MigL

If you don't know, maybe you shouldn't be using the word ... Nothing of macroscopic size is truly random, especially not the larger universe. They are all causal. ( yes even lottery numbers )

Oh, now I get it ... Kitchen sinks, haircuts, Range Rovers and walnuts, IE "volume"--> space Garbage in --> garbage out. In the years I've been a member never have I wanted to start dishing out down-votes more than now.

Yup... absolutely... 😉 Do you guys even know what the measurement problem, as it relates to physics, is ? It relates to wave function collapse … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem What exactly does that have to do with relativistic length contraction ? Stop babbling incoherent, and off topic nonsense.

When applying length contraction, we use relative speed between the 'moving' object and the one doing the measuring ( of speed and length, from a 'rest' frame ). If there is no other object in the universe, what do you measure speed relative to ??? Why don't you and CuriousOne just PM each other this nonsense, instead of polluting the forum with misinformation ?

The central 'hub' of our galaxy lies in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius. Stars and nebulae are so dense in that direction that anything beyond it is effectively obscured. ( in some EM wavelengths much more than others ) The galaxy is, of course, rotating with a period of approx. 200 000 years, so the field of view is slowly, but constantly, changing.

What if you are wearing VR glasses and can't see the mouse, only the pointer ? ( don't know where this discussion is going, it's more interesting than the OP, but I have a feeling we'll be told to get back on track soon )

Don't know about the rest of your life pursuits, but you are more than adequate in the sciences.

Pick up your mouse, Studiot, and move it around in the air. The pointer on your screen stays put. It is obviously not moving relative to 'empty' space. However, if you place it on a surface which reflects its LED light ( or turns its ball/wheels, depending on age ) it can gauge movement relative to that surface. No training involved. How can you tell if length is contracted in 'empty' space ? Is the concept even valid for an object in an otherwise empty universe ?

Quantum particles act like particles in experiments set up to detect particle behavior. And act like waves in experiments set up to detect wave behavior. What other reality ?

Welcome Rinakra. Looking forward to learning a few things from you.

Just like N Tesla … You do realize he was well educated, had an eidetic memory, and was a polyglot who spoke 8 languages. Chances are he was probably bat-shit crazy in his later years. ( death rays, motors running on cosmic rays, and opposition to atomic theory and Einsteinian relativity ) Are you anything like that ?

What ? No-one has read C Stephenson's 'Leiningen Versus The Ants' ?

You certainly don't speak any science. If x is a function of time, it is usually written as x(t). But do you understand the concept of a mathematical model describing a physical reality ? And limits of applicability ( usually determined by boundary conditions where the function goes to zero or diverges to infinity ) ? I fail to understand what energy conservation has to do with any of this. ( am I just wasting energy and time replying to this nonsense ? ) Science and math are consistent. As are you, with your misunderstanding.

Not sure, but I think it's 'jump to non-sensical conclusions when you don't even understand the concepts involved in your question' ? CuriousOne does seem to do it a lot !

What's wrong with the unit you used ? The second. Is this heading in the same irrational and nonsensical direction as your thread on the 3rd dimension ? None of us have time for that.

Make an attempt to live beyond your fingertips and eyes; not everything has to be seen/touched and be physical. Usually it means 'per second, per second', but it could have other meanings. Does velocity squared have a physical representation ? The root of -1, i, appears in many equations; what exactly does it represent physically ? Would you be happier if we gave acceleration a new unit. say a ( where a=m/s^2 ), such that there is no squaring of the time unit ?

CCC cycles the universe through Black Holes ( to restore uniformity ). IOW, if not through the near singularity of the Big Bang, then through the near singularities of many Black Holes. ( conformal scaling and mass loss/decay of fundamental particles aside ) From your link ... "The idea is that the universe cycles from one aeon to the next, each time starting out infinitely small and ultra-smooth before expanding and generating clumps of matter. That matter eventually gets sucked up by supermassive black holes, which over the very long term disappear by continuously emitting Hawking radiation. This process restores uniformity and sets the stage for the next Big Bang." Our theory of Black Holes, GR, doesn't conserve information. Quantum theory demands that information is conserved, but is nearly useless in accounting for Black Holes. ( this is an active area of research, and R Penrose is just proposing an idea; looking for any non-conforming 'rings/spots' in the CMB to further his case ) So is there a possibility ? Of course; science is never 100% sure. There is also the possibility that God did it, but we have no evidence for that either.

I guess it depends what you are looking for. Are you looking for fresh insights into solving a problem, or the repurposing of a well-tested solution to varying problems ? Both could be signs of intelligence. Or neither.

Don't be so worried 'Leiningen'. At least your hearing is good; us old folks wouldn't hear until too late and we'd have the 'meat stripped from our bones' by the little terrors.

The relic radiation that we detect as the CMB is the oldest electromagnetic radiation we can ever detect as it arises from the epoch of recombination. Prior to this all was plasma, and electrons couldn't stick to ions; IOW, there were no atoms. But life, consisting of atoms, and molecules, in various combinations ( some which we haven't even begun to imagine ) does exist, therefore it must have arisen. As Mr. Spock used to say "Once you eliminate the impossible …" ( or was that Sherlock Holmes ? )

I ran my own 'model' also. Against : 1 - Don't like his domestic policy. 2 - Don't like his foreign policy. 3 - Don't like where the Country is headed. 4 - Don't like his lack of coronavirus response. 5 - Don't like him personally. For : 1 - The ability of some Americans to wallow in their ignorance continues to surprise me. That's 5 against re-election, and one slim hope for D Trump's re-election. So I give him 5 to 1 odds. My coding is not as pretty ( last time I coded anything elaborate, was using FORTRAN, though I dabbled in assembly, Forth, Pascal and various flavors of Basic ), but gives similar results. What do you think INow ?

To be fair, at the time of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton, it was.

This is quite ridiculous ... If you have a ruler ( a one dimensional line with numbers on it ) all you need is one number to specify any position on it. If you have a sheet of graph paper ( 2 dimensional numbered grid lines ) you need two numbers to specify any position on it. It is a simple mental jump to imagine a height above that sheet of graph paper with the same grid lines. That is the third dimension, and you now need three numbers to specify a location in that space above the sheet of graph paper. And should you want to assign variables to a specified location, you can call them x, y, and z. Dimensions are simply the directions you can move in a given space. Back and forth, side to side, and up down for 3 dimensional space.

No. A 'scale' model would be vastly different, as Gravity affects the Earth in many different ways. Some obvious examples, a smaller Earth might not have enough gravity to hang on to its atmosphere, and there may not be enough pressure to keep magma flowable.

As Swansont has explained, heliocentrism has a mechanism for its properties, gravity; other models do not, and cannot. And, if you don't realize gravity is one of the most tested theories ( and has been used to land people on the moon ), you've been living under a rock.