Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 86 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Comment by Danilo J Bonsignore
==.
Every new dimension is GENIUS.
What if you see each new dimension as orthogonal to all
other added Dimensions? What are we talking about?
[I do not want to clutter myself in this site so
I do not append to your thread]
/ Danilo J Bonsignore /
===.

.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: socratus
Well, how does one hope to create a true picture
of a tree from a shadow? Adding these supposed
hidden dimensions is an exercise in guessing.


So, if our Universe is the shadow, what chance do we have of creating a true picture of reality?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
SCIENTISTS PREDICT BREAK THROUGH ON STRING THEORY, DARK MATTER AND THE GOD PARTICLE OR SABOTAGE FROM THE FUTURE !
May 12, 2010, 9:59 am
Filed under: Science
http://godssecret.wordpress.com/2010/05/...rom-the-future/

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
Quote:


So, if our Universe is the shadow, what chance do we have of creating a true picture of reality?



Perhaps we can if we continually struggle to re-work our ideas. We are on a journey of discovery that may end in defeat or further development of the human species. I think myself it is evolution in action and the need to evolve in order to progress.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: abacus
Perhaps we can if we continually struggle to re-work our ideas.


I have just remarked in another thread that I have been writing down my thought for some time in order to try to avoid going round in circles. Your comment caused me to search out something I wrote with regard to the laws of physics, and their possible involvement in the genesis of the Universe, and therefore of reality as we perceive it. The use of "we", where "I" might seem more appropriate comes about because I tend to write my notes as though I were trying to explain a point to someone else.

"When we talk of the laws of physics, or any of the laws of nature for that matter, do we imply that these laws are a sort of “blue print” which nature has to follow in order to create our Universe as it was meant to be; or do we mean that scientists have studied the Universe and concluded that the way it is, and the way it behaves, can be specified within certain self-consistent parameters, and that they have then regarded the observed patterns as laws? If we accept the first interpretation, we are coming very close to the intelligent design argument that, ipso facto, implies an intelligent designer. If, on the other hand, the latter interpretation is taken as being correct, then the laws did not precede the Universe, they are simply codifications of the observed nature of the Universe, and therefore, not a physical part of it, they are dependent upon the Universe for their existence and cannot have preceded it in any way. Do we seem to be going round in circles? Perhaps we do, but the perturbing thought is that, if we are, it could just be that we are following the trends of modern cosmology."


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Interesting, Bill. Let's look at that.

This:

"these laws are a sort of “blue print” which nature has to follow in order to create our Universe as it was meant to be."

- is a matter of belief.

This:

"scientists have studied the Universe and concluded that the way it is, and the way it behaves, can be specified within certain self-consistent parameters, and that they have then regarded the observed patterns as laws?"

- is a matter of fact.

"Do we seem to be going round in circles?"

- As long as we're discussing belief we can place the signposts any which way and so are likely to go round in circles.

I imagine the great majority of the world's billions are happy to state categorically that these so-called 'laws' had a law-maker, i.e. God. Maybe they're right. Or perhaps this whole shebang is a little toy put together by god-like entities for the amusement of their children. Isanagi and Isanami? Take your pick, there are an infinite (oh, that word again) number of options.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: socratus
Well, how does one hope to create a true picture of a tree from a shadow? Adding these supposed hidden dimensions is an exercise in guessing.


Interestingly, the idea that what we observe might be a shadow of a higher dimensional reality provides an instructive way of looking at the physical shortening of material objects with increasing speed. We are told that measuring rods, and all other objects are, in the frame of reference of an outside observer, shortened in the direction of motion, and that this shortening becomes significant as the speed of travel approaches “c”. If we assume that these measuring rods are on a spacecraft, the occupants of the craft would not observe the shortening; only observers in a F of R that was stationary relative to the craft would see it.

A fairly straightforward way to visualise how this apparently contradictory situation can arise is to try a simple experiment. Shine a light on a plain wall. Hold a twelve inch ruler (any length will do, but we will stick to twelve inches for this example) between the light source and the wall in such a way that the wall and ruler are parallel. The shadow of the ruler, which is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object, is the same length as the ruler. Now, if you alter the angle of the ruler with respect to the wall, the ruler remains twelve inches long, but the shadow becomes shorter as you rotate the ruler. As the person holding the ruler, you will always be able to measure it as being twelve inches long. This puts you in the place of the on-board observer. Someone who could see only the shadow would measure it as being shorter, and her measurement would be accurate too, she would be in the position of the outside observer.

If you were a flatlander, the shadow would be all that you would ever be able to see, the shortening would be a reality in your frame of reference. All that your world would contain would be a line that was, somehow, able to vary its length. Only by reference to a higher dimensional world, one which was out of your reach, would you be able to find an explanation for the behaviour of this line.

This must, surely, point towards the possibility that relativistic effects could be explained with reference to higher dimensions.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: redewenur
This:

"scientists have studied the Universe and concluded that the way it is, and the way it behaves, can be specified within certain self-consistent parameters, and that they have then regarded the observed patterns as laws?"

- is a matter of fact.


This does seem to remove the laws of physics from any causative role in the genesis of the Universe, or reality as we know it.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
This does seem to remove the laws of physics from any causative role in the genesis of the Universe, or reality as we know it.

Yes, we are informed that the laws of physics as we know them could not have existed in the first instants of the Big Bang, when even gravity was absent. Why did these particular laws arise and not others? why do the physical constants have the values that they have? - anyone's guess. But their effect was to produce a universe filled with hydrogen and helium, and to gradually transform it into stars, space probes, computers and conscious stuff like us. One might well ask what stupendous power and intelligence set up the balance of these conditions with such awesome precision; but that's a question beyond the scope of science, which is confined to the study only of things subject to those conditions.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: redewenur
One might well ask what stupendous power and intelligence set up the balance of these conditions with such awesome precision;


True. One might also toy with the idea that our Universe is just one in a long procession of evolving universes, and that "stars, space probes, computers and conscious stuff like us" did not arrive until conditions were just right.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Yes. Whichever way one looks at it, as a scientist or a theologian, it's a wonder that defies superlatives.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
One might also toy with the idea that our Universe is just one in a long procession of evolving universes, and that "stars, space probes, computers and conscious stuff like us" did not arrive until conditions were just right.

One might, yes - in which scenario one can see that there were a potential set of conditions waiting to be realized; and we might, in that case, ask why it should have been so. Whichever way one looks at it, as a scientist or a theologian, it's a wonder that defies superlatives.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: redenewur
in which scenario one can see that there were a potential set of conditions waiting to be realized;


The idea that anything might be "waiting" to be realized does tend to constrain reality to our limited dimensions.

If I recall correctly it was Paul Davies who made a very convincing argument along the lines that the bouncing universe idea would work only if absolutely nothing passed from one universe to the next. It is a long time since I read Davies’s book (I could find the ref if anyone is interested), but I remember it because he observed that one might just as well say that a succession of universes existed in parallel as in sequence. This struck me as being odd at first, but in trying to think my way through it I came up with some interesting thoughts, some of which had implications for our understanding of reality. I would be fascinated to hear what others think.

Time and space are, we are told, created anew with each universe. Time has no relevance outside the duration of each universe. Unless there is some form of continuity, which Davies argued that we had to abandon in order to avoid heat death, it makes no sense to talk of one universe following immediately after the other, or of there being a time gap, even the most unthinkably minute instant of time, between the universes, because there is no time between them, not just because one follows the other without a break, but because time cannot exist outside the Universe. It is easy to think that one major difference would be that if the universes existed in sequence there would have to be only one lot of matter and energy, whereas if they all existed at the same time there would have to be very much more matter and energy, perhaps an infinite amount. Undoubtedly, this is so, to some extent, but as we have already seen, if there is absolutely no contact between the universes, there is no way in which the contents of one can be said, necessarily, to be the same as the contents of another, so any discussion about what there would need to be in the way of matter and energy, if we think of many universes existing in parallel would be pure speculation. Furthermore, as time is one of the constituents of each universe, we cannot say if the time in one universe is the same as the time in another, nor can we say with any certainty that it is different. It seems, therefore, that we must regard each universe as existing in a timeless state that has much about it that suggests eternity, and, logically, it makes no sense to talk of things happening in any sort of sequence in eternity, everything must be considered as happening “now”. In the same way that we might reason that light, in a vacuum, travels in such a way that all of its travel is through space, and none through time, so that it is, effectively, everywhere at once, so we must reason that, in eternity everything happens at once. Time and space are simply the consequence of our limited view of reality.


There never was nothing.
M
Marek
Unregistered
Marek
Unregistered
M
Taken from Sequel 3
http://www.visutech.net/peace365/index.asp?pageID=86

The Truth about Reality


When you see the world with His eyes

then you know God.



The Big Bang Theory commonly explained.


When I was still a teenager, in my fourteens, my father called me to his watch-making workshop, sat me down on the top of his lap swinging to the left and to the right along with the tick-tack’s sound of the grandfather clock’s pendulum coming from the furthest corner of the room, he said:

“Close your eyes my son and imagine, just imagine”,

“Imagine what?” I said,

“Imagine the world. Imagine the whole universe” he said calmly

“That would be difficult” I replied,

But when he pushed me out off of this earthly environment view into Space, helping me to create and build another view about surrounding me cosmos by adding into the imagined picture every part of the existing visible and invisible world; all existing planets, suns, moons, comets, stars, pulsars, quasars, galaxies and all possible imaginable objects of the all existing space between here and there, moving me away from the Solar system, further and further away, passing by all those visible objects and other, he ended me up somewhere where I have just passed the last, or I’d rather say the first star dust, somewhere a few …illiard light years away from our planet Earth, somewhere where I ended up in a deep-deep dark matter drifting away further and further somewhere where I could not see anything, somewhere where I could not hear anything, somewhere where I did not feel anything or any motion. There was a silence, just motionless silence, nothing else but darkness and silence. Inertia. Total inertia.

He kept me within this motionless stage for some time when with the same calm voice he asked the first question:

‘Imagine it? Are you?’

‘Yes’, I nodded,

‘…’

‘…’

‘Now my son’ he simply said, ‘Draw a straight line right across this image of yours, divide it into two pieces, into two halves. Not equal ones! There is nothing like equal halves existing in the entire universe. There is no single particle equal with another… not to mention about a half of the universe. Put one of the cut halves aside and the other half divide in the same manner into two (halves). Continue. Continue cutting remaining halves until it become so small that you have to use a magnifying glass to continue. Continue. Then when it becomes so small again that you have to use a microscope to continue, continue. Continue cutting until you have to use the most powerful electronic microscope on earth to continue. Continue. Continue until you have to only use the most powerful imaginary microscope to continue. Continue’, he said.

Then he asked:

‘When or will you ever be able to cut “the last half”? If anything like that “the last half” exist? There will be always a remaining half ready to be cut and divided into two indefinitely’, he added.

‘For some time the world of science is discovering what metaphysical and spiritual teachers have known for centuries. The physical world is not really composed of any matter at all; the basic component of it is a force or essence, which is called energy. Things appear to be solid and separate from each other where our physical senses normally perceive them. While on the atomic and subatomic level, a solid matter is a cluster of small particles. Particles within particle called sub-particles. Bosons, which are assumed to be massless. They were detected by high-energy experiments at the CERN laboratories in 1983. Weinberg, Salam, and Glashow shared the 1979 Nobel Prize for physics for their model, protons, and eventually photons which turn out to be just pure energy’, they said.

The speed of light may be the only constant in the universe. Everything else changes! Mr. Einstein observed that matter could be converted into energy just as energy was converted into matter (and anti-matter) when the universe was created. If everything changes, so the speed of light, too, is changeable.

As it was in 1989 scientists proposed this theory that there is no single sub-particle equal with another sub-particle in the entire universe, ‘Let’s apply this theory to an equation. Let’s try it on the equation of: E=MC2 ‘, he said.

An equation is a mathematical statement, expressed in symbols, that two things are the same (or equivalent). Equations are written with an equal sign ‘=’. Equations are often used to state the equality of two expressions containing one or more variables.

An equation contains left & right side.

When the left side of the equation is ‘E’ – one particle

the right side of the equation is ‘MC2’ – another particle,

logically speaking;

one particle = another particle

Above equation is untrue.

one sub-particle ≠ another sub-particle

Above equation might be or is true.

When the left side of equation is not equal ‘≠’ with the right side, then

E = MC2

Above equation is untrue,

Because and especially that there is a progress; power 2, then

E ≠ MC2

Above equation might be or is true.

When the left side is not equal with the right side of equation it must be then

smaller or greater, > or <.

Then the left side can be or is only < (smaller) because the progress is on the right side.

E < MC2

When variable mass symbol M is replaced by photon symbol &#934;

E < &#934;C2

Above equation might be or is true,

When the power ‘2’ is replaced by power to ‘3, 4, 5, 6, 7’…etc. or ‘&#8734;’ (to infinity) then the left side of the equation is definitely not equal with the right side because there is even greater progress, then

E < &#934;C&#8734; , then

e < &#934;C&#8734; .

‘e is a perfect half, rest of it is an illusion’, look at it he said,

‘all it is illusion’.

‘There are still some who believe that the speed of light may be the only constant in the whole universe, everything else changes. If everything changes so the speed of light does. Everything is energy. Energy is everything. Everything is a light/photon in the infinite speed of light’.

Einstein's statement that 'the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion' comes from a letter he wrote to the family of his lifelong friend Michele Besso on 21 March 1955, Einstein Archive, 7-245, published in The Quotable Einstein (Princeton University Press, 1996), p.61.



The Big Bang Theory commonly explained.

Just follow the sequence of opening of the Russian Doll, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matryoshka_doll and keep it opening to Infinity.


Marek Zielinski
Intiator of www.peace365.org

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Marek; What can I say? you are lucky to have a father with such imagination. I trust that the mathematicians among us will render some of your equations more readily accessible to those of us who are confused by such things.

Much of your post requires thought, but as an initial impression I would say that Max Planck might have disagreed with the infinite divisibility of matter.

Originally Posted By: Marek
There are still some who believe that the speed of light may be the only constant in the whole universe, everything else changes. If everything changes so the speed of light does. Everything is energy. Energy is everything. Everything is a light/photon in the infinite speed of light’.


I feel that this statement contains a few assumptions that you have not justified. For example: can we be sure "everything changes". There are those who argue that change is an illusion.

Can you say how you arrive at the "infinite speed of light".


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Kallog, where are you when your acerbic perspicacity is needed?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
The thread seems to have died - shame; could it be that I have that effect?

I can't let it pass without at least trying to stir up the infinity reference!

Quote:
Just follow the sequence of opening of the Russian Doll, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matryoshka_doll and keep it opening to Infinity.


How do you know when you have reached infinity??


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: redewenur
why do the physical constants have the values that they have?


have you seen the current issue of New Scientist (23.10.10) Looks as though the physical constants might not be as constant as we think!


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Yes, I have. What John Webb & Co. have put on the table can't just be ignored if, as reported, they have good data. As pointed out, while saying "I don't believe it" adequately expresses a lack of confidence in Webb's interpretation of the data, it does nothing to falsify it. Be that as it may, something so radical as to make nonsense of cosmic history will need to have a good deal more research behind it. String theorists might warm to the idea if it suggests those extra dimensions.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 118
K
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
K
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 118
Good thread. I enjoyed it immensely.

I thought that this might be a good time to introduce myself since I tend to gravitate toward the same topics. Everyone on these threads seems to balance their knowledge base/ convictions with open mindedness and civility. I find it to be both rare and refreshing.

I’m sure that I will be tempted to chime in once in awhile but only if I’m welcomed.

I’m pleased to meet all of you.


Good atmosphere and good conversation...that's the best.
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5