A New Foundation of Physics

[volantis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If you thought *that* was bad science, I advise you to *not* read the "Dark Matter" link just posted. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Why is that?

 

[yevaud]

It's...somewhat speculative and less than coherent, IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[colesakick]

State specifically what your issue is with it Yevaud. It’s totally lazy to just blast it without allowing for your issues to be addressed by someone who actually comprehends what these guys are saying in their model (which you apparently do not comprehend or you could address it specifically). <br /><br />As is usual for you and many others around here, if it isn’t aligned with the current dogma it can’t be real. Our current model in insufficient and nets both counterintuitive and enigmatic results it can’t explain, yet you can’t fathom it might be a wrong way of dealing with nature.<br /><br />Don’t just say it’s all bunk, prove it, make a case for your position (if you can).<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[colesakick]

Yevaud said: "less than coherent" <br /><br />Just as I thought! There is no specific flaw in the physics of the model; you simply do not understand it. Ask for clarity, what is not coherent to you?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[volantis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It's...somewhat speculative and less than coherent, IMO. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Science is not a democratic process, it is an empirical process. The white paper referred to quantifies the amount of dark matter of the neutrino in terms of the electron angular momentum during a proton/electron binding in the Aether. That is not speculation, it is quantification. It is also coherent. Did you read the paper or are you basing your opinion on your own ideas of dark matter?

 

[colesakick]

As for speculative, testing will have to be done to confirm some aspect of the model. That takes funding, and funding takes getting people to entertain the model first. Speculation is no vice to science, it is the fuel of research, and you know this to be true. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[yevaud]

Welcome how science works. Where you, the person with a "radical, new" idea, must explain themselves, why they're right. It's not incumbent upon me to re-explain conventional scientific thought each and every time. It's not even required that I inform you where you have made mistakes. In point of fact, if someone has such an urge to become a highly vocal proponent of such, it *is* incumbent on them to learn all aspects of that science, not for everyone else to provide them with a free education; case in point: you referred to my "blasting" that site as "lazy,"and then demand that I explain myself...as if what you present is of course totally accepeted and correct, but conventional science isn't. Now who is the lazier?<br /><br />I went and began to read what's posted at that link, and found it to be almost immediately gibberish, merely couched in terms of physics. If you wish to debate it and defend it, be my guest. I was merely expressing my opinion to a newish user.<br /><br />I usually know *who* I'm discussing something with, when they refer to conventional and accepted science as "Dogma." <br /><br />Frankly, many of the people I meet who believe concepts such as the Electric Universe, or what have you, do so as well. Yet, they're the ones who took vast shortcuts, performed no work, no observations, no experimentation. Nothing, nada, zilch. If standard science is "Dogmatic," well then the other side of that debate is frequently all sheer uninformed bravado.<br /><br />You say much of current thought is "counterintuitive" and "enigmatic." So? What makes you believe that any scientific paradigm *must* be readily intuitive and all results and effects from it not be enigmatic? That is hardly the case in nature. Frequently simple, elegant even, yes, but that's not the same thing is it?<br /><br />Lastly, you yourself posted the reference to the Casimir Effect being part of "Core Plasma" or some such. And that is why I interjected. That is very, very far off t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

*Sigh*<br /><br />No, Volantis, I base it on years of schooling and hard practical experience. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

okay, i've read the first paper, and i'm actually going to give the white paper a chance and skim through it. It sounds interesting, but personally, i don't subscribe to any dark matter theories. its just too vague right now. <br /><br />with so many open ended uncertainties in the model of our universe, unfortunately its just beyond any of us, right now. but to me, dark matter isn't helping in bringing it together. <br /><br />but i'll read more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chriscdc]

Lets start with measuring the rest mass of a neutron then the rest mass of a uranium 235 nucleus. Now you give them both enough energy to allow them to fuse. You then 'catch and measure daughter nuclei 's rest mass + the rest mass of the neutrons produced. You also work out the mass of the gamma rays emmited. Now you find that actually you have less mass than before. SR explains this mass discrepency, it does not affect strongly what happens up until that point though.<br /><br />You see that 'rest' mass is important. If e=mc^2 wasn't true then the rest masses before and after would be the same.<br /><br />Mass is not 'converted' to energy and vice versa. It is the same thing at the same time, that is why gravity affects photons. <br />A fissioning nucleus does not gain mass due to the release of energy, it was always there.<br /><br />It is important to remember that energy is only a number that you get at the end of an equation, it is not 'real' in the sense that mass is real. You can not measure energy, only the change in energy. It is this change in energy that is time dependent, not energy itself (whatever it is).<br /><br />E=mc^2, is the same as, energy is mc^2.<br /><br />The decay of carbon 14 is not the same sort of fission reaction as nuclear fission which is governed by the strong nuclear force. Beta decay is caused by the weak nuclear force.

 

[nova_explored]

angular momentum, it's only property. I don't know. i'd like to see the math behind it and more how it works in keeping a balance to the steady-state (relative mass) of the universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[colesakick]

I didn’t ask you to prove or teach anything, I asked you to state what specifically you objected to. Obviously, you object on grounds that are matters of taste, you prefer not to tamper with the foundation you worked so hard to build. I can appreciate that, so just say that and leave the discussion admitting you’re not willing to really examine the model I opened the thread with. It’s cool to leave it alone if you don’t like it; it is not cool to declare it false without demonstrating where it is false. IMNTBHO <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[colesakick]

The model defines energy this way Chris:<br /><br />“A unit with the dimensions of mass times a velocity squared. Energy is a unit for quantifying the amount of work performed by onta, but energy is not an object itself”<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[yevaud]

I entered this thread with a singular purpose: if you want to be left undisturbed in your own bailiwick, then please cease appearing in the hard science forums and interjecting everything from EU to God knows what else. It's unwelcome and annoying. Sound familiar?<br /><br />Why, you even stated at the beginning of a post this morning, in ATA, that you *knew* the thread didn't belong there, yet you merrily posted away anyways.<br /><br />Much of what's debated in this forum has been examined, scrutinized, debated endlessly, and discarded as meritless. What ever makes you think we want to have it reappear in the science forums over and over again? It may all be new and fresh to you - it isn't so to the rest of us.<br /><br />Pray continue with your debate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[colesakick]

Thanks Nova, for taking the time to look at it. Very respectable <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[volantis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It's...somewhat speculative and less than coherent, IMO. <br /><br /> /> Did you read the paper...? <br /><br />No, Volantis, I base it on years of schooling and hard practical experience. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I'm amazed. I hope I become so smart that I don't need to read a paper in order to understand what the author is presenting. For now, I'll have to understand new concepts the same way I learned old concepts. <br /><br />I'm just curious, did you learn QM and Relativity theories based on previous schooling and hard practical experience, or did you study what the authors of the theories wrote?<br /><br />I seem to recall that Neils Bohr presented an atomic model that was accepted but is no longer considered correct. How far would science have progressed if the scientists of the day had your approach to judging new theories?<br /><br />At least you were honest enough to admit you only gave your unfounded opinion of the theory and was not giving a scientific critique.

 

[yevaud]

Yesa, but notice that when his model was discarded as incorrect, the entirety of science wasn't thrown out, willy-nilly, either. And btw, yes I did read parts of it. As do many topics of such nature, it *does* assume that the bulk of accepted physics would have to be eliminated or radically altered.<br /><br />Occam's Razor, you know. This is neither a simple nor elegant solution to a perplexing issue. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[ag30476]

> I'm amazed. I hope I become so smart that I don't <br /> /> need to read a paper in order to understand what the <br /> /> author is presenting. For now, I'll have to understand <br /> /> new concepts the same way I learned old concepts. <br />Then I hope you have no job and the free time to read the myriad of crap that is out there (like what was presented at the beginninig of this thread).<br /><br />I didn't need to read any of the links. Just by reading the first post it was enough to determine that this was just crap post filled with words the author himself did not understand.<br /><br />It's obvious such garbage serves no purpose other than to satisfy the emotional needs of cranks. It has no real practical value. It's authors claim to explain the already explained or give a vague explanation for the unexplained but there is no valueble development, no experiment, no technology. Gragabe in, garbage out.<br /><br />Just popping in to support Yevaud here. <br /><br />

 

[nova_explored]

No problem, i try to keep an open mind. there is a problem with the theory off the bat though, as someone very poignantly brought up concerning e=mc2.<br /><br />Energy is only a by product, a result of mass. And mass is the direct result of the forces imposed on it, or created by it, depending on the theory you entertain.<br /><br />string theory has no energy but produces discreet packets of particles through harmonics, but those particles may not necessarily have mass until they interact and join by forces. And thats where all of our problems are right now. We have no way of unifying a theory that once and for all meshes them together AND shows the exact property of the forces relation to mass. energy isn't the problem.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chriscdc]

It also does nothing to describe statistical nature of quantum mechanics. It assumes that everything is still classical.<br /><br />Actually it amounts to nothing more than messing around with a few basic equations (I assume to throw anyone following it, off). It then goes on to say that this somehow adds up to an aether model of the universe. The 'theory' does not change any fundamental rules and then go on to describe how these fit observations correctly. I love the part where he starts saying that certain dimensions have 'geometry' and others have 'substance'.

 

[colesakick]

No, Yevaud, not scrutinized, not fairly anyway. You never really take any of the fresh approaches to science into any real open minded consideration. The science frontier is moving away from some crucial main stays, not because crack pots manage to earn doctorate degrees, but because the empirical data demands it. <br /><br />Scientific change is difficult to achieve because of dogmatic belief that the last great discovery was the whole story. When the solar system revolved around the earth that model was dogmatically believed to be true and it was heresy to speak against it. When it became apparent that the earth moved around the sun (and the math supported the new model), astronomers believed that the math was simply a tool to work out the complexities involved in an EARTH CENTERED solar system. They could use the math and apply it but refused to believe that the new model was a literal representation of the solar system. It takes a generation for real change to sink in owing to dogmatic belief in past models.<br /><br />I believe the Thomson, Bourassa “Aether Physics Model” (APM from here on) has specific utility and will serve humanity on many levels in terms of new technology and medical advancements (to say nothing of human consciousness). Unless someone can demonstrate a specific failing in the model that I overlooked, I’m on board with it.<br /><br />As for the electric universe model, let’s leave that off this thread. It has been digested ad nauseum without consensus or persuasion by either side of the debate. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[nova_explored]

not to be facetious, but its hard to fail in finding a fault because it doesn't present anything concrete yet with which to demonstrate as a fallacy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chriscdc]

Well that was half an hour of my life that I won't get back.<br /><br />Just because he says that does not mean that he understands its meaning.<br /><br />It's a bit like telling people 'now other people are going to say that what I tell you is rubbish, but...'. Anyone with half a brain can say that but it doesn't mean that the rest of what they tell you is true. You give them a little credit for being aware of the rest of the world and then before you realise it they've convinced you that you can fiddle around with equations, say that the result is a dimension and then say that it describes the rest of the universe.<br /><br />If such people really had a case then they would publish each step, not just say that from here you can get the GUT without any justification.<br /><br />Also it doesn't do anything to describe QM. It's like 1906 to the present just didn't happen. Anything that tries to describe atomic sized systems without talking about uncertainty is doomed to failure.

 

[volantis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Lets start with measuring the rest mass of a neutron then the rest mass of a uranium 235 nucleus. Now you give them both enough energy to allow them to fuse. You then 'catch and measure daughter nuclei 's rest mass + the rest mass of the neutrons produced. You also work out the mass of the gamma rays emmited. Now you find that actually you have less mass than before. SR explains this mass discrepency, it does not affect strongly what happens up until that point though. <br /><br />You see that 'rest' mass is important. If e=mc^2 wasn't true then the rest masses before and after would be the same. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />There is a slight problem with your analysis. The neutron in the nucleus has no velocity with regard to the nucleus. How do you propose relativity applies here?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Mass is not 'converted' to energy and vice versa. It is the same thing at the same time, that is why gravity affects photons. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Mass and energy are not the same thing. Energy is time dependent, mass is not. Mass is merely the dimension of inertia, energy is a unit of work. Energy is *composed* of mass, yes, but mass is not composed of energy.<br /><br />Also, if mass and energy are the same thing, then why does the mass change value? Where is the energy and what is it that it can be massless?<br /><br />You are confusing photons with energy. Energy is not photons. Photons have net zero mass, yes, but E=mc^2 does not claim that mass is converted to photons (or is the same thing as photons). <br /><br />Also, you are flat wrong to say that gravity affects photons. Photons curve around massive objects because the space-time is curved, not because gravity exerts a force on photons. GR completely replaces the concept of force with geometric curvature. Since gravity is a force, it has nothing to do with GR. You are trying to say that geometric cu

 

[yevaud]

<i>No, Yevaud, not scrutinized, not fairly anyway.</i><br /><br />Ahh, now you "tell" me how I "act." The statement of which shows you don't even know me at all.<br /><br /><i>You never really take any of the fresh approaches to science into any real open minded consideration.</i><br /><br />The hell you say. In point of fact, the only people I *ever* get into these kind of back and forths (with the same consequent "claims" about me, or anyone else who you might care to name) with are people who pick up on some weird idea and then suddenly they're an expert in Physics. They can't explain themselves adequately, gloss over serious flaws and defects in their ideas, continually attempt to throw everything into other people's laps (I won't explain why I'm correct - you explain why I'm wrong). That is considered science in your book?<br /><br />For example, you have posted several posts on the Electric Universe. While I'm not going to rehash the entire issue, it has been shown that the very hypothesis is disingenuous, as it "fails" to mention severe problems with EU. In fact, it doesn't even mention them.<br /><br /><i>The science frontier is moving away from some crucial main stays, not because crack pots manage to earn doctorate degrees, but because the empirical data demands it.</i><br /><br />Yes, Colesakick. Modern science will be dominated by people with no accreditation in a field, who thinks that the Casimir Effect is a product of the "Plasma Core" of the Earth.<br /><br />That comment in your recent post isn't a "fresh approach" to a science. It was nonsensical. It shows a very real deficit of actual understanding of the subject matter you were discussing.<br /><br />And I read *that* kind of line purporting to be science, and am then supposed to take the entire topic seriously? Hardly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>