Layer Theory

[FastFuriousBK]

a

[CraigD]

Layer Theory…

How can this theory (LT) be tested? What measurable prediction does it make that disagrees with conventional theory?

 

At first glance, an obvious prediction would be that the mass of a supermassive black hole, such as those that appear to exist in the center of most galaxies, should have less mass than conventional theory predicts, because, according to LT, some or all of the matter falling into the black hole passes through Layer 2 (the mass deep inside the black hole) into Layer 3 (the higher universe). This would also apply to much more numerous binary star/back hole pairs, in which the total mass of the pair should be decreasing. In both cases, the lower-than-previously-predicted mass should be measurable by a difference in the orbits of nearby visible bodies (stars in the first prediction, planets in the second).

 

It’s important to note that an idea that does not make predictions that can be confirmed or refuted (often called “falsifiable predictions”), can’t be considered a scientific theory.

[Jay-qu]

If you cant make good on these claims, following what Craig has said, then maybe this thread best belongs in strange claims.

[CraigD]

It’s worth noting that, in entertaining ideas like LT, IlluminatedOne shares good company.

 

When astronomer Carl Sagan was writing the highly-praised novel Contact, he initially wanted to use black holes as entrances to a “hyperdimensional railroad” connecting distant points in the universe. Upon the advice of physicist Kip Thorne (who dedicated many hours of his and his graduate students time to the question), Sagan revised his text to use artificially generated wormholes instead.

 

Imagination is vital to science. It’s important, however, to at the same time be mindful of the “rules”, which basically amount to “be sure to make falsifiable predictions”. The ability to do the latter is what separates scientists from mere artists, and is no easy accomplishment.

[InfiniteNow]

When astronomer Carl Sagan was writing the highly-praised novel Contact, he initially wanted to use black holes as entrances to a “hyperdimensional railroad” connecting distant points in the universe. Upon the advice of physicist Kip Thorne (who dedicated many hours of his and his graduate students time to the question), Sagan revised his text to use artificially generated wormholes instead.

Excellent point Craig. There is a masterful description of this story in a book that had quite an impact on my own knowledge. It was written by Thorne and is called "Blackholes and Timewarps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy." I highly suggest it to anyone even remotely interested in astronomy and cosmology. ;)

[Jay-qu]

It’s worth noting that, in entertaining ideas like LT, IlluminatedOne shares good company.

 

The thing is, you get books written by an astronomer/cosmologist and in the book there happens to be an idea that may have been passed as completely ridiculous/outrageous but still possible for all we know, then some overenthusiastic reader thinks 'hey I think this is real' throws their own slight spin on it and starts calling it their own because they think its real while the author only mentioned it as a thought experiment.. /rant

 

sorry, but its a true story, ive seen it happen..

 

no offence IlluminatedOne, Im not saying you did this at all, its just an obervation I have made in the past.

[FastFuriousBK]

That's not the case.

[FastFuriousBK]

Deleted post to make posts shorter.

[hallenrm]

Interesting thread indeed, congratulations illuminatedOne, to me a theory is also an attempt to understand nature more vividly. So far as I know, the current cosmological theories, AKA Big Bang etc. put a lots of questions under the carpet. The tendency is to ignore whatsoever you cannot explain, but at the same time ridicule all other attempts unless made by an established scientist; and there lies the catch, by the time you become an established scientist, in the present era, you also tend to become senile. In fact, the academic arena of science is fast becoming sterile for this reason. The reason may be meteoric rise of science in the minds of the powerful in the past century, which has led to many hoaxes, ambitions and inhibitions too!

 

Anyway, I would only wish you Good Luck, keep trying who knows that one day because of the special circumstances your theory may be accepted for finer scrutiny, but you can never be sure that at that moment you would be recognized, as the History of Science would stand testimony many original thinkers never found place in the Hall of fame!

 

:shrug:

[FastFuriousBK]

Thanks for reading and thanks for your nice reply.

 

I deleted the rest of this post to make posts shorter.

[FastFuriousBK]

I asked an administrator to change my screenname from IlluminatedOne to FastFuriousBK. Don't be confused about the screenname change.

[Jay-qu]

I am not insulting you or your idea. You will find though, that many ideas that you try and come up with and think you have found something original, will not be. Though it may differ in the specifics the overall concept remains similar.

 

I am a skeptic, its just how I think.

 

Roger Penrose in his book "The emporers new mind" classifies theories in 3 ways. Superb, Useful and then Tentative. Where only the top theories ever formulated reach the status of supurb such as general relativity and QED. These theories are able to predict with astounding accuracy what happens in our world and normally in a very elegant way. Useful theories such QCD and the big bang predict things to a decent accuracy, and make good tools, but lack the elegance and phenomenal predictive power of the superb theories. Finnally tentative theories are thoose that lack any significant experimental support altogether.

 

I just read this today and found it interesting that a theories importance is based around the maths of it. Other theories like your own are destined to remain a theory of pure thought unless you can predict something mathematically.

 

Does anyone disagree with this?

[hallenrm]

I just read this today and found it interesting that a theories importance is based around the maths of it. Other theories like your own are destined to remain a theory of pure thought unless you can predict something mathematically.

 

Does anyone disagree with this?

 

Yes part of it, when you say that a theory's importance is based around the maths of it. Because I do not think that every theory in science is mathematical or need to be!

[CraigD]

Because I do not think that every theory in science is mathematical or need to be!

Scientific theories must make testable predictions.

Predictions must be tested by measuring physical phenomena.

Measurements require numbers, even if very simple ones that can be held in ones head.

The domain of knowledge involving numbers is called “math”.

Therefore, every scientific theory must be mathematical, even if the math is so intuitive we don’t normally call it “math”.

 

Most modern physics involving stuff like gravity and black holes requires math beyond what anyone can do intuitively. Much of it pushes the boundary of math that anyone can do by any known means. Several string theorists have made remarks like “string theory like trying to do the next century’s physics, using this century’s math” or “the problem with string theory is that nobody’s smart enough to do it”.

[Jay-qu]

“the problem with string theory is that nobody’s smart enough to do it”.

 

Do I smell a challenge?

 

:phones:

 

So it doesnt make something not a theory to not produce testable predictions, only one that is ultimately useless.. Oh well its still fun to think about all the same!

[hallenrm]

Scientific theories must make testable predictions.

 

Agree, cent percent!

Predictions must be tested by measuring physical phenomena.Measurements require numbers, even if very simple ones that can be held in ones head.

The domain of knowledge involving numbers is called “math”.

 

Not always, verifying a phenomenon doesn't always require measurement. Phenomenon may be verified when a large number of people observe a phenomenon, thus math need not be an essential ingredient of any theory.

 

Therefore, every scientific theory must be mathematical, even if the math is so intuitive we don’t normally call it “math”.

 

Entirely doubtful theory! :ebomb:

[CraigD]

Predictions must be tested by measuring physical phenomena.Measurements require numbers, even if very simple ones that can be held in ones head.

The domain of knowledge involving numbers is called “math”.

Not always, verifying a phenomenon doesn't always require measurement. Phenomenon may be verified when a large number of people observe a phenomenon, thus math need not be an essential ingredient of any theory.

Even a simple “yes/no” observation is, from a mathematical physics point-of-view, a measurement. And even in such “soft” sciences as Sociology, mathematical techniques such as Statistics are needed for terms like “a large number of people” to be meaningful, and to distinguish cause and effect from coincidence when observing phenomena.

 

It may be that, like many mathematicians, my definition of Math is more encompassing than the norm, but I can’t see how one can do science without using some sort of math.