Unproven theories

[Chyren S]

17 minutes ago, Philalethes said:

Pointing out that you're posting nonsense is not "anger" in any way, shape, or form. And you still haven't explained how to measure this "dark energy" of yours; I'm still waiting.

More nonsense; sounds like you're suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Yes, you are claiming that you're right, that's exactly what you're doing when you claim to be able to forecast the above; but the evidence to support those claims is absent.

I strongly doubt it, given that you seem to be making it all up.

A lot of the empty rhetoric you're employing demonstrates very clear similarities to such.

Then stop making things up and start posting evidence.

What an incredibly dishonest and baseless accusation. As if that's even remotely close to anything I do. I try to rely as much as possible on the actual facts and evidence, and the theoretical underpinnings of what humans have gathered so far. In sharp contrast to this there's nothing "logical" or "mathematical" about anything you've posted so far, and from what I can tell it betrays a lack of even basic physics knowledge. You've e.g. claimed that the Solar system revolves around the center of the galaxy in a few thousand years despite how we have extremely precise parallax measurements of the distance to the galactic center and very good measurements of the speed of the Solar system around it, demonstrating clearly that it takes over 200 million years. It's statements like those that show that you don't seem to care about how science works or what's true, you seem to believe whatever you want to believe.

I would strongly urge you to stop posting this type of stuff until you've at least learned the basics, and if you won't heed that warning I would at the very least implore you to stop posting nonsense and start posting facts and evidence to support any statements you make.

below are two pictures. this is something related to a forecast made about Mercury planet. The forecast says "From Now (dt: posted 31st march 2022) to 16th of April 2022" and rest as you can see in the picture. this will never happen that i forecast about any random planet and Modern science sitting on Earth will observe it. Every scientific news will not be covered by the Media. So, there are possibilities that present modern science may take years to confirm what i know. but results can be verified. i was just looking for help of your kinda enthusiasts, who can really bring this research to that level, where we know, what to look for to get exact idea of what is happening around. i wanted to make us able to forecast it to the accuracy of a needle point. data can do wonders if collected in right direction. what i know is the "theory of everything".

you may think that you can understand, analyze and produce dark energy in one day by understanding  what i explain here in two lines? human haven't understood this since inception. i really wanted to post everything in detail so that everybody can learn this. Probably this platform is not ready to learn.

my detailed posts will start only if the admin insists with a safe passage from you Dear. i believe in love n respect. sharing n growing together. you have to learn a lot to become a learner first.

Leaving you with one learner in this group, who invited me on this platform.

Thanks for all your motivation. 

Love n regards. 

[Philalethes]

26 minutes ago, Chyren S said:

below are two pictures. this is something related to a forecast made about Mercury planet. The forecast says "From Now (dt: posted 31st march 2022) to 16th of April 2022" and rest as you can see in the picture. this will never happen that i forecast about any random planet and Modern science sitting on Earth will observe it. Every scientific news will not be covered by the Media. So, there are possibilities that present modern science may take years to confirm what i know. but results can be verified. i was just looking for help of your kinda enthusiasts, who can really bring this research to that level, where we know, what to look for to get exact idea of what is happening around. i wanted to make us able to forecast it to the accuracy of a needle point. data can do wonders if collected in right direction. what i know is the "theory of everything".

you may think that you can understand, analyze and produce dark energy in one day by understanding  what i explain here in two lines? human haven't understood this since inception. i really wanted to post everything in detail so that everybody can learn this. Probably this platform is not ready to learn.

my detailed posts will start only if the admin insists with a safe passage from you Dear. i believe in love n respect. sharing n growing together. you have to learn a lot to become a learner first.

Leaving you with one learner in this group, who invited me on this platform.

Thanks for all your motivation. 

Love n regards. 

It's rather telling how the period covered by your "prediction" in that tweet saw practically zero geomagnetic activity whatsoever, and hardly any Solar activity either; from looking at the archive there was an X-flare on the 17th, so that article sounds like an insane exaggeration of one of the minor M-flares that occurred the days before. Looks like an article title straight out of the Hindustan Times (which pop up in my feed constantly with ridiculous clickbait titles like Danger! Gigantic Explosion on Sun Will Destroy Satellites and Cause Blackouts! almost every single day). There was actually more activity and some X-flares in the weeks after your "prediction" instead of during it; were you trying to be as wrong as possible?

It also reinforces my suspicion that you're suffering from delusions of grandeur when you claim to "know the theory of everything".

The problem here is clearly not my lack of understanding, but your lack of reason and evidence. While you've at least found your way to the containment thread for unproven ideas, I would expect from people that they at least remain somewhat reasonable even when posting here, something you're evidently not capable of for the time being.

Since you're clearly hellbent on not providing a shred of evidence or proof, and to continue spamming nonsense, I'm personally not going engage with you any further (until perhaps some time in the far future you've started making sense); to me the only thing you've proven at this point is that you have no idea what you're talking about at all.

Just giving you a heads-up in case you wonder why I will no longer be replying.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Philalethes

[Marcel de Bont]

2 uren geleden, Chyren S zei:

Seems you are angry dear. I have just started.

Let me stop you right there. First of all I think Philalethes his reply was very civil and very well thought through and not at all written in a way which I would describe as angry. You are however posting a lot of random claims without any thought behind them as to what is causing these things that you claim. Solar attacks. Black energy. The things you are bringing up sound like hocus pocus to me, not unproven theories.

I am open for civil discussions in this topic about non-main stream theories but I will not be allowing random nonsense. Your posts are not meeting the criteria I set out for this topic right now. So let me hear the theories you have to back up your claims or else this is not the right forum for you.

Thanks for your understanding.

[ChefyStephie]

You will be hard pressed to find folks over the age of four who accept “because I said so” and (“cherry picked”)social media screenshots as evidentiary. Granted, I only have anecdotal evidence for that statement, but it can be my unproven theory for now. 

[Archmonoth]

5 hours ago, Chyren S said:

below are two pictures. this is something related to a forecast made about Mercury planet.

I have a feeling you are just advertising for your twitter account. Can you explain your prediction? 

5 hours ago, Chyren S said:

The forecast says "From Now (dt: posted 31st march 2022) to 16th of April 2022" and rest as you can see in the picture. this will never happen that i forecast about any random planet and Modern science sitting on Earth will observe it.

How did you come to the conclusion/forecast?

5 hours ago, Chyren S said:

Every scientific news will not be covered by the Media. So, there are possibilities that present modern science may take years to confirm what i know. but results can be verified.

How do you know? How did you verify? Can you share or explain your reasoning/guess?

5 hours ago, Chyren S said:

i was just looking for help of your kinda enthusiasts, who can really bring this research to that level, where we know, what to look for to get exact idea of what is happening around. i wanted to make us able to forecast it to the accuracy of a needle point. data can do wonders if collected in right direction. what i know is the "theory of everything".

Why is the Theory of Everything in quotes? What data are you looking for? 

5 hours ago, Chyren S said:

you may think that you can understand, analyze and produce dark energy in one day by understanding  what i explain here in two lines? human haven't understood this since inception. i really wanted to post everything in detail so that everybody can learn this. Probably this platform is not ready to learn.

Threatening to post your explanation doesn't convince me, please post how you came to your conclusion/guess. I can't read your mind. 

5 hours ago, Chyren S said:

Love n regards. 

Love bombing doesn't make me less suspicious of your motivations or rationale. 

 

I get the feeling you enjoy being a predictor, a visionary, and you are looking for conformation of your ideas but are unable to clearly articulate them. 

 

If you are vague, anything can be true, this is part of confirmation bias: Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

 

To avoid being vague, start simple and concise, so I (and others) can follow your reasoning. 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Archmonoth

[Sam Warfel]

4 hours ago, ChefyStephie said:

You will be hard pressed to find folks over the age of four who accept “because I said so” and (“cherry picked”)social media screenshots as evidentiary. Granted, I only have anecdotal evidence for that statement, but it can be my unproven theory for now. 

Now that's an unproven theory that is testable!
A little survey could add some data to back it up!
😜

[_00_]

18 hours ago, Chyren S said:

...

you may think that you can understand, analyze and produce dark energy in one day by understanding  what i explain here in two lines? human haven't understood this since inception. i really wanted to post everything in detail so that everybody can learn this. Probably this platform is not ready to learn.

...

I join the request for you to explain that dark energy thing, I also have my theories about it.

For me, dark energy is an inherent part of existence, together with "white" energy it makes up our measurable universe, unknown? no, we have enough indications of its existence although we still don't know (beyond black holes) how it forms in the universe.

Conceptually, my hypothesis is that the universe is made up of these two "opposite" energies, one corresponds to a positive, emissive pressure, and a negative, attractive one... (with some particularities, due to the time/frequency differential at its origin, they are not mutually "killable"...).

This combination of both energies forms resonant/oscillating vibrational structures that bind them together, giving rise to density distributions in what we call matter.

Yeah, what we call atoms would be resonant structures corresponding to these energies, in a semi-stable equilibrium determined by the density of both, the volume/surface ratio and other as the minimum frequency (plank)....

I understand that this type of conceptualizations contain a great metaphysical content, something that we cannot ignore since the very physical tools that we use (mathematics) induce it and have to be correctly interpreted physically, as string theory does in that sense.

Personally I find it a very interesting topic, but I also understand that this forum is dedicated to solar tracking from a scientifically demonstrable point of view and that this type of issue generates debates that undermine its purpose. (perhaps too much: recently a topic about the reconnection of magnetic fields was nipped in the bud... but it is what it is and what we have to limit ourselves to)

[Archmonoth]

12 hours ago, _00_ said:

I join the request for you to explain that dark energy thing, I also have my theories about it.

 

Very fun topic, plenty of unknowns to speculate about. 

12 hours ago, _00_ said:

For me, dark energy is an inherent part of existence, together with "white" energy it makes up our measurable universe, unknown? no, we have enough indications of its existence although we still don't know (beyond black holes) how it forms in the universe.

In relation to dark energy, how do polarized/opposites result in an increase the expansion of space?

Dark energy - Wikipedia  "The first observational evidence for its existence came from measurements of supernovas, which showed that the universe does not expand at a constant rate; rather, the universe's expansion is accelerating."

 

12 hours ago, _00_ said:

Conceptually, my hypothesis is that the universe is made up of these two "opposite" energies, one corresponds to a positive, emissive pressure, and a negative, attractive one... (with some particularities, due to the time/frequency differential at its origin, they are not mutually "killable"...).

In physics, opposites are geometrically polarized. So, waves in an ocean at a certain angle will cancel out waves of the inverse angle. This is known as interference. 

 

I appreciate the idea of polarization, since many things like plasma are highly polarized. With spacetime, negative/positive curvature shapes structures like blackholes, orbits, etc.

 

To expand on the duality you suggest, there are also 3 main characteristics of most matter/energy: Spin, mass, charge. These are seen in many particles, black holes, atoms, etc. 

 

Spin (particle physics) - Wikipedia

Mass - Wikipedia

Electric charge - Wikipedia

 

I am using wiki links to give a general understanding of what I am referring to, not to establish an authority on dark matter/energy. 

12 hours ago, _00_ said:

This combination of both energies forms resonant/oscillating vibrational structures that bind them together, giving rise to density distributions in what we call matter.

 

In physics these are strong/weak nuclear bonds, and in quantum mechanics a similar mechanism is called chromodynamics. Quantum chromodynamics - Wikipedia The term "strong" is used to describe the binding force. 

 

12 hours ago, _00_ said:

Yeah, what we call atoms would be resonant structures corresponding to these energies, in a semi-stable equilibrium determined by the density of both, the volume/surface ratio and other as the minimum frequency (plank)....

Laws of conservation describe the direction of all matter/energy towards this lowest energy state. 

12 hours ago, _00_ said:

I understand that this type of conceptualizations contain a great metaphysical content, something that we cannot ignore since the very physical tools that we use (mathematics) induce it and have to be correctly interpreted physically, as string theory does in that sense. 

 

Science uses fairly precise language, and metaphysical language is often vague or generalized (not wrong). So, the difference in language might be in the same direction, but too ambiguous for exact translation. 

 

For me and my thoughts on dark energy/matter, I have always wondered if and how angular momentum of stars and distant objects were done. I know mass is measured through gravitational lensing and such but how is spin measured? 

 

We can measure rotations of neutron stars or bright objects, even galaxies, but not many planets, asteroids, comets, etc. They all have energy in their rotation which we can't see. This has been my guess at what dark energy is: unmeasured angular momentum. 

 

Spin, or spinning can prevent gravitational collapse in stars for example.  (At about 2:10 you can see the wheel is suspended, rather than falling/coming to rest.) 

 

Also, my guess/speculation on the expansion rate issue in physics is from there being multiple Big Bangs at different times. The universe we live in could be much larger than we have guessed or measured. 

 

Hubble described something called the Hubble Sphere which is about 14.4 billion light years wide.

 Hubble volume - Wikipedia

 

If the universe is large enough, Big Bangs can happen near each other. Dark energy and the expansion of space could be from perturbations of nearby Big Bangs happening or Hubble Spheres growing dark. We could be near an area of the universe where a Big Bang happened billions (or trillions) of years ago and the vacuum pulls surrounding Hubble volumes into it. 

 

For reference; the suspected fate of the universe is a cold dark place, and after many billions/trillions of years, stars cease to be born. White dwarfs (the fate of our Sun) can live for about 20 trillion years. (for example)

 

I don't think the universe is eternal or infinite, but it might be much larger, and the Big Bang is just another kind of Supernova. This is all speculation on my part as to what dark energy or matter might be. 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Archmonoth

[Philalethes]

5 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

I don't think the universe is eternal or infinite, but it might be much larger, and the Big Bang is just another kind of Supernova. This is all speculation on my part as to what dark energy or matter might be. 

If you care for my own wild speculations on the matter, which is admittedly definitely not mainstream at all (although I will at least provide my reasoning for it in clear terms and not pull it out of thin air), it is this:

I do think the universe is eternal and infinite, and for the time being subscribe to static cosmology, i.e. I don't think there was ever any Big Bang at all, and that cosmological redshift has been erroneously ascribed to expansion as part of the ΛCDM model; as such I think dark energy is simply not necessary to explain what's observed at all, and I think some form of tired light explains cosmological redshift far better, even though we don't know what the exact mechanism would be yet. Some supporting evidence can be found e.g. here, the plot in Fig. 5 being particularly interesting.

As for dark matter, I think the evidence for the existence of that is much stronger, although it remains a mystery what it could be. I speculate that a good candidate for it would be something termed "subhydrogen", which is an electron bound to a proton at a lower state than what is considered the ground state of hydrogen, as described e.g. here. This transition is considered not to exist in many models, and seems to require specific conditions to occur, which could potentially explain the lack of interaction with light.

Luckily these types of cosmological speculation are not that relevant to the more immediate and provable facts of space weather, but I don't mind anyone expressing their views on the matter at all as long as there's at least some form of thought and reasoning behind it that can be communicated.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Philalethes
typo

[praxisofbootes]

The English teacher in me couldn’t help but point out some fallacies, dear. The problem isn’t your ideas, but how you are illogically presenting them. Fallacies are logical claims, so here’s a few of your common errors!

Before I begin this assessment, Let me say that I enjoy the logical discourse this forum cultivates. I think the moderator is doing a great job promoting civic and academic discourse. The ability to recognize illogical claims in others (and ourselves) is key to maintaining productive, civic discourse. On that note, please feel free to point out any of my own misgivings.

The Texas sharp shooter fallacy: The name of this fallacy comes from the idea of shooting many bullets at a barn wall, then picking the hits that are closest as proof that you are a good sharpshooter. The problem with this type of the illogical claim is that data is cherry-picked to prove a point; this can lead to confusion between correlation and cause-and-effect and false connections between data sets. Your choice to cherry/pick random sets of data in an effort to prove a grand “theory” is evidence of this fallacy. Your conclusions have less to do with cognitive understanding and more to do with random selection of poorly correlated ideas. Those in this forum claiming you need to educate yourself are only trying to help you make more educated connections.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (Argument From Ignorance): The idea that “if one can’t prove something is true, it must be true” is the best way to describe this fallacy.

On 6/7/2023 at 8:43 AM, Chyren S said:

you may think that you can understand, analyze and produce dark energy in one day by understanding  what i explain here in two lines? human haven't understood this since inception

Don’t You argue that the information you withhold must be true because it hasn’t been properly understood yet? Just because humanity hasn’t proven it to be true, doesn’t automatically make you correct.

On 6/7/2023 at 8:43 AM, Chyren S said:

i really wanted to post everything in detail so that everybody can learn this. Probably this platform is not ready to learn.

I wanted to initially call this example an ad hominem fallacy since you were essentially “threatening” the collective in this forum (we are not ready to learn, therefore you will withhold information). However, I realize you were simply gaslighting and stonewalling.

The Personal Incredulity Fallacy: Just because you don’t understand the information being shared with you, doesn’t make it false or lack credibility. In the majority of your responses, you choose to Stonewall individuals trying to educate you, and it is very apparent that you don’t understand the science behind the topics being discussed here (or even in the vague metaphysical topics you are trying to address). It seems you would rather attempt to discredit and gaslight the individuals in this forum then engage in actual debate or discourse.

Tu Quoque Fallacy: Most of your retorts involve leveling criticism against others’ criticism of you - however your answers neither provide proof toward your own claims nor provide logical counter-claims.

As others have mentioned, you demonstrate confirmation bias. But I also see that you classically exhibit the Dunning–Kruger effect, A type of cognitive bias in which “people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.”  For this, there’s only one cure: the ignorant must humble their ego and recognize that there is much to learn. In the meantime,  thank you for this fun exercise in identifying rhetorical fallacies!

 

[Archmonoth]

8 hours ago, Philalethes said:

If you care for my own wild speculations on the matter, which is admittedly definitely not mainstream at all (although I will at least provide my reasoning for it in clear terms and not pull it out of thin air), it is this:

Very cool, thanks for voicing your speculation and explaining it. 

8 hours ago, Philalethes said:

I do think the universe is eternal and infinite, and for the time being subscribe to static cosmology, i.e. I don't think there was ever any Big Bang at all, and that cosmological redshift has been erroneously ascribed to expansion as part of the ΛCDM model; as such I think dark energy is simply not necessary to explain what's observed at all, and I think some form of tired light explains cosmological redshift far better, even though we don't know what the exact mechanism would be yet. Some supporting evidence can be found e.g. here, the plot in Fig. 5 being particularly interesting.

I have read about the 20+ z on the red shifted galaxies previously, which was actually part of why I guess why there could be multiple Big Bangs. 

 

I think eternal objects/universe etc., have a second dependency, they require eternal knowledge or information to validate. Which creates recursive dependencies, since the requirement has no beginning to validate.

 

If there was a beginning, then the potential for an end exists (not eternal), if there was no beginning, then there is no method to validate the existence of something before any imagined ancient date. 

 

Traditionally the Big Bang describes the emergence of time at the same moment as space and energy etc., so the requirements are a bit entangled. However, multiple Big Bangs would have near infinite mass/energy, and the creation of very slow/fast emergence of time, rather than absolute. Multiple Bangs, means a single Bang isn't the sole foundation for time/space, just most of it. 

 

Perhaps there is no absolute information/knowledge, since we would need absolute knowledge to know if our knowledge is absolute. This is a self-referential paradox (logical contradiction) is why I doubt the existence of absolute knowledge.  So, the universe could be eternal, mortal, or something even stranger. 

 

May I ask why you think the universe is eternal and infinite? 

8 hours ago, Philalethes said:

As for dark matter, I think the evidence for the existence of that is much stronger, although it remains a mystery what it could be. I speculate that a good candidate for it would be something termed "subhydrogen", which is an electron bound to a proton at a lower state than what is considered the ground state of hydrogen, as described e.g. here. This transition is considered not to exist in many models, and seems to require specific conditions to occur, which could potentially explain the lack of interaction with light.

I liked this article a lot, and reminds me of the 21 Cm line: Hydrogen line - Wikipedia Which is how we can see nebulas and gas etc. I can see the plausible explanation of exotic properties of hydrogen, proton, electron under very cold conditions. 

 

How would you speculate as to the cause of the accelerated expansion of space from this dark matter/energy? (Which is why dark energy is even postulated)

 

If it was in the article, I may have missed it. 

8 hours ago, Philalethes said:

Luckily these types of cosmological speculation are not that relevant to the more immediate and provable facts of space weather, but I don't mind anyone expressing their views on the matter at all as long as there's at least some form of thought and reasoning behind it that can be communicated.

I agree, and I appreciate you explaining your speculation. 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Archmonoth

[Philalethes]

2 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

May I ask why you think the universe is eternal and infinite? 

Well, on a physical level it seems to be the most logical consequence of what static cosmology implies, so given that I believe the evidence supports static cosmology the most I tend to believe that's the case; on a more metaphysical level I would also make the classic argument of Empedocles and Lucretius that nothing can come from nothing ("ex nihilo nihil fit"), and thus that it seems to be a metaphysical necessity that something must always have existed.

2 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

How would you speculate as to the cause of the accelerated expansion of space from this dark matter/energy? (Which is why dark energy is even postulated)

I only speculate it to be the mysterious dark matter, i.e. what's responsible for the strange gravitational effects we see in large-scale structures; as I mentioned in the paragraph above it there would no longer be any need for dark energy if you posit there to be no universal expansion at all and for cosmological redshift to be caused by something like tired light instead.

The former is indeed difficult to envision how you would empirically verify, but scientific investigations into dark matter should be more feasible; at least it should be possible for other scientists to recreate the conditions necessary to form subhydrogen if it is indeed possible and happening, and to conduct their own investigations into it and its properties.

[Archmonoth]

9 hours ago, Philalethes said:

Well, on a physical level it seems to be the most logical consequence of what static cosmology implies, so given that I believe the evidence supports static cosmology the most I tend to believe that's the case; on a more metaphysical level I would also make the classic argument of Empedocles and Lucretius that nothing can come from nothing ("ex nihilo nihil fit"), and thus that it seems to be a metaphysical necessity that something must always have existed.

I don't intend to derail from science too much, but I wanted to comment on this. 

 

To me it is a leap of logic to suggest something must have always existed, simply because something exists now. There is nothing in our human social world, natural world, or cosmology which has the proven potential to exist forever. Neither star nor ocean, neither culture nor empire seems to be beyond change or death. My argument against Ex nihilo nihil fit, is to suggest an eternal world because something exists now, is an optimistic avoidance of death, since there is no necessity for eternity, only current existence. 

 

We exist now, yet we are mortal, the planet exists now, yet at some point they did not.

 

The logic when applied to the universe pushes the boundary to the most abstract definition of "everything". Regardless of how far the boundary is pushed, and the vaguest and most abstract definition of the universe is discussed, there is less and less distinction to indicate mortality or immortality of the system. Since mortality and death are common, and nothing seems to be beyond the laws of conservation, I think a return to zero is inventible, but the ultimate fate remains unknown. Here is a fun link on the suspected timeline of a non-static cosmology: Timeline of the far future - Wikipedia 

 

The timeline is based on Conservation Laws, and still allows for a possibility for more Big Bangs, however there is no necessity for another Big Bang to occur, just a potential. 

 

The language of logic has issues with temporal organization, and the Problem of Time can lead to static cosmologies as a place holder. However, you might enjoy this article about how time itself might be an emergent property: Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement | by The Physics arXiv Blog | The Physics arXiv Blog | Medium

 

To me this says when you are in a closed (entangled) system, you can see time, but from outside the system, you can't distinguish time occurring on the inside of the entangled system. 

 

So, from within a Big Bang (or nearly Big Bang), we can see time (conservation) occurring, but outside the boundary of the system looking in, the Big Bang does not exhibit time. (All is conserved, and returns to zero)

 

Anyways, just some thoughts on static cosmology. 

 

9 hours ago, Philalethes said:

I only speculate it to be the mysterious dark matter, i.e. what's responsible for the strange gravitational effects we see in large-scale structures; as I mentioned in the paragraph above it there would no longer be any need for dark energy if you posit there to be no universal expansion at all and for cosmological redshift to be caused by something like tired light instead.

So, you would attribute/speculate dark matter as to the accelerating expansion?

9 hours ago, Philalethes said:

The former is indeed difficult to envision how you would empirically verify, but scientific investigations into dark matter should be more feasible; at least it should be possible for other scientists to recreate the conditions necessary to form subhydrogen if it is indeed possible and happening, and to conduct their own investigations into it and its properties.

Well, I look forward to anything they discover, sounds very interesting! 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Archmonoth

[Philalethes]

3 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

I don't intend to derail from science too much, but I wanted to comment on this. 

To me it is a leap of logic to suggest something must have always existed, simply because something exists now. There is nothing in our human social world, natural world, or cosmology which has the proven potential to exist forever. Neither star nor ocean, neither culture nor empire seems to be beyond change or death. My argument against Ex nihilo nihil fit, is to suggest an eternal world because something exists now, is an optimistic avoidance of death, since there is no necessity for eternity, only current existence. 

We exist now, yet we are mortal, the planet exists now, yet at some point they did not.

The logic when applied to the universe pushes the boundary to the most abstract definition of "everything". Regardless of how far the boundary is pushed, and the vaguest and most abstract definition of the universe is discussed, there is less and less distinction to indicate mortality or immortality of the system. Since mortality and death are common, and nothing seems to be beyond the laws of conservation, I think a return to zero is inventible, but the ultimate fate remains unknown. Here is a fun link on the suspected timeline of a non-static cosmology: Timeline of the far future - Wikipedia 

The timeline is based on Conservation Laws, and still allows for a possibility for more Big Bangs, however there is no necessity for another Big Bang to occur, just a potential. 

The language of logic has issues with temporal organization, and the Problem of Time can lead to static cosmologies as a place holder. However, you might enjoy this article about how time itself might be an emergent property: Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement | by The Physics arXiv Blog | The Physics arXiv Blog | Medium

To me this says when you are in a closed (entangled) system, you can see time, but from outside the system, you can't distinguish time occurring on the inside of the entangled system. 

So, from within a Big Bang (or nearly Big Bang), we can see time (conservation) occurring, but outside the boundary of the system looking in, the Big Bang does not exhibit time. (All is conserved, and returns to zero)

Anyways, just some thoughts on static cosmology.

I agree that it's easy to get derailed from what we can relate back to observations when crossing over into metaphysics; to try to ground it back in what we can observe, I'd point to one of the premises I agree with, namely the empirically observed conservation laws, e.g. conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. What I must respectfully disagree with is that you can conclude from this that we will somehow return to zero, because it seems to me that this assumes the conclusion, namely that everything emerged from zero in the first place. That assumption is essentially what I disagree with, since I personally don't see any evidence that it's true.

To put it in other terms, while I agree with the very evident observation that most of the things we observe appear to be born and die, e.g. living beings, empires, planets, stars, galaxies, and so on, they are never observed to come out of nowhere, nor do they ever seem to disappear into nothing upon death. Stars and planets are born through accretions of matter, living beings are reproduced from the previous generation, and so on, and when they die the energy and matter seems to then once again be used in this process. Even while such entities are considered to exist they are continuously transforming, sometimes to the point where they're hardly recognizable for outside observers, even if they might have some internal continuity in the form of feeling like the same individual in the case of a human or any other sentient being. So what seems to be birth and death from our vantage point is in many ways subsumed under the more general process of transformation.

Static cosmology is of course not making any claims about individual entities like stars or humans being immortal, only that the space in which they arise and the constituents they arise from never really change.

That being said it's probably more productive to focus more on the observational evidence in favor of and against the respective cosmologies than it is to focus on the more metaphysical aspects anyway. After all it's easy to construct a lot of ideas about what you think reality simply must be like from a metaphysical perspective, only to have those ideas shattered by what's actually observed, heh.

3 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

So, you would attribute/speculate dark matter as to the accelerating expansion?

No, not quite; what I contend is that there is no expansion at all, and that cosmological redshift was erroneously attributed to expansion by Lemaître upon Slipher's suggestion. Thus there's no need for anything to account for expansion.

The role of dark matter on the other hand is simply what Zwicky originally invented the term for, namely matter that seemed to be there to make sense out of the clearly non-Newtonian rotation curves of galaxies, but did not appear to be visible.

[Archmonoth]

2 hours ago, Philalethes said:

To put it in other terms, while I agree with the very evident observation that most of the things we observe appear to be born and die, e.g. living beings, empires, planets, stars, galaxies, and so on, they are never observed to come out of nowhere, nor do they ever seem to disappear into nothing upon death. Stars and planets are born through accretions of matter, living beings are reproduced from the previous generation, and so on, and when they die the energy and matter seems to then once again be used in this process.

These were the recursive dependencies I was referring to; Something is born from something else. I understand an eternal universe doesn't have these dependencies. However just like there is no precedent for something coming from nothing, nor is there precedent for something having always existed. Since everything in the observable universe (so far) has come from something else. 

 

Also, voids and absences are "things" due to their distinction, even if they aren't anything. This is because the temporal aspect of change can illuminate loss in brilliant contrast. (Grief is an emotional example of this.)

 

I mention these points because the meta-physics of something coming from nothing is a matter of distinction. To me, distinction is the only essence of existence. I am devolving into semantics, which I enjoy, but is further from the science of the idea. 

 

2 hours ago, Philalethes said:

Even while such entities are considered to exist they are continuously transforming, sometimes to the point where they're hardly recognizable for outside observers, even if they might have some internal continuity in the form of feeling like the same individual in the case of a human or any other sentient being. So what seems to be birth and death from our vantage point is in many ways subsumed under the more general process of transformation.

This is a great point and I want to expand on this briefly, then I will exit from the metaphysical talk. 

 

The Ship of Thesus is a great example of something being recursively dependent and seemingly eternal. Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia

 

So, if all things are based on previous transformations, or birth from death, and we abstract the place/existence as a single thing, then the universe (all existence) has at least 1 specific characteristic, which is the universe is the place where all the things are changing.

 

If the place (universe) is where all the changes occur also can change, or changes just a little, then a little more, then after countless changes, it loses the distinct characteristic of being the place where all changes occur. This would mean change occurs somewhere else. There would be 2 distinct places, 2 universes, 2 existences, and the specific quality would cease to be distinct. We could then abstract both existences as a single place and continue the recursive definition. 

 

However, if space and time are emergent properties, rather the logical axioms, then the universe could become stranger than we currently imagine. To quote Lovecraft "That is not dead which can eternal lie, with stranger eons even death may die." 

 

In the Ship of Theseus, the planks are replaced until there is no longer any planks from the original. Likewise, if the ship was captained by someone other than Theseus for a certain period, it would no longer be Thesus's ship. Or if the ship changed to a degree where it could no longer be seaworthy, it would cease to be a ship/vessel. The distinction of the ship, Theseus, and the materials are all dependencies for being distinguished as "The Ship of Theseus."

 

If the universe changes overtime, there is nothing preventing it from changing into something which we could no longer distinguish as the universe, but something else entirely. To me, a static cosmology is a claim that the essential distinctions of the current universe cannot change, and I don't think the universe is beyond change, to the point where there might be a time where all distinction ceases. 

 

There is no logical dependency for the Ship of Thesus to be infinite because it experiences change or transformation, nor would be it eternal because the beginning cannot be mapped. Although there might be disagreement on what exactly is the Ship of Theseus, its planks are made of semantics, and the ocean it sails is axiomatically derived. 

 

2 hours ago, Philalethes said:

Static cosmology is of course not making any claims about individual entities like stars or humans being immortal, only that the space in which they arise and the constituents they arise from never really change.

The underlying foundation of changelessness does not seem like a logical necessity to me. I was using examples of observable objects to show that existence of any kind doesn't necessarily denote an eternal or infinite quality. 

 

Thank you again for explaining your ideas. 

2 hours ago, Philalethes said:

That being said it's probably more productive to focus more on the observational evidence in favor of and against the respective cosmologies than it is to focus on the more metaphysical aspects anyway. After all it's easy to construct a lot of ideas about what you think reality simply must be like from a metaphysical perspective, only to have those ideas shattered by what's actually observed, heh.

Very true, and thanks for the conversation. 

2 hours ago, Philalethes said:

No, not quite; what I contend is that there is no expansion at all, and that cosmological redshift was erroneously attributed to expansion by Lemaître upon Slipher's suggestion. Thus there's no need for anything to account for expansion. 

This makes sense, perhaps future James Web goodness will show us a little more

Edited June 9, 2023 by Archmonoth

[Philalethes]

20 minutes ago, Archmonoth said:

However just like there is no precedent for something coming from nothing, nor is there precedent for something having always existed. Since everything in the observable universe (so far) has come from something else.

I suppose this is at the heart of it, because I would still be inclined to disagree with the latter statement; to me it seems like the constituents themselves do in fact seem to always have existed. When we talk about something coming from something else we seem to typically refer to aggregates of those constituents that we classify as being a specific "thing", i.e. when something has transformed sufficiently we no longer classify it as being that thing, but it doesn't seem like those constituents themselves have come from anywhere. That being said, even what we think of as elementary particles can transform into one another via annihilation and pair production, so it might be that we'd have to simply stick with energy itself as being that ultimate constituent which does not seems to have come from anywhere, but that is still something that seems to always have existed, as energy itself as far as we know is always conserved. Thus I'd argue that at least energy seems to qualify and fulfill the role of that precedent.

32 minutes ago, Archmonoth said:

The Ship of Thesus is a great example of something being recursively dependent and seemingly eternal. Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia

So, if all things are based on previous transformations, or birth from death, and we abstract the place/existence as a single thing, then the universe (all existence) has at least 1 specific characteristic, which is the universe is the place where all the things are changing.

If the place (universe) is where all the changes occur also can change, or changes just a little, then a little more, then after countless changes, it loses the distinct characteristic of being the place where all changes occur. This would mean change occurs somewhere else. There would be 2 distinct places, 2 universes, 2 existences, and the specific quality would cease to be distinct. We could then abstract both existences as a single place and continue the recursive definition. 

Heh, I was about to mention that analogy, or the parts in Alice in Wonderland where Alice wonders if she is the same person when she wakes up as the one that went to bed last night, or even remarks upon having changed quite a bit since that very morning.

However, as mentioned above there's the matter of what doesn't seem to transform at all, e.g. energy in this case; but yes, the aggregates made up by whatever is the constituents do indeed seem to constantly change, including how the atoms making up our bodies as we all know are frequently switched out, until most (or possibly all, the jury's still out on that with regards to certain tissues) of them are not the same as a certain number of years prior.

As for space itself, the question is indeed whether space itself is changing; those who subscribe to expansionary cosmologies like ΛCDM or steady-state are arguing that that is indeed happening, whereas those who subscribe to static cosmology would argue that this is not the case.

45 minutes ago, Archmonoth said:

To me, a static cosmology is a claim that the essential distinctions of the current universe cannot change, and I don't think the universe is beyond change, to the point where there might be a time where all distinction ceases. 

There is no logical dependency for the Ship of Thesus to be infinite because it experiences change or transformation, nor would be it eternal because the beginning cannot be mapped. 

Well, keep in mind here the distinction between "the universe" and what we refer to as "space". Given that the former by definition refers to everything that exists, there is clearly internal change much like in the manner of the ship, but when we're talking about the difference between static cosmology and other cosmologies it's rather about certain attributes of the universe, most notably that of space; it is space that is argued does not change under static cosmology, whereas expansionary cosmology holds that it does in fact change.

I certainly agree there's no logical dependency for the universe to necessarily be static or infinite, and one could even envision expansionary cosmologies that didn't necessarily come from nothing either, that's simply a matter of what I personally think the observational evidence fits better. I do think there's a necessity for it to be eternal, but as we've discussed that's more of a metaphysical matter than a scientific one; as you correctly surmise, if we never seem to find an actual beginning there's no way to empirically establish that it is in fact eternal, even though observations might turn out to all strongly suggest it.

1 hour ago, Archmonoth said:

The underlying foundation of changelessness does not seem like a logical necessity to me. I was using examples of observable objects to show that existence of any kind doesn't necessarily denote an eternal or infinite quality.

Well, hopefully I've illustrated that I understand what you mean, and that I agree that the aggregates we refer to as various things do all indeed seem to change and never be eternal or infinite; but the only logical necessity I speculated on was that of something always coming from something else rather than nothing, or alternatively of that something simply always having existed and always remaining what it is (in the case of whatever the ultimate conserved constituent is, hinted to as being energy above), i.e. that the case I was precluding was only that of something somehow coming from nothing, as that's what there does not seem to be any precedent for as far as I'm aware.

1 hour ago, Archmonoth said:

This makes sense, perhaps future James Web goodness will show us a little more

Heh, yeah; so far it's not looking great for Big Bang cosmology if you ask me, although I frequently see and hear talk of how we just need to tweak it a little bit more, as has been the case after most of the observations made the past century apart from a few good fits. Not that I'm against the idea of tweaking models that seem to work well for the most part, but the problem here is that there are still quite a few large unresolved problems that it doesn't seem like any amount of tweaking will make disappear.

I think we're well past that stage by now, but I'll be interested to see what various cosmologists will come up with as we get more findings from it and from future space telescopes.

[Nilesh]

13 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

To me this says when you are in a closed (entangled) system, you can see time, but from outside the system, you can't distinguish time occurring on the inside of the entangled system. 

Time is not at all entangled anywhere. This is just that we are in relativity and our brain is not smart enough to resolve the entanglement.  if it is true how to resolve it ?

Edited June 10, 2023 by Nilesh

[Philalethes]

For anyone interested in a comparison of the scientific empirical data comparing expansionary and static cosmology (as discussed to a certain extent above), this is a good little paper that is quite unbiased in my view, and which also makes good points for expansionary cosmology and doesn't rule either out. It can at least serve as a starting point for getting acquainted with what some of the most common tests of both are and in what sense they seem to fit either or both, as well as giving a brief overview of the current situation cosmology is in.

Summary of the results for quick reference:

[Nilesh]

On 6/8/2023 at 2:26 PM, _00_ said:

I join the request for you to explain that dark energy thing, I also have my theories about it.

For me, dark energy is an inherent part of existence, together with "white" energy it makes up our measurable universe, unknown? no, we have enough indications of its existence although we still don't know (beyond black holes) how it forms in the universe.

Conceptually, my hypothesis is that the universe is made up of these two "opposite" energies, one corresponds to a positive, emissive pressure, and a negative, attractive one... (with some particularities, due to the time/frequency differential at its origin, they are not mutually "killable"...).

This combination of both energies forms resonant/oscillating vibrational structures that bind them together, giving rise to density distributions in what we call matter.

Yeah, what we call atoms would be resonant structures corresponding to these energies, in a semi-stable equilibrium determined by the density of both, the volume/surface ratio and other as the minimum frequency (plank)....

I understand that this type of conceptualizations contain a great metaphysical content, something that we cannot ignore since the very physical tools that we use (mathematics) induce it and have to be correctly interpreted physically, as string theory does in that sense.

Personally I find it a very interesting topic, but I also understand that this forum is dedicated to solar tracking from a scientifically demonstrable point of view and that this type of issue generates debates that undermine its purpose. (perhaps too much: recently a topic about the reconnection of magnetic fields was nipped in the bud... but it is what it is and what we have to limit ourselves to)

Hi
Your theory is wonderful about two energies. Is there any relevant source of this information or how did you reach to this conclusion of two energies working in universe.

[Sam Warfel]

Although this is all very interesting, and I’ve enjoyed reading parts of it, I think we’ve strayed far enough. 
Let’s bring the thread back to its topic of unproven theories relating to space weather.
Take further discussion to DMs or some other forum or platform which is intended for the topic. 
Thank you!

[Archmonoth]

18 hours ago, Philalethes said:

I suppose this is at the heart of it, because I would still be inclined to disagree with the latter statement; to me it seems like the constituents themselves do in fact seem to always have existed. When we talk about something coming from something else we seem to typically refer to aggregates of those constituents that we classify as being a specific "thing", i.e. when something has transformed sufficiently we no longer classify it as being that thing, but it doesn't seem like those constituents themselves have come from anywhere. That being said, even what we think of as elementary particles can transform into one another via annihilation and pair production, so it might be that we'd have to simply stick with energy itself as being that ultimate constituent which does not seems to have come from anywhere, but that is still something that seems to always have existed, as energy itself as far as we know is always conserved. Thus I'd argue that at least energy seems to qualify and fulfill the role of that precedent.

 

Quick comment/thought on the semantics of this precedent:

 

Energy is a disruption in a field, and after being conserved will equal zero. All conservation laws have a return to zero after perturbation. Energy can also be canceled through interference. 

 

Energy isn't some blue mana floating around changing shape, which I am sure you are aware of, but it seemed like a relevant point to bring up after thinking about it for a day. 

 

Thank you again for the explanation, your thoughts are well described. 

 

10 hours ago, Nilesh said:

Time is not at all entangled anywhere. This is just that we are in relativity and our brain is not smart enough to resolve the entanglement.  if it is true how to resolve it ?

The article about time I posted, (which I think you are referring to) is saying that Time is an emergent property of an entangled system. 

 

For reference, the more entangled a system is, the more entropy it has. Max entanglement equals max entropy. 

 

Space might also be an emergent property, which is why the acceleration of the expansion of space is compelling to speculate about. Dark energy? Some attribute of an exotic participle? Or perhaps angular momentum needs more space to conserve, so space is expanded to compensate? 

 

How do you know our brain is not smart enough to understand? What special knowledge do you have which tells you this nugget of truth? 

 

9 hours ago, Chyren S said:

1- In this Universe, nothing is permanent. Everything (even, all the constants) is variable except....... the relativity of any entanglement. if you are able to solve this relativity, you will be able to design time of universe. starting from the center of Universe to the last edge. 

While I agree with your very first sentence, why are there exceptions? 

9 hours ago, Chyren S said:

2- Whatever life time you or any specie will ever have in this universe, you will never be able to sustain your position on the universal map. Time of any mass in the universe, is just a tool to measure your movement at any moment or the path travelled by you in any interval of relativity. 

Ok, this is a basic description of time as a measurement of change. 

9 hours ago, Chyren S said:

3- Both Energies are responsible to construct (any possible) matter holding any kind of visible or invisible energy and will eventually form different state of matters. they must be having a broad sequence technically and if, they have, then they will have specific properties driven by these energies.

What energies are you talking about? Time and entanglement? Neither are typically considered energy, but rather measurements or conditions of a system.  

9 hours ago, Chyren S said:

4- The properties of the matters, their presence & the structure will indicate the polarity of the space ( for celestial and atomic structures) comprised of these matters itself will show you the direction, effect and quantum of the force applied due to polarity. this will hep you in defining the gravity in real terms. 

How does quantum entanglement interact or describe gravity in "real terms"?

9 hours ago, Chyren S said:

5- if you solve all above, you will actually derive two things-

Solve? You are asserting some connections but not explaining them. 

9 hours ago, Chyren S said:

Though, all these shifts are a kind of time dilations at micro level, considering the size of the Universe. But, what i have tried to explain here to you...... is that only this relativity (what we have calculated) is constant.

 

Many proportions of cycles, orbits ratios etc. are common, it doesn't solve, prove or express any truth to the points you have described. Patterns are based on math, they aren't magical, they are relationships of numbers and geometry. 

 

Thank you though for an attempt at an explanation, and perhaps after some replies you can clarify some ideas. 

 

Please private message me if you want to discuss more. 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Archmonoth

[Nilesh]

22 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

How do you know our brain is not smart enough to understand? What special knowledge do you have which tells you this nugget of truth? 

We do not understand time as we want to formulate it. Time can be calculated only with the absolute knowledge of its functioning at any point of time.

[Carrington 2025]

Hello I have been hearing about this heartbeat of sun and a correlation to volcanic eruption is this a theory atm or fact I hate how mainstream media words stuff I hope ok to ask here

[helios]

@Carrington 2025
Zharkhova (the originator of the "Grand solar minimum" theory) published a paper recently about an alleged link between the sun and volcanic activity. Perhaps you are refefring to that.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.03637.pdf

[Philalethes]

31 minutes ago, Carrington 2025 said:

Hello I have been hearing about this heartbeat of sun and a correlation to volcanic eruption is this a theory atm or fact I hate how mainstream media words stuff I hope ok to ask here

It definitely falls under something unproven and not fact, but as with similar topics like the previously discussed connection between Solar activity and earthquakes, there has been some investigations into it. It's certainly exactly the type of question this thread is intended for.

Apart from the paper helios posted above, a quick search for some literature yielded a few papers. There's this one, where they look at two different periods they refer to as periods of global cooling and global warming respectively, and most notably claim that there seems to be more volcanic activity during the declining phases of the Solar cycles; they also claim there is more activity during the minima of the warming period. This one claims that volcanic activity is more prevalent during prolonged minima and less prevalent during prolonged maxima, and also that there are some similarities between the two when comparing longer periods. In this one they mention earlier results indicating higher volcanic activity during minima, but failed to find any significant connection at all.

There's probably a lot more on the topic, but I wouldn't say anyone has found any very strong connection; I would guess that if a connection exists it's likely to be a slight correlation like there seems to be with seismic activity, since volcanic and seismic activity after all are related in several ways.