Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes I have watched that video probably 3 times, and the majority of those susskind lectures at standford.

How I can be so confident krauss is wrong>!!?!!?!>!>!>!?!?>!>!>!

ARE YOU KIDDING, have you never listened to me the more then one time ive had to explain why he is wrong, did you not comprehend what i was saying? there is no way you could have read what I said and still believe him.

Oh, and just to be certain we are on the same page with what i mean when i say krauss is wrong, I mean his famous statement "Everything comes from nothing", is wrong.

Every intelligent entity in the universe, in reality, at anytime in the past and future, would want to kill themselves, when hearing this 'professional?' idiot make such a claim..

I CANNOT BELIEVE he exists............ You have to try to not think to come up with a statement like that.

If words have meanings that is.

It is LITERALLY, the most wrong statement that can ever be made. It is tied with some others, but it is certainly, can you comprehend that, the most wrong statement that can ever be made. That is how absolutely wrong it is. There is nothing that can be said, with a mouth and words, that is more wrong then that, because it already contains all wrongnesses within the statement itself. It is infinitely wrong.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Your right we cant show Krauss to be wrong however i dont agree with alot of his ideas either. My biggest problem is his belief that most of the mass and energy of the universe is in empty space. Hes sort of a physics skeptic he even originally argued the Higgs didnt exist was adamant about it telling everyone they were wasting there time and the standard model was wrong. Then of course Cern discovered the Higgs making him eat cro but than he tried to argue that empty space has the mass once again with the idea of dark matter. Hes very smart but unfortunately hes wrong as much as hes right.

a reply to: ImaFungi


The universe was created from nothing all it took was one symmetry break to occur. However dont think that meansi agree with him either.

Mary, understand that both Thunderbolts and dragonridr are Dis-info. While the latter is obvious, the former is tough to spot. Here is just one example. Where Thunder says "Gravity, while always present, is not typically the dominant force."
Does that sound correct? In respects to the universe or space : after confirming the ever presences of Gravity, they follow with more "facts" in an authoritative tone. Gravity is most likely electromagnetic in nature. (Like everything else) Once that is understood it becomes clear that "always present" is correct and "not typically the dominate force" incorrect. Because its everywhere. a reply to: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Drdpi
Mary, understand that both Thunderbolts and dragonridr are Dis-info. While the latter is obvious, the former is tough to spot. Here is just one example. Where Thunder says "Gravity, while always present, is not typically the dominant force."
Does that sound correct? In respects to the universe or space : after confirming the ever presences of Gravity, they follow with more "facts" in an authoritative tone. Gravity is most likely electromagnetic in nature. (Like everything else) Once that is understood it becomes clear that "always present" is correct and "not typically the dominate force" incorrect. Because its everywhere. a reply to: Mary Rose

Well you apparently dont read and understand posts. I have already explained gravity is indeed the main force shaping our universe. Now as far as gravity being electromagnetic your wrong theres been hundreds of experiments that prove otherwise. If generating a magnetic field was all thats needed to counter gravity the air plane would have become obsolete by the 50s.

a reply to: dragonridr

The universe was created from nothing all it took was one symmetry break to occur.

Huh? Does this mean something different in physics than it does in English?

If there was nothing, what caused a symmetry break in nothing and how would that make something?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Your right we cant show Krauss to be wrong however i dont agree with alot of his ideas either. My biggest problem is his belief that most of the mass and energy of the universe is in empty space. Hes sort of a physics skeptic he even originally argued the Higgs didnt exist was adamant about it telling everyone they were wasting there time and the standard model was wrong. Then of course Cern discovered the Higgs making him eat cro but than he tried to argue that empty space has the mass once again with the idea of dark matter. Hes very smart but unfortunately hes wrong as much as hes right.

First, he admits he's wrong more than he's right, and he claims that is true for most theoretical physicists. I've heard other theoretical physicists say something similar. He uses that in his attack on string theory saying that given how often theoretical physicists turn out to be proven wrong by experiment, it's kind of ridiculous for string theorists to be operating in an experimental "vacuum" so to speak for 4 decades.

Second, what is dark energy? We don't know but the mainstream view seems to be it might be a property of the vacuum, meaning that most of the universe is in empty space if this is true. Here is the NASA pie chart showing it as 71.4%, so that's most of the universe, right?

wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Maybe Krauss is saying something different than this. I don't claim to be informed of all his claims. I just watched a one hour presentation he made, but your description of what you object to sounds like the mainstream view to me. Obviously mainstream views include an admission of ignorance about dark matter and dark energy so it won't be too upsetting if our preliminary thoughts about them turn out to be wrong, until we really figure out what is going on.


a reply to: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: dragonridr

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Huh? Does this mean something different in physics than it does in English?

Nature has thrown us some curve balls on terms we thought we understood when we coined them, so it's not as black and white as some people think.

Matter was thought to be different from energy, and while it still is to some extent, the fact that most of your mass comes from gluons, a form of energy, blurred the distinction we thought existed when the word "matter" was coined.

Likewise, with "empty space", nature has shown us that it's not empty, so what we thought was nothing, isn't really nothing. I think the Lamb shift demonstrates this. In our universe we can call this "vacuum energy" or "zero point energy".

If you extend this concept to before the big bang, it could have been along the same lines, where nothing wasn't really nothing, it was something like a pre-big bang form of zero point energy.

The pre big bang ideas are very speculative, so nobody really knows how the big bang happened. But the Lamb shift isn't speculative, and it seems to indicate that "nothing" aka "the vacuum" isn't really nothing.

a reply to: dragonridr

Haha...ha. No. Start thinking please...Please, I am begging you, start thinking. Just a little bit? Can you just try to think a little bit, do you know what thinking means, or how it works? Can you think about something? Can you do that please?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Nature has thrown us some curve balls on terms we thought we understood when we coined them, so it's not as black and white as some people think.

Then shouldn't we adapt and quit using incorrect terms when we realize they're incorrect? I don't understand the need to continue the notion of something from nothing and without any apparent reason for the event. Both videos posted to explain something from nothing admitted something but called it nothing. Drives me up the wall!

Just my opinion but it seems to me that they cling to starting from nothing because officially calling it something leads to messy problems concerning an uncaused, naturally spontaneous big bang. Maybe I'm the only one who sees it like that but there must be a reason why something from nothing is defended when it's obvious by the explanations they don't really believe it.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
You were pretty close when you said:

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Huh? Does this mean something different in physics than it does in English?

Ever read any articles about the so-called "God particle"? The media liked that term because it was catchy, but a lot of physicists hated it and they call it the Higgs particle.

I don't see "nothing" as a physics term. Physicists might use a term such as "Zero" something, like "Zero-point energy", so I don't think there's much confusion among physicists, it's when the physicists or the media try to "dumb it down" for non-physicists that they use words like "nothing", which isn't all bad since if they say the real physics term instead of "zero point energy" a lot of people seem to want to use that energy to power their toaster, which can't be done as far as we know, so I guess they follow the "KISS" principle, "keep it sweet and simple", or pick your translation.

Moreover once a term enters common usage, it seems to continue being used even after we learn that it's not really correct. That's sort of the idea behind my thread on why we call the Earth's north magnetic pole a north magnetic pole even though we now know it's not a north magnetic pole (we didn't know this when we named it). Maybe we should change incorrect terms, but for many reasons, it's difficult to do, and usually we don't, though there are probably cases where we have.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

it's when the physicists or the media try to "dumb it down" for non-physicists that they use words like "nothing", which isn't all bad since if they say the real physics term instead of "zero point energy" a lot of people seem to want to use that energy to power their toaster,

Even so they don't have to dumb it down to be that dumb. In the first second video they called planck length and a small amount of energy (measured in grams?) nothing. NOTHING. Even if inadvertent, there must be a conspiracy of sorts to perpetuate this myth.

@ :29 talking about entropy they say "Nothing is as disordered as, well, nothing". That's BS. Disordered is a state of something.

@ :50 they invoke Heisenberg talking about how a SYSTEM can never have zero energy. OK fine. What system was there?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Agree!
I repeat what I've said earlier about Big Bang myth

How could Big Bang happened because of the Heisenberg's uncertainty princaple
∆E ∆T = h
planks constant is a number calculated from the black body radiation
www.youtube.com...

no radiation in nothing, no Big Bang... what more do you need as proof ?

on the other side Planck's Units at all means nothing, as they just a formula for calculate a universal, basic units,
from G L T as constants. Different constants, different Planck Units, but this is a grate formula if we meet aliens for example.. we can use the Planck's units to translate they measurements as I assume they don't use meter, kilogram and seconds...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


BTW: Planck's length is not the smallest possible length ever, it just makes no sense for our mathematical equations to deal with numbers smaller than that.

originally posted by: KrzYma


BTW: Planck's length is not the smallest possible length ever, it just makes no sense for our mathematical equations to deal with numbers smaller than that.

To me that is such an interesting philosophical/logical/geometry problem. The nature of 3d object. The nature of area itself, 3d area.

In geometrical theory, a pure plato like realm of geometry, can you shrink the area of a cube indefinitely?

Its like zenos paradox, With a 3d area, you can keep halving it, and when you can half it no more, what then do you have there? Because if you have a 3d object, then you should always be able to halve it again! And its not like you can put two 2d objects together to make a 3d object, can you? Because 2d object has no depth, and it is the depth that is the 3rd dimension. so 2d object, no depth, you can put a million together, and it would just be perfectly on top, never 'rising up' creating a depth, right?

Heck just fold a 2d object and you get depth
a reply to: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Heck just fold a 2d object and you get depth
a reply to: ImaFungi

Are you serious or joking?

If you're serious please give an example of a 2D object please.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Heck just fold a 2d object and you get depth
a reply to: ImaFungi

Are you serious or joking?

If you're serious please give an example of a 2D object please.

A piece of
paper for all practical purposes

a reply to: Nochzwei

No. Paper has three dimensions. I'm looking at a stack of it now. If a piece of paper had two dimensions there wouldn't be a stack.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nochzwei

No. Paper has three dimensions. I'm looking at a stack of it now. If a piece of paper had two dimensions there wouldn't be a stack.

Lol, I said for all practical purposes means a gross approximation. To be exact fold only the flat surface of your flat screen tv in the middle at right angles and you have 3d

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nochzwei

No. Paper has three dimensions. I'm looking at a stack of it now. If a piece of paper had two dimensions there wouldn't be a stack.

Lol, I said for all practical purposes means a gross approximation. To be exact fold only the flat surface of your flat screen tv in the middle at right angles and you have 3d

No you wouldnt there is no 2 dimensional object any where else other than math. And if an object were 2 D it cant be made into a 3 D object because to do so there would have to be added dimensions making it no longer 2 D.