0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteBlack hole conserve the rotation of their parent star.Again, Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? I am well aware they have theories too.
Black hole conserve the rotation of their parent star.
I think it's worth pointing out that the theories you challenge are hypotheses based on the maths and the understanding of what has gone before. Your hypothesis is fine, but if you are to ignore the maths it can't compete with the currently accepted hypotheses and theories. Should you ever hope to have this considered scientifically, you must work within the scientific paradigm.
This illustrates my point.
Theory, in a scientific sense, does not mean the same as in a lay parlance. Theories are hypothesis that have been tested thoroughly. Thus, your ideas are not yet able to compete against them.
Furthermore, by including any reference to god, you immediately create a discontinuance in your theory - if it is true it would not require the assumption of the existance of a god, it would simply be true. Scientific ideas with god involved are essentially flawed, as belief in a god is dogmatic and science is pragmatic
Mr ScientistDid you ever notice? in Revelation 4:1,2 John says,After this I looked, and, behold a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as a trumpet talking with me; which said, come up hear.And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. It does not say John went anywhere. It says immediately he was in the spirit. Heaven is not in any particular location. Heaven is in the spirit. The spirit is in us. We go back to the dust from which we came, and the spirit goes back to God who gave it.
Including god may close my mind to your theory, as it requires making an assumption that has no basis in fact. If I were to replace the word God with the word Goblins in all of the above, would you still hold your theory to be true?
Quote from: peppercornThese limitations are what? Please explain.With the lack of information to answer their unanswered questions, science does not have a solid foundation to build on...
These limitations are what? Please explain.
Again, Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? I am well aware they have theories too.
Quote from: peppercornElectrons are matter not light. Claiming otherwise is counter to physicsElectrons are a form energy that makes up matter, Again I am speaking of light as defined in my theory, which includes electron clouds around atoms. This is only counter to a different theory in physics based on ( lack of information ).
Electrons are matter not light. Claiming otherwise is counter to physics
free energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that'swhat makes it beautiful.
Quote from: meI think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too...Again, theory verses theory.
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too...
How could small packets of energy spread throughout the universe to be received at every point in the universe?
When a photon is ( emitted ) it has a starting point at which it is not moving until it is ( emitted ). When it is observed, or absorbed, or captured it is stopped.
Quote from: WunderingTruth on 18/11/2009 06:45:12Quote from: peppercornThese limitations are what? Please explain.With the lack of information to answer their unanswered questions, science does not have a solid foundation to build on...You speak as if there is a source of (valid and testable) information that science is somehow not privy to. There isn't.Also, the 'foundations' of science are no less solid because of as yet unexplained phenomenon. True, a experimental outcome tomorrow might lead to a complete rethinking of some of the most fundamental concepts in science, but empirical science is in some ways mislabelled as the search for ultimate truth, really it should be considered an ever-more precise 'model' of our collective perception of existence.QuoteAgain, Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? I am well aware they have theories too.Theories are what science 'has'. Proof (so far as it has a meaning) - Well, particularly with the 'model' explaining rotation of the planets, theory and observation are in agreement, so the model is good. Perhaps as importantly, the mechanics that govern planetary rotation are the same mechanics that govern our human-scale world and predict its outcome faultlessly.Quote from: WunderingTruthQuote from: peppercornElectrons are matter not light. Claiming otherwise is counter to physicsElectrons are a form energy that makes up matter, Again I am speaking of light as defined in my theory, which includes electron clouds around atoms. This is only counter to a different theory in physics based on ( lack of information ).Lack of information has nothing to do with it. Either use the right terms and work 'inside' the world of science or don't, it's up to you.Quotefree energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that'swhat makes it beautiful.Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!Quote from: WTQuote from: meI think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too...Again, theory verses theory.Well one highly polished scientifically-based theory versus your so-far ill-defined ideas - in that sense, yes!QuoteHow could small packets of energy spread throughout the universe to be received at every point in the universe?No mainstream scientist says they are 'arriving' at every point in the universe.QuoteWhen a photon is ( emitted ) it has a starting point at which it is not moving until it is ( emitted ). When it is observed, or absorbed, or captured it is stopped. More correctly it doesn't exist before its moving. It makes its journey (at 'c') then is no longer a photon. At either end of the 'journey' the quanta of energy it 'is' has been/will be in some other form.
Both of you have arguements on both sides to abou 50% accuracy - you guys should stop arguing and figure out where you misplacements of idea's clash. There is a difference between the latter, and not agreeing at all.
So, are you assuming my theory has no basis in fact?Again show me the math that proves me wrong.
In fact, this is a ruckus bteween you two ... I will not interviene anymore.
it's an argument that resides without any rectification.
You speak as if there is a source of (valid and testable) information that science is somehow not privy to. There isn't.Also, the 'foundations' of science are no less solid because of as yet unexplained phenomenon.
Well, particularly with the 'model' explaining rotation of the planets, theory and observation are in agreement, so the model is good. Perhaps as importantly, the mechanics that govern planetary rotation are the same mechanics that govern our human-scale world and predict its outcome faultlessly.
Lack of information has nothing to do with it. Either use the right terms and work 'inside' the world of science or don't, it's up to you.
Quotefree energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that'swhat makes it beautiful.Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too...Again, theory verses theory.Well one highly polished scientifically-based theory versus your so-far ill-defined ideas - in that sense, yes!
How could small packets of energy spread throughout the universe to be received at every point in the universe?No mainstream scientist says they are 'arriving' at every point in the universe.
Posted on: 18/11/2009 12:15:37Posted by: BenVIncluding god may close my mind to your theory, as it requires making an assumption that has no basis in fact. If I were to replace the word God with the word Goblins in all of the above, would you still hold your theory to be true?
Quote from: Mr SBoth of you have arguements on both sides to abou 50% accuracy - you guys should stop arguing and figure out where you misplacements of idea's clash. There is a difference between the latter, and not agreeing at all.One has the validity of maths and real world predictability. The other doesn't, hence the problem.
If science can not explain The wave/particle characteristic of light, what causes the phenomenon called gravity, and the missing energy they are trying to base their dark energy/dark matter theories on, then there is information science is not privy to.
The model of my theory also agrees with the observation, I don't see any physical bodies rotating in perpetual motion in our human scale world.
Photons and electrons have already proven themselves to be waves. If science wants to continue to refer to them as little packets, it's up to them.
My terminology explains my theory, with photons and electrons as waves of energy, that are infinite in mass at the speed of light.
QuoteQuotefree energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's what makes it beautiful.Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!It is comparable with observation.
Quotefree energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's what makes it beautiful.Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!
free energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's what makes it beautiful.
Highly polished scientifically based? More like educated guess. My ideas are well defined if you took the time to study them through.
In order to be able to see the objects that produce light within the visible universe from all points within the range of that light, the information from that photons must be received at all points where the objects are visible.
First science can explain the wave/particle characteristic of light and the whole EM spectrum. Plus this explanation extends to contain all force carriers and matter particles. Relativistic gravity is also a complete theorem.Second, of course there is information science is not privy too. That's the purpose of science - to expand our knowledge and understanding. I think I asked earlier what information you were privy to that the scientists around the world didn't have. So?
Well obviously you don't see objects orbiting other objects on a human scale because the masses are far to small. Sensitive equipment can measure gravitational attraction on this scale though and the forces are consistent with the planetary scale. You say your theory also agrees with observation - where does it? I've yet to see it in any format that would allow prediction, let alone comparison with observation
QM says there both and depending on the situation they act one way or another. That's both consistent and appliable.
OK, here's an idea. If you are going to 'explain' your theory (by explain I mean throw out all the current laws of what an electron or photon 'is' under current physics) why not call these objects something else to avoid confusion.
I think the key word you've stumbled across here is Educated! It's much more than a simple guess as it has mathematical rigour (see the common theme here).
Therefore as a theory that you hold as valid you must be confident it will be comparable with the observed acceleration. Yes?
But that's actually different from what we observe. Light does exhibit particle-like behaviour - whether it's in the lab or through the lens of a deep-focus telescope. The arrival of light (in the form of photons) can be a fleeting event if very few photons are sent out from a source or it's a blinking long way away! Also you mention range, as if photons somehow have a built-in range limit; they don't. They travel straight ad-infinitum until something gets in the way, then they are either deflected or absorbed.You allude to a photon's 'information' (From your standpoint this information is what we 'see' as light, I think!) needing to extend to all points from the photon's genesis, but the night sky would be infinitely bright in that case. Again no useful predictions come out of what you say.
QuotesPosted on: 18/11/2009 13:13:37Posted by: peppercorn QuoteYou speak as if there is a source of (valid and testable) information that science is somehow not privy to. There isn't.Also, the 'foundations' of science are no less solid because of as yet unexplained phenomenon. If science can not explain The wave/particle characteristic of light, what causes the phenomenon called gravity, and the missing energy they are trying to base their dark energy/dark matter theories on, then there is information science is not privy to.QuoteWell, particularly with the 'model' explaining rotation of the planets, theory and observation are in agreement, so the model is good. Perhaps as importantly, the mechanics that govern planetary rotation are the same mechanics that govern our human-scale world and predict its outcome faultlessly.The model of my theory also agrees with the observation, I don't see any physical bodies rotating in perpetual motion in our human scale world.QuoteLack of information has nothing to do with it. Either use the right terms and work 'inside' the world of science or don't, it's up to you.Photons and electrons have already proven themselves to be waves. If science wants to continue to refer to them as ( little packets of energy ), it's up to them. My terminology explains my theory, with photons and electrons as waves of energy, that are infinite in mass at the speed of light.QuoteQuotefree energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that'swhat makes it beautiful.Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!It is comparable with observation.QuoteI think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too...Again, theory verses theory.Well one highly polished scientifically-based theory versus your so-far ill-defined ideas - in that sense, yes!Highly polished scientifically based? More like educated guess. My ideas are well defined if you took the time to study them through.QuoteHow could small packets of energy spread throughout the universe to be received at every point in the universe?No mainstream scientist says they are 'arriving' at every point in the universe.Oh come on now. In order to be able to see the objects that produce light within the visible universe from all points within the range of that light, the information from that light ( photons ) must be received at all points where the objects are visible.QuotePosted on: 18/11/2009 12:15:37Posted by: BenVIncluding god may close my mind to your theory, as it requires making an assumption that has no basis in fact. If I were to replace the word God with the word Goblins in all of the above, would you still hold your theory to be true?You assume God has no basis in fact. I assume God does. There is more evidence within the observation of creation to support my assumption of an intelligent designer than not. Whatever you want to call the first cause within my theory doesn't change the basis of the theory. Again, what is the first cause of the big bang? Where is the math that supports all of he energy in the universe was at one time compressed into a singularity smaller than an atom? Where is the math that supports the universe expanding to the size that it is from this one singularity in approximately sixteen billion years ( faster than the speed of light )?Quote from: peppercorn on 18/11/2009 15:53:08Quote from: Mr SBoth of you have arguements on both sides to abou 50% accuracy - you guys should stop arguing and figure out where you misplacements of idea's clash. There is a difference between the latter, and not agreeing at all.One has the validity of maths and real world predictability. The other doesn't, hence the problem.Your right mine does have the validity of math and real world predictability, and theirs doesn't. Thank you.
Where has science explained how,(or why)light appears as wave/particle?Where has science proven what constitutes gravity, gravitons?
Science is not privy to God, I am.
We're talking about what causes planets and black holes to "rotate" not orbit, did you forget? You stated the scientific model for this also holds up in our human scale world.
QuoteQM says there both and depending on the situation they act one way or another. That's both consistent and appliable.Are you even reading my theory?
the current laws of what an electron or photon 'is'? Show me any of these "current laws" that prove what a photon is as a wave, or what electrons are, other than just energy surrounding the nucleus of atoms?
Quote from: meI think the key word you've stumbled across here is Educated! It's much more than a simple guess as it has mathematical rigour (see the common theme here).Clouded education based on the agenda of trying to prove a creation without a creator.
The observed light is stretched from the observed galaxy to the observer, the farther away, the farther stretched, thus the red shift.
These photons are the visible connection between the lens and the object being observed? Your reasoning has no vision to even try to comprehend what I am saying. That's why we keep going in the same circle with this conversation.