Leaderboard

By definition UAPs are unidentified so trying to describe the drive of something that has not even been identified is a waste of time.

The Big Bang model is an attempt to explain a host of observations that tell us how the universe evolved from its first fraction of a second onwards. However, it does not explain clearly what dark energy or matter is, and how the universe was created at the very start. So is the Big Bang theory a complete model of the universe?

I was looking for data on the Sudbury event that seems to have marked the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment and the start of the Mid Proterozoic and came across this very interesting website. https://craterexplorer.ca/home-2/ The Chicxulub is there, of course. I forgot to say. Any comments/criticism etc from experts are most welcome.

I think these are not dogmas so much as false impressions. In fact, there have been research groups, like Princeton's PEAR group, that studied paranormal phenomena. And holistic medicine, and investigation of ancient techniques in Ayurvedic medicine, indigenous peoples herbal treatments, etc, is an active area of study right now. Sheldrake has always styled himself as a maverick who is stifled by a rigid orthodoxy. (sound familiar, science forum regulars?) The only positive thing I can say about him is that he has proposed several scientific experiments to test his hypotheses about morphic resonance. Anyone can look at his nineties book, 7 Experiments that Could Change the World, and try doing one of them. I don't see how positive results would prove his particular theoretical framework of morphic fields, however. They would, at best, show there's something unusual going on, and maybe lead to better experimental setups in the future. Do dogs telepathically know when their humans are coming home? I would think clean data would be really hard to get on this. Sheldrake seems to forget that interpretation of animal behavior, where nonverbal creatures are concerned, is quite tricky and observers can deceive themselves quite easily.

Actually, I am. That's what's painful. You say forces are real. MigL told you that in GR gravitational forces dissapear when you go to a locally inertial frame. After I understood you correctly --I hope-- I told you in Galilean physics forces that weren't there suddenly appear in a non-inertial frame --so-called fictitious forces. I repeat @MigL's question: In the second case, where was the non-existent force? It's precisely because I'm taking you dead-seriously that I ask you these questions. Otherwise, I wouldn't entertain this conversation.

The reference to Asimov is appropriate because this topic, in my opinion, is no more than discussion of science fiction with a straight face, and as such is good for entertainment purposes.

Are you sure? If you have a spring stretched between two walls, its force on the walls is frame dependent?

I'd like to think your contribution here is just a wild imagination of mine, but probably bot.

Yes, that's something I've said at least a couple of times on these forums. I still think @MigL's example was brilliant. Why it --initially at least-- didn't have any effect on @martillo is beyond me. I liked your picture of "describe Idaho." What happens, the goings-on, happenstance, reality --if you will-- is a consequence of laws --some known, some unknown-- plus accidents. Quantum mechanics --among other theories-- has taught us that, even at the simplest level, accidents creep in, no matter how much we desire to control this "flow of details." Accidental is not incidental, it's an essential part of the brew.

Not reliably of course - I would hazard a guess and say that evolutionary pressures on other inhabitable worlds will be broadly similar to our own, so any sentient race that evolves there will likely evolve a reality-model that is also broadly similar to ours. Based on what we see here on Earth, nature tends to come up with similar solutions for similar problems. Nevertheless, even small differences might help us get a better understanding of our own concept of reality, and how it might relate to a possible ding-an-sich external reality. As an aside, I would also conjecture that the more different a species’ reality model is from ours, the harder it would be to establish mutual communication. Arguably, if the models are sufficiently different, there might come a point at which no meaningful communication is possible at all, because we’d share too few fundamental categories.

This is very good. How's this for low-loss compression? On a human level science can never compete with this. For those who think it can, the closing stanza of another poem springs to mind:

(posted before reading the next eight hours of postings, so hope not to be redundant) I think the key, with abstraction is to see it as a form of compression. You could say, describe Idaho and I could laboriously recreate Idaho, simulating every tree and animal and rock and chewing gum wrapper etc. on an Idaho-sized stretch of Antarctica or the Sahara. That would be a full and uncompressed description of the Gem State. Or I could describe it by presenting a map, and a few facts as to its mountainous terrain and many potato fields. Highly compressed, quite "lossy." Hopefully the compressed description would provide an understanding of significant underlying patterns to the life and essence of Idaho, which would be congruent with anyone's experience visiting Idaho, just as sound physics descriptions would show underlying patterns to the universe and its most fundamental attributes and dynamics. If my dog eats canned beans and then farts all day, simply describing this provides no insight into the disturbing acoustic effects we experience. Causality is obscured. For that, we need description that goes down to the level of Bernoulli's principle, and the chemistry of fermentation of oligosaccharides. Good description matches abstraction to its proper level, and compresses by removing what is extraneous to the understanding of "how it works" i.e. root causality. Yep! Because models describe causal relations and patterns, not objects in themselves. "Reality" then is nothing more than "what can be realized," and that is a compressed model/map of the noumenous territory. Any reality beyond these causal maps is in a realm of metaphysics and not physics. The word "real" endures so much abuse. Which I suppose is how we get theorists who posit a "universe made of math." Confusing mapping systems with the territory.

This was in response to your question about what happens if we continually halve the distance to the end of [0, 1). But if you accept that, why are you still confused about halving the distance between p and q? In set theory, the continuum is just another name for the set of real numbers. In topology, a continuum is "a nonempty compact connected metric space." Either way, it's not entirely helpful to try to reason from the everyday or philosophical meaning of the word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_(topology) By the way, the set of real numbers is not compact. So according to Wikipedia, the real numbers are not a continuum. That's contrary to pretty much everybody. You have to take Wikipedia with a large grain of sodium chloride. In some ways yes, in some ways no. In terms of cardinality, they are exactly the same. In terms of length, they are exactly the same. In terms of topology, [0,1] is a compact set, which has many important properties that [0,1) lacks. For example any continuous function on a compact set must necessarily attain its maximum and minimum. This is not true of [0,1). So when you remove the end point some things don't change and other things do. Topologically, removing that one endpoint makes a huge difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_space Is this a physical onion, or an imaginary onion in your mind? If it's a physical onion, it does not have infinitely many layers. If it's imaginary, I don't know what you're imagining. But explain me this. Did you understand my earlier demonstration that no matter what number you claim is the largest in [0,1), it turns out that it is NOT the largest. Did you understand that? If so, why are you still tossing out imaginary onions? And if not, which part is unclear or unconvincing? One perfectly sensible response on your part would be, "Oh, I see. There can not logically be any largest element of [0,1). I shall adjust my intuitions accordingly." That's the purpose of the exercise, to sharpen and correct our intuitions. Not to talk about hypothetical imaginary onions after you've been shown a proof. If you dispute the proof, let's focus on that. Having seen the proof, why are you still insisting on an intuition that is falsified by the proof? Let's nail down the understanding of the proof that there is no largest number in [0,1). Once we do that, then it will be clear that all intuitions to the contrary are inaccurate. What he meant is that in higher set theory, we can study transfinite numbers, like the transfinite cardinals [math]\aleph_0, \aleph_1[/math], etc., and the transfinite ordinals ω,ω+1, , and so forth. These are far outside of the scope of our discussion, but that's what your professor was referring to. That was @Genady's comment on page one of this thread, credit where due. But if you understand that we can continually split the difference 1/2, 3/4, 7/8, etc., why are you still unclear about this? It's the same idea. Well FWIW nonstandard analysis is also a part of ZFC. But we are talking about the standard reals and need not go any further than that.

Nice summary! +1

sorry for the language and time zones, ghost I mean neutrino, let me not stray towards that. anyway there is this issue of neutral currents, it took time for me to understand that, only for that pdf diagram to solve those issues. As for the standard model as I said while new in this forum, its much deeper, the intention is to go beyond the standard model, not refuting it but strengthening it. I know it sounds unreal, but simple reasoning may take us there. therefore, we are in what's new in science. Hope those diagrams are easier for a moderate brain to understand and comprehend as I was once, its time core science belong to every one .Anyway simple things are difficult to come by, as Einstein proved to us, tons of mathematics only to end up with three letters E=mc2 and incase of standard model simple ratios of 1,2 and 3.

Difficulties in comprehending z boson mass and its neutrality, the attached file shows the dance, let make science simple, maybe simple things solves difficult issues and imaginations, what's your take? Z boson.pdf

Real is what is there,around you but u don't want to see it, finally ur left to be consumed by your own imaginations when the brain start distintergrating cause of age...maybe AI will take over to show us what is real,and personalise a cocoon for every one of us,where we will be swimming in wild imaginations.

A lot of politics has happened in that time. Today's physicists use the word "geometry" as a rhetorical bludgeon to shut people up when they complain about the unscientific nature of relativity as a metaphysical principle. "It's just a matter of geometry". Baloney! Geometry is mathematics, and math is description. It doesn't explain anything or rule out things having some kind of substantive implementation. The word "define" is confusing here. Anything can be defined. Definitions are just relationships between ideas and words. The point is that geometry can only describe, and it's scientifically absurd to say that things happen with no implementation. Saying that something can't be a "fabric" because it's a "geometry" is a rhetorical BS tactic, and referring to "magic wands" in the same post is hypocritical.