galaxyblur

Thanks for the clarification.

Only by accurately sensing reality could an individual survive. Thus, natural selection made our senses be accurate detectors of what is "really" out there.

This is a good point, however, it is not true in all cases:

1. Someone or something has created Reality for us, a la the Matrix.

2. What is "really" out there is detrimental/harmful/traumatic when observed, thus we get a watered-down experience, or perhaps a distorted one in which we can function, rationally.

What someguy is stating is merely Existentialism, which by its very nature will never be proven right or wrong, which is why it will forever stay firmly planted in Philosophy. i.e. tree falling in forest, Plato's Cave, etc. It may, however, help us to cope with our perception of reality, realizing that we may not be capable of observing "reality" for its true self (if you can even state it as such w/o involving a human), which leads us to #2 above.

Perhaps in our continued evolution, those individuals who can grasp counter-intuitive concepts such as time-dilation and many things quantum, will find success and advance our species. So there is still room for natural selection, but maybe it is not finished yet.

Here's something that perplexes me...

When we speak of time travel as a possibility, we always arrive at the paradox that if you met yourself in the past or in the future, then your path through time would then have changed, blah blah blah.... it can really make your brain hurt. But...

Doesn't that violate all of our conservation laws? In fact, it doesn't really make any sense at all to think of time travel in that way. If you could travel through time and take yourself to another point, what's the guarantee that anything or anyone will be there? Aren't we all in this time? How can there be infinite GalaxyBlurs at infinite points in time?

Now, I tend to think that Time is just a construct invented by man to connect events with each other, and although useful, is not a feature of the universe, per se.

But still, if Time is something we travel through just as we do in space, I see guys like Stephen Hawking talking about Time Travel and wonder, "Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?" Or have they....

Comments please!

someguy, I agree on all counts, whole-heartedly.

are we talking about proving hypotheses or just talking? I'm confused... there seem to be two different vibes happening here.

Not quite an "assumption". Once we entertain the hypothesis that deity exists, then we have available all the instances of humans experiencing what they have concluded is communication with deity. I don't refer to the people who hear voices or the ones preaching from the streetcorner.

it is an assumption, unless you consider human experience to be an accurate way to observe said phenomenon. Which I don't.

So now we have 2 groups: those who report communication with deity and those who don't. Now come hypotheses as to why there are 2 groups. I gave one. You have proposed 2 more:

 

1. "Maybe he [deity] just choses not to do so." So deity chooses some and not others.

And also, maybe he can and choses not to, and he never has done so.

2. "Or maybe there are physical limitations that he encounters as well that would make his communication sparse." I'm guessing you mean "physical limitations" on the side of deity. After all, the lack of a deity detecting module would be a physical limitation but on the side of humans.

right.

You have made your own assumption here: communication is "sparse". That doesn't seem to be the case. Cases in the scripture of various religions would indicate that deity does not intervene often in human history on a grand scale and then does so only thru a limited number of individuals: Moses, Mohammed, Smith, Buddha, etc.

 

However, millions of people over the centuries have reported a much quieter, much more personal experience of communication with deity. This isn't "sparse", it just doesn't have the publicity or gaudiness of the other cases.

What percentage of people would claim to have a divine experience? And, what percentage of those would be lying or delusional? We may never have a way of knowing that. I was simply referring to those people who appear to be prophetic because of their divine experience... sparse. You're right, if we consider everyone to be telling the truth and/or not delusional, then sparse is inaccurate.

Conceding that relativity may be an illusion would not seem to bear any relation to my comment. Relativity has been tested, and passed those tests, replacing the Galilean view that made sense to a lot of people. Something that made a lot of sense was wrong. Special relativity is not intuitive to many; it does not make sense. (if you're referring to something other than that when you say "relativity" then you need to be more clear. That's how it is generally taken.)

when i say relativity, i'm referring to the principle. the theory merely expanded upon the principle and used it as a postulate, but did not replace it. Galilean Relativity did make sense to a lot of people (including Einstein) and still does make sense. It was never wrong.

"Universe" doesn't really have much latitude in its definition, but making an argument true by changing the definition of a word is equivocation, which is a logical fallacy.

The definition of universe gets changed all the time. Its an abstract idea. How would you define it?

The conclusion of the linked post is that the feather and hammer fall at the same speed (they have the same acceleration); if they are dropped simultaneously they will hit at the same time. Making a claim is irrelevant. I can claim the moon is made of cheese. Anyone can make an incorrect claim.

It was stated in the thread that they must accelerate at different rates, but perhaps immeasurably different. Someone went on to say that there was once a heated thread on this very topic. So I can't be the only one ever to make that "claim".

I worked with people with autism and other conditions for 5 years. Changed my life.

Remember, autism can be as crippling as something like cerebral palsy. They're not all savants, or even close.

Non-sequitur, no, and no.

Please explain your non-sequitur comment...

As far as the Earth being the center of the universe, perhaps it depends on your definition of universe.

and according to this thread:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27466

I am not the only one to make such a claim about gravity.

actually einstein was very much philosophical he came up with his theories by doing thought experiments not tests in a lab or strictly mathematical formulas in fact it wasn't until later that we had the proper tools to be able to test his theories. And I think it was partially because of this that he had alot of trouble getting his theory accepted by many in the scientific community.

good point. very true, and I admire that side of him.

There have been a number of things that make SO much sense, that they must be true, and weren't. Everybody agreed that heavier things fall faster, that the earth was the center of the universe, that space and time were absolute, because that made SO much sense.

 

But in science you have to test these things, try and falsify them, before you can have any real confidence that they are, in fact, true.

I'll concede that there is a chance that relativity is an illusion or just an artifact of our ignorance about the universe, but I personally don't believe that is the case.

according to Relativity though, you could say that the Earth is the center of the universe and you'd be just as correct And heavier things do fall faster, its just not noticeable to us because they're so small compared to the Earth. But perhaps that's another thread

Now, before you blow a fuse, that is a plausible hypothesis. It does not say deity exists. It only says, if deity exists, then 1) ability to communicate with deity offers evolutionary advantages and 2) evolution by natural selection could design a material part of our brain to detect and communicate with deity.

and you also assume that our deity would chose to communicate with us, or would even have the ability him/herself.

Perhaps we all can communicate with a deity, should there be one. Maybe he just choses not to do so. Or maybe there are physical limitations that he encounters as well that would make his communication sparse.

Wow, a busy day at work and look what I've missed

Thank you all for your responses, I will try to read them thoroughly in the morning. I have glanced over a few though...

lucaspa, I first assumed and will always assume that it is from a lack of knowledge that I personally cannot explain this apparent situation. I think much confusion has come from the fact that I am not a scientist, and although I read and study as a hobby, this is obviously a limited scope from which to make an argument. Hence, I am here seeking second opinions. If I thought I had all the answers, I would never have needed to post in a forum such as this

In the same way I could not speak to you in terminology and semantics native to my profession and expect you to grasp it all, I am not in a 100% "scientific" mindset. I have my roots in art and philosophy, and this is my perspective towards science.

When I say "law of nature", I am not referring to laws that we have created from data that pertain to certain experiences and not necessarily others. I mean, nature's true self... the "universal constant", GUT's, TOE's, etc. Things we have not yet begun to understand, but I greatly desire to understand them. If there is a better term I should use rather than "law", please enlighten me.

And, I know that Einstein took Galileo's Relativity Principle and expanded upon it 10-fold, but you also must realize that Galileo's principle and Einstein's theory are vastly different things. Galileo constructed not only a scientific principle, but a philosophical one as well.... it reaches beyond the realm of science. Kind of along the lines of Existentialism. One of those things that makes SO much sense, it MUST be true. It reaches beyond proofs and data; it is simply the only possible outcome.... kind of like Darwin's Evolution. So, with no disrespect to Einstein or his contemporaries, I don't think SR or GR should have to enter into this equation at all. They involve many more complexities, and I think Einstein would agree that simplicity and minimalism is the universe's true nature. Occam's Razor, etc. Perhaps we have come full circle (E=MC2 style), or perhaps not.

So, I hope you're all enjoying this discussion and are not just trying to thwart me away from your forum and shut me up Because I'm enjoying trying to see things from your angle. So, not to use a bad pun, but please humor my perspective and bear with me.

Like I said, I'll read your responses more thoroughly in the morning.

Any frame needn't be invalid, if we can find the true nature of things, right?

I took you to be saying that: if the rocket moves faster do the people inside have increased energy and therefore mass?

Kind of... Let's look at it like this: does the Sun have kinetic energy relative to us?

then you must understand why you can't go the speed of light. if you don't understand why you can't go the speed of light then you don't understand the exponential curve. knowing it exists and understanding it are different. maybe your question should be why does light travel at that speed?

I understand the curve very much, if you believe that in your reference frame inside a rocket, let's say, you have acquired "energy" and therefore mass. My question was, relative to you inside the rocket, have you acquired energy?

I understand the exponential curve associated with reaching light-speed. That's not what I meant.

I think I'll start a new thread for that one

You bring up some very valid points. I've often thought about the "moving the universe" problem and I'm glad you brought it up.

Back to energy, can we say that the amount of energy something has is relative? Of course it is, because velocity is relative. You cannot be independent of any frame of reference... you are always observing from one.

Let's imagine it is 1904, before Einstein's paper was published. How could you explain a solution to the problem? Special Relativity should not enter into this equation at all, because we are dealing with low-velocity, low-energy, low-mass objects. In fact, gravity's effect is negligible as well. By Einsteinian thought, you acquire energy, and therefore mass, moving in your car (at least from the road's perspective), but the mass gained is minuscule....

(this gives me an interesting thought: going back to attaining light-speed in a rocket, from your perspective, you never gain any energy and therefore mass. So why the explanation that light-speed is unattainable? That's for another time I suppose.)

Anyway, you are still looking at this from an absolute perspective. And all of this actually is beginning to feel even less intuitive than SR or GR or time dilation, which is quite a feat! I'm stumped for tonight perhaps.

Sorry I have forgotten what the "this" in the question was.

"this" being the 5-ball moving upon collision with the cue ball (from the 1-ball's perspective)

just read a couple of the stickies in this forum. Forgive me if I've committed a few atrocities. Won't happen again

Our view from Earth is not invalid, it's just not equal to all other reference frames because it's accelerating.

That's my whole point. The measurements we would take are not equal in all frames... such as, momentum.

If you have compelling reason to get rid of energy as a defunct concept, then explain it. Don't try to be mysterious or do the slow reveal - they work well in suspense movies and strip clubs but they are highly aggravating on science forums.

Haha

I'm not intentionally being mysterious or any of that. I do not have an answer. All I was curious to know was, do you agree that this is possible, yet inexplicable within our current understanding?

Are you really this ignorant of physics or are you being deliberately obtuse? From your use of the words, you don't know what a law is in science, in addition to your misunderstanding of relativity.

 

Many physicist and engineers find the concepts of energy and momentum, and their conservation under the appropriate conditions, to be useful. That you choose not to find them useful in no way dimishes it for the rest of us.

Hey, it may be useful, and we may build theory upon theory. But I don't see what's so sacreligious about trying to think of things from a different angle. I stated, first thing, that this was somewhat in the realm of philosophy as well. Yes, I know what a law is, but my point was that our laws are not the true nature of things. Maybe that's an obvious point to make, but physics has built a house of cards that will not stand long.

You claim I misunderstand relativity, but I believe its been misunderstood and misused in modern theory. Just my two cents.

Yet still, no one has explained to me why an accelerating frame is considered "invalid" other than that "it breaks stuff". By that logic, our view from the Earth is an invalid one, and perhaps from the sun, the galaxy, who knows.

No. Velocity is a vector quantity - it has a directional component.

Yes, and the velocity in any direction is therefore zero.

You know, if you have to break and discard the current framework to make whatever ideas you have workable, then you also need to replace all of its functions.

I understand that it would be a huge task to replace our current framework of energy. And I'm not saying that I'm even capable of doing so. But shouldn't we be moving forward, if we find that our current understanding does not account for all events in the universe? What physicist would tell you that we are 100% right about everything? Not one. It all has to change sooner or later.

Gravitational potential energy.

If you do away with Energy, there needn't be any Potential or Kinetic. And isn't a velocity of zero still a velocity?

Potential Energy is completely unnecessary. Kind of like when they used to think Electricity was a fluid.

Well, things that it doesn't describe aren't required to behave in any particular way by that law (bearing in mind that a "law" is a specific description for something we observe to be consistently true).

 

So if a law pertains to inertial reference frames, it doesn't necessarily follow that it should have anything to say about any other kind of reference frames. Just like it has nothing to say about filofaxes, ice cream, or bungee jumps.

I agree with you 100%. Which is why there has to be some deeper explanation. When you take Relativity in its truest sense (non-inertial, inertial, whatever), here's what gets thrown out the window:

-Conservation of Momentum

-Things "aquiring" and "transferring" energy, therefore...

-Conservation of Energy.

-You know what? Let's throw out this "Energy" thing all together. Fictitious.

Can you think of a case when energy cannot also be referred to as the relative velocity between two fields?

Not in the sense you mean, no.

Please explain how a law of nature doesn't always have to be true. Not much of a law, now is it? Hardly "fundamental".

You state "According to the Principle of Relativity, all laws of nature must be valid and nature must behave in the same way in ANY frame of reference," when relativity states they must behave the same way in any inertial reference frame.

Ok, so do we say inertial frame simply because our laws of nature fail in a non-inertial frame? I think there's something wrong with that. Here's what Wikipedia says, for what its worth:

"An inertial frame of reference, or inertial reference frame, is one in which Newton's first and second laws of motion are valid."

So by saying:

-The laws of nature only apply to inertial frames of reference.

we're basically saying:

-The laws of nature hold true in frames of reference in which the laws of nature can hold true.

Do a Google search for "inertial frame of reference" and you'll get similar explanations all over the place. The other type of explanation out there regurgitates "constant velocity". Well, shouldn't a fundamental law hold true all the time? If not, then we need another way to explain it in the "exceptional" cases, and thus, we need an idea that can bridge the two together.

That's because you're misinterpreting relativity.

How so?