RayTomes Posted April 2, 2019 Posted April 2, 2019 I study cycles in many things. There are a number of cycles periods found in various phenomena that match with periodicities in space supporting the idea that they are evidence for electromagnetic standing waves. Some of the periods matching are 160 minutes (or light minutes), 4.44 years (or light years) and more or to a maximum of 586 million years (or light years). This last one is found as megawalls of galaxies and geological cycles period. As early as early 1990s I was able to predict the presently accepted value of the Hubble constant based on this connection. IMO everything that exists in the universe is standing waves of e/m which explains the spacings of galaxies, stars, planets, moons,... Cells, atoms, nucleus... Search Harmonics theory
beecee Posted April 2, 2019 Posted April 2, 2019 4 hours ago, RayTomes said: I study cycles in many things. There are a number of cycles periods found in various phenomena that match with periodicities in space supporting the idea that they are evidence for electromagnetic standing waves. Some of the periods matching are 160 minutes (or light minutes), 4.44 years (or light years) and more or to a maximum of 586 million years (or light years). This last one is found as megawalls of galaxies and geological cycles period. As early as early 1990s I was able to predict the presently accepted value of the Hubble constant based on this connection. IMO everything that exists in the universe is standing waves of e/m which explains the spacings of galaxies, stars, planets, moons,... Cells, atoms, nucleus... Search Harmonics theory Not sure how all that stands up to the overall expansion of the universe according to the evidence available...sounds something akin to astrology to me, But I aint no expert. Others can judge, as well as other then mainstream.
Bufofrog Posted April 2, 2019 Posted April 2, 2019 4 hours ago, RayTomes said: As early as early 1990s I was able to predict the presently accepted value of the Hubble constant based on this connection. Sounds intriguing. Could you show the math that you used to accomplish this?
swansont Posted April 2, 2019 Posted April 2, 2019 ! Moderator Note You will need to provide more detail for your assertions, in order for this to conform to the rules of speculations
Strange Posted April 2, 2019 Posted April 2, 2019 6 hours ago, RayTomes said: Search Harmonics theory No. If you want to present your crackpot "theory" do it here. 6 hours ago, RayTomes said: IMO everything that exists in the universe is standing waves of e/m which explains the spacings of galaxies, stars, planets, moons,... Cells, atoms, nucleus... Opinions are not of much value. You need to present the evidence for this. And something better than numerological coincidences and handwaving, please.
RayTomes Posted April 3, 2019 Author Posted April 3, 2019 16 hours ago, beecee said: Not sure how all that stands up to the overall expansion of the universe according to the evidence available...sounds something akin to astrology to me, But I aint no expert. Others can judge, as well as other then mainstream. I independently arrived at what is known as Narlikar 's variable mass hypothesis, in which nucleon masses vary over time. In this view there is no expansion. It solved many problems previously swept under the carpet such as redshift quantization. It is not astrology, but pure science. When it is understood that the fundamental laws of the universe are non linear, then many previously problem areas are solved. And I can explain why we have the hierarchy of scales, hubble, galaxy, stats planets, moons,... Cells, atoms, nucleons. 14 hours ago, Strange said: No. If you want to present your crackpot "theory" do it here. Opinions are not of much value. You need to present the evidence for this. And something better than numerological coincidences and handwaving, please. What an ignorant person you are. You prejudge what you have not read while refusing to look at it. I cannot present decades of work in one page here. It will not allow me to put a link. So I suggest a search. Don't read it, I don't care. But don't throw mud when you know nothing. -4
beecee Posted April 3, 2019 Posted April 3, 2019 36 minutes ago, RayTomes said: I independently arrived at what is known as Narlikar 's variable mass hypothesis, in which nucleon masses vary over time. In this view there is no expansion. It solved many problems previously swept under the carpet such as redshift quantization. It is not astrology, but pure science. When it is understood that the fundamental laws of the universe are non linear, then many previously problem areas are solved. And I can explain why we have the hierarchy of scales, hubble, galaxy, stats planets, moons,... Cells, atoms, nucleons. Rubbish...More akin to Astrology as I said. Your remark about science sweeping redshift quantization under the carpet is total ignorance also...Why would science hide any observational data? Why would they try and support the BB underhandedly if evidence showed other alternatives? It just doesn't hold up, and sounds like some of the arguments that god botherers and creationists use, or in your case your own personal agenda and baggage for whatever reasons. http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-research/general/tomes/ Interesting stuff certainly, but also pseudoscience and totally against current observational data. Quote What an ignorant person you are. You prejudge what you have not read while refusing to look at it. I cannot present decades of work in one page here. It will not allow me to put a link. So I suggest a search. Don't read it, I don't care. But don't throw mud when you know nothing. Perhaps people may have been more receptive to your idea, if you had not tried to give it a semblance of respectability and posted in the correct section. But then again, that appears to be a common occurrence from alternative hypothetical pushers. The BB stands as the overwhelmingly supported theory of the evolution of space and time, as we know them. That along with SR/GR go together perfectly, one complementing the other. 1
Sensei Posted April 3, 2019 Posted April 3, 2019 (edited) If your "theory" has to be taken seriously by scientific community start from calculating something useful in quantum physics using your "theory" equations. Like spectral lines of the all atoms, for instance? Edited April 3, 2019 by Sensei 1
Strange Posted April 3, 2019 Posted April 3, 2019 6 hours ago, RayTomes said: You prejudge what you have not read while refusing to look at it. You haven't presented anything of substance to judge. (I know you from other forums, so I have a pretty good idea of the value of your ideas and the level of your scientific knowledge. Both approximately zero.) 6 hours ago, RayTomes said: cannot present decades of work in one page here. It will not allow me to put a link. So I suggest a search. Then you are refusing to comply with the rules of the forum. I will suggest this thread is closed.
swansont Posted April 3, 2019 Posted April 3, 2019 12 hours ago, RayTomes said: You prejudge what you have not read while refusing to look at it. ! Moderator Note You haven't presented anything to look at, and suggesting a search is not acceptable, as it pushes the burden onto others, instead of on you, where it belongs. So, either present the material here — something, in order to start the discussion — or the thread will be closed. edit: You can start by responding to questions, as noted below.
Bufofrog Posted April 3, 2019 Posted April 3, 2019 On 4/2/2019 at 12:21 AM, RayTomes said: Some of the periods matching are 160 minutes (or light minutes), 4.44 years (or light years) and more or to a maximum of 586 million years (or light years). This last one is found as megawalls of galaxies and geological cycles period. As early as early 1990s I was able to predict the presently accepted value of the Hubble constant based on this connection. For the second time, would you please present the math that allowed you to accurately predict the Hubble constant. As you said you have already done the calculation so it should be an easy exercise to demonstrate it. This should also satisfy swansont's request and preventing the closure of this thread. I await your reply. 1
RayTomes Posted April 6, 2019 Author Posted April 6, 2019 On 4/2/2019 at 10:08 PM, Bufofrog said: Sounds intriguing. Could you show the math that you used to accomplish this? In 1990 it was reported that a deep study of galaxy clusters found megawalls of galaxies with 12800 Mpc spacing. The then quoted 420 M light years was based on a very old Hubble constant. The spacing is dependent on the true Hubble constant as 128 Mpc * 100 km/s/Mpc / H0 with answer in Mpc. We need to convert to M light ears to compare to the M years of the geological cycle by multiplying by 3.26 Ly/pc. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517073-400-science-galaxies-form-megawalls-across-space/ Geologists have reported a cycle of almost 600 M years (e.g. Megacycles ed G Williams, proceedings of geological cycles conference). In Russia, Prof S Afanasiev has reported this cycle as 586.24 M years in his book "Nano Cycles Method " (actual title in Russian). If the wavelength of these galactic cluster walls is a measure of the same wave that has period 586 .24M years, then we equate the two and This gives h0 = 128 Mpc * 100 km/s/Mpc *3.26 LY/pc / 586.24 M y = 71.2 km/s/Mpc which agrees very well with the average of recent measures. I was able to determine this value in the early to mid 1990s when H0 estimates ranged from about 50 to over 90. On 4/3/2019 at 8:24 PM, Sensei said: If your "theory" has to be taken seriously by scientific community start from calculating something useful in quantum physics using your "theory" equations. Like spectral lines of the all atoms, for instance? Can you calculate spectra from GR? No. That is not what it does. It is a different domain. Neither is it what Harmonics theory does. It calculates the distance scales and oscillation periods of standing waves in the Universe. It isn't a "theory". It is a well tested theory that has made far more successful predictions than Big Bang theory. I can now post links, so here are some: http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html for an overview https://cyclesresearchinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/npa-harmonics-theory-and-how-it-came-about.pdf https://cyclesresearchinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/npa-predictions-of-the-harmonics-theory.pdf On 4/3/2019 at 9:43 PM, Strange said: You haven't presented anything of substance to judge. (I know you from other forums, so I have a pretty good idea of the value of your ideas and the level of your scientific knowledge. Both approximately zero.) Then you are refusing to comply with the rules of the forum. I will suggest this thread is closed. I already explained that my link was refused. This was the rules of the forum. I have now posted some links. If you want me to post 30 or 40 pages of text and diagrams then I can do that.
Ghideon Posted April 6, 2019 Posted April 6, 2019 4 hours ago, RayTomes said: It isn't a "theory". It is a well tested theory that has made far more successful predictions than Big Bang theory. I can now post links, so here are some: http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html for an overview https://cyclesresearchinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/npa-harmonics-theory-and-how-it-came-about.pdf I got curious and checked the second link. In the beginning it states Paper Presented by Ray Tomes to Natural Philosophy Alliance. Natural Philosophy Alliance on google takes me to Quote The Natural Philosophy Alliance NPA) was founded in 1994 by Dr. John Chappell and others in order to create an organization friendly to the idea of criticizing Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. (https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Natural_Philosophy_Alliance) That wiki also says: Quote Some of the current theories being challenged: Big Bang (replaced by an Eternal Universe) Plate Tectonics (replaced by Expansion Tectonics) Relativity (Special relativity, General relativity) Dark Matter (proposing it does not exist) Maybe it's better to present the evidence here, how the theory makes far more successful predictions than Big Bang theory.
Sensei Posted April 6, 2019 Posted April 6, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, RayTomes said: If you want me to post 30 or 40 pages of text and diagrams then I can do that. No need to. Just show your theory math equations, and where are they applicable, and how you are using them on the real physical data to predict something from this world.. Edited April 6, 2019 by Sensei
swansont Posted April 6, 2019 Posted April 6, 2019 5 hours ago, RayTomes said: I already explained that my link was refused. This was the rules of the forum. I have now posted some links. If you want me to post 30 or 40 pages of text and diagrams then I can do that. ! Moderator Note Discussion happening here and not requiring people to go to external sites is another rule of the forum.
beecee Posted April 6, 2019 Posted April 6, 2019 10 hours ago, RayTomes said: It isn't a "theory". It is a well tested theory that has made far more successful predictions than Big Bang theory. I can now post links, so here are some: Only it appears in your mind. It is an hypothesis. If it had made far more predictions them the BB and GR, then it would be accepted by now.
RayTomes Posted April 8, 2019 Author Posted April 8, 2019 On 4/7/2019 at 2:56 AM, Ghideon said: Maybe it's better to present the evidence here, how the theory makes far more successful predictions than Big Bang theory. Please ignore the fact that NPA is against GR. I am not. I gave two links where you can read long PDFs. Do you want me to post the entire text and diagrams here?
Strange Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 1 hour ago, RayTomes said: Please ignore the fact that NPA is against GR. I am not. I gave two links where you can read long PDFs. Do you want me to post the entire text and diagrams here? Have you ever heard of the concept of summarising key points, with reference to a longer document for more details?
swansont Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 5 hours ago, RayTomes said: Please ignore the fact that NPA is against GR. I am not. I gave two links where you can read long PDFs. Do you want me to post the entire text and diagrams here? ! Moderator Note People can summarize GR and the evidence for it in a few paragraphs, assuming people understand basic physics. You should be able to present something similar for your conjecture. However, if your idea is based on an untested idea, we have to investigate that idea first. Not fair to build on it, and just assuming it's true.
Ghideon Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 15 hours ago, RayTomes said: Do you want me to post the entire text and diagrams here? Not necessarily, but at least enough to understand what the idea is. Initial question: On 4/6/2019 at 11:32 AM, RayTomes said: Geologists have reported a cycle of almost 600 M years and On 4/6/2019 at 11:32 AM, RayTomes said: if the wavelength of these galactic cluster walls is a measure of the same wave that has period 586 .24M years, then we equate the two Why are distances of galactic cluster walls connected to geological cycles? What evidence exists for that claim?
RayTomes Posted April 12, 2019 Author Posted April 12, 2019 On 4/9/2019 at 7:49 AM, Ghideon said: Why are distances of galactic cluster walls connected to geological cycles? What evidence exists for that claim? If there are standing waves in the Universe of various lengths, then they will manifest themselves in several ways. 1. There will be repetitions in time based on the oscillation period of the waves. In this case geological cycles. 2. There will be repetitions in space based on the wavelength of the waves. In this case the spacing of super galactic clusters. I reduce the period to years and the spacing to light years, because then the two aspects of the wave will have the same value in years and light years assuming that the waves travel at the speed of light. Strictly speaking this could apply to gravity and/or electromagnetism but I tend to think that e/m is the correct interpretation. The evidence for the claim is that Based on this idea I was able to predict a much more accurate Hubble constant in the earlier 1990s which has been subsequently verified. Also, there is matching of other cases of object spacing and periods. These include spiral and irregular galaxy spacing, stellar spacing, planetary spacing, right down to atomic and particle spacing and oscillation periods. The latter are the Compton wavelength (which matches observed nucleon spacing) and Compton frequency. This was understood for particles by de Broglie. On 4/8/2019 at 10:06 PM, swansont said: ! Moderator Note People can summarize GR and the evidence for it in a few paragraphs, assuming people understand basic physics. You should be able to present something similar for your conjecture. However, if your idea is based on an untested idea, we have to investigate that idea first. Not fair to build on it, and just assuming it's true. I will post a new thead on Harmonics theory hopefully in the right place. Even the PDFs that I linked to are summaries, so it will take multiple posts to explain things. I want to explain in advance, that Harmonics Theory does not disagree with standard physics. Rather, it makes further deductions from standard physics which had not previously been considered. These explain a number of things which had previously been mysterious. The conclusion will be that the Universe is vastly older than 14 B years.
swansont Posted April 12, 2019 Posted April 12, 2019 1 hour ago, RayTomes said: I will post a new thead on Harmonics theory hopefully in the right place. Even the PDFs that I linked to are summaries, so it will take multiple posts to explain things. I want to explain in advance, that Harmonics Theory does not disagree with standard physics. Rather, it makes further deductions from standard physics which had not previously been considered. These explain a number of things which had previously been mysterious. The conclusion will be that the Universe is vastly older than 14 B years. ! Moderator Note OK. Discussion here is suspended until that thread reaches a satisfactory conclusion
Ghideon Posted April 12, 2019 Posted April 12, 2019 1 hour ago, RayTomes said: If there are standing waves in the Universe of various lengths, then they will manifest themselves in several ways. 1. There will be repetitions in time based on the oscillation period of the waves. In this case geological cycles. 2. There will be repetitions in space based on the wavelength of the waves. In this case the spacing of super galactic clusters. I reduce the period to years and the spacing to light years, because then the two aspects of the wave will have the same value in years and light years assuming that the waves travel at the speed of light. Strictly speaking this could apply to gravity and/or electromagnetism but I tend to think that e/m is the correct interpretation. The evidence for the claim is that Based on this idea I was able to predict a much more accurate Hubble constant in the earlier 1990s which has been subsequently verified. Also, there is matching of other cases of object spacing and periods. These include spiral and irregular galaxy spacing, stellar spacing, planetary spacing, right down to atomic and particle spacing and oscillation periods. The latter are the Compton wavelength (which matches observed nucleon spacing) and Compton frequency. This was understood for particles by de Broglie. Can you define standing wave and wavelength in this context? What coordinates are you using? Universe is expanding, galaxy clusters are moving when time scales are hundreds of million years.
Recommended Posts