All I can think of here is Last Chance to Evacuate Earth Before It’s Recycled.
[QUOTE=Marshall Applewhite]
…And it requires, if you move into that Evolutionary Kingdom, that you leave behind everything of human ways - human behavior, human ignorance, human misinformation…
[/quote]
It must be incredibly frustrating to be pretty sure you’ve figured Everything out apart from why nobody believes you.
Doesn’t it entirely depend on exactly how strong your cup of tea is?
This is extremely complex and not a good starting point, unfortunately. But I’ll address it.
You’re taking INside in the sense of “I live inside of a house”, and they aren’t quite the same thing. All I mean by we live INside the Sun is we live INside that invisible inner volume of the Sun.
But you’re right, science does indeed have good data on the Sun. It occupies well over 99% of the total mass of the solar system…leaving the remainder to be dispersed among the planets and moons. Of those other celestial bodies, the gas giants unsurprisingly occupy well over 99% of the remaining mass. Each gas giant is essentially a reflected layer of the Sun, and their gravitationally rounded lunar mass moons are essentially “planets.”
It’s easier to envision if you look at the solar system like an atom. The sun is the nucleus in the center, and the concentration of all the mass, but there are different energy levels which electrons can orbit at. They don’t orbit in between these levels, much like planets don’t careen into the Sun. By we live INside the Sun, all I’m saying is the Sun itself is better described as the entirety of the atom, rather than just the nucleus in the center.
Oddly enough, people have no problem accepting the fact that atomic space is more or less completely empty apart from the concentrated nucleus in the center (which comprises well over 99% of the mass of the atom). And because of this, subatomic particles, which exhibit wildly conflicting behavior, are thought to be housed INside the nucleus, rather than the orbiting electrons.
Now, if you can accept the fact that subatomic particles (which you absolutely CANNOT see in their native environment) are housed in the nucleus rather than the electrons orbiting the nucleus because that’s where the concentration of mass lay, then why is it such a stretch that the same thing is happening in Outer Space? Especially considering other similarities between Outer Space and atomic space: such as them both being totally empty zones with vast stretches of nothing punctuated by ludicrously dense impossibly tiny spots in the middle which house pretty much the entirety of the mass of the system?
This applies to not only the Sun and the entire solar system, but to each gas giant/moon system system as well. Each individual system just happen to have rings of rocky debris orbiting them? The asteroid belt just happens to span the [same] range as the inner solar system from the surface of the sun to the start of the asteroid belt. The image of space changes significantly at that point. Then you have Kuiper Belt which just happens to span [same] range as the distance between the end of the asteroid belt and the beginning of the Kuiper Belt.
Could all these things be coincidence? Sure they can. But in absence of an alternate unified explanation of any kind, why would people are interested (at least ostensibly so) in fighting ignorance be so cavalierly dismissive of a model which not only describes but also predicts these multiple layers of coincidence? And does so using a central premise which is blindingly obvious but perpetually overlooked: Our entire perception of reality is based off of light which reflects off the OUTsides of surfaces. The fact that atoms, the building blocks of matter, are almost totally empty, should SCREAM at you that you very very clearly aren’t seeing SOMETHING.
Three-dimensionality is not something we have any real, day to day experience with, despite what we may tell ourselves. The entire concept of dimensionality itself is poorly defined, not well understood by the layman, and therefore prone to rampant misunderstanding by these followers who blindly insist that all physical objects must necessarily be three-dimensional…despite the fact that themselves can only actually see the OUter surface areas of objects which light is reflecting off of. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to make this claim, let alone to be insistent upon it since you yourself can only see surface areas which light has reflected off of. That is TWO DIMENSIONAL, no matter how you slice it. Granted, those two dimensions require at least one additional dimension in order to calculate it, but therein lies the oft-overlooked point…it require AT LEAST one more dimension. You have no reason to assume that an object is three-dimensional merely because it appears to be solid. You have even LESS reason to assume this is the case when said object is indescribably huger than the entirety of your perception AND when rotates and orbits unprompted. Notice in your everyday, “three-dimensional” experience on Earth, objects don’t just spin and orbit unprompted. But as soon as you enter either atomic space or outer space, suddenly EVERYTHING is spinning all the time. Nonstop, ever-present rotation and orbiting across [infinite] distances. That spin is the only way that those ADDITIONAL hidden dimensions can be represented to a creature which can only see TWO-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE AREA on the OUTsides of three-dimensional objects. So while a billiard ball may indeed be three-dimensional (this means there is one hidden dimension producing a static spherical spherical surface area representation), there is no reason to assume that an entire PLANET is (this would be several hidden dimensions, producing a spinning, orbiting spherical surface area representation spread across a vast infinitude of apparent emptiness). I can break this concept down more if necessary, but please don’t continue arguing that you understand anything about dimensionality just because you can draw a cartesian coordinate system.
And no, being inside of a house doesn’t change the fact that you can only see the SURFACE AREAS of the walls. And no, breaking the walls into pieces doesn’t expose the INside of them…only more of the OUTer layers. If light reflects off of it, it’s a surface area. It’s important to remember though, that all volumes have surface areas as well. But that shouldn’t suggest that you can SEE that volume.
Before you cave in to your primal urge to disagree with this sentiment, seriously consider it for just a moment. We SEE Surface Area via light reflection; Volume is invisible to us, but we certainly FEEL it. Accepting this simple premise clears up pretty much the entirety of confusing aspects of Outer Space and reality in general. It explains why atomic space is empty, but why electrons are held in orbit. It explains why Outer Space is empty to our sight, but why things are held in place. It explains why dark matter can’t be seen even though it’s all over the damn place, controlling the gravitational movements of everything we CAN see. It explains why light has a physical particle representation but why the gravity that holds everything together DOESN’T.
It explains why Outer Space is a hall of mirrors which reflects itself over ever-increasing distances.
If you take it one step further, it explains why sound travels SO much slower than light…because sound is a product of volume and has a LOT more ground to cover than light. This also explains why light doesn’t penetrate very far into the surface area of water (which is measured in volume, not surface area), but why sound DOES travel much further in water than in air. It also explains why the speed which light travels slows tremendously when crossing through water (or glass for that matter) but why the speed which sound travels does precisely the opposite.
It even explains why we are so dependent on these invisible aspects of reality…we are 3/4 water after all. And we’re made of atoms, which themselves are pretty much all empty space. How anyone can possibly delude themselves that what they’re SEEING is the sum total of what is THERE is completely beyond reason.
These concepts, and countless others, are naturally derived from the original premise that we SEE surface areas, but we FEEL volume. Gravity is not a product of surface area, it’s a product of volume.
Patterns in nature should never be ignored without first examining the points of intersection, and luckily all the hard work has already been done for you. Because we are immersed inside of infinity (time), the points of intersection can be tough to intuit, but the patterns point to them all the same. None of this is invalidating science, it’s merely expanding the sphere of its influence.
And this is all reducible to a single, indisputable concept: We don’t SEE the world in three-dimensional volume, we SEE the world in two-dimensional surface area. This is, after all, how we have evolved to interpret the world, so it shouldn’t come as a terrible shock to us that our perception is governed by it.
But so long as you all are dependent on science, which is admittedly clueless on these issues, to provide these answers for you, you’re going to continue to be stuck in a cycle of ignorance and vitriol. Science is indeed capable of unlocking these mysteries, but not so long as it is reliant on particle physics (which embarrassingly only covers about 1-4% of everything that IS) to define REALITY. There is a hell of a lot more to reality than particle physics, and we experience this blindingly obvious truth of reality every day of our lives.
It’s much easier to learn once you’re no longer closed off to the concept of learning. It’s a shame children are cultured to supplant learning with memorization at such a young age. It does terrible things to the growth and development of society. My time here is rather limited and I’d much rather not spend it arguing about my qualifications (which are extensive, to be sure) to cynical armies of leaderless groupthink whose only intent is to deride for amusement. If that’s the path laid before me, then so be it. But it really doesn’t have to be that way. I’ve always preferred the path of the scholar to the path of the warrior.
At any rate, I’ve alternate realities to surf, so I’ll catch you all in a bit. Until next time, gentlemen.
Bullshit.
That is one approach. But passivity is a luxury I unfortunately can no longer afford.
For example, it is rather difficult to not be derogatory to a response like the one posted above. If all you can get out of that is “Bullshit” mere minutes after its posted, then frankly, you’re deserving of derogatory responses in return. And unlike most, I can dish it out as well as I can take it.
Why not? What’s your rush?
What timeline are you from?
…he said to the other posters on the message board. If you can’t afford to be passive, surely you don’t need to be so vague about this timeline thing, for example.
So… is the sun the nucleus or the atom? You can’t base your analogy on the sun being the nucleus of the atom that is our solar system and then turn around and say that the sun is actually the whole atom and not the nucleus. It’s not even coherent, really.
Why is this odd? Why should people have a problem with the notion that an atom’s electron cloud is largely “empty” at any given moment while its nucleus is not?
Well, for one thing physics seems to behave differently on different scales. For example, the strong force that helps bind atoms together could not work across a distances of millions of miles. But gravity can and does. That you can imagine abstractions for atoms and correlate those abstractions with our solar system is a credit to the human capacity for thought but it doesn’t mean you can translate the properties of atoms to solar systems until you justify doing so. Superficial similarities between things are not a sound basis for reasoned argument.
Here’s a thought: Formalize all of… this… with some math, follow it to an apparently logical conclusion, and devise either:
[ol]
[li]An experiment that can falsify your theory or[/li][li]A way in which your theory more clearly fits observed information than existing theories[/li][/ol]
And then start publishing. I know many here (myself included) have tended to poke fun at you but the simple reality of the situation is that you’ve chosen the wrong place for this. The really Big Ideas that change things and an reshape the bounds of human knowledge don’t come from internet forums. You need to publish your research, allow others to criticize it, and defend it vigorously. If it pans out, so much the better for you. If it doesn’t, you can always rework your theory and do it again. But dumping generalities in forums full of non scientists on the internet will get you exactly nowhere. You can see that, right?
If you want to change our fundamental understanding of existence, you need to go to the source- the bleeding edge of research- and tell the people there why they’re wrong and you’re right. But they’re going to want a lot of details you haven’t offered here.
If it takes 42 minutes to travel an infinite distance, I fail to see why time constraints are at all an issue.
in my defense, that paragraph was truncated at some point and I didn’t notice and by the time I did it was too late to edit it out. I originally had several more paragraphs dealing with INside of the Sun, but decided to start a few steps back from that, and that lingering sentence or two slipped past me.
However, in answer to the question, the Sun is both. And that’s kind of the point. Reality doesn’t just have one representation. Everything in the solar system has multiple representations in “different locations” within the solar system itself. This is not terribly difficult to decode by following the orbital resonances of the planets and moons, but it does require that you actually understand the concept first.
The easiest starting point is the Inner solar system and the Jupiter system: they are literal inversions of each other. Venus being the ONLY planet which not only has a reverse rotation but also a ludicrously slow rotation, coupled with the fact that it is tidally locked to EARTH of all things should be setting off all kinds of alarms and whistles that something strange is going on. That the mirror image of this relationship between Venus, Earth, and the Moon is represented in the Laplace resonance of first 3 Galilean Moons is intriguing to say the least. That these Moons just happen to have identical composition to Venus, Earth, and Moon is crossing firmly into “we should look into this” category.
Just because you are comfortable playing it safe and waiting for permission from “officials” to give credulity to an idea doesn’t mean I have to play the same game.
Because our physical reality is solid. Obviously. Why are you asking questions you should already know the answer to? Solid objects indeed look and feel solid to us, despite the fact that they are mostly empty space. Yes, reasons for this can be contrived, but with this slight framework adjustment, you don’t NEED to finagle facts and turn a blind eye to the rather obvious fact that a billiard ball certainly doesn’t appear to be 99% empty space. Under this new framework, it is fully expected and indeed predicted that “space” would invert itself once we cross into the atomic scale.
Gravity also doesn’t have a particle representation. They can look for it until they’re blue in the face (and I honestly do encourage the search to continue), but at some point, it would be responsible to consider the possibility that gravity and particle physics are fundamentally incompatible because one is a function of two dimensions, and the other is a function of three-dimensions.
Also, what properties have I translated from atomic space to the solar system that aren’t already blinding obvious? Are you denying that atomic space and the solar system are both comprised of unbelievably vast stretches of emptiness punctuated with a minuscule spot in the center which, despite its tiny relative size, comprises over 99% of the mass of the entire system? Are you denying that both systems have even tinier “layers” which orbit this dense center at set intervals but somehow manage not to careen into the center itself? The only actual difference between the systems is we’re stuck INside one of them, so it’s a little harder to actually see whats going out from the outside. But you can easily reconstruct the outside if you take the time to understand what it is you’re LOOKING AT as it relates to what you know to be there despite being unable to SEE it.
Furthermore, these “superficial similarities” aren’t the basis of my argument. They are ways for me to illustrate rather obvious and overlooked concepts to a dense and cynical populace.
If random people on the internet are having difficulty keeping up with this tiny little bit of exposition, how would adding needlessly complex layers of mathematical equations aid in explaining the concept? Color me skeptical, but the fact that I’m currently dealing with legions of people DENYING the collective ignorance science has on the “dark” materials which comprise the vast majority of the observable universe doesn’t lend much to the idea that you are all hidden math geniuses who would respond any better if I spoke in mathematical equations.
Besides, most of the mathematical framework has already been laid in the relevant fields. The only substantive change is in the concept of dimensionality, which isn’t so much misunderstood mathematically as it is conceptually. Hence, the only relevant math change is: Our three-dimensional reality is a composite of 2+1 physical reality (things we see via light reflected off two-dimensional surface areas) AND 4-1 metaphysical reality (things we FEEL all around and INside of us).
I could add several layers of unnecessary complexity, but what purpose would that serve? Would you respect the idea more if more numbers were attached to it? Hell, a switch to the base 6 numbering system would render most of these concepts OBVIOUS to anyone in the relevant fields. Primes, ratios, etc ALL work much better with a base 6 (or even a base 12) system. People have been tooting the horn on this for YEARS, and while “the system” acknowledges the superiority of those systems, there is too much red tape and laziness to be waded through to make any effective changes. Trying to institute change into a dominant system is no easy matter.
There was a time when I believed that as well, but the process were that simple. Too many politics are involved. Too many jobs are at stake. And the ego of random people on the internet (such as my own) is mere pittance in the face of the ego of the average tenured physicist.
Having said that, there are ways to uproot the system, but going to the system itself is least effective of those ways. People in positions of power only grant an audience to dissent when their back is against the wall.
Furthermore, there are other incarnations which are exploring that avenue. I am but one person, and I perform my role as only I can. Grassroots is the most effective method for instituting expedient change to any system. Alas, I must trudge through filth and muck in order to reach the finish line. Such is my charge.
I’m gone for the rest of the night most likely.
Well, here at least is an example of a prediction from this sprawling, grammar-redefining would-be revolutionary pseudo-Theory of Everything that is clear, concise, simple, and wrong. Venus is not tidally locked to the Earth or any other body. Earth, Venus, and Luna do not display a Laplace resonance, and there is no correspondence between the ratios of orbital period, rotation, or any other celestial characteristic of these bodies and the Galilean moons.
Now, can you provide an actual testable hypothesis that could be tested by observation or experiment in a way that supports this thesis and falsifies existing theories of gravitation, planetology, orbital mechanics, et cetera?
Stranger
Seconded.
Yes it is difficult to decode! I’m not Stephen Hawking but I’m not a total boob either. I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and I’m not afraid of math-- E&M trades in esoteric math. It’s not that people like me, here, in this place are refusing to understand you; you’re doing a rather poor job explaining yourself. You can’t just chuck out a phrase like, “the orbital resonances of the planets and the moons”, and give me a knowing look while it flops around on the floor. Say what you mean, man!
That all sounds really cool, but what are the practical implications for your theory? Please offer the resonance ratios for the bodies you mention that we may compare them.
Sorry I don’t tend to look for revolutionary physical theories on message boards on the internet. I prefer published research but I don’t think this tendency makes a tool of The Man or anything.
I wouldn’t call the Pauli exclusion principle a contrivance, necessarily. At least no more so than your “slight adjustment” to most of what we know about existence in general.
Nope. Not at all. I’m just asserting that a facile interpretation of apparent similarities between a physical system and an abstraction isn’t necessarily a great jumping off point for a theory of everything. The best analogy for a thing is the thing itself. If your analogy is poor and lacks explanatory power, perhaps you must refine the analogy.
Mathematics is the language of nature for a reason: It strips away ambiguity and rhetoric, leaving behind only what is necessary. If you could write down equations, someone could follow them and agree or disagree with you from an informed position. One of your biggest complaints seems to be that nobody here is smart enough or versed enough to get you. Math fixes that easily.
Cool! That should make it simple for you to produce it. Or do something interesting and practical like, say, derive the CMBR using your theory.
I assure you that there are entire regions of math devoted to describing dimensionality if you’ll only avail yourself.
Yes, I would. Use your theory to derive some currently observed value. That’d really turn my crank, honestly.
It is certainly easier for a human to recognize a prime number in base-6. I have no idea why ratios would benefit. Explain.
Oh come now. Suck it up, man! All the other movers and shakers fought these very things and won! Why can’t you? Where would we be if Einstein had slunk off to the internet at the first hint of dissent from a colleague?
An incredulous man- and there are many incredulous men- would suggest that actions like withholding equations, refusing to publish, skirting falsifiability, etc. belong to a man who simply can’t make his case. Don’t you want to prove them wrong? Or, if you reject the possibility of those men accepting your arguments, don’t you want to convince the silent masses reading this thread eagerly anticipating your reply? You want to win hearts and minds, right? That’s how the whole “grass roots” thing works. You gotta have roots to get grass, right?
Yes it is difficult to decode! I’m not Stephen Hawking but I’m not a total boob either. I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and I’m not afraid of math-- E&M trades in esoteric math. It’s not that people like me, here, in this place are refusing to understand you; you’re doing a rather poor job explaining yourself. You can’t just chuck out a phrase like, “the orbital resonances of the planets and the moons”, and give me a knowing look while it flops around on the floor. Say what you mean, man!
That all sounds really cool, but what are the practical implications for your theory? Please offer the resonance ratios for the bodies you mention that we may compare them.
Sorry I don’t tend to look for revolutionary physical theories on message boards on the internet. I prefer published research but I don’t think this tendency makes a tool of The Man or anything.
I wouldn’t call the Pauli exclusion principle a contrivance, necessarily. At least no more so than your “slight adjustment” to most of what we know about existence in general.
Nope. Not at all. I’m just asserting that a facile interpretation of apparent similarities between a physical system and an abstraction isn’t necessarily a great jumping off point for a theory of everything. The best analogy for a thing is the thing itself. If your analogy is poor and lacks explanatory power, perhaps you must refine the analogy.
Mathematics is the language of nature for a reason: It strips away ambiguity and rhetoric, leaving behind only what is necessary. If you could write down equations, someone could follow them and agree or disagree with you from an informed position. One of your biggest complaints seems to be that nobody here is smart enough or versed enough to get you. Math fixes that easily.
Cool! That should make it simple for you to produce it. Or do something interesting and practical like, say, derive the CMBR using your theory.
I assure you that there are entire regions of math devoted to describing dimensionality if you’ll only avail yourself.
Yes, I would. Use your theory to derive some currently observed value. That’d really turn my crank, honestly.
It is certainly easier for a human to recognize a prime number in base-6. I have no idea why ratios would benefit. Explain.
Oh come now. Suck it up, man! All the other movers and shakers fought these very things and won! Why can’t you? Where would we be if Einstein had slunk off to the internet at the first hint of dissent from a colleague?
An incredulous man- and there are many incredulous men- would suggest that actions like withholding equations, refusing to publish, skirting falsifiability, etc. belong to a man who simply can’t make his case. Don’t you want to prove them wrong? Or, if you reject the possibility of those men accepting your arguments, don’t you want to convince the silent masses reading this thread eagerly anticipating your reply? You want to win hearts and minds, right? That’s how the whole “grass roots” thing works. You gotta have roots to get grass, right?
Anthem, if I were to be eaten by a dinosaur, wouldn’t I be seeing the INside of said dinosaur?
Blast, timeout double-post. If some mod were so inclined to delete post 133 or 134 I’d appreciate the effort…
This thread is toxic.
Clearly, the o.p. is escaping from a universe that is being crushed from the OUTside IN by a war between the Odds and the Evens over who gets to use the antispace to help store their extra mirrors that didn’t fit in the Hall. In order to assess the suitability of this universe, he has elected to investigate a message board on a small blue-green planet in an unremarkable planetary system located in the hinterlands a perfectly ordinary barred spiral galaxy well away from the real intergalactic action in the Pisces-Cetus Supercluster Complex. We should be honors by his presence and the wisdom which he attempts to bestow upon our simple, uncomprehending minds.
Stranger
No you cannot. This is pure unadulterated obfuscatory bullshit, and I’m calling you out on it. You CANNOT show the mathematical reasoning behind your theories, because your theories are crap. Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
Yes. Numbers do not lie.
Feh, I’ve seen worse. And for what it is worth, while the thesis presented by the o.p. is unsupportable, it isn’t complete incomprehensible gibberish. The core tenets–that we only observe the exterior topology, and that this same topology is reflected at various scales–is at least consistent, if not sensible or useful. It mostly serves as an example of why analogy is not a useful method of reasoning or logic.
Stranger