*

Offline ClaireSmythe

  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Flat Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Universal Accelerator: A Hypothesis
« on: January 21, 2016, 07:05:28 PM »
Hello.

I'm a scientist working on developing an FE model. While I'm open to being proven wrong, my typical experience of people arguing for RET is that they simply assume their model and the details therein are accurate. While some flat earthers may do the same, round earthers often claim superiority when their discussion tactics rarely are.
My primary concern is in developing a full hypothesis. It is impossible to reasonably test a model until a detailed hypothesis is reached, and so impossible to perform convincing tests without first establishing a model attainable in theory, so that will be my main concern: developing an FE model that could explain all observations and known results.
From this, we can derive and perform tests.

It must be done in this order. There are aspects I prefer of various hypotheses, I'm sorting through them to determine which work. (For example, one hypothesis supposes that Unification is impossible under the globe model, while neatly explaining a flat Earth. If all fundamental forces are linked, as variations in intensity of one another, much is explained. That's a hasty description).

Anyway, that's an introduction to who I am and why I'm here.

Onto the universal accelerator.

In models that explain why we are on the Earth's surface by means of universal acceleration, one key question to ask is what causes acceleration? Answers are rarely detailed, and don't explain, for example, how something may accelerate indefinitely. The energy required would be immense. While Einstein's model allows for unending acceleration, it will still involve getting arbitrarily close to the speed of light, and so would involve vast amounts of energy.
This is true, for conventional particles.
A hypothetical particle is a tachyon. These are particles which travel faster than the speed of light: they are not impossible, because at no point did they break the speed limit, or travel at the speed of light, they have always travelled faster. That 'always' is the key because, as we all know, it takes infinite energy to reach the speed of light. So, as time passes, and tachyons lose energy, they will in fact get faster: they will accelerate.
And this, simply, is it. For the question of what causes universal acceleration, tachyons are an elegant solution.

Those are the direct benefits.

A side-effect, also, is the fact that, as they move faster than light, it is impossible to see a tachyon approach you. Once it does, however, you will see two separate images: the tachyon as it goes away from you, and the 'ghost' of the tachyon going towards you in reverse (the closer parts of its path being visible first, as they're nearer). This duality has many applications, especially in the heavens: an object may be visible in two places at once.

Christer Fuglesang

Re: Universal Accelerator: A Hypothesis
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2016, 07:20:45 PM »

Just a short question for clarification, if I may ask: You're a scientist, but you don't believe in space travel? What kind of scientist are you?

*

Offline ClaireSmythe

  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Flat Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Accelerator: A Hypothesis
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2016, 07:29:39 PM »

Just a short question for clarification, if I may ask: You're a scientist, but you don't believe in space travel? What kind of scientist are you?

When did I say that?

Please can you try and discuss the hypothesis presented, rather than baseless speculation about the person behind the hypothesis.

Christer Fuglesang

Re: Universal Accelerator: A Hypothesis
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2016, 07:34:06 PM »

But .. you said that you were open to being proven wrong? Why work with a model you so obviously already know is wrong? That will be a major bias in the development.

*

Offline ClaireSmythe

  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Flat Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Accelerator: A Hypothesis
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2016, 07:36:37 PM »

But .. you said that you were open to being proven wrong? Why work with a model you so obviously already know is wrong? That will be a major bias in the development.

Please stop putting words in my mouth, this is my exact problem with discussing with round earthers. I have said absolutely nothing that even begins to come close to this wild speculation of yours. Why are you refusing to discuss the actual hypothesis?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Accelerator: A Hypothesis
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2016, 07:37:12 PM »


But .. you said that you were open to being proven wrong? Why work with a model you so obviously already know is wrong? That will be a major bias in the development.

Please stop derailing the thread. If you have nothing to contribute or discuss relative to the OP, then please refrain from posting.

Christer Fuglesang

Re: Universal Accelerator: A Hypothesis
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2016, 07:42:12 PM »

Just a short question for clarification, if I may ask: You're a scientist, but you don't believe in space travel? What kind of scientist are you?

When did I say that?

Please can you try and discuss the hypothesis presented, rather than baseless speculation about the person behind the hypothesis.

I was just surprised you chose to mention that you're a scientist in your first update. That's all.

*

Offline ClaireSmythe

  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Flat Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Accelerator: A Hypothesis
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2016, 07:47:04 PM »
Because I am. Now, in the hope of some actual discussion.

Hello.

I'm a scientist working on developing an FE model. While I'm open to being proven wrong, my typical experience of people arguing for RET is that they simply assume their model and the details therein are accurate. While some flat earthers may do the same, round earthers often claim superiority when their discussion tactics rarely are.
My primary concern is in developing a full hypothesis. It is impossible to reasonably test a model until a detailed hypothesis is reached, and so impossible to perform convincing tests without first establishing a model attainable in theory, so that will be my main concern: developing an FE model that could explain all observations and known results.
From this, we can derive and perform tests.

It must be done in this order. There are aspects I prefer of various hypotheses, I'm sorting through them to determine which work. (For example, one hypothesis supposes that Unification is impossible under the globe model, while neatly explaining a flat Earth. If all fundamental forces are linked, as variations in intensity of one another, much is explained. That's a hasty description).

Anyway, that's an introduction to who I am and why I'm here.

Onto the universal accelerator.

In models that explain why we are on the Earth's surface by means of universal acceleration, one key question to ask is what causes acceleration? Answers are rarely detailed, and don't explain, for example, how something may accelerate indefinitely. The energy required would be immense. While Einstein's model allows for unending acceleration, it will still involve getting arbitrarily close to the speed of light, and so would involve vast amounts of energy.
This is true, for conventional particles.
A hypothetical particle is a tachyon. These are particles which travel faster than the speed of light: they are not impossible, because at no point did they break the speed limit, or travel at the speed of light, they have always travelled faster. That 'always' is the key because, as we all know, it takes infinite energy to reach the speed of light. So, as time passes, and tachyons lose energy, they will in fact get faster: they will accelerate.
And this, simply, is it. For the question of what causes universal acceleration, tachyons are an elegant solution.

Those are the direct benefits.

A side-effect, also, is the fact that, as they move faster than light, it is impossible to see a tachyon approach you. Once it does, however, you will see two separate images: the tachyon as it goes away from you, and the 'ghost' of the tachyon going towards you in reverse (the closer parts of its path being visible first, as they're nearer). This duality has many applications, especially in the heavens: an object may be visible in two places at once.

Universal Accelerator: A Disinfo Theory
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2016, 08:30:57 PM »
I would never trust anybody who incorporated universal accelaration of the earth.  It makes no sense and it is used by disinformation trolls to sow confusion. 
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

*

Offline ClaireSmythe

  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Flat Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Accelerator: A Disinfo Theory
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2016, 09:20:14 PM »
I would never trust anybody who incorporated universal accelaration of the earth.  It makes no sense and it is used by disinformation trolls to sow confusion.
That may be so, but I wouldn't want to reject any possibility.
Certainly, my currently preferred model doesn't involve it, but I feel it's only fair to examine the possibility. It may make no sense in certain formulations, but tachyons would answer many questions.

Thork

Re: Universal Accelerator: A Hypothesis
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2016, 11:39:15 PM »
It has long been hypothesised that dark energy is responsible for universal acceleration. It doesn't seem to be doing anything else. RET certainly has no answer for its effects.

RET advocates scream "you need almost infinite power for this kind of acceleration". Well dark energy accounts for 73% of infinity. It is 73% of everything.


Seems like a pretty good place to start.

Re: Universal Accelerator: A Hypothesis
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2016, 12:15:49 PM »
It cannot be a good place to start: there is no such thing as dark energy.



Dark matter & energy are just that. Totally hypothetical phenomenons to fill the gaps in a cosmological model & very little is known about it.

http://www.space.com/8588-dark-energy-dark-matter-exist-scientists-allege.html

Dark Energy and Dark Matter Might Not Exist, Scientists Allege

"It's such an important thing — the microwave background," said astrophysicist Tom Shanks of Durham University in England. "All the results in dark energy and dark matter in cosmology hang on it, and that's why I'm interested in checking the results."

"When we checked radio sources in the WMAP background, we found more smoothing than the WMAP team expected," Shanks told SPACE.com. "That would have big implications for cosmology if we were proven right."

If this smoothing error is larger than thought, it could indicate that fluctuations measured in the intensity of the CMB radiation are actually smaller than they originally appeared. The size of these fluctuations is a key parameter used to support the existence of dark matter and dark energy.

With smaller ripples, there would be no need to invoke exotic concepts like dark matter and dark energy to explain the CMB observations, Shanks said. The researchers will report their findings in an upcoming issue of the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-20300100

Supersymmetry theorises the existence of more massive versions of particles that have already been detected.
If found, they might help explain the phenomenon known as dark matter.

However, researchers at the LHCb detector have dealt a serious blow to hopes of finding them.

If supersymmetry is not an explanation for dark matter, then theorists will have to find alternative ideas to explain those inconsistencies in the Standard Model. So far researchers who are racing to find evidence of so called "new physics" have run into a series of dead ends.



New Doubt about Dark Matter

Tantalizing ‘signals’ from a handful of recent high-energy searches for dark matter are more likely the product of conventional astrophysics than the first tentative detections of the universe’s missing mass, say skeptical astrophysicists.

“A decade ago, no [one] would make these claims without first checking and re-checking that it couldn’t be from some normal astrophysical source,” Stacy McGaugh, an astrophysicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, told Forbes. “Nowadays, the attitude seems to be that if you don’t immediately recognize what it is, it must be dark matter; [with] no penalty for ‘crying wolf’ over and over again.”

Even so, the theoretical stakes remain high.

That’s because for the better part of a century, cosmological “cold dark matter” has been needed to explain the gravitational dynamics of much of the cosmos’ visible matter; including the rotation rates of massive galaxies like our own.

“By a very large margin, the matter we do see directly in galaxies does not produce enough gravity to hold the galaxies together; dark matter is invoked to provide the extra gravity needed,” Mordehai Milgrom, a physicist at Israel’s Weizmann Institute, told Forbes. That is, Milgrom says, if the standard laws of physics are used to calculate gravity as we know it.

And because non-baryonic (or exotic) dark matter is theorized to only interact with normal matter primarily via gravity, dark matter’s detection has inherently been problematic.

The need to invoke dark matter at all stems either from the product of unseen exotic particles that lie well beyond the ken of known physics or is the result of new physics in which gravity behaves differently on the largest scales. Neither scenario is easily tested.

For decades, however, experimental physicists have used both laboratory and astronomical observations from ground and space to search for this missing component.

One of the most recent, as noted this month in the journal Physical Review Letters, involves x-ray emissions from both the Perseus galaxy cluster and the nearby Andromeda galaxy.

Using the European Space Agency’s XMM-Newton telescope, researchers from Switzerland’s EPFL Laboratory of Particle Physics and Cosmology and Leiden University in The Netherlands report that this observed excess of x-ray photons may represent signals of decay by sterile neutrinos. That is, heretofore unverified, hypothetical dark matter particles.

“We have been searching for such a signal since 2005,” Alexey Boyarsky, a professor of physics at Leiden University and the paper’s lead author, told Forbes. “The signal is at the lowest range of experimental sensitivity, and if it were easy to find, we would have found it long ago.”

Boyarsky points out that among the models that are consistent with the dark matter interpretation of this signal, the sterile neutrino is probably the simplest and one of the most natural. Such a particle, he says, can interact with normal matter only via quantum mechanical “mixing” with ordinary neutrinos.

Therefore, says Boyarsky, it is very hard to “catch.”

MIT physicist Paolo Zuccon counters that the sterile neutrino’s existence has also not been proven. “They guess its mass; they guess its properties; and, in particular, how it decays,” said Zuccon told Forbes. “All in all, this claim seems a little weak.”

Or as McGaugh puts it: “Based on those data, I would not claim to have detected anything. This looks like a classic case of the over-interpretation of noisy astronomical data.”

However, Zuccon himself has been involved in searches for this stealthy matter, using a spectrometer mounted on the exterior of the International Space Station (ISS).

Zuccon and colleagues analyzed two and a half years of data from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS), the ISS particle detector that recorded a flux of millions of cosmic rays from all over the galaxy. They found an excess of positrons (antiparticles of electrons) at energies of around 8 gigaelectron-volts (GeV) which the researchers say fits some dark matter models.

“But we are not yet in the position to discriminate between the dark matter hypothesis and an astrophysical source [such as] pulsars,” said Zuccon, who is involved with the AMS search. “Only more data from AMS and/or from other measurements will allow an answer.”

Yet as reported by Nature News earlier this month, ESA’s Planck telescope failed to find the imprint of similar positron excesses in the Cosmic Microwave Background, which logically should have been seen if dark matter particles were also colliding and annihilating at comparable rates in the primordial universe.

McGaugh says in the case of the MIT positron signals, the possible signature of dark matter would correspond to an upper energetic limit on the dark matter particle’s actual decay.

“If they see a [energetic] sharp edge like that which corresponds to a plausible dark matter particle, then I’ll get very interested,” said McGaugh. “Until then, they’ve got nothing that can’t be better understood as astrophysical.”

Hooper emphasizes that, in fact, he thinks the Fermi signal is still “well fit” by models of dark matter being annihilated in the galactic center.*

McGaugh disagrees.

“Until both known and un-anticipated astrophysical sources are excluded as reasons for the observed signal, claims about it being due to dark matter are exaggerated at best,” said McGaugh.

Dark matter theory persists in part because in cosmic large scale structure, its unseen presence seems to shape the makeup of clusters and superclusters of galaxies along filaments of the cosmic web. Thus, again, without invoking dark matter or alternative theories of gravity, such structure is hard to explain.

“This sanguine attitude has been around a long time,” said McGaugh. “Every five years for the past twenty years, I have heard the confident declaration ‘in five years, we’ll know what dark matter is.’ Obviously, that’s never happened.”


Serious blow to dark matter theory

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1217/#3


Dark energy/dark matter pipe dream

http://davidpratt.info/cosmo.htm#c4

Re: Universal Accelerator: A Disinfo Theory
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2016, 04:43:05 AM »
I would never trust anybody who incorporated universal accelaration of the earth.  It makes no sense and it is used by disinformation trolls to sow confusion.
That may be so, but I wouldn't want to reject any possibility.
Does that disinfo-theory even make 1 whit of sense to you?   Seriously? 

If you were to explain it to 10 of your random colleagues, how many of them would you expect to think it made 1 whit of sense?   I would reckon none of them ---- assuming you had the courage to go public with your curiosities. 


Certainly, my currently preferred model doesn't involve it, but I feel it's only fair to examine the possibility. It may make no sense in certain formulations, but tachyons would answer many questions.
Tachyons???   How much of your effort are you going to waste on this Universal Accelerator nonsense?? 










---- 

You want folks to treat you as a scientist? 
Hm.  Your true game is not that hard to figure out.  I bet $100 is that you here trolling the forums as a work-up towards designing your own disinfo theory. 

Good luck!! 
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

*

Offline ClaireSmythe

  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Flat Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Accelerator: A Disinfo Theory
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2016, 03:19:43 PM »
Does that disinfo-theory even make 1 whit of sense to you?   Seriously? 

If you were to explain it to 10 of your random colleagues, how many of them would you expect to think it made 1 whit of sense?   I would reckon none of them ---- assuming you had the courage to go public with your curiosities. 
Acceleration is not hard to understand. The details may be tricky, but the same is true of anything,

Tachyons???   How much of your effort are you going to waste on this Universal Accelerator nonsense?? 
If you have proof positive that it is nonsense, then I would love to hear it. Otherwise these claims of disinformation are just pointless.
As I said, universal acceleration is not part of my preferred model, but I'm not going to ignore a possibility just because it's different.

You want folks to treat you as a scientist? 
Hm.  Your true game is not that hard to figure out.  I bet $100 is that you here trolling the forums as a work-up towards designing your own disinfo theory. 

Good luck!!
There is a great deal of hypocrisy inherent in a flat earther, whose models are rejected by the scientific community at large for no good reason, to suddenly turn around and claim anyone who proposes a different flat earth model is automatically wrong or trolling.
Do you have anything productive to say? Universal acceleration is problematic, as I have said, but that doesn't mean those problems can't be solved.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Accelerator: A Hypothesis
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2016, 03:23:45 PM »
I probably wouldn't pay too much attention to anyone who uses phrases like "shill" and "disinformation" that frequently.

Rama Set

Re: Universal Accelerator: A Hypothesis
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2016, 04:56:34 PM »
It has long been hypothesised that dark energy is responsible for universal acceleration. It doesn't seem to be doing anything else. RET certainly has no answer for its effects.

RET advocates scream "you need almost infinite power for this kind of acceleration". Well dark energy accounts for 73% of infinity. It is 73% of everything.


Seems like a pretty good place to start.

Who said the universe is inifinte?

Thork

Re: Universal Accelerator: A Hypothesis
« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2016, 07:18:29 PM »
It has long been hypothesised that dark energy is responsible for universal acceleration. It doesn't seem to be doing anything else. RET certainly has no answer for its effects.

RET advocates scream "you need almost infinite power for this kind of acceleration". Well dark energy accounts for 73% of infinity. It is 73% of everything.


Seems like a pretty good place to start.

Who said the universe is inifinte?

Infinity
Noun
an indefinitely great amount or number.


Unless you care to quantify it for us.

Rama Set

Re: Universal Accelerator: A Hypothesis
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2016, 10:04:17 PM »
It has long been hypothesised that dark energy is responsible for universal acceleration. It doesn't seem to be doing anything else. RET certainly has no answer for its effects.

RET advocates scream "you need almost infinite power for this kind of acceleration". Well dark energy accounts for 73% of infinity. It is 73% of everything.


Seems like a pretty good place to start.

Who said the universe is inifinte?

Infinity
Noun
an indefinitely great amount or number.


Unless you care to quantify it for us.

That doesn't really answer my question. Anyway, most cosmologists I am familiar with believe in a finite, boundless universe.  If the universe is 13.5 billion years old, then it would be approximately 27 billion light years in diameter.