More to the point, the notion that time can be measured equally well everywhere.

You are invited to :

http://toph.synthasite.com/index.php

It is a simple theory that predicts speeds faster than light are possible. But probably not in a way you imagine.

It does not find Einstein’s theory wrong, nor a fault in his equations.

The postulate is that relativistic time dilation is proportional to the probability that time can be measured equally well in all frames of reference.

The site is clean and easy to peruse (I hope)

And btw, I find comments here to be no more and no less expected, given the state of human society (for better or worse). It just goes to say that scientists (and wannabes, like myself) are exactly at the same level deep in mud as everyone else.

Thanks for your time Ladies and Gents,

Srdjan

True/ Not True… it’s no big deal to me, just fun to think about…

Being an atheist, I consider it to be the closest thing i have to a faith based belief and often compare it to such… It can give insights into how knowledge is filtered by belief.

I can read through a book on dark matter or black holes or anti-matter or what have you, and will catch myself saying “Ah ha! That fits!” the fact that fit do so at once, the ones that don’t must have some other explaination…

This must be how religion discovers dieties on toast, or finds a grain of biblical truth to be stronger all of observed evolution…

Meh, no such thing as a god. Until you can find an argument that argues for a deity that works for god X, but doesn’t work for the (expletive deleted), you have nothing.

Please tell me the rules on the use of this expletive.

Thank you for your answers to those questions, we all answer them in different ways and choose to place our faith in different reasons behind reality.

However, I bring your attention to my use of the interrogative adverb “why” – here I was not seeking a mechanism, I am interested intensely with the mechanisms of ‘why’ or ‘how’ things happen but that is another question.

Here the purpose of asking these questions was to seek a comprehension, the deeper reason, of why it should be so…..

Garth

If you’re a deist or pantheist, of course, the arguments get more subtle. But those aren’t that common.

That said, the four questions:

1. Why is there something rather than nothing – “What breathed fire into the equations to make a universe for them to describe?”

2. Why is the universe comprehensible?

3. Why is the one observable universe propitious for life and not otherwise?

4. Why did chemistry evolve into intelligent consciousness?

1. Why is there something rather than nothing? Well, the simple answer to this is that we don’t know, but there are some tantalizing hints. One thing that we do know, for example, is that if a certain type of particle can exist in a region of space-time, then that particle necessarily pops in and out of the vacuum. It might potentially be the case that the same is true for a universe like our own: the mere [i]possibility[/i] of existence may force existence to occur. But, of course, we only have hints that this may be the case, it may not be. The fundamental objection to this question, however, is there merely recognizing that we don’t know something does not indicate a deity.

2. Why is the universe comprehensible? Because it’s real. It’s just that simple: in a real universe, the law of non-contradiction must apply. That is to say, any sufficiently-specific statement about reality cannot be both true and false. This simple truth is necessary for a real universe, and is all that is needed for the universe to be comprehensible.

3. Why is the universe habitable? This question is nonsense. Were it not habitable, we couldn’t observe it. Might as well ask why we live on Earth instead of Mercury.

4. Why did chemistry evolve into intelligent consciousness? Here we know bits and pieces of the answer. It’s to be found in evolution. There are many gaps in our knowledge of course, but we’re piecing it together. As with the first question, though, simply not knowing is no reason whatsoever to assume a deity.

The important thing about this attitude is that I do not have to look for a unifying simplicity in physics, which I suspect does not exist. I only have to figure out how the “mess” of what we know about physics can fit together, and assume that God takes care of the rest.

The new concepts I would introduce would be defined solely by the assumption that they support the known scientific facts. I would not need to ascribe any independent properties to them — that is where most crank theories go wrong.