Space is something, not nothing
- Thread starter Mazulu
- Start date
Alphanumeric told me once he had solved some technical problem for an aerospace company on some multimillion dollar project. If he is that smart and important, why does he have to mess around with us pions? Why doesn't he have tenure at a university? My guess is that he doesn't get paid for being a moderator. The only reason he does it is so that he can feel important. Obviously doesn't do it (perform as a moderator) for any selfless reasons like service to the community, to teach the unlearned or to make the world a better place. It's like he squanders his intellectual "gifts" on his own need to feel superior. In contrast, Rpenner occasionally likes to teach us some physics.
He is obviously smart and saving money is important, but that has nothing to do with getting enjoyment from spending sometime on a science forum. I recently put a process in place a process that saved my company just under a million dollars in one year. That doesn't really make me important though - I think I got a T shirt and a couple hundred dollar ataboy.
I guess he chose not to work at a university.
I don't know of any forums that pay moderators.
I have to dissagree with this. I feel like he is an extremely valuable contributor to just about every thread he has appeared in!
Aww that's just sour grapes because he doesn't suffer fools. If you had any understanding of physics you would see how frustrating it is to hear such blatantly absurd ideas tossed around .
Nice job!
It's nice to hear that he has supporters (one supporter). If you feel like he is a valuable contributor, how can I argue with your "feelings"? But I just don't see it.
I am glad you find my ideas "absurd". I work very hard to look at physics from another point of view. I can't think of any other way to break the stalemate. I am very proud of my idea that the wave-function description is really the natural phenomenon that underlies QM and GR.
The problem you are having with your idea is that it is just like a meal in a Chinese restaurant. You choose one from column A and one from column B, add a fortune cookie and you call it a meal. Your idea is just combining disparate things and calling it a theory. Until you do the maths you can't know if the theory is viable. People here that know the maths say your theory is junk. If you were really as smart as you say you are, you would be working on the mathematical expression of your idea. And when you do the maths it may show you that it can't possibly work. Often when new theories are explored mathematically, out will pop known laws of physics. That usually means you stand a chance of being correct. The question is can you handle the possibility of being wrong? As it is you will never know. Are you open minded enough to find out?
Unfortunately, you don't have the maths skill. That is why you keep telling us all that maths are not needed. We all know that is why you say that. I would suggest that you start learning the prerequisites. Leonard Susskind is starting a new lecture series on GR. He has done the subject before but each time he presents a subject he has new and better ways to teach it. He makes it simple but you will get the basics. This one looks pretty good. There are 3 lectures so far.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity Lecture 1
Einstein's Theory of Relativity Lecture 2
Einstein's Theory of Relativity Lecture 3
There should be a 4th lecture soon. I suggest you subscribe to the Stanford channel so that you get email notification when each lecture is released.Einstein's Theory of Relativity Lecture 2
Einstein's Theory of Relativity Lecture 3
If you don't like Susskind then you might try searching youtube for other lecture series. I think there is a Yale series, and at least one Indian lecture series. Probably more. There is also a course called Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Computation on Coursera that is coming up. And next March there is Exploring Quantum Physics. Courses are free. https://www.coursera.org/courses
This forum means you can post nonsense and it will not be deleted. That is quite different from it not having problems pointed out.
I suggest you do a search for threads I've started. Furthermore I regularly go into quite a lot of detail when nailing someone like Reiku to the wall. Besides, unlike many of the hacks here I don't measure my scientific capabilities by my forum posts. I come here for entertainment, I do enough science at work. When I'm in the mood I will go into detail but I rarely am in the mood to type out the enormous amount that someone like Rpenner does.
Firstly you wouldn't benefit from it anyway. Secondly I do so but not as frequently as I point out how you're dishonest and a hack. Thirdly I don't measure my self worth by how many people on a forum think I can do science. I know that plenty of you hacks come here and make delusional claims, trying to convince others you're competent at science as a means to convince yourselves, but I don't require that. It's infinitely more rewarding to crack a real physics problem and see that solution put to practical use than to worry whether or not people such as yourself think I'm a good scientist or not. I'm well aware I spend more time calling you out than writing lengthy detailed walk throughs of various areas of physics but so what? If someone wants the details and I'm not in the mood they can find them. If I'm in the mood I'll do it. Besides, unlike people such as yourself and Farsight when I'm required to I can give the details, I can demonstrate working understanding.
I like how you say I'm in need of therapy and then suggest I have a relationship with an imaginary person who you claim talks to you. Pot calling the kettle black? I don't think anyone who claims to be in communications with aliens and a god should be calling into question anyone else's mental health. Look at other things you say. You say you know your ideas are right. Hacks often complain I'm arrogant because I deride them/you and present myself as understanding most topics of discussion. I can demonstrate such understanding, there's evidence for that. You, on the other hand, not only don't have any evidence for your assertions, there's reasoning against your claims. You say aliens and a god speak to you and you know how the universe works, despite having no access to experimental data and no grasp of the theories thus far developed using that data. I'd say you're more in need of therapy than I.
Case in point. You have no evidence or reasoning or details for anything you just said. You don't understand the areas of science pertaining to such things, including wavefunctions, yet you make claims about them. Why? I think that is a sign of something much more than my jaded attitude towards such claims. I care about honesty but it seems many people here do not.
But feel free to prove me wrong. If your god speaks to you and you know how the universe works in regards to space-time and gravity etc then why don't you state clearly the set of postulates you work from, show a step by step derivation of a model for gravitational phenomena from those postulates and then demonstrate the model is able to accurately describe some real world phenomena. For example, the precession of Mercury. Please give a step by step derivation of a new gravitational model, compute the precession of Mercury to an accuracy of 1 arcsecond/year and compare with observations. If you prefer to select a different physical phenomenon then fine but you should go to that level of detail. If you get stuck just ask the voices in your head.
RoccoR
Registered Senior Member
et al,
Reference: Darlo770 http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=486222
Much of what is discussed, in algebraic and narrative form, is about the way mass bends this elusive framework (or mesh) we all call space-time. And it all is described very well if you think of it in the two-dimensional setting; the mass sitting on top of a 2D grid, causing an indentation, a curve for which things can follow. It works OK if, mass displaces space-time, equally in all directions.
As many of the more notable scientist say today, if you remove all detectable matter from a given area, until there is nothing left, (they say) there will BE space. So, they are suggesting that space (space-time) is a fluid, flexible grid of something beyond detection.
Questions that often emerge are:
Is there a relationship between (space-time fabric of) gravity, dark energy, and dark matter, (all undetectable or unexplainable) yet scientifically promoted as real? If you change the concepts of gravity (an imaginary indentation in fabric of space-time), would that change the estimations of the other to invisibles (dark energy and dark matter)?
I hate to say this, but I believe that science, in some ways, over complicates The Universe. It is always trying to invent something that is just beyond detection and explanation. Humanity is still trying to figure-out the double split experiments. Is it a wave or a particle? And this dark energy/matter is beginning to sound like the Ether claims. And the constant discovery of ever more exotic particles makes my head spin. As a layman, I'm wondering if science hasn't taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque! I bet, if you hit a Higgs Boson hard enough with something, you can fracture is as well.
So where are we in all this?
Oh! Andas a sidebar question: If a Black Hole doesn't radiate energy from its center, and it squeezes all the energy out of whatever goes into it, then is it hot? Or is it super cold? And if it is super cold, is it a large super conductor in space?
Most Respectfully,
R
Reference: Darlo770 http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=486222
Much of what is discussed, in algebraic and narrative form, is about the way mass bends this elusive framework (or mesh) we all call space-time. And it all is described very well if you think of it in the two-dimensional setting; the mass sitting on top of a 2D grid, causing an indentation, a curve for which things can follow. It works OK if, mass displaces space-time, equally in all directions.
As many of the more notable scientist say today, if you remove all detectable matter from a given area, until there is nothing left, (they say) there will BE space. So, they are suggesting that space (space-time) is a fluid, flexible grid of something beyond detection.
Questions that often emerge are:
- Why does space-time (if it is a thing/something real) not create friction?
- Why is this space-time grid independent of the universe and its constituent particles (that which we can detect and measure)?
- Why does a substance (space-time) that cannot be detected, only become quasi-real when it is necessary to explain motion (gravitational effects), or other undetectable products like dark energy and dark matter?
Is there a relationship between (space-time fabric of) gravity, dark energy, and dark matter, (all undetectable or unexplainable) yet scientifically promoted as real? If you change the concepts of gravity (an imaginary indentation in fabric of space-time), would that change the estimations of the other to invisibles (dark energy and dark matter)?
I hate to say this, but I believe that science, in some ways, over complicates The Universe. It is always trying to invent something that is just beyond detection and explanation. Humanity is still trying to figure-out the double split experiments. Is it a wave or a particle? And this dark energy/matter is beginning to sound like the Ether claims. And the constant discovery of ever more exotic particles makes my head spin. As a layman, I'm wondering if science hasn't taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque! I bet, if you hit a Higgs Boson hard enough with something, you can fracture is as well.
So where are we in all this?
Oh! Andas a sidebar question: If a Black Hole doesn't radiate energy from its center, and it squeezes all the energy out of whatever goes into it, then is it hot? Or is it super cold? And if it is super cold, is it a large super conductor in space?
Most Respectfully,
R
Actually science does just the opposite! It makes the incomprehensible comprehensible.
No no no! Science strives to DISCOVER something new!
Physicist understand it quite well.
Nope it is just a new discovery!
You think it would be better to not discover new things? Why because it confuses you? Do you you feel the same way about medicine?
Some of the concepts are difficult to understand - that hardly means we should stop discovering!
Discovery is the business of science. Is this a surprise to you?
I use science to make discoveries - I had a rather intersting discovery yesterday (interesting to me and my little slice of industry) through data analysis (observation, if you will) and on Tuesday I am going to run an experiment to determine if the discovery will lead to other discoveries - which it will if I design the experiment properly.
I use science to make discoveries - I had a rather intersting discovery yesterday (interesting to me and my little slice of industry) through data analysis (observation, if you will) and on Tuesday I am going to run an experiment to determine if the discovery will lead to other discoveries - which it will if I design the experiment properly.
I agree with your presentation of Scientic Method components for follow-up of your "discovery" . . . . but where does the 'discovery' fit into the traditional Scientific Method, methodology . . . I guess, if I understand your post, you are saying that your 'discovery' is actually an 'observation'?
Howdy.....Hello.....A recent observation from Chandra shows a huge 'halo' of hot gas surrounding the Milky Way. This object is connected to the Milky Way and is an integral to and of it. The geometry varied as the galaxy was forming and formed. The hugeness of it shows how small the Milky Way Galaxy proper really is, in relation to the amount of it that is not measured. The 'space' in which the gases reside is a part of the Milky Way geometry. Very specific 'acts' of Nature will be observed in that 'space'. Structural geometries with periodicity will be observed. You may call it a part of the compressed compression pressure density that makes the Milky Way. Some of you have been looking for 'waves' and 'fields', well now is your opportunity to learn about some of them.
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
"Empty" space is just like "junk" DNA. It's an intellectual placeholder unknowingly used by many scientists to disguise a significant lack of knowledge. It's a product of a kind of cognitive dissonance.