PhysicsOfUniverse.com

Posts Tagged ‘reasoning’

The Doppler Effect for the redshifting of light observed from the Universe is one of the two pillars used to support the Big Bang Theory.  The other is the observation of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation which was predicted to exist in 1948 and then in 1965, found to exist, to which in 1978 the discoverers received the Nobel Prize for Physics.

One of the problems of the Big Bang theory is the rewind calculates into an unrealistic, unbelievable, and outrageous mathematical reality that says the creation of this Universe started from the size smaller than a pea and remarkably somehow expanded by a process called inflation to the size it is today in 35th billionth of a second.

Also there are still the undiscovered theoretical existence of dark matter and dark energy to substantiate the Doppler Effect as the reason for the Redshift. Common sense and logic says the jury should be out until these two supporting missing pieces for the puzzle are confirmed with certainly before the Big Bang can be called a theory.  It is a fact that no matter how hard standard cosmology scientists try to make the Big Bang into a theory, it’s only a working model that tries to make the redshifting observed fit into a working mathematical equation that is unrealistic, improbable, and flawed because by most scientific definitions, fundamentally unsupportable. Read the rest of this entry »

“Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. “ (Habkkuk 2:2 Holy Bible KJV)

Astrophysics and particle science today is largely created by theorists who mathematically create their visions for models, theories, and hypothesizes and expect experimenters to confirm that their equations and formulates are correct. However in the end; the correct observational conclusion is the main ultimate decisive factor determining if the vision is correct, because if the conclusions made are wrong then the theory is also wrong.

What are the observations telling us, and are the parameters used for making the conclusions correct?  Fundamental concepts for the real nature of energy, the misunderstanding of gravity, the complexity of light, and miscalculation of what is time, has caused misunderstanding and led scientific conclusions astray that leads into a scientific field that can be categorized as no-way science.

What is the direction the Universe is going into?  Is the vision of an expanding cloud that is speeding away at a faster rate at the edges that even tugs at light to stretch it as portrayed by present conclusions or is it really something else that is based on a sure foundation supported by known laws of physics? Read the rest of this entry »

Astronomy.com reported that for the first time a “fast radio burst” has been detected using an instrument other than the Parkes radio telescope in Australia.

In the article Victoria Kaspi from Montreal’s McGill University said, “The radio waves show every sign of having come from far outside our galaxy – a really exciting prospect.”

Jason Hessels from the University of Amsterdam also said, “The race is now on to figure out what causes these burst.”

An international team of scientist who study these burst estimated that there are about 10,000 each day over the whole sky. Read the rest of this entry »

There are two types of electromagnetic spectrum energy momentums – steady flow and explosive flow.

All energy diminishes from high to low – that is a simply fact of nature and is seen in countless examples. The energy from the sun decreases as it leaves the source and so does each star and each energy phenomenon occurring in the universe. Examples are everywhere even in the vacuum of space – which we were told enables energy to go on forever (but not supported by the observations or measurements.)

I already coined a word astromeinradiation for the recording of diminishing and remanent energies from a distance source. Now I am designing another word “dynascale” for the explosive flow.

From the Greek root words:
dyna = power
scal = ladder, stairs

Dynascale radiation is the electromagnetic spectrum fingerprint of a high energy explosive event. Read the rest of this entry »

The Big Bang Universe contains a lot of conceptual problems which are generally supported by scientific consensus but if investigated there are flimsy underlying assumptions, conflicting interconnecting theories, and unexplainable abnormalities.

When one model of the universe is disposed of – it must be replaced by another.  I propose for critical examination what I call the 3D Expanding Universe. 

The foundational footings for launching the theory are a set of observation principles and two crucial experiments also known as critical experiments or by the Latin term experimentum crucis.

In science the conclusions from crucial experiment results are to enable the scientific community to decisively decide between two competing theories, falsify other interconnecting models, account for existing abnormalities, and provide measurable predictions.

The observation principles are tools that give greater understanding for making proper conclusions or likely assumptions for an earth observer to use.  

The 3D Expanding Universe is a universe that expands into infinity that is creating larger and larger worlds that are observable and supported by advance scientific methodologies that will be explained in greater detail by content publishing in this website, Google+ and open science portals such as Figshare.

Theoretical physics with observational abnormalities, list of unsolved mysteries, physical paradoxes, or no-way physics type explanations are areas where one could apply scientific methodologies using the science method and scientifically falsify and/or make a scientific discovery.

The first step would be to ask the questions such as, where are the admitted problems that need solving, or what are the abnormalities known, or what needs more clarification, and spend a lot of time researching those areas.  Gather up related data to increase your knowledge and provide that opportunity for an eureka moment or a systematic solution. Read the rest of this entry »

As a person interested in astronomy and astrophysics (or any science) there are various reasons why you would want to develop a research project.

Academically it is very important, but personally scientific research is exciting and there is an endless supply of topics to research and discover.  Not only is it exciting personally but there is a huge market potential if the public is made to be interested in it.

How can you make money with the science of astronomy or astrophysics?  Pick a subject and research it – write e-books, publish science papers, network with other liked minded people, get an academic advancement,  make a documentary,  start a new career, win the Nobel prize, the list goes on to develop into something very interesting and rewarding. Read the rest of this entry »

A scientist makes an observation and notices a problem or tries to answer the questions of why and how.  

Timothy Ferris said in his 1997 book The Whole Shebang- A State-Of-The Universe(s) Report, “Science is not a static body of dogma, to stray from which is to risk one’s epaulets stripped off in a ceremony of banishment from the scientific community.  It is a self-correcting system of inquiry, in which errors – of which there are, of course, plenty – are sooner or later detected by experiment or by more careful analysis.”

A scientist can make a discovery, or develop a new model.  Timothy Ferris also said in his book, “Through astrophysics, it became possible to go beyond describing how the sky looks and to begin learning how it got to be that way.”

Astronomers that want to go beyond observations in the visual can do astronomy and astrophysics by the scientific method and create new science several different ways.  They can notice a problem or ask the questions why or how.  They support a hypothesis by gathering quantitative and qualitative data form observations and by using problem solving techniques and critical thinking to support conclusions to test new or present theories. 

To start the process, use critical thinking and the scientific method to support why and how.  Alternatively see a problem and seek the solution by designing experiments and/or gather data to support a hypothesis. 

When one wants to contribute a new theory or model they must formulate a hypothesis and test it by experiments and gather data to support the conclusion(s).  The data is analyzed and interpreted which supports the hypothesis or rejects the hypothesis which will require the hypothesis to be modified. 

This website supports open access science and public collaboration vs the old system of peer review.  You are a scientist too – You are an astrophysicist too – You are an astronomer too – add your comments, make your contributions with open access science and public collaboration.  Together we can construct a new scientific revolution to open up a new Universe unknown to previous generations.

The Scientific Method refers to various formulized systems of empirical, investigative, and/or rational methodologies, including but not necessary limited to; provable experiments, various reasoning, comparative logic, supported conclusions, measurements, mathematics, observations, testing, analyzing, and sampling – used to support a scientific fact, theory, law or hypothesis.

There should be a complete understanding which body of Scientific Method is used to support a scientific fact, theory, law or hypothesis.  Employing them all would be the best proof.

There must be a distinction made between the quality of Scientific Method used, when analyzing between competing theories, laws, hypothesizes, or scientific facts.  If one competing model is supported by the best sets of scientific methodologies it should be the accepted likely model of what is the universe.

There also must be a distinction when no Scientific Method is being used for supporting a stated scientific fact, law, theory, or hypothesis.

There should be no more statements made in astrophysics that are not proven by a Scientific Method system of investigative empirical rational scientific coherent methodology.

Scientific Method should also include scientific elimination of irrational statements.