It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question about dark matter.

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Blue Shift
I like to think that it's imagination that causes the expansion of the universe. We sit around, we think up things that never existed, and the result of our thinking of these things gives them a kind of existence, with real mass/energy involved. So the more we imagine stuff, the more energy is pulled out of "nowhere," and that pushes everything apart. The universe has to get bigger to make more room for our thoughts.



Man if that were true, then the universe would be much much much much astronomically smaller than it is.

"Hey Beethoven, we're getting really crowded over here, can you make us some more real estate?"




posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   

mbkennel

NorEaster


This is true. Math is the secular mind's version of God. A perfect order that's uncontaminated by contextual "dirt". The problem is that Reality is comprised of contextual contamination and "dirt". Math is therefore useless as a theoretical tool. It's only useful if you know all the contextual sets involved and can accurately factor them into your equation.


Mathematics is useful only as a theoretical tool. Physicists include all the "contextual sets involved" (i.e. connection to physical prediction) which is the difference between what they do and pure mathematics.


Physicists work hard to clear away all "extraneous" contextual clutter, and when they do, the systems they use are no different than a hyper-prepared stage setting that a Vegas illusionist uses to perform his tricks. They're prepped systems, and extremely stripped of internal and relative contextual "clutter". Absolutely unrealistic.



Reality, as a whole, changes per Quantum instant of Now, which makes building the sets you'd need to factor into your equation impossible to determine.



Can you put that in math? It's mostly jibberish right now.


No. No one can, and that's the point. Trying to precisely predict what a simple particle will and won't do "in the wild" is impossible, and Heisenberg already declared that (Uncertainty Principle) to be the case. Try predicting the layers of intersecting ramification within the confines of a dozen holon-structure systems that are being profoundly affected by a common change/event, and how those ramifications will factor out to only 10 degrees of causation within the hosting environmental confine, and you'll always be behind the curve as each quantum instant of Now inflicts internal and relative change on each of the dozen systems, and presents the hosting environmental confine with relentlessly altering composition as a result. These are the sets that your math would have to accurately track and take into consideration. Heisenberg knew that he couldn't do that, and he didn't "put it in a math equation" because the fact that math can't manage that kind of hyper-dynamicism can't be put in a math equation.



I always get frustrated when math is used to try and "proof" a Reality theory


Mathematics is useful to show consequences of reality which are embedded in mathematically described physical principles.


Mathematics is only useful for applied physics confined to extremely prepared artificial systems. Like technology and lab demonstrations. It's worthless as a Reality-defining theoretical support structure. It's just not indicative of the contextual mayhem that is actual Reality. Reality is not chaotic, but it's contextual structure is prohibitively complex due to how readily dynamic it is. Math is Set Logic, and the sets are too immediately malleable.

edit on 3/6/2014 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Noreaster,

Havnt seen you posting recently but man am i glad you jumped into this thread.

Good to see you posting still.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Well your defiantly using your imagination to make that theory :p




top topics
 
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join