The origin of mankind

[Marblehead]

You know that's very probably true. I have a horrible feeling that you might have a tendency to use a big hammer on troublesome things.

 

Don't even wonder about that any more.  I have a really great set of hammers.  I have one for every foreseeable occasion and a couple extra just in case.

[Marblehead]

Yes, what happened to that ? It sounds very Hitch hikers guide. There is a restaurant at the end of the universe. Although, technically 'end' is a very slippery word when related to the universe.

 

I thought that was Alice's Restaurant. 

[Karl]

Hey!  How could I love Chuang Tzu if I were not a bit of a mystic myself.  I even read Nietzsche as a bit of a mystic.

 

He was certainly a mystic. He was a muscle mystic (often mistaken as a stronger objectivist). He was the opposite end of 'sacrifice self to the greater collective/God/state/society/poor' he believed everyone must sacrifice to the one superman. His view of the universe was of a malevolent kind.

 

Contrast with Rand who viewed the universe as benevolent and believed in the rationally selfish individual without anyone sacrificing to anyone else.

[Karl]

I thought that was Alice's Restaurant. 

 

Next to Junko's waterfall.

[Michael Sternbach]

Are you contending that the universe is turned back on itself , like a balloon surface ?

 

Yes, that's a possibility. Actually, it seems to be the only one that explains how a space can be finite, yet boundless. It explains a couple of other things as well.

 

This reminds me of a funny story. When astronomers first observed another galaxy (Andromeda) - around 1930, I believe - they thought it might be just a mirror image of our own galaxy whose light has circumvented the Universe. Today, of course we know that there are not only other galaxies, but even clusters and super clusters of such. But the concept of a Universe turned back on itself is still viable.

 

a balloon has a circumference , and though one can go round it more than once , and though the circumference may be growing , it would still be possible to fully circumnavigate it depending on the rate of its expansion.  So I would say that it is indeed finite at any given instant ,and finite again in the next instant . But the complication of the time issue Is a valid consideration not much addressed by anyone., and a good thing to introduce, such as you have., though you are umm not calling it that

 

Since time is often considered the fourth dimension, I tried to make clear that I am talking about four spatial dimensions here. Extra dimensions are quite popular in contemporary physics, even though they are often considered to exist only on sub-quantum scales, which I don't agree to. Anyway, it is a good question how time ties in with them.

[Michael Sternbach]

No doubt about it. Junko still has to tell me where that waterfall is.

Hmm... Could it be that she meant this?

 

 

Hold on a minute, she is next to me, I'll ask her...

[Marblehead]

Hmm... Could it be that she meant this?

 

 

Hold on a minute, she is next to me, I'll ask her...

Good idea.

 

That is a pretty picture though.

[Junko]

It exists in Japan.

 

宇宙の滝 = Waterfall of the Universe

Edited May 26, 2016 by Junko

[Marblehead]

Waterfall of the universe exists only in Japan?  That's not fair.

[Stosh]

Yes, that's a possibility. Actually, it seems to be the only one that explains how a space can be finite, yet boundless. It explains a couple of other things as well. This reminds me of a funny story. When astronomers first observed another galaxy (Andromeda) - around 1930, I believe - they thought it might be just a mirror image of our own galaxy whose light has circumvented the Universe. Today, of course we know that there are not only other galaxies, but even clusters and super clusters of such. But the concept of a Universe turned back on itself is still viable. Since time is often considered the fourth dimension, I tried to make clear that I am talking about four spatial dimensions here. Extra dimensions are quite popular in contemporary physics, even though they are often considered to exist only on sub-quantum scales, which I don't agree to. Anyway, it is a good question how time ties in with them.

I don't go with the multi-universe thing yet , it just seems a Leetle too conveenient , EX Oh , ! <, My dark matter calculations constitute a fudge factor it would take six universes to off-set?  Well then ! theres got to be more universes , because my math doesnt work in this one.  

[Stosh]

That sounds somehow interesting. I think there should be some kind of interplay between the infinite expansion and infinite contraction of space-time in CCC for another Universe to emerge, but I haven't figured out yet how.

Yeah!,  the idea is a compromise between a crunch- bang universe , and a long dreary dead end. I dub it , the Tidal model.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

I don't go with the multi-universe thing yet , it just seems a Leetle too conveenient , EX Oh , ! <, My dark matter calculations constitute a fudge factor it would take six universes to off-set?  Well then ! theres got to be more universes , because my math doesnt work in this one.

Let's do the math.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

 

Dark Energy = 68%

Dark Matter  = 27%

Observable Matter = 5%

 

That means there is enough Dark Matter for five or six more Observable Matter universes approximately the same size as ours to exist (with different Laws of Physics preventing us from detecting them).

 

We still need a better answer for what is Dark Energy than "We just don't know."

 

How about anti-gravity?

[Stosh]

Paragraph 2 ..."

"Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy."

 

I saw no need to go any farther than that.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Gravitons with reversed spin would constitute legit  'anti-gravity'

 

BUT "Generally these attempts tried to "quantize gravity" by positing a particle, the graviton, that carried gravity in the same way that photons (light) carry electromagnetism. Simple attempts along this direction all failed, however, leading to more complex examples that attempted to account for these problems. Two of these, supersymmetry and the relativity related supergravity, both required the existence of an extremely weak "fifth force" carried by a graviphoton, which coupled together several "loose ends" in quantum field theory, in an organized manner. As a side effect, both theories also all but required that antimatter be affected by this fifth force in a way similar to anti-gravity, dictating repulsion away from mass. Several experiments were carried out in the 1990s to measure this effect, but none yielded positive results.^[13]

In 2013 CERN looked for an antigravity effect in an experiment designed to study the energy levels within antihydrogen. The antigravity measurement was just an "interesting sideshow" and was inconclusive.^[14]"

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjeiNC_8fjMAhVL2oMKHS28BI0QFggeMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAnti-gravity&usg=AFQjCNFhxJb0K5F3hl-RW3tZenjxGADyJg&sig2=qpLIv9u3hQ1YHBJg-a_Hzw&bvm=bv.122852650,d.amc

Edited May 26, 2016 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Re:  Dark matter ,  from your own post ...

   "(with different Laws of Physics preventing us from detecting them)."  

[Karl]

Only in back to the future.

[Stosh]

Im not saying any of that stuff may not constitute legit models , its just that the folks who generate these things don't even have faith in these ideas ,, and they are either unproven as of yet OR possibly will be  unprovable FOREVER.

I don't see how any of that can be considered firm enough to constitute evidence of anything , though it may provide theoretical fodder. 

Edited May 26, 2016 by Stosh

[Michael Sternbach]

Re:  Dark matter ,  from your own post ...

   "(with different Laws of Physics preventing us from detecting them)."  

 

Physicists talk about "Dark Matter" to gloss over the fact that what is in the dark is the grey matter between their ears.

[Stosh]

Physicists talk about "Dark Matter" to gloss over the fact that what is in the dark is the grey matter between their ears.

That could be true , I dunno , but I figure that there is this difference between actual data , and the conclusions people attribute to even the best of data. One must take leaps into the unknown ,, knowing one may not be correct in the long scheme of things. I also think too many people who excel at the maths lose sight that the math is supposed to be a reflection or quantification of a model that the universe exhibits. Its not science to postulate stuff that Cannot ever be proven. Just like its not science to predict the likelihood of life on other planets whith only the one data point ,, of our own planet. You cant legitimately draw any trend whatsoever from a single data point. And if the origins of the life on our planet , was Mars , then one cant even use Mars as a second data point!

[Michael Sternbach]

Waterfall of the universe exists only in Japan?  That's not fair.

 

Believe it or not: Japan is also in the Universe.

[Stosh]

Someday we may end up with a better answer than We dont know, Mh, but for now that answer is the best because it leaves open all the possibilities. IMO

DARK stuff, to me seems like an attempt to re use, the old ideas, even though they dont actually add up. Perhaps all the stuff is beyond the threshold of the observable universe and its actually normal stuff. Or maybe Michael is right and the universe twists back on itself six times so that everything is actually falling back to a big crunch. and the effect is multiplied by six universe worths.

The ideas can stack up like a house of cards if not held to the strictest standards of proof, and even then may not ever form a unified view.

[Stosh]

1600 replies? whoa, that is a book.

[Michael Sternbach]

That could be true , I dunno , but I figure that there is this difference between actual data , and the conclusions people attribute to even the best of data. One must take leaps into the unknown ,, knowing one may not be correct in the long scheme of things.

 

Of course it is natural for science to come up with working hypotheses, even if they are on the level of the old phlogistone theory. The more honest physicists will admit that this is about as far as they have come with their concepts of DM and DE.

 

IMO, solving these riddles adequately might require physics to really step out of the box it has constrained itself to.

 

I also think too many people who excel at the maths lose sight that the math is supposed to be a reflection or quantification of a model that the universe exhibits.

 

Agreed. Looking at many an advanced physics books, one can hardly avoid the impression that math is being overrated at the expense of imaginability - as if reducing it all to a bunch of formulas would really answer the questions.

 

Its not science to postulate stuff that Cannot ever be proven.

 

I'd be careful with "cannot ever be proven" here. This postulate's half life period may turn out not to exceed a couple of years or decades.

 

Just like its not science to predict the likelihood of life on other planets whith only the one data point ,, of our own planet. You cant legitimately draw any trend whatsoever from a single data point.

 

Right, that's tricky.

 

And if the origins of the life on our planet , was Mars , then one cant even use Mars as a second data point!

 

This would support the theory of panspermia though. Something we haven't talked about much on this thread so far.

 

Someday we may end up with a better answer than We dont know, Mh, but for now that answer is the best because it leaves open all the possibilities. IMO

DARK stuff, to me seems like an attempt to re use, the old ideas, even though they dont actually add up.

 

That's right what I mean by my comment above.

 

Perhaps all the stuff is beyond the threshold of the observable universe and its actually normal stuff. Or maybe Michael is right and the universe twists back on itself six times so that everything is actually falling back to a big crunch. and the effect is multiplied by six universe worths.

 

That's actually quite an extension of what I said. But interesting.

 

The ideas can stack up like a house of cards if not held to the strictest standards of proof, and even then may not ever form a unified view.

 

Stacking up ideas is sometimes the best way to go. And science is an open ended project. So far, whenever scientists thought they are close to something like a Theory Of Everything, trying to answer the last few remaining questions opened up a whole unknown Universe.

 

1600 replies? whoa, that is a book.

 

Yeah, fantastic. I just hope that no contributor would vandalize this thread by editing out their posts later. Coming across such threads is a pain for later readers. It really spoils all the fun.

[Karl]

....more unknown things about THE universe :-) it didn't open up a new universe as that would be logically impossible.

[Michael Sternbach]

....more unknown things about THE universe :-) it didn't open up a new universe as that would be logically impossible.

 

That's why I said "unknown" rather than "new." But mind you, a deaf person suddenly able to hear may very well feel like they are discovering a whole new world. We could now go into a conversation about the relationship between reality and our perception of it, but that may take things a little far - even for this thread.