Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This thread is for debate and discussion about the nature of the universe.

I will start with mine

The universe is INFINITE.
Infinite levels of both macro and micro cosmic substructure.
There was no beginning and there will be no end.
Matter does not exist. Energy does not exist. It is all the same depending on the observer's point of view.
Imagine someone went on a journey into the microcosm or macrocosm, taking with them a telescope and a microscope.
What would the universe look like to them after looking through each instrument?
I believe it would look the same at ALL levels of the infinite substructure.
Time does not exist. The only effect that space can have on time, is in a human head.
Time travel is science fiction and impossible.
If a human being wanted to travel "back to the 1920's", they would need to manipulate every single particle on every single level of the universe and arrange them in precisely the same way as they were at that "moment in time".
There is no empty space in the universe. EVERYTHING is connected.
The speed of light is not constant and neither is it the speed limit of the universe.
Why? Because the speed of light is different depending on the medium in which it is travelling, same as anything. There is no such thing as a vacuum, because there is no such thing a empty space.
If you were to go on another journey into the macrocosm or microcosm and observed a beam of light going through a galaxy, how fast is it going?
speed of light IS relative.

If thinking about the universe interests you too, please contribute your thoughts and ideas.

Universe =

The universe is whatever the most intelligent looking website or YouTube video says it is.

TBH you have misunderstood many concepts in the science you cited, particularly, the "speed of light in a vacuum" concept. The speed limit is not due to any property of light particles, rather it is the reverse. A light particle in a vacuum moves at that speed because it is the speed limit, and a massless particle will accelerate "infinitely". This is intuitive if you know some calculus. A=F/M, if you look at this as a limit in respects to M->0, you can see that acceleration diverges infinitely, the speed of light is the bound on that. Any massless particle would have this property, not just light.

Originally posted by King Kandy
TBH you have misunderstood many concepts in the science you cited, particularly, the "speed of light in a vacuum" concept. The speed limit is not due to any property of light particles, rather it is the reverse. A light particle in a vacuum moves at that speed because it is the speed limit, and a massless particle will accelerate "infinitely". This is intuitive if you know some calculus. A=F/M, if you look at this as a limit in respects to M->0, you can see that acceleration diverges infinitely, the speed of light is the bound on that. Any massless particle would have this property, not just light.


instead of being critical of what i posted, why not just post your own theory
that is the first thing i have to say
next, what other concepts have i misunderstood or are you just exaggerating?

the speed of light is different depending on the medium in which it is travelling
is this statement correct?

i do not believe there is such a thing as a vacuum because it is impossible to remove all "particles", only the ones we can observe

you read the part where i said about infinite microcosm right?

so i am saying if the "particles" we do not know about were removed from our "vacuum" then the light could travel faster

then if a further layer of "unseen particles" were removed, the light could travel even faster and so on

basically i am saying, if light can go slower, why can it not go faster?

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
the speed of light is different depending on the medium in which it is travelling
is this statement correct?

No, it is not.

Photons move at different speed in different mediums. The speed of light, the constant called c, does not change.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
instead of being critical of what i posted, why not just post your own theory
that is the first thing i have to say

If you don't want criticism don't talk out of your ass. *shrug*

Everything in the Universe is vibrating. Even light is vibrating (different frequencies of vibration give us the different Colors, just like different frequencies of vibration give us the different notes in an octave of sound).
The so called 5 senses, touch, smell, hearing, taste, and sight, are all biological "senors" that for the most part, detect vibration in different ways. While smell doesn't directly sense a vibration, it is directly sensing physical objects in the air, that have different vibrational parameters. Each sense perceives vibrations within specific, limited frequency bands. For example, through the sense of hearing, most people perceive vibrational frequencies in the 20 to 20,000 cycle per second range - we call "sound". The eyes pick up much faster vibrations that we call light.
But these 5 biological sensors we use, only pick up a very,very small part of the infinite vibrational frequency spectrum. There are other frequency bands that the 5 sense cannot perceive, which puts a BIG hole in our information about that is REALLY there. And for most people, this very limited data from the 5 Sensors is the only thing that allows them to be in touch with the wrold around them. We are, for the most part, virtually blind in this Universe.
Humans have built machines that pick up some vibrations we can't get with our 5 sense. These machines translate what they pick up into a range that we can get with one of our sense. For instance, out eyes don't pick up on x-rays - they only see the slower vibrating visible light range. So we made x-ray machines that take pictures to show us the result of using the x-rays, on a film that we can see with visible light. Can you imagine being able to see such things as -rays and gamma rays al the time? Radio waves are also in a vibrational frequency bans that is not within the range of any of our senses. The circuitry in a radio or TV changes these vibrations to frequencies of vibration our sense of sight and hearing can perceive. There are many things that we do not normally perceive.
Basically, life is one giant, cosmic illusion. To give you an easy-to- understand example of obvious illusions, consider the moderen invention of television, and the "picture" you see in it. The "pictures" we see are not pictures at all, but many individual lines of parts of the picture, flashings at us one at a time. They start at the top or bottom of the screen, and go to the other end. But these lines appear faster than our humsn perception can process, so we don't see them as inidivdual lines being flashed one at a time. Instead, the many lines seem to be there all the time, making whole pictures. Movies are similar. As many as 30 still pictures are being flashed in one secone. We see it as a seamless presentation, and have the illusion that people and things on the screen are moving, but they aren't. Certain animals with better perceptions just see the lines on a tavt, or the still pictures flashing during a movie.
This is just ONE of many examles. But there are even more far reachings illusions about life and the world around us. Even the TV se is not what it seems to us.
Even the most "solid" physical objects are but atoms (and the parts/energy they are composed of) vibratins at various rates, in various arrangements. These vibratory rates and arrangements of atoms are perceived by us, through one or more of the very limited 5 senses of the human body. We then process this sensory information,and in our limited consciousness, "perceive" these atom groups as the "things" that make up the world we live in, the things that are all around us -TV'S, cars, carpets, skin, air,-you name it. What we think all these things are, is the result of the warped assumptions our brain makes - the assumption being based on the very limited data we get from out senses, about a certain arrangement and frequency of vibration of atoms. And atoms are just a building block of the One thing - the "stuff" of the Universe. Thus, everything we think we see, is really just an illusion - not it's true form - just a "conceptual form" created by our brain. We put together an "image" or "idea" of what we think we're perceiving, by virture of our programming, expectations, experiences, etc., manipulatiing the bits of information we get from our highly limited senses.
We already start with a great handicap of perceiving such a small part of the world around us. Then to make matters worse, we process that information thought the "filters" of our emotions and preconceptions. This all leaves us with a very inaccurate illusion of reality.
And just a little change in the frequency of the vibration of atoms (how fast or slow they vibrate) in a molecule (group of atoms), can compltely change our perception of what it is. For example, we know the slower vibrating molecules of H2O as ice, a solid; as the frequency increases, we know them as water, a liquid; faster still as steam; faster yet as hydrogen and oxygen gas. Then where?
As vibrational frequency increases, amore etheric quality develops. Something may even seem to vanish (like steam), but nothing is ever lost in the Universe, it just changes form. Sometimes the apparant form is changed by atoms joining groups (molecules), or what I like "atomic cults". But regardless of how they are arranged, or how the appear, the true reality of it is that it's always the same One energy vibrating at different frequencies.
Indeed, ANYWHERE we look in life, be it outer space, or inner space, EVERYTHING is eithier atoms or solar systems. THey are like octaves of the same thing: micro/macro cosms. There is nothing else. What is a building? A tree? THey, and anything that seems to be something else, are but an assembly of atoms/solar systems.
I can't emphasizse the signifigance of this enough. It is one of the most important facts there is, and understanding its full meaning is one of the greats keys to understanding the Universe, and our lives.
They next great key can also be seen with stoms and solar systems. Is is their orbital pattern, their orbital relationship. It is the one primary pattern that exists in the Universe. It pervades everything, and all else is built upon it. I guess if you think about it, it's what our human male/female relationships are based on.
But wait, aren't orbits separate things amongst separate solar systems or atoms? How could it be what everything in the Universe is built upon? And how could it be what human relationships are based on?
Look into space at night. Each shining "star" you see is eithier a "Sun"- and object radiating light, that is surrounded by and orbited by planets, or a planet, giving off light reflected from the light of a star. Study what scientists have discovered about the "solid" objects that surround us - water, trees, buildings, stones, earth, plants, human bodies - they are all made of atoms. And what are atoms? Microscopic "stars" being orbited by planets, but very very tiny, and very very rapidly - they are an octave of the stars and our own solar system.
Consider: WHat if everything is orbiting something else? What if when you get smaller than atoms, and bigger than solar systems, the same or similar, circular orbital pattern is found? It does- in some way or another, even thought they haven't been discovered yet. What if it goes on infinitely like a never ending spiral? It must. It is the pattern of creation.
If you contemplate it for a while, the "pattern" of an atom or solar system is, in a sense, the only reality. It is the primary form of life in the universe. This pattern is the basis of the building blocks of our illusions. And what is it comprised of? THis amazing, all pervasive pattern consists of "individual" parts functioning as One. THis Oneness is acheived by virtue of the nature of the polarities of the individual parts - plus/minus,male/female. Electrons of an atom are like the planets of a solar system. They are oppisitely charged (the opposite"sex" to the nucleus of an atom, and they are attracted to each other - just as the planets and "Sun" of a solar system are. The polarized parts flow together in a particular "way" that is dictated by Universal law. The pattern is orbital because of the nature of polarized reltaionships in space. There is always a center, a central sphere that gives, that flows out energy, and "attracts" -and that central object is surrounded by objects that are attracted to, and attach themselves to, the center object. In the case of an atom, the nucleus is the center that all the electrons revolve around. They are the same thing. The outer objects' (electrons or planets) momentum,their "speed" as they travel through space, becomes a circular movement once they are atrracted to and attached to their central object (the Sun, a Star, or a Nucleus). THat movements cyclic- in other words,it keeps orbiting around and around at a certain speed, repeating it's cycle in a given period of time, thus a vibrational occurence is created of "cycles" per... something (second,day, year, whatever). In the case of the Earth orbiting the Sun, it is 1 cycle per year. In the case of other planets it is faster or slower. In the case of atoms, it is very,very fast- and different for each atom.

Those circular electron orbits are neither circular nor orbits.

Taking this a step fuhrther, what if everything is orbiting something, which is also orbiting something else? THat all of them function as ONE. And a complex vibrational pattern exists. THey each link up with all other objects, becoming a part of their flow and one with them. In the entirety of the Universe, All things are interconnected as One in thie way. And the basis of all this is the Universal pattern we exemplified so perfectly in the atom or solar systems. It follows and reflects Universal law perfectly. This pattern flows in harmony with Universal order.
What if this form, this pattern, represents the relationship of beings? What is each atom is a conscious being composed of soulmate beings (each planet and "Sun" is a being, in and of itself, that make One being together)? What if every being plays two roles, like both parent and child at the same time- surrendering to something, and directing something? What is every "star" is both in an outflowing,"positive polarity","directing" position to it's planets, but also like a "planet" to something else that orbits it, or is affected by it? All of the above is true.
Many,many things can be learned and understood by contemplating the above concept. Contemplation of this pattern has guided the understanding of masters, in all matters of Universal and Earthly life, and thus can also provide the contemplative seeker with profound answers.
Truly understanding the meaning of this patter, and applying it to human life, can provide the deepest understanding of the nature of men and women, and male/female relationships. It is the perfect patter of the harmonious interaction of polar opposites. Thus, with contemplaton, it can show us the way to ave perfect relationships, helping us achieve perfectly harmonious interaction with our own soulmates, and other humans.

Originally posted by Gadreel17
Taking this a step fuhrther, what if everything is orbiting something, which is also orbiting something else? THat all of them function as ONE. And a complex vibrational pattern exists. THey each link up with all other objects, becoming a part of their flow and one with them. In the entirety of the Universe, All things are interconnected as One in thie way. And the basis of all this is the Universal pattern we exemplified so perfectly in the atom or solar systems. It follows and reflects Universal law perfectly. This pattern flows in harmony with Universal order.
What if this form, this pattern, represents the relationship of beings? What is each atom is a conscious being composed of soulmate beings (each planet and "Sun" is a being, in and of itself, that make One being together)? What if every being plays two roles, like both parent and child at the same time- surrendering to something, and directing something? What is every "star" is both in an outflowing,"positive polarity","directing" position to it's planets, but also like a "planet" to something else that orbits it, or is affected by it? All of the above is true.
Many,many things can be learned and understood by contemplating the above concept. Contemplation of this pattern has guided the understanding of masters, in all matters of Universal and Earthly life, and thus can also provide the contemplative seeker with profound answers.
Truly understanding the meaning of this patter, and applying it to human life, can provide the deepest understanding of the nature of men and women, and male/female relationships. It is the perfect patter of the harmonious interaction of polar opposites. Thus, with contemplaton, it can show us the way to ave perfect relationships, helping us achieve perfectly harmonious interaction with our own soulmates, and other humans.

I am glad you understood the point of this thread (unlike the other mindless trolls )

Your ideas are very interesting and reminded me of a couple of additional thoughts of my own.

When we observe the world around us we see other people, animals, buildings etc and it appears that the space between everything is empty.
But, we know from science that the empty space, air, is actually made up of billions upon billions of atoms and molecules.
Now, if we went on a journey to the atomic level and observed the same environment, we would no longer see any of the people, animals, buildings, we would see only atoms and molecules and our universe would appear very different.
The people, animals and buildings would no longer exist, from our perspective.
Then if we went on another journey deeper into the microcosm, the atoms and molecules would no longer exist and the universe would be different once again.
Imagining what people, animals and buildings look like, at this level, would be so alien and beyond our comprehension, just like it is for us to comprehend our universe.
What if this is the case for us now.
The universe could in fact be nothing more than a subatomic particle to someone or something observing from a level much higher up in the macro world.

Second thought is regarding life, consciousness and thought.
There could be forms of life beyond the subatomic level and they are right now, wondering about their universe in much the same way we are doing.
To them a single atom is the universe and the idea that we exist is beyond comprehension.
This could also be true of us as well.
Our universe could be just one single atom, part of billions and billions of atoms that make up a living creature, that has thought and consciousness.
Imagine if someone right now is looking down a microscope, observing our universe and wondering what makes us tick

Sockpuppet is sock but commendably committed to the show.

I have a somewhat similar idea to the universe that "GRIMNIR" does. Although about the speed of light, my idea is that, like he mentioned, it might be more flexible than we imagined. Of course this walks hand in hand with the recent discoveries by the particle accelerator experiments.

Still, there has a lot to be proven in terms of whether or not they clocked particles moving faster than the speed of light.

The big contention here, is that they claim IF they did prove they were moving faster than the speed of light - then Einstein's Theory of General Relativity would be wrong. (E=MC Square)

It's not unusual for physicists to conjure up new and innovative theories; this is how they came up with "String" theory and before that the whole contingent of Quantum Mechanics.

Personally, I'd be surprised if they prove Einstein wrong, but that's what science is meant for...to test our accepted knowledge and pushed forward to new and credible discoveries.

@gadreel - tl;dr Cliffs Notes it, summarize, and/or format better.

@darkriddle - Agreed on your last sentence there, but be very careful about jumping to premature conclusions or even suppositions about a single particle test that neither you nor I have technical knowledge of. Keep in mind, the results were released because the scientists involved were convinced they were wrong.

@Grim - has your theory been peer-reviewed?

You can't just offer a theory with noticeable flaws and expect it to go uncriticized. This is the internet for christ's sake. That's not trolling, it's discussion. Learn the difference.

We're not in a position to offer overarching theories of the universe without positioning ourselves in a similar seat of ignorance. I once tried to use black holes to justify the existence of comic book universes. It was an awesome theory, but no less dependent on incomplete and incorrect interpretations of the laws of physics as we know them.

But you asked for theories. So...

My theory is that we're in a deterministic universe bound by the laws of physics. Everything that exists has a logical cause and effect from that which came before and that which will follow. Beyond that would be me speculating idly.

Originally posted by Digi

@darkriddle - Agreed on your last sentence there, but be very careful about jumping to premature conclusions or even suppositions about a single particle test that neither you nor I have technical knowledge of. Keep in mind, the results were released because the scientists involved were convinced they were wrong.



I agree, but I do not claim that the CERN or Hadron parties are correct either, just that they are doing what they should be doing, which is furthering the knowledge of the universe by testing some already established & widely accepted theories.

It would also be keen to note that they are making many other discoveries that are just as important, but do not have the Headline-Grabbing pull that this "faster-than-speed-of-light" phenomenon does.

Considering their more recent efforts to shed light on "Dark Matter" no pun intended, it would seem that their use of particle accelerators is venturing into more innovative venues.

...Unless of course they do create a black hole that grows and sucks us all in. ...I was just kidding on that last part. LOL

I don't understand what is meant by universe theory? do you mean a theory of the universe?

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
instead of being critical of what i posted, why not just post your own theory
that is the first thing i have to say
next, what other concepts have i misunderstood or are you just exaggerating?

the speed of light is different depending on the medium in which it is travelling
is this statement correct?

i do not believe there is such a thing as a vacuum because it is impossible to remove all "particles", only the ones we can observe

you read the part where i said about infinite microcosm right?

so i am saying if the "particles" we do not know about were removed from our "vacuum" then the light could travel faster

then if a further layer of "unseen particles" were removed, the light could travel even faster and so on

basically i am saying, if light can go slower, why can it not go faster?
My background is in science, so, I don't just hypothesize things off the top of my head and present them, I look for evidence. I just presented some contrary points to your idea; if you are interested in science, you should be happy to have that happen. By definition, no scientific theory is above criticism; that would make it a dogma, not a theory. So you should not be looking at criticism as some kind of assault, but a learning opportunity. All theoretical advancements are made amidst intense criticism. I'm trying to give you advice, not demean you.

I just explained this to you. "speed of light" does not refer to the speed of actual photons, but the speed an uninterrupted massless particle would assume in a vacuum; light being one example of such a particle. It is not the limit imposed by false vacuums (that limit would actually be slightly below C). So if you removed all "unseen" (in physics, we would call these virtual) particles, light would move at C. Like I said, C represents a bound on speeds, not the speed of some real object. So "if light can go slower, why can it not go faster" really has nothing to do with it; the experimental speed of light in a medium, is a completely distinct concept for C which is the bound for speeds of particles. If light was in a vacuum, it would move at C because it would achieve the highest bound on speed. This is the reason why C is called the "speed of light".

So, you are correct in some sense; if you remove particles, light will go faster. But it would not exceed C, because C already refers to such a situation.

Originally posted by King Kandy
My background is in science, so, I don't just hypothesize things off the top of my head and present them, I look for evidence. I just presented some contrary points to your idea; if you are interested in science, you should be happy to have that happen. By definition, no scientific theory is above criticism; that would make it a dogma, not a theory. So you should not be looking at criticism as some kind of assault, but a learning opportunity. All theoretical advancements are made amidst intense criticism. I'm trying to give you advice, not demean you.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa231/Gunfingers/kaneClap.gif

Originally posted by Digi
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa231/Gunfingers/kaneClap.gif

Even the ****ing moderators are trolls

**** this forum of *****

I wish great pain, misery and suffering to every troll and his family

I'm applauding his comments. Care to respond to them?

Stating an opinion then getting upset and declaring widespread trolling when anyone brings criticism against is simply childish and unrealistic. We're not trolls, we're adults.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm applauding his comments. Care to respond to them?

Stating an opinion then getting upset and declaring widespread trolling when anyone brings criticism against is simply childish and unrealistic. We're not trolls, we're adults.

no, you are a nasty troll

you were not simply applauding his comments, you were doing the equivalent of standing behind a bully laughing

i know from your first reply in the thread you love nothing more than having a go at people, not just me either, you criticized gadreel's post

if the moderators are troll like, then i have no interest in this forum anymore

there are too many trolls anyway, i hope they all die

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Even the ****ing moderators are trolls

**** this forum of *****

I wish great pain, misery and suffering to every troll and his family

this is how most scientists respond to criticism, in fact

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
if the moderators are troll like, then i have no interest in this forum anymore

http://thetrailmixtrials.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/peace-out.gif

Eh, clearly you're not capable of accepting criticism or having a even-keeled conversation about this. Yes, I criticized your logic. It wasn't trolling, it was criticism. The same with gadreel...if you thinking asking someone to format their words more coherently or provide a summary (I only have so much time for KMC) is trolling, then you're not familiar with internet discussion.

But only one of us, for example, is wishing death upon the other. Just try to apply the same standards to your own behavior.

In my first post, I actually did provide my honest opinion on your theory and posited my own. But it went ignored to satisfy your perception of being persecuted.

Good luck to you.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm applauding his comments. Care to respond to them?

Stating an opinion then getting upset and declaring widespread trolling when anyone brings criticism against is simply childish and unrealistic. We're not trolls, we're adults.

I think that it's not criticism that's offending him, but how it's given. Perhaps he felt that the criticism offered was done in a "Mr. Know-It-All" fashion, which is not a good way to teach.

According to most physicists (at least when they appear in documentaries) it's obvious that they try to explain theories and facets of the sciences in ways that regular, non-scientists can relate to. This is actually important, because having students understand you with a sense of likability will transcend the ideas further, since they'd be yearning to learn more. Do you think this is right?

That said, I'm curious on what science credentials "King Kandy" actually has. Is he a physicist? - a science teacher? What?

I'm sure King Kandy has some sort of background in science, but my point here is that criticism should be both taken with an open mind and also given with an open mind, less it be mistaken for something else.

As for trolling -that's easy to spot. If some person responds with an insult, especially if it's derogatory in nature, then it IS trolling. I don't think that occurred in this case. But sometimes helpful criticism needs to be addressed as such.

Sure, trolls come with the territory. What is ironic about trolling is how "trolls" demean themselves. They will often hide an insult in false critique with corny one-liners, and this actually makes them look idiotic. At least in my opinion.

Example: I wrote a thread here called the Greatest Illusion and somebody responded by saying "You don't know what you're talking about"

Is that trolling? - probably not, but it sure isn't helpful criticism either. Ha -LOL.

Originally posted by darkriddle
That said, I'm curious on what science credentials "King Kandy" actually has. Is he a physicist? - a science teacher? What?

If I were a practicing scientist, would you answer my question about what a "theory of the universe" actually means in terms of scope and the ability to generate predictions?

"Mr Know It All" is an impression everyone gets when they talk to someone who has experiential/epistemological superiority in a subject unless they're extra sensitive about it (which is how teachers and most professors teach). Learning how to not get butthurt over it is part of being a grownup lol.

not to beat a dead horse or anything, however, I just recently defended my grad thesis proposal to my grad committee, a group of scientists who are trying to help me build a good thesis (as opposed to a peer review situation where people try to literally just cut your work up).

It was brutal. In the end, they said I had a very good thesis, but their questioning and criticism wasn't nice. It wasn't qualified in fancy niceties or any of that nonsense. When you get into real science, people don't really care for such social formalities anymore. In many ways, review by fellow scientists is the most intense form of trolling, because at the end of the day, their goal is EXACTLY to make you look like you don't know what you are talking about. Its only if you can withstand the most intense criticism that you have the stomach for science.

If you are complaining that you think people are being too harsh with their criticisms, the only thing this is indicative of is the fact you have no business doing science in the first place. You don't make friends with peer-review, and that is why it works.

Originally posted by inimalist
not to beat a dead horse or anything, however, I just recently defended my grad thesis proposal to my grad committee, a group of scientists who are trying to help me build a good thesis (as opposed to a peer review situation where people try to literally just cut your work up).

It was brutal. In the end, they said I had a very good thesis, but their questioning and criticism wasn't nice. It wasn't qualified in fancy niceties or any of that nonsense. When you get into real science, people don't really care for such social formalities anymore. In many ways, review by fellow scientists is the most intense form of trolling, because at the end of the day, their goal is EXACTLY to make you look like you don't know what you are talking about. Its only if you can withstand the most intense criticism that you have the stomach for science.

If you are complaining that you think people are being too harsh with their criticisms, the only thing this is indicative of is the fact you have no business doing science in the first place. You don't make friends with peer-review, and that is why it works.
Lol, was it like "umm first question: have you considered wearing a pushup bra for your man-****? second question: how did you first arrive at your second conclusion? and third question: #@$% you"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol, was it like "umm first question: have you considered wearing a pushup bra for your man-****? second question: how did you first arrive at your second conclusion? and third question: #@$% you"

metaphorically, yes...

Originally posted by inimalist
metaphorically, yes...
Dayum.

Originally posted by Digi
Eh, clearly you're not capable of accepting criticism or having a even-keeled conversation about this. Yes, I criticized your logic. It wasn't trolling, it was criticism. The same with gadreel...if you thinking asking someone to format their words more coherently or provide a summary (I only have so much time for KMC) is trolling, then you're not familiar with internet discussion.

But only one of us, for example, is wishing death upon the other. Just try to apply the same standards to your own behavior.

In my first post, I actually did provide my honest opinion on your theory and posited my own. But it went ignored to satisfy your perception of being persecuted.

Good luck to you.

There is a big difference between trolling and offering constructive criticism as part of a debate

Kandy offered constructive criticism and went on to explain his viewpoint. I have no problem with this, other than I originally intended for people to give their own theories and not for the thread to just become a dissection of my theory.
I replied to his first post and was planning on replying to the second post before I saw a moderator trolling and got annoyed.

My reply now is simply I disagree that the speed of light has a limit. I believe there is a hell of a lot wrong with modern science, in particular the big bang theory and general relativity.

I am sure the mindless trolls will immediately jump on this and act like dickheads.
But, is it not POSSIBLE, considering the history of science, when people thought there were only 4 elements and we we centre of the universe and the earth was flat, is it not possible that modern science is fundamentally wrong?
Or are humans so arrogant to think "we've cracked it, you are an idiot if you don't accept our science"
I am not saying my own personal theory is correct, it is just my own personal theory.
The reality is that humans probably are incapable of understanding the universe, but we can still think about it.


I wanted people to put forward their own theories so engage in philosophical discussion and share ideas.
Some people understood the spirit of the discussion and posted their ideas, but there are too many trolls including a moderator, which annoys me.
Internet discussion does not automatically = troll fest, is that not what a moderator is for?


YOU did not offer constructive criticism, you just trolled in both your posts. Simply saying my theory has noticeable flaws, without elaborating on what they actually are, is just trolling and no different than posting "you are a dick".

As for Inimalist, Chaos and Omega, they have contributed **** all to this thread. They just spread their fat arse cheeks and dropped a dump of troll shit on the thread.


this is my reply to any future troll comments that are in store

**** off and die

Originally posted by inimalist

If you are complaining that you think people are being too harsh with their criticisms, the only thing this is indicative of is the fact you have no business doing science in the first place. You don't make friends with peer-review, and that is why it works.

Not complaining, just suggesting. With all due respect (and I really mean that) I understand what you're saying. But I disagree. This is why; I realize that theories need to be criticized - but criticism is NOT the real purpose. The actual benefit is in "proving" a theory and what is most important in science (from what I know) stems from "contributing" a credible aspect to it.

There is a saying "standing on the shoulders of giants." This analogy refers to the collective idealism that people share in order to form a more complete knowledge of the universe around us.

Einstein could not have formed his theories without Newton, and Hawkins probably could not have achieved his grand achievements without Einstein's knowledge - and so the list goes on.

There is an etiquette to uphold in sharing ideas and notions that maybe important to the scientific community. I ask you then, is this false?

Progress in science has always been benefited by "respectful, helpful criticisms" and even more so by contribution. If all scientists dumped etiquette at the door, egos and squabbles would slow and hinder them from achieving their results.

(-- This is the part where you should say I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT) ..I'm just kidding. LOL.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Inimalist

inimalist, the "I" isn't capitalized

also, I asked about your definition of a "theory of the universe" in terms of its scope and such. Are you prepared to talk about that?

What type of observations could I predict using your theory? how would I falsify it? what experiments could I run to add some core observations to it?

I'm sorry you are so sensitive

Originally posted by darkriddle
Not complaining, just suggesting. With all due respect (and I really mean that) I understand what you're saying. But I disagree. This is why; I realize that theories need to be criticized - but criticism is NOT the real purpose. The actual benefit is in "proving" a theory and what is most important in science (from what I know) stems from "contributing" a credible aspect to it.

There is a saying "standing on the shoulders of giants." This analogy refers to the collective idealism that people share in order to form a more complete knowledge of the universe around us.

Einstein could not have formed his theories without Newton, and Hawkins probably could not have achieved his grand achievements without Einstein's knowledge - and so the list goes on.

There is an etiquette to uphold is sharing ideas and notions that maybe important to the scientific community. I ask you then, is this false?

Progress in science has always been benefited by "respectful, helpful criticisms" and even more so by contribution. If all scientists dumped etiquette at the door, egos and squabbles would slow and hinder them from achieving their results.

(-- This is the part where you should say I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT) ..I'm just kidding. LOL.

ok, well, your impression is incorrect /shrug

the etiquette would be like, "don't insult a person", but even that is sort of a grey zone. Einstein faced incredibly tough criticism, and even gave his own later in life (he refused to accept quantum theory because he saw it as nothing more than "gambling".

the peer-review process is not about constructive criticism. It is about finding fault and flaws in the theory or observations of people who are trying to publish work. Only when you can get through this process of having your research vetted by your peers do you get to be considered one of the "giants" whose shoulders you stand upon.

Originally posted by darkriddle
I think that it's not criticism that's offending him, but how it's given. Perhaps he felt that the criticism offered was done in a "Mr. Know-It-All" fashion, which is not a good way to teach.

According to most physicists (at least when they appear in documentaries) it's obvious that they try to explain theories and facets of the sciences in ways that regular, non-scientists can relate to. This is actually important, because having students understand you with a sense of likability will transcend the ideas further, since they'd be yearning to learn more. Do you think this is right?

That said, I'm curious on what science credentials "King Kandy" actually has. Is he a physicist? - a science teacher? What?

I'm sure King Kandy has some sort of background in science, but my point here is that criticism should be both taken with an open mind and also given with an open mind, less it be mistaken for something else.

As for trolling -that's easy to spot. If some person responds with an insult, especially if it's derogatory in nature, then it IS trolling. I don't think that occurred in this case. But sometimes helpful criticism needs to be addressed as such.

Sure, trolls come with the territory. What is ironic about trolling is how "trolls" demean themselves. They will often hide an insult in false critique with corny one-liners, and this actually makes them look idiotic. At least in my opinion.

Example: I wrote a thread here called the Greatest Illusion and somebody responded by saying "You don't know what you're talking about"

Is that trolling? - probably not, but it sure isn't helpful criticism either. Ha -LOL.

I'm not trying to teach. That would be a futile endeavor in this medium.

And I'm also not going to pull punches if I think someone's argument or idea is very wrong. Thing is, people have a hard time separating critiques on their ideas from personal affronts. I'm always willing to explain to someone that I mean the former, not the latter, but far less patience for those who won't acknowledge the difference.

Orson Welles was a bit derogatory, granted. But one, it's the internet, you need some thicker skin if that's going to get to you. And two, he was already slinging around accusations of trolling by that point, so it wasn't worth reasoning. I don't have time for people whose responses end in "**** off and die" when dealing with anything on KMC. Not enough perspective, so it's not worth dealing with them.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, well, your impression is incorrect /shrug



...Very doubtful. You CAN give credible critique by considering the theory set before you, then trying to prove it, then pointing out what you feel is at fault. This is called "Teamwork" and many scientific discoveries have benefited by it...and always will.

The drive behind science, and learning for that matter, is in competing respectfully - not by trying to "out-smart" each other.

In fact, when a person honestly (genuinely that is) critiques another person's work - they are contributing their in-put, which automatically makes them work together.

Yet working together is only successful, if respect is present: thus is born "etiquette."

Science is a vastly interesting and exciting field of studies. It can be a very beautiful and enlightening experience. I would hope that notion will be remembered.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not trying to teach. That would be a futile endeavor in this medium.

And I'm also not going to pull punches if I think someone's argument or idea is very wrong. Thing is, people have a hard time separating critiques on their ideas from personal affronts. I'm always willing to explain to someone that I mean the former, not the latter, but far less patience for those who won't acknowledge the difference.

Orson Welles was a bit derogatory, granted. But one, it's the internet, you need some thicker skin if that's going to get to you. And two, he was already slinging around accusations of trolling by that point, so it wasn't worth reasoning. I don't have time for people whose responses end in "**** off and die" when dealing with anything on KMC. Not enough perspective, so it's not worth dealing with them.

just before that i also said that the comment was aimed at the trolls for any future comments they make, so i not need to reply to them all

why is it wrong to hate trolls?

if i saw a video on youtube of a group of scummy youths beating some random person and setting fire to them whilst laughing all the while, i hate them and wish them death

trolls are just like those type of people, so i hate them and wish the death

Originally posted by darkriddle
...Very doubtful. You CAN give credible critique by considering the theory set before you, then trying to prove it, then pointing out what you feel is at fault. This is called "Teamwork" and many scientific discoveries have benefited by it...and always will.

The drive behind science, and learning for that matter, is in competing respectfully - not by trying to "out-smart" each other.

In fact, when a person honestly (genuinely that is) critiques another person's work - they are contributing their in-put, which automatically makes them work together.

Yet working together is only successful, if respect is present: thus is born "etiquette."

Science is a vastly interesting and exciting field of studies. It can be a very beautiful and enlightening experience. I would hope that notion will be remembered.

is this the way you think it should work, then? because my personal experience with the scientific process, the literature I have read about the purpose of peer-review and the general philosophy of science itself disagree with what you are saying...

A reviewer on a paper submitted for publication is doing you a disservice if they think of you as their "teammate". You aren't. Seriously, not to sound like a dick, but if you have no experience with the scientific process to the point where you can't distinguish between review and collaboration, you probably shouldn't be commenting on it. Like, just as a question, have you ever gone through a peer-review process? Have you ever had an article rejected? Have you seen the way such reviews are written?

Originally posted by darkriddle
...Very doubtful. You CAN give credible critique by considering the theory set before you, then trying to prove it, then pointing out what you feel is at fault. This is called "Teamwork" and many scientific discoveries have benefited by it...and always will.

The drive behind science, and learning for that matter, is in competing respectfully - not by trying to "out-smart" each other.

In fact, when a person honestly (genuinely that is) critiques another person's work - they are contributing their in-put, which automatically makes them work together.

Yet working together is only successful, if respect is present: thus is born "etiquette."

Science is a vastly interesting and exciting field of studies. It can be a very beautiful and enlightening experience. I would hope that notion will be remembered.

does your "theory" generate any predictions for future experiments?

OOPS!!!! ignore the above post, that was directed to GRIMNIR, who appears to be refusing to elaborate on his theory

Originally posted by inimalist
Seriously, not to sound like a dick, but if you have no experience with the scientific process to the point where you can't distinguish between review and collaboration, you probably shouldn't be commenting on it. Like, just as a question, have you ever gone through a peer-review process? Have you ever had an article rejected? Have you seen the way such reviews are written?

Why are so heated? ...Of course I know what a peer-review process is (which also exists in other studies besides science) and it's easy to distinguish collaboration - I'm talking about something else, genuine criticism (not from a teacher-student aspect, but between colleagues) and contribution and etiquette, which you're not addressing.

I'll respect you're opinion, but you have to forgive me if I think you're not an authority on this, it certainly seems to be that way.

Also, sinking to the point where you practically curse, i.e (not to sound like a dick) sounds juvenile and isn't very etiquette savvy either. Do you use that kind of vulgar writting in your peer-review projects? I hope not. Still, no offense intended.

I leave it at that. I think we both unintentionally hijacked the point of this particular thread. ...Sorry.

ok, so explain why peer review works best if the reviewers feel as though they are collaborators on the to-be-published research

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so explain why peer review works best if the reviewers feel as though they are collaborators on the to-be-published research

Can we take this little "Debate" somewhere else? I don't want to hijack this thread any longer. It's not respectful. We've both gotten far off track of the original subject matter.

fair enough, make a thread and i will continue... though, I don't think we are as far away as it might seem... In a lot of cases I'd say "grow a thicker skin", but I'm not encouraging trolling in terms of how it applies to the interweb (though I will admit I'm not above it)

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Kandy offered constructive criticism and went on to explain his viewpoint. I have no problem with this, other than I originally intended for people to give their own theories and not for the thread to just become a dissection of my theory.
I replied to his first post and was planning on replying to the second post before I saw a moderator trolling and got annoyed.
It has nothing to do with your theory, or my own viewpoint. I was trying to teach what the "speed of light" concept is supposed to actually represent. Are you interested in learning? I am not trying to start a debate, I was trying to give a concise explanation using actual math. I really see no point in making a thread if you don't have any intention of learning from it.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
My reply now is simply I disagree that the speed of light has a limit. I believe there is a hell of a lot wrong with modern science, in particular the big bang theory and general relativity.

But, is it not POSSIBLE, considering the history of science, when people thought there were only 4 elements and we we centre of the universe and the earth was flat, is it not possible that modern science is fundamentally wrong?
Or are humans so arrogant to think "we've cracked it, you are an idiot if you don't accept our science"
I am not saying my own personal theory is correct, it is just my own personal theory.
The reality is that humans probably are incapable of understanding the universe, but we can still think about it.
But see, this is exactly the problem. It is certainly possible that the current concepts of science are wrong. Nobody is denying that, and nobody is saying those ideas MUST be correct. Like I said, that is not how science works, that is dogma.

Obviously simply not accepting a theory is not grounds for declaring someone an idiot. If they have strong reason for disagreeing, with a strong foundation in math and science, then criticism is grounds for learning more. But if the reason you don't accept something is just because it "feels" wrong, then I would say that is not a very intelligent position to hold.

This is the reason why I try and explain to you; not to make you feel like an idiot, but actually trying to examine the reasons you believe what you do. This is how you LEARN things, by challenging your own knowledge.

IMO, people should live by the standards of falsifiability. If you see someone elses theory, or come up with one of your own, the first things you should ask are "what are the flaws in this theory? What could prove it wrong? How can I improve on these flaws? Do I have a good answer to people's questions about it? Is it a fully developed idea?" If you aren't asking these questions, then that's exactly the kind of arrogant "four elements" logic you were talking about.

Now, the good thing is, you acknowledge this theory is simply your viewpoint. To me, this would mean you should be interested in how it stacks up to evidence, mathematics etc. I have no idea why you would get angry about such a thing. I mean, this theory is not your "religion", it is not beyond questioning. I would rather come up with a 100 theories and have them all proved false, then have a single theory I refuse to submit to rigorous analysis.

Originally posted by King Kandy
IMO, people should live by the standards of falsifiability. If you see someone elses theory, or come up with one of your own, the first things you should ask are "what are the flaws in this theory? What could prove it wrong? How can I improve on these flaws? Do I have a good answer to people's questions about it? Is it a fully developed idea?" If you aren't asking these questions, then that's exactly the kind of arrogant "four elements" logic you were talking about.

damn, way to nail it, I've been trying for at least a page...

I think Grim misses the point of 'discussion' if he thinks a discussion thread should only consist of people posting their own theories and not commenting/critiquing the theories of others.

Originally posted by inimalist
damn, way to nail it, I've been trying for at least a page...

Kandy's been killing it in this thread in general. I decided to bow out of direct replies because it just seemed to be a distraction.

Originally posted by inimalist
In many ways, review by fellow scientists is the most intense form of trolling, because at the end of the day, their goal is EXACTLY to make you look like you don't know what you are talking about. Its only if you can withstand the most intense criticism that you have the stomach for science.




It's true.


And, no, feelings are not checked at the door. Some researchers form "nemeses" that they loathe, entirely, till their death bed...with no hope of reconcilation. There are some famous scientific feuds that started with simple scientific criticism.








About the arguing:

I see exactly where both sides are coming from. Yes, there are much nicer ways to go about disagreeing/proving wrong the OP and some of the other posters's ideas. Sure, you can justify making what looks like "dickish" comments, quite well, by indicating that there is nothing wrong with the content and that's how it works in the real world. But you could also be much nicer about it at the same time.

But, at the end of the day, if you don't want you ideas to be ripped a new one...don't talk about them and keep them to yourself. If you're open to criticism, go post about it on an internet forum.








About the thread: I also believe that "c" is a general idea and not an absolute. The ceiling isn't necessary "c" because we don't know what a true vacuum contains. When we can measure the speed of light in "true oblivion", then we can be sure of "c". In the contruct of our universe (the set of physics by which everything is governed), sure, we can say "c"...but I think some of you may have missed that point from the opening post: we can't be sure that "c" is truly absolute unless we measured light in a truely empty and uninfluenced "vacuum". Zero-point energy, higher and lower energy states of "macro" ...stufff...., other universes. There's so much that could be influencing how stuff just does stuff that the only thing we can be sure of is uncertainty.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It has nothing to do with your theory, or my own viewpoint. I was trying to teach what the "speed of light" concept is supposed to actually represent. Are you interested in learning? I am not trying to start a debate, I was trying to give a concise explanation using actual math. I really see no point in making a thread if you don't have any intention of learning from it.


But see, this is exactly the problem. It is certainly possible that the current concepts of science are wrong. Nobody is denying that, and nobody is saying those ideas MUST be correct. Like I said, that is not how science works, that is dogma.

Obviously simply not accepting a theory is not grounds for declaring someone an idiot. If they have strong reason for disagreeing, with a strong foundation in math and science, then criticism is grounds for learning more. But if the reason you don't accept something is just because it "feels" wrong, then I would say that is not a very intelligent position to hold.

This is the reason why I try and explain to you; not to make you feel like an idiot, but actually trying to examine the reasons you believe what you do. This is how you LEARN things, by challenging your own knowledge.

IMO, people should live by the standards of falsifiability. If you see someone elses theory, or come up with one of your own, the first things you should ask are "what are the flaws in this theory? What could prove it wrong? How can I improve on these flaws? Do I have a good answer to people's questions about it? Is it a fully developed idea?" If you aren't asking these questions, then that's exactly the kind of arrogant "four elements" logic you were talking about.

Now, the good thing is, you acknowledge this theory is simply your viewpoint. To me, this would mean you should be interested in how it stacks up to evidence, mathematics etc. I have no idea why you would get angry about such a thing. I mean, this theory is not your "religion", it is not beyond questioning. I would rather come up with a 100 theories and have them all proved false, then have a single theory I refuse to submit to rigorous analysis.


I will state some problems/questions I have regarding certain scientific theories.
When I am asking the questions I will try to be as logical as possible.

Lets start with the Big Bang.
Scientists say the universe is x number of years old. ~14 billion years. The exact age does not really matter.
So, lets say it is 14 billion years old. What existed 15 billion years ago?
There are 2 possible answers. Nothing or something.

If nothing existed, then this implies that at some point something was created.
How was is created? How does something come from nothing?
Throughout history people have been religious and claimed "creation" of some kind or another.
In my opinion this theory is not science but religious dogma.

So, if something existed 15 billion years ago what was it?
Did everything that exists today, exist in a tiny hot dense state? Every single last scrap of energy?
Energy cannot be created or destroyed etc.
So this must be true.
How long did it remain in this state before the big bang?
One answer some scientists say is that there was a previous universe and the hot dense state was the result of a big crunch, right?
Okay, scientists say that our universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is accelerating.
The fate of our universe will be a kind of cold death and not a big crunch.
So why do they believe the previous universe would undergo a big crunch but our universe will not?
To me it is illogical. What is the difference?

How about the "nothingness" that exists outside our universe.
At the time of the hot dense state early universe, what existed outside?
Nothing they say.
So if there is nothing "outside" our universe, how did the universe expand?
The universe was surrounded by nothingness, not matter, energy or anything whatsoever.
The explanation they come up with is space itself folds in on itself in some bizarre way.
To me this idea is more suited to star trek.

Next is inflation. At some early stage there was a certain period of time where the universe expanded very very fast indeed, all the while folding in on itself.
The rate of this specific expansion happened to enable "faster than light" speeds.
Oh, so it is actually possible for the space itself to expand faster than light during this inflation period, but once all the dust settles the speed limit is imposed.

Why do the scientists believe the big bang? The main piece of evidence they have is the redshift of distant galaxies.
When they looked at certain galaxies they noticed that the light had been redshifted. The galaxies that they believed to be further away had a greater redshift.
I have a big problem with this scientific method and the conclusion they reached.
When they observed the data, all they saw what that the light was redshifted.
There is no actual proof as to WHY the light was redshifted.
Why is it that all the distant galaxies are moving away from us? Are we the centre of the universe again?
Could it not be possible that the reason for the redshift was another reason?
If light loses energy on its journey would it redshift?
If the light encounters interstellar objects along its journey could these cause redshift?
They say the more distant the galaxy, the greater the redshift.
Well the more distant the journey, the more time there is for the light to lose energy and encounter various interstellar objects.
Another curious thing is, the reason they say the light is redshifted is because space itself is expanding but remember, it is not expanding into the nothingness surrounding it, but instead folding in on itself.
What kind of crazy arse universe is this?

Final thing is time travel.
The scientists say that because of general relativity, if you travel at the speed of light, time stands still.
And, as well as that, if you go faster than light, you could travel back in time.
Now, I do not understand why they believe this?
Back in November 1955 all the energy, particles and atoms, throughout the entire universe were positioned in such a way, vibrating in such a way, moving in such a way, they had a certain level of energy etc etc
Now, how could simply going faster than light cause everything in the entire universe to return to this moment in time?
I do not believe that time travel is possible at all.
How does anything in the universe have any effect on time.
I think of time as a human concept, it is just a measuring device.
You can make it part of a mathematical equation of you wish, but then it is no longer time. It has become "space time". Completely different to true time.

those are my questions and problems, had enough now

Originally posted by dadudemon
About the thread: I also believe that "c" is a general idea and not an absolute. The ceiling isn't necessary "c" because we don't know what a true vacuum contains. When we can measure the speed of light in "true oblivion", then we can be sure of "c". In the contruct of our universe (the set of physics by which everything is governed), sure, we can say "c"...but I think some of you may have missed that point from the opening post: we can't be sure that "c" is truly absolute unless we measured light in a truely empty and uninfluenced "vacuum". Zero-point energy, higher and lower energy states of "macro" ...stufff...., other universes. There's so much that could be influencing how stuff just does stuff that the only thing we can be sure of is uncertainty.
Well, this might at least be true that we do not have an exact value for a "true vacuum", but, if we did, that value would simply be a new more accurate value for c. It wouldn't make it relative it would just demonstrate that light slows in a medium, which we knew already.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Lets start with the Big Bang.
Scientists say the universe is x number of years old. ~14 billion years. The exact age does not really matter.
So, lets say it is 14 billion years old. What existed 15 billion years ago?
There are 2 possible answers. Nothing or something.
The problem is that those two answers are not really distinct. They are distinct in the english language but it is difficult to see if it actually reflects underlying reality. For instance, we know that seemingly empty space is actually a sea of virtual particles, and, there is no well established mechanism for there to possibly be "less" than this... so I would argue "nothing" is not even a reality in science.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
So, if something existed 15 billion years ago what was it?
Did everything that exists today, exist in a tiny hot dense state? Every single last scrap of energy?
Energy cannot be created or destroyed etc.
So this must be true.
This is one possible explanation. However, it is not accurate to say the conservation of energy is 100% absolute. It is violated often at the quantum level. In the extremely different conditions of the big bang, these could possibly be quite relevant. Obviously, this is an issue still under research.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
How long did it remain in this state before the big bang?
One answer some scientists say is that there was a previous universe and the hot dense state was the result of a big crunch, right?
Okay, scientists say that our universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is accelerating.
The fate of our universe will be a kind of cold death and not a big crunch.
So why do they believe the previous universe would undergo a big crunch but our universe will not?
To me it is illogical. What is the difference?
No scientist would claim this is a known fact... many people do not even believe there was anything before the big bang. But it is basically at the level of speculation at this point. There are very interesting models for this in Brane cosmology. I don't really understand the principles behind them.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
How about the "nothingness" that exists outside our universe.
At the time of the hot dense state early universe, what existed outside?
Nothing they say.
So if there is nothing "outside" our universe, how did the universe expand?
The universe was surrounded by nothingness, not matter, energy or anything whatsoever.
The explanation they come up with is space itself folds in on itself in some bizarre way.
To me this idea is more suited to star trek.
This is not quite how it works. The expansion is an expansion of space, not an expansion into space. The universe is all space, so if you think there is something outside of it, what would it be? It would not be space? How can you define expansion when there is not even a spacial dimension. That explanation is not that bizarre. I would say your take on it is more bizarre than modern cosmology is. Your idea does not even make sense, if there was space outside the universe, then it would be part of the universe (there's nothing separating them, so why would they be considered anything different?)

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Next is inflation. At some early stage there was a certain period of time where the universe expanded very very fast indeed, all the while folding in on itself.
The rate of this specific expansion happened to enable "faster than light" speeds.
Oh, so it is actually possible for the space itself to expand faster than light during this inflation period, but once all the dust settles the speed limit is imposed.
I have felt like this was an interesting equation myself, i'm not sure of the answer. One suggestion I have heard that makes sense is that the expansion of space between particles was faster then light, in which case, nothing is actually "moving" at those speeds but there is simply a greater distance developing between them. I really can't speak to this though.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Why do the scientists believe the big bang? The main piece of evidence they have is the redshift of distant galaxies.
When they looked at certain galaxies they noticed that the light had been redshifted. The galaxies that they believed to be further away had a greater redshift.
I have a big problem with this scientific method and the conclusion they reached.
When they observed the data, all they saw what that the light was redshifted.
There is no actual proof as to WHY the light was redshifted.
Why is it that all the distant galaxies are moving away from us? Are we the centre of the universe again?
Could it not be possible that the reason for the redshift was another reason?
If light loses energy on its journey would it redshift?
If the light encounters interstellar objects along its journey could these cause redshift?
They say the more distant the galaxy, the greater the redshift.
Well the more distant the journey, the more time there is for the light to lose energy and encounter various interstellar objects.
Another curious thing is, the reason they say the light is redshifted is because space itself is expanding but remember, it is not expanding into the nothingness surrounding it, but instead folding in on itself.
What kind of crazy arse universe is this?
If you understood what red shift actually is from a technical sense, you would see why this is not really a problem. Basically, you are not distinguishing the intensity of light from its wavelength... the kind of "losing energy" you are talking about is a change in intensity i.e. losing photons, it is not the same as red shifting which is the photons themselves existing as a longer wave. They are quite distinct concepts physically. Red shifting is the same thing that happens when a car with sirens drives away from you, the siren will be slower as it goes away. Likewise, light becomes "slower" as its source moves away. It is not really the same thing as what you were talking about.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Final thing is time travel.
The scientists say that because of general relativity, if you travel at the speed of light, time stands still.
And, as well as that, if you go faster than light, you could travel back in time.
Now, I do not understand why they believe this?
Back in November 1955 all the energy, particles and atoms, throughout the entire universe were positioned in such a way, vibrating in such a way, moving in such a way, they had a certain level of energy etc etc
Now, how could simply going faster than light cause everything in the entire universe to return to this moment in time?
I do not believe that time travel is possible at all.
How does anything in the universe have any effect on time.
I think of time as a human concept, it is just a measuring device.
You can make it part of a mathematical equation of you wish, but then it is no longer time. It has become "space time". Completely different to true time.
Actually, most scientists would say "if" you could go faster than light is an irrelevant question, because you can't. Its a completely hypothetical question, like saying "if" 2+2=5. They are just having fun seeing what happens when you put out-of-bound values into the equations. That's why this neutrino result is interesting, and why even the scientists who published it are very skeptical. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and people know that most sensational discoveries are erroneous. So we'll wait and see on that one.

Your position of time is basically backwards. The "space time" is what is true as in, actually reflects the reality of the universe. The sort of view of time in human language, does not really reflect anything real, it is just a model our brain has evolved to make sense of things. Since most of these extreme situations would never impact an ancient animal, we are not really equipped to think about them in a visual, intuitive way. That is why these sort of concepts seem so counter intuitive to people. That's why it pays to have some basic knowledge of mathematics (at least some calculus) going into these discussions.

The universe is really a very, very small pea.

Why does it seem so big when it's such a small pea? Well, that's easy, it's cause we are even very, very, very much smaller. Now, peas, as everyone knows are green, the universe though is black...except for the places where it is not. That makes no sense...don't worry though, it's just a theory. Moving on. Since the universe is a pea, it's either in a pod, being eaten or being digested. Those three being the natural states of a pea. Now, it doesn't seem like we are eaten at the moment, does it? So therefore we are not in the peas state of being eaten. Because that is inarguably true I postulate that we are currently in a pea shooter. How so, you may ask, since there's only the three natural states of a pea I have proven earlier? Well, elementary, my dear reader, obviously being in a pea shooter is a special case of being in a pea pod. Cause it's sort of like in something too. What does that mean now though? I think we are currently in the very last moments before being shot from the pea shooter. This, I assume, will destroy our universe as we know it, oh it will still exist in a different form, but we won't be there anymore. I argue that that is what the Mayan calendar has been predicting, you can even find evidence in the word itself. Mayan....MAYan....May...and what happens in may? You can eat peas in may, I don't know how it could be anymore obvious. So it seems like these are our last months in this pea universe. But don't worry, obviously the pea lifecycle is cyclic (as the name states provam ad nameam) so in a couple years the pea that has is now going to be shot out...our universe...will be growing into its own plant and when it has its seeds, we'll all be here again.

Well, unless we land on concrete or something.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The problem is that those two answers are not really distinct. They are distinct in the english language but it is difficult to see if it actually reflects underlying reality. For instance, we know that seemingly empty space is actually a sea of virtual particles, and, there is no well established mechanism for there to possibly be "less" than this... so I would argue "nothing" is not even a reality in science.


This is one possible explanation. However, it is not accurate to say the conservation of energy is 100% absolute. It is violated often at the quantum level. In the extremely different conditions of the big bang, these could possibly be quite relevant. Obviously, this is an issue still under research.


No scientist would claim this is a known fact... many people do not even believe there was anything before the big bang. But it is basically at the level of speculation at this point. There are very interesting models for this in Brane cosmology. I don't really understand the principles behind them.


This is not quite how it works. The expansion is an expansion of space, not an expansion into space. The universe is all space, so if you think there is something outside of it, what would it be? It would not be space? How can you define expansion when there is not even a spacial dimension. That explanation is not that bizarre. I would say your take on it is more bizarre than modern cosmology is. Your idea does not even make sense, if there was space outside the universe, then it would be part of the universe (there's nothing separating them, so why would they be considered anything different?)


I have felt like this was an interesting equation myself, i'm not sure of the answer. One suggestion I have heard that makes sense is that the expansion of space between particles was faster then light, in which case, nothing is actually "moving" at those speeds but there is simply a greater distance developing between them. I really can't speak to this though.


If you understood what red shift actually is from a technical sense, you would see why this is not really a problem. Basically, you are not distinguishing the intensity of light from its wavelength... the kind of "losing energy" you are talking about is a change in intensity i.e. losing photons, it is not the same as red shifting which is the photons themselves existing as a longer wave. They are quite distinct concepts physically. Red shifting is the same thing that happens when a car with sirens drives away from you, the siren will be slower as it goes away. Likewise, light becomes "slower" as its source moves away. It is not really the same thing as what you were talking about.


Actually, most scientists would say "if" you could go faster than light is an irrelevant question, because you can't. Its a completely hypothetical question, like saying "if" 2+2=5. They are just having fun seeing what happens when you put out-of-bound values into the equations. That's why this neutrino result is interesting, and why even the scientists who published it are very skeptical. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and people know that most sensational discoveries are erroneous. So we'll wait and see on that one.

Your position of time is basically backwards. The "space time" is what is true as in, actually reflects the reality of the universe. The sort of view of time in human language, does not really reflect anything real, it is just a model our brain has evolved to make sense of things. Since most of these extreme situations would never impact an ancient animal, we are not really equipped to think about them in a visual, intuitive way. That is why these sort of concepts seem so counter intuitive to people. That's why it pays to have some basic knowledge of mathematics (at least some calculus) going into these discussions.


There is a very big distinction between nothing and something. Same as there is a very big distinction between infinite and finite.
In my theory, the concept of nothingness does not exist, because the universe is infinte. Infinite size, infinite time, infinite substructure, infinite everything.


I am not sure how important scientists consider the law of conservation of energy, but personally I think it is one of the most important ideas there is.
In my opinion it applies to more than just energy though, it applies to everything.
I am going to use the word energy to mean everything in existence as I cannot think of a suitable word.
There is an infinite amount of energy in the universe. This amount never changes, it is never created nor destroyed.
Scientists often say how strange the quantum world is and how some things do not make sense.
This is not that surprising though is it, because they are observing tiny microscopic phenomena and so are bound to get confused and not know what the hell is happening.
This reminded of something else.
Scientists cannot reconcile quantum theory and general relativity theory.
They say the laws of physics are different at the quantum level.
So, they are trying to find a "theory of everything" so they can join all the dots.
Well what if the reason they cannot reconcile them is because one or both are wrong?


If the universe started out as a very small, very hot, very dense ball containing all the energy of the universe (or most or some, a lot anyway), and beyond this there was nothing, then how could it expand? If there is nothing it cannot expand because the volume of the universe cannot increase because there is nothing for it to increase into.
I have never heard or seen an explanation for this that makes any logical sense.



I think Space and Time are completely separate. Time is constant.
If you constructed billions of huge grandfather clocks made from pure thought, placed them at various locations throughout the universe, then time would pass exactly the same for all of them, no matter what was happening anywhere in the universe. There could be stars going supernova, black holes eating up planets, spaceships going faster than light etc etc. All the grandfather clocks would tick at exactly the same speed for eternity.


I would like to mention something else that really bothers me as well.
The guy who first proposed the Big Bang was Georges Lemaitre, he was a catholic priest.
We know all too well, from history, that religion does not like science very much AT ALL.
I have a very real fear that we have ended up in a world surrounded by dodgy science at it might take decades to get us back on track.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
There is a very big distinction between nothing and something. Same as there is a very big distinction between infinite and finite.
In my theory, the concept of nothingness does not exist, because the universe is infinte. Infinite size, infinite time, infinite substructure, infinite everything.


I am not sure how important scientists consider the law of conservation of energy, but personally I think it is one of the most important ideas there is.
In my opinion it applies to more than just energy though, it applies to everything.
I am going to use the word energy to mean everything in existence as I cannot think of a suitable word.
There is an infinite amount of energy in the universe. This amount never changes, it is never created nor destroyed.
Scientists often say how strange the quantum world is and how some things do not make sense.
This is not that surprising though is it, because they are observing tiny microscopic phenomena and so are bound to get confused and not know what the hell is happening.
This reminded of something else.
Scientists cannot reconcile quantum theory and general relativity theory.
They say the laws of physics are different at the quantum level.
So, they are trying to find a "theory of everything" so they can join all the dots.
Well what if the reason they cannot reconcile them is because one or both are wrong?


If the universe started out as a very small, very hot, very dense ball containing all the energy of the universe (or most or some, a lot anyway), and beyond this there was nothing, then how could it expand? If there is nothing it cannot expand because the volume of the universe cannot increase because there is nothing for it to increase into.
I have never heard or seen an explanation for this that makes any logical sense.



I think Space and Time are completely separate. Time is constant.
If you constructed billions of huge grandfather clocks made from pure thought, placed them at various locations throughout the universe, then time would pass exactly the same for all of them, no matter what was happening anywhere in the universe. There could be stars going supernova, black holes eating up planets, spaceships going faster than light etc etc. All the grandfather clocks would tick at exactly the same speed for eternity.


I would like to mention something else that really bothers me as well.
The guy who first proposed the Big Bang was Georges Lemaitre, he was a catholic priest.
We know all too well, from history, that religion does not like science very much AT ALL.
I have a very real fear that we have ended up in a world surrounded by dodgy science at it might take decades to get us back on track.

Just generally, I'm wondering, what qualifications do you hold and what job do you have?

Where do you read about science usually?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just generally, I'm wondering, what qualifications do you hold and what job do you have?

Where do you read about science usually?

I am wondering why you ask the question.

I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician.

I'm just a simple man trying to make my way in the universe.

Are you of the opinion that only scientists and mathematicians are entitled to take part in a philosophical debate?

I read books, look on'tinternet and watch science documentaries

But mostly I sit and think, sometimes I think stood up as well

Right now I am going to bed and will have a quick wa...think before I fall asleep

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
I am wondering why you ask the question.

I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician.

I'm just a simple man trying to make my way in the universe.

Are you of the opinion that only scientists and mathematicians are entitled to take part in a philosophical debate?

I read books, look on'tinternet and watch science documentaries

But mostly I sit and think, sometimes I think stood up as well

Right now I am going to bed and will have a quick wa...think before I fall asleep



I am asking because I think you misunderstand many of the scientific concepts you are referencing. You seem to have a pop culture understanding of Sciences. I would not deny you participation in scientific discourse, some of the greatest insights can come from those outside of a certain field. But you still have to understand what you are talking about, you need to be able to use the tools to prove your thoughts, and yes, that tends to be Mathematics in the realms of Physics.

You mentioned "philosophical debate", I worry you mean the "claim anything randomly without any evidence and shoddy reasoning" definition that everyone can surely participate in, but that never leads to any meaningful contributions to the understanding of the world.

What I am saying is, I think you don't understand the concepts you are talking about, I think what's happening here is this (unless you are just trolling, in which case, carry merrily on):

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/teaching_physics.png


Also, it's half past twelve, what are you doing going to bed?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, this might at least be true that we do not have an exact value for a "true vacuum", but, if we did, that value would simply be a new more accurate value for c. It wouldn't make it relative it would just demonstrate that light slows in a medium, which we knew already.

Of this, I agree.


But, it's possible that the real speed of light is infinite and our observation of c is c because of the influences of stuff. I have to type "stuff" because there's just too much to cover.

It's also possible that light is too fast...and real "c" is slower. We just don't know because we don't have a truly, uninfluenced, vacuum in which to measure light (would light even work in such a vacuum...would introducing light in such place actually destroy the entire point because it would create all of that other "stuff"?)

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
There is a very big distinction between nothing and something. Same as there is a very big distinction between infinite and finite.
In my theory, the concept of nothingness does not exist, because the universe is infinte. Infinite size, infinite time, infinite substructure, infinite everything.
There is not really a distinction. Its like saying there's a distinction between moving and standing still. Its certainly true in the english language, but we know from relativity that this idea is basically bogus, just depends on your vantage point.

There are lots of words in the english language, that are not really tied to anything real. There has never been a case of "absolute nothing" in the universe, so I don't think its a very useful concept to talk about.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
I am not sure how important scientists consider the law of conservation of energy, but personally I think it is one of the most important ideas there is.
In my opinion it applies to more than just energy though, it applies to everything.
I am going to use the word energy to mean everything in existence as I cannot think of a suitable word.
There is an infinite amount of energy in the universe. This amount never changes, it is never created nor destroyed.
Scientists often say how strange the quantum world is and how some things do not make sense.
This is not that surprising though is it, because they are observing tiny microscopic phenomena and so are bound to get confused and not know what the hell is happening.
This reminded of something else.
Scientists cannot reconcile quantum theory and general relativity theory.
They say the laws of physics are different at the quantum level.
So, they are trying to find a "theory of everything" so they can join all the dots.
Well what if the reason they cannot reconcile them is because one or both are wrong?
This is exactly that "four elements" idea again. How do you think scientists figured out the conservation of energy? It wasn't because someone said "well, it sounds like it makes sense". It was because people took rigorous observations where energy was conserved, and built a theory with a strong mathematical basis. And now we know, those observations are questionable at the quantum level. This isn't something that just came out of a person's head, this was something inspired by actual data.

Relativity or quantum mechanics could have flaws, but again, this would be because we found an actual observation revealing the flaws. Not just because people have trouble visualizing it. I think this video by the great scientist/philosopher (ironically, he hated the title "philosopher" Richard Feynmann, really hits the nail on the head here:

QeBkMzSLA8w

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
If the universe started out as a very small, very hot, very dense ball containing all the energy of the universe (or most or some, a lot anyway), and beyond this there was nothing, then how could it expand? If there is nothing it cannot expand because the volume of the universe cannot increase because there is nothing for it to increase into.
I have never heard or seen an explanation for this that makes any logical sense.
It doesn't make sense to you because you are basing this on false premises. Beyond it there was not "nothing". It does not even make sense to talk about space "beyond" the universe; that space would be part of the universe. It is not expanding into anything, the space itself is expanding.

As an analogy, what if someone came up to you and asked why the eighth color of the rainbow "yefurple" has an imaginary wavelength. Well, there is no yefurple, so that's not even a question that makes any kind of sense. That's how I feel like when you talk about absolute nothingness. As far as we know, there is no such thing so that's not even a well-defined question. So of course, the answer doesn't make much sense either.

The universe is not like liquid expanding inside a flask... the universe is all spacetime so, it is not even possible to define what would be "outside" its boundaries. Anything outside, would not really be outside but just a region of the universe without very much stuff in it.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
think Space and Time are completely separate. Time is constant.
If you constructed billions of huge grandfather clocks made from pure thought, placed them at various locations throughout the universe, then time would pass exactly the same for all of them, no matter what was happening anywhere in the universe. There could be stars going supernova, black holes eating up planets, spaceships going faster than light etc etc. All the grandfather clocks would tick at exactly the same speed for eternity.
Well, I don't know what to say here except you're simply flat wrong. They have actually put clocks on rockets and tested this, and there is a difference in how they run. So this is factually incorrect, we know that grandfather clocks won''t tick at the same speed because we've actually done it, and they don't. This is one of the major pieces of evidence that supports relativity, because it is equal to the change predicted for something moving at that speed relative to the earth.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
I would like to mention something else that really bothers me as well.
The guy who first proposed the Big Bang was Georges Lemaitre, he was a catholic priest.
We know all too well, from history, that religion does not like science very much AT ALL.
I have a very real fear that we have ended up in a world surrounded by dodgy science at it might take decades to get us back on track.
This is stupid. I can't really be gentle here, but it is not sound science to attack a theory just because its creator was religious. Like I said, Lemaitre did not simply come up with this off the top of his head, it was based on real observations about the expansion of the universe. He did not hate science but used a strong background in math and science to formulate this theory. So you are just way off the mark here, you cannot refuse science just because you don't like the guy that created it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
There is not really a distinction. Its like saying there's a distinction between moving and standing still. Its certainly true in the english language, but we know from relativity that this idea is basically bogus, just depends on your vantage point.


There are lots of words in the english language, that are not really tied to anything real. There has never been a case of "absolute nothing" in the universe, so I don't think its a very useful concept to talk about.


This is exactly that "four elements" idea again. How do you think scientists figured out the conservation of energy? It wasn't because someone said "well, it sounds like it makes sense". It was because people took rigorous observations where energy was conserved, and built a theory with a strong mathematical basis. And now we know, those observations are questionable at the quantum level. This isn't something that just came out of a person's head, this was something inspired by actual data.

Relativity or quantum mechanics could have flaws, but again, this would be because we found an actual observation revealing the flaws. Not just because people have trouble visualizing it. I think this video by the great scientist/philosopher (ironically, he hated the title "philosopher" Richard Feynmann, really hits the nail on the head here:

QeBkMzSLA8w


It doesn't make sense to you because you are basing this on false premises. Beyond it there was not "nothing". It does not even make sense to talk about space "beyond" the universe; that space would be part of the universe. It is not expanding into anything, the space itself is expanding.

As an analogy, what if someone came up to you and asked why the eighth color of the rainbow "yefurple" has an imaginary wavelength. Well, there is no yefurple, so that's not even a question that makes any kind of sense. That's how I feel like when you talk about absolute nothingness. As far as we know, there is no such thing so that's not even a well-defined question. So of course, the answer doesn't make much sense either.

The universe is not like liquid expanding inside a flask... the universe is all spacetime so, it is not even possible to define what would be "outside" its boundaries. Anything outside, would not really be outside but just a region of the universe without very much stuff in it.


Well, I don't know what to say here except you're simply flat wrong. They have actually put clocks on rockets and tested this, and there is a difference in how they run. So this is factually incorrect, we know that grandfather clocks won''t tick at the same speed because we've actually done it, and they don't. This is one of the major pieces of evidence that supports relativity, because it is equal to the change predicted for something moving at that speed relative to the earth.


This is stupid. I can't really be gentle here, but it is not sound science to attack a theory just because its creator was religious. Like I said, Lemaitre did not simply come up with this off the top of his head, it was based on real observations about the expansion of the universe. He did not hate science but used a strong background in math and science to formulate this theory. So you are just way off the mark here, you cannot refuse science just because you don't like the guy that created it.


Nothingness or something is not the same as moving or standing still at all.
If you believe in a FINITE universe, you must also believe in nothingness.
If nothingness does not exist then then the universe cannot be finite, it has to be infinite.

"Space itself is expanding". Please define space in your own personal words.
What is it made of? Don't just say scientists have done this or that and so they know it is expanding? I want you to explain and define your concept of space itself.


I said grandfather clocks made of pure thought. The reason I said this is because I do not see time as so timething tangible. If you make a clock from any type of substance, then you are not measuring TRUE time, you are only measuring the human perception of time.
Human beings themselves cannot measure true time, because they only have a limited view of the universe.

I repeat what I said before, if you positioned billions of imaginary grandfather clocks composed of thought throughout the universe. The progression of time would be the same for every single one of them, no matter what happened in the universe.

Time travel is impossible. It is only possible inside a mathematical equation of "spacetime". This is just a human concept, so ACTUAL time travel throughout REAL time is not possible.

I just view the universe completely different to you.
It would be easy for me to just agree with all what scientists claim, but I like to question everything. If I do not get a satisfactory explanation I have doubts.
Correct if I am wrong but if an idea is called a theory, then it is not 100% proven right? Otherwise would it not be a law?
It is like a work in progress that most people believe is very likely to be true, but there is doubt.

Could it be possible that in 500 years from now the world of science is gove rned by a set of completely different laws than that of today?
The scientists of that era might well look back on our era in much the same way that we look back to the dark ages.

I've always interpreted Cee as a "girder" (along with the other "constants" upon which the functioning of the universe rests. It isn't some value that can be changed without repercussions elsewhere: Cee establishes a relationship between matter, energy, space and time, illustrating how the universe is an integrated whole with interdependent parts.

about that video you posted

it is indeed ironic that he hates philosophy, because that is exactly what he is doing
he is just sat there thinking like you and me are right now

i am one of those people he mentioned, who thinks the atom "lives likes us"

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am asking because I think you misunderstand many of the scientific concepts you are referencing. You seem to have a pop culture understanding of Sciences. I would not deny you participation in scientific discourse, some of the greatest insights can come from those outside of a certain field. But you still have to understand what you are talking about, you need to be able to use the tools to prove your thoughts, and yes, that tends to be Mathematics in the realms of Physics.

You mentioned "philosophical debate", I worry you mean the "claim anything randomly without any evidence and shoddy reasoning" definition that everyone can surely participate in, but that never leads to any meaningful contributions to the understanding of the world.

What I am saying is, I think you don't understand the concepts you are talking about, I think what's happening here is this (unless you are just trolling, in which case, carry merrily on):

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/teaching_physics.png


Also, it's half past twelve, what are you doing going to bed?


The difference between me and you is this

I think for myself.

You simply take the thoughts and ideas of others and pass them off as your own.

Posting some comic proves my point

I have interest in further discussion with you.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Nothingness or something is not the same as moving or standing still at all.
If you believe in a FINITE universe, you must also believe in nothingness.
If nothingness does not exist then then the universe cannot be finite, it has to be infinite.
No, not really. I believe in a Finite universe, I don't believe in nothingness. That's just a false dichotomy.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
"Space itself is expanding". Please define space in your own personal words.
What is it made of? Don't just say scientists have done this or that and so they know it is expanding? I want you to explain and define your concept of space itself.
It would be defined by equations like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/3/f/5/3f50fd206f2fe543a6a8a3e687cf74c3.png

If you want me to explain it in english, it will just make you more confused. Because the universe is not based on english, its based on physics. Again, that Richard Feynmann video I posted is very relevant here.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
I said grandfather clocks made of pure thought. The reason I said this is because I do not see time as so timething tangible. If you make a clock from any type of substance, then you are not measuring TRUE time, you are only measuring the human perception of time.
Human beings themselves cannot measure true time, because they only have a limited view of the universe.

I repeat what I said before, if you positioned billions of imaginary grandfather clocks composed of thought throughout the universe. The progression of time would be the same for every single one of them, no matter what happened in the universe.
But that's EXACTLY the problem here. Your idea that progression would be the same is the human concept. That's how humans have traditionally defined time. It is not born out at all when you take mathematical analysis, and do experiments. So you are totally wrong by declaring "time" the common definition is the "true time". Humans do not think of relative time because it is not very important on a human level. When you calculate things on a huge scale, this concept is essential.

Something very important in science that you are missing is the concept of "predictive power". Things like relativity are held to high ground, because they have the ability to predict things like the clock difference. Your ethereal clocks have no predictive power, they are not falsifiable because no such thing could ever actually exist. So it is a bogus explanation. And in any case, you're still wrong; time will change even on a purely theoretical level, as is explained in the theory and equations here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

This is why it is kind of irritating you do not know much math. If you could interpret this better, it would be manifestly obvious why it is true. If you are interested in cosmological speculation, I would advise you take some math and physics classes at your local college. You will gain fascinating insight that you can't get just by watching a documentary and it has the simple benefit of helping you to train your brain to think in a more logical manner. I would highly recommend spending some time on that because it is really cool stuff when you actually understand it, even if you don't use it much for your career. Any explanation I give is not going to make sense to you because you need a solid foundation in mathematics to understand the real explanation, my english words are a poor approximation.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Time travel is impossible. It is only possible inside a mathematical equation of "spacetime". This is just a human concept, so ACTUAL time travel throughout REAL time is not possible.
But this is rather backwards. "absolute time" is just a human concept preserved in language. It is not actually born out if you try and test it. I mean, again, your idea is the old aristotilian model, its not like you discovered something new; this is the same idea that makes general relativity useful, precisely because it shows the mistakes this view causes. There are some paradoxes I could show that would demonstrate some obviously false things that would have to be true for time to be absolute, but, I don't think they would be very useful for you.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
I just view the universe completely different to you.
It would be easy for me to just agree with all what scientists claim, but I like to question everything. If I do not get a satisfactory explanation I have doubts.
Correct if I am wrong but if an idea is called a theory, then it is not 100% proven right? Otherwise would it not be a law?
It is like a work in progress that most people believe is very likely to be true, but there is doubt.
No, that's not what the word theory means when used in the scientific literature. theory in science has a specific meaning distinct from common use, basically "a framework that correctly explains and predicts a wide variety of observations". It has nothing to do with whether it is proven or not. For instance, the law of gravity is part of the greater Newtonian theory of gravitation. A law is not a proven theory, actually a theory represents something greater in scope than a single law which is just a mathematical relationship.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Could it be possible that in 500 years from now the world of science is gove rned by a set of completely different laws than that of today?
The scientists of that era might well look back on our era in much the same way that we look back to the dark ages.
But the thing is, they would figure this out by actually testing it and proving it wrong. Not just because they felt in their gut it was wrong, and decided to change their mind. The reason why we consider the dark ages barbaric was because rigorous testing has falsified beliefs like spontaneous generation that were prevalent then. The whole problem with the dark ages, was that people with limited understanding made judgments by what "seemed" true, not what rigorous analysis showed. This is exactly like aristotle's four elements you mentioned, he theorized them just because from a pure logic perspective, it made sense to him; actual tests show the idea is nonsense.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
about that video you posted

it is indeed ironic that he hates philosophy, because that is exactly what he is doing
he is just sat there thinking like you and me are right now

i am one of those people he mentioned, who thinks the atom "lives likes us"


The reason he didn't like philosophers was because his ideas are actually grounded in real rigorous observations. Not just coming up with things out of his own head. So its quite a bit different from you and me who actually have almost no understanding. I cannot solve a Schrodinger equation, and you probably don't even know what one is. So he is rather more qualified to be talking about this kind of stuff then either of us are.

How do you explain phenomena like wave particle duality, electron density, molecular resonance etc. These things make no sense if you think the atom is just a collection of moving solid particles? These are not something I invented, these are things that are tested and are essential to basic knowledge of chemistry, electronics etc. I mean, if you tried designing a nanotransistor on your theory, you would fail badly. These things just don't pan out when you actually try and make a prediction with them. quantum mechanics does, for almost all observations. So I don't see how they are equal at all. There is a difference between speculation that cannot be tested or disproven (like your ethereal clocks), and stuff that actually is tested and required for practical technology like relativity and QM.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
The difference between me and you is this

I think for myself.

You simply take the thoughts and ideas of others and pass them off as your own.

Posting some comic proves my point

I have interest in further discussion with you.

Hey, I postulated the pea universe theory.

The problem with random thinking is that it very, very seldomly leads to positive results. Without actual knowledge and understanding of concepts you can just skim anything on the surface. Your conclusions and theories are based on vague or simplified retellings of concepts, intended not to base further research on, but to give an initial overview that should lead to study and true understanding.

And the real issue is that, when people with far superior knowledge than yours point out your inaccuracies and misunderstanding you call them trolls and tell them to shut up, rather than be open minded and actually productively learning something about the things you talk about.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, not really. I believe in a Finite universe, I don't believe in nothingness. That's just a false dichotomy.


It would be defined by equations like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/3/f/5/3f50fd206f2fe543a6a8a3e687cf74c3.png

If you want me to explain it in english, it will just make you more confused. Because the universe is not based on english, its based on physics. Again, that Richard Feynmann video I posted is very relevant here.


But that's EXACTLY the problem here. Your idea that progression would be the same is the human concept. That's how humans have traditionally defined time. It is not born out at all when you take mathematical analysis, and do experiments. So you are totally wrong by declaring "time" the common definition is the "true time". Humans do not think of relative time because it is not very important on a human level. When you calculate things on a huge scale, this concept is essential.

Something very important in science that you are missing is the concept of "predictive power". Things like relativity are held to high ground, because they have the ability to predict things like the clock difference. Your ethereal clocks have no predictive power, they are not falsifiable because no such thing could ever actually exist. So it is a bogus explanation. And in any case, you're still wrong; time will change even on a purely theoretical level, as is explained in the theory and equations here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

This is why it is kind of irritating you do not know much math. If you could interpret this better, it would be manifestly obvious why it is true. If you are interested in cosmological speculation, I would advise you take some math and physics classes at your local college. You will gain fascinating insight that you can't get just by watching a documentary and it has the simple benefit of helping you to train your brain to think in a more logical manner. I would highly recommend spending some time on that because it is really cool stuff when you actually understand it, even if you don't use it much for your career. Any explanation I give is not going to make sense to you because you need a solid foundation in mathematics to understand the real explanation, my english words are a poor approximation.


But this is rather backwards. "absolute time" is just a human concept preserved in language. It is not actually born out if you try and test it. I mean, again, your idea is the old aristotilian model, its not like you discovered something new; this is the same idea that makes general relativity useful, precisely because it shows the mistakes this view causes. There are some paradoxes I could show that would demonstrate some obviously false things that would have to be true for time to be absolute, but, I don't think they would be very useful for you.


No, that's not what the word theory means when used in the scientific literature. theory in science has a specific meaning distinct from common use, basically "a framework that correctly explains and predicts a wide variety of observations". It has nothing to do with whether it is proven or not. For instance, the law of gravity is part of the greater Newtonian theory of gravitation. A law is not a proven theory, actually a theory represents something greater in scope than a single law which is just a mathematical relationship.


But the thing is, they would figure this out by actually testing it and proving it wrong. Not just because they felt in their gut it was wrong, and decided to change their mind. The reason why we consider the dark ages barbaric was because rigorous testing has falsified beliefs like spontaneous generation that were prevalent then. The whole problem with the dark ages, was that people with limited understanding made judgments by what "seemed" true, not what rigorous analysis showed. This is exactly like aristotle's four elements you mentioned, he theorized them just because from a pure logic perspective, it made sense to him; actual tests show the idea is nonsense.

First I want to say this

what is the point in posting that equation, without explaining what each symbol refers to
chances are I might not understand it even if I knew what each symbol stood for, but what chance have I got when I don't even know what the symbols are

i think we are never going to agree on anything, every post I make you disagree with.

maybe if I had studied mathematics to a sufficient level I would view the universe through your eyes, through equations

but I am actually glad I do not see the universe purely based on mathematical equations

sometimes people can get "lost" inside their equations and they stop looking at the universe around them
if they want to understand something, they head straight for the equations

there needs to be a balance, because if one of those equations turns out to be incorrect, then all the equations related to it are also incorrect and your universe is turned upside down

so using our two different interpretations of time as an example

you are saying that my concept of true time is my own human concept and your view of time is the truth because it is based on the mathematical universe

i am saying true time is beyond the world of mathematics

if your equations of space and time are proven to be wrong at a future point in history, your definition of time would cease to exist

but TRUE TIME will never cease to exist because it exists outside the laws of physics and mathematics

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
First I want to say this

what is the point in posting that equation, without explaining what each symbol refers to
chances are I might not understand it even if I knew what each symbol stood for, but what chance have I got when I don't even know what the symbols are

i think we are never going to agree on anything, every post I make you disagree with.

maybe if I had studied mathematics to a sufficient level I would view the universe through your eyes, through equations

but I am actually glad I do not see the universe purely based on mathematical equations

sometimes people can get "lost" inside their equations and they stop looking at the universe around them
if they want to understand something, they head straight for the equations

there needs to be a balance, because if one of those equations turns out to be incorrect, then all the equations related to it are also incorrect and your universe is turned upside down

so using our two different interpretations of time as an example

you are saying that my concept of true time is my own human concept and your view of time is the truth because it is based on the mathematical universe

i am saying true time is beyond the world of mathematics

if your equations of space and time are proven to be wrong at a future point in history, your definition of time would cease to exist

but TRUE TIME will never cease to exist because it exists outside the laws of physics and mathematics
You can find what the symbols mean here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

Those various tensors etc, basically describe the geometry of space.

You are saying it, but you have absolutely no basis for doing so. How is your concept of true time falsifiable? If it is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific idea because it is not a logical idea.

You are wrong when you say people would be too caught up in the math, as well. The people who make those documentaries you watch know the math. And you find them fascinating. How often do you talk to scientists, for you to think they are all boring and know nothing? It is just your stereotype. Also, it is not "purely" through equations. The best scientists LIKE Feynmann, use unique intuitive and visual thinking to help create their ideas, the difference is that their visual thinking is complemented by a deep foundation of analytic thinking. They are not mutually exclusive, actually, they are like two peas in a pod. If you have math but no intuitive understanding, you would work really hard and not get far because this kind of math is insanely hard. But if you have intuitive understanding with no critical analysis, you're basically just guessing. They are not opposed, they complement well.

For instance, before Feynmann's own unique path integral ideas came to prominence, there were other scientists who had published mathematically equivilant models. But Feynmann's has a visual basis, the "Feynmann diagrams" that are useful on countless applications of science today. and today, his is considered far more ingenious than the formulations that worked on nothing but complex symbolic manipulation. But its not like he just took his opinion and put it down, it was still based on rigorous analysis.

Also, you're rather wrong about equations "tumbling"; if one equation was disproven, the rest would not collapse. We know this because when you predict something using the theory, the theory consistently turns out to be right. What you're basically saying is your own idea, could not be disproven. Well, I say to that, that what cannot be false also cannot be true. Its no different from a christian who says god exists, but provides no way for science to prove him wrong. That is religious dogmatic thinking. So ironically for you to be criticizing the dark ages you are thinking in the exact same way, i.e. not falsifiably and just untestable hypotheses that have no way to be proven.

I would like to ask you, what sort of information would you want to be presented, in order to feel your theory has been proved wrong?

If you can't answer this question, you are not operating on a scientific basis; this is the first principle of all science.

Originally posted by King Kandy
peas in a pod

Further evidence.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
I think for myself.

/thread

I am going to explain WHY I believe in my theory of the universe.

Years ago when they discovered the atom, they believed it to be indivisible, so they named him atom.
Eventually they split the atom and discovered it was not actually indivisible, but instead made of many sub atomic particles.
Recently there have been further advances and they know about things like gluons, gauge bosons, anti matter, dark matter, dark energy, dark city, quarks, odos, siskos....a very long list of STUFF.
This is all very interesting, but what I am most interested in is this question.

Does there come a point where we reach a particle that is truly indivisible. Is there an end of the line?
Or is there an infinite substructure?
Finite or infinite, that is the most interesting question on my opinion.

The reason this is so important is because of this.

If there IS indeed an infinite substructure into the realm of the microcosmic then logically there must be an infinite superstructure of the macrocosm too.

how would you test that?

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
If there IS indeed an infinite substructure into the realm of the microcosmic then logically there must be an infinite superstructure of the macrocosm too.

That's a complete non sequitur.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's a complete non sequitur.

I wonder if you would have the same opinion if you observed the universe around you from the perspective of an atom?

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Does there come a point where we reach a particle that is truly indivisible. Is there an end of the line? You might find this interesting...

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module6_Planck.htm
(if you watch "The Big Bang Theory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
(if you just like words that end in "-pedia"

Hey, does anybody here understand the principles of Steven Pinker's (The MIT Physicist) "Vacuum Fluctuation" theory? I think I had a fair grip on the premise, but feel I need help understanding what he meant.

I have been told that it was a pretty fair shot at explaining how something CAN come out of nothing. If you know about it, I'd like to hear your views on this theory of his.

I could go to Wikipedia for this I suppose, but I want to get a more analogical understanding of it.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
I wonder if you would have the same opinion if you observed the universe around you from the perspective of an atom?


doesn't your microcausm/macrocausm theory actually suggest that the perspective would be the same since it is all just the same thing over and over again ad infinitum?

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
I am going to explain WHY I believe in my theory of the universe.

Years ago when they discovered the atom, they believed it to be indivisible, so they named him atom.
Eventually they split the atom and discovered it was not actually indivisible, but instead made of many sub atomic particles.
Recently there have been further advances and they know about things like gluons, gauge bosons, anti matter, dark matter, dark energy, dark city, quarks, odos, siskos....a very long list of STUFF.
This is all very interesting, but what I am most interested in is this question.

Does there come a point where we reach a particle that is truly indivisible. Is there an end of the line?
Or is there an infinite substructure?
Finite or infinite, that is the most interesting question on my opinion.

The reason this is so important is because of this.

If there IS indeed an infinite substructure into the realm of the microcosmic then logically there must be an infinite superstructure of the macrocosm too.
Your history is mixed up a bit. First of all, atom was not named by the person who "discovered" them... it was an ancient greek term for the hypothesis that matter is made of fundamental particles. It was not something discovered but just an idea. When chemists learned to interpret chemical data in terms of elements, they called these atoms, for it reminded them of the ancient greek concept. I don't think those early chemists would have said they were 100% sure atoms were indivisible, in fact, many people anticipated that the different elements were made of the same, even more fundamental substance. The discovery of electrons gave this experimental weight.

It is a very interesting question whether quarks have smaller constituents. So far, I would say nothing suggests so, but, it would certainly be interesting. Although, even if you did find their constituents, it would not prove the substructure was "infinite"; just that it went one layer deeper than we thought.

Originally posted by darkriddle
Hey, does anybody here understand the principles of Steven Pinker's (The MIT Physicist) "Vacuum Fluctuation" theory? I think I had a fair grip on the premise, but feel I need help understanding what he meant.

I have been told that it was a pretty fair shot at explaining how something CAN come out of nothing. If you know about it, I'd like to hear your views on this theory of his.

I could go to Wikipedia for this I suppose, but I want to get a more analogical understanding of it.
I can't claim to know the real math behind it, but, this theory certainly represents the soundest explanation for the universe's creation that I know of. When I said earlier in the thread that conservation of energy can be violated, I was referring to these very same fluctuations.

I'm anxious to view Brian Greene's new documentary special coming up on PBS. He always had some reversion to Pinker's theories. So it will definitely be interesting. Maybe after we've watched that show, we can open a thread about Greene's newest observations.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Your history is mixed up a bit. First of all, atom was not named by the person who "discovered" them... it was an ancient greek term for the hypothesis that matter is made of fundamental particles. It was not something discovered but just an idea. When chemists learned to interpret chemical data in terms of elements, they called these atoms, for it reminded them of the ancient greek concept. I don't think those early chemists would have said they were 100% sure atoms were indivisible, in fact, many people anticipated that the different elements were made of the same, even more fundamental substance. The discovery of electrons gave this experimental weight.

It is a very interesting question whether quarks have smaller constituents. So far, I would say nothing suggests so, but, it would certainly be interesting. Although, even if you did find their constituents, it would not prove the substructure was "infinite"; just that it went one layer deeper than we thought.


I can't claim to know the real math behind it, but, this theory certainly represents the soundest explanation for the universe's creation that I know of. When I said earlier in the thread that conservation of energy can be violated, I was referring to these very same fluctuations.


I did not ask if quarks have a substructure.

My question is this - is substructure finite or infinite?

This is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical question.

I want you to put down your calculator and just sit and think about it, then give me your opinion.

Do you agree that IF microcosmic substructure is infinite, then macrocosmic superstructure is also infinite.

Well, I suppose. The documentary would just discuss things that have already been brought up in the scientific community, likewise, the technical aspects have to be very simplified for a documentary. I will see if I can catch it though.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Your history is mixed up a bit. First of all, atom was not named by the person who "discovered" them... it was an ancient greek term for the hypothesis that matter is made of fundamental particles. It was not something discovered but just an idea. When chemists learned to interpret chemical data in terms of elements, they called these atoms, for it reminded them of the ancient greek concept.
Should have called them monads. uhuh

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
I wonder if you would have the same opinion if you observed the universe around you from the perspective of an atom?


It's not about my perspective. It's about you not having proven that something that's infinitely going in one direction doesn't have to be going infinitely in the other.

I think of what you are calling "substructures" must be finite somewhere, it is what it looks to be if you look on the modern views, or the theories today. We still won't know what would happen next, even with a limit for them.

Einstein and many others died pissed off because they too couldn't figure out EVERYTHING...and Einstein was a Jew.. go figure..lol

On one way in my views, that was something I need to tell, not only from infinity, but all nature of our universe, or what is going on here, is that some dimensions of our universe are infinite in some sense when we look at a singularity, now from there, going outside of it, I believe you it will be like if you are if you added another new dimension, in steps, leading you to two, this might happen close to the event horizon, or at least, "closer" to it, because at the first dimension... I see like if it was in its center, after that, you will pass to three, and so on in this way.


The important part will go on when you see those different number of dimensions adding up, like as spaces of probability, giving you varied types of statistics, it seems like the most simple way to have a vizualization of different dimensions. The probability should be another if you have 3 dimensions where you have to look at to find a point, or less than it, like 2. The central idea in that last sentence, if you observe closer, is the concept of density. If you wish it is like a density, but of probability, less dense with each new dimension, if not lesser, it is then different in some sense, but will be less dense. I'm noticing to prefer seeing other dimensions, as like opening space that could make your numbers for density smaller, more of them you have, instead of, a common thinking sometimes saturating your mind, mixing with dimensions, notions of orthogonality, it better fits as a ruler to compare directions perceived by us like 'north', even 'up', or 'west', but for someone, taking a leap towards these dimensions, if it work, I'll be imagining this will be taking you to one different, through with a change in density, more than put some subject testing it heading an orthogonal direction. That is fine! More than it is hard to put my attention on without distraction. If it is, about density then. What you think?