1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

The Unobservable Universe by Scott Tyson

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by Birdjaguar, Oct 28, 2011.

  1. Trev

    Trev Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    498
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    I did download the entire book, just googled book name, got to his site, all I had to do was click on fb like link, provide email address and the book was mine.
    Although on the surface the book provided answers to some paradoxes, I cannot accept his logic of an universe part unobservable/part observable and his ideas of linkage between the two and energy transfers between the two. However his premise that mass may be a property of space with gravity an extension of that property i found interesting and plausible. This of course requires space to have some aetherlike properties, which makes some sense because transmission of electromagnetic waves and other force waves in space can be more easily explained with some sort of aether or structure to space.
    Interesting book with interesting but some farout ideas used to explain some difficult results from physics. It would be worth a read by some scientists so they are better able to think creatively to solve some of the problems and paradoxes in science, but the central ideas of the book are unlikely to be correct.
     
  2. MrCynical

    MrCynical Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,507
    Location:
    The Dreaming Spires

    Is Scott Tyson actually going to show up here and post then? You keep going on about questioning the author directly whenever the impracticality of having a discussion about this book is pointed out, so where's this going to happen?
     
  3. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Entangled Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    29,986
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Yes he will. He has agreed to participate in a discussion about his book. he has created a user: Rocketman4242. He is more or less waiting for me to tell him that some of you have read the book and are ready to discuss it. If you start posting questions related to what he proposes, I will let him know so he can answer them. He is also willing to set times when he will come and hangout in real time to discuss his book.
     
  4. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Chieftain Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,505
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Well, I probably won't have any time to read his book in the near future - I just started grad school and I've got a lot of work at the moment. I do have one question for now: does he present any theories that are testable with present (or near-future) technology? In other words, are his statements falsifiable, and if so can we test them? I don't tend to have a high view of unfalsifiable claims, including everything I've read about string theory so far.
     
  5. dutchfire

    dutchfire Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    13,558
    Location:
    -
    I'm probably one of the people you expected to read the book. I've been abroad the last couple of weeks, so I didn't visit CFC. I've downloaded the first 115 pages, don't know when I have got time to read them (being away for 2 weeks means lots of catching up). Any sections you would especially like me to take a look at?

    edit: Though I'm quite sceptic about the whole theory, I am glad the author is willing to discuss about it and is open with his material. :thumbsup:
     
  6. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Entangled Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    29,986
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    I think that he thinks his perspective is testable and will allow physics to get back in the lab. He is trying to set a new framework for testing.
    He builds and summarizes and builds and summarizes. The first 115 pages are mostly foundation stuff for the conclusions that follow in the second half of the book (after page 115). I suggest getting the the whole book and then cherry picking sections.
    You might try chapters 2, 4, 5, 6, 11 maybe??
     
  7. dutchfire

    dutchfire Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    13,558
    Location:
    -
    I'm now reading chapter 3, the part about sensing and touch. The author's use of the Bohr model really makes me a bit sad. The following part on the volumes of elementary particles is also of the level you'd tell high school students, not something you'd use to convince physicists.

    His anthroprocentric definition of observation is a little bit strange to me: it is possible to build equipment that will measure most of the things we can sense as human beings (and more!) in an objective way. While you might perceive the color blue differently from me, surely we'll both measure the same wavelength with our spectrometer. Flat out denying that objective measurements are possible and useful is an approach that reminds me mostly of New-Age hippies.

    In terms of questions: Earlier (in the other thread) you mentioned that the volume of objects is used in formulas. Does/Can the author show that using volume, which is not Lorentz-invariant, does not cause the resulting physics to be dependent on reference frame?
     
  8. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Entangled Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    29,986
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    I sent Scott an email telling him it was time to introduce himself. He will post as Rocketman4242. Be tough if you like, but be nice!
     
  9. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Entangled Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    29,986
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    I just talked with Scott Tyson on the phone and he is going to show up Monday evening at 8:00 MT to introduce himself and open the conversation about his book.

    Get your questions ready and feel free to post stem here anytime.
     
  10. rocketman4242

    rocketman4242 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    7
    Hi, this is Scott Tyson. I'll be joining the forum in just under 30 minutes. I'm looking forward to answering your questions and addressing your challenges regarding the theory proposed in my book, The Unobservable Universe, as well as just about anything relating to the nature of our universe, including those pesky paradoxes involving the universe with which humanity has been increasingly grappling for quite some time now.

    I also want to thank Birdjaguar for inviting me to participate in the forum!
     
  11. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Entangled Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    29,986
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Welcome Scott!
     
  12. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Entangled Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    29,986
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Scott, I'll open with a question, but if you want to begin differently, be my guest.

    Could you please explain why you think that the Big Bang didn't happen and your interpretation of Hubble's findings?
     
  13. rocketman4242

    rocketman4242 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    7
    This seems like as good of a starting point as any. The Big Bang may be nothing more than a Big Misunderstanding. I'll try to explain some of the reasons of r this and build upon it as the discussion expands.

    Let's begin with how the Bang Bang Theory came into existence and forget for the moment how the universe came into existence, okay?

    In 1927, a physicist named George Lemaitre published a paper entitled, "Hypothesis for the Primordial Atom," I believe. In that paper, Lemaitre tried to provide a scientific basis for the emergence of the first atoms which appeared in our universe.

    George Lemaitre got quite a bit of press following the publication of his article.

    In 1929, Edwin Hubble completed his survey of the sky and published his results which showed the now famous correlation between distance from us and the observed red shift in spectra. He got quite a bit of press by suggesting that his data confirmed the theory of Lemaitre. Furhtermore, his findings clashed with Einstein's notion of a static universe resuklting from his cosmological constant.
     
  14. rocketman4242

    rocketman4242 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    7
    In 1931, having been unable to establish a scientific foundation for a static universe, Einstein abondoned the cosmological constant and called it "the biggest blunder of my life."

    Here's the intersting part that didn't make it into many history books: George Lemaitre might have had physics credentials but he was also an ordained Catholic priest. He admitted that his article was an attempt to create a theory for the creation of the universe that was consistent with the old testament's book of genesis. So, the Big Bang Theory emerged from religion wrapped in a shawl of science.

    The very question of how the universe came into being presumes a number of things that we need to consider in light of the human condition and human experience. The question imposes on the universe the requirement that the creation and evolution of the universe must in some way mimic the lifecycle of humans - each of us is born (comes into existence), lives and matures (evolves), and ultimately perishes (dies) - and so it must also be for the universe. Hmmm, I don't really agree.

    In fact, as I point out in my book, there is an argument ot be made that if the universe now exists, then it must always have existed and must always continue to exist. If this were not so, then there would be no way to rectify the energy balance and avoid the collapse of the universal wavefunction.

    There is a very important distinction to be made between "existence" and "observability" and we humans are very good at blurring the distinction.

    According to my work, physics and philosophy have made only a small handful of mistakes - what I refer to as the Three Errors and Omissions of Physics and Philosophy. Science continues to inadvertently embrace these three empirically unfounded assumptions and interpretations as truth, and this is the source for the mistunderstanding that occurss today. Once corrected, the consequences are sweeping and provide an entirely new picture of the nature of the univers and the foundation uderlying all physical phenomena.
     
  15. rocketman4242

    rocketman4242 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    7
    One of the consequences, of course, is that the Big Bang just did not happen. In fact, it would appear that Einstein was correct in asserting that the universe was static - neither expanding nor contracting.

    You might be asking yourself, "So, what are the three mistakes?" Here they are vaguely worded for now:
    1. The first has to do with the nature of void
    2. the next has to do with the nature of mass
    3. the final on has to do with the nature of observation with respect to objective reality

    I'm going to take a break from typing (I'm a terrible typist) and read what has thus far been posted...
     
  16. rocketman4242

    rocketman4242 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    7
    I couldn't help but notice that I never actually answered your question about Hubble's findings. It turns out ahtat here is at least one framework in which all scientific measruements and observations may be interpreted in a consistent way, free of paradoxes. So, there is most certainly another interpretation taht can be applied to Hubble's measurements - one in which there is no expansion of the universe.
     
  17. rocketman4242

    rocketman4242 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    7
    In my book, I methodically construct a web of understanding in which numerous observations and interpretations are placed within a greater context. It took 120,000 words to do this, and I feel that it would be terribly challenging to replicate the entire thought process in this forum.

    It would probably be best for me to address individual questions. As we perform this process, then a picture will get constructed of the concept presented within the book.

    Does this sound reasonable to others?
     
  18. rocketman4242

    rocketman4242 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    7
    Allow me to take the "mistakes" one step further:
    1. Void is not nothingness.
    2. Mass is not a property of matter.
    3. Measurement reveals objective reality but there is no requirement that objective reality be observed.
     
  19. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Entangled Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    29,986
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks, go ahead and proceed anyway you think best.
     
  20. dutchfire

    dutchfire Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    13,558
    Location:
    -
    Could you explain how your vision of a static universe compares to the current astrophysical/cosmological idea that it is actually accelerating? There is experimental confirmation, for example Type 1a supernovae, for that vision. Is there something wrong with the supernovae measurements?
     

Share This Page