Cut The Bullshit In Physics

[Moronium]

I said:

 

On another note, I would not conclude that "gravity" is the cause of the universe expanding, either, as you seem to.  I would attribute that to "inertia," not gravity

 

 

Your response was:

 

At first it may seem that way, but read on. In the end I completely eliminate gravity.

 

I look at inertia as being a phenomenon related to motion., not gravity, per se, so I'm not sure how this responds to the point, Mike.

[Moronium]

From your paper:

 

Or maybe the author (and the majority of other scientists) committed an informal fallacy by equating .the force of 'gravity' generated between two objects of mass to the same force of 'gravity' that is accelerating the mass of the universe apart.

 

I quoted this before, commenting that I couldn't see how "the force of gravity" (whether eventually eliminated or not) could be the behind a repulsive, as opposed to attractive, acceleration to begin with.  You didn't address that.  Do you see what I'm getting at?

Edited April 17, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

For a slightly different point of view on my approach, read Dr Scott Tyson's book The Unobservable Universe. 

 

I haven't read the book, and, although it sounds quite interesting in certain respects, I don't really plan to.  I did find a book review which I will paste a few excerpts from, however:

 

Scott Tyson embarks on a scientific quest for truth that covers three thousand years and the entire range of theoretical approaches to cosmology. Along the way, the author provides evidence that many of the conventional theories of the universe are not in accordance with the observations and facts that have presented themselves to scientists...

 

[He] takes the startling position that resources have become focused on demonstrating the narrow conventional cosmological perspective. For the author, this devotion and faith in flawed and incomplete models of the universe, forms a religion based solely on belief. Scott Tyson points out that the current model of the universe is riddled with many paradoxes, demonstrating that the conventional paradigm is deeply flawed and incomplete. For the author, paradoxes can't exist in the universe, and only exist in the minds of people. This failure of perception, as the author describes it, leads to a clinging to improbable, if not impossible theories of cosmology....

 

The author effectively deconstructs the current theories, that are untenable in his view, due to their many paradoxes and contradictions. In place of the existing theory of the universe, the author presents a compelling case for a new model, free from paradoxes, based on quantum physics.

 

 

http://kingkike.blogspot.com/2011/10/unobservable-universe-by-scott-m-tyson.html

 

I certainly agree with, and approve of, the approach and the attitude set forth in the first two paragraphs quoted above.  That is just as a general matter, though.

 

With respect to his specific "resolution" of the "paradoxes" alleged, I can have no opinion.  First of all, I'm not that conversant with QM.  Secondly, I am skeptical about virtually any broad cosmological theory.  It seems to me that in order to "prove" anything about this subject, one first has to make a lot of assumptions that may or may not be warranted.  At bottom, I just view it all as too speculative, I suppose.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

He probably meant to say dark energy instead of dark matter, I figure.

 

He also said:

 

 

I don't agree with the claim that they started calling dark matter dark energy.  They are two different, co-existing, conceptions.  But Mike does at least recognize the difference, and I don't think he is trying to say what you have imputed to him, Chem.

 

Well I think the concepts of dark energy and Dark matter in the standard model work along with that it is a dark Lepton, what I think is all those leptons that get sent out from the stars cause dark matter.

[Moronium]

Well I think the concepts of dark energy and Dark matter in the standard model work...

 

Well, Vic, the question isn't really whether they "work with the standard model," is it?  The question is why are they posited in the first place, especially since they are "things" which cannot be observed. And the inability to directly observe dark matter seems to be "built into" the very concept.  By definition, "dark matter" does not in any way interact with light or any other type of "standard" matter, so there is no way to "see" it.

 

As for "dark energy," that's not even a "thing," is it?  It's just a concept.  

Edited April 17, 2019 by Moronium

[exchemist]

Well, Vic, the question isn't really whether they "work with the standard model," is it?  The question is why are they posited in the first place, especially since they are "things" which cannot be observed.

They are hypotheses put forward to account for observations. Just as, ooh, say, molecules are. That is how science works. 

Edited April 17, 2019 by exchemist

[Moronium]

They are hypotheses put forward to account for observations. Just as, ooh, say, molecules are. That is how science works. 

 

Sure they are, Chem.  But "science" generally deals with observable things, I thought.  When you start making hypotheses which cannot be empirically verified, then you have moved into "pseudo-science," according to Popper, anyway.  You can "explain" lots of things by positing invisible beings like ghosts, but that doesn't make your hypothesis "scientific."

Edited April 17, 2019 by Moronium

[exchemist]

Sure they are, Chem.  But "science" generally deals with observable things, I thought.  When you start making hypotheses which cannot be empirically verified, then you have moved into "pseudo-science," according to Popper, anyway.  You can "explain" lots of things by positing invisible beings like ghosts, but that doesn't make your hypothesis "scientific."

Nope. Popper says a theory, to be scientific, must be capable of making testable predictions such that it is falsifiable. Not verifiable. 

 

And one has to start with a hypothesis, in order to begin construction of a new theory. That is the stage we are at with dark matter and dark energy.  

 

 

With dark matter there are already two independent classes of observation that provide evidence for its existence. Dark energy is a lot more speculative, as yet. 

[Moronium]

Nope. Popper says a theory, to be scientific, must be capable of making testable predictions such that it is falsifiable. Not verifiable. 

 

 With dark matter there are already two independent classes of observation that provide evidence for its existence. 

 

What's the difference between falsifiable and verifiable in a case where your postulations are unobservable?  You can't do either.

 

A bell suddenly ringing without a known cause is "evidence for" the existence of ghosts.  So what?  How are you going to either verify or falsify the existence of ghosts?

 

Popper also made it clear, as I understand him, that the "predictions" should precede the observations, not "postdict" them, ad hoc, to "explain" known observations.

 

The retrograde motion of Mars is not "evidence for" the existence of the postulated circular epicyclical motion.of Mars.  The observed motion came first, followed by an ad hoc "explanation."

Edited April 17, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The scientific "reasoning" behind dark matter seems to go like this:

 

1.  Our observations conflict with our current theory, raising the possibility that our theory is incorrect.

 

2.  But we KNOW our theory is correct.

 

3.  Therefore, dark matter must exist, even if it's theoretically unobservable.

 

Same kinda deal with ptolemic epicycles, eh?

Edited April 17, 2019 by Moronium

[MikeBrace]

This entire discussion (as do most in this forum) seems to evolve about scientific reasoning and the burden of proof. Since physics (in its most basic definition) is the observable reaction between particles, it must be 'observed' through any or all of our 5 senses. Your reasoning (and definitions) may start off in your dreams, but it has to come out and be observed sooner or later.

 

By keeping this caveat in front of our efforts at all times we use scientific reasoning and approach defining the physics of our universe in several ways:

 

A) We observe a physical interaction between known particles and then build a sound, mathematical model to define this observed interaction. If the next observed interaction does not behave exactly as our model defined it to do, we isolate the variable(s) and adjust the equation to accommodate the observed interaction. When we develop just such an equation (such as F=MA) that we prove to be 100% accurate with our observations AND our predictions for future observations we have gone from Theory to Fact. This is called science.

- If we develop a model that cannot accommodate an observed interaction, but we thought it should, we [need to] come up with a different model for that interaction and/or reclassify that interaction.

 

B) We conceive a desired interaction between known particles, based on the observed interactions of those particles, and then we hypothesize a mathematical model to predict this future observable interaction. We then test and develop this model to the point of usefulness, and then use this model to duplicate those observed interactions for our own device; the atomic bomb comes to mind. This is called innovation.

 

C) We conceive a desired interaction between known particles of an unobserved interaction and then form a hypothesis on how to make that previously unobserved interaction between particles become observable. We then develop this hypothesis to the point where we can develop a model that can be tested for an observable interaction. When that interaction is observed we call it invention.

 

D) We conceive a desired interaction between hypothetical particles of an unobserved interaction and then form a hypothesis on how to create the model that will make that interaction between these hypothetical particles observable. We then develop this hypothetical model to the point where we can test it for an observable interaction. This is called imagination. (Remember, Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge...and he was right). When the model becomes real and the results become observable then we call it discovery.

 

3 variables (Observable, Known and Model) with 4 outcomes (Fact, Theory, Hypothesis or Conjecture) and 4 approaches (Science, Innovation, Invention, Discovery). (There may be other sub-variations of these methodologies but I'll keep it simple for now).

 

Now, the laws that govern these physical definitions are the foundation for science, and while somewhat malleable, they are absolute in their construction:

 

1) It has to be observable. That is a Fact. If it cannot be made observable it remains a theory.

- If you haven't observed it before, you have to make it observable. If your models can't, and can never do that, it's not even hypothetical; it remains in the realm of conjecture until you do.

 

2) It has to be based in a model with real particles that can be observed. The particles may be hypothetical in the early stages of the model, but if the model says they behave as real particles do, and these models can make them observable, then we can call it a Theory.

 

And last, BUT MOST IMPORTANT,

 

3) Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is a law that should govern all that we do and its a Fact. (If it wasn't a fact we would not have reached a steady-state of existence after 14 billion years). If you think otherwise then you are working in the realm of Magic or Religion. (YOUR REALM MAY BE REAL, but it's still Magic or Religion.)

- If any part of your definition(s) depend on a hypothetical particle that [by definition] cannot be observed (some types of WIMPS, BOSONS, QUARKS and other such sub-atomic particles come to mind) then it remains forever in the realm of conjecture [and not to be taken seriously].

 

In all of your scientific reasoning, logic progressions and theoretical discussions make sure you abide by these rules. They are flexible, but they are not speculative or undeniable. Violate any of them you will find that you cannot validate your opinions, point-of-view, reasonings or efforts.

 

Remember, Ignorance should never get a point of view, a viable opinion or even a seat at the table.

 

Now, go back and review your discussions, arguments, theories and hypothesis' and see if you abided by these rules. If you didn't, but still believe you have a valid opinion, then you are fooling yourselves. And those of us that abide by these rules can pick out those that don't almost at first glance.

Edited April 17, 2019 by MikeBrace

[exchemist]

This entire discussion (as do most in this forum) seems to evolve about scientific reasoning and the burden of proof. Since physics (in its most basic definition) is the observable reaction between particles, it must be 'observed' through any or all of our 5 senses. Your reasoning (and definitions) may start off in your dreams, but it has to come out and be observed sooner or later.

 

By keeping this caveat in front of our efforts at all times we use scientific reasoning and approach defining the physics of our universe in several ways:

 

A) We observe a physical interaction between known particles and then build a sound, mathematical model to define this observed interaction. If the next observed interaction does not behave exactly as our model defined it to do, we isolate the variable(s) and adjust the equation to accommodate the observed interaction. When we develop just such an equation (such as F=MA) that we prove to be 100% accurate with our observations AND our predictions for future observations we have gone from Theory to Fact. This is called science.

- If we develop a model that cannot accommodate an observed interaction, but we thought it should, we [need to] come up with a different model for that interaction and/or reclassify that interaction.

 

:cool: We conceive a desired interaction between known particles, based on the observed interactions of those particles, and then we hypothesize a mathematical model to predict this future observable interaction. We then test and develop this model to the point of usefulness, and then use this model to duplicate those observed interactions for our own device; the atomic bomb comes to mind. This is called innovation.

 

C) We conceive a desired interaction between known particles of an unobserved interaction and then form a hypothesis on how to make that previously unobserved interaction between particles become observable. We then develop this hypothesis to the point where we can develop a model that can be tested for an observable interaction. When that interaction is observed we call it invention.

 

D) We conceive a desired interaction between hypothetical particles of an unobserved interaction and then form a hypothesis on how to create the model that will make that interaction between these hypothetical particles observable. We then develop this hypothetical model to the point where we can test it for an observable interaction. This is called imagination. (Remember, Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge...and he was right). When the model becomes real and the results become observable then we call it discovery.

 

3 variables (Observable, Known and Model) with 4 outcomes (Fact, Theory, Hypothesis or Conjecture) and 4 approaches (Science, Innovation, Invention, Discovery). (There may be other sub-variations of these methodologies but I'll keep it simple for now).

 

Now, the laws that govern these physical definitions are the foundation for science, and while somewhat malleable, they are absolute in their construction:

 

1) It has to be observable. That is a Fact. If it cannot be made observable it remains a theory.

- If you haven't observed it before, you have to make it observable. If your models can't, and can never do that, it's not even hypothetical; it remains in the realm of conjecture until you do.

 

2) It has to be based in a model with real particles that can be observed. The particles may be hypothetical in the early stages of the model, but if the model says they behave as real particles do, and these models can make them observable, then we can call it a Theory.

 

And last, BUT MOST IMPORTANT,

 

3) Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is a law that should govern all that we do and its a Fact. (If it wasn't a fact we would not have reached a steady-state of existence after 14 billion years). If you think otherwise then you are working in the realm of Magic or Religion. (YOUR REALM MAY BE REAL, but it's still Magic or Religion.)

- If any part of your definition(s) depend on a hypothetical particle that [by definition] cannot be observed (some types of WIMPS, BOSONS, QUARKS and other such sub-atomic particles come to mind) then it remains forever in the realm of conjecture [and not to be taken seriously].

 

In all of your scientific reasoning, logic progressions and theoretical discussions make sure you abide by these rules. They are flexible, but they are not speculative or undeniable. Violate any of them you will find that you cannot validate your opinions, point-of-view, reasonings or efforts.

 

Remember, Ignorance should never get a point of view, a viable opinion or even a seat at the table.

 

Now, go back and review your discussions, arguments, theories and hypothesis' and see if you abided by these rules. If you didn't, but still believe you have a valid opinion, then you are fooling yourselves. And those of us that abide by these rules can pick out those that don't almost at first glance.

You realise the title of this thread is cut the bullshit in physics, do you?  ​ 

[MikeBrace]

You realise the title of this thread is cut the bullshit in physics, do you?  ​ 

 

Hey, I'm only showing the rookies how to do just that. But, heck, we all know you can lead a horse to water, prove to him it's water, and you still can't make him drink! Right?!

[Moronium]

Just for the record, this is from CERN:

 

Dark matter--Invisible dark matter makes up most of the universe – but we can only detect it from its gravitational effects

 

Galaxies in our universe seem to be achieving an impossible feat. They are rotating with such speed that the gravity generated by their observable matter could not possibly hold them together...They think something we have yet to detect directly is giving these galaxies extra mass, generating the extra gravity they need to stay intact. This strange and unknown matter was called “dark matter” since it is not visible.

 

Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This means it does not absorb, reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot. In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter...

 

Dark matter candidates arise frequently in theories that suggest physics beyond the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry and extra dimensions.  One theory suggests the existence of a “Hidden Valley”, a parallel world made of dark matter having very little in common with matter we know. If one of these theories proved to be true, it could help scientists gain a better understanding of the composition of our universe and, in particular, how galaxies hold together.

 

 

https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter

 

Who would have guessed that "theories" involving "extra dimensons" and "parallel worlds," would have come out of this, eh?  Not really a serious question--just rhetorical.  Such "explanations" seem to be a routine part of physics these days.

 

I have a theory, too.  Ghosts are causing all of this. By definition they are invisible and can't be seen, so I will have to grant that I can only infer their presence from observable effects, but, still.....

 

The article notes that "If one of these theories proved to be true..."  I figure my theory has just as much chance of being "proved to be true," as the others, ya know?  Where's my Nobel Prize?

Edited April 17, 2019 by Moronium

[MikeBrace]

My theory about gravity is really simple and basic; All matter is surrounded by Void Energy; a charged particle field of measurable density and magnitude. (You might call it Dark Energy however it does not behave like current descriptions of Dark Energy). I tend to call it Void Energy because if 4.8% of the universe is Mass (coalesced energy), 23% is electromagnetic energy then the rest of the universe is Void Energy. (Many previous scientist often refer to this as Aether). I have described this particle (that makes up this Void Energy) as having common attributes found in numerous other energy field and energy particles, and it behaves in an entirely predictable manner within the confines of our known, observable universe.

 

And because it is a physical field of charged particles it has density, pressure and intensity.

 

Dr. Tyson described these same particles in his book however discussion with him we had one primary classification difference: he described Bosons and I described Fermions. But then again, he only used his model to 'eliminate' gravity as a Primary Force; he did not use his model to explain the formation of matter nor any of Newton's principles of motion. I did.

 

Attributing gravitational mechanics (forces) to particle dynamics also allowed me to predict Gravity Waves before they found them.

 

Merriam-Webster defines a wave as:  A disturbance or variation that transfers energy progressively from point to point in a medium and that may take the form of an elastic deformation or of a variation of pressure, electric or magnetic intensity, electric potential, or temperature.

 

I love it when a well made plan comes together.

[OceanBreeze]

My theory about gravity is really simple and basic; All matter is surrounded by Void Energy; a charged particle field of measurable density and magnitude. (You might call it Dark Energy however it does not behave like current descriptions of Dark Energy).

 

- If any part of your definition(s) depend on a hypothetical particle that [by definition] cannot be observed (some types of WIMPS, BOSONS, QUARKS and other such sub-atomic particles come to mind) then it remains forever in the realm of conjecture [and not to be taken seriously].

 

 

 

I can only conclude this “void energy” is not to be taken seriously then, based on your own criteria.

[MikeBrace]

I can only conclude this “void energy” is not to be taken seriously then, based on your own criteria.

 

Why would you conclude that? I never said you could not observe (or prove) its existence. Did you not read the theory, or are you basing your comment on my abbreviated statement to Moronium?