IS OUR UNIVERSE MICROSCOPIC?
- Thread starter CyberWolf
- Start date
Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,538
Our whole galaxy is inside a sphere hanging on a cat's collar. (MIB)
And then there is Horton Hears a Who.
And then there is Horton Hears a Who.
Last edited:
So that pretty much cinches it that mankind is just a cancer on the cell called earth.
I'm not sure that Men in Black counts as real physics. I believe we actually live in a computer simulation as studied in The Matrix.Our whole galaxy is inside a sphere hanging on a cat's collar. (MIB)
And then there is Horton Hears a Who.
There is no way we are in a simulation of any kind. The simulation scenario ignores the laws of nature.
Your scientific minds are up to date and these replies are remarkable.
Two excellent examples of my thinking DrHenley. I will be sure to include them from now on.Our whole galaxy is inside a sphere hanging on a cat's collar. (MIB)
And then there is Horton Hears a Who.
The only planet that we know of that is crawling with life and we are certainly the cancer.
Those simulations would include knowledge and that would wipe my mind of everything I have ever learned. I would not know where to begin.
A simulation ignores natural laws and this may return us to God and science.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,538
The whole "our galaxy is a speck of dust and the solar system is a molecule in a larger universe" concept has occurred to me before, decades ago. As has The Matrix concept.
The reason we come up with these things is to explain the fact that we know instinctively that there is something outside of our reality, that we don't comprehend, and if you are paying attention, the signs are evident but the picture is too fuzzy to really know what it is. So we try to explain it in ways we can comprehend.
Shakespeare famously put it: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."
The Bible put it this way: "For now we see through a glass, darkly"
The reason we come up with these things is to explain the fact that we know instinctively that there is something outside of our reality, that we don't comprehend, and if you are paying attention, the signs are evident but the picture is too fuzzy to really know what it is. So we try to explain it in ways we can comprehend.
Shakespeare famously put it: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."
The Bible put it this way: "For now we see through a glass, darkly"
Last edited:
"Are we really so perfect that we feel and detect everything? This is not a man's world. It's for everything and more. Imagine there are more parts to our bodies. They are not physiological. They are not psychological. We can not feel them and we can not detect them. But they are there and when we move, they move. Mine can interact with yours. Your's can interact with mine." ~ CyberWolf.
Last edited:
We know nothing.
This is an interesting conversation. But, I will admit, my mind is not large enough to truly understand the meaning of a lot of this. There is a lot out there, that I can't even start to grasp the meaning of.
The rest of us will never find out. Do you feel better?
Last edited:
As a professional science fiction writer, such ideas are interesting.....and the criticism that exploring these ideas isn't practical falls flat with me, as the famous silver screen actress Hedy Lamarr (she was in Sampson and Delilah) developed and pioneered the mathematics and theoretical foundations of Bluetooth and the cellphone in the 1940s. She appears to have been a kind of electronics Leonardo DaVinci....whose designs and ideas only became practical decades later.
The idea that the Universe is a simulation is very old, if one considers the ancient Hindu idea that the Universe is a dream in the mind of Brahma.
One day, Brahma will wake up and the dream will end, which means that this Universe will dissolve into nothingness.
When Brahma goes back to sleep after something like 8.45 billion years, the Universe will reconstitute itself when Brahma begins to dream.
Personally, I think the Big Bang was Brahma starting the Universe with an orgasm.
The idea that the Universe is a simulation is very old, if one considers the ancient Hindu idea that the Universe is a dream in the mind of Brahma.
One day, Brahma will wake up and the dream will end, which means that this Universe will dissolve into nothingness.
When Brahma goes back to sleep after something like 8.45 billion years, the Universe will reconstitute itself when Brahma begins to dream.
Personally, I think the Big Bang was Brahma starting the Universe with an orgasm.
Hedy Lamarr must have been a genius. I would never have expected that one! That's some dream on it's own. Brahma's dream on the other hand... hahahahahahahahaha
Hedy Lamarr was a genius, and people at the time didn't take her very seriously because no one could believe that one of the sexiest, most beautiful actresses could also have a brain.
She had to publish her papers and scientific work quietly, on the down-low to avoid having it sabotage her acting career.
Many of her concepts had military applications.
She did--for example--invent a device (based on the piano, of all things) that would jam the radio signals used to steer the remote-controlled torpedoes used by the Nazis in Operation Wolfpack in the North Atlantic.
Her device was not practical at that time, but was used 20 years later during the naval blckade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviets had torpedoes with nuclear warheads.....so Lamarr invented a way to disable a category of nuclear weapons before nuclear weapons were even invented (although they were on the drawing board).
Personally, I would have had sex with her shadow.
She had to publish her papers and scientific work quietly, on the down-low to avoid having it sabotage her acting career.
Many of her concepts had military applications.
She did--for example--invent a device (based on the piano, of all things) that would jam the radio signals used to steer the remote-controlled torpedoes used by the Nazis in Operation Wolfpack in the North Atlantic.
Her device was not practical at that time, but was used 20 years later during the naval blckade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviets had torpedoes with nuclear warheads.....so Lamarr invented a way to disable a category of nuclear weapons before nuclear weapons were even invented (although they were on the drawing board).
Personally, I would have had sex with her shadow.
I'm thinking that the word 'genius' is not giving her credit. She ought to be an open book these days so the whole wide world can appreciate all of that!
She was inducted into the Inventor's Hall of Fame.....but posthumously, which is a shame.
Not to my knowledge, but only because he's a historical figure.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,538
It's the National Inventors Hall of Fame, you have to hold a U.S. Patent of highly significant technology.
This Simpsons introduction was almost indentical to the beginning of the movie Contact, which starred Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey. It was based on a novel by Carl Sagan.
Not neccesarily.
This idea is explored in depth during the 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate.
Evidentally, a highly respected physicist found something that is extremely interesting, as well as quite disturbing.
If you examine that mathematics of the laws of physics (especially quantum mechanics), we find something exactly like error-correction code written into the software of the Universe.
On this forum, I find that a lot of people are deeply religious....so I wonder why this idea is so disturbing.
In my mind, it seems like evidence of God.
I also found an image of one of Lamarr's patents. It has to do with a communication device that transmits at varying radio frequencies so that the communication can't be intercepted. This was also the device that can be used in a different way to disable Nazi torpedoes.
It is also part of the basis of Bluetooth.
Oddly enough, the government had her selling millions and millions of dollars in war bonds.....yet screwed her over with her patents and devices because she was an alien.
It is also part of the basis of Bluetooth.
Oddly enough, the government had her selling millions and millions of dollars in war bonds.....yet screwed her over with her patents and devices because she was an alien.
Last edited:
Right.
But Lamarr was involved with selling bonds, but the military wouldn't use her devices or support her research (including a lot of her patents that had military applications) because she was a beautiful actress and also because she was an immigrant.
We still do things like this today.
As an interesting example, consider Brian May, who is the lead guitarrist for Queen. He wrote "We Will Rock You", and his guitar solo at the end of the song is considered one of the best in the history of rock and roll......with Jimi Hendrix (of course!) being in the number-one position.
While being a top rock star, he got his Ph.D. in astrophysics. His doctoral thesis was on the distribution and concentration of dust particles in the solar system.
Whenever he's interviewed for television, everyone attaches a lot of credibility to his Ph.D., and everyone praises him for being a talented, gifted polymath (which he is).
Contrast this with the Portuguese supermodel Sara Sampiao. Sampiao is the top Victoria Secrets runway model, she's been in Sport's Illustrated Swimsuit Edition several times, and commands upward of $30,000.00 for three hours' work modeling.
When interviewed in television or the magazines, invariably everyone asks her about her glamourous work.....but nobody ever brings up the fact that she's a mathematical genius.
I've found references to her mathematical talents, which seem to lie in physics and physical chemistry.....yet no one ever mentions it when interviewing her.
It's a bad double standard.
If I'm going to be fair, however, I must admit (as a straight man) that I would find it exceedingly difficult to focus on her mathematical accomplishments if I was talking to her.
As an interesting example, consider Brian May, who is the lead guitarrist for Queen. He wrote "We Will Rock You", and his guitar solo at the end of the song is considered one of the best in the history of rock and roll......with Jimi Hendrix (of course!) being in the number-one position.
While being a top rock star, he got his Ph.D. in astrophysics. His doctoral thesis was on the distribution and concentration of dust particles in the solar system.
Whenever he's interviewed for television, everyone attaches a lot of credibility to his Ph.D., and everyone praises him for being a talented, gifted polymath (which he is).
Contrast this with the Portuguese supermodel Sara Sampiao. Sampiao is the top Victoria Secrets runway model, she's been in Sport's Illustrated Swimsuit Edition several times, and commands upward of $30,000.00 for three hours' work modeling.
When interviewed in television or the magazines, invariably everyone asks her about her glamourous work.....but nobody ever brings up the fact that she's a mathematical genius.
I've found references to her mathematical talents, which seem to lie in physics and physical chemistry.....yet no one ever mentions it when interviewing her.
It's a bad double standard.
If I'm going to be fair, however, I must admit (as a straight man) that I would find it exceedingly difficult to focus on her mathematical accomplishments if I was talking to her.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Messages
- 17,305
Who cares if she can add 2+2. She's the one who decided to focus selling herself in a bikini.
My only point is that there seems to be a strange rule that says that a woman can be intellectually accomplished, or she can be stunningly beautiful.....but not both at the same time.
I see a similar situation with my boss at work.
My manager's name is Michelle. She is a blonde hottie with sculpted cheekbones, and mysterious blue eyes that you can get lost in. She could be a Playboy model.
She also has an extremely keen business sense, is an expert at defusing tense situations, and happens to be a computer whiz who can fix just about anything
Yet most of the men I work with can't accept direction from her because she's a beautiful woman. Instead of focusing on being employees, they'd rather struggle and fight (in subtle, passive-aggressive ways) every decision and directive that comes out of her office.
I've known most of these guys for years....in many cases, for decades, as we've worked together at other companies, and they don't treat male managers in the same way.
This created problems for me in the begining of my employment, as Michelle seemed to assume I was being sarcastic when I just did what she wanted without pushing back against her. Further, my co-workers seemed to lose respect for me simply because I did my job without fighting my boss.
The thing that makes me very sad is that Michelle seems to have polished, refined ways of dealing with this nonsense, which tells me that she has encountered this a lot.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2017
- Messages
- 3,847
It's not a new concept, but there is no way to prove/disprove it, that I know of. Here's another concept for which "proof" is hard to come by: Since the galaxies are increasing in velocity the further away from the center of the universe they get, eventually they would exceed the speed of light and become invisible to us....the question then becomes, "How large IS the universe?" It could be MUCH larger than we think!
Yes.
There is--however--no "center" of the Universe.
The way to imagine the expansion of the Universe is think of the galaxies as shapes drawn on the surface of a balloon, and the balloon is being inflated.
As the balloon gets bigger, the galaxies become farther and farther apart.
The number that describes the relationship between how far a galaxy is away from us vs. how fast it's receeding from us is called Hubble's Constant....which is also a key number is describing the expansion of the Universe.
The fartherest we can theoretically see into the Universe is about 13.7 billion light years, as that's how much time has passed since the Big Bang.
In other words, if the Universe didn't exist 13.7 billion years ago, then how can we see farther than 13.7 billion light years?
Also, I believe I read somewhere that the expansion of the Universe is faster than expected, so our theoretical horizon (where galaxies attain the speed of light and become invisible to us) is somewhat closer than 13.7 billion light years away, but I don't remember the value.
- Status
