• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-2 Poor

About PrimalMinister

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
  1. Thought Experiments

    I am 42 now but when I was about 23 I had what I believed was a profound realisation about the universe, I still think about it today and it is no less profound to me. This realisation was related to what science calls the theory of everything. It wasn't and isn't a theory like todays, but it is an idea, an insight into how the universe is actually doing what it does. Although I am not classically trained in physics this does not mean I am bad at maths or can't read about the maths, its just not that important to this insight. In fact, the insight is about explaining why the universe is mathematical in the first place. Anyway, this realisation took about 6 years to unfold, until I had another profound realisation about this insight. The end result is that I had realised what must be the perfect universe, and it could be possible that our universe is also perfect, if this idea matures in to a full fledged theory subject to the scientific method, and it turns out be the actual truth, the final theory of everything. This insight came about because I was thinking about a subtle problem in physics, which with the utmost respect to those with degrees, is likely not in the curriculum, even if you have done a Phd. I am not saying that Phd's don't think about this problem, its just that you could have gone through you whole science career and simply not thought about it. The thing is, if I am for example right with this idea, then I happened to solve a very abstract problem that is critical to understanding the theory of everything. Anyhow, I think it is worthy discussing this problem because otherwise you could say the whole universe is powered by 'magic' and be valid. I do not think the universe is powered by magic, I think there must be an explanation for what appears like magic. So what is the problem I am talking about? It is that phenomena of the universe, matter, forces and so on, appear to be subject to rules (what we capture in our equations) while not giving away how they are governed universally in apparently empty space. Why are the laws here the same everywhere we look, why are there laws, how are they being implemented. And the insight is simple, that all these laws are governed by a set of laws higher or lower level than the ones we are use to. Like to date, we have only be studying the software of the universe and this insight is into the hardware of the universe, like what we have been studying is all virtual while the insight is about what is actually real. This means that there is a relatively small number of super laws that govern all other laws and that these super laws constitute a theory of everything. But these super laws are implemented in such a way that they actually solve the problem of how phenomena appears to be powered by magic. I was not lucky enough to have gone through university and have people with the same interests to talk to about it, so I am here to now claiming that this idea or insight is worthy of discussion and may turn out to be true. There is evidence for it and it is supported by logic, its complementary to current science and is a sort of third way between our current paradigms. This is how I envisage the conversation going: 1. That knowledgeable, skilled physicists can say that, after consideration, the problem I am trying to explain exists and needs a solution. 2. That, understanding the problem, people offer up solutions. 3. That I offer a solution and see if it solves it. It should be noted that I am not religious, I don't believe in God or all the stories in holy books, but I am not convinced by the big bang either, or aspects of evolution. I am not convinced with explanations of how life came about, the emergence of sexual dynamics, the emergence of flight, I am not convinced adaptation by natural selection can take us from a single cell to human beings. I am squarely on sciences side, its just I don't think we have got it right yet, and for some reason, which I am sure some people will speculate on, believe I could be on to something. So my first request is to knowledgeable, skilled physicists, is this a problem and does it need a solution. Thanks for any responses.
  2. Could relativity be incorrect

    I was told that if an astronaut travelled away from the planet near the speed of light and then came back a year later everyone on earth has aged 20 years. What is happening here? He has travelled into the future (despite never leaving the present).
  3. Could relativity be incorrect

    In the case of atomic clocks, one travelling round in a satellite and one on earth, how do we know the clock in the satellite is travelling into the future instead of just ticking faster?
  4. Could relativity be incorrect

    Of course you are immersed in the old paradigm while a shift is occurring. Take quantum mechanics, if you want it to be deterministic instead of probabilistic you just plug in the orientation to the cellular automata, that's where the randomness is coming from. It's consistent with experiment (complimentary) and day to day life. What about the big bang, that has had to be patched every time the data has proved it wrong, the only reason its being held onto is because there is not a better explanation.
  5. Could relativity be incorrect

    But its reality we are interested in right? I ask these questions because I am currently working on a paper suggesting the universe is a kind of cellular automata but its not going to be finished for a few months. If it turns out I am correct then it would be a paradigm shift (as it suggests the universe is infinite, eternal, immortal) and a theory of everything because it gets to the root of the universe (its the science underlying mathematics) and discovers the final truth about reality (that the universe is an infinite, eternal, immortal cellular automata). It answers questions like 'why is the universe mathematical' and 'why do we have the laws we do' but its incommensurable with some of modern physics although its complementary to most of it. This is why I asked this question, as a sanity check. And because I am fascinated by the universe and science. And its enjoyable to discuss it.
  6. Where are the laws of the universe exactly?

    Well take the laws of flames, when we light a fire the laws governing the flames manifest and when you put the fire out, they disappear along with the fire. Its like the laws of the universe are everywhere but when you try to put you finger on them they are no where.
  7. I know relativity has been 'proved' but how do you know its what is actually going on as opposed to something that works but is not true/real such as epicycles. How do we know this is not just a repeat of this, making theories that work but are not true/real. Relativity seems like this to me, it is obviously onto something but I don't think its the actual truth, i.e. I don't think space-time literally bends and warps, I think the equations work (in certain conditions) but are not describing actual reality.
  8. The laws of the universe seem to manifest in space when they are required and then seemingly disappear back into the same space when done. Where are the laws of the universe exactly?