Archimedes and Modern Science
Archimedes and Modern Science
Archimedes and Modern Science
-----
"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."
/Archimedes/
--
Science is the logical exposition of a system.
Science is systematized knowledge.
Science without a system is chaos.
Therefore, "the Standard Model of Particle Physics" was invented.
----
A scientific system (first of all) must have a reference system (a fulcrum) from which one can describe
the situation in a simple logical language. From this point of view, the "big bang" theory is not suitable
for a "fulcrum" on which "a lever can be placed to turn the world"
Why?
1 - The coordinate system of "big bang" is not known.
2- "big bang" theory does not explain where the matter came from
------
Conclusion:
''. . . at least one big idea is missing.”
/ Book: "The Trouble with Physics". Page 308. Lee Smolin /
=========.
-----
"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."
/Archimedes/
--
Science is the logical exposition of a system.
Science is systematized knowledge.
Science without a system is chaos.
Therefore, "the Standard Model of Particle Physics" was invented.
----
A scientific system (first of all) must have a reference system (a fulcrum) from which one can describe
the situation in a simple logical language. From this point of view, the "big bang" theory is not suitable
for a "fulcrum" on which "a lever can be placed to turn the world"
Why?
1 - The coordinate system of "big bang" is not known.
2- "big bang" theory does not explain where the matter came from
------
Conclusion:
''. . . at least one big idea is missing.”
/ Book: "The Trouble with Physics". Page 308. Lee Smolin /
=========.
- Attachments
-
- big bang.jpg (30.2 KiB) Viewed 2941 times
Re: Archimedes and Modern Science
Origin turtleeees...socrat44 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:47 am Archimedes and Modern Science
-----
"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."
/Archimedes/
--
Science is the logical exposition of a system.
Science is systematized knowledge.
Science without a system is chaos.
Therefore, "the Standard Model of Particle Physics" was invented.
----
A scientific system (first of all) must have a reference system (a fulcrum) from which one can describe
the situation in a simple logical language. From this point of view, the "big bang" theory is not suitable
for a "fulcrum" on which "a lever can be placed to turn the world"
Why?
1 - The coordinate system of "big bang" is not known.
2- "big bang" theory does not explain where the matter came from
------
Conclusion:
''. . . at least one big idea is missing.”
/ Book: "The Trouble with Physics". Page 308. Lee Smolin /
=========.
Suppose we do succeed at explaining whence matter came from.
Where did that whence matter comes from... come from.
If you aren't willing to accept some uncaused first cause then you are infinitely fucked. Embrace the abyss.
Re: Archimedes and Modern Science
What's your point?socrat44 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:47 am Archimedes and Modern Science
-----
"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."
/Archimedes/
--
Science is the logical exposition of a system.
Science is systematized knowledge.
Science without a system is chaos.
Therefore, "the Standard Model of Particle Physics" was invented.
----
A scientific system (first of all) must have a reference system (a fulcrum) from which one can describe
the situation in a simple logical language. From this point of view, the "big bang" theory is not suitable
for a "fulcrum" on which "a lever can be placed to turn the world"
Why?
1 - The coordinate system of "big bang" is not known.
2- "big bang" theory does not explain where the matter came from
------
Conclusion:
''. . . at least one big idea is missing.”
/ Book: "The Trouble with Physics". Page 308. Lee Smolin /
=========.
-
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Archimedes and Modern Science
I think he's just saying that the big bang as a hypothesis doesn't satisfy him along some particular axis of thought (it doesn't satisfy his question about the origin of everything in the universe, or perhaps the origin of the universe itself - some question like that).
Which is fine, the big bang as a hypothesis isn't necessarily supposed to be satisfying in that particular way. Any particular idea doesn't have to (and realistically probably cannot) satisfy every intellectual direction of inquiry. They're meant to satisfy some particular thing, and not every thing.
Re: Archimedes and Modern Science
Of course, Archimedes didn't just contribute to science; he also wrote extensively on sex technique, and the Archimedes screw is still practiced among the more adventurous right up to this very day.
Re: Archimedes and Modern Science
Makes you wonder WTF Archimedes has to do with it?Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 12:24 pmI think he's just saying that the big bang as a hypothesis doesn't satisfy him along some particular axis of thought (it doesn't satisfy his question about the origin of everything in the universe, or perhaps the origin of the universe itself - some question like that).
Which is fine, the big bang as a hypothesis isn't necessarily supposed to be satisfying in that particular way. Any particular idea doesn't have to (and realistically probably cannot) satisfy every intellectual direction of inquiry. They're meant to satisfy some particular thing, and not every thing.
He ought to accept that science is descriptive. It's job is not to explain the meaning of the universe but to describe and qualify it in terms of the underlying conditions (laws).
It sounds like he needs a priest or imam. For those guys the explanation is simple and requires no effort or working out. It does not even have to be rational, empirical or logical.
-
- Posts: 6802
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Archimedes and Modern Science
The Standard Model of Particle Physics was invented because without a system Science would be chaos?
I don't see how that conclusion follows the assertions before it.
And would it be chaos without the standard model of particle physics?
Would Biology be chaos without the SMPP? for example.
I'm not sure what is being said here. I am also unclear what Archimedes has to do with this. I am not he doesn't have something to do with or that quote of his doesn't. I just don't understand.
----
This seems like an odd criterion. The Big Bang theory isn't like a fulcrum. Could you come at this another way? I would take that in itself as indicating that we can't use the theory to do something.A scientific system (first of all) must have a reference system (a fulcrum) from which one can describe
the situation in a simple logical language. From this point of view, the "big bang" theory is not suitable
for a "fulcrum" on which "a lever can be placed to turn the world"
It seems to be an expanding one.Why?
1 - The coordinate system of "big bang" is not known.
It seems like here you are saying that it does not answer all questions. Scientific theories don't do this. Probably other theories from other approaches don't either. Is this a criticism and observation? Does it mean you think it isn't a theory, just a hypothesis? Or that it is wrong?2- "big bang" theory does not explain where the matter came from
It seems like something is missing from this thread. Is it a part of some other conversation where the context would help us understand it?
------
And??Conclusion:
''. . . at least one big idea is missing.”
/ Book: "The Trouble with Physics". Page 308. Lee Smolin /
this may contain a very good point, but I'm not sure what it is.
Re: Archimedes and Modern Science
Before the Big Bang, there was no space and no time.
Before the Big Bang, there was no atmospheric pressure.
Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.
That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.
Before the Big Bang, there was no atmospheric pressure.
Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.
That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.
Re: Archimedes and Modern Science
It was probably also really, really quiet before the big bang. You could put that on your list, if you like.socrat44 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:28 pm Before the Big Bang, there was no space and no time.
Before the Big Bang, there was no atmospheric pressure.
Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.
That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.
Re: Archimedes and Modern Science
Probably, the "cosmic vacuum" is the missing idea of modern physics.Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:59 pmIt was probably also really, really quiet before the big bang. You could put that on your list, if you like.socrat44 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:28 pm Before the Big Bang, there was no space and no time.
Before the Big Bang, there was no atmospheric pressure.
Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.
That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.
Re: Archimedes and Modern Science
I believe Dyson are set to go into production later this year, and it could be in the shops before Christmas.socrat44 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:44 pmProbably, the "cosmic vacuum" is the missing idea of modern physics.Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:59 pmIt was probably also really, really quiet before the big bang. You could put that on your list, if you like.socrat44 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:28 pm Before the Big Bang, there was no space and no time.
Before the Big Bang, there was no atmospheric pressure.
Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.
That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.
-
- Posts: 6802
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Archimedes and Modern Science
Aren't atmospheres around planets?
But your first sentence says there was no space. Now you are saying there was airless space. Can you explain.Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.
Do you mean frame of reference? and in generally what do you mean here and how is it a conclusion from what went before?That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.
Re: Archimedes and Modern Science
And you, supposedly, KNOW 'this' how, EXACTLY?socrat44 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:28 pm Before the Big Bang, there was no space and no time.
Before the Big Bang, there was no atmospheric pressure.
Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.
That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.
Re: Archimedes and Modern Science
Yes. Every paradigm needs a First Miracle.socrat44 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:28 pm Before the Big Bang, there was no space and no time.
Before the Big Bang, there was no atmospheric pressure.
Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.
That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.
This is not new. It's a basic fact about the limits of human knowledge.
You are observing the principle of explosiion ( ex falso sequitur quodlibet) in action. From felsehood (nothingness, vacuum, the void) anything follows.
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Archimedes and Modern Science
The most general conception of a "space" is the Mathematical one and it's used in many different senses.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:29 amBut your first sentence says there was no space. Now you are saying there was airless space. Can you explain.Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
It's so polymorphic that it's better left undefined and understood intuitively, but if you want a metaphor - it's the Construct from The Matrix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(mathematics)
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/space