|
 thx man .. i cannot claim i came up with the " third question " i got it from quentin smith
but i improved upon it as it seems i know more about physics maybe than he does .(not). he forgot about plank time and why the time values cannot get infinitely smaller in face of this
or maybe since it is just an simple essay as a reply ,, he does not get to deep into it
but i will be publishing it under a pseudonym as since i lack both a finished degree in either philosphy or physics and am self taught from my advanced calculus ,, and philosophy minor
no one would take it seriously... damn egomaniacs wont listen to you without credentials
but my physicists name will be on it that i work with as to get poeple to look at it
|
On May 11 2010 03:32 chessmaster wrote: thx man .. i cannot claim i came up with the " third question " i got it from quentin smith but i improved upon it as it seems i know more about physics maybe than he does .. he forgot about plank time and why the time values cannot get infinitely smaller in face of this but i will be publishing it under a pseudonym as since i lack both a finished degree in either philosphy or physics and am self taught from my advanced calculus ,, and philosophy minor no one would take it seriously... damn egomaniacs wont listen to you without credentials
Have you had it reviewed by physicists already, or going to publish it first to wait and see? Logically it seems tight (I don't see any holes), but I think you might be objected to on the nature of the singularity itself, if you're proposing that it existed timelessly. But that just might be because of my not fully understanding you. I can see that I'm going to have to become interested in physics.
|
It would require more evidence to establish, but that does not make it any more likely or unlikely.
Also the notion of simplicity or "more parts" having bearings on evidential proofs e.t.c is only meaningful in the universe as we experience it today. Weras I think your applying it to the pre big bang e.t.c "universe".
|
true true .. i am just applying occams razor to discussion , but that's why i leave it out of my model
it is not evidence in itself,,
Instead it would be used whether or not god is likely
note i forgot to add a section in (II) adding further support for the multiverse i added it
p.s yes in a theory like this would require very specific predictions .. more so than even relativity
because i am making physical claims not just metaphysical ,,, i have support from
E.P.R paradox , the interference experiment fro the multiverse and dynamic interaction ,, i have infinite intervals and integrals .. and i have unified field to explain how intervals of time can reach and infinite set
but since I am not an overly serious physicist i am not able to realize the predictions this would imply so i cannot experiment .. also one or more of my assumptions may need to
be tweaked , ,,, however in light of the current large hadron colliders ,, these predictions could be shown if i knew what they were .. lmao .. which is why i may have to try to catch a physicists eye and hope we can work together .. because the one i have worked with is veryt specialized in low energy feilds only ,,, and he cannot make alot of predictions about this ..he has helped me satisfy it , in the sense it should be working
in light of my secret equation ( i will not be providing ..need some secrets)
This is why i will use a pseudonym , most wouldn't even look at it otherwise
edit .. i always forget stuff sorry / the forgetful philosopher
|
sorry did not see your question .. my uncle has a P.H.D in electrical engineering and he reviewed it for me .. he claims all my logic based on the physics is solid , and is helping me with the prediction stage right now / for the last 2 years !!!!! it is not so easy becuase this math is wayyyyyyyy beyond my advanced calculus .. it is just sick , and a lot of it is beyond his phd level engineering as he is not focused in physics , and one physicist may not be enough .. i am using relativity , the quantum model ,and the multiverse model , and i could even through in string M- theory as it allows fro a multiverse to ,
but i do not use string theory as currently there is no way to experiment with string theory , but really t is my favorite, i wish i could , to me it is the most beautiful as a musician ,, vibrating strings really appeals to me
p.s it is a shame we do not live for longer , in light of getting to be a fide master, my double major ,
writing my novel , and working on this , ( continuing to learn new instruments)
i just di not have enough time to do them all and i am constantly juggling them ,, plsu hang out online and play starcraft and shit
luckily the worst part abnout my life is the best .. i have liver disease and am currently disabled and in therapy so i have nothing but freetime
but do not worry the treatment is working and it should be cured in several more months .. at least i am like 90 percent for that now ,, the treatment is working
that last dynamic model proof i have already poor man copywrited so i can prove the pseudonym is me ,,, included the pseudonym i will use and that model in a post dated letter and mailed it to myself ,, lol i have been holding on to this letter for 3 years ,, so luckily if someone publishes the same ideas or values even in different terms .. i can prove i thought of it first and claim intellectual property
unfortunately my relative Emile Borel is no longer alive , because he would know tons of poeple to help , but lol alot of these theories did not exist then
|
Yes, it really is quite a nice model. Nice to hear that you're doing well, I had cancer and liver disease for quite a fear years, so experienced (and still do) that "free time" you talk of. Except, well, I couldn't afford school so I was "stuck" with a lot of books and self-education. Unfortunately not in this area, though I think I'm going to start. Right as soon as I get through the completed works of Jonathan Edwards...
|
really man ? man who would have known we had so much in common , Bro good luck with that
how is that going with the cancer ,, you over it ? what about the liver disease? geeae i never would have guessed this whole time we were talking we knew the same pain of existence , i feel suddenly a lot closer to you even though i have never met you in person,, these are the reasons i just love the internet , i can meet people i have things in common with , and have these discussions .. to be honest i am in a poor mood sometimes , and catch myself being cranky and dickish here sometimes and will try to work on that. there are some really cool poeple on this site , while i never come out and cuss at poeple , and call them names , i can get aggressive in an ever increasing subtle way , that makes it almost worse because i tried to cloak it in that
and believe me i am not saying i do not consider god sometimes or at least see why there should be one from a personal feeling .. the intuition craig speaks of part of me can relate to , after having this disease i understand the need to entertain one
but "when" i do consider god ( i should put it this way because i do not have a particular faith , i go back and forth on what i want to consider , i generally prefer the impersonal type ....as it makes more sense to me
other wise we are like an antfarm on a shelf somewhere ,, or even a dream in someones head..
now if it is a personal god , i prefer dream in the head , and we are not even here , as once again it just makes more sense , i cannot make myslef believe we are in an ant farm or like inside a marble being used in a game of giant aliens like Men in Black the movie
for me it is easier to resolve the "how" and let god worry about the " why " if a god exists ,,,
i do not have people to talk about this stuff usually so i must play my own devils advocate
|
On May 11 2010 04:31 chessmaster wrote:
really man ? man who would have known we had so much in common , Bro good luck with that
how is that going with the cancer ,, you over it ? what about the liver disease? geeae i never would have guessed this whole time we were talking we knew the same pain of existence , i feel suddenly a lot closer to you even though i have never met you
and believe me i am not saying i do not believe in god sometimes, after having this disease i understand the need to entertain one
but when i do believe in god ( i should put it this way because i do not have a particular faith , i go back and forth on what i want to believe , i generally prefer the impersonal type ....as it makes more sense to me
other wise we are like an antfarm on a shelf somewhere ,, or even a dream in someones head..
now if it is a personal god , i prefer dream in the head , and we are not even here , as once again it just makes more sense , i cannot make myslef believe we are in an ant farm or like inside a marble being used in a game of giant aliens like Men in Black the movie
for me it is easier to resolve the "how" and let god worry about the " why "
I was "cured" of the cancer 5 years ago, which means I just (just!) finished follow up treatment, appointments, etc. That in itself was a lot of not feeling well. And the liver disease was before that though through "something" it's seemed to clear up over the course of the last few years, assuming I exercise and don't eat anything with fat / sodium, etc. But it definitely was not "fun".
Interestingly (I guess?) also wasn't the reason I became a theist, I find meaningless to be a more comforting thought than knowing there is meaning to life (strange, eh?). In a lot of ways, it's all what you make it, I suppose (but not in every way). I did a lot of "my" reading on philosophy, comparative religious studies, ethics (bioethics and virtue theory especially) and theology. Which is the reason I'm familiar with the scientific models you proposed, but not intimately familiar with them. I also read a lot of Plato and "Socrates" and learned from the latter that I really don't know all that much... Which is why I prefer questions. But given the right topic my pride will get the better of me, and I'll talk, and talk, and talk...
|
he he he he .. man this is why i love these types on internet discussions ,, because most people will not sit still and listen to these types of things in person ( at least the type that will are very hard to find) , they will interrupt , and the conversion will evolve .. or if you refuse to let it evolve they will get angry because they feel left out
while an evolving conversation has its own benefits and i enjoy them .. sometimes i want to formulate an entire concept and then have it replied to ,, it seems most poeple today just lack this skill , or refused to learn how to do that ,,,
i could listen to people like you and xelin talk for hours on end ,, this shit is fascinating to me . so go ahead and do all the talking you want .. i did i will read it all , in that you have my word , not only that i will gladly do it , and as i have already posted my ideas . there will be no need to argue anything , unless you choose a side for me to debate as you chose craigs and kamals for yourself .. you can present and idea ,, and ask me to argue as different one for you if you want , i will gladly do it
someday because of medical advancements people will be able to live for thousands of years possibly , ironically most will still not be able to sit still for five minutes
but yes i also have a huge ego , and a very emotional side and both get the better of me quite often
yeah , also i switch back and forth ,, some times it is the meaningless that gives me comfort , sometimes it is the meaning , i am a romantic by nature , but also a skeptic if this makes any kinds of sense ,, i have so many different sides to myself , i honestly think i may be a combined twin or something , my very nature makes no sense at all ,
i realize this is true for most poeple ,
people like us have alot of interests and not enough time ,
i am really glad to hear your treatment worked , and hope the post treatment goes well for you ,, keep it up it seems you are home free
i gotta get some exercise speaking off ,, gonna take a walk down the beach ,,, take care bro's , and thank you for taking the time to read my posts ,, i will be back later if i see ya then coolio if not catch ya on the flip side , if you posts any of you ideas i will gladly look at them and give my thoughts , i will check in in a few hours
|
On May 11 2010 04:53 chessmaster wrote: he he he he .. man this is why i love these types on internet discussions ,, because most people will not sit still and listen to these types of things in person or at least the type that will are very hard to find , they will interrupt , and the conversion will evolve .. or if you refuse to let it evolve they will get angry because they feel left out while an evolving conversation has its own benefits and i enjoy them .. sometimes i want to formulate an entire concept and then have it replied to ,, it seems most poeple today just lack this skill , or refused to learn how to do that ,,, i could listen to people like you and xelin talk for hours on end ,, this shit is fascinating to me . someday because of medical advancements people will be able to live for thousands of years possibly , ironically most will still not be able to sit still for five minutes but yes i also have a huge ego , and a very emotional side and both get the better of me quite often yeah , also i switch back and forth ,, some times it is the meaningless that gives me comfort , sometimes it is the meaning , i am a romantic by nature , but also a skeptic if this makes any kinds of sense ,, i have so many different sides to myself , i honestly think i may be a combined twin or something , my very nature makes no sense at all , i realize this is true for most poeple , people like us have alot of interests and not enough time , i am really glad to hear your treatment worked , and hope the post treatment goes well for you ,, keep it up it seems you are home free i gotta get some exercise speaking off ,, gonna take a walk down the beach ,,, take care bro's , and thank you for taking the time to read my posts ,, i will be back later if i see ya then coolio if not catch ya on the flip side , if you posts any of you ideas i will gladly look at them and give my thoughts , i will check in in a few hours
I'll cherish the day I go up to someone and say, "Do you have a couple hours to spend talking about the great questions" and they say "Actually, yes". So far I've only gotten blank stares and the occasional, "What are you, a weirdo?" No one seems to want to talk about it anymore, strange that I should have to retreat to the internet to get decent discussion. I could talk about this all day, I don't see many other things which are more important. I think, actually, you and I have had our perspectives radically changed, and we would probably fit in much better 1,000 years ago than today (in some ways, but not all).
Good luck with your day, I have some Quentin Smith to read (and maybe a debate or two of his to watch). And yes, not enough time in my life for all the things I want to do... Hmm. I'll try to come up with something to reply to your model, but as it stands there is a lot of reading I have to do to say anything adequate. But I can learn in weeks what most people learn in years (depending on the subject, physics... not so much), so I think it's fine
|
ok .. if you want as i said ... i will take up any side of any topic of your choosing for you to argue against ,
but i may have to read up on it first that goes for you to xelin or anyone reading this .. i do not mind playing devils advocate here.. lets keep this philosophy train rolling
|
this has totally changed my view on god.
|
On May 11 2010 11:53 FraCuS wrote:
this has totally changed my view on god.
That's good if it has, whatever "direction" you've taken from the position you were in. If you don't mind me asking, what was your view before, and what is your view now?
|
On May 11 2010 11:57 Gnosis wrote:That's good if it has, whatever "direction" you've taken from the position you were in. If you don't mind me asking, what was your view before, and what is your view now?
i really don't feel comfortable answering sorry this is overwhelming.
this has really got me thinking a lot.
|
yeah xelin i agree now that i have thought on it i am attempting to use this rational common sense guideline toward naturalistic observation ... let me elaborate now that i have thought on it , i
also the pro position of craig could point out i am contradicting myself ...
1 occams razor is an rational , intuitive guideline in science , not a proof
2 i use occams razor
3. i criticize craig for using intuition toward sufficient reason ( although his must be considered the moral or spiritual type ,
many counter-intuitive things are true both in math and in nature
while most people confuse occams razor with meaning = all things being equal the simplest is the most likely ( which i am admitting is how i posed it .. that was incomplete )
My interpretation of it is more specifically all things being equal the simplest answer that does not contradict known facts is the more likely.... still we must examine the word "known" from and observational standpoint
everyone used to know the earth was flat ,, " of course it is flat " one would say .." all known facts " point toward this..of course they could even have based this on Occam razor( though it did not exist yet ) , even though ancients knew it was round , and that knowledge was somehow lost in the dark ages ... facts in the sense of an unobservable system , can often be misleading .... in light of these considerations of the misleading nature of common sense , human nature . and observable facts , or what is currently accepted to be a fact ,,, maybe i should have left this out of my arguments ...
.. suffice to say the razor is flawed , but it can be useful at certain times pragmatically, however probably more in a controlled environment not a naturalistic one , as all variables could be known or controlled ........ then it could be applied more reasonably , i am attempting to use it in a naturalist model where not everything is known ....
so in this context i must agree with you , i should not have used it ,,, i will have to find something else with to attack the extra part with ,,, maybe conversation of matter ...i will have to think on this
but thx for pointing it out..otherwise it would not have started my mind to working
|
As the graviton is a function of space-time it can travel faster than the speed of light
The speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light. (Do you have a link showing otherwise?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
|
lmao .. here is one among thousands ,,i found these in like 2 seconds ,, i can assume you did not try hard
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-65583.html
or this one http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/50304 or
article tells you the only two conclusions about gravitons .. either they can travel faster than light or they do not exist ......
relativity does allow for zero mass particles like tachyons and gravitons to travel than faster than light
i suggest you read these quotes from your wiki article and try again to understand what it means ....
" This is the speed at which a change in the distribution of energy and momentum
of "matter "results in subsequent alteration of the gravitational field which it produces. "
" physical interaction in Nature "
relativity or the very classical model itself you present does not prevent zero mass functions or particles from traveling at faster than light or space-time itself from does this( as a matter of fact the big-bang or inflation theory requires for space to do this during the inflation ... i suggest you read up on it again and try harder to understand it ,,,, ,, try to pay attention to words like "physical " "within nature"
" mass" " interaction "
one simple proof of this is if gravitons did not travel faster than light black holes would not produce gravity because the particle would never escape the event horizon ..so ether they do not exist ,, or they travel faster than light , and zero mass particles are a direct function of space-time
in the model i propose ,, i propose space does have infinite energy at every point through bohm implicate order
|
That article is an argument against the existence of the graviton, not an argument for it traveling faster than light.
|
|
|
just because it does not like it ,, does not mean it does not support my claim that gravitons in theory travel faster than light..
you are disagreeing with my quote gravitons can travel faster than light .. you have failed to support this you very wiki link does not even discuss this ,, i have managed to support this .. if you do not like a con argument try the second pro
i am unbiased so i provided both
the con argument says either they do not exist or they travel faster than light unless the universe has infinite energy ,, i provide that infinite energy with the implicate model( holographic model) or wheelers equations of singularities so i do a reverse contradiction proof here
i
so what in the world are you trying to disagree with ?
read your original post ,,, then read your ridiculous wiki link dealing with mass effected by gravity waves again.. and try to put these lasts few posts in context .. then please explain what in the world they have to do with each other
that is my question to you ,, what does that wiki article have to do with gravitons ?
it is dealing with the interaction of two moving objects that contain mass .. ..
however this quite pointless discussion is really redundant as space time itself can travel faster than light according to relativity as well ,, and i have a third theory supporting my "how" question i did not even use in David bohms holographic model as i just explained above... i suggest you read up on the quantum model of gravity , point particles .. boson force interaction ,,,and string theory , and implicate , explicate orders //////we are talking about gravity on a plank level ,, not a macro-scopic one
i think you are missing the point of the exercise .. i need some sort of transmitting for infinite sets in nature for T(0) =U .. while i only briefly mention zero mass bosons that was supposed to give logical reason ..... but without the rest of the how paper i can see at least partially how you would doubt this paradox helps me .. when in fact it does , i require infinite energy , i have it in face of a singularity ,and the point particle problem( which i veiw as a necessity)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
