Laws of physics vary throughout the universe, new study suggests

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Musika, Apr 20, 2018.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,467
    Haha, fat chance.

    And 10 points to the first person to spot a reference to "gin-clear".

    But yes, he does quote from Einstein as if it were scripture. As with Write4U, a case of worshipping that which he comprehendeth not

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Before I spend 17 minutes watching your video, could you explain...
    I'm not talking about a point's position in space relative to other points, I'm talking about your saying a ''single point'' having a diameter and circumference. I find this confusing because a diameter has two ends points and lots in between. And, you could say a circumference is a ring of points. Yet, you say a single point has the property of Pi. The 'point' is... In geomerty, points are markers not things as such.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,467
    I suppose he might mean by "down to" a point that the point is the limit of a sphere as the radius ->0, and that for any r>0 the relationship holds.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    He's going to stick a ''like'' on your post as if he meant that. This is why I was getting confused...After reading:
    I thought he was later talking of shrinking a sphere down to a geometrical point and speaking of a ''single point''.
    Hence all my guff about a point in geometry is just a marker.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2018
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,583
    I think we should have another item added to the crackpot index: "30 points for attacking mainstream science for being wrong, but ignoring other (crackpot) "theories" altogether."

    If only Farsight understood Feynman as well as he thinks he does Einstein, then he wouldn't have committed a quote-mine. It's fascinating to see that someone who's struggling with reading comprehension on such a level, to think they can understand all the ins-and-outs of Einstein's work.

    You really need to adjust that statement, because Write4U clearly doesn't understand mainstream science, but also doesn't worship it. QED!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,467
    Oh Christ, I hadn't followed this closely enough to realise he had dragged Planck length in. So far as I understand, that concept has not yet been confirmed as having any effects whatever in the real world.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,467
    I suppose that's true. Nonetheless there is a sort of cargo cult quality to both of these people in relation to their chosen idols.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,216
    Lights a candle, kneels, bows head and utters: "praise be to mathematics"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,216
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,467
    No. Completely off-topic.

    This is just another quantum correlation experiment that shows nothing new, let alone anything to suggest that the "laws" of physics vary across the universe.

    Mind you, as it contradicts Einstein, it may cause apoplexy to the Einstein cargo cult follower on the forum.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,639
    Farsight was previously banned from posting to our Science subforums. It looks like his posting here was an error. I have fixed the problem.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,297
    I didn't know that and I like say that I didn't report him.

    Making brash statements is a lot fun than reporting people!
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,639
    Small correction to my previous post:

    Farsight's previous exclusion from posting to our Science sections was lifted some time ago, with the expiry of the exclusion period. So it was not an error that he was allowed to post to those sections.

    However, it appears that Farsight has not changed his ways. Since he continues to post pseudoscience to the Science sections, and is apparently incorrigible, there is little option but to exclude him permanently from those forums.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,467
    Al-hamdulil-lah!
     
  18. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,080
    Something inside kept nagging, and it's now clear what. My apology for making a poorly worded in effect misleading claim, 2nd line here:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/la...new-study-suggests.160772/page-4#post-3517317
    "So the quasar light was only indirectly used and actually it's the absorption and re-emission by gas in an intervening galaxy that was detected in the survey."
    Actually it was the original quasar light emissions detected, minus the absorption lines in that detected light. Corresponding to that light at frequencies absorbed by intervening galactic gas clouds. The re-emissions by excited gas molecules or atoms are random, and probably multiply further scattered. Whether any light at such absorption frequencies (strictly, narrow bands) reaches the terrestrial detector will depend on the optical depths of the intervening galaxy gas clouds, at those frequency bands. Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy
     
  19. TheFrogger Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,024
    What about the double-slit experiment proving things must exist in multiple states? Differing futures!
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,216
    To the observer things exist in superposition until observed, but in reality something can exist only in one state of expression. Bohm called this the "enfolded" and "unfolded" orders.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2018
  21. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,856
    I think there have been digressions from the basic issue. I think the following gets back on track.

    Exchemist Post 10
    The above in replay to my Post 9
    I think the semantics of my remark indicate that evidence takes precedence over theory.

    Perhaps I should restate my opinion as follows
    From my Post 29 (paraphrased here)
     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,467
    Yes I suppose that must be right: the laws would still hold but the values predicted by those laws would be different.

    I found one interesting snippet about that here: https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2017/07/13/reflections-on-the-fine-structure-constant.

    The nugget buried in this is that, if the fine structure constant were sufficiently different (about 4%) there would apparently not be any carbon! So we at any rate would not be here.

    But we should not allow ourselves to be"carbon chauvinists", I suppose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_chauvinism.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,080
    Clear back in post #3, an article linked to there made it clear there was NO final indication of a varying alpha. Further, in #25, another article linked to there explained clearly the conceptual distinction between varying physical constants and varying physical laws.
    Why then have you reposted a comment that itself ignored the import of those still earlier postings of mine? What is the point?
     

Share This Page