Universe theory discussion

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):

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

💃

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:

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

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?

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.

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'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.