Physics should deal with realities. Matter, space and time should be taken as independent factors - that is what our observations reveal. But, of late, physicists tend to be mathematicians. 'Mathematics with a dash of physics' is the stuff that they put forth as physics. Consequently, non-real solutions are offered as physical truths. I think, it is time that we changed back to the classical Newtonian style.

Unfortunately both Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR), which have been very well tested, show that space and time are interrelated. So going back to a Newtonian framework would be extremely difficult. In fact SR and GR were developed because of problems with the Newtonian framework. For that matter Newtonian principles applied to a black body led to the Ultraviolet Catastrophe. There was no Ultraviolet Catastrophe, so something was wrong with classical Newtonian theories. Attempts to fix that prolbem led to Quantum Mechanics (QM).

So I'm afraid the classical Newtonian style just doesn't work.

Bill Gill

I'm inclined to agree with this bit, but I fail to see the advantage of trying to ditch relativity and QM. In fact, without QM I wouldn't be posting this.

If we believe, and work with, only "what our observations reveal" we would have to ignore a lot of technological achievements. Finiter, do you have any suggestions for turning back the clock?

The only problem with Newtonian physics is it wrong in hundreds of cases so long as you like a error filled world shouldn't be a problem :-)

Like Newton's Principia?...but:


That's already been addressed in posts above.

Mathematical physicists can produce self-consistent models that may or may not apply to the world in which we live. That's why experiment and observation are required. But mathematical theory so often necessarily precedes observation. Examples: General Relativity and Quantum Theory. Such discoveries would otherwise be impossible.

At the heart of physical science is physics, and at the heart of physics is mathematics. Mathematics, applied to one of its progeny, the computer, is the basis of a logarithmic progression of science and technology.

"As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." (Albert Einstein)

"The idea of the measuring rod and the idea of the clock coordinated with it in the theory of relativity do not find their exact correspondence in the real world." (Albert Einstein)

"There are many self-consistent mathematical systems which have scant relevance to physical phenomena or observations.” (Simon Prokhovnik; Head of the School of Mathematics, UNSW)

"Knowledge is one-dimensional; the proper application of knowledge is multi-dimensional. Only the extremely wise, and the exceptionally foolish, are not prepared to change.” (Confucius)

Shame that Confucius is not around today, perhaps he could clarify all that rolled up dimension stuff.

Actually, I'm reading Galileo's Finger (Peter Atkins) at the moment, and he has come closer than most to helping me get my head around it. Still a long way to go, though.

Not a bad read but it really doesn't help with QM, Alice and Bob still never experience the same reality ever :-)

Found a great article on QM information and reality physics which is simple enough to understand

Deals with a possible problem with a large quantum computer but thats a side issue you can ignore.

http://www.ctnsstars.org/conferences/papers/Holographic%20universe%20and%20information.pdf

In effect what it is saying is the world is autosterogram a 2D world which we see as 3 dimensional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram).

It's a shame that his principle - that knowledge should be properly applied - is still ignored by many 'experts'.

Is there any physical evidence of "...that rolled up dimension stuff." that engenders knowledge of same or is the concept merely another mathematical proposition?

There is many many experiments that can only be explained by extra dimension stuff or some different version of physical reality.

QM is like landmine zone full of them and why QM causes massive problems to even GR which overturned good old Newtonian physics.

First of all, we have to define reality. There are only three parameters connected with this physical world: mass, space and time. These three should be taken as real; that is, should have only real positive values greater than zero. So I think reality can be defined as follows: "Every object in this physical world is three dimensional; the mass of the object, the space occupied by it, and the period of time it remains at a particular position or in a particular form are greater than zero".
Any mathematical model or theory that advocates a result contrary to the above should be regarded as something out side physics.

Newtonian theories required correction. A classical approach would have been better, I just think, for making the required corrections. The non-classical methods, GR and QM, have created more problems, and these defy common logic.

Then you can't deal with 99% of the world.

A simple light beam defies your description ... so light doesn't come under you physics.

Electricty, magnetism, nuclear energy all clearly not physics then.

In fact you end up with so little left its probably easier for you to invent a new category .... hmmm good name .... Flatland Mechanics (FM).

So lets see what Flatland Mechanics(FM) has left in

-Newtonian phyics
-Some parts of GR but not SR


What else do you want to put in FM?

That, I think is the main difference between Newton's principia and GR/QM. In the case of Newton, mathematics followed observation; but in the case of GR/QM, observation follows mathematics. I think the acceleration in the filed of theoretical physics has been increasing till GR/QM, and with GR/QM it was expected that within a short period, everything would have been resolved. But after that the acceleration appears to be zero. So I suspect GR and QM are responsible for the stagnation.

Not exactly. Have anybody tried to incorporate wave nature into the corpuscular theory of light? The reverse has been tried: ie, incorporating particle nature to the waveform and that was a success. Light is light, whether it is waves showing some particle nature, or real particles moving along a three dimensional helical path. The observed results will be the same; but the former will not be part of physics if my proposal is accepted, and at the same time the latter will be a part of physics.

Incorrect it fails badly in ight of recent experiments I doubt you will find anyone buy copenhagen interpretation of light.

QM reached that position that it's interpretation was wrong and they set out to proove it
(http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/06/02/science-heisenberg-uncertainty-steinberg.html)

In itself it was a very simple experiment but it should be impossible under wave collapse theories. So it's not that the experiment changed just even doing a weak measurement should have collapsed the waveform which it didn't. So the interpretation was wrong.



How does a particle go through two slits at the same time?

Edit: Here is another experiment to consider
(http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm)

The bigger problem is how do you know the world has 3 dimensions ... this is a problem your generation usually understands very well because you have played 3D computer games and seen many 3D movies.

If your eyes and senses decieve you and we have a 3D illussion with like a CCD helmet on and sensory feed back would you actually realize that your world was not really 3D.

Thats a serious question to think about .. how would you know?

Finiter, if you have a better theory than QM and GR please provide an explanation of the precession of Mercury's perihelion, and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, using your theory. Since you have a way to explain the problems with Newtonian mechanics you must be able to explain those 2 problems.

Bill Gill

Meanie at least I gave him the double slit which is easy compared to those two.

Easy!!!!
The Cosmos is infinite; our perception of it is finite, so there will always be things that don't make sense to us. We find explanations, but they are only more sophisticated versions of the crystal spheres, which Higgs may be about to join.

Just don't ask me to prove it. that's all.

And there is an obvious response to your byline you have Bill S.

"Rome did not become a world power under Caesar by discussing or proving theories it did so by killing and enslaving all those who opposed it"

There has not been any concerted effort to modify the corpuscular theory. One failure cannot be the end.
If you consider light as stream of particles moving along a helical path, surely it will pass through two slits.
We are not aliens who just happened to be here. We have evolved in this universe. That is enough to think that we are not deceived by our sense organs. The laws of physics decide how the sense organs work.

In spite of the concerted and coordinated efforts, it has not been possible to incorporate both QM and GR into a single theory. That cannot mean that both are incorrect. However we can suspect that something is wrong. What I am arguing is some alternate attempts can be made. If such an attempt wins, then what I think is that the model will be as per the standards that I have provided.
Does Newton's concept visualize a static orbit? If yes, you should think of an alternate possibility, other than GR. What I say is that no concerted action is being taken to carry forward research in that direction. Not that I have ready-made answers.

The Cosmos may be infinite; but our universe is finite(that is what I propose). So within the finite universe, all things ought to make sense.

Incorrect totally it has not been possible to integrate QM into GR there are hundreds of ways to integrate GR into QM we even have play worlds (http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1674 commentary if you prefer http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/many_worlds_sausage_correct_quantum_factors-80570)

The problem for science is the same as your problem they prefer the physical world so they would prefer QM to slot neatly into GR.

IS THE PHYSICAL WORLD REAL?
I PROPOSE MY

TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING!!!

Created and Written by Khalid Masood

“TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING” is ‘The Time Universe Theory!'
I propose, only Time exists in the Universe: “Time Creates Space, Life,
Consciousness, and the Universe Itself.”
"Time tells matter how to create, matter tells time how to survive !"
No particles, no waves, not both and no vibrating or dancing strings! Only
"FLUCTUATING EXTREME LEVELS OF ENERGY" write Everything of the Universe,
including our consciousness and also Theory pf Everything!!!

The only truth about the physical universe is that it is not physical. Life
and matter of this universe, is nothing but a physical illusion.

The smartest thing of the universe is universe itself. Universe is not only
small and finite. Universe ‘on the whole’ is smartest phenomenon of the
Universe. On the whole universe is shapeless, massless and weightless. I CAN
PICK IT UP !!!
Einstein’s “second law,” m = E/ c^2 i.e. m = E/ c2 [ How mass drives from
pure Energy] raises the question whether mass can be understood more deeply
as energy. And can we build, as Wheeler put it, "Mass Without Mass"? are the
best predictions in favour of my "Time Theory of Everything."
In my view the first question is “How pure energy drives from time?”. The
universe is not what it used to be, nor what it appears to be, as Frank W
ilczek of MIT quoted in first chapter ‘Getting to it’ of his book titled "The
Lightness of Being" [ mass, ether, and the unification of forces ] also
supports my theory. Infinity is finity on the whole.
There is nothing original under the physical phenomena. All physical
properties of the universe are secondary in nature.There is a universe behind
the ‘physical universe’ which is ‘dark’ and primary universe. If a “Theory of
Everything” is Holy Grail of cosmology, “Time Theory of Everything” is Holy
Grail of physics!
Physicists are hunting for an elusive particle that would reveal the presence
of a new kind of field that permeates all of reality. Finding that Higgs
field will give us a more complete understanding about how the elusive
universe works!
I believe in bold imagination in research. I believe universe is not acadamic,

and is not bound of our physical theories. Capture Higgs particle, ‘eyes on a
prize particle’, the search for the Higgs boson [God Particle] and creation
of micro black holes is nonsense idea.
Higgs boson is not destiny! We have to rethink TIME and ETERNITY.
Basic and primary stuff of the universe is not physical. All matter, energy
and fundamental forces of nature are secondary and reffered by a unified
primary force of nature. There is a ‘co-ordination force’ in between ‘God’
and all secondary forces of nature, which is more important than Higgs boson.
I suggest this force is time. Time is invisible presence and the only basic
building block of the universe and everything in it.

Time is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final

understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive,

that I have given it a nickname: 'The God Force'!

Time is at the very heart of physical discovery – from the nature of matter

to the origin of the universe.

It is also a fundamental driver of everything in the universe – many of

tomorrow’s discoveries and technologies will emerge from ‘Time physics.’

MOTHER OF ALL FUNDAMENTAL FORCES.
[A union of forces and time]

Time is mother of all fundamental forces.
"Forces-time" in which time exists as fifth force with four fundamental
forces.
Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of
time.
TIME is a coordination force of the universe and multiverse referred by
nature.
Nothing has independent existence except time. All three and extra dimensions
of space are of time’s dimensions. Time is not a 4th dimension of space. Time
is mother of all dimensions.
Password of time is in the Mind of God!
Tell me about the nature of time, I can create the Universe, a Macro Black
Hole, Higgs boson and even Life!
If all cosmologists of the world say a foolish thing it is still a foolish
thing!
I WILL CHANGE THE HISTORY OF TIME !
I have suggested in my "Time Theory Of Everything" that "God does not play
particles game with the Universe!"
Three of space and one of time that three space dimensions and one of time
dimension is wrong idea. Time is included in three space dimensions, but not
as a 4th dimension i.e all dimensions of space are dimensions of time.
TIME IS NOT A MANUFACTURED QUANTITY. Time has independent existence and
fundamental. Space is a manufactured quantity and secondary form of time. I
believe in infinite extra spatial dimensions of time only, and I know what
these dimensions are, but I don’t believe time as extra dimension with space.
I don’t believe in extra dimensions of space, I believe in extra dimensions
of time! Three dimensions of space and one dimension of time is absolutely
wrong idea. Our physical universe exists in three or 11 dimensions of time!
[as string theory proposed,10 of space and one of time dimension] “There
isn’t just one dimension of time,” says Itzhak Bars of the University of
Southern California in Los Angeles.”There are two. One whole dimension has
until now gone entirely unnoticed by us. Two time / 2T Physics” [New
scientist 13 October 2007, Hypertime, Cover story] Why we need two dimensions
of time? Why not we need 11 and many more dimensions of time?
Higgs boson should be named “TIME PARTICLE."

A NEW HYPOTHESIS:
Part2 [TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING]

EXTREME LEVEL THEORY:
The study of the theory that all fundamental particles and vibrating one-
dimensional strings are fluctuations of zero-dimensional and unidimensional
Extreme Levels Of Energy.

I don’t believe particles in any shape or dimensions as basic building blocks
of matter, energy, and everything in the universe. I have an alternative
“Fluctuating Extreme Levels” hypothesis which is a part of my “Time Theory of
Everything” [Extreme Level Theory] Extreme Level Theory suggests that basic
building blocks of everything in the universe are composed of ‘Fluctuating
Extreme Levels’ of energy. In ‘Extreme Level Theory’ of time, Extreme Levels
correspond to different entities and quantities. If Extreme Level Theory
proves correct, photons, electrons and neutrinos are different due to changes
in the fluctuations of extreme levels. Prior to Extreme Level Theory,
subatomic ‘particles’ were envisioned as tiny balls or points of energy.
Extreme Level Theory works on the premise that the tiniest subatomic bits
that make up the elements of atoms actually behave like ‘Fluctuating Extreme
Levels’ and not like vibrating or dancing strings! Higg’s Field is a “Time’s
Field”…….. Photon is no more now a particle, a wave, or has features of both!
Photon exist at fluctuating extreme level of energy.

TIME THEORY OF GRAVITY
Part 3 "TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING"

I believe in my 'physical' motto: "Time tells space how to create, space
tells time how to expand and bend."
Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of
time.
Gravity is a manifestation of time-space.
P.S: It's time-space and not space-time. TIME COMES FIRST.
Our entire research focus must be on "How time interact with matter and
energy?" and "Time, matter and energy, how they interact with each other?"
Time can take the form of motion, light, electricity, radiation, GRAVITY.....
just about anything honestly.
Time theory of gravity is the best rival of General Theory of Relativity and
Quantum Loop Gravity.

“TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING” will change the meaning of Matter, Energy,
Natural Forces, Consciousness, Life & Extraterrestrial Life and Death.

It's not time, it's matter which is disappearing from the universe.

I am part of the universe, as my heart is part of me.

Khalid Masood
khalidcustoms@gmail.com

Have you developed the theory fully or is it just an idea?

Great stuff, Kalid, I like good theory!

I think quite a lot of questions will arise from this,but experience says that it is not wise to ask too many at a time; so here are a couple for a start, just to make sure we are all on the same track.



Is time energy in your theory?



How can you pick up an illusion?

I was going to ask only two questins, but I couldn't let this quote pass without asking you for an explanation.

Bill S. You can't really expect a real answer from somebody who doesn't even bother to define his terms when he is making a supposedly scientific statement. Especially since his terms don't seem to match anything in the standard scientific vocabulary.

Bill Gill

One can always hope that he is just posting the outline to test reaction, and that clarity will follow as he answers questions. Perhaps I'm getteng naïve as well as ancient.

New ideas should be welcomed. In the beginning it will be just 'an idea'. The person himself will not be knowing what it is. So he will be vague. But if he has developed it further, he will be able to explain at lest the fundamentals in a clear way.

But if he doesn't even have the fundamentals clear in his own mind there is no way that he can show anybody else how his theory works. Before any body can start telling people about his wonderful idea he needs to get it clear in his own mind.

Bill Gill

Unless, of course, that "body" needs some input to help to develop, or see the error of, the original idea; then he/she might be tempted to post the idea on a friendly, receptive forum to kick it around a bit.

Obviously that body would need to answer questions in order to achieve the necessary feedback!

Remember! Archimedes forgot the basics when he got a new idea! The excitement makes one forget the basics.

Be that as it may, you have to re-focus on those basics if your idea is to develop into anything like a viable theory.

People will ask questions, and unless you answer those questions you run the risk of being written of as, at best, a dreamer, and, at worst, a crank.

Looking back through the thread I suspect we could be heading for a repeat of the ground we covered in posts #39750 - #39770. Rather than do that, lets have some answers so we can get the discussion process under way.

Coming back to the subject, I think that providing mathematical definitions for physical entities is the real problem. All physical quantities should be physically defined. Then the definitions will be simple and understandable. And the end result, I think, will be a 'real physical world' explained fully in unambiguous terms.

However, the most fundamental terms 'energy' and 'force' have no physical definitions. These are defined on the basis of Newton's laws of motion, which are mathematical. Newton, I think, considered his laws to be primarily mathematical. That may be the reason why he named the book as 'principia mathematica'.

The laws of motion, though mathematical, can be used for physical systems. But the physical system should be 'physically' defined before we use the laws. But, newton's laws are erroneously (in my opinion) used as physical laws, and the definitions turned out to be mathematical. So I think the correction should start from there.

Well, in that case you need to provide a good physical definition of the Newton's laws without using any math. When you can do that, and show how to use them I may be ready to think that you have something worthwhile listening to. Otherwise you sound like one more troll spouting off to be heard.

Bill Gill

As an addendum to my last post I might mention that there has been a lot of philosophical discussion about why the universe seems to be mathematical. People who think deeply about this don't see any reason why the universe should be able to be described in mathematical terms. For example one of the primary descriptions in physics is F=MA. That is the force applied to an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by the acceleration of the object. This has been shown to be true, but philosophers don't see any good reason why it should be true.

So when we develop theories about the universe they all wind up being mathematical in nature. The best that most scientists can say to this is that that is the way it is. Philosophers of course want to know why things work, not just that they do.

Bill Gill

Thanks for that post, bill. Well put.

As many forum readers may be aware, Mario Livio's book: "Is God a mathematician?" considers this question.

http://plus.maths.org/content/god-mathematician
http://www.mariolivio.com/

I think you have slightly misread my post. I meant that the 'physical world' is to be defined physically, not 'Newtons laws'. For example, you have to define matter, energy and force physically. I have my own definitions for these. I think this forum does not impose much restrictions to such alternate views (unlike some other forums). I will give the definitions in the next post.

F=ma is a mathematical relation, not a physical law (in my opinion). However, at present this is used as a definition for force, and so it is held that force imparts energy. But, being a mathematical relation, when we apply it to physical systems, we have to mention from which source the energy comes. If enough energy is not supplied, the acceleration will not be proportional to the force. That is the difference that I propose.

What you have said about philosophers is correct. However, there is strange relationship between mathematics and philosophy. I think both can deal with non-real situations. That is, mathematicians tend to be philosophers.

That is what I was trying to say. You must somehow relate your definition of the physical world to how it works. That means you have to supply Finiter laws that are your equivalent of Newtons laws.


Unfortunately that is just not so. The acceleration will always be proportional to the force. The energy difference between the state of an object before a force is applied and the state after the force has been applied will be the integral of the mass times the acceleration. What that amounts to is the energy gained by the object, which is the mass of the object multiplied by the velocity gained by the object, e = m(v2-v1)^2. There is no way that f = ma will be violated.

Bill Gill

Finiter, while I agree entirely with Bill Gill's last comment, I would be fascinated to know the circumstances in which you believe f = ma can be violated; outside the quantum world, that is.

Force can be defined physically as follows: Force is something that can cause changes in a body. To know how much force you apply, you can use the mathematical relation, F=ma. The relation does not say what changes happen to the body (whether its speed changes, whether there is an energy transfer, etc.). It tells only that the force applied is enough to create a certain acceleration.

For example, in the case of a body orbiting in a gravitational field, the force does not change the speed, if the orbit is circular. In the case of an elliptical orbit, the speed varies and the energy required for the change in speed is adjusted from the internal energy of the body. In both the cases the body does not get enough energy (from outside) for an acceleration. In the case of mechanical force, the body is always in contact with the surroundings, and the energy transfer from the surroundings provide the required energy. So the energy transferred is equivalent to create the required acceleration.

The above explanation is based on the physical definition of force. I am not sure whether it will be possible to explain each and every case or whether there will be any dead end. Anyway, it is logical up to what is given above.

But you haven't given us a physical definition of force. What you say doesn't mean anything without a definition of terms.

And backing up a bit you say that in an orbiting body the force doesn't change the speed. But it does change the velocity. Speed is a scalar quantity. That is it has only magnitude. Velocity is a vector quantity, it includes a magnitude and a direction. An orbiting body is always changing the direction in which it is moving. The energy of a moving body is (1/2)*m*v^2. Therefore the acceleration is still F = MA. I know you don't like math in your system, but until you develop a way to do it some other way that is what we are stuck with.

Bill Gill

My definition has already been given. 'Force is something that can create changes in a body'.

Not that I don't like mathematics in the system. Mathematics is the tool, and it should remain as such, 'a toll to quantify mass, energy, force etc'. And there is no other tool other than mathematics. But, mathematical definitions are improper. The mathematical definition of force gives the wrong (in my opinion) notion that force imparts energy. What I argue is force cannot impart energy.

The speed of the orbiting body does not increase; that means its energy does not increase. Technically, based on the mathematical definition of force, you can say that it is accelerated towards the centre of the circular orbit. Actually it is the force that is acting towards the centre. When we ask,"How much force?". Then the answer comes, " force enough to create certain acceleration".

Rather than saying force imparts energy a better way to say it is to say that force transfers energy. The total energy in a system is constant. A force is capable of transferring energy from one part of the system to another.

You say that "The speed of the orbiting body does not increase". It may or may not depending on the orbit. But the velocity of the orbiting body does. If you use the mathematical tools to calculate the change you will find out that it all comes out even.

You say that you don't like mathematical laws of the universe. Just think about it a little and you may realize that the mathematics is just a tool to describe the laws. When we say f = ma then we are saying that the mathematical formula describes the physical fact that a push (or pull) causes a mass to change its velocity in a specific way. You are objecting to the math and saying that the math is the law. The math is simply a shorthand way to describe the law.

Bill Gill

I agree with what you say, but some clarification regarding the nature of the system is required. Earth is system on its own. Moon is a system on its own. However, the earth and the moon together form a system.

On the earth, transfer of energy is possible by collisions between atoms. But between earth and moon no such collision is possible. So when gravity acts, no energy transfer can take place between the two. But, it is held that gravity imparts energy to the moon. The orbit of moon is slightly elliptical, and the variation in speed is taken as a consequence of energy being imparted. That is, during a revolution, the total energy of the moon remains varying .

What I argue is that just because force exists between earth and the moon, there is no transfer of energy between the two. The slight variation in the speed of the moon is due to transfer of energy within the moon. That is, even though the speed varies, the energy of the moon always remains the same. I think you have understood my point.

The above difference, I think, is due to the mathematical definition that F= ma, which implies that force acting on a distance imparts energy.

There is a massive falacy on your thinking finiter.

You can't EVER I do mean EVER have a sigular force do you understand why that is?

If you think you can give me an example.

In the earth-moon system there are two balancing forces do you know what they are?

Trust me there is energy exchange involved and alot of it.

About a year ago in the thread “This is a different take on what gravity is” we knocked this about for around three pages without reaching any real conclusion.

Could we have better luck this time?

Would it be true to say that when energy exchange occurs in a system, energy is lost from that system; otherwise perpetual motion would be a possibility?

I guess this is the same question that Orac is asking in different words, but how do you perceive a force existing between two bodeis without an exchange of energy?

It is not just a possibility it is happening and always does, there is no perpetual energy even in space
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration)

The Moon is generating vast amounts of energy on the Earth's surface as it generates the tidal bulge. Those tides dissipate about 3.3 to 4 tW of energy (3.3 to 4 × 10E12 watts). The effect is the moon is moving slightly away each year as Earth transfers energy to the moon.

There are two alternate views on what will happen in 15 Billion years time with the moon at 1.6 times its current distance and a lunar period of 55 days.

i). The moon will stabilize and no longer cause tides. This will happen because the earth will at that point have the one side of earth always facing the moon as the one side of the moon faces earth now. So the tidal bulge will exists but be permanently still. So now the energy dissiapation will drop to a much lower level.

ii). At this locking point the moon is periously close to becoming retrograde because the earth is at present only 55% of the attractive force of the sun on the moon. At that distance it is very close to 50-50% the amount of weight the sun sheds between now and then is at best a guess at the moment.


The earth orbital change is harder to work because the sun is shedding mass as it burns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_orbit)

Anyone who tells you anyting with certainty about Earth's orbit is lying the n-body proof has even made it into wikipedia



There are simply too many bodies in play around the sun to say anything with certainty they can be adding or removing energy just as the Earth-moon system is.

Going back just a little Finiter wants to have the laws of the universe recast in physical terms rather than mathematical terms. After my reply to him yesterday regarding f=ma I realized that most of the laws are indeed cast in physical terms. It is especially easy to see in the case of Newton's laws.

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Notice that the second law is the only one that actually includes a mathematical formula. As I stated in my previous post that can be stated: When we say F is F=ma then we are saying that the mathematical formula describes the physical fact that a push (or pull) causes a mass to change its velocity in a specific way.

So I don't see where Finiter's problem is. Except that he apparently doesn't understand just how energy works.

Bill Gill
[i][/i]

You seem to be saying that perpetual motion is happening all the time. The link you cited states that energy is constantly being lost from the Earth/moon system; so this is not an example of perpetual motion - it will come to an end.

Perhaps you mean that once set in motion, a body will remain in motion until something acts upon it to stop it? I can see that by this definition, most of the motion in the Universe could be considered as perpetual motion.

Could this mean that it is not perpetual motion that is impossible to achieve; it is only the extraction of work from perpetual motion that is forbidden?

I think what Orac was saying wasn't what you read. I think he meant there is no perpetual motion even in space.

Now I will give my take on perpetual motion in space.

Imagine a universe with just 2 perfect masses in it. That is they are point source masses. Assume they are in a circular orbit around their common center of mass. I believe this is one stable solution to the 2 body problem. Under these conditions I believe you would have a system in perpetual motion. They would circle each other for eternity.

Now let's look at the real universe. If we start with 2 bodies circling each other we will have something that at first looks like the system in the first example. But in the real universe there are a lot of other factors involved. For one thing the 2 bodies aren't perfect point sources. They are extended bodies and they aren't perfectly inelastic. So there will be tidal effects. The tidal effects will remove energy from the 2 masses and dissipate it as heat. Therefore the orbits will change. Also there are other bodies in the universe and gravitational effects from the other bodies will cause the orbits to be perturbed. So due to energy exchanges with the other bodies the orbits will once again be perturbed. So in the real universe there is no real perpetual motion.

Face it, the people who have tried over and over to build perpetual motion machines have come up against the same problem. Losses due to friction cause the machine to slow and eventually stop.

I suppose that the universe as a whole might represent a sort of perpetual motion, but that depends on the overall evolution of the universe. That is far beyond anything I am prepared to speculate on. I do figure that that really gets into the realm of speculation.

Bill Gill

Correct Bill that darn english thing again :-)




Nope not even if you make the two bodies perfect you would have to extend your universe to be a perfect vacuum as well as your two planets would bump into the few molecules floating around imparting them with energy and slowing down be it ever so infintesimal.




Thats the same view as all the smart money in physicist circles :-)

That was part of my set up. I said that there were just 2 perfect masses. That excludes all other matter. So, no dust, no nothing, they should orbit forever.

Of course this is in a Newtonian universe. I'm not sure what QM would do to them.

Bill Gill

QM wont change things what you describe would rotate indefinitely ... of coarse a little hard to create :-)

Unless the protons decay

Not that I do not understand the present notion, but that I argue the present notion is not correct.

You have stated the three laws of motion. If you take the first law as a physical law, then it implies that a body can remain at rest, and a body can move along a straight line. If we take it as a mathematical law, then it is just a law regarding motion; the body is just an imaginary concept used to explain motion. Then, it does not say anything about a physical body: whether it can remain at rest or whether it can move along a straight line, etc.(I would argue that nothing, not even light, can move along a straight-line path in a three-dimensional space)

Regarding the second law, I have already explained the difference.

If the third law is taken as a physical law, then it is not clear where the action and reaction are. Newton has not stated whether the same body will be subjected to both action and reaction, and whether the action and reaction happens at the same time. Why did he not specify that? I argue that he intended the law to be mathematical. When there is an action there will be reaction; it is the mathematical law of conservation. If you add 'x', then you have to remove 'x' for conservation, and that is what the third law states.

I would ask you the reverse question: Why do you perceive that there should be energy transfer just because a force exists?

Actually, both are equally logical. What happens when gravitational force exists between earth and moon? Either 'there is energy transfer' or 'there is no energy transfer'. If one is correct, the other is automatically wrong. The present view is that 'there is energy transfer'. I suggest that the present view is incorrect, not because it is illogical as such, but because it leads to the concept of 'virtual particles', which I think is metaphysical. The present view is that gravitational force exists by transferring virtual 'gravitons'.

Force is, simply, a name we give to a transfer of energy. Without energy, of some kind, there could be no force.



This is probably the point at which a physicist would say "...but gravity is not a force." I'm not a physicist, so I'm inclined to regard this as a bit of a cop-out.

as far as the graviton is concerned; it is still only hypothetical.

BTW, Finiter, are you a sociologist? They have this habit of answering a question by asking another.

I think you need to say what you mean by a striaght line.

E.g. Would you accept that a geodesic is a straight line?

There is a certain thread of logic here. Newton was talking about the motion of bodies, perhaps he assumed that his readers would make the connection. In any case, an action, without a subject and object (in the grammatical sense) is a non-entity; it would be like talking about a shadow that had no object (in the physical sense) to cast it, and no surface on which to be cast. Would there still be a shadow?

As for the question of “whether the same body will be subjected to both action and reaction”; the action/reaction relationship, in this context is meaningful only if applied to the same body. If the “reaction” is applied directly to another body, it has to be regarded as an “action” in its own right. If you don’t accept this, then you have to consider whether your initial action occurred as a result of something else, and was therefore a “reaction”. This would lead you into an infinite regression situation, which would tend to paralyse scientific thought.

There is where you are wrong Bill S. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces of the universe. Physicists would not say gravity is not a force. As far as what Finiter says, he just does not understand how the universe works. He claims that he has a better idea of how it works than is explained by current theories. However current theories work extremely well in making accurate predictions of what will happen in various circumstances. So he needs to show how his theory will work as well, and more simply, as the current theories, or will work better than current theories. So far he has done nothing but say over and over that we are all wrong. This is one signature of a troll.

Bill Gill

Just by way of one example, David Deutsch says: "Today we understand gravity through Einstein’s theory rather than Newton’s, and we know that no such force exists."

Well, that is the General Relativity (GR) view. This view says that gravity is the result of a distortion in spacetime. The Quantum Mechanical (QM) view is that gravity is the result of the interchange of gravitons. Gravitons of course are the force carrying particles of the gravitational force. This is just a difference in view point which will be resolved when a theory of quantum gravity is eventually developed. In the mean time it is a lot easier to count it as a force unless you need to do GR calculations. In any case I don't think it is anything like Finiter's view.

Bill Gill

Perhaps finding a few gavitons would help.

I suppose gravity could be both a force or a spacetime distortion, depending on what question you ask about it.

Yes you are correct ... hadn't thought about that good catch :-)

The question the 3rd law poses is why does something stay at rest and it's a serious question.

if if we have a force Fab and its countered by a force -Fba you can write

Fab - Fba = 0 = F the net result is zero

In a world without the law you can end up with

Fab + Fba = F

Something can exert a force back on itself.

You can't reach down grab your ankles and lift you body off the ground ... you are imparting a force into your ankles and pulling them up .... so why don't they move?

Remember you have no forces resisting it in your case Finiter that force should do something.

See it's not an inconsequential law ... it's a deductive law because a force can not exert on itself.

As per Bill's definition a force is the transfer of energy, ergo energy can not create more energy, ergo no perpertual motion.

The 3rd law is a statement of the 1st law of energy in a mechanical/physical system.

This brings us back to Bill's two bodies in a perfect vacuum (minus proton decay). This looks like perpetual motion, but no work could be extracted from it without destroying the perpetual nature of the motion.

I'm going to have to think about this a bit; it could help with my problem accepting that no work is being done by orbiting bodies in non-idealised situations.

The current theories work extremely well except in certain extreme cases. Why such an exception? That means we have not reached a situation to say that 'everything is settled'. There are inherent contradictions; as pointed out by Bill S, gravity is regarded by some as not a 'force in the normal sense'. That means there is justification for alternate views.

What I have put forth is an alternate view. If you measure it based on the present theory, it will always be wrong. Any alternate view is thus something wrong. The only thing that can be verified about such alternate suggestions is whether it is logical or not. To put forth a better theory is not an easy job, especially if you start with a fundamentally different view. However, that does not mean that you should not discuss your alternate views.

Finiter, I agree that it is important to discuss alternative views. If it was automatically assumed that an idea was wrong, simply because it didn't agree with current thinking there would be no scientific progress.

I think it is also important that people who have ideas that are not main stream should persist in arguing their points until, either they change scientific thinking, or are themselves convinced that their ideas are not viable. Of course, in order to bring about change you have to be able to convince the scientific community that your ideas actually displace the current ones.

There are some good examples on this forum of people who seem to think that just repeating assertions will convince others that they are true. That approach is more likely to work in politics than in science.

I am not a sociologist. But asking a counter question has to do more with logic, I think. You say that you are not a physicist (I claim that I am interested in physics, and hence doing some work in theoretical physics), but your questions are logical. I think the whole physics is based on logic. However, the present day physics has changed the meaning of logic (I think to suit the requirements) and says logic is not what you poor fellows think.

Regarding the straight line motion, I mean the actual word meaning of straight-line motion. (It is held that in a curved space-time, the motion of any body will be curved; it is logical provided there is an entity like space-time.) I think that in a three-dimensional space, bodies can move only three-dimensionally; I propose a helical motion for all bodies in the universe. Light is particles of matter moving along a helical path.

The problem is finiter ... it really is that simple ... reach down and pull on your feet why can't you pull them up into the air.

If gravity is just striaght line motion as you suggest I can pull myself up into the air I am exerting a force and I can put spring gauges on to a string tied to my feet and show you I am pulling.

So why don't my feet come up off the ground?

So in your alternative view what is happening here ... explain away.

BTW this is exactly what newton did ... he graded leather tethers as needing a certain force to stretch a known distance. So he could compare the force needed to lift a rock to that of dragging something along or horses pulling etc. It was actually Hook who answered the question why one can not lift oneself into the air because he had been working with stored energy in springs.

Regarding perpetual motion: I think that motion (and hence energy) is the basic quality of matter, and so all bodies remain in motion, ie, in perpetual motion. I would like to define energy as 'the quality by virtue of which matter always remains in motion'.

Aristotle held the view that a force is required to keep bodies in motion. Newton corrected him and said that once the body is set in motion by a force, there is no need of any force to keep it in motion. The actual situation, I think, is that no force is required at any time; bodies move on their own.

The above concept that energy is a fundamental quality of matter, like mass and volume, is the basis of my alternate approach (whether it may ultimately turn out to be wrong or right).

Then you really can lift yourself up into the air there is nothing to stop you doing it :-)

Superman eat your heart out!

I have not suggested that gravity is straight line motion, or anything to that effect (Of course, I think there is relation between speed and gravity). I just don't get what relevance your example has. Here, there is no need of an alternate explanation. Your body tries to pull your feet up and at the same time tries to keep your feet down. It is perfectly balanced.

No tie a rope to your feet and put a strain gauge on it.

When you are standing there according to you I have no force I just am. read the strain gauge it will be at zero I am not pulling.

Now I am going to pull on the string I can clearly see I am putting a force on the string THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT TO JUST STANDING.

What is opposing the new force I am applying you can see and measure it but it doesnt do anything there is nothing pushing my feet down I am allowed to have a one side force the strain gauge clearly shows I am applying a one sided force.

The only option I can see in your world you can have forces that don't do anything?????

Orac, have you ever thought at what speed you are moving in space? The earth moves at a speed of 30Km/s. The sun moves at a speed of nearly 250Km/s and carries the earth along with it. The galaxy containing the sun is moving at a still higher speed. The galaxy-cluster to which our galaxy belongs will be moving at a still higher speed (I think it will be close to one-third the speed of light). That is, we along with the earth is moving at a terrific speed. No superman has claimed to attain that speed!

Just put another gauge under your feet to measure the pressure you exert. It will also show the same reading.

Okay so lets move to your world a force can exert on itself put you hands around behind yourself and push youself a little faster now you are moving a little faster push again.

I am sure you can push yourself up to the speed of light in your world Finiter ... that is how stupid this idea is.

See in audio ampflifier we call it feedback an amplifier with a gain over 1 can exhibit positive feedback what newtons 3rd law tells you is our real world is an amplifier with a gain guarateed to be less than 1 ... that is no positive feedback is possible.

In our world we can't push ourselves up to the speed of light that law apparently doesn't hold in your world :-)

See the problem yet!

Wrong it will be unchanged you don't weight anymore ... you are exerting a force on yourself.

And if it was under the string under your feet it will clearly show there is a force upwards under your feet SO WHY DON'T THEY MOVE whats resisting it :-)

Is your world relativistic? If it is, how can you know that the Earth is not stationary? What do moving, and being stationary really mean?

Bill S. - Relativistic or non-relativistic, if the Earth is stationary then the whole universe is spinning around us like a top, and the parts that are millions of light years away are going around at speeds many times the speed of light.

I have serious doubts that the earth is stationary.

Bill Gill

That's a question very easy to dismiss according to common sense, but not according Ernst Mach and what Einstein referred to as Mach's Principle.

I certainly share your doubts, Bill; I was simply making the point that, according to SR, we cannot know if we are moving, unless we are accelerating; and I was wondering what, if any, influence that might have on the point Finiter was making.

Actually you are much better reading the life and times of Robert Hooke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hooke) for this argument.

See in essence Newtons 3rd law is really the bit Hookes added in.

Hookes is an interesting man but to me he should be known as the man of balance and it's no surprise the law of elasticity bears his name.

Essentially Hookes idea is there is only two ways to balance a "system" that is to

1.) Have a system opposed by a system going the other way
2.) Have a system the result of which is measured and the measured result used to adjust the system

His idea was basic any system was inherently unstable and subject to runaway. He applied the idea mecahnics, biology, philospophy, human biology and behaviour.

Hookes argued strongly about seperating the powers of government and law enforcement based around the balancing problem that a government system would run into unbalance.

It was only later with Nobel and dynamite and later nuclear critical runaway was the idea of how bad a single sided force runaway can be.

In electric circuits it was realized that the forward force (voltage) was always opposed by resistance in the circuit and in fluid and air dynamics pressure was opposed by drag. Friction was thus added in by Guillaume Amontons (although Leonardo Da Vinci had actually noted the effect much earlier) as the counter balance to motion.

In essence science had realized what Hookes had always said a system can only remain balanced by monitoring or by counter balancing two opposing systems. Thus finally we added the counterbalancing of forces into the laws of motion.

I actually once saw an interesting presentation that basically said if you accept big bang is about gravity and you accept gravity as a force then you can argue it must be a one sided force because big bang is in someways gravity in runaway in the same way we see thermodynamic explosions or nuclear runaway explosions. The suggestion was as things move faster they get heavier via relativity (ergo gravity drives it's own demise).
So the universe expands faster and faster until essentially everything is very close to the speed of light at which point the universe runs out of gravity and you get "the big pop". Weird idea but worth throwing in the context we are talking here.

BTW: The translation of the book "System of the World" by Hookes is a recommended read if you ever get a chance.

No. If you have gauges to measure both the pull exerted by your hand and the push exerted by your feet, then either both will be zero or both will show the same reading.

The present view is that we cannot distinguish whether we are moving or not. So the fact may be either 'we are moving' or 'we are not moving'. Both the answers are equally logical, and so we can chose one. I opt for the former, ie, we are moving. (as stated earlier, I propose that energy is the quality of matter and so no body can remain at rest).

Going further in that direction, I would say that it is possible to know whether we are moving (without any reference point that remains at rest). What I propose is a G that depends upon speed, ie, G is directly proportional to square of the speed. When a mass like Earth is at rest the measured value of G would be zero.

The balancing act is very interesting. In my opinion: In a one-dimensional frame, a force and a counter force can balance if they are equal, and the body will remain stationary. But in a two dimensional frame, three forces will be required to keep it stationary. With only two forces, the body will be having a circular motion, and forces will remain balanced. And, in a three dimensional frame, a body will require four forces to remain stationary, and three forces to remain moving around on a spherical surface.

On what do you base this choice, personal preference, or science?



Are you throwing out SR? If so, I suspect you will have to come up with some convincing material if you are to impress the scientific community.



You are talking about speed, rather than acceleration?

Finiter, before looking further at your balancing act with forces in various dimensions, I would like to be sure of one thing: are you saying that motion is intrinsic to any body, so it can be at rest only if appropriate forces are acting on it?

Other way around Bill S from what I understand finiter says things inherently don't move you apply a force to make them move. So when they are stationary there are no forces exerted on them they are in balance with there enviroment.

Thats why he finds it weird in 3D we would need 3 paired forces he is assuming (X,Y,Z).

Of coarse Bill G and I will tell him there there aren't 3 paired forces there are literally billions. Newtons gravity law is explicit gravity has no space limit and each and everybody exerts a force on use and we exert one back on them.

When we do normal physics calculations almost all of the forces as so small we ignore them as trivial.

Of coarse when we move to GR theory we say gravity is a fiction force like centripetal acceleration and all that is happening is the time scale becomes stretched due to spacetime distortion around the planetary object. Thus there is only 1 force the once between the two surfaces against each other. There are no lateral forces for a stationary body in GR.

When both are equally logical, we can choose one and try whether it agrees with our model. SR is one theory that I think is unnecessary and metaphysical(the concept of space-time). I am talking about speed.

The problem is there is a specific test for SR anybody can do and it has been done countless ways

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

Explain away how does the twin paradox effect come about.

These days we measure time shift of lifting something as little as a foot(http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/ordinary-relativity/) and expect that to be up by probably ten fold by the end of next year.

Based on my view, the fundamental particle of matter moves at the speed 'c'. So any body made up of such particles will always be moving; however, part of the energy remains as internal energy, and so no body attains the speed of light. To keep a body at rest, force has to be applied. But the body will resist this, and this will create a potential state in the body. So it is impossible to keep a body at rest. As pointed out earlier, the bodies at rest on earth are moving at a very high speed along with the galaxy-cluster.

The observed fact is that measured time changes with gravity and speed. My explanation is that 'gravity slows down the clock, and not the time'. As mentioned earlier, I propose that G depends on speed. As G increases with speed, gravity increases and the clock slows down. So the effect of both the gravity and speed on measured time are the same.(So GR and Sr are not needed to explain the slowing of clock).

Again, if G increases with speed, then the increase in relative mass observed will be due to the increase in G (Here also SR is not needed). If bodies are made up of particles moving at speed 'c', then the speed limit will be 'c' for all bodies (SR is not needed to explain that).

Thus the so-called right predictions of SR/GR can be explained in an alternate way, and not only that, the alternate explanation removes the metaphysical concept of space-time.

Huh the atomic clocks we are talking about and in this case a quantum clock (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/ordinary-relativity/)

They are not something that can be slowed down like a mechanical clock ... these are quantum oscillations.

So the oscillations are slowing down ... umm thats extremely difficult in the quantum world.

See the funny thing is GR and QM time are different we were talking about this in a different thread.

Read the paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.0016v2.pdf

Simple experiment ... now where do you want to go from here.

I loved that experiment. Heck I loved the one back in the 60s when HP brought out their commercial Cesium Beam Atomic Clock, the first commercial atomic clock. As a publicity stunt they set up 2 of the clocks and compared them very carefully. They they bought an air line ticket around the world for one of them. When it got back they compared them again, and they showed once again that Einstein was right. It was great.

Bill Gill

The beauty of this in the future to me will be schools and uni's will have the stuff and can show students rather than some abstract concept.

Seeing stuff in action does make it more personal and believable than relying on what someone says happens.

Remember, the quantum effects of gravity is still not understood. I will use that wormhole (loop hole) to wriggle through. The oscillations of the atomic clock are at the atomic level, and it is the atoms that constitute any body. So any change in the gravity will affect the oscillations, especially if G changes as proposed by me.

I propose that in masses like Earth, Moon, Sun, etc., the attractive and repulsive forces remain balanced, and it is this that makes them stable. The attractive forces include the electromagnetic attraction and gravitational attraction. The repulsive force includes electromagnetic repulsion and the repulsive pseudo force due to vibratory, oscillatory and translational motion of the atoms. So any change in the G will cause changes in the vibrations of atoms.

Finiter, I may have missed something, somewhere; if so, please point me to it; if not, can you say a bit about your proposed cahnges of "G". How does it change, what is the mechanism, what are the observable effects?

Incorrect I gave you the paper to read

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.0016v2.pdf

An entangled particle and I can show you other QM results it is uneffected by gravity as you would expect. It was expected QM could not retain its wave coherence if it was affected by such things.

This is what caused Hawkings such problem with black holes QM doesn't see the gravity in them like everything else does.

Your wiggle room has been evapourated last year and it's what propmpt Hawkings to give up on theory of everything.

Would I be right in thinking you are saying that energy is an intrinsic property of matter which causes everything to be in constant motion?

If that is the case, when you talk of the Earth being at rest you must propose that some external forces are being applied to it to stop its inherent motion?

Apart from saying that a body appears, in or from your F of R, to be at rest relative to other bodies, how do you define “being at rest”?

I will explain from the start. I propose that matter has a fundamental particle that always moves at the speed 'c' (energy is a fundamental quality of matter). Forces are created due to the reaction to the energy. So the total energy and total force are equal to mc^2/2. Kinetic energy creates Gravity, potential energy creates Electrostatic force and the motion of particles having potential energy creates Magnetic force. These three are the only real forces (forces having fields).

When fundamental particles integrate, the energy and force are transferred to the particle that is formed. In the case of electrons/positrons, half the energy is kinetic and half potential(charge), and so half of the force is gravity and half electrostatic. When electrons move, magnetic force is created at the expense of electrostatic force. Atoms, and other large scale structures are made up of electron-positron pairs, and so gravity and electromagnetic force are separately conserved.

At the level of electrons, gravity is very strong (the strong nuclear force is actually gravity at the level of electrons/positrons). The weak gravity that we experience is the residual or spill-over of that strong force (residual after the formation of masses of atoms). Thus gravity is due to motion; the speed and available force decides the gravitational constant. The present G is the G of earth, ie, the G for the speed of earth (30Km/s). I have actually derived the present G theoretically from my model (it requires a lot of explanation, though calculations are very easy).

Thus, the universal constant G that is used at present is a relative value valid for earth only. From this we can calculate the G for unit speed and that will be valid for all masses in the universe at present. As the universe expands the G for unit speed increases, and masses tend to become more dense.

The problem is that G is taken as a universal constant. All experiments that are conducted on earth are conducted under constant G (nearly constant; the speed of earth varies slightly and so we never get an exact value for G). I think, in quantum mechanics, gravity is a force like the electrostatic force, and not a 'curvature of space' as visualized by GR; and, all the theoretical calculations in QM take G as a universal constant.

Anyway, I think, the singularity inside a black hole and the wormholes that leads to other universes are just fiction. They should evaporate; there are a lot of loopholes in the present QM/GR, and I think, the whole of QM/SR/GR will eventually evaporate.

Yes.
Yes, but no external force (however large it may be)can stop Earth.
The space is absolute. Since all the bodies are moving, it is impossible to observe a body at rest. That is our inability caused by the laws of physics. However, if the measured value of G is zero, then you can say that you are at rest (an indirect observation). All the moving bodies together constitute the universe, but the universe is not moving. The universe itself, like all other masses in it, tend to be nearly spherical; the centre of the universe is thus a point of reference (a point at rest) for all bodies, but the centre remains out of our view.

QM doesn't have anything to say about GR and gravitational constants at all. In alot of implementations you can put GR neatly inside QM but esentially things in the Quantum behaviour world are essentially outside the physical world thats why they can have effects instantaneously over incredible distance, erase time events and be totally uneffected by even the strongest gravity or real world forces.

I will give you no chance of QM disappearing I am afraid you are dreaming if you think it will. Under you wildest parts of your theory how are you going to get some of the spooky actions at distance effects of QM. These sorts of effects are real and measurable and implementations like your physical world have no chance of explaining them.

As I said look a QM bosenova explosion if you want to see how real QM is. It can tear your flimsy matter apart in ways your real world physics can't even begin to describe.

You may not like QM it is an inconvient truth you can join Einstein and Hawkings who don't like the thing but good luck disproving it .... I think we call that the turkey with its head in the sand approach.

As someone has said, 'any claim regarding experimental verification of any aspect of the QM theory has at least one loop hole'. Whether it is spooky action at a distance, or erasing time events or bosenova explosion, there exists some loopholes. The interactions (by way of using forces) at the level of particles and atoms is still unknown. We have only some statistical information; the QM thrives on our lack of knowledge.

My suggestions (it may be right or wrong) that
'a body has a certain amount of force (like energy)'
'for every interaction the body has to contribute half the required force'
'electrostatic force also depends on mass'
'the available electrostatic force can be used for attraction and repulsion in any ratio'
are part of an attempt to interpret the interactions at all levels.

Hidden variables as proposed by EPR has been tested and tested and todate no one has ever shown a way to beat bells-inequality infact almost all physicists say it can't be violated because of the mathematical proof.

Infact if you think its wrong there is quantum randi challenge with a nobel prize, fame and fortune for anyone who can prove it wrong (http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168)

The only explaination left that can't be excluded is the entire universe is pre-ordained or superdetermined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism). Bascially we can't fault QM because the universe knows what we are going to test ahead of time and conspires to make our QM test correct. That one of coarse can never be challenged or tested but then most have a name for that it's called religion ... GOD makes it so. Of coarse QM allows GOD to exist in a less busy way anyhow he can simply direct traffic so to speak :-)

What I find funny with people like you Finiter you would rather believe the almost ridiculous than accept QM because what it casts doubt around the physicallity of your world.

Superdeterminism, and the fact that it seems to rule out free will, is something I struggled with when developing the idea of a truly infinite cosmos. The reasoning went something like this:

In infinity (which includes the concept of eternity) there can be no change, because there is no passage of (or through) time.

The statement that in eternity everything that can happen will happen, an infinite number of times is misleading. It would seem better to say that in eternity everything that can happen is happening, now. However, even that is not quite right, because “happening” implies progression. The best I could find was: everything that can happen IS.

If the Universe we perceive is a restricted view of this cosmos, free will would seem to be ruled out, because we are living in a changeless infinity in which everything just IS.

One question remains. Why is everything as it is? It has to be possible that it is as it is, to some extent, because of the things we perceive ourselves as doing in our illusion of time.

At present, that seems more like philosophy than science, but if QM is providing us with a window into the infinite, it might bring about a unification of the two.

There seems to be some contradiction here. All bodies are always in motion. The centre of the universe is not in motion. If there is a body at the centre of the universe, it must be stationary. Ergo, not all bodies are in constant motion.

This central body is stationary relative to what? Certainly not to all the other bodies in the universe, they are all in relative motion. This must imply that space is a static frame of reference. Is that your view?

I have just gone through the quantum randi challenge that you have referred to. It is based on the assumption that photons are field quanta, and not objects. In my opinion, light is fundamental particles of matter in motion, not just waves; a quantum of light is a three dimensional object containing a certain number of fundamental particles.

In fact, I do not believe in any theory including QM (In my opinion, the explanations based on QM are ridiculous). I only believe that there is a possibility that QM is wrong (it is just a belief; a belief may turn out to be either wrong or right)

Your playing with symantecs here.

Spin or any other property that can be encoded with quantum data exhibits the same property.

Or are you denying we can encode spin etc into phtons?

Thank you very much (for that question)! In fact, I have been doing theoretical 'search' (the word 'research' should be reserved for those who receive funds for their search)for an ultimate theory in physics for the past many years, and I claim that I have arrived at the ultimate theory (just a claim). Whatever I have mentioned are part of that theory. So, when you ask a very logical question regarding my theory, I am happy.

In my model the centre of the universe is blank. If there were a mass (body) at the centre, then by Gauss theorem, there would be no net gravitational force on that since it would be surrounded uniformly on all sides by other masses. Consequently the mass at the centre would not exert any force on the rest, and so the force available to it will remain unused. That means the universe will be able to interact with other universes. In my model, the universe is the final product of the integration of matter particles; it has no field, and so is an isolated system, which cannot interact with other universes if any.

Yes. The space is a static frame of reference.

If we are allowed to throw QM out the GR explains everything left, it is without fault, so why do we need your theory?

Sorry I can't take anyone seriously who throws QM out as a mistake, no more than I believe the earth is flat and a giant turtle carries it around, those two theories are in the same league they defy any belief at science.

Surely Gauss's law (theorum)relates to electrical charge; so it would apply to gravity only if you could show a real link between the two. You would need to do more than simply state that there was a link, but you probably have done the maths already. You have obviously thought much about it.

In my model any spin is real spin, not just an un-explainable phenomenon. Saying that the two electrons in an orbit have just different spins, without explaining what spin means, is just ridiculous. I propose that the two electrons actually spin, and at any instant, their spins are in the same direction with respect to the direction of motion.

I don't think there is any physical idea regarding the spin of photons at present. In my model, the particles of matter in light follows a helical path; the helix may be clockwise or anticlockwise.

The three real forces, electrostatic, magnetic and gravitational, have fields and obey the inverse square law. Thus there is enough logic to assume that Gauss's law will be valid for gravity.

Of course, I have mathematical proof to show that the electrostatic energy of an electron is mc^2/4. When two electrons touch each other,the force is the maximum and I propose that the whole electrostatic energy is used then. If we use the classical radius of electron, then the above result can be obtained. The gravitational energy of electron is also the same, mc^2/4. So for calculating electrostatic force between electron and a positron, we can use the gravitational constant of electron. And, it is possible to derive the present value of G from the gravitational constant of electron.

That's getting a bit technical for me, Finiter.

I think I see what you are saying, but by my own definition of understanding: "If you can't ask an intelligent question about it, you don't understand it." I need to think about it.

No doubt Orac will come in on it, that might help!

Not me ... no comment ... :-)

To many observations you have to discard to make whats left work and at the end I don't think you have an improvement on GR it explains no more I think probably alot less.

Bill S. The problem with Finiters ideas is that he doesn't really share them. He makes a lot of statements, and doesn't explain how they are generated. Without an explanation of his theory that we can follow we don't really have any way to evaluate it. Keep in mind that any physical theory has to be validated by experiment before it becomes any more than a hypothesis. So far Finiter hasn't even told us in detail what his theory is.

Science requires that any hypothesis must be stated in enough detail so that others can evaluate it. Worked out examples are invaluable, so that people can check the work to see if it is correct. With no more than Finiter has given us the only conclusion I can reach is that he is a crackpot who is trying to push an impossible theory. If he does have a real theory he will have to come up with something more than he has given us so far.

Bill Gill

There you have it, Finiter.

How about silencing any detractors by posting your whole theory. I can't offer to do more than ask naïve questions, but there are obviously others who can do more. Who knows, there could be a Nobel Prize waiting.

I have compiled my findings in the form of a book (nearly 300 pages). If I post just the very essential parts only, then also, the post will be very large and no body will go through it. If I provide just the skeleton work, then as pointed out by Bill, it will not be enough to verify the theory. So I chose to discuss some points where I differ from the existing concepts (to make sure that I haven't gone wrong).

If you are interested, I will give you the name of my book (don't think I am promoting my book; it is available in the market, but has not taken off).

I agree with all you have stated, except the conclusion that you have arrived at. Here I have put forth an alternate view regarding the physical world, just to discuss it. As a part of it, I have put forth some of my differing views, which I consider to be logical (only logical, may not be correct).

Finiter, the problem with your hypothesis is that there are so many experimental results that completely disagree with what you have said. And that is a fact. You cannot just say that the widely disseminated experimental results are all wrong. You have to show how they are wrong and provide a better explanation of what is happening. And you have completely failed to do that. Therefore what you are saying has no basis and nobody should be paying any attention to it.

You say you have written a book about it and it has not taken off, presumably because it is too large. Well, Newton wrote a big book and it was hard to read, but it took off. Maybe if you wrote one that made sense, the way Newton did, it would take off too.

Bill Gill

Finiter, I would certainly be interested to know about your book.

Did you find a publisher willing to commission it, or did you self-publish?

BTW, Finiter, does your book define reality?

I got it self-published. It is available in Amazon.com. Title: "The Realty of the Physical World"
The book contains my findings based on the assumption that the Physical world is real. Starting from the fundamental particle of matter and ending with an Ensemble containing billions of universes, everything is explained verbally (to explain the reality, verbal explanation is enough). To prove that the verbal model is workable, mathematical calculations are required, and so the mathematical part is given as an appendix.

The reality can be defined as follows: "Every object (including light) in the universe is three-dimensional; the mass of the object, the space occupied by it, and the period of time that it remains 'at a particular position/ in any particular form' is greater than zero". That is, the values of mass, space and time cannot be negative.

My hypotheses does not go against any observations(as far as I know). But, explanations differ; certainly, it goes against existing explanations, not against existing observations.

The book has been made available only recently. As a matter of fact, I am not sure that what I have written is correct. However, it is logical and so I claim that it is correct (as an appeal).

Ok, let's step back and look at this answer from some time back. Notice that Finiter doesn't bother to actually try to answer the question. He just waves his hands and goes blithely off in a new direction where he is obviously (by his estimate) right. A sure sign of a crackpot that isn't interested in actually showing how his idea works.

By the way Finiter, I looked up your book on Amazon.com and unfortunately they didn't find anything like it when I did a search. Are you sure it is available?

Bill Gill

He miss spelled (as I just did) "reality" if you cut an pasted

http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Physical-World-Ultimate-physics/dp/1460937481

This 1 has an abstract
http://pothi.com/pothi/book/jose-p-koshy-reality-physical-world


Whats the reasoning behind the time-loop finiter .. the universe is spinning like a big sphere or it just is a big sphere globe?

>>> Light moves along a circular path and takes 12.85 billion years to complete one revolution <<<


I have to give this one some thought after a bit of reading .. tell you what I think.

The universe is not spinning. It is pulsating. The fundamental particle of matter moves along a helical path having a circular axis, and thus returns back. It takes 51.4 billion years for that. The universe, which is the final product of the integration of such particles, takes the same time for one pulsation.

Electromagnetic radiations are streams of pairs of fundamental particles. As the mass of the pair is double, the radius of the circular path is one-fourth, and so light takes only 12.85 billion years for one revolution.

The above value was obtained as follows: First, a three dimensional wave pattern was visualized for electromagnetic radiations; it was followed by models for the internal structures of electron and neutron. The radiation having the highest energy will have a mass of neutron (as per my model). So from the known values such as, the mass of neutron, planks constant and speed of light, the physical constants of the fundamental particle were deduced using my models.

Sorry, I misspelled the word reality. To explain the new model of electromagnetic radiations, I have to start from the very beginning. The net picture is that fundamental particles integrate into pairs which remain at the diametrically opposite sides of a double helix, and they move along their respective helical paths. The motion is wave like, and naturally, an interference pattern will be created when a beam passes through a double slit. This is a theoretical possibility based on my model, and so I think that my model does not go against observation in that case.

Finiter, I think you are confusing to different things here. You are talking about G. G in standard physics is the universal gravitational constant, which you say is so. But then you talk about the measured value of G. In standard physics G is not measured. G is a calculated value based on observations of the interaction of various masses.

Strictly speaking G is the proportionality constant in the mathematical formulation of Newtons law of gravitation.

F = G*(m1*m2)/r^2

So given 2 masses of known value at a known distance apart you can measure the force between them and calculate G.

Also of course this value has been found to be constant for all measurements, including those on Earth and those at large distances from the Earth. It appears that you are speaking of the force between bodies as G. This is incorrect. Of course this doesn't matter, because from what you have told us in this thread your theory is incapable of providing a better explanation of the working of the universe than existing accepted theories, and therefore we can from hence forth ignore it, which is what I plan to do.

Bill Gill

The measured value implies that it is measured directly or indirectly, and not derived theoretically from other constants.

The value of G is correct up to four significant digits only, where as the value of electrostatic constant has been determined to a very great accuracy. Why? The value of G is not found to be consistent after that; ie, the 'measurement' does not give the same value for G.

I spoke about the G, the force constant, and not the force. Has the G for the force between two bodies, inside a space station or on the moon, measured at any time? I think there has not been any instance of such an experiment (I may be wrong). However, the G between bodies on earth has been measured, and has been found to be not consistent after four significant digits.

Finiter, do you, anywhere, define reality?

Yes, I have defined reality earlier in my post. However, I will repeat it.

The reality can be defined as follows: "Every object (including light) in the universe is three-dimensional; the mass of the object, the space occupied by it, and the period of time that it remains 'at a particular position/ in any particular form' is greater than zero". That is, the values of mass, space and time cannot be negative.

Sorry, lapse of memory; I blame my age.

BTW; your definition seems to imply that you hold that photons have mass. Is that the case?

Yes. Based on my theory, photons have mass and have internal structures.

Are you talking about invariant mass, or some more esoteric form of mass?

I am talking about the mass in the normal sense, ie, the mass represents the amount of matter in it. In my view, the photons are made up of fundamental particles of matter, each photon containing the required number of particles. The energy that a photon possesses is kinetic energy due to its motion at the speed 'c'.

I believe "mass in the normal sense" is invariant mass, which is the same as rest mass.

Does your theory include stationary photons?

No, because the fundamental particle always remains in motion at the speed 'c'. Photons are made up of fundamental particles and have no internal energy, and so these move at the speed 'c'.

Are you saying that everything is in motion unless energy is used to stop that motion; or that everything is in constant motion, and cannot be stopped?

Everything is in constant motion; there may be energy transfer between bodies, but there is limit to that. So no body can be stopped.

What imposes the limit, and what is the limit?

Normally, a body should posses its natural energy, (mc^2)/2. Any change in its energy will create a potential state in the body. That is, the body resists the change, and so it becomes impossible to increase/reduce the energy further.

Half of the natural energy remains inside the atoms as potential energy. The rest remains partly as vibrations etc, of atoms/molecules, and the rest as speed of the body. The maximum speed that a body (made up of atoms/molecules) can attain is 0.6c (based on my model). However, I cannot arrive at a minimum speed from my model. It may be noted that we are now moving at a speed close to 0.33c as per my model.

Presumably - in your model - this doesn't apply to bodies made up of sub-atomic particles.

Yes. Sub atomic particles have only 2 levels for the energy to remain: one is the internal potential energy, the other its speed, and so can move faster. Whereas, in masses of atoms, there are 4 levels: internal energy of subatomic particles, the kinetic energy of electrons in atoms, the vibrational energies of atoms/molecules in that mass, and finally the speed of that mass.

I'm still a bit unclear about your concept of speed. Would I be right in thinking that your theory involves absolute speed, as distinct from relative speed?

If this is so, how do you define absolute speed?

You are right. As the space is absolute and serves as a static background, the speeds are absolute. The individual speed of Earth is 30Km/s, ie, it covers 30Km of absolute space in one second. However, the galaxy- cluster to which Earth belongs carries the Earth along with it at a speed of nearly one-third of the speed of light. In my model, the clusters are spiraling outwards from the centre of the universe, and not revolving around the centre.

You can visualize yourself as moving in a boat in the dark with no clue to the direction, the speedometer just tells you that you are moving at a certain speed. Similarly the Earth, Moon and Sun have their individual speeds, the only indication of their absolute motion is their gravitational constants, which are proportional to their individual speeds (as per my theory).

"spiraling outwards" suggests they are "revolving around the centre", but travelling away from it at the same time. Is this because space is expanding, or are the galaxies moving closer to the outer edge of the Universe?

They are not revolving around the 'centre of the universe'. They move outwards along helical(spring like)paths, the radius of the helix increasing as they move outwards. They are actually moving in absolute space, and the space is not expanding. It is this motion that causes the expansion of the universe. In this type of motion the distances between clusters are uniform (proportional to their masses), and so the universe is always 'uniform on a large scale'.

Apart from the "spiraling", how does this differ from Donald Hamilton's "Falling Galaxies" theory? http://novan.com/cosmol.htm

It is entirely different. The galaxies are not falling towards the edge of the universe due to any force. The galaxy-clusters move outwards and their speeds increase. The energy required for this comes from the internal energy of the clusters. The internal energy includes the individual speeds of the galaxies, the individual speeds of the stars and other masses in it and the internal energies of these masses. So as the galaxies move outwards, the internal energies of masses change into external energies. The observable evidence is fusion in stars, where energy is released. The whole of the energy thus released is not radiated; it actually goes to increase the speed of the star; this increase in energy (speed)of the star is transferred to the galaxy, and from there to the cluster. This will continue until the speed of the cluster can no more increase. So the expansion stops. That state is a potential state where the speeds of the clusters are very high, but internal energies very low. So the system starts contracting so as to reach the normal state (speed and internal energy has a normal ratio). But the change from that 'potential state'to the 'normal state' takes it to the other extreme where the internal energies are high, and speed low. So it again expands. In the absence of any external force acting on the universes. it oscillates between the two extremes, and thus remains pulsating.

The logic of this escapes me. Let's take one bit at a time.

"This will continue until the speed of the cluster can no more increase. So the expansion stops."

This seems to say that when acceleration stops, everything stands still. What stops it?

"That state is a potential state where the speeds of the clusters are very high"

This seems to contradict the first bit - things are still on the move.

"So the system starts contracting"

Did everything stop, then start again in the opposite direction?

Sorry, it requires a little more explanation. As explained, the outward motion of the cluster is along a helical path. Just before the expansion starts, the motion was planar, in a plane perpendicular to the radius of the universe. As it moves outwards, the motion becomes helical. The outward component of the motion thus starts from zero, reaches the maximum when the expansion is half way, then decreases and reaches zero when the expansion comes to an end. But the planar component of the motion goes on increasing till the end of the expansion. At the end of expansion, the motion becomes planar again, and the speed is very high.

During contraction, the motion becomes helical again. The inward component goes on increasing till the contraction is halfway, then decreases and finally becomes zero. The planar component, however goes on decreasing till the contraction comes to an end. That is, the clusters never stands still, but the system as a whole expands and contracts due to the changes in the direction of motion.

I think he means this Bill S ... ignore the text its from a different thing the shapes what we need.



Now flatten it to 2D and think about a orbital like a normal orbital.

At the outer part of the spiral the speed is slowest almost stopped and it gathers more and more speed as it comes in to a crunch and then it will slow on the expansion out etc (Here but imagine the whole universe doing it http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection6.html)

I think that is what he means ... interestingly it is sort of an old idea if I have it right ... which I am not sure if finiter knows.

Assuming I am right finiter I would call such a system a constrained 2D Rossler attractor
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6ssler_attractor ... 2nd image down)
You can even model it if I knew some characteristsics of the shape you want.

There are whole groups of these sorts of things that come under Lorenz mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_attractor)

Thanks, Orac, that makes it a bit clearer, but it's still going to take me a while to get my head around it - if ever.

Thank you for having taken interest in the model. It is not exactly as you have visualized. The universe as a whole does not spiral. The galaxy-clusters, which can be regarded as individual units of the universe, follow such helical paths. Just cut off the the tapering end of the three dimensional conical spiral, and you will get the trajectory of the clusters.

In my model, the universe is spherical and the central region of the universe is empty. The galaxy-clusters thus remain distributed uniformly inside a spherical shell. To simplify it, let us assume that the clusters have same mass. Then, just as in the case of lattice formation in solids, the distances between clusters will be uniform. The only difference is that the clusters will be moving. Their motion can be taken to be circular in a plane perpendicular to the radius of the universe. As the clusters (simultaneously) move outwards, their motion becomes helical. The system to remain uniform, the radius of the helix has to increase (because the volume of the universe increases and so both 'the distance between clusters' and 'the radius of the orbits of the clusters' have to increase proportionately). Ultimately, the radius becomes very large, and the outward motion comes to an end, and so the motion is again circular. Then the reverse process happens, and the universe remains pulsating.

In this model, the outer clusters have to move faster. When the inner clusters move 'one unit' outwards, the next layer has to move 'two units' and so on. So the speed of the cluster will be directly proportional to its distance from the centre of the universe. In a pulsating system, the speed increases as the distance from the centre increases, whereas, in an orbiting system like the solar system, the speed decreases as the distance from the centre increases.

Then (http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection6.html) in 3D is what you are looking at.

Yes, you are right. The site you have referred portrays the planar motion of a three-body system when the centre is empty. The system is in eqilibrium, but the equilibrium will be lost if it is slightly disturbed.

In 3D, it will be like this: six bodies remain on the six sides sides of an empty cube, each moving along a circular path having diameter equal to that of the side of the cube. The system as a whole, I think will be in equilibrium, even though there is no central mass any where(This will also be fragile). Suppose the cube expands. Then the motion of the bodies will be helical.

When there are a large number of bodies occupying a 'spherical shell' surrounding an empty centre, and if the bodies remain moving outwards and inwards along helical paths in a synchronized manner, the system will be in a dynamic equilibrium. That is the model of the universe that I put forth.

Yes I understood what you meant .... I will write some java and put up on a site for visualization which should help Bill S.

As I said if you thought you were to think of that configuration you are in good company ... do you know the history of that idea?

The original concept does not ressemble yours in the slightest but the resulting movement does so I am not claiming you stole or plagarized the idea like I might taunt preearth because I am mean :-)

In fact, I have not heard of any such idea regarding the structure of the universe. The picture is of a spherical structure expanding and contracting; the members that constitute the structure should always remain in motion, because energy is their basic quality. So mathematically the motion should be like that. The picture that I create in my mind makes me think that the model will be mathematically viable if the speeds of bodies are directly proportional to the distance from the centre of the universe. So as the members move away, their speeds increase and the internal energies decrease. Just before expansion, the internal energies are high (a potential hot state), and at the end of expansion speeds are high (a potential cold state). The system oscillates between the two, and thus we get the picture of a finite universe that remains pulsating.

I would like to know the history of such a configuration. Though I think that the model is mathematically viable, I have not tried to verify it by consulting experts. In the model having three bodies moving in a plane, I had such a picture in mind, but did not know that there is a ready reference available in the net. In the actual model of the universe, the galaxy-clusters are not the of same size, and the distance between them depends on their masses. I think that the extended model will also be mathematically viable, if the simple model is proved correct.

Finiter, Wouldn’t Mazur and Chapline’s gravastar idea give rise to the observed Universe, with a simpler mechanism than you are proposing, and without a Big Bang?

'Gravastar' uses both GR and QM. The model is not simple. In my model, the universe has no beginning. It always exists as we now observe it, as a 'system of huge masses of atoms/molecules'. During expansion, the internal energies of these huge masses change into their speeds and during contraction, the speeds change into internal energies. The system always tries to attain normal internal energy and normal speed. But the thermodynamic changes lead it to the extremes and the system remains pulsating. The model is thus very simple. Not only that, in my model there are only three arbitrary physical constants, the mass, radius and speed of the fundamental particle of matter. Other physical constants including the mass of electrons/neutrons, can be derived from these three, and so my model is the simplest model possible.

This might be true if it were not for one thing.

Your model has an infinite series as a central factor.

The infinite series may be a mathematical "reality", but it cannot be a physical reality as it involves infinite regression, which, by its very nature, militates against real understanding. It is "faith" rather than science.

Einstein's initial guess at the universe was based on the same sort of lines ... keep it simple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe



Your version looks identical to what an Einstein big-crunch version looks like in motion. As you adjust the curvature you can get less or more crunch so your version would be sort of a mild crunch.

So you are in good company :-)

Ultimately your model fails for the same reasons as Einsteins model.

-The expansion of the universe is increasing according to your model it should be slowing.
-There is no centre of the universe
-How do you explain the cosmic background radiation
-How has the universe not run out of hydrogen

The main difference is that in my model, energy and matter are separately conserved. The expansion is due to a simple thermodynamic change. The internal energies of the galaxy clusters change into their speeds. At the beginning of expansion, the internal energies are high, and so the acceleration is the maximum. At half way of expansion, internal energy and speed are equal, and so the acceleration is zero. Thereafter the the acceleration is negative. So the speed of expansion reaches the maximum at halfway. That is, up to halfway of expansion, there is an increasing expansion; only after that will the expansion slow down.

In my model the universe is spherical and has a centre. There has not been any observational evidence to the contrary.

The E-m radiations and atoms are two types of systems created by the fundamental particles. The former has no internal energy and so moves at the speed 'c'. The latter has internal energy and so can never attain the speed 'c'. The universe contains a system formed by atoms (a system of galaxy-clusters) and a system formed by e-m radiations. Both exist simultaneously and there is always interaction between the two. The system of radiations have no source and remains as back ground radiation. It also cools along with the system of galaxies; both have the same cooling rate. The present average temperature of the system of radiations is 2.7 K, and so the average temperature of the system of galaxy-clusters is also the same. In another 7 million years, the average temperature will be 0K (the wavelength of back ground radiation will be nearly 4.8x10^-3m). There after the temperature will go below absolute zero.

It is not the hydrogen fusion that causes the expansion. Hydrogen fusion is a consequence of the expansion. The most abundant element in the universe will be the middle elements, especially iron. The black holes will contain mainly iron (as is evident from the remnants of the died out stars). The 'abundance' of hydrogen and helium is a myth; even from the present calculations they account for not more than 10 percent of the expected mass of the universe.

Wrong almost all the observational evidence denies that fact. You should be able to construct orbitals for the galaxies about a universe centre ... you can't. You should see red and blue shifts from the galaxies you don't you see only red shifts. On the contrary noone has been able to construct any support for a static universe not even Einstein.



So why does the radiation have anisotropy and polarization?
There is far more to it than just it exists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation)



Do you have any evidence for any of that?


There are so many observational problems with your theory which is why science taking it serious is a big problem. Einstein realized his version had problems that he could not explain so you need to consider how you explain the observations if your theory is right.

The question of infinite regression is still extant.

I don't see infinite regression in this discussion the question is do we use scientific principle

There are ONLY 3 proposals for space

Newton: Absolute space and time.

Mach: The reference frame comes from the distribution of matter in the universe.

Einstein: There is no reference frame.


We have a massive number of observations Newtons absolute space and time is shown by many observations to be falsified. Mach has got some problems but it is not definitively been falsified.

We scientifically test these very basic tennants here is a summary of the results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism)

The answer is clear THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE SPACE AND TIME either of the other two options or create a new one.

Finiter wants an absolute space and time and that violates all the observational data so that alone kills the theory.

But apparently you can be selective about what observations you accept because we just throw GR and QM out even though they match observation because we don't like them.

SORRY THAT IS NOT SCIENCE ... If you want that then this thread needs to move to not quite science area.

In my model, the galaxy-clusters do not revolve around the centre of the universe. They just move away from the centre and come back. Their paths are helical, the centre of the helix lying on the radius of the universe. The average distance between clusters increases during expansion and at any time the universe is uniform on a large scale. The expansion causes red shift (radiations get cooled). So any blue shifted ray gets subsequently red shifted, and so beyond a certain distance, all galaxies will show red shifts.



The anisotropy and polarization has been explained at present based on certain 'assumed possibilities'. These may or may not be correct. In my model, it is a black body radiation;it has no source, and hence does not have any spectral lines corresponding to any element. That far is correct. Regarding the fluctuations from this uniformity, I am not sure whether my theory will be able to answer it or not.




In my model hydrogen fusion is a consequence of expansion. So I can say that hydrogen fusion happening in the stars is an evidence for my model. The fusion reactions in stars normally end up with iron for some unexplained reasons. So we can logically assume that black holes contains iron. It is just a proposal based on my theory.

My theory agrees with the basics. Starting with only one type of fundamental particles, which have finite mass, finite volume and finite speed, everything including the structure of the universe is explained, not just qualitatively, but using mathematical models. It contains only three basic physical constants. The rest of the physical constants can be derived from these. However,the fine tuning (required to explain all the minute details like the anisotropy of the background radiation,etc.) is a laborious process (and I have not attempted it so far).

In short, the theory is logical (in my opinion), agrees with all basic observations, has the minimum number of arbitrary constants, can explain why electron, proton and neutron have the respective masses, can explain why inertial and gravitational masses are the same, why there are no unit polls, why the universe has to remain pulsating, and proposes the time required for pulsation as 51.4 billion years, which is the period of revolution of the fundamental particle (derived from speed of light, mass of neutron and the planks constant).

Newtons equations for gravity requires correction when you consider two bodies moving 'independently' of each other (The equation is valid only when the two bodies remain relatively at rest). However in my opinion, such a correction is possible without resorting to the concept of space-time. First, you have use a variable G (proportional to their speeds)for each of the bodies, and then use the geometric mean of the constants. Secondly, you have to add a negative factor that represents the velocity component that acts against the force. So the net equation gets the form, (GG')^(1/2)x MM' /d^2 - (M'v^2)/d. I have not verified whether this equation will be in conformity with that of alternate equations suggested for approximations based on GR.

One thing that I don't agree with you is the argument that 'the concept of absolute space and time has been falsified'. It has 'never' been falsified. The Wikipedia reference you have given deals with gravity only. From that we cannot conclude that space and time are not absolute. There have only been 'doubts' regarding the nature of space and time. The explanations based on GR and QM (as pointed out by you) match observations. But that does not mean there cannot be other explanations, especially when the two are at loggerheads.

So my argument is that the concept of absolute space and time does not 'by itself' violate any observational data, and so that cannot be a case against my theory.

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.

To avoid possible confusion I should restate my use of terminology.

Universe (with capital U) = all that we can observe and study.

universe ( with lower case u) = any universe about which we may speculate, including alternative universes.

Cosmos (with or without capilal C) = everything that can possible exist.

Cosmos, sensu Bill s. = Ensemble, sensu Finiter.

Now comes the difficult bit. If the Universe is part of the cosmos, as it must be, how can real change occur in the Universe without causing change in the infinite cosmos?

I will follow your terminology. In my model, the cosmos is infinite. It contains universes. All universes remain pulsating. The universes do not move away from their respective places. So at any time the cosmos looks the same.

Each universe pulsates. Galaxy clusters are the individual units of the universes. These clusters move away from the centre of the universe and after reaching a certain point return back. The whole energy in the universe is possessed by the galaxy clusters and a system electromagnetic radiations that co-exist with the system of clusters. Thus in fact, as a single unit, a universe has no energy of its own.

Similarly, the whole gravitational force is utlised in the formation of the system of clusters. Therefore the universes have no force. Thus, no interactions take place between universes. That is any change in any universe does not affect the rest.

Nothing including light can move out of the universe. Light(all e-m radiations) moves along a circular path (not due to any curvature of space, but due to the inherent force in it) and can never cross the boundary of the universe. So no information passes from one universe to the other.

Thus the universes are independent and self contained systems. The pulsation of the universe is a thermodynamic process confined to it. The cosmos is not affected. The cosmos is not a system; it is just an ensemble, and the universes are distributed randomly.

Okay so you really want to do this so lets start with absolute space.

Why does a rotating bucket of water produce a curved surface under your theory?

Nice easy one to start with.

The question is simple. But to answer it, I have to explain from the beginning. Of course, some of the explanations may go against the existing concepts (but any way, the explanations, I think, are logical). However, I will restrict the explanations to the minimum.

According to my theory, atoms are made up of fundamental particles(mass nearly 10^-47Kg). However, each atom can accommodate excess particles (each carrying energy equal to mc^2/2), and this increases the energy of the atom. Between atoms, energy is transferred by transferring vibrations (mechanically) and transferring fundamental particles.

In masses like Earth, Sun, etc. each atom has to possess the required energy to remain in a certain position in the mass. For each atom, the attractive forces are balanced by repulsive forces, and hence the mass as a whole remains stable. The attractive forces include gravitational force between atoms, gravity towards the centre of the mass (these have separate constants), and electromagnetic attraction. The repulsive forces include the electromagnetic repulsion and the energy possessed (vibration, rotation and translation) by the atom.

Now coming to the question: The bucket remaining stationary, each molecule of water possesses the required energy, and the forces remain balanced. Now on rotation, mechanical force is being applied. This causes energy transfer to the water molecules; this transfer takes place mechanically and also by transfer of fundamental particles.

The water molecules that acquire kinetic energy rises up defying gravity (towards Earth)in proportion to the energy acquired, and thus a curved surface is formed. As long as the mechanical force remains acting, the water will remain in that form and forces will remain balanced.

Here, in addition to the forces that existed in the beginning, there is a centripetal force towards the central axis of the bucket, caused by the rotation. For each atom, the centripetal force is balanced by the kinetic energy; ie, centripetal force is equal to (mv^2)/2, and not mv^2.

The differences between Newtonian concept and the proposed theory: Force does not impart energy, but causes transfer of energy (you have to identify the source of energy, especially in the case of force acting at a distance). The centripetal force is equal to the kinetic energy and there is no centrifugal force. Thus there is no fictional force (centrifugal force).

WOW and that all makes sense to you and you don't think that defies any observations and makes sense?

Questions:

->If things want to stay at there current momentum and there are no forces on things why does the water start spinning at all. Why doesn't the water just sit still and the bucket rotate ... I mean how does the water know the bucket is rotating and should start doing that itself if we have no forces?

->Now lets go beyond the start point eventually the rope will unwind and then start winding back up and will begin to slow the bucket rotation down. How does the water know the bucket is decelerating.


Finally I am going to introduce a new addition to the experiment. The rope from the bucket is going to be tethered to an axle and I am going to get the whole lot rotating about this central axis (it's called a swinging bucket rotor).



So the bucket will be rotating horizontal before I release the bucket to begin it's rotation. Whats your theory predict will happen to the curvature of the bucket.

I mean it begs the question in your world why the water doesn't just fall out of my bucket given we don't have centrifugal forces but lets go beyond that problem. See the water surface is now 90 degree to gravity still want it to well up and defy earth gravity????? Think about what that looks like and no thats not what we are going to see is it :-)

I can think of hundreds of situations involving circular motion your theory will come unstuck basically they are all the same ones Newtonian physics struggles with.

I was looking at some results of an experiment and I happen to notice another one thats going to take some explaining in your world

Look at the attached image .... what causes capillary action in your finite world if you have no forces

The first two questions are trivial. You are rotating bucket and water as a whole. Neither the bucket nor the water 'knows or decides' which one is to rotate. The force causes changes in both. The bucket being solid, and water being liquid, the changes are slightly different. As long as the centripetal force exists, the water will remain rotating; as the force subsides, water returns to its original position.

So you do have forces in your theory?

Okay can I get the background of said forces and the forumlas for them?

Regarding the change in the experiment: The difference between solid and liquid is the flexibility of the molecules in the lattice. If the bucket was just solid, the relative positions of the atoms are not altered. The atoms at the farthest point of the bucket will have the maximum kinetic energy. But the water molecules in the bucket can attain different speeds. The water molecules close to the solid part of the bucket are naturally held by the solid lattice and the central portion of water acquires a relatively high speed. And hence the curvature of the water surface. In the former case, the solid surface has the maximum kinetic energy; in this case the top part of the bucket has the least kinetic energy. Thus, in the former, the centre of the curve has the minimum speed, whereas, in the present case, the centre has the maximum speed. Because of the flexibility of the molecules the energy acquired remains within a maximum and minimum limit, and this creates a neat mathematical curve. In the present case, the central part (minimum point) of the curve will be slightly shifted due to gravity. In this case also, the water molecules defy gravity because of the kinetic energy, and so does not fall down.

Thus, here also you need not introduce a centrifugal force; the kinetic energy, the centripetal force and the balance of forces alone are required to explain the phenomenon.

How can one deny the existence of forces? The force that I referred is the mechanical force of rotation that you apply. What I have said is that the concept of centrifugal force is not necessary.

Who said there are no forces. I have already given a brief account of forces and how these are to be balanced. Only the centrifugal force (which you have stated as as an imaginary or fictional force, and which I consider as an erroneous concept) is under dispute.

The capillary action is due to the interaction between solid and liquid lattices. The normal forces, namely gravitational and electrostatic interactions (the former between atoms and the latter between the subatomic particles in atoms) and the resultant balance of forces cause this phenomenon.

So how can one test or measure this mechanical rotational force?

I am still interested in the swinging bucket rotor.

So what happens to the surface of the water (which is now vertical because of the swinging) in the swinging bucket under your theory?

When it was flat it was swelling up defying earth gravity because of it's kinetic speed?

You sort of answered why the water doesn't run out but not what happens to our water surface curve when our spinning bucket is made into swinging bucket rotor.

Do you understand what I am doing its called compound frames of reference and it's going to get worse as I introduce more and you will see you run out of excuses and explainations as you can't build a consistant story in absolute space.

Think carefully trick coming up .... so if I remove gravity there is nothing to oppose the capillary force the water will what occupy the whole tube?

I won't drag you through it all by now you should have started to see the problem and I will take you to the end of the story unless you want the pain of the excercise

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTqLQO3L4Ko&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxyfiBGCwhQ&feature=relmfu

See in the end I am even going to deny you the bucket and walls.

These arguments are very old and all the tests have been done in micro gravity enviroments :-)

Finally if you are not convinced you have a problem here is a simple problem to explain

Why does the block fly off the flat circular disc



And just when you think you have that sorted I will turn that into a swinging bucket rotor so it is vertical :-)

Mechanical force is not fundamental. If at all any forces are to be treated as fundamental, the gravitational and electromagnetic forces are the only ones. The mechanical forces like stress, strain, elasticity, friction etc are the end results of such basic forces and energy associated with matter (the existing concept is the same). For the measurement any suitable device can be used.

The surface of the swinging bucket is also curved. I have explained it. You might not have noticed it. It is the flexibility of the water column that causes the curve. Unlike the molecules of the solid bucket, the molecules in water acquire different kinetic energies. The molecules close to the side of the bucket tend to have lower kinetic energies, and towards the centre, the kinetic energy increases. The curve indicates a statistical information of the variation in kinetic energies. The gravity towards earth may cause a slight shifting of the centre of the curve.

If I am not consistent in my reply, my hypothesis will not qualify as a theory; I will have to modify it or just discard it, depending upon the the nature of error.

Your clearly not getting it so lets go through it

There are actually two kinetic energies not one

I am spining the bucket flat as a centrifuge so they have a kinetic energy realtive to that motion.

I am also spinning the bucket about the tether that is rotating on the centrifuge.

So each and every water molecule has two kinetic spins one flat around the centrifuge and one spinning about the bucket.


If space is absolute then the effect that the water sees in the bucket should be compound to both spins? It has to be space is absolute you are telling me.

If you took a water molecule somewhere out from the centre of the bucket it is describing some sort of circular spirograph pattern as it goes around in a circle on the flat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloid)(http://www.math.psu.edu/dlittle/java/parametricequations/cycloid/)

Thats its weird kinetic motion path so whatever effect I am supposed to see is supposed to reflect that absolute motion and absolute kinetic energy in your finite world.

As I said in space or engineered enviroments I can even get rid of the bucket and just have the water with two completely different spins.

The net result can be described by considering the two spins in isolation I do not need to even talk about or consider the absolute motions and kinetics.

This is why the spinning bucket surface looks the same on the earth which is rotating about its axis while orbiting the sun and the sun is spinning about the galaxy centre. I need not consider any of those spins to talk about the bucket surface it is the same as if I was dead still in the middle of space with just the bucket spinning.

To put this in maths terms I have a vertical and horizontal vector or force diagram forming a triangle. The two individual force do not add up to the hypotenuse which is the compound force.

If the world was absolute I would need to consider the compound result I don't I can consider each spin in isolation.

You are linking kinetic energy which is movement to absolute space but then linking localized effects into that same kinetic energy and those localized effects are relative ... How can that be???.

Does that clarify how untenable your absolute world is?

The capillary rise against 'gravity towards Earth' is due to gravitational and electromagnetic forces between atoms of the solid surface and the atoms on the liquid surface. The mobile molecules of water just gets packed inside. Actually, it is the difference in 'force felt' between the inside and outside of the capillary, that causes the rise. So removing gravity may not affect.

Sorry, I thought the spinning and centrifuging to be two independent cases. You are incorporating both together. However, this, does not cause any problem. Now you are applying two different forces of rotation to the bucket; ie you are transferring energy simultaneously by two methods. The net effect would be the surface will remain more curved, because the minimum level of energy will be higher. The energy of each atom (vibrations, rotation, and translation), and the electromagnetic repulsion will be balanced the attractive forces and the centripetal forces. You need not consider the forces separately, and identify 'which force counters which force'.

In my theory balance of forces is the main thing to be considered. Forces does not impart energy, but only causes transfer of energy. Circular motion does not create centripetal force, except in the case of fundamental particles. And so centripetal force and absoluteness of space has no connection.

That story doesn't hold together at all ... its crazy

Think about it you are a particle you can't see whats happening as a whole.

To give you an insight consider you location on earth at the moment now plot the path of your actual movement of that point as the earth rotates about its axis and the earth orbits the sun (It will look something like this "press start" http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html)

You are completely unaware of those motions sitting where you are as would a particle or mass so how do you propose how it knows what energies to transfer?

At the moment you simply say "se I can see two distinct rotations" as if the actual system can see them as well.
So what happens if I make the rotations much more complex like each sine waves even you will be struggling to sort out which rotation is which visually and the system certainly has no way to "know".

Here this is a typical Lissajous rotation (http://www.ibiblio.org/e-notes/Lis/Lissa.htm)
(http://wn.com/Lissajous_figure) look at section 9

I am going to put two of them together on my double centrifuge setup. How do you think your energy is going to "know" what is going on. This is the sort of motion that is used by those frightening theme park rides.

Is this starting to gel with you yet I can make the motions complex even with simple setups so some sort of mathematics has to tie the compound motions together. The only way you can at the moment is to invoke god to know ahead what is going to happen because these belong to a class of motions called chaotic motion (http://www.clausewitz.com/Complex/ChaosDemos.htm)

I like your idea it's sort of elegant but these are the problem Einstein had with his static universe and why we know for a fact absolute space is dead.

As I said this problem dates back to Newton so lets look at the solution to it under Newton + fictional forces (Mach space)

It was done by no less than Richard Feynman and is a classic masterpiece called the wobbling plate solution

http://www.stuleja.org/vscience/osp/contents/physicsClub/feynmanPlate.html#applet

(http://www.stuleja.org/vscience/osp/contents/physicsClub/sol.pdf)

I leave you to walk thru the proof if you want.

Now I understand you are exchanging energy but the energy in the plate oscillates wildly between alot of potential energy versus alot of kinetic energy so somehow the exchanges would be required to have a law to know how much of each and here in lies your problem with those sorts of real world motions in your finite world.

Finiter, I'm going to be very short of time for the rest of this week, and I think posts in this thread deserve more thought than I shall probably be able to muster. Look forward to returning with some thoughts next week.

I think the problem you put forth is like this: The moon revolves around Earth at a speed of 1km/s. The Earth revolves around the sun at a speed of 30km/s. The Sun revolves around the galaxy at a speed of (say) 250km/s. The galaxy revolves around the intergalactic centre at a speed of (say) 5000km/s, and the galaxy cluster moves at a speed of (say) 100,000km/s. (I will stop with galaxy clusters because in my theory, the clusters are somewhat independent. However, still it is 'five different motions' for the moon.)

So the questions you are asking (I think) are, "How can you explain the motion of moon on the basis of absolute space?" and "What is the kinetic energy possessed by moon?". Is it not so?

In my model, the galaxy cluster moves away from a point, 'the centre of the universe'. However, it follows a helical path; the axis of the helix lies on the radius of the universe, and the radius of the helix increases as the cluster moves outwards. At any time, the distance of the cluster from the centre of the universe is finite and absolute. The distance between the galaxy and the intergalactic centre, the distance between sun and the galactic centre, the distance between Earth and sun, and the distance between moon and Earth are all finite and absolute. Thus, in my model, space is absolute and the centre of the universe is a point of reference for all. The motion of moon is complex, however, we can have a mental picture of it, and we can make a workable model similar to that. So in all respects the space is absolute.

Regarding energy required to counter the five different motions, we have to apply the the theory of relativity (not SR or GR). We can ignore the four motions and need take only the revolution of moon around earth. For a given G and for a given absolute distance, the speed required will be independent of the other four motions. (This is what the present theory also states). The other four motions are countered by the respective entities.

Based on my theory, the actual kinetic energy possessed by moon includes all the four motions, and so it is very high. In my theory, the natural energy of any body is mc^2/2, and half of it remains as internal energy of the subatomic particles in it. Though there can be energy transfer between bodies, the energy can never be too low, it will be comparable to mc^2/2.

The problem with the present model is that we cannot visualize the actual motion of galaxy clusters based on that; so space has to be non-absolute. The space is absolute in my model, and the problem of identifying the energy can be easily done based on theory of relativity (not SR/GR). Whether my model actually represents the real universe or not is another question.

Yes you understood perfectly what I was saying. As I have pointed out your basic physics for why are very different but you end up with very similar movements to Einsteins own static universe (he called it static because there is a centre point which is static to all movements).

However as I have shown I can introduce chaos deliberately into space the rules would break and so I argue it doesn't describe the real universe. We see no breaking of the rules in the universe just because we add in chaotic movements infact some simple physics design can be made to act chaotically the double pendulum is the most classic dating to Newtons argument with Mach (http://www.myphysicslab.com/dbl_pendulum.html).

The discussion was definitely worth going through, I even got reminded of some old physics I had long forgotten and you revisit the reasons why science believes what it does.

I can be encourage you to keep thinking and challenging science and wish you luck.

Thank you for the comments. It appears as a concluding comment. So I will treat this discussion as closed. However, before that, I would like to point out that Einstein called the universe static not because there is a static centre, but because he thought the space is neither expanding nor contracting. Such a model is unstable. The model I put forth is a pulsating system, and is thus entirely different from the static universe of Einstein.

I express my thanks to 'Science a GoGo' and all the members, especially to Orac and Bill S (BS) for the cooperation they have extended, and also to all others who have watched this topic.

Hopefully I shall have a little more time again now, so I intend going back over this thread. I expect to learn a lot, and may have some comments/questions, so don't treat the discussion as closed yet.

I have been thinking of posting another thread to put forth my theory; the concept of reality is the starting point of my theory, and during discussion, I just pointed out some aspects of my theory, but the theory as a whole was not presented. Anyway, we will continue this thread.

'An infinite unchanging reality exists hid behind the illusion of ceasless change' - a very meaningful, but metaphysical, statement. Removing the metaphysical part,it will read like this: An infinite unchanging reality exists hid behind 'the reality of ceaseless change that we encounter'. The unchanging reality is logically unexplainable, but the changing reality (rather the changes in the reality that we encounter) is fully explainable (in my opinion).

IMO, the situation is almost reversed: the "unchanging reality" becomes a logical necessity, while the changing reality we observe is more difficult to explain.

Vive la difference.

I have problems with divisions of infinity/eternity, also with the infinite series, other than as a mathematical concept. In reality, there cannot be an infinite series. It exists only in the mind of the mathematician. It cannot be physically produced.

A “number” of anything is a finite thing. Something that is finite can never become infinite. Ergo, you cannot have an infinite number of anything.

The infinite number of pulsations before 'the present one', is an infinity with an end; a contradiction in terms. The infinite number of pulsations after the present has a beginning, so is not infinite, for the same reason. If you regard each of these as half of infinity, then each is less than infinite, so it is finite, and therefore measurable. Measure one, multiply by 2 and you have measured infinity, which is nonsense.

Of course you can argue that the present is neither an end, nor a beginning, but before tackling that, I must ask if time in yiur theory is tensed or un-tensed?

You have to remember the simplest math of infinity. Infinity divided by any integer is still infinity. One infinity added to another infinity is still infinity. But in any infinity you can find non-infinite areas. There are an infinite number of integers. But within that infinity of integers it is easy to find non-infinite bits, such as the numbers 1,2,3,4,5. See, the total number of integers is infinite, but there is a finite number (5) of integers in that series which is still a part of the infinity of integers. So finiter's selection of one pulsation out of an infinite number of pulsations is perfectly ok.

I'm not standing up for finiter's hypothesis. I think it is just wishful thinking that he is smarter than everybody else.

Bill Gill

http://gizmodo.com/5339831/pi-calculation-record-destroyed-25-trillion-decimals

There are natural things that can not be represented except to whatever precision you select they do indeed go on to infinitely.

The good old fibonacci sequence turns up alot in nature if the plant or animal continued to grow it would indeed go on to infinity it is truncated by some artifical limit or size.
(http://www.google.com.au/search?q=fibona...mp;ved=0CG0QsAQ)




There is no reason to believe that universe is no predicated around the same rule that it has infinity at its heart but some other rule dictates the endpoints of either cycle or size whichever we talk about ... as you see with fibonacci sequence stuff that is very common in nature.

I am putting this in a seperate reply as you may want to answer it differently Bill S.

You are looking at the universe we have a very similar problem when we look at radioactive decay of atoms.

I can measure two atoms to whatever precision I like and we can find no difference between them. Yet one of those atoms will decay and one may go on for eterntity.

Infact if I measure a whole bunch of thsoe atoms which I can not distinguish they obey the half life rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life) that exactly half of them will decay in a set period, yet each and every atom was apparently identical.

So your problem you are having with the universe exists even in the single atom.

The QM background to this is another one of those reasons I believe QM is the most fundemental process in the universe but I stress this is simply my personal view there definitely is no clear science model of how this all works as we have only snippets of the processes.

Bill, the "infinite" series of integers is a mathematical infinity.

When you can actually produce an infinite number of anything in the physical world, I will accept your reasoning.

It is only that we consider different aspects. 'The "unchanging reality" becomes a logical necessity' is a correct evaluation, but why it remains unchanged is unexplainable. 'The explanation of the changing reality' is what the science does. It is difficult, but is possible.

You may be objecting to my use of infinite number of 'finite universes'. Can there be an infinite number of finite things? If you say 'yes' it may seem illogical. If you say 'no', then, you have to explain the limit. Here, the limit is arbitrary; it can be just 'one' universe or a very large number of universes. In such cases where the limit is arbitrary, we can practically say that it is infinite 'just to imply that the number of things can be very large'.

Regarding infinite time, Bill and Orac has given the required explanation.

In my model, time is tensed in the sense that 'present is present' for the whole of the universe, and there is no 'separate present' for each part of the universe. We can observe only the past, not the future, not even the present.

Dear friend,
I am putting forth a hypothesis. It may be wrong or right. If it is wrong, it is just wrong; if it is right, it is just right; there is no question of 'smarter than anybody'.

The progress in physics has been a continuous process involving a lot of people; some are remembered, but some are not even mentioned in the history. Do you think that the smartest always got the credit? It may even be luck.

I see what you are saying, but this is "limitless" or "unbounded", certainly not "infinite".

Not if Preearth is to be believed.

This line of reasoning bears no relation to the reality we observe. The Fibonacci sequence is a mathematical concept, and like all mathematical “infinities” is really only “boundless”.

Manifestly, a plant or animal cannot grow to infinity. As someone who, rightly, places great emphasis on observation, I am surprised that you resort to this.

IMO, it would be more accurate to say that the growth of these organisms is truncated by some natural limit, rather than by some artificial limit.

While I take their points, I cannot agree. I suspect they are both interpreting "infinity" in terms of mathematics.

In a "real" infinity there cannot be any change or passage of time or any division. Trying to think of something that is spaceless and timeless is extremely difficult; even the terminology we use to try to describe it is anchored in our experience of time and space.

B.S. You seem to have some problem grasping the meaning of infinite. It simply means that something cannot be counted, even in principle. There is absolutely no reason you cannot count a subset of an infinite group. Infinity is a mathematical principle, but then a whole lot of other things that are mathematical principles have physical interpretations. So infinity can be used just as well for physical interpretations as 1 + 1 = 2. Maybe you should see if you can find a copy of George Gamow's book "1, 2, 3 ... Infinity". It has a fairly decent discussion of infinity in it.

In the meantime you might just accept the fact that infinity in a physical terms doesn't mean much. If the universe is infinite in time and/or space all that means is that it is uncountably large. But we don't really have to handle the full extent all at once. We just have to handle the subset that we can observe and that part is a countable subset of the whole universe.

As an example. Suppose out in my back yard I have an infinitely large pile of rocks. I decide to build a wall to hide the pile, so I go out and select 200 rocks out of the pile to use in building the wall. The pile is still infinitely large, but I can certainly work with the pile one rock at a time.

Bill Gill

Perhaps we just have to agree to differ. From my perspective it seems that you have a problem grasping the difference between mathematical and physical infinities. Of course, many mathematical truths equate to physical truths, but not necessarily all.

One trouble with just agreeing to differ is that it would leave both of us looking at the other, thinking "He doesn't get it".

Your example of the infinite pile of rocks in your back yard illustrates my point, to some extent. Although this presents a perfectly good hypothetical example, it won’t work in practice, because you cannot have an infinite pile of anything. Your pile of rocks is not an infinite pile, so, of course there is no problem dealing with individual parts.

Interesting discussion but:


...one is tempted to differ in the light of certain other threads on the forum.

Valid point there, Rede, even I will not argue with that.

I know I have asked this question before, but response tends to be sparse: does anyone believe that something finite can become infinite?

See I do believe in the science of observation, so how do we age and die :-)

Given your response above we must die based upon genetic termination or tragedy a common view even among scientists.

I have a problem with that if it was a simple effect we should have seen a truncation of it by now given our population numbers. The genetics scientists should have also seen something by now.

So you either believe aging and death is like Asimovs 3 robots law its programmed into our core and can't be truncated or there is an unseen not understood effect at play. I am actually working with a QM group on the later but its way off thread here so if you are interested Bill S lets take it to another thread under the reference of quantum biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology) a reasonable layman background (http://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/2011/05/23/quantum-biology/). Genetics goes at the problem (http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-10-secrets-life-sought-dna-elderly.html)

My final comment is to look at the honey fungus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armillaria)



Given enough time and food how big do you think this guy can get and yes it is one of the things the group is studying :-)

I do, so long as I can change something :-)

Anyone who buys conventional big bang theory has to believe it as well.

Rede been a while since I read Brian Greenes book, I know you have recently, but it had the calculation in it for exactly how much matter you needed to start big bang. I had not actually seen that anywhere else it was one of those weird facts only Brian Greene would know :-)

I am repeating the same question: Can we have an infinite number of finite things? Will it not be illogical to say 'YES'?. IMO, there can be limit to the number of finite things, but the limit is arbitrary. Bill S says in such cases, we can call it just unbounded or 'boundless'.

So I think it would be logical to have a 'physical infinity' termed as 'boundless' to represent a physical limit that can be arbitrary.

I am clearly missing something in english translation here

You and some seem to be getting hung up on =>
"Can we have an infinite number of finite things"

To me thats a complete consistant statement because you haven't put a context around it or as you would call it a bound, you have made an open statement.

Can we have an infinite number of finite things in a defined range or bound .... NO.

The only reason this comes up is in the context of the universe being infinite.

The universe is an enigma it is both finite and infinite depending how you look at it. You can play all the word games you like you can't get around that reality.

To put it in perspective I will ask you a much simpler interpretation is your ability to think infinite or finite.
See here is the same problem in a much more constrained and easy to understand realm.

The answer is both, you only have finite nuerons so you can only store a discretely finite maximum number but that number is huge. You can also recycle and erase or drop thoughts and that rate is alot faster than you save them so the answer is also infinite.

You need to be entirely sure of the context you are asking the question as to know which of those answers to give.

I have seen wordplays around that same thing with human memory but realize they are wordplays you need context to give the answer and that is not unusual.

Does a ball fall down if I drop it ... not if I am in a centrifuge.

Any statement or question requires context ... all the wordplay I have seen revolves around context not actuality.

To most scientists the universe is both finite and infinite we need context to decide which answer to give you and it's the not giving context that creates the ambiguity.

Regarding the difference between mathematical and physical infinities, I agree with you. Mathematics and physics are two independent domains. Mathematics is a toll that we can use in physics. We cannot replace 'physical concepts' with 'mathematical concepts'.

In my opinion (based on my theory), the quantum nature and finiteness are related. An entity that is made up of identical fundamental particles can be regarded as quantized. The fundamental particles will have finite qualities and so the entity will be finite. An entity that have no such basic units is not quantized, and so will be infinite.

Space and time are not quantized, and so are infinite. Space and time without matter represents the reality of nothingness - we can even say there is no physical world. When matter comes into into the arena, there is something that exists in the space; existence is something connected with time.

Unlike space and time, matter is a quantized entity; so any system made up of matter is finite, and we have a finite universe. Can there be an infinite number of finite universes? It is illogical to say 'Yes'. But there is no theoretical limit; you say then it can be called 'boundless'. Does 'boundless' also mean infinity? 'Boundless', I think, should be defined as a physical infinity, thus distinguishing it from the mathematical infinity.

It is an open question. It is a basic question. Before we try to answer what the universe is, I think, we have to answer this question. The question is put independent of the nature of the universe.

In a defined range, it would be finite (always?). Your statement "You can also recycle and erase or drop thoughts and that rate is alot faster than you save them so the answer is also infinite" is incorrect. The number of times you do these (erase, recycle and drop thoughts) will be very very large but will be finite.

Regarding the universe, what you have pointed out is correct. Some aspects may be finite but some other may be infinite. However, IMO, there is ambiguity in the present concepts even when the contexts are given.

In a defined range the answer is most certainly finite of anything there is a mathematical proof which for the life of me I can't think of for the moment ... arg finite memory :-)

Euclid in 300BC actually proved there infinite number of prime numbers it's remarkably simple (http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookIX/propIX20.html)



Incorrect turn it to a simple physical test.

Make a hole in a bucket allow water to flow out faster than you are filling it ergo you can never fill the bucket ... QED

Your brain memory works like that in this mode ... in the bucket you can have mini containers which remember things you choose (our permanent memory).

Thats the key point we haven't stated you have to remember permanetly said thought ... see context.




Give me context and I can give you what I would call a reasonable answer. Sure I can't be absolutely certain but I can give you an answer consistant with observations and really thats all that matters. Anything beyond that is philosophical or religious not scientific.

Enormous! but it will never be infinite. That would require infinite time. In other words; it would never get there.

Can you explain to me how, in your understanding, something finite actually becomes infinite?

No word games; just a straightforward, physical explanation that even a "hitch-hiker" can understand.

Absolutely right, but the process cannot be physically infinite, because you can never reach a point where you can say "I have done this for an infinite period of time". Boundless, yes; because there is no point at which you can say "I can go no further with this". Infinite, no; because you never reach a point at which you can say "this is infinity, I have reached it".

I don't think I will reply to any particular post. I will just put out some comments that I think are pertinent.

As far as boundless and infinite are concerned. Boundless and infinite cannot, without some context, be used interchangeably. The surface of a sphere is boundless, but certainly not infinite, since it can in principle be measured to any desired accuracy. Mathematically and physically boundless just means that you can't find a boundary. Infinite on the other hand means that in principle you can always find more of something, no matter how much of it you have already found. The normal example is of course the integers. Name any integer and I can find a bigger one.

B.S. you don't like my pile of rocks. Ok, let's assume an infinite universe. Then there are an infinite number of atoms in the universe. But I can still take out atoms individually or in clumps, such as the clumps making up the rocks in my rock pile, or in my body.

Back to the integers. They are just a way to figure out how many of something there are. If you have a pile of apples and a pile of oranges and you want to know which you have more of you can just start picking them up one at a time. One apple, one orange, one apple, one orange... and so on. Sooner or late you will run out of either apples or oranges. Then you know that you have more of which pile still has some fruit in it. And integers are just a short way of comparing 2 piles. You can count the apples, 1, 2, 3...n, then the oranges 1, 2, 3...m. Then compare the numbers, which ever number is bigger is represents the pile that has more fruit. In principle I could have an infinitely large pile of apples and/or oranges. Then I could never run out when I started either matching or counting them. But I could keep on counting forever. And at any time I could stop and I would know how many I had counted, without ever having reached infinity. So there is no reason at all not to be able to work with a countable subset of an infinite space.

As to whether something finite can become infinite. I have been avoiding that question. However, I generally feel that a finite set cannot become infinite. However, that still doesn't keep me from working with a finite subset of an infinite set.

I keep using things like set and subset to represent anything you want them to represent, because that is more general. When talking about an infinite quantity of something you can be talking about an infinite quantity of almost anything, apples, numbers, atoms, space, whatever. But the rules apply to whatever you are talking about. Using words like set and subset allow you to discuss them without specific reference to any particular set.

Bill Gill

Agree, absolutely!



Of course, but you can never show me an infinite number of integers, so the concept can never become a physical reality. It remains an idea in your mind, which probably is not infinite.

A question I must ask is: How do you know when (if) you have an infinite number of apples, or bananas?

here you go 3 lines of c code that go infinite

while {
// Do soemthing in loop
};


Take a laser point into space turn it on ... turn it off. The laser beam will go on infinitely.

There are many things that are finite but will go in infinite unless you define a condition. Infinite loops are common in programming if your dont correctly terminate the condition the same is true in nature.

But see there you go you provided a context or condition.

Okay I think I get what you are asking is there anything that can be infinite with real world conditions, so real world conditions is the context.

The answer is most definitely no.

Even the universe from big bang point of view is most definitely finite if you view it like that. Infact you cant do Big Bang calculations without making it finite :-)

It has to be because at the start there is a distinct compaction of plank distance you cant exceed.So one plank unit of time after the big bang singularity the universe size is finite and defined and therefore it is forever after when you use this context.

The problem is noone is ever going to experience space like that it's simply a thought experiment and a useful thing for doing calculations on big bang but you will never see that context it's probably impossible.

So in unconstrained context you want as given by the big bang the universe is most definitely finite.

The problem is we live in the universe and for us it is most definitely infinite. Its infinite because of context we are in it and there is no escaping that.

In the same way you may ask what is the universe expanding into. The answer is again contextual. I would say nothing because you will never see it experience it or know what but of coarse the real answer is into something which will forever remain a mystery to us call it un-space or mystic ether or whatever you like ... what does it matter you and I will never experience it. The universe space is our prison and what lies outside the walls well we leave that to religion and philosophy.

It will go on indefinitely, but do you have any way of knowing if that will be infinite? In fact, you can be sure that it will not. You might argue that it is moving towards infinity, but by the very definition of infinity, however far it goes, it will still have an infinite distance to go.

This is another example of the regrettably imprecise use of the word infinity.

Are you implying that if I had said: "Enormous! but it will never be infinite." That would have been incorrect; but because I gave my reason for saying that, my statement became correct?

Absolutely not!

A delicious meal calls, so I shall have to return to this, possibly tomorrow.

BS has already pointed out the difference. The context you refer is 'the process of thought', I think. In that case, theoretically it is infinite. But as a physical entity, you cannot exist for an infinite time; so there is a finite end to your thoughts (physically). Here is, what I think, the difference between a mathematical and physical infinity, a case put forth by BS. The 'thought process' and 'the filling of the bucket having holes' are mathematical concepts, like the number system, and so are infinite.



I agree that it will be possible for you to give reasonable answers for nearly all. But regarding the rest, there is ambiguity. For example, consider the questions: Can the curvature of space-time become infinite? Can the universe remain infinitely hot? Will the process of expansion continue for an infinite period? If the field can create particle pairs from nowhere, will the energy of the universe be infinite? Is the universe itself is infinite in space? These remain unanswered, and there are differences in opinion among the physicists. It is this situation that I referred to as 'ambiguity'. The metaphysical or philosophical part (why and from where all these came)comes only after that; the physical part of it (the part that should be explained by science) is not 'fully explained'.

The number of integers is a mathematical concept. It can be infinite. But the number of atoms is a physical concept. So, when you assume that the universe is infinite, the question that you are avoiding (whether there can be an infinite number of finite atoms) comes up again. Theoretically, there cannot be any limit to the number of atoms. However, that does not make it infinite unless you insist that there can be an infinite number of finite things. If the number of atoms is finite, the limit is set arbitrarily (by whom? we can only speculate). In such cases we cannot use the term 'boundless' (as pointed out by you), unless the term is defined so.

See you are turning it into a word game the same as Bill S and that is not we as scientists say.

I can prove to you the universe is finite in your context of "real situations with absolute knows" IE your word game.

See the universe is expanding it has to expand into something that is a physical law in your "reality" so there is either a multiverse or something bigger than the universe.

So we have universe => universe + something

So the universe can not be infinite because there is something that must be bigger.

At science which is about observation its an absurd claim because we will can not do observation beyond our universe so the point is mute and we say our universe in infinite becaue we could never see the thing in entirity or travel around every point in it because it is expanding close to the speed of light.

It really is the simple.

From a religious or philosophical or do external calculations the universe is most certinly finite but from a travel movement observation point it is most certainly infinite.

Its is simply a science context paradox.

We have a similar problem in Quantum Mechanics because remember we have stuff outside your phsical universe so to us your physical universe is very finite but obviously we get a new boundary where does Quantum Information start and stop.

Here is a QM version of the same thing with the multiverse in play
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality) and the example of it at play (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox)

EDIT: Oh wow these have an english name just saw that "epistemic paradox" because it turns on our concept of knowledge.

The paradox is born from incomplete coverage of understanding and if you look at historic content of the flat world they had equally the same paradox. Was the earth infinite or finite they couldn't tell and this same arguement raged go look at the works of Galileo who was imprisoned for his views.

You can argue it all day it's a word play based around lack of complete understanding or as finiter would say "you are squeezing through the cracks".

Scientists accept the universe is both finite and infinite depending on context and yes its a paradox but that paradox is born of ignorance.

We perceive our Universe as being finite. As far as I am aware there is no concrete scientific evidence to the contrary. The only concepts of infinity we can apply to the Universe, or anything in it, are mathematical infinities, or pseudo infinities which, as you say, can be of value in thought experiments.

I am quite happy to play word games in the less serious threads, but where real knowledge and understanding are involved I believe that clarity of terminology is essential.

Perception is, of course, relative. Either side may see the other as indulging in verbal fencing, and both may have a legitimate claim to being right. I suspect we may never resolve this one, but let's make sure that's not for want of trying.

I think it’s important that we avoid slipping onto a situation where we are all saying what we think, but not answering questions posed by others. Let’s start with these:

Orac. Are you implying that if I had said: "Enormous! but it will never be infinite." That would have been incorrect; but because I gave my reason for saying that, my statement became correct?

Bill. How do you know when (if) you have an infinite number of apples, or bananas?

Finiter. (one not already asked) What is an infinitely small particle, and how does it differ from nothing?

Yes as it stood your statement would have been incorrect and its the same for the bucket with hole argument.

The setup with the bucket is by definition at science an infinite cycle your decision to impose constraints is what makes it go from infinite to finite. The argument then becomes well there isn't that much water, or you cant have imfinite time etc etc so you are imposing the limits. The original experimental setup was indeed infinite you changed the conditions to make it finite. It's a simple viewpoint change that is nothing earth shattering about the change.

So back to the universe.

From a matter, energy point of view the universe is indeed finite, I don't think you can argue anything but that. From a movement, navigation, observational aspect the universe is infinite because of the speed of light restriction. See point of view or context changes the perception. Depending why you were asking the question I may give you a different answer.

I agree with you infinite is a concept abstraction born from a given context it is never a physical reality and the universe is no different to anything else in that regard.

The real question to me is what is the hang up about the universe being infinite?

Even if the universe was the good old static ball model say like finiters there are contexts in which it will appear infinite. See even in finiters world things are moving, the speed of light is a speed limit, so if you start out from one point to circum-navigate the universe thing will move by the time you get back to the start it will look different and so you will sail on never knowing where the start point is so the universe still appears infinite ... see context.

So I would say the universe is finite.
However in certain contexts like movement and observation it is infinite.

None of that is exactly earth shattering.

So I guess my question is why whether the universe infinite or finite causing such a fuss.

I know I have an infinite number of apples or bananas because I built my mental universe that way. This is a thought experiment to demonstrate that your contention that an infinite universe is unchanging doesn't match how the world works. If you want to show that I don't have an infinite number of apples and bananas you have to count them. While you spend an infinite amount of time counting them I will be enjoying eating apples and bananas one at a time. So the apples and bananas universe is not static and unchanging.

Whether our universe is infinite or not doesn't make any difference to how we work with it. If the universe is infinite we are still working with a finite subset. All the rules remain the same.

Bill Gill

I much prefer your answer Bill much shorter :-)

The mystery to me is the same as you why are they getting hung up over infinity what difference does it make.

Is trying to understand something the same as "getting hung up over" it?



What difference does it make whether anything came before the Big Bang?

What difference does it make how old the Universe is?

What difference does it make if neutrinos travel a little faster than photons?

How much of science in general, and cosmology in particular can we dispense with, simply by asserting that it makes no difference?

Then, perhaps, we have to ask: In whose frame of reference does it make no difference?

It is not static and unchanging because you constructed your "mental universe that way".

You side-stepped the question. It was your infinite pile, not mine. Challenging me to prove that it is not infinite is not telling me how you knew it was infinite in the first place. OK, you might say that you know it is infinite because that is the way you constructed it, but by the same token, I could say that beyond the visible horizon our universe is made of squishy bananas (Australian, of course), and justify that by saying that that was how I constructed my mental universe. How close would that come to real science, or even a useful thought experiment?

I think the problem here is that Orac and I don't see why you are having a problem with the concept of infinity. Infinity is very simple. It just means that, even in principle, you can't measure the "stuff" that you are talking about. Using apples for example, if you have an infinite number of apples it means you have: apple apple apple apple...infinity. In practice you can't have an infinite number of apples, but in concept you can. And that is all that infinity means.

To me infinity is a useful concept, but it doesn't really have any significant impact on my understanding of the universe. Now if you are an advanced mathematician you can get all involved in the various sizes of infinities. Because there are several sizes of infinity. Maybe to get a handle on it you might want to look at the Wiki article.

Bill Gill

And again totally agree with Bill.

For Bill S there is another simpler one of these PI.

What does PI mean.

Well at some level its a number but its not really because you can never write that number out as I said it's been calculate to 2.5 trillion places.

So is it a concept .. well yes but as per above we also need it as a number and so to get real world answers using it we have to truncate to the precision we require.



It's self evident something came before the big bang the only real question is the universe oscillatory or did we come from outside this universe which science may possibly never be able to answer. Concept of infinite universe does not change the problem.



If it's cyclical again it's total age is probably impossible to calculate. Concept of infinity does not change the problem.




Really nothing to do with infinity, the real question with this is where it were true is it a QM effect and GR/SR still intact or do we have our first violation.



I have answered each of your questions above if you feel infinity definition would change my answers expalin it to me.



There is no zero frame (Absolue space frame) so there are only local reference frames and hence the universe being infinite or not makes no difference to an observer. Infact if you start trying to put in an absolute reference frame you go thru the exercise I did with finiter and our spinning bucket and I can proove to you your world and forces become inconsistant.

In QM we have the same thing via Bell's Inequality no two observers see the same thing of Quantum Information. What QM is explicitly telling you is the Zero reference frame is outside of 3D space.

It is the secret to why QM and GR/SR don't clash they both actually say the same thing the Zero frame is not in our 3D space think how profound that is.

Nothing changes whether the universe is infinite or finite it's like PI it still calculates things with a circle no matter how you view it.

There cannot be an infinitely small particle; there can be an infinitesimally small particle. Though literally both will be the same, in science, infinitesimal is used to represent very small (I think). IMO (based on my theory), a particle should have mass and volume, however small it may be.

Definitely not a word play. Let us leave aside whether the universe is actually infinite or finite, and just care about what the present theories say. Depending upon the context (as you have said) and also depending upon 'the physicist and his field of research', there are different views (given the same context). This is what I refer to as ambiguity. And, I agree with you: it is a paradox born out of ignorance.

Thanks, Orac, for answering the “What difference…” questions. You missed the point of my asking them, though. They were rhetorical questions, the point of which was to ask if science declined to seek answers just because the issue in question seemed to make no difference to our every-day lives. I think the answer would have to be “no”, and IMO the same applies to questions about infinity.

Thus far I have absolutely no problem! As long as we are clear that that is the way in which “infinite” is being used, that’s fine. In thinking about infinity, that was the point at which I ran into complications.

Infinity is simple if you are looking at it from a great distance. It is easy to think that we can visualise time stretching to infinity in the past and future, or a void going to infinity in every direction. As long as you treat it as a “concept”, it’s simple.



This is where we seem to part company. I strongly suspect that there can never have been a time when there was absolutely nothing, or there would still be nothing now. If this is the case, something must be physically infinite. This leads to the question: What does it mean to be physically infinite?

That is how I see it; I just think it's unfortunate that infinite and infinitesimal are used as though they were synonymous. Etymologically, they may be, but infinitesimal does convey a different shade of meaning.

And science would absolutely agree with you to an extent BUT we add it does not have to be space it could be energy or something that can become space and this is especially true of QM.




And again I have a problem with what you have written here.

As I have agreed above from outside our universe I agree it is most definitely finite ... 100% agree with you.

However once you come inside the universe you are bound by those rules and the universe for anything real in the universe is infinite for we can't go outside.

I think what you are trying to talk about is the thing outside which our universe is theoretically in call it a multiverse or come up with a name and it is that which may ultimately make our universe finite.

We conceed that ourselves and we predict possible fates for the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe)

See our context paradox we give you ... well tell you the universe is infinite but we also tell you it's going to end and it causes us no problem at science because infinity is nothing more than a context idea.

I am thinking what you may really be asking can anything be "absolute infinity" like a zero reference frame.

The problem is it is not a question science can answer or even have a view on it because we would have to be absolutely certain we were at the top of the chain.

You could have a universe in a universe in a universe etc. How would I know when I got to the top?

So if your asking is there such thing as "absolute infinity" I really have no view on it, its much more a philosophical argument.

And now I am going to get you to do some work for a change and flip this on it's head, lets see how you go.

See I am going to tell you that there is no such thing as a "particle" you are imagining it what you see is force the force simply has a width.

Now I want you to prove to me a particle exists and its not just a force show me all your evidence that particles are not a figment of your imagination.

See you are the finite one it's all about reality and what you can see and touch show me evidence of one of these particles please.

Do you see the problem coming at you .. yes even as a scientist I couldn't prove that because of that duality thing and QM.

So your whole theory and finite world is built on a lie or at best a guess there is no particles and you think QM doesn't make sense your irrational belief makes absolutely no sense ... your crazy you think the world is real and built of partciles yet you cant even show me one :-).

I can't get out of it, so it must be infinite! Is this yet another definition for infinite?

I would ask you what proof you have that we can't get out of the Universe, but you would probably say I was playing word games.

I'm not sure I follow this, try again, perhaps, then I'll have a go at a response.

If you use infinity as a "context idea" then you can do, more or less, what you like with it, but the more diverse meanings you give it, the less real meaning the word has.

As I see it, there are two main ways in which language is used:
Artistic; in which you use words in novel and imaginative ways.
Scientific: in which you strive for clarity and precision.

It seems that the scientific community are content to use infinity in distinctly "artistic" ways.

We put things out of the universe quite routinely in QM you do realize that once we do they can't have an effect in it or react to it. The state is called entanglement and thats why the effect works instantaneously over immense distance ... you know Einsteins spooky action at distance.

So I can already tell you with absolute certainty that the universe is absolutely finite if you can get out of it and it's proven by science.

It's the confinement to the universes 3D space + 1 dimension of time that makes the universe infinite thats the context for inifinite we use. You break the confinement like entanglement and the infinite disolves.

There is no word game in that its straight forward science

If you are stricted to the 3D+1 spacetime it is infinite
If you are out of it (like entanglement) it is finite

Context changes how the universe looks to you.

When you talk about the universe being infinite do you literally mean the 3D+1 timespace we live in OR everything stuff that may be outside our universe so all other universes etc and whatever our universe is expanding into.

See universe itself has context for me if you say universe I equate it to our universe many mean the whole of everything out there whatever that may look like.

When you say the universe can not be infinite which universe context do you mean?

It sort of is like that.

As I said consider PI it's a little less abstract it has a very precise meaning but you can't derive a precise finite number from it you can only truncate it to a precision you require.

PI and infinity share the same house in science they are a concepts and imprecise in the true global sense if you are trying to extract detail from them.

As you said
Scientific: in which you strive for clarity and precision

See both PI and Infinity defy that statement because they do they can only have arbitrary precision chosen by us.

It appears to me you want to turn Infinity into something hard and real (I called it "absolute infinity") and we don't view infinity like that.

Hell you can't even view PI as something hard and real because I have no way to give you and exact number for it.

The question that you pose is very significant. We have to distinguish between mathematical and physical infinities. The natural numbers constitute an infinite set; it is a mathematical infinity. But the number of apples can never be infinite; it is physical. If the number of apples is extremely large and when there is no theoretical limit, we may define it as 'physical infinity' (in my opinion), which of course is a finite set without any 'theoretical limit', but with an 'arbitrary' limit. I don't know whether a distinction between mathematical and physical infinities ever existed in philosophical and scientific dialogues. I will look up in the Wikipedia.

'Whether the universe is infinite or not' is not the only problem connected with infinity. There are infinities within the theories. For example, in the concept of gravity, the GR leads to an an infinite curvature of space-time. Newtonian gravity also becomes infinite when the mass of the body becomes grater than a certain limit (not infinite). Such absurd infinities arise because they have not considered the question of physical infinity (IMO based on my theory).

The QM says there is an 'instant-duality at the level of particles'. What my theory says is that particles are simply particles, and they shows some wave nature because of their wavy motion. Thus in effect, the subtle difference is in the concept of instant-duality only. So any observation that can be regarded as a proof for QM can be regarded and explained in an alternate way as a proof for the existence of particles.

No you are trying to squeeze through the cracks again in many versions of QM and string theory there are no particles only waves or forces.

So show me some proof that there is such thing as a particle, scientific references or observations please.

You can't simply say what this or that science believes I want to see your observations and reasonings.

Don't have time to read/digest all the new stuff in this thread, but I must comment on this.



This is one reason why I use the terms "Universe" = the 3D+1 timespace we live in, and "cosmos" = the Universe + everything else.

I don't think I have talked of the Universe as being infinite, if I did, I certainly didn't mean to.

Nope you hadn't but had to check because I could see possibly some confusion if we had terms mixed up.

What is PI? I tried looking it up and found 184 definitions.
Could it be Pi?

LOL yes it's Pi, I have habbit of the double capital because of my native language sorry, "pi" is a pronounciation to us and so we use capitals to distinguish so people don't get confused if it's used in a sentence.

Just to be sure I understand you; are you saying that entanglement is something that takes place outside the finite Universe?
If that is the case, how does that square with my thought that QM might give us a window on the infinite?

Whether it is actually outside the physical idea of 3D+1 timespace is hard to say, the fact it is in two places at once puts it definitely outside the normal laws as we know them to us of 3D+1.

The process of whatever is happening has to be outside the finite universe because the interactions are faster than light and time retrospective if need be, what is preserved is causality.

It's probably worth reviewing the history of this for you (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640)

Edit: QM calls 3D+1 timespace reality because it is what is real to you.

It won't give us a window to your sort of infinity because how do I know QM is not contained in something itself. All it really does is shift the boundary .. I hope that makes sense to you ... this is hard work for me in english.

I guess to GR/SR people lets say like Bill G the problem they confronted was where did the energy come from for Big Bang. For QM big bang the question is where did the Quantum information come from in some way we are just shift chair positions on the titanic as they say :-)

'A theory has no proof' that is what Stephen Hawking says. The QM has indeed no proof. However, when certain observations can be explained on the basis of QM, we call it a good theory. This is what I meant when I said that the same observations can be regarded as proof of my theory.

It is the loop holes or the cracks in the theory that render it imperfect. The progress in physics can be regarded as a continuous effort to plug the loop holes in Newtons theory, which can be regarded as the basic standard model. I don't claim that I am a physicist; I am only a layman interested in physics, but I follow the same strategy as the physicists and try to plug the loop holes.

So, when I say that electron and positron are actually particles and form a pair, and the pairs integrate into neutrons, I have to provide a logical structure of neutron. Neutron contains 919 pairs packed closely around a vacant centre. Why is it 919 and not any other number? It is the value of 'Pi' that decides this. The smallest whole number fraction for the value of 'Pi' is 22/7. This means that a circle of radius 7 particles can accommodate 22 particles in the circumference, thus forming a nearly perfect circle. Applying this to a sphere, it can be shown that the minimum number of double particles (electron-positron pairs) required to form a nearly perfect sphere is 919. And, the mass of 919 pairs is nearly equal to that of a neutron. This is one of the mathematical proofs that supports my theory.

First I am not interested in QM proof (it actually does have proof btw), the question I posed to you has nothing to do with QM .. I asked you a specific question show me your proof a thing called a particle exists .. stay on task. Show me a particle exists please.




Provide me observations of these thing called electrons, protons and nuetrons are finite solid particles please.



Stay on task you job is to show me that electrons, protons and nuetrons are these little finite ball particles you imagine them to be ... and I do mean imagine in every sense.

I will get you started standard "double slit electron experiment" we do it with every student (http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html) as it's an easy experiment. Explain away please how does your theory cover this.

Edit: Took me a while to find a good link to it ... here finiter this make help for you to explain it to me (http://www-als.lbl.gov/index.php/holding...ysics-meet.html) Thats a whole bunch of your you protons, electrons and nuetrons doing the dance together.

For Bill S.

I saw this it is sort topical so thought I might as well throw it in here for you incase you didnt see it.

I have several problems with this and in time we may get to that but lets see what you think of it

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-nature-laws-vary-universe.html

Thanks, Orac. Looks like an interesting link. Hopefully I'll be able to give it some time later and will share my thoughts.

If alpha varies directionally across the observable Universe, would this not suggest a cosmic directionality that would lead to a breakdown of the principle that no place is special?

"The smooth continuous change in alpha may also imply the Universe is much larger than our observable part of it, possibly infinite."

I thought it was generally accepted that the Universe was likely to be bigger than we can see. I take it that the “infinity” referred to is the “this is infinite if you view it from here, but finite from over there” sort of infinity, beloved of cosmologists.

Finiter, I feel as though I am hijacking your thread with a lot of stuff about infinity.

I have just been trying to pull together some of the infinity related parts of the thread. If you would rather I transferred this to a new thread I will do so; if not I will post it here, as the discussion seems relevant, and is going well.

Correct :-)

And infact it could be infinite in one direction and not the other, our old expanding treadmill example from way back.

As I said I have problems with what they are saying I actually think there is an easier answer that needs to be checked. Start your new thread and I will discuss it.

Electrons have finite masses and radii. That is an indication that it is a solid particle. How such solid particles (electrons and positrons) integrate into neutron, another solid particle, having a finite mass was explained earlier; it is indeed a part of the argument: solid particles integrating into heavier solid particles in a deterministic way is a proof to show that they are indeed 'solid particles'. Actually, my theory predicts the mass of neutron by taking the particles to be 'solid'. It must be remembered that the existing theories do not predict the mass of neutron.

Regarding the double slit experiment:

With a single slit, if the electrons were always ejected parallel to the slit and there were no interactions at the edges of the slit, we will get a 'clear image of the slit with well defined boundaries' on the screen. But what is observed is a spread out image indicating that the source is not a point source, the electrons are ejected in different directions and there are interactions at the edges of the slit. The interactions are gravitational electrostatic and magnetic. In my model, the electrons have real spins; they spin clockwise or anticlockwise with respect to the direction of the motion, and the spin is always in a plane perpendicular to the direction of motion.

In the case of a double slit, the usual explanation is that since there are two slits every part of the screen will receive electrons from the two slits, and hence we may expect a uniform increase in the intensity, but what is observed is an interference pattern, thereby indicating that electron is a wave. However, I will see it in a different way. There is only one slit, the central part of which is blocked, thus making it a double slit. 'With that block' and 'without that block' the images on the screen will be different. The block will have its own affect on the image, by preventing the electrons from reaching some regions.

Let each electron be sent one by one. When there are statistically sufficient number of electrons, the slits and the block in between the slits will receive a uniform distribution of electrons. Nearly half of the electrons will have clockwise and the rest anticlockwise spins. The magnetic fields of these will be opposite, and these will be deflected towards or away from the edges of the slits. Thus the pattern formed on the screen will resemble the interference pattern of waves.

Infinity is something connected with reality, and I am closely watching your opinions. I think you missed my last reply to you regarding mathematical and physical infinities.

It may be an indication that the expansion of the universe is directional, and in that case the universe can have a centre.

Sorry they most definitely have neither they have a range we call a probibity of distribution.





See where you walked headlong into is actually interesting as we have direct observational proof that electrons, protons, nuetrons are waves we have absolutely no proof they are solid.

The idea of duality was born mainly from chemistry which convinced science that there were these little things called atoms and they painted this picture of it.

Now even chemistry has given up on that view.

QM is posing you to the very big question was DUALITY EVER REAL ... do particles actually exist.

This presents the backdrop to why your theory is at odds with QM and you have to dismiss it.

The reality is we can prove QM and that what you call particles are most likely virtual particles but there is absolutely no scientific evidence of any sort of solid particle that is as they say science myth and your theory is founded on a myth.




Only we can actually take the thing down to a single electron, proton, nuetron these days so what you have just explained is rubbish (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110224091619.htm)

You can't have statistical interference on a single object the object is interferring with itself. This argument is dead and buried.

See your explaination simply doesn't wash it's a historic argument when we couldn't settle the science.

So I am emitting a single photon, electron, proton how do I get an interferrence pattern if said thing is not a wave.


Everything I have told you here is factual observation I have not added in theories or what I believe I am simply asking you to consider the observations.


The problem I pose is does DUALITY exist ... I have observational evidence for wave like behaviour I have absolutely no obseravtional evidence for solid particle like behaviour .... even though it might play with your sensibilities they are the facts.

Modern QM is posing the question is there such thing as a solid particle the answer keeps coming back time and time again .. NO.

So you pose that QM is a mistake ... QM asks of your theory is it built on a mistake that is wrong at science.

It's understandable why you don't like QM :-)

Your sort of thinking is somewhat correct it would have a centre but that centre would not be in our universe weirdly. It would probably also wobble like most barycentres do.

To understand why it cant be in the universe you would have to go back and understand what alpha represents.

The question the researchers didnt think about and I was hinting at to Bill S it may imply the universe is spinning about this off universe centre creating a magnetic dipole, see they observed EM waves which are subject to magnetic effects.

It easy to imagine that, call the surface of earth the universe we are rotating about a centre point and that point is not on the surface of our planet.

Alot of galaxies rotate it's not much of a stretch to consider the universe rotating.

Infact if you follow my discussions I actually discussed that I had done work on that exact proposition and theory but threw it away because I had no observational data to back it up.

I didn’t miss your comments, Finiter, what I “missed” was responding, for which I apologise. In fact, we seem to think along similar lines as far as the infinite is concerned. I assume from your last sentence that you agree that nothing finite can become infinite, even curvature or gravity.

On reflection, I think I will take the infinity discussion out to a thread of its own. Hopefully see you there, folks!

No there is no proof for QM; only observational evidences, which in fact are wrongly explained.


Are you saying that interference is not possible if electrons are sent one by one? Whether it is a wave or particle, interference patterns are obtained even if the electrons are sent one by one. Each electron hits a particular point of the sensitive screen, and finally after a statistically significant number of electrons had hit the plate, the plate will show an interference pattern. This is what I have read. I do not know whether it is a theoretical explanation, or a computer simulation or an actual experiment.
What I have explained is that even if it is a solid particle, due to the difference in the magnetic field, half of the electrons are bent towards the edge of the slit and half away from the edge, and thus a pattern similar to the interference pattern can be formed.

ROFL so you don't doubt the observation but the explaination is wrong even though you can't provide any viable alternative.

Here is what you are saying

"Yes I can see the dinosaur bones but I am sure there is a perfectly good reason they ressemble animal bones but as I know there are no such animals the explaination is wrong"

Come on do you really expect us to take you seriously with that stupidity of an argument.

Provide a valid answer and I might even remotely take you seriously otherwise the only person you are deluding is yourself.




In the old days we couldn't seperate single electrons .. we can now because we can go into the terahertz range of operations.

I can send one electron every one minute if I want or maybe just one single electron ever.

If I take a photo of that one electron event I will see the interference pattern.




What you have read is the old attempt to appease those who didn't like the wave behaviour and preserve there precious little particles because they wanted these little particle things to make there wonderful stupidity they called the atom model which looked like a little mini solar system.

Of coarse that model stupidity is now dead and we can prove that story is rubbish.




And as I have explained what you have read is 1970's rubbish that few scientist would even remotely consider viable.


You are dealing with one of thousands of observations I can give you for wave behaviour but that is not your challenge so you don't have to proove it wrong you keep getting sidetracked.


YOUR TASK WAS TO SHOW ME OBSERVAION THAT SUPPORTS OR PROOVES THERE ARE SOLID PARTICLES.


See here is the interesting thing you say that your world is reality etc yet your whole theory is based on a lie.

Some idiot when you were going to school told you there were these things called particles, they had no valid observation to tell you that but they did.


You believed that implicitly and infact you have built illussions around it in your head this is "your reality".


As I said unfortunately I can't help you there is no scientific observation of your fantasy solid particles and I know alot of science observations.


Do you see why I laugh at you trying to dismiss QM at least I have observations for believing my fantasy yours is built on the lie told to you at school and based on chemistry that was wrong.

I realize what I have given you above is probably quite confronting Finiter and for that I appologize.

I have had first year students break down and cry when they realize that alot of there beliefs in the subject they love (they generally love it to continue studying it) is built on lies.

QM is very confronting it challenges you to look carefully at each and every fact and question is this the truth.

When you do a hard look at solid particles there is no reason to believe they exist. Having little wave packets accomplishes the same thing and without needing to build ridiculous little fairytales.

As scientists we have asked all physics magazines etc to stop drawing solid little particles and so if you look at a modern magazine article and I chose this one at random
(http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-uv-antibodies-biosensors.html). A photon is represented by a litttle wave symbol and thats really all the difference is.

We have done this so we don't end up with more generations who grow up believing something that is most likely a lie.

Even a simple wiki of an atom has dispensed with the good old fanatsy planet view of an atom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom).

What my theory says is 'duality does not exist'. We have only particles that shows some wavelike character because of its wavy motion.

Electrons and neutrons have mass, which can be measured accurately. Their masses are are not probabilistic, but deterministic. I have explained how the the mass of neutron can be predicted, and this becomes possible because the mass is deterministic.

Electrons and neutrons have finite masses. If you take QM to be correct, then the masses are probabilistic. If you take that they are solid particles, then the masses are deterministic. The observations can be explained in both ways, and hence these observations cannot be regarded as a proof of QM.

I don't like QM because of the 'instant-duality'. Duality (not instant-duality) is something that can exist(IMO). The particle should take some time to change into a wave and there should be a mechanism for that. I argue QM is wrong on the basis of logic, and not because I dislike it.

Orac, you are saying: "If I take a photo of that one electron event I will see the interference pattern." Do you mean that if you sent just one electron only, and then stopped the experiment, you will get an interference pattern. Can you provide a suitable link which clearly states that?

Again, you have still not provided any proof for QM. As far as observations are concerned, I have provided alternate explanations earlier. In which case do you want an alternate explanation?

QM is an established theory. The same argument that you have put against me (Some idiot when you were going to school told you there were these things called particles, they had no valid observation to tell you that but they did. You believed that implicitly and infact you have built illussions around it in your head this is "your reality".) can be said of you also. Heisenberg got a wrong idea that there is duality at the level of particles. The QM is built on that wrong assumption. Now QM is the in-thing and is being taught. So many people believe in it, and argue that no other explantion will be valid.

And as I said provide me some observation that only has particle behaviour that could not be done by waves. Would you like a list of observations which show off wave like behaviour that can not be explained by particles.




That is a ridiculous statement so you know it's mass exactly except if you weigh it well it will vary around a range????? And that makes sense to you.

I can give you hundreds of observations about a nuetron that will defy it being a particle lets be sensible here. Do you really want to go into this or you happy to go read up nuetron observations.



You have no understanding of QM if you think that .. Quantum mechanics is built on Quanta it's in the name even.




Right so it solid and real and ohhhh we just ignore those dinosaur bones again.



I don't particually like duality either set lets look carefully at observation evidence ... oh wait you can't provide any ... and actually noone has been able to when challenged.

http://www.phys.ethz.ch/~ihn/papers/GustavssonNanoL08.pdf

Done for the first time in 2008 been done a mirriad of different ways since.

Would you like a full list of then last I looked been confirmed about 90+ ways.

With quantum dots and quantum entangling a single electron its rather trivial these days.

So there is a single electron interferring with itself explain away please.




What absolute rubbish all you have done is said I see those observations but that isn't QM.

Then you have to explain the observations and you can't.

Edit: I am trying to not be forceful here and tolerant but sorry I am getting frustrated with the cyclical nature of argument.



Sorry some idiot did tell you a lie ... unless you care to show me an observation that only a particle can explain otherwise we have no need for a particle to exist in science we call that occums razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor)

There is nothing really controversial in what I have told you here all that really changes is your cute little solid particles become these wavey things the world doesn't end because of it.

Heisenberg was doing the best to create a story consistant at the time. His uncertainty principle is correct and we know why because the particles are virtual they aren't real so we can dispense with the duality.

The reason people believe in QM is because it has observation evidence and NEVER been wrong even with some of the most weird and unlikely results.

If you feel comfortable in your little particle fantasy then stay there it's like newtonian physics it sort of works. I guess you have to stay with your nice school book image of the planetary atom as well. And hey some people still believe the earth is flat.

Science progress is a relentless moving forward creating a solid consistant theory that explain ALL observations not just some you chose to accept.

Our usual after work mid week discussion and the usual discussion turn to pseudoscience and I was lamenting the number of people who still don't believe the double slit experiment.

A friend of mine pointed out that an education company had infact put a setup on the market so you can do your own tests of double slit with a single photon.

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_slit/index.shtml

The 3ns timing is now easily within range of cheap commercial electronics.

What we see everyday coming out of the labs and into a classroom near you hopefully.

Orac, you have said a lot. But sorry, I have to repeat the same thing because you are not prepared to care what I say. I have clearly stated that QM has no proof other than observational evidence. In the end, you are also saying that observational evidences are the only proof. You say that I am not providing any alternate explanation, but do not say in which particular case I have not provided alternate explanation. Naturally, the argument becomes cyclic.

Regarding the mass of neutron: Are you saying that the mass of neutron varies and remains within a range? Can you provide a link which exactly says that. I am under the impression that the masses of electron and neutron have been accurately determined, and that also to a very great degree of accuracy (and always the masses remain the same).

Regarding the single electron interference, I think you have gone wrong. The link that you have referred to says: "The electrons travel one-by-one through the system but still build up a well pronounced interference pattern with period 130 mT" (Page no:2549 2nd para 4th line). To me, it means that the interference pattern is formed by all the electrons together and not a single electron (the electrons build up the pattern). The term 'single electron interference' is used to indicate that 'electrons are sent one by one', and not to indicate that a 'single electron creates an interference pattern'.

Google scientific proof please.

Proof as proved by science requires simple testing via standard scientific methods. QM makes predictions which are verified by results so is therefore scientifically proven.

You stating that it is not proven is a statement of stupidity.

If your saying it's not proven to you, so be it who cares, it's proven at science.




Again wiki or any net link will provide you details I have been providing details of the renormalizing process in the other link.



They are sent one by one and interfer with themselves, look at it as it's time resolved for you. You can even buy the equpment to test the same effect on light photons in the link above you yourself.

This is becoming an excercise in denial and delussion on your behalf, this stuff is all common and tested by many many labs and scientists.

At the end of the day believe what your will finiter if you want to say your don't believe QM that's fine but we are in a science section of a forum and you start telling me it's not proven and I will take you to task.

IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN END OF STORY ... YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE SO BE IT ... SAY THAT I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE.

I am consistant with this as I said to you I don't believe the classic big bang theory, that is it is proven at science but I choose to doubt it. The theory matches all observed results so it would be wrong of me to say Big bang is not proven and I do not do so.

I expect the same behaviour of you as I ask of myself on science section of a physics forum.

Okay I am going to give you a topical view to show how consistant we are with rules Finiter.

The background to this is Sascha is a QM scientist and a very good scientist, that is he does not disagree with any of the fundemental observations or omit observations like yourself.

Sascha had a paper rejected from publication which is the background to this spray.

What Sascha is querying is the time effects of QM there are no past and future in the QM domain time stands still thats how QM works. Again you don't think QM is real I understand all that but just giving you the background.

What Sascha is attempting to ask is causality intractable can the future affect the past given QM is blind to time.

The problem from a science point is mute, science assumes casuality we have to anything else becomes religious or philosophical.

He is struggling with double slit experiment the same as you are and seeks to resolve it a different way



What he is seeking to do is say the electron knows you are looking at it in the future and conspires backwards in time to change the past. You are blissfully unaware of the change.

QM does indeed leave open that door but if you walk through it becomes not science .. science is about causality.

Sascha is arguing we are terrible people imposing an arbitrary limit and yes to remain a science in QM we have to assume causality even though QM demands no such requirement.

To the rest of us establishment (as Sascha would say) QM has to merge with physical reality and even though what Sascha implies may be not excluded from the theory we have no observation of it and if he is right you can not make observation of it, ergo it is not science.

He can see the result he will have done it many times in the lab, so he has to trust what he himself sees but his mind can't accept it. He desperately wants his solid finite world so he is willing to bend time and science says NO!!!

See what get it from both extremes :-)

The spray =>
(http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/futu...doscience-84265)

Orac, you say, "Google scientific proof please."

There is no disagreement regarding what 'scientific proof' means. What I said about 'proof' was contextual as a reply to your question what proof I have. The observational evidences can be explained in an alternate way, and I provide alternate explanations as a proof my theory. For example, I have explained how a neutron is formed from electron-positron pairs as a theoretical proof to show that electrons and neutrons are solid particles. Again, I have explained how an interference pattern can be formed by solid particles. However, you just maintained that I am not providing alternate explanations.

My alternate explanations may be wrong; but you have not pointed out where it has gone wrong. When it is an alternate theory, you cannot evaluate it based on existing theory. You say that electrons are not solid particles (based on QM), and hence my explanation of neutron formation is wrong (here is the actual disagreement).

Scientific proof is based on 'observational evidence' or right predictions. But therein lies the loop hole. It may be possible to explain the so-called observational evidences in many ways. You cannot say any explanation is better than any other, unless you are able to point out logical loop holes in the explanations. If you accept one explanation and evaluate 'the others' one the basis of the accepted one, naturally 'the others' will be wrong.

Again, you say "IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN END OF STORY ... YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE SO BE IT ... SAY THAT I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE."

I do not agree with the above statement. The term 'SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN END' is relative. Many 'scientifically proven ends' have later been disproved (sometimes, it may be proved again). At present, QM is the in-thing, ie, the present 'SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN END' supports QM. As we have not reached 'the real end', I choose to question QM by providing an alternate set of concepts.

You say that you doubt Big-bang theory though the theory agrees with all observational evidences. That means you do not agree with the 'conclusions that have been arrived at' though you do not question the observations. But the degree of disagreement is rather small, and so you only 'doubt'. If you are more convinced, then you will say that Big-bang theory may be wrong for certain reasons. If you are still more convinced and have an alternate set of explanations, then surely you will say that Big-bang theory is wrong. So when I say that QM is wrong, it implies only 'that much', and my stand is not 'scientifically wrong'.

Regarding the mass of Neutron and the interference, I will verify your comments and reply later.

Then this is not a science discussion open a new thread up in the "not for science section" please.

QM is scientifically proven they even have nobel prizes for it, it's not open for discussion within science that we have to prove to it "finiter". We have entertained this enough and we now reached a position where no new detail is being introduced and you view is not science.

Nuetron interferometery is what you need to google.

End of this discussion please ... start a new thread.

Obviously, I do not agree with the evaluation of Orac. QM is a partial theory that can explain things at the quantum level. When it comes to the ordinary level or the cosmic level, QM is of no use. However, QM is accepted by the scientific community. In the QM itself, there are different shades of opinion that if one idea fails, we can depend on the other, and claim that QM is the right theory. Hence, there is nothing unscientific in saying that 'QM is wrong and we require an alternate theory'. This forum does not restrict the discussion to 'accepted theories only'. So I think there is nothing wrong in discussing an alternate theory in this 'physics forum'.

'The Finiteness Theory', the new theory proposed by me, is based on the concept that the physical world is real. It rejects the instant-duality of QM and the space-time of SR/GR. The new theory attempts to explain things at all the levels on the basis of a single theory. Through this thread I tried to discuss the concept of reality. The other aspects of my theory will be posted in separate threads in this forum.

The current discussion may be treated as closed.

Finiter I am not trying to kill the discussion I encourage discussion I am just saying we need to move the thread.

I have asked Rev a couple of times to start a new thread in "not quite science" and have done so myself as has Bill S.

The reason is quite simple stuff that is accepted by science is in the science thread stuff that isn't goes to the not quite science.

You can't just say you reject instant-duality that is a science fact. The only way to overturn a science fact is to scientifically challenge the fact with a new observation. There are no other ways ... an alternate theory does not overturn science facts and that is a science fact.

If you want to overturn a science fact then your alternate theory must have some new observation that your theory predicts and the old theory wont ... find it and test it.

If you can do that you can overturn the science fact.

If you can't do that then move the discussion to another area because what you are doing is not science.

If you start a new thread call it your theories name I am happy to discuss stuff there.

There is logic in what you are saying: "stuff that is accepted by science is in the science thread". However that is only an opinion. In my opinion, an alternate theory can also be included in the science forum if the arguments are scientific. Thus opinions can vary. So under such conditions, the forum regulations will help. Please go through the forum guidelines for 'Physics Forum'. It clearly states:

"It's ok to express opinions and speculate wildly, but acknowledge they are opinions or speculation."

I have made it clear (wherever required)that the views expressed are either my opinion or based on my theory so that those who read (especially students) are not confused.
So, when I am allowed to post my theory in the physics forum of 'Science a GoGo'(which I also think is a right decision, but not followed by some other science forums)why should I change the thread to 'not quite science'?

I will be posting some other concepts that are parts of my theory. Excuse me, it will be posted in this forum itself, and I will be looking forward for your opinions regarding that so that we may have a lively discussion.

And hence why you have been banned like Preearth from many physics forums I would guess.

As I said I have a theory as well but in the science section I tow the science line.

You obviously think you are better than the rest of us a bit like Preearth and your pet theory is so much better than everyone elses the rules don't apply to you.

I will leave it to the moderator but don't expect any discussion from me on unscientific stuff in a science section .... not going to happen I am not going to encourage you.

NO. Wherever the discussion is open to all ideas, I will post my theory. If the discussion is limited to approved science, I will stick to it. Sometimes they have separate forum for speculations; in that case, I will post it there. Here the guidelines are clear; if the administrator says that I have crossed the limit, I will stop immediately.

I sometimes wonder if some of my views on the infinite would be better placed in NQS, but I tend to use the sentence quoted by Finiter to justify posting these views wherever they seem to fit in.

Orac, I'm not really qualified to pass judgement on scientific content, but on the basis of questions answered, I think your comparison with Preearth is a bit harsh.

Any subject can have different aspects. The 'science part' of infinity should come under science section. Not only that, the classification of subjects is not water tight. A forum discussing approved science, I think, is intended mainly for the students of science.

I agree the infinity discussion should be under not quite science the difference between it and this discussion is the infinity discussion doesn't deny science facts.

As I said if Finiter can overturn a science fact fair enough but he can't and doesn't try and thats why I think it has to move.

The infinity discussion is half mumbo jumbo but you don't deny any scientific facts.

Some of Rev's discussion rumble around the edges as well and we have successfully moved several discussions.

The end decission is up to Bill and I will comment at this level but I have no intention of encouraging finiter by discussing this any further.

The only reason he wants to discuss it here is because it gives it a sense of legitamcy, look at his own reasoning this is some sort of science.

Its pseudoscience by every definition of actual science because he refuses to adhere to the standards, there is no polite other way to put it.

"Intelligent Design" was taken to court because religious groups wanted to teach it as science and the court upheld it isn't science by any definition. Look carefully at the reasons for the decision in that case and it's the same here Finiter's theory is pseudoscience by every definition.

Intelligent design wanted to overturn "Big bang" install creation at the start, remove "evolution" and install intelligent design and still call itself science. It would leave thousands of observations with no logical explaination and just wave its hand at them and say there must be alternative explainations. Science said no you can't do that or it's not science and took it all the way to the court where that was upheld.

Preearth does the same thing with earth formation he wants to explain some things leave observations unanswered wave his hand at them and say there must be alternative explainations.

All 3 Intelligent Design, PreEarths earth creation theory and finiters theory are therfore not science under the same findings, and no you cant just wave you hands at it and make it science.

Finiter is more courteous than preearth but he wants discussion in a science section for the exact same reasons.

You open this door next we get Intelligent design and every other loon and fruitcake under the sun wanting to discuss things here.

So then people have to wade thru miles of pseudoscience junk to discuss actual science.

So I accept finiter is courteous and nice but to allow this to continue on sets a very bad example.

Finiter last comment is we make an "approved science section" because see then you accept that his stuff is scientific.

Sorry I will never believe that ... you and I can not decide what is and is not scientific that requires agreements of bodies and authorities.

Finiter can make all the arguments he likes here it cuts absolutely no weight .. the decision of the definition of science is not yours and mine to make.

If he dislikes the definition of science go argue it with the various science unions and organisations around the world.

And as per the above finiter if they do that we cease to become a science forum ... there is only one form of science and its the approved type.

Not the moderator or forum owner, no-one on here can make your theory science they do not have that juristiction thats what you need to understand. I am not sure if other science forum people have explained that to you.

Science is defined by a set of rules that are defined by science organizations and your theory is quit simply not science. As I said end of discussion in it's current form your theory can't be made science by anyone here.

Prearth's theory suffers the same problem and he doesn't get it because he is so obnoxious he usually gets banned before people explain it ... so he plays the conspiracy and censorship theory like fruitloops do.

If I am a forum owner and I make a christian forum and start telling people it's okay to commit some sins do you think anyone would believe my forum is christian ... ask Rev. No your forum simply ceases to become christian that authority does not rest with the forum owner.

So for the final absolute time your theory is not and can not become science as defined by the rules of science organizations.

Only half??? I'm flattered.

Orac, you seem to forget that science is an open subject. Had it been regarded as a closed subject, we would still have remained at 'flat earth'. The guardians of science at that time would not have allowed any body to think against the established or approved science. Again, the 'organised science' would not have allowed Einstein to put forth his theories.

Regarding a christian forum or for that matter any other religious forum, you will not be allowed to think against the establishment. However, the establishment will go on exhorting the members to 'think free and arrive at the truth'. To them to 'think free' means to think within the scriptures, ie. the truth should remain within that, however free you think. What can we call that? 'Glib', I think. The establishment thinks that they are thus 'protecting the God' (it is not God protecting them!).

Science, like God, do not require protectors. Science organizations sometimes tend to be protectors of science. It is just a camouflage. They want to protect themselves. Funds, grants, etc. are so luring that it is no wonder that established organizations resist change. They will just become rhetoric, and say: "We have proved it thousand times", "We will not give the pseudo scientists any stage to air their view", etc. The rhetoric implies that they are not sure about themselves, and they indeed want to avoid any criticism. But that is only part of the story. Research always go in the right direction; otherwise we will not have reached here.

So what I have to say is Orac, you should have a more open mind. Even if somebody comes with a pseudo scientific theory, with a handful of right questions, he will have to leave. To remain further, he will have to resort to rhetoric or abusive language, because it will not be easy to logically answer a right question. However, for that, the person who asks the questions should have a thorough knowledge of the existing science, its strengths and weaknesses. I hope you understand my view.

Again it is not up to you and I to decide these things at all ... you nor anyone can talk or convince this change of science.

Science has exactly two rules or essential critera

Here is the reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)

Look at Essential criteria there are two rules:

1.) It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.

2.) It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.


You defy critera 1 therefore your theory is not science and can never become science.

You and I and noone on here can change that ... Sorry that is how it is ... noone will accept what you are discussing is science while you defy those two rules.

It's not a matter of opening my mind what you are asking is like trying to believe in christianity without a god.

Can I ask has noone ever explained this to you before? Has our teaching of science got so bad.

You start sounding like a lunatic when you start carrying on about protectors and establishment. We have two rules, christians have 10 that are not up for discussion by any man here on earth is my understanding.

It's not exactly a big ask that you adhere to two rules is it ... Those 2 rules ensure expansion and consistancy of science thats what they are there for nothing else they certainly do not censure or control things.

The Wikipedia article gives very good description about scientific theory. Please go through the first criterion. It says that a new theory need be consistent with the existing one '(only) to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified'. A very nice and logical requirement. It means that the new theory should agree with all the existing observations (but need not agree with the existing explanations of those observations).

For example, consider the case of atomic fusion. Here, the observation is as follows: Hydrogen atoms fuse together to form helium. There is a small loss in mass, and electromagnetic radiations are released.

The phenomenon is at present explained as follows: Matter/mass changes into energy during fusion; radiations are just electromagnetic waves which carry energy. The explanation is thus logical and we regard it as a proof of Einsteins theory.

Based on my theory I would explain it like this: Radiations are streams of fundamental particles (having a negligible mass and volume) moving at the speed 'c' (it is their helical motion that creates electromagnetic fields). Their energy is kinetic energy. So what happens during fusion is some matter is radiated as streams of particles. So matter energy conversion is impossible.

Here my theory does not violate the most essential criterion that you have pointed out. This is just one example. Similarly, my theory agrees with all the existing observations (to the extent verified by me). However, in this thread I have not given all the essential parts of my theory; this thread was started to discuss an important aspect of my theory, the concept of reality.

The subject of my theory is 'how the fundamental particles of matter (having kinetic energy as quality) integrate into e-m radiations, neutrinos, and step by step into heavier particles and finally a pulsating universe. Thus it explains all basic things. The theory can explain why electron and neutron have the respective masses (which none of the existing theories can). The value of G and the Earth-moon distance can be theoretically deduced from my theory (it is impossible to do so with the existing theories). Thus my theory is supported by many strands of evidence, and thus is a very good approximation of the physical world (if not accurate), and so is the ultimate theory in physics (just my claim).

You fail criteria 1 because there is already a much bigger thoery in place. You lose to that theory based on criteria 1 which is about chosing the biggest consistant theory it's to ensure science expands out. By your own admission your theory is smaller so it fails criteria 1.

You are trying to turn criteria 1 around with word games, we call criteria 1 the expansionary clause all theories should expand knowledge outwards and add in new observations and experimental facts.

Basically science gains nothing by believing you so they don't, that is what the effect of criteria 1 does. Given two theories criteria 1 tells us which we pick the one with the most observations if we have two that cover the same observations. We simply don't care about your theory it does not add any new observations not covered by the other so why would we care.

Lets assume you were right with your theory when we expand out our observations a bit futher we should relaize one of our current findings need modification and and we would come back and install your theory. We lost nothing by ignoring you in the meantime because we had use of a bigger theory in the meantime and yours was incomplete or didnt mesh with others properly.

In effect I view your actual universe theory as sort of a possible sub theory. I actually have no problem with your universe theory to that point but it pointless worrying about your theory because it leads nowhere.

You become pseudoscience garbage because next you say deny QM which is supported by thousands of observations. You don't try and explain where those are wrong you just don't want to believe them and that turns your objection to pseudoscience and your whole theory to pseudoscience.

The QM part of your theory is a definite violation of criteria 1 explain how it isn't please?

No amount of arguing is ever going to change that. That is why no matter what science forum or board you have been on they will tell you the same thing. I am sure you have found that no board or forum has ever accepted your theory as science am I right? There is a reason for that because it defies the most fundemental science basics and you look like a pseudoscience lunatic which you are by definition.

Personally I am done arguing this with you, your theory is not science by any definition, and noone in science is ever going to believe it is science. I will bet you have never convinced a single science person and there is a reason because what you are doing is not science.

I realize you can't accept this and you are going to die a sad, bitter and twisted because no scientist is ever going to acept your theory in it's present form.

Stop wasting peoples time move your discussion to "Not quite science" because thats what it is and discuss it there.

Bill G can we please get this thread locked this is going nowhere and of no value to people.

I do not want to censure him and have asked him to move to NQS where I would be more than happy to discuss it but finiter is never going to accept his theory not science and we can never accept it is.

Orac said: "Bill G can we please get this thread locked this is going nowhere and of no value to people.

I do not want to censure him and have asked him to move to NQS where I would be more than happy to discuss it but finiter is never going to accept his theory not science and we can never accept it is."

Orac, even in the above post, you have asked me a question. If I give an answer to it, the discussion will continue (however, I am not replying as you are not interested). If no body responds, the discussion automatically stops(whether any discussion in any forum is of any use to any body is another matter; why should we worry about that?).

I have said only that my theory is to be discussed in the science forum. Whether it is science or pseudoscience, it is for the others to decide (however I will claim it is genuine science; it is just a claim). You have given your opinion; to that extent I appreciate your stand. However, I do not know why you are so adamant that I should completely agree with your opinion. Such an attitude is a little bit unscientific.