Is the Universe Infinite?

Brandon9000 wrote:

nipok wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I suggest, then, that you publish in a real, refereed Physics journal. Incidentally, your previous assertion about objects measuring each other as going 1.5 times the speed of light was flat out wrong, as my comments showed.

I do not disagree with the fact that I phrased it incorrectly. I was trying to make a point....

You didn't just phrase it incorrectly, you were incorrect in a matter of substance. Since you are revising modern Physics in a way, which, if correct, would be of great interest to the world scientific community, why do you not publish in a reputable, refereed scientific journal? Can your theory be tested by experiment or observation in a way that distinguishes it from other theories? Can you make a prediction that can be tested, which is currently not predicted by existing theory?

I realize my posts are long winded so I apologize up front if I put anybody to sleep 

Time travel and the speed of light are not a very big part of my theory. Read my first post in response to the question related to time travel and the speed of light. As e-mails bounced around I tried to make a point that we can't prove that our entire known universe is not already traveling faster than the speed of light through the "vacuum" of space. As far as matter of substance these are just two links that discuss past experiments that have results that seem to question the speed of light as a limit that cannot be passed.

http://www.aei-potsdam.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html

http://www.wsws.org/public_html/prioriss/iwb9-9/light.htm

But that's not point I was trying to make either. Nor was I trying to make the point that Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics already have known discrepancies that are as of yet unsolved. You are too caught up in the entire quantum relativistic space-time continuum of our known universe. I agree it all exists and explains a huge percent of the overall paradigm but it has it's limitations because it fails to take into account the much larger Space-Time-Energy Continuum of our Universe that our tiny universe is only a speck in.

The big bang theory, dark matter, spacetime, string theory, the lorentz transformation, and tons of other formulas, constants, and theories may very well be valid. But I submit there is a possibility they may only be valid within our known universe or universes very similar to ours and not the entire Universe or other universes much different than ours. Some laws may apply, some may not, and some may someday turn out to be incorrect altogether. There are not enough proven facts to plug ALL the holes in the current paradigm. Assumptions were made and band-aids were added that use these assumptions to grow from. I don't have specific examples although if I had to I am sure I could find 5 or 10 or more accepted beliefs that are still unproven and hinge on assumption and/or manipulation of observations.

I have not published yet because I've been editing and re-editing for the last 10 years when time permits. I am close so it seemed like the right time to build my house of cards in a public arena and see if it can be knocked down. If part of it (a part that matters, not just an off comment made about the speed of light) happens to collapse and I can't fix it with a stronger card then the house falls and my work become fiction. If however the first two levels of this house of cards pass the initial barrage then I can add a few more levels and see how high we can build this before it gets knocked down. If enough dialogue passes that I am comfortable with its merit than you can be damn sure I am going to publish it but like you said without even a tidbit of hard math to back any of it up or a prediction that can be tested it is just a set of theories. My goal is to see if my set of theories are strong enough to stand against the current paradigm which I feel they are and if so my goal would be eventually dispel the myths of dark matter, string theory, and that our planet is not one of an infinite number of habitable planets in our entire Universe.

I do in fact have some predictions that can be tested and have been tested but the house of cards ain't high enough yet. More dialogue needs to take place before the foundation is set to discuss those predictions.

Lastly, Brandon, please do not connote any tone to my response. I am not offended in anyway nor take anything personally. I know I sound like a raving lunatic and expect debate. I am actually looking forward to it in an effort to find any holes in my theories.

nipok
that's my 2 cents. Rebate forms available upon request.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

As to the discussion "Is the Universe Infinite" I think that the Cosmic Microwave Background Emissions are equally well predicted by the "Big Bang-Expanding Universe" theories or the "Steady State (infinite) Universe"

The background radiation is also equally well predicted by two subparticles of matter one billionth the size of an electron making contact at .99999 the speed of light (or greater but I'm not going there again). That background radiation would of course be relative to the infinite chain of smaller particles that would be created and would reshape and reform to reevolve back into matter and in doing so create on a much slower scale (due to time dilation principles) in a new universe that may exist in its own time frame for 400 trillion years and to us may only seem like a second or two.

0 Replies

[quote="Brandon9000] Why do you feel qualified to revise what thousands of clever people with actual education in the field have built up over centuries? [/quote]

Why my good man because I am clevererer of course.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Why do you feel qualified to revise what thousands of clever people with actual education in the field have built up over centuries?

nipok wrote:

[Why my good man because I am clevererer of course.

You may or may not be cleverer than Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Fermi etc., but even if you are, without knowledge of existing Physics, you have virtually no chance of revising it, any more than I would have a chance of revising surgical technique without any knowledge of medicine. Now, with no further evasion, what is your educational background in this area?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

nipok wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I suggest, then, that you publish in a real, refereed Physics journal. Incidentally, your previous assertion about objects measuring each other as going 1.5 times the speed of light was flat out wrong, as my comments showed.

I do not disagree with the fact that I phrased it incorrectly. I was trying to make a point....

You didn't just phrase it incorrectly, you were incorrect in a matter of substance. Since you are revising modern Physics in a way, which, if correct, would be of great interest to the world scientific community, why do you not publish in a reputable, refereed scientific journal? Can your theory be tested by experiment or observation in a way that distinguishes it from other theories? Can you make a prediction that can be tested, which is currently not predicted by existing theory?

To which branch of philosophy does string theory belong?

0 Replies

john/nyc wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
nipok wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I suggest, then, that you publish in a real, refereed Physics journal. Incidentally, your previous assertion about objects measuring each other as going 1.5 times the speed of light was flat out wrong, as my comments showed.

I do not disagree with the fact that I phrased it incorrectly. I was trying to make a point....

You didn't just phrase it incorrectly, you were incorrect in a matter of substance. Since you are revising modern Physics in a way, which, if correct, would be of great interest to the world scientific community, why do you not publish in a reputable, refereed scientific journal? Can your theory be tested by experiment or observation in a way that distinguishes it from other theories? Can you make a prediction that can be tested, which is currently not predicted by existing theory?

To which branch of philosophy does string theory belong?

To none. It's Physics. The cosmological question that started the thread actually belongs on the Science board.

0 Replies

john/nyc wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
nipok wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I suggest, then, that you publish in a real, refereed Physics journal. Incidentally, your previous assertion about objects measuring each other as going 1.5 times the speed of light was flat out wrong, as my comments showed.

I do not disagree with the fact that I phrased it incorrectly. I was trying to make a point....

You didn't just phrase it incorrectly; you were incorrect in a matter of substance. Since you are revising modern Physics in a way, which, if correct, would be of great interest to the world scientific community, why do you not publish in a reputable, refereed scientific journal? Can your theory be tested by experiment or observation in a way that distinguishes it from other theories? Can you make a prediction that can be tested, which is currently not predicted by existing theory?

To which branch of philosophy does string theory belong?

String theory is one of a handful of explanations that expand on quantum physics and the current 12 point particles in an attempt to solve the unified field theory but in doing so introduces a whole bunch of new dimensions over and above the four accepted dimensions.

Very speculative and based more on observations that are questionably interpreted. It is so clear that the Heisenberg Uncertainity principle comes to play when you work with bubble chambers, cloud chambers, argon calorimeters, or data from a Cerenkov detectors (a few of the many types of detectors used in high speed accelerators).

Any results or observations are not of atoms in the normal state but in actuality from atoms that are far far from their normal state. There are lots of good websites with current information on string theory and someday they may be able to prove that vibrating strings and supersymetric 11 dimensional objects are the fabric of the universe but the more you read into it the more it just does not make sense.

Observations of string theory can just as logically be explained by the wave nature of subatomic particles when you accept that there may very well be point particles smaller than quarks and leptons.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Now, with no further evasion, what is your educational background in this area?

College degree in a field outside that which I preach. My knowledge of nuclear and atomic physics, astronomy, chemical and biological engineering, and many other fields is all self-taught going on 30+ years of learning. But I don't think that that has anything to do with the point. Drop the speed of light issue which is not part of my house of cards and find something else from either post on page 17 of this thread that you find at fault and I'd be more than happy to discuss it.

Too many people are stuck in the same closed minded paradigm that you seem stuck in. Once you can accept that there are unknowns and assumptions that make up the current paradigm then there is no reason not to accept that there could be another paradigm very close to what we believe to be true that is equally as valid also with assumptions and unknowns.

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

Too many people are stuck in the same closed minded paradigm that you seem stuck in. Once you can accept that there are unknowns and assumptions that make up the current paradigm then there is no reason not to accept that there could be another paradigm very close to what we believe to be true that is equally as valid also with assumptions and unknowns.

Oh, I absolutely accept that. That isn't even remotely my point.

What I don't accept is the idea that someone is likely to revise a scientific field with no knowledge of it. Tell me how many times in history a field in the hard sciences has been revised by someone who knew nothing of its present state.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

john/nyc wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
nipok wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I suggest, then, that you publish in a real, refereed Physics journal. Incidentally, your previous assertion about objects measuring each other as going 1.5 times the speed of light was flat out wrong, as my comments showed.

I do not disagree with the fact that I phrased it incorrectly. I was trying to make a point....

You didn't just phrase it incorrectly, you were incorrect in a matter of substance. Since you are revising modern Physics in a way, which, if correct, would be of great interest to the world scientific community, why do you not publish in a reputable, refereed scientific journal? Can your theory be tested by experiment or observation in a way that distinguishes it from other theories? Can you make a prediction that can be tested, which is currently not predicted by existing theory?

To which branch of philosophy does string theory belong?

To none. It's Physics. The cosmological question that started the thread actually belongs on the Science board.

Has a parallel universe been observed?

Or a sparticle?

Or extra dimensions?

Or an actual string?

Does the theory have any evidence outside of its mathematical beauty?

0 Replies

john/nyc wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
john/nyc wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
nipok wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I suggest, then, that you publish in a real, refereed Physics journal. Incidentally, your previous assertion about objects measuring each other as going 1.5 times the speed of light was flat out wrong, as my comments showed.

I do not disagree with the fact that I phrased it incorrectly. I was trying to make a point....

You didn't just phrase it incorrectly, you were incorrect in a matter of substance. Since you are revising modern Physics in a way, which, if correct, would be of great interest to the world scientific community, why do you not publish in a reputable, refereed scientific journal? Can your theory be tested by experiment or observation in a way that distinguishes it from other theories? Can you make a prediction that can be tested, which is currently not predicted by existing theory?

To which branch of philosophy does string theory belong?

To none. It's Physics. The cosmological question that started the thread actually belongs on the Science board.

Has a parallel universe been observed?

Or a sparticle?

Or extra dimensions?

Or an actual string?

Does the theory have an evidence outside of its mathematical beauty?

This exceeds my level of expertise, but I can tell you this. Real theories in Physics are derived mathematically from explicitly stated postulates and known results, and the people who derive them, and other people working in the field try very hard to use them to predict results which can be checked. If you look at virtually any Physics paper in a real professional journal such as "Physical Review," it's about 80% math. Actual work in Physics, and popular science descriptions of it, have very little in common.

Look for instance at this paper I just found on the Web by Richard Woodard, a former roommate of mine:

http://ernie.ecs.soton.ac.uk/opcit/cgi-bin/pdf?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0206010

0 Replies

No Brandon,

I was pleased and delighted that ideas that may be "off the wall" can be discussed and corrected as one sees fit in a reasonable manner.

I have found that even in "Science and Mechanics" it is often no more possible to discuss differing interpretations of observed facts than it is in the Religion and Spirituality Forum. Sad

And even in the "Hard Sciences" there are a lot of theories masquerading as facts. When one points this out though one is often referred to a book written by another "believer". And IMO a person who "believes in anything" without knowing something of the observations that go into the theories (the mechanics behind the thing Smile

) being presented isn't much better than a "Snake Handling preacher" in his ability to explain our universe to "the great unwashed masses".

Thats me folks. Very Happy

0 Replies

Brandon , I was referring to your post of Aug 16--10:14PM. I thought that it would go in quick enough to be in sequence but I was wrong. Smile

0 Replies

Any theory can be challenged. Sometimes a fresh approach is needed. But people who are completely ignorant of the field have little chance of revising accepted theory.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

What I don't accept is the idea that someone is likely to revise a scientific field with no knowledge of it.

Tell me how many times in history a field in the hard sciences has been revised by someone who knew nothing of its present state.

I've studied this stuff for 30+ years and agree that I don't have the math to back it up. I am not a mathematician or even a nuclear physicist. I'm a philosopher. But I'm a philosopher that probably knows more about Schrödinger, Bohr, Einstein, Coulomb, and a bunch of other people with formulas I can't prove or disprove than many other philosophers.

What I do have is a paradigm that competes with the limitations of the big bang theory, string theory, and the formation of first life on this planet among many many other discrepancies or holes. The problem I see here is that my paradigm makes our known universe a point in time and space and by definition a point does not exist. So if our known universe is too insignificant to matter and our planet is just a little smaller than our known universe and you and I are just a little smaller than our planet then that makes tackling this paradigm a pretty big thing to digest which is why I am well accustomed to your reaction. Include an infinite number of habitable planets inside every atom that you cannot disprove exist and I can understand why this is overwhelming for you.

If you have a counter point to make with a post that is concrete I welcome it. I will not debate any further my qualifications to present my theories. Prove me wrong or get off the pot.

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

I can understand why this is overwhelming for you.

If you have a counter point to make with a post that is concrete I welcome it. I will not debate any further my qualifications to present my theories. Prove me wrong or get off the pot.

Your qualifications? As far as I can see your qualifications are no knowledge of Physics and no knowledge of Math. But let's get back to your plan to revise modern Physics.

Tell us one specific prediction that your hypothesis makes which can be tested and which distinguishes your hypothesis from others, show us how it arises from your work, and describe how it might be tested.

In 1905, Einstein receved his doctorate and submitted, I believe 4, papers to professional journals. I recall that one was Special Relativity, one was on Brownian motion, and one explained the photoelectric effect. The fourth, I seem to recall was solid work, but not quite in a league with the three mentioned. It was for this last one on the photoelectic effect that he eventually won the Nobel Prize. May I suggest that you not hide this work from the scientific community, but submit it to a legitimate refereed journal? I doubt that people who publish their work only on Internet message boards have a very good track record in the field.

0 Replies

In a philosophical topic on the structure of the universe. Our new friend nipok has resorted to this brilliant piece of debate technique;

Quote:

Prove me wrong or get off the pot.

OK, I'll get off the pot then.....

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

nipok wrote:
I can understand why this is overwhelming for you.

If you have a counter point to make with a post that is concrete I welcome it. I will not debate any further my qualifications to present my theories. Prove me wrong or get off the pot.

Your qualifications? As far as I can see your qualifications are no knowledge of Physics and no knowledge of Math. But let's get back to your plan to revise modern Physics.

Tell us one specific prediction that your hypothesis makes which can be tested and which distinguishes your hypothesis from others, show us how it arises from your work, and describe how it might be tested.

In 1905, Einstein receved his doctorate and submitted, I believe 4, papers to professional journals. I recall that one was Special Relativity, one was on Brownian motion, and one explained the photoelectric effect. The fourth, I seem to recall was solid work, but not quite in a league with the three mentioned. It was for this last one on the photoelectic effect that he eventually won the Nobel Prize. May I suggest that you not hide this work from the scientific community, but submit it to a legitimate refereed journal? I doubt that people who publish their work only on Internet message boards have a very good track record in the field.

I feel like I am on a broken merry go round and I can't get off. What is your basis for claiming I know nothing of physics or math. Because my theories do not have a mathematical formula? Give me the formula for the big bang, give me the formula for creation of first life on this planet, give me the formula that proves that a singularity that once contained our entire known universe is more viable then the possibility that universes just like ours exist an infinite number of times inside of every atom, give me the mathematical equation that proves beyond any doubt that our known universe is all there is, all there will be, and all there was and that before it existed there was no time or space, show me the hard proof from predictions that have been tested that there are superstrings and that superstring theory is not just another THEORY based on observations, prove to me that superstring theory observations cannot also be caused by particles much smaller than electrons in wave state, prove to me beyond any doubt that particles of mass one thousand, one million, or one billion times as small as a muon do not exist, prove to me that there is a smallest unit of time, a smallest unit of distance, or a smallest unit of energy.

I can only assume by your most current reply (which is not much different then the rest) that you decided to stay on the pot. When you get off let me know otherwise you can print out this message and use it for toilet paper.

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

I feel like I am on a broken merry go round and I can't get off. What is your basis for claiming I know nothing of physics or math. Because my theories do not have a mathematical formula? Give me the formula for the big bang, give me the formula for creation of first life on this planet, give me the formula that proves that a singularity that once contained our entire known universe..... that superstring theory observations.

Actually, most of these topics to which you allude are described mathematically by the real practitioners in the field.

1. Please submit your work to a basic element of the scientific method and tell us any prediction it permits you to make which can be tested, how the prediction arises from your work, and how it can be tested.

2. Since your work, if correct, would be a milestone in the development of Physics, why do you not publish it in a reputable journal in the field, so that the scientific community can evaluate it? Or did you plan to revise modern Physics and then keep it a secret?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

john/nyc wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
john/nyc wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
nipok wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I suggest, then, that you publish in a real, refereed Physics journal. Incidentally, your previous assertion about objects measuring each other as going 1.5 times the speed of light was flat out wrong, as my comments showed.

I do not disagree with the fact that I phrased it incorrectly. I was trying to make a point....

You didn't just phrase it incorrectly, you were incorrect in a matter of substance. Since you are revising modern Physics in a way, which, if correct, would be of great interest to the world scientific community, why do you not publish in a reputable, refereed scientific journal? Can your theory be tested by experiment or observation in a way that distinguishes it from other theories? Can you make a prediction that can be tested, which is currently not predicted by existing theory?

To which branch of philosophy does string theory belong?

To none. It's Physics. The cosmological question that started the thread actually belongs on the Science board.

Has a parallel universe been observed?

Or a sparticle?

Or extra dimensions?

Or an actual string?

Does the theory have an evidence outside of its mathematical beauty?

This exceeds my level of expertise, but I can tell you this. Real theories in Physics are derived mathematically from explicitly stated postulates and known results, and the people who derive them, and other people working in the field try very hard to use them to predict results which can be checked. If you look at virtually any Physics paper in a real professional journal such as "Physical Review," it's about 80% math. Actual work in Physics, and popular science descriptions of it, have very little in common.

Brandon,

Here is my problem:

I intuit that nipok is advocating some sort of intelligent design model of the universe. (I could be wrong about that; I was wrong once before. I think it was back in 1953.) I do not believe in super-beings but I cannot disprove their existence. The thinking required for belief in religion is so muddled that I have a hard time with it.

Science, on the other hand, has built itself on the idea of testing and observation. Make a statement about how you think the things work; demonstrate how you reached that conclusion; ask the world to agree or disagree and to demonstrate why.

Along comes String Theory and, to tell you the truth, I don't think these questions I asked are in anybody's level of expertise. If it can't be proved by test or observation, then its no better than religion or, at best, philosophy.

0 Replies

Is the Universe Infinite?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know