Are We Living In A Box?

[scotpens]

This question was answered a long time ago.

It's turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down.

I thought it was four elephants on the back of a giant turtle.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ That too.

The elephants survive on the universal supply of bacon.

 

[scotpens]

The elephants survive on the universal supply of bacon.

I thought elephants were herbivores.

 

[T'Girl]

As long as the hogs were raised on a strict vegetarian diet,
it's okay for the elephants to eat bacon.

The same way vegan Humans can eat bacon.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The elephants survive on the universal supply of bacon.

I thought elephants were herbivores.

The elephants are willing to make an exception just for the bacon. Who wouldn't?

 

[Gov Kodos]

On the theory of you are what you eat, why not feed the hogs vegans?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I am Kirkland brand raisin bran, then.

 

[scotpens]

Turtles wrapped in bacon? That'd be a bit awkward.

Sounds mighty tasty to me.

 

[RAMA]

I wrestled with that idea for real in the mid-90s, after reading Marovec...it's probably a worthwhile endeavor to test such a hypothesis. I suppose I couldn't rule out such a possibility...but I'm not holding my breath.

In philosophy, such ideas exist from much further back in history of course, it's ironic now we can actually conceive such possibilities may be real from a scientific view.

RAMA

 

[trekkiedane]

Computer, end program.


COMPUTER, END PROGRAM!!!


COMPUTER, END @#$% PROGRAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unable to comply.

 

[Kathryn Janeway]

"Nothing unreal exists." - T'plana'hath, matron of Vulcan philosophy

That was Kiri-Kin-Tha's first law of metaphysics! You're getting your Vulcan philosophers mixed up.

Parmenides said roughly the same, but he used einai (sorry, no greek letters here) about ten times in one sentence so nobody is sure what he exactly meant.

 

[Metryq]

Whatever our universe "really" is at the core, what we do know is that its physical rules have been constant since shortly after the Big Bang

We don't "know" that at all. The Big Bang is a mountain of speculation, many erroneous assumptions, and it has been falsified a dozen times over. Yet "scientists" who do not own an Occam's razor persist in the dogma that "even if" the theory is faulty, there are no alternatives to consider. So they'll stick with Big Bang since it explains observed phenomena "well enough." Among the many internal inconsistencies is the notion that physical rules have not been constant since the "Bang" (e.g. the faster-than-light "inflationary" period).

In a similar vein, NASA continues to refer to comets as "dirty snowballs" in press releases, despite the fact that one of their own missions—just one of many to visit a comet up close—has completely shattered this notion.


...besides, everyone knows the universe was created by Haruhi Suzumiya.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In a similar vein, NASA continues to refer to comets as "dirty snowballs" in press releases, despite the fact that one of their own missions—just one of many to visit a comet up close—has completely shattered this notion.

What mission would that be, and how exactly did it shatter that notion?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Whatever our universe "really" is at the core, what we do know is that its physical rules have been constant since shortly after the Big Bang

We don't "know" that at all. The Big Bang is a mountain of speculation, many erroneous assumptions, and it has been falsified a dozen times over. Yet "scientists" who do not own an Occam's razor persist in the dogma that "even if" the theory is faulty, there are no alternatives to consider. So they'll stick with Big Bang since it explains observed phenomena "well enough." Among the many internal inconsistencies is the notion that physical rules have not been constant since the "Bang" (e.g. the faster-than-light "inflationary" period).

I said "shortly after," so I don't know what that little rant of yours was motivated by.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Whatever our universe "really" is at the core, what we do know is that its physical rules have been constant since shortly after the Big Bang

We don't "know" that at all. The Big Bang is a mountain of speculation, many erroneous assumptions, and it has been falsified a dozen times over. Yet "scientists" who do not own an Occam's razor persist in the dogma that "even if" the theory is faulty, there are no alternatives to consider. So they'll stick with Big Bang since it explains observed phenomena "well enough." Among the many internal inconsistencies is the notion that physical rules have not been constant since the "Bang" (e.g. the faster-than-light "inflationary" period).

I said "shortly after," so I don't know what that little rant of yours was motivated by.

That is a sign of an open mind. The dogmas of the past are a chain on the future, a leash that keeps the mind from soaring and imprisons the imagination.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

We don't "know" that at all. The Big Bang is a mountain of speculation, many erroneous assumptions, and it has been falsified a dozen times over. Yet "scientists" who do not own an Occam's razor persist in the dogma that "even if" the theory is faulty, there are no alternatives to consider. So they'll stick with Big Bang since it explains observed phenomena "well enough." Among the many internal inconsistencies is the notion that physical rules have not been constant since the "Bang" (e.g. the faster-than-light "inflationary" period).

I said "shortly after," so I don't know what that little rant of yours was motivated by.

That is a sign of an open mind. The dogmas of the past are a chain on the future, a leash that keeps the mind from soaring and imprisons the imagination.

I think everyone in this forum is smart enough to know that when we talk about science, all explanations are "good enough" approximations until we have something better. But that doesn't mean our current explanations are worthless or that we should just throw them out because they are imperfect.

If the issue is with me saying we "know" something, then let me clarify that I mean it as a shorthand for "it's the best explanation currently available, until we have something better." But that should really go without saying when it comes to science.

 

[Metryq]

Not dirty snowballs:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/09/30/a-new-comet/

And Donald Scott's THE ELECTRIC SKY is an excellent primer on the subject.

From Scott's preface to THE ELECTRIC SKY:

It was when astrophysicists began saying things that I, as an electrical engineer, knew were wrong that I began to have serious doubts about their pronouncements. But I agonized over whether those doubts were legitimate. Even though my life-long avocation has been amateur astronomy, my formal background is in engineering – not astronomy or cosmology.

Earning a doctorate in electrical engineering eventually led to my teaching that subject at a major university for thirty-nine years. What troubled me most was when astrophysicists began saying things that any of my junior-year students could show were completely incorrect.

If astrophysicists were saying things that were demonstrably wrong in my area of expertise, could it be that they were making similar mistakes in their own field as well? I began to investigate more of the pronouncements of modern astrophysicists and the reasoning behind them. This book is an account of what I unearthed when I started digging into this question.

It is becoming clear that knowledge acquired in electric plasma laboratories over the last century affords insights and simpler, more elegant, more compelling explanations of most cosmological phenomena than those that are now espoused in astrophysics. And yet astrophysicists seem to be intent on ignoring them. Thus, lacking these fundamental electrical concepts, cosmologists have charged into a mind-numbing mathematical cul de sac, creating on the way a tribe of invisible entities – some of which are demonstrably impossible.

If your mind is rebelling against this even now, then pretend Scott's book is merely foundational material for a sci-fi story you are writing and see where it takes you.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Not dirty snowballs:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/09/30/a-new-comet/

I had a feeling you were referring to the Deep Impact mission, in which case I am now deeply puzzled as to why you think "NASA" continues to espouse the "dirty snowball" theory. That's long since fallen out of favor for the better description "snowy dirtballs" and the astronomers who gave a presentation at my daughter's school last month alluded to the fact that many of the near Earth asteroids are thought to be extinct comets.

And Donald Scott's THE ELECTRIC SKY is an excellent primer on the subject.

I presume you have read this book and provide a summary or at least inject a few points from it into this discussion. This is a discussion board, not a book club.

 

[Robert Comsol]

From Scott's preface to THE ELECTRIC SKY:

Thus, lacking these fundamental electrical concepts, cosmologists have charged into a mind-numbing mathematical cul de sac, creating on the way a tribe of invisible entities – some of which are demonstrably impossible.

I like that. I really do! Was that a reference to invisible...pardon..."dark matter"? If the answer is yes, then it looks like a book I'm definitely interested in.

Just for the fun: Check out what Professor Stephen Hawking had to say about "dark matter" (well, considering how loud and clear his silence is, maybe dark matter could be invisible ).

Bob

 

[Metryq]

I am now deeply puzzled as to why you think "NASA" continues to espouse the "dirty snowball" theory.

Because I subscribe to NASA's "science news" emails, and I have received several since the Deep Impact mission stating unambiguously that comets are "dirty snowballs." Asteroids as "extinct comets" is still part of the dirty snowball model—the idea being that all the ices have since melted away. When an actively blazing comet shows a dry, rocky surface with no sign at all of water, you know something is wrong with the existing model. The coma and tail are not sublimating volatiles, they are plasma in "glow mode" or even "arc mode."

This is a discussion board, not a book club.

Give me a moment here to copy and paste the entire text of the book so that you won't have to buy it. I have been making comments about the content of the book.

Was that a reference to invisible...pardon..."dark matter"? If the answer is yes, then it looks like a book I'm definitely interested in.

It was, indeed. Although Scott is not the first to question the ad hoc invention of "dark matter." Among the other assumed creatures of mainstream astrophysics are neutron stars. From the book:

The extraordinary thing about pulsars is the almost unbelievably high frequency of their flashes of electromagnetic radiation (both light and radio frequency emissions). When they were first discovered, it was thought that they rotated rapidly – like lighthouses. But when the implied rate of rotation for some pulsars was announced to be about once every second, despite their having masses exceeding that of the Sun, this lighthouse explanation became untenable. It was proposed that only such a super-dense material as ‘neutronium’ could make up a star that could stand those rotation speeds – so they must exist. A neutron star was spinning at the required rate.

Neutron stars are impossible. One of the well-known basic rules of nuclear chemistry is the so-called ‘band of stability.’ This is the observation that, if we add neutrons to the nucleus of any atom, we need to add an almost proportional number of protons (and their accompanying electrons) to maintain a stable nucleus. In fact, it seems that, when we consider all the known elements (even the heavy man-made elements as well), there is a requirement that, in order to hold a group of neutrons together in a nucleus, an almost equal number of proton-electron pairs are required. The stable nuclei of the lighter elements contain approximately equal numbers of neutrons and protons – a neutron/proton ratio of 1. The heavier nuclei contain a few more neutrons than protons, but the limit seems to be about 1.5 neutrons per proton. Nuclei that differ significantly from this ratio spontaneously undergo radioactive decay transformations that tend to bring their compositions closer to this ratio. Groups of neutrons are not stable by themselves.

We know from laboratory experiments that any lone neutron decays into a proton, an electron and a neutrino in less than 14 minutes; atom-like collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously. There is no such thing as neutronium. Therefore there can be no such entity as a neutron star. It is a fiction that flies in the face of all we know about elements and their atomic nuclei.

Of course, the usual counter-argument is always that "the laws of physics are different" long ago or far away. Scott's book describes credible alternatives to pulsars, gamma ray bursts, etc. My favorite bit is the section about the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.