Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogie
Nereid, thank you for your questions. I recognize that as a moderator you have some responsibility to offer some perspective as a bridge between the mainstream and “against the mainstream”. I have identified my posts as speculation, and have offered them here in order to start and participate in a message board discussion about ideas that are thought to be so far out that credentialed scientists would not have any interest in participating, accept maybe to point out the uselessness and futility of such discussions.
To elaborate on my ideas is one thing. To tie them back to real science is not possible. That is the point of calling them “against the mainstream” speculations, am I right?
I’ll answer your questions from the perspective of discussing speculative, un-provable, non-science. Don’t expect my answers to make sense in the world of reality. If you have a preconceived position that they need to be refuted and dispelled, don’t bother; no one with any sense will be deceived or mislead by my imaginative speculation, I’m sure.
In all due respect, the OP spelled out my view as follows:
I know that doesn’t exactly address the top three specific problems of particle physics, but I explains where I was coming from on my thread.
I have perceived from my reading of various websites and forum threads that quantum mechanics and general relativity are not unified. There is a search for a unifying particle, and I have tried to imagine what such a particle would be like.
One obvious and understandable posture in science is that those who are best informed about research are not interested in lay ideas because if there was a good idea, some educated and credentialed scientist would think of it, and it would be a waste of time to weed through all the hair-brained ideas from fringe characters.
If you understand the EEP as I have described it, you know that I speculate that it has infinitesimal mass and is extremely dense. I describe it as a particle, but it really pulses as it moves at the speed of light, a wave/particle. The pulsing is a characterization of its perpetual energy that is indestructible. It has always existed, has always been in motion, and can interact with like “particles” but never loses its individual identity. Combinations of EEPs resulting from these interactions are the basis of the “particle like” structures that are the building blocks of nucleosynthesis. Gravity (relativistic warping of space) exists below the framework of Newtonian physics, and is expressed by the EEPs that are the building blocks that make up Newtonian level particles. Protons for example produce gravity as a result of the particular combinations of EEP structure within them.
REAL early. In fact, I speculate that the big bang was preceded by a big crunch. The big bang resulted from a big crunch. The characteristic of “ultimate” black holes that become big bangs is dependant on the nature of EEPs. Inside the ultimate black hole, pressure becomes near infinite, and locks the EEPs so tightly at the very core of the UBH that they can’t pulse. There is great energy being repressed by the locking. There is a unique environment within the black whole where highly excited EEPs "negate" the matter that is accumulated and EEPs are released from the matter that is captured by the black hole. As EEPs are released from the accumulated matter, the active EEPs at the edge of the core come under increasing pressure and eventually join the locked core. This process goes on and on until the locked core has expanded in size to a point that the compression of the black hole's own gravity can no longer contain the repressed energy of the locked EEPs, and a big bang occurs.
I concede that the definition you are asking me to give is an example of the disconnect between mainstream and “against the mainstream” threads. If it is a serious question, google it.
My speculation, as mentioned above, is that atomic particles are composed of EEPs (wave/particles that are released from ultimate black holes by big bangs) in various combinations that serve as building blocks of atomic particles. Atomic particles are drawn into ultimate black holes where they are destroyed right down to the EEPs that they are composed of.
This is a never ending process in a greater universe that has always existed, is infinite, is filled infinitely with matter and energy, and where big crunches and big bangs occur here and there, now and then, fueled by the very nature of the unifying elemental energy wave/particles that premeate space.
I call it the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU).
|
In post #2, in this thread, you wrote:
Quote:
|
I know this is speculation about things that can’t be tested or proven yet. I’m just wondering if there are any comments or if there is anything about known physics that says no such wave particle is possible below the quantum particle level. Don’t hold back; rip it apart with good science. No personal attacks please
|
Yet it seems that:
a) (most? all??) the terms in your speculation are not defined (or, being generous, ill-defined)
b) there is little, if anything, to link any part of your speculation to any part of modern physics (including astrophysics and cosmology)
c) specifically, there is no quantification; there are no units, no math, no equations, no estimates, ... not even any handle which anyone might be able to use to even begin with any such
d) and so on.
If my summary is reasonably accurate, then in what way could any BAUT member " rip it [your idea] apart with good science"?
Oh, and regarding:
Quote:
|
I have identified my posts as speculation, and have offered them here in order to start and participate in a message board discussion about ideas that are thought to be so far out that credentialed scientists would not have any interest in participating, accept [I think you meant to write "except"] maybe to point out the uselessness and futility of such discussions.
|
perhaps the BAUT Rules For Posting To This Board are insufficiently clear, especially that relating to this section:
Quote:
13. Alternative Concepts
If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.
People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.
Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.
If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.
|
Or perhaps you'd rather this ATM section's rules were modified, to explicitly state that speculations such as you have stated yours to be should attract " some constructive input"? If so, then please contribute to this thread.
|