Death doesn't make sense according to physics

Originally posted by Astyanax

Here's a newsflash, there aren't sources for new science.

That's right, it's transferred directly from the scientists' head to yours, isn't it, while lesser mortals waste their time with Physical Review Letters.

If we only built upon things that were already written we wouldn't be anywhere. Did the first caveman cite his source for fire? Would none of the other cavemen use fire until it was written about in a publication? Science and religion are one in the same. Believers following books.

PS
Yes, I do know a lot of things.

[edit on 9/21/2007 by Spoodily]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Originally posted by Spoodily

They are called dimensions because they are not in the same reality. They can occupy the same area but are not of the same universe.

Well, not really. We have three spatial dimensions that are readily perceivable, for example, and all are in this universe.

Yes, we're in the fourth dimesnion. Height, width, depth and linear time. Good job.

No, we're not living in the fourth dimension.

We live in a world/reality/universe consisting of 3 spatial dimensions plus the dimension of time.

If super-string theories prove to be correct, then there are more spatial dimensions in our universe and we are just unable to observe them with our human senses.

You confuse the scientific term "dimension" with "reality".

We live in a four-dimensional world, not a fourth dimension.



[edit on 21-9-2007 by panther512]

The real meaning of 'dimensionless point'

Originally posted by Spoodily

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by Spoodily
I am still waiting for a thorough description and explanation of the Big Bang...

While you're waiting, how about dashing off a few lines citing the sources for the statements in your own posts? Actually, you could start by citing the source for your understanding of the word 'dimension'.

I'm still waiting.

Well, you must be quite bored by now. Why not hurry up and post those citations?

Would you like to add some credibility to the Big Bang Theory?

Why should I? I'm not foolish enough to imagine I can penetrate where the world's finest scientific minds have failed -- as they evidently have with you.

You haven't provided anything to substantiant the claim that we exist in 'nothing'.

Could that be because I never made such a claim?

If we only built upon things that were already written we wouldn't be anywhere. Did the first caveman cite his source for fire?

No, he was a plagiarist. A little pink fractal-fingered man came down from heaven in a flying saucer and told him how to make it, but he didn't want to acknowledge priority.

Science and religion are one in the same. Believers following books.

Yes, yes, of course. A little pink fractal-fingered man came down in a flying saucer and told you all about it, didn't he?

The question is: why are you posting on a science board?

Yes, I do know a lot of things.

But not, apparently, what a dimension is.

No wonder you have such trouble with ideas like 'inside' and 'outside'.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


If you haven't read the thread from the beginning, you really should. It's a treat. It's the weekend - peruse and enjoy.

I'm off for a visit to the brother's. See you guys Monday.

reply to post by Astyanax

www.m-w.com...

Main Entry: 1di·men·sion
Pronunciation: \də-ˈmen(t)-shən also dī-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin dimension-, dimensio, from dimetiri to measure out, from dis- + metiri to measure — more at measure
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): measure in one direction; specifically : one of three coordinates determining a position in space or four coordinates determining a position in space and time (2): one of a group of properties whose number is necessary and sufficient to determine uniquely each element of a system of usually mathematical entities (as an aggregate of points in real or abstract space) ; also : a parameter or coordinate variable assigned to such a property (3): the number of elements in a basis of a vector space b: the quality of spatial extension : magnitude, size c: a lifelike or realistic quality d: the range over which or the degree to which something extends : scope —usually used in plural e: one of the elements or factors making up a complete personality or entity : aspect
2 obsolete : bodily form or proportions
3: any of the fundamental units (as of mass, length, or time) on which a derived unit is based; also : the power of such a unit
4: wood or stone cut to pieces of specified size
5: a level of existence or consciousness

Main Entry: as·pect
Pronunciation: \ˈas-ˌpekt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin aspectus, from aspicere to look at, from ad- + specere to look — more at spy
Date: 14th century
1 a: the position of planets or stars with respect to one another held by astrologers to influence human affairs; also : the apparent position (as conjunction) of a body in the solar system with respect to the sun b: a position facing a particular direction : exposure c: the manner of presentation of a plane to a fluid through which it is moving or to a current
2 a (1): appearance to the eye or mind (2): a particular appearance of the face : mien b: a particular status or phase in which something appears or may be regarded 3 archaic : an act of looking : gaze
4 a: the nature of the action of a verb as to its beginning, duration, completion, or repetition and without reference to its position in time b: a set of inflected verb forms that indicate aspect

Main Entry: se·man·tics
Pronunciation: \si-ˈman-tiks\
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Date: 1893
1: the study of meanings: a: the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development b (1): semiotic (2): a branch of semiotic dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth
2: general semantics
3 a: the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

[edit on 9/21/2007 by Spoodily]

reply to post by Spoodily


These are all interesting, but unfortunately they only show your limited knowledge about the term "dimension".

And this is because you use the term "dimension" both for spatial dimension AND reality, without distinguishing them.

You say that we live in the 4th dimension? What is that? We live in a 4th reality? We live in a single spatial dimension? Obviously you mean the first, which is wrong.

Where are the other three realities?

Obviously you don't mean that, but again you are wrong, because we live in a 4-dimensional world and not a 4th dimension.

So, you called a 5th dimension and I asked you what do you mean with this term. You said that with the term dimension you mean another reality and in your theory, this 5th dimension is an all-containing reality which is infinite.

Again you are wrong, because you use it with the meaning of reality, while at the same time you make obvious mistakes on the reality we know very well of (our universe) by confusing the word dimension in physics with the word dimension for reality ("we live in the fourth dimension").

So, you have to correct yourself and start from the beginning, by giving the proper meaning to your sayings....

I'd advice you to study a bit of physics, because the confusion you have on basic physics and basic terms, mirrors itself in your theories...

[edit on 22-9-2007 by panther512]

Originally posted by Spoodily

I apologize but I find the idea of the universe existing in nothing and 'life' existing for no purpose a stretch to say the least. If this is true then why don't we build a big bomb and just blow this place out of the universe? No one will be happy or sad any more and all of our problems will go away.

I find it fairly preposterous to assume that our consciousness' are somehow important on the cosmic scale. If our petty and warmongering species has some sort of a special position in the universe, I'd be suprised.

It's more likely that we're just a lucky coincincidence of cosmic existence.

[edit on 22-9-2007 by leonee]

[edit on 9/22/2007 by Spoodily]

reply to post by panther512


I guess you didn't catch the subtlety of me posting a definition of semantics. Going tit for tat on the meanings of words and ignoring the context of an idea is equivalent to arguing with a child.

If you would like to add to my theory or provide something to counter it that would be appreciated but insulting my person more than my idea is immature.

If my idea is so proposterous then where is the proof that it is incorrect, in part or in whole? I am trying to take steps forward. Because I exist in the universe and am alive I have every right to think about where all of this came from and what happens when I can not experience this 'fourth dimensional reality' any more in a human body.

I expected a discussion from a 'science and technology' forum but I guess religion isn't willing to change.

liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov...

Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

encarta.msn.com...

Big Bang Theory, currently accepted explanation of the beginning of the universe. The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compact, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe whose primary assertion is that the universe has expanded into its current state from a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature. The term is also used in a narrower sense to describe the fundamental "fireball" that erupted at or close to an initial timepoint in the history of our observed spacetime.

Edit: Sorry for double post.

PS

Originally posted by panther512
I'd advice you to study a bit of physics, because the confusion you have on basic physics and basic terms, mirrors itself in your theories...

You shouldn't give people advice unless you are able to advise them.

PPS

Did you see what I did there? I joked about your own lack of language skills. Please don't assault my vernacular unless you plan to uphold some level of perfection.

[edit on 9/22/2007 by Spoodily]

reply to post by Tom Bedlam

Originally quoted by the Muse of Innovation
I guess you didn't catch the subtlety of me posting a definition of semantics.

Going tit for tat on the meanings of words and ignoring the context of an idea is equivalent to arguing with a child.

The weekend, Tom? You do these guys an injustice. I'm going to be laughing for at least a month.

reply to post by Spoodily


As I already wrote, English is not my native language. Do you prefer to speak with me in Greek?

Fortunately, physics and mathematics are the same everywhere.

You just accepted that you misused words and terms in your theory and you want us to overcome this and concentrate on the content of your theory.

This is what I did from the beginning, explaining to you that this theory doesn't explain anything. It answers the creation of our universe by creating the question of the origins of the all-containing-infinite-universe of your theory.

But in order to add the slightest credibility to your theory, it's better to re-write it in its correct form. If you want to use a term with multiple definitions, don't change it's meaning back and forward. Even I, with my limited knowledge of English understands that

You insist on a theory that is based on nothing, claiming that you have an open mind.

The progress we've made so far, is based on trying to explain the evidence we have. First we have the evidence, then we make theories about them.

In which evidence do you base your theory?

The inability of science to see what happened before Big-Bang is based on the lack of evidence.

I suppose you found some incredible evidence no one else found yet.

Originally posted by panther512
reply to post by Spoodily

 

As I already wrote, English is not my native language. Do you prefer to speak with me in Greek?

Yes, start speaking in Greek and I will start correcting you like I know the language as well as you. I would like you to see how annoying it is to limit your thought process based on someone else's inadequacies.

Fortunately, physics and mathematics are the same everywhere.

faculty.washington.edu...

In these girth-conscious times, even weight itself has weight issues. The kilogram is getting lighter, scientists say, sowing potential confusion over a range of scientific endeavor.
The kilogram is defined by a platinum-iridium cylinder, cast in England in 1889. No one knows why it is shedding weight, at least in comparison with other reference weights, but the change has spurred an international search for a more stable definition.
"It's certainly not helpful to have a standard that keeps changing," says Peter Becker, a scientist at the Federal Standards Laboratory here, an institution of 1,500 scientists dedicated entirely to improving the ability to measure things precisely.
Even the apparent change of 50 micrograms in the kilogram — less than the weight of a grain of salt — is enough to distort careful scientific calculations.

You just accepted that you misused words and terms in your theory and you want us to overcome this and concentrate on the content of your theory.

No, I corrected you based on your lack of knowledge about the English language. You are saying that I am wrong in my terminology when English is your second language but you, to some extent, know what I am describing and are playing dumb.

This is what I did from the beginning, explaining to you that this theory doesn't explain anything. It answers the creation of our universe by creating the question of the origins of the all-containing-infinite-universe of your theory.

The only goal of the theory is to complete the big bang theory. It is only set up to prove to another dimensional reality as the source of this one. There is more that could come from the theory, but proving to another 'dimensional reality'is the only goal of the theory. I said that because it is time at a zero point that it would contain all the infinite possibilities of this 'fourth dimensional reality' we live in simutaneously, not that this other 'dimensional reality' is infinite.

But in order to add the slightest credibility to your theory, it's better to re-write it in its correct form. If you want to use a term with multiple definitions, don't change it's meaning back and forward. Even I, with my limited knowledge of English understands that

No, I should be talking with less anal retentive people that have a better grasp of the language they are arguing in. Get a dictionary, thesaurus or a clue and start using your brain. I am getting tired of holding people's hand through a discussion when it is only leading away from the point of the discussion.

You insist on a theory that is based on nothing, claiming that you have an open mind.

I have stated earlier in the thread what I base my theory on and have said that I will make a thread about it soon enough.

The progress we've made so far, is based on trying to explain the evidence we have. First we have the evidence, then we make theories about them.

The Big Bang theory is incomplete. I am trying to correct that. The only evidence is that the universe came from a source, with a whole lot of assumptions tossed in. My theory could could give credibilty to a 'soul' get rid of the notion that we are just bodies waiting to not exist. Science and religion don't like the idea of a rational source for the big bang because it forces them to change their beliefs.

In which evidence do you base your theory?

Cymatics, frequency, time, fractal geometry, metatron's cube, tree of life, fruit of life, being alive, nature and how sadly incomplete the Big Bang theory is.

The inability of science to see what happened before Big-Bang is based on the lack of evidence.

The assumption that the big bang came from nothing, exists in nothing and that we are a 'cosmic fluke' is based on ignorance. The inability of science to see what happened before Big Bang should imply that science is open to theories about what happened before the Big Bang.

I suppose you found some incredible evidence no one else found yet.

I have seen an advanced craft that people would term a 'ufo'. Those are real and they move in a way that science doesn't have an explanation for. I became interested in science that isn't in text books after this event because mainstream science is either lying or inept. That is why I associate 'science' of today with religion. It is turning into a bunch of believers hoping what they believe is true and not wanting to take any steps in a direction that would leave them to be corrected.

reply to post by Spoodily


OK, we can start from the beginning then:

You say we live in the 4th dimension. Can you give us a few more clues about this dimension?

What are the other 3 dimensions in which we are not living?

Not that this dimensions vs. reality stuff has anything to do with the topic of the thread, but I'd like to chime in here.

My guess is that the Universe is full of "stuff." This stuff is constantly in motion and has always been here. There is no "beginning of time" or "start of the universe," nor is there a "place where it came from." People ask "why does the universe exist?" but I think a much more logical question is "why wouldn't it?"

Following the laws of physics as we know them, and going by our definition of it, the Big Bang could never have happened because nothing could have triggered it. If energy didn't exist yet, what caused the explosion? If matter didn't exist yet, what exploded? Neither could have just been suddenly created right at that point of explosion, and if it could have, then our entire understanding of physics is wrong (Although this is not an impossibility.)

The Universe is NOT expanding, only the section we are able to observe is expanding. Maybe this is due to a massive explosion like the theories say, or maybe there is some gravitational force pulling it apart. Either way, something exists outside of the Universe to cause that gravitational force or to initiate that explosion.

My guess is that the "Universe" is just one step up in celestial groups from galaxies, which are a step up from solar systems. The scope of these groups continues like that infinitely, with every group being part of a larger group, and each larger group provides the energy which fuels the smaller groups within it. Perhaps it goes infinitely in the other direction as well, from solar systems to planets, to molecules, to atoms, to subatomic particals, and so on, forever.

It's possible that we have not observed evidence of these other "Universes" because the gravity of our own is so enormous that light bends around it, or is distorted by gravity to the point that we can't detect what it is with the instruments we've built so far.

If you think about it, this would explain why the amount of matter and energy in existance is constant - because there is an infinite amount of both and you can't add to or subtract from infiniti.

I wouldn't say that I "believe" all this unprovable stuff. I make it a point not to believe, because belief is foolish when reality itself cannot be proven. It's just my guess that I'm throwing out there and hoping somebody understands what the heck I'm talking about.

reply to post by panther512


I apologize if my use of the term fourth dimesnion was leaving too much to be implied. I was saying 'fourth dimension' as a three dimensional place with a dimension of linear time applied.

In the 'fourth dimensional reality' the observer (any living thing) exist only in the present and their three dimensional coordinates coincide with a location in time. Their reality is comprised of interaction with frequencies that require linear time to exist.

The thought form (dreams or mental images) of reality does not require frequency, so the idea of time becomes null. Yes, we think and dream over time, but we are not interacting with an outside frequency source that our brain decodes into an experience.
Example: If I dream that I see a man and he is wearing a red shirt, there is no actual light source in my mind to be bouncing off of his shirt and to my eye to give me the perception that the shirt is red, it just is red to me.

If I were to guess (which I have to) I would compare a fifth dimensional reality to a more 'thought form' reality. With this fifth dimensional reality I understand that there is an implication that it has a source as well but I have nothing but speculation about what its source may be. The best I can do is see if I can get a discussion going about and possible verification of a source to this universe and the cause of the big bang.

I think if this were to be a reality that religion and science would both change their views about life and what 'reality' really is. I strongly disagree with the two sided arguement of 'God' creating everything or we just exist because we exist. I would really like to get the ball rolling on a logical discussion about the creation of our universe and the possibilities that could come from such a notion.

I think religion is so wrong in its thinking and purpose that it turns people away from the idea that there is anything special about being alive. I think that people should just avoid religious teaching and beliefs and just look at the world around them. There are similarities and metaphors to other things in nature everywhere. Reality is a big fractal.

I love science but it should maintain an agnostic viewpoint and not an atheistic one. When it starts becoming atheistic and beliefs come into play, it is not science but a religion trying to prove certain points and not trying to find an overall truth, no matter what that truth may be.

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
- ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

I thought about the title a bit more. Death doesn't make sense according to anything or compared to anything.


Trying to understand it is pointless, in the state we are in, coping at best is what most of us try to do.

I have avoided this thread but I have something I must get off my chest:
Death does not violate of the laws of physics.

"What happens to the energy in the human body when we die?"

Simple. When you die the energy doesn't go anywhere. That is why an animal can still eat you and derive energy from the process. And boy is it a good thing we don't lose any energy we die! Otherwise we wouldn't fertilize the lawns of cemeteries and we could only stay healthy by eating other animals alive.

What we see when we see death is a loss of structure or order. The order disappears throughout your entire life until you reach a point where the the redundancies built into your body stop being adequate and we die. This is partly due to the second law of thermodynamics.

The interesting part is that all that energy stored in our bodies does get used by bacteria and maggots and worms and all that good stuff. If you want to know where we go when we dies look around at all the life and that is your answer.

Life (and death), with its myriad of organisms dining on other organisms represents nothing less than a grand demonstration of the principle of conservation of energy.

"Where does the electricity in the synapses go then?"

There is no electricity in the brain. What we do have is an electrical potential formed by the separation of at least two different ions. What happens when we die? Well simply put, the second law of thermodynamics kicks in.

The ions that were held apart by forces supplied by the now failing structures of life are allowed to increase in entropy and chemically combine. So that in death, the electrical potential providing ions become the same salts we consumed in life in order to provide our bodies with the power to fire our synapses.

Class dismissed.

Jon

Originally posted by Spoodily

I love science but it should maintain an agnostic viewpoint and not an atheistic one. When it starts becoming atheistic and beliefs come into play, it is not science but a religion trying to prove certain points and not trying to find an overall truth, no matter what that truth may be.

Nonsense. Science works best because it stays away from the supernatural entirely.

Science is never a religion. Only people who try to dismiss it say such.

Science is about observation of natural law. Religion deals with the supernatural. Therefore science cannot deal with religious and supernatural topics.

If you want a topic that remains "agnostic" stick with metaphysics.

Originally posted by polomontana
I don't see how death makes any sense within the laws of physics.

I can offer you a biological answer to your question. Which may or may not be what you’re looking for but here goes.

Physically we could live ‘forever’, if nature hadn’t genetically programmed us to die. Certain primitive species of life, hydra’s for example, do live indefinitely. Or until they’re gobbled up by some predator organism. But higher developed life forms need to be able to adapt to changes in their environment. And this can only be achieved through sexual reproduction, i.e. by having genetically reshuffled offspring (children in our case).

If a species didn’t have a population control mechanism inherently built into itself (death by age) then that lifeform would quickly exhaust/destroy its own habitat’s resources through overpopulation and die out. In short the old must make way for the new. The parents must die so the children can live. There’s not room for the both. That’s the brutal and depressing truth.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods