And they have planned something really big as their ultimate goal. On the one hand, they want to investigate whether it is possible to describe space even during the Big Bang….
If it continues to prove successful, the researchers could perhaps use it to explain also the assumed inflationary expansion of the universe shortly after the Big Bang as well, and the nature of the mysterious dark energy….
Oriti's colleague Lorenzo Sindoni therefore adds: "We will only be able to really understand the evolution of the universe when we have a theory of quantum gravity." ….

We hope this would be a right theory; anyway it seems to be a technical conventional concept which is difficult for general people. Maybe this simple alternative idea could help…
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en

@ Zephyr, ya have managed to ruin a very good topic for discussion right out of the gate,,,, this was one that I could have learned a lot from,,, thanks for spoiling it for me.

twaddling about it

Well, being the positive upbeat person I am, I always seek out something good in everything. When ya say people are "twaddling about it" it does make me smile. But I would have still liked to hear what the smart people have to say on this topic. It's an area that I'm sorely deficient in.

And no, the AWT will be of no help to me, it really won't,,,, I already know the AWT very well. Ya have already thoroughly instructed me on that.

But I can understand too, why scientists are upset with every attempts for more intuitive explanations of their abstract theories.

I commiserate with ya sure. If all those scientists would quit complaining and whining about the AWT and just get over it, maybe they could get some real work done. Being so upset doesn't do anything but distract them from their work, they should just get over it.

Wasn't string theory already able to simulate a big bang which specifically needed to happen in 3 spatial dimension and also included the need for an expanding universe? Besides that, it didn't create a homogenous universe but quite like the web-like filaments of matter we see today. I'll check if I can find back that article.

Reading the article (as a layman) it seems they are not any closer than the much scrutinised string theory.

Speaking of which, what happened with strings, are they all out of favour now or is there still any reason to believe it's a viable theory? Haven't heard any news on it for about a year or so.

It sounds like their real breakthrough is starting to realize that there is no such thing as infinity. There's no infinitely small, infinitely big or infinitely smooth. That should have been a breakthrough understanding when they discovered atoms but we still believe infinity exists and it doesn't. Singularities don't exist, seemingly maybe. Seemingly in that paradoxes don't exist, there are only seemingly paradoxes.

Speaking of which, what happened with strings, are they all out of favour now or is there still any reason to believe it's a viable theory? Haven't heard any news on it for about a year or so.

People are still working with it. But it has been stalled or slowed by the lack of means of subjecting the various string theories to observation, or experiment.

As "model" or "principle" they were never IN favour. It is out on the very far edge of "practical" physics. As soon as the theorists and experimentalists have something to bring them together, they'll have more to report one way or the other. It's not that the jury is still out, the trial hasn't even begun so to speak.

It sounds like their real breakthrough is starting to realize that there is no such thing as infinity. There's no infinitely small, infinitely big or infinitely smooth. That should have been a breakthrough understanding when they discovered atoms but we still believe infinity exists and it doesn't. Singularities don't exist, seemingly maybe. Seemingly in that paradoxes don't exist, there are only seemingly paradoxes.

Once we find the smallest thing in existence, spacetime atoms in this case, then what are they composed of? What makes them exist? If the answer is higher dimensions, then what are those dimensions composed of? What makes them exist? You could go on like that forever..infinitely.

You could also take that in the other direction and ask what is beyond the CMB? Branes? then what's beyond those branes? What are those branes a subset of? What is beyond that? etc.

If I understand correctly, this is just a "flavor" of loop quantum gravity. In "standard" LQG they already were able to derive the Friedmann equations, but they had to use questionable parameterizations to get rid of terms that couldn't be solved for and/or conflict with reality.

As I understand it, the story above is really just a math trick to try to resolve the Hamiltonian for LQG.

I wonder if they are using spin foam or cannonical LQG here?

Anyway, it's not really that big of a deal that they derived the Friedmann equations, unless their derivation was based on realistic parameterizations. Otherwise, it's just a math trick to cheat your way out of a problem.

What they really need to derive are proper field equations that aren't time dependent, without introducing a fictional term to cancel it out. As with AWT, their problem is reference frame dependence.

It sounds like their real breakthrough is starting to realize that there is no such thing as infinity.

I don't think anyone needed to realize that. When scientists talk about infinity it's always as a limit - not an actual state.

You could also take that in the other direction and ask what is beyond the CMB? Branes? then what's beyond those branes?

This is just the question, which the AWT answers. Above certain scope the complexity of Universe depends on the complexity of its observer. The silly people cannot understand complex things and they confuse them with random noise. The level of background noise in our universe is defined with us, and bellow this level all artifacts will become indistinguishable from this noise for us.

You should rather ask, why some artifacts like branes should exist at all. Because some theorists assume so? Of course not - we are observing them in CMBR noise. Why the space-time has character of foam? Because some theorists assume it so? Of course not.

I understand you aren't very good with English, so I have no problem explaining this too you. I wasn't asking a question. I was proving a point.

The silly people cannot understand complex things and they confuse them with random noise.

@ Zephyr, mark me with a big down vote. Because I'm one of those silly people who is confusing your wisdom with random noise. From here is seems entirely random, and very noisy. Considering the success ya have had over the years, the universe must be a very noisy place indeed.

How many AWT converts have ya brought to their senses over these last 7 or 8 years? (Ya can't count all the Zephs ya've collected, first because they add up to one, and he is the one who started all this AWT noise in the first place.)

Please, I beg of ya, I really would like to hear what the smart people have to say about this. I already know about the AWT, so please possess your soul, and let them have a turn.

I wonder how this hypothesis would be effected by the larger "grain size" that would be a feature of the holographic projection of the 3d dimension that some have proposed.

Which point did you try to prove? How the asking of the above question "proved" it?

I have no idea what you are asking. It's so grammatically nonsensical that it can't even be determined if you are making a statement or asking a question. Your collection of words is 100% meaningless. I'm so glad that we have you to sort out all these tricky concepts for us (that's sarcasm).

Why does everyone let the topic get hijacked and feed into the trolls.

back to the article:

Question: what is considered the building blocks of space? Last I knew this was up to debate.

Using what I'm sure is a very crude and inaccurate metaphor what I'm hearing is that this is a "problem" of "resolution".

Just like pixels on a computer screen we're getting down to the pixels that make up reality/space-time I'm assuming at the plank length.

(Yes I realize we can never "see" anything at this level as this is far smaller than a single photon).

It seems that the equations for GR do not scale down well to this resolution, or if they do we haven't found the math to "make it work". If true does that mean that the equations for GR do not "scale up" well either?

Is that fairly accurate or totally off?

Why does everyone let the topic get hijacked and feed into the trolls.

back to the article:

Question: what is considered the building blocks of space? Last I knew this was up to debate.

Maybe it could be 1/2 a Planck's constant?

Question: what is considered the building blocks of space? Last I knew this was up to debate.

Plasma and self assembled electrodynamic nanodust.
Part one; http://uni-skelet...1_42.pdf
Part two; http://uni-skelet...3_64.pdf
Part three; http://uni-skelet..._116.pdf

Here are some animations how the electro-dust skeletons arranges itself.
http://uni-skelet...main.htm

If true does that mean that the equations for GR do not "scale up" well either?

GR scales up to encompass the entire universe. That's the heart of GR.

Is that fairly accurate or totally off?

Totally off. It's comparing apples to oranges. GR was not posited with the micro in mind, there was no quantum theory at that time. The quantum came a decade after GR. So far GR has passed every challenge thrown at it, as long as it is the phenomena it was defined and mean for. It scales up to include the entire universe because that is what it was created to do, model the entire physical universe as a whole..

@ Modernmystic,,

Saying GR fails on the quantum level is no more (or less) true than saying Quantum Theory fails at the Macro level. One does one thing but not the other, The other thing does the other. Neither does what the other does. The point that joins them or unifies them is the holy grail of modern physics,,,, there are many possible solutions, posited by many brilliant minds, but no one has been able to find the one that actually works, they all, every single one has flaws and faults and problems, there is not even a consensus as to more likely of them.

That's why this article is one I found intriguing. It's a wide open field with many viable directions to look in.

You probably have Planck length 1,6E-35 m on mind. But once again - why to speak about some building blocks of space? Which experiment/observation requires such concept? For example, the string theory doesn't require it for anything. Don't parrot nonsenses, which you don't understand anyway.

I wasn't thinking of length but that maybe also, I was thinking of a smallest unit of energy. Can you come up with anything we have evidence of that is smaller?

@ physorg,

Let me take this opportunity to thank ya for tolerance, forbearance, overwhelming liberality.

Three of the best articles ya have posted ya have ever posted in a single day. Great job. And inviting Hannes, Zephyr (in two of his forms no less), and can'tdrive to give their endless commentary & interpretation was a nice touch. Especially spreading them out each to one of the three articles, was that hard to arrange? Or did ya have to plan that in advance?

Anyhoo, great job, and thanking ya immensely.

ok- which one s Zephyr? my head gets to spinning with all this... is Zephyr "Teech" and the Dense aether theory or AWT, right?
are there ANY links to AWT that make any sense? I have tried reading one that I was sent and it gives me migraine's trying to keep it straight...

it seems that everyone that reads it says the same things...

Q-Star ...am I missing something vital, or it is gibberish to you too? would love some help on this!

ok- which one s Zephyr? my head gets to spinning with all this... is Zephyr "Teech" and the Dense aether theory or AWT, right?

See look there's one now,,,,,,,

Meet one of the Zephyrs, ya can't mistake them, just don't look at the user-name and read the comments, a Zephyr by any other name can't be mistaken for anything but a Zephyr. Ask him about the electron-ducks, wave surfing water walking spiders and the longitudinal superluminal transverse waves at the beneath the water's surface. It's cutting edge stuff.

well, Franklins, I beg to differ. (on your Q-Star comment)
Q-Star has always been up front, and honest with me, including pointing me in the direction i needed to LEARN. he has also helped me refocus when i got tunnel vision. to me, this is not "a silly social guy". but a teacher.
i value truth and trust, and he has earned trust from me, for one major reason: he is not telling me HOW to think, but showing me links that i can use to learn and make my own decisions.
just like rug has taught me that you dont have to be Einstein to comment here, as long as you make sense, do your homework, and try to learn something on the way.

rug
I meant that as a compliment. you stated that you watched a lot of stuff, etc. yet your arguments, like Q-Star, tend to be logical and well thought out. I try to pay close attention to what yall say. it is the only way to learn what you know. I don't watch TV, and I am seldom on the internet... couple hours a night while everyone else sleeps. I read a LOT of books. and I come to Physorg to learn.

the AWT I read is like reading a computer manual translated from Korean via drunk mongols while arguing with Argentinians. there was a lot of gobbledy-goop and double talk... I always thought that if you cant explain it to make sense to a 9th grade southern Arkansas school, then you don't know yer stuff...

I was watching a conference with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I don't remember if it was a quote or his line though. "If you need to tell people you have a PHD to get people to accept your theory you need a new theory." It's scary how much I tend to agree with him.

I think I agree with that whole heartedly. good quote. just one more reason that I tend to look at you and Q-star when I am reading the comments.
tanks

This place has become a cesspool just like sci.physics did. What is it about physics that attracts such loud, stubborn, noisy and ignorant certainty?

BTW, stubborn ignorant certainty == crazy

@ physorg,

Let me take this opportunity to thank ya for tolerance, forbearance, overwhelming liberality.

Three of the best articles ya have posted ya have ever posted in a single day. Great job. And inviting Hannes, Zephyr (in two of his forms no less), and can'tdrive to give their endless commentary & interpretation was a nice touch. Especially spreading them out each to one of the three articles, was that hard to arrange? Or did ya have to plan that in advance?

Anyhoo, great job, and thanking ya immensely.

-Q-Star

LOL...after reading your post, I changed my mind about adding a religious hypothesis to the Big Bang theory. But who knows? i could've been right.
To be more precise, I have been mulling over the idea that what we call the Big Bang, actually emerged instantaneously from a Planck mass. But every action and reaction must have a "catalyst", and, is it possible to find a Universe in every electron?

With every religion there are those that want to preach it in the wrong places. That's how it is with christianity and so it is with awt and eu. All three are religions and have no place here. At least that's how I see it.

@rug
I am going to second that.
perhaps that is one reason why they get so angry when you do not agree with them... and why they do not listen to reason, or tried and true science....
it is because they would then lose their "golden calf"... so, instead they resort to personal attacks, and double talk...

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence.
In another sense, empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment. In this sense, an empirical result is a unified confirmation
in ANY scientific site, and in a scientific study or discussion, the talk should center around empirical data/evidence. there is no other way. all else is really nothing more than either philosophy or just plain opinionated discourse. What we NEED in the discussion is EMPIRICAL DATA, and not religious discourse, unless there is EMPIRICAL data that proves said discourse to be relevant. not slamming religion, but religion & science dont mix

religion has its place in the world: some see it as good, some as bad. that choice is up to the observer. much like evil, the definition changes based on the observer.
and BECAUSE the definition can change based upon the observer, then religion cannot be used in science where empirical data MUST reign in order to make sense of the world around us.
an individual may be able to be religious AND a scientist, but they must take great pains to remove religious beliefs in scientific study. the two just don't work together.

this is MY opinion.

I hear that...and am now on notice!!

this is MY opinion.

It's mine as well. Though I don't think I've ever said it so eloquently.

thanks rug!. but that really should be credited to my mentor and Chief ... he taught me how to investigate, and I was pretty good at it (maybe not as good as Gibbs, but WHO IS?) LOL
those were his words... and I try to live by them. TRY...

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

That's why the GR and BB get along so well together, it's their religion...

""I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory (BB)," he recalled (Alfven). Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." Peratt

but you make sense. and I can follow your links, gain data, and follow your train of thought. it is a LOT like my daughter. it makes SENSE. she tries to keep it simple and understandable.

this is not a slam on anyone. I just gain more from your posts (and Q-Star) than I have a lot of others.
not saying that the others DONT make sense... Otto has made a LOT of sense on the gun control issue, and Socks as well... but even when they say the SAME things, they fight and it detracts from the posts.
i just dont need ANYONE preaching religion at me. I believe my way.
i am an old, broken down retired soldier, and Truck Captain ...i just want to make my last days worth while by learning...
so, the thanks go to yall! for helping! and suggesting books!
nite - and PEACE

How do they explain length contraction and time dilation?

I'm sure

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

That's why the GR and BB get along so well together, it's their religion...

""I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory (BB)," he recalled (Alfven). Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." Peratt

I've never understood the notion that explaining how natural processes work is somehow constituted as proof that there was no Creator of those processes. Understanding in a limited way how things work doesn't tell us about their ultimate origin. Perhaps an infinite regress of causes would be satisfying to some, or something from nothing, but this is logically incoherent. Only an ultimate first cause makes any sense.

This article has some problematic issues: Quantum physics applies on all scales (Zurek) -- it is only the massive entanglement on large scales that makes it seem classical almost all of the time. The notion of breaking up spacetime into small intervals (in the technical sense) is also very old -- the article gives no indication of the specific introduced by Oriti that solves the many problems always encountered. Finally, "during the Big Bang" is hard to interpret -- is it the usual instant, hence no "during", or is it the exponential expansion which has many consistent descriptions.

Could it just be that the fault, dear humans, lies not within our stars but within ourselves?
Our symbolic — which is to say, limited — minds necessitate crudely delimiting the universal gestalt into objects (nouns) and their behavior (verbs).
Though essential for our temporary survival, our limited cognitive apparatus is not up to the task of understanding that no such boundaries exist, that the universe is a holistic system that becomes as unrecognizable as an originally mirrored image, once the mirror has been shattered into innumerable reflecting shards.

I also hear this and now on see it.I hope it will be a right theory,no doubt it like a technical conventional concept which is difficult for general people.I hope that this simple alternative idea could help others.
atechplanet.com
upcomingfashions.com

It is bogus of course, since "cells" of space can be shown to elementary not obey special relativity within a lightcone. As GSwift7 notes it applies to these fringe theories across the board, humorously including the trolls pseudoscience ideas of a "save". =D =D =D

So to claim that they have derived Friedmann's equation which are based solely on general relativity applied to a homogeneous, isotropic expanding space is like claiming that one can derive a classical gravity theory of point masses from the electromagnetic field behavior of an electron. E.g. the equations looks superficially the same, but are useless for prediction.

Specifically for Friedmann's equation you need to use general relativity to insert the correct energy and curvature terms describing the expansion cosmology you are looking at. (See Susskind's cosmology lectures on youtube.)

[cont] Meanwhile, despite the claims in the press release, the evolution of the universe as regards inflation and dark energy is well understood by inflationary standard cosmology. It is the period _before_ inflation that would need new physics.

The more perverse problem here is that loop quantum gravity has no oscillators because it has no constraint giving it a local minimum energy as quantum field and gravity theories has. In other words it can't predict dynamics, such as described by Friedmann's equations.

I see the requisite anti-science creationist and pseudoscience trolls has shown up. Luckily there is some interest in science as well:

@vp: They are much less closer in the sense that string theory, which physicists work with, is fruitful as a math theory. It has found many uses both deep and applied. (Which usually is a sign of relevance as physics.) It obeys special relativity and predicts both general relativity and gravitons out of quantum mechanics. It tests well on basic physics (predicts black hole entropy, say), but is no advance as of yet outside its math.

Loop quantum theory and similar "quantum froth" ideas like the ones trolled here comes out of mainly mathematicians (and layman trolls) that have misunderstood how Einstein worked. (Close to experiments, up to the point that he patented refrigerators!)

They don't map to physics at all, they don't obey special relativity and predict no quantum field theory particles at all. In other words, these nutters aren't even wrong.

@Mm: "It seems that the equations for GR do not scale down well to this resolution, or if they do we haven't found the math to "make it work". If true does that mean that the equations for GR do not "scale up" well either?"

It is an energy scale, related to the distance scale. I see a troll nutter who hasn't read anything of physics makes absurd claims on scaling later as well as a science commenter having other views, but in fact these physics do mend well.

Quantum field theory works well below planck scale (see eg inflation, which is a quantum theory just 5 oom below planck scale) on a background of special relativity. That means it is compatible with general relativity for small curvatures of low energies.

General relativity works well below planck scale on a background of quantum mechanics. That means it is compatible with quantum mechanics for small curvatures of low energies. (its Lagrangian can be quantized as in quantum field theories, and it predicts gravitons as it should.

[cont]

- Special relativity seems to apply on all scales, as probed by cosmic rays. There are even results from cosmological photons where it seems spacetime (or its equivalent) is smooth above planck scales.

- General relativity applies on scales at least larger than ~ um, there are gravity balance tests.

- Quantum mechanics seems to apply on all scales. The largest coherent quantum systems probed today are quantum cryptographic systems of ~ 10's of kms size before decoherence happens. And of course we know from spectrographics that incoherent quantum systems scale up to the size of the observable universe, we see the same lines everywhere and no matter the system size.

@Teech: I'm glad for responses but unfortunately that is gobbledygook, as the rest of your comments.

@rug: "Science does not prove there is no Creator because a Creator is unprovable one way or the other."

You don't appear to be a creationist trolling science sites, yet you make a theological claim on a science site. And an obviously erroneous one. So with excuses that this isn't a science discussion, but a discussion of how science affects society:

It is easy to see that thermodynamics of closed systems rejects all magic action, and by my estimate we knew enough examples in the 80's to make a binary test of that all of nature has no magic. (Sure, no peer review yet.)

WMAP and Planck upped the game since they showed, conversant with theory of Friedmann universes as systems, that the universe is zero energy and according to theory _must_ be zero energy. Usually we don't care for that in TD, but we now know this and it means the universe _must_ be a result of a spontaneous process.

[cont] Incidentally, a creationist troll claims elsewhere here that quantum mechanics doesn't work, since quantum fluctuations doesn't ("cause" gobbledygook). But we know that universes arise spontaneously out of the quantum void. (See Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing".)

And recently the LHC has completed the SM with the Higgs field, which protects the EW sector up to 11 oom energy precision on parameters. We don't need to wait for a Higgs standard particle confirmation to know, again by my estimate, that no magic action can know the entire state of a human brain. In the quantum vacuum everything that isn't protected by a symmetry will happen, the required interaction energy of the magic agency observing particles above the thermal background would have shown up whether or not the magic itself is energy less within a factor 1000.

Therefore there is no soul/deathlife/rebirth and also no prayer agent (as language et cetera engages the whole brain sporadically according to scans).

[cont] In sum we now have 4 independent ways that we know, 3 well observed so beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no magic that created the universe or is contained within it, especially in our daily life.

Yes, we can always say that we dismiss knowledge that works everywhere else and that we accept everywhere else as, contingent, sometimes erroneous but sometimes as here robustly (the universe won't suddenly go unflat in the CMB) facts of nature. But that is always unsupported and specifically here unreasonable theological claims based on special pleading: "don't touch my belief or my belief in belief with any facts whatsoever."

The fact is that we can state today from empirical basis, i.e. with provability truth, that there is no magic agency of any kind - no homeopathy, no astrology, no unicorns/gods/fairies.

It didn't need to be so, we never made any assumptions but worked out and observed the constraints, but it turned out to be so, an observed fact or nature.

[cont] I have said this many times now since I discovered this but it bears saying:

In retrospect the idea of magic and its agency is the _worst possible_ idea of how nature works one can imagine. Friedmann universes, expanding universes which are the only universes we know how to make work, all needs to be homogeneous so large, and isotropic so having laws of physics. And they are all locally zero energy density on average by GR conserving energy-momentum (as in SR).

_You can't make universes out of magic!_

[ERRATA: "binomial" test. Also, that the universe is the result of a spontaneous process is exactly what the standard cosmology now tells us!]

god, how I wish the stupid pet theories could flush themselves down a toilet. I'd sure like to discuss the article. I've been skipping over Zephyr's crap for years. The man is inane (doesn't even rate insane).

GSwift7 tried to sum it up with
"If I understand correctly, this is just a "flavor" of loop quantum gravity. In "standard" LQG they already were able to derive the Friedmann equations, but they had to use questionable parameterizations to get rid of terms that couldn't be solved for and/or conflict with reality.
As I understand it, the story above is really just a math trick to try to resolve the Hamiltonian for LQG.
I wonder if they are using spin foam or cannonical LQG here?
Anyway, it's not really that big of a deal that they derived the Friedmann equations, unless their derivation was based on realistic parameterizations. Otherwise, it's just a math trick to cheat your way out of a problem.

etc. Too bad no one cared to comment on that. Just Toot their out of tune horns

Speaking of which, what happened with strings, are they all out of favour now or is there still any reason to believe it's a viable theory? Haven't heard any news on it for about a year or so.

People are still working with it. But it has been stalled or slowed by the lack of means of subjecting the various string theories to observation, or experiment.

As "model" or "principle" they were never IN favour. It is out on the very far edge of "practical" physics. As soon as the theorists and experimentalists have something to bring them together, they'll have more to report one way or the other. It's not that the jury is still out, the trial hasn't even begun so to speak.

And don't forget that gamma ray burst measurements made in the last few years have show that space is smooth to 10E-48 meters or so which none of those theories as formulated can deal with. ;P

from Teech2:
So, what's your explanation of quantum foam, strings and (mem)branes, string-net fluid, spin loops, elementary cells of space-time and similar geometries which do emerge in so many physical theories today? Isn't some deeper reason behind this trend - or is it just a coincidence?

from rug:
My explanation for everything you say is......ready for it?......YOUR A DUMBASS!

Get it now?

Fair is fair, mate. Teech2 just made a valid mainstream observation as to the treatment of 'space' in newer mainstream hypotheses and theoretical/mathematical modeling, which treats space more and more as 'something' (an energy-space, if you will) in itself, from which all the emergent dynamics arise and subside back to.

And all you did was to 'default' into a pre-prepared reply based on prior 'baggage', while ignoring the valid observation/point made by Teech2 in THIS instance?

Personal/subjective prejudice/reaction is not good, especially in science discourse context. :)

OK, enough of twaddling about human stupidity,

Does this mean ya will be throwing in the towel and looking for another venue to bring the AWT to the world?

The discussion with you is just the quintessence of discussion about stupidities.

Does this mean ya are abandoning the aether in favor of the quintessence?

The AWT was brought already before many years - I'm just pointing to its various applications,

Well I will say this, ya have a way of applying it to everything from cosmology to quantum mechanics. It works with everything from global warming to Barack Obama's troubles with the Tea Party. "Various applications" is selling it short, don't ya think?

The situation, when people refuse to deal with some things, because they're convinced, it's a BS (because other people are thinking so, they're usually too lazy and incompetent to get it by itself) has its name in social psychology for long time and it's called the http://en.wikiped...gnorance (it's manifestation of groupthink, i.e. syndrome of collective thinking)). It leads into deindividuation, conformity, mind-blindness and emotional contagion, group narcissism and bias, spiral of silence and herd behavior.

There is certainly a herd behavior of the sheep here. The consensus of a ship of fools.

seems the comment boards here are only place teech2 can get published?

From rug referring to Teech2's observation to rug:
It was not a valid observation. It was a setup. He was trying to bait me into a flawed logic that if I can't explain these things his beloved flawed aether must be correct by default.

Practically all communicable observations and reasoned arguments in science are "setups' for further exchange of ideas and evidence on the merits in the particular instance/topic under study/discussion.

The best way to 'do science discourse' is to avoid 'unwarranted generalizations' and subjective baggage 'cross-contamination' from other instances.

Each instance/observation should be discussed on its own directly relevant merits and follow-up evolution of the discussion/examination in a manner free and untainted from personal opinions about the source or past irritations.

In short: Scientists play the ball presented, as presented; not the one presenting it. Let's leave the 'social media' type irrelevancies to the juvenile gossip sites. :-)

in short: Scientists play the ball presented, as presented; not the one presenting it. Let's leave the 'social media' type irrelevancies to the juvenile gossip sites. :-)

Good luck there.

In short: Scientists play the ball presented, as presented; not the one presenting it. Let's leave the 'social media' type irrelevancies to the juvenile gossip sites. :-)

There ya are Reality man,,, What's this chat? Ya would have us dispense with one of the best parts of science? Psssst, the comments are not suppose to carry the same dignity as peer reviewed paper.

Smarty Alex irony and general snarkyness has ALWAYS been much used in science debates and discussions. That's what makes it fun. I realize that ya are not quite the science insider but ya must know that this is the way it has always been,,, read Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Kelvin, Hoyle, Feynman, and everyone in between. Read the transcripts of the Royal Society. Or the "Great Debate" of 1920 on whether or not the nebulae were actually galaxies like the Milky Way, Read Huxley (Darwin's bulldog), all the greats do it.

This thing ya ask for is foreign to scientific debate, and always has been.

Hi rug.

Wrong - The best way to do science discourse it with rational people that can follow logic and accepts evidence when verified. Otherwise it just goes round and round.

Wrong again - When someone has use almost every post to try and sucker people into thinking a failed theory is correct nothing else matters. They are not logical people and rational discussion is not possible.

Wrong again - There plenty of times when you must take the persons character into consideration. See above for one example.

You seem emotional and angry. Not good for objectivity in each case which should be discussed calmly on its merits, not prior personal agitation.

Naturally one must show discretion as to what is or is not a 'scientifically valid' item worthy of such further discussion. If not, then simply say why it's not 'scientifically valid' observation worthy of discussion, and leave it at that.

But your answer to Teech2's perfectly valid observation was unargued. Not good. :-)

Another few examples...

A schizophrenic presenting on the basis of reality.

A christian person instructing people on atheism.

An atheist saying how great religion is.

A poor person explaining how to get rich.

A rich person that wants to give you money.

These things just don't add up. If you don't take these types of things into consideration than you are not better off than the schizophrenic and no one can ever get better. Sometimes people are wrong. When that happens they just need to admit it and move on. Not try to convince everyone under the sun they are right when they clearly are not.

Understood. No problem, as far as that goes. But there is a reason for the old adages: "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" and "Look for the gems among the dross" etc etc.

Kneejerking from personal prejudice and past frustrations is not the scientist's way. We plough with discretion through the 'dross' to find the 'gems'. "Discovery" is made of this. :-)

Smarty Alex irony and general snarkyness has ALWAYS been much used in science debates and discussions. That's what makes it fun. I realize that ya are not quite the science insider but ya must know that this is the way it has always been,,, read Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Kelvin, Hoyle, Feynman, and everyone in between. Read the transcripts of the Royal Society. Or the "Great Debate" of 1920 on whether or not the nebulae were actually galaxies like the Milky Way, Read Huxley (Darwin's bulldog), all the greats do it.

Those kinds of 'debates' were a mixture of politics, religion, ego etc, with a hint of science as pretext for human 'power plays' therein.

Modern discourse has moved on since then (except some people still want to keep dragging it back to those emotional/ego/political days/levels for their own reasons?). Just because 'they did it', doesn't mean 'we have to also'.

Have fun with science, not ego games which may cause you to miss the 'gems among the dross.:)

Modern discourse has moved on since then (except some people still want to keep dragging it back to those emotional/ego/political days/levels for their own reasons?). Just because 'they did it', doesn't mean 'we have to also'

For someone who is not a scientist ya would try to persuade us that "Modern discourse has moved on since then"? Now come on Reality man, when was the last time ya actually read the tit for tat in the science community? Susskine, Hawking, Smolin, Schmidt, Davies, Rees, etc, etc, etc, all the big boys do it as a matter of daily discourse.

It's one of the aspects that makes science fun. So quit trying to tell us what science is supposed to be. If ya don't follow these players day by day, ya can't know this aspect. (They don't act like real people on PBS, BBC, NGC, obviously your primary exposure.)

Anyhoo, to science. When are ya going to share your TOE with us? We've been waiting over a year.

I repeated many times here, guys, the greatest problem of yours is, you cannot keep the subject (and I'm not even talking about body fluids). Even at the moment, when you trying to oppose me you're diverging fast into unsubstantial externalities. The distractive mind is the greatest obstacle of understanding, not to say about independent creative thinking.

Well I for one want to hear all about the AWT. That's something no one has discussed for now many months.

...when was the last time ya actually read the tit for tat in the science community? Susskine, Hawking, Smolin, Schmidt, Davies, Rees, etc, etc, etc, all the big boys do it as a matter of daily discourse.
When are ya going to share your TOE with us? We've been waiting over a year.

Scientists come in all types. It's not 'one size fits all' except for those who prefer 'position' over 'originality' and 'discovery' irrespective of 'source'. You seem impressed by 'credentials' over advancement from any and all comers to the science/method.

Those 'greats' you admire can't all be 'great', since they argue and all can't be right. So if the 'greats' can be wrong, then an 'outsider' can be right (as has happened before in science and many other disciplines).

Being so emotionally attached to 'appearances', and misdirecting so much time and effort to 'frivolity' and ego games, you're not paying the attention needed to learn and think for yourself and find the 'gems'. Your problem. :-)

When are ya going to share your TOE with us? We've been waiting over a year.

Scientists come in all types.

What type are ya?

Those 'greats' you admire can't all be 'great', since they argue and all can't be right.

Of course can be that great. They accomplished stuff (as opposed to posing and telling people the "correct" way to discuss science.

So if the 'greats' can be wrong, then an 'outsider' can be right (as has happened before in science and many other disciplines).

When did that ever happen outside of a philosophy class? What are ya contributing other than instruction on the proper form?

Being so emotionally attached to 'appearances', and misdirecting so much time and effort to 'frivolity' and ego games, you're not paying the attention needed to learn and think for yourself and find the 'gems'. Your problem.

Spending my paycheck is not a problem.

Now, to the science,,, ah, the TOE? Are ya going to tell us anything at all?

What type are ya?

Objective independent. Not mercenary/political/institutional.

They accomplished stuff...

But now reduced to virtually arguing abstraction upon abstraction. Reminds us all of those religious esoteric arguments about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin, hey?

When did that ever happen...?

In my 64 yrs I have read most of the history of science and other disciplines. Try it, without reading bias, and you will find all the instances you need to see it.

What are ya contributing...?

Patience. Wait and see in due course. Completeness is more important to me than the "Publish or Perish" imperative which seems to drive such as you and the mercenary/political types.

Spending my paycheck is not a problem.

And there speaks the 'mercenary' content to draw a wage rather than advance original science. No shame in that. You gotta live too.

...the TOE?

Have patience "grasshopper". Stay well, Q-Star! :)

What type are ya?

Objective independent. Not mercenary/political/institutional.

They accomplished stuff...

But now reduced to virtually arguing abstraction upon abstraction. Reminds us all of those religious esoteric arguments about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin, hey?

When did that ever happen...?

In my 64 yrs I have read most of the history of science and other disciplines. Try it, without reading bias, and you will find all the instances you need to see it.

What are ya contributing...?

Patience. Wait and see in due course. Completeness is more important to me than the "Publish or Perish" imperative which seems to drive such as you and the mercenary/political types.

Spending my paycheck is not a problem.

And there speaks the 'mercenary' content to draw a wage rather than advance original science. No shame in that. You gotta live too.

...the TOE?

Uh huh, alrightee then,,

You seem to be confusing "emotional and angry" with dismissal. Mainly of theories already proven incorrect.

The attitude comes across as emotional and angry when dismissal is 'blanket' and heedless of the actual point Teech2 observed in THIS instance.

It's a well deserved reaction from reading most of the post and seeing his conversations (any many others here) constantly being steered towards failed theories.... I refuse to deal with the illogical. Besides, I'm not a scientist. I'm an engineer. We are a rather pissy bunch. :)

Whatever our background, if blanket dismissal is all we bring to science discourse because of 'baggage', we are ipso facto not open to treating each different point/instance on its merits.

Nice chatting with you. While you haven't accomplished what you set out to do I appreciate the input from anyone that can have a logical conversation.

Likewise! I just wanted to point out how one can easily miss the 'gems' among the dross.:)

@RealityCheck
I think, what you describe as "knee jerk" here might be better understood if you realised that this conversation has happened before, many times. Teech2 or whomever is doggedly attached to a theory and posts it more akin to a "bot" than a person, applying it to every situation, and constant readers, of which you seem to be one, of this site have seen the evidence refuted time and again, and still the idea is doggedly pursued... therefore it frustrates and annoys others when the issue come up again, and again, and again, and again, etc. ad infinitum
you are older and have sown your oats, and seem more into the logical argument. that has its place too... but when young blood learns, young blood reacts like young blood. at our age, we can afford to sit back and think, be rational and try to be as logical as we can, because experience has taught us certain things, and we aint going nowhere.
more in a minute...

...more
but passion is what drives exploration, not JUST logic. and it only means that passion will be there when arguing points of view. not everyone can be dispassionate. not even i. it is a human failing. rug is just swatting a fly that has been swatted many times before. proven false before. why prove it again, and again just for the sake of a dispassionate argument? that is illogical... it loops, and will NOT end unless one ends it.
and sometimes, you just gotta call a rock a rock. if someone refuses to accept logic in order to plea an idea (or an ideal) then the only way to refute is to end that conversation. ... a good way to think about it...try arguing with a female grizzly in season that she is not in love, just flushed with hormones, and to wait for the right man for marriage

sorry... just MY take on it. but i am just a simple mountain man

Hi Captain Stumpy. Well said, and right on as far as the background/context of certain youngsters' current emotional reaction/frustrations with certain people goes. I too remember my 'young blood' day. :) I also recall receiving (and fortunately heeding) sage advice from older and more age-and-experience-seasoned (as it were) heads. I merely pass it on and "pay it back" that way.

But that was not the point in this instance. If you read my first post to rug above, I point out that Teech2 made a perfectly valid observation on a specific aspect re how mainstream is increasingly treating 'space' as 'something', and his observation was directly relevant to the News article subject matter.

In this instance, by allowing past 'baggage' and emotion to drive 'blanket dismissal', rug dismissed a perfectly valid point of discussion by 'tarring it with the same brush' as all his other dealings with the person. So I point out how one can miss the 'gems' in the 'dross' that way. That was all. :)

understood. i did read that first post, and i missed your "gem"... i wish i had the knowledge to refute said argument better.
Teech2/ Zeph or whomever does bring a lot of this upon him/her/its-self on many occasions. it is very frustrating to read an article and then see where "everything can be explained by Ether theory, or Dense Ether theory".
i know that i often feel the frustration like rug... and i have lashed out once or twice on subjects that i am passionate about. perhaps it could have been handled better, but i also understand perfectly where rug was coming from. it takes two to communicate and at times i dont think Teech2/whomever is here to communicate, but to zealously share its dogma.

thank you for your insights and patience. i am still a work in progress... and i will try to heed your advice. :)

Understood. i did read that first post, and i missed your "gem"...

Teech2/ Zephyr...does bring a lot of this upon him/her/its-self on many occasions...

Thank you for your insights and patience. i am still a work in progress... :)

It bears stressing that, in all this, I am just saying it's not about 'the source' (ie Teech2). It's about what oneself may lose because of emotion/frustration; namely, missing 'gems' among 'dross' by not scientifically disengaging emotion. Only objective open-minded attention/discernment of specifics in what 'any source' posts will do, if learning is truly one's goal; and treating each specific on its own merits.

No, CS, thank you! It's heartening to come across another who has (and applies) real intellectual capital and objectivity; and who cogitates deeply upon important subtleties/complexities which may otherwise be missed altogether in this age of 3-second attention span and social media 'soundbite' idea of 'in depth conversation'. Kudos! :)

RealityCheck
thanks for the kudos... I am trying....
do you, perchance, have a background in particle physics that may help explain what Franklins is talking about. I am trying to sift through it and I am getting gobbledygook. I am also trying to get through QM Demystified and a few other texts and what Franklins says just doesn't make sense.
like his "1-spin virtual boson become quite normal 1/2-spin particles and they will embed itself into connection nodes of existing foam until it will not form a continuum, in which energy density of bosons and fermion will not become equal."

QM makes better sense. and I don't really understand that either... but it makes sense.
perhaps if Franklin were to able to explain his ideas so that a high school or at least freshman college level would understand it?

maybe us dull people just are having communication issues... Franklins, what is your native tongue? Germanic?

Thanks for the kudos... I am trying....
do you, perchance, have a background in particle physics that may help explain what Franklins is talking about. I am trying to sift through it...

QM makes better sense. and I don't really understand that either... but it makes sense.
perhaps if Franklin were to able to explain his ideas so that a high school or at least freshman college level would understand it?

Hi Captain Stumpy. My main work/role has been (and still is in retirement) multiskilled/cross-discipline researcher and problem solver. Handy when the usual 'consultants' just go though the motions and charge through the nose but fail to solve the problem because it doesn't 'fit' their 'training scope' etc. :)

Sorry mate, haven't time at present! I am finalizing for publication my Complete 'from scratch' ToE which makes sense of and bridges all the best bits of many alternative/professional 'partial' theories. This is why I can understand all of Zephyr's work/explanations!:)

This is why I can understand all of Zephyr's work/explanations!:)

Well, this is not a thing ya should toss about. It means ya are the only person in the universe that does, and that is not a thing to brag about.

One day ya may something scientifical to us, at least Zeph, has the courage to try. All ya ever do is tell us what-all ya have studied and are working on but say nothing about the science at hand. (Mostly speeches about deportment in the class and such silliness.)

@Q-Star
ok, so it is not just me that does not understand Teech/ whomever... I thought maybe I was just an idiot. I don't claim to have any special great Einstein-like intellect, but I don't do all THAT bad!

by the way... almost done with that Sean Carroll book "the particle...universe" GREAT book...any other suggestions are welcome!

good to know that Teech2 and Franklins are the same.... as I asked Frank and Teech2 replied.

I thought maybe I was just an idiot.

About every 1000th post he gets something right, so if think ya are starting to understand him, ya might want to seek help before it gets to difficult to treat. Zeph and I have been buddies of 7 or 8 years now,,, he's mostly harmless,,, I never give him 1's and do give him 5's from time to time when he trips up and says something spot-on. He kinda grows on ya.

by the way... almost done with that Sean Carroll book "the particle...universe" GREAT book...any other suggestions are welcome!

Ya might enjoy any of the books by Chris Impey, he knows his stuff and writes really well for the general reader. A good book on dark matter and dark energy, the discovery process, ya would probably like Jeremiah Ostriker's "Heart of Darkness - Unraveling the Mysteries of the Invisible Universe", he's one of the go-to guys in that area, and he also writes well for the general reader.

It's not an extension of any existing mainstream theory, it's a new approach.

"Mainstream" theory debunked the aether over a hundred years ago. That makes it an old approach. It's an approach that only works in the 21st century when dealing with Global Warming and Obama's trouble with the Tea Party. Though some zoologists have gotten some promising results applying it to ripple surfing water spiders.

This is why I can understand all of Zephyr's work/explanations!:)

Well, this is not a thing ya should toss about. It means ya are the only person in the universe that does, and that is not a thing to brag about. One day ya may something scientifical to us, at least Zeph, has the courage to try. All ya ever do is tell us what-all ya have studied and are working on but say nothing about the science at hand.

So, when YOU don't understand others, you put down those who DO understand others. Is that a new scientific method 'modification' doing the rounds where you 'work', Q-S?

I've made many incidental hints, assessments, comments re various partial scientific aspects/perspectives of mine/others when interested enough to post on the relevant news items comments/discussions. If you resort to 'expedient misrepresentation' to mislead others about me like that, you will lose all credibility real fast.

Dismissing from prejudice is not good. Understanding is. Do better, Q-S. :)

From Capt Stumpy to Q-S:
so it's not just me that does not understand Teech... I don't claim to have any special great Einstein-like intellect...

Hi Capt. Regarding the illustrative perspective underpinning Zephyr's work/explanations, here is a pertinent paragraph from Einstein's Leyden Address:

Einstein: Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else - with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time....CONTINUED BELOW

...Einstein Address paragraph CONTINUED:

Einstein continued: .... we should have no ground for the
assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the
same we could characterise it as a medium.

Capt, Q-S, everyone interested, if you read and understand at least that paragraph and its illustrative essentials/validity in this context, you will have less trouble comprehending Zephyr's explanations/perspective (unless you are bound and determined to call Einstein a 'crank' and 'gobbledegook poster' as well for using that same imagery/analogy as Zephyr, of course!).

Good luck and good thinking, everyone! :-)

@RealityCheck
that is not the part I have problems with I the understanding ... I get that. and I get that Zeph believes in what he is saying....
where i have problems with it is that :
1: it was debunked over a hundred years ago, using experiments and empirical data. this is not a mainstream issue. the data can be found.
2: argument of repitition: repitition of idea does not make it fact. give proof.
3: the fact that this one theory is the ToE for every article... and yet it has its own inconsistencies, including but not limited to: no empirical data, no peer reviewed data, no published peer reviewed studies from recent times (i will take anything from the past 25 years, as long as it has experimental & statistical data that can prove a point)
4: all i ever get is a link to a website with data that has none of the above from #3.
if i were to get a study, with evidence that i can study, that proves this theory, i would consider it. there is also a language barrier, i think....

@RealityCheck
the linear thought process that Zeph seems to think is logical does not always appear to be so. at least to me. and it does not match certain things i am reading up on. but lets skip that for a moment.
i have asked before (in another thread) for Zeph/Teech2/Franklins to give me some links to empirical data derived from experiments that can be replicated, and therefore can be checked for accuracy. i also asked for statistical data so that i can see his data for myself. i got a link to a website that was 1/2 scientific (Einstein's GR and SR explained) and then it goes into ... ??.
call it what you wish, it resembles a modified techno-jargon filled account of what the aether theory should be, from what i could understand. i could not find any empirical or experimental data nor statistical analysis. but i got all of the same things posted again to "explain" to me... this is an attempt at "fact by repitition". repitition doesn't help when incomprehensible
analogy isn't proof