FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Philosophy > General Philosophy

Greetings!

General Philosophy Thought-provoking, philosophical discussions.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-26-2005, 03:59 AM
galatomic's Avatar
galatomic galatomic is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 377
The World as Civilization and Technology - A New World View

In this thread I intend to introduce a new philosophically critical “World View”. In my opinion, this world view is the first such significant and completely revolutionary world view since the Copernican Revolution. I am actually a humble person and to make this claim sounds audacious especially to my own ears. But it is not I that I am promoting but rather these “ideas” that have come to me after seriously reading certain philosophers and regularly taking long walks on our beautiful Atlantic Coast in Brigantine NJ.

Tarnas in “The Passion of the Western Mind” mentions Kuhn and Grof’s description of a paradigm revolution. It takes place within an intellectually nourishing structure until it is experienced as constricting. This structure for me has been hard science. It was a limitation, a prison, and finally a crisis occurred. Then along came an inspired breakthrough, a new vision that gave my scientific mind a new sense of being connected – reconnected – to the world; an intellectual revolution occurred, and a new paradigm has been born.

Tarnas also notes Popper’s description of modern man as approaching the world as a stranger-but a stranger who has a thirst for explanation, and an ability to invent myths, stories, theories, and a willingness to test these. Sometimes, by hard work and many mistakes, a myth is found to work and the theory saves the phenomena. Tarnas’ contention then is that these ideas don’t come out of nothing but come out of the wellspring of nature itself, from the universal unconscious that is bringing forth through the human mind and imagination it’s own gradually unfolding reality.

I have a new myth about the world and before it can even begin to be tested it has to be unfolded and understood more or less as a story about the world. As with most new theories, and here I am thinking of string theory as a good example, there is a phase in the beginning where the theorists first merely attempt to explain our existing uncontested facts of the world in terms of the new theory before actually offering solutions to known contradictions (e.g. relativity v.s. quantum mechanics) and then proceeding to the main ambition which is to make new predictions. And all this often proceeds from a simpler vision of the underlying elements that have been overlooked.

In coming posts I will sketch out this new world view.

As I mentioned in my interview, it is a fantastical shocking new view of our world that develops a fractal model of the world asserting that our galaxy and all the other galaxies in our world are not just collections of tiny "atoms" but are really collections of tiny galaxies populated with advanced civilizations. Our contemporary science, with its overly anal empirical blinders, has failed to see that “atoms” are just the “Black Hole” centers of what actually are tiny galaxies.

I will after explicating this new idea show how it has great new explanatory powers about the world in general and biology in particular. We then will be able to see how and “why” our familiar world came into being. We will then be able to understand what came before “The Big Bang” and why “Evolution” or “God” is not the whole story. There are “causal” elements in the world that “Science” has overlooked and there are the facts and limitations of any “Religious” interpretation that this new view also introduces. God will be seen miniaturized and clothed in the kind of “Technology” that promotes the values of “Civilization”.

galatomic
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 08-26-2005, 06:27 AM
piglet piglet is offline
ChemE turned Mover
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Idaho, USA
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
As I mentioned in my interview, it is a fantastical shocking new view of our world that develops a fractal model of the world asserting that our galaxy and all the other galaxies in our world are not just collections of tiny "atoms" but are really collections of tiny galaxies populated with advanced civilizations. Our contemporary science, with its overly anal empirical blinders, has failed to see that “atoms” are just the “Black Hole” centers of what actually are tiny galaxies.
Wow! I would be interested in hearing more. I don't know a lot about the more 'heady' physics, but years ago I pondered a simular idea. Our "atoms" compose "galaxies" and our galaxy in an "atom" in another galaxy. Kind of blows ones mind on the order of things.
__________________
UNIVERSALIST, n. One who forgoes the advantage of a Hell for persons of another faith.
- Ambrose Bierce
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-26-2005, 06:36 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
In this thread I intend to introduce a new philosophically critical “World View”. In my opinion, this world view is the first such significant and completely revolutionary world view since the Copernican Revolution. I am actually a humble person and to make this claim sounds audacious especially to my own ears. But it is not I that I am promoting but rather these “ideas” that have come to me after seriously reading certain philosophers and regularly taking long walks on our beautiful Atlantic Coast in Brigantine NJ.

Tarnas in “The Passion of the Western Mind” mentions Kuhn and Grof’s description of a paradigm revolution. It takes place within an intellectually nourishing structure until it is experienced as constricting. This structure for me has been hard science. It was a limitation, a prison, and finally a crisis occurred. Then along came an inspired breakthrough, a new vision that gave my scientific mind a new sense of being connected – reconnected – to the world; an intellectual revolution occurred, and a new paradigm has been born.

Tarnas also notes Popper’s description of modern man as approaching the world as a stranger-but a stranger who has a thirst for explanation, and an ability to invent myths, stories, theories, and a willingness to test these. Sometimes, by hard work and many mistakes, a myth is found to work and the theory saves the phenomena. Tarnas’ contention then is that these ideas don’t come out of nothing but come out of the wellspring of nature itself, from the universal unconscious that is bringing forth through the human mind and imagination it’s own gradually unfolding reality.

I have a new myth about the world and before it can even begin to be tested it has to be unfolded and understood more or less as a story about the world. As with most new theories, and here I am thinking of string theory as a good example, there is a phase in the beginning where the theorists first merely attempt to explain our existing uncontested facts of the world in terms of the new theory before actually offering solutions to known contradictions (e.g. relativity v.s. quantum mechanics) and then proceeding to the main ambition which is to make new predictions. And all this often proceeds from a simpler vision of the underlying elements that have been overlooked.

In coming posts I will sketch out this new world view.

As I mentioned in my interview, it is a fantastical shocking new view of our world that develops a fractal model of the world asserting that our galaxy and all the other galaxies in our world are not just collections of tiny "atoms" but are really collections of tiny galaxies populated with advanced civilizations. Our contemporary science, with its overly anal empirical blinders, has failed to see that “atoms” are just the “Black Hole” centers of what actually are tiny galaxies.

I will after explicating this new idea show how it has great new explanatory powers about the world in general and biology in particular. We then will be able to see how and “why” our familiar world came into being. We will then be able to understand what came before “The Big Bang” and why “Evolution” or “God” is not the whole story. There are “causal” elements in the world that “Science” has overlooked and there are the facts and limitations of any “Religious” interpretation that this new view also introduces. God will be seen miniaturized and clothed in the kind of “Technology” that promotes the values of “Civilization”.

galatomic

Bold claims require bold proof - so the expression goes. Microcosm vs macrocosm are old ideas. Are there moons around electrons? Are electrons 'solid'? The elements above the atomic number of iron come out of supernovas. Are you suggesting electrons are not elemental but are composites somehow? Particle accelerators can probe down to 1/1000'th the size of a proton and quarks make up protons and neutrons and they whir around at relativistic speeds. There are many, many reasons not to believe the atomic world is like the macroscopic world. You would have to explain a ton of phenomena scientifically - not simply philosophically.

Although know something about fractals - like fractal art and Mandelbrot set etc, I suggest you start something there. I really doubt there are many people that know much of anything about fractals here. For some great fractal art (great for screen savers) search on xenodream. I also really doubt more than one or 2 know who either Popper or Kuhn are let alone their works.
At the moment I am moving through Greek Philosophy and Classical Mythology.

If and when you get a lot of 3'rd grade responses, just remember you provided the fodder/impetus/boldness to expose yourself/ideas/at least you provided the intitial content to begin with/-Have- a story to be criticized in the first instance. Storyless is the rule. Hesiod/Theogony/Apollodorus - called upon by the muses was Hesiod's excuse for explaining the Kosmos. Even if you have a good story, unless you have a qualified audience, it is usless. This is the web/JUNGLE.

God tarnished by a mind is clothed by it. God in a box. Not. Time to go sacrifice 100 bulls to Apollo.....

Mike Dubbeld
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-27-2005, 12:39 AM
galatomic's Avatar
galatomic galatomic is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 377
Mike and Piglet – I thank you both for your interest and good questions.

I think piglet is closer to getting the “Idea” being presented here than Mike. But I would expect that the ‘heady physics’ that Mike is very versed in and is mentioned by piglet is the culprit here.

Let’s take a look at what piglet is suggesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by piglet
Our "atoms" compose "galaxies" and our galaxy in an "atom" in another galaxy.
This is close but still misses the point.

What I am saying is that you need to substitute in the above statement the word “galaxy” for atom. I am asserting that the nuclei of our atoms are actually the centers of teeny galaxies. I will explain in future posts why atomic nuclei appear to be different than what we see at the centers of “our” (macro) galaxies but I am hoping your mind will be leaping ahead seeing the similarities.

Our galaxies, our rocks are not collections of atoms but collections of micro galaxies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
Are there moons around electrons?
– No

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
Are electrons 'solid'?
– Hardly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
Are you suggesting electrons are not elemental but are composites somehow?
Not really, however in standard theory they are composites of leptons just as protons are composed of quarks. Quarks/Leptons are the fundamental particles of the standard theory. That line of thought is the “vertical” direction with which contemporary physics is obsessed. Look horizontally.

I am claiming that physics has made an error in reducing matter into composites of atoms. Now there is no actual harm in doing this if we and our scientists realize that we have made this approximation and that we are looking at cabbages without their roots or apples without their trees. Galaxies are irreducible elements of the world. They can only be reduced to more little galaxies. They are reducible in size only – not in kind. This is then a “fractal” approach like craters within craters, coastlines within coastlines.

What we are missing is a lower fractal level of stars and planetary systems that have the nuclei of atoms as their galactic centers. This stellar and planetary material is based, of course, on particles of a lower fractal order that has its own teeny weenie Planks constant.

This material came from their own natural world whose “Plank’s constant” I would guess to be as much smaller than our own as the size of an atom is smaller than the size of our galaxy. That is nominally 1 Bohr atomic radius divided by the distance light travels in 50,000 light years (galaxy radius)(0.529 x 10**-10m/ (4.61 x 10 ** 19m)) times our Plank’s constant. An unimaginably small quantity but it is still not “nothing”.

The birth of this vision began with an article about black holes called “Black Holes Spin?” in “Discover” magazine by Robert Kunzig. From actual data collected about a black hole at the center of MCG-6-30-15, a galaxy 130 light years away, they conclude that it is spinning and is very much like a giant electromagnetic generator.

I immediately began thinking of how similar black holes are to the fundamental particles in the Standard Theory (quarks, leptons, etc.). That is, they are points of discontinuity within the formulas describing their behavior, but they have spatial position, spin and are force generators. This suggests that atoms may be more like our galaxies than we realize and our galaxies may end up looking more like atoms billions of years from now. That is, as galaxies age the free ranging black holes, estimated to be around 10 million in our galaxy, will collect into fewer but larger objects. These giant holes will then dominate the picture in terms of physical forces compared to any stellar or planetary systems that manage to survive into that distant future. What that means is that from either a great distance or different scale the behavior of our galaxies, for most practical purposes, would be taken to be the behavior of the black hole centers of our galaxies. Our Galactic life would then become irrelevant to these “distant” scientists.

Would a God’s eye view mistake our aged galaxies for mechanical objects? In our observations of the atomic world we are missing the stellar and planetary remnants that are overshadowed by the mechanical forces of their surroundings(The Standard Theory Forces)?

I have much more to say both about the differences and the similarities between atoms and galactic centers.

galatomic
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-27-2005, 06:47 AM
Dragon's Avatar
Dragon Dragon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,365
Send a message via AIM to Dragon Send a message via MSN to Dragon Send a message via Yahoo to Dragon
Wow, i will admit this is over my head. but interesting.

But...

Mike:

when ya say he might recieve 3rd grade responses, that is low man, you dont give some of us the benifit just because we dont follow what you think this world runs on....
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-27-2005, 09:10 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
Mike and Piglet – I thank you both for your interest and good questions.

Not really, however in standard theory they are composites of leptons just as protons are composed of quarks. Quarks/Leptons are the fundamental particles of the standard theory. That line of thought is the “vertical” direction with which contemporary physics is obsessed. Look horizontally.

I am claiming that physics has made an error in reducing matter into composites of atoms. Now there is no actual harm in doing this if we and our scientists realize that we have made this approximation and that we are looking at cabbages without their roots or apples without their trees. Galaxies are irreducible elements of the world. They can only be reduced to more little galaxies. They are reducible in size only – not in kind. This is then a “fractal” approach like craters within craters, coastlines within coastlines.
There is no reason to believe galaxies are special as there are all kinds of things we call galaxies of various shapes and sizes. Just how the primordial plasma 380,000 years After Big Bang (ABB) panned out as clusters of galaxies. There's also nothing real special about pine cones, Sun flowers, pineapple patterns either/it’s a natural sort of thing. Galaxies wound up as they did by being slung/torn gravitationally apart by interacting and so forth. There can be millions or billions of stars in galaxies. They can be elliptical, spiral, irregular etc. They have no particular shape. No particular size. Hydrogen coalesced into stars in them according to the aggregate pull of masses of hydrogen atoms being slightly favored gravitationally in one direction or another and slowly coming together over millions of years. What’s that got to do with fractals?

Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
What we are missing is a lower fractal level of stars and planetary systems that have the nuclei of atoms as their galactic centers. This stellar and planetary material is based, of course, on particles of a lower fractal order that has its own teeny weenie Planks constant.

This material came from their own natural world whose “Plank’s constant” I would guess to be as much smaller than our own as the size of an atom is smaller than the size of our galaxy. That is nominally 1 Bohr atomic radius divided by the distance light travels in 50,000 light years (galaxy radius)(0.529 x 10**-10m/ (4.61 x 10 ** 19m)) times our Plank’s constant. An unimaginably small quantity but it is still not “nothing”.
Suppose you live on an electron that circles a galaxy.

‘According to the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, the electron in the ground state moves in a circular orbit of radius 0.529 x 10^-10 meters, and the speed of the electron in this state is 2.2 x 10^6 meters/second’ College Physics Serway/Faughn vol II 6’th edition p871 Chapter 28 Atomic Physics. 8-26-5

It follows that the Bohr orbit is 50,000 light years too big for us living on this electron.

0.529 x 10^-10meters/(your) 4.61 x 10^19 meters without Planck’s constant. That would be the comparable radius of the next level down radius of a microscopic atom living on your electron.

h = 6.6260755 x 10^-34 J•s Kenneth Krane Modern Physics p74 2nd Edition ©1996

0.529 x 10^-10meters/(your) 4.61 x 10^19 meters = 1.148 x 10^-30 x 6.6260755 x 10^34 J•s =
7.603 x 10^-64 Js

My calculations show

Light travels at 2.99792458 x 10^8 meters/second
In a year light travels 2.99792458 x 10^8 met/sec (about 3 x 10^8 met/sec or 300,000 km/sec)
2.99792458 x 10^8 met/sec x 60 sec/min x 60 min/hour x 24 hours/day x 365 days/year =
9.45425495 x 10^15 or 9.45 x 10^15 meters per year = 9.45 x 10^12 kilometers/year. (about 6 trillion miles)
1 Light year = about 9.45 x 10^15 meters or 6 trillion miles

50,000 LY x 9.45 x 10^15 meters = 4.73 x 10^20 meters <------

4.73 x 10^20 meters is greater than 4.61 x 10^19 by an order of magnitude. I could be wrong.
The new calculation is –

0.529 x 10^-10meters/4.73 x 10^20 meters = 1.12 x 10-31 x 6.6260755 x 10^-34 J•s =
7.41 x 10^-65 Js for a Planck’s Constant for a person living on this electron.

Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
The birth of this vision began with an article about black holes called “Black Holes Spin?” in “Discover” magazine by Robert Kunzig. From actual data collected about a black hole at the center of MCG-6-30-15, a galaxy 130 light years away, they conclude that it is spinning and is very much like a giant electromagnetic generator.
‘Black holes have no hair.’ John Wheeler quote. He also coined the phrase ‘black hole.’ He was found to be wrong by Hawking later on but he meant black holes only have mass, charge and spin. Just like subatomic particles. However, it has since been learned they also have other properties like ‘strangeness.’ (My response to your post is an example of conservation of strangeness…..

What is the year and month of the Discover article as I have lots of them. You might like the Scientific American May 2005 p48-55 by Bernard J. Carr and Steven B. Giddings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
I immediately began thinking of how similar black holes are to the fundamental particles in the Standard Theory (quarks, leptons, etc.). That is, they are points of discontinuity within the formulas describing their behavior, but they have spatial position, spin and are force generators. This suggests that atoms may be more like our galaxies than we realize and our galaxies may end up looking more like atoms billions of years from now.
Electrons have no spatial extent. Try to find the dimensions of an electron. You won’t. Only mass (.511 MeV), charge (-1) and spin (1/2 lepton).

Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
That is, as galaxies age the free ranging black holes, estimated to be around 10 million in our galaxy, will collect into fewer but larger objects. These giant holes will then dominate the picture in terms of physical forces compared to any stellar or planetary systems that manage to survive into that distant future. What that means is that from either a great distance or different scale the behavior of our galaxies, for most practical purposes, would be taken to be the behavior of the black hole centers of our galaxies. Our Galactic life would then become irrelevant to these “distant” scientists.
10^64 years is when stellar mass black holes evaporate –
‘For a solar mass hole, the lifetime is an unobservably long 1064 years.’ ibid

Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
Would a God’s eye view mistake our aged galaxies for mechanical objects? In our observations of the atomic world we are missing the stellar and planetary remnants that are overshadowed by the mechanical forces of their surroundings(The Standard Theory Forces)?

I have much more to say both about the differences and the similarities between atoms and galactic centers.

galatomic
Have to do a lot better than that. I disagree with your whole approach anyway. Not thinking in terms of finding Planck lengths of residents on an electron world because a Planck length for example is so small now it is untestable so it is a good way for you to be accused of what string theorists are accused of – reducing the size of elementary particles right out of the testable arena. You should be going the other way – normalizing speeds of electrons UP to the macroscopic level of galaxies to find similarities.

A Planck length is so small that if an atom was enlarged to the size of the current Universe, a Planck length would be the size of a small tree in that Universe. Now you want to talk about reducing the scale again by a similar factor. Good luck. Not many people are going to be interested in that unless you have a lot of explanations that not only explain things that are predicted by current observation and theory but a lot of things that are not as well. Because your scale is so small that pretty much makes any such notions impossible. Why not presume our galaxy is atomic and what the macroscopic view of someone in a larger galaxy exists? What behavior in this Universe suggests this may be the case?

Still, what you're doing is the way to go. Trying to make sense of it takes a lot of guts to start with.

Hey I got a lot of stuff on this but it is not for this post. I have not posted it because there is not enough people at FC to know what I am talking about. For example you take a lot for granted above in your calculations. A 'Bohr orbit' - get serious - this is FC. Some know a lot however like Freeaction.
It has been my experience that it is easy to go over people's head and at the same time people just fail to see any significance in what your saying/what value a point you are trying to make is. Even if they do get it, they can’t relate it to the bigger picture. This is the internet jungle with all manner of beasts.

Mike Dubbeld
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-27-2005, 10:51 AM
Symptom777's Avatar
Symptom777 Symptom777 is offline
Symptom of the Universe
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18,001
Blog Entries: 12
Mike - why have you assumed that in a micro, or macro, universe that the universal constants would follow the same rules a sthey do here?

The relationship of fundamental constants in another universe need not be the same as in this one. There are limits in terms of whether structure could exist - for example whether stars and galaxies could coalesce, or whether there would be sufficient room between stars; but otherwise there are an infinite number of possible universes. A micro/macr universe need not, and probably would not, be a similar universe to this one (and I'm using similar here as a mathematical term).

In terms of Galatomics theory, the size of the micro-universe makes it totally unobservable to us, so I'm not sure that even if it were so that we could do anything useful with this notion.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-27-2005, 04:07 PM
galatomic's Avatar
galatomic galatomic is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 377
Thanks again to Mike and Symptom for excellent responses. I will try to address the issues you have raised.

Mike’s response is very much more difficult to field than Symptoms. I thank you Symptom for being concise and to the point. Mikes comments however are no less welcome. I hope Mike understands how much I value his input and criticisms on these issues. He really understands both sides of the issues that I am addressing; i.e. hard science vs. cosmic consciousness. In fact I can tell that he is actually more knowledgeable in both these areas than me. But I do have a good general knowledge of these issues and I hope to combine that with a good, if somewhat self made, background in philosophy. If it were not for Mike’s participation I doubt I would have chosen this FrostCloud forum to introduce this New World View.

I would like to appeal to Mike to remember to “breath”. While I appreciate all the hard technical facts, let’s be sure they are relevant before we overload the reader with technical verbiage that may be beside the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeDubbeld
Suppose you live on an electron that circles a galaxy.
This is not what I am saying. You may be confusing my position with the old canard associated with the original Bohr Model that equates electrons with planets and the atomic nucleus with a star. My view is similar in the sense that it is a construction or interpretation of the micro world that borrows concepts from our familiar macro world but this solar system analogy is just laughable. I don’t think electrons are anything other than the mathematical abstractions of the Standard Theory used to best describe the forces associated with atomic structures.

In my macro world metaphor I am comparing (asserting similarities and differences) a macro world galactic center to the nucleus of an atom. Then I am asserting that there are micro planets and stars orbiting the atomic nucleus that we have overlooked. Now you can say, just as in string theory, we couldn’t test for that stuff because it is too small, but I will argue for its existence on other grounds. These grounds are mostly “rational” grounds but I also have empirical tools in mind that one couldn’t imagine if one didn’t understand the nature of the myth or theory that is to be explored. Now you may still feel that this is laughable, actually less defendable than the “planetary” model, but don’t misrepresent what I am saying even if you feel that your version works in my favor. The main reason I say this is that I understand the objections to the solar system metaphor and they are persuasive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeDubbeld
Have to do a lot better than that. I disagree with your whole approach anyway. Not thinking in terms of finding Planck lengths of residents on an electron world because a Planck length for example is so small now it is untestable so it is a good way for you to be accused of what string theorists are accused of – reducing the size of elementary particles right out of the testable arena. You should be going the other way – normalizing speeds of electrons UP to the macroscopic level of galaxies to find similarities.
.

Please Mike, don’t make the assumption that if our current methods of testing couldn’t find something it can’t be there. I don’t mind at all being put in the camp with “string” theorists except for the fact their myth seems so much less ambitious than mine. Uhm, let’s see, is it a vibrating string, vibrating membrane or well could it be planets with advanced civilizations. Their best theories are simply beside the point. I am suggesting a “New World View” and not just a new hard science physics theory that successfully eliminates the only argument they still have; i.e. the relativity/gravity/macro vs. the quantum/micro description of the world. The baby has been thrown out with the bath water in that arena.

I appreciate your suggestion that I focus on the macro scale to find the similarities. In my mind I have gone that direction and will share some of that with you in future posts. However I have found the other direction much much more profitable. The main reason for this is that we can see the forest for the trees(even if we can barely see the trees) when we look inward. And also the micro world turns out to be very very old(predating the “BB” and our macro world is very young having only come into existence 15 billion years ago as an artifact of an aging, dying micro world. Besides we can’t see how things are in the distant macro world. If we look far away we are necessarily looking only into our past into how things were near the BB. I am not preaching here, I know you understand astronomy and physics very well. I am just reminding you about these facts and letting you know I’ve been down these roads searching for the answers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Symptom777
Mike - why have you assumed that in a micro, or macro, universe that the universal constants would follow the same rules a sthey do here?

The relationship of fundamental constants in another universe need not be the same as in this one. There are limits in terms of whether structure could exist - for example whether stars and galaxies could coalesce, or whether there would be sufficient room between stars; but otherwise there are an infinite number of possible universes. A micro/macr universe need not, and probably would not, be a similar universe to this one (and I'm using similar here as a mathematical term).
Absolutely critical point, thanks Symptom. This point will be important as I move forward kicking and dragging Mike along by the scruff of his….

Quote:
Originally Posted by Symptom777
In terms of Galatomics theory, the size of the micro-universe makes it totally unobservable to us, so I'm not sure that even if it were so that we could do anything useful with this notion.
While this model falls into the camp of Multi-Universe theories, it is a fractal approach not a “many-worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics. Philosophically, of course there is only one Universe. Multi-Universe theories arise only as an artifact of the theoretical convenience of partitioning or distributing consistent sets of theoretical principles among what appear to be very disparate spaces. It should be noted that fractal models are more promising than the “many-world” theories whose “worlds” must remain forever speculative as you have pointed out because they are completely isolate from our experience. With fractal models we can directly observe the fading outlines of the lower levels and we can also appeal to something we might call “fractal-induction”. This means we would expect certain general features that are true of the most observable macro level to be similar on the other lower levels.

I will in future posts be getting into more of the details of how exactly we can empirically test the theory. But no, we won’t discover its truth by employing more powerful particle accelerators. Merely hurling matter at matter.

galatomic
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-27-2005, 04:44 PM
Gehirnnecken's Avatar
Gehirnnecken Gehirnnecken is offline
Seems to mesmerise...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Manchester, England.
Posts: 329
Send a message via MSN to Gehirnnecken Send a message via Yahoo to Gehirnnecken
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
Why not presume our galaxy is atomic and what the macroscopic view of someone in a larger galaxy exists? What behavior in this Universe suggests this may be the case?
Hasn't the golden ratio been used as "evidence" for this? Since it repeats in all parts of the ordered universe, Macrocosm/Microcosm is a rational explanation for it.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-27-2005, 04:46 PM
Symptom777's Avatar
Symptom777 Symptom777 is offline
Symptom of the Universe
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18,001
Blog Entries: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
While this model falls into the camp of Multi-Universe theories, it is a fractal approach not a “many-worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics. Philosophically, of course there is only one Universe.
In modalism there are many universes. This is the view I subscribe to. It was not an attempt to explain quantum mechanics, but was developed to deal with counterfactuals. It has been applied to quantum theory, but...

Anyway if you haven't come across this, try this for starters:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/modal.realism.html
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-27-2005, 05:31 PM
galatomic's Avatar
galatomic galatomic is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 377
Thanks, Symptom, I will check it out. I think ultimately the many universe issue ends up being a problem of semantics.

galatomic
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-27-2005, 05:44 PM
galatomic's Avatar
galatomic galatomic is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeDubbeld
What is the year and month of the Discover article as I have lots of them. You might like the Scientific American May 2005 p48-55 by Bernard J. Carr and Steven B. Giddings.
July 2002 volume 23 number 7 pp32 BLACK HOLES SPIN?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-27-2005, 05:59 PM
galatomic's Avatar
galatomic galatomic is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 377
[quote=Gehirnnecken]Hasn't the golden ratio been used as "evidence" for this? Since it repeats in all parts of the ordered universe, Macrocosm/Microcosm is a rational explanation for it.[/QOUTE]

An appeal to aesthetics is hardly out of place since truth is beauty and all that.

The idea of a fractal order to the universe gains power from all the observed instances of fractals found in nature. It is, at the very least, aesthetically pleasing to the intuition to think that nature has a fractal decomposition that includes all elements of reality that we observe on this level existing in at least some token form on all the other fractal levels.

I would be interested in details about the golden ratio and how it might apply here.

galatomic
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-28-2005, 06:57 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gehirnnecken
Hasn't the golden ratio been used as "evidence" for this? Since it repeats in all parts of the ordered universe, Macrocosm/Microcosm is a rational explanation for it.
In what regard? The Golden Ratio has been related to lots of things. So have the Platonic Solids/Kepler. Oh, I guess you mean in the same vague sense as fractals. Well circles special too/all celestial bodies over a certain mass are circular due to gravity. Self-organization and complexity shows up in lots of ways. Prigogine got a Nobel Prize for discovering this I believe.

You know I believe in the wave nature of the universe and associated with that are all sorts of things. Harmonics/standing waves/resonance/string theory/music/mantra/yantra/'In the beginning was the word....' 'Confusing of the tongues'/Tower of Babel/Sanskrit/AUM/soldiers marching over bridges building up a resonance that brings them crashing down, 100 clocks in a room brought in ticking all differently and the next morning all ticking together/Power in microwaves. I have a whole truckload of interesting things about this but I am not specifically attacking science for the sake of doing so or presenting anything I cannot backup to a large extent.

There's a huge difference in discussing a dream as opposed to building and proving a theory. The former is not committed and after lunch, they will discuss the theory they just thought of - of vampires on the dark side of the moon. Even if you have a perfectly logical theory that cannot be refuted, that STILL is not good enough. You have to predict something with it and promote it. Look over on alt.sci.physics. A lot of them really need a reality check on their thesis before they submit it. And they have VERY SPECIFIC ideas in equations. Not bridges to Mars.

Its fine to kick these ideas around philosophically to discover where they fail or succeed and then if you think your on a roll run it by alt.sci.physics or where-ever then maybe patch it up accordingly. I find it quite ironic for me to be saying these things believing in yoga things but yoga is not based on faith either. In fact it requires rigorous scrutiny to succeed/understand its deeper meanings.

Have you read The Golden Ratio by Mario Livio? I have the book but haven't read it yet.

Mike Dubbeld
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-28-2005, 07:33 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
Thanks again to Mike and Symptom for excellent responses. I will try to address the issues you have raised.
Well thank you but hard science is a 2-edged sword. This is no thesis you have here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
I would like to appeal to Mike to remember to “breath”. While I appreciate all the hard technical facts, let’s be sure they are relevant before we overload the reader with technical verbiage that may be beside the point.
I calculate stuff like this a lot. One of the unconventional means that was frequently used by science a hundred years ago but is no longer used is numerology. Twisting numbers to make sense out of them. Today they twist only the equations but that leads to ivory towers flying paper airplanes to each other trading notes. Often forgetting the airplane design is not the subject at hand.

Besides, I doubt if anyone else will calculate it even if they could. It may appear to someone it is not all that hard but one needs the appropriate books, where to look, how to do dimensional analyis and make sense out of the units. Significant figures and error control. Constants and conversions. It can be tedious but in this case it was very simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeDubbeld
Suppose you live on an electron that circles a galaxy.

This is not what I am saying. You may be confusing my position with the old canard associated with the original Bohr Model that equates electrons with planets and the atomic nucleus with a star. My view is similar in the sense that it is a construction or interpretation of the micro world that borrows concepts from our familiar macro world but this solar system analogy is just laughable. I don’t think electrons are anything other than the mathematical abstractions of the Standard Theory used to best describe the forces associated with atomic structures.

In my macro world metaphor I am comparing (asserting similarities and differences) a macro world galactic center to the nucleus of an atom. Then I am asserting that there are micro planets and stars orbiting the atomic nucleus that we have overlooked.
I said it wrong above I meant to relate the electron to the Sun and since the Earth is so close compared to the diameter of a galaxy I said it wrong but it is still close enough to what you just said here. The galactic center being the nucleus.

The way I see your idea is as nothing more than something that you need to be shown to be false for very specific reasons. I guess I am waiting for you to step on yourself because what you have not yet said is much more than what you have said. (you’ve indicated in 2 posts you will be talking more about your idea). I could talk about building a bridge to Mars too but until I start talking about the details it is just a cute dream like your proposition which you have yet to provide any sort of evidence/proof for.

Science have very good reasons to believe the things it does even if that understanding is incomplete. It is not good enough to simply present an idea with no data to support it. There are TONS of thesis’/dissertations out there that are VERY GOOD/I cannot dismiss backed by legitimate data and proof – a lot more than you have come up with so far. How is it specifically you can thwart all of science you have not provided any evidence yet. Not even intuitively. Not even why there is no such proof or evidence. I am not picking on you but bold claims require bold proof/evidence. I pick on myself to the exact same extent with all my own ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
Now you can say, just as in string theory, we couldn’t test for that stuff because it is too small, but I will argue for its existence on other grounds. These grounds are mostly “rational” grounds but I also have empirical tools in mind that one couldn’t imagine if one didn’t understand the nature of the myth or theory that is to be explored. Now you may still feel that this is laughable, actually less defendable than the “planetary” model, but don’t misrepresent what I am saying even if you feel that your version works in my favor. The main reason I say this is that I understand the objections to the solar system metaphor and they are persuasive.
Show.

Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeDubbeld
Have to do a lot better than that. I disagree with your whole approach anyway. Not thinking in terms of finding Planck lengths of residents on an electron world because a Planck length for example is so small now it is untestable so it is a good way for you to be accused of what string theorists are accused of – reducing the size of elementary particles right out of the testable arena. You should be going the other way – normalizing speeds of electrons UP to the macroscopic level of galaxies to find similarities.

Please Mike, don’t make the assumption that if our current methods of testing couldn’t find something it can’t be there. I don’t mind at all being put in the camp with “string” theorists except for the fact their myth seems so much less ambitious than mine. Uhm, let’s see, is it a vibrating string, vibrating membrane or well could it be planets with advanced civilizations. Their best theories are simply beside the point. I am suggesting a “New World View” and not just a new hard science physics theory that successfully eliminates the only argument they still have; i.e. the relativity/gravity/macro vs. the quantum/micro description of the world. The baby has been thrown out with the bath water in that arena.
String theorists have mathematical theories that they have to twist around to find something testable that falls out of it. So far all you have is a bridge to Mars/sandcastles in the sky. Maybe I am expecting too much but you make it sound like you will be presenting a complex detailed theory with future posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
I appreciate your suggestion that I focus on the macro scale to find the similarities. In my mind I have gone that direction and will share some of that with you in future posts. However I have found the other direction much much more profitable. The main reason for this is that we can see the forest for the trees(even if we can barely see the trees) when we look inward. And also the micro world turns out to be very very old(predating the “BB” and our macro world is very young having only come into existence 15 billion years ago as an artifact of an aging, dying micro world. Besides we can’t see how things are in the distant macro world. If we look far away we are necessarily looking only into our past into how things were near the BB. I am not preaching here, I know you understand astronomy and physics very well. I am just reminding you about these facts and letting you know I’ve been down these roads searching for the answers.
So far all I see is you don’t explicitly reject the BB but there is no accounting for matter surviving it before the fact. Want to talk about t minus 10^-43 seconds after BB and when nucleons and atoms came into being?.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by galatomic
I will in future posts be getting into more of the details of how exactly we can empirically test the theory. But no, we won’t discover its truth by employing more powerful particle accelerators. Merely hurling matter at matter.

galatomic
Just what is it that gets knocked out of protons in particle accelerators?

The path of particles in accelerators is controlled by magnetic fields to a large extent. What is the charge on your galaxies? Why? If you take any random sample of macroscopic space it is in general basically neutral. Stars are not known for their electric force but rather their gravitational force as the dominant force. Yet when a proton is sent through a magnetic field its path is bent proportional to its speed, mass and charge. I don’t know you could say any such thing about galaxies which are not the same size or shape, spin at varying speeds. There are no anti-galaxies either, yet the primary means of particle collisions at Fermilab is proton-anti-proton collisions.

I’ll have to wait until you say something. It seems to me you are in over your head. You can make such bold claims until you find someone that can refute them and this is a philosophy forum not a science forum. Your idea is not a theory - it is just a philosophical with not even an intuitive basis at this point. If you are talking quantum there's not going to be that many that can give you a hard time. Did you fly this idea over on alt.sci.physics/alt.sci.physics.new-theories? Or is your intention to see how far you can get with it here first?

I’m very skeptical at this point. I don’t mind talking about philosophical ideas that might be applied to science but what is it specifically that you don’t know that leads you to believe you can exchange a nucleus with a galaxy/where does your understanding leave off in science if that is the case. Lets get down to it.

Your idea is valuable right or wrong because it leads to specific experiments that need to be challenged intellectually and inspires thought. Will force the issue of how the experiments were conducted and why other ideas were rejected. Including thought experiments – like string theory. Only one geometry works for our particular Universe and unless and until string theorists come up with it and something testable, they are building bridges to Mars/just doing thought experiments/Gerdanken.

Mike Dubbeld
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Secrets of The Lord of the Rings Violet Spirit Movies, Music, Books, and TV Shows 16 09-09-2008 08:40 AM
JEWISH RACISM EXPOSED foolosophy Religion 336 04-06-2008 02:43 AM
New Discovery peacegirl Off-topic 312 08-12-2007 06:55 AM
the fact is theboss Religion 218 11-10-2005 04:08 AM
Social Manipulation Violet Spirit Human Society 3 04-13-2004 07:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 AM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network