Timeline for Could some of our conceptions about the physical universe be wrong? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 28, 2017 at 15:38 | history | edited | Greg Goldberg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 601 characters in body
|
| Jan 27, 2017 at 14:49 | comment | added | Greg Goldberg | I think I finally have proven that gravity is a result of polarization, as is dark energy and matter. Please take note of how your theory gives way to experimental evidence. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 17:06 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jan 27, 2017 at 6:17 | |||||
| Jan 26, 2017 at 16:47 | history | edited | Greg Goldberg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Evidence of denial
|
| Jan 24, 2017 at 17:00 | history | closed |
Conifold virmaior Mozibur Ullah Not_Here Artem Kaznatcheev |
Needs details or clarity | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 4:51 | comment | added | Greg Goldberg | Another notion to help cement the nature of energy in terms of the big bang or any other creation principal. Does brownian diffusion not happen in cosmological levels due to the sheer size and force of the electromagnetic fields? If matter was broken down to the tiniest of levels and spread in an undistributed manner would brownian motion cause formations of bigger electromagnetic fields until the fields were big enough to polarize other fields they share a field with? | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 3:56 | comment | added | Greg Goldberg | I also want to note that you can look at a graph (it doesn't matter how many vectors there are) and take measurements of the axes to derive equations, and is what I suggest when dealing with the unknown. Constants can be used to represent unknown forces and calculations can be modified when those forces have been realized. Hypothetical scenarios can be thought of and tested to verify if those scenarios could be possible, however at the core of it is the measured observations. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 | vote | accept | Greg Goldberg | ||
| Jan 28, 2017 at 15:30 | |||||
| Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 | comment | added | Greg Goldberg | I have had to deal with a few life priorities and am in the process of reading the works linked to me, however I want to pose to you the following to demonstrate that the same principals must apply to both the large scale and the small scale (Brownian Diffusion or Brownian Motion): if we dropped something that we could see with the naked eye that could not fly and was dead (such as a flea or a dust particle) in the upper atmosphere with gravity, how long would it take to reach terminal felocity or would the laws of quantum mechanics effect it (Basically same as brownian diffussion principal). | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 3:07 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | It's not so intricate when thought about it in the right way: for example as a categorification of a sheaf: instead of a sheaf being valued in sets, its valued in categories, usually groupoids; it's intricate when you have to work with them though, for sure. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 3:02 | comment | added | Conifold | @MoziburUllah Algebraic stack, an intricate concept, but one of Grothendieck's masterpieces. Designed to study classes ("moduli spaces") where objects, and their families, possess symmetries that vary across the class. Currently extensively used in mathematics of string theory, where the objects are open and closed strings. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 2:54 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @conifold: whats a stack? | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 2:36 | answer | added | Cort Ammon | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 2:19 | comment | added | Conifold | Mathematical determination of things is itself replete with building theoretical fictions, just look at algebraic geometry with its stacks, topoi, sheaves, etc., and their extensive use in quantum physics. In fact, the process is analogous to physics. And it is not controversial that physical theories can ideally benefit from mathematical precision, indeed this is one of the drives behind string theory. Older theories are already constantly reanalyzed in the light of new developments, and reinterpreted in the modernized language, just look at symplectic geometry view of classical mechanics. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 2:05 | comment | added | Greg Goldberg | I am not concluding that scientific progress be halted by theories, however I am concluding that the Mathematic determination of things would bring a higher level of accuracy with previous constants and equations being analyzed after comprehension of new information to mitigate invalid falsification of evidence. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 2:02 | comment | added | Conifold | This sounds like the programme of empiricists like Mach, and later logical positivists. It was pursued at length, but ultimately abandoned as counterproductive. As it turned out, after Popper, Quine and Kuhn, all of scientific theory is "basically speculation", including the "observable results", the distinction is mostly pragmatic. On the other hand, theoretical fictions play a highly productive role in organizing predictions and inventing new theories, so there is not much point left to such artificial "debugging" either. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:58 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | Since you said that you want to test each assumption by going back; you should go really back by reading some history of science...try looking up Lucretious; to be honest, I don't Feynman knew this, otherwise he certainly would have said this in his lectures. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:53 | comment | added | Greg Goldberg | I conclude that the premise of Feynmann quoted is fallible due to subatomic particles, and that we can only conclude that we can only observe spacetime with a certain degree of accuracy due to the limitations on our biology and technology. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:48 | comment | added | Greg Goldberg | @Conifold I also agree with this, however I believe that things are limited to what we can actually observe and cannot be explained with the unobservable or imagined scenarios to generate a conclusive determination (like looking through software code and debugging each line to conclusively determine the logic misconception I have had or another programmer has had due to the analysis of log files). Without an observable result the theory is basically speculation to me and the only thing valid is the mathematical description of the characteristics. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:47 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | Feynman said that the best bit of scientific advice is to say everything was made of atoms; a more modern take on it is to say that everything is made up of light; actually there is a basic distinction between matter (fermions) and light (bosons); but with super-symmetry, they're in a sense the same; of course, no-ones found supersymmetry, but its a nice idea all the same. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:38 | comment | added | Conifold | It sounds like you may want to look at underdetermination of scientific theories. There is no such thing as "visualization of the nature" being true or not, science does not study "natures", it studies empirical relations only. It would be an intuitive interpretation, useful or not, but there can be plenty of those, all consistent with experiments. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:38 | comment | added | Greg Goldberg | @Mozibur Ullah, I just went to Einsteins relativity model and went through all the equations to see where he sourced his equasions and the logic he used, then the logic the person before him used, then the logic before that person etc until I have validated an assumption (I believe that before Einstein, we did not understand that a Neutron was a fragment of energy with two symetrical but opposite poles and charges, or that every collective mass inherantly has an electromagnetic ionosphere (atoms, buildings, people, the planet, the solar system, cosmic clusters etc.) including polarization | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:22 | comment | added | Greg Goldberg | I also want to note I can build circuit boards, computer systems, program the computer system in over 10 computer languages, program the circuit board in native code, design Arc Furnace systems, generally got 90%-100% on average for my mathematics education, understand the concepts to design a magnetron sputter coater and am in the process of sourcing materials to fabricate and automate them with a boilermaker and various other skills so even though my views do not match the current scientific model, it does not mean that I am not educated in it or uneducated/ignorant. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:21 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 24, 2017 at 17:00 | |||||
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:20 | history | edited | Greg Goldberg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:15 | comment | added | Greg Goldberg | P.S. I am saying all this because I have had a moment of clarity where I believe I could visualize the nature of ElectroMagnetic energy and want to verify if my visualization is true or not after a decade of researching the subject, having concrete beliefs in the current atomic and cosmic models and instantly revising my opinion. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:11 | comment | added | Greg Goldberg | Perhaps in the theory we could give a value to how would we determine if something is conclusive or it is one of many possibilities and account for that in our current scientific model? | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:10 | history | edited | Greg Goldberg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarification
|
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:08 | comment | added | Conifold | Ok, but that is not a question, it is a research program. What do you want us to answer here (and remember about size constraints)? | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:07 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @goldberg: thats a hell of a job, I don't think Feynman or Einstein did as much; good luck! | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:06 | comment | added | Greg Goldberg | I am basically trying to verify all past assertions going back hundreds of years using more conclusive and logical reasoning based on current experimental and observational evidence and checking to see how I can proove or falsify something with more strength so was curious on what everyone elses opinions on the weaknesses of the current deductive reasoning methods are. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:05 | comment | added | Conifold | This question is shorter than the linked one but almost as incomprehensible. The answer to the title question is "most definitely". "Evidence is being directly ignored with two seperate fundamentle principals being created to explain" or "Causing some of the evidence produced in the modern age to being falsified due to inaccuracies with calculations based on characteristics of interactions" are completely obscure. As is this is not an SE answerable question, if it is a question. Pick an example of what you are talking about, a short one, and illustrate your criticisms on it. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 1:03 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | I'm not sure if I quite understand the question - I mean the body of the text rather than the title; however there is no consensus opinion on what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is, so it seems quite likely that this is the case; though, I should add, not 'wrong', but rather incomplete. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 0:57 | history | asked | Greg Goldberg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |