Dulcimer said:
The unsound theoretical foundation you mention is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity!
Am I supposed to swoon? The work of Petr Beckmann (
Einstein Plus Two, Golem Press) has made both special and general relativity obsolete, showing all that is needed to derive ‘time dilation’, mass-energy equivalence, advance of perihelion of Mercury, bending of light rays in a gravitational field, and so on is to take force as delayed (by speed of light relative to locally dominant field), rather than instantaneous (‘action at a distance’) and speeds relative to fields, not observers. But yes, general relativity
is unsound: an affine connection, utilizing derivatives some of which are Euclidean, is applied to so-called non-Euclidean spaces, in which such derivatives are undefined. (Check it out.)
The creation of a singularity as result of a massive gravitational collapse is entirely in keeping with physics, mathematics, and cosmology.
...which only goes to show how unsound all three are today: do you really believe that a point, which has no extent, can contain a conglomeration of matter? A point can
contain nothing. However, it is quite true that motions in the cosmos must be point-like, since otherwise they would be ‘smeared out’ over a volume (or length) and thus consist of ‘an infinite number’ of locations where that motion is occurring, which is of course silly. But it takes more than one location of motion (which you would call quarks but I call partons) to even develop much mass, so the idea of great conglomerations of mass existing at a single location is just nonsense... but believe it if you wish. But what I was originally referring to was the idea spouted by the black-hole enthusiasts themselves that the laws of physics break down at the event horizon or some such (I really don't follow such shananigans closely).
PCT is a fascinating idea that certainly challenges the so-called Big Bang model. In many instances the theory raises some interesting alternatives - though it falls flat on its face when it comes to the Hubble relationship and the predicted masses of galaxies.
I would tend to agree on the Hubble thing, but
all current models fail on the Hubble redshift. Certainly the assumption (and that’s all it is) that greater redshift equals greater distance AND greater radial velocity is arbitrary. Out of all possible theoretical models of redshift that the one that is the most sensational—an ‘expanding’ universe—is chosen is no surprise, but that does not make it sound science.
I almost let that ‘predicted masses’ comment pass: this argument of yours is
entirely vacuous, as the only people who
need those ‘predicted masses’ are the gravity-worshipers, who can only find 10% of the mass they need to make their equations work as it is! Gravity is entirely negligible in the plasma model and therefore it fails at no such thing. You need to
rethink this one.
I will continue to keep an eye on PCT with great interest...
Good...
...but I'm still on the side of the standard model while the weight of predictive, mathematical, observable, testable, and experimental evidence is in its favour...
What I don’t understand is where you get the idea it
is. I hope you’re not still clinging to the original prediction Einstein made about light curving in a gravitational field: the simpler explanation for this is Beckmann’s, where you don’t need a whole new kind of ‘space-time’. But the eclipse observation in 1919 was one of the chief reasons for physics having
made the misstep of Einsteinian ‘relativity’ replacing Galilean (that and failure to understand the concept of a central frame).
However, that is beside the point. Only when the Kabbalah, Hermetic or otherwise, can predict or make observably verifiable Laws can it compete with science. Even the well known Hermetic saying "as above, so below" is no longer as true as it was in this age of Relativity vs Quantum mechanics. Although, rather like the now outmoded Newton and Euclid, a case can be made for it in the short term. The Kabbalistic scientific world is shrinking.
Well, Qabbalah in the form I understand it, using bardic numeration and restoring the original order of the twelve simples about the round,
does actually ‘predict’ some things modern physics has gotten wrong. Two examples:
First, the four particle types confirming alchemy’s four elemental types are prefigured by it
even though modern physics thinks it knows better than nature and can reduce these to three by the quark model (defining baryons and mesons as both hadrons as if that ‘cures’ them of being fermions and bosons, respectively, that is, completely different in behavior). Up (aries) is 8, oxygen and the principle of combustion: the photon (fire). In towards self (capricorn) is 19, potassium, +1 valence electron, thus standing for the lepton (air). Down (libra) is 21, scandium, heaviest nucleus of the 22 (counting LeMat, space) and thus standing for the pi-meson (water), the principle (before quark theory muddied the waters) of nuclear cohesion. And out towards nature (cancer) is 17, chlorine, -1 valence electron and thus standing for the remaining type, the proton or baryon (earth), which is
also ‘-1 valence electron’. Moreover, these are placed so as to indicate average or mean spin by height off the ground libra and average or mean charge by relation to the central vertical axis (neutral charge): photon is 'spin one', on top, lepton and baryon 'spin one-half', and meson 'spin zero', photon uncharged, meson coming in all three charges and thus averaging zero, with lepton and baryon electric charge being characterized by (averaging out to, another words) oppositely charged electron and proton.
Second, whereas we treat the electron as negative and thus indicate current as flowing in the direction opposite that of the actual electrons, Qabbalah as you can see got it right, by calling the electron or lepton +1. In fact, the whole power of Qabbalah over nature (as expressed through the Great Name) resides in the polarity of +1 numerically (10, neon) versus -1 valence (9, fluorine), which within the Egg (the zodiac, man) are expressed through surrogates 17-chlorine—a -1 BOTH numerically and valence-wise—and 19-potassium—a +1 BOTH numerically and valence-wise—which control the fluids within cells—as vav and yod—while 11-sodium is straight out from chlorine on the same horizontal (at leo on the Cauldron or half-circle twice the Egg’s radius within which it rests, like egg in nest) and controls the fluids outside the cell (Egg).
This is fun!
Yes it is: wish I had more time. Cheerio!