The Logical Universe E=MR

[ajb]

If you had proof it wouldn't be speculation. . . The proof is in logic and relativity. . . I admit that it doesn't have the power mathematical proof. . . So put it in the trash if you want to stifle free thought and speculation. . .

 

Physical theories don't have mathematical proof as such. You would like them to be at least mathematically consistent, though we can debate exactly what we mean by this and to what extent modern theories are mathematically well-founded. The real proof is in nature. One should be able within a theory produce predictions of physical phenomena which can be tested.

 

So ok, you have some speculation. You don't have a theory in which one can truly examine what you are claiming. This makes it almost impossible to really verify or refute your claims.

[swansont]

If you had proof it wouldn't be speculation. . . The proof is in logic and relativity. . . I admit that it doesn't have the power mathematical proof. . . So put it in the trash if you want to stifle free thought and speculation. . .

 

If it's not testable, even if just in principle, it's not science. This is a science board.

[knowerastronomy]

If it's not testable, even if just in principle, it's not science. This is a science board.

 

Fine lets talk science. . . I expect that every part of this theory to be validated with experiments observations and mathematics in time. . . Experiments and Observations trump all other proof. . .

 

A foot note about mathematics. . . I learned about math in a non conventional way. . . I grew up learning to use a slide rule to do calculations. . . It was quick and easy and arrived at the right relative answer down to 3 or 4 decimal places. . . depending how good your eye were. . . It taught me an understanding of math but not so much the mechanics of it. . . That's why now I have trouble explaining things in a mathematical format. . . Because of this training I have no problem with logic and relativity. . . That's why I keep harping on this, because it is one of my strong points. . .

 

I don't mean to discredit math but when someone tells me, a house doesn't exist. . . because you didn't use a tape measure to build, what ever it is you have, I shake my head. . .

[dimreepr]

Carefull guys this is a very large wall, someone's going to get hurt

[swansont]

Fine lets talk science. . . I expect that every part of this theory to be validated with experiments observations and mathematics in time. . . Experiments and Observations trump all other proof. . .

 

Then describe experiments that would show that the hypothesis is valid.

[dimreepr]

Ok I was being flippant sorry you are clearly intelligent but I’ve been you as a layman I had one these Idea’s. This was partly qm’s fault, Imo, because to the layman it seems that so much is still unknown. In reality it pretty much knows everything about the observable universe from now right back to 0.0000000001 (this numbers from memory feel free to correct anyone) of a second from the very beginning of the universe. My mistake is forgetting the Knowledge pyramid is essential for understanding and I simply haven’t spent a significant percentage of my life in complete dedication in first building the pyramid and then adding height my hat is most definitely off to you Scientist’s.

 

 

[Bignose]

Fine lets talk science. . . I expect that every part of this theory to be validated with experiments observations and mathematics in time. . . Experiments and Observations trump all other proof. . .

 

A foot note about mathematics. . . I learned about math in a non conventional way. . . I grew up learning to use a slide rule to do calculations. . . It was quick and easy and arrived at the right relative answer down to 3 or 4 decimal places. . . depending how good your eye were. . . It taught me an understanding of math but not so much the mechanics of it. . . That's why now I have trouble explaining things in a mathematical format. . . Because of this training I have no problem with logic and relativity. . . That's why I keep harping on this, because it is one of my strong points. . .

 

I don't mean to discredit math but when someone tells me, a house doesn't exist. . . because you didn't use a tape measure to build, what ever it is you have, I shake my head. . .

 

What I gathered from this then, is that while you can compute some of the basic functions of math (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and probably exponentiation and logarithms), that anything beyond that you don't know. Well, then it is little wonder you have such a reticence toward math. Newton helped invent calculus because simple addition, subtraction, etc. wasn't sufficient to make accurate predictions to agree with the phenomena he was observing. And really, calculus is just the beginning. Modern physics uses quite a lot of modern mathematics -- calculus, differential equations, tensors on manifolds, set theory, Lie groups, etc. etc. Literally, many years of mathematics training required to have the tools needed to attempt to understand something like quantum mechanics.

 

This is where the popularization of science can do a great disservice. Most people don't have the tools, the years of mathematics, to even start to approach a subject like quantum mechanics. So, the writers of the popularizations try to explain it using analogy and 'everyday examples. The real disservice here is that most of the time, the authors leave the reader with the real impression that if they understand the analogies, they then understand the science. But, the only way to truly understand the science, is to use the correct tools, and understand the math with it.

 

The math that makes up quantum mechanics wasn't chosen at random. It was developed because the phenomena that was being observed couldn't be predicted without developing the complicated math. It is just like Newton developing calculus. If you polled researchers in quantum mechanics, I suspect that the vast majority of them would indeed wish that the math wasn't so complicated. Nonetheless, the complicated math when done correctly is able to make exceptionally good predictions. The predictions from that math agrees with experimental results exceptionally well.

 

It is certainly possible that the current mathematical description is missing something that would make it all much simpler. In fact, I think it could be argued that it could very well be likely, considering how often after unifications between seemingly disparate phenomena both sides of the complicated phenomena look simpler. It is almost certain that what we know today is wrong; it is at the very least certain that what we know today is incomplete. Nonetheless, the future knowledge will incorporate what is known today.

 

As an example, Newtonian mechanics can accurately calculate how far Tiger Woods can hit a golf ball. But, it is known today that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete, and hence the theories of special and general relativity were developed. These are accepted because while they make far more accurate predictions than Newtonian mechanics near the speed of light, for very massive objects, etc., they also agree with the predictions of Newtonian mechanics when there isn't very large accelerations, velocities far from the speed of light, etc. That is, you can use general relativity for that calculation of how far Tiger Woods hits a golf ball, but the model in this case reduces back to the Newtonian model. Special and general relativity did not just reject the known accurate results of Newtonian mechanics -- they properly reduce down to Newtonian mechanics in the right conditions and hence retain the same accuracy.

 

This will have to be true for whatever more complete model will augment or replace quantum mechanics. We have a wide variety of extremely accurate known results. Right now, quantum mechanics is the best tool that makes predictions that agree with those results. Again, whether the future model is simpler or more complicated, that future model will also be able to make the same predictions we can today, either more accurately or possibly predictions of phenomena we can't predict today, or both.

 

But, right now we have this mathematically complex model, that to truly understand you need the tools for.

 

To extend your analogy; sure, you may not need a tape measure to build a house. But how about a hammer? Nails? Screwdriver? Screws? Concrete? Lumber? A saw? Stone? Steel? etc. You can build a house missing a few of these, but missing them all? Starts to get more and more unlikely.

 

If your mathematical toolbox just contains addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, exponentiation and logarithms, then no wonder you don't believe in the house that quantum mechanics has built. It probably looks like that M.C. Escher painting with the staircases all askew. It would be like standing in front of the Empire State Building with only the knowledge of how to build mud huts. If a builder of homes only knew how to build mud huts, and you tried to explain to them the Empire State Building, they probably wouldn't believe it either.

 

So, while that initial disbelief is understandable, the next question is what is the burden of proof. For quantum mechanics, we have many verifiable predictions that agree with the measurements. If you can't delve into the math yourself, you need to take the professional scientist's word at the predictions. While not perfect -- there is unfortunately fraud in science -- it is relatively rare, and normally found out because of the constant peer-review and building of work upon previous results. That is, if a result is falsified, when the next researcher comes along and tried to replicate it so that they can then try to extend it, the initial fraud is usually found out. So, what we have is this set of quantum mechanical predictions and their pretty darn good agreement with measurements. In short, the model we have today has a a set of conditions it works on very well. And, of course, why we know that the model is at least incomplete is because there are conditions it doesn't work well on.

 

Again, we do need new ideas in science. But, they only are accepted if they can make predictions that agree with what is already known.

 

Regarding your model here. Again, it is really good to have new ideas. And, if you don't have the mathematical tools to develop it, that's ok, but until it gets developed mathematically, your predictions will only be of a general 'wordy' nature instead of being able to compare two numbers. Maybe more to the point, the way you've described your idea in words implies some mathematical descriptions of the phenomena. For example, the word "contact" has implications. There have been a fair amount of study between what it really means when two objects are in contact, and yes, mathematical models of that. So, when you use the word contact, some of us that do have the mathematical tools can actually build a mathematical model and get a feel for the kinds of predictions that your idea would make. So far, it doesn't look like it agrees well with known measurements.

 

So, that is why there is reluctance about your model on this forum. We just don't see how the implications and natural results of your model as you've described it would result in predictions that agree with known reality. It is certainly possible that the way people are translating your words into math is wrong, after all as I said in my previous post, words are fungible and each person's interpretation of words is colored by their own individual experiences. That's why we normally ask for mathematical models. The mathematical models are objective. F = ma doesn't care whether I grew up opulent or destitute. p = mv doesn't care if I am a man or a woman. That is why we normally ask the inventors of these ideas to present their own mathematical models, so that we can all look upon the same formulas the same way. But, as you've admitted that you don't have the mathematical tools in your toolbox, we have to interpret what you've posted ourselves. And what we've seen to date doesn't agree very well with what it confirmed known.

 

Ok, lastly, I guess this leaves you at a bit of a crossroads. I see a few choices: 1) You could try to learn the mathematics yourself so that you could learn to develop your own model yourself, and gain a much greater understanding of the current state-of-the-art at the same time. 2) You could try to describe your model in words better so that more people could try to interpret it similarly to how you do, or perhaps find someone with the mathematical knowledge and work closely with them to have them translate the model for you. Or, 3) you could continue to just try to besmirch stuff you admit you don't know, and replace it with your subjective wishy-washy hand-waving non-predictions and frankly be utterly ignored by pretty much all of the scientific community. If you are serious in the pursuit of your model, then I suggest one of the first two.

[Bignose]

the forum double-posted on me, mods please feel free to delete this

Edited January 14, 2012 by Bignose

[dimreepr]

the forum double-posted on me, mods please feel free to delete this

 

 

sorry my fault I was editing

 

the forum double-posted on me, mods please feel free to delete this

 

 

sorry my fault I was editing (edit) lmao

Edited January 14, 2012 by dimreepr

[Klaynos]

So ok, you have some speculation. You don't have a theory in which one can truly examine what you are claiming. This makes it almost impossible to really verify or refute your claims.

 

He has made claims throughout this thread. They have been refuted by the experimental evidence. The ideas fail. He is wrong.

[knowerastronomy]

What I gathered from this then, is that while you can compute some of the basic functions of math (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and probably exponentiation and logarithms), that anything beyond that you don't know. Well, then it is little wonder you have such a reticence toward math. Newton helped invent calculus because simple addition, subtraction, etc. wasn't sufficient to make accurate predictions to agree with the phenomena he was observing. And really, calculus is just the beginning. Modern physics uses quite a lot of modern mathematics -- calculus, differential equations, tensors on manifolds, set theory, Lie groups, etc. etc. Literally, many years of mathematics training required to have the tools needed to attempt to understand something like quantum mechanics.

 

This is where the popularization of science can do a great disservice. Most people don't have the tools, the years of mathematics, to even start to approach a subject like quantum mechanics. So, the writers of the popularizations try to explain it using analogy and 'everyday examples. The real disservice here is that most of the time, the authors leave the reader with the real impression that if they understand the analogies, they then understand the science. But, the only way to truly understand the science, is to use the correct tools, and understand the math with it.

 

The math that makes up quantum mechanics wasn't chosen at random. It was developed because the phenomena that was being observed couldn't be predicted without developing the complicated math. It is just like Newton developing calculus. If you polled researchers in quantum mechanics, I suspect that the vast majority of them would indeed wish that the math wasn't so complicated. Nonetheless, the complicated math when done correctly is able to make exceptionally good predictions. The predictions from that math agrees with experimental results exceptionally well.

 

It is certainly possible that the current mathematical description is missing something that would make it all much simpler. In fact, I think it could be argued that it could very well be likely, considering how often after unifications between seemingly disparate phenomena both sides of the complicated phenomena look simpler. It is almost certain that what we know today is wrong; it is at the very least certain that what we know today is incomplete. Nonetheless, the future knowledge will incorporate what is known today.

 

As an example, Newtonian mechanics can accurately calculate how far Tiger Woods can hit a golf ball. But, it is known today that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete, and hence the theories of special and general relativity were developed. These are accepted because while they make far more accurate predictions than Newtonian mechanics near the speed of light, for very massive objects, etc., they also agree with the predictions of Newtonian mechanics when there isn't very large accelerations, velocities far from the speed of light, etc. That is, you can use general relativity for that calculation of how far Tiger Woods hits a golf ball, but the model in this case reduces back to the Newtonian model. Special and general relativity did not just reject the known accurate results of Newtonian mechanics -- they properly reduce down to Newtonian mechanics in the right conditions and hence retain the same accuracy.

 

This will have to be true for whatever more complete model will augment or replace quantum mechanics. We have a wide variety of extremely accurate known results. Right now, quantum mechanics is the best tool that makes predictions that agree with those results. Again, whether the future model is simpler or more complicated, that future model will also be able to make the same predictions we can today, either more accurately or possibly predictions of phenomena we can't predict today, or both.

 

But, right now we have this mathematically complex model, that to truly understand you need the tools for.

 

To extend your analogy; sure, you may not need a tape measure to build a house. But how about a hammer? Nails? Screwdriver? Screws? Concrete? Lumber? A saw? Stone? Steel? etc. You can build a house missing a few of these, but missing them all? Starts to get more and more unlikely.

 

If your mathematical toolbox just contains addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, exponentiation and logarithms, then no wonder you don't believe in the house that quantum mechanics has built. It probably looks like that M.C. Escher painting with the staircases all askew. It would be like standing in front of the Empire State Building with only the knowledge of how to build mud huts. If a builder of homes only knew how to build mud huts, and you tried to explain to them the Empire State Building, they probably wouldn't believe it either.

 

So, while that initial disbelief is understandable, the next question is what is the burden of proof. For quantum mechanics, we have many verifiable predictions that agree with the measurements. If you can't delve into the math yourself, you need to take the professional scientist's word at the predictions. While not perfect -- there is unfortunately fraud in science -- it is relatively rare, and normally found out because of the constant peer-review and building of work upon previous results. That is, if a result is falsified, when the next researcher comes along and tried to replicate it so that they can then try to extend it, the initial fraud is usually found out. So, what we have is this set of quantum mechanical predictions and their pretty darn good agreement with measurements. In short, the model we have today has a a set of conditions it works on very well. And, of course, why we know that the model is at least incomplete is because there are conditions it doesn't work well on.

 

Again, we do need new ideas in science. But, they only are accepted if they can make predictions that agree with what is already known.

 

Regarding your model here. Again, it is really good to have new ideas. And, if you don't have the mathematical tools to develop it, that's ok, but until it gets developed mathematically, your predictions will only be of a general 'wordy' nature instead of being able to compare two numbers. Maybe more to the point, the way you've described your idea in words implies some mathematical descriptions of the phenomena. For example, the word "contact" has implications. There have been a fair amount of study between what it really means when two objects are in contact, and yes, mathematical models of that. So, when you use the word contact, some of us that do have the mathematical tools can actually build a mathematical model and get a feel for the kinds of predictions that your idea would make. So far, it doesn't look like it agrees well with known measurements.

 

So, that is why there is reluctance about your model on this forum. We just don't see how the implications and natural results of your model as you've described it would result in predictions that agree with known reality. It is certainly possible that the way people are translating your words into math is wrong, after all as I said in my previous post, words are fungible and each person's interpretation of words is colored by their own individual experiences. That's why we normally ask for mathematical models. The mathematical models are objective. F = ma doesn't care whether I grew up opulent or destitute. p = mv doesn't care if I am a man or a woman. That is why we normally ask the inventors of these ideas to present their own mathematical models, so that we can all look upon the same formulas the same way. But, as you've admitted that you don't have the mathematical tools in your toolbox, we have to interpret what you've posted ourselves. And what we've seen to date doesn't agree very well with what it confirmed known.

 

Ok, lastly, I guess this leaves you at a bit of a crossroads. I see a few choices: 1) You could try to learn the mathematics yourself so that you could learn to develop your own model yourself, and gain a much greater understanding of the current state-of-the-art at the same time. 2) You could try to describe your model in words better so that more people could try to interpret it similarly to how you do, or perhaps find someone with the mathematical knowledge and work closely with them to have them translate the model for you. Or, 3) you could continue to just try to besmirch stuff you admit you don't know, and replace it with your subjective wishy-washy hand-waving non-predictions and frankly be utterly ignored by pretty much all of the scientific community. If you are serious in the pursuit of your model, then I suggest one of the first two.

 

I'll ignore some of your adjectives and say this. . . I know I simplify things in order to make them more understandable. . . In the real world, things are not so simple. . . There is a lot of science behind some of the explanations such as touching I suppose. . . To me this is not a critical area but to some I can see it would be. . . Simplification is just to save time. . . I'll try to be more descriptive of functions and outcomes of hypotheses. . .

 

This is not just some wine drinking brainstorm. . . It has been in the works sense 2008 and has been refined many more times than I can count. . . It still had a recent revision when I dropped the R=MR from the theory. . . This was in direct response to the criticisms of this forum. . . This is the first serious hurdle that the theory has faced. . . I was hopeful of confirming the science but we seem to be stuck with mathematics but that's understandable. . . That is one of its weak points. . .

 

It was my hope that we would have a dialog about this and that, not working because?... scenario. . . I didn't expect that the whole theory would be discarded as rubbish, stupid, bull xxx, word salad, go read up on your science. . . I thought that was a little hostel and non professional but that's the way it turned out. . . Then there was someone like you who took the time to explain the reasons for all the bickering and posturing. . . I appreciate that and have a better understanding of what it takes to present your ideas. . . It will certainly influence the future. . .

 

 

[dimreepr]

I'll ignore some of your adjectives and say this. . . I know I simplify things in order to make them more understandable. . . In the real world, things are not so simple. . . There is a lot of science behind some of the explanations such as touching I suppose. . . To me this is not a critical area but to some I can see it would be. . . Simplification is just to save time. . . I'll try to be more descriptive of functions and outcomes of hypotheses. . .

 

This is not just some wine drinking brainstorm. . . It has been in the works sense 2008 and has been refined many more times than I can count. . . It still had a recent revision when I dropped the R=MR from the theory. . . This was in direct response to the criticisms of this forum. . . This is the first serious hurdle that the theory has faced. . . I was hopeful of confirming the science but we seem to be stuck with mathematics but that's understandable. . . That is one of its weak points. . .

 

It was my hope that we would have a dialog about this and that, not working because?... scenario. . . I didn't expect that the whole theory would be discarded as rubbish, stupid, bull xxx, word salad, go read up on your science. . . I thought that was a little hostel and non professional but that's the way it turned out. . . Then there was someone like you who took the time to explain the reasons for all the bickering and posturing. . . I appreciate that and have a better understanding of what it takes to present your ideas. . . It will certainly influence the future. . .

 

 

 

still?? whats the point of going any further????

[knowerastronomy]

still?? whats the point of going any further????

 

 

none. . . Unless you'r interested in a dialogue of what, where, when, why!

 

This theory is the Real Deal and is not going away. . . It has its creditably issues because of my inexperience but it has been well thought out and I believe is sound. . . I am not seeking recognition or gratification. . . I am only in search of the truth of how it all works. . . I love science, always have. . . I am obsessed by it, and think about it constantly. . . I know there are people out there like me and I would love to hear from you. . . If things are wrong I want to know. . .

 

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2012 by knowerastronomy

[Bignose]

I know I simplify things in order to make them more understandable. . . In the real world, things are not so simple. . .

It was my hope that we would have a dialog about this and that

 

The dialogue has been there. The dialogue has been to inform you that your simplifications aren't correct, and will lead to results that do not jive with known results. I don't think that is it fair to call it a dialogue, because there has been very little back and forth. You are informed from people who do know the math, who can see the implications of what the words of your models are saying, that the results go not agree with what is known. If this were a dialogue, you'd read the sources people have given you that demonstrate the known result and see why your ideas are incompatible. And then you'd modify your idea to be compatible, or start over, or demonstrate that the interpretation is wrong. If there was a dialog, you'd pay attention to the critiques people have given you, try to understand the issues, and address them instead of stubbornly declaring yourself right. Look, all of science is critiqued. It is a part of the process to ensure that all the work is backed up as solidly as possible. This is why every paper is peer-reviewed and every talk at a conference has time set aside at the end for questions from the audience. This critiquing process is not personal and it makes all of science stronger for it. As I asked many posts back, why the reluctance to take the advice of other people who are very knowledgeable and are giving you way to improve your idea? In other words, it is very hard to have a dialogue if one side simply refuses to admit that the other side has anything meaningful to say.

 

if you truly believe in your idea, then you need to understand the critiques in this thread, and learn how to address them in a manner that strengthens your idea.

[knowerastronomy]

The dialogue has been there. The dialogue has been to inform you that your simplifications aren't correct, and will lead to results that do not jive with known results. I don't think that is it fair to call it a dialogue, because there has been very little back and forth. You are informed from people who do know the math, who can see the implications of what the words of your models are saying, that the results go not agree with what is known. If this were a dialogue, you'd read the sources people have given you that demonstrate the known result and see why your ideas are incompatible. And then you'd modify your idea to be compatible, or start over, or demonstrate that the interpretation is wrong. If there was a dialog, you'd pay attention to the critiques people have given you, try to understand the issues, and address them instead of stubbornly declaring yourself right. Look, all of science is critiqued. It is a part of the process to ensure that all the work is backed up as solidly as possible. This is why every paper is peer-reviewed and every talk at a conference has time set aside at the end for questions from the audience. This critiquing process is not personal and it makes all of science stronger for it. As I asked many posts back, why the reluctance to take the advice of other people who are very knowledgeable and are giving you way to improve your idea? In other words, it is very hard to have a dialogue if one side simply refuses to admit that the other side has anything meaningful to say.

 

if you truly believe in your idea, then you need to understand the critiques in this thread, and learn how to address them in a manner that strengthens your idea.

 

I agree, what is wrong? Please don't say everything. . .

 

[A Tripolation]

I agree, what is wrong? Please don't say everything. . .

 

Dude, you need math. Bignose and others have been trying to tell you this for a very long time now but you won't listen. Words ain't gonna cut it. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. Mathematics is the language of the universe.

Edited January 15, 2012 by A Tripolation

[Bignose]

I agree, what is wrong? Please don't say everything. . .

 

Well, maybe not necessarily everything, but this thread has 240+ posts in it now, addressing some of the questions posed in this thread should be a good start.

[md65536]

I agree, what is wrong? Please don't say everything. . .

 

Everything, or anything (math, predictions, intuitive explanations etc), comes down to whether or not a new theory improves on old theories in some way.

Your "improvement" starts with the claim that existing theories fail because light can't propagate through "empty space". I don't think anyone/science agrees with you on that. You might start by showing or proving that this is true.

 

To avoid getting stuck on a wrong path (and missing some correct ones), I'd suggest always being open to the idea that what you're trying to prove might be wrong. Since I think it is, I believe you'll be able to convince yourself that light can propagate through a vacuum, a lot easier than you'll convince everyone else that it can't. But that's okay, because figuring out that certain paths are wrong is part of knowing that you're still on the right path. You'll probably have to really understand how other theories allow light propagation through a vacuum, in order to try to find a flaw with the idea.

 

 

Another strategy would be to design and carry out an experiment to prove the existence of U1s (with some prediction your theory makes that is different from existing theories).

 

If you're wrong, and your only goal is to prove yourself right, you have an infinite amount of work in front of you.

[knowerastronomy]

Everything, or anything (math, predictions, intuitive explanations etc), comes down to whether or not a new theory improves on old theories in some way.

Your "improvement" starts with the claim that existing theories fail because light can't propagate through "empty space". I don't think anyone/science agrees with you on that. You might start by showing or proving that this is true.

 

To avoid getting stuck on a wrong path (and missing some correct ones), I'd suggest always being open to the idea that what you're trying to prove might be wrong. Since I think it is, I believe you'll be able to convince yourself that light can propagate through a vacuum, a lot easier than you'll convince everyone else that it can't. But that's okay, because figuring out that certain paths are wrong is part of knowing that you're still on the right path. You'll probably have to really understand how other theories allow light propagation through a vacuum, in order to try to find a flaw with the idea.

 

 

Another strategy would be to design and carry out an experiment to prove the existence of U1s (with some prediction your theory makes that is different from existing theories).

 

If you're wrong, and your only goal is to prove yourself right, you have an infinite amount of work in front of you.

 

You hit a home run with this. . . If an experiment can be devised to prove that that light waves need a support structure for propagation, its all over. . . In the mean time science needs to explain better why light travels in a vacuum and sound don't. . .

 

Wave propagation is key to understanding the Universe. . .

Edited January 15, 2012 by knowerastronomy

[Ophiolite]

In the mean time science needs to explain better why light travels in a vacuum and sound don't. . .

Science has explained this to the satisfaction of everyone who has approached the evidence and the explanation with an open mind. It seems, so far, that only those who have an incomplete understanding of the theory and the evidence have a problem with this.

[knowerastronomy]

Science has explained this to the satisfaction of everyone who has approached the evidence and the explanation with an open mind. It seems, so far, that only those who have an incomplete understanding of the theory and the evidence have a problem with this.

 

 

Please explain this to me because I am not convinced. . .

 

 

 

[Ophiolite]

Please explain this to me because I am not convinced. . .

Several members have been patiently explaining to you from the start of the thread that you do not understand current theory and that your thesis is contradicted by evidence. You have ignored all of these statements. Until and unless you appreciate the depth and range of this material, that has been validated by repeated experiments from multiple directions, then you will continue to be competent only at deceiving yourself. In the incredibly unlikely event that even a smidgeon of your thesis is valid the only way you have of demonstrating this is to first understand current theory and evidence, then to demonstrate how your thesis offers a superior explanation, not in words, but in better predictions of experiments and observations. Some members have suggested ways this might be achieved. You have ignored this advice also.

[knowerastronomy]

Several members have been patiently explaining to you from the start of the thread that you do not understand current theory and that your thesis is contradicted by evidence. You have ignored all of these statements. Until and unless you appreciate the depth and range of this material, that has been validated by repeated experiments from multiple directions, then you will continue to be competent only at deceiving yourself. In the incredibly unlikely event that even a smidgeon of your thesis is valid the only way you have of demonstrating this is to first understand current theory and evidence, then to demonstrate how your thesis offers a superior explanation, not in words, but in better predictions of experiments and observations. Some members have suggested ways this might be achieved. You have ignored this advice also.

 

 

 

This is not an explanation of why light waves pass through so called empty space and sound can't. . . You are only harping on my shortcomings. . .

[Ophiolite]

My area of expertise does not lie in relativity, or particle physiscs, or cosmology. I do, however, have a deep appreciation and passable understanding of the scientific method. I therefore accept, provisionally, the conclusion reached on these topics by the relevant scientists. This is not because I have faith in the scientific method, but because I have used the scientific method successfully in my own field and have seen it repeatedly demonstrate its capacity to derive meaningful explanations of nature. It has been shown to work with such a remarkable consistency that it would be bizarre to reject its findings in any area without substantive evidence against those findings.

 

If I intended to challenge conventional theory, as you are doing, I would first ensure I had a thorough understanding of Maxwell's equations, Einstein's theories, etc. You seem to think this is unecessary. As it happens I have a suspicion that there is an aspect of evolution that has been overlooked. Let me be clearer - I am 90% certain this is the case. Search through every post on this and every forum I frequent and you might find two references to it, as gaurded and circumspect as this one. Why? Because until and unless I can demonstrate that I have a thorough grasp of those aspects of evolution impacted by my speculation it would be the height of arrogance and stupidity to place it before an audience, especially if I were to claim it was almost certainly correct.

 

Instead I am doing my utmost, through detailed self study and probably in the near future distance learning courses at the OU, to prove that my idea is wrong. When and if I fail to do so, after using the best of current thinking, research, observation and experiment on the matter, then and only then will I present it for consideration by others. It is this kind of approach that I, and others, are urging you to take. There is no indication that you are listening.

[dimreepr]

This is not an explanation of why light waves pass through so called empty space and sound can't. . . You are only harping on my shortcomings. . .

 

 

I'm going to regret this but wtf they are different types of wave sound, is a compresion wave, requires matter to travel. THIS is in very fundamental text books on physics. I find it very difficult to read, it takes a lot of concentration so I tend to rely on other ways to input information and so have watched every tv program I could find and listened to every audiobook I could find. Whats your excuse?

Edited January 15, 2012 by dimreepr