The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Fundamental nature of the Universe  (Read 3452 times)

Offline paradigm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Fundamental nature of the Universe
« on: 12/03/2015 09:51:52 »
After many years of enquiry I’ve put together an essay titled “It always comes to this (The Final Realization about the Fundamental nature of the Universe)”.

If you’re interested, the essay is located at newbielink:http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/this.pdf [nonactive]

paradigm


 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Fundamental nature of the Universe
« Reply #1 on: 12/03/2015 13:45:44 »
After many years of enquiry I’ve put together an essay titled “It always comes to this (The Final Realization about the Fundamental nature of the Universe)”.

If you’re interested, the essay is located at http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/this.pdf

paradigm
Thank you. I printed it out and will read it later.
« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 18:25:18 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1826
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Fundamental nature of the Universe
« Reply #2 on: 13/03/2015 19:11:43 »
Hi Stephen,

Hopefully the scientific cognoscenti will provide plenty of technical information.  My perspective is that of a non-expert, and the underlying question I shall be asking is: “How credible is this chap’s reasoning?”

Please don’t think I am saying you are wrong. I’m not qualified to do that, and, in any case, I tend to like new ideas, but they do need testing.

Lets start with tired light theory.

Quote
This states that the increase in the wavelength of the light from the distant galaxies is due to the light decreasing in energy as it travels across the Universe.

My attention would have been caught more effectively if you had demonstrated an interaction that could degrade a photon's energy without causing blurring of distant objects which is not observed.


Quote
  The tired light theory is correct.

Dogmatic statements are not very impressive without backup. Just an on-line search will produce a lot of arguments/evidence against tired light theory which you would have to counter if you are to be taken seriously.  For example, you would need to provide a “tired light” explanation for the results of this study: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0104382v1.pdf 
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1826
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Fundamental nature of the Universe
« Reply #3 on: 14/03/2015 17:47:38 »
Stephen, I hope you are not put off by what must seem like criticism from the start.  You have obviously put quite a lot of thought into your theory; now's your chance to defend it.

I'm posting this next bit just to show other regular posters that I was able to pass over the bit about infinity without a word!  :)

Quote
This essay is being written, has been written, and will be written, an infinite number of times.

This seems like metaphysics, rather than science.  What evidence do you have that justifies presenting it as though it were a fact?

 
Quote
There are Physicists who believe that the Universe involves randomness or chaos. The Universe always entails systematic cause and effect, in which randomness or chaos does not play part. It’s simply that will never be able to determine all the cause and effect details in every situation.

Are you confusing chaos theory with the popular concept of chaos?  My understanding of chaos theory is that it does not rule out determinism.  The behaviour of the Universe could be fully determined by its initial conditions, but still evolve according to the precepts of chaos theory.  I think you would need to provide more evidence to support your statement before I would be convinced that it was more than a philosophical opinion.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Fundamental nature of the Universe
« Reply #4 on: 15/03/2015 00:09:24 »
After many years of enquiry I’ve put together an essay titled “It always comes to this (The Final Realization about the Fundamental nature of the Universe)”.

If you’re interested, the essay is located at http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/this.pdf

paradigm


Stephen

Thank you for linking to your paper rather than using a long post, it will make it easier to read.
I'm sorry but I only got to the 1st paragraph before needing to ask you for clarification. Without it I will find the remainder of the document difficult to understand.

You say our understanding of the Universe should be built on the foundation of rational interpretation of observation. However, you do not seem to include mathematics and measurement among the tools for that rational interpretation or observation, classing them as abstractions along with other, unspecified, abstractions.

From my point of view I see mathematics and measurement as fundamental tools in both the observation, and the rational interpretation of those observations. Perhaps it would help if I gave some examples:
Archimedes Principle is an observation well tested by time. As an observation it is somewhat meaningless if stripped of its measurement and mathematical interpretation. Indeed it is its very measurements and mathematics that make it essential to the understanding and design of concrete items such as ships and balloons.
To the layman or casual observer it can appear that some of the concepts of physics are counterintuitive and beyond common sense, but it is worth remembering that this would have been the view of people of Galileo's time when introduced to the idea that the earth orbits the sun.
Seemingly abstract concepts in mathematics can in reality have very concrete meanings. Take for example imaginary numbers, a seeming abstract concept. They are essential to our understanding and rational interpretation of the phase relationship between voltage and current in inductive loads, resulting in the practical realisation of much of our electrical technology.
Even measurements standing alone are not abstract. The difference between a measurement of 12v and 240v is very concrete, if you confuse these you are unlikely to remain either rational, or an observer, for much longer.

Perhaps you could explain why you consider mathematics and measurements to be abstractions and what you mean by other abstractions.

Thank you
« Last Edit: 15/03/2015 00:13:12 by Colin2B »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Fundamental nature of the Universe
« Reply #5 on: 19/03/2015 11:27:51 »
This one belong to 'New Theories' and should be moved.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Fundamental nature of the Universe
« Reply #6 on: 19/03/2015 16:05:46 »
If someone says that a tired light theory is correct, then they are simply wrong. No tired light theory corresponds to the correlation between redshift and time dilation that has been established many times. Indeed, the recent discovery of multiple images of a supernova in an Einstein cross is a great example of physical phenomena that no tired light theory can properly match.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Fundamental nature of the Universe
« Reply #7 on: 20/03/2015 14:03:49 »
In earlier threads, I have presented a cosmic model based on an origin of a universal ether from Original Space.

Oscillation of elemental points of space led to oscillatory fatigue of an etheric energy unit which broke the perfect symmetry of space, which propagated through all of space, producing a basic energy matrix of uniform, identical, vanishingly-rarified etheric units.   

Extending this model to the question of "tired light," the explanation would be that after a light-energy unit enters space from the highly photonically-energized region of a distant star, it enters, and resonates with, the much-less-photonically-energized region of outer space, making it "look tired," as pictured by our earthbound quantum theorists.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Fundamental nature of the Universe
« Reply #8 on: 20/03/2015 15:43:48 »
And this is simply wrong.

Unless you can come up with actual numbers to match the relevant observations, you're just presenting a fantasy in conflict with the appearance of the world.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Fundamental nature of the Universe
« Reply #8 on: 20/03/2015 15:43:48 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums