3 ms·

Good luck finding physical evidence of "dark matter" & "dark energy" then. How many more billions will need to be spent chasing windmills? We already have the

Good luck finding physical evidence of "dark matter" & "dark energy" then. How many more billions will need to be spent chasing windmills? We already have the equations from Oliver Heaviside & James Maxwell, btw. But have fun playing math games with no physically reproducible experiments.

tsimionescu 7y ago
Maxwell's equations won't help you understand how time works, so you can't run a successful GPS, for example. They also don't explain why stars introduce le sing effects. Perhaps dark matter and dark energy are indeed a wrong conclusion - Sabine Hofstadter, to take a mainstream scientist, thinks so as well, and proposes some explanations that don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Either way, physics thrives when we have observations which don't match our theories, and the only thing we can do to bring them closer is to experiment. If a paradigm shift turns out to be necessary, then it should happen once the new paradigm is actually capable of explaining at least most (if not all) of the currently understood phenomena. For example, special relativity was perfectly in line with Newtonian mechanics, and could be used to derive the same conclusions for planet motion that Newton had painstakingly measured 400 years ago. If it hadn't been consistent with those (and with Maxwell's equations) than it would have never been accepted. And in fact, it wasn't entirely accepted until one of its more outlandish predictions - gravitational lensing - was observed experimentally, not just in general lines, but down to the actual measurement predicted by the maths.
- briantakita 7y ago
  Or the lensing is explainable using standard optics... https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf Here's the EU critique: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refraction-not-gravity/ https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refra... The thing is there were mulitiple ways of interpreting phenomona & through certain cultural choices, a certain orthodoxy was created. The problem we are seeing with modern astrophysics is that in order to explain the working of the universe using only Gravity, theories require esoteric mathematics that are by nature not observable. Instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket, we should look at each of the foundational assertions of modern cosmology with skeptism & reevaluate our positions, particularly when there are non-observable mathematical artifacts. We have better technology & instruments now. We don't need to double down on the same religious beliefs using ever more esoteric math that is increasingly not falsifiable... From the definition of "pathological science". Looks more like it applies to the Standard Model from these points... * The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. * The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results. * There are claims of great accuracy. * Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested. * Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses. * The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    When you look at pictures like [1] it's very hard to accept a kind of galactic-cluster level atmosphere that would produce that type of lensing. You're also ignoring the observed clock differences between clocks in LEO and clocks on the ground - which happen to have the exact values predicted by GR. And these are just some of the more neatly observable consequences of GR. There are many others that are more sophisticated to notice, but that an EU theory would have to explain rigorously before it could even be seen as an alternative theory, not to mention hoping to be accepted. Mind you, it is very likely that GR has some holes, as does QM - after all, we do know that they are not compatible with one another. We also have dark matter and the positive cosmological constant which are iffy. We also see that the maths of GR have a singularity when analyzing what would happen in the center of a black hole, and since we know that these objects exist, it's likely that there are unknown effects that the math doesn't predict and that would prevent the mathematical singularity from forming. But noting that a theory which has made highly successful and precise predictions has some limitations as well is by no means a reason to throw it out and start from scratch. It's much more likely, just as happened with Newtonian Mechanics, that we will find some extension of GR and QM that can successfully account for the discrepancies. Perhaps dark matter will actually be observed directly, perhaps extending the Standard Model of particle physics. Perhaps some unexpected limits similar to the speed of light will be found that can explain what happens inside a black hole. Perhaps dark energy is simply an artifact of the linear approximations we are using to solve the non-linear equations of GR [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File:The_Sunburst_Arc_PSZ1_G311.65-18.48.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File... [2] http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/dark-matter-nightmare-what-if-we-just.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/dark-matter-nightma...
    - briantakita 7y ago
      To your point about throwing out the baby with the bathwater, here is the strength of the EU argument: "The EU community is a challenger to the standard gravitational model, believing space-time to be a misinterpretation of the Universe. The things we see in the Universe – from large scale filamentary structures connecting galactic clusters, to Earth’s climate and meteorology – are plasma phenomena driven by electromagnetic forces." Note that it's still in an early phase & the physics is being figured out. This includes a heavy reliance on reproducible physical experimentation & unified models from small to large. Existing classical physical models are preferred. Custom math may come later, as one can create a Hamiltonian to model the phenomona, but the equation does not bring understanding of what is occurring without an underlying physical explanation. > When you look at pictures like [1] it's very hard to accept a kind of galactic-cluster level atmosphere that would produce that type of lensing. It's also difficult to accept that space-time is warped, especially without physically reproducible experiments, however we somehow trained ourselves to think this is the orthodox opinion. It was also once difficult to imagine the Earth not being at the center of the Universe. The EU critique is that plasma is ubiquitous in space & the phenomenon has not been explored. It's only recently that we have discovered the onmipresence of plasma throughout space, which is something that Einstein did not account for in his models. https://thedailyplasma.blog/2015/12/23/lensing-by-refraction-not-gravity/ https://thedailyplasma.blog/2015/12/23/lensing-by-refraction... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_plasma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_plasma QM does have a connection with Maxwell's Equations as QEM. https://engineering.purdue.edu/wcchew/qem_papers/QEM_NewLookMain1.pdf https://engineering.purdue.edu/wcchew/qem_papers/QEM_NewLook... Plasma Physics offers a way to, with physically reproducible experimentation, create a bridge with astrophysics. There's even multiple hypothesis to explain the nature of Gravity. Black Holes have not been directly observed & the Plasma Physics/EU explanation is that Quasars are a z-pinch in a galactic Birkeland Current. https://www.everythingselectric.com/birkeland-currents https://www.everythingselectric.com/birkeland-currents How do we know that the Atomic clock frequency itself is not be affected by gravity? It seems like a simpler explination than "space-time" being affected by gravity while the Atomic clock frequency remains consistent in the reference frame.

tsimionescu 7y ago

Maxwell's equations won't help you understand how time works, so you can't run a successful GPS, for example. They also don't explain why stars introduce le sing effects. Perhaps dark matter and dark energy are indeed a wrong conclusion - Sabine Hofstadter, to take a mainstream scientist, thinks so as well, and proposes some explanations that don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Either way, physics thrives when we have observations which don't match our theories, and the only thing we can do to bring them closer is to experiment. If a paradigm shift turns out to be necessary, then it should happen once the new paradigm is actually capable of explaining at least most (if not all) of the currently understood phenomena. For example, special relativity was perfectly in line with Newtonian mechanics, and could be used to derive the same conclusions for planet motion that Newton had painstakingly measured 400 years ago. If it hadn't been consistent with those (and with Maxwell's equations) than it would have never been accepted. And in fact, it wasn't entirely accepted until one of its more outlandish predictions - gravitational lensing - was observed experimentally, not just in general lines, but down to the actual measurement predicted by the maths.

briantakita 7y ago
Or the lensing is explainable using standard optics... https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf Here's the EU critique: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refraction-not-gravity/ https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refra... The thing is there were mulitiple ways of interpreting phenomona & through certain cultural choices, a certain orthodoxy was created. The problem we are seeing with modern astrophysics is that in order to explain the working of the universe using only Gravity, theories require esoteric mathematics that are by nature not observable. Instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket, we should look at each of the foundational assertions of modern cosmology with skeptism & reevaluate our positions, particularly when there are non-observable mathematical artifacts. We have better technology & instruments now. We don't need to double down on the same religious beliefs using ever more esoteric math that is increasingly not falsifiable... From the definition of "pathological science". Looks more like it applies to the Standard Model from these points... * The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. * The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results. * There are claims of great accuracy. * Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested. * Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses. * The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  When you look at pictures like [1] it's very hard to accept a kind of galactic-cluster level atmosphere that would produce that type of lensing. You're also ignoring the observed clock differences between clocks in LEO and clocks on the ground - which happen to have the exact values predicted by GR. And these are just some of the more neatly observable consequences of GR. There are many others that are more sophisticated to notice, but that an EU theory would have to explain rigorously before it could even be seen as an alternative theory, not to mention hoping to be accepted. Mind you, it is very likely that GR has some holes, as does QM - after all, we do know that they are not compatible with one another. We also have dark matter and the positive cosmological constant which are iffy. We also see that the maths of GR have a singularity when analyzing what would happen in the center of a black hole, and since we know that these objects exist, it's likely that there are unknown effects that the math doesn't predict and that would prevent the mathematical singularity from forming. But noting that a theory which has made highly successful and precise predictions has some limitations as well is by no means a reason to throw it out and start from scratch. It's much more likely, just as happened with Newtonian Mechanics, that we will find some extension of GR and QM that can successfully account for the discrepancies. Perhaps dark matter will actually be observed directly, perhaps extending the Standard Model of particle physics. Perhaps some unexpected limits similar to the speed of light will be found that can explain what happens inside a black hole. Perhaps dark energy is simply an artifact of the linear approximations we are using to solve the non-linear equations of GR [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File:The_Sunburst_Arc_PSZ1_G311.65-18.48.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File... [2] http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/dark-matter-nightmare-what-if-we-just.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/dark-matter-nightma...
  - briantakita 7y ago
    To your point about throwing out the baby with the bathwater, here is the strength of the EU argument: "The EU community is a challenger to the standard gravitational model, believing space-time to be a misinterpretation of the Universe. The things we see in the Universe – from large scale filamentary structures connecting galactic clusters, to Earth’s climate and meteorology – are plasma phenomena driven by electromagnetic forces." Note that it's still in an early phase & the physics is being figured out. This includes a heavy reliance on reproducible physical experimentation & unified models from small to large. Existing classical physical models are preferred. Custom math may come later, as one can create a Hamiltonian to model the phenomona, but the equation does not bring understanding of what is occurring without an underlying physical explanation. > When you look at pictures like [1] it's very hard to accept a kind of galactic-cluster level atmosphere that would produce that type of lensing. It's also difficult to accept that space-time is warped, especially without physically reproducible experiments, however we somehow trained ourselves to think this is the orthodox opinion. It was also once difficult to imagine the Earth not being at the center of the Universe. The EU critique is that plasma is ubiquitous in space & the phenomenon has not been explored. It's only recently that we have discovered the onmipresence of plasma throughout space, which is something that Einstein did not account for in his models. https://thedailyplasma.blog/2015/12/23/lensing-by-refraction-not-gravity/ https://thedailyplasma.blog/2015/12/23/lensing-by-refraction... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_plasma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_plasma QM does have a connection with Maxwell's Equations as QEM. https://engineering.purdue.edu/wcchew/qem_papers/QEM_NewLookMain1.pdf https://engineering.purdue.edu/wcchew/qem_papers/QEM_NewLook... Plasma Physics offers a way to, with physically reproducible experimentation, create a bridge with astrophysics. There's even multiple hypothesis to explain the nature of Gravity. Black Holes have not been directly observed & the Plasma Physics/EU explanation is that Quasars are a z-pinch in a galactic Birkeland Current. https://www.everythingselectric.com/birkeland-currents https://www.everythingselectric.com/birkeland-currents How do we know that the Atomic clock frequency itself is not be affected by gravity? It seems like a simpler explination than "space-time" being affected by gravity while the Atomic clock frequency remains consistent in the reference frame.