Classical Truth and Beyond

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Ok then, my question for you is this.

 

 

Do you accept Pantheory's claim that the ZPF has been proved in 10's of thousands of experiments?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Everyone has discussed many many times about proof vs. certainty.  I'm not holding this conversation to that level.  I'm please discussing "thoughts' about what might be happening...along with his grace filled input of previous work with respect to my musings.  I greatly appreciate the effort he's putting in as a teacher.  I actually am lazy in my efforts other than searching some of these questions between injecting samples in my instruments.  Pretty much that simple.  I understand the need for maintaining a reputation.... but I expect he's doing a great job in any of his peer's regard dealing with a redneck with an imagination.  

[pantheory]

44 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The shape of the universe did cross my mind as evidence.  I envision spin as random and additional in nature for lack of better words.  I used affinity as joinery.....two individuals combining to increase amplitude.  Thx.

 

Yeah, Ed. The shape of the universe is unknown. Many, including myself, picture the universe as being spherical in form. And as I said before, there would be no such thing as outside the universe. This would because everything that exists must be within the universe. But many now believe in other universes, called multi-verse theory.

 

I don't think such theories solve anything because they can't be tested, and ultimately the questions remain unresolved, where did everything come from? Of course in religion God created the universe from nothing. The Big Bang theory used to answer this question but it no longer does. In my own theory the beginning of the universe is very very simple. Similar, but much simpler than the original Big Bang theory.

 

As far as spin is concerned, in physics there must be a cause and reason for it. Particle spin of atomic particles is now thought to be a characteristic of the particle and not real spin because if real, where does the energy come from. So they now just call it a characteristic. My own theory is that particle spin is real and its source is an unwinding and rewinding process, only known as particle spin.

 

"I used affinity as joinery.....two individuals combining to increase amplitude." Got it

[walterpthefirst]

To what degree of confidence (expressed as a percentage) is the shape of the universe known, Pantheory?

[walterpthefirst]

13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Everyone has discussed many many times about proof vs. certainty.  I'm not holding this conversation to that level.  I'm please discussing "thoughts' about what might be happening...along with his grace filled input of previous work with respect to my musings.  I greatly appreciate the effort he's putting in as a teacher.  I actually am lazy in my efforts other than searching some of these questions between injecting samples in my instruments.  Pretty much that simple.  I understand the need for maintaining a reputation.... but I expect he's doing a great job in any of his peer's regard dealing with a redneck with an imagination.  

 

Ok, thanks for that clarification.

 

Seeing as Pantheory's cited scientific evidence, then I can do the same?

[pantheory]

7 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

To what degree of confidence (expressed as a percentage) is the shape of the universe known, Pantheory?

 

The shape of the universe is simply unknown. I can only guess percentages of scientists who think one way or another.

 

In my own theory the shape of the universe is spherical. This is a common belief.

[walterpthefirst]

5 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

The shape of the universe is simply unknown. I can only guess percentages of scientists who think one way or another.

 

In my own theory the shape of the universe is spherical. This is a common belief.

 

In his book... https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262547222/an-infinity-of-worlds/  ...Will Kinney says this about the shape of the universe.

 

 

The best current measurement of the geometry of space comes from the Planck satellite measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropy, with the result that the universe differs from a perfectly flat geometry by at the most two one-hundredths of a percent – one of the landmark results of modern precision cosmology.

 

 

He was citing this paper... https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209

 

 

Planck 2018 Results VI Cosmological Parameters

 

 

So the shape of the universe is known to be flat to better than 99.9% confidence.

 

 

[pantheory]

16 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

In his book... https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262547222/an-infinity-of-worlds/  ...Will Kinney says this about the shape of the universe.

 

 

The best current measurement of the geometry of space comes from the Planck satellite measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropy, with the result that the universe differs from a perfectly flat geometry by at the most two one-hundredths of a percent – one of the landmark results of modern precision cosmology.

 

 

He was citing this paper... https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209

 

 

Planck 2018 Results VI Cosmological Parameters

 

 

So the shape of the universe is known to be flat to better than 99.9% confidence.

 

 

 

This I also believe to be true, but as you know they can only examine the observable universe. But in my own theory I believe the same is true concerning the unobservable universe, which present theory asserts is the majority of reality.

[Edgarcito]

Don't mean to be mundane here but if we expect a good number of these elementary particles in all matter, then shouldn't we expect they possess individual properties.....hence perhaps an affinity for, or combination to provide a visible energy level? Thx.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

This I also believe to be true, but as you know they can only examine the observable universe. But in my own theory I believe the same is true concerning the unobservable universe, which present theory asserts is the majority of reality.

 

Fair enough.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Don't mean to be mundane here but if we expect a good number of these elementary particles in all matter, then shouldn't we expect they possess individual properties.....hence perhaps an affinity for, or combination to provide a visible energy level? Thx.

 

What's been discovered is that elementary particles break down into certain types.

 

Elementary particle - Wikipedia

 

But there is no individuality within those types.  So, all (insert type here) are identical, sharing exactly the same characteristics; spin, mass, charge, etc.

 

My pixels on a screen analogy is helpful here.

 

All pixels are essentially identical, but when they assigned different colours and levels of brightness they combine to make a pattern (image) that is meaningful to us.

 

The prime difference between pixels and elementary particles is that the pixels are being directed to form patterns, whereas elementary particles are blindly interacting with each other according to the laws of nature.

 

 

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Don't mean to be mundane here but if we expect a good number of these elementary particles in all matter, then shouldn't we expect they possess individual properties.....hence perhaps an affinity for, or combination to provide a visible energy level? Thx.

 

There's nothing wrong with your question. It's a good one, but there is no mainstream theory that relates to the ZPF and your question. In my own theory, yes, all matter would break down to these elementary field particles if disintegrated. And of course would have properties, but all would be the same except for their length.

 

Think of a bunch of springs from ball point pens. By bouncing around and becoming occasionally entangled, as a matter particle comes near, their waves can break these entangled springs apart producing what appear to be a swirling electron, positron pair, observable for maybe a billionth of a second -- remembering this is just my theory and not mainstream.

[Edgarcito]

On 10/31/2023 at 7:38 PM, pantheory said:

 

There's nothing wrong with your question. It's a good one, but there is no mainstream theory that relates to the ZPF and your question. In my own theory, yes, all matter would break down to these elementary field particles if disintegrated. And of course would have properties, but all would be the same except for their length.

 

Think of a bunch of springs from ball point pens. By bouncing around and becoming occasionally entangled, as a matter particle comes near, their waves can break these entangled springs apart producing what appear to be a swirling electron, positron pair, observable for maybe a billionth of a second -- remembering this is just my theory and not mainstream.

I think so as well, but believe there is some rule that drives the order....not just random cohesion/tangling.  Just trying to submit ideas.  Thx.

 

Here's another thought.  What if what we are observing is, in fact, not complete.  Why must we demand a classical solution?

 

What if the solution is not logical nor factual...

[Edgarcito]

We should be inherently able to recognize where the holes are that completes the understanding....again, that may not be a classical understanding.  My 2c..

 

What if reality varies....classical physics being one set of rules that actually is tied to rules that don't follow that same "wavelenth" of reality.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

41 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I think so as well, but believe there is some rule that drives the order....not just random cohesion/tangling. 

 

What if the solution is not logical nor factual...

A rule that is not logical nor factual drives the order...

 

Seems legit.

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

A rule that is not logical nor factual drives the order...

 

Seems legit.

I see your point, but we don't typically recognize "rules" that are not "binding" for lack of a better word. 

[Edgarcito]

Difficult to describe what I'm trying to describe

 

Maybe the complexity does not allow us to understand our lack of accounting.....which may surely have a logical solution, but may also appear as illogical due to our frame or ability.

 

Which I think both religion and science share this same problem.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

Whole, full, complete, new, healed, unified, perfect, grand, logical, faith, faithful, strong, beautiful, joyful, are all essentially connected....

 

Whole, full, complete are all largely the same

New is assigned to whole, full, complete.

Healed is restoration of the aforementioned.

Perfect, grand, logical, etc are all in the first group by default.

 

Several things hinder our ability to define whole, full, complete. but a lot of arrows pointing that it's there.

 

Just thinking today that it the pieces to the puzzle might not be logical....  wasn't even on any mind altering helpers...lol.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I see your point, but we don't typically recognize "rules" that are not "binding" for lack of a better word. 

That's because we know that if they're not binding, then they're not rules, they're suggestions.  I know it's important for you to misdefine words in order to remain consistently confused; but the rest of us don't do that. 

 

Which makes me think that maybe you should not try to speak for "we" and "us" (unless you're using those words as your pronouns now, in which case I'm proud of we).  No, most of the rest of us do not feel the need to remain intentionally ignorant; and most people aren't constantly trying to invent gaps in which to insert god.  

 

But you do you, Ed.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Difficult to describe what I'm trying to describe

 

Maybe the complexity does not allow us to understand our lack of accounting.....which may surely have a logical solution, but may also appear as illogical due to our frame or ability.

 

Which I think both religion and science share this same problem.

 

 

Maybe the universe just is exactly what we see it to be only bigger.  There's really no need to over-complicate it beyond what we are capable of understanding.  I don't think science has a problem with that. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

31 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Whole, full, complete, new, healed, unified, perfect, grand, logical, faith, faithful, strong, beautiful, joyful, are all essentially connected....

 

Whole, full, complete are all largely the same

New is assigned to whole, full, complete.

Healed is restoration of the aforementioned.

Perfect, grand, logical, etc are all in the first group by default

These are really beautiful assertions that sound deep and profound, but really lack both substance and evidence. 

 

32 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Several things hinder our ability to define whole, full, complete.

Unless those things are hindering you from consulting a dictionary, then your average 3rd grader can define them.  Possibly because she isn't determined to be dumb on purpose.  Again, maybe you shouldn't try speaking for "us" and "we"; or, in this case, "our."

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Maybe the universe just is exactly what we see it to be only bigger.  There's really no need to over-complicate it beyond what we are capable of understanding.  I don't think science has a problem with that. 

“They” have a problem with no answer….not a problem in the same way.  Christianity points to a fullness and simultaneously not seeing the fullness while science has a “problem” with lack of accounting.  Not over complicating or creating gaps that aren’t already noted… thx.

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

These are really beautiful assertions that sound deep and profound, but really lack both substance and evidence. 

 

Unless those things are hindering you from consulting a dictionary, then your average 3rd grader can define them.  Possibly because she isn't determined to be dumb on purpose.  Again, maybe you shouldn't try speaking for "us" and "we"; or, in this case, "our."

 

 

 

 

Is there a reason you can’t just discuss without attempting to demean?  Did you not get enough dessert?

[Edgarcito]

You can always move the thread to the coliseum if you can’t control yourself.   

[Edgarcito]

Let me ask you this… what are you lacking that keeps you from being an ass.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

21 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

“They” have a problem with no answer….not a problem in the same way.  Christianity points to a fullness and simultaneously not seeing the fullness while science has a “problem” with lack of accounting.  Not over complicating or creating gaps that aren’t already noted… thx.

Science begins with "I don't know..." and works from there until it finds the best possible explanation.  That sounds more like inspiration than the "problem" you're trying to invent here.

 

Contrariwise, christianity points to a fullness it cannot actually provide, then blames the victim for its own failure, when the fullness remains unseen.  This is, invariably, the end result of basing one's life upon meaningless conjecture.