Alan McDougall Posted July 7, 2008 Author Share Posted July 7, 2008 Maybe I should have thought more carefully about the title of my thread. Take mount Everest, one simply cannot conceive of its immensity unless you try to clime the monster. Ask any mountaineer and they will tell you ,even after climbing, it remains beyond conception. My grandson who has climbed the much smaller mountain of Kilimanjaro, says it remaines surreal and so huge he could not rap his mind around it vastness. As a South African where one can easily go to a park and see a huge bull Elephant, one must stand side by side to appreciate it colossal massiveness. To say you can do the same with a universe which may be infinite is just silly Regards Alan I acknowledge that the small scale universe is also difficult to comprehend, but it is really all about the huge number of viruses/ microbes etc, you must contend with. A single drop of water contains more atoms than there are stars are in the known Universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Maybe I should have thought more carefully about the title of my thread. Take mount Everest, one simply cannot conceive of its immensity unless you try to clime the monster. Ask any mountaineer and they will tell you ,even after climbing, it remains beyond conception. I really can, I have skied a vertical kilometre in about 15 minutes, look at the distance you have travelled and then times it by 9, that isn't even a large factor. Most people without any sense of scale could imagine that, maybe you are the exception here A single drop of water contains more atoms than there are stars are in the known UniverseWe don't know how many stars there are in the universe we only have rough estimates, so I can hardly see how you can make that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antimatter Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Most people without any sense of scale could imagine that, maybe you are the exception here He's just making untrue assumptions based on his shortcomings, don't bother getting aggressive, Psycho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan McDougall Posted July 8, 2008 Author Share Posted July 8, 2008 (edited) I leave it at your elevated level of perception, anyway I gave it a bash "Demigods." I hope this problem of deductive reasoning has not already been put to the forum If so please disregard. Edited July 9, 2008 by Sayonara³ Removed "ball balancing problem" post to new thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Sar, You look at tiny things, then tell me what is the most powerful microscope on earth? Oh I am "not going the god route by the way", however, to really comprehend the vastness of the universe you would need to view it from a great obsever platform, something just like your microscope in reverse. Why? How do you know that what we see is not what we get? How do you know that we won't just develop better and better pieces of equipment that, eventually, will show us everything? Whether I believe that or not is a different matter. The issue is that since this is NOT a speculation forum (not that it would change the request, even if it was, and I think it should be) - you need to BASE your claims on facts, citations, some sort of logical trail of thought - anything, really, that would separate your claims from preaching to scientific debating. Regardless, this thread should probably move to the Pseudoscience/Speculations forums.. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Agreed, moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Ball Balancing problem moved here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34038 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan McDougall Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 Why the heck move it?? Now any speculation about the universe becomes psuedoscience CERN most "poweful microcrope" in search of the "God Particle" And if we are not allowed to speculate!! what is the reason for this forums existence?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Many forums would have simply deleted this thread. They are nice enough to have only moved it. Think of it as purgatory -- there's still a way out, but you have to start talking facts and addressing criticisms. You can't just insist that the universe is unimaginably vast, as us scientists will simply use an exponential measurement rather than a liner one when things get really big. And exponents cut down the truly enormous to a small size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I moved it into speculation, because it was fast heading down that route. The LHC at CERN is not a microscope but a particle accelerator. The "god particle" is a poor slang term for the Higgs Boson, the term is not well liked by alot of people and was originally used in a non-serious way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor Daddy Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I moved it into speculation, because it was fast heading down that route. The LHC at CERN is not a microscope but a particle accelerator. The "god particle" is a poor slang term for the Higgs Boson, the term is not well liked by alot of people and was originally used in a non-serious way You mean they were joking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 You mean they were joking? Not really a joke, but certainly not serious, it was in the title of a book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan McDougall Posted July 10, 2008 Author Share Posted July 10, 2008 Klaynos I moved it into speculation, because it was fast heading down that route. The LHC at CERN is not a microscope but a particle accelerator. The "god particle" is a poor slang term for the Higgs Boson, the term is not well liked by alot of The CERN paticle collider decidely is a microscope, it looks at the minute or tiny using particles instead of electrons or photons Micro (small)-scope(observe or view). I am informed in science/physics but you guys dont want to give me space to ground myself into the forum. My essay "The unimaginable vastness of the universe" has been posted on the numeruous forum I have visted or joined without once the negative comments I unkindly received here. It was worded by me in a manner that peak the interest ofthe lesser informed hat visit the site. My original post that started this thread was not speculative read it again. (it contained facts) If science were confined to present facts and not allowed to speculate we might still be living in caves trying in vain to crack a nut with a rock. Other nonscience people visit the forum so I worded my thread to be of interest, now you have moved it into the esotic were it does not belong. Just wisper the word and I will excuse my unwelcome presence Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Your first post was supposed to be an essay? It has several grammatical errors, which would be kind of problematic for an essay even in grade school. Though it starts with facts, it ends in speculation, speculation which appears to be against the laws of physics. I think most of the bad vibes come from claiming the universe is unimaginably large in a forum where most people understand exactly how large the observable universe is, and from the suggestion of instant teleportation which violates the laws of physics. Suggesting psychic teleportation was probably even worse. Claiming that a particle accelerator is a microscope is not helping either. One subtle difference is that a particle accelerator creates particles from energy, and a microscope looks at objects. Also, speculation is allowed on this site, so long as it is vaguely reasonable. However, speculation that has been disproven is highly disapproved of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 The CERN paticle collider decidely is a microscope, it looks at the minute or tiny using particles instead of electrons or photons Micro (small)-scope(observe or view). It is not a microscope in the norma sense of the word, which is an object that magnifies and images, via some means, an object, and does so without undue distortion. It's used here metaphorically, as a representation of a device that's looking for things that are very small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 My original post that started this thread was not speculative read it again. (it contained facts) You're calling these facts? To reach far galaxies with a Voyager like spacecraft would take almost an eternity and it is obvious that this cannot be the ultimate method of crossing the universe. I foresee instant teleportation or some type of mind/spiritual means as the method used by advanced humanity in the very distant future to explore the universe. Maybe they are not far at all, right next to us in an parallel universe or alternate dimension only requiring a portal to visite our reality "The universe could be a sphere of infinite radius" By Alan McDougall 15/9/2007 What evidence do you have to support these remarks as facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan McDougall Posted July 10, 2008 Author Share Posted July 10, 2008 OK My badly written essay, so full of grammatical errors has some speculations in it. For the life of me, why do you not allow original thought on this forum? Einstein and Newton would have been most unwelcome here. Must we just sit on the back of scientists that came before us? Sort of standing on their shoulders instead of our own There was I little crazy man who speculated on riding on a light beam, what nonsense is this. “He was no less than Einstein”. Ok, if I post anything in future I will enclose myself in a box of present scientific knowledge, never ever dare to offend the lofty establishment for fear of their wrath. Heck, maybe by doing this I can avoid being burned at the stake. When Hubble said the universe was more than our galaxy, he at first received vitriolic derision. “The Milky Way was the whole universe stupid” they said. The mortal Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 So you come around telling us how unimaginative we are and how unable we are to comprehend nature, then you complain about any criticism you receive. Me thinks perhaps you should examine the rules here, particularly 2.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan McDougall Posted July 10, 2008 Author Share Posted July 10, 2008 "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." "READ THIS" "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible." (DAMN STUPID SPECULATIONS LIKE MINE) "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "IS IT POSSIBLE TO IMAGINE AN IMPOSSIBILTY?" A Class I impossibility is something that doesn't violate the known laws of physics, and could conceivably become possible decades or a century from now. Back in 1800, airplanes might have been on that list, just as "Star Trek"-style cloaking devices are today. Class II is reserved for technologies that sit on the very edge of our understanding of physics, and might be realized thousands or millions of years in the future. Faster-than-light spaceships, wormholes and backward time travel are on Kaku's Class II list. Class III impossibilities . Buillding perpetual motion machines and predicting the future are the two broad topics that get a Class III rating in Kaku's book. (But if you can go back into the past, couldn't you in effect predict or change the future? Well, maybe not.) Scientists are working on ways to make whatever you put inside a specially shaped hunk of metamaterial invisible - but only in certain wavelengths. Quantum teleportation is indeed a reality already - but what's teleported is actually information rather than, say, "Star Trek" crew members or characters from the movie "Jumper." (THUS INCLUDED IN MY BAD ESSAY) Even backward causality is the subject of serious research - but there's likely to be a yet-to-be-discovered clause in the laws of physics that will rule out time paradoxes. Comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 OK My badly written essay, so full of grammatical errors has some speculations in it. For the life of me, why do you not allow original thought on this forum? Einstein and Newton would have been most unwelcome here. Must we just sit on the back of scientists that came before us? Sort of standing on their shoulders instead of our own There was I little crazy man who speculated on riding on a light beam, what nonsense is this. “He was no less than Einstein”. Ok, if I post anything in future I will enclose myself in a box of present scientific knowledge, never ever dare to offend the lofty establishment for fear of their wrath. Heck, maybe by doing this I can avoid being burned at the stake. When Hubble said the universe was more than our galaxy, he at first received vitriolic derision. “The Milky Way was the whole universe stupid” they said. The mortal Alan When crackpots show up, they often complain about people not thinking outside the box, and comparing themselves to some luminary from the past, and talk about how they are persecuted. They get sidetracked from the main discussion by criticism, which they take personally. Thus, one could not use this post to differentiate you from a crackpot. Speculation does not mean "anything goes." It is still expected that the discussion will proceed according to scientific protocols that are appropriate to the type of speculation. A lot of that is spelled out here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33653 And this http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24349 might be useful as well. "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." "READ THIS" "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible." (DAMN STUPID SPECULATIONS LIKE MINE) "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "IS IT POSSIBLE TO IMAGINE AN IMPOSSIBILTY?" A Class I impossibility is something that doesn't violate the known laws of physics, and could conceivably become possible decades or a century from now. Back in 1800, airplanes might have been on that list, just as "Star Trek"-style cloaking devices are today. Class II is reserved for technologies that sit on the very edge of our understanding of physics, and might be realized thousands or millions of years in the future. Faster-than-light spaceships, wormholes and backward time travel are on Kaku's Class II list. Class III impossibilities . Buillding perpetual motion machines and predicting the future are the two broad topics that get a Class III rating in Kaku's book. (But if you can go back into the past, couldn't you in effect predict or change the future? Well, maybe not.) Scientists are working on ways to make whatever you put inside a specially shaped hunk of metamaterial invisible - but only in certain wavelengths. Quantum teleportation is indeed a reality already - but what's teleported is actually information rather than, say, "Star Trek" crew members or characters from the movie "Jumper." (THUS INCLUDED IN MY BAD ESSAY) Even backward causality is the subject of serious research - but there's likely to be a yet-to-be-discovered clause in the laws of physics that will rule out time paradoxes. Comments? Yes. Don't plagiarize. Sections of this appears to be lifted verbatim from someone else's work, and is not attributed. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/11/757361.aspx?p=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 For the life of me, why do you not allow original thought on this forum? Einstein and Newton would have been most unwelcome here. I have yet to see a single person placing restrictions on your freedom to express your ideas. You are not being muzzled, your assertions are being challenged. There's quite a big difference that I encourage you to try seeing. Again, you have near perfect freedom to express and discuss your ideas, just as others have near perfect freedom to dissect them and show where they are at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Alan, If you don't want people to disagree with the things you say, I suggest that you cancel your Internet account. You are not finding objection here because you are somehow being persecuted, and you are not the first person arrogant enough to make themselves out to be a latter-day Galileo, Einstein, or Newton, as a means of drawing attention away from their ideas having no structural substance. If what you say has any merit, then by definition it must fit in with the "present facts" of physics. Get over yourself and demonstrate your arguments, or stop wasting everyone's time. Why the heck move it?? Now any speculation about the universe becomes psuedoscience Because modern physics has no interest in whether or not you can juggle your balls. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 I'd like to point out it's: Pseudoscience and Speculations Not: Pseudoscience with Speculations So it's perfectly clear that there can be non pseudoscience posts in this forum which are just speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 There was I little crazy man who speculated on riding on a light beam, what nonsense is this. That's ridiculous. If you were to travel at the speed of light, you would violate Maxwell's equations. Quantum teleportation is indeed a reality already - but what's teleported is actually information rather than, say, "Star Trek" crew members or characters from the movie "Jumper." (THUS INCLUDED IN MY BAD ESSAY) That's silly -- using quantum information transfer at the speed of light, will never get you instant teleportation. Hint: there are two separate things here, and they are sometimes confused. The quantum teleportation allows light-speed transfer of quantum information, potentially allowing the creation of a perfect copy at the other end. Whereas quantum entanglement allows two different people to receive random, but opposite bits. Though the photons for this must be transmitted at the speed of light, apparently observing one of them will cause the wavefunction to collapse instantaneously. However, this method cannot transmit information. Even backward causality is the subject of serious research - but there's likely to be a yet-to-be-discovered clause in the laws of physics that will rule out time paradoxes. Comments? Probably the same clause that forbids time travel in the first place (that's speculation, by the way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 That's ridiculous. If you were to travel at the speed of light, you would violate Maxwell's equations. It's thought experiment. "Imagine you are a photon." Nothing wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now