Assertion of an "absolute now" from "What is 'spacetime' really"

[maddog]

There is only ONE place things travel slowly (by slowly I mean significantly less than C) and that is in the mind. For example, when our mind identifies an object like sphere in space, even those that object is 99.99% empty space, we treat it as one entity. However, if we were to perform the same methodology on the macroscopic would could consider that every body in out local solar system is one overall object.

I would question that. This not to invalidate your statement. It is just that I conjecture

that maybe our consciousness is more than signals traveling down neurons. I have no

physics to back this up. Pure conjecture at this point. Were to happen from QM it would

require that said "extra-sensory" communication would require to be done as Virtual particles.

You are no longer required to meet the C speed Law.

 

Just similar the lyrics of a Moody Blues song "Thinking is the Fastest way to Travel...".

 

maddog

[maddog]

You are a True Believer in the mythical fabric "spacetime," and you are here proselytizing that mainstream *dogma* of that invention by none other than the *revered* Einstein and his mentor in this invention, Minkowski.

Just as much as you are a True Believer of Euclid.... :naughty:

Gravity definitely is the cosmic force of attraction among all masses. Spacetime remains a mythical fabric. I counsel everyone here to refrain from from accepting Pyrotex's statements above as establisshed facts!

So now you are claiming "Constructs" or "Models" are "Mythical". How odd. True in that

all these have something in common. They are concepts only held with the brains of humans. The difference is that Myths are concepts of "old" from the past. Constructs/Models

are concepts of current in the present and used (have utility). Were you to shoot an arrow

as well as orate, I would dare say whether you could "hit the broadside of a barn".

 

maddog

[arkain101]

I would question that. This not to invalidate your statement. It is just that I conjecture

that maybe our consciousness is more than signals traveling down neurons. I have no

physics to back this up. Pure conjecture at this point. Were to happen from QM it would

require that said "extra-sensory" communication would require to be done as Virtual particles.

You are no longer required to meet the C speed Law.

 

Just similar the lyrics of a Moody Blues song "Thinking is the Fastest way to Travel...". :)

 

maddog

 

You must of thought I was referring to brain signals traveling slowly.?

 

I was speculating that a macroscopic bodies motion is irrelavent, compared to the motion of the atomic materials. Though, I question my own statement now.. :)

[Michael Mooney]

Hydrogenbond:

If space-time is a construct, when gravity bends space-time, does than imply reality is not what is bending, but only the construct? If this was true, it would imply the mind gets bent, creating the impression reality is bending.

(I missed this one 'til now.)

Very good question! I have never gotten an answer either in all my repetitions of the essential, ontological question, "What is bending?"

 

I would say however that rather than positing that "reality is bending" the error is mental reification of "the fabric, spacetime" as if it were an actual medium rather than a mental construct.

 

(but the thread on that subject is still locked up!)

Michael

[Pyrotex]

If space-time is a construct, when gravity bends space-time, does than imply reality is not what is bending, but only the construct? If this was true, it would imply the mind gets bent, creating the impression reality is bending.

No, that cannot be the case.

 

We humans "bend" the space-time-construct.

 

Gravity "bends" the space-time-reality.

 

If we do the first one correctly, it gives the correct observable description of the second.

 

If gravity were only "bending" our minds, the math would not work.

But it DOES work.

So the math (space-time-construct) is an accurate reflection of what gravity is doing to space-time-reality.

 

No other conclusion is plausible.

[arkain101]

So the math (space-time-construct) is an accurate reflection of what gravity is doing to space-time-reality.

 

What if we were to say, the math is a convenient method to apply, relative to the way we think and see (the way our brain thinks 3D) reality.

 

Which implies, there is other ways to see reality. :naughty:

[Michael Mooney]

Pyrotex:

 

We humans "bend" the space-time-construct.

 

Gravity "bends" the space-time-reality.

 

How do you know the difference between what "we humans bend" (in our minds) and what "gravity bends,"(objectively, independent of our minds), and why do you assume the reality of 'space-time' as a given reality. (Notice the ontological error of assumption in the latter.)

 

If we do the first one correctly, it gives the correct observable description of the second.

 

If gravity were only "bending" our minds, the math would not work.

But it DOES work.

So the math (space-time-construct) is an accurate reflection of what gravity is doing to space-time-reality.

 

What do you see as the *Bridge* between "the first one"...humans bending the spacetime construct... and the second ... assertion that "Gravity "bends" the space-time-reality"....

 

Note: you assume a-priori a "space-time reality"

as if it were an ontologically given/proven/established "reality."

 

No other conclusion is plausible.

 

I will assume that you can or will not hear my feedback in this post ... a fair assumption based on past confrontations and your very insulting PM messages (Privacy will be maintained!)...

 

So this leaves your last dogmatic statement.

I'm glad you did not say that no other conclusion is possible.

 

There is still hope! The difference between plausable and possible is the slack in science for visionary exploration.... as "possible reakity."

Michael

[Pyrotex]

What if we were to say, the math is a convenient method to apply, relative to the way we think and see (the way our brain thinks 3D) reality.

Which implies, there is other ways to see reality. :QuestionM

I don't care what you're smoking, it isn't going to change reality.

[Pyrotex]

Pyrotex:

How do you know the difference between what "we humans bend" (in our minds) and what "gravity bends,"(objectively, independent of our minds), and why do you assume the reality of 'space-time' as a given reality. (Notice the ontological error of assumption in the latter.) ...

No Michael,

YOU made the error of assuming that the moderators of Hypography would allow your pointless, inane, troll-baiting to go on forever.

You're suspended.

[arkain101]

I don't care what you're smoking, it isn't going to change reality.

 

smoking? :QuestionM (I'll take that as a joke) :lol:

 

I was asking you what you think of that form of phrasing:

 

What if we were to say, the math is a convenient method to apply, relative to the way we think and see reality.

 

For example; isn't the math and visualization different depending on the geometry and dimensions used to represent or analyze reality?

 

That's all for now, I'd like to elaborate, but some other time.

[Michael Mooney]

Check-in... test. Still suspended?

M

[arkain101]

Hi Michael. Since I have given some of your threads a lot of my attention, would you mind returning the favor, as I think it is related to your thoughts.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/19781-the-fundamental-theory-three-fundamental-laws.html

[Michael Mooney]

Hi Michael. Since I have given some of your threads a lot of my attention, would you mind returning the favor, as I think it is related to your thoughts.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/19781-the-fun

damental-theory-three-fundamental-laws.html

 

Arkain 101,

I couldn't get much "traction" on the issues you raised in your linked thread but will reply there. As for this thread, I honestly don't understand how my post 245 above incurred an infraction resulting in suspension. For instance, the leap from subjective perception to having enough faith in our collective senses to assert that there is an "objective cosmos" independent of our senses/perceptions is, for me truly a collective scientific "leap of faith" (which I embrace as knowing based on perception) but it is still an unresolved issue in this forum.

Michael

[jedaisoul]

As for this thread, I honestly don't understand how my post 245 above incurred an infraction resulting in suspension.

As a mere member of the site, I would suspect you were suspended for repeated trolling. Do you understand the term? It means that you have posed an argument that has already been repeatedly shot down for a variety of reasons. But despite this, you simply repeat it ad nausiam. Suspended? I think they've been very lenient in not banning you long ago.

 

So think hard on this. Listen to the replies you get and don't discard them just because they don't agree with you. Engage with the criticisms of what you have said, and answer them. Don't just repeat your claim. We've heard it more than enough times already. And if you can't grasp the maths, you are not in a position to gain say the conclusions drawn from it.

 

A little homily might help: If you've got nothing new to say, don't say it.

 

Of course,that's just my opinion, but I'd suggest you give it careful consideration...

 

Oh, and by the way, this thread is supposed to be about the assertion of an absolute now. Not gravity bending space. That thread was closed for precisely the reason I've given above.

 

P.S. It may not seem so, but these comments are kindly meant. I don't want to see you banned. I think you've come a long way from the way you behaved when you first came to the site. It would be a pity if that was wasted...

[Pyrotex]

smoking? :hihi: (I'll take that as a joke) :naughty:

I was asking ...For example; isn't the math and visualization different depending on the geometry and dimensions used to represent or analyze reality?...

Yes, it was a joke.

But only a little one.

 

Your question is a valid one. And any number of philosophers, teenagers and other folks have tried to argue that very point. Generally speaking, none of them are familiar with the way that geometry and dimensions are used to represent reality.

 

So, it always boils down to this: find a problem that can be represented by two different geometries, and do the physics (correctly!) in each. You will get the same answer. One may be easy and the other frightfully difficult. But if you do the math with integrity, you get the same or similar answers. (Some choices of geometry will incur larger error factors.)

 

Given a problem with an object traveling at a speed of 100 MPH, Newton and Einstein will give you the same answers. But Newton will give it in 5 minutes; Einstein will take 5 days.

 

And basically, this is what underlies the philosophy of physics. The math is showing us reality, not just some specific viewpoint of reality. Because the math, however modeled, whatever base arithmetic we use, however many "degrees" we define to be in a "circle", -- the math gives us consistent and useful answers, as long as we don't get sloppy.

 

Different maths can indeed open up new insights for us. But insights into the same reality. Differential equations can allow us to describe some problems that cannot be tackled with any amount of algebraic equations. Polar coordinates make some geometrical problems vastly easy -- others, almost head-breakingly hard. But they don't represent a different "reality". 11+7 is still 18 whether you use decimal, octal or ancient greek hexadecimal notation.