h a l f b a k e r yIf you can read this you are not following too closely.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Axioms:
1. All particles undergo a constant and equal growth, proportional it their mass.
2. The growth is the result of an interaction between the particles and a pervasive energy field, most probably the zero point energy field.
Results:
Two materials, at once seperated by an ambiguous
distance, will appear to attract one another as time progresses because the distance between them will lessen as they grow. The growth is indetectable as all matter retains it's relative size. The effects of it appear as gravity.
Experimental:
Somehow remove an atom from the ZPE field. It will disappear.
Do gods exist? Take the discussion to here...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/overbaked/
... and off the halfbakery website. Thanks! [jutta, Nov 21 2008]
[link]
|
| |
no, it's the opposite. gradual undetectable shrinkage is the
cause of gravitation. Why? How? Actually I think that
trillions of tiny faries zip back and forth tugging on the
individual subatomic particles. Sadly my theories lack any
basis whatsoever. Unless you have a sprite detector.....
Seriosly, however, you should give this more thought as
there is absolutely no observation that supports this
theory. Furthermore not an invention even with the token
but weak proposal for the experimental model. "see what
happens in another universe". |
|
| |
No observation supported special relativity during it's conception. Anyways, has anyone ever been able to sustain energy density gradients in the ZPE field? Also, [WcW] ubiquitous shrinkage would cause everything to appear to push apart. Which may be happening to galaxies on a universal scale, so they say. |
|
| |
First, take a few steps back, and prove the existence of a zero point energy field. I know the concept is a flagship for the pseudoscience brigade, but I'm not aware that it's accepted in the wider scientific community. |
|
| |
[marked-for-deletion] science fantasising |
|
| |
Zero-Point Energy Field - sounds like the British entrant in the Eurovision song contest. |
|
| |
Take it to CERN and see how they laugh at you. If they aren't too busy fixing their huge, broken machine. |
|
| |
Hard to say what this is, but I think he's trying to explain the Casimir effect. |
|
| |
I contest the mfd on grounds that no facts used in the idea are known to be false. The ZPE is continually investigated for validity and the growth phenomena is undetectable, so it works out that nobody could know
about the growth either way. Now, mfd theory would be harder to negate, in my opinion. Maybe if I set the experimental up a bit better, and the idea focused on performing the experiment. |
|
| |
Anyways, I'll admit. At first I didn't like the idea either... But after a while it just started to grow on me. |
|
| |
My friend had this idea in high school physics class. The thing that ends up sinking it is those gosh-darned planetary orbits. Sorry. |
|
| |
//no facts used in the idea are known to be false//
//nobody could know about it either way// |
|
| |
First, take a few steps back, and prove the existence of ... God. |
|
| |
[neelandan], Its like asking your cell to prove you
exist. |
|
| |
No need - it's not useful, nor helpful, practical, or indeed possible to prove (or for that matter disprove) the existence of God. |
|
| |
Then, stepping back from that unassailable peak, looking around for something a bit easier, how about trying to simply settle on a definition of God that we can all understand and agree on? Ahh, so that one's impossible as well. Drat. |
|
| |
So, rather than actually trying to understand this assemblage of ideas, can we all just agree to leave the whole thing as a general, safe, fuzzily amorphous group of loosely associated concepts that without going into details we might collectively decide to call 'God' or 'Cosmotron', depending on our cultural bias. |
|
| |
Define God? Man's highest and best sense of Another. |
|
| |
P.S. This doesn't mean I think there's a god - it just means I think that if there is one this definition would fit. |
|
| |
[Voice], is that a second to my mfd contest? Thank you. Anyways, I once read that any causal event requires, at some point 'the magical step', and this might be god. Sure you can boil a complex causal event into simpler connected events, but even those will require explanation. At some point you're left with an impossible leap. |
|
| |
I was reading some Terence Mckenna last night and stumbled upon this bit that I think helps me think about the things that people call god. He was just a kid tripping on drugs in the 70s, mind you. |
|
| |
'I immersed myself in millions of images of humankind in all times and places,
understanding and yet struggling with the insoluble enigmas of being and human destiny.
It was during those velvet, star-strewn, jungle nights that I felt closest to understanding the tripartite mystery
of the philosopher's stone, the Alien Other, and the human soul. There is something human that transcends the
individual and that transcends life and death as well. It has will, motive, and enormous power. And it is with us now.' |
|
| |
problem with that sort of logic is that "god" in that case is a paradox: a force without a source. It is equally logical to presume that the universe is sourceless or exists as the result of forces and structures beyond our ability to measure. This is not "god" or GOD but simply "universe" or "existence". Since we are unable to comprehend the nature of existence we assume in our cocksure brilliance that the universe was created by an entity, like us in many ways, instead of admitting that we are actually to small, and to simple, to measure and understand these things. No pseudo-human man-god made the universe, to think so is to engage in the utmost self indulgence and delusion of grandeur. |
|
| |
To assume we are too small to understand these things is a handy delusion, passing the torch of obligation to the force itself. |
|
| |
Also, my quote isn't there to impart human characteristics to god, but rather to say that there are elements of man that man has no monopoly over. That is, accepting that our abilities are a subset of universal abilities. To say that man has no identification with the greater universe is a fallacy of childhood object relations theory. |
|
| |
regarding the theory-- i think it is thoroughly flawed, and will herein articulate why: |
|
| |
regarding axiom 1: What GutPunchLullabies said-- <thinking out loud> I imagine two tennis balls sitting on a tabletop. By my understanding of gravity, the tennis balls should (neglecting friction) roll toward each other. By axiom 1, all particles in the balls are growing. So is the table and everything else, because every particle (atom?) in everything is growing proportional to its mass. Does this mean that the heavier atoms will expand faster than the lighter atoms, causing the chemical bonds in the tennis ball to break? I don't see stuff slowly exploding around me [-]. The tennis balls will appear to attract each other because they are...growing at the same rate as the table? Yes-- the balls stay in place while the table expands underneath them, making the balls appear closer together. OK...now imagine the balls are orbiting each other-- that is, traveling in opposite directions perpendicular to a line between them. A gravitational attraction would cause the balls' paths to curve around into an orbit. The //constant and equal growth// would cause the balls to appear to move closer together in the direction along the line between them, and would cause their forward speed (perpendicular to the line between them) to gradually decrease to zero. The balls will come together and touch, but they cannot orbit around each other. </thinking out loud> |
|
| |
Regarding axiom 2: This is way too vague to be an axiom. Can you explain what a zero-point energy field is, and how it could cause all particles to expand? As I understand it, the zero-point energy field is due to quantum uncertainty-- particle-antiparticle pairs below a certain energy level can spontaneously appear. The casimir effect (i think) occurs when two plates are placed parallel and very close together, too narrow to allow the particle-antiparticle pairs to appear without being detected. The particles appearing from nothing press against the sides of the plates, causing a force pushing them together. This, according to Wikipedia (Casimir effect), is currently-accepted physics theory, tentatively confirmed by experiment. I have no idea how zero-point energy could be considered a //field//, or how it could cause particles to expand [-]. |
|
| |
Regarding the bashing of this idea: This idea deserves an [m-eff-d] bad science as much as everything else in this category. However, I am disappointed only two posts actually addressed the substance of this idea on technical, rather than categorical, grounds. |
|
| |
Regarding the off-topic discussion about the existence of God, I am personally conflicted about this issue, and will be very interested if it is resolved in future comments. good luck. |
|
| |
Since i am completely internal to this universe, I postulate that information about what is "outside" this universe and might have "caused" it is completely inaccessible. Without information concerning the nature of the broader universe i cannot determine just how small or limited my perspective is. Given the many examples even more limited points of view that have at my disposal for comparison it is not unreasonable to speculated that we may always be almost completely unaware of the true nature of the panverse. |
|
| |
We do not know the extent to which we do not know. Any boundary that you try to place on the universe will always be a false boundary. |
|
| |
//First, take a few steps back, and prove the existence of// ... |
|
| |
The point I was trying to make was that this Zero Point Energy field is analogous to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It is a postulate that cannot be disproved. |
|
| |
I'm still surprised I got away with invoking the name of Cosmotron and still live to tell the tale. |
|
| |
Likewise with God...ah, wait a minute |
|
| |
I think [sinctown] sufficiently debunked the meat of my idea, though [GutPunch] really laid it down first. WcW accepts the intractability of reality, though I still think you can include whatever you wish in the set known as 'universe', including the elusive 'panverse' (nice word). The zero point energy (field) is a sore spot for most, and nobody fucks with zen_tom. Well, I feel the pieces are in place just fine, friends. Thanks for the input. |
|
| |