[guest39538]

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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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. 

[guest39538]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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

[andreasva (OP)]

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. 

[Colin2B]

@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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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. 

[Colin2B]

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 

[andreasva (OP)]

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!   

[opportunity]

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.

[Colin2B]

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?

[andreasva (OP)]

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.   

[andreasva (OP)]

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.   

[opportunity]

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.....

[andreasva (OP)]

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.     

[Colin2B]

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.

[opportunity]

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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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. 

[alancalverd]

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. 

[andreasva (OP)]

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.