Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Is the physical world real?

I will deal with the rest later lets just deal with this one point because it is the most important.

What you have written in that statement is implicitly WRONG it has been falsified over and over again.

Mach realized it with the historic bucket argument in 1687 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument)

You take a bucket of water hung by a rope twist the rope and realease it the bucket spins. Look at the meniscus of the water



It will explain the same problem comes up with rotating spheres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_spheres).

So even back in Newton's day absolute space was completely debunked you have to add in non-sensical fiction force to hold everything together (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force).

So absolute space was dead and buried in the 17th century unless your happy to randomly add in fictional forces just to make the maths work which was the status until Einstein and probably what you were taught at school by sounds.

When they taught you the fictional forces at school did they explain to you they aren't real they are mathematical fudges?

They quote it over and over again through out history read the role call through the ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force).

Do you understand why I have trouble with your statement now?

The question moreover was there ever a time absolute space was ever believed by anyone other than a layman and Newton.

So in your theory how do the random fictional forces come about ... remember they definitely are not real because you can always find a reference frame where the forces are not necessary to explain the physics.

In circular movement it comes down to the basic question is there such thing as absolute rotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation)
.

Finiter's universe has no beginning - it is infinite.
If you try to trace its history back through this "infinite time", you find that each cycle of expansion and contraction is preceded by a similar cycle, ad infinitum.

Is this not infinite regression?

I understand what you are saying Bill S he would therefor have no differences and no reason to have a start point ... I guess you invoke the god made it so argument at that point.

What I find funny is the same thing that I find with alot of people that propose Newton was right they fail to realize they therefore believe in some stupid forces that we can proove don't actually exist yet they oppose GR on the grounds that it's fictional because you cant see this 4th dimension ..... HOW THE HELL DO THEY RECONCILE THAT ..... so fictional forces are more believable than a fictional dimension?

As I visualise this, the galaxy groups could be moving in circles in a wide range of directions, because there is an “infinite” (that's a mathematical infinity ) number of directions in which the radius of a spherical universe could lie. However, I suspect that this may not be what you mean, as it is difficult to equate such motion with the type of expansion we observe, and you describe.

Orac, you are absolutely right; I see no real distinction between saying "it has always been so" without explanation, and saying "God made it so".

This is not a criticism, specifically, of Finiter's theory, which I like, not necessarily because I think it might be on the point of turning conventional cosmology on its head, but because he has obviously put a lot of thought into it, it asks questions, and he defends it with good grace.

I agree it is a consistant and logical theory and it is very similar to Einstein static universe proposed but he had Mach space rather than Absolute space.

It's problems are the Absolute space tenant and it's built on Newtonian laws. I have no doubt the newtonian laws will appear to hold but the real problem is that every one of those Newtonian laws is of coarse wrong and we can trivially show they are wrong. If you are a newtonian diehard you say they need modification there not wrong :-)

And I guess thats my light hearted view of this theory you are inventing forces and believe in dragons, fairy's, father christmas, good women and other myths of Newtonian physics all to preserve your precious 3D.

You saw this behaviour with Flat Earth believers I mean you can see the world is flat it takes abstraction to realize that what you see is an illussion and some people can't and don't want to see it. Sight is such a dominate sense and why optical illussions cause us such angst.

May I interject and say I agree with--who was it?--Bill S, who said that much of this thread is about the philosophy of science, not about facts of science that are easily provable by experiment.

IMO, as long as we acknowledge that philosophizing is going on, this is OK. After all, as I am fond of pointing out: Philosophy is the mother of the sciences and the arts.

That being said, may I give a quote some thoughts posted, recently, in wondercafe.ca by one known to me and with whom I have much in common. The full thread is posted below. My friend calls himself PANENTHEIST. He writes: As a panentheistic unitheist, to avoid conceptualizing a man-like god who is hovering over us like a superhuman being from a comic strip, I use the code-word G.O.D. Panentheist goes on BTW, here is the link to the full discussion:
http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/reli...onverted?page=2

So we don't sidetrack this thread I understand where you are going with this rev I am about to start a thread called "Does god have a role in science" in which I will be happy to discuss that with you.

In the context we have here what Bill S and I are posing here is finiters theory science or a religion because of the start point dynamics and what observations he is chosing to accept and others he ignores.

If you read back up I was wondering if this should be in the not quite science forum because we are bordering on that even though we both like the guy.

In my model, there is an infinite number of pulsations before 'the present one' and an infinite number of pulsations after this. That is, time has no beginning or end. Similarly, the space has no beginning or end. The infinite space contains a 'very large number' of universes that practically we can say 'an infinite number of universes'. However all the universes are finite in space and the pulse periods of all the universes are equal(it depends on the speed of light).

The universes remain at the respective positions in the space like the fixed stars in our 'earliest model of the universe'. However, the gravitational forces remain completely used inside the universes that universes have no fields around them, and hence cannot interact. So the universes are independent systems and remain isolated. 'The Ensemble' (it is not a system, if it were, the universes would have interacted) containing the universes is static. It remains forever with out any change. So time and space have no relevance for the Ensemble. Or, we can say that the ensemble has the same attributes as that of God.

Before replying to your arguments, let me express my thanks to you. You are taking so much pains to point out the relevant articles (in the Wikipedia), which otherwise I would have missed. It took me more than 10 years for my research, which was totally independent; I have no institutional backing. When it appeared to me that my work reached its logical end, I published it in the form of a book. I have named my theory as 'Finiteness Theory'. It can be stated as follows: "The universe is matter in its finite form". Here, 'matter' is something made up of infinitely small particles (I call them 'photons'), which have a fixed mass, a fixed volume and a fixed energy,(mc^2)/2. The 'finite form' is a pulsating system of 'masses of atoms/molecules'. I claim that my theory is logical and can explain nearly all things. However, the fact is that my claims have not been verified by anybody, and I am indeed not sure that I haven't gone wrong any where. So I will argue 'as best as I can' to defend 'my findings'.



I would like to point out that the articles (you have referred to) cast doubts regarding the nature of space; it can even be regarded as 'serious doubts', but not more than that. Absolute space may not be a necessity even for classical mechanics; so it is not regarded as serious problem (this is what I understand from that articles). However, none of the articles explicitly denies absolute space. So it is still an unresolved problem.

I think you are correct in pointing out that only laymen and Newton considered the space to be absolute. Consider me also as a layman, and I am with Newton.

Now, regarding fictional forces, I think (based on my theory), that there is no centrifugal force as such. This may be an error in Newtonian mechanics. If at all any force is created by the circular motion of a body in absolute space, it is not the centrifugal force. In my theory, force is created due to the circular motion of fundamental particles 'only', and this force is centripetal and real, and it is this force that we call 'gravity'.

In the case of a body orbiting in the gravitational field of another, I suggest a correction to the Newton's equation (this was mentioned earlier). Here the equation becomes F= (GMm/d^2) - (mv^2)/2. So the actual force is (mv^2)/2, and thus the gravitational force is equal to the kinetic energy. The kinetic energy can be regarded as a pseudo force (a force that has no field). Thus the two forces remain balanced. Here, there is no centrifugal force; the pseudo force is kinetic energy itself, and so there is no need to invoke a non-existing force for the sake of mathematical validity.

Now, it may be noted that the new equation used also gives rise to the relation GMm/d = mv^2. So I would say that in spite of the error in the Newton's equation for calculating force, we got correct results because Newtonian mechanics invoked a non-existing force, which in itself was another error; the two errors just got cancelled, and we got correct results. Thus by removing the two errors simultaenously, my theory solves the problem regarding the absolute nature of space (it removes the fictional force)

This probably sounds frivolous, but I think the question of infinity is a difficult one and needs to be considered.



Cantor would be proud of you; you have two infinities. The trouble is, one has an end, and the other has a beginning. Possibly that is acceptable in maths, but as a real thing it has flaws.

Okay just reading your response and this thread does need to move to "Not Quite Science" and I will explain why Finiter it is nothing personal, I do like your attitude. If you note above I moved a discussion with "Rev" along the same lines.

At the moment you are basically surviving by trying to guide your theory thru the cracks. You aren't putting up testifiable or falsifiable results of your theory and anything I show you there is "doubt" about the result.

In science there is always "doubt" we never close the lid on anything and accept them as absolute facts.

So you are asking us to prove your theory wrong you are not trying to prove your theory right. There are no undisputed "facts" in science so I will never be able to disprove your theory nor would I even bother trying.

Above I showed you scientific observations that showed Absolute Space was inconsistant with observation. So you turned the argument around and basically argue since I don't have a proven structure of space therefore I haven't disproven Absolute Space. You are simply ignoring the observations until I can prove some other structure.

As per above science doesn't work that way Absolute Space is dead to beyond accepted scientific certainty. You want to revive it you have to provide a testifiable or falsifiable result for us to reopen the case ... that is how science works. We will never close the case but at this stage Absolute Space is dead and buried.

This is sort of how you are dealing with all observations that disagree with your theory.

QM for example kills your theory dead as you have no mechanism to explain the results. So what do you do you deny QM "it's a mistake and hasn't been proven" according to you. Sorry QM will never be proven science doesn't work that way but all the crazy observations are real so if you want to put forward a theory of the universe it has to cover those observations you can't just ignore those observations.

I don't want to discourage you or try and stop you questioning science and cosmology tenants but within science we have rules the same as maths or any other discipline because without them it all breaks down and there is confusion about what is scientifically accepted and what isn't.

At the moment your theory is inconsistant with scientifically accepted results. So you need to provide proof that we have got it wrong or move discussion to "Not quite science".

If time is finite, then time should have a beginning and an end. So you have to invoke a singularity from where time started, and another such thing where time will end. That is an arbitrary act and is equivalent to the arbitrary assumption that time is infinite. Thus some arbitrariness will always be there. The number of arbitrary assumptions can never be zero; it should never be infinity; it should be reduced to the minimum.

Actually there are no two infinities; only one infinite time. The present is neither a beginning nor an end of time. It is just a relative point of reference of time. What I claim is that my theory has the minimum number of arbitrary assumptions.

On the reverse side of that it has the most number of arbritatry omission of observations of any theory I have ever seen.

It's basic tennant appears to be if an observation does not match the theory then clearly the observation is wrong and we dismiss it ... as I said that isn't science you don't get to pick and choose observations :-)

You may care to read (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html)

Specifically look at point 7



Conventionalist twist is an apt description of your argument with your theory.

The existing theories have some 'cracks', and that is the main reason that alternate explanations have justifications (otherwise, there will not be any need for any change).The main point of your argument was that a fictional force introduced in the classical Newtonian mechanics shows that the space is absolute. My reply was that the use of fictional was eliminated in my model. I have not ignored any observation. I have not even said that any observation that you pointed out is wrong. I have only tried to explain 'the observations' in an alternate way.


I agree that 'what you have said' is correct: we will never close a case. At the present stage, the scientific community has discarded the concept of absolute space. There is no denying of that fact. I propose an alternate theory in which the space is absolute, and which can explain the observations in an alternate way. You have to distinguish between 'observations' and 'inferences based on those observations'. In this posting, I have so far not questioned the validity of 'any observations'; I have not said that such and such observation is due to the fault in the measurement or any other thing. I have questioned only the inferences; ie, the observation can be explained in another way, and so the inference might be wrong.

I agree that so many observations (for example the 'casimir effect') can be explained on the basis of QM. If I deny that, then 'whatever I say' will not belong to science. My argument is that such observations can be explained in an alternate way, and so QM is not required.




Science has certain rules, I agree. But the accepted rules have changed many times (from 'flat earth' to 'round earth' from 'space and time' to 'space-time' etc). A change will always cause some confusion. So what I say is that 'the fact that my theory goes against the existing rules' cannot be regarded as a disqualification for my theory.

I repeat again: So far I haven't said that any observation is wrong. Can you give an example? I have given alternate explanations wherever possible, and concluded that the 'inference' is wrong.

I went through the site you have referred to (especially item no.7). Though I claim my hypothesis is a theory, it has not crossed the barrier to be called a 'theory'. For that, my hypothesis should be verified by the scientific community. If found false, then I may be tempted to resort to 'conventionalist twist'. In a way, 'conventionalist twist' has been resorted to in the case of Big-bang theory, string theory, and even to QM (this, I am not sure).

How about a theory that makes just one arbitrary assumption?

The cosmos is infinite; there is no change, therefore no time.

The Universe we observe, with its time dependent changes, is an “illusion” created by our restricted view of reality.

I use the word “illusion”, not in the sense of saying that what we observe is not concrete reality within our frame of reference. It is our reality; the scientific study of this reality is a legitimate and worthwhile pursuit. Perhaps, the more we learn about our reality, the nearer we will come to some understanding of the underlying, infinite, reality. IMO, QM is just beginning to open that door.

For me, theories such as yours, Finiter, whether they turn out to be right or wrong, have the value that they provoke thought.

In my opinion, just one arbitrary assumption is not enough. If there is only one assumption as you have suggested, "the cosmos is infinite; there is no change, therefore no time", then you cannot go further. For the observed part of the universe you require further assumptions. I would say that any model requires the 'six basic assumptions' (characteristics)namely: matter, mass, space, time, energy and force. You remove one, and the system will not work. QM is not an exception.

Once you assume that there are the above six characters in your story, you have to 'assume' what roles have to be given to these six. Thus we require more assumptions.

For example, my model can be stated as follows: "Fundamental particles of matter have a fixed mass, fixed volume, fixed energy and and fixed force, and these integrate into the universe that we observe". Can I say that it has only one assumption? In fact, the statement includes all the six characteristics. I have thus already assumed that mass, energy, volume and force are the qualities of matter. In addition, I have to consider the space and time independent of matter, which I assume is infinite. (However, I can reduce the number of fundamental constants to just three, one each for mass, space and time.) These I think are barest minimum assumptions required.

QM has in addition to all these, another assumption that bodies can remain in two forms at any instant. This is the one that I think is inappropriate. Many 'evidences' have been put forward to justify this assumption. However, in my opinion, all have some loop holes. These 'evidences' can be explained in an alternate manner without using QM, that is what I argue.

You are, of course, absolutely right. If you start with just one assumption and try to explain the observed Universe in such a way as not to have to change that assumption, you are going to find yourself having to make other assumptions.

I suspect that it is possible to derive such an explanation from the single assumption that the cosmos is infinite and timeless, and that however many other assumptions you have to make and keep or abandon along the way, your initial assumption will remain.

I would like to say that my model is nearly the same as you have visualized.In my model, the 'Ensemble' (which you call the cosmos)is infinite and timeless, ie, space and time are infinite (timeless in the sense that time has no relevance as far as the Ensemble is considered, because the Ensemble does not change with time).

But the observable part belongs to 'our universe', which has a finite space, and as the space associated with our universe remains changing, time has relevance. The fundamental particle always remains in motion; motion is a space- time relation caused by the particle. Starting with that fundamental particle, every thing can be explained, that is my claim.

Thus, as you have visualized, the initial assumption should not be changed, but the extra assumptions which you invoke in the course of explaining should be logical (both physically and mathematically) and the number of assumptions should be the barest minimum.

In my model, there is only one type of fundamental particle, and one basic force. 'How the other particles and atoms are formed', and 'how the basic force gets divided into other forces' are explained logically (both physically and mathematically). In the existing model, there are 'many fundamental particles', and 'four fundamental forces' to start with. And, if you go the GR way, there is the 'space-time' and if you go the QM way, there is the 'instant-duality at the quantum level'. My model does not require these additional fittings. So it is better than the existing model, I claim. However, it is 'just a claim' in the sense that it has not been verified by the scientific community. And, whether I have gone wrong anywhere, only a thorough analysis can reveal.