pantheory

In this case they probably would have had several referees with one making final decisions. Referees represent the publication. The publication provides the referee with their written guidelines along with additional unpublished guidelines for conformance to publication preferences. Publication guidelines are based upon ownership and readers' preferences. Sometimes these guidelines are unspecified because they may favor particular theories, hypothesis, author-ships or institutions, etc. concerning their publication title and field of expertise. The referee can also appeal to the publisher for an exceptional case or inclusion. //

Their observations would be of an Earth as it was 10 years ago. It takes light from Earth 10 years to get to "their planet" at a distance of 10 light years. //

This kind of time traveling concerning viewing but not interacting, is essentially what we are now doing when we are looking through a telescope. Maybe someday we will figure out how to view the ancient earth or even the beginning solar system -- a cool far-fetched idea that I think this is not completely beyond the realm of possibility star-trek style --- such as looking at our galaxy, solar system, from a galaxy 4.5 billion light years away.

The Light Barrier, It's OK to play with numbers to come up with something of value. Instead of calling it numerology, an occult word, maybe instead you should call it algorithms (a type of trial and error math). But the most important thing that you need to explain is why your constant(s) has any value in the first place. This you have not done to my understanding. Even if you think this constant has something to do with gravity, you need to explain how this constant should be applied? or how a constant can produce an equation? or why two sets of GR equations are better than one? The history of the estimation of Pi goes back thousands of years. The first estimates probably go back to the earliest circular constructions at the times of the first civilizations of Mesopotamian, Egypt, and the early Chinese, etc. The first known recordings of such estimations date back about 3,000 years. The first quite accurate known estimate of Pi was done by Archemedes about 240 BC. Using his method he seemingly could have made his estimate as accurate as he wanted. With today's computers there would seem to be no limit to the accuracy of pi if greater accuracy were needed somehow. http://physics.weber...chimedes/pi.htm //

According to Einstein's writings he had to figure out how to "get around his own theory SR" in order to come up with GR (and somehow retain compatibility), and he tried to get around, while staying consistent with, SR and GR to come up with a single-force field theory, which he never was able to do.

The Light Barrier, One thing that many students do not understand is that nowadays with computer programs one can put in all the observations ever done in any particular domain and come up with relative ease, a formulation to predict all new observations in the same range of that domain. With programming it is no longer difficult. For instance, such a mathematical reformulation for gravity (no programming) is called MOND, which is an acronym for Modified Newtonian Dynamics. This formula works very well for the Milky Way but physicists in general are not impressed because there is no accepted justification for this formulation, or why it does not work for the rotation velocities of all spiral galaxies or why it does not work for galaxies in a cluster. The point for me telling you this is that formulations or constants even if they somehow have value, also need to show justification for their formulation. So if you find something of value mathematically you need to show justification for deriving it mathematical or otherwise. For Einstein it was the concept of the Warping/curvature of Space-time concept, whether right of wrong. The curvature accordingly is, in turn, caused by the energy-momentum of matter. An analogy is that spacetime tells matter how to move and matter tells spacetime how to curve. Another example is that Quantum Mechanics has a very long history of observations so formulations of it are certain, only the degree of accuracy might be improved. So you need to explain the basis for any conclusion/formulation/constant you make once that you have provided strong evidence that you have something of value to offer. // If gravity has a twin then how would that improve our ability to calculate something? All you seem to be offering are constants. Why do you think these "numbers" have value of some kind and how might these "constants" be used to improve present calculations? After all, the primary reason for all formulations or constants in physics (if not the only reason), is to make usable predictions. //

The Light Barrier, Space-time geometry according to the standard model would be Einstein's equations of General Relativity as it relates to gravity, also Einstein's cosmological equations as they relate to gravitational operations of the universe. "Einstein's field equations" is a synonym for his cosmological equations. The geometry involved is Riemann geometry which is non-linear three dimensional geometry, and Einstein added a forth dimension of time to it. One assertion of it is that matter warps the space surrounding it. The application of each would need to involve gravity for the equations to have meaning which I expect has something to do with your "gravity twin" proposal? numerology n. The study of the occult meanings of numbers and their supposed influence on human life. Is this the meaning of numerology that you are using? If not, give your definition of it or use a different word and explain that.

Jobs might have brought us cooler gizmos sooner, or better in some way. Or maybe some version that we now might not ever see. He who is there first with the coolest, and the mostest for the leastest gets the business and accolades -- such was much of Steve Jobs' life.

Quark or gluons separate from matter do not exist according to the standard model. Many now believe that what are called quark jets actually contain quarks. Others believe these are energy jets that produce virtual particles unrelated to quarks. 'There is no definitive evidence. String theory is very different from particle theory and if strings are real then the researchers don't know what they are working with. This statement is correct. To suggest that they "don't know what they're doing?" I think would be a stretch of the imagination. More accurately I would say they do not understand the results they are observing. Bosons as a force carrying particle also does not exist in this model. The whole idea that particles carry pulling forces does not make sense in this model. //

As you might recall in quark theory, quarks and gluons cannot exist separate from matter particles. This is accordingly why quarks or gluons could never be studied on their own. Instead what they are observing in these collisions which they call quark jets, are string like entities. My own model is a simple type of string theory, with only 3 physical dimensions and no quarks, just vibrating string-like entities. Quark theory accordingly is just a valuable mathematical construct to help explain particle interactions but quarks and gluons accordingly do not exist. //

Yes there are indications of older stars and galaxies. But if there was clear indisputable evidence then the BB model would have already changed. http://physicsworld....icle/news/19553 http://www.eso.org/p...c/news/eso0106/ http://www.nature.co...s070508-13.html There are also a number of distant elliptical galaxies which by their redshifts are 9-11 billion years distant, which appear to be at least as old as the Milky Way that is believed to be 12 billion years old now. If so these galaxies if they now exist could be 24 billion years old. My prediction is that as far back as we will ever be able to look after the James Webb goes up, that we will continue to see old appearing galaxies at the farthest distances and in the same proportions that we presently can see with the Hubble space telescope, and also in our own galactic neighborhood. If nuclear fission within stars occurs to a greater extent than we presently believe, then our present methods of age dating stars could be greatly inaccurate or totally wrong, especially the oldest stars with the heaviest elements. All of present day theories have necessarily been designed to fit together and to be collectively consistent and mutually reinforcing. If/ when the BB model is replaced, I believe most all related theory will change shortly thereafter. http://en.wikibooks....ion_and_Fission //

Einstein did alright, 76 years. I don't know about important changes, but if Alexander would have lived 20 more years the world might have been different but he did concur most of the known world in his time. He probably later would have concurred India which might have made it a more aggressive culture and able to thwart its takeover by future cultures such as the Muslims and the English millennium later. Mozart would certainly have had a lot more to offer. //

Thanks Daedalus, parenthesis added You are right. Including the diminution of matter, this is the way that it would appear to us. According to my explanation of Dark Energy is that the distances to type 1a supernova, where Z is less than .6, that type 1a supernova (galaxies, etc.) are closer than the Hubble formula could allow. This is not just my opinion but the opinion of almost all of today's cosmologist and the basis for the Dark Energy hypothesis. Instead in my model the explanation for Dark Energy is far simpler, the Hubble formula is incomplete and Dark Energy simply does not exist. Accordingly the Hubble is an incomplete formula concerning type 1a supernova and galactic distances. The correct distance formulation accordingly can be seen here in the related technical paper which states that Dark Energy does not exist, even though the Nobel Prize was just given for its asserted discovery. This addendum to the formula relates to the relative change of velocities including the speed of light. Most versions of the Inflation hypothesis propose the almost instantaneous expansion of the universe following its beginning, conceivably gazillions of times faster than the speed of light -- which seemingly would be unrelated to my proposal.

Cosmological Conundrums: Explaining "problems" of the Big Bang model (BB) Although I believe the BB model is the wrong model of cosmology I wish to explain/ give my opinions of some of today's criticisms of the model. Some I think are valid and others not. Since scientists first proposed the Big Bang theory, many people have questioned and criticized the model. Here's a rundown on some of the most common criticisms of the big bang theory: Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there's no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply. I do also not consider this to be a valid criticism. The original version of the BB asserted the BB had the potential energy within it to create what we see today. There accordingly was no such thing as a time before that, so accordingly the BB entity was the beginning of time and did not come from something else. I think this is still the mainstream consensus. One argument against this interpretation: if one views the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy. I think this argument is bogus however. Even according to the BB model which I think is entirely wrong, the beginning universe certainly would seem to have been less organized than the observable universe. Instead a better argument, I believe, is this: The problem with the argument I believe is that there are many definitions of the word entropy. Maybe the most proper formal definition is: (Physics / General Physics) a thermodynamic quantity that changes in a reversible process by an amount equal to the heat absorbed or emitted divided by the temperature in degrees Kelvin. It is measured in joules per kelvin. This explanation relates to the dissipation of temperature over time and is unrelated to order and disorder. This I think is a totally valid criticism. There is much evidence to support the idea that redshifts of galaxies can be correlated with their distance but this does not mean that the universe is expanding. The interpretation that the universe is expanding is solely based a single assumption. The assumption is that the galactic redshifts are Doppler shifts and that galaxies are moving away from us. There is no evidence to support this. There is evidence to support assertion. This would seem to be a valid criticism for those versions of the model which predict there entities. Proponents have a few different responses to this criticism. One is that at the start of the big bang, the theory of relativity didn't apply. As a result, there was no issue with traveling faster than the speed of light. One response to this criticism is that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, as space falls outside the domain of the theory of gravity. I think this as a valid retort if space does expand, which I think is false. Maybe a better response is that the speed of light is based upon the pre-existence of the ZPF. Without the ZPF there may not be a limit for the speed of light. Of course if the BB model is wrong then there was no Inflation and none of these explanations would be valid or, There are several alternative models that attempt to explain the development of the universe, though none of them have as wide an acceptance as the big bang theory. Instead the great number of BB versions make up more than 95-99% presented by cosmologists. Not even my own model has much of a following http://science.howst...ang-theory7.htm

I expect military versions of it would have a design goal to be strong enough to shut down communication systems, military electronics, electric power grids, computer systems, magnetizing electronics, etc.

I expect that if had lived another 20 years there would have been some future "cooler" gismos out there

He needs to explain his meaning. Those that wish to present theoretical physics often just throw it out there. It also may be that English is not his first language which could lead to ambiguity. With his confidence, I think he has a concept to explain which he thinks needs to be expressed in theoretical physics or tested by some computer model, to show its "physical legitimacy."

Mooyepoo, Although Light Barrier's words are to the contrary, I think he means that he is looking for someone to take his concept and run with it concerning the theoretical physics. My guess is that he is referring to the Dark Energy hypotheses. Light Barrier, If you are looking for some math to explain Dark Energy (as an "anti-gravity") you can find it online. It's simply thought by the mainstream that it presently is a constant force applied, resulting in a uniform acceleration rate in addition to a constant expansion rate, concerning the observable universe. This is quite simple math. Another mathematical version of Dark Energy is as a constant called Lambda, in Einstein's cosmological equations. If your idea is something different please explain. //

You are correct Michel, GR calcs could create a greater "error" if it were used. I saw a listing of their calcs and saw nothing relating to GR. In Reimann geometry space supposedly curves. This might increase the distance calculated which seemingly would add to the "error' rather than explaining it. As mentioned before a "distance error" would be the lowest hanging fruit. To explain an error of 60 nano-seconds for a 450+ mile span, they would need to have overestimated the distance by about 20 meters. But if they did use GR I think it could have added no more than maybe 10% to the "error."

The primary purpose of this experiment was to observe the extent that muon neutrinos will change into Tau neutrinos. Of the 16,000 thousand neutrinos they recorded, one accordingly changed from a muon to a Tau neutrino. I think that they were hoping to see a lot more conversions. The solar neutrino problem some think has been resolved in that neutrinos change flavors. But experiments have shown little to confirm a significant portion of such changes. Only between 1/3 and 1/2 of the theoretical neutrinos are being produced by the sun. This is proven by observation but experiments explain relatively nothing concerning resolving the solar neutrino problem, that appears to still be unresolved. //

Most presently believe that cold fusion of some kind, at or close to room temperatures, by any means is impossible. There are still PhD authored theoretical proposals of cold fusion possibilities, but few such papers ever find a mainstream publisher any longer. This is generally true but it is more than energy input vs. output that is needed. The output needs to exceed the input of energy by a margin that will also pay for the capital equipment, Real Estate, investiment return, operating manpower costs, fuel, etc. On this matter I think they are still far away from original goals. Present methods of fussing hydrogen use tritium, a very expensive isotope with one proton and two neutrons in the nucleus. Fusion is more controllable than fission so operation dangers using magnetic fusion mechanisms seem relatively safe. Small scale fusion by different means have been acheived. Large scale projects such as China's "EAST" research test reactor are complete, concerning the first tokamak experiment to use superconducting magnets to generate both the toroidal and poloidal fields necessary for fusion. They have claimed spot fusion but in non-continuous sporadic production, at non-commercially or viable levels. They are looking to create higher energy production levels/ upgrades striving for continuous non-commercial production. This I expect is false. Although robotics may not be advanced enough to operate an entire reactor without human help, this is certainly not the most important obstacle. This is also false. There are a number of other problems, but ultimately the economics will determine when a commercial model of a fusion reactor will first be produced. The lowest cost electric production today is presently hydro-electric dams. Next comes nuclear fission, then coal burning power plants, oil burning, then natural gas burning. The most expensive commercial methods are wind, solar, bio-fuels, etc. //

Thanks Moontanman, Yeah, things have been pretty slow lately here in the Speculation Forum, especially here on my thread

Luckily we are in the Speculation forum. The Bohr model is a pretty cool model, and I think quite explanatory. Nowadays theory is less definitive.- in my opinion this is because observations do not enable such certain explanations because I think the understanding of reality has become much more nebulous. An electron is now considered to more akin to a cloud than to a definitive particle. In my opinion there is a great deal lacking in present theory that has not advanced at all since the proposal of the Bohr atom, even though we now know almost infinitely more about the atom and electrons since that time. In fact an atom is vibrating a lot, the nucleus oscillates a lot, even at the lowest temperatures. The electrons are surrounded by a cloud of particles which are called virtual particles. The Bohr radii I think still make great theory but the dogma of such certainty is now known to be wrong. Instead the nuclei and electrons jump all over the place but maintain appropriate distances seemingly related to the original Bohr radii proposal. Basically I believe the current model is quite clueless. I think reality is closer to the Bohr model than is the present day model.

According to Lee Smolin, the author of the book "the Trouble with Physics," there are five major problems and quandaries in Theoretical Physics today. Here they are along with the reasons why they simply may be just problems with our present theories and not real problems at all. 1. The problem of quantum gravity: (all quotes from link at bottom of posting) If both theories are totally wrong then there is nothing that would need combining. General Relativity proposes that space curves according to Reimann geometry which is the basis for both his General Relativity (GR) equations and the cosmological equations of the Big Bang model. Observations as far distant as we can observe indicate the space totally appears to be flat and not curved. GR cannot predict the rotation rate of stars within galaxies nor can it predict the rotation rate of galaxies in a cluster. This is why dark matter was conceived, as an ad hoc explanation. Quantum gravity is a proposal the a particle, the graviton, carries the force of gravity, and therefore is the cause of it. This is a theoretical basis of the standard particle model which is consistent with Quantum Mechanical. There is no evidence of any kind that such a particle that carries a force exists. It would seem to be far more likely that both of these theories are either partially of totally wrong. Even if one of the two model was wrong any combined theory logically would necessarily be wrong. 2. The foundational problems of quantum mechanics: If there are particulates in the ZPF as proposed by many theories and hypothesis, such as dark matter, Higg's particles, field strings, gravitons, quantum sand, quantum foam, etc. they would not be accepted in Quantum Mechanics which proposes that there are no particulates in the ZPF, that it is simply an energy field. Such an aether field particulate model could change the whole construct of QM. If so then the entire basis for QM could be wrong and may someday be replaced. 3. The unification of particles and forces: This is where it is all headed and the only valid fundamental quest, in my opinion, in all of theoretical physics: that a single fundamental particle is accordingly the basis for the entire universe and everything in it. And this entity has a single mechanical internal mechanical force. Everything in reality accordingly consists of just this one thing which can explain reality and all observations. -- see pantheory.com for the related theory. Nothing at all is complicated. Problem 4: The Fine Tuning Problem: The Fine Tuning Problem is a problem with two theories; one of these theories is also based upon the other. The first theory is Einstein's Cosmological model which is based upon GR, and the second theory is the Big Bang Theory. If the Big Bang model is incorrect there probably would be no fine tuning problem. This problem seems to be strictly a BB problem that is unrelated to most other cosmological models that either assert a much older universe, or one that is infinite in age. The fine tuning problem explained: in an expanding BB universe gravity would react too quickly in the beginning times resulting in a universe that would appear to be completely different from the observable universe of today. To get around this problem an ad hoc hypothesis was invented such that if the universe expanded super-luminally (faster than light) gravity would not have had a chance to take effect until the universe was in place. This hypothesis was considered to have problems with it but many different versions of it were proposed trying to overcome the theoretical problems. There is no present consensus concerning which, if any of these models validly explains observable reality, but there is a consensus that such an inflation explanation of some kind is needed. http://curious.astro....php?number=387 Problem 5: The Problem of Cosmological Mysteries: Although alternative explanations of dark matter and dark energy which propose that one or the other are not real, have been unpopular with most physicists. So much so that both have been "adopted" into the standard BB model called the Lambda Cold Dark matter model and a Nobel Prize granted. I predict that someday it will be recognized that both are just hypothesis of the day which can better be explained by far "simpler" explanations and physics. See the posting above to explain the theoretical details which accordingly otherwise explain and accordingly dispose of the need for both dark matter and dark energy. http://physics.about...iveproblems.htm //