• Feeling isolated? You're not alone.

    Join 20,000+ people who understand exactly how your day went. Whether you're newly diagnosed, self-identified, or supporting someone you love – this is a space where you don't have to explain yourself.

    Join the Conversation → It's free, anonymous, and supportive.

    As a member, you'll get:

    • A community that actually gets it – no judgment, no explanations needed
    • Private forums for sensitive topics (hidden from search engines)
    • Real-time chat with others who share your experiences
    • Your own blog to document your journey

    You've found your people. Create your free account

Any one else here obsessed with physics?

Ronald Zeeman said:
Each time I see a video with Neil I am stunned what he is getting matches what I see in my minds eye.

Click to expand...
Judging by the video title, this scientist's assertion is in total agreement with my assessment of the black hole situation. The problem here is that, from the astronaut's point of view, he reaches the event horizon in finite amount of time, while for the independent observer, who is placed away from the black hole, the trip to the event horizon takes infinite time. This suggests that the laws of nature are dependent on the coordinate system, which contradicts all known physics data.
Einstein's biographers wrote that he "didn't believe in black holes".' This is a strange statement considering the fact that he was a scientists, not some kind of a cult leader. I found his original article where he proved that the idea of black holes is inconsistent with the basic axioms of general relativity. Well, his detractors noted that in his article he proved that the rotating black holes don't exist, while some obscure scientist have proved that the stationary black holes exist.
This is not what Einstein has proved -- in his article he had demonstrated that all black holes rotate, and then proved that they don't exist.
I'm sure that if I read that obscure scientists article I'll find errors in it of either conceptual or mathematical nature, but I just don't want to waste my time on something insignificant like this.
 
I just wait for confirming observations. Between Neil and Leonard I think they are both on right track Why I was relieved Leonard backed away from string theory.
 
String theory with its multiple universes is a load of crap. One thing is to say that there are alternative universes that can be reached from our universe; this might be true, after all. But saying that all these alternative universes are unreachable for us, and we cannot prove their existence in principle, is another thing. I don't know how the idiots, who proposed the string theory, came to the conclusion that other universes are out of reach, and don't care. T know, though, that all these nonsense has a "philosophical" foundation called scientific realism (not to be confused with realism, which is a completely different philosophical system).
According to scientific realism, any proposition based on logical foundation is true if if there is no experimental confirmation of it. The proposition that there is a pot of gold at the end of rainbow is logically correct because gold could be found anywhere on Earth, it is not confined to any specific places.
 
Ronald Zeeman said:
My obsession has always been determining how the universe works via particles physics or cosmology. Anyone else having simular interest, I would love to connect with.

Before the beginning all was nothing and nothing was all, infinity and zero were the same. A single point in space can be anywhere, with every where being where that point is. As the point has no volume and movement is undetectable, time would not be required, as its passage would be unobservable.

Since space cannot be infinite and a point, mutually exclusive, its volume can only approach these two boundaries. A single particle would exist as a distribution over the breadth of the universe. Hence the origin of Quantum Mechanics, an expected consequence.

Time is a consequence of movement not an entity in its own right. Movement always exists with every particle thus inducing its own time. Only at the moment of the big bang were their no movement and thus no time. Time started with the big bang, it can only flow forward.

If the universe were static and made of particles that were point like there would be not need for time. You could not tell one instant from the next. Nature does not like undue complexity; time is the result of movement, and as long as movement exists so does time. Time is emergent see Carlo Rovelli's book The Order of Time see an alternative opionion see Lee Smolin's book Time Reborn.
Click to expand...
I am very interested in developing some cosmology through personal science of direct experience. Mostly because I've had some learning disability.and because I've been obsessed by the topic of energetics and ecosystems.
But as I'm writing a book I caught myself talking about fractals, patterns, and quantum reality even about classical physics, and thermodynamics that I never learned about so maybe my answer is yes

I discovered how states of water is key to teaching us about how chaos turns into reality and I use difference between NTs and NDs to prove that.

Except I have started having seizures because I've been too obsessed and hyperconnecting too much. Lol
 
I had audited a graduate course on information theory. Claude Shannon has shown that under certain conditions it is possible to develop a self-correcting coding system that allows a flawless transmission of messages. However, so far no one has come up with such a system; although many have tried. Well, no one knows what the future brings.
 
When I had my stroke I got a message as I woke up that said what you seek is information, So I asked my wife while in hospital to purchase a great courses lecture series on information, watched it as soon as released from hospital
This is where I got introduced to Claude Shannon. I was an eye opener, convinced me to start this thread, extend some thoughts I had previous to my stroke that I had for the most part kept to myself. Many years ago I had a epiphany That I could prove with set theory that absolute length could not exist. For the most part just sat on it told a few people including a workmate who has a masters degree in physics she was stunned. To me I could just see it so obvious. Took set theory in high school. did not remember enough to put together a formal proof. Also my wife took a course in astronomy, I wrote my thought for her to give to him He has a Phd in physics I he recognized her surname was surprised by what she showed him wanted to meet me. Never did meet.
 
Last edited:
Interesting debate, watched the various theories play out during my life as I watched a lot of it happen first hand.

 
Honestly, I haven't encountered the term "absolute length" before I read the material on this thread. If I understand the term correctly, it refers to centimeters, meters, kilometers, etc. I'm not sure how the set theory relates to the term. From a physicist's point of view, because of ever-present errors of measurement, absolute length is a useful theoretical abstraction that cannot be confirmed by experimental means. Then again, there may be other interpretations of the "absolute length" that I'm not aware of.
 
Basically pi and square root of two must exist, set of all lengths. Now after many years of refection the limit is one Planck length, which restricts the number of digits of pi and square root of two. I even tried to do a calculation on the thread speed of light and planck, looked interesting got a bit lost so left it hanging.
 
Last edited:
I like Joe explains tings well, fourth dimension is thickness of paper in mobius strip combine wit time being emergent due to movement.

 
Like this conversation, why I started this thread Reminds me of the great courses dvd on science wars what scientists know and how they know it. Real eye opener at the time I watched it made for great debating material most notably if religious.

 
Last edited:
To my knowledge, science and religion agree only on one thing -- at some point the Universe came to me, it didn't always exist, as the scientists thought in 19-th century. The question is, "Who or what created it?"
 
If you believe roger Penrose it has always existed. My opinion big bang expanding collapsing concurrently time is emergent. This is what I see in my minds eye, If I knew what created it I would not be agnostic. Always seeking answer. Seeking for around sixty years now did not make real headway until stroke "what you seek is information" and the out of body experience really got me thinking. I like this forum as I can finally discuss this kind of stuff. with like minded people who are far and few in the general population,
 
Last edited:
I have always been impressed with Richard Feynman's ability to solve physics issues, yet he did not believe in brushing his teeth. He thought their was more to tooth decay than brushing. We have similar approaches to problem solving I figured out years ago it had to do with saliva production. He is much brighter than me how did he miss this connection as did many dentists. My clue my wife has never had a cavity a real anomaly. follow the anomalies that's how you do science.
 
I WANT to be obsessed with physics, but similarly to others, I don't have much aptitude. If I could comprehend it I would focus on notion of entanglement. I try to read about it--can understand the basic idea but it's very complex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom