Photons & Cosmic Expansion

[Mordred]

Answering asked questions is never annoying, dealing with false assertions is. 

edit: lets qualify that slightly it can get annoying to repeat/repeat/repeat.... the same answers to the same person who makes no effort to learn from those answers. lol not to indicate yourself but in general.

Edited February 23, 2019 by Mordred

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, QuantumT said:

I forgot to clarify why I use that name.
I use it because I am fascinated by QM, and because I think the name sounds cool. Plain and simple.

Sorry, if I sounded too harsh in my previous reply.. you know.. there is Saturday night.. (8th beer etc. etc.)

 

[QuantumT]

5 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Sorry, if I sounded too harsh in my previous reply.. you know.. there is Saturday night.. (8th beer etc. etc.)

 

Cheers! 

[zapatos]

On 2/21/2019 at 1:29 PM, QuantumT said:

No, I ask questions. I thought I was allowed to do that. I want to learn more about particle physics.

The problem with your approach is that you are doing more than just asking questions. You are (in this case) trying to tie photons to the expansion of the universe without having any foundation for doing so. When someone tells you why that won't work, you then pull some other factoid out of your hat and say "well, what if I throw in this random piece of information rather than my previous piece of information? Would THAT make my conjecture right?"

Rather than making a conjecture and then trying to learn some physics that would allow it, you might be better off learning some physics first and THEN coming up with a conjecture based on those physical principles. That would allow an easier back and forth as you refine your knowledge of the subject.

[QuantumT]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The problem with your approach is that you are doing more than just asking questions. You are (in this case) trying to tie photons to the expansion of the universe without having any foundation for doing so. When someone tells you why that won't work, you then pull some other factoid out of your hat and say "well, what if I throw in this random piece of information rather than my previous piece of information? Would THAT make my conjecture right?"

Rather than making a conjecture and then trying to learn some physics that would allow it, you might be better off learning some physics first and THEN coming up with a conjecture based on those physical principles. That would allow an easier back and forth as you refine your knowledge of the subject.

That is your interpretation of my approach, but I assure you, it is not so.

My questions have been answered now.

Edited February 23, 2019 by QuantumT

[StringJunky]

39 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

That is your interpretation of my approach, but I assure you, it is not so.

My questions have been answered now.

It is your approach. You are making stuff up.

[QuantumT]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It is your approach. You are making stuff up.

If having ideas that you want its legitimacy answered by asking questions, then yes, I am making stuff up! 

Happy now?

If conjecture is all you can think of, when questions come alongside examples? Then... Jesus!

Edited February 24, 2019 by QuantumT

[Strange]

6 hours ago, QuantumT said:

If having ideas that you want its legitimacy answered by asking questions, then yes, I am making stuff up! 

Happy now?

If conjecture is all you can think of, when questions come alongside examples? Then... Jesus!

It seems that a lot of people prefer (or find it easier) to learn by making up scenarios, while others prefer to just ask questions. 

I think there is only a problem if people insist the stuff they have made up is correct. 

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, Strange said:

It seems that a lot of people prefer (or find it easier) to learn by making up scenarios, while others prefer to just ask questions. 

I think there is only a problem if people insist the stuff they have made up is correct. 

I disagree that that's the only problem with this style of exploration. I think making up scenarios based on severely incomplete information is irrational when you compare it with studying accumulated mainstream science. Too many people think "theory" is just an educated guess, and don't realize it represents the highest advancements in science, the best supported explanations collaborated on by thousands of professionals and verified every day by experiment and constant challenges.

In that light, what kind of disservice are people doing to themselves by rejecting that body of work? It's a bit like taking a hike up a treacherous mountain without checking with people who've done it before (and being proud of your independence). 

How much time will they steal from themselves spinning their wheels on ideas that a focused education could dispel quickly, allowing them to move on to real, supportable ideas with some predictive power? If these people are so creative, we'd be better off if they knew some science.

How easy is it to fool yourself when the ideas you come up with are built from incomplete information? Most folks who approach science this way seem to reach a point where they don't understand something, and rather than find out they make something up that sounds pleasing and makes sense within their limited knowledge. This becomes their "logic" and they feel suddenly like they're having epiphanies with no need to study actual science.

It reminds me of people who insist on making big changes to their lives when they've been drinking to excess. They see nothing wrong, and are usually inordinately proud of their decisions.

 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Strange said:

I think there is only a problem if people insist the stuff they have made up is correct. 

It seems...inefficient. They’re doing a random walk with all the guesses, and are relying on people to correct the path. And you really aren’t sure where they went astray, because you aren’t building on a basic concept, so the corrections may not address the actual misconception 

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

It seems...inefficient. They’re doing a random walk with all the guesses, and are relying on people to correct the path. 

It's selfish and time-wasting. No different to playing 'Twenty Questions' with people that don't want to play.

[beecee]

19 hours ago, QuantumT said:

If having ideas that you want its legitimacy answered by asking questions, then yes, I am making stuff up! 

Happy now?

Ideas, speculations etc, are fine and dandy, but the first step is to know thoroughly the accepted mainstream theory that applies to that situation, why it applies, what it describes and explains, and the predictions that it makes that support that theory. The second step is to understand what a scientific theory is and why it remains a theory, in line with improving technology, further observations, further gathering of data and the possibility that while a scientific theory remains the highest echelon in science and its ability to explain, it can always be improved on, modified or even scrapped. eg: GR is continually being put to the test to understand its exact limitations, despite its incredible success. The third step is to realize that if you believe you have invalidated any incumbent theory, on a forum, from the comfort of your lounge chair at home, then you are probably delusional. 

Can I reproduce the following again?

Anyone with an alternative speculative  idea they wish to debate should take note of the following points:

[1] Don't present your idea 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 idea almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:

[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your idea 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 ideas 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.

[QuantumT]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

Ideas, speculations etc, are fine and dandy, but the first step is to know thoroughly the accepted mainstream theory that applies to that situation, why it applies, what it describes and explains, and the predictions that it makes that support that theory. The second step is to understand what a scientific theory is and why it remains a theory, in line with improving technology, further observations, further gathering of data and the possibility that while a scientific theory remains the highest echelon in science and its ability to explain, it can always be improved on, modified or even scrapped. eg: GR is continually being put to the test to understand its exact limitations, despite its incredible success. The third step is to realize that if you believe you have invalidated any incumbent theory, on a forum, from the comfort of your lounge chair at home, then you are probably delusional. 

Can I reproduce the following again?

Anyone with an alternative speculative  idea they wish to debate should take note of the following points:

Understood, appreciated and accepted 100%.

My error was that I thought no one had ever thought of photon/QF interaction before. That was presumptuously stupid of me.

But besides that, my approach is to ask and learn.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, QuantumT said:

But besides that, my approach is to ask and learn.

You have to learn every tool in the box before you can think outside it. 

[QuantumT]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

You have to learn every tool in the box before you can think outside it. 

Wise words!

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You have to learn every tool in the box before you can think outside it. 

And all those tools will keep me busy until  I...