Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Good

About pantheory

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/04/1943

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests
    cosmology, astronomy, biology, stem cell research, general science, the ladies :)
  • College Major/Degree
    BS mathematics university of New York
  • Favorite Area of Science
    cosmology, evolution, geology, biology, logic
  • Biography
    worked in various fields of engineering. Have been an alternative theorist for more than 40 years.
  • Occupation
    retired engineer, active theorist
  1. I could be wrong, not the first time of course, but I would eat my hat if this was evidence for another universe. Before when observing such galactic motions it was attributed to one or more "great attractor(s), " dark flow(s), etc., in our universe. My single hat is not straw so it would be a "hard chew," but the evidence must be very conclusive before I would acknowledge being wrong, not just speculation like I consider this article. Something like the evidence Hubble found concerning other galaxies. I believe the universe is a far simpler place than multiple-universe models all would suggest. IMO multiple universes are currently not needed to explain anything other than as supposed evidence to support other speculations. TJ McCaustland, I would be game for it as long as the pussy was warm and well, instead of cold and dead. After all Schrodinger knew his way around the bedroom according to history, and could "properly" set up an experiment there according to his own tastes , as well as a different one in the lab.
  2. The False Vacuum, AKA the Zero Point Field, may have more energy within it than the rest of the universe combined. So it certainly wouldn't be correct to call it nothing. Also the idea that a beginning potential of some kind "had to exist," certainly is a logical conclusion. Potential energy in physics is classified as a type of energy, so I see nothing wrong with using the word "exist" for potential energy, but I understand your thinking that another word might be better than the word "exist" to describe a beginning Potential Energy of the Universe.
  3. There have been other threads on EM drive here before. This is the latest asserted confirmation of the technology, an article based upon a recent German paper. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11769030/Impossible-rocket-drive-works-and-could-get-to-Moon-in-four-hours.html
  4. Mainstream theory does not generally attribute the expansion of space to dark energy, only the accelerated expansion of space. Of course you could say that time flows, but the flow of space is not usually accepted or considered the expansion of space. So your idea seems unrelated to present day theory, or interpretations of it IMO
  5. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-astronomers-baffled-discovery-rare-quasar.html It would be interesting to me to known if these quasars have spin alignment with each other as some contiguous quasars have shown (if they could measure it).
  6. The eradication of tumor-spread to nearby organs is very big. If cancer does not metastasize (spread) it can eventually be eliminated by chemo therapy and/or radiology.
  7. I think this is good conjecture. But like all conjecture it is a matter of opinion. As others have pointed out, EM radiation exerts pressure, and just as gravity "attracts" and bends light, so does light "attract" and gravitationally influence matter. Also as others have mentioned, the extent of both is small compared to the effect needed to explain the many supposed effects of dark matter including observed orbital velocities of spiral galaxies and clusters. This would be the standard-model answer and explanation for your query. As to other possibilities there is an observed effect called the Tully-Fisher relationship where the Luminosity (intrinsic brightness) of a spiral galaxy is directly proportional to the maximum observed orbital velocity of the galaxy to the 4th power. In astronomy it can be written like this: L ∝ (Vmax.) 4 This approximate relationship for orbital velocities of spiral galaxies means that there is a relationship between the brightness, the intensity of galaxy starlight, and a spiral galaxy's orbital velocity. This relationship is a factor in the MOND gravity formulation and some other formulations trying to provide an alternative explanation to dark matter. MOND gravity, as well as other proposals, assert stronger gravity at galactic scales. The most well-known of these is MOND proposed in 1983 by Mordehai Milgrom, an Israeli Physicist. In 2004 Jacob Bekenstein, a Mexican-Israeli theoretical physicist, developed the first complete relativistic gravity formulation with MONDian behavior, called TeVeS. Still another proposal is called Scalar-tensor-vector gravity (STVG) which also proposes stronger "MOG" gravity. Other proposals not involving stronger gravity have been Metric Skew Tensor Gravity (MSTG) proposed by John Moffat, which proposes the additional gravity tensor influence of electro-magnetism. And a number of other lesser known or generally unknown proposals which propose such things as vortex mechanics at galactic scales, attempting to explain all venues that dark matter is presently thought to explain. So your conjecture could be on target concerning the effect of radiation on the rotation velocities of spiral galaxies, at least indirectly IMO if any other model of gravity turns out to be correct in the absence of dark matter.
  8. Strange, Natural Selection as a foundation tenet of Evolution, is no longer debatable. Find me a scientist that does not believe that the following statement is fact. "Species adapt to their environment. Natural selection leads to evolutionary change when individuals with certain characteristics have a greater survival or reproductive rate than other individuals in a population and pass on these inheritable genetic characteristics to their offspring." This is the foundation tenet of natural selection. The statement above is now known fact IMO, regarding what was once called the theory of natural selection (and still is by creationists). Evolution theory in general is much broader theory and will remain theory since aspects of it can and will change over time. Still semantics being argued with valuable exchanges of ideas IMO mixed in
  9. Again, we are just arguing semantics IMO. You have clarified your points. I'll try to better clarify mine: "facts" are verifiable observations which may have once been considered theory only -- like the Earth is round. You gave even better examples such as time dilation, length contraction. Theories cannot necessarily be verified, such as the warping of space, and the time dilation of Special Relativity can be otherwise explained. Via : define: scientific fact: “A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.” https://www.google.com/search?biw=1252&bih=558&q=define%3A++scientific+fact+&oq=define%3A++scientific+fact+&gs_l=serp.12..0i22i30l10.5759.12236.0.15857. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Words have more than one definition for them even in science, so I agree that these definitions themselves are debatable concerning a single preferred definition. I know that many scientists would agree with you that when theory becomes fact it still can be considered theory by scientists. As for me, I prefer a definition of "fact" like the one above, where fact and theory would be separate and in contrast with each other. I think more in agreement with your statements, I will clarify and change my previous statement below. "In science once a theory is “confirmed” it no longer is considered theory." to be changed to: "in science once a theory is "confirmed" (known to be fact, such as Darwin's theory of natural selection for instance) then that foundation aspect of the original theory (Evolution theory) will no longer be seriously debated amongst scientists." IMO
  10. Additional information. When astronomers are claiming rotation curves of galaxies they are not talking theory. Since the late 1970's, or earlier, they have been able to fairly accurately measure the rotation curves of the bulge and the disc (arms) of a spiral galaxy by redshift differentials from one side of the galaxy to the other. Beyond that they measure the movement of neutral hydrogen where the movement of individual stars are difficult to observe or measure. This is primarily where the divergence of predicted velocities differ the most from observed velocities. This is called the Halo of the galaxy, the domain of the dark matter hypothesis. The Bulge of the galaxy is presently, based upon observations, thought to more closely follow Newtonian dynamics generally without the need for dark matter. The stellar disc begins to diverge from Newtonian dynamics, but the Halo of hydrogen's velocity greatly diverges from predicted velocities based upon measurement, without the dark matter hypothesis or some other explanation. I was not talking about theories in modern times, but the shape of the Earth was once considered a matter of conjecture or theory, at least by some, as recently as 6-7 hundred years ago. Of course this assumes that the idea of theory existed before Columbus with a similar meaning to it. IMO we are talking semantics here. I also consider that the theory of Evolution is not fact, but this too is semantics. Yes, the main points of the theory of natural selection are "fact" (a mountain of evidence to support it), but the modern theory of Evolution involves much more than this, much more than what Darwin originally proposed. Some of this modern theory might change over time such as the mechanics of epi-genetics, for instance, which involves good hypotheses IMO but will likely change to some extent over time. IMO neither theory of relativity, SR or GR, is necessarily fact and either or both could be replaced someday. For instance, if there is truly a background field such a dark matter or a Higgs field, the Zero Point Field, dark energy, or another field, then any of these fields, or combinations thereof, could be the basis for a preferred reference frame concerning motion, and Special Relativity might lose favor to Lorentz theory or a better theory someday. General Relativity has been around for a hundred years and has shown success at Solar System distance scales, but its warped space proposal has never been observed at galactic or universe scales. At these scales the hypothesis of dark matter must be added to it. GR might be replaced someday if a better model explains all venues predictably better with or without the inclusion of dark matter. Not saying that MOND gravity or that any of its presently proposed known alternatives are a better model, but such a better model could exist. That's why I think both SR and GR should still be considered theory rather than proven fact. Do you disagree?
  11. I’ll give you a few suggestions. In science the words “proof,” “proven,” “know for sure” are seldom used concerning theory. The redshift of galaxies is evidence to support the proposal that the universe is expanding and that galaxies are moving away from each other. It is evidence for the related theory but we do not know for sure that this effect could not be otherwise caused and that the universe is not expanding. Other possibilities proposed have been light losing energy as it travels, the most well know of these proposals is called “tired light,” light is bent by gravity as well as redshifted by its passage through the universe, this is called gravitational redshifts, or Einstein redshifts, Light is spread out by its interactions with a background field such as dark matter or a Higgs field. This is called interaction redshifts or aether redshifts, proposals that light losses frequency when interacting with free electrons, part of its energy is absorbed. And there are many other such proposals explaining the observed galactic redshifts that presently cannot be disproved. . Although it is the present theory, the galactic redshifts could be evidence for other theories and hypothesis other than the universe is expanding. This is only the common use of the word, not the meaning in science. In science a “theory” usually involves a collection of different hypothesis that point to the same conclusion. It is usually considered to be well tested and which has had many predictions believed to be supported by evidence. In science once a theory is “confirmed” it no longer is considered theory. An example is the “Earth is a spheroid in shape.” It is now referred to as fact. Other modern examples might be that “the surface of the Earth is divided into plates and these plates continuously move.” The basis for Plate tectonics theory, and “natural selection” whereby there is a mountain of evidence to support it. It is one of the primary foundation tenets for biological evolution theory. Hypotheses are speculation, one of many hypothesis that can explain particular observations It can be the starting point for testing and observation or the continued speculation of both. "Dark Energy" has probably graduated in many practitioners minds from a hypothesis to a theory since the Nobel Prize was granted for its supposed discovery, even though what Dark Energy really involves is still hypothetical. ”Illogical argument” is often a matter of opinion. It is rarely used as a term in science, some simply assert that a certain argument is illogical (or seems illogical) for “xyz” reasons. “Physics law”: Usually involves a mathematical (physics) formula which has not, or cannot be confirmed, but is thought to be valid for all venues where it has been used or might be otherwise tested. An example would be the Hubble Formula, AKA Hubble’s Law.
  12. I was responding to the quotes in the link that the OP posted, and the question asked therein-- why is this important?
  13. Not surprising. Intra-galactic clouds are known to contain water/ice. The bigger question I think is whether life can evolve in dense warm galactic clouds which contain rocks, water/ice and other matter particulates, could it evolve in asteroids or comets, or are planetary sized bodies and atmospheres needed? The only likelihood, I think, is that a lot of time would be involved in its creation.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.