AbstractDreamer

My stance is neutral, therefore has no head nor tail. I do not have enough knowledge to feel i can make a decision. I have no beliefs on whether field lines exist in reality or even in mathematics. (forgive my editing): I have only tried to argue why there could be a legitimate objection to the claim, and even tried to show when that objection might be illegitimised.

Small ambiguity. They both start out <by standing> on the left foot. OR They both start <by stepping> out on the left foot.

Disambiguate: ~(LL)>~L OR (~L)L>~L ~(L*L)=0 OR (~L)*L=0

Classic false choice dilemma. Jack need not be either servant or supper. If success (answer of least tries) leads to servanthood, and failure (answer of not least tries) leads to supper, then Jack need only to not provide an answer, and lead a long fulfilled life. EDIT: actually, the "else" puts a finality on the choice, and "supper" closes the time variable. So I'm wrong.

My holidays are over. I'd have to admit I wasn't prepared for my curiosity to lead me down this rabbit hole. I have more than enough outstanding issues at the moment to get my head around. Plenty of ideas to fuel my dreams. Too much fuel might lead to singular collapse!

Thank you. Need to process this information.

It's the end bracket that is dropped from the hyperlink. Sorry I had a lot of tabs opened and just saw a null wiki link. There two papers are really fabulous.

But my question on this board that concerns reality, was to ask if there was anything that WAS real. Is this really so difficult for you to grasp?

My claim was about consistency. Obscurity is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. I did not initially raise the conceptual nature of field lines. My argument was that they are NOT real.

EoS link is gone. Can you link the other thread of yours?

Depends on where you're standing when you decide to look. If you are on Earth at the North Pole, you can't look North. Also depends on your angle of gaze . Relative to you, North and South might not lie on a straight line through you. So the direction of velocities of the quasars might not be parallel to each other.

The meaning of my question has been consistent throughout. The only thing that has changed perhaps is that you now understand.

If it did exist one moment ago, and if one moment ago doesn't exist right now, what does forever mean right now?

How can expansion have been going on forever, if it never existed even 1 moment ago? If its always been right now, what makes things change?

Why quote me when your response doesn't answer my question?

Apparently a white dwarf type 1a supernova the standard candle can tell us how far it is, by measuring its luminosity. Is this independant of the size of the star? Is space expansion uniform across the entire universe, or are some volumes expanding faster than others? If we measure the red-shifted wavelength of a photon, and we know the expansion history of the space through which it has travelled, how do we calculate the distance of the source if we don't know the original wavelength of the photon? Or is there a shift in the whole spectrum of radiation, that we can use to infer distance, and if so how do we know what the original spectrum look liked at the time when the radiation was emitted from the source? If space expansion causes a lengthening of a photon's wavelength, does that means space expansion operates in a volume with at least one axis that is shorter than the wavelength of the photon? What is the smallest volume of space that can be subject to expansion? Apparently the density of dark energy needs to remain constant. Which of the following statements is true: As space expands, dark energy must be created to maintain density. As dark energy is created, space must expand to maintain density. If space and time are related, and dark energy and space are related, how is dark energy and time related? If space is expanding and the rate is variable, could time be similarly contracting or expanding at different rates?

Given spacetime exists and is relative. Imagine a volume of space is empty. Then within that volume there is nothing for time to be relative to or between. Therefore time cannot exist within that volume. But that spacetime exists was a given. Therefore either space is more that simply volume, or any volume of space cannot be empty. Where is the fallacy?

It became apparent i didn't know enough, I began reading in earnest. So I have been clicking on links and reading a lot of material, trying to absorb such a vast amount of information, and trying to make what little sense I can of it. I don't have much time left, unless i take sabbatical. Then i learnt a few things and tried to apply my knowledge, and its presumed i know a lot more, and I'm a troll. I am not questioning the accuracy of equations. Can you explain your point here? At what point have i attempted to make such assertions, given that i don't deny I'm in no such position? If i understand correctly, observations on those iron filings only demonstrates conservation of momentum. I'm still reviewing vector calculus, so i haven't actually got around to looking at any of the EM equations yet. But i can guess its some function of the magnitude of the source charge, distance from source and maybe some other constants and variables i haven't considered like magnetic polarity. But I'm no where near ready to describe anything mathematically. In English, I think the field exerts a force on the the filings (as long as the fillings are moving as you shake them, or drop them). This force translates that initial motion energy into the free electrons within an iron filing, ultimately causing the filing itself to "move" more than it would without the field, whilst conserving the energy in the system. I guess the lines you see are because its a dynamic system and there are other forces in play that cause the filings to stick together. As each each filing moves to find equilibrium in the EM field, they themselves create small EM fields that affect other filings nearby. However is there anything here that demonstrates field lines exist, or a direct measure of the field itself? A lot of lines can be described by maths. The field line "feels" like a temporal construct only* required to calculate the gradient of the tangent, for direction. Depending on how you perform and break down the calculation from EM equations to the direction of force, it doesn't need to exist. On the other hand, if there is any use in stopping the calculations before obtaining the derivative, and only to obtain the function of the curve - that is the field line - OR if the function can be used to measure something else, then i would concede. Is there anything legitimate in my beliefs? The observation of those traces leaved by charged quantum particles, simply demonstrate ionisation of the medium by free particles. If you subject the chamber to a magnetic field, that might cause the motion of charged particles to interact and move in a pattern that is a presentation of the field. Is this any different to the iron filings but with smaller particles in constant motion?

Very good answers. Arbitrary parameterisation. Pick some numbers till it fits? Hmm. Observed space expansion? Lets make up some Dark Energy Observed gravitational anomalies? Lets make up some Dark Matter Do we have a model of DM that explains all the gravitational anomalies, or are some anomalies more different that others? If the nature of DM and DE is unknown, why do we need to separate the two concepts. Could they be part of a greater underlying Dark Thing that exhibits behaviour of both DE and DM? Isn't the goal of physics to simplify the model? Is there anything to tell us they must be different? Or could there be more types of fundamental Darkness? What other observations do no fit into the QM model at present? How might QM explain DE?

How does quantum mechanics explain or describe observations that space is expanding? If qm cannot describe such phenomenon, is there any other model that can? How does dark energy and dark matter fit into the qm approach. Which of following terms is most likely to exist assuming some unexplained behaviour is observed: Dark Time, Dark Mass, Dark Speed, Dark Spin, Dark Momentum, Dark Field, Dark Direction, Dark Gravity, Dark Observer. Where would unexplained behaviour most likely be observed?

This is a mood test not a personality test. As your mood is unlikely to change over the time it takes to answer the questions, of course it's going to be reasonably accurate. Try doing the test on a bad day. I bet your "personality" is different.

As acceleration = (distance/time)/time If acceleration has direction, then either distance has information on direction, or time has direction, or direction is emergent from a function of distance and time. If velocity has direction in the same manner as acceleration, then time cannot affect direction If velocity has direction in a different manner to acceleration, then time is some fuction of direction or direction some function of time. What properties or attributes does direction have?

I could have googled all the answers and pasted them in. That doesn't mean i understand, or can visualise, or "feel" any of it. I could have also pointed out that your question was as poorly phrased to me as my answer was disappointing for you, but i was happy to stumble along. I'm not really sure why you think my answer based on real things is so disappointing. In my innocence, I tried to describe what i knew (of why the fields were different) from a pragmatic, and realistic perspective. I would like to be corrected on anything i have said that is incorrect (other than calling an ion an atom)? On the other hand, your answer uses fictitious concepts in an unrealistic static environment, without any reference to their imaginary nature. The field lines that you refer to, do they really exist in reality or even in mathematics? If not, then to use something that doesn't exist to describe a difference between two things is non-sequitur. How does something that does not actually exist have a start and termination, and be extendable, and/or loop? To convince me your wonderful tale is better than mine is bold to say the least. Is there anything you have said about these fields that can be measured or observed, and undisputedly considered as existing? So you would fill my head with imaginary descriptions and fictitious models, before giving me a glimpse into some secret truth that would be made so much more difficult to understand after such abusive priming? As i understand, as long as time exists (and continues to "move"), you cannot have the presence of one field without the other. If both fields are in perpetual interaction, then any attempt to describe one as different from the other is only a difference in how you choose to imagine it is modelled, rather than any description of observability or measureability. So arguing about whose imagination is correct is futile. What matters is the mathematics. Mathematically, in a dynamic environment, there is only a single EM field. So whilst it is clear I do not know what I'm talking about, at the very least I'm not delusional, and more importantly i do not impose a false belief on others. I am now classically groomed, for my virgin exposure to the quantum reality.

As far as the human sense of touch is concerned, that is simply an electrical signal delivered from a sensory receptor along sensory neurons to the conscious part of the brain that then decides that something is being "felt". Avoiding the topic of what is consciousness and where it comes from, the perception of touch can be deceived so that you can aware of touching something, but not actually be in close proximity with anything that might cause that perception. Consider the itch you cant scratch or the phantom limb sensation.

Just before a certain supernova collapses into a black hole is the most appropriate situation i can imagine when atoms are "touching" for a period longer than instantaneous. Alternatively, when particles accelerated in the LHC at Cern collide, I can imagine things are very close to each other at the instant of collision.