FTL travel here we come!

[mzzz]

What tangent?....THERE ARE NO PHYSICAL CONSTANTS. I have said it over and over and over and there is no "going off on tangents". Maxwell's equations do not prove the existence of a constant. Neither do the Lorentz transformations or any of that. They are all relativistic calculations which give approximations and nothing more. My point is proven by the fact that no constants exist in reality. ANYTHING can be "proven" using math if you simply make assumptions. Assume that the speed of light is constant, and you can create all sorts of proofs and you can formulate all sorts of equations.

Lets look at E=mc[SUP]2[/SUP]. The formula follows from the two assumptions that the speed of light is constant in any frame, and that the laws of physics hold in any inertial (ie unaccelerating) frame. AT BEST, Einstein's equation (actually a derivation) is only a theory. The speed of light cannot be proven to be constant, but it HAS been proven to be able to be slowed down and/or bent. If it can be bent or slowed down, then it cannot be constant. There is no proof in mathematics which can verify this equation.

Are you familiar with Nikolai Lobachevsky? Read up about him. He developed the first non-Euclidean geometry. He developed a geometry in which Euclid's Fifth Postulate was not true, and gave us a whole new hyperbolic geometry to use. Previously, mathematicians were all trying to deduce Euclid's Fifth Postulate using other axioms and they floundered. Today, the conformist physics community is stagnant because the fuzzy edges and variability of things that is our ACTUAL universe are not at all explained by flawed mathematics rife with constants which never change, with assumptions about constancy of speeds, lengths, movement.... It's ridiculous. So, I read and search and hope that somebody with vision comes along and takes physics in a different direction.

Saying something over and over again isn't justification. I can say pretty much anything over and over again, won't make it true. You haven't given analytical science or math to back up your statement. It isn't sufficient to state something and just provide no backing statement, you've, for the most part, focused entirely on einstein and not the other constants out there.

You can't throw in your own definitions for things. You have to prove/disprove something within the contextual framework of the thing in question. You can't, for example, define Santa as a being that exists and then make the claim Santa exists. And you can't bring in other people's personalities/philosophies/beliefs into your validation. If you're presenting your claim to some audience, you aren't going to start singling out every single person in your audience and tell them any objections they might have to your argument is invalidated because of their personal beliefs, no, you have to make your argument independent of your audience, your own personal beliefs (definitions), biases, etc. The independent thing that science uses is analytical science and math, doesn't have personal biases or nuances. A person halfway around the world can see if your argument is valid or not through logic without knowing your background or anything, just your argument alone.

Tangents that have nothing to do with your claim are irrelevant to backing up your claim. Systematically, you essentially have to disprove the existence of each constant within their respective frameworks. It isn't sufficient to disprove one, which you haven't done. Personally, I don't think you can, cause I know you don't know the necessary maths to understand each of the concepts and derivations of the constants.

That is the standard understanding. There are no mathematical or real-world proofs which support this. All of those assumptions are based in Einstein's constant. The maximums of measurement are based more in our understanding of how to measure than the thing we are measuring. You cannot see further than your eyes allow you to see, and that you cannot see does not mean that there is nothing to be seen. The example you used regarding the particle accelerator is a good example. You cannot use a particle accelerator to determine a universal constant. The accelerator ITSELF has limited capabilities, and the technology used to build it is insufficient. The fact that no constants exist is not disproven by any particle accelerator experiment. It is ILLOGICAL to assume that anything in this universe is constant, a fact which is demonstrated in the observable universe on all detectable levels even with technology. Nothing is constant.

The notion of a "constant" in physics is no different than a notion of an omnipotent deity in religion. One only has to believe in it for it to exist. Perfection is only theoretical. Only our ability to conceive of it makes it real.

But you believe the universe will continue to exist even after you die, doesn't that invalidate your whole argument because there is a constant, the existence of the universe.

 

[Overmind One]

Saying something over and over again isn't justification. I can say pretty much anything over and over again, won't make it true. You haven't given analytical science or math to back up your statement. It isn't sufficient to state something and just provide no backing statement, you've, for the most part, focused entirely on einstein and not the other constants out there.

You can't throw in your own definitions for things. You have to prove/disprove something within the contextual framework of the thing in question. You can't, for example, define Santa as a being that exists and then make the claim Santa exists. And you can't bring in other people's personalities/philosophies/beliefs into your validation. If you're presenting your claim to some audience, you aren't going to start singling out every single person in your audience and tell them any objections they might have to your argument is invalidated because of their personal beliefs, no, you have to make your argument independent of your audience, your own personal beliefs (definitions), biases, etc. The independent thing that science uses is analytical science and math, doesn't have personal biases or nuances. A person halfway around the world can see if your argument is valid or not through logic without knowing your background or anything, just your argument alone.

Tangents that have nothing to do with your claim are irrelevant to backing up your claim. Systematically, you essentially have to disprove the existence of each constant within their respective frameworks. It isn't sufficient to disprove one, which you haven't done. Personally, I don't think you can, cause I know you don't know the necessary maths to understand each of the concepts and derivations of the constants.



But you believe the universe will continue to exist even after you die, doesn't that invalidate your whole argument because there is a constant, the existence of the universe.

Really? Then what does that do to the Big Bang Theory?

 

[Bluce Ree]

Really? Then what does that do to the Big Bang Theory?

I was asking myself the same question when reading that last sentence.

 

[Jim of WVa]

Santa

...
You can't throw in your own definitions for things. You have to prove/disprove something within the contextual framework of the thing in question. You can't, for example, define Santa as a being that exists and then make the claim Santa exists. And you can't bring in other people's personalities/philosophies/beliefs into your validation. If you're presenting your claim to some audience, you aren't going to start singling out every single person in your audience and tell them any objections they might have to your argument is invalidated because of their personal beliefs, no, you have to make your argument independent of your audience, your own personal beliefs (definitions), biases, etc. The independent thing that science uses is analytical science and math, doesn't have personal biases or nuances. A person halfway around the world can see if your argument is valid or not through logic without knowing your background or anything, just your argument alone.
...

The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as Santa. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.


The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator Santa. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.


The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of Santa. Avicenna, St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for Santa (a necessary being) to exist, then Santa exists.


The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as humanity's existence, are best explained by the existence of Santa.


The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of Santa, and that anti-Santa arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.


The argument from degree, a version of the transcendental argument posited by Aquinas, states that there must exist a being, Santa, which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree in order for such properties to be coherent.

 

[Jim of WVa]

Really? Then what does that do to the Big Bang Theory?

If it is possible to ask a question about the time before the Big Bang, then one must conclude that time was not created by the Big Bang. If time was not created by the Big Bang, then there could have been other Big Bangs in the distant past with their own universes and other Big Bangs with their own universes in the future.

 

[Overmind One]

If it is possible to ask a question about the time before the Big Bang, then one must conclude that time was not created by the Big Bang. If time was not created by the Big Bang, then there could have been other Big Bangs in the distant past with their own universes and other Big Bangs with their own universes in the future.

Now THAT is a very interesting tangent. More along the lines of my "alternative physics" line of thinking.

 

[Bluce Ree]

If it is possible to ask a question about the time before the Big Bang, then one must conclude that time was not created by the Big Bang. If time was not created by the Big Bang, then there could have been other Big Bangs in the distant past with their own universes and other Big Bangs with their own universes in the future.

There's also the theory that universes are created and exist within black holes:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/we-might-be-living-black-hole-scientist-says

 

[Stonelesscutter]

You'll always be left with the question "What about the time before time?".
And ofcourse "What's outside of space?".

 

[Bluce Ree]

You'll always be left with the question "What about the time before time?".
And ofcourse "What's outside of space?".

That's like asking, "what's after infinity?".

 

[Stonelesscutter]

That's like asking, "what's after infinity?".

Pretty much. But that is what the topic seemed to be going to.

 

[mzzz]

Really? Then what does that do to the Big Bang Theory?

That doesn't exist in your framework since it relies on physics constants.

 

[Overmind One]

That doesn't exist in your framework since it relies on physics constants.

It does? I dont think so. A "big bang" is a single event in time and there is nothing constant about it. The movement of particles away from the theorized single point in space is not constant, the rate of expansion/contraction is not constant, even the mechanics of the explosion were not uniform. That constants do not exist in reality is not an opinion. They just don't exist except in our theories and in mathematics which only describe (static) snapshots of time. it is as illogical to expect to find constants in this dynamic universe as it is to expect that all oranges are identical or that the earth spins at a precise speed without ever changing. There is nothing in the micro or macro universe which is constant.

 

[mzzz]

It does? I dont think so. A "big bang" is a single event in time and there is nothing constant about it. The movement of particles away from the theorized single point in space is not constant, the rate of expansion/contraction is not constant, even the mechanics of the explosion were not uniform. That constants do not exist in reality is not an opinion. They just don't exist except in our theories and in mathematics which only describe (static) snapshots of time. it is as illogical to expect to find constants in this dynamic universe as it is to expect that all oranges are identical or that the earth spins at a precise speed without ever changing. There is nothing in the micro or macro universe which is constant.

You're making presumptions involving constants, name that the universe is constantly dynamic which is mappable, by mappable I mean through analytical science and math. You're presuming time exists in a constant fashion outside of the formation of the universe when you state that 'a big bang is a single event in time'. You give no argument how big bang fits into your framework.

Learn more math and science, namely the heisenberg uncertainty principle which says we can never say what is happening for sure within an instant of time, only in an interval of time, and probabilistically. Our theories and math do not 'describe (static) snapshots of time', only the base classes do that.

 

[Overmind One]

You're making presumptions involving constants, name that the universe is constantly dynamic which is mappable, by mappable I mean through analytical science and math. You're presuming time exists in a constant fashion outside of the formation of the universe when you state that 'a big bang is a single event in time'. You give no argument how big bang fits into your framework.

Learn more math and science, namely the heisenberg uncertainty principle which says we can never say what is happening for sure within an instant of time, only in an interval of time, and probabilistically. Our theories and math do not 'describe (static) snapshots of time', only the base classes do that.

Still, no constants exist in this universe outside manmade theories. There are no examples of real world constants on any level in any category of matter or energy.

 

[Jim of WVa]

cannot avoid constants

...The movement of particles away from the theorized single point in space is not constant, the rate of expansion/contraction is not constant, even the mechanics of the explosion were not uniform...

If the big bang can be described in a quantitative manner, then that quantitative description would include some constants.

 

[Overmind One]

If the big bang can be described in a quantitative manner, then that quantitative description would include some constants.

I agree! I also agree that one cannot describe anything much in the Universe empirically WITHOUT using constants. It gives us just enough precision to make calculations and predicted results useful. But in the real universe, they do not exist. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Jim of WVa]

still more philosophy

...even the mechanics of the explosion were not uniform...

If the behavior of the dynamic universe can be quantitatively described, then the evolution of any part of the universe or the universe as a whole can be described in the following manner:

X[SUB]t[/SUB] = f(X)

Where:

X = vector containing all of the state variables of the universe.
X[SUB]t[/SUB] = first time derivative of the vector X.
f(X) = non-linear function of the vector X.

And the non-linear function of the vector X will contain many constants.

I will think up of a good example and come back to you.

 

[Overmind One]

If the behavior of the dynamic universe can be quantitatively described, then the evolution of any part of the universe or the universe as a whole can be described in the following manner:

X[SUB]t[/SUB] = f(X)

Where:

X = vector containing all of the state variables of the universe.
X[SUB]t[/SUB] = first time derivative of the vector X.
f(X) = non-linear function of the vector X.

And the non-linear function of the vector X will contain many constants.

I will think up of a good example and come back to you.

I will be waiting.

On another interesting note, I have just purchased this book: http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Astronomy-Millennium-AceAstronomy-Virtual/dp/049501303X The book deals with asronomy for the most part, but there are many discussions about general relativity in the "new millenium". Its an interesting brief. Its a bit pricey ($126.77) but worth it.

 

[Bluce Ree]

I'm not physicist by any stretch of the imagination but here is an observation anyway.

Gravity is directly proportional to mass. Don't any two objects of equal mass exert the exact same force of gravity? If so, isn't that a constant by definition?

Edit:

I should say "two objects of equal mass and density".

 

[Overmind One]

I'm not physicist by any stretch of the imagination but here is an observation anyway.

Gravity is directly proportional to mass. Don't any two objects of equal mass exert the exact same force of gravity? If so, isn't that a constant by definition?

Yes. I do not dispute the existence of constants in terms of relational data. Its the idea that there are PHYSICAL constants that needs to be debunked. Physics is not very advanced in the study of gravitation at the moment.