Slashdot Mirror
Could We Find a Door To A Parallel Universe?
p1234 writes "Though no direct evidence for wormholes has been observed, this could be because they are disguised as black holes. Now Alexander Shatskiy of the Lebedev Physical Institute in Moscow, Russia, is suggesting a possible way to tell the two kinds of object apart. His idea assumes the existence of a bizarre substance called "phantom matter", which has been proposed to explain how wormholes might stay open. Phantom matter has negative energy and negative mass, so it creates a repulsive effect that prevents the wormhole closing. 'US expert Dr Lawrence Krauss, from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, points out that the idea rests on untested assumptions. He told New Scientist magazine: "It is an interesting attempt to actually think of what a real signature for a wormhole would be, but it is more hypothetical than observational. Without any idea of what phantom matter is and its possible interactions with light, it is not clear one can provide a general argument."'"
Only a parrallel part of the multiverse
Geesh, this isn't new news, it happened back in the 1960's... as I recall it was on stardate 3134.0
we sent a captain, a doctor, and a scientist through the portal. Geesh, people have been talking about it for 40 years now.
In Soviet Russia, the door to a parallel universe finds us.
God spoke to me.
How about publicizing actual discoveries instead of random speculation?
It's like proving something exists buy using something that doesn't exist. I admire the guys imagination though. Just seems like he wants it to exist so he's making it so. IMHO science should be about working with the facts, which isn't what's going on here.
The Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky bridge allows you to travel between universes. Just to mess with the timer.
IANAP, but most "energy" variables can be thought of as the square of some other physical properties (kinetic energy is related to velocity squared, electrical energy is related to voltage or current squared, etc.) So to get "negative energy", it would seem that we need imaginary (as in the number i = sqrt(-1) ) values of velocity, voltage, current, etc. So now my brain hurts (and the real physicists on slashdot can enjoy ripping me to shreds or educating me as is their wont)
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I bet the first guy ever to actually attempt riding through a wormhole will have the ride of his LIFE. Remember Farscape?
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
"His idea assumes the existence of a bizarre substance called "phantom matter"" I propose this mysterious matter is actually the facial hair from our evil counterparts in the parallel universe.
"possible way to tell the two kinds of object apart"
It's the beard. We've known this for some time.
Why would they make up the opposite of gravity when, if I'm not mistaken, the other 3 forces in the universe are capable of pushing and pulling. Wouldn't it be simpler to just say one of those is responsible? Anyway, I read a while ago that the singularity of a black hole makes such a dent in space that it goes right through to somewhere else. But of course you can't go in one cuz you'll get destroyed. But since the singularity is infinitely small but large enough to exist, it doesn't have a measurable radius. So if particles all spin into it in the same direction, it will rotate it faster and faster and theoretically spin faster than the speed of light since you can't say "oh well, the outside edge is traveling at ____ speed" because it doesn't really have an outside edge to measure rotational speed at a given point. And somehow they think when that happens, it's no longer capable of emitting gravity. So my point is, if there's a particle created inside a black hole that generates the opposite of gravity and it's still emitting gravity, it will still be too violent to get near. And if it stopped emitting gravity, the opposing "spread out" force would blow the thing up, especially since it's spinning so fast. With no inward force and all outward force, it would just spread out and dissolve or whatever. So no matter what, we're probably not going to be able to use a black hole as a useful wormhole. We're gonna have to build a stargate and dial it up!
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
It seems more and more that they are inventing some new form of matter-energy every time observation doesn't match theory.
Dark matter, dark energy, and now phantom matter.
If you're really interested try this book by Kip Thorne: K.S. Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1994).
We had "anti-matter," "dark matter," now "phantom matter." Jesus, is there anything substantial and real in physics anymore? As the years go on, physics starts to sound less and less like science and more and more like "Alice in Wonderland." Everything seems to hinge on things we can't see, or can't measure, or can't prove. Unless some of this mumbo jumbo can give me eternal life, make women throw themselves at me, or build a better and more luscious cheeseburger, I'm not interested.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Sounds more like crackpot physics to me. Only physicists can get away with crap like this. In any other field of science, this sort of voodoo bullshit would not be tolerated. I tell it like I see it. Mod me down and see if I care. ahahaha...
"Tales from a Parallel Universe"
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Do you actually believe in the theory of a parallel universe...or anything related to a "parallel existence"?
:)
Come on people... this is weird even by science-fiction standards, don't get me wrong - I like to dream as much as the next guy, but get real...nothing so far proves that anything even closely related to this would have any substance to it, whatsoever!
If you want "real" - why don't you try to look beyond the know universe instead, I bet you (and I hopefully..) would find something of interest there. I'm quite sure we still have something to discover on earth yet - but the real answer lies lightyears away...so why not try looking there first, eh?
Yours local..smartass...signing off for now, another beer to be conquered
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
so maybe to create these worm holes we just need to create the math for it and or speak it into existence.
also
In infinite play the movie there is a saying supposedly from recently found notes thought to be written by Albert Einstein something about an experiment that could not be completed till after his death.
When one realizes there is no travel, they can go anywhere in the universe. ~Albert Einstein from here http://i----i.org/BlueLight.htm
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
Jean-Pierre Petit, ex director of CNRS, made a lot of mathematical proof of the possibility of negative mass and the implication. If interested, please read those explanations.
http://www.jp-petit.org/science/arxiv/publications_recentes.htm
Link to :
Bigravity as an interpretation of cosmic acceleration : http://www.jp-petit.org/science/arxiv/CITV_1_acceleration_english.pdf
Bigravity : A bimetric model of the Universe. Exact nonlinear solutions. Positive and negative gravitational lensings: http://www.jp-petit.org/science/arxiv/CITV_2_exact_solutions_english.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/01/military.suicides/index.html
Negative matter, if it could exist, would be cool, though, because that would allow you to construct a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. For example, if you had a one ton ball of "regular" matter and a -1 ton ball of this "negative" matter, and were to hook them together on a fixed rod, you basically would've constructed a perpetual motion "engine" that would accelerate along the axis of that rod without any expenditure of energy.
Since such a thing would violate the first law of thermodynamics, I would tend to rule this out as a possibility.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
Is there any one else from the universe where rear view mirrors don't have a night position and Jack Palance died in the '90s?
Play Command HQ online
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes we can a Stargate with 10 chevrons.
It involves heating the object up and spinning it extremely fast. It only seems to work on small foot shaped items though...
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Come on, nerds! Do you really wanna find a parallel universe where you're suave and sophisticated and successful with the ladies?
In any case, this just makes the Fermi Paradox even worse, because now some far more statistically likely ancient civilzation should have long since colonized and clogged all universes.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Don't know what to make of it all but it sounds compelling, and science does not know as much as we sometimes assume it does, we don't even know what energy is yet, only it's effects and crude ways to harness it
The notes found were in this book have not been authenticated as to who the real author is, but perhaps that is not what is important. Sometimes the source does not matter if the content contains truth that will become self evident once an entity is made aware.
http://i----i.org/The_Book_What_Is_The_Secret/The_Book_What_is_The_Secret.htm
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
Science Fiction has tended to become reality. It has been said Those things we thought to be fiction became reality. Those things we thought to be true were realized to be fictions.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
Phantom matter can be observed but only for a limited time. A wormhole can only stay open stay open for 38 minutes, unless the O'Neill power booster is connected to the power supply to the gate.
I don't think it was crack he was doing. Smoking something, yes; but not crack.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Antimatter is something real, observed, understood, and which we can actually make, albeit in tiny quantities.
Dark matter is a shim used to make our theory of gravity and the motion of the observed universe match.
"Phantom matter", properly called "exotic matter", is a purely hypothetical construct, not necessary to explain anything in the universe which has been observed; it's just something the laws of physics don't rule out.
Is anyone else thinking this tag is getting overused just a bit? What *could* possibly go wrong?
Uh well... assuming this guy's is 100% right, we can open wormholes to other dimensions? How is that bad? We don't even know what might go wrong in a situation like that, we don't even know if it's possible. There's not even any evidence saying that it's possible.
It just doesn't make a lick of sense to worry about what might go wrong with something that probably doesn't even exist.
For a universe to be actualized it must be experienced, that requires an observer which is the only thing that can actualize potential, you are the one. There can be only one. In fact it is you writing these words from another point of view.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
(R)evelation, (Our) Evolution
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
Matter does not really exist. It is an appearance and quite the mysterious magic trick, to create something solid out of nothing, there is no greater feat by nature.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
isn't it part of the same universe?
What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
It's a little hard to tell from this very brief article, but what he calls "phantom matter" is what other physicists call "exotic matter" or sometimes "negative matter," which violates one of the positive energy-conditions, and thus has negative energy (in some reference frame). Matt Visser's book Lorentzian Wormholes has a lot more technical details about the various formulations of the positive-energy conditions.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
For a universe to be actualized it must be experienced, that requires an observer and the one reading this, well you are the one. I always thought the universe included everything any way how can you have two different sets equal to the same everything? Matter does not really exist. It is an appearance and quite the mysterious magic trick, to create something solid out of nothing, there is no greater feat. http://i----i.org/The_Book_What_Is_The_Secret/The_Book_What_is_The_Secret.htm as it says there "The trick is not to respond to the illusion but the reality behind it."
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
<Speculation>
If not, if the difference is the same as time or length in a dimension that we aren't able to consciously manipulate or see, then it is possible that we all are floating in roughly the same direction, but since the differences are very small it's impossible to recognize if we are in the same sector as when we started our lives.
All this since there are in theory dimensions that we can't see. Why they are invisible is a different question. It may be that we all are mentally and physically unable to "see" the dimensions or that they are "curled up" or "flattened" in a way that makes them immeasurable. This is just about the same question as if you are on a board (like our universe) on a completely friction-less surface where there is no perception of wind and no reference points. You have every perception of everything on the board, but you can't tell if the board is still or if it's actually drifting at the speed of sound with the wind. If you can't even "see" outside the borders of the board (the universe) you can't really tell if there are other universes out there.
And it's not even possible to say if the laws of physics are general or specific for a universe. It may well be that the laws of physics are the same in any given universe, and that we just are inside a bead of glass. (watch the end sequence of Men in Black to catch this idea...). Just "infinity" is hard to catch up, but it's like living on the surface of a globe - where is the end of the world? And if you walk a straight distance on the surface of a globe large enough - will you ever come home again or will you even recognize that as home?
I think that there is no straight answer, and that Keith Laumer in the "WORLDS OF THE IMPERIUM" may have one approach, and Robert Anson Heinlein had another in "Number of the Beast" (among others), but I think that Douglas Adams got really to the point in the statement "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.". At least his statement will explain a lot.
But this is still in the area of speculation, and I think that it's hard for the human race to get outside the universe. But I don't say that it's impossible - there may be a discovery around the corner waiting to happen!
</Speculation>
What is most important is that we try to keep our minds open - there may be a grain of truth in every theory that at first sight may appear ridiculous. Notice that the continental drift was considered completely outrageous by many until the end of the 1950's. The continental drift is now a widely accepted fact (but there may still be those that doesn't accept it).
Gandhi once said "Nearly everything you do is of no importance, but it is important that you do it.", and this still applies. If you do nothing nothing will be accomplished, and you will be sure that you are unimportant, but if you do something you may have the force to provide a stepping stone for something that will prevail for generations to come.
The End.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
If the door turns out to be an "ordinary looking" wooden door that opens on a beach, and if you hear odd sounds like "Did-a-chick? Dum-a-chum?" on the other side... well, it's better to stay here.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
Right, and if I just "assume the existence" of a bizarre substance called "Flubber," then I can fly!
welcome our new Chaos overlords.
We just have to look in a box we are not supposed to look into.
http://khaversiddiqi.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/futurama_ep69.jpg
Any Futurama fans out there?
A bit OT, but I just have to say that the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong"-tag makes me chuckle every single time. :))
"And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire. The ring of fire."
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
when Ann Coulter endorses Hillary Clinton. If that isn't being transported to some parallel universe, I don't know what is...
"What if you could find brand new worlds, right here on Earth, where anything is possible? Same planet, different dimension. I've found the gateway!"
The American scientist states that the Russian scientists statement is hypothetical... If I am not mistaken, weren't all theories, the ones we accept today as fact, hypothetical until tested and proven/disproved?
..::ALWAYS : watching::..
Take for example the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is consistent with some bizarre empirically-observable effects.
:P
A lot of respected physicists believe in (or at least entertain the possibility of) a large, possibly-infinite number of parallel universes.
What's interesting is that to the best of our knowledge, the laws of physics do not prevent them from being connected together in some nonobvious ways (e.g. through wormhole-like phenomenon), permitting effects like time travel or faster-than-light travel. Of course we're a long way off from figuring out how to utilize those effects.
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
I'm not sure we should be rushing to open the door to a parallel universe until we have a way to defend against the ISS Enterprise.
The SGC found one and window was put in area 51 after they where done with it. Later they found a other way useing the stargate to get to one.
One of the needs for the alquibierre (yep, mangled that man's name) warp drive is the use of negative energy ... so if can show negative energy is possible, then that warp drive might also be possible
It's not even a new idea. Phantom matter has been called 'Exotic matter' for ages. It features extensively in Ken MacLeod's science fiction novels, where it is used to stabilise wormholes.
See the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_matter/
Ken MacLeod - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_MacLeod/
Sigh.
I guess we're all too stupid to understand the Timecube...
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
This thread needs a John Titor reference.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
So, umm, anti-gravity only works in the dark?
Go Pats!
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
pity this busy monster, manunkind,
not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victim (death and life safely beyond)
plays with the bigness of his littleness
--- electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange; lenses extend
unwish through curving wherewhen till unwish
returns on its unself.
A world of made
is not a world of born --- pity poor flesh
and trees, poor stars and stones, but never this
fine specimen of hypermagical
ultraomnipotence. We doctors know
a hopeless case if --- listen: there's a hell
of a good universe next door; let's go
-- E. E. Cummings
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
These scientists are always talking about negative energy. It's so depressing.
Old news itt
+5, Truth
See Robert L. Forward's book Timemaster. Although he calls it 'negative matter', it seems to be the same thing as phantom matter. Negative matter is used to do all sorts of fun stuff like build wormholes and reactionless space drives. And then time machines (timegates, really: a wormhole from one point in space-time to another) by taking advantage of some relativistic effects.
Also extremely poor summary. TFA is about this russian scientist's work on identifying what the light signature of a wormhole is as opposed to a black hole due to the distortion the phantom matter brings to the light.
If you're not going to read the article, don't even bother posting it. >_
+5, Truth
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't parrallel universes arise from the attempt to unify all the forces? So with another explaination those universes could disappear.
I guess it'll depend on what you mean by a parallel universe.
Do you mean a universe that exists completely independent of our own at any and all points in time? If so - it's not likely to be similar at all, no.
Do you mean a universe that exists as a 'branch' of our own as one of many universes that could exist where if somebody went left here, they went right in that one, and all that stuff which would quickly lead to a near-infinite number of universes? If so - then you have to wonder what the odds are of the parallel universe we'd be accessing is one that was VERY recently formed, in which case perhaps I'm wearing a white shirt instead of a blue shirt, or formed a few years ago, in which 9/11 didn't happen, or one happening much longer ago in which mankind never evolved (or got placed on Earth by the almighty God, if you so desire). I certainly don't have hard data on this, I don't think anybody does, but a gut feeling tells me it'd be easier to access a parallel universe formed more recently than one formed longer ago. As such, it's quite likely to be similar.
Then there's the whole phase thing and dimensions thing and oh dear, so I might have forgotten an "alternate universe" option. I'm guessing wikipedia might have more, but those are the two I'd imagine to be the most common.
.. next morning I was waken up by the ringing of "SFB"(KGB) and I knew I was in hell.
.. how they know it was anti-gravity ?
I think I can remember a similar "discovery" by the same russian scientists,
it was that over a -180°C cold, spinning, levitating and superconducting disc
there was anti-gravitiy found
1.
in the room with the disc, the smoke of their pipes went to the top of room,
normally russian scientist pipesmoke is contamined with heavymetals like Polonium,
so it is not normal that their pipe smoke is not directed to the bottom.
2.)
in the rooms above the disc in areas direct above the disc the airpreassure was "significantly" lower than "normal", so antigravity has also a preassure vessel effect and preassure-force-field
effect.
This happened over the weekend, it's called a Dutch Oven. If you stick the covers over your head while you do it, you can simulate a wormhole.
Task Mangler
I think sometimes that the doorway into another universe is the front door to my house. I think that the insanity on the roads is a perfect example of this. I now ride the bus just so I am able to read while I commute and avoid the nutjobs. The people that drive every morning are a good example of why I must be among "the Parallels."
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING!
I have one in the back of my wardrobe - the one I keep the spare room
White hole located in Merida, Mexico.
it gets interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEamWacA7QM
Nothing to see here...
Goose Lake concert in Jackson Michigan.
The door to the parallel universe squeaks and is difficult to lock when the humidity is high.
photosMy Photostream
The fastest growing profession in Science.
What is this guy smoking!
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
black hole == lots of matter going somewhere but we don't know where.
big bang == lots of matter coming from somewhere but we don't know where.
I like to think that for each black hole in our universe there is a big bang in another parallel universe. the multiverse would be in a constant state of flux as universes grew, and then when enough balck holes had appeared, were sucked out to make the raw material for new universes. these in turn eventually draining into others.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
The burning question, of course, is whether we get a neat gun that outlines the wormholes in orange and blue.
... cake?
And will there be
http://rocknerd.co.uk
See the famous E = mc^2 - if something has a negative mass, it will also have negativ energy (since c is a constant). No imaginary math necessary, you just need to wrap your head around the concept of particles (?) with a negative mass.
I think about the time Newton developed the calculus and also joined the heavens and Earth together in a seamless manner with his universal law of gravitation.
Or maybe the lack of concern, by physicists, about physicality can be shown by the prediction of what is now called the psi/J particle? Or the experimental agreement, to some 12 significant digits, of a key parameter in Quantum Electrodynamics, whose calculation involves a great deal of mathematics? The public's love affair with gadgets is obscuring their contemplation of the complex philosophical questions associated with astrophysical interpretations. Forget astrophysics; Aspect's experiments (and others who subsequently validated and extended them) on Bell's inequality showed Einstein wrong, and left philosophical questions that would surely give you a splitting headache if you were interested enough to look into them
There are some "skeptics" (as you call them), and they have no difficulty getting their works published; however the so-called skeptics you have been so vocal in promoting elsewhere in Slashdot are only marginalised by their continued inability to put together a coherent presentation, much less a consistent, quantitative one. And dark matter and dark energy are being used as fudge factors for things like gravitational lensing. Perhaps if you spent more time actually reading the relevant research papers you wouldn't keep making such ridiculous comments as this?
I mean, everyone is entitled to their own opinions; however, if you want your comments to be taken seriously, why not put the effort in to first checking your facts?
Thank you. I didn't RTFA either.
But I hijack the thread just to post some Obvious Common Sense :
There are no parallel universes. Only this one.
If you mean "existing" in the meaning of "it exists, I can measure it, see it, touch it, at least determine its effects under conditions", then, no, there only exists ONE universe. You're in it. Deal with it.
What's this "wormhole" thing anyway? A concept based on misunderstanding an incomplete theory, like String Crackpot Hypothesis "couldn't understand that bounded waves act in a way that's not like matter at all, so we'll call the minimum amount of oscillation 'a quantum' and treat it just as if it was a particle, so as to obfuscate all of physics for the next few generations".
Wormhole. Gonna read the article ayway.
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
Before we make any actual discoveries, lets get a base on Mars and find the baddest most disgruntled Marine(s) to put at the base. Then we can start playing with black wormholes and such.
PS. Some double barrel shotguns may be nice to scatter about with some various med kits, extra ammo, etc.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Radiation here! Radiation! Get yer radiation! Here ya go buddy, that'll be $3.50. Radiation! Get yer readiation!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
So if we haven't found wormholes entrance, because they may be mistaken for black holes, shouldn't we be looking for and finding thier exits? I mean a wormhole exit should have all sorts of matter bursting and seeping out some kind of opening. Wouldn't these be easy to spot? If we haven't found them doesn't that imply they may not exist? Or are they perhaps so rare as to be useless in the normal sense. Only extraordinary luck will ever allow us to observe a wormhole?
That was worded poorly enough... with no actual quoted material in the fourth section.
*slams head on desk*
No, still doesn't work grammatically - the sentence reads badly enough that parsing is required to understand what you are saying. I'm glad you feel strongly about string theory, so strongly that your replies with respect to such come back garbled; however, please restrict your garbled statements on a timecube-like website of your own. If you wish to comment intelligently, please leave your counter-arguments and mathematical proofs on the table.
And no, I am not a String Theory fanboy. I don't really like it, actually.
"Little is much when little you need."
Flamebait? I would mod him up as funny. Look at what he chose to attack in all of that insanity!
"Little is much when little you need."
... somehow I just know there has got to be a goatse link lurking in the comments on this article!!! :)
"Little is much when little you need."
The universe is all that there is. So there cannot be more than one, for by definition the universe is everything. People who say there are more than one universe are contradicting the meaning of the term. Everett and Wheeler's 'many-worlds' hypothesis is getting a little out of hand nowadays. It is ridiculous to explain one scientific problem (wave function collapse and quantum decoherence) with a more problematic explanation ('many worlds'). Besides not all possible situations can come to be for some of these are themselves incompossible. Scientists and science reporters need to learn how to distinguish between scientific claims and metaphysics and ontology; calling bad metaphysics and ontology 'scientific' does not make the claims any more reasonable.
I just like the irony of "Corwin of Amber" talking about not believing in parallel universes... (they figured very prominently in the fiction which is the source of that name).
Namaste
The state of modern astrophysics is very healthy, thank you.
The conventional theories can't adequately explain why planets appear to frequently have hotspots at their poles.
Er, you do realise, I hope, that the study of planets in our solar system isn't really part of astrophysics? And hasn't been for several decades now? You realise that there's a whole new field of science - planetary science - that studies these phenomena?
There remains no explanation within the conventional theories for why the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets.
BUSTED, just a few days ago ... (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22208390)
I've yet to see any credible attempt to explain why the Deep Impact impactor generated two flashes at the time of impact
Are you perhaps referring to a certain PDF document, that you provided a link to in an earlier comment, purportedly by a (self-declared) physicist (Wallace Thornhill) and David Talbott, purportedly a poster at a 2006 IEEE international conference* (and associated webpages)?
Or perhaps you could provide a link to a reputable source, concerning these "two flashes"?
If we can see elements popping into existence within simple ball lightning laboratory experiments,
What's ultimately really silly about how science operates these days is that there is far too much eagerness to cast aside alternative competing theories that challenge the conventional ones.
One of the great things^ about the contemporary internet is that it's so easy to get things published. Even better is that there are sites which permit publication of physics papers, with far weaker requirements than a relevant peer-reviewed journal has, permitting "alternative competing theories" to get an airing that they otherwise would not. The strong will survive, and go on to become (perhaps) a paper in a good journal, and maybe, just maybe, a Nobel Prize for the author.
But we've been over this, you and I many, many times; if you think you have a framework and method - different from the standard (physics) paradigm you explicitly reject - why not lay it out? Let the world hear of how you think science should really be done!
And by the way, point me to your comet document when it's ready. I'm very eager to see what you come up with!
It's done:
EU rebuttal #(insert large integer here) http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22196268
actualistic vs prophetic - false dilemma? http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22204234
So open your brains fall out? http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22204404
electric comet (1) - "Rules of evidence" http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22208390
Image copyrights - addendum http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22208968
EU paradigm - hypothesis on "evidence" http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22209504
Must accurately reflect source? Not for EU-ers! http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid
So we know for sure that what happens in the alternate universe, *stays* in the alternate universe.
If the "Tim Thompson" material being referred to is "On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis" http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html, then there's an obvious continuity with my quick look at what's wrong with the T&T PDF document.
Let's start with this, from the Tim's introduction (my emphasis): It is not my intention, at least for now, to address the issues raised, and alleged to be in favor of the electric-sun hypothesis. Rather, it is my intent to show that the arguments of Scott et al. against the standard interpretations of stellar physics are devoid of merit. This is an important point, because it shifts to the champions of the electric-sun hypothesis, the responsibility for showing that their hypothesis is better than the standard. What I have done is go back one step further in the chain, and show that three (of four) working hypotheses about "the Electric Universe framework and method" can be tested and given a tick in the "YES" box, using this PDF document as a representative sample.
It also shifts to the champions of the EU framework and approach the responsibility for showing that their methods are better than the standard.
Here are those four working hypotheses again:
#1: in the EU paradigm, "theory" is indistinguishable from "speculation in prose".
#2: EU theories cannot be falsified, even in principle, by any experimental ("in the lab") or observational results.
#2a: Within the Electric Universe framework and approach, evidence presented does not need to accurately reflect its source, nor be fully attributed; copyrights need not be respected.
#3: EU theories are internally inconsistent.
As is clear from the material presented in the SD comments linked to in my earlier comment here, the first three hypotheses are validated; the last was not tested (but is unlikely to be validated - meaninglessness is perfectly consistent with meaninglessness).
Rather to my surprise, I found that the document may be an intellectual fraud - it purports to be something which it is not (a poster presentation at the 2006 ICOPS, an international scientific conference). More surprising is that pln2bz does not seem to regard this as serious
Now of course there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation
* as far as I know it is not illegal, in the US or Australia, to claim a document is a poster presentation at an international scientific conference when it is not.
^ unless they are perfectly comfortable with such practices and behaviours.
I didn't read anything in pln2bz' response about the specifics of the case of apparent intellectual fraud and dishonesty.
May one read the bluster as a (blatant?) attempt to avoid something quite nasty in the closet?
And the response to the detailed analysis of the document in question as a naked appeal to authority (because pln2bz recognises that the document validates the hypotheses)?
Thank you for speaking so loudly and clearly pln2bz.
if your allegations about the Electric Universe were even remotely true, then there's no way in hell that people like Anthony Peratt would associate themselves with these ideas.
Argument from authority. Not everyone holds Peratt or his work in the esteem you do. Peratt has no background in astronomy, astrophysics, or cosmology. Neither do Scott or Thornhill, and Talbott certainly doesn't. It doesn't surprise me at all that one proponent of a plasma cosmology associates with other proponents of a plasma cosmology. You think The Great Anthony Peratt, Student Of The Great Hannes Alfvén, is so prestigious he could not possibly associate with a pile of bunk, so anything he associates with is therefore not bunk. I think that Anthony Peratt is one cosmology dabbler associating with other cosmology dabblers based on a shared but incorrect and ultimately uninteresting cosmology. Authority has no bearing on fact, truth, or reality.
...why don't you find a problem within the rejoinder to Tim Thompson...
Speaking for myself of course, I read Scott's rejoinder shortly after he posted it and long before I ever began interacting with you. It was this very piece of writing, among a few of his others, that I had in mind when I wrote about how Thunderbolts/Kronia deny the inductive step, then make a large inductive leap:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=387489&cid=21706020
That document is riddled with examples of this. Consider Scott's argument against neutrino oscillation, for example:
There is no way that measurements made at only one end (here on Earth) of a transmission channel (that stretches from the Sun's center to Earth) can reveal changes that occur farther up the channel (say, within the Sun itself, or near Mercury or Venus).
The observations are consistent with the model Scott seeks to discredit, so he attacks the idea that observations' consistency with a model lends credibility to the model. He says, in effect, "We could still be right if They is wrong, even if that requires denying the inductive step". The rejoinder is clogged with the same kind of weaseling language, shirking of falsifiability, and stubborn or backward reasoning, along with Scott's particular brand of misapplied physics. So, you might say, "let's hear in detail what's wrong with it!". (Your oft-cited "Electric Comet" document is even worse.) As I pointed out in the post linked above, and as has been demonstrated amply in your years of posting on Slashdot and Thunderbolts both before and since I mentioned it, you don't take "Wrong!" for an answer. Neither do Scott, Thornhill, Talbott, or any of the Thunderbolts forum denizens.
Scott's "Electric Sun" hypothesis is nourished by Scott's misapplication of physics, logic, or both. Other writings of his (and Thornhill's) are similar in this regard. Tim Thompson has addressed (some of) the ways in which these ideas are broken, and that rejoinder is just more broken ideas. There is nothing new, and I'm no more interested than I suspect Tim Thompson, APODNereid, or anyone else is in expending such effort on entrenched, deaf ears with so little willingness or ability to see why it carries weight.
Short of a detailed refutation of these sorts of arguments (and demanding that we be your library assistant will not cut it), you're beneath our radars.
A detailed refutation of "these sorts of arguments" is either A) meaningless, B) above your head, or C) easy enough for you do deny or discredit by more of the same "we could still be right if X" nonsense. "We" could say something similar of you:
Demanding that "we" be your personal physics tutor, and claiming that your mistakes are not mistakes unless "we" point them out to you, "will not cut it." That's why your camp looks as if it's trying to "win by default": "we'll think we're right, and tell everyone we're right, un
In Soviet Russia, so the artical says, We Find a Door To A Parallel Universe
So then, in the west, A Parallel Universe Find A Door To YOU!!!
As I have written, in several SD comments, pln2bz has not* even outlined what this new paradigm is, in terms of things like the role of review, of hypotheses and theories, of the need for consistency, or even what role logic should play in this paradigm.
I have made several attempts to determine what this new paradigm comprises, or includes, based on the empirical data of pln2bz' SD comments, and the materials he has referenced. One such attempt involved a detailed examination of the physical mechanisms presented (by pln2bz) in a key "Electric Universe" document on comets^.
Somewhat to my surprise, pln2bz responded to my analysis - simple and tentative as it was - with thinly veiled threats to identify the real-world individual(s) who wrote the comments, and stalk them. He also responded to my astonishing discovery of a possible case of intellectual fraud and dishonesty with bombast, bluster,
In this SD comment (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22310792), leokor appears to contradict pln2bz' (the one this is a response to); two specific examples:
-> leokor explicitly states that there are astronomical observations which are not within Plasma Universe's scope^^; yet pln2bz all but asserts that *every* observable phenomenon should be within its scope**
-> leokor explicitly points to quantitative work done done within Plasma Universe's scope (in several SD comments); yet pln2bz states that there is (essentially) no such work yet*^.
Along the way, there are inconsistencies regarding falsification (leokor explicitly uses the term, and seems to consider quantitative observations potentially capable of falsifying Plasma Universe; pln2bz either avoids the topic entirely, or implies that falsification is not (yet) possible, or that testing his favoured alternatives is somehow illegitimate); scope (leokor seems to have no hang-up over applying plasma physics to distant galaxies that we could not possibly test in the lab in a thousand lifetimes, but pln2bz writes that this is either illegitimate or too metaphysical to even consider); and method (leokor seems to consider papers published in relevant peer-reviewed highly pertinent; pln2bz regards unsubstantiated, untested personal speculations as of equal merit to such papers^*).
Just one more, to close this comment:
These are in fact part of the set of "big questions" that we *must* frequently grapple with if we are to keep the interpretive sciences on track: what role should thought experiments play in science? Clearly, you guys believe that they can serve as the basis for the instantiation of cosmologies. We believe that it is not so -- that cosmologies should instead exhaust all more mundane explanations within the laboratory before we can resort to thought experiments. You guys can be forgiven for not seeing this decades ago when the conventional theories were being established, but the many unexpected findings related to electromagnetism within space should have inspired more of you to go back to the laboratory, and to realize that your thought experiments need to be re-evaluated relative to more physical explanations involving plasmas.
I expect that leokor is well aware of the assumptions used in plasma physics, and of the inevitable extrapolations far beyond anything anything done in any lab experiment, that underlie the papers by Peratt (and others) he (leokor) references (there are huge leaps of faith - if you want to call them that - in the application of the scaling laws, for example); clearly, pln2bz seems blissfully (willfully?) ignorant of thi
You're doing a great job of summarizing the problem of how cosmology is worked on these days: as a hierarchical system with astrophysicists at the top. This system might work better if the education was specifically geared towards maintaining more objectivity and neutrality with regards to the interpretation of space observations. But, in fact, the bulk of the training that you hold in such high regard is geared towards one particular cosmology, and blends assumptions and speculative research (like helioseismology) in with agreed-upon facts. To argue that people must all be cast within the same mold before they can have a legitimate opinion on the biggest questions of the universe is self-defeating and blatantly antithetical to the history of science. We need outsiders and skeptics in *ALL* interpretive natural science disciplines commenting on *ALL* interpretations at *ALL* times in order to keep fresh ideas coming in and innovation moving forward.
Compare this with the introduction to Scott's book (my emphasis):
Plasma physicists know that 96% of the universe is not made up of "invisible matter" but rather of matter in the plasma state.
[...]
The cosmos in fact does not contain the mysteriously undetectable entities that present astrophysical theories require. Modern, straightforward explanations of all the phenomena astronomers find so enigmatic are now available to us. Anyone interested in astrophysics needs to become aware of the properties of the electric plasma that fills more than 99% of the universe. Ours really is an Electric Sky.
[...]
The main thrust of this book is that the time is ripe for informed people from outside astrophysics.to demand reasonable answers to reasonable questions and to evaluate what the astrophysical theoreticians have been telling us.
So Scott (and pln2bz) would seem to be advocating that the study of the Sky be done *solely* by folk the bulk of whose training is in laboratory plasma physics and electrical engineering, which blends assumptions and speculative research (like catastrophism, whatever that is) in with agreed-upon facts*.
But wouldn't this lead to exactly the situation that pln2bz so passionately decries? "To argue that people must all be cast within the same mold [lab-based plasma physics and catastrophism] before they can have a legitimate opinion on the biggest questions of the universe is self-defeating and blatantly antithetical to the history of science."
Further, look at what happens when "outsiders" (outside lab-based plasma physics and catastrophism) do the very thing that pln2bz (and Scott) advocate - comment on EU interpretations, demand reasonable answers to reasonable questions - they are ridiculed, they are threatened, have verbal abuse heaped upon them, and even banned from internet discussion fora ostensibly devoted to discussing EU ideas!
Scott advocates a cosmology that does not depend on 95% of the universe being missing. Whether you realize it or not, there are a couple hundred scientists who populate all of the major disciplines that agree with Don Scott's analysis, and who communicate on the issues on a daily basis. If Scott is misapplying physics, he's apparently doing it well enough to escape the attention of all of those people, including a handful of nuclear physicists. Apparently, Scott has figured out a way to tailor his "propaganda" that works for all disciplines. It must have taken him quite a bit of fine-tuning to turn something absurd into something that works across multiple disciplines like that!
We believe that it is not so -- that cosmologies should instead exhaust all more mundane explanations within the laboratory before we can resort to thought experiments. You guys can be forgiven for not seeing this decades ago when the conventional theories were being established, but the many unexpected findings related to electromagnetism within space should have inspir
Certain parties are using impersonation to deceive observers and gain credibility.
Note Phil Plait's youtube account name:
http://youtube.com/user/TheBadAstronomer
Now compare these:
http://youtube.com/user/TheBadAstronomr
http://youtube.com/user/BadAstronomer
You may or may not be personally interested in this one:
http://youtube.com/user/Nereied
Note especially their comments, in these for example (especially "TheBadAstronomr"):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-hNje6W7NWo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UAKw0xi7fcI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RPYz3iWmyLo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=E7oPdXN_gt4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zxWir-jB1fs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fnM7v-awEm8
And many more. It seems they've congregated primarily in the videos of "soupdragon42", but it will probably spread if it hasn't already..
"TheBadAstronomer" (i.e. the real Phil Plait) has responded to this at least once, so he's already aware:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wkq3oUXUrfQ
Youtube may have a policy against this sort of impersonation. I just noticed these, and they're all I've found so far.
Some EU evangelists seem more interested in gaining followers than discovering how the universe works, and willing to use any trickery, deception or shady meansto effect that end. The videos of soupdragon42 are further examples of this, containing omissions (probably both honest and otherwise), non sequiturs, a very naive understanding of the subject matter, and outright lies. This is the kind of propaganda I would expect of an adolescent mind complete with contrarianism and total lack of familiarity or training in the subject.
The Thunder-Kronia-Plasma-Electric-Mytholo-verse squad a fan club ranging from naive and earnest to naive, earnest and disingenuous.