/sci/ - Science & Math

You are high. I don't even know where to begin.

What advantages does your system have over traditional physics?

>>4297545
I like it.
Sounds similiar to a theory I read about by David Bohm that everything is essentially an infinite field of movement that folds and unfolds upon itself in unending patterns.

>>4297559
Well honestly I was just making sense of traditional physics. My theory is more so an indepth look at how objects interact with each other outside of gravity. The traditional consensus is that objects merely bend space and thus influence each other (nuclear and strong forces are used to explain this as well). Though these seem like substitutes for what merely seems like the constant fluctuation between points trying to constantly occupy vacuous spaces. Ergo causing the vibrations that fundamentally keep the universe in motion.

I always thought that movement is the binder of existence, and that is why stuff is constantly moving at a quantum level, so I like your idea.

>>4297545
You're talking in new age hippie babble and not the language of falsifiable predictions.

>>4297586
By calling my words babble you're actually babbling which is ironic. But to be more specific- I meant: In this Universe what are the only things inherent? Existence and Non-existence. If one point exists, it must occupy a point that doesn't exist and vice-versa. After the big bang, many points were made in a vacuous area, so simple rule that dictates nothing must be occupied forces vibrations and movement in particles from the most general (planets and humans) to the most fundamental (gluons and quarks). Instead of merely space bending at the weight of an object, I propose that there are fields of influences objects begin to hold based on their binary that either exclusively cause the gravity effect or coincide with the gravity effect.

I'll retract that its a theory but it's an idea. One I was hoping more knowledgeable people could help me hypothesize or debunk.

>>4297601
>By calling my words babble you're actually babbling which is ironic.
No. One can respond reasonably to incoherent statements. That's all I'm saying.

>If one point exists, it must occupy a point that doesn't exist and vice-versa.
Assumption of Euclidean space. Wrong.

>blah blah blah
Falsifiable predictions or get out.

>>4297608
>new-agey hippie crap
That is either ad-hominem or babble. Choose.

>Everything else.

You forgot to take your autism medication haven't you?

>>4297601
>By calling my words babble you're actually babbling which is ironic.
No. One cannot** respond reasonably to incoherent statements. That's all I'm saying.

>If one point exists, it must occupy a point that doesn't exist and vice-versa.
Assumption of Euclidean space. Wrong.

>blah blah blah
Falsifiable predictions or get out.

>>4297612
Protip: If someone is a murderer, then calling him a murderer isn't ad hominem. Ad hominem is a fallacy of debate by trying to ignore or defeat an argument by stating that the person has some irrelevant negative quality X.

In this case, it's not some irrelevant quality of you. It is that your speech is unintelligible.

>>4297612
Let me phrase that better. An ad hominem is when you bring up a negative irrelevant character trait. If someone is arguing for creation, saying that they're a nazi, even if true, is a kind of ad hominem. If instead they're arguing for eugenics, then the application of nazi might well be an appropriate description of the argument, and thus not really an ad hominem, depending.

In this case, it's not an ad hominem to call it as it is. Your argument is shit. It's incoherent. Deal with it.

Here's the problem I see, OP.

While your idea *can* potentially work, there's too many phenomenon out there that you'll need to account for in order for this to work. How do your ideas account for quantum entanglement, electromagnetism, black holes, and anti-matter.

While I won't say your idea is wrong, I'd still like to see how far you've considered this. As entertaining as the thought is, we still have yet to determine whether reality is composed of particles or waves (and that's assuming it's either in the first place).

This is so stupid and assumptions are just retarded.

>Add multiple, or unfathomably large amount of points constantly occupying the spaces left behind other points, you start to see patterns similar to photons and how they behave

Why?

>when clustered, they's fields have their own fields.

Why?

>>4297672
Not OP, but c'mon.
>Why?
You can't just ask a guy "why", ya know? Answers can only be as good as the questions being asked in the first place. If I asked "why" to someone telling me their computer works, do I mean who fixed it? Do I mean what powers it? Do I mean what makes up the computer? Do I mean what it does?

I mean, fuck. I don't think the OP really knows what he's talking about either, but at least give him questions he can work with so that he at least knows what kind of things to look for.

>>4297682
There is no purpose to talk sensibly with an irrational starting position. The best you can hope for is to ridicule his ridiculous position, and hope he drops it. It's evident he doesn't accept science and/or holds some completely wacked out new age bullshit. I/we hope through ridicule to remove this from him, for his own benefit.

>>4297682
Wise Lebowski is wise.

>>4297687
Okay, see, you are PRECISELY what is wrong with science.

This man came here providing observations he had, and was attempting to make sense of them. Instead of offering your own observations (and the observations of the scientific community), you call the man retarded and treat it as though science can only be appreciated by a select few.

I'm not a fan of new-age bullshit, but the fact that people put their faith in science and come asking us for answers to their questions is still pretty fucking cool. Even if we don't like their answers, at least encourage them to come back if it means they're double-checking their thoughts.

>>4297697
>This man came here providing observations he had, and was attempting to make sense of them.
Let's see if that's true.

>Let's imagine that on the most fundamental level there was merely something and nothing (I.e a '1' and a '0').
>a general axiom is that when there is nothing, something must occupy it.
>o if this one point constantly fluctuates between occupying an empty space, and reoccupying the empty space it creates it is essentially vibrating.
Hell, nevermind, just look at goddamned everything the OP wrote. He's just pulling shit out of his ass for all of it.

>>4297697
He didn't have any observations. That's the point. He just made shit up without any logical structure.

>>4297702
>>4297701
Ask him for clarifications.

From what I've seen, he's described a crude form of particle displacement and oscillation, but he doesn't understand what he's describing.

>>4297711
>He's describing X, but he doesn't understand X.
No. It's not a matter of the glass is half full vs half empty. You're seeing a full glass where I see an empty one.

He's proposing a model and a theory without any ready falsifiable predictions. Strike against. He's proposing his model and theory without any math at all. Huge strike against. And he's proposing it without any understanding (likely) of the current good models. Instant failure.

>>4297711
He's listing a string of what ifs, without any clear motivation. When asked for a connection between one what if and the next, you throw a hissy fit.

>>4297726
>>4297723
In that case, you tell him what he needs to do and what to search for if he wants to be taken seriously.

Jesus christ, I'm not saying that he's actually thought of anything good. I'm saying that he can be taught. Yeah. He's wrong. You can either tell him why he's wrong or you can tell him to fuck off. Guess which one gets people interested in science?

I'll give you a hint: it's not the one where you say, "It's too complex for you to understand and you're a moron for trying".

>>4297744
>I'll give you a hint: it's not the one where you say, "It's too complex for you to understand and you're a moron for trying".

I didn't say that. I very clearly called his ideas rubbish, suggested that he drop his new age mumbo jumbo, and actually bother to learn science.

>>4297747
>You're talking in new age hippie babble and not the language of falsifiable predictions.
People line up and down the sidewalk just to hear advice from you, don't they?

If you ever wonder why society does not fund the sciences more than they do, look no further than your reflection. The only person on this board that's worse than you is that valjean asshole, and he knows how to suck the fun out of anything. I swear, it's as though the guy is offended that people don't kiss his ass.

>>4297545
> I have a theory..... let's imagine.
From Encyclopedia Britannica:
Scientific Theory-a systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

You may have an idea, or concept, or even wild speculation, but it is doubtful that you actually have a scientific theory. Scientific Theories are built on principles and laws that can be tested and verified. I would also like to point out that you do not wait more than four words after saying "theory" before you say, "Let's imagine".

>Considering we're stuck a matrix that is not yet fully understood.

What does this even mean? A hollywood movie concept should never be at the basis of an actually intellectual appeal. You are asking me to assume that we are in fact in a "matrix" without properly defining the word. At the very best, I am left to assume that you are trying to use a concept postulated in the science FICTION movie "The Matrix", a 1999 movie by the Wachowski Brothers featuring Keanu Reeves. I am sure you did not intend for me to make that connection as an argument for your theory, but by not defining a key element, you naturally open yourself up for unfavorable criticism....

>when there is nothing, something must occupy it.

The oft quoted, Benedictus de Spinoza who said,"Nature abhors a vaccuum." is actually offering a fallacious, reified argument whereby an abstract concept (in this case, "nature") is ascribed feelings such as abhorrance and discussed as if it were a tangible being. Also, bear in mind that de Spinoza was a metaphysical philosopher in the mid-1600's and this quote is taken out of the context of his work on ethics: Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata (Ethics Geometrically Demonstarted). If you are not referring to this quote, then you are suggesting the horribly fallacious argument that vaccuums CANNOT exist since something must occupy that space. Vaccuums do in fact exist "in nature", and while I will give you that true vaccuums are harsh environments, implying that something "MUST" occupy it does not logically follow and is in fact counter-intuitive.


>Why? Who knows but that's why equilibrium and vacuums exist.

This is a horribly fallacious argument. If I read this correctly, your proof that vaccuums exist, is this "natural" need to occupy it and cause it not to exist? Read it this way: When there is nothing, then something. Something is not nothing. Therefore vaccums exist. When written that way, I dare say that people may begin to doubt your credibility if not out and out laugh in your face.

So we have gone through the first four sentences where one would suppose that you are laying the groundwork that is going to support your theory and we have one imagined concept, one science fiction movie reference/undefined assumption not based on fact, and two fallacious arguments. I'm sure this is going to get better. I just hope there's not reference to mind altering drugs in this theory......

>>4297790
Yo guys, I heard that we're having a tripfag pissing contest.

>>4297811
Err, whatever her trip is.

Keep in mind, just because these arguments are not sound, that does not necessarily mean your conclusion is not sound. I am fairly confident that the world is littered with examples of sound conclusions that were derived from unsound arguments....

>So if this one point constantly fluctuates between occupying an empty space, and reoccupying the empty space it creates it is essentially vibrating. Add multiple, or unfathomably large amount of points constantly occupying the spaces left behind other points, you start to see patterns similar to photons and how they behave. Appearing in a general area but never really at one observational "point".

As I am not an expert in quatum mechanics, I will not attempt to validate the scientific merit of the above statement, however, I do believe that you are attempting to describe the behavior of photons. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this concept is arguably one of the most debated and researched scientific concepts to date. With that being said, if you are attempting to bring what you think is a new concept to the table, you had be bringing the hardest factual data to the table (or at the very least strong, sound logic). Suggesting that particles may be doing something based on your poorly laid groundwork in the first four sentences, and then vaguely hinting that what they are doing is related to the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle does not infer a strong argument.

>These behaviors must have a field of influence in which they can detect, connect and influence other particles.

You simply can not use words like "must" without backing them up. Why MUST these event occur? This is yet another poor argument.

>Meaning the movements of one point affect the other, causing unique behaviors for certain fields of influence and when clustered, they's fields have their own fields. These "fields" when observed at a higher level can be consider properties.

I'm having difficulty digging through this one. Again, QM is a bit above me, but anytime you are dealing with causality, empirical data must prove the relationship between said events.

>These "fields" when observed at a higher level can be consider properties. What makes electrons different from protons, and what makes them different from neutrons. Thus on an exponential level, there are fields upon fields of different systems of influence that composed of these binaries of "something-nothing" protocols that create even more unique fields. These grow into different elements then into different molecules and objects

This is the babble that everyone is talking about. This should be the core of your theory, but you are just adding words that have no inherent value to them. "Fields", "higher level", "exponential", "systems", "protocols", and "elements" do not significantly contribute anything to this discussion unless they have a definition that directly relates to your idea.

>thus the universe as it stands today.

No theory should ever end like this. This is the magician's equilvalent of, "Voila!" And just like magic, causality is mearly implied not verified. Plus, this sentence may come across as offensive to people who find enjoyment in the scientific process. So, while I will not debate the merit of the scientific information contained herein, I will say that these individuals had every right to post they way they did based solely on the way you presented your "theory":

>>4297723
>>4297608
>>4297657
>>4297701
>>4297559

OP may very well be an autistic, retarded, hippie that is high. It does not mean he is wrong. However, his poor arguments, lack of defined terms, an inability to adequately clarify key points would lead most people to reasonably believe that his conclusion is dubious at best and more likely the work of a fictional creature that lives under a bridge eating billy-goats (troll). Many people may think this is elitism. I would argue they have a valid point. Science should be held to a higher standard. When dealing with science, you come with elite evidence that is written intelligently or you can GTFO.

>Is this sensible in any way or am I just high?

Oh yeah, I forgot about this.........sigh.

OP is a retard. Learn2physics