pantheory

starlarvae, There is probably more evidence to support natural selection than any other theory in all of science today so it is probably the most certain theory. Since we know of other mechanisms that can produce speciation, like epigenetics for one, the only question left might be, is natural selection the prime cause of speciation? The evidence is very great that it is but if someday, somehow, they might prove that epigenetics was the prime cause of speciation, it could never discount the major role that natural selection plays in determining evolution. The only way that I can think of concerning "disproving" the theory of natural selection, would be to provide irrefutably evidence that there is a more important cause for speciation. One could never discredit natural selection as a major player in speciation since there is too much evidence to support it, in my opinion. /

Simple but logical explanations have legs I think one of the best and simple, logical explanations and theory of all times was Darwin's theory of natural selection. It is now more than a century and a half old and it made sense from the start, based upon Darwin's evidence which was very well documented. We have learned about many details of genetics unknown to Darwin, and have a lot more evidence, information and theory concerning evolution since Darwin, but natural selection still stands tall as being the primary contributor to speciation. His was a logical, common sense theory that had legs /

I very much like your summary but still am not sure I fully understand the argument. Let's say instead of a black holes we use a neutron star for example. Everything falling into it will be expressed by the increased mass of the neutron star, decreased mass (maybe antiparticles), the number of neutrons, its relative spin, internal energies, particles in a major or minor plasma other than neutrons, its magnetic characteristics, its radiation, its gravity, etc. Is this somehow a means of "saving all the information" of in-falling matter? If so then for a black holes, there is mass increases, decreases, changes of spin characteristics, a changing magnetic field, changing gravity waves of some kind, externally expressed energy levels of some kind, changes of gravitational influences, a changing relative position, changing relative motion, etc. Are these means of "saving all the information" of in-falling matter? //

There is nothing wrong with saying that the Big Bang (BB) had a cause. A number of BB hypothesis assert a cause for a BB beginning. If there was a cause then what was the cause of that entity? It's a never ending sequence of cause and effect requiring that the universe be infinite in past times. This hypothesis does not violate logic, but it does violate the meaning of the word "finite," concerning time. Think about it, take your time: whether the universe is finite or infinite concerning times past, it is logically impossible for it to have had a cause, based upon the meanings of the words themselves, "finite, "infinite," and when using the definition of the word "universe" to mean: everything that exists. Whether the universe has an infinite future or not is also just another matter of theory, not fact -- even though almost all theories propose a never ending future concerning matter, space, and time. Present BB ideas propose a slow heat death for the universe, but probably most who believe this might assert that there would seem to be no predictable time ending for such a process.

Cygnus47, This is a re-write of my posting #61 for the purpose of clarification: Michelson & Morley, and others later, tested the hypothesis that a luminiferous aether traveled at a speed different from the motion of the Earth around the sun, within the accuracy of their equipment. They did not find the aether and received the Nobel Prize for not finding it. Here in the Speculation Forum I am presenting my own cosmological model concerning both the speed of light and the source of gravity as it relates to an aether. I'm sure you realize that my proposals and assertions are unproven I do however, have an experimental design concerning how my assertions might be tested. There is now available equipment to test my small asserted difference in the speed of light, up vs. down. It is based upon using two very precise atomic clocks, something like those clocks we use for the global positioning satellite GPS system, measuring time in parts per billion. It might cost a few quid, however, to borrow or rent the equipment. So I'm presently putting together the coin. The theory: All matter produces EM radiation based upon its temperature, the higher the temperature the greater the radiation. According to this model being proposed, radiation has two different constituents, one is waves in a physical aether, and the other facet are string-like bundles of this aether material which we call photons. Max Plank coined the term "bundles" of particulates which he called "quanta." Accordingly as aether waves (EM radiation) move away from matter they carry "surfers" with them (quanta) which we now call photons. As these waves and photons are radiated away from matter they leave behind a lower pressure volume in the aether since the waves and photons were created from aether field material. Accordingly as a consequence, aether continuously back-flows into this lower-pressure volume that surrounds matter. The result of this aether back-flow is the pushing force of gravity. There have been many such aether pushing models of gravity over hundreds of years. So in this model the aether flows into the surface of the Earth toward its center, at a velocity of about 30 ft. per second (not very fast). The up versus down difference in the speed of light would accordingly be about 60 ft. per second. Michelson and Morley, and others that followed them, could not find the aether or a difference in the speed of light accordingly for two reasons, one was that their equipment was not designed to be able to look up vs down, and secondly their equipment was not precise enough to measure this very small difference of speed, asserted to be about 60 ft. per second plus and minus about 30 ft. per second difference. This difference in speed is accordingly based upon two considerations, if the difference in speed were less than 30 ft. per second then the present atomic clocks could not measure a smaller difference. If the differential speed was greater than 90 feet per second, then I believe this difference would have already been detected. (end of correction posting #61) This is one of the few threads that I didn't edit after writing it, resulting in a number of typos that made some of the reading not understandable , hence this correction

I think the problem will become evident at a redshift of maybe 10, that if we see galaxies appearing similar to the Milky Way at a distance of 13.3 Billion light years, then the present BB model would seem extremely improbable and I would expect at that time there would be a serious search for an alternative model. Of course they can again create another ad hoc hypothesis to extend the age/time allowed by the BB model as long as needed , or to simply assert that 400 million years is enough time to create a galaxy which appears the same as the Milky Way, or worse, a larger Elliptical galaxy in an old appearing cluster. //

You are right Michel. I didn't notice that there was a creationist affiliation with that article that I posted or I never would have posted it, but I agreed with that part of the article that I read. Although I may agree with some creationist arguments concerning what's wrong with some science models, I certainly do not agree with what they think is right

Hi Cygnus47; As to the solidness of matter concerning a particulate ZPF, which classically would be called and aether, as the nucleus of an atom spins in an aether model it creates a vortex of aether in and surrounding the atom. Based upon this vortex it is much more difficult for slower moving particles to traverse the aether. Matter accordingly would be much more solid because of this. A thought experiment sounds like fun , what do you have in mind? This model is a string theory, a simple one with just 3 dimensions plus time. Quarks and Gluons don't exist in this model. The founder of the system of quarks and gluons, Murry Gell-Mann, originally stated that quarks were a convenient mathematical constructs, but were not real particles. This is also what I believe. Later he was convinced that they were real. Instead this model has strings of fundamental particles, whereby thousands in a looped string of particles would make up a simple electron. Very similar to the way that I look at it excepting in this model there is no such thing as pure energy. Energy is simply force time distance concerning matter, and EM radiation are real waves in the aether. Accordingly there are no other kinds of energy. Space in this model is only the distance between matter and field particles. Space accordingly has no independent existence. In this model everything in reality is very simple and can be readily explained to most people. Math, in this model, is not a mirror of reality. It is just a tool to help make predictions. One of the best and simple mathematical models of reality, is the inverse square law of magnetism, gravity, and light. Makes sense. Today we have many theories related to an aether. One hundred years ago all these hypothesis would be called aether theory. One of the original definitions of aether are a ZPF that contains physical entities. Today's models are dark matter, gravitons, Higg's particles, quantum strings, quantum foam, quantum sand, and many others. Since the word aether is no longer popular they don't use it, but the today's definition of aether is simply space containing presently unknown particulates. A luminiferous aether is an aether that is also the carrier of light waves. This model is a luminiferous aether model. The speed-of-light experiment that I proposed, if proven, would drastically change physics if an aether were proven, especially a luminiferous aether like this model is. My book and papers can be found at pantheory.com //// Keep the questions coming, best regards, Forrest Noble

Hi Cygnus47, Michelson, Morley and others have tested the hypothesis that an aether does not travel relative to the surface of the Earth within the accuracy of their equipment. I am presenting my own cosmological model concerning the speed of light and gravity here in the speculation forum, so I'm sure you realize that my proposals and assertions are unproven I do however, have a experimental design how this assertion can be tested. There is now available equipment to test this small difference. It might cost a few quid, however, to borrow or rent the equipment. So I'm presently putting together the coin. In my model all matter produces EM radiation based upon its temperature, the greater the temperature the greater the radiation. According to this model the radiation has two constituents, one are waves in an aether, the other facet are particulate type bundles in a string light aether which we call photons. Max Plank coined the term bundles of particulates which he called quanta. As aether waves move away from matter they are take "surfers" with them called photons. As these waves an phones of field material are radiated from matter they leave behind them a lower pressure in the aether. The aether field accordingly backflows into this lower pressure area surrounding matter. This is a pushing force of gravity. There have been many such pushing models of gravity over the years. So in this model the aether flows into surface of the Earth at a velocity of about 30 ft. per second. The up versus down difference would be about 60 ft. per second. Michelson and Morley and others that followed them, could not find the aether or a difference in the speed of light for two reasons, one accordingly was that their equipment was not designed to be able to look up vs down, and secondly their equipment was not precise enough to measure this very small difference. The 60 ft. per second plus and minus about 30 ft. per second difference is primarily based upon two considerations, if the difference were less than 30 ft. per second then the present atomic clocks could not measure the difference. If the differential speed was greater than 90 feet per second, then I believe this difference would have already been detected.

It may be man's arrogance that makes us think that we can solve such a puzzle. Since we have presently harnessed a great deal of nature to our advantage, a more complete understanding of reality will always be the quest. Within maybe 10 years after the James Webb telescope goes up I think we will know whether or not the BB is the correct model of the universe or not. If we continually see the same types and sizes of galaxies to the fullest extent of the James Webb's capability, then I think the BB model will be greatly modified or replaced by a model that would allow for a much older universe, if not one that is infinite.

I agree; my statement you quoted does not make sense according to the Big Bang model. Maybe I should have just said that if we only continue to see more galaxies appearing the same after the James Webb goes up, as far as we can observe, then I think within a decade thereafter the BB model will be replaced. /

Acceleration = -GMr^-2; due to gravity; in this format a body is accelerated by gravity as a function of the mass of the Earth alone, for smaller bodies size in general does not change the velocity. In my equation there is no negative since gravity accordingly is a pushing force. It is not the speed of the aether that is the force of pushing gravity or the cause of mass acceleration, it is the differential aether pressure. If the aether gradually becomes less dense toward the Earth there will be a vector differential, down would be a greater vector force than the force pushing up. A pressure difference causes a change in velocity. A continuous vector pressure differential causes acceleration of a body, hence gravity. The aether current primarily relates to the speed of light, not the acceleration of gravity. Accordingly light moving away from the Earth is slower than light moving toward the Earth, near the Earths surface, by roughly 60 ft. per second difference concerning the speed of light. Thanks for the move of thread, it is appropriate regards, Forrest

Airbrush, Of course black hole theory is just that, theory. We have plenty of evidence to support that there is something invisible creating a vast amount of gravity. Whether this something is a vacuous single point or something else, is still a matter of conjecture. If it were a presently unknown type of matter, it must be much denser than a neutron star because their known event horizons are relatively very small. So accordingly there may not necessarily be any vacuum surrounding a black hole. As to virtual particle production, most models that I've seen assert that such production is plentiful. Hawking himself wrote a paper in 1975 concerning "Hawking radiation," where he proposed that both electrons and positrons were also produced as permanent particles emanating from black holes. chinmayrshah, I believe the article you were referring to stems from this reversing of theoretical positions by Hawking. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5452537/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/hawking-changes-his-mind-black-holes/

According to logic alone we can't rule out either of the two possibilities: whether time was infinite concerning times past, or whether time had a finite beginning. According to the BB model, the observable galactic universe had a finite beginning in time. Most older cosmological models had a infinite extension with no beginning. \ \

(quote from link below) The present Big Bang model' (BB) assertions concerning the dark ages are explained by the quote above and the link below. It must be noted that no such observations have been seen at the presently most distant observable parts of the universe. If such an era were ever discovered it would be strong evidence in favor of the BB model, if it is not found by the next round of space telescopes such as the James Webb, some might then question the theory. The dark ages cannot be seen (hence dark ages ) directly but the first stars, according to present theory, should have been different than present-day stars seen in any galaxy today. If instead all we ever see is more distant galaxies, then the BB model will seemingly be in trouble maybe within 5 years after the James Webb goes up. http://www.astro.ubc.../cmb_intro.html

Widdekind, Quasars are not exactly standard candles but the periodicity of their pulses of brightness are regular, predictable and consistent. There is also a correlation between quasar brightness and distance, the farther away a quasar the more likely that it will be brighter and the surrounding galaxy larger, also contrary to the standard model. The farthest quasar to date appears to be the brightest with the largest profile of heavy elements ever observed. The problem is that the periodicity does not change with distance. The most distant quasar's frequency of light pulses and EM light curves are the same as the closest ones, violating not only General Relativity but also the expansion of space model, and therefore might contradict the present interpretation of redshifts as well as the Big Bang model. (quote from link) http://www.setterfie...lDiscussion.htm http://www.time.com/...,843526,00.html http://cas.sdss.org/...es/galaxies.asp

Green Xenon, The negative parts of your lifestyle would be too much fat-food intake and too much sugar intake. Also you would be consuming too many calories for your system to handle since you would have no fat to store it. This would not be a big problem if your body did not metabolize much of it, but if it were metablized the calories must be spent by energy or heat. You would probably sweat excessively and might run a higher than normal temperature. Although you accordingly wouldn't do cardio-vascular exercises specifically, you do get a lot of it with body building exercises. Although not overweight your arteries would seemingly clog up at a faster rate than if you were simply overweight since these fats/ cholesterols would circulate at higher concentrations for a longer period of time. If you were lucky this might mean that you would then metabolize less. Also sugar produces a large quantity of oxidants which would accelerate aging and weaken your immune system. My guess is that your life might be shortened by roughly 15- 20 years on such a regimen, something like a grossly overweight person, or a person of average height, maybe 60 pounds overweight, that smokes.

In my brief search I could see no mainstream papers by Marmet concerning cosmology. His cosmological material that I could find seem to have been self published. Paul Marmet was professor and later department head of physics at Laval University, QuŽbec, for over 20 years. He said "it is difficult to get published in mainstream journals ..... if your proposal is entirely contrary to the mainstream model, regardless of your credentials, affiliations or prior publications." http://www.uow.edu.a...pubs/04jse.html From what I have read, light and brightness periods/ profiles of quasars are quite similar/ regular. That at the farthest distances as well as those close by, there is a similar periodicity, as well as light and brightness profiles, and the frequency of light pulses. Quasars have a strong correlation to the galaxy that surrounds them as do the blackholes which they stem from. The bigger the galaxy the larger the theorized black hole and longer the period of rotation, as well as the length and brightness regularity of the quasar. But General Relativity is thought to predict time dilation of quasars as it did for type 1a supernova, so that what has been observed and confirmed concerning quasars, is thought by some to be a strong contradiction of both General Relativity and the Big Bang model. http://news.discover...nt-quasars.html ArXiv.org - On time dilation in quasar light curves, Mike Hawkins -- http://www.physorg.c...s190027752.html Discovery News - No Time Dilation for Distant Quasars? http://news.discover...nt-quasars.html New Scientist - Time waits for no quasar - even though it should. http://www.newscient...-it-should.html PhysOrg.com - Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers. http://www.google.co...biw=911&bih=399

SpeedFreek, There are many alternative explanations for redshifts that are well-known in cosmology. Tired light and Gravitational redshifts are maybe the most well known of these. Tired light is maybe the oldest but the old version of it does not explain the time dilation of supernova but more modern versions have been proposed since then such as this one as well as many others. http://www.mendeley.com/research/an-alternative-explanation-for-cosmological-redshift/ The diminution of matter was first proposed by Hoyle Narlikar in the early 60's. Larger atoms in the past would have produced longer wavelengths of EM radiation. Particle interactions over great distances is another explanation. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.2885v2.pdf Dirac proposed the expansion of space and expanding matter to explain redshifts. Gravitational redshifts (Einstein redshifts) / Compton redshifts etc. etc. etc. The problem with most such models including the mainstream expansion of space proposal, is that they make no other predictions. Presently the biggest contradiction to the expansion of space idea is that quasar light is not time dilated. This is not a problem for some other redshift explanations. Only the expansion of space idea would seem to be consistent with the Big Bang model.

Hawking is a big supporter of the multi-verse idea and there is much interest in his theoretical ideas. The known arrangement of galaxies seems undesirable/ or unexplainable based upon the Big Bang model. Other theoretical models, however, might explain these web configurations far better than the standard model. Reality only seems simple once you understand how it works. Until that time, many aspects of reality will seem to be quite complicated or illogical. There are a number of Steady State models, Hoyle's models are simply the best well known of such models. There are many cosmological models that only theorist know about, and many others that few if any theorists even have heard of. Multi-verse models and most steady state models, are infinite models concerning times past. To me infinite models are not philosophically appealing. /

Michel123456, From what we know there are primarily only two stable free ranging particles that entirely dominate the observable universe. These are the atomic fermions protons and electrons. Neutrons exist withing atoms but only last about 11 minutes when outside nuclei. Although a few of the other particles are presently believed to have a funtion, non have longevity other than electron neutrinos, and photons are in a class of there own. I think the standard model places too much importance concerning particles that last a couple of billionths of a second or less. I think these might even be called something different other than particles. We have virtual particles that seem of little consequence, why not "ephemeral particles" which would simply be one step above virtual particles but a step below long lived particles, and atomic particles in particular.

I agree that the multiverse idea is growing in popularity. It is also exciting to many sci fi enthusiasts. I think the Big Bang model is totally wrong, but also disagree with the multi-verse idea since I believe it is not the simplest answer and therefore not seemingly in accord with Occam's Razor. /

md65536, thanks md65536, I like your logic and I cannot identify any part of it as being false excepting for your memory concerning the above statement. Quantum Theory, in my opinion, is almost entirely devoid of logic -- or one might say that logic is no longer a big time player in this field. I also think the idea of warped space (GR) is devoid of logic to the extent that the evidence of today was not available in Einstein's time -- in that today we have enough evidence to say concerning the observable universe -- that it appears to be flat. So, in my opinion, the logic of the micro-world , Quantum theory, and the logic of the macro-world (GR) have no chance of ever agreeing withe each other if they both are entirely wrong. What both are missing, I believe, is the acceptance of a background particle field such as dark matter, positrons, Higg's particles, quantum foam, quantum sand, field strings, etc. etc. etc. A background field (ZPF) full of these entities would bring back an aether of some kind which would vastly charge these theories, making it not only greatly simpler, but also totally logical, in my opinion.

I agree Daedalus, Time is motion but maybe more accurately could be described as "change." Since motion can be solely relative motion, and fluctuating energy levels certainly represent change. I also agree with you that traveling backward in time is impossible based upon our concept of time. You cannot undo what has already happened. But that's why we are in the speculation forum because there are other explanations of time depending on which field of physics you are discussing. That's why everyone does not agree. There are a number of ideas concerning what the essence of time is, even though in truth the best definitions might simply be an interval of motion or change.

From the proposition concerned with before the beginning, "... at some instant in the past" refers to a time frame before the beginning of time, or changes before the first changes. This is not logically possible. According to the standard model and my model the first entity never came into existence. This idea again implies that there was a time before the beginning of time. Instead the beginning of time should be logically defined by the first changes in the beginning entity. Nothing could have pre-existed the first entity. It is logically impossible for the first entity to have had a cause based upon the definitions for the words finite, infinite, and universe (meaning everything in existence). I agree there was never a time of a placid ocean or a time when the first entity was not in motion. For all time there have been changes, and at the beginning of time the beginning entity existed, and there was no such a thing as a time before that. Here again I think we are following the same logical path. According to the standard version of the standard BB model, as well as the Pan Theory, The beginning entity had its first motions which can define time, but it was not in a zero state concerning potential energy. In the Pan Theory it was in exactly the same state as it presently is excepting that there was only one simple entity. Accordingly all fundamental particle must unwind and rewind. In the BB model the beginning entity was primed energy-wise to go "bang," and to consider anything before that first change in this BB entity also would have no meaning to it. Of course there are other versions of this model that do consider a before the beginning BB. Most of these versions could be called an infinite universe or infinite multi-verse(s), again lacking causality. The religious version of creation would also be an infinite, non-causal model since god is accordingly infinite and he would have had no cause for his existence. The model whereby our universe was spontaneously created by the ZPF is also an infinite, non-causal model because there is no explanation concerning the beginning cause of the field. If there was such a proposal, then what came before that? Only in a finite model concerning time can one finally stop asking the question "what came before that?"