Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Where can we find a fifth force of nature?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    29,967

    Where can we find a fifth force of nature?

    We know of four fundamental forces of nature, with no signs of a fifth. But dark matter and dark energy make up over 90% of all the contents of the universe. So the question remains: could there be a fifth force hiding in the “dark sector” of our universe? There’s something really funky going on …
    Continue reading "Where can we find a fifth force of nature?"
    The post Where can we find a fifth force of nature? appeared first on Universe Today.


    More...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,119
    Just to mention, Rupert Sheldrake, tentatively suggests the morphic resonance field represents the fifth field. I guess this is an information field, not a force field, but in cosmology it would have to be changing constants rather than a force. I know many mainstream scientists do not want to even read the evidence such as the rising melting points of new molecules, but all these ideas are testable hypotheses.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,067
    Iíve never heard of that and it doesnít seem very mainstream, but I assume that if it were a logical possible solution to dark matter or dark energy, that physicists would be all over it hoping to get an invitation to Stockholm.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I’ve never heard of that and it doesn’t seem very mainstream, but I assume that if it were a logical possible solution to dark matter or dark energy, that physicists would be all over it hoping to get an invitation to Stockholm.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Not surprised but maybe worth some research. He was villified in a very unscientific way when he suggested it 40 years ago. Some people think he will be vindicated as a pioneer equivalent to Newton and Darwin. You can find him talking on you tube and he presents evidence. I read his book New Science of Life when it came out but not yet his updated version.

    Of course it is an upending hypothesis for many sciences but he has IMO very solid evidence. For example a chemistry teacher suggested that if morphic fields work, the melting point of new crystals should rise with time as the energy is better stored in the crystal. Experiment duly exhibited that and not just in tenths, many degrees C. I am happy to support an underdog, From the beginning, all his ideas were testable. It is just that many scientists do not like the results!
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,908
    Didn’t it turn out to be Bruce Willis kissing that lady inside the chamber to destroy the lump of pure evil? /s
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroesí wings we fly!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,067
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    It is just that many scientists do not like the results!
    Why wouldnít scientists like the results? I canít think of any good reason. Of course, if a scientist came up with a hypothesis that history moves according to a scenario written out by some supernatural being, then Iím sure people would be against it, but Iím sure itís nothing like that. What is it that many scientists donít like?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,582
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Just to mention, Rupert Sheldrake, tentatively suggests the morphic resonance field represents the fifth field. I guess this is an information field, not a force field, but in cosmology it would have to be changing constants rather than a force. I know many mainstream scientists do not want to even read the evidence such as the rising melting points of new molecules, but all these ideas are testable hypotheses.
    Are they testable? It’s been awhile since I looked into Sheldrake, but I seem to remember him arguing that the presence of skeptics around experiments would cause them to fail. That essentially means objective testing of his claims is not possible.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,582
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Not surprised but maybe worth some research. He was villified in a very unscientific way when he suggested it 40 years ago.
    Letís just say Iím very skeptical of that. Iíve seen some pretty ridiculous claims from him. It kind of reminds me of Velikovsky. Velikovsky was promoting extreme pseudoscience, and many scientists were highly dismissive and perhaps rude. Perhaps some should have been more careful how they responded, but that didnít change the fact that Velikovskyís claims were ridiculous.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Let’s just say I’m very skeptical of that. I’ve seen some pretty ridiculous claims from him. It kind of reminds me of Velikovsky. Velikovsky was promoting extreme pseudoscience, and many scientists were highly dismissive and perhaps rude. Perhaps some should have been more careful how they responded, but that didn’t change the fact that Velikovsky’s claims were ridiculous.
    Maybe I should start an ATM thread, to expose the ideas. None of them were riduculous, just not explained in standard physics or biology. The evidence is there, this is not an opinion hypothesis. I will stick to Sheldrake. Galileo was hailed as riduculous and a heretic! darwin too. This is potentially a universal field we did not recognise before.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •