0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nothing is more exciting than to find out that what you accepted as being true is not true or is different than you thought it was
Sorry I have got to laugh hard at this statement. Physicists defend what that they think is true , regardless of any logical evidence put before them.
Quote from: Thebox on 18/03/2018 12:28:18Sorry I have got to laugh hard at this statement. Physicists defend what that they think is true , regardless of any logical evidence put before them.Although true on a number of levels, which is also true with any disruptive element within society (eg. internet, digital technology), lets try not to go there on my thread. Some do get excited, and some readily admit mistakes (eg. Stephen Hawings, Albert Einstein). But sure, there's not a lot of mutual consensus when you really look around. From my experience over the past 25 years on forums, 75% are wanna-be scientists/physicists (like me, admittedly) and only know what others have taught them. Those are the ones working retail, or sales, or plumbing, or engineering, or electricians, or management. 23% think they know more, and are always ready to explain why others, and you, are wrong. Those are the ones actually working within in the field in some capacity, and are typically very smart people. But many of these types will cut you down in a New York minute given the opportunity. Try not to piss them off. 2% actually understand this stuff, and are extremely humble on what we do and don't understand. Those are the ones that actually make progress in the field. That's pretty much true in any line of work. Though, I really don't want this thread turning into a pissing contest with pointless minutia. This is pointless subjective minutia and open to a wide range of scrutiny, and no ones opinion is right or wrong. None of it is positive. What I write is only my opinion based on my worldly experience, which is pretty much meaningless to anyone but me.
In history, they also believed in a firmament, the Big bang and science believe space is expanding , in essence the firmament is expanded, do they think the Universe is flat?Do you think the Universe is flat because you think the earth is flat?
Most physicists and chemists view atoms to be of different sizes.
Many have the patience to understand what you are saying and help out if you are a genuine seeker of enlightenment, but as a group they don’t suffer fools gladly.
As an aside, the idea that the ancients thought the earth to be flat is a bit of a myth.
Clearly, yes, but when physicists went searching for the Higgs they had a static energy level in mind. 1.56×10−22 s (predicted). Let's just say, various sized ball bearings to keep it simple, and packed with a ridiculously long life battery.
I think we're all pretty much looking for the same thing though. Practical answers in plain English.
Resistance is universal.
Size of atoms does vary between about 0.1 to 0.5 nanometers, measured by looking at the separation of nuclei in the solid state.
Please preserve us from the purveyors of word salad
I think you will find the correct quote is “resistance is futile” - The Borg ifI remember correctly
Quote from: Colin2B on 18/03/2018 17:33:00Size of atoms does vary between about 0.1 to 0.5 nanometers, measured by looking at the separation of nuclei in the solid state.So, would you consider, "science looks at atoms as a bucket of ball bearings", in the contexts of static scale, ignoring various discrepancies in size between them, and disregarding the complexities of determining actual size under controlled lab conditions, to be a fair generalized analogous statement? Albeit, extremely rudimentary and under controlled conditions, but factual in the context I am referring to it in.
This could be a question worth bringing into main thread, do you mind if I do that, or do you want to post it yourself?
I'm though going to delve deeper than "light"-"not too heavy" and ask if the question of the post was referring to time or space. Space is 3-D, yet the time front of "whatever", gravity maybe, is a "surface area"? Surface areas don't have to be "flat", but you put in GR and SR and then the motion of a flat surface "could" seem curved, right? Does the planet have enough weight, momentum, and thus speed to warrant a curvature from an otherwise flat <first-principle> idea of any potential temporal activity of gravity/mass itself. I know I am going to be hit with a comet storm here with this reply, but I'm being partisan in a debate here. You know, at school, in the debating teams, we had to debate both sides, despite our beliefs. I'm just asking the question. My input is clearly obtuse, yet, It's nice to shoot down these questions, so we know for sure.
Quote from: opportunity on 21/03/2018 08:15:21I'm though going to delve deeper than "light"-"not too heavy" and ask if the question of the post was referring to time or space. Space is 3-D, yet the time front of "whatever", gravity maybe, is a "surface area"? Surface areas don't have to be "flat", but you put in GR and SR and then the motion of a flat surface "could" seem curved, right? Does the planet have enough weight, momentum, and thus speed to warrant a curvature from an otherwise flat <first-principle> idea of any potential temporal activity of gravity/mass itself. I know I am going to be hit with a comet storm here with this reply, but I'm being partisan in a debate here. You know, at school, in the debating teams, we had to debate both sides, despite our beliefs. I'm just asking the question. My input is clearly obtuse, yet, It's nice to shoot down these questions, so we know for sure.You're starting to nip at the core of what I suspect is going on. I have no problem with obtuse. Knowing for sure is all that matters. Give me a little time, and I'll work on dumping the full scope of my thoughts. They all tie together forming an entirely different paradigm for reality. It will create plenty of fodder, and I'll more than likely become the butt of ridicule for my post. I will leave you with this in the mean time...I do not think space is 3-D. Space in my view is infinite in all manner of scale. It has no definable coordinate system. It cannot be considered flat either. It is beyond our senses, and beyond detection both directly and indirectly. We exist in an infinitesimally small portion of space, but it's not a definable location within space itself. Space cannot be bent, or curved, or manipulated in any manner. We do not traverse space, we traverse energy.
Traversing energy has us become slaves to enthalpy......is that "ideal"? This is a "light" forum.. so the answer must be brief.....
This is a "light" forum.. so the answer must be brief.....
This section of the forum is for new theories, so any length of answer, discussion or idea is acceptable, as long as the op is happy with that.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 16/03/2018 04:06:49Nothing is more exciting than to find out that what you accepted as being true is not true or is different than you thought it wasSorry I have got to laugh hard at this statement. Physicists defend what that they think is true , regardless of any logical evidence put before them.
Well, flat-space.....how can that be real...? I'm not thinking the question is invalid?There are ways of thinking it can be real.