Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
...
My first reading of the ATM ideas presented in the OP is that many other ATM ideas are accepted as established^, and many areas of standard physics are rejected. Sometimes this seems explicit; sometimes not.
|
OK, I can see that. I certainly understand that ideas like Le Sage gravity are not how most physicists look at it. However at the same time I would say that it also has some support and is a useful concept. It attempts to go below the surface and give a mechanism for gravity.
Likewise for the other similar things. I am fully aware of the status of these things as seen by establishment physics. |
Here's the challenge then ...
To what extent does asking how a specific set of experimental or observational results are consistent with Le Sage gravity (for example) - and having you agree that there is a clear, big, inconsistency - constitute a demonstration of a failure of the ATM ideas presented in this thread, in the sense of them being a 'theory of everything'?
Put another way, if things which are indeed well and truly ATM are presented as key parts of the ATM idea presented in this thread, isn't it a legitimate challenge to ask for a detailed, quantitative explanation of consistency (of those embedded ATM things)?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Before I can sensibly ask questions about, and make challenges to, the ATM ideas, as presented, I need to understand the extent to which those ATM ideas (as presented) incorporate other ATM ideas (assumed to be established) or reject standard physics.
|
Well this whole standard versus ATM thing is a BAUT forum categorization.
|
That may be so ... however, you chose to come here to present ATM ideas, so you can hardly complain about the rules, can you?
Quote:
|
I just see alternative explanations some of which are more popular (although I don't think we would disagree about which are more popular). In many cases there is no need to reject standard physics to accept an alternative. Le Sage gravity is not a contradiction to GR but an explanation of it.
|
That must surely rank as one of the most extraordinary assertions I've read in this ATM section!
But, since you made it, I can now ask you to show - quantitatively - how Le Sage gravity is consistent with GR.
Quote:
So I guess I have a more fluid way of looking at this. I certainly do not reject all standard physics and cosmology. I do reject the the interpretation of some of it, especially the redshift. But you know that part already. I am not in the camp that argues against GR all the time. I think that it works, but that there may be better ways of looking at the explanation of why it works. It is sometimes important to look at the details because even tiny misconceptions can cause major blockages in progress later on. This is an very important part of what I have to say.
The failure to recognize that matter is the exact same stuff as light has lead physics into mysticism (at least popularized physics) and dead ends.
|
Perhaps you wrote in haste ... I can't put 1 g of light into a wooden container, and carry it around in my pocket (to take one obvious example). Would you please clarify?
Quote:
Quote:
|
The HVT questions (etc), discussed briefly in my previous post, are a good example: if the ATM ideas in the OP assume 'EPR were right' (to put it crudely), and incorporate HVTs; if the ATM ideas in the OP assume the standard interpretations of the hundreds of EPR/HVT experimental tests are all wrong; (and so on), then to me it is critical to examine these things first. Otherwise, for example, I may assume a potent challenge would be to show inconsistency with quantum mechanics (QM), while the ATM ideas actually incorporate an implicit rejection of QM!...
|
Sorry, what is HVT?
I think that there is more I need to answer here but I have to go out now, so will leave it until later in the day.
|
Hidden Variable Theories ... the generalisation of the heart of the EPR challenge to quantum theory, and what the Bell Inequality is all about.
My impression is, as I have already said, that the ATM idea presented in this thread is classical, and implicitly assumes QM is explicable in terms of hidden variables (something to do with standing waves I expect).