Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 262

Thread: The Demise of ATM Discussions

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,066
    Quote Originally Posted by JonClarke View Post
    Yes rocks falling from the sky was ATM, at least in the western world (not in China though AFAIK).
    Right. (Don't know about the China thing, either.) Now? Not so much.

    How about (you don't have to answer this one, Jon; you're not any of the people I'm aiming at) the idea that blood flows through the human body? ATM at first or no?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by rebel View Post
    I don't know about you, but I'm not going to spend 8 to 12 months or longer studying an equation that hasn't been proven in the first place. Just because someone "important" writes an equation and says that's the way it is, and no one has found a flaw in it, doesn't mean it's not flawed. I'm going to spend my time with nature, nature doesn't lie. People just have different views of what they saw in nature. Michael Noonan is so right when he posted "When God Himself turns up to explain to mainstream science that He did it differently, you can be quite sure their mathematics will prove Him wrong too."

    You can make the simplest things complicated so as to confuse anyone!!!!
    How much physics do you know? Physics gets less precise as you get further along, not more. Most physicists study equations for decades trying to find another decimal of confirmation or to find a flaw.

    Spend all the time with nature that you want, but while nature dosent lie, what you think you see and what is there can be two very different things.

    the fact that you dont know enough to know how complicated things really are isnt my fault or my problem. Assuming that scientists are just trying to get you by making things harder than they need to be is wrong, and insultingly so. I would love it if all of physics could be simple one liners, but that is not the way it is, no matter how much you may dislike it.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I'm quite certain the model predates spectral analysis of comet plumes - and that is was originally based upon the theory that the outer planetary enviroment is primarily water and other light elements. In any case, the clays and pyroxenes were not expected.
    Wiki says that until 1950 comets were thought of as rocks covered with ice. Fred Whipple changed that in 1950. I guess that means we were both wrong.

    There are better reason for throwing out many assumptions that were based upon a relatively small universe. I don't think the language is strong, because supernova researchers do keep changing their methodologies; and it makes it difficult to impossible to compare the old data with the new.

    Nefarious is a bit strong, but there IS an acceptance of techniques used when the results agree with expectations that would not possibly be acceptable if someone used the same techniques to try to prove an alternative theory.
    Unless that alternate theory fits better. That goes back to doing it yourself. The fact that it would be hard isnt really an excuse when you want to change so much.
    I have been hearing this for decades...but the bandwagon keeps marching.
    And fusion power has been 10 years away for half a century. Dosent make either one not true.
    If you look at all the big money proposals that are funded, they are generally very conservative - difficult attempts to push existing theory another decimal point, and they often fail to do so. That said, it is difficult to see how it could be otherwise, because there are a LOT of wacko paths out there - more on this, when there is time.
    Pushing decimals can give some results. It is why there is a difference between classical and modern physics.

    Yes, there are alot of wacko paths out there. That is why I keep telling you to present your results in a manner acceptable to mainstream physics. You cannot go from wacko to mainstream without it.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Which is why the methodology used during the reduction of observational data should be blind to what the current theory is. This is absolutely not the standard used in the reduction of supernova data.


    I don't agree - I don't think relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally 'more correct' than physics developed in the 19th century, in spite of their greater predictive power. Engineers are completely aware that the inclusion of none empirical terms can improve a calculated prediction.

    If better predictability does not equate with better fundamentals, what does?

    That's a tough question.
    GR and QM, down to observable limits, are more precise than classical mechanics. That is the definition of more correct to a physicsist. The fact that they may not be more complete than classical physics is a completely different story. I doubt that there are many physicists that think that either is complete.

    You are also incorrect on what QM and GR are compared to classical physics. They are not adding in higher order terms, they are looking at physics in a completely different way. Ways that give better fundamentals over their respective areas than classical physics did. That does not mean that they are the end all or even the expected end all of what we know.

    As a matter of fact, the reason you keep getting told to present your work in a manner acceptable to the physics community is not to dismiss you, but to see if you are right. The fact that you dont present it in our language is why you get dismissed. It may seem a bit selfish, but that is the way it works.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by nutant gene 71 View Post
    Thinking by Anderson it might have something to do with Earth's rotation would be a natural place to start, but it may not be the end solution if something is happening in space, away from Earth's known 1 AU, especially if outside this "local terrain" the value of G were to be different. Still, this is merely anecdotal evidence, not yet real science. What is heartening is that the 'mainstream' is beginning to tackle this "Pioneer" type problem with some real questions, that perhaps we don't have gravity right 'out there' even if it looks right here. I believe Anderson et al had approached ESA in the past with the idea to launch a probe to specifically measure for gravity anomalies in the outer solar system. Here is one more possible reason why such a test, to empirically test for inertia related factors (or Newton's G per Equivalence) outside our known "local terrain" of 1 G, is a darn good idea, even if still ATM for now. ... Things change, as korjik pointed out earlier, where ATM one day becomes MS.

    Thanks for the heads up 'madman'!
    While it is an interesting article, do not read too much into it. It dosent say when and where these probes were accelerated, it dosent say how well the acceleration vectors correlate with either the probe position or probe velocity vectors.

    there are two major problems. First:
    "I would be very surprised if we have discovered two independent spacecraft anomalies," Anderson told SPACE.com. "I suspect they are connected, but I really do not know."
    This is utterly irrelevant. There could be a different cause for each if the anomalies ever measured. Not likely, but not that different in likelyhood to Anderson's statement.

    Second:
    For instance, the NEAR mission approached Earth at about latitude 20 south and receded from the planet at about latitude 72 south. The spacecraft then seemed to fly 13 millimeters per second faster than expected. While this is just one-millionth of that probe's total velocity, the precision of the velocity measurements was 0.1 millimeters per second, carried out as they were using radio waves bounced off the craft. This suggests the anomaly seen is real — and one needing an explanation.
    This paragraph is very frustrating in its lack of coherent science. Did NEAR approach 13mm/s faster? Did it leave 13mm/s faster? How do the approach and exit latitudes matter? What was the delta-v of the pass?

    The reason I brought this up is that it can make a big difference. If the 13mm/s is only seen when receeding from the Earth, then the tiny comparative change may be a higher order geoid term in Earth's gravitational field. If it is seen when NEAR is approaching Earth, if Earth is farther from the sun than NEAR when approaching, then the acceleration vector seems to be opposite to the Pioneer anomaly. We just cant tell with this article.

    On the oither hand, this is pretty interesting. They should try to make sure they have extremely accurate position data for all probes from now on.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,152
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    As a matter of fact, the reason you keep getting told to present your work in a manner acceptable to the physics community is not to dismiss you, but to see if you are right. The fact that you dont present it in our language is why you get dismissed. It may seem a bit selfish, but that is the way it works.
    Your slipping away from the issue again: The willingness of MS physicists to accept substandard data reduction routines in the treatment of astrophysical data, while at the same time holding the feet of those who propose alternatives to the fire prevents new concepts from emerging.

    As near as I can find, not one other physicist made a single public statement when the ESA threw out the results of the Huygens radar and used low resolution temperature and pressure data to plot Huygens decent. (The ESA press release, was very deceptive: It claimed 'all of the methods agreed', but 'all of the methods' did not include either of Huygens' radar systems, Huygens' sonar, or the VLA trianglulation results.)

    http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMCSUUHJCF_index_0.htm
    There has been very little public comment about the Gravity B probe scientists 'backing out' the frame dragging from unexpected forces experienced by the G probe gyroscopes. (The G probe team gets high marks for candor.)

    Few are asking why the WMAP data releases are consistently years late; and once again the team is silent; other than to say there have been more difficulties with the calibration. Like supernova researchers, every time they release data, they reinvent the wheel.

    Then we have the Anderson group, finally publishing what they have been trying to sort out on their own for more than a decade. At least they have publicly stated they cannot resolve the differences between what is expected and what they have measured; though I am like you, frustrated that in this case, not enough detail is provided to really sort this all out.

    I can tell you that Anderson et al's treatment of the Pioneer anomally was exhaustive; and the residual effect cannot be attributed to known possible causes, simple or otherwise.

    This solar system does not behave the way Newton anticipated; even with the the paltry GR corrections. And as long as principle science teams keep insisting Iapetus is a white moon painted with dark 'stuff' instead of the other way around, and as long as scientist are allowed to conclude Titan is covered with a thick layer of hydrocarbons when none of the physical or spectral evidence supports this conclusion, we will continue to wallow in dark stuff.

    The evidence is there, step back and look at it without prior expections.
    Last edited by Jerry; 2008-Mar-04 at 05:18 AM. Reason: Found ESA Pages

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,066
    Jerry. This is a direct question. Was the flow of blood through the human body once considered ATM?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  8. #68
    Still with the Huygens? after all this time!
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    The Heart of Darkness
    Posts
    1,765

    From the horse's mouth

    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    While it is an interesting article, do not read too much into it. It dosent say when and where these probes were accelerated, it dosent say how well the acceleration vectors correlate with either the probe position or probe velocity vectors.

    snip...

    The reason I brought this up is that it can make a big difference. If the 13mm/s is only seen when receeding from the Earth, then the tiny comparative change may be a higher order geoid term in Earth's gravitational field. If it is seen when NEAR is approaching Earth, if Earth is farther from the sun than NEAR when approaching, then the acceleration vector seems to be opposite to the Pioneer anomaly. We just cant tell with this article.

    On the oither hand, this is pretty interesting. They should try to make sure they have extremely accurate position data for all probes from now on.
    Well, for interest, this is being published in the current issue of Physical Review Letters. You have to buy the article or have a subscription, but here's a link to the abstract. I would imagine this paper has more detail than the popular science press releases that have been discussed so far. I have a PRL subscription and will take a look at it.

    BTW, I love this because it puts the spoke in Jerry's usual contention that mainstream science somehow "suppresses" this sort of thing. PRL is as mainstream as it gets, arguably the premier physics journal in the world. Just goes to show that when results seem to disagree with theory, even at a tiny level, scientists show interest.

    Of course Jerry will probably say that we're finally "waking up" to this and that the revolution that will overthrow everything from Archimedes to Weinberg and Hawking is imminent. Total garbage of course. Also note that the abstract mentions a quantitative prediction for another probe pass. Take note Jerry, that's how science is done.

    P.S. Ketterle still has his Nobel.
    "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

    "If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

    This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    And let's not forget that a certain BAUT member has not, ever (AFAIK), published anything to do with any alternative ideas wrt (local) gravity ...

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Eta C View Post
    BTW, I love this because it puts the spoke in Jerry's usual contention that mainstream science somehow "suppresses" this sort of thing. PRL is as mainstream as it gets, arguably the premier physics journal in the world. Just goes to show that when results seem to disagree with theory, even at a tiny level, scientists show interest.
    Suppresses? We don't tend to publish things we do not understand - nobody wants to admit that they are stumped.

    Listen to what Anderson wrote in 2006:
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-p.../0608087v2.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by anderson et al page 21
    We first emphasize that the flyby anomalies discussed here have long been a concern at JPL, and that we have benefited from the unpublished work of others. In particular, the authors gratefully acknowledge engineers and scientists in the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Section of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory who have contributed to the analyses of the Earth flyby tracking data and its interpretation.
    If it has long been a concern at JPL, why wasn't it published until November of 2006? Not suppression: Years of hesitation - decades of mulling over the data in-house, looking for Mainstream acceptable answers. There are none.

    But when anomalies can be written off as atmospheric effects, they are: The rapid decent of the Jupiter probe was modeled by using an outlandish down draft. When exceptional conditions are assumed in order to get the data to agree with established theory, you are violating Jerry's first rule: You are slanting the playing field away from possible alternatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop
    Still with the Huygens? after all this time!
    After all this time, Huygens principle investigators finally acknowledged that they ignored Huygens' radar, assumed a 'G' value for Titan, and used a suddenly reversing wind to remove anomalies from the data. This is where the 'Jerry rule' comes into play: If the assumptions necessary to get results consist with a mainstream theory would be laughed at if they were made to support an alternative theory, these mainstream assumptions must be treated with severe skepticism.

    If I said Huygens didn't behave because of a peculiar force, but to model this peculiar force I had to assume a suddenly reversing wind, and also assume that the probe rotated backwards, opposite the aerodynamic design, I would be laughed off of the internet. But it is not me, it is the mainstream scientists, who are resorting to bazarre interpretations: A sudden reversal of wind direction in high altitudes is not consistent with our limb studies, or thermodynamic models of this moon. Huygens' decent cannot be modeled with reasonable interpretationa of known physical laws.

    Titan covered with meters of hydrocarbons? In the form of what? Skin? Hydrocarbons are black - especially black when there is limited oxygen. Titan is rusty red, Zion's National Park red. Red sand dunes. Red alluvial deposits. Without a red model for hydrocarbons, mainstream planetary scientists are driving a Model T.

    The latitude given to MS scientists in making these assertions is incredible...when they are accepted without question; there is no latitude left for alternative theoriest to stake out a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anderson et al
    During the flyby the total energy and angular momentum of the solar system
    are conserved. Further, independent of the heliocentric energy change of the
    craft itself, the spacecraft’s total geocentric orbital energy per unit mass should be the same before and after the flyby. The data indicates this is not always true.
    The data tells us our understanding is infantile.
    Last edited by Jerry; 2008-Mar-05 at 03:54 AM. Reason: Editing? I didn't know I had posted yet...

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    And let's not forget that a certain BAUT member has not, ever (AFAIK), published anything to do with any alternative ideas wrt (local) gravity ...
    I publish here all the time, and make predictions - you know what I have predicted regarding the Mars Phoenix probe. (It will enter at a higher-than-expected attitude, and fall fast and fall hard; consuming more fuel than expected if it lands safely - just like the Viking probes.)

    And if you are talking about peer reviewed publications; as I just restated: the playing field is awfully slanted - The eyes pretty much glaze over as soon as you say Both Newton and Einstein are way, way wrong. I present at conferences. (I see lots of glazed eyes).

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,712

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Jerry. This is a direct question. Was the flow of blood through the human body once considered ATM?
    I know the answer to this one.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Eta C View Post
    Well, for interest, this is being published in the current issue of Physical Review Letters. You have to buy the article or have a subscription, but here's a link to the abstract. I would imagine this paper has more detail than the popular science press releases that have been discussed so far. I have a PRL subscription and will take a look at it.

    BTW, I love this because it puts the spoke in Jerry's usual contention that mainstream science somehow "suppresses" this sort of thing. PRL is as mainstream as it gets, arguably the premier physics journal in the world. Just goes to show that when results seem to disagree with theory, even at a tiny level, scientists show interest.

    Of course Jerry will probably say that we're finally "waking up" to this and that the revolution that will overthrow everything from Archimedes to Weinberg and Hawking is imminent. Total garbage of course. Also note that the abstract mentions a quantitative prediction for another probe pass. Take note Jerry, that's how science is done.

    P.S. Ketterle still has his Nobel.
    You couldnt have posted this monday so I could get the article while I was up at school yesterday

    By the way, how many of us close minded, orthodoxy fanatic mainstreamers here at BAUT are kinda interested in this?

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    By the way, how many of us close minded, orthodoxy fanatic mainstreamers here at BAUT are kinda interested in this?
    Ding!

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,712

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Noonan View Post
    Originally Posted by Gillianren
    Jerry. This is a direct question. Was the flow of blood through the human body once considered ATM?

    I know the answer to this one.
    I will answer this because it relates directly to one of the many areas of interest I have in the sciences. Even though Galen's assistant and then some 300 years later another supposed blood to pass from the heart to the lungs in a minor flow it was not considered a body flow. Even Leonardo da Vinci did not go so far but he did note no direct connection from the vessel of the heart into the lungs because the alveoli were closed and not allowing blood to empty into the lungs. He did experiment and proved the heart valves allowed flow in one direction only and the heart had four chambers not two but did not presume to explain flow to the 'pores'.

    Galen's work of the blood acting only to distribute heat from the furnace of the heart and thereby not allowing the blood to corrupt the spirit of man was taught until a Michael Servetus published privately that the blood flows through the body. For this his books were destroyed and he was burnt at the stake by Calvin.

    Why it is relevant to me is that one of the areas I am interested in is this:-

    Until now the maximum size of a quantum particle is about 200 times the size of a proton. One such reaction provided a brief reaction of around 2 trillion degrees. CERN will produce results 100 times greater than previous trials. Quantum particles can only be measured by their waveform, meaning the energy that it takes to excite a proton to the size required. Only energy is produced because the particle if it was really there dissolves in such a way that no residual matter is left. Nice and clean.

    Here is the math:-

    200 'size' times 100 'greater results energy' equals 2000
    2000 is bigger than 1760 the maximum needed to produce a stable particle
    100 'greater result' times 2 trillion degrees equals 200 trillion degrees

    A stable reaction would be capable at that temperature of converting matter to rest mass energy. A sustained reaction could continue to convert matter to rest mass energy. A chain reaction could continue to convert matter to rest mass energy until such time as there is enough to burn at the stake all the bad science that ever was.

  17. #77

    Question how close are we to the truth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The latitude given to MS scientists in making these assertions is incredible...when they are accepted without question; there is no latitude left for alternative theoriest to stake out a claim.
    Originally Posted by Anderson et al
    During the flyby the total energy and angular momentum of the solar system
    are conserved. Further, independent of the heliocentric energy change of the
    craft itself, the spacecraft’s total geocentric orbital energy per unit mass should be the same before and after the flyby. The data indicates this is not always true.
    The data tells us our understanding is infantile.
    This is a disturbing statement by Anderson, that “total geocentric orbital energy per unit mass should be the same before and after the flyby. The data indicates this is not always true.” What does this mean exactly?

    Korjik above said:
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik
    While it is an interesting article, do not read too much into it. It dosent say when and where these probes were accelerated, it dosent say how well the acceleration vectors correlate with either the probe position or probe velocity vectors.
    Indeed this is a frustration, that tantalizing information is released by Anderson, but without specifics. (I can’t access beyond the abstract listed above by Eta C, so don’t know full contents of Anderson’s paper on these flyby anomalies). More details would be useful.

    As far as “how science is done” by Eta C reference above:
    Quote Originally Posted by Eta C
    BTW, I love this because it puts the spoke in Jerry's usual contention that mainstream science somehow "suppresses" this sort of thing. PRL is as mainstream as it gets, arguably the premier physics journal in the world. Just goes to show that when results seem to disagree with theory, even at a tiny level, scientists show interest.

    Of course Jerry will probably say that we're finally "waking up" to this and that the revolution that will overthrow everything from Archimedes to Weinberg and Hawking is imminent. Total garbage of course. Also note that the abstract mentions a quantitative prediction for another probe pass. Take note Jerry, that's how science is done.
    “Total garbage” is too strong a label here, IMO. I read recently in a book on Galileo’s trial ("The Crime of Galileo" by Giorgio de Santillana, pp. 6-7), where in the correspondence between Galileo and Kepler, Kepler complained that it is not the Church they should worry about in presenting their new astronomy evidence, mostly from telescope work, but the ‘scholars’ who are entrenched in their geocentric cosmology, which is obviously wrong. Kepler’s criticism alludes to the fact that they have a very high vested interest in preserving what they had come to understand, even if wrong, since they had put so much effort into their understanding, which is now being threatened with the Copernican revolution. It seemed a legitimate complaint then, some four centuries ago, same as it is a legitimate complaint (Jerry, me et al) today. If we have a ‘vested interest’ formed from difficult labors and study of a cosmology that (just maybe) could be founded on bad assumptions (expanding space/BBT), then it is regrettable that so many man hours (years!) had been invested in studying something that should in the end prove wrong. However, this is the gamesmanship part of cosmology . To prove the Mainstream wrong is quite a trick, since not only must we (who doubt) come up with a better model, but we must also swim upstream against the mainstream of science as it is today. Not an easy task, and surely beyond the scope of us who argue for a new idea (like my variable G) without the necessary tools (mostly relativistic math), but also locked within a short deadline to revolutionize astronomy within 30 days! Are we published? In a manner of speaking, ALL our posts here are ‘published’ by copyright law.

    Getting an ‘alternative idea’ (especially one so unpolished as to appear ridiculous) published in a respectable ‘peer reviewed’ publication, even those of the alternative kind (like Apeiron) still requires a good enough command of the tools of science that the paper is not only reasonable but durably convincing of such new ideas. The obvious solution is to spend years of study to acquire the right tools, including mathematical competence, which may involve studying what is now acceptable in cosmology (even if potentially wrong) and then coming back into the Mainstream (and swim upstream) to make a credible case for your ‘alternative idea’. There is no easy out here.

    I believe this had been covered earlier, but our dependence upon mathematical models (and they are ONLY models) of natural phenomena, especially astronomical phenomena, at great distances away from our "local terrain", leads us into an unavoidable ‘bias’ in our understandings of nature, where the chaotic nature of the universe is reduced to simple laws of physics, some of which are mathematically extremely complex (and require years of study), to explain what we can see plainly. Or as korjik stated earlier: ” Spend all the time with nature that you want, but while nature dosent lie, what you think you see and what is there can be two very different things.” Well, yes, we may be fooled by observation, but we may also be ‘fooled’ by the mathematical models we created to interpret these observations. In the end, Nature may prove to be a lot simpler than we think, once we understand it more fully. That is the goal of a really good ATM, to make what is now exceptionally complex (like was pre-Copernican astronomy) into something easily understandable (where Nature is actually ‘lazy’ and exceptionally economical in its simplicity) by all human minds, and not merely a small cadre of highly skilled mathematicians. However, to prove this will require the same skills of math that are missing from most ATM presentations, IMO.

    The point here is that in Jerry’s above ” The latitude given to MS scientists in making these assertions is incredible...when they are accepted without question; there is no latitude left for alternative theoriest to stake out a claim,” there is latitude in interpreting real observable events within the parameters of mathematical models (they’re ONLY model approximations), but only so far. At what point do we call it quits and admit that perhaps models with so many adjustable variables are not good enough to interpret what we observe in Nature? And since ATM proponents are not given the same ‘latitudes’ as MS, how valid is it to demand they have a more robust theory than those so often adjusted? The answer to this, if ATM is not to fall into demise, is to find a simpler and more elegant solution to those nagging problems in cosmology that refuse to fit neatly into acceptable theory. But that’s the conundrum, that to do this one must have the necessary tools to refute what may (in reality) be wrong. I think one can say with some confidence (ala Ockam’s razor) that once we find interpretative models of observable data that require less (not more) parameter adjustments, we may be closer to the truth. That's the challenge, to come up with ideas that require fewer, and perhaps none, of those adjustable parameters to fit data into theory, no matter how elegant and beautiful the math, to more simply explain natural phenomena observed.

    For example, some ATM ideas: If distant light redshift is NOT from space expansion, then from what? If spaceprobes are consistently coming in too high or too low on target, and their mass units change, why? If comets are shooting out dirt rather than water on closer approach to the Sun, even at Jupiter, where did the loosening matter come from, and why is it now released? If Mercury’s perihelion precession is not from relativistic GR, but from momentum transfer of the Sun’s mass equatorial spin, where’s the math? If Titan’s atmosphere is ten times taller than Earth’s, though it is much smaller than Earth, but what mechanism can such a large atmosphere exist, even for all the gas giants? Etc. Or, what about Earth’s spin seasonally slowing 1 millisecond during (northern hemisphere’s) winter, but accelerating 1 millisecond during summer? Weird! Is it from atmospheric drag or something else? All these may be subject to a newer and more elegant theory of cosmology, which may be just around the corner, but we who are not skilled, and do not possess Ph.D. in physics, have only the slimmest change of ever being heard, except for ATM boards such as these. Are these ideas a waste of time? Perhaps. But if not, then it would all have been worthwhile in the end, when all those loose pieces (which now require many adjustments) suddenly fall into place neatly. That, IMO, is the goal of an ATM forum such as this. But is it realistically feasible?
    Last edited by nutant gene 71; 2008-Mar-05 at 11:40 PM. Reason: added link & ref

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    [QUOTE=nutant gene 71;1189999]This is a disturbing statement by Anderson, that “total geocentric orbital energy per unit mass should be the same before and after the flyby. The data indicates this is not always true.” What does this mean exactly?

    When looking from the Earth, the probe's energy divided by its mass shouldnt change during the flyby. Basically saying that the energy compared to the Earth shouldnt change.

    If you are thinking this violates conservation, remember that the Earth's energy does change. The probe's energy when looked at from a different frame changes also.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by nutant gene 71 View Post

    As far as “how science is done” by Eta C reference above: “Total garbage” is too strong a label here, IMO. I read recently in a book on Galileo’s trial (don’t have reference handy, but may edit in later), where in the correspondence between Galileo and Kepler, Kepler complained that it is not the Church they should worry about in presenting their new astronomy evidence, mostly from telescope work, but the ‘scholars’ who are entrenched in their geocentric cosmology, which is obviously wrong. Kepler’s criticism alludes to the fact that they have a very high vested interest in preserving what they had come to understand, even if wrong, since they had put so much effort into their understanding, which is now being threatened with the Copernican revolution. It seemed a legitimate complaint then, some four centuries ago, same as it is a legitimate complaint (Jerry, me et al) today. If we have a ‘vested interest’ formed from difficult labors and study of a cosmology that (just maybe) could be founded on bad assumptions (expanding space/BBT), then it is regrettable that so many man hours (years!) had been invested in studying something that should in the end prove wrong. However, this is the gamesmanship part of cosmology . To prove the Mainstream wrong is quite a trick, since not only must we (who doubt) come up with a better model, but we must also swim upstream against the mainstream of science as it is today. Not an easy task, and surely beyond the scope of us who argue for a new idea (like variable G) without the necessary tools (mostly relativistic math), but also locked within a short deadline to revolutionize astronomy within 30 days! Are we published? In a manner of speaking, ALL our posts here are ‘published’ by copyright law.

    Getting an ‘alternative idea’ (especially one so unpolished as to appear ridiculous) published in a respectable ‘peer reviewed’ publication, even those of the alternative kind (like Apeiron) still requires a good enough command of the tools of science that the paper is not only reasonable but durably convincing of such new ideas. The obvious solution is to spend years of study to acquire the right tools, including mathematical competence, which may involve studying what is now acceptable in cosmology (even if potentially wrong) and then coming back into the Mainstream (and swim upstream) to make a credible case for your ‘alternative idea’. There is no easy out here.
    How unreasonable of us to expect you to know enough to make a credible case.

    I believe this had been covered earlier, but our dependence upon mathematical models (and they are ONLY models) of natural phenomena, especially astronomical phenomena, at great distances away from our "local terrain", leads us into an unavoidable ‘bias’ in our understandings of nature, where the chaotic nature of the universe is reduced to simple laws of physics, some of which are mathematically extremely complex (and require years of study), to explain what we can see plainly. Or as korjik stated earlier: ” Spend all the time with nature that you want, but while nature dosent lie, what you think you see and what is there can be two very different things.” Well, yes, we may be fooled by observation, but we may also be ‘fooled’ by the mathematical models we created to interpret these observations. In the end, Nature may prove to be a lot simpler than we think, once we understand it more fully. That is the goal of a really good ATM, to make what is now exceptionally complex (like was pre-Copernican astronomy) into something easily understandable (where Nature is actually ‘lazy’ and exceptionally economical in its simplicity) by all human minds, and not merely a small cadre of highly skilled mathematicians. However, to prove this will require the same skills of math that are missing from most ATM presentations, IMO.
    You dont understand physics at all. The actual laws that you speak of are actually very simple. All of classical electrodynamics is Maxwell's equations plus the continuity equation. Five very simple differental equations. Add in gravity and the ideal gas law, and you also have nearly all the equations you need to solve any situation you can see with your own eyes.

    Yes, the math can be wrong. That is why the math must fit observation and the observation must fit the math. Both must be true. When the observation starts going outside of the math's ability to handle, the math must be checked, and if insufficient, replaced. The new (or patched) math must be able to explain observation and predict new observations in a quantitative way. Where basically all of the ATMers here fail, is they never give a checkable quantitative answer.

    The point here is that in Jerry’s above ” The latitude given to MS scientists in making these assertions is incredible...when they are accepted without question; there is no latitude left for alternative theoriest to stake out a claim,” there is latitude in interpreting real observable events within the parameters of mathematical models (they’re ONLY model approximations), but only so far. At what point do we call it quits and admit that perhaps models with so many adjustable variables are not good enough to interpret what we observe in Nature? And since ATM proponents are not given the same ‘latitudes’ as MS, how valid is it to demand they have a more robust theory than those so often adjusted? The answer to this, if ATM is not to fall into demise, is to find a simpler and more elegant solution to those nagging problems in cosmology that refuse to fit neatly into acceptable theory. But that’s the conundrum, that to do this one must have the necessary tools to refute what may (in reality) be wrong. I think one can say with some confidence (ala Ockam’s razor) that once we find interpretative models of observable data that require less (not more) parameter adjustments, we may be closer to the truth. That's the challenge, to come up with ideas that require fewer, and perhaps none, of those adjustable parameters to fit data into theory, not matter how elegant and beautiful the math, to more simply explain natural phenomena observed.
    And Jerry is just plain wrong. He has never even gotten close to giving a testable theory to check. He is not even near the same class as those getting this supposed 'latitudes'. When he gets there, he will find out that he does get the same latitudes. Kinda like how the silly idea that there is another unaccounted for force acting on probes is getting into PRL.
    For example, some ATM ideas: If distant light redshift is NOT from space expansion, then from what?
    Scattering dosent work, we can see too clearly. The physics of tired light dosent work. Gravitational shifting would require a preferred frame. These are just the things I can think of. This has been and is looked at.
    If spaceprobes are consistently coming in too high or too low on target, and their mass units change, why?
    Who said mass changes? Other than that, it seems that this supposed ATM idea is getting pretty mainstream pretty quick.
    If comets are shooting out dirt rather than water on closer approach to the Sun, even at Jupiter, where did the loosening matter come from, and why is it now released?
    Wierd how we keep seeing water in comets even tho we never find any. Too bad that no one ever calculated how much water would be required. Oh, wait, Whipple did. That is where the snowball theory came from. Do not assume that cause the couple short period comets we have gotten a good look at are dry, that all comets are dry. If you want to say they are electrical in nature, explain how. Use the equations to figure the sources of charge and currents. Interaction with solar wind has been studied for decades. It cannot be the only effect.
    If Mercury’s perihelion precession is not from relativistic GR, but from momentum transfer of the Sun’s mass equatorial spin, where’s the math?
    ? Last I checked, GR explained the presession and tides didnt. If I am wrong please provide a reference.
    If Titan’s atmosphere is ten times taller than Earth’s, though it is much smaller than Earth, but what mechanism can such a large atmosphere exist, even for all the gas giants?
    Its called the ideal gas law, and the law of gravitation. Big moon, big molecules, low temp. If you doubt it, run the numbers yourself and show me where it dosent work.
    Etc. Or, what about Earth’s spin seasonally slowing 1 millisecond during (northern hemisphere’s) winter, but accelerating 1 millisecond during summer? Weird! Is it from atmospheric drag or something else?
    Reference please. Prolly not atmo drag, that should kick up rather excessive winds. Making a WAG tho.
    All these may be subject to a newer and more elegant theory of cosmology, which may be just around the corner, but we who are not skilled, and do not possess Ph.D. in physics, have only the slimmest change of ever being heard, except for ATM boards such as these. Are these ideas a waste of time? Perhaps. But if not, then it would all have been worthwhile in the end, when all those loose pieces (which now require many adjustments) suddenly fall into place neatly. That, IMO, is the goal of an ATM forum such as this. But is it realistically feasible?
    Most of those effects are completely independent of cosmology. Just basic local physics. As for being skilled, I am not a skilled singer, should I be in a band? I am not a skilled actor, should I be on Broadway? By definfition, you must have skill to do well in your chosen field.

    The problem you have is that you cannot seperate the wheat from the chaff. You dont yet have the skill to do that. When you do get the skill, you will indeed find that some of the things you listed are a waste of time and some arent. Until you get the skill tho, so that you can tell what is wheat and what is chaff, you will not be taken seriously.

    As for the goal of this ATM forum, it is a wonderful place to bounce ideas around, but when you start getting told by everyone that you dont know enough, they may be trying to get you to take your game to the next level, not trying to dismiss you. Sometimes they are trying to tell you that your idea was considered and found wanting (and want you to make it better). Mostly, you are not being dismissed out of hand, unless you show that you are not willing to learn. Nothing can get you acceptance quicker than making an airtight case and throwing it in someones face.

  20. #80

    Red face we can all make some noise

    Quote Originally Posted by korjik
    Most of those effects are completely independent of cosmology. Just basic local physics. As for being skilled, I am not a skilled singer, should I be in a band? I am not a skilled actor, should I be on Broadway? By definfition, you must have skill to do well in your chosen field.
    We can all make some noise, call it singing, and wait for the applause. Of course, we might have to wait a very long time... Or study the physics and math.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    4,759
    Quote Originally Posted by nutant gene 71 View Post
    This is a disturbing statement by Anderson, that “total geocentric orbital energy per unit mass should be the same before and after the flyby. The data indicates this is not always true.” What does this mean exactly?...........

    ..............For example, some ATM ideas: If distant light redshift is NOT from space expansion, then from what? If spaceprobes are consistently coming in too high or too low on target, and their mass units change, why? If comets are shooting out dirt rather than water on closer approach to the Sun, even at Jupiter, where did the loosening matter come from, and why is it now released? If Mercury’s perihelion precession is not from relativistic GR, but from momentum transfer of the Sun’s mass equatorial spin, where’s the math? If Titan’s atmosphere is ten times taller than Earth’s, though it is much smaller than Earth, but what mechanism can such a large atmosphere exist, even for all the gas giants? Etc. Or, what about Earth’s spin seasonally slowing 1 millisecond during (northern hemisphere’s) winter, but accelerating 1 millisecond during summer? Weird! Is it from atmospheric drag or something else? All these may be subject to a newer and more elegant theory of cosmology, which may be just around the corner, but we who are not skilled, and do not possess Ph.D. in physics, have only the slimmest change of ever being heard, except for ATM boards such as these. Are these ideas a waste of time? Perhaps. But if not, then it would all have been worthwhile in the end, when all those loose pieces (which now require many adjustments) suddenly fall into place neatly. That, IMO, is the goal of an ATM forum such as this. But is it realistically feasible?
    Wow! That was a rant and a half, and up to a very small point I can empathize with your apparent frustration. Unfortunately I concur with korjik in finding your wishes to be very unrealistic.

    Copernicus had the mathematical skill to comprehend and thoroughly analyze the works of Ptolemy and his predecessors. He developed a more coherent and fundamentally simpler model and made what we now know to be sound arguments to justify it. Nevertheless it remained ATM for a long time, and it took a lot of painstaking effort and further discoveries before the mainstream came around. It was not an abrupt revolution by any stretch of the imagination.

    To attempt an analogous revision of the current body of theory in mainstream physics, we would need mathematical skills and experience far beyond anything Copernicus ever had.
    Or, what about Earth’s spin seasonally slowing 1 millisecond during (northern hemisphere’s) winter, but accelerating 1 millisecond during summer? Weird! Is it from atmospheric drag or something else?
    Try the monsoon. A vast amount of water vapor moves from the Indian Ocean to northern India from June through September and falls as torrential rain. This moves the water closer to the spin axis, so the Earth should speed up just as a spinning skater does by pulling his or her arms in. As this water runs off during the dry season, the rotation should slow down a bit. This moving mass is proprotionately tiny but it might be enough to contribute at least in part to the observed variation.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    4,759
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    Most of those effects are completely independent of cosmology. Just basic local physics. As for being skilled, I am not a skilled singer, should I be in a band? I am not a skilled actor, should I be on Broadway? By definfition, you must have skill to do well in your chosen field.
    I'll second that. I have a lot of skill as a musician, and it enabled me to have a fine 32-year career with one of the world's premier military bands. Nevertheless I never was anywhere close to being qualified to give a solo recital in Carnegie Hall. There probably are hundreds of French horn players in New York alone who are at least as good as I am, and mostly significantly better, and few of them make it to that stage as soloists. I would consider breakthrough work in physics, of the sort worthy of a Nobel laureate, as being roughly analogous to making it to that stage as a musician.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,152
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    And Jerry is just plain wrong. He has never even gotten close to giving a testable theory to check. He is not even near the same class as those getting this supposed 'latitudes'. When he gets there, he will find out that he does get the same latitudes. Kinda like how the silly idea that there is another unaccounted for force acting on probes is getting into PRL..
    Not at all true. I'm making predictions that are based upon non-relativistic and completely Maxwellian interpretation of the Michelson Morley experiment, and bumping these possible interpretations up against observed phenomena, and trying to figure out what might work, and what will not.

    What I find is general inconsistency. Here is example: The measured acceleration of the probes during the Earth gravitational assists is roughly consistent with a variation in the speed of light; that is, very slight increasing in the velocity if C with increasing distance from the solar center. (There are other phenomenon that are consistent with this interpretation as well, including the 'acceleration' of the the Pioneer probes towards the solar center.)

    However, this an interpretation is NOT consistent with Hipparcos and many other observations: Such an anomally should have been quite measurable - it should also effect stellar observations of virtually every satellite that has been launched out of the solar system or placed in highly elliptical orbits. So the idea is immediately rejectable - or at least is was, until Anderson finally published this odd-ball gravity assist data. Loosening the constraints a little very close to the earth opens up the possibilities considerably.

    We are also learning that the Hipparcos measurements are not nearly as good as they were originally thought be be - there are at least two published catalogues of systemic corrections. A lot of probes have had a hell of a time finding references stars. Poor hardware, poor software, or is something missing from the calculations?

    So is it possible the speed of light, that is, the permiability and permittivity of space vary more than current theory predicts? The opposition surge observed from Saturn's rings and moons was much brighter than predicted - (although for all of the work that is supposed to be in progress, I am not aware of publications). That is consistent with the natural lensing that would be expected if there is a variability in the speed of light that is a function of the total mass of the system.

    But what is really important is that if light speed is a function of local mass, there are both focusing and de-convoluting scenarios that leaves our understanding of the universe in knots.

    I have focused on applying possible alternative Maxwellian solution to orbital mechanics; and the most obvious and testible hypothesis is that Newtonian physics horribly under-predict the masses of the outer planets and their moons...and comets.

    But consistent analysis must include treatment of the observational data in a way that is independant of theory-based biases. The declaration that Titan is coated with layer of organics that is many meters thick doesn't help:where is the evidence that this is true? Many many other conclusions about the materials and properties of the outer solar system are based upon untested extentions of the equivalence principles.

    A subsurface ocean in Europa? An exciting discovery, or a poor understanding of gravity 101? Why can't we calculate Mar's love number(s)? Why the harmonic degeneracies in the gravity maps of Mars? We have more than 30 years of orbital experience with this planet, and we still can't find the moment of inertia. Bad engineering? Bad measurements, or bad theory?

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,712

    Smile Out of style

    When you look at it science and the fashion industry aren't all that different, they just react differently to change. For science the fabric is of course space and the mathematics to describe it is the stitching.

    Yet they are so very different. When the stitching comes undone in the fashion industry ... everybody seems to be interested. When the mathematics comes undone in the science industry it scarcely gets a mention.

    Perhaps it is the fashion industry that is best able to learn from its mistakes. Logic dictates then that fashion is more intellectual than science. Now what of the demise in the value of ATM discussions.

    If you think I am wrong, ask a Lady about the value of having the right pair of shoes.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,712

    Lightbulb

    OK so maybe that is a bit unfair. I have a cold and am a tad grumpy.

    Perhaps I should be suggesting the 'ultimate causality experiment' like if there is a mirror symmetry then if contact is lost with the earth then a program could run for various satellites to pair off and follow one each if two of everything appears to go separate ways to broadcast the time of lost contact or whatever.

    Then if SETI does start getting messages from ourselves in the past suggesting there has been an awful mistake then by causality it can be averted before it is made. Naturally if such a message was received it would be important to remember to program the satellites with the message so that we know what we will receive.

    Yes as an ATM'er I respect that I do not have the mathematics to present any of the ideas I have talked about. I did go to the independent site as mentioned in the Q/A section and couldn't submit because I do not have anything of academia behind me. For me ATM didn't demise ... it didn't even start. It still didn't stop me from being interested in science in preference to fashion, cheers

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    605
    here's an example where mainstream has altered its theory due to untenable results.

    see attached image/s of the cmb.

    *************************************

    in the bottom right section of the image appears 2 features which forced a re-evaluation of the meaning of the cmb data.

    the bright area marked "axis of evil"...and the dark area marked "eridanus void".

    the juxtaposition of 2 large areas of such massively divergent flux levels could not be explained by the previous assumption of an "unaltered" view of the cmb.

    the cmb should look homogenous at large angles, there should be no large dark areas suggesting "large voids"...similarly, there should be no large areas that are over-bright...and appearing to be "cluster-like".

    still, this is the answer that has been accepted by mainstream as to the reason why we see such divergences.

    the bright spots are actually due to intervening galaxies/clusters residing between the cmb and us and (supposedly) amplifying the light of said cmb...and the dark areas are held to be voids or areas where there are few if any galaxies (and the cmb light is therefore minimally amplified).

    **************************************

    so our new understanding of what we are seeing when we look at the bright areas (ie: the bulk of the image) is now substantially different to what it used to be.

    we are looking at clusters and superclusters of galaxies arranged into huge walls and mega structures, billions of light years long...and only in the dark areas (such as eridanus void) do we approach the ability to look at the transmission of the cmb unaffected.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	cmb.gif 
Views:	34 
Size:	146.0 KB 
ID:	7434   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	cmb marked.gif 
Views:	25 
Size:	74.0 KB 
ID:	7435  

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Not at all true. I'm making predictions that are based upon non-relativistic and completely Maxwellian interpretation of the Michelson Morley experiment, and bumping these possible interpretations up against observed phenomena, and trying to figure out what might work, and what will not.

    What I find is general inconsistency. Here is example: The measured acceleration of the probes during the Earth gravitational assists is roughly consistent with a variation in the speed of light; that is, very slight increasing in the velocity if C with increasing distance from the solar center. (There are other phenomenon that are consistent with this interpretation as well, including the 'acceleration' of the the Pioneer probes towards the solar center.)

    However, this an interpretation is NOT consistent with Hipparcos and many other observations: Such an anomally should have been quite measurable - it should also effect stellar observations of virtually every satellite that has been launched out of the solar system or placed in highly elliptical orbits. So the idea is immediately rejectable - or at least is was, until Anderson finally published this odd-ball gravity assist data. Loosening the constraints a little very close to the earth opens up the possibilities considerably.

    We are also learning that the Hipparcos measurements are not nearly as good as they were originally thought be be - there are at least two published catalogues of systemic corrections. A lot of probes have had a hell of a time finding references stars. Poor hardware, poor software, or is something missing from the calculations?

    So is it possible the speed of light, that is, the permiability and permittivity of space vary more than current theory predicts? The opposition surge observed from Saturn's rings and moons was much brighter than predicted - (although for all of the work that is supposed to be in progress, I am not aware of publications). That is consistent with the natural lensing that would be expected if there is a variability in the speed of light that is a function of the total mass of the system.

    But what is really important is that if light speed is a function of local mass, there are both focusing and de-convoluting scenarios that leaves our understanding of the universe in knots.

    I have focused on applying possible alternative Maxwellian solution to orbital mechanics; and the most obvious and testible hypothesis is that Newtonian physics horribly under-predict the masses of the outer planets and their moons...and comets.

    But consistent analysis must include treatment of the observational data in a way that is independant of theory-based biases. The declaration that Titan is coated with layer of organics that is many meters thick doesn't help:where is the evidence that this is true? Many many other conclusions about the materials and properties of the outer solar system are based upon untested extentions of the equivalence principles.

    A subsurface ocean in Europa? An exciting discovery, or a poor understanding of gravity 101? Why can't we calculate Mar's love number(s)? Why the harmonic degeneracies in the gravity maps of Mars? We have more than 30 years of orbital experience with this planet, and we still can't find the moment of inertia. Bad engineering? Bad measurements, or bad theory?
    So when your ideas dont pan out you can just wait for more data, but if a mainstream idea dosent pan out it must be rejected?

    It is getting more and more obvious that you hold yourself to a different standard than you hold mainstream science.

  28. #88

    Cool it's okay to doubt your 'faith'

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Noonan
    Yes as an ATM'er I respect that I do not have the mathematics to present any of the ideas I have talked about. I did go to the independent site as mentioned in the Q/A section and couldn't submit because I do not have anything of academia behind me. For me ATM didn't demise ... it didn't even start. It still didn't stop me from being interested in science in preference to fashion, cheers
    __________________
    "Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."
    I included your byline, Michael, because I think it is significant to this discussion, as to which should rule in cosmology: reality observations or mathematics?

    Korjik had said to me earlier: “You dont understand physics at all. The actual laws that you speak of are actually very simple. All of classical electrodynamics is Maxwell's equations plus the continuity equation. Five very simple differental equations. Add in gravity and the ideal gas law, and you also have nearly all the equations you need to solve any situation you can see with your own eyes.” But this obfuscates the question of how we interpret the reality observed. Yes, some simple equations will give us a good interpretation of reality observations, but when the empirical data is plugged into these equations the results will give us at best approximations of what is observed. Sometimes these can come in with very tight constraints, other times, such as some distant data received from astronomical measurements, must be curve fitted to approximate what is measured. I have been a ‘reader’ of physics for some 10 years now (and a long time ago when I studied it in secondary school), so I have a fairly good understanding of what goes into making physics. My math training was only through integral calculus, and though I do not need to use it on a regular basis, all my math experience can be easily revived with a short tutorial, kind of like riding a bicycle, you never really forget. Fancier relativistic math I learned from my readings, not really that complicated, since it uses light c as a ruler, with the Lorenzian transformation, inverse (1-v^2/c^2)^1/2, to adjust for the limitation of using c as a standard of measure when velocity of the observed approaches relativistic speeds. I don’t have to dwell on this in minutia to appreciate some of the wild speculations now being offered in Modern Physics, though it helps to understand how these things work. Do I have to go over the math in detail in each astrophysical idea presented to make a rational decision on the efficacy of what is being studied? No, and so I default to those who had done all the math with confidence that they knew what they were doing. But when the conclusions come up with fantastic theories, such as the universe and time coming into being (out of nothing) a mere 13.7 billion years ago, or that the flat rotation curves of galaxies require some exotic gravity heavy stuff called “Dark Matter”, I have a right to raise an eyebrow and think to myself… “really?” Just because the math is rigorous within the ‘domain of its applicability’, and some observations fit those parameters within their domain of applicability, does not preclude my ability, or anyone’s ability, to question the results. This is especially true if those results are so fantastic that it would take a truly imaginative mind to accept them at face value. In fact, some are so fantastic as to be acceptable only on faith. I and anyone have the right to question, and either accept or reject the drawn conclusions, no matter how cool is the math.

    So continuing korjik’s: ” Yes, the math can be wrong. That is why the math must fit observation and the observation must fit the math. Both must be true. When the observation starts going outside of the math's ability to handle, the math must be checked, and if insufficient, replaced. The new (or patched) math must be able to explain observation and predict new observations in a quantitative way. Where basically all of the ATMers here fail, is they never give a checkable quantitative answer.” What does “both must be true” mean in this context? The math is a tool of relationship equations to describe how forces interact, either in Euclidean space and time, or relativistic space-time, but it is only a valid explanation of reality if observations bear this out with quantitative answers, as you say. But what if relativistic math, which is constrained by light c, is applicable ONLY if the universe interacts within itself at light c? But what if it interacts in some ‘entanglement’ way which is much faster than c, or perhaps instantaneous so that Euclidean geometry (where all relationships are instantaneous) now dominate over the relatively slow c? I think it was for this reason Einstein had to conclude ‘gravity waves’ must travel at c, or else his relativistic universe would default gravitationally to Euclidean space and time. Of course, there had never been found gravity waves, but that’s another topic.

    So when Hornblower says: ” Copernicus had the mathematical skill to comprehend and thoroughly analyze the works of Ptolemy and his predecessors. He developed a more coherent and fundamentally simpler model and made what we now know to be sound arguments to justify it. Nevertheless it remained ATM for a long time, and it took a lot of painstaking effort and further discoveries before the mainstream came around. It was not an abrupt revolution by any stretch of the imagination.
    To attempt an analogous revision of the current body of theory in mainstream physics, we would need mathematical skills and experience far beyond anything Copernicus ever had.”
    I hope he understands that the math Copernicus introduced was NOT a re-adaptation of Ptolemeic ‘epicycles’ but a radically new idea, that instead of the Earth being at the center of the universe, it was the Sun at the center of our solar system, and Earth but one of the planets. It then took Kepler to improve on the idea, to make the orbits not perfect circles (Medieval philosophy loved heavenly perfection) but elliptical. All this took the math in a different direction, along with Newton’s improvements in gravitational physics, which is largely what we use in space science today. But this too can be improved upon, so that if space probes are acting funny in their flybys, it is okay to crank out some new ideas. So we are faced with a similar dilemma today, that Dark Matter, or Dark Energy, or the dozen or so space anomalies that go unexplained, including Pioneers, may need to have some serious Mainstream questions answered, or else we are left with fantastic ‘theories’ of the universe that no sane mind can accept rationally, except as nearly an article of faith. And the faith here is not some religious idea, but a true fundamental belief that what the mathematics describes is reality. I say not. Though this fancy math is now ‘in fashion’, it does not have to be accepted face value as a true representation of what we observe. Independent confirmation is a MUST to prove where the math meets reality, and not accept the mathematical interpretations of reality as reality itself. That is ATM, and why it is important to continue to question, and to doubt, even if we are not well versed in the language of physics, as long as the explanations border not only on the absurd, but remain unconfirmed independently.

    So back to Noonan’s ” For me ATM didn't demise ... it didn't even start.” No. You have the right to question, and doubt, what in Modern Physics had become ‘articles of faith’. It’s simply good Science, and what the Mainstream must do, to doubt and question, and test reality against its mathematical interpretations. Even if it should prove that the math may be correct within its ‘domain of applicability’, but if it is not theoretically correct, where Dark Matter sits like a lump in the throat, it is not reality that is challenged but the math. Otherwise, we're just whistling Dixie no matter how cool the math.

    If I may add, what ATM'ers like Jerry and me, and others, have questioned are what appear to be obvius inconsistencies in current cosmology theory. For example (per Jerry's) light C may not be a constant, especially if presence of mass curves it or changes its behavior; and I questioned whether Newton's G is really a universal constant; and others question whether the universe is electrically neutral. Though we may not have in place a full theory to explain astrophysical anomalies, we may at least be allowed to pose our questions, and possibly offer solutions, to how these anomalies may be explained in an alternative way. Hopefully, this is what this board of ATM is for, or at least it was its intent when first formulated, and not merely a place to have alternative ideas refuted because they do not fit the Mainstream template. If there are problems out there, inquiring minds want to know.
    Last edited by nutant gene 71; 2008-Mar-06 at 06:41 PM. Reason: minor spell, word corrections

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,712

    Smile I am a nuts and bolts type of person

    Quote Originally Posted by nutant gene 71 View Post
    I included your byline, Michael, because I think it is significant to this discussion, as to which should rule in cosmology: reality observations or mathematics?

    Korjik had said to me earlier: “You dont understand physics at all. The actual laws that you speak of are actually very simple. All of classical electrodynamics is Maxwell's equations plus the continuity equation. Five very simple differental equations. Add in gravity and the ideal gas law, and you also have nearly all the equations you need to solve any situation you can see with your own eyes.” But this obfuscates the question of how we interpret the reality observed. Yes, some simple equations will give us a good interpretation of reality observations, but when the empirical data is plugged into these equations the results will give us at best approximations of what is observed. Sometimes these can come in with very tight constraints, other times, such as some distant data received from astronomical measurements, must be curve fitted to approximate what is measured. I have been a ‘reader’ of physics for some 10 years now (and a long time ago when I studied it in secondary school), so I have a fairly good understanding of what goes into making physics. My math training was only through integral calculus, and though I do not need to use it on a regular basis, all my math experience can be easily revived with a short tutorial, kind of like riding a bicycle, you never really forget. Fancier relativistic math I learned from my readings, not really that complicated, since it uses light c as a ruler, with the Lorenzian transformation, inverse (1-v^2/c^2)^1/2, to adjust for the limitation of using c as a standard of measure when velocity of the observed approaches relativistic speeds. I don’t have to dwell on this in minutia to appreciate some of the wild speculations now being offered in Modern Physics, though it helps to understand how these things work. Do I have to go over the math in detail in each astrophysical idea presented to make a rational decision on the efficacy of what is being studied? No, and so I default to those who had done all the math with confidence that they knew what they were doing. But when the conclusions come up with fantastic theories, such as the universe and time coming into being (out of nothing) a mere 13.7 billion years ago, or that the flat rotation curves of galaxies require some exotic gravity heavy stuff called “Dark Matter”, I have a right to raise an eyebrow and think to myself… “really?” Just because the math is rigorous within the ‘domain of its applicability’, and some observations fit those parameters within their domain of applicability, does not preclude my ability, or anyone’s ability, to question the results. This is especially true if those results are so fantastic that it would take a truly imaginative mind to accept them at face value. In fact, some are so fantastic as to be acceptable only on faith. I and anyone have the right to question, and either accept or reject the drawn conclusions, no matter how cool is the math.

    So continuing korjik’s: ” Yes, the math can be wrong. That is why the math must fit observation and the observation must fit the math. Both must be true. When the observation starts going outside of the math's ability to handle, the math must be checked, and if insufficient, replaced. The new (or patched) math must be able to explain observation and predict new observations in a quantitative way. Where basically all of the ATMers here fail, is they never give a checkable quantitative answer.” What does “both must be true” mean in this context? The math is a tool of relationship equations to describe how forces interact, either in Euclidean space and time, or relativistic space-time, but it is only a valid explanation of reality if observations bear this out with quantitative answers, as you say. But what if relativistic math, which is constrained by light c, is applicable ONLY if the universe interacts within itself at light c? But what if it interacts in some ‘entanglement’ way which is much faster than c, or perhaps instantaneous so that Euclidean geometry (where all relationships are instantaneous) now dominate over the relatively slow c? I think it was for this reason Einstein had to conclude ‘gravity waves’ must travel at c, or else his relativistic universe would default gravitationally to Euclidean space and time. Of course, there had never been found gravity waves, but that’s another topic.

    So when Hornblower says: ” Copernicus had the mathematical skill to comprehend and thoroughly analyze the works of Ptolemy and his predecessors. He developed a more coherent and fundamentally simpler model and made what we now know to be sound arguments to justify it. Nevertheless it remained ATM for a long time, and it took a lot of painstaking effort and further discoveries before the mainstream came around. It was not an abrupt revolution by any stretch of the imagination.
    To attempt an analogous revision of the current body of theory in mainstream physics, we would need mathematical skills and experience far beyond anything Copernicus ever had.”
    I hope he understands that the math Copernicus introduced was NOT a re-adaptation of Ptolemeic ‘epicycles’ but a radically new idea, that instead of the Earth being at the center of the universe, it was the Sun at the center of our solar system, and Earth but one of the planets. It then took Kepler to improve on the idea, to make the orbits not perfect circles (Medieval philosophy loved heavenly perfection) but elliptical. All this took the math in a different direction, along with Newton’s improvements in gravitational physics, which is largely what we use in space science today. But this too can be improved upon, so that if space probes are acting funny in their flybys, it is okay to crank out some new ideas. So we are faced with a similar dilemma today, that Dark Matter, or Dark Energy, or the dozen or so space anomalies that go unexplained, including Pioneers, may need to have some serious Mainstream questions answered, or else we are left with fantastic ‘theories’ of the universe that no sane mind can accept rationally, except as nearly an article of faith. And the faith here is not some religious idea, but a true fundamental belief that what the mathematics describes is reality. I say not. Though this fancy math is now ‘in fashion’, it does not have to be accepted face value as a true representation of what we observe. Independent confirmation is a MUST to prove where the math meets reality, and not accept the mathematical interpretations of reality as reality itself. That is ATM, and why it is important to continue to question, and to doubt, even if we are not well versed in the language of physics, as long as the explanations border not only on the absurd, but remain unconfirmed independently.

    So back to Noonan’s ” For me ATM didn't demise ... it didn't even start.” No. You have the right to question, and doubt, what in Modern Physics had become ‘articles of faith’. It’s simply good Science, and what the Mainstream must do, to doubt and question, and test reality against its mathematical interpretations. Even if it should prove that the math may be correct within its ‘domain of applicability’, but if it is not be theoretically correct, where Dark Matter sits like a lump in the throat, it is not reality that is challenged but the math. Otherwise, we're just whistling Dixie no matter how cool the math.

    Thank you nutant gene 71 for taking the time to make such a well thought out reply. Maybe it is because I question what is, is the reason for my anxiety. I haven't gotten to dark matter yet because as something not found so far I have tended to dismiss it.

    The things I look at are how well do we know the known. Take a proton or hydrogen atom if you like and what is it really?

    Things like that, the nuts and bolts of things interest me. Before I came here it was a very different matter, I knew what a hydrogen atom looked like ... just a very small smooth round thing that looked like the chemistry lab models just without the wires and ever so much smaller. Then the concept of particle communication when I looked at the structure of smaller dimensions.

    The six levels down are 1 a line of probabilities (indicating distance) 2 a plane to give choice 3 a fold to allow a mobius strip 4 another fold to become a Klein shape 5 a join of Klein shapes so two one surface objects could become a physical quanta with position or amount and 6 the final step continuance to a point or exit to an unbounded quantum medium. Each step is distance and possibility and so the 'time line' is a reverse or track back of the decisions a particle made to be what and where it is.

    So in rough terms I questioned whether the particles communicated directly through the quantum medium or used the structure of quantum to communicate. Both work, the first is easy and everything should be entangled while the second is hard and requires that only quanta working together need communicate which then necessitated being either able to back track the time line and 'know' the forward path of possibility as a 'virtual or time like' line.

    Then after that little exercise then was the particle within the proton and could it simply move through the boundary? Or for a transit of the 'boundary' of the proton did the particle need to bound over the top by knowing the path of quantum dimension to get over the boundary. Apart from being the written me as the good people on this forum know me, I write very little down preferring to mentally picture the interactions. I do have half a dozen scraps of paper where I worked on shape, simple scratchings. Visualising running your finger around a Klein bottle to track single sidedness is a bit of a mental challenge so that is the sort of cheat that I will do.

    I can only confess that I am as stubborn and intractable on the visuals that work for me as real scientists are committed to their mathematics. Possibly even more so which then does not make me impartial. I can 'see' what they are putting together and why it wont move without some brilliant mathematics to make it jump. But to me it is not pretty and does not flow right. Having such a different approach makes it hard on everyone, but thank you for putting up with me, cheers

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by nutant gene 71 View Post
    If we have a ‘vested interest’ formed from difficult labors and study of a cosmology that (just maybe) could be founded on bad assumptions (expanding space/BBT), then it is regrettable that so many man hours (years!) had been invested in studying something that should in the end prove wrong. However, this is the gamesmanship part of cosmology . To prove the Mainstream wrong is quite a trick, since not only must we (who doubt) come up with a better model, but we must also swim upstream against the mainstream of science as it is today. Not an easy task, and surely beyond the scope of us who argue for a new idea (like my variable G) without the necessary tools (mostly relativistic math), but also locked within a short deadline to revolutionize astronomy within 30 days! Are we published? In a manner of speaking, ALL our posts here are ‘published’ by copyright law.
    That is not what is meant by a published work though. The connotation includes peer-review, editors, acceptance, dissemination, etc. But you know that.

    This is a remarkable age now, vast resources and vast audiences. With that comes vast criticism
    Getting an ‘alternative idea’ (especially one so unpolished as to appear ridiculous) published in a respectable ‘peer reviewed’ publication, even those of the alternative kind (like Apeiron) still requires a good enough command of the tools of science that the paper is not only reasonable but durably convincing of such new ideas. The obvious solution is to spend years of study to acquire the right tools, including mathematical competence, which may involve studying what is now acceptable in cosmology (even if potentially wrong) and then coming back into the Mainstream (and swim upstream) to make a credible case for your ‘alternative idea’. There is no easy out here.
    And why should it be easy? That's like saying it should be easy to play baseball.

    It is easy to play baseball, but not at the highest levels--that takes talent, dedication, time, skills, and yes even connections sometimes. If you're discouraged, well, maybe you don't have what it takes. Sorry.

    And how do you know that the time that you've invested in your favorite ATM hasn't blinded you to its failings? That is a real possibility, happens all the time. Bringing up such arguments in support of an ATM is almost a sure sign of weakness of the ATM in the author's own mind.

Similar Threads

  1. The Demise of BAUT
    By moonfunk in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 2011-May-13, 10:04 PM
  2. See Jules Verne Before Its Fiery Demise
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-Sep-19, 09:37 PM
  3. What demise? ATM is alive and well!
    By folkhemmet in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2008-Mar-28, 05:48 PM
  4. humans demise
    By liflessdreamer in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 2007-Aug-21, 05:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: