Scientists might have discovered a fifth force of nature, changing our whole view of the universe

If the scientists are correct, then the Standard Model of physics could be due a major revision

It’s one of the most important parts of physics: there are four fundamental forces in the universe. And it might be completely wrong.
Scientists have said that they may have discovered a new force, not accounted for in the Standard Model, indicating that our view of physics might be entirely wrong.
If the scientists’ claim is correct, then it could have a huge impact on our understanding of the universe and our search for dark matter. It is reported in the journal Physical Review Letters by researchers from the University of California, Irvine.

“If true, it’s revolutionary,” said Jonathan Feng, professor of physics & astronomy at UCI, in a statement. “For decades, we’ve known of four fundamental forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. If confirmed by further experiments, this discovery of a possible fifth force would completely change our understanding of the universe, with consequences for the unification of forces and dark matter.”
The data for the new claim comes from a mid-2015 study by experimental nuclear physicists in Hungary. That work was looking for “dark photons” – particles that would be a sign of dark matter, the substance that makes up about 85 per cent of the universe but which we’ve never actually seen.
The scientists, from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, found a radioactive decay anomaly that seemed to suggest that there was a light particle 30 times heavier than an electron.

That remained something of a mystery to the original scientists.
“The experimentalists weren’t able to claim that it was a new force,” UCI professor of physics & astronomy Jonathan Feng said. “They simply saw an excess of events that indicated a new particle, but it was not clear to them whether it was a matter particle or a force-carrying particle.”
But the UCI scientists looked through the data and showed that the unexplained data didn’t seem to come from matter particles or dark photons. The explanation that seemed to bring together the data was that there is a fifth force, previously unnoticed by scientists.
At the moment, the Standard Model of physics includes only four fundamental forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. They’ve thought to be complete and govern our understanding of the entire universe.

But they will have to do more work before they can say so for sure. The force hasn’t been detected before because it is so weak – and finding it again might be made difficult for the same reason.
“The particle is not very heavy, and laboratories have had the energies required to make it since the ’50s and ’60s,” Professor Feng said. “But the reason it’s been hard to find is that its interactions are very feeble. That said, because the new particle is so light, there are many experimental groups working in small labs around the world that can follow up the initial claims, now that they know where to look.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-might-have-discovered-a-fifth-force-of-nature-changing-our-whole-view-of-the-universe-a7194121.html


That's momentous.   Every time we think we know something, we find we don't after all.

Still looking for what is gravity?

While they are at it, what is time? All the other dimensions go two ways, but time only goes one way. Wassup?

time is a measurement of light moving through space.
that is the time space continuum

the easiest example is when you look at the stars what you are seeing is actually light that is millions of earth years old. or if at this very moment is an alien was looking at earth from more than 65 million light years away they would be seeing dinosaurs.

thus time is a very abstract concept. as we exist now but at a great enough distance from here dinosaurs still exist the light that reflected of their living bodies is still beaming out there in the universe.

See? Scientists discover new things all,the time and it throws all their previous thoughts and findings out of the window....

THERE ARE NO FACTS PEOPLE. There's only what someone thinks they know.

It's what I keep saying.

eddie wrote:
See? Scientists discover new things all,the time and it throws all their previous thoughts and findings out of the window....

THERE ARE NO FACTS PEOPLE. There's only what someone thinks they know.

It's what I keep saying.

"See.." what exactly,  eddie  ???

That you understand nothing about science ???
We all, already knew that !    

"THERE ARE NO FACTS.."    Not quite, eddie  !!!

THOSE who actually understand the differences between genuine evidence-based empirical sciences, and the pseudo-scientific muddled-headed conspiracist nonsense that you pass off as some kind of secret "knowledge" that none of us mere mortal simpletons are privy to,  also know that mankind is always learning, and that there is always more to be discovered out there..

You just keep on proving over and over, that you don't even  understand the very concepts of science, evidence, facts, observations, proof, hypothesis, theory, laws, rules, replication, trials, experimentation.            

No you keep proving, over and over, that you don't understand my posts wolfie.

Scientific "facts" are not embedded and forever unmoved. They shift according to "what's new" in the scientific world.
They're only facts until science contradicts itself with another fact.

veya_victaous wrote:time is a measurement of light moving through space.
that is the time space continuum

the easiest example is when you look at the stars what you are seeing is actually light that is millions of earth years old. or if at this very moment is an alien was looking at earth from more than 65 million light years away they would be seeing dinosaurs.

thus time is a very abstract concept. as we exist now but at a great enough distance from here dinosaurs still exist the light that reflected of their living bodies is still beaming out there in the universe.

Then time is not a dimension.  A dimension is defined as having at least two extensions.  Time only goes one way.  I don't mean to suggest it is semantic...it is really dissimilar to height, depth or lateral.

It cannot have a reality without a bilateral extension...not in your thoughts, but in reality. It's not a unicorn.

eddie wrote:No you keep proving, over and over, that you don't understand my posts wolfie.

Scientific "facts" are not embedded and forever unmoved. They shift according to "what's new" in the scientific world.
They're only facts until science contradicts itself with another fact.

To be fair, the discovery of a fifth force wouldn't negate the other four already discovered. And scientists in pursuit of the Grand Unified Theory have been trying to show that they're all really the same force for a while.

Science doesn't often completely contradict itself -- usually it clarifies and adds detail to theories that came before.

Yes, but Eddie is correct in that there can be catastrophic changes, as opposed to incremental changes. Erich von Däniken goes into this a lot. Chariots of the Gods.

I taught 'methods' at Berkeley and Rutgers.  The phrase she is reaching for is: science is always corrigible...  It means that conclusions are always subject to change and amendment.  After all, Ptolemy was  'corrected'.

Original Quill wrote:Yes, but Eddie is correct in that there can be catastrophic changes, as opposed to incremental changes.  Erich von Däniken goes into this a lot.  Chariots of the Gods.

I taught 'methods' at Berkeley and Rutgers.  The phrase she is reaching for is: science is always corrigible...  It means that conclusions are always subject to change and amendment.  After all, Ptolemy was  'corrected'.

Said far more eloquently than I. And though I won't pretend to know who Ptolemy is, that, in bold, is exactly what I mean.

Original Quill wrote:Yes, but Eddie is correct in that there can be catastrophic changes, as opposed to incremental changes.  Erich von Däniken goes into this a lot.  Chariots of the Gods.

I taught 'methods' at Berkeley and Rutgers.  The phrase she is reaching for is: science is always corrigible...  It means that conclusions are always subject to change and amendment.  After all, Ptolemy was  'corrected'.

Yeah, but Ptolemy wasn't a real scientist. I would argue that even Newton was not a real scientist. Real science is a lot younger than many people realize.

Okay so now I gotta Google this phlebotomy guy

To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science. Albert Einstein

He was a wise fella.

eddie wrote:See? Scientists discover new things all,the time and it throws all their previous thoughts and findings out of the window....

THERE ARE NO FACTS PEOPLE. There's only what someone thinks they know.

It's what I keep saying.

Well, you have a point. It's all very well looking at science in retrospect. Once upon a time most people believed the earth was flat. That was the 'science' of the time. Things change and keep on changing. Who knows what we'll know in a 100 years' time.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:See? Scientists discover new things all,the time and it throws all their previous thoughts and findings out of the window....

THERE ARE NO FACTS PEOPLE. There's only what someone thinks they know.

It's what I keep saying.

Well, you have a point.    It's all very well looking at science in retrospect.   Once upon a time most people believed the earth was flat.    That was the 'science' of the time.  Things change and keep on changing. Who knows what we'll know in a 100 years' time.

Not to be a D-word, but that wasn't real science, either.

Modern, peer-reviewed science has only been a thing for about 60 years. Only one of Einstein's papers was peer-reviewed.

Hmmmm, are you trying to reinvent when science was invented?

eddie wrote:Hmmmm, are you trying to reinvent when science was invented?

Not at all, I'm just saying that you have to draw a line between the advent of peer-reviewed science and the stuff that came before, which wasn't nearly as rigorously critiqued and thus was wrong a lot more often.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm, are you trying to reinvent when science was invented?

Not at all, I'm just saying that you have to draw a line between the advent of peer-reviewed science and the stuff that came before, which wasn't nearly as rigorously critiqued and thus was wrong a lot more often.

Totally agree, there was a lot of so-called 'science' before peer reviewing that would have been totally discredited and fallen at the first review.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm, are you trying to reinvent when science was invented?

Not at all, I'm just saying that you have to draw a line between the advent of peer-reviewed science and the stuff that came before, which wasn't nearly as rigorously critiqued and thus was wrong a lot more often.

So Plotamathingy bloke, you dismiss him cos he says some scientific stuff about astrology?

sassy wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm, are you trying to reinvent when science was invented?

Not at all, I'm just saying that you have to draw a line between the advent of peer-reviewed science and the stuff that came before, which wasn't nearly as rigorously critiqued and thus was wrong a lot more often.

Totally agree, there was a lot of so-called 'science' before peer reviewing that would have been totally discredited and fallen at the first review.

Like the earth being flat?

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:


Totally agree, there was a lot of so-called 'science' before peer reviewing that would have been totally discredited and fallen at the first review.

Like the earth being flat?

No, that was because nobody had gone round the Earth.   No, like blood letting being good for people with fevers etc.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm, are you trying to reinvent when science was invented?

Not at all, I'm just saying that you have to draw a line between the advent of peer-reviewed science and the stuff that came before, which wasn't nearly as rigorously critiqued and thus was wrong a lot more often.

So Plotamathingy bloke, you dismiss him cos he says some scientific stuff about astrology?  

Sure! And Newton thought alchemy was real. But more importantly, we can't be confident in their discoveries because of their work alone; we're confident in what they got right today because so many other scientists have replicated their findings.

These days, a discovery isn't even published until it's been replicated.

Sounds like these bods in the op are pitching for some huge amount of funding... to look for something they have already said they think might be impossible to find...


Nice work if you can get it!!!

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm, are you trying to reinvent when science was invented?

Not at all, I'm just saying that you have to draw a line between the advent of peer-reviewed science and the stuff that came before, which wasn't nearly as rigorously critiqued and thus was wrong a lot more often.

Well, that could be applied in exactly the same way 200 years from now.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm, are you trying to reinvent when science was invented?

Not at all, I'm just saying that you have to draw a line between the advent of peer-reviewed science and the stuff that came before, which wasn't nearly as rigorously critiqued and thus was wrong a lot more often.

Well, that could be applied in exactly the same way 200 years from now.

Hopefully science will continue to get better and better ...

Ben Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm, are you trying to reinvent when science was invented?

Not at all, I'm just saying that you have to draw a line between the advent of peer-reviewed science and the stuff that came before, which wasn't nearly as rigorously critiqued and thus was wrong a lot more often.

Well, that could be applied in exactly the same way 200 years from now.

Hopefully science will continue to get better and better ...

But what Horatio has just said (and you brushed over) is right and it's what I keep repeating; these things are only facts until another fact replaces it. And what you've said about "olden day science" is what they'll be saying in 200 years about our "facts" and findings.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:time is a measurement of light moving through space.
that is the time space continuum

the easiest example is when you look at the stars what you are seeing is actually light that is millions of earth years old. or if at this very moment is an alien was looking at earth from more than 65 million light years away they would be seeing dinosaurs.

thus time is a very abstract concept. as we exist now but at a great enough distance from here dinosaurs still exist the light that reflected of their living bodies is still beaming out there in the universe.

Then time is not a dimension.  A dimension is defined as having at least two extensions.  Time only goes one way.  I don't mean to suggest it is semantic...it is really dissimilar to height, depth or lateral.

It cannot have a reality without a bilateral extension...not in your thoughts, but in reality.  It's not a unicorn.

over simplifying here
but
imagine you are at the centre point things you look at are to the right things looking at you are too the left the greater the distance, the greater the time it takes the light to travel. (it does extend both ways but humans are tied to a single instance, time itself is not)

So what occurred a million years ago million light years away, is being viewed by you in the centre point is this moment and also both you and the million-year-old occurrence are being viewed simultaneously in a million years’ time by something 1 million light years away in the other direction.

eddie wrote:No you keep proving, over and over, that you don't understand my posts wolfie.

Scientific "facts" are not embedded and forever unmoved. They shift according to "what's new" in the scientific world.
They're only facts until science contradicts itself with another fact.

FALSE logic there, eddie...

When you base your assumptions and opinions on false beliefs, you will often keep on making false conclusions..

Until you actually understand the inherent difference between hypothesis, theory and plain old guesswork on one side, and observed facts, simple truths and evidence-based laws and rules;  you are likely doomed to keep on repeating those meaningless and plain wrong statements like that one above !            

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:
Hopefully science will continue to get better and better ...

But what Horatio has just said (and you brushed over) is right and it's what I keep repeating; these things are only facts until another fact replaces it. And what you've said about "olden day science" is what they'll be saying in 200 years about our "facts" and findings.

GARBAGE,  eddie...
Horatio has the same problem as you..

Neither of you actually understands what a "fact" is !!!

A FACT is not an opinion;
A fact is not a guess;
A fact is not a hypothesis;
A "theory" is not a fact;
Fallacies, rumours, fables and fantasies are not facts..

A FACT is observable, replicable, stands up to rigorous examination.
The nonsense that you and HT keep on spouting is neither factual nor can you prove it..        

eddie wrote:
Hmmmm, are you trying to reinvent when science was invented?

SCIENCE was never "invented"...

It's always been there..

Waiting to be discovered, developed; and it keeps on evolving.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Then time is not a dimension.  A dimension is defined as having at least two extensions.  Time only goes one way.  I don't mean to suggest it is semantic...it is really dissimilar to height, depth or lateral.

It cannot have a reality without a bilateral extension...not in your thoughts, but in reality.  It's not a unicorn.

over simplifying here
but
imagine you are at the centre point things you look at are to the right things looking at you are too the left the greater the distance, the greater the time it takes the light to travel. (it does extend both ways but humans are tied to a single instance, time itself is not)

So what occurred a million years ago million light years away, is being viewed by you in the centre point is this moment and also both you and the million-year-old occurrence are being viewed simultaneously in a million years’ time by something 1 million light years away in the other direction.

You are describing the doppler effect...the change in waves depending on aspect relative to the observer.  However, we live within our gestalts, which can only be based upon experience.  In our experience we cannot travel back in time, nor would there be the same events and settings were we able.  

What you are describing are mental images, which I call unicorns.  It's a theoretical construct outside of our experience.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm, are you trying to reinvent when science was invented?

Not at all, I'm just saying that you have to draw a line between the advent of peer-reviewed science and the stuff that came before, which wasn't nearly as rigorously critiqued and thus was wrong a lot more often.

Well, that could be applied in exactly the same way 200 years from now.

Hopefully science will continue to get better and better ...

But what Horatio has just said (and you brushed over) is right and it's what I keep repeating; these things are only facts until another fact replaces it. And what you've said about "olden day science" is what they'll be saying in 200 years about our "facts" and findings.

Nah, it's really more like:

* Newton came up with the first theory of gravity, and he was right.

* Einstein expanded on it, explaining it as a feature of space-time curvature.

* Now gravity waves have been discovered, and we'll surely learn more about gravity in the future.

That won't mean that Newton wasn't right; he just laid the groundwork for the study of gravity.

Maybe I would understand what you're trying to say better if you gave some examples of science contradicting itself.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Then time is not a dimension.  A dimension is defined as having at least two extensions.  Time only goes one way.  I don't mean to suggest it is semantic...it is really dissimilar to height, depth or lateral.

It cannot have a reality without a bilateral extension...not in your thoughts, but in reality.  It's not a unicorn.

over simplifying here
but
imagine you are at the centre point things you look at are to the right things looking at you are too the left the greater the distance, the greater the time it takes the light to travel. (it does extend both ways but humans are tied to a single instance, time itself is not)

So what occurred a million years ago million light years away, is being viewed by you in the centre point is this moment and also both you and the million-year-old occurrence are being viewed simultaneously in a million years’ time by something 1 million light years away in the other direction.

You are describing the doppler effect...the change in waves depending on aspect relative to the observer.  However, we live within our gestalts, which can only be based upon experience.  In our experience we cannot travel back in time, nor would there be the same events and settings were we able.  

What you are describing are mental images, which I call unicorns.  It's a theoretical construct outside of our experience.

those mental images have allowed us to pre-program the flight paths of Space probes.
So hardly unicorns.
And we don't build new shit based on experience, not any more, not for a long time, everything is too big or too small.

you don’t go back in time any more than the star you see is travelling back in time because the light that hits your eyes is a million years old.

what you are perceiving as a 'moment in time' is not a single moment at all, but light refraction that ages from nanoseconds to millions of years old, that all happened to hit your retina at the same time.

Humans have little to no bearing on the universe our ability to perceive something is not critical to its existence.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm, are you trying to reinvent when science was invented?

Not at all, I'm just saying that you have to draw a line between the advent of peer-reviewed science and the stuff that came before, which wasn't nearly as rigorously critiqued and thus was wrong a lot more often.

Well, that could be applied in exactly the same way 200 years from now.

Hopefully science will continue to get better and better ...

But what Horatio has just said (and you brushed over) is right and it's what I keep repeating; these things are only facts until another fact replaces it. And what you've said about "olden day science" is what they'll be saying in 200 years about our "facts" and findings.

Nah, it's really more like:

* Newton came up with the first theory of gravity, and he was right.

* Einstein expanded on it, explaining it as a feature of space-time curvature.

* Now gravity waves have been discovered, and we'll surely learn more about gravity in the future.

That won't mean that Newton wasn't right; he just laid the groundwork for the study of gravity.

Maybe I would understand what you're trying to say better if you gave some examples of science contradicting itself.

nothing that is law has ever been shown false

but far less is law than mopst people realise

Gravity is 'just a Theory' after all

http://www.superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh4.html

Note that there is a complication in the relationship between strings and spacetime. String theory does not predict that the Einstein equations are obeyed exactly. String theory adds an infinite series of corrections to the theory of gravity. Under normal circumstances, if we only look at distance scales much larger than a string, then these corrections are not measurable. But as the distance scale gets smaller, these corrections become larger until the Einstein equation no longer adequately describes the result.
In fact, when these correction terms become large, there is no spacetime geometry that is guaranteed to describe the result. The equations for determining the spacetime geometry become impossible to solve except under very strict symmetry conditions, such as unbroken supersymmetry, where the large correction terms can be made to vanish or cancel each other out.
This is a hint that perhaps spacetime geometry is not something fundamental in string theory, but something that emerges in the theory at large distance scales or weak coupling. This is an idea with enormous philosophical implications.

Well here is a list (you could've googled it yourself lazy boy) just on climate change contradictions, alone:

http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/30/robust-science-more-than-30-contradictory-pairs-of-peer-reviewed-papers/#sthash.7swkVn7j.dpbs

eddie wrote:Well here is a list (you could've googled it yourself lazy boy) just on climate change contradictions, alone:

http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/30/robust-science-more-than-30-contradictory-pairs-of-peer-reviewed-papers/#sthash.7swkVn7j.dpbs

Okay, but these are mainly observations and predictions, not facts. Also, you have things like two papers, one that says the Gulf Stream is slowing and one that said it's speeding up a little, but the studies were conducted five years apart -- that's like blaming a scientist for saying we're going to have a full moon two weeks after he said it.

That site appears to be dedicated to debunking the theory of climate change with whatever ammunition it can fire at science itself, so I'd take it with more than a grain of salt.

Ben Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Well, that could be applied in exactly the same way 200 years from now.

Hopefully science will continue to get better and better ...

I don't doubt it. It's rather exciting.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:
But what Horatio has just said (and you brushed over) is right and it's what I keep repeating; these things are only facts until another fact replaces it. And what you've said about "olden day science" is what they'll be saying in 200 years about our "facts" and findings.

GARBAGE,  eddie...
Horatio has the same problem as you..

Neither of you actually understands what a "fact" is !!!

A FACT is not an opinion;
A fact is not a guess;
A fact is not a hypothesis;
A "theory" is not a fact;
Fallacies, rumours, fables and fantasies are not facts..

A FACT is observable, replicable, stands up to rigorous examination.
The nonsense that you and HT keep on spouting is neither factual nor can you prove it..        

You're a passive aggressive shit stirring bell end. FACT.

I know what a fact is wolfie and that's why I am saying science isn't FACT because it CHANGES.

Good God!


@Ben, well I believe in climate change so I'm not saying I agree with the site content, it was simply the first one I stumbled across.
Just google "scientific contradictions" or similar. Pffff.

eddie wrote:
I know what a fact is wolfie and that's why I am saying science isn't FACT because it CHANGES.

Good God!

..................

OF COURSE you don't know what a "fact" is, eddie...
Nor do you have any understanding of sciences, methadology, or scientific principles..

You prove that point in reality, every time you post your usual line of nonsense on any science, health or nutrition threads.

Wolf I'm sorry but you've been proven wrong on many of the nutrition threads by me, Horatio and Syl and sassy, and you've done a runner.

Go long.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are describing the doppler effect...the change in waves depending on aspect relative to the observer.  However, we live within our gestalts, which can only be based upon experience.  In our experience we cannot travel back in time, nor would there be the same events and settings were we able.  

What you are describing are mental images, which I call unicorns.  It's a theoretical construct outside of our experience.

those mental images have allowed us to pre-program the flight paths of Space probes.
So hardly unicorns.
And we don't build new shit based on experience, not any more, not for a long time, everything is too big or too small.

you don’t go back in time any more than the star you see is travelling back in time because the light that hits your eyes is a million years old.

what you are perceiving as a 'moment in time' is not a single moment at all, but light refraction that ages from nanoseconds to millions of years old, that all happened to hit your retina at the same time.

Humans have little to no bearing on the universe our ability to perceive something is not critical to its existence.
 

You see, now you are into epistemology, precisely where Descartes took the ontology discussion in the 17th-century.  You are no longer concerned with what is?, but with who want's to know?

Or, more appropriately, how do you know?

Descartes didn't have radio telescopes.

we already have technology that far exceeds our own capacity to 'sense' the universe around us.
and No not really comparable to philosophy as that is a soft subject.
this is maths, maths is the language of the universe for the reason that it is constant

if a squirrel has 3 acorns it matter not what it's mind perceives as the value of 3 acorns. whether it understand the concept of '3' or just 'one/many' doesn't change that it has 3 acorns.

just like the fact homo sapiens can't see ultraviolet light doesn't mean we are not bombarded with it every day. Our organs ability to receive input has no bearing on what exists in the universe.
Our Tools exceed us  

The cornerstone of Science is reproducibility. All observations or experiments must produce the same result EVERY time.
This is what separates Science from other disciplines.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:time is a measurement of light moving through space.
that is the time space continuum

the easiest example is when you look at the stars what you are seeing is actually light that is millions of earth years old. or if at this very moment is an alien was looking at earth from more than 65 million light years away they would be seeing dinosaurs.

thus time is a very abstract concept. as we exist now but at a great enough distance from here dinosaurs still exist the light that reflected of their living bodies is still beaming out there in the universe.

Then time is not a dimension.  A dimension is defined as having at least two extensions.  Time only goes one way.  I don't mean to suggest it is semantic...it is really dissimilar to height, depth or lateral.

It cannot have a reality without a bilateral extension...not in your thoughts, but in reality.  It's not a unicorn.

Says who??  
Surely a dimension is just a measurement, a variable if you like.
Secondly, time goes forwards, backwards and every which way, it's completely elastic.
You can create equations with a negative value for time.

No point in anyone pretending to understand it all, I certainly don't, but I've always found the membrane diagrams helpful when trying to grasp what the space-time continuum is all about.
Space and time both sit on a bouncing membrane and completely depend on each other.

eddie wrote:I know what a fact is wolfie and that's why I am saying science isn't FACT because it CHANGES.

Good God!


@Ben, well I believe in climate change so I'm not saying I agree with the site content, it was simply the first one I stumbled across.
Just google "scientific contradictions" or similar. Pffff.

"Science" has facts, but it also has theories and predictions. I still have yet to see anything saying stuff like light being made of photons or animals having evolved being overturned by science.

Jules wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Then time is not a dimension.  A dimension is defined as having at least two extensions.  Time only goes one way.  I don't mean to suggest it is semantic...it is really dissimilar to height, depth or lateral.

It cannot have a reality without a bilateral extension...not in your thoughts, but in reality.  It's not a unicorn.

Says who??  
Surely a dimension is just a measurement, a variable if you like.
Secondly, time goes forwards, backwards and every which way, it's completely elastic.
You can create equations with a negative value for time.

No point in anyone pretending to understand it all, I certainly don't, but I've always found the membrane diagrams helpful when trying to grasp what the space-time continuum is all about.
Space and time both sit on a bouncing membrane and completely depend on each other.

With the first three dimensions, you can go forward/backward, up/down, left/right.  But with time, you can't go backwards.  

At least, I'd like to talk to the person who has gone backwards.  It would be really interesting.

BTW, if you are interested in brane (for membrane) theory, look at some of the works of Harvard physicist Lisa Randall. She is one of the founders of brane theory. Also, a pretty good popular writer. Look for Knocking on Heaven's Door and Warped Passages.

time does have two directions!
Past and Future.

Humans don't have time reverse and kangaroos movement reverse. AND NEITHER IS RELEVANT.

You trying to perceive time is like a measuring the depth of a 2D picture.
you exist in the dimensional plane of time so you cant move out of it, to look back just like the cartoon can't come of the page.

by the logic you are using, as a tree cant move backwards and fowards, there is no such thing a distance.
the limitations of a specific entity do not have any bearing on relality.

eddie wrote:
Wolf I'm sorry but you've been proven wrong on many of the nutrition threads by me, Horatio and Syl and sassy, and you've done a runner.

..........

1.  NONE of you four have ever proven me wrong on anything to do with science,  health or nutrition topics...

SHOW ME one example where you proved me wrong  !!!

2.  I HAVE NEVER "done a runner"...

I WASN'T EVEN in the discussion on the couple of occasions (certainly not "many"..) you four twits have accused me of running -- I had already "left the building" ,  and when I checked back a day or two later, found that you idiots were attacking me in my absence !

3.   YOU, HT and syl simply keep on proving your ignorance on these subjects --  none of you have a hope in hell, of ever proving me wrong on these matters..

4.  I HAVE forgotten more about science, health and nutrition over the years, than you, HT or syl will ever know between you !!!

5.  YOUR claims as to having proving me wrong are complete and utter lies..