Scale is an illusion

[jsisidore]

"All things are evolving from other things, and resolving into other things... As above, so below; as below so above."

Is there a unified science field that studies the interconnectedness of all things, space inside space, and why we perceive it the way we perceive it. Right now I have to resort to the occult, the pseudoscience. Basically this is what I dislike about science, how divided and convoluted it is.

Edited March 6, 2017 by jsisidore
image

[K^2]

That's because you never even attempted to study science. You want things simple. Real things aren't simple. If you see a perfect agreement and harmony that are easy to understand in something, you know it's made up.

[Gaarst]

Science philosophy, epistemology, ontology or even applied mathematics can offer what you want. I'm pretty sure there's a name for the specific field of studying similarities between different fields but I can't remember it.

But yeah, as K^2 said physics is convoluted you can't go around that. The fields I mentioned are broad fields and do not go in depth of a subject in particular to search for one truth, they are closer to humanities that empirical science. You're studying these correlations from a philosophical standpoint, but I'd be surprised if there was anything behind them.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Gaarst

[DoctorDavinci]

I do believe that quantum mechanics fits this description (to a point)

Might I suggest taking a gander at 'The Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra ... it might help with your understanding of science and the philosophy of other schools of thought (ways of percieving the universe)

[jsisidore]

4 minutes ago, K^2 said:

That's because you never even attempted to study science. You want things simple. Real things aren't simple. If you see a perfect agreement and harmony that are easy to understand in something, you know it's made up.

Don't think you can know, think it all boils down to faith, as we cannot prove nor disprove that what we perceive is real. In fact if not for dreaming how could we know the difference? How could we come to the concept of reality. The mere concept of the existence of opposites is fascinating. Science has disproved a lot of superstition, but it did hit certain walls, like gravity or god for example.

[WinkAllKerb'']

there's one that allow that kind of study that: 

statistic "n" dimmensionnal correlation ("n" potententially bein' an infinite value, it's somehow studying thing in a infinite dimension field ... not 1d 2d 3d or 4d ... )

limit of this are mainly => forget to input a data field wich impact the results (wich can happen often, depending what your lonking at)
reading the results in it/themself/ves and give them an interpretation assuming you may have forget some criticals fields inputs is  painfull in itself

and yes "scales references are a lie" because lifespan, time perception, perception range in general whatever you applie it too, (and ego somehow)

Edited March 6, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[jsisidore]

34 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

Science philosophy, epistemology, ontology or even applied mathematics can offer what you want. I'm pretty sure there's a name for the specific field of studying similarities between different fields but I can't remember it.

But yeah, as K^2 said physics is convoluted you can't go around that. The fields I mentioned are broad fields and do not go in depth of a subject in particular to search for one truth, they are closer to humanities that empirical science. You're studying these correlations from a philosophical standpoint, but I'd be surprised if there was anything behind them.

First of all I'm not a scientist I think that it clear. Agree with mathematics, it can go places and is probably the safest bet, but the rest are branches of philosophy and are not empirical, which is my favorite subject. Behavioral neuroscience or biopsychology for example has assimilated three independent science fields of Chemistry, Biology and Psychology and I think it is the best example so far. Then again you can call it advanced physiology since it is concerned with the brain.

34 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

I do believe that quantum mechanics fits this description (to a point)

Might I suggest taking a gander at 'The Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra ... it might help with your understanding of science and the philosophy of other schools of thought (ways of percieving the universe)

Interesting. I will look it up. I think quantum mechanics hit a big wall.

[jsisidore]

26 minutes ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

and yes "scales references are a lie" because lifespan, time perception, perception range in general whatever you applie it too, (and ego somehow)

I only understood this. Yes, the biased and limited perception of the observer.

Edited March 6, 2017 by jsisidore

[Green Baron]

The forces in an atom are completely different from the forces in a solar system. On the one side you have the weak and strong interaction as well as electromagnetism. You need extreme conditions to overcome for example electromagnetism, while collisions between large masses may well happen without bending anything. So, while i am partly with you with the last three images (though it is impossible to model the movement of more than two objects exactly over a long time), i find the step from the first to the third one hard to imagine.

Btw.: particles are by more than 90% just movement energy of quarks and gluons, no orbiting balls ;-)

Aaaand ... if you dislike science, what is your intention of posting in a forum titled "science & spaceflight" ?

Asks a friendly :-)

Green Baron

Edit: let's leave god out of the play because there are too many different conceptions of what is meant with that and it is forbidden in here. Gravity on the other side is one well understood phenomenon. Just drop an apple in a small scale, or estimate movement of galaxies in a large one. No problem here ...

Edited March 6, 2017 by Green Baron

[Elthy]

1 hour ago, jsisidore said:

Don't think you can know, think it all boils down to faith, as we cannot prove nor disprove that what we perceive is real. In fact if not for dreaming how could we know the difference? How could we come to the concept of reality. The mere concept of the existence of opposites is fascinating. Science has disproved a lot of superstition, but it did hit certain walls, like gravity or god for example.

There is a quite rational approach to this: We currently have no other option, so we should simply take for real what we percieve. Is there any reason not to?

[Green Baron]

Hmm, i'd say, we have all the options in world. If people decide to describe a phenomenon from nature in words, physics or mathematics, set up an experiment, carry it through and in the end get exactly what was predicted (or eventually have to reformulate the premise) than that has brought humanity a small step forward. Of course there are limits to experiments in terms of energy and/or cost, than that experiment has to wait (e. g. bigger accelerator or telescope) or must be observed from afar (extreme conditions in the universe) and limits to understanding as well, e.g. because our tools are insufficient.

On the other hand, i find self-imposed limits much more restricting than money or energy ... no offense, personal experience !

Knowledge is increasing, the ancient Greek understanding of atomos as the un-devidible (-devisible ?) is ad acta :-)

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by Green Baron

[jsisidore]

34 minutes ago, Elthy said:

There is a quite rational approach to this: We currently have no other option, so we should simply take for real what we percieve. Is there any reason not to?

So if you will be put in a simulation as a semi-intelligent goat, and brought back would you keep your composure or show your emotional side?

[jsisidore]

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

The forces in an atom are completely different from the forces in a solar system. On the one side you have the weak and strong interaction as well as electromagnetism. You need extreme conditions to overcome for example electromagnetism, while collisions between large masses may well happen without bending anything. So, while i am partly with you with the last three images (though it is impossible to model the movement of more than two objects exactly over a long time), i find the step from the first to the third one hard to imagine.

Btw.: particles are by more than 90% just movement energy of quarks and gluons, no orbiting balls ;-)

Aaaand ... if you dislike science, what is your intention of posting in a forum titled "science & spaceflight" ?

Asks a friendly :-)

Green Baron

Edit: let's leave god out of the play because there are too many different conceptions of what is meant with that and it is forbidden in here. Gravity on the other side is one well understood phenomenon. Just drop an apple in a small scale, or estimate movement of galaxies in a large one. No problem here ...

God as an example, yes let's not go there, anyway I'm an agnostic.

Umm. With this infographic I meant to show the universal law of attraction  I know the electron movement paths are far more complicated than objects in space. Notice the people who have surrounded the speaker in a circle? They too will move "chaotically".  

I don't "dislike" science, I'm simply critical of it.

Pretty sure electromagnetism can be explained but of gravity, we can only observe its behavior.

[Green Baron]

Buuut .... the "universal law of attraction" is something that works between humans interacting with each other, sympathy, antipathy, you choose places and situations where you feel well, that are convenient, and so quite automatically work towards a goal. Without thinking rational or even sub consciously you put yourself in situations that suit your visions or whatever you'll call it and attract people with a similar vision. Old school people would maybe say: "Always struggle, in the end you'll reach your goal !". That may be wise but ....

... this is a) not a universal law (a looser can still one day decide to let go and do something useful) and b) several abstraction levels above the laws of physics you depicted above. The moon cannot decide to go a different way (at least if you're not a follower of shamanism :-)), two electrons (which are no "balls", just simplifications of probabilities that reveal themselves when measured, see the physicists in the other thread on "Proton star") cannot decide to meet.

The natural science you defy is complicated and a person without specific knowledge has to rely on simplified models or concentrate on a small window of the knowledge. That's why the "big things" these days are usually revealed by teams and not individuals, often people from different branches have to work together.

An agnostic, hm ? That was not clear to me. Welcome, brother :-)

gb

Edit: Gravity is relative. It's a pseudo-force. If noone tells you and there are no windows then you cannot tell whether you are in an accelerating car or lying on the ground of a mass that attracts you with a similar force.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Green Baron

[JetJaguar]

This thread reminds me of this Simpsons couch gag:

 

 

[YNM]

Scale is real, and you can have different scale.

A right triangle of 3:4:5 scale will never be the same with a 5:12:13 one. And it is naive to think that a right triangle of 1:1:x or 1:2:y proportion will have x and y as a rational number - it won't. Thinking that scale is useless because everything is bound to be the same is about the same as thinking sqrt(2) as a rational number, just because everything else is. (shockingly, phytagoras were among them who think so.)

So is the real world. If anything, it's not scale that's an illusion : it's order. No matter how well your approximate law/theory is, it'll fail after a certain accuracy. Newton's theory fails to cover what GR can cover properly, but so does GR have it's shortcoming just for now. The same goes to particle physics : despite quantum theory enables us to have a groundwork to build limiting equations to describe a system (it is naive, again, to think that EFE or Quantum equation so-named are an actual descriptive function - they're just limitations and different solves can be found in different condition through different methods), it still fails at a level of accuracy, notably the "vacuum" energy, which fully disagrees what (indirect) observation says.

If there's anything, consider this : all the things you heard, you saw, you felt that have a human touch behind it, they've done a good job trying to find an approximation of the chaos; they've done a good work trying to conform to the observation so far they could find.

[Superfluous J]

4 hours ago, jsisidore said:

So if you will be put in a simulation as a semi-intelligent goat, and brought back would you keep your composure or show your emotional side?

I guarantee you, no amount of mental gymnastics now would keep me from going emotional were I to wake up tomorrow and find out I'm just a goat.

[HebaruSan]

5 hours ago, jsisidore said:

I think quantum mechanics hit a big wall.

Sure, if you call running out of loose ends and experimental results that don't fit a "wall." Usually that kind of thing is called a tremendous success.

(Yes, for purposes of this thread, I'm classifying dark matter, dark energy, and unification with general relativity as outside of the remit of "quantum mechanics" proper. If you want to charge QM with failure to explain everything everywhere for all time, then sure, it's as guilty as anything else.)

If you want to see a "wall," I refer you to string theory. ~33 years since it effectively took over theoretical physics, and still no actual theory or experimental observations in its favor. It has inspired plenty of occult/pseudoscience-style books that sound a lot like the OP, though.

[mikegarrison]

2 hours ago, JetJaguar said:

This thread reminds me of this Simpsons couch gag:

 

 

This thread reminds me of late night bull sessions when I was a freshman. It's about as productive, too.

[kerbiloid]

Human perception time scale is much "slower" than electron "position" change time.
Astronomy timescale is much "slower" than a "human" perception speed.

If scale an atom and a planet system to a, say, "billion" turns duration, both electron and planet will be two stochastic blurry spherical clouds, where a position is unoredictable, but its probability can be estimated..
Different forces don't matter much here as both gravity and electromagnetism make potential fields 1/r² with more or less same distribution.

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

If scale an atom and a planet system to a, say, "billion" turns duration, both electron and planet will be two stochastic blurry spherical clouds, where a position is unoredictable, but its probability can be estimated.

It doesn't work like that. Electrons are NOT moving really fast in orbits around the nucleus, so that that we just can't see them clearly. They're actually impossible to pin down due laws of nature that affect them differently than they affect planets or stars.

We're all (or at least most of us are. I was) taught atoms in that way because reality is so crazy and most people don't need to know it, and making it familiar doesn't hurt anybody who doesn't try to make the logical leap you're trying to make here.

[mikegarrison]

20 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

It doesn't work like that. Electrons are NOT moving really fast in orbits around the nucleus, so that that we just can't see them clearly. They're actually impossible to pin down due laws of nature that affect them differently than they affect planets or stars.

We're all (or at least most of us are. I was) taught atoms in that way because reality is so crazy and most people don't need to know it, and making it familiar doesn't hurt anybody who doesn't try to make the logical leap you're trying to make here.

Well, we think so now, anyway. 100 years ago the "tiny solar system" (ie. Bohr model) idea was taken seriously as an actual description of the atom.

[KerikBalm]

Yes, someone needs to study beyond the over-simplified bohr model if he's going to critique all of science.

There are so many logical gaps and non sequiturs in this thread, its painful.

[Nibb31]

12 hours ago, jsisidore said:

God as an example, yes let's not go there, anyway I'm an agnostic.

Umm. With this infographic I meant to show the universal law of attraction  

"Universal attraction" is another name for gravity. I'm not sure what an electron or people in the Roman Senate have to do with gravity. So you don't illustrate much.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to demonstrate.

Quote

I don't "dislike" science, I'm simply critical of it.

Science is a method, not a belief system. You can criticize a method, but you have to offer an alternative method. Do you have something more convincing than the scientific method for understanding the laws of the universe?

Quote

Pretty sure electromagnetism can be explained but of gravity, we can only observe its behavior.

No. It can be explained too. Just because you haven't researched or understood a subject doesn't mean that others haven't.

13 hours ago, jsisidore said:

First of all I'm not a scientist I think that it clear.

It sure is. I don't think you even understand what science is, therefore trying to discuss epistemology is going to be hard.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Nibb31

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

It doesn't work like that. Electrons are NOT moving really fast in orbits around the nucleus

I'm afraid, it works exactly like that,
Any "physical body" is just a cloud of electrons and nucleons.
And wave function doesn't make difference between "particles" and "bodies".
Just the more "particles" are assembled in the "body", the more determined is their average position.

P.S.
One can calculate ephemeries of the planets and realize than their formulas are "only 10 mln years" or so.
Beyond this time the position of any planet on its orbit is presumed unpredictable.
I.e. you can treat a planet as a "body" or "particle" in a very small time range. Beyond this you can only treat it as a cloud of probable positions.
As its orbit parameters change, too, you even can't presume this cloud to be a circle. It will be torus-like

So, in near-billion years scale you have a star surrounded by shells.
And of course, these shells (probable planetary position clouds), are not moving really fast around the star.

Edited March 7, 2017 by kerbiloid