radicalsymmetry

What if the aliens are massive schools of cosmic jelly-fish that are each bigger than out own moon and feed on humans like whales eat plankton... Would you like to say hello ?

 

 

 

Yet you ask and find fault in others questions? Ok here’s one:

 

It would seem that in some religions entry into heaven requires, not only, adherence to that particular doctrine, but also belief in the deity; so why is hell so much easier to enter even when adherence is maintained but belief is not?

I see where you're coming from. When I was about 8 years old and had grown enough to operate from my own embryonic moral framework I examined this subject briefly but well enought to make up my mind and concluded that religion wasn't for me ever.

I am not sure what would qualify as "witnessed god" but I know and have known many people who claim a variety of supernatural impressions or interactions that they insist are proof of God. I don't waste my time asking them anything.

indeed what's the point?

If you wish to learn about such matters then you could read a book and not be subjected to your friends "proof".

If you had the same experience as your friend would you yourself have a true faith or would your own experience not be proof enough ?

Why would your friend lie to you? Is it not enough that your friend assures you that his experience is real? If you doubt his experience why not go further and doubt your own experience of reality at this very moment!

I didn't realize that your eyes were massless. For the rest of us, the situation is analogous.

I accept your reply for what it is.

Your example is not the same as mine.

Yes, free space transmission. I have included details in my previous post; I was editing while you posted this

it's not free space transmission as per my example as you have mass doing some detection which is distorting space-time because of its velocity...

My example was detection by looking with your eyes... not with a rotating mass.

No. The frequency would vary with the radius.

In a free space? The example given was independent of any end to end contained transmission enclosure or medium such as polymer glass substrate with reflective wall.

You can't say it (red highlighted statement) was incorrect if you didn't understand it as I meant to convey it.

You have the free will to ask for clarification but you choose not to do so.

So, no, we do not agree.

 

Do you think there is information which has not already occured which exists in the future ?

If NO then I do think we basically agree.

Nice puzzle. Cute. Perhaps it's able to be written because the concept of infinity it's based upon is flawed... or perhaps you are totally correct. Who knows? Who can say they they know of an infinity and how could someone be able to comprehend an infinity with a finite brain ?

How did the humans ever come up with infinity? Sure you might say "person x 2400 years ago" but I bet such concepts go back waaay further than that.

I think you are taking things literally too often.

I think you should read some of those things as if they had quotes so

"Did anyone else 'see' what you did?"

or

"What did this 'person' do that makes you think it could only be God?"

Well said. Thanks.

 

So what question would you ask?

I never thought about it, I never really considered anything like that could be real, so I can't answer.

Are you on medication?

 

It's not a bad question but you could ask "list all drugs taken in the last ten years prior to contact with God"... that would be a better question.

Have you experienced other "visions"?

 

You presume a type of "vision". What if someone's experience does not fit into your pre-conceived notions ? It would make your question a pretty bad question.

Did anyone else see what you did?

 

What makes you think that God is seen with the eyes? Again a pretty bad question.

Oh, you mean did anyone witness you when you witnessed god? --that's a pretty good question I must admit

Did you get any clarification on the whole Do unto others thing, because a surprising number of people seem to be confused over that

 

This is a basically a good question but you're asking about something biblical when you could be asking something about god and not some book.... therefore again! a pretty bad question.

What did this person do that makes you think it could only be God?

 

Good question if god is a person - Bad question if god is not a person.... therefore again! a pretty bad question.

What evidence can you offer to prove to someone else that you witnessed God?

 

What evidence can you provide to prove you’re not conjuring up all your life like a dream ?

I think you all already know that evidence would not be provided.

You could be asking some questions on the most complicated, wildest, metaphysics and the nature of "god" but you choose not to do so.

You ask very simple questions which, even if answered, do not provide any worthwhile information for your life.

Why not ask a worthwhile question ?

By "Front end" I meant time and not the rotating end.

Since it follows that , so your claim is FALSE.

 

Yes, I already wrote:

After 1 week will there be light sensed by our equipment on ceiling ?
Answer is NO ( I think) because any "future" events should have already happened because we are running "slow" compared to the brisk pace of the mirrorring end.

 

I think we agree. it's just the language which has caused a hiccup.

So "we know" that you are making erroneous statements, easily disproved by correct application of physics.

 

No I'm not. I said that there would be no information yet to come "in the future" and that all information has already occured.

I then pose a question like this "where is the information and how can we sense it"?

If you can't discuss these matters without resorting to erroneous attacks because you didn't read the entire post, and mistook two words out of context, then perhaps this thread is not for you.

1. Send light from central point down fibre cable which is on axial rotation.

2. End of fibre contains mirror which reflects light onto ceiling.

3. There is a ring of sensors on celling which can detect light.

4. Let's say we rotate cable for 1 year. We know that the "front end" of the rotational end is 1 week into future space-time compared to our (central) present space-time.

5. We then stop the rotating and wait. After 1 week will there be light sensed by our equipment on ceiling ?

Answer is NO ( I think) because any "future" events should have already happened because we are running "slow" compared to the brisk pace of the mirrorring end.

So what information do the sensors on the celling receive as we perform the experiment ?

If you tell me that the sensors on the celling receive light of another colour then I call you all crackpots, deal ?

OK, so if I got a laser and spun it round and observed the beam; the colour of the light would be even across the radius.

But if I put a light into a length of fibre cable, beaming from the centre, and then sensed the freq at the other (rotating) end with a reading device & also recorded the freq at the rotating end...

...Is the received freq the same as the sent freq ?

No, your question is answered precisely by the GPS functionality.

I don't see how the above question, relating to space-time, is answered by pining down a vector in space based upon triangulation from three known stationary bodies.

This is very bizarre. Do you wish to go onto to explaining Lorentz triangulation already to someone who doesn't even understand something very basic about the universe he finds himself in ?

The fact is that I don't know everything about physics or I wouldn't be asking questions.

When I wrote "impossible situation" I wrote it from the perspective of not knowing that the frequency of information might dilate. Actually I'm still not sure what's going with the time dilation as no one seems interested in addressing my questions!

With regards to GPS,.. No I don't have it in my car unless I launch it on my hand phone. To be interrogated asking if I have GPS or not is very ridiculous indeed. I'm not an expert but understand that a position can be found from the timing differences of at least three satellites. Any arguments you might having about a GPS device being able to track a change in the GPS signal's frequency should be brought into the OP, imho. Anyway; if the device can track such a change then how can the crystal sync to the satt signal with consistancy ? (Don't answer... really off topic and don't wish to discuss A-Sync or such matters)

It's all very well saying "it works just like GPS" but reality is not an electronic device.

I'd sincerly like to ask:

Does time-dilation occur because of A or B ? (new simple example; time-dilation occurs at a point which is rotating, at an angular velocity, around a central reference clock)...

A. space-time has remained unchanged. Light (frequency) has changed.

B. space-time has changed. Light frequncy has remained unchanged.

It might be the wrong question but at this time it's all I'm capable of asking.

Please don't insult me or accuse me of spreading crackpot theories. THANK YOU.

What would you ask such a person?

Thanks, imatfaal.

In the OP I had thought that two different points at the same angular velocity, where the travellers can see each other, creates an impossible situation.

However; this thread is now at the stage where some reasons are being given to explain the nature of a relative time-dilation. Namely; change in frequency of wave vector.

I do recognise that some detailed maths, relevant to the OP, has been provided but I do not wish to thank the poster as he/she provided said information with unnecessary insinuations and personal remarks.

I'm not here to argue. I want to comprehend. To that end, in my previous post, I've posted my perspective and seek dialog on the subject in layman’s terms.

[/modtip]

if you wish to show through ill-conceived gedanken that relativity is incorrect...

This is certainly not my intention.

I believe I'm asking perfectly rational questions;

such as...

the frequency of light increases dependant on the observers movement in space-time, even if the path which the light takes remains fixed ?

i.e space-time has remained unchanged. Light has changed.

~ vs ~

is there a compression on the radial length of the cable for those (people) moving at a radial velocity?

i.e space-time has changed. Light has remained unchanged.

When, by Janus, an example is provided that alludes to the (first) example above, by way of a marble in a tube, I question the validity of the example by stating that which I see as very obvious...

...a photon will spend most of it's journey n free-space and not as a particle being subjected to (side wall) angular rotation.

This isn't the line of thinking of a crank. Far from it. I'm a logical person who wishes to understand the world around him. I welcome any further discussion which is on-topic. Thank You.

p.s. If you wish to discuss me, or make speculations about me as a person, I suggest that this thread, titled "Angular velocity & impossible situation of relativity", is not the appropiate place to do so.

Nothing is equal to infinity

Pure speculation and you further leverage, off this guess, to make further invalid assumptions.

It doesn't mean matter has been destoryed or that nothing exists.

You might like to be more careful with your words.

You casually throw around the word "nothing" without thinking about the implications of your conveyed meaning.

I presume you intended to convey:

It doesn't mean matter has been destoryed or that everything does not exist.

That's what you really mean isn't it?

If you can't use the word "nothing" correctly; I hardly think you are qualified to provide definition on the existential meaning of "nothing" and also to then go on comparing it with infinity.

"NOTHING" EXISTS = INCORRECT.

"NOTHING" DOES NOT EXIST.

Thanks for your input, Janus.

In the case of the marble there's centrifugal force but a photon will spend most of it's journey n free-space and not as a particle being subjected to (side wall) angular rotation.

Therefore I don't agree "The pulse, just like the marble must gain energy from the spinning disk" is as clear-cut as you've portrayed it to be.

How can the light "know" that it should increase in frequency when travelling in a fixed system ?

It can't obviously.

Using the example provided in my previous post, i.e an optical fibre cable, is there a compression on the radial length of the cable for those (people) moving at a radial velocity?

Makes me think that space is nothing more than a rarefaction of time.

So if we put an optical fibre cable at the centre and ran it out radially, with break-out points at each circumference, and the cable moves round the circumference(s) under the travellers feet, are we to presume that the travellers perceive an increased frequency of light ? i.e the frequency of light increases dependant on the observers movement in space-time, even if the path which the light takes remains fixed ?

What speeds are a and b moving at?

 

What exactly do you think is impossible?

 

Less than c, I don't think it really matters for the puzzle, and they're both moving at the same angular velocity.

The problem is that person a and person b can see each other, via the constant speed of light, yet time slows down for person a because they are traveling through space-time at a higher velocity.

Let's say that they both spin around the centre for a few years until the outer (person b) is 24 hours younger than the inner (person a). For argumants sake let's say the "master clock" is in the centre. How could this be possible if they are also able to observe each other the whole time at the speed of light ? There exists a conflict in transmission of information...That's the topic of the OP.

( note: points p1, p2 & p3 are to be regarded distinctly from person a & person b. I apologise for any confusion caused by my labelling. )

What is the mechanism that led to eternal God, eternal matter or spontaneous creation?

Dear Deepak Kapur, as follows, the correct answer to your question is as such:

The causative aspect of the paradox is the immanent possibility that the paradox may be eminent (and) the cessative aspect of the paradox is the eminent possibility that the paradox may be immanent.

The (un-named) paradox is not something that can be learnt from another person or intellectually comprehended.

Best wishes.

'Knowledge is infinite as there can be no end to our questions'

 

*If* the solution to all questions resolves to infinity then we couldn’t quantify knowledge as solutions to questions. So yes, there can be no end to our questions, and as long as we can ask a question, there would seem to be an elusive answer remaining.

Two problems, firstly, there's no certainty about the universe being infinite.

If the Universe is not infinite; then what lays at the end, on the other side, of the finite universe?

Nothing?

...God?

Nothing cannot exist.

and who is creator of God... God's father?

To say the universe is finite implies a dualism or that creation was sparked by an exogenic causative agency.

Food supply.

Person-a travels on circumference c1.

Person-b travels on circumference c2.

There will be time-dilation. Person-b will age more slowly relative to Person-a.

However... say that Person-a & Person-b can look at each other throughout the rotation, and light travels between them at c, do we not have an impossible situation of relativity?

Please explain in plain English.