Physics proves itself to be wrong ?

[Pariah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

""infinity" is often used in contexts where it is treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is a different type of "number" from the real numbers."

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

Yup thats called integral and differential mathematics ; at the time in college when I studied this they told us basically we had brought graphical calculators for no reason and they wanted to pack our heads with those.

I was so frustrated ; I'm bad in maths yet good in programmation, I could make my calculator learn them for me and have no problem. It was programming I was here to learn anyways, not abstract mathematics...

And to top it all my teacher was a newly arrived chinese man , and his speech was really hard to understand... I finally dropped after my philosophy teacher tried to teach us that plato was a genius but that we aren't really in the cavern allegory.

That made so much nonsense that I was forced to quit.

And I'm not even mentioning the other courses which were so desperately void of usefulness... the only one in which I truely learned something was the diving class ; I could observe how the feminine form moves while completely submerged in water, a truely enriching experience !

:lol:

 

[Meduzz]

To get back on topic, a lot of theories surrounding the creation of the universe rely on very symmetric structures. They correspond relatively well with intuition, like the anti-matter versus matter idea. But recently theories have been designed that imply that the universe was created from the breaking of symmetry. It made me think about chemical balance that must be thrown to one side in order for the reaction to complete.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/phys ... yadv08.pdf

 

[Faust]

I dont see any difference between infinately long and infinately large .

Did you all know that circles are infinate..............

Theres a huge difference, Pi can't be infinitly large because it's smaller then 4.
It's just infinitly long because you're never done writing it down.

 

[GOD]

Of cource there is a diference betwen long and large but if they are both infinate they are both infinate and i dont see a diference between infinate and infinate . Do you ? Betwen an infinately long line and an infinately long line going from a point at the center of an infinately large circle to its border . Length , width and height are a mater of perspective , Or ? Isnt a long line large ?

 

[Mr.Smith]

welcome to Ancient India

 

[GOD]

Aum !!!!!!

Maybe this is a better explanation of what i ment .

A line that is infinately long = has no start and no end must exist in a "Space" thats infinately large = it has no start and no finish / no center and no edges / end and it must be timeless....... at least in a linear sense .



Personaly i think "GOD" created the endless light so he could see in the dark and read pornos .

 

[Forkbender]

A line that is infinately long = has no start and no end must exist in a "Space" thats infinately large = it has no start and no finish / no center and no edges / end and it must be timeless....... at least in a linear sense .

O

 

[GOD]

???

 

[Forkbender]

A circle doesn't have a beginning or end, it is an infinite line contained in finite space. As long as there is the possibility of curvature, you can contain the infinite within the finite.

 

[Dantediv86]

I liked the idea of living in the infinite FARTal (ok fractal for the mathematics out there who couldn't understand the pun) of the golden ratio thingy (<= i hope this terminology will be appreciated by people, who like me like things explained simple...i would like to apologize but lately my math lecturers are pissing me off)

 

[GOD]

Fork ,

Look above at the bit about a circle being an infinate polygon . And think about a graph . There are no real curves just "straight" lines between "points" . ( Yes i know there are no straight lines or points either ) . Lets not get to deep in pinning words down or we will , just like philosophers , never come to a conclusion .

Then , isnt the bit thats inside the ring you are calling a circle part of the circle ? Hasnt the circle got a diameter ? Cant a ciircle have an infinate diameter ? And the ring you are talking about isnt infinate , if you start at a point you go round and come back to where you were . One can , in a time sense walk , or think , round in circles infinately but that doesnt make the ring / the circle infinate , just the time one theoreticaly could take and the distance one could theoreticaly walk .

we can call it a sphere if we want but thats just as wrong as calling it a circle . Both of those words in this case are atempts , using our , the geometry and dimensions of our farty-verse to explain or picture something that must exist in the multi-farty-verse wich isnt limited to the dimentional constraints of the dimensions in our farty-verse . I called it a plain earlyer on in this thread because that is a nearer description .

I think that often its easyer to use an undefinable word and then limit the definition by saying what it isnt .


Wow ! Farts and the farty-verse both hum ........... vibrate ........... are verses ......... = its all music realy .

 

[Malaeus]

meh. science is wrong anyways. most of it is at least.
if the big bang is an effect. what caused it, and if it is the cause, we are its effects. for this purpose specifically. but in the end it simply leads to the same amount of questions. the point is that we dont know, noone knows. not even the worlds most famous scientists can tell us anything for sure...

 

[bransondude]

Hey all, first post. :shock:

I'm kinda jumping into the middle of the discussion here, and I really tried to read the whole thread but my brain was starting to hurt.

I read a book called something like Big Bang by Stephen Hawking (he's actually a spectacular author). He did a good job of describing what physics has learned to a layman. What I learned from that book was that the moment before the big bang was so drastically unlike the present reality (all that we 'know' to exist) that it's pretty much impossible to understand. The math just doesn't work to model earlier than, say, the first one second of existence as we know it. It's just not reality as we currently experience it, so we have no other tool than speculation toward understanding it.

Even if you could have been present or had some device to record it it wouldn't be helpful because we're in this reality and therefore bound by its rules, pre-bang is a different reality with very different rules. So any information taken from that reality would change by being brought to this reality.

What I think I'm trying to say is, pre-bang will probably never be understood so any explanation is possible. I like the GODgasm idea myself.

 

[Dantediv86]

meh. science is wrong anyways. most of it is at least.
if the big bang is an effect. what caused it, and if it is the cause, we are its effects. for this purpose specifically. but in the end it simply leads to the same amount of questions. the point is that we dont know, noone knows. not even the worlds most famous scientists can tell us anything for sure...

and the coolest thing is that a true scientist will admit that the problem is not science or not, there's no need to point a finger and say "most of science is wrong anyways". the scientific method is based upon human observation (and i must say, evolutionarily speaking, we've been able to see the damn lions before they ate us! i must say it's a pretty accurate vision we have....), of course it's got limits, but science works pretty well within that interval, i must say (or i have been synthesizing wrong amounts of LSD and extracted the wrong shit from my plants all these years) so it's a human flaw that we can't explain the universe...it's too big for our brains....we need a bigger, more evolved brain, to start studying the universe, from all points of view...right now, we are just monkeys looking at the stars from a far(t) away planet.

 

[Faust]

Hey all, first post. :shock:

What I think I'm trying to say is, pre-bang will probably never be understood so any explanation is possible. I like the GODgasm idea myself.

Or any other random non-explanantion?

 

[Malaeus]

@ Dantediv86

yes i agree. but the difference is that the scientists understand that everything here is still all theory, we dont know why it works, we can just deduce an approximation of how. however, the regular people, the ones who arent the scientists coming up with the theories take it to be fact, like many individuals who truly believe the earth is only 3000 years old.

i say, science is wrong, not to point fingers, not to blame science. just to state a fact, we have proven by our own calculations that our math is flawed, the problem arises from that, as a paradox. if our calculations say that our math is wrong, can it at the same time be that our math is right, but our calculation defining it so was wrong?

not quite sure, its all just random stuff bouncing around. things work, things dont work. things happen that we say shouldnt happen, then things that should dont happen... its all a messed up world, and the worst part is that we cant really do much about it.

 

[faithless]

I apologize in advance: i did not read all the 6 pages so I might repeat what's already been said.


I like the idea that a big bang might be happening right now in a random atom of my hair, creating something at a different scale than the one we know.


And I like the idea that we are maybe the result of a big bang that happened in an atom of i-dont-know-what living i-dont-know-where.


Yet I must recognize this idea is hard to put together with other beliefs that are more common.... But I like it