Nikola Tesla

'Music is the universal language"
At its essence, matter vibrates at a frequency, sending out waves.
Decipher the waves, and you unlock the universe.
You just need to find the right key.

I think I read that on the wall at Emos.
 
Where would you guys rank this guy?

Gilligan05.JPG
 
RayDog is openly hostile to the stubject of Dark Matter or Dark Energy. I'm not sure about the latter (clearly something is at play though), but I feel pretty good about the former. The gravity of deep space is just too inconsistant for the math to be completely wrong. It isn't as if GR fails entirely on the galactic scale, and the inconsistancy suggests to me that some things are simply unseen.
 
I am openly hostile to so called scientists who make up stuff without sufficient evidence, or in the case of dark matter sufficient magnitude of evidence. Most mainstream cosmologists are no better than priests defending their religion without regard to the scientific method.
 
RayDog, there would be nothing less scientific than to walk away from GR without studying in great detail where and why it fails. DM must be falsified (which it can be) before it can be disregarded otherwise we will have learned nothing from the endeavor. No one just takes DM on faith and there is a great effort to prove/disprove it within the field. That it is center stage means that it gets the MOST scrutiny... and not by cosmologists but by astronomers and astrophysicists. Dark matter is a hypothesis not a theory, and few are unclear on that.

You may be right, but it seems that you are demanding that scientists should explain the entire universe despite not having all of the data in, and that is not only unreasonable but extremely unscientific.
 
Of course it is, but you offer it like everyone has given up on what is plainly the holy grail of physics, and that simply isn't the case. But step one is to rule out what it isn't... DM requires the smallest change to the current model and is falsifiable, so why not start there?
 
Math, essentially RayDog's complaint is that GR ignores the quantum level of physics almost entirely including the phenomena known as ZPE (the genesis of particles from vaccuum energy). The two current branches of physics (QM and GR) more or less ignore eachother as neither offers a framework for the focus of the other.

That said, RayDog is offering that because these two theories are flawed on their face when discussing certain things, then they should be ignored for all things. In my mind this is nothing short of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the bath, the plumbing system and the house while you are at it. RayDog is suggesting that even though the theory has been proven right on the larger scales more than any other, time and time again, we need to stop all research into how it is right and when and where it is wrong and take a good century off to re-invent the wheel without making sure we understood completely the short comings of the previous model. RayDog, then amps it up and suggests that a majority of scientists (who are NOT theorists) who build their data collection techniques on the premise of a flawed model are pollyanna's who are no better than traitors to science. Let me be clear, RayDog is correct in the heart of his criticisms, I just find his response to it reactionary and ultimately unscientific.

Ray does have a seemingly novel approach to particle physics however. It is built on fundamental particles being stable wave forms of ZPE, that I think is worth exploring... or at least I'm dying to read the paper he says he will publish. I would note that many other steady state models have been offered and rejected over the last 60+ years, and I'm not sure how his would differ. As attractive as what little I know of it is, it doesn't match up with what we observe in astronomy and assumes much of the same problems that the existing models do.
 
I did a Google search on "Ranking of Top Scientists" and here's what I found:

1. Vince Young
2. Steel Shank
T3. Einstein, Newton, Tesla
6. Guy who invented BBQ
 
Raydog, your posts contain lots of very nice buzz words and no numbers or meaningful observations. This is not physics.

The only evidence you give to contradict general relativity is to say that it does not explain gravitation in large scales of the Universe. However, this does not disprove GR in any sense of the word. There are many many predictions of GR that match observation quite nicely. The simplest answer, which is usually correct, is that there is another source of mass in the Universe which goes unobserved. Recent measurements from Chandra, which I posted, put this on rather firm footing.

You constantly bring up zero point energy. I can only assume you are referring to the Dirac sea of particles and antiparticles which is described by quantum field theory. I don't see how this invalidates GR at all, given that they describe processes whose action differs by some 40 odd orders of magnitude.

Feel free to respond with some calculations, they don't scare me.
 
Just for reference, Math, the last go round between RayDog and I (which includes the most detailed description of his view I've read to date) can be found here:
The Link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top