Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: volsbit on 18/02/2011 11:04:10
-
The laws of nature are a function of position
=============================================
This very assertion will commence with a rather interesting thought experiment.
Now we know the universe is an infinitely large entity. For simplicity sake, let us
reduce the universe to a spherical model, that is filled with nothing. Now we consider two scientists, Dickson and Donald.
Donald positions himself at the centre of the universe whiles Dickson positions himself at arbitrary
positions on the spherical surface of the universe. Now these two scientists seek to explain the universal constance
of the speed of light(c). So Dickson every now and then is supposed to beam light from his current position to where
Donald is positioned. It is Donald's job to record the time taken for light to reach him at the centre. After selecting
the first 10000 positions for the experiment, Donald records same time for each of the individual positions. But both scientist know that
this doesn't give them enough reason to draw their conclusion about the constance of the speed of light. Because, there are still infinite positions on the spherical surface to consider for this experiment. So they decide to choose 1000000 unique positions
for the experiment. Again, the same times were recorded but still my fellow scientist knew it was totally absurd to draw any sudden conclusions any time soon.
Why? Because, they still had infinite positions to work with. So, before throwing in the towel, Dickson tries a new position on the spherical
surface; Surprisingly, the time recorded was different. So they decide to try the same experiment(at the same position) over and over again to confirm that it wasn't some error on their part and realised the new result was
still the same; Different from the other positions. So my fellow scientists conclude that the speed of light is not constant. The new question
that arises is what accounts for this strange observation?
So, after thinking through the problem for sometime they were tempted to conclude that the laws of nature(L) strictly speaking could be a function
of position. i.e L(x, y, z,......) and many of the laws intersect such that the laws of nature seem to be permanent all over the universe.Each point in space has it's own laws of nature so to speak and it so happens that most of these laws intersect.
They went further to expound on their new assertion and used it as a basis for explaining chaos in nature.
-
"Dickson positions himself at arbitrary positions on the spherical surface of the universe"
There's an outer surface of the universe?
What's outside it? How many dimensions does this surface have?
I'm already seeing unsubstantiated assumptions here.
Sorry, I didn't read any further than that.
-
I did read further than that - and I wish I had followed your example.
Volsbit - apart from some claims in widely-hyped but poorly-received work on the fine-structure constant varying in space, it seems that physical constants do not vary over space. A gedanken only really works when it simplifies and removes the real-world noise that hinders understanding; its fairly useless when its basic premise is contrary to observed fact.