Sciencemadness Discussion Board - aga's ridiculous model of Matter.

aga's ridiculous model of Matter.

aga - 3-6-2015 at 15:03

1. Matter and the dimensions it exists in are one and the same system.

2. A human observer is limited to the senses they evolved with.

3. A particle exhibits itself in many dimensions, noteably XYZ (spatial position) xyz (volume of space) and Time.

4. We think mostly about the dimensions most easily observable by us : XYZ Time Gravitic Magnetic Electrical

5. There are dimensions that particles express in of which we are unaware.

6. There are relationships between how much a particle may express in one or more dimensions compared to expression in another, e.g. c, conserving the total ability to express.

7. Energy may be the sum of the expression in all, or maybe just some dimensions, depending on #6

8. Some dimensional relationships are known, although mostly by linear thinking along the Time axis.

Despite every sane thought saying 'No!' i feel that there is something in it that some gifted mathematician could use.

Zombie - 3-6-2015 at 15:24

My sentiment exactly.

I believe IF there are dimensions in mater or particle physics that we are unaware of, they may be discovered by re'thinking the current models in the mathematical formulas we apply to them.

I'm not certain but I also believe that is the way all of the great physics discoveries were made, By re-thinking the math.

I'm still trying to figure out what "Num Lock" does on my keyboard.
I am also still having a difficult time understanding how time really applies. One moment I think I have it, and the next... not so much.

phlogiston - 4-6-2015 at 03:37

Allright, I resist the initial urge to dismiss it as a more or less random list of vague postulates, of which the relation to observations or predictions is somewhat lacking for the purpose of the entertainment provided by a philosophical debate about phyics, even... no... -especially- with a neural network saturated with ethanol.

Let me squint my eyes a bit to at least try to follow your thoughts between the lines.

Postulates 1 to 5 don't seem to be really new to be honest.
They contain ideas that have been explored in many forms by theoretical physists. These are part of theories that are being developed or have been considered in the past.
Hidden dimensions, the nature of spacetime and how it encodes particles, human observation. Daily stuff for theorists (and they -are- trying to derive testable predictions).

6, 7 and 8 seem related to the notion of spacetime but to use other quantities than time as a fourth dimension (electricity, gravity). I don't understand precisely how you meant to implement this, however:
Spacetime is a concept that elegantly allows one to calculate the change of an observer through the space and time dimensions. Whether it 'really' exists is impossible to say, it just helps a lot with the calculations.
Is the same true for defining the concept of electrospace? I assume not, or it would have been in common use to calculate the effects of electromagnetic effects.

To convince any gifted mathematician to spend their time thinking about any theory, you have to demonstrate that it is a promising path to pursue. One way to do that is to show that it fits with observations and, ideally, that it leads to testable new predictions (although, admittedly, some popular modern theories including string theory have so far failed in that respect).

blogfast25 - 4-6-2015 at 05:59

1. Probably.

2. A bit ambiguous but probably.

3. Volume is not a dimension.

4. Gravitic Magnetic Electrical are demonstrably NOT dimensions

5. Maybe. See string theory.

6. Deepshit Chopra kind of shit.

7. Deepshit Chopra kind of shit of the Second Variety.

8. Huh?

morganbw - 4-6-2015 at 06:43

Kudos to you Sir Aga,
right or wrong sir, you are a thinking man.
Me, well I am to dumb to critique

aga - 4-6-2015 at 09:12

One thing SM should have taught you is that you're never too dumb to critique

If i were slightly less dumb, i'd not have posted the OP.

blogfast25 - 4-6-2015 at 09:41

Quote: Originally posted by aga

If i were slightly less dumb, i'd not have posted the OP.

I don't think it's a matter of dumbness.

But if you're trying to develop a New Worldview completely outside of the existing paradigm you're at risk of developing something akin to 'Earth, Wind, Fire and Water are the four elements of the World'.

Take leaf out Galileo's Dialogo to see how new paradigms are formed and disseminated.

Or read Big Bang!, the best pop-science book on Cosmology in t'history of Mankind.

Or: learn to read!

And that goes for you too, Zomb!

Class dismissed. :cool:

[Edited on 4-6-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 4-6-2015 at 11:43

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

3. Volume is not a dimension.

Funny. I was standing in the sunshine in a dirt car park for half an hour today pondering that one.

Not sure X Y and Z are discrete and separate anymore, as i couldn't envision any system whereby a change in X Y or Z would have any possible separate, different effect on any other dimensional expression.

I.e. the same change in X, Y or Z would cause exactly the same change along the Time axis for instance.

If you had three equations that went :-

2q = X
2q = Y
2q = Z

what conclusion would you draw as to the identity of X Y and Z in terms of q ?

Edit:

Perhaps it's not only Time that we are focused on.

Likely that our evolved senses now blind us to the rest of reality in many ways.

[Edited on 4-6-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 4-6-2015 at 12:11

Definitional fallacy.

If by x, y and z we (as we commonly do) define spatial coordinates then your question re the 'identity of X Y and Z in terms of q' has no meaning or sense: the definition of x,y and z has already been 'fixed'.

Quote:

Likely that our evolved senses now blind us to the rest of reality in many ways.

Pffff... we've known for a very long time that what we perceive as reality is merely perception. As it so happens we can 'see' through that perception quite thoroughly.

Keep coming up with bad SciFi and believing you're an original 'thinker'.

Suppose you knew diddly about cooking and decided to become a three Michelin star chef. Would you start by looking up a recipe for Lobster Thermidor?

Your line of enquiry is like the path of least resistance: it leads to the dustbin. Try and study science from the bottom up or give it up as a bad job.

Yep. You've guessed: you're starting to annoy me.

aga - 4-6-2015 at 12:30

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

the definition of x,y and z has already been 'fixed'.

One calls into question the most fundamental assumptions is all.

No need to get arsey - there's no rule that says you have to read and consider any of my pointless points.

Original Thinking starts with pure bollocks.

Science can be used to find ways to extract useful stuff from wild ramblings.

The world turned out Not to be flat.
The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth.
Shock Horror: The world may not have been made by God.

Tip: when burning aga at the stake, pick the time of day (mid mornings better, post flatuli) and stand well back just in case.

[Edited on 4-6-2015 by aga]

[Edited on 4-6-2015 by aga]

Zombie - 4-6-2015 at 13:21

I'll bring beer, and marshmallows.

I was reading something last night that was attempting to explain the fate(s) of the universe.

1) The big chill (eventual burning out of all stars)

2) The ever expanding universe tearing itself apart at the atomic level.

3) The reversal of the trend (expansion) , and an eventual collapse into itself) similar to a black hole.

4) Dark matter (holding it all together)

Dark energy (pushing it all apart)

These are all credible theories. They are all accepted possibilities... Bullshit!

They all assume the universe has a central focal point. YET all the mathematical models show the universe can NOT have a center. Galaxies fly in all directions randomly (or on their own trajectory.

Look up the center of the universe. It does not exist, and all of the above theories of the demise of the universe rely on the central assumption.

Now, I have learned that these massive BH's are TINY in comparison to the universe. I learned something else.
If you make a whirlpool in a container of water, and drop in droplets of a colored liquid, you expect the color to flow neatly into the vortex, and disappear. It does NOT. It is attracted to the center, and falls in BUT the centrifugal force spins the collected matter outwards after it has been collected further down the vortex UNLESS there is an exit point.

Try it in a beaker on a stir plate. The liquid has no exit, and WILL become one. Do this in a sink, and all the color will fall thru.

A BH can NOT contain everything it swallows. There has to be an exit. Otherwise it would have to be white. It would have to radiate the light energy because that energy would be spun out of "solution" as it were.

This is as far as I have gotten so far. Pick this apart as it is to see where the idea leads.

[Edited on 6-4-2015 by Zombie]

Edit: Yes this sort of belongs in the BH threads but it also applies here to particle physics. Large or small the forces have to be the same.

Instead of critiquing these ideas (anyone that can type can do that) Try to follow the bouncing ball, and find a way to make them happen.

We're all dumb enough to make something work.

[Edited on 6-4-2015 by Zombie]

aga - 4-6-2015 at 13:41

Being dumb doesn't make all wild nonsense true and somehow pure.

BHs are so-called because nothing escapes them beyond the event horizon.

Well, everyone thought so until Hawking came up with the notion of them evaporating.

Being a Physicist, he will probably have had a huge pile of undeniable math to back up his notion.

The fact of that i do not know.

Time to google the Hawking Proof ...

Edit:

After several 1s of minutes googling i found nothing.

I'll go see him and ask.

[Edited on 4-6-2015 by aga]

aga - 4-6-2015 at 14:00

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston

Allright, I resist the initial urge to dismiss it as a more or less random list of vague postulates ..

Thank you for giving it some brain time.

The notion of Time fixation is what started it, and so it proceeds.

Perhaps something will come of it, perhaps not.

blogfast25 - 4-6-2015 at 14:04

Aga and Zomb.

I give up.

There is in both your posts so much demonstrable BS that it's painful to read and time consuming to rebut nonetheless. It's like playing tennis with a real bad player: one ends up spending far more time fetching these balls Baldrick's knocked out of the park than actually playing the game.

Aga's attitude is of course one of 'two fingers up to the Establishment'. What the ignoramus doesn't seem to have understood is that the Establishment isn't at all concerned with this kind of powerless arse-blowing.

Even if it does make some non-Establishment figures slightly 'arsey'...

Aga clearly also doesn't understand how scientific paradigms evolve, hence the stupid Hawking comment.

You're on your own, make as much a mess as you like, until it all ends up in detritus (or whimsy: nonsense should not be offered as Google spider food).

aga - 4-6-2015 at 14:14

aga understands next to nothing,and is open to learning.

The day aga thinks he knows it all is the day that learning will effectively cease.

Established Facts are fascinating.

Establishment Figureheads are much less so, usually.

I would agree that Detritus would be good fit, especially when the thread's existence offends 12.7% of the SM population.

blogfast25 - 4-6-2015 at 14:30

.

Zombie - 4-6-2015 at 17:07

There is something in every thought. No idea except my x-wife's ideas are so completely random as to have no meaning.

Blog... You live closest to Hawking. Why don't you stop by, and ask him to take 30 seconds, and join us?

The format suits him perfectly, and I'm sure one of those head slap moments will occur. Mr.s Hawking will have to do the slap...

I'm still reading, and trying to determine what is real, and what is mathematically engineered in all of this. counting both sides of a graph, and multiplying to get the number of boxes is one thing but E=mc2 is another.

blogfast25 - 5-6-2015 at 05:57

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Blog... You live closest to Hawking. Why don't you stop by, and ask him to take 30 seconds, and join us?

There's nothing you can't learn from his books until you've developed a 'deeper' knowledge of the Theory, Zomb. 'A Brief History of Time' is very readable. It would be a waste of the man's time. A bit like asking a lecturer to explain ordinary differential equations to an audience that's still struggling with simple, linear equations...

aga - 6-6-2015 at 13:25

Update :

I went and had a chat with Steve.

After about 10 seconds of careful consideration he said :-

"it is worth a bit of further thought by those best equipped for such."

A Put-Down if ever i heard one.

blogfast25 - 6-6-2015 at 14:02

Quote: Originally posted by aga

I went and had a chat with Steve.

Can I have his number? He sounds like a reasonable chappie...Lemmeguess, he's a plumber and always wears flat shoes, the sensible type? Mostly wears the same suit because he takes good care of his clothes and his pennies?

[Edited on 6-6-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 6-6-2015 at 16:06

I have a guest room... I'll even take a few beers out of the fridge to get them nice, and warm for him.

I hope he's good w/ dogs.

Edit:

I'm getting to the point of too much going on. I'm rebuilding my race scooter in the lab because my yard dogs have taken over the scooter shed, and the lab is not finished.

My Triumph is being built on the front porch, and I have three open windows on the computer. One on a youtube Ahuyasca lecture, one on the MAP cycle site to order my cylinder kit, and one here.

Heck. It's 8 o'clock Saturday... I'm fixing a drink!
I just realized that time was invented by the Irish... O'clock!

Take that world.

[Edited on 6-7-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 6-6-2015 at 17:23

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Heck. It's 8 o'clock Saturday... I'm fixing a drink!

Cheers!

Zombie - 6-6-2015 at 20:02

Salute Sir!!!