1321

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: The Higgs field?

« on: 12/12/2012 17:22:15 »

Ah, that sounds like Le Sage's theory of gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation) in which objects are hit by some field of particles throughout the universe and the shading (from these particles) of one object by another causes them to move towards each other.

What's interesting is that most of these theories were replaced by classical field theories in which fields do not act like matter.

This is interesting and causes me to ask the following question. If fields don't act like matter, and the Higgs field exists, what would preclude it from acting similar to the debunked Le Sage's theory? If of course, these fields could also produce this pressure. Just to be clear, I'm not proposing a new theory here, I'm just asking a question.

1322

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: The Higgs field?

« on: 06/12/2012 23:03:14 »

If they find the Higgs particle (they're pretty sure they have, but not confident enough to claim it yet),

Quite true JP, I believe the preferred talking points define the new evidence as: "a Higgs like particle"

1323

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: The Higgs field?

« on: 06/12/2012 21:28:21 »

I personally believe we should not be discussing the Higgs field, here, either. It is a new theory, one portion of which is now widely accepted. Just because a theory is accepted by a few mainstream scientists doesn't make it a mainstream theory.

I'm new here so, presumably, someone else will have to determine the value of this discussion and where it should be placed. With respect to the scientists that regard it as "mainstream", I suppose it may be proper to leave it here. Nevertheless, you make an interesting point, to which, we may need to move this discussion to the new theories section. In any event, that will have to be addressed by someone with greater rank than I.

1324

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: The Higgs field?

« on: 06/12/2012 20:57:15 »

Not all aether models ignore gravity. Some postulate aether as the medium of both light and gravity. The trouble is that none of them explained gravity adequately. This does not mean there can't be an aether model which does explain both light and gravity. We just have to think outside the box and come up with a better model.

Perhaps the Higgs field, and its ontological model, can explain gravity. My understanding of the theory is very limited, but I think it has only provided an explanation of inertial, not gravity.

As thought experiment; Might the Higgs field be just that, only a geometric field without the long sought after particle we call the Higgs Boson? If this turns out to be true, might the possibility arise that this field could explain the medium thru which both light and gravity propagate?

1325

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: The Higgs field?

« on: 06/12/2012 18:12:54 »

  This is the idea that was disproved by MM.  Gravity, the Higgs field and similar structures that fill space but aren't associated with light traveling a not disproved by the MM result.

I stand corrected my friend. For some reason, I got the impression that the Aether theory was somehow also responsible for the gravitational effect. This resulting from the shading effect of one body upon another. Because the two objects cancelled out the Aether pressure between them, they would be forced together as a result. I'm not sure where I read about this theory but evidently it doesn't hold any water.

1326

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / The Higgs field?

« on: 05/12/2012 22:11:33 »

The theory of a Universal Ether has long since been disproven by the Michelson & Morley experiment. This theory proposed that the universe was saturated with a field or substance which gave rise to the gravitational effects we commonly observe. Now science is proposing that we are living in a universe that is saturated with the so-called Higgs Boson. If the large hadron collider  in Switzerland is capable of identifying this field of particles, are we going to, once again, open up the question of an Ether?

1327

Geek Speak / Re: Anyone still using a ten year old PC?

« on: 01/12/2012 22:20:10 »

Actually, I just purchased a new Gateway because my 10 year old XP recently bit the dust. All good things must come to an end,............ RIP old XP.

1328

New Theories / Re: Alpha-Omega a universe in freefall

« on: 30/11/2012 20:28:09 »

like i said i am no scientist but not being a scientist it does not stop anyone thinking aloud.

As for thinking aloud, aka; out loud..........Your thought experiment has got me to thinking as well.

If our local space, is surrounded by a gravity well of uniform density and distribution, this might account for the expansion we currently observe. Because the uniform gravitational attraction lying outside our bubble universe would produce the same observation. And scientists, to their astonishment, have discovered that not only is our universe expanding, it is accelerating and this was a totally unexpected find.

Many today are thinking about the Multiverse or Bubble Universe hypothesis. If we find real evidence for these exercises in theoretical thought, this may have application to the question of universal accelerating expansion. So far as I'm aware, there has been no good explanation for the accelerating aspect of this expansion. And if the gravitational influences outside our bubble were just right, it may explain this acceleration.



 

1329

New Theories / Re: Mayan E.T. Connction

« on: 30/11/2012 15:33:10 »

The Mayan calendar is just that, a calendar. Like our own, it has a beginning and an end. Ours starts with Jan. and ends with Dec. just twelve months long. Just because the Mayan calendar is thousands of years long doesn't suggest anything other than the length of it's duration. All this talk about the end of the world is nothing but hype.

1330

New Theories / Re: Time

« on: 30/11/2012 05:01:17 »

It might be plausible for a photon to be the carrier of progression, hence time.   After all, everything ceases to exist if there is no light ( photons ),

I don't agree, just because light has ceased to make reality apparent, there still exists the force we call gravity which is completely independent of electromagnetic radiation.

1331

New Theories / Re: Could the big bang be the uncurling of our three spacial dimensions?

« on: 29/11/2012 18:34:34 »

If you find a way to define what degrees of freedom is I will be very pleased Bizerl. I can say that all must involve a arrow though, because I can't see them being measured without it.

So, let's say that they all need a arrow. What more can be degrees of freedom?

Just a thought, if I may be allowed to jump in here? When I think about degrees of freedom, the first thing that comes to my mind is the spiral that a particle takes as it moves thru space and time. I believe some spiral left-handed and some spiral right-handed. Science tells us that, in space, right and left have no real meaning. If that's true, then why do these particles differentiate between the two? Something tells me that if these particles know the difference, there must be a difference. Thus, not only are there three spatial dimensions, maybe there are six more degrees of freedom. Namely; right, left, up, down, forward, and backward. Just a thought..................Ethos_

1332

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How long do fundamental particles last?

« on: 27/11/2012 16:43:51 »

If the neutron lasts for only 15 minutes without the influence of the atomic nucleus, does the neutron exist as such in a neutron star because of the extreme pressures? And if this is so, what about the surface of the neutron star? Are the neutrons also stable at it's surface where pressures are much less than in the interior?