wucko
-
Posts
38 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by wucko
-
-
On 5/14/2014 at 9:12 PM, michel123456 said:
What I could swallow is the following:
Scaling does happen, we are scaled continuously, and because we are looking constantly into the past, what we are observing in the past has another scaling factor than the one we have today.
That would make sense.
it does resonate (to me)
On 5/15/2014 at 8:29 PM, Strange said:What would be shrinking is the units we measure distance in
or, this would appear so only becaouse precisely of "building up of time"
this also resonates, but havent taken any effort to elaborate, the part that she is talking about "zooming in and getting thep recise same 'object' over and over again'. This is the "thing" on the micro level imho. will have to sit down and elaborate, maybe in next 5 years
0 -
On 5/14/2014 at 9:12 PM, michel123456 said:
Scaling does happen, we are scaled continuously, and because we are looking constantly into the past, what we are observing in the past has another scaling factor than the one we have today.
this is what i meant.
On 5/15/2014 at 8:29 PM, Strange said:What would be shrinking is the units we measure distance in. But again, only on a large scale (because expansion only occurs on the large scale).
@ shrinking is the units we measure distance in + @expansion only occurs on the large scale
said units are not shrinking, its the effect of time on large scale
0 -
the roman Pantheon consisted of liberal approach to religious freedom, with a twist- as long as any religion would recognise Caesar as supreme Deity (Pontidicus Maximus), the religion was legitimate (Religio Legitimata), jews had a compromise: instead of sacrificing to the Caesar they sacrificed for him, Christians however did not recognise deity to Caesar, that is why Christianity was the only 'Religio Illicita' in the roman Pantheon. Christians were thrown to the lions for 350 years, entire families, for amusement of roman masses in Colloseums.
Point being, ' survived just because it had luck and government on it's side' It had no government on their side.
But as for pollitical reason: rome adopted christianity as official religon arround 350 AD, precisely because of pollitical reasons - christianity became too powerful despite intense perecution. The move to creat a roman christianity was a political move.
0 -
christianity survived just because it had luck and government on it's side, imagine what religions could've been in it's place; worship of honi the circledrawer perhaps? haha
christianity was the only 'religio illicita' in the Roman Empire. Early church was thrown to the lions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/historical-secular-quotes-about-jesus/lucian-of-samosata.html
0 -
hi,
im willing to answer any question you might have regarding mistakes, fallacies, inconsistencies that you believe you find in the bible,...
so please, post your questions, i will attempt to answer all in my best strenght.
ofcoourse discussion is welcome.
0 -
Can you demonstrate anything that is nothing?
no, if I want to keep everything. if there is *an* nothing, there is no everything. I can demostrate a nonexistant nothign though.
Hi Moontanman!
How do we know that all we know about is what we can observe?
Can we actually observe it, or do we somehow reason us to it?
we dont know what all we did observe, there will always be things we dont know that we know. we dont only know what we observe, we also know what we observe, but dont know we observe.
"What knowledge can I gain from this different viewpoint?""
yes, but in a non-solipsystic manner only.
0 -
lets cite your evidence
0 -
If the second law was not a law then it wouldn't mater if life breached it, but life doesn't anyway.
So it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter.
if the second law is only a huge probability, then it matters alot if life brached it, but life can anyway. so it matters a litle bit, that it could not matter.
0 -
What is it being created from?
if you mean time, its not created of anything. it builds up.
The speed limit of c refers to the ordinary velocity of a body moving in spacetime. The cosmological speed of expansion is not related with an ordinary velocity but it is the rate of metric 'creation' of space itself and can be larger than c without violating any known law.
@'creation' of space: i like to think about creation of 'time' only. the expansion thus becomes an effect of time solely. (as an hypothesis (@moderators))
my explanation is this:
space-time is expanding faster than C because only time is expanding it. No space is created, only time causes this. its a hypothesis yes. and it works splendidly if you reverse t.
Hmmm. Interesting. Recent observations say the expansion of space is accelerating. No one knows what is causing the expansion to speed up -- its been given the name dark energy. If we assume this mysterious dark energy stays the same over time (a big assumption since we don't know what it is) and we assume the universe will exist for an infinite amount of time, then I guess this says the expansion of the univere will reach an infinite rate.
Have I missed something here? Comments?
.
my hypothesis is: acceleration is apparent, what couses expansion is time. (not space-time expansion, only time expansion). it then appears that events 'further away' (in time), are 'mooving away' faster, because any given non-local time-point has a history-line of its own, so the discrete 'time-points' add up uppon each other so that the observable dillation is an acceleration.
0 -
One more step would be required on order to overcome the dualism that still inflicts the theory, which is not yet a full solution for the existence/non-existence or Something/Nothing dilemma. This would be to recognise that the distinction we make between these two extremes, existence and non-existence, is conceptual, not ontological.
IMHO this perticular pair ( nothing - everything ) can also imply ontological incompleteness (in reality itself).
0 -
Interesting question. I believe that the answer is yes. It is possible to define an indefinable phenomenon, and one that might actually be more than an hypothesis. I'm aware that this statement appears to be paradoxical.
Everything we can describe, and everything we know, is describable and known because we can distinguish it from it from other things. We can describe it as this or that, big or small, fast or slow, transcendent or immanent, real or unreal, manifest or unmanifest, temporal or atemporal, wave or particle, extended or unextended and so forth.
Kant points out that the intellect depends on these contradictory and complementary pairs of distinctions in order to operate, thus in order to describe, and (to cut a long story short) it would follow that the at the very point of origin of the intellect there must be a phenomenon that is not an instance of a category. He calls this the 'proper subject for rational psychology'. On the same reasoning he concludes that the universe as a whole must originate in such a phenomenon.
This is a phenomenon that in an everyday sense cannot be described. It must remain an undefined term by definition. You will see why if you try to imagine a phenomenon defined as being in no case ever this or that. It is unimaginable. Our intellect has no way of getting any purchase on it. It would be invisible to physics.
We might describe it as not an instance of a category, and this seems to be a description, and it allows us to agree what we are talking about. But speaking rigorously this phenomenon is an instance of a category, as it is a member of the category of phenomenon that are not an instance of a category. Such a phenomenon must be described by the use of paradox and contradiction. This is a comprehensible description of it, in that it identifies it and tells us something about it, and yet it is paradoxical and self-contradictory.
Any non-paradoxical description of this phenomenon would have to be false. ('True words seem paradoxical' - Lao-tsu). We can treat it as an hypothetical or real phenonema but either way it would have to be indescribable in a real sense. By definition it would have all properties and no properties, be neither small nor large, hard or soft, timeless or eternal, transcendent or immanent, personal or impersonal, and so on for all the categories of the intellect. It would be both and neither and yet not both or neither. Ordinary language and logic cannot handle it. We have defined it as such.
Might such a phenomenon actually exist? If it is not an instance of a category then the answer must be yes and no. At best there would be two possible points of view, neither of which would be fully adequate. Exist/not-exist is a categorical distinction and ex hypothesis and by defintion we cannot apply it to this phenomenon.
Re the topic, this could be called Nothing, but only if we add that to the intellect it would have two aspects and must also be called Something. If it is a real phenomenon then a state of Nothingness, as a Nihilist would mean it, would have no location in the possibility space of Reality, and yes would be the answer to the OP's question, or no, depending on how we look at it.
At any rate, it's very confusing talking about something that cannot be described.
yes, paradox itself can be a signifier or even an instance of objects, i think. It might be of fruition to rethink the original dillema from this point of view - and not in my original path, where i try to resolve the paradox (and actualy fail to).
It seems to me that when the day comes that everyone participating in this thread agrees on what it means for something to exist the answer to this question will come quickly.
<br /><br /><br />I disagree. IT might verywell be that the universe is jus one big quantum state. Before "time" it might very well be that the universe was described by a static quantum state. The big bang might just have been that state going from a static state to a time dependant state. So in the big picture the universes quantum state was always time depenant. The big bang might therefore have been the universes quantum state going through a change of state. I.e.
[math]|Psi(r, t)>[/math]
where
t < 0 ===> [math]|Psi(r, t)>[/math] = [math]|Psi®>[/math]
and
t > 0 ===> [math]|Psi(r, t)>[/math] = [math]|Psi(r, t)>[/math]
how about this:
[math]|Psi(r, t)>[/math]
where
t <=> ? ===>
and
t > 0 ===>
Suppose the universe would not contain light, never had, never will and never can. Would then everything be dark (darkness being the absence of light)?
No, of course. Since when there is no light at all, neither there is darkness. Darkness only exists in the presence of light, and just means that there are places where light can't travel to, and where there is absence of light.
The revserse is also thrue. If there would be light, but no darkness anywhere, you couldn't detect there being light.
So light and darkness only exist in their combination as a unity.
Similarly this is also true for "being" and "nothing".
let us take the second case: there being light and no darkness. We would have no way of knowing, that light as such exists, but we could have detected a set of paradoxes that start to describe something we later call "light". Now, for the purpose of the original dilemma, replace "light" with "everything".
In this sense everything as a phenomena is quite in danger of being nothing.
And yes, I realize that therein lies the paradox, but that (to me, I cannot speak for others) proves it's truth. Because we are playing to a bit of a play on the word "existence" itself. We are saying that something that is the opposite of existence must exist, because existence cannot exist without it. Do you understand the paradox?
yes, I also understand, that it would probbalby be quite safe to question the existance of "everything". it would also make sense to actually say "everything IS nothing".
0 -
hugh, this sort of developed
. Whos right?We can't really know anything other than what we observe, how could we?
We can theorize about it and see if it matches what we observe but to say anything about things we cannot observe is nothing but speculation.
there are things that we know, but dont know that we know them.
Answering the question "Can nothing exist?":
"nohing is" and "everything is not" against "everything is" and "nothing is not". the second statement is a paradox, the firs isnt.
to me, this would imply, that the original question isnt correct, that its opposite IS the question: "can nothing not exist"
Nothing can not-exist, but it can exist or not. Or: we cant know wether nothing exists or not, but it can not-exist, and it can also exist or not.
This is my answer. Its quite final
.
0 -
Not in it's entirety no, but as the gentleman above me also expressed, as a concept, we can understand it as the opposite of everything we know.
Because we are beings living inside existence, made of existence. And I'm not talking in a religious sense, though you can take it that way if you wish. What I mean by that is we exist, and so does, conceivably (key word), anything that we can imagine, with the exception of fantastically crazy things that violate the laws of physics.
So we, as creatures born, raised, and educated in existence, and knowing nothing else, cannot conceive of it except as the opposite of everything we know. For to completely imagine non-existence within only the frame of reference of existence is impossible. But since it can still be understood to be a concept, even if we don't know it's particulars, enough of one that we could invent a word specifically for it ("Nothing") then it must exist.
And yes, I realize that therein lies the paradox, but that (to me, I cannot speak for others) proves it's truth. Because we are playing to a bit of a play on the word "existence" itself. We are saying that something that is the opposite of existence must exist, because existence cannot exist without it. Do you understand the paradox?
hi, nice inputs,
but regarding the dialectical existance vs nothing pair, I am more leaning into the direction of asking: not if nothing can exist, but can nothing not exist while everything can. So to speak, I am letting go of the diallectical grip in this case, which I think is a special case (regarding dialectical reasoning).
@ Of course nothing exists. If it didn't, you wouldn't be able to conceive of it as a concept.
i think nothing is a special case, .. yet dont have time to develop this.
regarding your question: can I put doubt in conceptual thinking here, in the sense of, that I (you, we,them), can make conceptual mistakes and over time give them names. Perhapse the concept of nothing - as such - does not exist, while nothing as- such can. again, I think the notion or concept of nothing is a special case and a good path to a possible answer (to the original - stupid - question) is to ask the double negated opposite: can it at all be, that nothing would not exist?
the hope here is, that this would lead to an answer, because in the opposite scernario, we should already see, that everything is nothing, and everything does not exist.
its like standing on the dividing line between the Matrix and the Real, only, not ever stepping in any dirrection. Its the third pill.
0 -
Why does the 2nd Law have to be deduced from the other laws? Are they deduced from each other?
the second law of thermodynamics, if true, should be a consequence of the reversible physical laws applicable to ultimate particles.
0 -
Ya, the "laws" of physics are time-symmetric -- they do not show a direction of time. But the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a different kind of law. It is a deduction based on probability. This is because the odds of a number of constituents being highly ordered gets dramatically lower as the number gets larger.
For example, if you have three cards -- Ace, two, three -and you shuffle them, the odds of drawing them in order are one in six. (3! = 3x2x1) But if you have four cards -- Ace, two, three, four, the odds of drawing them in order grows to 24 (4! = 4x3x2x1). With 10 cards, its 3,628,800. The odds very quickly become astronomical.
So the increase in entropy or disorder we see as a indicating an arrow of time is just a probability-based argument, due to the very large number of constituents in the macro world. It is not a physical "law" in the same sense as other physical laws.
I don't think there is anything new in these arguments.So I think the "possible solution" to the "paradox" is interesting but nothing new.
would you vote that there could be a 'breach' of the 2nd law in nature or not? what do you think?
How do you mean derived in this context?
I don't see any mention of the effect of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle on reversibility. Also, what of random events?
@ How do you mean derived in this context?
http://www.sidis.net/ANIM4.htm
"The second law of thermodynamics is, as we have seen, an irreversible physical law, and seems to be the one distinguishing characteristic between the real universe and the reverse universe. At the same time, that law is of such a nature, that, for the ultimate particles of matter, it does not exist; it is essentially a law concerning transformations of energy of large masses. And yet all large bodies are made up of countless numbers of the ultimate particles of matter, the laws of whose motion are all perfectly reversible. All phenomena of the reverse universe, however strange they may look, are perfectly explicable in terms of the ordinary physical laws as applied to the smallest material particles. It would seem, then, as though there must be some reason in terms of the reversible physical laws why the second law of thermodynamics must be true; that is, the second law of thermodynamics, if true, should be a consequence of the reversible physical laws applicable to ultimate particles. We are, then, confronted with the paradox of having to deduce an irreversible law from perfectly reversible ones."
or from: "Loschmidt's paradox, also known as the reversibility paradox, is the objection that it should not be possible to deduce an irreversible process from time-symmetric dynamics"
Nature is not bound to be simple and consistent - that is a human prejudice that is being projected upon it. We hope and assume that nature does not involve paradox - but to assume that our knowledge of the underpinning axiomata of nature is sufficiently well-formed to judge certain theories as paradoxical is dangerous.
i dont understand this, but if you could make it sound more natural i might
seriously, studying developpment of physical discourse from antient times to today (from the Earth on a collosal Turtle to quantuum physics) we get a very strong pattern in argumentation:conservative physicists vs (usualy theoretical) progressive ones: the first will support accepted +thruths+ to the point of correcting those truths to the point of complete incomprihensibility, while the new theorists usualy come up with radically simple theories.
An example par exellance are the geocentrical arguments vs heliocentrical arguments. And in this grand battle of old-accepted vs new challenging ideas in physics the pattern is: the most simple (beautiful even) theories are right most of the time.
Nature is simple in this manner.
0 -
Person A: "I am saying that to 'not have everything' you only need to lose one thing."
Person B: "And I am saying to be left with nothing, you must loose everything."
Person C: "So the opposite of everything is something or anything or all, but not nothing, while the opposite of nothing is everything, but not something or anything or all."
Whos (more) right?
language:
=! -> is not opposite to
!= -> is opposite to
| -> or
&& -> and
0 = something
1 = anything
a = all
E = everything
? = nothing
E != (0 | 1 | a) && E =! ?;
? != E && ? =! (0 | 1 | a);
--> E =! ? && ? != E
It appears that the relationships are not commutative, and truly: if you wish to have ? you must completely erase E (not set it to zero). Then ? is nothing, while at the same time to not have E you can completely erase 0 or 1 or a, while you can not erase nothing.
@myself: "I am saying that to 'not have everything' you only need to lose one thing." Imagine loosing nothing.
0 -
Bolded mine.
the bolded part must be wrong. Simple mecanisms can provoke irreversibility even if irreversibility is not a fundamental feature of space and geometry.
The statement "it should not be possible to deduce an object absent of the properties of the objects from which it is deduced" is like stating that there cannot exist properties C made of the sum of other properties A and B, although IMHO to world we are observing is exactly that: a construction of complex properties made of simple ones.
we are looking for a particular reversibility: of the 2nd law od thermodynamics. The problem is it is derrived from reversible laws, but itself isnt reversible.
the reversal of the 2nd law for your example: all the causual relations in universe have been exactly so arranged, that the clicquet opens while at the same time the 'roue' turns clockwise. I can do that. Or you.
yes c can be c = a+b, but you cant have C=c from -c or b
Wucko - just a quick note. Is there any reason that the natural world must follow our very human ideas of logic and avoid what to us seems to be a paradox?
Awkward and spooky perhaps - but not necessarily incorrect
@ Is there any reason that the natural world must follow our very human ideas of logic and avoid what to us seems to be a paradox?
No. But nature is simple and consistent, meaning any paradoxes in physics are not flaws of nature , but flaws of human reasoning or pure error.
0 -
"Loschmidt's paradox, also known as the reversibility paradox, is the objection that it should not be possible to deduce an irreversible process from time-symmetric dynamics. This puts the time reversal symmetry of (almost) all known low-level fundamental physical processes at odds with any attempt to infer from them the second law of thermodynamics which describes the behaviour of macroscopic systems. Both of these are well-accepted principles in physics, with sound observational and theoretical support, yet they seem to be in conflict; hence the paradox. "
All physical laws except of the 2nd law of thermodynamics are reversible in time. Which is a paradox, because it should not be possible to deduce an irriversible law (2nd law of td) from reversible ones (all other physical laws are T-Symmetrical).
The paradox is: it should not be possible to deduce an object absent of the properties of the objects from which it is deduced.
One possible sollution to the paradox is: the 2nd law is not a physical law, but rather an overwhelming probbability, thus we are not likely to see the reversal of it, but it shouldnt be impossible. (the consequence is that in all probabbility, eventualy somewhere such a process should be observed. Or to 'feed' from phylosophy, perhapse it is not observed precisely because the subject is signified by the observed object - is the reversal of the 2nd law,...).
Thread purpose (and rules):
a)You are welcome to develop your sollutions!
b)This is not a thread in which you say "2nd law is irreversible, everybody knows that", because that would mean you havent read or understood the original problematic,
c) or say "there is no proof it is not a law", (same reason)
d) if b or c please read the definition of the paradox one more time and go to a)
Note of inspiration: persisting at b) or c) puts physicists at an awkward situation: to do it, it is to claim physics is a paradox.
Resources:
http://en.wikipedia....idt%27s_paradox
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/T-symmetry
http://en.wikipedia....tion_to_entropy
0 -
The colour scheme might be better, but the physics problems still remain.
Why should something which makes mistakes like life being a breach of the 2nd law be a physics textbook?
not sure, but, it remains to be prooven that the 2nd law infact is a law at all (and not an very attractive and extremely likely probbability) I reffer: http://en.wikipedia....idt%27s_paradox
"Loschmidt's paradox, also known as the reversibility paradox, is the objection that it should not be possible to deduce an irreversible process from time-symmetric dynamics. This puts the time reversal symmetry of (almost) all known low-level fundamental physical processes at odds with any attempt to infer from them the second law of thermodynamics which describes the behaviour of macroscopic systems. Both of these are well-accepted principles in physics, with sound observational and theoretical support, yet they seem to be in conflict; hence the paradox. "
Loschmidt's paradox says physics is paradoxical. So did Sidis, and he reconciled the paradox by proposing 2nd law not being a law, but an overwhelming probbability. Much of what follows is indeed speculative, but thats what you are usually left with when you bump at a paradox.
Passages such as that do not inspire a whole lot of confidence. The 2nd law of thermodynamics holds everywhere; there is no evidence of "negative sections" of the universe where the "opposite" happens. A blackbody bathed in radiant energy, heating up, is in full accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The emitted power of a blackbody varias as [math]T^4_{blackbody} - T^4_{reservoir}[/math]
Life is not a reversal of the 2nd law.
I think the abillity of a black hole to emmit radiation could be a candidate for a reversal. but I admit Im very doubtful myself, or better said underinformed.
0 -
Nothing written in magenta on black should be in a textbook.
http://www.eoht.info...d+the+Inanimate
can you accpet the fonts of this webiste
?Passages such as that do not inspire a whole lot of confidence. The 2nd law of thermodynamics holds everywhere; there is no evidence of "negative sections" of the universe where the "opposite" happens. A blackbody bathed in radiant energy, heating up, is in full accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The emitted power of a blackbody varias as [math]T^4_{blackbody} - T^4_{reservoir}[/math]
Life is not a reversal of the 2nd law.
He claims, that it is a very big probability that the 2nd law holds almost always but it probbably isnt a law at all. But he finds a paradox mentioned before and goes ahead and reconciles it. As long as I agree that life (worth living) is not a reverse of the 2nd law, in terms of description of life in scientific sense, nothing comes closer to it than the proposal to define life as the reversal of the 2nd law.
To me his idea in general proposes a universe with mater-anit matter properties, and finds a connection between stars and black holes in sense that in some way they are the same process, only the stars being an instance of positive tendency and black holes instances of negative tendency. I do not know, but is causality possible inside a black hole?
"Interestingly, in this work, Sidis predicted the existence of black holes (using the term "black body" stars), which he defined as a type of sun that would take in all light energy, and therefore be totally invisible, some forty-seven-years before the term "black hole" was even invented; a 1967 coining of American astrophysicist John Wheeler. [3] Sidis also described what is now known as the event horizon, using the term "boundary surface". A partial explanation of his theory is found in chapter eight ‘The Nebular Hypothesis’, where Sidis explains his views on the nebular hypothesis, black bodies, and radiation thermodynamics"
0 -
Nothing written in magenta on black should be in a textbook.
ah, physics is a science of webdesign?
Why do you think it should? Most of the textbooks I know of in physics are maths-heavy and explain to the student how models are built up from simple postulates to recreate or predict what we are able to observe. My quick flip through this book makes me think that this is not the case for Sidis.
Because limiting ourselves to a language that can describe, dechipher and explain exclusively known-knowns infact prohibits any possibility of progress. And because there isnt a math sollution to any paradox. Such as the one of "having to deduce a irreversible law of physics from perfectly reversible ones". And because in reality the Real is never fully described, preciselly because of the symbolic chains (know as languages) that are used to describe the Real.
He wasnt a physicist, but I think this should be an introduction to theoretical cosmology.
" Our previous consideration on the production of radiant energy from the stars indicates that such production of radiant energy is only possible where the second law of thermodynamics is followed, that is, in a positive section of the universe. In a negative section of the universe the reverse process must take place; namely, space is full of radiant energy, presumably produced in the positive section of space, and the stars use this radiant energy to build up a higher level of heat. All radiant energy in that section of space would tend to be absorbed by the stars, which would thus constitute perfectly black bodies; "
It is good to note, that arround 1920 this guy asked hymself how would the universe appear to be if time was reversed (a mental experiment), and come to conclusions such asof existance of dark matter, black holes. One of the most 'annoying' notions of his is the notion of the 2nd law of thermodynamics not being a law at all, but an overwhelming probabillity. He goes and reconciles the paradox of "having to deduce an irriversible law from perfectly reversible ones" by claiming just that. Futhermore, he finds one of the best possible definitions of 'life' in the 2nd law, and yes- claims, that life IS the reversal of it. More to it: he reasons that there are other regions of universe where the 'tendencies' (of arrow of time) must be reverse. He goes on and describes it as a sort of 3-D checkerboard universe, with 'positive-tendency-universe regions' - (ours - 2nd law irriversible except for life itself) and 'negative-tendency-universe regions' (2nd law reversible in most cases- pseudo living organisms, reverse arroe of time) borrdered by 'neutral regions' constitute the whole universe as such - but not literaly as a 3d checkerboard.
Of course, he wasnt a physicist.
0 -
I will only start this thread now. Probbably will develop the thaught further later. But what do you think? Is it really impossible to support ACTA, especially in the light of the thaught that 'what if internet's ultimate effect will be a complete idiocy of people'? Wasnt it perhapse better when our idiocy was dirrected by Hollywood and other of its likes. With all the budgets and money from its 'intellectual' 'property 'rights' source it was at least a classy dictatorship of idiocy. With demise of this old ideological systematical idiocy-production-line-system (the mass media), shouldnt the end result be worse, not better, namely, shouldnt our grandchildren be ultimate idiots as opposed to a popular beleif, that they will somehow be 'superenlightened' 'citizen' of the 'world', having all the factografic freedom that the internet provides, their knoledge and their potentials being enhanced, superpowered and boosted. Wasnt it infact a little bit less - bad to have a strong and powerful idiocy-production-line equally distributed to all (... And justice for all) as opposed to todays (and tomorrows) custom, tailor-made supply of the blue pill ('Whats on your mind' - you idiot)? Was it really a golden age, the post WWII era? Should we be a bit worried that disaster is arround the corner (or at least some 20 years away) or at least that no great things will ever happen again without the plug being plugged-in and you and me being constantly (and utterly anoyingly) wired and wi-fi-ed together?
0 -
i would describe it as Communism that comes after a worldwide thermonuclear carnage. Those who believe will know it as the reign of the Antichrist, those who dont, wil know it as the time in which they killed the believers, to wipe out all the ideology that 'caused' the WW III. It is also the age in which you will be given a commodity-code with which transactioning with other commodities (people) will be made possible. Without that, you will not be able to buy food (or anything). It will also be an age of great wonders and of great suffering. This is the 'extreme right' view of it, tragically it is new-testament proof too. The 'left-wing' version is the Utopia, called 'the communism with a human face', which in its essence is the exact same symbolical-ideological system as that of the Antichrist: materialism without a soul = communism with a human face. Being americans, you cant possible see it, yet you live it, and feel it. We lazy europeans know that about you. As usualy, suffering thru the 'other'.
Or as ŽŽk would have put it :
(if you say 'anational globalism' as in 'The Big Change' as in 'The end of History' as in 'The end of ideology' it can pay-off to watch the clip to the end. Ofcorse, if you are an American nationalist, you will be offended before it gets really good.0 -
this seems to be a FAQ
i ve asked myself "how does gravity infact work" "would i be squeezed or stretched" http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/earthole.html0
What are the explanations for greater than C space-time expansion?
in Astronomy and Cosmology
Posted · Edited by wucko
mass-gravity and time exclude each other. Anything with a mass is outside of time. Time is a vector and is building up, while mass is constant. The redshift is a function of time.
"building up of time" -> the only quantity, that is causing the expansion of space-time is time. A hypothesis.
"in my hypothesis it seems that curvature (gravity) in its ultimate form is devoid or absent of time" === The Time of Relativity theory is undoubtedly akin to a negative spacial dimension
in this mine hypothesis (as if there is one), space-time is expanded solely by the effect of time. The quantity that is growing betwen galaxies (or any mass-object pair within curvature) is time. And this is the sole cause of redshift.
it would appear in my proposal that ratio space/time is ever smaller.
im not able to math this out. but its been 10 years since i had this idea. And more and more aspects of recent polemics and phenomenologicaly observations fit. On a gut-feeling basis i give it a 9 of 10, but am not able to elaborate mathematically. Mabe i can draw it.