Top Ten Scientific Facts

[Total Science]

Here is my list of top ten scientific facts.

1. Space and time are not material objects (Maupertuis 1750, Kant 1781, 1787, Davisson 1927, Heisenberg 1958).
2. Hydrocarbons are abiogenic (Von Humboldt 1804, Bakewell 1813, Berthelot 1866, Mendeleyev 1877, Kudryavtsev 1951).
3. The mantle is cold and its rigidity increases with depth (Tassos and Ford 2005, Tassos 2008).
4. The Pacific Ocean was entirely enclosed during the Cretaceous and did not exist (McCarthy 2003, 2005).
5. The diameter of the Earth has increased over time (Drayson 1854, Mantovani 1909, Carey 1976).
6. Earthquakes are electric (Freund 2002, 2003, 2007, Tassos and Ford 2005, Thornhill 2005).
7. The universe is electric (Maxwell 1857, 1873, Thomson 1897, Tesla 1900, 1904, Birkeland 1913, Velikovsky 1946, 1950, Alfvén 1970).
8. Gravity is electromagnetic (Faraday 1845, 1865, Poincaré 1908, Velikovsky 1946, 1950).
9. Redshifts are intrinsic and non-cosmological (Hubble 1947, Arp 1966, 1987, 1998, 2003).
10. The Big Bang is a myth (Hubble 1947, Hoyle 1949, Arp 1966, 1987, 1998, 2003, Lerner 1991).

[MGmirkin]

You forgot a couple:

0) The more things change, the more they stay the same.
-1) Only two things are certain: death and taxes.

*Wink*

~Michael Gmirkin

P.S. Might edit #7: (Peratt, 1986 & Hultqvist, 2008)

[StevenO]

I agree with Michael since most other facts have been disproven. Here's a few I know for sure:

Here is my list of top ten scientific facts.

1. Space and time are not material objects (Maupertuis 1750, Kant 1781, 1787, Davisson 1927, Heisenberg 1958).

In the last 50 years several people have proven that all physical constants can be expressed as ratio's of space and time, so this can't hold. There is a link. Dewey Larson explains it as "motion" being the constituent of the universe (motion = space/time). Space and time being two reciprocal aspects of that motion. The right motions create the known physical phenomena.

7. The universe is electric (Maxwell 1857, 1873, Thomson 1897, Tesla 1900, 1904, Birkeland 1913, Velikovsky 1946, 1950, Alfvén 1970).

The main driving force of the universe is gravity combined with the continuous expansion of space and recycling of matter between the material universe and the anti-material universe (Larson 1959).

8. Gravity is electromagnetic (Faraday 1845, 1865, Poincaré 1908, Velikovsky 1946, 1950).

Gravity is an inward motion of matter that goes against the expansion of space. Therefore it is intrinsic to matter. (Larson 1959).

9. Redshifts are intrinsic and non-cosmological (Hubble 1947, Arp 1966, 1987, 1998, 2003).

redshifts are a result of the observation of the expansion of space outside the influence of gravity (Larson 1959).

10. The Big Bang is a myth (Hubble 1947, Hoyle 1949, Arp 1966, 1987, 1998, 2003, Lerner 1991).

See 9. No BigBang is needed to explain the continuous expansion of space. The zero action state of the universe is a space/time ratio (motion) at lightspeed. The observation of this default state is what we see the further we look in the universe.

[Total Science]

I agree with Michael since most other facts have been disproven. Here's a few I know for sure:

Here is my list of top ten scientific facts.

1. Space and time are not material objects (Maupertuis 1750, Kant 1781, 1787, Davisson 1927, Heisenberg 1958).

In the last 50 years several people have proven that all physical constants can be expressed as ratio's of space and time, so this can't hold. There is a link. Dewey Larson explains it as "motion" being the constituent of the universe (motion = space/time). Space and time being two reciprocal aspects of that motion. The right motions create the known physical phenomena.

No one has been able to hold space or time in their hands in the last 50 years.

"Space without matter is something imaginary." -- Gottfried W. Leibniz, polymath, 1689

"There is no vacuum." -- Gottfried W. Leibniz, polymath, 1689

"To summarize my point, since space without matter is something imaginary, motion, in all mathematical rigor, is nothing but a change in the position [situs] of bodies with respect to one another, and so, motion is not something absolute, but consists in relation. This already follows from the Aristotelian definition of place, for motion is the change of place, and place is the surface of the surrounding body, so when this changes, motion occurs, and either the surrounding body or the thing in the place can be assumed to have moved away, leaving the other at rest." -- Gottfried W. Leibniz, polymath, 1689

"When formerly I regarded space as an immovable real place, possessing extension alone, I had been able to define absolute motion as change of this real space. But gradually I began to doubt whether there is in nature such an entity as is called space; whence it followed that a doubt might arise about absolute motion." -- Gottfried W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

[StevenO]

No one has been able to hold space or time in their hands in the last 50 years.

So you would argue there is no space between your fingers or that you cannot hold a clock?

The argument is that space and time are different aspects of motion and cannot be seen in separation.
Time and space are in a continuous expansion but the space expansion is offset by gravity. The vacuum, a photon, an atom are all different forms of motions (Larson, 1959).

"Space without matter is something imaginary." -- Gottfried W. Leibniz, polymath, 1689

"There is no vacuum." -- Gottfried W. Leibniz, polymath, 1689

Without matter there is still radiation.

[Lloyd]

The top scientific fact is our intelligent consciousness, without which no other facts are knowable.

[Total Science]

No one has been able to hold space or time in their hands in the last 50 years.

So you would argue there is no space between your fingers or that you cannot hold a clock?

The argument is that space and time are different aspects of motion and cannot be seen in separation.

"...we must raise the whole problem about place/space -- not only as to what it is, but even whether there is such a thing." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book IV

"...if [place] it is itself an existent, where will it be? Zeno's difficulty demands an explanation: for if everything that exists has a place, place too will have a place, and so on ad infinitum." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book IV

"It is evident, then, that it is easy to refute the arguments by which they prove the existence of the void." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book IV

Without matter there is still radiation.

No. Radiation requires matter and is matter, e.g. x-rays require electrons and gamma rays require protons.

[Tzunamii]

"Rabbit Season!"- Daffy Duck
"Duck Season"- Bugs Bunny

[Solar]

No. Radiation requires matter and is matter, e.g. x-rays require electrons and gamma rays require protons.

In relation to that statement do you have any thoughts/speculations on the nature of the "matter" that might be producing the CMB?

[StevenO]

No. Radiation requires matter and is matter, e.g. x-rays require electrons and gamma rays require protons.

In relation to that statement do you have any thoughts/speculations on the nature of the "matter" that might be producing the CMB?

According to Larson (1959) the CMB is the radiation we receive from "anti-matter" stars. Since these stars are localized in time instead of space, their radiation is received in a three dimensional spatial reference frame with an absolutely uniform and isotropic distribution. And since these anti-matter stars are at a high "inverse" temperature the radiation is received as low temperature radiation in the material universe.

[Solar]

1. Space and time are not material objects (Maupertuis 1750, Kant 1781, 1787, Davisson 1927, Heisenberg 1958).

No. Radiation requires matter and is matter, e.g. x-rays require electrons and gamma rays require protons.

In relation to the mCBR these appear to conflict. We have a radiation of 2.725K (or so) being emitted everywhere with only billionths of degree difference (almost uniform) in fluctuation. One of the two conclusions would seem to be required to trump the other.

Maybe it's just me but this conflict represents the quandary that indicates a need for an Aether. Either "space" is of such a nature that that it can "radiate" that mCBR or, as with the relatively recent acknowledgment of plasma as a fourth state of "matter", there is as yet another unrecognized state of matter *in* "space" that accounts for the emission. Which is it?

Larson's explanation is peculiar; antimatter stars localized in time? The mCBR isn't "absolutely uniform". Obviously I'm in favor of the Aether to account for this as both Harold Aspden and Aetheromety have done a fine job of accounting for it:

See section entitled "Does the Aether have a Temperature?"

And

...but also ambipolar radiation, which in turn produces the cosmic microwave background radiation (mCBR). So the mCBR is not the afterglow of some mythical 'big bang', in which all matter and energy, and even space and time, were created out of nothing, but the signature of the ongoing generation of matter out of the aether. - Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction

Yes; I know. We can do all kinds of fancy schmancy things without an Aether. We can continue to brush aside the "anomalous" energy outputs far in excess of energy input like with Cold Fusion etc. But then we keep ending up in philosophical cul-de-sacs of contradiction when trying to render a qualitative explanation. One of Total Science's points above is correct; the other isn't.

[StevenO]

1. Space and time are not material objects (Maupertuis 1750, Kant 1781, 1787, Davisson 1927, Heisenberg 1958).

No. Radiation requires matter and is matter, e.g. x-rays require electrons and gamma rays require protons.

In relation to the mCBR these appear to conflict. We have a radiation of 2.725K (or so) being emitted everywhere with only billionths of degree difference (almost uniform) in fluctuation. One of the two conclusions would seem to be required to trump the other.

These are forms of chicken-and-egg problems. Space and time are two aspects of motion. It takes time to move and space to move and a harmonic movement to detect either of these two. Radiation can be converted to matter and vice-versa. So do we need matter to create radiation or the other way around?

Larson has an elegant explanation for this that also highlights the property of the aether if you wish so. According to his theory the universe consists of pure 3 dimensional motion and space and time are two reciprocal aspects of that motion (as in motion=space/time). The zero-action motion is a lightspeed ratio progresssion of space and time. Radiation is a form of basic 1D harmonic motion and matter comes in to existence with more complex form of motions (3D oscillations). From the postulates he can deductively derive all known physics phenomena (radiation, gravity, atoms and chemical elements, cosmological cycle, nature of anti-matter, nature of time). Matter lives on our "material" side of the universe with 3 dimensions of space and zero dimensional time (scalar time), while anti-matter (Larson calls it 'cosmic matter') lives on the "temporal" side of the universe with 3 time dimensions and zero dimensional space (scalar space). Contact between the two domains can only be on these scalar points. Photons however move in between the two domains and can thus be seen on both sides. That is why we can receive the radiation of the anti-matter stars. Since these stars have no space location in our 3D Space/0D time side this radiation seems to come from nowhere/everywhere.

Maybe it's just me but this conflict represents the quandary that indicates a need for an Aether. Either "space" is of such a nature that that it can "radiate" that mCBR or, as with the relatively recent acknowledgment of plasma as a fourth state of "matter", there is as yet another unrecognized state of matter *in* "space" that accounts for the emission. Which is it?

Larson's explanation is peculiar; antimatter stars localized in time? The mCBR isn't "absolutely uniform". Obviously I'm in favor of the Aether to account for this as both Harold Aspden and Aetheromety have done a fine job of accounting for it:

See section entitled "Does the Aether have a Temperature?"

And

...but also ambipolar radiation, which in turn produces the cosmic microwave background radiation (mCBR). So the mCBR is not the afterglow of some mythical 'big bang', in which all matter and energy, and even space and time, were created out of nothing, but the signature of the ongoing generation of matter out of the aether. - Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction

Yes; I know. We can do all kinds of fancy schmancy things without an Aether. We can continue to brush aside the "anomalous" energy outputs far in excess of energy input like with Cold Fusion etc. But then we keep ending up in philosophical cul-de-sacs of contradiction when trying to render a qualitative explanation. One of Total Science's points above is correct; the other isn't.

I'm familiar with the work of Aspden and I can say that Larson's work is more fundamental. It is in the league of Newton. According to Larson everything in the universe is made of the same stuff: motion. The big bang and aether are different forms of explanation for what Larson calls the basic progression of time and space in the universe at lightspeed.

[Solar]

Larson has an elegant explanation for this that also highlights the property of the aether if you wish so. According to his theory the universe consists of pure 3 dimensional motion and space and time are two reciprocal aspects of that motion (as in motion=space/time). The zero-action motion is a lightspeed ratio progresssion of space and time. Radiation is a form of basic 1D harmonic motion and matter comes in to existence with more complex form of motions (3D oscillations). From the postulates he can deductively derive all known physics phenomena (radiation, gravity, atoms and chemical elements, cosmological cycle, nature of anti-matter, nature of time). Matter lives on our "material" side of the universe with 3 dimensions of space and zero dimensional time (scalar time), while anti-matter (Larson calls it 'cosmic matter') lives on the "temporal" side of the universe with 3 time dimensions and zero dimensional space (scalar space). Contact between the two domains can only be on these scalar points. Photons however move in between the two domains and can thus be seen on both sides. That is why we can receive the radiation of the anti-matter stars. Since these stars have no space location in our 3D Space/0D time side this radiation seems to come from nowhere/everywhere.

Beyond the 'dimensional' nomenclature I'm honestly not seeing significant conceptual differences between your conveyance of Larson's ideas and the work of Aspden; nor what I can gather from Aetheromety. If I'm not mistake Aspden posits a type of 'phase coupling' that occurs between phase-states of the one substance. Larson and others refer to those 'states' as "dimensions". There's also an interesting correlation there with JL and the APM's angular momentum ("motion") being "encapuslated" and causing the one substance to geometrize into "more complex forms of motion" (phase-states).

I usually look for central themes like this overall between theories as opposed to nitpicking who's is best. I also seem to remember that you once gave a pretty good link to Larson's work. Some of which, via links, was unfinished. Could you still provide that please?

Interestingly there are philosophical treatise which also posit 'invisible' worlds like Larson's antimatter Suns. I don't have any thoughts on that particular at the moment.

I'm familiar with the work of Aspden and I can say that Larson's work is more fundamental. It is in the league of Newton. According to Larson everything in the universe is made of the same stuff: motion. The big bang and aether are different forms of explanation for what Larson calls the basic progression of time and space in the universe at lightspeed.

Yes, the universe would need to be "made of the same stuff". Kevin can "see" it flowing. I don't believe in the "big bang". The 'chicken & egg' riddle has an answer; which is why it is a riddle and not a fact.

In relation to your question regarding radiation being converted to matter and vise versa both "states" are exactly as Larson (presuming here) and Aspden have shown. The missing link is the property of "decay". Radiation can be converted to matter; but matter can decay releasing radiation. That is the "circle". That is the continuous cycle. Which came first is a question ill put. They would be cyclic expressions of the one substance.

Anyone know where I can get this paper: Space and time are not material objects (Maupertuis 1750, Kant 1781, 1787, Davisson 1927, Heisenberg 1958).

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Solar,
You wrote:

Anyone know where I can get this paper: Space and time are not material objects (Maupertuis 1750, Kant 1781, 1787, Davisson 1927, Heisenberg 1958).

I'm guessing that this is 5 separate books:
Maupertuis - Essai de cosmologie (1750).
Kant - Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787).
Davisson - doesn't appear to have written any books but did conduct

the Davisson–Germer experiment was a physics experiment conducted in 1927 which confirmed the de Broglie hypothesis, which says that particles of matter (such as electrons) have wave properties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davisson%E ... experiment

Heisenberg wrote quite a bit in 1958 - see:
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/b ... 955-59.htm

I wonder how much of the above Totalscience has actually read? And he also quotes Aristotle and Leibniz!

[Solar]

*smacks forehead*
Thank you Grey. I hadn't noticed the dates etc.