knowerastronomy Posted December 7, 2011 Posted December 7, 2011 I am new to the forum and haven't quite mastered the fine points. I hope you will bare with me. I have been working on this theory all my life and feel that it is finally ready for prime time. Your thoughts will be greatly appreciated.... http://www.youtube.c...my?feature=mhee knowerastronomy
imatfaal Posted December 7, 2011 Posted December 7, 2011 Sorry - but there is no maths, no predictive power, no experimental test - at the moment this is not a theory, it is merely positing the existence of a new idea that fits with your understanding better than current theory. However your theory seems to be based on misunderstandings of current work and a personal incredulity - this is hardly a good starting place. Which observations (that you allude to early on) have you found that are not compatible with, nor explainable by mainstream science?
G Anthony Posted December 7, 2011 Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) The Scientific Method The scientific method requires scientists and all others who claim to think rationally to answer knotty questions by means of experiment (or careful observation). In order to do this effectively, one must formulate a hypothesis, a statement of the putative principle that engages all the known implications. These implications must be rather direct. Circumstantial consequences are just that -circumstantial and cannot PROVE a hypothesis. Those former better implications must suggest experiments that will verify them or not. It is good if there are direct elements of principle and subservient implications of the hypothesis. It is better if a complete and utter negative statement of the hypothesis can be formulated. Then, the net sum of the original hypothesis and the negative hypothesis should be zero. Logically, the negative completely cancels the positive hypothesis. This negative hypothesis is called the "null" hypothesis because it would nullify the other if it proves to be true and it would tend to validate the positive hypothesis, at least it would fail to PROVE it false, if it was shown to be false in any way. Then, if direct evidence can be found that tends to corroborate the original positive hypothesis, we can begin to regard it as a good logical beginning. THEN, if this positive hypothesis can be combined with statements that have already been proven and the combined implications can be verified, we have the beginnings of proof . The key to this process is our ability to form an experimentally testable Null Hypothesis. The evidence FOR the positive statement of the hypothesis is insufficient in itself because circumstances may combine to fool our little experiments. We are human. If an appropriate robust Null Hypothesis cannot be formulated, the original hypothesis is unsuitable to merit the attention of the scientist. This is relevant to the debates about Dark Energy, quintessence and Dark Matter. Dark energy is the reservoir of potential energy that is supposed to exist as an underlayment or foundation of the universe. Quintessence is supposed to be a new force field that is just another component of the universe. All fundamental force fields have an associated particle. So, if there is quintessence, there should be a quintessence particle also. Invisible Dark Matter is supposed to account for the anomalous rotation velocity distribution seen in galaxies and galactic clusters. To call one's self a scientist, one must respect the scientific method. It is not a scientist's dogma any more than is it such to follow a firefighter'scode; one must respect the power of fire - or else you die. An unfalsifiable hypothesis has no business occupying the time of thescientist. Whole theories have often been constructed from unfalsifiablehypotheses. Such theories are often fun to think about, even edifying and inspiring - but they certainly are not science. There is a place for faith. But, if a person of faith needs experimental proof, he will have little of either. We all need faith. We all use faith in some way.In times of trouble and sorrow, sometimes it is all we have. God loves us, we believe. Our belief makes it so. If we can say sincerely that a principle of human conduct or relations should be true, then it is. Human reality is what we can sincerely say it should be. This is called Primary Christian Existentialism. All men and women of faith are Christian existentialists. All scientists hew to a code of honor as well as to the scientific method.Truth is not just a buzzword. Truth is meaning. Truth is the scientist's life.Truth is noble. In a very real sense, to the scientist, "Truth" is the next bestthing to God. Edited December 7, 2011 by G Anthony
knowerastronomy Posted December 7, 2011 Author Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) Sorry - but there is no maths, no predictive power, no experimental test - at the moment this is not a theory, it is merely positing the existence of a new idea that fits with your understanding better than current theory. However your theory seems to be based on misunderstandings of current work and a personal incredulity - this is hardly a good starting place. Which observations (that you allude to early on) have you found that are not compatible with, nor explainable by mainstream science? The Universe is analogue and doesn't always behave to the precision of mathematics. It travels the path of least resistance... It is the logical way of things... It doesn't always behave to our sometimes flawed rules... It works the only way it can work... I know this theory has some radical new ideas, and changes some of the ways we think about Matter, Space, Time, and Energy, but, Please keep an open mind and use your logic. . . It all has to fit together, and make sense. . . It's really quite simple, when you look at it without preconceived bias. . . A theory, was never developed like this one. . . The expansion with cooling... the popping in and out of existence of mysterious particles... all the weird behavior of the newly discovered matter from the colliders. . . This theory explains all of that, in a logical way. . . Mathematics is good at comparing relevance, and predicting occurrences, but not at how different mechanisms relate, and the natural progression of things. . . That is where logic has the upper hand. . . All the little occurrences that happen, influences the outcome of bigger ones. . . It only takes one wrong explanation to throw the whole thing out of wack. . . So far as I can tell this is how everything is put together. . . There are millions of ways you can explain the creation and working of the Cosmos, but only one way, that works, and, is logical. . . . Whether you agree or not is irrelevant because I am convinced that this (Idea, theory, hypothesis,) is accurate and really is the way the Universe works.... Time will be the deciding factor. The Scientific Method The scientific method requires scientists and all others who claim to think rationally to answer knotty questions by means of experiment (or careful observation). In order to do this effectively, one must formulate a hypothesis, a statement of the putative principle that engages all the known implications. These implications must be rather direct. Circumstantial consequences are just that -circumstantial and cannot PROVE a hypothesis. Those former better implications must suggest experiments that will verify them or not. It is good if there are direct elements of principle and subservient implications of the hypothesis. It is better if a complete and utter negative statement of the hypothesis can be formulated. Then, the net sum of the original hypothesis and the negative hypothesis should be zero. Logically, the negative completely cancels the positive hypothesis. This negative hypothesis is called the "null" hypothesis because it would nullify the other if it proves to be true and it would tend to validate the positive hypothesis, at least it would fail to PROVE it false, if it was shown to be false in any way. Then, if direct evidence can be found that tends to corroborate the original positive hypothesis, we can begin to regard it as a good logical beginning. THEN, if this positive hypothesis can be combined with statements that have already been proven and the combined implications can be verified, we have the beginnings of proof . The key to this process is our ability to form an experimentally testable Null Hypothesis. The evidence FOR the positive statement of the hypothesis is insufficient in itself because circumstances may combine to fool our little experiments. We are human. If an appropriate robust Null Hypothesis cannot be formulated, the original hypothesis is unsuitable to merit the attention of the scientist. This is relevant to the debates about Dark Energy, quintessence and Dark Matter. Dark energy is the reservoir of potential energy that is supposed to exist as an underlayment or foundation of the universe. Quintessence is supposed to be a new force field that is just another component of the universe. All fundamental force fields have an associated particle. So, if there is quintessence, there should be a quintessence particle also. Invisible Dark Matter is supposed to account for the anomalous rotation velocity distribution seen in galaxies and galactic clusters. To call one's self a scientist, one must respect the scientific method. It is not a scientist's dogma any more than is it such to follow a firefighter'scode; one must respect the power of fire - or else you die. An unfalsifiable hypothesis has no business occupying the time of thescientist. Whole theories have often been constructed from unfalsifiablehypotheses. Such theories are often fun to think about, even edifying and inspiring - but they certainly are not science. There is a place for faith. But, if a person of faith needs experimental proof, he will have little of either. We all need faith. We all use faith in some way.In times of trouble and sorrow, sometimes it is all we have. God loves us, we believe. Our belief makes it so. If we can say sincerely that a principle of human conduct or relations should be true, then it is. Human reality is what we can sincerely say it should be. This is called Primary Christian Existentialism. All men and women of faith are Christian existentialists. All scientists hew to a code of honor as well as to the scientific method.Truth is not just a buzzword. Truth is meaning. Truth is the scientist's life.Truth is noble. In a very real sense, to the scientist, "Truth" is the next bestthing to God. I appreciate your philosophical response to my posting about the Logical Universe. You have thought it out with great detail and I did get a little confused. I am a simple man and believe that things in the Universe doesn't have to be complicated to be the truth. Things are what they are. It is hard to judge without prejudices or a preconceived bias. I was not afraid to challenge old laws or any long held beliefs. . . If it was going to be right everything had to be on the table. . . Physicists are slightly handicapped because, in their brilliance, they tend to look for more complicated solutions to problems. . . Hence, the invention of Quantum Physics. . . This to me was unnecessary because there is no gap in knowledge between Subatomic and Particle Physics. . . Edited December 7, 2011 by knowerastronomy
Ophiolite Posted December 7, 2011 Posted December 7, 2011 Physicists are slightly handicapped because, in their brilliance, they tend to look for more complicated solutions to problems. . . Hence, the invention of Quantum Physics. . . This to me was unnecessary because there is no gap in knowledge between Subatomic and Particle Physics. . . How does your 'theory' explain the double slit experiment?
knowerastronomy Posted December 7, 2011 Author Posted December 7, 2011 How does your 'theory' explain the double slit experiment? Light as Waves and Particles. . The famous Double Slit Experiment is consistent with the theory that all Space Time is occupied by U1 particles. The sea of particles behaves like a liquid because they are lightly touching each other and are influenced by oscillations and wave energy. . Therefore, they would interfere with one another while being stimulated by energy waves, oscillations or particles.
G Anthony Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 The Universe is analogue and doesn't always behave to the precision of mathematics. It travels the path of least resistance... It is the logical way of things... It doesn't always behave to our sometimes flawed rules... It works the only way it can work... I know this theory has some radical new ideas, and changes some of the ways we think about Matter, Space, Time, and Energy, but, Please keep an open mind and use your logic. . . It all has to fit together, and make sense. . . It's really quite simple, when you look at it without preconceived bias. . . A theory, was never developed like this one. . . The expansion with cooling... the popping in and out of existence of mysterious particles... all the weird behavior of the newly discovered matter from the colliders. . . This theory explains all of that, in a logical way. . . Mathematics is good at comparing relevance, and predicting occurrences, but not at how different mechanisms relate, and the natural progression of things. . . That is where logic has the upper hand. . . All the little occurrences that happen, influences the outcome of bigger ones. . . It only takes one wrong explanation to throw the whole thing out of wack. . . So far as I can tell this is how everything is put together. . . There are millions of ways you can explain the creation and working of the Cosmos, but only one way, that works, and, is logical. . . . Whether you agree or not is irrelevant because I am convinced that this (Idea, theory, hypothesis,) is accurate and really is the way the Universe works.... Time will be the deciding factor. I appreciate your philosophical response to my posting about the Logical Universe. You have thought it out with great detail and I did get a little confused. I am a simple man and believe that things in the Universe doesn't have to be complicated to be the truth. Things are what they are. It is hard to judge without prejudices or a preconceived bias. I was not afraid to challenge old laws or any long held beliefs. . . If it was going to be right everything had to be on the table. . . Physicists are slightly handicapped because, in their brilliance, they tend to look for more complicated solutions to problems. . . Hence, the invention of Quantum Physics. . . This to me was unnecessary because there is no gap in knowledge between Subatomic and Particle Physics. . . My reply is a definition of the scientific method, not an exposition detailing characteristics of the universe. It is not my idea. It is an old old method to compensate for human failure, our disability to learn the truth directly, that is, by just looking and thinking. The theories of relativity and quantum mechanics/dynamics are theories only insofar as they are composites of many hypotheses that have all passed the scientific method's test. They are "falsifiable" and they have been experimentally confirmed. They have also been logically combined with other well established principles and the combinations have also passed the SM tests and experimentally confirmed. General relativity and quantum science are confirmed everyday. For instance your GPS device would not work properly if it did not take into account relativity. Your computer and your LCD HDTV liquid crystal displays would not work if quantum principles had not been used in their invention and design. Large scale integrated circuits for computer central processors & RAM and digital cameras depend on quantum phenomena that are well studied and deeply understood. Sure we still have questions, but we are certain that we have made a good case, so far. The Universe may be simple, but people are not. The scientific method is for people, not robots nor computers. It is a prescription for action. It is a technique of investigation and inquiry. Basically, it was pulled together and made formally a foundation of science by Galileo Galilei - you know, the guy who "invented" the telescope, discovered the moons of Jupiter and helped overturn the geocentric model of the universe that held sway for thousands of years. He was tried for heresy and suffered house arrest until he died in 1642. This is the heroic ideal of the scientist. We are not mere academics creeping around our ivory towers. We are practical people who value results and practical applications. If you do not respect the scientific method, then you should not respect the atom bomb, nuclear power, the discovery of DNA, the "theory" of natural selection, x-rays or nuclear magnetic resonance tomography. Almost everything in our modern culture is deeply in debt to the scientific method. You ideas are not different from the ideas of so many others before you. Their ideas had to pass the SM tests and so do yours. So, you should learn more about it and apply it, if you can. The way you have stated your message, it does not seem possible that it could be phrased in a way that could satisfy the SM. Then, where are your experimental observations? Experiment is essential to the scientist. Any hypothesis that is experimentally untestable is junk. Scientists do not waste their time with experimentally unfalsifiable hypotheses. See http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method .
knowerastronomy Posted December 9, 2011 Author Posted December 9, 2011 My reply is a definition of the scientific method, not an exposition detailing characteristics of the universe. It is not my idea. It is an old old method to compensate for human failure, our disability to learn the truth directly, that is, by just looking and thinking. The theories of relativity and quantum mechanics/dynamics are theories only insofar as they are composites of many hypotheses that have all passed the scientific method's test. They are "falsifiable" and they have been experimentally confirmed. They have also been logically combined with other well established principles and the combinations have also passed the SM tests and experimentally confirmed. General relativity and quantum science are confirmed everyday. For instance your GPS device would not work properly if it did not take into account relativity. Your computer and your LCD HDTV liquid crystal displays would not work if quantum principles had not been used in their invention and design. Large scale integrated circuits for computer central processors & RAM and digital cameras depend on quantum phenomena that are well studied and deeply understood. Sure we still have questions, but we are certain that we have made a good case, so far. The Universe may be simple, but people are not. The scientific method is for people, not robots nor computers. It is a prescription for action. It is a technique of investigation and inquiry. Basically, it was pulled together and made formally a foundation of science by Galileo Galilei - you know, the guy who "invented" the telescope, discovered the moons of Jupiter and helped overturn the geocentric model of the universe that held sway for thousands of years. He was tried for heresy and suffered house arrest until he died in 1642. This is the heroic ideal of the scientist. We are not mere academics creeping around our ivory towers. We are practical people who value results and practical applications. If you do not respect the scientific method, then you should not respect the atom bomb, nuclear power, the discovery of DNA, the "theory" of natural selection, x-rays or nuclear magnetic resonance tomography. Almost everything in our modern culture is deeply in debt to the scientific method. You ideas are not different from the ideas of so many others before you. Their ideas had to pass the SM tests and so do yours. So, you should learn more about it and apply it, if you can. The way you have stated your message, it does not seem possible that it could be phrased in a way that could satisfy the SM. Then, where are your experimental observations? Experiment is essential to the scientist. Any hypothesis that is experimentally untestable is junk. Scientists do not waste their time with experimentally unfalsifiable hypotheses. See http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method . Thank you for your response to the Logical Universe Theory. As you know all discoveries begin with ideas. . . Next, it is the job of science to confirm those ideas. . . A long process of experiments, mathematics, and observations are then used to support those ideas. What works is adopted and what doesn't is discarded. . . All the Logical Universe Science has been confirmed repeatedly with the exception of the existence of U1 Particles and Cold Matter. These are unknown to science. . . This is where relativity and logic were used to fill the missing links. . . Now science can move on a new path. I submit to you the path we were on was wrong. . . To me this is the last horizon of physics and because we are dealing with the extremely small, the experiments and conformation will be difficult and expensive. . It all started with the double slit experiment. . . Physics was created to explain the behavior of particle and light wave energy when more research should have been done on the propagation of waves. . . Sound is absent in space because there is no support for sound wave energy. . The same is true for Light waves. . . I don't care how good your vacuum pump is, you can't create empty space. . . Empty space would be nonexistence. . . It is counterintuitive to believe light can travel through empty space. . . Physics must explain . . . Light wave propagation. . . Neutrinos traveling faster then light . . . The expansion of the Universe (faster then light). . . What are the true results of the Hadron Collider, are there new particles, or just resonant fragments of the proton. . . Why Hydrogen fuses . . . The phenomenon of resonance is prolific in the universe but is basically ignored by Science. . . All these things are explained in the Logical Universe and more. . . With all the new observations it is hard to throw out old physics that was wrong and didn't work. . . People have put there life's work into these things and I understand that but Science is unforgiving and is, what it is. . . There is only one way it works and fits together. . .
Bignose Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Whether you agree or not is irrelevant because I am convinced that this (Idea, theory, hypothesis,) is accurate and really is the way the Universe works.... Time will be the deciding factor. Fortunately, we don't have to wait on 'Time'. The 'deciding factor' is actually just how useful your idea is. Usefulness in the scientific sense is pretty much defined to be just how accurate any predictions made are. That is how the current theory got to where it is today. As compared to your premise that things must be logical -- where exactly is it required that the universe be logical to you? (or me, or anyone?) -- the ultimate metric ideas are scientifically judged by is agreement to experiment. The current theory makes predictions that agree with experimental values more than any other theory. Is it perfect? Of course not. It is almost certainly wrong in that there are parts missing, and it is certainly incomplete. But it is the best we have right now. And it is best because of how closely the predictions it makes are to measured values. So, really, my post boils down to one question and its followup: What experimental predictions does your idea make? And then, how well do those predictions compare to known experimental measurements? These are important so that you can talk about just how accurate your idea is. If it is more accurate than current ideas, then it will supplant the current ideas.
knowerastronomy Posted December 10, 2011 Author Posted December 10, 2011 This is meant not to sound defiant but dramatize the point of where current physics gets it wrong. . . This theory predicts a particle which compresses when it rotates. . . This theory predicts Black Holes are not holes but a Spherical Mass of Resonant Bound U1 Particles. . . This theory predicts there is only one Universe. . . This theory predicts that there is no such thing as infinite gravity. . . This theory predicts that there is no such thing as a singularity. . . This theory predicts that there is no such thing as empty space. . . This theory predicts that Light Speed is not finite. . . This theory predicts that it is possible to have mass without gravity. . . This theory predicts that space time increases to a point then collapses. . . This theory predicts that Black Holes merge because of identical resonance's and Gravity. . . This theory predicts that Black Holes explode only when the resonance is broken. . . This theory predicts that Hydrogen Atoms merge because identical resonance and gravity. . . This theory predicts that all particles are composed of U1 particles locked in Resonance. . . This theory predicts the existence of a substance we will call Cold Matter. . . This theory predicts that some of the extremely short lived particles discovered by the colliders are not particles but fragments of proton support oscillations. . .
Bignose Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 This is meant not to sound defiant but dramatize the point of where current physics gets it wrong. . . This theory predicts a particle which compresses when it rotates. . . This theory predicts Black Holes are not holes but a Spherical Mass of Resonant Bound U1 Particles. . . This theory predicts there is only one Universe. . . This theory predicts that there is no such thing as infinite gravity. . . This theory predicts that there is no such thing as a singularity. . . This theory predicts that there is no such thing as empty space. . . This theory predicts that Light Speed is not finite. . . This theory predicts that it is possible to have mass without gravity. . . This theory predicts that space time increases to a point then collapses. . . This theory predicts that Black Holes merge because of identical resonance's and Gravity. . . This theory predicts that Black Holes explode only when the resonance is broken. . . This theory predicts that Hydrogen Atoms merge because identical resonance and gravity. . . This theory predicts that all particles are composed of U1 particles locked in Resonance. . . This theory predicts the existence of a substance we will call Cold Matter. . . This theory predicts that some of the extremely short lived particles discovered by the colliders are not particles but fragments of proton support oscillations. . . These are all words. How do you expect to check them against experiments? You need specific values in order to compare to the experimental results. "This theory predicts a particle which compresses when it rotates" this has implications -- it takes a certain amount of energy to compress. An experiment to get a particle rotating should consume more of the input energy than would just be needed to rotate it. What what % of energy goes into rotation. How far compressed is the particle? one more: "This theory predicts that there is no such thing as infinite gravity" So what is the functional form of gravity? Since the current functions seem to be awfully good at making accurate predictions. Can you cite an experiment where the current gravitational model didn't work? Can you show how your proposed function would fit the experimental numbers better? In short, words are not scientific predictions. They are more story-telling. To make scientific predictions, you need to predict very specific values so that the % difference between your prediction and measured values can be calculated. Mainly because in order for your idea to gain traction, its % difference needs to be just as good as the current ideas to be considered equal. If your % difference is smaller, than it will get loads of interest.
Klaynos Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 To add, predictions in modern physics requires numerical solutions to the assumptions of the idea. This requires maths. Saying "I think the universe works using x and therefore I also think y happens" isn't science it's just making up stories, it adds nothing to our understanding of how the universe works. Also, people have a desire to understand the universe, I always fail to understand why. The universe is not put here for us to understand, it doesn't care whether the humans brain can comprehend it. The human brain, and mind have evolved to survive on earth, not to understand the essence of the universe. We have developed tools to help us in understanding the universe though, such as the scientific method, which often provides results which appear illogical and counterintuitive to our (frankly primitive) minds. This is not that surprising when you consider the above. The universe doesn't care though, it works how it works whether we can easily comprehend it or not. (I don't mean to sound harsh, it is an important revelation to make, and one that will hopefully help you understand the universe better than you currently do, which is what I strive to do everyday.
knowerastronomy Posted December 10, 2011 Author Posted December 10, 2011 Ah. . .Ha I love this conversation. . . You are arguing precision and I am auguring relativity. . . My only way of answering this is, Gravity is Proportional to Energy times Rotational Speed. . . One More . . . the big one . . . Energy is proportional to Matter, (U1 Particles) times Rotational Speed. . . The last one is obviously a modification of Einstein's equation E=MC2. . . He was close but told us that the speed of light was finite and had to be squared. . . In the Logical Universe this is not the way it is. . . Einstein's energy, needed a very big number to fit with observations of explosions etc. . . In the Logical Universe energy's huge number comes from the number of U1 Particles times their Rotational Speed. . . This fits with all known observations and displays of energy release or consumption. . IE. Quantum Leaps to Hydrogen Fusion explosions. . .
Klaynos Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Ah. . .Ha I love this conversation. . . You are arguing precision and I am auguring relativity. . . Not quite sure what that means. Science requires precision though, as our theories are very precise at predicting the universe. My only way of answering this is, Gravity is Proportional to Energy times Rotational Speed. . . Here you have given maths, written as words, but the translation is trivial. Ok, by gravity you mean force of gravity, or potential? I'll assume force for now. Fg = Ev One of the simplest and most elegant tests in physics is dimensional analysis, it cannot show you are correct, but it can show you if you're wrong. You effectively break down equations into their fundamental units. Force is, mass * length /time2 Energy is, mass * length2/time2 Speed is, length/time So we have: mass * length /time2 = mass * length2/time2 * length/time or mass * length /time2 = mass * length3/time3 The two sides of the equation are not the same, so this equation fails, we therefore do not need to do further testing. One More . . . the big one . . . Energy is proportional to Matter, (U1 Particles) times Rotational Speed. . . Matter, as in mass, what is your definition of matter here? If so, applying similar analysis to above we can see that this is again incorrect. The last one is obviously a modification of Einstein's equation E=MC2. . . He was close but told us that the speed of light was finite and had to be squared. . . In the Logical Universe this is not the way it is. . . Note that E=mc2 is a special case of a larger equation. The universe still has no requirement to fulfill a human idea of logic. Einstein's energy, needed a very big number to fit with observations of explosions etc. . . In the Logical Universe energy's huge number comes from the number of U1 Particles times their Rotational Speed. . . This fits with all known observations and displays of energy release or consumption. . IE. Quantum Leaps to Hydrogen Fusion explosions. . . Special relativity fits the observable evidence exceedingly well. Far beyond any other competing idea. This includes binding energy comparisons to mass defects. You have failed to show that you can predict anything similar to this. I'd go as far to say that the simple analysis shown above has provided enough to say that your ideas are fundamentally flawed.
Bignose Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Whether you agree or not is irrelevant because I am convinced that this (Idea, theory, hypothesis,) is accurate and really is the way the Universe works.... Time will be the deciding factor. I love this conversation. . . You are arguing precision and I am auguring relativity. . . You have used the word accurate, in claiming that your idea is accurate. Unless it makes predictions that agree with measured values, how do you know it is accurate? Or how are you defining 'accurate'?
knowerastronomy Posted December 10, 2011 Author Posted December 10, 2011 To add, predictions in modern physics requires numerical solutions to the assumptions of the idea. This requires maths. Saying "I think the universe works using x and therefore I also think y happens" isn't science it's just making up stories, it adds nothing to our understanding of how the universe works. Also, people have a desire to understand the universe, I always fail to understand why. The universe is not put here for us to understand, it doesn't care whether the humans brain can comprehend it. The human brain, and mind have evolved to survive on earth, not to understand the essence of the universe. We have developed tools to help us in understanding the universe though, such as the scientific method, which often provides results which appear illogical and counterintuitive to our (frankly primitive) minds. This is not that surprising when you consider the above. The universe doesn't care though, it works how it works whether we can easily comprehend it or not. (I don't mean to sound harsh, it is an important revelation to make, and one that will hopefully help you understand the universe better than you currently do, which is what I strive to do everyday. Thanks for the post Science is the ultimate pallet for knowledge. . . I thought big and chose the Universe. . . It was my goal to learn as much as I could and answer all the questions. . . I hated it when somebody would say, we just don't know. . . I would try and figure out right there an then how to answer those questions. . . I love dialogue and learn from those who have the knowledge I seek. . . There are so many ideas, opinions, theories, and hypothesis its hard to make sense of them, but somewhere there is the path, the secret if you will, to the truth. . . When you find it the feeling is indescribable. . . I understand the need for mathematics. . . It makes sense of things and adds a certain creditability to your work. . . To me math is only part of the picture. . . Math can lead you down the wrong path. . . IE quantum Physics. . . Mathematics is to precise in a lot of instances. . . It is too unforgiving to be used to describe all things. . . This is an analogue Universe not a mathematical one. . . Nature is funny that way. . . Don't get me wrong math is necessary for such things as space travel, fuel consumption, destination calculations, and the list goes on and on. . . I 'm on board with proportions, how fast, how big, and how much time equations but logic and relativity also has its merit. . . That is the tool I used for the Logical Universe Theory. . . I call it a theory because for 95% of it, the math and research has already been done. . . It wouldn't have happened without Einstein, Hawking, Hubble, Newton and all who have gone before. . . Not quite sure what that means. Science requires precision though, as our theories are very precise at predicting the universe. Here you have given maths, written as words, but the translation is trivial. Ok, by gravity you mean force of gravity, or potential? I'll assume force for now. Fg = Ev One of the simplest and most elegant tests in physics is dimensional analysis, it cannot show you are correct, but it can show you if you're wrong. You effectively break down equations into their fundamental units. Force is, mass * length /time2 Energy is, mass * length2/time2 Speed is, length/time So we have: mass * length /time2 = mass * length2/time2 * length/time or mass * length /time2 = mass * length3/time3 The two sides of the equation are not the same, so this equation fails, we therefore do not need to do further testing. Matter, as in mass, what is your definition of matter here? If so, applying similar analysis to above we can see that this is again incorrect. Note that E=mc2 is a special case of a larger equation. The universe still has no requirement to fulfill a human idea of logic. Special relativity fits the observable evidence exceedingly well. Far beyond any other competing idea. This includes binding energy comparisons to mass defects. You have failed to show that you can predict anything similar to this. I'd go as far to say that the simple analysis shown above has provided enough to say that your ideas are fundamentally flawed. Ah Yes You are one of the precision people. . . You see the Universe as an orderly and predictable entity. . . Au contraire, The Universe just happens to confirm some of your mathematics not the other way around. . . Sorry but that was an irresistible response and I apologize. . . I think differently than you. . . The universe is like a giant puzzle with millions of pieces. . . Each one is significant but when isolated it bears little relevance to the whole. . . Without each piece in the proper place the picture is noticeably wrong. . . Sort of like the Universe we have now. . . Mathematics is good with each piece but it must keep in mind the whole picture. . . As of right now quantum physics says its ok to have multiple Universes, Time travel, Worm holes, Things can exist in two places at once. . . I say not so fast. . .Wrong path . . Foot note, I think that I have solved all its mysteries right? I am willing to bet the Universe has many more surprises waiting to be discovered. . . You have used the word accurate, in claiming that your idea is accurate. Unless it makes predictions that agree with measured values, how do you know it is accurate? Or how are you defining 'accurate'? Ah I am satisfied it is accurate but as for you? You must decide. . .
Bignose Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 You are one of the precision people. . . You see the Universe as an orderly and predictable entity. . . Au contraire, The Universe just happens to confirm some of your mathematics not the other way around. . . Sorry but that was an irresistible response and I apologize. . . This is your response to the critique that your idea isn't dimensionally sound? Because while I can agree that mankind hasn't figure out all the mathematics that describe the Universe, we have never, ever, ever found a situation that was mathematically dimensionally unsound. That is, there has never, ever, ever been a valid idea where the units on the left hand side don't equal the units on the right hand side. It is like asking "how fast is that car going?" "Oh, about 16 christmas trees per lumen". The units have to be right for it to make any sense at all. I don't think you'd appreciate much if your employer hired you with an offer of $100,000 a year and turns out by their reckoning a dollar is a banana. The units have to make sense. Ah I am satisfied it is accurate but as for you? You must decide. . . What was your metric for determining this accuracy? My metric is % difference between predictions and experimental values.
Realitycheck Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 "The Theory predicts that Black Holes are not holes but Spherical Masses.." I think we're getting somewhere.
md65536 Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 Please keep an open mind and use your logic. . . I keep making the mistake of mixing up the phrases "logic" and "intuitive reasoning or common sense" and I think you are too. Logic "is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic] Intuitive reasoning is fine but you're not going to overthrow Einstein without the "formal" or "systematic" or "valid" or "correct reasoning" parts. I started watching the videos and they look well-made. Early in the first of the ten videos is the statement, "Nothing [in the new theory] is said about the speed of light being relative to anything. The speed of light is just that, the speed of light. Hence, the hypothesis that nothing can travel faster is illogical." That's not logic! If you really feel you have the answers to how the universe works, you're going to have to tackle the math. Doing the math changes an idea, the way that using a paintbrush changes a painting you've only imagined.
Daedalus Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) This is an analogue Universe not a mathematical one. . . Nature is funny that way. . . I'm not sure you realize that analog refers to continuous values of a physical quantity. The difference is that digital refers to discrete values of a physical quantity. A good analogy for this is an analog clock that uses hands vs. a digital clock that uses a digital display. The second hand of an analog clock sweeps through all possible values for seconds, including partial seconds. A digital clock only displays discrete values of seconds and requires a higher resolution to show partial seconds such as milliseconds. This higher resolution is still digital in that it can only display discrete values of milliseconds or whatever the resolution provides. Resolution in this case refers to the granularity of the clock and its ability to divide time into smaller units, not to be confused with the resolution of the display which defines the display's ability to render finer details. Definition for Analog: of, relating to, or being a mechanism in which data is represented by continuously variable physical quantities. An analog or analogue signal is any continuous signal for which the time varying feature (variable) of the signal is a representation of some other time varying quantity, i.e., analogous to another time varying signal. It differs from a digital signal in terms of small fluctuations in the signal which are meaningful. Analog is usually thought of in an electrical context; however, mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, and other systems may also convey analog signals Definition for Digital: of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units. A digital system[1] is a data technology that uses discrete (discontinuous) values. By contrast, non-digital (or analog) systems use a continuous range of values to represent information. Although digital representations are discrete, the information represented can be either discrete, such as numbers, letters or icons, or continuous, such as sounds, images, and other measurements of continuous systems. The point of all of this is to show you that the terminology refers to a physical quantity / value. Hence, your statement is false because quantities are represented by measurements which are mathematical by nature. This is why scientific theories include mathematics which make predictions about the values of such quantities given some type of event that can either change or leave the quantity unaffected. This theory predicts that all particles are composed of U1 particles locked in Resonance. . . Also, your theory states that these U1 particles are the basic building blocks of the universe. Since you have a particle that is a discrete unit that everything else is based upon, you in fact have a digital universe. Edited December 11, 2011 by Daedalus
knowerastronomy Posted December 11, 2011 Author Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) I keep making the mistake of mixing up the phrases "logic" and "intuitive reasoning or common sense" and I think you are too. Logic "is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic] Intuitive reasoning is fine but you're not going to overthrow Einstein without the "formal" or "systematic" or "valid" or "correct reasoning" parts. I started watching the videos and they look well-made. Early in the first of the ten videos is the statement, "Nothing [in the new theory] is said about the speed of light being relative to anything. The speed of light is just that, the speed of light. Hence, the hypothesis that nothing can travel faster is illogical." That's not logic! If you really feel you have the answers to how the universe works, you're going to have to tackle the math. Doing the math changes an idea, the way that using a paintbrush changes a painting you've only imagined. I will demonstrate the power of logic over mathematics. . . Can your mathematics tell me why Sound Waves can't travel in Space but Light Waves can. . . This is where Logic is powerful. Sound waves needs a support structure of air molecules (or other types of matter) between your ear and the sound source. . . The same is true for Light. . . Light Waves need a support structure (a sea of particles) between the source and your eye. . . If your mathematics proves light can travel through empty space I submit it is wrong. . . It is counterintuitive. . . It is illogical. . . I'm not sure you realize that analog refers to continuous values of a physical quantity. The difference is that digital refers to discrete values of a physical quantity. A good analogy for this is an analog clock that uses hands vs. a digital clock that uses a digital display. The second hand of an analog clock sweeps through all possible values for seconds, including partial seconds. A digital clock only displays discrete values of seconds and requires a higher resolution to show partial seconds such as milliseconds. This higher resolution is still digital in that it can only display discrete values of milliseconds or whatever the resolution provides. Resolution in this case refers to the granularity of the clock and its ability to divide time into smaller units, not to be confused with the resolution of the display which defines the display's ability to render finer details. Definition for Analog: Definition for Digital: The point of all of this is to show you that the terminology refers to a physical quantity / value. Hence, your statement is false because quantities are represented by measurements which are mathematical by nature. This is why scientific theories include mathematics which make predictions about the values of such quantities given some type of event that can either change or leave the quantity unaffected. Also, your theory states that these U1 particles are the basic building blocks of the universe. Since you have a particle that is a discrete unit that everything else is based upon, you in fact have a digital universe. Of course you are right and my creative use of certain terminology might be a little off but I hope you understand what I was trying to say. . . I live in the Astronomy and Physics World alone and don't have the benefit of a proof reader but I do have spell check. . . That being said I hope you look on the next page about my response to mathematics. . . I appreciate your criticisms and the fact you have taken the time to watch the Videos. . . I used my logic to figure out how to make them. . Edited December 11, 2011 by knowerastronomy
Bignose Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) I will demonstrate the power of logic over mathematics. . . Can your mathematics tell me why Sound Waves can't travel in Space but Light Waves can. . . This is where Logic is powerful. Sound waves needs a support structure of air molecules (or other types of matter) between your ear and the sound source. . . The same is true for Light. . . Light Waves need a support structure (a sea of particles) between the source and your eye. . . If your mathematics proves light can travel through empty space I submit it is wrong. . . It is counterintuitive. . . It is illogical. . . Why -- why is it required that 'the same is true for light'? Just because they share the same word "wave"? Before the duality of light as a wave and a particle was known, the wave behavior of light was known. But, since, we have also learned that light is made up of photons, and the lack of medium in space means there is less junk for the photons to run into and hence light can travel a long distance in space. Whether this explanation agrees with your notion of what is 'intuitive' or 'logical', doesn't really matter. The experimental evidence strongly supports this. This is precisely why the main metric of how good a scientific idea is is how closely predictions match experiments. There is no gauge of what kind of warm-fuzzy one gets when thinking about an idea. There is no meter that measures how 'intuitive' or 'logical' an idea is. In no small part because what is intuitive to me may not be intuitive to you! Accuracy as defined by how close prediction matches experiment is the ultimate objective, clear cut, unbiased, and fair metric on which to judge an idea scientifically If the above is your best example, you probably need to review the current knowledge more before trying to tear it down. The current knowledge is accepted because the predictions it makes agree closer to experimental results better than the alternatives. As I wrote above, there are certainly things wrong and incomplete with the current understanding, but before you make grandiose claims about our lack of understanding with the current model, you need to understand what the current model actually says. Edited December 11, 2011 by Bignose
mississippichem Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 I will demonstrate the power of logic over mathematics. . . Can your mathematics tell me why Sound Waves can't travel in Space but Light Waves can. . . Yes. 1
Daedalus Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) Of course you are right and my creative use of certain terminology might be a little off but I hope you understand what I was trying to say. . . I live in the Astronomy and Physics World alone and don't have the benefit of a proof reader but I do have spell check. . . That being said I hope you look on the next page about my response to mathematics. . . I appreciate your criticisms and the fact you have taken the time to watch the Videos. . . I used my logic to figure out how to make them. . Unfortunately, it is hard to understand what you are trying to say. The incorrect use of certain terminology does not aid in explaining your ideas regardless of how creative you believe you have used the words. Instead, it creates confusion on behalf of the reader when trying to relate what is already known vs. the ideas you are trying to portray. Ultimately, it hurts your theory and casts doubt on your abilities as a scientist. How are we suppose to take you seriously when you cannot even use scientific terminology in accordance with the definitions for such terms? I am not putting you or your theory down. I am just informing you that to be taken serious, it is imperative that you use terminology according to the definitions of such words and that you educate yourself on the consensus view of such ideas you are trying to explain in your theory. That way you will be able to properly explain your theory and show why your theory is better than the accepted theory. This also involves developing mathematics to support the definitions in your theory because the accepted theory most certainly has mathematics from which we can make predictions. Also as everyone has been telling you, logic does not guarentee that your theory is correct. To give an example of this, thousands of years ago people thought the Earth was flat. At the time, this assumption seemed very logical to most everyone. However, the use of mathematics was employed to show the Earth was indeed round. Thus, over time, changed the consensus that the Earth was flat. http://en.wikipedia....Spherical_Earth Eratosthenes (276–194 BC) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BC. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to fifteen percent.[17][18][19] Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual meridional circumference, 40,008 kilometres (24,860 mi). Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are essentially parallel. Edited December 11, 2011 by Daedalus 1
michel123456 Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 Eratosthenes (276–194 BC) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BC. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to fifteen percent.[17][18][19] Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual meridional circumference, 40,008 kilometres (24,860 mi). Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are essentially parallel. As a note: interesting that Eratosthene, with the same measurements, did not measure the distance to the sun as he should. The difference in angles between the shadow in Alexandria & Syene makes a triangle assuming the Earth is flat, and thus he should have measured the triangle, and thus the distance to the sun. Instead of that, he assumed that the rays are parallel and as a geometrical consequence that the Earth is round. Which is totally amazing.
Recommended Posts