Comments on: The Elegant Universe

By: Achems Razor

Achems Razor — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:09:15 +0000

@ Franck:

The light I am referring to is the light from the distant galaxy’s in deep field of space.

It took 14.5 Billion years to reach us traveling at 186,000 miles “per second”.

So light was already traveling for 9.95 billion years, before our earth was even formed 4.55 billion years ago.
Sort of throws religion out of whack, doesn’t it?

By: Franck

Franck — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:16:16 +0000

@ Achems Razor,
By the 2 mirrors, i meant when you put them together in any degree you can see for example your finger appearing in one and at the exact place your finger disappears for the other mirror. You know what i mean.
What light that reaches us ?
And i don’t like the Parallel Universes… . It couldn’t be the same as Dimensions ( Eleven or Infinite).

By: Achems Razor

Achems Razor — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:46:17 +0000

@ Franck:

I didn’t say I prefer Null physics, just sited that as one theory.
You where talking about deep space field, telescopes can only go so far, what they have estimated is that the universe is 14.5 billion years old. The light that is reaching us now was formed when the Universe was first formed, after the inflation period.
They do not know if there is any end, could be infinite, or could be folding back on itself.

You are right, other Universes could have completely different set of construct, formula, ect;
And other Universes are not out there in the vastness of space somewhere. they are right beside us, some only a nano-meter away.

According to parallel Universes, the universes are thin membranes, that when they touch, or collide, creates another big bang.

I believe it was @ BBC: that talked about the 2 mirror thing, when mirror images can go to infinity, but that is like Mandelbrot sets, no physical substance.

By: Franck

Franck — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:06:18 +0000

OK i’ll brush up on Quantum Mechanics.
Fascinating Joe NYU.

By: Franck

Franck — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:26:43 +0000

I think i understand what you’re saying AR and i think i’m not explaining my thoughts in the best of ways.
I can’t believe or i can’t subscribe if you prefer to the theory of Something coming out of Nothing, that it be Energy, Strings or Rope.
The only way i can see Something coming out of Nothing would be by another Dimension. Who’s to say that in another Dimension different Math/Physics are not used and have the answers.
When you look at the sky at night time, you see Stars and behind those Star you can see a million other things with a telescope and nothing with the bare eyes, except a Black Background. Now this Black Background is Black because it’s so far away that no light reached it yet ? Or because it’s unreachable and is actually Nothingness ? Or what i’m trying to express, that the Black Background we see with our bare eye’s or with a telescope is simply the end of our Dimension.
Now what i understand from these Scientists in these Docs is that in this confined (inside that Black Background) infinite Space & Time that we can see around us but can not touch, there are micro micro micro x a Trillion and still counting, Vibrations that are Hollowed Membranes Like, hitting each other and creating what ? Dimensions ? Universes ? More Vibrations ?
With the 2 mirror example you spoke about AR, i can see clearly where this thought of creation of thin lines for Dimensions comes from. But still disagree with the Lines, Strings, Ropes.
I hope i make a little sense, and not get burned alive at the stakes.

By: Joe_nyc

Joe_nyc — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:04:40 +0000

Franck

Think about this: Did you know that time is not constant? For example, it’s been proven that an earth orbital satellite’s clock runs faster than the identical clock on earth( if your are a scientific minded google “Hafele–Keating experiment”). There are many theories to this phenomenon but, to my knowledge, there isn’t a definitive explanation. You see, something so simple as time still alludes our understanding. Big-Bang? Forget about it. LOL

For me, string is WAY harder but I am sure we will understand it soon enough just like the way we figured out that earth is round.

By: Achems Razor

Achems Razor — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:17:10 +0000

@ Franck:

Most scientific theory’s are first envisioned via math, even Einstein’s theory of relativity was at first a math construct, until all was proven by observation and other means.

So yes, any theory could have some flaws.

Question:… Why would you figure that a big bang would be simple? For a singularity to occur, it had to start from something, although “Null Physics” states that the Universe began from the number “zero”.
Physicists hypothesize that the state of “nothing” is actually “something” because if there is nothing, there would have to be something that has become nothing. Nothing is filling something, this goes as far as to say that the Universe really is nothing. Almost like multiplying a negative times a positive. Does that make sense?
Even “Hawkins” stated that the Universe probably came from nothing.

So for continuous “Big Bangs, the Universe would go from nothing to something, back to nothing, and than back to something always, almost like the Universe was breathing.

But then, we would have take into consideration the other 10 to the 500 power of other Universes, wouldn’t we.
So Big Bangs are far from simple!
And “Quantum Mechanics” states that everything that happens, happens at once. It is already done, it is static.

By: Franck

Franck — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:52:44 +0000

@Achems Razor, i realized 5 seconds in the doc that i’ve seen right before this one. And i was thinking how it’s the same doc but edited differently.
I actually understood both of them a lot more then i though. Going in that direction, “String Theory” one admittedly said that Physicist are sometimes like Gurus and very often follow a fab. I guess it’s another way of saying they might be wrong. Where i come in as a underdog is at Hawkins “Singularity”. They were trying to stuff a square in a round space i think, making it complicated, now i just realised that you of all people would frown at this theory with a name like Achems Razor lolololooolololol “that the simplest solution is usually the correct one”. Bottom line i prefer my theory “Perpetual Bang” witch is very simple, logical, where there’s an infinity of Dimensions but not necessarily one that is exactly like ours but where we do completely the opposite. Why this Dimension ? It doesn’t make any sense to me. What would be the purpose ? In that dimension we would step backwards, so getting away from answers to questions, no ? But then again we would step forward collectively in spirituality, resulting in a Dimension of Peace.
“Big Bang”, wow, what a scientific term lololololol. But there it’s simple.

By: Achems Razor

Achems Razor — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:57:48 +0000

@ HaTeMaChinE:

I didn’t know you had a sense of humor!

By: Franck

Franck — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:57:32 +0000

@Achems Razor,
will do, thanks. Then i’ll come back at you.
peace.

By: HaTeMaChInE

HaTeMaChInE — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:34:34 +0000

I think they need to re-adjust Achems medication.

By: Achems Razor

Achems Razor — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:49:16 +0000

@ Franck:

Simple you say? (LOL)

My blog seems simple to me. If you want more insight on what I have said. I suggest you watch right here on TDF. “Parallel Universes”
There are the top scientists on that doc. Will give you more insight.

By: Franck

Franck — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:01:36 +0000

Ya OK Achems Razor, maybe you can send your comment to Green then he could translate it and send it to me so we could discuss it LOLLOLOLOL.
Now more importantly, does my theory do it to anyone ? Can i send it to the science Gods to get it publish ? LOLOOOLOLOLOL
No but seriously, why make it complicated when you can make simple ?
I mean, i understand the String, Quantum Mechanics, General Gravity, Time, Space, Energy, Mass, not as well as you and the MIT dudes, but i think enough to see that there are possible flaws, why always aim or result in infinities. I think it’s to easy of an argument to always say “well if you can’t disprove it, it could be possible”. It’s sounds like the same argument some have for God.
The expert say themselves that the formula they use crumbles in the Black Hole.
We know that Mass = Energy, yes ? (can i say Mass = Energy ??? or only Energy = Mass ?) so anyways, Mass in a Black Hole could turn into physical Energy logically. The way i understand some of the experts views are in a Black Hole, material becomes massless, emptyness ? You see where i’m going with this ?

By: Achems Razor

Achems Razor — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:51:55 +0000

@ Joe_nyc:

I didn’t say I was a genius! (LOL

I only grasped some, a lot, lot more that I do not know, YET!

By: Joe_nyc

Joe_nyc — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:19:51 +0000

Razor

Fact that it took you years to grasp gives me some comfort.