|
On May 12 2010 09:52 chessmaster wrote:
so what
So unless you can demonstrate it to be a mistaken argument, and in actuality an argument for your position, you can't just assert it and call it "case closed".
On May 12 2010 09:52 chessmaster wrote:
just because it does not like it ,, does not mean it does not support my claim .. do you have a brain
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
Actually, I only pointed out that the article you posted disagreed with you, rather than agreed. Read the user name 
i am unbiased so i provided both
the con argument saysw either they do not exist or they travel faster than light
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 .. and try to put these lasts few posts in contex
How do you avoid the caveat Janus asserted? That gravitons can only exist insofar as they can escape the pull of a black hole, but must disappear thereafter (thereby failing to transmit information)?
|
i would like you to read this link and focus on this paragraph below when you come to it http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae658.cfm
" About the speed of gravity. General Relativity, just like Special Relativity there is a maximum speed limit that anything cannot beat. This speed is c, which "happens" to be the speed of light in vaco. This already means that gravity could at best propagate at the speed of light. [I should point out that quantum effects such as vacuum polarisation in QED can allow photons to propagate faster than c on a curved space-time background!] "
ok...
now consider a singularity and " faster than C (speed of light ) when space is curved .. a singularity is space that is so curved it is packed into an infinity small point but also i get deeper into with three types of dimensions open ,closed , and folded ... and pilot wave functions ...
you must realize i am asserting non locality on an implicate level . and we are dealing with graviton on a quantum scale not reletivistic
which current quantum theories support , and string theory
in my how paper the zero mass boson-like spin 2 force is an actual ingredient to space time and this is the mechanism of space curvature that causes gravity and it accomplish this in part with the theory of implicate order ... it also resolves the conflict between relativity and quantum quantum gravity , quite nicely... when i say graviton .. i am, describing the nature of space in light of how they act in black holes .. for what space can do when it needs to..and also i accept that we have infinite energy, as all universes are the sum of infninite universes .. connected through the implicate or impli-verse
i will provide some more info the next few posts
i have edited these 4 posts to go together more fluidly .. as i really should have spent more time how to get this concept across ,,, there is just to much to go through so i need to stick to the basics
|
i took all this out is was not out lined and too incoherent ,,
i provide an outline on the following page
|
. gravitons nowhere in the paper are listed as a priori assumption.. you said and i
quote " you blindly assert this " no i do not it is listed under the heading "support" for priori II and i quote " support"
simultaneous interaction is the priori assertions not that gravitons exits ..
the paper is not designed to prove the existence of gravitons ,,
you are correct that we can not use it to transmit information at faster than light,,
but that has absolutely nothing to do with it as support for my claim.. that is nothing more than this example with E.P.R . in this experiment we will use entangled zero-mass spin 2 ..while a graviton .. this is called graviton entanglement .. this is how gravitons communicate at faster than light .. but relativity is saved by a paradox illustrated below ,, hence the title E.P.R paradox . or spooky action at a distance
mas A ---------------------- toward mass B
mass A is traveling at the speed of light with information encoded in entangled particles ,,,,,, mass B is a receiver ,,,, once the entangled particle reaches its destination the information will be simultaneously communicated between A and B,,, but since we cannot get the mass from A to B at faster than light ..we still cannot use it to transmit at faster than light in usage i.e mass b will still get it at the speed of light from mass A as the entangled particles close the distance at this speed the fact that the information is transmitted instantly does nothing to get it there faster... this assertion of yours is correct , but it has nothing to do with the fact i provide both entanglement and the possibility of a zero mass boson as support for simultaneous interaction on the quantum level ,,,, becuase even thohgh this does not get from A to B at faster than light
singularity have no A to B ,, they have zero dimensions .. so the prpagation would be truely instaneous even in transfer ,, at least at the moment of infaltion ,, but i also escape this in light of all space in nature ,, through the implicate order of david dohm can allow for faster than light travel as well .. as a function of space time itself ,, and this deos not violate relativity ,,, relativity allows for space -time to do this
but my supposition is much more profound ... i am claiming mass A and mass B were never actually separate on an implicate level .. that locality is an illusion created by open dimensions
and we are still in a zero dimensionl - open-state inside a singularity .. inflation is also an illusion
|
i hope this helps you understand read heading (II) again and read and how i quote " support for prioir two " and try to place the word support in context .. i only need to allow that things can simultaneously interact this is the priori so it is metaphysically logical that they can as well.. ironically newtons fields theory allows for this ,, the very wiki article you erroneously posted
also we are talking about the quantum level here as per and during big-bang .. newton deals with the macro scale , things over large distances ..... even though they both describe simultaneous interaction ,, he goes about it in a field sense,, so the very wiki article you provide .. if you take a little more time to read about newtonian field theory , you will discover it also allows for instantaneous interaction , this is what makes this so very silly to me
i already have E.P.R violation this is a performed experiment ,, entangled particles are beyond accepted ,,, they are tested and experimented on , the explanation is argued over but at least some aspect of e.p.r is violated
why do i go through all this support trouble to allow for this interaction ???,, well if you understood the paper you would have known ,, i need all the forces in the unified field to able to simultaneously interact ,,, so i provide support of this concept in a few separate ways) .. of which two are the most solid ...Newtonian gravity , .. and E.P.R paradox ( i leave a few more out to cut down content),,, ok??? the transmitting of information or gravity waves moving mass through space and it interacting with other mass //// it just is not relevant
the fact that some poeple do not like the solution of gravitons is irrelevant also..i can show as many more that do.. many poeple used to think the world was flat ,, did that make the con argument that it is round incorrect ? the contradiction assumes space does not have infinite energy .. i am describing it in its singularity state where it does have infinite energy , so this contradiction does not apply ,,, basically the argument the con paper makes ,, this is hwy i posted it so you could work through the logic of it , as it clearly spells it for you ,,,, either there is infinite energy for them to travel faster than light or they do not exist , since singularities have infinite energy this should not be a problem to follow the second part of that logic through " or they do not exist" all you have to do is reverse that
however if you want to discuss whether gravitons exits i would be happy to , as this clearly was not the purpose of the very small portion of my two, separate, considerations on the why and how . it was a small and the least important forms of support of priori (II) even if you throw it out....
I ONLY HAVE TO SHOW IT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE FOR THIS TO BE POSSIBLE TO ASSERT IT IS METAPHYSICALLY POSSIBLE IN A LOGICAL SENSE
i hope this helps clarify several of your misconceptions ........ and i will try to be more patient
|
EDIT " i re edited the last several; posts after gnosis question of the transmitting issue nd why it is not relevant , as a singularity behaves like a black hole ,.. i should once again not get frustrated
so even if it disappears after the big-bang it does not matter .. but note. i am not so much supposing gravitons i am supposing in the case of infinite energies things can move faster than light through closed and folded diemsions.. classical theories will not shed to much light on this model as it is only describing what i would call open dimensions.. i have both wheelers equation of infinite singularities, and the implicate explicate order . i.e pilot waves( did not present that in the essay) ..but i also have e.p.r paradox to show simultaneous interaction is possible ,, and Newtonian field theory .. among others
once again these are support of prior assumption that simultaneous interactions are logical possible in the physical world so they must be in the metaphysical world .. this is all i am demonstrating .. nothing more on this priori must be considered
i am comparing that behavior to a zero -mass spin 2 boson just in this one case ,, this black hole scenario
not to a graviton as it travels at light speed ,, i should have made this clear but i would have thought since you knew we where dealing with the big-bang namely a singularity this comparison would be evident as per wheeler
a universal singularity has infinite energy ..
i hope this answers your questions about overcoming the gravitational constant at least metaphysically and philosophical .. lest just say on the physical side on the how side. i need this new equation to make it logical , otherwise well lets just say otherwise there is a huge problem
and i never in a million years would have solved it alone
|
this is all revised an on the following page and posted more coherently
|
Wow, alot of reading to catch up on... hopefully I'll be able to contribute something meaningul once I've absorbed the last 2 pages ^^
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 am also curious about how your view on God has changed FraCuS
|
His definition of reason is biaised since he say that it is not based on emotion, which is wrong.
There is a book about this, the mystake of descartes i think, showing how reason is linked to emotion in the humain brain (like spinoza said in his time).
|
yeah truth and perceptions are interesting .. when did we get back on that ?????
even academic skeptics allow for some truth they would just doubt you could ever know them or teach them if you did ...
although they might agree you could learn a function of probability as it pertains to behavior but the Pyrrhonism type would doubt even that .. but i am an empiricist and i do not really agree in whole with Descartes , but that is just me .. i prefer the epistemological view on things , am big into experienced learned knowledge and i exactly oppose Descartes in this sense , although i would put a small emphasis on rationalism in thr fomr of lets say instinct .... etc
another point take improved instrumentation for instance which did not really exist in Descartes's day ...the telescopes that existed ,, could only close the distance in objects .. but not bring them into more detail focus wise past what ones own eyes could already perceive .. meaning yeah it will close distances visually ,, but no section will be in any more detail than if you were standing next to it .. that is pretty much the only empirical instrument they had .. except fro maybe scales for weight ,, which could be considered touch i guess .. and sight ... did not have a complete context view on measurements though ...... metric was not even invented until two centuries after Descartes .. so he really was limited technology wise , as far as what he could even imagine what some day we would be able to perceive ,,, a couple of hundred years later humans started to get an idea of these things
ones again i am an empiricist i directly oppose Descartes
i cannot see on the micro -level but that does not mean i cannot use a improved sense of eye-sight in the form of a microscope ... even further i can perform spectral analysis on objects to see which range they admit or reflect as yet another form- of my senses ...and this is only the eyes we have smell . ears and improved forms of all were are perceiving .. the microscope would also provide more detail on the touch level at certain settings as to perceive surface detail so we are converting " better sight " to better "touch "... .....basically we can convert one sense to another via instrumentation.........Descartes is too limited in my opinion.. of course we must realize back then these tools did not really exist ,, the sense you were born with was all you really had .. so it makes sense back then .. the telescopes were very limited and of course not beyond what the eye can make out detail-wise ,, would just allow it to be seen from farther away .. but not in any more detail so you could not perceive anything new aout the object you are perceiving that you could not up close to it.... and microscopes were not being made until just after his death .. and were not making great improvements until at least a century after his death
when you consider this ... it is not to hard to understand why Descartes would think that
...... but the empiricists take this into account .. one can improve their perception , and use that improvement to observe and experiment .... Descartes did not realize this in his day ,, that these types of technologies would exist ,, if he had i believe he would have rethought this possibly
if he didn't all i could say is .. well i still disagree with Descartes , i follow empiricism
anyway how did we get on the definition of reason ? .. and when did Descartes prove anything as the end all be all authority on it ? as far as i know there are a lot of schools of thought on this matter that disagree with each-other .. his is merely one .. you are writing this post as some kind end all be all
lthough you could of written it from the position "I" disagree with you because of this and start a discussion .. but who are you disagreeing with ? and what notion of reason ? like reasoning something ? or a reasons for something to happen i.e cause and effect? i am a little confused i must admit of the context you are showing this in , as you did not provide a quote . of who said what and where
on a side note
i need to work with someone who specializes in all of these forms ,, so we can start forming a philosophical view on perception and truth ,, as a model like this would predict
how infinities all around you and inside of you would effect a conscious mind
i have one really crazy ass metaphysical concept that just both intrigues and immensely bother me . i will not get into it here do not want to get too off topic , or make this too much content ion light of all my other huge posts
as i am only really in depth with a few , and while i have a shallow understanding of most , i am am extremely under-qualified for this
edit .... ok i am done editing this post .. i usually need to rethink and rewrite them so i say exactly what i am trying to ,,, and i am the forgetful philosopher so i almost always leave something out ,,,,,,, this is finished feel free to reply..
|
"Truth" is something that greatly changed during the XIXth century.
George Orwell, while he was a journalist during the spanish revolt, used to warn his readers about the disparition of the "objectiv truth". For him, objectif truth was disappearing due to manipulation (like in 1984 when the government says something, it is truth, even if it is the contrary of what they said a minute ago).
Objectiv truth is indeed disappearing of the political game. Today, truth is more a question of language... When you have a certain language (high social class) you can create what bourdieu used to call an effect of truth (un effet de vérité), and that is the only truth acceptable in the public space.
For my part, I think objectiv truth is what you feel, and nothing else. When you feel that you are poor, you are poor, even if some economist come and show you that if you compare your situation to a little african, you're freaking rich.
For me, logic is most of the time nothing more than an effect of truth, real truth does not need explication nor justification. Logic is only usefull to understand why something is true or not, not the opposite.
Well, when i read myself i feel like a terrible geek coming directly from scientology. I'm not that moronic in real life really.
|
yeah as i said i am an empiricist by nature .. and you do kionda present descartes as it is a mathematical proof ,,, but then you question the very nature of these types of assertions
that is the paradox of descartes .. iof nothing can be known outside himself .. how does he know that to be true for anyone else ? asw he can only sense his own reality .. how does he know my reality does not contain superioir perception through superior intellect ,, that is kinda assuming all brains are created equally
but anyway you did not anser my question ,, who said "reason "
and it what " sense " of the word
what is the context ,, you do not provide a quote
while i understand positions like these .. i do not agree with it it contradicts itself .. kinda like socrates saying the only thing he knows is he does not know anything ,, well if he knows nothing how does he know that ? by his own logic that would be wrong
but i love socrates ,, the best antagonist in philosophy .. he just fucks with people so well gets them to agree with something then induces some crazy way to make them contradict them selves
however he fails in mixing deduction and induction resulting in fallacy sometimes ,, he just hides his fallacies very well or cloaks them
|
while i agree with his descartes as far
The basic premise of ideological sabotage and starting from a point of perception being zero is correct
in my opinion, at least ...
however valuable that is
but then he contradicts himself on his first argument arguing ultimate truth from god and his secon argument as well
I do not see that perfect cause (at least in a rationalist analysis of our exitsence, as the one Descartes pretends understand and to do): perfection is a "man-made" idea and it's applied always loosely to different various levels of relative perfection (always imperfect, when measured by absolutes). basically perfect is a man-made conception .. ( beauty is usually symmetry to us humans .).
this first argument contradicted by his very " sabotage argument"
while he made a bold statement that changed modern philosophy in my opinion it was incomplete
and too materialistically dominated .. i propose non locality which open a whole new can of philosophical worms ,,,,,,
and he try to hard to mix god into it ....and only results in contradicting himself via his first argument
and also his second
the argument is truly fallacious and directed more by conviction of his beliefs. in my opinion i cant say what motivated him to create that fallacy ,, probably the times he lived in , and fear of being burned at the stake //// or he really believed in a transcendental creator that is personified on a cloud somewhere ,, and wanted to include it regardless of it forcing a contradiction
|
I don't really understand your question because I can't read all your post since I'm at work and it sucks like hell
Descartes was not just a philosopher, he was (un érudit ? translation please) someone who was touching everything.
I think you are mystaking two things: first the cartesian spirit, which is the base of descartes' philosophy, is the idea that you should doubt everything and then build your conviction on reason. Then he gives the definition of reason, not based on emotion, "only" logic. Here he is making a mystake (that's not my point of view); a neurologist proved that emotion participate to reason and that she could also assist the processus of reasoning.
On the other side, the cogito ("i think so i am") is merely a syllogism built to explain that he is indeed conscious (since he is doubting everything). And it is also a mystake because the man is a social animal to simply put it.
I will try to explain my point better when I have the time.
Descartes was a great philosopher because he was the first that said that you should doubt everything, even god, not because of the cogito which is a big fail in my point of view.
|
he contradicts himself in his second argument as well .. i know what he was ..
does not change that you present what he says as fact and it is not .. it is your opinion
you do not have to explain it .. i fully understand descartes .. and how he contradicts himself
i do not require a history lesson
" this post from you and i quote
" His definition of reason is biaised since he say that it is not based on emotion, which is wrong.
There is a book about this, the mystake of descartes i think, showing how reason is linked to emotion in the humain brain (like spinoza said in his time)."
this post comes out of nowhere and provides no context ... who are we talking about .. and what use of the word " reason "
|
What is my opinion? that he was wrong?
|
The Cogito has been stripped bare and shown to be faulty by many philosophers, particularly Nietzsche who managed to do so in a few paragraphs/
|
Ha ok, the Mystake of descartes is a book by a neurologist called Antonio R. Damasio
|
what i9 am asking is ... are you taling about descartes ? or a poster here that uses the word reason ?
i give these long posts about my metaphysical model of the universe and then bam you give this post .. i am, trying ti undertsan what it means in context of this page
who is the "his " in the first word in your post
a team liquid poster or Descartes himself ?
|
Ho, I am talking about the guy who made the videos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
