EquisDeXD

The universe as in random chunks of matter and energy which it mostly consists of scientifically does not know or think in any way, and I don't see how space expansion is evidence of that. Well yeah, but our current models, the universe could exist without our models of it, but our knowledge of it is still only modeled by our scientific understanding of it. There is a bunch of room to ask questions, but there's no point investigating anything if you can easily have 0 confidence it's correct. And in science, you don't throw away previous models that use to work, you build off of them and revise them.

How about this?

Statistically QM says that determinism is impossible because there is no observed mechanism for why the specific results show up the way they do, and matter and energy are quantized which means eventually there can't be a smaller particle to determine what particles like electrons do because their unquantized amounts of energy would cause destructive interference through their own oscillations and cause them to not exist. And I'm well aware of that philosophy, which is why I don't think it's accurate. There's no scientific evidence that consciousness can be formed without physical formations matter, which means it's impossible for minds to have existed without matter previously existing because it has to form the physical formations that can create consciousness. Physics isn't wrong because physics describes what we observe, and it is a fact that the current physical laws hold true for current observations. So if all of physics can be wrong, why can't he be wrong too? And, if the only thing you can base reality on is observations, yet you can't observe his theories, how can he determine that the state of reality is that it doesn't exist dependent from the mind? You keep mentioning "the human brain", but scientifically, there's no different types of consciousness, just like there's no different types of gravity or different types of the strong force. Animals effect probabilistic results with the same exact statistical randomness because mathematically (and math isn't reality) the randomness of where a point shows up does not depend on what observes it, there's no math for it. So if everything is determined by our brain, and there's different brains that determine different results, how can two people point at the same thing and definitively know that the other one is talking about the same thing? Science is the culmination of conscious contributors. But if that can't be observed, you have no evidence for it, which means you could easily be completely wrong. So why does the phrase "the human mind" come up? Why not just "the observer"? Physics is the same to all frames of reference, there are certain restrictions to what we can control, but that doesn't mean we can't control anything, it simply means we are limited and what and how we can control. You don't choose the results of individual little particles popping up, what does consciousness have to do with that? There's not even any concise or scientific explanation on what consciousness even is. But in order for that statement to be true, you would have to show that any conscious decision is directly related to the exact locations of particles, and I think you'd have a problem with that since it would require scientific experimentation. If everything is deterministic then how can we know we are deterministic? It doesn't make sense. How do you know your not in another location? Because you can that other location from a different perspective, so we know that minds aren't deterministic because a mind can view determinism from a third-person view, and if we were in that location, we wouldn't be able to see it.

Yeah...no one not likely going to get anything big on a science forum, and who would do all the mathematical work just for the idea of some guy? It's also hard to take you seriously when you use so many smilies.

They don't need to travel when their uncertainty already covers the area within the field. Because their uncertainty extends to such, they can interact with anything within a field, thus making their effects real. Well it doesn't directly say, but there's still mathematical evidence for what happens, like superposition, and the fact that we can only see the specific statistical results we see as an effect of specific mechanics, such as wave mechanics. Otherwise the transition between states can happen with no trajectory because the electron doesn't move, at the moment it's quantum state changes, it's probability therefore instantaneously correlates to new probabilities, and correlation is not a time dependent phenomena.

Nothing you've said proves that the laws of physics need to be broken for the circumstance to happen.

Let's say that for some arbitrary reason, like say random luck during when the universe is created, that space was not actually completely flat, but that it has a cumulative 4-dimensional curvature over distance? If that were so, as objects were further away, the degree of curvature they passed through from any relative observer would increase. I don't know if it's completely true, but based on my understanding of black holes, as light approaches a black hole, it redshifts, but this is not because a black hole is pulling in the light at a greater speed, this is due to the curvature of space as light approaches the black hole. So, I should theoretically be able to set the curvature of the relative space of the universe equal to something that causes a redshift exactly equal to Hubble's Constant. This is assuming that my extrapolation is correct that as the degree of curvature increases from an observer, light redshifts a greater amount. It is possible for light to redshift simply from moving away, that's why there would need to be strong evidence that as the degree of curvature increased, that the rate at which light red-shifted also increased such as when it approached a black hole, or I guess of the redshift of light would have a non-zero acceleration. However, considering that it is more than just 3 dimensions, as the 4th dimensional (not necessarily time, but just some other dimensional along with the other 3) variable changes, the other 3 variables should be respond to it, in some relationship of (theta)=x...y...z... So, as the degree of curvature increased, the relative distance caused by curvature would increase by a greater and greater amount as curvature only increased linearly, which could possibly resolve the conflict with the whole dark energy and the universe expanding thing. So if you think about it, it would kind of be like how the slope changes on a parabola, the relative velocity changes, and the rate it changes by is constant, which in this case could theoretically be set equal to Hubble's constant.

Well I guess it's a tricky situation, because I suppose even I myself cited in some thread that it could mathematically be possible (though I still didn't know "why" it was possible) for matter to do so through expansion, but as the article states "but this does not imply that the galaxies move faster than the speed of light at their present location (which is forbidden by Lorentz covariance)." But just to be sure, there wouldn't happen to be any direct evidence where astronomers measured the location of a galaxy, then the next day found that it was somehow further away than light could have traveled either? Otherwise it seems like it's saying "oh yeah, there're expanding faster than C, trust me, but you can't see it because something to do with light taking time to travel". Where do you define why you don't measure the objects traveling at C and proving that they are actually traveling faster than C? If the space is expanding faster than C and the matter is following it faster than light, how could you have a length contraction past 0 to cancel it out in measurements? A negative number would essentially be like taking a square and then collapsing it until the bulk of it "swung around" to the other side from a line your collapsing it to, which by then you'd still have physical or absolute area.

The circumstances that would allow a natural atomic explosion to happen are merely dependent on the locations of matter at certain times, it doesn't not require physics to be broken, and according to the equation that describes the probability of every particle, it is in fact theoretically possible for any matter to occupy any spacial coordinate. Happening to have a higher concentration and maybe some extra neutrons and alpha decay to spark the process is merely an improbable location for certain types of matter, and nothing more. It does not require that the 4 fundamental forces of nature work differently, or break the laws that describe relative motion, so it is possible regardless of how improbable it is, unless you can cite direct evidence that says it would require it to break current laws of physics, (which already happened with black holes anyway), which you didn't, it stands that it is in some way possible for the matter to happen to occupy a specific location at a specific time, in fact it can mathematically do it from light years away, even though that's unimaginably improbable.

Super Symmetry wouldn't necessarily be completely wrong, it would just mean it needs to be revised somewhat.

Propagation only applies when there's a change over a region of space. The electro-magnetic field of a proton already exists to where it's previous virtual photons propagated too. The large factor of this is uncertainty. While a change in a field propagates at c, the field always has the uncertainty which essentially allows it to constantly exist where it already had the uncertainty of existing.

There is no scientific evidence to support that any matter has been observed to travel at or above C. Light takes time to travel, it's not already at what some guy says should be it's location from the moment it's emitted. As galaxies move away at a greater speed, their length contraction will become greater which will proportionally account for keeping the speed of light constant.

No real scientist claims to have ever directly observe a black hole, they can accurate use infrared telescopes to directly see the gas and stars surrounding it, and with regards to dark matter, it is confirmed that we cannot see the mass required for galaxies to form. While there could be an astoundingly large number of black holes that we can't, that would not only make the current rate of star formation a lot harder to achieve and devour more stars than we see right now, it would also mean there would have had to of been that much more matter in the early state of the galaxy to create all those super massive stars that become black holes, and of course if supernova were that common Earth would have been sterilized. Instead, scientists think that there is matter which doesn't interact with the electro-magnetic force or also perhaps the strong and weak force, just gravity, which is similar to what is scientifically confirmed to be the neutrino, though it was discovered because it does in fact have a very very weak interaction with the EM and strong force. You can't see air can you? Well that's because of the lack of electro-magnetic interaction for it's energy state that make not dense enough to be directly observable, but we still know there's air. Stop right there, nothing accelerates to above the speed of light, and matter itself can't even go at the speed of light, and this is because the relative distance between measurements of points decreases proportionally to the speed of an object. The expanding of space does not cause anything to be measured at greater than c, it simply creates the relativistic effect of light's frequency stretching out along with space. This problem was actually worked on around a 100 years ago, and shortly after that, Lorentz' equations and the Lorentz transformation were derived which describe the time dilation and length contraction as an object relatively approaches the speed of light.

The electron is, but it didn't have to travel through the intervening space to do it, which means no movement or acceleration.

That statement seems to contradict itself. Care to fix it up?

I agree that there are some extreme threads, but looking at the threads that were moved myself, it seems more like people just didn't see that there was a speculation section or didn't know that it belonged there.

It is improbable, and I admitted that, but this isn't the other debate. According to your knowledge you don't know of a way that it is possible, that's fine, so you have no need to post on this topic unless you are disputing a suggestion of a possibility someone on this topic made.

Yeah if my answer isn't in any way correct, and the cows were painted blue, then the paint could have worn off before you asked the question, making it 100% brown cows, or it could be 0% because someone painted all the brown cows blue.

Just because it's probably that something in the future happens doesn't mean it's happening, time symmetry is not an observed phenomana at all. And the arrow of time has nothing to do with it, if you put time on a graph the axis goes on indefinitely, it's that we look at evidence that the observable universe use to be smaller based on current trajectories. How could see how what your saying could metaphorically be true, but that's not physically true, there's empirical evidence that not only animals effect wave functions with the same statics (and they have to be mathematically there is no reason for them not to) in the same way but that matter existed before any animals were even created. Except Schrodinger's Cat would never happen because the cat can measure the system. And your making too many extrapolations of superposition. Sure, a particle exists in all possible states, but it's probably still dies down to almost 0 after just a few nano-meters. So how come simple machines and even rocks determine quantum states when they have no evidence of being conscious or being able to decide anything in any way? Observers aren't the only things that determine results, almost everything can in some way, that's why entanglement experiments are some of the most isolated in the world. I'm looking at my computer screen right now, but if it was my choice on how it existed it would be bigger with higher resolution.

The 4th dimension is just another measurement, it's just another number in which intrinsic properties respond to changing, and it's as existent as any other dimension.

In the event of a naturally occurring and uncontrolled atomic blast, I wouldn't expect the angle of the shockwaves to spread out so predictably or the transfer of the thermal energy to be directed in a perfect circle as it would be in a nuclear device, and as people have pointed out, a naturally occurring atomic blast could be somewhat weaker than in a full nuclear device. I don't see anywhere where it was proven impossible. I don't know if that's true, but I never suggested that, I suggested that the critical density was formed in a tectonic event or possibly in a meteor or even from the meteor collision itself, I think maybe I suggested once that there could have been filtering naturally but even I doubted that, and that's when I was on a tangent from my main point. It's certainly unlikely, but stop telling geology what it can and can't do. And besides, there's Earthquakes and Volcanic eruptions and fissures and mudslides, gysers bursts, all of which seem relatively sudden to us. An uncontrolled atom explosion doesn't have to create a nice circular hole, or a hole at all, it could have happened in a raised level of rock so that when it happened it evaporated that rock, thus leveling the field, the same could possibly be true for a meteor, in fact I don't know why that's not a theory yet, perhaps there would be a different layering of rock where it crashed if that were true. Jurassic park is classified as a fictional movie, and besides, PBS tries to get money, and physicists who hold lectures also get paid quite a big sum just to talk for a little while, yet that doesn't automatically mean they were wrong. And the emphasis of the episode wasn't "did and atomic event happen" it was "aliens could have been here", it wasn't as much evidence for them as all sorts of paintings and ancient depictions and documents from the past where people seemed to have symptoms of radiation poisoning. I can see how its unlikely, but not how its impossible. And I wouldn't expect a fizzle to do those things. Actually, some forms of trinite can be made naturally (most commonly black trinitite), but I didn't mean some kind of volcanic eruption, I meant that the tectonic plates shifting compressed enough of uranium ore to create the critical density of 235. Nature certainly likes chaos, but that doesn't mean order never occurs, even when you mix metal together you can see under powerful microscopes that in the shiny looking material are actually distinguishable pockets of different concentrations of the materials. The fireball theory predicts that there was a meteor not only of exactly the right size, but that also exploded just before hitting the ground, and that's supposedly more plausible than an atomic blast, so the exact size shouldn't be too much of an issue. I need more analysis on that, Uranium is flamable, but if it's inside the meteorite it's not effected as much or right away, and the meteor doesn't have to be pure uranium either. There's also the compression upon impact. If the uranium meteor struck and got compressed 235 enough to a critical point, there wouldn't necessarily be a crater because after the initial impact that created what could have been some kind of crater, the explosion itself could have then leveled the surrounding land more. I almost called this proof of trolling, because I've been saying its possible the for quite a while. Which is what I agreed with in the first post... I really don't see how out of all the matter in the entire universe that could ever encounter earth at any time past or present in the last 14,000 years that none of it could have possibly had the right circumstances, which are essentially just happening to have a little more of the right material, it literally just doesn't make no logical sense that it "can't" happen just as it makes no logical sense to say that it's impossible to make a basket from 10 miles away, even though scientists at NASA do things way more improbable than that like exploring an asteroid by swinging around a planet from some multiple of a trillion miles away. I also find it ironic that my posts are being marked down for integrally sticking with the completely in every way logical notion that improbable doesn't equal impossible as well it being ironic for the fact that I never mark anyone's post to a negative number.

There's no physical acceleration, only oscillation patterns and fields. By current quantum mechanics, an electron must transfer between quantum states without physically moving through the intervening volume of space because otherwise that would create analogous amounts of energy that would cause destructive interference between the electron's oscillation and the electron would stop existing.

Christianity involves a very vengeful god, crosses can represent that the wearer is vengeful.

It's improbable for the 235 to naturally have the critical density in a sample to trigger a reaction, fair enough, nothing against that. But, what if you didn't want a full one nuclear explosion? What's the smallest atomic explosion you can make and call it an explosion and not a fizzle?