Hi,

I think you are talking about the local physics but that's not exactly what i am talking about, when it comes to differences between different localities. I am really talking about the same locality what can change there (as well as somewhere else).

I realize we have to stick to what we know now for the most part, but i also realize we need to keep an open mind about the future. There are still things we dont even have ANY experience with yet because we have not yet encountered them, and even if we did we might not understand them because we had nothing like it in our experience in the past. Remember we are right now basing everything on what we knew in the past, our past experiences. If something comes up that we dont have any past experience to compare it to, we just have to resort to accepting it.
For example, what if we find out that the universe has ALWAYS existed, or the 'multiverse' has always existed. That is, it had no beginning because it did not require one. That would blow our minds because we have no experience to date that deals with something that has 'always' existed with no beginning. If we did find that out, we would be forced to just accept it even if we could not explain it.

I'm just tossing out thought experiments to those that enjoy them

I have considered a changing universe before. Consider: There is a scene in the Matrix where the agents change reality (the black cat). Everyone besides the main characters are not aware of the change because they are hard coded into it as well. So it is possible that my past is exactly as I remember it?

I was talking with a Muslim guy one time about God being all powerful. He made a point that we are unable to visualize / understand him because he programmed us.

Just like a computer program only can know what's been programmed into it (machine learning aside), I think the same applies to us looking out into the universe. We are stuck behind the barrier of our own mind.

So this speaks to your point of a changing universe because how would we even know?

Furthermore, frame of reference is critical because in the scope of the universe it is difficult, if not impossible to establish a Cartesian origin. Hubble's law shows that the expansion of the universe is proportional. Even with this now known, there are multiple definition of a day because the reference to the sun is different than the reference to the fixed stars. We barely just discovered parallax and similar phenomena and now that we know about it, a whole new can of worms is unleashed.

I came across one author that proposed that if the universe is expanding than so are we. He went on to say that our bodies and our logal frame of reference is expanding proportionally so even though I am constantly "getting bigger", I cannot detect it because everything looks the same.

 

More useful would be an app that alerts you to which drivers are looking at their phones instead of watching the road.

Yeah it would have to be voice assist

 

I'm just tossing out thought experiments to those that enjoy them

I have considered a changing universe before. Consider: There is a scene in the Matrix where the agents change reality (the black cat). Everyone besides the main characters are not aware of the change because they are hard coded into it as well. So it is possible that my past is exactly as I remember it?

I was talking with a Muslim guy one time about God being all powerful. He made a point that we are unable to visualize / understand him because he programmed us.

Just like a computer program only can know what's been programmed into it (machine learning aside), I think the same applies to us looking out into the universe. We are stuck behind the barrier of our own mind.

So this speaks to your point of a changing universe because how would we even know?

Furthermore, frame of reference is critical because in the scope of the universe it is difficult, if not impossible to establish a Cartesian origin. Hubble's law shows that the expansion of the universe is proportional. Even with this now known, there are multiple definition of a day because the reference to the sun is different than the reference to the fixed stars. We barely just discovered parallax and similar phenomena and now that we know about it, a whole new can of worms is unleashed.

I came across one author that proposed that if the universe is expanding than so are we. He went on to say that our bodies and our logal frame of reference is expanding proportionally so even though I am constantly "getting bigger", I cannot detect it because everything looks the same.

Hello,

The point about the changing universe, how would we even know is interesting. We may not be able to tell. In some cases we would, and then we would have to acknowledge that we found out something new, and we may not know if it was always like that or it JUST happened yesterday.

"Getting Bigger"
I had an idea long time ago that was sort of more for fun but one way to 'explain' gravity is to image that the earth is constantly expanding into a bigger and bigger version of itself. That would mean that the surface would be constantly moving farther and father away from the center. That in turn would mean that if the surface rate of change of distance from the center was increasing faster and faster that the surface would be accelerating, and we all know that gravity is like an acceleration, so we would all feel the same as we feel know.
I think that idea fails the test of surface area vs volume though and i'd have to remember how that works.
The way i understand the measurements that have actually been done, the stuff farther away (near the 'edge' of the universe) expands faster than the stuff nearby.

 

 

Some of these videos make me think about whether or not spacetime itself changes under the influence of moving things.

If we shoot a bullet at a wall, the wall resists and the bullet gets stuck in the wall. If we shoot another bullet in the same spot, it may push the first bullet through and then they both may fall to the ground at the other side of the wall. But then all remaining bullets shot in the same spot will pass through easily. Thus the wall has changed nothing about the previous bullets themselves had anything to do with the rest of the bullets going through the hole with ease. If at some fundamental level spacetime itself can undergo a subtle change locally with moving things then that could explain a lot of observations. This i think would make relatively theory more dynamic than how we have thought of it so far. That would also appear to present very strict interactions in some areas but different rules in other areas, and they would be changing constantly. The differences would be hard to measure except as some as of yet unknown phenomenon, which is exactly what we see. There could be a memory to it such that it can remember the states indefinitely or perhaps some time limit, or until some more common phenomenon occurs again possibly close by or possibly far off.
I couldnt help but think about this especially in relation to the two slit experiment. If a moving electron can influence spacetime in a memorable way, the next electron could be influenced by that, and then the next electron influenced by both, then the fourth influenced by the first three, etc. This might explain the emerging interference pattern. We'd have to come up with some clearly defined mechanism that could be called the mechanics behind this.

Just something to think about.

 

Or, nothing to think about.

 

https://iai.tv/live/july-youtube

 

https://iai.tv/live/july-youtube

I've always been a fan of Sabine Hossenfelder, she is relentlessly rational and an ardent defender of objectivity... is it normal that I'm now beginning to find her cute too?

 

Or, nothing to think about.

Is that because you forgot how to think for yourself? Apparently you dont like to investigate anything about physics yourself.
It's hard to believe that you just post things that other people have talked about but dont have a single independent idea of your own. Surely you must have thought about something new that has not been thought about before.
Maybe you could go around the country giving lectures to students in physics. You could title it, "Dont ever think about anything that hasnt been done yet". You know they do say that the average student has very little chance of ever changing physics, but then one comes along one day and does.
You may be the most closed minded individual i have ever come across in all my years in the field of electrical engineering. I have to wonder why ... dont think you are dumb or anything like that and intelligent people are always the most curious about the world.

I am very used to hearing this kind of response only hearing some time later that an original idea was used in a product. The idea is to knock the idea so the individual does not pursue it themselves and make money from it, then make money from it themselves later. It's often accompanied by a silly explanation or no explanation at all why it would not work. However, maybe i'll start a new thread for this.

 

Is that because you forgot how to think for yourself? Apparently you dont like to investigate anything about physics yourself.
It's hard to believe that you just post things that other people have talked about but dont have a single independent idea of your own. Surely you must have thought about something new that has not been thought about before.
Maybe you could go around the country giving lectures to students in physics. You could title it, "Dont ever think about anything that hasnt been done yet". You know they do say that the average student has very little chance of ever changing physics, but then one comes along one day and does.
You may be the most closed minded individual i have ever come across in all my years in the field of electrical engineering. I have to wonder why ... dont think you are dumb or anything like that and intelligent people are always the most curious about the world.

I am very used to hearing this kind of response only hearing some time later that an original idea was used in a product. The idea is to knock the idea so the individual does not pursue it themselves and make money from it, then make money from it themselves later. It's often accompanied by a silly explanation or no explanation at all why it would not work. However, maybe i'll start a new thread for this.

I meant superdeterminism has decided no mater what we think or do. It should have been obvious because you linked the video and talked about it in your post.

Stop the personal crap. It's not helping a scientific discussion.

 

dsfdsfdsfdsfsd

I meant superdeterminism has decided no mater what we think or do. It should have been obvious because you linked the video and talked about it in your post.

Stop the personal crap. It's not helping a scientific discussion.

Instead of debating what was said in post 185, its actually your post in 186 that is not helping the scientific discussion. Just because you believe something is folly, is poor reason to say so without proving why it is folly (especially to the uninitiated). Considering that you make many topics and assertions on this site, I expect more of you otherwise all you are doing is cherry picking which arguments you are most versed in and exalting yourself to any supposed lesser discussion or idea.

 

dsfdsfdsfdsfsd


Instead of debating what was said in post 185, its actually your post in 186 that is not helping the scientific discussion. Just because you believe something is folly, is poor reason to say so without proving why it is folly (especially to the uninitiated). Considering that you make many topics and assertions on this site, I expect more of you otherwise all you are doing is cherry picking which arguments you are most versed in and exalting yourself to any supposed lesser discussion or idea.

That post was a response to yours about God. There is a science debate about free will. Listen to the debate link I posted when it goes live. You might notice that not all are the subject of my injections to folly. There is history here as this entire thread is based on a classic misapplication of qm.

 

That post was a response to yours about God. There is a science debate about free will. Listen to the debate link I posted when it goes live. You might notice that not all are the subject of my injections to folly. There is history here as this entire thread is based on a classic misapplication of qm.

I don't follow. MrAI said "Just something to think about.", in the next post you said "Or, nothing to think about."

The discussion has become scattered so I'll make my leave. I can't compete with you guys anymore.. its not enjoyable when it gets like this.

 

I don't follow. MrAI said "Just something to think about.", in the next post you said "Or, nothing to think about."

The discussion has become scattered so I'll make my leave. I can't compete with you guys anymore.. its not enjoyable when it gets like this.

Yes, it's scattered because some have used the thread to spread totally unsupported flights of IMO uncritical thinking about things like QM entanglement. Is it my fault I wanted to set the record straight on current theory instead of indulging IMO pop-sci nonsense? Should we accept arguments and have deep discussions about other unsupported claims like 'free energy'? Superdeterminism is one possible interpretation of QM that retains 'realism', eliminates FTL paradoxes, supernatural forces/influences and multiverses but it has a cost, no free-will "Or, nothing to think about." because it doesn't matter to QM outcomes.

 

Yes, it's scattered because some have used the thread to spread totally unsupported flights of IMO uncritical thinking about things like QM entanglement. Is it my fault I wanted to set the record straight on current theory instead of indulging IMO pop-sci nonsense? Should we accept arguments and have deep discussions about other unsupported claims like 'free energy'? Superdeterminism is one possible interpretation of QM that retains 'realism', eliminates FTL paradoxes, supernatural forces/influences and multiverses but it has a cost, no free-will "Or, nothing to think about." because it doesn't matter to QM outcomes.

I realized pretty quick I was going off the rails with some of my comments. Since I know little about QM to make any reasonable assertions, its best I butt out as usual.

 

Superdeterminism is one possible interpretation of QM that retains 'realism', eliminates FTL paradoxes, supernatural forces/influences and multiverses but it has a cost, no free-will "Or, nothing to think about." because it doesn't matter to QM outcomes.

It doesn't really matter which interpretation you accept, actually. Because neither superdeterminism nor free-will can be proven or disproven. How do you even measure those kinds of things?

 

I meant superdeterminism has decided no mater what we think or do. It should have been obvious because you linked the video and talked about it in your post.

Stop the personal crap. It's not helping a scientific discussion.

I would not have said anything you consider personal but when i go through the effort to post something interesting and you had the balls to make it sound like it wasnt even worth thinking about, you should expect the same treatment in return. You dont mock out someone's post and then say "oh you got personal on me". If i said your post was stupid that's a reflection on you personally.
So sorry you took it personally after delivering something personal yourself

I have a solution to all this though which i think i will employ for a little while anyway.

 

I don't follow. MrAI said "Just something to think about.", in the next post you said "Or, nothing to think about."

The discussion has become scattered so I'll make my leave. I can't compete with you guys anymore.. its not enjoyable when it gets like this.

Hi,

Yes and then read the next response from him. "No personal crap". So it's ok if he says personal things to you but dont say personal things to him
I'm partly leaving also.

 

Hi,

Yes and then read the next response from him. "No personal crap". So it's ok if he says personal things to you but dont say personal things to him
I'm partly leaving also.

Yes I noticed that as well. I don't think any of us should lose our minds over words on the internet. Whenever I get "triggered", I know the best thing to do is remove myself and reflect on what led up to that point. Bickering back and forth trying to prove oneself is generally ineffective and there is really nothing to be gained in a chat room.

What I've concluded from the responses to my posts in this topic is that I need to triple check (at least) my thoughts and assertions before making them public. And for all things that don't require a lifetime of knowledge, we will have to agree to disagree as the answer is realistically beyond any of us. I would much rather do that than form grudges with people who would otherwise help me with my quest for knowledge.

That being said, I think most here bring something to the table despite what others think and there should be no problem with that. We are all here because we like science.. I don't think anyone should be turned away because what they think might be wrong.

Now I'm definitely off topic but some mediation should be in order because we all have feelings too.

 

Hi,

Yes and then read the next response from him. "No personal crap". So it's ok if he says personal things to you but dont say personal things to him
I'm partly leaving also.

I call them as I see them. Your feeling were hurt and you started a completely off-topic rant, plain and simple that's done nothing but distract from the science of this thread. It's happened before many times on this thread and others, with me and others.