0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
All you have to do is to propose a model that explains all the above.
Quote from: andreasva on 17/03/2018 22:48:34@Colin2BI 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 ďperceive only 2 out of 3 spacial dimensions at any given momentĒ. Thatís 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.Itís 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.
@Colin2BI can see what he's saying. We can't see 360 degrees around an object, physically.
OK, here's some pure objectivity. Distant objects generally have larger redshifts than near onesRotating galaxies do not disintegrateEvery phenomenon predicted by relativity theory to date has turned out to be experimentally correct to a high degree of confidenceF =Gm1m2/r2, likewiseThe cosmic microwave background has an effective temperature of about 3KAll you have to do is to propose a model that explains all the above.
You would be the first person in 25 years to abandon the notion of a fixed scale of atoms in all these years.
Sciences text book definitions.Hydrogen = 120pm / Atomic Radius - 53pm Oxygen = 152pm / etcLithium = 182pm / etcCarbon = 170pm / etc
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.
Is mass a relative perspective, or reality? That's the real question I'm asking here, isn't it?
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.
Iím afraid my views are tainted by experiment and observations, so probably wonít be helpful to your discussion.
I propose that the Math is "inside out" so to speak. We are only observing space as it once appeared eons ago.
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.
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.
Is the Earth flat in that context?
Neither , an inflation of energy and an inflation of observation.
Which is the valid way to look at, through expansion of space, or deflation of energy?