- Thank you received: 0
Cosmological Redshift and Expansion of Space
16 years 7 months ago #19742
by jim mash
Replied by jim mash on topic Reply from Jim Mash
There is a new theory based upon energy being a real substance that is continuous as opposed to being particulate. This theory, called Fluid Energy Theory, explains how nuclear particles are created and correctly predicts their size and energy density. Furthermore, FET shows that they spin at 0.7232x10^23rps and that their surface speed is equal to the speed of light. FET goes on to show how photons are packets of energy thrown off of nuclear particles, which is why they move at light speed. FET also calculates the time taken for neutron particles to be created and how, when they reach a critical size, they break apart into a proton and an electron. FET shows how gravity arises and correctly calculates the strength of the electromagnetic force to be 10^39 times greater than the gravitational force. FET also calculates the correct gravitational forces of the Sun and planets and the energy density of "empty" space. Together these allow a more accurate value for the creation time of a neutron to be calculated. FET then predicts that a photon should lose energy at the same rate as a neutron acquires it. And guess what, the rate loss turns out to be exactly the same as the red shift of starlight. Hence the universe is not expanding.
FET also shows how atoms, stars and galaxies are created without the need for dark matter or dark energy. It also shows that rocky planets are the cores of dead stars and that they undergo a cycle of explosions until they are reduced to the size of Mercury. Hence Tom, you now have the missing piece of your puzzle as to why planets larger than the Earth explode. The Earth and Venus are only stable because they happen to be just the right size to have a crust thin enough for the accumulation of gravitational energy to be released periodically through volcanic action. This period is around 130,000 years and explains why the Earth has had ice ages and warm periods for the last million years. Hence global warming is a natural phenomenon and has nothing to do with man's activity.
FET also shows how atoms, stars and galaxies are created without the need for dark matter or dark energy. It also shows that rocky planets are the cores of dead stars and that they undergo a cycle of explosions until they are reduced to the size of Mercury. Hence Tom, you now have the missing piece of your puzzle as to why planets larger than the Earth explode. The Earth and Venus are only stable because they happen to be just the right size to have a crust thin enough for the accumulation of gravitational energy to be released periodically through volcanic action. This period is around 130,000 years and explains why the Earth has had ice ages and warm periods for the last million years. Hence global warming is a natural phenomenon and has nothing to do with man's activity.
This message contains secure information
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
16 years 7 months ago #20629
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jim mash</i>
<br />There is a new theory ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is literally a new theory every week. The internet is saturated with them, most of them "walk on water" (explain "everything"), and no one has time or patience to even read, much less evaluate, all these ideas.
You have two choices to get the attention of the scientific community. (1) The peer review way -- This is hard because reviewers will know all the potential flaws and will thoroughly disect most such theories. But if you pass this, some scientists will read your work as worthy of their time and attention.
(2) The private web site approach (that you seem to have chosen). In this case, you need to date all content, especially changes you make; and include some strong predictions very unlikely to happen unless your theory is right. Then sit back and wait for the critical test that confirms your theory.
This is a discussion Board for Meta Science, which is based on physical principles that arise from logic alone and uses deduction rather than induction. This procedure gives different meanings to many basic concepts. You might generate some interest and discussion here if you did your homework and compared the pros and cons of your ideas to ours. There appears to be fertile room for that in the area of gravitation. Read the papers on this Board's host site and/or the 20-author book "Pushing Gravity" (ed: Matt Edwards, Apeiron Press, 2002), and see what areas of compatibility and competition exist.
Now that would be interesting. Reading yet another set of claims for yet another unpublished (non-peer-reviewed) theory is not. -|Tom|-
<br />There is a new theory ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is literally a new theory every week. The internet is saturated with them, most of them "walk on water" (explain "everything"), and no one has time or patience to even read, much less evaluate, all these ideas.
You have two choices to get the attention of the scientific community. (1) The peer review way -- This is hard because reviewers will know all the potential flaws and will thoroughly disect most such theories. But if you pass this, some scientists will read your work as worthy of their time and attention.
(2) The private web site approach (that you seem to have chosen). In this case, you need to date all content, especially changes you make; and include some strong predictions very unlikely to happen unless your theory is right. Then sit back and wait for the critical test that confirms your theory.
This is a discussion Board for Meta Science, which is based on physical principles that arise from logic alone and uses deduction rather than induction. This procedure gives different meanings to many basic concepts. You might generate some interest and discussion here if you did your homework and compared the pros and cons of your ideas to ours. There appears to be fertile room for that in the area of gravitation. Read the papers on this Board's host site and/or the 20-author book "Pushing Gravity" (ed: Matt Edwards, Apeiron Press, 2002), and see what areas of compatibility and competition exist.
Now that would be interesting. Reading yet another set of claims for yet another unpublished (non-peer-reviewed) theory is not. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 7 months ago #20456
by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
Expansion only occurs where space is gravitationally unbound. This would include space between distant galaxies, but not space within our solar system or our galaxy. The expansion is believed to occur at the same rate everywhere in the universe <i>where it occurs at all</i>. That is what is meant when one says that the universe is homogenous with respect to metric expansion. If you want to take the position (and I don't know that you are because your statements are imprecise) that because gravitationally bound space does not expand then the expansion is not homogenous then you are simply changing the meaning as defined in the theory and you can't then use your revised definition to poke holes in it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There is no generally accepted theory that would deal with inhomogeneities. The argument that local systems do not expand is more or less just a hand-waving one (used by cosmologists to explain the circumstance that our solar systen for instance has evidently not expanded over the last few billion years), and I am trying to poke a hole into <i>this</i>.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Since according to theory the redshift of the light is caused by the increase in the metric of the space through which it is propagating the only metrics that matter are the metric of the space <i>that the light propagated through</i> at the time the light was emitted and the metric of the space <i>that the light propagated through</i> at the time the light was observed. More simply, it is the change in the metric of the transitted space over the transit time of the light that is responsible for the redshift (or blueshift) and that relationship is what the equation represents. The only questionable assumption is that the cosmological redshift is not caused by some other mechanism.
Unexpanded space has no effect on the wavelength of light. The transition from expanded space to unexpanded space does not change the wavelength of light in any way other than the normal gravitationally induced ways. Expanded space is not stretched like a rubber sheet, there is no change in "density". Expansion is more like growing, like my waistline. It's expanded over the years, but the fat that its composed of has the same density as it did a few years ago, there's just more of it. And like the wavelength of redshifted light gets longer, I have to keep fastening my belt further to the ends.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And if you had marked out 1 cm on your waistline before it expanded, then this distance would be different now. But the same mark on your forehead would have stayed the same. And if you decide to slim down again, the marks would again become equal. And this all holds independently of how fast you expand or slim down. The length of the mark adjusts itself always instantaneously to the local expansion factor. So the wavelength of light always should instantaneously adjust to the local expansion factor of space.
Thomas
Expansion only occurs where space is gravitationally unbound. This would include space between distant galaxies, but not space within our solar system or our galaxy. The expansion is believed to occur at the same rate everywhere in the universe <i>where it occurs at all</i>. That is what is meant when one says that the universe is homogenous with respect to metric expansion. If you want to take the position (and I don't know that you are because your statements are imprecise) that because gravitationally bound space does not expand then the expansion is not homogenous then you are simply changing the meaning as defined in the theory and you can't then use your revised definition to poke holes in it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There is no generally accepted theory that would deal with inhomogeneities. The argument that local systems do not expand is more or less just a hand-waving one (used by cosmologists to explain the circumstance that our solar systen for instance has evidently not expanded over the last few billion years), and I am trying to poke a hole into <i>this</i>.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Since according to theory the redshift of the light is caused by the increase in the metric of the space through which it is propagating the only metrics that matter are the metric of the space <i>that the light propagated through</i> at the time the light was emitted and the metric of the space <i>that the light propagated through</i> at the time the light was observed. More simply, it is the change in the metric of the transitted space over the transit time of the light that is responsible for the redshift (or blueshift) and that relationship is what the equation represents. The only questionable assumption is that the cosmological redshift is not caused by some other mechanism.
Unexpanded space has no effect on the wavelength of light. The transition from expanded space to unexpanded space does not change the wavelength of light in any way other than the normal gravitationally induced ways. Expanded space is not stretched like a rubber sheet, there is no change in "density". Expansion is more like growing, like my waistline. It's expanded over the years, but the fat that its composed of has the same density as it did a few years ago, there's just more of it. And like the wavelength of redshifted light gets longer, I have to keep fastening my belt further to the ends.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And if you had marked out 1 cm on your waistline before it expanded, then this distance would be different now. But the same mark on your forehead would have stayed the same. And if you decide to slim down again, the marks would again become equal. And this all holds independently of how fast you expand or slim down. The length of the mark adjusts itself always instantaneously to the local expansion factor. So the wavelength of light always should instantaneously adjust to the local expansion factor of space.
Thomas
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 7 months ago #18165
by jim mash
Replied by jim mash on topic Reply from Jim Mash
Tom
My Fluid Energy Theory took form over ten years ago and since then I have looked at every aspect of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy and cosmology and I have not found a single observation that cannot be explained in a totally logical and visual way by it. I have also looked at every other claim for a Theory Of Everything that has been published on the internet. Most of them are based upon religious ideas and these I have totally ignored. But those that are claimed to be scientifically driven I have at least read. It does not take long to see that none of them can explain even trivial things such as what is a particle and how is it formed.
This is often because the authors are not true scientists. My background is in chemical physics and I worked at the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, sister laboratory to the National Physical Laboratory, both of which are international laboratories where all the scientific standards are measured and kept.
When I retired I decided to work out the theory behind my surface energy studies because my results (plus most of other workers) did not conform to current theories. I was not looking to discover a TOE but this just came about when I found that FET was able to predict the correct values for every constant that I examined.
It started with the prediction for the correct size of a neutron and the speed of light. No other theory has ever been close to achieving this. It also predicted that the speed of light should be dependent upon its wavelength. Essen, who built the first atomic clock at the NPL, measured the speed of radio waves and found that they were faster than visible photons by exactly the amount predicted by FET. Of course, no one believed him because they just accept that c is constant even though his work has been replicated by many others. In my book I describe a simple method whereby the speed of light at different wavelengths can be compared and therefore tested.
FET shows why neutrons are required with the correct ratio to protons in order to create atomic nuclei without the intervention of the strong and weak nuclear forces. It also predicts the exact rate at which photons lose energy according to the red shift. It also predicts the exact strengths of gravity and the electromaqnetic forces. The very first calculation that I did for the Earth's gravitational force (which took less than 2 minutes without a computer) predicted a flow rate of 11.3km per sec which is almost identical to the escape velocity of 11.2km per sec. I also calculated that objects accelerate at 9.8m per sec per sec in this field regardless of their weight or size. Again, no other theory comes even close to achieving this.
You suggest that I submit my theory to a journal for peer review but do you know of any publication that would accept an article with over one thousand pages. I did consider breaking it up into smaller parts but then that would have delayed its publication for years. So I am relying upon the goodwill of established scientists to take the trouble to at least scan through my first book on the cosmology aspects of FET and give their verdict. I did think that scientists who dared to air their views that current theories should not be accepted as fact would be the best place to start. But if even these people cannot spare the time to peruse the theory then I have obviously got it wrong.
I do hope that you reconsider and could find the time to view my site, which is still being developed. I assure you that it will be time well spent especially as you appear to be willing to spend a lot of time trying to convince people that photons expand because space expands. Even you must admit that this is a cop out because no one has any idea of what space is let alone explain why it should be expanding when mass is absent but not when it is present. If mass really does prevent its expansion how do you explain its expansion close to the beginning of the big bang when all the particles in the universe (which just happened to pop into existence compared to FET which shows how they were and still are being created by a process that obeys natural laws and logic) were close enough together to be touching each other and occupied a volume at least several light years across. My offer of a free book still stands and if other readers are interested I have a few left.
JIM Mash
My Fluid Energy Theory took form over ten years ago and since then I have looked at every aspect of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy and cosmology and I have not found a single observation that cannot be explained in a totally logical and visual way by it. I have also looked at every other claim for a Theory Of Everything that has been published on the internet. Most of them are based upon religious ideas and these I have totally ignored. But those that are claimed to be scientifically driven I have at least read. It does not take long to see that none of them can explain even trivial things such as what is a particle and how is it formed.
This is often because the authors are not true scientists. My background is in chemical physics and I worked at the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, sister laboratory to the National Physical Laboratory, both of which are international laboratories where all the scientific standards are measured and kept.
When I retired I decided to work out the theory behind my surface energy studies because my results (plus most of other workers) did not conform to current theories. I was not looking to discover a TOE but this just came about when I found that FET was able to predict the correct values for every constant that I examined.
It started with the prediction for the correct size of a neutron and the speed of light. No other theory has ever been close to achieving this. It also predicted that the speed of light should be dependent upon its wavelength. Essen, who built the first atomic clock at the NPL, measured the speed of radio waves and found that they were faster than visible photons by exactly the amount predicted by FET. Of course, no one believed him because they just accept that c is constant even though his work has been replicated by many others. In my book I describe a simple method whereby the speed of light at different wavelengths can be compared and therefore tested.
FET shows why neutrons are required with the correct ratio to protons in order to create atomic nuclei without the intervention of the strong and weak nuclear forces. It also predicts the exact rate at which photons lose energy according to the red shift. It also predicts the exact strengths of gravity and the electromaqnetic forces. The very first calculation that I did for the Earth's gravitational force (which took less than 2 minutes without a computer) predicted a flow rate of 11.3km per sec which is almost identical to the escape velocity of 11.2km per sec. I also calculated that objects accelerate at 9.8m per sec per sec in this field regardless of their weight or size. Again, no other theory comes even close to achieving this.
You suggest that I submit my theory to a journal for peer review but do you know of any publication that would accept an article with over one thousand pages. I did consider breaking it up into smaller parts but then that would have delayed its publication for years. So I am relying upon the goodwill of established scientists to take the trouble to at least scan through my first book on the cosmology aspects of FET and give their verdict. I did think that scientists who dared to air their views that current theories should not be accepted as fact would be the best place to start. But if even these people cannot spare the time to peruse the theory then I have obviously got it wrong.
I do hope that you reconsider and could find the time to view my site, which is still being developed. I assure you that it will be time well spent especially as you appear to be willing to spend a lot of time trying to convince people that photons expand because space expands. Even you must admit that this is a cop out because no one has any idea of what space is let alone explain why it should be expanding when mass is absent but not when it is present. If mass really does prevent its expansion how do you explain its expansion close to the beginning of the big bang when all the particles in the universe (which just happened to pop into existence compared to FET which shows how they were and still are being created by a process that obeys natural laws and logic) were close enough together to be touching each other and occupied a volume at least several light years across. My offer of a free book still stands and if other readers are interested I have a few left.
JIM Mash
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
16 years 7 months ago #20632
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jim mash</i>
<br />My Fluid Energy Theory took form over ten years ago and since then I have looked at every aspect of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy and cosmology and I have not found a single observation that cannot be explained in a totally logical and visual way by it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Big Bang and virtually all theories can make the same claim. It's called "accommodation", and good theoreticians can almost always accommodate any observation or experiment by adding adjustable parameters or inventing new concepts. In Big Bang theory, these include "dark matter", "dark energy", and "evolution".
You need to recognize that, far from distinguishing your theory, the claim you make here merges it with the myriads of similar theories out there. That is why only really improbable predictions that distinguish a theory from all others and are published in advance of any knowledge of the outcome get attention.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have also looked at every other claim for a Theory Of Everything that has been published on the internet.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">To get this group interested, you only need to compare to the Meta Model. Once you read it, you will understand why a theory based on no assumptions (other than the absence of miracles) draws such interest.
Naturally, that does not make MM a "Theory of Everything" (TOE), and it admits to being seriously incomplete in the quantum arena. In fact, MM teaches us why TOE's (in the usual sense) are impossible because scale is infinitely divisible too, and why there can be no such thing as a "smallest possible entity".
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It does not take long to see that none of them can explain even trivial things such as what is a particle and how is it formed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">MM does that, and has a unique answer. So that claim of yours is incorrect. But let's get even more basic. What is the "origin of the universe" in your model?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It started with the prediction for the correct size of a neutron and the speed of light. No other theory has ever been close to achieving this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Because light is a pure wave, it requires a medium. Its speed therefore depends on the {locally arbitrary) medium density, which cannot be predicted from first principles any more than the speed of sound could be predicted without knowing the density of the medium it is propagating it. Indeed, the speed of light slows near masses (a refraction effect in MM) because gravity makes the light-carrying medium (elysium) denser.
What assumptions do you have to make to arrive at a prediction for the speed of light?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It also predicted that the speed of light should be dependent upon its wavelength.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Astronomers are constantly looking for such effects, and almost never see them. Changes in the entire electromagnetic spectrum reach us at the same time for even high-redshift quasars except in cases of gravitational lensing, where delays can vary from fractions of a second to years.
Be quantitative about your theory because it sounds as if it might be falsified by this test if it requires wavelength-dependent lightspeed. And a good scientist should always be trying to falsify this own favored models. I teach my students that one needs to falsify at least three of his/her own greatest inspirations to learn why one must never become attached to theories or start trying to prove them instead of disprove them.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Essen, who built the first atomic clock at the NPL, measured the speed of radio waves and found that they were faster than visible photons by exactly the amount predicted by FET. Of course, no one believed him because they just accept that c is constant even though his work has been replicated by many others.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No one accepts this because it is directly contradiucted by variable sources visible at x-ray, optical, and radio wavelengths. There was quite a stir in the astronomical community when neutrinos from a supernova seemed to arrive slightly before the corresponding light burst. We now have a theory to explain this. But the point is, any such discrepancies are immediately noticed by the whole astronomical community.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">FET shows why neutrons are required with the correct ratio to protons in order to create atomic nuclei without the intervention of the strong and weak nuclear forces. It also predicts the exact rate at which photons lose energy according to the red shift. It also predicts the exact strengths of gravity and the electromaqnetic forces.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is starting to sound numerological. It is well known that, given any value, a huge variety of ways to arrive at it can be invented. And rarely are any of them significant.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The very first calculation that I did for the Earth's gravitational force ... predicted a flow rate of 11.3km per sec which is almost identical to the escape velocity of 11.2km per sec.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That figure applies only at Earth's surface. What is allegedly "flowing" at Earth's surface? And "flow rate" is normally a velocity, whereas Earth's gravity produces an acceleration at Earth's surface, not a velocity. This claim is too vague to understand its meaning, as is the subsequent claim about acceleration.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You suggest that I submit my theory to a journal for peer review but do you know of any publication that would accept an article with over one thousand pages.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't know of any scientist willing to read 1000 pages without a very strong incentive, and merely having TOE #7,981 is more of a disincentive. Inventing TOEs seems to be a recreation of many seniors, and they tend to become absolutely convinced in each and every case that theirs is the true answer to everything. Ironically, each of them can see all the flaws in all the other TOEs, but not the flaws in their own.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I did consider breaking it up into smaller parts but then that would have delayed its publication for years.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So publish a book to satisfy your ego and put the ideas in a format that can survive you. Meanwhile, publish smaller articles to see if any of it can pass peer review, or if anyone else finds your ideas attractive. Starting assumptions are the critical element, and are where almost everyone turns off.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I did think that scientists who dared to air their views that current theories should not be accepted as fact would be the best place to start. But if even these people cannot spare the time to peruse the theory then I have obviously got it wrong.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You have grossly underestimated the competition for the time and attention of scientists, and so far done nothing to distinguish yourself from the masses all wanting that attention.
I've asked a few questions here to see if there might be any interest, based on your answers. You can continue acting like a TOE salesperson, and touting how great your theory is. Or answer a few specific questions about the "warranty" to see if anyone here is still willing to buy. Or you can maximize your leverage here by reading the Meta Model and making a point-by-point comparison of the pros and cons of MM vs. FET. Invariably, models with the potential to catch on benefit greatly from the ideas of many persons, both living and historical, and do not depend on the inspirations of just a single author.
The ultimate goal here is to gain a deeper understanding of nature, accompanied by a better ability to predict it. You can join our collective effort to further that goal; or you can be about getting credit for your own genius. I've never seen the latter approach work, but there could always be a first time.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I do hope that you reconsider and could find the time to view my site, which is still being developed. I assure you that it will be time well spent especially as you appear to be willing to spend a lot of time trying to convince people that photons expand because space expands.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You seem to have me mixed up with "Thomas", who also posts in this topic and with whom I sharply disagree. IMO, physics would be better off if it retired the word "photon" and substituted "lightwave". But "photon" still seems to serve as a shorthand for "singlet lightwave" even for people who understand the idea of "wave packets" was a wrong turn onto a dead-end road.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">no one has any idea of what space is let alone explain why it should be expanding when mass is absent but not when it is present.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, wrong attributions. MM has some unique and specific ideas about the nature of space, not mentioned in this topic. And it is quite definite, based on the latest evidence from supernovas, that the universe is not expanding at all.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">FET which shows how they were and still are being created by a process that obeys natural laws and logic)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How can the "creation" (if taken literally) of anything be in accord with natural laws and logic? -|Tom|-
<br />My Fluid Energy Theory took form over ten years ago and since then I have looked at every aspect of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy and cosmology and I have not found a single observation that cannot be explained in a totally logical and visual way by it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Big Bang and virtually all theories can make the same claim. It's called "accommodation", and good theoreticians can almost always accommodate any observation or experiment by adding adjustable parameters or inventing new concepts. In Big Bang theory, these include "dark matter", "dark energy", and "evolution".
You need to recognize that, far from distinguishing your theory, the claim you make here merges it with the myriads of similar theories out there. That is why only really improbable predictions that distinguish a theory from all others and are published in advance of any knowledge of the outcome get attention.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have also looked at every other claim for a Theory Of Everything that has been published on the internet.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">To get this group interested, you only need to compare to the Meta Model. Once you read it, you will understand why a theory based on no assumptions (other than the absence of miracles) draws such interest.
Naturally, that does not make MM a "Theory of Everything" (TOE), and it admits to being seriously incomplete in the quantum arena. In fact, MM teaches us why TOE's (in the usual sense) are impossible because scale is infinitely divisible too, and why there can be no such thing as a "smallest possible entity".
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It does not take long to see that none of them can explain even trivial things such as what is a particle and how is it formed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">MM does that, and has a unique answer. So that claim of yours is incorrect. But let's get even more basic. What is the "origin of the universe" in your model?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It started with the prediction for the correct size of a neutron and the speed of light. No other theory has ever been close to achieving this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Because light is a pure wave, it requires a medium. Its speed therefore depends on the {locally arbitrary) medium density, which cannot be predicted from first principles any more than the speed of sound could be predicted without knowing the density of the medium it is propagating it. Indeed, the speed of light slows near masses (a refraction effect in MM) because gravity makes the light-carrying medium (elysium) denser.
What assumptions do you have to make to arrive at a prediction for the speed of light?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It also predicted that the speed of light should be dependent upon its wavelength.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Astronomers are constantly looking for such effects, and almost never see them. Changes in the entire electromagnetic spectrum reach us at the same time for even high-redshift quasars except in cases of gravitational lensing, where delays can vary from fractions of a second to years.
Be quantitative about your theory because it sounds as if it might be falsified by this test if it requires wavelength-dependent lightspeed. And a good scientist should always be trying to falsify this own favored models. I teach my students that one needs to falsify at least three of his/her own greatest inspirations to learn why one must never become attached to theories or start trying to prove them instead of disprove them.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Essen, who built the first atomic clock at the NPL, measured the speed of radio waves and found that they were faster than visible photons by exactly the amount predicted by FET. Of course, no one believed him because they just accept that c is constant even though his work has been replicated by many others.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No one accepts this because it is directly contradiucted by variable sources visible at x-ray, optical, and radio wavelengths. There was quite a stir in the astronomical community when neutrinos from a supernova seemed to arrive slightly before the corresponding light burst. We now have a theory to explain this. But the point is, any such discrepancies are immediately noticed by the whole astronomical community.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">FET shows why neutrons are required with the correct ratio to protons in order to create atomic nuclei without the intervention of the strong and weak nuclear forces. It also predicts the exact rate at which photons lose energy according to the red shift. It also predicts the exact strengths of gravity and the electromaqnetic forces.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is starting to sound numerological. It is well known that, given any value, a huge variety of ways to arrive at it can be invented. And rarely are any of them significant.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The very first calculation that I did for the Earth's gravitational force ... predicted a flow rate of 11.3km per sec which is almost identical to the escape velocity of 11.2km per sec.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That figure applies only at Earth's surface. What is allegedly "flowing" at Earth's surface? And "flow rate" is normally a velocity, whereas Earth's gravity produces an acceleration at Earth's surface, not a velocity. This claim is too vague to understand its meaning, as is the subsequent claim about acceleration.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You suggest that I submit my theory to a journal for peer review but do you know of any publication that would accept an article with over one thousand pages.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't know of any scientist willing to read 1000 pages without a very strong incentive, and merely having TOE #7,981 is more of a disincentive. Inventing TOEs seems to be a recreation of many seniors, and they tend to become absolutely convinced in each and every case that theirs is the true answer to everything. Ironically, each of them can see all the flaws in all the other TOEs, but not the flaws in their own.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I did consider breaking it up into smaller parts but then that would have delayed its publication for years.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So publish a book to satisfy your ego and put the ideas in a format that can survive you. Meanwhile, publish smaller articles to see if any of it can pass peer review, or if anyone else finds your ideas attractive. Starting assumptions are the critical element, and are where almost everyone turns off.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I did think that scientists who dared to air their views that current theories should not be accepted as fact would be the best place to start. But if even these people cannot spare the time to peruse the theory then I have obviously got it wrong.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You have grossly underestimated the competition for the time and attention of scientists, and so far done nothing to distinguish yourself from the masses all wanting that attention.
I've asked a few questions here to see if there might be any interest, based on your answers. You can continue acting like a TOE salesperson, and touting how great your theory is. Or answer a few specific questions about the "warranty" to see if anyone here is still willing to buy. Or you can maximize your leverage here by reading the Meta Model and making a point-by-point comparison of the pros and cons of MM vs. FET. Invariably, models with the potential to catch on benefit greatly from the ideas of many persons, both living and historical, and do not depend on the inspirations of just a single author.
The ultimate goal here is to gain a deeper understanding of nature, accompanied by a better ability to predict it. You can join our collective effort to further that goal; or you can be about getting credit for your own genius. I've never seen the latter approach work, but there could always be a first time.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I do hope that you reconsider and could find the time to view my site, which is still being developed. I assure you that it will be time well spent especially as you appear to be willing to spend a lot of time trying to convince people that photons expand because space expands.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You seem to have me mixed up with "Thomas", who also posts in this topic and with whom I sharply disagree. IMO, physics would be better off if it retired the word "photon" and substituted "lightwave". But "photon" still seems to serve as a shorthand for "singlet lightwave" even for people who understand the idea of "wave packets" was a wrong turn onto a dead-end road.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">no one has any idea of what space is let alone explain why it should be expanding when mass is absent but not when it is present.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, wrong attributions. MM has some unique and specific ideas about the nature of space, not mentioned in this topic. And it is quite definite, based on the latest evidence from supernovas, that the universe is not expanding at all.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">FET which shows how they were and still are being created by a process that obeys natural laws and logic)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How can the "creation" (if taken literally) of anything be in accord with natural laws and logic? -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 7 months ago #20570
by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim Mash</i>
FET then predicts that a photon should lose energy at the same rate as a neutron acquires it. And guess what, the rate loss turns out to be exactly the same as the red shift of starlight. Hence the universe is not expanding.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Even if you have a viable theory to explain the redshift (which would still have to be verified), there is hardly any chance of getting this into a mainstream discussion unless you can point out some serious flaw or inconsistency in the present cosmological interpretation of the redshift. As mentioned by me in this thread, the claim that the space in gravitationally or otherwise bound systems does not expand, is clearly such a flaw, as it would mean that the wavelength of light should adapt to the local scale factor, i.e. we should not observe any redshifts at all. There are indeed other flaws, e.g. the fact that an overall expansion of matter would violate the continuity equation, or that the assumed homogeneity of the matter distribution should actually result in a net zero gravitational force everywhere (so the overall mass of the universe should be completely irrelevant). Also, with the number of free parameters in the Big-Bang theory, you can almost fit any observations (not to mention that the latter have often very poor quality and/or are affected by systematic errors (see for instance this thread )).
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim Mash</i>
You suggest that I submit my theory to a journal for peer review but do you know of any publication that would accept an article with over one thousand pages. I did consider breaking it up into smaller parts but then that would have delayed its publication for years. So I am relying upon the goodwill of established scientists to take the trouble to at least scan through my first book on the cosmology aspects of FET and give their verdict. I did think that scientists who dared to air their views that current theories should not be accepted as fact would be the best place to start. But if even these people cannot spare the time to peruse the theory then I have obviously got it wrong.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I wouldn't bother about publishing in peer reviewed journals. It is waste of time, money and nerves. The publishing companies only have their own commercial interest at heart, so they wouldn't publish anything that would damage their reputation in the present setting. And the referees likewise have primarily their own job and reputation at heart. And even if you get controversial material published, you might not get any responses at all (I am speaking out of experience here).
The view that only peer reviewed works have scientific value is just held by those who want to be patronized in their judgement, either because they haven't got the time to actually study the work, or because generally they are afraid of having an opinion of their own.
Peer review publishing is more or less now a relic of the past. Print journals were (and still are) obviously forced to reject many submissions simply because of the limited space available in a volume (most journals have actually fixed percentages that they accept, regardless of quality). But in the electronic age, this restriction does not exist any more.
So the way to go these days is to make your work available on the internet somehow, and then to extensively discuss it in forums, newsgroups or by email. You may get some discouraging and unpleasant comments (which by the way you also often get from peer reviewed journals), but if you ignore these and just bother about the constructive criticism, it will help you to assess your own work better and make corresponding adjustments if required (so in sense, you can still have it peer-reviewed (on an even much broader basis), but with the difference that it is <i>you</i> who lastly decides what changes are being made, or whether the theory should probably be withdrawn after all).
However, this would obviously require that you make your whole work available for free. You can't really expect that people buy your book just in order to 'referee' it (there should be hardly any need for a whole book to convince people about a theory anyway; a few pages should be enough if you keep it concise and to the point; more is usually even counter-productive).
Thomas
FET then predicts that a photon should lose energy at the same rate as a neutron acquires it. And guess what, the rate loss turns out to be exactly the same as the red shift of starlight. Hence the universe is not expanding.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Even if you have a viable theory to explain the redshift (which would still have to be verified), there is hardly any chance of getting this into a mainstream discussion unless you can point out some serious flaw or inconsistency in the present cosmological interpretation of the redshift. As mentioned by me in this thread, the claim that the space in gravitationally or otherwise bound systems does not expand, is clearly such a flaw, as it would mean that the wavelength of light should adapt to the local scale factor, i.e. we should not observe any redshifts at all. There are indeed other flaws, e.g. the fact that an overall expansion of matter would violate the continuity equation, or that the assumed homogeneity of the matter distribution should actually result in a net zero gravitational force everywhere (so the overall mass of the universe should be completely irrelevant). Also, with the number of free parameters in the Big-Bang theory, you can almost fit any observations (not to mention that the latter have often very poor quality and/or are affected by systematic errors (see for instance this thread )).
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim Mash</i>
You suggest that I submit my theory to a journal for peer review but do you know of any publication that would accept an article with over one thousand pages. I did consider breaking it up into smaller parts but then that would have delayed its publication for years. So I am relying upon the goodwill of established scientists to take the trouble to at least scan through my first book on the cosmology aspects of FET and give their verdict. I did think that scientists who dared to air their views that current theories should not be accepted as fact would be the best place to start. But if even these people cannot spare the time to peruse the theory then I have obviously got it wrong.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I wouldn't bother about publishing in peer reviewed journals. It is waste of time, money and nerves. The publishing companies only have their own commercial interest at heart, so they wouldn't publish anything that would damage their reputation in the present setting. And the referees likewise have primarily their own job and reputation at heart. And even if you get controversial material published, you might not get any responses at all (I am speaking out of experience here).
The view that only peer reviewed works have scientific value is just held by those who want to be patronized in their judgement, either because they haven't got the time to actually study the work, or because generally they are afraid of having an opinion of their own.
Peer review publishing is more or less now a relic of the past. Print journals were (and still are) obviously forced to reject many submissions simply because of the limited space available in a volume (most journals have actually fixed percentages that they accept, regardless of quality). But in the electronic age, this restriction does not exist any more.
So the way to go these days is to make your work available on the internet somehow, and then to extensively discuss it in forums, newsgroups or by email. You may get some discouraging and unpleasant comments (which by the way you also often get from peer reviewed journals), but if you ignore these and just bother about the constructive criticism, it will help you to assess your own work better and make corresponding adjustments if required (so in sense, you can still have it peer-reviewed (on an even much broader basis), but with the difference that it is <i>you</i> who lastly decides what changes are being made, or whether the theory should probably be withdrawn after all).
However, this would obviously require that you make your whole work available for free. You can't really expect that people buy your book just in order to 'referee' it (there should be hardly any need for a whole book to convince people about a theory anyway; a few pages should be enough if you keep it concise and to the point; more is usually even counter-productive).
Thomas
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.613 seconds