Do You Really Exist?

Raither,

I wasn't attacking GR, just noting that as far as I know it doesn't predict or account for MOND, nor the accelerating expansion of the universe.
 
MacM said:
I wasn't attacking GR, just noting that as far as I know it doesn't predict or account for MOND, nor the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Click to expand...
I believe that MOND is beginning to fall into disfavor as evidence of dark matter begins to accrue but you're right in that GR has some limitations. Neither dark matter nor the acceleration actually contradicts GR however, depending upon the cause they might fit quite nicely. Obviously there's more we need to know.

~Raithere
 
James R said:
But then, you seldom know in advance which questions have no possible answer at all, do you?
Click to expand...
Oh yes I realise that, but when you HAVE heard the question, if it obviously has no answer, eg. "Why do Americans claim apple pie as their own?", well THEN there is no point worrying about it.
 
Raithere,

First let me clarify that I am not as much anti-Relativity as it might appear at first glance. I do object to many of the conclusions they have reached regarding data and observation. That is there may well be many explanations for some of the attributes of Relativity other than those currently popular.

So the math may work well in general but they are branching off into blind alleys following incorrect conclusions or assumptions about the signifigance of the mathematics.

There are many, many purely mathematical concepts around today. Each seems to have an edge and yet each ultimately conflicts with the other.

This in my estimation is as a consequence of physics stopping it historical practice of trying to develope physical models as well as mathematical models.

The physical models place constraints on the mathematics which currently are not there.

As an example the attachment from a link ( http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0207065 ) provided by Lethe in the Math & Physics Forum shows a variance between 2 Brane theory and GR of an "Order of 16"! Yet both are popular in their respective areas of study.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2727
 
Last edited:
1Dude said:
Most Awesome Raithere Techno Dude,

There is no proof that energy or any other primary force of physics is eternal, in the sense that it had no beginning. We can say that energy exists now and that it changes in form and is never lost in this current material universe of ours. We cannot say for sure that there was or was not ever a time when energy did not exist. How do you know, as a non eternal being, that energy has always existed, without beginning? To know that energy is eternal you would have to be eternal yourself and have been a witness to it for all eternity.

Also, Virtual Particles have a very real and tangible cause. They do not come from nothing as you and others may suggest. They are caused by the very experiment that scientists use to create them. It takes a massive amount of energy, machinery, and intelligence to create them. I would hardly say that, under these circumstances, they come from nothing. As an additional note, they are obviously not eternal either.

Best Wishes! Thanks for the Welcome Dude!
Click to expand...

The energy and the nature are eternal,but all other things are not eternal.
 
MacM said:
Gravage,



I for one would be very interested in your "proof" of your absolute statements.
Click to expand...

Let's suppose you have table.You had to do the work to make that table,but the problem is table doesn't have work-however the atomic structure between the atoms have energy,othwise this atomic structure would collapse-that form of energy that holds atoms of table together is called cohesia.However,it is made made of matter and has mass-these are 2 different forms of energy.Therefore the definition of energy is wrong as being the ability to work.
It's like you have a boat that uses waves to move. The water in the waves is what moves the boat. Those waves get smaller and smaller till they don't exist any more and the boat is on a perfectly smooth body of water.
The waves are gone,but the water is still there. The energy is still there, it is just so spread even that there is no way to transfer it from high to low.
We're are all forms of energy,therefore we have beginning and the end.Everything in the universe,including this observable,known universe itself(at least according to the Big Bang theory).If that so,than the entire universe is an form of energy.My thoughts that this universe,if it was created,was the product of biochemical chain reaction.Again,you need energy,for everything to work,move or exist you need energy,but the law of nature says,energy simply transforms from one form into another.If the energy was destroyed,there wouldn't be even nothing(nothing in this context means,that it's without known existence,no existence that we can know of).Nature is eternal,but it depends how you interprete it.To me,natural processes are everywhere and represent everything that exist,that has existed or it will exist in the future,nothing more nothing less.I have to go now.I'll explain it to you next week.
 
Gravage,

Let's suppose you have table.You had to do the work to make that table,but the problem is table doesn't have work-however the atomic structure between the atoms have energy,othwise this atomic structure would collapse-that form of energy that holds atoms of table together is called cohesia.However,it is made made of matter and has mass-these are 2 different forms of energy.Therefore the definition of energy is wrong as being the ability to work.
Click to expand...

Nothing personal but I have mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering. Your presentation not only lacks any proofs but seems to be a series of conjectures based on an actual lack of knowledge on the subject.
 
Gentlemen, MacM and Raithere

Based on your discussions together so far (which I really appreciate) I would have to conclude one simple thing:

Intelligent men like both of you are who have studied many different theories about the origin and existence of the universe can really and substantially disagree about a great many of them. There appear to be about as many theories about the origin and existence of the universe as there are scientists and people who study their theories. You both know a great deal more about this topic than me. You both appear to me to be very honorable and honest men. With that in mind, I have one honest and simple question for both of you.

When it really gets down to it, is there anything that we can know for sure about this universe? Know without question? If so, what is it? If not, is science = to faith?
 
1Dude,

When it really gets down to it, is there anything that we can know for sure about this universe? Know without question? If so, what is it? If not, is science = to faith?
Click to expand...



1 - I would have to say there is nothing we know with absolute certainty. However, there is a great deal we know within reason or in general.

2 - No science isn't faith. It is based on the best understanding as of any given time but is continuously changing as we learn more. What we believe today is based on physical principles which are observed or tested and for which data and evidence support the conclusions.

Faith is mere faith without any basis (except lack of knowledge) and generally opposes evidence if it disagrees with the preconcieved idea, again without or in disregard of logic and evidence.
 
Faith is mere faith without any basis (except lack of knowledge) and generally opposes evidence if it disagrees with the preconcieved idea, again without or in disregard of logic and evidence.
Click to expand...
Faith is an act of trust based on the examination of available evidence and the choice to accept the conclusions.
There may be many people who blindly stick to what they want to, but that is not faith.
I would have to say that science is a type of faith. We put our trust into it and accept the conclusions we come to.
 
MacM said:
Gravage,



Nothing personal but I have mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering. Your presentation not only lacks any proofs but seems to be a series of conjectures based on an actual lack of knowledge on the subject.
Click to expand...

Than correct me,please,it isn't I who told I only told this from another message board,it was on website:
www.armageddononline.org/forums/
 
MacM said:
Gravage,



I for one would be very interested in your "proof" of your absolute statements.
Click to expand...

Simply,it really depends how do you interprete nature.For me nature is all that has ever existed or not,or that will ever exist or not.Nature=all.
If the universe was created than it means it will have the end,it doesn't matter how will end it.However,if the universe was created it couldn't be without energy,as well as the big bang couldn't be without energy.
 
MacM said:
Q25,




ANS: There is a problem with this line of thought. You are making absolute statements and claim things as fact when you should be a bit more flexiable and simply state we do not know how something could come from nothing.

My personal view is N------------->(+s)+(-s) where "N" is "Nothingness" described as absence of time-space. " +/- s " are equal but opposite "Somethings". This expression would mean that we exist as a birufcation of "Nothing" and mathematically it violates no known physics. Do we understand how it works, no, at least not yet.

Is this far fetched. Hardly. Edward P. Tryon,, Professor of Physics of the City University of New York, calculated that the net balance of energy in the observable universe is ZERO.

That would mean we exist as a bifurcation of "Nothing", so why would it be unreasonable to conclude that we came into existance from "Nothing"?



ANS: Same problem here. To claim the universe (or anything) has always existed (being eternal) and had no begining is in my opinion flawed logic that feels good since it on the surface removes the question (BUT DOES NOT ANSWER IT).

To be eternal and have no beginning means it must have had an infinite duration. Time while not physical in the sense that one can touch it, is broken down into "Time Intervals". We count such intervals and say there are 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour, etc. That leads us to days, years, centuries, etc.

But to reach eternal we must accumulate an infinite quantity of any time interval. Nothing counted can be or become infinite. To hold the status of being infinite requires by definition it has existed longer than any finite number of time intervals. That is it must have existed longer than time itself. That is to claim something physical must become larger than itself, which is ludricrus.

Not to mention that two minutes of actual thought takes away that comfort of claiming "No Begining". Please explain how somethings exists if it "Never" came into existance" i.e. - had no begining?

Statements like "Energy cannot be created not destroyed" are simply to arrogant. They over reach our knowledge and try to make laws out of mere ideas. This one based on our "lack of knowledge", not knowledge itself.
Click to expand...

Yes,but than if there was no energy there wouldn't be anything that would make the universe.
 
Gravage,

Than correct me,please,it isn't I who told I only told this from another message board,it was on website:
www.armageddononline.org/forums/
Click to expand...

Sorry but I really don't know what the above means. I looked at the web site posted but unless you can say what you are referring to, I'm ot going to dig to find it.

Also, I hope you don't believe that everything that is posted on such sites is absolute truth.
 
Gravage,

Simply,it really depends how do you interprete nature.For me nature is all that has ever existed or not,or that will ever exist or not.Nature=all.

If the universe was created than it means it will have the end,it doesn't matter how will end it.However,if the universe was created it couldn't be without energy,as well as the big bang couldn't be without energy.
Click to expand...

Having an opinion is fine but it should be expressed as opinion and not stated as fact. The above is an opinion but it hardly correlates to any scientific consideration. This seems to be more a difference of writing style than anythingelse.

For example instead of saying "...........it couldn't be without energy,....." you might qualify by saying ".........it would mean (or "it could mean") it couldn't be without energy,...."
 
Gravage,

Yes,but than if there was no energy there wouldn't be anything that would make the universe.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, I see you miss the signifigance of the formula.

N-------->(+s)+(-s), As an example could be written as N---------->(+1)+(-1)=0 or N-------->(+1,111)+(-1,111) = 0.

Existance may well be bifurcated "0" or "Nothing" Just because we do not understand the process doesn't mean it isn't how nature works.
 
1Dude said:
When it really gets down to it, is there anything that we can know for sure about this universe? Know without question?
Click to expand...
The thing is you're starting to get into epistemology here. What and if we can know anything without question is tricky. Accepting the basic assumptions that science must make in regards to epistemology, what we can know are some of the relationships between observable phenomena.

For instance even if we were to rewrite E=mc^2, reconceived it in accordance with some other theory, the relationship between energy and matter remains. A better example might be gravity which under Newton's theory is a force that acts between masses in Cartesian space while in Einstein's relativity it is the affect a mass has upon space-time. Einstein did not alter that relationship; he redefined how we think about it. The relationship remains the same regardless of how we define it. Importantly, the relationship can be described mathematically and remains the same. Whether our definition is accurate is much more difficult to know.

Regarding the origins of the Universe the simple answer is that we simply don't have enough information yet to even know if we can find a solution.

If so, what is it? If not, is science = to faith?
Click to expand...
It depends upon how we define faith. Certainly many individuals have faith in science and some have faith in the epistemological premises that science requires. But I don't believe that the methodologies of science can ever really be defined as faith. In fact they're antithetical to faith for the primary tool of science is skepticism.

~Raithere
 
*************
M*W: First, let me say that I am not a physicist or mathematician, but I do believe in the power of positive energy. We may not know or understand how this works through us, but somehow it does. In our evolutionary process, it may not be the right time for us to know all. This is where I have faith. We will know it when the time is right for us to know it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top