tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post1995580695377896642..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Temperature and the watched atomGlenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-28517502630581004552017-05-31T10:30:11.329-07:002017-05-31T10:30:11.329-07:00George Coyne: I quote: 'In order for anything ...George Coyne: I quote: 'In order for anything to exist it has to have boundaries.' In math the notion of boundary is rather complex. I am n,ot a mathematician neither a physicist so I have to keep the examples from daily life. Does a cloud have a boundary and if yes, how to describe that? I can see a boundary from the ground but not flying in the clouds. So, if the universe exists as a thing it must have boundaries? Why?henk korbeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00980854278183124249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-64123628568092227032017-05-31T10:21:31.798-07:002017-05-31T10:21:31.798-07:00Science does not give meaning to something, human ...Science does not give meaning to something, human beings do give meaning. I reformulate 'With 0.000000001 degrees above absolute zero ' in 'what is the physical meaning 0.000000001 degrees above absolute zero', if there is any? What do you measure? Getting closer to absolute zero? If I turn it into 100,000,000 degrees above absolute then maybe the question will be more clear. A numerical scale is used but can one use that scale in the extremes? <br /><br />henk korbeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00980854278183124249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-75409090697063935862017-05-27T20:39:11.408-07:002017-05-27T20:39:11.408-07:00In order for anything to exist it has to have boun...In order for anything to exist it has to have boundaries. As stated in my comment it is impossible for nothing to ”exist.” This implies limitless microcosms. That means there is no boundary by which a totality of microcosms can be contained. Therefore it would make no sense to ascribe existence to their totality since there is no such totality. Referring to a totality that does not exist as the “universe,” is simply an abstraction. Although specific items exist within abstractions, the abstraction itself has no existence. Thus, microcosms exist within the abstraction of the "universe," but the abstraction (i.e. universe), has no existence. This is not an opinion, just simple logic.George Coynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05437030688390128534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-73623740923064212592017-05-27T11:52:17.915-07:002017-05-27T11:52:17.915-07:00Coyne is right of course, and I am sure GB agrees....Coyne is right of course, and I am sure GB agrees. The real problem is that GB is stuck in a particle mode of physics. Microcosms are particles.<br />Underlying the particles are quantum waves. Thus there is a field of these comprising nature. <br />Hidden, of course, but consistent with some interpretations of QP.<br />GB doesn't go into newer theories except his own. Thus a communication problem.Blighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160829900151513063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-73500614247979764262017-05-26T23:02:53.165-07:002017-05-26T23:02:53.165-07:00Glenn: There is a good reason “physicists have bee...Glenn: There is a good reason “physicists have been unable to find perfectly empty space that contains nothing at all.” It is impossible for emptiness or “nothing’ to exist because existence only applies to things. If “nothing” existed then it would have to be a thing, which would contradict the definition of nothing (or no thing. Understanding this means that there can be no beginning to microcosms in motion, and no termination of their limitless existence. George Coynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05437030688390128534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-40619618173781772372017-05-26T13:48:19.865-07:002017-05-26T13:48:19.865-07:00Bligh:
Re your "Given an infinite space, if ...Bligh:<br /><br />Re your "Given an infinite space, if one thing is moving everything else is moving relative to it. So, in essence everything moves. Mach intuited that, I believe."<br /><br />[GB: You might want to discard Mach's assumption. It never did make any sense and doesn't "prove" anything at all. A single object cannot move the rest of the universe. The correct assumption is that all microcosms are moving with respect to all other microcosms in the universe.<br /><br />Looking forward to your debunking of the BBT...]Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-74327916475202175062017-05-24T09:42:55.688-07:002017-05-24T09:42:55.688-07:00I think Henk will like my book, if I ever finish i...I think Henk will like my book, if I ever finish it. One of the reasons for the book (there are many)was to elucidate a theory that takes care of all of his concerns. E.g. Given an infinite space, if one thing is moving everything else is moving relative to it. So, in essence everything moves. Mach intuited that, I believe. My theory explains all phenomena in physics and shows why aspects of relativity are wrong or confused. Why the BBT is nonsense etc. Blighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160829900151513063noreply@blogger.com