YDKS about Universal Constants

Right, I would say it's about that time again. You've got your mocchacino, your fluffy madcap, your anti-stress punching cushion shaped like a random RAID server component, and wonder "Well geewiz, I wonder why the universe does what it does!" So you browse the net a bit and find all sorts of funny little snips of information.

All of which are false.

The sites you just checked, just like you,

Don't Know Shit About Universal Constants.

It's true! I checked, they're all wrong. You wonder how that's possible, scientists should know what they're doing? Well, no. They get paid to discover stuff. Remember that just as long as a theory holds, it can be as wrong as buttering a kitten for gardening purposes. Very wrong. No one cares, as long as it looks good. I'm here to show you that you can also be RIGHT. (And incidentally, not get paid... I need to get that fixed one of these days. Maybe if I sell nightmare's liver... ehh, I get ahead of myself a moment.)

Firstly, let's define "universe" a bit. Obviously you know what it is... or so you think! Your basic universe consists of dimensions. Each dimension carries it's own properties, and combined they are more than the sum of their parts (obviously, they are their multiplication, as anyone will tell you that if you have a line, and you add a perpendicular line, the area is line1 X line2.. but you already knew that. So far, math and PmI still agree.. a rare occurrence, you might want to save this html file just so you have proof if I ever deny it)

The first three dimensions are space related. Scientists like to have you believe that there is a constant distance to measure this distance, called the 'light year', which is the space that a light particle will cover in a year. This constant has a problem. It's related to time. That means our universe is four dimensional. Let's introduce time shall we.

Time

Unlike what most of you think, time is not a constant. or a flow, or a whatever you call it, obviously nightmare pointed out what it is by making you experience its direct effect in the fine work "You don't know shit about time". You still don't by the way, but that's okay, eventually you will grasp the essence of the universe and all will be well. (And we'll be loaded and hogging all the totty). Once time has been introduced, the first so called constant comes into direct line of fire.

Lightspeed.

Lightspeed is the amount of distance a photon emitted by Carbon-12 caused by reverting an electron to a lower excitation level to its outermost valence shell can travel, divided by a single second, in a vacuum, without interference. Now this is iffy. you see, time isn't absolute. 1 second on earth is completely unlike 1 second on an event horizon of a black hole. This is the first clue that maybe lightspeed isn't a constant at all. But can we prove it? Well, yes we can. this will require some effort, so let's make sure we do it right.

You will need:

- a monofrequent lightsource (like say, a blue laser)
- a functional black hole

                     ___
          .       =|__| <---laser emitter

          A
          |
 ______|___________
 black hole, scaled


Fire the laser emitter just past the black hole, so that it passes the black hole at the event horizon of it. Now walk over to our black hole. What's the light doing? That's right, it's falling and consequently just concentrating at the center of the black hole, moving not a bit, incidentally. Since it's a well known fact that 'sitting there' equates to traveling a distance of nothing at all, we can safely say that lightspeed is just not constant at all, but a highly variable unit that can go from anywhere to 3*10^8 m/s to nothing at all depending on whether it feels like it or not apparently. Obviously this is something scientists didn't think was very functional, so of course they had to add all sorts of disclaimers that lightspeed is in fact NOT constant when... and... and of course when... but they lie. It's just not a constant. It just means they make money if they assume it is. Good for them. Wrong for science.

We move on.

After having debunked lightspeed as constant, let's move to something a bit more complex.

The Schroedinger wave equation.

This equation is used in both wave mechanics as well as quantum mechanics to determine the existence of a wave or particle. This however relies on a few things:

a) Planck's constant
b) i, the imaginary number who's squared value is -1

It would suffice to debunk either of these two, but it's more fun to do both.

Let's start with showing you why science is wrong on the whole 'i' issue (even though it must be admitted it's classy of them to pick the first letter in our name. kudos.. albeit wrong). If the squared value is a negative number, we have a problem. See, squaring means a fairly simple thing. You take something, and multiply it with itself. However, we also know that you can't multiple any number with itself and end up with a negative number, as a negative number times a negative number is positive, and so is a positive number times a positive number. So what is it then? Science calls it an 'imaginary number'. PmI calls it 'not a number at all, it's rubbish conveniently made up to make something work'.

Having determined that i isn't an actual number, it's fairly easy to point out that it's not a constant either: every constant you know are numbers you can write down in numerals. NUMERALS. so i isn't a universal constant. It's just a very expensive and clever way science made people forget they were wrong.

On to Planck?s constant. This actually is a number we can write out, being 6.626 x 10^-34 Joule/second. That's pretty damn small. In 1900, Max Planck was working on the problem of how the radiation an object emits is related to its temperature. He came up with a formula that agreed very closely with experimental data, but the formula only made sense if he assumed that the energy of a vibrating molecule was discreet. The energy would have to be proportional to the frequency of vibration, and it seemed to come in little "chunks" of the frequency multiplied by a certain constant. This constant came to be known as Planck's constant.

In short, he made it up. That's right, he made it up. Sure, some people did experiments, and discovered a value very damn close to what Planck had decided on, but still, it's another good example of things that just don't work if you have to make up a constant to make stuff work.

We're going to do our own little experiment to prove that the Planck?s constant can't possibly be that small.

Experiment 2: Why Planck was careless

You'll need:
- A Ruler
- A football
- White paint
- A second football
- Red paint
- A third football
- Black paint
- Three matches (more, if you're a bit clumsy)
- A thermometer

O <- football prototype

[_] <- paintbucket prototype

c======= <- match prototype


Proceed:

- Paint a football white, another red, and the last black.
- Place the thermometer close to the white football, and light the football.
- Measure how much it's vibrating, and note it
- Note the temperature

- Place the thermometer close to the red football, and light the football.
- Measure how much it's vibrating, and note it
- Note the temperature
- Place the thermometer close to the black football, and light the football.
- Measure how much it's vibrating, and note it
- Note the temperature

Your results should be roughly similar to mine:

White :
Vibration: nada
Temperature: man da's damn hot
Red :
Vibration: not really
Temperature: wow, pretty damn hot
Black :
Vibration: it's not dancing for me...
Temperature: crap this flames well

Some deviation is acceptable.

Now let's relate the two shall we?
Vibration = 0
Temperature = high

No matter HOW hard you try, multiplying vibration with that Planck's constant will -never- yield the temperature experienced. Someone just cocked up all the other experiments ever done. That's okay, as long as we can correct them in time all is well.

So that means the Schroedinger?s wavefunction is wrong. Which means that nothing in this universe is actually determinable as being somewhere, and Therefore in fact, anywhere, and by that reasoning, even in existence at all.

Using MY knowledge of universal constants, I just proved that nothing is real. This brings me to a rather touchy subject. You see, if nothing is real, then I'm writing this for a fictional audience. General psychology will indicate that I am therefore insane. This would be perfectly acceptable because it means I can write a guide to insanity, were it not for one thing?Ethat guide already exist.

This brings me to our final demonstration. You see, there is another constant in this universe that deserves attention (read: debunking) and this is the Higgs field. The Higgs field is the field generated by the Higgs boson to explain the function of high energy elemental particles. You know, the stuff that makes up the particles that we didn't think could be divided into smaller particles only 100 years ago. In order for the Higgs field to exist, we need a Higgs particle. This particle has not yet been discovered. Of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, however I give you the following mind breaker:

If a tree falls in a forest, and the forest is in a high Higgs particle concentration environment (we just don't know it), and no one has any clue what the Higgs particle really is, and no one is around to hear the tree fall... then what use is the Higgs particle?

Exactly. If in the standard model for everything that can exist, aptly named "the standard model", the Higgs particle was assumed very very important, and I just shown you through ancient Greek reasoning that it's not, then doesn't that mean that everything concerning matter, which in fact defines everything we see and through consequence hear, feel, smell and/or taste, then obviously everything we know about this universe cannot be true.

We're guessing! Which brings me to the part I love best - the conclusion.

If nothing is true, then there's only one way to start over: Set up a few rules, and then let other people sort out if they're true or not.

a) int13h holds the knowledge
b) The universe has no constants
c) I'm afraid you don't actually exist...

You've been a most wonderful fictional audience, I bid you all goodnight, and remember:

you don't know shit about...no wait... they don't even exist...

Oh, wow.

0 Comments



Heavy Engine Console
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loading Page... /851-YDKS-about-Universal-Constants
Console: