Air and gravity

[jck]

swansont,

If we move away from space itself bending and constantly refer to light bending then it is another thing altogether. No ether exists that is large enough to be detected as yet but does not altogether rule out that substance in the space affords the result. By the way we have to assume light coming from distance of light years away have not been contaminated and the physics operating at such distances maintain the status quo. If you start with space and energy before big bang you do not need theory as anyone can work out exactly how the universe is created from that scenario as I have done. This does not make the consideration correct or the theory wrong but is a valid consideration as much as anything else. The consideration gives rise to differential particle gravity so that certainly has not been addressed. Other forms of push gravity simply operate within the universe and not as a natural cause.

 

Skeptic,

 

I am more than happy to accept your post for I am not stating the method or theory is wrong except from the consideration of space and energy before big bang they would be wrong. I maintain that space bending itself cannot be proved anyway, not directly so unless something like dark energy turns out to be differential particle gravity then it cannot be refuted but as you say that is no reason to consider it certain.

 

john

jck

[SkepticLance]

jck

There are lots of things in the universe that cannot be directly measured. This does not mean they do not exist, or that science cannot study them.

 

We carry out this study through indirect means. Obviously this is less satisfactory than direct measurements. However, a great deal can be picked up from indirect measures. For example, the orbit of Mercury round the sun has long been known to have an anomaly. It does not quite fit the predicted orbit that comes from Newton's ideas on gravity. However, when Einstein completed his theory, it altered the equations in a small but profound way. Suddenly the orbit of Mercury fitted the theory. This is powerful, if indirect evidence for Einsteins theory.

 

Einsteains theory has, so far, passed all the empirical predictive tests. Attempts at falsification have failed. Thus, it is an excellent model of reality.

[swansont]

The gravitational bending of light has been observed with the sun, i.e. in a region where we can rule out other effects. It fits with the predictions of GR.

 

One problem with "alternative" explanations is that they tend to focus on a very narrow range of effects, and do not accurately predict or explain the much wider spectrum of observed phenomena. It is for this reason that they are discredited and discarded.

 

Again, jck, your use of theory implies that you need to learn the definition. "you do not need theory as anyone can work out exactly how the universe is created from that scenario as I have done" — "working it out" is the formulation of the theory.

[jck]

swansont,

I am aware of the theory, this is one way of looking at the universe only. It is not good enough. Einstein changed the equations slightly and everything worked out did it?

 

Galaxies should fly apart but by working out the mass required to stop that happening the equations work do they, call that mass dark matter shall we?

 

Gravity pulls mass together so when the galaxies at the edge of the universe are being pushed away from each other then simply insert a force that is the opposite of gravity and call that dark energy shall we.

 

And what percentage of the universe does this dark energy and dark matter comprise of exactly? 95%... so science theory applies to the odd 5% and even that is mostly theoretical and infers.

 

Call me skeptical if you like but I am hedging my bets and considering space and energy existed before big bang and if that is correct the theories are completely wrong as they cannot be right.

 

Do you understand that? If there was space and energy before big bang the theories are wildly wrong?

 

Now do you understand that unless someone looks at other ways of looking at the universe problem then everyone will be trapped into theories that could be completely wrong anyway.

 

Look imagine no universe and no theory just simple basic logic and work it out yourself, you know exactly what you will need to create a universe, space and energy and that leads to differential particle gravity no matter what the theories say.

 

On the other hand don`t consider space and energy before big bang and accept that the theoretical answers are all you will ever know.

 

I wanted something to compare to theory and I have it, I use it and no one has to agree with it or use it. You have theory and you have nothing to compare that theory with so as long as you are happy then we are both happy.

 

john

jck

[SkepticLance]

jck

It is common in science for there to be more than one way of looking at something - ie two or more theories.

 

However, as scientists make progress, these tend to shrink and finally collapse into one single 'most probable' model of reality. This has pretty much happened in ideas on gravity. The story is not complete, but there is little chance of Einstein's concept being completely overturned. I am not sure what your theories are, but you should realise that, over the last 100 years, literally dozens of theories of gravitation have been mooted. As testing proceeds they tumble, one by one, leaving Einstein solely triumphant. I would be very surprised if your ideas had not already been mooted and falsified.

[jck]

Skeptic,

The problems that arose from the last conference of leading scientists that Einstein attended resulted in have two theories, not by consent but because neither could fit all criteria.

 

No one thought what a wonderful idea it was to have two seperate theories, it was a shambles and Einstein became a recluse determined to show that the universe was certain for the sole purpose of exposing quantum uncertainty wrong.

 

Unfortunately for Einstein something that is inheritently uncertain cannot be shown to be certain due to the random nature of uncertainty in the equations.

 

I do not have any theory. I do have a solution, start from scratch before big bang use logic and see what exactly would need to happen to create the universe.

 

This has nothing to do with the theories, it is a method of comparing a logic based solution to the theory. Should the theories have naturally developed from this consideration I would not have a problem. The trouble is the theories run into difficulties right away, gravity naturally resolves as differential particle gravity. From this consideration the theories are fundamentally wrong so cannot be used to defend themselves. Even Newtons observational force is not the first cause of force in the considered solution so no wonder any particle gravity could not fit in with equations that are fundamentally flawed in the assumptions.

 

I have a huge flow of energy, not just in the universe but flowing through it in all directions, mostly passing back out to the space outside but collisions that maintain gravity as fairly stable. I have mass reducing in black holes to energy and recycled back into the main flow to keep it constant.

 

This situation where gravity is energy particles colliding with atoms produces another reason for the quantum effect being observed but the assumptions do not conform to the way the solution derives.

 

This idea is to derive a logic solution form scratch and then compare that with theory which is all that I have done. It is a self contained certain solution so I do not need permission to use it. No one has to look at this consideration for if they do not wish to consider the effect of space and energy before big bang then there is no reason they should.

 

I can agree that within the theory everything is in order and using the theory confirms it to be correct, should that alter the theory will alter to account for anything that is refuted.

 

My solution is a consideration that there was space and energy before big bang and I have a logic based solution based on that.

 

john

jck

[SkepticLance]

jck

When you start looking back to 'before' the Big Bang, then facts are absent and speculation rules. Logic does not work. In science we start with empirical data and work from there, gathering more empirical data as we go. When empirical data is absent, as in 'before' the Big Bang, we are merely p%$ing into the wind. Look at superstring theory. Seems a wonderful idea and spawns a wealth of mathematics. However, until it permits a testable prediction it is only so much pointless speculation.

[jck]

Skeptic,

 

Much of what is in theory can never be tested but that does not seem to create a problem for those who choose to accept only theory.

 

Let me ask you a simple question: Was there space before big bang?

 

I already know your answer, it is an uncertain answer so that covers an uncertain answer. It is now simple to create a certain answer by choosing the only certain answer available given the uncertain one has already been used.

 

Unless the alternative possibility that space was certain before big bang is considered then theory has effectively wrapped itself in cotton wool.

 

One thing is deadly certain, with space before big bang the theories cannot be correct.

 

That I would say is a 50/50 chance and anyone not examining space before big bang as certain for one of the considerations is gambling. It is worse than that, the idea of space not existing has no validity at all and is not testable while space existing has no arguement.

 

May I suggest that you are careful in future which way the wind is blowing.

 

Space certain before big bang is not theoretical as with any other ideas before big bang because we already have the space right here and no one can come up with any way to get rid of space without leaving a space unless it is merely theoretical and beyond testing at all.

 

There is no need to remove space before big bang, who exactly decided that? Science does not say there was no space before big bang, information can be obtained providing a certain space is given due consideration.

 

The information then would result from a certain space so if that were correct then the information would be correct. The problem for theory is the theory cannot be correct if a certain space did exist before big bang.

 

Heads the theory is correct and tails space before big bang is correct, most people are happy to gamble on heads while I am hedging my bets by betting on heads or tails, if that is not logical I do not know what is.

 

john

jck

[SkepticLance]

jck

Your speculations on this are as good or as bad as anyone elses. The point I am making is that, until we can obtain relevent empirical data, this kind of speculation is just so much hot air.

 

You might consider alternative possibilities also. Space as we know it has its own reality. Perhaps, before the BB, there was an alternate reality which did not include space as we know it.

 

One BB theory is that it came from the collisions of branes. Perhaps there are many universes, and they interact in rare occasions.

 

Perhps we are all talking a load of $#&@ and reality is nothing any of us is able to imagine.

[jck]

Skeptic,

 

I am using the space we know exists and have no reason to suppose does not exist at anytime.

 

BB brane theory is just that a theory that branes exist when there is absolutely no branes existing as far as we know.

 

To have something that already exists, without any clear evidence that it does not exist at some point in time, questions who exactly has determined that the consideration that space did not exist is more valid than the space existing?

 

Why is anyone making up theoretical means whereby space does not exist and energy can in fact create space when there is absolutely no evidence to support this except theoretical?

 

Where is the logical consideration that space exists at all times and everywhere because that, as surely as space exists, is exactly what we can determine. It is no more than saying the physics are the same everywhere which science must otherwise all the data can be contaminated.

 

If we were certain for example you would have no problem with space existing before big bang but it is beyond human comprehension to understand the idea that space as we know it did not exist at that time.

 

Were it certain that space did exist then it is the simplist of logic to work out exactly how the universe must have come into existance providing the physics are the same everywhere, and if the physics are not the same before big bang then that clearly allows the physics in the universe to be different where we are trapped into data that relies on that being so.

 

I say if the physics are the same everywhere then test that to the limit by placing space before big bang and if E=mc squared then test that before big bang and place the same amount of energy before big bang and consider the natural logical course things would then take.

 

Science is very limited, it does not prove anything and it can obtain no information from before big bang or outside the universe or inside a black hole so if that does not spur a person to pursue a logical explanation of these things then you may be right, nothing will.

 

john

jck

[SkepticLance]

jck

When we start talking about what existed before the BB, we are really whistling in the wind. No-one knows. I suggested some alternative possibilities, but I do not know.

 

Science is a valid method of studying the universe, and I would dispute strongly your suggestion that it contributes nothing. However, at any one point in time, it has its limitations. I would not try to predict what will be known in, say, 50 years. However, by today's science, we cannot say anything at all about the time before the BB. We cannot even say if there was time before the BB.

 

Currently there is no way we know of to test any of these propositions. Until we can, any speculation is only as good as every other speculation. However, it does no harm to speculate. It is even possible that some speculations may 'strike gold' by coming up with possible ways of testing ideas using real world test methods.

[jck]

Skeptic,

 

I have made it clear that within the limits of the theories I do not have a problem, they may well be extremely accurate.

 

The problem is with the reasoning behind the consideration that there was no space before big bang, if we have the space now then unless someone can using scientific method show how space can be removed without leaving a space there is absolutely no reason to even consider space did not exist before big bang.

 

The theoretical zero energy consideration has no foundation at all, this is not testable on a new universe somewhere else is it? Space is not theoretical, we actually have some in fact we have as much as we want.

 

You say you do not know what was before big bang, I say you do know for it is certain you know no way at all the space we actually have could not exist except from the contrived zero energy theory which cannot be shown to be possible on a universal scale.

 

The answer is simple, allow the theory to leave the space before big bang question as if there was any alternative to have the space and then make sure someone works from a certain space before so it can be compared.

 

Only then has all possibilities been statisfied.

 

Theoretically you can consider no space but the reality is the space we have exists and there is no way of removing this space ever without leaving a space at a universal level.

 

Science not having any information before big bang in no way removes the space but does clearly indicate that science method leaves this huge gap in the full story of how the universe came here in the first place.

 

If science folds its cards then the only players in the game are the ones using logic cards.

 

Logic dictates the space we have cannot be removed when you run the universe back past big bang.

 

Theory is blowing in the wind coming up with pure theoretical models for removing the space before big bang which cannot be shown as possible by scientific method.

 

Scientific method shows it cannot be done.

 

This idea of imagining there could be no space has no validity at all inside or outside of science.

 

I am not placing the space we already have anywhere, it is here and there is no way to get rid of it so why would anyone consider it not being here. It defies logic.

 

I am not going back before big bang and creating space it is already existing, but anyone going back and removing the space should show exactly how space can be removed without leaving a space by sicentific method for they are the ones changing the physics not me.

 

john

jck