but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
OP
Offline
A group of MIT guys went all metaphysics wild a few decades ago, too.
-
Hey Guest!
British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Far out, man!
- Thread starter DrEntropy
- Start date
Share this page
Offline
But Doc, why do they not allow that the math assumptions may be wrong instead of preferring a DUNNO?
Bob
Bob
OP
Offline
That was a hallelujah moment.
OP
Offline
I refer to "I clutch my ideas" as a possible answer. That the prevailing "proper" physics gurus just MUST be on the right path? Or the right rabbit hole if ya prefer.
Offline
It usually takes more than 3 guys to two-page a thread here.
We must be onto something.
Bob
We must be onto something.
Bob
OP
Offline
And speaking of metaphysics, why is it that all the 666 nonsense was started LONG before carbon was the sixth element in the chart and has six each of electrons, protons and neutrons? Is all life here therefore evil by design?
And I'm being facetious here...
And I'm being facetious here...
OP
Offline
Well ~I~ find it funny. And a bit ridiculous.
Offline
I have degrees in both physics and math but it was a looong time ago and I never worked directly in either field and I have not tried to really keep up with either field. I still remember enough to maybe make a suggestion. Think of physics as the science of trying to understand and explain how stuff works, physically that is. We really don't absolutely "know" anything. We see a familiar function and assume we know how it works because it agrees with our understanding. The scientific method is observe some new phenomenon and try to develop a "theory" of how it works. Then perform many experiments and observations trying as hard as you can to prove that theory wrong. If after enough attempts you still cannot disprove your theory then you may extract that it is "probably accurate" at least within the bounds of your testing. Note that there is still the possibility that some future experiment may prove it wrong.
The key here is that we try to devise some mechanism that explains how a system works. In the case at question here, that is dark matter. The difficulty is in finding observations and experiments that might prove that wrong. We still have a very long way to go.
The key here is that we try to devise some mechanism that explains how a system works. In the case at question here, that is dark matter. The difficulty is in finding observations and experiments that might prove that wrong. We still have a very long way to go.
Offline
The earth is strapped to the back of an elephant, standing on the backs of 4 gigantic turtles, swimming in the cosmic sea. Kinda works until you have to explain the cosmic sea.
Bob
Bob
OP
Offline
Got a visit from a friend, so had to leave for a while.
Very long way indeed. The introduction of "dark matter" is a way to shore up existing theory, the empirical proof of the Higgs particle helps, but there's still a big "void" without ~something~ like dark matter added.
The equations are well above my pay grade but I can't give up the quest to understand. One of the aforementioned CERN physicists recommended the book: "Conversations with the Sphinx" at our first meeting. About the paradoxes in physics. It's a good read.
Very long way indeed. The introduction of "dark matter" is a way to shore up existing theory, the empirical proof of the Higgs particle helps, but there's still a big "void" without ~something~ like dark matter added.
The equations are well above my pay grade but I can't give up the quest to understand. One of the aforementioned CERN physicists recommended the book: "Conversations with the Sphinx" at our first meeting. About the paradoxes in physics. It's a good read.
Offline
I’m still trying to figure out how we get a rectangular photo when the lens is round 
Offline
That makes perfect sense
OP
Offline
I should have sent this earlier as the best visual explanation I've seen. Look for James Al-Khalili's video "Everything and Nothing." About half-way through it he lays it out. Light is finite in speed, our "visible universe" is limited to the speed of light vs. the increasing velocity with which the universe (space) is expanding. We'll not "see" the outer edge as a result. The light coming from it can't travel fast enough.
Offline
But Doc-
Whether they know the radius of the universe from observation or calculation ('cause they can't see it), they are still saying it has moved three times faster than they say it can. Still WTF?
Bob
Whether they know the radius of the universe from observation or calculation ('cause they can't see it), they are still saying it has moved three times faster than they say it can. Still WTF?
Bob
Offline
OP
Offline
Well, my pea brain is inadequate to grasp the total calculus, but from what I can, it is that space-time is not a wave/particle/thing but rather a "void," a "nothing," ever expanding and accelerating. As this happens, everyTHING "inside" is is moving away/apart from everything else at an equivalent rate. Even if the boundary or "edges" of space-time adhere to S.o.L. limitation and approach or achieve that, the expansion would seem to be exponential in every direction, not linear. One result being light beyond a certain distance would never be detected from: "you are here." Another may be a sort of giant, really-really BIG version of Einstein's disproved Cosmological Constant. A stasis to sort-of vindicate him. And a very dark universe to our perception.
And as disclaimer; I'm blowin' this out my butt! Just a pi$$-ant trying to make sense of an egg.
