New Physics: Debating Einstein, Matter, Time and Space

Categories

Science

My recent posting of Eit Gaastra's speculative work under the title Beyond Einstein's Relativity: Cosmology Dissident Says Big Bang Absurd has drawn quite some comments, which I would like to share. I also believe it might be useful if there were a forum, perhaps in the form of a site such as this one, for making alternative views to current cosmology known and for feeding back comments to the authors. Inventing a different physics is serious business and everyone has their own ideas on how to go about it ... or that they already did and people should just read what they have written. Be that as it may, it seems to me that there might just be a lack of communication between the proponents of various competing views to mainstream physics.

While some may think I am off my rocker, many seem to agree that current physics, from cosmology all the way down to particles, does not have all the answers. Competing views have been "crowded out" of the mainstream journals, and although there are some new journals that accept views that differ from the currently held beliefs, they are not universally read, even among the growing community of dissidents.

Rather than blow my own horn though, I would like to let others talk about this and let you "listen in" on some of the conversations - but let me warn you that this is a long and tedious read. I also believe it can be a fascinating discussion to follow for anyone interested in changing the physics paradigm...

This starts with comments to my previous posting of Eit Gaastra's links and view on cosmology. And please, if you have a comment you would like others to read, you can append it at the end of this post. There is a form provided for that. If you know how to do it, you can also use html for links you may want to include.

- . - . - . - . - . - . -

27.11.2004 - Frank Morgan comments in a rather intense sounding email:

... BUT EINSTEIN DID NOT LIKE THE BIG BANG IMPLICATION OF HIS THEORY EITHER AND Worked in vain FOR 30 YEARS TO TRY AND FIND AN ANSWER, AND KNEW THAT NEW MATH Would BE NEEDED! IGNORANT ego-driven DISSIDENTS TEAR AT Einstein so they can feel superior every time they re-discover the obvious - of course Big Bang is a joke! Not one of the really great scientists ever really swallowed the idea as popularly presented today as part of the Standard Model - and as incredibly dumb - understood  by every would be scientist on the internet!

27.11.2004 - Charles Weber says in a message which I then forwarded to Eit:

I take note that you believe that the cosmic background is cooler when observed in a cluster. Do you have any original references to this phenomenon? You do not mention the possibility that quasars are due to a gravitational lensing of its light by a huge mass WITHIN the quasar. Perhaps you have not seen my proposal along those lines at http://www.geocities.com/isoptera.geo/index.html

27.11.2004 - Caroline H Thompson, in a comment addressed to Eit Gaastra of which I received a copy, says:

You say (in http://www.eitgaastra.nl/print/leeuwardenengels.html) that you have been very interested in physics since 2001, and I gather that you have concentrated on what is wrong with Einstein's theories of relativity and the Big Bang. But his invention of the photon may go down in history as an even worse blunder! All true scientists were against the idea at first, and it only caught on, I think, because the media had promoted Einstein to god-like status after the supposed confirmation of his General Relativity theory by the 1919 eclipse data.

I too think that there are exciting things yet to be discovered, but they are mainly in the area currently dominated by quantum theory. I have been studying this (mainly optics) since 1993, and consider most of the claims of confirmation to be worthless. In quantum optics, there is nothing that cannot be modelled much more satisfactorily using a purely wave model of light and ordinary classical methods.

Perhaps if you have a spare moment you could look at my web site? I think you might be interested in what I have to say in the section http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/History/forgotten.htm. You might also like to read about my own TOE: "The Phi-Wave Aether: a Wave Theory of Everything", (in PDF to download) or html version: http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Essays/PWA.Apeiron.htm

27.11.2004 - Ove Tedenstig from Sweden comments directly on the site, after reading the previous post with Eit Gaastra's article:

To understand things in the large (Cosmology) you must firstly understand things in the small. That is not the case in today's official physical theories. Much is described in a proper way but not understood. For that reason I have concentrated myself on the task of understanding fundamental processes of matter on very low level, such as the qutantum atom, the electromagnetism, the gravitation, upcome and existence of elementary particles, the basic nature of light. Starting in this way I think Cosmologial problems get their solutions in a natural way.
http://www.newphys.se/teden/mu/MatterUnified

28.11.2004 - Robert Neil Boyd who collected and made available his thoughts on physics on this page, simply comments:

Thanks! :)
It always makes me happy to hear someone else has discovered the truth.

28.11.2004 - Jaro Kopernicky writes to Eit Gaastra, saying:

Sepp Hasslberger relyed to me your essay about Absurdities of the modern science. You are apparently already aware of my opinion about gravity, by which no pushing, bent space time or any esoteric theory is needed anymore. I, with Professor Hughes proved experimentally - and anybody can repeated it - that electrical attraction always prevails over repulsion. This Universal fact gives a plausible reason for gravity - inherent in to matter and energy as such.

I believe that everything is made by organized energy, and I also believe that there must be somebody there who knows how to organize it. So I am less surprised about miracles or so called supernatural. I am not dogmatic or fanatic by any means. I am analyst, so I analyze. Evolution without a clear plan is hard to accept, since we have clear examples proving plan and engineering. My latest favored subject in this matter is a common plant burdock which has developed seeds with "velcro" hooks having a purpose to hang on the fur of animals or in modern day on clothing of humans. It also grows it at the ends of branches to be exposed to such function.

This case alone, by itself is the proof, that atheism is scientifically unsound.

I have also a different opinion about heavy core of stars and planets, about "tired" light which is relatively easy to explain, and I also believe that there is a "life convenience zone in the galaxy. I attach a brief disagreement with Einstein's Equivalence principle.

Now, when I know better your background, I found it might be interesting to share with you my views - completely to your discretion...

28.11.2004 - Frank Morgan replies to my saying "I gather you are a great fan of Einstein, and I won't try to argue on that point" as follows:

Sepp, science is not about being a fan of someone. Einstein is without the slightest doubt to the tiny few who have managed to follow his theories with good understanding, the greatest scientist since Newton and the solid, fantastic fully verified Predictions of his theories are accomplishments that are recognized and routinely taught  throughout the world of science.

He is not responsible for all his theory came to imply thru others - he knew from the beginning to the end that his theory was not complete - he argued with Neils Bohr endlessly about the problematic basis for a quantum mechanics that his own incompleteness forced,  and was never comfortable with the non-deterministic implications of his own theory as it was finally developed. He wanted desperately to prove that the universe is stable, closed but infinite (no Big Bang) - that the universe is timeless and immortal. Surely you must be able to see that most of those in the NPA really have no foundation as scientists capable of proving Einstein wrong about anything! - those who do understand the Standard Model and its many limitations, and they are very few in number, will tell you in an instant that any person who calls themself a dissident is by definition a Tiny-Piecemeal-Theory Nut! Has no real depth or breadth in physics....The NPA is just another phony Vanity Cub of highly specialized technicians pretending to be total-system-level (all disciplines capable) scientists---convinced they are of genius stature beyond Einstein, the Automatic Target of all true NUTS.

E = M(c-squared) alone and all that it routinely does today and everyday for science is enough all by itself for the majority of believers.
I share this with my list...

To whic