Home > Uncategorized > The Cavitation Theory of Matter

The Cavitation Theory of Matter

Here’s a video composed (with some help) by my good friend Douglas George, who lives in Eureka.  He is an amateur physicist with a theory that all of matter is composed of tiny units of the absence of space.  Nothing.  Each unit of mass is essentially a black hole.  He elaborates on the theory in more detail at his website.  The theory may actually be tempting to professional physicists as it eliminates the paradoxes within the event horizon, and potentially explains the Hubble-discovered evidence of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.  To put the Cavitation Theory of matter in logical terms, everything we experience as something is nothing, and what we experience as nothing is actually the fabric, or at least as such when interacting with matter – conglomerations of little pieces of nothing.  Yes, there are certainly holes in his theory….

  1. Anonymous
    September 22, 2012 at 11:12 pm

    I believe your friend has a hypothesis, not a theory.

    A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.” Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. (Source)

  2. Eric Kirk
    September 22, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    Well, he’s developed it considerably through mathematical principles which have been repeatedly confirmed. I don’t know where the line is between a hypothesis and a theory, but whatever you want to call this, it’s based on more than conjecture.

  3. Richard Feinman
    September 23, 2012 at 6:28 am

    This would explain what’s happening at City Hall. . .

  4. Just Watchin
    September 23, 2012 at 6:38 am

    I thought that this blog was about local issues. It seems that the subject matter of late just provides people the opportunity to roll out the most obscure words they can find to prove that they are smarter than everyone else.

  5. Mitch
    September 23, 2012 at 8:01 am

    “by my good friend Douglas George, who lives in Eureka.”

    If a local cow won a prize in the state fair, Just Watchin would probably think it an important item. But a local man putting together a youtube video on his theory of cosmology… meh.

  6. Mary Kay
    September 23, 2012 at 8:11 am

    A Cavitation Theory of Cosmetology WOULD play well here, Mitch.

  7. Mitch
    September 23, 2012 at 8:22 am

    Every rural area suffers from the self-deportation of some of its most ambitious and talented young people. College towns, to a certain extent, avoid the problem by creating an atmosphere that can remain attractive to such people. “Hippie” towns, too — anyplace that develops a reputation for accepting diversity and providing space for people who don’t follow rules.

    But the pot industry seems to be morphing this area from “hippie” to “gangster.” Gangster towns are no more attractive to ambitious and talented young people than bankster towns. When you end up with a rural area whose government is nothing but an arm of the realtor’s association, and whose so-called “counterculture” is a bunch of thugs in search of a quick buck, you end up with nothing to hold those young people who could make a place flourish off their creativity and energy. The results are showing up.

  8. Anonymous
    September 23, 2012 at 8:31 am

    Someone thinking something up a hypothesis and posting a video doesn’t make his hypothesis well-substantiated, nor has he tested his hypothesis for accuracy.

    The thing people don’t understand about scientific theories is that they’re so well-founded, and tested, that they are usually also called facts. So when a skeptic says something like, “Evolution is only a theory,” he doesn’t realize he’s actually saying, “Evolution is only a fact.” Or, say, gravity, which is both a law and a theory. Not too many people say, “Gravity is only a theory,” although that’s true.

  9. Woo club
    September 23, 2012 at 9:03 am

    This blog is having a Huffington Post-esque science moment this week.

  10. Name Here
    September 23, 2012 at 9:19 am

    LOL. Thank you, all.

  11. unanonymous
    September 23, 2012 at 9:30 am

    theories are not facts, when theories are shown to be fact they become a law. this is pseudo-intellectual poppycock.

  12. unanonymous
    September 23, 2012 at 9:41 am

    what happens to objects is described by the universal law of gravity. why it happens is described by Einsteins theory of general relativity.

  13. tra
    September 23, 2012 at 9:51 am

    “Smokemonster” said: “For what it’s worth, I will be attending capleton since you drew so much attention to it, and I can’t stand reggae. But for anyone to censor an artists right to represent themselves as they please is something im strongly against.”

    Well I have good news for you: No one is “censoring” anyone here. Readers are being offered information on this Capleton’s history of violent hate speech, but can certainly make up their own minds on whether to attend this event (and pay admission that helps support the guy).

    Similarly, if a hardcore band was coming to town, and it turned out that they had a history of hate speech and advocating for violence against minorities — for example, if they were one of the “hatecore” bands associated with the killer in the shooting rampage at the Sikh temple a few months ago — I would want to know that before plunking my money down and supporting them by attending their show. Wouldn’t you?

  14. Woo club
    September 23, 2012 at 9:58 am

    What unanonymous said above is incorrect.

  15. 06em
    September 23, 2012 at 10:00 am

    There’s nothing to this theory.

  16. unanonymous
    September 23, 2012 at 10:10 am

    this pretty much sums up progressive science…. we belive so it is true..

  17. September 23, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    The Theory of Chaos = “we believe so it is true.”

  18. Eric Kirk
    September 23, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    Reading this thread, it’s easy to understand how the Alexandria Library got burned down.

    It’s an idea folks. Nobody’s trying to put one over on you. Douglas is just someone with some very high abilities trying to add some interesting thoughts to the pursuit of knowledge. Nothing to be threatened by. Nothing to be angry about.

  19. suzy blah blah
    September 23, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    -thanks Douglas.

  20. Not A Native
    September 23, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    Everyone is welcome to have opinions and beliefs. But if its not peer reviewed, its not science (period).

    Just what has this guy ever actually accomplished from his Leonardo visions? Seems this guy’s peers qualify as such by congregating around a bowl….

    I’d say this is right up there with another small town invention, cold fusion, and that “free energy” device you see ads for all over the net. Just another Kirk romantic claim that uneducated intuition is sufficient to understand physics.

  21. Eric Kirk
    September 23, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    NAN – other than the fact that it’s not “peer reviewed” (it will be btw), do you have any specific criticisms of the piece? Or is this just another one of those rote objections you have when you don’t understand something?

  22. unanonymous
    September 23, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    yes the “central theory” is not a theory but an assumption based on conjecture

  23. Walt
    September 23, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    So was the double helix until Watson and Crick went public with it.

  24. September 23, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    I had a read over Douglas George’s theory. It’s interesting. Thanks for posting it, Eric, as what seems entirely suitable sunday supplement material.

    Those wondering about it might want to look at how the folks in Einstein’s period put together their own theories which we call modern physics. Can anything be more speculative than trying to match up ‘new math’ with nature, and getting the semiconductors that power your phones and laptops, as well as the atomic results from it?

    Those that followed have delivered such ideas as the Big Bang itself, black holes, instant unimaginably large cosmological inflation in early instants of the universe, and such things as spukhafte fernwirkung (spooky action-at-a-distance) experimentally demonstrated now many times, just as Albert didn’t in his time like to hear it (and spent the rest of his life trying to work out what a more accurate story might be).

    The better ideas around the edges have been turned into awfully real feeling science fiction by writers who understood them, most particularly Greg Bear, and aren’t disproven yet. They include universe-as-accounting-system below quantum mechanics, which would give amazing ways to manipulate matter and space (see Moving Mars, by GB), besides probably amazing new forms of danger in derivatives for banks.

    I just threw that last in for those who may be concerned, but the point is that there is extremely speculative thinking all through mainline science. It isn’t ‘liberal science’, but rather imagination. If you look at Douglas George’s site, you can find a lot of other kinds of imagination, most of it mechanical including aeronautics. He makes very practical and useful looking drawings. You’d probably like it, even if you don’t want to bother with this physics conjecture.

    Which I’m very happy to hear he as the honor of having it peer reviewed, which mean people think its intriguing enough to spend the time. Working scientists have been intensely interested in some of Greg Bear’s ideas also — particularly in genetic biology. All kinds of people can think, can’t they. The government even hires writers and such to do so, on occasion, for their merits.

  25. unanonymous
    September 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm

    my first comment on the article is there are no references. it is impossible to verify the stated known facts without them. a boring and tedious part of scientific discourse but absolutely necessary for appropriate peer review.

  26. Plain Jane
    September 23, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    Necessity is no longer the mother of invention. Imagination is.

  27. unanonymous
    September 23, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    catchy phrase, but unfortunately irrelevant.

  28. jr
    September 23, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    I thought Frank Zappa was the Mother of Invention.

  29. September 23, 2012 at 10:15 pm

    I think it was actually his wife Gail. They had four results: Moon Unit, Dweezil, Ahmet Emuukha Rodan and Diva Thin Muffin Pigeen. And seemed to be nice people; just an impression I had.

    What Jane said has evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv, which won a MacArthur grant for opening the way for publishing to not be bound by choices of the formal journals.

    If you look on the actual ArXiv.org, you’ll see right away the Astrophysics section, 11,000-odd papers just in last year, on subjects like those of Douglas George.

  30. Not A Native
    September 23, 2012 at 11:33 pm

    Look Kirk, your implying that no specific refutation is a good reason to accept something is no different from a priest telling a heathen that if he has no specific criticism of the story of Jesus that’s a good basis for believing the Jesus story has merit. Total BS. Legalistic argumentation intening to put the reviewer on the defensive.

    Proposers of radical ideas have the onus and affirmative responsibility to explain exactly how their ideas are consistent with presently known knowlege, explain experimental evidence, and make predictions that existing ideas can’t. That’s one reason the “multiverse” ideas aren’t accepted as science. The proponents haven’t presented a way of testing or disproving them.

    You never addressed my question: What has this guy accomplished to date in the area of theoretical physics that would lend him any credibility now? If he truly gets published in a reputable journal, I’ll look more closely at his ideas. Until then, he’s simply a self absorbed crackpot. I’ve much better things to do with my time that have real potential to increase my understanding. And that doesn’t include seeking wisdom from a bowl….

  31. Woo club
    September 24, 2012 at 7:14 am

    Funny that “Cavitation” is making people question scientific credibility while the previous post of Séralini’s nanodose of RoundUp experiment did not.

    Cavitation’s validity is further questioned because there are no references of black hole experiments or black hole math. D.C. George apparently is not allowed to put forward ideas about little bits of black hole coalescing due to not being an authority on black hole bits.

  32. September 24, 2012 at 8:10 am

    Not a Native, actually Douglas George went into some detail on (quite serious and quite well-known) problems the current theory has, and where his would solve them.

    As far as what Eric is doing, he published a local news story. He asked due to your response if you had anything concrete to say about its premise. No-one including Eric so far as I’ve read is asking you to agree to the theory of Douglas George, any more than a news account on a move by the City Counsel or the Board of Supervisors would ask you to agree with them.

    One point that strikes me in conversation here is how often motives and mentalities are ascribed to a person, without the slightest evidence, even if one could understand another so fully. This is called ad hominem attack, and it is never accepted as having any validity for the author, besides being pretty unfriendly and otherwise not winning respect.

    One of the advantages of a community like Humboldt is that you have the chance to experience each day that ‘those others’ are actually just each individuals with their own views — not usually very well aligned with general labels and other politically manipulative hogwash.

    I find that’s the far more useful and enlightening aspect of matters, just speaking for myself. Also, it’s interesting, and a bit of fun, no?

  33. September 24, 2012 at 11:20 am

    First, Doug is a super nice and congenial fellow. I had the privilege of working with him for a short time while he lived here in Garberville. His ideas caused me a great source of wonder. I took up a great deal of his time bouncing my questions off of him. It was obvious to me that some of the things that I was still wondering about he had already put together, and had a satisfactory answer in his own thoughts.

    If you follow the trail, something had to come from nothing, so unless you believe in magic, Doug’s ideas at least provide a way that “Something” came out of “Nothing”. Doug’s ideas at very least remove the magic and put the Genesis stories on a more scientifically thought-out basis. For that, me and my “hammer test of reality” applaud him.

  34. Eric Kirk
    September 24, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Yeah, I didn’t say anybody had to “accept” anything. It’s an idea, and he’s starting a discussion. I think that the work he’s put into it warrants a look. If you need a peer review before you will even look at his reasoning, then you’re entirely too dependent on the academic system. There are some very interesting mathematical coincidences, and the theory potentially solves a few problems. It was not intended to be an academic work, so he didn’t footnote or anything like that. He’s just throwing out an idea for consideration. The UC profs will tell him if he’s completely in the wrong direction, but they haven’t told him that so far.

    What gets to me is how an effort like this generates such negativity and anger. If it doesn’t interest you, then move on to the next thread.

  35. September 24, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Ernie, just to say, I really enjoyed that.

    Just the sort of thing that’s the best I know, from growing up, up there.

    Very well said.

  36. Not A Native
    September 24, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    Eric, If you don’t want public comment, then don’t of post on an open blog. Move on and send private messages to your echo chamber chorus of facebook friends..

  37. Eric Kirk
    September 24, 2012 at 9:43 pm

    I’m all for comment NAN. It’s the whining about nothing and everything that wears me out.

  38. suzy blah blah
    September 24, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    -imagination is the father of invention.

  39. Server Droid
    September 25, 2012 at 8:47 am

    I always knew fluoridated water was bad for the cosmos…. save th

  40. Server Droid
    September 25, 2012 at 8:49 am

    e cavitations!

  41. SmokeMonster
    September 25, 2012 at 8:56 am

    NAN’s correct Kirk,all you want is adoration,guess what guy there are always going to be views that differ from yours.
    Real talk you censoring and deleting posts that differ from your views is pathetic,it is definitely a Rudh Limbaugh Sean Hannity neo con bullshit tactic,congrats on your almighty power over this site,big man. SMH,what a coward

  42. SmokeMonster
    September 25, 2012 at 9:01 am

    You seriously deleted a thread that only said this sounds like burnt out hippie blabber and or tweaker talk.

    That is MY OPINION,sorry if after watching the video a realist like myself shares MY views on topic you posted.

    If al you want are people to kiss your ass and say how marvelous the idea is like NAN said,post it on your Facebook otherwise quit being BOARD NAZI’s. its just my view others will see it and weigh that in with their judgment.

    In the real world everyone thinks differently,accept it KIRK and MITCH or find a different hobby,you guys are pathetic if you keep this nonsense up

  43. Eric Kirk
    September 25, 2012 at 9:22 am

    And a good morning to you to Smokemons!

  44. September 25, 2012 at 9:39 am

    Not A Native :
    Eric, If you don’t want public comment, then don’t of post on an open blog. Move on and send private messages to your echo chamber chorus of facebook friends..

    Yeh because you can count on arbitrary ridicule from NAN.

  45. September 25, 2012 at 10:20 am

    I see there are finally a few people starting to get things figured out. Does my heart good this morning. Now lets see how that transcends from blogs to the real world.

  46. Not A Native
    September 25, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    Eric, all the whining and sniveling here is yours. If that tires you out, move your wannabe progressive self on to another blog. And take along your amen no nothings who think taking training to fill out government forestry forms makes them scientists.

  47. Eric Kirk
    September 25, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    More whining from NAN. I admire the endurance.

  48. Not A Native
    September 25, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    First whining Eric is “tired”, but now he’s the Eveready bunny. Just can’t follow his own advice. Its the mark of a wannabe..

  49. September 25, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    I can imagine a caricature of NAN in real life where every time this guy comes round he immediately tells everyone they are stupid and their conversations are pointless. He then runs back to his apartment and eats a few gallons of ice cream or something. LOL

  50. September 26, 2012 at 8:36 am

    Here’s an example of some fairly twisted scientific thinking involving black holes, which by the time you get to the end (you have to read that far) will also have you imagining how some guys in what the English sometimes call ‘the back of beyond’ happened to invent their steam engines for them, and thus their industrial revolution.

    http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429359/how-to-build-a-black-hole-laser

  51. September 26, 2012 at 8:37 am

    bolithio, you also have a fertile imagination ;)

  52. labteh
    September 26, 2012 at 11:29 am

    NAN has a point: if it’s not peer reviewed, it’s not science.

  53. Woo club
    September 26, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    Peer review does not always mean science. The peer review process has been widely criticized for failing to adequately assess research prior to publication.

    This year alone, famous junk science promoters like Peter Duesberg and Séralini/de Vendomois have been published in high quality journals through the peer review process.

  54. September 26, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    labteh, respectfully, I really think that replication of results is what makes it science. Science being knowledge that we have some (often measured) degree of confidence in, to work with results, and to move forward on refining that knowledge and possible consequences.

    These days that especially means opening up the data, etc.; and with the fast moving knowledge breaks we have, to let other practitioners in on the concept and the ability to verify, prior to a last step of a process, which is regulated publishing.

    The more we have those, the better the science, thus the better the peer review which eventually comes will usually be, since it will be more informed.

    Also, tendencies to not allow publishing on what opinion only has deemed ‘unworkable’ would make for less travesties than happened that we know of as far back as repressing work on some of the more mysterious but now very firmly demonstrated aspects of quantum theory – for about fifty years. Thus Kuhn’s ideas about the nature of scientific ‘revolutions’ being as much about retirement of the old guard generations as much as anything else.

    These are some specific issues in which I agree with Woo club on this, and others.

  55. Woo club
    September 26, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Peer review worked better when science was small. Duesberg’s paper “AIDS since 1984: no evidence for a new, viral epidemic–not even in Africa.” is a fine example of the peer review process failing miserably.

    Likewise, as Narration points out, publication pressures can exclude research deemed unworkable even if it has merit. What category bits of black hole falls into waits to be seen. Commenters in this thread are putting the cart before the horse. There is less to worry about with unpublished black hole theories than politically motivated junk science.

  56. Mitch
    September 26, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    Peer review does not always mean science.

    For those who are expert enough in a field to justifiably hold an independent opinion, peer review may not mean science. But for the rest of us, we more or less have to rely on peer review. What is the alternative, Woo review?

  57. Not A Native
    September 26, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    Woo has failed the first lesson in predicate logic.

    “If it isn’t peer reviewed then it isn’t science” is the statement I made and stand by. My statement doesn’t logically imply “If it is peer reviewed then it is science”. But that’s exactly what Woo is arguing to refute me. So (s)he has proved Woo hasn’t a clue.

    This is exactly what happens when people with little study or demonstrated accomplishment in a area of knowledge claim an ability to have a meaningful opinion. This thread began with Eric’s egoistic and arrogant hubris, seeking a local reputation as having a respectable opinion about what might be valid theoretical physics. Well he just doesn’t. And all his whining and complaining and wheedling and needling won’t change that fact.

  58. September 26, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    I’ll take an simple “observation” over a “meaningful opinion” any day. By the way, it seems I made observation regarding Eric’s “meaningful opinion regarding religion and believers versus thinkers sometime back – NAN.

  59. September 26, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    Mitch, from my view that is an excellent question to raise.

    I’m interested in what others will say, which will turn out to be a form of answer.

    I think the way communications are opening up, in the way people working in fields find themselves attracted to, gives also those coming from outside interest the best kind of window in. Often enough, you are going to see some of the same patterns as show on Humboldt Herald, which may also help to convince how what you and others put your considerable efforts into here are truly worthwhile.

    How do you hang around the edges of significant discussions? I think that the better weblogs are often the place, and also the ‘professional popular science’ journals like Nature and Science, which try to give sight of what’s going on in other fields for those who have their own, but may be able to use what others do. Kind of an often-exciting principle, actually.

    Here’s an example article which will also give you a link to the Biosmedicine area among others of MIT Technology Review weblogs, where I otherwise got that black hole laser article.

    http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428945/the-complex-puzzle-of-when-to-start-hiv-treatment/

    Here’s that Biomedicine area itself — you can see there is are a wide variety of subjects, and I’ve had the sense that the level of technical journalism is actually quite good. You can pick off easily when there seems a level of commercial drive, and when there is, there’s also often some important meaning being communicated, even given that frame. It wasn’t always such an interesting source, but has grown more recently to be pretty good. I’ve picked off some important things towards a brother’s cancer situation on there.

    I actually subscribe to the email newsletter overview there, of which you can find a signup link on bottom right of that page, just because I can skim it very rapidly to see if there are any new articles that look attractive. It’s annoying but takes just a few seconds.

    I do the same thing with Nature, to cover science more than technology, which is MIT’s thing, though as you can see, another barrier of communication is fruitfully breaking down between those two, about a century later than it might have, at least at this level of view.

    Nature is a refereed publishing organisation in part and in its history, but has grown to have a very considerable open journalistic role. You can see this at http://www.nature.com/news/, and from the registration link on the upper right (free), you can have them send you weekly summaries, as well as read an amount of the journal on line. For the gatewayed articles, as I suggested once before, you can go to Humboldt State’s library, and very probably use the wireless there which will let you see all the articles through their license, or if not, find the magazine itself on the shelves.

    Other ways to access exist, such as RSS. I use that a lot, again to be able to see and select from many disparate resources. For these science weblogs, it just keeps coming too thick for that to feel effective, since I have a lot else to do with my time, so I use the newsletters as attention filters and scan points. The sites themselves are often very good indeed about showing you other articles with relation when you look at one you want; so don’t miss this,

    Filtering and meaningful relating are big things in being able to notice the kinds of conversations you also are probably wanting to hear, so it’s very good that the journals are building that in so effectively. A little advancement there…

    Hope that’s useful, and keeps to what I wanted to offer, which is basically to have ways to be around the conversations you’d like to, which is where the judgement comes on the roads to something the august still have (and often enough very importantly so) have their chance to review.

    You’ll find Nature is particularly engaged with various kinds of politics surrounding all this, including especially their own problems that Woo club brings out well, but also a number of aspects that come up in the Humboldt blogs, so that could be useful too.

    Best with it…and now turning back to what i was doing — no exactly on such a subject ;)

  60. September 26, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    NaN, I fear that ‘thou doest protesteth too much’, if I remember enough to quote the Bard.

    As with interpreting out of the play might be for your comment, I don’t think Woo club’s arrow has fallen false of the mark here, and what the English like to call ‘chop logic’ isn’t really contributing to better understanding. Which is what we’re all here for, yes?

    As far as parsing Eric’s act and intent in publishing the interesting notions of a local resident, I think you have now gotten very far from the railroad tracks. There was, if you read again, absolutely no attempt to judge, much less push, the veracity of the theory, as you try to say; instead

    If that’s the way you understand it, I’d start again, after giving yourself the benefit of a quiet walk and some time, among some of those trees and otherwise natural senses that Humboldt gives so well.

    I think then you’ll see that Eric gave only a brief and quite nicely journalistic bit of background, then a quiet joke, both as distancing and introduction, before walking away.

    I still think this business of Douglas George is something to appreciate, and enjoy. There’s enough information in comments for you to know it isn’t just some wild idea, and beyond that, unless the earth moves, it’s nothing for any of us to worry about, I hope you find you agree.

    I don’t, to be complete, find any evidence whatsoever of experts speaking out of their noted field, so hope that canard was just a slip, as it doesn’t seem it can apply here.

  61. Not A Native
    September 26, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    Blow it out your ear Narration. Monday, I went on a 12 mile hike in SoHum, what do you do except press a lot of keyboard? If Mr. George has something he thinks is meritorious he can promote and defend it himself and if he feels its noteworthy, he can ask those he respects if they feel similarly(peer review). If that includes Eric, then its clear Mr. George hasn’t a clue. Eric,(and you) aren’t peer reviewers and have no skills or abilities to have any worthy opinion on the scientific merit of just about anything.

  62. September 26, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Well, you have a lot of energy there, NaN (I am a native…), and I am not speaking of the hike.

    Let’s just leave it now, since we’re talking past each other.

    I happen to rather like that Doug George enjoys talking with other persons, and you’re making it clear you don’t, which is as a father used to say to me, ‘your privilege’.

    It’s the privilege in others of us to enjoy that he does, and that Eric gave a mention so that he can be better heard.

    I hope it happens soon with another person and on another subject, where you can find that it’s enjoyable for you.

  63. Woo club
    September 26, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    Response was to labteh above. Message was intended to be peer reviewed junk science is more deserving of criticism than unpublished theories about black holes. When referees do not consider mistakes before publication, the rest of the world has to debunk junk research.

    D.C. George never claimed this as science, accepted, or reviewed. The subsequent comment section pissing match doesn’t change any of this.

  64. September 27, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    And thus, all bowed in obeisance to His Majesty, Narration.

  65. silver lining
    September 27, 2012 at 9:08 pm

    Thank you Erik, thank you very much. I enjoyed this and find it welcome relief from endless police reports and the constant self important eco-blather we are famous for.

  66. September 27, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    Uh, Joe, you think it would be more polite or of folk if I argued, or left one of the famous Humboldt Herald zingers?

    I was sincere in what I wished at the end, you know. And in where I went to bat for your own sense of things elsewhere. When I grew up in Eureka, we could all speak, and be recognized.

    How it was, and remained with those I met again in later life, at a very nice level of sincerity. Probably we’d like to pass that on, again, sincerely.

  67. October 1, 2012 at 10:30 am

    Well the Eureka that I know and conducted business in NEVER allowed everyone to speak and certainly NEVER recognized and accepted everyone. Not unless you were a member of that illustrious elite 1 percent group.

  68. Anonymous
    October 1, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Who prevented you from speaking and how?

  69. October 7, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    Dear Humboldt bloggers,

    First of all, I want to thank Eric for putting up the link to my movie and thanks to all of you who took the time to watch it and respond.

    Here is a link to an image showing a brief summary of the physics involved. I recommend opening it in a separate window:

    The upshot is that the space around any massive object is stretched more and more as the distance to the object gets smaller. In the limiting case of a black hole, the metric stretching goes to infinity at the Schwarzschild radius (middle panel) and the density of space goes to zero (rightmost panel).

    The implications are rather dramatic. Black holes are revealed to be actual holes in the fabric of space itself. General relativity, in other words, unequivocally, demands that holes exist in the fabric of space. Because such holes have mass and are indistinguishable from normal objects, it strongly implies that what we experience as normal objects could also be built out of nothing but warpages of space.

    Now, if I may, let me respond more specifically to some of your comments.

    unanonymous: … pseudo-intellectual poppycock. not one peer-reviewed article…

    Fair enough but I suspect that you have never tried to get a paper peer-reviewed. These days, as far as I know, the only way to do that is to be professional researcher or be somehow associated with an established institution, which I haven’t been for many years (I’m an old person … OK, an ancient person).

    Mitch (posted on Sohum Parlance II, Sept. 23, 2012): … I’d be interested to hear what people with the appropriate background have to say.

    I have had a number of correspondences with established physicists over the years. They have *all* agreed that the physics underlying my theory is sound but have rejected the idea for various strange reasons. One professor agreed that general relativity allows what he called “cutouts” in space but maintained that such cutouts would be meaningless. The latest one, Dr. Sascha Vongehr of USC (two weeks ago) suggested that Einstein’s theory of general relativity (the gold standard of modern physics) is probably wrong:
    Me: … If we consider the most simple case of a Schwarzschild black hole and strictly adhere to the mathematics of the radial component of the metric (describing the static condition of the space around the hole), we are led to the inescapable conclusion that the black hole is an actual hole in the fabric of space itself.
    Vonger’s response: … Meaning basically that we should not trust the math at this point. ….

    Ernie Branscomb: … something had to come from nothing, so unless you believe in magic, Doug’s ideas at least provide a way that “Something” came out of “Nothing”. Doug’s ideas at very least remove the magic and put the Genesis stories on a more scientifically thought-out basis. For that, me and my “hammer test of reality” applaud him.

    Hello Ernie, well put, and thanks for the moral support. All those years ago, when I was first trying to work things out, all I could tell you was that the space at your toes is thinner than it is at you nose. I didn’t have access to the internet then.
    I was just thinking of you recently and wondering if you had seen the movie. You may have been the first one to hear the essence of the idea.

    Narration: … actually Douglas George went into some detail on (quite serious and quite well-known) problems the current theory has, and where his would solve them.

    Thank you for trying to bring the discussion back to a somewhat more reasonable conversation.

    To sum things up, I quite realize that my theory doesn’t rise to the level of being a “scientific” theory on par with currently accepted science and it is definitely not yet a complete theory of matter. It does, however, open up the possibility that the entire physical universe could be built out of nothing more than warped space. If the idea is correct, It not only greatly simplifies the overall picture of reality and, as Ernie noted, gives a scientific basis for how matter could have come into being, but, more importantly, it appears to resolve a number of seemingly intractable difficulties in theoretical physics (like the black hole scaling-problem and the accelerating expansion of the universe).

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s