Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Cosmic Inflation Evidence No Go - Stardust


ficino

Recommended Posts

 

Pantheory, I cannot see a way to analytically solve for complex, many body problems in your book. This is really what we need. It would be absolutely revolutionary if we could solve such chemical problems without the need for approximation methods. I see no way around the current, probabilistic understanding of quantum theory and how said understanding relates to solving complex systems involving multiple electrons and chemical bonds.

 

I wish it was easier to understand and work with…I really do. This would mean that I could be more productive instead of struggling to understand basic things like harmonic oscillators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You can find all my theories in any search engine concerning The Pan Theory. The book about it is about 380 pages long with many decades of original theory, generally quite different from present theories in modern physics, but also based in the same way upon similar observations.  The theory relates to this thread in that it is for one thing an entirely different theory of cosmology so there would be no Big Bang, no Inflation epoch, no dark matter, dark energy, etc. It is all explained by a far simpler theory IMO with its own related equations which much better match observed reality based upon observations of supernova and other observations.

 

 

Ah, the aforementioned axe that you claim you don't have to grind.  This is what puts the quotation marks around the scientific experts.

 

 

I think my motives are similar to most people in that my quest is to learn the truth of reality. Since I have spent many years developing my own theories in Physics including developing my own equations based upon theory and observation, my vested interests in much of science is greater than the average person, but I think I would change my related views quickly based upon any theory that made more sense to me than my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think my motives are similar to most people in that my quest is to learn the truth of reality. Since I have spent many years developing my own theories in Physics including developing my own equations based upon theory and observation, my vested interests in much of science is greater than the average person, but I think I would change my related views quickly based upon any theory that made more sense to me than my own.

 

 

There are many scientists who have put forward unpopular hypotheses.  They generally do not go around internet forums attempting to drum up support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Pantheory, I cannot see a way to analytically solve for complex, many body problems in your book. This is really what we need. It would be absolutely revolutionary if we could solve such chemical problems without the need for approximation methods. I see no way around the current, probabilistic understanding of quantum theory and how said understanding relates to solving complex systems involving multiple electrons and chemical bonds.

 

I wish it was easier to understand and work with…I really do. This would mean that I could be more productive instead of struggling to understand basic things like harmonic oscillators.

 

 

My friend has tackled the many body gravity problem (N-body) in physics and has written a number of related books on the subject. Below is a link to one of his papers. He has run simulations on computers and observed the results. The problem, the way I see it, is that there seems to be no other way to check the results of such equations, or even to know that you have entered the right information, other than by estimation or hypothetical.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ijsrr.org%2Fdown_195.php&ei=0PLgVPefN5GsoQSj3ICABQ&usg=AFQjCNEvZRJX0VmDDdbdpMtyHiFEZ3q1ww&sig2=KnaZ2bVBw2ecXb6bqIHdpw

 

QM is mostly a system of statistics. It primarily calculates the probabilities of certain occurrences. The explanation for what's supposed to be occurring is theory. My own is closest to De Broglie Pilot-Wave theory. As such there would be a background field not unlike dark matter or a Higgs field excepting the particulates in it would be vastly smaller than these other theories; the collective medium would be more like an aether, and energy properties like the Zero Point Field.  There accordingly would be nothing mysterious or complicated about the quantum world.

 

My own equations and theory in Cosmology are: a replacement for the Hubble distance formula to explain that dark energy is not real, My own gravity theory and equations, explaining the rotation rates of spiral galaxies, explaining away dark matter, motions of galaxies in a cluster and the extent of gravity lensing without dark matter,  time dilation of supernova emissions, etc.

 

As to chemistry as you mentioned, the problems can be very complicated but there are a number of good algorithmic programs that can quickly solve complicated problems, the results of which can be checked by measurement. I am unaware of major problems in chemical theory, this is why my book and scientific papers so far only relate to physics, including its many varieties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I think my motives are similar to most people in that my quest is to learn the truth of reality. Since I have spent many years developing my own theories in Physics including developing my own equations based upon theory and observation, my vested interests in much of science is greater than the average person, but I think I would change my related views quickly based upon any theory that made more sense to me than my own.

 

 

There are many scientists who have put forward unpopular hypotheses.  They generally do not go around internet forums attempting to drum up support. 

 

 

In this and other forums one shouldn't extend ones comments too far astray from the subject thread. Only in forums that have a place for speculation or personal theory should such subjects be covered in detail.

 

In this topic, science vs. religion, my purpose is to caution against awe or blind acceptance of any theories or related interpretations of observations, but particularly those in cosmology and physics since I believe much error is often involved, like the original claims of gravity waves.  As Benjamin Franklin put it:

 

"Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see" :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I do not think we are communicating about the same concepts. The many body problem I am describing has to do with multi-electron atoms, chemical bonds and ultimately, molecules. Unfortunately, complicated problems are often "solved" with approximate methods. It is quite difficult to make excellent predictions that match experiments. As I stated, the big problems we face have to do with concepts such as protein folding and biochemical systems in general. I do not see how exact solutions that do not involve quantum mechanics can be derived from your book. Again, I am just not compelled to believe in other hypotheses unless they can bring robust predictions to the table. Of course, I must also admit significant ignorance and I do not actively study or work in the field of physical chemistry, computational chemistry or in electronic structure theory.

 

Also, just to be clear the best tools available for solving many complex chemical systems are all based upon solving the Schrodinger equation in one form or another and they often require an impossible amount of computational power to run for even a fraction of a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I do not think we are communicating about the same concepts. The many body problem I am describing has to do with multi-electron atoms, chemical bonds and ultimately, molecules. Unfortunately, complicated problems are often "solved" with approximate methods. It is quite difficult to make excellent predictions that match experiments. As I stated, the big problems we face have to do with concepts such as protein folding and biochemical systems in general. I do not see how exact solutions that do not involve quantum mechanics can be derived from your book. Again, I am just not compelled to believe in other hypotheses unless they can bring robust predictions to the table. Of course, I must also admit significant ignorance and I do not actively study or work in the field of physical chemistry, computational chemistry or in electronic structure theory.

 

Also, just to be clear the best tools available for solving many complex chemical systems are all based upon solving the Schrodinger equation in one form or another and they often require an impossible amount of computational power to run for even a fraction of a second.

 

Yes, I am aware of such difficulties in calculation concerning  Schrodinger's equations, where algorithmic program approximations can be used. Based upon the subject matter in my book, you have seen that it mainly concerns modern Physics because that's where I believe more theoretical problems lie, concerning the sciences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is chemistry not an application of modern physics that aims to solve many problems, several of which are important to the well being of humanity? Again, I cannot see how your earlier claim that theories such as quantum mechanics will no longer apply when attempting to solve problems in the future. I do not see how your work invalidates both the probabilistic and quantised nature of contemporary quantum theory. This is why I keep asking you to show me how your ideas can invalidate these principles and how your ideas can help folks in the chemical and biological sciences build better models; models that do not require us to solve the Schrodinger equation and deal with the inherent difficulties in analytically solving many body problems (going beyond the Hydrogen atom or a one electron ion). If you can provide a compelling, non-quantum mechanical alternative that makes better predictions and is "vastly simpler" than contemporary techniques such as density functional theory and others, there are many people that would gladly look at said techniques and use them to solve complex chemical and biological problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In this topic, science vs. religion, my purpose is to caution against awe or blind acceptance of any theories or related interpretations of observations, but particularly those in cosmology and physics since I believe much error is often involved, like the original claims of gravity waves.  

 

 

There is no blind acceptance in science so there is no reason to caution against it.  This lack of blind acceptance is one way science is superior to religion even in areas where science currently has wrong answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In this topic, science vs. religion, my purpose is to caution against awe or blind acceptance of any theories or related interpretations of observations, but particularly those in cosmology and physics since I believe much error is often involved, like the original claims of gravity waves.  

 

 

There is no blind acceptance in science so there is no reason to caution against it.  This lack of blind acceptance is one way science is superior to religion even in areas where science currently has wrong answers.

 

 

Blind acceptance is probably too strong of wording, but I think too many people believe modern physic's theories based upon the word of experts since they don't have the education to question them or so-called discoveries and related news reports. My caution is towards assertions of discovery in modern physics and cosmology in particular, since that is where I think many problems of theory exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is chemistry not an application of modern physics that aims to solve many problems, several of which are important to the well being of humanity? Again, I cannot see how your earlier claim that theories such as quantum mechanics will no longer apply when attempting to solve problems in the future. I do not see how your work invalidates both the probabilistic and quantised nature of contemporary quantum theory. This is why I keep asking you to show me how your ideas can invalidate these principles and how your ideas can help folks in the chemical and biological sciences build better models; models that do not require us to solve the Schrodinger equation and deal with the inherent difficulties in analytically solving many body problems (going beyond the Hydrogen atom or a one electron ion). If you can provide a compelling, non-quantum mechanical alternative that makes better predictions and is "vastly simpler" than contemporary techniques such as density functional theory and others, there are many people that would gladly look at said techniques and use them to solve complex chemical and biological problems.

 

 

I consider chemistry and physics as different fields of study, of course there is kinship. It seems that you have more insight and knowledge concerning existing computational difficulties and problems in chemically related fields than I do.

 

I look at QM similarly to Einstein and many others since then that have criticized it . According to these critics probability and statistics is unrelated to quantum operations, it is just the statistical system and observation-derived equations used to make predictions since accordingly there is no present knowledge of the real underlying causes, often called hidden variables -- which I believe is a background physical field that encompasses all of reality and is observed as the Zero Point Field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Blind acceptance is probably too strong of wording, but I think too many people believe modern physic's theories based upon the word of experts since they don't have the education to question them or so-called discoveries and related news reports. My caution is towards assertions of discovery in modern physics and cosmology in particular, since that is where I think many problems of theory exist.

 

 

 

You demonstrate a misunderstanding of the nature of science.  We cannot all have a PhD in cosmology.  Because if we tried that then there would be nobody left to do all the other work that needs to be done.  So a few people devote themselves to cosmology and using the principles of science they police themselves.  This is true with every specialty and field within science.  A few talented individuals can devote themselves to more than one field.  But we are still stuck with the fact that no one person can cover them all.  Your caution is misguided.  You treat science as if it were religion when in fact it is not like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Blind acceptance is probably too strong of wording, but I think too many people believe modern physic's theories based upon the word of experts since they don't have the education to question them or so-called discoveries and related news reports. My caution is towards assertions of discovery in modern physics and cosmology in particular, since that is where I think many problems of theory exist.

 

You earned your  doctorate in physics from where?  You presented papers at what scholarly conferences of phyicists?  You have published what papers in what international, refereed journals?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Blind acceptance is probably too strong of wording, but I think too many people believe modern physic's theories based upon the word of experts since they don't have the education to question them or so-called discoveries and related news reports. My caution is towards assertions of discovery in modern physics and cosmology in particular, since that is where I think many problems of theory exist.

 

 

 

You demonstrate a misunderstanding of the nature of science.  We cannot all have a PhD in cosmology.  Because if we tried that then there would be nobody left to do all the other work that needs to be done.  So a few people devote themselves to cosmology and using the principles of science they police themselves.  This is true with every specialty and field within science.  A few talented individuals can devote themselves to more than one field.  But we are still stuck with the fact that no one person can cover them all.  Your caution is misguided.  You treat science as if it were religion when in fact it is not like that.

 

 

I agree with most of your points but think some of the same people that once trusted in religion, come to trust in science in a similar way. Maybe the caution should be that the scientific method is worthy of trust, but not necessarily only the conclusions of its mainstream practitioners and theorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Blind acceptance is probably too strong of wording, but I think too many people believe modern physic's theories based upon the word of experts since they don't have the education to question them or so-called discoveries and related news reports. My caution is towards assertions of discovery in modern physics and cosmology in particular, since that is where I think many problems of theory exist.

 

You earned your  doctorate in physics from where?  You presented papers at what scholarly conferences of phyicists?  You have published what papers in what international, refereed journals?

 

 

Recent papers in refereed journals:

 

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/32603/19463

 

http://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

 

News reports:

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pseg-encourages-njs-working-families-to-apply-for-special-tax-credit-2013-03-07

 

http://revolution-green.com/new-research-study-concluded-dark-energy-probably-exist/

 

-- my related theories can be found on any search engine as the Pan Theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree with most of your points but think some of the same people that once trusted in religion, come to trust in science in a similar way. 

 

 

Science provides all the technology we enjoy, including the internet we are using to communicate around the globe.  Meanwhile in the last several centuries religion has provided no innovation of any kind.  Your comparison is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

-- my related theories can be found on any search engine as the Pan Theory.

 

 

 

Mostly Google spits out a long history of various internet chat rooms and forums, both scientific themed and otherwise, where one guy tries to peddle his Pan Theory book using the angle that science is misguided.

 

 

The other scientists patiently wait for their hypothesis to be verified by evidence.  Drumming up support on the internet won't make your idea true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I agree with most of your points but think some of the same people that once trusted in religion, come to trust in science in a similar way. 

 

 

Science provides all the technology we enjoy, including the internet we are using to communicate around the globe.  Meanwhile in the last several centuries religion has provided no innovation of any kind.  Your comparison is ridiculous.

 

 

OK, I give up. You win! The comparison is ridiculous. I finally see the light :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see the American International Journal of Contemporary Research in JSTOR, Project Muse, or in the holdings of two MAJOR research universities from whose libraries I check out items.  I see the Applied Physics Journal is an online journal out of Toronto.  It's not on JSTOR or Project Muse but is on ProQuest.

 

I'm glad that you're getting stuff published.  To my non-physicist's but academic's eye, it does not look as though your papers are appearing in venues at the center of professional research, but I could be wrong.  I have no expertise in this field.

 

If I were to come up with a new theory on, say, Greek particles, I would not push it on non-specialist forums like this.  I'd be trying to get it into the top journals in my field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see the American International Journal of Contemporary Research in JSTOR, Project Muse, or in the holdings of two MAJOR research universities from whose libraries I check out items.  I see the Applied Physics Journal is an online journal out of Toronto.  It's not on JSTOR or Project Muse but is on ProQuest.

 

I'm glad that you're getting stuff published.  To my non-physicist's but academic's eye, it does not look as though your papers are appearing in venues at the center of professional research, but I could be wrong.  I have no expertise in this field.

 

If I were to come up with a new theory on, say, Greek particles, I would not push it on non-specialist forums like this.  I'd be trying to get it into the top journals in my field.

 

You are correct. Mainstream journals, free publication, usually will not publish non-mainstream conclusions such as our findings of our last two papers.  In such cases we try to find new or lesser known journals for such publications.

 

If I were to come up with a new theory on, say, Greek particles, I would not push it on non-specialist forums like this.  I'd be trying to get it into the top journals in my field.

 

 

I totally agree. I came to this forum because I found that my theories were being discussed here at that time, before I joined.  I have stayed here because of the people in this forum and do not promote my theories here. Often my dissent and caution concerning mainstream theories in this sub-section have led to questions concerning my own perspectives, whereby I try to keep my answers short. I would never start a thread concerning my own theories here for the reasons you have explained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pantheory, I appreciate you presenting your work. Unfortunately, cosmology is outside of my field and I do not see robust parallels to what I am studying in your work. The metallicity problem does have some relevance to chemistry in general but I do not see the findings as being contradictory to contemporary quantum mechanical models as they apply to chemical problems.

 

I find the references that you source in your papers very interesting however. While I have no doubt that many of us may initially look to Wikipedia when we research, most folks will find official, peer reviewed sources that are referenced within said Wikipedia pages and then verify the validity of these sources and ultimately cite said sources when they are presenting a manuscript for publication. However, referencing Wikipedia pages as primary sources is a very interesting thing to do and I am curious if you were asked about this during the peer review process?

 

Please do not take this as a personal insult or adhominem, it was just a very interesting thing to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pantheory, I appreciate you presenting your work. Unfortunately, cosmology is outside of my field and I do not see robust parallels to what I am studying in your work. The metallicity problem does have some relevance to chemistry in general but I do not see the findings as being contradictory to contemporary quantum mechanical models as they apply to chemical problems.

 

I find the references that you source in your papers very interesting however. While I have no doubt that many of us may initially look to Wikipedia when we research, most folks will find official, peer reviewed sources that are referenced within said Wikipedia pages and then verify the validity of these sources and ultimately cite said sources when they are presenting a manuscript for publication. However, referencing Wikipedia pages as primary sources is a very interesting thing to do and I am curious if you were asked about this during the peer review process?

 

Please do not take this as a personal insult or ad hominem, it was just a very interesting thing to see.

 

I've seen it done for a while now concerning referencing Wiki. I know the possibility of error in that I have written Wiki articles myself which as you say, are also usually well referenced. In the case of my references to Wiki in my papers, I usually do so when such knowledge might be well known to specialist readers, but maybe not so well known to other readers. Other times I may do so because I believe the Wiki article is clearer, easier to read and understand, than the sources the Wiki article references; the language is often simplified and improved.  I have decided that it's easier and sometimes better to give a Wiki reference in some cases. I have only done this for my last 3 papers. As you suggested, before that I would instead provide a Wiki source reference or another source.entirely.

 

No referee has challenged my Wiki references since I have been giving them, but If they did so I would have to find another reference to satisfy them concerning readers, that the information was valid. I have sometimes provided other references with a Wiki reference.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...okay then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pantheory will know that I am both highly sceptical of his work and his claims and am unable to check them out or verify them for myself.  I lack the smarts to do so and I do not have access to any instruments that I could use to verify or falsify his work.

.

.

.
So, I would give his work more credence, but for two factors.
First, by his own admission, no mainstream publication will publish his work.  This causes me some concern.  If a scientist cannot meet the standards set by these journals, what am I to make of this situation?  Who (as a layman) should I place my trust in?  The 'establishment' or the 'maverick'...? 
 
If Pantheory can offer me a good reason why I should place my trust in him, then I'll gladly give him a fair hearing.
If he needs to invoke such things as establishment bias and vested interest to explain why he cannot get published in the mainstream of science, I will listen and take what he says into account.

.

.


Secondly, if I understand his work correctly, he has currently confined himself to post-dictions.
That is, he has made his own analysis of existing data sets and interpreted them in a way that disagrees with mainstream physics.  All well and good.  But where are his confirmed pre-dictions?  I ask because the acid test of science isn't in the interpretation of data - it's in the confirmation of predictions based on the data.
 
Could you please present you confirmed predictions for us, Pantheory?
That is, specific predicted values for specific observed phenomenon.  Where the error bars lie and how wide they are.  How well the observed data fall within your range of prediction.  The dates you made your predictions and the dates they were confirmed by observations.  The whole shebang please!

.

.

.

Pantheory, as far as I'm concerned your credibility rides on your satisfying the two above conditions.

It seems to me that these are not unreasonable conditions and that any scientist worth his/her salt would be happy to satisfy them.  If, however, you feel the need to argue against my setting these two conditions, against their wording or against anything else in this post, I will, of course, give you a fair hearing.

Thanks,

BAA.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

So, I would give his work more credence, but for two factors.

First, by his own admission, no mainstream publication will publish his work.  This causes me some concern.  If a scientist cannot meet the standards set by these journals, what am I to make of this situation?  Who (as a layman) should I place my trust in?  The 'establishment' or the 'maverick'...?

Pantheory, I think it's troubling, too, that your online journals accept Wikipedia entries as citations. I have never seen any journal in my own two fields, philosophy and classics, do that. Who is actually refereeing submissions?

 

Secondly, if I understand his work correctly, he has currently confined himself to post-dictions.

That is, he has made his own analysis of existing data sets and interpreted them in a way that disagrees with mainstream physics.  All well and good.  But where are his confirmed pre-dictions?  I ask because the acid test of science isn't in the interpretation of data - it's in the confirmation of predictions based on the data.

 

Could you please present you confirmed predictions for us, Pantheory?

That is, specific predicted values for specific observed phenomenon.  Where the error bars lie and how wide they are.  How well the observed data fall within your range of prediction.  The dates you made your predictions and the dates they were confirmed by observations.  The whole shebang please!

Excellent, BAA. I'm sure others join me in appreciating your ability to pinpoint essentials in a discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.