Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

[Quantum Quack]

I do not believe the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe as a whole whether it is a open or closed system.

Do you then hold that the laws are invalid especially the laws of conservation?

If so do you have any reason, that qualifies under the scientific method, to consider the laws of conservation are invalid?

You see the endless discussion available if the fundamentals are not held as fundamental,
All of science relies on the laws of thermodynamics to be valid. Even simple mathematics need for equivalency ie. 1+1 = 2, 2-1 =1 relies exclusively on conservation principles and a closed system is being rigidly utilized.

Yet there are some doubt held by scientists that the universe is a closed system. Yet simultaneously they would strongly support the laws of thermodynamics which relies on a closed system.
Throw one out and you throw the other out as you can not have it both ways... sort of thing...

 

[forrest noble]

oh for sure... I agree.
However when talking about definitions we are talking about that which underpins those laws and strong theories.
As a business man looking for an economics model I would automatically reject something that was defined so ambiguously as a key factor "energy" appears to be. Funny money is not fun...

In physics to have such an important aspect of reality so badly defined is incredible and to be honest not deserving of the attention of most erudite scientists, if they bothered to actually look more closely at the premises they operate under.....Given that the term "energy" is so fundamental to a force vs energy duality it is amazing to me, that after thousands of years of thought it is still defined ambiguously.

These problems might be brought up in a scientific research paper with its primary purpose being the problem with present definitions. It would be difficult to publish, however, and if published few would read it IMO. I would expect most replies to the paper, if any, would be snarkisms. The reason why I think I disagree with many definitions in physics today is because I disagree with the related theory(s).

That the existence of propagating photons is no more qualified by the scientific process than other more metaphysical or theosophical notions.
so the question "If not photons then what?" can then be asked without being deemed as heresy. [ deserving of being burned at the stake ]

or if suspected a heretic, tested by water, if you float or swim with rocks tied to you, you are guilty, if you sink for more than 15 minutes you are innocent

 

[Quantum Quack]

These problems might be brought up in a scientific research paper with its primary purpose being the problem with present definitions. It would be difficult to publish, however, and if published few would read it IMO. I would expect most replies to the paper, if any, would be snarkisms. The reason why I think I disagree with many definitions in physics today is because I disagree with the related theory(s).

or if suspected a heretic, tested by water, if you float or swim with rocks tied to you, you are guilty, if you sink for more than 15 minutes you are innocent

hee hee unless they used pumice in an attempt to make you sink....

"Hey look!" they yelled.
"He is floating better than he would have with out being tied to the rocks!"

News headlines: "Scientific discovery of life jackets made of rock..." [chuckle]
or
"Heretic's point rock solid!!"

 

[forrest noble]

Do you then hold that the laws are invalid especially the laws of conservation?

no, I am quite fond of the conservation of matter/ energy.

If so do you have any reason, that qualifies under the scientific method, to consider the laws of conservation are invalid?

No

You see the endless discussion available if the fundamentals are not held as fundamental. All of science relies on the laws of thermodynamics to be valid. Even simple mathematics need for equivalency ie. 1+1 = 2, 2-1 =1 relies exclusively on conservation principles and a closed system is being rigidly utilized.

Yet there are some doubt held by scientists that the universe is a closed system. Yet simultaneously they would strongly support the laws of thermodynamics which relies on a closed system. Throw one out and you throw the other out as you can not have it both ways... sort of thing...

Thermodynamics is based upon heat energy in a system. In a system involving gravity new heat is created by gravity in the form of new stars and galaxies being created all the time. Thermodynamics would not seem to be applicable to such a system. Here is a criticism that the Big Bang model as a whole is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, besides in detail as you have explained.

 

[forrest noble]

"Heretic's point rock solid!!"

If you float you are considered guilty but there is one more test with possible reprieve. The test of fire. You are tied very firmly to a stake, the strength of your ties tested by witnesses. Then wood is placed below you and then set on fire. If you are innocent god will set you free, either at first or god will cause the ropes to be burned so that you can escape eternal damnation. If not you will burn like you deserve, and the heretic that you are -- as well as being engulfed in hellfire for eternity.

-- such is the possible fate of alternative theorists. Not pretty.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If you float you are considered guilty but there is one more test with possible reprieve. The test of fire. You are tied very firmly to a stake, the strength of your ties tested by witnesses. Then wood is placed below you and then set on fire. If you are innocent god will set you free, either at first or god will cause the ropes to be burned so that you can escape. If not you will burn like you deserve, and the heretic that you are -- as well as being engulfed in hellfire for eternity.

-- such is the possible fate of alternative theorists. Not pretty.

A touch of theosophical irony:
"If he dies God has indeed set him free"
re: "Death the great escape"

 

[forrest noble]

That is pretty good for a first pass. Maybe we will get more into the details and find we agree on more.This is the forum for stirring up those kinds of emotions; alternative ideas are expected in the Fringe, and the rules permit it. Any personal attacks are against the rules in all sub-forums, as is incivility, but you can ignore them out here, if they are off topic. In the Science section there are more mainstream sensitivities, and off topic personal attacks are simply a generally accepted expression of disdain for any alternative ideas.

Yes, in other forums I have responded to personal attacks, but even with the most civil response on my part it has gotten me into more trouble with moderation than it did the attacker. It appears that any response gives credence to the attacker or false assertion. Nearly all attacks were in mainstream forums where I indicated possible problems with a mainsteam theory being discussed. I should just learn to ignore such attacks regardless of how aggressive they are, or what lies, profanity, or imaginations they concoct, without resorting to the 'report button.' That only draws attention to the commotion, and the possible perception that I may be the cause of it. Let someone else report it if they like, right? For this reason I have learned to choose my words very carefully in mainstream forums, and for this reason often stay away from them. Here it seems a little more relaxed.

 

[forrest noble]

A touch of theosophical irony:
"If he dies God has indeed set him free"
re: "Death the great escape"

Yes, with the proper words said, prayers and blessings, you might be forgiven for having been human

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes, with the proper words said, prayers and blessings, you might be forgiven for having been human

hee hee

 

[quantum_wave]

...
One comment by a moderator to me seemed peculiar. Based upon my comment in a posting in a mainstream forum, he said that we were not here for "entertainment" (to have fun -- my numerous modicums), we were here only to learn and teach. If that was not my goal then I should go somewhere else. ??

And that somewhere else seems like it is the Alternative Theories sub-forum. I remember you linked to some of your papers in that "Theory vs Reality" thread. Why not link them here or in a new thread here in the Fringe?

 

[quantum_wave]

Do you feel any definition used by science should be qualified and quantified using the scientific method?

As far as I can tell the current definition [re: your quote] fails to meet such a qualification by the use of the scientific method.
The point that I originally intended to make was that even when proposing alternative theories, grounding of definitions with in the scientific method is essential so that instead of proposing science fantasy we can propose science fiction instead.

Currently mainstream science appears to be mixing fiction with fact ( with a touch of fantasy) and that is a huge issue that needs to be resolved before science can regain the credibility it had years ago and move forward to more challenging phenomena.

That is a good point to consider. Can you give us an example of a definition of energy that would be more appropriate and complete, takin into consideration the scientific method?

 

[quantum_wave]

The Pantheism of most scientists ... [perhaps?]

It does sound like it on the surface, doesn't it? But I didn't aim for that. I tried to develop my mechanistic cosmology, and then the Eternal Intent was an after thought. Part of that was to leave some common ground between a scientific view and the world religions, to the extent that God and the universe might be one and the same.

The other part was that my model invokes an infinite and eternal unchanging (steady state on a grand scale) universe. If the universe has always existed and has always been the same on that level of big bang interacting arenas across the potentially infinite universe, then I came up with the saying: The universe is as it has always been, it is the way it should be, and could be not other way.

From that I was going for the fact that if it hosts life now, it has always hosted life. The particulars of that might be the generative and evolvative "forces", i.e. the nature of the universe to provide places where life can be self-generated, evolve, and live to talk about it, lol.

 

[quantum_wave]

Agrees!
A sub fora as described would be hugely busy.. no doubt about it. It also legitimizes the involvement of those who do not wish to be seen as promoting alternatives but are sincerely interested in exploring those limitations.
The question of "if not that then what?" would have to be taken up in the alternative theories section and not in this forum..

For example:

• When studying the laws of thermodynamics can one conclude that the universe MUST be a closed system for those laws to hold as universally valid?

At the moment if you ask such a question the thread would be moved to alternative theories.
...

That bring up a question I have about open and closed in regard to infinite. Am I right to say that an infinite universe has to be considered an "open" universe from the stand point of thermodynamics?

 

[Quantum Quack]

That bring up a question I have about open and closed in regard to infinite. Am I right to say that an infinite universe has to be considered an "open" universe from the stand point of thermodynamics?

It depends on what you mean by "infinite universe"?
If the universe is much the same as it is but infinitely large then I see no reason why this would logically threaten the Laws of Thermodynamics.
In fact a finite universe I believe would make the laws invalid come to think on it...

 

[quantum_wave]

If only it were so. What you call a "hospitable environment" right here, right now, is so different from when life began on this planet that most organisms alive that long ago would find the present one anything but hospitable. This is one direction evolution takes, and if life doesn't succeed in co-opting the available environment and resources to its needs, it will all stop rather abruptly.

True, be the Big Bang arena also evolves and produces heavy elements, solar systems, and eventually life. Life evolves to adapt to the changing "hospitable" environments.

I don't agree that higher intelligence, if you can even attribute intelligence to the human race, has very much to do with creating individuals with superior cognition at all, but rather that is an artifact of a neocortex originally crafted for social bonding purposes. It was a fortunate accident that that direction made certain other things possible, and science is one of those. If you're looking for miracles or just serendipity anywhere in the design of life on this planet, that would qualify.

Perhaps you see me talking about intelligent design, and maybe you think when I say evolution and intelligence go hand in hand you see that as my application of Intelligent Design. That is not where I am coming from. The invariant natural laws accommodate the generation and evolution of intelligence; they don't start with an intelligence that has a hand in intelligence evolving in my philosophy..

The rest of life here, in case you haven't noticed, is not something that even the most deranged but similarly gifted human creator-of-all-life-on-Earth would ever have wished for in their fevered worst nightmares. Since when does an ecosystem need animals to domesticate and consume other animals and plants to sustain them, and then go to war with other human societies in a colossal waste of the energy that just sort of beams down from the sky at us? This version of creation is just creepy. How could anyone be comfortable with such an arrangement? We must be acclimating to something that will be even worse is my worry. So you see, whether or not the way we are accustomed to think is really "intelligence" is, more often than not, a bit of a stretch.

In my view, it is the result of the invariant natural laws and there isn't any "plan" behind it. The chips fall where they will. But the natural laws accommodate the eventuality of life, evolution, and intelligence, such as it is, and the potentially infinite circumstances across the universe where that has happened will probably be characterized by a potentially infinite number of different "world" circumstances, our world being just one possibility.

I do agree with your position that our particular world has gone amuck in many respects, but then ... in an infinite universe, we may be just a unique case. The others will be better or worse, and as to where we are in the spectrum? We have only one example to measure by, so we are average, lol.

Thanks for your kind words of support, but barring a major brain hemorage or insight on the matter, I think emergent space is dead for now.

Lol, that is fine with me ... who needs it if space is infinite and has always existed, IHMO.

Sure, a single photon doesn't obey the inverse square law. I also agree with you that the physics associated with EM is in a cul-de-sac. Did I ever point out that W and Z bosons, because they travel slower than c, have a kind of polarization not seen in any other particle? Sort of like the "rolled up space" String theorists go on about.

Wait till the LHC fires up again. To say nothing of the ground breaking neutrino experiments (similar to OPERA) starting up again in the US. Reality has a way of springing surprises on science that even cranks like us couldn't possibly guess.

Yes, more interesting discoveries to come.

 

[quantum_wave]

It depends on what you mean by "infinite universe"?
If the universe is much the same as it is but infinitely large then I see no reason why this would logically threaten the Laws of Thermodynamics.
In fact a finite universe I believe would make the laws invalid come to think on it...

How so?

 

[quantum_wave]

...
Yes, this is a problem with the changing BB theory with these new dark hypothesis, much more energy is needed but it does not seem to phase most mainstream theorists since known matter and energy are now only a small percentage of what is proposed by dark matter and dark energy. For the fun of it you might wish to read the abstract of my related paper concerning dark energy here. You don't have to understand the details to realize that this is not my first rodeo trying to explain such problems in modern physics, while proposing an alternative.

I looked at the abstract and it left me wondering about the referenced alternative model. I do think you could conduct an interesting thread out here in the fringe.

If your paper is correct about there not being a need for dark energy, and if your analysis shows there is not really any acceleration of expansion going on, I would be perfectly fine with it. I would have to change my model to take out the parts that cause acceleration, (see the opening post), but that itself would be a fun re-write .

 

[quantum_wave]

no, I am quite fond of the conservation of matter/ energy.

No



Thermodynamics is based upon heat energy in a system. In a system involving gravity new heat is created by gravity in the form of new stars and galaxies being created all the time. Thermodynamics would not seem to be applicable to such a system. Here is a criticism that the Big Bang model as a whole is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, besides in detail as you have explained.

I read the link. Perhaps you can explain how temperature is maintained when volume increases, as implied by "The free expansion of an ideal gas is a constant temperature process"?

 

[Quantum Quack]

How so?

Well, a finite universe implies normally a boundary and a boundary that has energy in the form of EMR, heat etc that is just bleeding of into no-where or nothingness which means that energy is not being conserved.
Where as in an infinite universe energy is always conserved as there is no boundary where there is nothingness beyond.
So a finite universe IMo would contra the laws of thermodynamics.
Therefore if I hold that the laws are valid then the universe MUST be infinite in size.

 

[quantum_wave]

Well, a finite universe implies normally a boundary and a boundary that has energy in the form of EMR, heat etc that is just bleeding of into no-where or nothingness which means that energy is not being conserved.
Where as in an infinite universe energy is always conserved as there is no boundary where there is nothingness beyond.
So a finite universe IMo would contra the laws of thermodynamics.
Therefore if I hold that the laws are valid then the universe MUST be infinite in size.

That suits me.

I would mention that in a finite universe, with an implied boundary where the volume of the system is increasing, there would be no loss of energy. The system would contain the same amount of energy in a larger volume, wouldn't it?