Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

The guy in the video doesn't seem to understand science. The whole notion of 'settled science' goes against science, also the electric star/universe stuff is nonsense backed up by discredited 'scientists'.

Have a read of his Polar configuration idea - the man's a donut who doesn't understand the first thing about Physics.

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Ok so every point in space is full of micro fluctuating fields, virtual particles. What is the theory as to why this occurs? Simply because it is not within the design or function or nature of the fields to exist at equilibrium, is it really thought that there is no causal cause of virtual particles popping in an out of existence like I feel I have heard?

It's what happens when you apply quantum mechanics to fields. A 1st-quantization (e.g. Schroedinger equation) version of quantum mechanics takes scalars, like position or momentum of a single particle (a few real values) and makes a complex-valued function out of it: psi(x,y,z), which when squared is the probability density.

Now, in quantum field theory it is assumed that all particles are excitations of the base level field. If the base field were classical like E&M, you go from what's already a field classically to a "field of a field", or mathematically a functional.

Then, "particles" in this quantum field are associated with certain eigenstates in a certain representaiton. Now you find out that thanks to the math and axioms of quantum mechanics which you apply (commutation relations) which distinguish it from classical physics [this is where you put in physics by hand, it is not mathematically derivable, it is experimentally verified], the lowest allowable energy does not correspond to the mathematical value of zero---unlike classical electromagnetism and sound for instance. What is it? You don't know it's just a thing, but this thing (vacuum state) results in experimental effects because it makes for non-zero transitions when you include it in QM computations.

Can you really understand "why" without the math? No, at least I can't. Mathematically it's fairly logical, but I can't understand it intuitively. I can make a picture of a few scalars for a particle (x,y,z,t), and a classical field (function everywhere in space), but I can't fathom what a functional "looks like".

Because that is my biggest problem with discussions about the idea of the quantum jitter and foam and fluctuation talk, is that I have heard people saying that it is random and there is no cause and this is a justification for energy coming from nothing and nowhere, because if this random non causal energy can just appear, then hey, why not the universe.

What's the problem?

In regular quantum mechanics if you have a non-zero value for the matrix element corresponding to the transition, then every once in a while it will happen. (Are you clear on basic quantum mechanics, e.g. Fermi's golden rule?)

ImaFungi

When an electron is vibrated up and down to create em radiation, is em radiation created traveling in the direction of the up and down? Why or why not?

It's strongest in the perpendicular direction. That's why say TV antennae have horizontal spars: you orient the left and the right so that they 'catch' as much radiated signal from the perpendicular direction.

If the velocity of the vibrating particle is non-relativistic then you're in the "dipole approximation".
The radiated E&M power is proportional to sin^2 alpha, where alpha is the angle between the direction of motion and the angle of observation.

See Figure 4.7 in the course notes:

ocw.mit.edu...

Interestingly as the velocity gets more and more relativistic then the radiation starts to be pointed more and more in the direction of the velocity (and assumed parallel acceleration).

So for a slowly vibrating charge up and down, you get E&M signals propagating out strongest when measured perpendicularly.

Vibrate the charge faster and faster and it starts to turn into blinking x-rays up and down.

Maxwellian electromagnetism is already relativistic, remember and it was Einstein taking Maxwell's side vs Newton which resulted in inventing special relativity as the logical consequence.

ImaFungi

dragonridr

Now what is this unfolding space well i guess at its most basic there spinor fields sort of... to truly move on you need to understand multi-oscillator systems, spin, identical particles, perturbation theory, and scattering.

So the vacuum energy and space and virtual particles is one field, or multiple fields? How many fundamental fields exist?

That's what the standard model is about. There's one type of fundamental particle for each "degree of freedom" in the fields of the standard model.

Somebody answered here:

physics.stackexchange.com...

He counts 58 fields.

There isn't quite a one to one correspondence between the field and a conventional particle.
There's no such thing as an isolated "left-handed" vs "right-handed electron"---a real electron is composed of pieces of both. Electromagnetically there is no difference but there is a difference in terms of weak force.

And are virtual particles coming from the depths of space from fields like quark field, electron, photon,gravity, higgs, are these all different manifestations of the same field or are these multi oscillator systems?

They're just oscillations in the fundamental fields which occur thanks to the vacuum value not being zero.

On the smallest microest level are all these fields intertwined, overlapping or at least interacting?

Some of them are interacting with each other with different strengths---that's what the standard model is about.

Why was all this energy and potential and fields compressed?

It's not compressed it just is.

Mary Rose

Gravity would not exist if there were not vortices massed together. The vortex and its vacuum-like center is the underlying reason for gravity.

Sounds like this from a theory called Universal Vortical Singularity:

From the UVS perspective, the effect of gravity, experienced as an inertial force and has been thought to be a pull-in effect towards the core, is caused by the electromagnetic force of electromagnetic vortices in a paradigm of nested plasmatic spheroidal vortex with repelling electrostatic force. It is an effect of electrostatic pressure that follows approximately the principle of inverse-square law with electromagnetic field of a specific wavelength manifested in quantum scale vortices that pushes matter inward to the core in a spheroidal confinement; the vortical interactions with potential density consolidated by volumetric pressure in isotropy repels matter electromagnetically inside a nested plasmatic spheroidal vortex.

From the home page of the website:



Apparently Vincent Wee-Foo is an independent researcher. I could not find biographical information on him. There is this on the website Overviews page:

Author's note: When I was awakened to the idea of a vortical universe in May 2007 and subsequently have had developed the model of Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS model), I did not know at all that any of such vortex theory had ever existed. This was until Jim Mash (Author of "Fluid Energy theory") had first brought the Cartesian vortex cosmology by Rene Descartes to my attention in June 2008, and later was aware of Walter Russell Cosmogony after Dean Ward and Allen Barrow brought Walter Russell to my attention in Oct 2008. A modern era publication that had categorically summarized the numerous studies and researches for spirals of nature as recorded in various era, was presented in "From cosmic whirl to vortices" by Vladimir B. Ginzburg who had wrote a vortex theory called "Three-Dimensional Spiral String Theory", had came to my attention in June 2009 only after the vortical universe concept for UVS was quite developed with 138 qualitative predictions. Even then, UVS still has its uniqueness among these other vortex theories. June 2009.

mbkennel


Interestingly as the velocity gets more and more relativistic then the radiation starts to be pointed more and more in the direction of the velocity (and assumed parallel acceleration).

So for a slowly vibrating charge up and down, you get E&M signals propagating out strongest when measured perpendicularly.

Vibrate the charge faster and faster and it starts to turn into blinking x-rays up and down.

That is very interesting, because I would think that as the mass itself is traveling closer and closer to the speed at which the force carrying em field travels, the would be radiation that would be pointed in the direction of velocity, would not have a chance to be projected that way because if the mass is traveling near the speed at which the field travels in that direction it would seem as if not a lot of energy would be produced in that direction. Is it known why this is the case, when you say slow vibration em signals propagating out strongest when measured perpendicularly that is just insinuating that because the vibration is slower the wave is bigger, so propagating out strongest means easiest to measure? Where as fast vibrating would make quick blips of radiation, aka xrays.

mbkennel


Can you really understand "why" without the math? No, at least I can't. Mathematically it's fairly logical, but I can't understand it intuitively. I can make a picture of a few scalars for a particle (x,y,z,t), and a classical field (function everywhere in space), but I can't fathom what a functional "looks like".

You cant fathom what it looks like, but it looks like something. It exists in someway, it has some physicality, if it is real and physicists believe this is the truth of the universe, then I just want to know what it is. You know its not letters and numbers, I know those letters and numbers represent "things", so what is the thing. You have a field, a function everywhere in space, how do you explain the existence of this, or you just know for a fact that fields/functions exist everywhere in space and there is no reason or answer, its just the way things are and there is no further possible information or knowledge attainable in those regards of understanding what the universe and fundamental reality is.

What's the problem?

In regular quantum mechanics if you have a non-zero value for the matrix element corresponding to the transition, then every once in a while it will happen.

My problem is with the nature of nothing, whether it exists in the universe, or if the universe is a solid ball of energy, with nothing outside of it, and the nothing outside of it cant get in or affect the something, or does it?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Ok your trying to imagine whats outside our universe as near as i can tell well theres alot of theories. One being what lies outside the Hubble bubble got love that one.Any way simple answer everything with every possibility. Go far enough find another you. Keep going even further another you who made a different choice. So what in the universe anything and everything that could ever happen. Dont like this one well next would be p branes it says aour universe is nothing but part of a brane well 2 actually one being a string brane and the other a point bane. There would be 9 well another predicts 13. This is what alot of people would think of as dimensions each with different laws. Ok so next is another multiverse theory Basically a universe that is infinite and just expands creating new universes off old ones and they expand and create more.Then theres one i heard called dark flow which basically is theres some sort of huge mass outside our galaxy causing the expansion.As for the structures themselves, they could be literally anything, from aggregations of matter and energy on scales we can barely imagine to bizarre warps funneling gravitational forces from other universes.Then we have one that says we are in a black hole and when black hole sucks in matter actually creates a universe.

Theres more and i can keep going but the point is your asking a question we dont know the answer to and frankly probably never know the answer to.It like taking a fish out of water water is its entire universe you take them out they die and have no hope of understanding it because there trapped.

mbkennel



That's what the standard model is about. There's one type of fundamental particle for each "degree of freedom" in the fields of the standard model.

Somebody answered here:

physics.stackexchange.com...

He counts 58 fields.

How do 58 different things exist at/in/on one point, let alone all points?

It's not compressed it just is.

I think someone else responded saying that all the fields and energy were compressed before the big bang, I was asking why were they compressed.

reply to post by dragonridr


Yes I guess I was looking at my inquisitions more of as if I were an alien that traveled to earth, and wanted to hear the totality/sum of human intelligence present the perceived closest grasp of what the universe is, what the smartest and most carefully thought physicists would explain. How do you imagine a field existing?

reply to post by Mary Rose


From what I have read thus far, Mr. Wee-Foo seems a fairly intelligent and well meaning fellow. I'm starting to wonder if "Wee-Foo" is a pun though as in 'We Fooling you all with our crazy science that goes nowhere'. Mr. Wee-Foo either can not or flat out refuses to demonstrate a methodology for testing his hypothesis, which indicates that while he believes he is 100% correct, he can't prove it to himself, at least yet, let alone anyone else. Sorry, but his hypothesis is the very definition of the science myth you claim to be exposing yet it is actually perpetuated here. It sounds really nice but it's a bunch of muck if he either can't or won't demonstrate proofs of his work or let anyone independently corroborate it.

reply to post by dragonridr


You know how its thought energy was in a certain state and then inflated and 'cooled' and thats why there is solid matter; is this similar to water in how when it cools it solidifies? I was thinking its interesting that having 2 samples of identical quantities of water, and then freezing one, is it some way intuitive as to why the sample (frozen) with less energy (in order to freeze water energy must be removed from the sample (right?)) is more difficult to 'pierce/pass through' then the sample with less total energy? I would think the more energy in an area the more difficult to pass through that area, but this really highlights the difference between energy and matter and why things are solid I guess. The less energy there is, the more slowly the subject vibrates, or is it that the particles of the subject are confined to a smaller area so they vibrate faster but just less of an area, so this creates solidity. Where as water molecules have higher energy then ice, and so can take up more area with their vibrations and something about this amongst other things allows the phenomenon of liquidity.

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

You know how its thought energy was in a certain state and then inflated and 'cooled' and thats why there is solid matter; is this similar to water in how when it cools it solidifies? I was thinking its interesting that having 2 samples of identical quantities of water, and then freezing one, is it some way intuitive as to why the sample (frozen) with less energy (in order to freeze water energy must be removed from the sample (right?)) is more difficult to 'pierce/pass through' then the sample with less total energy? I would think the more energy in an area the more difficult to pass through that area, but this really highlights the difference between energy and matter and why things are solid I guess. The less energy there is, the more slowly the subject vibrates, or is it that the particles of the subject are confined to a smaller area so they vibrate faster but just less of an area, so this creates solidity. Where as water molecules have higher energy then ice, and so can take up more area with their vibrations and something about this amongst other things allows the phenomenon of liquidity.

Well using your water example its due to brownian motion slowing down as water cools. But yeah there is similarities for example when water freezes the energy has to go somewhere. Like freezing ice in a freezer the compressor in the freezer removes thermal radiation. Remember how i said it takes energy to truly make a void (Meaning an area with absolutely nothing). Well freezing water takes energy to or more a transfer of energy so its surprisingly similar(never really thought of the water thing thx). Any way just like particles when they cool water is also similar the molecules slow down.Or if we want to get molecules to vibrate faster we add energy this is the principle of a microwave. Get particles vibrating this causes heat and cooks a hot dog.Now im not sure what you mean by taking up more area exactly? Seem like your trying to come up with a theory on why matter forms? Well this gets back to energy Einstein showed us Mass = Energy there not really any different they are the same thing.You can convert energy to mass or mass into energy.Now the origin i guess is asymmetric decay of a matter and antimatter. Simply all the energy in big bang had to go somewhere so as it cooled it allowed it to form quarks leptons etc. Then as cooling continued eventually particles nothing but stored energy.

reply to post by dragonridr


Ya I was just thinking how I would think the more of something, energy, the harder and more difficult it would be to pass that area that contains more energy then an area that contains less energy, when really it is harder to pass through ice, an area that contains less energy then an area of water, which contains more energy and is easier to pass through. I just thought that was interesting. And so if there is some parallel to other solid matters besides ice, if solid matter is the difficult to pass through (like ice) it has less energy (?) then...another state of matter, and what that be its pure energy form? Or the non solid fields?

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Ya I was just thinking how I would think the more of something, energy, the harder and more difficult it would be to pass that area that contains more energy then an area that contains less energy, when really it is harder to pass through ice, an area that contains less energy then an area of water, which contains more energy and is easier to pass through. I just thought that was interesting. And so if there is some parallel to other solid matters besides ice, if solid matter is the difficult to pass through (like ice) it has less energy (?) then...another state of matter, and what that be its pure energy form? Or the non solid fields?

Not sure what your getting at but yes the more energy an area has the more difficult it is to go through. Even virtual particles slow down things that have enough mass.

This is interesting: "The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics" by Stephen J. Crothers:

There has been a deliberate suppression of scientific truth by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black hole and the big bang. I bring you free access to original papers in the hope that this fraud can be exposed and physics restored to a rational search for knowledge. The black hole has no foundation in theory whatsoever. Neither Newton's theory nor Einstein's theory predict it. In fact, both theories preclude it, contrary to what the relativists claim.

The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution is not due to Karl Schwarzschild at all. The experts have either not read Schwarzschild's 1916 memoir or have otherwise ignored it. Go here to get Schwarzschild's original paper, in English. The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution is due to David Hilbert, itself a corruption of a solution first derived by Johannes Droste in May 1916, whose paper has also been buried or ignored at the convenience of the experts. It appears that the experts have not read Hilbert either. Go here to get a copy of Hilbert's erroneous derivation, in English. Hilbert's mistake spawned the black hole and the community of theoretical physicists continues to elaborate on this falsehood, with a hostile shouting down of any and all voices challenging them. Schwarzschild's solution has no black hole, and neither does Droste's solution. And while you're at it you might as well go here to get a copy of Marcel Brillouin's 1923 paper, in English, in which he demonstrates that the black hole is nonsense. Brillouin's paper has also been ignored.

An interesting blog post: "There is no such thing as Dark Matter, Dark Energy or Black Holes.":

The assumption that the Physical Constants do not vary and remain fixed on all scales for mass, charge, wavelength and frequency is the 300 year old error that leads to the conclusion that the Universe consists of 23% Dark Matter and 72% Dark Energy. The idea that the Constants actually vary and are dependent on the scales of the component parameters results in solutions to the equations describing the dynamics of Galaxies which clearly demonstrates that the observable Universe corresponds with the actual amount of visible matter that is detected as quarks and leptons so that Dark Matter and Dark Energy actually do not exist. Newton's Gravitiational Constant G approaches the accepted current experimental value of 6.67428 x 10^-11 only for the case of relatively large masses, large wavelengths and small frequencies and when these parameters are taken as the converse according to scale, then the variation in G becomes evident in the range of experimentally acceptable significant figures. The realization that G is a variable also leads to the fact that there are no such things as Black Holes, and that Gravity is Electromagnetic.

reply to post by Mary Rose

That post is full of muddled thinking. However, while the author is obviously confused, there are some scientific papers to support some of those possibilities. One I vaguely recall tried to explain dark energy assuming that gravity was not constant. Several MOND papers try to explain dark matter observations without dark matter by variable gravity. So scientists are talking about these things, and nothing is considered "settled" yet about dark matter and dark energy. But the problem is, the evidence for these explanations isn't very good.

The thing that tells you the blogger is confused is when he ends by saying "The realization that G is a variable also leads to the fact that there are no such things as Black Holes, and that Gravity is Electromagnetic."

Every scientist who has worked on unified field theories has of course considered the possibility of a link between gravity and electromagnetism, and some have tried to establish a relationship, so the fact that nobody has been able to do it, isn't from the lack of trying. There's just no evidence for it, and as far as I know that's still true even if gravity is variable, but of course the blogger gives no details which would suggest otherwise. The blog is a pretty lame source. Do you have an aversion to scientific papers even when they discuss the concepts you're posting about?

As for Crothers, I've heard several scientists admit that something may not be quite right about mainstream black hole math and its singularity. Given the difficulty of observing the interior of a black hole, we may never know if there's a singularity at the center or not. But I've never heard anyone who says black holes don't exist explain this series of observations without a black hole:

Link
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0864450afef4.gif[/atsimg]
If they aren't orbiting a black hole, what are they orbiting? why doesn't a single black hole denier have a plausible answer for that? SO-2 has already made a complete orbit in less than 16 years.

From a 38 page .pdf file, "The Black Hole, the Big Bang – A Cosmology in Crisis (A Detailed Analysis)" by Stephen J. Crothers:

Introduction

It is often claimed that cosmology became a true scientific inquiry with the advent of the General Theory of Relativity. A few subsequent putative observations have been misconstrued in such a way as to support the prevailing Big Bang model by which the Universe is alleged to have burst into existence from an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Yet it can be shown that the General Theory of Relativity and the Big Bang model are in conflict with well-established experimental facts.

Black holes are not without cosmological significance in view of the many claims routinely made for them, and so they are treated here in some detail. But the theory of black holes is riddled with contradictions and has no valid basis in observation. Nobody has ever found a black hole, even though claims for their discovery are now made on an almost daily basis. Nobody has ever found an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and nobody has ever found an event horizon, the tell-tale signatures of the black hole, and so nobody has ever found a black hole. In actuality, astrophysical scientists merely claim that there are phenomena observed about a region that they cannot see and so they illogically conclude that the unseen region must be a black hole, simply because they believe in black holes. In this way they can and do claim the presence of a black hole as they please. But that is not how science is properly done. Moreover, all black hole solutions pertain to one alleged mass in the Universe, whereas there are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses, such as two black holes. In other words, the astrophysics community has no solution to Einstein’s field equations that can account for the presence of two or more bodies, yet they claim the existence of black holes in multitudes, interacting with one another and other matter.

Owing to the very serious problems with the Big Bang hypothesis and the theory of black holes, it is fair to say that neither meets the requirements of a valid physical theory. They are products of a peer review system that has gone awry, having all the characteristics of a closed academic club of mutual admiration and benefit into which new members are strictly by invitation only. The upshot of this is that the majority of the current astrophysics community is imbued with the dogmas of the academic club and the voice of dissent conveniently ignored or ridiculed, contrary to the true spirit of scientific inquiry. This method has protected funding interests but has done much harm to science.

From the 12 page .pdf "Flaws in Black Hole Theory and General Relativity" by Stephen J. Crothers, on page 10 under "9. INVALIDITY OF EINSTEIN’S FIELD EQUATIONS":

. . . It also means that gravitational energy cannot be localised (i.e. Einstein gravitational waves do not exist);26 and that Einstein’s field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum and are therefore in conflict with experiment on a deep level, rendering them invalid.