Self Creation Cosmology - a new gravitational theory

[Garth]

Dear forum members, may I post on this Forum my questions about GR and a brief description and link to my work in which they are answered?

Questions of General Relativity (Also posted on the Special and General Relativity Forum)

1. In the presence of gravitational fields the Einstein
Equivalence Principle (EEP) is a necessary and sufficient condition
for the Principle of Relativity, (PR). Here I summarise PR as the
doctrine of no preferred frames of reference. In the absence of such
fields the EEP becomes meaningless, although then the PR does come
into its own and is appropriate in Special Relativity (SR), which was
formulated for such an idealised case. However, if we now re-
introduce gravitational fields, i.e. gravitating masses, do we not
then find that the PR collapses? For in that case is it not possible
to identify preferred frames of reference? Such frames being those of
the Centre of Mass (CoM) of the system in question and the universe
as a whole, (that in which the Cosmic Microwave Background is
globally isotropic.) The CoM is preferred in the sense that only in
that frame of reference, that is the centroid measured in the frame
co-moving with the massive system, is energy conserved as well as
energy-momentum. But if the PR is not valid in the presence of
gravitational masses then surely the EEP cannot be either?

2. According to the EEP a stationary electron on a laboratory
bench is accelerating w.r.t. the local Lorentzian freely falling
inertial frame of reference. According to Maxwell's theory of
electromagnetism an accelerating electric charge, such as an
electron, radiates. So why doesn't it? Or, if it is thought that such
an electron actually does radiate, what is the source of such
radiated energy? However, note that in the preferred CoM frame of
reference the electron is not accelerating.

3. Should not gravitational time dilation apply equally both to
photons and the atoms they interact with? If so whence gravitational
red shift?

4. Should not the total relativistic energy, measured in the
system's CoM, of a freely falling body, be conserved as no work is
being done on or by it?

5. In order for a gravitational theory to be consistent with SR
should not the rest mass of a body include its gravitational
potential energy? In which case questions 3 & 4 are resolved;
gravitational red shift is not caused by the photon losing energy but
by the measuring apparatus gaining it. Yet the EEP forbids it to do
so, for according to the EEP rest mass is invariant.

6. In the normal expanding cosmological solution of General
Relativity (GR) what exactly is expanding? If it is space-time
itself, as demanded by the theory, then what expands with it? As the
Schwarzschild solution for gravitational orbits is embedded in that
space-time should not its solutions co-expand? Also as the
Bohr/Schrödinger/Dirac equations of atomic physics are also so
embedded then should not their solutions expand? If, as a
consequence, gravitational orbits and atoms together with the
physical rulers constructed of those atoms so co-expand with the
universe, then surely there would be no detectable expansion?
Therefore cosmological red shift cannot be caused by recession, but,
in a similar way to the case of gravitational red shift, it might well be
caused by the measuring apparatus, that is all fundamental particles,
secularly gaining inertial mass.

May I bring your attention to an alternative geometric gravitational
theory, 'The New Self Creation Cosmology' (SCC), which was published
in 2002?
The original SCC paper was published in 1982 with now over 45
citations (see paper vi below). In that paper cosmologies were
explored in which the matter field might be created out of self
contained gravitational and scalar fields. Two theories were
postulated, the first was rejected on the grounds of experimental
violation of the equivalence principle, and the second was an early
version of the present theory.

SCC theories are an adaptation of the Brans Dicke theory in
which the conservation requirement is relaxed to allow the scalar
field to interact with matter. If the Brans Dicke theory can be
thought of as GR + Mach's Principle, the latest SCC can be thought of
as GR + Mach's Principle + Local conservation of energy.

In the new theory test particles in solar system experiments are
found to follow the geodesics of GR, so the predictions of GR and SCC
already tested are equal; although there are three experiments that
would distinguish between the two theories. One such experiment is
the Gravity Probe B geodetic precession experiment launched on April
20th 2004. (SCC predicts a geodetic precession 5/6 of GR, but a frame
dragging precession equal to that of GR. - see paper iv below)

In the Jordan Frame of SCC energy is conserved but energy-
momentum is not. Photons are the means of measuring length, time and
mass. Particle proper masses increase with gravitational potential
energy and as a consequence cosmological red shift is caused by a
secular, exponential, increase of particle masses and not
cosmological expansion. The universe is static (with atomic
rulers 'shrinking' exponentially) and eternal (with atomic
clocks 'speeding up' exponentially).

In the Einstein Frame of SCC energy-momentum is conserved and
particle proper masses are invariant. Atoms are the means of
measuring length, time and mass. As the scalar field adapts the
cosmological equations the universe expands linearly, it is a "freely
coasting" universe which has remarkable concordance with observed
cosmological constraints. (See papers by Gehaut, Lohiya et al.)
Furthermore the cosmological solution requires the universe to have
an overall density parameter of only one third.

A 'time-slip' exists in SCC between atomic 'clock' time on one
hand and gravitational ephemeris and cosmological time on the other,
which would result in an apparent sunwards acceleration of the
Pioneer spacecraft as indeed is observed.

Hence the theory does not require dark energy, or a significant
amount of dark matter, or quintessence, to account for the present
cosmological constraints.

The Jordan Energy Frame of SCC the EEP does not hold, except at the
CoM of the system. Rest mass increases with gravitational potential
energy and secularly increases, exponentially, with cosmological time.
All the above questions are thus answered.

Garth

The relevant SCC papers are:
i. [The original paper, Barber, G.A. : 1982, Gen Relativ Gravit.
14, 117. 'On Two Self Creation Cosmologies'.]
ii "'A New Self Creation Cosmology, a 'semi-metric' theory of
gravitation'," http://www.kluweronline.com/oasis.htm/5092775,
Astrophysics and Space Science 282: 683–730, (2002).

but the new theory can be recovered in five electronic preprints
that followed;

iii "The Principles of Self Creation Cosmology and its Comparison
with General Relativity",
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212111

iv "Experimental tests of the New Self Creation Cosmology and a
heterodox prediction for Gravity Probe B", http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-
qc/0302026 .

v. 'The derivation of the coupling constant in the new Self
Creation Cosmology',
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0302088 .

vi "The Self Creation challenge to the cosmological concordance
model"
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401136 .

and

v "Self Creation Cosmology - An Alternative Gravitational Theory"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405094 to be published in 'Progress in
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology Research', Nova Science
Publishers, Inc. New York.

I would be very grateful of any observations and
criticisms of these papers,


June 2004

 

[sol2]

The two conformal frames conserve energy or energy-momentum and choose photons or atoms as the standard of measurement respectively

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405094

.

You might want to look at the value of Glast in your research and add it accordingly. To speak on Quantum Geomtry, even here String Theorist's might be aghast at what is is being revealled in the geometry of and have refused to look, because of conformal thinking? Who would have ever thought?

Imagine, cross directional referencing between the String Theorists and the LQG camps respectively? Finding correspondance in their perspective views on the nature of quantum gravity?

 

[member 11137]

Thank you Garth. I did not yet have the time to read all these informations about the self creation theory but it sounds very passioned. Visit my webpage www.alititi.privat.t-online[/URL] I am just an amateur but I think my theory certainly is connected with yours. Blackforest

 

[member 11137]

Oh I am tired; sorry it is: www.alititi.privat.t-online.de[/URL]

 

[Doctordick]

I would be very grateful of any observations and
criticisms of these papers

I don't want to be disparaging of the forum; however, I don't think you will find anyone here capable of following your presentation. The "Theory Development" area is commonly held as the "Nuts are us" forum for very good reason. This is really a forum for utter amateurs at physics with little to no ability to think things out. If you do not wish to talk to me, I will accept that; however, I would appreciate very much a conversation with someone competent in mathematics and physics. I have read your paper and, although I have little interest in theory itself, I am very interested in the realm of the logical constraints on theory development.

Please take a quick look at my essay on explanation which you can find at the following site:

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm

If you notice any errors in that essay, I would appreciate any comments you might wish to make. I am of the opinion that anyone who is competent in modern physics and also interested in the fundamental foundations of physics should find that essay very interesting.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[sol2]

The "Theory Development" area is commonly held as the "Nuts are us" forum for very good reason. This is really a forum for utter amateurs at physics with little to no ability to think things out. Have fun -- Dick

The "depth of knowledge" versus impact of "Forum Nuts(students at heart)". Is there a meter for this? The theory development area will have to be better defined, or hurt your association? :rofl:

I am willing to remove my posts from this thread for sake of excellence of knowledge.

 

[Doctordick]

The "depth of knowledge" versus impact of "Forum Nuts(students at heart)". Is there a meter for this? The theory development area will have to be better defined, or hurt your association? :rofl:

I am willing to remove my posts from this thread for sake of excellence of knowledge.

Are you seriously arguing with my comment :surprise: or just poking fun?

Have fun -- Dick

 

[sol2]

Are you seriously arguing with my comment :surprise: or just poking fun?

Have fun -- Dick

You know that saying, "Guilty by association" I guess it works for some of us Nut too :rofl:

 

[member 11137]

I don't want to be disparaging of the forum; however, I don't think you will find anyone here capable of following your presentation. The "Theory Development" area is commonly held as the "Nuts are us" forum for very good reason.
Have fun -- Dick

Are you always so sure of what you write think and say? Thank you for the nuts. I think you are not really helpfull for people trying to increase their own knowledges and looking for a real dialogue. No body is perfect and can have the "level" of some professionals. A big nut

 

[Doctordick]

Are you always so sure of what you write think and say?

If I am not pretty well sure, I generally tend to keep my mouth shut! From my experience of life, that is a very rare characteristic. On top of that, I have come to the conclusion that "education" is, for most people, an extremely stupefying experience. Almost every educated person I have ever met has lost all ability to think by the time they know enough to rationally consider why the universe is the way it is (and I am being generous there because I cannot prove it is true of everyone I have met).

I think you are not really helpfull for people trying to increase their own knowledges and looking for a real dialogue.

I am ever willing to help any true student; however, I would appreciate a little thought on their part. To learn facts without understanding them is pretty much a waste of time. My major complaint with the "mentors" on this forum is that the only threads they post to are threads so confused with respect to understanding physics that the probability of any communication is negligible. I honestly suspect that is because of the feeling of superiority they get when they do so.

There have been a number of very serious questions asked on this forum which have gone completely unanswered (and I am not referring to my posts). Now, why is it that the mentors ignore these posts? Certainly it cannot be because the writer is too ignorant to understand the answer as they sure waste a lot of time with incompetent people. I can only conclude that they themselves don't feel competent to discuss the question. If that is in fact true, then the competency of the mentors is insufficient to the needs of the forum. In fact, I have never seen any comment from any mentor on this forum which could not be found in any decent physics reading list.

Finally, I have been seeking "real dialog" and have instead received (except for a few hardy souls) nothing but personal attacks or incompetent criticisms. Certainly no mentor has chosen to lock horns with me for any serious discussion. In fact, I notice that you make no comments concerning my reference in the post on this thread. Why is that? Is it because the model of explanation is over your head or because you can't find an error in my presentation? Why do you feel a personal attack is more to the benefit of our audience?

No body is perfect and can have the "level" of some professionals. A big nut

How did the word "perfect" get into this discussion? All I ask is a little careful thought!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[sol2]

Dick,

I hope you appreciated the humour? The logic of its approach can be unsettling at times when we are faced with other probabilties?(IMagne a Nut benefiting from the close association of somebody who know better) It was a obvious conclusion? Stating a position, and defining it, as a explainable? There had to be a conclusion and it was immediately recoginzed as humour?

I am far from the expert, but your essay was interesting from what I understood. It reminded me of the issues of Venn Logic and its approach as it was presented to me from Mike2, who you see on this forum.

You summed up bascally in regards to the truth, when you said, if you believe it, it is so? But I would have expounded on it and the ideas here presented by Franklin and his attempts to change what Jefferson wrote.
Please feel free to correct.


But in essence I could not understand why you would approached this thread with the original opener and place before him the requirements of the logic? To appease what scientific demands of his proposition?

I'll stop for now.

 

[member 11137]

If I am not pretty well sure, I generally tend to keep my mouth shut!

So I do too.

In fact, I notice that you make no comments concerning my reference in the post on this thread. Why is that? Is it because the model of explanation is over your head or because you can't find an error in my presentation? Why do you feel a personal attack is more to the benefit of our audience?

I hate personal attack. Dear Doktordick
QUOTE=Doctordick]I am ever willing to help any true student; however, I would appreciate a little thought on their part. To learn facts without understanding them is pretty much a waste of time.[/QUOTE]
According to the evident fact that nobody except sol2 reacted to the thread of Garth, it was absolutely impossible to avoid the though that the hurting remark concerning the nuts could not be addressed to a squirrel. This animal ignore if you never had to leave your lair and so get the chance to meet people speaking other languages than yours. If yes, you certainly would have made the same common experiment than me: inputs information comes easier in the head than the head can prove to the others, with the help of the tongue, that you understand what they are saying, eventually about you. The comparison is valid for the mathematics, understood as foreign language.

Never mind, I do not pretend to be the author of a new and superb theory explaining everything. I just try to catch the attention about my work to win a partner who will be ready to learn me more about physics. The veiled critic contained in your link (to what an explanation really is) explaining that some people believe they could have found an explanation to something but in fact have not, certainly concerns the obscurity of my work. It’s true. I don’t have a beautiful and achieved theory to offer; I am just in the learning period (that you believe it or not) and have done some funny remarks (involving the mathematics and more precisely the matrix) in a demonstration concerning the polarization of the vacuum. I actually only play with this remark and try to work with the tool that I introduced in this demonstration. When I say that my approach is connected with the self creation cosmology (SCC), I do not pretend that my essay has the “level” of this theory. I just say that the main idea of this model is accorded with my mental representation of the universe (and may be that this idea of a permanent self creation helps me to built my own model) and I inform that my toy theory is an attempt in this direction. Do you really believe that the humanity could have made progress if nobody would have had the courageous to explore some “mad” connections or the curiosity to use a well known tool in an unexplored domain?

The sad side of all of these discussions is that we did not answer in any way to Garth who was the author of this thread.

But do you know what : and it is may be the difference betwen you and me, I don’t need physics and mathematics (as millions of people on this earth) to get my nuts.

Have a good Day. And have fun…

 

[Doctordick]

But in essence I could not understand why you would approached this thread with the original opener and place before him the requirements of the logic? To appease what scientific demands of his proposition?

Misunderstanding is an extremely common problem in any attempt at communication. In this case, you have completely misunderstood my reason for posting that reference. I have read Garth's paper and am impressed with both his education and his ability to think about the cogent issues. I had hoped to start a conversation with him as I truly feel that what I have discovered is worthy of serious discussion with a competent critic. Clearly I have failed; well, that's life and I can accept it seeing that there are much more important issues to worry about. This is, after all, just fun and games anyway. Right?

Have fun -- Dick

 

[sol2]

Clearly I have failed; well, that's life and I can accept it seeing that there are much more important issues to worry about. This is, after all, just fun and games anyway. Right?

Have fun -- Dick

Quiter :rofl: On the contrary I take it very serious, and will sit back and hopefully see where this leads if you continue, and Garth does.

Maybe Garth can start new thread using same post.

regards,

 

[Doctordick]

...hurting remark concerning the nuts...

It was not my intention to hurt anyone with that comment. Personally, I think the mentors on this forum have done a very poor job of handling the issue of uneducated theorists. As I said to sol2, misunderstandings are hard to avoid, even when we are speaking the same language. Clearly, English is not your native tongue so I am not at all sure I understand what you are trying to say in your first paragraph and I can thus not comment.

In fact, it is the very issue of communication which interests me. Everyone avoids thinking about the issue I bring up with a passion hard to understand. Throughout history fields of study have been invented by people who have come to the conclusion that they cannot understand the field they have been trained in without clarifying the underlying presumptions. I have been trained in theoretical physics and have found the subject rife with insupportable assumptions. That does not mean that I think the assumptions are invalid, rather that there are things here worthy of close examination which are not being looked at by anyone. In essence, I believe I have invented a new field of study. A field of study which underlies virtually all fields known to man; in particular, it is the fundamental foundation of physics. Yet no one is even interested in looking where I have looked in spite of the fact that I can point out very specific problems in their current work which they fail to examine.

So, I am sorry that I have little interest in any specific theories. Help with basic physics and/or the underpinnings of fundamental ideas I can supply but details on current bleeding edge research is outside my expertise. I have read enough that I can recognize serious work when I see it but I am certainly not ready to criticize any work worthy of serious criticism except when it comes to my personal work.

The sad side of all of these discussions is that we did not answer in any way to Garth who was the author of this thread.

I think I was the only one to give a good answer to his post. I made it clear that he could not expect decent criticism here.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

2. According to the EEP a stationary electron on a laboratory
bench is accelerating w.r.t. the local Lorentzian freely falling
inertial frame of reference. According to Maxwell's theory of
electromagnetism an accelerating electric charge, such as an
electron, radiates. So why doesn't it? Or, if it is thought that such
an electron actually does radiate, what is the source of such
radiated energy?

Good question.

In fact, it is the very issue of communication which interests me. Everyone avoids thinking about the issue I bring up with a passion hard to understand.

Are you postulating a language structure for reality?

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Russell,

It's nice to hear from you again. No, I am not postulating a language structure for reality! What I am saying is that the opportunity for misunderstanding one another is a far more complex and far reaching problem than is comprehended by anyone out there. If one were to carefully follow my essay on explanation at:

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm

they would comprehend that absolutely every explanation of anything must contain fundamental elements which can be interpreted as obeying the rules of modern physics. Put this together with the fact that all of us began life knowing nothing implies that our assumption that everyone else experiences things exactly the way we do is not defensible at all. The meanings we attach to the communication symbols we exchange are not decided by rational deduction but rather by subconscious assumptions generated through our experiences.

If there exists an exact mapping between the representation of reality you hold in your mind and the representation of reality I hold in my head, then the actual meaning of the individual elements is moot as our conclusions will map as well as our references. However, if any aspects of ones world view are internally inconsistent, the mapping problem breaks down. That is, we may be talking about totally different things and the issue of correct mapping is no longer moot.

Now I doubt anyone here will comprehend what I am saying above as it simply is not in alignment with the common presumptions of your perceptions. What I am in essence saying is that we need to be very careful that we understand exactly what is meant by every given symbol (or word) that we use. All ambiguity must be removed or the possibilities of misunderstanding are beyond belief. That is why I press so hard for mathematics as the only rational means of communication: in mathematics, much more effort has been put towards eliminating ambiguity than in any other language.

Note that in physics, things are defined in terms of common everyday understandings of reality. Then these (actually rather ambiguous) concepts are used as a basis to build a communicable understanding of reality. The process is fundamentally flawed as the true consequences of those definitions are unknown due to the inherent ambiguity of those definitions. Notice that, when we were talking earlier, my approach to definition of physical concepts was much more constrained and exact than the classical approach. This is an issue very few if any are willing to confront.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

What I am in essence saying is that we need to be very careful that we understand exactly what is meant by every given symbol (or word) that we use. All ambiguity must be removed or the possibilities of misunderstanding are beyond belief. That is why I press so hard for mathematics as the only rational means of communication: in mathematics, much more effort has been put towards eliminating ambiguity than in any other language.

Hello again Doctor D. Say we have an exact unambiguous string of mathematical symbols that are perfectly understood by a group of theorists. What then? What do these theorists do? Do they create a mapping/description of perceptual reality?

Does an all inclusive truth/description exist for the observable universe?


An all inclusive truth by definition must hold for P1 and P2, where P is an arbitrary perception.

T[P1]--------d---------T[P2]

Though P1 and P2 are separated by d, they are constrained by

T

Let T = the law of gravity = spacetime curvature

T holds for both P1 and P2
Gravity does not care about consensus or opinion! It is a fact...?





An interesting article about TRUTH:



http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/76/05.htm

First, let's take a look at the word tautology. Its meaning in the vernacular involves needless repetition or redundancy. But in logic, its meaning is more precise and more benign. It describes a statement which is analytic, or true solely by virtue of its logi*cal form. This reaches its limit in 2-valued prepositional logic: e.g., A v ~A (law of the excluded middle); ~(A & ~A) (law of non*contradiction). In this notation, variables are sentential; "A" stands for any complete formula or "predicate". Such tautologies are self-referential; we can let "A" stand for the whole tautology in which it appears (e.g., A v ~A --> (A v ~A) v ~(A v ~A)). Since logic is entirely developed by deductive substitution from initial tautologies - as is a geometry from its axioms - these tautologies form what you'd call a "reflexively true tautological framework". They are "highly resistant to outside contradiction" because, in order to be comprehensible, any such contradiction must be formu*lated in terms of propositional logic and therefore submit to the very tautological rules it purports to "contradict".

Here is what Einstein said about mathematics corresponding to reality:


As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

--Albert Einstein






He also said this:


If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.

(Albert Einstein, 1954)


And Einstein said this:


"Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live."


Does some actual "real" truth, or "attainable object" exist? that can be grasped by pure thought?

What is the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics?

 

[sol2]

Russell, these are fines words because I see what Dick is saying, but at the same time there must have been some relevance to perception, that arises out of cognitive functions . George Lakoff is interesting here.

The visual impact of complete understanding sometimes overwhelms one's comprehension, after having piece mealed the parts of a model, and finally, a metamorphisis in a complete whole.

The very fact Dick is philosphically discussing a method (the foundation of mathematics), shows how the derivative function of his perceptions arise through generalizations and then refers back to solid symbols for consideration.

If ones perception was deep enough, could one not of understood features of nature so very close to the source that it would have defined first principals?

Distilliation from Three Roads of Smolin was very instructive here.

This then also begs the question on whether mathematics was invented or discovered?

Brian D. Josephson
Department of Physics, University of Cambridge

The point in regard to mathematical thinking, which motivates our model,
is the following. Consider first of all what the brain does in visual
perception. Here the primary information from the visual receptors goes
through various levels of processing until it ends up as a high-level
representation of the content of the visual field. It is not
unreasonable to identify mathematics as a similar process, except that
higher levels of abstraction are involved in this case. With the visual
case, the mechanics are straightforward: the visual field typically
contains for example edges, for which abstraction a dedicated neural
system has evolved, related to our ability to perceive edges. It is
hard to see why we should have such ready access to higher mathematical
abstractions having little connection with experience (Penrose 1994).
One resolution of the problem would be for mathematical concepts to be
in some way ‘in the physics’, rather than being emergent properties of
brains. In case it is felt that such a drastic solution is not
necessary to explain our ready access to mathematical ideas, and that
neural networks can provide an adequate explanation, a stronger argument
for the existence of some kind of Platonic realm can be made on the
basis of the aesthetic aspect of music (Josephson and Carpenter 1996).

http://www.sophists.org/downloads/physics_esp.txt

The Dance of the Honey Bee John Nash had a obvious interest in identifying patterns, and from it, mathematical derivatives to suport his conclusion on negotiation?

Maybe a very deep appreciation for the Anomalistic nature of discovery is in order?

 

[Doctordick]

Say we have an exact unambiguous string of mathematical symbols that are perfectly understood by a group of theorists. What then? What do these theorists do? Do they create a mapping/description of perceptual reality?

Just exactly what do you think is meant by the phrase, "a set of symbols that are perfectly understood" if it does not include a mapping/description of their perceptual reality?

Gravity does not care about consensus or opinion! It is a fact...?

Before that question can be answered, you must tell me exactly what you mean by each of the words you have used via a clear unambiguous string of symbols (a language). That process is not a simple process. I may very well misunderstand what you mean from time to time. Fundamentally, this means that I must make some guesses as to what you mean by that string. Unambiguous means that there exists only one way in which the string of symbols may be interpreted. This is a state relatively impossible to prove.

In all your presentations, you make the assumption that lots and lots of the symbols (the language) you use is unambiguous. That is a very dangerous assumption to make. I know you can not see it but you are making a very sweeping assumption which is absolutely impossible to defend. You are assuming that my mental picture of the universe (and that includes the whole collection of symbols we exchange in this conversation: the communications we tag with the title English) is identical to yours: i.e., you are presuming there exists only one unambiguous meaning to the lifetime of perceptions you have experienced. This may or may not be true. The important point is that it can not be proved one way or the other.

Until you can understand that statement, you will never understand what I am saying.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

Just exactly what do you think is meant by the phrase, "a set of symbols that are perfectly understood" if it does not include a mapping/description of their perceptual reality?
Before that question can be answered, you must tell me exactly what you mean by each of the words you have used via a clear unambiguous string of symbols (a language). That process is not a simple process. I may very well misunderstand what you mean from time to time. Fundamentally, this means that I must make some guesses as to what you mean by that string. Unambiguous means that there exists only one way in which the string of symbols may be interpreted. This is a state relatively impossible to prove.

Yes, the string of symbols would have only one specific arrangement if it was a mapping of the perceptual universe. But it seems that it is impossible to remove all ambiguity.

In all your presentations, you make the assumption that lots and lots of the symbols (the language) you use is unambiguous.

My apologies for the misunderstanding Dr. D. Yes, the ambiguity remains between us. I fully realize that the symbols are very ambiguous and subject to many differing interpretations.

On the other hand, consensus does not equal fact. The natural world is a fact.

 

[Chronos]

Perceptual limits are the ultimate barrier to our understanding of the universe. We have innate limitations that are beyond our reach to perceive even exist. An ant has little chance of arriving at a theory that explains human behavior based on bread crumbs and grains of sugar scavenged from a family picnic. We ants may, however, agree we get squished when stepped upon: without reaching a consensus on the cause or mechanics involved... think of it as the ant-thropic principle.

 

[member 11137]

From all preceding discussions we maigh amazingly state a kind of spontaneus creation (a multi- dia- log) and, in this sense, consider that this thread concerning a theory of self-creation was fruitfull… except it was a proposed discussion about physics and not the semantic (but it doesnot matter). Starting not ad nihilo but because of a misunderstanding partially due to my lacks in physics and in your language; I think it is funny and that it is one of the multiple examples demonstrating the ability of a human brain to embroider, beginning a roman, a story or a dream with only two or three words and a huge quantity of unsaid thoughts accompanying them. I do appreciate your way of thinking about the language and agree with the difficulties that we all encounter in our try to communicate precisely the contents of our soul. This word doesnot sound very scientific and certainly countains a big potentiality of poetic misunderstanding. This said we certainly all find a sort of middle-way to understand what other people are saying and try to stay in balance on the middle of the string (like the acrobat in circus) which is connecting us with the world of our neighbors. Mathematics is certainly a good attempt to reduce the ambiguity but it fails in its capacity to include all the human world in it and is de facto reducing its domain of validity. A big part of the scientific history certainly consists in a try to make disappear step by step all the ambiguities of our perceptions in a good organized packet where every body can find recognized academic knowledges: a kind of security blowing like the wind to dispers the fog in our brains, a basis which seems to be a certainty in a permanently changing universe. We have no other choice to progress. But we must certainly accept a part of ambiguity which is equivalent to accept that we do not understand everything and probably never will... Thanks for all.

 

[Garth]

Does anyone want to discuss my theory?

 

[Doctordick]

Does anyone want to discuss my theory?

Sorry about that. I am interested in your work as certain aspects of it reflect directly on my work; however, I am afraid that I am not competent to make any comments as my interests were deflected from the classical picture many years ago and I am not at all familiar with the appropriate formalisms. I have read your paper seriously and have found no evident errors but that does not mean that I can comment on its accuracy.

First of all the paper presumes a lot of specific relations in all probability well known by anyone competent in the field but I can not count myself competent at the moment. With a lot of time to catch up on the field, I am sure I could become competent; however to do so would cost considerably more time than it would have forty years ago. I am well aware of the decline in my mental abilities.

On a surface level, I can make a number of comments but I don't feel any of them will have any real impact on your work. Certainly I agree with you that a valid theory of general relativity in all probability brings back a preferred coordinate system. I have always felt it was forced blindness which neglects that matter. Secondly, I have never accepted the presumption that gravitons have to be spin two entities and am very pleased to find a scalar component in your work. From my work, I believe a properly designed spin zero graviton does just fine. Of course that is worth nothing to you.

I have exactly the same problems you do; no one competent wants to talk to me about my ideas; however, you have an advantage. You are able to publish and certainly someone competent is reading your stuff. Good luck and I am sorry if I have diverted your thread to other issues.

Actually, I can only reiterate my original comment: in my opinion, no one competent to follow your work will be found on this forum. Oh, you may very well find some people who are capable of paraphrasing some of your comments in such a manner as to convince a lot of people that they are competent but I wouldn't trust them. That the claimed consequences of your theory are what we need is obvious; that your theory actually produces these consequences would require careful examination beyond the ability of the members of this forum.

If I am wrong, I would be delighted if the forum were to prove it. I will be reading your posts with interest.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[sol2]

Does anyone want to discuss my theory?

Just one question.

Does your theory recognize only the pull of gravity?

Sorry Garth for making you feel your thread was trashed...please go ahead.

I am very interested the question of how you might have arrived at your theory. That DD has put symbology in this conversation just makes the issue of what your saying require a breakdown, to its mathematical basis. I like to follow that thinking, as I am learning.

So what does the overall statement of your theory say and we can go from there?

 

[Nereid]

A 'time-slip' exists in SCC between atomic 'clock' time on one
hand and gravitational ephemeris and cosmological time on the other,
which would result in an apparent sunwards acceleration of the
Pioneer spacecraft as indeed is observed.

Would you please give us an OOM statement of what SCC predicts for this? Not just 'an appararent sunward acceleration for Pioneer ~x m/s²', but something that gives OOM numbers for any spacecraft or planet (locally). I'm also interested in the extent to which observations of binary pulsars could, in principle, yield clear differences between what GR predicts.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Garth]

Thank you for your considered and valued replies to my post at the top of this thread.

Doctordick - I posted here on the Theory Development Forum because it had been suggested to do so to enable a specific discussion of the theory.

Sol2 - Re: "Does your theory recognize only the pull of gravity?" Interestingly you will find in my papers that the theory predicts the virtual particles of the false vacuum energy should be subject to an antigravity acceleration of 1/2 g. Intriguing food for thought!
I began working on this theory many years ago with a thought that spacetime might be hyperspherical, with the surface of the hypersphere being space and the radius atomic time. I called it the Radial Atomic Time model or RAT for short! It required the universe to expand linearly with time. I worked on it as a Masters project by modifying the Brans Dicke theory, which itself is a modification of GR. This modification violated the Equivalence Principle and introduced a form of continuous creation (of mass). I called it Self Creation Cosmology to distinguish it from Fred Hoyle's Continuous Creation theory and it was published in General Relativity and Gravitation in 1982. There have been some 47 citations since then including a paper by Brans questioning the theory and pointing out an obvious problem. In 1995 I was lecturing on Inflation theory, which is introduced into cosmology to solve the horizon, smoothness and flatness problems of standard GR cosmology, when I realized that in my original theory those problems would not exist in the first place. I reworked the theory and discovered the Principle of Mutual Interaction that overcame Brans' objection. The rest of the present theory flowed from that and was published in 2002. I have been staggered how well it subsequently fits local experiments and cosmological constraints without Inflation, Dark (unknown) Matter and Dark Eenergy. It will be tested in the next few weeks by the geodetic precession measurement of the Gravity probe B satellite, (SCC predicts a value of 5.5120 arcsecs/yr whereas GR predicts 6.6).


Nereid - There are accurate predictions, not just OOM, in my papers. The Pioneer and other spacecraft anomalous sunwards accelerations are explained by the way they are measured. This measurement is the fact that the Doppler shifts of signals coming from the spacecraft do not tally with their range from the Sun. SCC explains this anomaly by a clock time drift. In the theory there are two frames of measurement of mass, length and time. In the Einstein frame atoms are used and the time, t', is that of an atomic clock, which is used to measure the Doppler shift. However in the Jordan frame the period of a gravitational orbit and therefore ephemeris time, t, is measured by the frequency of a 'standard' photon, cosmologically one sampled from the peak of the Cosmic microwave Background. In the theory the cosmological relationship between the two times is given by t' = [exp(Ht)]/H and the apparent acceleration observed would hence be cH.

 

[sol2]

Garth Sol2 - Re: "Does your theory recognize only the pull of gravity?" Interestingly you will find in my papers that the theory predicts the virtual particles of the false vacuum energy should be subject to an antigravity acceleration of 1/2 g. Intriguing food for thought!
I began working on this theory many years ago with a thought that spacetime might be hyperspherical, with the surface of the hypersphere being space and the radius atomic time.

I want to speak to this.

You are carrying on from where Einstein left off in terms of the spherical consideration, that arise from GR? One thing that draws my attention is the method by which you wish to explain the dynamical movement from a classical perspective and moving down to the quantum level.

I am undergoing some revisions in my thinking and wanted to draw your attention as well to what I pointed out to Nigel.

Is it useful for consideration?

 

[Garth]

The present theory is 'just' a modification of GR to include Mach's Principle and the local conservation of energy. GR does not recognise the false vacuum, although the cosmological constant can be interpreted as such, the energy density of the false vacuum should cause a gross curvature of empty spacetime that is not observed. However in SCC the two principles of Mach and the Local Conservation of Energy give rise to two separate solutions in the empty space around a spherical mass. If spacetime is flat these two solutions coincide, however curvature makes them diverge and in order to restore self-consistency a moderate amount of false vacuum density (near the Earth about 10^(-12) gms./cc) is required. Thus a gravitational theory requires and predicts the existence of a moderate amount of false vacuum, using the curvature of spacetime to draw out virtual particles and photons from actual vacuum; thereby possibly yielding a way to harmonise gravitational and quantum physics. This part of the theory can be tested by sending an experiment measuring the Casimir force into deep space - the maximum force detected should bottom out between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn with present instrumentation sensitivity. This is all explained in my 2002 paper and on the physics ArXiv. "Experimental tests of the New Self Creation Cosmology and a heterodox prediction for Gravity Probe B", http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0302026 .