Is space flowing into mass is consistent with a theory of everything unifying all force into one?
I find observation in verse reason supports it is.
Please feel free to offer observation and reason not.
Please feel free to ask clarification.
Does space flow down the drain called mass?
Peace
rwj
Heeee’s Baaack. What is gravity really?
Sure. Why not?
ETA: Yeh, I remember you, rwj. He who tries to koan his way through physics.
FWIW…
You might be interested in the Biocentric view of the universe. That is, these concepts of space and time are illusions that our perceptions form out of the way the universe changes itself. Time (and space) aren’t objects or arenas where matter does its thing. They might not exist as we currently perceive it (or even exist at all as actual elements of nature). Time and Space is really the way our conscience perceives change.
I’m not necessarily a subscriber to the concept, nor have I really read up on it yet, but the idea fascinates me, and I plan on looking into it.
Please forgive.
I wait patiently for your good answers.
Peace
rwj
But think about it. The existence of change already requires the existence of time and space. (What is change if not a thing’s having different positions in space at different times?)
If time and space don’t exist, then neither does change. And if change doesn’t exist, then it hardly makes sense to say that time and space are “really” how we measure change. If it doesn’t exist, we can’t (“really”) measure it.
Waitaminnit–So you’re saying that everything really does revolve around me? Sweet!
Well, sure, but does it circle clockwise or counterclockwise?
Yeh, I’m not sure. I was merely throwing that idea out there because it seemed like something the OP might be interested in. It’s more philosophy than science it seems.
Anyway, I think the general idea, in biocentrism, is that the universe itself doesn’t exist as we perceive it. Our brains evolved to perceive the changing of matter as what we think of as Space and Time. I’m not exactly clear on what the fine difference is, but they see a difference between change and spacetime; They are not one in the same.
Perhaps someone who’s read up on it more can come in a talk about it in-depth.
As for whether space is flowing into a black hole, who knows. No one can say, definitively, what space, time or gravity really is.
But the OP won’t accept that. Everyone aboard the merry-go-round!
Pfff, depends on which galactic hemisphere you’re on.
Well, are you above or below the ecliptic?
Here’s a Discover article (yeh, I know) on the Biocentric view.
Here’s a book about it I have on order.
OK. I am asking for clarification. (In addition, I seek some indication that you have a clue to the meaning of the statements of the physicists you have quoted.)
An acceptable answer will be written in prose.
Unacceptable answers will be cause to close this thread.
[ Modding ]
Space and time are as real as matter, according to the evidence. This “Biocentric view of the universe” sounds like Solipsism Lite to me.
That’s what I thought at first, but from digging a little deeper, it’s somewhat different than Solipsism. Maybe using that as a jumping off point, but also acknowledging that we are intrinsic observers of the very universe that made us. Sort of like the universe observing itself (because we are part of it). This gives us a special vantage point, yet perhaps to a fault as we are our perceptions and can be deceived by them. I’ve no doubt we’re currently deceived by something we’re taking for granted at the moment, as we do not yet know everything, and seem to be stuck on several fundamental problems concerning the cosmos and how we’re modeling it thus far.
I agree that that description does sound pretty damn silly, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s nothing at all to it. Consider, if someone a hundred and fifty years ago said “Maybe particles aren’t exactly particles”, you would have thought he was crazy, and rightly so. But then along came quantum mechanics, and we know that particles have wave natures. It seems likely that the way we understand time and space isn’t quite right. Newton’s view has been proven wrong. Einstein’s view is no doubt a step in the right direction, but given the apparent contradictions between general relativity and quantum theory, we’re still not there yet.
Particles not being particles emerged out of the math that created quantum mechanics. Every person involved in that process hated this result. It made no sense. Yet in over 80 years nothing has come along to shake this view. On the contrary, every year more experimental proof emerges that the math correctly describes reality.
Math and only math, backed up by experimental proof of the results that emerge from the math, is what constitutes the hard physical sciences as we know them today.
That’s what separates science from mysticism and why the people arguing against the standard interpretation always fail to get any traction. And why they are totally ignored, if not outright mocked, by people who know science. Everything must stem from math and not from words. Those who argue against relativity and QM either use their own version of math, slinging meaningless symbols around but never once using real equations and formulas that interpretations can emerge from, or merely express some “description” of reality that is worthless as a predictor of events. Watch what happens on this board whenever a challenger is asked to give the math behind the statements. It’s ugly at best.
It’s not possible to tell from that brief Discover article whether the book it’s excerpted from has any real math in it, although the reviews on Amazon seem to indicate not. I can’t find any reviews of it in a true scientific publication.
If there is no math, then it doesn’t even qualify as popular science, although it may aspire to be philosophy. Nor is it a new interpretation of QM as some of the comments appear to indicate, since all the current ones are mathematical in nature, despite what some bloggers believe.
All good physicists in the proper areas of the field can look at math and tell whether the contribution is valuable. No one, physicist or otherwise, can look at mere words and determine any worth. It lies solely in the head of the utterer. And it is utterly worthless.
I’m aware of all that, and I’m not saying that Biocentrism is right, or scientific or anything like that. It’s not.
But at the same time, it’s important to note that our monkey brains are pretty bad at understanding physics. They’re good at throwing rocks at things, but when it comes to huge scales or tiny scales, they just don’t work. We understand those things through math, we have no real intuitive grasp of them.
We don’t really understand what space-time is. We have some nice theories that describe how it works… which break down at tiny scales. We don’t understand what time and space are. I think that’s important to keep in mind.
I don’t think that those who have a mystical understanding actually expect traction or acceptance or approval from the science community. Most acknowledge that science and mysticism are separate. You may see fakes on TV exploiting people’s grief and hope, but I think of them as pseuo-mystics just as you have pseudo-scientists.
Do you actually hear mystics quarreling with scientific methods? Some religious people quarrel with the results that are found. They are basically uneducated. I don’t know if even they would consider themselves “mystics.” It is you who quarrel with that which is separate from science altogether. We know that some of you don’t “get it” and some of you do.
Tell that to those who read Emerson, Thoreau, Rumi, Yeats, Gandhi – not to mention the great philosophers.
Please. Those gentlemen you mention probably understood what context was.
And therefore they would understand that my context was purely about the valuelessness of doing advanced physics solely through words, not about the value of words in other contexts.
And that applies to Strinka as well. We will understand space and time when we get better math to explain them, not from any combination of words in the absence of better math.