View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Discussions about Metaphysics, Quantum Physics, the Holographic Universe and the Nature of Reality.

Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby Twain Shakespeare » 14 Sep 2011, 09:58

One reason I prefer the evolutionary universe is, it is evolving, rather than decaying. According to it, the LHC is not reproducing primal conditions, but producing conditions that have never existed before, and whose nature would be inherently less predictable, although they didn't ask for his prediction.
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
User avatar
Twain Shakespeare
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 20 Jul 2010, 05:19
Location: El Paso Del Norte on the sunny Jornada del Muerta






Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby craig weiler » 14 Sep 2011, 10:17

Well, if the universe is decaying, it's doing a pretty poor job of it as its expansion is accelerating. Personally, I think that the big bang theory needs to just go away. Too many problems with it.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby ProfWag » 14 Sep 2011, 21:56

craig weiler wrote:Personally, I think that the big bang theory needs to just go away. Too many problems with it.

Funny, but that's what I think about the ganzfield experiments... ;-)

In any event, what do you suggest replace the BBT?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby craig weiler » 14 Sep 2011, 23:23

Any good model of physics is going to have to start taking consciousness into account. I don't think any model has been developed that really speaks to how it interacts with present physics, but clearly it does and it matters a lot. The gravitational field has been shown to be affected by large disturbances in human emotion, indicating that we have a relationship to the natural world that we don't understand that is produced by consciousness.

Apparently, there is a magnetic frequency range that humans respond to, much like sound. Only we respond in an entangled way, meaning that distance, signal strength and intervening objects are irrelevant. There is some interesting research in this area. As usual, I have a blog post on this:

https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/201 ... ic-fields/

When physicists talk about the need to include consciousness in physics, you know something is up. These are extremely conservative people for the most part and not given to wild flights of fancy. It is not just the observer effect and entanglement here, it is also the functioning of ordinary quantum experiments. Occasionally one researcher will get one set of results and another researcher will get a different set although they are doing the same experiment. They are able to repeat their own results even though they are different.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby Twain Shakespeare » 16 Sep 2011, 04:23

ProfWag wrote:
craig weiler wrote:Personally, I think that the big bang theory needs to just go away. Too many problems with it.

Funny, but that's what I think about the ganzfield experiments... ;-)

In any event, what do you suggest replace the BBT?



My favorite alternative model is the Electomagnetic Universe model. (EMU)

Unlike Big Bang theories, which I consider to be poor science due to its attempting to deal with an unfalsifiable question, which leads to its placing primacy in theoretical models, rather than facts, and such imbecilicly unscientific statesment's as Gellman's dictum that to be true a theory "must be beautiful", the EMU model does not consider origin to be a valid question.

EMT deals with the observable facts, and nothing else. The only time I recall EMU theorists touching on the problem of "origin" the reasoning went like this.

First, assume nothing that cannot be deduced from what is "known". We "know" the amount of matter in the universe, and we "know" the volume of space.

What follows is not gosple to EMU theorist, merely a demonstration that, if one takes these two data points, and assume for the sake of demonstration only that at one point, that amount of matter was distributed evenly throughout space.

Assuming those two factors are the only thing in existence, means assuming the universe was at absolute zero, without even kinetic energy.

With only these conditions at an arbitrary start point, within three hundred trillion years, according to the calculations, our universe would arise out of the natural synergy of an open universe.

Note, EMU does not claim this is what happened. It only demonstrates it is possible. It does not assume anything about conditions prior to the existence of facts we know, unlike Big Bang theories. By Occam's razor, it should be the preferred model, since it utterly lacks the fudge factors and hypothetical entities required by even the simplest Big Bang theory.

But my best hope for what would replace the Big Bang model, would be the realization grand unification is bad science, and its replacement with facts. That will happen sometime after "the last capitalist is hung w/ the entrails of the last priest, and pigs fly to the moon for the winter.
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
User avatar
Twain Shakespeare
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 20 Jul 2010, 05:19
Location: El Paso Del Norte on the sunny Jornada del Muerta

Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby craig weiler » 16 Sep 2011, 09:41

That's interesting. In large part because psi seems to be related to magnetic fields.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby Twain Shakespeare » 17 Sep 2011, 09:36

craig weiler wrote:That's interesting. In large part because psi seems to be related to magnetic fields.

Thanx. I deleted the rest of my response by accident :(
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
User avatar
Twain Shakespeare
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 20 Jul 2010, 05:19
Location: El Paso Del Norte on the sunny Jornada del Muerta

Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby Twain Shakespeare » 01 Oct 2011, 13:20

Further informationn on experiments on CERN

http://xkcd.com/401/
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
User avatar
Twain Shakespeare
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 20 Jul 2010, 05:19
Location: El Paso Del Norte on the sunny Jornada del Muerta

Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby craig weiler » 01 Oct 2011, 23:36

Will they ever find the God Particle? Who knows?
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ » 08 Oct 2011, 02:10

Arouet wrote:Craig: Are you a theoretical physiscist? As far as I know, string theory remains popular, including being promoted by Stephen Hawking last year in The Grand Design. Not that it has been accepted or doesn't have its critics, but I hadn't heard that it's dead!


I'm no theoretical physicist either, but I have to agree with Craig that String Theory is pseudoscientific crap.

Unfortunately, String Theory is not a scientific theory due to the lack of substantial, replicable evidence.

Untill you can show me a study that supports this String Theory, I remain very skepticial......
User avatar
_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 06:38

Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby Arouet » 08 Oct 2011, 03:13

I didn't mean to imply that it was accepted. I just didn't think that it was dead. Some pretty smart guys are still pursuing it. I posted some links where some scientists have come up with some tests that could potentially confirm it. if there are tests for it it will no longer be pseudoscience.

It may not be correct. My only point is that it doesn't seem to be dead, which is what Craig suggested.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby craig weiler » 09 Oct 2011, 00:17

Arouet,
Dead is a subjective term in this case. It's meant to imply that it has no life to it. I agree that people are still working on, but it's a dead end. Perhaps if they learn something from the work that was done on it they can apply it to something else.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby Arouet » 09 Oct 2011, 00:53

I'm not qualified to say whether it is a dead end or not. People seem to be still taking it quite seriously and testing it. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby craig weiler » 09 Oct 2011, 02:18

I highly recommend the book "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin.

He used to work on String Theory and is very familiar with it. If you know the underlying problems of this theory, which are not hard to understand, you won't have to wait and see.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: The Non-Evidence of the Unknown

Postby Arouet » 09 Oct 2011, 05:13

Honestly, I don't have a horse in that race. When a big discovery happens that confirms string theory or M theory or whatever comes next, I'll listen with interest. But I'm happy to let the physicists duke it out.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to Metaphysics / Quantum Physics / Nature of Reality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron