Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

With "undetectable" Things Anyone Can Invent Any Theory!


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 martillo

martillo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 03:34 AM

With the assumption of UNDETECTABLE things in a theory any theory could be developed since it could never be proven wrong!
This way anyone can invent any theory!
To sustain Relativity Theory the concept of UNDETECTABLE "dark matter" was developed but about hundred years have passed without experimental confirmation...
To sustain Quantum Physics the concept of UNDETECTABLE "virtual particles" was developed but there's no experimental confirmation on them...
Don't you think is time for a totally new theory in Physics?
I have a very good start-point for one without any undetectable thing. 
For those that could be interested I cannot post the link here but it can be found in my profile ("A New Light In Physics").
 



#2 pzkpfw

pzkpfw

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 04:47 AM

I'm not detecting any science here.
  • Farming guy likes this

#3 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2835 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 05:37 AM

With the assumption of UNDETECTABLE things in a theory any theory could be developed since it could never be proven wrong!
This way anyone can invent any theory!
To sustain Relativity Theory the concept of UNDETECTABLE "dark matter" was developed but about hundred years have passed without experimental confirmation...
To sustain Quantum Physics the concept of UNDETECTABLE "virtual particles" was developed but there's no experimental confirmation on them...
Don't you think is time for a totally new theory in Physics?
I have a very good start-point for one without any undetectable thing. 
For those that could be interested I cannot post the link here but it can be found in my profile ("A New Light In Physics").
 

 

Dark matter is not a phenomenon of relativity. The hypothesis, because that is all it is, arises from Newtonian mechanics. Far from being "undetectable", it was proposed to account for an observation, that the rotation rates of galaxies at different radii do not follow what would be expected on the basis of mass estimates made by counts of stars. There would need to be extra mass. Since this mass cannot be seen via emitted radiation, it was called "dark". But whatever it is has detectable effects all right, due to its gravitation. This has been amply confirmed by observation, some of which now includes gravitational lensing which is a concept due to relativity. 

 

As for new theories of physics, not I do not think it is time for a new one from somebody who talks out of his arse. 


Edited by exchemist, 22 November 2017 - 05:39 AM.

  • Farming guy and pzkpfw like this

#4 martillo

martillo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 07:48 AM

Dark matter is not a phenomenon of relativity. The hypothesis, because that is all it is, arises from Newtonian mechanics. Far from being "undetectable", it was proposed to account for an observation, that the rotation rates of galaxies at different radii do not follow what would be expected on the basis of mass estimates made by counts of stars. There would need to be extra mass. Since this mass cannot be seen via emitted radiation, it was called "dark". But whatever it is has detectable effects all right, due to its gravitation. This has been amply confirmed by observation, some of which now includes gravitational lensing which is a concept due to relativity. 

 

As for new theories of physics, not I do not think it is time for a new one from somebody who talks out of his arse. 

But within Classical Physics the difference in the observation of galaxies rotation could be accounted simply modifying the gravitational formula. After all Newton even didn't know about the existence of galaxies when proposing the formula isn't it? But this is imposssible with Relativity Theory. It would not work with a different formula. That's why this possibility is not taken into account and the possibility of dark matter is considered even without confirmation untill nowadays. Now a decisión must be done, you can look for a new theory or stubbornly continue looking for a possibly inexistent "dark matter". I choosed for a new theory and I can say I found interesting results...


Edited by martillo, 22 November 2017 - 07:56 AM.


#5 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2835 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 10:00 AM

But within Classical Physics the difference in the observation of galaxies rotation could be accounted simply modifying the gravitational formula. After all Newton even didn't know about the existence of galaxies when proposing the formula isn't it? But this is imposssible with Relativity Theory. It would not work with a different formula. That's why this possibility is not taken into account and the possibility of dark matter is considered even without confirmation untill nowadays. Now a decisión must be done, you can look for a new theory or stubbornly continue looking for a possibly inexistent "dark matter". I choosed for a new theory and I can say I found interesting results...

Obviously you can't just modify the formula, or you get results that don't work elsewhere. But it's pointless. I'll leave you to it. 



#6 martillo

martillo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 12:31 PM

Obviously you can't just modify the formula, or you get results that don't work elsewhere. But it's pointless. I'll leave you to it. 

​Yes it can be done, for instance with a term similar to the current formula at planetary scale but vanishing at galactic scale and another inversely valid as it should at galactic scale but vanishing at planetary scale. Of course some properties of the gravitational field could be different, may be it would not be a conservative field anymore (only approximately at planetary scale) but it would work. But I know, useless to research on this possibility and even to discuss it here, isn't it?


Edited by martillo, 22 November 2017 - 12:56 PM.


#7 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 05:02 PM

https://en.wikipedia...ineering_origin

 

 

Since the late 1950s,[a][1] aerospace engineers have used the term "unobtainium" when referring to unusual or costly materials, or when theoretically considering a material perfect for their needs in all respects, except that it does not exist. By the 1990s, the term was in wide use, even in formal engineering papers such as "Towards unobtainium [new composite materials for space applications]."[2][3] The word unobtainium may well have been coined in the aerospace industry to refer to materials capable of withstanding the extreme temperatures expected in re-entry.[1] Aerospace engineers are frequently tempted to design aircraft which require parts with strength or resilience beyond that of currently available materials.

 



#8 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 10 May 2018 - 01:49 PM

Dark matter is not a phenomenon of relativity. The hypothesis, because that is all it is, arises from Newtonian mechanics. Far from being "undetectable", it was proposed to account for an observation, that the rotation rates of galaxies at different radii do not follow what would be expected on the basis of mass estimates made by counts of stars. There would need to be extra mass. Since this mass cannot be seen via emitted radiation, it was called "dark". But whatever it is has detectable effects all right, due to its gravitation. This has been amply confirmed by observation, some of which now includes gravitational lensing which is a concept due to relativity. 

 

As for new theories of physics, not I do not think it is time for a new one from somebody who talks out of his arse. 

 

"Due to gravitation," eh?  Your circular claims completely miss the point.  Theoretical physicists KNOW GR is "true," basically a priori, it seems.  But it's not working the way we expect it to.  Now what?  I got me an idea!   Let's say 95% of the universe is comprised of dark matter and dark energy.   Yeah, that should do the trick.

 

Dark matter is to GR what "epicycles" were to Ptolemic astronomy.  The KNEW all heavenly motion was strictly circular (Aristotle told them so).  But what if our observations don't fit the theory?  Aint no thang, just invent a gimmick to make it fit.

 

From wiki:

 

Dark matter has not been directly observed, but its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical  observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained unless more matter is present than can be seen....

 

The name dark matter refers to the fact that it does not appear to interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible (or 'dark') to the entire electromagnetic spectrum...

 

The primary candidate for dark matter is some new kind of elementary particle that has not yet been discovered, in particular, weakly-interacting massive particles (WIMPs).   Many experiments to directly detect and study dark matter particles are being actively undertaken, but none have yet succeeded.

 

If dark matter does not exist, then the next most likely explanation is that general relativity – the prevailing theory of gravity – is incorrect.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...iki/Dark_matter

 

So, here's the "reasoning," such as it is:

 

1.  If there is no dark matter, then GR is  incorrect.

2.  We KNOW, for a stone-cold fact, Jack, that GR is 100% correct.

3.  Therefore, we know that dark matter exists.

 

Q.E.D., Sukka.

 

In philosophy of science, dark matter is an example of an auxiliary hypothesis, an ad hoc postulate that is added to a theory in response to observations that falsify it. It has been argued that the dark matter hypothesis is a conventionalist hypothesis, that is, a hypothesis that adds no empirical content and hence is unfalsifiable in the sense defined by Karl Popper.

 

 

What Popper called "psuedo-science, eh?  That's cool, though.  Metaphysics kinda ROCKS, ya know!?

 

Here's another crazy thought, courtesy of wiki:

 

 Because dark matter remains to be conclusively identified, many other hypotheses have emerged aiming to explain the observational phenomena that dark matter was conceived to explain. The most common method is to modify general relativity. General relativity is well-tested on solar system scales, but its validity on galactic or cosmological scales has not been well proven. A suitable modification to general relativity can conceivably eliminate the need for dark matter.

 

 

 

Epicycles disappeared like magic once a copernican view was accepted and the quasi-religious devotion to "perfect" (circular) motion in the quintessence was disposed of.

 

Distant galaxies are receding from each other faster than the speed of light?  Doesn't that violate the postulates of SR?  HELL NO!  Violate SR?!  Impossible!  Looky here, boy, those galaxies never move at all.  The space between them is just expanding, that's all, see?

 

Uhhh, no, I don't quite "see," sorry.

 

Good work though. You have saved the sacrosant dogma about the limit of light speed from the appearances! It's just tough that your explanation has just made the entire physical concept of motion completely incomprehensible and illusory.

 

A minute ago, I thought I went to my fridge in the kitchen to get a beer.  Turns out that neither me, nor the fridge, nor the beer in it ever moved at all.  The space between us just shrunk for a spell, than expanded again, eh?

 

Popper was wrong, it seems.  No theory can be falsified...if it doesn't work out, just make some crap up to fix it every time it fails and it can live on forever Or, I guess, you could say he was right, and all these non-falsifiable theories are just pseudo-science., like astrology, eh?


Edited by Moronium, 11 May 2018 - 06:33 AM.


#9 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 11:29 AM

The wiki article is misleading. It says...It would assume that more matter is needed that what is present however, dark matter particles is not the [only] theory that is capable of explaining the strange phenomenon. I

 

 

You're right of course, which just acknowledges the notorious "underdeterminacy" problem in the philosophy of science.  There are, potentially, an infinite number of possible explanations for any given observation which do not contradict the "known facts" (itself another problematic area for science).

 

As it turns out, string theory (another unfalsifiable speculation), with it's 11 dimensions, has virtually an infinite number of variants, all of which give the same answer.  Kinda hard to say which one is "right" under those circumstances.  They've devoted decades, and tons of research money, to the pursuit of string theory.  Pseudo-science, anyone?  When, I wonder, will the majority of physicists once again understand that math is not physics?

 

But the point, given the title of the thread, is that the majority of physicists now seem to "buy into" the dark matter/energy hypothesis, which seems on the surface to be highly contrived and ad hoc.  Well, so what, if it "saves" GR, eh? Mathematically, it all works out, what more could you possibly want?  I agree that they should look for better explanations before jumping on the bandwagon with this one.

 

Some say that, just for one example, a "quantum foam" explanation of gravity completely avoids the need to posit dark matter and is quite satisfactory in other ways too.  It does, however, require a rejection of the "spacetime" of SR and GR and the acceptance of a lorentzian theory of absolute motion utilizing a preferred frame.  John Stuart Bell, and many others, have made the same suggestion as a viable means of resolving the conflicts between GR and QM (i.e., reverting to a Lorentzian theory).

 

Btw, i disagree with your conclusion that the wiki article is 'misleading' for the reasons you claim.  Among other things it explicitly says (as i have already quoted):

 

 Because dark matter remains to be conclusively identified, many other hypotheses have emerged aiming to explain the observational phenomena that dark matter was conceived to explain. The most common method is to modify general relativity. General relativity is well-tested on solar system scales, but its validity on galactic or cosmological scales has not been well proven. A suitable modification to general relativity can conceivably eliminate the need for dark matter.

 

 

It's always best to try to read things in context, know what I'm sayin?


Edited by Moronium, 25 May 2018 - 01:06 PM.


#10 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 06:24 PM

The dark matter/energy hypothesis does NOT seek to modify GR in any way.  On the contrary, it presupposes that GR explains everything perfectly.

 

Once you assume that, then you can only ask how GR could possibly explain the seemingly inexplicable phenomena that you are observing.  Well, lets see here...According to GR, if 95% of the mass/energy in the universe were undetectable, then it would predict the behavior we're seeing.

 

That what kept happening with Ptolemic astronomy.  They KNEW that all heavenly motion was perfectly circular, because that was the "perfect" motion, fit for the heavens.  But then they would see various phenomena (like the retrograde motion of Mars) which seemed to contradict circular motion.

 

Not so fast!  Looky here, if you have a perfectly circular "epicycle" which transfers itself to another epicycle, which then transmutes into a third, even larger, epicycle, and if Mars, starting at point A, is following all those perfectly circular paths until it gets to point B, well, then, it would all appear just as it does to us.

 

Epicycles, yeah, that's the ticket!  We've proved ourselves right, yet again.


Edited by Moronium, 26 May 2018 - 05:54 AM.


#11 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 10:48 AM

The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternate histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). In layman's terms, the hypothesis states there is a very large—perhaps infinite[2]—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes. 

 

MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. It is currently considered a mainstream interpretation...

 

 

https://en.wikipedia..._interpretation

 

"Mainstream interpretation," eh?

 

Hahahahahahaha.

 

"MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics...

 

How can they call that "physics?"


Edited by Moronium, 01 June 2018 - 11:05 AM.


#12 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 08 June 2018 - 09:48 AM

It's all a hologram, I tells ya!

 

 

If a friend told you that we were all living in a giant hologram, you'd probably tell him to lay off the kush. But incredibly, physicists across the world are thinking the same thing: That what we perceive to be a three-dimensional universe might just be the image of a two-dimensional one, projected across a massive cosmic horizon.  The 3D nature of our world is as fundamental to our sense of reality as the fact that time runs forward.

 

And yet some researchers believe that contradictions between Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics might be reconciled if every three-dimensional object we know and cherish is a projection of tiny, subatomic bytes of information stored in a two-dimensional Flatland.

 

"If this is true, it's a really important insight," Daniel Grumiller, a theoretical physicist at the Vienna University of Technology, told me over the phone. Grumiller, along with physicists Max Riegler, Arjun Bagchi and Rudranil Basu, recently published the very first study offering evidence that the so-called "holographic principle"—that certain 3D spaces can be mathematically reduced to 2D projections—might describe our universe.

 

 

https://motherboard....-giant-hologram

 

John Stuart Bell said the simplest way to reconcile the two would be to revert to Lorenztian relativity with a preferred frame.  LR is extremely well-tested and eminently reasonable.   I think I'm with John on this one, eh?

 

Then again this whole hologram speculation is so much more imaginative and entertaining.  I guess it depends on your tastes.  Which would you rather watch---a true story about space exploration like "The Right Stuff,"  or Star Wars 13?

 

The "holographic principle" sounds much more mystical and exotic, doncha think?


Edited by Moronium, 08 June 2018 - 09:50 AM.


#13 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 08 June 2018 - 10:04 AM

It's all very scientific, see?  It says here:

 

 

The holographic principle is a principle of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region...

 

First proposed by Gerard 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind[1] who combined his ideas with previous ones of 't Hooft and Charles Thorn.[1][2] As pointed out by Raphael Bousso,[3] Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.

 

The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which conjectures that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected...

 

The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on the surface of its boundary.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...aphic_principle

 

Who knows?  Within a few centuries we may be able to test this experimentally.  Until that time, it's science, I tells ya1

 

Archimedes said that if you gave him a place to stand and a long enough pole, he could move the earth.

 

But that aint nuthin.  Give a geek a slide-rule and enough pencil lead to write out equations for a spell, and he'll change the whole damn universe!


Edited by Moronium, 08 June 2018 - 10:08 AM.