Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 9:52 AM
410 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, dwise1, Faith, frako, JonF, PaulK, Pressie, Stile, Theodoric, vimesey (11 members, 399 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,350 Year: 9,956/21,208 Month: 3,043/2,674 Week: 459/961 Day: 72/117 Hour: 6/13

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Author Topic:   How is the Universe here?
john6zx
Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 76 of 131 (487784)
11-04-2008 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by onifre
11-04-2008 8:44 AM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
Hi onfire,

By this measure then would you consider gravity a thing, or the strong nuclear force a thing?

Yes.

Are you saying that space is NOthing?

Yes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by onifre, posted 11-04-2008 8:44 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 77 of 131 (487785)
11-04-2008 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by john6zx
11-04-2008 9:10 PM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

No evidence???? Just because you know nothing of the past 100 years of EVIDENCE does not mean it does not exist. It just means that you are a fool parading your pathetic lack of knowledge before a large audience. You are going to call me on it??? :laugh: God, do you manage to tie your own shoelaces? Have you never heard of gravitational lensing, frame-dragging, binary pulsar dynamics, etc, etc. Anyone else interested, just pop along to Wikipedia. And that is just GR. SR and QFT are at the heart of every particle accelerator around the world. Guess what? They work!! That is called indisputable evidence of the correctness of SR and QFT to incredible levels of accuracy. And you say that there is no evidence :laugh:

All you need to do is do some study.

:laugh: Yeah, after god knows how many years in Cosmology I need to go do some syudy. Yep :laugh:

Just because you are incapable of understanding this stuff does not mean that you get to stand in the way of anyone else learning. You want to display your utter ignorance, go start a thread on it. Don't clutter up this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by john6zx, posted 11-04-2008 9:10 PM john6zx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by john6zx, posted 11-04-2008 10:42 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
john6zx
Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 78 of 131 (487786)
11-04-2008 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
11-04-2008 12:31 PM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
Catholic Scientist
That time can be dilated shows that it is more than just an idea, that it is, in fact, a "thing".

So what is time made of?

In time dilation how is this dilation being measured?
If you say that this measurement is done with clocks, then you will need to show how time motivates a clock or how a clock measures this thing called time, which brings us back to what is the physical form of time. If you can not prove that time fits the standard definition of a thing, if you can not show that time is a substance, than what is a clock measuring?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2008 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
john6zx
Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 79 of 131 (487787)
11-04-2008 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by cavediver
11-04-2008 9:39 PM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
This quote is from post #75 to Cavediver. Look at what I said, and look at what Cavediver said in reply on post #77.
john6zx
I am calling you on it. I will keep it simple. What is your understanding of the term space, what does space mean to you?
I will bet that you do not give any scientific evidence that backs up your belief in the physical reality of space, and just try to discredit me, or say that I am ignorant or something, or tell me what Einstein said, all in an effort to avoid the fact that you have no proof.
Lets see if I am wrong.

I was not wrong. Cavediver did not give any evidence to back up his idea that space is a real physical thing.

CAVEDIVER, What is the problem? This is such a simple question. I just asked you to give your understanding of space, can you do that? If you think that space is a real physical thing than just tell me what space is made of.

Cavediver, you should provide some evidence that space is a real physical thing.
Take a look at the forum rules.

Forum Guidelines

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

Cavediver, I am sure that you are an intelligent person, so please provide evidence that space is a real physical thing. Just tell me what space is made of.

Let me tell you something, there are two ways man ORDINARILY accepts things, neither of them very good. One is to accept a statement because an authority says it is true and must be accepted, and the other is by preponderance of agreement amongst other people, as in the mindset of “I believe it to be true because so many other people believe it to be true.” There is a third way man accepts things and that is by first hand experience of things, this can be done by testing or applying data to the real world to see for yourself or just perceiving things in the real world.

So I will ask you Cavediver, This idea that you have that space is a physical something, how have you come to accept this as part of your certainty?

By the way of authority?

By the way of group agreement?

By the way of first hand experience, or knowledge relayed to you by someone who had first hand experience?

Unfortunately I do not think Cavediver will be able to describe how this space thing is a real physical thing. Just more of the same avoidance. Nobody has ever given a concise accurate physical description of what space is made of.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by cavediver, posted 11-04-2008 9:39 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by AdminNosy, posted 11-05-2008 12:12 AM john6zx has not yet responded

    
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 2966 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 80 of 131 (487788)
11-04-2008 11:03 PM


Whoa!
...and I say Whoa! again.

This entire thing may be a matter of perception and you may both be closer than you think.

Common Ground.

There is no physical entity that can be pin-pointed as being the material of 'time', you both agree on that at least... yes?

You both agree that time is a consequence of events happening one after the other and we de-mark and name this procession of events as time... yes?

You both agree that there is no equation that defines time in its component form, you know like E=mc^2 ---> Rt=?????... yes?

Now perhaps one of you does not agree with this last assertion, if so then produce the equation.

You both agree that 'space' is the name we give to both the 'apparent' emptiness between objects that have mass and the area displaced by that mass... yes?

You both agree that for [say] gravity to act on light and curve/bend it there is no need for something called 'space' to do anything to assist or resist one acting on the other...yes?

In fact you should both agree that if 'space' had any substance it would have to be accounted for in the equation that explains the bending of light 'by' space.

Now perhaps one of you does not agree with this last assertion, if so then produce the equation, highlight for all to see the element of the equation that 'accounts' for interaction of 'space' within it.

Peace and harmony is only found by finding common ground, polarized opinions or declamations serve no good purpose.

Edited by V-Bird, : Late, tired, syntax shot, fingers crumbling, mind fatigued... it was all there and it needed work.


  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4751
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 81 of 131 (487789)
11-05-2008 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by john6zx
11-04-2008 10:42 PM


john6zax
Please do not post in this thread any more john6zx. Thank you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by john6zx, posted 11-04-2008 10:42 PM john6zx has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12433
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 82 of 131 (487791)
11-05-2008 12:25 AM


Moderator Request
To everyone,

Please keep discussion focused on the topic and not on the people you're discussing with. Thanks.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 83 of 131 (488255)
11-09-2008 6:51 AM


Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
Apologies for the long absence!

Ok, we were discussing the nature of time, and we had some rude interruptions questioning the nature of time, space, dimensions, etc. I should stress that these are extremely valid questions, and obviosuly deserve good answers in the context of this thread topic. However, the method of delivery revealed the lack of thought and prejudice behind the questioning, so it should be ignored as one should ignore moonshot-hoax merchants. They ask for evidence - numerous examples are given - and they continue as if nothing has been said. Neither are here to learn, but to promote their own egotistical arrogant viewpoints in contrast to that accepted by the world collection of scientists... but I digress :) I will start a new thread on this particular rant of mine.

Is space and time physical? Well, I have already introduced at least two meanings of time in this thread, so to which one are we referring? And what does 'physical' mean? That we can touch something? Well, what is 'touch'? etc, etc. I have explained this elsewhere at EvC but it is worth a recap.

john6zx reveals his classic pre-20th century view of existence - which admittedly is the viewpoint still held by 99.9% of the planet - that existence is made up of three things: physical 'things', invisible 'forces', and the arena of space which is merely where the 'things' can 'be'. Time was merely a way of accounting for change in the position or state of the 'things' (a viewpoint we still see in V-Bird's posts) 'things' are made up of atoms, and possibly atoms are further made up smaller 'thing'-like building blocks.

This all sounds reasonable and was how science viewed existence up until the late 19th Century. Electrons were discovered as even smaller 'things' and the plum pudding model of the atom was proposed - a ball of positively charged 'stuff' was impregnated with many negatively charged electrons, giving rise to a neutral atom. This still retains our basic 'thing' viewpoint of the physical. But soon Rutherford demonstrated that this was incorrect with his scattering experiements - he proposed a solar-system-like model, where a tiny positively charged nucleus is surrounded by even more tiny orbiting electrons. This is still a purely classical model. ***BUT*** it introduces the staggering result that suddenly, what we think of solid physical 'things' are not 'solid' at all, but consist of almost entirely empty space!!!

Suddenly we're back to our question of what is 'touch'? If 'things' are 99.99999999% empty space, why do they seem solid? Why do our hands not pass through each other when we clap? Clearly it isn't the 'things' - electrons and nucleus - that are giving rise to the solidity. It is actually the electromagnetic forces generated by those charged electrons. The reason you cannot pass your hands through each other is because of ELECTROSTATIC REPLUSION; not because of any sense of there being 'things' in the way or the common sense view of 'clearly things cannot pass through other things'. When you 'touch' something, all that is happening is that you are being pushed away from some area of space by electromagnetism. Switch off that electromagnetism, and your hands will happily pass straight through each other, just as with colliding galaxies, where the chances of any single pair of stars actually hitting each other is very remote.

Think about this and digest it for a while, as it is quite mind-blowing. And note that we haven't even begun to talk about quantum theory or relativity - this is purely experimental result and classical thinking, and already our concept of 'physical' is starting to change, as all those properties we thought of as unique to physical objects, are actually properties of those invisible forces. What we think of physical, tangible objects are just the net result of a web of atomic scale forces.

And this is only the beginning...

More to come.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Taz, posted 11-09-2008 9:56 AM cavediver has responded
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 11-11-2008 9:12 AM cavediver has responded
 Message 92 by johnfolton, posted 11-11-2008 11:38 AM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 100 by Agobot, posted 12-12-2008 7:11 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 84 of 131 (488261)
11-09-2008 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by cavediver
11-09-2008 6:51 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
I don't think the problem is people's outdated knowledge or belief. I think the problem is people have trouble viewing field as a physical thing. I remember when I was a freshman in college a kazillion years ago I asked my professor what a field was hoping he'd give me an answer in everyday terms I could relate to. He ended up telling me a field is a field and I should wait a few years before it comes to me.

I understand now that asking such a question is like a person who has never seen the color yellow asking what the color looks like and hoping for an answer in terms of his everyday experience. We could describe its effects and how it works. But when it comes to it, we have to understand it in its own terms.

Going back to field, when people refer to physical things, they are thinking of everyday experience physical things. As a physicist, I'm sure you've come across plenty of people who have asked you what an atom looks like. To them, they want to view the atom in terms of what they could understand from their everyday experience. That's what people are used to and that is exactly why real science is not so popular among the general population.

PS I'd be surprised if you haven't pulled out your hair trying to explain something like the universal expansion of the universe to a lay person before. They live in what they perceive to be a 3 dimensional universe. How dare us trying to challenge this perception?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 11-09-2008 6:51 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 11-09-2008 10:19 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 85 of 131 (488263)
11-09-2008 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Taz
11-09-2008 9:56 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
I don't think the problem is people's outdated knowledge or belief.

In the case of the readers tyying to get their heads around the concept of fields, I would totally agree. What I'm referring to here is the attitude you see in the posts of e.g. john6zx and Buzsaw, and countless other web-based physics-cranks. It is not that they are having trouble with the concepts of fields - their understanding is still 100 years behind the point of even being able to approach fields. And of course, in the post I just made, we haven't even mentioned fields - although classical field theory lies behind the electromagnetism I discussed. As sson as someone starts arguing with - well, can I touch space? Can i touch time? So how can it be physical? - you know you have a struggle. Hence this post above - I'm going right back to basics to destroy this common perception of 'physical'. It's precisely this approach that recently helped Agobot go rather gaga in his nihilism phase :eek: And we'll soon get to the point where Holmes was once accusing me of trying to 'fuck with his mind' :laugh:

I'd be surprised if you haven't pulled out your hair trying to explain something like the universal expansion of the universe to a lay person before.

Oh, only a few billion times :D In a one-on-one, it is much more simple as you can gauge their ability to understand, and present accordingly. The aim is simply for them to go away knowing more than they started (or at least have fewer misconceptions!) and for them to feel pleasure at having learned something complex about the Universe. It is not important for them to be able to pass an exam on it later. The problem is that this always leads to them passing it on to others, and very quickly the message becomes hopelessly corrupted in the inevitable Chinese Whispers. That is why there are so many horrible misconceptions floating around that actually started with professionals. I guess I should only present this stuff on the condition that the audience promises never to repeat it :D Anway, presenting at EvC is much more difficult because you have so little feel as to where to pitch the material.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Taz, posted 11-09-2008 9:56 AM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Stile, posted 11-10-2008 9:06 AM cavediver has responded
 Message 90 by GDR, posted 11-10-2008 2:00 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 99 by AZPaul3, posted 11-21-2008 7:27 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 127 by Lurkey, posted 11-08-2012 7:55 AM cavediver has responded

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 2966 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 86 of 131 (488277)
11-09-2008 1:02 PM


Fields.
I have only problem with accepting the Field concept and perhaps you could help me with it.

If I have grasped what is said and written of fields they are extent throughout the cosmos perhaps diminishing to zero or near zero in places and the interaction of various of these fields with one another provides in places mass.

Have I got this right?


  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2857
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 87 of 131 (488349)
11-10-2008 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by cavediver
11-09-2008 10:19 AM


No Questions... this time
Whoo!!

I have no questions and have no problem visualizing everything you posted and talked about.

cavediver writes:

I'm going right back to basics to destroy this common perception of 'physical'. It's precisely this approach that recently helped Agobot go rather gaga in his nihilism phase And we'll soon get to the point where Holmes was once accusing me of trying to 'fuck with his mind'

None of that to worry about with me. At least not yet, anyway :)

Quick question about tunneling..

I understand that there is some actual minute possibility of 1 tunneling thing (partical? quark? light photon? I'm not sure of the terminology here...) to go right through, say, a brick wall. I have no issue with this, and can visualize it and it makes sense to me.

Is there some actual minute possibiliy of something larger possibly passing through a brick wall? Like, say, me.. or a car, or whatever?

I would like to say "no" because I think the fields connecting everything would prevent this. Those fields would have to be broken first, and then the me or car or whatever isn't a me or a car or a whatever anymore.

Does this make sense? Or am I not thinking of things correctly?

I suppose I did have a few questions... :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 11-09-2008 10:19 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Fosdick, posted 11-10-2008 11:02 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 95 by cavediver, posted 11-12-2008 3:01 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2881 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 88 of 131 (488356)
11-10-2008 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Stile
11-10-2008 9:06 AM


Re: No Questions... this time
Stile writes:

I understand that there is some actual minute possibility of 1 tunneling thing (partical? quark? light photon? I'm not sure of the terminology here...) to go right through, say, a brick wall. I have no issue with this, and can visualize it and it makes sense to me.


I'm still working on my theory that genetic information is tunneled in from a parallel universe. No quarks necessary, only digital whispers from the G dimension.

—FTF


I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Stile, posted 11-10-2008 9:06 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by AdminNosy, posted 11-10-2008 11:22 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4751
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 89 of 131 (488357)
11-10-2008 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Fosdick
11-10-2008 11:02 AM


Fosdick
Please do not post this kind of thing to this thread again.

In fact, it may be best if you stay out of this thread. Thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Fosdick, posted 11-10-2008 11:02 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 90 of 131 (488381)
11-10-2008 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by cavediver
11-09-2008 10:19 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
cavediver writes:

The aim is simply for them to go away knowing more than they started (or at least have fewer misconceptions!) and for them to feel pleasure at having learned something complex about the Universe. It is not important for them to be able to pass an exam on it later.

Thanks cavediver. It works for me. I think that there are a large number of us who read through these threads without always feeling the need to post very regularly. I still remember you mentioning a few years back that this world is, metaphorically speaking, a projection. That in particular was really helpful.

Thanks again.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 11-09-2008 10:19 AM cavediver has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017