dennislmay

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/mundane-explanations-neutrinos/ Among the most recent ideas is a paper invoking Einstein’s supposedly challenged theory of relativity. The OPERA team used GPS satellites to accurately measure the 730-km distance between their detector and the CERN beam where the neutrinos were produced. Yet, according to special relativity, calculations will be slightly different when two observers are moving relative to one another. Since the satellites were zipping around the Earth, the positions of the neutrino source and the detector changed. According to the paper, the movement would account for a 64 nanoseconds discrepancy, nearly exactly what the OPERA team observes. http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685 Michelson and Morley showed that an interference pattern is reference-frame independent. However, the distance between a particle's production and detection site is reference-frame dependent due to Lorentz contraction and detector movement. For the OPERA experiment detector movement in the satellite reference frame leads to corrections which can account for most of the $\pm 60$ ns discrepancy between expected and observed time of flight. ______ J.S. Bell once posed a Special Relativity puzzler to this colleagues at CERN. Virtually all of them got the wrong answer. Dennis May

You have in fact made a statement which picks a quantum mechanical interpretation [not the facts, mathematics or necessity]. What is known as the de Broglie-Bohm view gives the same results as conventional mechanics. In 2001 & 2005 G.S. Duane proved that classical mechanics can in fact work as the foundation for the Bell Inequalities as long as supraluminal signaling is allowed - also in accordance with what J.S. Bell wrote. It is true that particular classical models in the distant past did not work - however a blanket statement that classical physics cannot explain quantum phenomenon has been known to be suspect for a very long time [59 years - Bohm] and proven to be untrue for 49 years - Bell. The work of Duane is further proof with a natural mechanism [10 years]. The foundation is there - the details need more work. Dennis May

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-supernovae-universe-expansion-understood-dark.html "While the concept of light’s least-time path seems to be capable of explaining the supernovae data in agreement with the rest of our observations of the universe, Annila notes that it would be even more appealing if this one theoretical concept could solve a few problems at the same time. And it may – Annila shows that, when gravitational lensing is analyzed with this concept, it does not require dark matter to explain the results. Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts that massive objects, such as galaxies, cause light to bend due to the way their gravity distorts spacetime, and scientists have observed that this is exactly what happens. The problem is that the deflection seems to be larger than what all of the known (luminous) matter can account for, prompting researchers to investigate the possibility of dark (nonluminous) matter. However, when Annila used Maupertuis’ principle of least action to analyze how much a galaxy of a certain mass should deflect passing light, he calculated the total deflection to be about five times larger than the value given by general relativity. In other words, the observed deflections require less mass than previously thought, and it can be entirely accounted for by the known matter in galaxies." Dennis May

The gears shown are not what real gears even look like. I've seen the same locked gear mistake before - once on an engineering letter head and once on a website. Several years ago there was some Microsoft graphic for inserting into letterheads that had something similar to what this gearing arrangement looks like. A simple google search on "gears logo" shows many similar looking graphics being used by many groups. Not innovative in their logo besides the other issues. The mistake made it on Fox News yeserday. Dennis

Clumpiness of Distant Universe Surprises Astronomers http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/clumpy-universe/ or tinyurl version: http://tinyurl.com/4x5htat General Relatvity fails on the scale of spiral galaxies and now it is seen to fail on the largest scales yet observed. Adding more and more fixes like Dark Matter didn't work on the scale of spiral galaxies and now the fix of Dark Energy can't fix these larger scale observations. A new model of gravity is needed. An indefinitely old universe has no problem with clumpiness on large scales. Dennis

This link does not work for me. Ba'al Chatzaf http://tinyurl.com/3gaut4z It didn't work for me either. Here is a tinyurl version instead. Dennis Another link about the subject: http://tinyurl.com/3px5jfr Dennis

This link does not work for me. Ba'al Chatzaf http://tinyurl.com/3gaut4z It didn't work for me either. Here is a tinyurl version instead. Dennis

Another link on the original topic: http://physicsworld....icle/news/46193 Has some graphics similar to those associated with de Broglie-Bohm mechanics. Dennis

Another link on the original topic: http://physicsworld....icle/news/46193 Has some graphics similar to those associated with de Broglie-Bohm mechanics. Dennis

Another link on the original topic: http://physicsworld....icle/news/46193 Has some graphics similar to those associated with de Broglie-Bohm mechanics. Dennis

Quantum Physics First: Physicists Measure Without Distorting http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110602143159.htm "Our measured trajectories are consistent, as Wiseman had predicted, with the realistic but unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics of such influential thinkers as David Bohm and Louis de Broglie," said Steinberg." Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170 Abstract A consequence of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle is that one may not discuss the path or “trajectory” that a quantum particle takes, because any measurement of position irrevocably disturbs the momentum, and vice versa. Using weak measurements, however, it is possible to operationally define a set of trajectories for an ensemble of quantum particles. We sent single photons emitted by a quantum dot through a double-slit interferometer and reconstructed these trajectories by performing a weak measurement of the photon momentum, postselected according to the result of a strong measurement of photon position in a series of planes. The results provide an observationally grounded description of the propagation of subensembles of quantum particles in a two-slit interferometer.

Where is the math? Either that or a reference to a mathematical article in a refereed journal. A contradiction is a proposition of the form P & -P. Where is it. Or are you saying there is an experimental refutation of GTR? If so give a reference to a refereed journal so we can see the claim and evaluate it. I am no long interested in doubts. I want to see -results-. Hard mathematical and/or quantitative results. Ba'al Chatzaf I have contacted Dr. McGaugh for his recommended sources for futher reading. Dennis May Professor Stacy McGaugh replied the same day: “…the formation of dark matter halos is well studied in numerical simulations, so that aspect of the statistical mechanics, as you put it, are well trodden in the literature. e.g., Navarro, J.~F., et al. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 349, 1039 -http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.349.1039N There are many many more references on various apects of this. The standard cosmology predicts that dark matter halos should have a so-called NFW form. The density profile can be approximated crudely as rho_darkmatter® = rho_i/[r(1+r/r_s)^2] This has nothing to do with the luminous matter. There, a crude approximation is the so-called exponential disk S® = S0*exp(-r/Rd) Here S refers to surface mass density while rho is volume mass density.” “One can compute the rotation curves on expects for these mass distributions with the help of the Poisson equation. To make a long story short, an exponential disk embedded in an NFW halo predicts a rotation curve that does not look like those that are observed.” “What MOND does is tweak the Poisson eqn so that the rotation curve predicted by the luminous component alone matches those that are observed. That's what I mean about the baryonic tail wagging the dark matter dog. All you need to know is the distribution of the baryons. The much more massive dark matter component is unnecessary for predicting the rotation curve even though it should be dominant dynamically. The baseline prediction of the standard picture (NFW) is clearly inadequate. One can never completely falsify this hypothesis however, as one can always invoke ad hoc mechanisms to adjust the distribution of dark matter during galaxy formation. I think it absurd to imagine that this always ends up looking like MOND,..." Additional information: http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/ My comments: The requirement to use “ad hoc mechanisms to adjust the distribution of dark matter” in order to fit observation whereas predictions using luminous matter alone produce better results - indicates an impossible statistical mechanics situation. Dennis May

Where is the math? Either that or a reference to a mathematical article in a refereed journal. A contradiction is a proposition of the form P & -P. Where is it. Or are you saying there is an experimental refutation of GTR? If so give a reference to a refereed journal so we can see the claim and evaluate it. I am no long interested in doubts. I want to see -results-. Hard mathematical and/or quantitative results. Ba'al Chatzaf I have contacted Dr. McGaugh for his recommended sources for futher reading. Dennis May

Produce the mathematical contradiction in mathematical notation here and now. Or hush up. Ba'al Chatzaf http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-doubts From page 2 of this link: "Instead, McGaugh says, the "baryonic tail wags the dark matter dog." In other words, astronomers can predict just what the galactic rotation curves will be from a given galaxy's stellar distribution. McGaugh makes the claim that if dark matter is dominant, observers shouldn't be able to predict the galactic rotation curves by what they see in normal luminous matter. "Because each dark matter halo should be unique, you should see lots of variation in rotation curves for the same galaxy," he says. "You don't expect the kind of uniformity that we observe in hundreds of galactic rotation curves." Impossible statistical mechanics outcomes based on observation. Dark Matter was an arbitrary fix to save GTR. Its failure to remain internally consistent means there is no longer a fix for GTR. Dennis May

The Big Bang hypothesis predicts the proportions of hydrogen and helium in free space where as Hoyle's theory did not. All physical theories (at this juncture) are partial theories. There is no one theory which correctly describes and predicts both the gravitational interaction and the other three known interactions. Getting one theory to describe everything is one of the Holy Grails of physics. Ba'al Chatzaf Yet there are no first generation red dwarf's to be found to support the idea that the Big Bang has any connection to the proportions of hydrogen and helium. Those ratios are also part of the old arbitrary inflation theory which is no longer the current theory. Yet it is still claimed as supporting the theory - while no longer existing as a current part of the theory. Expansion is inferred from the Red Shift. The further away an object is the greater the Red Shift. You might want to have a look at the Hubble Deep Field images too. Ba'al Chatzaf Expansion may be inferred but it is not the only possible explanation for the Red Shift - see the topic I posted before: Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory A Different Approach to Cosmology. Since inflation can be inferred to be a case of epicycles at best and the statistical mechanics of dark matter are internally contradictory - that leaves General Relativity dead in the water as a valid theory of gravity or space-time on the scale of galaxies and larger. With no valid theory of spatial expansion how can you infer the Red Shit as spatial expansion? This is not to mention the observational fact that the angular size and luminosity of galaxies does not support the expansion model of red-shift. The "stretching" of spacetime is a direct consequence of Einstein's field equations. He fudged his theory because he liked a steady state Cosmos better. In any case even his bad move was a good move because it can account for the observed acceleration in the rate of expansion of spacetime (that fudge factor Einstein added was a tensor corresponding to so called "Dark Energy" (I dislike the term)). So far General Relativity has not been falsified. If it is ever tested in a super dooper strong gravitational field like a black hole I suspect there will be problems for the theory. In the mean time every time my Garmin ™ tells me to turn right in fifty feet it is also telling me that GTR is correct at least in a moderate gravitational field such as surrounds the earth. GTR will remain the gold standard until such time as it is explicitly falsified by an adverse experiment or someone comes up with a better theory that makes every correct prediction made by GTR and predicts something that GTR doesn't which is upheld by experiment. Only adverse facts or a blatant mathematical contradiction can really falsify a theory. Philosophical objections do not matter one little bit. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al Chatzaf The impossible statistical mechanics of dark matter is a matter of physics - not a philosophical objection. It is a blatant mathematical contradiction when dark matter needs to exactly track visible matter densities and distributions in visibly identical spiral galaxies but cannot track visible matter densities in other situations. This failure renders dark matter nothing more than an arbitrary fudge factor and not physics at all. This means General Relativity is a failed theory by observation on the scales relevant to cosmology. It may work on the scale needed for GPS but there are alternative theories that can do that. A replacement is needed and cosmological GTR predictions are without foundation. Dennis May

The Big Bang hypothesis predicts the proportions of hydrogen and helium in free space where as Hoyle's theory did not. All physical theories (at this juncture) are partial theories. There is no one theory which correctly describes and predicts both the gravitational interaction and the other three known interactions. Getting one theory to describe everything is one of the Holy Grails of physics. Ba'al Chatzaf Yet there are no first generation red dwarf's to be found to support the idea that the Big Bang has any connection to the proportions of hydrogen and helium. Those ratios are also part of the old arbitrary inflation theory which is no longer the current theory. Yet it is still claimed as supporting the theory - while no longer existing as a current part of the theory. Expansion is inferred from the Red Shift. The further away an object is the greater the Red Shift. You might want to have a look at the Hubble Deep Field images too. Ba'al Chatzaf Expansion may be inferred but it is not the only possible explanation for the Red Shift - see the topic I posted before: Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory A Different Approach to Cosmology. Since inflation can be inferred to be a case of epicycles at best and the statistical mechanics of dark matter are internally contradictory - that leaves General Relativity dead in the water as a valid theory of gravity or space-time on the scale of galaxies and larger. With no valid theory of spatial expansion how can you infer the Red Shift as spatial expansion? This is not to mention the observational fact that the angular size and luminosity of galaxies does not support the expansion model of red-shift.

The Big Bang hypothesis predicts the proportions of hydrogen and helium in free space where as Hoyle's theory did not. All physical theories (at this juncture) are partial theories. There is no one theory which correctly describes and predicts both the gravitational interaction and the other three known interactions. Getting one theory to describe everything is one of the Holy Grails of physics. Ba'al Chatzaf Yet there are no first generation red dwarf's to be found to support the idea that the Big Bang has any connection to the proportions of hydrogen and helium. Those ratios are also part of the old arbitrary inflation theory which is no longer the current theory. Yet it is still claimed as supporting the theory - while no longer existing as a current part of the theory.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-inflation-summer In the full article the author more or less shows that inflation theory only works when you pick a certain prediction it made one time that no longer applies to the theory which currently exists. Even then it was a curve fitting exercise at best with a number of arbitrary parameters having no basis in physics - epicycles at best. I had heard on alternative cosmology sites before that several Big Bang predictions rely on several different earlier versions of the theory depending on which prediction is being selected. The theory changes fast enough and often enough that the moving target means almost nothing as far as being an actual theory with actual predictions. The temperature of the background radiation is an example of something that was wrong in earlier theories so the theory was altered to fit the observed temperature - then successful prediction was claimed. The same can be said for how far back galaxies should be able to be seen. That is an ever changing number which is always wrong - fully formed old galaxies in larger clusters can be seen no matter how far back you look. The Big Bang is not a real theory - it is a cluster of arbitrary unconnected partial theories having no coherence and no ability to predict anything - based on bad physics held together with ever increasing numbers of arbitrary fixes. It is unraveling at an ever increasing rate. Dennis May

A SETI researcher was on a show the other day discussing how far our signals have reached relative to the size of our galaxy - like a couple inches compared to some hills in the distance. If you move to the scale of the observable universe it is like sampling a single glass of water among all the oceans of the world. If they don't know we are here would they signal? In any case they would have to be sending signals directed at us as strong as the strongest military radar signals ever sent - even then our surveys would only detect nearby signals - again like a few inches compared to distant hills. The chemicals of life are plentiful on Earth - they are trillions of times more plentiful in the rest of our galaxy. Life could have a unique start on Earth or it might have come to a receptive environment. It will require more information to find the probabilities of which is correct. If the meteorite does contain extraterrestial fossils of life then the odds greatly favor an extraterrestial origin.

No. The distances are too vast, the speeds to slow, the Universe not old and metal-rich enough and the hypothesis is unnecessary. Cells are simply dirty oil bubbles and any large body of water with sufficient organic contaminants and some sort of free energy source will spontaneously develop life on a short order. http://www.space.com/11086-ancient-galaxy-cluster-young.html This latest observation of galaxies shows that many generations of short lived stars could have come and gone even 11 billion years ago seeding "metal" allowing plenty of time for evolution 7 billion years before our solar system even formed. The hypothesis may not be necessary but there are more places within reach of geologic time to evolve outside of Earth than on Earth by many orders of magnitude.

Dennis, Would it be safe to assume that there are multiple sources then? And if so, is there a chance the universe is much older than 13.7 billion years? This has always been a fascinating subject, but I'm at the laymen level of understanding. There's a lot of terminology I'm not familiar with. Thanks for the info so far ~ Shane Not multiple sources - no centralized sources of any kind in either the Big Bang theory or in my theory. In the standard Big Bang theory the singularity where physics breaks down is theorized to have occurred 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years ago [NASA 12-04-2010] – a number close to what they have stuck with for a few years now in the latest incarnation. Until recently the numbers ranged from 12-14 billion years but I had seen numbers ranging from 9-20 billion years prior to that. It used to be theorized that no galaxies would be seen out very far – but now old fully formed galaxies are seen as far back as telescopes can see. If you don’t take the Big Bang view but rather invoke known plasma physics there are large-scale observable structures in the universe that must extend out of view and would have taken at least 1 trillion years to form. Since no first generation red-dwarf stars are seen and they have a lifetime much greater than 13.75 billion years – well into the hundreds of billions or a trillion year lifetime – I think it is safe to say observational evidence supports a very old universe. In my theory the age of the universe is indefinitely old into the past and will extend indefinitely into the future – appearing much as it does today. It is also indefinitely large. First Stars in Universe Were Not Alone http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110204130908.htm "Unlike short-lived high-mass stars, low-mass stars may survive for billions of years. "Intriguingly," says Dr. Clark, "some low-mass primordial stars may even have survived to the present day, ..." This research indicates that first generation red dwarf stars should be even more common than previously thought. Though none are found. Dennis May From a post on Physics_Frontier titled: Yet another mature galaxy cluster in the "dawn of time" "Such clusters are expected to be very rare according to current theory, and we have been very lucky to spot one. But if further observations find many more, then this may mean that our understanding of the early universe needs to be revised." http://www.space.com/11086-ancient-galaxy-cluster-young.html The Hubble Deep Field was 1/28,000,000 of the total area of the sky. I would be interested to see how much of the sky they have looked at using this resolution [and observation time] to get "lucky". Dennis May

There are by far more ice bodies than there are Earth-like planets - some contain huge amounts of liquid water and the chemicals needed to allow life to evolve. Several Miller–Urey type experiments have been peformed. It has been found that cold cycles helped to concentrate the needed chemicals. It is also known that clays help keep bioligical materials contained and provide helpful surface attachment and catalytic properties. Even in coldest space ice bodies orbiting large enough bodies will have liquid oceans due to tidal heating. Many bacteria on Earth thrive with no connection to photosyntheis - using chemical energy instead. There is no reason for dismissing space as a possible origin for life on Earth. Transport of materials between the planets is an established fact. Viability of some microorganisms for geologic time is an established fact. It is also a fact that the earliest life forms found on Earth occurred almost immediately after it had cooled from formation. The only real question is if natural seeding from space was part of this process or if the Earth had its own independent origin(s) of life. The question is being researched very seriously. I expect more sample missions of ice bodies and Mars will help as well as more examination of meteorites. The study of extreme environments points towards many kinds of Earth life being able to survive in several other places in our solar system. Even if life is found elsewhere in our solar system that will only move the question to seeding within the solar system or between solar systems. Life may have first evolved locally on Mars, an ice body in our solar system or some body unknown in another solar system or in interstellar space on an ice body. The research is far from over. Dennis May

What empirical data do you have on that? I have no doubt such "dark" bodies could exist, but do they? Are there any orbital perturbations indicating that they exist? Ba'al Chatzaf One such candidate being studied right now: http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/14/tyche-meet-the-mysterious-new-super-planet-said-to-be-in-our-so/ A recent show on The Science Channel on solar system and planetary formation indicated that the latest models of solar system formation includes the ejection of many planets during formation. What is left over in our case is 8 planets, several minor planets, likely some planets in the ice belts not yet detected or being verified and many ejected planets and minor planets wandering between the stars. One astronomer indicated that the majority get ejected [and some exchange positional order] until a stable arrangement is reached. Dennis May

yes, but to generate these tidal forces a body must be in an eccentric orbit around a large planet (like Jupiter or Saturn). The ice objects in the Kuyper Belt or the Oort cloud are not subject to this kind of a gravitational field. Ba'al Chatzaf You are correct in that no such large bodies have been detected yet. Modeling inidcates that there should be many cold dark bodies of sufficient mass in interstellar space for every star seen.

No. The distances are too vast, the speeds to slow, the Universe not old and metal-rich enough and the hypothesis is unnecessary. Cells are simply dirty oil bubbles and any large body of water with sufficient organic contaminants and some sort of free energy source will spontaneously develop life on a short order. The theory may be un-necessary in that life could have evolved on Earth in any case many times over but your reasons for dismissal are all invalid and have been discussed for years. Space materials do migrate and ejecta do leave planetary and other bodies - the question of distances too great has been disproved. The speeds are not too slow - biologically active materials can survive the trip in the times available. There has been plenty of "metal" available and plenty of time for life to have evolved well before our solar system existed. The question of seeding from space doesn't change evolution except to illustrate that life is even heartier than previously believed and likely found in many unexpected places. In so far as Nicole's real killer could have been a talking sponge working as hitman from that Columbian drug cartel . . . The temperature of planetary nebulae surrounding stars which have ejected their outer layers without going supernova is around 10,000 degrees. What temperatures would be involved in explosions powerful enough to obliterate and scatter planets out of the gravity well of their parent star? Material reaching escape velocity from a star like ours would have to be accelerated to 600+ km/second without being heated enough to sterilize it. At that speed it would be travelling at about 1/5,000th light speed. I.e., would take 20,000 years through the hard radiation and coldness of deep space to get from Alpha Centauri to here. But remember that if the sun were the size of a grapefruit in Boston, Alpha Centauri would be the size of another grapefruit. In Denver. This is pure crackpotism. I won't discuss it with you further. It is taken very seriously by many scientists. There are trillions of ice bodies left over during solar system formation and those clouds of bodies bridge the gaps between stars. Our own solar system has material from interstellar space and the latest theory on ice bodies indicates our solar system would have shared ice bodies with other solar systems. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060505192530.htm Your ideas on sterilizing temperatures from ejecta and re-entry has been disproved through modeling, experiment, and testing of known ejecta and re-entry materials [Recent shows on The Science Channel about this]. Some can indeed survive without the centers ever reaching high temperatures. It is known that biological materials can survive tens of millions of years - some evidence indicates hundreds of millions of years. http://sv3.ictp.trieste.it/~chelaf/ss133.html "Estimates for the mass of material that falls on Earth each year range from 37,000-78,000 tons." http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=470 Ejecta from the Moon, Mars, and certain specific asteriods is known to have reached the Earth. Ejecta from the Earth is found on the Moon. Tidal forces can periodically/partially melt the interior of ice bodies so life can indeed survive in the interior of ice-bodies indefinitely. Ice bodies are the most common kind of large objects in space. Dennis May