pantheory

"A lot of academic scientists are treating science more like religion and less like science, for one thing." Yeah, I agree. Unfortunately, like religion, if you are a scientist that disagrees with present beliefs in your science field, many will consider you an outsider. If employed they might tell you to work on another facet of that science. If self employed, it would be much more difficult for you to find grants and funding for your work. All relates to Groupthink theory. Even the opinions expressed in your opening post would be considered wrong by many because it does not admonish humanity for pollution and global warming. RE: Groupthink link: "It's just an FYI type of link that I added to my signature for people to looking into if they choose." Great FYI link

If you are referring to postings and comments referring to "Searching for truth on the Coral Sea," the posting is simply a science posting, somewhat related to global warming. To listen to the original video link "Looking for Truth on the Coral Sea," click below in white. If you were referring to comments regarding Groupthink theory, these were science comments in response to a link posted at the bottom of the opening post., unrelated to the Coral Sea link. Here is the link to that https://evolutionnews.org/2011/08/when_a_consensus_-_on_science/ It now seems like the Coral Sea link has disappeared from the opening post.

The Coral Sea and its islands fall under the sovereignty of Australia. The Coral Sea covers one million square kilometers; roughly four times the size of Great Britain. According to my readings the Coral Sea is unique among marine biology. Some marine biologists claim that coral reefs around the world are being destroyed many times faster than rain forests, and that coral reef marine life is disappearing at a rate of 90 percent in some areas. Although many have proposed such negative effects have been observed concerning the Coral Sea, according to Australia's chapter of the World Wildlife Federation and related studies, the Coral Sea has not fallen victim to pollution, invasive species, marine traffic, or warmer ocean waters that is believed to be destroying coral reefs in other ocean areas. Man's negative influences on the oceans in general have shown to be obvious in some areas, so any important unique part of marine biology such as the Coral Sea must be continuously monitored for such signs, especially concerning the possibility of local steps that might be taken to prevent, reduce, or possibly counteract such negative influences. _____________________________________________________ In your seemingly unrelated comments below, you are discussing the theory of "Groupthink," the contents of which I've heard of, but not by its formal name Groupthink. IMO this theory is a fact that many would disagree with, but one that has wasted countless billions of dollars and has set science back decades if not a century or more. Groupthink theory is: " One of the most influential theories in the behavioral sciences in recent decades. Developed by the psychologist Irving Janis in the early 1970s, Groupthink theory describes how a tight-knit, smart and well-informed group can suppress dissent and make disastrous decisions because of the pressure to agree." Also IMO the many faults of science related to the effects of Groupthink theory has kinship and similarity to religious pressures of conformity. These faults of theory are most obvious in modern physics, especially theory establishment of Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum mechanics, the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and Cosmology; all have been deeply entrenched in modern physics because of the faults of Groupthink. Although I think some of these theories in the future will likely show to have redeeming details, many or most of them will be greatly changed or replaced within a couple of decades by better theory IMO for reasons that will be obvious to many at that time. Mathematics aside, one answer is the acknowledgement that all of these theories are filled with logical fallacies and/or non-nonsensical implications, therefore for all theories that lack logic, at least some research monies should be allocated toward more logical alternatives. The public hears little of alternative models but there are dozens, if not hundreds of them for most every mainstream theory in physics. My guess is that for such alternative theory research, funding is far less than .0001, one part in ten thousand. Many mainstream theories in the past were overturned by loan-wolf researchers that received little or no funding outside their own.

Maybe Trumps secret plan is to provide plenty of underground space on the moon for aliens.

NASA has requested an increase in their 2020 budget of $1.6 billion in order to make another crewed mission to the Moon by 2024, supposedly followed by a sustained U.S. presence on the Moon by 2028 if it is budgeted. Trump says he supports all aspects of this project.

A Proposed Star-drive propulsion system that would Enable Interstellar Travel: NASA’s Helical Engine Design that Uses Closed-Cycle Propellant. by William Brown | Nov 5, 2019 | Science News | https://resonancescience.org/nasas-helical-engine-design-that-uses-closed-cycle-propellant-a-proposed-stardrive-that-may-enable-interstellar-travel/ This experimental propulsion design belongs to a class of designs which can be called fuel-less. Such designs require power but no source of fuel which shoots out the back of the craft. This design is a type of ion drive, but one without any exhaust to it. It is a closed system where no new ions are needed or exhausted. Its proposed power source would be a nuclear reactor. The present design could not lift the craft off of the ground in the first place, but if in high orbit would enable the craft to progressively accelerate toward any planet or star at speeds only limited by the structure of the craft. The most well-known of such a hypothetical propulsion system is called EM drive. Although there have been a great many tests on proto-types of this design, the jury is still out as of Dec. 2019, whether the design really produces thrust, or if its apparent thrust is produced by heat or another factor which would negate its claim of thrust. Upon reading the above design concept it seems very interesting but many would say that such a fuel-less propulsion design violates the laws of physics and therefore could never work, just like the “impossible” EM drive they would contend. If we were ever able to build a working model of such a device its first use would likely be for planetary travel. Instead of 9-12 months traveling to mars it might take only three weeks. Once such a craft would reach maximum velocity, about half way to its destination, it would need to turn around and decelerate for the other half of the distance. For power it could use a small fission or fusion reactor, with no fuel other than the conversion of reactor power to electrical power. Of course a fission or fusion reactor could provide propulsion by itself without such a device, as long it was not too heavy for lift off by itself or by rocket power. But such devices like this, or the EM drive, are still in the planning or testing phases. Who knows when, or if, any of them will progress beyond proto-type design, but since NASA is in charge of this design it is in good hands and will progress as fast as funding would allow. Lockheed’s version of a small nuclear-fusion reactor is supposedly moving forward. If or when it ever goes into operation it could be used for both commercial, and government power generation programs. As a propulsion system such a craft could also be light enough to lift-off from Earth. It probably wouldn't need any of the devices discussed above and by itself could totally transform the Earth by clean power generation, roughly at the same costs or possibly lower than the prices we are now paying for power. But if its cost for power generation would be much higher to generate power, this would not be a problem for spacecraft where the only need for fuel would be the reactor. Maybe the biggest contribution for such a light-weight reactor will be for space travel. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29074/skunk-works-exotic-fusion-reactor-program-moves-forward-with-larger-more-powerful-design If any of these devices have the ability to lift off from Earth in the first place, they would not have to acquire great speeds like a rocket because all would provide continuous acceleration. Those that would not have such initial lift-off power could also be a hybrid type of jet going up like a conventional jet, then use their lift engines to fly into orbit and then away from the Earth's gravity. Such aircraft that could at least lift off their own weight could fly like a conventional aircraft with wings until it could no longer get lift from the atmosphere. After that it could just continue upward into space applying more power, then fly to the space station(s), space hotels and colonies, colonies or orbiting stations on the moon, mars, the asteroid belt , exploration trips, etc., as slow or as fast as they wanted to go. Once away from Earth's gravity and having momentum the craft would gain velocity by continuous acceleration using very little power. They could go faster outside the plane of the solar system, for safety’s sake, to have less contact with small matter. For landing, they would decelerate before they reached Earth or planets so they could land like an ordinary big jet on Earth, without all the atmospheric frictional heat that the shuttle had. In time such devices and craft would expectedly be far less expensive than our present space transportation systems, and more versatile whereby such craft could land easily on the moon or on mars at locations and times related to outside temperatures. A great many spacecraft would eventually be involved, government and private. Commercial passenger flights would follow as colonies would also become public from many governments. For small fusion reactors and beginning colonies, power could be generated for colonists from the spacecraft alone to start with.

If it would cost the government little money for such legislation and control, then I think this could be a great idea. Even though it would involve more government regulations, such ideas would show the compassion of humanity. The idea involves sending lab animals to retirement when they are relatively old, after spending close to their entire lives as lab test animals. Many of these older lab animals have often been euthanized near the ends of their lives because they are less suitable for medical experiments. Another rare few have been adopted at the ends of their natural lives by their lab caretakers that have loved and taken care of them in the lab. A small percentage of others have been sent to private retirement homes, paid for by private labs that have owned and used them for experiments for their entire lives up to their retirement. Of course many of these experimental animals have died at relatively young ages or have infirmities resulting from these experiments. Having some government regulations concerning when such animals might qualify for retirement from being experimental lab animals could be a good idea. Of course the suggested payer of such retirement would be the labs that own them, but the regulations should not be so strict that some labs would make it difficult for such animals to retire using them for senility and Alzheimer's experiments until they die. So far only Chimps have been excluded from life-long experimentation, but this article involves monkeys in general. Government regulation might control continuous, abusive life long experiments on many types of animals. Even lab rats and mice might qualify for a peaceful couple of months ending to their lives from such legislation. But I'm a Vegan and a member of "bleeding hearts unanimous," so what do you think?

If the standard model of particle physics is wrong in some respects then this observation could have a completely different meaning. IMO there are a great many theoretical problems with the Standard Model of particle physics. Why their observations should be different than what would normally be predicted is noteworthy so that they might improve the theory to enable better predictions in the future. Whenever a theory is violated by observation, the best resort is to question the theory, not first consider adding an ad hoc hypothesis to it, especially a very big one like this proposal. This seems to be a problem of science theory in general, but IMO especially a big problem with modern physics.

Some marine engines would be good for hydrogen, I think, but only for big heavy boats since they could carry the required heavy fuel tanks. Portable ground generators would be good for hydrogen since weight would not be a factor, but I think gasoline generators would be more convenient and portable. You could probably convert a gas engine to hydrogen but you would have to buy a special manifold and fuel injection system that would be closed and pressurized from the tank to the engine, and hydrogen engines have a higher risk factor toward explosion. Methane is a cleaner burning fuel than gasoline or diesel, and less dangerous than a hydrogen engine to operate. They are almost as efficient as gasoline engines but are a little more dangerous. They too require very large, heavy fuel tanks but you can buy such engines, the designs of which have been time tested, unlike hydrogen engines.

Yes, hydrogen can be used for any kind of vehicle, cars, trucks, planes, boats, trains, etc. that now use internal combustion engines. But to modify currently designed engines to hydrogen, the engine would be much less efficient than if you designed an engine for hydrogen in the first place. Hydrogen is also much more dangerous a fuel than gasoline. Diesel is less dangerous than gasoline. Upon collisions hydrogen vehicles also have the disadvantage of being much more prone to explosions and intense fires than gasoline powered vehicles. Hydrogen must be compressed into strong, heavy tanks roughly twice as big and many times heavier than as a gas tank; such a vehicle still would not have much range to it. These disadvantages must be considered when designing a hydrogen vehicle of any kind. Although the link relates to a very valuable invention, the process in many or most cases will be marginally productive. Oxygen must be purchased or produced by electrolysis from water, and pumped down under high pressure into the cavern, hydrogen comes out. My guess is that the primary value for this process will eventually result in a lower price for hydrogen. Hydrogen is primarily used as a reactant. It has a great many industrial applications also. It is used in many chemical processes, the production of carbon steels, as well as special metals and semiconductors. In the electronics industry it is widely used as a reducing agent and as a carrier gas. High-purity hydrogen is also used in gas chromatography and specialty glass manufacturing. It is also used as an molecular oxygen scavenger in the heat treating process of metals, and for its low viscosity and density for many other applications. One of the biggest users of hydrogen are gasoline refineries for the gasoline and diesel fuel distillation, refining processes where heavier, highly viscous oils can be cracked down in to lighter hydrocarbons using heat and pressurized hydrogen, then being able to distill out greater quantities of gasoline and diesel fuels from more viscous oil deposits around the world. It is also used in oil-sand and oil-shale refining processes also using the cracking process on the heavy hydrocarbons to produce greater quantities of gasoline, diesel, propane, methane, and other lighter hydrocarbons to enable economically marginal production processes from these deposits. So in the next few decades if this process works out by producing greater quantities of cheaper hydrogen, then there will be many advantages concerning cheaper industrial and commercial products including cheaper gasoline and diesel fuels, and eventually more hydrogen powered cars.

For some or maybe most oil sand and oil shale deposits, extracting hydrogen from them may be a more economical process and resource than trying to extract oil by distillation from these materials, especially as the article states, a "cheap new process." For most of these deposits it's not presently economical to develop these fields. But if they can no do it just by pumping down pressurized oxygen into a chasm, as the article explains, even with just a a marginal profit, then this new process will be very valuable. But hydrogen production has never been free or pollution free, or a throw-a-way by-product of oil production. To produce oil and its associated products, natural gas etc. finding, drilling, pumping, and refining nowadays is a very expensive undertaking. From tar sands and oil shale deposits, the cost of producing oil is often not economically feasible. For highly viscous oil deposits, hydrogen is purchased as an input to the distillation process to crack heavier oils and tar into lighter materials that can be further distilled into gasoline, diesel, and asphaltis materials. Therefore hydrogen from oil fields and nearly all other sources is far from free or pollution free. I know they have been selling hydrogen from oil well production for more than a hundred years. It is used for countless industrial purposes as well as for a small hydrogen fuel automotive industry. If they can produce hydrogen from oil sands and oil shale deposits more cheaply than producing petroleum from these deposits if even possible economically, then the price of hydrogen will go down and the number of pollution free hydrogen consuming products will increase.

Yes, IMO something did come from something to start with. But like the original Big Bang version time began by the first changes in that something. There was no such thing as a time before that. Both time and space were created by, and can be defined by characteristics of that something. Time can be exactly equated with change, changes in that something, and today be changes in matter. There was no change before the first change, and accordingly there was no such thing as a time before that first change in the beginning entity Space can be defined as the distance between matter and the volume which it collectively occupies, nothing more than that.There would be no such thing as space outside the confines of matter and the universe. Rene De Carte said: space is an extension of matter, and Einstein said: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. Accordingly everything in the universe would be relatively simple, and If a theory is not generally simple then it's very likely wrong IMO . Although I never believed in the Big Bang model or any expanding universe model, at least the first Big Bang version seemed simple enough. In 1927 Lemaître proposed an expanding universe hypothesis to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and did the first calculations proposing an expanding universe mathematical cosmology using the equations of Einstein and De Sitter. He called his theory the "Fireworks theory." On the other hand, the discoverer of the distance-to-redshift relationship, Erwin Hubble, never believed in an expanding universe or the Big Bang theory; instead he believed there was another explanation for the observed redshifts. There have been many other explanations proposed for the observed redshifts of galaxies in Hubble's time, and many more have been proposed since then to the present day. https://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs/blog/hubble_eventually_did_not_believe_big_bang_associated_press-85962 Now, of course, the Big Bang model is much more complicated proposing Inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc., although none of these things have been observed. This is because IMO all of these things are imaginary place holders for far simpler characteristics and relationships that mainstream cosmology presently does not understand. Your quote: "One of the main points of interest in Penrose's cyclic model is that it's a something coming from something oriented model. And from what I understand most BBT oriented models now look at it with attention to past eternal scenario's because they're pretty much unavoidable." Although much better than multiverse theory IMO, the Big Bounce model still does not explain the observed universe any better than the Big Bang model. This is because it is essentially the same theory excepting that it proposes a different cyclical beginning. I can't think of any aspect of the BB theory that is right. Yes, the equations of General Relativity collectively are the best model of gravity that we have, but also IMO the warped space, curved space, 4D space, and expanding space concepts are all wrong. Space is accordingly no more than the distance between matter. Maybe 3 or more years after the James Webb space telescope and the Atacama long baseline radio-scopes are fully functional, expected to be about 2024-26, if it is announced that they have found at the farthest observable distances some old, very large and red appearing elliptical and spiral galaxies, maybe with observably high metallicities in accord with predictions of a much older or infinite-age universe, this would be strong evidence that the universe is much older and that the Big Bang model would likely be wrong. This would also include the Big Bounce theories since they propose a visually evolving universe the same as the Big Bang model. On the other hand, if only small young, blue-appearing galaxies with minimal metallicity were instead observed at these farthest distances (with no old appearing large galaxies), then all theories and hypothesis proposing a much older or infinite aged universe without cycling, would also most likely be wrong.

These cyclic universe models have collectively been called Big Bounce models. Although possibilities derived from one or more collective interpretations can have various, or a great many implications, one interpretation can be just one of many dozens of possible interpretations. Even the primary mainstream interpretation of any particular observation is often wrong IMO. The beginnings of all theories in science are almost always speculation having at least one reason for it. Penrose is, and should be considered a respected theorist because he can explain the logic to his speculation, concerning the "could be s" and related possibilities. As for me, I have long proposed a universe trillions of years old rather than just 13.8 billion years as in the Big Bang model, but still a universe that once had a beginning, with nothing before that. If you are interested. see the link below. Of course there are possible observational justifications for this model also as there are for all science based models. Speculation becomes a hypothesis when the model can be tested by observation. Hypothesis become theory when many observations seem to confirm it. Also to be considered a theory in cosmology it needs to be testable in the eyes of many, and have a half dozen or more mainstream theorists that consider it one of the likely possibilities. http://www.pantheory.org/

Such cyclic universe schemes have been around and proposed for many decades but none can be any more than pure speculation unless the proposers of such ideas can conceive of a way where somehow there proposal could be observed or tested. Anything else is not science. At least Roger Penrose can speak well concerning the possibility of creating logical theories, many other theorists cannot IMO.

Hi Walter, I looked at your link and found it very interesting. Although some have asserted that there are ties between the Hubble constant dispute and the flat vs. curved universe dispute, I think such arguments are weak. As to your link, I found it very interesting because in my own research and related paper I also came up with the same Hubble constant of z = 68, with a large tolerance range of z ~ 8.4. The basis for this rate of expansion was type 1a supernova data up to 2014, all based upon the Hubble distance formula. Although I never believed in an expanding universe (I have a non-conventional explanation for redshifts), through many years of research and a related paper I derived a different formula to calculate cosmic distances based upon type 1a supernova data, stating that the Hubble distance formula is wrong and therefore the Hubble constant is a myth. The Hubble formula was derived from the Lorentz equations (the same as Special Relativity) based upon an expanding universe. If the universe is not expanding then this distance formula is wrong and there would be no Hubble constant. Instead it would be more like a Hubble variable. Recently a research associate of mine wrote a book about this subject putting me as lead author with my permission, and putting one of my peer-reviewed, published and cited papers in the middle of the book. If you would like to see the link to the paper, the book cover and information and quotes from the book please PM me and I will send them to you.