5
   

The forbidden questions of comsology and physics

 
 
dalehileman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2015 10:02 am
@Curiouserncurioser,
Quote:
If you have the time and interest, you might take a look at it... it
Thank you Curi, but can you provide a link

Edited to remark, oh yes, I found the link

Quote:
And if there is a universe resultant from the explosion of the big bang, then wouldn't that universe exist on the other side of the event horizon
My own reaction: But there just isn't an "other side"

Curiouserncurioser
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2015 11:51 am
@Leadfoot,
You are welcome for the Max Planck quote. And thank you for the information about research indicating results of life style extending through three generations. That is news to me. I had to look up epigenetic, btw. Smile. I like that word "gobsmacked." I've heard it before, but only from Brits.
0 Replies
 
Curiouserncurioser
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2015 12:03 pm
@dalehileman,
Thank you for the response. I'm a little surprised at your reaction, that there just isn't an "other side," given your earlier comments. But the reaction is understandable as a conclusion in the context of all that we actually know to this point. I don't hold the same certainty, leaving it as a "just don't know" at this point. But my hypothesis there would imply that there would or could be. Perhaps my response to a comment left there by Leadfoot may help to further explain my position to you as well.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2015 12:54 pm
@Curiouserncurioser,
Quote:
Thank you for the response.
Not at all, Curi. Delighted to chat anytime

Quote:
I'm a little surprised at your reaction, that there just isn't an "other side," given your earlier comments.
Which comments in particular, and what did they lead you to believe I meant

Quote:
But the reaction is understandable as a conclusion in the context of all that we actually know to this point.
I'm surprised to hear this as I'm not at all sure how it impacts the present discussion

Quote:
I don't hold the same certainty, leaving it as a "just don't know" at this point.
Oh I don't know either. It's just that my "no outside" assertion is simpler, involves less contradiction and paradox

Quote:
.....Perhaps my response to a comment left there by Leadfoot may help to further explain.....
Wonder Curi if you might provide a link

Been a pleasure
Curiouserncurioser
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2015 05:04 pm
@dalehileman,
Going back over your responses in this thread, I see that I was mistaken about what I thought you had said about the possibility of their being an "outside." You have in fact asserted on more than one occaision that there is no outside. I think it comes from a post of yours where you alluded to "the notion of there being an outside, but if so I wasn't careful enough in reading to note that right after that you stated clearly that there is no outside. But more probably, I have just confused you with Leadfoot, who has speculated about yhe possibility, I think in more than one post, though not making it a central position.

As to why I said that your reaction of their being no outside was understandable given all that we know at this point, that wasn't meaning all that we know as discussed in this thread, but referring to the fact that we don't know if there is an outside or not, something that we both agree on.

As for the link to my response to Leadfoot which I thought might better aid you in understanding my position, it is the same link as before. The comment at this point is the last one I've yet made in that thread.
http://able2know.org/topic/295292-1

And it's been a pleasue for me as well. Thanks.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2015 10:25 am
@Curiouserncurioser,
Thanks Curi for the clarification

I believe one of our principal q's regards the "shape" of the Universe. Of course if there's no outside then it doesn't have a shape, two concepts rare because they can't be pictured in mind's eye
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2015 05:49 pm
@dalehileman,
I'm not convinced that there can not be an "outside" of the universe. If you consider a black hole as a small model of the big bang singularity, it's easy to assume that there is nothing "beyond" the black hole's event horizon. Current thinking in Physics is that if you have something entering the black hole, for instance our Sun, it seems to slow down and stop at the event horizon, while shifting to red. At the same time however, current models suggest the sun continues into the center of the black hole, however the light can't escape past the event horizon. The boundary of the Universe, if there is one, might well be an event horizon of sorts, but between what and what? Instead of "nothing" it could for instance be a negative universe that is imploding as this universe is expanding. I find that more satisfying than the current notion of the entire universe erupting out of a singularity, everything out of nothing, and creating space as it goes where none existed.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2015 06:12 pm
You can speculate about it if you find it interesting, but it's kind of like discussing brain surgery without knowing medicine, biology, or brain anatomy. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but without any actual knowledge of the topic, how good is it likely to be?
Curiouserncurioser
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2015 08:56 pm
@dalehileman,
You're welcome, dalehileman.

And you are right in that those are two concepts extremely difficult if not downright impossible to picture.
0 Replies
 
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 12:08 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
You can speculate about it if you find it interesting, but it's kind of like discussing brain surgery without knowing medicine, biology, or brain anatomy. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but without any actual knowledge of the topic, how good is it likely to be?

That's a pretty useless comment Brandon. The vast majority of significant inventions and discoveries are made by people expanding beyond their native knowledge base, particularly at the threshold of disciplines, where they can bring new methods to bear and break out of the sterile patterns that impede progress. What is abundantly clear is that the current theories and methods are stuck, they keep leading to points where "everything breaks."
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 07:11 am
@Banana Breath,
Banana Breath wrote:
Quote:
You can speculate about it if you find it interesting, but it's kind of like discussing brain surgery without knowing medicine, biology, or brain anatomy. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but without any actual knowledge of the topic, how good is it likely to be?

That's a pretty useless comment Brandon. The vast majority of significant inventions and discoveries are made by people expanding beyond their native knowledge base, particularly at the threshold of disciplines, where they can bring new methods to bear and break out of the sterile patterns that impede progress. What is abundantly clear is that the current theories and methods are stuck, they keep leading to points where "everything breaks."

Now, how many people have made discoveries in theoretical physics without ever having studied physics? Would that be zero? You have every right to talk about what interests you, but the truth is, you don't know what you're taking about. If you can't pass the most elementary high school physics test, then the chances of you making a breakthrough in theoretical physics at the borders of human knowledge are nil.
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 10:48 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
how many people have made discoveries in theoretical physics without ever having studied physics? Would that be zero?

George Green for one. Oliver Heaviside, Moshé Feldenkrais, Michael Faraday, Sir Isaac Newton, and Nicola Tesla as well. Enrico Fermi was largely self-taught in physics, Luigi Puccianti, superficially overseeing his instruction conceded that there was nothing he could teach him.
(Segrè, Emilio, 1970. Enrico Fermi, Physicist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.)
Many notable contributors to theoretical physics came from backgrounds in mathematics and engineering as well, such as Max Born.
Tes yeux noirs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 01:14 pm
Banana Breath, you are no Max Born, still less any of the others you list!
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 03:10 pm
@Banana Breath,
Banana Breath wrote:

Quote:
how many people have made discoveries in theoretical physics without ever having studied physics? Would that be zero?

George Green for one. Oliver Heaviside, Moshé Feldenkrais, Michael Faraday, Sir Isaac Newton, and Nicola Tesla as well. Enrico Fermi was largely self-taught in physics, Luigi Puccianti, superficially overseeing his instruction conceded that there was nothing he could teach him.
(Segrè, Emilio, 1970. Enrico Fermi, Physicist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.)
Many notable contributors to theoretical physics came from backgrounds in mathematics and engineering as well, such as Max Born.

This is pretty much nonsense. Newton didn't study physics, because he invented it. I am not talking about centuries ago when no physics theory yet existed. Fermi studied at the University of Rome. Segre entered the University of Rome as an engineering student (which is applied physics anyway and therefore counts) but transferred to physics and studied under Fermi. Faraday never did any work at all in theoretical physics. He was an experimental physicist. Have you been doing cosmology experiments? Tesla attended the Austrian Polytechnic, etc. Anyway, I didn't say studied physics in school, I said studied physics (and I will accept engineering as a substitute) which includes self-education. Feldenkrais earned an engineering degree in France. Are you an engineer? Can you solve a typical high school physics problem? Can you give a summary of General Relativity, the subject you're talking about?
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 05:04 pm
@Brandon9000,
Silly Brandon, when you're shown wrong, you merely try to change the setup that you yourself created, now you want to exclude those who were self-taught or studied disciplines such as math or engineering, but no, you can't do that because I've proven my point that it was indeed these people who DIDN'T have formal training in physics who made huge advances in the discipline largely BECAUSE they weren't constrained by the feeling that they had to accept the status quo. And FYI, yes, I've had engineering education, advanced mathematics, neuroscience and cognitive science education among other disciplines through the doctoral level and have taught both undergrad and graduate courses. And you're wondering if I'm qualified to ponder the nature of the universe on a public q/a website? Ha, I think so.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 09:19 am
@Banana Breath,
Banana Breath wrote:

Silly Brandon, when you're shown wrong, you merely try to change the setup that you yourself created, now you want to exclude those who were self-taught

Please point out where I said that they couldn't have studied it on their own. I referred to people who had never studied physics. I never said studied it in school.

Banana Breath wrote:
or studied disciplines such as math or engineering, but no, you can't do that because I've proven my point that it was indeed these people who DIDN'T have formal training in physics

I have explained most of your specific references, given that I will accept fields closely aligned with physics as qualification. Many types of engineering, e.g. mechanical or electrical engineering, are applied physics. Moreover, when I went to college, people in those disciplines had to take physics classes. If you insist that you are right, then pick one and only one person and we will examine that case.

Banana Breath wrote:
who made huge advances in the discipline largely BECAUSE they weren't constrained by the feeling that they had to accept the status quo. And FYI, yes, I've had engineering education, advanced mathematics, neuroscience and cognitive science education among other disciplines through the doctoral level and have taught both undergrad and graduate courses. And you're wondering if I'm qualified to ponder the nature of the universe on a public q/a website? Ha, I think so.

1. If you continue to claim qualifications in physics, I will post a typical high school physics problem for you to solve, and I won't get it from the Internet either, so searching for the solution won't help you. Don't think I won't, because I've done it on this site more than once.
2. Since you claim that you are qualified to discuss cosmology, please give a brief summary of some highlights of traditional cosmology, with equations, and actually explaining what you have posted. It needn't be more than 20 or 30 lines.

If you pretend you didn't see any of these questions, I will simply repeat them. If you give some reason why you're above it all and shouldn't have to demonstrate the truth of your claims about yourself, then you lose.
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 11:28 am
@Brandon9000,
Utter nonsense Brandon. Your comment about people who haven't studied physics was in response to my line above it:
Quote:
The vast majority of significant inventions and discoveries are made by people expanding beyond their native knowledge base, particularly at the threshold of disciplines, where they can bring new methods to bear and break out of the sterile patterns that impede progress.

So it should be obvious to anyone I'm not talking about ignorant uneducated individuals but rather intelligent, educated people who "expand BEYOND their native knowledge base." and I have given correct and legitimate examples of that. It is indeed the case that someone with a background in math, programming or engineering has a different knowledge base than someone whose education was exclusively in physics, and BECAUSE of that difference, they are able to approach problems differently and arrive at solutions that are outside of those taught in physics. This assertion is well established and proven in many disciplines and in the many patents issued by the USPTO. It seems you're not up to the task of contributing in any meaningful way to this discussion, I think it would be better if you find some other subject thread to entertain yourself.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 05:05 pm
@Banana Breath,
Banana Breath wrote:

Utter nonsense Brandon. Your comment about people who haven't studied physics was in response to my line above it:
Quote:
The vast majority of significant inventions and discoveries are made by people expanding beyond their native knowledge base, particularly at the threshold of disciplines, where they can bring new methods to bear and break out of the sterile patterns that impede progress.

So it should be obvious to anyone I'm not talking about ignorant uneducated individuals but rather intelligent, educated people who "expand BEYOND their native knowledge base." and I have given correct and legitimate examples of that. It is indeed the case that someone with a background in math, programming or engineering has a different knowledge base than someone whose education was exclusively in physics, and BECAUSE of that difference, they are able to approach problems differently and arrive at solutions that are outside of those taught in physics. This assertion is well established and proven in many disciplines and in the many patents issued by the USPTO. It seems you're not up to the task of contributing in any meaningful way to this discussion, I think it would be better if you find some other subject thread to entertain yourself.

Well, one thing that's undeniable is that if you can't solve a problem that high school students all over the country who have taken one physics class can solve, you probably can't solve or make a meaningful contribution to problems at the frontiers of physics that elude the world's most accomplished physicists. So, here is a high school level physics problem. My solution is just a few lines and took under ten minutes.

Problem: A 10 kg mass slides down a frictionless inclined plane which makes an angle of 30 degrees with the horizontal. Near the bottom of the plane, the mass runs into a spring and compresses it 2 meters before coming to a stop. The spring is ideal and massless and can be compressed 1 meter by a force of 100 nt. Through what total distance does the mass slide before coming to rest?
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 01:41 am
@Banana Breath,
Sir Roger Penrose, Emeritus professor at Oxford and collaborator with Stephen Hawking, and one of the most respected theoretical physicists on the planet, points out the problems I'm getting at in this question in his newest book, as described by Discover science magazine. The title of the article conveys how large the gaps are in current mainstream thinking:
Discover Interview: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics
Quote:
The book is called "Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe." Each of those words stands for a major theoretical physics idea. The fashion is string theory; the fantasy has to do with various cosmological schemes, mainly inflationary cosmology [which suggests that the universe inflated exponentially within a small fraction of a second after the Big Bang]. Big fish, those things are. It’s almost sacrilegious to attack them. And the other one, even more sacrilegious, is quantum mechanics at all levels—so that’s the faith. People somehow got the view that you really can’t question it.

So he agrees, establishment physics today operates like big religion, stifling new ideas by treating it like sacrilege to question th0e popular theories. He says in effect that there is too great a risk for "mainstream" physicists to rock the boat, so they fall into line supporting whatever is popular and not questioning it, unless they're old and retired and have nothing to lose by the closed-minded physics-religion old guard trying to shoot them down, for instance:
Quote:
A few years ago you suggested that gravity is what separates the classical world from the quantum one. Are there enough people out there putting quantum mechanics to this kind of test?
No, although it’s sort of encouraging that there are people working on it at all. It used to be thought of as a sort of crackpot, fringe activity that people could do when they were old and retired. Well, I am old and retired! But it’s not regarded as a central, as a mainstream activity, which is a shame.

The book's not out yet, currently on preorder for 2016.
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 09:09 am
@Banana Breath,
theres several books out that assert that plate tectonics is all wrong too.
I wonder what we do when that which is predicted by quantum chemistry ACTUALLY WORKS?!? Yet we still do make five point calibration curves for all concentrations in the BLD levels and we modify mas spectrometers to adjust for several types of attractive forces.

There are places where Newtonian physics works and there are places where cosmological and quantum physics works, and it mostly is resolved in terms of (v) and (c) either at the cosmological or the quantum scales.

Its like global warming, reasonable scientists agree its ghappening, however, many disagree as to the major causes



 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/03/2023 at 01:31:21