Jump to content
Science Forums

K.Consciousness

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by K.Consciousness

  1. Hmm...somebody in their infinite wisdom moved this thread to the Philosophy forums. Is philosophy forums a catch-all bucket for anything and everything that overlaps with more than one subject? Do they not know that everything in this universe is entangled and that there is no defined locality per se for any given entity? On this very thread, I talked about neurons so why is this not moved to the Biology forum? Or someone talked about dimensions so why is this not moved to the Astronomy and Cosmology forum? It would be fascinating to understand the logic behind moving threads and/or post
  2. OK, looks like we are embarking on discussing three different concepts here, namely, reality, time and space. I thought the discussion is only limited to time but that is fine, I understand overlaps are the norm and not exception in our everyday lives. It is an approximation, agreed. But there is no real reason to think that our approximation of reality is markedly different from true reality. If there is a reason, I would like to know what it is. Well, yeah, but whoever said the text and a snapshot of the text are the exact same thing?! Why state the obvious? As an analogy, whethe
  3. Sorry, I disagree. The order is definitely created by the brain. What gets fed to the brain is a heap of data. It is the brain that is arranging the data in an order that makes "sense" to us. Where the order is not created by our own brain via our observations, we rely on external resources to validate the order. In any case, we are the ones who determine what is consecutive and what is not, what is ordered and what is not, according to what we know, what we learned and what we observe. That knowledge to determine what is consecutive and what is not, is embedded in our DNA (courtesy million
  4. The motion is physical; the counting of the said motion in terms of vibrations/oscillations is not. Ergo, space is physical, time is not. Motion (movement) is impossible without space.
  5. No, it's not an idea that I was floating, it is a fact; that time is a human invention. I didn't say time is change, I said time is nothing but the counting of motion. We could time anything, change, no change, whatever, as long as we set something in motion and count the number of times the thing in motion vibrates/oscillates. May be they were bright, may be not. Has no bearing on what time actually is.
  6. Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, unambiguously, however you want to say it: Time is nothing but the counting of motion in terms of vibrations/oscillations of an entity. Vibrations/oscillations are either introduced by humans (tuning forks, quartz crystals etc) or natural (electrons of a cesium atom) Whether natural or man-made, humans are the only ones "interested" in such Vibrations/oscillations. We want to track events hence we define a precision and "set/control" that vibration/oscillation to achieve that precision. It is true that even after we set that precision, the precisi
  7. Why/how is space a bubble? How is it "equivalent" to an "atom of matter"?! What does "unity of space" mean?! ??? I have no idea what this means! matter bubble?! We who? OK, seriously, you are trying to yank our chains here. How is the above considered as putting it mathematically?! Where is the math?!
  8. Be that as it may, I am not sure why "outside of" would be considered equivocal unless you subscribe to something like a holographic universe.
  9. Great videos! Thanks. I am at work but as soon as I go home I would probably put it in a loop, especially the first one (Gravity3DSpaceTime) and soak it all in. Somebody sure does have the vision of Neo (from Matrix :) to have conjured up that video.
  10. If I take an elementary particle such as a quark with no known substructure, I would doubt there is any space "inside" of that particle; on the other hand if I take an atom, I would say there is "space" inside of the atomic nucleus as well as between the nucleus and the electron(s) of that atom, force carrier particles notwithstanding. Question is "what is it" that is inside of the atomic nucleus or in between the nucleus and the electron(s)? In that context, to me, "outside of" implies outside of matter with the rider that the "outside" is blurred since what is on the outside is also pres
  11. It does, at least a couple of them. For one thing, the "fabric of space-time" analogy is not a good aid in understanding space-time curvature. Wonder who came up with that?! In all the videos that I have seen and all the articles that I have read space-time is consistently referred to as a fabric. I would rather visualize space-time as pixels (thus making it discrete). To the extent that all matter and forces are either fermions or bosons at the fundamental level, I am postulating, for visualization purposes, that space too has a fundamental particle as its building block. Could it be a grav
  12. Thank you both for your responses. I am not sure I understand the "curvature of space-time" concept at all. Does the testability of this concept necessarily involve expensive, time consuming, experimentation such as Gravity Probe B? Could we perhaps do something simpler, something as suggested by JMJ, only to understand the principle behind the concept (at the risk of over-simplifying, placing objects such as marbles/baseballs etc with different weights on a trampoline like material and observing the effects of curvatures by way of a simple gyroscope and extrapolating the results to ... the
  13. I would like to know if the warping of space assumes that massive objects are "on" space instead of "in" space, if that makes any sense. If space is all around the matter, enveloping objects from all sides, how could it warp in only one direction, as depicted in most diagrams making the rounds on the web? Google images Shouldn't there be an "indentation" or a "dent" in all directions and not just at one pole? And if space is indeed warped in all directions depending upon how heavy the object is, how exactly are the smaller objects "gravitationally attracted" to the bigger objects and
×
×
  • Create New...