Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

To give some sense of the problems that damccut has, this is a comment that I made on another thread:

He claims that E=mc² is wrong because it only works in SI units!

From his web site:
He gives an woo calculation for a set mass of 9.10938214501E-31 kg:
E in kg*m²/s² = 2.797674300794E-10
E in "lb*in/s" (actually lb*in²/s²) = 7.106092724017E-12
2.797674300794E-10 != 7.106092724017E-12 and thus his conclusion.

He is too ignorant to realize that the the units of energy have also changed between the 2 calculations.

Click to expand...

This of course also disproves Newton since by his criteria F=ma only works in SI units (how wonderful of Newton to anticipate the creation of SI units!)

damccut said:

Where is the link to all of your important work?
If you bothered to read my book, you would see that it is merely a new theory of matter. But for that theory to be true requires several other things to be true.
1. Einstein was wrong with his energy theory; E does not equal mc^2.
2. Einstein was wrong about c being the speed limit of the Universe.
3. Einstein was wrong about the reasons for relativity.
4. Most of quantum theory is based on wrong assumptions.
5. All particles have mass at all times, which leads to the non-existence of DM and DE.

Yeah, I know it all sounds impossible, but it isn't.
I truly believe that anyone who is afraid of reading "Ultrawave Theory" is really afraid that they will not be able to understand it. It is actually quite simple and makes much more sense that anything else out there today. When you do want to ask a pointed question of detail, not some generalization, ask away.
Besides, they are no different from you; read abstract, knee-jerk reaction of "no way", quick reject. Been there done that.

Click to expand...

.

You may be interested to read this thread: Non-baryonic cold dark matter ("CDM"), the observational evidence.

However, based on just 1. in your list, I rather doubt it would be worth your time. You see, what you seem to be proposing is a complete re-write of most of physics. As the (astronomical) observational evidence for CDM is built on standard, textbook, physics, you'd have to re-write all those textbooks first, then re-write all the astrophysics and astronomy ones.

It might be simpler to concentrate on addressing The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment first.

When you can show - quantitatively - that your idea is better than GR at explaining the hundreds of experiments and observations in Clifford Will's summary, get back to us.

In fact, how about explaining just one; my preference would be the Pound-Rebka experiment, with the Hulse-Taylor observations a close second.

On the possible existence of “dark matter” you may have seen headlines about a recent “proof”
of dark matter based on data from a collision of galaxies. The title of the paper, to be published
in the prestigious Astrophysical Journal, is “A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark
matter” (Clowe et al., 2006). Upon reading this title, I became immediately suspicious because,
as philosopher of science James Hall states, “Our hypotheses may get support or they may go
down in flames, but they never, ever get proved” (Hall, 2005). The paper features some
impressive technical discussion, but contains no discussion of some critical caveats. In particular,
the argument assumes that normal matter is fully accounted for by the inventory of visible stars
and hot plasmas. However, it has been reported that non-visible interstellar gas, lower-energy
plasmas and brown dwarfs, in combination, likely exceed luminous stars in the local mass budget
of our own galaxy (e.g., Fuchs, Jahreiss, and Flynn, 2006).

Click to expand...

http://www.ctr4process.org/programs/LSI/2006-Cosmology/EastmanT - Cosmic Agnosticism.pdf

More from the same publication.

There was one clear-cut prediction from the steady state theory. This was that the expansion of the universe would tend to accelerate (due to the creation process) rather than decelerate, as it must do in all Friedmann models without a cosmological constant (cf. Hoyle & Sandage 1956). Thus many claims were made from 1950 onward that the observations showed that the universe is decelerating, until by the 1980s it was finally admitted that the uncertainties in the observational methods being used were so great that it was impossible to decide.


Much more recently, starting in 1998, work using supernovae of Type Ia as standard candles which can be detected at high redshifts was announced by Perlmutter, Riess and their colleagues. They showed fairly conclusively, initially, with measurements out to z ϕ 0.6 that the universe is accelerating. This being the case, there are two different cosmological scenarios that can explain it. The first is to insert a positive cosmological constant into the usual Friedmann models. The second is to remember that the classical steady state theory predicted (cf. Hoyle & Sandage 1956) this result and the modified steady state (the QSSC) also predicted that the universe would be accelerating (Hoyle et al. 1993, 2000). However, in reporting this result the observers once again showed their prejudice. Instead of at least stating that their result was qualitatively what had been predicted by the classical steady state model and the quasi-steady state cosmology, as is normally done in announcing a new observational result, and then going on to interpret their data in terms of a Friedmann model with a positive cosmological constant, they simply made the claim that they had demonstrated the reality of that model, as though that was the only way to go. And, of course, in doing this they were followed by the community who were equally ignorant or biased, or both,

Click to expand...

Fascinating.

The second is to remember that the classical steady state theory predicted (cf. Hoyle & Sandage 1956) this result and the modified steady state (the QSSC) also predicted that the universe would be accelerating (Hoyle et al. 1993, 2000). However, in reporting this result the observers once again showed their prejudice. Instead of at least stating that their result was qualitatively what had been predicted by the classical steady state model and the quasi-steady state cosmology, as is normally done in announcing a new observational result, and then going on to interpret their data in terms of a Friedmann model with a positive cosmological constant, they simply made the claim that they had demonstrated the reality of that model, as though that was the only way to go.

Click to expand...

Thats just stupid. SST was dead long before the observation of an accelerating Universe. By the authors logic, if an observation was made which agreed with the theory that Earth is flat but not that the Earth is a sphere(ish) we would have to state that in our research findings.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all of the evidence"
(A Study in Scarlet, Chapter 3),

"before one has data, one begins to twist facts to suit theory instead of theory to twist facts"
(A Scandal in Bohemia).

~~ Sherlock Holmes

robinson said:

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all of the evidence"
(A Study in Scarlet, Chapter 3),

Click to expand...

Thats just stupid as well. I'm sure we don't have all the evidence available that the Earth is spherical and not flat. Should we still entertain the possibility the Earth is flat?

"before one has data, one begins to twist facts to suit theory instead of theory to twist facts"
(A Scandal in Bohemia).

~~ Sherlock Holmes

Click to expand...

Before one has data one doesn't have facts.

Tubbythin said:

Thats just stupid. SST was dead long before the observation of an accelerating Universe. By the authors logic, if an observation was made which agreed with the theory that Earth is flat but not that the Earth is a sphere(ish) we would have to state that in our research findings.

Click to expand...

It's stupid for another reason too. The evidence shows that expansion of our universe has been decelerating for a long time, and has only "recently" (on cosmic time scales) begun to accelerate. While I'm not going to waste my time looking, I doubt very much that's what those other models predicted.

DeiRenDopa said:

.

You may be interested to read this thread: Non-baryonic cold dark matter ("CDM"), the observational evidence.

However, based on just 1. in your list, I rather doubt it would be worth your time. You see, what you seem to be proposing is a complete re-write of most of physics. As the (astronomical) observational evidence for CDM is built on standard, textbook, physics, you'd have to re-write all those textbooks first, then re-write all the astrophysics and astronomy ones.

It might be simpler to concentrate on addressing The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment first.

When you can show - quantitatively - that your idea is better than GR at explaining the hundreds of experiments and observations in Clifford Will's summary, get back to us.

In fact, how about explaining just one; my preference would be the Pound-Rebka experiment, with the Hulse-Taylor observations a close second.

Click to expand...

I assume you are referring to the 4.2° precession rate, as well as the time dilation and gravity wave production when discussing the Hulse-Taylor findings. To fully address these issues would require that I have a complete gravity theory based on ultrawaves, but alas I do not. I can only tell you what my interpretations are about the findings, which are located in Chapters 15 and 16 of my book. I do not dispute the mathematical accuracy of relativity, at least in the low to middle range of velocity and mass. What I believe will be found is that at the extremes there will not be any drastic outcomes as predicted by relativity. Time will not stop, mass will not increase to infinity, no singularities will be formed, etc. The very existence of the ultrawave velocity opens up other avenues for answers; all that is needed is a better mathematical description than what we now have to work with. I don’t care if it’s me or someone else who solves the problems. Having defined matter by positing the existence of ultrawaves is enough for me. I just want to let everyone know about ultrawaves so that there will be others to help do the work.

As far as Pound-Rebka goes, their assumption was that a change in mass due to velocity provides gravitational change, supporting relativity. With ultrawaves, mass change is impossible. What can be determined from this shift in perspective is that motion is responsible for force of gravity change. This can be accomplished by viewing spacetime as consisting of something; not quite an Aether, but not as bland as Einstein’s spacetime (i.e. Chapters 15 and 16). This means that if no mass at all existed in the Universe except for one object then it would still feel acceleration due to motion changes supplied by rocket motors, for example. Another extreme that I didn’t even mention in my book is that the amount of matter in the Universe dictates the amount of volume it has and vice versa. Matter, space and time are all linked together and are completely indivisible. Strings and branes create spacetime, as well as particles, they just do it differently.

One of the other items in this thread is the SST and expansion. I fully agree that SST is dead. The expansion issue, however is still open for debate. I believe that it will be found that gravity is inconstant and disappears over great distances, which leads to the illusion that the expansion rate is accelerating.

damccut said:

I do not dispute the mathematical accuracy of relativity, at least in the low to middle range of velocity and mass.

Click to expand...

So high velocity would be what? High mass would be what?

This can be accomplished by viewing spacetime as consisting of something; not quite an Aether, but not as bland as Einstein’s spacetime (i.e. Chapters 15 and 16).

Click to expand...

You think Einstein's spacetime is bland?

damccut said:

I assume you are referring to the 4.2° precession rate, as well as the time dilation and gravity wave production when discussing the Hulse-Taylor findings. To fully address these issues would require that I have a complete gravity theory based on ultrawaves, but alas I do not. I can only tell you what my interpretations are about the findings, which are located in Chapters 15 and 16 of my book. I do not dispute the mathematical accuracy of relativity, at least in the low to middle range of velocity and mass. What I believe will be found is that at the extremes there will not be any drastic outcomes as predicted by relativity. Time will not stop, mass will not increase to infinity, no singularities will be formed, etc. The very existence of the ultrawave velocity opens up other avenues for answers; all that is needed is a better mathematical description than what we now have to work with. I don’t care if it’s me or someone else who solves the problems. Having defined matter by positing the existence of ultrawaves is enough for me. I just want to let everyone know about ultrawaves so that there will be others to help do the work.

Click to expand...

Not quite the reply I was expecting, but ...

As you know, there are several gravitational wave detectors, in different parts of the world, collecting data.

One common signature they are looking out for is called an 'inspiral', which is the radiation of gravitational waves (GW) expected when two massive, dense objects de-orbit, due to a loss of orbital energy, due to gravitational (wave) radiation.

I expect you'd agree that an inspiral would most certainly be 'extreme'!

As no inspiral event has yet been detected, you have a chance to make history ... by predicting the correct GW signature (it's only a matter of time before a double neutron star does an inspiral, or a black hole-neutron star binary, or ...).

Have you done this yet?

As far as Pound-Rebka goes, their assumption was that a change in mass due to velocity provides gravitational change, supporting relativity. With ultrawaves, mass change is impossible. What can be determined from this shift in perspective is that motion is responsible for force of gravity change. This can be accomplished by viewing spacetime as consisting of something; not quite an Aether, but not as bland as Einstein’s spacetime (i.e. Chapters 15 and 16). This means that if no mass at all existed in the Universe except for one object then it would still feel acceleration due to motion changes supplied by rocket motors, for example. Another extreme that I didn’t even mention in my book is that the amount of matter in the Universe dictates the amount of volume it has and vice versa. Matter, space and time are all linked together and are completely indivisible. Strings and branes create spacetime, as well as particles, they just do it differently.

Click to expand...

You've lost me ...

I wasn't aware that Pound-Rebka involved any "change in mass due to velocity provid[ing] gravitational change" - can you supply a source for this please?

Back to the topic of this thread ...

There are many, many observations whose interpretation leads to the conclusion that there is a great deal of cold, non-baryonic dark matter (CDM) in the universe, from the halo of our galaxy, to the farthest reaches of space.

How many, if any, of these observations can you explain - quantitatively - using your idea (without CDM)?

DeiRenDopa said:

Not quite the reply I was expecting, but ...

As you know, there are several gravitational wave detectors, in different parts of the world, collecting data.

One common signature they are looking out for is called an 'inspiral', which is the radiation of gravitational waves (GW) expected when two massive, dense objects de-orbit, due to a loss of orbital energy, due to gravitational (wave) radiation.

I expect you'd agree that an inspiral would most certainly be 'extreme'!

As no inspiral event has yet been detected, you have a chance to make history ... by predicting the correct GW signature (it's only a matter of time before a double neutron star does an inspiral, or a black hole-neutron star binary, or ...).

Have you done this yet?
You've lost me ...

I wasn't aware that Pound-Rebka involved any "change in mass due to velocity provid[ing] gravitational change" - can you supply a source for this please?

Back to the topic of this thread ...

There are many, many observations whose interpretation leads to the conclusion that there is a great deal of cold, non-baryonic dark matter (CDM) in the universe, from the halo of our galaxy, to the farthest reaches of space.

How many, if any, of these observations can you explain - quantitatively - using your idea (without CDM)?

Click to expand...

As for part I of your question, the simple answer is no. It will not be possible for me to do this without a theory of gravity of my own, which I do not yet have. I feel I am getting close—I am close to understanding k using ultrawave constants—to getting a usable equation for k=8piG/c^4.

The second question assumes that the current view of galactic structure is correct. When you understand the ultrawave particle construction, you begin to see how the supermassive black holes in galaxies more closely resemble how particles work. If these black holes turn out to be large ultrawave constructed tori then their behavior, as well as the unusually large velocity of outlying stars fits with a frame dragging scenario that is more in line with a 9 lightyear per second ultrawave velocity. If gravity is truly dependent on the reach of the circularly traveling ultrawaves, then quantity of mass alone accounts for the reach of each type of mass. When galaxies are far enough apart, even their monstrous central black holes will not be able to reach and influence each other. This is a dreaded endless expansion outcome, but it is still better than the runaway expansion dictated by DE. I believe that there is nothing in relativity theory that prevents space from expanding at any rate; meaning it is not limited to c.

Tubbythin said:

So high velocity would be what? High mass would be what?

Velocity within a small fraction of a percent of light speed.
Not mass per se, but mass density. Black Hole mass density to be exact.

You think Einstein's spacetime is bland?

Click to expand...

Only in its lack of definition. I have tried to supply it with a little more substantive attributes. You really should read my book.

damccut said:

... snip ...

When galaxies are far enough apart, even their monstrous central black holes will not be able to reach and influence each other.

... snip ...

Click to expand...

If you say so ...

How far apart is 'enough'?

Oh, and you didn't, in fact, answer my second question (what you answered was my first and third questions).

So, here's the second question again:

damccut said:

As far as Pound-Rebka goes, their assumption was that a change in mass due to velocity provides gravitational change, supporting relativity. With ultrawaves, mass change is impossible. What can be determined from this shift in perspective is that motion is responsible for force of gravity change. This can be accomplished by viewing spacetime as consisting of something; not quite an Aether, but not as bland as Einstein’s spacetime (i.e. Chapters 15 and 16). This means that if no mass at all existed in the Universe except for one object then it would still feel acceleration due to motion changes supplied by rocket motors, for example. Another extreme that I didn’t even mention in my book is that the amount of matter in the Universe dictates the amount of volume it has and vice versa. Matter, space and time are all linked together and are completely indivisible. Strings and branes create spacetime, as well as particles, they just do it differently.

Click to expand...

DeiRenDopa said:

You've lost me ...

I wasn't aware that Pound-Rebka involved any "change in mass due to velocity provid[ing] gravitational change" - can you supply a source for this please?

Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

Would you be so kind as to answer this?

Velocity within a small fraction of a percent of light speed.

Click to expand...

What fraction?

damccut said:

Only in its lack of definition. I have tried to supply it with a little more substantive attributes. You really should read my book.

Click to expand...

You really should read up on nuclear physics.
You should also stop answering me within my quotation marks.

DeiRenDopa said:

If you say so ...

So, here's the second question againemphasis added)

Would you be so kind as to answer this?

Click to expand...

You can find it here.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0012/0012059v1.pdf

I really don't have time to waste chatting with people who refuse to examine a theory completely before making unnecessary comments. I am only interested in those who are willing to take the time. If you read at least the first 12 chapters then you can contact me directly at damccut@gmail.com and comment then. I'll know by what you say whether you actually did read it, and won't answer if I think you didn't.

If you post about your book one more time I will report you for commercial interests you knavish troll.

can't answer a question? Then don't talk about your book.

Don't go away mad, just go away.

Bump.

Don't worry, you will see why soon enough.