What is "space" consisted of?

Originally posted by grimreaper
The men i sited where the top and first in there feilds who were their peers. And when their papers where first submited they where ridiculed for their new ideas.
Click to expand...
This is a fairly common argument that you get from crackpots and their supporters. "They laughed at all the great scientists at first, so of course they laugh at me now! They just haven't taken the time to really consider my ideas!"

If you look at the actual history of modern physics (you can usually get the highlights in the little blurbs between chapters in your physics text book) this sort of argument just isn't supported. People did not ridicule Einstein, Oppenheimer, et al when they published their ideas; people realized pretty much right away that they had good ideas. Einstein, Oppenheimer, Schrodenger, Feynman, etc. didn't have any trouble getting published in peer review journals.
 
Originally posted by Nasor
This is a fairly common argument that you get from crackpots and their supporters. "They laughed at all the great scientists at first, so of course they laugh at me now! They just haven't taken the time to really consider my ideas!"

If you look at the actual history of modern physics (you can usually get the highlights in the little blurbs between chapters in your physics text book) this sort of argument just isn't supported. People did not ridicule Einstein, Oppenheimer, et al when they published their ideas; people realized pretty much right away that they had good ideas. Einstein, Oppenheimer, Schrodenger, Feynman, etc. didn't have any trouble getting published in peer review journals.
Click to expand...

Then I must write PBS a strongly worded letter as well as the Smithsonian institute Nova and National Geographic.

As to being a crackpot or one of their supporters I do believe in judging an idea on its own merits not what a panel of self-serving individuals would have me believe. If that makes me a crackpot then so be it I proudly accept the title for I have a free mind and don't need the approval of senile incompetent and pompous fools.

with respect
 
Spend some time on alt.sci.physics and you'll soon see that authors of papers with groundbreaking scientific discoveries displayed only on websites typically are crackpots. There are countless examples, and they virtually all follow the same formula. Make claims about a scientific discovery or claim to have disproven a current accepted theory, and then offer no evidence to support it. In the case of Savov, the same formula applies. Check his old threads to see what I mean.
 
New things are for open, not closed hard framed minds.
Most people elaborate some cherished theory bind for its fundamenal flaws. It is unlikely to make great findings in an old
theory, no matter how smart you may be because nature
is likely to be counterintuitively simple.
 
Originally posted by Peter2003
It is unlikely to make great findings in an old
theory, no matter how smart you may be because nature
is likely to be counterintuitively simple.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call quantum mechanics or relativity 'simple'. At least, they're not simple compared to the newtonian physics that they replaced.
 
There have been many physicists that have expressed a belief that the universe will ultimately be explained in terms of pure geometry, or something simpler. The problem is, anyone can come up with a simple model of the universe. If it doesn't make testible predictions, it's not much use as science. If it cannot explain the bodies of evidence and conflicts with established theories, it isn't science at all. Remember, established theories are established for a reason.
 
It seems that complexity of modern physics is what makes the picture of the universe incomplete.


The established theories are OK. Only some guys are not sensitive of the scope of their application. For example to speak of the first seconds of the universe is not more convincing than
a weather forecast at accuracy of about a minute or a second.
What is the sense of a second prior to the appearence of the
observer.

Tomorrow the rain will begin to fall in NY city downtown precisely at 16.54 PM. That is how most of the big bang theory sounds and yet you can find these absurd calculations in referred journals. Some folks mix mathematics with nature in a way keeps us from its secrets.
 
Last edited:
The difference is that the big bang model has made several testible predictions and has survived the test of time. Do you know of any new theories that can do the same? Therein lies the problem.
 
Last edited:
If you're going to ask a question like that, post it in the cosmology or physics forum. You'll get more replies there.

And no, the universe did not coalesce down to a point and suddenly explode. Even if it did, I don't see how the conclusion you made next follows. Maybe you're thinking of the classic singularity where the laws of physics break down. But then, that's what you get when applying classic reasoning to a quantum question.
 
Beercules - I agree with most of what you've said here in your battle against crackpottery but there is a need for some compromise.

This is because any true explanation of reality, if we are to know that it is true, must be in principle unfalsifiable. Otherwise we would not know that it is true, it would just be another theoretical inferrence that may turn out to be false when tested.

Thus any completely true explanation (if we are to know that it is true) would have to be untestable and thus unscientific. IOW it would be precisely its untestability that would signify its truth. However, being scientifically untestable, it could also still be scientifically false. This suggests that ultimately if we are to 'know' the truth then that knowing must be an act of faith (not necessarily an irrational one).

I suppose this is just saying that for obvious reasons it would be in principle impossible to falsify the true explanation for existence (because it is true). Therefore although the current scientific view may be correct it cannot be verified, and although the true explanation is true it cannot be falsified.

Because of this there is a danger that when a true explanation does turn up we won't judge it to be scientifically acceptable, and the baby will disappear with the bathwater.

(If you can make sense of this I'll be impressed. Clarity eludes me as usual).
 
The biggest single element in space, and its everywhere, is hydrogen. Great billowing clouds of it permeate space. It is true that space is not "exactly" a vacuum but a damn sight near enough. Solid matter in the estimated universe, I think I am right in remembering, is less that a tenth of 1%.
 
Fitting an incomplete picture of the universe to observations, after some assumtions, adds only a historical value, like that of the theories before. If you cannot find a way to handle the singularity in the beginning of the universe as it is done in Eugene Savov's theory of interaction than your are doing more mathematics than physics.

Canute, have you ever met Poper? I am shure that he will be pleased to meet you.
 
Talking of singularities - I also believe in the "big bang" theory, as do most of the scientific community nowadays as we discover more and more "tell tale" signs........
 
Canute,

I have no idea why you think a final theory would be untestible. If a description of reality cannot be testible, why then do current theories like GR and QM work so well? A complete theory of quantum gravity would (technology willing) make predictions about the quantum geometry of space, particle interactions, black holes, the nature of gravitons, etc. These are all at least testible in the sense that they make predictions about real natural phenomena currently hidden to us. Maybe your expectations for science are too high, but explaining nature on a fundemental level is all we can expect to look for. The problem with crackpots is not that they don't make testible predictions, but also discard older theories without offering an explanation for their experimental success.


Peter2003,

Any crackpot can throw together an ether theory and try to explain away the initial singularity as well. Does that instantly give it credibility? Also, if you say the big bang model is nothing more than mathematics, then why does it work so well? Why has it made many successful predictions about the universe?? The fact is, no alternative theory can even come close to the same success.
 
Should we make more assumptions to support our believes?

Consider the numerious assumptions made in the Big Bang theory
that led to its explanatory power. Each asumption is like a variable made to fit the data you interpolate. The proper theory should be assumption free as it is done in Savov's Theory of Interaction.

Each theory should be also studied from its weaker side, where it fails. Hard to explain in the big bang theory observations pile with time. Should we make more assumptions (complications) or should we simply try to change the space-time framework?

Doubt is the way of doing science not belief.
 
That doesn't answer the question. What testible predictions does this theory make? And does it offer an explanation why the old theories have been so successful?? Judging by past threads you've promoted Savov in, it seems not.
 
Originally posted by Beercules
Canute,

I have no idea why you think a final theory would be untestible. If a description of reality cannot be testible, why then do current theories like GR and QM work so well? A complete theory of quantum gravity would (technology willing) make predictions about the quantum geometry of space, particle interactions, black holes, the nature of gravitons, etc. These are all at least testible in the sense that they make predictions about real natural phenomena currently hidden to us. Maybe your expectations for science are too high, but explaining nature on a fundemental level is all we can expect to look for. The problem with crackpots is not that they don't make testible predictions, but also discard older theories without offering an explanation for their experimental success.
Click to expand...
If you had a real ToE, one that was completely provable (which seems in any case a mathematical impossibility), one that predicted every known experimental result, then how could one prove it to be true? It would be unfalsifiable by any observation. (I was wrong to say it would be untestable - what I meant was that no test could falsify it).

If there were a test that could falsify it then we would not know the theory was true until we did that test. Thus either the theory would be less than completely proved or it would have to be in principle unfalsifiable by any test and thus of necessity true. This doesn't mean we cannot have a ToE (in the widest sense) it just means that if it is scientific in form then we won't be able to finally prove it, and if it is not (in that it is untestable) then we won't be able to falsify it (eg the theory that God is responsible for everything, or cosmologies based on idealism).

Another way of looking at it is that finally PROVING a theory to be true is precisely equivalent to proving that no conceivable test could falsify it.

QM and GR work so well presumably because they are good models of how things are, or how they happen. There is therefore obviously some real truth in them. But as theories or models they are not finally provable - all we can do is go on testing them to try to falsify them and make improvements.

Thus the door is always open for crackpots, praise the Lord. However, as you say, if crackpots want to be taken seriously then they must be rational and honest and not simply propose ad hoc possibilities that appear to add nothing to current theory. Therefore (for what it's worth) I agree when you say:

"Any crackpot can throw together an ether theory and try to explain away the initial singularity as well. Does that instantly give it credibility? Also, if you say the big bang model is nothing more than mathematics, then why does it work so well? Why has it made many successful predictions about the universe??"

However I disagree when you say "The fact is, no alternative theory can even come close to the same success." ( But I suspect this isn't quite what you meant to say).
 
Originally posted by Canute
If you had a real ToE, one that was completely provable (which seems in any case a mathematical impossibility), one that predicted every known experimental result, then how could one prove it to be true? It would be unfalsifiable by any observation. (I was wrong to say it would be untestable - what I meant was that no test could falsify it).
Click to expand...

Recall that science isn't about proof. It's about finding models that can explain observed phenomena. If the model makes successful testible predictions about nature, the status of the theory is increased. While models become more established based on experimental success, they are still never proven. That is because one single experiment can falsify it.

Now perhaps you're thinking of an ad hoc theory that explains everything we can observe, but makes no new predictions. But as of now, there is so much about the nature of spacetime we don't know, that any TOE would neccessarily make predictions about nature on this scale.

If there were a test that could falsify it then we would not know the theory was true until we did that test. Thus either the theory would be less than completely proved or it would have to be in principle unfalsifiable by any test and thus of necessity true. This doesn't mean we cannot have a ToE (in the widest sense) it just means that if it is scientific in form then we won't be able to finally prove it, and if it is not (in that it is untestable) then we won't be able to falsify it (eg the theory that God is responsible for everything, or cosmologies based on idealism).
Click to expand...

Just remember that science isn't about proving theories in that sense. Any good theory will always still be vulnerable to experiments, thus it can never be proven. Perhaps if someday, there is no possibility for any more experiments to be done, then some theories will no longer be falsifiable. But I doubt that will ever happen.

Another way of looking at it is that finally PROVING a theory to be true is precisely equivalent to proving that no conceivable test could falsify it.

QM and GR work so well presumably because they are good models of how things are, or how they happen. There is therefore obviously some real truth in them. But as theories or models they are not finally provable - all we can do is go on testing them to try to falsify them and make improvements.
Click to expand...

That's basis of science. Want proof? Math is the way to go.

T
hus the door is always open for crackpots, praise the Lord. However, as you say, if crackpots want to be taken seriously then they must be rational and honest and not simply propose ad hoc possibilities that appear to add nothing to current theory. Therefore (for what it's worth) I agree when you say:
Click to expand...

It's not even the fact they add nothing to current theories. They seek to replace them with models that have already been shown to be garbage (ether) or contradict current theories with no explanation for their experimental success. Just take a visit to alt.sci.physics and you'll get lots of examples. Or, head over to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html for examples of crackpottery.

However I disagree when you say "The fact is, no alternative theory can even come close to the same success." ( But I suspect this isn't quite what you meant to say).
Click to expand...

Oh, I meant in terms of cosmological models. As of now, there isn't any alternative theory that explains the observed cosmos so well AND made so many successful predictions. I don't think anyone could argue that point.
 
Beercules - You took what I said to be trivial - which it certainly is in a way. But it certainly isn't when looked at in another way. Either way I was suggesting that a true ToE, or rather any ToE that we fully accept to be true, would have to be unfalsifiable in principle and this still seems true to me.

As of now, there isn't any alternative theory that explains the observed cosmos so well AND made so many successful predictions. I don't think anyone could argue that point. [/B]
Click to expand...

I agree if you link these two things together. But plenty of other cosmologies explain the universe as well if not better. Our current scientific cosmological models don't even explain why it's here, and some do (or purport to).

When it comes to the details science is brilliant at making scientific predictions. It's the tool for the job. But most other cosmologies aren't concerned with the details and are not designed to deal with them.

The fact that a theory makes more predictions doesn't seem to me to make it any more true, just more testable. (Although the two things are obviously related). Besides, some predictions are worth more than others. The prediction that water boils when sufficiently hot is not in the same class as predicting life after death, albeit that there is a slight problem testing the latter in time to write up the results.

One of the problems is that it is only science that is interested in the day to day physical details. Other forms of investigation (eg Buddhism) and other types of theory (eg Christianity) are not really very interested in them. We cannot judge one by the standards of the other, especially since they may all be just different aspects of the same underlying truth. Which one we judge as offering the better explanation depends to a large extent on what it is we are trying to explain.

For instance I have no problem accepting the findings of science (in principle anyway) while remaining ultimately an idealist.

IMO a good ToE would not contradict any of the well established views of the nature of the universe, whether scientific, philosophical or religious, it would be a synthesis of all of them, and be the explanation of how it is that it can seem to be so many different things to so many different people, most of whom were or are perfectly rational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top