Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?

Erik Max Francis wrote:
Tue Sorensen wrote:

Relativity, while a
great theory, is increasingly having problems, and something must be
done to untie its knots, at a level that may be so fundamental that a
number of mathematical conventions and assumptions will have to be
revised.

How so? Why do you think it's a great theory?

It explains *a lot*. Which for a long time there haven't been any
better alternatives to.

What do you think is
evidence that it needs to be revised? What mathematical conventions
need to be changed, given that you don't know mathematics?

:-) Yes, it's preposterous that I am conceited enough to have any
opinion, isn't it? Well, you're probably too lazy to read this, but,
you asked... ;-)

Most of what math describes can also be explained (if not as exactly,
but well enough for it to be basically understood) in words. Although
this is not in fact done to a very great degree, sadly. But logic is
logic, regardless of which language it is expressed in. My
understanding of science and the forces of nature comes, mainly, from
popular science (which has a much greater potential for explaining
things than is realized, in both meanings of the term). This is not an
isolated understanding, but one which has been continuously tweaked
through many years of interaction with authors, scientists and friends
who know more math than I do. I admit I am a complete amateur,
self-taught and all that. I don't presume to be a scientist, as we
currently understand the term. But I dare say I have a certain
understanding of things, and an ability to look at it from a fresh
angle, unhampered by the internalized dogmas of those open-minded but
often uncritical students who have been indoctrinated in certain ways
of thinking.

I had long believed that, if everything comes from a single force, like
the GUT/TOE researchers and proponents say, then all we really have to
do is successfully describe that single force, and then its properties
will turn out to result in all the forces and particles that we see in
the universe. But no one seems to try to describe that force. They try
to arrive at it mathematically by "back-tracking"; by having an
immensely complex description of the almost infinite differentiations
of the original force, instead of trying to *start* with that force and
then revise its description until it can result in everything else. So
that's what I did. It can be done using simple common sense.

The major thing that allows me to have a valid theory (although few
others can recognize it as such at this point) is the criterion of
simplicity. Nature is great that way, the simplest answer is usually
the correct one. A world view with a single force is extremely simple,
hardly needing math. The universe starts out very simply, and then
becomes more complex, and then eventually (according to the theory)
re-approaches and regains that state of simplicity. Complexities like
life are random side-effects.

But of course my theory is controversial, as it claims a number of
different properties of matter and energy (not to mention time, space
and gravity) than the ones we presently adhere to. But many of the
differences are really quite minor; the really revolutionary thing is
about how we interpret and understand the forces and their
interactions.

Take the matter-energy equivalence, for instance. I am not disputing
that E = mc2, but the simplistic interpretation of that formula has
caused us - laymen and scientists alike - to look at matter and energy
in ways that block further understanding. Matter and energy are the two
fundamental *polar opposites* of the universe. Though matter can be
translated to energy (and probably vice versa) both in calculations and
in fact, this does not mean that matter and energy are *the same*. On
the contrary, all understanding of the universe hinges on understanding
their crucial differences; their all-important different properties,
and how they interact.

Relativity, for instance, claims that light has gravity. Not much, but
some. Relativity uses the matter-energy equivalence to justify this,
though it has never been measured. That's one place where relativity is
wrong (tieing itself into a knot). Light does not have gravity; gravity
is a property of matter. A photon uses all its energy staying at the
speed of light; there is nothing left to generate gravity. And in any
case, gravity is not a superpositional phenomenon, it is tied, like
matter, to normal dimensional space.

Another knot in relativity is the space-time equivalence. Though it
works great in the calculations, it follows from the nature of the
original single forces that space and time are not the same (rather,
space and gravity are). Time and space do have some concomitant
properties, but time existed before space, and is more fundamental
because it relates to the original single force.

Of course, at this point I can't prove any (nor convince anybody) of
this; it's just part of a theory which needs a lot of further
refinement and description. But to my understanding, it is a better
theory than what we already have. Yes, there is a lot of science (esp.
the math-based) that I don't know, but my theory is very "big picture";
it starts out with the big, simple concepts, and, I believe, fully has
the capacity to go into as great, and greater, detail as the currently
established models, once it is refined by qualified mathematicians.
Personally, I just can't go there; others will have to carry out the
refinements. I just know the big picture. Which, being fundamental, is
primary, comprising first principles from which everything else will be
differentiated. "The rest are details."

- Tue

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Zero Geodesic Deviation
    ... we see as changes in motion due to what we call gravity. ... >It would violate the law of conservation of energy. ... matter expanding be a problem? ... rather than from principles ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the Sun mostly dark matter ?
    ... As the matter moves in response to the ... energy is converted between the two. ... to accelerate outer stars faster'- or words to that effect. ... galaxies do not agree with our theory of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Query about Range of validity of field equations in Quantum Field Theory
    ... "Quantum Gravity is an oxymoron" ... with matter and energy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the Sun mostly dark matter ?
    ... As the matter moves in response to the ... energy is converted between the two. ... to accelerate outer stars faster'- or words to that effect. ... galaxies do not agree with our theory of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... >> understanding of the rest of physics. ... The gravitational force acts on energy. ... First gravity is not a force - it is space-time curvature. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)