Where are the laws of the universe exactly?

[Eise]

16 minutes ago, Itoero said:

That's actually not a correct correction.  The laws of the universe are what we say about the universe through experiments/empirical evidence.

You said:

On 9/23/2018 at 9:22 PM, Itoero said:

The 'laws of the universe' don't have a physical presence. They concern what we say about the universe.

Little reworking (substitute 'they' with its reference):

The laws of the universe concern what we say about the universe.

Right?

Then I corrected:

The laws of the universe are what we say about the universe.

And now you are saying:

The laws of the universe are what we say about the universe through experiments/empirical evidence.

But that is exactly what I said. 

You only added "through experiments/empirical evidence"'. And that is correct of course. 

Fascinating. Your instinctive reflex to disagree with me let you say that what I said was not correct, where you now repeat exactly what I said.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Eise

[Itoero]

38 minutes ago, Eise said:

But that is exactly what I said. 

No.  The adding of "through experiments/empirical evidence"' is necessary.

 

[Eise]

On 9/23/2018 at 9:22 PM, Itoero said:

The 'laws of the universe' don't have a physical presence. They concern what we say about the universe.

Then that was wrong too. You had to add "through experiments/empirical evidence"' to it. 

 

[Itoero]

7 minutes ago, Eise said:

Then that was wrong too. You had to add "through experiments/empirical evidence"' to it. 

 

Stop acting like that. Why do you think I used 'concern' and not 'are'? And if you pretend to ''correct' things,...do it correct!

Edited September 28, 2018 by Itoero

[Eise]

Just now, Itoero said:

Stop acting like that. Why do you think I used 'concern' and not 'are'?

Because in general you show that your thinking is not very precise. I tried to help you, and obviously I succeeded a little bit. We agree on your last statement:

Quote

The laws of the universe are what we say about the universe through experiments/empirical evidence.

Obviously, with history it is much more difficult to teach you clear thinking. Oh, and physics of course ("scattering", Cooper pairs ("In order to entangle electrons you need to remove the rest mass.")). 

[Itoero]

4 minutes ago, Eise said:

12 minutes ago, Itoero said:

 

Because in general you show that your thinking is not very precise. I tried to help you, and obviously I succeeded a little bit. We agree on your last statement:

You tried to 'help' me by wrongly correcting me?

 

8 minutes ago, Eise said:

Obviously, with history it is much more difficult to teach you clear thinking.

So 'clear thinking' makes you believe Jesus was a real person and makes you 'discuss' with imaginary consensus?

 

16 minutes ago, Eise said:

Oh, and physics of course ("scattering", Cooper pairs ("In order to entangle electrons you need to remove the rest mass.")). 

You should try to understand that I don't deny any science ,my idea's tend to be backed by studies/papers pretty often. (including by an 'interview' from/with Albert Einstein).

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

That's actually not a correct correction.  The laws of the universe are what we say about the universe through experiments/empirical evidence.

That is not what you said. But it is what Eise said. So I guess his correction was correct after all. 

10 minutes ago, Itoero said:

You should try to understand that I don't deny any science

LOLOLOLOLOL

[Itoero]

You people misinterpret things to fit your silly beliefs.

Again, Eise said: "The laws of the universe are what we say about the universe "

=>This is not true. Those laws are what people say about the universe through experiments/empirical evidence.

57 minutes ago, Strange said:

LOLOLOLOLOL

You're lack of understanding is painfully clear. When I for example explained the doppler effect, your silly beliefs made you think I denied the doppler effect.

 

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, Itoero said:

You people misinterpret things to fit your silly beliefs.

Again, Eise said: "The laws of the universe are what we say about the universe "

=>This is not true. Those laws are what people say about the universe through experiments/empirical evidence.

You seem to have completely missed the point. (Which doesn't surprise me.) Let's try this again from the beginning.

What you said: "They [the laws of the universe] concern what we say about the universe."

(Note that there is no mention of "through experiments/empirical evidence" so if it is an error to omit that, it is your error.

Eise corrected your statement to: "They [the laws of the universe] are what we say about the universe."

You quoted this and added a second correction ("through experiments/empirical evidence") which suggests you accept Eise's correction but also had to add your own correction to your original statement.

So your current position includes one correction from Eise and one correction from you. Is that clear now?

25 minutes ago, Itoero said:

When I for example explained the doppler effect, your silly beliefs made you think I denied the doppler effect.

Nope. But you did deny the (rather obvious) physics of how it worked and came up with your own bogus "explanation". But lets not revisit all your previous mistakes. Life is too short.

[Itoero]

48 minutes ago, Strange said:

You quoted this and added a second correction ("through experiments/empirical evidence") which suggests you accept Eise's correction but also had to add your own correction to your original statement.

Her correction is pointless and wrong. By using 'concern' I insert an 'random' aspect. Eise said: "The laws of the universe are wat people say about the universe" By using 'are', this sentence turns into an absolute. When you do that, you should add something like "through experiments/empirical evidence".

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Nope. But you did deny the (rather obvious) physics of how it worked and came up with your own bogus "explanation". But lets not revisit all your previous mistakes. Life is too short

That shows again a lack of understanding. It's unknown how particles behave in for example red shift. I explained that. I can't deny science that doesn't exist.

You do often weird stuff like that. I for example said "the presence of the Jews enabled the Holocaust". Your emotions then makes you think that I said:"the Jews caused the Holocaust".

[Strange]

44 minutes ago, Itoero said:

By using 'concern' I insert an 'random' aspect. Eise said: "The laws of the universe are wat people say about the universe" By using 'are', this sentence turns into an absolute. When you do that, you should add something like "through experiments/empirical evidence".

I am going to put this down to a language problem. It dense;t make much sense otherwise.

45 minutes ago, Itoero said:

It's unknown how particles behave in for example red shift.

??? 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Hijack regarding redshift and the Doppler Effect have been split off to here.

 

[Rajiv Naik]

Law of universe is mathematical equations governing the possibilities in universe.

we humans know little may be not even .ooooo1 of it. (96% is dark energy and dark matter) 2% is antimatter, and we know very little about remaining 2%.

this Laws are not created by humans they exist we try to discover them with our tiny brain.

We ignorants are not eligible to comment anything about it.

We thought that we knew about four fundamental forces then we discovered about dark energy.

We are confused about even higgs field and totally new science is emmerging-

many miles to go.

only a fool will comment confidently about its knowledge.

 

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

2% is antimatter

Where do you get that figure from?

14 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

We ignorants are not eligible to comment anything about it.

So all human learning is pointless? 

15 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

We are confused about even higgs field

Who is?

[Rajiv Naik]

46 minutes ago, Strange said:

Where do you get that figure from?

So all human learning is pointless? 

Who is?

so you know for sure what dark energy is? What dark mater is? where antimatter has gone ? and what happened to symmetry ?

I never  said human learning is pointless - I said what we know till date is very  little.

and do you know  exactly how higgs field give mass to standard particles?

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Rajiv Naik said:

Law of universe is mathematical equations governing the possibilities in universe.

we humans know little may be not even .ooooo1 of it. (96% is dark energy and dark matter) 2% is antimatter, and we know very little about remaining 2%.

this Laws are not created by humans they exist we try to discover them with our tiny brain.

We ignorants are not eligible to comment anything about it.

We thought that we knew about four fundamental forces then we discovered about dark energy.

We are confused about even higgs field and totally new science is emmerging-

many miles to go.

only a fool will comment confidently about its knowledge.

 

I never understand people who act like our understanding of how the universe behaves is so negligible, and how humans are such pathetic components of the universe. 

[Rajiv Naik]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

I never understand people who act like our understanding of how the universe behaves is so negligible, and how humans are such pathetic components of the universe. 

so do we know more ? what is it? you are not answering my quations.

we didnt know till recently that standard model particles form hardly 2 or 3% of our universe.

we didnt know much about higgs field either

do you know?

do you know why existance of  universe is remote chance?

and I am an athiest. so do not take it as  a phylosophy.

 

one day we probably will know-but not tody.

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

so do we know more ? what is it?

Look into physics, chemistry, biology,  astronomy, medicine, engineering, and mathematics to get a small idea of what we know.

No one is claiming we know everything. Pointing out a few things we don't understand and then claiming that makes us tiny-brained ignorants of only .000001 of what there is to know, and therefore not worthy to comment on anything at all, is a ludicrous proposition.

[Strange]

37 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

so you know for sure what dark energy is? What dark mater is? where antimatter has gone ? and what happened to symmetry ?

That doesn't answer the question about where you got the "2% antimatter" figure from.

38 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

I never  said human learning is pointless - I said what we know till date is very  little.

It depends what you compare it to. Compared to 100 years ago, we know a lot. Compared to 1,000 years ago, we know an unbeleivable amount.

Don't equate not knowing everything with knowing nothing.

39 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

and do you know  exactly how higgs field give mass to standard particles?

Whether I do is not relevant. But certainly scientists do.

So who is confused by it? You?

[Rajiv Naik]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Look into physics, chemistry, biology,  astronomy, medicine, engineering, and mathematics to get a small idea of what we know.

No one is claiming we know everything. Pointing out a few things we don't understand and then claiming that makes us tiny-brained ignorants of only .000001 of what there is to know, and therefore not worthy to comment on anything at all, is a ludicrous proposition.

I am talking about physics not biology or chemistry or other things etc.

dark malter and dark energy combined is whooping 96 % of  our universe We are ignorant  about today

its not "few things"

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

we didnt know much about higgs field either

We have known about the Higgs mechanism for over 50 years.

 

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Rajiv Naik said:

I am talking about physics not biology or chemistry or other things etc.

You need math to know physics. Biology, chemistry, etc. function as they do because of physics.

 

Quote

dark malter and dark energy combined is whooping 96 % of  our universe We are ignorant  about today

its not "few things"

I stand corrected. It is only "two" things.

[Rajiv Naik]

Just now, Strange said:

We have known about the Higgs mechanism for over 50 years.

 

I know about God particle research,

but  do anyone truely know how higgs field give mass to particles?

 

[Strange]

Just now, Rajiv Naik said:

but  do anyone truely know how higgs field give mass to particles?

Yes. It has been know for more than 50 years.

[Rajiv Naik]

Just now, zapatos said:

You need math to know physics. Biology, chemistry, etc. function as they do because of physics.

 

I stand corrected. It is only "two" things.

how are you sure  that they are only two things when we know nothing. about it today. ?