Nasa May Have Accidentally Figured Out How To Make A Warp Drive.

[Thurisaz]

How much faster than light? The nearest star is something like 26 light years away. We need very, very, very, very fast speeds to make space travel of any sort feasible.

 

Well I don't know about you but to me the FTL question very much feels like an either-or, all-or-nothing one. If we find a way to make anything move faster than this supposedly impenetrable speed called c, even a little bit, that already means that c is not really impenetrable.

 

Imagine we found a proven way to, say, make electrons whizz around at 1.2 c. Doesn't help you much for everyday life, or space travel for that matter... but if the scientists of the world suddenly knew for sure that this FTL thing is possible after all... can you imagine how they'd go wild about finding out more? Like, how much mass can we kick beyond c, and how far beyond c?

 

It's all theoretical at this time of course. But just imagine this "what if"...

[bornagainathiest]

I believe the solar system orbits at around 800,000 km/hr. This is pretty slow when compared to C.

 

 

Regarding this physics issue:

Chemistry is a direct extension of "modern" physics and as such, I would expect any latest and greatest model to explain concepts such as chemical bonding. We've already discussed this and I have not seen anything that explains contemporary chemical problems better than what we already have in our tool box. Hartree-Fock, Density Functional and others are examples I've discussed a couple times already. Please feel free to enlighten the field of chemistry with this spinning vortex theory. Be sure to predict the effects that happen at relativistic velocities, or sub-relativistic velocities as you claim. You could rewrite your own inorganic chemistry textbook.

 

You were saying about chemistry being unaffected by your theory, Pantheory?

[bornagainathiest]

Pantheory wrote about his..."Proposed explanations for nearly all quandaries in physics."

 

He can solve almost every problem in physics, with "far simpler explanations" and "proper definitions"...?

 

So he knows how to explain reality properly and he properly understands how reality works...?

.

.

.

I'm sure the RogueScholar would be fascinated to read this far simpler explanation of reality.

 

After Pantheory's explained why Chemistry isn't affected by Physics.

.

.

.

(Resumes crunching on popcorn.)

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

How much faster than light? The nearest star is something like 26 light years away. We need very, very, very, very fast speeds to make space travel of any sort feasible.

 

A list of the nearest stars.

 

Fyi, Scottsman.

 

http://www.space.com/18964-the-nearest-stars-to-earth-infographic.html

 

[pantheory]

 

It could be called conjecture, speculation, or It might be called an independent hypothesis based upon theory and fact.The hypothesis is my own.   It is not required to support a theory, but it would lend support to aether type theories in general. What the hypothesis points out  is that there is a omni-present background field, like an aether, called the Zero Point Field. This field's existence is well known for many decades now and is a proven energy field, with known particles called virtual particles which go in and out of existence.

 

According to the hypothesis at very high speeds, maybe .05 times the speed of light, matter would begin to be ionized by contact with virtual particles (or their energy equivalence) in this background field. At a speed of maybe .1C relative to this field this ionization would accordingly begin the process of molecular disassociation, and to continue at this speed or greater would result in molecular disintegration. The calculated estimate of the required speed and time required for this to happen is based upon scientific evidence concerning how long virtual particles (or their energy equivalence) have been calculated to stay in existence, and an estimate of how many such virtual particles (or their energy equivalences) would contact matter traveling at these speeds, for minutes, for hours, for days, for years, for decades, et

 

The Sun orbits the galactic center at approximately 6.67% C. By extension, the Earth and all other bodies orbiting the Sun are doing the same dance. This is greater than the 5% C you hypothesize would cause ionization. Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

The Solar System is traveling at an average speed of 828,000 km/h (230 km/s) or 514,000 mph (143 mi/s) within its trajectory around the galactic center, which is about one 1300th of the speed of light......

(.000769 C)

 

The link for quote above:

https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=speed+of+the+sun+around+the+milky+way&oq=speed+of+the+sun+around+the+milky+way&gs_l=hp.12..0j0i22i30l3.6888.16967.0.21699.38.38.0.0.0.0.564.5275.0j29j2j1j0j1.33.0.msedr...0...1c.1.64.hp..6.32.4997.0.MSYgDXt6mE0

 

My model is a different theory of gravity. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is a large spiral galaxy. According to my model spiral galaxies are the result of a vortex that formed the galaxy, which can be observed by the form of the spiral disc of the galaxy. According to this model, relative to the surrounding background field vortex, the sun and Earth and its surroundings would accordingly be moving only about 1/2 the velocity that it appears to be moving relative to the background field of galaxies based upon the standard model of gravity.

 

The calculated standard model calculation for this would be .000769 the speed of light. My model would calculate this speed to be about half this speed, roughly .00038 the speed of light relative to the vortex that it is traveling within. As to the possibilities of ionization, the reference frame would be the galactic gas, primarily hydrogen and dust that accompanies our solar system (our part of the galactic disk) orbiting the center of the galaxy. Concerning this reference frame we would be standing still. There would be no relative motion or ionization of our solar system beyond the effects of a stationary ZPF.

[pantheory]

 

I believe the solar system orbits at around 800,000 km/hr. This is pretty slow when compared to C.

 

 

Regarding this physics issue:

Chemistry is a direct extension of "modern" physics and as such, I would expect any latest and greatest model to explain concepts such as chemical bonding. We've already discussed this and I have not seen anything that explains contemporary chemical problems better than what we already have in our tool box. Hartree-Fock, Density Functional and others are examples I've discussed a couple times already. Please feel free to enlighten the field of chemistry with this spinning vortex theory. Be sure to predict the effects that happen at relativistic velocities, or sub-relativistic velocities as you claim. You could rewrite your own inorganic chemistry textbook.

 

You were saying about chemistry being unaffected by your theory, Pantheory?

 

 

Chemistry would be effected by my theory.  It's just that I have not worked out any application of my theory to chemistry beyond rudimentary molecular bonding. The theory at present is 380 pages long. The total application of the theory might instead require a book thousands of pages long. 

 

The first vortex models of atoms, and in my theory also fermions, was proposed long ago by Herman Helmholtz, Lord Kelvin, J.J. Thompson, and continues today by a few active theorists including myself.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2011/12/beautiful-losers-kelvins-vortex-atoms/Hermann Helmholtz

http://www.academia.edu/3357272/A_point_in_common_the_electron_in_chemistry_and_physics

http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/On+Vortex+Atoms

[Thurisaz]

Okay now it's popcorn time for me too

[pantheory]

Thurisaz,

 

Yes, sometimes the "what if's" and imagined possibilities are the funnest parts of all

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I believe the solar system orbits at around 800,000 km/hr. This is pretty slow when compared to C.

 

 

Regarding this physics issue:

Chemistry is a direct extension of "modern" physics and as such, I would expect any latest and greatest model to explain concepts such as chemical bonding. We've already discussed this and I have not seen anything that explains contemporary chemical problems better than what we already have in our tool box. Hartree-Fock, Density Functional and others are examples I've discussed a couple times already. Please feel free to enlighten the field of chemistry with this spinning vortex theory. Be sure to predict the effects that happen at relativistic velocities, or sub-relativistic velocities as you claim. You could rewrite your own inorganic chemistry textbook.

 

You were saying about chemistry being unaffected by your theory, Pantheory?

 

 

Chemistry would be effected by my theory.  It's just that I have not worked out any application of my theory to chemistry beyond rudimentary molecular bonding. The theory at present is 380 pages long. The total application of the theory might instead require a book thousands of pages long. 

 

The first vortex models of atoms, and in my theory also fermions, was proposed long ago by Herman Helmholtz, Lord Kelvin, J.J. Thompson, and continues today by a few active theorists including myself.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2011/12/beautiful-losers-kelvins-vortex-atoms/Hermann Helmholtz

http://www.academia.edu/3357272/A_point_in_common_the_electron_in_chemistry_and_physics

http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/On+Vortex+Atoms

 

 

These links detail the historical failure of vortex atomic theory in physics.

 

So why do a few active theorists persist with a failed theory?

 

Why not pin your hopes on Phlogiston theory or some other failed paradigm?

[pantheory]

 

These links detail the historical failure of vortex atomic theory in physics.

 

So why do a few active theorists persist with a failed theory?

Why not pin your hopes on Phlogiston theory or some other failed paradigm?

 

 

Most theorists that pursue alternative theory probably do so because they believe they see too many seemingly unsatisfactory answers and lack of successful predictions resulting from present-day theory and hypothesis and want to know the "real answers" to their questions concerning reality.  I expect they are usually looking for a simpler, more understandable theory based upon a better understanding of reality, that can be used to develop more accurate equations that can be used to explain anomalous observations.  I expect these are some of the usual goals.

 

It is rare that a new and better idea has never been thought of before. Often new theory is developed from prior ideas proposed by others but bypassed because all related questions could not be answered by the prior theory or its supporting theorists at that time.

[Thurisaz]

To be fair, having creative ideas can indeed kick off an eventually successful round of theorizing and research.

 

Of course, just because an idea sounds cool doesn't mean it's true. (Sadly, in some cases )

[pantheory]

To be fair, having creative ideas can indeed kick off an eventually successful round of theorizing and research.

 

Of course, just because an idea sounds cool doesn't mean it's true. (Sadly, in some cases )

 

But in this case I hope EmDrive turns our to be a  concept that is developed into an operating space-drive And a heavy lift version will eventually be developed for easy and safe lift-offs from Earth, landing men on Mars and easily taking off again at will,  exploring the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, asteroids, etc. -- with a spaceship no larger than a 747 which requires little or no ground support for its flights. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

These links detail the historical failure of vortex atomic theory in physics.

 

So why do a few active theorists persist with a failed theory?

Why not pin your hopes on Phlogiston theory or some other failed paradigm?

 

 

Most theorists that pursue alternative theory probably do so because they believe they see too many seemingly unsatisfactory answers and lack of successful predictions resulting from present-day theory and hypothesis and want to know the "real answers" to their questions concerning reality.  I expect they are usually looking for a simpler, more understandable theory based upon a better understanding of reality, that can be used to develop more accurate equations that can be used to explain anomalous observations.  I expect these are some of the usual goals.

 

Then alternative theorists like yourself seem to be working on the presupposition that nature can be explained more simply than in mainstream science.

Aside from referring back to your alternative theories, what evidence can you present that nature can be more simply explained, Pantheory?

Or is this just a matter of 'faith' on your part?

 

It is rare that a new and better idea has never been thought of before. Often new theory is developed from prior ideas proposed by others but bypassed because all related questions could not be answered by the prior theory or its supporting theorists at that time.

 

I don't dispute that.

But this belief that nature can be simply explained seems to be article of 'faith' on your part.  I'd like to see you present some non-Pantheory evidence for your belief, please.  Otherwise I'll be forced to conclude that your Pantheory, while appearing to be scientific, is actually based upon some kind of unscientific belief of yours about the 'simplicity' of nature.

 

Please oblige me.

 

[TheOutsider]

 

To be fair, having creative ideas can indeed kick off an eventually successful round of theorizing and research.

 

Of course, just because an idea sounds cool doesn't mean it's true. (Sadly, in some cases )

 

But in this case I hope EmDrive turns our to be a  concept that is developed into an operating space-drive And a heavy lift version will eventually be developed for easy and safe lift-offs from Earth, landing men on Mars and easily taking off again at will,  exploring the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, asteroids, etc. -- with a spaceship no larger than a 747 which requires little or no ground support for its flights. 

 

I'm no physicist or engineer, but I have to imagine up scaling this tech would be too cost prohibitive to allow that. You need a lot of thrust to be able to leave the atmosphere, which means in lieu of a violent chemical reaction you would need a metric shit ton of energy production to make that viable. And I'd imagine chemical rockets will always be considerably cheaper and more effective for getting things to orbit, thrust to weight ratio is absolutely important from what I understand.

 

Seems like technology better suited for unmanned probes and spacecraft already in orbit, but what do I know? The answer is not quite, but pretty much nothing, by the way...

[FarflungWanderer]

Where's Zefram Cochrane when you need him?

[pantheory]

 

 

 

These links detail the historical failure of vortex atomic theory in physics.

 

So why do a few active theorists persist with a failed theory?

Why not pin your hopes on Phlogiston theory or some other failed paradigm?

 

 

Most theorists that pursue alternative theory probably do so because they believe they see too many seemingly unsatisfactory answers and lack of successful predictions resulting from present-day theory and hypothesis and want to know the "real answers" to their questions concerning reality.  I expect they are usually looking for a simpler, more understandable theory based upon a better understanding of reality, that can be used to develop more accurate equations that can be used to explain anomalous observations.  I expect these are some of the usual goals.

 

Then alternative theorists like yourself seem to be working on the presupposition that nature can be explained more simply than in mainstream science.

Aside from referring back to your alternative theories, what evidence can you present that nature can be more simply explained, Pantheory?

Or is this just a matter of 'faith' on your part?

 

It is rare that a new and better idea has never been thought of before. Often new theory is developed from prior ideas proposed by others but bypassed because all related questions could not be answered by the prior theory or its supporting theorists at that time.

 

I don't dispute that.

But this belief that nature can be simply explained seems to be article of 'faith' on your part.  I'd like to see you present some non-Pantheory evidence for your belief, please.  Otherwise I'll be forced to conclude that your Pantheory, while appearing to be scientific, is actually based upon some kind of unscientific belief of yours about the 'simplicity' of nature.

 

Please oblige me.

 

 

 

Good points!

 

As to faith, belief in alternative possibilities has kinship to faith, I suppose.

 

Non-Pan Theory evidence is the same as everybody's evidence. It is the same observations interpreted differently. There are dozens or hundreds of observations that I could point out that I believe point in a different direction then does the standard interpretations of them. In this thread I think my views should be generally restricted to EmDrive.

 

The general scientific consensus is that EmDrive cannot work. Supposedly it violates the conservation of momentum. However there are more than one operating prototype mechanisms based upon EmDrive that test positive thrust.

 

Harold G. "Sonny" White, who investigates field propulsion at Eagleworks, NASA's Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory, speculated that such resonant cavities may operate by creating a virtual plasma toroid that could realize net thrust using magnetohydrodynamic forces acting upon quantum vacuum fluctuations. Likewise, the paper describing the Eagleworks test of the Cannae drive referred to a possible interaction with a so-called "quantum vacuum virtual plasma". This reference has been criticized by mathematical physicists John Baez and Sean M. Carroll because in the standard description of vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles do not behave as a plasma

 

 

Link for above:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive

 

This interpretation by Sonny White of NASA above is the closest interpretation to my own interpretation of it. You can see the standard criticisms by mainstream theorists that believe the device cannot work, by this or any other means because it is a reaction-less device (has no exhaust to it). Yet there are a number of operating prototypes that indicate a positive thrust.

 

My interpretation is that the internal microwaves within the device circulate in a vortex manner within the device when powered up. The higher the power the greater the internal vortex created. The 3D vortex created by the tapered cavity within the device accordingly would create a higher pressure of the rotating ZPF near the inside walls of the chamber and a lower pressure in the middle of the chamber. This vortex causes a flow of the ZPF (an aether material) through the device entering from the top of the device (in the direction of acceleration) and flowing out the bottom. So far there is no knowledge or indications of this flow since all cavities are enclosed and none are aware of the existence of such a flow. But I think with a properly designed test device this ZPF flow could be shown to exist.

 

Although this explanation is based upon the Pan Theory, the explanation itself is hypothetical since other explanations consistent with the Pan Theory could probably be conceived. 

 

The mechanics hypothetically involved would be that the functioning mechanism would create a low-pressure area in the ZPF in front of the forward motion of the craft, a ZPF flow through the craft, and a higher pressure area behind its forward motion.

 

Evidence in favor of any theory in general and contrary to standard interpretations of physics is usually a matter of the same evidence being interpreted differently by each model.. If one were interested in a different discussion concerning the merits of a particular theory, or the lack of merits concerning standard models, such a discussion should be in a thread devoted to a subject like "what may be right or wrong with today's standard models of modern physics?"

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

These links detail the historical failure of vortex atomic theory in physics.

 

So why do a few active theorists persist with a failed theory?

Why not pin your hopes on Phlogiston theory or some other failed paradigm?

 

 

Most theorists that pursue alternative theory probably do so because they believe they see too many seemingly unsatisfactory answers and lack of successful predictions resulting from present-day theory and hypothesis and want to know the "real answers" to their questions concerning reality.  I expect they are usually looking for a simpler, more understandable theory based upon a better understanding of reality, that can be used to develop more accurate equations that can be used to explain anomalous observations.  I expect these are some of the usual goals.

 

Then alternative theorists like yourself seem to be working on the presupposition that nature can be explained more simply than in mainstream science.

Aside from referring back to your alternative theories, what evidence can you present that nature can be more simply explained, Pantheory?

Or is this just a matter of 'faith' on your part?

 

It is rare that a new and better idea has never been thought of before. Often new theory is developed from prior ideas proposed by others but bypassed because all related questions could not be answered by the prior theory or its supporting theorists at that time.

 

I don't dispute that.

But this belief that nature can be simply explained seems to be article of 'faith' on your part.  I'd like to see you present some non-Pantheory evidence for your belief, please.  Otherwise I'll be forced to conclude that your Pantheory, while appearing to be scientific, is actually based upon some kind of unscientific belief of yours about the 'simplicity' of nature.

 

Please oblige me.

 

 

 

Good points!

 

As to faith, belief in alternative possibilities has kinship to faith, I suppose.

 

Non-Pan Theory evidence is the same as everybody's evidence. It is the same observations interpreted differently. There are dozens or hundreds of observations that I could point out that I believe point in a different direction then does the standard interpretations of them.

 

(Snip)

 

Evidence in favor of any theory in general and contrary to standard interpretations of physics is usually a matter of the same evidence being interpreted differently by each model.. If one were interested in a different discussion concerning the merits of a particular theory, or the lack of merits concerning standard models, such a discussion should be in a thread devoted to a subject like "what may be right or wrong with today's standard models of modern physics?"

 

 

So on what basis should we choose between your interpretations and the interpretations of mainstream science?

 

Unless you can come up with a better reason, I'd say...a convincing body evidence.

 

But if you can cite a better reason, please tell us.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

These links detail the historical failure of vortex atomic theory in physics.

 

So why do a few active theorists persist with a failed theory?

Why not pin your hopes on Phlogiston theory or some other failed paradigm?

 

 

Most theorists that pursue alternative theory probably do so because they believe they see too many seemingly unsatisfactory answers and lack of successful predictions resulting from present-day theory and hypothesis and want to know the "real answers" to their questions concerning reality.  I expect they are usually looking for a simpler, more understandable theory based upon a better understanding of reality, that can be used to develop more accurate equations that can be used to explain anomalous observations.  I expect these are some of the usual goals.

 

Then alternative theorists like yourself seem to be working on the presupposition that nature can be explained more simply than in mainstream science.

Aside from referring back to your alternative theories, what evidence can you present that nature can be more simply explained, Pantheory?

Or is this just a matter of 'faith' on your part?

 

It is rare that a new and better idea has never been thought of before. Often new theory is developed from prior ideas proposed by others but bypassed because all related questions could not be answered by the prior theory or its supporting theorists at that time.

 

I don't dispute that.

But this belief that nature can be simply explained seems to be article of 'faith' on your part.  I'd like to see you present some non-Pantheory evidence for your belief, please.  Otherwise I'll be forced to conclude that your Pantheory, while appearing to be scientific, is actually based upon some kind of unscientific belief of yours about the 'simplicity' of nature.

 

Please oblige me.

 

 

 

Good points!

 

As to faith, belief in alternative possibilities has kinship to faith, I suppose.

 

Non-Pan Theory evidence is the same as everybody's evidence. It is the same observations interpreted differently. There are dozens or hundreds of observations that I could point out that I believe point in a different direction then does the standard interpretations of them.

 

(Snip)

 

Evidence in favor of any theory in general and contrary to standard interpretations of physics is usually a matter of the same evidence being interpreted differently by each model.. If one were interested in a different discussion concerning the merits of a particular theory, or the lack of merits concerning standard models, such a discussion should be in a thread devoted to a subject like "what may be right or wrong with today's standard models of modern physics?"

 

 

Hmmm....

 

On a second reading of your reply Pantheory, I noticed this.

 

Aside from referring back to your alternative theories, what evidence can you present that nature can be more simply explained, Pantheory?

 

That was a request for evidence aside from your alternative theories.

 

So your response...  "As to faith, belief in alternative possibilities has kinship to faith, I suppose."  ...didn't actually address my question.

 

You referred back to your alternative theories again.

 

But I'm not asking about them.  

 

I'm asking about something different.

 

I'm asking you what evidence you can present outside of your alternative theories for the simplicity of nature. 

 

I'm doing this to try and find out if this belief of yours (in nature's simplicity) is based on evidence or faith.

 

Please oblige me.

[pantheory]

I'm asking you what evidence you can present outside of your alternative theories for the simplicity of nature. 

 

I'm doing this to try and find out if this belief of yours (in nature's simplicity) is based on evidence or faith.

 

 

 

Whether a facet of nature, evidence, observations, are simple or not is dependent upon perspectives and explanations of it called theories (or hypothesis) needed to interpret the data or observation. A different perspective means another way of looking at it based upon a different theory or hypothesis to interpret the observations differently. Information or evidence by itself is neither simple nor complex . Theory is needed to organize it to make a value judgement concerning what is being observed, as far as its simplicity. This organization of nature is the task of theory. You are asking for simplicity that would contradict the tenets of the standard model. For this organization process anyone would need an alternative method and theory that they are familiar with. The objective would be to show why this new interpretation of an observation should be preferable to the standard model interpretation,organization, method, and conclusions.

 

If you accept this I could give you many examples of nature that are presently thought to be very complicated, but in light of alternative theory/ hypothesis and related explanations these aspects of nature may seem to be far simpler from the alternative model and perspective. It would be a way of explaining why it is believed that an alternative model may be better than the prevailing model.

[mymistake]

Does it bother anybody else that the word "theory" is being used the way conspiracy theorists use it rather than the way scientists use it?
 

In science a theory is a robust and well tested unification of several facts and observations.  A brand new, poorly tested or "alternative" idea would never be called a theory.  Instead it is only a hypothesis.

[ContraBardus]

 

I'm asking you what evidence you can present outside of your alternative theories for the simplicity of nature. 

 

I'm doing this to try and find out if this belief of yours (in nature's simplicity) is based on evidence or faith.

 

 

Whether a facet of nature, evidence, observations, are simple or not is dependent upon perspectives and explanations of it called theories (or hypothesis) needed to interpret the data or observation. A different perspective means another way of looking at it based upon a different theory or hypothesis to interpret the observations. Information and evidence is neither simple nor complex by itself. Theory is needed to organize it to make a value judgement concerning what is being observed, as far as its simplicity. This organization of nature is the task of theory. You are asking for simplicity that would contradict the tenets of the standard model. For this organization process anyone would need an alternative method and theory that they are familiar with. The objective would be to show why this new interpretation of an observation should be preferable to the standard model interpretation,organization, method, and conclusions.

 

If you accept this I could give you many examples of nature that are presently thought to be complicated, but in light of alternative theory and explanations, can be shown to be simple or simpler. It would be a way of explaining why one theory may be better than another.

 

So on what basis should we choose between your interpretations and the interpretations of mainstream science?

 

Unless you can come up with a better reason, I'd say...a convincing body evidence.

 

But if you can cite a better reason, please tell us.

 

 

 

Every theory is a collection of assertions and interpretations. If the results make sense to an individual, is not too complicated with no major unanswered questions, then the individual need not look elsewhere. But if aspects of the theory seem to be contradicted by observations or do not make sense, then I think the person should consider other answers based upon alternative theory that makes more sense.

 

 

Got to agree with mymistake here, this is a blatantly incorrect use of the word theory.

 

The word does not mean guess or assertion. The best definition is explanation. A theory is the conclusion reached by repeated testing that produces consistent results by various independent entities.

 

It is extremely rare for a theory to be overturned. They are often modified by new evidence, but are pretty much never reversed or proven to be wholly incorrect. There are a few isolated cases of that happening, but it's rare to the point it's not worth considering as an option without very strong evidence that suggests a particular theory is false.

 

A theory is not a collection of interpretations and assertions. It's a conclusion that fits the current evidence based on consistent results.

 

This 'alternate theory' talk is sounding more and more like belief, faith, and bias, and not science.

[bornagainathiest]

 

I'm asking you what evidence you can present outside of your alternative theories for the simplicity of nature. 

 

I'm doing this to try and find out if this belief of yours (in nature's simplicity) is based on evidence or faith.

 

 

 

Whether a facet of nature, evidence, observations, are simple or not is dependent upon perspectives and explanations of it called theories (or hypothesis) needed to interpret the data or observation. A different perspective means another way of looking at it based upon a different theory or hypothesis to interpret the observations differently. Information or evidence by itself is neither simple nor complex . Theory is needed to organize it to make a value judgement concerning what is being observed, as far as its simplicity. This organization of nature is the task of theory. You are asking for simplicity that would contradict the tenets of the standard model. For this organization process anyone would need an alternative method and theory that they are familiar with. The objective would be to show why this new interpretation of an observation should be preferable to the standard model interpretation,organization, method, and conclusions.

 

If you accept this I could give you many examples of nature that are presently thought to be complicated, but in light of alternative theory and explanations, can be shown to be simple or simpler. It would be a way of explaining why one theory may be better than another.

 

 

Before I commit myself to responding to the above message Pantheory, please be so good as to reply to my prior post, # 67.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So on what basis should we choose between your interpretations and the interpretations of mainstream science?

 

Unless you can come up with a better reason, I'd say...a convincing body evidence.

 

But if you can cite a better reason, please tell us.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since you appear to value simplicity, this should be no problem at all for you.

 

All you have to do is describe something better than the candidate I've put forward as the best criterion for us to decide between your interpretations and the interpretations of mainstream science.

 

That should be simple enough. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I'm asking you what evidence you can present outside of your alternative theories for the simplicity of nature. 

 

I'm doing this to try and find out if this belief of yours (in nature's simplicity) is based on evidence or faith.

 

 

Whether a facet of nature, evidence, observations, are simple or not is dependent upon perspectives and explanations of it called theories (or hypothesis) needed to interpret the data or observation. A different perspective means another way of looking at it based upon a different theory or hypothesis to interpret the observations. Information and evidence is neither simple nor complex by itself. Theory is needed to organize it to make a value judgement concerning what is being observed, as far as its simplicity. This organization of nature is the task of theory. You are asking for simplicity that would contradict the tenets of the standard model. For this organization process anyone would need an alternative method and theory that they are familiar with. The objective would be to show why this new interpretation of an observation should be preferable to the standard model interpretation,organization, method, and conclusions.

 

If you accept this I could give you many examples of nature that are presently thought to be complicated, but in light of alternative theory and explanations, can be shown to be simple or simpler. It would be a way of explaining why one theory may be better than another.

 

So on what basis should we choose between your interpretations and the interpretations of mainstream science?

 

Unless you can come up with a better reason, I'd say...a convincing body evidence.

 

But if you can cite a better reason, please tell us.

 

 

 

Every theory is a collection of assertions and interpretations. If the results make sense to an individual, is not too complicated with no major unanswered questions, then the individual need not look elsewhere. But if aspects of the theory seem to be contradicted by observations or do not make sense, then I think the person should consider other answers based upon alternative theory that makes more sense.

 

 

Got to agree with mymistake here, this is a blatantly incorrect use of the word theory.

 

The word does not mean guess or assertion. The best definition is explanation. A theory is the conclusion reached by repeated testing that produces consistent results by various independent entities.

 

It is extremely rare for a theory to be overturned. They are often modified by new evidence, but are pretty much never reversed or proven to be wholly incorrect. There are a few isolated cases of that happening, but it's rare to the point it's not worth considering as an option without very strong evidence that suggests a particular theory is false.

 

A theory is not a collection of interpretations and assertions. It's a conclusion that fits the current evidence based on consistent results.

 

This 'alternate theory' talk is sounding more and more like belief, faith, and bias, and not science.

 

 

Yes CB.

 

We definitely need to find out why Pantheory believes that nature can be described simply.

Is this an act of faith on his part or it the result of scientific investigation?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[pantheory]

I think religion should be questioned when it no longer makes sense to the individual. An individual then might look to other religions or consider science explanations. For these same reasons I believe an individual should question anything that seems questionable to that individual. Science also should not be immune to questioning. To question any particular theory does not mean that that person is questioning science in general. I think it's a matter of personal choice and maybe one's personality whether a person questions prevailing beliefs, explanations, government, authority, scientific assertions, theory, etc.. Everybody, I think, has the right to question whatever does not make sense to them or that they think may not be wholly correct for one reason or another.

 

We definitely need to find out why Pantheory believes that nature can be described simply. Is this an act of faith on his part or it the result of scientific investigation?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

As you know I started out theorizing more than 55 years ago when I was still in high school, a year or so after studying religions for a few years. I then decided that all the worlds religions were probably all wrong. Well, I decided, if religion was wrong then science was probably right, I concluded, but I must also study it to see if I can find fault.  I first started studying Darwin's evolution and after some time decided it was on very solid grounds, maybe some errors and oversimplifications, but still totally logical and backed up by mountains of evidence, even at that time. I next turned to science theory when I entered college. I developed my own hypothesis of pushing gravity at that time not liking Newton's force at a distance, or Einstein's proposal of the bending or warping of space. I was not aware that anyone ever proposed such a theory before. I wrote a paper on it in 1960 but it was absent any math because at that time no one was aware that galaxies did not follow Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity unless dark matter was added, which was a concept not proposed until decades later. My major was math but still saw no reason then to question the equations of General Relativity.

 

In cosmology at that time there were two equally competing theories: The Big Bang model and the Steady State model. So cosmology as a theory was up for grabs at that time. A great number or theorists supported both theories. When asked which theory I preferred at that time, I answered the Steady State model, but in fact I really didn't like either model because both proposed an expanding universe based upon galactic redshifts which did not seem like the best answer to me, Instead I developed what I believed to be a simpler explanation for redshifts which became the basis for my future model of cosmology.

 

So why do I believe that nature can be simply described? Because I believe simpler answers are more likely to be true, all else being equal. So I always look for what I consider to be the simplest answers/ explanations that I believe are consistent with all related known observations. This has been the basis for my theories and hypothesis, a foundation Pillar for all being Occam's Razor.

[ContraBardus]

I think religion should be questioned when it no longer makes sense to the individual. An individual then might look to other religions or consider science explanations. For these same reasons I believe an individual should question anything that seems questionable to that individual. Science also should not be immune to questioning. To question any particular theory does not mean that that person is questioning science in general. I think it's a matter of personal choice and maybe one's personality whether a person questions prevailing beliefs, explanations, government, authority, scientific assertions, theory, etc.. Everybody, I think, has the right to question whatever does not make sense to them or that they think may not be wholly correct for one reason or another.

 

We definitely need to find out why Pantheory believes that nature can be described simply. Is this an act of faith on his part or it the result of scientific investigation?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

As you know I started out theorizing more than 55 years ago when I was still in high school, a year or so after studying religions for a few years. I then decided that all the worlds religions were probably all wrong. Well, I decided, if religion was wrong then science was probably right, I concluded, but I must also study it to see if I can find fault.  I first started studying Darwin's evolution and after some time decided it was on very solid grounds, maybe some errors and oversimplifications, but still totally logical and backed up by mountains of evidence, even at that time. I next turned to science theory when I entered college. I developed my own hypothesis of pushing gravity at that time not liking Newton's force at a distance, or Einstein's proposal of the bending or warping of space. I was not aware that anyone ever proposed such a theory before. I wrote a paper on it in 1960 but it was absent any math because at that time no one was aware that galaxies did not follow Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity unless dark matter was added, which was a concept not proposed until decades later. My major was math but still saw no reason then to question the equations of General Relativity.

 

In cosmology at that time there were two equally competing theories: The Big Bang model and the Steady State model. So cosmology as a theory was up for grabs at that time. A great number or theorists supported both theories. When asked which theory I preferred at that time, I answered the Steady State model, but in fact I really didn't like either model because both proposed an expanding universe based upon galactic redshifts which did not seem like the best answer to me, Instead I developed what I believed to be a simpler explanation for redshifts which became the basis for my future model of cosmology.

 

So why do I believe that nature can be simply described? Because I believe simpler answers are more likely to be true, all else being equal. So I always look for what I consider to be the simplest answers/ explanations that I believe are consistent with all related known observations. This has been the basis for my theories and hypothesis, a foundation Pillar of them all being Occam's Razor.

 

Even I know over-application of "Occam's Razor" is a fallacy. The Law of Parsimony is what you really mean judging from the context of how you use it in your posts.

 

For example, life itself is a great example of complexity in nature. Evolution is not design, it doesn't build as an engineer would, it's iteration after iteration of change over time and development is exceedingly complex.

 

Here's a quote from Phil Gibbs PHD from Glasgow University in Physics. He has published papers in Physics and Number Theory.

 

 

“To begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would

predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose

between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended…

 

The principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule-of-thumb but some

people quote it as if it is an axiom of physics. It is not. It can work

well in philosophy or particle physics, but less often so in cosmology

or psychology, where things usually turn out to be more complicated than

you ever expected. Perhaps a quote from Shakespeare would be more

appropriate than Occam's razor: "There are more things in heaven and

earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the

scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion.

As arbiters of correctness only logical consistency and  empirical evidence are absolute.”

 

Put simply, you are trying to apply the Law of Parsimony into what is one of the worst places to try and apply it. The Science of explanation in nature, physics, and the cosmos at large favors complexity over simplicity. Things that seem simple usually turn out to be exceedingly complex, often far more than we imagine them to be.

 

Here's another quote this time from Brian Zeiler when speaking about UFOlogy and how they abuse "Occam's Razor" to support their claims.

 

 

"UFO debunkers do not understand Occam's Razor, and they abuse it regularly. They think they understand it, but they don't.

What it means is that when several hypotheses of varying complexity can explain a set of observations with equal ability, the first one to be tested should be the one that invokes the fewest number of uncorroborated assumptions. If this simplest hypothesis is proven incorrect, the next simplest is chosen, and so forth.

But the skeptics forget two parts: the part regarding the test of the simpler hypotheses, and the part regarding explaining all of the observations.

What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse

of the proper approach.

So where do the debunkers violate Occam's Razor? What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, when the proper approach is to alter the hypothesis to accommodate the observations. One should never alter the observations to conform with a hypothesis by saying "the analysis must have been flawed". But that's okay for debunkers to do because it's an "extraordinary claim" being made. Now, to alter observations to force conformance with the preferred hypothesis -- is that science? Or is that dogma? Interestingly, no scientist has EVER refuted McDonald with concrete scientific objections. They only use the Three Rules of Logical Trickery that I've explained here. Menzel and Klass were regularly demolished by McDonald, but they never had any counterarguments. To me, a nonscientist, the lack of rebuttal tells me that his explanation is the best one available, and the debunkers simply don't like his explanation.

 

You are using "Occam's Razor" as you put it in the same manner as what is described above. You're misusing it and trying to apply it where it should not be applied. The Law of Parcimony can be a valuable tool, but in science it's mostly useless. It's a daily life tool that can tell you what happened to missing cookies, why your car keys aren't quite where you remembered putting them, or how you ended up waking up at home after passing out drunk with friends while you were out. It does not work very well with physics, biology, or cosmology. Those disciplines in particular are often deep wells of complexity hidden beneath what seems at first glance to be a simple phenomenon. You seem to be trying to use it in place of empirical evidence to counter theories that you simply dislike the conclusions of, and are using it as an assertion of logic, which it is not.

 

The Law of Parsimony should never be a foundational pillar of any Scientific theory. It isn't strong enough to support any scientific claims and is evidence of nothing. It's a poor tool for science and is really only useful for philosophy and simple daily life logic problems such as in the examples I gave earlier. It might help you find a set of lost keys or figure out why there are pancakes stuck to the ceiling after a ten year old tried to make breakfast, but for discovering and unlocking the secrets of the universe it's pretty much near to useless.

 

You should question everything, but that doesn't mean rejecting ideas you simply don't like in favor of ideas that are easier for you to understand because they are simpler and "sound better" to you. If the evidence supports a more complex explanation, then a simpler and easier to digest explanation is not likely to be a better one.

 

Not making things more complex than they need to be is a good thing, but oversimplifying things is even worse.

 

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -unknown