Multiverse intelligently designed.

Post Reply New Topic

I think that would help to explain many features of the universe like the Higgs field and the Casimir effect for example.

At the expense of sounding obnoxious (which is not my intention at all but for which I seem to have an undesirable knack!), air does not carry sound. Rather, air carries oscillations which ultimately are perceived by an observer as sound. I give a popular talk on the physics of human perception entitled, "Pardon Me, but Your Paradoxes are Showing" in which the distinction becomes very important.

I agree that "empty space" is not empty and that among other things it possess gravitic field values. Yet, there's far more to void than meets the eye, in my opinion. This is the piece that appears to have evaded science and I'd rather not spoil the surprise for those who care to enter the rabbit hole and see where it leads.

How can void possess gravitic field values? For that matter, how in the heck can electromagnetic waves even travel through void? No one ever answered that question and it just got swept under the cosmic rug based on the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the publication of the Special Theory of Relativity.

I feel that Parmenides was very close to understanding the true nature of void. He defined both his concept of the atom and void in a single sentence: The atom is the fundamental particle of matter which void can dissect no further. That guy was amazing!

It's those oscillations that I'm talking about. I think gravity works in the same way with EM. You can add as many waves together as you like and stll only have one wave function.

Void is an interesting concept, but gravity permeates the universe. Where can you go and not find some gravity field? It's all one big system.

If you succeed in replicating my approach, the physical understanding of the Casimir Effect is amazing and simple. Although science loves Occam's razor, fifty years of being stuck in a failed, narrow cosmological perspective certainly did result in quite a few unnecessarily convoluted faith-based scientific theories for which the scientific method can not even be applied.

Darn! That sounds arrogant even to me. I really need help expressing myself in more constructive ways. I'm truly sorry and I'm trying hard to work on it. I simply have not yet learned how to express my thoughts in a format other than the harsh native wording that comes to my mind. I seriously piss off people with my statements and I've begun working on this issue now that I understand my "special" AS nature.

You just think outside of the box, welcome to the "club".

I completely agree with you about your last statements on gravity. Gravity curves space-time in one and only one way. There is no negative gravity and dark energy is a sorely misunderstood phenomena that some researchers like to portray as negative gravity, which is sheer nonsense.

I do not personally see a way to effectively shield gravity. However, producing a compensating gravity field turns out to be cake, if my theory is correct.

My advise is to just throw out everything you think you know about gravity, acceleration, and mass and start over from first principles.

The same goes for time and the direction of its arrow.

Are you suggesting reversing the polarity of the universe?

You know I thought about a gravity lens if focused in the direction you want to travel would just pull you in that direction. No need to thrust.

Kind of like dangling a star out in front of the spacecraft.

Thanks! I'm delighted to be a member of the Club.

Please explain what you mean by "the polarity of the universe"?

Thanks!

Not really sure myself. I tend to go off into visual tangents that usually lead nowhere.

I'm confused. I would imagine that strictly speaking the emergence and sustenance of life in our universe would not be considered a necessary fact, but rather a contingent fact. That is that a universe with the same set of physical laws but perhaps a different distribution and thus movement of particles, could fail to maintain life. (Note: It may be true that a failure to maintain life may be difficult given the set of laws, but the question appears to suggest life is necessary for the universe, yet regardless of how strong the tendency is towards life, it does not appear necessary.)

At best, the strong second answer is that the laws of physics allow for ongoing biological chemical reactions, and given the time and energy, these happening are highly likely.


I only see the possibility of sense in the first question.

I don't know what you mean by "nothingness is not empirically supported". If nothingness is defined as a extremely low amt of mass per unit of volume, then void (as in void of space) can easily be nothingness.

I don't know how the third question is even interesting. Matter is often almost as a level of definition defined as having mass: "A common way of defining matter is as anything that has mass and occupies volume." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter So, this could even be a tautology. Even if it were not, and it were an empirical claim, the lack of objects defined as "matter" which lack mass is sufficient evidence that "matter" has the property of mass, so I don't see where you are going.

Would it matter whether gravity is really a fundamental force? If another set of forces empirically arises and can explain gravity, or if gravity is not shared by all parties with mass, then obviously gravity is not a fundamental force. If this does not happen then gravity is a fundamental force. Unless evidence arises that militates us against the notion of gravity as a fundamental force, then the going assumption based upon a lack of reduction of gravity to other forces would seem to be that gravity is a fundamental force.


Many of these paradoxes are conceptual confusions, not anything of any real depth. For example: Zeno's paradox is basically solved by calculus. Sure, we can continually divide time down, but if we hold units constant, then no paradox. And if we allow for infinitesimals, then there is no problem in traversing an infinite set of infinitesimals.

No more time but: "However, I would assert that the presence or absence of electromagnetic signals only determines the observability of an object or phenomenon, not its existence.", "So, the point is that when we obtain a null observation we are in fact unable to make any meaningful assertion regarding existence."

We hold that a lack of perception of an object entails non-existence in our every day practice. To say that physicists cannot do that seems absurd to the point of folly. Sure, physicists could be wrong, but the expectation is that our method has a very high likelihood of identifying whether something exists in an area or not. If we do not see something, the more probable result based upon past experience is that no perception of something existing in the area means nothing exists in the area. This being fallible because of some difference between phenomena or noumena/observability vs reality is pointless to say, as this is known, and our ideas about what the observations tell us are reasonably grounded.

Not the best way to go about things. Non observance of something doesn't require non existence of something. Reasonable science infers something without direct observable data most of the time. The effects of the unobservable are usually measurable, if they are present.

[quote="rocketman4040"
I do not personally see a way to effectively shield gravity. However, producing a compensating gravity field turns out to be cake, if my theory is correct.

.[/quote]

You have a theory? Show us the math and list some of the testable predictions your theory makes. They have to be quantitative, exact and sufficiently restricted so that falsifiability is possible. A theory that predicts any outcome predicts no outcomes.

ruveyn

You have a theory? Show us the math and list some of the testable predictions your theory makes. They have to be quantitative, exact and sufficiently restricted so that falsifiability is possible. A theory that predicts any outcome predicts no outcomes.

ruveyn[/quote]

The more I learn about falsifiability the more I think it's out dated technology since the advent of modern computers and massive amounts of data storage. The results of any experiment are out there somewhere in the mass of collected data.

Experiments are designed to test the universe against a set of rules one crafts that closely resemble logic plus an understanding of the rules. You're either going to get the result you are looking for, or you'll get a different one, or none at all. But I think the key point to all this is the amount of data that can be collected. The more resolution you have access too, the easier it is to make out the picture.

Now if computers can get to the point in raw CPU power to crunch all the data that can be collected, that's where it's going to make a huge impact.

You know people are still pouring through the massive amounts of data the voyager spacecrafts sent back to gleen a little more insight and to look for evidence for all kinds of theories.

It's quite often if you shut up and listen, the truth will emerge from within the chaos.

I completely agree with you about your last statements on gravity. Gravity curves space-time in one and only one way. There is no negative gravity and dark energy is a sorely misunderstood phenomena that some researchers like to portray as negative gravity, which is sheer nonsense.

I do not personally see a way to effectively shield gravity. However, producing a compensating gravity field turns out to be cake, if my theory is correct.

My advise is to just throw out everything you think you know about gravity, acceleration, and mass and start over from first principles.

The same goes for time and the direction of its arrow.

So you say. Now dig them out.

ruveyn