The Logical Universe E=MR

[knowerastronomy]

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.

 

 

Thanks for your post

 

Make no mistake about it, Light Waves are oscillating wave energy not particles. . . Therefore I stand behind my premise. . . If the mathematics say otherwise it is junk math. . . This is one of the fundamental flaws in the standard model. . . The Logical Universe attempts to set a new path for research to confirm this. . . Just because the laws of physics have been tweaked to conform to false notions about Light Waves is something out of my control. . . I don't mean to sound harsh but Science is unforgiving and the truth is the truth. . .

[Klaynos]

Your dismissal of my dimensional analysis, which conclusively shows your ideas are not going to work within this universe, has been coved by others. Let me add though, that ignoring it and just repeating yourself does not make the ideas any less wrong.

 

I will demonstrate the power of logic over mathematics. . .

 

The fact that your computer works demonstrates the power of mathematics over logic. Quantum mechanics is in no way intuitive, it works though, if it did not your computer would not work. You are wrong, the universe doesn't care how you think it should operate.

 

Can your mathematics tell me why Sound Waves can't travel in Space but Light Waves can. . .

 

Yes, pressure wave mechanics (sound waves) can be modelled very accurately using finite element methods, and analytical methods. I can provide references where comparisons are made between the models and experiments. That's the thing with science we don't just make things up decide they're right and go with it, we experimentally test everything all the time, we are dedicated to proving ourselves wrong.

 

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. . .

 

Prove that with logic, you can't you can't prove it without making numerical predictions (even if they are very vague estimates such as if you drop something it will fall downwards, that requires maths, downwards is a direction, defined in a coordinate system, just because I've stated it in words doesn't mean it's not mathematical, modern science is just very very very good at making predictions) these predictions then MUST be tested against the universe, only then can we say anything about the validity of the ideas.

 

The same is true for Light. . . Light Waves need a support structure (a sea of particles) between the source and your eye. . .

 

Please provide some experimental evidence for this? This was shown to be false by experiments around 100 years ago, which have been trailed, tested, repeated and added to by other experiments ever since. You are going to need some pretty good experimental evidence to show otherwise.

 

If your mathematics proves light can travel through empty space I submit it is wrong. . . It is counterintuitive. . . It is illogical. . .

 

The experiments prove you are wrong, the maths just allows us to make further predictions and then test these against the universe.

 

The universe doesn't care what you or I think is illogical or counter-intuitive, how self-centred must the human race be to feel that the universe MUST fit with what their simple, primitive, animal, ape brains can cope with, it doesn't give a crap. Trust me, I wish it wasn't this way, I'd love for every person on the planet to easily be able to understand science and how it works, and how the universe works, but it's hard, and some bits of it are just plain difficult to get your head around.

 

Thanks for your post

 

Make no mistake about it, Light Waves are oscillating wave energy not particles. . .

 

Sorry experimentation shows you are wrong here. Please see the photoelectric effect. Einstein won his nobel prize for this work.

 

Therefore I stand behind my premise. . .

 

Which is based on something that can be shown to be experimentally wrong, and can therefore be disreguarded.

 

If the mathematics say otherwise it is junk math. . .

 

Experiments say otherwise. Sorry.

 

This is one of the fundamental flaws in the standard model. . .

 

The predictive ability of modern physics is truly stunning, have a look into it sometime. If you cannot model the universe with your theory, it is not a theory, it's just a story, which is useless for actually finding anything out or for adding anything to technology.

 

The Logical Universe attempts to set a new path for research to confirm this. . .

 

Experiments already exist that shows you are wrong. It is also dimensionally unsound. It is fundamentally flawed.

 

Just because the laws of physics have been tweaked to conform to false notions about Light Waves is something out of my control. . . I don't mean to sound harsh but Science is unforgiving and the truth is the truth. . .

 

Experimental evidence is the truth. Science is the modelling and testing of those models against experiments, it is therefore a very close approximation of the truth, depending on what we're discussing depends on how close that approximation is. Here it can be stated conclusively that the mainstream approximation accepted in science is far closer to reality that your ideas. I don't mean to sound harsh, but you are wrong.

[knowerastronomy]

Your dismissal of my dimensional analysis, which conclusively shows your ideas are not going to work within this universe, has been coved by others. Let me add though, that ignoring it and just repeating yourself does not make the ideas any less wrong.

 

 

 

The fact that your computer works demonstrates the power of mathematics over logic. Quantum mechanics is in no way intuitive, it works though, if it did not your computer would not work. You are wrong, the universe doesn't care how you think it should operate.

 

 

 

Yes, pressure wave mechanics (sound waves) can be modelled very accurately using finite element methods, and analytical methods. I can provide references where comparisons are made between the models and experiments. That's the thing with science we don't just make things up decide they're right and go with it, we experimentally test everything all the time, we are dedicated to proving ourselves wrong.

 

 

 

Prove that with logic, you can't you can't prove it without making numerical predictions (even if they are very vague estimates such as if you drop something it will fall downwards, that requires maths, downwards is a direction, defined in a coordinate system, just because I've stated it in words doesn't mean it's not mathematical, modern science is just very very very good at making predictions) these predictions then MUST be tested against the universe, only then can we say anything about the validity of the ideas.

 

 

 

Please provide some experimental evidence for this? This was shown to be false by experiments around 100 years ago, which have been trailed, tested, repeated and added to by other experiments ever since. You are going to need some pretty good experimental evidence to show otherwise.

 

 

 

The experiments prove you are wrong, the maths just allows us to make further predictions and then test these against the universe.

 

The universe doesn't care what you or I think is illogical or counter-intuitive, how self-centred must the human race be to feel that the universe MUST fit with what their simple, primitive, animal, ape brains can cope with, it doesn't give a crap. Trust me, I wish it wasn't this way, I'd love for every person on the planet to easily be able to understand science and how it works, and how the universe works, but it's hard, and some bits of it are just plain difficult to get your head around.

 

 

 

Sorry experimentation shows you are wrong here. Please see the photoelectric effect. Einstein won his nobel prize for this work.

 

 

 

Which is based on something that can be shown to be experimentally wrong, and can therefore be disreguarded.

 

 

 

Experiments say otherwise. Sorry.

 

 

 

The predictive ability of modern physics is truly stunning, have a look into it sometime. If you cannot model the universe with your theory, it is not a theory, it's just a story, which is useless for actually finding anything out or for adding anything to technology.

 

 

 

Experiments already exist that shows you are wrong. It is also dimensionally unsound. It is fundamentally flawed.

 

 

 

Experimental evidence is the truth. Science is the modelling and testing of those models against experiments, it is therefore a very close approximation of the truth, depending on what we're discussing depends on how close that approximation is. Here it can be stated conclusively that the mainstream approximation accepted in science is far closer to reality that your ideas. I don't mean to sound harsh, but you are wrong.

 

 

 

I knew this would get heated and we aren't even discussing Religion.

 

 

I know this goes against some laws of physics and some research. . .That was a given. . . 95% of the current Theoretical Universe in my mind is correct. . .

 

Research is subject to interruption and so is everything else. Einstein deserved the prize for his contribution to Science. . . He was a genius but this 2011. . . Don't be stuck in the same road to nowhere, Multiple Universes, Wormholes. . . I was going to say think out of the box but that sounds dumb, be curious, find new solutions, question things that don't make sense. . . Proof will come if you are correct but get your ideas out there and learn. . . Don't be so defensive about old thinking. . .

 

[Klaynos]

I knew this would get heated and we aren't even discussing Religion.

 

 

I know this goes against some laws of physics and some research. . .That was a given. . . 95% of the current Theoretical Universe in my mind is correct. . .

 

Research is subject to interruption and so is everything else. Einstein deserved the prize for his contribution to Science. . . He was a genius but this 2011. . . Don't be stuck in the same road to nowhere, Multiple Universes, Wormholes. . . I was going to say think out of the box but that sounds dumb, be curious, find new solutions, question things that don't make sense. . . Proof will come if you are correct but get your ideas out there and learn. . . Don't be so defensive about old thinking. . .

 

 

Experimental evidence and dimensional analysis both show your idea is wrong. Nothing you've said changes this analysis.

[knowerastronomy]

Experimental evidence and dimensional analysis both show your idea is wrong. Nothing you've said changes this analysis.

 

It is evident that your mind is made up and I have not impressed you with my logic. . . So be it. . . I think you are probably one of the many but I stand by the Logical Universe because it all fits, it all makes sense, and I know the proportions work, the amount of energy is logical, the timeline fits and no one out there has one better. . .

[mississippichem]

It is evident that your mind is made up and I have not impressed you with my logic. . . So be it. . . I think you are probably one of the many but I stand by the Logical Universe because it all fits, it all makes sense, and I know the proportions work, the amount of energy is logical, the timeline fits and no one out there has one better. . .

 

How much energy? About 756431 ballon frog rainbows? Your statements are no less ridiculous than that when the units don't balance.

 

Even elementary school teachers require students to write the correct units.

 

Also, you should go into politics as you are a professional question dodger. Not an insult, but a demonstrable fact.

[Daedalus]

Let me demonstrate what Klaynos is stating by dimensional analysis. My theory of Temporal Uniformity defines motion as:

 

[math]speed=freq \times \frac{meters}{cycles}[/math]

 

and

 

[math]accel=freq^2 \times \frac{meters}{cycles^2}[/math]

 

You can see that the above definitions are not standard. What this means is that a clock provides the cycles (i.e. the cycles of a pendulum, a rotating mechanism, etc...), meters represent the distance that has been traversed, and frequency is used to convert cycles to seconds. This is needed because a cycle is not a defined unit of measurement. A cycle can last for any length of duration and can represent any unit that is used to measure oscillation.

 

Now let's see if my statement for motion can be validated using dimensional analysis. Frequency is defined by cycles per second or:

 

[math]freq=\frac{cycles}{second}[/math]

 

Such that:

 

[math]speed = freq \times \frac{meters}{cycles} = \frac{cycles}{second} \times \frac{meters}{cycles}=\frac{meters}{second} [/math]

 

and

 

[math]accel= freq^2 \times \frac{meters}{cycles^2} = \frac{cycles^2}{second^2} \times \frac{meters}{cycles^2}=\frac{meters}{second^2} [/math]

 

Therefore I can define time in seconds as:

 

[math]time=\frac{cycles}{frequency}=\frac{\frac{cycles}{1}}{\frac{cycles}{second}}=\frac{cycles \times second}{cycles}=second[/math]

 

That is how I used dimensional analysis to validate my statement and you need to make sure your statements are based on the same mathematical logic that I have used in this demonstration. Which you have not done and is why Klaynos, and everyone else, is pointing out flaws in your theory.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Daedalus

[Klaynos]

It is evident that your mind is made up and I have not impressed you with my logic. . . So be it. . . I think you are probably one of the many but I stand by the Logical Universe because it all fits, it all makes sense, and I know the proportions work, the amount of energy is logical, the timeline fits and no one out there has one better. . .

 

You made a statement, I requested evidence, none was provided.

You made a statement, it was shown to be false by dimensional analysis.

You made a statement, it disagrees with experiment, it disagrees with how you can observe how the universe works.

 

The only conclusion is that you are wrong. You have not even tried to convince me otherwise. Simply restating your position is NOT going to work.

 

 

 

Daedalus, I even when through a couple of the equations he provided putting in the dimensions step by step... It didn't help. It was just dismissed.

[Bignose]

Make no mistake about it, Light Waves are oscillating wave energy not particles. . .

 

You just saying so doesn't make it so. There are numerous experiments that would disagree with you. Perhaps you should either 1) attempt to understand those experiments and the results they got or 2) post why each and every single experiment has been wrong.

 

What part of scientific accuracy being defined by prediction agreeing with experiment is so hard to fathom? If you disagree with it so much, propose something new -- something even better -- something more fair in your eyes. And lets head 'logic' and 'intuition' off at the pass right now as not being valid alternatives. Because sometimes results are not logical, sometimes what is correct isn't intuitive. At one time, it was intuitive that the world was flat. At one time, it was logical to think the moon was made of cheese. Mankind has come a long way since those days, in no small part because science doesn't just blindly accept what someone declares to be logical, intuitive, or correct. Science accepts things when the predictions made agree nicely with the experimental results. Why such a resistance to a system that has fairness and objectivity built right in?

[Daedalus]

Daedalus, I even when through a couple of the equations he provided putting in the dimensions step by step... It didn't help. It was just dismissed.

 

I realize that Klaynos, but I was trying to show him how I used dimensional analysis in my own speculatory theory to validate a statement I have made as to get my point across. He has not done this and continues to dismiss the logic based on pure mathematics that we use in Physics to analyze our assumptions. I am hoping that he sees what I have done and rethinks the statements he has made and understand why his equation is flawed.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Daedalus

[Klaynos]

I realize that Klaynos, but I was trying to show him how I used dimensional analysis in my own speculatory theory to validate a statement I have made as to get my point across. He has not done this and continues to dismiss the logic based on pure mathematics that we use in Physics to analyze our assumptions. I am hoping that he sees what I have done and rethinks the statements he has made and understand why his equation is flawed.

 

I hope he does too. It is worth noting that just because something is dimensionally sound it doesn't mean it is correct. It's just a first simple test to see if something is wrong.

[Daedalus]

I hope he does too. It is worth noting that just because something is dimensionally sound it doesn't mean it is correct. It's just a first simple test to see if something is wrong.

 

I agree. But as you have suggested... if you can't get past dimensional analysis, how can you ever expect to go beyond that and make predictions as to the nature of the universe. I've got to take my kids back to their mom's house, but I will be back later : )

Edited December 11, 2011 by Daedalus

[knowerastronomy]

How much energy? About 756431 ballon frog rainbows? Your statements are no less ridiculous than that when the units don't balance.

 

Even elementary school teachers require students to write the correct units.

 

Also, you should go into politics as you are a professional question dodger. Not an insult, but a demonstrable fact.

 

 

 

You only criticize and posture to bolster your arguments. . . none of which are yours. . .

[md65536]

You only criticize and posture to bolster your arguments. . . none of which are yours. . .

Okay. So now this thread has fallen into the disappointingly typical mode of many threads involving a "new theory that explains everything". You haven't convinced anyone yet and you're not going to convince anyone this way.

 

What is the next step forward for you and the theory?

- Are you done the work on it, and want to market it to others?

- Are you willing to do whatever additional work is needed to move it forward, even if it involves math and even if it is more difficult than you can handle?

- Are you willing to give up?

- Other?

 

If you choose the first option, you should accept that someone's going to have to do the math and figure out a testable hypothesis etc. before this will convince anyone, so you will need to figure out how to inspire someone that the idea is good enough for them to work on it. To be realistic, you must realize that the real work on this hasn't even been started yet. Others have spent entire lives trying to figure it all out and no one has done it yet, so chances for success are not great if your goal is too high. Perhaps this thread may help with an answer to "what now?"

 

 

[knowerastronomy]

Okay. So now this thread has fallen into the disappointingly typical mode of many threads involving a "new theory that explains everything". You haven't convinced anyone yet and you're not going to convince anyone this way.

 

What is the next step forward for you and the theory?

- Are you done the work on it, and want to market it to others?

- Are you willing to do whatever additional work is needed to move it forward, even if it involves math and even if it is more difficult than you can handle?

- Are you willing to give up?

- Other?

 

If you choose the first option, you should accept that someone's going to have to do the math and figure out a testable hypothesis etc. before this will convince anyone, so you will need to figure out how to inspire someone that the idea is good enough for them to work on it. To be realistic, you must realize that the real work on this hasn't even been started yet. Others have spent entire lives trying to figure it all out and no one has done it yet, so chances for success are not great if your goal is too high. Perhaps this thread may help with an answer to "what now?"

 

 

 

Thank You for Your Post

 

Your logic is the only one that makes sense in this forum. . .

 

Unfortunately I am 70 years old and probably won't be around to see this to its conclusion but knowing that I have participated in its discovery is gratifying enough . . .

 

The Logical Universe is only an ( idea, theory, speculation, hypothesis, of how the universe works. . . Great care was taken to make sure everything fits. . . What is not seen is the failed attempts. . . I am in aw of its extremes and beauty and have traveled many times to Black Holes, Stars and Galaxy's for understanding. . . To me this is it. . . this relay does make sense. . .

I for the life of me can not see how the current model could have ever evolved. . . It is not a mathematical universe. . . It takes the path of least resistance and works the only way it can work. . .

[Daedalus]

I am in aw of its extremes and beauty and have traveled many times to Black Holes, Stars and Galaxy's for understanding.

 

Edited December 12, 2011 by Daedalus

[Ophiolite]

Unfortunately I am 70 years old and probably won't be around to see this to its conclusion but knowing that I have participated in its discovery is gratifying enough . . .

. . .

As another old-timer let me just say this: it's time you grew up. Your theory is invalidated by evidence. Pretending it is otherwise just means you go to your grave ignorant and foolish. The only positive thing that might be said is that your ideas will have given the less compassionate a good laugh. This may sound cruel, but it would be much more cruel to encourage you in your self deception.

[md65536]

As another old-timer let me just say this: it's time you grew up. Your theory is invalidated by evidence. Pretending it is otherwise just means you go to your grave ignorant and foolish. The only positive thing that might be said is that your ideas will have given the less compassionate a good laugh. This may sound cruel, but it would be much more cruel to encourage you in your self deception.

Now now, there's no reason to accept reality to the point that it is depressing. A little bit of delusion is probably essential for all of us to bother going on living! What is hope in spite of an acceptance of statistical chance but a belief that it even matters if something goes one way or another. We will ALL go to the grave ignorant and foolish, moreso if we think we understand the universe so well that we can be certain that others are wrong.

 

I disagree that anyone should ever have to grow up just because someone else thinks it's time. What's best is balance, as determined by whatever works best for each of us.

 

knowerastronomy: If your understanding of the universe gives you happiness then accept it. I wouldn't recommend pushing it to the point that it diminishes that (arguing on the internet etc).

 

Perhaps one day your ideas will inspire others to create a theory out of it, and they will become famous (and likely, you won't, but such people who have inspired others have made it into history books and are still studied). The thing is that ideas are usually so vague and ambiguous that you can't always say whether they're right or wrong. It takes mathematical precision to do that, so the question is whether an idea is good or bad -- whether it can lead one to figure out some math that can be shown to be right. However, despite the ideas, any claims made that contradict the evidence are wrong. I'm certain.

[michel123456]

As another old-timer let me just say this: it's time you grew up. Your theory is invalidated by evidence. Pretending it is otherwise just means you go to your grave ignorant and foolish. The only positive thing that might be said is that your ideas will have given the less compassionate a good laugh. This may sound cruel, but it would be much more cruel to encourage you in your self deception.

My rule #1 is to never vote negative.

For this post I have to think about reconsidering rule #1.

[swansont]

My rule #1 is to never vote negative.

For this post I have to think about reconsidering rule #1.

 

Why? Science is isn't cheerleading or a self-esteem party. Everybody doesn't win and not all ideas have merit. The process scientific ideas go through is trial by fire — the idea has to be falsifiable, and you have to go through all the scenarios you can think of that might do so. If a proposed theory is contradicted by the facts, you toss the theory. If the proposal doesn't make specific predictions it doesn't even make it out of the gate.

[zapatos]

Why? Science is isn't cheerleading or a self-esteem party. Everybody doesn't win and not all ideas have merit. The process scientific ideas go through is trial by fire — the idea has to be falsifiable, and you have to go through all the scenarios you can think of that might do so. If a proposed theory is contradicted by the facts, you toss the theory. If the proposal doesn't make specific predictions it doesn't even make it out of the gate.

I can see that your post applied to the sentence "Your theory is invalidated by evidence." Was all the rest (grow up--ignorant and foolish--your ideas give a good laugh--self deception) part of science?

[Ophiolite]

I can see that your post applied to the sentence "Your theory is invalidated by evidence." Was all the rest (grow up--ignorant and foolish--your ideas give a good laugh--self deception) part of science?

Perhaps you don't care about someone nearing the end of their life. Perhaps you lack the compassion to to weep at the pain of witnessing self deception. Perhaps you view posters on a forum as mere avatars. Perhaps you lack the desire to encourage honest self examination. Or perhaps you just have a hard job understanding human concern.

 

Of course the rest of what I wrote was not science. It was an impassioned plea to knowerastronomy to get his shit in order. Your reaction to it, swansont's reaction to it, are irrelevant. It was aimed at knower in the hope he might rethink things. His choice.

[zapatos]

Perhaps you don't care about someone nearing the end of their life. Perhaps you lack the compassion to to weep at the pain of witnessing self deception. Perhaps you view posters on a forum as mere avatars. Perhaps you lack the desire to encourage honest self examination. Or perhaps you just have a hard job understanding human concern.

 

Of course the rest of what I wrote was not science. It was an impassioned plea to knowerastronomy to get his shit in order. Your reaction to it, swansont's reaction to it, are irrelevant. It was aimed at knower in the hope he might rethink things. His choice.

Please, don't stop there. By all means let me know what other faults I perhaps have.

 

But I am motivated by your example of taking it upon yourself to speak your mind. From now on, when my wife asks what I think about an outfit she put together to wear, I am not going to limit my comments to practical aspects regarding how the shoes don't match the purse. I am going to give her the straight story -- she needs to stop deluding herself about her fashion sense, and the best thing that will come of that outfit is that it will give others a good laugh.

 

In fact, I'll be sure to tell strangers what I think, too. And why limit my comments to what they've asked about? Surely they'll also be interested in my opinion of their personal failings.

[Ophiolite]

I find your repeated use of the phrase "give others a good laugh" to be offensive. If you trouble yourself to read what I have written objectively, and not with the knee jerk reaction that seems to have been the case, you will see that I reference that as the reaction we can expect from the less compassionate. Your use of the phrase implies that knowerastronomy's writings give me a good laugh. Since that is the exact reverse of my position I consider your use of this phrase in two posts is a deliberate slur on my character.

 

As to your possible faults, you have identified these yourself. By your reaction you declare that you don't care that knowerastronomy is deceiving himself. Perhaps you think he is too old and senile to understand where he is in error. That is patronising in the extreme. I doubt my words will have the desired effect, but at least I gave it a try. And if your relationship with your wife is such that you cannot tell her when something doesn't match perhaps you should consider counselling.

 

Again, your implication that the expression of my thoughts, designed to aid knowerastronomy, are equivalent to approaching complete strangers with commentary is ludicrous and offensive. You imply that this is exactly what I would do, or indeed have done. Knowerastronomy came here, to a public discussion forum and offered his thoughts. As such they are open to criticism. They have been criticised. Knower has ignored these critiques. Since he will not respond to reason, he may respond to raw emotion. You prefer to let him languish in his ignorance. How very humane of you.

[zapatos]

As I don't wish to see you languish in your ignorance and I feel you would like to know, I have to tell you. For someone who is so easily offended, your approach to others is often offensive. I say this in the hope you may rethink things. Your choice.