Society for Popular Astronomy
https://popastro.com/forum/

Here's something to chew on.
https://popastro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14604
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Quasar [ Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Here's something to chew on.

Some things i'd like to suggest, some of them may be familiar some not:
The Universe is expanding at T devided by mass squared.
There is an hidden mirror image of this Universe thats runs parallel with it, is directly proportional to it but it contains no mass. This mirror image has no space contained within it or vacuums but sits beside matter from its mirror Universe at point zero. Point zero has no distance within it.
We experience point zero as time.
All photons are located at point zero until observed by us, if they are never observed they stay at point zero for infinity.
Time creates mass and it creates space but mass and space are both locked into time itself. Without time there is no Universe. The sub atomic particles from which everything is made consist at their very smallest levels of merely time and timings. When you hold a tennis ball in your hand there is no matter really in the true sense of the word, just pure time. Time never began and it can never end.
Those are my conclusions about our Universe.

Author:  brian livesey [ Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:36 am ]
Post subject: 

Time is only one aspect of existence, so to use it to account for the infinite variability in nature is a gross oversimplification. Nature is more than Time incarnate. The tennis ball you mentioned is perfectly real as a tennis ball and serves its purpose as such.
Reality exists at different levels. Some physicists claim that the world we experience in everyday life is an "illusion", but this is the wrong way to look at it. Our level of existence is no more illusory than any other level of reality. Within their contexts, each level is as valid as the rest.
I take an empirical position on this. We can find out if something is "illusory" or not by trying it out. Surely, we know from practice and experience what is real and what isn't.

Author:  Cliff [ Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:12 am ]
Post subject: 

Dear Quasar
I like to think everyone has the right to have their own ideas about cosmology, religion, god and God. (i certainly have my own thoughts).
However, in the main I find your own ideas not for me.
I think Brian and I disagree about several things, but like Brian I don't think your "ball\time" idea offers much, except for me confusion.
Best wishes from Cliff

Author:  brian livesey [ Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:34 am ]
Post subject: 

A more appropriate word than "time" would be "change". What we observe are endless transmutations of matter ( I use the word matter in its original context, "materia", meaning everything that exists, including physical and mental phenomena ).
Phenomena change not because of time, but through their interactions with each other. What we call "time" is a way of predicting/recording change. Like everything else in nature, change and time are interdependent. To single one of them out for special treatment is a mistake.

Author:  brian livesey [ Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:44 am ]
Post subject: 

Incidently, Cliff, what is that you and I don't agree on? I thought we were the best of mates, even when you go into your grumpy mode. :wink:

Author:  joe [ Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's something to chew on.

Quasar wrote:
Those are my conclusions about our Universe.

You've lost me. How about some diagrams? :roll:

Author:  Cliff [ Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

Dear Brian
I wouldn't want to wander off topic, so I'll be brief ! (at least by my standards).
Yes, we are best mates !!!! (what am I saying?).
However, me being an argumentative S-D I'm sure I could conjure up some disagreement.
I'll begrudgingly send you my best wishes !
Best of luck from Cliff (getting ever more and more grumpier!)

Author:  mike a feist [ Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

Surely, we know from experience what is real and what isn't.
This seems to me to be an incredibly over-realistic statement Brian! Everyone sees the world in different ways and are convinced that their view is obviously the real one. On another level I have had on an occasion such an odd experience that, in retrospect I have had to ask someone if it really happened or I imagined it! Regards mike.

Author:  brian livesey [ Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:12 am ]
Post subject: 

I get your point, Mike. For example, there are optical illusions that can trick us, but the point I was making was that, through practice and experience, we learn that they are illusions.
If things are not what they seem to be, we experience failure and sometimes with disasterous results, but we learn from this. This is how, over time, science and technology reach higher levels of perfectability.
To get back to Quasar, reducing everything into elementary particles is an old-fashioned mechanistic view. That's not to say that the particles don't exist, only to say that they don't cover for every contingency.
There's no data to show that thoughts and feelings ( mental phenomena ) consist of elementary particles. Reality consists of the physical and the mental, and the latter is just as real and immediate as the former.

Author:  David Frydman [ Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

In my experience the more questions we think we have answered, the more unanswered questions arise. In other words I don't think it is possible for us ever to know everything.

Regards, David.

Author:  Cliff [ Fri Oct 08, 2010 5:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

Dear Brian
I'm pleased to say David mentions something that you (Brian) and I (Cliff) do disagree about.
IE - you think eventually humans will know everything; I do not believe that (apparently like David doesn't either).
It's a relief to have something "real" I can disagree with you - you scoundrel you.
Best wishes from Cliff

Author:  brian livesey [ Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:16 am ]
Post subject: 

I repeat, Cliff, that I've never claimed that we can know everything, only that science is improving its techniques all the time to produce more accurate results.

Author:  Cliff [ Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

Dear Brian
Sorry if I misunderstood some of your previous comments. But I thought you'd at least once said human scientists will eventually understand everything.
Of course it seems likely our scientists will gradually get to know more.
However, I myself don't rule out the possibilities -
a) Our scientists knowledge might inadvertently go off the right track.
b) The human race may go extinct.
c) Scientists might go extinct.
d) My get out clause - anything else I cannot think of !!
Best of luck from Cliff

Author:  Quasar [ Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:21 am ]
Post subject: 

In reply to some of those threads, I would like to comment. Ever since time and memorial we have as a race of people tried to understand the world around us. So far IMHO we have done a pretty good job and we've made a comfortable world for ourselves. The way in which we have acheived this is largely based on solid science which is practical and acheivable. Newton for example was a pretty astute fellow, he paved the way for the future of science with his methodology of written papers which were understandable to others and could be applied in practical terms. Lets face it the world see around us, all the engineering, the building and so forth are here because of Newtons equasions and laws.
So today we follow the same kind of trend of writing papers with workable models within them, some of which are accepted and others not. My worry is that we have become so embroiled and comfortable within those models that when an alternative is produced, if it doesn't fit into the working model it will be ignored. There are thousands of scientists out there who require funding for research but cannot get it because their research doesn't fit into accepted working models. I'm not talking about fruitcakes looking for perpetual motion, i'm talking about PHD's, professors and so forth that are doing work outside of the accepted models. What are people affraid of? Upsetting the status quo? finding energy in a system that will make the oil companies redundant?
The current model of the conservation of energy may well be wrong - who knows, it might be correct. But to stop scientists working outside of it is bordering on sabotaging our own scientific fraternity.
Having read what JP Morgan did to Nikola Tesla all those years ago, withdrawing funding because Tesla may well have been onto something regarding some sort of free energy, I can't help thinking that trend has continued since. In the words of JP Morgan 'If there is no money to be made from it, then i'm not going to fund it'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan
It is strange that all the current models still do not allow for any invention or technology which would compromise the power of the Oil, Electricity or Gas companies. After all it is these multi national companies that fund most of science projects so why would they shoot themselves in the foot?
I'll say it again - money talks.

Author:  brian livesey [ Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:09 am ]
Post subject: 

It's inevitable that, in our present civilisation, science and technology are subject to profitability, instead of to actual human need.
For all of it's shortcomings, let's give credit to Capitalism for creating the technical basis to make a a single world community a possibility, where every man, woman and child will have a decent standard of life.
We should regard our present way of life in a positive way as being another stage in our social evolution. It won't last forever. :D

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/