Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    05 Jun '08 09:18
    The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space

    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

    Interesting site. Taking my time ...
  2. 05 Jun '08 11:26
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space

    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

    Interesting site. Taking my time ...
    Someone claims to have come up with the theory that scientist have been searching for fore millenia and he makes a website? Why isn't he going for a scientific journal and a Nobel prize?

    Looks to me like lots of quotes of ancient philosophers and no actual new substance.
  3. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    05 Jun '08 13:30
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Someone claims to have come up with the theory that scientist have been searching for fore millenia and he makes a website? Why isn't he going for a scientific journal and a Nobel prize?

    Looks to me like lots of quotes of ancient philosophers and no actual new substance.
    Took you five minutes to dismiss it out of hand. Bravo.

    Here are the scientists whose work they draw on:
    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/wave-structure-matter-theorists.htm

    I don't know whether it's any good or not. Or whether it's a new idea. But 'looks like lots of quotes' isn't much of a rebuttal.
  4. 05 Jun '08 13:49
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Took you five minutes to dismiss it out of hand. Bravo.
    And does it take you longer than that to do the same with a typical creationist website?

    I don't know whether it's any good or not. Or whether it's a new idea. But 'looks like lots of quotes' isn't much of a rebuttal.
    I simply don't think it is worthy of a proper rebuttal.
  5. 05 Jun '08 14:28
    I must admit, my first instinct is to find it highly unconvincing. Certainly not convincing enough to make me spend much time on it. Using Aristotle as the basis of a scientific theory sounds very woolly to me.

    The important question though, if it's to be taken seriously, is this. Can the theory make any measurable predictions that conflict with existing theories?
  6. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    06 Jun '08 06:54
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space

    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

    Interesting site. Taking my time ...
    I didn't really get it but I did get one of those room swelling moments
    reading it (might just have been a falshback).

    It seems they're turning the idea of space on its head and why not?
    If our current theory is about particles, then why not have a theory on
    the absence of particles? It kind of makes sense that space is actually
    the constructor of our universe.
    Will try and read it again with a clear head.
  7. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    06 Jun '08 07:43
    Originally posted by mtthw
    I must admit, my first instinct is to find it highly unconvincing. Certainly not convincing enough to make me spend much time on it. Using Aristotle as the basis of a scientific theory sounds very woolly to me.
    I stumbled on the site while looking up Kant's synthetic a prioris. The site points out an error in Kant's thinking that is convincing enough at first blush. And I'm always happy to find holes in Kant's thinking. Whether or not the science holds up is what I'm asking you ...

    Do me a favour: tell me whether this is junk or not:
    http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-swave.asp
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    06 Jun '08 07:44
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Took you five minutes to dismiss it out of hand. Bravo.

    Here are the scientists whose work they draw on:
    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/wave-structure-matter-theorists.htm

    I don't know whether it's any good or not. Or whether it's a new idea. But 'looks like lots of quotes' isn't much of a rebuttal.
    You offered something that could be rebutted? What was it?
  9. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    06 Jun '08 13:32
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    You offered something that could be rebutted? What was it?
    I'll offer this:

    http://www.signaldisplay.com/electric.html

    (Rebuttals in plain English, please.)
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    06 Jun '08 14:31
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I'll offer this:

    http://www.signaldisplay.com/electric.html

    (Rebuttals in plain English, please.)
    That's a link, not a claim that can be rebutted.
  11. 06 Jun '08 21:25
    The author is just trying to sell an idea to get people to buy similar material from "The Philsophy Shop." I see no concrete evidence in the article on the website to prove the theory. Similar methods are used to dupe people into buying spyware products like WinAntiVirus Pro. In the end, it's a sound marketing strategy, but only proves the inaccuracies of the theory.
  12. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    07 Jun '08 04:45 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I'll offer this:

    http://www.signaldisplay.com/electric.html

    (Rebuttals in plain English, please.)
    As I understand it this guy has determined that an electric field will stop gamma rays from reaching a geiger counter. Gamma rays are extremely high energy electromagnetic radiation. The most obvious explanation is that the electric field made the gamma photons miss. Do electric fields have this effect on electromagnetic radiation? That's what they do to charged particles, but I don't know about photons. I don't understand what the author is concluding from this.

    Wait - I think the author is arguing that because electric fields cause this effect, and matter stops gamma rays, electric fields are therefore matter. Is that it?

    Didn't Einstein already determine that with e=mc^2?

    This suggests that one should be able to calculate by how well the field stops the gamma rays what the equivalent mass of the field should be, which should match up with Einstein's equations. I suspect this interpretation of the results will lead to the field having more "mass" than Einstein's equations predict, and suggests that one can measure the field being on or off by the mass of the apparatus as measured on a scale.
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    07 Jun '08 05:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space

    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

    Interesting site. Taking my time ...
    The fact that matter has a wave nature is already well known...I wish the guy had a fairly short, clear abstract. He seems like one of those people who use so much jargon and scary looking calculations that what he's trying to say is lost in the intimidating science.

    This website just screams "pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo" at me. Such websites often do what I just said; they often hide their claims behind a smokescreen of jargon and other scary scientific looking stuff. People see all the impressive "science" and become convinced that The Man is Keeping This Research Down or something when in fact there's usually no content of any value.
  14. 20 Jun '08 00:46
    Hi Everyone,

    I agree that the wave structure of matter needs to be better presented.

    Three quick points though.

    1. This is the most simple science foundation for describing reality - clearly important as Occam's razor is central to science.

    i.e. Physics evolved from Newton's mechanics, which has absolute space and time, and motion is applied to discrete matter particles, so then you must add forces / fields to connect the particles.

    However, if you apply motion directly to space, as a wave motion of space, then you can explain time, and matter and forces / fields in terms of this wave motion of space. This way there is only one substance / existent, space. And we all experience existing in a common space - just look around you.

    2. Clearly a spherical standing wave explains how matter is interconnected. The wave center forms the particle effect that we see. The spherical in and out waves are in constant two way communication (interaction) with all other matter waves around them. (And resonance explains the particle properties of light).

    3. Should we take this seriously? Well you can test it easily enough. We know for relative motion that you get a de Broglie wave (quantum physics) and a relativistic mass increase (Einstein's special relativity).
    So do the maths for the relative motion of two spherical standing waves. Guess what?
    You get exactly these two things. Anyone can confirm this - it is simple maths of Doppler shifts.
    Coincidence? Well it would be remarkable - particularly given the common sense and simplicity of WSM. Search Milo Wolff - he first deduced this (and video on site covers this).

    Why is this not in physics journals? I am a natural philosopher (outside the academic system), but i suspect it also relates to the difficulty of publishing anything that contradicts the standard model of particle physics. This is not conspiracy theory - it is just human nature - always has been - always will be.

    "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (Max Planck)

    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-censorship-nobel-prize-laureate.htm

    So a precise question I can ask the critics.

    Do you have any evidence that space (that you all experience existing in ) does not exist, or that matter interactions are not caused by wave interactions in this space.

    Cheers,
    Geoff Haselhurst

    PS - This is a recent essay, hopefully better quality.
    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/philosophy/letter-to-philosophers.htm
  15. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    20 Jun '08 13:38
    Originally posted by Geoffrey Haselhurst

    Do you have any evidence that space (that you all experience existing in ) does not exist, or that matter interactions are not caused by wave interactions in this space.
    Well, no. What then?