2-Universes - Need help

[vandivx]

"there is no such "fabric" of a stretching and ever-accelerating spacetime. this implies "spacetime" is "something," a material substance or structure. and it is not."<br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />how do you know 'it is not "something"'?<br /><br />BTW Einstein wasn't 'hot' as far as 'something' being there (and he certainly didn't invent it, if anything it was pushed on him by the scientific community) but when the ankle nipping dogs of science demanded from him clear answer and expected him to deny that anything is out there as per their cherished believes, he disapointed them, he said that while his theories didn't need something being there, they didn't rule out there actually being something, ie spacetime being real, just that one shouldn't attribute motion or rest to it<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

I have to say, that what you've stated is interesting. Now, you just have to prove it. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />That is not astronomy. and it's not science. It's not even good psychology. <br /><br />It's mysticism and meaninglessness. there is not the slightest scientific, astronomical content in what your post wrote. </font><br /><br />yes, spacetime is mysterious and meaningless. i agree. <br /><br />combining space with time into space-time implies that it has dimensionality and structure, to the extreme that it can be bent and curved. furthermore, this substance is said to be expanding and actually going faster and faster all the time as a fabric. so where are all of the spacetime particles? show me where they are.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">The universe exists independently of us.</font><br /><br />and as well as dependently on us. it is both.<br /><br />the existence of a rainbow depends upon an observer. otherwise it does not exist. change the angle of viewing a rainbow and it disappears. yet another observer may still see it. which one is correct? <br /><br />the universe is an interactive experience that places the living being front row centre to their own unique version of it. the version of the universe experienced by a dead man dies along with the man, never to be seen again in the same manner. his rainbow is gone. the only universe that continues to exist is the one left to be seen by the living. and it's not the same place.

 

[vandivx]

"<br />"The universe exists independently of us."<br /><br />and as well as dependently on us. it is both. " <br />--------------<br /><br />bonzelite I wonder if you are aware that your view is patently false philosphical view (as all such sceptical believes are) propounded by the late Immanuel Kant who held that because our view of reality is filtered by our sensory aparatus we cannot know it as it really is but only as it appears to us - per necessity distorted because processed by senses<br /><br />as consequence he held that we can never know true reality as it is in itself because we have no means of perceiving it as it really is, the fact that our senses have certain nature disqualifies us outright and so the true reality is unknowable<br /><br />in effect Kant said because we have eyes we cannot see and because we have mind we cannot know<br /><br />in that way Kant opened the way for interpreters of reality who would somehow intuit what it was and couldn't be questioned<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">The sun projects a spectrum from the diffraction & reflection of sunlight thru rain drops. If ANY receiving instrument intercepts that image, it detects a rainbow. </font><br /><br />right. that is very obvious. rainbow phenomena have existed as long as there have been prismatic effects happening in nature. <br /><br />the diffraction is occurring whether somebody sees it or not. however, the actual rainbow itself will not be perceived if the the viewing angle is not right to see it. this can be demonstrated at home using a sprinkler hose on a sunny day. we've probably all done that. you move around the rainbow, it changes, it can even disappear completely. but someobody else may still being seeing it. <br /><br />the rainbow will not result from all angles. and therefore, is largely dependent upon an individual observer to exist. otherwise, it does not objectively exist in totality.

 

[derekmcd]

<i>"The rainbow will not result from all angles. and therefore, is largely dependent upon an individual observer to exist. otherwise, it does not objectively exist in totality."</i><br /><br />I believe stevehw33's point in far less words is that those photons that are being refracted exist regardless if you are there to view them or not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[scomil39]

Well, Iv'e enjoyed reading all the input so far. Thanks to everyone who has offered up something.<br /><br />BTW, This past weekend I trecked over to Barnes & Noble and picked up two of Brian Green's latest works - "The Elegent Universe" and "The Fabric Of The Cosmos".<br /><br />I'm sure most are probably familiar with the first one as it has been out for awhile. I am about 1/4 the way thru it and so far I have gotten alot out of it. Only a few parts I tend to just read w/o really understanding what he is saying.<br /><br />If anybody has read these please feel free to throw your impressions out.<br /><br />Also, if you have any favourites that you would like to recommend to the forum please do so - thnx.

 

[bonzelite]

right. my above post states this: " rainbow phenomena have existed as long as there have been prismatic effects happening in nature."<br /><br />i guess you didn't read that ?? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[derekmcd]

Of course I read that. But you then go on to contradict yourself with:<br /><br /><i>"you move around the rainbow, it changes, it can even disappear completely."</i><br /><br />The rainbow does not dissappear... it's simply becomes unobservable at your particular viewing angle. The phenomenon you are observing might disappear, but the rainbow still exists.<br /><br />and<br /><br /><i>"is largely dependent upon an individual observer to exist."</i><br /><br />Nope. The rainbow is still there even if noone is around to observe it.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />BTW, This past weekend I trecked over to Barnes & Noble and picked up two of Brian Green's latest works - "The Elegent Universe" and "The Fabric Of The Cosmos". <br />If anybody has read these please feel free to throw your impressions out. </i><br /><br />Excellent choices. I also have both books. Written in layman's terms and reasonably priced. Treat them as text books: underline passages, paper clip pages, and re-read what you don't understand. Also, read the footnotes in the back of both books for more detailed explanations.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[scomil39]

I am now about half way thru Elegent Universe. It is just beginning to get more into String Theory and Superstring Theory. Also, now the subject of extra diminsions is being brought up. In fact, according to the book, String theory "requires" at least 10-11 different spatial diminsions in order for the theory to work out.<br />It's getting more and more where I'm not really understanding rather just reading along <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />BTW, I would like to here anybody else's impressions / thoughts on String Theory.

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />I am now about half way thru Elegent Universe. It is just beginning to get more into String Theory and Superstring Theory<br />It's getting more and more where I'm not really understanding rather just reading along </i><br /><br />A few suggestions:<br />1. You're probably reading too quickly. You have to stop<br /> and think about what he says.<br />2. Pick and choose what to re-read. Underline pas-<br /> sages, and paper clip pages. I've had to "read <br /> between the lines" at times, by crossing out <br /> unnecessary words, to get to the heart of what he's<br /> saying.<br />3. If it get's too boring, skip it, and go to a non- string <br /> chapter.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">In the sciences, however, human ideas MUST be tested against the universe to be assured accuracy, reliability & truth. That does NOT create any sense that human ideas are the source of truth, but that events in the universe are the source of truth. <br /></font><br /><br />such a long post to not say very much. <br /><br />human ideas of the universe comprise the truths that eventually go on record as facts. humans are the ones doing the testing, and thus creating the truths. the events in the universe are observed and pondered, tested, by human beings. all objective facts are compiled by humans. <br /><br />whether humanity understands what it is looking at is another matter entirely.

 

[vandivx]

"BTW, This past weekend I trecked over to Barnes & Noble and picked up two of Brian Green's latest works - "The Elegent Universe" and "The Fabric Of The Cosmos"."<br /><br />I have tons of popular science books but rarely I buy those by writers who put them out like cookies, this guy is one of those who found out how to get rich by spouting popular science and his books just regurgitate what was written elsewhere with a veneer of programmed like approach to popular science writing, I don't like such kind of books, take it from one who doesn't have to read those popular books to get to know his physics basis<br /><br />also don't bother 'studying' any popular books too much, much better is to read whole bunch of them from various authors and perhaps reread some of them later on plus dip into some textbooks here and there in a sort of oscilating way and soon you will start getting some understanding and be able to handle some more serious texts, even original papers become at least partly readable in due time<br /><br />by reading many sources you will be able in time to develop some balanced view of science even if the authors you would read would have their pet theories that skew their writing, in the end you will have to find your own position in science or just remain a weathervane<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

why is this thread not yet in Phenomena? <br /><br />there is nothing empirical about speculations about things outside of this universe.

 

[scomil39]

Bonz,<br /><br />I believe that in the first paragraph of the Sky & Tell article the author states that these subjects are finally beginning to enter the realm of science. At least some new theorys give the ability to at least make educated guesses. One being String Theory. <br /><br />However, if anyone wants to move this thread to Phenomena it's fine with me. I'll just unregister and never come back here again <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />KB,<br /><br />Thanks for the tips. I'm sure I will be rereading quite a bit.<br /><br />Van,<br /><br />I understand what your saying about the need to read a wide variety of sources. And I do intend to dip into a few old college texts. Especially algebra etc. My math is very rusty. Also, I'm probably going to be classified as weather vane for the near term anyway <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Steve,<br /><br />Thanks for the history. I have read various theorys which propose that reality is a construct of the human mind and that all there really is is consiousness. However, at this point in time, I'm very satisfied with the more mainstream thinking that whats out there is really out there.

 

[bonzelite]

nothing outside of this universe, or anything that came before the big bang, can possibly be studied empirically and can only be conjectural, as is String Theory. String Theory is a faith-based area of study. it is a topic for Phenomena. <br /><br />

 

[scomil39]

Bonz,<br /><br />Correct. String Theory is untested. However, it is a theory that is undergoing investigation by theoretical scientists with the intention of at least being partially subjected to experimentation sometime in the future.<br /><br />Therefore, I contend that string Theory and it's various implications are appropriate material for the more serious forums such this one.<br />

 

[bonzelite]

talking of anything that pre-existed this universe, or exists outside of this universe, is not empirical and not scientific. to posit the existence of another universe outside of this one is a Phenomena type of discussion, akin to sci-fi type of subject areas. <br /><br />many things are experimental within the realm of physics and are not proven nor testable and should not be regarded as empirical facts. String Theory in particular is such an area of disciplilne. 2 universes, then, is a theoretical and conjectural idea <i>based upon a foundation of total fantasy.</i> <br /><br />this thread should be moved to Phenomena, as it premises a completely faith-based idea about an additional universe outside of the known universe. there is only one universe that is known to exist, as science is not accountable for indeterminants. another universe is indeterminant and cannot be considered within the scope our sciences. <br /><br />please move this thread to Phenomena where it belongs.

 

[scomil39]

You didn't have a problem discussing it earlier. Why have you now all of the sudden decided to lobby to have the discussion moved?<br /><br />Either way I'm OK with moving it. I don't care where they put it. The UFO people will just lobby to have it thrown out of Phenomena <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

i love discussing it, but it's inappropriate for this forum; it is exactly a Phenomena type of topic. there may be concentric universes within our own minds. or the universe may be a great big monster. <br /><br />however, it is not possible to fix the conditions of an indeterminate condition such as a universe outside of our universe. such conditions are not known. to posit otherwise is a logical fallacy. <br />

 

[kyle_baron]

"BTW, This past weekend I trecked over to Barnes & Noble and picked up two of Brian Green's latest works - "The Elegent Universe" and "The Fabric Of The Cosmos"." <br /><i><br />I have tons of popular science books but rarely I buy those by writers who put them out like cookies, this guy is one of those who found out how to get rich by spouting popular science and his books just regurgitate what was written elsewhere with a veneer of programmed like approach to popular science writing,</i><br /><br />Have you even seen him on Nova (PBS)? The program The Elegant Universe? If you did, I'd think you would have a little more respect for him. He is a string theorist, and did contribute mathematical information to the theory. And he explains the physics in layman's terms thru everyday examples.<br /><i><br />by reading many sources you will be able in time to develop some balanced view of science </i><br /><br />I do agree with you here. As a matter of fact, I just ordered two books by Dr. Sten Odenwald "The Astronromy Cafe" and "Back to the Astronomy Cafe", each book answering 365 of the most popular questions from his website. From Amazon.com <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[scomil39]

Howdy KB,<br /><br />I'm 3/4 of the way thru and getting more confused with every page. 11 diminsions, Calabi Yau spaces, supersymetry ! Unfortunately, I have promised to pass the book on to another person after finishing so I have decided not to write in it. But the next one "The Fabric of the Cosmos" I fully plan to anotate the hell out of.<br /><br />BTW, other than Calculus which I have never taken but would like to pratice some at home, what other higher maths would come in helpfull in study physics. I took Trig in college but thats been over ten years ago. Whats a good way to refresh w/o having to work all the way thru a college text ?<br /><br />Anyone ?<br /><br />

 

[scomil39]

BTW, I also have a copy of "General Chemistry" by Linus Pauling. This book has quite a few good reviews on Amazon.com calling it the best chemistry text ever. I bought it at B&N a few years ago. Anybody familiar with it.<br /><br />Ive made it to somewhere around chap. 4-5 where it begins with the periodic table.<br /><br />However, I dont know how to balance a chemical equation. Does anyone have any good advice on this?