Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

[Quantum Quack]

I agree with your thinking concerning the non-statement of E=E.

Energy in the form of EM radiation does interact with itself. Not much, but it can be detected. Since all detectors involve matter components, including the eye, I don't see how it might be detected without any form of matter involved. Even our brain hopefully consists of matter (neurons) , which are influenced by electrical impulses

So can we can agree that energy can not be observed except by it's effect upon and within mass?

Therefore any extrapolation beyond the above is unfalsifiable and rather useful theoretical modelling... do you agree?

 

[forrest noble]

So can we can agree that energy can not be observed except by it's effect upon and within mass?

There is a difference between mass and matter. My distinction is different from the standard model. I would prefer to say that I agree that energy cannot be observed except by its effect upon matter.

Therefore any extrapolation beyond the above is unfalsifiable and rather useful theoretical modelling... do you agree?

Sounds good based upon your other leading questions, but I may not understand your meaning here. Please clarify.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is a difference between mass and matter. My distinction is different from the standard model. I would prefer to say that I agree that energy cannot be observed except by its effect upon matter.



Sounds good based upon your other leading questions, but I may not understand your meaning here. Please clarify.

Do you still hold to the definition offered earlier:

Definition: Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work, FxD = E. Energy exists in several forms such as heat, kinetic or mechanical energy, all EM radiation, potential energy, electrical, and other action forms.

but deleting reference to energy that is deemed independent of matter (mass) [ie. photons, EMR, Dark energy etc]

 

[quantum_wave]

I'm starting to get it, and "time and invested energy" is certainly a factor.

This would be a good place to discuss that issue. So I have two published colleagues. Both of them have theories about emergent space, but for whatever reason, they won't talk to each other. I can see that some of the ideas they present have merit (and others do not). In particular, when someone says they have a theory about emergent space, and begin telling you that "space can be created like the following", and then try to kick off the discussion by talking about how it is that space can be created WITHIN SPACE, well, that's a problem, isn't it?

I don't think I would be upset by that. My view, though not invoking any emergent space in the sense of space appearing where there was no space, does accommodate a geometric space, and a medium of space. Sometimes that is the way that spacetime is portrayed in popular science media for layman. The difference is that in my medium of space, gravitational wave energy density does what spacetime does. It has the same effect as curved spacetime, with the added feature of being mechanistic.

When Minkowski proposed that length contraction / time dilation occurs because a 4D dimension with elements of both space and time rotates, that's better, but not by very much. The man was a mathematician. Extra dimensions don't bother mathematicians; it's something they just jotted down on their notepad, or whatever. The universe or something in it might love geometry, but modeling it that way is bound to cause problems with defining what a straight line is, or why a beam of light (roughly) seems to follow such a geometrical abstraction.

That is where the mechanistic nature of gravitational wave energy density in place of curved spacetime becomes more logical, IMHO. A straight line is still a straight line through 3D geometric space, but a photon path is curved, slowed and bent, by the changes in gravitational wave energy density in the medium that fills geometric space, according to my model.

... Problem is, beams of light, even lasers, all obey the inverse square law and spread out in the real universe, and while this idea is also geometrical in nature, it just leaves a lot of wiggle room as to whether the space we observe in the universe is strictly geometrical in terms of the laws it obeys, or something else.

I would like to have you look at post #447 where I differentiate between a single wave-particle photon, and a high intensity photon source like a star.

You may have noticed, I quit the other discussion when it was becoming apparent that I was making the same mistakes my colleagues did. If you are going to describe emergent space, either you must be able to do so without circular reference to space, or else don't bother. Nothing coherent is going to happen when you start to do that; you are just spinning wheels in your finite mind.

Good. Highly developed consensus theories are what the discussion are about in the SciForums Science section. If your theory needs more work, this is the place to discuss it, IMHO.

As I have pointed out in AI forums, the only non self-referential term in dictionaries of all human languages is the concept of length. It defies definition simply because it is the means by which our minds reason and categorize the things our senses render to our neurons. You will never understand what it is, any more than a machine intelligence will ever completely understand what a "number" is, why human minds created them and then later used them to create a machine intelligence.

Lol, interesting example of human endeavor.

Philosophy, including philosophy of science, makes this mistake again and again. More words only leads to more self-referential words. There is no real point to endlessly breaking down definitions that no one can agree upon in the first place. If you can't define something in terms of length or some generalization of it, you are hopelessly mired in superfluous use of the tool we call language.

Have you seen my position on time? How time simple passes, but the rate that clocks measure time varies based on the energy density of the clock's local gravitational wave energy environment? I have a similar explanation for distance. A ruler will have a simple length, but the length of it will appear longer or shorter between two inertial frames; come to the same frame and the rule will have the same length. Move away from that frame and the ruler will appear shorter. Move toward that frame and the ruler will appear to get longer, though the ruler never really changes. It is the relative motion that changes the wave energy density in the direction of motion and gives the ruler the appearance of a variable length.

And so it is that new ideas about emergent space will have to wait until there is someone clever enough to realize that you can't define space in terms of space and get anywhere with the discussion.

I think you are clever enough to do that.

 

[quantum_wave]

From a universal perspective [with out bringing life into it] perhaps consider the following:

That the center of mass [COG] is the unconscious (nihilo) and that the volume of space [including all that exists with in it is consciousness.
In doing so we could consider the universe to be conscious. [this doesn't mean that the universe has the "animated" capacity to "know " that it is conscious.]

any ways this is off topic... I just wanted to highlight the fact that the mainstream view of the photon is far from complete and leads to a cul de sac [dead end] when wanting to understand things like QM's quantum entanglements etc. IMO

No, its not off topic. I have posted my philosophy of Eternal Intent, and though no one ever comments about it, the gist of it is that discussions of the grand nature of the universe are invited, and though my view is that given an infinite and eternal universe, there is common ground with those who have not rejected the concept of God. The common ground is that God and the universe may be one and the same.

From that perspective, consciousness would seem to be at its highest focus (at least here on Earth) in the brain of man, but that is not to say that there is no consciousness without the brain of man, lol. Since I hypothesize the generation of life from the hospitable environment that is capable of hosting life, and I hypothesize evolution of emerging life to higher and higher levels of intelligence and awareness, we can say that the nature of consciousness grows as those processes of life generation and evolution play out. If all of that is natural and governed by the invariant natural laws of the universe, then consciousness has always been part of the Eternal Intent, given the prerequisites necessary for Eternal Intent that I list in the essay (see post #380).

 

[quantum_wave]

Thanks for that. I have no intent of highjacking this or any thread so you let me know if you would like to see my related conversations in its own thread.

Thanks, I just perused this thread so you have given me direction. OK postings 414 and 433.

paragraph posting 414:



I like quantum wave theory since it implies and aether, which I agree with. It also can answer the hidden variable question, the actions of the aether are the hidden variables of Quantum Theory. I think there is a simple answer to quantum entanglement relating to the supposed communication of entangled particles. Here is my explanation:
Electrons, for example, have opposite spins when they are within the same orbital ring of an atom. In an aether model, as you suggest, there is aether waves and by this "communication" between the electrons. When quantum entangling electrons on needs to bring them very close together like electrons in the same orbit. When you do this, aether theory would say there would be communication between the electrons and there indeterminate state of spin would then be determined, even though one would not know the spin of each individual electron you would know that there spins have been determined by entanglement and will be opposite each other. You know send them off in different directions and if they are not interfered with, surprise, one will have the opposite spin to the other. A similar principle applies with photons, entanglement determines compatible states via the aether.

"hypothetical energy density equalization, and hypothetical quantum gravity"

Energy density equalization seems appropriate in an aether model, but I prefer a pushing model of gravity involving aether flow.

Now for posting #433, I think you meant 434.



I think we agree that the concept of space warping to produce gravity, is not the best theory. Your model of gravity waves seems reasonable to me, but not as a pulling force. A mechanical model would seem to require a pushing force, if your model is mechanical, rather than a classical force. Also, to date they have not detected any such waves but that doesn't mean anything in that they haven't realized the existence of the aether as yet either Vacuum energy is simple in an aether model. The energy observed is the energy produced by interactions of the aether with itself, and with particulates within it, both known and unknown. As to the Big Bang arena, I think the BB model will be replaced within 20 years, I hope

Did I miss anything?

That is pretty good for a first pass. Maybe we will get more into the details and find we agree on more.

BTW, thanks for coming to my defense in the Scientific Theories and Reality thread. I stir up a lot of emotions when proposing that mainstream models may be wrong

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.

 

[forrest noble]

Do you still hold to the definition offered earlier: but deleting reference to energy that is deemed independent of matter (mass) [ie. photons, EMR, Dark energy etc]

Yes, there's nothing wrong IMO with your proposal of changing definitions of energy if our understandings are the same or similar, but I think it best to use "dictionary" definitions whenever possible so that fewer mistakes in communication can be made. As to luminiferous aether, which I ascribe to, if EM radiation is likened to a water wave (analogy), none of the aether particulates within the wave are traveling at the speed of light, only the aether density waves themselves travel at this speed, whereby wave crests would result in a higher energy transfer upon contact with matter (than the troughs of the waves). So in my model, to call EM radiation energy is not necessarily a misnomer or confusing.

FYI, I ascribe only to the wave theory of light, with photons being non-existent pseudo-particles, valuable mathematical constructs to enable calculations since electrons emit only discrete quantities of radiation (now called photons) when decreasing their orbits, with the same discreteness (exact quantity) relating to their energy absorption enabling their increasing orbits.

 

[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, I've been pretty encouraged about the latitude which moderation allows alternative ideas. As for myself, I agree that generally speaking, alternative hypotheses should have their own sub-forums and should not invade mainstream forums. Only when a mainstream subject might warrant such ideas, and then I think the author should always make very clear to the reader that the ideas that he is presenting is contrary to mainstream theory, and that is not a presently accepted alternative hypothesis (if in fact it isn't).

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. ??

 

[river]

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. ??

Then why have alternative theories thread in the first place , is my question

 

[forrest noble]

Then why have alternative theories thread in the first place , is my question

My alternative-theory answer is because theories are not always right, as time has shown. IMO much of modern physics today needs to be amended or replaced. If no one ever hears of alternatives then only accepted-theory minor-change hypothesis will be the only things discussed. If/ when any of these theories need to be replaced in their entirety because of new evidence, it will be a big surprise to the great many.

 

[river]

My alternative-theory answer is because theories are not always right, as time has shown. IMO much of modern physics today needs to be amended or replaced. If no one ever hears of alternatives then only accepted-theory minor-change hypothesis will be the only things discussed. If/ when any of these theories need to be replaced in their entirety because of new evidence, it will be a big surprise to the great many.

I agree

 

[Quantum Quack]

My alternative-theory answer is because theories are not always right, as time has shown. IMO much of modern physics today needs to be amended or replaced. If no one ever hears of alternatives then only accepted-theory minor-change hypothesis will be the only things discussed. If/ when any of these theories need to be replaced in their entirety because of new evidence, it will be a big surprise to the great many.

Perhaps what we need is not so much an alternative theory section ( which is great in itself ) but a discussion forum subcategory in Physics and Math titled:
"Discussions about current problematic issues in science"
As you have stated quite clearly, there are many areas of concern with the current mainstream theoretics and to discuss them, does not directly imply offering an alternative but merely exploring those problems with the view to possibly learning the of the limitations of those theories.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes, there's nothing wrong IMO with your proposal of changing definitions of energy if our understandings are the same or similar, but I think it best to use "dictionary" definitions whenever possible so that fewer mistakes in communication can be made.

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.

 

[forrest noble]

Perhaps what we need is not so much an alternative theory section ( which is great in itself ) but a discussion forum subcategory in Physics and Math titled:
"Discussions about current problematic issues in science"
As you have stated quite clearly, there are many areas of concern with the current mainstream theoretics and to discuss them, does not directly imply offering an alternative but merely exploring those problems with the view to possibly learning the of the limitations of those theories.

That is a good idea if you can arrange it. But only alternative theory is best discussed in the alternative theory section where both can be discussed. True, if there were such a mainstream sub-forum it might attract many more viewers, and participants would become aware of problems with mainstream theory. One problem with such a sub-forum, I think, would be that those pointing out the problems of mainstream theory will be considered antagonists, and those responding will have an attitude, or ask, "well if not this theory" then what explanation is there? The answer would require one or more alternative mainstream, or non-mainstream proposals. What do you think? It's fine to criticize, but most would want alternatives. It would be up to moderation to determine how far away from mainstream proposals these alternatives can go.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, its not off topic. I have posted my philosophy of Eternal Intent, and though no one ever comments about it, the gist of it is that discussions of the grand nature of the universe are invited, and though my view is that given an infinite and eternal universe, there is common ground with those who have not rejected the concept of God. The common ground is that God and the universe may be one and the same.

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

 

[Quantum Quack]

That might be cool if you can arrange it. But only alternative theory is best discussed in the alternative theory section where both can be discussed. True, if there were such a mainstream sub-forum many more viewers and participants would become aware of problems with mainstream theory. One problem, I think, will be that those pointing out the problems will be considered antagonists, and those responding will ask, "well if not this theory" then what explanation is there? The answer would require one or more alternative mainstream proposals, or non-mainstream proposals. What do you think?

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.

Another example:

• Have we accounted for the amount of EMR energy presumed to be propagating universally at any given t=0 and included it in our assessments that may be driving the need for contrivances like dark energy and mass?

...again this would almost immediately be moved to alt theories due to the fear of confusing the public as to fact and fiction [ not to mention a bit of precarious scientific pride getting dented as well]

"well if not this theory" then what explanation is there? The answer would require one or more alternative mainstream proposals, or non-mainstream proposals

the scientific method would be the only valid criteria IMO

ie. Joe suggests the invention of a "gap filler " particle called ... you guessed it... Gapfiller's and justifiably he would be questioned as to how he intends his invention to be qualified by the scientific process...

 

[forrest noble]

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.

What we think will have no effect on scientific definitions or methods to determine them. For this a consensus of scientists is needed. Of course I agree with your analysis but only great theoretical contradictions can change theory, by newly conceived observations, experiments, and instruments. If alternative theory is known at the time it can take advantage of the discrepancies, if not great promotion will be required to show that these new observations are better (or wholly) explained by an alternative theory(s).

 

[Quantum Quack]

What we think will have no effect on scientific definitions or methods to determine them. For this a consensus of scientists is needed. Of course I agree with your analysis but only great theoretical contradictions can change theory, by newly conceived observations, experiments, and instruments. If alternative theory is known at the time it can take advantage of the discrepancies, if not great promotion will be required to show that these new observations are better (or wholly) explained by an alternative theory(s).

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.

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 with out being deemed as heresy. [ deserving of being burned at the stake ]

 

[danshawen]

No, its not off topic. I have posted my philosophy of Eternal Intent, and though no one ever comments about it, the gist of it is that discussions of the grand nature of the universe are invited, and though my view is that given an infinite and eternal universe, there is common ground with those who have not rejected the concept of God. The common ground is that God and the universe may be one and the same.

From that perspective, consciousness would seem to be at its highest focus (at least here on Earth) in the brain of man, but that is not to say that there is no consciousness without the brain of man, lol. Since I hypothesize the generation of life from the hospitable environment that is capable of hosting life, and I hypothesize evolution of emerging life to higher and higher levels of intelligence and awareness, we can say that the nature of consciousness grows as those processes of life generation and evolution play out. If all of that is natural and governed by the invariant natural laws of the universe, then consciousness has always been part of the Eternal Intent, given the prerequisites necessary for Eternal Intent that I list in the essay (see post #380).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[forrest noble]

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..
At the moment if you ask such a question the thread would be moved to alternative theories.....................again this would almost immediately be moved to alt theories due to the fear of confusing the public as to fact and fiction [ not to mention a bit of precarious scientific pride getting dented as well.

Many questioners (unsophisticated) will not be able to avoid such questions IMO. Those answering should be more sophisticated with any explanation involving alternative theory to be given in this forum, maybe with a reference link to the newly-opened thread here.

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?

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

Another example:

• Have we accounted for the amount of EMR energy presumed to be propagating universally at any given t=0 and included it in our assessments that may be driving the need for contrivances like dark energy and mass?

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.