Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Musika, Apr 20, 2018.
This is the point where the theoretical object becomes diffused, and not definable.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
But, you say a sphere can be a point and go on to say there are points ''below the Planck scale''. So, your saying there are spheres ''below the Planck scale''. Please see my post #80...we cross posted.
I guess it's time someone moved this nonsense about fractals to the appropriate sub-forum...
It's hard enough just trying to learn mainstream ideas, I can never understand why people on forums use their own understanding of mainstream models to make their own models!
True in general, although the concept of a fractal is relatively easy to understand.
Well, I think the two are connected. If they actually understood the mainstream models, they would have no need to come up with their own. That's why you don't see many scientists coming up with such silly models.
deleted for duplication
Well folks, it seems we have nothing to talk about then, it's all been settled......"mainstream is the end-all of modeling the universe".
p.s. I don't think that I have ever argued against "mainstream science", but rather attempted to introduce some new (maybe old) perspectives, by trying to find "common denominators" which are fundamental to all states of the universe, which directly addresses the OP question.
But from all the above it seems these guys and gals in Australia and England don't have a clue about "mainstream science". How dare they challenge what everyone "knows to be true"?
Apparently Bohm and deBroglie were fools to even propose variables.
But not yet "discovered"
OK, I'll give it a shot from what I have read.
That's a perfect example of an argument from authority you just made. (It's an opinion piece from March 2000, written by a nuclear engineer, focusing the article on radiation protection standards.)
Also, it's true: scientists are not above mistakes or fraud. But this isn't something new, and the different fields of science are affected in differing amount. Check this out: https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/
And that's the problem: you have argued against mainstream science, but you don't understand mainstream science well enough to realize you did.
You really don't know how science is done, do you?
No. It's a religion we have here.
Write4U worships that which he does not comprehend. There is no God but Mathematics, and Tegmark/Shapiro is His prophet.
Shouldn't Write4U be worshipping mainstream science then?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's indeed remarkable how often Write4U feels the need to bring them up, even if their mention is totally irrelevant to the discussion. It's indeed quite close to preaching (which is against the forum rules).
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
W4U, Now your going into String Theory...What you quote there is for spheres in a Calabi-Yau (C-Y) space.
Your quote tells you what a C-Y space is...My bold. So, your now assuming we have extra compacted diemensions in our universe.
Can you give a link to where a sphere in our three dimensional universe can shrink to a point and still have the property of Pi ?
So, your saying the ratio of a point's diameter to its circumference is Pi?
This seems to ask the question..how large is a point in geometry?
What, the theory of relativity? Everything is relative to the observer?
I would say that's true.
Ever seen a curved space made from straight lines, dependent on the POV from the observer?
Watch this little demonstration by Roger Antonsen.
Changing your perspective won't tell you how gravity works. Or how a magnet works.
However reading a whole pile of old papers will. It will also tell you that a great deal of mainstream physics is wrong.
Might I suggest reading some more up-to-date material then?
References? And why?
Here's a few references:
1913: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis".
1914: “In the case where we drop the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light, there exists, a priori, no privileged coordinate systems.”
1915: "the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned".
1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity”.
1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.
A good number of modern authors think light curves because spacetime is curved. It isn't true. They don't understand gravity. So they don't understand black holes, or other aspects of cosmology. I think this Hawking quote in https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044 is rather telling:
"I still get two or three letters a week telling me Einstein was wrong. Nevertheless, the theory of relativity is now completely accepted by the scientific community, and its predictions have been verified in countless applications. [...] His idea was that mass and energy would warp spacetime in some manner ... Objects like apples or planets would try to move on straight lines through space-time, but their paths would appear bent by a gravitational field because space-time is curved".
I've read that too.
Guess I was right; you're almost a hundred years out-of-date. There's some good textbooks somewhat more recently. The Feynman lectures, Weinberg, Carroll, etc. Perhaps those more up-to-date texts can shed some light for you on the current scientific situation.
And those are all anecdotal.
And with that evidence you would proclaim you understand gravity?
Separate names with a comma.