pantheory

Don't know who you are addressing your comments and question to but I will answer since I will assume you are still talking to me. Drag is not just a retarding/ slowing-down force when moving through a fluid, drag also occurs when moving through any physical medium such as a gas, a liquid, a particulate solid, or any medium that might cause friction or resistance including so-far undiscovered theoretical entities or mediums. To measure drag you use a coefficient(s) of friction concerning the medium(s) involved, the relative velocity, subtracting other known forces, and then estimating drag. If by doing so you can't account for all of the drag you observe then you might speculate as to possible additional frictions, contrary or drag forces. Like I said before, aether of the many possible types has not been disproved, but fast moving tangent-to-the-Earth aether has pretty well been thought to have been discredited in most scientists minds, regarding the numerous attempts to find a luminiferous tangential aether. //

Yep, that's true. Positrons are anti-matter and there is much evidence that they are quite stable and long lasting. Anti-protons which are also anti-matter, on the other hand, have only been stored for a limited period of time but theoretically are thought to be stable particles according to the standard model. If they are not totally stable such as a lifetime of a million years or less, for example, this might be the simplest explanation why we observe far more matter than anti-matter. //

Might have been an even better story if in the process the gorillas would have by tracking to find the traps, dismantled a poacher or two

David Levy, Yes there have been a great number of dissenters to the general BB model, and many present-day alternative theorists expect that the BB model will be replaced in the next couple of decades. This, however, is not the place in the forum to discuss what one thinks about the BB model. This is the news section of the forum and the subject of this thread is based upon the BB nucleosynthesis problem as it relates to Lithium abundances and its scarcity compared to BB nucleosynthesis predictions.

The first well-known proposal of the creation of new matter was by Paul Dirac in his large numbers hypothesis. He proposed two different possible mechanisms of such creation in the framework of an expanding universe, to maintain a constant density. He proposed a process called "Additive creation" which generally involved new matter creation everywhere at a constant rate, and the second mechanism was called "Multiplicative creation" where most matter would accordingly be created surrounding the centers of active galaxies. In the decade that followed, Hoyle and others proposed Steady State cosmologies and would adopt/ propose variations of Dirac's matter creation mechanisms as well as some of his math. http://adsabs.harvar...RSPSA.343..155G 2. "Some of the most active are called AGN, and are thought to be akin to quasars". In wikipedia it is stated: "In observational there is a clear connection between brightness quasar and the rate of star formation in the central areas of the galaxy. (due to a huge mass of black hole). Models and simulations computerized successful recent restore these relationships, while out in the course and go the enormous importance of physics quasars in the creation and evolution of galaxies. So, There is an activity for star forming in quasar. Hence, this might be an indication that the matter is moving outwards... hence, an indication for new matter... 3. "I believe it would be more of hydrogen fusion into helium than any other type of fusion such as helium fusion into lithium". Why? If the temperature and the energy is high enough, why it is not possible to fusion of any kind molecules or atoms? 4. "We know how to create anti-protons here on Earth but storage systems so far cannot protect them" So we don't know how to create a proton or atom. But, what isa chance that the nature had found the correct formula how to do it better than us??? Yes, there have been a number of such proposals but all that I know of come from non-mainstream theorists. The reason is the the standard model proposes generally no new creation of matter and seemingly would have no motivation to do so. The so-called evidence to support such proposals are observed galactic clouds moving out from the center of the Milky Way galaxy, and the vast gamma ray bubble/ tiers above the polar regions of the galaxy, which some have proposed are the origins of new matter creation, specifically the indications of anti-matter/ positron creation. The mainstream explanation is that these tiers are remnants of resent galactictic jets. Fusions of helium from hydrogen seems totally feasible to me surrounding galactic black holes but such speculation is beyond the scope of the article presented in a number of different ways. This would be a Steady-State cosmology proposal/ argument You might wish to read further about Paul Dirac's Large Numbers hypothesis where such conceived new-matter creation mechanisms are discussed in detail. Also realize that this is unrelated to present day Big Bang cosmology. //

David, I agree with imatfaal in that the related theorists would probably see more problems with similar creation mechanisms from galactic sized black holes. Some of the most active are called AGN, and are thought to be akin to quasars. Seemingly these black holes would be bright enough and with a high enough temperature to enable torus fusion providing the power for galactic jets. In this case I believe it would be more of hydrogen fusion into helium than any other type of fusion such as helium fusion into lithium. The creation of completely new matter surrounding galactic black holes was one of the Steady State model proposals. Hawking, to a small degree, proposed Hawking radiation of new matter. Evidence for the creation of anti-matter from such a process might be the huge gamma ray bubbles seen above the polar regions of the Milky Way. If such a creation mechanism processes surrounds galactic central black holes then it can extend just so far before positrons would encounter electrons and would be eventually annihilated producing gamma rays, which might explain the observed gamma ray bubbles. We know how to create anti-protons here on Earth but storage systems so far cannot protect them. If or when we might ever invent a long-lived storage system for anti-matter, and produce anti-protons at much lower costs, then a new age of space travel would seem a lot closer. //

My vote is for horse feathers. Although such an idea sounds possibly feasible concerning creating energy from the ZPF using lasers, I would expect all such proposals would require more energy than it could produce. I still like such organizations around hoping that one day one of them might hopefully prove us Nay Sayers wrong

Although Big Bang neucleosynthesis theory is considered successful in explaining the observed abundance of helium in the universe, it has had problems explaining other elements and isotopes such as deuterium and Lithium. This new study seems to indicated that new Lithium is being created by stellar black holes which would additionally confound the observed lithium shortfall with theory. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/342395/title/Black_hole_theory_deepens_lithium_crisis

Maybe something like the old-time studies contending that masturbation can cause blindness, or was it forgetfulness -- I forget which one it was I expect woman got paid for such in-depth studies at the beginning of the 1900's but men did not. Maybe I should conduct a study that internet porno site frequent use by women could result in, or be directly correlated to their possible present or future sex addiction. I have heard of such studies for men.

As I said before, I can't imagine how they could possibly provide "strong evidence" that this new, very short-lived particle could be the Higg's. I am not a cynic nor do I like others being cynical either but sometimes motivations can be validly questioned, and I think a little psychological analysis can't hurt much They spent a lot of money on the super collider in CERN. One of the primary justifications for this expenditure was that it might be possible to "find" the Higg's that would provide strong evidence in favor of the standard model. The saying goes like this: "If you want something bad enough it will appear." In this case it might be paraphrased as "If you want to find something bad enough it will "appear." //

O.K., no problem

(bold added) Most students, including myself at that time, unfortunately do not learn that magnetism actually approximates the inverse cube law concerning the falloff of strength with distance. http://blazelabs.com...ersecubelaw.pdf

There are no assertions yet other than that they have found a new particle (via its decay) that they think could be the theoretical Higg's particle. Put "Higg's particle" into a search engine and you'll see what they believe they are "looking for." To their credit, presently that's all the assertions they are willing to make. I think they don't want to fall into a potential trap with premature assertions like the "faster than light" neutrino innuendo, which some believe still has not been finally settled -- even though many others have put that idea to bed. //

I can't imagine how they could show evidence that this particle is the Higg's? or how they could even show evidence that this particle has stability with their equipment. I would think that it must be stable, long lived, to be the Higg's which somehow would provide mass to matter. If they can somehow show evidence that it is a stable particle, then we would have two theoretical aetherial particles in the background field, dark matter and the Higg's. Or maybe some theorist(s) might propose that the Higg's could also be dark matter //

Some hypothesis, like multiverses for instance, propose the existence of a reality before the theoretical Big Bang. There are a number of proposed variations of the Big Bang model where the Zero Point Field predates a Big Bang universe. Along with hypothetical dark matter, I would expect any such theoretical pre-existing field could also theoretically contain Higg's particles. //

This was my prediction 4 days ago based upon press release information last December. "4th of July is just 4 days away now and with no further info than the December press release I will make a prediction. Prediction: They will say that they have discovered a new short-lived particle decay that could be from the Higg's based upon multiple runs, and within the acceptable energy range. -- then saying there might be other possible explanations for this new particle but the evidence is within the range expected for the Higg's decay. And then they might say: that there will be further testing and analysis as well as critical analysis by outside sources before any certain claims might be made as to whether this new particle is the Higg's or not. " Now, with their new press release I think their statement was pretty much expected as given. I think rather than clear evidence of the discovery of the Higg's, it is evidence that the Higg's particle cannot be excluded as a possibility. They generally said that they discovered a new particle of some kind within the decay range predicted for the Higg's. My question is, if the theoretical Higg's particle is generally stable in nature why should the creation of it immediately decay? I can speculate concerning possible answers to this question, but do not know or have not read their preferred answer. I expect that they believe Higg's particles were created from the Big Bang and have persisted ever since, since I have never read of any other proposed creation mechanism. http://press.web.cer...2/PR17.12E.html //

4th of July is just 4 days away now and with no further info than the December press release I will make a prediction. Prediction: They will say that they have discovered a new short-lived particle decay that could be from the Higg's based upon multiple runs, and within the acceptable energy range. -- then saying there might be other possible explanations for this new particle but the evidence is within the range expected for the Higg's decay. And then they might say: that there will be further testing and analysis as well as critical analysis by outside sources before any certain claims might be made as to whether this new particle is the Higg's or not. //

Yup, pretty sad concerning cruelty to animals Islands goats probably competed for their habitat ? If so there's lots of other bad things happening that also need scape goats

I hope and expect that they have some good clonable DNA material stored if they wish to someday try to bring back his species.

Yup, forgot that one I think Dark matter probably falls into an unmentioned category of "theoretical/hypothetical entities" such as warped space, gravitons, and Higg's particles, etc. On the other hand I personally put dark energy into the flying saucer and aether category, where there is no indisputable evidence for their existence. When betting a couple of six packs and my soul given the proper odds, I would bet against the existence of god, multiverses/ parallel universes, flying saucers that have visited us, dark matter, dark energy, warped space, Higg's particles, gravitons, anything physical that is infinite, etc. I'm pretty much of a skeptic concerning most theoretical entities. The only theoretical entity/ exception that I can think of that I believe probably exists is a gravity-centered physical aether that might be as difficult to observe as dark energy if either were real //

Could there be a god? (gods) Of course it's possible. What is the evidence? Lots of personal testimony but not much else The problem is that you can never disprove something does not exist if it is said that it cannot be observed at the present time, and/ or that it does not exist physically in our 3 or 4 dimensional reality. God and multiverses would seemingly fall into this category. Other things fall into the possibly-observable category with some disputable evidence, such as flying saucers for example. And then there are things that are logically impossible such as conventional Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

What article are you referring to? Could you post a link here? For instance time is as real, and can be defined by the physical changes that occur within an interval. Time then is a comparison of changes by use of a standard which we call a clock. Space is as real as the distance between at least two physical entities, or the volume which encompasses contiguous matter. Space then is a comparison of distances by use of a standard such as a comparison with the size of the physical units that space separates, via a ruler of sorts, or by comparison with a light year, etc. "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) Of course simplicity like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so I think this statement by Einstein shows the simplest understanding of both space and time. "Matter" must be used to define the concepts of both space and time. Like the man-made concepts of space and time, so is the whole of physics man made. Another alien society of comparative intelligence might organize reality in a very different manner. Mathematical constants like pi, on the other hand, will be forever the same within the framework of Plane Geometry. So-called "constants" in physics instead seem to have the theoretical possibility of changing over time. I think the assertion that physics needs to be simplified is a good idea. But opinions are widely divergent concerning how this might be done. Concerning space and time: I don't think there are generally simpler definitions/ concepts than the ones that I described above. But as you suggest, mainstream theory presently asserts that time and space are much more complicated, with no overall consensus concerning their definitions. //

Thanks for the correction imatfaal. I even "double-checked" it wrongly maybe a kind of dyslexia Cool linguistic info also

I think you are talking about aether drag? If so many such proposals were made in the 18th and 19th century. Today such a proposal might go under the name dark matter drag, Higg's drag, graviton drag, etc. etc. If there are particulates in the Zero Point Field (ZPF), even if they are weakly interacting there still could be some drag. Such a weakly interacting example might be neutrino drag over great distances. Observational evidence could be conceivably something like the Pioneer anomaly. Massive particles move downward under the influence of a gravitational field. But atomic particles, for example, also can be bounced around by the ZPF on there trip downward in a vacuum. Maxwell conceived of his equations based upon his concept of the aether. His equations therefore cannot preclude an aether. Maybe the fifth state or even the sixth state. Some have also have thought of including black holes as an additional state of matter more dense than neutron stars. I see nothing wrong with such proposals but this is not the proper place in the forum for such hypothesis or discussions meet me here You are correct. I do not have info regarding what you know, or what you don't know. But I do believe it is wise to have a full understanding of accepted knowledge first, whether you believe it or not, before you venture forth into alternative ideas or formulating your own. When formulating your own ideas, remember that both the lack-of-confidence and over-confidence are two paths first moving in opposite directions but generally leading to the same destiny, regret. It is wise to be neither, hence hedging your your bets from time to time might be appropriate //

elemental, Quanta is singular in Latin, and quantum is plural. According to Plank quantum (plural) were a packet of particles composed of individual quanta. But this has not been considered theoretically by any other mainstream model since because the existence of individual quanta seems to be unprovable. Photons, according to theory, are exactly the same thing as quantum. Newton named his theoretic particles of light corpuscles. Max Planck conceived a similar entity which he conceived as a bundle of particles which he called quantum. Einstein also theorized a light particulate which he called a photons. "In 1926 the chemist Gilbert N. Lewis (first) coined the name photon for these particles, and after 1927, when Arthur H. Compton won the Nobel Prize for his scattering studies, most scientists accepted the validity that quanta (quantum) of light have an independent existence, and Lewis' term photon for light quanta was accepted." (parenthesis added) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon // //