Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So If I stood on a planet as big as Jupiter (I know I couldn't but let's play) time would go faster because of the greater gravity?
(Yup Iam not to brainy but I want to learn
)




posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 

Yes.
Now go stand on a black hole and guess what will happen.
edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I would age very quick? or would I? does it make matter get older quicker?? I dunno tell me
edit on 2-3-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 

Yes. No.
Wait. Now I'm confused. Let's back up.

The less gravity, the faster the clock runs.
So on Jupiter you would age slower relative to Earth. On a black hole, very much slower. In fact you could probably watch the universe end from there.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I am not a physicist, but how is anybody supposed to prove the OP right or wrong.

For starters, some of the factual propositions the OP states can be proved or disproved by experimental data. I am guessing most of us here do not have access to particle colliders, radio telescopes, or any of the other tools physicists use. Even if someone did have access to these tools and could make a series of observations proving or disproving the OP's contentions, nobody on here would believe it.

Second, some of the factual propositions the OP states may be able to be proved or disproved by reason or mathematics. Unfortunately I do not think anybody here (including myself) would have the sophistication to understand a mathematical argument.

Third, the OP points out one heavenly body is moving towards us, so the idea of an expanding universe must be false. Is it possible that although most stars and galaxies are moving away from each other, a small number may be moving towards each other.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


I agree with the OP. All physics are tge,ory anyway none have been entirely proven. one only needs to look at the letters between Velikovski and Einstein to be aware that Einstein knew the science world required a model and as long as it fit roughly then it would be accepted. There is an awful lot if doubt whether the photon exists as well as the points made regard the gravity and relativity theories are flawed.

The electric universe theory is gaining apace and more educational facilities are teaching it. www.thunderbolts.info...
Cheers



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herebychoice
The electric universe theory is gaining apace and more educational facilities are teaching it.
You mean there are educational facilities teaching that the sun is not powered by nuclear fusion but by some mysterious electric current instead?

Which school teaches that? Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, which teaches based on channeling of a 35,000 year-old Lemurian warrior entity called Ramtha? That I could believe, but if you're claiming any accredited institutions are teaching the sun isn't powered by nuclear fusion as EU proponents say, you'll have to back up your claim.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
It's been a time now that physics is my favourite hobby. But now I'm about to introduce a new model. So I am wondering how strong really are some sides.

Ready? Okay. I'll form the opposition to root concepts (particle existence, observation of dark energy) - just to see how strong they are.


Allow me to preface by saying that I am not a theoretical physicist however I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

I agree that Physics in its many disciplines is exciting to learn, however all set to turn the standard model on its head are you?

I don't know whether you are serious or sarcastic??


Challenging 100 years cumulative work of the greatest minds whose work has been supported by entire nations with billions of dollars of funding is a tall order.

This is a common phenomena on alternative internet media, the less ones education on the topic the higher the likelihood that they will come to believe they have overturned relativity (or the standard model.)

The questions you are asking make it clear that you haven't developed the necessarily academic foundation needed to grasp the concepts you are preparing to overturn and rewrite.

First, you are making the same error as many of the other "free thinkers" on ATS, confusing scientific theory with philosophical theory. Philosophy only requires somebody willing to say "what if", scientific theory requires support by empirical evidence and is actually more akin to what most people consider fact.

You need to familiarize yourself with the function of p-values and sigma in the scientific method (you may want to Google the terms so you can at least have an idea), while you are at it you will find a tremendous weight of mathematical and observational evidence supporting both Einstein's relativity as well as the particle zoo.

Among the bulk of supporting evidence that has collected over the years, the indications of the Higgs Boson observed at CERN last year went a long way to support the standard model as correct once and for all.

As an example....


Originally posted by swan001
I, as the oppostion, say, "quarks don't exist". Prove me wrong.


Sorry, as mentioned previously, the scientific method doesn't work that way.

You need to provide evidence and show work,that can be independently corroborated which challenges the empirical facts supporting the existence of the quark.

By your definition, I have a theory of my own...

My car isn't powered by internal combustion, the force to drive the pistons is actually a form of zero point energy drawing the power to do the work from the quantum foam which is stimulated by the atomisation of the air fuel mixture at approximately 14:1.

I can prove this because diesel engines don't require spark plugs.

The only reason I put gas in the tank at all is to provide a a matrix for the up quarks to adhere to, bubble yum works nearly as well..

Prove me wrong.


Sounds kind of silly, doesn't it?

You have your work cut out, all six flavors of Quark predicted by the standard model have been directly observed in particle accelerator collisions for years now at exactly the mass predicted.

Fermilab History and Archives Project/The History of Accelerators and Particle Physics Collection


Originally posted by swan001
I also say, "redshift from other galaxies is not caused by general rush-away-from-each-other movement, as many galaxies actually move towards one another and even collide.


Serious or sarcastic?


If serious, you need to go back and hit the books, this is high school stuff. Metric expansion of space and doppler red shifting electromagnetic radiation is inarguable. On very localized scales you have gravitationally bound galaxies which do merge and collide ( our own M31 is heading towards us at a relative velocity of some 100Km/sec) however on any meaningful cosmic scale everything is travelling away from everything else


Originally posted by swan001
Instead, redshift is caused by photon interaction with space itself". Prove me wrong.


Ironically, your "theory" could be considered in agreement with mainstream cosmology.The red shift is not caused by the relative velocity of an object traveling away, or Doppler shift, as is often demonstrated with a train whistle.

The cosmological red shift is caused by the metric expansion of space itself stretching the photons as they propagate.

In effect, you are correct. Redshift is caused by Photons interacting with spacetime.


I also say, "Einstein's Relativity is inaccurate - time will not slow down for a fast-moving body, as any thought experiment involving a third party, always at equal distance from both the "immobile" and the fast-moving body, would show. "


You have to understand relativity before you can question its predictions (which for a hundred years has survived all challenges) As others have pointed out, time dilation has been conclusively proven for 50+
years, the GPS constellation being one of the easiest examples to point to.

Partly for the same reason you can never accelerate to light speed. The faster you go, the more you weigh. The more you weigh, the more force it takes to accelerate and, the stronger your gravitational influence. More gravity, the slower your time passes as observed by a second party in a different inertial reference frame.



Originally posted by swan001
Prove me wrong.


okay....



The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners.

They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

Hafele–Keating experiment


Originally posted by swan001
I finally say, "if virtual particles exists even in total vacuum, how come the CERN is never picking them up? " Prove to me quantum model is the right one.
Let's start the debate!


First off, would you provide a mechanism by which one would expect a particle accelerator to detect virtual particles? Tell the truth, you were absent in physics class on particle accelerator day, weren't you?


Actually, just read this bit. If they are real, maybe it already has found a hint (but probably not in the manner you were thinking...
)


At the LEP collider at the European particle physics laboratory CERN, millions of Z bosons--the particles that mediate neutral weak interactions--were produced and their mass was very accurately measured.

The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the mass of the Z boson, but the measured value differed a little. This small difference could be explained in terms of the time the Z spent as a virtual top quark if such a top quark had a certain mass.

When the top quark mass was directly measured a few years later at the Tevatron collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, the value agreed with that obtained from the virtual particle analysis, providing a dramatic test of our understanding of virtual particles.


Scientific American/ Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

For what its worth ATS member CLPrime is probably the strongest (and only) practicing theoretical physicist on these boards. He is both patient and approachable, maybe you should run your idea by him?
edit on 2-3-2013 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by boymonkey74
 

Yes. No.
Wait. Now I'm confused. Let's back up.

The less gravity, the faster the clock runs.
So on Jupiter you would age slower relative to Earth. On a black hole, very much slower. In fact you could probably watch the universe end from there.


This is touching on the 20 year Hawking/Susskind black hole information paradox argument.

If you will, please watch the video from 8:00 to about the 11:30 mark, Susskind directly addresses the topic of time dilation near the singularity with some extremely mind bending implications.

Youtube videos as physics references tend to be rather lame,however ex-plummer turned rock star physicist Leonard Susskind is always worth hearing out.




posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herebychoice
reply to post by swan001
 


I agree with the OP. All physics are tge,ory anyway none have been entirely proven. one only needs to look at the letters between Velikovski and Einstein to be aware that Einstein knew the science world required a model and as long as it fit roughly then it would be accepted. There is an awful lot if doubt whether the photon exists as well as the points made regard the gravity and relativity theories are flawed.

The electric universe theory is gaining apace and more educational facilities are teaching it. www.thunderbolts.info...
Cheers


Honestly, in my limited understanding the electric universe theory is on par with the hollow earth. As far as I know, the only time relativity comes up lacking is in predicting what happens in a singularity and to my knowledge the electric universe theory certainly doesn't offer any viable alternative explanation.

The link posted isn't working, can you provide a source to show a legitimate University offering electric universe theory as a hard science course?

Academia aside, Wikipedia doesn't even have an EU entry.

I believe your assertions regarding doubts on the existence of photons is incorrect as well but my guess is both the photon and flawed relativity claims are rooted in EU dogma.

Just so you know, photons were first observed in the early 1920's, the guy who first observed them won a Nobel Prize. Photons are the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, have no rest mass and exhibit wave–particle duality. Nobody except hack pseudo science questions their existence.

Einsteins relativity has been proven correct time and again, it might not be the end all but it is a part of the natural world just like Newtons classical mechanics. Relativity came along and explained what was happening in the odd instances where Newtonian physics failed, such as the precession of the planet Mercury.

Someday string theory or some such thing will play out to modify relativity where it fails, at the quantum scale, but to say relativity is flawed is just plain wrong.




posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
You have merely stated a hypothesis, not a theory. You are treating the known theories as you would a hypothesis which is incorrect in function and form.

Now, as far as "proving you wrong", it is merely a hypothesis, you would have to have evidence to support your hypothesis and that evidence would be examined. You have no evidence nor do you address any evidence of the underlying hypothesis for the theory you think you are in disagreement with. I say think because it is clear you have no knowledge of the actual theory, only of a translation of the theory into layman's terms.

This is often an issue when those who are uneducated in Physics try to comprehend a theory based on their terms. Since you don't understand the workings of the theories, the history behind them or even the processes that were gone through in order to support them, you have no grounds upon which to claim they are false.

In order to know truth, you must first have knowledge. That knowledge is used to gain evidence to support or refute what is being tested. First gain the knowledge, then use that knowledge to gather evidence to either support or refute, then present it so others can weigh in on the subject.

Just throwing out an idea and saying "prove me wrong" essentially does the job for you. You are proven wrong because you have no evidence to support what you are saying. It's essentially saying "Please teach me Physics on a message board with as few words as possible so I can understand it without doing any of the work required". That's not going to happen. Not here, not anywhere.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You are correct sir, star for you, I was just worried if I threw out too much too quick it woukdnt stick properly, as some find time dilation in the presence of mass, and from velocity, to be difficult to grasp.

If I would have know a heavy hitter such as yourself was coming I would have been more thorough.

I would like to hear what you have to say about a couple of his other assertions. As this one was my one of my favorite subjects, thus I have done a lot of research into it over the years.

I am less capable as far as quantum theory goes, so I am not as knowledgeable about this subject, and wouod really like to know the actual answer.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


True, but real revelations can be hard won. The Higgs field and related took what 60 years for folks to stop laughing?

It is hard to teach an old dog new tricks!
edit on 2-3-2013 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 





I also say, "Einstein's Relativity is inaccurate - time will not slow down for a fast-moving body, as any thought experiment involving a third party, always at equal distance from both the "immobile" and the fast-moving body, would show. " Prove me wrong.


Sorry, I always thought that time didn't "slow down" just that it would be a sort of a bubble around the person going super fast...anyways, didn't they kind of prove this with atomic clocks?Link



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
It's been a time now that physics is my favourite hobby.


You're asking people to prove you wrong when you're not actually providing any evidence.. just theories and ideas.. the burden of proof is on you.. I can say that mars has a core of 100% grade A milk ... prove me wrong! .. you won't be able to.. that's a silly approach nobody takes seriously.

Science is all about theorizing and then developing tests to prove those theories true.. it's not about making up a theory and then asking everyone else to prove you wrong.
edit on 3/3/2013 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Sorry to confuse you dude


Thanks for the answer you have blown my mind.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
The foundations of science have been built from the labors of people over thousands of years and won't be broken so easily as the OP is desiring them to. But I still think hte OP is cool.

Science as a hobby? Is cool in my book. Even if he's full of himself. The reality is that if most people chose science as a hobby, there'd be a lot of hotheaded people that're wrong.

I think the worst thing is when someone says "God did it." and does nothing more to figure things out. To me, it's better to ask and wonder and be wrong than to just say God did it.

A fair person always leaves the door open for learning. I don't mean so far open that you let in the crazies, but open enough that you don't close out reality.
edit on 3-3-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I know, quarks don't really exist. It was a name that the nerds of my time came up with to try to identify the kids that did irrational things that we couldn't figure out. After all, others called us nerds or worse just ignored us because we intimidated them with our knowledge. After that most got renamed geeks. It's strange that the name quark was created about the same time I was in school dealing with quarky kids, that was a long time ago. Which actually created the other is what I wonder.

Sorry for being off topic
Not really



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Also you are picking things to debate that have ben tested, double tested, triple, etc.

Have you ever been to light speed? Have you ever seen a quark? The purpose of this thread is to determine what's fact and what's nothing more than glorious theory.

edit on 2-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)


Like so many non-scientists, you seem very confused by the way science uses the word 'theory'. It doesn't mean wild ass guess as it's used on ATS. It's an explanation that fits the observed facts, that is tested by experimentation, that is at least somewhat falsifiable.

It's not "Wow, I think we're on an atom on a fingernail of some other guy in another dimension, oh WOW" like most ATSers seem to believe.


so how did they test the "big bang" theory? you'd think all the matter/stars/objects would explode outward with unbelievable(like the theory) force and never come together yet galaxies are colliding. and not all scientists agree with the big bang theory.

and how did they prove the sun is powered by conversion of hydrogen to helium? did they send a probe into the sun? where does all the "hydrogen" come from?

what sort of experiment did they perform to come up with the hypothesis (and thats all it is) known as a black hole?

lastly i did not comprehend your last word and sentence. ie; "somewhat falsifiable". did you mean feasible?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


Looks to me like you copy pasted your "opinion" sentence by sentence from other websites.

So it does at least appear to me as though you neither have an opinion on your own, nor do you grasp basic concepts of anything you write about. I even go that far and claim that, if someone does provide you with an argument against your claims, you will simply google for an answer.

I could be wrong, but having read quite some of your posts, I doubt I am.





top topics
 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join