# Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by quantum_wave, May 13, 2014.

1. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
22,416
Well what happens to the heat and light from stars on the boundary [outwards]

3. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
Entropy. If the heat and light are no longer useful, entropy of the expanding system increases.

5. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,950
I tend to avoid discussions of thermodynamics mainly because it always comes down to a question of whether a system is open or closed, and that bears on whether the universe is expanding or finite/infinite. Lee Smolin, "Time Reborn" among others, has pointed out that there is ample evidence that entropy ('organization) 's increasing in the universe as a whole.

Smolin also has a theory of cosmic evolution involving the 20 or so free parameters of quantum physics that posits the kind of black holes that are actually possible determines the evolution of universes.

A black hole EH is a sort of boundary. Easier (but just as cataclysmic) to approach the EH from the hollow or even low density insides of one as it is from the outside. Type 1a supernova universe expansion demands that we interpret the anomalous or dark energy acceleration the way we would interpret any other large scale acceleration. It is gravity. We are inside a void of a much larger mass, most of which has already been accreted within. The Planck data reveals the Southern hemisphere of the CBR is slightly warmer than the rest, and furthermore, there is a "cold spot". That would be the accretion jet, as seen from the inside. The "slightly warmer" is a microwave Doppler shift. That's where everything is headed toward. There was no BB, but there was no "Steady State" either. It is something else.

Stop being so Ptolemaic. The universe, its creation or destruction shouldn't impact religious beliefs at all. This isn't an OCD universe; if it were aware, it certainly wouldn't tolerate so stupid a creature as we are. It was never about we who are living on less than an insignificant flyspeck in it, fighting our incessant wars about real estate and resources while infinite time marches in the direction of our collective demise. Make peace with it before it makes nothing of us, our hopes and dreams, and anything we ever cared about. They only matter if you care about them, and only to you. It's a start.

7. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
22,416
how does energy going of to nowhere contribute to entropy?

8. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
Hmm, perhaps I need to check on the meaning of entropy. I thought that as the energy of a system was used, entropy increases toward a state of equilibrium. It seems to me that energy going off to the expanding boundary area is "used" from the perspective of ever being useful, and as such is contributing to entropy of the expanding system. It equates to General Relativity's predicted heat death of an expanding universe.

9. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
Yes, I'm familiar with that. My hobby-model has a process called arena action that defeats entropy, thank goodness

.
There is an interesting parallel between that concept and my Big Bang arena landscape. If a big bang is finite in energy, and expands until it intersects with other expanding Big Bang arenas, thus producing new crunches, those crunches would seem to qualify as ultimate black holes populating the greater landscape. If one collapses/bangs, then our perspective is that of being inside the event horizon, just like I picture us now. The difference to me is that the inside features decreasing density relative to the crunch from which it came, but higher density than the surrounding space into which it expands.

True, and so do I, assuming acceleration is a fact (see OP)
I hear it called negative gravity in some sources. To me the "negative" gravity is the "force" of energy density equalization, where the relative high density of our position inside the EH is equalizing with the lower density space surrounding us. That would mean that gravity that attracts is an opposing force to energy density equalization that drives expansion.
That is the view of a false vacuum, often associated with the bubble universes of Eternal Inflation Theory. Did you see my links to Laura Houghton-Mersini's papers on "Is Eternal Inflation Eternal"?
Yes, and the dipole temperature, wide angle anisotropy, is consistent with two parent arenas converging to produce our Big Bang, IMHO.
There is a guy, Cav775, who pushed a theory like that. Unfortunately he was banned for life. I was one of the few who would talk to him, but he re-appears from time to time as a sock-puppet. Maybe we will see him again here, but he is definitely around out there in the forums somewhere, lol.
I don't do "science", and so if I want to offer "God and the universe might be one and the same", as common ground to open discussions to everyone, then I sometimes get good discussions that wouldn't otherwise have happened.
You speak the truth as far as I know, but you don't understand the vast majority of non-science thinkers out there. This world is for all of us by the very fact that we are all here, thinking the way we do, as are result of the invariant natural laws that accommodate us. My philosophy is that entropy is defeated, and life will always populate these fly specks, so making the most of it is to understand the full scope of what is here. There is always a duality between hope and some dim view we can easily succumb to.

10. ### forrest nobleRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
210
My interpretation of his statement was to find a different Forum to "play" in, but that may not have been his meaning. I will link to my papers as the related subjects present themselves. I have linked to one in this thread so far.

11. ### forrest nobleRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
210
Of course my answer will be an alternative theory answer (ATA) since the mainstream believes that such cooling would take place automatically, as my prior link explained; Whether my answer is in accord with thermodynamics would be based upon the interpretation of it.

ATA: Galactic jets eject matter at very high temperatures, primarily hydrogen and helium. Much of both elements remains ionized because of the very high temperature, between 7 million to a billion degrees Kelvin. Much of this gas nuclei escapes the galaxy into intergalactic space, often within galaxy clusters. This gas becomes widely spread out and cannot lose temperature by conduction in the vacuum of space. This gas does radiate energy in the EM radiation range starting at gamma rays, then X-rays, UV rays, light waves, infra-red, microwave, and radio waves. By radiation alone this process is calculated to be very slow to radiate away such a high temperature. After what is thought to be billions of years these ionized clouds have not cooled enough to take on electrons, to become atomic matter. This gas still remains very hot cooling down by a factor of ~10 in no less than a billion years Here is a link.

Based on the Inflation hypothesis expansion of the universe happened very quickly from a hot dense BB past and could not have cooled down in the hypothetical time period proposed for Inflation. Without Inflation the problem would be the same. During expansion there would be no temperatures cool enough for matter to condense by gravity to form stars and galaxies, not for maybe 10 billion years by radiation cooling alone.

12. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
11,049
It is not suprising that the jets remain hot for so long due the slowing of jets by the intergalactic medium. The jets are traveling at a very high percentage of the speed of light, as the jets slow the particles that are slowing in the 'bow wave' are being hit by faster moving particles maintaining a high temperature.

Huh? The inflation period ended at $10^{-32}$ seconds after the start of the BB. I don't think anybody thinks that the atoms were forming $10^{-32}$ seconds after the start of the BB.

That is based on the flawed correlation between the relatively motionless matter formed in the BB and a jet of matter that is traveling > .9c relative the surronding medium.

Themal radiation from a particle happens rapidly as seen by black body radiation equations.

13. ### forrest nobleRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
210
In the case of high temperature radiation from intergalactic gas created by jets and galaxy creation, this long-time "stationary" gas has had more than a billion years to cool down, according to the previous link here, and it has not cooled down by more than a factor of 10. The problem, I think, is with wrong conclusions by BB theorists concerning the rate that a hot BB should have cooled. Here is the link again. In the opinion of the author it is a problem with BB theorists misunderstandings of thermodynamic and therefore proposed impossible equations of cooling.

14. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
Interesting reading in those links. Food for thought; for my layman hobbiest thinking, such as it is,

. I like the possibilities they open up for differing views of cosmology.

15. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
11,049
The author is probably insane then. I would venture to say that approximately 99% of the physicist support the BB so that would have to mean that author thinks that 99% of the physicist in the world to not understand basic thermodynamics. The author is crazy pants.

16. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
11,049
Yes, we all know that the goofier the idea the more you like it.

17. ### forrest nobleRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
210
Welcome to the "Alternative Theory" section. Here very few posters agree with the Big Bang model in its entirety.

Changing horses, the biggest joke IMO in modern physics today are most of the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, called quantum theory. People in the next century won't stop laughing when they find out what people believed in the 20th and part of the 21st century. After Quantum Theory the next big joke of the century would be the Big Bang model. IMO there is not even one single aspect of the theory that is correct. It is contradicted by nearly all observations and is now fraught with ad hoc hypothesis. If you think the reason for galactic redshifts have been proven to be the expansion of space/ the universe, then you have not studied cosmology. Of course I am an alternative theorist. IMO nearly everything in modern physics is generally wrong.

Crazy pants is cool. It might be a compliment; it depends upon who is saying it

Last edited: Aug 23, 2014
18. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
You don't want to be caught in the wrong crowd wearing Crazy Pants, :shrug:.

Here is one perspective. BBT is like the Cliff Notes of the Cosmology of the Universe. It is a consensus view, but it leaves out many nuances that need to be addressed by the full version of cosmology. Ultimately, BBT is nothing more than a convenient scenario, flexible enough to be modified for every new discovery over the past 100 years. If all of the applied changes had come up at one time, it would have sent cosmologists back to the drawing board for a complete new theory of cosmology (reference my hobby-model, lol).

I would venture to say that easily less than 50% of current day cosmologists would say that BBT would be their current scenario if they had to describe their preferred model of the universe given today's scientific observations and data.

19. ### forrest nobleRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
210
Good insight. It would be interesting for many people to know what present-day cosmologists really believe/ prefer concerning cosmology theory, in an anonymous survey of maybe 200 questions. I don't think they can openly disagree too much with consensus explanations for fear of ridicule, position, funding, etc.

20. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
22,416
I feel the biggest problem is that to not agree means that you have to show why GR and ancillary outcomes are not quite valid as once thought.
This means that refutation requires an alternative and they simply have no alternatives. So the status quo stands until not only refutation is possible [proved] but an alternative is offered.

Quite often when I argue the case for the "photon" being an invalid abstraction, the typical response is:
"Well how does info transfer across space if not a photon or something similar."
Thus validating and more importantly "pseudo-proving" a model simply by default of lacking another.

Tthe lack of empirical evidence to support the photon [as independent of matter] and the reliance on purely circumstantial evidence means that we are stuck with a photon that travels across space.
Circumstantial evidence is not a good way to prove anything as you know.

"You were the only man there with a red cap so therefore you are the killer" type BS

Last edited: Aug 24, 2014
21. ### forrest nobleRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
210
There are alternatives out there that match observations at the galactic level without requiring dark matter. Either these gravity models are not very well known, or they have no strong theoretical basis or support. MOND is one of them and TeVs is another. They are based upon the alleged changing strength of gravity concerning distances, at galactic scales. I also have my own model and equations of gravity based upon a pushing gravity. I am currently preparing a paper concerning Big Bang problems based upon a great number of observations contrary to BB predictions. Following this paper I will begin my gravity paper intended to show my equations and how they match observations concerning a great number of galactic observations; the paper will be denying the existence of dark matter. I have peer reviewed publishers for it. It will explain how both General Relativity and Newtonian gravity can be used in the context of this theory. It's strongest value IMO is its strong theoretical basis in contrast to MOND gravity that seems to have none.

Density waves in an aether would be a simpler explanation IMO since no particle would need to move at the speed of light for these great distances. The evidence for the aether IMO is the Zero Point Field and the observations of the Casimir Effect.

Yep, the kind of logic being used at the highest levels of science, or lack thereof, IMO seems almost laughable concerning some fields. Quantum Theory is my prime example of this. I can somewhat sympathize with theorists in that their hands are tied behind their backs without being able to use an aether to explain things, the so-called hidden variables proposed by many in the 20's and 30's.

22. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
22,416
So you believe in an aether...
Can you prove this in a way that conforms properly with the scientific method?
Can you show how the MM experiments were inconclusive?
How can you demonstrate the existence of an aether and make predictions accordingly?
I am sure if you could substantiate it's existence with empirical evidence you would win a Nobel.

No... I am not being cynical nor am I ridiculing, but these are the questions (and more) being asked of any theory proposed..

as they say "Show me the money!"
As I asked of Quantum Wave.. does your model predict the existence of the Great Attractor [ for surely current models do not as far as the data reveals any way ]

23. ### forrest nobleRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
210
Again I believe the evidence for an aether is the ZPF. I believe that electromagnetism is explained by an aether, as explained and theorized by Maxwell. I believe that no experiment has ever shown the non-existence of a gravity centered aether. I believe gravity is explained by a flowing aether. IMO the explanation of momentum is based upon the existence of a background field. Theorists propose an aether in the form of dark matter, a Higgs field, gravitons, quantum foam, a superfluid as an aether, and of course theories including a luminiferous aether, and aether theories of pushing gravity.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/superfluid-spacetime-relativity-quantum-physics/

IMO opinion there is absolute proof of an aether in the form of the ZPF. I have several experiments, not easy but with some expense and a few years of time, I believe could prove the existence of an aether.

Lorentz proposed his equations to explain why M & M's experiment could not detect the aether. Also they could not test for a gravity centered aether like my own model. In addition to that there equipment was not sensitive enough, or any other experiment since then, to test for an aether speed as slow as in my own model, about 21 miles per hour moving into the Earth perpendicular to it.

Here, I believe is experimental evidence of an aether. It is called Emdrive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive

A hypothetical explanation of the mechanics of this engine: As the microwaves would build up inside the tapered chamber their intensity and density would build up within the chamber and their reflecting trajectories would "flatten out" and race around the internal periphery of the device at the speed of light. These high intensity microwaves would accordingly corkscrew toward the big end of the reflection chamber. If these microwaves are interacting with the Zero Point Field as NASA has speculated, then the Zero Point Field (ZPF as an aether) could, upon high intensity interaction with the microwaves, be spiraling out of the big end of the device creating a low aether pressure inside the device while being replenished by the ZPF flowing inward from the lower-aether pressure at the small end of the device. There could be a considerable ZPF/ aether flow through the device. If there would be such a ZPF flow-through then the conservation of momentum would be maintained and the device would also not be reactionless. The proof that this concept could be evidenced by a test of the Casimir Effect at the big end of the device whereby the two plates of the Casimir test could be pushed together from a greater distance, meaning there would be a greater differential pressure in the ZPF outside the device, pushing the Casimir plates together if the explanation were valid.

I have several other tests for an aether that I could also explain if you are interested.

As to a great attractor:
My model does not comment much about it but such a motion could be predicted by my model. The model says that instead of a large gravitational mass that we could be moving toward, one possibility, there is a point behind us that we and its surrounding galaxies are moving away from, maybe a greater possibility.

My model is called the Pan Theory, found on any search engine. It is purported to be a ToE concerning physics. It is a book about 400 pages long. About 350 pages are original theory, hypothesis, concepts, drawings and equations. The balance of the book involves a little history, definitions, and a little humor.

It is also explained in a few reference sources like here near the bottom of the page.