A small problem with the whole of physics

[PrimalMinister]

Now I am not a creationist, but I have a bit of different view, this is because believe I have a framework for a theory of everything. Now I could be wrong, fair enough, but if I am right, there is going to be a paradigm shift in physics and a dramatic reinterpretaion of the cosmos.

Now we once believed the sun revolved around the earth, it is easy to think that, it feels like there earth is not moving and the sun looks like it travels across the sky. You could forgive early folk for making this mistake. It looks like the sun is going round the earth so they modelled it that way, they assumed it was that way. The thing is, someone came along and said this is not correct, something else is going on instead. Well I think I am that person for the modern day, because I believe that, despite all our knowledge, which is vast, the whole intellectual structure is based on an assumpution which is not actually what is going on. That means that while lots of physics will remain useful, it is still fundamentally flawed.

This assumption, upon which the whole intellectual structure of modern physics exists, is simple. Its the notion that 'things move around space'. I believe we have done it again, things look like they are moving around space, so we have created all these models to describe this motion. Except, things are not moving around space, what is actually happening is the opposite, space is moving things around. It is just a subtle shift in perspective.

So do you 'believe' things move around space?

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Except, things are not moving around space, what is actually happening is the opposite, space is moving things around.

What do you mean by "space is moving things around"? Do you mean that space exerts a force on objects? What evidence do you have for this?

What do you mean by "space"? The standard definition is that it is a set of measurements of distances between things. What is your definition?

13 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

It is just a subtle shift in perspective.

What different predictions does this make, that would allow it to be confirmed?

What changes are required to current physics to account for this? (Please provide specific mathematical details.)

[Phi for All]

Creationism seems to be a non sequitur here, not sure why you mentioned it.

Do you have any science to support your assertions? It's quite common for people who find science daunting to look for "simple" solutions to all that study. 

What mechanism would space use to move things around? What properties of space would make this possible? 

[Ghideon]

54 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

This assumption, upon which the whole intellectual structure of modern physics exists, is simple. Its the notion that 'things move around space'. I believe we have done it again, things look like they are moving around space, so we have created all these models to describe this motion. Except, things are not moving around space, what is actually happening is the opposite, space is moving things around. It is just a subtle shift in perspective.

My assumption is that if one would perform a rigorous analysis (math, experiments models) of the idea one would end up with something that exactly is the current mainstream theories*. One would have to create "fine tuned" definitions that makes the idea indistinguishable from the current mainstream. Or end up with something that does not match observations and therefore be considered incorrect. The shift in perspective would add no new explanations, predictions, tests or have scientifically interesting consequences.

That said, "space is moving things around" might open up discussions from a more philosophical point of view, but that would be a separate thread in another section of the forum. 

 

*) With the exception of course for new discoveries extending the current models and theories

Edited May 21, 2019 by Ghideon
grammar

[Strange]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

but if I am right, there is going to be a paradigm shift in physics and a dramatic reinterpretaion of the cosmos.

If I had €1 for every visitor to this website who had a personal theory that was going to change the world ...

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Except, things are not moving around space, what is actually happening is the opposite, space is moving things around.

That doesn't make sense to me.  It is fine to say that the earth is not moving through space, instead space is moving past earth, but it becomes very problematic if you add other bodies.  If space is moving past the earth so that it appears that the earth is moving around the sun, then obviously the space cannot be moving past the sun at the same rate and direction that it is moving past the earth.  In other words if bodies are moving relative to each other, but it is really space that is moving, then the space is moving differently for each body. 

[PrimalMinister]

Ok, thanks for the answers. Before I go into detail, I will explain the dramatic reinterpretation of the cosmos.

To keep it simple, I believe the universe is, for all other purposes, a virtual reality machine, except to us, the reality it maintains, is very real.

So I understand you all want mathematics, but first you have to understand the architecure of the machine.

And this is where it gets tricky, if I am right, then the universe is not an accident, its has purpose, it has a reason for existing. A lot of scientists are 'well despite how amazing everything is, its just chance, luck, an accident'. So I feel as if I am going to get some flack for saying that.

I have a framework for a theory of everything, not a theory of everything. So I can only discuss the framework, the details need more work. It maybe a fruitless line of study, but if it isn't, if it produces results, then I am essentially right. Its either one or the other, either the universe was created in a big bang or the universe is a virtually reality machine, it can't be both.

Anyway, there are lots of good reasons to believe something like this is going on, which I am happy to discuss.

 

[zapatos]

So ultimately you believe we are in a virtual reality machine? And if you are right, it is possible to find evidence of this machine? Did I understand you correctly?

[Ghideon]

5 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

To keep it simple, I believe the universe is, for all other purposes, a virtual reality machine, except to us, the reality it maintains, is very real.

It sounds like a variant of "The universe could have been created 15 minutes ago and made to look billions of years old."*
What kind of experiment can we make to tell the difference? 

 

*) borrowed from @Strange

[Bufofrog]

7 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Anyway, there are lots of good reasons to believe something like this is going on, which I am happy to discuss.

OK, discuss...

[Phi for All]

12 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Anyway, there are lots of good reasons to believe something like this is going on, which I am happy to discuss.

Perhaps we could focus on these, since the rest looks like uninformed, ignorant guesswork that makes sense to you because it's all your brain had to work with. You talk about a "framework for a theory", but you don't even have that. The framework for a theory is a mathematical model.

So what are the good reasons to believe your idea has merit? What current problems does it solve, what does it do better than current mainstream theories?

Edit to add: At least now I have an inkling of why you mentioned not being a creationist. Ima advise you NOT to go there, EVER.

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

And this is where it gets tricky, if I am right, then the universe is not an accident, its has purpose, it has a reason for existing. A lot of scientists are 'well despite how amazing everything is, its just chance, luck, an accident'. So I feel as if I am going to get some flack for saying that.

This is irrelevant to physics. We make observations, build models and test them against further experiments.

It doesn't make any difference if the universe is a simulation or a figment of your imagination. Physics is independent of that.

I think we should stick to the physics of your idea, and ignore the metaphysical speculation.

So, answer these questions:

What do you mean by "space is moving things around"? Do you mean that space exerts a force on objects? What evidence do you have for this?

What do you mean by "space"? The standard definition is that it is a set of measurements of distances between things. What is your definition?

What different predictions does your idea make, that would allow it to be confirmed (or rejected)?

What changes are required to current physical theories (ie. the mathematics) to account for these differences?

18 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Its either one or the other, either the universe was created in a big bang or the universe is a virtually reality machine, it can't be both.

Why would this change the behaviour of things we see around us now?

 

[Phi for All]

22 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Its either one or the other, either the universe was created in a big bang or the universe is a virtually reality machine, it can't be both.

False dilemma. The universe may have existed prior to the BB. And btw, the Big Bang is NOT a creation theory.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

False dilemma. The universe may have existed prior to the BB. And btw, the Big Bang is NOT a creation theory.

And there are many other possibilities.

Not only that, but it could be both: it could be a virtual reality simulation of a universe that was created in the Big Bang!

 

[PrimalMinister]

Ok, the reasoning, the logic. First, you have to look at current physics. Yes we know a vast amount, but there are things we don't know. The things we know are very interesting, but I find interesting the things we don't know, have no explanation for.

Consequently, scientists try to turn that lack of knowledge into knowledge.

For example:

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The universe may have existed prior to the BB.

May have existed, implying we don't know. Despite our sophisticated knowledge, modern physics has questions it has no answers for.

Its a fact, the evidence is clear, we had it wrong before and the big bang, is to me, a sign we have got something wrong again. Lots of scientists reject religion for its nonsense, then suggest the big bang, I am surprised people believe it. Yes, I know models, evidence and so on, but we had it wrong before.

So there are things we don't know, for example, please answer this question with the same mathematics you expect of me.

The laws of the universe are everywhere, how does science explain this, how are the laws of the universe everywhere?

 

 

[Ghideon]

11 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

So there are things we don't know, for example, please answer this question with the same mathematics you expect of me.

The laws of the universe are everywhere, how does science explain this, how are the laws of the universe everywhere?

How about discussing your idea instead?
The above is covered in the thread you started here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108468-where-are-the-laws-of-the-universe-exactly

 

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by Ghideon
fixed quote

[Strange]

48 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Its a fact, the evidence is clear, we had it wrong before and the big bang, is to me, a sign we have got something wrong again. Lots of scientists reject religion for its nonsense, then suggest the big bang, I am surprised people believe it. Yes, I know models, evidence and so on, but we had it wrong before.

If you are rejecting evidence, then this is an opinion, not science.

If you have no science than I will request this thread is closed.

(The reason we know that some earlier theories were wrong or inaccurate is because we used evidence to build better ones. People didn't sit around ineffectually sighing, "oh but we have been wrong before, what if we are wrong now? what are we going to do? its all hopeless")

48 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

So there are things we don't know, for example, please answer this question with the same mathematics you expect of me.

No. No. And again, no.

Absolutely: NO.

This is your thread for you to present (and defend) your idea.

If you are unable to do that in a scientific way then there is no point to keeping it open.

48 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The laws of the universe are everywhere, how does science explain this, how are the laws of the universe everywhere?

You have an existing thread on this open already. I recently posted quite a good answer to this question from a scientist. If you want to discuss this, do it in that thread.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Yes we know a vast amount, but there are things we don't know.

So what? Are you dismissing what we know because it's incomplete? Do you understand what theory really means?

 

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

May have existed, implying we don't know. 

May have existed, implying that your either/or dilemma was false. 

 

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

It's a fact, the evidence is clear, we had it wrong before and the big bang, is to me, a sign we have got something wrong again. Lots of scientists reject religion for its nonsense, then suggest the big bang, I am surprised people believe it. Yes, I know models, evidence and so on, but we had it wrong before.

This makes it VERY clear you only have a passing acquaintance with the BBT. It's a shame, too, lots of actual evidence in support, and works well with other theories. You're arguing against something you don't understand.

[PrimalMinister]

I ask that question because you may have never thought about it, it is a very interesting problem. But if I am right, then I actually have an answer for it, I can explain how you get the laws of the universe everywhere.

Its simple, the universe extends in all directions for ever, it has and will always exist, it is immortal.

The first thing is space. Space is composed entirely of tiny virtual reality machines, about the size of strings from string theory, which took collectivily make a virtual reality machine of infinite size. So a giant virtual reality machine composed of tiny virtual reality machines, each tiny machine has all the laws of the universe embedded in it. This is how you get the laws of the universe everywhere.

That is space, now time.

All the tiny machines follow a fixed cycle, they create reality, then they destory reality, over and over again. The absolute reality is the machines, the relative reality we see is virtual, its flicking in and out of existance billions of times a second. Each new generation of the universe is slightly different to the last, and hence everything in the universe moves slightly. All movement in the universe is governed by these tiny machines, these tiny machines are moving everything about according to the laws we know.

This is what I mean by space moving things about, not things moving about space.

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Space is composed entirely of tiny virtual reality machines

Are they available on Amazon?

[MigL]

I am a creationist.
In fact I created the universe yesterday.
ALL reality exists only in my mind, such that all measurements/observations are consistent.
( I think I had some indigestion at the time I 'imagined' you, PrimalMinister )

My viewpoint makes everything you have posted totally wrong.
"I have a different view, this is because believe I have a framework for a theory of everything. Now I could be wrong, fair enough, but if I am right, there is going to be a paradigm shift in physics and a dramatic reinterpretation of the cosmos."

Oh, and I have just as much evidence for my conjecture as you do with yours.

( funny how nonsense posts generate nonsense replies  )

[Strange]

43 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Its simple, the universe extends in all directions for ever, it has and will always exist, it is immortal.

What evidence do you have for this?

Why does the evidence suggest that the universe has not always been the same?

43 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Space is composed entirely of tiny virtual reality machines, about the size of strings from string theory, which took collectivily make a virtual reality machine of infinite size.

What evidence do you have for this?

43 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

All the tiny machines follow a fixed cycle, they create reality, then they destory reality, over and over again. The absolute reality is the machines, the relative reality we see is virtual, its flicking in and out of existance billions of times a second. Each new generation of the universe is slightly different to the last, and hence everything in the universe moves slightly. All movement in the universe is governed by these tiny machines, these tiny machines are moving everything about according to the laws we know.

What EVIDENCE do you have for this?

 

It is all very well to make up science-fictiony fairy tales. But that is not how science works.

Shall we close this thread now, or do you want to have a scientific discussion?

[PrimalMinister]

But have I not provided a solution that explains how to get the laws of the universe everywhere?

I have looked at modern physics and it one of those God did it things (its just the way it is).

I don't believe that the laws of the universe magically appear everywhere which is where physics leaves you, I think there is a logic behind getting the laws of the universe everywhere.

That is why I ask the question how do get the laws of the universe everywhere, because physics has no answer, to them, its just occurs, as if my magic.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, PrimalMinister said:

But have I not provided a solution that explains how to get the laws of the universe everywhere?

No. For example, one might reasonably ask: why are all of your " tiny virtual reality machines" the same everywhere? What causes them to behave the same in all of space and across all of time? In fact, what created them in the first place?

And you have no evidence for your fairy stories.

 

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

This is what I mean by space moving things about, not things moving about space.

So tiny virtual reality machines move objects through space exactly the way we can predict various forces do? What are the forces doing?

Why would you need a reason why physical laws are the same everywhere, besides the overall makeup of the universe? Why wouldn't the same laws apply in chemistry somewhere else? The laws include being able to accommodate many differing factors.

36 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

That is space, now time.

Now you need to re-explain relativity. You've studied relativity, right, at least as well as you studied cosmology?

 

Wouldn't it be great if you were right and all those stupidheads who studied science in school were WRONG, making YOU the leading authority on... well, EVERYTHING?! All that study for nothing, and you just whipped this up out of your head! It must be great to be so intuitive about things others find difficult.