The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

[fuelair]

A"suspicious game" would be if you are pretending to have a degree in physics that you don't. Maybe your degree is in psychics.

More likely in Physick: http://www.mayflowerfamilies.com/enquirer/a_physick_guide.htm

esp. in reference to general sickness.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Excuse me.

This is exactly my point. One says one thing, the others follow like sheep. Marcus, i don't have a degree. If you pass any of my posts, i have never declared having a degree. A degree is something you earn from university, not from a Higher National Diploma from a college. That is different altogether. You see, this is what annoys me. You all get on your high-horses, and then you **** it up completely. If any of you had two brains cells to rub together in unicon, you'd guys would probably be dangerous.

You get more comprehensible when you're angry and not trying to establish your own physics.

 

[Marcus]

Oh they are being refuted, whether or not they know better on the subject than i do, something i would never normally boast on, but i hate it when amatures who have not experienced a higher level of education in physics to refute my claims with the highest impunity resorts me to see little good in their actions.

I have reviewed your posts, you do spend a lot of energy telling everyone else how stupid they are, but I don't see a post where you are claiming to have an actual physics degree so I withdraw that part.

 

[Paul]

Excuse me.

This is exactly my point. One says one thing, the others follow like sheep. Marcus, i don't have a degree. If you pass any of my posts, i have never declared having a degree. A degree is something you earn from university, not from a Higher National Diploma from a college. That is different altogether. You see, this is what annoys me. You all get on your high-horses, and then you **** it up completely. If any of you had two brains cells to rub together in unicon, you'd guys would probably be dangerous.

Have you considered that when you attempt to enrol at a university to "become a certaified Doctor in astrophysical and exobiological sciences" it might not be sensible to insult everyone who tries to educate you?

It might also be useful to lay of the "booze, hash and valium"


To clarify the speculation about Singularitarian's origins, according to his profile at The Student Room, he claims to be 24 years old, originally from Australia and now studying in Scotland. The spelling and confusing sentence construction seem to be a constant.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is exactly my point. One says one thing, the others follow like sheep. Marcus, i don't have a degree. If you pass any of my posts, i have never declared having a degree. A degree is something you earn from university, not from a Higher National Diploma from a college. That is different altogether. You see, this is what annoys me. You all get on your high-horses, and then you **** it up completely. If any of you had two brains cells to rub together in unicon, you'd guys would probably be dangerous.

The distinction you draw between a degree and a diploma (which you did claim to have) does not exist within the US. Feel free to correct Marcus on the particulars of whatever educational system you were trained in, but the fact remains that you've waived your qualifications around like they meant something, all the while making a fool out of yourself.

 

[Gaspode]

Back on topic please. Discuss the subject of the thread, not other members.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[ben m]

My Professor would never presume he knows more than his students, for he says he is one who is continually learning. I agree with him, and take as much the same stance.

Let's get started with the "continually learning", then.

Let's start with redshift and the CMB. Can you read about, then explain back to us in a paragraph, the mainstream picture of where the CMB comes from and why its spectrum is that of a blackbody?

ETA: "Mainstream" as used here is unambiguous. There is one and only one consistent account you'll find in textbooks and academic research. You can find various conflicting stories if you Google hard enough, and if you subscribe to one of them we can discuss that later. Start with the consistent one.

 

[Olowkow]

You're not ashamed to admit that.

The topic of this thread, created by you, is "The Most Foolish Theory in Physics". The first sentence of the first post is "I am absolutely sure that (even with the alternative theories flying around) that big bang is one of the most erreneous theories ever created."

And now, after 328 posts, you tell us you haven't studied the single most basic aspect of the big bang, and you aren't ashamed to admit it. You don't feel any shame in announcing that a theory you admit you know nothing about, a theory which has survived 90 years of rigorous testing by thousands of pretty smart and thorough scientists, is "foolish" and "erreneous" [sic].

Any normal person would be very ashamed in a situation like this. If you're not, you're a sociopath.

This really sums up the whole thread for me. The fact that the OP is unaware of Hubble, or any implications of his earth shattering discovery relating red shift to cosmological distances is just stunning.

Singularitarian:My Professor would never presume he knows more than his students, for he says he is one who is continually learning. I agree with him, and take as much the same stance.

I never heard that one before. I prefer my profs to know more than I do.

 

[Singularitarian]

Let's get started with the "continually learning", then.

Let's start with redshift and the CMB. Can you read about, then explain back to us in a paragraph, the mainstream picture of where the CMB comes from and why its spectrum is that of a blackbody?

ETA: "Mainstream" as used here is unambiguous. There is one and only one consistent account you'll find in textbooks and academic research. You can find various conflicting stories if you Google hard enough, and if you subscribe to one of them we can discuss that later. Start with the consistent one.

How may i ask, did you find out what would be a learning or not? You don't know what i know, just as much as i about you.

Likewise, i can't help you are being somewhat... patronizing within the questions. I have already explained that i understand scientifically what the CMB is. It is a network of background temperatures obeying Plancks Thermodynamical Laws. Oncemore, the accelerated expansion of spacetime during the inflationary phase appeared to have made this background soup of gamma energy homogeneous, and diluted over a period of time, whilst the total energy contained hasn't truely changed, give or take a few tens due to the appearance of energy from the ZPF; in fact, virtual particles arising from the ZPF violate the conservation laws all the time, but they can never really be considered real particles, unless they spontaneously appear with a tangibility from the vacuum. The CBM itself comes from the vacuum's zero-point range, or cut-off. In fact, all energy arises from this pool of virtual energy, and in many ways, Dirac was the first to postulate it from a mathematical viewpoint, albeit, a now out-dated concept of the
Dirac Sea. The photons themselves appeared from the vacuum in standards of cosmological time, very late in the game. There are however models which deal with answering how matter can be comprised itself of photon energy, which would have massive implication for a final theory of everything.

 

[Reality Check]

How may i ask, did you find out what would be a learning or not? You don't know what i know, just as much as i about you.

Likewise, i can't help you are being somewhat... patronizing within the questions. I have already explained that i understand scientifically what the CMB is. It is a network of background temperatures obeying Plancks Thermodynamical Laws. Oncemore, the accelerated expansion of spacetime during the inflationary phase appeared to have made this background soup of gamma energy homogeneous, and diluted over a period of time, whilst the total energy contained hasn't truely changed, give or take a few tens due to the appearance of energy from the ZPF; in fact, virtual particles arising from the ZPF violate the conservation laws all the time, but they can never really be considered real particles, unless they spontaneously appear with a tangibility from the vacuum. The CBM itself comes from the vacuum's zero-point range, or cut-off. In fact, all energy arises from this pool of virtual energy, and in many ways, Dirac was the first to postulate it from a mathematical viewpoint, albeit, a now out-dated concept of the
Dirac Sea. The photons themselves appeared from the vacuum in standards of cosmological time, very late in the game. There are however models which deal with answering how matter can be comprised itself of photon energy, which would have massive implication for a final theory of everything.

Cosmic microwave background radiation

All this post shows is that you do not "understand scientifically" what the CMB is. It has nothing at all to do with ZPF or virtual particles or Dirac or "gamma energy".
The CMB comes from the photons in the early hot universe. This is quite simple science.

 

[ben m]

You don't know what i know, just as much as i about you.

Likewise, i can't help you are being somewhat... patronizing within the questions. I have already explained that i understand scientifically what the CMB is.

You *say* you understand, but both wrong and right people tend to say that. Let's see:

It is a network of background temperatures obeying Plancks Thermodynamical Laws. Oncemore, the accelerated expansion of spacetime during the inflationary phase appeared to have made this background soup of gamma energy homogeneous, and diluted over a period of time, whilst the total energy contained hasn't truely changed, give or take a few tens due to the appearance of energy from the ZPF; in fact, virtual particles arising from the ZPF violate the conservation laws all the time, but they can never really be considered real particles, unless they spontaneously appear with a tangibility from the vacuum. The CBM itself comes from the vacuum's zero-point range, or cut-off. In fact, all energy arises from this pool of virtual energy, and in many ways, Dirac was the first to postulate it from a mathematical viewpoint, albeit, a now out-dated concept of the
Dirac Sea. The photons themselves appeared from the vacuum in standards of cosmological time, very late in the game. There are however models which deal with answering how matter can be comprised itself of photon energy, which would have massive implication for a final theory of everything.

Sorry, Sing, once again that's completely and utterly wrong. If you wrote this on an exam, you would get an F. Where did you learn this stuff?

Don't take my word for it---as you have said, you don't know my credentials. Check a textbook---an actual textbook, not a Google search summary please.

 

[DazzaD]

Likewise, i can't help you are being somewhat... patronizing within the questions. I have already explained that i understand scientifically what the CMB is. It is a network of background temperatures obeying Plancks Thermodynamical Laws. Oncemore, the accelerated expansion of spacetime during the inflationary phase appeared to have made this background soup of gamma energy homogeneous, and diluted over a period of time, whilst the total energy contained hasn't truely changed, give or take a few tens due to the appearance of energy from the ZPF; in fact, virtual particles arising from the ZPF violate the conservation laws all the time, but they can never really be considered real particles, unless they spontaneously appear with a tangibility from the vacuum. The CBM itself comes from the vacuum's zero-point range, or cut-off. In fact, all energy arises from this pool of virtual energy, and in many ways, Dirac was the first to postulate it from a mathematical viewpoint, albeit, a now out-dated concept of the
Dirac Sea. The photons themselves appeared from the vacuum in standards of cosmological time, very late in the game. There are however models which deal with answering how matter can be comprised itself of photon energy, which would have massive implication for a final theory of everything.

I dont mean to be patronising, I am truly just trying to help you out here:

At GCSE (in the UK) level, around about age 15-16, students are expected to have a rough understanding (i.e. one or two simple sentences really) about the CMB and how it forms part of the 'evidence' for the standard model.

Other posters are correct in that had you written the above, you would not score very highly.

I am not sure if it is a language problem but I have a great deal of experience in teaching people of all ages these topics, and my initial assessment would be that perhaps you dont understand the topic as well as you think you have.

Nothing whatsoever wrong with that and it is easily fixed, but perhaps if you would be willing to have a couple of minutes just re-wording and tidying up your above statement others would be more willing to spend the time to engage you in discussion about your chosen topic.

I often have students who are fascinated by topics such as this, but it is pointless getting into deep discussions about 'alternative theories' until they understand the original theory quite well.

I like to debate people who believe in the Flat Earth, Creationism, We Didnt Land on the Moon and such like but before I do I try to read up as much as I can about their 'beliefs' so that I 'understand' where they are coming from. I always ask my students the same courtesy.

I love it when they question the 'existing' thinking, that is what I want them to do all day, every day. But in order to question that thinking you need to understand where and why that thinking came about in the first place. Invariably once they have that clear in their head they realise that their initial question either has been answered, or cannot be answered.

I think that is all people are after Sing. They worry that you are jumping the gun and perhaps delving into something you find interesting yet are missing WHY the existing standard model does such an outstanding job of explaining what we see around us. After all, if it didnt, it wouldnt be a standard model.

It is a little known fact outside of science that ground breaking "whaaayeeyyy your theory is wrong" type breakthroughs just dont happen like the media like to think. Real science is often grounded in little but important changes, gradual reshaping of ideas, built upon an incredible amount of evidence and hard work. It simply isnt fair to come up and claim to know better without knowing one iota of what is involved in the standard model.

This isnt me having a go at you, I am not attacking you, I am trying to mediate and help you see what is frustrating some of the regulars on here.

I did ask a very polite question a couple of times. Do you have direct quotes from a reputable source which shows that the ZPF violates Conservation of Energy?

 

[Raze]

[...]





Dude, that's cool. But could you at least solve the physics problem I gave you? Shouldn't take you more than 20 minutes if you have a degree in physics, I would imagine. I'll repost it for you, for convenience.

Consider a system consisting of two different masses, m₁ and m₂, connected by three springs of different spring constants k₁, k₀ and k₂.

|----k₁-----m₁----k₀----m₂----k₂----|​

The masses can slide on a horizontal, frictionless surface. The springs are at their unstretched/compressed lengths when the masses are in their equilibrium positions. At t = 0, the masses are displaced form their equilibrium positions by distances x₁₀ and x₂₀ and released from rest.



(a) Find the equations of motion for each mass using the Euler–Lagrange equation.

(b) Using Similarity Transformation find the Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors.

(c) Find the time dependent position and speed of the masses

(d) Determine the Propagator Matrix.

(e) Describe the Normal Modes of Vibration.

​

Excuse me.

This is exactly my point. One says one thing, the others follow like sheep. Marcus, i don't have a degree. If you pass any of my posts, i have never declared having a degree. A degree is something you earn from university, not from a Higher National Diploma from a college. That is different altogether. You see, this is what annoys me. You all get on your high-horses, and then you **** it up completely. If any of you had two brains cells to rub together in unicon, you'd guys would probably be dangerous.

If you can't solve a second year physics problem, then I wonder if your "Diploma" is worth what you paid for it.

Bottom line is you are being rather rude to people. I, for one, do not feel that you have the right to unless you can demonstrate REAL knowledge of physics (in all it's mathematical glory).

 

[Singularitarian]

No, i've let you all ponder, wonder, but without much effort from my side. I've let you all pillage what you can from this thread.

Essentially, i've not agreed to any terms here. If i had, i certainly would be obliged to ''jump'', when you say so; but until then, i will not satisfy this curiosity which has plagued many minds here, thankfully, not mine.

 

[Singularitarian]

In other words, i am not here to satisfy the needs of ''proving something.''

I came here, posting essays, some which have been heavily debated upon. I am sorry to conclude, i am here for no more than that.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

In other words, i am not here to satisfy the needs of ''proving something.''

But you were, and denying it won't matter. You were irretrievably wrong, but insisted you were not, and obnoxiously taunted others when corrected. Certainly you were trying to prove something: that you're smarter than others and have more knowledge than anyone. This very thread is the best example of it; an attempt to prove a strongly supported theory "foolish".

I came here, posting essays, some which have been heavily debated upon. I am sorry to conclude, i am here for no more than that.

Good luck with your endeavors. I daresay you have convinced nobody but yourself that you know what you're talking about, and that you've earned a reputation for rudeness and inaccuracy.

 

[Singularitarian]

I fear you are right.

But maybe those who lurk in the shadows, knows what i say has been but truth, apart from the times i was truely wrong.

 

[Paul]

But maybe those who lurk in the shadows, knows what i say has been but truth

Nope, I've been "lurking in the shadows" and all you've demonstrated to me is an unjustified belief in your own abilities and a resistance to education; this does not bode well for someone who wishes to become a "certaified Doctor in astrophysical and exobiological sciences".

apart from the times i was truely wrong

Which has been pretty much all of the time.


Now to the physics, do you have an answer for Raze, or a response to the scientific points raised by others?

 

[Singularitarian]

In the future sir, so we can be clear about our differences, will you speak up and show me where i am wrong.

I am dealing with people who didn't know about the absolute sqaure of the wave function, an amplitude process, taught to (I thought) every second grader. I am dealing with people who are telling me [latex]E=\pm Mc^2[/latex] is wrong, yet negative virtual energy can only be described by a negative solution. I had someone mistake this with the charge i beleive, thinking that positive observables are associated with such a solution in the Hamiltonian. After countless posts suggesting he was wrong, not alone proving him wrong, i have yet to receive an apology under his cloak of ignorance. I've even dealt with people trying to tell me that the photon experiences a time because of a frequency related to time, but have not obviously studied the math long enough to realize that no time passes for a photon, it can't, a strict mathematical certainty, but they still persisted.

So yeh, please speak up in the future, instead of this reduntant patter that holds to nothing.

 

[Paul]

In the future sir, so we can be clear about our differences, will you speak up and show me where i am wrong...

So you don't have any answers?