I would like to speculate,:-
That although REALITY itself is absolute, (Full Stop! ). It is , or can be, modelled by a host of different means, for different purposes.

Pictorially ! By Language ! By mathematics ! By physical constructed models! By Computer simulation! And no doubt a host of other types of models I have not mentioned yet.

We might be tempted to feel that one or two or three sorts of models are better or more important ,than any other?

Might it encourage a better understanding if we used either a single specific model , a set selection of models or as many models as possible, so as to focus on a detail of reality OR , in order to gain a ' a wider , a more complete , or valuable ' insight into ' the nature of REALITY ? In so doing we might thus view reality in the way we use different magnification in the use of various microscope lenses.

 

For example:

 

1). A model of an atomic particle in motion, is probably best modeled with maths, and maybe some illustration.

 

However

 

2) The whole planet earth is probably best modeled by James Lovelock's model The Gia Hypothesis and computer simulation models .

3) The Universe ......Well there is a something to model ......

 

.

Mike

Edited June 14, 201411 yr by Mike Smith Cosmos

For example:

 

3) The Universe ......Well there is a something to model ......

 

 

 

We , have in the past made models by constructing a wooden model. Say a ships hull to move through water in a tank to model drag and float.

 

What might we wish to model of the universe that we could test with say a wooden or metal model ?

This may only be able to model one small part of reality , but it could be meaningful.

 

mike

Edited June 15, 201411 yr by Mike Smith Cosmos

With the liberal use of exclamation points.

With the liberal use of exclamation points.

 

Not quite sure what you mean . !!!!!!!!

 

I am suggesting that we do not necessarily need a Large Hadron collider , or A Giga Giga fast Computer simulation to model a small or Big , or very specific , aspect of the Universe. ( Rather a bench top experiment ) [ Bring back Bench top experiments, then we can all have a Go ]

 

We could get a 5 Kgm Weight on the end of a 16 metre rope. Swing it around in the middle of a football pitch, ( with people well clear ) to get a good model picture and feel of what either the Galaxy or even the universe feels like as it rotates. !!!! Dark Matter and all !!!

 

As the radius and mass change the rotation changes. Galaxy size we are up to one rotation in a million or so years. Notice, [ should you conduct the experiment] how slowly the revolutions are as radius increases and mass increases ( as you try to feel and maintain a functioning circular rotation , as indeed the galaxy needs to maintain its integrity . With dark matter ) ( the proof of dark matter in a bench top or playing field experiment enables us to feel , in principle at least )

 

- FEEL THE FORCE -

 

True to get a quantitative answer, we would need to invoke a mathematical model in order to cloth the experiment with numerical answers . [ eg m v squared /r = m g , F = G m1 m2/r squared etc ]

 

mike

 

WILL THE OWNER OF THE ( -1 ) STEP FORWARD AND BE COUNTED . So at least I can see who you are . Thank you !

 

ps. I am sorry for grammatical errors. It took me 5 attempts to get GCE English to ultimately get into university. [ In the end successful ].

I do care , very much , please excuse me .

Edited June 15, 201411 yr by Mike Smith Cosmos

Whatever is most accurate. They are all mental mappings. Impossible for us to create a perfect 1:1 mapping.

 

Some of what we would need to model has no true analog in our everyday world. Real but locally impossible to accurately represent.

 

A number of what is currently being experimented on doesn't fit on the bench. More practical in the life sciences, where biohacking spaces are indeed becoming a reality.

 

Aside:

Grammatical issues do detract from the points you try to make. There is an associated learning disorder. Without providing a reason though, people are forced to assume you just don't care.

I don't see anything remotely offensive in post#4.

 

Surely if someone doesn't like the subject the simple answer is not to visit the thread?

WILL THE OWNER OF THE ( -1 ) STEP FORWARD AND BE COUNTED . So at least I can see who you are . Thank you !

 

!

Moderator Note

Stop doing this. Demanding a member who gives reputation to identify themselves is off-topic for ANY thread.

 

Do not respond to the modnote.

A very interesting model. Is that involving gravity.

 

I was speaking to a water engineer, asking how water actually knows it is slightly higher in order to flow, even when only a small difference in height is present.

 

His answer was that it all depended , not on the depth of the water but on the shape of the ground under the water. In other words he said it was the difference in ground (under the water ) ,that gave the potential difference for flow.

 

He said ( which made my ears prick up ) that it was like Electricity. In other words (he said ) , it was merely the potential difference that counted. Not the potential. Having worked more with electricity than water, it made complete sense as a model. So electrical potential and current flow is a really good model for water based on gravitational potential. This is the opposite way round to that which I had been used to on myriads of times ,having used water as a model of electricity , in education .

 

Thus in order to plot , inspect, and examine gravity , and hence the surface of a gravitational surface existing in front of our eyes ,we need only look at the surface of the water, sea ,or lake, to sea the surface of a unique gravity field .

 

Mike

 

What this means for water flow based on the contour of the ground under the water or water current , means for gravity , I have not yet thought through . But now one has a model in electricity , it has exciting opportunities.

 

 

Note . The only water that gives rise to flow or current is above the underwater contour only . Not the vast bulk of water . Only the small potential difference.

 

What then makes up the reality ? ( gravity ) not water or electricity .

Edited June 16, 201411 yr by Mike Smith Cosmos

I am suggesting that we do not necessarily need a Large Hadron collider ,

 

Don't you think so that suggesting getting rid of particle accelerators and replacing them by "5 kg mass on rope" is kinda ridiculous.. ?

 

It shows your misunderstanding what these devices are even doing..

 

or A Giga Giga fast Computer simulation to model a small or Big , or very specific , aspect of the Universe

 

What else these fast computers would be doing? Do you prefer to calculate nuclear explosions simulations on them, instead of doing something for science.. ?

Don't you think so that suggesting getting rid of particle accelerators and replacing them by "5 kg mass on rope" is kinda ridiculous.. ?

 

It shows your misunderstanding what these devices are even doing..

 

 

 

What else these fast computers would be doing? Do you prefer to calculate nuclear explosions simulations on them, instead of doing something for science.. ?

No. I am sorry you misunderstand me . I am not saying we should not have the LHC or super computers . I am saying , in the mean time , those of us that do not have access to these devices can still do experiments ourselves to investigate some natures of reality , at the same time. As above with the water. Also electricity. Both are models of gravity potential , in a gravity well extending to the centre of the earth. However mass must also be included in any model of gravity ? So ? One could ask what is the equivalent of mass in the water and electric model?

Edited June 16, 201411 yr by Mike Smith Cosmos

 

As the radius and mass change the rotation changes. Galaxy size we are up to one rotation in a million or so years.

One rotation around galaxy center takes Sun 225-250 million years.

 

Sun has velocity ~220 km/s. Distance to galaxy is average ~2.7*10^17 km.

Circle has length 2*PI*r = 2*3.14159265*2.7*10^17 = ~1.7*10^18 km

1.7*10^18 km / 220 km/s = 7.71*10^15 s / ( 60*60*24*365.25 ) = 244,352,611 = 244.4 mln years (within 225-250 mln years range).

For elliptical orbit we would need to know min-max distance to galaxy center.

Edited June 16, 201411 yr by Sensei

One rotation around galaxy center takes Sun 225-250 million years.

 

Sun has velocity ~220 km/s. Distance to galaxy is average ~2.7*10^17 km.

Circle has length 2*PI*r = 2*3.14159265*2.7*10^17 = ~1.7*10^18 km

1.7*10^18 km / 220 km/s = 7.71*10^15 s / ( 60*60*24*365.25 ) = 244,352,611 = 244.4 mln years (within 225-250 mln years range).

For elliptical orbit we would need to know min-max distance to galaxy center.

We could do with knowing the mass of the galaxy ( without dark matter) . All the Baryonic matter in all the stars ,dust , plantets etc .

 

Mike

Edited June 16, 201411 yr by Mike Smith Cosmos