Thread: Blurt your pet theory here

I guess everyone's got at least one pet theory. I mean a whacky and embarrassing hypothesis tucked away in the mental closet; improbable, delightful, not quite impossible. A pet theory seems too good to kill, yet too eccentric for public consideration.

No one should be ashamed of having marvelous ideas beyond their expertise. And no one should waste a lot of life pursuing giant windmills.

Summarize your pets here. This is not a thread for criticism or defense. If you read a pet theory worth further examination, then it warrants its own thread and who knows where that could lead...

Don't do it. The question is a setup.

Anything you post will be attacked by the horde of morons inhabiting these forums.

You will be verbally harrassed and abused until you wonder if you have stumbled into a zoo instead of an internet forums inhabited by human beings.

I half believe that humans are in fact aliens from another planet transplanted to Earth. I explain the fossil record as other humanoid species we out competed.

Incedentally I had this idea before I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Originally Posted by Karlson

Don't do it. The question is a setup.

Anything you post will be attacked by the horde of morons inhabiting these forums.

You will be verbally harrassed and abused until you wonder if you have stumbled into a zoo instead of an internet forums inhabited by human beings.

Nope. I'll be enforcing a strict "no attacks rule" on this particular thread, as per the OP. This is a thread for fun, one-off ideas. Any debates can be taken to a new thread. Sound fair?

Originally Posted by Numsgil

I half believe that humans are in fact aliens from another planet transplanted to Earth. I explain the fossil record as other humanoid species we out competed.

Incedentally I had this idea before I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

But was it before you read Restaurant at the End of the Universe?

I have a hypothesis that states that space-time behaves like a superfluid and that all forms of matter and energy are emergent properties of it.

Particles are multi-dimensional, self stabilising oscillations in this medium that form a local clumping of higher density. The high local density creates a maximum lowest density where the particle stops and space-time begins and the minimum density evens out to the average density at infinite distance. Mass is related by the degree of local density created by the particle, which automatically increases the gravitational force imparted by the particle. A photon is a self contained wave, or soliton. The big bang was a local event in an infinite expanse.

Etc...

I will open a thread on it in this sub some time in the future.

I have a new hypothesis that says, at a basic level beyond what we can currently see, we're composed of vibrating homosexual unicorns.

Originally Posted by Darius

I have a new hypothesis that says, at a basic level beyond what we can currently see, we're composed of vibrating homosexual unicorns.

Originally Posted by Janus

Originally Posted by Numsgil

I half believe that humans are in fact aliens from another planet transplanted to Earth. I explain the fossil record as other humanoid species we out competed.

Incedentally I had this idea before I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

But was it before you read Restaurant at the End of the Universe?

I read all the books at once in one marathon session, so I can never remember which part is in which book

You can imagine how excited I was when the transplanted bureaucrats out competed the primitive would-have-been humans. That was my idea! lol

I have a new one: I hypothesize that the sun is a mass of incandescent...vibrating homosexual unicorns.

Two posters so far imaginative enough to have pet theories, and brave enough to admit them. Good start.

My hypothesis would counter Darius' in that I assert that unicorns are really a coven of narwhals acting like horses and as such unicorns don't really exist as a species at all

zing

I propose that aliens are responsible for transporting the ancestors of the New World primate order to the south american continent. Because the only other explanation we have is rafting. Rafting for crying out loud!

I also blame aliens for Florisiensis. Cuz we don't know what hell is going on there either.

I counter mormoopid by suggesting this.

I believe in fact that humans created life themselves, and that "God" is nothing more than a bearded scientist from millions of years in the future who created life in the past via a time-loop!

Other than that I'm quite an avid believer in the theory that black holes are essentially a universe within themselves. We may be a black hole within a father universe that is also a black hole within a grandfather universe etc. etc. or we could also be the universe highest in the "hierarchy".

The end of a black hole universe is the event horizon of the black hole, and thus it rejoins its father universe. The end of the patriarchial universe is the Big Crunch.

Reptilian aliens came here a long time ago and made what was one gender into male and female. They also run the world as leaders today getting us ready for 'the harvest' in 2012 when they hope a negative galatic harvest will occur so they can lose their bond to humanity. But this has failed many times and they reset us back in time to do it all again until they get a negative harvest. Someone has got to stop it, and I am to stop it. Being The Doctor and all. I need to remember the stuff I know though, my TARDIS and where it is, my memories. Everything. Doctor Who is also a program made on purpose by my orcharstration to remind me of who I am and link uncanny stories in its plot lines to what I have got to do... David Tennant is also me, regenerated... I am also The Count of St. Germain and also Jesus. Jesus being the 1st Doctor, St. Germain the 2nd. DT the 3rd and me the 4th...

I've lived this very life and the lives of the previous three many times but can't remember why I am doing it, or for what reason (1,2 and 3 can remember though). The only reason I can think of is so that I can slowly get away from the cause and effect universe enough so I can be away from this harvest system, away so I'm not involved in it and can therefore stop it.

Thats not even half of it... :P Somehow I am aware this is all completley solid evidence that I should be locked up, but I don't feel insane, I don't act insane. I just have these beliefs and don't do anything a mentally retarded person would do. I'm sane enough to know this is insane, to you. But it makes sense to me.


EDIT: With beliefs such as this, its not hard to go furthur if you know what I mean... So as I say.... Do not judge.... for you will be judged and I'll have great satisfaction doing that.

Originally Posted by Bad Wolf

Reptilian aliens came here a long time ago and made what was one gender into male and female. They also run the world as leaders today getting us ready for 'the harvest' in 2012 when they hope a negative galatic harvest will occur so they can lose their bond to humanity. But this has failed many times and they reset us back in time to do it all again until they get a negative harvest. Someone has got to stop it, and I am to stop it. Being The Doctor and all. I need to remember the stuff I know though, my TARDIS and where it is, my memories. Everything. Doctor Who is also a program made on purpose by my orcharstration to remind me of who I am and link uncanny stories in its plot lines to what I have got to do... David Tennant is also me, regenerated... I am also The Count of St. Germain and also Jesus. Jesus being the 1st Doctor, St. Germain the 2nd. DT the 3rd and me the 4th...

I've lived this very life and the lives of the previous three many times but can't remember why I am doing it, or for what reason (1,2 and 3 can remember though). The only reason I can think of is so that I can slowly get away from the cause and effect universe enough so I can be away from this harvest system, away so I'm not involved in it and can therefore stop it.

Thats not even half of it... :P Somehow I am aware this is all completley solid evidence that I should be locked up, but I don't feel insane, I don't act insane. I just have these beliefs and don't do anything a mentally retarded person would do. I'm sane enough to know this is insane, to you. But it makes sense to me.


EDIT: With beliefs such as this, its not hard to go furthur if you know what I mean... So as I say.... Do not judge.... for you will be judged and I'll have great satisfaction doing that.

They didnt "come here" they "Evolved here" first. And human beings were the solution to their fuel crisis. The "harvest" of energy is constant, and we are nothing but blankets to keep the cold blooded reptilians warm, eventually we'll build another layer of intelligent life to keep us warm.

They didnt "come here" they "Evolved here" first. And human beings were the solution to their fuel crisis. The "harvest" of energy is constant, and we are nothing but blankets to keep the cold blooded reptilians warm, eventually we'll build another layer of intelligent life to keep us warm.

Still its got to end, I'll bring Excalibur and you can take me to Denver International Airport and get me underground...

They'll finally discover that us autists1 are the next stage in human evolution and all the emotibots will have to "Respect our Authority"!











1 Without in any way meaning to make light of those affected by autistic spectrum issues, but just from the point of view of a borderline Aspergers bloke who finds the emotibots a little too overwhelming at times.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

They'll finally discover that us autists1 are the next stage in human evolution and all the emotibots will have to "Respect our Authority"!

Well, any variation is the potential "next stage" given that evolution is non-teleological. Plus much of what we consider disability in ASD is really only a disadvantage when you're stuck in a rigid human society.

I'll make a prediction.

I'm betting that the final Theory of Everything will look a lot like the Ether Models of the late 19th Century, except with Special and General Relativity incorporated.

We'll see the revival of an elastic, 'rubbery' Ether composed of astonishingly tiny particle grains that tightly pack the universe. This Ether will display mechanical properties like compression and tension from being compressed and stretched, and we'll find that the mechanism responsible for motion, velocity, and acceleration will be uneven distribution of compressed or tense field around a particle of matter; in other words, particles are pushed or pulled along by a compressed and tense field trying to become 'relaxed' and uniform.

We'll also find that particles are composed entirely of Aether, and that, at their borders, a density discontinuity will exist that will distinguish particle from field (or the "empty space" around it). Even more, physicists will discover that particles, too, become stretched and compressed, depending on the local density of the field, allowing Relativity to fit snuggly into the picture. And because both the field and particles exhibit elastic properties, we'll find that particles are harmonic oscillators that contract and expand cyclically, distorting their local field by producing the phenomenon of undulating waves -- hence the particle/wave duality of matter.

Finally, as for gravity, we'll find that it can be fitted with the other three forces because of a discovery regarding a lack of symmetry. The proton and the electron charges will be found to be off by a very tiny increment -- and physicists will slap themselves on the head for not realizing it earlier, acknowledging that the proton and electron never were natural particle/anti-particle partners to begin with. This will be a major breakthrough for lingering questions regarding the stability and history of the universe -- and its future.

And humanity will, by this point, have entered a new age.

Originally Posted by Latin_of_delight

I'll make a prediction.

I'm betting that the final Theory of Everything will look a lot like the Ether Models of the late 19th Century, except with Special and General Relativity incorporated.

We'll see the revival of an elastic, 'rubbery' Ether composed of astonishingly tiny particle grains that tightly pack the universe. This Ether will display mechanical properties like compression and tension from being compressed and stretched, and we'll find that the mechanism responsible for motion, velocity, and acceleration will be uneven distribution of compressed or tense field around a particle of matter; in other words, particles are pushed or pulled along by a compressed and tense field trying to become 'relaxed'.

We'll also find that particles are composed entirely of Aether, and that, at their bounders, a density discontinuity will exist that will distinguish particle from field (or the "empty space" around it). Even more, physicist will discover that particles, too, become stretched and compressed, depending on the local density of the field, allowing Relativity to fit snuggly into the picture. And because both the field and particles exhibit elastic properties, we'll find that particles are harmonic oscillators that contract and expand cyclically, distorting their local field by producing the phenomenon of undulating waves -- hence the particle/wave dualtiy of matter.

Finally, as for gravity, we'll find that it can be fitted with the other three forces because of a discovery regarding its lack of symmetry. The proton and the electron charges will be found to be off by a very tiny increment -- and physicists will slap themselves on the head for not realizing it earlier, acknowledging that the proton and the electron never were natural particle/anti-particle pair partners to begin with. This will be a major breakthrough for lingering questions regarding the stability and history of the universe -- and its future.

And humanity will, by this point, have entered a new age.

Sounds like fun to me. Beats the hell out of reptiles and unicorns anyway.

God doesn't have a plan

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

God doesn't have a plan

Assuming God exists, that seems less like an hypothesis and more like something we could take for granted based on the available evidence.

My pet's theory is that humans must have an alternative motive other than voluntary servitude to the needs of cats and dogs.

Cat: 'I'm hungry feed me...my ear itches give it a scratch... go scoop out my litter box..."

Human: "Yessum master"

Dog: "There's a hair in my water dish, change it....open the door so I can go poop on your lawn...go get me a dog treat...."

Human: "Yessum master"

You can catch the details of my pet theory on my website:
http://s1.webstarts.com/discontinuityofAether/

I'll have to devote an entire thread to it so I can explain it in the future. Until that happens, I'll leave you with this post from my blog:

Why does gravity exist?

Excellent question! Unfortuneatly no one knows.

As of late, I've come the the conclusion that maybe gravity exist NOT because it's a force all its own, but because it's the left-over residual effect of another force--the electro-mangetic one. I'm of the opinion that the charges of the two primary electric players in our universe (the proton and the electron) are not equivalent though opposite in sign. Perhaps the charges of the proton and the electron are SLIGHTLY off by a very tiny value -- and one is winning. This left-over charge effect SHAPES the field around it, but very weakly. However, when you accumulate enough 'neutral' matter into a concentrated region that weak residual charge effect adds up and gives rise to the phenomenon of gravity.

This is a plausible answer to me for several reasons. (1) As of now, contemporary physics is having a hard time unifying gravity with quantum mechanics. Perhaps gravity isn't a force all its own with a symmetrical nature like the EM, weak and strong nuclear force, but a residual effect from slightly unbalanced (and I mean tiny!) charge magnitudes. (2) Protons and electrons are not natural particle/anti-particle partners, which means their charges MIGHT be off, even though our best instruments indicate their charges are identical to several significant digits. (3) Gravity is astonishingly weak compared to the other forces, which indicates that the difference in charge would have to be very, very tiny, which is in line with empirical evidence

If we followed this line of reasoning, we would have to assume that this residual charge effect would certainly be a detriment to particles of the same sign of the charge that's out-performing the other, and when two such particles encounter each other, even when in the company of the neutralizing partner (of slightly smaller charge), the two would repel each other great distances. But it turns out there's a way around this, too. If the mass of the particle with left-over residual charge is significantly greater than the mass of the particle of slightly smaller charge, the inertia of the first particle would prevent it from being repelled great distances upon encountering a particle of identical kind, when in the company of the neutralizing partner.

And it just so happens that the mass of one of the universe's primary electric players--the proton--is disproportionately greater than the mass of it's electric counterpart, the electron. Could the proton, then, have a slightly greater charge than the electron, yielding a residual postive charge effect on the surrounding field which materializes itself as space-time curvature and gravity?

If this is indeed the case, then our understanding of gravity is way off. What we usually attribute to being responsible for gravity--mass--would no longer be correct. In a world of unbalanced charged partners, the residual positive charge of the proton would be the culprit. Nevertheless, this RESIDUAL CHARGE should still be proportional to the mass of 'nuetrally charged' arrangements of matter it emanates from, so that would explain how mass was identified as the instigator from early on, and still is. And at the level of the very small, where gravity is unverifiable anyways, the force would simply translate into the property of charge.

It's an idea I've been promoting for a while, but unfortuneatly there's a lot of those floating around right now.

As for how this 'excess charge' manifest as an attractive force is being worked out right now, but it's all in line with my interpretation of an elastic aether.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

God doesn't have a plan

Assuming God exists, that seems less like an hypothesis and more like something we could take for granted based on the available evidence.

It's actually a theory based on this.

God is "all mighty."

Planning is something that individuals and groups do when they are not capable of doing something just right the first time, or when they want to compare different plans for different values like: functionality; aesthetics; and structural stability.

The bible also says nothing about a plan, to the best of my knowledge. Yet popular folk wisdom speaks volumes about God's plan.

So it is indeed a theory. A rebuttal of the theory "God has a plan." In fact it doesn't require God to exist to be valid. If God doesn't exist, God is no more in possession of a plan than if God does.

Latin, if I understand your idea correctly, wouldn't this result in a net repulsive effect between clusters of matter?

Ah, salsa -- it's all about the details of the field in an aether-based interpretation of the universe.

I will eventualy present the model I'm working on on its own thread, but I recommend that you venture into my site so you get a sense of the details of my model. My site is illustrated to convey the mechanisms and concepts as best as possible.

http://s1.webstarts.com/discontinuityofAether/

I'm still adding to and editing the main page, so consider visiting the 'Illustrations' page. It's far more complete and I will be adding the mechanism responsible for gravity soon and the explanation.

Meanwhile, here's a visualization of how I think an Electric Field is conduced. (The graph represents varying field density along the imaginary line PQ that intersects particles A and B. The voltage at any coordinate along the line is proportional to Pf - PE; the Electric Field magnitude is given by the slope or tangent of the density gradient curve at the coordinate. The graph is not to scale, and there are variations in the Field for displacements less than 1 PE and more than 1 PE -- the mean density of the Field.)




Also, this illustration should be taken within the context of an elastic, 'rubbery' field, and the field density at any coorindate reflects the mechanical properties of compression and tension exerted on the field by these bodies, which is indicative of how they will interact.

Albert Einstein may be right -- but Hendrick Lorentz is more so.

Some of Pong's pet theories:



(Local) life began with abiogenesis/genesis not on Earth but in the watery disc surrounding our sun before hospitable planets formed. Some of this early life survived being rained down on Earth. Confirm by finding "Earthlike" DNA or organisms in frozen relics of that first environment, like comets or watery moons.



Iceburgs routinely clog the Strait of Gibraltar when ocean levels are low and ice sheets go to pieces, because of the Mediterranean's net inflow and chokepoint. The Mediterranean sea level drops at these times. Confirm by finding large piles of iceburg-rafted sediment on the Atlantic side of the Strait - it should look like a cresent shaped sill, I think.



Gravity doesn't suck; it pushes. It is simply the effect of (any) smaller & faster particles on larger structures mostly porous to those particles. You would need an infinity of smaller and smaller particles for this to work (or larger and larger, if one is so inclined). Confirm infinity?



Life is ubiquitous at all scales, and counteracts entropy. Confirm by finding lifelike processes meddling at very large or fine scales. That scaling infinity again.



Individual humans already constitute "next level" self-sustaining lifeforms greater than the sums of their parts (us parts). Like genes to bodies, we can neither control them nor appreciate them. They're smarter than us! Confirmation is humanly impossible.



Our ancestors began their stone-chipping industry by cracking bivalves and scraping the meat with shell shards. Confirm by placing bonobos in a tidal-zone foraging environment.



Global warming is caused by anthropic sequestering of arid and marginal lands normally productive of cloud condensate nuclei (dust). Confirm by unstoppable dustbowls reversing warming crisis despite our "greening" efforts.

Originally Posted by Pong

(Local) life began with abiogenesis/genesis not on Earth but in the watery disc surrounding our sun before hospitable planets formed. Some of this early life survived being rained down on Earth. Confirm by finding "Earthlike" DNA or organisms in frozen relics of that first environment, like comets or watery moons.

I like this one a lot. Though the "Earthlike" bit is bound to cause much academic quibbling. Plus, abiogenesis almost certainly did not involve DNA. We'd more likely be looking for "Earthlike" RNA ribozyme style things or their descendants. That's a tricky one to test, but a lot of fun to think about.

This is not something I have shared before but was interested in presenting it in these forums while still owning the idea as my own. So this is saying, this is the first I have heard this explanation of the behavior of dark matter/dark energy. I'm very interested in hearing what experts and others say on this.
Since I am not qualtified to present any sort of theory and have no skill in developing a theory. This is just a picture I came to in my mind that I thought was an interesting eplanation of the universe expanding. Also it adds the idea that perhaps the amount of matter in the universe is increasing as dark matter.

Basically my understanding is the experts say there needs to be much more matter than we can see in order for the math to be correct ie dark matter. Second the universe is expanding, so you get dark energy opposing gravity and when distances are great enough over powers gravity.

So here is my thought; what if Dark Matter is simply pouring into this universe from another dimension or dimensions all over the universe constantly. This would mean there is no dark energy but dark matter does exist. What causes this entrance of dark matter into our universe from another dimension or place I would leave to figure out if the first concept holds any merit. Since I dont know enough about the math or details of what is considered likely in relation to dark matter and dark energy I would hesitate to build on this concept by proposing what is causing the dark matter to be pouring in.
I will stick with just suggesting that what appears to be the behavior of dark energy is not energy but the dark matter filling up our universe by entering everywhere constantly. When the distance's are close enough gravity causes matter we are aware of to clump together. Where common matter is more distance the dark matter filling space causes the matter we are aware of to be pushed out of the way. If this were the case would that require dark matter to be uneffected or effected differently by gravity. I would think determining if and how gravity should be expected to affect the dark matter entering our universe would need to be determined and maybe that would help in disproving this concept.
Anyway like I say I'm very interested in what I can learn about the theories of dark matter, dark energy, gravity and physics in general by throwing this out there.
Of course if this idea is taken and run with then I want credit for the origination of the concept if not any actual theory that is built out of it.
thanks the Founder. Presented July 29th 2009.

Mod edit: Please don't use this forum as a platform to promote some start up religion. Link and blurb removed.

Originally Posted by Founder

Of course if this idea is taken and run with then I want credit for the origination of the concept if not any actual theory that is built out of it.
thanks the Founder. Presented July 29th 2009.

It's a pretty rare thing in science for people to get credit for very vague ideas, especially if they haven't even suggested a means by which the idea might be tested...

Yea, your right I guess I just like my idea right now until people who know better rip it to shreds and I can disgard it.
Anyway I just want to be able to say someday hey I came up with that idea. Even though maybe some scientist may come up with a theory totally seperately that resembles it close enough. I just wanted to date it so I could say see I'm not claiming to an idea that I didn't really come up with on my own. So I can show the date I came up with it and it was before that theory did.
I think we all get some coots saying this or that and we think to ourselves this guy really wants me to believe he invented the internet. Anyway I'm pretty sure this concept wont go any where but if I'm wrong and it does I still came up with it so Ha 8) .

Hi, Founder.

Great idea. Actually I have an idea similar to what you've expressed on Dark Energy, except I don't believe that matter is constantly 'pouring' into the universe to explain why its inflating.

The hypothesis I've loosely constructed to fit in with the model I'm slowly unfolding on this forum has to do with what a theoretical "Emergent matter" is doing with a kind of Pure "vacuum" state of the pre-universe (a little chunk of Emmergent matter first appears only at one instant, either seeping in from other dimensions or something else). I have an illustration with an explanation:



Figure above: The "ethereal Component" is in pink; the "vacuum component" is in white.

In this Emergent matter's (Ethereal component) quest to achieve perfect homogeneity with the surrounding pure vacuum state, the "universe" is forced to expand and take in more and more of the vaccum (vacuum component) with the passage of time, so the actual universe today is a blended homogeneous soup of ethereal and vacuum component, but with little 'vibrating' lumps and gaps that we interpret to be matter.

As for Dark Matter, I really don't believe it exist. Dark Matter is proposed as a way of explaining the extra gravitational effect observed with large-scale galaxies that General Relativity is at a loss to explain unless it exist. The standard interpretation is that Dark Matter is failry uniformly distributed around galaxies--very unlike regular matter! Also, Dark Matter is not permitted to express any electro-magnetic phenomena--only gravitational behaivor--again, unlike regular matter!

There are alternative theories to Dark Matter out there (yes, proposed by respected theoretical physicists that believe the "Dark Matter" solution creates more of a mess than it solves)--and the backbone of many of these is that we still don't quite understand what gravity is or how it performs on large scales, only on smaller scales in the universe. I'm an advocate of this interpretation, and I, too, have my own explanation!

Thank you for your comment Latin_of_delight, I wont theorize on the meaning of your name .

I found your concept interesting, I copied the idea I proposed into its own topic with in this overall thread and have been waiting for comments but am still waiting so I thought I would double check here and was happy to see your reply. I actually discovered a problem myself with my own idea. As for these dark matter idea's I have they are just conjecture since dark matter if present is still very mysterious so it leaves open a lot of possibilities. I will include my problem with my own idea in the topic of dark matter I started but I'm waiting to see what others say about it first. Anyway it caused me to come up with a different concept involving dark matter and when I share my mistake I will share that wild concept as well.

Anyway I have to admit I have a hard time keeping up with your concept but I think I got a general idea of what you are saying. It is interesting and I look forward to reading more about it. Maybe I can throw some nieve questions at you eventually so I can understand it more. This looks like something someone had discribed that I read already maybe that was yours I dont remember. I tend to give the standard models from scientist the benifit of the doubt on these subjects. They do seem to be able to make predictions on matter like quarks and others that kind of prove they are on the right track. Certainly the LHC when they finally get it up and running should help in determining the nature of gravity.
This all being said this is very fun stuff and like I say I will be studying your concept and maybe will comment and ask some questions along the way if you don't mind.
Thanks again the Founder. 8) .

Thanks for the accalades, Founder.

Yes, I still have quite a bit to post on the model I'm working on. But I'm putting it up on this forum so that others can work on it and use it--including you if you like, if you're willing to exhaust your patience with physics.

Me? I'm more of a biochemistry/sci-fi kind of guy. :P I consider this my charitable contribution to science if it turns out be something viable (it's just an elaborate idea at this piont; the real work will be in mathematically expressing this model while making it consistent with currently validated theories. Good luck to whomever attempts that!)

I'll post more soon though.

Dark matter is simply matter of another kind of matter configurations different to the composition of our own atom. There are many kinds in the universe yet they all interact with gravity in more or less the same way.

i have a discrepancy with the notion that time is connected to space. how did they prove it. the show i watched on discovery channel said that two ships past each other at 3/4 light speed. but they didnt see what they predicted what they would see. where on earth did they get their ship. i was under the impression that we have nothing that comes even close to traveling at half of light speed. so how was the notion of time being connected to speed founded. is it just a theory.

I think I can say with certainty that you were watching a description of what would appear if two ships were to pass each other. There are not have not been any ships to travel any thing close to the fraction of light speed that you are speaking of. I would say the speeds even of our fastest deep space probe which I believe is the Helios at 150000 miles per hour is not even a fraction worth mentioning with light at approximately186000 miles a second. So you may have missed a part of what they said or misinterpreted it.

As for space and time I cannot say as an expert but it could be somewhat proven by the experiment on the train and the passage of time being relative to the person on the train as compared to the person waiting at the train station. ie Relativity.
I copied the following from wikipedia so I do not take any credit for what is written below but may help answer your question.

In physics, spacetime (or space–time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort than the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

In classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, however, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the rate at which time passes depends on an object's velocity relative to the speed of light and also on the strength of intense gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time.

I believe the human mind or consciousness emits an energy which would explain why we each percieve the world in different ways.

This energy interfers with matter and distorts it presenting it to our mind as per our intelligence, personality, age, gender, etc.

We each have our own personal signiture. :P

This also makes thing like telepathy possible.

So it's like the squeeks of bats (they "see" by) interferes with the insects they are hunting. And we, like bats, tune out the "noise" of others.

***

Another Pong's:

Jesus was never crucified. That impetuous showman's closest friends and family corroborated an opportune misunderstanding that he had been (safely) crucified, but when Jesus returned and learned the news (on the road into town apparently) he couldn't help milking another miracle from it.

Finally Jesus listened to reason and stopped temping fate. He quit playing prophet and quit going to Jerusalem, likely promising his mom and girlfriend he'd disappear from public. They and perhaps a few "insiders" made up further explanations as necessary to Christ's followers, and not quite consistently. Contradictions multiplied as disciples vied to portray themselves as insiders privy to exclusive details. Emperor's new clothes kinda thing.

This explains why the loudest most repeated proclamation of early Christians was, "Christ did die on the cross. He did. He did." Why belabour a point if everyone believes it?

I call this hypothesis reports of my demise.



Another:

Early dogs retrieved thrown weapons. Their major contribution was, when groups of humans beset a mammoth or whatever with spears and "killer sticks", the dogs would dash into the danger zone and retrieve our weapons for re-use. And again. Until we stopped throwing.

This behaviour was bred into dogs.

I imagine it began with basically wild dogs picking up bloodied weapons, and skulking after us as we followed our wounded prey. A dog that dropped the cumbersome object to retreat when a hunter suddenly turned on it, would be most likely to eat meat later in the day... either because we'd be less likely to kill that dog, or because we reasoned it had helped and deserved a share.

Notice that the sticks dogs choose to bring us - hoping for a game of fetch - are invariably large and better suited to harming bison than innocent sport would suggest.

Confirm the hypothesis by finding weapons with numerous canine bite marks alongside other wooden objects that are not bitten.

My pet theory would involve forgetting lame political correctness and doing scientific studies on race and intelligence (not to make certain ethnic groups look bad, rather to find out what kind of intelligence each group on average excels at...the Asians are anecdotally a mathematical people, for example and maybe their brains are wired to process such information more easily than others).

Hi guys,

Just wondering if anyone has ever thought the following about our Universe creation:

Imagine beaker full of a liquid/gas/medium
Drop of another liq/gas/med falls into beaker
This causes a chemical reaction of sorts, but spreads similar to adding dye to a water filled beaker

The Universe continually expands throughout the beaker or other medium
We cannot currently view the original matter that the universe expands into due to limited measuring tools

The initial reaction could have also been two particles that collided and caused reactions in a medium - fission, maybe even fusion?

Meaning the 'Universe' is much smaller than originally thought...ad infin.

Means we're even smaller and insignificant, wait i don't like this theory!

};^>

I often wondered when I was little, if we expect something, is the possibility of it happening reduced? For example, if my mother went to a store, what were the odds that out of ten different kinds of chocolate, she would buy me the exact one I wished but didn't tell her that? :)
It never sounded really logical, the logical answer would be that the odds were 1/10, of course, but events in real life always kinda seemed to prove this theory.

Later, I forgot about it because I thought it just wasn't possible, scientifically.
But then some time ago, I came across this:

http://anonimustheories.blogspot.com/

I guess someone else had the same pet theory and decided to explain it to others in a simple way. But after I read it I started to wonder, do other people have thoughts like that too? And are there undeniable arguments against it?

Originally Posted by gottspieler

My pet theory would involve forgetting lame political correctness and doing scientific studies on race and intelligence (not to make certain ethnic groups look bad, rather to find out what kind of intelligence each group on average excels at...the Asians are anecdotally a mathematical people, for example and maybe their brains are wired to process such information more easily than others).

Not a bad plan. But I can tell you now what you'll discover in the brains of Asians, age 7 and up: You'll find an aberration in the parts normally dedicated to hand-eye-coordination, performing mental calculations. If you ask the Asians you will learn they'd taken abacus in school, explicitly to build this unusual brain wiring. It's comparable to the way chess players predict sequences of moves in their heads. And hey, why not study that too?

the universe is expressing 1/time and the 4 fundamental interactions are emergent properties of the pattern bearing potential of an increasingly large set of rational numbers.

lmao.

The Shit Happens Theory

Question: 'What caused the Big Bang?'
Answer: 'Shit happened, a lot of shit happened.'

There you go, you can send me donations for my discovery if you'd like

Originally Posted by korben

The Shit Happens Theory

Question: 'What caused the Big Bang?'
Answer: 'Shit happened, a lot of shit happened.'

There you go, you can send me donations for my discovery if you'd like

Try to avoid using profanity please.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Try to avoid using profanity please.

Oops . . sorry about that. Do you want me to edit it or just remember for future reference?

Originally Posted by korben

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Try to avoid using profanity please.

Oops . . sorry about that. Do you want me to edit it or just remember for future reference?

Just for future reference- it's not something we enforce too rigidly!

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by korben

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Try to avoid using profanity please.

Oops . . sorry about that. Do you want me to edit it or just remember for future reference?

Just for future reference- it's not something we enforce too rigidly!

Okay, i'll keep the !@#$ to a minimum and try to avoid !@#$.

Originally Posted by Numsgil

I half believe that humans are in fact aliens from another planet transplanted to Earth. I explain the fossil record as other humanoid species we out competed.

Incedentally I had this idea before I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

LOL i think so as well i am a christian and i believe in evolution (in an animals) but i just feel uncomfortable saying the same for humans? LOL and i hated that book by the way though maybe its my religous views that refuse to accept i am an animal or maybe it is just the uncannyness of thinking so low of your self?

Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie

Originally Posted by Numsgil

I half believe that humans are in fact aliens from another planet transplanted to Earth. I explain the fossil record as other humanoid species we out competed.

Incedentally I had this idea before I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

LOL i think so as well i am a christian and i believe in evolution (in an animals) but i just feel uncomfortable saying the same for humans? LOL and i hated that book by the way though maybe its my religous views that refuse to accept i am an animal or maybe it is just the uncannyness of thinking so low of your self?

Guess that's only a problem if you look down on animals!

yay! everyone and everything are nothing but energy conversion devices. here's to energy!

Originally Posted by korben

The Shit Happens Theory

Question: 'What caused the Big Bang?'
Answer: 'Shit happened, a lot of shit happened.'

There you go, you can send me donations for my discovery if you'd like

The politically correct statement is
"Excrement happens"

I believe that no one in this universe who knows that who created us...? Am I right..? But we know that there is a superpower who rules us and force us to do that work which he wants. Simultaneously, we also know there is no any theory or any hypothesis has been established for the evolution of us. We only 'assume' that we are living particles in this living Earth.

So my hypothesis is- "Assumptions made us....!" [/i]

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by gottspieler

My pet theory would involve forgetting lame political correctness and doing scientific studies on race and intelligence (not to make certain ethnic groups look bad, rather to find out what kind of intelligence each group on average excels at...the Asians are anecdotally a mathematical people, for example and maybe their brains are wired to process such information more easily than others).

Not a bad plan. But I can tell you now what you'll discover in the brains of Asians, age 7 and up: You'll find an aberration in the parts normally dedicated to hand-eye-coordination, performing mental calculations. If you ask the Asians you will learn they'd taken abacus in school, explicitly to build this unusual brain wiring. It's comparable to the way chess players predict sequences of moves in their heads. And hey, why not study that too?

True. But maybe they have a genetic variant which makes it easier for them to learn math in the first place due to hundreds of years of natural selection b/c of the abacus-using society they were born into.

Life is always working it's ass off, and every now and then it gets a chance to reflect and wonders "What is the meaning of humans?"

I believe particles don't move. Light is what moves and it just appears as if everything else is moving. It's like a big computer screen, pixels and particles being the same idea.

(i hate trying to put this in short form)

Time is multidimensional and separate from spatial dimensions.
its nature multi-dimensionally will be described as chains of potentiality
potentiality is subject to a fundamental force of attraction related to the big four
when a quantum waveform collapses, it breaks off and appears in our spatial dimensions, roughly akin to an energetic transformation.

the human mind overlaps both spatial and quantum dimensions.
as such, we are interacting with time-as-potentiality
the same rules governing quantum energy apply to the formation of our thoughts
(the Classical Greek version of Æther fits in here)

the same ætherodous force of potentiality in attraction will be evidenced in a really uncomfortable proof that special relativity applies to individual subjective perception under the influence of quantum rules above and beyond the notion that Einstein had.

Originally Posted by Pong

I guess everyone's got at least one pet theory. I mean a whacky and embarrassing hypothesis tucked away in the mental closet; improbable, delightful, not quite impossible. ...

Mine referes to inertia , trying to explain it in view of the Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) and that the SuperFluid is uncompressable ...
To make all short , as infinite the Universe is , because it is uncompressable , any wave or movement will cause a spheric pressure propagation wave that eventualy will come around , yes the Entire Universe , and push the object in its original direction until the original wave is deteriorate by interactions with others ( or just simple friction ) .

Of course , an uncompreessible SuperFluid also means instant communications and vision over extreme distances , perhaps even seeing , yes , the back of your head ...
So I am embarrassed to even think of such things , no ?

Well , check it out your self , read the UPN here or on its original site and you decide :

http://www.thescienceforum.com/A-tim...4a06e0f487ca5a

or original at

http://RecipeForaNationUnderground.WordPress.com

OH ... I forgot , on that site are another three writings that I am trying to hide , I mean really , with such titles :

it's 20:11 , do you know where your Earth is ?

and

the Advanced Alien Super Specie : the dream prison

and the foundation : Recipe for a Nation , future shocking !

They called me a crack-pot before , eh ! That's their stamp of approval , no ?

i think that all things are made from other things, which could be considered, and often are cells.

Take as an example the old conviction that a chill can cause a cold or slow recovery from an existing sickness. It's something that your grandmother likely told you. Modern medicine eventually came to refute this idea: physicians reasoned that colds are caused by viruses, and so they advised that guarding oneself from chills wouldn't protect from colds.

That advice was discredited to an extent in 2005 through an expirament by researchers in the UK who suggested that cold constricts blood vessels, leading to less virus-fighting white blood cells in the nasal blood capillaries, and thus greater probability of viral infection. Yet their experiment involved soaking subjects feet in cold water for 20 minutes, which hardly proves your grandma's thesis that you could get sick from a second's exposure to a cold draft.

I'm no expert on complexity theory, but it seems easy to imagine how, if viewed as a complex system, the equilibrium between the human immune system and viruses could be affected by slight changes in temperature in one part of the body. As an interconnected system, other body parts and processes will be affected, whilch will affect still other parts and processes, etc., ultimately resulting in the virus making greater progress than it ordinarily would.

I believe that our increasing understanding of the human body as a complex system will reveal mechanisms that explain how many traditional health remedies and preventions work, show some to be false, and help us understand how to better use the ones that can be effective.

The connections between number theory and physics are too powerful, too certain, to be ignored for much longer by the mainstream scientific community. At some point surely we will realise physics can be investigated through the analysis of number theory, and the implications of this are - well, interesting doesn't really cover it.

The universe is clearly and unambiguously mathematically consistent. There can only be, by definition, one sum total of existence. And at that scale, the only value we can ascribe to the sum total of existence is that it = 1. If then everything within the sum total of existence is composed of parts of that sum total, it's not illogical to suggest that whatever exists within the universe is 'made' of nothing more complex than fractions of the whole, self-organising at every scale from the astromnomical to the quantum - according to the laws of number theory.

Our human number system is only a system of classification - representative of the natural ordering of the universe into integer parts. We have names for the different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, so we have names for the different parts of the numerical spectrum.

As the theory of gravity is a human description of a natural characteristic of the universe, so number theory is a human description of a natural characteristic of the universe. We don't pretend we invented gravity, simply because we worked out some of the 'rules' by which it operates, why then do we insist that we invented numericality and mathematicality? Particularly when it is so self-evident that for humans to have evolved, the universe HAD to have both those characteristics already.

But what really blows my mind isn't the amazing possibilities this has for science. No. What blows my mind is that these connections are so clear, and they so clearly make scientists uncomfortable - so uncomfortable they refuse to look any closer and when pressed begin to mumble excuses about anthropocentricity they never put forward when investigating gravity, or quantum mechanics - both of which we're only able to investigate because our existence is predicated on theirs, in exactly the same way.
Surely, surely if ANYONE should be refusing to look away from what makes them uncomfortable, it is the scientific community? Any true scientist, when they came across a natural phenomena that weirded them out so badly as this, would surely LOOK MORE CLOSELY?!

Come on people. Sort yourselves out! Solve the mystery! Bloody hell, whatever else the connections are - they're nothing if not seriously strange, and seriously cool.

Let's call it 'teh big bang theory' - like the big bang theory, but you need some humour to get it.

Originally Posted by tbbt

Our human number system is only a system of classification - representative of the natural ordering of the universe into integer parts.

Well, tbbt, I can't fault your enthusiasm and passion, but as far as I can see - even with my limited math - you seem to be talking bollocks. Just taking one point, as quoted above. Would you agree pi is important in the unvierse? Last time I checked it wasn't an integer.

But the thread was designed to get the whacky ideas out there, so as long as you aren't actually serious, then right on! Nice one.

Originally Posted by tbbt

We don't pretend we invented gravity, simply because we worked out some of the 'rules' by which it operates, why then do we insist that we invented numericality and mathematicality?

Actually, we don't. The debate as to whether mathematics is invented or discovered is an old one. As far as I can tell, most mathematicians are of the opinion that it is "out there" and we just discover it.

The related question of why the universe can be described by mathematics has also challenged people. But it clearly can be. And, our best theories are all deeply mathematical.

You mention number theory and integers but, as John points out, integers are not enough to describe the universe. In fac, as the Greeks found out, they are not enough even to describe right angled triangles and circles!

However, symmetry is a fundamental aspect of physics, particularly particle physics. So I suspect that if you knew a bit more about these theories, you might approve.

they so clearly make scientists uncomfortable - so uncomfortable they refuse to look any closer

This sort of thing is said quite often and, I'm afraid, it is completely baseless. The mathematical nature of the universe amazes scientists, not discomforts them.

Originally Posted by Strange

You mention number theory and integers but, as John points out, integers are not enough to describe the universe. In fac, as the Greeks found out, they are not enough even to describe right angled triangles and circles!

I mentioined integers but never suggested "integers are enough to describe the universe". Integers are part of the spectrum of number, you need approaching the whole spectrum, wouldn't you agree?

But to reach, to derive, to describe the more complex numbers... where does one begin?

Originally Posted by Strange

This sort of thing is said quite often and, I'm afraid, it is completely baseless. The mathematical nature of the universe amazes scientists, not discomforts them.

So it amazes them, but it's not important enough to investigate with real vigour? And you DON'T find that strange?!

And yes, scientists do find it discomforting. Why else the embarrassed looks and shallow excuses? And don't forget before you start saying the embarrassed looks and shallow excusesare because it's a silly idea - you said yourself the totality, the absolutism of the connections "amazes" scientists. How can they be amazed if it's not worth taking seriously?

(and it is the very totality, the absolute consistency between the two - that's kind of the point I'm making. If it looks like a duck and talks like a duck and walks like a duck...)

It feels like there's an elephant in the room and all physics can do is ignore it, and then complain that the peanuts have "mysteriously" vanished.

I know the replies are about rebutting the idea the connections are more important than currently accepted, and as such there's not much will actually make a difference to your actual opinions. And even that makes me curious, it does feel like there's a defensiveness... but why?

But serious question - if the consistency is SO absolute, and if it does amaze scientists - then seriously, why is it NOT looked at with more enthusiasm? That's the very crux of what I'm trying to find out? Why not? Why admit it's pretty freaking, then brush off the suggestion maybe we should be more interested in looking very hard indeed at this strange area. Surely? That would kind of be the point of science? Finding stuff that "amazes" you, then investigating it. No?

Ok, second question - can we investigate physics through pure number?

Originally Posted by tbbt

So it amazes them, but it's not important enough to investigate with real vigour? And you DON'T find that strange?!

It is not clear what you think is not being investigated. There are deep connections between various forms of mathematics, especially symmetries, and the nature of the universe. These are being investigated.

You made some vague reference to number theory (which deals with integers) but then want to extend to the "spectrum of numbers". Does that mean the reals? But physics uses real numbers. And complex numbers. And quaternions. And symmetries, fields, vectors, tensors and many other mathematical tools. Some areas of research have come from purely mathematical insights.

So can you be a bit more specific about what you think is being missed?

And yes, scientists do find it discomforting. Why else the embarrassed looks and shallow excuses?

Where did you see these "embarrassed looks and shallow excuses"?

Originally Posted by Strange

It is not clear what you think is not being investigated. There are deep connections between various forms of mathematics, especially symmetries, and the nature of the universe. These are being investigated.

You made some vague reference to number theory (which deals with integers) but then want to extend to the "spectrum of numbers". Does that mean the reals? But physics uses real numbers. And complex numbers. And quaternions. And symmetries, fields, vectors, tensors and many other mathematical tools. Some areas of research have come from purely mathematical insights.

So can you be a bit more specific about what you think is being missed?

So the universe in inherently and fundamentally 'mathematical' (for want of a better word). And number theory is intimately part of how the universe 'works' (for want of a better word). I'm taking it we can agree there then? (I should say "what number theory represents" is intimately part of how the universe works, but it got clunky).

What I think is being missed is the (to me) seemingly clear line that runs back towards the 'big bang' - the point of existence - where the question of 'how' begins. And if the physics and the maths overlap, then they overlap ALL THE WAY along that line. So, my suggestion is that we should be able to investigate the 'big bang' (for want of a better phrase) by investigation of ONLY number. It's a cart/horse situation. The mathematicality leads to the physics - simple to complex.


I guess, going back to "what number theory represents" - number theory represents physics. They are the same thing, at different scales (for want of a better word). So number theory IS physics. So existence as we see it is a result of the workings of number theory on the single entity we call existence.

Starting (for want of a better word) from the 'big bang', which has an integer value of 1. Then dividing that single integer value into smaller and smaller parts (but all still part of the same single existence) - and the parts become more, and more complexy 'organised' - as their 'number' increases over time - and as the complexity of the 'numbers' increases - and the complexities of the ways they relate within the universe they're part of increases - so complex systems such as quantum mechanics begin operating. Number theory, applied to a single existence, as it divides into smaller constituents parts, leads to physics, leads to this physical reality. So that the nature of this physical reality, and the nature of its constituent parts, should be investigable through ONLY number theory.

Something like that.

(Edit -and each constituent part becomes its own 'existence' - both a part of the whole, but also a seperate entity within the whole. A whole new 1. Which might imply a sort of continuum in a weird folded mobius way. Although now it's getting tenuous.)


And think how much money we could save on particle accelerators (lol - jkn)

Originally Posted by Strange

[Where did you see these "embarrassed looks and shallow excuses"?

It's not the first time I've asked the question.

Originally Posted by tbbt

So, what I think is being missed is the (to me) seemingly clear line that runs back towards the 'big bang' - the point of existence - where the question of 'how' begins. And if the physics and the maths overlap, then they overlap ALL THE WAY along that line. So, my suggestion is that we should be able to investigate the 'big bang' (for want of a better phrase) by investigation of ONLY number. It's a cart/horse situation. The mathematicality leads to the physics - simple to complex.

And, almost everything we know about the earliest times of the big bang is because of the mathematics of our theories. (The confirmed by observation.)

So that's OK then? Or not?

Originally Posted by Strange

And, almost everything we know about the earliest times of the big bang is because of the mathematics of our theories. (The confirmed by observation.)

So that's OK then? Or not?

Now we're getting somewhere, although I think it's me who should be asking you if it's ok...

But we're actually somewhere close.

So, why is it NOT acceptable to make the connection an explicit one? Why does the suggestion that number theory and physics are part of the same natural 'laws' provoke such a definitely "NO!" reaction?

I'm genuinely struggling to understand, after reading your replies, why you disagree with my suggestions? It seems the more we debate, the nearer we are to agreeing we think the same thing but express it in different ways.

Originally Posted by tbbt

My thesis: Physics is number.

I think my only disagreement is your association with number theory. This is a tiny branch of mathematics and perhaps the least relevant to physics (because it only deals with integers, apart from anything else).

But physics is mathematics, I have no problem with.

lol - I edited out the thesis before I saw your post... To my mind, mathematics is a branch of number theory. I'd suggest number theory leads to more complex math. (And complex math condenses to number theory - see note below about continuum)

But we do agree then - physics/maths same thing? That's kind of all I was trying to suggest. Now, here's a question for you (you'll love this).

I dare you to go post that suggestion up in any of the more serious sections of this forum or any other. That "physics and maths are the SAME thing". You won't get taken seriously. Why not? You know what you're talking about, right? You're way more knowledgable than me. You agree it's self-evident. But try it.

This is where I have difficulties. We can see they're the same thing. So why not make more of it? It really is like Newton came up with the theory of gravity and everyone else went "Yeah, we've all seen apples mate" and didn't ever mention it again. Surely, surely if you stoip and actually look at it, think about what you said - physics IS maths - doesn't that make you want to start REALLY looking at how and why and what it might mean to future research into quantum physics and early astrophysics?

The progression I drew from the 'big bang' through to now -

existence (over time?) leads to 'number' leads to 'math' leads to physics.

If you agree physics and maths are the same doesn't that progression strike you as ACTUALLY being a sort of 'big bang theory' which CAN explain how/why the universe (apparently) began? (I included the "apparently" because the impications are for a continuum that looks like it has a beginning).

Isn't it a theory of existence in and of itself?

Originally Posted by tbbt

To my mind, mathematics is a branch of number theory.

Do you know what number theory is?

But we do agree then - physics/maths same thing?

Not really. The line "physics is math" is a useful metaphor. But there are huge differences. Physics is based on observations of the realt world, creating and testing theories, etc. Physics can be wrong. You can't "prove" something in pjhysics.

Mathematics is an abstract language used by mathematics. Some of mathematics says things about the real world. Some doesn't. Mathematics is amenable to formal proof - one of the few intellectual endeavours where you can say absolutely "this is right" or "that is wrong."

Isn't it a theory of existence in and of itself?

Doesn't seem like it. Math is an infinitely large "landscape". To take one example, a few thousand years ago Euclid formalized and proved everything that was known about geometry. Everyone assumed that geometry is geometry. But it turns out that there are different geometries: Euclidean and various non-Euclidean forms. There is no way of knowing, purely from the mathematics, which of them actually describes the universe. For that you need physics: observation, measurement, experiment, etc.

And you are still very vague about what people should be doing. If you are going to convince peiople you have something, you need more than just, "Look at number theory! No look! Really: Look!!"

However, if you could derive some fundamental fact about the universe purely from mathematics then, no doubt, people would take note.

Originally Posted by Strange

Do you know what number theory is?

Integers seem like a useful starting point from which more complex numbers can be derived. I'll use the term math, but it's still imperfect - the very name causes problems. Mathematicality any better? Natural math. Dunno, what name would you give the underlying math of reality?

Originally Posted by Strange

Not really. The line "physics is math" is a useful metaphor. But there are huge differences. Physics is based on observations of the realt world, creating and testing theories, etc. Physics can be wrong. You can't "prove" something in pjhysics.

Mathematics is an abstract language used by mathematics. Some of mathematics says things about the real world. Some doesn't. Mathematics is amenable to formal proof - one of the few intellectual endeavours where you can say absolutely "this is right" or "that is wrong."?

Ah. Here we're going to disagree. I'll post below for clarity.

Originally Posted by Strange

Isn't it a theory of existence in and of itself?

Doesn't seem like it. Math is an infinitely large "landscape". To take one example, a few thousand years ago Euclid formalized and proved everything that was known about geometry. Everyone assumed that geometry is geometry. But it turns out that there are different geometries: Euclidean and various non-Euclidean forms. There is no way of knowing, purely from the mathematics, which of them actually describes the universe. For that you need physics: observation, measurement, experiment, etc. ?

Um. I'd suggest that math is an infinitely large landscape only in potential. Like existence (multiverse theory etc - existence tends to infinity). In potential.

Prove there isn't a naturally occurring LHC somewhere in the universe (or prove that our LHC is not also naturally occurring lol), then we can talk Euclid.

Originally Posted by Strange

And you are still very vague about what people should be doing. If you are going to convince peiople you have something, you need more than just, "Look at number theory! No look! Really: Look!!".

No that is EXACTLY what I'm doing. LOOK! LOOK! There's something IMPORTANT there!

If I'm on a ship and I see there's an iceberg up ahead, then I shout "LOOK AT THAT!" and hope those in control of the steering will hear me.

Originally Posted by Strange

However, if you could derive some fundamental fact about the universe purely from mathematics then, no doubt, people would take note.

Yes, there are exactly those derivations occurring in pure math, as we speak. That's kind of my point. We CAN now derive fundamental properties of the universe, from pure maths. In fact we always could if only we thought about it - how can prime numbers be so important to nature, if we invented them as part of an abstract language about abstract ideas? We didn't invent them, we only described them in our own language.

You even allude to it in previous posts, but all it takes is a few seconds on google to find papers sprouting up on the weirdness of some pure math derivations which EXACTLY match observable characteristics/properties/ratios in reality.

---------------------------------

Mathematics and physics are based at their foundations, on observations about the universe we live in. I think your distinctions between an abstreact maths and a non-abstract physics is an arbitrary one (literally). If maths is an abstract language then so is physics.

How did maths develop if NOT from the real world? Humans didn’t invent integers and ratios, they only describe them. Pi is not a human invention, it is a human description of a naturally occurring ratio. Math didn’t just occur like art – math is based on the very fundamentals of existence.

Maths as abstract, compared to physics as real is simply not convincing. Math is real, and we’ve established that in previous posts. It is part of reality. Perhaps we need to distinguish the ‘human’ math from the ‘natural’ mathematicality, but you’ve regressed from ‘the universe is mathematical’.

And the differences you say exist between the nature of maths and physics - for me you’re saying that because a coin has two sides, the sides are not part of the same coin.
It is here where we're diverging. Math and physics can be wrong in the same way. In math the only way we know if it is 'right or wrong' is by assuming that everything we have already observed about maths is 'right' (ie 1+1 = 2) (and on the 1+1=2, this is a truth of reality, not homocentricity).

There are mathematical theories that have been posited, tested and found inconsistent with observable reality. Just as there are theories of physics that were tested and found inconsistent with observable reality.

In math there is an observable reality too. It is everything consistent with the principles of the maths we can observe in the real world. So even complex theories are ultimately tested by not much more than seeing what result they give for 1+1 = ? If a theory suggest 1+1=3 then we can say it is wrong. But it’s only wrong in truth because it contradicts observable reality.

Maths is based on concrete proofs, not abstracts.

Physics is only ever right and wrong in the same way. Gravity is not wrong, only our theories are imperfect. But it exists as an observable phenomenon. So - gravity exists as an observable phenomenom, as 1+1=2 is also an observable phenomenon.

So, the universe is math then. And this IS a theory of everything.

[edit - math is equivalent to the LHC. We took naturally occurring eements, manipulated them to our own designs, then turn the HIGHLY MANUFACTURED MACHINE (ie it's not found 'in nature') on the very 'stuff' the machine itself is made from, to investigate how that 'stuff' works. It's circular both ways, the LHC is essentially being used to investigate the nature of its own existence.]

Originally Posted by Strange

However, if you could derive some fundamental fact about the universe purely from mathematics then, no doubt, people would take note.

So, if we can - then you'd be starting to think maybe it's time people took note?


Surprising connections between number theory and physics

http://tgdtheory.com/public_html/art...artvisiona.pdf

and just for a laugh

ARS Electronica | Collide@Cern

So... taking note yet?

:P

(finally run out of time. no pun intended)

Thanks for ther discussion though Strange. We got so close. One day, one day lol.

sorry for dp

Originally Posted by tbbt

[Um. I'd suggest that math is an infinitely large landscape only in potential. Like existence (multiverse theory etc - existence tends to infinity). In potential.

That is the point. We can't tell which bits of math are potential and which describe reality unless we go and look: do science.

Until just over 100 years ago, it was assumed that Euclidean geometry described the universe and the others were just abstract "toys" (potential, as you put it). But it turns out that the universe is not Euclidean. We would never know that from the mathematics, only from experiment and observation (physics).

Prove there isn't a naturally occurring LHC somewhere in the universe (or prove that our LHC is not also naturally occurring lol), then we can talk Euclid.

I have no idea what the LHC has to do with geometry.

No that is EXACTLY what I'm doing. LOOK! LOOK! There's something IMPORTANT there!

If I'm on a ship and I see there's an iceberg up ahead, then I shout "LOOK AT THAT!" and hope those in control of the steering will hear me.

As I say, unless you can be a LOT more specific as to what you see as this important relationship, you are going to be more like the boy who cried wolf.

You even allude to it in previous posts, but all it takes is a few seconds on google to find papers sprouting up on the weirdness of some pure math derivations which EXACTLY match observable characteristics/properties/ratios in reality.

If so, doesn't that invalidate your claims that this was all being ignored?

Originally Posted by Latin_of_delight

You can catch the details of my pet theory on my website:
Swoosh

I'll have to devote an entire thread to it so I can explain it in the future. Until that happens, I'll leave you with this post from my blog:

Why does gravity exist?...

...It's an idea I've been promoting for a while, but unfortunately there's a lot of those floating around right now.

As for how this 'excess charge' manifest as an attractive force is being worked out right now, but it's all in line with my interpretation of an elastic aether.

Why are you shouting? I have a headache from reading stuff at this site already! Please...sh-h-h-h...

Originally Posted by efbjr

Originally Posted by Latin_of_delight

You can catch the details of my pet theory on my website:
Swoosh

I'll have to devote an entire thread to it so I can explain it in the future. Until that happens, I'll leave you with this post from my blog:

Why does gravity exist?...

...It's an idea I've been promoting for a while, but unfortunately there's a lot of those floating around right now.

As for how this 'excess charge' manifest as an attractive force is being worked out right now, but it's all in line with my interpretation of an elastic aether.

Why are you shouting? I have a headache from reading stuff at this site already! Please...sh-h-h-h...

You're responding to a three year old post.

I'm amused by the way tbbt dismissed my dismissal. Brilliantly done.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by tbbt

[Um. I'd suggest that math is an infinitely large landscape only in potential. Like existence (multiverse theory etc - existence tends to infinity). In potential.

That is the point. We can't tell which bits of math are potential and which describe reality unless we go and look: do science..

How is this different from physics? We can't tell which of the things physics can describe are possible or not, until we investigate.

I mean, you're suggesting we can't check the math without the science? And we can't check the science without the math. But according to your argument, they're utterly unconnected in reality. So as a scientist, you really should NOT be relying on their connectivity and inter-consistency until you've proved such a relationship actually exists.

Originally Posted by Strange

I have no idea what the LHC has to do with geometry.

Because you said if maths implies something it's impossible to prove, it has no actual use in the investigation into the real world. But physics also implies things it is impossible to prove, such as a naturally occurring LHC.

[(late addition) In science there is 'science fiction'. It's science for imaginative fun, but without any real application in the real world because it is all purely speculative. That isn't to say that the science of science fiction is impossible, merely that it's derived from science but isn't actually science. Perhaps all the speculative math, consistent within itself but not existing in the real world (as far as we know) should be called "math fiction" and the math that we CAN apply to the real world should be called "physical math". ?]

Originally Posted by Strange

As I say, unless you can be a LOT more specific as to what you see as this important relationship, you are going to be more like the boy who cried wolf.

That makes no sense. At what point did I say anything about invisible wolves? I'm asking specifically about 1 thing, and you reply with self-contradiction.

Originally Posted by Strange

You even allude to it in previous posts, but all it takes is a few seconds on google to find papers sprouting up on the weirdness of some pure math derivations which EXACTLY match observable characteristics/properties/ratios in reality.

If so, doesn't that invalidate your claims that this was all being ignored?

No, because people only see them as 'quirks' and 'coincidences' and 'curiousities'. Which is ... well, that's what I'm asking. How come it's only seen as coincidence, when as you yourself admitted if there were any way of deriving fundamental properties of the universe from pure math it would be something "to take note of" - a massive understatement.

I'm afraid the defensiveness of your replies does not convince me you're comfortable with the mystery of how maths and physics are so intimately and absolutely connected.


As a finalish thought - if maths is abstract, then so is physics. Both are human theories of how the universe works. The characteristics and properties that maths and physics describe however, are not abstract. Is gravity uninvestigable, because the theory of gravity is abstract?

Maths is clearly a matter of hard fact. Nothing and nobody could exist, or survive if maths was not utterly operational at every level of our physical reality, from the quantum to the astronomical scales.

As a very throwaway line: Plants grow according to laws and rules governed - governed ABSOLUTELY - by mathematical relationships. If maths is such a higher level abstraction, how come the plants are smart enough to use it?

If prime numbers or ratios such as pi are abstract concepts, how come they're so prevalent in the naturally occurring world?

Homocentricity is not an answer - it applies to all theories to do with the human investigation of the universe, maths and physics and evolution and all.

[edit - PLEASE NOTE: I'm not being as careful as I should to differentiate between "maths" the human theories of number and "mathematicality" the properties of the universe (constituent parts of the universe and the relationships between them) that human "math" describes. Please, please don't get pedantic for the sake of it. Seriously. Please.]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I'm amused by the way tbbt dismissed my dismissal. Brilliantly done.

I detect the slightest touch of irony.

Here's the link to a page discussing the connections between maths and physics.

math physics connection

And here's a quote that highlights the exact point I think physicists and mathematicians are kidding themselves:

"In mathematics, the pure notions of numbers and other structures do not need physics to exist or explain or even justify them."

This is fundamentally untrue, and sadly arrogant. The human concepts of number and numerical relationships are based on observation of the physical world, we have proof in a child's ability to acquire mathematics without formal instruction. But even then, the concepts themselves pre-exist humanity. We can prove some animals have an innate concept of number.

Maybe this is the best way of looking at it - if concepts of number are hard-wired into our brains, then we are not the conscious/self-conscious originators of those concepts. And it's self-deceiving to suggest otherwise.

We came up with human names for various bandwidths of visible light, we mix colours for esoteric artistic reasons. But we didn't invent physically real electromagnetic radiation. I'll stick with this for a second, because colour wasn't properly understood until Newton. Did he suggest colour was just abstract and had nothing to tell us about the physical world? Did he heck.

It's not only a testable hypothesis, the few tests they've done have not yet disproved it.

Observable entities: Physical reality is the result of a mathematical universe.

The descriptions of the observable entities: Physics can be derived from maths.

At what point did I say anything about invisible wolves?

You used an analogy about icebergs and I used an analogy about wolves. <shrug>

I'm asking specifically about 1 thing

But, AGAIN, unless you can be specific about what this "1 thing" is, no one is going to take it seriously.

What exactly do you think is being missed. You have made some vague statements about number theory. From things you have said, it is not clear you actually know what number theory is, or very much mathematics at all.

All you are saying is, "look there's this thing. It's important!"

"What is this thing?"

"You know, THING!"

No wonder people look at you sideways and back away slowly.

Here is what you need to do: Learn some maths. Learn some physics. Demonstrate the relationship you think exists. Collect Nobel prize.

Originally Posted by tbbt

[SIZE=2][FONT=arial]Here's the link to a page discussing the connections between maths and physics.

math physics connection

And, as he says:

It is important that I emphasize here that physics cannot be derived from mathematics alone. Let me back up a bit and fill in the holes. In order to understand fully a physical process, physicists try to derive the process from other more fundamental concepts. For example, in the early 1600's Johannes Kepler constructed a model of the solar system which he then used to predict the exact locations of planets with hitherto unheard-of precision. This is usually the first step in trying to understand a physical system--figure out HOW it works and then try to figure out WHY it works that way. It took Sir Isaac Newton's formulation of gravity to explain why Kepler's model works. And it took Newton's discovery of three fundamental ways that matter interacts to derive his theory of gravity. So, in the end, starting with Newton's three "rules," you can derive Kepler's model: The planets move the way they do because of gravity, and gravity works the way it does because it follows three basic rules or "laws" for forces. This is what we mean by deriving a complicated physical concept from more simple ones.

But if you start from basic mathematical concepts alone, it is not possible to derive the existence of gravity or any of Newton's laws.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Originally Posted by efbjr

Originally Posted by Latin_of_delight

You can catch the details of my pet theory on my website:
Swoosh

I'll have to devote an entire thread to it so I can explain it in the future. Until that happens, I'll leave you with this post from my blog:

Why does gravity exist?...

...It's an idea I've been promoting for a while, but unfortunately there's a lot of those floating around right now.

As for how this 'excess charge' manifest as an attractive force is being worked out right now, but it's all in line with my interpretation of an elastic aether.

Why are you shouting? I have a headache from reading stuff at this site already! Please...sh-h-h-h...

You're responding to a three year old post.

Yes...and its echos are still reverberating!

ok..i'll play..

i have always wondered..is it possible for a black hole to form and have the matter around it be so dense that the matter would get 'stuck' on each other forming a kind of dysons sphere around the black hole....

but i didnt stop there..

then i thought IF that were possible then how small could that happen..

could there be a micro-black hole at the center of our planet?
surrounded by tons of iron that the black hole has condensed?

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

i have always wondered..is it possible for a black hole to form and have the matter around it be so dense that the matter would get 'stuck' on each other forming a kind of dysons sphere around the black hole....

I am not aware of any natural process which would result in the formation of a hollow sphere around a black hole. Infalling matter falls towards the center of the black hole, and as such I don't see how such a sphere could form or indeed remain stable.

Send water to the sun, through pipes. The gravity of the sun pulls the water forward, and the water spins a turbine, which generates electricity. It's like free energy.
Maybe gravity is free energy, due to space moving around. It supposedly warps space, but maybe the matter itself warps space. The warping of space in a certain way moves matter in a certain direction, closer to the source of gravity. Because the space becomes less and less tightly packed as you get closer to the source, the matter is less dense on one side than on the other, so it gets sucked to the side which is less dense.

Originally Posted by NNet

Send water to the sun, through pipes. The gravity of the sun pulls the water forward, and the water spins a turbine, which generates electricity. It's like free energy.
Maybe gravity is free energy, due to space moving around. It supposedly warps space, but maybe the matter itself warps space. The warping of space in a certain way moves matter in a certain direction, closer to the source of gravity. Because the space becomes less and less tightly packed as you get closer to the source, the matter is less dense on one side than on the other, so it gets sucked to the side which is less dense.

Housten,we have a leak..

Originally Posted by NNet

Send water to the sun, through pipes. The gravity of the sun pulls the water forward, and the water spins a turbine, which generates electricity. It's like free energy.

You are forgetting that you need to get that water up from earth into those pipes first, which would require huge amounts of energy in the first place. Likewise, you would need to find a way to get the electricity back to earth without loosing pretty much all of it through natural resistance of a long wire.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

without loosing pretty much

You mean, "losing."

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

without loosing pretty much

You mean, "losing."

Indeed. Thanks Neverfly

I've often seen it spelled wrong even in news articles, so it bugs me

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I've often seen it spelled wrong even in news articles, so it bugs me

Yeah, I keep confusing the two, though at least I have the excuse of English not being my first language

AH? I'd never have guessed that...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

AH? I'd never have guessed that...

Are you serious ? I'd have thought my style of writing, and the way I structure my sentences would immediately give it away.

Completely had no clue over here...