kristalris

2. Quoting a Post We also have a system that allows us to quote another post from the forum - the software will automatically add in the name, time, and date of the post quoted as well as putting a link to the source. Within one thread this is a one click job - a. click the quote button at the bottom right of the post you wish to quote. Hit "return/enter" or use your mouse to move the cursor outside of the quote box, and then start typing your response. You can see the link button that appears on a post quote - clicking this little curved arrow will take you directly to the quoted post. END QUOTE OOPS again. Bit of a John Cleese moment gallantly fighting it out with this unwilling machine. When this digibeet hits the quote button (or even multi-quote button) I get the entire quote box. It used to be possible to simply put the cursor on the spot where I wanted to snip double enter and the box split. This doesn't work anymore. Now I'm trying to understand what is meant by above quote. When I get an entire quote box by hitting the quote button and I need to edit this in more quote boxes is that what is meant by multi-quote? Because that doesn't work either. When I hit the little arrow I end up in the quoted post and then what? How do I get back to my intended reply box? Let alone not getting anything to appear were my cursor is at as you say. Now I guess someone is going to tell me that I should par rules have referred to the help desk. Anyway: help (please).

My claim is simple that the Bayes in the brain logarithmic algorithm can do all logic including all mathematical logic. This is important for you need to take this into account as an important part of the instrument between the ears in assessing observations in this topic. My uncontested observation that Godel hasn't as far as I can see included Bayes probably because he didn't think that the Bayes formula can hold infinite plus and minus without having to divide by zero. So it can do all deterministic mathematics as well. And yes, if you can't show that he did or that the Bayes formula can't handle infinity then Godel is busted by contesting. A proof is only a proof as long as it goes without logical contest. I don't have to formally prove my point for that. In other words a proof can't have doubt that can't be taken away.For you to take that logical doubt in the proof of Godel away.

? of course I do. Data is per definition evidence. Only when the data is deemed unreliable (which again is then the same way of proving that) are you allowed to leave it aside. Exact scientists have a lot of problems grasping this when they are highly conscientious and low on openness as personality traits..They then simply can't work situations with incomplete evidence. To survive we need both personality traits (Mars 20% female and Venus 20% male in a safe environment) to work together. They don't understand each other. For this MN / God provided the personalities who have a high EQ, the Bayesian logic is on the relationship. (Normally! all people have to a higher or lower extent all traits. In an unsafe environment the basic trait shows in 80% of cases due to fear. They simply can't compute. This is current psychology neurology BTW. 10% are even in an unsafe environment open on the stated goal and 10% open (i.e. Bayesian logic on) keeping a good relationship. This environment is unsafe for stating idea's because (= proof) you are deemed a crank / crackpot if you differ from the paradigm. (Please notice that for a Band of Brothers soldiers it is safe to attack a machine-gun post and get killed and unsafe to let your peers (= the band of Brothers) down. In an unsafe environment only 10% can do relativity and in a safe one 50% given a certain speed of thought. (Simple Big Five and freeze / fight / flight/ flirt statistics.) to a much lesser extent 100% of normal (i.e. > 99 % of the populace). (It is of course norm dependent.) In this context often physicists refer to Dunning Kruger yet they forget that is on language, logic and humour. The latter to show the trait to be able to use relativity (= see from different perspective) in stead of only mirroring ( = only see things from the own perspective.) BTW nothing wrong with the one or the other. As long as you acknowledge the strengthens and weaknesses of both.

Albeit that the extra evidence compounding the proof of you being incorrect is in this thread. A new version of the brilliant documentary Cosmos by Carl Sagan is running now on dutch TV. In the old one he showed that an Egyptian let's call him Crank had noticed that at the same point in time the shadow of an obelisk in the north was longer than in the south. And that thus the earth must be curved. Now let's assume that the high priest Godel had claimed to have proven that the earth was flat as the current science of the time. In science proper the simple observation on the shadow would disprove the stated proof. I.e. you then don't know either way. I.e. no proof either way. My simple point that Godel hasn't taken into account that Bayes suffices to disprove his - claimed - proof. For his supporters - like you clearly are - then to re-prove. I.e. you have no proof either way. On you to disprove that Bayes can't deal with deterministic absolutes. it clearly can because you don't have to divide by zero. It is the instrument albeit as a logarithm between our ears that you have to take into account. Physicists are bound to take into account all used instruments. Yet they leave out the one between the ears, yet still claim to know best. When you do then your position is sunk. The norm to integrate is not the mathematical language of algebra, geometry etc. but the logical tool of - in this site the English language. That you must integrate is an a priori dictate of logic anyway BTW. Only! Bayes deals with that mathematically working on incomplete evidence.That the evidence is incomplete is evident: is the universe infinite or not. Please fill in your answer on the dotted line ............. You even ignore the latter. I.e. Bayes and the Lex parsimony rule: dictate English language to integrate in the inductive faze. I've done that and again proven that it actually works. In this thread I've provide further - compelling - evidence that this actually works. You are in a Bayesian inversion: to high a norm in order to act and to low a norm on the actual test where you need super focus. This is exactly what current psychology teaches us on the instrument between our ears. When the Bayesian logic algorithm between the ears is directed on what the authoritative peers think (or on the relation) instead of the stated goal TOE in this case, then the brain blocks off all internal (before the conscious brain becomes aware of the idea) or external idea's as fearful and thus wrong.A Bayesian inversion ensues in which the hilariously improbable is deemed correct. Such as something from nothing or hardly taking any risk by only looking at part issues.

The Polish friend: http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2012/12/21/how-to-build-universe-with-just-two-particles yet I go one deeper than he does my two strings built up of two particles are smaller than his. Again Godel is wrong you have the burden of proof to show he took into account Bayes. And you have the burden of proof to show that Bayes can't hack deterministic reasoning. For Bayes and the lex parsimony point to the use of - on this site - English language as the correct language in stead of Bayesian mathematics, that can also be used yet is too complicated. Ergo you may NOT demand the use of mathematics and probably even shouldn't when integrating all available data. Which inherently is all available data to you and not all of science which would grind all science to an immediate halt. What is forward becomes backward for nobody can or dares to integrate anymore. Yet it is a conditio sine qua non of science to integrate all data in the inductive faze. You are in breach of this. A breach of logic and thus science. You may not as you are doing use a norm on the nano-meter with a deviation in more than trillion light years and claim to work accurately. Neither may you work a problem without integrating all of the evidence in one consistent scenario. It shows you in a non vague way where to look. I predicted via this method to look for anomalies in red-shift with light from a distant as possible light source. There is nothing vague or hand wavy about stating that such an anomaly will be observed as it indeed has been. If I predict via a consistent logical integral scenario that on a certain island there is an apple tree where you will observe apples flying upwards out of a tree and you subsequently indeed observe this, then it is logically irrelevant whether or not I gave exact predictions on the speed etc. of these upwardly falling of apples. Again it is the way that you can quickly and successfully solve crime scenes. This is no different. You simply don't understand what the worth of (what is incorrectly named BTW) circumstantial evidence is. Even after it has been again proven correct what I'm on about. I said look for this, for other reasons it indeed was and undeniably Bingo! Now go look at the proposed computer simulation and the proposed rise of gravity when a large gyro is brought in spin. Apart from that even if I hadn't done any prediction the simple fact that I've come up with a logical concept that is integral and in no way at this inherently somewhat vaguer level is inconsistent with ANY observation, proves a concept worth investigation. Unless you can come up with a better or easier testable integral concept. You can't and on this or any other site there isn't not even one that does that or even claim that. No nonsense for me it wasn't possible. Where you fail is in being integral. I don't fail there. Where you fail is having a test with at least a probable route to get to a TOE quickly. I have that. Well according to GR the red-shifting as I understand it is linked to curved space due to gravity. Are you predicting that this red-shift that is observed is consistent with this "light"traveling in an absolutely straight line when not in a gravitational field? And, you've made a claim that it is easy to come up with a "vague"concept that is integral logical and testable that proves to provide predictions that fit. Well then if it is easy as you say: prove it! Don't dodge it. Oh and BTW my concept is much more elaborate i.e. fits much more of physics than that I've up till now shown you. Yet of course I'll have mistakes in that. Like the mistake with the ions, remember? I got the definition wrong that time yet my concept model again un-disputably came out stronger after opposition. It works like a helicopter with the tip of the rotor hitting c. The smaller the rotor the closer to c the chopper gets. Exactly what we observe. Nothing vague to it. The same way my strings can account for the jumping of electrons in the rings of an atom. You can use your hand again. Index finger to thumb one string / ring. Index finger to index finger thumb to thumb two strings second ring. etc. Fits like a gem. All across the board on ANY observation you throw at it. And I simply steal the mathematics of GR and QM in the fields where everybody knows they apply. I.e. I don't have to understand how DNA matching works in order to tell a forensic scientist where to take a swipe on the crime scene. No book will tell you that. Only good guesswork based on correct observation of all evidence integrated via a elegant probable scenario does that for you. That the latter is vague and subject to alteration of even better idea's more scenario's is irrelevant. If crime scenes where dealt with the way you go after TOE the body will have decomposed before you got to taking a cleaver swipe for DNA in the right place. Or you would be prosecuting an innocent person who's DNA was on the crime scene because you swiped without integrating it all first. Edit: and my prediction to look at anomalies in red-shift around the light sent from distant galaxies now all the more comes into view as something to be looked at. If what I say is correct then it proves that light doesn't travel in a straight line and that red-shift also occurs outside GR strong gravity fields. I thought about the consequences of the glacier pulling photons into polarization being different when a photon comes from the bottom or from the side. Alas even if what I say is correct then polarization might or might not always be expected. It might be that from the bottom non polarized light is also present from the given distance. Anyway the fact that the polarization fits the prior given moving glacier and prior given way photons are polarized is neat, to say the least. And that also confirms the way that when you make an above average good guess (or vague guess in your terms) on a crime scene say naming three suspects, given that only two of these are indeed the culprit then further accurate investigation (or testing) will render relevant data making an even better next guess possible with an even higher probability of being correct. When you guess correctly practice and probabilistic mathematics show that you are zeroing in on the answer. Logic. Not integrating when it is clear on ANY issue of incomplete evidence then you are on a fools errand. taking ages to figure it out. As this mathematically and logically and even practically proven insight shows when under pressure a concept gets easily better as is the case here - you probably are on the right track. Ergo logic dictates to put more effort into it.No hand-waving but pure practically proven logic.

Yes it is easy - for some -, yet also being proven right on that less rigorous yet not to vague point, as I've been is for some unattainable. Or prove your statement make a (not too) "vague" prediction on a physics subject contrary to the current paradigm and be proven right. Bet you can't. I've did that trick now several times. For example as you know also with the Higgs particle BTW. My prediction was as rigorous and precise as was possible. Being more rigorous and precise would of been pseudo scientific for claiming more than can be delivered at that moment. Example if current science states that we observe dark apples falling upwards and I predict that you'll observe these then light apples falling down then I've been accurate and precise enough. That I then din't have the formula St = v0t + 1/2at2^ with the constant a = 9,8 m/s2^ should scientifically be immaterial the prediction that the apple will be observed to fall down is what should count. for it also shows you where to start looking. As I've also done in this case by saying to look for anomalies of changes in red-shift from light from distant galaxies. Like the tired light that Spyman pointed out to me as being in effect what I was saying in lieu of my earlier Champagne bubble cosmology. I then didn't know that back ground radiation also behaves like light. So undisputed and un-disputably I can claim to have predicted tired light anomaly that has indeed been observed. Light does NOT travel in a straight line outside gravitational fields, it gets red-shifted. BIG POINT TO ME THEN! The direction of the glacier is down and the direction of the galaxies (Champagne bubbles) is up. In reference to our position we as yet don't know where up and down is. So start looking for it. The problem is also in part that gravity distorts the picture. So "up"and "down" is a sufficient prediction for current paradigm states a rising space cake bubble. And, it goes further. I also predicted that photons have mass. I got that wrong earlier for I thought that current physics had them mass-less as Swansont pointed my error in knowledge. Yet in stead of making my point weaker it made it stronger for it showed me the weak spot in GR: two photons sent side by side from a distant galaxy traveling billions of years without having any measurable gravitational attraction are two un-observed galloping only mathematically extrapolated unicorns. Which I've supplanted with two galloping unicorns in my concept. It is on topic to integrate all used instruments used in the observation. Well contrary to physicists I integrate the instrument between the ears and show why in this unsafe environment most physicists observe what their Bayes in the brain guesses what their authoritative peers think they observe. (Nothing more than survival DNA working in a ditto DNA environment.) Further more I use the correct tool of logic dictated by Bayes and the Lex Parsimony in integrating the observations and making accurate as possible yet not to accurate predictions. On this site the English language. Another nice point is that this new observation in effect also is consistent with photons having mass. Mass-less photons couldn't be pulled down and thus into polarization as we now observe. Simply Newton. That is very much consistent with my concept and inconsistent with the current paradigm. I also pointed out earlier what a photon is and what polarization in my model means: I'll do it again. The larger fundamental particles are like spinning tops in spin rotation. See this as marbles if you were to travel with them. Place your finger tips of one hand between the index finger and thumb of your other hand. This is the surface tension tunnel of the double crystal that is built of same yet un-spun particles. A string that spirals through the double crystal. Now looking at it at a larger scale put your index finger on your thumb with one hand. Then put the index finger of the other hand through the mentioned fingers and place on the thumb. We have then a representation of two interlocked counter rotating strings that bounce i.e. wave through the crystal. When a gravitational field pulls the crystal away the photon can accelerate by becoming un spun i.e. the marbels get larger. The photon gets red-shifted holding c in the curved space of the gravitational field and like a car giving gas in a curve will curve in at twice the Newton value. As we observe. Because nothing can travel in a straight line through the crystal that acts like a Galton Board in a way (as in the double slit experiment shows) a photon also becomes red-shifted outside any gravitational field. It becomes tired. Because the crystal move inward at the same rate as the Champagne bubbles move outward in order to remain in balance Yin Yang cyclic order with waves as we observe a photon not only red-shifts but also polarizes. Newton has the mass want to move forward. A fresh photon the one string is vertical the other horizontal. The glacier pulls it into both strings either being horizontal or vertical. On Occams razor and Bayes you lot have been smashed. Extremely elegant, accurate enough predictions - that again fit new observations like a glove. And again my model fits SM like I showed with our Polish friend. Only qualms with quarks. I can build you another larger string if need be. My concept elegantly deals with DE, DM, marries GR to QM and is nicely Newton. And it loves Higgs explains the seeming something from nothing. In the double slit experiment I can explain why having moving mass is not at odds with QM or GR and interference of light. You only have to look at the same evidence differently. Inside the fields where GR and QM apply by all means take mass less particles. It is like using a flat earth law when making a city map. Only one little problem with GR - which is a problem that is to be expected!- massive photons. No problem then GR and QM remain standing as the best laws we humans ever had. Just don't say they apply everywhere: as to be expected they don't apply outside the double crystal we are in. This crystal is only the crust of a whopping sphere. Go to small and GR and QM break down, as they do when you go to large. Theres obviously pressure in the system. My infinite universe with an infinite amount of moving un-splitable massive particles provide this. And all matter acts like little black holes causing an under-pressure perceived as gravity rising momentum and thus accelerating via the Higgs field bringing mass from the crystal in spin joining the strings. Giving thus DE and DM and slowing down your accelerated atom clock. With slowly mounting entropy. Ergo the ONLY integrated simple elegant testable concept on TOE hits the mark spot on again. Predictable. The more relevant data it should most probably become more simple instead of more complex. How is it probable that an old lawyer with very limited knowledge of science can possibly come up with that? Well how can a short-tracker possibly win gold at a 1500 meter speed skating? Well better at doing curves that's why. Solving crimes scenes is making creative integral scenarios and testing them.'I'm well trained at that. Psychology shows only open minded people can do that trick with probable plausible scenario's. Exactly what is needed on TOE as well. The rest is Wikipedia and Google. It is so easy even a 1/1000 of an Einstein like I can perform it. MN made it predictably easy. And if you have no humour you don't understand relativity not even when you know all the formulas. By reproducing Mozart accurately doesn't make you a Mozart. A moment of inspiration followed by a lot of transpiration. But not of a lawyer, no one likes sweaty lawyers, apart from that I'd have to bill you, anyway it is not my job. It's a scientists job. The rest is extremely difficult and painstaking. Cobbler, stick to thy last. Indeed yet an academic person uses an academic last and thus knows his chalk from cheese: with your something from nothing, Escher institute mathmatical extrapolations and silly dogma of not integrating accurately only looking at part issues not seeing the woods from the trees in breach of basic scientific rules of Bayes and the lex parsimony.

So nice you being only political for just one warning point. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lega poenali. Anyway indeed I didn't predict polarization. But I did predict a red-shift anomaly outside GR gravitational fields. You left that out didn't you? And, I predicted a dynamic crystal glacier moving inwards. Now would that polarize a photon traveling through it? Yes it would. Simple common sense. (How do you make a polariod sunglase you pull (i.e. stretch) the plastic down like the moving glacier does. Good point BTW (apart from the warning that is.)

"Since the cosmic microwave background is a form of light, it exhibits all the properties of light, including polarization. On Earth, sunlight is scattered by the atmosphere and becomes polarized, which is why polarized sunglasses help reduce glare. In space, the cosmic microwave background was scattered by atoms and electrons and became polarized too." http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-05 Well then this is consistent with tired photons that point towards Champagne bubble cosmology as I predicted that an anomaly should be seen akin GR from distant light from one side of a distant galaxy in reference to the other side. Light doesn't travel in a straight line and thus becomes red-shifted. The further off the more clear it becomes. No gravity needed.Because it curves it seems to come from all directions, hence the illusion.

And that is exactly where current quantum theorists go wrong "shut up and calculate". It should be: "don't shut up and calculate". 1. Get all the observations in their essence as a picture in the minds eye of the people with the most humour, and who can draw accurately 3D. Ergo the ones that can perform relative thought and who can thus prove to actually observe properly. The ones that can come up with adult guesses on issues like this. (Of the fastest thinkers (male/female) in an unsafe environment only (less than) 10% can do that, in a safe environment this on more difficult issues can't rise higher than 50% - of all fastest thinkers - as current psychology shows. They are always in the minority especially in an unsafe environment. ) That you can do the mathematics on relativity doesn't mean you know what you are doing. Extremely fast thinkers with all the knowledge in the world on relativity with no sense of humour nor accurate 3D drawing ability will at best only be able to provide a guess of an average creative six year old. That is what is left after cutting away all the overly complicated humbug they produce, and produce a lot of. The only trick they can perform is shut up and calculate, by extrapolating mathematics. Earning them an honourary doctorate at the famous Escher Institute on water streaming upwards and something from nothing. And indeed sometimes that will work, creating the illusion that they are on the right track, yet it will become less and less gain for effort if you aren't able to guess properly to not only speed things up but also to keep it going. Predictably as we observe and the article points out you run into trouble. The creative can't keep on bailing these authoritative mental six year olds out on part issues. They at a point will have to go integral. Thereby breaking the six year olds rules. Now try and explain this to a majority of mental six year olds on actual relativity who are the authoritative peers only because they know the book by heart. These six year olds can only perform mirroring i.e. see in the other what they them selves are. They always extrapolate their own norms on others, because they simply can't envisage that others could be different and are simply much better at certain (crucial) tasks. You can't blame them for it probably is the DNA and how that is distributed in the different ants of the ants-heap. (Be it nature or nurture because current psychology also dictates this.) Mental six year olds hold on to their paradigm until it is to late even in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They go in a Bayesian inversion, just like the way how to catch a baboon. This 1 minute film shows how to do that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZRz1ETyfu4 The Baboon clings on to its "paradigm" banana knowing that it is going to get caught yet guessing it will still get away if it pulls hard enough. Only when it is actually caught does it let go when it is to late. The same in humans as history repeatedly shows and current psychology also shows. I guess that the baboon might learn from this and not repeat the mistake in exactly the same situation when using a banana. I guess it will make the same stupid mistake when it is not a banana. (Quite irrelevant what you put in the hole BTW.) 2. Try in a broad sense to rearrange all the pieces of the puzzle filling in the missing parts via guessing. = Inductive, integral, intuitive like Einstein did. Albeit that Einstein did it via thought experiments on part issues now yet to be married QM & GR. 3. Take that as a fact and figure out how to test that. 4. Test it on logic, being fully integral and see which subsequently are most probable and easiest to test. Norm: close is close enough for testing. Logic: when you know that you don't know how it works you are in science PROHIBITED to be to accurate (or inaccurate of course). "To" accurate = pseudo science. This is NOT democratic but a dictate of logic and thus a conditio sine qua non for science, => Bye bye mathematics in this faze as a required norm. 5. Test of mathematics and / or test of observation. This then finally is to be done in the most rigorous and accurate way. Here then our highly educated experienced extremely fast thinking otherwise mental six year old can do his or her stuff like a near yet then happy robot. In the correct scientific order.

Our quantum reality problem When the deepest theory we have seems to undermine science itself, some kind of collapse looks inevitable by Adrian Kent 6,400 words Read later or Kindle http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78802-if-i-can-imagine-it-it-is-possible/#entry789486

I'm very busy at the moment but I came across this paper that goes a long way as I see it and also being thus current science on this topic .http://aeon.co/magazine/nature-and-cosmos/our-quantum-reality-problem/

I'm a bit busy at the moment and still working on a reaction towards Swansont. Yet I do have time to answer your point. My idea / concept is that of a double dynamic crystal. One with a smaller faster actual atom and one with a larger slower one. The latter builds the strings for building the SM. (This in the way a Polish guy on this forum has done, except for quarks. I can provide an extra string if required.) The larger one always moves in a curved way spiraling through the other crystal. A photon is built up of two counter rotating interlocked very small strings. It is superconductive. The spin of the larger one is induced in the center of the the universe like the winding up of a spring of a toy car. Space is curved conforming to GR because larger => slower strings take up mass out of the crystal causing under pressure like little black holes slowly speeding the string SM particles up = DM & DE. Photons are already to fast, because so small to have the Higgs mechanism work yet are waving = bouncing through the crystal. This in an extremely accurate way as if on a railway track. Yet they are short tracked in the crystal like speed skaters. And so kept at c. They however accelerate in the curved space yet become un-winded = red-shifted = tired photon. The photon like a car that accelerates in a curve curb in at twice the Newtonian value = GR = also Newton. Newton: Brake your car curbs out, no gas you stay on the curve, give gas you curve inward with your car. (Time doesn't slow down, your atom clock does in a way to set your atom clock to. Because it gets mass added and the faster it goes the more it gets per time unit.) BTW we have never observed that photons are mass-less. Actually quite the contrary they exert great energy = moving mass. In my model they indeed don't exert gravity which is at odds with only the theory of GR. But we have never observed a photon exert gravity, it only follows out of the mathematics of GR which is otherwise to be seen as one of the best laws of physics we humans have ever had. A slight garbage in problem with GR. GR is however at odds with an other such law: QM, so a garbage in problem somewhere is to be expected. My concept isn't. Ergo both GR & QM stay upright as long as you use them within the respective fields where they apply in this concept, in effect thus marrying the two. Now if we take a disk the size of a distant galaxy a group of photons emerging from the left and dito right will each be on a different curved railway track. This only fades once. A railway track implies no blurring because the tracks: left side disk and right side disk remain the same. (edit take a curved toy railway line, take the two metal rails out and they can intersect with any observation point on the line, without blurring.) It would however mean that one side should ever so slightly be more red-shifted than the other. This should - in principle - be measurable. (edit 2 problem will be of course hardly any long distant photon having been in no gravitational field.) Another prediction. (I have better ones concerning the heart of the concept.) => bubbles best concept => further investigation required by science and not laymen.

I abide by the rules. You interpret the rules in a way that no longer can be understood as a speculation. You use evidence in the sense of new evidence. Whereas according to the rules and scientific logic it may also include a rearrangement of existing evidence. Of course this is testable and measurable. Yet that requires a lot of work to be done to get new predictions. You simply can't get your head round the difference between different sorts of suspects and a proven criminal. You only think in terms of the latter. What is in your opinion the difference between a scientific speculation and conflicting scientific theories? You have none. How do you envisage ever getting from an idea to a concept to a theory in a scientific way? That it boggles your mind that I think something correct without knowing everything there is to know, and indeed being correct is possible via what basic psychology teaches us. I think it correct that this concept proves a prime suspect. You demand proof of a correct culprit. You simply don't / can't comprehend the difference. In short it must boggle your mind I even thus came up with the concept of a tired photon, without ever have knowing that serious scientists had done that before me. Then you think Spyman shows that that is falsified. It isn't because as I've pointed out that falsification didn't include photons arcing as well preventing blurring. If you can't even in concept imagine that this potentially solves that problem, and that this can be shown via mathematics to work or not work, remains curious. Ergo the idea of a speculation thread is to have people aid building the model or isn't it? If so don't trash it. BTW tired photons are still in the fringes of science according to main stream science. Well then that on that evidence belongs in speculations, because otherwise what is the use of having a speculations thread?

Rethinking this there must be a difference between the way radiation comes about from the core of our universe and radiation that stems from strings. The core will I guess continuously "leak" the larger of the two particles becoming un-spun. So also when there is no "big squirt" of a new bubble. A great part of this might fly past us slightly waving trough only one of the two dynamic crystals . A near total non event. Part of it will hit the larger particle crystal and start waving and spiraling. This is what we observe as CMB. Because it will be an unsorted spinning off in our floor beneath us we are emerged in the radiation. As said it is work in progress.

First of all you are comparing apples and oranges. As said earlier you can do that but then on the same denominator fruit. I.e. you must compare the verbal concept of the bubbles to a verbal concept of the BB. Everybody agrees that the latter has whopping holes in it: DE, DM etc etc. It isn't integral. How to integrate the CMB? Well our universe (in the multi verse) if cut in half resembles that of earth cut in half. (Which is also nice BTW) The actual "BB" is a continuous shooting off of identical "actual atoms" as particles in spin like a CME of the sun. Yet to form a bubble/ galaxy. Just before coming to a halt in speed it is shot into the crust to form strings. These particles can exceed c when they become un-spun creating a varying CMB that we perceive as coming from all directions and is homogeneous. Because this is from the core of our universe. Whoppingly large dome beneath our little bubble. (magnetism BTW is also > c yet perceived by us as not being so like pushing against a heavy boat at first doesn't seem to have an effect. If you push against a dingy you would notice. At the moment we thus can't measure this because we don't have a dingy. The movement of the large boat we only notice and perceive magnetism < c) The CMB is thus older than the creation of first light. The particles that much later form the strings that build the SM. These do not exceed the speed of light. This is where the bubbles / galaxies form and where the oldest light stems from. The bubbles slowly accelerate but will I guess already have disintegrated into a black hole in their center before 1/3 c. There is mounting entropy due to the acceleration. Ergo no problem with GR whatsoever. Problem solved at a concept level I guess. I remind you that close is close enough and that tweaking is allowed. Under pressure of critique and better insights the concept has got better and better. I hadn't included the CMB yet, now I have. For I wasn't aware of a problem. So thanks for the critique.

Not acquired new evidence of course. If you claim new evidence then it is of course important to know that the person is trustworthy. I have re-positioned all the pieces (i.e. evidence) of the puzzle and filled in the missing pieces as Bayes requires in such a way that all the apples are falling down again, in stead of up as is the case with DE, DM, GR not matching QM and an expanding universe. As you should when pieces of the puzzle are evidently missing. Because I use all existing evidence I'm on paradigm par.

You see the peak get statistical significance (=> authority driven brain: what does this IMO - probably! - mean to my peers? universe is expanding = fact =>) I observe that the universe is expanding. You see the peak get statistical significance (=> creative goal driven brain: what does this - probably! - mean in relation to all relevant further evidence (pro AND con)?) => universe is probably not expanding yet might be expanding. I'll check both. Oh BTW this bit between the (...) is intuitive in both cases. We are under the illusion that we are rational. Current research strongly points in the direction that the brain acts before you become aware of what actually happened. Edit: One further point my credibility (= authority) is completely irrelevant other than as a prior odds assessment of the probability that what I have to say is probably correct. Vetting me on this would only be in order when I claim to have found evidence. I don't.

Thank you again Spyman. Reading through this Wikipedia on the way tired light has been falsified, am I correct in thinking that the primary problem is the inconsistency with blurring? I've not seen any mention of the other point I put forward namely that if light doesn't travel in an absolutely straight line you get lensing that could negate that problem. In general, any "tired light" mechanism must solve some basic problems, in that the observed redshift must: admit the same measurement in any wavelength-band not exhibit blurring follow the detailed Hubble relation observed with supernova data (see accelerating universe) explain associated time dilation of cosmologically distant events. Well a champagne bubble, tired light red-shift with lensing should be able to do that. That then begs the question has that already been modeled tested and falsified? Because when the Higgs field provides the red-shifting it must work with all wavelengths. A curved trajectory would have lensing and negate the blurring. The Champagne bubble follows Hubble. My verbal concept follows GR & SR (even marries GR to QM)

You imply that I oppose mathematical modeling. Of course not. Of course it must be done. What I'm saying is that science should determine which idea's are worth putting effort in in a scientific way. The science is already there and concerns that of basic psychology. These insights are BTW fairly new. Further more you clearly don't understand the psychology let alone not understand how that influences the way anyone so you included interpret data. And you make an error in reasoning thinking that what I state even implies that no paradigm shifts are possible. Of course they are yet discussing that is off topic. On topic is only the psychology as tool in interpreting data. You call me a crackpot for proposing red-shift of photons without having a mathematical model first. Well I guess then that Fritz Zwicky was a crackpot too for he must of started off having a then crackpot idea before he got the mathematical model. So my idea wasn't that daft at all as you made it out to be. The trick is thus not to immediately trash these idea's but organize in getting them and quickly filtering them out. I could go into the psychology on mirroring, but that would be off topic. Now you will probably state that it has been relegated to the fringes of astrophysics.

Magic indeed. The counter intuitive yet mathematically based theory on not integrated because inherently contradictory part issues you hold true, even though neigh infinitely improbable and the very probable you hold to be magic. In Leyden the old observatory is still used because the photo's taken a hundred years ago can then be compared to the ones made today in the same way. This because the distortion by the optically not so perfect as today lenses give the same distortion. Ergo if you want to observe something you must use the right tool. Cosmologists / physicists etc in science think they use the right tools. Forgetting / ignoring one very important tool: the human brain, and the distortions it creates in the way we perceive data. We know via neurology and psychology a lot about this and it is widely accepted that different personalities come up with different views based on the same data. This is also relative. Most grownups are Einsteins to six year old's. You have fast thinkers and slower thinkers. apart from that at the deepest personality level (under pressure of a threatening problem appearing) 10% are goal orientated creative break the rules fighters, 80% authority orientated stunned inactive hard workers and 10% are relationship orientated who flee as first instinct. One level higher in this important rule of thumb model - in a safe(!) environment - everybody can change more or less well into the other two personalities. This can to a certain extent also be trained. You could say 50% of male female people come from Mars and 50% of male / female people come from Venus. In an unsafe environment where you know that you will get flamed at the stake for saying that the world is not flat but a sphere, only 10% emotionally would dare to do so, but might rationally choose not to. When observing a complicated phenomenon only the quick of mind with sufficient knowledge and experience, will have a sufficient chance of interpreting all the data in a way that leads to solving the problem. History keeps repeating itself in the march of folly (Barbara Tuchman). In fact the brain creates a Bayesian inversion, under pressure 90% of all human populations on average will turn the world upside down in interpreting data in the way they are supposed to by their authoritative peers, peering through the telescope. Because what you are doing is completely irrational. You place a far to high a norm on the issue because that is what the authoritative peers / the book in effect say so. What happens when you place a too high a norm on something? Well let's see: on an absolute norm science has proven nothing at all on anything. On a mathematical norm of proof science only has proven a lot in the field of pure mathematics. On a Rutherford norm physics has proven quite a bit, yet if we go GR / QM etc. it becomes statistical in nature so then science would have proven little on those issues. In law we prove things at very low norms indeed. One such norm is what is BTW incorrectly only named circumstantial evidence. You can do this correctly however. In law the same way as in science. In an area where we know that we don't know the exact answer because all the evidence is not available the norm the judge our brainchild is not to state that the baby is no good because it can't run. To judge which seeds have potential to grow into a wise old oak and which don't you need the creative to look at the data and choose. The others always get it inverted. Yet then claim this is so with the other. Same here: going for Harry Potters tent like interpretation of the data - assuming! - that photons - contrary to everything (!) else we observe - can originate from particles that age, yet themselves don't age (via red-shifting thus even outside gravitational fields). What the formula / mathematical theory of Higgs included or not included is irrelevant because it only deals with a part issue. Namely giving mass to slow particles and not the fast ones like photons. That doesn't mean that assuming that the omnipresent Higgs field might have other effects up its sleeve is belief in magic, like you state. Especially so when your alternate is admittedly counter intuitive on a part issue whereas my alternate is intuitive simple and integral from the extremely small to the extremely large. Proof then based on circumstantial evidence on the correctly applicable norm using the required correct tool of verbal logic. The modeling you require is the job of scientists, not mine. Again I'm not saying that the Higgs field works this way, I'm saying I've proven a concept in science leading to the conclusion that it is science that needs to start looking in the direction this proof points in stead of coming up with evident garbage in mathematical based psychologically explainable distorted interpretations of data based on ludicrous assumptions. It is a law of science the lex parsimony that forces you to put an integral common sense position above your counter intuitive non integral view because it is at the required norm on paradigm par. I know that I won't convince the majority of scientists because to do that I must fit the irrational way their brains force them to interpret this data. It leads to an emotional response like laughter and ridicule, anger irritation etc.. The only thing I can do is point at the irrationality of it. Common sense isn't magic, counter intuitive solutions are when used outside the area where they evidently work. That is always the case when you are trying to solve a mystery.

Thank you Spyman. I wasn't aware of several points you put forward in the link to metric expansion of space. I'll give it some more study. After reading through it all my first reaction is: how shore, and based on what evidence, are we that light outside any gravitational field travels in an absolutely straight line? And second: how shore, and based on what evidence, are we that light doesn't very slowly red-shift outside any gravitational field? If namely light doesn't move in a straight line you get a very constant lens-ing at great distances.I.e it might appear larger and closer than it actually is. And if it over great time also very constantly red-shifts in a for us measurable way it seems to have greater speed than actually was present at the time the light was sent. Both effects could be due to the Higgs field BTW. We know there is a Higgs field that effects everything else in an at the moment measurable way, so why not photons as well? Assuming there is no interaction given the counter intuitive readings and measurements based on assumptions that hold true at relatively short distances but don't the further you go. Akin the flat earth concept.

Because it might appear that I've fully tried to trash the cake scenario, I haven't. The pure observation is the law of Hubble and the observations when it all as far as we can see came into being i.e. the Big Bang. The thought that there is no center is an interpretation / assumption of the evidence, nothing more. What is meant by a center must then also be clear of the infinite universe (per definition as none or all places, part of the multi verse (has due to the lex parsimony a center: any universe) our visible universe? The correct scientific position is that we have no discernible center in our universe or at all. That doesn't mean that there isn't one. The only in light of all the evidence feasible cake scenario is one with a boundary that doesn't have to coincide with our visible universe. That must than have a center. The invisible dough that Big Banged itself into existence all across our visible universe is thus a galloping unicorn. I've no problem with that because the entire SM is filled with former unseen unicorns. This invisible dough then should have transformed into what then? Higgs field? How that then? lets assume then Higgs was there prior to the Big Bang. Okay, then having a center should have an effect on the way the cake is formed. Otherwise it exerts no internal pressure whilst expanding. If it does then the center should be discernible with accurate measurement if possible. No, not all biologists are scientists. Some are. Biology is a science. Just asking if he is a biologist and or a scientist i.e. someone who works in science.

Ah, our great scientist posts. BTW are you a scientist or a biologist? Common sense is broadly held to be the basis of science, and I do have a lot of knowledge and experience in the field of evidence and law especially crime and indeed am doing science on that topic, old boy. And you, what is your claimed authority now you bring it up?

Ah no, when you have a common sense alternate that is just as good then the Lex parsimony prescribes you use common sense as a law of science. Your SR length contraction example also shows this: if you walk past a bus using six steps and the same bus goes past and that only takes one, would you say the bus has length contracted? Guess not. You can see two light beams passing each other as a Doppler effect as well. Same mathematics yet different way of looking at it. A more simple and thus in science prescribed way. That even then in an area where we know what we are doing SR is IMO a law of physics, one of the best we humans ever had. No qualms with that. It is a specific area where we know what we are doing. Looking at it differently doesn't change that. Point is when we are talking area's where we know that we don't know, what it is we are looking at, different rules should apply. Like solving a crime scene and only rigorously looking at only part of the evidence say only checking the DNA at the door in a (cake) scenario that matches suspect John, ignoring the fact that he has a valid alibi and only working on trying to convict him. Whereas there is an alternate (bubbles) scenario with possible DNA on the broken window with blood on it, yet saying not to want to investigate that. I.e. in the inductive faze you MUST look at all the relevant evidence and check ALL relevant scenario's. The latter is inherently intuitive / creative. (Most scientists would agree BTW) You must integrate it properly. After that you differentiate and rigorously check in the deductive faze. Subsequently you integrate it all again. Leaving one scenario out is a basic error in reasoning that is not remedied by however rigorous you did the DNA on scenario one. A recipe for disaster. In a crime scene as in science. With this I agree. And what I'm saying doesn't conflict with that. Yet you underestimate common sense. And the fact that it is based on a fundamental law of science the Lex parsimony.