Uses of The 4th Dimension (Einstein was wrong!)

by use4d 138 Replies latest social current

• 

  AuldSoul

  Terry,

  The idea that MATTER HAS ALWAYS EXISTED is an ancient idea and I find nothing inherently disturbing about it.

  I didn't suggest that you should be disturbed by it. I said you should support your premise with something more substantial than argumentum ad antiquitatem. I have twice suggested you have a responsibility to support your premise that the building blocks of matter is matter, which is the essence of what you have postulated here.

  Einstein suggests that the building blocks of atoms is energy. That theory has quite a lot of support behind it, although argumentum ad populum is no better basis than your basis. The support for E=mc² is actual observation, much more solid a basis than your imaginary pile of bricks. Likewise, the fact that your "bricks" change in nature over time and with varying conditions has been proven. They are inconstant. They often convert from one form of energy into another, sometimes into nothing more substantial than increased temperature (heat energy).

  The fact that an idea is ancient in no way correlates to the correctness of the idea. As someone who has prided himself on debunking logical fallacy, I am surprised you fell into that one—twice. The second time after having had the fallacy called to your attention.

  You did not respond to the bases of my argument:

  (1) An atom IS matter, therefore it is not a building block of itself.

  (2) The building blocks of matter must perforce be smaller than the smallest element of matter. As you have admitted, the smallest element of matter is an atom.

  (3) The nature of the building blocks of matter IS quantum level physics. The constructed building (an atom) is not at the quantum level, which, by definition BEGINS at the subatomic level—i.e. the level I have been attempting to get you to discuss.

  A distinction without a difference.

  Continue to deflect if you like. There is a distinction, which can handily be demonstrated as soon as you answer the two questions I posted twice for you. I won't post them again. I have to say that I am disappointed in your continued appeal to antiquity as a basis for your claims. Which of the ancient Greeks KNEW about a lepton? Particularly as it relates to subatomic physics, the ancient Greeks seem a poor choice of authority on the subject.

  I invite you to step up your argument. I sincerely hope you are capable.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  ballistic

  Remember that the language of science is math; especially physics.

  Higher math does not of necessity reflect reality.

  That can be a huge red herring.

  Hi Terry,

  I'm aware that space-time is commonly used as a mathematical construct, but having read books by people like Stephen Hawking who describe the theoretical subjective observation of time slowing down as a space man approaches a black hole, I have readily accepted the idea of time being a by-product of space. And it fits in to my view of God having created time.

  Hell, it just seems neat and tidy for me, but I could be completely wrong.
• 

  jst2laws

  Terry,

  Quantum Physics can become religion when you lose track of that which you seek to describe and the manner in which the description bleeds over into metaphor.

  The strange conclusion of the QM theorists are not inventions to support their beliefs. They are an honest attempt by the greatest minds to explain their data, the results of their experiments. What they found inside the atom was not expected, it is NOT MATTER as we know it in the macro world. Our world reality IS NOT made up of the stuff we perceive it to be, at the subatomic level. It is NOTHING BUT ENERGY interactions that we PERCEIVE to be solid.

  WHAT IF MATTER CAN COME INTO BEING?; Yes, if matter could increase or decrease IN TOTAL my concept would be wrong.

  But, then--if pigs had wings they could probably fly.

  
  It does, Terry. If you believe that atoms are matter and the particles the make up atoms are small bits of matter, then matter does 'pop in and out of existence' constantly. Although atoms are constantly exchanging parts with each other, sub-atomic particles are emerging from no where and also disappearing into no where all the time. This is the kind of data QM has to deal with and come up with a theory to explain it. They do not sound strange because it has become a religion. It sounds strange because what they try to explain defies Newtonian Physics, which we experience in this (what we call) real world. Steve
• 

  Robdar

  This thread started off incredibly stupid. It sure got interesting though!
• 

  AuldSoul

  jst2laws,

  Our world reality IS NOT made up of the stuff we perceive it to be, at the subatomic level. It is NOTHING BUT ENERGY interactions that we PERCEIVE to be solid.

  and the subatomic level (everything smaller than the atom) is the ENTIRE playing field of quantum physics. For someone to suggest they are discussing quantum physics by discussing atoms automatically demonstrates they don't know what quantum physics is.

  If you believe that atoms are matter and the particles the make up atoms are small bits of matter, then matter does 'pop in and out of existence' constantly.

  with an erratum repaired: 'pop in and out of existence' should read 'pop in and out of observable existence'. This is the essence of why quantum physicists are the least likely physical scientists to dismiss the possibility that "reality" may include and aspect of unknowable existence, a reality (complete with "things" that have "properties") that exists outside the bounds of our capacity to interpret beyond conceptual mathematics.

  Some would likely be quick to point up spiritualistic undertones, however, the fact remains that if it is proven that there is physical reality that does not behave tangibly, then an intangible physical reality is automatically proven to exist. This intangible reality (energy) appears to be THE SOURCE of matter (all matter) and every experiment conducted so far at the quantum level reinforces that concept.

  It very possible that m=E/c²...oh yeah, we already knew that. We must just not have thought through what it means about the nature of matter. Unless energy is a tangible thing, matter comes from "nothing." We've known that for years, but it also is a reality quantum physicists delve into daily. It is a serious science with some incredible technological advances to its credit.

  The question becomes, how much potential energy is there in our universe? And the other question is, what about the energy that's available wherever our universe's energy end up when it "pops out" of our universe?

  So, Terry, can you explain how you KNOW there are only 3 spatial dimensions? I hope it isn't through experience, because you once rejected my belief in God on that basis alone.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  outoftheorg

  Ya know, I have done this "ask just before you go to sleep thing" and have gotten results.

  Not too long ago I asked "who is my soul mate" and got quick results.

  My wife beat the crap out of me right in our bed. So I now know who my soul mate is for sure.

  The wbts must be right. Don't use the internet.

  Outoftheorg
• 

  jst2laws

  Outoftheorg,

  Not too long ago I asked "who is my soul mate" and got quick results.

  My wife beat the crap out of me right in our bed. So I now know who my soul mate is for sure.

  Steve
• 

  Terry

  The fact that an idea is ancient in no way correlates to the correctness of the idea. As someone who has prided himself on debunking logical fallacy, I am surprised you fell into that one—twice. The second time after having had the fallacy called to your attention.

  You did not respond to the bases of my argument:

  (1) An atom IS matter, therefore it is not a building block of itself.

  (2) The building blocks of matter must perforce be smaller than the smallest element of matter. As you have admitted, the smallest element of matter is an atom.

  (3) The nature of the building blocks of matter IS quantum level physics. The constructed building (an atom) is not at the quantum level, which, by definition BEGINS at the subatomic level—i.e. the level I have been attempting to get you to discuss

  While it may have seemed obvious to me that we are having a semantic discussion instead of a scientific one I can't fault you for not observing that. I'll respond to your points directly.

  1. The equation E=MC2 tells us that energy is equivalent to matter in a given proportion.

  Therefore what? Therefore, what is the point in making a DISTINCTION between equivalents and treating them at odds? To say an atom is not a building block OF itself is silly.

  We were talking about WHAT IS THE BASIC CONSTITUENCY of matter/(energy). Whatever you choose to call that BASIC CONSTITUENCY (the ancients called it the atom) you are dealing with two things.

  A.The basic building block (of my analogy) with a name attached.

  B. The fact that there is a limit to the total number of these basic building blocks (or not.)

  IF YES: my analogy holds

  IF NO: my analogy doesn't

  To prove there is NO LIMIT on the total number of building blocks you'd have to demonstrate that matter/energy comes from some source which continues to provide more.

  I've said that I don't embrace that idea. Perhaps I've never given a reason. I will now. An always existing matter/energy is an ACTUAL and not a POTENTIAL (inexhaustible self-producing supply). By reduction ad absurdem you do away with the need for a CAUSE. Occam's Razor and all that.

  2. The building blocks of atoms must be smaller than the atom itself? Yes. But, I'm using the word "ATOM" to mean WHATEVER THE SMALLEST building block is. That solves our semantic frictions if you'll step back and see that.

  I'm using the original classic sense of A-TOMOS (as I mentioned perhaps too subtly in a previous post) which is that which cannot be further divided into a "part".

  Is this really so complex?

  Terry
• 

  Terry

  Hi Terry,

  I'm aware that space-time is commonly used as a mathematical construct, but having read books by people like Stephen Hawking who describe the theoretical subjective observation of time slowing down as a space man approaches a black hole, I have readily accepted the idea of time being a by-product of space. And it fits in to my view of God having created time.

  Hell, it just seems neat and tidy for me, but I could be completely wrong.

  I'm not Stephen Hawking; I'll be the first to admit. But, when Hawking uses everyday english to express mathematical constructs he creates the ILLUSION that what he is discussing is metaphorically ostensible. IT ISN'T!

  That is the trap. Hawking, by straying from his area of expertise (theoretical physics) has rendered himself subject to the same fallacies of language as everybody else (i.e. Mystics) and his prestige allows him to get away with it.

  All of Hawkings constructs are language models and not mathematical demonstrations. Mathematical demonstrations themselves don't even necessarily demonstrate REALITY; just mathematical reality. This is a POTENTIAL and not an ACTUAL. We live in an ACTUAL universe. Our minds are ACTUAL. That is why we are susceptible to POTENTIAL arguments: we can't be bothered to be precise in our thinking and fall prey to language.

  This is a distinction WITH a difference.

  Terry
• 

  Terry

  It does, Terry. If you believe that atoms are matter and the particles the make up atoms are small bits of matter, then matter does 'pop in and out of existence' constantly. Although atoms are constantly exchanging parts with each other, sub-atomic particles are emerging from no where and also disappearing into no where all the time. This is the kind of data QM has to deal with and come up with a theory to explain it. They do not sound strange because it has become a religion. It sounds strange because what they try to explain defies Newtonian Physics, which we experience in this (what we call) real world. Steve

  My main point is simple.

  Matter and Energy are really the same thing. They are two different views. The waveform/particle aspect of light demonstrates this. It is two views of the same thing.

  When you read what I'm saying you are stumbling over my intention to point this out.

  Whatever the SMALLEST CONSTITUENCY of actually existing things are (I call it classically the "atom") it is matter/energy by some name. That is the building block of my analogy.

  Physicists are hung up on the DUALITY aspect because it gives them something to delve into. I don't mean to trivialize their work. But, essentially they are like a group of kids with an alarm clock and a hammer.

  Please think about this.

  I'm about to make a macro analogy.

  The kids take the hammer and beat the hell out of the alarm clock and discover lots of interesting parts inside.

  The parts have shapes, interfitting parts and a function. The kids "think" they will discover some ultimate truth about TIME by smashing a clock.

  THEY WON'T!

  All they will do is end up with a parts list.

  The concept of what "time" is and why a clock measures (seemingly) it is beyond the constituency of its parts list.

  Smashing an atom will give you various smithereens and you can name them and list them any way you wish to. That is what Physicists do. But, they are missing the essence of their own search.

  Terry