Group explores nature of reality

• Donald G Palmer

  Does our 3-D model of space reflect all we experience about space, in particular does it account for the continuum of scale?

  Scale is an admitted aspect of space and is perceived as a continuum of space. If we attempt to measure the distance between objects at very different scales (say the corner of a book on a table andScale is an admitted aspect of space and is perceived as a continuum of space. If we attempt to measure the distance between objects at very different scales (say the corner of a book on a table and a molecule of a pen on the table near the book), we find we must include scale as part of the means of locating the objects in space. From a geometric perspective, this would mean that scale is a required measure of space - beyond length, width, and height and simply by being required to locate an object in space would constitute a 4th dimension of space. Scale as continuum: http://htwins.net/scale2/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgfwCrKe_Fk Scale as spacial dimension: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/208599620_Expanding_the_Universe_Space_Numbers_Time_Part_I_-_Expanding_Space

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (5)

  • 
    Jim Waurzyniak replied

    I like this: "since scale becomes an aspect of location of objects" Consider an isolated volume of objects where some are moving and others are at rest relative to each other. (or, all areI like this: "since scale becomes an aspect of location of objects" Consider an isolated volume of objects where some are moving and others are at rest relative to each other. (or, all are moving or all are at rest relative to each other.) Within the scale of this volume the length of time ans space are consistant and things like Conservation of Momentum and Energy hold. When the observed volume is increased and more objects are added the initial volume of consideration is perturbed. I will assume the larger observed volume retains Conservation of Momentum and Energy. One could look at the initial volume and find it to be empty or greatly depleted of objects. Is it possible that Momentum and Energy are factors in a scaling dimension?

    22 hours ago
• Judit Camacho

  If everything is on movement, why do scientists talk about and specify dynamic mass ?

  Really there is non-dynamic mass?

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (1)

  • 
    Igor Gazdík replied

    Dynamic mass? Is there something like that, and where can that specification be found? Dynamics is the study of mass in motion, but I wonder if anybody can claim that it also is the other wayDynamic mass? Is there something like that, and where can that specification be found? Dynamics is the study of mass in motion, but I wonder if anybody can claim that it also is the other way around.

    2 days ago
• Sam Baker

  Can anyone suggest a natural system that is also non-physical? Does the description "a natural system" necessitate the system being "physical"?

  see Lawrence Cahoone http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/SAAP/CLT/P07R.htm "Towards A New Metaphysics of Natural Complexes" I plan to outline a research program aimed at developing a newsee Lawrence Cahoone http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/SAAP/CLT/P07R.htm "Towards A New Metaphysics of Natural Complexes" I plan to outline a research program aimed at developing a new natural science of macro-economics (called Catallactics) based on the idea that the modern economy is a natural but non-physical far-from-equilibrium system of exchange.

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (12)

  • 
    Larry Carlson replied

    The God of Islam is not the same God as the God of the New Testament or the God of the Old Testament is not the impersonal God of Buddhism is not like the many gods of Hinduism is not...etc.The God of Islam is not the same God as the God of the New Testament or the God of the Old Testament is not the impersonal God of Buddhism is not like the many gods of Hinduism is not...etc. Questioning the existence of the creator has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with physics. Period. Scientists are not against morality. They just don't claim to have divine inspriation. However, scientific people sucha ss psychologists and social scientists, for example, do indeed make note of those behaviors and attitudes that seem to be lead to mental, social, emotional, and psychological health. Directly or indirectly they do give guidelines for conduct, e.g., eat healthy food, exercise, and develop a positive social network. Though not commenting about whether God does or does not exist or whether God wants us pray once a week or whatever, some social scientists and psychologists would give the therapeutic advice of keeping a pet or attending religious services if it lowers their blood pressure, relieves stress, etc. Science does not try to destroy religion, it is just unfortunate that scientific discoveries over the last few centuries tend to illustrate that more and more religious beliefs and scriptural statements are false. Many religious people object to this and try to discredit scientists and science (burning Giordano Bruno at the stake and threatening Galileo with toruture for having beliefs that conflicted with relgiious doctrine come to mind, amongst thousands more for their alleged nonreligious beliefs come to mind).

    6 days ago
• Mohammad Firoz Khan

  What is time? Is it linear or cyclic?

  My contention is that some regard time as an arrow or linear while some religions regard it cyclic (Kaal-Chakra). Also in his latest book, “The Grand Design” Hawking said: “Because there is a lawMy contention is that some regard time as an arrow or linear while some religions regard it cyclic (Kaal-Chakra). Also in his latest book, “The Grand Design” Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” By inference and reference to his love of M-Theory, time may be considered as cyclic. Time starts when forces (super-gravity) and matter procreate themselves into universe spontaneously and it ends when big crunch occurs and again starts with the big bang spontaneously produce space.

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (19)

  • 
    Marshall Barnes replied

    Dear Larry: Now what you're describing is something different. But that isn't a function of a light cone. There are players during a football game, that due to their frame of reference can see thatDear Larry: Now what you're describing is something different. But that isn't a function of a light cone. There are players during a football game, that due to their frame of reference can see that another player is going to get tackled before he does, many times. However, their future light cones are basically the same.

    7 days ago
• Sunil Thakur

  Physics of Gravitational Force

  What causes gravity? Question has haunted physicists ever for centuries. We always appeared to have the answer but new observations showed that our understanding is wrong. Is it one of thoseWhat causes gravity? Question has haunted physicists ever for centuries. We always appeared to have the answer but new observations showed that our understanding is wrong. Is it one of those questions that physics cannot answer? Well, physicists rightly believe that we can answer this question. Several theories have been discussed in this forum. I have the impression that some of us believe that mathematics determines how nature must behave rather than nature determining what physics and mathematics must explain. I would like to draw the attention of the visitors to some very important points that we have ignored so far. Let us first be clear that if the position of two or more entities is interdependent then we cannot determine the position of any of these entities except by direct observation. Direct observation for an extended period may allow us to evolve some equations that create the illusion that we can explain the force mathematically. Mathematically, we cannot know the position of Jupiter until we know the position of all other planets and we cannot know the position of any planet until we know the position of Jupiter. Mathematics of any theory on gravitational force does not allow for any time-delay in communication of force nor do we observe any time-delay in communication of the force. If gravitational force is communicated at the speed of the light then any change in the position of Saturn must cause a change in the position of earth after 88 minutes and any change in the position of Jupiter must be experienced by us after 40 minutes. We do not observe any time-delay nor do we account for it. Our space program also does not allow for any time-delay in communication of force. None of our field theories allow for existence of systems; theoretically, a galaxy cannot have its own mass or distorted space. Thus, we allow for duplication of the force. We believe that a star in the Milky-way galaxy has its distorted space (or if you may prefer Newtonian view and suggest that a star in Milky way galaxy attracts every other star in every other galaxy) but galaxy on its own cannot have its own distorted space. One just have to check our field theories to realize this. We also find that the intensity of the force does not reduce provided interacting systems do not change i.e. the force exerted by Milky-way galaxy on the Andromeda galaxy does not change with the distance and is same irrespective of the mass and distance of the stars in the two galaxies. If this were not so and if the force were not to be communicated instantly then we the two galaxies would have been disintegrated. if distorted space has anything to do with the gravitational force then we must observe such disintegration but we do not. Interestingly, we do observe such disintegration in case of interaction between a dwarf galaxy and a massive galaxy but we also observe that the nucleus of the dwarf galaxy gets distorted more than its arms; in fact, the arms of massive galaxy gets distorted more than the arms of the dwarf galaxy but interestingly, none of the stars get distorted and thus the idea od distorted space again does not make any sense. We must not forget that general relativity suggests that a star is supposed to be only a space-time structure. Einstein's following observation is very important but we seem to neglect it “Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high.” I would like the forum to discuss these issues..... Sunil Thakur http://www.norlabs.org

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (74)

  • 
    Shahidur Rahman Sikder replied

    “Gravitational worlds, they are moving or changing the orbit with their all family members depending on the nuclear of each other”. Circumstantial evidence: cluster of galaxies and galaxy or stars,“Gravitational worlds, they are moving or changing the orbit with their all family members depending on the nuclear of each other”. Circumstantial evidence: cluster of galaxies and galaxy or stars, this there are the black holes in the deep of gravitational world, they are moving or changing the orbit with their all family members depending on the nuclear of each other. In this way; seeing, all of the family members combining by the gravitation power and finally super massive black holes depending on the nuclear fusion of the universe through that dark energy or black body. See at http://shahidurrahmansikder.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/

    11 days ago
• Omar Fathy

  reality !

  ARE we physically exist !!

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (26)

  • 
    Shahidur Rahman Sikder replied

    Scientist Stephen Hawking clearly said in his research paper about the religious thought that, there is no limit in the place of this universe, there is no beginning or end of time and there isScientist Stephen Hawking clearly said in his research paper about the religious thought that, there is no limit in the place of this universe, there is no beginning or end of time and there is nothing that can be done by the creator. Again he said that when opened full work of creation, then we are known with God and mankind is share-hold of that knowledge. See into- Reality of Creator- http://bit.ly/aASjyV

    11 days ago
• Omar Fathy

  the 11 dimensions !!

  what are the 11 dimensions !!?!..i 've read that they are proved mathimatically ...but what about their physical existence ..or what they mean ..or what they refer to ??1

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (4)

  • 
    Judit Camacho replied

    hi OMar, I went to a conference of Lisa Randall. She explained ones of the experiments that are going to carry out in the CERN to prove that nuclear particles move from one dimension to another.hi OMar, I went to a conference of Lisa Randall. She explained ones of the experiments that are going to carry out in the CERN to prove that nuclear particles move from one dimension to another. Everything is explained in her book ''Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden''. She mentioned something about to measure the weight of these particles. Their weight is directly linked to gravity, so if weight changes then gravity has changed. Gravity is expected to be different from a dimension to another. I highly recommend reviewing her book, explains the concept of dimension and scientific research in this matter in a plain way.

    19 days ago
• Solo Shah

  Is 2012 an evolutionary turning point ?

  Many think the signs of a major global event(s) are on the rise? Will this event(s) be man made? Or a natural occurrence? What would happen if earth's poles shifted? How could anyone prepare forMany think the signs of a major global event(s) are on the rise? Will this event(s) be man made? Or a natural occurrence? What would happen if earth's poles shifted? How could anyone prepare for such a calamity?

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (45)

  • 
    Solo Shah replied

    People are entitled to their opinions, however, they are not entitled to their own facts. I have many sources that prompted me to pose this question. I am trying to make sense of some information IPeople are entitled to their opinions, however, they are not entitled to their own facts. I have many sources that prompted me to pose this question. I am trying to make sense of some information I was introduced to. Please do not ridicule this as a mass hysteria, nor is it selling anything. Quest for knowledge shared is all.

    Apr 18, 2012
• Sunil Thakur

  Visitors can win USD10000/- by resolving the eclipse paradox. The Eclipse Paradox shows that our understanding of the nature of light and the role light plays in our sense of sight is not correct.

  eclipse.ppt

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (1)

  • 
    Ibrahim Syed replied

    Light is quanta and not waves

    Apr 9, 2012
• Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

  Protons are created due to weak nuclear force. Protons remain intact in nucleus due to strong nuclear force. Gravitation Force is non=polar. Why gravitation force is a force of attraction< Why itProtons are created due to weak nuclear force. Protons remain intact in nucleus due to strong nuclear force. Gravitation Force is non=polar. Why gravitation force is a force of attraction< Why it is not a force of repulsion?

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (5)

  • 
    Sanjay Sood replied

    Einstein's general theory of relativity can explain both attractive and repulsive interactions. In case a massive body is at rest, it would feel an attractive force towards another massive body. InEinstein's general theory of relativity can explain both attractive and repulsive interactions. In case a massive body is at rest, it would feel an attractive force towards another massive body. In case this body is in circular motion, it would also fell a repulsive force that manifests itself as a force acting on this body and pointing in a direction away from the center of motion. It is also known as the centrifugal force.

    Apr 4, 2012
• Krzysztof Wypych

  Fifth dimension

  I'm curious about opinions on the following topic: what, in your estimate, is the turn (here: ->) of movement? Describing an object, we give the value of the three coordinates: x, y, z. Adding theI'm curious about opinions on the following topic: what, in your estimate, is the turn (here: ->) of movement? Describing an object, we give the value of the three coordinates: x, y, z. Adding the rate of movement (the fourth dimension), we are not able to simultaneously express the turn of the object. We just lack the space for it, so we have to write the one separately. At the beginning, I would only ask whether you see the problem to treat the turn as another dimension? The thing is quite interesting, because adding a dimension (which I think we see, although slightly differently), can show a completely different reality than that which we imagine. In particular: the mass.

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (216)

  • 
    Krzysztof Wypych replied

    "Democracy in science?" I never mentioned any such thing. - Marshall. O.K. My translator does not work for me anymore. As regards the experiment, however, I thought that thing was obvious. I mean"Democracy in science?" I never mentioned any such thing. - Marshall. O.K. My translator does not work for me anymore. As regards the experiment, however, I thought that thing was obvious. I mean the interpretation of the information, which we have indisputable certainty. Here you do not have to invent some experiments beyond natural human interaction with the environment. This is sufficient analysis of what is in the range of our senses, because each interaction with the environment is the observation, and that means experience. That there is movement and that it does not proceed symmetrically, it is common knowledge. I show only the logical conclusions that flow from this information, namely I build the following theorem: If there is movement (just change of value) and the movement doesn’t progress symmetrically, it means that there is also movement’s opposite as real as movement is. The consequences of this reasoning I’ve already shown above.

    Mar 25, 2012
• William Jackson

  Is this reality?

  I refer you to this article: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26144/ - based upon this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.2698

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (19)

  • 
    Senthil nathan cb replied

    #H1-577. 5hP4-2a. @ Mohd Firoz Khan, CONTINUATION: Chomsky: understanding as subject to histological/neuroanatomical/brain limitations: Yes. (but who am i to need to say.) Wittgenstein: #H1-577. 5hP4-2a. @ Mohd Firoz Khan, CONTINUATION: Chomsky: understanding as subject to histological/neuroanatomical/brain limitations: Yes. (but who am i to need to say.) Wittgenstein: concepts (are) like photonic objects: i should be interested. John Locke: words that i would have liked to write. But as i already wrote: the thirst will be there as long as the mystery is, the mystery as long as life is, the life as long as the universe is. My simplification today states that mystery generates the universe. Ie a kind of object which only the "complete uncertainty of method how" is capable generating of. (what generating a virtue out of a weakness! ). Usually i do not admit complete certainty/uncertainty. Above i had fallen to. I am, however, still uninclined to generate existence out of non-existence or nothingness or even pre-existence. That the cycle of big bangs offers a way forward is interesting. I

    Mar 26, 2012
• Sunil Thakur

  The God, Reality, Philosophy, and Science

  Do you believe in the God? If yes, which of the following best describes your idea of God, a. Supernatural Entity b. God is Scientifically Explorable, c. God does not exist but the idea of GodDo you believe in the God? If yes, which of the following best describes your idea of God, a. Supernatural Entity b. God is Scientifically Explorable, c. God does not exist but the idea of God is required for psychological reasons

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (189)

  • 
    Sidney Clouston replied

    A. God is Supernatural and it is written that he is Spirit and Love.

    Mar 22, 2012
• Tarif Zaman

  IS There any God?

  God is our belief, Does it exists?

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (65)

  • 
    Mohammad Firoz Khan replied

    @Tarif Zaman, in reply to Raja you said,"If you think that only logic is the solution of the existence of god, so what is the value of belief". I think you need to take a course in theory of@Tarif Zaman, in reply to Raja you said,"If you think that only logic is the solution of the existence of god, so what is the value of belief". I think you need to take a course in theory of knowledge. A justified belief is called fact or knowledge. Of course, there is Geitteir's problem. However, logic is mental construct that has given birth to science. But, according to an ancient school there is no argument (logic) that cannot be countered. It mans our science of past, present and future depends our logical thinking expressed in words or symbols far parsimoniously or icons. However, you might be aware of Kuhn's Paradigm Shift that if old theoretical and methodological framework is unable to solve a problem, a new paradigm takes birth and old theories and understanding based on human system of knowledge cannot be translated into the new paradigm. The question is that you rely too much in logic and consider it as opposed to belief then in the case of a paradigm shift on whom your beloved logic befall?

    Mar 18, 2012
• Wajahat Mahmood Qazi

  Does universe dream?

  I did some reading and listen to various lectures - particularly "What the Bleep Do We Know!" and some lecture by John Hagelin, Maharishi University of Management. I learn that subatomic particlesI did some reading and listen to various lectures - particularly "What the Bleep Do We Know!" and some lecture by John Hagelin, Maharishi University of Management. I learn that subatomic particles can be considered as consciousness entities, Moreover, a conscious entity is assumed to have the ability have dreams. I wonder, that entire universe is constructed by these conscious entities, Is there any possibility that "Universe could Dream". I know it seems crazy, but ....

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (65)

  • 
    Mohammad Firoz Khan replied

    Scepticism is not new to science. Every thing exists in one's mind and existence others is not beyond doubt. To prove what Churchill replied to a sceptic friend, an experiment is conducted in theScepticism is not new to science. Every thing exists in one's mind and existence others is not beyond doubt. To prove what Churchill replied to a sceptic friend, an experiment is conducted in the tribal belt of Madhya Pradesh, India before its partition into Chhattisgarh. An ordinary thermometer in the hut was shown to three tribal who never visited a modern physician or the nearest town some 250 km away from the village. The researcher first noted the reading, then asked the three, keeping the thermometer in a way that they could see mercury, whether they are seeing something bright inside the thin tube, when they replied in affirmative with confidence, the researcher giving them three markers of different colors and asked them where it ends. The three marked very precisely without any variation. Then, the researcher put his thermometer in scorching sun without knowledge of the subjects for half an hour and fetch it inside the hut and again noted the reading. This time keeping the thermometer upside down asked the same persons to again mark where the end of bright light inside the tube. Again, they very precisely marked it and there was no difference between the readings of the researcher and marking of the tribal who never saw or used the thermometer. The mind of the researcher may be conditioned, minds of people, who know what for a thermometer is used, may be conditioned, but how the mind of people who never heard of this device or used it in anyway may be conditioned. I infer there is physical reality out there and it is same for all. By far the most successful scientific theory ever developed is quantum theory. But, its mathematical formulation that renders its experimental results to be worked out with a high degree of precision, there is no general agreement what it means in conceptual terms. This leads scientists according to their leanings to interpret in terms of their own mental possibilities of world. As for as consciousness of subatomic particles is concerned it is just figment of imagination, a postulate to describe behavior of electrons and positrons as their conscious free will movement under superposition fields of forces. While, statistical frequencies, trajectories and life span of subatomic particles are observed to be stable to a great extent. But, Some aberrations and anomalies do occur. Dagh says: رخ روشن کی آگے شمع رکھ کے وہ یہ کہتے ہیں ادھر جاتا ہے دیکھیں یا اِدھر پروانہ آتا ہے Rukh Roshan Ki Aage Shama RakhKe Wu Yeh Kehty Hein Odhar Jata Hei Dekhein Ya Idhar Parwana Aata [The damsel (the beloved) putting candle before her bright face says let me see whether moth comes to my face or goes towards the candle.] While reality is this that moths of all hues (e.g. the proton, neutron, meson, hadrons, baryon, etc) most times go towards the candle but due to some unknown reasons or unobserved causes [because in the processes of scientific research something is always missing whatever scientific methods is adopted and most of discoveres are not the result of theories or systematic analysis but due to chance]. If one cannot determine a reason to a behavior, it does not entitle one to presume that the act is conscious [of free will] one. A large number of quantum theorists call "particle consciousness" a quantum myth. At such a microlevel differences of perceptions are not unexpected. Further, in the face of concept of granular space, each grain of which is one-trillionths of an atom's size, it cannot be ruled out that these so called conscious subatomic particles are not fundamental building blocks of the universe. After indepth research, it may turn out that these subatomic particles including Higgs or God particle are themselves composed of finer sub-subatomic particles. Who knows? Let us for a while accept the stated position, then why universe alone should be conscious and dreaming, why not atoms, elements, minerals and rocks each having larger and larger number of these particles should dream and move of their own free will as I have read in a comics book that a small stone is bullied by a boulder and in the process to escape from the boulder, the stone bumps into a tree and the tree runs after it and punishes the stone by crushing it into pieces. So far as mind conditioning is considered, i know only one mind conditioning as a joke among graduate students of my university that a team of researchers spending millions of dollars over the years came to the conclusion that ZEBRA IS A WHITE ANIMAL WITH BLACK STRIPS.

    Mar 15, 2012