Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pantheory

  1. Observations of all other space's, have a limit to what can fit into them, to a point where nothing added other, can fit in. Except astronomical space. What is this space? It seems to be a vast and endless void, where countless of solar systems can not only fit in quite comfortable, but can travel within it with relative ease. How could it be so vast that it's big enough to hold an event that hadn't taken place yet in advance, (Big bang theory). Take into account "Dark" matter/ energy which is theorized outside of traveling light being bent by it, what is it's relation to space, is it the fabric of or just another substance that popped up like we have been theorized too.


    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.




    Today there is no consensus answer as to what space is or what it might consist of but lots of related theory.


    There is a model. The model produces precise quantitative predictions. Data are found that are consistent, to a high level of accuracy, with those predictions.

    If that is your definition of "speculative", I think you need a new dictionary.

    You are so determined to prop up your crank "theory," you refuse to acknowledge reality when it spits in your face.


    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.




    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:


    So inflation makes certain crude predictions, which have come true: the universe is roughly homogeneous, and the curvature of space is very small. But the perturbations on top of this basic smoothness provide more specific, quantitative information, and offer more tangible hope of learning more about the inflationary era (including whether inflation happened at all).


    But of course most every static and infinite universe model has made these same predictions shown in the first line of this quote.


    Gravitational waves from inflation are interesting for a couple of reasons. First, we know they should be there; gravitation certainly exists, and it’s a massless field. Second, there is a way to disentangle the gravitational waves from the density fluctuations, using the polarization of the CMB.


    These quotes have unstated assumptions some of which I have added and italicized following the quote.


    ..."we know they (gravity waves) should be there" based upon one or more of the Inflation hypothesis.


    ...."there is a way to disentangle the gravitational waves from the density fluctuations, using the polarization of the CMB" based upon implications of one or more of the Inflation hypothesis.


    ... "we can distinguish density-induced polarization (“scalar modes”) from gravitational-wave-induced polarization (“tensor modes”) by the shape of the polarization pattern on the sky" according to implications of gravitational wave theory.


    "Very roughly: density (scalar, Inflation) perturbations produce only E-mode polarization, whereas gravitational wave (tensor) perturbations produce B-mode polarization as well as E-modes .......That’s why looking for the B-modes is such a big deal" according to implications of Inflation theory.


    It’s also hard, for a number of reasons. When we said “very roughly,” we meant it — there are various effects other than gravity waves that can create B-modes, typically by taking some E-modes and messing with them. One such effect is gravitational lensing — the deflection of light by matter in between us and the CMB. Indeed, B-modes from lensing have already been detected twice, by the South Pole Telescope and by the PolarBEAR experiment.


    These are means by which B polarization of the micro-wave background might be achieved, but not necessarily the only means. The strong assumption of theory for all quotes above and below is of course that the microwave background is the remnant of a Big Bang beginning. If this assumption is wrong then all of the interpretations and conclusions of this study could be wrong too.


    "....the BICEP2 experiment has found a signature of honest-to-goodness B-modes from primordial gravitational waves." There are a number of assumptions being made here, one is that the microwave background is of BB origin, the second that the B-mode polarizations observed were produced by gravity waves, and the third is that the possible gravitational waves producing B polarization are primordial in origin. Even if the first two assumptions were valid gravity waves influencing this background radiation polarization seemingly could come from numerous possible sources.


    "Both density perturbations and gravitational-wave perturbations arise from quantum fluctuations generated during inflation, and the amount of perturbation depends on the energy scale E at which inflation happens, defined as the energy density to the 1/4 power. (I’m presuming here that inflation is the right story, but of course we don’t know that for sure.)" Here Dr. Carroll explains the assumption.


    "Gravitational-wave perturbations are different. They are not modulated by some unknown potential; they are produced by inflation, and we observe them directly. In straightforward models of inflation, the amplitude of the gravitational waves is directly proportional to the inflationary energy scale." Here the assumption again is Inflation theory. Inflation theory is being used to support the gravitational wave interpretation.


    More importantly than the prospects for any given model, however, this is great news for inflation itself. While it’s the starting point for much contemporary cosmological theorizing about the early universe, honest physicists are quick to admit that inflation has its conceptual problems. The prediction of gravitational waves is one of the strongest empirical handles we have on whether inflation actually happened.......


    Here concept problems with Inflation theories in general are mentioned.


    There is always the possibility that a result is announced but it doesn’t hold up, of course. These are really hard measurements, with many ways to go wrong, even for experimenters as undoubtedly careful as the BICEP folks are.


    According to my readings they spent 3 years analyzing their results and confirming prior observations. This was a very careful research and observation study indeed, but based upon the explanations and assumptions being made, as explained above and in Sean Carrol's explanations, it would not be wrong to say that much speculation was and is involved in their conclusions IMO.

  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. Today in science class we were talking about waves, you know, sound waves and radiation and other types of waves. So, the science teacher was saying that sound is basically just a mechanical latitudinal wave. So then, I asked him if sound travels in a vacuum. He said no, because there is nothing in a vacuum. No air or nothing. I asked him why, and he said that he didn't know. I understand that space doesn't have any air in it, but how can there be nothing at all? There must be something in the vacuum like air, right? Can you tell me, I was mind blown today. I always thought that in space there was a different form of air, or something that sound could go through, but nothing is crazy!!! Please Explain, I hope you can...




    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 other possibilities concerning an "atmosphere" (field) of background particles that permeates all of reality. Such theories are dark matter, a Higgs field, a graviton field, quantum foam, and modern theories concerning the existence of an aether, which was the prevailing mainstream theory before the 20th century.



  5. Why is there so much dark energy in the universe if we can't find any naturally? Where is it all? Why is regular energy so special. Why are we so special that we have regular energy?


    Although dark energy is presently an accepted part of Big Bang cosmology, there are continuing research studies that contradict its existence.







    The link below explains the search for dark energy.


  6. I'm curious if this topic has ever been discussed. My personal theory is that dark matter is just dead energy. Which explains the 5-1 ratio. Has this ever been discussed? Or am I just an idiot? I have a weird feeling about this one.




    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 evidence for CDM is the bending of light around galaxies which also does not follow the equations of General Relativity unless there is a lot more matter within some galaxies than what can be observed.


    Probably the simplest solution is that General Relativity is wrong period, at least at galactic scales. Most theorists, however, believe dark matter is a yet undetected particle of some kind that makes up the majority of matter within the universe. Some might call it a graviton, others believe it is a WIMP (a weak interactive particle of some kind that has mass in the classical sense).


    There have been a great many hypothesis concerning dark matter and what it might be. Still others have other explanations to explain observations other than needing dark matter to explain anything.


    Your ideas and use of the word "dead" combined with the word "energy" seems to be a misnomer. Energy is equivalent to relative motion, or action (spin, vibration, animation of some kind). These words of motion seem the opposite of the word dead: (dead meaning lifeless, motionless, inanimate, etc,) The word "energy" in general also is seldom used with the hypothesis of "dark matter," concerning mainstream theorists. Most believe Dark energy is also something/ a concept/hypothesis unrelated to dark matter.


    Don't be surprised if all of these "dark hypothesis" go up in smoke some day revealing that there was nothing there in the first place. Instead there might be much simpler solutions to the explanation of observations :)


    The "no black holes" claim comes from sub-editors who write headlines, rather than Hawking. His paper makes no such claim.


    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."


    . quantum effects may make the event horizon more complicated than the simple model of GR alone. That is hardly surprising and is the focus of much current research. Whether Hawking's approach or another one will turn out to be most accurate is something else.


    I agree. The true nature of black holes is still up for grabs.

  8. I was expecting your post much earlier Pan.


    Hi Michel,

    I was out of State for about a month or so and away from my/a computer :)


    My humble opinion is that all scientists who observe that kind of stars are hardly trying to fit their observations with the standard model of cosmology because it is risky. It is so easy to introduce a plus-minus error margin that fits. We will have to wait till some outrageous measurements are made, repeated several times by many institutions, before seriously questioning the model.


    I am sure this will happen.


    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 conclusions contrary to the prevailing Big Bang model since I believe there are many ways to interpret the same data to fit it within almost any cosmological model.


    Cheers my friend. :)

  9. 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 physical existence at their centers. Such black-hole proposals have been around even before General Relativity, but such modern ideas conflicting with General Relativity are rather unusual for mainstream theorists like Hawking.

  10. How did they got that "it is the oldest one"


    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.

  11. I'm very busy at the moment but I came across this paper that goes a long way as I see it and also being thus current science on this topic





    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 relatively simple theory I would expect new discoveries would need to be made. One such possibility discussed would be some kind of hidden variables in a background field. Such ideas today include dark matter, a Higgs field, gravitons, an aether of some kind, dark energy, actions of the Zero Point Field, etc.


    From what I've read most practitioners of QM are not much concerned about changes of Quantum Theory since I think the prevailing thought would be that even radical changes in theory toward simplicity or greater complexity, would generally not alter the equations of QM since they are observation and probability equations, based upon a long history of observations in the quantum world. Theory is the basis/logic/justifications to explain the equations being used, as well as the interpretation of observations and related reasoning, or lack thereof.


    Alan McDougal,

    Maybe the space or void between two object at a specific moment of relative time?



    Yes, this could be a definition of a specific or changing quantity of space at a specific location.


    Has there been any experiments or test to prove or disprove the Hubble red shift accuracy?



    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 Hubble formula/ equation based upon a different

    cosmological model. The scientific paper is still in the peer review process of editing but I expect it to be published in

    February or March 2014, in the Journal of Applied Physics Research, by the Canadian Center of Science and Education.


    This site is a Science-News site on a different subject so no further discussion of this Hubble formula topic in this thread

    would seem appropriate.


    After publication I may ask permission to post this paper in this forum in an appropriate sub-forum. For some other science

    Forums posting your own peer reviewed-papers is not acceptable. This paper would probably be difficult reading for a

    non-astronomer or even for physicists having no background knowledge of supernovae observations.





    The space or void between to objects!


    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 largest and smallest scales, and if space does not expand, warp, bend, accelerate etc., then present theory and hypothesis will eventually be proven to be wrong, and only then could time and space be considered the simple concepts that I believe them to be.

  14. Him michel123456,


    "That is not the right question."


    Yes. The right question is:

    What is distance?



    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?

  15. Strange,


    "Embodies" is an odd choice of words


    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 all concepts -- both no more than simple definitions. I hope I will live long enough to see it finally recognized that reality is the place that I believe it to be smile.png -- very contrary to most modern physics, more like 19th century physics. My thinking parallels old sayings by Rutherford, "if you can't explain your physics to a bar-maid it is probably not very good physics." Rutherford liked to be crusty from time to time so he also said: "Physics that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." smile.png

    Alan McDougall,



    "......but the analogy of sort of fabric, satisfies me until someone comes up with an exact description of the reality we call spacetime smile.png"


    I think Einstein provided a good insight into a logical understanding of space-time when he said: "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." - Albert Einstein


    Below, I believe, is possibly the simplest explanation, but at least a valuable insight into space-time, IMO smile.png


    Space-time, like both space and time, is a simple indispensable concept, especially concerning the math of it. The following may be the simplest verbal explanation of it::


    A point in cosmic space can be described in many different ways. In astronomy there are primarily two ways. One is the Cartesian geometry system using X,Y, & Z coordinates, and the other involves astronomical distances from us and triangulated angles from nearby reference stars or galaxies. Both require a coordinate system starting point.


    This is the problem. Although these systems may at first seem accurate based upon these reference points, it can be realized that we as well as the reference stars or galaxies are moving along with the point in space we are trying to locate. After all of these relative motions are estimated we also can consider that the distant background of galaxies as well as the micro-wave background are generally thought to be stationary and therefore may also be a good reference frame. So how can we fit this all together mathematically? We have to include time as a forth dimension since all our reference points are moving in some way relative to each other and relative to the background considered stationary. With this inclusion of time in the equations as relative movement continues forward in time, this movement can be calculated (estimated) for a future time and therefore the results of our calculations to determine what we may consider "an exact point in space at an exact point in time." Easy breezy.


    So at its most fundamental level one could define space-time as a simple necessary concept to explain/ calculate a point in space at any given point in time. This can be explained and understood by many barmaids, if not most, right ? smile.png In my opinion this is all there is to the concept of space-time. Of course if it really warps, bends, expands, accelerated expansion, etc. as in present theories of it, then it is certainly not a simple thing. But all these complicated concepts including the present perspectives of the meanings of GR, space, and time, I think in time, will greatly be simplified into explanations more like the ones I have given IMO.


    Astrophysics differentiate in their definition of space and that of an empty void, they imagine them as two different things. As for me I also don't know exactly what spacetime really is, but the analogy of sort of fabric, satisfies me until someone comes up with an exact description of the reality we call spacetime smile.png


    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 aether, or if one prefers modern hypothesis, a finite quantity of dark matter or a finite Higgs field.


    With the revelation that space appears to be totally flat within the capabilities of our present observational capabilities at the farthest distances, and whether space can expand, bend, warp, etc. as in GR, I also think will be seriously challenged in the next decade if not sooner.


    I don't think René Descartes was too far off when he described space as an extension of matter.

  17. Unity+,


    In some ways, it is expected that General Relativity would fail in some areas like Newtonian Mechanics had with the way it described time. This is due to the fact that it only applies at a certain level as Classical mechanics had.



    Yes, it will be interesting seeing what kind of conclusions they will come to smile.png I believe GR has already failed in that dark matter is just a temporary place holder for a much better answer.


    It will be interesting to see what the new theory will be and will provide.


    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, self-creation cosmology could also include the BB model and the steady state models. In the classical version the BB entity, according to theory, had the potential to create everything thereafter. In Hoyles Steady State theories matter is continuously being created either selectively where matter is condensed, or universally everywhere. And Dicke's ideas that gavity is involved in the processs seems like a type of selective creation.


    No one seems to realize that if matter were continuously being created then when going backward in time, eventually you could come to a beginning field, or even simpler, a single entity. Maybe not 13+ billion years ago, maybe countless past time but still not an infinite beginnning. I think there are a great many simpler answers than today's models and theories, that are waiting for our further investigation rather than our settling for some of the most complicated answers that by their complications, I think, will eventually be their undoing.

  18. 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 everything else, it seems to me, could be no more than a foolish imagination of unreality :)

  19. 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 such particulates in such a field are vastly smaller than any modern theory presently could allow.

  20. .... this is what I don't understand, the big bang. Implying that there was a beginning, and nothing existed before?



    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 of energy so it is very different from "something from nothing.." The Zero Point Field origin for the universe, although it may be presently popular, it is not the mainstream version of the BB model, nor is a multi-verse version of it a consensus hypothesis.

  21. So before the big bang, what are the most widely accepted views on it?


    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 everything. An infinite universe also cannot have had a cause by definition.


    primary possibilities are:


    1)The Big Bang was the beginning of everything in the universe.


    2) We are in a cycling finite or infinite universe involving periods of contraction and expansion.


    2) There was no BB and the universe may be in a generally unchanging condition. Redshifts would have had a different cause other than an expanding universe. Such a universe may or may not have had a beginning.


    3) Our universe is just one of many. This is usually considered an infinite universe model since each universe had a cause before itself in a never ending chain or cycle of events.

  22. The KNAW (Royal Dutch Science Academy) hosts this initiative that I wholeheartedly support:






    1. the myth of science being un-corrupatble

    2. the wrong publish or perish culture

    3 the sense of science: to much production of unnecessary research



    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.

  23. 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 independent thinkers, and such persons often consider mainstream models as being no better than any other possible model. Logic, experiments, and all relevant observations have been the guiding principles of most such thinkers.


    I was reading a little humor yesterday concerning an article written by a scientist acquaintance of mine who wrote a funny article a while ago entitled “Am I a sheep or a crackpot?” Although the discussion is old, I think it is still relevant to the OP.




    How will a telescope have an impact on high-energy particle physics?


    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 particle physicists, for example, contend that a so-called Higgs particle lasting maybe only a few trillionths of a second, does not prove the existence of a omni-present dense field of particles that gives mass to matter. The point is that mainstream theories in general may be too easily accepted as gospel by most scientists and layman. The problem, I think, is that there is rarely open discussions of alternative theory or ideas. Usually the existence of the many alternative ideas and models are not even known. Mainstream publishers rarely accept totally contrary alterative ideas, regardless of the authors or institutions. Alternative theory publications are rarely read by mainstream theorists and practitioners.


    Now because of the Nobel Prize, I think that fewer future criticisms contradicting the findings of a Higgs field, will be written, accepted for publication, or even for discussion. I think such a decision to grant the Nobel Prize for the Higgs particle was very premature, as I think was the decision to grant the Nobel Prize for the discovery of dark energy. There is little doubt, however, that these scientists are worthy of the highest respect if not the Nobel Prize smile.png

  • 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.