Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Good Reply Mike...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by J Raymond Redbourne on November 5, 2002 12:27:19 UTC

...and I agree with it in general. The problem I have with Theoretical Physics math, is that it has been used repeatedly to manipulate terms without regard for the underlying mechanics it is supposed to represent.

And demands are made of outsiders with new ideas, that they immediately supply math proof, when all mathematicians know that a very high percentage of math calculations is based upon empirically-derived constants and curves. Which is to say; the mechanics are observed and measured prior to generating mathematical models.

The famous bridges like the Firth of Forth, and ???? Narrows, that collapsed, plus one under construction in Ottawa, that did a flip and killed some good men, were instructive. Cannons blew up in the Civil War, and Challenger did too. But bridges don't fall down today, cannons don't blow up, and the rest of the Space Shuttles are growing grey beards. Watch the Discovery Channel, Frontiers of Construction.

Theoretical Physics/Cosmology is in a cul de sac, and has been for a very long time. Every new astronomical discovery throws the cosmologists into a flap. Almost nothing fits into their existing math models. And they have to invent "aetherial" things like Dark Matter and Quintessence in frantic attempts to come up with answers. Were their math models truly representative of reality, then not only should the answers arise automatically from the equations, but predictions should arise, as with Einstein's.

One might say that certain 10-place predictions in QM have been made and proven, but we all know "renormalization" techniques were used; ie: empirically-derived values inserted into failed models, to force out the correct answers. And some of these were not pre-dictions, but rather post-dictions, stated illegitimately as predictions.

Even Astrophysics has serious problems, like where did the heavier elements come from? And if we look at Inflation-Termination/Particle-Creation, then just how did the amorphous, homogeneous energy "condense" differentially into protons and electrons having such different properties, and in balanced amounts; not mass-wise, but "charge"-wise? And how did some electrons and protons get stuck together as neutrons, when we know that if a neutron is separated from the parent atom, it decays to the separate particles in about 10 minutes, and cannot be stuck back together? What is the math for that? How does mass differential greater than 1000/1 result in equal and opposite charges;- whatever "charge" means.

The most we can say about so-called Dark Matter and Quintessence math, if it exists, is that these terms are like Xs in an equation. Their values can perhaps be found, but no one actually knows what they are. And certainly, they do not fit into any umbrella math model or mechanical model already existing in our educational institutions, unless someone is intentionally hiding his light under a bushel for political reasons.

It is so unfathomly ludicrous, that I smell political/economic/military conspiracy. It looks like more than Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It looks like a CIA Black Project.

Further, when anyone comes up with a new idea that looks promissing in the professional world, it's typical that 1000 papers are written on it by 1000 people in the next year.

So I really do not understand why, when one amateur individual comes up with a bright idea, that the professionals think he alone should present them with completion right up front.

Have you read Greene's The Elegant Universe? It is full of caveats and excuses for the failures of String Theory, from beginning to end, on almost every page.

Have you read Hawking's stuff? Firstly, he is honestly candid about problems. But he also gets into cannon balls on trampolines, to represent 4-D spacetime effects. And from there, gets into wormholes.

How about Wheeler? He uses a Flatland analogy and assumes we don't have the visual resolution to know we are on a curved surface, and completely illegitimately uses Gauss/Reimann (spelling?) to transfer (read "transform") the curvature of Earth's surface, to spacetime.

How about Alastair Rae on Quantum Weirdness? His book: Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality?- has several experiments described along the lines of Einstein's "Spooky action at a distance",- superluminal effects still not explained by Conventional Physics.

Professionals all.

Ray.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins