The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Was Einstein wrong? or mearly not looking due to lacking a very specific reason?  (Read 1848 times)

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
We postulate many curious things about black holes!  I have one I wish to share!

My postulation goes against everything Lambda-CDM seems to stand for (expansion)!

Einstein developed the "Theory of General Relativity" which was a theory but now its considered fact (or a truth) of science, but has retained "Theory" due to its development. Einstein was a fairly simple man, not much different that most, other than a deep fascination of light stemming from childhood, that few may truly understand.

His childhood fascination of light caused him to study physics in youth, in college and probably while working at a patent office, before he before fame overwhelmed him.  We don't know what he might have learned at the patent office, in any exacting detail, tho it might have gave him better understand needed to describe what he discovered in youth through thought.  (I'm guessing at what he did in the patent office, I've read a a little amount about him.)

When he produced Special Relativity, it was only a description of light. We know it's only almost right.  I haven't focused my studies on SR.  I know what's right about it, for the most part, but haven't studied it close enough to understand how he worked it out.

My studies have been toward understanding GR and what reality really is.

I've finally postulated a connection between GR & QM that is right, in only my mind, but its so simple it must be right.  I'd love to work it out, but I cannot prove a thing, w/out assistance of others accepting my postulations as correct.

The only others I *think* might understand my work, are physicists who've spent enough time to grasp what the theory of General Relativity really means.  Took me 10+ years of persistence to get it outside of orthodoxy guidelines.  I hit a truth, that says expansion wrong....  stretching right.

Expansion is a form of stretching space-time thats what it looks like.  But there's more than one way to expand a rubber sheet.   If one is right doesn't make the other wrong, they both could be, but if one doesn't realize they both appear the same, the wrong conclusion is easily made.

GR shows two reasons for shift, because Einstein understood light outside of black holes.  He heard about black holes, but never saw evidence in his reality for them to be truly plausible.  He never looked to explain them because he never knew such reality could exist...

Cosmic redshift has a very simple explanation, but I cannot prove it.   Every postulation I've conceived, when running the math, shows no significant change to ever validate my postulation.   I know its right, but w/out proof none will believe.  I've been searching for a proof that might some day be evident.

I truly wish to show how simple it is to tie GR & QM together.  But expansion blows the concept right out of real plausibility.  I'm not saying expansion is wrong, but it certainly is difficult to work around and/or work out.

The premise that matter can form when energy cools, lies in validating CMBR, which I cannot (in my minds eye) begin to fathom.  We don't know if CMBR really is evidence of such event, but it's temperature suggests the possibility exists and is what expansion explains.

I've not studied it close enough because its built on many premises that can never be witnessed.  I simply ruled it out because its based on a large stack of assertions that it must be how, it all must have happened[/u].  -- no visible proof needed except CMBR must exists, done, the vacuum of space exerts all pressure itself, no edges needed.  ???? really that's reality?

Reality happening,  forming, heating and cooling could have any number of other plausible ways that need explanation IMO.   One path of expansion is good, if the universe relies on pressure like it appears to function on Earth.  What if space-time doesn't need such change to form massive atomic particles????   We can shatter atoms, we cannot cool energy and form mass in a vacuum, not that I'm aware!  Might make a difference in the reality of relativity.

...  ARGH ...

I believe if Einstein choose to look into deep dark holes of blackness, he might have postulated redshift, but highly unlikely w/out some evidence, like cosmic redshift to work with.

I blame him for my lack of knowledge of black holes.  If he would have been able to see them in the light, as I have through pop-sci drama, he would have laughed, I bet.  Especially when he realized exactly how:

GR & QM can be tied together...  Its simple...  I got it.  I wish to share.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 18:46:52 by JoeBrown »


 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
I have worked out exact relationships between GR & QM.  The flood of ideas rushing through me are intense, to say the least.  My understandings have been developed by trying to understand the Universe as a whole through the lens of GR.   Cosmology uses Lambda-CDM to prove expansion is correct through the lens of GR.

I've utilized the body of Lambda-CDM and ruled out anything that cannot be witnessed as the only truths of Lambda-CDM and my understandings of principles.  I focused on study of Black Holes through thought experiments and lining my understandings through GR with what a black hole really is.

When I hit the GR & QM relations as connected in one alignment, so many other thoughs have flooded out.  If any physicist can help me produce a paper to publish, the fields of physics is going change... NOW!  I've been thinking about using Cornell University to publish, but they insist I need to be endorsed :(

I want this to happen, but I'm not a physicist of orthodox background.  I used the Internet for my unorthodox approach in learning.

Its been done!!!! I've done it.  I can prove it, but not with out others accepting any such possibility could exist!

I can explain what strong & weak forces represent in GR in very few words that will make complete and utter sense to anyone who grasps all principles involved.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 19:23:17 by JoeBrown »
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4123
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: JoeBrown
I've finally postulated a connection between GR & QM that is right, ... but its so simple it must be right.
It may also be simply wrong.

Talking about Cosmic expansion and CMBR are the type of things dealt with by GR.
But I don't see any quantum effects that you believe you have solved?

People a lot smarter than myself have worked for 70+ years to unify GR & QM.
As I understand it, the main barrier to unification of GR & QM is that GR is not renormalizable.
If you don't understand what renormalization is (and haven't tried to apply it), then you don't know enough maths to know how difficult this problem is to crack.

In essence, all theories trying to unite GE & QM come up with lots of stubborn infinities. If you haven't run into these infinities yet, then you have not really started to unify these two theories - one dealing with the very large, the other dealing with the very small.
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
In essence, all theories trying to unite GE & QM come up with lots of stubborn infinities. If you haven't run into these infinities yet, then you have not really started to unify these two theories - one dealing with the very large, the other dealing with the very small.

But there are two sets of infinities.  Both incomprehensible for one equation to explain clearly until you get it.

I'm working toward a clear and definition.  Nearly done.

Finding anti-matter quite the complication tho.  I think I get it then gone, kinda keeps annihilating itself.  I gotta quit getting lost on tangents.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2016 00:14:25 by JoeBrown »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Joe
What you are posting here is stricktly a new theory and ought to be posted there. If you get your ideas together and post them there it would count as publication for copyrite.

Just a few general points, they may appear to be pedantic but you can lose credibility if you don't take them into account:
 
Einstein developed the "Theory of General Relativity" which was a theory but now its considered fact (or a truth) of science, but has retained "Theory" due to its development.
I'm going to quote Wiki:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science (less ambiguously called a "scientific prediction") versus "prediction" in non-scientific vernacular speech, the latter of which may even imply a mere hope."

 
When he produced Special Relativity, it was only a description of light. We know it's only almost right.  I haven't focused my studies on SR.  I know what's right about it, for the most part, but haven't studied it close enough to understand how he worked it out.

My studies have been toward understanding GR and what reality really is.
What do you mean SR is "almost right"?
SR is a special case of GR and has been shown to be correct as far as we can test. It is just as real as GR, but GR adds accelerating frames, hence gravity.

 
I believe if Einstein choose to look into deep dark holes of blackness, he might have postulated redshift, but highly unlikely w/out some evidence, like cosmic redshift to work with.
Einstein did postulate redshift.
In fact it was proposed back in the 1700s.

 
I've finally postulated a connection between GR & QM that is right, in only my mind, but its so simple it must be right.  I'd love to work it out, but I cannot prove a thing, w/out assistance of others accepting my postulations as correct.

The only others I *think* might understand my work, are physicists who've spent enough time to grasp what the theory of General Relativity really means.  Took me 10+ years of persistence to get it outside of orthodoxy guidelines.  I hit a truth, that says expansion wrong....  stretching right.

Expansion is a form of stretching space-time thats what it looks like.  But there's more than one way to expand a rubber sheet.   If one is right doesn't make the other wrong, they both could be, but if one doesn't realize they both appear the same, the wrong conclusion is easily made.
OK, easy to see where your thinking is on "Expansion is a form of stretching space-time", but not sure how you bring QM in.
As I said, if you feel confident to publish in New Theories folks will have a look.
If you want to discuss ideas first then as AlanC has suggested in other posts you could set up an NDA and invite people to PM you for a copy of the draft theory.
Explaining the QM bit will not be easy unles you have a firm understanding of QM, there are many in New Theories who claim to understand and overturn QM, but in reality they haven't a clue. However, if you can explain your idea clearly there are people here who understand enough to be able to do the maths.

If you really have a solid connection then it will be quite exciting.
Best of luck.
 
The following users thanked this post: JoeBrown

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile


Einstein developed the "Theory of General Relativity" which was a theory but now its considered fact (or a truth) of science, but has retained "Theory" due to its development. Einstein was a fairly simple man, not much different that most, other than a deep fascination of light stemming from childhood, that few may truly understand.



I do not think that scientists really consider theory to be absolute facts.  Most theories have contradictions in them, we all know this, but we work with what work's.   So until a time where something works better or equal to arrives, Einstein is the man and all other ''stories'' are for the bin.   I am one of the lucky ones, I consider I understand his thinking and thoughts. 


Quote
My studies have been toward understanding GR and what reality really is.


Reality is what we make it until we can pass the firmament of outer space and travel beyond our visual limitations, because we have this horrible inverse square Law that is Universally randomly limited to magnitude of light, and the horrible visual length and area contractions of moving bodies travelling away from an observer, limitations are confined to inside the ''box'' and the interior we know quite well , but the exterior we can not see and observe because of this horrible inverse transformation to a 0 point source.  That is the reality of the present situation, so like I said Einstein is right, will always be right until a time we can navigate the stars and travel beyond our limitations by creating a super rocket that can go where no man as been before.




 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
If you assume the speed of light is the ground state of the universe, integrating GR and QM is not difficult. This connection will become much harder if you assume any inertial reference is the ground state, since all inertial references are all relative and will need extra conversion factors. If you chose wisely, such as a reference that is common to all; speed of light, you can avoid that conversion factor problem and make the job much easier.

If we compare SR to GR, SR is connected to velocity which has the units of d/t. While GR is connected to an acceleration which has the units of d/t/t. If we do a simple dimensional comparison, GR contains an additional unit of time; d/t/t relative to d/t. This extra time unit in GR is the connection to QM. It is that simple.

Relative to space-time, which has the units of (d,t), the extra time within the acceleration of GR and gravity; d/t/t, is analogous to extra time being embroidered into the fabric of space-time. Like the stitching that forms the cuff of your pants, the extra time threads will cause the fabric of space-time to pucker.

Conceptually, a quantum universe saves time, relative to a universe composed of continuous functions. A quantum universe only has distinct states with gaps between these quantum states. The extra time implicit of GR, is connected to the gaps in time, implicit of a quantum universe. If an electron shifts between two energy states A and B, it moves directly from state A to state B. This saves time since it can avoid a continuum of intermediate states. This time potential is conserved and appears in GR.

Distance, which is an operating variables for GR and gravity, can also be correlated to the extra time embroidered into space-time coming from the quantum gaps in time. The easiest analogy to see is connected to an affect in photography called motion blur. Motion blur occurs when the shutter speed is slower than the action speed. Since the photo stops time, the difference in speed d/t, with time stopped; t=0, appears as uncertainty in distance; motion blur. The example of motion blur, below, gives us the impression of motion even with time stopped. In the case of our universe, the action speed is the speed of light, while the shutter speed is connected to what we see in any given inertial reference.



The last needed analogy, which loops us back to the quantum universe, is connected to a movie. In a movie, there are a large number of still frames. The frames are analogous to quanta, with gaps in time between frames. Distance and position is conserved. These gaps in time, create uncertainty in distance; which creates an overlap in positron, between adjacent quantum frames, so the motion will appear continuous.

The extra time, due to the quantum universe, embroidered into space-time; GR, by being converted to distance (blur(, in the quantum gaps, will create another (d,t) layer that is embroidered onto space-time. This embroidered layer of (d,t) is connected to impact of velocity on space-time; SR.








 
« Last Edit: 06/04/2016 13:54:19 by puppypower »
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
Joe
What you are posting here is stricktly a new theory and ought to be posted there. If you get your ideas together and post them there it would count as publication for copyrite.

Thanks Colin2B.  I'm taking you at your word.  I've been concerned about the copyrights.  Tho I wish you did spell it differently.

I've solidified my thinking considerably.  Am very close to full solidification.

I may withdraw from conversation participation.  I will post a rough draft so that others may discuss it.

It changes everything and nothing but makes a my simple understandings seem real.  Look for it posted in the new theories section.  I know I was posting here, but the thesis was premature.  Its still sketchy, but making sense to me.  I wish (and hope) others to enjoy.

My λpot is nearly fooly cooked or fully cracked (you decide)-?
« Last Edit: 06/04/2016 19:30:59 by JoeBrown »
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
I understand difference in theory and facts.  Theories are only correct until proven false.

I've discovered the relationship between GR & QM, through logical deduction and ruling out what I cannot accept as plausible fact.

Lambda-CDM has been a basis of science and my understandings I used to distill simple truths.

My thesis is presently only in the realm of postulation, however, it will be likely viewed as fact once enough people grasp what I have done.  Now I simply take the simple stuff and complicate the heck out of it because there is so much I've simply discovered on my own.  I'm greedy. I like discovering this stuff...  Its fun.  I should let yall figure some out w/out me.  But I want my name at the top of the list (I'm a greedy non-physicist that put up with a some of know-it-all physicists snootey nose pointing, I want to snootey back ;)

Tho I have done enough for now, my stress level is thru the roof.  Too many pots of coffee this week/day/hour/minute/second.

I do love physics.  Had an intuition about Dark Energy being WRoNG and heard pop-sci say Einstein was wrong.  He wasn't wrong, merely incomplete.  (dark stuffs hard to see w/out all the math, I thank Lambda-CDM for doing the pen work)  Steady state is what all the photons aren't but if you add them all up, it appears the count doesn't change, simply the state.  Two focal points of infinity for them.  There's about 4 states they employ.  Gravity is the wave that moves them @ light speed.

D.O.H. I'm spilling out some of my postulations.  Lemme post so you can enjoy.  Look in new theory for:

 The Lambda Shift    (been trying to find the right name,  this thread made it happen).  Currently only in draft form tho, some of the stuff above isn't in it (yet).

-peace
« Last Edit: 06/04/2016 23:05:22 by JoeBrown »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
I've been concerned about the copyrights.  Tho I wish you did spell it differently.
Blame iPad autocomplete + being in a hurry. There are a lot of words we might wish folks spelt correctly ;-)

Remember however, that copyright does not cover ideas, only the form of expression.

 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4123
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: JoeBrown
I understand difference in theory and facts.  Theories are only correct until proven false.
I think this is backwards - theories are not assumed to be correct until after their predictions are confirmed.

I would say that most things called "theories" on internet discussion boards are mostly speculation. You don't start with a presumption of correctness.

This speculation could graduate to being a hypothesis if there is some reasonable theoretical and experimental basis for what is proposed. For Physics, that means a mathematical basis. This hypothesis must agree with all of the confirmed findings of the current front-running theory; that means understanding the current popular theory (with its strengths and weaknesses).

But a good theory needs to make testable predictions of previously unseen phenomena - and it will gain credibility if the predictions are confirmed. Then there is a chance that the new theory might be correct (or at least, more correct than the previous front-running theory which didn't make the same prediction).
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
I think this is backwards - theories are not assumed to be correct until after their predictions are confirmed.

I'm having a hard time keeping facts from possible and theory from probable as what I can agree is truth.  But it's a personal struggle we each face.

Quote
...
But a good theory needs to make testable predictions of previously unseen phenomena - and it will gain credibility if the predictions are confirmed. Then there is a chance that the new theory might be correct (or at least, more correct than the previous front-running theory which didn't make the same prediction).

I started out trying to prove a hypotheses about cosmic redshift and relations to black holes.

Didn't work the math because I couldn't contrive starting numbers in the realm of plausibility.  I found formulas but when I realized what they'd do was arrive at the same cosmological shift, but I'd have to explain why the author of the math explained it wrong.  .?.  .wh0-0t. 

I did nothing if I can change nothing .?.  I didn't write the math, I have no right to change.  But then it hit me the connections and (really) disconnections between QM & GR.  I saw how they tied together.

Back to not writing the math and explaining what others did...  But!  I ruled everything out I couldn't trust based on excessive (and arguably commonly accepted λCDM mentalities of expansion) premises.  Einstein's work was incomplete.  He can't argue...  (part of my problem w/pop-sy, was I haven't been able to argue he's right all along).

Now all I have to do is show what he (unknowingly didn't add) couldn't finish.  Its all related to an ability to visualize what one cannot see.  (he gave us a lot about photons, just couldn't see one clearly in the math) He also only heard about infinity at black holes.  He never heard about observational evidence, nor dark mass, nor dark energy...   I've heard all about them.  I have the unfair advantage of time and quite frankly a serious advantage because computers AND the Internet where never accessible to him.

My work's easy.  I just have to get it 99% right and gain acceptance in doing analysis of fact & friction.

BB theory has been a thorn with postulations that can never be verified via observational evidence.  Ruling them out of realm of plausibility was tough for me, because it means going against the common grain of accepted agreements...  But logic in ruling 'em out is easy.  I had to accept my first postulation was correct even tho I couldn't get anyone to agree.  When I finally chose to accept it... Wham!  I made the connection.

Didn't mean to connect GR & QM.  Never thought I'd do such a thing.  Wanted to tho. L OL  Lots have.  Dr.E in particular.  I got the advantage, so I'm gonna ride a coat tail.  I can live w/that.   ;D
« Last Edit: 07/04/2016 03:11:50 by JoeBrown »
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
Remember however, that copyright does not cover ideas, only the form of expression.

I've not studied the laws closely.  I fear 'em.  My work has been ideas for a long time.  So I have some familiarity.   However...  This is the first idea I've had that might mean a lot to others.

I've worked through a lot of frustration arguing.  Got banned from scienceforums . net  (I think thats' it).  Because they don't like my ideas.  Grinds against their seeming faith in λcdm.

I said a black hole is like an atom, and they laughed and call me cracked (my interpretation of threads).

Didn't help I started a thread asking what was all the proof for expansion or Lambda-CDM or something like that.  I don't rememer, they banned me for attempting to persist my ideas, because I wouldn't subscribe to Dark Energy meaning expansion.  Frankly, I never said I didn't.  But the way pop-sy explains it, its unexplained via lambda-cdm.  I know it's black holes now.  Ive postulated a prediction, but after thinking it through, even tho it would likely prove accurate....  cosmic-redshift is difficult to meter after calculating doppler-shift from co-moving bodies and gravity-shift from well size differentials.  There's 100's of billions of black holes in the universe by all estimation.  If each causes a little cosmic redshift, the only way to spot one is to meter shift at an opposite angular direction before and after wave from a super nova event passes observer. 

But then, you may need the wave to also pass the object of measurement for cosmological redshift also.
I don't know how many light years that might take.  So if the wave does contain the net shift, looking through it could be like bouncing light off a mirror from ground to top of a tower and trying to meter gravity-shift.  w00f....  long wait for cosmic shift minuscule differences.  Never proven in my lifetime if ever.

Now if you could measure cosmological redshift of a pre-nova star before and after, that might make the prediction true *if* the change in the wave is canceled by looking through the wave when metering.

Assuming the cosmological shift change is propagated at wave boundary at speed of light.

I've postulated they are significant at wave boundary, but likely nearly totally insignificant. :(  But!!!  If I prove the link to QM & GR clear, it will go to support my other thesis.  Matter contracting produces cosmic shift.  It's a third prediction Einstein didn't make.  He wasn't wrong, simply couldn't see.  Done.

The prediction stands till the measurement is made, it's only unverified.  It will likely happen, tho probably not by me.  When, don't know.  Makes predicting stuff fun and challenging.  Don't have to be right, but need a good reason to urge ppl to look for verification when you can't yourself.

I think the QM & GR alignment will do that, as long as it all makes sense.

I'm broke, I need to get back to work and quit being a dunning-kruger case, lending support for such hypothesis's.  :D
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
For what is worth (FWIW) I haven't shown the link clearly to GR & EM.  Mostly only separated them thus far with COM terms.  That's important tho, because they are different descriptions of reality for the COM reason specifically.  The 1 large and several tiny reasons tie 'em all together in spin...   I'm still trying to work that all out.  (Attention string theorists...  I got ur back if u got mine, either way I'm look'n for work in the near future...  particle physicists might need to heed too, but I'm only familiar with one's name who won't reply, but sends me girlish news letters ?, I like the intent, not the response :)

Its based on spin and atomic particles.  I've not completely formulated it in words.  Its in the head == crackedλpot.   But it's working its way out fairly quickly.  Hopefully I don't die before I post.  My life's work has only begun to be finished (I d.k. but fear).

Would like to hear what Stephen Hakwing thinks of it, but I've not read much of his work.  Only fair he hasn't mine.  :)  Either way, I hope he does and enjoys it.
« Last Edit: 07/04/2016 02:42:19 by JoeBrown »
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
Quote
My studies have been toward understanding GR and what reality really is.
Reality is what we make it until we can pass the firmament of outer space and travel beyond our visual limitations, because we have this horrible inverse square Law that is Universally randomly limited to magnitude of light,....
Yep.  Exactly.  I never thought I could create a theory for the universe.  It all seemed too complicated.  Never stopped me from wondering about it though.

Lambda-CDM seemed like the best theory going.  BB started it.  GeneralRelativity worked into it because GR seems so right.  But GR is also an incomplete work...  Einstein started it in childhood.  Through thought experiments running with a ray of light....  It gave him an intuition.

He studied to be a physicist...   Dreams change.  He then wanted to be a Professor of physics.   Landed a job in a patent office.   Curious career for a physicist.  Don't know what he picked up there, except perhaps time to think.

He figured out a lot in that time.  I've been afforded time to think.  Studied Einstein's work.  Read what I thought was a horrid biography of him long ago. Then followed BB work.

I developed an intuition on Dark Energy when I first heard about it.  Tho probably because I spent time a lot of time wondering about black holes.  The thought experiments were running in my head, but everything in Lambda-CDM seemed to go against my intuition.

To prove Lambda-CDM derailment I need to do one of two things.  Prove steady state is the right.  Or develop a third.  I don't know steady state theory well.  Seems to fail compared to BB/LCDM, but I cannot accept either wrong.  An earlier attempt at forming my thesis was SS meets BB and a child is born.  I was going to meld the two into a third.

Then I saw the connection between GR & QM or actually the disconnection...  Then the connections fell into place.  I feel like I'm the only one who knows the truth about the Universe.

Sir Fred Hoyle probably had some good ideas.   From what I last heard about SS, his postulations are inline with mine.  CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) been a thorn.  Its used as evidence to support BB/LCDM theories.  But my gut says CDM might be right.  But age of universe is probably wrong.  Whether or not the BB start is correct or not, I cannot say.  Can't see any proof.  CMBR could be caused by anything other than BB.  How can you prove what you can never see.  That's what LCDM seems to believe sheer existence of CMBR is.   That's ppls faith talk'n not facts.

We have no idea if all CMBR is same distance or not.  Light shift can be 2 or 3 causes, maybe more.  I'm betting on 3 suspecting 4.  Although probably only 2.  doppler and gravity are same but opposite.  Lambda shift probably flips too.  Depending on time-space coordinates and tension.  But that's what 1, 2, 3, 6 (counting both opposites).

SS + BB = SB? or BS.  Big Steady, Steady Bang, Big State, State Big....  Serious Spin.

BλS -- Big Lambda State.  Might use that.  Big Lambda torsion State.  Big Lambda Shift...  hmmm.  mikey likey.

Producing a whole new theory for the Universe seems like a lot of work.  I can't spend a whole lot of time... sitting where I'm at now.  And to do that, I'm gonna stay seated till is finished.  Been a little stressful.  But I think I can hit all the key points with clarity and correctness w/out writing or changing one formula.  Expand on their descriptions tho.

String theory bugs me.  Never followed any string work.  Got it narrowed down to about 2 or 3 strings?  I heard string theories like M are around 10+...  I'm either way off or they are...  Tho simpler seems more likely.  I'm pretty sure I've got it just about nailed.  Should have something more ironed out and presentable in about 24.
 

Offline PmbNEP

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: JoeBrown
Einstein developed the "Theory of General Relativity" which was a theory but now its considered fact (or a truth) of science, but has retained "Theory" due to its development. Einstein was a fairly simple man, not much different that most, other than a deep fascination of light stemming from childhood, that few may truly understand.
No law of physics can ever be thought of as being a fact. Such a thing is contrary to the nature of the philosophy of physics. Several times throughout the history of physics, a scientific theory has been found to be inaccurate and in most cases had to be modified. Take as an example; Newton's Law of Gravity had to be modified to be bring the theory up to meet inaccuracies. In this case Newton's law of Gravity had to be replaced with General Relativity. It had to be changed so that the deflection of light rays passing the sun. Originally it was off by a factor of two. Also the theory did not correctly predict the speed and frequency of light as it moved through the suns gravitational field.
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
Quote from: JoeBrown
Einstein developed the "Theory of General Relativity" which was a theory but now its considered fact (or a truth) of science, but has retained "Theory" due to its development. Einstein was a fairly simple man, not much different that most, other than a deep fascination of light stemming from childhood, that few may truly understand.
No law of physics can ever be thought of as being a fact. Such a thing is contrary to the nature of the philosophy of physics. Several times throughout the history of physics, a scientific theory has been found to be inaccurate and in most cases had to be modified. Take as an example; Newton's Law of Gravity had to be modified to be bring the theory up to meet inaccuracies. In this case Newton's law of Gravity had to be replaced with General Relativity. It had to be changed so that the deflection of light rays passing the sun. Originally it was off by a factor of two. Also the theory did not correctly predict the speed and frequency of light as it moved through the suns gravitational field.
I got ya.

Law's of nature are what are theorize into theory until proven which then the theory become equivocal to laws of nature (not facts).  Facts are results starting with (understood properties/facts) beginning values funneled through law/theory from start to finish results in (derived understood properties) facts.

Trying to calculate how that all computes.  I've questioned my logic (and ability to think) in recent notes.

I've been working with a lot of simple +/- and who gets what changing values.

GR is a lot like QM but the scales are different and QM has more laws of math to contend with.  I'm thinking Dr.E. got the equation right, but QM is far more complicated because GR comes into focus at two opposing ends of infinity using knowledge of one scale between infinities.  QM is a little more conscious of the two scales, tho has avoided one up unto quantum gravity.

Alright, nuff clues.  I still got work to do.  I don't think I'm going to work on probabilities much, because the logic gets fuzzy and need to leave some work for others to do.  :)
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
Alright, I think I could use some help programing...  I'm trying to keep all the rules in my head straight.

I gotta get them right before I can start programming in the English language.  ARgh!  Anybody see a flaw here:  (I want to hear NO's, but mistakes are best solved before getting complicated)

Basis of my hypothesis/thesis for tying GR & QM together

Polar Opposites
Positives and Negatives

atom / black hole   - opposites ends of GR space-time boundaries
photon / space       - opposites in polarity orientation
time / pressure      - field strengths
wave / solid           - fields between infinity edges
hot / cold               -  field range
electricity / magnetism - polarity orientation
gravity / time         - polarity orientation
« Last Edit: 07/04/2016 14:00:16 by JoeBrown »
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
I see the whole universe through the shape of the dognut.

The lambda-shift has been updated.  Atoms vs. Black holes...   You might see where this is leading.  I've sewn the first stitch of all of space-time.  More coming...
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length