Jump to content

pantheory

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    827
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pantheory

  1. What space consists of is a matter of theory. My preference is that space is something very simple such as the distance between matter and the volume that matter and field occupies. Whether space has undiscovered entities within it is also a matter of theory. Such entities as dark matter, dark energy, gravitons, Higgs particles, quantum foam, the zero-point field, an aether of sorts, an entity containing particulates that behave like a super-fluid? etc. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140423095208.htm Today there is no consensus answer as to what space is or what it might
  2. Concerning the details explained in Sean Carroll's blog, it might be realized that gravity waves were not directly observed or detected. They instead are looking at the type of polarization in the micro-wave background. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/03/16/gravitational-waves-in-the-cosmic-microwave-background/ Here are a number of quotes from Carrol's explanation of this research. His blog was written when the rumor was out and just before the announcement and press release: But of course most every static and infinite universe model has made these same predict
  3. Finding gravity waves, if that's what they really are, is cool but determining or interpreting their cause or meaning is another matter. Although Einstein predicted gravity waves so did many past and present aether models. As to these "waves" being produced by an Inflation epoch, I think is highly speculative since It would seem they could have had many other causes and explanations. This is good news for supporters of General Relativity and for those supporting other models and hypothesis that have predicted such waves.
  4. Within the last year I recall reading of how sound moves in space. Although classically sound cannot move in a pure vacuum, space in not a pure vacuum, although it is very close to it. There might be roughly about one hydrogen atom or proton per cubic meter of intergalactic space, amongst a much rarer occurrence of other atoms and nuclei. The energy of a particle can be transferred to another and so on in a radial or linear pattern. Since this energy can be created in pulses, a wave pattern can develop which through instrumentation can be perceived as sound. Modern theory proposes many oth
  5. Although dark energy is presently an accepted part of Big Bang cosmology, there are continuing research studies that contradict its existence. http://www.send2press.com/newswire/A-New-Research-Study-Has-Concluded-that-Dark-Energy-Probably-Does-Not-Exist_2014-03-0307-001.shtml http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/32603 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7827674/Dark-energy-may-not-exist-in-space-scientists-claim.html The link below explains the search for dark energy. http://www.space.com/22636-dark-energy-search-begins.html
  6. Looks like fun. Making predictions of the future of science seems like fun. For me it would depend upon what questions were being asked and how well and for how long they will keep track of the score concerning who made the best predictions.
  7. Yeah, We get news articles and such, concerning the search for "dark matter" and what it might be. Discussions occur in several different forums/ categories here on an ongoing bases, maybe several times a year. Mainstream cosmology believes that dark matter is a "real thing" hence the "cold dark matter" (CDM) in the Lambda CDM version of the Big Bang model, called the Concordance model. If General Relativity is the right theory of gravity, CDM is needed to explain observed rotation curves/ rates of stars within spiral galaxies and the motion of galaxies within a cluster. Other supposed
  8. Not surprising. It's a pretty aggressive "contrary" statement. I guessed as much hence my use of the word "supposed" in my statement. In that case the misleading quotes shouldn't be there seemingly implying Hawking's authorship somewhere, i.e. "there are no black holes." I agree. The true nature of black holes is still up for grabs.
  9. Hi Michel, I was out of State for about a month or so and away from my/a computer I don't think they were deliberately distorting data. Instead I think they were looking for the oldest stars in our galaxy and upon finding this one interpreted the results of testing and study based upon the Big Bang model as would be expected IMO. I agree with your conclusion ("......we will have to wait till some outrageous measurements are made......before seriously questioning the model") but think that it may take a great deal of time and intestinal fortitude for any astronomers to assert conclu
  10. Hawking seems to enjoy making controversial, “shocking” statements. The supposed claim made by this article is that “there are no black holes.” This claim might be more accurately described as: Black holes may not follow the predictions of General Relativity, according to Stephen Hawking. In particular Hawking proposes that the strong actions (inclusion/ exclusion) associated with a distinct Event Horizon may not exist. Such ideas are not new or unique. Variations of black hole theory from General Relativity have been very common and plentiful including whether black holes have a physica
  11. Based upon the age of the material, atoms, molecules in its spectra, this star was accordingly created near the beginnings of the universe according to the Big Bang model. The calculated ages of this star's elements are based upon known element ratios and decay rates of elements. Of course if the Big Bang model is entirely wrong then this claim along with almost countless other beliefs and predictions of astronomers, astrophysicists, and theorists of today, I expect will eventually be replaced with far-better and simpler theories in the future -- concerning a far older universe.
  12. Yes, the article seems to properly state this well-known problem. The general problems with Quantum Theory are well known to all that have studied it, As to what the problems actually are, however, is just a matter of opinion. This is why there are at least four major versions of the theory, many versions of which have little in common. The system of Quantum Mechanics was first based upon observation and then theory followed. One might expect any such theory primarily based upon the math alone, could conceivably have many versions of verbal explanation. For quantum theory to become a relat
  13. Alan McDougal, Yes, this could be a definition of a specific or changing quantity of space at a specific location. Theorists now know that the Hubble distance formula does not accurately calculate cosmic distances. Up to a redshift of .5, for instance, distances are now believed to be greater than the Hubble formula calculates. This was discovered by observations of type 1a supernovae. To explain this and other observations the dark energy hypothesis was proposed. As an alternative to dark energy, I and another theorist have reformulated the Hub
  14. also AdresKiani, Yes, I think there is no more meaning to space than the distance between two objects as you mentioned, and/ or the volume that all matter collectively occupies. But with GR proposing that space warps or bends, that space expands according to the BB model, that the expansion of space accelerates according to the dark energy hypothesis -- If any of these concepts, theories, and hypothesis have validity, then one might expect that space would necessarily be more complicated than these simple concepts and definitions just given. On the other hand if space is flat at both the l
  15. I think most realize that distance is a relative measurement related to the meaning of space, but I think present measurements of it concerning cosmic distances and calculated brightnesses, are very incorrect via the Hubble formula, hence the conclusion of dark energy. If "distance" is a relative measurement based upon yardsticks of some kind, which I believe it is, then we would have to consider the merits of the yardsticks being used. What are your thoughts on this?
  16. Strange, Yes, maybe not my exact intent of meaning. I probably should have said: I think that many or most theorists believe that the Zero Point Field/Energy is contained within an infinite quantity of space -- and that infinite space would embody an infinite Zero-Point-Field. Although I think the Zero-Point-Field exists throughout space at the macro-scale as well as the micro-scale, I expect it is just that the quantum scale is the only venue to-date that we have definitely recognized it. I also expect that both space and time will eventually be recognized as the simplest of al
  17. Yes, many or most theorists believe that the Zero Point Field embodies all of an infinite space, but that idea leads to the BB not being the beginning of everything (not saying that it was ). I believe a far simpler concept and explanation would be that the Zero Point Field is also limited in its extension like space, beyond which would be "non-existence" of anything, not even space. Again I think that space is best understood as the volume which matter and field occupies and nothing more. I expect what they now think is granularity of space of some kind is instead a simple type of finite ae
  18. Yes, it will be interesting seeing what kind of conclusions they will come to I believe GR has already failed in that dark matter is just a temporary place holder for a much better answer. Yes, it will be extremely interesting. Although I think reality is quite simple, I also think a great many u-turns will be needed as well as many years, before they start barking up the right trees. This I expect will result in a great many or most theories in modern physics to be seriously re-evaluated concerning their merits compared to simpler explanations. In the broadest sence of the words
  19. I think they finally have a firm grip on reality after almost 9 decades of false thinking. I still think they are missing the final piece of the puzzle concerning what space really is however. The question becomes: what would the meaning of space be in the total absence of matter and field? The seemingly obvious answer is that space would be meaningless without something to compare it with. Bottom line, I believe, is that space must be defined as simply the distance between matter and the volume that matter occupies. Any hypothetical volume outside of all matter, and with the total absence of
  20. They are called typhoons in the southern hemisphere and hurricanes in the northern hemisphere. I agree that the similarities to spiral galaxies cannot be denied. I think the similarities are related to our misunderstandings of spiral galaxy mechanics. In storms there is a pressure difference in the surrounding atmosphere which spirals clouds in from high to low pressure volumes. The is also how I think spiral galaxies work. I think spriral galaxies appearances are based upon a background field like an aether. Today's "aether" ideas are dark matter and a Higgs field although I would expect suc
  21. From my posting #45, you realize that either the known universe had a beginning and has existed for a finite time period, or that the observable universe is infinite concerning past time. If the universe is really expanding then it is theoretically believed to be expanding from a single point or from a small finite hot dense volume. This theory could be wrong but it does not violate logic. Something from nothing is really not a real proposal of the Big Bang model. Instead theorists like Hawking have proposed that the beginning could have come from the Zero Point Field. This field is full o
  22. There are just a few logical possibilities. 1) If there was such a thing as the Big Bang and a time before the BB, then the BB was not the beginning of everything. 2) If the universe is finite in age it had a beginning time and the word "before" could have no meaning. If the universe is infinite in time, it had no beginning by definition. 3) Regardless of the model of the universe chosen it would be logically impossible for the universe to have had a cause if the universe is defined as everthing that exists. A finite universe cannot have had a cause if the word universe means eve
  23. sounds like a good conference. I'd like to be there but it will be too soon for me. I agree that the present system of technical publication needs improvement: Other problems might be funding for mainstream theories only, myth of science being uncorruptable, possible problems with primary modern mainstream theories in physics, etc.
  24. Genius Scientist -- Achieving the Impossible ? Some of the greatest discoveries and developers of new ideas for all times were sometimes almost solely the efforts of a single person. In modern times Darwin comes to mind. Many were not highly educated in the fields or subjects where they became famous. In ancient times there was Archimedes. In the Renaissance there was De Vinci. Soon thereafter there was Galileo, De Carte, Newton, etc.etc. True, most had past works of others to build on. Newton: "I stood on the shoulders of giants......" Although influenced by others, all were independe
  25. Yes, It will not directly influence particle physics. But if the James Webb finds very old appearing galaxies at the farthest observable distances, along with ground scope arrays, also having high metallicities, then I expect a new round of epicycles will be in order for the Big Bang model. This would show that mainstream theorists are often unfamiliar with alternative explanations and models that might better explain observations and reality. I think mainstream theorists, in modern times, have been too quick to believe and state that observations in general support mainstream theory. Many
×
×
  • 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.