Scientific Forums


Pages: (4) 1 [2] 3 4   ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


> Theories and emotional attachment., Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news77190620.html
argonut
Posted: Sep 12 2006, 01:33 PM


Unregistered









Isn't anyone familiar with David Bohm's work?
Top
seanu
Posted: Sep 12 2006, 01:48 PM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 68
Joined: 7-October 05

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


They assumed that 95% of all matter is invisible. What that means is that 95% of the force we perceive to be acting on the mater we perceive is not directly perceivable by our senses/instruments.

To accommodate this inability to perceive we deduce relationships and create "dark matter and energy" to describe our perceived relationships. Equally we create "gravity" which changes the fabric of the vacuum.

Dark matter and energy is only an idea, a theory, and very bad ones at that. Gravity is a good theory because it works at short distances. This new gravity might also be a good idea, but has he says the theory must output exactly what we see in the cosmos. And what we don't see is dark energy and dark matter, despite claims of "direct proof".

I personally favor Plasma Cosmology and the Electric universe theories, both tools which the astronomer in the PhysOrg.com article will be well aware of, and which accommodate for gravity effects, dark matter effects etc.
Top
Eric Wendel
Posted: Sep 12 2006, 02:03 PM


Unregistered









Hi all...

I'm just curious, and I do not pretend to be following all of the various theoretical work, but...why are so many in theoretical physics continuing to (seemingly) ignore John Wheeler's Quantum Holography? For more than three years now, the 96 year-old Wheeler's "quantum holographic universe" has been out there, it explains (from what my limited understanding can tell) virtually all of the unanswered questions, and has not been successfully challenged on any level that I'm aware of.

Wheeler was in the room with Einstein and Bohr and the others during the thirty years in which the foundations for these questions were being developed...Wheeler is the guy who (for example) helps Stephen Hawking understand the true nature of "Hawking Radiation", by which Hawking now knows that the Hawking Radiation emitted by a black hole contains information patterns such that the 'information content' of the radiation emitted equals the information content of the matter that enters the black hole. Why is QH (again...seemingly) ignored?

In addition to unification of relativistic and quantum physics, Wheeler's theory produced something unexpected...unification of matter-information equivalence - showing that the equations for Shannon's (information) entropy and thermodynamic entropy are essentially the same formulae.

Is this not as big as Einstein's E=M*C^2???

If not...WHY not?

The behavior of theoretical physicists in the face of a new theory that seems to present the "Ultimate Answer" (QH is arguable the best candidate for a GUT the world has yet seen) reminds me of the philosophers of Doug Adams "Hitchhikers Guide", who...in the face of the mere possibility of finding "the Ultimate Answer"...were more worried about being out of work if the "ultimate answer" were discovered, than they were about actually finding the answer.

But that's the cynical part of me, and I don't want this to be a cynical question...

So, can anyone help me understand why Quantum Holography is being so thoroughly ignored? Is it perhaps because QH essentially says "look...the Buddhist, Vedic, Kabbalistic, proto-Christian (Gnostic), etc. traditions all have got it essentially right and "science" is just catching up?"

Or has what appears to be the "Ultimate Answer", Wheeler's GUT, been thoroughly debunked somewhere...and I'm not seeing it?

Looking forward to understanding the extent to which I might be full of crap...or not...via your comments.

EJW

wndl42...at...yahoodotcom
Top
mott.carl
Posted: Sep 12 2006, 02:57 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1435
Joined: 26-August 06

Positive Feedback: 35%
Feedback Score: -123


we believe not that the gevity can to be explained by extension of the curvatures of space-time,and by some anti-symmetric scalar tensor thar can to explain the increasement of rotationsand repulsion between the galaxies.how explain for quantic level,the existence of antiparticles,as well as the asymmetry that occur in the K-MESON decayment,and in the measurability between different osccilations,angular moments and other effects,and respose why the parity,and parity and charge conjugations only are broken in weak interactions?
some warps and others continuos space-time with curvatures more extreme can altere,the rotations and increase the repulsion between the galaxies,for that reason the dark energy,and dark matter can produce powerful flutuations in the quantic vaccum,of that form,producing violent vortices that go alterating the gravitational and the curvatures of the bodies,as well as altering theis interne structure.then the existence of these others continuities of space-time with others degree of curvatures must bproduce these osccilations for medium of other dimensions,that are greater than 4,perphaps thise anti-symmetric scalar tensor can change the metric in the curvatures with the temporal evolution,as well as the measurability of the time connected to curvatures of the space-time.of where go the dark energy,and the space and time are emmergent of the non-commutative geometry with breakdown of mirror symmetry interlinked at PT-self- dual opperator that annticommute and commute.the gravity is produce d by non-linear fields,and by non-commutative and fuzzy-manifolds4D
Top
sweetser
Posted: Sep 12 2006, 03:25 PM


Unregistered









It is emotionally tough to go against a dominant hypothesis. I happen to not believe the following list of things will be found: dark matter, dark energy, the Higgs particle to bring mass to the standard model, black holes as we describe them mathematically today, transverse gravity waves, or any rank 1 metric theory for gravity. That means my beliefs are in conflict with anyone who makes a living doing physics research, from string theorists to folks working on the LHC. All of my odd beliefs came out of the math I work on, I don't want to be this disagreeable! You can check it out an ongoing discussion here: http://physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146. Yes, it is a testable hypothesis (more light bending around the Sun at second order PPN accuracy, scalar and longitudinal gravity waves).

doug
Top
B1
Posted: Sep 12 2006, 03:57 PM


Unregistered









If the gravitational effect on space / time is the stretching of space and the acceleration of time.
Then to a distant observer, wouldn't a galaxy appear to be spinning at the outer most edges, faster than what visible mass would account for?
Light from the center would have a longer space / time path to get here than from the outer edges?

An a spacecraft launched from Earth (pioneers) appear to be slowing down to an Earth observer, but from an observer on the spacecraft, the Earth would appear to be accelerating?
Top
Paul Manoppo
Posted: Sep 12 2006, 05:09 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 22-July 05

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


There is no dark matter. All the matter that are missing in calculation are located in the center of each galaxy. This matter in the center of each galaxy are so compact, that all of them only take fraction of space. Just like when we fill air in the tank and keep filling it till the pressure reach say one million pound per square inch. That is lots of air in that tank but only occupied a little space. It might be take a little space but all the air is there. In case of each galaxies center, the matter are there and its show as a galaxy bulge that give out so much light around it.

Top
Luciano
Posted: Sep 12 2006, 05:58 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 11-September 06

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Pliny the Younger a 1st century writer gave an eyewitness account of the volcanic eruption of Vesuvius that destroyed Pompey and until very recent history the scientific community criticized him for making things up until they saw for themselves that he gave us a very accurate description of the event. I'm sure they had their own elaborate imagined extrapolation of how it happened which speaks to me of the theory of dark matter and energy, thus I ask the question where's the evidence where's the proof or are we building theories on top of more theories to suit our fancy and tickle our egos.
One last thing that I've noticed is the matter of control that a theory can give us over what is beyond our ability to control and while our egos inflate tremendously we end up losing our sense of awe and wonder of the beauty that surround us and should leads us to reach out to the furthest reaches of the universe and increase our yearning for understanding, growth and appreciation of what has been given to us.
Luciano
Top
scout29c
Posted: Sep 12 2006, 06:00 PM


Unregistered









I agree that the theory of dark matter and energy basically sucks, but it's the best way to explain what we see. Perhaps as this article seems to indicate, we are not looking the right way. As with the theory of dark matter and energy, this new theory may stand the test of time and review and will become the new accepted theory.

I have several questions regarding dark matter:

1. What is the closest object we can see that is being affected by dark matter?
2. Can we see dark matter's effect in our own galaxy or in our own star cluster?
3. Have we measured the speed of the planets in our own solar system as they move about the sun in the same way we measure the rate of rotation in galaxies? By red-shift I believe.

Top
Lonny Eachus
Posted: Sep 12 2006, 06:12 PM


Unregistered









That is simply incorrect; all other matters aside, curvature of spacetime around massive bodies (gravitational lens phenomena, among others) has been observed in a consistent and predictable manner. Your assertion that curvature is "not always" seen around massive bodies is not only false, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

See also recent articles in Scientific American and other journals; dark matter, dark energy, and even string theory are coming under fire, because they are based on assumptions or "tweaks" to the observed data, in order to make the theories fit the observations. That is not science, it is mere speculation. A physics professor who caught students doing the same would call it "fudging the data". Dark matter, dark energy, and string theory have had no predictive value whatever; they are simply dreamed-up explanations for what has been observed. Therefore they do not deserve to be labeled "theories".
Top
Lonny Eachus
Posted: Sep 12 2006, 06:13 PM


Unregistered









Pardon me. The first part of that post was a reply to the comment on 11-Sep-2006, by Richard Pasichnyk.

Top
Neil Farbstein
  Posted: Sep 13 2006, 02:57 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1174
Joined: 25-October 05

Positive Feedback: 41.03%
Feedback Score: -65


I have a theory about flattening of the velocity curve of the galaxy. It is based on the Felber theory of antigravity that says that the metric of space near a realtivistically travllling object is dragged forward causing a repulsive antigravity force near the front of the star. NASA has given awards to him. They belive he has found a new facet of relativity that was was simply never explored by anyone until it was discovered by Felber.

The flat velocity curve of stars orbiting the galaxy might be explained by Felber's General Relativity theory. Maybe the denser stars at the core are pushing on the stars in the middle lanes of the galaxy when the vectors of their antigravity beams are close to other stars or gas in the star lanes. Gas pushed out from the inner core by antigravitiational beams in front of relativistic stars might collide with stars in the outer lanes from behind and speed them up. Even nonrelativistic stars might have some slight antigravitiational effect on the orbits of the stars in the galaxy that adds up bit by bit, to a flattening of the velocity curve. This is an original idea as far as I know and might eliminate dark matter and the the other more exotic theories like MOND from the list of tenable theories that explain the flattened velocity curve.


--------------------
Life is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury; signifying nothing...Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, but tomorrow never comes. -William Shakespeare.
Top
Neil Farbstein
  Posted: Sep 13 2006, 03:05 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1174
Joined: 25-October 05

Positive Feedback: 41.03%
Feedback Score: -65


QUOTE (seanu @ Sep 12 2006, 01:48 PM)
They assumed that 95% of all matter is invisible. What that means is that 95% of the force we perceive to be acting on the mater we perceive is not directly perceivable by our senses/instruments.

To accommodate this inability to perceive we deduce relationships and create "dark matter and energy" to describe our perceived relationships. Equally we create "gravity" which changes the fabric of the vacuum.

Dark matter and energy is only an idea, a theory, and very bad ones at that. Gravity is a good theory because it works at short distances. This new gravity might also be a good idea, but has he says the theory must output exactly what we see in the cosmos. And what we don't see is dark energy and dark matter, despite claims of "direct proof".

I personally favor Plasma Cosmology and the Electric universe theories, both tools which the astronomer in the PhysOrg.com article will be well aware of, and which accommodate for gravity effects, dark matter effects etc.

The Felber theory of antigravity says that the metric of space near a realtivistically travllling object is dragged forward causing a repulsive antigravity force near the front of the star. NASA has given awards to him. They belive he has found a new facet of relativity that was was simply never explored by anyone until it was discovered by Felber.

The flat velocity curve of stars orbiting the galaxy might be explained by Felber's General Relativity theory. Maybe the denser stars at the core are pushing on the stars in the middle lanes of the galaxy when the vectors of their antigravity beams are close to other stars or gas in the star lanes. Gas pushed out from the inner core by antigravitiational beams in front of relativistic stars might collide with stars in the outer lanes from behind and speed them up. Even nonrelativistic stars might have some slight antigravitiational effect on the orbits of the stars in the galaxy that adds up bit by bit, to a flattening of the velocity curve. This is an original idea as far as I know and might eliminate dark matter and the the other more exotic theories like MOND from the list of tenable theories that explain the flattened velocity curve.


--------------------
Life is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury; signifying nothing...Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, but tomorrow never comes. -William Shakespeare.
Top
ubavontuba
Posted: Sep 13 2006, 03:52 AM


Grand Puba
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2290
Joined: 7-September 05

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


Dark matter doesn't make a lot of sense...

It supposedly acts gravitationally, yet no one seems to have considered what such an abundant mass must do to the gravitational lensing of light around galaxies and galaxy clusters. It supposedly resides in halos surrounding galaxies, right? Therefore, the lensing effects should extend farther out from the galaxy center than expected (you'd think this would be a no-brainer).

It's dark, it resides in halos, and yet galaxies viewed on edge do not appear dimmed by it? Even if it can't absorb light, it's gravity should strangely diffuse the light, right?

It acts gravitationally, yet it doesn't clump (like normal accretion disks)?

It acts gravitationally, yet it predominately hangs out in the least dense regions of galaxies--seemingly defying gravity!

It acts gravitationally, therefore colliding galaxies should seem to be falling together more rapidly than their apparent mass would indicate (another no-brainer).

C'mon you lazy scientists! Use your heads! There's all sorts of observations that could easily verify, or nullify this hypothesis.

If you need more impetus, just ask.


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Top
occam
Posted: Sep 13 2006, 07:59 AM


Unregistered









QUOTE (Guest_Andy @ Sep 12 2006, 10:45 AM)
Let's apply Occam's razor shall we ?

What's most likely:

1) that the theory of gravity isn't totally complete, and gravity operates differently at extremely large distances ?

OR

2) that 95% of all the matter in the universe is invisible and undetectable, except for it's influence on the rotation of galaxies.

Scientifical Thinking!
Top

Topic Options Pages: (4) 1 [2] 3 4 

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


 

Terms of use