Do you believe in Multiverse theory?

Post Reply New Topic

No, firstly because dark energy is not even relevant to the discussion and secondly because all of your other "problems" you have mentioned have never been problems with the Big Bang theory. You are creating a strawman.

Also a loss of energy in light, if it were to occur, would lead to a decrease in frequency, so it's the same thing.



Prove it. The only known mechanism for light to lose energy is if it is absorbed by particles and such and if that were the case, the light would be scattered causing a blurring effect.



No, the cosmic microwave background cannot be fully explained by a frequency shift. Only the Big Bang can explain that. I have given a link to a source that explains why and you have completely ignored it. Here it is again:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stars_vs_cmb.html



How can anything in the universe can be older than 15 billion years if the universe itself is only that old?



Look, the fact that there's an accelerated expansion does not invalidate the fact that the universe is expanding, even if we don't know why the expansion is accelerating.



Is this article published in a reputed and peer reviewed scientific journal? It looks like a bit of a crackpot theory to me. Gravity and electromagnetism are two different forces. In fact, gravity is not even really a force according to general relativity.

I agree with Tedenstig. A continous slowly growing process.

I also agree with ruvryn,

The effects of special relativity become highly significant at high speeds and the general relativistic effects become significant in strong gravitational fields. The way nature behaves and what is of practical importance to humans are completely different in independent things.

There are places, reached through rapid motion, of gettting too close to a Black Hole, where the theory, "We are not in Kansas anymore," is needed to even guess what is.

While it is interesting to think of matter moving near the speed of light, where it would behave more like an electromagnetic wave, we were assured by the same person, that it is impossible for matter to move that fast.

What is practical in our little village, is even a tenth the speed of light is claimed to be the top end, and that does not come with blueprints. We are also finding that the potential track is littered with random objects, which are also moving, some fast enough that a pea sized rock is energy loaded, and intersecting it would be the end. Even one of our slow boats to the Moon shots hit a rock.

There is worse, back when I was a Boy Scout, during Sputnik, we spread a sheet of plastic and collected some of the space sand that is always falling. Overall it is a lot per day, the Earth grows. It is fine, it still abrades aircraft.

It brought up questions then. If we have cleared our orbit through Gravity, why is the sand still a constant? Comets also leave junk trails. They are hardly anything, compared to the mass that falls every day.

Tedenstig answers that question with outside push. If we were not here, starlight would still be pushing sand.

Everything in our Solar System came from somewhere else. Everywhere else is a long way. While I am sure it started in a star, some force sweeps it slowly through space. Slow moving sand and gas fits for building what we see. From Soil Science, I learned that there is something about top soil. It is not just the decay product of the rock beneath, it has magic ingredients, that are ever restored. Tesla wrote about it.

Geologic Erosion makes sand from rock, but not the living top soil. Sub soil cannot be brought to the surface and activated, it is dead. Biological life cannot get a foothold, but top soil is ever growing on the surface.

In his book on worms, The Formation of Vegetable Mold, Darwin points out they bring up a constant layer, cover old stone walks, an inch a hundred years, it improves soil, but is not what makes it. He kept a worm on a glass bowl for forty years, it looked the same. He thought they might be immortal. He could not answer the question, what produces this film of life?

Everything we know about soil, it runs down. Pasture, crops, the soil declines, then revives with rest, fallow. We have learned to feed plants, but the soil they grow in is dying. Key parts of the life chain are declining, Trace Elements, which are not derived from the local sub soil.

Now being alive and a local, I take a local view. I am part of that thin film of life, take it personal. If some want to fly on Dragons through time warps beyond the speed of light to a Black hole where Time is bent in circles and forms rings, that is fine with me. I have heard about it, but not seen anything come of it.

What is of practical importance to humans just comes first with me.

The behavior of nature in the world we live in, and maybe to the center of the Milky Way, is my field, and does not call for Special anything, just keeping the farm running. Physics did help, but this new thinking, that the purpose of learning is to come up with things that cannot be proved or disproved, just does not help the Shire.

It seems to me we can get on just fine with a local and practical knowledge. We will never know how and when it started. We are not going anywhere. The surface of the planet is it for us. We are standing on the ultimate science problem, and if we do not focus on it, it will kill us quite soon.

The point is that we don't know the mechanism behind decreasing energy, and thus we cannot say it is disproved because the spectrum from distant stars would be wrong. That being wrong implies we know how it functions.



Nope. I just refer you to Tedenstigs "matter unified". He claims this falls out naturally from his theory because of how photons are built.



I prefer Tedenstigs explanation that is more logical to me. He basically claims that vaccum has properties (not ether) that makes it possible for photons to appear by themselves by chance. His ideas that electric and magnetic fields are built like this is compelling.



But the universe is much older than 15 billion years. It is just that we will never be able to see light from stars that are older than 15 billion years because it would have been totally absorbed in space.



IMHO, there is no expansion at all, but your model of red shift being equal to expansion requires accelerating expansion because of data we have. My model of photons losing energy does not need to concern itself with expansion, and it doesn't require a linear decay of photons.



It's a complete book, that AFAIK has been published.

Yes, I take a similar view. As I think most of modern physics and cosmology is sheer speculation, I prefer to select a speculative theory that fits my personal preferences. If it is right or wrong (or if it can even be proved to be right or wrong) is of minor interest since the theory itself has no implications that I can use. I just get annoyed with explosive origins (Big Bang), so I will not accept such propositions unless they are 100% proved to be right (which would never happen).

And I think Tedenstig's theory, that more or less discards both the theory of relativity and most speculation in quantum mechanics, and uses Newton's standard formulas throughout, is compelling, elegant, and just plainly genial. It is a perfect application of the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle. Until somebody comes with real objections to his reasoning, I'll just accept it is as a fact. Which is how people relate to philosophical / religous issues.

Do you even know what the term "peer review" means? Anyone can write a book and just because something is written in a book doesn't make it credible. I was asking asking for an article published in a "peer reviewed" journal, not a book. Furthermore, if the book was published without a peer reviewed article being published first, then that gives me even more reason not to take it seriously.

Yes, I know exactly what "peer review" means in terms of controversial subjects. It is a way for people with agendas to discard and stop inconvinient material from being spread and noticed by professionals. In this case, if somebody contradicts popular theories about "Big Bang" or the theory of relativity, they will never be able to publish their results. Additionally, if they work professionally in the field, they will lose funding if they research impopular things. That is how the (neurotypical) nature is, so you better accept it.



If peer-review worked for controversial theories, we would see much more of these published in the scientific literature instead of on private web-pages or in books. And it is when all kinds of ideas are evaluated (rather than silenced) that we make advances in science. It might very well be that 99% of these theories are wrong, but the 1% that are correct need attention. What we need is clear arguments against controversial theories, not refusal to peer-review or publish them.

So, I will continue to believe in Tedenstigs theory because I like it, even if most of it is not published. At least until somebody can refute his reasoning with logic.

Reasoning with and from logic is necessary but not sufficient. Any theory about the world, to be taken seriously, must be supported by empirical evidence whose design is critically reviewed and whose results must be independently corroborated by empirical means. "One of" experiments do not count for much.

ruveyn

That doesn't apply to modern physics, as it is impossible for most amateurs and even professionals to provide emprical evidence in cosmology or particle physics. That is part of the problem. Most of the research conducted today is to confirm Big Bang, or find parameters related to Big Bang. Experiments wanting to refute the theory of relativity or Big Bang are extremely costly, and are simply not funded becase nobody believe they will succeed. Tedenstig proposes one simply experiment in relation to the theory of relativity, that is possible to conduct, but only if you have the right means to do it.

Important results are corroborated by teams with the money and resources to do it. For example the recent OPERA observation that raises the possibility that neutrinos may go a little faster than light speed. That result is being double checked all over the world because it is so important to physics. Universities spend millions of $$ to check the important results.

The Big Bang has been questioned and work is going on in a dozen institutes to sharpen up the theory and elsewhere to refute it. The theory of relativity is checked every single day thousands of times. Every time you locate yourself correctly with a GPS device you have corroborated The General Theory of Relativity. Also expensive experiments like Gravity Probe B is checked the amount of "frame dragging" that occurs.

In any case it is up to the challenger to corroborate his hypotheses and theories by empirical means. Coming up with an alternate theory is not sufficient to supplant a theory that is supported by vast amounts of experimental data.

Theories do not falsify theories. Stubborn perverse facts are what falsify theories.

ruveyn

Anything new is always wrong. The entire body of thought money spent, books written, Peer Gangs that support what leads to more funding, will all say it is wrong.

Vested Interest has entered Science through funding. Peer Reviewed mostly means citing the same prior work, not independant research and experiment, unless the funding becomes available. Science, Universities, have become Lobbist.

The field of new knowledge I know best, Invention, does not demand overthrowing everything that has come before, just citing it as Prior Art, and then stating why they were wrong.

As a field it is more productive than Science, which is only a small part of invention. The new model only has to be described so someone familer with the art could replicate it.

A new metal alloy does not have to be Published in the Old Alloy News, convince a majority of people in the field, Academics that have a lot invested in other mixes and contracts with industry, for they would all say it is worthless compared to their superior view and position.

Invention makes whole industries in their prime obsolete. It is not sometimes, it is constant, nothing lasts. It is also about 500 years older than the Scientific Method.

Science attracted unemployed religious types, seeking absolute truth, unchanging, next they went into First Cause, Prime Mover, which was the old religion, it all starts with God and Creation. first they burn you at the stake, then steal your work.

Invention, a defense from that system, only the actual inventor can apply for a Patent. No permission was needed from the Clergy, or even the King. This did come from a time when publishing a book took prior permission, called Copyright.

Gregor Mendal was not Peer Reviewed, but he was right.

Newton published his thought in books, which few understood. The Review process took a hundred years.

CERN and other such Super Physics Clubs, have the same relation to Science as Autism Speaks to Autism, it is how they raise money.

Not being one for absolutes, ends, I find the process of creative destruction seen in Invention and Business to be a process to reach a better understanding, then improve on that. It is an open playing field, all players and ideas welcome, and we see what survives.

The American system added Freedom of the Press, giving all ideas a wider exposure.

I also see no conection between GPS, and The General Theory of Relativity. Three sending units in Geosyncronus orbits, stationary to a ground view, send three signals that converge on one point. A measure of angle, time, can define any location, based on the speed of the signal. It is Radio. It replaced a land based LORAN System. Which replaced Lighthouses. GPS are Radio Stars, the reciever a Sextant.

Inventions do not falsify inventions, both work, the one with greater utility will tend to take over, until someone compares both, and thinks up a third way. It is this sowing a field of ideas with more ideas that has been most productive.

Market demand and utility drive the use. In this case, The Big Bang Vs Tedenstig, Bang or no bang, has nothing to do with Earth next week. Tedenstig is local, closer to market, and likely to produce many applications.

I disagree with a few things, Geothermal and the Hydrate pools at the bottom of the ocean are endless energy. Coal and oil are destructive, but controllable and profitable. When Tesla came up with induction heating to smelt iron, the coal interests freaked out. His lab burned, he was smeared, his patents stolen, and a mind like Newton in applied Science, was shut down. His Peers worked for Industry, they denounced him and stole his work.

I am thinking of some Patents that could be drafted citing Tedenstig, I would never cite the Big Bang as Prior Art. This view of local energy fields is changing my view of disbelief in the mad ramblings of science, to something a local mechanic could use.

Physics tells tales of long ago and far away, of worlds unlike our own, Tedenstig tells local stories that I can see the parts of in my world.

Invention is the marketplace of ideas.

Gregor Mendel's work was ignored after his death and rediscovered 40 years later. De Vries was peer reviewed and his work was accepted in fairly short order. Hugo de Vries is the founder of modern genetic theory although Mendel did the empirical statistical work prior in the 1850's. Chemistry and physics progressed a great deal in the 4 decades between Mendel and de Vries.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_de_Vries

Newton's gravitational theory was checked out in his lifetime. Observations of the Moon corroborated his famous law and Halley, the Astronomer Royal (who also published Newton's -Principia- at his own expense) predicted the date of return of the famous comet that now bears his name. All of Newton's basic mechanics was checked out in France by Marquise Émilie du Châtelet a wealthy noblewoman who used her home as a research laboratory. (She was also Voltaire's mistress). Newton himself was an expert experimenter and many of the experiments he devised were reproduced by others. In fact Newton formulated a set of rules in Book III of -Principia- that insisted all underlying scientific assumptions should flow from empirical observation.

See http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/in ... rules.html

You are a true fountain of misinformation and your scholarship could do with some improvement.

ruveyn