Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven
|
|
| Sunny Days in Heaven Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven |
|
|
Wednesday, November 05, 2003 Quick and dirty physics thoughts I have a bias in science. I believe in observation and reproducible experiments, and certainty in conclusions. All must be demonstrable. My strongest belief is that the Universe, and all its myriad forces and operations, are perfectly simple and easily understood. In fact, if something cannot be explained logically with concrete terms (not fancy math with hidden asumptions and pretend values or functions) it isn't real. I am strong wielder of Occam's Razor. God does not throw dice. 1) We hear a lot about "the fabric of space". No one defines it or explains it realistically. By virtue of the very word "fabric" a false picture is generated. Space is "oceanic" if anything. Not a cloth. 2) We hear a lot about Time as a dimension, but dimension only means "spatial" and there can only be three spatial dimensions which humans can observe. Time functions solely as a result of matter moving in relation to other forms of matter. Time is not a dimension, it is a function, an operation. No one can prove that time is a dimension. (Actually, time only exists in relation to living things which can observe it, experience it.)There were operations prior to life in the universe, but there really was no Time. There were no years, no nanoseconds. There was simply processes without measurement. ) Only consciousness can measure Time. 3) Any fool can say that 100 dimensions of space exist in a nonexistent imaginary point. No one can prove it is real. 4) Ain't it funny how some physicists keep calling for a higher and higher dimension to space? It's nonsense metaphysics, and BS math. Isn't the idea of 16 or more dimensions of space existing at a single point truly a question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? 5) Bertrand Russell pointed out that with one false value in math (3 = 4), and you can literally prove anything you can imagine. Much of the current model taught in physics is based on such fudged values, and overripe assumptions. 6) Einstein didn't discover the famous E = MC2. It was in a paper written five years before his in Nature. The "100 YEARS AGO" item in the 6 April 2000 issue of Nature (Vol. 404, p. 553) is taken from the 5 April 1900 issue of Nature (note the dates), and it states: "The calculations of M. Henri Becquerel show that this energy is of the order of one ten-millionth of a watt per second. Hence a loss of weight of about a milligram in a thousand million years would suffice to account for the observed effects, assuming the energy of the radiation to be derived from the actual loss of material. " The assumption that accounts for the stated (in the 5 April 1900 issue of Nature) figures is E=mc2. But according to APS News, this is "Einstein's most famous formula" which in September 1905 was "a startling new insight". Curious and curiouser. posted by Mark Butterworth | 12:02 AM | |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
