Where is "here"?

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:35 pm

Time dilation is a result of velocity. Time does not go slower in a galaxy because there is more gravity.

Obvious Leo · Post by **Obvious Leo** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:39 pm

raw_thought wrote:The edge of the universe is 47 billion light years away. Suppose you traveled at 186,282 mps (the speed of light) It follows that it will take 47 billion years to get there. However, your clock will be frozen (because you are going the speed of light). A clock on earth will say that it took you 47 billion years. Your clock will say that your journey was instantaneous.
You asked me to explain space expanding. I gave you the source for that information because professional physicists can explain in better. Why you felt deeply insulted confuses me.

It is quite untrue that physicists can explain an expanding space. None of them ever have and none of them ever will and they will all freely admit this. To a physicist the universe can only be understood in the language of mathematics and the balloon analogy is woefully inadequate because the skin of the balloon is only 2 dimensional. However the balloon analogy is quite useful in my story of the universe which is merely aging. Such a universe exists ONLY in the time dimension and has no spatial extension other than as a construct of the consciousness of the observer. Thus we can think of the skin of the balloon as time and the dots of the balloon as moving away from each other in time. However I never use this analogy in my philosophy because it is impossible to model the effect of gravity with it. You somehow need to imagine an infinitely lumpy balloon with most dots moving away from you but some coming towards you. It doesn't really work so I don't bother with such a thought experiment. The real universe can only be observed from the inside looking out anyway so in addition to the above problem with gravity I'd have to place my observer inside the balloon. Yuck.

Please look up the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction modelling for SR. What I say about the physical contraction of the universe must be accepted as literally true if SR is to be accepted as literally true. The universe obligingly contracts to a manageable size just for you in your gee-whiz spaceship while remaining sensibly normal for me left behind on earth. Are you sure you want to stick with this story because I have plenty more questions to pose for you with respect to it if you're interested.

Why don't you just assume that it's a mathematical metaphor like everybody else does?

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:44 pm

I will admit tho that I see a paradox in Relativity. Probably because my degree is in philosophy not physics.
A and B. A travels from B close to the speed of light. However, since motion is relative one could say that B is staionary. B is stationary and A is moving to the left. And/or A is stationary and B is moving to the right.
Einstein explained this by saying that the only way the time dilation effect could be measured is if they return together. Then one (A or B) could be determed.to be the mover. Because of deceleration. Sounds like logical positivism.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:45 pm

The concensus of physicists is that the multiverse is not just a metaphor. It is a plausible representation of reality.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:48 pm

I will side with the scientific community and say that relativity is a representation of reality. You can object to Relativity. People have been trying to disprove it for decades.

Obvious Leo · Post by **Obvious Leo** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:48 pm

raw_thought wrote:Explain how general relativity and special relativity have not been reconciled. Its news to me and physicists.

Too easy. SR is modelled as a special case of GR in the "flat space" but GR in fact shows that there is no such physical region anywhere in the universe as a "flat space". A "flat space" is a region where gravity is absent which is why QM can never be made compatible with GR. QM ignores gravity.

raw_thought wrote:Yes, I am saying that modern physicists say that the multiverse is a plausible representation of reality.

Some do but the troglodytes are a dying breed. In any event the multiverse hypothesis is not science because it is untestable. It is a desperate attempt to salvage a flawed paradigm with mathematical sleight-of-hand and is of no more scientific value than the god hypothesis. Even Ptolemy would see it as reach too far and constructing mathematical castles in the air was Ptolemy's favourite trick.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:52 pm

I am familiar with the Lorenz transformation equations. In High School my physics teacher let me not attend class. In exchange I had to write a paper about Relativity.

Obvious Leo · Post by **Obvious Leo** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:53 pm

raw_thought wrote:I will side with the scientific community and say that relativity is a representation of reality. You can object to Relativity. People have been trying to disprove it for decades.

I'm not objecting to relativity at all. In fact I'm objecting to the spacetime narrative because it isn't relativistic enough. The geeks have got more chance of flying to Mars by flapping their arms than they have of successfully modelling the sub-atomic world without gravity. They're ignoring the elephant in the room which Einstein handed to them with GR.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:58 pm

Untestable? Sounds like a logical positivist's objection.
They say the same thing about the anthropic principle even tho it is proven logically but not empirically.
We exist in a universe that SEEMS to be fine tuned for our existence because we would not exist if the conditions were not right.
Suppose there is a multiverse. Most universes would be unfit for life. However it is not a miracle that we exist in a universe fit for life because that is the only universe capable of creating life.
The anthropic principle is the only theory that explains why our universe is so fit for life that does not require God.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:02 pm

Are you calling the majority of physicists troglodytes? The majority of physicists say that the multiverse is a plausible representation of reality.
They are now even saying that the big bang was the result of two branes colliding.

Obvious Leo · Post by **Obvious Leo** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:03 pm

raw_thought wrote:I am familiar with the Lorenz transformation equations. In High School my physics teacher let me not attend class. In exchange I had to write a paper about Relativity.

I wasn't specifically talking about the LTs. I was referring to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald model which deals more precisely with the contracting space. By the way neither Lorentz nor Fitzgerald EVER seriously thought that some idiot would take them literally over the implications of these equations but they could never have guessed how pervasive the chilling doctrine of logical positivism was to become in physics.

raw_thought wrote:The concensus of physicists is that the multiverse is not just a metaphor. It is a plausible representation of reality.

I disagree with your assertion that there is any consensus on this and whatever agreement there may have been in the past is rapidly eroding away under the newer ideas of quantum field theory and quantum loop cosmology. Either way as philosophers you and I can't have any truck with a multiverse explanation for reality. Shifting our explanations beyond the reach of our enquiry is anathema to both science and philosophy.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:06 pm

If it was not for the anthropic principle, I would be forced to believe in God. If only one of the many constants were off by a thousandth of a percentage point, life would be impossible.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:09 pm

Perhaps, believing in a multiverse is impossible for a logical positivist but not for the majority of physicists. And definitely not impossible for a philosopher. Philosophers believe in all sorts of Untestable propositions. For example, I believe that 1+1=2 at the universe's edge.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:12 pm

I think that we are wittnessing the demise of logical positivism in the sciences. String theory, branes., anthropic principle.... are all untestable.

Obvious Leo · Post by **Obvious Leo** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:14 pm

raw_thought wrote:Untestable? Sounds like a logical positivist's objection.

You don't seem to understand what logical positivism is because you've several times got this back to front. To a logical positivist the map is synonymous with the territory and hypotheses don't need to be testable as long as they are mathematically consistent. Almost NONE of the conjectures in physics for the past century have been testable and nobody seems to be too concerned about it. However I bloody well am because I am NOT a logical positivist. You're got your understanding of this back to front. Logical positivism is about mathematical purity and not about empirical validation by experiment. Popper was horrified by the logical positivist movement.

The weak anthropic principle is predicated on the absurd assumption that reality is made according to a suite of laws. I call it the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP). This is the stupidest question ever asked in the history of science.

Q. Why does our universe obey the laws of physics we have instead of some other laws?

A. Because if it didn't we'd change the fucking things.

Philosophy Now Forum

Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?