100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Stimulating the 3rd eye.
Edited by
Frost379
on
Thu 07/25/13 03:06 PM
|
|
Well, the concept of the third eye has been associated with the pituitary and pineal glands. I would say try supplements that are suppose to aid in healthy function of these glands. When I meditate, I usually relax in a dark and quite space, sometimes I take a small dose of melatonin as it seems to help, and use visualization techniques and focus on the center of the forehead somewhat between the eyes, around where the "third eye", pituitary, and pineal glands are located. Etc...
Here is a quick google search explaining a bit more what I was trying to talk about. I skimmed it so I don't know how credible this is, but hey, it's a start lol. You'll find these everywhere. http://godsdirectcontact.us/sm21/enews/www/133/ss.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
3D printer and life.
|
|
Will the 3D printer and medicine lead us to new limbs or more. Yes! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Physics &Nothing
|
|
Lol, I couldn't tell what to make of the last guys text about my CBD bit. It's all good, kinda went on a tangent there, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Physics &Nothing
|
|
I prefer edibles, especially with high CBD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Physics &Nothing
|
|
Consciousness is time. If the universe had zero consciousness there would not be anything to experience any moment. The Universe would not exist in the form we see it, without consciousness to experience anything the Universe would exist as a singularity, undivided, because there is nothing to experience its parts. it would become all space and time in a single entity. I believe the Universe does exist right now as a singularity relative to no consciousness. But since we are conscious beings in a Universe full of consciousness we will experience the vacuum that separates and divides the singularity into the fractal structure we see right now. not sure what that means, but consciousness isn't time, it's an understanding that perceives reality... doesn't create it, but perceives it... First you say time only exists in the mind, then you say consciousness is not time. So if time does not exist as a conscious observation in the mind how is it that time exists in the mind? That's a little contradicting. When I say time is consciousness I mean exactly that, time doesn't exist, it is in the mind. It is conscious observation. You see things move, you calculate how long it takes something to get from point a to point b, Time is movement through space observed by the conscious mind. i don't see it as contradicting, it's two separate things you are talking about... i'll give you this, time might be a part of consciousness, but both are separate from each other... we invented time to have a better understanding, to make equations work, same as with an inch or a mile. anyway, my whole point to this is that time cannot be bent, slowed down, go backwards, or anything else like that, because it is a figment of our perception... Consciousness is what perceives, therefore if you say "time is a figment of our perception", then it is a figment of consciousness. if you say so... lets back up a bit... i'm mainly talking about science in terms of their theories, like black holes bending space time, where as you two are taking to some philosophical level that i don't care about... i'm really not sure what any of what your talking about has anything to do with scientific theories on time... Your not a physicist are you? Science first starts off as a philosophy, science is nothing without it. If all your concerned about is what mainstream scientists say, then you will only be memorizing facts, without understanding anything. If you ask a physicist to explain what is really going on, they will all have varied responses and interperetations. Physicists don't really have a clue what is going on, they develop a theoretical model that predicts certian observed phenomena very well, then they use the model, still not knowing what is going on; its all a black box. Before the term physics, the field was called natural philosophy. Any physicist who does not have a grasp on philosophical ideas would probably not be a good physicist, just a good lab rat, a human calculator, conforming to the mainstream rules of how things are done; they are only good at doing what they are told. Regardless, when I was taking quantum mechanics, QED, and others, as I have a B.S. in physics and some grad work done, you cannot escape the philosophy, it is littered throughout the texts, various philisophical ideas and view points. I find it hard to understand how one could only be interested in science and not philosophy, for physics is still called, natural philosophy. Science and philosophy are intertwined. The closest explanation about time that scientist can give in terms of a theory or law is probably the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy of the universe always increases, this is one of the only time-assymetric laws out there, the arrow of time, etc, and requires time to move forward. Only a couple other physical concepts are time-assymetric, but most of the physical theories or laws say nothing about the direction of time, or the nature of time, and do not require time to move forward like the second law of thermo, this is called time-symmetry. Time is poorly understood, and so is gravity, and pretty much everything for that matter, that is when philosophy comes to the rescue, at least to try and shed some light on the issue. Once the world was flat, then all the sudden It became roundish. Once it was thought that velocity had no bound, then velocity was bound by the speed of light. Newtonian mechanics said nothing about a maximum speed limit, but maxwells equations predicted there was a speed limit and it was c. Once time was thought to be invariant, a constant, then it became variable, relative, and interconnected with space, mass, etc... Hence space-time. It was thought that time moved the same for everyone, now it is thought that time is relative and depends on your speed. For example, the twin paradox goes something like this, "if one twin was on the earth and was 20 years old, and another was traveling away with sufficient velocity, and he comes back, the twin who came back can be 25 and the one who stayed on the earth can now be 50." A homework problem I once had was to calculate how fast the twin was traveling, how far, etc, for this to happen. And there is sufficient evidence that this can happen. One application using these concepts is GPS. Your looking for an explanation of time from science, unfortunately, science cannot give you an answer. Does time exist? regardless, scientist still use time as a variable, and people percieve it. yea, you seem pretty smart, so i'll say this... i wasn't looking for a definition of time, i know what it is... i'm asking how scientists can think that time can be slowed/sped up when it is nothing more than a perception? Well, the twin paradox has been experimentally verified. "The twin paradox has been verified experimentally by precise measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites. For example, gravitational time dilation and special relativity together have been used to explain the Hafele–Keating experiment." Therefore, you can observe the other twin having aged slower than the other. Sure time is a perception, so is everything else, so if we are going down that road of reasoning, how can scientists say anything about anything then? I don't see how time as a perception negates scientists claiming it can or cannot be slowed down. Also, the perception come from something, we have observed people aging, moon cycles, etc. check out Lorentz transformations, space contraction, and time dialation. These our relativistic concepts. Otherwise, try and elaborate a little more. I am not quite sure what you are asking because your question about this specific example of time as a perception and what can be said about perceptions is not limited to this case. It encompasses everything that is a perception and what can be said, and everything is perceived, observed, etc... my opinion on that is whatever they called "time dilation" was something else, they just don't know what yet. sure, people have "proven" things, but some of the things they prove tend to change with new evidence they learn... But there is experimental verification for time dilation. In the experiment, there were two synced atomic clocks, and one clock slowed down relative to the other, time slowed down for that clock, regardless of what you call it like time dilation. Also, in science, nothing is proven. This is an easy way to detect quacks, say on infomercials where people say "clinically proven" for some kind of supplement. Pharmaceuticals never claim to be proven. Instead you say there is evidence for this and that or the data supports this hypothesis or theory, etc... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Physics &Nothing
Edited by
Frost379
on
Wed 07/24/13 10:40 AM
|
|
Consciousness is time. If the universe had zero consciousness there would not be anything to experience any moment. The Universe would not exist in the form we see it, without consciousness to experience anything the Universe would exist as a singularity, undivided, because there is nothing to experience its parts. it would become all space and time in a single entity. I believe the Universe does exist right now as a singularity relative to no consciousness. But since we are conscious beings in a Universe full of consciousness we will experience the vacuum that separates and divides the singularity into the fractal structure we see right now. not sure what that means, but consciousness isn't time, it's an understanding that perceives reality... doesn't create it, but perceives it... First you say time only exists in the mind, then you say consciousness is not time. So if time does not exist as a conscious observation in the mind how is it that time exists in the mind? That's a little contradicting. When I say time is consciousness I mean exactly that, time doesn't exist, it is in the mind. It is conscious observation. You see things move, you calculate how long it takes something to get from point a to point b, Time is movement through space observed by the conscious mind. i don't see it as contradicting, it's two separate things you are talking about... i'll give you this, time might be a part of consciousness, but both are separate from each other... we invented time to have a better understanding, to make equations work, same as with an inch or a mile. anyway, my whole point to this is that time cannot be bent, slowed down, go backwards, or anything else like that, because it is a figment of our perception... Consciousness is what perceives, therefore if you say "time is a figment of our perception", then it is a figment of consciousness. if you say so... lets back up a bit... i'm mainly talking about science in terms of their theories, like black holes bending space time, where as you two are taking to some philosophical level that i don't care about... i'm really not sure what any of what your talking about has anything to do with scientific theories on time... Your not a physicist are you? Science first starts off as a philosophy, science is nothing without it. If all your concerned about is what mainstream scientists say, then you will only be memorizing facts, without understanding anything. If you ask a physicist to explain what is really going on, they will all have varied responses and interperetations. Physicists don't really have a clue what is going on, they develop a theoretical model that predicts certian observed phenomena very well, then they use the model, still not knowing what is going on; its all a black box. Before the term physics, the field was called natural philosophy. Any physicist who does not have a grasp on philosophical ideas would probably not be a good physicist, just a good lab rat, a human calculator, conforming to the mainstream rules of how things are done; they are only good at doing what they are told. Regardless, when I was taking quantum mechanics, QED, and others, as I have a B.S. in physics and some grad work done, you cannot escape the philosophy, it is littered throughout the texts, various philisophical ideas and view points. I find it hard to understand how one could only be interested in science and not philosophy, for physics is still called, natural philosophy. Science and philosophy are intertwined. The closest explanation about time that scientist can give in terms of a theory or law is probably the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy of the universe always increases, this is one of the only time-assymetric laws out there, the arrow of time, etc, and requires time to move forward. Only a couple other physical concepts are time-assymetric, but most of the physical theories or laws say nothing about the direction of time, or the nature of time, and do not require time to move forward like the second law of thermo, this is called time-symmetry. Time is poorly understood, and so is gravity, and pretty much everything for that matter, that is when philosophy comes to the rescue, at least to try and shed some light on the issue. Once the world was flat, then all the sudden It became roundish. Once it was thought that velocity had no bound, then velocity was bound by the speed of light. Newtonian mechanics said nothing about a maximum speed limit, but maxwells equations predicted there was a speed limit and it was c. Once time was thought to be invariant, a constant, then it became variable, relative, and interconnected with space, mass, etc... Hence space-time. It was thought that time moved the same for everyone, now it is thought that time is relative and depends on your speed. For example, the twin paradox goes something like this, "if one twin was on the earth and was 20 years old, and another was traveling away with sufficient velocity, and he comes back, the twin who came back can be 25 and the one who stayed on the earth can now be 50." A homework problem I once had was to calculate how fast the twin was traveling, how far, etc, for this to happen. And there is sufficient evidence that this can happen. One application using these concepts is GPS. Your looking for an explanation of time from science, unfortunately, science cannot give you an answer. Does time exist? regardless, scientist still use time as a variable, and people percieve it. yea, you seem pretty smart, so i'll say this... i wasn't looking for a definition of time, i know what it is... i'm asking how scientists can think that time can be slowed/sped up when it is nothing more than a perception? Well, the twin paradox has been experimentally verified. "The twin paradox has been verified experimentally by precise measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites. For example, gravitational time dilation and special relativity together have been used to explain the Hafele–Keating experiment." Therefore, you can observe the other twin having aged slower than the other. Sure, time is a perception, but so is everything else, so if we are going down your road of reasoning, how can scientists say anything about anything then? I don't see how time as a perception negates scientists claiming it can or cannot be slowed down. Also, the perception comes from something, we have observed people aging, moon cycles, etc. check out Lorentz transformations, space contraction, and time dialation. These our relativistic concepts. Otherwise, try and elaborate a little more. I am not quite sure where you are coming from because your question about this specific example of time as a perception, and what can be said about this perception is not limited to this case of time. It encompasses everything that is a perception, and since everything is perceived, what can then be said about anything, including time? If you have a counter example please explain so I can see where you are coming from. For instance, give me an example in which you agree what scientists say about something. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Physics &Nothing
Edited by
Frost379
on
Wed 07/24/13 12:13 AM
|
|
Consciousness is time. If the universe had zero consciousness there would not be anything to experience any moment. The Universe would not exist in the form we see it, without consciousness to experience anything the Universe would exist as a singularity, undivided, because there is nothing to experience its parts. it would become all space and time in a single entity. I believe the Universe does exist right now as a singularity relative to no consciousness. But since we are conscious beings in a Universe full of consciousness we will experience the vacuum that separates and divides the singularity into the fractal structure we see right now. not sure what that means, but consciousness isn't time, it's an understanding that perceives reality... doesn't create it, but perceives it... First you say time only exists in the mind, then you say consciousness is not time. So if time does not exist as a conscious observation in the mind how is it that time exists in the mind? That's a little contradicting. When I say time is consciousness I mean exactly that, time doesn't exist, it is in the mind. It is conscious observation. You see things move, you calculate how long it takes something to get from point a to point b, Time is movement through space observed by the conscious mind. i don't see it as contradicting, it's two separate things you are talking about... i'll give you this, time might be a part of consciousness, but both are separate from each other... we invented time to have a better understanding, to make equations work, same as with an inch or a mile. anyway, my whole point to this is that time cannot be bent, slowed down, go backwards, or anything else like that, because it is a figment of our perception... Consciousness is what perceives, therefore if you say "time is a figment of our perception", then it is a figment of consciousness. if you say so... lets back up a bit... i'm mainly talking about science in terms of their theories, like black holes bending space time, where as you two are taking to some philosophical level that i don't care about... i'm really not sure what any of what your talking about has anything to do with scientific theories on time... Your not a physicist are you? Science first starts off as a philosophy, science is nothing without it. If all your concerned about is what mainstream scientists say, then you will only be memorizing facts, without understanding anything. If you ask a physicist to explain what is really going on, they will all have varied responses and interperetations. Physicists don't really have a clue what is going on, they develop a theoretical model that predicts certian observed phenomena very well, then they use the model, still not knowing what is going on; its all a black box. Before the term physics, the field was called natural philosophy. Any physicist who does not have a grasp on philosophical ideas would probably not be a good physicist, just a good lab rat, a human calculator, conforming to the mainstream rules of how things are done; they are only good at doing what they are told. Regardless, when I was taking quantum mechanics, QED, and others, as I have a B.S. in physics and some grad work done, you cannot escape the philosophy, it is littered throughout the texts, various philisophical ideas and view points. I find it hard to understand how one could only be interested in science and not philosophy, for physics is still called, natural philosophy. Science and philosophy are intertwined. The closest explanation about time that scientist can give in terms of a theory or law is probably the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy of the universe always increases, this is one of the only time-assymetric laws out there, the arrow of time, etc, and requires time to move forward. Only a couple other physical concepts are time-assymetric, but most of the physical theories or laws say nothing about the direction of time, or the nature of time, and do not require time to move forward like the second law of thermo, this is called time-symmetry. Time is poorly understood, and so is gravity, and pretty much everything for that matter, that is when philosophy comes to the rescue, at least to try and shed some light on the issue. Once the world was flat, then all the sudden It became roundish. Once it was thought that velocity had no bound, then velocity was bound by the speed of light. Newtonian mechanics said nothing about a maximum speed limit, but maxwells equations predicted there was a speed limit and it was c. Once time was thought to be invariant, a constant, then it became variable, relative, and interconnected with space, mass, etc... Hence space-time. It was thought that time moved the same for everyone, now it is thought that time is relative and depends on your speed. For example, the twin paradox goes something like this, "if one twin was on the earth and was 20 years old, and another was traveling away with sufficient velocity, and he comes back, the twin who came back can be 25 and the one who stayed on the earth can now be 50." A homework problem I once had was to calculate how fast the twin was traveling, how far, etc, for this to happen. And there is sufficient evidence that this can happen. One application using these concepts is GPS. Your looking for an explanation of time from science, unfortunately, science cannot give you an answer. Does time exist? regardless, scientist still use time as a variable, and people percieve it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Physics &Nothing
Edited by
Frost379
on
Tue 07/23/13 05:07 PM
|
|
Lol, those definitions are essentially the same. A light year is a measure of distance, it is defined as the distance light travels in one year in a perfect vacuum. Similarly, one second is defined, according to the international system if units as "The duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". A meter can be defined as "the distance light travels through vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second". Definitions come and go, and some are more accurate and precise than others reflecting current and new understanding. Either way, regardless of how you want to define the observables of time, length, mass, etc... On whatever whatever arbitrary scale you so choose, It still does not take away from their concepts and says nothing about their existence. The definitions are mental constructs associated with any observable or phenomena, and the words, syntax, etc are all arbitrary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Physics &Nothing
Edited by
Frost379
on
Mon 07/22/13 10:20 PM
|
|
Time is a process, emerging from entropy. Entropy itself involves particles in disorder or order, we percieve this entropy, the many particles tending to disorder, as time moving forward, so I would say that time does exist, as much as particles do, it is just an all encompassing term, generalizing phenomena that have substance, it combines things that do exist, whatever existing means. Consciousness is everything, and we hardly know anything about it. The science that tries to understand cognition and develop theories about consciousness is cognitive science, among others. Consciousness may be an emergent property from all the chemical manipulation and organized neurons in our head, or it may be on a different physical plane, whatever it is, I will just call it reality. For us to be conscious, we need to percieve, and many species and people percieve in different ways through our limited senses. What reality is, is really what we sense, relative anyways. Now, there may be an objective reality, In which I think mightymoe believes in, a reality which exists without us. Or there may be a holographic or virtual type reality, in which everything exists solely in our mind, etc... Who knows, but you guys are talking about purely different things. I myself tend towards believing in an objective reality. For example, if someone gets hit by a car, and nobody perceives it, it could have happened, imagine everyone around is on acid, they percieve differently, still, the dude gets hit by a car, but he perceives it as a cloud or something, lol. Maybe after everyone is off acid, they will percieve differently, and then they can conclude that it is indeed a car that hit the guy and not a cloud, then they can verify this by viewing footage from a camera on a street corner. Instead of using your own senses, you have recorded something, you have probed reality with a tool, which is what scientists do all the time to conclude about things in which we cannot sense but in which instruments can and convert that information into something we can sense. Still, there has to be an observer for all this to matter, and some people like to think about the concept of a collective consciousness, a god, etc... To try and resolve this issue. I do wish that you would learn to use paragraphs. Anyway, as I have said previously, time is a metric, a measurement. We define a year as one complete trip around the Sun by the Earth. We define a day as one complete rotation of the Earth on its axis. We define a light-year as the distance that light travels while the Earth makes a complete trip around the Sun. If you want, you can define time as a metric, a measure, and in that sense, it is just a mental construct, intangible, etc. But you can also define time in different ways, and the purest form is the concept, it transcends your definition of a metric or measure, and to some people, it is much more than what you have limited it to be in your narrow yet technical definition. It depends on the context In which you are talking about, say between a physics technical definition, and a philosophers many definitions. A couple examples that I have mentioned in which definitions of time can be constructed differently are with the concepts of entropy, and space-time. The latter concept of space-time is even more interesting as it suggests that time, what is associated as intangible, is interlinked with space and mass, which is usually associated as tangible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Physics &Nothing
Edited by
Frost379
on
Mon 07/22/13 08:17 PM
|
|
Time is a process, emerging from entropy. Entropy itself involves particles in disorder or order, we percieve this entropy, the many particles tending to disorder, as time moving forward, so I would say that time does exist, as much as particles do, it is just an all encompassing term, generalizing phenomena that have substance, it combines things that do exist, whatever existing means. Consciousness is everything, and we hardly know anything about it. The science that tries to understand cognition and develop theories about consciousness is cognitive science, among others. Consciousness may be an emergent property from all the chemical manipulation and organized neurons in our head, or it may be on a different physical plane, whatever it is, I will just call it reality. For us to be conscious, we need to percieve, and many species and people percieve in different ways through our limited senses. What reality is, is really what we sense, relative anyways. Now, there may be an objective reality, In which I think mightymoe believes in, a reality which exists without us. Or there may be a holographic or virtual type reality, in which everything exists solely in our mind, etc... Who knows, but you guys are talking about purely different things. I myself tend towards believing in an objective reality. For example, if someone gets hit by a car, and nobody perceives it, it could have happened, imagine everyone around is on acid, they percieve differently, still, the dude gets hit by a car, but he perceives it as a cloud or something, lol. Maybe after everyone is off acid, they will percieve differently, and then they can conclude that it is indeed a car that hit the guy and not a cloud, then they can verify this by viewing footage from a camera on a street corner. Instead of using your own senses, you have recorded something, you have probed reality with a tool, which is what scientists do all the time to conclude about things in which we cannot sense but in which instruments can and convert that information into something we can sense. Still, there has to be an observer for all this to matter, and some people like to think about the concept of a collective consciousness, a god, etc... To try and resolve this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Physics &Nothing
Edited by
Frost379
on
Mon 07/22/13 06:28 PM
|
|
people are talking about nothing, but what you are forgetting is that time is nothing, just a perception we created to make the day go by and created a standard along the way... so to ask if "time" was around before the big bang is a senseless question... time has never existed but in our minds.. The current understanding is that time is is not invariant, ie, it is not its own independent variable or constant. Time is variable and is interlinked with all the physical concepts of space, mass, energy, etc..., Hence space-time. All the other concepts including time are themselves still mental constructs, they exist within our mind like you say, so does every other concept. If it exists in our mind, does it then exist? Who knows, but what I know, and possibly not even this, is that I know nothing for certain. Your "time before the Big Bang argument" is akin to asking yourself, "if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around, does it make a sound?" If someone were living in a black hole, relative to an observer outside, time would have stopped, relative to the observer in the black hole, time is going on as usual, but he would observe the persons outside as having infinite time, in the limiting case mind you. It's all up to relativity and GR to help shed some light on this. Even though their model is most likely incorrect, as its a human made model, it does keep GPS accurate, since without the Lorentz transformations and other complicated relativistic calculations, GPS would be useless. I like to split things down into what is practical, and what is theoretical. For instance, the law of gravity is most likely incorrect as well, and there is a chance you jump off a roof and float, though this chance is negligible for practical purposes. So I can say in a practical context that if you jump off a roof, you will always fall because of gravity. Another thing is entropy, without which, there is nothing to say that the ground cannot spontaneously acquire enough potential energy and then push you off the ground. Entropy and time are intimately linked. In orde to reverse time, according to the theories, entropy of the universe would have to decrease, and this is not the case, entropy of the universe always apparently increases, that's a law, and increasing entropy is what guides time to move forward, we percieve this through our senses, and give it a name, "time", and it can be on any arbitrary scale we so choose, etc... Also, some theories out there quantize space and time like quantum electrodynamics, meaning that, there is a fundamental unit of space and time that cannot be divided any further, a quanta, instead of continuously being divided ad infinitum. you cannot reverse whats not there... can you reverse an inch or a gallon? no, they are figments of our perception... meaning there is no substance to qualify as something... so to say time can be stopped, reversed or slowed down is just science fiction... Care to elaborate? Everything we percieve are figments of our imagination, whatever that is, and what about consciousness? If you reject time as being something because it is a figment if our imagination, you have to reject every other concept, like consciousness, meaning everything we think we know, percieve, etc, is in fact nothingness. You are saying there is no such thing as anything, nothing exists, etc... I think you are trying to make a point of discerning between the tangible and the intangible, or the ideas, concepts, words, we give to that which we perceive. What to you constitutes something, substance, etc... If any? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Physics &Nothing
Edited by
Frost379
on
Mon 07/22/13 04:19 PM
|
|
people are talking about nothing, but what you are forgetting is that time is nothing, just a perception we created to make the day go by and created a standard along the way... so to ask if "time" was around before the big bang is a senseless question... time has never existed but in our minds.. The current understanding is that time is is not invariant, ie, it is not its own independent variable or constant. Time is variable and is interlinked with all the physical concepts of space, mass, energy, etc..., Hence space-time. All the other concepts including time are themselves still mental constructs, they exist within our mind like you say, so does every other concept. If it exists in our mind, does it then exist? Who knows, but what I know, and possibly not even this, is that I know nothing for certain. Your "time before the Big Bang argument" is akin to asking yourself, "if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around, does it make a sound?" If someone were living in a black hole, relative to an observer outside, time would have stopped, relative to the observer in the black hole, time is going on as usual, but he would observe the persons outside as having infinite time, in the limiting case mind you. It's all up to relativity and GR to help shed some light on this. Even though their model is most likely incorrect, as its a human made model, it does keep GPS accurate, since without the Lorentz transformations and other complicated relativistic calculations, GPS would be useless. I like to split things down into what is practical, and what is theoretical. For instance, the law of gravity is most likely incorrect as well, and there is a chance you jump off a roof and float, though this chance is negligible for practical purposes. So I can say in a practical context that if you jump off a roof, you will always fall because of gravity. Another thing is entropy, without which, there is nothing to say that the ground cannot spontaneously acquire enough potential energy and then push you off the ground. Entropy and time are intimately linked. In orde to reverse time, according to the theories, entropy of the universe would have to decrease, and this is not the case, entropy of the universe always apparently increases, that's a law, and increasing entropy is what guides time to move forward, we percieve this through our senses, and give it a name, "time", and it can be on any arbitrary scale we so choose, etc... Also, some theories out there quantize space and time like quantum electrodynamics, meaning that, there is a fundamental unit of space and time that cannot be divided any further, a quanta, instead of continuously being divided ad infinitum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Physics &Nothing
Edited by
Frost379
on
Mon 07/22/13 08:17 AM
|
|
We are but virtual characters in a dream of a god. We have no free will, our actions are predetermined by the rules of the dream. We are deluded into thinking we have free will. Fate determines the course, or if you like the sugar coated synonym, well call it destiny, then destiny rules us, analogous to the laws of physics of which are never proven. And I would venture to say never disproven either, which does go against part of the scientific method that states a hypothesis, law, etc... Can never be proven, but can be disproven. Physicists have gotten themselves to the point where their formulae and derivations predict certain outcomes, but they have no idea what they are doing, they calculate, their intuition is lagging behind, this is why there are so many interpretations of what is really going on, such as the one I just made up above, lol. It's all a black box, an infinite regression, there will always be questions, always why's, ad infinitum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Physics &Nothing
|
|
A pure vacuum is artificial, a concept, there is no such thing as a pure vacuum that we know of, it is just the limiting case, the same goes for a singularity, where density approaches infinity, it is still an artificial construct, useful for calculations. But at this point, no one has observed a perfect vacuum or a perfect singularity, and even if they did, I would have my doubts, as human perception and cognition is inherently limited, consequently, we will never know anything with absolute or 100% certainty anyways. Then you may ask, well wouldn't this statement fall under its own scrutiny? Yes, unless I specify everything except the above statement. We developed logic, we are flawed and limited beings, consequently, our logic and reasoning are flawed and never absolute. Similarly, the concept of true nothingness exists solely in our minds, and one could argue that true nothingness doesn't exist because we gave it a name; nothing is the absence of everything, a contrary, and now that we named it, it is now something, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Physics &Nothing
|
|
Instead of taking a look at the macro, what about the micro? Atoms are composed of electrons, neutrons, and protons, which compose an insignificant portion of the space or volume that the atom itself takes up, therefore, atoms are mostly empty space. When probing protons and discovering that it is made up of quarks, you will find the same think, the proton is mostly empty space. Now consider a perfect vacuum in which there is a field, say an electric field. Would you say that the vacuum is empty space or would the electric field count as something? The whole universe is composed of fields, whatever they are, that permeate and rule our known and unknown reality. I would say that the whole reality is just an illusion, nothingness, empty space, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
