Posted in Response to:
Universe Today Forums -> Alternate
Theories: A New Theory on Energy, David
Posted: Dec 23 2004, 10:50 PM
My Response Posted: Jan 1 2005, 06:36 PM
I agree that we measure
energy based on the measurement
of "displacement." As in the Einstein/Lorenz formulations, we must distinguish
between what we measure and the actually
happens. For example, place a spoon in a glass of water -- it bends! You can measure the
bend... just how much energy
did that bending require? No, I'm not
that crazy... the spoon isn't bent but the LIGHT that we use in our measurements gives that
appearance.
Another conundrum -- when will the
Earth's battery run out and the "work" performed by gravity
stops working (or when is the last time you
replaced the batteries that hold your refridgerator magnets in place?) The appearance of "work"
ascribes the energy to one
source or another. Convention about the "source" may be
incorrect. I don't subscribe to Big Bang
(another measurement misinterpretation) so I don't have the explain other
measurement anomalies like the bent
spoon above. I do believe in an infinite universe with all energy explained
(not by fields or waves but) by smaller
and smaller particles acting like "bb"s plumling beach balls (but from all directions -- the spin-off from
infinite stars and planets). I see a
energy-matter balance in an infinite (basically, steady-state universe.)
Why do I believe Big Bang is a
measurement mis-interpretation? It is based on the interpretation of the
OBSERVED ubiquitious redshift on stellar
spectra with the interpretation that this IMPLIES a receding vector. Rather than red-shift
supporting Big-Bang, I believe red-shift
is better explained as the result of small particles ejected by stars accumulating "mass" (i.e.
coalescing a couple more "bb"s
enroute) and therefore appearing heavier/slower by the time it gets here. As this "energy bullet"
continues to grow in size, soon it appears to us as matter (like He)--
like the flow we see every December from
the zodiac sign of Ophiuchus. NASA
Report 17 Dec 2004
There are other
reasons why red-shift can occur (as in near-by Quasars) so it isn't EXCLUSIVELY due
to distance, but distance WILL cause it.
Do you remember Occam's Razor? ("Pluralitas non est ponenda sine
neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity." - commonly
quoted as the "simplest solution is
usually ***THE*** right answer.)
Welcome, in the 21st Century, to JOHNNY'S SHAVER
(to supplement Occam's Razor). JOHNNY'S SHAVER says "Several
Heterogeneous Antecedents, (may have) Virtually
Equivalent Results". In answer's to Occam's question, "Why posit two when one will
do?", Johnny replies, "There are times when TWO (or more answers) ARE true -- that's
why!" -- Johnny