- Thank you received: 0
The Big Bang and Vacuum / Nothing.
- tvanflandern
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
16 years 3 months ago #20256
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 ultranerd</i>
<br />Not wanting to give a long post take a look at my still incomplete poorly constructed mess of a website.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As I remarked in the second message in this thread, please do not use this Message Board to advertise other web sites. This place is for self-contained discussion of scientific ideas, not for building search engine ratings of other sites.
In general, note that there are now tens of thousands of "alternative theories" out there. It seems that everyone with an interest in a subject eventually wants to express his/her own take on it. So "new theories" as such now have zero interest in the community.
The way through that barrier is to express some criticism of the mainstream theory, or of a leading alternative model (such as those on the parent web site of this Message Board), that have already passed peer review and been published and gained a following. then show a better way to deal with that aspect of the theory by your own approach. That makes the discussion relevant to others.
Merely pointing out the reasons why your pet theory is not viable is a boring and thankless task. Here's an example:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A simple thing like the way gravity slows time and then showing how this slowing of time can contract matter in such a way that you expand the surrounding space leads you to the same predictions as those of inflation theory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Are you accepting the mainstream theory, that gravity can affect time and space, that the Big Bang is basically correct, and that inflation theory makes physical sense? Why? And what definitions are you using for "time" and "space"? If we reserve those for the dimensions we use for measurement, then they are concepts, not subject to alteration. You seem to think of them as material, tangible entities that can be acted upon by forces. How does that make sense physically? Are they some kind of medium? Or are you just thinking mathematically (as many mainstreamers do), and ignoring the physics? -|Tom|-
<br />Not wanting to give a long post take a look at my still incomplete poorly constructed mess of a website.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As I remarked in the second message in this thread, please do not use this Message Board to advertise other web sites. This place is for self-contained discussion of scientific ideas, not for building search engine ratings of other sites.
In general, note that there are now tens of thousands of "alternative theories" out there. It seems that everyone with an interest in a subject eventually wants to express his/her own take on it. So "new theories" as such now have zero interest in the community.
The way through that barrier is to express some criticism of the mainstream theory, or of a leading alternative model (such as those on the parent web site of this Message Board), that have already passed peer review and been published and gained a following. then show a better way to deal with that aspect of the theory by your own approach. That makes the discussion relevant to others.
Merely pointing out the reasons why your pet theory is not viable is a boring and thankless task. Here's an example:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A simple thing like the way gravity slows time and then showing how this slowing of time can contract matter in such a way that you expand the surrounding space leads you to the same predictions as those of inflation theory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Are you accepting the mainstream theory, that gravity can affect time and space, that the Big Bang is basically correct, and that inflation theory makes physical sense? Why? And what definitions are you using for "time" and "space"? If we reserve those for the dimensions we use for measurement, then they are concepts, not subject to alteration. You seem to think of them as material, tangible entities that can be acted upon by forces. How does that make sense physically? Are they some kind of medium? Or are you just thinking mathematically (as many mainstreamers do), and ignoring the physics? -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 3 months ago #20257
by ultranerd
Replied by ultranerd on topic Reply from Dale
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ultranerd</i>
<br />Not wanting to give a long post take a look at my still incomplete poorly constructed mess of a website.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As I remarked in the second message in this thread, please do not use this Message Board to advertise other web sites. This place is for self-contained discussion of scientific ideas, not for building search engine ratings of other sites.
In general, note that there are now tens of thousands of "alternative theories" out there. It seems that everyone with an interest in a
subject eventually wants to express his/her own take on it. So "new theories" as such now have zero interest in the community.
The way through that barrier is to express some criticism of the mainstream theory, or of a leading alternative model (such as those on the parent web site of this Message Board), that have already passed peer review and been published and gained a following. then show a better way to deal with that aspect of the theory by your own approach. That makes the discussion relevant to others.
Merely pointing out the reasons why your pet theory is not viable is a boring and thankless task. Here's an example:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A simple thing like the way gravity slows time and then showing how this slowing of time can contract matter in such a way that you expand the surrounding space leads you to the same predictions as those of inflation theory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Are you accepting the mainstream theory, that gravity can affect time and space, that the Big Bang is basically correct, and that inflation theory makes physical sense? Why? And what definitions are you using for "time" and "space"? If we reserve those for the dimensions we use for measurement, then they are concepts, not subject to alteration. You seem to think of them as material, tangible entities that can be acted upon by forces. How does that make sense physically? Are they some kind of medium? Or are you just thinking mathematically (as many mainstreamers do), and ignoring the physics? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi Tom
Dale wrote:
Hi Tom
Sometimes it seams that one must chose between what is popular and
what is true.I have been posting the theory off and on for a number
of years with no one being able to really say where the theory is
wrong.If it wasn't for the Shipero effect and its calmed proof I
would have been still arguing this theory as a hypothesis.To remind
readers its where the delay in the speed of light has been shown to
occur for light traveling by the sun so the whole basis of this
theory depends on those results being accurate.The delay must be due
to the time being slower and must be more delay than if the path was
simply bent as if by mirrors and made longer for that reason.
To get you thinking about how the theory works I usually start with
the pole in barn gedanken only this time we put in a pair of tiny
black holes or other massive objects in orbit around each other so we
have a straight path then make comparisons.
Use some extreme time delay like say 10 seconds for light to pass and
then have both a relativistic rod and a light beam enter at the same
time. Remember that because the rod cannot travel faster than light
and in its frame its in free fall we now have nearly 10 seconds for
our longer rod to be inside the barn so that all observers will agree
that yes the longer rod was inside the barn and all observers have
lots of time to communicate back and forth that they agree.
This is not Lorentz contractions as it can be shown that even if the
rod were traveling fast enough to now measure 1/2 as long we could
just as easily use a rod that was at rest 4 times as long.
The length contractions can easily be shown to be in addition to the
lorentz contractions. By analogy this is similar to runners entering
a tunnel and slowing to a walk and bunching up so more will fit
inside the tunnel but the problem with this analogy is that they can
tell they slowed and are now closer but with a slower time in their
frame they will still be running to their prospective and the
distances become streched.
Another anology is where the speed of light is slower on entering a
glass rod where its speed is 1/2 and the photons have become bunched
up and closer so we can fit a light pulse of twice the length inside
the rod before it starts to exit the end.Remember that even atons
have quantum scale components that are at least hypotisiszed to have
speed of light dependenciesso you could easily hypotisixe thattiy
quantm components randomy spinning arround at the speed of sight will
become contracted where the speed of light becomes less.That means
everything gets smaller including all rulers.
A killer pridiction of the theory is where a hypothetical experiment
where two cubes in free fall into areas of slower time could be shown
contract in such a way that they also apear to expand apart.The
experiment has serious reduction to practice problems but fits so
well with the way we now beleve space is expanding.
Note that later gedankens sugests that in some ways its as if space
has expanded and matter had not contracted at all.
The theory fits so well with observation and explains so many other
observations and without conflict in much simpler ways, that occams
razor dose favor the theory.
Sorry about the web site link but its a lot of work repeating the
same stuff but my older posting on usenet have coverd quite a bit of
the theory
I am kind of eager to have you trying to pick the theory apart and
see what we can come up with.
Dale
Knowledge of a question is Knowledge.Knowledge of an original question is original Knowledge.
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ultranerd</i>
<br />Not wanting to give a long post take a look at my still incomplete poorly constructed mess of a website.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As I remarked in the second message in this thread, please do not use this Message Board to advertise other web sites. This place is for self-contained discussion of scientific ideas, not for building search engine ratings of other sites.
In general, note that there are now tens of thousands of "alternative theories" out there. It seems that everyone with an interest in a
subject eventually wants to express his/her own take on it. So "new theories" as such now have zero interest in the community.
The way through that barrier is to express some criticism of the mainstream theory, or of a leading alternative model (such as those on the parent web site of this Message Board), that have already passed peer review and been published and gained a following. then show a better way to deal with that aspect of the theory by your own approach. That makes the discussion relevant to others.
Merely pointing out the reasons why your pet theory is not viable is a boring and thankless task. Here's an example:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A simple thing like the way gravity slows time and then showing how this slowing of time can contract matter in such a way that you expand the surrounding space leads you to the same predictions as those of inflation theory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Are you accepting the mainstream theory, that gravity can affect time and space, that the Big Bang is basically correct, and that inflation theory makes physical sense? Why? And what definitions are you using for "time" and "space"? If we reserve those for the dimensions we use for measurement, then they are concepts, not subject to alteration. You seem to think of them as material, tangible entities that can be acted upon by forces. How does that make sense physically? Are they some kind of medium? Or are you just thinking mathematically (as many mainstreamers do), and ignoring the physics? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi Tom
Dale wrote:
Hi Tom
Sometimes it seams that one must chose between what is popular and
what is true.I have been posting the theory off and on for a number
of years with no one being able to really say where the theory is
wrong.If it wasn't for the Shipero effect and its calmed proof I
would have been still arguing this theory as a hypothesis.To remind
readers its where the delay in the speed of light has been shown to
occur for light traveling by the sun so the whole basis of this
theory depends on those results being accurate.The delay must be due
to the time being slower and must be more delay than if the path was
simply bent as if by mirrors and made longer for that reason.
To get you thinking about how the theory works I usually start with
the pole in barn gedanken only this time we put in a pair of tiny
black holes or other massive objects in orbit around each other so we
have a straight path then make comparisons.
Use some extreme time delay like say 10 seconds for light to pass and
then have both a relativistic rod and a light beam enter at the same
time. Remember that because the rod cannot travel faster than light
and in its frame its in free fall we now have nearly 10 seconds for
our longer rod to be inside the barn so that all observers will agree
that yes the longer rod was inside the barn and all observers have
lots of time to communicate back and forth that they agree.
This is not Lorentz contractions as it can be shown that even if the
rod were traveling fast enough to now measure 1/2 as long we could
just as easily use a rod that was at rest 4 times as long.
The length contractions can easily be shown to be in addition to the
lorentz contractions. By analogy this is similar to runners entering
a tunnel and slowing to a walk and bunching up so more will fit
inside the tunnel but the problem with this analogy is that they can
tell they slowed and are now closer but with a slower time in their
frame they will still be running to their prospective and the
distances become streched.
Another anology is where the speed of light is slower on entering a
glass rod where its speed is 1/2 and the photons have become bunched
up and closer so we can fit a light pulse of twice the length inside
the rod before it starts to exit the end.Remember that even atons
have quantum scale components that are at least hypotisiszed to have
speed of light dependenciesso you could easily hypotisixe thattiy
quantm components randomy spinning arround at the speed of sight will
become contracted where the speed of light becomes less.That means
everything gets smaller including all rulers.
A killer pridiction of the theory is where a hypothetical experiment
where two cubes in free fall into areas of slower time could be shown
contract in such a way that they also apear to expand apart.The
experiment has serious reduction to practice problems but fits so
well with the way we now beleve space is expanding.
Note that later gedankens sugests that in some ways its as if space
has expanded and matter had not contracted at all.
The theory fits so well with observation and explains so many other
observations and without conflict in much simpler ways, that occams
razor dose favor the theory.
Sorry about the web site link but its a lot of work repeating the
same stuff but my older posting on usenet have coverd quite a bit of
the theory
I am kind of eager to have you trying to pick the theory apart and
see what we can come up with.
Dale
Knowledge of a question is Knowledge.Knowledge of an original question is original Knowledge.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 3 months ago #15363
by ultranerd
Replied by ultranerd on topic Reply from Dale
[snip]
Another analogy is where the speed of light is slower on entering a
glass rod where its speed is 1/2 and the photons have become bunched
up and closer so we can fit a light pulse of twice the length inside
the rod before it starts to exit the end.Remember that even atoms
have quantum scale components that are at least hypothesized to have
speed of light dependencies so you could easily hypothesized that
quantum components randomly spinning around at the speed of sight( I meant light) will
become contracted where the speed of light becomes less.That means
everything gets smaller including all rulers.
A killer prediction of the theory is where a hypothetical experiment
where two cubes in free fall into areas of slower time could be shown
contract in such a way that they also appear to expand apart.The
experiment has serious reduction to practice problems but fits so
well with the way we now believe space is expanding.
Note that later gedankens suggests that in some ways its as if space
has expanded and matter had not contracted at all.
The theory fits so well with observation and explains so many other
observations and without conflict in much simpler ways, that Occam's
razor dose favor the theory.
Sorry about the web site link but its a lot of work repeating the
same stuff but my older posting on Usenet have covered quite a bit of
the theory
I am kind of eager to have you trying to pick the theory apart and
see what we can come up with.
Dale
Dale wrote:
I am so sorry about all the bad spelling etc I was rushed when I posted this and cant figure out how to delete and re post it the way I do in news groups.The worst is where I said speed of "sight" rather than speed of light.
I really am sorry for this and reposted some of the stuff above with less errors.
Now that I am reposting anywise I noticed I never addressed you question on what I think space is.Yes I don't believe space is an empty nothing but that it still might be a bit tricky.I tend to speculate that the quantum vacuum may be better described as being of space rather than in space.Some of the postings I have done look at the idea that measuring all the modes of ZPE in and around an atom might be a bit like trying to weigh a single link in an infinitely long infinitely tight chain.Some other postings I have done looked at the idea of what would happen if you had a space ship traveling near light speed that could not be slowed down and dragging a cable that could not be broken when its end is dragged by a black hole where the speed of light were 1/2 as much.Note that in mater to avoid a local speed of light violation where the end of the cable is traveling twice as fast as the speed of light for any local observer at that level it would require the end of the cable to drag on the entire black hole.Note how it would not matter how small the end of the cable is and that this suggested that at some level everything is somehow linked together.I later came to the hypothesis that something in the quantum realm is ignoring distances, another dimension perhaps.The quantum entanglement of light and some stuff about ZPE having some wave properties that suggests some light like properties i.e. all that virtual photons again stuff may mean another type of entanglements where inertia and speed of light is regulated within our universe.Its as if the quantum vacuum was able to put matter in its place to allow space to exists leading me no say its not so much in space as of space.
More to say on this but enough for now.
Dale
Knowledge of a question is Knowledge.Knowledge of an original question is original Knowledge.
Another analogy is where the speed of light is slower on entering a
glass rod where its speed is 1/2 and the photons have become bunched
up and closer so we can fit a light pulse of twice the length inside
the rod before it starts to exit the end.Remember that even atoms
have quantum scale components that are at least hypothesized to have
speed of light dependencies so you could easily hypothesized that
quantum components randomly spinning around at the speed of sight( I meant light) will
become contracted where the speed of light becomes less.That means
everything gets smaller including all rulers.
A killer prediction of the theory is where a hypothetical experiment
where two cubes in free fall into areas of slower time could be shown
contract in such a way that they also appear to expand apart.The
experiment has serious reduction to practice problems but fits so
well with the way we now believe space is expanding.
Note that later gedankens suggests that in some ways its as if space
has expanded and matter had not contracted at all.
The theory fits so well with observation and explains so many other
observations and without conflict in much simpler ways, that Occam's
razor dose favor the theory.
Sorry about the web site link but its a lot of work repeating the
same stuff but my older posting on Usenet have covered quite a bit of
the theory
I am kind of eager to have you trying to pick the theory apart and
see what we can come up with.
Dale
Dale wrote:
I am so sorry about all the bad spelling etc I was rushed when I posted this and cant figure out how to delete and re post it the way I do in news groups.The worst is where I said speed of "sight" rather than speed of light.
I really am sorry for this and reposted some of the stuff above with less errors.
Now that I am reposting anywise I noticed I never addressed you question on what I think space is.Yes I don't believe space is an empty nothing but that it still might be a bit tricky.I tend to speculate that the quantum vacuum may be better described as being of space rather than in space.Some of the postings I have done look at the idea that measuring all the modes of ZPE in and around an atom might be a bit like trying to weigh a single link in an infinitely long infinitely tight chain.Some other postings I have done looked at the idea of what would happen if you had a space ship traveling near light speed that could not be slowed down and dragging a cable that could not be broken when its end is dragged by a black hole where the speed of light were 1/2 as much.Note that in mater to avoid a local speed of light violation where the end of the cable is traveling twice as fast as the speed of light for any local observer at that level it would require the end of the cable to drag on the entire black hole.Note how it would not matter how small the end of the cable is and that this suggested that at some level everything is somehow linked together.I later came to the hypothesis that something in the quantum realm is ignoring distances, another dimension perhaps.The quantum entanglement of light and some stuff about ZPE having some wave properties that suggests some light like properties i.e. all that virtual photons again stuff may mean another type of entanglements where inertia and speed of light is regulated within our universe.Its as if the quantum vacuum was able to put matter in its place to allow space to exists leading me no say its not so much in space as of space.
More to say on this but enough for now.
Dale
Knowledge of a question is Knowledge.Knowledge of an original question is original Knowledge.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
16 years 3 months ago #20258
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 ultranerd</i>
<br />The [Shapiro effect] delay must be due to the time being slower and must be more delay than if the path was simply bent as if by mirrors and made longer for that reason.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The delay is exactly what is predicted if the light-carrying medium's density varies exactly as gravitational potential varies. Simple refraction causes light traveling through a denser medium to slow down, and the predicted amount is exactly as observed.
Thinking in terms of something changing about time is counterproductive and grossly misleading.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To get you thinking about how the theory works I usually start with the pole in barn gedanken<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's just an illusion created by wrong assumptions. See metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/Lorentz%20Contraction.asp
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Another analogy is where the speed of light is slower on entering a glass rod<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Feynman long ago showed that the speed of light never changes in mediums such as glass. Instead, it gets absorded and re-emitted numerous times along the way, with each such event producing a delay. But the speed between absorption delays is still c.
This is different from Shapiro delay, where the real speed of light measured with coordinate time changes.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The theory fits so well with observation and explains so many other observations and without conflict in much simpler ways, that Occam's razor does favor the theory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">With a bit of experience, you will discover (sadly) that the same phenomenon occurs frequently to almost everyone, which is why people start believing their own ideas, then passionately defending them, almost no matter how unrealistic they may be. The same phenomemon occurs in other fields too, but is never more noticable than in religions, where there is no limit to the passions of people's beliefs.
The best policy is to remain detached and objective about every idea. Then the impact of some of the biases introduced by our minds will be lessened.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am kind of eager to have you trying to pick the theory apart and see what we can come up with.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I mentioned how you might draw such interest from others. Professionals are thoroughly turned off by new theories these days. Meta Research is so deluged with them that we have srarted a fee-based service (quite expensive, and even then we have very few professionals willing to participate) for those who want feedback that badly. See metaresearch.org/publications/PMRS/PMRS.asp
But the best option remains to show a fault in another model and how your idea can cure that fault.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... to avoid a local speed of light violation ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Meta Science has shown and published the result that there is no longer a speed of light limit. That conclusion stands undisputed. Read some of the papers at the "Cosmology" tab, "Gravity" sub-tab from this site's home page. -|Tom|-
<br />The [Shapiro effect] delay must be due to the time being slower and must be more delay than if the path was simply bent as if by mirrors and made longer for that reason.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The delay is exactly what is predicted if the light-carrying medium's density varies exactly as gravitational potential varies. Simple refraction causes light traveling through a denser medium to slow down, and the predicted amount is exactly as observed.
Thinking in terms of something changing about time is counterproductive and grossly misleading.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To get you thinking about how the theory works I usually start with the pole in barn gedanken<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's just an illusion created by wrong assumptions. See metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/Lorentz%20Contraction.asp
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Another analogy is where the speed of light is slower on entering a glass rod<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Feynman long ago showed that the speed of light never changes in mediums such as glass. Instead, it gets absorded and re-emitted numerous times along the way, with each such event producing a delay. But the speed between absorption delays is still c.
This is different from Shapiro delay, where the real speed of light measured with coordinate time changes.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The theory fits so well with observation and explains so many other observations and without conflict in much simpler ways, that Occam's razor does favor the theory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">With a bit of experience, you will discover (sadly) that the same phenomenon occurs frequently to almost everyone, which is why people start believing their own ideas, then passionately defending them, almost no matter how unrealistic they may be. The same phenomemon occurs in other fields too, but is never more noticable than in religions, where there is no limit to the passions of people's beliefs.
The best policy is to remain detached and objective about every idea. Then the impact of some of the biases introduced by our minds will be lessened.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am kind of eager to have you trying to pick the theory apart and see what we can come up with.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I mentioned how you might draw such interest from others. Professionals are thoroughly turned off by new theories these days. Meta Research is so deluged with them that we have srarted a fee-based service (quite expensive, and even then we have very few professionals willing to participate) for those who want feedback that badly. See metaresearch.org/publications/PMRS/PMRS.asp
But the best option remains to show a fault in another model and how your idea can cure that fault.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... to avoid a local speed of light violation ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Meta Science has shown and published the result that there is no longer a speed of light limit. That conclusion stands undisputed. Read some of the papers at the "Cosmology" tab, "Gravity" sub-tab from this site's home page. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 3 months ago #20380
by ultranerd
Replied by ultranerd on topic Reply from Dale
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ultranerd</i>
<br />The [Shapiro effect] delay must be due to the time being slower and must be more delay than if the path was simply bent as if by mirrors and made longer for that reason.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The delay is exactly what is predicted if the light-carrying medium's density varies exactly as gravitational potential varies. Simple refraction causes light traveling through a denser medium to slow down, and the predicted amount is exactly as observed.
Thinking in terms of something changing about time is counterproductive and grossly misleading.
Dale wrote:
I really had to repeat, I meant yes time is relative so many times because someone would always point it out despite that we all know its a relative thing.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To get you thinking about how the theory works I usually start with the pole in barn gedanken<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's just an illusion created by wrong assumptions. See metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/Lorentz%20Contraction.asp
Dale wrote:
Yes its often pointed out that from the rods frame of reference its the barn that is traveling near light speed and appears shorter.
But of course in the end that fact that it illustrates some aspects of perception is not really the important point here.Its easy to illustrate why Lorentz contractions alone can never be argued to give you any extra space.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Another analogy is where the speed of light is slower on entering a glass rod<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Feynman long ago showed that the speed of light never changes in mediums such as glass. Instead, it gets absorded and re-emitted numerous times along the way, with each such event producing a delay. But the speed between absorption delays is still c.
This is different from Shapiro delay, where the real speed of light measured with coordinate time changes.
Dale wrote:
Of course its very different but by analogy its similar enough to help in illustrating the idea.One of the best points on how different it is is the fact that the glass will slow different wavelengths by different amounts.Gammas will slow very little if at all.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The theory fits so well with observation and explains so many other observations and without conflict in much simpler ways, that Occam's razor does favor the theory.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">With a bit of experience, you will discover (sadly) that the same phenomenon occurs frequently to almost everyone, which is why people start believing their own ideas, then passionately defending them, almost no matter how unrealistic they may be. The same phenomemon occurs in other fields too, but is never more noticable than in religions, where there is no limit to the passions of people's beliefs.
Dale Trynor wrote:
No kidding you got that right.I have a saying. The value of truth is often more determined by the size and quality of its marketing department than by its actual degree of truth.religion in point.
Actually when this theory started I had actually spent more time trying to disprove the theory than I did on developing it more.It resulted in a a lot extra news group postings hopping I could find some help but for some reason many of my posts seamed to end the threads as if people did not know how to respond or alternatively they seamed to ignore me and continue on with other arguments.I often noted I was the most ignored crank on Usenet.Not sure if thats good or not. Most of the regular cranks get frequently flamed while I was just ignored.
The best policy is to remain detached and objective about every idea. Then the impact of some of the biases introduced by our minds will be lessened.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am kind of eager to have you trying to pick the theory apart and see what we can come up with.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I mentioned how you might draw such interest from others. Professionals are thoroughly turned off by new theories these days. Meta Research is so deluged with them that we have srarted a fee-based service (quite expensive, and even then we have very few professionals willing to participate) for those who want feedback that badly. See metaresearch.org/publications/PMRS/PMRS.asp
But the best option remains to show a fault in another model and how your idea can cure that fault.
Dale wrote:
Got a small list.
One is where it even gives another way of explaining how gravitational binding energy works.To skip the details it claims that because space expands with gravity then masses measure farther away even if they actually did gain extra energy.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... to avoid a local speed of light violation ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Meta Science has shown and published the result that there is no longer a speed of light limit. That conclusion stands undisputed. Read some of the papers at the "Cosmology" tab, "Gravity" sub-tab from this site's home page. -|Tom|-
Dale wrote
I promise to take a look when I don't have so many neglected immediate to do stuff.Actually this alternative theory also suggests some possibilities for FTL but it involves the idea of speeding up time and or the speed of light within local areas of space.But this alternative theory suggests that we are inside a black hole and if so then the reverse side of an event horizon is a white hole to us.It will display worm hole like behavior.It really helps to prove something is possible if nature dose it naturally.It will be interesting to see how your theory dose this.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><center></center>
Knowledge of a question is Knowledge.Knowledge of an original question is original Knowledge.
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ultranerd</i>
<br />The [Shapiro effect] delay must be due to the time being slower and must be more delay than if the path was simply bent as if by mirrors and made longer for that reason.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The delay is exactly what is predicted if the light-carrying medium's density varies exactly as gravitational potential varies. Simple refraction causes light traveling through a denser medium to slow down, and the predicted amount is exactly as observed.
Thinking in terms of something changing about time is counterproductive and grossly misleading.
Dale wrote:
I really had to repeat, I meant yes time is relative so many times because someone would always point it out despite that we all know its a relative thing.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To get you thinking about how the theory works I usually start with the pole in barn gedanken<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's just an illusion created by wrong assumptions. See metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/Lorentz%20Contraction.asp
Dale wrote:
Yes its often pointed out that from the rods frame of reference its the barn that is traveling near light speed and appears shorter.
But of course in the end that fact that it illustrates some aspects of perception is not really the important point here.Its easy to illustrate why Lorentz contractions alone can never be argued to give you any extra space.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Another analogy is where the speed of light is slower on entering a glass rod<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Feynman long ago showed that the speed of light never changes in mediums such as glass. Instead, it gets absorded and re-emitted numerous times along the way, with each such event producing a delay. But the speed between absorption delays is still c.
This is different from Shapiro delay, where the real speed of light measured with coordinate time changes.
Dale wrote:
Of course its very different but by analogy its similar enough to help in illustrating the idea.One of the best points on how different it is is the fact that the glass will slow different wavelengths by different amounts.Gammas will slow very little if at all.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The theory fits so well with observation and explains so many other observations and without conflict in much simpler ways, that Occam's razor does favor the theory.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">With a bit of experience, you will discover (sadly) that the same phenomenon occurs frequently to almost everyone, which is why people start believing their own ideas, then passionately defending them, almost no matter how unrealistic they may be. The same phenomemon occurs in other fields too, but is never more noticable than in religions, where there is no limit to the passions of people's beliefs.
Dale Trynor wrote:
No kidding you got that right.I have a saying. The value of truth is often more determined by the size and quality of its marketing department than by its actual degree of truth.religion in point.
Actually when this theory started I had actually spent more time trying to disprove the theory than I did on developing it more.It resulted in a a lot extra news group postings hopping I could find some help but for some reason many of my posts seamed to end the threads as if people did not know how to respond or alternatively they seamed to ignore me and continue on with other arguments.I often noted I was the most ignored crank on Usenet.Not sure if thats good or not. Most of the regular cranks get frequently flamed while I was just ignored.
The best policy is to remain detached and objective about every idea. Then the impact of some of the biases introduced by our minds will be lessened.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am kind of eager to have you trying to pick the theory apart and see what we can come up with.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I mentioned how you might draw such interest from others. Professionals are thoroughly turned off by new theories these days. Meta Research is so deluged with them that we have srarted a fee-based service (quite expensive, and even then we have very few professionals willing to participate) for those who want feedback that badly. See metaresearch.org/publications/PMRS/PMRS.asp
But the best option remains to show a fault in another model and how your idea can cure that fault.
Dale wrote:
Got a small list.
One is where it even gives another way of explaining how gravitational binding energy works.To skip the details it claims that because space expands with gravity then masses measure farther away even if they actually did gain extra energy.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... to avoid a local speed of light violation ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Meta Science has shown and published the result that there is no longer a speed of light limit. That conclusion stands undisputed. Read some of the papers at the "Cosmology" tab, "Gravity" sub-tab from this site's home page. -|Tom|-
Dale wrote
I promise to take a look when I don't have so many neglected immediate to do stuff.Actually this alternative theory also suggests some possibilities for FTL but it involves the idea of speeding up time and or the speed of light within local areas of space.But this alternative theory suggests that we are inside a black hole and if so then the reverse side of an event horizon is a white hole to us.It will display worm hole like behavior.It really helps to prove something is possible if nature dose it naturally.It will be interesting to see how your theory dose this.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><center></center>
Knowledge of a question is Knowledge.Knowledge of an original question is original Knowledge.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Alan McDougall
-
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
16 years 3 months ago #20932
by Alan McDougall
Replied by Alan McDougall on topic Reply from Alan McDougall
Greetings Forum,
Nothingness is impossibly to describe, by stating nothing "IS" denotes it is a something,
There is only "Existence" no "absence of existence"
Like this; take out all energy all matter, all time out of "Existence" condense all space or void into a infinitesimal point condense it further into a dimensionless singularity compress it out of existence we and everything vanish forever.
When Existence Vanishes it denotes "absence of existence"
There is "Only Existence, I Exist therefore I am
A singular expression of all Existence is the state of
"AM"
Regards
Alan
I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge
Nothingness is impossibly to describe, by stating nothing "IS" denotes it is a something,
There is only "Existence" no "absence of existence"
Like this; take out all energy all matter, all time out of "Existence" condense all space or void into a infinitesimal point condense it further into a dimensionless singularity compress it out of existence we and everything vanish forever.
When Existence Vanishes it denotes "absence of existence"
There is "Only Existence, I Exist therefore I am
A singular expression of all Existence is the state of
"AM"
Regards
Alan
I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.290 seconds