Summations Only

NoNukes my friendAn ape my age has long since lost the ability to shuck and jive

quote:

---

Then do so. Stop the shucking and jiving.
Stop evading questions or points made by others. Continuing to insist that the absence of the Higgs means that the BBT is what I expect you to do. But let's not pretend that you haven't been provided with reasons to the contrary. I have yet to see you address any of those points head on.
You made a specific complaint regarding problems with the analyses that do not show quantified red shifts, but I have yet to see you address my posts demonstrating that you were wrong in the only case you have yet identified.

---

I need a bit of help on exactly what I haven’t addressed yet?Please be explicit and please not blitzing here..In the meantime I discovered thisA new announcement was made today concerning a major scientific discovery. The discovery of the Bozo Boson by an obscure armature scientist. The scientist, just known as Bozo, is being put forward as the next Nobel Prize in quantum Physics. When his picture showed up in a scientific journal, he was instantly recognized as the world famous Bozo the Clown. No one ever suspected that the Worlds most famous clown was a Quantum Physicist in his spare time.Quote:

quote:

---

YUP being a clown is my day job, at night I collide proton anti-protons. Occasionally I discover new particles but more often I discover new joke material

---

When Bozo was asked about the announcement that CERN scientists have discovered the Higgs Boson, he replied:

quote:

---

Heck, if I knowed that they were a gona allow such folk to make things up I could’a saved em 50 billion bucks.

---

NoNukes my friend Son Goku has yet to protest about this but I believe my argument was a "missing mechanism" for several processes in universe evolution, like the electroweak epoch. Son noticed this and proposed the Technicolor hypothesis. This is kind of a save for a logical string of processes leading to the appearance of mass in the universe. If I am wrong in this, I am sure Son will correct me.Now what is your question again?

JonF my friend. I simply do not accept the authority of a commentary over peer review in this case. I believe I answered all other objections and corrected the misunderstanding of several misused quotes.

Dr. Adequate My friend Not quite all my reasons, my personal reason is as follows:It is my opinion that the ranges that are now being touted by CERN have already shown no results except some lepton activity (which is now the fading hope). As I had mentioned before the smaller accelerators already covered the lower energies (114Gev-150GeV), there was a little excitement around (145GeV). That one never panned out; telling me that the boson will never be found. By the way I believe Stephen Hawking will be 100 dollars richer in November.

If anyone is interested here are some direct cites that, show the decay channels that are being searched and the results.NewQuantum DiariesSign in to CERNLatest runsCMS Physics Analysis Summaries - CERN Document ServerThe total confidence stands at about 2.1 sigma for a range of 2.4Gev. There is some discussion that scientists will put forth an announcement for the discovery of the Higgs at this confidence level. This is exactly why current science is in the state it is in; the confidence level of 5 sigma should be the standard.

Son Goku thanks again for another stimulating post.Let me be very explicit about this: You are identifying at some point in universe history (Big Bang) there were two W and one Z bosons. The problem is that W and Z bosons are a product of a theory that is only observing an interaction in a bubble chamber (my previous point). If these gage bosons actually exist then that is implying a particle field paradigm. That paradigm is in danger of being overthrown because it is failing the empirical evidence. Now you can claim that the missing Higgs is fixable by Ad-hoc remedies but that only adds to an ever growing patchwork theory. Higgs or some other more complicated versions Oh boy put another candle to that birthday cake. I wish to invoke Occam’s Razor at this point. You are again proposing an all-pervasive field like the Aether remember what road that theory drags us down. Remember the tooth fairy A deposed tooth mysteriously disappears from beneath the pillow. Who cares how it happened it works out the exact same Sorry about the mistake, I really cannot explain how I made it given Quantum theory completely lacks any reasonable description of gravity. A Quantum gravity theory remains fantasy. Well not every prediction The Higgs is clearly missing. Here is a graph of the prediction curve for the Higgs Boson (it is a bit old but still covers the current predictions), this is quite a contrasts of your idea that quantum field theory really contains those exact predictions. By the way, even if your statement is correct there is only a 95 % confidence level, what is that confidence level? I read it as slightly greater that 2 sigma (not the 5 sigma you admit is acceptable certainty). I agree a proposal means nothing on its own. So what would that make the proposal for Loop Quantum Gravity? The Standard Model has departed from parsimony and continues to do so with empirical evidence (my opinion). The inconveniences may be listed as follows:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/.../370/1961/818.full T.O.E. Clear as mud No more funding for particle physicsEdited by zaius137, : Summit graphEdited by zaius137, : bad grammar..

The Big Bang seems to violate the basic conservation laws of physics. Could this indicate that the FRW model is wrong? What if distant redshifts that are now being interpreted as current expansion are actually relativistic remnants of a past expansion as explained by Carmeli? Or maybe Hubble redshift is actually because of Plasma redshift effects.

quote:

---

Universe expansion, at cosmological distances, has consequences that fail to obey a few key principles of our domestic physics; CONSERVATION of energy and CONSERVATION of mass caused by high relative velocity; CONSERVATION of momentum; CONSERVATION of gravitational potential energy.

​

EzineArticles.com - Page not found

---

Son,If you want to elaborate on the following please proceed As for the train wreck, the example is the common use of hyperbole.

Son my friend, please proceed with the exercise.Interesting to see your treatment of the momentum.However, I am more interested in the conservation of energy at this time. Conservation of energy deals more with red shifting and the accelerating expansion. Quick questionDoes the FRW model address conservation of energy in a global sense? Is there some term we can identify as energy in the metric to say it is conserved?Dark energy is filling the expanded space and growing in a three dimensional way to maintain the same force, thus increasing energy is taking place (if it is energy at all?). If it is energy then it is a contradiction to the conservation of it.I like to coin a phrase now Dark Acceleration.

NoNukes my friend

quote:

---

In the case of dark energy, that evolution is pretty simple: the density of vacuum energy in empty space is absolute constant, even as the volume of a region of space (comoving along with galaxies and other particles) grows as the universe expands. So the total energy, density times volume, goes up.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/...energy-is-not-conserved

---

This seems to be explanatory. The convenient out that is usually applied is the fact Quantum physics allows for occasional spontaneous breaking of symmetry. However, if this Quantum effect" is responsible you must tell me why that the observed Dark Energy is only about 1/20000 the amount predicted by the quantum origin. Now explain what is responsible for throttling the vacuum energy? Every time you invoke ad-hoc explanations, you only increase a patchwork theory

I still hope Son is busily applying Noether’s theorems We wait in great anticipation.

NoNukes my friendIt still seems to say energy is not conserved. Have you reviewed any articles that say there is no problem in the global conservation of energy in the universe? I have one article in particular but it seems to waffle on the issue.

quote:

---

and just admit that energy is not conserved

---

Son my friend Your solution is very Newtonian, let me explain. Newton uses two separate laws, the first and second, to describe the conservation of momentum and energy. Now Einstein’s field equation lumps both identities into one law (energy-momentum 4-vector). I was hoping that you might treat conservation of momentum with Noether’s theorem and not in a local Newtonian way.As I had mentioned previously, I was particularly interested in global energy conservation because it is fundamental in the Big Bang. Now it turns out that the FLRW metric will be of no use in that regard because of the lack of something called time like killing vectors in the terms. Therefore, we must talk about energy conservation in General Relativity.I would like to talk about four problem areas for conservation of energy namely

For case # 1 there is the Schwarzschild metric, which concerns relatively local conservation (not in my argument).For case #2 observations have verified that orbital periods in binary systems have changed over time thus implying that gravitational waves could be the cause. However, to date, physicists have failed to close the gap on how energy is being conserved in these situations.For case #3 Cosmological redshifts from the CMB is lose of energy many times the amount of energy present in the universe today, considering a 13 billion year existence. Here is a paper by Gentry http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF12-04Gentry.pdfFor Case #4 Energy is being pumped into the universe by some unidentified source. Proposals like zero point energy have failed to match theoretical values. The placement of dark energy in the Field equation leaves little doubt that it is considered energy.I hope we can stop talking local energy-momentum conservation and discuss global energy conservation.Energy is not conserved globally in a universe described by FLRW metric. Lack of energy conservation defies the materialistic rationalist view of the universe.

Son my friendIndeed, I would not want to delve into the deeper mathematics, even if I could. We must rely on other individuals work in this area. Remember you are one who wished to produce a conservation of momentum in FLRW in a few paragraphs. I found that offer rather astounding considering the complicated proofs needed. Here is a commentary on some of the principles I wish to cover, even this paper requires some of that deeper understanding of mathematics, I can follow the arguments up to the point of these mathematical details.Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?I do appreciate the effort thou and your courage in that regard. But find the explanation too basic. My statement rests on the notion that the materialist must provide a complete description of a creation apart from God; even though these mechanisms are often ad-hoc and resemble philosophy to the point of being a religion. As a Christian, I believe that God is very much in the totality of the universe description, but also admit that the human mind is probably incapable of attaining such a holistic description of the universe as to be complete.The materialist makes no such admissions and pushes on with the pretense of scientific truths that are often not scientific at all; they are at best philosophical. As a Christian, I trust the real science and especially promote the reproducible and the provable.Personally, I accept that Einstein’s General relativity theory has met a very high standard of scientific proofs and contains very fundamental truths of nature even though it is not by definition holistic. Please do not be offended by me stating that quantum mechanics is a theory of fundamental compromise although it also has recognizable achievements (a view held by Einstein).To sum this denunciation up, FLRW is a unworthy trophy to the holistic description of the universe apart from God.

Son my friend Then provide the proper mathematics, if you must, because a Newtonian treatment is simply insufficient. If you are truly a rationalist, you cannot embrace a philosophical principle. Any accepted principle that violates basic laws of physics is not scientific and must be considered philosophical (if not religious). Cosmology of the Big Bang lacks the well-known basics of the conservation of energy so it is not materialistic.Let us reason on the followingConsider:Dark energy must be a quantum effect yet by all calculations the observed dark energy is vastly smaller than that predicted by quantum fluxuations; dark energy has not been explained by quantum theory. Furthermore the acceleration of distant galaxies is an anomaly in that, Dark energy does not increase the Relativistic mass of the galaxies in question; this I claim is dark acceleration.In the FLRW model which galaxies are accelerated, is it the Milky Way or distant galaxies? Is it the relative speed between the galaxies? If it is the relative speed between galaxies, then when the speed exceeds the speed of light Special Relativity is violated (speed between observers cannot exceed the speed of light). See superluminal violations to Special Relativity.Furthermore, the observed cosmological red-shifting in the CMB is another violation of the conservation of energy (as in a prior citation). Efforts to conform energy conservation to the models of cosmology fall short.(Note) Special Geometries (ADM energy treatments) are not a plausible explanation for the conservation of energy.Also consider...

quote:

---

According to general relativity, the conservation law for the total energy does not hold in more general, time-dependent backgrounds - for example, it is completely violated in physical cosmology. Cosmic inflation in particular is able to produce energy (and mass) from "nothing" because the vacuum energy density is roughly constant, but the volume of the Universe grows exponentially.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

My statement has nothing to do with holistic worldviews it has to do with scienceI view all science as belonging to God as demonstrated in Romans 1:20. Provable and reproducible by the very definition of being scientific, yet all of creation by a universally brilliant mind. The Materialist regards the creation in a very nave way threw conception by natural laws. This to me is a contradiction in itself because I can recognize God in the very laws that govern the universe. The contradiction to the materialist is that the science does not support his cosmology.