Question for the atheist?

[OnSlaught]

Don't think it's worthy of being a theory. Think it's an idea used to explain QM so that it can make sense when it's not supposed to make sense. Plus it balances right on the sharp end of Occam's Razor. ...

I don't know if the simplest explanation can be used there (Occam's Razor) to explain something we don't know a whole helluva lot about.

Aren't the theoretical physicist trying to balance the equation that puts fits the macro with the micro? Therefore they are trying to find out why gravity doesn't fit into the rest of the equation like the other forces do.

I don't think it's far fetched, just like you don't think a creator is far fetched.

If this is the case do you think that black holes are a stretch to imagine being a possibility in our Universe since we've never actually seen one but have data that suggests that they are out there?

Again, when in doubt, "I don't know" isn't such a bad answer when you are still trying to find evidence to prove it exists...

 

[sean69]

Damn Sean, I guess I'm going to have to go back and read some of this dialogue because you just said that my interactions in this thread counted for shit...

Onz, STFU man. I said that the only coherent dialogue that I'VE had. You and I haven't had gone back and forth in this thread. At least not yet lol.


So to say one doesn't know until more evidence is given is not correct? I'm not saying that you said it wasn't but it seems that there is a better way?

Huh? Are you asking me if there's another better way to do science without evidence? Not that I know of. I'm confused. Plus this thread, in the beginning, was more about absolute statements than I don't knows. I think I actually said somewhere in this thread that I could give a fuck about not knowing and it seems to scare some folks but not me.

The best thought experiment in my opinion would be to have two infants, raise them by having one with the influences of religion, the metaphysical and the spiritual and philosophical but try to exclude the influence of science even though the metaphysical and philosophical have LEAD toward the developments of modern science.

Have the other child only raised with mathematical and scientific influences with no religious or spiritual connotations introduced into its life.
Of course you would have to control each environment so no outside influence can tinker with the outcome of each child's ideology.

What do you think the outcome would be if you introduced the opposite ideology to the child once it is an adult, say 30 yrs old?

I don't know. Guess it would depend on the degree of indoctrination in both cases. Whereas science is more straight-forward, religions come in a gazillion flavors.

Interesting thought experiment but almost impossible/impractical to conceive given that physics and metaphysics permeate every facet of our lives regardless of if it's introduced institutionally. Plus I think we often tend to over trivialize the influence of metaphysics and philosophy on how we acquire knowledge of the world. And how would you exclude the 'scientific thought' process? Unless you're just saying exclude experimentation. Which is basically the difference between science and metaphysics.
I think it's in our very nature to interact with our surroundings by forms of experimentation, albeit informal.

Onz, I think the real question here (and in other threads like that in the past and future threads) is whether metaphysical knowledge is meaningless or not.
Which in the scientific paradigm means not true or false. And whole argument has been that that question itself is meaningless. Because metaphysical statements or assertions are not provable, falsifiable or testable by experiment of binary logic arguments. But that doesn't preclude them from being reasonable.

...

 

[sean69]

never said it wasnt totally impractical or impossible
More like it doesnt seem natural for people to have discourses of that nature, regardless of the good that may come from it. Seems like somthing that take a bit of organizing before hand. But footage of company like google or apple pulling one off could probably make a ted conference look like a science segment on the local news

I agree. And you're spot on about Google.


theres still a few posters who could add to this on both sides who havent made an appearance yet but it could be cause we kinda jacked this thread and the first pages sent them packin

I know. And I was hoping that they'd chime in. We need a diversity of perspectives which is the best way to learn new stuff and stay sharp.



cant disagree with any of this
its a habit thats probably older than primates and and like most bad habits if u dont know what ur doing or its negative effects it can get real close to immutable

I agree.

...

 

[sean69]

There has been some pretty good back and forth in here. All I'll add is this:

Truth/Objectivity can be pretty damn elusive at times. But the elusive nature of the truth is not a license to be dishonest. And that what equivalence between science and religion is, dishonest. Empiricism and Revelation are not even comparable methodologies for uncovering truth, unless one redefines truth to the point of solipsism (in which case just pretend I'm your figment). Dressed up in quantum esotericism, at its core its same nonsense folks have used since the pre-history: "I don't know everything and you don't everything, so lets just make some shit up." To have a conversation we must presuppose some relatively objective realm in which our minds can meet. To even pose the proposition that objectivity is indistinguishable from subjectivity (that science is just another religion) means one should rationally be having this conversation by himself to himself.

Very good points. But I have a few questions:

1) Who/what defines universal truth?
2) I don't think QM is 'made up'. Maybe some of the different interpretations of the consequences of the results of observation and the mathematics. Unless, however, you're saying the math is made up?
3) What do you mean by "relatively objective?"

And thanks for chiming in man.

 

[sean69]

I don't know if the simplest explanation can be used there (Occam's Razor) to explain something we don't know a whole helluva lot about.

Good point. Never thought of it like that. Hm. But isn't parsimony supposed to be applied when formulating hypotheses? Isn't the whole point of inquiry trying to explain phenomena of unknown mechanism?



Aren't the theoretical physicist trying to balance the equation that puts fits the macro with the micro? Therefore they are trying to find out why gravity doesn't fit into the rest of the equation like the other forces do.

I don't know much about the math formalisms around the Multiverse Theory. How does gravity factor in?


I don't think it's far fetched, just like you don't think a creator is far fetched.

I don't think anything is far fetched. But I haven't ONCE anywhere in this thread advocated or argued for a creator. That was never an issue of discussion in the back and forths I had. In our way of thinking and reasoning issues of causation, creation, action, reaction, effect and stuff like that, are inevitable. Whether you're a religious and believe God made the universe or an atheist and believe in a non-God spontaneous appearance (because the word creation is unsettling and Big-Bang isn't) of the universe, the fact remains that both of these notions aren't exempt from temporal synthesis.
I don't know how the universe started, or if it even started. I have and support no theory, or guesses or ideas. I simply don't care about things like this.


If this is the case do you think that black holes are a stretch to imagine being a possibility in our Universe since we've never actually seen one but have data that suggests that they are out there?

No I don't think so.
We can stretch our imagination as far as we want. I actually encourage it. In principle. But in practice, conventional and consensus reasoning will always determine the limits between fantasy and reality. This is basically what I've been saying all thread.


Again, when in doubt, "I don't know" isn't such a bad answer when you are still trying to find evidence to prove it exists...

I agree. Now if only I had a dollar for everyone else who doesn't ...

...

 

[OnSlaught]

Good point. Never thought of it like that. Hm. But isn't parsimony supposed to be applied when formulating hypotheses? Isn't the whole point of inquiry trying to explain phenomena of unknown mechanism?

Exactly, I fully agree. However in the Big Bang theory and our universe coming out of a singularity is the most economical and simplistic idea that could be thought of when doing both quantum and cosmological accounting. The other universes or membranes outside of our own universe is just a way for theoretical physicist to account for the energy and matter that somewhat seems to explode and expand out of nowhere. Again, I still don't know and they (cosmologist) don't know either.

I don't know much about the math formalisms around the Multiverse Theory. How does gravity factor in?

The multiverse theory is just string or M theory (membrane theory). It's suppose to account for all of the forces, weak and strong along with electromagnetic, and some how fit them into a nice puzzle with gravity. Gravity has been the trickiest of all the forces because we haven't yet found the graviton that accounts for it. However, with multiple membranes or universes, one can suppose that gravity may not be a weak force in another universe and we just have the remnants of that stronger force of gravity leaked into our own universe from when the Big Bang occurred and two universes collided (possibly one dying universe) to create ours. This would theoretically balance out the equation.


I don't think anything is far fetched. But I haven't ONCE anywhere in this thread advocated or argued for a creator. That was never an issue of discussion in the back and forths I had. In our way of thinking and reasoning issues of causation, creation, action, reaction, effect and stuff like that, are inevitable. Whether you're a religious and believe God made the universe or an atheist and believe in a non-God spontaneous appearance (because the word creation is unsettling and Big-Bang isn't) of the universe, the fact remains that both of these notions aren't exempt from temporal synthesis.
I don't know how the universe started, or if it even started. I have and support no theory, or guesses or ideas. I simply don't care about things like this.


I agree. Inflation theory suggests that the universe did have a beginning and will eventually have an ending (but not for another trillion or so years) to somewhat satisfy the question proposed by Einstein's theory of relativity. However, just like there are various gods among various religions there are various theories about how the universe will die. You got the Big Crunch, the Big Freeze, the Heat Death, The multiverse where multiple collisions of universes give birth to another universe and the cycle never ends, the Big Rip and the Big Bounce.

Who the fuck knows right? I mean this is the reason why I will have my kid doing number theory earlier than that British black family that has the smartest kids, this shit needs to be solved.

No I don't think so.
We can stretch our imagination as far as we want. I actually encourage it. In principle. But in practice, conventional and consensus reasoning will always determine the limits between fantasy and reality. This is basically what I've been saying all thread.

Again, I agree. I just think people sometimes don't like the way certain statements are phrased. I mean for all we know there could be a spaghetti monster out in the universe, but it's highly unlikely. I think this world would be a very boring place to live in if we didn't use our imaginations.

However, I don't like stagnant thought, meaning that if we have the means of being able to prove something is tangible or intangible through reason and verifiable data, then we really need to give up on some of this shit that we've been believing in over the last couple thousand years already. For instance, if you are in certain churches (nondenominational, pentacostal, southern baptist) you hear about evangelist and missionaries witnessing the healing power of God to regenerate limbs on the spot... People still believe this shit. Just like Mother Teressa's first miracle was due to a fucking camera exposure!

I don't deny the existence of a creator because that can be the collision of two other universes, but I do reserve to hold with razor sharp scrutiny and criticism, the skepticism for supernatural occurences that can be explained using reason. Are these things possible I guess, but the probability is highly unlikely (now this is a perfect place to use Occam's Razor).

I agree. Now if only I had a dollar for everyone else who doesn't ...

Oh, and I will get back to your other comments on my post before you answered with these...
...

...

 

[sean69]

Exactly, I fully agree. However in the Big Bang theory and our universe coming out of a singularity is the most economical and simplistic idea that could be thought of when doing both quantum and cosmological accounting. The other universes or membranes outside of our own universe is just a way for theoretical physicist to account for the energy and matter that somewhat seems to explode and expand out of nowhere. Again, I still don't know and they (cosmologist) don't know either.
The multiverse theory is just string or M theory (membrane theory). It's suppose to account for all of the forces, weak and strong along with electromagnetic, and some how fit them into a nice puzzle with gravity. Gravity has been the trickiest of all the forces because we haven't yet found the graviton that accounts for it. However, with multiple membranes or universes, one can suppose that gravity may not be a weak force in another universe and we just have the remnants of that stronger force of gravity leaked into our own universe from when the Big Bang occurred and two universes collided (possibly one dying universe) to create ours. This would theoretically balance out the equation.
I agree. Inflation theory suggests that the universe did have a beginning and will eventually have an ending (but not for another trillion or so years) to somewhat satisfy the question proposed by Einstein's theory of relativity. However, just like there are various gods among various religions there are various theories about how the universe will die. You got the Big Crunch, the Big Freeze, the Heat Death, The multiverse where multiple collisions of universes give birth to another universe and the cycle never ends, the Big Rip and the Big Bounce.
Who the fuck knows right? I mean this is the reason why I will have my kid doing number theory earlier than that British black family that has the smartest kids, this shit needs to be solved.

Again, I agree. I just think people sometimes don't like the way certain statements are phrased. I mean for all we know there could be a spaghetti monster out in the universe, but it's highly unlikely. I think this world would be a very boring place to live in if we didn't use our imaginations.

However, I don't like stagnant thought, meaning that if we have the means of being able to prove something is tangible or intangible through reason and verifiable data, then we really need to give up on some of this shit that we've been believing in over the last couple thousand years already. For instance, if you are in certain churches (nondenominational, pentacostal, southern baptist) you hear about evangelist and missionaries witnessing the healing power of God to regenerate limbs on the spot... People still believe this shit. Just like Mother Teressa's first miracle was due to a fucking camera exposure!

I don't deny the existence of a creator because that can be the collision of two other universes, but I do reserve to hold with razor sharp scrutiny and criticism, the skepticism for supernatural occurences that can be explained using reason. Are these things possible I guess, but the probability is highly unlikely (now this is a perfect place to use Occam's Razor).

Oh, and I will get back to your other comments on my post before you answered with these...

I remember reading an article once that outlined the chronological history of the different models of the universe that humans have come up with from thousands of years B.C. up to now. There were damn near close to 100 of them. But they really were just a few ideas and themes reformulated over the years using fancier terminology. And this makes sense. We really haven't changed that much in our overall intuitive thought process.

"A fish cannot comprehend the existence of water. He is too deeply immersed in it."
- Sir Oliver Lodge

 

[mikemagic63]

I don't know how the universe started. But I'm pretty sure a man in the sky didn't pull it out his ass either.

 

[divine]

 

[sean69]

The multiverse theory is just string or M theory (membrane theory). It's suppose to account for all of the forces, weak and strong along with electromagnetic, and some how fit them into a nice puzzle with gravity. Gravity has been the trickiest of all the forces because we haven't yet found the graviton that accounts for it. However, with multiple membranes or universes, one can suppose that gravity may not be a weak force in another universe and we just have the remnants of that stronger force of gravity leaked into our own universe from when the Big Bang occurred and two universes collided (possibly one dying universe) to create ours. This would theoretically balance out the equation.

Not to digress from the thread topic but I have my reservations about the notion of quantized gravity. The behavior of all the other forces you mentioned (weak and strong nuclear and EM) and their interactions within nature have been successfully understood using QFT within the Standard Model paradigm. Photons, gluons, bosons, and phonons for sound, blah blah blah. So intuitively, it makes sense to postulate an elementary particle for mediating gravity, right? The graviton. The missing link to the GUT. Makes sense. The next thing is to start looking for it right? Even though it's practically impossible to detect them because of energy and noise issues (just like black holes ... well not quite like black holes because those are fundamentally impossible to directly observe but Steve Hawking is God so ...). String Theory, M-Theory, leaking gravitons through membranes, brane collisions, and all that shit are just attempts to get around this issue IMO.

Here's the real problem.
In quantum gravity, we expect space-time to be quantized. Fundamentally this means that we have to find a way of describing space and time as emerging from the quantum behavior of the system. This means that we have to find a way of describing the quantum behavior of a system without using either space or time. I don't know how this is possible.

 

[OnSlaught]

Not to digress from the thread topic but I have my reservations about the notion of quantized gravity. The behavior of all the other forces you mentioned (weak and strong nuclear and EM) and their interactions within nature have been successfully understood using QFT within the Standard Model paradigm. Photons, gluons, bosons, and phonons for sound, blah blah blah. So intuitively, it makes sense to postulate an elementary particle for mediating gravity, right? The graviton. The missing link to the GUT. Makes sense. The next thing is to start looking for it right? Even though it's practically impossible to detect them because of energy and noise issues (just like black holes ... well not quite like black holes because those are fundamentally impossible to directly observe but Steve Hawking is God so ...). String Theory, M-Theory, leaking gravitons through membranes, brane collisions, and all that shit are just attempts to get around this issue IMO.

Here's the real problem.
In quantum gravity, we expect space-time to be quantized. Fundamentally this means that we have to find a way of describing space and time as emerging from the quantum behavior of the system. This means that we have to find a way of describing the quantum behavior of a system without using either space or time. I don't know how this is possible.

Well, I know it seems like the easy way out but it is plausible. If we ever can find particles that make up dark matter and dark energy then I think it will negate trying to as you put it,"find a way of describing the quantum behavior of a system without using either space or time." I mean I have my problems agreeing with the Big Freeze or even the Heat Death that Inflation theory accounts for due to the first law of thermodynamics. I mean that energy has to go somewhere right?

That's why the possibility of another universe(s) isn't that far fetched. What blew my mind is that the universe (I mean this is off of observable data from radiation images taken of the universe) is flat! WTF? It doesn't rotate nor does it have extra planes which is weird to me.

As far as Black holes are concerned you almost made me spit out my water when I read the Stephen Hawking part!
But you got to remember Sean that it wasn't Stephen Hawking that came up with the idea of black holes in the first place, it was Einstein. I mean who knows what could have been achieved if Einstein would have never been deterred from pursuing his anti-matter theory that is now referred to as dark energy and dark matter.

I mean this is just a speculation from me but I believe that dark energy is linked to the graviton that we are seeking for quantized gravity. If you think about it's repulsive and has yet to be seen, but we see its effects. It's anti-gravity in a sense.

 

[Count23]

Ay sean what's your beef with black holes anyway

 

[sean69]

Well, I know it seems like the easy way out but it is plausible. If we ever can find particles that make up dark matter and dark energy then I think it will negate trying to as you put it,"find a way of describing the quantum behavior of a system without using either space or time."

Onz, I don't think quite got my argument here. I'm saying that the concept of the graviton - gravity described as interactions of fundamental quantized particles - requires the quantization of space-time. Space-time being the framework in which gravity is described by General Relativity.

Why must you quantize space-time? Because that's the only way it can be incorporated into the math of the Standard Model, which is a pretty gangsta model and thus far the most robust and reliable one for describing all shit. So physicist insist that any description of gravity MUST be vetted by the Standard Model (SM). As a scientist you know how this shit goes. There are theories and there are THEORIES. The SM is to physics what evolution theory is to biology or molecular orbital theory to chemistry. Basically, SM >>>> gravity.

Anyway, all particle interactions must also be described under the theoretical framework of the Quantum Field Theory. QFT is basically used to re-frame the otherwise classical mechanics of stuff in the universe in quantum mechanical terms, which is how modern 'condensed matter' physics is done.

So, here's what i'm saying. If you have to quantize space-time, as a requirement for describing gravity in QM terms, then you MUST describe space-time as EMERGING from the QM behavior of a system. Just like the electricity and magnetism 'emerges' from the behavior electrons. In order to do this you have to find a way of describing the quantum behavior of that system without using space and time. This is a fundamentally fucked up situation to be in. And this is just one of the problems with quantized gravity. Even Feynman's QED, the most fundamental and accurate theory in all of science, couldn't get around this. However, String Theory has given us more knowledge about symmetries and super-symmetries so it's been useful in that sense.

I mean I have my problems agreeing with the Big Freeze or even the Heat Death that Inflation theory accounts for due to the first law of thermodynamics. I mean that energy has to go somewhere right?

Not sure I understand. Explain.

That's why the possibility of another universe(s) isn't that far fetched. What blew my mind is that the universe (I mean this is off of observable data from radiation images taken of the universe) is flat! WTF? It doesn't rotate nor does it have extra planes which is weird to me.

As far as Black holes are concerned you almost made me spit out my water when I read the Stephen Hawking part!
But you got to remember Sean that it wasn't Stephen Hawking that came up with the idea of black holes in the first place, it was Einstein. I mean who knows what could have been achieved if Einstein would have never been deterred from pursuing his anti-matter theory that is now referred to as dark energy and dark matter.

True.

I mean this is just a speculation from me but I believe that dark energy is linked to the graviton that we are seeking for quantized gravity. If you think about it's repulsive and has yet to be seen, but we see its effects. It's anti-gravity in a sense.

That's the problem. It would be practically impossible to observe a graviton.

These guys: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0601043 ... have calculated that a detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions. And screening background noise of neutrinos, would require a nuetrino shield so fucking big that it would collapse into a black hole.

Fucking black holes.

Not saying multiverses aren't possible, just saying the science of them has mad issues to resolve. But hey, that's the thrill of science.

 

[sean69]

Ay sean what's your beef with black holes anyway

 

[yoda]

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion”
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
Einstein

The very impossibility in which I find myself to prove that God is not, discovers to me his existence.
Voltaire

 

[Adam Knows]

Oh what a suprise. Decided to come out of lurking during the intermission huh?

"Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice."

i have no reason to come in argue about myths and fantasies daily...

that's akin to arguing about who's going to do what in a rerun of an old tv show...

but as anyone else will point out:

you're arguing/whining more, trying to convince us then we are trying to convince you...

i stated a fact and you're stating parables and runarounds....
like most religious nut jobs. no straight answers, just bullshit on top of bullshit....


*waits for witty remark since he can't come up with a well thought out straight answer to his disease....

 

[sean69]

i have no reason to come in argue about myths and fantasies daily...

that's akin to arguing about who's going to do what in a rerun of an old tv show...

but as anyone else will point out:

you're arguing/whining more, trying to convince us then we are trying to convince you...

i stated a fact and you're stating parables and runarounds....
like most religious nut jobs. no straight answers, just bullshit on top of bullshit....


*waits for witty remark since he can't come up with a well thought out straight answer to his disease....

facts that you can't back up. post some quasi-corny quip. disappear. then come back after you been bailed out.
Don't get mad cuz you're too nervous to engage in an educated debate then call it parables because you can't understand it.

I can do this in my sleep .. it's too easy

 

[Adam Knows]

facts that you can't back up. post some quasi-corny quip. disappear. then come back after you been bailed out.
Don't get mad cuz you're too nervous to engage in an educated debate then call it parables because you can't understand it.

I can do this in my sleep .. it's too easy

there is nothing "educated" about religion. it's a plain simple definition. "control"

you're arguing about how "controlled" you are.
i'm stating how i can think for myself without casper the friendly ghost guiding my hand.

if you really want to go back and forth let's discuss an actual "realistic" subject. like how about how one can create a self sustaining company with less then 500 bucks in 30 days. that's worth discussing/debating. talking about a zombie who rose from the dead who people psychically wish to at night before they goto sleep? i can only keep it at a simple level because that's what it is...."simple"


you and how you've been duped by the masses........hardly worth my time


and like i said before...you're trying to convince us, not the other way around

 

[Saabiyr]

If you dont believe in a God, any God. That means you must be all knowing or Omniscience. To be an atheist you must have absolute knowledge that there is no God in the entire universe. And if you know for a fact there is no God b/c you have that knowledge than you probably are a God and never identified yourself as one. I never ubderstood how people could be atheist. How can anyone in there right mind say that there is no such thing as a God? I dont get it.

And since you do believe than you can tell us that
there is nothing else out in the vast universe.......

this is dumb

 

[Count23]

 

[Count23]

 

[mike123]

good shit on them vids count

they might be on to somehting with multidimensional circle thing

that stuff about the universe being a simulation was very interesting, reminds me of the holographic universe theory i remember hearing about a while back

*edit*
didnt think they mention anything about holograms in that second vid

and i think i may have a beef with blackholes now too
if the speed of light is the fastest anything in this universe can move then isnt what blackholes do to light particles is essentially speeding them up far past any limits we know, just in a different direction?

 

[sean69]

there is nothing "educated" about religion. it's a plain simple definition. "control"

you're arguing about how "controlled" you are.
i'm stating how i can think for myself without casper the friendly ghost guiding my hand.

if you really want to go back and forth let's discuss an actual "realistic" subject. like how about how one can create a self sustaining company with less then 500 bucks in 30 days. that's worth discussing/debating. talking about a zombie who rose from the dead who people psychically wish to at night before they goto sleep? i can only keep it at a simple level because that's what it is...."simple"


you and how you've been duped by the masses........hardly worth my time


and like i said before...you're trying to convince us, not the other way around

@ fortune "500" company. Well damn. You got me there. Hey, do your thing buddy. But uhm...

WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND??

da fuck?

I'm not trying to convince anyone about shit that they can't go learn and question for themselves so FOH with that weak ass diversionary strawman shit.
I bet you can't quote one line in this entire thread where anyone said shit about Jesus or Christianity. But hey, cling on to that delusion.

There's actually been some insightful grown up discussion in this thread which you're obviously oblivious to. What? You want it to be dumbed down on some abacus type shit so we can go back and forth with insults???
Nope. Sorry.

 

[sean69]

good shit on them vids count

they might be on to somehting with multidimensional circle thing

that stuff about the universe being a simulation was very interesting, reminds me of the holographic universe theory i remember hearing about a while back

*edit*
didnt think they mention anything about holograms in that second vid

and i think i may have a beef with blackholes now too
if the speed of light is the fastest anything in this universe can move then isnt what blackholes do to light particles is essentially speeding them up far past any limits we know, just in a different direction?

Not necessarily. The light doesn't "speed up" per se, it's percieved as speeding up or slowing down from the frame of reference of the observer.

Special Relativity says the speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial frames of reference in all directions irrespective of the velocity of the source or the observer. But this only applies 'locally' to systems that are 'inertial' meaning non accelerating systems. Later on Einstein updated his theory and came up with the General Relativity which says that the speed of light is actually not constant but can be influenced by gravitational fields. BUT, it depended on the vantage point of the observer. Locally the speed of light will be measured the same as it is in a vacuum, the normal speed, something like approximately 300,000 km/s. It's the same whether the observer is inside or outside a black hole. But if the observer looks towards the black hole (and measures the speed of light from a clock there or whatever) he see's the speed of light to be slower and if he looks away from the black hole he sees it speed up.
Shit doesn't change. It's always all about the observers cognitive perspective.

 

[mike123]

Not necessarily. The light doesn't "speed up" per se, it's percieved as speeding up or slowing down from the frame of reference of the observer.

Special Relativity says the speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial frames of reference in all directions irrespective of the velocity of the source or the observer. But this only applies 'locally' to systems that are 'inertial' meaning non accelerating systems. Later on Einstein updated his theory and came up with the General Relativity which says that the speed of light is actually not constant but can be influenced by gravitational fields. BUT, it depended on the vantage point of the observer. Locally the speed of light will be measured the same as it is in a vacuum, the normal speed, something like approximately 300,000 km/s. It's the same whether the observer is inside or outside a black hole. But if the observer looks towards the black hole (and measures the speed of light from a clock there or whatever) he see's the speed of light to be slower and if he looks away from the black hole he sees it speed up.
Shit doesn't change. It's always all about the observers cognitive perspective.

so ur suggesting observation of the gravitational effects on light has more to do with what the observer is thinking ( similar to the QM stuff ) as oppose to the blackhole itself?

just to help nudge this thread along its orbit what are ur thoughts on the experiences people have spoke about while on DMT, as well as similar cases involving something other than DMT or nothing at all? Anybody can chime in on this one

 

[Adam Knows]

@ fortune "500" company. Well damn. You got me there. Hey, do your thing buddy. But uhm...

WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND??

da fuck?

I'm not trying to convince anyone about shit that they can't go learn and question for themselves so FOH with that weak ass diversionary strawman shit.
I bet you can't quote one line in this entire thread where anyone said shit about Jesus or Christianity. But hey, cling on to that delusion.

There's actually been some insightful grown up discussion in this thread which you're obviously oblivious to. What? You want it to be dumbed down on some abacus type shit so we can go back and forth with insults???
Nope. Sorry.

i think your reading comprehension skills have fallen way below avg.

quote where i mentioned anywhere about fortune 500 companies......

and you are trying to convince us at this point hence the number of pages and responses from you. i've made what...5-6 as to your 30 something....

 

[sean69]

^^^^


Seriously? Idiom? Doesn't ring a...
Ahh fuck it. You know what. You win.

so ur suggesting observation of the gravitational effects on light has more to do with what the observer is thinking ( similar to the QM stuff ) as oppose to the blackhole itself?

just to help nudge this thread along its orbit what are ur thoughts on the experiences people have spoke about while on DMT, as well as similar cases involving something other than DMT or nothing at all? Anybody can chime in on this one

What the observer is seeing.
What's DMT?

 

[Count23]

Yo Sean srsly tho what's ya beef with black holes tho? You don't think that they exist or is it that you think that astrophysicists put "divine faith" in them?

 

[sean69]

Yo Sean srsly tho what's ya beef with black holes tho? You don't think that they exist or is it that you think that astrophysicists put "divine faith" in them?

If by divine faith you mean believing in shit you can't physically see, test or prove its existence. Yes.

 

[Count23]

If by divine faith you mean believing in shit you can't physically see, test or prove its existence. Yes.

Aight cool. Do you completely disagree with it as a concept tho even if you may have reservations about their existence? What do you think about the series I posted about them?

 

[Count23]

BTW who is the gal you have in ya avi?

 

[gene cisco]

Fucking shame. 21st century, developed nation and Atheism/Agnostics are the exception instead of the rule.

 

[sean69]

Aight cool. Do you completely disagree with it as a concept tho even if you may have reservations about their existence? What do you think about the series I posted about them?

No I don't. The indirect evidence is very compelling but it still doesn't change the fact that they're just theoretical constructs that are impossible to be observed directly and can only be inferred from special gravitational field signatures.
I haven't watched the series yet. I'll check it out.

 

[mike123]

What the observer is seeing.

i get ya
it could just as easily be tiny unstable pockets of dark matter or some other weird thing nobody has thought of yet

What's DMT?

 

[sean69]

i get ya
it could just as easily be tiny unstable pockets of dark matter or some other weird thing nobody has thought of yet

maybe.

Got it.