| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
28 Aug 2005 08:58:26 AM |
| Object: |
Modern Cosmological Epicycles |
Modern Cosmological Epicycles:
1. The Inflation Hypothesis:
This epicycle was invented to explain the observed horizon of the universe
appears to be much larger than the age of the universe allowed.
2. Dark Energy:
This epicycle was invented to explain the observed accelerated expansion of
the far reached regions of the universe.
3. Dark Matter:
This epicycle was invented to explain the observed abnormal rotational
curves of galaxies.
For alternate solutions to these cosmological epicycles please read the
paper entitled "Cosmology Based On Absolute Motion" in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005home.pdf
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Cosmological Epicycles |
28 Aug 2005 01:17:44 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:6qjQe.52242$ja7.1779@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Modern Cosmological Epicycles:
1. The Inflation Hypothesis:
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Ken Seto's Difficulties In
Recognizing His Own Incompetence Lead to his Inflated
Self-Assessments.
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dirkbontes" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Cosmological Epicycles |
28 Aug 2005 03:09:17 PM |
|
|
There is no inflation, nor dark matter, nor dark energy.
The phenomena that are purported to be explained by these fairy-tale
dragons I explain better with "conventional" physics in my own
astronomy book (see my livejournal page for a review).
There is indeed an aether and some aspects of your aether-string theory
make sense, but other aspects of it are incorrect. (I have not read all
of it, just the introduction.)
Anyway, any theory that incorporates general relativity in whatever
form is bound to be incorrect as are any explanations that are based on
such a theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Cosmological Epicycles |
29 Aug 2005 09:59:37 AM |
|
|
"dirkbontes" <d.bontes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125259757.365113.201470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
There is no inflation, nor dark matter, nor dark energy.
The phenomena that are purported to be explained by these fairy-tale
dragons I explain better with "conventional" physics in my own
astronomy book (see my livejournal page for a review).
There is indeed an aether and some aspects of your aether-string theory
make sense, but other aspects of it are incorrect. (I have not read all
of it, just the introduction.)
This is extremely stupid. You read only the introductuion and you can tell
that my theory is incorrect? <shrug>
Ken Seto
Anyway, any theory that incorporates general relativity in whatever
form is bound to be incorrect as are any explanations that are based on
such a theory.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Cosmological Epicycles |
28 Aug 2005 11:51:15 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
1. The Inflation Hypothesis:
This epicycle was invented to explain the observed horizon of the universe
appears to be much larger than the age of the universe allowed.
And there is CMB evidence suggesting that inflation is correct.
2. Dark Energy:
This epicycle was invented to explain the observed accelerated expansion of
the far reached regions of the universe.
Nothing has been "invented" to explain the unknown "dark energy" that
is accelerating the expantion of the universe in recent times. There
is no formula or theory. Just observational measurements of the
expansion rate as a function of time (distance).
3. Dark Matter:
This epicycle was invented to explain the observed abnormal rotational
curves of galaxies.
Nothing has been "invented" to explain the unseen "dark matter" whose
gravitational effects cannot be denied. Several possibilities have
been ruled out.
Scientists Map Dark Matter, Prove Einstein Right
http://www.space.com/news/cosmic_shear_000512.html
Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
.
|
|
|
| User: "Quantum Mirror" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Cosmological Epicycles |
28 Aug 2005 01:41:21 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
1. The Inflation Hypothesis:
This epicycle was invented to explain the observed horizon of the universe
appears to be much larger than the age of the universe allowed.
And there is CMB evidence suggesting that inflation is correct.
<snip>
Funny you should mention this as this from a recent paper from WMAP:
The large-angle (low-l) correlations of the Cosmic Microwave
Background exhibit several statistically significant anomalies compared
to the standard inflationary cosmology. We show that the quadrupole
plane and the three octopole planes are far more aligned than
previously thought (99.9% C.L.).
This observation is in bold contradiction to the predictions of
pre-existing cosmological model, and argues against an inflationary
origin for these fluctuations. In addition, there is strong evidence
(again of greater than 99% confidence) that the microwave background at
these multipoles is correlated with the geometry and direction of
motion of the solar system. The observed signal is most unlikely to be
due to residual contamination of the full-sky microwave background maps
by known Galactic foregrounds."
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0403/0403353.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Cosmological Epicycles |
28 Aug 2005 07:56:20 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Modern Cosmological Epicycles:
1. The Inflation Hypothesis:
This epicycle was invented to explain the observed horizon of the universe
appears to be much larger than the age of the universe allowed.
2. Dark Energy:
This epicycle was invented to explain the observed accelerated expansion of
the far reached regions of the universe.
3. Dark Matter:
This epicycle was invented to explain the observed abnormal rotational
curves of galaxies.
There's an interesting urban myth, which is that the ancient Greeks
ought to have known better right from the get-go than to add epicycles
to their model of the architecture of the heavens. How dare they
persist in using an idea that matched observations to within the
available precision!!!
People invest in worldviews. As long as the investment is returning
a dividend, then it's worth hanging onto it. Compounding epicycles
necessarily became a no-no only after it failed to pay up. Inflation,
dark energy, dark matter, etc., are all hypotheses worth making some
exploratory investments into. No one is in danger of losing the deed to
the family farm over it.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Cosmological Epicycles |
29 Aug 2005 09:56:01 AM |
|
|
"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125276980.338926.180700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Modern Cosmological Epicycles:
1. The Inflation Hypothesis:
This epicycle was invented to explain the observed horizon of the
universe
appears to be much larger than the age of the universe allowed.
2. Dark Energy:
This epicycle was invented to explain the observed accelerated expansion
of
the far reached regions of the universe.
3. Dark Matter:
This epicycle was invented to explain the observed abnormal rotational
curves of galaxies.
There's an interesting urban myth, which is that the ancient Greeks
ought to have known better right from the get-go than to add epicycles
to their model of the architecture of the heavens. How dare they
persist in using an idea that matched observations to within the
available precision!!!
People invest in worldviews. As long as the investment is returning
a dividend, then it's worth hanging onto it. Compounding epicycles
necessarily became a no-no only after it failed to pay up. Inflation,
dark energy, dark matter, etc., are all hypotheses worth making some
exploratory investments into. No one is in danger of losing the deed to
the family farm over it.
Any theory needs more than one epicycle is incomplete and needs modification
or needs an entirely new theory. This new proposed theory should include
existing theories as subsets at certain limits. Model Mechanics describe in
the following link is such a theory.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005home.pdf
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Cosmological Epicycles |
29 Aug 2005 11:02:17 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Any theory needs more than one epicycle is incomplete and needs modification
or needs an entirely new theory. This new proposed theory should include
existing theories as subsets at certain limits. Model Mechanics describe in
the following link is such a theory.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005home.pdf
A theory, by its very nature, represents phantoms. It atempts to
make understandable discrete experiences by proposing a reliable rule
for connecting the dots. By definition we never, ever see what's
between the dots. If we make a measurement in a region not previously
observed, all we do is make a new dot, with more phantoms between it &
the other dots. So a theory never tells anyone with unassailable
certainty that it really knows what's going on between the dots. A
theory is doing its job so long as it makes the world understandable to
the satisfaction of a patron.
The epicyclic cosmos did work to the satisfaction of its patrons,
the Aristotelians. With no precision instruments with which to
demonstrate its shortcomings, why would they be mandated to abandon it?
It was up to them personally to decide how satisfactory their cosmology
was. Even to this day it can, conceivably, be made use of, as long as
you make no demands beyond its powers.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dirkbontes" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Cosmological Epicycles |
29 Aug 2005 12:20:56 AM |
|
|
Mark Martin schreef:
People invest in worldviews. Inflation,
dark energy, dark matter, etc., are all hypotheses worth making some
exploratory investments into.
Not after reading my book. These hypotheses are a zoo of dragons that
do not make sense. I explain the same phenomena by using "conventional"
physics creatively instead of by these dragons. Why invent a dragon if
you don't need to? Merely because they yield the results you desire?
That does not make them right. Scientists gave up too soon on the
aether and conventional physics because they lacked the creativity to
solve the problems they faced and next they started to dream up these
monsters to explain their problems anyway at any cost. Creating and
feeding these dragons is both their vested interest and their crippling
burden. It is better to stand tall!
The Michelson & Morley experiment does not demonstrate that the aether
does not exist, because it is based on a false premiss. Neither is the
hypothesis of general relativity correct, because that also is based on
a false premiss. Anyone who accepts the equivalence principle is not
merely gullible, but a simpleton. Certainly, there are similarities
between gravity and acceleration, but they are not the same, they are
not equivalent. Whenever people interpret new, unfamiliar phenomena by
the same principles as they use to explain earlier, familiar phenomena,
they are acting like simpletons and demonstrate a lack of creativity.
As does a carpenter who nails down everything to attach it to something
else. Sometimes it is better to use glue or whatever instead of nails.
Einstein was a carpenter when he proposed general relativity. One of
the reasons that it was accepted was because Einstein already had a
reputation. If an unknown had proposed it twenty years earlier, he
would have been called unrealistic or half-baked and nobody would have
ever heard about it and him, because it would not have been accepted
for publication.
I do not lack creativity, nor am I as gullible. I have plenty of
creativity, sufficient to supplement what others lack. I am more
perceptive and see where others are blind. I can solve nearly every
problem of conceptual science (i.e. I have the good, viable ideas).
How many of you have read the review that physicist David Salkeld wrote
about my astronomy book "Making sense of astronomy & geology"? (Not in
trade because I could not find a publisher. The review is pasted on my
livejournal page.) Salkeld put his finger on some sore points (but I
stand by my views), but he says: "Although MSAG is not an easy read, it
is pregnant with bold ideas. If even a quarter are correct, Bontes
deserves great credit."
I guarantee that at least 97 percent of those bold ideas are correct.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Cosmological Epicycles |
29 Aug 2005 10:00:12 AM |
|
|
dirkbontes wrote:
Mark Martin schreef:
People invest in worldviews. Inflation,
dark energy, dark matter, etc., are all hypotheses worth making some
exploratory investments into.
Not after reading my book.
Well, I haven't read you book. Send me a free copy and I'll see what
I can about that.
These hypotheses are a zoo of dragons that
do not make sense. I explain the same phenomena by using "conventional"
physics creatively instead of by these dragons. Why invent a dragon if
you don't need to? Merely because they yield the results you desire?
That does not make them right. Scientists gave up too soon on the
aether and conventional physics because they lacked the creativity to
solve the problems they faced and next they started to dream up these
monsters to explain their problems anyway at any cost. Creating and
feeding these dragons is both their vested interest and their crippling
burden. It is better to stand tall!
The "aether", so to speak, has not been abandoned. What is ruled out
is the *classical* aether.
The Michelson & Morley experiment does not demonstrate that the aether
does not exist, because it is based on a false premiss. Neither is the
hypothesis of general relativity correct, because that also is based on
a false premiss. Anyone who accepts the equivalence principle is not
merely gullible, but a simpleton. Certainly, there are similarities
between gravity and acceleration, but they are not the same, they are
not equivalent. Whenever people interpret new, unfamiliar phenomena by
the same principles as they use to explain earlier, familiar phenomena,
they are acting like simpletons and demonstrate a lack of creativity.
As does a carpenter who nails down everything to attach it to something
else. Sometimes it is better to use glue or whatever instead of nails.
Einstein was a carpenter when he proposed general relativity. One of
the reasons that it was accepted was because Einstein already had a
reputation. If an unknown had proposed it twenty years earlier, he
would have been called unrealistic or half-baked and nobody would have
ever heard about it and him, because it would not have been accepted
for publication.
The equivalence principle does NOT say that gravity & acceleration
are objectively the same things mechanically. It asserts that in a
sufficiently abstracted system, there's no way to determine the
difference experimentally. Subsidiary *effects* of both gravity and
acceleration are equal.
I do not lack creativity, nor am I as gullible. I have plenty of
creativity, sufficient to supplement what others lack. I am more
perceptive and see where others are blind. I can solve nearly every
problem of conceptual science (i.e. I have the good, viable ideas).
I'll be the judge of all that, if I ever read your book.
How many of you have read the review that physicist David Salkeld wrote
about my astronomy book "Making sense of astronomy & geology"? (Not in
trade because I could not find a publisher. The review is pasted on my
livejournal page.) Salkeld put his finger on some sore points (but I
stand by my views), but he says: "Although MSAG is not an easy read, it
is pregnant with bold ideas. If even a quarter are correct, Bontes
deserves great credit."
So what if David Salkeld said something flattering about your book?
*I* haven't read it, so I have no way of knowing what I ought to think
of your work. I know what I think of your statements thus far.
I guarantee that at least 97 percent of those bold ideas are correct.
A guarantee inplies recompense in the event that your promise fails.
What do I get if less than 97% of your stuff is empirically vindicated?
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "dirkbontes" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Cosmological Epicycles |
29 Aug 2005 07:08:13 PM |
|
|
Well, I haven't read your book. Send me a free copy and I'll see what
I can about that.
I have researched you a little bit (merely taken a glance at a few of
your other posts). You are educated and knowledgable and express
yourself clearly and logically. You are also curious and open minded.
Thus I see your remark not as a challenge, but as a fair proposition. I
accept.
However, there is a condition: first you read Salkeld's review on my
livejournal page - I use the same nick as here - and next you confirm
that you still want to receive and possibly read the book. (Keep in
mind that although I recognize that Salkeld puts his finger on a couple
of sore spots - that I was well aware of - I have not changed my
opinion on those subjects.)
Email me your address as confirmation and I will send you a free copy.
(I will not send others a free copy, as they probably earn more during
their coffee break than I have earned since the start of 2004.)
Um, since it is a free copy, I will send you the cheapest print (23
euro's), which I believe has a smaller font and such, and consequently
has the same content on approximately 155 pages instead of
approximately 255.
The "aether", so to speak, has not been abandoned. What is ruled out
is the *classical* aether.
Very wisely, as Michelson & Morley demonstrated that the 19th century
idea of the aether was wrong.
So it has not been abandoned. I am curious as to what is going as
regards that subject. I suppose I will research that next year.
The equivalence principle does NOT say that gravity & acceleration
are objectively the same things mechanically.
Ok=E9. (It has been five years since I distracted myself with physics,
so I am a little hazy.)
It asserts that in a sufficiently abstracted system, there's no way to det=
ermine the
difference experimentally.
I see a possibility, but I have not yet made a serious effort to bring
one or both relativity theories down. That is also on my to-do list -
but not immediately.
For starters, though, I do think that I did some serious initial damage
to general relativity in my astronomy book.
Subsidiary *effects* of both gravity and acceleration are equal.
I beg to differ. But the reason for that is in between the lines in my
book and not explicit.
I can solve nearly every
problem of conceptual science (i.e. I have the good, viable ideas).
I'll be the judge of all that, if I ever read your book.
That is up to you. I know that you are curious, though. I am confident
that said curiosity will drive you to read it. I advise you to read it
from front to back as there is some linear coherence between the
chapters.
I also ask you to not read it as a science book, but as a conceptual
science book. I shift paradigms and that is what I am good at - in any
science - and what most scientists usually are not good at. I am able
to provide a new foundation for scientific disciplines, but designing
and building the new structure to be erected on that foundation is
better left to the regular scientists.
So what if David Salkeld said something flattering about your book?
*I* haven't read it, so I have no way of knowing what I ought to think
of your work. I know what I think of your statements thus far.
I can well imagine. My book will change your mind.
I guarantee that at least 97 percent of those bold ideas are correct.
A guarantee implies recompense in the event that your promise fails.
What do I get if less than 97% of your stuff is empirically vindicated?
You mean "will be empirically vindicated". Provided I have a wife when
that time arrives, and provided that she is amenable, you may make love
to her and impregnate her and I will raise the child as my own.
Of course I expect that you will make an extensive list of my stuff and
keep scores - perhaps easiest with pencil in the book itself.
You will also have the added satisfaction of telling people that at
least 3% of my stuff has not been empirically vindicated and of rubbing
my nose in it.
However, if you do think that my book has some value, you will tell
other people about it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
