Klaynos Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 1. No string theory is currently accepted as a physical theory, mathematical theories yes, hence the term string theory. Some string theories have presented methods which might allow them to be falsified. They are very much a work in progress. 2. Your post 130 does list a list of criteria that would make it, without observational evidence, fail, unfortunately for most of not all of the criteria you list you need some numerical (mathematical) way of comparing your idea with the others/observational evidence. And number 8 is already the accepted reality. 3. We don't currently have the physical understanding to comment on this, our knowledge of gravity at the microscopic level is not well understood by a long shot. 4. Again I would say it is difficult for us to comment without a knowledge of what dark energy actually is. 5/6. To comment on this kind of thing in a ground breaking way you really need to use research papers as references, not semi or wholly pop sci sources. People spend 30 years of their lives trying to understand these problems, they are not easy and can't really be picked up in your spare time. That is unfortunately due to the shear expanse of the knowledge of humans over the last 2 centuries. Even over the last 50 years. Most working physicists (i include astrophysicists within that clearly) have a superb understanding of their own field, an excellent understanding of the 'basics' by that I mean most stuff you get in undergraduate physics course (that's 3 years studying just physics all day every day), and an ok to good understanding of the work done by others in their department away from their field and an ok to poor understanding of actual groundbreaking work that is happening. And by a poor understanding I don't mean they don't know about it, I mean they are probably dimly aware of it but they don't think they fully understand the maths that is presented to them about it mainly because they haven't had the time to study it. A new docterate student for example just out of doing an undergraduate degree will spend about six months just reading mostly papers to get a grip on what is happening in their field and to get a good understanding of the maths of their physics. You talk about finite sized 'centre' of black holes we, as I keep saying, cannot really comment on such things, we don't know, all we know is the predictions from GR that we presume to be wrong as they lead to questions like "how do you measure an infinity".
pywakit Posted January 30, 2010 Author Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) 1. No string theory is currently accepted as a physical theory, mathematical theories yes, hence the term string theory. Some string theories have presented methods which might allow them to be falsified. They are very much a work in progress. 2. Your post 130 does list a list of criteria that would make it, without observational evidence, fail, unfortunately for most of not all of the criteria you list you need some numerical (mathematical) way of comparing your idea with the others/observational evidence. And number 8 is already the accepted reality. 3. We don't currently have the physical understanding to comment on this, our knowledge of gravity at the microscopic level is not well understood by a long shot. 4. Again I would say it is difficult for us to comment without a knowledge of what dark energy actually is. 5/6. To comment on this kind of thing in a ground breaking way you really need to use research papers as references, not semi or wholly pop sci sources. People spend 30 years of their lives trying to understand these problems, they are not easy and can't really be picked up in your spare time. That is unfortunately due to the shear expanse of the knowledge of humans over the last 2 centuries. Even over the last 50 years. Most working physicists (i include astrophysicists within that clearly) have a superb understanding of their own field, an excellent understanding of the 'basics' by that I mean most stuff you get in undergraduate physics course (that's 3 years studying just physics all day every day), and an ok to good understanding of the work done by others in their department away from their field and an ok to poor understanding of actual groundbreaking work that is happening. And by a poor understanding I don't mean they don't know about it, I mean they are probably dimly aware of it but they don't think they fully understand the maths that is presented to them about it mainly because they haven't had the time to study it. A new docterate student for example just out of doing an undergraduate degree will spend about six months just reading mostly papers to get a grip on what is happening in their field and to get a good understanding of the maths of their physics. You talk about finite sized 'centre' of black holes we, as I keep saying, cannot really comment on such things, we don't know, all we know is the predictions from GR that we presume to be wrong as they lead to questions like "how do you measure an infinity". Your input is noted. Thank you. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAbsolutely not, I didn't say that, no one said that but you. I said you *shouldn't* compare to string theory. It's NOT comparable to your model. There were a few others but these seem to be a good start. No, it just means that you might not know everything that is involved in the phenomena you're trying to describe. You are oversimplifying this. A trained mathematician or physicist could describe the phenomena BETTER. Not necessarily all of them. Better than someone who's not trained. Again, your comparison to string theory is irrelevant. It's not "yours OR string theory". String theory is a separate theory that isn't yet mainstream, that has SOLID mathematical grounds and problems with falsifiability. Even if string theory is wrong that doesn't make your theory right or not, it has nothing to do with your model. Totally irrelevant. pywakit, here is the list you supplied: Okay, I won't go over the other problems that might show the above is true. Fine. All three boil down to the same thing: If it doesn't follow the obervations and experiments we already have. That might be fine, but that's not a falsifiability claim. How would you suggest we do that? Is there any way to conduct an experiment or make an observation proving this true (or false) ? The above two (6 and 7) are statements that are, themselves, unfalsifiable. There's no way to show what you claim in 6 physically (that's EXACTLY the problem of the unfalsifiability of string theory) and no way of finding out 7. Probably not ever. Those aren't falsifiability claims if on their own they're NEVER falsifiable! Also take into account that while String theory might have unfalsifiable claims, the sheer amount of mathematical solid ground is enough to bring it up as a CONSIDERATION. It's far from being accepted mainstream science, but the fact the math just works out so beautifully in string theory makes it just a little bit more worth our attention. Yours, I'm sorry to say this again, doesn't have that. I don't understand this, but regardless, you are again making a claim without telling us what we need to find out in order to prove/disprove it. This isn't a falsifiable claim, in order to make it falsifiable you need to tell us what experimental result is needed for us to achieve the above conclusion. Is it even possible? If the answer is "no" or "not at the moment" then the claim is not falsifiable. Same as 8, 7 and 6. This is not falsifiable unless you bring forth a mechanism to MAKE IT falsifiable. Look. What you're doing is bringing up more CONJECTURE and call it 'falsifiability', while in reality each one of those claims is a hypothesis on its own tht, on its own, requires its OWN FALSIFIABILITY. Think of this: I make a claim "fairies exist, but we can't detect them". I now bring forth a falsifiable condition: "If we find that unicorns eat red berries, we know fairies don't exist"./ Ignoring the shaky logic I'm making, my own 'falsifiable claim' requires, on its own, a falsifiable condition; how do I prove that unicorns EXIST!? Your falsifiable claims are the same, and as a result, you have no valid falsifiable claims. Except, perhaps, this: Which, judging from the fact we haven't yet actually SEEN a black hole (we've only so far detected its surroundings, predicted it through math, etc) this might take time. But this is also one of the *conditions* for your theory to work. Thart is, your theory depends on black holes to NOT be infinitely dense and we don't know that one EITHER. So.. you need to wait for such evidence to produce itself either here or there - either proving or disproving your theory. ----- I'm sorry, but you were given an explanation from 2 members why this is not true. Einstein's math didn't just come off the ether; it emerged out of PREVIOUS equations, evidence and experimentation. You don't just 'tweak it' to make it work your way; you need to show WHY you tweak it, what's the reason for the NEED to tweak it (it works just fine with no tweaks) and hwo you tweak it. I know you keep saying that a 'good mathematician' will do that, but you're wrong, and other than telling you to go study at least one university-level course in special relativity(that shows you where the math came from) I am not sure what else to do to make you understand this point. Again, what you assume is irrelevant. You're wrong. [...] I need to go out, so I'm skipping the rest for now -- the above shows most ofthe big problems anyways, there's no need to continue for now. We can leave the rest for later. I will say this, though: I, too, spoke to Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but I *doubt* he told you the problems in your model in depth. He is a very good astrophysicist; you might have had time to graze over the interesting basics, but I am VERY VERY doubtful he actually heard your theory and accepted it. That said, and again, I don't want any emotions here, but I think part of the problem is that you're confident. A scientist should always suspect something's wrong with a theory; they should always search for flaws, problems, missing stuff, they should always listen to criticism to strenghten their own theory so that the theory will emerge STRONG and impossible to shatter. You tend to be overly confident. So much so, that you seem to dismiss our claims offhand. ajb and Klaynos did not "fail" pywakit, they GAVE UP. There might be potential in this theory, sure, but you have GOT to start listening to criticism. If your plan is to publish this, I guarantee that the criticism you're getting here is a gentle cuddly kind compared to what will happen after publication. ~moo No claims are dismissed out of hand. They are dismissed only if there is sufficient 3rd party evidence from other respected sources to do so with relative confidence. I never said Tyson 'accepted' my theory. I said that after discussions, he was unable to point to a flaw, or to where it conflicted with known physics, or GR. If I have misunderstood the cheerleading for strings, I am sorry. Re-reading the posts by the experts would suggest that they consider it a better alternative to my theory. Futhermore, I have already referred to other models besides ST, so to claim it is ST or mine ( or the BBT ), does not reflect the facts in evidence. I never claimed to 'know everything in the phenomena I am trying to describe'. I agree that a trained mathematician/physicist would be MUCH better than me at describing said phenomena. Assuming they had a good grasp of the phenomena involved. Never suggested otherwise. Moo : Okay, I won't go over the other problems that might show the above is true. Fine. All three boil down to the same thing: If it doesn't follow the obervations and experiments we already have. That might be fine, but that's not a falsifiability claim. Actually, it is. If I just 'created' a hypothesis, or theory out of thin air, then any one of those criteria could instantly falsify it. The fact that none of them would appear to do so implies I am either extremely lucky, or I have at least a basic understanding of these laws. Moo : How would you suggest we do that?Is there any way to conduct an experiment or make an observation proving this true (or false) ? The above two (6 and 7) are statements that are, themselves, unfalsifiable. There's no way to show what you claim in 6 physically (that's EXACTLY the problem of the unfalsifiability of string theory) and no way of finding out 7. Probably not ever. Those aren't falsifiability claims if on their own they're NEVER falsifiable! Also take into account that while String theory might have unfalsifiable claims, the sheer amount of mathematical solid ground is enough to bring it up as a CONSIDERATION. It's far from being accepted mainstream science, but the fact the math just works out so beautifully in string theory makes it just a little bit more worth our attention. Yours, I'm sorry to say this again, doesn't have that. I have already shown adequate referenced material 'proving' that the math does NOT 'work out beautifully'. This is a baseless assertion. Hawking Radiation has been 'accepted by mainstream' with no viable way to experimentally prove the hypothesis. This has remained unchanged for over 30 years. It was hoped that the FERMI telescope would show evidence. After more than a year of intense searching, the hypothesis remains unproven, or even 'suggested' by observations. The LHC was the next great hope. True, it has only been up and running for a short time, but here too, there has been no confirmation of the hypothesis. And ... per my conversations with Tyson, even if it is shown to be real, there are many other problems associated with this 'mechanism' for removing black holes from our universe. Furthermore, because something is not 'currently' unfalsifiable, such as SST, this in no way suggests that it will always be unfalsifiable. We could find out tomorrow that space did not exist before the BB. It is just another problem, like all problems that we have faced, that may, or may not find resolution. As to the rest of your post, I will just say that you are entitled to your opinion. I have been told by other experts that my model IS falsifiable now, and that there are strong reasons to believe that further evidence uncovered in the near future will address several of the falsifications tests that can't be addressed now. Additionally, I have clearly stated that the list will " ... falsify, or at the least, provide strong evidence to contradict the model. And these tests can be done now, or will likely be available in the near future." Again, you are welcome to your opinion. Maybe it is valid. I don't think it is. The real problem here is, you expect me to simply take your word, and the words of the resident experts as accepted 'truth'. If every other reference source from other specialists/experts in the appropriate fields agreed with you, so would I. They don't. For me to just accept your claims would be irrational. It is not going to happen. So on this, we are at an impasse. I hope you can understand my position. I mean no offense. Edited January 31, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
mooeypoo Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 And with this, I'm out, but by no means does this mean you have a working theory, or that I concede. I am just not quite seeing where we're going with this other than (again) in circles. Good luck in the future, pywakit. I hope you will come back here and post a link when your theory is ready for publication.
pywakit Posted January 31, 2010 Author Posted January 31, 2010 And with this, I'm out, but by no means does this mean you have a working theory, or that I concede. I am just not quite seeing where we're going with this other than (again) in circles. Good luck in the future, pywakit. I hope you will come back here and post a link when your theory is ready for publication. Lol. Yes, Moo. That is a good definition of 'impasse'. Good luck to you, too. Hopefully, this exposure will assist me in locating a good mathematician to assist in the preparation for publication. As this has always been one of my stated goals, I could not be happier. I am quite certain I will have a 'working' theory soon. Most certainly I will post a link at the appropriate time. In the meantime, continued exposure/debate on this site can only be beneficial.
mooeypoo Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 Ahem, debate is two-ways Also, just a reminder, there's no room for 'opinion' in science, only for empirical evidence. You might want to take that into account before looking for a "good mathematician".
pywakit Posted February 1, 2010 Author Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) Ahem, debate is two-ways Also, just a reminder, there's no room for 'opinion' in science, only for empirical evidence. You might want to take that into account before looking for a "good mathematician". Noted, appreciated, and I agree. (edit) Just a note. There are well over 300 ground-based and space-based telescopes in operation. In particular, Hubble, Chandra, Fermi, and the new Planck Mission suggest an exciting year ahead! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Here is an interesting link from Space Daily on recent measurements of entropy. According to the researchers, the universe is 30 times more entropic than previously thought. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100126104844.htm Don't know if it is peer reviewed yet. But there just seems to be more and more evidence of black holes containing a much higher percentage of the mass of the universe than anyone expected. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWhen I think of angular momentum ( spin ), I think of centrifugal force. One reason no one seems to think a black hole could 'fly apart' is that it has always been assumed there is no volume, and therefore no radius/diameter. But if it turns out there IS an actual diameter, then this should come into play. Isn't here some simple formula that could deal with this? Such as ... m = mass/gravity, r = radius, a = angular momentum ( spin ), v = velocity required to fly apart. To my simple mind it would look something like ... ( m / r )( a ) = v for a typical non-black hole stellar mass. And maybe for black holes it's something like ... ( m / r^3 )( a ) = v Just thinking out loud ... It might ( using this entirely made up formula ) require a 1 million sol BH with a hypothetical diameter of 1 kilometer to have a spin of c^1,000,000,000,000 to = v ( ridiculous ), whereas it would require a 1 quadrillion sol BH with a diameter of 1 million kilometers to have a spin of c^1,000,000 to = v ( still ridiculous ). And a 1 octillion sol BH ( which might be fairly close to the total mass of our visible/local universe ) with a diameter of 1 trillion kilometers to have a spin of only c to = v. ( not so ridiculous ) Crudely stated, but you get the point. Am I way off base? Maybe I am just better off with the last 2 black holes crossing the universe, accelerating to near c and colliding. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNow that I am all calmed down I would like to address a couple of IMO excellent points made by both Klaynos and Moo. I meant to address them before, but in the heat of the battle .... There seems to be an area of scientific research that is woefully understaffed, and I'd love to volunteer ( or get paid ... lol ) for this job. As Klaynos correctly pointed out, it takes so many years of intense, field-specific study to get your degree(s), and by the time you have achieved it, the world ( in one sense, anyway ) has passed you by. You may be awesome in your discipline, but in the process, you didn't have time to keep abreast of the OTHER disciplines, giving you the opportunity to correlate all the latest observations, and experiments into your own work. Crudely stated, you can't see the forest for the trees. Or as Klaynos said, you may be at best, only dimly aware that there IS a forest. Anyway, I would love to work in an 'information clearing house'. Have a systematic, and real-time procedure for examining all the latest data, and consider how the data fits, or doesn't fit, as the case may be, into the developing picture of our universe. What an awesome job this would be. Working with a dozen or so people, ( each trained in the various sciences pertaining to astrophysics, and cosmology ) covering all the bases at the same time. There are plenty of repositories of information, but as I said, there seems to be little communication among the researchers, other than peer-reviewing the papers. Most certainly, no individual researchers have the time to wade through the thousands of papers submitted for review in all the various periodicals. This 'think tank/universal warehouse' could then automatically post short, pertinent updates ( both specific to, and related to the individual's field ) on the newest research ( with quick links to the papers ) at the end of every week to all the signed - up researcher's computers. Maybe this is already being done. Moo's point ( expressed with the very good Newton/Einstein analogy ) was that I needed 2 things ( at least ) to make my model valid. One was the math to fully describe my model, and show where my model seperates from the BBT. The other was providing physical evidence to support the seperation, and the math. Well, as my mathematically illiterate equations illustrate, I am in dire need of a good mathematician. But the other is happening with out any real effort on my part. My model, as I have said so many times, predicts certain phenomena by default. So does the BBT, and GR. And so does my greatest competitor, inflation theories. I have actually welcomed the cheerleading for inflation/strings because that gives me an excuse to point out the poor foundation, and flaws inherent in them. I have said ( among other predictions ) that "Every discovery made will fit flawlessly into my model." On the surface this may appear to be broadly over-generalized, but actually it is a very specific claim that ( IMO ) the BBT, GR, and ST have not, and can not make. I can say this with certainty, because the universe has not fully cooperated with GR, the BBT, and ST. Whereas it has ( to our knowledge ) fully cooperated with mine. Even if I have yet to explain the features mathematically. The seems to be no aspect of the model that is contradicted by the universe. Not even accelarating recession, as my model addresses the issue with simple Newtonian gravity. The data is coming in a growing tidal wave. At any point, we could make a discovery that flatly contradicts my model. So far, this has not happened. How lucky. But as I have also said ... in science there is no safety in numbers, there is safety in truth. So maybe luck has little to do with my model's success. If my model IS correct, and not just 'better', then every single verified, and correlated observation ... and every single experimental result will fit perfectly. If it does not, then there is a problem with the model. Maybe a 'fixable' problem, but a problem nonetheless. So my 'evidence' to this point Moo, to support my model is that it appears there is no 'conflict' yet. I still need a mathematical support for overcoming the accelerating recession, and the process of releasing all that stored energy from the BH, but I think that, contrary to your assertion that I am 'wrong', there are scientists out there who might not be so enamoured with ST anymore. It would be naive to think that funding is not a critical aspect of research, and there is an understandable need to go with the popular research ... but there is also the very human desire to seperate from the pack. To make your own mark in science. Contrary to 'popular opinion' which has been stated by several here, I think I am going to find that some scientists are going to be grateful that a viable alternative to the 'pop' science that is going on has presented itself. An alternative that they can sink their teeth into, because it appears to need only GR. In this, I am counting on human nature, and the very real point made by Klaynos. The disgruntled scientists may simply never have considered a model like mine. It never occurred to them individually. It was never addressed in their studies, and it was never on the radar ... up till now. We will see how this all plays out, but it seems my model is on the right track for now. (edit) I'm sure you all realize that if the above cutting-edge research ( at the link posted ) had found our universe was 30 times LESS entropic than we had believed, this would suggest problems with my model. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedA couple more interesting links : First Stars In The Universe Astronomers Reveal First Objects In Our Universe Astronomers removed light from closer and better known galaxies and stars from pictures taken with the Spitzer Space Telescope. The remaining images. ... > full story You will find the link on the top right page of ... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0126104844.htm An exerpt : THE DARK AGE: According to current science, space, time and matter originated 13.7 billion years ago in a tremendous explosion called the Big Bang. A few hundred million years later, the first stars formed, ending the "dark age" of the universe. Astronomers believe the objects observed by the Spitzer telescope are either the first stars -- hundreds of times more massive than our sun -- or voracious black holes that are consuming gas and spilling out tons of energy. If they turn out to be stars, then the clusters might be the first mini-galaxies. Our own Milky Way was probably created when mini-galaxies like these merged. The next link just discusses another new telescope set to launch in 2014. Can't wait! James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) http://www.jwst.nasa.gov And here is a link to "Slip Stream Drive". I have included a passage that I think is rather 'illuminating'. This book was written in 2006 ( it appears ) and it makes a prediction which I have highlighted. SlipString Drive - String Theory, Gravity, and "Faster ... http://www.slipstring.com This prediction appears to be in trouble, based on the 'entropy' link I posted. Bender then offers a “Membrane Theory of Gravity.” A modification of M-theory, this new theory unifies all forces, predicts dark matter and energy, and explains the reasons behind the laws of physics such as E=MC2. It also theorizes how "dark matter" membrane vibrations (left over from the creation of our universe) will be converted into dark energy (which accelerates our universe's expansion) as those vibrations relax and dissipate over time. This prediction, along with others, could prove modified M-theory correct observationally—a feat cosmology has yet to achieve. SlipString Drive not only explains all recent observational evidence of Dark Matter and Energy, but is also supported by every observational study yet conducted. Studies such as the recent detection of "interference" in gravity wave detectors and why quantum entanglement is linked to gravity. It also predicts that space will appear smooth the further back in time you look, which quantum gravity has failed to do. Additionally, the laws of physics never break down in this model as they do in the Big Bang model. Finally, Bender hypothesizes how our universe will end, and answers the question: Must life in our universe be extinguished when our universe ends? Still, the webpage is interesting reading .... and of course, I may be misinterpreting this prediction. Edited February 1, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) Perhaps we should take a break from this, since it's clearly not going anywhere at the moment. Eight pages of argument and everybody's annoyed and worn out. Here's what I suggest. pywakit, it's great that you have your theory, but consider what it must mean for everyone to think there's something wrong with it; I suggest you take some time to comb carefully through their comments, do research on each, and refine your ideas. Perhaps there are things to be learned and new ideas to be found in the comments and arguments in this thread. Also, it's very hard for us to criticize a somewhat vague theory. Look through the misunderstandings and confusion in this thread and see what can be clarified and what can be adjusted to make clear just what exactly your model predicts. Offer us evidence that conflicts with Big Bang theory but agrees with your model, and so on. Perhaps you can post again when you've revised, researched, and rewritten. Until then, this thread will only frustrate everyone. (Also, you might consider getting a SFN blog to post progress on your idea, and wait to use the forums when you think it's "ready.") Edited February 1, 2010 by Cap'n Refsmmat
Recommended Posts