Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Newton and Einstein vs. "God" Copperfield

In 1983 David Copperfield performed an illusion to several hundred live spectators as well as a live TV audience where he “made the Statue of Liberty disappear”.

Now anyone viewing this spectacle on TV would be less impressed because this kind of special effect via television is common-place…easy. However the live audience verified the success of the illusion and stated that they didn’t know how he did it, but that it actually looked like the Statue of Liberty disappeared. Now, these people had one big advantage. Regardless of what they had “witnessed”, the majority of people knew instantaneously that what they saw was not reality. They didn’t look upon David as some deity. Instead, each one had to concede what a poor witness they would make…a very uncomfortable position for most. At least they weren’t alone in their mistake…he had fooled virtually everyone in attendance.

If this trick had been performed in antiquity and he made the Colossus disappear, some in attendance would have elevated D. Copperfield to deity status (once he returned the Colossus to them). Not only would he have fooled the masses but some of them would surely have been overly “amazed” and believed that magic was real..and rightfully so. You see, these same people are taking things for face value and I kind of like that. It would be hard to tell them that they shouldn’t do that all the time.

If there weren’t so many people willing to take things for face value; science today wouldn’t have progressed as far as it has.

One aspect that I can’t shake is what I call “God” Copperfield. Is it possible that some observation or combination of observations has been misinterpreted by the masses? Is it possible that the discipline of observational measurement can backfire on a rare occasion, lead to the wrong conclusion and become sanctioned by both experts and the layman alike?

IMHO, I think that it’s not only possible but that it has happened on more than one occasion. We can easily cite some of those that have happened historically, like Flat Earth, Central Earth, circular orbits, etc. but it’s hard to believe that there could be anything like that “sitting” around in the present. I mean, ya can’t fool everybody…Penrose too?...oh no, not Roger.

For the sake of argument let’s temporarily say that it is happening…there’s a flaw in the perspective of something fundamental that has been accepted as doctrine. Do you think that this might be an obstacle, an impasse…a tripping point? Could you still find the GUT and have a fundamental aspect wrong? I doubt it. What would the ramifications be? One scenario is that this flaw is corroborated by further observations and measurements. This would entrench the false premise and elevate it to undisputed “fact” becoming a larger and larger obstacle the further you “run with it”. Another is that you make “mountains out of mole hills” as you try to force fit further observations, measurements or theories into the undisputable “facts”.

We’ve all seen the optical illusion of the vase and the 2 faces. The fact is that, reality can change based upon the viewpoint of the profile vs. the background. If we fixate upon the vase how can we see the complete picture? In this case; duality.

I think that the majority of us would agree that it would behoove us to guard against this possibility. Not only do we not want to be fooled but we really don’t want anyone else to be fooled either.

As entertaining as it has been, I’m not sure that there has ever been so many diverse GUT’s running around out there. What’s the hurry? Why the desperation? We haven’t even exhausted everything that classical physics has to offer. Why is it that everyone who’s anyone in theoretical physics feel that they must produce a “viable” GUT. What’s so wrong with saying “I don’t know”… and once they come out with one these monstrosities they feel compelled to defend it to the hilt. It kind of reminds me of politics. I’m sorry but there’s no room for politics in my universe.

In the movie ”Volcano”; when Tommy Lee Jones’s character is asked to investigate a possible (but important) underground chasm, he replies “I can only fight what I can see.” This quote stuck with me and it carries a lot of weight…there is some wisdom here.

There have been a lot of imaginative theories. I am an advocate of using the imagination as another tool in the quest to understand the nature of existence. I applaud it…until it goes too far. How is it that the front runners for the GUT have so many imaginary components. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Parallel Universes, 13 dimensions and climbing…there are all of these entities that are not only invisible but can’t be measured without imaginary rulers…”I can only fight what I can see”.

Up until recently, science has observed and measured the only thing that it could “grab” hold of. It tries to track and account for particle movement…classical/ quantum mechanics. As of late it seems to have gone overboard and the universe is constructed from valences.

You know, there used to be a prevailing pattern where the higher the level of physics, the simpler the guiding equations got. Case in point is E=mc2. Now I’m supposed to believe that it takes six blackboards of equations to describe a higher level? Once again, I’ve got to have my doubts. I’m sorry, but on face value, it just doesn’t look right. It looks like someone made a mountain out of mole hill…a forced fit.

Well, I beat the “God” Copperfield part of my title to death…where does the Newton/ Einstein thing come into play?

Somehow, I got this from somewhere and I don’t remember the source so I can’t give credit where it’s due.

In one (run-on) sentence I’m going to summarize the entire life’s work of both Newton and Einstein:

Newton thought that it was a linear universe and a system of absolute Cartesian coordinates while Einstein believed that it was a relativistic universe and a system of relative coordinates.

Now Leonardo comes along (that’s me) and says hold on here. It’s a linear universe and a system of absolute coordinates that operates by relativistic rules.

Now there are some who would be tempted to apply Occam’s Razor and say “if it walks like a duck it might as well be a duck.” Normally, there would be a lot merit in this. For instance; If you plot the points to any application of Lorentz transformations it’s easy to see that you are viewing or “normalizing” the data to a linear, Cartesian system. Likewise you can linearize the data and apply scaling or logarithms (Lorentz transforms) to the axes. 2 different views of the same thing. Except that Einstein came along and said that the straight line is the reality. But still, the other viewpoint is no less valid. Here’s the rub. For reasons I don’t want to get into right now, I’m very sure that the truth will be embedded in the quantum model. In other words; when someone is able to provide a complete and thorough quantum model, any quests such as the “god” particle will take a back seat to relativity “unveiled”. The quantum model must account for relativity. Of course…it’s not exempt from reality.

Well, I hope I’ve explained the title.

In conclusion; IMHO, we should all keep an open mind, watch out for pitfalls, cling to the physical and not put too much credence in the imaginary unless the subject happens to be philosophy.

Hi Mike,

Pleased to meet you.

Yeah, that was definitely a good illusion. I watched it several times and I can’t figure out how he did it. It looks a lot like “green screen” but that’s a video studio switching technology.

So, I don’t know… Photoshop?

Neither green screen, nor Photoshop would help with the live viewers. There has to be very clever stuff there somewhere. Of course, if you believe Michael Talbot, that sort of thing could all be explained if we live in a holographic universe.