Jack Egerton Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 Hi all This is brief enough that one may as well read the text and provide insight. Best wishes Jack egertonian-cosmos.pdf n.b. citation directs here:
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) Side note: I am always bemused/amused when people make claims of "ownership" to ideas like this. I mean, obviously, you have copyright in the document but there is no protection for ideas. And, generally, no one is going to want to steal (or even be associated with) ideas posted on a science forum. To the content! Line 19 (thanks for numbering the lines it makes it easier to reference; but doesn't get round the fact you are breaking the rules) Quote where the maximum distance may be defined using the speed of a photon in a vacuum and the time quantum [1] (Hmmm... the line numbers get changed when copied. Weird.) 1. Surely you mean the "minimum" distance. If that is the maximum distance and is based on time being quantum, then there are no measurable distances between 0 and this maximum. 2. There is no evidence that time is quantised and your reference for this (the only reference) is to an unpublished work by someone called Egerton. I would comment further, but I'm afraid the rest of it doesn't make much sense to me. You start off talking about a cloud of free particles (good start, a similar approach is taken with some very god explanations of GR, for example). But then you try and apply this to the Earth, where we have a set of particles closely bound together by interatomic forces. I think you need to study the difference between a "gas" and a "solid". Finally, there is not very much maths in this short article. What testable predictions does this model make that would allow it to be compared with GR and/or the real world? Edited April 20, 2018 by Strange 2
Jack Egerton Posted April 20, 2018 Author Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) I shall add then, that for a given duration of time, such as the time quantum -- and with no evidence provided that time is quantised -- that the normalised distance 1 = ct_q. Normalisation takes care of any mathematical/non-conceptual discussions. All discussions are conceptual or intended to be so. (Which rule written by who was broken with line numbering?) All particles are free in this model. Interatomic forces can be defined under the umbrella fundamental forces that I provided. They are all just particles 'in a box', but really on a line, in this model. I will re-iterate, using maths suggests thought beyond conceptualisation, which has not yet been given, and is not required for conceptualisation. You could run a sim of an expanding Earth with a suitable velocity distribution and recreate Newton's laws, because the concepts allow it. The maths to do so may well be fiddly. Thanks for your reply Jack p.s. GR would also follow from this, just as Newton's laws would... p.p.s. I would not want to sound rude, but at the slightest risk that you were implying and/or thinking 'I could have thought of this', well that should be true after the fact for all simple and profound ideas. What such expressed sentiments truly suggest is that my idea is, at the least, partially comprehensible to you, which is the aim of penning it here. However, as you might also realise, with 7bn people on this Earth, it is fairly likely someone somewhen has thought similar. I put my name to it because I am aiming to disseminate a thought that seems to fit the bill. Edited April 20, 2018 by Jack Egerton clarification
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 41 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said: I would not want to sound rude, but at the slightest risk that you were implying and/or thinking 'I could have thought of this' Not at all. Just that there is no legal protection for ideas so claiming ownership is a bit futile. If your idea is any good you will get credit. 2
Jack Egerton Posted April 20, 2018 Author Posted April 20, 2018 A Family Name goes beyond a sole person and I have aims beyond purely credit.
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Jack Egerton said: I shall add then, that for a given duration of time, such as the time quantum -- and with no evidence provided that time is quantised -- that the normalised distance 1 = ct_q So you are defining distance in terms of a basic unit of time? Rather like Planck units, where the Planck distance is defined that distance light travels in one Planck time. (Actually, its the other way round, but no matter.) 1 hour ago, Jack Egerton said: Normalisation takes care of any mathematical/non-conceptual discussions. All discussions are conceptual or intended to be so. Normalisation is a mathematical process, so you can't use it to get rid of mathematics. You still need maths to produce a testable theory. 1 hour ago, Jack Egerton said: (Which rule written by who was broken with line numbering?) It is providing the information in external document that is against the rules. 1 hour ago, Jack Egerton said: Interatomic forces can be defined under the umbrella fundamental forces that I provided. And can you show that this reproduces the forces that we observe? 1 hour ago, Jack Egerton said: You could run a sim of an expanding Earth with a suitable velocity distribution and recreate Newton's laws, because the concepts allow it. You couldn't run that simulation without maths. And the Earth is not, to my knowledge, expanding. Which seems to be a fundamental flaw even at the conceptual level. 36 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said: I have aims beyond purely credit. Such as? Are you going to build some practical device based on these ideas? (That could be protected by patent.) But you will need a bit more than these vague concepts. 1
Jack Egerton Posted April 20, 2018 Author Posted April 20, 2018 I did not say that maths was not necessary in testing a Theorem I said maths is not necessary in stating concepts through, for example, a Hypothesis. Yes, you do need maths to quantify things. No, you do not need maths to imagine a scaled unit. Yes, agreed, the word normalisation is a definition based on mathematical construct, but I meant that the concept is invariant for constants of proportionality and similar, i.e. normalisation takes care of it. You can test any Hypothesis by building a mathematical framework. This has not yet been done. I am very glad that you ask the above questions, as this is steps towards achieving such. Aims that are beyond credit should not be beyond imagination and should not necessarily be stated plainly, for they are personal. I can exemplify however. An aim beyond credit could be the desire to do something that one, themselves, considers meaningful, regardless of external accreditation. p.s. If, for example, the force of gravity that is felt on, for example, Earth is indistinguishable from otherwise the space(time) of Earth expanding in a force-free region, then such descriptions are testably/empirically equivalent or indistinct and it is merely a discussion on the convenience of each formulation, or, perhaps, the generality of each formulation, for example, that remains relevant and pertinent. In plainer words: one could get the same results from many concepts but some may be more useful and general than others.
DanMP Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 2 hours ago, Strange said: You start off talking about a cloud of free particles (good start, a similar approach is taken with some very god explanations of GR, for example). Please elaborate about what I underlined. Maybe you have a link ... 1
Jack Egerton Posted April 20, 2018 Author Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) Upon inspection of that quotation: In case there was a Freudian slip towards 'god' not 'good'. One cannot test whether a god exists so it is an equally inviolable and un-useful Hypothesis. Alternatively, the above is testable in many stated and un-thought-of ways; the above may be useful in describing undescribed or novelly predicted physical phenomena. Read above to see examples. Though, as was just said above, the results of said tests may well be in agreement with existing Theorems, which is surely no bad thing Edited April 20, 2018 by Jack Egerton
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 57 minutes ago, DanMP said: Please elaborate about what I underlined. Maybe you have a link ... This is a good explanation of the equations of GR: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/ A cloud of "test particles" is used to explain the basic meaning of the equations and describe how gravity, tidal forces, expansion, etc work. 1
Jack Egerton Posted April 20, 2018 Author Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) So it may come down to this, when conceptually comparing to Einstein's GR: is spacetime bent by massive objects that create force fields (in Einstein's mind) or are objects just moving with a predictable velocity distribution (like Boltzmann's entropic gas equations but for all physical laws) but with no forces necessary. Occam's Razor would favour the Egertonian cosmos. Really, read what I wrote, so I do not have to restate it all, but this point is important, so will be restated: many particles near each other must most likely move apart, because moving closer is impossible (they are already close) <-- there is your gravitational pseudo-force and maybe any other force, for that matter Edited April 20, 2018 by Jack Egerton
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said: So it may come down to this, when conceptually comparing to Einstein's GR: is spacetime bent by massive objects that create force fields (in Einstein's mind) or are objects just moving with a predictable velocity distribution (like Boltzmann's entropic gas equations but for all physical laws) but with no forces necessary. There are no forces in GR so it is more like the latter. 1
Jack Egerton Posted April 20, 2018 Author Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) OK, for gravitation, but for other felt-forces my concepts may also apply. And GR has a greater number of suppositions than the Egertonian cosmos, and is therefore less likely to be true by Occam's Razor, once again. GR suppositions: objects must have mass, m, and mass, m, must bend spacetime by (x,y,z,t), plus other suppositions I may have missed or misstated. Egertonian cosmos suppositions: particles exist and are describable with a velocity distribution or separation distribution on a 1-D line. GR potential applicability: gravitational pseudo-force. Ec potential applicability: all conceivable felt-forces (or empirically measured forces). Edited April 20, 2018 by Jack Egerton
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said: And GR has a greater number of suppositions than the Egertonian cosmos, and is therefore less likely to be true by Occam's Razor, once again. Er, no. Your idea is too vague to be sure how many assumptions it rests on. And there is no reason to think it is correct. I think GR is based on three postulates: 1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames 2. The speed of light is invariant (Personally, I think this is covered by 1; but it is important, and unintuitive, enough to highlight) 3. Acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable (or alternatively, gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same) And it is more likely to be right because it has been tested. You are misusing Occam's razor. It doesn't say that a simpler idea is correct, it says that if you have two correct ideas then you should choose the one that doesn't include unnecessary elements. For example, there is a theory called Lorentz Ether Theory which is identical to Special Relativity except it includes an undetectable aether as a mechanism. Because this aether is undetectable and unnecessary, Special Relativity is preferred by Occam's razor. Edited April 20, 2018 by Strange
Jack Egerton Posted April 20, 2018 Author Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) I wholeheartedly disagree that I have been vague in the document or the text. I would like you to state anything that you consider vague such that I can clarify or restate. Yes, GR rests on many axiomic ideas, howsoever they are stated and named. I did say that twice in the above comment and so that case seems closed. Yes, evidence supports GR, yet, with a suitable particle distribution, my Hypothesis should and will agree with GR. Einstein has the advantage of many man-years headstart on myself and anyone who would pursue testing of my idea, such is the progression of time. I assume my concepts are correct on the Hypothesis level -- and continually openly invite discussion to counter this -- and I would expect a solid mathematical Theorem could be build on them. Let us forget 'Occam's Razor' and image I had stated 'my idea seems simpler and possibly more general -- evidence would help support this'. Thank you for stating the Lorentz Ether Theory, I am glad to see this mentioned here to provide context regarding the progression of science. Edited April 20, 2018 by Jack Egerton
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 1 minute ago, Jack Egerton said: Yes, GR rests on many axiomic ideas Many? 1 minute ago, Jack Egerton said: I assume my concepts are correct on the Hypothesis level Of course you do. After all, they make sense to you because you thought of them. 2 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said: I would expect a solid mathematical Theorem could be build on them Go on then. 1
Jack Egerton Posted April 20, 2018 Author Posted April 20, 2018 Thank you Strange that was a joyful and productive discussion, truly.
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 16 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said: Thank you Strange that was a joyful and productive discussion, truly. I suspect you are being sarcastic ...
Mordred Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) Hrrm thoughts, Well here is my thought. There is literally nothing in this proposal of any substance. It certainly does not qualify as a model. There is no means of testability nor does it make any predictions. Ie What rate will two coordinates expand or contract? Particles move apart and contract at different rates so how can you apply a single rate such as c to account for this? Further more any Model of the universe must meet certain criteria. Specifically must have a coordinate basis. You have no coordinate basis where one can apply scalar, vector, spinor assignments. There is also zero application of thermodynamics or any quantity of any applied physics. A lot more effort and study is highly recommended if you want this proposal to ever be taken seriously Edited April 20, 2018 by Mordred
swansont Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 What testable predictions can you make, using your thesis? How is it falsifiable? 1
beecee Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, Jack Egerton said: You can test any Hypothesis by building a mathematical framework. This has not yet been done. I am very glad that you ask the above questions, as this is steps towards achieving such. Quote OK, for gravitation, but for other felt-forces my concepts may also apply. And GR has a greater number of suppositions than the Egertonian cosmos, and is therefore less likely to be true by Occam's Razor, once again GR has been tested and confirmed time and time and time again. Even if you have anything more then a unsupported hypothesis [in your own words, no mathematical framework as yet] and your idea explains all that the incumbent theory does [GR], the tried and true incumbent theory will always hold pride of place. Your hypothetical idea needs to predict more, explain more, then the incumbent to replace it. Best of luck with that. Edited April 20, 2018 by beecee
beecee Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 Here is an interesting article, pertaining to the many "would be's if they could be's" who claim Einstein is wrong..... https://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong: One of the benefits of being an astrophysicist is your weekly email from someone who claims to have "proven Einstein wrong". These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as "it is obvious that..", or they are page after page of complex equations with dozens of scientific terms used in non-traditional ways. They all get deleted pretty quickly, not because astrophysicists are too indoctrinated in established theories, but because none of them acknowledge how theories get replaced. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html#jCp extract from article...... "To begin with, Einstein's gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by experimental evidence showing that the predictions of general relativity don't work. Einstein's theory didn't supplant Newton's until we had experimental evidence that agreed with Einstein and didn't agree with Newton. So unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of "disproving Einstein" will fall on deaf ears. The other way to trump Einstein would be to develop a theory that clearly shows how Einstein's theory is an approximation of your new theory, or how the experimental tests general relativity has passed are also passed by your theory. Ideally, your new theory will also make new predictions that can be tested in a reasonable way. If you can do that, and can present your ideas clearly, you will be listened to. String theory and entropic gravity are examples of models that try to do just that". Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html#jCp 1
Jack Egerton Posted April 21, 2018 Author Posted April 21, 2018 (edited) To beecee (having not seen the other replies -- I will now read the other replies): Nothing can be proven. Things can be evidenced. If you understood that I said Einstein was wrong then you misunderstood. Any work of [Insert Name Here] is X% generally/broadly applicable, Y% straightforwardly applicable, Z% comprehensible to a person of a given level of education, etc. To Mordred: those parameters/conditions are yet to be specified in a Theorem by myself or anyone else, to my knowledge. What I have provided is conceptualisation through a Hypothesis. To swansont: Thank you for requesting a null hypothesis test. I would also like one. Thoughts necessary. To beecee, regarding your first comment: It feels like it can do more because of its inherent simplicity and generality. That is all I can give you for now. You certainly cannot force a thought process such as this. Maths may follow and may not; something more may come of this or otherwise. Overarching comment: What I have provided seems/feels like a good way of understanding the cosmos/universe. Nobody has yet even seemed to have thought about, or said anything about, the concept, which is the truly exciting thing that I am excited to provide unburdened and free to be regarded or disregarded -- but -- it is an exciting thought that has occupied my mind more than once in the past few months. I would take, for example, "wow, that's so darn intuitive -- it must be true", but that could be over-optimism. PLEASE TURN OVER to page 2 for the continuation of this thread. Edited April 21, 2018 by Jack Egerton
Strange Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 20 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said: I would take, for example, "wow, that's so darn intuitive -- it must be true", but that could be over-optimism. How do you feel about: “that makes no sense and doesn’t seem to correspond to anything in the real world” We have good theories of gravity already, why would we need some baseless speculation. 1
Recommended Posts