Theory of Everything

[Boerseun]

A brick is not a proton. Protons were here before we came on the scene.

The analogy still holds, though.

So because the brick is man made, this is not a proper analogy.

OH NO! I'll accommodate you and swop the brick for a rock. How's that float your boat?

My visualization of what happens in the central region of stars is the only way we can deduce what happens there.

And old saying goes that a lawyer counselling himself has a fool for a client.

But be that as it may, you hold that your visualization is the only possible one? Your holding that particular line in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary by dictating (against all thats logical and scientific) that it is so solely because you say it is so, is bordering on the absurd.

[snoopy]

 

Nuclear science is 'backward' science that plays no part in nature.

All the energy we see is created by 'fusion' that is safe.

Nuclear reactors are a source of energy but hazardous to the environment. .

 

Mike C

 

Its a fallacy that fusion is safer than fission, If we were closer to the sun say the orbit of Venus, we wouldnt think the sun was that safe at all its just that we are at a fortuitous distance from it that the sun is so benign.

 

Fusion reactors potentially can be harmful to the enviroment as well they potentially can produce far more energy than fission reactors.

 

Fission reactors could be made a lot safer than they are just now by using certain materials to build the reactor but engineering considerations come into play (ie costs) that make them far more radioactive than they potentially need to be.

 

I am reminded of a test of the Joint European Torus where the entire fusion reactor jumped half a metre. Fusion is inherently unstable ie the plasma tends to chaos. At least we can control fission to safe levels and if costs werent a consideration we could build the reactor out of materials that could absorb free neutrons without becoming so radioactive.

 

Peace

:shrug:

[Mike C]

And old saying goes that a lawyer counselling himself has a fool for a client.

But be that as it may, you hold that your visualization is the only possible one? Your holding that particular line in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary by dictating (against all thats logical and scientific) that it is so solely because you say it is so, is bordering on the absurd.

 

As you should know Boerseun, that I consdider 'visualization' in preference to mathematics.

 

Can you tell me how the strong force was derived?'

I believe that it was derived from the decay of matte r. So the SF was modified to fit the math.

By that, I mean the 'range' that sounds unbelievable.

Thanks.

 

Mike C

[Boerseun]

As you should know Boerseun, that I consdider 'visualization' in preference to mathematics.

Problem #1.

 

You want to "visualise" what you don't understand. In other words, you want to solve the problem with a "common sense" approach.

 

This kind of visualisation you're talking about, have give us such gems as a Flat Earth, and a geocentric universe.

 

Sorry, but the working of the universe was never intended to be intuitive in any way to humans.

 

If you want to understand it, you gotta do the math. Math is clinical - there is no room for error. Intuition, and the "visualisation" you speak of, is flaw-ridden, however.

[Turtle]

Problem #1.

 

You want to "visualise" what you don't understand. In other words, you want to solve the problem with a "common sense" approach.

 

This kind of visualisation you're talking about, have give us such gems as a Flat Earth, and a geocentric universe.

 

Sorry, but the working of the universe was never intended to be intuitive in any way to humans.

 

If you want to understand it, you gotta do the math. Math is clinical - there is no room for error. Intuition, and the "visualisation" you speak of, is flaw-ridden, however.

 

This bit all just strikes me as wrong-think. Whether or not Mike et al have ideas of substance, they can only follow from the imagination as with us all. Rather than take my words for it, here's just a couple comments on the topic from Albert the Axe Einstein.

 

Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.

and,

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.

 

Einstein visualized himself riding light beams in order to arrive at some of his astounding mathematical insights; let's not be any less imaginative in determining ours. :hihi:

[Mike C]

Problem #1.

 

You want to "visualise" what you don't understand. In other words, you want to solve the problem with a "common sense" approach.

 

This kind of visualisation you're talking about, have give us such gems as a Flat Earth, and a geocentric universe.

 

Sorry, but the working of the universe was never intended to be intuitive in any way to humans.

 

If you want to understand it, you gotta do the math. Math is clinical - there is no room for error. Intuition, and the "visualisation" you speak of, is flaw-ridden, however.

 

What one sees has to be interpreted.

Mathematics is just a piggy back science based on previous observations

 

To me, the first great mathematician was Kepler, and he relied on observations of the planetary motions to develope his laws regarding the planetary motions .

 

Newton, the second but greater mathematician relied on Keplers laws to develope his gravitational formula.

 

Both of these great mathematicians relied on observations.

 

The BBT is based on the observations of Slipher, Hubble and Humasons observations to detect the redshifts of the galaxies.

The observations are real and correct as far as their redshifts are concerned but the interpretrations as Doppler are false IMHO.

 

Replacing Doppler with a subjective 'expansion of space' is not real science to me.

 

Mike C

[Jay-qu]

What one sees has to be interpreted.

Mathematics is just a piggy back science based on previous observations

 

To me, the first great mathematician was Kepler, and he relied on observations of the planetary motions to develope his laws regarding the planetary motions .

 

Newton, the second but greater mathematician relied on Keplers laws to develope his gravitational formula.

 

Both of these great mathematicians relied on observations.

 

I'll forgive you for not being aware of the true depth of mathematics.

 

Yes a large amount of maths is discovered to model the universe, thats because its usefull. Its called applied maths or physics There there is the less tangible pure maths that can be very abstract and have no real direct applications. Even the simple concept of negative numbers has no real physical manifestation (but thats another discussion)

 

The BBT is based on the observations of Slipher, Hubble and Humasons observations to detect the redshifts of the galaxies.

The observations are real and correct as far as their redshifts are concerned but the interpretrations as Doppler are false IMHO.

 

Replacing Doppler with a subjective 'expansion of space' is not real science to me.

 

Mike C

 

How is it not real science? Something expands then a wave travelling through it is streched - isnt this the intuitive thinking you have been talking about?

[Brinnie]

I'll forgive you for not being aware of the true depth of mathematics.

 

Yes a large amount of maths is discovered to model the universe, thats because its usefull. Its called applied maths or physics There there is the less tangible pure maths that can be very abstract and have no real direct applications. Even the simple concept of negative numbers has no real physical manifestation (but thats another discussion)

 

 

 

How is it not real science? Something expands then a wave travelling through it is streched - isnt this the intuitive thinking you have been talking about?

 

YouTube - Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&feature=related

[Mike C]

How is it not real science? Something expands then a wave travelling through it is streched - isnt this the intuitive thinking you have been talking about?

 

Space does not transmit the photons.

The EM fields are the transmitters of the photons.

 

Their dimensions would not expand with space.

Their field dimensions (strengths) remain constant relative to the charged particle (EM pulse) but do diminish in strength with distance.

 

Because of Arp's redshift aomaly, I have concluded that the photon pulses are expanding, do to an intrinsic force between these EM field particles.

The same force that creates 'action at a distance' between similar fields.

 

Mike C

[Jay-qu]

I think you are misusing the term force, you should try to get a better understanding of them before you try and apply them in abstract ways.

 

So you propose that its not the expansion that causes the observed redshift, but another effect that describes it equally as well but with more complication?

[Mike C]

I think you are misusing the term force, you should try to get a better understanding of them before you try and apply them in abstract ways.

 

So you propose that its not the expansion that causes the observed redshift, but another effect that describes it equally as well but with more complication?

 

The photons are expanding but not because of space that I also refute because of the origin of this concept is a misreprentation of the Hubble et al observations. Of course, they may have been honest in this EoS idea but

Hubble himself did not accept the idea that the redshifts implied.

 

There is no real evidence that the space is expanding since Doppler science was refuted and replaced with the EoS idea.

 

See my post on the 'Creation of Photons' below:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/10739-creation-photons.html

 

 

Mike C