Triton Station : Discussion

I started writing a comment on Dr. Stacy McGaugh’s Triton Station blog, but it got long, so I am posting it here and adding more thoughts. This is part of a wide ranging discussion to Stacy’s post “Bias all the way down

When analyzing the CMB, how much of it is non-prior assuming? Every paper, blog, and podcast I absorb causes my mental alerts go off for how many incorrect interpretations permeate physics, cosmology, and astronomy as priors that new interpretations are built upon. It’s so severe now that I just can’t bear to read or watch much of it anymore. The solution is so close to all of you. It really is just like the transformer action figure turns inside out and everything just makes sense. Or to say it this way, the underside of what you are trying to learn is incredibly simple and you would be better off starting there and working back towards the higher levels. So to Stacy and Phillip and the other scientists here, I will say it is absolutely amazing you got as far as you did as off track as were your priors. Also – as persistent as I am, I love scientists, and am just so incredibly offended by how I have been treated by your community (not you) for the last three years. Just think of how many papers say “early” universe or get all woo-ish about the quantum (it’s just a dipole circuit folks – basic undergraduate courses). Arghhh. Imagine if the flip-flop had been discovered as a black box and then folks said it’s magic. It has two states. And it is fundamental. There is nothing else to see here, move along. Well, say goodbye to your electronic toys if those scientists and engineers had done that!

How do astrophysicists differentiate the CMB observations from a steady state universe expectation where galaxies implement inflation and banging on an irregular basis?

Hug_Folio_Eady Architecture2.jpg
Eric Wong, EADY

Does the scientific method say anything about self-checking itself to establish non-prior assuming interpretations as a different set than the interpretations that do assume certain priors? Or perhaps alternately, a more scientific system of the order of the evidence and how the interpretation might change if certain priors were incorrect? Well, this is all a matter for the physics historians, to figure out how things got so far off the rails. I have a good idea at the outreach level, but I would love to know the inside story and the politics. Also, did anyone know and bury it. Einstein’s (Albert and Mileva) would be the prime candidate given their work on relativity and in particular on Brownian motion and then his later protests against the ethereal nature of quantum mechanics. Perhaps Einstein did protesteth too much.

How about a theory that is just a lay down winner? Seven no trump stone cold. All the aces, all the kings, all the queens, all the jacks, all the tens, all the nines, and two of the eights. Also what if the theory comes with an explanation of the history that caused physicists to be blind to it? Does it really need new evidence if it explains pretty much everything that was confusing and fits with all the existing observations and math? C’mon, we are talking about an energy carrying dipole that is in every standard matter particle at least once and sometimes 9 times (Neutron, Proton), and said dipole implements a stretchy ruler and variable clock when transacting units of h-bar angular momentum, i.e., the woo-ish “quantum”. I am very serious when I say that in the future the entire theory of nature will be taught in high school if not earlier to some degree.

By the way, the best outcome in my opinion would be for physicists to say, “Ok, we finally get what you have been saying, even though you refused to do it the hard way like us. We’ve got it from here!” Then, I would say, “Phew, I am looking forward to your future outreach material and happy to help if there is anything else I can do.”

A Triton Station commenter trotted out the request for testable predictions. I responded as follows:

Here are a bunch. I don’t know when technology will make them testable. All standard matter particles are powered by one or more immutable point charge dipoles in groups of up to 3, providing 3 dimensions of containment. The canonical stable form is the three electrino, three positrino energy core made from three nested (or captured) dipoles at different energy scales. The 3:3 energy core can decay to 2:2 but then it is missing a dimension of containment. Basically, generation + dipoles = 4. So tau neutrinos and tau leptons have one dipole. Since it is in the news, a muon has only two dipoles in its energy core, so it wobbles.

The energy cores are coupled with personality point charges. So for example an electron has 6 electrinos coupled to a 3:3 energy core. It’s easy to figure out the compositions of all standard matter particles given electrino = -e/6 and positrino =e/6 and the fact that you have zillions of formulas and everything transmutes and reactions can easily avail themselves of lesser energy spacetime aether particle structures. All of the possible interactions of standard matter particles and transmutations represented by Feynman diagrams, are actually trying to map onto the physical reality of spacetime being an overlay aether of a detritus of dipole based structures on Euclidean space.

Therefore, here is another prediction. Everything redshifts. Redshift is losing energy from your energy core dipole ‘flywheels’ to the aether. You should imagine what happens when particles move at high velocities. What started as three orthogonal dipoles in fermion energy cores at low velocity relative to the aether becomes three tilted planes approaching each other as v approaches c. I think this is easily handled in linear or is it matrix algebra so not a problem, but maybe this will cause a lightbulb to go off. I predict that there is a physical basis for physicists math, well, ok, we can have a philosophical discusssion about whether an immutable point charge is physical, but at least we can say it is localized. Don’t bring a metaphorical knife to a magnetic field fight. I have 15 orders of magnitude on you and the math is not in your favor. 🙂

Clint Eastwood

Don’t bring a metaphorical knife to a magnetic field fight. I have 15 orders of magnitude on you and the math is not in your favor.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California

By J Mark Morris

I am imagining and reverse engineering a model of nature and sharing my journey via social media. Join me! I would love to have collaborators in this open effort. To support this research please donate:

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s