If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
Amrit Sorli: on 1/7/20 at 15:49pm UTC, wrote Time has only the math existence and Higgs mechanism is pure failure
Anonymous: on 11/11/19 at 17:13pm UTC, wrote The confrontation between different viewpoints is always an interesting...
Eckard Blumschein: on 9/12/19 at 14:17pm UTC, wrote While Craig Callender in his video spoke in a murky manner that was...
amrit : on 7/21/19 at 9:33am UTC, wrote time has only the math existence, time as the 4th dimension of space is...
Joe Fisher: on 7/17/19 at 16:12pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this...
Joe Fisher: on 7/15/19 at 16:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this...
Georgina Woodward: on 7/14/19 at 20:54pm UTC, wrote Joe, you have just ignored my arguments.There seems to be a problem with...
Joe Fisher: on 7/14/19 at 16:13pm UTC, wrote Georgina, I have relied on NATURE. The only irrefutable fact the white...
Amrit Sorli: on 1/7/20 at 15:49pm UTC, wrote Time has only the math existence and Higgs mechanism is pure failure
Anonymous: on 11/11/19 at 17:13pm UTC, wrote The confrontation between different viewpoints is always an interesting...
Eckard Blumschein: on 9/12/19 at 14:17pm UTC, wrote While Craig Callender in his video spoke in a murky manner that was...
amrit : on 7/21/19 at 9:33am UTC, wrote time has only the math existence, time as the 4th dimension of space is...
Joe Fisher: on 7/17/19 at 16:12pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this...
Joe Fisher: on 7/15/19 at 16:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this...
Georgina Woodward: on 7/14/19 at 20:54pm UTC, wrote Joe, you have just ignored my arguments.There seems to be a problem with...
Joe Fisher: on 7/14/19 at 16:13pm UTC, wrote Georgina, I have relied on NATURE. The only irrefutable fact the white...
FQXi FORUM
January 19, 2020
What is information?
Information is context/ relationship: categories of information (like mass, position and time) are relationships, where the relationships can be represented as equations or algorithms. Information is also the numbers that apply to these categories.
Does information “travel”?
Categories of information, e.g. velocity (speed and direction), and their associated numbers, apply to things like particles. Particles “travel”, but information is not like a particle.
Does “nothing—not even information—… travel faster than the speed of light”? Things like particles travel, but information obviously doesn’t travel in the same sense that a particle travels.
report post as inappropriate
Information is context/ relationship: categories of information (like mass, position and time) are relationships, where the relationships can be represented as equations or algorithms. Information is also the numbers that apply to these categories.
Does information “travel”?
Categories of information, e.g. velocity (speed and direction), and their associated numbers, apply to things like particles. Particles “travel”, but information is not like a particle.
Does “nothing—not even information—… travel faster than the speed of light”? Things like particles travel, but information obviously doesn’t travel in the same sense that a particle travels.
At a fundamental level, time does not exist. The equations of physics, which represent laws of nature, show that at a fundamental level, time does not exist.
The equations of physics show mathematical relationships between categories of information, where mass and position are examples of categories of information. But the equations of physics show that time cannot be represented in a mathematical relationship between fundamental categories of information.
Instead, time is a category that represents change of number for other categories of information: change of number can only be represented by an algorithm; time is information about information, i.e. time is a higher-level category of information.
report post as inappropriate
The equations of physics show mathematical relationships between categories of information, where mass and position are examples of categories of information. But the equations of physics show that time cannot be represented in a mathematical relationship between fundamental categories of information.
Instead, time is a category that represents change of number for other categories of information: change of number can only be represented by an algorithm; time is information about information, i.e. time is a higher-level category of information.
"however, it does not make sense to talk about the temperature of a single particle."
That has to go into the same box as [you can't define what a particle is]. So how can you say that? As for the 'illusionary time' or emergent time, that only holds if you assume ( as Eddington contended that we might as well ) that the scale of a span of duration in time, is the same as the scale for a span of seperation in spcae. If you assume that, then you are stuck with Minkowski's Blocktime and the subsequent paradoxes that then pretend.
report post as inappropriate
That has to go into the same box as [you can't define what a particle is]. So how can you say that? As for the 'illusionary time' or emergent time, that only holds if you assume ( as Eddington contended that we might as well ) that the scale of a span of duration in time, is the same as the scale for a span of seperation in spcae. If you assume that, then you are stuck with Minkowski's Blocktime and the subsequent paradoxes that then pretend.
I guess I don't see the issue here, but that may be because I'm an amateur and don't know all the intricacies and all the math. For me, time is not fundamental. It's just a function of physical things happening (e.g., physical change). One could think of physical change as a tally of the number of events that have happened. If there were absolutely no physical change in the universe, there would...
view entire post
view entire post
"...information obviously doesn't travel in the same sense that a particle travels." L. Ford
I think that is a salient point, Lorraine, physics should be about what is physical, and what we use to distinguish that are tools more of the abstract.
With little care one can position two identical bar magnets so that like poles will allow the end of one magnet to be suspended against the acceleration of gravity above the end of the other magnet. Yet F=ma, and for there to be a counter acceleration to gravity, there must be something 'moving'. Whatever it is it is not something which can be siphoned off and collected. What can it be? jrc
report post as inappropriate
I think that is a salient point, Lorraine, physics should be about what is physical, and what we use to distinguish that are tools more of the abstract.
With little care one can position two identical bar magnets so that like poles will allow the end of one magnet to be suspended against the acceleration of gravity above the end of the other magnet. Yet F=ma, and for there to be a counter acceleration to gravity, there must be something 'moving'. Whatever it is it is not something which can be siphoned off and collected. What can it be? jrc
The problem is not philosophical at all. Einstein's relative time, from which idiocies like time travel into the future or "time is an illusion" are validly or invalidly deduced, is a consequence of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Remove the falsehood and the problems with time will disappear.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev
There am no such a thing as time. There are finitely craftily constructed timepieces. The problem am that a sundial supposedly measures a different finite passage of time than a wristwatch does, and a wristwatch supposedly measures a different finite passage of time than an atomic clock does. Time pieces can be stopped and restarted. The only physical irritable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Albert Einstein ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning the duality of matter and curved space finitely co-existing. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
"It just seemed so rock solid and such a striking departure from the way I figured things had to be."
The math is rock solid, unfortunately, the physics is anything but. The math's only connection to physical reality, rests upon a foundation of quicksand - a false premise about the physical world, identified over 40 years ago. For a striking departure from all the absurd interpretations of this phenomenon, see my recent "Socratic Dialog" with Tim Maudlin
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
The math is rock solid, unfortunately, the physics is anything but. The math's only connection to physical reality, rests upon a foundation of quicksand - a false premise about the physical world, identified over 40 years ago. For a striking departure from all the absurd interpretations of this phenomenon, see my recent "Socratic Dialog" with Tim Maudlin
Rob McEachern
I guess I've made this point before, but it bears repeating;
The only problem with understanding time is that we see it in reverse. As mobile organisms, we have a sequential thought process, in order to navigate. Then after a few hundreds of thousands of years narrating our journeys to one another and building civilizations out of the collective knowledge, this past to future sequencing...
view entire post
The only problem with understanding time is that we see it in reverse. As mobile organisms, we have a sequential thought process, in order to navigate. Then after a few hundreds of thousands of years narrating our journeys to one another and building civilizations out of the collective knowledge, this past to future sequencing...
view entire post
Dear John Brodix Merryman,
The only real thing you will ever see in your lifetime no matter in which direction you look am surface. You cannot see non-existing invisible “time in reverse.”
Joe Fisher, Helpful Realist
report post as inappropriate
The only real thing you will ever see in your lifetime no matter in which direction you look am surface. You cannot see non-existing invisible “time in reverse.”
Joe Fisher, Helpful Realist
Joe,
As children, we certainly only see the surface and many people don't get much beyond it, but some of us are curious about what goes on under the surface and what makes things tick. For instance, as a child, we might look out across the surface of the ocean and it doesn't occur to us of what might be beneath the surface, though we quickly get the sense not to go too far in.
As for seeing time in reverse, by looking only at the surface, a similar situation occurs when we look up at the sky and see the sun and the stars flowing across the sky, from east to west. Brilliant and predictively accurate geometric models of these actions, called epicycles, were constructed, based on these observations. When we tried to explain these models, by proposing crystalline spheres to carry the celestial bodies, we overlooked an important detail under our very feet. That it is this ground we are standing on, that is spinning the other way. West to east.
Spacetime is the modern version of those crystalline spheres. As a physical explanation for the very effective mathematical model of Special and General Relativity, it doesn't take into account that this narrative sequence, measured as duration, is effect, not cause. The present doesn't move, the events do.
report post as inappropriate
As children, we certainly only see the surface and many people don't get much beyond it, but some of us are curious about what goes on under the surface and what makes things tick. For instance, as a child, we might look out across the surface of the ocean and it doesn't occur to us of what might be beneath the surface, though we quickly get the sense not to go too far in.
As for seeing time in reverse, by looking only at the surface, a similar situation occurs when we look up at the sky and see the sun and the stars flowing across the sky, from east to west. Brilliant and predictively accurate geometric models of these actions, called epicycles, were constructed, based on these observations. When we tried to explain these models, by proposing crystalline spheres to carry the celestial bodies, we overlooked an important detail under our very feet. That it is this ground we are standing on, that is spinning the other way. West to east.
Spacetime is the modern version of those crystalline spheres. As a physical explanation for the very effective mathematical model of Special and General Relativity, it doesn't take into account that this narrative sequence, measured as duration, is effect, not cause. The present doesn't move, the events do.
John Brodix Merryman,
Every creature with eyes only ever sees surface no matter in which direction each creature’s eyes look, because only one VISIBLE infinite surface has ever existed. White male scientists were completely wrong when they assumed matter and space could co-exist and that there were finite measurable amounts of matter immersed in curved three finite dimensional space. Only one VISIBLE infinite surface has ETERNALLY been occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Sanguine Realist
report post as inappropriate
Every creature with eyes only ever sees surface no matter in which direction each creature’s eyes look, because only one VISIBLE infinite surface has ever existed. White male scientists were completely wrong when they assumed matter and space could co-exist and that there were finite measurable amounts of matter immersed in curved three finite dimensional space. Only one VISIBLE infinite surface has ETERNALLY been occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Sanguine Realist
here is all you should know about time.
attachments: 2_How_many_Models_of_Time_do_we_need_in_Physics_-_personal_copy.pdf
report post as inappropriate
attachments: 2_How_many_Models_of_Time_do_we_need_in_Physics_-_personal_copy.pdf
'Physicists in general, are" more inclined to dismiss passage, flow and the sense of openness of the future as illusions," - ' Jenann Ismael
That may be from an underlying expectation, for the sake of simplicity in mathematical analysis, that time only comes in one flavor. Physically it can be 'flowing' (for want of a better metaphor) but not going anywhere. More like the irreconcilable difference spatially between a cube and a sphere, and the inherent stress there-in between time and space is the origin of energy.
report post as inappropriate
That may be from an underlying expectation, for the sake of simplicity in mathematical analysis, that time only comes in one flavor. Physically it can be 'flowing' (for want of a better metaphor) but not going anywhere. More like the irreconcilable difference spatially between a cube and a sphere, and the inherent stress there-in between time and space is the origin of energy.
Information (e.g. mass, position and time information) seemingly does not float in some abstract ether: information is context; information comes in categories which are relationships between other such categories of information; and category and number information is carried by things like particles and atoms.
But algorithmic information seems to exist in the universe: the equations of physics, which represent laws of nature, rely on the delta symbol, which represents change of number information that can only be derived algorithmically. (Note that, when looked at closely, these numbers don’t change smoothly, they “jump”.)
So, it might once have been thought that, apart from numbers and the symbols representing categories like mass and position, only the following symbols are required: + - ÷ x = to represent law of nature relationships. But in addition to these symbols, the representation of algorithmic information and its outcome requires the following symbols: IF THEN TRUE FALSE, and symbols like: < > . The “hidden” presence of algorithmic information in the equations of physics indicates that higher-level concepts are present in the universe, at a more fundamental level than might have been expected.
report post as inappropriate
But algorithmic information seems to exist in the universe: the equations of physics, which represent laws of nature, rely on the delta symbol, which represents change of number information that can only be derived algorithmically. (Note that, when looked at closely, these numbers don’t change smoothly, they “jump”.)
So, it might once have been thought that, apart from numbers and the symbols representing categories like mass and position, only the following symbols are required: + - ÷ x = to represent law of nature relationships. But in addition to these symbols, the representation of algorithmic information and its outcome requires the following symbols: IF THEN TRUE FALSE, and symbols like: < > . The “hidden” presence of algorithmic information in the equations of physics indicates that higher-level concepts are present in the universe, at a more fundamental level than might have been expected.
(continued)
So, the existence of information which comes in categories and is “carried” by things like particles, and the existence of algorithmic (i.e. higher-level) categories of information, are the link between particles, atoms and molecules on the one hand, and living things on the other hand.
report post as inappropriate
So, the existence of information which comes in categories and is “carried” by things like particles, and the existence of algorithmic (i.e. higher-level) categories of information, are the link between particles, atoms and molecules on the one hand, and living things on the other hand.
May we accept the reasoning by Nicholas of Cusa who was born in 1401 in Kusa, nowadays Bernkastel-Kues at the river Mosel, who inferred from the absence of observable limits to the universe that the universe is endless and has therefore no center?
While Oresme, Buridan and a bit later Kopernikus criticized the geocentric model of Ptolemaios, and science replaced it by the heliocentric one, Cusanus concluded that there is no preferred point of reference in his center-less universe. Doesn’t this mean that Maxwell’s hypothetical light-carrying aether is merely a lazy unjustified analog of a mechanic medium and the negative outcome of Michelson’s experiments in Berlin/Potsdam and later in Cleveland was to be expected?
Isn’t therefore the historical basis of so far still not yet experimentally confirmed hypotheses by Lorentz up to Einstein’s relativity of time shaky if Cusanus was correct?
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
While Oresme, Buridan and a bit later Kopernikus criticized the geocentric model of Ptolemaios, and science replaced it by the heliocentric one, Cusanus concluded that there is no preferred point of reference in his center-less universe. Doesn’t this mean that Maxwell’s hypothetical light-carrying aether is merely a lazy unjustified analog of a mechanic medium and the negative outcome of Michelson’s experiments in Berlin/Potsdam and later in Cleveland was to be expected?
Isn’t therefore the historical basis of so far still not yet experimentally confirmed hypotheses by Lorentz up to Einstein’s relativity of time shaky if Cusanus was correct?
Eckard Blumschein
Hi Eckard, the lack of limit to observation has been superseded by the so called cosmic background radiation which is an event horizon, from beyond which there are not any discernible signals. That puts a limit on what is observable on or near Earth.The Earth (and near Earth) is the centre of our observations and therefore our observable universe.
I note you just say "universe" and not observable universe. Existing now is not what is generated from processing of received EM radiation. We are 'blind' to what is out there now, making simple estimation from observation insufficient. I think relevant ideas are such as, how the universe has developed over time and how the EM radiation has reached the telescopes, taking into account the effects of gravity on light paths en route and the motion of the Earth and solar system.
report post as inappropriate
I note you just say "universe" and not observable universe. Existing now is not what is generated from processing of received EM radiation. We are 'blind' to what is out there now, making simple estimation from observation insufficient. I think relevant ideas are such as, how the universe has developed over time and how the EM radiation has reached the telescopes, taking into account the effects of gravity on light paths en route and the motion of the Earth and solar system.
Georgina,
Keep in mind that causality doesn't apply to the current cosmological model. when there is a discrepancy between prediction and observation, some enormous patch is applied and everything continues as normal. What if accountants worked like that? Whenever there is a gap in the books, they just add a figure and call it dark money.
The first patch applied was when it was realized this redshift increases with distance at the same rate in every direction, so it was changed from an expansion in space, to an expansion of space, because Spacetime! Presumably then every point would appear as its own center.
Which totally overlooks the premise for spacetime, in the first place, that the speed of light is measured as a constant, in every frame. If it is being redshifted, obviously it's not constant to intergalactic space. Wouldn't the speed have to increase, if the distance is increasing, in order to remain constant?
Two metrics of space are being derived from the same intergalactic light. One based on the spectrum and one based on the speed. Since the expansion is still relative to the speed, as it's based on the redshifting of this light, that means the speed is still the denominator.
We are at the center of our point of view, so an optical effect would be a rational solution. In which case, that background radiation would be light shifted off the visible spectrum.
One solution is that multi spectrum light "packets" do redshift over distance, as the higher spectrums dissipate faster than the lower ones, so then the question is whether individual photons travel billions of lightyears, or we are sampling a wave front.
On light packets; https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMo
tion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf
On the quantization of light; https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Reiter_challenge2.
pdf
report post as inappropriate
Keep in mind that causality doesn't apply to the current cosmological model. when there is a discrepancy between prediction and observation, some enormous patch is applied and everything continues as normal. What if accountants worked like that? Whenever there is a gap in the books, they just add a figure and call it dark money.
The first patch applied was when it was realized this redshift increases with distance at the same rate in every direction, so it was changed from an expansion in space, to an expansion of space, because Spacetime! Presumably then every point would appear as its own center.
Which totally overlooks the premise for spacetime, in the first place, that the speed of light is measured as a constant, in every frame. If it is being redshifted, obviously it's not constant to intergalactic space. Wouldn't the speed have to increase, if the distance is increasing, in order to remain constant?
Two metrics of space are being derived from the same intergalactic light. One based on the spectrum and one based on the speed. Since the expansion is still relative to the speed, as it's based on the redshifting of this light, that means the speed is still the denominator.
We are at the center of our point of view, so an optical effect would be a rational solution. In which case, that background radiation would be light shifted off the visible spectrum.
One solution is that multi spectrum light "packets" do redshift over distance, as the higher spectrums dissipate faster than the lower ones, so then the question is whether individual photons travel billions of lightyears, or we are sampling a wave front.
On light packets; https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMo
tion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf
On the quantization of light; https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Reiter_challenge2.
Georgina, John,
Only https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaus_von_Kues provides the essential deatails in 3.7 Naturphilosophy, missing in the en version.
Supersede means replace something oldfashioned. Being just a little bit aware of newfashioned interpretations by Hubble,Gamov, Penzias, and Wilson, I don't exclude that Cusanus was correct when he imagined the universe extending beyond the observable part of it. Creationists are believing in a creator, the word nature means something that was born. When I am questioning Maxwell's medium, I feel reminded of de Guericke's experimentia de spatio vacuuo. Does energy flow really always need a carrier if there are no known carrier of electric and magnetic fields?
John, while "center of our point" sounds silly to me, I largely appreciate your reasoning.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Only https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaus_von_Kues provides the essential deatails in 3.7 Naturphilosophy, missing in the en version.
Supersede means replace something oldfashioned. Being just a little bit aware of newfashioned interpretations by Hubble,Gamov, Penzias, and Wilson, I don't exclude that Cusanus was correct when he imagined the universe extending beyond the observable part of it. Creationists are believing in a creator, the word nature means something that was born. When I am questioning Maxwell's medium, I feel reminded of de Guericke's experimentia de spatio vacuuo. Does energy flow really always need a carrier if there are no known carrier of electric and magnetic fields?
John, while "center of our point" sounds silly to me, I largely appreciate your reasoning.
Eckard
So... John, Georgina and Eckard? Aside from differences of how we attempt to reason what time might be, and how it behaves... is Time existentially real? (I'm in the cheering section for a real physicality of Time.) :) jrc
report post as inappropriate
arc,
As an effect of physical activity, time is as real as temperature, pressure, color and other such effects. The problem, is that we are assuming the narrative flow, along which the present moves, from past to future. Which physics codifies as measures of duration and then treats as though it is similar to a spatial dimension. Aka, the "fabric of spacetime."
The evident fact is the underlaying physical dynamic, distilling the potential down to the actual, which then recedes into residual. The present doesn't move past to future, rather the events move future to past, as the present is the physical state.
Not that anyone in the field seems willing to consider this, as it is outside the mathematical box.
report post as inappropriate
As an effect of physical activity, time is as real as temperature, pressure, color and other such effects. The problem, is that we are assuming the narrative flow, along which the present moves, from past to future. Which physics codifies as measures of duration and then treats as though it is similar to a spatial dimension. Aka, the "fabric of spacetime."
The evident fact is the underlaying physical dynamic, distilling the potential down to the actual, which then recedes into residual. The present doesn't move past to future, rather the events move future to past, as the present is the physical state.
Not that anyone in the field seems willing to consider this, as it is outside the mathematical box.
Hi John, first you have to be clear what you mean by the word 'time'. Many different ideas come under that name. Some kinds of time: Time as seen on a clock, or another timing device ( a time and duration or elapsed time), time obtained from the motion of Earth relative to the sun- day/night and as read from a sundial (time of day), changing seasons too (time of year, also obtainable from a calendar), time as a dimension of a geometric model, passage of time as personally experienced (singular present and passage of time), t used in equations, a configuration of all simultaneously existing things (a time), change of the configuration of all existing things (passage of time), Mc Taggarts A time and B time.Clearly these are different ideas even though they share a name. You also need to be clear what you mean by 'existential'.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
That would go to time being an effect, like temperature and pressure. Both of which exist in many different ways. Much like binary terms can be applied to many different situations; on/off, good/bad, in/out, etc.
Most specifically, it is a measure of duration, yet as I keep pointing out, duration is this present state, as the defining events coalesce and dissolve. What makes them all different is the energy involved. Be it a clock mechanically ticking, the earth turning on its axis, the emotions involved, when we are bored, versus entertained.
The only problem is when we associate all the masses of dynamics going on around us, to this apparent sequencing of events and try incorporating them into a singular narrative flow, rather than a universe of activities, all with their own dynamics.
report post as inappropriate
That would go to time being an effect, like temperature and pressure. Both of which exist in many different ways. Much like binary terms can be applied to many different situations; on/off, good/bad, in/out, etc.
Most specifically, it is a measure of duration, yet as I keep pointing out, duration is this present state, as the defining events coalesce and dissolve. What makes them all different is the energy involved. Be it a clock mechanically ticking, the earth turning on its axis, the emotions involved, when we are bored, versus entertained.
The only problem is when we associate all the masses of dynamics going on around us, to this apparent sequencing of events and try incorporating them into a singular narrative flow, rather than a universe of activities, all with their own dynamics.
When will you arrogant ignorant folk ever realize that Nature must have devised the only VISIBLE reality allowable, and that VISIBLE reality must be real to all living creatures all of their lives? Albert Einstein’s assumed duality of matter and space co-existing has never happened. There has never been any empty space. There have never been three finite dimensions. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. You have all assumed that there was something else below a surface and that there were different kinds of surface, therefore something else must exist under the surface and invisible finite forces must dominate scientific knowledge.
Joe Fisher, The Sensible Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher, The Sensible Realist
I have completed my research and experiments on discovery of new medium in Physics—The intangible Time Medium—which only transfer data and information.[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/invention-natura
l-encryption-technology-neo-security-isi-siddiqui/]
I presented the the Law of Intangible Time Medium states that " The Universe all living and non-living things existed , being creating will soon be destroyed when a divine encoded message to be received by the all things existed . The encoded divine message which is already released to be transferred to all things via Intangible Time Medium.
Einstein said Time is the FOURTH dimension in Space and Time both are Tandem. My research proved that Time plays the role of intangible medium in transferring data and information.
According to the Law of Intangible Time Medium the encoded message for the destruction of the Universe had been released by Allah. That is when the destruction Message to be received by the galaxy or galaxies or the Universe it will be destroyed.
How the Divine message to be reached to the all material things ? The NET -- a new encryption technology is the answer of this query. Read the research paper on the NET on Link on Linkedin :https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/invention-natural-encryption
-technology-neo-security-isi-siddiqui/
mediasword@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
l-encryption-technology-neo-security-isi-siddiqui/]
I presented the the Law of Intangible Time Medium states that " The Universe all living and non-living things existed , being creating will soon be destroyed when a divine encoded message to be received by the all things existed . The encoded divine message which is already released to be transferred to all things via Intangible Time Medium.
Einstein said Time is the FOURTH dimension in Space and Time both are Tandem. My research proved that Time plays the role of intangible medium in transferring data and information.
According to the Law of Intangible Time Medium the encoded message for the destruction of the Universe had been released by Allah. That is when the destruction Message to be received by the galaxy or galaxies or the Universe it will be destroyed.
How the Divine message to be reached to the all material things ? The NET -- a new encryption technology is the answer of this query. Read the research paper on the NET on Link on Linkedin :https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/invention-natural-encryption
-technology-neo-security-isi-siddiqui/
mediasword@yahoo.com
Idea holography the time. Perhaps time can be expressed as
[equation]
Where S is the entropy of entanglement of an arbitrary closed surface. r is the radius to the surface point. Integration over a closed surface.
This is very similar to the analogy. Time behaves as a potential, and entropy as a charge.
From this formula there are several possible...
view entire post
[equation]
Where S is the entropy of entanglement of an arbitrary closed surface. r is the radius to the surface point. Integration over a closed surface.
This is very similar to the analogy. Time behaves as a potential, and entropy as a charge.
From this formula there are several possible...
view entire post
Holography the time
attachments: dualism_1.pdf, Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx
report post as inappropriate
attachments: dualism_1.pdf, Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx
Holography the time. Perhaps time can be expressed as
Where S is the entropy of entanglement of an arbitrary closed surface. r is the radius to the surface point. Integration over a closed surface.
Quantum tunneling of noncommutative geometry gives the definition of time in the form of holography, that is, in the form of a closed surface integral. Ultimately, the holography of time shows the dualism between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity.
attachments: 2_Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx
report post as inappropriate
Where S is the entropy of entanglement of an arbitrary closed surface. r is the radius to the surface point. Integration over a closed surface.
Quantum tunneling of noncommutative geometry gives the definition of time in the form of holography, that is, in the form of a closed surface integral. Ultimately, the holography of time shows the dualism between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity.
attachments: 2_Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“The fine-tuning of the constants of nature, which seems required for the existence of stars and planets and certainly for life and mind, is a fascinating feature of our universe. But before grand metaphysical schemes are advanced by philosophers, theologians, and even scientists, proper understanding of the underlying assumptions and fundamental physics are needed. Luke A. Barnes is a theoretical astrophysicist, cosmologist and postdoctoral researcher at Western Sydney University. In this interview, he discusses the physics of fine-tuning.”
I have unselfishly posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own exquisite flawless Facebook page.
Natural VISIBLE reality has ETERNALLY had only one constant. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been a co-existing duality of curved invisible space and finite measurements of matter. There has never been three finite dimensions or any finite dimension of invisible time. The Periodic Table am white male finite guesswork.
Joe Fisher, Aging Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“The fine-tuning of the constants of nature, which seems required for the existence of stars and planets and certainly for life and mind, is a fascinating feature of our universe. But before grand metaphysical schemes are advanced by philosophers, theologians, and even scientists, proper understanding of the underlying assumptions and fundamental physics are needed. Luke A. Barnes is a theoretical astrophysicist, cosmologist and postdoctoral researcher at Western Sydney University. In this interview, he discusses the physics of fine-tuning.”
I have unselfishly posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own exquisite flawless Facebook page.
Natural VISIBLE reality has ETERNALLY had only one constant. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been a co-existing duality of curved invisible space and finite measurements of matter. There has never been three finite dimensions or any finite dimension of invisible time. The Periodic Table am white male finite guesswork.
Joe Fisher, Aging Realist
Fundamental levels of reality do not have the wherewithal to analyse and recognise large- or small-scale patterns in the world. You need living things, with their ability to algorithmically analyse and collate information, to recognise patterns; and only human beings conceptualise history and large-scale time and space, and only human beings write poetry and prose.
But, in one sense, this history, poetry and prose is only the surface of reality. Using our human ability to manipulate objects, and our ability to algorithmically analyse and collate information, physics studies what underlies our everyday reality. They have found that fundamental levels of reality can seemingly only recognise relatively simple relationship and change: i.e. physics’ equations represent relatively simple relationship and change.
The precise concepts and equations of physics, which represent a relatively simple underlying reality, has allowed us to send exploratory vehicles into “space”: which indicates that physics is pretty-well correct, though not complete or perfect.
report post as inappropriate
But, in one sense, this history, poetry and prose is only the surface of reality. Using our human ability to manipulate objects, and our ability to algorithmically analyse and collate information, physics studies what underlies our everyday reality. They have found that fundamental levels of reality can seemingly only recognise relatively simple relationship and change: i.e. physics’ equations represent relatively simple relationship and change.
The precise concepts and equations of physics, which represent a relatively simple underlying reality, has allowed us to send exploratory vehicles into “space”: which indicates that physics is pretty-well correct, though not complete or perfect.
(continued)
Physics debates whether or not, at a fundamental level, a simple time exists in relatively-simple relationship to other simple aspects of reality. They have found that, unless you want to complexify the situation, a simple type of time probably doesn’t exist. I.e. a time “dimension” probably doesn’t exist as a foundational aspect of reality, and the underlying relatively-simple time must have been derived from other simple aspects of reality.
What is not so debatable is that “recognition of change” exists in the underlying reality: i.e. the equations of physics represent change (of number) with the delta symbol. Clearly, quantum events are a source of number change, but it is not clear that there are any other factors causing number change. It may be that quantum events are the only source of number change in the universe. I.e. it may be that quantum events are the source of a relatively-simple sense of time, a relatively-simple “recognition of change”, a relatively-simple aspect of reality that can be represented as a relatively-simple equation.
report post as inappropriate
Physics debates whether or not, at a fundamental level, a simple time exists in relatively-simple relationship to other simple aspects of reality. They have found that, unless you want to complexify the situation, a simple type of time probably doesn’t exist. I.e. a time “dimension” probably doesn’t exist as a foundational aspect of reality, and the underlying relatively-simple time must have been derived from other simple aspects of reality.
What is not so debatable is that “recognition of change” exists in the underlying reality: i.e. the equations of physics represent change (of number) with the delta symbol. Clearly, quantum events are a source of number change, but it is not clear that there are any other factors causing number change. It may be that quantum events are the only source of number change in the universe. I.e. it may be that quantum events are the source of a relatively-simple sense of time, a relatively-simple “recognition of change”, a relatively-simple aspect of reality that can be represented as a relatively-simple equation.
Dear Lorraine Ford,
VISIBLE reality could not possibly have finite "different levels." VISIBLE reality could not possibly have different finite "aspects."Let me try it one more time: There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite Non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. Einstein was completely wrong in assuming that matter and space could co-exist.
Please stop repeating finite misinformation.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
VISIBLE reality could not possibly have finite "different levels." VISIBLE reality could not possibly have different finite "aspects."Let me try it one more time: There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite Non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. Einstein was completely wrong in assuming that matter and space could co-exist.
Please stop repeating finite misinformation.
Joe Fisher, Realist
VISIBLE reality could not possibly have finite "different levels." VISIBLE reality could not possibly have different finite "aspects."Let me try it one more time: There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite Non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. Einstein was completely wrong in assuming that matter and space could co-exist.
Please stop repeating finite misinformation.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Please stop repeating finite misinformation.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Abraham (Avi) Loeb is an American/Israeli theoretical physicist who works on astrophysics and cosmology and the Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University. Watch his interview below on the physics of fine-tuning. Abraham (Avi) Loeb is an American/Israeli theoretical physicist who works on astrophysics and cosmology and the Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University. Watch his interview below on the physics of fine-tuning.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Nature provided us with a sensible reality that does not require any “fine tuning” whatsoever. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to establish am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before any physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural silly guesswork concerning the duality of co-existing states of finite measurable amounts of matter finitely swirling around in curved invisible space There has never been any invisible space. There has only ever been ONE SINGLE VISIBLE INFINITE SURFACE ETERNALLY OCCURRING IN ONE INFINITE DIMENSION THAT AM ALWAYS MOSTLY ILLUMINATED BY FINITE NON-SURFACE LIGHT.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Abraham (Avi) Loeb is an American/Israeli theoretical physicist who works on astrophysics and cosmology and the Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University. Watch his interview below on the physics of fine-tuning. Abraham (Avi) Loeb is an American/Israeli theoretical physicist who works on astrophysics and cosmology and the Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University. Watch his interview below on the physics of fine-tuning.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Nature provided us with a sensible reality that does not require any “fine tuning” whatsoever. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to establish am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before any physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural silly guesswork concerning the duality of co-existing states of finite measurable amounts of matter finitely swirling around in curved invisible space There has never been any invisible space. There has only ever been ONE SINGLE VISIBLE INFINITE SURFACE ETERNALLY OCCURRING IN ONE INFINITE DIMENSION THAT AM ALWAYS MOSTLY ILLUMINATED BY FINITE NON-SURFACE LIGHT.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Eckard,
I'm a little surprised that nobody rose to your bait in debate on the argument of Cusanas, neutral centrality, Maxwell and the always ambiguous 'luminiferous aether'. All good points, especially with the number of unsolved mysteries of the classical age that have been subsumed by Quantum Mechanics.
I dug out an old (falling apart at the seams, actually) book by Isaac Assimov,...
view entire post
I'm a little surprised that nobody rose to your bait in debate on the argument of Cusanas, neutral centrality, Maxwell and the always ambiguous 'luminiferous aether'. All good points, especially with the number of unsolved mysteries of the classical age that have been subsumed by Quantum Mechanics.
I dug out an old (falling apart at the seams, actually) book by Isaac Assimov,...
view entire post
jrc,
It seems to me the absolute equilibrium of space is implicit in Relativity, as the frame with the fastest clock and longest ruler would be closest to it. So space, without physical properties to quantify it, would have the non-physical qualities of infinity and equilibrium.
The primary physical properties occupying space are energy and mass. Energy expands to infinity, or until it is completely diffused. While mass collapses to equilibrium, or until it is completely dissolved back into the energy radiating back out. A cosmic convection cycle.
Perfect equilibrium may not be physical, but it is the essence of "rigidity." As in un-moved/unmoving.
I would submit space is the absolute and the infinite.
report post as inappropriate
It seems to me the absolute equilibrium of space is implicit in Relativity, as the frame with the fastest clock and longest ruler would be closest to it. So space, without physical properties to quantify it, would have the non-physical qualities of infinity and equilibrium.
The primary physical properties occupying space are energy and mass. Energy expands to infinity, or until it is completely diffused. While mass collapses to equilibrium, or until it is completely dissolved back into the energy radiating back out. A cosmic convection cycle.
Perfect equilibrium may not be physical, but it is the essence of "rigidity." As in un-moved/unmoving.
I would submit space is the absolute and the infinite.
Dear John Brodix Merryman,
One real VISIBLE Universe could only ever have one real VISIBLE physical condition. There has never been any empty invisible space. Please do try to remember that the only VISIBLE physical condition the clever white male scientists have been able to prove am that the real VISIBLE Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before you ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing your silly unnatural copied guesswork concerning supposed space/matter duality.
Joe Fisher, Very Patient Realist
report post as inappropriate
One real VISIBLE Universe could only ever have one real VISIBLE physical condition. There has never been any empty invisible space. Please do try to remember that the only VISIBLE physical condition the clever white male scientists have been able to prove am that the real VISIBLE Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before you ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing your silly unnatural copied guesswork concerning supposed space/matter duality.
Joe Fisher, Very Patient Realist
Joe,
As Emerson put it; "We are but thickened light."
What each of us perceives in that light is different.
report post as inappropriate
As Emerson put it; "We are but thickened light."
What each of us perceives in that light is different.
JB MerryMan :-)
I can see where you are coming from, and instinctively we do associate a spatial realism with content. There was a video on a news program this morning that was amusing, entertaining and thought provoking. A small bird, sparrow size, had flown in an open window of what appeared to be a sunroom and was caught on a cell phone video as it landed on the back of a couch near a...
view entire post
I can see where you are coming from, and instinctively we do associate a spatial realism with content. There was a video on a news program this morning that was amusing, entertaining and thought provoking. A small bird, sparrow size, had flown in an open window of what appeared to be a sunroom and was caught on a cell phone video as it landed on the back of a couch near a...
view entire post
jrc,
Then where would the mass originate, if the energy didn't eventually coalesce into form? I realize it doesn't actually go to infinity, but the general direction. Just as mass doesn't go to pure equilibrium, but to the edge of the eye of the cosmic storms, that are the black holes at the center. I think once we add up all the energy radiated out and then shot out the poles, nothing is left to actually fall into some other dimension. The combination being a cosmic convection cycle. Feedback between the processes and patterns generated.
My issue with time is posted further up the thread; That we codify the narrative past to future perception of change, turning future to past, by treating it as measures of duration, without acknowledging what is measured, action, is more elemental than the measure, duration. Duration is this physical state, as the events come and go, future to past. Potential, actual, residual.
There is a further issue I have with Big Bang Cosmology, in that I suspect the redshift is an optical effect and we are sampling a multi-spectrum wave front, not individual photons traveling billions of lightyears, so that cosmic background radiation is the light of ever more distant sources, shifted off the visible spectrum. The solution to Olber's paradox. Waiting on the James Webb to see what the observations show.
https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_W
aveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Then where would the mass originate, if the energy didn't eventually coalesce into form? I realize it doesn't actually go to infinity, but the general direction. Just as mass doesn't go to pure equilibrium, but to the edge of the eye of the cosmic storms, that are the black holes at the center. I think once we add up all the energy radiated out and then shot out the poles, nothing is left to actually fall into some other dimension. The combination being a cosmic convection cycle. Feedback between the processes and patterns generated.
My issue with time is posted further up the thread; That we codify the narrative past to future perception of change, turning future to past, by treating it as measures of duration, without acknowledging what is measured, action, is more elemental than the measure, duration. Duration is this physical state, as the events come and go, future to past. Potential, actual, residual.
There is a further issue I have with Big Bang Cosmology, in that I suspect the redshift is an optical effect and we are sampling a multi-spectrum wave front, not individual photons traveling billions of lightyears, so that cosmic background radiation is the light of ever more distant sources, shifted off the visible spectrum. The solution to Olber's paradox. Waiting on the James Webb to see what the observations show.
https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_W
aveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf
Dear John Brodix Merryman,
The only fact you will ever have to remember for all of your life am that all matter has a VISIBLE surface. The only logical way that could happen would be if there was only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any invisible curved space. The VISIBLE Universe could not possibly have emerged from out of an invisible void at a finite moment of invisible time.
Joe Fisher, Helpful Realist
report post as inappropriate
The only fact you will ever have to remember for all of your life am that all matter has a VISIBLE surface. The only logical way that could happen would be if there was only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any invisible curved space. The VISIBLE Universe could not possibly have emerged from out of an invisible void at a finite moment of invisible time.
Joe Fisher, Helpful Realist
JB Merryman,
Pardon my posting in this manner, I'll limit my usage as its a bit indulgent. It's simply that I had to get a new cheap laptop that is so overloaded by the Win10 OS that I don't use it if it requires 'creating an account', so if I can spout off in the "read article" box then I'm okay. And really, if my two cents were going to make me rich, I wouldn't be here anyway. So I'm fair game.
There have been a number of well formed comments in this topic, I liked Lorraine's concise observations and agree that however incomplete, our scientific achievements indicate that we are doing something right. Your own, Georgina's and Eckard's questioning conventional wisdom on the Cosmic Background Radiation and the limitations of observability of the universe have merit. But honestly, I am not sufficiently well versed in either the cross disciplinary theories and advanced mathematics, to weigh in.
What I'd kind of like to know is if you have given much thought to how in the cyclic equilibrium you perceive, that any physical relationships naturally exist which would limit energy coalescing into a finite range of mass accumulation in the general gravitational reference? And if so, how limited by comparison? cordially, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Pardon my posting in this manner, I'll limit my usage as its a bit indulgent. It's simply that I had to get a new cheap laptop that is so overloaded by the Win10 OS that I don't use it if it requires 'creating an account', so if I can spout off in the "read article" box then I'm okay. And really, if my two cents were going to make me rich, I wouldn't be here anyway. So I'm fair game.
There have been a number of well formed comments in this topic, I liked Lorraine's concise observations and agree that however incomplete, our scientific achievements indicate that we are doing something right. Your own, Georgina's and Eckard's questioning conventional wisdom on the Cosmic Background Radiation and the limitations of observability of the universe have merit. But honestly, I am not sufficiently well versed in either the cross disciplinary theories and advanced mathematics, to weigh in.
What I'd kind of like to know is if you have given much thought to how in the cyclic equilibrium you perceive, that any physical relationships naturally exist which would limit energy coalescing into a finite range of mass accumulation in the general gravitational reference? And if so, how limited by comparison? cordially, jrc
jrc,
I certainly admit to my own limits, so I'm not sure of your references. What I would guess is that as this gravitational contraction seems to be the opposite of radiant expansion, we should consider gravity as not so much a property of mass, but mass as an effect and part of this range of contraction. That every interaction, measurement, bound crossing, anything which might be conducive to producing form, is part of this spectrum of contraction, even photons coalescing out of fields. So that the effect attributed to dark matter is not due to some missing mass, as it is the effect of contraction and attraction across the entire spectrum.
Anytime energy coalesces, it takes up less space and anytime the form breaks down and releases energy, it takes up more space. So it can be geometrically described in terms of the space expanding/contracting, especially if one has dismissed space as an artifact of measurement.
Yet because energy that hasn't coalesced into a measurable unit can't be measured, than it is presumed not to exist. Consider Eric Stanley Reiter's entry in the questioning the Foundations contest of 2012;
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1344
Here is an essay I posted on medium a few weeks ago;
https://medium.com/@johnbrodixmerrymanjr/the-confessions
-of-a-cosmic-heretic-5cd4c044b8ea?source=friends_link&sk=4a9
9967885aa68b3a7a14db68e96ed64
report post as inappropriate
I certainly admit to my own limits, so I'm not sure of your references. What I would guess is that as this gravitational contraction seems to be the opposite of radiant expansion, we should consider gravity as not so much a property of mass, but mass as an effect and part of this range of contraction. That every interaction, measurement, bound crossing, anything which might be conducive to producing form, is part of this spectrum of contraction, even photons coalescing out of fields. So that the effect attributed to dark matter is not due to some missing mass, as it is the effect of contraction and attraction across the entire spectrum.
Anytime energy coalesces, it takes up less space and anytime the form breaks down and releases energy, it takes up more space. So it can be geometrically described in terms of the space expanding/contracting, especially if one has dismissed space as an artifact of measurement.
Yet because energy that hasn't coalesced into a measurable unit can't be measured, than it is presumed not to exist. Consider Eric Stanley Reiter's entry in the questioning the Foundations contest of 2012;
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1344
Here is an essay I posted on medium a few weeks ago;
https://medium.com/@johnbrodixmerrymanjr/the-confessions
-of-a-cosmic-heretic-5cd4c044b8ea?source=friends_link&sk=4a9
9967885aa68b3a7a14db68e96ed64
Fair enough JB,
the only thing heretical about you is that you don't do math, and as short as I am on math I'm in no position to chastise. But given the premise that an energy abundant universe compels Condensed Matter Physics, with its cookbook of Classical, Quantum and Relativistic recipes in application to materials and process engineering, experimentation and protocol criteria as well as the search theoretically for a Grand Unified Theory ---
... why is the coalescence of energy confined to such a small range of quantity assuming so few specific and apparently optimal size material particles, and only very tiny ones at that? Any thoughts? :) jrc
report post as inappropriate
the only thing heretical about you is that you don't do math, and as short as I am on math I'm in no position to chastise. But given the premise that an energy abundant universe compels Condensed Matter Physics, with its cookbook of Classical, Quantum and Relativistic recipes in application to materials and process engineering, experimentation and protocol criteria as well as the search theoretically for a Grand Unified Theory ---
... why is the coalescence of energy confined to such a small range of quantity assuming so few specific and apparently optimal size material particles, and only very tiny ones at that? Any thoughts? :) jrc
jrc,
Math has to be taken in context. Epicycles really were brilliant math and likely contributed significantly to geometry, but the crystalline spheres, as a one to one physical correspondence, were lousy physics and that one to one correspondence is back in vogue today. Spacetime is assumed to be a one to one physical correspondence with the math of Relativity. Math is mapping and modeling, yet some(many) buy into the notion it is somehow "reading the mind of God," as the basis of reality, not a mapping of our perceptions of it.
Your question really has two parts; Why is there anything? And; Why is there what there is?
I can make some conceptual observations about the first, such as it is feedback between processes and the pattern arising from these processes. For example, life is a process, individual organisms are the patterns arising. Process goes past to future, while the particular patterns go future to past.
The second question requires far more examination of these processes and patterns and that requires a lifetime of dedication and in the company of others.
I don't claim to be a scientist. I just think the science ought to be able to answer basic questions, such as whether time is truly a dimension, aka "duration," along which the events exist and our position is subjective, or is it the dynamic of these events rising and falling?
Or how can one argue that "space" expands, when both the evidence and the logic assume this expansion is still relative to a static speed of light? REDSHIFT!!! Hello? That makes the speed the denominator!!!
How can you build complex conceptual structures on such logical mush and expect the result not to be more complex mush. GIGO.
I give credit, where credit is due.
report post as inappropriate
Math has to be taken in context. Epicycles really were brilliant math and likely contributed significantly to geometry, but the crystalline spheres, as a one to one physical correspondence, were lousy physics and that one to one correspondence is back in vogue today. Spacetime is assumed to be a one to one physical correspondence with the math of Relativity. Math is mapping and modeling, yet some(many) buy into the notion it is somehow "reading the mind of God," as the basis of reality, not a mapping of our perceptions of it.
Your question really has two parts; Why is there anything? And; Why is there what there is?
I can make some conceptual observations about the first, such as it is feedback between processes and the pattern arising from these processes. For example, life is a process, individual organisms are the patterns arising. Process goes past to future, while the particular patterns go future to past.
The second question requires far more examination of these processes and patterns and that requires a lifetime of dedication and in the company of others.
I don't claim to be a scientist. I just think the science ought to be able to answer basic questions, such as whether time is truly a dimension, aka "duration," along which the events exist and our position is subjective, or is it the dynamic of these events rising and falling?
Or how can one argue that "space" expands, when both the evidence and the logic assume this expansion is still relative to a static speed of light? REDSHIFT!!! Hello? That makes the speed the denominator!!!
How can you build complex conceptual structures on such logical mush and expect the result not to be more complex mush. GIGO.
I give credit, where credit is due.
As for the predictiveness of these theories, epicycles were extremely effective in predicting celestial configurations, such as eclipses years in advance.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“What is the relationship between free will and decision-making, the capacity of individuals to select among options or choices usually based on certain criteria. It would seem that, in principle, decision-making can exist outside of free will (such as in a computer), but free will cannot exist without the capacity to make decisions.
Adina Roskies is a Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College. Her areas of specialization include philosophy of science, philosophy of cognitive science, and philosophy of mind. Watch her interview on free will and decision making below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own very well organized Facebook page:
Nature produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the Universe allowable. White males have only ever produced silly guesswork about supposedly finite invisible human intelligence and free will and meaning of meaning. The only true fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real VISIBLE Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Adina Roskies ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her unnatural guessworg about finite white male supposed free will. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty invisible space.
Joe Fisher, Sagacious Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“What is the relationship between free will and decision-making, the capacity of individuals to select among options or choices usually based on certain criteria. It would seem that, in principle, decision-making can exist outside of free will (such as in a computer), but free will cannot exist without the capacity to make decisions.
Adina Roskies is a Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College. Her areas of specialization include philosophy of science, philosophy of cognitive science, and philosophy of mind. Watch her interview on free will and decision making below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own very well organized Facebook page:
Nature produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the Universe allowable. White males have only ever produced silly guesswork about supposedly finite invisible human intelligence and free will and meaning of meaning. The only true fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real VISIBLE Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Adina Roskies ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her unnatural guessworg about finite white male supposed free will. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty invisible space.
Joe Fisher, Sagacious Realist
Callender calls atomic time the time of physics and he callsmemory decay time subjective psychological time. I agree that time does indeed have these two dimensions. There is an objective atomic time in the ticks of the Cs-133 atom resonance at 9.2 GHz and a subjective memory decay time that ticks at the mind’s lowest EEG delta frequency of ~1.6 Hz.
We call the decay between precursor and outcome memories subjective time because memory decay is unique to each person and our memories and therefore time can change with circumstances. So in a very true sense, there are two dimensions to time and both emerge from discrete event changes. Quantum phase decay is an objective time just as atomic time and these two represent a two dimensional time that appears in many scientific measurements.
Matter and action are the only two true constants in the universe and for every outcome in the universe, there are precursors. Time emerges from the change between a precursor and its outcome. Science assumes that phase decay time necessarily occurs in atomic time ticks, but a pulsed universe gives a universal decay time. Therefore, every precursor in a pulsed universe is subject to this universal decay time that then defines the precursor outcome. It is the action of universal decay between a precursor and outcome that is what we call time and also gravity. This means that atomic time actually evolves in the context of universe decay time and this atomic time evolution between precursor and outcome at the atom scale is charge.
report post as inappropriate
We call the decay between precursor and outcome memories subjective time because memory decay is unique to each person and our memories and therefore time can change with circumstances. So in a very true sense, there are two dimensions to time and both emerge from discrete event changes. Quantum phase decay is an objective time just as atomic time and these two represent a two dimensional time that appears in many scientific measurements.
Matter and action are the only two true constants in the universe and for every outcome in the universe, there are precursors. Time emerges from the change between a precursor and its outcome. Science assumes that phase decay time necessarily occurs in atomic time ticks, but a pulsed universe gives a universal decay time. Therefore, every precursor in a pulsed universe is subject to this universal decay time that then defines the precursor outcome. It is the action of universal decay between a precursor and outcome that is what we call time and also gravity. This means that atomic time actually evolves in the context of universe decay time and this atomic time evolution between precursor and outcome at the atom scale is charge.
Steve,
Just because everything is connected, doesn't mean all of reality is singular, just networked. Yes, there are more elemental states and to the extent they are composed identically, they function at identical rates. That is the ground, the absolute. It is the relationship between the absolute and the infinite on which the tension between mass and energy functions. Time is an effect of this dynamic. There is't one true time like there isn't one true temperature. There is a temperature of absolute zero, so absolute time would be zero, as well. An inert present. Atomic clocks vary, according to gravitational effects. Action is contextual. A pure action, thus rate of change, without context, would be contradictory.
Nodes and networks. Even when they assume the entire universe is one node, they end up proposing a network of multiverses, because the singular is an entity and an entity needs a process to produce it.
report post as inappropriate
Just because everything is connected, doesn't mean all of reality is singular, just networked. Yes, there are more elemental states and to the extent they are composed identically, they function at identical rates. That is the ground, the absolute. It is the relationship between the absolute and the infinite on which the tension between mass and energy functions. Time is an effect of this dynamic. There is't one true time like there isn't one true temperature. There is a temperature of absolute zero, so absolute time would be zero, as well. An inert present. Atomic clocks vary, according to gravitational effects. Action is contextual. A pure action, thus rate of change, without context, would be contradictory.
Nodes and networks. Even when they assume the entire universe is one node, they end up proposing a network of multiverses, because the singular is an entity and an entity needs a process to produce it.
Dear John Brodix Merryman,
It am precisely because there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light that there am ONE SINGLE SOLE NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY. There has never been any finite invisible networks.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
It am precisely because there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light that there am ONE SINGLE SOLE NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY. There has never been any finite invisible networks.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Reality is not singular, but reality is discrete and as you say, outcomes connected to precursors. The universe is finite in extent and in divisibility and so there are no infinities or infinitesimals. Matter and action are the two primitive dimensions and so it is action and not energy that make up reality. Time simply emerges from the changes that occur and has no independent existence.
There is a temperature of absolute zero, but it is not possible to ever realize T=0 since there is always action. Both time and temperature are convenient objective metrics of the world that people can agree how to measure. Atomic clocks do vary, but the universe decay time is absolute. Action is not rate of change but rather is the product of matter and time or matter and displacement. In other words, both time and space emerge from matter action, not the other way around.
It is pure action than exists, not time or temperature...and remember, energy is simply matter by Einstein’s proportionality and does not have a separate existence. There are actually no singularities in the universe, only at its boundaries where they belong, Black holes are simply a manifestation of matter action and do not exist in space time.
report post as inappropriate
There is a temperature of absolute zero, but it is not possible to ever realize T=0 since there is always action. Both time and temperature are convenient objective metrics of the world that people can agree how to measure. Atomic clocks do vary, but the universe decay time is absolute. Action is not rate of change but rather is the product of matter and time or matter and displacement. In other words, both time and space emerge from matter action, not the other way around.
It is pure action than exists, not time or temperature...and remember, energy is simply matter by Einstein’s proportionality and does not have a separate existence. There are actually no singularities in the universe, only at its boundaries where they belong, Black holes are simply a manifestation of matter action and do not exist in space time.
In the context of time dependent decay, and then saying that time emerges from that decay rate, why is it that in this observer preferred manipulation of putting in by hand an earth based time interval, do its proponents always neglect to include radiological decay in the arguments about atomic resonance? It remains, that the only referrnece for time anywhere is somewhere between nil and light velocity. Like it or not, if the reality was that gravity simply dampens atomic resonance (of a cessium atomic clock) then that dampening should also be evident in radiological decay rate of Plutonium 239 powering deep space probes three times longer than their earth based design life expectancy. And if that were true, how could the census estimate of radioisotopes in the aggregate Earth's inventory, have survived the eons of interstellar extremely low gravity to eventually become gravitationally bound in an accretion of building the planet in the first place? And if one's arguments of emergent time depend on how mass decays, then its incumbant on the argument to also quantitatively account for how mass accumulates to be in existance as a state from which to decay. And provide a mathematically consistent rationale of why energy accumulates into such a small range of very small mass quantities. jrc
report post as inappropriate
The universe decay occurs on the universe scale, nuclear decay occurs on the nuclear scale and atom decay occurs on the atom scale. These are completely consistent decays, just different from space and time. The weak nuclear force is how nuclear forces couple with charge.
report post as inappropriate
Prof. Agnew, Steve,
Firstly, my respect for both the heritage and the legacy work at the Hanford Reservation. Few realize that the N Reactor was the only breeder the U.S. ever built that was the same design type as the RBMK 1000 series such as at Chernobyl.
Quite apart from any differences on the subject of the nature of time, could you please clarify nomenclature of 'matter decay'. Not in academic terms, but as you might explain it to educated friends and associates whom though not in physics, know that matter as it is commonly referred to is made up of molecules of elemental isotopes and that atoms are comprised of sub-atomic particles. E=mc^2 is a bounded equality but provides no proportionality constant to differentiate a physical property that could be termed 'matter' as a state, regardless of any specified quantity. What is Matter? In what manner do you characterize it to decay? As a degradation of the physical property itself, or as an exponential decay over distance of intensity or influence of gravitation, magnetic and electrostatic response associated with it? JRC
report post as inappropriate
Firstly, my respect for both the heritage and the legacy work at the Hanford Reservation. Few realize that the N Reactor was the only breeder the U.S. ever built that was the same design type as the RBMK 1000 series such as at Chernobyl.
Quite apart from any differences on the subject of the nature of time, could you please clarify nomenclature of 'matter decay'. Not in academic terms, but as you might explain it to educated friends and associates whom though not in physics, know that matter as it is commonly referred to is made up of molecules of elemental isotopes and that atoms are comprised of sub-atomic particles. E=mc^2 is a bounded equality but provides no proportionality constant to differentiate a physical property that could be termed 'matter' as a state, regardless of any specified quantity. What is Matter? In what manner do you characterize it to decay? As a degradation of the physical property itself, or as an exponential decay over distance of intensity or influence of gravitation, magnetic and electrostatic response associated with it? JRC
Dear Anonymous,
There am no such a thing as “matter decay.” All matter has a real VISIBLE surface. Matter does not consist of invisible atoms swirling round in pockets of empty space. There has never been any empty space. The real VISIBLE realty Nature produced could only logically contain one single physical construction. The only fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Albert Einstein ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his silly guesswork about opposing space/finite matter duality.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
There am no such a thing as “matter decay.” All matter has a real VISIBLE surface. Matter does not consist of invisible atoms swirling round in pockets of empty space. There has never been any empty space. The real VISIBLE realty Nature produced could only logically contain one single physical construction. The only fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Albert Einstein ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his silly guesswork about opposing space/finite matter duality.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Matter decay is in some sense so ubiquitous that we overlook it. The earth spin slows down, the moon’s orbit expands due to matter decay, the IPK kg standard decays, pulses all decay, and atomic clocks dephase from each other...all the the same rate of 0.26 ppl/yr.
Stars all decay by radiation, galaxies all decay into black holes, and black holes are the endpoint of all matter. The collapse and decay of matter is all around us and yet science claims that the universe expands and does not decay. The reason is that force or action grows at the same rate as matter collapses and so science has the illusion of deep space and the CMB as expansion when it is actually collapsing.
Matter along with action are primal beliefs about the universe that simply are the way the universe is. Energy is just a different measure of matter and space and time both emerge from matter action.
report post as inappropriate
Stars all decay by radiation, galaxies all decay into black holes, and black holes are the endpoint of all matter. The collapse and decay of matter is all around us and yet science claims that the universe expands and does not decay. The reason is that force or action grows at the same rate as matter collapses and so science has the illusion of deep space and the CMB as expansion when it is actually collapsing.
Matter along with action are primal beliefs about the universe that simply are the way the universe is. Energy is just a different measure of matter and space and time both emerge from matter action.
Dear Steve Agnew,
The only thing we can ever notice am VISIBLE surface, because only one infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever, or will ever exist.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
The only thing we can ever notice am VISIBLE surface, because only one infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever, or will ever exist.
Joe Fisher, Realist
I keep rereading comments and this article, and recollecting past dialogues, and can't help finding more agreement generally that what first would appear. Everyone uses surprisingly different words and turns of phrase to present remarkably similar if nuanced ideas. Yet historically it seems, humans never agree about Time, it is instinctively too precious and personal to each of us. If Time is physically real, then what we call emergent is really a particular manifestation and perhaps a distinction can be drawn between *emergence* and *transcendence*. Time seems manifest in many ways. I looked up the first post I made to the fqxi forum 6/7/13, topic/969#post_75736 and remember then thinking I was probably way out in left field, but I've learned much since then and much of how others think and how broad the mainstream really is. Whatever Physics and physicists do, I think Time will survive. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Dear John R. Cox,
Please try to remember that the physicists have only ever proven one fact about the universe and that was that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before any physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural guesswork about invisible finite atoms swirling finitely round in acres of empty space. The physicists have never proven that any empty space has ever existed. You will of course continue to read about the physicists unnatural guesswork, but the truth am that there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Please try to remember that the physicists have only ever proven one fact about the universe and that was that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before any physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural guesswork about invisible finite atoms swirling finitely round in acres of empty space. The physicists have never proven that any empty space has ever existed. You will of course continue to read about the physicists unnatural guesswork, but the truth am that there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Well, Joe,
fortunately for humanity there safety of nuclear waste at Hanford is not entrusted to you.
report post as inappropriate
fortunately for humanity there safety of nuclear waste at Hanford is not entrusted to you.
Dear Anonymous,
I was dead wrong by my maintaining that there was no such a thing as “matter decay.” Of course white men have devised unnatural atomic radiation devices. However, all matter does have a real VISIBLE surface, and as there has never been any invisible space, it logically follows that there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
I was dead wrong by my maintaining that there was no such a thing as “matter decay.” Of course white men have devised unnatural atomic radiation devices. However, all matter does have a real VISIBLE surface, and as there has never been any invisible space, it logically follows that there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Steve,
It is commendable for any professional to clearly differentiate one's responsibilities in maintaining best practices, from any personal pursuit of purely hypothetical theorizing. So while I might disagree with your primary premise, I recognize your prerogative to attempt rationalization of the QM paradigm. And I would not fault anyone for following their mathematical results even if it conflicts with consistent observation that the universe is not shrinking.
However, it is not true to say or assume that "energy is simply matter by Einstein's proportionality". You may theoretically associate energy with matter, but E=mc^2 doesn't differentiate matter from either energy or mass. Mass is simply a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume is determined which would exhibit the characteristics associated with the physical property of matter.
I do agree that electric charge is a constituent characteristic of matter, but it is not the sole criteria of that property. Charge is one of those Energizer Bunnies that were bred in the classical era under the Newtonian Regime which we still know only by name. Positive and Negative have no physical meaning other than through interactive operation and by original arbitrary assignment. A general definition of Charge is long overdue and regardless of whether any theory holds up in entirety, any theory which produces a viable definition of Charge would be well worth the effort. cordially jrc
report post as inappropriate
It is commendable for any professional to clearly differentiate one's responsibilities in maintaining best practices, from any personal pursuit of purely hypothetical theorizing. So while I might disagree with your primary premise, I recognize your prerogative to attempt rationalization of the QM paradigm. And I would not fault anyone for following their mathematical results even if it conflicts with consistent observation that the universe is not shrinking.
However, it is not true to say or assume that "energy is simply matter by Einstein's proportionality". You may theoretically associate energy with matter, but E=mc^2 doesn't differentiate matter from either energy or mass. Mass is simply a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume is determined which would exhibit the characteristics associated with the physical property of matter.
I do agree that electric charge is a constituent characteristic of matter, but it is not the sole criteria of that property. Charge is one of those Energizer Bunnies that were bred in the classical era under the Newtonian Regime which we still know only by name. Positive and Negative have no physical meaning other than through interactive operation and by original arbitrary assignment. A general definition of Charge is long overdue and regardless of whether any theory holds up in entirety, any theory which produces a viable definition of Charge would be well worth the effort. cordially jrc
The same evidence that the universe expands is also, strangely enough, consistent with matter collapse. This is because as mass collapses, that action is the source of force and means that force grows in concert with matter collapse.
Force growth along with matter collapse red shifts galaxy light and shrinks the universe. Of course, this is completely consistent with QM and with quantum gravity as well. The shrinking universe means that a single black hole is the destiny of the universe and the start of a new antiverse expansion of antimatter in antitime. We of course are in the universe collapse of matter in atomic time.
Electric charge is simply a manifestation of quantum phase at the atom scale, Gravity is a manifestion of quantum phase at the cosmic scale...how simple is that?
report post as inappropriate
Force growth along with matter collapse red shifts galaxy light and shrinks the universe. Of course, this is completely consistent with QM and with quantum gravity as well. The shrinking universe means that a single black hole is the destiny of the universe and the start of a new antiverse expansion of antimatter in antitime. We of course are in the universe collapse of matter in atomic time.
Electric charge is simply a manifestation of quantum phase at the atom scale, Gravity is a manifestion of quantum phase at the cosmic scale...how simple is that?
Dear Steve Agnew,
In order for a universe to expand, there has to be an empty space for the universe to expand into. Fortunately, the real VISIBLE Universe that Nature provided for us only has one real VISIBLE component. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There was never a void thirteen and three quarter billion light years ago.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
In order for a universe to expand, there has to be an empty space for the universe to expand into. Fortunately, the real VISIBLE Universe that Nature provided for us only has one real VISIBLE component. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There was never a void thirteen and three quarter billion light years ago.
Joe Fisher, Realist
The point is...there is no time or space without matter actions. Am I wrong?
report post as inappropriate
Steve,
Pardon my posting this way instead of logging in, lot's of reasons including some(thing)body getting my email address and wanting me to buy a new bathroom, meaning its hunting my bank routing number.
We aren't going to agree, of course, but so what? But we have similar conceptual issues. In a sense I agree that matter decay is the source of force, but I treat it as attenuation of density rather than decay. I can get my head around Black Holes being where mass:energy goes to die, and I don't think that *information* is so exclusive that there can't be more of the same to be generated in natural course.
I had read your 2017 FQXI contest essay which is half the length of most entries, so there would be much not addressed in that brief abstract. And Physics in general is one big measurement problem, so I'll let the arguments rest with you about a collapsing universe. I do see something of a similarity with Lorentz' model of an electron which he shelved as a work in progress in the explosive advent of Quantum Mechanics. I have long thought that he had been on the right track for developing a classical model of particulate matter. He found that the greater the value of charge, the smaller its radius of measure. Which of course goes to density. But as with General Relativity, there is no proposed hypothesis for predicting a proportionate upper density bound. And if you go global with that in aggregate of discrete matter:action, it isn't surprising that the resulting math would be a contracting spatial parameter. Over in the "Thermo Demonics" article I proposed a proportional density limit which I've had success with, it's in one of a number of anonymous posts that led up to a brief overview of my pet working model. So I'm am a little curious of what your reasoning was in proposing the c/alpha relationship, as a determinant of charge radius?
I have to be careful with 'phase' it can be two different things. An oscillation, or a state. - jrc
report post as inappropriate
Pardon my posting this way instead of logging in, lot's of reasons including some(thing)body getting my email address and wanting me to buy a new bathroom, meaning its hunting my bank routing number.
We aren't going to agree, of course, but so what? But we have similar conceptual issues. In a sense I agree that matter decay is the source of force, but I treat it as attenuation of density rather than decay. I can get my head around Black Holes being where mass:energy goes to die, and I don't think that *information* is so exclusive that there can't be more of the same to be generated in natural course.
I had read your 2017 FQXI contest essay which is half the length of most entries, so there would be much not addressed in that brief abstract. And Physics in general is one big measurement problem, so I'll let the arguments rest with you about a collapsing universe. I do see something of a similarity with Lorentz' model of an electron which he shelved as a work in progress in the explosive advent of Quantum Mechanics. I have long thought that he had been on the right track for developing a classical model of particulate matter. He found that the greater the value of charge, the smaller its radius of measure. Which of course goes to density. But as with General Relativity, there is no proposed hypothesis for predicting a proportionate upper density bound. And if you go global with that in aggregate of discrete matter:action, it isn't surprising that the resulting math would be a contracting spatial parameter. Over in the "Thermo Demonics" article I proposed a proportional density limit which I've had success with, it's in one of a number of anonymous posts that led up to a brief overview of my pet working model. So I'm am a little curious of what your reasoning was in proposing the c/alpha relationship, as a determinant of charge radius?
I have to be careful with 'phase' it can be two different things. An oscillation, or a state. - jrc
Dear John R. Cox,
Nature provided us with the only sensible reality possible. Please do try to remember that the only fact the physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before you and Steve Agnew ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing your unnatural silly guesswork concerning finite amounts of invisible quantum energy. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. All of the essays that have been published by FQXi.org include every author’s unnatural unrealistic copycat guesswork about the coexisting duality of space and matter. My essay REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, was the exception. There am no essay contest this year. Why do you think that am?
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Nature provided us with the only sensible reality possible. Please do try to remember that the only fact the physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before you and Steve Agnew ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing your unnatural silly guesswork concerning finite amounts of invisible quantum energy. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. All of the essays that have been published by FQXi.org include every author’s unnatural unrealistic copycat guesswork about the coexisting duality of space and matter. My essay REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, was the exception. There am no essay contest this year. Why do you think that am?
Joe Fisher, Realist
We are not going to agree...but discourse is what it is all about. Well...if you want to explain the universe, the c/alpha is constant has to be. Of course, what I was going for is that c * alpha would be constant, but that did not work out. However, I found that (c*alpha)^2 could still be constant if phase was a parameter.
Quantum phase is certainly not something that we think of often, but is an important part of reality. It is ironic that the decay of the universe is what makes reality work the way that it does. This simply makes sense...
report post as inappropriate
Quantum phase is certainly not something that we think of often, but is an important part of reality. It is ironic that the decay of the universe is what makes reality work the way that it does. This simply makes sense...
Dear Steve Agnew,
Nature provided all of us with an understandable reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Nature provided all of us with an understandable reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Thanks Steve,
I'm still real fuzzy but its worth trying to understand how others tackle issues. I'm often struck by how little is actually known, and how much progress has been made with ad hoc measures that become a standard operating procedure. The Schrodinger Wave Equation fit with the Bohr model quantum leap, and ever since everyone says "Wow! how did He come up with that? Where do the terms come from?". Pardon my cynicism but maybe they came from Schrodinger hunting around until he found terms and arrangements that would fit. It is a computational tool, it doesn't prove the Bohr assumption.It is quite possible that matter naturally assumes optimal quantities and shapes that emerge from the interaction of elemental isotopic matter quantities. The mass deficit has to be accounted for eventually.
In the frenzy of developments of the spin co-ordinate system, c/alpha made a good computational fit but Spin began with the failure of Newtonian Gravity in a classical model which assumed that the total mass of a nucleus and electron would exist at constant density as 'hard' particles. So there is a lot of room to revisit the many Classical unknowns which have become incorporated into the modern Quantum and Relativistic Standard Model. jrc
report post as inappropriate
I'm still real fuzzy but its worth trying to understand how others tackle issues. I'm often struck by how little is actually known, and how much progress has been made with ad hoc measures that become a standard operating procedure. The Schrodinger Wave Equation fit with the Bohr model quantum leap, and ever since everyone says "Wow! how did He come up with that? Where do the terms come from?". Pardon my cynicism but maybe they came from Schrodinger hunting around until he found terms and arrangements that would fit. It is a computational tool, it doesn't prove the Bohr assumption.It is quite possible that matter naturally assumes optimal quantities and shapes that emerge from the interaction of elemental isotopic matter quantities. The mass deficit has to be accounted for eventually.
In the frenzy of developments of the spin co-ordinate system, c/alpha made a good computational fit but Spin began with the failure of Newtonian Gravity in a classical model which assumed that the total mass of a nucleus and electron would exist at constant density as 'hard' particles. So there is a lot of room to revisit the many Classical unknowns which have become incorporated into the modern Quantum and Relativistic Standard Model. jrc
Dear John R. Cox,
Nature provided all living creatures with an understandable reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any invisible space. Imagining space matter duality causes most, but not all humanly contrived fuzzy thinking.
Joe Fisher, The Helpful Realist
report post as inappropriate
Nature provided all living creatures with an understandable reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any invisible space. Imagining space matter duality causes most, but not all humanly contrived fuzzy thinking.
Joe Fisher, The Helpful Realist
Actually, I am amazed by how much is known and yet misinterpreted...I agree that most of current science is ad hoc and highly patched, but it still works very well...at least to 0.26 ppb/yr.
You are very correct in your cynicism of quantum and gravity equations. They both were simply adopted by science because they worked and gravity still does not work with quantum, but so what else is new?
Classical hard particles are, as you know, really not possible and there must be soft edges to all particles. Quantum gives soft edges to all particles, but the cost is superposition and entanglement, which complicate our lives.
What quantum gravity gives us is a very, very large number of low energy states that current science does not know what to do with. Okay. As soon as science can measure the decay of 0.26 ppb/yr, matter time will be the bee's knees and so we simply wait for more precision...
report post as inappropriate
You are very correct in your cynicism of quantum and gravity equations. They both were simply adopted by science because they worked and gravity still does not work with quantum, but so what else is new?
Classical hard particles are, as you know, really not possible and there must be soft edges to all particles. Quantum gives soft edges to all particles, but the cost is superposition and entanglement, which complicate our lives.
What quantum gravity gives us is a very, very large number of low energy states that current science does not know what to do with. Okay. As soon as science can measure the decay of 0.26 ppb/yr, matter time will be the bee's knees and so we simply wait for more precision...
Dear Steve Agnew,
Nature designed a singular simple reality that would be easily understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified natural VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. It would be a sure sign of a person’s mental instability for that person to willfully refuse to understand natural VISIBLE reality, and who insisted on being “amazed” by misinterpretations of unnatural invisible quantum guesswork.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
report post as inappropriate
Nature designed a singular simple reality that would be easily understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified natural VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. It would be a sure sign of a person’s mental instability for that person to willfully refuse to understand natural VISIBLE reality, and who insisted on being “amazed” by misinterpretations of unnatural invisible quantum guesswork.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
Steve,
I suspect the low energy states are physically just the residual. The current picture of quantum gravity reminds me of those old Lava Lamps that were all the rage a half century ago, and about as energy inefficient. Those things looked so cute and cuddly, people would get stoned and burn themselves very badly. ;-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
I suspect the low energy states are physically just the residual. The current picture of quantum gravity reminds me of those old Lava Lamps that were all the rage a half century ago, and about as energy inefficient. Those things looked so cute and cuddly, people would get stoned and burn themselves very badly. ;-) jrc
Dear John R. Cox,
Nature designed a singular simple reality that would be easily understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified natural VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. It would be a sure sign of a person’s mental instability for that person to willfully refuse to understand natural VISIBLE reality, and who insisted in engaging in publishing interminable inane guesswork concerning invisible finite energy states.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
report post as inappropriate
Nature designed a singular simple reality that would be easily understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified natural VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. It would be a sure sign of a person’s mental instability for that person to willfully refuse to understand natural VISIBLE reality, and who insisted in engaging in publishing interminable inane guesswork concerning invisible finite energy states.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
Let's consider Time in a Bottle, otherwise called Quantum Gravity.
For simplicity analysis employs a spherical measure space for a single locality, it gets messy in aggregate. The mathematic properties of a sphere are few and simple. It is the most efficient encapsulation of space because the surface in any direction from zero point center is always the same distance. A uniform change in...
view entire post
For simplicity analysis employs a spherical measure space for a single locality, it gets messy in aggregate. The mathematic properties of a sphere are few and simple. It is the most efficient encapsulation of space because the surface in any direction from zero point center is always the same distance. A uniform change in...
view entire post
John,
Isn't the encapsulation an artificial way of regarding 'empty'( of particulate matter) space? And the packing of the chosen shapes more so? It is not as if 'empty' space has a cellular structure. It doesn't have membranes separating parts of it. You said in an earlier post it could just as well be thought of as cubes (words to that effect, as I recall.) So what happens in the spaces between the packing of the largest spheres is academic rather than something physical. When you fill the spaces with smaller and smaller spheres you are introducing scale. But there is no difference between the space in the big spheres and the small. The separation and treatment is all academic rather than pertaining to the physically real.
report post as inappropriate
Isn't the encapsulation an artificial way of regarding 'empty'( of particulate matter) space? And the packing of the chosen shapes more so? It is not as if 'empty' space has a cellular structure. It doesn't have membranes separating parts of it. You said in an earlier post it could just as well be thought of as cubes (words to that effect, as I recall.) So what happens in the spaces between the packing of the largest spheres is academic rather than something physical. When you fill the spaces with smaller and smaller spheres you are introducing scale. But there is no difference between the space in the big spheres and the small. The separation and treatment is all academic rather than pertaining to the physically real.
Georgina,
I think I covered all that pretty clearly in my first paragraph, and you could make the same psychological arguments in the semantics of "enclosing" space. Pure geometry IS artificial. The point of distinguishing analytical from pure geometry was to demonstrate that it is the choice of maths in application which dictate profoundly different outcomes in analytical distribution (of density variation, as stated) from the geometric properties of a single, simple shape. I of course can be faulted for brevity in description of a couple principal methods of distribution, but the point was that methodology is much more limited in geometry than in the abstractions of mathematics at large. There are many whom enjoy extraordinarily complicated math and analytics, and make careers of it, and I'll leave it to them to argue the details.
As to a previous post, I made a point of it being conjecture. ie: that space and time are fundamentally physical and a dynamic of differing and indefinite scales is the origin of energy. And such conjuring can not be elevated to hypothesis because (in my book) a hypothesis must be testable. I'm going to leave the door open a bit for Fred Hoyle, he may have been at least some right. Hope this clarifies, :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
I think I covered all that pretty clearly in my first paragraph, and you could make the same psychological arguments in the semantics of "enclosing" space. Pure geometry IS artificial. The point of distinguishing analytical from pure geometry was to demonstrate that it is the choice of maths in application which dictate profoundly different outcomes in analytical distribution (of density variation, as stated) from the geometric properties of a single, simple shape. I of course can be faulted for brevity in description of a couple principal methods of distribution, but the point was that methodology is much more limited in geometry than in the abstractions of mathematics at large. There are many whom enjoy extraordinarily complicated math and analytics, and make careers of it, and I'll leave it to them to argue the details.
As to a previous post, I made a point of it being conjecture. ie: that space and time are fundamentally physical and a dynamic of differing and indefinite scales is the origin of energy. And such conjuring can not be elevated to hypothesis because (in my book) a hypothesis must be testable. I'm going to leave the door open a bit for Fred Hoyle, he may have been at least some right. Hope this clarifies, :-) jrc
Dear John R. Cox and Georgina Woodward,
Let us consider Natural VISIBLE reality. Nothing could be simpler than Natural VISIBLE realty. Nothing could be more complex than incorrect scientific information. The only fact the physicists have been able to establish am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before both of you ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began wasting your time publishing unnatural copied so-called scientific misinformation. The only logical reason the physicists were able to prove the longevity of real VISIBLE surface was simply because there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified natural infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. Now I am a sensible person, please explain to me why both of you persist in rejecting natural realty?
Joe Fisher, The Caring Realist
report post as inappropriate
Let us consider Natural VISIBLE reality. Nothing could be simpler than Natural VISIBLE realty. Nothing could be more complex than incorrect scientific information. The only fact the physicists have been able to establish am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before both of you ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began wasting your time publishing unnatural copied so-called scientific misinformation. The only logical reason the physicists were able to prove the longevity of real VISIBLE surface was simply because there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified natural infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. Now I am a sensible person, please explain to me why both of you persist in rejecting natural realty?
Joe Fisher, The Caring Realist
Since your arguments begin with a sphere volume, your apriori assumption is that space and time exist. Therefore, your arguments get mired in the spacetime tar baby that resists renormalization and therefore quantum gravity.
That is why a matter-action causal set offers nice alternative a priori assumptions from which time and space then emerge. Attached is an example of a Hasse diagram that shows the causal link between precursor CMB and stars to galaxy outcomes.
You can see more at Quantum Action Causal Set
There are lots of measurable decays: pulsar decays, black hole mergers, neutron star mergers, earth spin, earth moon orbit, Andromeda-Milky Way galaxy separation, Allan deviation decay of atomic clocks, IPK mass, and so on. In other words, decay is so common that it hardly matters that there is nothing that really seems constant.
attachments: cmbToStarsToGalaxies.JPG
report post as inappropriate
That is why a matter-action causal set offers nice alternative a priori assumptions from which time and space then emerge. Attached is an example of a Hasse diagram that shows the causal link between precursor CMB and stars to galaxy outcomes.
You can see more at Quantum Action Causal Set
There are lots of measurable decays: pulsar decays, black hole mergers, neutron star mergers, earth spin, earth moon orbit, Andromeda-Milky Way galaxy separation, Allan deviation decay of atomic clocks, IPK mass, and so on. In other words, decay is so common that it hardly matters that there is nothing that really seems constant.
attachments: cmbToStarsToGalaxies.JPG
Okay, okay Steve and Georgi,
my a priori conjecture is invalid, your"s is not.
I'll let my argument stand, Quantum Gravity is Time in a Bottle. If linear operations renormalizing (adjusting skew by introducing a time interval so that alignment is re-established with the preconceived initial condition of the normal line [analogous to a plumb line in a local gravitational reference]) protracted measures, were the answer to Quantum Mechanics' long quest to devise a gravitational rationale, one would have to think it would have happened by now. And why putting in that time interval demonstrates that time emerges from anywhere but your own hand, could only be conjecture. A nonlinear approach to unification of the primary forces in a spherical condensate would fit the bill, and it rests on only a conjecture that the primordial condition is a continuous field of energy. Which came first; Time, Space or Energy is moot, a chicken and egg salad sandwich.
Smile! maybe we'll be able to see each other through the fog. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
my a priori conjecture is invalid, your"s is not.
I'll let my argument stand, Quantum Gravity is Time in a Bottle. If linear operations renormalizing (adjusting skew by introducing a time interval so that alignment is re-established with the preconceived initial condition of the normal line [analogous to a plumb line in a local gravitational reference]) protracted measures, were the answer to Quantum Mechanics' long quest to devise a gravitational rationale, one would have to think it would have happened by now. And why putting in that time interval demonstrates that time emerges from anywhere but your own hand, could only be conjecture. A nonlinear approach to unification of the primary forces in a spherical condensate would fit the bill, and it rests on only a conjecture that the primordial condition is a continuous field of energy. Which came first; Time, Space or Energy is moot, a chicken and egg salad sandwich.
Smile! maybe we'll be able to see each other through the fog. :-) jrc
Since time and space have not worked out very well for science, resolution is definitely not clear. What is there to measure?
What we have now is a Higg's field and energy equivalent to mass, but a continuum that cannot be quantized...and yet we know it must be quantized somehow.
report post as inappropriate
What we have now is a Higg's field and energy equivalent to mass, but a continuum that cannot be quantized...and yet we know it must be quantized somehow.
That's fair, Steve. Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to conceive a unified field, and since then few have even tried. One has to think that if success were going to come from the equations of GR, it probably would have happened by now.
report post as inappropriate
Dear John R. Cox,
Thank you for pointing out to us that “Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to conceive a unified field, and since then few have even tried.” Nature provided the only unified field physically allowable. Einstein failed to find a unified field because he wrongfully assumed that two distinctive physical states of matter and space coexisted in a finite period of invisible time. All matter has a VISIBLE surface. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Finder of Natural Unified Visibility
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for pointing out to us that “Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to conceive a unified field, and since then few have even tried.” Nature provided the only unified field physically allowable. Einstein failed to find a unified field because he wrongfully assumed that two distinctive physical states of matter and space coexisted in a finite period of invisible time. All matter has a VISIBLE surface. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Finder of Natural Unified Visibility
Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a measurable yet. Just watched a great Utube, Jim Baggott's Why Is Space Itself is Quantum In Nature. It was not that technical and he did a really good job on loop quantum, which I don't much like but has a large following of sorts.
What I like about both stringy and loopy theories is they are both different forms of finite aether particles and so theory does seem to be heading back to Newton's aether for gravity...
report post as inappropriate
What I like about both stringy and loopy theories is they are both different forms of finite aether particles and so theory does seem to be heading back to Newton's aether for gravity...
Dear Steve Agnew,
Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly devised theory. Please make a better effort to understand that the only irrefutable fact the physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before you and Jim Baggott ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing unnatural parroted guesswork concerning invisible finite quantum particle assemblages. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE unified infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Calm Realist
report post as inappropriate
Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly devised theory. Please make a better effort to understand that the only irrefutable fact the physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before you and Jim Baggott ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing unnatural parroted guesswork concerning invisible finite quantum particle assemblages. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE unified infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Calm Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“How to imagine the experience of eternal life? Would we sense ourselves? How would we feel? Whom would we know? What would we do? What would God do? Living forever seems so absurd, yet eternal life is the promise of almost every religion. But if we cannot even imagine what eternal life will be, how can we have hope in its reality?
James Porter Moreland is an American philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist. He currently serves as a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Nature provided us with the only VISIBLE reality allowable. White men have recently provided us with unnatural unrealistic misinformation. For instance, Albert Einstein wrongfully assumed that measurable amounts of finite matter coexisted in empty curved space for finite invisible periods of time. Yet the only fact the physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Einstein ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural physics guesswork. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There am only one life form. One only lives by regularly placing something that was once alive in one’s mouth and swallowing it. When a person or a panda or a pine tree supposedly dies, the flesh or the vegetation am devoured by insects, and the skeleton am subsumed into the living earth.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“How to imagine the experience of eternal life? Would we sense ourselves? How would we feel? Whom would we know? What would we do? What would God do? Living forever seems so absurd, yet eternal life is the promise of almost every religion. But if we cannot even imagine what eternal life will be, how can we have hope in its reality?
James Porter Moreland is an American philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist. He currently serves as a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Nature provided us with the only VISIBLE reality allowable. White men have recently provided us with unnatural unrealistic misinformation. For instance, Albert Einstein wrongfully assumed that measurable amounts of finite matter coexisted in empty curved space for finite invisible periods of time. Yet the only fact the physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Einstein ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural physics guesswork. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There am only one life form. One only lives by regularly placing something that was once alive in one’s mouth and swallowing it. When a person or a panda or a pine tree supposedly dies, the flesh or the vegetation am devoured by insects, and the skeleton am subsumed into the living earth.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Varadaraja V. Raman is Emeritus Professor of Physics and Humanities at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a lecturer at the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS) where he has been active in the discussions on Religious Naturalism. Varadaraja V. Raman is Emeritus Professor of Physics and Humanities at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a lecturer at the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS) where he has been active in the discussions on Religious Naturalism.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community page and on my own Face book page:
There am no such a thing as “Religious Naturalism.” Nature produced only one VISIBLE reality. The only truth the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Varadaraja V. Raman ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning an invisible God’s finite proclivities. Einstein was wrong for assuming that dual states of matter and curved space could coexist for finite periods of invisible time. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. All religious folk are wrong for unnaturally assuming that finite amounts of invisible good and evil could coexist in people for finite periods of invisible time.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Varadaraja V. Raman is Emeritus Professor of Physics and Humanities at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a lecturer at the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS) where he has been active in the discussions on Religious Naturalism. Varadaraja V. Raman is Emeritus Professor of Physics and Humanities at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a lecturer at the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS) where he has been active in the discussions on Religious Naturalism.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community page and on my own Face book page:
There am no such a thing as “Religious Naturalism.” Nature produced only one VISIBLE reality. The only truth the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Varadaraja V. Raman ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning an invisible God’s finite proclivities. Einstein was wrong for assuming that dual states of matter and curved space could coexist for finite periods of invisible time. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. All religious folk are wrong for unnaturally assuming that finite amounts of invisible good and evil could coexist in people for finite periods of invisible time.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Frank Jennings Tipler is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University. He holds a BS in Physics from MIT and a PhD from the University of Maryland.
Watch his interview below on eternal life.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Nature must have produced only one permanent VISIBLE reality. White men have only recently managed to produce unlimited amounts of unnatural silly guesswork about every supposed finite subject under the sun. Please try to remember that the only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Frank Jennings Tipler ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork about the invisible finite future. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Just as the surfaces of the dinosaurs could never be separated from their surrounding surfaces, so too the surfaces of computers cannot be separated from the surfaces around them.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Frank Jennings Tipler is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University. He holds a BS in Physics from MIT and a PhD from the University of Maryland.
Watch his interview below on eternal life.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Nature must have produced only one permanent VISIBLE reality. White men have only recently managed to produce unlimited amounts of unnatural silly guesswork about every supposed finite subject under the sun. Please try to remember that the only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Frank Jennings Tipler ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork about the invisible finite future. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Just as the surfaces of the dinosaurs could never be separated from their surrounding surfaces, so too the surfaces of computers cannot be separated from the surfaces around them.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Can studying young children help dissect the different components of free will? In this interview, Dr. Alison Gopnik addresses the questions surrounding free will and children.
Alison Gopnik is an American Professor of Psychology and Affiliate Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org website and on my own Facebook page.
The one VISIBLE reality that Nature permanently produced am known by all. Please try to remember that the only irrefutable fact the white male physicists have been able to establish am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Albert Einstein ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning invisible curved space/finite time relativity. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. Why white male scientists insist that, somehow some sort of finite invisible essence, which they call “intelligence” somehow enters their brains and allows them to repeatedly ask themselves unanswerable questions about where the universe might have came from, or what the meaning of meaning actually means, or whether they have enough finite freedom of will or not, am the most unnatural of circumstances.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Can studying young children help dissect the different components of free will? In this interview, Dr. Alison Gopnik addresses the questions surrounding free will and children.
Alison Gopnik is an American Professor of Psychology and Affiliate Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org website and on my own Facebook page.
The one VISIBLE reality that Nature permanently produced am known by all. Please try to remember that the only irrefutable fact the white male physicists have been able to establish am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Albert Einstein ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning invisible curved space/finite time relativity. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. Why white male scientists insist that, somehow some sort of finite invisible essence, which they call “intelligence” somehow enters their brains and allows them to repeatedly ask themselves unanswerable questions about where the universe might have came from, or what the meaning of meaning actually means, or whether they have enough finite freedom of will or not, am the most unnatural of circumstances.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“We all wish for better memories. But how are memories stored? For all our neuroscience, we still do not know even the level in the brain where memories are stored—from inside neurons to long brain circuits. We do know that the synapses between neurons in the brain are...
view entire post
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“We all wish for better memories. But how are memories stored? For all our neuroscience, we still do not know even the level in the brain where memories are stored—from inside neurons to long brain circuits. We do know that the synapses between neurons in the brain are...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Raymond C. Tallis is a a retired physician and neuroscientist from Great Britain. His resume boasts titles like philosopher, poet and novelist. He is also a member of the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal College of Physicians and Royal Society of Arts. Watch his interview on how memory works below.”
I have posted this sensible comment on the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Every object one might encounter has a real VISIBLE flat surface. Every memory, or dream one might have could only be that of seeing a VISIBLE flat surface. When one has one’s eyes closed, one usually sees a flat black surface. Nature provided only one VISIBLE reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified natural VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty space at any time anywhere. Men unnaturally recently developed physics that supposed that dual states of visible matter submersed in invisible curved space slowly emerged from out of a void a finite number of light years ago. Having started with a wrong assumption, a few white men then proclaimed that dual states of scientific knowledge by the few coexisted with non-scientific knowledge demonstrated by the many. They profited greatly from this unnatural belief.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Raymond C. Tallis is a a retired physician and neuroscientist from Great Britain. His resume boasts titles like philosopher, poet and novelist. He is also a member of the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal College of Physicians and Royal Society of Arts. Watch his interview on how memory works below.”
I have posted this sensible comment on the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Every object one might encounter has a real VISIBLE flat surface. Every memory, or dream one might have could only be that of seeing a VISIBLE flat surface. When one has one’s eyes closed, one usually sees a flat black surface. Nature provided only one VISIBLE reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified natural VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty space at any time anywhere. Men unnaturally recently developed physics that supposed that dual states of visible matter submersed in invisible curved space slowly emerged from out of a void a finite number of light years ago. Having started with a wrong assumption, a few white men then proclaimed that dual states of scientific knowledge by the few coexisted with non-scientific knowledge demonstrated by the many. They profited greatly from this unnatural belief.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Murray Gell-Mann, who won the Nobel Prize for his work in particle physics, has died. We were lucky to have him on our 1st season of Closer To Truth, where he met with Robert & fellow-Nobel laureate David Baltimore to discuss the order of the Universe.
"Mostly, when you're outside the box, you're doing crank science. But every once in a while you find that there's an accepted limitation that is not a real limitation." Seeing through illusory false-givens won Dr. Gell-Mann a Nobel Prize. He will be sorely missed.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
All science am “crank” science because all science am unnatural. Please do try to remember that Nature produced only one VISIBLE reality. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have ever been able to prove am that the real VISIBLE Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before any white male physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural unrealistic guesswork concerning the possibility of there being finite three dimensional measurable amounts of matter swirling round in invisible curved space for finite periods of finite invisible time apparently in the supposedly known universe. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Murray Gell-Mann, who won the Nobel Prize for his work in particle physics, has died. We were lucky to have him on our 1st season of Closer To Truth, where he met with Robert & fellow-Nobel laureate David Baltimore to discuss the order of the Universe.
"Mostly, when you're outside the box, you're doing crank science. But every once in a while you find that there's an accepted limitation that is not a real limitation." Seeing through illusory false-givens won Dr. Gell-Mann a Nobel Prize. He will be sorely missed.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
All science am “crank” science because all science am unnatural. Please do try to remember that Nature produced only one VISIBLE reality. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have ever been able to prove am that the real VISIBLE Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before any white male physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural unrealistic guesswork concerning the possibility of there being finite three dimensional measurable amounts of matter swirling round in invisible curved space for finite periods of finite invisible time apparently in the supposedly known universe. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Among the many,many things that Einstein never said, was that the passage of time is not real.
What he said was that time is relative to where the observer is, and how fast she is tavelling.
Think locality.
report post as inappropriate
What he said was that time is relative to where the observer is, and how fast she is tavelling.
Think locality.
1.That there is signal transmission duration is factual. (Affecting 'when' of receipt) 2.That there is change to the configuration of material existence happening is also factual. 1.and 2. are not the same.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Georgina Woodward,
Could you please stop publishing your unnatural supposedly finite parroted guesswork concerning invisible phenomena? There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has always been, and there will always be infinite VISIBLE contrast to the infinite surface.
Joe Fisher, Enduring Realist
report post as inappropriate
Could you please stop publishing your unnatural supposedly finite parroted guesswork concerning invisible phenomena? There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has always been, and there will always be infinite VISIBLE contrast to the infinite surface.
Joe Fisher, Enduring Realist
1. is relevant to sight and hearing, sonar, radar and radio and television, measurements from observation including astronomy. 2. is relevant to changes to and of atoms, the particles they are composed of, and of materials and objects composed of particles, chemistry and materials science. Relevant to change, including motion, happening unobserved.
report post as inappropriate
Physics studies our experience of the universe. But the universe is not made of experience. It is made of stuff or substance. The universe is a logical system which means it was created from logic and operates according to logic.
This logical system allows only one type of substance and only one type of cause in order to operate logically. This means that at the most fundamental level, these operations are essentially logical; the very reason mathematics are so efficient.
Now take an unknown and a known. Unknown = time. Known = clock. The clock reacts or 'operates' with Time. For a logical operation to occur between the two, they both must be of the same nature. Conclusion: 1) the clock is made of time, albeit a complex form of it. 2) Time is the unique stuff or substance in its most simple state.
Since it makes everything, it would be impossible to detect directly or 'empirically'. Can infer its existence only from secondary inferences.
You have Dark Matter. We swim in it and are made of it. Only our minds can grasp that...
Finally, we do not perceive (human) Time directly as an experience because it is a substance. The sense of Time is a deduction we make from the experience of change. If any of our sensory organ could detect time, that organ would be saturated because time is everywhere...
report post as inappropriate
This logical system allows only one type of substance and only one type of cause in order to operate logically. This means that at the most fundamental level, these operations are essentially logical; the very reason mathematics are so efficient.
Now take an unknown and a known. Unknown = time. Known = clock. The clock reacts or 'operates' with Time. For a logical operation to occur between the two, they both must be of the same nature. Conclusion: 1) the clock is made of time, albeit a complex form of it. 2) Time is the unique stuff or substance in its most simple state.
Since it makes everything, it would be impossible to detect directly or 'empirically'. Can infer its existence only from secondary inferences.
You have Dark Matter. We swim in it and are made of it. Only our minds can grasp that...
Finally, we do not perceive (human) Time directly as an experience because it is a substance. The sense of Time is a deduction we make from the experience of change. If any of our sensory organ could detect time, that organ would be saturated because time is everywhere...
A clock is as material device that generates events with regular intervals between. It counts or provides the means for the number of generated events to be counted. It thereby enables quantification of endurance of features of material reality, existence, or changes to material reality by comparison of the subject of inquiry and the number of generated clock events. E.g. How many clock events does it take for all of the cookies to be removed from this jar when given to the class. The measured enduring features and changes are of the spatial arrangement of uni-temporal material reality. The clock is also a material thing in uni-temporal space, with changing spatial arrangement of parts enabling 'time keeping' i,e, calibrated event generation,(counted or countable), for comparison.
report post as inappropriate
Very good! A clock makes very regular events and events are things that happen to matter. In other words, time emerges from things that happen and time is not then a separate substance...
report post as inappropriate
Thanks. I didn't make clear that not only is the clock generated event, such as a mechanical tick, a particular change of spatial arrangement of parts, but the intervals between correspond to a particular regular change of the spatial arrangement of the apparatus; Such as the swing of a pendulum or particular motion of a spring driven wheel. 'Interval' sounds temporal but can be appreciated as corresponding to changing spatial configurations of matter, when clocks are being considered.
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie,
"Finally, we do not perceive (human) Time directly as an experience because it is a substance. The sense of Time is a deduction we make from the experience of change. If any of our sensory organ could detect time, that organ would be saturated because time is everywhere... "
That pretty well summarizes my view from a conference paper and PowerPoint of 2007:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275521377_Time
_Change_Self_Organization
report post as inappropriate
"Finally, we do not perceive (human) Time directly as an experience because it is a substance. The sense of Time is a deduction we make from the experience of change. If any of our sensory organ could detect time, that organ would be saturated because time is everywhere... "
That pretty well summarizes my view from a conference paper and PowerPoint of 2007:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275521377_Time
_Change_Self_Organization
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“How do we differentiate between materialism and physicalism? Let's start with the definition of physicalism. David Chalmers walks us through it here.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXI.org. Community Board and on my own exquisite Facebook page.
Nature permanently designed the only physical structure of the real universe. There has only been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any invisible space. The only intangible thing white male physicists have ever produced am unnatural guesswork. They all guessed that the universe consisted of finite measurable three-dimensional matter that swirled around in empty curved space for finite periods of invisible time. Mindlessly, physicists unnaturally tried to explain where the universe might have came from. The real VISIBLE Universe could not possibly have came from anywhere at any specific time.
I do hope you do not mind, but I am trying to write a book about Natural Visible Reality. In the Proposal I emailed yesterday to Wiley-Blackwell Publishers, I mentioned that you might endorse my book seeing that you had accepted my Facebook friendship request. I even suggested that you might consider writing a foreword to my proposed book if you were asked nicely enough to do so by the publisher.
Joe Fisher
Attachments: 1) 2 page copy of David Chalmers 4th letter.
2) 1 page copy of Brian Neil Commissioning Editor letter
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“How do we differentiate between materialism and physicalism? Let's start with the definition of physicalism. David Chalmers walks us through it here.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXI.org. Community Board and on my own exquisite Facebook page.
Nature permanently designed the only physical structure of the real universe. There has only been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any invisible space. The only intangible thing white male physicists have ever produced am unnatural guesswork. They all guessed that the universe consisted of finite measurable three-dimensional matter that swirled around in empty curved space for finite periods of invisible time. Mindlessly, physicists unnaturally tried to explain where the universe might have came from. The real VISIBLE Universe could not possibly have came from anywhere at any specific time.
I do hope you do not mind, but I am trying to write a book about Natural Visible Reality. In the Proposal I emailed yesterday to Wiley-Blackwell Publishers, I mentioned that you might endorse my book seeing that you had accepted my Facebook friendship request. I even suggested that you might consider writing a foreword to my proposed book if you were asked nicely enough to do so by the publisher.
Joe Fisher
Attachments: 1) 2 page copy of David Chalmers 4th letter.
2) 1 page copy of Brian Neil Commissioning Editor letter
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Can physics have an 'end'? Surely not, says Dr. Michio Kaku but where are things going. He offers his perspective in this video.”
I have posted this sensible eulogy at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
Nature has never been schizophrenic. Nature permanently provided one VISIBLE reality that could easily be understood by all creatures in all places at all times. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. The only thing the physicists have ever unnaturally produced am unrealistic guesswork about the possibility of how the dual contradictory physical states of measurable finite three-dimensional matter could swirl around in empty invisible curved space for finite periods of invisible time. Does any physicist really believe that his silly guesswork about the effects of invisible relativity that could not logically be reconciled with invisible quantum particle finite accumulation exactly, be of any use to our general understanding of Nature? Physics ought to die. The unnatural teaching of physics in our schools ought to be outlawed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Can physics have an 'end'? Surely not, says Dr. Michio Kaku but where are things going. He offers his perspective in this video.”
I have posted this sensible eulogy at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
Nature has never been schizophrenic. Nature permanently provided one VISIBLE reality that could easily be understood by all creatures in all places at all times. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. The only thing the physicists have ever unnaturally produced am unrealistic guesswork about the possibility of how the dual contradictory physical states of measurable finite three-dimensional matter could swirl around in empty invisible curved space for finite periods of invisible time. Does any physicist really believe that his silly guesswork about the effects of invisible relativity that could not logically be reconciled with invisible quantum particle finite accumulation exactly, be of any use to our general understanding of Nature? Physics ought to die. The unnatural teaching of physics in our schools ought to be outlawed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
John R. Cox,
re:quantum gravity
The concept of spacetime is a bridge between the universe and our reality. Space in our reality is time in the universe out there. The concept is necessary for us in order to be able to keep doing physics. The universe does not have this requirement and therefore it has no use for 'space'. I other words, 'space' plays no part in the working of the universe.
Gravity is time evolving at a diferent rate from place to place. Now, let's go quantum.
1) Time and probabilities:
The cloud of probability of a single free particle in a gravitational field does spans over different rates of time. The cloud is therefore skewed vertically because the particle does spend relatively more time at the bottom than at the top of the cloud. Easy for the mind to grasp. Probability is time dependent and time is running at a different rate in gravity which brings different probability of existence a.k.a. motion. The universality of the effect of gravity commes from its effect on anything that 'exists', irrespective of size, mass etc.
O.K, where do I get 'existence' from?
2) From "finding' to 'being' or 'existence':
The probability of finding a particle in A, as successfully described by shroedinger equation, is equal to the probability of existence of that particle in A. Once the equation is proven exact, we may replace the 'finding' by the 'being' or existence of the particle. The particle MUST BE there with the same (relative) probability as that of being found!!
This conversion from a physical to a metaphysical perspective is necessary in order to understand the universe without us being in the way. Very useful if we are careful.
In conclusion, quantum gravity is simple if we assume this metaphysical perspective, and Shroedinger's equation actually tells us what determines the probability of existence of a particle in a place. Look it up, knowing that the rate of time is 1 on T.
report post as inappropriate
re:quantum gravity
The concept of spacetime is a bridge between the universe and our reality. Space in our reality is time in the universe out there. The concept is necessary for us in order to be able to keep doing physics. The universe does not have this requirement and therefore it has no use for 'space'. I other words, 'space' plays no part in the working of the universe.
Gravity is time evolving at a diferent rate from place to place. Now, let's go quantum.
1) Time and probabilities:
The cloud of probability of a single free particle in a gravitational field does spans over different rates of time. The cloud is therefore skewed vertically because the particle does spend relatively more time at the bottom than at the top of the cloud. Easy for the mind to grasp. Probability is time dependent and time is running at a different rate in gravity which brings different probability of existence a.k.a. motion. The universality of the effect of gravity commes from its effect on anything that 'exists', irrespective of size, mass etc.
O.K, where do I get 'existence' from?
2) From "finding' to 'being' or 'existence':
The probability of finding a particle in A, as successfully described by shroedinger equation, is equal to the probability of existence of that particle in A. Once the equation is proven exact, we may replace the 'finding' by the 'being' or existence of the particle. The particle MUST BE there with the same (relative) probability as that of being found!!
This conversion from a physical to a metaphysical perspective is necessary in order to understand the universe without us being in the way. Very useful if we are careful.
In conclusion, quantum gravity is simple if we assume this metaphysical perspective, and Shroedinger's equation actually tells us what determines the probability of existence of a particle in a place. Look it up, knowing that the rate of time is 1 on T.
Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,
There has never been any empty space. Nature permanently provided only one VISIBLE reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by non-surface light. There has never been any invisible finite supposedly three-dimensional quantum gravitational force that could partially influence one unified infinite VISIBLE surface. Your unnatural guesswork about your finite existence has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of infinite VISIBLE surface.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
There has never been any empty space. Nature permanently provided only one VISIBLE reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by non-surface light. There has never been any invisible finite supposedly three-dimensional quantum gravitational force that could partially influence one unified infinite VISIBLE surface. Your unnatural guesswork about your finite existence has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of infinite VISIBLE surface.
Joe Fisher, Realist
The universe is NOT a big thing. The universe is just a BIG picture we create with our perception and conscious minds. WE are the camera that makes the picture. We integrate the light signals like a camera does.
(The Sun 8 minutes away can be seen at the same time as the Moon half a second away. The simultaneity of perception of their light signals does not mean that they exist at the same time i.e. simultaneity of existence. Only integration over time gives this impression).
So, yes! Our universe is a big picture essentially coming from the VISIBLE information.
Other than that, IMO, there is nothing else with eternal surfaces, or eternity, or infinite surfaces, infinite dimensions, or other combinations of same etc.
report post as inappropriate
(The Sun 8 minutes away can be seen at the same time as the Moon half a second away. The simultaneity of perception of their light signals does not mean that they exist at the same time i.e. simultaneity of existence. Only integration over time gives this impression).
So, yes! Our universe is a big picture essentially coming from the VISIBLE information.
Other than that, IMO, there is nothing else with eternal surfaces, or eternity, or infinite surfaces, infinite dimensions, or other combinations of same etc.
Dear Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,
A picture has to have finite proportions and a finite duration, and of course, the person who creates the picture has a complete surface and can only replicate a finite picture on a surface. Humans unnaturally claim that they can distinguish “good” pictures from “bad” pictures. Infinite VISIBLE surface am not finitely “good” nor finitely “bad”. Infinite VISIBLE surface am ETERNALLY REAL.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
A picture has to have finite proportions and a finite duration, and of course, the person who creates the picture has a complete surface and can only replicate a finite picture on a surface. Humans unnaturally claim that they can distinguish “good” pictures from “bad” pictures. Infinite VISIBLE surface am not finitely “good” nor finitely “bad”. Infinite VISIBLE surface am ETERNALLY REAL.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,
A picture has to have finite proportions and a finite duration, and of course, the person who creates the picture has a complete surface and can only replicate a finite picture on a surface. Humans unnaturally claim that they can distinguish “good” pictures from “bad” pictures. Infinite VISIBLE surface am not finitely “good” nor finitely “bad”. Infinite VISIBLE surface am ETERNALLY REAL.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
A picture has to have finite proportions and a finite duration, and of course, the person who creates the picture has a complete surface and can only replicate a finite picture on a surface. Humans unnaturally claim that they can distinguish “good” pictures from “bad” pictures. Infinite VISIBLE surface am not finitely “good” nor finitely “bad”. Infinite VISIBLE surface am ETERNALLY REAL.
Joe Fisher, Realist
A video shows George Smoot who got a Nobel prize in 2006. In "Mapping the University and its History" he presented not just a lot of simulations without fully revealing the assumptions behind them but also an interesting to me measured picture of the stars with very high resolution and said just three of the many visible light spots are stars, the many other ones are galaxies because the look like spirals or at least elliptic.
I hope that John Merryman can better explain to me the CMBR event horizon and how it explains the age of the observable universe. I am still a bit familiar with microwave measurement.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
I hope that John Merryman can better explain to me the CMBR event horizon and how it explains the age of the observable universe. I am still a bit familiar with microwave measurement.
Eckard
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Need something to listen to on your commute? A new Closer To Truth podcast is out now! Listen to "Is the Person All Material?", an episode that explores whether or not there's more to the human than the body that holds us – https://apple.co/2ZvKa3i”
I have posted this sensible comment at the site and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Nature must have produced only one real VISIBLE physical reality. That one real VISIBLE reality could only ever have one real VISIBLE physical aspect. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any co-existing empty space. There has never been three real co-existing separate finite dimensions. There has never been any finite duration. All of these lectures feature white male unnatural guesswork about what is material and what is invisible consciousness. White male physicists might unnaturally think they are possessed of some finite amount of invisible intelligence, yet they seem to display knowing less about VISIBLE reality than chipmunks do.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Need something to listen to on your commute? A new Closer To Truth podcast is out now! Listen to "Is the Person All Material?", an episode that explores whether or not there's more to the human than the body that holds us – https://apple.co/2ZvKa3i”
I have posted this sensible comment at the site and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Nature must have produced only one real VISIBLE physical reality. That one real VISIBLE reality could only ever have one real VISIBLE physical aspect. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any co-existing empty space. There has never been three real co-existing separate finite dimensions. There has never been any finite duration. All of these lectures feature white male unnatural guesswork about what is material and what is invisible consciousness. White male physicists might unnaturally think they are possessed of some finite amount of invisible intelligence, yet they seem to display knowing less about VISIBLE reality than chipmunks do.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Deirdre Barrett, Ph.D. is an author and psychologist who teaches at Harvard Medical School. She is known for her research on dreams, hypnosis and imagery and has written on evolutionary psychology. In this interview, Deidre talks about dreams and their relationship with sleep.”
I have posted this sensible remark at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Face book page.
Depressingly, naturally provided VISIBLE reality has never been taught in any school at any time anywhere. Only unnatural white male unnatural guesswork has ever been taught. Dr. Barrett am parroting the unnatural guesswork of white males Freud and Jung and Adler. Psychology am white male unnatural guesswork. Philosophy am white male unnatural guesswork. Theoretical Physics am white male unnatural guesswork. Evolution am white male unnatural guesswork. Please try harder to remember that Nature provided us with only one unified real VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Although white males grow up believing that some sort of finite invisible magical measurable amounts of intelligence or consciousness somehow waft into white male brains, such belief am utterly unnatural.
Joe Fisher, Humble Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Deirdre Barrett, Ph.D. is an author and psychologist who teaches at Harvard Medical School. She is known for her research on dreams, hypnosis and imagery and has written on evolutionary psychology. In this interview, Deidre talks about dreams and their relationship with sleep.”
I have posted this sensible remark at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Face book page.
Depressingly, naturally provided VISIBLE reality has never been taught in any school at any time anywhere. Only unnatural white male unnatural guesswork has ever been taught. Dr. Barrett am parroting the unnatural guesswork of white males Freud and Jung and Adler. Psychology am white male unnatural guesswork. Philosophy am white male unnatural guesswork. Theoretical Physics am white male unnatural guesswork. Evolution am white male unnatural guesswork. Please try harder to remember that Nature provided us with only one unified real VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Although white males grow up believing that some sort of finite invisible magical measurable amounts of intelligence or consciousness somehow waft into white male brains, such belief am utterly unnatural.
Joe Fisher, Humble Realist
Ref: Request 8279 Additional Material
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Almost all religions offer some kind of life or awareness after physical death. Speculations of what such life after death might be like—the form it might take, how we might feel, what we might do—are deemed beyond our capacity to know. Yet anyway we feel compelled to speculate.
Nicholas Thomas (N.T.) Wright is a leading English New Testament scholar, Pauline theologian, and retired Anglican bishop. Watch his interview on eternal life below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
The good news is that we are all immortal because there am only one form of life. Of course we only stay looking like human beings for short periods of time. What white male humans mischaracterize as the pronouncement of death am actually natural evolution. One only stays alive by regularly placing some portion of a substance that was once alive in ones mouth and eating it. There are miniscule little creatures swimming around in the liquid we drink. There are even smaller creatures hovering in the air that we breathe in. When we supposedly die, the maggots and flies chew up our flesh and our skeletons slowly disintegrate. This am an ETERNAL process. White male unnatural guesswork about invisible gods am quite fleeting for such unnatural guesswork lacks life.
Joe Fisher, Natural Realist
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Almost all religions offer some kind of life or awareness after physical death. Speculations of what such life after death might be like—the form it might take, how we might feel, what we might do—are deemed beyond our capacity to know. Yet anyway we feel compelled to speculate.
Nicholas Thomas (N.T.) Wright is a leading English New Testament scholar, Pauline theologian, and retired Anglican bishop. Watch his interview on eternal life below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
The good news is that we are all immortal because there am only one form of life. Of course we only stay looking like human beings for short periods of time. What white male humans mischaracterize as the pronouncement of death am actually natural evolution. One only stays alive by regularly placing some portion of a substance that was once alive in ones mouth and eating it. There are miniscule little creatures swimming around in the liquid we drink. There are even smaller creatures hovering in the air that we breathe in. When we supposedly die, the maggots and flies chew up our flesh and our skeletons slowly disintegrate. This am an ETERNAL process. White male unnatural guesswork about invisible gods am quite fleeting for such unnatural guesswork lacks life.
Joe Fisher, Natural Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“David Bentley Hart is an American Orthodox Christian philosophical theologian, cultural commentator and polemicist. A prolific essayist, he has written on topics as diverse as art, literature, religion, philosophy, film, and politics. Watch him discuss the topic of eternal life in this interview.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Natural VISIBLE reality am not humanly contrived, supposedly finite topical guesswork. When one am pronounced dead, one does not have an invisible soul that could transcend into an invisible good or evil state. One has a VISIBLE surface every moment one am alive, and one has a VISIBLE surface after one goes toes up. In order to continue living, every living creature must regularly put something that was once alive and am VISIBLE into its mouth and swallow it. Obviously, that could only happen if the liquid all creatures drank contained VISIBLE minute forms of life. That could only happen if all air that all creatures breathed also contained sub-microscopic forms of VISIBLE living microbes. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one VISIBLE form of life ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Consistent Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“David Bentley Hart is an American Orthodox Christian philosophical theologian, cultural commentator and polemicist. A prolific essayist, he has written on topics as diverse as art, literature, religion, philosophy, film, and politics. Watch him discuss the topic of eternal life in this interview.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Natural VISIBLE reality am not humanly contrived, supposedly finite topical guesswork. When one am pronounced dead, one does not have an invisible soul that could transcend into an invisible good or evil state. One has a VISIBLE surface every moment one am alive, and one has a VISIBLE surface after one goes toes up. In order to continue living, every living creature must regularly put something that was once alive and am VISIBLE into its mouth and swallow it. Obviously, that could only happen if the liquid all creatures drank contained VISIBLE minute forms of life. That could only happen if all air that all creatures breathed also contained sub-microscopic forms of VISIBLE living microbes. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one VISIBLE form of life ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Consistent Realist
In Quantum Mechanics, time emerges from measurement rather than time 'being' in the first place. This is due entirely to the methodology which is dependent on the Schrodinger Wave Equation which itself lacks a time parameter. The time span is in practice assigned by the experimenter and is based on the convention of duration as predicated on Earth's rotational observation. Theoretically, time is therefore treated as an emergent phenomenon, however discretionary.
report post as inappropriate
It may be useful to employ the word "timing' for comparison of an event or persisting phenomenon with the calibrated sequence of events generated by a timing device. Expressed as a timing span over which the comparison is made; rather than a time span.
report post as inappropriate
Analogy for measuring a time span: measuring the length of a fuse from the burning end as it burns. Then giving the length of the entire fuse from start to end of burn. (The fuse has burned away and does not have that length.) When the final clock'time' comparison is made preceding 'times' have ceased to be.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Georgina,
Every fuse has a VISIBLE surface. Every timepiece has a VISIBLE surface. VISIBLE surface am infinite and cannot be finitely measured for area or duration.
Joe Fisher, Friendly Realist
report post as inappropriate
Every fuse has a VISIBLE surface. Every timepiece has a VISIBLE surface. VISIBLE surface am infinite and cannot be finitely measured for area or duration.
Joe Fisher, Friendly Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“What is eternal life like for a religion such as Christianity? In Christianity, you go to either Heaven or Hell after you die. Then what? Timothy Pawl is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. His work focuses on metaphysics, philosophical theology, and moral psychology.
In this interview, Timothy discusses the idea of eternal life in Christianity.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Only that which am VISIBLE could ever be ETERNAL. Obviously, Nature permanently provided only one VISIBLE reality. Please open your eyes. All men and women have always had pretty much the same sort of a VISIBLE surface for all of their lives, as did giraffes and bluebottle flies. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. White male clergy unnatural guesswork about the motivation of an invisible white male lookalike God and His supposed white male Son and white female foster mother and white male foster father have only been published recently. What VISIBLE surface does invisible “good” affect? What VISIBLE surface does invisible “evil” affect?
Joe Fisher, Prophetic Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“What is eternal life like for a religion such as Christianity? In Christianity, you go to either Heaven or Hell after you die. Then what? Timothy Pawl is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. His work focuses on metaphysics, philosophical theology, and moral psychology.
In this interview, Timothy discusses the idea of eternal life in Christianity.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Only that which am VISIBLE could ever be ETERNAL. Obviously, Nature permanently provided only one VISIBLE reality. Please open your eyes. All men and women have always had pretty much the same sort of a VISIBLE surface for all of their lives, as did giraffes and bluebottle flies. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. White male clergy unnatural guesswork about the motivation of an invisible white male lookalike God and His supposed white male Son and white female foster mother and white male foster father have only been published recently. What VISIBLE surface does invisible “good” affect? What VISIBLE surface does invisible “evil” affect?
Joe Fisher, Prophetic Realist
Georgi,
interesting way to pose that conundrum. I would have to go with radiological half-lives as a standardization metric based on the evidence available from direct observation. While the available census does support a constant rate of decay regardless of strength (or perhaps depth would be a more practical characterization) of an isotopes location in a gravitational field, that census...
view entire post
interesting way to pose that conundrum. I would have to go with radiological half-lives as a standardization metric based on the evidence available from direct observation. While the available census does support a constant rate of decay regardless of strength (or perhaps depth would be a more practical characterization) of an isotopes location in a gravitational field, that census...
view entire post
John, the co-ordination of clock time for distant locations is a different subject to what would be a good common scale for use at different star system locations for comparison with local happening or duration and sharing that locally obtained knowledge with the other star system's intelligent 'time-telling' life forms. That is just like choosing pounds or kilograms, cm.s or inches, Fahrenheit or Celsius. I was thinking lithium is pretty prevalent and oxygen too, so maybe the scale could be based on the lithium flame. Not useful if a rare element is chosen that one of the involved planets might not have
report post as inappropriate
Dear Georgina,
Every real clock has a real VISIBLE surface. Every real human observer has a real VISIBLE surface. No matter how fast the real VISIBLE hands of a real clock whirl around, and no matter how fast the VISIBLE numeric symbols on an atomic clock’s diode display fluctuate, the VISIBLE surface of the clocks and the observers remains the same. It would be physically impossible for part of a real VISIBLE surface to be older, younger, wider, faster, or less visible than any other part of a real VISIBLE surface was.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
report post as inappropriate
Every real clock has a real VISIBLE surface. Every real human observer has a real VISIBLE surface. No matter how fast the real VISIBLE hands of a real clock whirl around, and no matter how fast the VISIBLE numeric symbols on an atomic clock’s diode display fluctuate, the VISIBLE surface of the clocks and the observers remains the same. It would be physically impossible for part of a real VISIBLE surface to be older, younger, wider, faster, or less visible than any other part of a real VISIBLE surface was.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
Dr. Agnew,
It is a pleasure that you treat theory as Theory, it shows in your adherence to axiomatic integrity even given the hard sell that your own theorizing results compel. It's always best to learn what any theoretical paradigm fully consists of whether or not in agreement with one's own preference, for my preference may be oranges but that does not constitute a valid argument against apples. As with mathematics and the choices thereof, the necessity is that one does not violate one's choice of axioms while accommodating accepted conventions of knowledge. Chemistry was still King in Maxwell's day or his results would not have compelled On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Best Wishes, jrc
report post as inappropriate
It is a pleasure that you treat theory as Theory, it shows in your adherence to axiomatic integrity even given the hard sell that your own theorizing results compel. It's always best to learn what any theoretical paradigm fully consists of whether or not in agreement with one's own preference, for my preference may be oranges but that does not constitute a valid argument against apples. As with mathematics and the choices thereof, the necessity is that one does not violate one's choice of axioms while accommodating accepted conventions of knowledge. Chemistry was still King in Maxwell's day or his results would not have compelled On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Best Wishes, jrc
It is a pleasure to discover different people's ideas and this is the most important aspect of the FQXI website. Frankly, while the FQXI experts are interesting, but really it is the comments that interest me, not the dogma of time and space.
My own journey has been a long one and has twisted and turned and continues. The chaos of classical noise simply overwhelms measurements on earth and even in low earth orbit and so measuring the decay of matter and growth of force will take careful measurements at the Lagrange points millions of miles from earth's gravity noise over many months to finally show discrete matter action.
My theory is fairly complete, but by no means complete and so is definitely falsifiable. That makes it fun to see how it nicely completes physical reality. For example, science is convinced that dark matter exists and so if they find dark matter is real, that would kill matter time. The galaxy forces of spacetime dark matter are simply a manifestation of star radiation and star motion. This is called gravitization in matter time and is a vector force of gravity that complements gravity scalar force. Gravitization is then the gravity analog to magnetization from charge motion.
Although black holes are singularities in spacetime, in matter time, black holes are just the eventual destiny of all matter decay and force growth. This makes black holes a little less mysterious but it does mean that science has the universe expansion exactly backwards. The universe pulse is simply a cycle of antimatter expansion and force decay followed by matter collapse and force growth. We are now in the matter collapse and force growth phase.
report post as inappropriate
My own journey has been a long one and has twisted and turned and continues. The chaos of classical noise simply overwhelms measurements on earth and even in low earth orbit and so measuring the decay of matter and growth of force will take careful measurements at the Lagrange points millions of miles from earth's gravity noise over many months to finally show discrete matter action.
My theory is fairly complete, but by no means complete and so is definitely falsifiable. That makes it fun to see how it nicely completes physical reality. For example, science is convinced that dark matter exists and so if they find dark matter is real, that would kill matter time. The galaxy forces of spacetime dark matter are simply a manifestation of star radiation and star motion. This is called gravitization in matter time and is a vector force of gravity that complements gravity scalar force. Gravitization is then the gravity analog to magnetization from charge motion.
Although black holes are singularities in spacetime, in matter time, black holes are just the eventual destiny of all matter decay and force growth. This makes black holes a little less mysterious but it does mean that science has the universe expansion exactly backwards. The universe pulse is simply a cycle of antimatter expansion and force decay followed by matter collapse and force growth. We are now in the matter collapse and force growth phase.
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Some scientists take time travel seriously. Should you? In this week’s Featured Topic, we revisit the topic of time travel. Seth Lloyd is a professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He refers to himself as a "quantum mechanic".
Watch his interview below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
The most important aspect of reality that the white male scientific observers have failed to notice am the irrefutable fact that all people have a real VISIBLE surface for every moment of their real lives. As does ever real cockroach, real leaf of grass, real cocktail shaker and ALL REAL MATTER. There has never been any empty space. Nature permanently provided only one VISIBLE reality. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. It would be physically impossible for one part of a real VISIBLE surface to travel faster than any other part of a real VISIBLE surface does. That am why as you observe the surface of one of those real VISIBLE rockets lifting off from Cape Canaveral its surface decreases as it ascends. Now while it seems to disappear, the rocket’s surface merely subsumes into the surface of sub-microscopic particles that the surface of the night sky consists of.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Some scientists take time travel seriously. Should you? In this week’s Featured Topic, we revisit the topic of time travel. Seth Lloyd is a professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He refers to himself as a "quantum mechanic".
Watch his interview below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
The most important aspect of reality that the white male scientific observers have failed to notice am the irrefutable fact that all people have a real VISIBLE surface for every moment of their real lives. As does ever real cockroach, real leaf of grass, real cocktail shaker and ALL REAL MATTER. There has never been any empty space. Nature permanently provided only one VISIBLE reality. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. It would be physically impossible for one part of a real VISIBLE surface to travel faster than any other part of a real VISIBLE surface does. That am why as you observe the surface of one of those real VISIBLE rockets lifting off from Cape Canaveral its surface decreases as it ascends. Now while it seems to disappear, the rocket’s surface merely subsumes into the surface of sub-microscopic particles that the surface of the night sky consists of.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Joe, your description of the rocket makes it clear that what you are describing is what is seen, the observation product generated by the observers visual system, and not the source material reality from which "light" was reflected, enabling the process of vision. At the location of the material rocket it is the same size as it lifts off high into the sky. (Not considering the jettisoning of parts). There is not just one appearance. Near and distant observers form their own observation products from the 'light' signals input to their own visual systems. The difference between material reality and observation product is relevant to the relativity of time in physics. Including why there can not be time travel into the material past, even though images off 'the past' can be formed from received 'light' signals.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
Nobody has ever seen a finite isolated “rocket” Every rocket that has ever been made has had a real VISIBLE surface. The people who have made rockets have all had a real VISIBLE surface. The reason for this am because NATURE only provided one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. One can only see real VISIBLE surface because only real VISIBLE surface exists. If you look at the surface of a rocket close up when it is on the ground you will notice that its surface almost fills the eye. If you look at the surface of a fruit fly close up, you will notice that its surface appears to be quite large. As the rocket ascends, and as the fruit fly flies away, they appear to get smaller. However, the VISIBLE amount of surface that any observer would be able to see remains the same. There am no finite background or finite foreground. There am only infinite surface .
Joe Fisher, Extremely Patient Realist
report post as inappropriate
Nobody has ever seen a finite isolated “rocket” Every rocket that has ever been made has had a real VISIBLE surface. The people who have made rockets have all had a real VISIBLE surface. The reason for this am because NATURE only provided one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. One can only see real VISIBLE surface because only real VISIBLE surface exists. If you look at the surface of a rocket close up when it is on the ground you will notice that its surface almost fills the eye. If you look at the surface of a fruit fly close up, you will notice that its surface appears to be quite large. As the rocket ascends, and as the fruit fly flies away, they appear to get smaller. However, the VISIBLE amount of surface that any observer would be able to see remains the same. There am no finite background or finite foreground. There am only infinite surface .
Joe Fisher, Extremely Patient Realist
Evidence that what is seen, via vision, is generated by the observer: cataract and myopia causing blurred vision, 'floaters' casing bubble like tiny holes in the vision, drunkenness causing 'double vision', drug use causing hallucination or distortion of vision , mental illness causing hallucination. The hallucination is not formed using information from 'light' input from external reality but is internally generated by brain malfunction and may be incorporated into the normally generated view of the external environment.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“What does time travel reveal about the nature of space and time? What about the laws of physics under extreme conditions? And don't forget those 'Grandfather Paradoxes', where a time traveler kills his own ancestor. We speak to Tim Maudlin, a philosopher of science and Professor of Philosophy at NYU, about time travel in this interview.”
I have posted this sensible comment on the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There are man-made timepieces. They all have VISIBLE surfaces. They do not, and physically cannot measure invisible finite amounts of “time.” Just because an unnatural finite racetrack oval is set up and a timepiece am used to supposedly time the runners taking part in the races, it would be possible for the timekeeper to use his timepiece to record the speed of a spectator rushing to go to the bathroom. All supposed travelers have a real VISIBLE surface that am seamlessly embedded into the unified VISIBLE infinite surface provided by NATURE. No finite part of a VISIBLE surface could possibly “travel” a finite distance to some sort of finite anywhere.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“What does time travel reveal about the nature of space and time? What about the laws of physics under extreme conditions? And don't forget those 'Grandfather Paradoxes', where a time traveler kills his own ancestor. We speak to Tim Maudlin, a philosopher of science and Professor of Philosophy at NYU, about time travel in this interview.”
I have posted this sensible comment on the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There are man-made timepieces. They all have VISIBLE surfaces. They do not, and physically cannot measure invisible finite amounts of “time.” Just because an unnatural finite racetrack oval is set up and a timepiece am used to supposedly time the runners taking part in the races, it would be possible for the timekeeper to use his timepiece to record the speed of a spectator rushing to go to the bathroom. All supposed travelers have a real VISIBLE surface that am seamlessly embedded into the unified VISIBLE infinite surface provided by NATURE. No finite part of a VISIBLE surface could possibly “travel” a finite distance to some sort of finite anywhere.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Fred Alan Wolf is an American theoretical physicist specializing in quantum physics and the relationship between physics and consciousness. He is the author of “The Yoga of Time Travel: How the Mind Can Defeat Time”. Watch his interview on time travel below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
There am no such a real thing as a finite invisible white male mind. The only real thing all of the white male physicists have ever proven am the irrefutable fact that the real Earth (and stars and planets and all real matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years BEFORE any white male physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural guesswork about finite white male invisible mind possession. Nature provided the only VISIBLE reality obtainable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Nature provided such a singular simple VISIBLE reality so that all living creatures could understand it for all of their lives. All white male philosophers and white male theoretical physicists have only ever provided was unnatural silly guesswork about finite invisible quantum particles and how white male philosophers and white male theorists always had greater dollops of invisible white male intelligence, or white male consciousness sputtering around in their brains than the rest of us do.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Fred Alan Wolf is an American theoretical physicist specializing in quantum physics and the relationship between physics and consciousness. He is the author of “The Yoga of Time Travel: How the Mind Can Defeat Time”. Watch his interview on time travel below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
There am no such a real thing as a finite invisible white male mind. The only real thing all of the white male physicists have ever proven am the irrefutable fact that the real Earth (and stars and planets and all real matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years BEFORE any white male physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural guesswork about finite white male invisible mind possession. Nature provided the only VISIBLE reality obtainable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Nature provided such a singular simple VISIBLE reality so that all living creatures could understand it for all of their lives. All white male philosophers and white male theoretical physicists have only ever provided was unnatural silly guesswork about finite invisible quantum particles and how white male philosophers and white male theorists always had greater dollops of invisible white male intelligence, or white male consciousness sputtering around in their brains than the rest of us do.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Is the 'real you' a special substance that is nonphysical and immortal? Most regular people would agree, but most scientists would not. What are you? Eleonore Stump is the Robert J. Henle Professor of Philosophy at Saint Louis University. She received her BA from Grinnell College. She also has two MAs, one each from Harvard and Cornell Universtiy where she also earned her PhD in Medieval Philosophy. Watch her interview below on ‘Do Persons Have Souls?’”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
I am real. The only reason I can prove that I am real am because Nature only provided one VISIBLE physical realty. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth (and stars and planets and all matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for real millions of years BEFORE Eleonore Stump ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her unnatural guesswork concerning if imaginary people could have finite invisible souls. What do all people who have ever lived (and rats, and porcupines, and fish, and dinosaur bones have in common? NATURAL VISIBLE surface. What do all philosophers and physicists have in common? The ability to publish reams of utterly unnatural codswallop. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Is the 'real you' a special substance that is nonphysical and immortal? Most regular people would agree, but most scientists would not. What are you? Eleonore Stump is the Robert J. Henle Professor of Philosophy at Saint Louis University. She received her BA from Grinnell College. She also has two MAs, one each from Harvard and Cornell Universtiy where she also earned her PhD in Medieval Philosophy. Watch her interview below on ‘Do Persons Have Souls?’”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
I am real. The only reason I can prove that I am real am because Nature only provided one VISIBLE physical realty. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth (and stars and planets and all matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for real millions of years BEFORE Eleonore Stump ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her unnatural guesswork concerning if imaginary people could have finite invisible souls. What do all people who have ever lived (and rats, and porcupines, and fish, and dinosaur bones have in common? NATURAL VISIBLE surface. What do all philosophers and physicists have in common? The ability to publish reams of utterly unnatural codswallop. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Craig
Time can be saved by abolishing time dilation by revealing the wrong arguments provided by the assumed transverse effect in the MMX tests and thereby also giving up the wave or particle paradox. See link below!
From ___________________ John-Erik Persson
The most fundamental paradox
report post as inappropriate
Time can be saved by abolishing time dilation by revealing the wrong arguments provided by the assumed transverse effect in the MMX tests and thereby also giving up the wave or particle paradox. See link below!
From ___________________ John-Erik Persson
The most fundamental paradox
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“What are you? A body alone that is dead forever once it dies? A soul temporally inhabiting a body? A body unified with a nonphysical entity of some kind? Deepak Chopra is an Indian-American medical doctor, author, holistic health and New Age guru, and alternative medicine practitioner. Watch his interview below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
I am a real human being because I have a real VISIBLE surface. Although there appear to be many different species and forms of life, all of these species of animal, insects, fish and fowl have a real VISIBLE surface. All animals, vegetable and minerals always have a VISIBLE surface for all of their existence. NATURE produced only one form of VISIBLE reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. What English fluent users have termed “death” am actually NATURAL evolution. It am the only way for NATURE to produce “new” forms of life. One can only eat that which was once alive. There are microscopic life forms in every drop of water. There have to be even tinier living molecules in the air we breathe in. Please try to remember that man am the only unnatural animal alive . That am why man am so destructive.
Joe Fisher, The VISIBLE Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“What are you? A body alone that is dead forever once it dies? A soul temporally inhabiting a body? A body unified with a nonphysical entity of some kind? Deepak Chopra is an Indian-American medical doctor, author, holistic health and New Age guru, and alternative medicine practitioner. Watch his interview below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
I am a real human being because I have a real VISIBLE surface. Although there appear to be many different species and forms of life, all of these species of animal, insects, fish and fowl have a real VISIBLE surface. All animals, vegetable and minerals always have a VISIBLE surface for all of their existence. NATURE produced only one form of VISIBLE reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. What English fluent users have termed “death” am actually NATURAL evolution. It am the only way for NATURE to produce “new” forms of life. One can only eat that which was once alive. There are microscopic life forms in every drop of water. There have to be even tinier living molecules in the air we breathe in. Please try to remember that man am the only unnatural animal alive . That am why man am so destructive.
Joe Fisher, The VISIBLE Realist
Planck Time (tP) opens basic questions. First, tP is a direct correlation and necessary relation with a length and light in much the same way Einstein's well-known equation, e=mc2 necessarily and dynamically relate mass, energy and light. These four Planck base units are each natural units that use only the most fundamental universal constants to define them. What if these define the very first moment of space, time, mass and energy? What if the universe starts cold? What if the first expression of these five facets of our reality first manifest as a sphere? John Archibald Wheeler suggested quantum foam. Others are suggesting that we call these spheres, planckspheres. What if there is an application of cubic close packing of equal spheres (ccp) at this scale and the stacking amounts to a doubling? Within 202 doublings (or base-2 notations), these Planck base units have become the age of the universe, the size of the universe, the total mass of the universe, and the total energy of the universe, and yes, it is still happening right now. The universe is expanding! Exploring such a simple model has been our effort since December 2011: Homepage Review the chart of the numbers and to get a sense of the emergence and natural inflation.
report post as inappropriate
Planck Time (tP) opens basic questions. First, tP is a direct correlation and necessary relation with a length and light in much the same way Einstein's well-known equation, e=mc2 necessarily and dynamically relate mass, energy and light. These four Planck base units are each natural units that use only the most fundamental universal constants to define them. What if these define the very first moment of space, time, mass and energy? What if the universe starts cold? What if the first expression of these five facets of our reality first manifest as a sphere? John Archibald Wheeler suggested quantum foam. Others are suggesting that we call these spheres, planckspheres. What if there is an application of cubic close packing of equal spheres (ccp) at this scale and the stacking amounts to a doubling? Within 202 doublings (or base-2 notations), these Planck base units have become the age of the universe, the size of the universe, the total mass of the universe, and the total energy of the universe, and yes, it is still happening right now. The universe is expanding! Exploring such a simple model has been our effort since December 2011: Homepage Review the chart of the numbers and to get a sense of the emergence and natural inflation.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Bruce Camber,
Please pay attention. The only physical fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years BEFORE Max Planck ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning the existence of there being finite constants detectable in separated invisible quantum particles. Obviously, NATURE must have provided the only VISIBLE construct of the real Universe allowable: There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite CONSTANT surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty curved space. The universe was not created in six days by an invisible white male God. The universe did not commence 13.75 billion light years ago as a result of a large finite invisible explosion.
Joe Fisher, Constant Realist
post approved
Please pay attention. The only physical fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years BEFORE Max Planck ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning the existence of there being finite constants detectable in separated invisible quantum particles. Obviously, NATURE must have provided the only VISIBLE construct of the real Universe allowable: There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite CONSTANT surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty curved space. The universe was not created in six days by an invisible white male God. The universe did not commence 13.75 billion light years ago as a result of a large finite invisible explosion.
Joe Fisher, Constant Realist
Dear Bruce Camber,
Please pay attention. The only physical fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years BEFORE Max Planck ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning the existence of there being finite constants detectable in separated invisible quantum particles. Obviously, NATURE must have provided the only VISIBLE construct of the real Universe allowable: There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite CONSTANT surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty curved space. The universe was not created in six days by an invisible white male God. The universe did not commence 13.75 billion light years ago as a result of a large finite invisible explosion.
Joe Fisher, Constant Realist
post approved
Please pay attention. The only physical fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years BEFORE Max Planck ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning the existence of there being finite constants detectable in separated invisible quantum particles. Obviously, NATURE must have provided the only VISIBLE construct of the real Universe allowable: There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite CONSTANT surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty curved space. The universe was not created in six days by an invisible white male God. The universe did not commence 13.75 billion light years ago as a result of a large finite invisible explosion.
Joe Fisher, Constant Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Huston Cummings Smith was a leading scholar of religious studies in the United States. He was widely regarded as one of the world's most influential figures in religious studies. In this interview, Huston discusses persons and souls with Robert. Watch below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
There are many supposedly finite religions, there am only one VISIBLE reality. Please do try to remember that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years BEFORE any white male human priests ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural guesswork about there being some sort of invisible finite white male god. Obviously, NATURE must have permanently produced the Earth’s real VISIBLE surface. If you look around you, you will see that EVERYTHING has a real VISIBLE surface. You have a real VISIBLE surface. The sky has a real VISIBLE surface. All of the blades of grass on your lawn have a real VISIBLE surface. It would be impossible for you to name anything that does not have a real VISIBLE surface. Logically, that must mean that NATURE freely provided that there would only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Huston Cummings Smith was a leading scholar of religious studies in the United States. He was widely regarded as one of the world's most influential figures in religious studies. In this interview, Huston discusses persons and souls with Robert. Watch below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
There are many supposedly finite religions, there am only one VISIBLE reality. Please do try to remember that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years BEFORE any white male human priests ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural guesswork about there being some sort of invisible finite white male god. Obviously, NATURE must have permanently produced the Earth’s real VISIBLE surface. If you look around you, you will see that EVERYTHING has a real VISIBLE surface. You have a real VISIBLE surface. The sky has a real VISIBLE surface. All of the blades of grass on your lawn have a real VISIBLE surface. It would be impossible for you to name anything that does not have a real VISIBLE surface. Logically, that must mean that NATURE freely provided that there would only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Philosophy of religion poses numerous questions about God: “proof” or “disproofs” of existence, nature and attributes, personhood, relation to time, relation to humankind — it’s a long list. In Judeo-Christian religions, the ultimate authority is supposed to be the...
view entire post
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Philosophy of religion poses numerous questions about God: “proof” or “disproofs” of existence, nature and attributes, personhood, relation to time, relation to humankind — it’s a long list. In Judeo-Christian religions, the ultimate authority is supposed to be the...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Andrew B. Torrance is a Lecturer in the Logos Institute, in the School of Divinity at the University of St Andrews. His work focuses on the doctrine of creation, Christian conversion, and science and faith. In this interview, Andrew expounds on the idea of the Bible addressing philosophical questions.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
VISIBLE reality was ETERNALLY provided by NATURE. Please try to understand that the only physical fact the white male professors of physics have ever been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years before white male Andrew B. Torrance ever set foot on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork about finite creation carried out by an invisible white male god. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There are hundreds of white male physicists theories and doctrines about some sort of finite creation by means of an invisible explosion or conducted by an invisible god, BUT ALL OF THIS WHITE MALE GUESSWORK AM UNNATURAL.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Andrew B. Torrance is a Lecturer in the Logos Institute, in the School of Divinity at the University of St Andrews. His work focuses on the doctrine of creation, Christian conversion, and science and faith. In this interview, Andrew expounds on the idea of the Bible addressing philosophical questions.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
VISIBLE reality was ETERNALLY provided by NATURE. Please try to understand that the only physical fact the white male professors of physics have ever been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years before white male Andrew B. Torrance ever set foot on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork about finite creation carried out by an invisible white male god. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There are hundreds of white male physicists theories and doctrines about some sort of finite creation by means of an invisible explosion or conducted by an invisible god, BUT ALL OF THIS WHITE MALE GUESSWORK AM UNNATURAL.
Joe Fisher, Realist
time has only the math existence, time as the 4th dimension of space is Einstein's mathematical Trick.
report post as inappropriate
While Craig Callender in his video spoke in a murky manner that was difficult to completely understand for me, I am nonetheless sure, his focus on psychological time cannot hide that the so called physical time does definitely not provide a complete picture of reality. When Einstein denied the now, he referred just to models that are thought as complete, i.e. equations considering merely a finite amount of influences and implying a predetermined future.
Common sense is more prudent. I guess, the here and the now are essentially the only two genuine singularities of reality, the only two natural (in the sense of non-arbitrarily chosen) points of reference. In reality, there is no negative already elapsed time as there is also no negative distance.
Using the symbol box is clever - when operating with models. Cf. also my cusanus.docx and cusanus vs SR.docx.
report post as inappropriate
Common sense is more prudent. I guess, the here and the now are essentially the only two genuine singularities of reality, the only two natural (in the sense of non-arbitrarily chosen) points of reference. In reality, there is no negative already elapsed time as there is also no negative distance.
Using the symbol box is clever - when operating with models. Cf. also my cusanus.docx and cusanus vs SR.docx.
The confrontation between different viewpoints is always an interesting procedure to approach a better understanding of our reality. The article and the conference which has been organized about the thematic “time” is an effort going into that direction.
Now, since our life is irremediably going from one unavoidable event (the birth) to another one (the death), two fix points in any human trajectory, it is difficult to not see a link between the concept of time and the one of thermodynamic state (the comparison is not new). In my mind, this does not mean that the time does not exist; on the contrary, I would say it is the proof of the existence of time in an obvious three-dimensional space.
What is the nature of time? This is the real question. I belong to the group of persons believing that the time can be described by an arrow, a vector; at least in each small enough volume. I have developed a theory with this idea, pushing the calculations of the variations of the basis vectors until the second order and trying to build an extension of Einstein’s general theory of relativity… (the literature around that theory is on a temporary website: cosmicstrings.de). Provided, I did not make too much mistakes, the results are surprising.
I am only an amateur (no professional) but, I like all these discussions around the foundations of our knowledge.
report post as inappropriate
Now, since our life is irremediably going from one unavoidable event (the birth) to another one (the death), two fix points in any human trajectory, it is difficult to not see a link between the concept of time and the one of thermodynamic state (the comparison is not new). In my mind, this does not mean that the time does not exist; on the contrary, I would say it is the proof of the existence of time in an obvious three-dimensional space.
What is the nature of time? This is the real question. I belong to the group of persons believing that the time can be described by an arrow, a vector; at least in each small enough volume. I have developed a theory with this idea, pushing the calculations of the variations of the basis vectors until the second order and trying to build an extension of Einstein’s general theory of relativity… (the literature around that theory is on a temporary website: cosmicstrings.de). Provided, I did not make too much mistakes, the results are surprising.
I am only an amateur (no professional) but, I like all these discussions around the foundations of our knowledge.
Login or create account to post reply or comment.