Just had to respond to a post in another part of the forum.

[Aireal]

I was reading the forum, when I was caught by one post which referred to an article in the New Scientist titled 13 Things That Do Not Make Sense. I had no trouble finding the article on the web still. The post on our forum found 7 parts that may apply to WSM. I found 6 that might apply to WSM, but we did not share all of our choices. I can not post on that part of the forum, but as I said, I was caught by the post, so here is my response.

A Laymans response to

General Comments on WSM Physics / 7 questions to start with

1. The placebo effect: (irrelevant) Mind over matter, enough said.

Geoff - It tells us that mind and matter are interconnected in subtle ways. They are! Both caused by wave motion of space. But the WSM does not explain how mind can represent things (colors from frequency of waves, taste and smell from shapes of wave patterns / molecules, human emotions, etc.) So this is still a big problem for understanding the mind.

2. The horizon problem: What problem? Any explosion starts at a single point and expands in all directions if unobstructed. In the case of our universe this expansion was at the speed of light for the last 14 billion years, giving us a radius of 14billion lightyears. Multiply by two to find the diameter and you arrive at a universe 28 billion lightyears across. Without ever exceeding the speed of light. As the laws of thermodynamics have been in effect for most of the last 14 billion years, I would be more surprised if the background radiation was not as uniform as we find it today.

Geoff - You must be careful not to rush into things - its leads us astray. The horizon problem is hard to explain from a 'Big Bang' foundation, but the WSM explains Cosmology much more logically and sensibly without there being any creation from nothing / big bang. Space is infinite and eternal, our universe just a finite sphere of that space where our wave structures interact with other matter / waves. See Cosmology pages on spaceandmotion website. Thus it is logical that universe has a fairly even background radiation, as it is an eternal thing.

3. Ultra-energetic cosmic rays: Again, what is the problem here? Some cosmic rays may have avoided some collisions that would have reduced their energy levels. Look at what happens in a supernova. Matter at the front of the expanding wave of particles would impact free particles in space, at the same time clearing a path for the other high energy particles behind it. Spin could even have an effect on this. A particle with a lot of spin would lose less energy from impacts, much like a cueball with top english. Any number of factors could account for this observed affect, without having to scrap Einstein's special theory of relativity. Given the large number of cosmic rays, it is almost a given that we should detect some that exceed 5x1019 electronvolt range. Now if these were appering in large numbers, then I would wonder why.

Geoff - I don't have enough knowledge to comment.

4. Belfast homeopathy results (irrelevant)

Geoff - This is relevant in that water seems to have many subtle states, and by adding things to water then diluting water, you can remove the added compounds and yet still have some subtle effect on the water, and thus humans who consume it (and are 90% water). These properties of water will prove to be very important to humans I think!

5. Dark Matter: I have heard that dark matter makes up as much as 90% of the universe, and as little as 30%. If we do not know what it is, and can not see it, how do we know how much of it is out there, if any at all? We don't, and current guesses are just that, a guess. It sounds a lot like what old map makers used to do with uncharted regions, "There be dragons there". Only now the cry is "There be Dark Matter there". Let us explore that unknown region and give the matter we find a proper name. Besides, is dark matter even a good name, why not light matter. Now I don"t wish to make Light of Dark Matter, but we should be attempting to detect it if it is there, instead of making wild guesses as to its state and quantity. In Dark energy I address the rest of this topic, as I think they are related.

Geoff - From memory this 'dark matter' is necessary to explain the rotation of galaxies, it is dark because we do not see it. I suspect it does not exist, that the error is in physics incorrect conception of matter (particles / fields) and gravity. So calculations need to be done from a WSM foundation - then we can better decide on this. Hopefully in the next decade someone will work this out!

6. Viking's Methane (irrelevant)

7. Tetraneutrons: Very interesting, and worthy of more research. As standard theories can not explain this, perhaps wave theory can.

8. The Pioneer Anomaly: I was unaware of this observed effect on the pioneer spacecraft. While this effect is very small, something must be causing it. This may tie in with the Dark Matter/Energy topics. If so, that means we can investigate Dark matter/energy without leaving or solar system. Thus a mission to study this should be done, but with the current goal of manned flight, it will not be done any time soon.

Geoff - As above. Their foundations for gravity and matter are wrong. I assume the anomaly is caused by variations in the wave density of space that affect the spherical in-waves.

9. Dark Energy: The flip side of Dark Matter. Which make me wonder, has anyone ever tried to calculate the mass of all the particles in "empty" space. Energy also has mass, given all the energy running rampant through our universe, there must be some mass effects associated with it. How much mass does this come to? Has anyone done calculations on this? Planck's constant for example. What is the total amount of energy in the entire universe, just using Planck's constant, now calculate the total mass of it.

Geoff - Again, this relates to errors in current physics foundations - I think this is to do with big bang theory / rate of expansion of universe. But it is all wrong - universe is not expanding, there was no big bang.

10. The Kuiper Cliff: (irrelevant) Out of date also, did they not recently find a 10th, yet unofficial planet?

11. The Wow Signal: (irrelevant) The WOW will come only if its detected again. However, what if an advanced race used Wave Theory as the base of their communications, would it even be detectable by SETI?

Geoff - We all use 'wave theory' to send signals. Radio waves, micro waves, etc. Same laws of physics will apply to aliens. We just now better understand it which in time will increase our chances of detecting other life.

12. Not-so-Constant Constants: At first this one surprised me, but the more I thought about it, the less strange it seemed. The heart of this matter revolves around Planck's constant I believe, of course I may be wrong, I often am. We may have been wrong in thinking that Planck's constant is a constant when it is not. Could it change slowly over time to where it appears as a constant to short lived species like us? When the universe was much smaller, the energy density of the universe would have been much greater. Could this also have caused an increase in the value of Planck's constant? Could other factors also cause Planck's constant to change slowly over time? Super massive black holes, quasars, anything that puts a strain on the fabric of space and time may cause a leak that would slowly drain Planck's constant. Let me go far out on a limb and suggest that some advanced race used Zero Point Energy. Would that use drain Planck's constant over time, after all, nothing is free. As the Alpha Constant is based in part on Planck's Constant, any change in it would affect the Alpha Constant as well, just to a lesser degree.

Geoff - Earth is moving through space, wave density of space changes (depending on proximity of other matter) so it is quite reasonable that these 'constants' are not so constant (they are all determined by properties of space).

13. Cold Fusion (irrelevant) Unless Wave Theory could find a way to reduce the energy needed to fuse nuclei at room temperature.

Geoff - May prove to be very relevant and important. Certainly resonance and local environment (at molecular level) seem to be central to this affect - which also shows that current standard particle model is wrong.

My final words of wisdom - be patient, take your time to carefully understand WSM (several years) and then you will look back on the above with much greater clarity and truth.
But good on you for your curiosity and initiative.
Cosmos,
Geoff

[haselhurst]

I have added in a few comments above. But there is a lot more work to be done to explain these things.
Geoff