|
|
Post by donte on Nov 26, 2016 6:18:01 GMT 10
Artie says....Donte old son, adults can not honestly believe fairy tales. God is a fairy tale. Pretending to believe fairy tales is what causes all the trouble. ...................................................................... ....................................................................... Strewth Artie …. Of course God is a fairy tale. Though you yourself would need to ask folk as to why they create such havoc in a fairy tales name?. Perhaps you could persuade them to catch up to the adults that understand the message behind the tale. Which Jesus eventually did; his interpretation of God was a tale of peace and love. (but of course that’s just for the fairies) Children merely build on their knowledge so as to eventually decide for themselves. Some grow up some don’t. That’s how the world progresses ??….. Unfortunately. Love you Artie… you are inconsistent consistently.... Is God a problem for you; or is it the progeny?. Or is the latter self evident... to an adult!. |
|
|
|
Post by ducati on Nov 26, 2016 7:02:10 GMT 10
Good Everything to Donte & Maddametaroccada!!
As my padre Jose' used to tell us ninos: " As you age, your brain will (inevitably)start to misfires and the production of......"knowledge" increases and will be spread/dumped all across the Senior Citizens Forums!" How true were his predictions!!! And soon it will be MY turn to follow the inevitable Destiny of the Senior Citizens!!
Feliz Sabado!!! (happy Saturday!!)
Ducati
PSS. Soon I will be a Fully Fledged Senior Citizen.I will graduate to be full of...well full of....should I write "I will be fully overloaded with loads of...Senior Citizens Knowledge"? Enough knowledge to fill 7 skips!! (2 tons capacity)
|
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Nov 26, 2016 7:14:15 GMT 10
Strewth Artie …. Of course God is a fairy tale. Though you yourself would need to ask folk as to why they create such havoc in a fairy tales name?. Perhaps you could persuade them to catch up to the adults that understand the message behind the tale. Which Jesus eventually did; his interpretation of God was a tale of peace and love. (but of course that’s just for the fairies) Children merely build on their knowledge so as to eventually decide for themselves. Some grow up some don’t. That’s how the world progresses ??….. Unfortunately. Love you Artie… you are inconsistent consistently.... Is God a problem for you; or is it the progeny?. Or is the latter self evident... to an adult!. Let's just say I have had a gutfull of religion. Enough religion is far too much. I was christained twice to make both grannies happy but was allowed to make my own mind up as a kid so I only did the token scripture stuff at school and it took me 5 minutes to realise it was bullshit. My kids were not christened at all. But I was asked to be a Godfather and I agreed. As an adult I have come across many rel. people and pros who have lost their faith. My observations are mostly the good rel. people are weak willed looking to be supported and the others just take advantage of them. Propping up the weak never works because they just set them up for a"Big Emotional Crash" when sad circumstances make them realise beyond doubt, that there is no carer looking after them (why me) it is far better to harden people up with reality. I have a dislike for all religions equally, they all foster bad people who do bad things and religion is a blight on our society (Australia). The rel. preach continually and they think they can't be challenged (we should respect the religion of others?) but that is not true for me - I cannot respect the hypocrocy of people who use religion for personal gain and or control over the weak in our society and as a facade to hide behind to commit crimes and to foster criminals and sanctioned mutilation. But maybe I am wrong and I should respect religion as a valid choice, I am happy to be convinced religion is a good thing but so far the evidence aginst religion is overwhelming and any good that has come out of it has been swamped by the bad shit. |
|
|
|
Post by cster on Nov 26, 2016 9:06:23 GMT 10
Are the irony of Society and its blights, Politics and Religion, yet we have Religion to thank for our society and its Tenets. Fickle I must say. Though I'd not give you tuppence for those yabbering clowns on the telly peddling all the bull in minute detail of every word in the bible in English and its English meaning, He must have been a clever god to have them write words in Aremaic that can be translated into English for these tossers to describe in such detail.e
|
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Nov 26, 2016 21:03:36 GMT 10
Why are we talking about religion again? This thread is about the origins of the universe. God is not interested in what we think about it. He's resigned. I have seen a copy of His resignation letter. It's a bit long, so I'll just copy the first bit. More can be revealed on request.
Here we go. God says ....
Being omniscient, I should have known: Creation is one thing, its administration quite another. I might apologise for my somewhat simplistic approach to management in earlier millennia - the autocratic Commandments, the pernickety dietary laws, the ten frankly melodramatic Plagues - were it not for the failure of my more people-centric managerial approach. My son's unfortunate work experience placement in Palestine particularly discouraged me ..... I think it is to my credit that I have remained, albeit in a privately consultative capacity, until now. Nevertheless, I resign.
|
|
|
|
Post by Workman on Nov 27, 2016 0:11:37 GMT 10
God is the chappie that the collective universal consciousness is affectionately known as (and) that consciousness, being ‘God’, is not gender specific. But God is still great! Agreed, Donte, and Epic, I don't believe God resigned  .. It's just that we've all misplaced the message. Another term for universal consciousness is panpsychism. Panpsychists see us as minds in a world of mind. Panpsychism is the view that consciousness (mind, soul or psyche) is indeed a universal feature of all things. As such, Panpsychism is one of the world's very oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers like Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz and William James. Panpsychism can also be seen in ancient philosophies such as Stoicism, Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. Indeed through-out history, and up until the 19th century, panpsychism was the leading and main theory of the philosophy of mind, and only saw a decline during the middle years of the 20th century with the rise of logical positivism. (the god of science). In the 20th century, the most significant proponent of the Panpsychist view is arguably Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947). According to Whitehead: "we should conceive mental operations as among the factors which make up the constitution of nature." Bertrand Russell's neutral monist views also tended towards panpsychism. Also, psychologist Carl Jung, who is known for his idea of the collective unconscious, wrote that "psyche and matter are contained in one and the same world, and moreover are in continuous contact with one another", and that it was probable that "psyche and matter are two different aspects of one and the same thing". Now, the recent interest in the hard problem of consciousness has once again made panpsychism a widespread theory. The panpsychist doctrine has recently been making a comeback in the American philosophy of mind. Prominent defenders include Christian de Quincey, Leopold Stubenberg, David Ray Griffin, and David Skrbina. In the United Kingdom the case for panpsychism has been made by Galen Strawson, Gregg Rosenberg and Timothy Sprigge. In the philosophy of mind, panpsychism is one possible solution to the so-called hard problem of consciousness. The doctrine has also been applied in the field of environmental philosophy through the work of Australian philosopher Freya Mathews. David Chalmers has provided a sympathetic account of it in The Conscious Mind. In addition, neuroscientist Christof Koch has proposed a "scientifically refined version" of panpsychism. So, is consciousness everywhere? Is it a basic feature of the universe, at the very heart of the tiniest subatomic particles? Such an idea, panpsychism, might sound like New-Age mysticism, but some hard-nosed analytic philosophers have suggested it might be how things are, and it’s now a hot topic in philosophy of mind. Panpsychism’s popularity stems from the fact that it promises to solve two deep problems simultaneously. The first is the famous ‘hard problem’ of consciousness. How does the brain produce conscious experience? How can neurons firing give rise to experiences of color, sound, taste, pain and so on? In principle, scientists could map my brain processes in complete detail but, it seems, they could never detect my experiences themselves — the way colors look, pain feels and so on: the phenomenal properties of the brain states involved. Somehow, it seems, brain processes acquire a subjective aspect, which is invisible to science. How can we possibly explain this? The second problem concerns an apparent gap in our scientific picture of the world. Physics aims to describe the fundamental constituents of the Universe — the basic subatomic particles from which everything is made, together with the laws that govern them. Yet physics seems to leave out something very important from its picture of the basic particles. Physics doesn’t say what an electron, or any other basic particle, is like in itself, intrinsically. And, arguably, it never could, since its conceptual resources — mathematical concepts, together with the concepts of causation and spatio-temporal position — are suitable only for describing structures and processes, not intrinsic qualities. Yet it is plausible to think that particles can’t just be collections of dispositions; they must have some intrinsic categorical properties that give rise to their dispositions. Hence, philosophers argue, there is scope for an exciting synthesis. Maybe consciousness — the elusive subjective aspect of our brain states — is the ingredient missing from physics. And so, going way beyond just the one god, it's logical to me that we are ALL one .. everything is the one .. and one is a part of everything. |
|
|
|
Post by donte on Nov 27, 2016 6:12:55 GMT 10
Thank you for your enlightenment Workman. Your empathy along with the accompanying information is much appreciated. Especially your explanation of the problem with Physics. It’s oft times difficult for those prepared to acknowledge there is more to our existence than what has transpired to become a, ‘general acceptance yet with transient interpretations’.
Epic: Admittedly we had drifted from the original intent of the thread, but we were still well within the target area.
God resigning! … were you attempting to appease the heretic?.
|
|
|
|
Post by cster on Nov 27, 2016 7:32:48 GMT 10
Why are we talking about religion again? This thread is about the origins of the universe. God is not interested in what we think about it. He's resigned. I have seen a copy of His resignation letter. It's a bit long, so I'll just copy the first bit. More can be revealed on request. Here we go. God says ....
Being omniscient, I should have known: Creation is one thing, its administration quite another. I might apologise for my somewhat simplistic approach to management in earlier millennia - the autocratic Commandments, the pernickety dietary laws, the ten frankly melodramatic Plagues - were it not for the failure of my more people-centric managerial approach. My son's unfortunate work experience placement in Palestine particularly discouraged me ..... I think it is to my credit that I have remained, albeit in a privately consultative capacity, until now. Nevertheless, I resign. Ha Haa, yes welcome to the stage. We are the entertainment, whilst Sed is someplace back in the engine department bashing the bejesus out of the engine. He'll be back at the helm eventually. But hey, at present we're doing our Brewery (you know the brewery theory? the whole world is a brewery and we are supposed to take the pi$$ out of it and consume as entertainment) impersonations. Good of you to jump right in too. Though I'd have half expected him to abdicate. You what people are like. |
|
|
|
Post by cster on Nov 27, 2016 7:48:32 GMT 10
Man Oh Man, Workman its great to have you back in here. I understand what you say, though I don't know any of what those people have said. This is a possible way to explain the double slit observation. Spoken about elsewhere.
I've come to the see we are connected to the planet as in, or like the "silver thread stories" and that we are like spiritual nerve endings. Able to do and go anyplace but still there to provide feedback to the consciousness of the planet. Just like our own nerve ending are there to supply us with feeling. Alert us to sensation etc.
If consciousness is the whole universe, we've a long way to step up if we are to step any higher than out planet.
I shall have to search these people out.
|
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Nov 27, 2016 14:49:00 GMT 10
Brilliant piece, Workman. Panpsychism rocks and has done in the West since Spinoza. And before him among the Christian mystics, though they couldn't name it as such.
We see it among the Sufis, who also have to speak allegorically and very carefully if they're to avoid the scimitar. Often enough, in the Sunni world, they haven't.
In the East, panpsychism has been de rigueur since the Upanishads were put together (800BC - 200BC).
Atheist panpsychism was well expressed by Schopenhauer who named it the Will, though Schopenhauer's Will, or Life-force, was not benign - it was unconcerned with the fate of mankind, only with its own need to be manifested.
Glad to know you've been lurking, Stephen. Good to see you manifest yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Nov 27, 2016 14:51:40 GMT 10
Epic: Admittedly we had drifted from the original intent of the thread, but we were still well within the target area. God resigning! … were you attempting to appease the heretic?. Just a bit of fun, Donte. The London Spectator had a competition recently in which participants had to write a letter of resignation from God. I just copied some of one of the winning entries. |
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Nov 28, 2016 13:02:38 GMT 10
Heheee ...
Look, everything I say you are holding up to the light of day and saying, 'It don't make sense'. But common sense is bunk, truly. And I can prove it.
I'm going to start from basics. All that's gone before in this thread that I want to retain I will post again, but each one will be numbered. That way the story can be read as a coherant explanation. Posts where I reply to questions, challenges, alternative arguments, etc ... I won't number.
The problem so far is this, most here have a fixed idea of space and time. They have never been given an alternative explanation, so they can have no other. And unless they're an Einstein they will never be able to imagine one. Uncle Albert was the first to imagine an alternative view to space and time. His imaginative idea was proven fact and our old ideas invalid.
If you do not understand Uncle Albert's equations of relativity then you do not, it's impossible, understand the alternative explanation (now proven fact)
Physicist's no longer bother much with Uncle Albert, because even his ideas though proven, were not correct. How can something proven be not correct. They are only correct in a macro sense, a summary. The reality was different again.
In this newer-than-Einstein reality lies the final explanation for the origin of the Universe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Nov 28, 2016 13:14:31 GMT 10
UNIVERSE ORIGIN POST 01
What is a particle? Everything in the whole Universe, and I mean everything, is made of particles.
Is a particle solid? Is it soft? There are no comparisons to describe a particle because any comparison at all has to include that which we are trying to describe. A particle is the smallest thing. You can't break it with a hammer because then there would be smaller bits and it is already the smallest thing, and the hammer is just composed of the same particles.
Lets take a nice long length of rope, a long skipping rope is good. We go into the back yard and tie one end to the Hill's clothes hoist. The other end we pull tight. Now we jiggle it up and down and we see waves travelling along the rope. The wave travels from our hand and hits the tied rope end at the hoist. Unable to release it's stored energy into the steel post, it rebounds and travels back along the rope to us. If we jiggle faster and faster we will reach a frequency where returning waves are meeting departing waves and they will combine or cancel each other out. Faster and faster we jiggle till we reach that perfect harmonic frequency where a wave appears to be stationary in the middle of the rope. The 'standing wave' is motionless but it is continually being fed by our jiggling hand and the returning waves from the hoist.
Anyone technician (Cster) will be familiar with a standing wave thru using an electrical anlysis machine called a CROW. Alternatively, any mechanic who has tuned a car by shining a strobe light on the markings on the harmonic balancer will also be familar with this apparently motionless wave. The harmonic balancer appears still as the strobe only highlights its marking each revolution of the engine as the harmonic balancer reaches top dead centre.
If neither of these examples are known to you ... then .. have you ever seen the wheels of a moving vehicle turning on TV. Sometimes they appear to be going backwards, or even stand still .. This is when separate frequencies 'harmonise'. To radio technicians this is known as heterodyning.
Now once the standing wave on our skipping rope harmonises it becomes a particle of the field. The 'field' is the rope. By ever so gently increasing or decreasing our jiggle we can cause the 'particle' to travel back and forwards along the rope.
Conceptually, and good enough for us, this is what a particle is. EXCEPT, there are an squillion ropes going north-south, east-west, up-down in a matrix the size of our universe ... This is the FIELD. The Field is all pervasive, it is everywhere. The 'ropes' are separated by one planck-length in space and one planck-second in time) and particles are standing waves, or values, of the Field at any given point where we take a measurement. Because the skipping ropes of the field are 3-dimensional (they run north-south, east-west, up-down) and not 2-dimensional like our skipping rope the particles are spherical. (This description of a particle is a conceptual descripion only)
So then, is a particle a wave, or is it a solid little nugget. All we know is that when we measure it with wave-machines it appears as a wave, and when we measure it with particle machines it appears as a particle. The higher the frequency, the more particle like it becomes, the slower we jiggle the more wave like it becomes ... And everything is made of nothing more than this standing wave, just a value in a point of nothingness.
There, that's not so hard ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Workman on Nov 30, 2016 13:10:15 GMT 10
Brilliant piece, Workman. Panpsychism rocks and has done in the West since Spinoza. And before him among the Christian mystics, though they couldn't name it as such. We see it among the Sufis, who also have to speak allegorically and very carefully if they're to avoid the scimitar. Often enough, in the Sunni world, they haven't. In the East, panpsychism has been de rigueur since the Upanishads were put together (800BC - 200BC). Atheist panpsychism was well expressed by Schopenhauer who named it the Will, though Schopenhauer's Will, or Life-force, was not benign - it was unconcerned with the fate of mankind, only with its own need to be manifested. Glad to know you've been lurking, Stephen. Good to see you manifest yourself. Thanks Epic for your kind words. I'm a little busy, so can't be here a lot, but still manage to keep an eye on things. And, regarding universal consciousness, there's a worldwide experiment going on today, designed to test if it's true. You, and everyone, might like to lend them a hand ... Quoting: www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/11/take-part-in-todays-worldwide-quantum-physics-experiment"There is a worldwide scientific experiment today (November 30th) aiming to test the laws of quantum physics via a video game – and you're invited! The BIG Bell Test: worldwide quantum experiments powered by human randomness aims to conduct a series of quantum experiments in labs around the world that, for the first time, will be controlled by human decisions made by volunteers (aka Bellsters). Here's how you can take part. Coordinated by ICFO, the Institute of Photonic Sciences, the experiments will test Albert Einstein’s idea of "local realism," a phenomenon at the very core of the mysteries of the quantum world. The project, which will run in 12 different labs, needs the contribution of at least 30,000 people who will generate sequences of bits as randomly as possible. Participants who want to contribute can do so through a video game created specifically for the project. Gamers will have to introduce sequences of 0s and 1s, trying to be as random as possible. The sequences of 0s and 1s will control the experiments by determining the measurement conditions in each lab, and anyone can participate regardless of their age. All you need is a device with internet connection to try to pass all the levels, in turn generating the maximum possible quantity of bits. The initiative originated from ICFO's contributions to the loophole-free Bell tests of 2015, experiments which required an extraordinary attention to the nature of randomness and its role in physics experiments. ICFO contributed to these experiments by using a physical random number generator that produced very fast, very pure random numbers. Those experiments inspired the idea of a large-scale, human-driven experiment using currently available internet technologies. The experiments will test, among other things, the properties of entangled particles. To contribute, head here … www.thebigbelltest.orgCheers, Stephen |
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Nov 30, 2016 17:46:48 GMT 10
UNIVERSE ORIGIN POST 02
I have to try and change your pre-conceived common sense view of Space and Time.
In the late 1890s Science believed it held so many pieces to the puzzle of Life, the Universe, and Everything that the final explanation was all but wrapped up. And in truth they did hold quite a lot of information. And this information clearly and correctly confirmed their belief in the theories.
There were some minor inconsistencies ... the Sun should have exhausted it's fuel already, but it clearly hadn't ... there was a problem with light. It had been clearly and correctly shown that visible light consisted of three (broadly speaking) different frequencies, red, green, and blue. And that when these three were all present the result was white light. And yet, when you heated something or burnt something it always turned red-hot, and as it got hotter it became white-hot. But green-hot and blue-hot were never seen .. why, why, why. This became known as the problem of black-body radiation or cavity radiation.
Something was wrong, what was it. Everything in the theories were correct and tested .. and yet something was not right.
A new generation of scientists were arising and they (Planck, Einstein, especially Born, and many others) would solve these problems ... but the solution would change everything and though the solution would prove spectacularly right it would give no conceptual explanation. Still doesn't to this day.
Science was moving into a new lateral viewpoint. Discovery was no longer the pioneering field. It had been replaced by pattern-matching. Theories could be designed, using these non-conceptual equations and formulas, to make testable predictions. In this new-world-science testable predictions were being confirmed by experiment. You observed the known pattern, theorised a missing piece, went looking for it and found it. Discovery was outdated.
And during this tumultuous period (1900-1950s) it was realised what was wrong with the old theory and why it had started to fail.
It was slowly realised the Energy was not an entity at all, just a measurement of other things. Energy was a summary of things interacting, it didn't really exist anymore than a kilometre exists or a kilogram exists. You can't have a bucket of kilograms or kilometres, because they're not entities, they're just arbitrary measurements designed to our own scales, tape rules and clocks.
So what? Well if energy didn't exist, was not an entity in fact, then what was the real entity that energy was the measure of? What actually existed, because you can't have a bucket of energy, it isn't a mysterious force or ray that reaches out and somehow exerts itself, it's just a measurement.
Well, Einstein had written a formula that proved energy didn't exist ... But neither he nor anyone else immediately saw it in this light. It's difficult to let go of a concept you've held all your life, even when your own math is telling you that your looking at it the wrong way. It took time and slowly scientists realised that basic givens like energy, dimensions, force, space, time were not entities as they had always thought, they were just measurements (our own) of real entities. And slowly, slowly, it became apparent that there were only two entities that existed and all else was perception measurement.
The entities were Matter and Motion (yes, motion is an entity) and as both of these were field values, (remember the skipping rope, Post 001) then ultimately only one thing really existed, the Field (the Fundamental Substance or FS). Therefore Matter and Motion, those two Entities, were interchangeable, and they are. They are values of the Field
Now, if that was all too much too quick then lets see why 'energy' doesn't exist. Don't worry, this complex post is all going to fall into place and make sense.
Einstein's famous formula defines matter in motion. But he thought it was defining energy initially.
E = M(C^2)
Energy = Matter multiplied by C^2. C^2 is a constant (the speed of light squared) and is equal to 90,000,000,000 or around 90 billion.
This means, in proportion, that 1 unit of matter contains 90 billion units of energy. But energy is just a measure on a ruler or calculator. What it's measuring is the interaction of two entities, matter and motion (C^2). These are the only two physical things that exist, they are entities. Energy is just a measure or a dimension. Energy is just a ready-reckoner that gives the amount of motion-matter on a scale that we're familiar with. It gives a single scale value for the interaction of matter in motion
At this moment of going to press you believe that dimensions too are entities. I'm so sorry, but those familiar 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time are also just measurements. They don't exist, they are not entities. Dimensions are measurements only. So what is a dimension a measurement of then. It is a measurement of the degree of asymmetry that exists within the FS. All measurements, distance or time or mass are measures of Asymmetry.
Can I make this understandable, simple to comprehend, give every day common sense examples? Yes, and I will
Important: Dimensions are measurements, not Entities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Dec 2, 2016 22:35:05 GMT 10
UNIVERSE ORIGIN POST 03
When the term 'dimension' is used, as in 3-dimensional or 2-dimensional most people give an entity status to the dimension. A kind of reality. This is not correct.
3-dimensional simply means that three 'different' measurements can be taken to locate a point in Space. If we take only one measurement we cannot define the point clearly. So we take measurements from different angles in order to fix it's location. To 'trig' it. So, any measurement in space requires a ruler. A ruler is our 'proof' of space. A ruler enables us to measure distance between two points. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. I mention this because a straight line has no width in space, it doesn't exist, just thevtwo points exist.
In order to measure from one point to another, to run our tape rule out, requires time .. and so we have a fourth dimension. Time. It always takes TIME in order to measure motion SPACE.
A ruler and a clock are all we need to measure Space and Time. To measure motion in space we just multiply one by the other.
Motion (speed, acceleration, velocity) = Distance (ruler) multiplied by Time (clock). How easy is that.
Motion = Distance x Time
I've already said Science had a problem in the late 1890s. The problem was that the above formula didn't work when compared to the speed of light. (That is, the speed at which a photon travels thru the electro-magnetic field) Einstein would solve it.
The reason no one could solve it, except Einstein, was because they were so sure they were right. They believed that Space was an entity. And that Time was an entity too. That these two great asymmetries were the fixed stage and backdrop upon which the Universe performed it's tricks. They believed they existed. That is, they believed they were entities and not just measurements (dimensions)
They thought that Motion was the neasurement. A measurement that took place in space over some period of time.
Motion = Distance x Time
They had the reality in reverse. Motion on the left of the equation was not a measurement (dimension) of an interaction between two entities on the right of the equation, space and time. Motion was the reality and because of it's symmetry it could only be defined by asymmetric measurements, sapce and time. And that poorly. The Scientists measurements were failing because not only did they have the two asymnetries down as entities but they had left a third asymmetry out altogether, even tho it was staring them in the face, even as it now stares in yours.
But Uncle Albert saw thru the illusion, and dumbfounded the world with the true reality. This was in 1915.
All this will be explained. Post by post. Patience.
Remember, dimensions are not entities, they are frail human measurements
|
|
|
|
Post by donte on Dec 12, 2016 18:36:01 GMT 10
Whether there be a beer in here or nay….
Greg tells us….‘Remember, dimensions are not entities, they are frail human measurements’
Of that Greg I have no doubt. But, it does further beg a question….. ( Godels theorem ) ‘it is not possible to know everything about a situation if one is subject to the confines of that situation’. Which with a little bit of nounce says; one must place oneself outside the arena of such activity.
Therefore our requirements herein would need us to be; ‘Outside’ of the ‘Finite’ arena and hence of any physical illusions of the three dimensions of relativity; being space, time and motion. We must remember here those are the entities that also make up Quantum, Chaos or a ‘fundamental substance’ or for that matter any other entity of note.
So by using Gregs closing maxim (above) and ‘Godels’ crunch….. those dimensions, measurements, can only consist of the same eternal limitations (parameters) of the aforesaid and finite dimensions that are covered by/within E=MC2.
So the consequence of all this is Guys…..from hereon those facts are relegated to the domain of the pixies, that incidentally were also responsible for designing Cols fancy meters.
Speaking of.... enlighten me here Greg…. even the smartest of computers is limited to equations originating from the finite; eg: Garbage of the finite in = garbage consistent with the finite out. Forget the Math commensurate to the finite, for it would be of little value in a field of the infinite where math is irrelevant.
Perhaps one needs to wear a different hat with a separate level of awareness beneath it … do you think?
Hmmmmm waiting, waiting, waiting!.
In the interim guys, should the festive season overwhelm us prior ….. have a good Christmas, with peace and goodwill to all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Dec 13, 2016 18:57:15 GMT 10
Donte has a good point, is it possible to derive the propertires and origin of a closed system when the observer is a product of the same system, and within the system. Well, with Uncle Albert's equations of Relativity then the answer is no. They end in a Singularity, whose properties are hidden even from God. He no more understands a singularity than we do. He has to scratch his head too. He once said to Einstein, 'Albert, could you pitch that one a little slower across the plate, all I saw was a blur'. True story. Look, as this story proceeds, and I do promise once again to speed my responses up, Donte's question will become a non-question. A question that has no answer because it's premise is wrong. Why did God colour betterfy wings? This question has a false premise, that God made butterflies. There are many reasons that I could use to prove Tute's premise wrong. And in the explanation of the 'Universe, where did he come from' all that wil be explained, and explained in simple concept. But a simple beautiful exquisite photo was taken recently that defies Tute's claim. Here it is, from the Wiki. This photo is one of man's crowning achievements of man's incredible ability to reason.  This is an ACTUAL photo of our Universe taken when it was only 300,000 years old. CLEARLY taken from outside the Universe, and showing a boundary to the Universe. The Universe is not infinite. How this photo was taken requires a laeral understanding of how you perceive the world. This is a genuine photo, no magic tricks .. and we have been able to take this photo because we understand that TIME and DISTANCE are just measurements, not entities. Tute provides a classic example of how things are perceived when you mix up dimensions and entities. But Tute is in goid company because we all do this, it's natural to think effect must follow cause. But as we comes to grips with that mysterious term Symmetry time and space will disappear just like earth, air, wind and water ... The four famous dimensions of the early Greeks. I promise. |
|
|
|
Post by donte on Dec 15, 2016 6:47:36 GMT 10
That is a very good pic Greg as it clearly depicts the perimeter boundaries of the finite fundamental substance…. If one studies the image closely it becomes apparent to astute universe observers that a cloud of smoke almost totally obliterates views of the Bunya’s. It also beggars belief that in density that fog far exceeds the Nimbin Gala day eclipse that engulfed the universe only 12.793.643.15 billion years ago. Neither is it at all difficult to comprehend the difficult means by which this pic was obtained. All one needs to do is to keep in mind that motion is a constant, time is irrelevant and mass a total construct. When put together with string theory and a black hole or two it allows us minions to continually misunderstand the joke. And whilst we are jousting with the joviality of the accompanying mesmerising maths the leaders of the push regularly obfuscate further over lunch at the Hadron Collider canteen… ….talking about out to lunch……probably up until this juncture Greg, Tute was still unsure as to which one of us was the con-nor and which one the con-nee. But having observed the above pic and considered the last paragraph in some depth, I take my hat off and must bow to the master of the mist.   |
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Dec 15, 2016 7:33:00 GMT 10
That is a very good pic Greg as it clearly depicts the perimeter boundaries of the finite fundamental substance…. If one studies the image closely it becomes apparent to astute universe observers that a cloud of smoke almost totally obliterates views of the Bunya’s. It also beggars belief that in density that fog far exceeds the Nimbin Gala day eclipse that engulfed the universe only 12.793.643.15 billion years ago. Neither is it at all difficult to comprehend the difficult means by which this pic was obtained. All one needs to do is to keep in mind that motion is a constant, time is irrelevant and mass a total construct. When put together with string theory and a black hole or two it allows us minions to continually misunderstand the joke. And whilst we are jousting with the joviality of the accompanying mesmerising maths the leaders of the push regularly obfuscate further over lunch at the Hadron Collider canteen… ….talking about out to lunch……probably up until this juncture Greg, Tute was still unsure as to which one of us was the con-nor and which one the con-nee. But having observed the above pic and considered the last paragraph in some depth, I take my hat off and must bow to the master of the mist. The leader of the Push??? |
|
|
|
Post by donte on Dec 15, 2016 7:48:33 GMT 10
Yes Artie 'The Push'..... Being a Sydney-ite you should be well acquainted with the term.... Check Henry Lawson, or maybe it was Banjo.....
and now direct from Wiki for you Artie....
The Royal George was the headquarters of the Downtown Push, usually known as just the Push.... As well as the Libertarians and the aesthetes there were the small-time gamblers, traditional jazz fans and the homosexual radio repair men who had science fiction as a religion. The back room had tables and chairs. If you stuck your head through the door of the back room you came face to face with the Push. The noise, the smoke and the heterogeneity of physiognomy were too much to take in. It looked like a cartoon on which Hogarth, Daumier and George Grosz had all worked simultaneously, fighting for supremacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Dec 15, 2016 8:11:22 GMT 10
Yes Artie 'The Push'..... Being a Sydney-ite you should be well acquainted with the term.... Check Henry Lawson, or maybe it was Banjo..... and now direct from Wiki for you Artie.... The Royal George was the headquarters of the Downtown Push, usually known as just the Push.... As well as the Libertarians and the aesthetes there were the small-time gamblers, traditional jazz fans and the homosexual radio repair men who had science fiction as a religion. The back room had tables and chairs. If you stuck your head through the door of the back room you came face to face with the Push. The noise, the smoke and the heterogeneity of physiognomy were too much to take in. It looked like a cartoon on which Hogarth, Daumier and George Grosz had all worked simultaneously, fighting for supremacy. Err yes, but associating "the push" with "The Universe - where did he come from" was very creative. The Push's universe was in fact a few city streets. |
|
|
|
Post by cster on Dec 15, 2016 13:28:43 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Dec 15, 2016 16:32:16 GMT 10
There is nothing mysterious about the picture Tute. In fact your post almost explained how it was taken.
Doesn't seem to matter how many times I say to my readers, you dear people here, that in order to understand the Universe you must think laterally.
Tute, like Epic, you seem unable to encompass what the word boundary means when applied on large scales.
This is how the pic was taken:
13:8 billion years ago the Universe (an asymmetry within the fundamental substance) burst on the scene in a blinding flash of light. That light, from which the pic was resolved, set off on it's long journey within the brand-new Universe at, yes you guessed, the speed of light.
But while the early fireworks of our Universe begun it's journey at the ultimate speed, the speed of light, there was something outstripping it. The Universe was expanding many many times faster than the speed of light ... It expanded so fast that it left the light-of-it's-birth light years behind. Into the vastness of the spacetime of expansion hydrogen condensed. Stars formed from this hydrogen under the influence of gravity.
Solar systems formed throughout the Universe, clustered together into galaxies. One little galaxy was the Milky Way and contained a Sun with a little blue planet called earth. Life formed on the planet. Life invented a camera. A device for catching photons. Just as life got the camera working 13.8 billion years after the birth of the universe, the first light, the light of formation reached the little blue planet and life took a photo.
The Universe had expanded so quick that it had left light behind. Light finally caught up and thats how we, beings inside a closed system were privileged to take a photo that at first glance seems that it could only have been taken from outside the system.
Space and Time are measurements, not entities. They are just measuring dimensions. Don't forget it !!!!! ... Or you will be doomed, like Epic, like Tute, to continually reach out and touch wood to make sure you're real.
Space and Time are measurements, not entities, while you continue to confuse them you will be unable to make progress, and you will be convinced that you're perfectly right. Wrong! Let go of your old common sense ideas and open your mind to a new understanding.
It's simple ... And I'm here as proof
|
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Dec 15, 2016 20:41:52 GMT 10
As the Universe expanded faster than light then it continually encompassed it's former boundary. These boundaries, recorded by light, are trapped within the universe because it continually enclosed it's outer limits within itself as it expanded.
By concentrating on collecting light from the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) it becomes possible to use time and space to measure the universe in it's forner (less expanded) configuration. Three satellites, COBE (cosmic background explorer) followed by WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) followed by PLANCK (European Space agency's mission to explore the first light of the universe) were sent one after the other to take the photos
They were spectacularly successful, and not only took the above photo but ALL three confirmed experimentally the mathmatical predictions of Inflaton Theory. Which is what we are discussing here.
|
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Dec 17, 2016 17:44:54 GMT 10
You've lost me. I'm sure it all makes sense in some totally lateral frame of reference, but it's beyond me. Over and out. |
|
|
|
Post by donte on Dec 18, 2016 7:58:22 GMT 10
Whoever you are, whatever the calling, you can waltz around in your own wee world convincing to your little hearts content the explanations for existence. Be it, Divine, Relativistic, Quantum, Uncertain, Conscious, etc. But certainly that call is more difficult if you Planck away in Quantum physics, where from the outset the final reality has always been an explanation for life in a cosmos that has no necessity to maintain either… how totally soul destroying is that. I have preference for the more human approach whereby the universe is only knowable through the human minds ability to think about reality, and whereby the evolution of the cosmos is dependent upon consciousness. In consequence I have no problem recognising either a finite or an infinite theory. Or the combination of both (as it now seems)…. Reinforcing the fact we are only part of the part, but in the final equation, not part of either part. Hence as a Spiritualist (covers all entities) I am outside of all those other wanking universes, there is no such thing as space, time, measurements, objects …. No nothing, zilch, zero, naught, nuffink, sweet Adeline, Phurk..all…… Hence... every day in every way Greg, the touching of wood or a boundary of any description could not be further from my needs. Nevertheless thank you for your efforts, I can assure you I will faithfully ponder the more complex narrative of your latest….. and with Godels maxim in mind I apologise for my facetious post pertaining to those scientists still out to lunch, as well as to the mist and haze that may or may not surround the Bunyas. Do the HC scientists still leave a sandwich out at nights should their compatriot that was swallowed up by the Collider return unexpectedly?......  just checking. |
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Dec 18, 2016 11:06:01 GMT 10
The concept of finitude makes no sense apart from the concept of infinity, and if infinity actually is then finitude is meaningless outside the mind of the conceiver.
My thought for the day.
Make sense? It sort of does to me, but once we start thinking about finitude and infinitude we are really entering the domain of absurdity.
I'll shut up now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Dec 18, 2016 18:05:10 GMT 10
No no ... Not at all Epic. Go for it, I enjoy. Shortly I will be discussing Symmetry. So far, the (numbered) posts leading up to this point have just been primers, things that need to be understood but not necessarily agreed with. But when I post on Symmetry then all will become clear, boundaries will disappear and the issues you have will become non-questions. The concept of scalar fields will remove the irritation our brain feels between finite and infinite. Because both terms become meaningless. It becomes impossible to locate ourselves in either space or time. Impossible because both are measures and you cannot locate a measure (dimension) you can only locate an entity. And the entity is motion. Absurd as this may appear in a post, hang in there Dude and keep your mind and bowels open, if not necessarily in agreement I welcome your contentions, all contentions, and will reply as I get time. Feel free mate Greg |
|
|
|
Post by cster on Dec 21, 2016 7:10:20 GMT 10
Finite like House is definable, so is inhouse an equivalent of infinite. Don't be listening to all the others.
This is the first time anyone has discussed the shockwave that preceded the change of the big bang. This is something I have always pondered, when alone at times, that is why wouldn't the big bang have a shock wave ahead of all changes, just like we observe on all big bangs filmed by the likes of the Myth Busters.
But hey, we've only just observed gravity waves so there's still time for us to catch up to the shock wave and its signature.
Yes it would have dissipated.
|
|
.. It's just that we've all misplaced the message.
