Multiverse intelligently designed.

Post Reply New Topic

It's those oscillations that I'm talking about. I think gravity works in the same way with EM. You can add as many waves together as you like and stll only have one wave function.

Void is an interesting concept, but gravity permeates the universe. Where can you go and not find some gravity field? It's all one big system.

If you succeed in replicating my approach, the physical understanding of the Casimir Effect is amazing and simple. Although science loves Occam's razor, fifty years of being stuck in a failed, narrow cosmological perspective certainly did result in quite a few unnecessarily convoluted faith-based scientific theories for which the scientific method can not even be applied.

Darn! That sounds arrogant even to me. I really need help expressing myself in more constructive ways. I'm truly sorry and I'm trying hard to work on it. I simply have not yet learned how to express my thoughts in a format other than the harsh native wording that comes to my mind. I seriously piss off people with my statements and I've begun working on this issue now that I understand my "special" AS nature.

You just think outside of the box, welcome to the "club".

I completely agree with you about your last statements on gravity. Gravity curves space-time in one and only one way. There is no negative gravity and dark energy is a sorely misunderstood phenomena that some researchers like to portray as negative gravity, which is sheer nonsense.

I do not personally see a way to effectively shield gravity. However, producing a compensating gravity field turns out to be cake, if my theory is correct.

My advise is to just throw out everything you think you know about gravity, acceleration, and mass and start over from first principles.

The same goes for time and the direction of its arrow.

Are you suggesting reversing the polarity of the universe?

You know I thought about a gravity lens if focused in the direction you want to travel would just pull you in that direction. No need to thrust.

Kind of like dangling a star out in front of the spacecraft.

Thanks! I'm delighted to be a member of the Club.

Please explain what you mean by "the polarity of the universe"?

Thanks!

Not really sure myself. I tend to go off into visual tangents that usually lead nowhere.

I'm confused. I would imagine that strictly speaking the emergence and sustenance of life in our universe would not be considered a necessary fact, but rather a contingent fact. That is that a universe with the same set of physical laws but perhaps a different distribution and thus movement of particles, could fail to maintain life. (Note: It may be true that a failure to maintain life may be difficult given the set of laws, but the question appears to suggest life is necessary for the universe, yet regardless of how strong the tendency is towards life, it does not appear necessary.)

At best, the strong second answer is that the laws of physics allow for ongoing biological chemical reactions, and given the time and energy, these happening are highly likely.


I only see the possibility of sense in the first question.

I don't know what you mean by "nothingness is not empirically supported". If nothingness is defined as a extremely low amt of mass per unit of volume, then void (as in void of space) can easily be nothingness.

I don't know how the third question is even interesting. Matter is often almost as a level of definition defined as having mass: "A common way of defining matter is as anything that has mass and occupies volume." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter So, this could even be a tautology. Even if it were not, and it were an empirical claim, the lack of objects defined as "matter" which lack mass is sufficient evidence that "matter" has the property of mass, so I don't see where you are going.

Would it matter whether gravity is really a fundamental force? If another set of forces empirically arises and can explain gravity, or if gravity is not shared by all parties with mass, then obviously gravity is not a fundamental force. If this does not happen then gravity is a fundamental force. Unless evidence arises that militates us against the notion of gravity as a fundamental force, then the going assumption based upon a lack of reduction of gravity to other forces would seem to be that gravity is a fundamental force.


Many of these paradoxes are conceptual confusions, not anything of any real depth. For example: Zeno's paradox is basically solved by calculus. Sure, we can continually divide time down, but if we hold units constant, then no paradox. And if we allow for infinitesimals, then there is no problem in traversing an infinite set of infinitesimals.

No more time but: "However, I would assert that the presence or absence of electromagnetic signals only determines the observability of an object or phenomenon, not its existence.", "So, the point is that when we obtain a null observation we are in fact unable to make any meaningful assertion regarding existence."

We hold that a lack of perception of an object entails non-existence in our every day practice. To say that physicists cannot do that seems absurd to the point of folly. Sure, physicists could be wrong, but the expectation is that our method has a very high likelihood of identifying whether something exists in an area or not. If we do not see something, the more probable result based upon past experience is that no perception of something existing in the area means nothing exists in the area. This being fallible because of some difference between phenomena or noumena/observability vs reality is pointless to say, as this is known, and our ideas about what the observations tell us are reasonably grounded.

Not the best way to go about things. Non observance of something doesn't require non existence of something. Reasonable science infers something without direct observable data most of the time. The effects of the unobservable are usually measurable, if they are present.

[quote="rocketman4040"
I do not personally see a way to effectively shield gravity. However, producing a compensating gravity field turns out to be cake, if my theory is correct.

.[/quote]

You have a theory? Show us the math and list some of the testable predictions your theory makes. They have to be quantitative, exact and sufficiently restricted so that falsifiability is possible. A theory that predicts any outcome predicts no outcomes.

ruveyn

You have a theory? Show us the math and list some of the testable predictions your theory makes. They have to be quantitative, exact and sufficiently restricted so that falsifiability is possible. A theory that predicts any outcome predicts no outcomes.

ruveyn[/quote]

The more I learn about falsifiability the more I think it's out dated technology since the advent of modern computers and massive amounts of data storage. The results of any experiment are out there somewhere in the mass of collected data.

Experiments are designed to test the universe against a set of rules one crafts that closely resemble logic plus an understanding of the rules. You're either going to get the result you are looking for, or you'll get a different one, or none at all. But I think the key point to all this is the amount of data that can be collected. The more resolution you have access too, the easier it is to make out the picture.

Now if computers can get to the point in raw CPU power to crunch all the data that can be collected, that's where it's going to make a huge impact.

You know people are still pouring through the massive amounts of data the voyager spacecrafts sent back to gleen a little more insight and to look for evidence for all kinds of theories.

It's quite often if you shut up and listen, the truth will emerge from within the chaos.

I completely agree with you about your last statements on gravity. Gravity curves space-time in one and only one way. There is no negative gravity and dark energy is a sorely misunderstood phenomena that some researchers like to portray as negative gravity, which is sheer nonsense.

I do not personally see a way to effectively shield gravity. However, producing a compensating gravity field turns out to be cake, if my theory is correct.

My advise is to just throw out everything you think you know about gravity, acceleration, and mass and start over from first principles.

The same goes for time and the direction of its arrow.

So you say. Now dig them out.

ruveyn

I'm sorry for disappearing at times. I'm going through some very difficult challenges and I'm overwhelmed. I perseverate on cosmology and it provides me a place to feel grounded when I am able to participate.

My theory provides no shortage of specific predictions. It is also important to note that an increasing number of "scientific" theories rely on premises and assertions for which the scientific method simply does not and can not apply (parallel universes, multiverses, tightly compacted and undetectable dimensions, for instance - even gravitons and gravitational waves might be included here).

I suppose I'm old school in that my theory adheres to science from the perspective and empirical requirements of the scientific method. This puts me at odds with contemporary theoretical physicists who did not adhere to the empirical requirements of the scientific method and for whom empirical data is not required or even considered. Oddly, some of these contemporary theoretical physics types portray my approach and results as "new age-y" despite my strict adherence to the scientific method.

For grins, I asked the "new age-y" types what they think and they certainly don't find my approach to fall into any sort of spiritual or new age-y category. Go figure.

I admit that I used two approaches to ensure that the results were convergent - one approach was based on abstract reasoning (philosophy of science) and the other based on the the scientific method (adherence to the scientific method and available empirical data).

Why should scientists be so disdainful of the philosophical abstract logical reasoning method when this is the ancestor and underpinning of the modern scientific method developed by Leucippus?

It almost appears that abstract reasoning for which the scientific method can not be applied is acceptable to contemporary theoretical physicists, while the other type is not. I suppose they don't like others having a rubric by which to grade or assess their work. What great jobs they have!

Furthermore, it seems to me that theories for which the scientific method can not be applied fall into a different category: faith based belief structures otherwise known as religion. Science today seems to have become the new religion in some distinctive and disappointing ways. Not that I'm criticizing religion - they know to call it religion. The difference between the two used to be the use of the scientific method but the distinction is now very murky, at least to me.

I apologize in advance if I disappear again for a spell. Please post replies. I badly need this sense of connection right now. I can handle any criticisms, even harsh, but I can not cope well with my current isolation.

I don't see this as necessarily bad. Aren't these efforts simply efforts to elaborate on what is perceived as the mathematical patterns found in physical nature? I mean, I'll admit that it is likely some of these people are merely mathematicians who dislike empirical practice, but... I don't think that necessarily makes their efforts utterly valueless for physics. I do think it should down-grade our perception of the probability these speculations are true, but saying "X is not the best way" is different than saying "X does not add to our knowledge".


I don't think science has an underpinning or a clear and necessary method, despite some general rules. After all, the demarcation problem between science and non-science is not considered to have a clear-cut solution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem From what I see and understand, different sciences often work with different assumptions. These different sciences will often try to move towards consilience with each other, however, there is no need for everything to check out the exact same way. For instance, strict scientific method denies the scientific nature of most social sciences, however, it is clear from the efforts made in statistical reasoning and other things that social sciences are somewhat scientific.


Well.... there may not BE an objective rubric. There wouldn't have to be. There do have to be intersubjectively recognizable standards within the community on what constitutes knowledge, and ultimately we would expect these outcomes to be epistemically justifiable to outsiders, but.... I do think the character of the reasoning is likely different and this is likely an outgrowth of processes physicists believed were valuable. It may be that this value is overstated, but.... I have doubts that this is utterly valueless.


I don't agree with your basic assumptions. First off, while I do agree that there are some basic notions of science being empirical and involving hypothesis testing, I don't agree that there is a clear-cut scientific method, always necessary for work to be considered scientific. I mean, most of the efforts to come up with one of these have ended up being outright positivist(which utterly and clearly fails in social sciences) or being too strict(falsification goes too far because often sciences ALWAYS have disconfirming evidences that need to be sorted out). And certainly some work in making theoretical extrapolations is plausible.

Even further, if you regard philosophical reasoning so highly, and recognize that a philosophical theory can exist(which arguably philosophy is all about philosophical theories) and that philosophy does not use the scientific method, then by that argument you'd have to consider philosophy a religion. The issue is that frankly, I don't think something needs a strictly applied particular standard to be considered science. I think the demarcation problem could end up really being an icky icky thing without a clear-cut solution, and that often times, yeah, scientists are best qualified to determine what is really scientific in it's nature and context.

I mean, if you regard philosophy so highly, why not take seriously the finding that a clear demarcation is not apparent to many of these philosophers of science?