Philosophy Now Forum

Godfree wrote:have you found the page with all these references yet ,???

All what references? Are you referring to the links you posted or are you waiting on something from me?

I think we will find that the 'growth-structure-shape' of the 'present-future' universe looks like a big turd emerging from a giant rabbit's ass. And this picture will be verified mathmatically-scientifically, but no one will want to admit it looks like a turd, so they will use other more satisfyting descriptors.

lancek4 wrote:I think we will find that the 'growth-structure-shape' of the 'present-future' universe looks like a big turd emerging from a giant rabbit's ass. And this picture will be verified mathmatically-scientifically, but no one will want to admit it looks like a turd, so they will use other more satisfyting descriptors.

The thing about rabbits is that they are koprophagic, so any such view of the universe will have to be re-digested.

Notvacka wrote:

Cerveny wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FOL2ECg ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... FOL2ECgHDc
You can see real (3-D) growing crystal. You can see appropriate (2-D) (its) surface - extension. We should study similar models (upgraded to 4-D) regarding to our space growing ("extension")... No new Planck layer (sediment) of the time has determined its shape - it is related to quantum uncertainty... QM tries to describe just the future/history interaction - time of "now"...

Building a mathematical model of a four-dimensional crystal latice is one thing. Showing that it corresponds to an actual crystalline structure of space-time quite another. Do you have any suggestions regarding how your idea could be tested and thus moved from metaphyical speculation into physics proper?

I am deeply dissatisfied by present mainstream physic. I cannot see any serious proof of TR. Perhaps GTR somehow work (in global range where antimatter is omitted), but it works only as inventive representation of the fact that gravity spreads by limited speed. It is all. TR has fatal problem with discrete structure of reality, it has fatal problem with quantum uncertainty. It is the reason why TR is hopelessly quantized for eighty years. Gravitational behavior of antimatter has not been tested so far, but TR does not mind. Every speculation about micro-world (singularities – BB, BH) based on TR cannot be true. It is the very similar case as “ultraviolet catastrophe” was. TR does not explain anything. There is not any “added value” except limited speed of gravity. Concept of “empty” space sharply contrasts with real physical properties (permittivity, permeability…) of vacuum. TR is not able explain inertia, it is not able to explain the limited speed of everything. It has no model. It is obscure proved by week effects that can be explained by other ways, but it is very expressive failing in case of stars motion in galaxy calculation. TR becomes main obstacle for development in the physic.
I only try to design model of reality that is able to somehow explain
- Nature of elementary particles (as defects of regular structure of space…)
- Photons (as space waving, as some phonons…)
- Annihilation (as interaction of opposite structural defects…)
- Inertia (as replication of defect into new time (crystal) layers of growing reality…)
- Limited speed (as physical limit, given by speed of reality growing…)
- Quantum uncertainty (as phase transition between causality/odd-causality, history/future…)
- Space “extension” (as a surface of growing history…)
- Natural beginning of Universe (as a crystallization core…)
- Lack of antimatter (as different gravitational behavior of antimatter…)
- Nature of QM measurement (as fixing, catching, glueing of new future element to the ordered history)
- Physical fields (as tensions, stresses in space structure…)
- Corpuscular-waving behavior (as ruffling of space structure…)
- And the others…
Certainly, mentioned explanations are concepts only, the start to the discussion, but TR is not able to offer any ...

John wrote:

Godfree wrote:have you found the page with all these references yet ,???

All what references? Are you referring to the links you posted or are you waiting on something from me?

Michele Cappellari and all the telescopes used to obtain their info,,??
so will you explain what it is about this equation you disagree with ,
age of the image+age of the galaxy=minimum age of the universe,
what part of that don't you get,,,???

Notvacka wrote:

Cerveny wrote:- Is the Einstein’s “space-time” a real entity (as for example an electron is) or it is only some abstract math tool, useful for “special” formalism?

As I understand it , space -time ,
is time and space that existed without anything or one to bear witness ,
If a tree in the desert falls , did it make a universe,,I like to mix my metaphores ,
if there was nobody before some supposed bang , then how would we know,
but I think this is a childish rationalization ,
the most probable explanation , is that the universe is in a constant state of re-newel and re-cycle ,any wee bang we might have had would just be the continuation of a previous cycle , it's called infinity ,,!!!

Godfree wrote:the most probable explanation , is that the universe is in a constant state of re-newel and re-cycle ,any wee bang we might have had would just be the continuation of a previous cycle , it's called infinity ,,!!!

You've now completely contradicted your position!?

Godfree, there are parrots that regurgitate someone else's ideas, without fully understanding them, as they seek superior refuge within the regurgitation; and then there are those that pave the way of new thought seeking refuge within their brave trail blazing attempt.

Guess which I respect more?

And it really doesn't matter what methodology you utilize as you pursue this brave new world; whether it's traditional or new age makes no difference. It's that you were brave enough to attempt the assent, despite the odds and the naysayers. Whether you scale the north face, or chopper in, you'll still have a chance of reaching the summit.

We may not always agree, but I respect your staying the barrage of multiple dissenters, and always remember that these are merely in the pockets of those that 'may' know, never understanding, thus incapable of admitting, that they're just so much lint, along for the warm, comfortable ride, until the next wash cycle.

Keep up the good work, my friend, and never give up!

And always remember that it's all about research, research and still more research!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Godfree, there are parrots that regurgitate someone else's ideas, without fully understanding them, as they seek superior refuge within the regurgitation; and then there are those that pave the way of new thought seeking refuge within their brave trail blazing attempt.

Guess which I respect more?

And it really doesn't matter what methodology you utilize as you pursue this brave new world; whether it's traditional or new age makes no difference. It's that you were brave enough to attempt the assent, despite the odds and the naysayers. Whether you scale the north face, or chopper in, you'll still have a chance of reaching the summit.

We may not always agree, but I respect your staying the barrage of multiple dissenters, and always remember that these are merely in the pockets of those that 'may' know, never understanding, thus incapable of admitting, that they're just so much lint, along for the warm, comfortable ride, until the next wash cycle.

Keep up the good work, my friend, and never give up!

And always remember that it's all about research, research and still more research!

Cheers Sphere's, I find it strange that I am seen as somebody ,
trying to establish new ideas or to change science as we know it ,
but I'm just quoting the websites I have found ,
articles by physicists and it is their claims I am relating,
I have broken it down to the most simple component I can ,
age of the image+age of the galaxy=minimum age of the universe ,
the bb busted in one sentence , and will they believe it,???
I have thrashed google to death on this subject many times ,
and have given my best question here for you all to try ,
galaxies older than the bang ,
the internet is great and having search engines like google speed things up , but ,
there would be no point asking the pope to prove god doesn't exist ,
equally there is no point going to a site supporting the bbt and expect to find proof the theory is flawed ,
you have to ask the question what is wrong with the bbt ,
and find alternative theory's and web sites probably not in america ,
the bb theorists will say what about the Cosmic background radiation ,
but all they offer is another theory as to what it is or implies ,
facts , the observational data is the facts on the matter ,,, pun intended,,!!!

Arising_uk wrote:

Godfree wrote:the most probable explanation , is that the universe is in a constant state of re-newel and re-cycle ,any wee bang we might have had would just be the continuation of a previous cycle , it's called infinity ,,!!!

You've now completely contradicted your position!?

incorrect but carry on tell me where and how I have contradicted myself ,
and while you are at it my equation ,ai+ag=mau ,
you can get the full version off one of the other posts ,if you can't remember or work it out ,
it's a pretty simple equation , but there's no getting round it ,
the universe is at least 20 billion years old ,,bb busted ,,,!!!

Godfree wrote:

John wrote:

Godfree wrote:have you found the page with all these references yet ,???

All what references? Are you referring to the links you posted or are you waiting on something from me?

Michele Cappellari and all the telescopes used to obtain their info,,??
so will you explain what it is about this equation you disagree with ,
age of the image+age of the galaxy=minimum age of the universe,
what part of that don't you get,,,???

It's all very interesting but as I said before I've got no reason to disagree with the metric expansion for space, and that's a major stumbling block for you because you're theories rely on it being untrue, and the likelihood that galaxy formation took place earlier than you think it did. At the very least the age of the universe may well be a hot topic but it's just one choice of so-called experts over another and for every point your guy raises someone provides an answer. I linked a paper that did that but you dismissed it without reading it and I suspect part of that reason was that you can't follow the maths so you chose to dismiss the whole thing.

You haven't made a single point that is an original objection to current theory and as the vast majority of scientists in the field accept the current theory as being the best available and as neither of us are astrophysicists the debate is pointless.

Godfree wrote:Metaphysics , I will have to admit I don't get the connection ,
the observational data is what I'm basing my argument on.

Neither of us have any observational data of our own regarding remote galaxies. Nor do we have the necessary advanced knowledge of mathematics and physics needed to interpret observational data from sources like the Hubble telescope.

Is it true that the most distant galaxies appear to be old? I would rather think that knowledge of how a "young" galaxy differs from an old one is obtained from comparing the most remote (and therefore appearing to be younger) galexies with those closer to us. The detailed process of early galaxy formation is stil a major open question in astronomy anyway.

From your lack of understanding of the basics, it's obvious that you have chosen to put faith (yes, faith) in minority websites rather than established science on purely emotional grounds.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:And always remember that it's all about research, research and still more research!

Who is conducting anything even remotely resembling research in physics or astronomy here?

Godfree wrote:

Cerveny wrote:- Is the Einstein’s “space-time” a real entity (as for example an electron is) or it is only some abstract math tool, useful for “special” formalism?

As I understand it , space -time ,
is time and space that existed without anything or one to bear witness .

That's not at all what Cerveny and I are discussing here, which is the four-dimensional space-time of Einstein's theory of relativity, whether it's "real" or just an abstraction. You don't have a clue, do you? Again, read up on the basics, man!

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I think we will find that the 'growth-structure-shape' of the 'present-future' universe looks like a big turd emerging from a giant rabbit's ass. And this picture will be verified mathmatically-scientifically, but no one will want to admit it looks like a turd, so they will use other more satisfyting descriptors.

The thing about rabbits is that they are koprophagic, so any such view of the universe will have to be re-digested.

Yes. The first time present-future-emerging-universe is digested we get a single flat turd, but the rabbit can't resist and so a second turd is made that is round and has depth, then it really starts to look good so the third turd really gets to smell and this is so delectible that it is gobbled up again. So we have compatible notions of the black hole of the rabbit, the bubble structre of the pile of turd and the 4d of the insatiable rabbit with its pile of turd. Oh and the Big Bang actually occurs kind of late in the picture; instead of occurring as the beginnng of the universe it is the farts of the rabbit enjoying his meals.