View Full Version : Gawains theory of relativity
Gawain of Orkeny
09-11-2005, 23:15
Well Im sure youve all heard or thought of this one. Is it possible we and the whole universe are nothing more than relatively a molecule in a much larger entity?
Devastatin Dave
09-11-2005, 23:17
We are a pimple on the ass of an ant. Is that what you are saying? ~D
Strike For The South
09-11-2005, 23:18
Well Im sure youve all heard or thought of this one. Is it possible we and the whole universe are nothing more than relatively a molecule in a much larger entity?
No its not and you shall be silenced for your heresy
Sjakihata
09-11-2005, 23:20
Well Im sure youve all heard or thought of this one. Is it possible we and the whole universe are nothing more than relatively a molecule in a much larger entity?
Possible yes, unlikely yes.
Byzantine Prince
09-11-2005, 23:20
Our galaxy might be part of a another star system much larger then that, and then that could a part of another much larger and more unpredictable then that. In other words we'll never know and it's all hopless. ~D
Gawain of Orkeny
09-11-2005, 23:21
We are a pimple on the ass of an ant. Is that what you are saying?
Thats basicly it. Could be worse we could be a hemroid in the ass of whatever. ~D Or as someone else here once said we could all be part of a sims program on some futuristic mainframe.
Strike For The South
09-11-2005, 23:23
If we were all sims on a futeristic mainframe the amount of ass that would kick would be unimaginable
Taffy_is_a_Taff
09-11-2005, 23:25
maybe we are all figments of my imagination?
Sjakihata
09-11-2005, 23:27
maybe we are all figments of my imagination?
Certainly not
Taffy_is_a_Taff
09-11-2005, 23:28
Sjakihata:
maybe that's just me thinking that,eh?
Sjakihata
09-11-2005, 23:29
To some degree Descartes' Cogito ergo sum, can be used to deny many of the proposed scenarios, such as us being in a computer game or what not.
Sjakihata
09-11-2005, 23:31
Sjakihata:
maybe that's just me thinking that,eh?
If indeed I am an object of your imagination, surely you'd be able to predict my next post and in what threat in which im posting, no? Are you up for the challenge?
How we do it: you'll write down, privately, in what threat i'll be posting and exactly what i'll be saying. then I do post and you reveal your prediction in this very thread, ok?
I'll post it in the next 10 mins after you ok or no-go on my suggestion.
:duel:
Gawain of Orkeny
09-11-2005, 23:36
If indeed I am an object of your imagination, surely you'd be able to predict my next post and in what threat in which im posting, no? Are you up for the challenge?
Not until I imagine it. By that time you will have posted it. ~;)
Sjakihata
09-11-2005, 23:37
Not until I imagine it. By that time you will have posted it. ~;)
The keyword here is predict
Taffy_is_a_Taff
09-11-2005, 23:39
Sjakihata:
that wouldn't work if we are both figments of my own imagination. I can't predict what I'll imagine or not.
Sjakihata
09-11-2005, 23:39
Well Im sure youve all heard or thought of this one. Is it possible we and the whole universe are nothing more than relatively a molecule in a much larger entity?
A question for you Gawain. Would you find that if such theory was true, that we were some particle of something bigger, it would exclude religion (im thinking christianity)? Or not? please substantiate your claim :bow:
Gawain of Orkeny
09-11-2005, 23:40
I've thought the same thing before. And it makes sense when you consider that everything is made up of little atoms, which happen to rather resemble little solar systems. Who knows? Maybe the universe is like one big cell in a larger entity? Who knows.
Yup. What started me thinking about this again was a show where the mentioned theve found all sorts of engines in simple cells that they never knew were there.
Sjakihata
09-11-2005, 23:41
Sjakihata:
that wouldn't work if we are both figments of my own imagination. I can't predict what I'll imagine or not.
Obviously, you cannot be a figment of your own imagination, who is there to imagine it then? Someone must, physically, posses the imagination, I think.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
09-11-2005, 23:43
in that case, how about I am also you and we are both figments of my imagination, which would also be your imagination.
What if the physical world is just a figment of my/our imagination?
Sjakihata
09-11-2005, 23:45
in that case, how about I am also you and we are both figments of my imagination, which would also be your imagination.
What if the physical world is just a figment of my/our imagination?
Talk about skizofrenia (sp?). ~D
We (you and I) must say then, that we have a very good imagination, no? We think that's the only conclusion we can logically draw from that.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
09-11-2005, 23:45
we/I are most Excellent ~:cheers:
Byzantine Prince
09-11-2005, 23:48
And it makes sense when you consider that everything is made up of little atoms, which happen to rather resemble little solar systems.
They don't necessarily look the way they are depicted, and they don't necessarily have a physical form either.
_Martyr_
09-12-2005, 01:24
The solar system comparison is an extreme simplification usually used in secondary schools. Its not even a good simplification, its just used because its what laypeople can understand without much explanation.
_Martyr_
09-12-2005, 01:33
Easy answer: It wouldnt look like anything.
The wavelength of visible light is MUCH too large to be "seeing" anything anywhere near the scale of an atom.
:bow:
Obviously, you cannot be a figment of your own imagination, who is there to imagine it then? Someone must, physically, posses the imagination, I think.
I do, of course.
Well Im sure youve all heard or thought of this one. Is it possible we and the whole universe are nothing more than relatively a molecule in a much larger entity? Unlikely. A part of a machine must have a function. The universe is too big have a specialized purpose or function.
Mind you, the earth is practically a ball-of-nothing compared to the rest of the universe.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-12-2005, 01:58
Unlikely. A part of a machine must have a function. The universe is too big have a specialized purpose or function.
Who said anything about a machine or function? And whats big? Thats what this thread is all about. Its big relative to us but how big is it in the overall scheme of things? Whats past the edges of the universe or is that all there is?
Proletariat
09-12-2005, 02:01
There's a joke about people who smoke too much pot before getting on internet forums lurking here somewhere.
Who said anything about a machine or function? And whats big? Thats what this thread is all about. Its big relative to us but how big is it in the overall scheme of things? Whats past the edges of the universe or is that all there is?You are a machine. Your whole body is a machine. ~:)
Byzantine Prince
09-12-2005, 02:05
There's a joke about people who smoke too much pot before getting on internet forums lurking here somewhere.
Gawain is older then pot. I wonder if Gawain's post count will grow so large that the org will implode and the universe will become nothingness again. :party3:
Papewaio
09-12-2005, 02:07
Is it? Wrap your brain around this: What would our solar system look like if it was the size of an Atom?
Don't take me too seriously, I'm just throwing stuff out there.
Well the 'orbits' would be interesting. When you go from one orbit to another you expend energy, and then leap to the next orbit, no cruising inbetween. Also the orbits are not circular, they are spherical, tear drops, clusters etc and some orbits even go throught the sun and out again.
Also you have a hard time predicting where the planets are, because at quantum scales you can only predict roughly where they probably are.
A single photon has then ability to push a planet from one orbit say Venus all the way out to say Pluto... and then emit photons as they drop back down.
_Martyr_
09-12-2005, 02:20
See, GC. I was trying to spare you that but you had to keep asking. ~;)
:bow:
bmolsson
09-12-2005, 03:14
Gawain, if your theory was true, then it wouldn't be very good for the human race self confidence.... ~;)
Papewaio
09-12-2005, 03:17
Well Im sure youve all heard or thought of this one. Is it possible we and the whole universe are nothing more than relatively a molecule in a much larger entity?
This wouldn't be much different from the multiverse model and the idea that Universes can bud off other Universes...
Seamus Fermanagh
09-12-2005, 03:21
Re: Gawain's Original Question:
Mu. Or, in local parlance, Gah.
Pappy:
Cool beans descrip on the orbits and stuff. I spent hours in chem class trying to get a sense of it and you summed it smoothly - w/o formulae - in 2 short paragraphs. I love a good "gloss" on tough subjects.
I believe that confirms my earlier suspicion that W' was looking to produce intelligent children with you, relying on her own genes for the "looks" dept. ~;)
Seamus
Papewaio
09-12-2005, 03:35
Pappy:
Cool beans descrip on the orbits and stuff. I spent hours in chem class trying to get a sense of it and you summed it smoothly - w/o formulae - in 2 short paragraphs. I love a good "gloss" on tough subjects.
Thank you :bow:
Quantum physics is a bit of a mind bender.
Kongamato
09-12-2005, 06:42
Can anyone really know what the heck anything is?
Can anyone really know what the heck anything is?
No, only what it's not.
Papewaio
09-12-2005, 07:05
Can anyone really know what the heck anything is?
No, but you can have a better understanding, and hence go from witch burning to CD burning.
Soulforged
09-12-2005, 07:09
Can anyone really know what the heck anything is?
Yes because the definition of to be is given by us too. You know that your computer exists because you've it in front of you and you're using it? There's no point in phylosophy about the existence of things, because rational beings define existence themselves. Besides with the time who knows what's going to be discovered? Perhaps, just perhaps, somebody will look at this post 1000 years from now and say woooo this is really profound and take it like phylosophy (or perhaps he/she will laugh depending on the subject ~D ).
Sjakihata
09-12-2005, 09:41
A question for you Gawain. Would you find that if such theory was true, that we were some particle of something bigger, it would exclude religion (im thinking christianity)? Or not? please substantiate your claim :bow:
since i didnt receive an answer, I'll just quote myself.
Sjakihata
09-12-2005, 09:45
Yes because the definition of to be is given by us too. You know that your computer exists because you've it in front of you and you're using it? There's no point in phylosophy about the existence of things, because rational beings define existence themselves. Besides with the time who knows what's going to be discovered? Perhaps, just perhaps, somebody will look at this post 1000 years from now and say woooo this is really profound and take it like phylosophy (or perhaps he/she will laugh depending on the subject ~D ).
Of course there's a point to ontology. I mean, even after 2000 years, we're still not fully able to give a logical explanation, why do you think they will in 1000 years from now on?
No, but you can have a better understanding, and hence go from witch burning to CD burning.
Wow. How many Gigabytes can you store on your average witch, anyway? Probably depends on the size of the branding iron.
Is it possible we're all just sim machines? Sure. I think therefore I am just tells me I am, doesn't tell you much about what it is that is me. Could be a physical body and a complex electrochemical reaction, could be an extradimensional economics sim.
Of course, if there IS a larger universe we're just a molecule too, then maybe there is larger scale life out there. And maybe they're wondering if they are just a small portion of some much bigger universe as well....and maybe they are.
At which point I decide that in the end, it doesn't matter very much.
Sjakihata
09-12-2005, 10:35
And maybe there are lesser (smaller) universes inside of us as well
Smaller universes taste like chicken.
It's a fact.
Adrian II
09-12-2005, 11:02
And maybe there are lesser (smaller) universes inside of us as wellDarn!
*blows brain out*
Franconicus
09-12-2005, 11:57
I think the most important question is: Are electrons inhabited? Is there intelligent life out there? Or in there? Is there intelligent life at all?
Taffy_is_a_Taff
09-12-2005, 14:28
only me/us
Ja'chyra
09-12-2005, 14:52
No, only what it's not.
And how do you know you're right.
I would say that the only thing that is totally wrong is saying that something cannot possibly be, like I just did ~:confused: Or something like that.
Sjakihata
09-12-2005, 14:53
only me/us
you mean me!
Taffy_is_a_Taff
09-12-2005, 15:08
yes, we
I think the most important question is: Are electrons inhabited? Is there intelligent life out there? Or in there? Is there intelligent life at all?
Living on something which is both a particle and a wave, and can't actually be pinned to one spot just gives me a headache.
:dizzy2:
When presented with questions like this, I always think to myself.... Is there any way to know the correct answer? Nope. Is there anything I can do about it? Nope.... Then moving on. ~D
Seamus Fermanagh
09-12-2005, 16:27
...The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,
In all of the directions it can whiz!
As fast as it can go -- that's the speed of light, you know,
10 million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth!
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'cause there's "bugger-all" down here on earth.
So, can we have your liver then?
Seamus
Duke Malcolm
09-12-2005, 16:27
The Earth has been destroyed, and we are just a computer simulation of Earth in a satellite around Mars...
Kagemusha
09-12-2005, 16:47
0. :bow:
Gawain of Orkeny
09-12-2005, 16:51
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
A question for you Gawain. Would you find that if such theory was true, that we were some particle of something bigger, it would exclude religion (im thinking christianity)? Or not? please substantiate your claim
Sorry I misssed it the first time. My answer is no. Why would it?
Papewaio
09-12-2005, 23:35
Living on something which is both a particle and a wave, and can't actually be pinned to one spot just gives me a headache.
:dizzy2:
Why?... it wouldn't be much different from surfing...
Taffy_is_a_Taff
09-12-2005, 23:48
yeah, but aren't Aussies born on surfboards?
or something like that anyway...
Soulforged
09-13-2005, 00:42
Of course there's a point to ontology. I mean, even after 2000 years, we're still not fully able to give a logical explanation, why do you think they will in 1000 years from now on?
Yes but grand part of those 2000 years the man spent in war, and science was put aside, for what, like 1000 years, and even more social science, that's still on it's birth. I think that all will be really different in the next 1000 years, is just my belief.
I think the most important question is: Are electrons inhabited?
Life need chemical reactions for energy, such don`t occur at nano-scale. So I guess they`re not.
Franconicus
09-14-2005, 07:18
Viking,
this is what we know. Why can't there be a completely different form of life?
Adrian II
09-14-2005, 11:06
yeah, but aren't Aussies born on surfboards?
or something like that anyway...It is well-known that Australians are born on barrier reefs and either immediately swim ashore or drown. Many do not make it. Those who do are indestructible. They indulge in sports practices that would force Charles Darwin to rewrite evolution theory.
:bow:
http://www.onoffswitch.com/Images/taxi%20talk/darwin-sherrin.jpg
Viking,
this is what we know. Why can't there be a completely different form of life?
Well, life need energy. Without energy life can`t exist. Try to move your hand, think or.. yeah, just anything without using energy. It`s impossible. There is no source of energy for an creature to live on an electron; pluss that gravitational forces are too strong at nano-scale to let such creatures keep toghether.
Life completely different from what we have on Earth there`s no problem with, like life based on liquid hydro-carbons instead of water. But life on nano-scale is impossible.
Reverend Joe
09-14-2005, 19:00
Maybe there is an energy wavelength on the scale of electrons- a kind of sub-subatomic energy. To the lifeforms on electrons, this energy is the same size as energy particles are to us.
Just go ask Alice- I think she'll know.
Wow- that sounded really profound when I was writing it... then again, I wrote it right when White Rabbit was peaking.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-14-2005, 19:01
But life on nano-scale is impossible.
How do you know? Again this is the point of this thread. For all we know we could be life on a nano scale. In fact I suggest in relation to the universe we know we already are that.
Reverend Joe
09-14-2005, 19:08
WHOA-
I just thought of something... Gawain...
What if God didn't create us... what if, at some point in the future, we and the other intellegent beings in the universe will all unite- and WE WILL CREATE GOD?! ~:eek:
Well Im sure youve all heard or thought of this one. Is it possible we and the whole universe are nothing more than relatively a molecule in a much larger entity?
Not from a scientific standpoint because physical systems are not infinitely scalable. The four forces that govern the universe (gravity, electro-magnetism, the strong force and the weak force) determine what size things are. Einstein felt these four forces were manifestations of a single underlying force, but he died before he could complete his Unified Field theory. If the space, within which our observable universe exisits, itself exists within a larger physical system, that system would have to be governed by a different physical law. I suppose it's possible, but it's also possible that what we observe as space is simply the absence of anything and it extends to infinity.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-15-2005, 01:12
Not from a scientific standpoint because physical systems are not infinitely scalable.
Science is useless on this matter. We dont know squat and the sooner many here realise that the better.
Papewaio
09-15-2005, 01:36
I'll wait for an absolute opinion on anything once I'm dead.
Till then I will go with the current scientific paradigms.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-15-2005, 01:46
What if God didn't create us... what if, at some point in the future, we and the other intellegent beings in the universe will all unite- and WE WILL CREATE GOD?!
Thats a pretty old idea for you to just think of. In fact Frak Herbert(Dune) wrote a book about it.
http://www.arrakis.co.uk/jpg/godmake3.jpg
For all we know we could be life on a nano scale. In fact I suggest in relation to the universe we know we already are that. The fastest phenonomen in this universe is light and it takes ~8 minutes for that light to travel from the Sun to the Earth. How can the universe be functional with that kind of speed? The photon emission from an atom is much faster that's why it is functional.
Also, if there a more stars out there outside the universe, the space and the sky would be filled with light.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-15-2005, 02:24
Also, if there a more stars out there outside the universe, the space and the sky would be filled with light.
Who says theres more stars past the universe. Does anyone have any idea of what lies there? No they dont. We could all be living in a ball of puss for all we know. Again many of you fail to realise how clueless we really are.
Who says theres more stars past the universe. Does anyone have any idea of what lies there? No they dont. We could all be living in a ball of puss for all we know. Again many of you fail to realise how clueless we really are. If you're going to intimate that the universe as a (functional ) unit of a bigger "entity", there would be more universe like this with stars and with the same physical rules as well. Two units will not interact if not bound with the same rules.
Science is useless on this matter.
No it isn't. You cannot scale physical systems as you are suggesting. Besides, if we were inside something larger and that larger thing moved, that force would affect our universe.
Space is nothing and there is no reason to believe that space has an end to it. We can only see out so far, so we don't know if there is anything beyond what we can see. Everything that we do see can be traced back to a central point at the same point in time.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-15-2005, 06:44
Space is nothing and there is no reason to believe that space has an end to it. We can only see out so far, so we don't know if there is anything beyond what we can see. Everything that we do see can be traced back to a central point at the same point in time.
I guess you just dont get it. We dont even understand how everything on earth works never mind the universe and beyond. We just take our best educated guesses. And as I pointed out in another thread we are usually wrong.
Franconicus
09-15-2005, 08:47
Well, life need energy. Without energy life can`t exist. Try to move your hand, think or.. yeah, just anything without using energy. It`s impossible. There is no source of energy for an creature to live on an electron; pluss that gravitational forces are too strong at nano-scale to let such creatures keep toghether.
Life completely different from what we have on Earth there`s no problem with, like life based on liquid hydro-carbons instead of water. But life on nano-scale is impossible.
Viking, you do not convince me. First of all, there is plenty of energy within atoms. Second, quantum physics tells us that the notion energy is a simplification of the macro world. In the micro world it becomes more - let's say - vage and irrelevant. For example the law of conservation of energy is not correct for a single electron or atom but only for a statistical ensemble. Third, relativity tells us that energy and mass are equivalent. Forth: Relativity also teached us that our physical laws are based on our observations. And that they may not be correct any more if the issue is outside our observation and experience.
But the real question is if there is another world outside how can we safe it from communism and terrorism and make it part of the western world.
Well Im sure youve all heard or thought of this one. Is it possible we and the whole universe are nothing more than relatively a molecule in a much larger entity?
So what was this a troll question? Why ask the question if you know it's not possible to answer it?
Gawain of Orkeny
09-15-2005, 17:24
So what was this a troll question? Why ask the question if you know it's not possible to answer it?
Because some people it seems think they and science know the answers.
Because some people it seems think they and science know the answers.
If space exists within a metaphysical entity then Immanuel Kant already proved that it's not possible to know the nature of that entity.
Who says theres more stars past the universe. Does anyone have any idea of what lies there? No they dont.
There is nothing beyond the universe(except from other universes, maybe). No time, no space, nothing. The universe is everything.
Viking, you do not convince me. First of all, there is plenty of energy within atoms. Second, quantum physics tells us that the notion energy is a simplification of the macro world. In the micro world it becomes more - let's asay - vage nd irrelevant. For example the law of conservation of energy is not correct for a single electron or atom but only for a statistical ensemble. Third, relativity tells us that energy and mass are equivalent. Forth: Relativity also teached us that our physical laws are based on our observations. And that they may not be correct any more if the issue is outside our observation and experience.
There are energy at such scales, but not for life to utilize. Secondly, there are nothing for life to be buildt of. Third, things become completely different at such scales, everything would have to "orbit" the atom core. Life would be torn apart thanks to how much stronger the different forces become at such scales.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-15-2005, 18:38
There is nothing beyond the universe(except from other universes, maybe). No time, no space, nothing. The universe is everything.
And your proof? Even you just admitted you dont know.
And your proof? Even you just admitted you dont know.
Imagine nothing. Certainly "nothing" would exist forever and be infinite. It wouldn't even exist because it's the absence of existence. The real questions are where did the energy that was introduced into the nothing come from, and what is the nature of the physical law which governs that energy. Science can't answer either one of those questions because they are not observable phenomena.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-15-2005, 19:35
Science can't answer either one of those questions because they are not observable phenomena.
Well they cant now but who knows? This is also the reason we dont know what is beyond the universe. As Ive said before everything is relative. Just as I know as I grow older and learn more I realise many of my old conceptions were wrong and that there is much more to learn the same goes for science and civilization.
And your proof? Even you just admitted you dont know.
The universe is everything. What proof do you want? When I say the universe, I mean everything. Nothing can escape the universe, nothing can exist outside of it. If the Big Bang created the universe, nothing could possible be outside it.
Well they cant now but who knows? This is also the reason we dont know what is beyond the universe.
I suppose there could be other universes that are so far away that we can't see them or so far displaced in time that they have come and gone or not come into existence yet.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.