eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...it worked it's magic - it would seem the big dipper overflows
How exactly does space/time fabric work?
- Thread starter high|hgih
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
your embracing of gnosticism (jewish metaphysical navel gazing within the confines of the torah's fictional universe) and hermetic astrology (lulz, whats next? demon summoning with the greater key of solomon?) are all well and fine if thats how you want to roll, but remember this is still dogmatic abrahamic religious ritual magic with no real philosphy behind it save obey these ten commandments and serve your religious leader's will or be damned in torment/cast out of society/branded a heretic/no longer welcome at your grandaughter's bot mitzvah. this is till the ccarrot or stick method of conditioning the adherent to serve, and believe unquestioningly....thanks for the post / obvious effort. I do agree with a lot of what you've written. But, I can tell you that one thing really stuck out. You mention religions being about control and conditioning, and, you're 100% correct. The base teachings of religions is that man should 'satisfy the inner condition' of translating outward sexual expressions to 'inner' expressions. This, imo, is a path toward being a human vs. an intellectual animal. So yes, religion is about control and conditioning (of man's sexual potency, so may reach a place of peace - "shambhala" or something like that).
Ok, now, the sun is not egalitarian. In the mundane world, yes it is, but the psychology of religion speaks to an 'inner' sun / son and that sun / son is not expressed without satisfying those conditions I mentioned. Of course, these are my own observations - but they are supported and not just random blurts.
Here, I apologize for the c&p but it spells this out better than I can:There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:"In Gnosticism and Esotericism, one understands as Second Birth the fabrication of the Solar Bodies and the Incarnation of the Being."
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mothers womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. - John 3:1-6
- The Esoteric Treatise of Hermetic Astrology
"To incarnate the Divine Immortal Triad (Atman-Buddhi-Manas) signifies the Second Birth, which means to come out of the Ninth Sphere. The child who is born comes out from the womb. Whosoever is born within the Superior Worlds comes out of the Ninth Sphere (Sex)."
-------
*no real teaching (of anything) is about money. All the crystals and that kind of stuff has it's place, as 'symbols'. Symbols often represent potentialities. They're meant to be neutral. And, a sucker is born every minute
Real Gnosticism was nearly stamped out after the council of mycene as dangerous heretics, and nearly all (but not quite all) of their books and scrolls were burned. some "traditions of gnostic thought" (key phrase to reveal new age revisionism and neo-paganist nonsense) have been subsumed into the panoply of "New Age" counterculture religions. wicca, satanism, paganism (general and undefined) eastern meditation, crystal cults, pyramid believers, the "warriors of light" and other such loose associations of wackados have grasped the gnostic catchphrases and use them to justify, legitimize, and spice up their bullshit with classic flavours. most of these fuccknuts embrace religious affiliation for the show of piety and the ability to pretend to wisdom they do not posses. they are the non christian equivalent of the bigmouth preacher who stands on a soapbox decrying all others as sinners and demanding they repent or face doom.
posting biblical quotes undermines your statements (really, john 3:16? is that all you got?) ever since the first telling of the story of jesus of nazareth his entire canon has been victimized by legions of fanfiction writers, plagiarists, dipshits who think they can turn it into a blockbuster screenplay, and nefarious religious hucksters who used this simple story of dubious provenance as the springboard for 20 centuries of domination, control and religious persecution. thanks but you can keep the christian bible, the jewish torah and the mohammedan koran on the shelf. if it came from abraham it can stay in the dark ages where it belongs.
i prefer my Olde Tyme Religions.
also any religion that tries to proscribe sex is doomed to rejection by me.
Food Fight Fuck. thats the basic animal need. try to sublimate any of them and you are only fooling yourself, and creating repressed urges inside yourself which will invariably overwhelm you eventually. a pious life of self denial, and self flagellation is nothing i desire. if i wanted that would have stayed a catholic, or a mormon. even the pentecostals are more honest with themselves than the "suffer in this world for paradise in the next" bullshit.
the creepy word salad of the son/sun comparison is an oddity of the english language. to apply significance to this coincidental homonym of two different loan words not helpful. this same technique is used by many different wackados who are selling something (books, pamphlets, aluminium foil hats, documents that make you into a sovereign person not subject to US law, and other such fripperies) and has no spiritual significance or relationship to the other world.
whenever somebody starts using homonyms as proof of their illogical claims my bullshit alarm starts ringing.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...hey, when you're done having it all figured out, read about the materials you slander. You appear to be stuck in your 'real world' so no wonder that any depth might have you drooling buzz words. Good luck with that.
...oooo, a cookie.
Doer
Well-Known Member
The Son of all Fears comes to save us.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
He might just yet ... but the fearsomest question is "save us for what?" I know that the things I save for eventual use would not enjoy that use, were they aware. cn
Doer
Well-Known Member
To Serve Man
fried, barbecued, grilled, w/coconut, with pineapple, sachimi, ....like that.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
No it didn't. This was a misconception. How is that comparable to the heliocentric model that elegantly explains how the solar system actually operates?
And what do you mean space isn't actually bent, it's just an observational anomaly? What makes something "real" more than it having real effects on our detection instruments?
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
First it was theoretical, then it was mathematical, then they observed the real effects. If they didn't observe the real effects then the theory was abandoned as it was obviously not correct.
Time compresses when you accelerate...theoretically. But then if you measure it it does it actually. If you measure the effect with accurate clocks you can see that it actually does happen to the clocks. It's not a broken clock either, time itself, in every meaningful and measurable way does slow down.
Ugh stop comparing the 2. There was absolutely no evidence that we were created in 6 days, where as there was/is a ton of data showing the heliocentric model is correct. Their foundations are not equal, one is backed with actual evidence.
Do you believe matter is made of the 4 basic elements fire, earth, air, and water? Or do you believe we are made up of the atoms in the periodic table? One theory was total bullshit that was dreamed up, the other is based on real evidence. They are not, and never were equally valid.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
hurp a durp.
you sure got me on that error. the "heliocentric universe" was obviously intended to be GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE, but i never say GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE, so i OBVIOUSLY wrote heliocentric by mistake. youre the only one who didnt get what i meant. so have a cookie.
ill make my views simple.
the universe exists all the time.
even when there is no matter or energy in an area to measure, the SPACE matter or energy can occupy still exists.
gravity is a result of mass, and all matter is a creator of and a servant to their own gravity and other nearby sources of gravity as they exist in space
SPACE is not subject to gravity's blandishments, only matter and energy are subject to gravity's whim.
the APPARENT curvature of space is a product of mass and it's accompanying gravity affecting the energy and matter in that region, NOT a product of actual distortion of the SPACE which has no mass to interact with gravity.
since we can only observe and interact with objects (with mass and thus gravity included)and energy (which also has mass, and gravity included) the nature of the void without matter of any kind occupying it remains hidden.
this is actually quite obvious and NOT a product of a science fiction writer's dopey macguffins, it is ASSUMED by current physical models. all of them.
if gravity "warps" space then when there is no gravity space is therefore not "warped" thus not being "warped" is the NORMAL state of the universe. the addition of an object (and it's attendant gravity) and the energy emissions needed to observe the object (with their attendant mass and gravity as well) allows us only to observe the reaction of the mass and gravitational field of the energy we are observing as it interacts with the mass and gravity of the object being observed. this tells us sweet FA about what happens in space when mass is not present except that the energy passes through in a straight line, and it gets slightly deflected by gravity fields interacting with the mass and gravity of the energy itself.
the result is not a "warping" of space, but only an observed deflection of the mass due to gravity's attraction.
claiming that space is actually "warped" is as ridiculous as claiming that magic invisible gnomes with a penchant for iron live in magnets, and they run out to collect the one thing they crave whenever some iron comes within range.
magnets do not ""warp" space in the presence of iron, nor do they warp space in some magical form that only affects iron. that would be idiotic magical thinking, just like the pronouncement that gravity "warps" space when in fact it simply attracts anything that passes close enough to feel the field's effects. the inability to observe objects without ALSO observing their gravity and it's effects on the energy we need to measure for those observations does not conclude that gravity bends warps spindles mutilates or in any way alters the actual space itself. it merely offers the observation that in fact energy has mass in all it's forms, and thus is also subject to gravity's blandishments and come-hither glances.
i hope this clears up the misconceptioon as to my view of the universe, and perhaps sheds some light on the accepted model's shortcomings in dealing with everyone who doesnt hold an advanced degree in non-linear methamatics or quantum crackonomics.
also there are 5 basic elements, 5 primal elements, and 4 noble elements, making a grand total of 14.
only hedge witches are dumb enough to only believe in 4 of the 5 basic elements, and ignore the rest of the transsubtative properties. now get out of my tower before i transform you into a toad.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Prove it. Was there a universe 'before' the BB? Is there anything outside of the currently expanding universe in which we reside?
Yet modern theories tell us that empty space is not actually empty. The emptiness of empty space still has more 'stuff' than the emptiness of the void outside the border of the universe. There is 'nothing' and then there is 'really nothing.'
Mass is affected by gravity but that doesn't follow that mass creates gravity. Gravity could ALWAYS be present, just only detectable when mass is present. Without a solid mechanism explaining exactly what gravity is, there is no way to tell.
How do/can you know this? What is the nature of space? Until you have a theory of gravity and space that encompasses both, you cannnot say for certain that space is not affected by gravity. Especially in light of modern physics that contradicts that claim.
If space is empty but 'appears' to curve under the influence of gravity, how can you conclude this distortion is not real? What does it mean to not be 'actual' distortion? If it's measured, then isn't it real?
But can be inferred.
This is where you are wrong. CURRENT physical models say exactly the opposite, that spacetime is a real thing that can be shaped by a heavy mass. Einstein is telling us that we are not being pulled to the earth by a field force, but we are being pushed down by spacetime.
You seem to be implying massless forms of energy also have gravitational fields. This is not true. We only see gravitation in the presence of mass.
Why, because you say so? Magnetic fields are pretty well understood under the current model of electo-weak force. Maybe if you could point to a model of gravity that is likewise so well understood and explains observations you can make these claims but AFAIK, there is no model of gravity that shows it as a fundamental field force.
It wouldn't be idiotic if that's what the observations showed us. Of course we know that magnetism doesn't have anything to do with warping spacetime.
Well I'm so glad that we finally have a solid theory unifying gravity with quantum field theory, I'm so looking to reading your paper. Care to give a citation?
You and Seedling should join forces. My goodness, it appears that we are so fortunate at RIU to have such knowledgeable people that can teach us how wrong modern physicists are about the nature of the universe. Screw the science journals and conferences, the top physicists in the world need to start growing weed and begin reading RIU so they can find the truth and go back to the universities to share the knowledge they found on a pot growing website....
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Fuck you asshole. Learn to use correct words. I doubt I am the only one that assumed you meant heliocentric as the rest of your rambling idiotic post hinted at you not having the slightest clue about anything. In the same sentence that you mistakenly said heliocentric instead of geocentric you also described the christian creation story as "an adequate theory". At no point ever was it an adequate theory.
Your views are a bit too simple.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
This is what happened when I read the rest of dr kynes post:
[video=youtube;oep4mRpmrkQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oep4mRpmrkQ[/video]
[video=youtube;oep4mRpmrkQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oep4mRpmrkQ[/video]
bigbillyrocka
Well-Known Member
If space can be defined as fabric, then what is it's thread count per sq inch?
Doer
Well-Known Member
It can't be defined as a fabric, but Space can be defined as an 11 dimensional substance. A substance that is possibly subject to compression along one or more of these dimensions. It is possibly defined as substance in which forces flow in fields, the EM field, for example. That and the Higgs Field (if found), along with other Fields, Strong and Weak, and possibly even more, make of the Fabric.
So, the thread count is the current minimum distance theoretically possible for Space. It the so called Planck length.
Remember it is Space that defines Matter and Matter defines Space. So, we are a bit stuck, right now. It could be, Space and Matter are the same and I tend to favor this for the elegant math. Matter is highly crushed Space and Space is quite voluminous Matter. Crush the loam, for we do roam, atop the Quantum Foam.
-----
According to the generalized uncertainty principle, the Planck length is in principle, within a factor of order unity, the shortest measurable length - and no improvements in measurement instruments could change that. In some forms of quantum gravity, the Planck length is the length scale at which the structure of spacetime becomes dominated by quantum effects, and it would become impossible to determine the difference between two locations less than one Planck length apart. The precise effects of quantum gravity are unknown; often it is suggested that spacetime might have a discrete or foamy structure at Planck length scale.
---------
So, the thread count is the current minimum distance theoretically possible for Space. It the so called Planck length.
Remember it is Space that defines Matter and Matter defines Space. So, we are a bit stuck, right now. It could be, Space and Matter are the same and I tend to favor this for the elegant math. Matter is highly crushed Space and Space is quite voluminous Matter. Crush the loam, for we do roam, atop the Quantum Foam.
-----
According to the generalized uncertainty principle, the Planck length is in principle, within a factor of order unity, the shortest measurable length - and no improvements in measurement instruments could change that. In some forms of quantum gravity, the Planck length is the length scale at which the structure of spacetime becomes dominated by quantum effects, and it would become impossible to determine the difference between two locations less than one Planck length apart. The precise effects of quantum gravity are unknown; often it is suggested that spacetime might have a discrete or foamy structure at Planck length scale.
---------
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Anyone that tries to tell you there is only one definition for space is blowing hot air.
In science, we are actually trying to do more than define things, so this includes explaining the nature of things. The word space certainly can be used to mean a defined area of 3 dimensions but space can also mean the nature of the physical properties of the 'stuff' that's all around us. How does space act? How does it expand and what exactly IS expanding as the universe grows? Other languages use different words for the different concepts of space. The fact that we use the same word should not imply there is only one definition.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Do you know about the Parthian Shot. Find out, please. It will make you a much better communicator.
I will try to help you, if you let me.
If you have no matter. Hardest vacuum, lowest temperature, etc. How far is it, in your model, "to anything"?
There is no matter in the Model. It is a thought puzzle.
My forum mate, I can tell you are trying to learn. So, please cogitate with me.
Is it Space that makes volume or is it Matter?
Instead of kicking and screaming against this, just try to tell me how volume can be measured in the absence of Matter?
Seedling
Well-Known Member
Just because it cant be measured doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. There is an EXACT distance between you and the center of the moon at every given point in time. The FACT that you can't measure that distance instantly does not concern mother nature in the least bit! You are whack job, going around telling people that if you can't measure something it doesn't exist. Of course, all of Einstein's ass sniffing groupies believe like you do, that since you have no way of measuring an object's velocity in space must mean it doesn't have a velocity. You're a f'n moron!
Doer
Well-Known Member
Woops you just added matter. Try again without the moon and you as reference. And look up Parting Shot. It's shoddy to communicate this way. It does nothing for credibility.
Stop calling names and kicking and screaming to make your non-points.
No matter, no volume. Volume is defined by the container.
How could it mean anything to me what names you call, except that is shows your emotional faults?
I didn't finish college, I found it too boring, btw. So, just up-level your antics please.
Everything has velocity. Relative velocity. Were you flunked out of college, is that it?