IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st March 2022, 08:30 AM   #41
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
When you start sniffing that aether, you can think up some weird stuff, but these days it is just spelled "ether".
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2022, 08:57 AM   #42
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 27,373
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
That's what they told me in high school.
And "they" were correct.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2022, 09:01 AM   #43
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 27,373
OT but next year is the fiftieth anniversary of the experimental discovery of the W+/- and Z0 bosons. Real physics in action.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2022, 09:47 AM   #44
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,625
Hey Nakani, where exactly do you propose to find those peers you refer to in the thread title? High school physics class perhaps? I can assure you that any working physicist would not be a peer to you and would not waste time commenting on your ideas.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2022, 11:29 AM   #45
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Directly above the center of the Earth
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
The screen proves that your logic is wrong.
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
What you quoted was in the context of, 'in the beginning'. My universe doesn't start with a tiny ball of stuff.

Pieces of space are in a sense solid, they resist compression but it is their organized motion which makes my screen.

Testable experiment,

If the spaces could not be slightly compressed the speed of light would be instant.
Your post does not have a context of "in the beginning".

Here is your original post beforer my quote:

[quote=Nakani;13761300]I probably could have gone pro, maybe if I hadn't fallen in with the cool crowd. I think of those days and I wouldn't mind to give high school Nakani a slap. Bohring indeed.

I never did needed that class, until I came to the JREF (You were right Mr. Martel!). In R&P, I thought I might join in on a conversation explaining the universe. I figured, I had things hashed out but the good members were kind enough let me know, I was missing a few details and I'm not Galileo.

I wouldn't mind to try again.

First things first, the obligatory anti mainstream rant.

Chasing the notion that time is a piece in the fabric of the universe is ridiculous. Mr. Einstein fell in love with time on a train, and just didn't let it go. You know how some physicists are with their theories. This simultaneously made thought experiments hip and put physics on a timeline to misunderstanding.

Due to an anomaly and a vivid imagination, time is a thing. Without us though, the cosmos doesn't care. Time can be a human tool, not a force of nature.

I know everyone is chomping at the bit for me to say the 'A' word, lets get to it. Keep in mind, this ain't yer Grandpa's stuff, this is as pure and smooth as can be. Try a whiff, it will solve all your problems.

When it comes to the universe, it is the lack of time, aka, the instant, which is the player here. A series of cascading instances, if you want to break it down, or just one if you can see that far.

Logic would dictate that solid matter does not exist, so it starts with nothing. This nothing though, is not true nothing. There is a space, still nothing but not quite.


In additon, I notice you contradict yourself.

Quote:
When it comes to the universe, it is the lack of time, aka, the instant, which is the player here. A series of cascading instances, if you want to break it down, or just one if you can see that far.

Logic would dictate that solid matter does not exist, so it starts with nothing. This nothing though, is not true nothing. There is a space, still nothing but not quite.

This space is as small as can be, right next to all the other spaces. One space is the necessity for two, three and the rest. This is happening in an instant, until all the spaces are there.
Paraphasing and reducing your comments/paragraphs:
1) When it comes to the universe, it the lack of the instant.
2) This is happening in an instant.

If there is a "lack of time, aka the instant", then how can things happen "in an instant"?
Little 10 Toes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2022, 12:20 PM   #46
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,284
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
If you're just correcting my grammar,
Vocabulary, not grammar.

Quote:
I would say I'm of to a good start.
Except that was just the tip of the iceberg.

Quote:
I am not trying to replace any thing, I want to connect special relativity to general relativity.
They are already connected. All of special relativity is already contained within general relativity.

Quote:
I'm not saying anything discovered or measured so far is wrong, I just feel trying to work time into the equation is an unnecessary complication.
Then you clearly do not understand relativity. That's ok, most people don't. But in the absence of such understanding, your opinions are neither of interest or worth.

Quote:
Magnets were the hardest thing to see. I thought I had it figured many times.
I'm going to tell you something that you may or may not believe but certainly won't really understand:

Magnetism is the result of combining electric fields with special relativity.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2022, 03:47 PM   #47
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 36,431
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
I probably could have gone pro
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
That's what they told me in high school.

This is a bit reminiscent of something.

Originally Posted by mayday View Post
I was told if I lost weight I'd have potential! This was from an insider.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2022, 04:24 PM   #48
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,103
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
In my head it is easy to understand, translation to words is difficult.
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
What's wrong with words? They make up the language I feel most comfortable using.
I think I found your problem.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2022, 07:12 PM   #49
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 33,007
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
This is a bit reminiscent of something.
I was put in mind of Jane Austen's Lady Catherine de Bourgh, on her love of music: "If I had ever learnt, I should have been a great proficient."
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2022, 07:27 PM   #50
Dr.Sid
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 3,863
Reminds me of when I make bogus physics for my (never to be finished) sci-fi game universe. You know how you need FTL travel, coms, power source, weapons .. but you don't want to straight out copy anybody .. you want all that mumbo jumbo, something which looks smart, real, yet simple. And I don't have to really bother with it being entirely correct, I don't have to work the math, I don't have to match every known physical phenomenon to it. There are even some useful phrases here ..
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2022, 07:43 PM   #51
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,496
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
If you're just correcting my grammar, I would say I'm of to a good start.
No, it's basic vocabulary. Which means you have compounded the error by demonstrating that not only do you not know the difference between quantify and quantize, you don't know the difference between grammar and vocabulary.

To be quite literal about it, you don't know what you're talking about.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2022, 11:22 AM   #52
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,027
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
OK.
How does logic dictate this? Explain your reasoning.
Nothing and a ball of concentrated cosmos still requires a step. What causes this matter to form? Nothing and space is a more logical beginning

Quote:
Define "as small as can be". Define "an instant". Define "all". Justify these assertions.
Small as can be, is the Planck length.

The original instant is hard to define, It is only seen without an observer.

All, is an impossible constant.


Quote:
Why? Explain your reasoning.
I thought I did. How would you expect quantized space to fit together?

Quote:
There is no logic in your OP, Nakani just lots of unsupported assertions.
Nakani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2022, 12:12 PM   #53
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,630
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
How would you expect quantized space to fit together?
There's really no way it can.

Imagine an atom of any kind. Carbon, or whatever.

This atom is in your lab, on Earth. The Earth rotates, and revolves around the sun. The sun revolves around the Milky Way's center, which is in motion itself.

Yet that carbon atom works the same way, all the time.

If you're imagining three dimensions of quantized space, like lego bricks, and the laws of physics acting on those chunks of space, there seems to be no mathematical way I can think of where the orientation of those discrete chunks can be continuous (as we observe in nature) and the results of the function applied are equal.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2022, 12:25 PM   #54
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,599
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Nothing and a ball of concentrated cosmos still requires a step. What causes this matter to form? Nothing and space is a more logical beginning
"Nothing and a ball of concentrated cosmos" is just, well, "a ball of concentrated cosmos".

Matter (atoms) didn't form until about 380,000 years after the big bang, Quarks formed about 10-12 seconds after the big bang.

"Nothing and space" is just space and space has properties including a zero point energy and quantum fluctuations.

To my understanding the big bang singularity is considered outdated due to modern observations indicating inflation.

Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Small as can be, is the Planck length.
Wouldn't it be the Planck volume or Planck area in a membrane or a holographic principle consideration?

Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
The original instant is hard to define, It is only seen without an observer.
No it isn't, if the Planck scale is defined to be the minimum limit then minimum time would have to be the Planck time

Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
All, is an impossible constant.
But "All" isn't constant, things change. So "All" can only be a universal designation as opposed to a particular one.


Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
I thought I did. How would you expect quantized space to fit together?
Nope, you didn't, and yours or anyone's expectations are irrelevant to how quantized space actually fits together or even if it is or can be quantized.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2022, 12:28 PM   #55
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,599
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
There's really no way it can.

Imagine an atom of any kind. Carbon, or whatever.

This atom is in your lab, on Earth. The Earth rotates, and revolves around the sun. The sun revolves around the Milky Way's center, which is in motion itself.

Yet that carbon atom works the same way, all the time.

If you're imagining three dimensions of quantized space, like lego bricks, and the laws of physics acting on those chunks of space, there seems to be no mathematical way I can think of where the orientation of those discrete chunks can be continuous (as we observe in nature) and the results of the function applied are equal.
How exactly do you observe "chunks of space" "in nature" that demonstrates them to be continuous? With a "carbon atom" perchance? A carbon atom is discrete.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2022, 12:34 PM   #56
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,027
[quote=Little 10 Toes;13762525]Your post does not have a context of "in the beginning".

Here is your original post beforer my quote:

Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
I probably could have gone pro, maybe if I hadn't fallen in with the cool crowd. I think of those days and I wouldn't mind to give high school Nakani a slap. Bohring indeed.

I never did needed that class, until I came to the JREF (You were right Mr. Martel!). In R&P, I thought I might join in on a conversation explaining the universe. I figured, I had things hashed out but the good members were kind enough let me know, I was missing a few details and I'm not Galileo.

I wouldn't mind to try again.

First things first, the obligatory anti mainstream rant.

Chasing the notion that time is a piece in the fabric of the universe is ridiculous. Mr. Einstein fell in love with time on a train, and just didn't let it go. You know how some physicists are with their theories. This simultaneously made thought experiments hip and put physics on a timeline to misunderstanding.

Due to an anomaly and a vivid imagination, time is a thing. Without us though, the cosmos doesn't care. Time can be a human tool, not a force of nature.

I know everyone is chomping at the bit for me to say the 'A' word, lets get to it. Keep in mind, this ain't yer Grandpa's stuff, this is as pure and smooth as can be. Try a whiff, it will solve all your problems.

When it comes to the universe, it is the lack of time, aka, the instant, which is the player here. A series of cascading instances, if you want to break it down, or just one if you can see that far.

Logic would dictate that solid matter does not exist, so it starts with nothing. This nothing though, is not true nothing. There is a space, still nothing but not quite.
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
After the comma it says 'so it starts with nothing', it, being the universe and, 'starts', implys the beginning.


Quote:
In additon, I notice you contradict yourself.



Paraphasing and reducing your comments/paragraphs:
1) When it comes to the universe, it the lack of the instant.
2) This is happening in an instant.

If there is a "lack of time, aka the instant", then how can things happen "in an instant"?
You paraphrased wrong

There doesn't need to be flowing time in order for there to be an instant. Also, many things can happen in one instant.
Nakani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2022, 12:42 PM   #57
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,027
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
There's really no way it can.

Imagine an atom of any kind. Carbon, or whatever.

This atom is in your lab, on Earth. The Earth rotates, and revolves around the sun. The sun revolves around the Milky Way's center, which is in motion itself.

Yet that carbon atom works the same way, all the time.

If you're imagining three dimensions of quantized space, like lego bricks, and the laws of physics acting on those chunks of space, there seems to be no mathematical way I can think of where the orientation of those discrete chunks can be continuous (as we observe in nature) and the results of the function applied are equal.
Their physical properties create the laws of physics.
Nakani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2022, 12:47 PM   #58
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,599
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post

[polite snip]

There doesn't need to be flowing time in order for there to be an instant. Also, many things can happen in one instant.
Yes there does, there needs to be at least one instant's worth of flowing time for there to be considered, well, one instant's worth of time and only things that are instantaneous can happen in an instant.

Just as there is a finite length of space between any two points there would also be (purely geometrically speaking that is) a finite length of time between and two instants.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2022, 12:48 PM   #59
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,599
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Their physical properties create the laws of physics.
Or is it the laws of physics result in those particular physical properties?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2022, 01:41 PM   #60
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Out back preparing the bunker for the next Civil War
Posts: 50,583
Here's a theory that makes much more sense:

Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses
__________________
Counting the days to Civil War II.
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2022, 02:05 PM   #61
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,630
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
How exactly do you observe "chunks of space" "in nature"
My claim was that we don't.

Quote:
A carbon atom is discrete.
In some senses of the word.

The point is you can spin the atom around at an arbitrary amount, say, 83.434322 and it would work the same.

I haven't made a discrete model of matter, space, and time, that can do that, and we observe that in nature.

If you can, I'd love to check it out.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2022, 02:42 PM   #62
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,216
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
There doesn't need to be flowing time in order for there to be an instant. Also, many things can happen in one instant.
Sounds like rubbish to me. How can anything "happen" in no time? Prove "one instant" can happen in no time.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 22nd March 2022 at 02:44 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2022, 03:46 PM   #63
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,599
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
My claim was that we don't.
Here was relevant portion of your claim..

"...,there seems to be no mathematical way I can think of where the orientation of those discrete chunks can be continuous (as we observe in nature)..."

The "(as we observe in nature)" directly following the "continuous" indicating that is what "we observe in nature".



Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
In some senses of the word.
Sure, exactly in the, you know, "discrete" sense of the word. Can you have one and a third carbon atoms?

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The point is you can spin the atom around at an arbitrary amount, say, 83.434322 and it would work the same.
"83.434322" what? If you mean like degrees, seconds, radians or some other measure of rotation, discrete space need not require quantized rotation.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I haven't made a discrete model of matter, space, and time, that can do that, and we observe that in nature.
I expect you simply haven't "made a discrete model of matter, space, and time" and again there is no reason "a discrete model of matter, space, and time" would require discrete rotation.

So since whatever "discrete model of matter, space, and time" you claim to have made apparently requires discrete rotation. What is the minimal rotation permissible in your "model"(s) and why, show your math?

So before you said you weren't claiming such continuousness is what we "observe that in nature" but now you clearly are claiming that again?


Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If you can, I'd love to check it out.
The restriction of some ill defined discrete rotation appears to be singularly yours. So you are going to have to show how any "discrete model of matter, space, and time" must result in that. Otherwise why couldn't discrete space permit observationally continuous rotation?

Take an electron for example, considered a point particle, thus it has no spatial displacement upon rotation yet it has both quantized angular momentum and intrinsic 'spin'.

Further, things like Quantum Loop Gravity, already linked before, wouldn't get very far if such a requirement and basic observation could simply refute them.

ETA: Can't believe I forgot this, what the heck experiment or test tells you how far an atom of carbon has rotated anyway? As far as I know electrons smear out in an orbital cloud . While neutrons and protons in the nucleus swirl about in much the same way. Any external rotation would just be further rotating stuff that is already rotating in quantized ways.


ETA2: A new spin on nuclei
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 22nd March 2022 at 04:08 PM.
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2022, 04:31 PM   #64
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,935
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
Here's a theory that makes much more sense:

Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses
Or, better yet:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2oh8ia
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2022, 11:05 AM   #65
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,284
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Small as can be, is the Planck length.
We don't know that. You fundamentally misunderstand the significance of the Planck length. Not surprising, most people don't, and most descriptions of it in the popular press are wrong. But its true meaning is almost impossible to grasp without some understanding of both quantum mechanics and general relativity. And I don't think you really have either.

Quote:
How would you expect quantized space to fit together?
No idea. I'm not sure it can be. Especially if it needs to be Lorentz invariant.

I suspect you don't know what Lorentz invariance is either. Again, most people don't, no shame in that. But I don't think you appreciate how little you actually know about any of this stuff.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2022, 02:14 PM   #66
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,630
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
I expect you simply haven't "made a discrete model of matter, space, and time" and again there is no reason "a discrete model of matter, space, and time" would require discrete rotation.
Assuming 3 dimensions of space, if it were discrete or quantized, then its x, y, and z have to be integers, rather than arbitrary decimal points, so something like:

Code:
particle = {
   x: 1,
   y: 1,
   z: 1
}
If you want to rotate that around the origin, there's only so many places it can end up.

But our planet is constantly spinning, so everyone here is spinning, and we have never seen any of the "funny" business you might expect if space were quantized.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2022, 02:15 PM   #67
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,630
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
We don't know that. You fundamentally misunderstand the significance of the Planck length. Not surprising, most people don't, and most descriptions of it in the popular press are wrong. But its true meaning is almost impossible to grasp without some understanding of both quantum mechanics and general relativity. And I don't think you really have either.
How is general relativity involved in Planck units?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2022, 04:59 PM   #68
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,554
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I suspect you don't know what Lorentz invariance is either. Again, most people don't, no shame in that. But I don't think you appreciate how little you actually know about any of this stuff.
Nicely understated.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
How is general relativity involved in Planck units?
According to Wikipedia, with my bracketed text in gray to supply context:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
It [the Planck length] can be defined as the reduced Compton wavelength of a black hole for which this equals its [the black hole's] Schwarzschild radius.[26][27][28]

....It is possible that the Planck length is the shortest physically measurable distance, since any attempt to investigate the possible existence of shorter distances, by performing higher-energy collisions, would result in black hole production. Higher-energy collisions, rather than splitting matter into finer pieces, would simply produce bigger black holes.[33]

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 23rd March 2022 at 05:12 PM. Reason: expanded quotation of Wikipedia
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2022, 08:55 PM   #69
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,979
You do realise that Wikipedia is, at best, a summary of current understanding, right? And that real Phd level quantum mechanics is considerably more complex?
__________________
? > !
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2022, 10:27 PM   #70
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Directly above the center of the Earth
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
Your post does not have a context of "in the beginning".

After the comma it says 'so it starts with nothing', it, being the universe and, 'starts', implys the beginning.
.
Again, quoting a portion of your post:
Quote:
Due to an anomaly and a vivid imagination, time is a thing. Without us though, the cosmos doesn't care. Time can be a human tool, not a force of nature.

I know everyone is chomping at the bit for me to say the 'A' word, lets get to it. Keep in mind, this ain't yer Grandpa's stuff, this is as pure and smooth as can be. Try a whiff, it will solve all your problems.

When it comes to the universe, it is the lack of time, aka, the instant, which is the player here. A series of cascading instances, if you want to break it down, or just one if you can see that far.

Logic would dictate that solid matter does not exist, so it starts with nothing. This nothing though, is not true nothing. There is a space, still nothing but not quite.
What does "it" refer to? In reverse order, is "it" solid matter, logic, cascading instances, the player, the instant, or the lack of time?

Here's a better example of unclear words and meanings.
Quote:
Imagine in the desert there is a mesa with a house. Next to it is a small pool of water for migrating animals. It is nice and blue.

There are two uses of "it". Based off my usage, one cannot tell if the two "it"s are referring to the same thing or if they are different "it"s.

The first "it" could be the desert, the mesa, or the house. Where is the mesa in location to the house? Is the house on top of the mesa or next to the mesa. Not clear usage of "it".

The second it could be the mesa, the house, the pool, or the water. In addition, where is the pool? Is "it" next to the house, next to the mesa, or next to the desert. If "it" is referring to the pool, there are additional problems. If the house is on the mesa, does this mean that the pool is on top of the mesa?
continuing with your post
Quote:
There doesn't need to be flowing time in order for there to be an instant. Also, many things can happen in one instant.
So "many things can happen in one instant"? That means there must be a way to determine which instant the remaining "many things" happen.

You claim I have paraphrased incorrectly. If this is the case, what is the correct way?
Little 10 Toes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 04:37 AM   #71
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,554
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You do realise that Wikipedia is, at best, a summary of current understanding, right? And that real Phd level quantum mechanics is considerably more complex?
I am the only person in this thread who had so much as mentioned Wikipedia, so I am puzzled by your two questions. I would hope everyone here realizes Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, textbook, monograph, or research paper, is at best only a summary of current understanding. I would also hope everyone here realizes that PhD level science of any kind is considerably more complex than any summary to be found within anything posted to this forum.

I quoted Wikipedia in answer to someone who, in response to Ziggurat's remarks about the Planck length, asked "How is general relativity involved in Planck units?".

That excerpt from Wikipedia's current article on Planck units answered the question that had been asked.

I suppose someone who doesn't understand Compton wavelengths, and doesn't understand what black holes and the Schwarzschild radius have to do with general relativity, might not understand how the Wikipedia excerpt confirmed Ziggurat's contention that the "true meaning" of the Planck length "is almost impossible to grasp without some understanding of both quantum mechanics and general relativity."

ETA: The Man posted four links to Wikipedia articles, without mentioning or quoting Wikipedia, but that was three days ago. I still don't know why arthwollipot wants to have this meta-discussion about Wikipedia.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 24th March 2022 at 04:56 AM. Reason: added ETA
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 04:52 AM   #72
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,625
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You do realise that Wikipedia is, at best, a summary of current understanding, right? And that real Phd level quantum mechanics is considerably more complex?
I think you will find that W.D. Clinger is quite conversant with PhD level science and mathematics. I think you will also find that attempting to discuss PhD level science with either Nakani or Mike Helland is the scientific equivalent of pissing into the wind.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 05:05 AM   #73
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 14,226
So has the Theory of Everything been solved yet?
__________________
On 29JUL2022, 'Gaetan' said: "We all know here that the moderators are for the use of firearms and they don't mind if some people recieve a bullet in their head."

On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 05:07 AM   #74
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,625
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
So has the Theory of Everything been solved yet?
In the minds imaginations of some non-physicists......
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 06:05 AM   #75
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 14,226
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
In the minds imaginations of some non-physicists......
Indeed so!

I find it constantly amazing at how many people can so deeply believe that they have some sort of tremendous insight into physics and yet at the same time, these people have such little understanding of physics.
__________________
On 29JUL2022, 'Gaetan' said: "We all know here that the moderators are for the use of firearms and they don't mind if some people recieve a bullet in their head."

On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 06:35 AM   #76
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,284
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
How is general relativity involved in Planck units?
To follow up on WD's response to this, one way to think of it is that this is a length scale at which quantum mechanics and general relativity will predict very different outcomes, and so something has to give. Either quantum mechanics or general relativity (or both) need corrections at this scale, and we don't know what those corrections are.

Fortunately AND unfortunately, we are so far from being able to probe anything at that length scale that as a practical matter we don't need to bother resolving the two theories. They don't conflict at the length scales we can probe.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 07:47 AM   #77
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 08:01 AM   #78
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,630
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
To follow up on WD's response to this, one way to think of it is that this is a length scale at which quantum mechanics and general relativity will predict very different outcomes
But what part of GR suggests that Planck units are meaningful?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 08:13 AM   #79
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,981
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
But what part of GR suggests that Planck units are meaningful?
The "part" that predicts how gravity will work at that scale. "Part" is an odd word to use in this context.

And what do you mean by "meaningful"? The meaning has just been spelled out. They aren't meaningful beyond that.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2022, 08:19 AM   #80
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,630
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
The "part" that predicts how gravity will work at that scale. "Part" is an odd word to use in this context.

And what do you mean by "meaningful"? The meaning has just been spelled out. They aren't meaningful beyond that.
Planck units, in my flawed understanding, seem to fall out of the uncertainty principle.

Whether your scale is a billion light years, or a billionith of a Planck length, GR seems entirely unopinionated.

It's not like Planck's constant is n the Einstein field equations.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.