- #31
subtillioN
What proof did you ask for?
Click For Summary
The discovery of Achernar, the flattest star observed, challenges existing theories of stellar dynamics, as it exhibits a bulge 50% wider at its equator than predicted. This observation suggests that current models of fast-rotating stars are incomplete, prompting questions about the star's internal rotation and matter circulation. Additionally, solar oscillations have raised doubts about the standard solar model, with some researchers proposing alternative energy generation theories for the Sun. The discussion highlights a divide between traditional astrophysical models and emerging theories, such as plasma models, which some argue better explain observed phenomena. Overall, the conversation underscores the ongoing evolution of scientific understanding in astrophysics.
What proof did you ask for?
Physics news on Phys.org
neutroncount
Give us the math behind it. Give us answers for what Tyger asked of you.
subtillioN
Originally posted by neutroncount
Give us the math behind it. Give us answers for what Tyger asked of you.
Well I guess I must repeat myself (like a broken record) because I had already answered his questions.
"Sorce Theory uses the same mathematics as the standard model, and explains qualitatively what is physically happening to achieve the numerical results. As a qualitative description of the Unification of the forces (and much else) it is extremely valuable as a guide for the simulation and quantitative fine-tuning of the unified field equations. Sorce Theory is extremely detailed both quantitatively [because it does not abandon the centuries of quantitative contact with physical reality] and qualitatively.
The frontier of Sorce Theory is the explanation of how the basic constants and the physical details of the actual experiments lead to the family of resonances known as particles. This may require intense simulational work but the potential is great indeed."
Notice that the frontiers of Sorce Theory are those regions in which many of Tygers questions reside.
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 755
- 2
Originally posted by subtillioN
Sorce Theory uses the same mathematics as the standard model,
This is an extremely[/color] strong statement. The math of the standard model directly implies many of the issues that "Sorce theory" supposedly doesn't need.
If this theory is in fact described by the same exact math, hardly any room is left for interpretational differences, and pretty much all of them are already covered by mainstream physics.
and explains qualitatively what is physically happening to achieve the numerical results.
You are getting youself into a lot of trouble here. For instance, the "collapse of the wavefunction" is not just a philosophical position to be discussed by "cocktail party philosophers", as Feynman called them. It directly corresponds to a specific piece of math in QM:
When performing a measurement, the state of a quantum system starts as a sum of vector components:
state = c1*v1 + c2*v2 + ...
(c1, c2, ... are complex numbers; v1, v2, ... are elements of the vector space)
and, once the measurement is performed, the state is reduced to just one of them:
state = v7
i.e., all other possible states (some of which may correspond to distant places) have been wiped out.
How can this piece of math (that, according to you, is also used in sorce theory) be explained in terms of local interactions?
The same applies to wave-particle duality, uncertainty, Bell's theorem, etc.
As a qualitative description of the Unification of the forces
"Qualitative descriptions" were useful probably two centuries ago. We now can supplement them with precise quantitative models, the interpretation of which needs to pay much more attention to the full structure (i.e., math) of the models.
(and much else) it is extremely valuable as a guide for the simulation and quantitative fine-tuning of the unified field equations.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how any of what you have said about Sorce theory can contribute in any way to either of these tasks. Especially since it uses the same math as the SM.
The frontier of Sorce Theory is the explanation of how the basic constants and the physical details of the actual experiments lead to the family of resonances known as particles. This may require intense simulational work but the potential is great indeed."
How is its potential different from that of lattice quantum field theory? or from that of any other piece of standard, mainstream physics?
How can it even be different, if it comes from the same equations and math?
subtillioN
Hi ahrkron,
The math works but it is based on incorrect fundamental assumptions.
That is simply not true. Sorce Theory does offer corrections and alterations to the basics of physics, but it only achieves further qualitative, semantic and quantitative accuracy. It does not abandon the mathematics nor necessarily supplant them just yet.
I am sure that you will help me with any misunderstandings that I may have.
Of course the wave-function corresponds to a specific piece of math in QM. In fact it IS that piece of math and has no other physical reality. The problem comes with the simplified math used to describe the entanglement process. This problem is caused because QM doesn't know what a particle physically is and thus what the process of entanglement is either and of course it doesn't know what any of the forces are nor how they are transmitted nor how they function at all.
Again this is a mathematical procedure to describe and simplify a very complex fluid-dynamic process. It does not have a one-to-one correspondence with reality as Copenhagenly interpreted.
Again the sub-quantum is the region in which the frontier of Sorce Theory is to be found. [ This is the reason that I am attempting to pick your brain ] Much of the mechanisms have been worked out, but there is much work left to be done especially in describing the resonance mechanisms that give rise to the families of particles and their specific properties etc. It is highly probable that a correct understanding of the fundamental quantum mechanisms will lead directly to more accurate and efficient equations especially when the fundamental fluid is simulated in powerful computers to watch the fluid-dynamic formation of the atom and its spliting into particles and resonances in various experiemnts.
In Sorce Theory the entire reasoning and the experiments that led to the quantum hypothesis of Planck and its subsequent re-enforcment by Einstein and others are explained by the complex fluid-dynamic processes in a frictionless continuous medium. The key to understanding how the "quantum wierdness" can acquire a physical explanation thus entirely eliminating this weirdness, is in the understanding of the atom and the electronic shells as a quantization process via fluid-dynamics and wave-harmonics (too complex to go into detail here). A correct understanding of the atom leads directly to an understanding of the "quantum reaction" which is the basis of all quantum "particle-like" wave-detection events.
In the case of the particle aspect of light waves (the photon) it is unnecessary to assume that light travels through the twin slits separately in the form of wave-packets. The detection of a ‘photon’ is much more complicated and unpredictable than a simple detection of the presence a wavefront. It is complicated by the harmonic interaction between the continuous light-wave interference patterns and the system of waves in the receiving electronic shell. When the harmonics of the interaction are just right, the reaction will take place and the shell will absorb the local portion of the reacting wavefront. This event results in a ‘particle-like', all-or-nothing type of response (a "photon"), which is the appropriately-patterned quantity of lightwave pressure absorbed by an interacting atom of the detector.
The probability interpretation works because the intensity of the wave-form directly determines the likleyhood of the occurence of a quantum reaction event.
An atom can only equilibrate its electron shells in discrete portions.
"6. IT IS THE STRENGTH OF THE MATRIX THAT VARIES WITH EVERY LOCAL QUANTUM JUMP, thus A LOCAL JUMP CAN SATISFY THE IMBALANCE OF A WHOLE FIELD. The electron action may be quantate, but energy is not. The jumping piece is a discontinuity, but the matrix is a continuous part of a continuum."
[[ remember "fractional charge" ]]
Wave-particle duality is caused once again by the misinterpretation of the quantum-reaction as evidence of a particulate nature. Once you realize that the shells of the detecting/reacting atom are harmonically quantized (through quite complex resonance mechanisms) and that the reaction process is MUCH more complicated than classically assumed then there is simply no evidence that light or an electric field is particulate whatsoever. An electron, within the atom, actually is the resonance pattern quantified in the Schrodinger equation. The density shell, as Schrodinger had thought, is a real physical wave-harmonic reality. When this shell is disrupted and liberated from an atom it can travel as a soliton or it can acquire a rotational motion depending on the environmental conditions. When the electron joins into an accumulating charge it simply adds its pressure (charge) to the building pressure of the accumulating charge. This is how charge spreads all across an object almost instantaneously and how in the Milikan oil-drop experiment hundreds of electrons can collect on the surface without repelling each other. This also hints at the explanation of recent evidence of fractional charge (anyons) and the forced-interpretation of cooper pairing to explain the fact that electrons simply do not repel each other as peviously thought. An electron and its charge have been grossly misunderstood and are actually much simpler than the mathematics or the theory would have you believe.
Uncertainty is again a direct consequence of the point-particle interpretation of the quantum reaction event. Think about it. If neither light nor an electron never was a point-particle to begin with (and yes we can explain the photo-electric and compton effect as well as the polarization of light etc.) then there is simply no reason to expect that a precise location can be determined. The rest should be rather intuitive to you.
Bell's theorem only deals with the alternatives which fit into the class of theories called "hidden variables". These Hidden Variable theories are still classical in their core. Sorce Theory is entirely alternative and non-classical and does not fit within this classification scheme for reasons that you may already be intuitively aware of.
The problem is that without qualitative models, which are prohibited by the Copenhagen Interpretation, then there is little direction (if any) as to where to look to achieve the proper simplification and unification of Physics. This problem has led to many dead ends and overly complex and abstract unification schemes (similar in relation to the Ptolemaic complexity of the epicycles). Yes the math in the unification schemes works, but just as Copernican model simplified the understanding only qualitatively at first and had to be implemented and adjusted by many scientists before it could quantitatively compete with Ptolemy's model--so Sorce Theory will need to be fleshed out by multitudes of scientists to achieve the Unification which at this point is mainly qualitative (at its very core) usinf extremely detailed causal mechanisms.
Once we can actually visualize the true nature of fundamental reality the unified field equations should be relatively easy to achieve, especially considering the emerging power of computer fluid-dynamic simulations which indeed may be necessary to achieve them.
subtillioN
Originally posted by ahrkron
This is an extremely[/color] strong statement. The math of the standard model directly implies many of the issues that "Sorce theory" supposedly doesn't need.
The math works but it is based on incorrect fundamental assumptions.
If this theory is in fact described by the same exact math, hardly any room is left for interpretational differences, and pretty much all of them are already covered by mainstream physics.
That is simply not true. Sorce Theory does offer corrections and alterations to the basics of physics, but it only achieves further qualitative, semantic and quantitative accuracy. It does not abandon the mathematics nor necessarily supplant them just yet.
You are getting youself into a lot of trouble here.
I am sure that you will help me with any misunderstandings that I may have.
For instance, the "collapse of the wavefunction" is not just a philosophical position to be discussed by "cocktail party philosophers", as Feynman called them. It directly corresponds to a specific piece of math in QM:
Of course the wave-function corresponds to a specific piece of math in QM. In fact it IS that piece of math and has no other physical reality. The problem comes with the simplified math used to describe the entanglement process. This problem is caused because QM doesn't know what a particle physically is and thus what the process of entanglement is either and of course it doesn't know what any of the forces are nor how they are transmitted nor how they function at all.
When performing a measurement, the state of a quantum system starts as a sum of vector components:
state = c1*v1 + c2*v2 + ...
(c1, c2, ... are complex numbers; v1, v2, ... are elements of the vector space)
and, once the measurement is performed, the state is reduced to just one of them:
state = v7
i.e., all other possible states (some of which may correspond to distant places) have been wiped out.
Again this is a mathematical procedure to describe and simplify a very complex fluid-dynamic process. It does not have a one-to-one correspondence with reality as Copenhagenly interpreted.
How can this piece of math (that, according to you, is also used in sorce theory) be explained in terms of local interactions?
Again the sub-quantum is the region in which the frontier of Sorce Theory is to be found. [ This is the reason that I am attempting to pick your brain ] Much of the mechanisms have been worked out, but there is much work left to be done especially in describing the resonance mechanisms that give rise to the families of particles and their specific properties etc. It is highly probable that a correct understanding of the fundamental quantum mechanisms will lead directly to more accurate and efficient equations especially when the fundamental fluid is simulated in powerful computers to watch the fluid-dynamic formation of the atom and its spliting into particles and resonances in various experiemnts.
In Sorce Theory the entire reasoning and the experiments that led to the quantum hypothesis of Planck and its subsequent re-enforcment by Einstein and others are explained by the complex fluid-dynamic processes in a frictionless continuous medium. The key to understanding how the "quantum wierdness" can acquire a physical explanation thus entirely eliminating this weirdness, is in the understanding of the atom and the electronic shells as a quantization process via fluid-dynamics and wave-harmonics (too complex to go into detail here). A correct understanding of the atom leads directly to an understanding of the "quantum reaction" which is the basis of all quantum "particle-like" wave-detection events.
In the case of the particle aspect of light waves (the photon) it is unnecessary to assume that light travels through the twin slits separately in the form of wave-packets. The detection of a ‘photon’ is much more complicated and unpredictable than a simple detection of the presence a wavefront. It is complicated by the harmonic interaction between the continuous light-wave interference patterns and the system of waves in the receiving electronic shell. When the harmonics of the interaction are just right, the reaction will take place and the shell will absorb the local portion of the reacting wavefront. This event results in a ‘particle-like', all-or-nothing type of response (a "photon"), which is the appropriately-patterned quantity of lightwave pressure absorbed by an interacting atom of the detector.
The probability interpretation works because the intensity of the wave-form directly determines the likleyhood of the occurence of a quantum reaction event.
An atom can only equilibrate its electron shells in discrete portions.
"6. IT IS THE STRENGTH OF THE MATRIX THAT VARIES WITH EVERY LOCAL QUANTUM JUMP, thus A LOCAL JUMP CAN SATISFY THE IMBALANCE OF A WHOLE FIELD. The electron action may be quantate, but energy is not. The jumping piece is a discontinuity, but the matrix is a continuous part of a continuum."
[[ remember "fractional charge" ]]
The same applies to wave-particle duality
Wave-particle duality is caused once again by the misinterpretation of the quantum-reaction as evidence of a particulate nature. Once you realize that the shells of the detecting/reacting atom are harmonically quantized (through quite complex resonance mechanisms) and that the reaction process is MUCH more complicated than classically assumed then there is simply no evidence that light or an electric field is particulate whatsoever. An electron, within the atom, actually is the resonance pattern quantified in the Schrodinger equation. The density shell, as Schrodinger had thought, is a real physical wave-harmonic reality. When this shell is disrupted and liberated from an atom it can travel as a soliton or it can acquire a rotational motion depending on the environmental conditions. When the electron joins into an accumulating charge it simply adds its pressure (charge) to the building pressure of the accumulating charge. This is how charge spreads all across an object almost instantaneously and how in the Milikan oil-drop experiment hundreds of electrons can collect on the surface without repelling each other. This also hints at the explanation of recent evidence of fractional charge (anyons) and the forced-interpretation of cooper pairing to explain the fact that electrons simply do not repel each other as peviously thought. An electron and its charge have been grossly misunderstood and are actually much simpler than the mathematics or the theory would have you believe.
uncertainty
Uncertainty is again a direct consequence of the point-particle interpretation of the quantum reaction event. Think about it. If neither light nor an electron never was a point-particle to begin with (and yes we can explain the photo-electric and compton effect as well as the polarization of light etc.) then there is simply no reason to expect that a precise location can be determined. The rest should be rather intuitive to you.
Bell's theorem, etc.
Bell's theorem only deals with the alternatives which fit into the class of theories called "hidden variables". These Hidden Variable theories are still classical in their core. Sorce Theory is entirely alternative and non-classical and does not fit within this classification scheme for reasons that you may already be intuitively aware of.
"Qualitative descriptions" were useful probably two centuries ago. We now can supplement them with precise quantitative models, the interpretation of which needs to pay much more attention to the full structure (i.e., math) of the models.
The problem is that without qualitative models, which are prohibited by the Copenhagen Interpretation, then there is little direction (if any) as to where to look to achieve the proper simplification and unification of Physics. This problem has led to many dead ends and overly complex and abstract unification schemes (similar in relation to the Ptolemaic complexity of the epicycles). Yes the math in the unification schemes works, but just as Copernican model simplified the understanding only qualitatively at first and had to be implemented and adjusted by many scientists before it could quantitatively compete with Ptolemy's model--so Sorce Theory will need to be fleshed out by multitudes of scientists to achieve the Unification which at this point is mainly qualitative (at its very core) usinf extremely detailed causal mechanisms.
Once we can actually visualize the true nature of fundamental reality the unified field equations should be relatively easy to achieve, especially considering the emerging power of computer fluid-dynamic simulations which indeed may be necessary to achieve them.
subtillioN
Last edited by a moderator:
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 755
- 2
Originally posted by subtillioN
The math works but it is based on incorrect fundamental assumptions.
Easy to say. Name two.
Sorce Theory does offer corrections and alterations to the basics of physics, but it only achieves further[/color] qualitative, semantic and quantitative accuracy.[/color]
In order to "achieve further quatitative accuracy", it needs to yield different predictions. This can only happen if there is at least one equation which is different. Which is it, and why?
It does not abandon the mathematics nor necessarily supplant them just yet.
Make up your mind. Does "sorce th." use the same math as the SM, or not?
Again this is a mathematical procedure to describe and simplify a very complex fluid-dynamic process.
Some questions here:
1. What is the fluid you are talking about?
2. What is it made of?
3. If it is "fundamental", it seems as a more complicated object than particles. Why can it be regarded as a preferable substrate?
4. What equations govern such fluid? Navier-Stokes'?
And a request: Show us the details of how such "complex fluid-dynamic process", as you call it, produces the apparent (in your view) wavefunction collapse.
Much of the mechanisms have been worked out,
Show us the simplest one, so that we can see that it produces the same experimental predictions as QM.
In Sorce Theory the entire reasoning and the experiments that led to the quantum hypothesis of Planck and its subsequent re-enforcment by Einstein and others are explained by the complex fluid-dynamic processes in a frictionless continuous medium.
Honestly, it is my impression that all you have is this kind of descriptions, with lots of "complex fluid-dynamic processes" mentioned here and there, but no working model.
I'd certainly welcome your proving me wrong by showing here even a (mathematically sound) sketch of a proof, showing how the fluid dynamic description naturally produces the QM "appearances".
subtillioN
Originally posted by ahrkron
Easy to say. Name two.
There are many. First and foremost is the assumption of the point-particle in the void. This assumption leads directly to the assumption of Quantum Uncertainty and the assumption of wave-particle duality both of which are incorrect.
In order to "achieve further quatitative accuracy", it needs to yield different predictions. This can only happen if there is at least one equation which is different. Which is it, and why?
In 1965, Sorce Theory calculated that there should be slight deviations in the change of rate of the gravitational field of the Earth. In the 1980's these were detected and there was a big deal about it in the New York Times saying that Physics had to invent a 5th and 6th force. This finding is mostly forgotten and there is still no explanation of how those measurements could be yeilded by the known force of gravity.
In a gravitational field there are slight deviations due to resonance mechanisms in the magnetic field of the planet or star. These mechanisms are the cause of the pervasive square of the distance patterns of Bode's Law and the same pattern is seen in the electron shell spacing of the atom.
Make up your mind. Does "sorce th." use the same math as the SM, or not?
It uses the same math but it is a tool for fine-tuning or supplanting the math by knowing the physical mechanisms involved.
Some questions here:
1. What is the fluid you are talking about?
It is a continuous and compressible fluid.
2. What is it made of?
Not everything can be made of something else. It is made of itself. It is the fundamental level.
3. If it is "fundamental", it seems as a more complicated object than particles. Why can it be regarded as a preferable substrate?
Because it Unifies the forces directly as a consequence of its basic assumptions.
4. What equations govern such fluid? Navier-Stokes'?
There are many equations that can approximate the motion of such a fluid. In its amorphous state it is quantitatively equivalent to a zero-energy superfluid, but the equations at this level need to be worked out through simulation to fine-tune the constants.
And a request: Show us the details of how such "complex fluid-dynamic process", as you call it, produces the apparent (in your view) wavefunction collapse.
The collapse is purely a problem of description. It does not happen in reality.
Show us the simplest one, so that we can see that it produces the same experimental predictions as QM.
If you are interested I can send you the book, but it is far too detailed and complex with essential diagrams to go into here.
BTW, I am posting this information for those who see the potential that such a qualitative description can acheive. I don't really care if you are interested or not.
Honestly, it is my impression that all you have is this kind of descriptions, with lots of "complex fluid-dynamic processes" mentioned here and there, but no working model.
Your impression is understandable, but it is wrong.
I'd certainly welcome your proving me wrong by showing here even a (mathematically sound) sketch of a proof, showing how the fluid dynamic description naturally produces the QM "appearances".
It really is far too complex to demonstrate here, but don't take my word for it!
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 755
- 2
Originally posted by subtillioN
First and foremost is the assumption of the point-particle in the void... Quantum Uncertainty and the assumption of wave-particle duality both of which are incorrect.
In what sense do you say they are "incorrect"?
In 1965, Sorce Theory calculated that there should be slight deviations in the change of rate of the gravitational field of the Earth.
Great!, so sorce theory has different equations. Please post one here, together with the one it replaces from mainstream physics.
This finding is mostly forgotten and there is still no explanation of how those measurements could be yeilded by the known force of gravity.
Which means that the "extra terms" existing in sorce theory, and non-existent on mainstream physics, represent a physical effect unaccounted for as of yet. Post such terms here.
It uses the same math but it is a tool for fine-tuning or supplanting the math by knowing the physical mechanisms involved.
Oh, well... so, are they the same or not? You keep contradicting youself. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one loosing interest on this.
Because it Unifies the forces directly as a consequence of its basic assumptions.
What are (explicitly) its "basic assumptions"?
In its amorphous state it is quantitatively equivalent to a zero-energy superfluid,
Just post the equations here, that will settle it (even if you don't).
but the equations at this level need to be worked out through simulation to fine-tune the constants.
Just post the equations with letters for the constants. I'm not interested on the value of every single parameter, but only on the functional formp of the equations.
The collapse is purely a problem of description. It does not happen in reality.
In any case, you should agree that it describes things perfectly. What I asked from you is a description of how sorce theory's processes "look like" a collapse.
If you are interested I can send you the book, but it is far too detailed and complex with essential diagrams to go into here.
Ok, send it. I'm interested in looking at the math details. I'll PM you my email address.
Brad_Ad23
- 497
- 1
I'll be interested if you actually get a book or any equations posted here.
subtillioN
Originally posted by ahrkron
In what sense do you say they are "incorrect"?
In the sense that they are wrong. There are no point-particles. There is no void. And there is no wave-particle duality. Such assumptions only lead to an inability to understand the deeper causality.
Great!, so sorce theory has different equations. Please post one here, together with the one it replaces from mainstream physics.
The exact equations for this have not been completely worked out. They are slight deviations to Einsteins equations which were deduced by mainly qualitative means.
Oh, well... so, are they the same or not? You keep contradicting youself. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one loosing interest on this.
Sorce Theory explains the causality beneath the equations. That is all. An understanding of reality can be used to modify the equations describing reality. Quite simple really.
What are (explicitly) its "basic assumptions"?
That a frictionless, continuous, fluid, compressible substance is the core level of reality and that everything including atomic matter and energy is made up of organizations of this substance.
Just post the equations here, that will settle it (even if you don't).
Like I said it does not modify the equations, though they undoubtedly need modification. The same equations that model zero-energy superfluids (The Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation, Navier Stokes, whatever) are likely a good start, but they need to add a serious amount of compressibility in the mix to account for e=mc^2.
This is the whole point of my posts here. If we had these equations we would have a set of unified field equations because the fundamental fluid is the unified field.
In any case, you should agree that it describes things perfectly.
I don’t agree. It simply describes how things look to us through our crude measurement processes.
What I asked from you is a description of how sorce theory's processes "look like" a collapse.
They don’t look like a collapse. They look like particle collisions and fluid-dynamic resonance processes that form the properties of the particles. The collapse is simply a measurement process which uses wave-functions to simplify the problem and then gets confused by interpretations of the simplified mathematics itself.
Ok, send it. I'm interested in looking at the math details. I'll PM you my email address.
Sent, but you will be disappointed if all you are looking for is math.
Edit: Note that the book I sent you is an introductory book and does not get very deep into the more complex quantum mechanisms, though he does explain how the fluid is quantized and how this quantization reacts to give us the results of the major quantum experiments. He has since written many much more detailed books that examine these things in very great detail. He has also written a book that reinterprets the basic laws of physics in terms of these initial premises.
Last edited by a moderator:
elas
The Squashed Star can be explained in the same manner as Brauthewaite's gyroscope demonstrations and the Japanese falling cylinder demonstrations . They are all physical proofs that we live in a Corpuscular universe as first proposed by Newton.
They demonstrate the effect of spin on corpuscular gravity, as does every spiral galaxy and planetary system.
Because it has proved impossible so far to wrap these observation together in one neat mathematical theory the concept of
corpuscular particle fields remains in the background getting only occassional casual reference as a possibility; but of all the ideas on the structure of the universe it is the simplest to grasp and needs only a new theory of gravity to bring it to the forefront.
(see Scientific American special issue on 'The edge of physics').
They demonstrate the effect of spin on corpuscular gravity, as does every spiral galaxy and planetary system.
Because it has proved impossible so far to wrap these observation together in one neat mathematical theory the concept of
corpuscular particle fields remains in the background getting only occassional casual reference as a possibility; but of all the ideas on the structure of the universe it is the simplest to grasp and needs only a new theory of gravity to bring it to the forefront.
(see Scientific American special issue on 'The edge of physics').
subtillioN
Originally posted by elas
The Squashed Star can be explained in the same manner as Brauthewaite's gyroscope demonstrations and the Japanese falling cylinder demonstrations . They are all physical proofs that we live in a Corpuscular universe as first proposed by Newton.
They demonstrate the effect of spin on corpuscular gravity, as does every spiral galaxy and planetary system.
Because it has proved impossible so far to wrap these observation together in one neat mathematical theory the concept of
corpuscular particle fields remains in the background getting only occassional casual reference as a possibility; but of all the ideas on the structure of the universe it is the simplest to grasp and needs only a new theory of gravity to bring it to the forefront.
(see Scientific American special issue on 'The edge of physics').
Please tell me how they are proofs that we live in a corpuscular universe.
BTW, the wave nature of all matter denies this claim and says that at root is a wave-transmitting fluid.
neutroncount
Great. Two crackpot theories collide. This should be good.
subtillioN
Originally posted by neutroncount
Great. Two crackpot theories collide. This should be good.
Great another elitist who thinks any idea different from the established religion is "crackpot".
elas
Great another elitist who thinks any idea different from the established religion is "crackpot".
I am not submitting ideas but quoting experiments conducted and were repeated at top universities in the UK and Japan. The current standard theories are not religions but 'predictive theories; In the case of gravity the theory has been proven wrong by at least two confirmed observations.
It is accepted that at present there is no satisfactory explanation of long range gravity; It is also accepted that current theory does not tell us anything about 'cause'.
True, the comments on the experiments are my own and are open to dispute, but please not by fanatical nut cases; let us have a reasoned debate.
I am not submitting ideas but quoting experiments conducted and were repeated at top universities in the UK and Japan. The current standard theories are not religions but 'predictive theories; In the case of gravity the theory has been proven wrong by at least two confirmed observations.
It is accepted that at present there is no satisfactory explanation of long range gravity; It is also accepted that current theory does not tell us anything about 'cause'.
True, the comments on the experiments are my own and are open to dispute, but please not by fanatical nut cases; let us have a reasoned debate.
subtillioN
Originally posted by elas
The current standard theories are not religions but 'predictive theories; In the case of gravity the theory has been proven wrong by at least two confirmed observations.
Very much agreed that they aren't religions, but people do tend to treat them as such, refusing to believe falsifying data etc..
Can you give me more information about those experiments invalidating the standard model of gravity?
It is accepted that at present there is no satisfactory explanation of long range gravity; It is also accepted that current theory does not tell us anything about 'cause'.
Yes and that is why "Dark Matter" and Black Holes are invoked so often in cosmological explanations. They have become the "duct tape" of the standard model.
elas
As an amateur I have to rely on reports in papers and magazines.
There have been several reports (including TV progs) about the orbital speeds of stars in the outer regions of galaxies, they are all exceeding the escape velocity given by current theories.
Braithwaite of Cambridge University demonstrated the ability of gyroscopes to defy gravity, his lectures were also shown on BBC TV in the 1970's.
Recently a Japanese University team demonstrated by repeated experiments that a spinning cylyder falling in a vacuum does not obey the law of gravity (it falls to slowly), the report was in New Scientist.
Add to this the exansion of the universe as measured by Hubble telescope and there is considerable evidence that relativity is not an acceptable theory.
Last week there was yet another report in the London Daily Telegraph of a conference held to discuss the possibility of producing a new theory based on either anti-gravity or vacuum. I am at present re-writing my article on the possibilities of vacuum and my partially revised work is on my site as listed in Theory Developement.
There have been several reports (including TV progs) about the orbital speeds of stars in the outer regions of galaxies, they are all exceeding the escape velocity given by current theories.
Braithwaite of Cambridge University demonstrated the ability of gyroscopes to defy gravity, his lectures were also shown on BBC TV in the 1970's.
Recently a Japanese University team demonstrated by repeated experiments that a spinning cylyder falling in a vacuum does not obey the law of gravity (it falls to slowly), the report was in New Scientist.
Add to this the exansion of the universe as measured by Hubble telescope and there is considerable evidence that relativity is not an acceptable theory.
Last week there was yet another report in the London Daily Telegraph of a conference held to discuss the possibility of producing a new theory based on either anti-gravity or vacuum. I am at present re-writing my article on the possibilities of vacuum and my partially revised work is on my site as listed in Theory Developement.
Similar threads
- · Replies 2 ·
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 3K
- · Replies 0 ·
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 2K
- · Replies 12 ·
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 3K
- · Replies 4 ·
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 2K
- · Replies 2 ·
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 3K
- · Replies 21 ·
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 2K
- · Replies 1 ·
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 2K
- · Replies 2 ·
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 2K
- · Replies 16 ·
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 8K