Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About DanTrentfield

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/29/95

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Cydonia, Mars
  • Interests
    Physics, Chemistry, Some engineering, Music (Piano, bass, guitar, vocals, I love music), being a lazy person etc.
  • College Major/Degree
    Associate of Science, General Chemistry, GA Tech.
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Biography
    Busy college student
  • Occupation
    General Manager of a Maggiano's restaurant

Recent Profile Visitors

3558 profile views
  1. Do we exist in a fourth dimensional space?

    Hm. Interesting. Any good links to describe this?
  2. Do we exist in a fourth dimensional space?

    My point is this: If time is relative and the rate of the passage of time can be changed via a change in velocity then would we not exist in a fourth dimensional space as it is traditionally described? I may just be confusing how GR works with things with my own understanding of time, but I am trying to discern the nature of how time passage is affected by speed. It is an interesting thought to me. Yes indeed the lack of observable shadows is an excellent counter argument. But I guess I should have explained my thought a bit better. Say we exist in a giant three dimensional sphere that is expanding in accordance with Hubble's Law, and say that this entire sphere was contained within a four dimensional sphere that is different from an n-sphere in the fact that it is non-Euclidian, would this not be the fourth dimension which we exist in by consequence of existing in the third dimension which exists in the fourth? And I do not imply that dimensions are like universes, more like empty boxes which have dimensions by which everything exists (E.g. two dimensions has x and y, three dimensions has x, y, z). Where we are represented as a three dimensional object in four dimensions because we exist by X, Y, and Z, and cannot change our place in T (Time I guess?) because we have mass, we can change the rate at which T progresses around us, but we cannot change T itself because T is a property of the fourth dimensional space which our three dimensional universe exists in, and our universe is described in X, Y, Z, and T, but it remains three dimensional in the physical sense.
  3. Einstein was right!

    And for our next trick I present to you, Door number three! (AKA Hubble's law). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/hubble.html A successful science paper often contains 1% idea and 99% evidence. Please cite some evidence besides a statement Einstein made, like at least some math or genuine scientific papers investigating the phenomenon you are describing. If nothing in science is fact then nothing is fact. Which means I'm a super rich dude with a mansion an a garage full of cars that cost five million a piece, which I am clearly not. Physical laws and scientific theories can never be 100% confirmed because you could never observe 100% of the scenarios where it could be observed. To doubt the fact that is in science is like doubting you have a hand.
  4. Good is a subjective term just as is suffering. Suffering can be quantifiable in hundreds of unique forms. Pain is also subjective because it is again, quantifiable in hundreds of different unique forms. If you play the game of "Let's take what I said out of context" then the birds will turn on you fast. Keeping what I said in context: Good as definable by a positive influence which humans have had on animals in the fact that hundreds if not thousands of species are carefully preserved pampered and given treatment they'd never receive in the wild. Suffering cannot be stopped, cruelty will always endure as long as kindness does, this is because the world is a giant contrast to itself. Also, morality is relative, that's why some people think murder is perfectly acceptable and that's also why we put those blokes in prison. Morality is also personal.
  5. Do we exist in a fourth dimensional space?

    Yes, but I was establishing the base dimensional thought which supports the idea that we may exist in four dimensions. Which is the second dimension is composed of the first, and so first dimensional motion can be represented in two dimensions though, like you said it does not need to be.
  6. An interesting thought, since one dimensional motion and two dimensional motion can be represented in three dimensions, can three dimensional motion not be represented in four since a fourth dimensional object is always going to be composed of three dimensional components? An interesting thought is that if we exist in four dimensions is that once we exceed the speed of light time will move backwards, (Because citation counts: according to wikipedia: In 1908, Hermann Minkowski presented a paper consolidating the role of time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the basis for Einstein's theories of special and general relativity. But the geometry of spacetime, being non-Euclidean, is profoundly different from that popularised by Hinton.) but we would never observe time moving backwards because objects with mass cannot exceed C. An interesting notion on this thought would be the strange nature of black holes, and how nothing can escape them, this could be an example of fourth dimensional objects existing in three dimensional space, as time itself seems to stop at the event horizon (Though we do not know what the hell happens past that). Finally time dilation could be an example of fourth dimensional motion in a supposed three dimensional space, as speed has an inverse effect on time, with the speed of light most likely being the tipping point where things move backwards. All in all since time itself seems relative to speed I'd say that it is a possibility that we may exist in four dimensions though we characterize ourselves in three dimensions. Much further research is needed to provide any conclusive evidence and I think that would be an excellent thing for myself to work out whenever I have time off from work. That's enough crackpottery for me! See you all around. Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space
  7. Defense of the Multiverse theory

    Agh, *Phi for All uses literalism! It is very effective!*. Yes. I agree completely.
  8. In case you hadn't noticed by the number of internet rules and self proclaimed "trolls" there are, the internet brings out the absolute worst most perverse and downright awful side of humanity. Please note that this discussion is not to simply "diss" humanity, it is a legitimate intellectual discussion started by me to discuss thoughts on why this is using rational thought; in other words this is no place for politics or any hotheaded spewings about how you, like everyone else are treated quite poorly online. I personally think that it comes down to this: Anonymity basically turns off inhibitors that keep all that nasty irrational anger and perverse thoughts and allows us to express them while remaining, well anonymous. This is not an argument against internet anonymity, frankly I don't want someone snooping through my credentials and sizing me up to be robbed every time I post something, and I'm pretty sure you don't either, not to mention people looking through things about you. Which is why we have anonymity on the internet. But my thought stands.
  9. Defense of the Multiverse theory

    You teach me much. "I don't believe in anything" Why? Belief is assumption with a fancy tag on it. Assumption is not bad when used correctly, but it can be quite misleading. ^ Is often riddled with assumption
  10. Defense of the Multiverse theory

    Offended? Hardly. I am a student, to be the butt of jokes and to make grievous mistakes is my job because it is how you learn. Yes indeed. I agree with the notion that this is quite similar to defending anti-Darwinism. It is pointless. But, I want to preserve this notion of a multiverse as a possibility because there is insignificant information on both sides to support a conclusion of either case, and there is so much left to learn about the universe that we will probably never find this out. So it is best not dismiss the possibility of something you have little to no information on, because that, much like the mumbo jumbo of my sleepily written OP, is assumption.
  11. Defense of the Multiverse theory

    I am not a raving frothing madman. I actually am a chemist. But if you follow my rather convoluted train of thought (This was written on little sleep) I basically say this: Blah blah, the thought experiment of quantum immortality (assuming it is true) supports the multiverse theory in the circumstance of if you stop time you are left with all the possibilities left over from the last moment before you stopped time, forming a nearly limitless number of realities which may occur but have not. Which is the main thought of this. The rest of the post as I have found, is mumbo jumbo, as I had not slept in a while due to someone giving me a paper to write on War and Peace.
  12. My apologies, but no. And frankly you should work on your writing a little. Humans, much like the animals they consider themselves above have a deeply ingrained instinct of: Survive. This means that since animals consume resources which means there is less to go around for humans, and because humans have hunted and eaten animals for thousands of years that we will most likely never treat them that way. Besides who wants to give up tasty hamburgers after studying hard for your english lit class you hate but want to excel in? Finally, human nature, which can be broken down to: Reproduce, make better tools and better surroundings for the next generation, and fight potential threats off. Doesn't really allow for that. If you've ever played a game called Factorio https://factorio.com/ this game basically breaks down what humans do to a stupid simple level, minus reproduce for obvious reasons. Build, pave that forest floor after chopping it down, and crush those stupid bugs (Or animals) who get in my way. Yes, we suck, but look at all the good things humanity has done to counter this.
  13. Defense of the Multiverse theory

    It is not mine to call a theory. I did not conceive the multiverse theory, or hypothesis, or whatever it is called officially. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse (I must have been mistaken, I thought the multiverse theory was an official theory.) I just wish there wasn't so much religious and pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo surrounding this. Yes indeed, this is the best I could find about Steven Hawking's prediction of the universe being originally a black hole, in which case my citation of that may be incorrect, if so, my apologies. http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html No, specifically this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality as each action produces a different reality according to this, or at least that is what my interpretation of this is. I may once again be incorrect, but that goes without saying as this notion of quantum immortality is a thought experiment. Once again, I did not mean the many worlds hypothesis or theory, I was just noting that since time is often thought of as a differential, that if you "magically" stopped time you would be left with a nearly limitless number of possibilities that coexist because the possibility of anything happening is still present, but nothing is occurring. This is merely my thought on the multiverse hypothesis because it seems that it is both under-documented and the times that it is documented there is very little rational thought backing it. Though this is taking into the assumption that the aforementioned thought experiment is true, which it most likely is not. All in all, I merely posted this because I believe it shouldn't be dismissed as impossible, because while there is almost no evidence whatsoever to support this, there is an equal lack of convincing evidence against it. We just don't know at this point, which is why I initiated this dialogue. And I messed up on the wording "therefore my theory" ^ The
  14. Defense of the Multiverse theory

    So, I've heard this many times: "Those who believe in the multiverse theory either come from a non scientific background and are usually crackpots." But I want to say this: I don't believe in anything. So yes, the multiverse theory has no where near as many points of evidence with it as against it, but I'd like you to look at a few points I think are relevant to the theory. Steven Hawking has theorized if not nearly proven that the universe once existed as a black hole, this raises many questions on how this black hole came to be, namely where did it get all that mass from? Matter doesn't simply pop into existence and for as much matter as we have in our universe, that's a helleva beastly black hole. There are some specks of evidence and theories out there that predict that a five dimensional star collapsed and spawned the universe or something along those lines, which suggest that our universe isn't alone (Fermi's Paradox also kinda suggests this if the universe can be considered a living being ). The theory of Quantum immortality predicts realities which are units much like ticks in a video game where one single action occurs which causes a new reality in which that change is applied, but at the same time all the possibilities for what that action could be exist as realities as well. Given this, I think there is some evidence to support the existence of a multiverse, but there are so many different things we have yet to learn about the universe that the true discovery of such a multiverse (If it exists) is probably not going to happen in our lifetimes. However an interesting point: Every single theory you can possibly come up with is true if Quantum immortality is true, because following the line of thought of one action creates a reality, then because of the nearly infinite (if not infinite) number of actions that are possible any such reality you can conceive exists, but you do not exist in it. However, that does not mean that any of those realities you think of exist, or that any theories of a multiverse you think of are true, because of one important fact: We live in our reality, not Tolkien's Middle Earth, or George Lucas' (He created it though he is dead to me) Star Wars, or your reality of whatever the hell it is. This is possible because existence and by consequence scientific fact is only relevant to the reality it is in, therefore my theory of the universe being a multiverse would never be applicable to another universe because it is confined to my knowledge of this universe, and I would never have knowledge of the physical laws or the reality of the prospective "Other Universe".
  15. Wasteful writing

    Right you are. I am merely bruised and sore of having to write essays.