Sound is the key

[Raphael]

MODERATOR INTERJECTION: Post moved from this thread.


I see this thread could use an update about WMAP.
From NASA's own site about WMAP.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html#timeline

Sound waves in the early universe?

Much of what WMAP reveals about the universe is because of the patterns in its sky maps. The patterns arise from sound waves in the early universe. As with the sound from a plucked guitar string, there is a primary note and a series of harmonics, or overtones. The third overtone, now clearly captured by WMAP, helps to provide the evidence for the neutrinos.

SOUND is the KEY, like I have been suggesting all along.
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/cat...include-sound/

So there now exists proof that SOUND waves in space play a role in how the creation/universe evolved.
NASA and their toy WMAP help prove it.

The results being provided by WMAP suggests mainstream science/astronomy needs to update their hard drives.
And WMAP also suggests the universe is finite?

WMAPs Top Ten
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/

namaste

[Raphael]

This article was published Oct. 6, 2009.
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep...ntum-mechanics

One of the greatest thinkers in physics says the human brain—and the universe itself—must function according to some theory we haven't yet discovered.

I love any theory that challenges mainstream ignorances.
And there are so many obvious ones to choose from.

Lack of a discussion of SOUND in cosmological theories is one of the most obvious empirical flubs.
Ever wonder why SOUND waves were not discussed or incorporated into a Big BANG theory?
I did.

WMAP addresses that omission of 19th century physics.
Remember long ago space was declared a vacuum, was it because math formulas work better in a vacuum?
Establishing space as a vacuum, with no identifiable medium, meant no SOUND waves existed in space.
The Big BANG theory has been silent on the role of SOUND waves ever since.
But space=vacuum is one of the really big FIBS that forms a cornerstone of science.
However from NASA's own site about WMAP we are given an update about the role of SOUND in the early universe.
:arrow: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html#timeline

Much of what WMAP reveals about the universe is because of the patterns in its sky maps. The patterns arise from sound waves in the early universe. As with the sound from a plucked guitar string, there is a primary note and a series of harmonics, or overtones. The third overtone, now clearly captured by WMAP, helps to provide the evidence for the neutrinos.

Sound waves in the early universe?

Apparently science has been focused on the Big Whisper not the Big Bang.

namaste

p.s. maybe this thread should be moved to ATM forum?
moderator please feel free to move at your discretion.

[Disinfo Agent]

It seems that, like Einstein before him, Penrose rejects the ultimate implications of quantum physics because he cannot believe that the world could "be like that":

[...] when you accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics [in the macro world], you have to give up the idea of space-time as we know it from Einstein. The greatest weirdness here is that it doesn’t make sense. If you follow the rules, you come up with something that just isn’t right.

[...] there is the second part of quantum mechanics—the thing that happens when you want to make a measurement. Instead of getting a single answer, you use the equation to work out the probabilities of certain outcomes. The results don’t say, “This is what the world is doing.” Instead, they just describe the probability of its doing any one thing. The equation should describe the world in a completely deterministic way, but it doesn’t.

The bold is mine. I find this use of the word "should" very telling: deep down, people -- including physicists -- still expect that the universe be deterministic. It's very interesting to see how even such an achieved modern physicist as Penrose is not an intrumentalist. By this I mean that he is not satisfied with a pragmatic, mindless "Just shut up and calculate" reply to the riddles of modern physics.

[grant hutchison]

<Sigh.> Another entrant for the Most Misleading Title Of 2009.
Perhaps the editors at Discover magazine thought "Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Incomplete" wasn't snappy enough, and "Roger Penrose Not Entirely Happy With Physics" was a bit downbeat.

Grant Hutchison

[djellison]

Ever wonder why SOUND waves were not discussed or incorporated into a Big BANG theory?
I did.

I didn't. Wikipedia...

"Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. Ironically, he is responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast at 1830 GMT on 28 March 1949. It is popularly reported that Hoyle intended this to be pejorative, but the script from which he read aloud clearly shows that he intended the expression to help his listeners. In addition, Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for radio listeners."

[korjik]

This article was published Oct. 6, 2009.
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep...ntum-mechanics



I love any theory that challenges mainstream ignorances.
And there are so many obvious ones to choose from.

Lack of a discussion of SOUND in cosmological theories is one of the most obvious empirical flubs.
Ever wonder why SOUND waves were not discussed or incorporated into a Big BANG theory?
I did.

WMAP addresses that omission of 19th century physics.
Remember long ago space was declared a vacuum, was it because math formulas work better in a vacuum?
Establishing space as a vacuum, with no identifiable medium, meant no SOUND waves existed in space.
The Big BANG theory has been silent on the role of SOUND waves ever since.
But space=vacuum is one of the really big FIBS that forms a cornerstone of science.
However from NASA's own site about WMAP we are given an update about the role of SOUND in the early universe.
:arrow: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html#timeline


Sound waves in the early universe?

Apparently science has been focused on the Big Whisper not the Big Bang.

namaste

p.s. maybe this thread should be moved to ATM forum?
moderator please feel free to move at your discretion.

Ever wonder why people who dont know what they are talking about feel the need to make sweeping statements about theories they dont understand.

Raphael, longitudinal waves, and waves in general, are fundamental to physics, and are incorporated in pretty much any theory.

[Ken G]

<Sigh.> Another entrant for the Most Misleading Title Of 2009.
Perhaps the editors at Discover magazine thought "Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Incomplete" wasn't snappy enough, and "Roger Penrose Not Entirely Happy With Physics" was a bit downbeat.

My reaction exactly. I'll bet even Penrose himself must have cringed to read that title. Maybe he would accept it as meaning something along the lines of "Penrose thinks physicists are wrong to expect that they are a few rolled-up dimensions and neurological probes away from being able to understand the physics of consciousness." I suppose that headline would be a little long...

[Ken G]

Lack of a discussion of SOUND in cosmological theories is one of the most obvious empirical flubs.
Ever wonder why SOUND waves were not discussed or incorporated into a Big BANG theory?

Of course any physics as basic as sound waves is going to be included in Big Bang theory, only someone without the first inkling of how physics works could believe that. However, note that your own ignorance of physics cannot be viewed as a valid critique of physics. Google the findings of the "WMAP satellite" to read all about the ways sound waves are important in Big Bang cosmology, and along the way begin to recognize that the universe is certainly not treated as a vacuum in the Big Bang theory. Where do you think the cosmic microwave background came from? Hydrogen gas, not vacuum.

[Ken G]

"Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. Ironically, he is responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast at 1830 GMT on 28 March 1949. It is popularly reported that Hoyle intended this to be pejorative, but the script from which he read aloud clearly shows that he intended the expression to help his listeners. In addition, Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for radio listeners."

That's interesting, I had not heard that particular debunking of the popular urban legend.

[Strange]

Ever wonder why people who dont know what they are talking about feel the need to make sweeping statements about theories they dont understand.

Which, oddly, reminds me of Penrose's "Chinese Room argument against AI - which is either just trivially wrong or simply irrelevant depending how you interpret it.

[Amber Robot]

Remember long ago space was declared a vacuum, was it because math formulas work better in a vacuum?
Establishing space as a vacuum, with no identifiable medium, meant no SOUND waves existed in space.

Your statements are contrary to the decades worth of study of the interstellar medium and thousands of pages of journal articles and text books on the subject. There is clearly an identifiable medium in space, which I, and many others before me, have dedicated their careers to studying.

[Kwalish Kid]

Which, oddly, reminds me of Penrose's "Chinese Room argument against AI - which is either just trivially wrong or simply irrelevant depending how you interpret it.

Perhaps you are thinking about Searle's argument.

[Strange]

Perhaps you are thinking about Searle's argument.

Doh. I am going to get a reputation for misattribution at this rate. I will try and think before I post in future.

[Ken G]

Which, oddly, reminds me of Penrose's "Chinese Room argument against AI - which is either just trivially wrong or simply irrelevant depending how you interpret it.

Yeah that's Searles, not Penrose, and Searles was a philosopher, not a physicist. I used to share your opinion of the "Chinese room" argument, but I've found that it is often too easy to dismiss a philosophical argument when one is not part of the philosophical community. It turns out that philosophers often are saying more than the layman can recognize, and their arguments have greater validity which only other philosophers pick up on. I'd have to revisit that argument again before I'd resume my former opinion.

[Strange]

I used to share your opinion of the "Chinese room" argument, but I've found that it is often too easy to dismiss a philosophical argument when one is not part of the philosophical community.

Which, probably, makes me guilty of the very thing I was commenting on...

[DrRocket]

<Sigh.> Another entrant for the Most Misleading Title Of 2009.
Perhaps the editors at Discover magazine thought "Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Incomplete" wasn't snappy enough, and "Roger Penrose Not Entirely Happy With Physics" was a bit downbeat.

Grant Hutchison

Quite.

Discover, in my experience, has a propensity for splashy headlines at the expense of accuracy. This article is no exception.

Of course physics is "wrong". That does not rate headlines. QM and GR, for instance, are not compatible. Physics has always been wrong, and there is some reason to think that it will always be wrong. Newton was "wrong", as Einstein showed us. Maxwell was "wrong" as demonstrated by Feynman, Schwinger and Tomanaga.

But it is pretty close.

It is, however, good to see that the opinion of a mathematician receives appropriate attention. Penrose is one smart cookie.

[WayneFrancis]

Hi Raphael, can you provide a cliff note summary of your idea here on the board for us to examine please. Thanks.

I've looked at the link you provided and it appears this is your personal blog? I could not gleam anything scientific from it. I'll refrain from making any more comments on it.

[ToSeek]

Two threads on same topic merged - one thread just had the first and last posts (as I write this).

[WayneFrancis]

Two threads on same topic merged - one thread just had the first and last posts (as I write this).

Ah thanks, thought I was going mad, there where no posts, I made a quick one then I see a half a dozen posts in the thread from hours before mine. Thought I was having some senility issues

[publiusr]

So I caused the Virgo cluster back when I clapped my hands together REAL loud back when the universe was a little less dense than pea soup.

[WayneFrancis]

So I caused the Virgo cluster back when I clapped my hands together REAL loud back when the universe was a little less dense than pea soup.

Well done, I wish I had that type of musical ability.

[korjik]

So I caused the Virgo cluster back when I clapped my hands together REAL loud back when the universe was a little less dense than pea soup.

maybe it was a butterfly that flapped its wings

[Spoons]

I've found that it is often too easy to dismiss a philosophical argument when one is not part of the philosophical community. It turns out that philosophers often are saying more than the layman can recognize, and their arguments have greater validity which only other philosophers pick up on.

Replace philosopher with physicist and you've got one of the key causes of ATM ideas.

[Ken G]

Yes, especially when the ATM idea if of the flavor "physics theory X is wrong because I incorrectly understand what it is saying."

[Raphael]

Replace philosopher with physicist and you've got one of the key causes of ATM ideas.

Without the philosopher to plant the seeds in the fertile minds of the empirical physicist, where would we be?
Ancient wisdom is not based on science.
Ancient wisdom predates the empirical science we embrace today.
It appears 'western' science followed in the footsteps of the great philosophers.

Sound waves may drive cosmic structure?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...1/ai_19040169/

There are countless references to SOUND in myth and the scriptures.
AUM what do I mean?

namaste

[coliver]

Considering all the GRBs and other massive releases of energy in space it probably isnt silent, I've wondered as well what happens to that energy? Its like the tree in the woods analogy, does it make a sound in space? And where does that energy go?

Actually I think the same process that we are now using to convert heat to sound and electricity may be what happens at the quantum level.
http://www.physics.utah.edu/news/y07m06d04.html

For an array to efficiently convert heat to sound and electricity, its individual devices must be "coupled" to produce the same frequency of sound and vibrate in sync.

[Spoons]

Raphael
It appears you may be countering an argument I didn't make. There was no slight on philosophers intended there. It was on a general phenomena familiar to most areas of knowledge.

Besides, everyone's gets philosophical. Pondering nature plants the seed, I thought, which then on some occasions leads to the philosophical thoughts. Some of which are valid upon investigation, some are not.

I'm not claiming it's a rule or anything, that's just more how I think in comparison to your view.

[Kwalish Kid]

Raphael
It appears you may be countering an argument I didn't make. There was no slight on philosophers intended there. It was on a general phenomena familiar to most areas of knowledge.

You could have made a more specific point to this thread: Raphael has presented himself or herself of entirely ignorant of an aspect of cosmology that has been explored to varying degrees for half a century and that now forms the basis for many amazingly detailed research projects and is presenting them as new.

[Raphael]

You could have made a more specific point to this thread: Raphael has presented himself or herself of entirely ignorant of an aspect of cosmology that has been explored to varying degrees for half a century and that now forms the basis for many amazingly detailed research projects and is presenting them as new.

entirely ignorant.
you got proof?

I have proof you are ignorant of a certain symbol that is 10,000 years old.
And remember ignorance, just means you have not read some of the same literature I have.
I present an entirely new approach.

As these two links suggest:
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/200...the-milky-way/
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/200...tika%E2%80%9D/

What I present as a possible link to SOUND...connecting the archaic pre-literate oral narratives with modern cosmological theory has NOT been discussed openly in the past 100 years.
Behind closed doors maybe ... but not openly.

namaste

Raphael

p.s.
IF you want to discuss the concepts I have presented, that obviously sit far outside the mainstream consciousness, and challenge not only science but religious beliefs, you can join me here on this 'other' forum to discuss this taboo symbol openly, without any fear of ridicule by the empirical wizards of oz.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83136

[Spoons]

From what I've read of his stuff I'm very wary of that forum.