What space did the universe expand into?

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Those were more "benign" physics that used mostly real physics and quations involving the theory of relativity which isn't as imaginary as the physic of the small...




posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Electromagnatism has almost no roll with collapsing matter when compared to the other forces.


I thought we agree that electromagneticism is everything and that the four fundmental forces is nonsense.

Change your mind?


What the heck is "weak and strong nuclear force"?



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 

That's a real scientific argument you got yourself there



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

What the heck is "weak and strong nuclear force"?


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing80s
Those were more "benign" physics that used mostly real physics and quations involving the theory of relativity which isn't as imaginary as the physic of the small...


Have you poked yourself in the eye yet? What was the result? Did you record your findings? You know it's only a scientific fact if it can be reproduced in a controlled environment?

I suggest recording it, and putting it up for peer review on the forum. I'll be happy to gaze my expert eye over it.
edit on 29-9-2012 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Fine John go on my post and explain to me undenaible proof or your "closest" theories you know that can show that the physics of the small is not total BS. And yes I do believe in real physics and the most in Relativity but quantum mechanics is a hard pill to swallow. So please enlighten me since I'm so ignorant. Teach me why 13 dimensions exist along with microscopic black holes and electron teleportation. Please. I want to know.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

Swing80s intent is quite clear: "physics is made up crap". (S)he then goes on to state that Hawkins et al are idiots (lol!) and that QM (amongst other things) is made up crap. That is a far cry from "I think most, if not all, of the theories are correct, but that does not imply they are complete".


We all know governments are corrupt but saying how is not easy. I don't blame Swing80s if he/she does not know everything. Most likely it is not their job to know theoretical physics. People don't have to experts in all fields to spot nonsense.

Besides science evolves according to what the status quo thinks is acceptable for the slave population. Most of what is cutting edge is thousands of years of recycled technology passed down from the star people and ancient lost civilisations.

Do you belive in atlantis and lemuria being real? That they were more advanced than we could ever be? That they were destroyed by the nephelim? Or maybe I am talking chineese LOL!
edit on 29/9/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 


What 'physics of the small' are you referring to specifically? You can check out 2 photon physics, for a verifiable and recorded arm of quantum mechanics, with reproducible results if you like?..



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing80s
Please. I want to know.

No. You Don't. I've been round the ATS block enough times to spot those whose minds are firmly shut off to actual education. Go read a textbook or something if you're that interested.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Just want to point out an odd theory i read about before giving an opinion (or more) of the OP question.

There is this theory about something called iron stars. Look it up if it sounds interesting because I am just going off the top of my head and this isn't exactly related to the OP... just a weird question like it that no one truly knows the answer to... but from recall it's something to do with half life of all protons in the universe that are thought to have been created around the same point in time and that they will all decay and turn into some kind of cold non energetic byproduct or something as an element called iron 56 or some crap like that and there will not be heat or stars as you see it now... but more of a compiling of these elements than anything which will give rise to "iron stars"... basically just existence crystallizing into metals. I don't understand it either and probably misinterpreted something but it's still fracking weird and reminds me of an experience I read about. Terms say I can't describe why I only took this dudes story with a grain of salt (as in *hallucination*) but after reading this theory it brought the story back to my mind. He was in a chair (observing his "experience") and he said he and his surroundings started crystallizing into metal and he thought he had died, which is not uncommon for his type of experience.

That's just a side note.... but it kind of coincides with a certain observation...all of our life systems revolve around the consumption of energy... even the cells in our bodies, the lights we switch on and the fuel we put in our cars. even before we had technology it was still about energy consumption...and this is reflected in our very matter that makes up the world. You have matter that is on one side of the frequency range that makes up what we see as our reality and everything else is energy consumption... even the sun. Everything that is based on that system is consuming more energy than it is giving off because of loss but something is still happening to all the byproducts and even Earth, which is "ground" is a tangible thing we call matter but it is still within that process and one way or another will eventually be consumed or decay.

Thinking about this look at the solar system as others have pointed out and look at the galaxy and see the other galaxies that kind of resemble it. It's as though we are in the midst of some type of explosion... a dynamic explosion that could kill us all if it went chaotic or stopped altogether... either way, it seems very fragile, but often not from our own perspective. We often seem to think things will never change even though they are constantly changing.

So, i think we are a part of a larger dimension and that we are inside some type of energy consumption system within that dimension and we may be extinguished in that dimension as fast as an explosion happens but it seems billions of years to us.

That's a scary thought but maybe when we die we just become part of the larger dimension and the cycle continues because it is all related and there may be living dimensions within our own that comprises everything.

Having said that let's look at the third dimension. That's what they say we are in but i believe we are already well beyond this and have been ever since life began. ... but even still we understand what 3rd dimension is and what we also know is that the first and second dimension is within the third.... so that kind of reflects it as well, that this dimension is inside of our next dimension and it is a much larger much more complex dimension that we can't even fathom at this point.

Here is something else I found out that is strange. We are on the edge of our galaxy, correct? I don't know the exact convection and direct of the galactic winds or force or whatever you want to call it but i wonder if being on the edge has anything to do with it or what does.

but you know what a bow shock is? in front of a star there is this bow of light in front of that pushes against the galactic medium outside of the solar system or heliosphere. It's around the heliopause or the hydrogen wall or whatever, which goes all the way around and we are thought to have a tail like a comet (that's not really visible but is more of the alleged shape of our solar system barriers. but on the other side stars have a bow shock... at least most do, because stars are moving through space at ridiculous speeds if you weren't aware of that.

but guess what? we have no bow shock and we are actually moving much much slower through space that we thought and are probably moving much slower than most stars because like most stars, we totally expected to have a bow shock... so... nasa sends a space craft up to check it out and surprise surprise... no bow shock.

What does that mean? I have no idea and they didn't specify but guess when they found this out.

earlier this year. Kind of interesting in my opinion.

Are we going to stop? Eventually, yes.
edit on 29-9-2012 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
You just can't tie in Realtivity to QM and you know it. What makes you even more hostile and defensive is you can't prove QM at all. Maybe you should open your eyes. Scientists, yes even the popular ones ( I bet you love Michio Kaku) are wrong sometimes too. So don't be so arrogant as to think you're infallable in your beliefs

I don't think I'm the dumb sheep here...



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 


Did you not look into 2 photon physics then? That's rather poor form old chap, or are you just trying to molest poor old John?



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 


The circuitry of your computer (and pretty much every piece of electronics) uses direct applications of QM. Throw your computer in the bin if you think it's "all made up crap". Anyway, I've done enough ignoramus enabling for the evening.
edit on 29-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 


George Box wrote that "essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" .

That certainly applies to Quantum Mechanics, as it's extremely useful and makes accurate predictions, as does relativity.

Can we tie them together? No, not yet, but when you study models you find that nearly every model has a limited useful range of applicability, so this doesn't really invalidate the model if it makes useful predictions.

I don't think Einstein liked some aspects of quantum mechanics either, but until someone comes up with a better model, what would you have us do, use no model at all and not be able to make any predictions? That would be silly, right? The model makes useful predictions whether it's exactly right or not.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

What the heck is "weak and strong nuclear force"?


en.wikipedia.org...


The terms "strong" and "weak" are abstract relative terms.

Further it seems we are over-complicating stuff to cover-up electromagnetism. It is like going from LA to NYC via tokyo instead of via chicago. I guess I would call it sophistry, if not pure nonsense.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
How does my computer tie into quantum physics? E/I*R is regular physics as far as I remember and everything else that involves circuitry from what I learned in a Physics class that turned out to be nothing but teaching how to make and understand and use computers involved regular physics if I remember correctly.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


Do you have a good link to this 2 proton physics you're talking about?



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 


Hard pill to swallow? Thats why you distrust it?

It goes against your "common sense" right?

Well think were logic, and common sense come from.

If i told my little brother that moving a door knob closer to the hinges would make the door harder to open and close he would more or less accept it tho there is very complicated physics involved. Its second nature, cause he experiences Newtonian mechanics on a daily basis. Non-locality, an observed, recorded, and proven quantum phenomenon completly shatters our 'logic' because we dont experience non-locality in our face. Doesn't make it any less true than f=ma
edit on 29-9-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 


Quantum electro dynamics is the most sound and tested physical theory we have. That is the interaction of photons basically.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join