My OP on the Universe as a Petrol Can
In my OP I presented some ideas I have been working on. They addressed the problems entropy, using new ideas about the shape of the universe, time, gravity to shed light on life and universe at large. I thought my reasoning was sound. Topics on entropy and hierarchical systems have been discussed a lot recently, and it follows on from my own investigative train of thought.
I do not see how my OP should be changed.
What do I do now? Do I repost it some where for people to look at and decide?
I do not see how my OP should be changed.
What do I do now? Do I repost it some where for people to look at and decide?
Comments (50)
You can repost it here if you like as long as it is exactly as it was when removed. (We also have a version).
Can moderators or administrators see our PMs?
In the beginning there was a big bang…. And already science is in trouble. I call it the container problem, but I’m sure it has other names. What is it expanding into? Nothing? Bullshit.
Whenever we have a material object we need the background in which it dwells. Imagine a sphere deep in the ocean. I can recreate that same sphere by completely removing it and have the space it occupies remain. This is like a shape and an anti-shape (or object and anti-object)– although again, I am fairly certain that having a background requirement is pretty much understood. It is context.
Space is expanding into something, and that something once invoked must also be inside something and so it continues on like Russian stacking dolls. It is funny how one of the main arguments against a god is that there is no need to invoke him because the question then becomes well who created God. It’s exactly the same container problem physics has. I don’t have an answer to that, but I do have a conceptual alternative to expansion.
I posited once, in another OP, that the universe could either be expanding, contracting or every inch of it could be shrinking and we wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, and the debate remained largely unresolved, especially as it related to shrinkage.
This is interesting because shrinkage of space fits well into this description. It is said that when the Big Bang occurred it was a blast of energy so hot that particles were essentially massless, but as the universe cooled there was interaction with the Higgs field and mass was acquired. I’m no physicist and I’m sure there’s people who can explain it better. The upshot though is the curdling of energy into matter as the universe cooled.
I propose a model of the universe inside a container, much like the shape of a petrol can. Rather than exploding though, I want space to shrink: After all, a Big Bang is just representing a change in the spatial arrangements of the energy. This shrinkage of space fits in with the idea of cooling and curdling of matter, but what I am interested in is looking at the container. The petrol can itself.
We know how much energy gets condensed into an atom. Lots! Across the universe, the sucking of energy into atoms would have created an enormous negative pressure on the container – just like placing a heated petrol can suddenly in ice water. The container would have buckled in.
I propose that indeed the container of the universe did buckle in as energy was converted to mass. As the crumpling happened a restorative force opposing the movement grew– the container we have today wants to resume its unbuckled shape (perhaps the container it is in needs it to be so). The negative pressure of the contracted universe needs to be undone. To do this the energy in matter needs to be released.
Thus there is this huge sucking force on matter to bleed the energy back out into the universe. The drive to suck the energy out of structured matter is called Entropy. This explains why entropy is directional. It wants to dissolve all the well-structured atomic combinations down and release the trapped energy (as Apokrisis likes to remind us). Entropy is the restorative force of the universe allowing the container to return to its normal size.
It’s funny though that we have such universal monstrosities in our system like galaxies when the quantum realm should just feed the energy straight back out. As I see it, there have been two attempts to oppose the entropic force. A primary and secondary attempt. That they have occurred and how they have occurred is very interesting and raises a lot of questions – the one we debate so vigorously: why the structures of the universe exists and why life exists. Both of these have occurred through the formation of emergent systems. It is a bottom up system, not a top down one.
Entropy hates the idea of quanta becoming atoms becoming molecules and cycles and systems, and yet it happens (sometimes Entropy favours a reaction or two). It is going the wrong way.
Look at the galaxies and suns and planets in our universe. They formed because of an emergent force. Gravity. As mass increases gravity increases causing larger and larger accumulations.
I can’t make my mind up about gravity – whether it wants to oppose entropy or help it. Most of the other forces seem indifferent to entropy, but gravity takes separated particles of matter and crushes them in its bare hands until all the atoms are bonded into tight inanimate structures like rocks, or like solar furnaces. As it does so energy leaks out between its fingers and helps restore the container of the universe.
Apart from releasing energy though, there is a secondary effect: the remaining structure is extremely resilient to entropic decay. It stays around for a long, long time. Much longer than the fleeting quantum particle.
The second resistive force, as we mentioned, is life – once again a system that opposes entropy by building emergent systems while also hastening the release of energy from the environment (Once again, Apokrisis has made much of this).
But it doesn’t end there.
Time also slows as we move through the hierarchy. Planets do slow loops around the suns, (some taking as long as year to complete the orbit!). The entropy of hierarchical systems drops slowly the higher up the hierarchy you climb, they are almost immune to the entropy of the lower levels.
This is also very interesting. If we could standardise the rate of movement in hierarchical systems against the rate of entropy of those systems I predict we’ll find they all move at the same speed. This suggests a time differential between those layers. Time is moving at different speeds for different hierarchies!
The higher up you go the more timeless you are. Molecules process hundreds of thousands of reactions a second, which is much more than I can do, even listening to the Top Gun soundtrack. Likewise, as we mentioned planets slowly orbit the sun and the suns slowly orbit their galaxy, which slowly spins off into the nether-nether. The slowing of time is anti-entropic, suggesting time itself is entropic.
Are Gravity and Time enemies? What is happening here?
Haha, not as far as I know. Thanks for the idea though. I'm pretty sure it's impossible not to mention unethical.
Release the private messages!
Seems so, yes. Before even getting to a stage where I'd be coming up with my own ideas to present, I would make sure that I knew the subject inside and out. And, before presenting my own ideas, I would first ensure that the prevailing view is properly dealt with, which would entail addressing evidence and going into complex detail where necessary.
I don't believe that you've met these criteria, MikeL.
If by "elitism" you mean "experts", then yes.
No, you don't take my point if that's what you've taken. Basically, know what you're talking about before diving in headfirst, and go about it in the right way. I don't expect perfection, just adequacy.
So you want me to have a PhD to express a thought?
Yes, that's exactly what I want. You're good at reading people. Is that a learnt skill or does it come naturally?
It's not impossible for sure. I know it can be done. The information is stored in a database, whoever has access to it could, in theory, read it. As for unethical, it would obviously be.
Quoting Sapientia
>:)
Alternatively, we could go to hell, the lot of us.
The theory I proposed has many pieces in it, that is true, but the pieces are logically connected. There is a lot of known information that the theory draws on. I am mostly rearranging the information and combining it with applied observation.
If you want me to break it into pieces and feed it to the readers then the crescendo of the point is lost. It is one thing to give constructive advice about how you would like an OP styled, where precisely you would like it tightened up, but it is another to pull it without notice and then when I want to know why, demand I be an expert in astrophysics and quantum mechanics before even rating a mention on your scale.
The OP is written in simple language, designed to try and promote discussion on the issue. Perhaps it will fall like a lead balloon, especially now, but I thought this Forum was to promote the free exchange of ideas.
Ah, thank you at last some constructive feedback. How hard was that for the rest of you to do?
How was my feedback not constructive? You just didn't like hearing it, and seem determined to twist my words.
It would likely have caused a lot of confusion. I agree with @StreetlightX's suggestion. And I would add maybe try to be a little less ambitious. Pick a specific problem with scientific orthodoxy and pick a hole in it. You're trying to present too many unusual or obscure ideas together here in my view and it really does come across as bizarre as @Michael said. That shouldn't be taken as an insult but honest criticism.
Yeah, that piece of paper makes a big difference in some people's minds :-}
See? That's twisting my words again.
Exactly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson
And he's a Nobel Prize winner. But believing in ESP is apparently pseudo-science for materialists :P
— MikeL
Yes, that's exactly what I want. You're good at reading people. Is that a learnt skill or does it come naturally?
That was sarcasm, Mike.
I am really pissed you guys touched my OP. If you are going to interfere like that, then I would think such an action requires a modicum of courtesy on your part. A simple message with suggestions for bending it to your style may have avoided this whole affair. Without such courtesy, deletion is just plain arrogant. I will take Streetlights words on board and try and tighten it in places if I rushed assumptions.
I have a PhD in sarcasm assessment.
Yes, people get pissed at us when we delete their OPs. We know. But the onus is on you to make an OP that is fit for purpose. It's unrealistic to expect extra personal attention from volunteers who have lives outside TPF. It has nothing to do with arrogance. It has to do with the nature of the work. Our job is to maintain quality for the community as a whole not to try to please every individual. Anyhow, of course you can try again but if you are going to revise your OP, it would make sense to PM it to a mod to check before posting it as you may get annoyed if it's again deleted.
I've got no idea what a PM is or how to do it.
Just click on someone's name and then press "Send a message".
Quoting MikeL
You ought to be aware, that the "container problem" is also a problem of human psychology. The analogy of a balloon's surface getting bigger without expanding into a bigger surface is often used to illustrate how easy it might be to have rigid ideas about space.
I don't think one needs to be an expert, or even very well informed, to muse on cosmology and physics in an interesting way. But unless you deal with highly unorthodox points one or two at a time you are going to turn readers off. If your ideas have any mileage, they should run a bit at least, on their own. For example the "container problem of physics" is surely worthy of a thread all of its own?
Having now read that discussion, I can confirm that that is a misleading description of it. T Clark disagreed with parts and expressed his doubts, Wayfarer disagreed, noAxioms disagreed and provided an explanation that gave the impression that he knew what he was talking about well, as did apokrisis - whose replies I found to be the most impressive - and I've just added my own two pennies, which fall on the side of those who disagree with you.
(For anyone considering reading that discussion, I would recommend skipping past the replies by Hachem, Rich, and Agustino).
Mike, you're trying to fly before you can jump, methinks.
Getting back to you on this @Baden. If according to you no one can see PMs, what happens if someone sends a very nasty PM to me, for example? I can't ask you to do anything about it, because there is no proof that I can offer. Even a screenshot of the message can very easily be faked with photoshop. So what would happen in that scenario?
I guess you could let an admin log in using your account, so they could see the message, and then change your password after. Not a great solution, but if it's an extreme situation, it might be worth it.
You can add people to PMs.
Oh? And they will see past messages?
Test it.
Do I understand correctly: The problem is that one or more forum members, including one or more moderators, have told you that your OP doesn't belong here, that it fails to meet criteria stipulated in the rules somewhere for philosophical conversation in this community?
That's an interesting problem.
Quoting Michael
It's clear that MikeL's OP has been singled out not merely because it is bizarre pseudo-philosophy, but more specifically because it infringes on the jurisdiction of empirical science.
It seems to me that many OPs and replies in this community slip by the censors, full of bizarre claims in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of language, even logic... far out of whack with fashion in the schools and deep against the grain of common sense.
If that's right, will someone make it clear why an OP like MikeL's runs foul of our community standards, when it seems he's only applied his power of speech and imagination in the same way that others here do, except that he lets free reason roam across the boundary of empirical science.
I raise this question in expectation that there are good answers, as one who enjoys the public space held open in the wilderness by our community standards and by the moderators who interpret and enforce those standards, and with a sense that the ruling feels somehow arbitrary in the present case.
Quoting Sapientia
This seems a fine personal preference, but quite excessive as a general rule of procedure here. I reckon very few of us have the sort of expertise you indicate, and I reject the suggestion that expertise is a prerequisite for genuine philosophical activity. Or what do you mean by "knowing a subject inside and out"?
That said, I agree that the view presented in MikeL's censored OP seems to suffer from insufficient engagement with the physical science he purports to be considering. He resorts to nonscientific appropriation of scientific concepts, and thus equipped engages in a sort of physical speculation reminiscent of the pre-Socratics or medieval scholastic philosophers.
I suppose we must draw the line somewhere to maintain order and fulfill our purpose in this public space. I won't dissent with the judges' ruling, but only note with much hesitation that it pains me to find such thoughtful exercises of rational imagination ruled out of bounds among us, when we might instead engage the author in a free and open philosophical conversation aimed at truth and mutual understanding.
Hopefully, @Michael's solution will work. In any case, I would tend to take you at your word unless I had reason to believe otherwise.
Well, maybe as a standard for others to emulate, what I said would be an exaggeration. But it would be advisable, like you say, to have first obtained a sufficient level of understanding.