This is total horseshit. What can this sentence possibly mean in the universe we live in?
OK. You get a temporary reprieve on the grounds that you are not trolling so much as incredibly ignorant of the topic you appear to want to discuss.
The LAWS of physics do not break down, at all. Those laws are entirely consistent from Earth to outer space and beyond. That is why we are quite capable of reproducing the effects of outer space in laboratories on Earth–because the laws do not change while we are able to manipulate the conditions. Even the lack of gravity can be simulated to a slight degree when near the Earth.
A belief that the laws of physics change demonstrates such an amazing failure to grasp 1) what those laws are, 2) what those laws mean, 3) how those laws determine exatly what will happen, 4) and why they allow us, (amazingly, even you), to make predictions about the results of similar actions under different conditions, (even though you do not understand what you are saying).
And, lest you attempt to try some bullshit claim about simply typing the wrong word, I will point out in advance that anyone who had a tenth the knowledge, perspicacity, and intelligence that you claim to have could not possibly make the error that I have quoted. (It would require an education below that of the ninth grade to even compose such a silly sentence as the first one I quoted.)
As far as I was aware The Laws Of Physics™ are a work in progress, or is it being claimed that we’ve already established ALL of them, in every environment?
While one can posit the possibility of different physical laws applying under unusual conditions in the far distant reaches of the universe, it’s pretty demonstrably wrong to state that the laws of pressure, heat and motion change at all, let alone “invert themselves” (whatever that means), at the boundary of the atmosphere and space. The planets move to the same laws of motion that apply when you throw a baseball.
I am legitimately worried that if I engage in the math thread it will permanently damage my mind, body, and soul.
It seems as though this “theroy” (intentionally misspelled to not be confused with a real theory), Does have several predictable and testable assumptions. I am curious and want to take a slightly different perspective.
This theroy should make a prediction on what happens to an object as it crosses one of these “hall of mirrors.” It should get larger, smaller, inverted or at least incensed when it crosses through the asteroid belt. What would happen to a probe that was sent across this line? I have my own theory on what happens, but I would like to hear the implications on your theroy. What should we expect? How would we detect the change? If there is no change that is detectable at that boundary, what boundary would make a change in the nature of an object crossing it?
Should you (Anthem) wish anyone to take you even slightly seriously, your theroy must make predictions that can be observed. I feel that this question should very quickly clear up your miscommunication.
Yeah. I’m sure NOW it will all make sense…
I try to be optimistic…
Practical application: being able to sensible explain what time IS, what dark matter is, what dark energy is, why the universe looks to be expanding in all directions, demystifying the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and quantum world behavior in general, why spiral galaxy spin in incomprehensible to what we THINK it should be, why everything on *every *scale of existence (except our own) spins, WHY we have senses of sight, sound, and touch, etc etc. It solves quite a few mysteries and it does so with ONE simple assumption: the 4th dimension is indeed spatial and we live INSIDE of it and OUTSIDE of the other three. The directions of the 4th dimension are “collapsing IN from infinity” (4-1) and “expanding OUT to infinity” (2+1). That’s the only assumption which need be made, and it is a perfectly rational assumption to make.
So, nothing particularly practical. Cool.
Wow. This thread.
I thought at first that this was total nonsense, but if you translate the above from English to Klingon to Pig Latin to High Elvish to ASL to Latvian then back to English, it actually condenses down to the very practical “My hovercraft is full of eels”.
The word that you are looking for is “fractal”. Go google some mandelbrot sets on youtube and watch them for a while. Maybe smoke something… Think all these patterns and such mean something, and that the universe is in fact a fractal, with layers . That is a beautiful theroy, but unfortunately wrong. There have been many who have formulated the math to properly ask the questions and do the experiments that you seem to imply. And they have all been “disappointed” (I say disappointed as they did not get the result they hypothesis, not necessarily their emotional state).
I think OP is suggesting we all live inside one of those wiggly water snake balloon toys, and that some parallel-universe toddler keeps squishing one end so it keeps on wiggling.
…I can live with that.
Outer Space is a singular environment where all the reflections exist. Dimensionality is based on the size of the object, so the probes we’ve sent are all 3D. An object which crosses the asteroid belt doesn’t suddenly become 4 dimensional, it just enters 3+1 dimensional space rather than our native 2+1. That initial inversion is the major one.
If the probe is sturdy enough to survive the initial inversion through our atmosphere, so nothing would happen to it. But outer space doesn’t actually invert again until we leave the solar system entirely.
The interesting question is what will happen when Voyager actually leaves the solar system, which it probably has already done. Those readings should be interesting to say the least. Unfortunately, because it will technically be passing through the actual OUT side of the Sun, I don’t expect the craft to survive the shift in temperature. If it does though, prepare for fireworks.
It predicts dark matter, dark energy, time, gravity, sound, all sorts of things. It predicts an entire reality which cannot be detected by light but which comprises the overwhelming majority of reality because the 4-1 dimension containing the data is [infinitely] larger than the 2+1 dimensional solid specters which it leaves in its wake.
Quick demonstration:
We already know that everything we see in space is coming toward us from the past, the DISTANT past. This is equally true no matter the direction we look. All the light is redshifted. This is typically translated as “the universe is expanding in six-directions (3-dimensions).” This puts us in the unenviable position of trying to follow movement through six infinite directions all at once. And it also puts you in the position of needing to explain WHY the vast majority of “material” in space is invisible.
Using this theory, you can describe the same process as “the universe is EXTENDING in one direction - IN.” This is superior in every way. The universe is no longer an amorphous blob of 3D space expanding (stretching) in 4D space - it’s now a TUNNEL with three internal dimensions which is extending in a singular direction (in) which is perpendicular to that internal 3D space at every point.
It’s even consistent with observational data. You can prove it to yourself with a simple drawing of a circle representing the surface of the Earth. No matter where you’re at on that surface, ALL the light from space is coming from the OUT direction of that circle. The entire surface of the planet is facing that OUT direction, and we live on the surface facing OUT ourselves. If light from outer space hits the entire surface of Earth from ONE direction (out), then why are we defining outer space itself in a framework of three-dimensions rather than only the 4th?
By committing to defining the 4th spatial dimension as in/out, you instantly solve several of the oldest problems in cosmology.
Why does the observable universe look like it’s expanding in every direction? Because the observable universe is three-dimensional and outer space is 4 dimensional. The three-dimensions we move around in on the surface of Earth are an internal composite of OUT. As far as outer space is concerned, the three-dimensional atmosphere our tiny forms run around inside of AND the two-dimensional surface we run around on top of are simply IN from it. Outer space SURROUNDS Earth, and it doesn’t do so from six-different directions, it does so from one - OUT. When you quit trying to follow six different infinities simultaneously and instead just focus on following OUT, then the observable universe becomes a tunnel which extends IN while we exist inside of it, facing OUT. And OUT to the universe is 3D space to us, so it looks like it’s expanding in six directions. Draw yourself a picture if this is confusing.
This also explains why so much of space is invisible. We can only see light which has followed us down particular 3D tunnel of our observable universe. So even if we’re at a particular location in 4D space surrounded by tons of physical matter, we’d never be able to see it if it didn’t follow us down our tunnel. Even if it occupies the exact same xyz coordinates, it is along a different 4th-dimensional coordinate.
If the observable universe is really a tunnel extending backwards to OUT, and not a blob of 3D space stretching in 3-dimensions, then we’re facing backwards in time, always looking into the past. This is consistent with observation, considering starlight is often millions of years old, and even sunlight is several minutes old by the time it illuminates our environment. Even light from the lamp overhead takes time to reach you. Everything we SEE has already happened by the time we SEE it. If all we can see is OUT, and light is catching up with us, then we must be moving IN slower than the light from outer space is catching up to us. This would mean that any movement in the 3D tunnel of the universe would actually be moving OUT. If we moved OUT as fast as the universe is already moving IN, then we’d be fighting the entire mass of the universe - hence the internal speed limit of the universe, c. This applies to movement in any direction, because ALL directions in 3D space are movements in the OUT direction. Once again, perfectly consistent.
I’m too tired to make the math thread tonight. Tomorrow, gentlemen.
yet you have energy for 8 thread pages and 60 individual posts of total word vomit nonsense.
you need to re-prioritize your methodology. you are going about this woefully wrong. it would appear you think you are going to just fucking *exhaust *people into either agreeing or walking away. but trust me, it’s never going to happen.
at this point i can’t imagine anyone is going to take you seriously…
If it is crossing a hall of mirrors, should it not be mirrored? Should the probe we send out not come back to us, reflected? Or if it can cross that relfection barrier, should it not be altered by the nature of reality that converts Venus into Io? How can something that exists on one side of the reflection send something through the reflection with no changes?
Nasa has done a fair amount of study on putting things into orbit and getting them back out. Most probes launched “INTO” space are not all that sturdy, really. Things coming “OUT” of space are a bit more so, but only in certain ways. (Ceramic heat tile is great for keeping the heat of reentry out of your face, but sturdy wouldn’t be my first description.) They have not experienced any forces or effects that are not entirely what is predicted.
If the “OUTSIDE” of the sun is inverted into the heliopause, then voyager has, or is crossing that threshold now. What fireworks are you predicting? What will voyager do now that it did not do when it passed from the “INSIDE” of earth to the “OUTSIDE” of space? That it also failed to do as it passed through the asteroid belt and the kuiper belt? What are you predicting will happen this time, as it passes through this particular hall of mirrors?
Okay, if it makes these predictions, tell me why the fine structure constant it what it is. Or any other of the fundemental constants. A theory must make actual predictions. It must be testable, and there must be something that it explains that current theories can’t.
So far your theroy fails to make any of these predictions, and instead tries to explain things that are incompatible with theories that do. If you can make one prediction, derive one constant, or falsify any part of the currently accepted theoretical framework, please do, the world will be better off. If you cannot, then go back to the drawing board and work at your theroy until it does.
To be honest, I think you are a bit too excited about fractals, and I am personally saddened by the fact that every hypothesis that posits the universe is a fractal ends up falling flat. Look up Garret Lisi for a more elegant and aesthetic version of the universe (still wrong though) than your theroy.
We can wait to be dazzled by your bringing together the conceptual concepts with the mathematical framework that will allow us to make predictions and falsifications of any theory.
Wait a sec… Where is the mirror? The asteroid belt, or the edge of the entire solar system? The Voyager probes have long since passed the asteroid belt, and didn’t turn inside-out. Why is it our correspondent says the mirror is at the asteroid belt…but then says that the Voyager probes haven’t yet been through the mirror?
Well clearly:
Have you seen the probe? With your own two eyes? Just because the probe is functioning and sending back information in 3-D doesn’t mean that it isn’t also operating in the 42+(-38)th dimension. It has crossed the threshold and is now exploring the universe in x, y, z, and OUT dimensions too. It’s just that the puny human technologies are incapable of observing it.
Or some such backpedaling logic of that ilk.
Also, it’s just dawned upon me that the 4th spatial dimension of “outward” seems to simply mean orthogonal to the surface? Kind of makes me want to vomit.
The only way it makes sense to talk about “laws changing” in some sense is if we’re talking about different scales, and even then, the laws aren’t really changing.
For instance, Newtonian mechanics work very well for the sorts of speeds we see here on Earth. But they give us wrong answers when we start talking about speeds near the speed of light (special relativity). That doesn’t mean Newtonian mechanics are technically wrong. It’s just that the speed of light is a negligible factor when we’re talking about throwing a baseball off a moving train. Relativistic physics still gives us the right answer even in that context – we just don’t bother with it because it’s more complexity for virtually no gain.
Similarly, when you start talking about the very small, then quantum mechanics takes over. Quantum mechanics still applies even on macroscopic scales – but again, the effects become negligible to take into account in aggregate. There’s no hard cutoff point between switching from one framework to another. It’s a gradient. It’s simply a matter of what level of precision you want in your answer and which effects you want to take into account and which you’re OK with ignoring.
This doesn’t mean the laws break down. All the laws are still there, in fully-working order.
Because reality doesn’t follow what you think is plausible, or what you want it to be. Reality is what it is.
The reason why “ridiculous” counter-examples are brought up is because they reveal the underlying logical problem with the opponent. It’s like when atheists bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monster to a Christian. “Oh, you’re just making fun of me. Clearly a flying spaghetti monster is false. The REAL God is Jesus: an undead, Jewish zombie. Talking snakes and burning bushes and turning water into wine!” Talking about a parallel universe of Leprechauns is not much crazier than your “planets we see could be no different than billiard balls” or “the Earth is just a ball of water” or whatever such nonsense. You’re just choosing what is “real” based on what you like, and then claiming you have math to back it up.
Ever heard of supersymmetry? It’s a beautiful theory that was proposed that could help explain all sorts of aspects of reality. Unfortunately, recent experiments are showing it to be less and less likely to be true. Tough nuts. Just because you like a beautiful theory doesn’t make it true. There’s entire mathematical frameworks built around it, too! Of course, just because the math is internally consistent doesn’t mean the theory is actually true.
At some point, you have to be able to test your theory IN OUR REALITY and use it to make predictions and explain things that previous frameworks couldn’t. If you can’t do that, your theory is empirically useless and no different than some crap I could just make up on the spot.
Besides, “parallel universes probably exist” is speculation on your part. We have absolutely no idea if that’s true. Whether they’re merely empty universes of hydrogen is irrelevant: We have no evidence they exist yet. Just because you feel in your heart of hearts that they’re probably true means squat.