beecee

Senior Members
  • Content count

    1420
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

beecee last won the day on June 17

beecee had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

239 Beacon of Hope

1 Follower

About beecee

  • Rank
    Organism
  • Birthday 07/18/1944

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Maroubra Sydney
  • Interests
    cosmology, Astronomy, general science
  • Favorite Area of Science
    cosmology
  • Occupation
    retired maintenance Fitter and Machinist

Recent Profile Visitors

5591 profile views
  1. Thanks for the answers fellas....most align with my thoughts on the matter. In essence, it shows that scientists are forever trying to improve our knowledge and picture of the universe, and just as obviously, any overwhelmingly successful theory like GR, is not going to be easily surpassed, which is just as it should be. Anything new obviously needs to run the gauntlet before it is accepted along the lines of GR and Newtonian. And I certainly don't believe there is any forces within mainstream science that will be uneccessarily incalcitrant in any effort to maintain GR as the status quo in the face of any evidence to the contrary. The clambering of young up and coming astronomers, cosmologists and physicists will always attest to that fact, and is borne out with the "hurried release" of data in the BICEP2 experiment, that was shown to probably be contaminated by mainstream science itself.
  2. Yep, I agree with that summation. Same actually applies to Newtonian. We cannot say that its wrong as we use it everyday here on earth and as well as space endeavours. GR gives the same results with far more accuracy. Much as using a rule to measure a window frame rather then a set of Vernier calipers. I'm interested though in further comment on this TeVeS (tensor-vector-scalar gravity and the supposed claims it is making re GR inconsistencies. My view much froth and bubble with not much actual experimental substance and obviously apparently not too much interest with the scientific community in general, which in my book says a lot.
  3. My interest in asking the above question was raised after reading the following article from "Quanta Mag" OK as the heading asks, will we ever have a viable alternative to GR? https://www.wired.com/story/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity/ [05/06/2018] TROUBLED TIMES FOR ALTERNATIVES TO EINSTEIN’S THEORY OF GRAVITY: Miguel Zumalacárregui knows what it feels like when theories die. In September 2017, he was at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Saclay, near Paris, to speak at a meeting about dark energy and modified gravity. The official news had not yet broken about an epochal astronomical measurement—the detection, by gravitational wave detectors as well as many other telescopes, of a collision between two neutron stars—but a controversial tweet had lit a firestorm of rumor in the astronomical community, and excited researchers were discussing the discovery in hushed tones. Zumalacárregui, a theoretical physicist at the Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics, had been studying how the discovery of a neutron-star collision would affect so-called “alternative” theories of gravity. These theories attempt to overcome what many researchers consider to be two enormous problems with our understanding of the universe. Observations going back decades have shown that the universe appears to be filled with unseen particles—dark matter—as well as an anti-gravitational force called dark energy. Alternative theories of gravity attempt to eliminate the need for these phantasms by modifying the force of gravity in such a way that it properly describes all known observations—no dark stuff required. much more at link...... I am interested in more than a yes or a no to my question. I've been reading stuff on MOND and other alternative gravity theories such as TeVeS (tensor-vector-scalar) and others. Here is one such paper...... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03520.pdf GW170817 event rules out general relativity in favor of vector gravity? (Dated: April 11, 2018) The observation of gravitational waves by the three LIGO-Virgo interferometers allows for the first time the examination of the polarization of gravitational waves. Here we analyze the binary neutron star event GW170817, whose source location and distance are determined precisely by concurrent electromagnetic observations. Applying a correlation averaging algorithm to the LIGOVirgo strain data, we find ratios of the signals detected by the three interferometers. We conclude that signal ratios are inconsistent with general relativity, but consistent with the recently proposed vector theory of gravity [Phys. Scr. 92, 125001 (2017)]. Moreover, we find that vector gravity yields a distance to the source in agreement with the astronomical observations. If our analysis is correct, Einstein’s general theory of relativity is ruled out in favor of vector gravity and future gravitational wave detections by three or more observatories should confirm this conclusion. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My complete understanding is obviously limited in that I am not a professional. So I hope that some of the experts on this forum whose knowledge I have grown to respect will take the time to read the full article and offer comments on that article, my question, and the paper above. My view? Not for a while yet....The paper seems to make plenty of assumptions that will probably never be able to be tested and as such of course its validity must be questioned. What is this inconsistency it mentions in the Abstract?
  4. What is faith?

    I believe many have been trying to tell you that over the last 16 pages or so.I Your faith is grounded in the fact that man since he first climbed down out of the trees, has been asking many questions and wondered at the awesome nature of the universe that surrounds him. No satisfactory answer was forthcoming, so he turned to magic in those early days, and saw this mythical higher power in many things that he could not explain. This has carried on down through the ages. Then science came along, and all was revealed...at least up to t+10-43 seconds. Your statement/argument is defeated because it has no basis in what we observe nor any empirical evidence to support it.
  5. God and the Big Bang

    Whether you are in favour of it matters not. That's where the evidence leads us. And with your incredulity of which I would say you don't fully understand, my incredulity balks at this supposed "force" or "creator" you seem at peace with.....You know, where did it/she/he come from? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4a7F6dOdlc
  6. What is faith?

    It's all his ilk have...the old god of the gaps, or grasping at straws.
  7. What is faith?

    Your faith is your business. It has though absolutely no scientific value, nor any grounds to believe it in anyway resembles this "truth" you keep mentioning. Nice to see you keep on avoiding answering the difficult questions again.
  8. What is faith?

    You have it arse up.....It's you claiming [on a science forum of all places] that your faith/belief/delusion of a higher power has some basis in reality and reason. Faith in any higher power is simply an unscientific, unevidenced, belief in magic and myth, solely because as yet science does not have all the answers...You know, the god of the gaps. Sure...[1] This is a science forum, where subjects/opinions/claims will be scrutinised via the scientific methodology: accept that with logic and aplomb, [2] No one begrudges any person for what he personally believes: That's called personal freedom but [3] don't push your personal baggage onto others: This isn't a pulpit for preaching. [4] Supernatural and/or paranormal beliefs are unscientific and superfluous in the world in this day and age: The universe. spacetime, planets, stars, life can all reasonably be explained at least up to t+10-43 seconds. [5] Beyond that point, we are ignorant: Never be afraid to accept that as long as the search for knowledge is continued and not stymied or short circuited by some mythical higher power. We are star stuff.
  9. What is faith?

    On the contrary...what you are trying to communicate/preach to the rest of us, is simply the fact that going on the obtuseness, stubborness and repeatedness of your posts, that like most that accept faith and the mythical, and delusional belief in a "higher power" your position is incalcitrant as well as delusional. That is clear.
  10. What is faith?

    And as opposed to belief/faith/hope delusions in a higher power to comfort you? Sorry old friend, the onus is on you to show that faith in any higher power has any grounds in any sort of reality...other then that's what you have been brainwashed to accept and believe, after 15 pages, you still have nothing.
  11. What is faith?

    Once again, science is not out to prove anything. It creates models that match our observations and makes valid predictions. Science is always looking for answers and models that can explain what we see. As I have mentioned to you many times now [and as per your modus operandi, you ignore] a few hundred years ago, we did not have explanations as to what powers the Sun, where the elements came from, how life appeared and evolved and many other aspects...Are you saying science should never have looked into or bothered with those regions? Any need for any higher power, in those regions mentioned are long gone. Or do you believe we should have remained ignorant? The BB, gravitational collapse, nucleosynthesis, abiogenesis and evolution. See above.
  12. What is faith?

    Now why would anyone in their right mind think that? Science gives an evidence based argument against any and all supernatural and paranormal nonsense, and when and if there are gaps in that knowledge, will admit that it does not know, rather then dreaming up some mythical entity or higher power to put some faith in, for solace, peace of mind and false hope.
  13. What is faith?

    As Phil has just said, science isn't about your truth or reality or proof.....science gives us the best explanation at any particular time. In relation to your statement, what you seem to be saying is that one has the right to believe anything his or her mind can dream up. Yes, that's the definition of faith and why it can be described as a delusion.
  14. What is faith?

    And it doesn't disprove fairies at the bottom of my garden either, or my magical spaghetti monster, as I just inferred which you would have noticed if you were paying attention.
  15. What is faith?

    Not really...Both actually see that the predominance of evidence supports the BB and an expanding universe, [which funnily enough then invalidates their bible/koran] but obviously then revert again to myth/delusions/faith where science as yet remains ignorant of the answer......Or the usual fall back, "god of the gaps/higher power" mentality which in their minds gives them that warm inner glow and hopeful scenario. 15 pages so far and as yet you have not offered anything that support your trust in faith. Santa Claus? Fairies at the bottom of the garden? It's unscientific and as likley as fairies at the bottom of your garden.