Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: andreasva on 15/03/2018 19:13:15
-
Our first thoughts of the world around us was a flat Earth. Given our understanding back then it was considered very logical, and everyone in the world pretty much considered it a fact. Sail a ship too far, an you might fall off.
Then we moved past that, to a geocentric interpretation. This made better sense, given the sun and moon appeared to be rotating around Earth on a regular predictable basis. It was a logical conclusion, and everyone pretty much considered this as the new fact.
Then we move on to our Heliocentric view and beyond, as our understanding broadened and our technology advanced. Now, everyone pretty much considers this as fact, complete with a big bang that started the ball rolling.
One thing is clear between all these new levels of understanding. Extreme resistance was the response. Galileo was nearly executed for going against common consensus. With each evolution of our understanding, disproving old dogma becomes ever more difficult. It's an extreme opposition to new ideas, because the old idea's feel safe, I suppose. Nobody wants their sense of reality shook.
Another thing is also clear to me. Our understanding is based on material observations in each case. And in each case, it made perfect sense given our current understanding of the world around us. We weren't wrong, we simply didn't have all the facts in each case.
Clearly we are expanding now, and our expansion appears to be accelerating, right? And clearly, we started with a bang, and a damn big one at that, right?
Like I said, we observe the universe through material, or matter. That is our perspective, and always has been throughout the history of discovery. And one by one, what we thought was real came crashing down, and we had to accept a new sense of reality.
Let's use our imagination for a moment, and consider we are some sort of space-based creature. Everything about our makeup is pure space, including the instruments we use to detect the universe around us. We even have a space-based measuring system, derived from some sort of space derivative. Similar to a meter based on matter, but not the same substance. In this state, we know our space-meter is a static unit of measure. We also can't see matter, and have no clue what a photon is.
Somehow we've created a technology to observe matter. We start to notice clumps of matter scattered across the entire universe (galaxies). We would not see expansion. What we would see is matter condensing to an ever smaller state, or dissipating. Remember, our space meter would be static from our perspective. We could deduce matter was attracted to one another, as these clumps of matter slowly moved towards each other. We could see that, but expansion, and acceleration of that expansion, would not be observed from our perspective. We would see matter contracting inward at an accelerated rate, and that would be it. If we hit the rewind button, we would conclude that the entire universe was once filled with matter. We wouldn't know how or why, but we would know. We would probably deduce that matter loses energy over time, and contracts inwards in the process, probably at the inverse square we might guess. Dark energy wouldn't even be on the table. Inflation wouldn't be on the table. A big bang wouldn't be on the table. This matter popped into existence all at once, and then like a dense fog in the sunrise, slowly dissipated in place.
The simple fact is, if matter was indeed contracting inward uniformly, we wouldn't know it by any of our current methods of detection, because the effect would be uniform. X would always equal X at any level of contraction.
It does start to explain things in a much simpler light. If you really give it some deep thought.
I think this is a 50/50 deal. It could be either way, depending on ones perspective. One is right though, and the other wrong. But no one is asking the question. I admit, it's hard to accept, given what we know. One thing is fairly certain in my mind though, either way, all the discoveries we've made over the years fit both possible answers. The only major deviation is a big bang. But even here, it still parallels what we hypothesize as the beginning. A universe filled with primordial particles. We're just missing the little understood singularity part, maybe. Still could have been a single quantum fluctuation that caused a universe.
Which perspective do you believe?
Please think carefully before you reply...
-
Your understandings of some of the things you mentioned above. For example, the statement
... a big bang that started the ball rolling.
is wrong. There is no such event in the big bang theory. Its pretty much a common misconception in fact. This is all clearly explained in Principles of Physical Cosmology by Peebles on page 4.
The "extreme resistance" you mentioned regarding Galileo was from the church, not from within the science community. And your assertion Nobody wants their sense of reality shook. is quite wrong when it comes to physicists. 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. That's when real progress is made and that's quite exciting.
It's not clear what you mean by Our understanding is based on material observations in each case. What exactly is a "material observation"? Is there another kind of observation that you'd like to mention?
You wrote
Clearly we are expanding now, and our expansion appears to be accelerating, right?
Wrong. "We" are not expanding. The universe is expanding. We are not the universe. We just live here.
And clearly, we started with a bang, and a damn big one at that, right?
Wrong. There is no evidence that there was ever an event. Remember I mentioned the text by Peebles? He writes on page 4
The familiar name for this picture, the "big bang" cosmological model, is unfortunate because it suggests we are identifying an event that triggered the expansion of the universe, and it may also suggest the event was an explosion localized in space. Both are wrong. .... If there were an instant, at a "big bang," when our universe started expanding, it is not in the cosmology as now accepted, because no one has thought of a way to adduce objective physical evidence that such an event really happened.
None of what you say here
Like I said, we observe the universe through material, or matter. That is our perspective, and always has been throughout the history of discovery. And one by one, what we thought was real came crashing down, and we had to accept a new sense of reality.
is true.
This statement
Let's use our imagination for a moment, and consider we are some sort of space-based creature. Everything about our makeup is pure space, including the instruments we use to detect the universe around us.
makes no sense. Asserting that something is made of space is meaningless. And there's no such thing as "pure space" either. Space is merely where things are, nothing more and nothing less. To speak of things being made up of space has no meaning whatsoever to it. Just because it makes sense to you in no way implies that it really makes sense. In this case you seem to have a flawed notion of what space is.
In the statement
What we would see is matter condensing to an ever smaller state, or dissipating.
you made no attempt whatsoever to say what it is you're referring to. What is it that you're claiming is condensing? What matter are you talking about??
The more I read the more its clear that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, that you're just typing what you think nature is and its all wrong.
Let me give you some advice. This advice should be followed by everyone who wants to understand science but unfortunately non-scientists always ignore it. But here goes anyway - Before you try to come up with a new theory because you think the current one is wrong - learn the theory first. You can't claim that a theory is wrong when you don't understand the theory. People who become scientists know this all too well. That's why we spend years studying science.
-
... a big bang that started the ball rolling.
is wrong. There is no such event in the big bang theory. Its pretty much a common misconception in fact. This is all clearly explained in Principles of Physical Cosmology by Peebles on page 4.
From my statement, you have absolutely no basis to form any opinion. I have no idea what your objections are, frankly. We had an epic event which created the universe in an instance that we call the big bang. The universe underwent a hyper-inflationary period, where space-time expanded outwards nearly instantaneously, and then proceeded to keep expanding at a much slower rate. And now, we understand that expansion is accelerating from measurements of the redshift. Something like that anyway. We inserted the theory of dark energy to explain the acceleration. It's an inferred repulsive force pushing against galaxies that appears to increase over time.
The "extreme resistance" you mentioned regarding Galileo was from the church, not from within the science community. And your assertion Nobody wants their sense of reality shook. is quite wrong when it comes to physicists. 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. That's when real progress is made and that's quite exciting.
I never mentioned scientists or physicists in the statement, you did, although opposition is quite common within the community. It's healthy skepticism if opposed rationally.
It's not clear what you mean by Our understanding is based on material observations in each case. What exactly is a "material observation"?
Everything that isn't space.
Is there another kind of observation that you'd like to mention?
No there is not.
You wrote
Clearly we are expanding now, and our expansion appears to be accelerating, right?
Wrong. "We" are not expanding. The universe is expanding. We are not the universe. We just live here.
When I say we, surely you're smart enough to infer the universe.
And clearly, we started with a bang, and a damn big one at that, right?
Wrong. There is no evidence that there was ever an event. Remember I mentioned the text by Peebles? He writes on page 4
Never read Peebles, so I can't comment
The familiar name for this picture, the "big bang" cosmological model, is unfortunate because it suggests we are identifying an event that triggered the expansion of the universe, and it may also suggest the event was an explosion localized in space. Both are wrong. .... If there were an instant, at a "big bang," when our universe started expanding, it is not in the cosmology as now accepted, because no one has thought of a way to adduce objective physical evidence that such an event really happened.
I agree.
"Both are wrong" is a pretty bold assertion. I don't know that anyone can claim right or wrong on anything in science. Sure, 1+1=2 is a fact, but beyond that, who knows for sure what it all means, and how it all began? Possible there never was a beginning, rather a perceived beginning that can never be reached. Hawking's was suggesting this before his death, actually.
Like I said, we observe the universe through material, or matter. That is our perspective, and always has been throughout the history of discovery. And one by one, what we thought was real came crashing down, and we had to accept a new sense of reality.
is true.
Let's use our imagination for a moment, and consider we are some sort of space-based creature. Everything about our makeup is pure space, including the instruments we use to detect the universe around us.
makes no sense. Asserting that something is made of space is meaningless. And there's no such thing as "pure space" either. Space is merely where things are, nothing more and nothing less. To speak of things being made up of space has no meaning whatsoever to it. Just because it makes sense to you in no way implies that it really makes sense.
I didn't assert anything, you did. I said to use your imagination. Maybe I should have qualified that with, if possible. Clearly you are not capable of imagining a different perspective, other than your own, and what you think you understand. And that's fine with me. Everyone has limitations.
In this case you seem to have a flawed notion of what space is.
I actually have no idea what it is, because we can't observe space directly. We do consider it is expanding though. If you do have some physical evidence that can conclusively demonstrate the physical properties of space, I'm all ears. I think the entire world would be interested in your theory, actually. Einstein referred to it as space-time. Seems like a pretty good answer to me.
What we would see is matter condensing to an ever smaller state, or dissipating.
you made no attempt whatsoever to say what it is you're referring to. What is it that you're claiming is condensing? What matter are you talking about??
Everything. It's the inverse of space.
The more I read the more its clear that you don't have a clue what you're talking about,
I think that's a bit narrow minded, but I'm okay with your opinion.
that you're just typing what you think nature is and its all wrong.
Disagree.
I never claimed to be right or wrong, or that anything was right or wrong, you did.
Let me give you some advice.
No thanks.
Before you try to come up with a new theory because you think the current one is wrong - learn the theory first. You can't claim that a theory is wrong when you don't understand the theory. People who become scientists know this all too well. That's why we spend years studying science.
Once again, I never claimed anyone or anything was right or wrong, you did. I don't even know if anything I'm suggesting is right or wrong. But I'm pretty sure there's going to be a few opinions on the subject.
It's pretty simple what I'm trying to explain as simply as possible. Really, it is.
If you look at the universe from expansions perspective, it's not expanding. It's a simple inverted perspective. Space is expanding, and the contents of the universe is traveling outwards right along with it. It's not that hard to grasp. Honestly, you're over thinking it. It simply becomes a difference in ratios between the total volume of the universe compared to the total volume of mass within the universe. The gap between distant galaxies is widening. The more universe we gain through expansion, the smaller the ratio of mass to universe. If we could see an edge to the universe, and were able to compare an atom as a ratio to that edge, we would conclude that mass is smaller at any given moment, compared to the increasing size of the universe.
Is it really that hard for you to grasp this thought?
Does it mean anything? I don't know, and neither does anyone frankly.
What I do see is a difference in perspectives. Matter compared to matter appears to be fairly static in nature. We have a minimum size somewhere down in a Planck length. If we compare a Planck length to matter, that length is static, because it is derived from matter or energy. If we compare a Planck length to expansion, it is not static. Scale becomes a somewhat meaningless concept, or relative perspective of the universe. It's very similar in nature to a relative perspective of motion.
Is it really that difficult a concept to imagine?
-
From my statement, you have absolutely no basis to form any opinion.
Wrong. You stated in no uncertain terms that a big bang that started the ball rolling. which is wrong. And that is not something that can be considered an opinion, that's a fact. I.e. there is nothing in cosmology which indicates that "a big bang .. started the ball rolling[/i].
The rest of your responses are what one expects in this sub forum so I won't bother. I.e. nobody in this subforum can understand that what they believe is wrong or that their new theory is wrong. I only respond to explain where you made mistakes and where you're unclear. That you object and claim I'm wrong is to be expected since nobody here has ever admitted that they [might be wrong or that they didn't know the physics correctly.
So you're responses are par for the course and as such of no interest to me. And apparently of no interest to anybody else. Especially with misleading subject line.
Lator gator
-
You stated in no uncertain terms that a big bang that started the ball rolling. which is wrong. And that is not something that can be considered an opinion, that's a fact. I.e. there is nothing in cosmology which indicates that "a big bang .. started the ball rolling
I have no idea what you're talking about at this point. You seem to be inferring that the big bang theory has been debunked, unbeknownst to the rest of the world. There's a lot of people that would disagree with your claims. Now if you're talking about what caused it, sure, no one knows a darn thing. That's common knowledge.
Let's get one thing very clear though. I am not claiming anything as fact. All I said was, a big bang started the ball rolling. That's not a theory, or some factual claim, or anything of that nature. It's just a generalized statement in a paragraph. The universe had a beginning that we call the big bang, according to theory. What that means is most definitely open to interpretation. I am not shouting from the roof tops that the big bang is fact. It's not, because it is a theory. You seem to be standing from the rooftop shouting the big bang theory is debunked. The big bang simply refers to a point of origin for our universe, which is considered to be the most reasonable explanation going at the moment. It defines the perceived age of the universe, theoretically speaking.
That you object and claim I'm wrong is to be expected since nobody here has ever admitted that they [might be wrong or that they didn't know the physics correctly.
Ironically, not once did I ever claim you were wrong. I said you were unable to grasp an alternative perspective, which is true, according to your responses. And I never said I was right, which inherently indicates I could definitely be wrong. I have no problem with being wrong, ever. I've been wrong a lot more than I've ever been right, and that's a fact. You seem to make a lot of wrong assumptions, and insert words into my mouth in the process.
And one last thing. I never stated this was a theory. I claimed it was an alternative perspective on what we already know, or think we know as true. I stated there was a 50/50 chance that either perspective could be correct. That's it. I'm not rewriting physics, I'm merely questioning our perspective on the universe. We have a definite perspective from matter as our focal point, looking outward. If you look at the inverse of that focal point, what would be seen? The exact opposite of course. No inflation, no expansion, just matter shrinking, or contracting over time at an accelerated rate.
Really, there's not much to be right or wrong about, other than which perspective is the true perspective to consider. We've only considered our perspective up to this point, understandably. Is the inverse perspective valid? I have no idea. I can see it pretty clearly though, and it makes me very curious as to whether or not we are defining the universe from the proper perspective. We're bias to matter. This perspective is like a mirror image of what we consider now to be correct.
NASA
According to NASA, after inflation the growth of the universe continued, but at a slower rate. As space expanded, the universe cooled and matter formed. One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos.Jun 16, 2017
space.com
The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
CERN
In the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As the universe cooled, conditions became just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter – the quarks and electrons of which we are all made. A few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons. Within minutes, these protons and neutrons combined into nuclei. As the universe continued to expand and cool, things began to happen more slowly. It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe. 1.6 million years later, gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas. Heavier atoms such as carbon, oxygen and iron, have since been continuously produced in the hearts of stars and catapulted throughout the universe in spectacular stellar explosions called supernovae.
But stars and galaxies do not tell the whole story. Astronomical and physical calculations suggest that the visible universe is only a tiny amount (4%) of what the universe is actually made of. A very large fraction of the universe, in fact 26%, is made of an unknown type of matter called "dark matter". Unlike stars and galaxies, dark matter does not emit any light or electromagnetic radiation of any kind, so that we can detect it only through its gravitational effects.
An even more mysterious form of energy called “dark energy” accounts for about 70% of the mass-energy content of the universe. Even less is known about it than dark matter. This idea stems from the observation that all galaxies seems to be receding from each other at an accelerating pace, implying that some invisible extra energy is at work.
back at you tator..
-
Galileo was nearly executed for going against common consensus.
That's odd. I thought he was nearly executed for bringing the authority of those in power into question.Let's use our imagination for a moment, and consider we are some sort of space-based creature. Everything about our makeup is pure space, including the instruments we use to detect the universe around us.
OK, lets do that.
One property of space is that it is homogeneous.
"space" here in my room is that same as space on the Moon and the same as space in the heart of the Sun. (The matter present is different, but space is the same.
So, space has no "structure".
So you can't build things from it.
In particular, you can't build "some sort of space-based creature." for whom" Everything about our makeup is pure space, including the instruments we use to detect the universe around us".
-
I think we're missing the point.
"Flat" is 2-d.
"Flat" according to the holographic principle theorem (google, please) is valid.
-
@Bored chemist
Yes, homogeneous. There's only 1 space, and the value can be stated as 1 from any point in time, or from any location. Space is homogeneous. Apparently it can inflate, according to theory, but the inflation would not alter its homogeneity.
I struggle with the wording, and maybe contraction is not the best word to use. I don't mean to imply contracting in the conventional sense of the word. This is more inflation, versus deflation. We are potentially bound to a deflating energy state, rather than an inflating universe. These are precise reciprocal perspectives. Because we are potentially bound to deflation, our perspective of the universe would be inflation. Our view of deflation would appear static. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
This is not about right or wrong. The only appropriate answer is, I don't know. And I don't know. I don't know how you'd even test for this condition. It would look exactly as it looks now. Either perspective would be valid to an extent, but the true underlying reality would have a definite true or false value.
It's really weird to think we might be bound to a deflating state of energy, but it makes a lot of practical sense in explaining the universe. Energy is dynamic or heterogeneous, and space is static or homogeneous. It's far more likely that energy is the one deflating, and the inflating perspective of space the mirage or illusion, in my very humble opinion.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/OCr1K6yrENt5LlhcsKaRqaLwxNTY8gmwp6g1vTiZ0g4pl9uWLF08aXz_4an1ckDFMiMBFpJpAPsJ54YM0uqVNNode66ds51fCMvbLOIJm6hTVHK20hg1entt6HaHmNqiFmMtqd4fvqrSc55N2CMoZD3UKmOWYaqiDxsBF2F5AkHU4LSyG24lLjPqiALEANyBQugHWV7I2lCOo4cJ4no8ouugmioqntSni6K5SvdikQuA9xOHsBPvyUWc8DzilNUqtICQ2L48YzhhZAfmt8m5Mi7XDEqxy0ovz_Jve4kkQE--ODFk-eG-qV79v1N7RpWdFhlv4j3vki5Ls9YDtFLttbs50l01qqsGMqrt9dShogOp7RKiplg4ZMXbgVXcdx1MilYybWzxZHRwFgF7rDEqTKod1-jhVsVwiZ95gtvgvx9RLFwOJxRBcElwbrUvixF83tmKvZo6H1Pb-PhIz3-8vAUXD5JyDahwB0MGeixqAXSnZ71Oh_YxCAAd1zxwN8b5sjrkMgGpKYPxTf2t1jz8M8nh0-_tGIdMyeBhpkndSMbFnPeBSRQ5gViRC1rBecxuLlnldRUDvLe2qTxnoRJh7DvG_BvKzgBxQOi6etZt-YLH0k7BlBEzHWrle9W7VJi1E-IGj_nJexog08AaIdP8YaDrEU6weffP=s480-no)
-
So, space has no "structure".
So you can't build things from it.
In particular, you can't build "some sort of space-based creature." for whom" Everything about our makeup is pure space, including the instruments we use to detect the universe around us".
That's the beautiful thing about human beings. We can imagine anything we damn well please. Even, "some sort of space-based creature." for whom" Everything about our makeup is pure space, including the instruments we use to detect the universe around us". That's what makes is unique. It's how we learn.
As Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."
-
That's the beautiful thing about human beings. We can imagine anything we damn well please
It's also our downfall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_canal
If you make up enough stuff, you start to believe some of it and that leads you astray.
-
I think we're missing the point.
"Flat" is 2-d.
Wrong. That's only true for Gaussian curvature, not Riemann curvature. In general relativity spacetime
(a 4-d manifold) is either flat or curved depending on whether the Riemann tensor is zero or not, respectively.
When it comes to space itself (a 3-d manifold) it too can be either flat or curved.
Best not to make claims about math you don't know and in GR the math is Riemann geometry and tensor analysis.
-
Depends on how you look at it. From a virtual perspective in 3D space (as we perceive things with our senses) the Earth as seen from space would appear to be a flat disk (2D) floating in time (+1D). What the math says is that our senses allow us to perceive only 2 out of 3 spacial dimensions at any given moment. The truth of it is the world is spherical (3D) and travels through time (+1D) just like the rest of us, we just can't perceive all of its sides simultaneously.
Oh and btw, it's the space that flows through time, and everything that exists within spacetime is matter.
-
It's also our downfall.
If you make up enough stuff, you start to believe some of it and that leads you astray.
True enough BC.
I don't think the link you sent had much relevance to your statement though. Their conclusions were based on observations, which were impaired by the limitations of their technology. They weren't so much wrong, as much as they were naive in trusting their own eyes. Plenty of things we get wrong with our own limitations. Pluto was quite surprising. Much more dynamic than anyone ever predicted. We thought it was nothing more than a block of ice, closer to a comet or asteroid. We still like to take a stab at what something is before we actually know what it is. No shame in that. Human nature. Perceval Lowell definitely stretched the observations beyond anything rational, and appeared to fabricate an entire story. Probably driven by fame and/or money would be my guess. I didn't know anything about the canals. Pretty interesting. Thanks.
-
@Ve9aPrim3
I don't know anything about holographic theory, and I don't understand how your reply fits into my post. Would you mind elaborating somewhat? In English please. :)
thanks...
-
What the math says is that our senses allow us to perceive only 2 out of 3 spacial dimensions at any given moment.
Your distorted ‘maths’ might, but real maths says nothing of the sort.
Our senses (eyes) perceive 3D very clearly, how else do you manage to throw paper balls into the bin, play cricket, baseball, football etc.
Of course if you smoke stuff your senses might mislead you.
-
@Colin2B
I can see what he's saying. We can't see 360 degrees around an object, physically. What allows us to make baskets is an understanding of the depth of field, but we're only seeing about 50% of any object within the field at any given time. We deduce the other 50% with natural predictive abilities. We know a ball is round, so we naturally predict the full scope of the ball without seeing the full 360%. Much of what we do is predict, and we really need two eyes to predict field depth accurately. My dad has macular degeneration in one eye, and has no depth of field anymore. To him, the world is somewhat 2-D now. His brain has to reinterpret field depth using one eye. He also has Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, which is about as bad as it can get for a human being. I can't comment on the math, however. I do consider that light comes in at straight lines from any given object. That's how we gauge the world around us, with straight lines from point A to point B. Visually speaking.
-
@Colin2B
I can see what he's saying. We can't see 360 degrees around an object, physically.
I was replying to his very specific, but incorrect, statement that we can “perceive only 2 out of 3 spacial dimensions at any given moment”. That’s not the same as being able to see all sides of an object.
We clearly percieve height, width and distance to an object. Obviously, anyone who lacks binocular vision will be unable to percieve the depth dimension.
It’s true that light travels in straight lines and if you work out those lines you can see how depth perception works and allows us to see more of an object than a single eye would - effectively looking around the side - you can show this by looking at a cube and alternately closing one eye, then opening it and closing the other.
-
Depends on how you look at it.
No. It doesn't depend on how you look at it by any stretch of the imagination. When physicists use terms like curvature when speaking about cosmology or general relativity it has one and only one meaning and as such is objective and by no means subjective whatsoever.
From a virtual perspective in 3D space (as we perceive things with our senses) the Earth as seen from space would appear to be a flat disk (2D) floating in time (+1D).
That's only true for humans. Not true otherwise. E.g. images coming from objects reveal their 3-d nature. In fact its why we have two eyes. People who only have one eye have a lack of depth perception. With two eyes we can detect three dimensions.
What the math says is that our senses allow us to perceive only 2 out of 3 spacial dimensions at any given moment.
In this forum we discuss physics. Not the limitations of humans.
Oh and btw, it's the space that flows through time, and everything that exists within spacetime is matter.
Quite wrong. Where on earth do you get such notions from? Wherever you get them I suggest steering clear of them if you want to understand physics as well as physicists do.
-
I was replying to his very specific, but incorrect, statement that we can “perceive only 2 out of 3 spacial dimensions at any given moment”. That’s not the same as being able to see all sides of an object.
I don't understand what he is suggesting in that case. Thought there was something i wasn't understanding about dimensions. Seems more like he is talking about displaying a 3d image on a 2d surface or something, which is more of a 3d simulation on a computer monitor.
-
I don't understand what he is suggesting in that case.
Not sure he does either. He has a habit of posting meaningless strings of symbols and claiming they are some great insight. He also claims to have a very high IQ, but doesn’t show any sign of being able to use it.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
And I will add...
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
That all depends on which side of the error you're on, doesn't it? No one likes to be wrong, and most certainly no one gets excited about being wrong. Humility, embarrassment, shame, defeat. Those are emotions more common to failure. I'm pretty sure Einstein or Hawkings weren't excited about what they found as errors in their work. They came forward out of duty and a sense of self responsibility, which is admirable. I'm sure they felt relief in the end, but excitement? I highly doubt it.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
... says the man responsible for this lot.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71491.650
-
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 certainly not. I do not think the Earth is flat. My title was an attempt at humor or irony, and not to be taken literally, which in hindsight, probably wasn't such a good idea. Seemed okay at the time. Definitely a mistake on my part. I think it might put some people off a little.
My question is about the perspective on the universe. Which is the valid way to look at, through expansion of space, or deflation of energy? It's a reciprocal problem. Either view appears to be a valid interpretation with current evidence, in my view. I can't tell which is which.
I guess it comes down a fairly straight forward reasoning on the problem. Are spacial coordinates derived from raw space, or raw energy? When I say raw, I mean without the element of time. Raw space lacks dimension, because it is viewed as homogeneous. It is the same everywhere. It can't be defined in terms of size, scale, or location, yet we make it expand without direct physical evidence, theoretically. Space is space with a singular value. It is the same everywhere. Without energy it is nothing. How can we claim a location in nothing? We only have dimension when energy is added to space. Space-time would be 1-dimensional without energy. Length. Although, don't quote me on that. I have a terrible time explaining these things to the satisfaction of real physicists. I see the problem, but I am not fluent in physics speak.
Everything we use to observe the universe is based on energy, or matter. I know this is a very simple statement, because what else could we use? The point is, the root of mass is based on a hunk of metal made of energy sitting in a vault in France. At least, I think it's still sitting there. Distance is judged by light, or a physical measuring instrument of some sort made of energy. We assume all these things are static, but we really don't know that for sure. Science looks at atoms like a bucket of ball bearings, assuming they are always about the same size. We don't know that, we assume. It;s based largely on our sense of reality, which makes sense on the surface. My coffee cup always holds about 12oz's of coffee. I have a 12" monitor on my surface pro which I'm writing this post on. It all seems pretty stable, and static, to me. If physics has taught us anything over the centuries, it's don't trust your senses. Go beyond what you think is real, and chances are you're headed in the right direction.
If everything we use to detect and observe the universe is not static, we wouldn't know it. Our perspective would always be a static one, because we are bound to that process of continual change. If that perspective wasn't static, reality would make little sense to anyone. My 12oz coffee cup might hold a 32oz big gulp an hour from now. Do they still make them at 7/11?
I don't know what to believe and what not to believe anymore. I don't know this answer. I'm not sure anyone else does either, frankly. That's my dilemma at the moment.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/vy2i4prilROZ88sgSxRRG5LEFGifgzSLLu03HE3y5BOE8yPceatlNewIW43E8BDKwEhTSrBKjcThIvpPKlMpQS-NHgp74FL1uwI6l2RuH2nzRUYM2m_otnyPzIPG8aaXvloHugRndUAP5TobCKYPlRauWh3rjcBwA12c92I4JZYHTkXFq-BEvrVnMq0t9W8v6fuTeFgbGNL3rROjTqJiFp0_ti7w6WPDLSQqemqJ1vvsNY-QYNYWHdC8qVjfLgxGgBI_4yT6_Pxj_nflgSABFu5kojv807NlzQ3mSlHnP5zMpNJojnHswNOP_OOeurGtkFNUeF_dh4HXH6z97OBuJP2vwCeSepwGrVWnU-mCFNrkMO6QZcicg_-lQcA90EqAQjA16a_dkSBiIvMguYljcmzg7BCbfm2bdUJAK8hNrnlfu-QPUp4gNHwqgALnHY6g-VJPvm_tHdqwtuQQeWor5j0QlKTkBUjaeLMGB5uGSjOhm-i_L_ra3JOAJQYbAKBG5oArDyjC7lnx-jvQzOv-JeMR5KeRuD3QtAT-E3fEp2aftPxlc8eUZ_r-_wB-CdD_1p2CDRDmzAz3LARjoaRQOkzYVJ8maCBw9FP-1S7UUdu91l3SIicC4aZdm3GfXFLNvgzunU1XkSnlLAjLMJskv12gAKenYXrO=s480-no)
-
@andreasva “Science looks at atoms like a bucket of ball bearings, assuming they are always about the same size”
Most physicists and chemists view atoms to be of different sizes.
Yes, it can be difficult talking to physicists not only because you might not have the terminology, but also, because there is a lot of background experience which comes with working on a subject full time. 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. Pre greek had worked out it was a sphere and practical observation certainly confirmed it when boats went out of sight of land. There was certainly a mid-life crisis due to religious misinterpretation of the bible, but sailors knew the truth and Columbus was quite clear he was sailing west to meet up with the east - hence West Indies. Strangly, even now a significant proportion of Americans think the earth goes around the sun! Levels if knowledge and observation vary a great deal in any subject.
-
Most physicists and chemists view atoms to be of different sizes.
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.
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.
I do understand. You have to decipher crazy suffering fools like me. I try to be humble about it. Try, and fail sometimes, admittedly. I have much respect for the knowledge you've worked at learning over the years. My path was different, like many others. Food and shelter came first, universe second. Fortunate people like you were able to finagle both in life.
I think we're all pretty much looking for the same thing though. Practical answers in plain English.
As an aside, the idea that the ancients thought the earth to be flat is a bit of a myth.
Yes, you're right. I didn't intend my initial post to come across the way it did. I just meant to point out that change doesn't come easy. No where. Not in my job, and not in yours. People naturally resist new ideas and change. Try implementing a new workflow in a production facility sometime. You'd think you were kicking people in the teeth, and punching them in the gut. They want change, as long as it's not them doing the changing. Resistance is universal.
-
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.
OK, cross-purposes again. The energy level is that required to excite the Higgs Field and produce the, rather short lived, Higgs Boson.
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.
I think we're all pretty much looking for the same thing though. Practical answers in plain English.
Indeed. Please preserve us from the purveyors of word salad who think they are saying something important, they fool only themselves.
Resistance is universal.
I think you will find the correct quote is “resistance is futile” - The Borg if
I remember correctly ;)
-
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.
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.
Please preserve us from the purveyors of word salad
Well, at Cafe Forum, salad is not only the main course, it's the only item on the menu. May I suggest Ranch or Creamy Italian with your salad? Your choice.
I think you will find the correct quote is “resistance is futile” - The Borg if
I remember correctly
The thought crossed my mind... lol
I could use a few drones myself. Can I assimilate my staff? Sure would make my job a lot easier!
-
Thank goodness this is a "light" subject.
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.
-
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.
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.
Well, I’m not sure really, I tend to think of them in different ways depending on the situation. I know a lot of textbooks show them that way (but textbooks often oversimplify) and molecular models use balls and sticks, but with individual atoms I don’t tend to think that way, more a fuzzy ball or area, sometime spherical, donut or dumbbell shaped etc. Do tend to think of nucleus as hard ball, but even that is wrong really, it’s a mass of seething waves.
Having said that, ball bearing model could be useful on occasions.
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?
-
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?
Simplification definitely has its place, and I am quite certain a simple static ball bearing view is necessary to perceive reality. I've been on forums a very long time and well aware of my own limitations. I simplify and categorize things we don't understand. It's all I do, gravitate towards the unknown answer. It's all I really care about. You would be the first person in 25 years to abandon the notion of a fixed scale of atoms in all these years. Is mass a relative perspective, or reality? That's the real question I'm asking here, isn't it? If I'm correct, and mass is as relative as motion, it changes everything. And I'm certainly not saying I am right or wrong. I don't know this answer. I suspect I may be correct, after listening to a wide swath of physicists fumble their words on the question, and many questions like this.
I tend to follow human nature. If something can't be explained in plane English, then the answer is more likely unknown. Paradoxes are born of false reasoning somewhere in the problem. Humans have a terrible time with unknown answers, which is where beliefs prosper, and objectivity and logic exits the scene.
Sciences text book definitions.
Hydrogen = 120pm / Atomic Radius - 53pm
Oxygen = 152pm / etc
Lithium = 182pm / etc
Carbon = 170pm / etc
By all means, post the question Collin. I'll definitely follow the responses, but I personally have little more to offer on the topic than my perspective, and a gut feeling based on deductive reasoning more so than anything else. Maybe I could jump in somewhere if I understand the responses clearly enough. It's tough to decipher at times when those responses become riddled with standing theory and complex mathematics. Your peers will gravitate towards your question, not mine typically, which I'm pretty sure will lead to some very complex replies. You've earned their respect, and I'm a nobody, and also a staunch realist and practicing pragmatist.
Thanks for your input on the subject. I really do appreciate your interest on the question.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.....
-
Traversing energy has us become slaves to enthalpy......is that "ideal"? This is a "light" forum.. so the answer must be brief.....
Enthalpy - The enthalpy of a system is equal to the system's internal energy plus the product of its pressure and volume.
I don't know how brief I can be. I have a terrible time reducing the verbosity of my reasoning, which probably gets me in a lot of trouble admittedly.
I guess I'm not sure where your concerns lay. We are slaves to energy in all aspects of life. Please elaborate.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I'm happy to oblige all responses, irrespective of verbosity. All I ask is that responses be converted to the English language whenever possible, and describe what an individual thinks it means. I don't want theories cut and pasted into the thread. Theories are meant for scientists and mathematicians, and would make little sense to the average person. I am by definition, an average person. I'm not even sure they make much sense to scientists and mathematicians at times. I want to understand the human interpretation of those theories. I want to understand the logic behind the complexities of the formulas. I understand logic and human reasoning.
-
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.
Wrong. You are confusing physicists with parasites like priests, politicians and philosophers. Even worse - they try to persuade you to defend what they would like you to believe.
Eddington said that the student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast, to the extent that if he diffused through the floor and rematerialized in the cellar, he would simply regard it as an observation of a very rare phenomenon. And that's just nonrelativistic quantum mechanics - the starting point for physics.
-
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.
I'm still not clear where your concerns lie. Space is not a tangible asset in our sense of reality, energy is. Space is neither flat, or 3D. Space is infinite. We cannot plot a course or define a coordinate system within the infinite. We are made of energy, not space.
Where am I failing to explain this properly to you? I guess I'm asking you not to confuse outer-space or space-time as space being defined in this thread or line of thought. I'm looking at space as a singular ingredient or element of reality, but it's not a tangible. I am separating it from time.
Space is not flat.
-
No one likes to be wrong, and most certainly no one gets excited about being wrong. Humility, embarrassment, shame, defeat. Those are emotions more common to failure.
Only if you are a parasite whose salary depends on never admitting to being wrong. Real people do useful work which occasionally goes wrong (bridge collapses, plane falls out of the sky....) because one of our assumptions was wrong. As a responsible scientist/engineer/aviator/parent I'd rather discover and publish the fault in my assumptions than ascribe the failure to a malevolent deity. Science is all about challenging commonly-held assumptions.
-
Wrong. You are confusing physicists with parasites like priests, politicians and philosophers. Even worse - they try to persuade you to defend what they would like you to believe.
Eddington said that the student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast, to the extent that if he diffused through the floor and rematerialized in the cellar, he would simply regard it as an observation of a very rare phenomenon. And that's just nonrelativistic quantum mechanics - the starting point for physics.
Please, enough of this subjective nonsense on this thread. It is a waste of time and energy on all sides. Everyone is right, okay?
-
OK, here's some pure objectivity.
Distant objects generally have larger redshifts than near ones
Rotating galaxies do not disintegrate
Every phenomenon predicted by relativity theory to date has turned out to be experimentally correct to a high degree of confidence
F =Gm1m2/r2, likewise
The cosmic microwave background has an effective temperature of about 3K
All you have to do is to propose a model that explains all the above.
-
All you have to do is to propose a model that explains all the above.
I'm getting to that.
I'm also not invalidating any standing theory. They are all mostly correct. I agree with all the above mentioned observations. I agree with Einstein. The man was right on so many levels it's uncanny.
I am not tearing down the foundation of physics as we understand it, contrary to what you might believe at the moment.
And please try to tone it down a notch. I am not here to denigrate anyone. Please be respectful, and try and reciprocate. I fully admit, I could be wrong. I don't know the answer.
For now, I have to work. I'll get back to this thread as soon as I can find the time.
Universe comes second for me.
-
@Colin2B
I can see what he's saying. We can't see 360 degrees around an object, physically.
I was replying to his very specific, but incorrect, statement that we can “perceive only 2 out of 3 spacial dimensions at any given moment”. That’s not the same as being able to see all sides of an object.
We clearly percieve height, width and distance to an object. Obviously, anyone who lacks binocular vision will be unable to percieve the depth dimension.
It’s true that light travels in straight lines and if you work out those lines you can see how depth perception works and allows us to see more of an object than a single eye would - effectively looking around the side - you can show this by looking at a cube and alternately closing one eye, then opening it and closing the other.
I must disagree with that statement simply because I don't have (360°)³ vision. Auditory maybe, and touch is 100% 1D. All of these combined is what allows our brain to interpret the universe around us in 4D. Vision itself is nothing more than a series of rapidly changing 2D images on the retina. The brain interprets the signal and creates 3D images for us in any given Plank second. Beyond that, our spacial reasoning and consciousness is what allows us to perceive time as a series of events, like watching a film. Otherwise we'd be about as animated as a grain of sand.
Light waves (and for that matter, ALL waves) travel uniformly as a 3D wave expanding through Time (4thD) from a single origin point |0|. (Zero Point). The infinitesimal spec of quantum space where the "ball gets rolling". Once the signal is created. it rolls out through time in a (360°)³ waveform until it is perceived. At which point, the wave becomes a perceivable vibration. A photon, a sound, a feel.
-
OK, here's some pure objectivity.
Distant objects generally have larger redshifts than near ones
Rotating galaxies do not disintegrate
Every phenomenon predicted by relativity theory to date has turned out to be experimentally correct to a high degree of confidence
F =Gm1m2/r2, likewise
The cosmic microwave background has an effective temperature of about 3K
All you have to do is to propose a model that explains all the above.
I propose that the Math is "inside out" so to speak. We are only observing space as it once appeared eons ago. If we were to instantaneously travel to the farthest edges of the perceive universe, we'd arrive at a point in the "NOW" and not the "THEN". Looking back to Earth would only look like the edge of the universe again. Overlapping these two discrepancies would then result in a 4D shadow of real time spacetime.
-
Before we start to head off on too much of a tangent, let me briefly explain a core piece of what I consider to be most probable.
t=e
What that means exactly, definitely goes further than I can manage on my own.
BUT
Einstein was right, but I think he made a slight clerical error in the labeling.
spacetime is a myth
time-energy is real
time-energy is unbound energy and flows like an ocean. It has density and currents, and properties similar in nature to it's counterpart, mass-energy. I think they are inversely equivalent or inversely proportionate. Wherever mass energy exist, time-energy gets pushed out.
C is the threshold between mass-energy and time-energy. Light rides that threshold between bound and unbound energy. It is both a wave and a particle. When v=c, t=1, and m=0. I know, mass increases with acceleration. It is a conflict I do not understand, and cannot explain. I'm not even going to try. That's a puzzle for someone else to solve, if they are so inclined. Maybe that's why matter can't reach C?
time-energy is attracted to itself. It is the vacuum of space.
We can even detect the various densities, both physically, and mathematically. We do it everyday.
Time dilation.
The higher the time-energy density, the faster the clock. The lower the time-energy density, the slower the clock. We physically see the energy density in time within gravity wells. Satellites orbiting Earth, for example. We have to compensate using SR periodically, or the entire GPS system gets out of whack.
It's more likely that gravity emanates from time-energy, rather than mass-energy. It acts more like a galactic weather system. But, I'm not trying to go there at the moment.
The evidence is right in front of our face, and has been for a very long time.
This is in my very humble opinion of course.
Once you detach the universe from space, it's far more palatable to have a finite universe, within an infinite space. We're made of energy, and traverse energy, and that's all we can see, feel, touch and experience. Space is not directly part of our reality. We (energy) are finite, where space is infinite.
-
You would be the first person in 25 years to abandon the notion of a fixed scale of atoms in all these years.
I’m surprised, I thought this was common knowledge.
Whoever wrote your table believes there is no fixed size of atom:
Sciences text book definitions.
Hydrogen = 120pm / Atomic Radius - 53pm
Oxygen = 152pm / etc
Lithium = 182pm / etc
Carbon = 170pm / etc
They are within the range I quoted:
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.
Obviously free atoms have a larger diameter.
Is mass a relative perspective, or reality? That's the real question I'm asking here, isn't it?
I’m afraid my views are tainted by experiment and observations, so probably won’t be helpful to your discussion.
If something can't be explained in plane English, then the answer is more likely unknown.
I prefer plain english where possible, but words and maths are descriptive only if someone has the vocabulary (and understands the meaning of that vocabulary) otherwise the descriptions can be extraordinarily long winded.
Paradoxes are born of false reasoning somewhere in the problem.
Or the lack of understanding that there is no paradox in the answer.
Anyway, enjoy your new theory thread. I’ll post something on atoms and we’ll see what comes up.
-
I’m afraid my views are tainted by experiment and observations, so probably won’t be helpful to your discussion.
I guess I would agree on the former, but completely disagree on the latter.
I know the odds of someone like me having anything to contribute to science is beyond remote, and beyond comprehension on some levels. 1 in 7.6 billion at best. And I know I have a terrible time conveying my thoughts into anything even remotely resembling physics. I lack math, and terminology, and everything proper to even attempt such an endeavor. I've never even stepped foot in a physics classroom, or read a single theory cover to cover, much less understood the supporting details in the symbols and math. I've never been to college either. My education comes from men exactly like you, explaining things in plain English over the past 25 years. I was a pretty good programmer at one point in my life, and that's about it. I know logic. I am going to make a claim here though, regardless of the odds and my lack of understanding in the details, or my lack of education.
I am right.
Why? Because it's simple, as it should be. If you would give it chance and play with a few numbers, I think you'll find it impossible to disregard as the naivety of some random idiot on the Internet. Really, it's not disprovable.
Mass-energy converts to time-energy. As mass-energy deflates, time-energy inflates. It's a rising frequency versus a falling frequency. Mass frequency is rising over time as the volume falls, and time frequency is falling over time as the volume rises. The universe is based on equal and opposite states of energy.
We aren't moving anywhere, other than local attraction through gravity.
The density in the time-energy field rises over time. A distant galaxy 3.3 million light years away existed in a lower time-energy density back then. As the light traveled across the universe over all that time, it stretched out the wave length of light as it battled a rising tide of time-energy density. It is further away, but the distance is not derived from the actual motion of galaxies moving outwards and away from each other. The time-energy that we traverse now is denser.
When we first predicted the redshift from distant galaxies, we expected a number between 67kps and 69kps max, for expansion. Reality tells us it's more like 72kps through actual observations. We were wrong, because we were making the prediction based on the wrong assumption. The laws of motion. We assumed we were expanding from an ancient big bang, and that galaxies were motoring outward into uncharted space. Body in motion, stays in motion, etc, etc. It's not the way it works. When the prediction failed, then we began to add more theory to compensate for the discrepancy. Now we're finding out that the disparity is even greater, and we're getting ready to add more theory to keep supporting the first failed prediction. It's wrong, plain and simple, and no amount of theoretical guess work is going to correct it.
We're just swapping energy back and forth. Space isn't part of the equation. There is no space-time. It's all energy. And no one is really wrong in principle. Science is close, but they're missing a tiny little piece of information. It's the difference between space-time and time-energy. There is no ethereal temporal dimension of time. Space is infinite, energy is not.
One tiny little labeling error throws the entire universe out of perspective. That doesn't make anyone wrong, just a little misguided in interpreting the observations.
We are not expanding.
-
I propose that the Math is "inside out" so to speak. We are only observing space as it once appeared eons ago.
Yes, I agree with this statement. We're looking at an inverted view of reality. Light was traveling through a lower energy density eons ago.
I don't know about your dimensional views on reality. I don't think I agree with a holographic viewpoint. Too complicated. The universe is too simple. Space+Time+Energy = Reality. It's a very simple recipe, but highly complex in flavor. We can sure make a mean salad with it.
-
I don't think Galileo ever came near being executed or tortured me was on good terms with the pope but rather misunderstood how far he could go in promulgating his heliocentric theory, after he agreed to desist from publication he lived out the rest of his life under comfortable house arrest.
-
I don't think Galileo ever came near being executed or tortured me was on good terms with the pope but rather misunderstood how far he could go in promulgating his heliocentric theory, after he agreed to desist from publication he lived out the rest of his life under comfortable house arrest.
Wish I had never included this in the thread. Definitely a mistake.
-
time-energy density illustration. I know it's a bit rudimentary, but it is exactly what we observe. To disprove what I'm suggesting, would be to disprove Einstein. Like it or not the logic is undeniable. Time has a physical impact on matter. Only energy has been proven to have a physical impact on matter. Time has to be energy. That's exactly what the physical evidence demonstrates, regardless of likes or dislikes of what I'm saying here. We have proof through observations.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/fpa5W6GKt1mB0cg3pEaXcy-6EF50PkLKaYOECYthYEd6KVceH28MNMH2SQGwg9zdwZU7EqTemkUQMZYMGHQyxhRcnr6DrTUo590q388IUtp2XFPxMljSVAiAkUXOZ0tE0O8EpWjiU3LiyaZWEZYlYCWTI5TUKenBP1Ad0S3cB3fynTceXigp1zju3nHeIoKg5vB2XLS8g7uYxl_XbL2QjWZ0pbh0wdLFbLRr8-R4hLQbmg2mcjAvpqoH46Oh6jiMmJ2a8SeaizNRDKA_DN9djhhVO5nkW6SZXgSqGnHT9O9POHp9QShj6STtwtjF4wmHuOyK-yFRwVthuggz8jmFz3zobJtCSWxJV_r5MVZrNHzKrb_nroRZsXel70BUd-9bzs6x93l55bj-Uh3COBfN8FpBB8mFNajarIhuGTjRsTXSUHsyLsSlqaoc8Q5CpFtKdCh5VW39gpo1Z14RIzMAZbUIre521-Gu76VXRcdq8ZSkncri7ZhgR2BZjpMKLUpCrAEqhr5osg0pr335QPGOUv0-mO2OpfYXa7K4i87CEwtOtgJh-hlN6M_Z9HcoL1KuhbJ_SHd_dRQbymZWMCdv7m0SrOJUgSHKHaCPRHI=w478-h600-no)
-
So here's what I think went wrong with the Mickelson Morley experiment, and any other experiment that's attempted to detect a medium. Call it an aether, or whatever. The time-energy I reference is an opposing energy. Experiments hypothesize it is the same energy. The very instrument science is using to detect the energy, is repulsing the very energy it is trying to detect. It doesn't see anything, because it isn't there, physically. Mass-energy and time-energy oppose each other in an equal and opposite manner. You can't use mass-energy to detect time-energy directly. We do detect it indirectly through time, but, Einstein already slapped a label on time, and called it space-time. Now we have to prove Einstein is wrong, to prove Einstein was right all along. It's a conundrum.
I'm also suggesting we see the density change in time-energy indirectly through light over time in the redshift. Density alters the color temp of light through different mediums. It's petty well established physics. If energy density was increasing in the time-energy field, slowing light down, it would shift.
I would not be surprised at all if this was intentional by the man himself. To prove him wrong, we would have to prove him right. He's right either way, again. The man was brilliant, he was also a character, and somewhat of a card.
-
You're talking about a time that was under the major pump of tech development.
WW1, WW2.
Going from steam to flight to jet to nuclear, all in the context of "war".
Is the Earth flat in that context?
By holographic definition of time-space, maybe, but in the context of war?
-
Possible experiment, although I'm certainly not qualified to design such a thing, and I have no idea if it would work or not.
From far out in space, surround a section of space in a large spherical container of some sort with a known mass weight. Then compress that down to manageable scale, and bring it back to Earth and weigh it.
The theory being, we are trapping a different time-energy density which may be repelled somewhat on Earths surface deeper into the gravity well.
I just don't know if we have enough variation in SR/gravity to see any difference. Thay's why I think we'd need to gather a fairly large amount and compress it down. Not sure if we can even trap the energy, considering our instruments and devices would be pushing that time-energy away.
Anyway, just a random thought....
-
My question is about the perspective on the universe. Which is the valid way to look at, through expansion of space, or deflation of energy? It's a reciprocal problem. Either view appears to be a valid interpretation with current evidence, in my view. I can't tell which is which.
Neither , an inflation of energy and an inflation of observation.
-
Is the Earth flat in that context?
It's a hyperbole, and I regret the way I began this thread. It was a mistake.
My actual context has nothing to do with a Flat Earth, other than to show the evolution of our ignorance in understanding the universe. Unfortunately, I don't feel like starting a new thread to discuss the basis of what's being discussed at the moment.
-
Neither , an inflation of energy and an inflation of observation.
Old statement in the thread. Somewhat meaningless at this point. Although I'm not clear on the meaning or intent of your response.
-
Which is the valid way to look at, through expansion of space, or deflation of energy?
You asked a question , which I answered .
Which is the valid way to look at, through expansion of space, or deflation of energy?
The valid way to look at it is the objective answer I gave you.
-
Which is the valid way to look at, through expansion of space, or deflation of energy?
You asked a question , which I answered .
Which is the valid way to look at, through expansion of space, or deflation of energy?
The valid way to look at it is the objective answer I gave you.
Yes, you did.
I still don't understand the response.
inflation of observation
What does this mean?
Objectively, inflating spacetime vs deflating mass would appear identical in observation. The only gauge of motion is the redshift. Increased density and slowing light also causes a redshift, so you have no way of determining which way you're headed conclusively, unless you pick a direction subjectively. There's nothing proven beyond doubt at this point, to my knowledge. Either perspective could be correct, giving us a 50% chance of error in drawing any conclusion. I am well aware of the general consensus on the subject, but a consensus isn't confirmation in this case. It's just a bunch of people that think they're right. And they could very well be. I don't know. Based on the evidence and our current level of understanding, it's inconclusive. It's really the best anyone can say at this point objectively. We'd have to prove beyond all doubt, that space-time is truly homogeneous. I'm not even convinced space-time is real let alone homogeneous. No one else knows either. Admittedly there's a lot of strong evidence supporting standing inflation theory, but that's only because we created the theory to begin with. Had it been deflation theory, then we'd probably be arguing about inflation. They would yield nearly identical predictions.
-
The valid way to look at it is the objective answer I gave you.
I still don't understand the response.
inflation of observation
What does this mean?
It doesn’t mean anything. There are a few people here who delight in making obscure, obtuse comments. Maybe they think it makes them look clever, but it doesn’t. I believe in as much clarity as possible.