Laws of physics vary throughout the universe, new study suggests

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Musika, Apr 20, 2018.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,462
    Abstractly, perfect spheres exist, but they are all self-similar in form.
    Physically, in nature, are there perfect spheres, wthout any irregularities? The only way to measure an irregular surface is via fractals.
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/NOF.HTM
    No, I did NOT.
    A person can change his name for any number of reasons. Almost all women change their name when they get married.
    And if Tegmark changed his name for commercial reasons is perfectly acceptable to me and to me not noteworthy.
    Sorry, that was my error, I was looking at another sub-form at the time. Sloppy....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The illustration showed that "Ad Hominem" attacks the characteristics or the authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument and is therefore not a valid "argument" in the Science and Physics sub-forum.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    In my Post 29, I remark that the fine structure constant (aka Alpha) varies by circa one part in 100,000 over most of the observable universe.

    This seems to be the basis for claiming that the laws of physics vary throughout the universe.​

    I further remark that the above supports the following.
    In this Thread & from some googles by me, I have seen no other evidence that the laws of physics vary throughout the universe.

    Is there any other evidence supporting the notion that the laws of physics vary throughout the universe?

    If not, variance in Alpha only supports the notion that Alpha is not a constant.

    BTW: Many of the remarks Posted to this Thread do not seem pertinent to the issue of this Thread.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    We weren't talking about spherical structures in nature; we were talking about spheres. That link doesn't say anything about spheres. And thus your claim that you (can) provide copious links for your claims is debunked.

    Perhaps you didn't mean to, but you did. Exchemist was talking about the name-change from Shapiro to Tegmark in order to establish that this person is looking for fame. You then, out of nowhere, brought up that this person is a Jew, asking for what that fact implied.

    It's the equivalent of:
    Why do you disagree with me? Is it because I'm a woman?
    Why would you fight me? Is it because I'm black?

    But, if you didn't mean that, you will have no problem apologizing to exchemist for unintendedly insinuating he is an anti-Semite.

    But why was the fact that Tegmark is a Jew noteworthy to you? Why did you feel the need to bring that up?

    True, and I've never disagreed with that.

    Why the quotes? As I've already proven, an ad hom is a full-blown argument. A fallacious one, but an argument nonetheless. You've already agreed with this, and that was my point. An argument isn't the same as an insult, which your illustration also demonstrates. It (typically) is insulting, sure, and one could therefore argue that all ad homs are insults. But not all insults are ad homs.

    For example, your insinuation of anti-Semitism against exchemist was an ad hom. (So stop doing that, because you've just admitted you are fully aware such things aren't appreciated in this sub-forum.) Instead of addressing the arguments exchemist posted, you attacked his character, trying to undermine the validity of his argument by showing that exchemist is a bad person. (You claim you didn't mean that, but that's what you did.) His/her responding with the word "cunt"; that was an insult. Notice how exchemist didn't use that word to try and refute your claims; the word wasn't used in the context of an argument. It wasn't (part of) an argument. Therefore, it can't be an ad hom. But it still is an insult. Do you understand now that there is a difference, and that no all insults are ad homs, and that if something isn't an argument that it can't be an ad hom? (Look at me trying to teach you!)
     
    exchemist likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Erm, your quote comes from the same source as the OP's; it's exactly the same study etc. In other words, your source has already been debunked in post #3 of this thread.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,462
    And this is in the Science sub-forum, where FACTS no longer seem to matter...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ...

    Now we enter the arena where the laws of physics and science no longer apply at all...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Bohm's world of "potential" and "implicate order" or something like Tegmarks' "mathematical universe" and the laws of pysics may be indeed be variable in quantum mechanics from personal perspectives, relativity, etc..........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 3, 2018
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,462
    You might enjoy this.


    and a more detailed video;
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,178
    ...."laws of pysics may indeed be variable in quantum mechanics from personal perspectives...." ??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Word salad.
     
  11. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    OK. Well, just to turn the, whatever, (I'm just a fan of telescopes -HST melted my brain.) How did they get their data away from massive gravitational forces? It indicated quasars, and that was the quibble for me.
     
  12. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Then stop introducing non-factual things.

    I have no idea what you are going on about?

    I don't understand what this has to do with ad homs?
     
  13. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Clearly not (just) a sphere.

    Clearly not (just) a sphere.

    If this is your best attempt at "copious links", your statement is sorely lacking any support...
     
  14. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Are you sure you're using the right dictionary?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,385
    From the same author I linked to in #3, he gives a brief account of what's involved in using distant quasars to test alpha: http://www.bretthall.org/fine-structure.html
    So the quasar light was only indirectly used and actually it's the absorption and re-emission by gas in an intervening galaxy that was detected in the survey.
    As for how a quasar generates light from infalling matter, there are two main sources. The infalling swirling accretion disc of gas is heated to high temperatures via friction, and radiates outward at much larger distances than the assumed BH event horizon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk
    The second source is from the narrow collimated jets that form at the quasar central engine 'poles' via complex interactions with the large magnetic field generated by the quasar. They are ultrarelativistic and the radiation from them is highly directional and covers a large continuous spectrum of wavelengths.
    https://www.nustar.caltech.edu/page/relativistic_jets
    I'm not certain but think it's the first, much less directional accretion disc source whose light is indirectly detected. Only a small fraction of quasars are correctly oriented for the light from jets to reach us.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,462
    OK, I was getting ahead of the thread. IMO, this fractal sphere may be what you are looking for.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_polyhedron#Examples

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
     
  17. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    The word fractal isn't mentioned on that page. Can you please explain how this article is relevant?

    First quote: Exactly. And a sphere doesn’t scale like a fractal, therefore it isn't one.
    Second quote: That paragraph doesn't say a sphere is a fractal? Replace the sphere by a cube or any other ordinary shape, and its meaning doesn't change.

    These "copious links" are even weaker than the first...
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,178
    "Fractal" appears to be another of these terms, like "function" and "potential", that Write4U likes to throw around without understanding them.
     
  19. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    It indeed is. But it's not just that: Write4U seems to have severe reading comprehension problems as well. Look at the "copious links" provided: none support Write4U's claim that spheres are fractals. Not a single one even comes close! It's actually quite saddening to see someone that willfully delusional.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,462
    OK, let's see if this gets us closer;
    My point is that fractal shapes are reducible to single points and it apears spheres are also reducible to single points. The fractality lies in bedded in the in a sphere.

    Theoretically a sphere can be of any size, down to a single point yet share the same property of Pi as larger speheres. Self-similarity except for size.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2018
  21. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,327
    W4U, this text can't be seen in your post #77 above
    My bold.
    Are you saying a point can be a three dimensional sphere?
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,462
    Thank you for reminding me. It was an edit which I forgot to post/

    Write4U said:
    "My point is that fractal shapes are reducible to single points and it apears spheres are also reducible to single points. The fractality lies in bedded in the sphere.

    Theoretically a sphere can be of any size, down to a single point yet share the same property of Pi as larger spheres. Self-similarity except for size."

    The difference is that below planck scale the picture becomes diffused, just geometrical points in space.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2018
  23. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,327
    So, are you saying you can build a sphere with fractals and still show the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is Pi ?
    So, if a circumference is consisdered to be a circle of points, you would them be saying points are made of points??
    So, are you now saying there is a geometry ''below planck scale''? Can you give an example of this relationship between points ''below planck scale''?
    And that these points ''below planck scale'' can be a sphere...'' Theoretically a sphere can be of any size, down to a single point yet share the same property of Pi as larger speheres.''
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2018

Share This Page