Universe theory discussion

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.

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?