scientific models the atom?

[Michael]

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...tation-and-visible-matter-puzzles-astronomers

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Well, I suppose nothing is impossible, but you'd first need to convince me that the mainstream accurately calculates the mass of various galaxies and that there really is a "need" for any type of non-baryonic forms of matter in the first place.

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Hmm...

That is nowhere near my intention.

I don't subscribe to dark matter, dark energy, or a cosmological model that suspends electromagnetic spheres in a vacuum without a detail on, or consideration of the field permeation of space.

I don't think much of any of cosmology is accurately measured on principle of the scientific method - not because of scientific demerit.

Field theory doesn't even say a galaxy exists as we know it - a collection of localized particles with intrinsic properties of fields interacting with fields around them.

The particle itself is non-local in TQFT... everything is a sum of field interaction.

 

[Michael]

Hmm...

That is nowhere near my intention.

I don't subscribe to dark matter, dark energy, or a cosmological model that suspends electromagnetic spheres in a vacuum without a detail on, or consideration of the field permeation of space.

I don't think much of any of cosmology is accurately measured on principle of the scientific method - not because of scientific demerit.

Field theory doesn't even say a galaxy exists as we know it - a collection of localized particles with intrinsic properties of fields interacting with fields around them.

The particle itself is non-local in TQFT... everything is a sum of field interaction.

So how does TQFT help to describe galaxy rotation patterns?

[1603.07734] The Rotation of the Hot Gas Around the Milky Way

You'll note that in 2012 they "discovered" more mass in the form of a hot plasma "halo" that is surrounding the galaxy than exists in all the mass in all the stars combined. Only last year did they verify that this plasma halo rotates like their "dark matter" models would also require.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

So how does TQFT help to describe galaxy rotation patterns?

[1603.07734] The Rotation of the Hot Gas Around the Milky Way

You'll note that in 2012 they "discovered" more mass in the form of a hot plasma "halo" that is surrounding the galaxy than exists in all the mass in all the stars combined. Only last year did they verify that this plasma halo rotates like their "dark matter" models would also require.

Reidemeister/analytic torsion of the "spacetime" manifold - another property of the net field interactions.

The particles are still "virtual," and are simply the result of field interactions from propagators - including torsion of the spacetime manifold, and how that changes the field medium.

 

[Michael]

Reidemeister/analytic torsion of the "spacetime" manifold - another property of the net field interactions.

The particles are still "virtual," and are simply the result of field interactions from propagators - including torsion of the spacetime manifold, and how that changes the field medium.

I'd imagine that TQFT wouldn't necessarily be in conflict with any particular existing mass layout. I just see plenty of evidence to suggest that the mainstream didn't know know how to properly calculate the mass of galaxies in 2006, not even our own galaxy.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I'd imagine that TQFT wouldn't necessarily be in conflict with any particular existing mass layout. I just see plenty of evidence to suggest that the mainstream didn't know know how to properly calculate the mass of galaxies in 2006, not even our own galaxy.

In fact, all of the tools necessary to elegantly navigate TQFT have always been there.

No need for new types of masses - just the same (mass) propagator with perturbed equations of motion, for example.

 

[Michael]

In fact, all of the tools necessary to elegantly navigate TQFT have always been there.

No need for new types of masses - just the same (mass) propagator with perturbed equations of motion, for example.

I'm not sure how it would tie back into electromagnetism, but if you haven't checked out the work of Anthony Peratt, I think you'll find his galaxy rotation models to be interesting.

 

[dms1972]

That's actually the safest bet at the moment. There is *ample* evidence that the baryonic mass estimates used in 2006 were not worth the paper they were printed on, and a great deamoxern science left a placel moredore ordinary matter was present than they estimated. In fact, all cosmology claims about the existence of dark matter are based upon the presumption that we can accurately estimate the mass of our own galaxy, as well as distant ones, but we just found more mass around our own galaxy in 2012 than all the mass that we'd found prior to 2012. We also keep finding satellite galaxies all around our own galaxy.

Thanks again for your comments. I do think science is self-correcting, it just sometimes takes a while for the data to come in I suppose. I also think some of these models may be complementary, but I am not well enough up on things to say which. I think they will always be incomplete to some extent. But while data eventually confirms or falsifies hypotheses, the skill is in knowing what the next hypothesis to propose should be. Michael Polanyi has written: "The advancement of science consists in discerning Gestalten that are aspects of reality".

In regard to what you said earlier about the supernatural. Its worth noting that though christians question methodological naturalism, they do so because early modern science was not like the science of today. Early modern science often proceding from a theistic base, left a place for man as man. Man wasn't seen as merely a part of the machine. Believing in God, missionaries to premodern tribes would teach christianity and science as understood at the time, which replaced any 'magical' notions a tribe would have about nature. The naturalistic explanation taught or studied in isolation however led to determinism.

 

[Michael]

Thanks again for your comments. I do think science is self-correcting, it just sometimes takes a while for the data to come in I suppose. I also think some of these models may be complementary, but I am not well enough up on things to say which.

I agree that science is eventually self-correcting, but sometimes at a *snail's* pace. Birkeland was dead and buried before the mainstream accepted his aurora theories, and I may be dead and buried before they figure out that Birkeland was right about the electrical nature of the sun.

The thing to keep in mind is that empirical physics has always eventually triumphed over supernatural dogma. I'm sure that LCDM theory will go the way of the Dodo bird, but until then, my money is on empirical physical alternatives.

There's ample evidence that the mainstream simply botched the baronic mass estimates in that infamous 2006 paper on "dark matter", and every "test" of exotic matter in the lab has been a bust. The safe bet is on ordinary matter to make up the difference between the mainstream's "mass estimates" based on light, and their 'mass estimates" based on lensing patterns.

 

[dms1972]

Yes if you mean putative natural explanations that when carefully examined turn out to be 'supernatural' so to speak, of themselves.

However in terms of scientific explanations, if we are explaining Nature it is quite possible to hold to there being a Creator of Nature, while at the same time there are natural structures, processes etc. to discover, and understand. The results, the discovery of these natural structures, order and harmony, are often taken for themselves, with or without regard for the Creator. What would be the case if in a science class, one learned about the invention of the electric filament light bulb, with no reference made to Thomas Edison? Its a legitimate outcome of science education to have some admiration for a pioneer in science, but according to some you must not mention the Creator of Nature.

Apologetics is a different pursuit, it can legitimately make use of genuine science as it attempts to point to convergences that indicate there is an Intelligent Creator, 'behind' the Cosmos.

Ironically we are now seeing that hard atheism leads to irrational 'supernatural' explanations, while Theism has provided a base for rational and natural explantions.

Science needs an adequate universal from which to begin. Hard atheism, in the form of positivism, doesn't lay one for its first step.

 

[Michael]

Yes if you mean putative natural explanations that when carefully examined turn out to be 'supernatural' so to speak, of themselves.

However in terms of scientific explanations, if we are explaining Nature it is quite possible to hold to there being a Creator of Nature, while at the same time there are natural structures, processes etc. to discover, and understand. The results, the discovery of these natural structures, order and harmony, are often taken for themselves, with or without regard for the Creator. What would be the case if in a science class, one learned about the invention of the electric filament light bulb, with no reference made to Thomas Edison? Its a legitimate outcome of science education to have some admiration for a pioneer in science, but according to some you must not mention the Creator of Nature.

Apologetics is a different pursuit, it can legitimately make use of genuine science as it attempts to point to convergences that indicate there is an Intelligent Creator, 'behind' the Cosmos.

Ironically we are now seeing that hard atheism leads to irrational 'supernatural' explanations, while Theism has provided a base for rational and natural explantions.

Science needs an adequate universal from which to begin. Hard atheism, in the form of positivism, doesn't lay one for its first step.

Exactly.