pantheory

Here are more predictions of the above model: You heard it first here! -- Stellar fission processes are instrumental in creating the abundance of light elements. -- More than half the sun's heat is created by gravity, therefore the lifetime of the sun as well as stars in general, will be much longer than present theory allows. Some stars then would be much older than is presently thought. The evidence for this is the lack of electron neutrinos (about 1/3 the quantity) that should exist if fusion were the sole source of solar radiation. -- Both individual Protons and electrons vary in mass, roughly as much as 1/000 part. This prediction is directly implied by the underlying "string theory." -- During particle pair creation, antiparticles form with more difficulty and often spin-out before becoming a stable particles. Normal particles form with greater ease and therefore are more plentiful and remain, while their anti-particle companion "spins-out" of existence to return to being a non-spinning field strings

Most humans would agree that symmetry is related to beauty, but humans probably have a different understanding of beauty than other animals. I highly respect Dirac's work but personally think that mathematical "beauty" should never have preference over simplicity, all else being equal. Particle physics as a whole is fraught with insurmountable problems, in my opinion, super-symmetry was maybe worth consideration but the foundations of the model are tenuous at best. String theory was a great precept in that strings could be the foundation of reality instead of particles. After that it's all down hill . There is no need for any more than 3 dimensions plus time, in my opinion. Simplicity and logic should not be the ultimate tests or considerations, but I believe they should be primary yard sticks, which I think presently they are not. Most instead seem to prefer modifications of standard models rather than giving the slightest thought to alternative explanations/ models contrary to the standard model, again reminiscent of Ptolemaic epicycles. I agree that Occam's Razor should not be the ultimate test, but logic and simplicity should be important considerations. Unfortunately "logic" is considered today, in my opinion, with about the same regard as it was during the times when the church "explained" what was "true." Logic has little sway in science today, to the discredit of those that make such illogical proposals, Quantum Theory being the prime example. Ultimately, I believe, everything that exists has a logical basis in every respect -- granted it could never be logical to everyone. Accordingly the only reason a theory lacks reason is because its practitioners cannot make sense of the related observations. But in my opinion, the logic is never complicated, it is only that science no longer uses logic as the quintessential tool which I think that it should. I agree that you are making a good point. In my opinion the physics/ mathematics of a model are just an analog which at best might approach reality, but never could be a mirror of it. Accordingly the math should never rule logic. If more complicated math is required, so be it. If simpler math generally serves the purpose, like the inverse square law for instance, then it should always be used unless there is some reason/ logic for increased accuracy. .

As you know, there was a 50 year period where the "the Earth is round" was just a theory, about the time of Columbus the fact was not established. Science can prove theories, the evidence simply must be strong enough to squelch all other possibilities. A few of today's theories I believe fall into this category. "Natural selection" has a mountain of evidence to support it. Even though it is known there are other mechanisms of speciation, natural selection someday, I believe, will be known to be fact. Another example is plate tectonics. This is still a theory but there also is a mountain of info to support it. The reasons for it are still speculative in nature, but the model of separate moving plates of the Earth's crust will someday be considered fact. The point is that I believe the best of theories will someday be proved. Occam's razor is an excellent guide, "the simpler answer is the better answer, all else being equal." The question always boils down to "all else being equal." This is where disagreement is certain .

A photon at rest accordingly has no mass. But a photon can never be at rest and it does "sink" (bend) under the influence of a gravitational field and has mass-like influences/ properties such as energy of contact like a solar sail. Your equation hv = E/m does not seem to make sense in that Plank's constant h (a very small number), times a velocity (v) the speed of light or less, together being hv, could never equal the speed of light squared, right? .

More complicated models will always be written in Ptolemaic epicycles, hence complicated explanations. The Ptolemaic model met the requirements of the church at the time concerning the Earth being the center of the universe. A simpler answer was that the sun was the center of a stellar system of planets, where the Earth was only one of the planets. This new model, only upon strong evidence, ended the idea that the church must always be the ultimate authority. Today I think we are faced with a similar dilemma. The 20th century ushered in many new theoretical models like Quantum Theory, Einstein's theories of relativity, The Big Bang model, etc. all of which have originated as, or evolved into complicated models involving aspects of theory similar, in my opinion, to Ptolemaic epicycles. The meaning of this is that many aspects of these theories lack in logic and as a whole have become complicated beyond what is likely to be valid. The concept involved is this: The more unprovable aspects and assertions that a model has, the more likely it is that the model is wrong. .

rigney, Of course the answer is solely a matter of conjecture. It would depend upon the definition of eternity that you choose to use. Here are the two primary definitions: eternity: 1. Infinite or unending time.2. A state to which time has no application; timelessness. For the first definition eternity is a concept, therefore it would be of mental and conceptual character based upon an unending progression in the future. The second definition could have a spiritual component such as an eternal heaven. In such a concept if one's religion considers heaven, for instance, as a physical entity then "eternal" might then be considered physical. There are other hypothesis in physics where entities accordingly might exist outside of time either by their nature, or by some other means. But for most, eternity would be considered a mental "thing."

"Electrons move from one orbit to another without traversing the distance in between." You also might consider that this is only present theory but may not be valid. Although there seems to be no evidence that electrons traverse the distance in between, Einstein and others believed that electrons like photons were particles in the classical sense in that they accordingly must "traverse the distance in between," whether this "traverse" can be detected or not. .

As I said before, I also adhere to the aether model but if it is the correct model, there should be some aspects of it that most physicists cannot quite get their arms around, cannot quite grasp. For your model of the aether, what do you think the problem is concerning why "they" seem to have such a hard time detecting it? .

Here are more predictions of the above model: You heard it first here! -- Anti-protons are not long-lived particles with half-lives of less than a million years. -- Spinning looped particles back to back can logically explain the mechanics of a Bose-Einstein condensate. -- Everything that exists can be explained logically. -- In space the relative motion of all matter decelerates in the direction of the body's greatest velocity relative to the surrounding aether field, considering the ....field.as stationary. This is not contrary to Newton's first law of motion since the aether applies an external force of resistance to the motion of the body. .

olvin dsouza, There are a number of present theories that propose that gravity and or mass are caused by "unseen" particles in the background field, such as dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons which are the most well known. Additionally Pushing Gravity has been around as a theory for more than 300 years. I also think it will be proved to be the correct model of gravity but is a big change from the present GR model so it will probably take a while for such realization . Whether your sphere gravitational model is correct as explained by your link, is another matter.

Here are more predictions of the above model: You heard it first here! -- Some galactic polar jets are truly super-luminous relative to the galaxy and the central black hole which produces them which would not be just a condition of relativity. -- The large holes in the micro-wave background discovered in 2007 & 2009 will be discovered to coincide with large voids of galaxies known to exist in the same locations. The resultant cold spots in the microwave background would accordingly be the result of the absence of matter within the associated large voids, contrary to the Big Bang explanation of the CMBR. -- Galactic Polar Jets being ejected from active galactic nuclei/cores (AGN) can be analyzed to determine the amount of material being ejected, primarily in the form of protons and electrons. The mass of galactic polar jets will be found to be far greater than that which could be explained by material orbiting the black hole within its taurus. This would imply that the gravitational force of the black hole is creating new matter which represents more than half the matter being emitted by the polar jets. -- New matter is being created by AGN in the form of hydrogen which fuses into helium in the galactic jets. Electrons and positrons are also created in this matter. Other light elements are created by fission processes related to the inner taurus, some of these fissioned elements are emitter in these polar jets.

Consider that both dark matter and dark energy are mainstream hypothesis and other non-mainstream models might believe in one or the other, both or neither. According to the present mainstream ideas both dark matter and dark matter saturate the universe and therefore must also move with the expansion of space according to the mainstream model. I personally believe neither dark matter or dark energy exists but details of such ideas belong in the speculation forum where I have an open thread. You could throw in a related question or more there, if you are interested in alternative models regards

rigney, (bold added) My own model which you can see here in the speculation forum, is called "alternative to the Big Bang model." In this model the universe is not expanding and that dark energy does not exist. Accordingly the problem is that the present Hubble Formula is partially wrong/ incomplete. I have reformulated it and written a technical paper while analyzing hundreds of supernova data and accordingly proposed there is no dark energy, which I think is by far the simplest answer. You could ask further questions including the difference of formulations, on that thread. On this thread, I can accordingly say that the expansion of the universe is not speeding up/ accelerating. Although mathematicians have worked on the problem, few venture outside the standard Big Bang model. You could also ask me further questions about dark energy on this thread if you like, and/ or why it doesn't make sense and the evidence pro and con. regards

Here are more predictions of the above model: You heard it first here! -- The farther away we look, the larger distances and space will falsely appear to be. Generally the farther away a galaxy, the faster its orbital motion of its galactic disc as well as its orbital motion within a galaxy cluster will appear to be. The basis of this prediction is a presently unknown condition of an unknown type of relativity. -- Galactic black holes are created first. We can see them as naked quasars. In time they produce that matter which forms into the stars which will surround it. Most Galaxies will generally expand from their birth until their demise. -- An average galactic cycle is about 60 billion years long. -- Old “star-vacant” galaxies: According to the Pan Theory the universe would be much older than is presently believed. Accordingly, many galaxies have burned out and their outer stellar remnants would have already left the galaxy, many no longer being held together tightly be gravity. The core of the galaxy would have expanded to the size of a small galaxy, and its outer stars wondered off into intergalactic space. -- Many small “hot spots” in the cosmic microwave background will be found to be distant fully-formed galaxies not just the beginnings of stars or galaxies which is the current theory according to the Big Bang model.

Of course it's not wrong to question the original post. My reply was simply that I could not understand your question which could have been my problem rather than yours. regards

As free massive particles there are only two major players, electrons and protons. Neutrons only last about 11 minutes in free space and neutrinos are only questionably massive and aren't known to be able to combine with anything. Positrons are known to exist in vast quantities surrounding the galactic core of the Milky Way and maybe similarly surround the centers of other galaxies maybe extending out radially from the center about 35 thousand light years. /

Your link is totally unrelated to the O.P. assertions. The opening post involves a great void 3 1/2 billion light years across. The is a vast distance across, more than a thousand times the distance from here to Andromeda. Your link is unrelated to the opening post so don't understand your point.

Here are a few more of the 80+ predictions of the above model: You heard it first here! Here's more predictions: -- Galaxies of all ages are generally distributed everywhere throughout the universe. WE will find the oldest galaxies both in our neighborhood and also at the greatest ...distances. -- The Milky Way Galaxy is expanding at a rate similar to the currently estimated Hubble expansion rate. -- The red-shifts of observed galaxies appear to be quantified in a digital rather than an analog fashion. The prediction is that these observations are due to the ....ffact that.galaxies are generally distributed in Bubble or web-like structures. -- The Great Wall is only a small arc of a much larger ring structure of galaxies.

deleted double posting

pwagen, Quote from your link above, the key words here, I think, are "useful solutions." I, however, did not see the word mathematics in your link. It does say "Genetic algorithms find application in bioinformatics, phylogenetics, computational science, engineering, economics......." where it does say computational science that would imply math of some sort. Although maybe the most common use of the word algorithm is in mathematics, non-mathematical heuristic programmed algorithms might be used to assist in determining new approaches to alter genetics of plants and animals. Non-mathematical algorithms might be used to determine paths for future research such as genetic changes for agriculture, mathematical algorithms could be used to speculate how long particular observed changes might have taken to naturally evolve. So your statements have validity in that math can be used in genetic evaluations but I think that math, including algorithms and statistics, are no more than minor players concerning the study of evolution as a whole.

Here are a few of the 80+ predictions of the above model: You heard it first here! -- The age of the observable universe is many times older than has been asserted by the Bing Bang model. -- The observed microwave background radiation is primarily caused by galactic EM radiation (starlight), absorbed, refracted, re-radiated, and redistributed by ....inter-galactic matter. -- Distant galaxies, quasars, gamma ray bursts, and supernova will all be perceived as being incrementally larger, moving faster, and being a greater distances apart ...than they really were in their own time frame. -- There is only one fundamental force that has always been the motivating dimension of reality. It is the potential energy of fermions to spin which perpetuates time. -- Gravity at great distances will appear to be stronger than it really was in its own time. -- The gravity of galaxies does not remain a constant force proportional to a constant "G." Instead its force decreases slowly over time within a galaxy as a galaxy ...ages. -- Large gravitational vortex currents surrounding galaxies and galaxy clusters, can cause the separation of E.M. radiation at different angles by frequency, which ...could.be called a type of gravitational lensing. -- At cosmological distances the speed of light (EM radiation) will appear to be increasing at greater distances and decreasing over time. -- The speed of light here on Earth is not constant which can be proved by experiment. -- Red-shift correlations of polar jets emitted from active galaxy cores: the farther away a galaxy from us, generally the greater the velocity of a galaxy's polar jets and ...the magnitude of its jet radiation would appear to be. -- Black holes are comprised of a presently unknown type of matter and have a finite diameter and are not dimensionless points. -- Some of the largest black holes "spin-off" pieces of themselves to form new black holes and subsequently the beginnings of future galaxies. -- The gravitational forces of central galactic black holes create most of the matter of the galaxy (protons, electrons, etc.) from the ZPF, that is used to create the ...stars of the galaxy.

I think China has a fairly functional social system right now, but I think this system is generally unrelated to communism. Some presently call their system a type of State Capitalism and a brand of socialism with only an admixture of pure communism involved. Their brand of it works quite well in some ways, for instance the state is presently buying resources/ making good investments internally as well as all over the world, which I expect will benefit the country greatly as time progresses. This may be a good idea for our government too in that for excellent internal and external investments, and the related profits, much fewer taxes might be needed which sounds good to me And most people in China seem to like their "new" system too.

Edtharan, When I used the word "analog" above, it was unrelated to the word analogy. Here analog means an attempt to "approximate" evolution in some way. Concerning a math analog, for instance, the inverse square law is an excellent analog for both gravity and magnetism. But to provide a closer approximation, one would need to use General Relativity or Maxwell's equations respectively. Evolution concerning genes and DNA changes, is extremely complex since there are many "players" in this process. If you know of such an attempt at using math to approximate evolution I would like to see it. In my opinion it will be a long time from now, and still then of questionable value, concerning a useful computer program for the evolution process since it is very random involving the fickle finger of fate , or statistics in the language of math.

Hi baric, This is Forrest Noble, hope all is well with you. I've seen very recent articles concerning fermilab's claim concerning possible asymmetry between protons and anti-protons, supposedly explaining why we see no anti-protons in the big picture of the universe. I hope they are right since I've been claiming/predicting asymmetry concerning anti-protons but not positrons vs. electrons , for maybe 30 years now or longer. http://scienceblogs....atter_in_th.php I also think this is the reason anti-protons are so difficult to store. Accordingly enforcing their spin by high speed acceleration or by cryogenics are the proven ways to extend there half-life which I consider to be like time dilation for any short lived particle. My expectation is that there life in the absence of matter is about the same as a free neutron, about 11 minutes in a low temp. vacuum. Even if their half life were much longer, like a thousand years for instance, or even a million years, that would explain why we see no anti-matter in the universe as a whole. We, however, see many positrons (via their annihilation) surrounding the central black hole in our galaxy.

This is informal so you can ask whatever questions you want, but I need to give my best answers presently possible if I want more questions, to keep the thread interesting. and maybe to enable the improvement by thought of my future answer(s) concerning similar questions here or elsewhere. .