Independent researcher

[Michael Ray Mooney]

Hi everyone. I've had an avid interest in several fields of physics all my adult life, now 79. (Long retired as a psychologist.) My fields of interest include cosmology, astrophysics, relativity theory, quantum physics and philosophy of science applied to physics. I look forward to participation here.

 

[jedishrfu]

Welcome to PF!

 

[DeBangis21]

Welcome to PF.

 

[berkeman]

Hi everyone. I've had an avid interest in several fields of physics all my adult life, now 79. (Long retired as a psychologist.) My fields of interest include cosmology, astrophysics, relativity theory, quantum physics and philosophy of science applied to physics. I look forward to participation here.

There's a strange echo in here...

 

[Michael Ray Mooney]

Hi everyone. I've had an avid interest in several fields of physics all my adult life, now 79. (Long retired as a psychologist.) My fields of interest include cosmology, astrophysics, relativity theory, quantum physics and philosophy of science applied to physics. I look forward to participation here.

I am baffled at how quickly my posts are locked against replies... one in the relativity section and the other in cosmology. In the latter, administrators (mods, whatever) asked me questions and challenged the truth of my introduction. If this comment is also not allowed, I may be done here, but I would like a chance to at least log in and study in the fields mentioned in my intro.

 

[berkeman]

There's a strange echo in here...

 

[PeroK]

I am baffled at how quickly my posts are locked against replies... one in the relativity section and the other in cosmology. In the latter, administrators (mods, whatever) asked me questions and challenged the truth of my introduction. If this comment is also not allowed, I may be done here, but I would like a chance to at least log in and study in the fields mentioned in my intro.

Your first thread was more in the realm of philosphy than physics. There are several threads on here that explain why we don't discuss philosophy. That said, you did get some answers that were to the point.

Your second thread was problematic, because you repeated the assertion several times that cosmology was inherently inconsistent or untenable. And somewhat dismissed the answers you were given.

To make the most of PF you have to imagine yourself as a physics undergraduate. You're not going to explode modern physics by an insight that no one has previously had. If you don't undertstand something, the problem lies entirely with you to try to understand it. Imagining that physics is broken because you don't understand or can't accept something leads nowhere.

Certainly PF works best for those who want to learn - especially in terms of going beyond the limitations of popular science - and starting to tackle physics as an academic subject. Promoting personal ideas on the shortcomings of established physics is unlikely to lead anywhere.

 

[Michael Ray Mooney]

Thanks for the clarification that you don't discuss philosophy here. I thought that it was essential and fundamental in physics to identify the physical nature of a medium said to be curved by mass and guide the movements of masses.

I have said that an infinite universe can not expand, given what infinite means. So it is either finite and expanding or infinite,,, precluding getting bigger. There is no reasonable version of an end of the universe that I know of.

As an independent researcher all my adult life (about 60 years, I can't imagine myself as an undergraduate student. I thought I could contribute some of the insights I've had in all those years of study... and again, I've been interested in and a student of all fields interested in my intro. It is quite impractical to pursue a PhD in all those fields, but that does not render my contributions invalid.
Meanwhile, I'll just log in and read other's contributions for awhile. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

[jbriggs444]

Thanks for the clarification that you don't discuss philosophy here. I thought that it was essential and fundamental in physics to identify the physical nature of a medium said to be curved by mass and guide the movements of masses.

What is essential is that the model that is chosen make predictions that can be tested against experiment. It is not required that the elements of the model be "physical" or "mechanical" or whatever adjective one might choose to employ. All that matters is that a testable prediction is made.

One can have multiple "interpretations" of the same set of experimental facts.

I have said that an infinite universe can not expand, given what infinite means.

Before taking such a stance, it would be good to know what "infinite" means and what "expand" means in context. In context, the notion of "expand" does not involve an increasing finite distance between a pair of discernable boundaries.

Yes, "infinite" in the sense of lacking a bound at any finite distance would preclude "expansion" in the sense of an increasing finite distance between boundaries. It would not preclude an increase in finite distances between pairs of points with fixed spatial coordinates. It is the latter that is meant by cosmological expansion.

Re-opening the subject matter of a closed thread is treading on dangerous ground.

It is my opinion that a discussion focused on "how can it be consistent?" might be productive. While a discussion based on "it is wrong and you are all idiots" is sure to fail.

 

[berkeman]

However, re-opening the subject matter of a closed thread is treading on dangerous ground.

Let me help out. This "intro" thread is closed.

 

[berkeman]

Update -- turns out the OP was a sockpuppet of a previously banned member.