beecee

Hya Moontanman! I believe I have shown in my time on this forum, that [1] I am not some cynical close minded person, and [2] I am not some gullible, impressionable person who aligns with what he secretly deep down would like to be true.....I'm near certain solely on the weight of numbers and the stuff of life being everywhere we look, that we are not alone. I also understand that time and the vast distances involved would work against any inter-planetary, or inter-species contact. All I want is the extraordinary evidence to convince me and scientists of all pursasions, that Earth has been visited and/or that we are not alone. Personally, I desperately and truly would like someone to show me that. Or to put that in another way, what I find extraordinary, is the fact that the claims of it [aliens] existing near earth, or having visited Earth, can be so genuinley and scientifically easily overlooked, derided, doubted, and unnoticed by any scientist worth his salt.[If it weren't true] I'm not entirely convinced by your argument of continued colonisation etc, but as I have mentioned previously, [1]Any Alien visitation would be by advanced beings. [2] Advanced beings tend to be far less aggressive and domineering as our own species has generally shown since our progression/s from the middle and dark ages, [yes the occasional drawback is sometimes still apparent with our own species] [3] A space faring advanced civilisation would not really want of anything that is not readily found throughout any planetary system,[4] If we have been visited, why not have they made that official? [I'm not sure the analogy of humans to ants really holds any water...we obviously are at a stage where our own scientific advancement is obvious] [5] How many kinds of weather phenomenon can take effect within Earth's atmosphere, [I was mildly surprised at what I saw while researching] and are there others simply due to a specific type of atmospheric disturbance that as yet we have not seen?] The hexagonal shape of the polar atmosphere around Saturn is one analogy that took some explaining.[6]Why the continuing flittering in and flittering out again? without any point [4] Like I said Moontanman, I really and truly would like some extraordinary evidence showing me the confirmation that we have been visited and/or that we are not alone. And yes, I most certainly do agree that further proper, intense scientific investigations into this phenomena is desired.

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-worthy-scientific.html Are we alone? The question is worthy of serious scientific study: Are we alone? Unfortunately, neither of the answers feel satisfactory. To be alone in this vast universe is a lonely prospect. On the other hand, if we are not alone and there is someone or something more powerful out there, that too is terrifying. As a NASA research scientist and now a professor of physics, I attended the 2002 NASA Contact Conference, which focused on serious speculation about extraterrestrials. During the meeting a concerned participant said loudly in a sinister tone, "You have absolutely no idea what is out there!" The silence was palpable as the truth of this statement sunk in. Humans are fearful of extraterrestrials visiting Earth. Perhaps fortunately, the distances between the stars are prohibitively vast. At least this is what we novices, who are just learning to travel into space, tell ourselves Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-worthy-scientific.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most certainly am not "terrified" if the answer to the question of "are we alone" is no.....In fact if such was shown beyond doubt to be no, we are not alone, I would be incredibly excited, and hopeful of a close encounter of the third kind before I kicked the bucket.

While the possibility certainly exists that one day forums such as this could be the vehicle for some momentous new theory that may change our picture of the universe we inhabit, the chances are really really slim. Every Mother sees her child as perfect sweet and lovable, and no amount of pointing out flaws in that child will ever change that Mother's opinion. Likewise is the feeling when someone who has "briefly" read up on modern cosmology and GR, believes he/she has improved on it while contemplating ideas and possibilities. To have there idea/hypothesis rejected is tantamount to pointing out the flaws in a Mother's child. It is hard to accept and sometimes down right impossible to accept that which is obvious to everyone else. Which is why in most cases such claims miserably fail the points at https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115017-science-theories-and-all-that/ The claims of outright rejection of alternative ideas is in essence the only "comeback" that those putting such claims really have in most cases. But that of course is easily shown to be false, by the fact of the never ending advancements and changes of science in all areas over the years. The scientific methodology itself entails critical review of new ideas.Like you said, the question needs to be asked why people come to a science forum, with claims of overthrowing an incumbent idea, when they have no intention of listening to any critical review. Then of course we have the real reason why this happens, in that such person/s inevitably may have an axe to grind, or be laden with some [religious] agenda. And what better place to start their crusade then with Einstein! In essence any claims of outright rejection, can and should be actually levelled at those claiming to have overthrown some incumbent theory. Inevitably it is they that have rejected a 100 years or more of the evidence of modern cosmology and GR, and the many examples of the state of the art equipment, probes, and installations that they do not have access to. The mods/admins here need not have anything to concern themselves with any claim of outright rejection..

Well sorry indeed since you have yet to offer any evidence at all to support your baseless claims. I also doubt very much whether your ego needs boosting. As far as scientists in the future are concerned, I'm sure they'll proceed admirably, making new discoveries while standing on the shoulders of the giants of the past. Your own baseless unsupported rhetoric I'm sorry to inform you, will be forever lost in the infinite realms of cyber space, never to be seen or heard of again...thankfully!!!

Ignoring the rest of your rather weird rhetoric, let me correct you on your absolute gross misunderstandings and errors in the above. [1] You have given no explanation that I have seen on anything other then your false, rather silly conclusions based on your interpretation of pi. [2] The equations and maths are the language of physics and a requirement of any viable scientific theory. [3] Science/physics constructs explanatory models based on our observations, with the support of maths/language, rather then made up word salad rhetoric.

Wow! That's a cop out answer if ever there was one!

Our observable universe from our frame of reference, is governed by the speed of light and the expansion rate. I'm sure its a reasonable contingency to assume that the rest of the universe, beyond our observable horizon, should not be any different then what we observe. And as to the question as to why we should assume anything is beyond, I would say if there wasn't, we would see some evidence of a wall of sorts?

I'm pretty sure that we can logically concur that the universe, all of spacetime is expanding just as our observable portion is. Yes....I think! The observable universe is around 95 billion L/years in diameter and obviously finite. The finite or infinite nature of the whole of the universe/spacetime is unknown. The data from WMAP, showed that the universe/spacetime is very nearly flat, to within small tolerances. A flat universe under normal circumstances denotes an infinite universe, but that would ignore possible topologies such as torus shaped and also the otherwise very small error bars from WMAP, which maybe enough to imply that the flatness measured by WMAP, was just the arc of a much much larger curvature. Therefor in essence, we cannot know whether the whole universe is finite or infinite. Those details above are going from memory and open to correction if needed.

You seem very defensive. Although not really professionally qualified, I did check your link out and like your post, seems terribly defensive and lacks any mathematical data and proof. Perhaps if you read the following you may be more realistic in what you are trying to claim...... Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115017-science-theories-and-all-that/?tab=comments#comment-1056923 [1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite compli" It most certainly isn't:[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support: [7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it. [8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories, and of course make sure you know the incumbent model you are thinking of over throwing perfectly.

Don't be sorry, I'm only an amateur at this game. The first thing though that I will say is read carefully the post that followed yours above by Mordred. What I'm trying to say above is that the BB happened everywhere at once but applies to the observable portion only. As a whole though, the observable universe/spacetime is all we can be aware of. The following may also help in understanding..... http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Worth noting also that the term BB, was applied by an otherwise great astronomer named Fred Hoyle in his attempt at derision. Perhaps the BB would be better described as the big stretch. And of course the one as yet unknown factor is whether the universe/spacetime as a whole is finite or infinite.

Yes, and he is correct according to the BB model. The BB tells us that it [the BB] was the evolution of spacetime from a hot dense state at least as far back as t+10-43 seconds. In other words all of spacetime, or all of what we can know that existed, existed in a volume smaller then an atomic nucleus.....The BB obviously then happened in all of space at the same time...no center, no edge, no outside, except obviously the center of one's own observable universe, which applies to whoever is doing the measurement and where ever it is being done. It is wrong to view the BB as an explosion emanating from any one point, rather as is highlighted, an evolution of spacetime happening everywhere.

Well actually its winter and bloody cold with this morning's temperature at a bone chilling 8C On the rest, have you been reading my mail?

And each observer is correct.

Bingo! There is not too many young up and coming physicists who would not give their right arm to be able to formulate a validated theory that extends beyond the accuracy and boundaries of GR, or any other model.

I'm pretty sure that claiming that some "higher power" exists, is equated to a god like delusion and the faith we are talking about. Not to be confused of course with the trust I have that my car will start in the morning as opposed to faith. Faith in any belief in any semblance of any higher power again springs from ancient stone age man, and his thirst to know, and obviously before the logic of science came about. Also of course not being able to face that rather emotionless, cold hard reality that science has led us to, in that we are simply a product of evolution and an assembly of elements synthesised in the belly of stars and that when we are dead, we are dead...nothing more, nothing less. It is in fact ignoring science and the knowledge therein gained at worst, and simply the unscientific alternative at best Again, generally speaking, when people talk of their faith, they are referring to their belief/faith in a higher power/god I see that as a quality of science: And of course there is not one of us here or anywhere else that can ever ignore all of science, and all the benefits etc that we take for granted due to science. I don't believe anyone is forcing any "scientific perspective" [which seems to be the perspective you are talking about] onto anyone else, taking into account of course that this is first and foremost a science forum, and that anyone preaching any unscientific belief or faith on a science forum, will undoubtedly be asked to justify his faith/beliefs in line with the science methodology. I'm pretty sure any scientist worth his salt, knows the current limitations of science and where we as yet do not have answers. To admit "We don't know" is OK.

Thanks for the answers fellas....most align with my thoughts on the matter. In essence, it shows that scientists are forever trying to improve our knowledge and picture of the universe, and just as obviously, any overwhelmingly successful theory like GR, is not going to be easily surpassed, which is just as it should be. Anything new obviously needs to run the gauntlet before it is accepted along the lines of GR and Newtonian. And I certainly don't believe there is any forces within mainstream science that will be uneccessarily incalcitrant in any effort to maintain GR as the status quo in the face of any evidence to the contrary. The clambering of young up and coming astronomers, cosmologists and physicists will always attest to that fact, and is borne out with the "hurried release" of data in the BICEP2 experiment, that was shown to probably be contaminated by mainstream science itself.

Yep, I agree with that summation. Same actually applies to Newtonian. We cannot say that its wrong as we use it everyday here on earth and as well as space endeavours. GR gives the same results with far more accuracy. Much as using a rule to measure a window frame rather then a set of Vernier calipers. I'm interested though in further comment on this TeVeS (tensor-vector-scalar gravity and the supposed claims it is making re GR inconsistencies. My view much froth and bubble with not much actual experimental substance and obviously apparently not too much interest with the scientific community in general, which in my book says a lot.

My interest in asking the above question was raised after reading the following article from "Quanta Mag" OK as the heading asks, will we ever have a viable alternative to GR? https://www.wired.com/story/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity/ [05/06/2018] TROUBLED TIMES FOR ALTERNATIVES TO EINSTEIN’S THEORY OF GRAVITY: Miguel Zumalacárregui knows what it feels like when theories die. In September 2017, he was at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Saclay, near Paris, to speak at a meeting about dark energy and modified gravity. The official news had not yet broken about an epochal astronomical measurement—the detection, by gravitational wave detectors as well as many other telescopes, of a collision between two neutron stars—but a controversial tweet had lit a firestorm of rumor in the astronomical community, and excited researchers were discussing the discovery in hushed tones. Zumalacárregui, a theoretical physicist at the Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics, had been studying how the discovery of a neutron-star collision would affect so-called “alternative” theories of gravity. These theories attempt to overcome what many researchers consider to be two enormous problems with our understanding of the universe. Observations going back decades have shown that the universe appears to be filled with unseen particles—dark matter—as well as an anti-gravitational force called dark energy. Alternative theories of gravity attempt to eliminate the need for these phantasms by modifying the force of gravity in such a way that it properly describes all known observations—no dark stuff required. much more at link...... I am interested in more than a yes or a no to my question. I've been reading stuff on MOND and other alternative gravity theories such as TeVeS (tensor-vector-scalar) and others. Here is one such paper...... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03520.pdf GW170817 event rules out general relativity in favor of vector gravity? (Dated: April 11, 2018) The observation of gravitational waves by the three LIGO-Virgo interferometers allows for the first time the examination of the polarization of gravitational waves. Here we analyze the binary neutron star event GW170817, whose source location and distance are determined precisely by concurrent electromagnetic observations. Applying a correlation averaging algorithm to the LIGOVirgo strain data, we find ratios of the signals detected by the three interferometers. We conclude that signal ratios are inconsistent with general relativity, but consistent with the recently proposed vector theory of gravity [Phys. Scr. 92, 125001 (2017)]. Moreover, we find that vector gravity yields a distance to the source in agreement with the astronomical observations. If our analysis is correct, Einstein’s general theory of relativity is ruled out in favor of vector gravity and future gravitational wave detections by three or more observatories should confirm this conclusion. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My complete understanding is obviously limited in that I am not a professional. So I hope that some of the experts on this forum whose knowledge I have grown to respect will take the time to read the full article and offer comments on that article, my question, and the paper above. My view? Not for a while yet....The paper seems to make plenty of assumptions that will probably never be able to be tested and as such of course its validity must be questioned. What is this inconsistency it mentions in the Abstract?

I believe many have been trying to tell you that over the last 16 pages or so.I Your faith is grounded in the fact that man since he first climbed down out of the trees, has been asking many questions and wondered at the awesome nature of the universe that surrounds him. No satisfactory answer was forthcoming, so he turned to magic in those early days, and saw this mythical higher power in many things that he could not explain. This has carried on down through the ages. Then science came along, and all was revealed...at least up to t+10-43 seconds. Your statement/argument is defeated because it has no basis in what we observe nor any empirical evidence to support it.

Whether you are in favour of it matters not. That's where the evidence leads us. And with your incredulity of which I would say you don't fully understand, my incredulity balks at this supposed "force" or "creator" you seem at peace with.....You know, where did it/she/he come from? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4a7F6dOdlc

It's all his ilk have...the old god of the gaps, or grasping at straws.

Your faith is your business. It has though absolutely no scientific value, nor any grounds to believe it in anyway resembles this "truth" you keep mentioning. Nice to see you keep on avoiding answering the difficult questions again.

You have it arse up.....It's you claiming [on a science forum of all places] that your faith/belief/delusion of a higher power has some basis in reality and reason. Faith in any higher power is simply an unscientific, unevidenced, belief in magic and myth, solely because as yet science does not have all the answers...You know, the god of the gaps. Sure...[1] This is a science forum, where subjects/opinions/claims will be scrutinised via the scientific methodology: accept that with logic and aplomb, [2] No one begrudges any person for what he personally believes: That's called personal freedom but [3] don't push your personal baggage onto others: This isn't a pulpit for preaching. [4] Supernatural and/or paranormal beliefs are unscientific and superfluous in the world in this day and age: The universe. spacetime, planets, stars, life can all reasonably be explained at least up to t+10-43 seconds. [5] Beyond that point, we are ignorant: Never be afraid to accept that as long as the search for knowledge is continued and not stymied or short circuited by some mythical higher power. We are star stuff.

On the contrary...what you are trying to communicate/preach to the rest of us, is simply the fact that going on the obtuseness, stubborness and repeatedness of your posts, that like most that accept faith and the mythical, and delusional belief in a "higher power" your position is incalcitrant as well as delusional. That is clear.

And as opposed to belief/faith/hope delusions in a higher power to comfort you? Sorry old friend, the onus is on you to show that faith in any higher power has any grounds in any sort of reality...other then that's what you have been brainwashed to accept and believe, after 15 pages, you still have nothing.