Strange

23 minutes ago, geordief said:

True ,if we were to make a meeting arrangement that we would touch base a few seconds before the universe went into heat death I would be very confident that x^2 =4 would still imply ×=+/-2 and I would bet my life on it .

But that is not the same as being 100% certain (,and correct)

In mathematics, it is.

But the point was not that it will always be true (which it will be) but that there is no time involved in the statement.

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Isn't solar system orbiting around the center of the galaxy?

And your point is? Take the black hole away, and the solar system will continue undisturbed.

45 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

What is really interesting to me about this isn’t so much the subject matter itself, but rather the subtle differences in how our minds operate.

Indeed. 

46 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

However, proving that the relationship holds is indeed a process (and thus implies time); this belongs to epistemology and computational theory, which is quite a distinct thing.

Yes, it is what we do that adds the time element, it is not inherent in the mathematics.

So once the proof exists, it does not have a time element; it is a number of statements of equivalence (to simplify) that connect one thing to another in a "timeless" way.

32 minutes ago, geordief said:

You have used the temporal condition  always. Does that matter (are we tripping over our own feet ?)?

That was because you asked about "always". It has nothing to do with the point.

32 minutes ago, geordief said:

Does pi have a well  defined value ?

Yes.

32 minutes ago, geordief said:

It  is a limit/process

Our methods for calculating it are.

33 minutes ago, geordief said:

moreover  I thought gravity changed its value.

No.

4 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

"If blablah, then blabah2".

There is no time in the If - Then? No causality?

No. It is just describing a relationship.

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

And for pi you need to write it down on every occasion. Between the writing /reading events it disappears (like the unheard tree in the forest)

So you think numbers only exist when we are reading or writing them? That is an interesting point of view. It also raises the problem that you can never write down all of pi, and yet it has a well-defined value.

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

i don't think you would claim that  x² = 4, is true for all time

No. But if x² = 4, then x = 2. There is no time associated with that equivalence. (2² always equals 4)

39 minutes ago, geordief said:

I think I  understand what he is getting at. It is a grey area. There are steps in any mathematical or logical process. Does one "step" cause the following one?

Maybe yes ,maybe no.

 

One step in logic can lead to any amount of consequences (and maybe preconditions)  so that argues against physical causality where each "step" is linked with its immediately preceding and  immediately following links in the causal chain (if we ignore spooky action at a distance ,perhaps)

 

But there is a sense where one link in the mathematical or logical chain is responsible for its following consequences and there is a  strong feeling in my mind that this could not  happen without some concept of time being involved (maybe a progenitor of  time?)

But such a sequence of steps, like the digits of pi, only have a temporal component because you write them down or read them. The derivation exists as a whole (like pi) with no implication of time.

If you say that x² = 4, you don't have to wait for the derivation to happen and x to become 2. It is implicit. 

5 hours ago, ran cohen said:

The other is indirect, controlled by our feelings. We feel hungry so we might search for food. We feel pain so we might search ways to relieve it. We feel tired so we might go to rest or sleep.

The body could potentially just make the legs walk and put food into the mouth but instead, it makes the feeling of being hungry, intensified as food is more required.

I believe “our” decisions are governed by feelings but not only one. On any point in time we can feel tired, hungry, in love, curious, in pain, satisfied. Each with its own intensity. But our decisions based (in some simplified way) on these feelings. Our experience and information we get from the world while we try to maximize the total “good” feeling.

When looking at the indirect controlling mechanism, I think it is hard to avoid using the word “we” since “feelings” are so far from the act itself. But if so, who is “we”? Who am “I”?

I think that what you are describing comes under the field of psychology. Which is a science. Job done.

5 hours ago, Winterlong said:

If the universe is 1 m in length, where is the ship flying?

The question doesn't make much sense. What does "the universe is 1 m in length" mean?

You could, for example, calculate the gravitational effect of the black hole compared to all the other stars at the same distance. Or even the effect compared to, say, Jupiter. Or Pluto. Or a grain of dust.

Or the mass of the black hole as a percentage of the galaxy as a whole.

Or ... up to you.

1 minute ago, hoola said:

no.

Let's see the evidence then

18 minutes ago, hoola said:

yes, it may be "irredeemable nonsense", but what religion isn't?....I only want a more humane and positive form of religion until time will relegate them all to the dustbin of history, replaced by truth, should the human race exist long enough to accomplish this task.

I take that to mean you have given up pretending that the black hole has any effect on the Earth?

24 minutes ago, Tom Booth said:

Sorry, but I don't need this, there ia a multitude of forums I could be posting to that don't have such nonsensical restrictions.

24 minutes ago, Tom Booth said:

Close the thread if you want boo hoo. Your loss.

5 minutes ago, hoola said:

I disagree with the statement that central black holes don't have major influences on the particular galaxies they are within

Please show us your calculations to demonstrate that the black hole has any measurable effect on the Earth.

(I am focusing on this because the rest of your post is just irredeemable nonsense.)

2 minutes ago, Tom Booth said:

"demonstrate"?

How?

I was recording experiments so the results could be known to everyone, with as little interpretation on my part as possible, but apparently posting video is frowned upon here, if not outright grounds for expulsion, so, who can possibly demonstrate anything with such restrictions?

1 hour ago, hoola said:

So, in this arrangement, '"god" is the black hole and evolution is the resultant local outcome

That black hole has absolutely no effect on life on Earth. But perhaps the same could be said about traditional gods.

27 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

My bet is that first we will become dumb (I am afraid it is happening right now).

People have been saying this ever since the invention of writing (and presumably before then, as well). It doesn't seem to have happened yet

Why don't you include your siblings children (and they and their siblings' children) in this? That brings the probability closer to 1 (over sensible timescales, although perhaps not a 1 billion years).

It may be helpful to look at it from the other end. How many people alive today are descendants of some notable figure in the past? Let's say Charlemagne. Well he had some children, and some of them had some children, and so on. By your math, his bloodline should have pretty much died out by now, right?

But actually, pretty much everyone of European descent alive today is descended from Charlemagne: https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford

7 hours ago, Zetetic Zen said:

Here, i will even provide further evidence and experiments for you, and entire curriculum of it. 

47 minutes ago, claudio54 said:

and you to criticize without having read first?

You are not even going to attempt to answer my questions?

No surprises there. 

Playing the Nazi Card in the Third Reich

Today I learned that Nazi was originally a diminutive of the name Ignatz, which was used to describe someone who was a bit stupid do clumsy. So it became an obvious nickname for the National Socialists: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/13551/is-nazi-a-diminutive-of-ignatius

1 hour ago, claudio54 said:

I published on https://vixra.org/

😄😆 😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀 🤣😀

Takes a deep breath...

 😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀 

2 hours ago, claudio54 said:

In my opinion, it satisfactorily explains the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe as well as it provides a circular path a precise explanation for cosmic background radiation and other radiation in general. It is also totally consistent with all the concepts expressed by relativity, giving a coherent answer for the most distant galaxies.

That is the Big Bang model.

2 hours ago, claudio54 said:

Finally, it provides a hypothesis for the energy lost by the universe

What is this "energy lost by the universe" ? What is the evidence for this ?

2 hours ago, claudio54 said:

towards the vacuum of the fourth dimension

Time is a vacuum? That's a new one.

2 hours ago, claudio54 said:

I think the fourth dimension of space is fascinating

What is the "fourth dimension of space"?

What is evidence is there for the "fourth dimension of space"?

"Vixra" 🙄

Aren't you even slightly embarrassed by posting all this?

44 minutes ago, geordief said:

Am I putting the cat among the pigeons to ask does gravity change time?

Well, there is gravitational time dilation. But it would be more accurate to say that both gravity and the time dilation are the consequences of the presence of mass-energy.

45 minutes ago, geordief said:

Does time change with spatial distance?

In a gravitational field or an expanding universe, yes.