Jesse Marcel is a very interesting story for sure. That's what I love about this subject; so much of it is wrapped in mystery. All these testimonies, recent evidence of unexplained phenomena, and policy making at the highest levels of US government coming out just adds to the intrigue. Something is definitely happening because the attention is there, and it's really fascinating to watch, no matter what angle of belief you side on.
Damn rights we have a primitive understanding. How long has the universe been around? How long has man as a species been around? How long have we been studying physics? When have the big break throughs really started? Is it safe to say that we made a really huge leap about 100 years ago and expanded our knowledge dramatically? Would it be safe to say that you would have to be extremely arrogant to suggest that we have figured out everything about the universe and how it behaves - according to the rules of physics that WE created - in the past 100 years? Yes, we're just scratching the surface of what we know about physics and the universe and in another 100 years we are likely going to look back and laugh at some of the assumptions we think are infallible now. Remember Dalton's model of the atom? Good times.
Ahem, we didn't create the rules, we discovered them.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Snuffleupagus For This Useful Post:
Ptolemaic geocentrism and Dalton's model of the atom were considered rules, that which cannot be broken, which we ultimately found to be wrong. Those rules were created by man to explain things. Rules are a means to create order and are creations of man. Time is the greatest example. Everything is an interpretation of what we observe and rules/laws are established to provide common meaning, like a language. They are a creation and will be recreated when greater understanding is developed. The JWST is providing data that breaks the rules meaning new rules will be created to create the order we need.
Time is definitely a human creation. It's a concept of measurement. Albert Einstein said it best - "People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
Ptolemaic geocentrism and Dalton's model of the atom were considered rules, that which cannot be broken, which we ultimately found to be wrong. Those rules were created by man to explain things. Rules are a means to create order and are creations of man. Time is the greatest example. Everything is an interpretation of what we observe and rules/laws are established to provide common meaning, like a language. They are a creation and will be recreated when greater understanding is developed. The JWST is providing data that breaks the rules meaning new rules will be created to create the order we need.
I think you are providing a layman’s thought process to what laws and theories are in modern science.
Take the speed of light in a vacuum as the speed limit of the universe. It is very unlikely that we find a way to break that speed limit as described by the current laws and theories. That does not mean faster than light travel through the universe is prohibited by the current math.
Or Newtons laws. They are for all but the really big and really small and really fast correct. No one changed Newtons laws. All the math collapses back down to those rules. I’d argue the clearly identified gaps in our description of the universe permit all kinds of interesting things rather than Laws are made by humans like language.
Do you have a good example of how the JWST is providing data that “breaks the rules”
Because of the non-universality of Newton's Laws, I do wonder if there are more variables that in standard use cancel out to zero, but at the very large or small become important. So I'm not 100% convinced those "laws" are not subject to modification, while still allowing them to be true for typical usage.
Time is definitely a human creation. It's a concept of measurement. Albert Einstein said it best - "People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
“Time” as a measurement is a creation, but what time is attempting to measure isn’t.
When Einstein wrote that, he wasn’t speaking about the scientific measurement of time, but of the way we experience time.
Because of the non-universality of Newton's Laws, I do wonder if there are more variables that in standard use cancel out to zero, but at the very large or small become important. So I'm not 100% convinced those "laws" are not subject to modification, while still allowing them to be true for typical usage.
My general point is that the laws function in the observable state of the universe at the time of definition. They continue to function in that observable state of the universe after more of the universe is explained. So it’s not one day we find out these things are wrong. It’s we find out that there are more complicated interactions that collapse down to these approximations.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Time is a fundamental concept that helps us organize and measure the sequence and duration of events (and for humans, that's in a linear fashion). Time allows us to distinguish between the past, present, and future, and it provides a framework for understanding the order and duration of events.
Einstein's quote suggests that the common perception of time as a linear progression from past to present to future may not be an inherent property of the universe but rather a subjective construct of our human experience.
So we organize 'time' in a way that gives a frame of reference. I'd argue it is a way to measure relativity.
Time is a fundamental concept that helps us organize and measure the sequence and duration of events (and for humans, that's in a linear fashion). Time allows us to distinguish between the past, present, and future, and it provides a framework for understanding the order and duration of events.
Einstein's quote suggests that the common perception of time as a linear progression from past to present to future may not be an inherent property of the universe but rather a subjective construct of our human experience.
So we organize 'time' in a way that gives a frame of reference. I'd argue it is a way to measure relativity.
Then I assume you don’t know the origin of that quote.
Go ahead, do your thing. Remember to enjoy the cigarette after you humble me with your vast wisdom. Don't forget the snide assumptions about the kind of person I am.
Go ahead, do your thing. Remember to enjoy the cigarette after you humble me with your vast wisdom. Don't forget the snide assumptions about the kind of person I am.
This response is a little rich considering how condescending and snide you were yesterday. Let me know if you want to talk like adults or if your need to make this personal is a sign you’re aiming for a sequel, because the original wasn’t really as interesting as you thought it was.
Are you going to enlighten me? Or are you going to keep posturing and making snide remarks like you've made to countless others in this thread and elsewhere?
You can even DM me if you'd like to fill me in when you're ready.
So if im catching this thread correctly now, We have posters who are interested in potential alien beings, and those that think they are ridiculous and are attacking the other group? yup, checks out for CP.
So if im catching this thread correctly now, We have posters who are interested in potential alien beings, and those that think they are ridiculous and are attacking the other group? yup, checks out for CP.
You are not.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
People want irrefutable proof of alien life (because that’s the only thing that one can believe in apparently with this phenomena), or GTFO because everything is wrong and shouldn’t be discussed or debated until that happens. Those are the only two options it seems for some.
I use littlerbooks sometimes for things like this. They do a good job of summarizing the important stuff. https://littlerbooks.com/summary/a-b...istory-of-time time becomes relative, because two observers experiencing the same event at different speeds would perceive it at different times since the speed of light remains the same for both observers.
