Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-12-2015, 01:48 PM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
The radiation which is not absorbed by bodies disperses (deconstructs) to the groundstate and does so within infinite space. It’s infinite space which overcomes the matter that you raise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2015, 01:58 PM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
I'm sorry but you used up your alloted number of words in your first post and must wait another three years before you may post again.

Read the rules.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
05-12-2015, 02:02 PM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
Good God, man. You get 5 sentences to tell me what the fucking abstraction paradigm of physics is. And they better not be run-ons.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
05-12-2015, 03:45 PM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2015 04:03 PM by GenesisNemesis.)
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
Quote:There is something called Olbers paradox. This states that if the sky is full of galaxies and stars then it should be flooded with light. The sky is full of galaxies and stars. The reason that it’s not flooded with light is due to the fact that they’re at various distances from us and their light fades and increases in wavelength as it travels towards us. The further we look out into the Universe, into regions which appear to be empty black space, the more galaxies and stars we discover.

The Universe is a self-organizing, totally connected, and a strictly determined infinite cycle of the construction and de-construction of matter. It never had a beginning and will not have an end. It’s infinite in distance and duration, space and time.

Although there are obviously an infinite number of things in the Universe

Doesn't Olbers' paradox effectively demonstrate that the Universe is not infinite?

From Wikipedia:

Quote:In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758–1840) and also called the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night.

You have not addressed this whatsoever, you've simply made the assumption that the Universe is infinite, without any evidence to support your conclusion. I look forward to learning how you know that there are "an infinite number of things' in the Universe, and that space/time are "infinite". By the way, you need experimental evidence, not any kind of philosophical musings. To date there has been no experimental evidence which has demonstrated that the Universe is infinite.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2015, 09:19 PM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
[Image: science.jpg]

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2015, 09:40 PM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
That one is more appropriate than usual, since the graph is the theoretical blackbody radiation curve for the universe with the COBE measurements of the CMB plotted overtop. The predicted redshift matches the COBE measurements so very nearly perfectly that it has become a textbook example of confirmation of a theory by observation.

[Image: 600px-Cmbr.svg.png]

BTW Paradigm, peer-reviewed or it didn't happen.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
05-12-2015, 09:52 PM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2015 10:21 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
(11-02-2014 04:54 PM)paradigm Wrote:  The majority of the Physics establishment believe in the Big Bang theory. This proposes that the Universe begun from an extremely small and dense clump of matter that exploded, and that the Universe is continuing to expand as a result. How this clump of matter exploded, is not explained. Sometimes the majority get it wrong.

That is actually not correct. Some in the Physics establishment, for the moment, hold the opinion that the Big Bang provides the best explanation for what was observed to be the inflationary epoch to what we see now. That is not "belief". Scientists don't "believe" things. SOME project it back to a singular "point" but the evidence for that is not in yet. It CERTAINLY is not thought to be from "small dense clump of matter". It is speculated that it may have been ENERGY. (Wiki) "The Universe continued to decrease in density and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form. After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the Universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos)."

Those incredibly ignorant fundamental errors on your part, demonstrates that in fact, you actually have not a CLUE what Physics actually teaches. There are also mainline cosmologists that thing there may emerge evidence that there are many universes, and they have expansionary and contractionary periods. They jury is out on those theories.

Sometimes internet loons think "sometimes the majority get(*S !) it wrong".Facepalm

Quote:The Universe is a self-organizing, totally connected, and a strictly determined infinite cycle of the construction and de-construction of matter. It never had a beginning and will not have an end. It’s infinite in distance and duration, space and time.

Nope. Totally wrong.
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/foc...rk-energy/
Until it's determined what Dark Energy and Dark Matter are, what the universe "is" is, at present, unknown.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-12-2015, 10:14 PM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
Some Bloke on Wikipedia Wrote:Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship...

The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky...

Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen...

Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and has lately been consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics.

See also Errors in Tired Light Cosmology courtesy of Prof. Edward Wright at UCLA

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2015, 10:24 PM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
(05-12-2015 01:48 PM)paradigm Wrote:  The radiation which is not absorbed by bodies disperses (deconstructs) to the groundstate and does so within infinite space. It’s infinite space which overcomes the matter that you raise.

How did you remember the password for a site you posted on once two years ago?

Even more importantly, why the fuck did you come back.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2015, 11:10 PM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
(05-12-2015 01:48 PM)paradigm Wrote:  The radiation which is not absorbed by bodies disperses (deconstructs) to the groundstate and does so within infinite space. It’s infinite space which overcomes the matter that you raise.

Define "groundstate". Then tell us where and how you determined that.
The fact is, the Third Law of Thermodynamics refutes your stuff, as well as the FACT that absolute (Kelvin) zero is not observed in nature, so you would have no way of actually knowing what you claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_...modynamics

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: