pantheory

Some other predictions of this model -- Supernovae and gamma ray bursts will be found, according to their redshifts, at the edge of the presently observable universe, currently believed to be ~13.7 B .. ...... light years away. -- The Big Bang model and the expansion of the universe model will be replaced within about 20 years. -- A physical aether will be discovered/ or generally realized, within about 20 years. -- Present Quantum Theory will be overthrown in about 20 years, most of the math of Quantum Mechanics will remain. The explanations will mostly all change. Anyone can make predictions but only a theory can explain empirical justification for them.

I agree they are not well defined at present, but I believe the concepts and definitions are quite simple. In time I think present arguments professing complication of fundamental physics will disappear based upon future observations You are correct. This is the present way of looking at simple explanations, as being philosophical or metaphysical. Since I think that reality is relatively simple, I believe this characterization is often wrong. One could. But if you believe you know a simple valid perspective/ definition, you could simply provide it //

JohnB, The maps of Africa during the past and maybe prior ice ages, seem to indicate that there was no water for cultivation in the northern most half of Africa. Without water and rainfall, simple agriculture would not be possible. There seemed to be little habitable areas for humans during these times in northern Africa excepting for isolated areas and even these might have began to dry up forcing residents to escape by the easiest route which would have been moving east along the Mediterranean. http://1.bp.blogspot...etation_map.png During times of more rainfall man may have been able to travel greater distances, traveling through the middle east and settling in areas where water and game were more abundant. Until we domesticated plants like grain and fruit, we remained hunter gatherers. The first plows were probably made of wood or hand axes tied to wood, with one or two men pulling and one man controlling the plow. Before cultivation we existed in numbers like carnivores, such as lions. After we domesticated plants and animals we multiplied into numbers like gazelles As you have suggested, more stable climates with increased rainfall, and melting glaciers, probably provided the water needed for man to flourish out of Africa.

Models of a finite universe, like the original version of the Big Bang, cannot logically allow time to have existed before the beginning of the universe, whatever that beginning might have been. This is logically based upon the definitions of the words themselves, "finite" and "universe." On the other hand, infinite universe models concerning time such as alternative Big Bang versions, most multi-verse models, Plasma cosmology models, most steady state models, and most theological models, all assert that time had no beginning. //

Noted ..

Like michel123456 pointed out, there may be semantics involved concerning heat vs. temperature. The related theory has been called the Kinetic Theory of Heat even though I believe that maybe temperature might be a better word for it. Like everything in physics, I believe, it is a simple concept. You apply heat to a source by radiation, conduction, or convection, and its molecular structure increases its oscillation. By these means heat can come from anywhere. Generally speaking everything has a temperature to it which is a symptom of its internal molecular oscillation, concerning a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma. This oscillation can produce waves of EM radiation emanating from its surface. When in the infra-red range we call such radiation heat, when in the visible range we call it light, and so on. //

You've got it! "An interval of change" is the simplest explanation of time. Physics has different factions to it and because of that different ideas concerning what time really is. Yours, I believe, is by far the simplest and best definition/ understanding of the fundamentals of what time really is //

The only object that eats more radiation than it produces is a black hole, you might consider one an example of reverse entropy. //

I think the two simple examples to a type of negative entropy would be life and gravity. In both the motion of time is from molecular and temperature dissipation, to a condition of high organization and isolated complexity. I think the broken glass idea might not be a bad analogy concerning the arrow of time, the meaning being one cannot change what has already happened -- such as going backward in time.

referring to my quote: // (bold added) For example, the Big Bang (BB) model lists "fluctuations in the CMBR" as evidence in favor of the BB model. These fluctuations are also called the Power Spectrum. Many different steady-state models point out that the largest voids have been observed to have a lower MBR temperature than their surroundings, suggesting that the CMBR is simply the accumulation of galactic heat by matter in intergalactic space, an argument against the BB model. These are some other examples concerning my above quote: Large-scale structure of the universe Age of stars Evolution of galaxies Time dilation of type 1a supernova (but no time dilation concerning the light curves of quasars) Dark matter Dark energy Consistency These are all listed as observational evidence in support of the BB model. //////// http://www.talkorigi...my/bigbang.html On the other hand I have seen other arguments whereby these same "observed" characteristics are considered to be evidence against the BB model. It seems to just depend on the opinion of who is doing the interpretation of observations as they relate to competing models, and who is doing the related analyses/ comparisons The meaning to this difference of interpretation/ opinion is that all sides sometimes can claim Eureka! as new observations come in , each side thinking that proof has been observed in favor of their favorite model. These are examples of the quandary of logic involved

Physics as a science is often theoretical concerning its equations, but it is primarily math. Physics concerning its definition is: The branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics, distinguished from that of chemistry and biology, includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms. I agree very much with this quote of yours. I think that an understanding of reality should be an important goal of explanations in physics, even when such explanations explain a number of possibilities -- which I think is preferable to one illogical explanation. Your above explanations of the related equations are logical, and therefore will probably always be part of a standard explanation, and you probably did not copy it, but explained it based upon your insight alone I believe illogical explanations, on the other hand, are strong indications that they do not know what they are talking about even though the math is reliable -- Quantum Theory comes to mind

Logic must yield to evidence to the contrary, but observations can often have multiple interpretations and the same observation may provide evidence for two apposing models based upon different interpretations of it. Again what one model might perceive as evidence in favor of the model, another's interpretation and argument might be that the same observation provides evidence against the model. //

Your comment misses the point. The point of this thread is that after a long time of observation one can develop an equation to exactly predict the motion and exact timing of the tides. This is entirely functional knowledge; from this we could never have knowledge concerning how the moon relates to the process and would not have a clue of how reality works or functions. I believe much of what we have in science concerning today's theories, is based upon a similar lack of understanding concerning how reality works. The prime example given of this is Quantum Theory, which is generally devoid of common logic. Logic should not always come first, but I think it should never be totally discarded. I think we should very seriously question all models that do not logically make sense, or those models that must necessarily contain many ad hoc hypothesis such as the Big Bang model and Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy. In some cases language may add to the problem of understanding, granted, but don't underestimate Mandarin Wǒ shuō língxīng zhōngwon kě wǒ shuō da bu hǎo (I speak a little Mandarin but don't speak it well) He also had much writing concerning his reasoning. Quantum theory on the other hand has little logical reasoning. It's very much like my example concerning the tides. Mathematics alone, and math was my major in college, gives you little or no insight into what is happening. What would be the logical basis for SR, GR, or QM if there was an aether made up of dark matter, for instance. Again, a better predictive capability via equations, may be totally unrelated to a better understanding of reality, as in the "tides" example. Improved equations can also result in a degradation of understanding concerning reality, as in Ptolemy's epicycles. As you stated, mathematics has its own system of logic that requires internal consistency, amongst other criteria. No type of mathematical physics can be proven, only shown to be consistent within a certain tolerance range, concerning observations. Theories of Physics which include logical verbiage, can be either proven or disproved, such as the Earth-is-round theory, the sun-is-the-center-of-solar-system theory, or Ptolemy's epicycles /

Hi Chris, The above proposal is that the dark matter hypothesis proposes that ~90% of the universe's matter is composed of dark matter and that the first stars were very large and would have been made up of ~90% dark matter. This accordingly would show up to us as "blips" in the far infrared spectra, which would be included in the far infrared background radiation . I think the dark matter hypothesis along with this idea is just bunk, but you can find many links to such proposals by using a search engine concerning "dark matter first stars." The "far infrared background radiation" is well known and can also be found by using a search engine. When the James Webb goes up we will be able to see maybe 10 times more of the far-infrared which I believe is no more than ever distant galaxies. /

My expectation is that there is a far simpler explanation than this. I also will be looking for this data but expect little. Current BB theory asserts that the first stars were very large and very dark since accordingly they were mostly formed from dark matter, hence the Cosmic Infra-red background. I expect to see nothing come from these predictions, which I believe are wrong. Here's one of those ideas: http://www.slideshar...in-the-universe

The basis of all theoretical physicist's verbiage today, that I am aware of, starts with their mathematical models. I'd much prefer it were the other way around and then I think there mathematical models would have at least some chance to represent reality, which I think is totally not the case today. For them to first conceive of a totally logic idea/ explanation, and then to develop a mathematical model to reflect it, I think would be far more fruitful of an approach. /

Howdy BJC, I'm a big fan of Occam and believe our one universe is simple, so believe there is no evidence or reason to believe in multi-verses. Of course we could be one of many universes, which would be real cool for me and space heads like myself, but do not think this is a simple, or the most likely answer. Both Penrose and Hawking prefer the multiverse idea, whereby such an idea leads to an infinite universe, universes with lots of cool math for them. I think this model, however, is far too complicated to be the most likely. / The CMBR anisotropies are predicted by steady state models, as being the minor temperature variations of galactic light based upon the web-like formation of galactic clusters. Present interpretations of the BB model assert that these anisotropies relate to condensations following Inflation originally relating to the Plank scale before Inflation. I do not think there is any validity to this argument based upon what has been observed concerning the CMBR alone. I think the observational data is being organized to fit the model. /

starlarvae, This supposition can easily be disproved. Take a few dozen fertilized eggs "in-vitro." As the zygote divides, all cells except the outermost can still become any cells of the body since they are pluripotent stem cells. The outer-most cells can only form the placenta. It you separate the cells from each other and from their surrounding chemistry, they will not differentiate into any particular cell type, which has been proven based upon their surrounding environment, chemistry, electrical, etc. and linkage of agglomeration. If the process is unimpeded, a sequence of events concerning development of progressive cell types can be predicted for all normal fetuses. Such a process would be unrelated to natural selection (survival of the fittest) to the extent that those zygotes that are genetically unfit will not survive. The natural environment in utero is controlled by the mother. Natural selection could involve which fetus might survive, but not what kind of cells will develop. This would only occur in the rare instances of mutations. /

Animal brains in general may be the most complicated things that we know of in the universe. Evolution in general including natural selection, are probably the best supported theories that man has. Maybe the second best supported theory is plate tectonics. It is well know that brain form and size in general, is unrelated to an animals intelligence. Birds such as crows, ravens, and parrots, are some of the smartest animals in the animal kingdom, language recognition, some are able to speak and understand over 200 words, tool makers, problem solvers, etc. yet they only have bird brains concerning size and form. Their particular brain configuration may be the most efficient of all brain configurations of animals since they can do an awful lot for their small brain size. The theory of evolution concerning natural selection is supported by large volumes of evidence, but as to the evolution of the human brain, their are a number of hypothesis, but to call any of these "theories" might be stretching the meaning of the word theory. How things have evolved will never be totally known because the history of evolution in general is far too complicated, but we can make educated guesses which will probably improve over time with more and better evidence. The process of how things evolve concerning genetics, is well understood in general with ever increasing knowledge including/ concerning epigenetics. The natural selection processes proposed by Darwin, may be one of the simplest, most logical, and best understood aspects and basis for evolution in general. /

Concerning galactic black-hole theory as to their origins, I think, are more speculative. The most prevalent black hole theory in general relates to vacuous points in space. I prefer the super-dense model something like a highly compressed form of dark matter of some kind. We can observe in a number of cases the approximate diameter of the black hole's event horizon. We can also observe the extent of a central Galactic black hole's gravity. Based upon a great number of these two types of observations, we know that whatever the make-up of a black hole, that it occupies a relatively small volume compared to its gravitational influence. Based upon all of our studies to date, a black hole seemingly could not be matter in any presently known or understood form. /

It has been a long time since science believed the Earth was flat. Five hundred years ago some of Columbus's crew were still worried the Earth was flat but these were not educated men. Not even the central Catholic church at that time, taught that the Earth was flat or Spain might not have financed Columbus's voyage. http://en.wikipedia...._the_Flat_Earth I think that you are correct in thinking that presently there are vast failings concerning today's science theory, but my educated guess is that none of these "misunderstandings" of reality, or failures of logic can in any way be remedied by spiritualism. You will always get flack on such an assertion in this section of the Science Forum since its entire basis is science . One spiritual comment might get by here, but you should understand that none will be popular in general here since science is science, and religion is religion. best regards .

This is not speculation but a straight question As to what black holes are in the first place, I think, is still debatable but what causes them to form involves very well developed theory with lots of supporting evidence. There seems to be little theoretical divergence on this subject. http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1808.html

Some other predictions of this model -- The inner planets of the solar system, up to the asteroid belt, originally formed from pre-existing liquids, gases, and solids made molten from heat conducted outward within the accretion disc of the proto-sun. The outer planets would have accordingly been formed from large volumes of colder liquids and gasses which first orbited and subsequently condensed upon pre-existing solids. As the proto-sun created water, it expanded away from the star with other liquids as the proto-star greatly heated up. These new molten solids, liquids, and gases would have enabled rapid planetary formation by reducing the carom effects resulting from collisions of solid materials without atmospheric friction. This prediction also leads to the hypothesis that the asteroid belt material was not originally hot enough for the asteroid material to be molten but still too hot for gas or liquid to readily condense on their surfaces of the smaller bodies to assist in the formation of planetary sized bodies. Accordingly the result would have been much fragmentation. -- De Broglie waves are waves which all spinning particles create in the surrounding aether field as they alternate their axis of rotation. These waves are radiated away from the particle as aether waves. All spinning particles create these waves which cannot be explained adequately using standard particle theory, but such waves must exist in the Pan Theory and many other aether theories. In this case if they did not exist is would disprove the Pan Theory field model of elementary particles which would necessarily generate a vortex surrounding any spinning particle or entity in a physical field of minuscule particles. -- The observable universe is not expanding in general; instead matter is progressively getting smaller. This prediction follows directly from the Pan Theory of Relativity, the foundation of the model -- Current estimates of the mass contained in most galaxies, as well as the observable universe as a whole, would be greatly overestimated by more than 90% because of the false hypotheses of dark matter and dark energy. This statement is based upon current formulations used to calculate galactic, as well as galaxy-cluster masses.

As you suggest, I think Occam's Razor would come to play here. Such basic assumptions concerning theories usually go unstated, such as the idea of solipsism, or that reality is somehow but a dream, etc.

Your description of present day science, in my opinion, is valid. But the problem with your closing statement implies that nothing can ever go beyond present day science. Yes present-day science has limitations, but science in general, I believe, has none. It is certainly true that present-day science has huge limitations. But Just because today's science may hardly have a clue as to what's up, does not mean that future science will not be able to explain everything in reality so that even a child could understand it. Of course we certainly do not seem to be close to such an understanding at the present time, but that does not mean that such an understanding of reality is beyond our capability. ?