that there is a small difference in mass of individual protons which the technology may not be available yet today to measure a single proton weight to within parts per million. The present method/ procedure involves averaging of group weights. quote from the article In my own model gravity is not involved. Accordingly the diminution of matter has been an ongoing process since the beginning of the universe for reasons explained in the model. //

I agree. The closest possibility to a type of time travel into the future would be to become suspended in time via a slower or non-existent metabolism based upon medical equipment/ procedures for some purpose such as space travel to the stars, such as in a number of Scii-Fi movies. Of course the return trip would also be to the future via the same equipment. //

Yeah, I agree that a lot of people share these opinions of these models. The Big Bang model I think is probably wrong in almost every way, where the other models above I believe have at least some theoretical validity and will retain some of their characteristics if/ when they are replaced. I think there are logical flaws in all these models. Of course the universe has a lot of randomness as well as a lot of uniformity and predictability. But logically random does not make sense. I believe theories should not violate rules of logic, where Quantum Theory comes to mind. This is based upon my belief that one day we will learn enough about reality to be able to organize it solely using logical perspectives. At that time I think it will begin to make sense as a whole. This depends upon whether everything in reality is inter-related to everything else. I happen to think that it is, therefore a theory of everything would then be possible, or even necessary and inevitable. I agree that this certainly is the opinion of many, but I believe otherwise. BTW, I think your posting expresses a pleasant demeanor while still disagreeing, which for many people is not easy to do, thanks

I think that the " final theory" will be much simpler in almost every way, as well as more logical than any of today's theories. Most everything in theory's models that have excessive complication will be eliminated. All of the major theories of today such as Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the Standard Model Particle Theory, The Big Bang Theory, -- all will be almost entirely replaced by simpler conceptual models that will have kinship with each other enabling them to all be tied together theoretically. Mathematics will then become more of a servant of these models rather than the foundation essential. //

Yes, I would need a timer at each end to measure the time for a one way trip, first one way then the other -- going back and forth many times. A reflector would give me the average speed of light which would be nothing new //

I am looking for a claimed accuracy of about +/- 5 nanoseconds. I could probably settle for one that claims +/- 10 nanoseconds but not less. I would first test on the level "shooting" north-south to get a null result. Then I would shoot east-west and would hope to see some small difference in light speed based upon the rotation of the Earth. Finally I would shoot from a mile high altitude with two fiber optic cables stretched downward for about 1 mile. If I would get a statistically significant positive result I would shoot the same set-up many times as well as exchanging timers and the set-up. I would continue for maybe several days/ weeks to get an average. After being satisfied with a positive result I would find another location to repeat the experiment. If I would continue to get a positive result as I expect, I would look for the best university affiliation that I could find to initially confirm and then endorse the results. After that I would publish probably with a post-grad co-author. //

This thread speculates that the OPERA neutrino experiment had errors within it resulting in their preliminary results which indicated that muon neutrinos apparently went faster than the speed of light. Most scientists and science knowledgeable people also think that there was an error(s) of some kind in the experiment but the possible causes of errors are many. Summary of this model I am a theorist. In my own model of gravity light does not have a constant speed. This theory is a model of pushing gravity first proposed by de Duillier. There are many such versions of pushing gravity, some modern, but the most well-known version was made by Le sage in the mid 1700's. Some of these gravitational models can also be called aether models since many require particulates in the ZPF, something like the dark matter idea but instead these particulates are a pushing rather than pulling force. So my model is an aether model with vectors pushing on all sides of matter. The aether accordingly is made up of string-like particulates of different lengths but just in three dimensions. Some of these particulates could go down to Planck lengths (10^-35 m.). They are pushing and bouncing in all different directions, the fastest and most forceful pass right through matter. For a body the size of the Earth, most of these pushing vectors are absorbed. This heats up the Earth but the Earth continuously radiates EM radiation which are accordingly physically comprised of both particles (photons) and waves (of aether). Since all the downward field vectors are accordingly absorbed by the Earth there are little up vectors on the opposite sides of the Earth. The result is that there are always more downward field vectors surrounding matter than there are up vectors. In a luminiferous aether such as this model proposes, the carrier of light is the aether, waves and particles of aether. This according would result in a "vector flow" (flow of downward field energy) toward the Earth. This also would accordingly result in some aether flow downward. The formula for this flow was estimated to be EVD ~ 1.25 G M E / r2s, where EVD represents the velocity of aether flow downward. This is a downward speed of 40 miles per hour, or 36 meters per second aether flow going downward. In this model the aether is gravity and mass centered for reasons explained. Michelson/ Morley could not find the aether because they could not look "up or down" with their equipment which also was not sensitive enough. The difference in the speed of light that this model proposes is about 80 parts per billion difference up vs. down, partly based upon the OPERA results. But the speed of light would still be constant relative to the aether. Summary Explanation of the OPERA results -- as it relates to this proposal The OPERA neutrino experiment results can be explained as follows: The GPS system was used by OPERA/ CERN to measure both the distance that the neutrinos were traveling as well as the coordination of the timing between the two locations. If the speed of light varied by the small extent that I suggest, then the results could be explained by a small error in the GPS system relating to an incorrect speed of light based upon Special Relativity. Explaining my proposed experiment For many years I have been planning a verification of my theory of gravity by measuring the difference in the speed of light up vs. down. To date I have not found nanosecond timers accurate enough for such an experiment. Although I believe there now are such a timers, I would need two of them and the costs are very high, so I'm looking to find others or rent some if I can. The experiment involves two fiber optic cables and two timers, one going up for a mile and the other going down for a mile. After the proper calculations I would expect there to be a difference in the speed of light as indicated by the timers, if so this could explain the OPERA result as an error in the programming of the GPS receiving calculators.

My quote above It would not be different. I added the word "relative" as a reminder that all motion is relative to something else. For a definition of time I think the words "relative motion" or simply "motion" might be eliminated but the word "change" cannot, since almost every type of change involves motion of some kind. I think he is referring to two clocks that pass by each other at the same location in an instant of time, that have different motions relative to each other.

The structure of Dark Matter is strictly speculative since what is believed to be the primary entity of it has not been observed. They are fairly certain there is something there, but even to call it matter is somewhat speculative. Dark Energy, in the same way, is also strictly speculative. It is still possible that neither exist and that the names Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just placeholders for our lack of understandings concerning a volume of observations.

Clocks are designed to measure a universally accepted standard for comparison concerning the rate of changes in something physical such as matter or light, like rulers are a standard to measure lengths. The basis of our clocks is the rotation of the Earth divided into 24 hours. Each hour is divided into 60 minutes, and each minute is divided into 60 second. The Second is universally accepted as the primary unit of time. Clocks are designed with gears, pendulums, a sun dial, sand grass, etc. so that they can measure any or all of these units. The most precise clocks have been designed to measure milliseconds, microseconds, nanoseconds, or picoseconds (a trillionth of a second). Time: is an interval of change that involves relative motion. An instant of time is like a photographic snapshot within an interval of change that does not involve time itself. Time frames, concerning relativity, involve differences of relative positions and motion to the center(s) of gravity. Different time frames in the same gravitational field can progress at slightly different rates of molecular changes within matter and therefore the rate that time progresses in that time frame. //

owl, I do not think the word "besides" includes very much beyond the definition above.My definition of time is: a measurement of event durations in a particular time frame by using a clock as a standard for comparison. A time frame can be defined as any reference frame that can be described by its relative position its center(s) of gravity. I think this definition is all there is to the meaning of time, and nothing more -- at least according to my theory of it. In Quantum Mechanics time is thought to be a very complicated concept. Some theorist in this field believe that time is so complicated that it may take decades or even a century before we will ever be able to come up with a valid theory concerning the essence of time. I think these theorists are totally wrong and I could explain to them why I believe there ideas are wrong and where I believe their arguments are faulty. But either time is quite simple as I propose, or it is something very complicated like some concepts in Quantum Theory propose. It boils down to differences between theories that presently cannot be resolved. Some future observations may show greater insight, but for me all of reality is not complicated and most of it can be understood by those of average intelligence and education. The essence of time like space, in my opinion, is very easy to understand, but I will not argue with others who wish to believe complicated ideas concerning their ontology since nothing could be gained by either party since both understand the others perspective. //

So your argument would seemly based upon the phraseology concerning how time dilation is expressed or time travel backward in time. To argue against backward time travel, I think, is a good argument even if one does not explain his theoretical objections properly. Relativists, like many others, like to argue. All that are studied in Relativity realize that changes in time are a relative perspective. So far we have come up with no universal time other than for the surface of the Earth. Those arguing could rightfully argue that time for a moving time frame could be speeding up or slowing down for real. Again, as an example our trip out a couple hundred thousand miles away from the Earth we would undergo some real changes of time from the travelers perspective. First time would become faster as one gained altitude, then it would become even more slow that on the surface, as we orbit. When we leave orbit time would speed up again until the fastest progression of time would be reached at maybe 200,000 miles out. Of course we are only talking about billions of a second differences. Einstein's main point was that time is a reference frame for those using it but has no absolute quantity to it -- that time like most everything else, is relative according to one's perspective //

skyance, The Big Crunch is the best known of these infinite cycle universe proposals. In the last 20 years I think fewer theorists would consider this model because of the Dark Energy proposal which accordingly causes the accelerated expansion of the universe.

I believe I understand your point but also think that semantic problems are an unnecessary part of this as well as many threads. When relativists say that time slows down in a moving time frame relative to a gravitational field, what they mean is that from the perspective of those in that time frame that time, and a clock in that time frame, would be running at a slower rate than for those in a non-moving time frame relative to that same field. Einstein's point and maths relate to no preferred time frame. As an example, the rates that clocks run here on Earth is a little slower than if you went out to the distance of the moon, for instance. The implication is that you can set up any time frames that you want as being preferred, such as Earth meantime, solar meantime, Milky Way meantime, etc. Einstein's contention was that there is no absolute time frame, that the frame of reference concerning time is a matter of choice or perspective. I think you are missing something at the end of your definition. Instead you might define time by saying: time is a human concept which is used to keep track of atoms, subatomic particles, other subatomic particles, and other movement in their sequences and progressions, concerning any particular measured or conceptualized time frames. Time frames can be defined by there relative motion to a particular gravitational field(s). By using this definition of time I think you would get much more agreement for your proposal and definition. There will still be many that will not agree upon this definition either since in quantum physics today, time becomes a much more complicated animal. Some theorists even believe that time is such a complicated subject that it might take decades or even a century before we might come up with a "modern theory of it." I think you are arguing against the modern physics which make such proposals ..

Not exactly. According to my own model matter and field define space; without them space accordingly would have no meaning to it. In my model space can be described by the three Cartesian dimensions (length, width, and height, or X,Y,Z for instance) for calculation purposes if one wishes, but space in the absence of matter and field would accordingly be meaningless. It therefore could only be quantified by using matter or the speed of light as a yardstick, such as linear meters, square meters, cubic meters, light years, a parsec radius, etc. According to my model one can think of space as an extension or dimension of matter. There are many that would agree with you, but one should realize that this would seemingly require the universe to be more complicated than it would otherwise need to be. If one proposes a structure to space the question then becomes: what observations are better explained by this proposed structure, which could be called digital space, that is not otherwise explained by an analog space without structure? //

I think the problem with considering a black hole as a neutron star type entity lies with the volume of matter equivalence that must be occupied within a volume too small for a neutron star to exist. Of course a black hole could be another unknown more dense form of matter such as a dense conglomeration of dark matter, or other theoretical field material of some kind. The vacuous single point idea was based upon the mathematics of General Relativity and mathematically related models. A different mathematical model seemingly might propose a physical entity instead.

This is theory and not just speculation. There are many that think that space is something in and of itself. I am a theorist and in my own model everything including space is very simple conceptually. Space accordingly is no more than the volume that matter and field occupies and therefore has no structure to it.

Thanks for the reminder owl I had forgotten your valid comment and question. I believe there is no evidence other than the redshifts themselves to support the idea that galaxies are moving away from each other or that space is expanding. My own model is over 50 years old, at pantheory.org, and instead proposes the diminution of matter to explain galactic redshifts. I also propose reasons for this alleged very slow diminution. So in my model the observable universe is not expanding. But the point concerning this thread is that space expanding is an assumption based upon no other evidence that I know of other than galactic redshifts. There are many other possible explanations for these observed redshifts. I agree with you. In my own model space is nothing more than the volume that matter and field (the ZPF) occupies, an extension of matter and nothing more. I agree with you 100% that all the "where, what, when, how, and why, etc. questions are all valid, and that all must have a logical explanation to them that at least would be understandable by at least some knowledgeable persons reading such answers. I disagree with those that contend that such questions are solely metaphysical or philosophical. I think that you are of a similar opinion

No De Broglie waves are probably a minor player in my theory that there is a low pressure aether field surrounding all matter. It is proposed that EM radiation is the major contributor to this low pressure area. To what extent de Broglie waves contribute to this low pressure is more speculative. There may also be other contributing factors to this low pressure volume that are either more speculative or that I have not thought of. //

yes, but also de Broglie waves are also accordingly a different form of aether waves. De Broglie wavelengths can vary greatly but have little energy. The highest frequencies and shortest wavelengths of EM radiation are gamma radiation which are also the most energetic of all EM radiation.

Happy Halloween, Cap Gots to take them grandbabbies trick-or-treaten. Have a good one and will be back online again tomorrow best regards, Forrest Noble Well made it back to answer your question tonight Here you are mixing up the two. Both radiate aether waves at the speed of light, but only de Broglie waves have a wavelength given by h/p. Again the equations of the two models do not differ from the standard model concerning de Broglie waves or EM radiation. Only the explanations concerning the physical characteristics/ properties of the waves are different.

No, de Broglie wavelengths can vary greatly depending upon the particles momentum. EM radiation is based upon the energy of the atoms and emitted by electrons in motion or in orbit while losing energy, at much lower frequencies. In this way I think there is no difference between this model and the standard model. //

yes This I think is the same as in standard physics. EM radiation is emitted from matter at all temperatures above absolute zero. It is a different explanation of course, but I propose no new mathematical physics concerning de Broglie waves.

It's just that the wording is a little different. Matter is not an aether wave but accordingly is made up of mostly a spinning aether vortex. As the physical particles/ strands spin they wobble producing waves moving outward at the speed of light. These are accordingly the de Broglie waves. The matter particle can be stationary relative to the surrounding aether or they can have relative motion. If they have relative motion their internal time period will dilate (its spin will slow) and the length of the de Broglie waves will increase. Accordingly the particle's frequency concerning its de Broglie wave, is proportional to its kinetic energy and inversely proportional to its wavelength; the same as in standard physics. Hope this answers your question //