Measurement of things (time, space, distance)

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by RainbowSingularity, Mar 8, 2018.

  1. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    while reading another thread i noticed i had a question arise.
    in how many ways(& in what different ways) do we measure things scientifically ?

    keeping in mind i am not a physacist or mathamatician.

    it rose my curiosity to ask generally ...
    "have we got all the different types of measurement systems we need to comprehend the universe and all its weird & wonderful scientific principals ? (im guessing thats a soft 'no' with hard examples)

    time, a generic frequency of a given thing...
    distance a generic given pre-established value of size to render quantitative distance...
    then all the rest etc.. magnitude, gravity etc etc ...
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Subjective indeed
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    was hoping to delve into peoples opinions of the scope of what is unknown as a question toward potential technalogical advancement.

    if mathamatics is the language of the universe as some say,
    how many languages could there be and how far along on that scale might science be ?

    opinions, speculations and ideas welcome.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    You seem to be talking about measuring physical quantities. Offhand it seems to me we can measure all the observable physical quantities that have been defined. But there are are physical quantities that are not observable, for example the values of quantum numbers. Things like these manifest themselves in observable quantities that they give rise to, but can't really be measured in themselves.

    If your question is broader, in that there may be as yet undiscovered or uninvented observable physical quantities that may one day prove important, well yes I suppose the history of science suggests that is likely to be so.
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  8. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    yes both.
    leaning on the concept that if we do not have the theory to formulate something then it woudl be hard to compute it.
    worm hole(read black hole/dark matter etc) mathamatics for example.

    i often ponder if our knowledge of a broardening perspective is wide enough prior to moving in a straight line forward/up.
    culture bieng quite the thing as a good example. (having the technology to wipe out the species yet not having the social and cultural intellect to prevent that from happening)
    we have all sorts of scientific technology that makes life vastly better yet many people reject that calling the concept of religion to be a dictatorship to limit human advancement.
    we are currently seeing a new-wave of psychology evolution taking place in the western world.
    re-instigating principals that had been discovered some 30 years ago or more.

    obviousely when it comes to the geniuses ... their ability to be free of the bonds of dogma and barbarianism enables them to achieve more.
    thus a scope of perspective ability becomes a question to leverage the principals of pure mathamatics(quisically).
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Sorry, I cannot understand that. Can you try again?

Share This Page