But where is the truth? Is it that classical science and quantum science compliment each other? They certainly are right at their own places. Probably bridging the gap is what we call the TOE....
This is precisely what a Theory of Everything would be; namely a unification of quantum field theory and gravity. I believe that the two should be able to be unified, since there should be some distance scale on which both the quantum and the gravitational effects are of the same order of magnitude.
__________________ ~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
I lean more to quantum mechanics than to classical mechanics, based on my interpretation of motion. It is natural and common to think in terms of, say, your hand moving from one point to another instead of being incrementally recreated over space-time increments according to mass and acceleration. Time being the sole factor in creating phenomena, whereas in the "reality" from the perspective of the universe, your hand is created minus the propagation. This can be further taken throughout the scales of what your hand consists of, but I'm sure you would want to leave that to your imagination.
I think the cumulative effects of quantum gravity produce the macroscopic effects through atomic alignment. Similar to the atomic alignment producing disc-shaped molecules. Variable alignments cause the variable effects required for the whole universe to function as it does.
I remember someone once mentioning to me that atoms with short half lives are disc-shaped as well, and atoms with longer half lives are spherical. Perhaps there is a correlation between that phenomenon and galaxy formations with variable shapes due to age.
Ultimately I think the scale you mention, neutralino, plays an important role in how things are observed. If there is a correlation between gravitational time dilation and gravitational mass, and the stability of atoms is due to the time it takes for light to traverse upscale, I think the gap can be permanently closed.
Nobody, why do I feel that you are tending towards string theory with this post. Your second paragraph aligns itself with string theory..
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY
Dip,
I lean more to quantum mechanics than to classical mechanics, based on my interpretation of motion. It is natural and common to think in terms of, say, your hand moving from one point to another instead of being incrementally recreated over space-time increments according to mass and acceleration. Time being the sole factor in creating phenomena, whereas in the "reality" from the perspective of the universe, your hand is created minus the propagation. This can be further taken throughout the scales of what your hand consists of, but I'm sure you would want to leave that to your imagination.
I think the cumulative effects of quantum gravity produce the macroscopic effects through atomic alignment. Similar to the atomic alignment producing disc-shaped molecules. Variable alignments cause the variable effects required for the whole universe to function as it does.
I remember someone once mentioning to me that atoms with short half lives are disc-shaped as well, and atoms with longer half lives are spherical. Perhaps there is a correlation between that phenomenon and galaxy formations with variable shapes due to age.
Ultimately I think the scale you mention, neutralino, plays an important role in how things are observed. If there is a correlation between gravitational time dilation and gravitational mass, and the stability of atoms is due to the time it takes for light to traverse upscale, I think the gap can be permanently closed.
Of course, Dip. Without swallowing anything whole, we can put pieces together from all sciences, religions and philosophies to create a larger picture of reality. From branes to brains, a true meeting of the minds.
We can posit zero-dimensional branes, point particles; one-dimensional branes, strings; two-dimensional branes, loops and membranes; three-dimesnional branes, spheroids and knots. The fundamental point, though, is the cumulative effects of point particles extend to create the dimensional reality observed.
The point particle would have to have a point mass proportionate to the gravitational acceleration, which exceeds the velocity of light. The velocity of which is based on the absorption and re-emission of light as the mass decays or is converted to energy in the "free-space vacuum."
One point that I have been pondering on a lot is how come zero dimensional branes create a dimension??
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY
Of course, Dip. Without swallowing anything whole, we can put pieces together from all sciences, religions and philosophies to create a larger picture of reality. From branes to brains, a true meeting of the minds.
We can posit zero-dimensional branes, point particles; one-dimensional branes, strings; two-dimensional branes, loops and membranes; three-dimesnional branes, spheroids and knots. The fundamental point, though, is the cumulative effects of point particles extend to create the dimensional reality observed.
The point particle would have to have a point mass proportionate to the gravitational acceleration, which exceeds the velocity of light. The velocity of which is based on the absorption and re-emission of light as the mass decays or is converted to energy in the "free-space vacuum."
Believe me, Lloyd, half of what your true science is based on is based on how you have been influenced by our conversing.
People fail to realize the subtle influence each of us has on each other, but limiting influences based on the be-all-end-all of science, limits the imagination that allows for future learning.
If scientific understanding is going change in the next hundred years as it has in the past hundred years, to what extent do you believe is your solid science going to stand the test of time?
I agree with you the fact that we have both influenced each, and in answer to the last question, it's just as I stated it to Fredrick: "IMO, if you realize the abstract will be made factual, with the completion of scientific knowledge, then you may have a new, and different formula, to work with. The only reason present speculative science contains abstract thought/theory, is its present incompleteness, however; when completed, IMO, of which, I think you are leaving out the possibility, of eliminating all present scientific abstract necessities. This is how I truly see the world. I think it was Noan Chomsky, the major linguist, who stated this very fact, "In the final stages of knowledge acquisition, the facts will eliminate the abstracts."___as he said, in so many words... Yes, we still have a ways to go, but I for one, am fully confident of this evolving scientific truth. So, as to you and I's thinking, we are still on opposite sides of the abstract/factual debate. To me, all fundamental debates must be founded on a methodology, which is the foundation of science; and yet abstraction lacks any such fundamental foundation___It's far too loose an explanation format, to explain any type of reality, except the exaggerated, when considered as an all inclusive explanator of understanding___It fails miserably...i.e., no fundamental methodology, of which science, does possess..."
Herein stands the crux of the matter...
Lloyd
__________________ "To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
I was going to post how brane waves and brain waves are related to, created by, the center of gravity, but we would first have to allow abstract explanations of gravity and wave mechanics in order to expound upon our scientific understanding.
As it stands, everything in science is in parts and there are so many interpretations of these parts, that everyone in the scientific community is already basing their reality on what is thought to be true - if even by a large consensus, doesn't make it right and true.
We might revert to the following, and perhaps put things together in a different fashion to draw our own conclusions as to what is the "whole picture," as Fredrick might say.
"We may agree, perhaps, to understand by Metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole." - Bradley, 1846-1924
Nobody, I'm all ears, if you can propose a "fundamental formal framework of understanding", that's both compatible to science logic, and metaphyics/abstraction... So, what's this fundamental abstract formal framework, you allude to...? IMO, it would have to be recognition of a "first fundamental dual set of formal laws", and their integrated functioning, as I have so clearly mentioned, in many threads, in the past. I long ago mentioned this to Guille... What do you say...?
I further agree, we could theorize that a photon is most likely, the most fundamental particle/wave, since all known matter decay, seems to decay into photons, and start basing all gravity mechanics and metaphysics, on this one fundamental idea, but then, that takes considerable debate and agreement, and yet un-realized physical and mathematical proof...
Lloyd
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY
I was going to post how brane waves and brain waves are related to, created by, the center of gravity, but we would first have to allow abstract explanations of gravity and wave mechanics in order to expound upon our scientific understanding.
As it stands, everything in science is in parts and there are so many interpretations of these parts, that everyone in the scientific community is already basing their reality on what is thought to be true - if even by a large consensus, doesn't make it right and true.
We might revert to the following, and perhaps put things together in a different fashion to draw our own conclusions as to what is the "whole picture," as Fredrick might say.
"We may agree, perhaps, to understand by Metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole." - Bradley, 1846-1924
__________________ "To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
I simply propose unifying Einstein's relative framework with Newton's absolute framework, Lloyd, and taking the inverse laws to the absolute limit. This way we "zero in" on relative positions and avoid arbitrary limits based on observations resulting in the observed asymmetries of nature.
All I would further comment on in this thread about it is to consider what I mentioned to Dave a while back, that gravity is proportional to the casimir effect and inversely-proportional to the decay you mention. Large bodies, which are the result of the cumulative effects of infinitesimal masses, merge according to the coulomb force and annihilate upon impact. This is why gravity is observed to be so much weaker than the em force. The gamma bursts are offset by the negative energy of the gravitational force which is exactly equal to the em force, rendering the net effect, mass and energy exactly zero.
I simply propose unifying Einstein's relative framework with Newton's absolute framework, Lloyd, and taking the inverse laws to the absolute limit. This way we "zero in" on relative positions and avoid arbitrary limits based on observations resulting in the observed asymmetries of nature.
All I would further comment on in this thread about it is to consider what I mentioned to Dave a while back, that gravity is proportional to the casimir effect and inversely-proportional to the decay you mention. Large bodies, which are the result of the cumulative effects of infinitesimal masses, merge according to the coulomb force and annihilate upon impact. This is why gravity is observed to be so much weaker than the em force. The gamma bursts are offset by the negative energy of the gravitational force which is exactly equal to the em force, rendering the net effect, mass and energy exactly zero.
Sorry, but mass and energy can never reach zero, only zero entropy, which is not zero mass or zero energy, but the limit of motion's lowest limit, and the limit of mass' highest mass... Otherwise, the universe can't exist___And it does... Nobody, without limits, you have no scientific knowledge, and no metaphysical knowledge, either... It's as simple as___"No limits___No knowledge___No wisdom." William Hardison, a great cosmologist/philosopher, showed this fact, years ago... Epistemologists knew this fact, much longer ago...
Lloyd
__________________ "To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
Re: Cyclic Universe 
Linear Mode
