. I think the fact that space is expanding shows that it is not infinite — universeness

That not true. Space can be infinite and expanding. That's actually the prevailing view. Which with I disagree.

I accept all of this but my first sentence holds. Proper time and Proper length are labels used in special RELATIVITY! So to say the motions involved are NOT relative is wrong.
1h — universeness

All motion is relative. That's what relativity is about. Only relative velocity exists. That's the velocity that's used in the Lorentz transformation.

Now of course, we could start a discussion about the motions of a (real) clock. All its parts experience another passage of time. But that would be a bridge too far. We could put clocks on the clock. And clocks on them. If they are alarm clocks, would be a hell of an alarm!

The problem/catch is that sacrednsss is used as an excuse/reason to stifle free thought, the classic example being, at the moment, Islam - it doesn't take much to elicit a fatwa from the grand Ayatollah of Iran if you catch my drift — Agent Smith

What is free thought? Don't you think your thoughts have been formed by science, on school? You were forced by law to follow the brainwash. Or braintaint maybe. Isn't science stifeling too? There are a lot of science ayattolah's. Threatening with punishment if you don't adapt.

How did you do that?

Of course. I have good reasons to life. Life itself is the reason. But to life it, knowing we're made by some magical eternal gods, all of life in heavenly image, give it an extra meaning. And, maaaaybe, a guidance towards our position vis a vis nature.

And see it from my point of view. I'm interested in how a left-field proposition like preons might stack up against the Cern-approved party line of leptoquarks as the "missing physics" behind the muon dipole discrepancy. — apokrisis

Leptoquarks? Haha! What a farce. Now they mix them? You see? Sticking to the standard.... Leptons and quarks fundamental. Let's mix them! A leptoquark. Of course...

What, they weren't skeptical? — apokrisis

They were. But they could not offer any real ratio against it. You did better. But still not convincing. Because the model I offer is just what sub quark reality is about. The future will tell. Together with a purely geometric model of particles (so they are no points) there is nothing more to know. It's good to be a crackpot. It cracks. The pot.

Bye!

Aint physics about the nature of being, the drive?

Gods'? Gods went out with togas and chariots. I wrote that entry to highlight the distinction between philosophy and physics. They have some areas in common, but they're very different disciplines. — Wayfarer

Maybe. But if we know the gods and their reason for creation, can't we know the nature if life?

It was a thesis I wrote for my masters. I studied physics but was allowed to master in a philosophical part. I had to follow an extra subject of choice though. Or ain't that a thesis. A scription.

The devil, of course, is in the details (YMMV), but I think that scenario, however speculative, is techologically plausable without violating any known 'laws of nature'. — 180 Proof

Of course... Replace one half of the brain by a synthetic. Dream along...

I think the ultimate concern for philosophy is the nature of being. — Wayfarer

Can't it be that if we know the gods we know the nature of being?

If the spaces between all matter particles vary along then curvature can't be measured, obviously. The ruler would stretch along. It's because the galaxies are gravity bound and the stars kept at constant radius, and we don't expand either, that space is seen expanding and light looses energy by expansion. If we consider 3d space expanding on hyperbolic 4d substrate space, dark energy is explained.

It's kind of funny that on physics forums no one has offered such response on preons as you did!

Einstein found that if one object was at rest and other object was moving at a uniform velocity, their proper time in relation to each other would be different — universeness

Indeed. In relation to each other. But proper time is the time you measure in a rest frame. If course when that frame moves, it's a moving restframe. Coordinate free time is the clock that ticks in a rest frame for an observer in rest. Proper time and coordinate time are different things. Proper time has it's own symbol, $\tau$. Coordinate time is t. A proper time interval is Lorenz invariant

always had a feeling that string theory was crazy balls — chiknsld

:lol:

My man! Strings are crazy balls... :lol:
Indeed! I envìsion a particle as a 6d space of which three are curled up to Planck sized circles. On this hyper sphere (actually the direct product S1xS1xS1) charge is injected. So every particle looks poinlike from a distance, while in reality it's a tiny sphere. The nice thing about them is that they cant form a singularity, like in a black hole. They all fit in one another, like you can squeeze tiny circles on a tiny long tube or cylinder. If gravity pulls them together no point can form.

If the people put their trust in you and give you power then you MUST do what you said you will do in the time you said you would do it. At every stage, you must explain what you are doing and why (fully open government,). If you fail, then you must fully explain why, to those you represent. They must then choose what will happen next. Accept your updated plan when you explain it and give you more time to try or you must give up your position and let another vote take place where alternative positions. — universeness

What if the people don't want gene tinkering and transhuman construction, spacetravel, computers with a mind, and all other fantasies you like?

And religions give reasons for the universe and life in it? If that what you’re saying, it’s just another way of saying that we make our own reasons for the universe and life in it. Honestly, I think the reasons that religions offer are rather childish, and worse than childish, they are largely meaningless — praxis

How can we make our own reasons for life and the universe? We didn't let them come to be. We might describe it, say by a cosmological model or evolution, but these are no reasons. Of course the meaning of it all isn't necessarily dependent on the reason it's all there. You can find a meaningful existence in a lot of things. But knowing the universe and life in it, were made by gods gives it somewhat extra and not retractable or reducable to science For example, you can't say life is there because it was directed by selfish genes or memes.

True, but it's even more simple than this, they just have no clue. — chiknsld

Well, if you consider the 10exp500 pissible solutions to string theory no clue... I don't, but there are ideas. Problem seems to be how is chosen between them. And even then, 10jexp500 is nothing in the face of infinity.

The basic free parameters to be settled are the coupling strengths of three charges and the value of the gravity strength. Vary one of them and the universe collapses. Is there maybe a hidden relation between them, I don't know, if this has been looked at. I'm not even sure now what I said about varying them couplings. Would it all be very different? Not sure. It seems pretty obvious though that space gotta have 3 dimensions.

What about the speed of light and Planck's constant? The speed of light gotta be finite in order for mass to exist and events to be spatiotemporally separated. Are that speed and the coupling strengths connected? They all have to do with space, time, and mass. They gotta have a connection somehow.

So, are the parameters contemplated? Yes. Probably.

Atheists often have a strong sense of morality. — Gregory

And theists don't? Maybe it's a different kind though.

Yes indeed. That's the reason of the inadequacy of points and point particles. How the hell can they touch? It are point particles giving rise to renormalization. Consider them as an extended geometric shape and your problems are gone. Space can't be broken up into points, and time can't be stopped.

There is no clear motivation given for how preons are confined. I'm seeing superstrong EM, gravity, and metagluons being offered as binding mechanisms — apokrisis

The mechanism is the same that binds quarks in a hadron. With color replaced by supercolor, megacolor, hypercolor, or however you wanna call it. And the only combination is /C/C/C, three charged anti C preons (and there are only two kinds if preons exist! How nice is that?). They are massless.

The Universe is the heat sink. It expands and thus cools. Heat is lost into the space that gets made. — apokrisis

There is no energy lost to space, in my humble opinion. Energy just disappears.

So preons are appealing in many ways. It is nice they could explain particle generations using the analogy of atomic orbitals. It is fun that they might make U(1) fundamental and present at the Planck scale, while making SU(2) redundant - when Standard Model and leptoquarks make its seem the most central gauge group with its complex number magic. — apokrisis

SU(2) is redundant. But another SU(3) takes it place.

The mathematics though is not that important. Preons can be found in a way similar as quarks. By crashing two leptons full speed head on. And then... the sound of rattle! Finalky the search can be closed then. What more can there be? One can philosophize about the nature of particles. No topological orders or defects needed.

:grin:

Seems the world is filled with a priori knowledge. Hanging low on the tree. We just have to pick it! The high hanging fruits are somewhat harder to gather.

Experimental Metaphysics

David Rose, Jonathan Schaffer

The only meaningful definition of "knowledge" is information adequate to support action. — T Clark

Not sure if it's the only one. I tend to disagreements here...

The avatar image... Impressive!

Well, all I can respond with to that is a wee cheeky woof woof — universeness

You may be an atheist but at least you're a funny one! And nice to argue with! And speaking of woof woof. Someone staring me in the face...

Yes! :love: :starstruck: :party:



We ended up in the wring thread indeed! There is another thread about atheism. Conflation and confusion...

What was the thread about?

Science and causality. Another about causality. Lots if causality going on. What would cause that?

:lol: I hope that's just your bad English! Don't tell me you believe that Deer have gods as well as your previous claim that Dino gods once existed or still do! — universeness

:lol:

Damn you mr. Universe! :lol:

Agreed, but maybe it's more complicated than that. Pinker and Chomsky think that grammar is inborn — T Clark

That's a dogma just as the central dogma in biology.

The knowledge of an organism can be projected in genes.

The brain structure can be such that it follows knowledge and language, so not the other way round.

Well, if the universe is a block of 4D spacetime, the so-called now is a slice of it. Depending on the angle of that slice, I could be coevals with Socrates or Charles Darwin or Werner Heisenberg or (even) Lucy the hominin or dinosaurs or you get the idea! — Agent Smith

And what or who determines the motion inside the block?

are you talking about Zeno's paradox? The impossibility of having motion on a single point of the time series? — neomac

Seems so indeed... How can we see which way motion goes by looking at a point?

are you talking about Zeno's paradox? The impossibility of having motion on a single point of the time series? — neomac

If Im not mistaken, I referred to him somewhere here before!

and my comment that personal theism comes from personal primal fear is correct. — universeness

Which is another example if your digmatism... eeeh, dogmatism. Digit?

It's clear now why you're an atheist! My deer god... :pray:

It's my guess you don't like that theists have some kind of hidden knowledge you have no access to. Which makes you rationalize it and pull it in the domain of primal fears ir whatever. So basically it's because you don't understand it.

atheists enjoy "out of context" methods because it's the easiest way to undermine theist dogma, mostly because a lot of theist are not apologists, atheists use it as well known tool for attack — SpaceDweller

:100:

Praise the gods, dolleylujah, Juppijahwey!

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. — Richard Dawkins

Which makes him a prejudiced atheist, as gods don't conform to that image.

Yours? Or what you claim is theirs? — universeness

When you say that your means of proof is better.

Chaos, in my humble opinion, as some say it is, is "order undeciphered". That seems to be the crux of chaos theory, oui? — Agent Smith

Oui, bien sur. But. The beautiful patterns might be disrupted by a small and fast change, like 1 degree uprise in 10 years without falling back.

A glass breaking is an instantaneous event. Why do you see it as paradoxical? — neomac

Because breaking implies motion. An event is a point.

If we see a photo of the glass shattering in space, we can't say which way time goes. No cause and effect.

This is the mystery of the direction of time.