uncool Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) A Challenge. . . If you can answer these questions I will consed to your brilliance. . . What is Dark Matter? (not what it does) What is the difference between what something is and what it does? Can you describe yourself without describing what you do? Dark matter is a hypothesis proposed to solve some discrepancies between astronomical predictions and astronomical experiments, mainly (from what I've seen, although others can correct me) thermodynamical predictions of, for example, the distribution of positions and velocities of stars in the bullet cluster. What is Dark Energy? ( again, not what it causes) Dark energy is a hypothesis proposed to solve some discrepancies between astronomical predictions and astronomical experiments, mainly (from what I've seen, although others can correct me) relativistic predictions of the exact rate of expansion of the universe. Why is the Universe Expanding and Accelerating? That depends on which version of "why" you are looking for. knowerastronomy, your idea doesn't make sense because your units don't add up. What would you say if, when asked the question "How long is that ladder", I responded "Two."? How about if I responded "Two seconds."? "Two acres"? The answers don't make sense unless you have the right units - the answer would only make sense if I said "Two yards" or "Two meters" or "two feet". =Uncool- Edited January 4, 2012 by uncool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 No, the Universe follows its own logic. . . I just discovered it. . . Ok, then why the hubris that your discovery is an accurate representation of the Universe's logic that cannot be put into mathematical form or a dimensionally consistent form when the vast, vast majority of when we have discovered about the Universe to date lets us describe it mathematically and dimensionally consistently? How can you be so damn sure that your interpretation is correct when you cannot even make predictions with it to compare to measured values and get a measure on just how correct it is? Science has moved on from just taking someone's word that something is correct. It is no longer the Dark Ages, man. If something is so perfectly correct, its predictions should be incredibly good to measured values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
md65536 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 A Challenge. . . If you can answer these questions I will consed to your brilliance. . . What is Dark Matter? (not what it does) What is Dark Energy? ( again, not what it causes) Why is the Universe Expanding and Accelerating? I dunno! I really am an unwashed idiot. That's why I rarely (almost never really :modest:) tell other people what they do and don't understand of what I also don't understand, or imply that I'm the only one who can figure it all out. I don't even know what matter is (apart from a little about what it does). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 You've picked some specific unanswered questions in modern physics. We could easily give you some of the properties of dark energy and matter. In science the burden of proof is with the presenter, you are yet to show your demonstrably false idea has made any predictions to even match current mainstream science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 Ok, then why the hubris that your discovery is an accurate representation of the Universe's logic that cannot be put into mathematical form or a dimensionally consistent form when the vast, vast majority of when we have discovered about the Universe to date lets us describe it mathematically and dimensionally consistently? How can you be so damn sure that your interpretation is correct when you cannot even make predictions with it to compare to measured values and get a measure on just how correct it is? Science has moved on from just taking someone's word that something is correct. It is no longer the Dark Ages, man. If something is so perfectly correct, its predictions should be incredibly good to measured values. I am sure because the explanation satisfies my criteria which I have already stated and you disagree with. . . I'm OK with that. . . I disagree with your reasons for dismissal. . . In a verbal communication you don't have to go into minute detail on meters per second, or kilo-joules of energy or how many grams of matter that will come later with proof of the hypothesis. . . Einsteins theory is in trouble because of modern observations and experiments, and that is the way it should be. . . In science you must put your ego aside, the proof is not in the math it is in the observations and experiments. . . Ok What is your hypothesis on why the universe is expanding and accelerating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Expansion is risdual energy from the big bang. The acceleration is currently an unknown, there are many ideas, I am not knowledgeable enough to give any serious answer though, any answer will give numerical testable predictions though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 In science you must put your ego aside, the proof is not in the math it is in the observations and experiments. . . I think we're getting closer. But: without the math, what would you compare the observations and experiments to? Math is used to make predictions, and then the idea whose predictions are closest to the observations and experiments tends to be considered the best. But without predictions, we're left back in the Dark Ages again. Observation and experimentation are just part of the full story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 I think we're getting closer. But: without the math, what would you compare the observations and experiments to? Math is used to make predictions, and then the idea whose predictions are closest to the observations and experiments tends to be considered the best. But without predictions, we're left back in the Dark Ages again. Observation and experimentation are just part of the full story. The theory makes predictions. . . If you like I can list the predictions of The Logical Universe Theory. . . It is true that math is a useful tool but it is only one of the criteria used in consideration of whether or not a theory is worthy. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The theory makes predictions. . . If you like I can list the predictions of The Logical Universe Theory. . . It is true that math is a useful tool but it is only one of the criteria used in consideration of whether or not a theory is worthy. . . To be accurate predictions must be numerical. Else it will fail to be as precise as current models and fail. The equations you've given previously fail dimensional analysis so they will always give nonsense answers. How many miles is that road? Twelve lolly pops per month. The answer does not relate to the question. This has been explained above in depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 To be accurate predictions must be numerical. Else it will fail to be as precise as current models and fail. The equations you've given previously fail dimensional analysis so they will always give nonsense answers. How many miles is that road? Twelve lolly pops per month. The answer does not relate to the question. This has been explained above in depth. I disagree with this premise. . . It is kin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I disagree with this premise. . . It is kin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. . . How do you ever hope the compete with accurate predictions with hand waving. If you drop something, it will fall. Is a prediction, but is not as accurate as, if you drop something it will fall at 9.81m/s/s. Which itself is left dwindling by a full analysis using modern tools. And your equations are still dimensionally flawed thus wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 How do you ever hope the compete with accurate predictions with hand waving. If you drop something, it will fall. Is a prediction, but is not as accurate as, if you drop something it will fall at 9.81m/s/s. Which itself is left dwindling by a full analysis using modern tools. And your equations are still dimensionally flawed thus wrong. I have discontinued the E=MR equation because it was only about 99% accurate. . . instead I am using a new more correct, non mathematical definition of Energy. . . Energy is now defined in "The Logical Universe Theory" as, "The movement of Matter." This means wave energy, rotational, horizontal or vertical diagonal, planes etc. . . Potential Energy. . .is not included. . . I see what you are saying and your rules make sense but they are wrong. . . If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around does it make sound? Of course it does. . . Logic tells you that. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The theory makes predictions. . . If you like I can list the predictions of The Logical Universe Theory. . . It is true that math is a useful tool but it is only one of the criteria used in consideration of whether or not a theory is worthy. . . there are other criteria when judging an idea. But prediction accuracy is pretty darn big one. Just like a needle could conceivably kill an elephant, but I'd much rather have a 50 caliber rifle. The math is a tool designed to objectively measure how accurate the predictions are. Why such a reluctance to use a tool so very well designed to measure objectively just how good or poor an idea is? I have discontinued the E=MR equation because it was only about 99% accurate. . . . you clearly used some math to get that '99% accurate' measure? Or is that also just made up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 there are other criteria when judging an idea. But prediction accuracy is pretty darn big one. Just like a needle could conceivably kill an elephant, but I'd much rather have a 50 caliber rifle. The math is a tool designed to objectively measure how accurate the predictions are. Why such a reluctance to use a tool so very well designed to measure objectively just how good or poor an idea is? you clearly used some math to get that '99% accurate' measure? Or is that also just made up? Notice I said about 99%. . . The majority of the energy is rotational is all I was trying to say. . . Not a precise explanation but a relative one. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Notice I said about 99%. . . But, how can you write something like that without actually having even some back-of-the-envelope calculations? Frankly, something that can be verified 99% accurate probably will still have a lot of interest. But, nothing showing 99% accuracy has been posted. All we've gotten is hand-waving and grandiose claims of its accuracy. Point is: to claim a specific % accuracy, even with the modifier 'about' implies your doing some math. You can't have your cake and eat it too -- you can't tell us how little math means and then use a mathematical number. The fact that you write something like '99% accurate' implies that you understand the value in objectively measuring an accuracy. So, once again, why the reluctance to actually provide specifics to do this calculation? I do not believe your 'about 99%' phrase simply because nothing has been demonstrated to even hint that that value is anything but made up. And, you actually haven't answered some of my questions asking how you can be so sure that what you have discovered is correct without an objective measure. I really would like an answer to that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) But, how can you write something like that without actually having even some back-of-the-envelope calculations? Frankly, something that can be verified 99% accurate probably will still have a lot of interest. But, nothing showing 99% accuracy has been posted. All we've gotten is hand-waving and grandiose claims of its accuracy. Point is: to claim a specific % accuracy, even with the modifier 'about' implies your doing some math. You can't have your cake and eat it too -- you can't tell us how little math means and then use a mathematical number. The fact that you write something like '99% accurate' implies that you understand the value in objectively measuring an accuracy. So, once again, why the reluctance to actually provide specifics to do this calculation? I do not believe your 'about 99%' phrase simply because nothing has been demonstrated to even hint that that value is anything but made up. And, you actually haven't answered some of my questions asking how you can be so sure that what you have discovered is correct without an objective measure. I really would like an answer to that question. I did the calculations in my head. . . I used the definition of energy and the relative guidelines of the Logical Universe Theory. . . Because there is no empty space all U1 particles are lightly touching each other. . . The majority of the energy would have to be rotational because wave and oscillation energy would require lateral movement. . . This Theory has a high confidence level because it is logical, it is compatible with all known observations and experiments of matter and energy. . . All the components of the theory are independent, but are relative to each other and support a logical conclusion to any scientific task. . . (Such as Hydrogen Fusion) or (The Expansion of the Universe) or (the Gravity of a Black Hole) or (Quantum Jumps of Energy) I can go on but you get the idea. . . This theory does not contradict any known observations or experiments that I have knowledge of. . . The strength of this theory comes from its uniformity. . . All the pieces fit and work together there is no desention as far as I can tell. . . When you say this theory violates this rule and that rule or this math of that math I disagree because I am certain the standard model is flawed. . . I consider Worm Holes, Multiple Universes, Time Travel, Singularity's, The Universe at the Big Bang smaller then a pinhead, as nonsense. . . These ideas all follow the rules and math of the standard model. . . The Mathematics for the Logical Universe would be mind boggling because this theory is so complex when it comes to the rotational activity of the U1 particles. . . They interact gravationally then form resonances and groups according to the amount of energy stimulation, etc. I am confident the math will come in the future but it is beyond my expertise. . . Edited January 6, 2012 by knowerastronomy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I did the calculations in my head. . . great. post them. The Mathematics for the Logical Universe would be mind boggling because this theory is so complex when it comes to the rotational activity of the U1 particles. . . They interact gravationally then form resonances and groups according to the amount of energy stimulation, etc. I am confident the math will come in the future but it is beyond my expertise. . . Whaaa? I thought you just said you did them in your head. Were you making stuff up at the beginning of your post, or the end? Because something changed in the 8 or so lines it took to get from the first quote above to the second quote. Seriously.... this is total bullplop. This is a new level of bullplop over the rest of this thread. Because now you are actually just lying to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 great. post them. Whaaa? I thought you just said you did them in your head. Were you making stuff up at the beginning of your post, or the end? Because something changed in the 8 or so lines it took to get from the first quote above to the second quote. Seriously.... this is total bullplop. This is a new level of bullplop over the rest of this thread. Because now you are actually just lying to us. You may think you are clever with words and your judgments are the true expressions of all but you are just a predictable close minded professor of scatology. . . I am not fooled by your rhetoric. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) You may think you are clever with words and your judgments are the true expressions of all but you are just a predictable close minded professor of scatology. . . I am not fooled by your rhetoric. . . Nice rebutal. You really logically picked his points apart, rigorously and succinctly. Now lets see that calculation. Or were you lying? Edited January 5, 2012 by mississippichem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 You may think you are clever with words and your judgments are the true expressions of all but you are just a predictable close minded professor of scatology. . . I am not fooled by your rhetoric. . . stay classy, knowerastronomy, stay classy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I did the calculations in my head. . . I used the definition of energy and the relative guidelines of the Logical Universe Theory. . . Because there is no empty space all U1 particles are lightly touching each other. . . The majority of the energy would have to be rotational because wave and oscillation energy would require lateral movement. . . This Theory has a high confidence level because it is logical, it is compatible with all known observations and experiments of matter and energy. . . All the components of the theory are independent, but are relative to each other and support a logical conclusion to any scientific task. . . (Such as Hydrogen Fusion) or (The Expansion of the Universe) or (the Gravity of a Black Hole) or (Quantum Jumps of Energy) I can go on but you get the idea. . . This theory does not contradict any known observations or experiments that I have knowledge of. . . The strength of this theory comes from its uniformity. . . All the pieces fit and work together there is no desention as far as I can tell. . . When you say this theory violates this rule and that rule or this math of that math I disagree because I am certain the standard model is flawed. . . I consider Worm Holes, Multiple Universes, Time Travel, Singularity's, The Universe at the Big Bang smaller then a pinhead, as nonsense. . . These ideas all follow the rules and math of the standard model. . . The Mathematics for the Logical Universe would be mind boggling because this theory is so complex when it comes to the rotational activity of the U1 particles. . . They interact gravationally then form resonances and groups according to the amount of energy stimulation, etc. I am confident the math will come in the future but it is beyond my expertise. . . So, in summary you made up the number and are trying to justify it with buzz words. What you're telling us is that your idea is not in any way useful. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 The Mathematics for the Logical Universe would be mind boggling because this theory is so complex when it comes to the rotational activity of the U1 particles. . . They interact gravationally then form resonances and groups according to the amount of energy stimulation, etc. I am confident the math will come in the future but it is beyond my expertise. . . How do you know this to be the case? What evidence do you have for this? Do the resonant frequencies increase in frequency with greater stimulation, or decrease? In either case, why does that happen? Are there more resonant frequencies when stimulation is greater, or do the number of resonant frequencies remain the same? Does the resonant frequency the resonant frequency with the greatest energy change as the degree of stimulation changes? What kind of energy will induce the stimulation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 How do you know this to be the case? What evidence do you have for this? Do the resonant frequencies increase in frequency with greater stimulation, or decrease? In either case, why does that happen? Are there more resonant frequencies when stimulation is greater, or do the number of resonant frequencies remain the same? Does the resonant frequency the resonant frequency with the greatest energy change as the degree of stimulation changes? What kind of energy will induce the stimulation? resonance frequencies are reached when the energy of motion, and the gravity of matter are self sustaining. . . (balanced). . . When you increase energy and motion you increase frequency, All true particles have a resonance, that is what makes them particles. . . fragments of particles are not in resonance and therefore disentergrate within microseconds. . . The byproduct of proton collisions comes to mind. . . Think about the mathematics involved when you increase rotation of trillions of particles at different energy levels which are all interacting in a matrix. . . Its easy for nature to do because nature automatically knows how to react. . . It takes the path of least resistance in each instance. . . Mathematics and formulas have to many wrong paths to take to be of value . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Thank you for your answers. Now would you actually answer each of my questions instead of making further general comments that raise even more questions. I am trying to take a genuine interest in your idea nad treat it and you with respect. I would appreciate a comparable effort on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 Thank you for your answers. Now would you actually answer each of my questions instead of making further general comments that raise even more questions. I am trying to take a genuine interest in your idea nad treat it and you with respect. I would appreciate a comparable effort on your part. I'm trying to explain how The Logical Universe arrives at its predictions for the behavior of matter and energy. . . It is called a theory because most of it is established physics. . . There are major differences however. . . The evidence I use are the well known experiments and observations explained in a different way that fits The Logical Universe criteria. . . I think it makes more sense than the current way we look at things. . . It is an alternative viewpoint. . . I don't think that any physicists would disagree with the technical realities of my observations. . . If they do I would more than willing to debate them. . .The mathematics is a different situation. . . To address resonance. . . I think why this has been on the back burner is because its complex and not easy to figure into the evolution of the Universe. . . Again, Nature has no problem because it occurs as a natural progression of things. . . Without it we couldn't exist. . . the science of resonance and frequency propagation is so misunderstood. . . I could write a book just on that subject. . . I will gladly answer specific questions and try to keep them understandable but when you say where is the proof, that is not the point. . . The proof is in the explanation or viewpoint of the answer, you decide if its proof or not. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts