Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pantheory

  1. Here are a few links that I found concerning/ discussing speciation. http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html http://answers.yahoo...28124045AAJzK57 http://www.nature.co...e081002-01.html http://www.nature.co...l/6800840a.html One of the examples concerns a type of lake fish, I have heard of before. There are also other examples that I am aware of but could not find links in the brief time that I researched it. Evolution like other theory have theoretical variations to it and as you understand much of it is speculative but the general principles of natural selection I believe are beyond question in that I would bet my house (no mortgage) against a six pack (when I am thirsty ) that this theory of natural selection is generally correct.
  2. Widdekind, I think you need to calculate backwards, the reason being that binned data of type 1a supernova indicate a change concerning apparent brightness of supernova at about z=.6 . At redshifts smaller than this, supernova appear to be dimmer than expected on an average (binned data). For redshifts greater than z=.6, supernova appear to be brighter than expected with increasing brightness as distance increases. So calculations, I believe, should adjust for a conclusion that dark energy (DE) was activated at redshifts z~.6, and continuing to the present time. As for me, I simply believe the Hubble formula for distances needs a wee tweak. I made changes myself to the Hubble formula that seem to compensate for the divergence. I think this is a much simpler explanation for variations of supernova data (about 11% max. adjustment is needed based upon my calcs) rather than the DE hypothesis implying cosmological reformulation. You also may wish to consider that according to the DE proposal there was never a Hubble Constant as in your formulation, i.e. no constant rate of expansion. Before z=.6 the rate of expansion accordingly increases as you go forward in time to the present day. Before z=.6 the rate of expansion accordingly increases as you go backward in time, the minimum expansion rate being at about z=.6 according to this hypothesis.
  3. gillian andrews, Mentioning space craft was for the purpose of indicating that in a flat, Euclidean universe (three dimensional with time) you can always go straight in any direction that you want to any place that you want provided that you have enough fuel to follow a totally straight path without some kind of circular path to your destiny which is the more fuel efficient way. The flat universe model, which present evidence supports, if continuous would seemingly preclude possibilities of other dimensions, parallel dimensions, or wormholes. What you see is what you get, a generally simple universe model. If you can observe a location you could accordingly fly in a straight line toward its approximated location upon your arrival. This assumes that you have unlimited fuel and are able to compensate for the intervening forces of gravity and the effects of an evolving universe in that neighborhood, without altering your course. .
  4. Widdekind, (bold and parenthesis added) Even though most have never heard of it, there is a cosmology that requires / and predicts type 1a supernova to have the observed brightnesses without dark energy being needed or implied. It is a cosmology that requires a somewhat different Hubble formula to calculate distances and brightnesses. Based upon these different distance and brightness calculations, a straight line concerning supernova vs. distance is drawn implying no need, use, or existence of dark energy. Upon your request I can provide you links to this cosmology/ model but a discussion, if desired, must take place in the speculation forum since it is not a mainstream cosmology.
  5. Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me I have not studied 1a normal light profiles much but have studied binned data extensively concerning the asserted dark energy hypothesis and as a result reformulated the Hubble formula attempting to otherwise explain 1a observations as standard candles without needing dark energy (by using another cosmological model).
  6. pantheory

    Ether model

    I like the general idea of what you have posted but have the following comments: This sentence does not make sense to me even though I think the above has at least some validity. The calculations of Lorenz Transforms and Special Relativity work in all inertial time frames concerning calculations, not just aligned frames. Inertial time frames that are co-moving with the aether accordingly have no "real" motion at all. What does "aligned with the aether" mean to you?
  7. I think that by saying "there is no evidence on either side, its all speculation" is an incorrect statement concerning evolution. You might say there is no proof of the theory of evolution but there is almost countless evidence now that supports this theory, and its subset natural selection.
  8. I don't think that most concepts in Physics hit the mark concerning time. Such ideas such as time is a measurable period, or time is a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions -- do not inspire understandings of time in my opinion. More broadly there are primarily two schools in philosophy concerning understandings of time which inter-relate to some definitions of it in science: One is called "absolutist" theory which regards time as a kind of container within which the universe exists and changes take place, and believe that its existence and properties are independent of the physical universe. According to the rival "relationist" theory, time is nothing over and above change in the physical universe. Relationist theory is the only logical definition, according to my own model and definition. I think the O.P. (Owl) has a good understanding of what time is by saying "....the duration of a given event between two designated instants." I think this generally hits the nail on the head. Time is an interval of change according to my definition. The two key words accordingly are "change" and "interval." The concept involved would be: what would be the meaning of time if no changes of any kind took place. Time dilation occurs at both the macro and micro world levels as explained and calculated by Lorenz Transforms as in Special Relativity. A logical explanation I think is that time dilation is the result of apposing/ moving against the gravitational field which contains the entity experiencing time dilation as compared to objects which have no motion relative to their gravitational field, and which have the least time dilation. I believe time dilation is based upon the resistance of gravity which slows particle, atomic, and molecular decay and internal changes which can be measured relative to "stationary" material within the same gravitational position of the field. I also like his use of the word "instants" in his definition. I chose the words "time frames" (as in photographs) for the same meaning as his.
  9. between3and26characterslon, (parenthesis added) This is a very good question. Again I don't think there is a mainstream consensus concerning an answer. One faction might say that the outward forces of pure energy did not allow matter to condense out from the highly concentrated energy of TBB. There is no agreement whether matter existed at all during the BB inflation era. The proposed equations seem to imply that there was not. There is still argument as to when the proposed inflation period ended. Some believe that it never ended and continues today as dark energy. Others believe in Einstein's cosmological constant concerning an explanation for the hypothetical dark energy. Concerning gravity, some theorists might say that gravity does not exist at all in the absence of matter. Most believe that gravity existed from the beginning. . There are cosmological models like the De Sitter model where an entire universe of space exists without any matter. But since this would not be our universe, theorists would probably find it difficult to use such a matter-free universe model except within maybe a multiverse model. Some believe, however, that the Zero Point Field is an infinite continuum and that it preceded a BB beginning and was the source/ cause of that beginning. This is an infinite universe, infinite space, but finite mass model. Others like Hawking have proposed multiverses/ other worlds, proposing our BB universe is only one universe of many or infinite quantities. This is another "infinity" model of reality. . Calling some hypothetical volume(s) "space" when there would be no matter or field within or surrounding it, makes no sense at all to me. This is my problem with a definition of space which includes the idea of a continuum if matter and field are finite in quantity as in the standard version of the BB model. Based upon a flat universe model and Einstein's concept of space (also mine), there is no such thing as space beyond the boundaries of matter and field, since accordingly matter and field must be used to define space. Einstein also seemed to believe that the concept of totally vacant space was inconsistent with his cosmological equations based upon GR, when he said "...space does not exist in the absence of field."
  10. Trajk Logik, Of course there are possibilities but the BB model does not allow such possibilities. Only in a Steady State Universe could these possibilities be real. Few presently believe in the possibility of a Steady State universe, even one that is expanding. . That the universe is not expanding at a constant rate is the basis for the dark energy hypothesis, which has now been included in the BB model.
  11. Although I see logic in your proposal, there may be a problem. Theory concerning Type 1a supernova involves two possibilities. One is that a white dwarf star sucks the atmosphere from a surrounding red giant star in a close orbiting binary star system causing the white dwarf star to explode. The other possibility discussed is the collision of two white dwarf stars in a close binary system. In both cases a white dwarf star is thought to be exploding. If the supernova explosion does not meet the required profile concerning spectrum, brightness, after glow profile involving rate and time of dimming, etc. then it would not be considered a type 1a profile and classified differently. Such white dwarf stars are thought to be between .5 and 1 solar masses. These explosions are very uniform. That is why they are considered to be standard candles. Although there are some recognized variations within this select group, if there is very much difference in the profile of radiation then it will be otherwise classified so that your ideas might only explain minor variations. If more differences are recognized in time, then more supernova might be otherwise classified to the benefit of the data base. It will be a good thing when the causes of differences are better understood so that those that do not meet a more stringent profile, will not be considered type 1a standard candles and data averaging (redshift bin data) will become more accurate.
  12. BJC, There is no consensus concerning the standard BB model whether space existed before the BB. I like your wording by stating that the Inflation model "implies" that it did. Many do believe that space existed first. Also many believe that the field (ZPF) existed before a BB. I think the point in question involves the definition of space, which brings up philosophical questions. Such a question would be: what would be the meaning of space and time in the absence of all other facets of reality. Einstein, I think, explained his answer to this question based upon two quotes of his which can be joined together concerning his response to the general question: Einstein said "... there exists no space empty of field."
  13. between3and26characterslon, .The general consensus of the BB model is what you have stated: matter did not exist before the BB. I think the general BB consensus is that space and energy preceded the creation of matter. I agree that the consensus of theorists believe that space can exist separate from matter. I think the question now being discussed is whether space can exist separate from the Zero Point Field. In this question I don't think there is a consensus among theorists but according to the Einstein quotes presented here and my own postings and logic presented, is that space has no meaning in the absence of everything else within its boundaries. Accordingly whether space is considered to be finite or infinite or whether space is bounded (the OP question) might be solely based upon the definition of space that is being used. The definition which I adhere to is this: Space is a distance, area, or volume bounded by two or more points within the Zero Point Field (ZPF). Einstein said that space does not exist in the absence of field. There may be no consensus concerning a generally accepted definition of "space" by theorists but the most common definition that I find considers space to be a boundless, unending continuum defined something like this one: Space is conceived in three dimensions although in modern physics time is usually added to space as part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime.
  14. Hi BJC, When I use the word field, also believing Einstein was referring to the same or similar idea/ entity. I'm referring to the Zero Point Field (ZPF) and believe Einstein in most of his writings/ references that had no other references or clarifications. In physics the Zero Point Field (ZPF) is presently known to have the following characteristics: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Vacuum_state The ZPF is known to contain energy (ZPE) and produce virtual particles as well as containing known particles such as neutrinos, photons of countless frequencies. Also there may be one or more presently unknown, undiscovered theoretical particles within it such as dark matter, gravitons, Higgs particles, quantum foam, etc. etc. as well as theoretical energy such as dark energy, plus almost countless other presently theorized but yet unknown physical particles as well as known energies. So bottom line is that when most physicists talk about the background field they are usually talking about a real rather than a theoretical entity which is called the ZPF. The ZPF is often referred to as the new aether including its totally known as well as theoretical contents. Whether it is the same type of aether theorized more than a hundred years ago is still a matter of debate, contrary to public opinion and the education of most of today's physicists. As far as matter is concerned, I refer to known matter in conventional theoretical form and theory. I think it is still unknown as far as the true underlying structures of atomic particles, for instance, whether being conventional round-like structures, string-like structures, or some other form. Hope you continue to ask questions:) I am a theorist in cosmology but this is a science forum so that anything said in this and other science forums must provide sources and also explain when mentioning/ discussing hypothesis/ theory other than mainstream. The above several paragraphs gives reference to maybe 20 or more alternative mainstream hypothesis as well as some non-mainstream hypothesis. As to my own theory/ opinions, I believe field and matter are entirely different entities which are generally unrelated. Matter accordingly creates two kinds of waves in the ZPF, one is EM radiation and another is de Broglie waves.
  15. This is my idea of the proper definition of space. I agree with those theorists who assert that both time and space were created from the beginning of the universe, and that there is no such thing as before that. In the same way the meaning of space could be defined as the volume that is occupied by the field (ZPF), which can include matter within its extension. Distance can be defined as a two dimensional extension of space which can be defined as a distance between points within a field which might include matter. This I think explains the question. Space extends as far as the field extends and not beyond. Similarly as Decarte proposed, space is an extension of matter, or you might say matter and field. Hypothetical space vacant of field or matter I believe is only imaginary or science fiction. At such a boundary space would end and the potential for extending space would begin. .
  16. csmyth3025, (my quote) (your quote) You are correct. Space accordingly does not require matter. The logic is that space requires something that has existence within its boundaries (between two or more points all of which must include at least field within its entire domain) to enable any meaning of its own existence. Space must accordingly contain field within it and may or may not also include matter within the same distance/ volume/ boundaries along with the field, for such a volume or distance to accordingly be considered space based upon my own model and I believe Einstein's according to his quotes. Accordingly hypothetical void-volumes that some might call space would be solely imaginary, non-existent, science-fiction volumes and distances. As to the question of a beginning infinite entity, again the word infinite must be precisely defined. Most assert that theoretically a beginning BB entity that might have been infinitely small would have been at the same time infinite in density, whatever that or its implications might mean. No theorist, that I am aware of, consider that such an entity could have also been infinite in its extension or infinite concerning any other meaning of the word infinite. As far as I know all BB theorists believe that the beginning entity was, or soon became, of finite dimension, extension and potential. I know of no BB papers asserting otherwise. From a dimensionally finite beginning BB entity of limited potential, only a finite universe could ever result unless the concept of totally vacant space is given some hypothetical meaning such as "potential space" for instance which might be perceived as having infinite extension possibilities concerning the many infinite-expansion versions. Even in these models the universe would always be finite concerning its extension or any thing else, at any present or future time.
  17. csmyth3025,<br><br>Very relevant info and I think good Einstein quotes. Thanks for the edification Chris.<br><br> .<br>I don't perceive these quotes as necessarily conflicting since it is commonly believed today that the field (the ZPF) can and does exist in the absence of matter, but that matter does not exist in the absence of field, and accordingly space does not exist in the absence of both, which relates to the question of this thread.<br><br> <br>I think the question of whether the universe is finite or infinite is primarily based upon the definitions of the words "space" and "infinite" concerning a flat space/ universe. If space that is devoid of matter and field is believed to have existence rather than simply being non-existent, then the universe would be infinite by definition unless bounded by a "warped" geometry of space. And conversely the universe must necessarily be finite if space does not exist outside the confines of matter and field, when starting from a finite beginning entity such as the BB model. In theoretical physics (as far as I know ) something finite like a beginning entity, could not become something infinite through evolution excepting by a change in the geometry of space, or if totally empty vectors or infinite voids are considered distances or space respectively, by definition<br><br>regards, Forrest
  18. My opinion is that strings are the right configuration concerning the foundations of matter, but extra dimensions are not needed and nothing needs to be unified, again -- in my opinion. The reason is that my own model does not adhere to the primal, a priori idea of fundamental forces. Einstein proposed, for instance, that gravity was not a force but instead was caused by the warping of space. Even though I do not adhere to the warped-space idea (one reason is that space appears to be flat) but I do believe that gravity is not a force as Einstein proposed. But in the same way I also believe that none of the other "fundamental pulling forces" are really forces either, but instead can be explained by mechanical mechanisms via string theory. Therefore accordingly reality would be simpler and no forces would need unification since there would be generally nothing fundamental to unify. This section being the science forum, I realize that the model that I just mentioned or any version of string theory in general, would be contrary to the standard model of particle physics. Although I think there may be some evidence and much logic and predictions which might support this "simple universe, theory of everything" model, the elaboration of the details probably belongs in the Speculation Forum. I will start such a thread there if anyone would be interested. Marqq are you there ? or others ? But yes you are correct, conventional String Theory is an attempt to create a General Unified theory/ model unifying the so-called fundamental forces. But on the other hand if I am right, no new math (other than a Minkowsky type string theory explaining elementary particles) would be needed concerning unification of forces because there would be no fundamental forces to unify and the universe would be a far simpler place. On a separate matter I think both QM and GR need to be modified (or replaced) to better understand reality and as a result realize why these models were not compatible. I think the key is related to the "hidden variables" idea supported by Einstein and related papers today that relate to hidden variables such as dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, quantum foam, ZPF anomalies, etc. etc. But of course more evidential support will probably be needed to have such proposals more seriously considered.
  19. csmyth3025, I agree totally, and can even say that many who even know the present interpretations still think some of it does not make logical sense, like myself for instance. I am well educated on such matters. The examples you gave I believe I understand the logic, the why's and reasoning, but some interpretations that I am aware of I think seem illogical and I believe are just wrong -- but maybe that's just me. Mathematics has its own logic like Quantum Mechanics, for instance, but that does not necessarily mean that all the verbal interpretations/ explanations of Quantum Theory (QT) are correct, does it? As theories go the verbiage of QT seems like the least logical of all well known theories today, yet few doubt (including me) that the mathematics of QM is the best thing going to predict behaviors or interactions concerning particles in the quantum world. Because a theory is not logical does not mean that it should be dismissed in some way, only that the explanations of it should be looked at using a more critical approach, in my opinion. My references: http://www.sciencefo...430#entry612430 the O.P. http://en.wikipedia....i/Hole_argument Einstein's resolution, last quote.
  20. Eek, I thought I lost a posting. But no, my mistake.
  21. csmyth3025, Chris, all of my statements above are related to the above quote by Einstein. Since there is no consensus in cosmology today concerning one definition of space, my opinion accordingly is that space ends where both matter and field end and its definition should not include the possibility of infinite space if neither matter nor field (ZPF) are believed to be infinite in quantity. The idea is that space without matter or field within it, would be meaningless or you might call it undefined -- such as a quantity divided by zero. Our last postings crossed paths during my amendment, adding and changing a few sentences. Sorry about that
  22. No John, the use of statistics for this reason is wrong. The reason is that there is no "normal distribution" involved which is the basis for normal curve or Poisson statistics. The exo-planets that we have detected so far are generally too large and/ or too close to its star to support life as we know it. Although we might be on the verge of discovering such planets thought to be within the so called Goodilocks zone (habitable zone). Also there are no statistics at all concerning other water planets so there could seemingly be no basis to assess the likelihood that water planets will produce life of any kind other than it happened once in our case. Statistics in general are based upon population information and it will probably be millennia before we could use statistics in this way (if ever). Right now a modified Drake Equation seemingly might be the best means to estimate probabilities of exo-planetary life in general.
  23. csmyth3025, I made a few addendums to my last post which you were not able to read since your posting was made before my amendments. I do not think my changes would have effected your response, only that you can now look at my comments concerning an infinity of space which was the primary change and addendum. Chris, I generally agree with your comments but think that definitions of words are very important, not only for discussions of concepts involving those words like this thread for instance, but to have more clear mental images of reality in general from at least one perspective. One related question that arises I think is this: Is reality relatively simple or is it mind boggling? If one always accepts the idea that reality is mind boggling then I think they will not be be able to ask the proper internal questions that might enable a better understanding of reality, which for most people I believe is an ongoing task. (your quote) "...If one defines space to include volumes outside the confines of that which we will ever be able to observe and beyond the effects of which we will ever be able to detect, what would be the value or meaning of such a definition that's unrelated to any knowledge we can possibly have?" I'm not suggesting that a definition of space should include or exclude theoretical volumes of space outside of what will ever be observable, I'm proposing the exclusion of what some propose as an infinite volume, from definitions of space. I'm discussing a definition of space that might answer the primary question of this thread, where does space end. Your question in quotes I think is a valid one but it seems to me like you are saying something like: what difference does it make how the universe started or any other question in cosmology that we could never know? We have evidence of things through observation and our nature as humans is to try to figure it all out so that we can better understand reality. A great number of intelligent people don't care about things that we could never know. What difference does it make exactly how old the universe is or how far it extends, as in your example. My contention and hope is that if one has the understands concerning the definitions of the words space and time as I have explained them, then I think their understandings of reality in general will improve. In this case without new discoveries in the cosmos, I think that by better definitions alone, understandings of reality can improve. Of course it is always better to make clear your meanings concerning words that one is using in conversation that could be ambiguous. Such words need to be clarified for meaningful conversation anyway -- and "where does space end" is after all the question/ subject of this thread Most realize that there is no mainstream consensus concerning an answer to this question "where does space end," so this is my take concerning what I think is a preferable answer.
  24. Margg, "Well, to start with, it's a lot less complicated. I realize that also means my idea is much less developed, but I believe that even upon development, it would end up far less complicated (and thus, in my opinion, more likely). I don't see any need for more than 3 dimensions (as is apparently required by the frightening mathematics involved with string theory), and I can't bring myself to accept that anything actually exists in 1, 2 or 4+ dimensions. The strings in string theory are said to be lines which, as far as I know, have no thickness, and occupy space only through exceptionally indescribable modes of vibration. These strings apparently have their own spacial dimensions, bending left and right forward and back, combining and dividing, all while only being singular universal building blocks. Even my VERY limited understanding of it seems overly complicated and fantastical to me. I wonder how a string, as described, can bend without joints?......." (your quote above) My own theory concerning the structure of matter is similar to yours. String-like strands of elementary particles (in my case) in 3 dimensions which form loops and spin as fermions. Nothing complicated also, except the math and even that is much less complicated than the 11 or more dimensions of conventional string theory. The width dimension of zero for conventional string theory is also meaningless I think. The math of string theory requires that the width of zero is used but actually the width could theoretically be many times smaller than a plank length which is pretty small. This would enable the use of zero in the calcs. Use any search engine on my screen name pantheory and you will see my theories. As to how far space extends, I believe would be easy for most people to understand the answer once a "better explanation" of space is explained. To explain this definition and understanding of space, is that space only extends to the extent that matter exists, within the same confines, and not beyond. If one defines space to include volumes outside the confines of matter in the universe (considering there is only one universe), what would be the value or meaning of such a definition that was unrelated to matter? seemingly None! It would be a meaningless volume and concept outside the confines of matter and field, just like a definition or description of time that would include time separate from the physical existence of matter and field. An example of such a sterile definition of time might include intervals during which nothing at all could change or happen except for hypothetical time changes within the interval. The key words that I think should define time is accordingly "an interval of change" in physical reality and the key words that define space is "an interval of extension," within a physical reality. Such a space or time interval requires at least two reference points. Both time and space also require a standard for comparison to enable a numerically value to them. Such length standards for distances which we presently use are the meter, the light year, cubic parsecs, etc. (for space), and for time the second, the year, etc. Although we use the phrases of "a point in time" or "a point in space," a single point cannot explain either word. Both time and space accordingly require matter at two or more observable or theorized points at their extremities to give meanings to all facets of concerning explanations of an interval including a numerical value, or a useful identification concerning what particular interval you are referring to. For the same reasons time or space as a continuum in all possible directions which would be too broad of a definition of "present reality" since it would include infinity vectors (in one or more directions), which are non-intervals which accordingly could confuse understandings of space or time. These vectors might only point the direction toward possible future extensions of space or the probable single vector extension of time.
  25. pantheory

    Ether model

    I think your general ideas are correct. In the long search for dark matter they may discover the aether for real, which I believe is the cause of mass and gravity, will provide an explanation for magnetism, for all EM radiation, de broglie waves, GR, Qauntum theory, double slit experiment, etc. etc.
  • 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.