• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Quantum Cosmology Inverse Theory

ctamblyn said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...

ctamblyn said:
1. What makes you think it is true, if you don't have evidence or proof?

2. How do you aim to persuade other people that your idea is worth taking seriously, unless you have some form of evidence or proof?

3. How can you or anyone else use your theory to make experimentally testable statements about the world?
Click to expand...


First question: Why can't you answer the above questions?
Second question: How come you have time submit other posts and not answer the above questions?
 
jaysadie said:
gerdbonk

Okay. You do make a strong case against my arguments. That's what I'm looking for. I do agree that there has to be some rules. The question is what exactly are those rules? Do we not perhaps inhibit creative thinking by applying strict rules? Who exactly determines what these rules should be? Where do we draw the line? Do you not see the dilemma in this approach? I honestly do not see why we should not be permitted to propose ideas, and to allow others to challenge these ideas. I think that this forum would be so much richer and meaningful if we would allow members to propose ideas and for us all to hypothesize and challenge such ideas. Let's refine these ideas. No one person has all the answers. Goodness knows, I don't. I'm just reaching out to those who would like to attempt to make sense of this world we're all living in. We are tiny little specks in an unimaginable space, trying to figure out the truth.
Click to expand...

You can propose ideas as much as you want. And you *are* being challenged.
But if you want your idea to replace a theory as well proven as QM then the burden is on you to prove it works better than the current theory.
Because while as you say, noone has *seen* an electron, the way electrons are predicted to behave according to QM is the basis of all modern electronic equipment AND the chemistry needed to create the materials from which these electronics are made.
And that is only a tiny fraction of the mountain of evidence supporting QM. So, again, show us how your theory explains all these effects and what predictions you make that can be tested. Because if your theory cannot predict and cannot be tested, what actual use is it?
 
Paragraphs. You needs them.

jaysadie said:
No need to worry about ridicule. Please share your thoughts. Words can't harm you.
Click to expand...
So, now you're okay with a little good-natured mocking?

Remember that those who changed the world did not care about what the so-called experts thought. If they did, this forum would not exist. The Internet would not exist.
Click to expand...
Please list these uncaring inventors and explain how they managed it without building on the work of the past.
I'd say electricity had a minor role in the Internet, perhaps this new breed of daring-thinkers simply started again, chucking-out Maxwell, Ampere, Volta, and so on.
Ohm. (Not a mantra.)

<Tesla zZzZkK! snip> You have a choice, either embrace the establishment and go nowhere fast, or think outside the box, and change the world.
Click to expand...
This is a false dilemma.

..wake up to truly collaborate about thoughts and ideas, and to not see these as threats or attempts to undermine science.
Click to expand...
Well, so far, we've been gently challenging you right here and you've seen it as threatening and undermining.

Meh. :con2:

.. e=mc2 .. Einstein .. emerged with his theories at this point in time.
Click to expand...
Einstein built on the work of others, he did not overthrow it, he added and he zoomed-in. (Heh.)

Come on people, let's work together. Not everything in life can be explained by an equation.
Click to expand...
Sure, it can be fun, spinning ideas into stories. Good for sci-fi or fantasy.

For example, once inside the "Inverse", could we not hypothesize a radical new layer? The "Farverse"? And from there the "Evenverse"? And it gets verse and verse!
:)
 
jaysadie said:
gerdbonk

Okay. You do make a strong case against my arguments. That's what I'm looking for. I do agree that there has to be some rules. The question is what exactly are those rules? Do we not perhaps inhibit creative thinking by applying strict rules? Who exactly determines what these rules should be? Where do we draw the line? Do you not see the dilemma in this approach? I honestly do not see why we should not be permitted to propose ideas, and to allow others to challenge these ideas. I think that this forum would be so much richer and meaningful if we would allow members to propose ideas and for us all to hypothesize and challenge such ideas. Let's refine these ideas. No one person has all the answers. Goodness knows, I don't. I'm just reaching out to those who would like to attempt to make sense of this world we're all living in. We are tiny little specks in an unimaginable space, trying to figure out the truth.
Click to expand...
You can propose all the ideas you like, but you can only expect to have them taken seriously if you can show that they have a foundation in reality.

You are building a castle in the air. Some people might admire it, but no-one will want to live in it.
 
marplots said:
If you liked my candor, you are gonna love my condor:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1148&pictureid=9574[/qimg]

He's Amish, and doubtful about your theory.
Click to expand...
Candide the candid condor!!!
 
jaysadie said:
Einstein may be a genius in most people's eyes. I can't help but wonder whether he would be accepted as such in our modern world if he emerged with his theories at this point in time.
Click to expand...
Thats interesting. Here is how I imagine the sequence of events if Einstein emerged onto this forum with his new theory today :

Einstein OP : I have this grand new theory that shows how space and time are completely different to how mainstream science thinks of them... etc... etc...

Forum regulars : Here we go - another crackpot.
Forum regulars : Total nonsense.
Forum regulars : Where is your evidence?
Forum regulars : Please show the mathematics for your theory.

Einstein : OK - here are the mathematics. <many pages of beautiful mathematics follow>

Forum regulars : errrm... actually that looks quite good.
Forum regulars : But its all just waffle - what predictions does your theory make?

Einstein : Well - you know that problem with the observed orbit of mercury - where current theory can't explain it at all? Well my theory predicts that will happen.

Forum regulars : That is a good point I guess. Actually sorry we were so dismissive earlier - this is very interesting stuff.

Einstein : And my theory predicts the precession of perihelion for Mercury will have exactly value x - which is close to what has been observed. But lets measure it more carefully - if the actual value is very different then my theory is wrong.

Astronomers : We measured it carefully - and checked twice - we see almost exactly the value he predicted.

Entire world : Holy crap!

Einstein : But maybe that one observation was a fluke - my theory also makes exact predictions about the deflection of light by the Sun and the gravitational redshift of light - can you check those out also?

Forum regulars : But if one of those predictions proves false aren't you just going to tweak the theory to fit that any carry on claiming its true?

Einstein : "The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible." (actual quote from him in 1919)

Astronomers : Every one of the predictions has matched perfectly with observation.

Forum regulars : OK - this theory is better than the old one. Trouble is now we are going to spend the rest of our lives arguing with crackpots on the internet who think they have disproved it because of a few paragraphs of waffle. I guess someone has to do it...

Scientific community : Fine - we have to take this theory seriously - but aren't going to accept it easily - we are going to spend decades trying to find a way to prove it wrong. We will tear it apart in every way we can think of to try to break it.

Scientific community <decades later> : We couldn't find any problems. We did thousands of experiments and all of them confirmed the theory is correct. We tore apart the mathematics trying to find a contradiction - and failed. Now we accept that this theory is the best current description of how reality works.

jaysadie - do you see how the comparison between your approach and Einsteins doesn't hold up?

Actually - I have more sympathy than most here for purely speculative ideas - that aren't fully formed yet and haven't got all the necessary abstractions developed to allow them to be precisely described. Maybe there was someone 100 years before Einstein that had some ideas that were a hint towards his theory - but they sounded like waffle at the time so were ignored - but maybe they helped spark the actual theory.

So I don't dismiss you just because your ideas are vague and not precise - but I would suggest you accept that the target is to follow the scientific method - otherwise there is no chance of progress.

Find a mystery that your ideas could explain, or an observation that your ideas could predict a different value for. Then you might get the interest of a future Einstein who might turn the vague ideas into a real theory.

- Drelda
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
Ball's in your court, jay.
Click to expand...

jaysadie said:
For those who are sitting on the sidelines...[and so on]
Click to expand...

jaysadie said:
gerdbonk

Okay. You do make a strong case against my arguments...[and so on]
Click to expand...

SezMe said:
By this time you can probably chew granite.
Click to expand...

All I can add at this point is that when I said "ball's in your court, jay," seeing him stay at that safe end of the court and dribble his ball in useless circles is not exactly what I had in mind.
 
Last edited:
drelda said:
Thats interesting. Here is how I imagine the sequence of events if Einstein emerged onto this forum with his new theory today :

Einstein OP : I have this grand new theory that shows how space and time are completely different to how mainstream science thinks of them... etc... etc...

Forum regulars : Here we go - another crackpot.
Forum regulars : Total nonsense.
Forum regulars : Where is your evidence?
Forum regulars : Please show the mathematics for your theory.

Einstein : OK - here are the mathematics. <many pages of beautiful mathematics follow>

Forum regulars : errrm... actually that looks quite good.
Forum regulars : But its all just waffle - what predictions does your theory make?

Einstein : Well - you know that problem with the observed orbit of mercury - where current theory can't explain it at all? Well my theory predicts that will happen.

Forum regulars : That is a good point I guess. Actually sorry we were so dismissive earlier - this is very interesting stuff.

Einstein : And my theory predicts the precession of perihelion for Mercury will have exactly value x - which is close to what has been observed. But lets measure it more carefully - if the actual value is very different then my theory is wrong.

Astronomers : We measured it carefully - and checked twice - we see almost exactly the value he predicted.

Entire world : Holy crap!

Einstein : But maybe that one observation was a fluke - my theory also makes exact predictions about the deflection of light by the Sun and the gravitational redshift of light - can you check those out also?

Forum regulars : But if one of those predictions proves false aren't you just going to tweak the theory to fit that any carry on claiming its true?

Einstein : "The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible." (actual quote from him in 1919)

Astronomers : Every one of the predictions has matched perfectly with observation.

Forum regulars : OK - this theory is better than the old one. Trouble is now we are going to spend the rest of our lives arguing with crackpots on the internet who think they have disproved it because of a few paragraphs of waffle. I guess someone has to do it...

Scientific community : Fine - we have to take this theory seriously - but aren't going to accept it easily - we are going to spend decades trying to find a way to prove it wrong. We will tear it apart in every way we can think of to try to break it.

Scientific community <decades later> : We couldn't find any problems. We did thousands of experiments and all of them confirmed the theory is correct. We tore apart the mathematics trying to find a contradiction - and failed. Now we accept that this theory is the best current description of how reality works.

jaysadie - do you see how the comparison between your approach and Einsteins doesn't hold up?

Actually - I have more sympathy than most here for purely speculative ideas - that aren't fully formed yet and haven't got all the necessary abstractions developed to allow them to be precisely described. Maybe there was someone 100 years before Einstein that had some ideas that were a hint towards his theory - but they sounded like waffle at the time so were ignored - but maybe they helped spark the actual theory.

So I don't dismiss you just because your ideas are vague and not precise - but I would suggest you accept that the target is to follow the scientific method - otherwise there is no chance of progress.

Find a mystery that your ideas could explain, or an observation that your ideas could predict a different value for. Then you might get the interest of a future Einstein who might turn the vague ideas into a real theory.

- Drelda
Click to expand...

 
drelda said:
Thats interesting. Here is how I imagine the sequence of events if Einstein emerged onto this forum with his new theory today :

Einstein OP : I have this grand new theory that shows how space and time are completely different to how mainstream science thinks of them... etc... etc...

Forum regulars : Here we go - another crackpot.
Forum regulars : Total nonsense.
Forum regulars : Where is your evidence?
Forum regulars : Please show the mathematics for your theory.

Einstein : OK - here are the mathematics. <many pages of beautiful mathematics follow>

Forum regulars : errrm... actually that looks quite good.
Forum regulars : But its all just waffle - what predictions does your theory make?

Einstein : Well - you know that problem with the observed orbit of mercury - where current theory can't explain it at all? Well my theory predicts that will happen.

Forum regulars : That is a good point I guess. Actually sorry we were so dismissive earlier - this is very interesting stuff.

Einstein : And my theory predicts the precession of perihelion for Mercury will have exactly value x - which is close to what has been observed. But lets measure it more carefully - if the actual value is very different then my theory is wrong.

Astronomers : We measured it carefully - and checked twice - we see almost exactly the value he predicted.

Entire world : Holy crap!

Einstein : But maybe that one observation was a fluke - my theory also makes exact predictions about the deflection of light by the Sun and the gravitational redshift of light - can you check those out also?

Forum regulars : But if one of those predictions proves false aren't you just going to tweak the theory to fit that any carry on claiming its true?

Einstein : "The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible." (actual quote from him in 1919)

Astronomers : Every one of the predictions has matched perfectly with observation.

Forum regulars : OK - this theory is better than the old one. Trouble is now we are going to spend the rest of our lives arguing with crackpots on the internet who think they have disproved it because of a few paragraphs of waffle. I guess someone has to do it...

Scientific community : Fine - we have to take this theory seriously - but aren't going to accept it easily - we are going to spend decades trying to find a way to prove it wrong. We will tear it apart in every way we can think of to try to break it.

Scientific community <decades later> : We couldn't find any problems. We did thousands of experiments and all of them confirmed the theory is correct. We tore apart the mathematics trying to find a contradiction - and failed. Now we accept that this theory is the best current description of how reality works.

jaysadie - do you see how the comparison between your approach and Einsteins doesn't hold up?

Actually - I have more sympathy than most here for purely speculative ideas - that aren't fully formed yet and haven't got all the necessary abstractions developed to allow them to be precisely described. Maybe there was someone 100 years before Einstein that had some ideas that were a hint towards his theory - but they sounded like waffle at the time so were ignored - but maybe they helped spark the actual theory.

So I don't dismiss you just because your ideas are vague and not precise - but I would suggest you accept that the target is to follow the scientific method - otherwise there is no chance of progress.

Find a mystery that your ideas could explain, or an observation that your ideas could predict a different value for. Then you might get the interest of a future Einstein who might turn the vague ideas into a real theory.

- Drelda
Click to expand...

Nicely done Drelda! Great arguments. Okay, I will take your advice and follow the scientific method. I already have a couple of ideas on how to substantiate my ideas. It will take a while though because of all the ideas in this one paper. Will address them one by one. Might take a few days or weeks though. Got to pay the rent. Very little free time at the moment. So, forum regulars, if you don't hear from me don't think that I have lost interest or given up. I will respond as soon as possible.
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
All I can add at this point is that when I said "ball's in your court, jay," seeing him stay at that safe end of the court and dribble his ball in useless circles is not exactly what I had in mind.
Click to expand...

See my post above to Drelda. Not to worry. I will stop dribbling my ball and hit it over the net soon. Stay tuned.
 
jaysadie said:
See my post above to Drelda. Not to worry. I will stop dribbling my ball and hit it over the net soon. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

Good luck to you then.

There have been several people who have shown up here over the years claiming to have this great new theory of the universe and how everyone else has been so very wrong. One of these fellows went on to claim that he ‘could get to Jupiter in less than one hour’.

Anyway, it has always turned out that their great theories were worthless and that the established theories were still the best that are available.
 
jaysadie said:
See my post above to Drelda. Not to worry. I will stop dribbling my ball and hit it over the net soon. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...


jaysadie, some of the reaction you've received is because many new posters before you have made similar first posts and then posted defensively and arrogantly when they were challenged. You seem relatively receptive to the feedback you've received and I find that encouraging and I hope you do come back here rather than leaving and posting your same OP on another site.

The reason scientists defend existing theories is because they work. The computer you're using to post employs existing QM. We are able to rendezvous space probes with comets over many millions of miles because the underlying science works. You're not going to displace theories that work. The low-hanging fruit has already been picked but if you're willing to make the long climb you might be able to add to those theories and expand our knowledge.

ferd
 
drelda said:
Thats interesting. Here is how I imagine the sequence of events if Einstein emerged onto this forum with his new theory today :

Einstein OP : I have this grand new theory that shows how space and time are completely different to how mainstream science thinks of them... etc... etc...

Forum regulars : Here we go - another crackpot.
Forum regulars : Total nonsense.
Forum regulars : Where is your evidence?
Forum regulars : Please show the mathematics for your theory.

Einstein : OK - here are the mathematics. <many pages of beautiful mathematics follow>

Forum regulars : errrm... actually that looks quite good.
Forum regulars : But its all just waffle - what predictions does your theory make?

Einstein : Well - you know that problem with the observed orbit of mercury - where current theory can't explain it at all? Well my theory predicts that will happen.

Forum regulars : That is a good point I guess. Actually sorry we were so dismissive earlier - this is very interesting stuff.

Einstein : And my theory predicts the precession of perihelion for Mercury will have exactly value x - which is close to what has been observed. But lets measure it more carefully - if the actual value is very different then my theory is wrong.

Astronomers : We measured it carefully - and checked twice - we see almost exactly the value he predicted.

Entire world : Holy crap!

Einstein : But maybe that one observation was a fluke - my theory also makes exact predictions about the deflection of light by the Sun and the gravitational redshift of light - can you check those out also?

Forum regulars : But if one of those predictions proves false aren't you just going to tweak the theory to fit that any carry on claiming its true?

Einstein : "The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible." (actual quote from him in 1919)

Astronomers : Every one of the predictions has matched perfectly with observation.

Forum regulars : OK - this theory is better than the old one. Trouble is now we are going to spend the rest of our lives arguing with crackpots on the internet who think they have disproved it because of a few paragraphs of waffle. I guess someone has to do it...

Scientific community : Fine - we have to take this theory seriously - but aren't going to accept it easily - we are going to spend decades trying to find a way to prove it wrong. We will tear it apart in every way we can think of to try to break it.

Scientific community <decades later> : We couldn't find any problems. We did thousands of experiments and all of them confirmed the theory is correct. We tore apart the mathematics trying to find a contradiction - and failed. Now we accept that this theory is the best current description of how reality works.

jaysadie - do you see how the comparison between your approach and Einsteins doesn't hold up?

Actually - I have more sympathy than most here for purely speculative ideas - that aren't fully formed yet and haven't got all the necessary abstractions developed to allow them to be precisely described. Maybe there was someone 100 years before Einstein that had some ideas that were a hint towards his theory - but they sounded like waffle at the time so were ignored - but maybe they helped spark the actual theory.

So I don't dismiss you just because your ideas are vague and not precise - but I would suggest you accept that the target is to follow the scientific method - otherwise there is no chance of progress.

Find a mystery that your ideas could explain, or an observation that your ideas could predict a different value for. Then you might get the interest of a future Einstein who might turn the vague ideas into a real theory.

- Drelda
Click to expand...

You were very kind to go to this length to help explain things well. I hope it is paid attention to . I have tried same (in less detail priorly) to help others this way. Sadly, no effect in those cases.
 
Crossbow said:
Good luck to you then.

There have been several people who have shown up here over the years claiming to have this great new theory of the universe and how everyone else has been so very wrong. One of these fellows went on to claim that he ‘could get to Jupiter in less than one hour’.

Anyway, it has always turned out that their great theories were worthless and that the established theories were still the best that are available.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the good wishes and comments. :)
 
ferd burfle said:
jaysadie, some of the reaction you've received is because many new posters before you have made similar first posts and then posted defensively and arrogantly when they were challenged. You seem relatively receptive to the feedback you've received and I find that encouraging and I hope you do come back here rather than leaving and posting your same OP on another site.

The reason scientists defend existing theories is because they work. The computer you're using to post employs existing QM. We are able to rendezvous space probes with comets over many millions of miles because the underlying science works. You're not going to displace theories that work. The low-hanging fruit has already been picked but if you're willing to make the long climb you might be able to add to those theories and expand our knowledge.

ferd
Click to expand...

ferd
I appreciate your encouragement and will most certainly pay attention to your suggestions. Everyone has probably noticed that I'm not looking for a fight. I truly want to engage in constructive criticism. Will try my best to fit in. :)
 
fuelair said:
You were very kind to go to this length to help explain things well. I hope it is paid attention to . I have tried same (in less detail priorly) to help others this way. Sadly, no effect in those cases.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I do appreciate the effort Drelda went to. I'm sure it won 't be taken for granted. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom