# How exactly does space/time fabric work?



## high|hgih (Aug 22, 2012)

I know all the basics like how gravity works and stuff, but is there up/down/left/right? That sort of thing? I'd imagine there is, but it would take some crazy math to calculate a trip somewhere lightyears away taking gravity, axis, location, asteroids, all of that into consideration.


----------



## Canibus7 (Aug 22, 2012)

Iunno, but gravity is only a theory, we still dont have a full understanding of it.


----------



## high|hgih (Aug 22, 2012)

Thats true, but the idea seems right inside of the universe, everything revolves around something bigger, planets rotate around stars, and moons around planets, stars rotate around the center of galaxies, whatever that may be.. People say its a supermassive black hole, but even black holes are only theory


----------



## Doer (Aug 22, 2012)

is it a fabric or more life taffy? sorta bendy?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 23, 2012)

again, the bending of time/space is an analogy to describe the PERCEIVED alteration of the universe around massive objects but the metaphors of warping of time/space are merely an aid to human comprehension of forces beyond our understanding. 

if you place a pencil halfway into a glass of water refraction makes the pencil appear broken, we understand that this is just a function of light and water, likewise the "warping of time and space" is merely a function of our observations of gravity's effect on objects nearby. it does not necessarily mean that actual space is actually bent, it just means you can treat it that way. 

shooting nine-ball on a slightly warped pool table does not mean that the laws of physics are broken on that pool table, it means you need to measure it better (or with tools not currently available)

a thousand years ago the sun revolved around the earth, and the sky was a giant's skull with holes in it. when new techniques and technologies come about to measure and quantify gravity's effects on nearby objects your grandkids will make fun of you for believing that the Aether could be warped by something as simple as gravity, when they can now prove it is trans-dimensional Eldar sorcerers battling for supremacy with the Chaos Gods in the madness of the Warp that causes these fluctuations in measurements. 

Long Live the Emperor of Man! 
Abhor the mutant! 
Purge the Unclean!
The Emperor Preserves!
The Emperor Protects!


----------



## Doer (Aug 23, 2012)

No. It actually compresses and decompresses, perhaps enough to measure with lasers. That is how it passes gravity waves. The gradient is not a refraction. It is a magnification. So it is curved.

A big mass of a Star, let's say, (doesn't have to be a star) has shouldered aside a sufficient quantity of space itself. A marble in the Jello. The Space has no where to go, being more of a solid than, say, liquid. So it compresses to get out of the way. That compression forms gradient of Space Density. The most dense space is at the surface. How dense? It is proportional to the mass that pushed it aside. The more dense the space the easier for matter to move relative to other matter and that is "all" that gravity is. 

We just don't know, yet, the field, like the electromagnetic field. There should be a field "force" that describes how matter is effected by Space Density. The so-called Higgs field. The are crunching the numbers,. but no Higgs, yet.

The high school explanations were blown a long time ago. Now we are waiting on The Large Hadron Collider to get some fundamental data. And also, the laser experiment results of Dr. Kip Thone and crew.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Aug 23, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> again, the bending of time/space is an analogy to describe the PERCEIVED alteration of the universe around massive objects but the metaphors of warping of time/space are merely an aid to human comprehension of forces beyond our understanding.
> 
> if you place a pencil halfway into a glass of water refraction makes the pencil appear broken, we understand that this is just a function of light and water, likewise the "warping of time and space" is merely a function of our observations of gravity's effect on objects nearby. it does not necessarily mean that actual space is actually bent, it just means you can treat it that way.
> 
> ...



...funny as well that something infinite would lend itself to being measured. I mean, really, approximations and math make odd bedfellows, but they've birthed a lot of plastic de_vices_. 


...where were you a thousand years ago?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 25, 2012)

Doer said:


> No. It actually compresses and decompresses, perhaps enough to measure with lasers. That is how it passes gravity waves. The gradient is not a refraction. It is a magnification. So it is curved.
> 
> A big mass of a Star, let's say, (doesn't have to be a star) has shouldered aside a sufficient quantity of space itself. A marble in the Jello. The Space has no where to go, being more of a solid than, say, liquid. So it compresses to get out of the way. That compression forms gradient of Space Density. The most dense space is at the surface. How dense? It is proportional to the mass that pushed it aside. The more dense the space the easier for matter to move relative to other matter and that is "all" that gravity is.
> 
> ...



and until anton von luewnhook, diseases were caused by evil spirits.

the seeming bend in the fabric of space and the alteration of time are entirely mathematical and observational. 
a laser seems to bend when exposed to gravity... mathematically... 
time compresses when you accelerate... theoretically...
a massive object bends space and time... as far as we can tell mathematically. 


current theories and explanations are not the final word. just like the heliocentric universe, the theory that all the world was created in six days by magic beard power (which was an adequate theory until science expanded to show it was just a fantasical story) or the insistence that the earth is flat. all these FALSE theories were vehemently defended by adherents (and still are today, but now we call these guys nutcases) the claims and defenses based on mathematical models, theoretical physics and elaborate hypothesis drafted by people who are driven to "publish or perish" are no more likely than the "biblical scholarship" of the council of mycene

since everything we can see measure or contemplate has mass, and mass is the prisoner of gravity, there can be no theory devised that explains observed or hypothesized effects which do not call for the bending of nothingness to the influences of somethingness. this logical leap may be considered good science and sound theory now, but in the future it could be considered as ludicrous as trepanation to alleviate the obvious demonic possession of those infected with Y.pestis. 

if a tree falls in the forest and no-one is around to hear it does it make a noise?

i do not believe that space bends to the whim of gravity any more than i believe the conclusion that because no-body observed the noise that the tree fell silently. No-one has conclusively proved to the standard of US law that hitler ever ordered a single jew into a crematorium, and since it is not proven, are the concentration camps and the holocaust merely myths of a bygone age? after all, it was never proven... now it's all just theory!

i have read some of the writings of kip thorne (pornstar name jokes held in abeyance) and his ideas seemed to be the same sort of pseudo-profundity that deepak choprah peddles, but with more math.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 25, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...funny as well that something infinite would lend itself to being measured. I mean, really, approximations and math make odd bedfellows, but they've birthed a lot of plastic de_vices_.
> 
> 
> ...where were you a thousand years ago?


mad claims that the urine of gaulish children turned iron into steel served rome well for hundreds of years before the legion smiths determined that just any old piss would do. now we know that piss is not used at alll in the process of steeling iron. the previous assumptions led to success, but does this mean they were correct? 

i dont have to have been there. i can read. i am not standing next to you either, but i still believe you wrote that absurd statement. i do not have to have witnessed the actual writing of Plato's Republic to read it later, just like i9 do not have to stand in the massive pile of discarded tissues and cru8sty socks which i assume litter the area around your computer to respond to your japes. 

also, German Scheisse Porn ? really? you should be ashamed. download some good clean tentacle hentai like a god fearing christian.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Aug 25, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> mad claims that the urine of gaulish children turned iron into steel served rome well for hundreds of years before the legion smiths determined that just any old piss would do. now we know that piss is not used at alll in the process of steeling iron. the previous assumptions led to success, but does this mean they were correct?
> 
> i dont have to have been there. i can read. i am not standing next to you either, but i still believe you wrote that absurd statement. i do not have to have witnessed the actual writing of Plato's Republic to read it later, just like i9 do not have to stand in the massive pile of discarded tissues and cru8sty socks which i assume litter the area around your computer to respond to your japes.
> 
> also, German Scheisse Porn ? really? you should be ashamed. download some good clean tentacle hentai like a god fearing christian.


...who the what and the where now? Clean socks - check. Organized work area (within non-clinical "ooooo germs!" standards) - check. Ability to read past one's monocle - check, please.


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 25, 2012)

Ask the woman who wears it! cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 26, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Ask the woman who wears it! cn




yes, if star trek is correct, the future will be filled with mysterious time/space fabrics which bend in ways we cannot predict, and resist even the mildest forces of gravity. the future looks hopeful and bright


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 26, 2012)

What are little Vulcan girls made of? ...
T'polymer!
(Seven of Nine's were real, at least. Highly illogical.) cn


----------



## Doer (Aug 26, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> and until anton von luewnhook, diseases were caused by evil spirits.
> 
> the seeming bend in the fabric of space and the alteration of time are entirely mathematical and observational.
> a laser seems to bend when exposed to gravity... mathematically...
> ...


Hey dude! OK. It's all just theory, and when we add, "and you too" to the rant it seems more like you describe yourself. No one is being pseudo-profundo, but you.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 26, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> and until anton von luewnhook, diseases were caused by evil spirits.
> 
> the seeming bend in the fabric of space and the alteration of time are entirely mathematical and *observational. *
> a laser seems to bend when exposed to gravity... mathematically...
> ...


So when something is observational, we call that empirical evidence. 
Starlight (and by extension laser light) seems to bend when exposed to gravity, first predicted by math, then confirmed by observation
Time dilation, first predicted by math, confirmed by observation
Fabric of spacetime bending, predicted by math, all observations appear to confirm it

Germs, in the form of bacteria, viruses and fungi, appear to cause disease in plants and animals but has never been conclusively proven and is all just germ theory. Your ridiculously innacurate death camp analogy aside, your 'just a theory' claims rings as hollow when you say it as it does when said by a creationist. 

No one's saying it is the end-all-be-all final answer but to claim it's merely perception due to something else rather than reality, well that becomes a testable hypothesis for which you need to offer up something to explain the observations if you want anyone to take your ramblings seriously. You are basically claiming that because earlier, less rigorous 'theories' about the nature of reality ended up being wrong, then current theories and hypotheses about the nature of reality likewise are wrong and will be proven wrong in the future.


----------



## Doer (Aug 27, 2012)

And there is the difference, Science has never claimed to be Right. The Method is very simple. Prove something. The idea may withstand current proofs if it merits Scientific consideration. That is when it can be used as a basis for more experiment.

But, later, with new techniques, it may not withstand the current proof. Back to the drawing board. But, various snake oils and cold fusion techniques are proved to not have ever left the drawing board. A valuable failure. To weave woo into this, is to say all thought is equal. It isn't. It's mostly worthless and is fear based.

In science we spend enormous time to carefully dis-prove all known contenders for the idea but ours. It's a jungle and career deadly. Only the strongest most disciplined thinkers can survive. These are not the dilettantes you suggest. They are the stiff jawed warriors of actually correct (for now). And they eat their own young. Depak Chandra has no math, that's the main point! So, how doltish to say that Dr. Throne is in that league. His interviewer perhaps. But, one has to pay more careful attention.

In short, anti-science ranting and insults is just another Religion to me. Science can never make the same mistake twice. Think about that with your postulating antagonism. Can Dr. Kynes do as well?


----------



## preetim22 (Aug 27, 2012)

I dont think there exist some thing like *up/down/left/righ* in gravity coz we know its just a theory.


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 27, 2012)

preetim22 said:


> I dont think there exist some thing like *up/down/left/righ* in gravity coz we know its just a theory.


You do not know how scientists use the word theory. It's different from how antiscientists use it. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Aug 28, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> You do not know how scientists use the word theory. It's different from how antiscientists use it. cn


...all that is left is theoretical when you mix scientists with antiscientists


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 28, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> So when something is observational, we call that empirical evidence.
> Starlight (and by extension laser light) seems to bend when exposed to gravity, first predicted by math, then confirmed by observation
> Time dilation, first predicted by math, confirmed by observation
> Fabric of spacetime bending, predicted by math, all observations appear to confirm it
> ...


the beauty of these theories is that they are all completely untestable. since you need to observe a thing to test it, and any data you get from your observations will be skewed by the object being observed, and the observer, and the observer's environment, then by necessity there can be no empirical data free of the contamination of the testing method

or to be more blunt, until you accurately can measure time and space without gravity distortion, and then accurately measure time and space WITH gravity distortion, without these distortions affecting your measurements themselves, its all just theory, and an unprovable one at that. 

getting all butthurt and shrill over somebody disbelieving the theory you hold most dear sounds more like the plaintive wails of an offended religion rather than science. 

i do not believe that because observation methods record light bending under gravity's pull, or time slowing as acceleration approaches light speed that this is necessarily fact, but rather flaws in observation. if you look at a fast food restaurant's front counter it may APPEAR to be clean, but a better, and more sophisticated observation method (microscope) will reveal massive amounts of bacteria, particles of rodent hair, smears of slimy baby shit, insect parts, and fungus from the nasty rag that they use to wipe it down twice a day. 

i do not believe that the fabric of the universe bends to the whim of gravity, i believe matter is the slave of gravity, and space merely tolerates the existence of both, the way a cat tolerates it's "owner"

until proven correct by means better than mathematical models and faulty observations i will disbelieve that the universe is merely the easily distorted reflection of the matter we can observe.


----------



## overgrowem (Aug 28, 2012)

Canibus7 said:


> Iunno, but gravity is only a theory, we still dont have a full understanding of it.


True we don't understand it completly but U are using the wrong definition of "THEORY".Check out your collegiate dictionary.


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 28, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> again, the bending of time/space is an analogy to describe the PERCEIVED alteration of the universe around massive objects but the metaphors of warping of time/space are merely an aid to human comprehension of forces beyond our understanding.
> 
> if you place a pencil halfway into a glass of water refraction makes the pencil appear broken, we understand that this is just a function of light and water, likewise the "warping of time and space" is merely a function of our observations of gravity's effect on objects nearby. it does not necessarily mean that actual space is actually bent, it just means you can treat it that way.
> 
> ...


Long live the Gods of the Warp!
Chaos guide me!
Death to the False Emperor of Man!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 28, 2012)

Doer said:


> And there is the difference, Science has never claimed to be Right. The Method is very simple. Prove something. The idea may withstand current proofs if it merits Scientific consideration. That is when it can be used as a basis for more experiment.
> 
> But, later, with new techniques, it may not withstand the current proof. Back to the drawing board. But, various snake oils and cold fusion techniques are proved to not have ever left the drawing board. A valuable failure. To weave woo into this, is to say all thought is equal. It isn't. It's mostly worthless and is fear based.
> 
> ...


Kip Thorne's own writing is couched in the same word salad used by people trying to sell brown's gas devices to power your home or car, and magnetically charged fuel filters. . 

the conceit that the universe is formed by the observer is prevalent among the poindexters who wish to publish unprovable theories masked as hypothesis. case in pont, Schrodinger's Cat, a very popular meme among nerds who wish others to think they are smart:

if a cat is placed in a box with a random delay poison canister (man those germans just LOVE poison canisters, more like Schrodinger's workcamp shower amitirte?) the cat is simultaneously dead and alive until the observer examines the cat to fix it's quantum state. 

this is sophistry. the cat is more than capable of determining it's own state without Scroedinger's interference. by this flawed logic, the new world didnt exist until some european explorers created it by fixing it's unknown quantum state. objects can exist wiuthout ever beinjg observed, and the observer's role in any phenomena should be passive, not creative as quantum nerds would like to postulate. 

quantum theory is pentecostal "Name It And Claim It" theology wrapped up in the castoff robes of science, and Kip Thorne is just Joel Osteen selling magic as logic. he even has the same creepy feverish grin and zealot's eyes as that freakshow televangelist. This is not an ad hominem attack, it's just an observation. his "theories" fail the test of logic quite nicely on their own. just like any religion i believe that YOU may believe anything you like, but i will retain my right to hold a differing opinion. that you do not provide the same courtesy is quite telling. 

i do not disbelieve science, i just do not accept "science" that has logical holes large enough to drive a luxury liner through.

the universe exists, and we exist in it. 
the universe existed long before humans first scratched their asses with the first primitive tool, (Yes the Butt Scratcher is the first tool) and wondered "why sky black in some place, light in other?" 
parts of the universe as yet unobserved are still existent, and have a quantum state set by their own existence, not flawed human observation. 
this does not presume an single all powerful sky daddy who makes the universe for man
believing the universe is created by man through observation does not preclude the existence of a single all powerful sky daddy, it merely intimates that "Sky Daddy is within us" which is as preposterous as believing in scientology
if any agents of scientology are watching this thread, i am not bashing you, I believe in the freedom of science fiction.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 28, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Long live the Gods of the Warp!
> Chaos guide me!
> Death to the False Emperor of Man!


Blasphemy!! 
Heretic! 
Xenos Tainted Traitor!
Death to the Unclean!
Glory to the Emperor!


----------



## Doer (Aug 28, 2012)

*"getting all butthurt and shrill over somebody disbelieving the theory you hold most dear sounds more like the plaintive wails of an offended religion rather than science." 

*You must be looking in the mirror when you write this stuff. 
Who is butthurt? 
Who is shrill? 
Who dis-believes? 
Who holds dear? 
Who's plaintive wails? 

We are trying to help the OP understand their question. We are not answering the question, it has no current answer. Nor are we heaping the BS.

You, on the other hand, sound like you are writing a space opera, comic strip on LSD. You are in the wrong section, brother. Your talents lie elsewhere.

How about putting up some straight talk, Poindexter. That shit is meaningless.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Aug 28, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> parts of the universe as yet unobserved are still existent, and have a quantum state set by their own existence, not flawed human observation.


...so why do you rule out all things unseen? Just because it's an easy swath?

edit: &#8220;_Dei sub numine viget"_


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 28, 2012)

Doer said:


> And there is the difference, Science has never claimed to be Right. The Method is very simple. Prove something. The idea may withstand current proofs if it merits Scientific consideration. That is when it can be used as a basis for more experiment.
> 
> But, later, with new techniques, it may not withstand the current proof. Back to the drawing board. But, various snake oils and cold fusion techniques are proved to not have ever left the drawing board. A valuable failure. To weave woo into this, is to say all thought is equal. It isn't. It's mostly worthless and is fear based.
> 
> ...





Doer said:


> *"getting all butthurt and shrill over somebody disbelieving the theory you hold most dear sounds more like the plaintive wails of an offended religion rather than science."
> 
> *You must be looking in the mirror when you write this stuff.
> Who is butthurt?
> ...


*"In short, anti-science ranting and insults is just another Religion to me. Science can never make the same mistake twice. Think about that with your postulating antagonism. Can Dr. Kynes do as well? *"

sounds pretty shrill and butthurt to me. 

kip thorne is a hack. just because you fawn and fellate him at every opportunity doesnt mean his opinion is any more useful than Michio Kaku, Linda Moulton Howe, or Richard Hoagland. they all also have advanced degrees, but they prefer the less rigorous world of Coast To Coast AM and publishing fantastical novels dressed up as scientific research. Kip Thorne is only slightly less of a media whore. if he wanted to be a rockstar he should have put down his sliderule and picked up a guitar. 

the claim that quantum theorists pretend they are not making is that the universe is merely our perception of it, and it changes when we arent looking right at it, this is just the same sort of mysticism that lets new age hucksters sell their wacky claims of "Energies" and "Vibrational Harmonics" to the rubes. 

kips mathematical models are quite over my head, and i dont pretend to have any particular skill with advanced mathematics or number theory, but his statements outside of the math (which could for all i know be just slight of hand to impress the suckers) sound exactly like the same garbage with vague important sounding phrases, and self congratulatory profundity that deepak chopra sells, and since most people cant check kip's complex math, he could just scribble a few nonsense figures on the blackboard then simply declare that any who doubt are just fools, ignorant, or apostate demons trying to deceive the faithful. this same trick served the catholics for centuries when the bible was written only in latin, kept from the eyes of the public, and the public were mostly illiterate anyway (three levels of protection for the secret mystery cult of christianity, not hiding nothing were they?) kip posts his sacred writ for all to see but for most of the polulace it might as well be written in cuneiform Akadian. 

stephen hawking uses complex math that boggles my mind too, but hawking doesnt talk like he is the new brahmin and we are all untouchables fit only to clean his toilet and serve his servants. 

so heres some straight talk:

*kip thorne is a theorist. his theories are unconvincing to me. this fact seems to drive you to distraction. tough noogies. *


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 28, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...so why do you rule out all things unseen? Just because it's an easy swath?
> 
> edit: &#8220;_Dei sub numine viget"_


i do not rule out the unseen, i rule it IN. 

quantum theory declares that anything unseen does not exist until the observer makes it so, placing the observer in the position of deity. thats not preposterous at all is it? 

if they want to make up a new religion they should do it the hard way, like moses, mohammed and L Ron Hubbard did.

also,_ "Romani ite domum!"_


----------



## eye exaggerate (Aug 28, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> i do not rule out the unseen, i rule it IN.
> 
> quantum theory declares that anything unseen does not exist until the observer makes it so, placing the observer in the position of deity. thats not preposterous at all is it?
> 
> if they want to make up a new religion they should do it the hard way, like moses, mohammed and L Ron Hubbard did.


...oh, sorry, I didn't get that through the poo you threw.

...given the observational conundrum, can we say that it is a 'piece' of God that observes? And, that we are gods by extension, witnessing the created?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 28, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...oh, sorry, I didn't get that through the poo you threw.
> 
> ...given the observational conundrum, can we say that it is a 'piece' of God that observes? And, that we are gods by extension, witnessing the created?


I threw no poo
this poo i eschew
if poo was threw
perhaps it was you?

nobody can say who
would know what you threw
and this splatter of poo 
could have come from you

the claim that sky daddy is within us all thus we are forever creating new reality is the sort of new age mysticism that is even more destructive to logic than your standard Appeal to Authority religions.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Aug 28, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> I threw no poo
> this poo i eschew
> if poo was threw
> perhaps it was you?
> ...


...this is the oldest mysticism that I know of. Nothing new about it. The way people manipulate situations to their own advantage is the issue.

*installs mini windshield wiper on monocle*
*finds it positively comical*


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 28, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...this is the oldest mysticism that I know of. Nothing new about it. The way people manipulate situations to their own advantage is the issue.
> 
> *installs mini windshield wiper on monocle*
> *finds it positively comical*


the old mysticism was about secrets kept by sky daddy that should not be disturbed, or my magic book that holds all the answers, and if it appears wrong it's only because youre a witch and must be burnt at the stake. this is the Appeal to Authority, and the stock answer to questions is "It Is Best Not To Ask Such Questions" *

 * "It Is Best Not To Ask Such Questions" is a registered trademark of Islam Inc. all use by non moslems is apostasy, and is punishable by death. 

the New Age bullshit is more egalitarian. they push the idea that you can be or do anything if you only have the will to make it so, by prana energies, vibrational harmonics, organe energy, or any of a variety of other terribly mysterious mysteries, whose secrets can be bought for the low low price of three easy payments of $19.95 (or blowjobs, or sex with your underage daughter/son, etc...), and if they dont work, you just didnt believe hard enough. 

Quantum theorists sell the same bullshit just with more math. They just charge a Low Low Price of two easy payments and one really complex one. and blowjobs. gotta have blowjobs.


----------



## Doer (Aug 28, 2012)

Just Troll. He wants the fight so he assumes fight.

*kip thorne is a theorist. his theories are unconvincing to me. this fact seems to drive you to distraction. tough noogies. *

Oh is that the straightest he can get. I'm not driven to anything except being convinced of what is going here. rolly roll, rolly rolly potty troll


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 28, 2012)

Doer said:


> Just Troll. He wants the fight so he assumes fight.
> 
> *kip thorne is a theorist. his theories are unconvincing to me. this fact seems to drive you to distraction. tough noogies. *
> 
> Oh is that the straightest he can get. I'm not driven to anything except being convinced of what is going here. rolly roll, rolly rolly potty troll


so my reluctance to join kip Thorne's choir and sing out "Amen!" and "Preach On!" at the appropriate moments in his sermons means im a troll. if you were truely as confident in the illogical perplexing statements of Brother Kip or as he might soon style himself, Reverend Thorne, then my doubting and heresy would not rustle your jimmies. 

hell if i embraced the fantastical claims of homeopathy and started shouting about water memory you could simply snicker. 

and unless i tried selling magic potions made from 10c diluted goat smegma and deuterium i would be harming nobody with my silly primitive belief that even if i cannot see it, my living room is not swarming with weasels, and my motorcycle is not (in the infinite possibilities of quantum mechanics) made up entirely of SteakUmm. 

that you feel the need to rush to the defense (again and again) of Ayatollah Thorne says more about you than it does about my silly beliefs (not theories because i dont have mathematical models) or Il Papi Kip's claims


----------



## eye exaggerate (Aug 28, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> the old mysticism was about secrets kept by sky daddy that should not be disturbed, or my magic book that holds all the answers, and if it appears wrong it's only because youre a witch and must be burnt at the stake. this is the Appeal to Authority, and the stock answer to questions is "It Is Best Not To Ask Such Questions" *
> 
> * "It Is Best Not To Ask Such Questions" is a registered trademark of Islam Inc. all use by non moslems is apostasy, and is punishable by death.
> 
> ...


...dude, solar energy is not egalitarian...low price? If you want to believe that sht, you can. Until you've satisfied conditions within yourself, it doesn't matter how much money you put on 'it' - 'it' ain't "coming".

...it seems that you're buying the mechanical shell of religious expression (much like a 'believer'), not the expresser 'it'self. Really, do you think it's all positive thinking and fairy dust? No. In synthesis, it is about no longer accepting the 'animal' within from having 90% of the stage.

...do you think that a person who is not at this level of self restraint would be 'granted' knowledge on just how space and time coexist? How so when the order of the day is lodging, fcking and eating?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 28, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...dude, solar energy is not egalitarian...low price? If you want to believe that sht, you can. Until you've satisfied conditions within yourself, it doesn't matter how much money you put on 'it' - 'it' ain't "coming".
> 
> ...it seems that you're buying the mechanical shell of religious expression (much like a 'believer'), not the expresser 'it'self. Really, do you think it's all positive thinking and fairy dust? No. In synthesis, it is about no longer accepting the 'animal' within from having 90% of the stage.
> 
> ...do you think that a person who is not at this level of self restraint would be 'granted' knowledge on just how space and time coexist? How so when the order of the day is lodging, fcking and eating?


who mentioned solar energy? but yes solar energy is by definition egalitarian. it shines on the rich, the poor, the black the white, the smart the dumb and the sober or the drunken all the same. i have no clue what conditions within myself i should satisfy, nor do i pay any religious huckster for salvation, enlightenment, wisdom or mystical powers. the hucksters who profit from new age nonsense and the gullibility of the least intelligent, or most credulous sell everything from crystals, to designs for "orgone cannons" to fire at alien spaceships disguised as clouds (not joking, sadly) 

all religions are not evil, but all religions are about control and conditioning, for whatever purpose the design permits. some religions require monthly (or even weekly) donations or you will not receive the benefit of salvation. some sell magical prayer hankies, plenary indulgences, or pebbles from the dead sea as mystical totems and gris gris, and some insist (pentecostals) that if you donate to the Creflo A Dollar (his real actual name, as given at birth) or Joel Osteen you will be showered with blessings ten fold ( give more coin, get a bigger payout when the heavenly slot machine comes up cherries). the money i donate of my own choosing to my temple is to maintain the temple and it's library and staff for the musings and study of other persons who seek religious advice form the elders not as a transaction to purchase entrance to the afterlife. 

all religion, regardless of it's trappings is always about control. sometimes that control is monetary, sometimes political, often it is sociological or psychological, but it is always control. this control can be good, inspiring art, piety, music, devotion to a cause higher than self gratification, and even less tangible benefits, or it can be evil, demanding the adherent submit unthinking to the dogma of the faith. most religions (particularly christians, militant athieists, mohammedans and some of the wackier non abrahamic cults) demand unfailing loyalty, and evangelical zeal. when you doubt the believer's sacred beliefs they invariably become argumentative, rude, or even violent. thats how you tell a dogmatic religion from an idea. religions have more in common with autocratic government than any "spirituality" (including my own, control is control even if the collar seems to sit lightly)

dogmatic religion forces the adherent to submit to the master's demands, like a dog at heel. thus these religions place man in the position of a beast, subject to the conditioning and motivations of his master. many people find these religions less and less appealing these days, and they cast about for something to believe in. one of the lees savory choices is the New Age bullshit. they sell enlightenment at bargain bin prices, offer false hope to those desperate for anything to cling to, and shamelessly make up the shit as they go along to ensure that the suckers keep buying more useless geegaws and more super secret "auditing" and guided meditation. 

the New Age hucksters are usually non-dogmatic, and they do not discriminate. they will fleece any sheep of any colour if they can get him under the shears. the beauty of the New Age is that they never judge. everything is wholesome and good if you want to do it, there are no rules, no morality, no guiding principles save "that it harm none, do as thou wilt" which has been adopted by a wide variety of scammers selling religion for coins. 

most of the New Age quasi-religions claim to be introspective, directed towards self improvement through "self actualization" "visualization techniques" "guided meditation" "vibrational harmonics" "the inner light" "prana" mysterious "energies" which defy explanation, and other buzzworthy catch phrases that dont mean shit. (deepak choprah is just the most prolific and widely accepted of these gurus) listen to George Noury on Coast to Coast AM and youll soon see what i mean. 

non-dogmatic religions (no matter how outlandish) are often positive in nature and result, despite the seemingly wacky assertions of the adherents.
a fine example is the faulun gong in china, they are mildly eccentric tai chi practicing goofballs who claim that there is a rotating wheel of "Chi" (thats chinese for unquantifiable imaginary energy that does no work, but in fact requires work to create it) and if your Chi Wheel (thats the eponymous Faulun) rotates to the left, you generate "negative energy" in the world, but if you practice tai chi and believe hard enough you can make it turn to the right, and this will create "positive energy" thus they practice their harmless tai chi rituals (thats the Gong) to try and rotate their faulluns in the positive direction for the good of the universe and eventually world peace. harmless, unprofitable dedication to a belief that cant hurt anybody, not even themselves and enriches no shysters. anyone can join, or leave at will, and they hold their ritual slow-motion kung fu danceoffs in public parks all over the world. i have never even heard of anyone being asked for a donation, as the faulun gong have no temples, no clergy and no sacred texts that must be published. anyone who wishes can simply walk up, and begin making the motions. experienced "practitioners" will assist the noobs in getting the moves just right, and then everybody tries to make their energy wheel rotate the right direction together. quaint, charming harmless and only slighty wierd. 

and then theres heavens gate, the moonies, the krishnas, the manson familiy scientology, islam, catholicism, socialism(yes kids, its a religion based on adherence to dogma and unswerving loyalty to the faith or you get the gulag or a bullet) and many more.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Aug 28, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> who mentioned solar energy? but yes solar energy is by definition egalitarian. it shines on the rich, the poor, the black the white, the smart the dumb and the sober or the drunken all the same. i have no clue what conditions within myself i should satisfy, nor do i pay any religious huckster for salvation, enlightenment, wisdom or mystical powers. the hucksters who profit from new age nonsense and the gullibility of the least intelligent, or most credulous sell everything from crystals, to designs for "orgone cannons" to fire at alien spaceships disguised as clouds (not joking, sadly)
> 
> all religions are not evil, but all religions are about control and conditioning, for whatever purpose the design permits. some religions require monthly (or even weekly) donations or you will not receive the benefit of salvation. some sell magical prayer hankies, plenary indulgences, or pebbles from the dead sea as mystical totems and gris gris, and some insist (pentecostals) that if you donate to the Creflo A Dollar (his real actual name, as given at birth) or Joel Osteen you will be showered with blessings ten fold ( give more coin, get a bigger payout when the heavenly slot machine comes up cherries). the money i donate of my own choosing to my temple is to maintain the temple and it's library and staff for the musings and study of other persons who seek religious advice form the elders not as a transaction to purchase entrance to the afterlife.
> 
> ...


...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:
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 mother&#8217;s 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 
​"In Gnosticism and Esotericism, one understands as Second Birth the fabrication of the *Solar Bodies* and the Incarnation of the Being."
- 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


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 28, 2012)

Solar, soular, Solera, soldiers of the Son, sun, some sums, numbers ... Leviticus, Dude they're onto me ... energy, entity, _Ens a se_, so you see, to the Eye these are all aspects, pages bound in one cover. No exaggeration. And the words were with God, and they were God. Word up. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Aug 28, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Solar, soular, Solera, soldiers of the Son, sun, some sums, numbers ... Leviticus, Dude they're onto me ... energy, entity, _Ens a se_, so you see, to the Eye these are all aspects, pages bound in one cover. No exaggeration. And the words were with God, and they were God. Word up. cn


...holy crap I lol'd right there!


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 28, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...holy crap I lol'd right there!


Every now and then, a spark enters me and whispers. This was one of my sparkier moments, and I owe it to you. I am glad that my splinter made you beam. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Aug 28, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Every now and then, a spark enters me and whispers. This was one of my sparkier moments, and I owe it to you. I am glad that my splinter made you beam. cn


...it worked it's magic - it would seem the big dipper overflows


----------



## Dr Kynes (Aug 28, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...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.
> 
> ...


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. 

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 (Aug 28, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...



...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 (Aug 29, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Solar, soular, Solera, soldiers of the Son, sun, some sums, numbers ... Leviticus, Dude they're onto me ... energy, entity, _Ens a se_, so you see, to the Eye these are all aspects, pages bound in one cover. No exaggeration. And the words were with God, and they were God. Word up. cn


The Son of all Fears comes to save us.


----------



## newbyy (Aug 30, 2012)

yeah it is all science. specially Physics. some scientists say that its so simple. everything in the universe can be quantified.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 2, 2012)

Doer said:


> The Son of all Fears comes to save us.


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 (Sep 3, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> 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


To Serve Man

fried, barbecued, grilled, w/coconut, with pineapple, sachimi, ....like that.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 25, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> again, the bending of time/space is an analogy to describe the PERCEIVED alteration of the universe around massive objects but the metaphors of warping of time/space are merely an aid to human comprehension of forces beyond our understanding.
> 
> if you place a pencil halfway into a glass of water refraction makes the pencil appear broken, we understand that this is just a function of light and water, likewise the "warping of time and space" is merely a function of our observations of gravity's effect on objects nearby. it does not necessarily mean that actual space is actually bent, it just means you can treat it that way.
> 
> ...


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 (Sep 25, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> and until anton von luewnhook, diseases were caused by evil spirits.
> 
> the seeming bend in the fabric of space and the alteration of time are entirely mathematical and observational.
> a laser seems to bend when exposed to gravity... mathematically...
> ...


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 (Sep 28, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Sep 28, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> ill make my views simple.
> the universe exists all the time.


Prove it. Was there a universe 'before' the BB? Is there anything outside of the currently expanding universe in which we reside? 


> even when there is no matter or energy in an area to measure, the SPACE matter or energy can occupy still exists.


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.' 



> 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


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. 


> SPACE is not subject to gravity's blandishments, only matter and energy are subject to gravity's whim.


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. 


> 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.


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? 


> 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.


But can be inferred. 


> 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.


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. 


> 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.


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. 


> 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.


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. 


> 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,


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. 


> 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.


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? 


> 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..


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 (Sep 29, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> 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.


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 (Sep 29, 2012)

This is what happened when I read the rest of dr kynes post:

[video=youtube;oep4mRpmrkQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oep4mRpmrkQ[/video]


----------



## bigbillyrocka (Sep 29, 2012)

If space can be defined as fabric, then what is it's thread count per sq inch?


----------



## Doer (Sep 29, 2012)

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.
---------


----------



## Seedling (Sep 29, 2012)

Space is simply volume, which is simply 3 dimensional distance. Anyone that says different is blowing hot air.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 29, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Space is simply volume, which is simply 3 dimensional distance. Anyone that says different is blowing hot air.


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 (Sep 30, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Space is simply volume, which is simply 3 dimensional distance. Anyone that says different is blowing hot air.


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 (Sep 30, 2012)

Doer said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Sep 30, 2012)

Seedling said:


> 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!


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?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 30, 2012)

Parting and Parthian shot are distinct concepts. cn


----------



## samsonite17 (Sep 30, 2012)

I looked through some of the posts and did not see much on general and special relativity, so I'll add my two cents. The way that space time gets warped is when the Lorentz factor is higher. For example, the closer you get to going to the speed of light, the higher the Lorentz factor. What this means is that if you assign the earth as the rest frame and you see someone traveling close to the speed of light, they will in fact be seen as moving slower. However, they will also see us moving slower. 

So if you wanted to calculate a trip that was 10 light years away, you could set it up pretty simply. If you are traveling close to the speed of light, the differences that gravity would cause would be negligible as long as you were not too close to any black holes. So if someone traveled 10 light years away at around 98% (I think this is right) of the speed of light. You see that for every 5 hours that passed on earth, only one hour would pass for the traveler. So you would actually see them travel the 10 lights years in 2 years earth time. The reason that they can travel 10 light years in two years is because of lorentz contraction. This also related to the twins paradox, where if one twin is sent off to a star 10 lights years away (at 98% of the speed of light) then he comes back only 4 years older, while the other twin is 20 years older. The paradox is that in relativity, there is no specific frame of reference, so you should not be able to tell who is moving or not.


----------



## Doer (Sep 30, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Parting and Parthian shot are distinct concepts. cn


 Parthians, ran off on horseback shooting, while the ones coming in were shooting to cover them.
The ones leaving were "adding insult over the shoulder," according to the Romans,
That morphed into a parting shot, to have the last word of insult.






There is a naval expression of a parting shot, as hail of musket fire or cannon as the enemy passed out of range, that kind of thing. Stiill I see the Roman root in that.

Parthing shot
Parting shot

Word drift seems to be all that has happened. Very common.

references?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> 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.
> ...


so lets see... disagreeing with kip thorne as to the the existence of space without any detectable matter mass or energy still being space and it's NOT being folded (since shit that passes through empty space is not "warped" off course) means that im totally wrong on every possible level, despite the fact that space without large masses or large gravity feilds does NOT deflect energy or matter passing through it.

this fact is inescapable, which would sensibly presume that the space is NOT "warped" until a sufficient mass and or gravity is present to create the observed distortion. since NOTHING does not effect SOMETHING, but SOMETHING ELSE surely does, the sensible non-poindexter concludes that SOMETHING was effected by SOMETHING ELSE, not that SOMETHING ELSE altered the nature of NOTHING to allow it to then interfere with SOMETHING's normal activity. that would be stupid and illogical. and would require inventing 7 new spacial dimensions and "dark matter" just to make the story work. 

but then thats the nature of quantum research. using math to "prove" the impossible so that next week some other sliderule jockey can "prove" somnething directly contradictory, and both can collect Feilds medals, Nobel prizes and honorariums. 

my view of the universe may not be in line with Kip "Cunt Destroyer" Thorne's super awesome purple lowrider with a fur dashboard and spinnin rims universe, but it's served pretty good so far. but then newton didnt win a nobel prize so fuck that scrub. 

in regards to your final snippy and petulant jab... i aint sellin shit but vegetables. 

i dont have a book deal, i dont get honorariums for appearing at science fiction conventions, and i aint selling a vacuum cleaner home hair styling system with 3 easy payments. i dont have to come up with new groundbreaking theories every six months to keep my tenure, nor do i have to publish in any journal except penthouse letters. you dont gotta believe me, you dont gotta believe the universe even exists, you could go all descartes and claim we are all just figments of somebody else's imagination or an unquiet dream after an evening of hotwings, jalapeno poppers and domestic beer at the Hooters on Gamma Epsilon 5. 

its all fine with me.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> 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.



eat a bag of sweaty gorrilla nuts, dickcheese. 

now that the insults are out of the way... 

the geocentric universe theory, the earth being flat, and the universe being created by the hebrew god in six days were all adequate theories for their time. 

every one of them. 

also adequate theories in their time but now rejected:

the urine of young gaulish boys turns iron into steel. 
africans are not as intelligent as other races.
hitler was a visionary progressive leader with great new ideas.
the colonies in the new world would be lost without the english crown
that robespierre guy seems like a good choice for france.
there were WMD's in iraq
there were NOT WMD's in iraq 
Obama will bring about Hope and Change
invocation of the name "Bloody Mary" three times will result in your death
tomatoes are deadly poison
patent dietary supplements sold on late night infomercials are a good investment in your health. 
marihuana makes negroes into hypersexual rape-machines who can only be weakened by their one weakness. lynching. 
evil nefarious mexicans are using marihuana to lure white girls into sexual slavery and prostitution
marihuana is addictive
if you keep touching yourself youll go blind
if you "pull out" she cant get pregnant
that gun is not loaded

each one is WRONG but was right enough for the purposes they were intended to serve. likewise the "warping of time/space" is in my view, a metaphor that has been taken too seriously, and too literally and has now become orthodoxy, much like the geocentric universe was orthodoxy for hundreds of years, and in some quarters evolution is still viewed as "just a theory" 

also if my views are "too simple" then exactly how complex does it have to be? 

and youre still the only one who didnt get that i meant the geo-centric model when i lumped it in with the story of genesis, and a flat earth, despite my reference to the geocentric model just a few posts before. unclench or it may not be your head that explodes, and anal prolapse comes with complications, and a hefty dry cleaning bill.


----------



## Doer (Oct 1, 2012)

your views are no less daft than any on the list....at least the views you portray in forum.

All this guggling dissertation. It's like this, like that, like this other thing. Analogy can get us 
nowhere in Science. The undercurrent of Fiction and the totally lack of reference is nothing 
compared to the shoddy thinking cloaked in profanity and smearing dis-credit toward the Big Thinkers,
that push forward the Understanding.


----------



## Doer (Oct 1, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> so lets see... disagreeing with kip thorne as to the the existence of space without any detectable matter mass or energy still being space and it's NOT being folded (since shit that passes through empty space is not "warped" off course) means that im totally wrong on every possible level, despite the fact that space without large masses or large gravity feilds does NOT deflect energy or matter passing through it.
> 
> this fact is inescapable, which would sensibly presume that the space is NOT "warped" until a sufficient mass and or gravity is present to create the observed distortion. since NOTHING does not effect SOMETHING, but SOMETHING ELSE surely does, the sensible non-poindexter concludes that SOMETHING was effected by SOMETHING ELSE, not that SOMETHING ELSE altered the nature of NOTHING to allow it to then interfere with SOMETHING's normal activity. that would be stupid and illogical. and would require inventing 7 new spacial dimensions and "dark matter" just to make the story work.
> 
> ...


But, you are peddling bullshit and innuendo. You are selling right-fight without any reference or understanding. What distinguishes all this from foolish muttering?

Why is peppering all your speech with all this Fiction reference important for you? It's meaningless to me. Is that your point?

Hard science with it's thorny math seems like Fiction, to you? There are experiments underway.

It is neither Fact nor Fiction. It is the Current, Proved, Understanding. If you could prove something then we could Understand you. But, you pepper Fiction, so you must be dismissing it all...in your own mind.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 1, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> eat a bag of sweaty gorrilla nuts, dickcheese.
> 
> now that the insults are out of the way...
> 
> ...


No they weren't. Adequate theories rely on supporting evidence. A theory that is completely made and not based on any facts or evidence, and was not, and can not, be tested, never was an adequate theory. Just because they didn't have a better explanation or theory does not mean their original theory was adequate. I have a theory that says you are a fucking moron, and it's adequate enough for me.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 1, 2012)

The only people who think evolution is "just a theory" are the uneducated and the ignorant. Anyone that understands evolution accepts it for what it is.


----------



## Doer (Oct 1, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> The only people who think evolution is "just a theory" are the uneducated and the ignorant. Anyone that understands evolution accepts it for what it is.


It is Theory. But, it does not have to be accepted. It can't be proved, mathematically. And it can be challenged with a new model and tested with new hypothesis. I can think of a new model, quite off the top of my head.

It isn't survival selection, at all. It is a yet unknown part of the epi-genome that senses new requirements from the environment and models adaption for the new generations. 

See, that is completely different. But, it could be a challenge to the current Theory, when more is known about the genome.


----------



## Doer (Oct 1, 2012)

samsonite17 said:


> I looked through some of the posts and did not see much on general and special relativity, so I'll add my two cents. The way that space time gets warped is when the Lorentz factor is higher. For example, the closer you get to going to the speed of light, the higher the Lorentz factor. What this means is that if you assign the earth as the rest frame and you see someone traveling close to the speed of light, they will in fact be seen as moving slower. However, they will also see us moving slower.
> 
> So if you wanted to calculate a trip that was 10 light years away, you could set it up pretty simply. If you are traveling close to the speed of light, the differences that gravity would cause would be negligible as long as you were not too close to any black holes. So if someone traveled 10 light years away at around 98% (I think this is right) of the speed of light. You see that for every 5 hours that passed on earth, only one hour would pass for the traveler. So you would actually see them travel the 10 lights years in 2 years earth time. The reason that they can travel 10 light years in two years is because of lorentz contraction. This also related to the twins paradox, where if one twin is sent off to a star 10 lights years away (at 98% of the speed of light) then he comes back only 4 years older, while the other twin is 20 years older. The paradox is that in relativity, there is no specific frame of reference, so you should not be able to tell who is moving or not.


If I wave my hands really fast and shout, NO, NO, NO, three times will that make the L-factor disappear?


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 1, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> so lets see... disagreeing with kip thorne as to the the existence of space without any detectable matter mass or energy still being space and it's NOT being folded (since shit that passes through empty space is not "warped" off course) means that im totally wrong on every possible level, despite the fact that space without large masses or large gravity feilds does NOT deflect energy or matter passing through it.
> 
> this fact is inescapable, which would sensibly presume that the space is NOT "warped" until a sufficient mass and or gravity is present to create the observed distortion. since NOTHING does not effect SOMETHING, but SOMETHING ELSE surely does, the sensible non-poindexter concludes that SOMETHING was effected by SOMETHING ELSE, not that SOMETHING ELSE altered the nature of NOTHING to allow it to then interfere with SOMETHING's normal activity. that would be stupid and illogical. and would require inventing 7 new spacial dimensions and "dark matter" just to make the story work.
> 
> ...


So I guess that means, no, you don't have the math or any evidence to back up your claim. You like to accuse me of appeal to authority but it appears you cannot tell the difference between that and someone that actually studied physics. You keep dismissing questions posed to you to explain what you mean when you claim that space only appears to bend light in the presence of gravity. Let's see your work. You keep acting like you have some answer to explain this phenomena, so let's see it. You sound as idiotic as if I said a magnifying glass doesn't actually bend light, it only appears to. As I asked before, in this instance, how is the appearance, not a reality? I suppose you will keep talking in circles and never offer any mathematical or other evidence worthy of science so I guess I will dismiss your bullshit like I do with every other braniac on RIU, that apparently knows better than the thousands of men and women that have made exploring these questions their life's work.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> It is Theory. But, it does not have to be accepted. It can't be proved, mathematically. And it can be challenged with a new model and tested with new hypothesis. I can think of a new model, quite off the top of my head.
> 
> It isn't survival selection, at all. It is a yet unknown part of the epi-genome that senses new requirements from the environment and models adaption for the new generations.
> 
> See, that is completely different. But, it could be a challenge to the current Theory, when more is known about the genome.


Yes it is completely different. One has been rigorously tested and prevailed every single time, one has not. There is absolutely no doubt that evolution is correct. If you plan to propose an alternate theory to evolution you have quite the mountain of evidence to explain away.

And yes it does have to be accepted. At some point you cannot deny the evidence. Like I already said, if you don't accept it at this point then you are either ignorant or don't understand it. There is no way you are aware of the evidence and understand it and still deny it.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> But, you are peddling bullshit and innuendo. You are selling right-fight without any reference or understanding. What distinguishes all this from foolish muttering?
> 
> Why is peppering all your speech with all this Fiction reference important for you? It's meaningless to me. Is that your point?
> 
> ...


i suppose some might prefer a dryer less colourful description but thats how i roll.

all the shouting and ad hominems aside i still do not accept the dogma that space "gets warped" it is illogical.

*light, matter, and in fact anything which we can actually measure moves in straight lines until acted upon by another force. this is simple, understandable and newtonian. 

when Object A which would otherwise move in a straight line through empty space encounters a region of space with a mass and it's gravity field (Object B) then object A deflects TOWARDS the mass of Object B and it's gravity. 

once Object A leaves the influence of the gravity field of Object B it continues on a NEW course which is also a straight line until acted upon by a new force. *

this is fact. simple correct and inescapable. 

the crux of the argument is whether Object B and it's mass and gravity acted upon Object A through the interaction of gravitational force (which seems obvious to me) or if Object B modified the fundamental nature of the space around itself to cause Object A's course to be altered through a process that requires the illogical assumption that space can be folded, deformed and altered by objects within it. 

since anything passing through empty space is NOT deflected one can presume that the object's personal gravity is NOT warping the space around it, or it would move in circles. 

when encountering another object the two gravity feilds interact causing BOTH to be moved off their previous course towards each other due to gravity's attraction

if they do not collide, and simply pass by each other they then continue on a new heading once again in a straight line. any object that later passes through that same now-empty region of space will NOT experience turbulence from the previously warped space (lacking another force the space should remain warped unless it is permanent press space with wrinkle guard) thus i personally and without using any math whatever have logically determined that space doesnt warp, and gravity fields attract, they do not alter the space they occupy. 

the extraordinary claims of space being modified by things passing through it seems not only illogical, but also highly suspect. if this is actually the case then there has to be a lot of explanation about why space UN-WARPS once the influence of the gravitational feild departs, or a shitload of explanation of how the "warping" follows the gravity around as it moves leaving previously warped space to return to it's normal non-warped status as well as where it gets the energy to un-warp without a new force to provide the energy since it is empty space. 

i am not peddling bullshit or inuenndo, i am not selling zero-point energy machines, nor orgone ray guns to shoot down aliens spaceships disguised as clouds. 

i am disagreeing with the argument that matter makes the area it influences take a different shape. 

why do you find it so offensive that i do not believe that space is a mutable new form of matter which defies description but totally does shit, instead of the passive playing feild upon which the universe and it's physical laws play their game? 

your rage over analogy and metaphor seems to exempt from it's fury any analogy or metaphor which supports your views, yet i strongly believe that the "warping of space" is just an analogy that has gotten out of hand and has become holy writ for those who worship at the altar of quantum theorists. 

this does not mean i disbelieve science (as you have stated so often before) this means i disbelieve this particular branch of science that employs mathematical sleight of hand, mummery and the presumption of 7 new spacial dimensions and magical dark matter to fill in the gaps where logic and reason fail to get the job done. as has been stated so often, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence yet the evidence has been lacking, and all the impenetrably obtuse math on the planet cant make a believer out of those of use who dont advanced degrees in mathematics, or those who hold a view which does NOT involve 11 spacial dimensions and dark matter.


----------



## Doer (Oct 1, 2012)

Finally!! A very interesting post. You are right, I have been quite un-clear as to where you are coming from. Thanks for this. I will delve in and strive to discuss it with you.

I have no rage. Funny comment. I have no beef with you. I like discussion. It's not dry to me it's normal for these topics. I can see what you are saying. But, I think it is more basic. Science seeks to rule things out, right? When we rule out everything, including the idea that light is affected by gravity, then we have some Imponderables.

Mass Compressing Space?
Dark Energy?
Dark Matter?

These are just a few of the current Imponderables. It can't be anything we know about, we have ruled out the idea that photons have mass.

So, it MAY be something in the new Models I listed above. It really has nothing to do with logic. It may have something to do with a Higgs field. MAY have.

Need to test it. We have tested the idea that light could just be experiencing a photonic orbit change. It isn't. We tested the idea that maybe the light is just given a different vector, as you suggest. A refraction?

It isn't. It lens. It magnifies. Imponderable.

We don't know what gravity is. We do see that Mass has the ability to form a concave gradient of magnification.

What dear Dr. forms a magnifier like this? A crystal ball does.

So, unless all these large masses we can see magnification around are encased in a transparent sphere,, what causes the magnification?

You know they are using these gravity lens lined up as ulra powerful telescopes. They can see these black holes plumes in visible light now.

All the space time math predicts this gradient. But, no one is saying space is actually compressible, at this time. It is a Model. Experiments are underway.

So, it's not a right-fight. You are using deductive logic, this is inductive.. Or did i get that backwards?


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> Parthians, ran off on horseback shooting, while the ones coming in were shooting to cover them.
> The ones leaving were "adding insult over the shoulder," according to the Romans,
> That morphed into a parting shot, to have the last word of insult.
> 
> ...


From Wikipedia ... cn

[h=2]Parting shot / Parthian shot[/h] "Parthian shot" is not to be confused with the phrase "parting shot". The first record of the phrase "parting shot" was by John McCleod, surgeon on board His Majesty's ship _Alceste_ contained in "A narrative of a Voyage to the Yellow Sea" (181:
The consort, firing a parting shot, bore up round the north end of the island, and escaped.​ In 1828 records in "The Friend, or Advocate of Truth" (a publication of The Religious Society of Friends) used the phrase in the figurative sense:
I think it would be much more becoming..., if you could separate without giving each other a parting shot.​ The two phrases have rather similar phonetic soundings but are actually separately derived at different times. Although the Parthian archers of old have been famous for their shooting, the term "parthian shot" was recorded for the first time in 1832 by Captain Mundy, ADC to Lord Combermere on a hunting trip in India:
...I made a successful Parthian shot with my favourite Joe Manton (shotgun).​ The figurative use of the phrase "Parthian shot" appeared later in The Times (1842):
They have probably enough dealt a Parthian shot to British interests...​ If chronology were to be the source, it would appear that the English usage of "parting shot" preceded the use of the phrase "Parthian shot". "Parthian shot" is less often used. "Parting shot" is far more likely to be encountered.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]
With which Parthian shot he walked away, leaving the two rivals open-mouthed behind him.
Arthur Conan Doyle, _A Study in Scarlet_ (1886)​ His Parthian shot reached them as they closed the doors. 'Never mind darlings', they heard him say, 'we can all sleep soundly now Turner's here.'
John Le Carre, _A Small Town in Germany_ (196
​


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> So I guess that means, no, you don't have the math or any evidence to back up your claim. You like to accuse me of appeal to authority but it appears you cannot tell the difference between that and someone that actually studied physics. You keep dismissing questions posed to you to explain what you mean when you claim that space only appears to bend light in the presence of gravity. Let's see your work. You keep acting like you have some answer to explain this phenomena, so let's see it. You sound as idiotic as if I said a magnifying glass doesn't actually bend light, it only appears to. As I asked before, in this instance, how is the appearance, not a reality? I suppose you will keep talking in circles and never offer any mathematical or other evidence worthy of science so I guess I will dismiss your bullshit like I do with every other braniac on RIU, that apparently knows better than the thousands of men and women that have made exploring these questions their life's work.


so, in your view, as i lack the necessary expertise to craft an elegant unified field theory i should simply sit down and listen while my betters tell me what to believe and how to behave. perhaps i should look upon th epages and pages of math so impenetrable it could just as easily contain nonsense, quotes from Carrot Top stand-up routines and naughty limericks about men from nantucket. 

sounds a lot like the Latin Mass to me. 

simple observation that onbjects move in straight lines until another force changes that direction and then its straight lines again when that force expires tells me that FORCES make shit change course, not mysterious warps in space/time, nor do i have to have a PHD to see that things and forces interact with other things and forces, all without the interference of an unseen unmeasurable ever-present additional power that makes shit happen through inscrutable methods that can only be divined by the high priests like Kip Thorne (who stilll has a porn-star name) and their acolytes. 

again, the Latin Mass. 

all you need now is a few theoretician cardinals, a dark matter pope, and a holy quantum inquisition to cleanse the world of unbelievers and youre in business.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 1, 2012)

Why does light not travel in straight lines near massive objects? Does light have mass interacting with the gravitational field?


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 1, 2012)

Lightin Mass. cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Yes it is completely different. One has been rigorously tested and prevailed every single time, one has not. There is absolutely no doubt that evolution is correct. If you plan to propose an alternate theory to evolution you have quite the mountain of evidence to explain away.
> 
> And yes it does have to be accepted. At some point you cannot deny the evidence. Like I already said, if you don't accept it at this point then you are either ignorant or don't understand it. There is no way you are aware of the evidence and understand it and still deny it.


religion and dogma require and demand acceptance. 

real science does not require consensus, the belief of the masses, or acceptance by any particular person. i can feel free to disbelieve any of a number of theories with no effect on reality whatsoever. 

what you are describing is theocracy with heavier textbooks, not science, fact, reality or truth.

to this day nobody can tell you what your appendix actually does. it remains a mystery. yet you still have one. that to me is pretty sure proof that "intelligent design" is bullshit since nobody installs parts that dont do shit except kill the user. 

if the jeesans insist on claiming their god created us in his image, all i can say is he has a fucked up design team, and somebody is making a packet supplying non-functional appendixes to his assembly line. maybe we should ask the christians for an investigation into this scandal... 

if one wishes to believe the earth is flat, and bordered on the rim by a massive wall of ice (to keep the oceans in) thats cool, you could believe the fuck out of that. that doesnt mean its not crazy. some people even vote democrat.

some people want to believe that kwanza is a traditional african holiday. that also does not bother me. it's stupid, since i remember when kwanza was invented right here in america, but thats fine. people can be as wacky as they want. fuck i worship a god that has never been nailed to a tree and doesnt demand sacrifices or tell me who to hate. and THAT'S wacky. 

meanwhile in the dark ages, the geocentric model was rigorously tested using the finest biblical research available, conducted by the most eminent theologians in italy, and they were so persuasive that Galileo recanted cuz his earth revolving around the sun theory was obviously flawed. they totally proved him wrong, and THATS good science! 

ohh wait no it's not. 

science is not proving the other guy wrong, or demanding that you be proved wrong or the other guy should STFU, science s the search for truth and fact. the truth may be odd, may be counter to currently held beliefs or it could be that the truth was hidden in a nugget of folklore from 700 years ago that everybody else dismissed as magical thinking from the peasantry. 

case in point: within the pages of Prior John's "Secrets of the Common Weal" (a book banned by papal edict specifically) in among the love potions, curse, hexes and other pagan beliefs of the peasantry in the 900ad-ish timeframe was the claim that a silver coin in a pail of milk kept the milk from spoiling for several days. 

well it turns out it's true. totally 100% true as a motherfucker

sometimes even hedge witches stumble upon science, even if they dont feel the need to prove anybody else wrong.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> Finally!! A very interesting post. You are right, I have been quite un-clear as to where you are coming from. Thanks for this. I will delve in and strive to discuss it with you.
> 
> I have no rage. Funny comment. I have no beef with you. I like discussion. It's not dry to me it's normal for these topics. I can see what you are saying. But, I think it is more basic. Science seeks to rule things out, right? When we rule out everything, including the idea that light is affected by gravity, then we have some Imponderables.
> 
> ...


and here i was under the impression that light has infinitesimal mass and it therefore subject to the pull of gravitation. 

when i was in school photons had no mass at all. but all the latest evidence shows that photons DO have a tiny almost imperceptible mass, and a gravity all their own. 

even the latest atomic models discuss the tiny amount of mass contained within the electron shell, so apparently even electrons have some mass and gravity as well. 

the conclusion i have drawn from all this is that energy in all it's forms is simply matter in a different state and in motion, gravity is an attracting force that exerts it's power on all things from photons to molecules to massive bodies, attempting to draw everything in to a single giant clump, and the electro-repulsive force is attempting to push everything away from everything else, and when the final score is tallied we may learn which side wins, will the universe collapse into a new pre-big bang mass of whatever the fuck that thing is, or expand into dispersal? either way space still just sits there. i dont see space doing shit, it doesnt work for or against either team, it may just sit on the sidelines not doing shit, and hitting on cheerleaders. like the photographer from the school newspaper.


----------



## Doer (Oct 1, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> From Wikipedia ... cn
> 
> *Parting shot / Parthian shot*
> 
> ...


Well, sure, that is interesting. But, I thought your contention was a difference in meaning.
"*Parting and Parthian shot are distinct concepts. cn "

*They have the same meaning and are not necessarily from the same origin. Is that what you meant?
----------
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/parting-shot.html
Having two almost identical terms in the language which mean the same thing has led to the belief that one derives from the other. That may be the case, but there's no real 'smoking gun' evidence to link the two.
----------

It is only perhaps, likely they are from different origins. But, I rightly applied both terms to the same meaning, didn't I?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> Well, sure, that is interesting. But, I thought your contention was a difference in meaning.
> "*Parting and Parthian shot are distinct concepts. cn "
> 
> *They have the same meaning and are not necessarily from the same origin. Is that what you meant?
> ...


i gotta side with the polar bear on this one. 

the Parthian shot is attack in retreat, considered dishonorable and cheating at the time. 

the Parting shot is an act of defiance and a promise that "this aint over motherfucker" 

they convey different meanings despite being similar in that they are both attacks from a position of withdrawal. 

it was quite the innovation in the peninsular war, when british riflemen would slip shoot and move, working in teams against the bonepart regiments arrayed in line or square. 

today of course, firing while withdrawing so an ally can advance is standard practice and no longer considered worthy of a special literary association. we just call it covering fire.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 1, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> the crux of the argument is whether Object B and it's mass and gravity acted upon Object A through the interaction of gravitational force (which seems obvious to me) or if Object B modified the fundamental nature of the space around itself to cause Object A's course to be altered through a process that requires the illogical assumption that space can be folded, deformed and altered by objects within it.


Correct, I also see this as the crux of the problem. 


> since anything passing through empty space is NOT deflected one can presume that the object's personal gravity is NOT warping the space around it, or it would move in circles.


 This does not follow. If mass warps space, it does so in every direction, in proportion to how the mass is distributed. The models coincide well with Newtonion inertia and motion. The model showing space is warped compared to another model of a field would not make any noticeable difference as far as I can tell. Of course if you have the math to show otherwise, that's all I have been asking for.


> the extraordinary claims of space being modified by things passing through it seems not only illogical, but also highly suspect.


Why? Because it doesn't make sense to you? Argument from ignorance is not a counter to established thought. 



> if this is actually the case then there has to be a lot of explanation about why space UN-WARPS once the influence of the gravitational feild departs, or a shitload of explanation of how the "warping" follows the gravity around as it moves leaving previously warped space to return to it's normal non-warped status as well as where it gets the energy to un-warp without a new force to provide the energy since it is empty space.


How much explanation do you need beyond -- this is the nature of how spacetime reacts to a massive object? Of course there are people studying exactly what is the nature of spacetime and maybe in due time we will have the answers you seek. But writing off a theory because it hasn't answered every single objection you have is short sighted. 


> simple observation that onbjects move in straight lines until another force changes that direction and then its straight lines again when that force expires tells me that FORCES make shit change course, not mysterious warps in space/time, nor do i have to have a PHD to see that things and forces interact with other things and forces, all without the interference of an unseen unmeasurable ever-present additional power that makes shit happen through inscrutable methods that can only be divined by the high priests like Kip Thorne (who stilll has a porn-star name) and their acolytes.


Simple observation can be fooled. For a long time we thought gravity was a fundamental force and you would have a lot of support. However, we have a new model that supports that force is an illusion created by non-Euclidean spacetime. Do you regard centrifugal force real? How about the coriolois effect? These are forces that only appears because of a non-inertial frame. Gravity is merely acceleration. There is no difference between you in a space elevator being pulled up at 9.8m/s^2 and sitting still on the earth. The force you measure is not really from a field. Considering that no one to this day has found any evidence that gravitation is caused by a field force, it seems presumptuous of you to disregard the only other theory that offers explanation for the observations with such great precision to actually be able to predict that massless photons will bend in accordance with the curvature that is measured. 



Dr Kynes said:


> and here i was under the impression that light has infinitesimal mass and it therefore subject to the pull of gravitation.
> 
> when i was in school photons had no mass at all. but all the latest evidence shows that photons DO have a tiny almost imperceptible mass, and a gravity all their own.


Well, maybe this is where you continue to be misguided. Photons are massless. A massive photon would give us many things to test, not the least of which is it's speed in a vacuum, where a massive photon's speed would vary based on frequency. Coulomb's Law would also be another test for a massive photon. Considering I have already mentioned these two in this thread and you ignored it once, so I guess I don't expect you to pay it any regard. 


> even the latest atomic models discuss the tiny amount of mass contained within the electron shell, so apparently even electrons have some mass and gravity as well.


Electrons are not photons. Electrons have a mass.


----------



## Doer (Oct 1, 2012)

Who cares...

It is amazing that someone will go thru all this length, (a pun) like seedling to smear something with the most outrageous language.

And why? Because they don't know the difference between space and volume and don't know the difference between charged particles with mass and charge-less particles without mass.

How can we discuss the fine points if there is no fundamental, proved, basis for talks?

You are in the wrong forum section, gentlemen.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Correct, I also see this as the crux of the problem.
> This does not follow. If mass warps space, it does so in every direction, in proportion to how the mass is distributed. The models coincide well with Newtonion inertia and motion. The model showing space is warped compared to another model of a field would not make any noticeable difference as far as I can tell. Of course if you have the math to show otherwise, that's all I have been asking for.
> Why? Because it doesn't make sense to you? Argument from ignorance is not a counter to established thought.
> 
> ...


and though you insist that photons have no mass they still react to gravity as if they did, and every place i looked the mass of a photon was described as ZERO in capital letters followed by this: <1×10[SUP]&#8722;18[/SUP] eV/c[SUP]2 

which looks like a Non-Zero sum to me. small is not zero. and small shit still responds to gravity. 

meanwhile electrons are described as having a mass of :0.510998928(11) MeV/_c_[SUP]2[/SUP][/SUP][SUP] which would also be a Non-Zero number. a larger one to be sure, but mass is mass, even if it is small, and to my reckoning mass is subject to gravity's pull. 

where pray tell am i wrong. 
[/SUP]


----------



## Doer (Oct 1, 2012)

You are not quite right, yet. When something is going light speed, (it is wave form) it can't have mass, by definition, but has virtual mass due to velocity. Virtual mass is not affect by gravity. An observed Uncertainty is the wave collapses to a particle as an impact, and reflects to become a wave again.

A .45 slug at the barrel has a virtual impact mass. Heavy slug, 800 fps

A .223 bullet has an impact mass based on velocity

Yet, the same thing that was observed at the tower of Pisa holds true. Both a fired slug and a dropped slug will hit the ground at the same time. 

If virtual mass was affected by gravity, there would be an observable effect as it slow and lost virtual mass. It doesn't. The trajectory in the gravity well, remains ballistic. The impact has less energy, is all.

Impact mass, or virtual mass is all that a photon has. It can impart some velocity to a light sail. But, a photon is not subject to gravity.

So, now you know.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 1, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> and though you insist that photons have no mass they still react to gravity as if they did, and every place i looked the mass of a photon was described as ZERO in capital letters followed by this: <1×10[SUP]&#8722;18[/SUP] eV/c[SUP]2
> 
> which looks like a Non-Zero sum to me. small is not zero. and small shit still responds to gravity.
> 
> ...


for start comparing an electron at rest to a photon that can never be at rest


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> You are not quite right, yet. When something is going light speed, (it is wave form) it can't have mass, by definition, but has virtual mass due to velocity. Virtual mass is not affect by gravity. An observed Uncertainty is the wave collapses to a particle as an impact, and reflects to become a wave again.
> 
> A .45 slug at the barrel has a virtual impact mass. Heavy slug, 800 fps
> 
> ...


but still even the best of the poindexters cant actually say a photon has zero mass the best they can do is put a maximum possible value on it, leaving everything between the cap and zero as a possible mass. the cap is pretty fucking low, and zero is not that far below the cap but mas is still mass. and gravity attracts mass equally regardless of it's velocity so i dont see that your gallileo experiment alters the dynamic at all. 

big bullets and tiny bullets drop at the same rate, preumably electrons with their tiny mass are attracted by gravity the same as a lump of a nuetron star's matter, so presumably the "as close to zero as we can confidently state" mass of a photon would react to a gravitational pull the same as an electron, a proton, or a brick. to my way of thinking that pretty much concludes that photons have some mass, or at least something that acts like mass which is subject to gravity, and if it acts like mass, and nobody has been able to establish with any certainty that it isnt mass would it not be prudent to at least accept the possibility that photons COULD have mass which would explain a lot of shit without requiring warps in space, dark matter or extra dimensions? 

i always reach for the answer that doesnt require extra dimensions. but maybe i'm biased. i really cant accept other dimensions until i see spock's beard.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> for start comparing an electron at rest to a photon that can never be at rest


first show me an electron at rest. 

as far as i know planck, heisenberg einstein hawking and rowdy roddy piper toghether in a handicap match couldnt pin one of those bastards for a three count. 

ohh i know heisenberg will claim that it is PROBABLY outside the ring at any given moment, but countouts and disqualifications are not pinfalls. 

you cant take the electron's intercontinental belt on a disqualification.


----------



## Wilksey (Oct 1, 2012)

high|hgih said:


> I know all the basics like how gravity works and stuff, but is there up/down/left/right? That sort of thing? I'd imagine there is, but it would take some crazy math to calculate a trip somewhere lightyears away taking gravity, axis, location, asteroids, all of that into consideration.


I find it amusing how little we actually know about any g'damn thing, and yet, the collective "we" talk so much shit about how "bad ass" we are as a species.

Naked apes is all we are, and I would argue we are actually DUMBER than the apes we consider so "savage" and "dumb". EVERY other species on the planet works WITH their environment to survive, except "us". We do just the opposite, and try to create our OWN environment, and then bitch when we fuck it all up. Not so smart IMO.

We don't know shit, and will probably be long dead before we can ever figure out the workings of the universe our particular rock happens to be flying through.


----------



## Doer (Oct 1, 2012)

I don't think there are extra dimension involved, until we get to Dark Matter. And as a circle, a tiny one one, there is one exception proposed.

There is no evidence that this mass is any more or less real than a photon itself. Uncertainty. But, when mass is stated in eV that is mass of velocity. Electron Volts. We are looking for the Higgs bosun, for example, in a very high energy range, measured in eV. The energy of impact of mass into mass at relativistic velocity. Atom smashing. It's charged particle. Controlled by magnets, yes?

A photon has no charge. IAC, smashing massless particles makes no real sense. We can't capture most of them, at all. Most are barely known to exist.

But, it is possible to calculate what the eV of a photon is at a limit. We can math out the max possible from the impact velocity. There's your answer. A photon is not affected by gravity. That is the current Understanding.

Dark Matter can be Modeled to be photons that in a tight orbit in a dimension next to the volumetric.
It's not going anywhere, trapped in a light speed orbit, incredibly small, but stable and left over from the Big Bang and the galaxy formation. Not quite condensed, not quite Light.

But, not going anywhere and so constitutes a gravity source from it's light speed circular mometum. So, full circle, indeed.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> I don't think there are extra dimension involved, until we get to Dark Matter. And as a circle, a tiny one one, there is one exception proposed.
> 
> There is no evidence that this mass is any more or less real than a photon itself. Uncertainty. But, when mass is stated in eV that is mass of velocity. Electron Volts. We are looking for the Higgs bosun, for example, in a very high energy range, measured in eV. The energy of impact of mass into mass at relativistic velocity. Atom smashing. It's charged particle. Controlled by magnets, yes?
> 
> ...


ohh i see where youre coming from, and from your perspective a massles "particle" that does shit, can be observed, is effected by gravity, mass, solid objects and other shit might seem sensible. but from hwere i sit, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably also lives in oregon and votes democrat.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 1, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> and though you insist that photons have no mass they still react to gravity as if they did, and every place i looked the mass of a photon was described as ZERO in capital letters followed by this: <1×10[SUP]&#8722;18[/SUP] eV/c[SUP]2
> 
> which looks like a Non-Zero sum to me. small is not zero. and small shit still responds to gravity.
> 
> ...


the rest mass of a photon is zero. A moving photon has momentum. Since the photon is always moving, the experiments designed to demonstrate a rest mass will have limits. Currently those upper limits are in the order of 1×10[SUP]&#8722;18[/SUP] eV/c[SUP]2 [/SUP]I hope you can realize how small this is. Even if this was a real mass, what we observe, the amount that light bends does not follow a mass-mass attraction of F(G)=GM1M2/r2 but does exactly follow the geodesic predicted by Einstein's stress-energy tensor equations. How do you explain this except for describing light as following the path of the geodesic? 

Now the interesting thin is there are some good arguments against the Einsteinian view of spacetime curvature but you haven't presented any. Most of them have to do with the speed of propagation of gravity. I am certainly open to hearing good arguments that challenge the prevailing view but your whining and crying about Kip Thorne and accusations of thoughtless cheerleading for current theory certainly doesn't help your position.


----------



## Doer (Oct 1, 2012)

I plainly said, only in that special case of that Model dreamed up to support Dark Matter. You are attempting to right-fight again.

So, ask yourself, Dr. K. Do all ducks quack or just the stupid ones?

I don't really care.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 2, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> religion and dogma require and demand acceptance.


They have to because their theories cannot stand on their own merit. Other credible theories, like evolution, can.



Dr Kynes said:


> real science does not require consensus, the belief of the masses, or acceptance by any particular person. i can feel free to disbelieve any of a number of theories with no effect on reality whatsoever.


That is absolutely untrue. Disregard germ theory and modern medicine and watch how quickly you die. Disregard relativity and watch your gps system no longer work. These theories are accepted for good reason. Not because anyone demands or forces it. 



Dr Kynes said:


> what you are describing is theocracy with heavier textbooks, not science, fact, reality or truth.
> 
> to this day nobody can tell you what your appendix actually does. it remains a mystery. yet you still have one. that to me is pretty sure proof that "intelligent design" is bullshit since nobody installs parts that dont do shit except kill the user.
> 
> ...


How does not knowing the function of the appendix change the facts and evidence of any of the accepted theories brought up this far? 

Biblical research. Stop being disingenuous you festering anal wart. If you don't understand the fundamental difference between real evidence and the garbage you are spewing then you are too stupid to converse with.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 2, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> and though you insist that photons have no mass they still react to gravity as if they did, and every place i looked the mass of a photon was described as ZERO in capital letters followed by this: <1×10[SUP]&#8722;18[/SUP] eV/c[SUP]2
> 
> which looks like a Non-Zero sum to me. small is not zero. and small shit still responds to gravity.
> 
> ...


You seem to not know shit.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

[h=1]What is the mass of a photon?[/h] This question falls into two parts:
[h=2]Does the photon have mass? After all, it has energy and energy is equivalent to mass.[/h] Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity.
The logic can be constructed in many ways, and the following is one such. Take an isolated system (called a "particle") and accelerate it to some velocity _*v*_ (a vector). Newton defined the "momentum" _*p*_ of this particle (also a vector), such that _*p*_ behaves in a simple way when the particle is accelerated, or when it's involved in a collision. For this simple behaviour to hold, it turns out that _*p*_ must be proportional to _*v*_. The proportionality constant is called the particle's "mass" _m_, so that _*p*_ = _m*v*_.
In special relativity, it turns out that we are still able to define a particle's momentum _*p*_ such that it behaves in well-defined ways that are an extension of the newtonian case. Although _*p*_ and _*v*_ still point in the same direction, it turns out that they are no longer proportional; the best we can do is relate them via the particle's "relativistic mass" _m_[SUB]rel[/SUB]. Thus
_*p* = m_[SUB]rel[/SUB]_*v*_ . When the particle is at rest, its relativistic mass has a minimum value called the "rest mass" _m_[SUB]rest[/SUB]. The rest mass is always the same for the same type of particle. For example, all protons, electrons, and neutrons have the same rest mass; it's something that can be looked up in a table. As the particle is accelerated to ever higher speeds, its relativistic mass increases without limit.
It also turns out that in special relativity, we are able to define the concept of "energy" _E_, such that _E_ has simple and well-defined properties just like those it has in newtonian mechanics. When a particle has been accelerated so that it has some momentum _p_ (the length of the vector _*p*_) and relativistic mass _m_[SUB]rel[/SUB], then its energy _E_ turns out to be given by
_E_ = _m_[SUB]rel[/SUB]c[SUP]2[/SUP] , and also _E_[SUP]2[/SUP] = _p_[SUP]2[/SUP]c[SUP]2[/SUP] + _m_[SUP]2[/SUP][SUB]rest[/SUB]c[SUP]4[/SUP] . (1) There are two interesting cases of this last equation: 


 If the particle is at rest, then _p = 0_, and _E = m_[SUB]rest[/SUB]_c_[SUP]2[/SUP].
 If we set the rest mass equal to zero (regardless of whether or not that's a reasonable thing to do), then _E = pc_.
 In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy _E_ and momentum _p_, and these happen to be related by _E = pc_. Quantum mechanics introduces the idea that light can be viewed as a collection of "particles": photons. Even though these photons cannot be brought to rest, and so the idea of rest mass doesn't really apply to them, we can certainly bring these "particles" of light into the fold of equation (1) by just considering them to have no rest mass. That way, equation (1) gives the correct expression for light, _E = pc_, and no harm has been done. Equation (1) is now able to be applied to particles of matter _and_ "particles" of light. It can now be used as a fully general equation, and that makes it very useful.
[h=2]Is there any experimental evidence that the photon has zero rest mass?[/h] Alternative theories of the photon include a term that behaves like a mass, and this gives rise to the very advanced idea of a "massive photon". If the rest mass of the photon were non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalisable; also, charge conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have zero rest mass. But regardless of what any theory might predict, it is still necessary to check this prediction by doing an experiment.
It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would introduce a small damping factor in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. That means the electrostatic force would be weaker over very large distances.
Likewise, the behavior of static magnetic fields would be modified. An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10[SUP]&#8722;16[/SUP] eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7 × 10[SUP]&#8722;17[/SUP] eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3 × 10[SUP]&#8722;27[/SUP] eV, but there is some doubt about the validity of this method.


----------



## Seedling (Oct 2, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> When the particle is at rest, its relativistic mass has a minimum value called the "rest mass" _m_[SUB]rest[/SUB]. The rest mass is always the same for the same type of particle.


At rest compared to what?


----------



## Doer (Oct 2, 2012)

At rest in the reference frame, of course. We can capture an electron magnetically and hold it at rest in the frame. It is still subject to Momentum Conservation of the Universal Inertia frame, as it is also in orbit with the reference frame. 

It is called the rest mass? Called? You see?


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 3, 2012)

Seedling said:


> At rest compared to what?




You must be trolling.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 3, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> They have to because their theories cannot stand on their own merit. Other credible theories, like evolution, can.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 GPS uses triangulatiuon, and radio waves to establish and communicate your position, not relativity. both concepts (if not that particular implementation) predate einstein and his relativity theories by a VERY long time. 

but to your first point, so if i close my eyes and wish real hard that newton and marconi were totally wrong then satellites will stop orbiting and radio waves will no longer transmit to receivers? wow. 

if i disbelieve in germs, and instead place my faith in the theory that evil vapours cause disease i will just keel over and die? amazing. 

the appendix, if you had read instead of blindly gnashing your teeth, is to my mind PROOF that intelligent design is bullshit, and evolution (with it's random mutations which may help, may hurt or may do nothing) caused species to evolve. im starting to think you only understand the ad hominem. 

if i make the claim that shit stinks, i suspect you might smear some under your nose just to prove me wrong. 

science is advanced by the best methods availabnle at the time, and rigorous study, argument, and testing not bold proclamations by ad hominem attack. Galileo was 'proved" wrong by the "scientific" and ecclesiastical courts which were the "peer review" and "scientific journals" of the time. THATS my fucking point. if you place blind faith in this poindexter, or that theory you may find yourself supporting a lie, and insulting, defaming and slandering somebody who is RIGHT just because the authorities disagree with his heresy! 

if you want to believe that the earth is hollow, anfd munchkins and gnomes live on the inner convex surface around a tiny inner sun then you can believe the fuck out of that, it doesnt hurt me and you belief will NOT make it true. 

right now your just a few steps remioved from declaring me a witch and demanding i be burnt at the stake for my traffick with the devil for daring to believe in the universe described by my god, my grandfather, newton and my past mentors.

wow. maybe im just an unrepentant apostate. get the torches.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 3, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> GPS uses triangulatiuon, and radio waves to establish and communicate your position, not relativity. both concepts (if not that particular implementation) predate einstein and his relativity theories by a VERY long time.


Do some more research, you'll figure it out...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gps+and+general+relativity


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 3, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> GPS uses triangulatiuon, and radio waves to establish and communicate your position, not relativity. both concepts (if not that particular implementation) predate einstein and his relativity theories by a VERY long time.


It uses relativity to synchronize times and positions. It will not work correctly if you do not account for the effects of relativity. You are definitely showing your ignorance here.




Dr Kynes said:


> but to your first point, so if i close my eyes and wish real hard that newton and marconi were totally wrong then satellites will stop orbiting and radio waves will no longer transmit to receivers? wow.


That wasn't my first point. My point was that facts are facts. Believe whatever you want, but the evidence is out there plain as day for anyone to investigate. 

Note that this is NOT true for creationism or any religious belief. There is not any data or evidence to back them up, which is why they are bullshit. There is a mountain of data to back up evolution and newton. There is a fundamental difference between a real theory and what you seem to consider a "theory".



Dr Kynes said:


> if i disbelieve in germs, and instead place my faith in the theory that evil vapours cause disease i will just keel over and die? amazing.


Not instantly like you imply, but yes. It is the reason you sanitize your food area, wash your hands, avoid people that are sick, avoid eating spoiled food, take antibiotics etc. If you truly did not believe in germ theory you would not perform those activities. And yes those germs would get to you because germ theory is the reality.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 3, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> science is advanced by the best methods availabnle at the time, and rigorous study, argument, and testing not bold proclamations by ad hominem attack. Galileo was 'proved" wrong by the "scientific" and ecclesiastical courts which were the "peer review" and "scientific journals" of the time. THATS my fucking point. if you place blind faith in this poindexter, or that theory you may find yourself supporting a lie, and insulting, defaming and slandering somebody who is RIGHT just because the authorities disagree with his heresy!


I notice that you incorrectly used every single word in quotes. Arbitrarily changing the meaning of words does very little to prove your point.

No one "proved" the theories in question by strong arming anyone. They were proved with evidence and facts. Real evidence, not just because one dude or group says so, but because it is real and you can go check it yourself.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 3, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> I notice that you incorrectly used every single word in quotes. Arbitrarily changing the meaning of words does very little to prove your point.
> 
> No one "proved" the theories in question by strong arming anyone. They were proved with evidence and facts. Real evidence, not just because one dude or group says so, but because it is real and you can go check it yourself.


they are in quotes because they were the terms used incorrectly, thus the claim by the "scientific" courts of rome were not scientific, even if thet was what they purported to be.

the catholic "scientific" authorities and their ecclesiastical courts "proved" gallileo wrong despite the rightness of his theory. just as the false claims of a round earth being columbus's idea, native americans being given blankets deliberately infested with smallpox, and ancient celts being illiterate are all untruths accepted by many of the official sources today. many still believe these stories and many textbooks still publish it as true, but it aint. 

likewise your insistence that theres no "strong arming" why does it offend you if i allow myself to presume that photons have a mass. and you cant even say i am wrong if i accept that that mass is UDER the upper limit placed on that mass by every scientific authority available. 

"so close to zero that we cant say for sure it's not some infinitesimally small number, but we can say for sure it is less than 1 times negative 10 the the 18th electron volts divided by c squared." is still not zero. and if it's not zero then it could be somewhere between zero and the limit. or it could be zero, with photons having some property that acts like mass so convincingly that at times it can seem like mass, even if it is some as yet undiscovered force. 

your insistence that it is simply ZERO is arbitrary, and according to all data available unproven. 

can you hear me up there on your high horse? IF photons do have mass then it is almost certainly under the limit currently established, but if they have any mass at all then many current theories are wrong. that is why one simple farmhand asking questions makes you so infuriated. you fear your house may be made of straw and ill huff and puff and blow it down? or my disbelief of your communications will destabilize the universe causing the big bang to reverse? i had no idea i had such power. 

when i was in school electrons had zero mass too. all my textbooks said it. all mass resided in the nucleus. in 30 years who can saay what the mass of a photon might be, but for now it acts like it has mass to me and thats good enough for my universe's operations.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 3, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Do some more research, you'll figure it out...
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gps+and+general+relativity


einsteins theories being an attempt to explain EVERYTHING being used in SOMETHING which comes under the heading of EVERYTHING.

*"A GPS receiver in an airplane determines its current position and heading by comparing the time signals it receives from a number of the GPS satellites (usually 6 to 12) and triangulating on the known positions of each satellite"
*
that relativity is involved is not in doubt but the basic principles are radio waves and triangulation. 

i could claim that the venturi principle explains why ships with triangular sails can tack against the wind, even though they existed before venturi ever drew breath or anton leeuwenhoek's research into microorganisms allowed people to see critters which were previously only theorized. this does not mean leeuwenhoek created the first microorganism, or that he gets a check every time somebody's yoghurt sets. 

fundamental principles are fundamental. we use them even if we dont acknowledge them understand them or believe in them. cars do not work because einstien's theories are pretty darn good. they work because the fundamental prinicples work on the scale that the car operates on in a predictable manner. if einstein's theories are overturned cars will not stop working until a new physical model is in place. cars wont even noticce that the scientific world is all abuzz with the coming coronation of a new physical model. cars will simply operate as expected within their design parameters even if the designers are shitting themselves over some new theories.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 4, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> that *relativity is involved is not in doubt* but the basic principles are radio waves and triangulation.


So does this mean you are backing off from your previous statement? 


Dr Kynes said:


> GPS uses triangulatiuon, and radio waves to establish and communicate your position,* not relativity*.


You seem to love to misdirect and attempt to distract from the point rather than just admit you fucked up or didn't even know. 

I shouldn't have to even address your stupid analogies but because they are such a ridiculous, transparent attempt to confound and hide the fact of your ignorance, I will. 

The fact that something exists before it's discovery was NOT the point. Yes, the affects of General Relativity existed before Einstein describes them, but the fact is, general relativity actually MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT in order for GPS to work. Unlike your point about cars, *GPS will FAIL *without the US Navy actively adjusting for the drift that occurs because of GR!!! It must be applied just as much as the geometry of triangulation and science of radio transmission. 

You clearly said GPS doesn't use relativity. You did not imply it, you actually made that statement... and when proven wrong you obfuscate and attempt to turn the fact that you fucked up back on me when all I did was point out your error of omission. This clearly shows you as petty and acrimonious. Your attempt to paint me as a fool by trying to shift the argument and pretend I said something different than what I said is inexcusable and the intelligent posters here can see what you tried to do. I have little patience for this kind of dishonesty, not because of your attempt to skate away from and cover up your fuck up, but because you used to try to paint me as the villain. Grow the fuck up and get some fucking humility.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 4, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> they are in quotes because they were the terms used incorrectly, thus the claim by the "scientific" courts of rome were not scientific, even if thet was what they purported to be.
> 
> the catholic "scientific" authorities and their ecclesiastical courts "proved" gallileo wrong despite the rightness of his theory. just as the false claims of a round earth being columbus's idea, native americans being given blankets deliberately infested with smallpox, and ancient celts being illiterate are all untruths accepted by many of the official sources today. many still believe these stories and many textbooks still publish it as true, but it aint.
> 
> ...


Because my belief in a massless photon is not dogmatic, it's backed by evidence, just like evolution and relativity. Do you honestly not see that major fundamental difference between them?

It's not arbitrary at all. It is predicted by theory. The same theories have have tons of data backing them up.

If you want to prove any of the tried and true theories that have been mentioned in this thread you are going to need some real evidence. Claiming an entire theory that is over 100 years old and has mountains of data, every single piece of which confirms the theory, is wrong because your intuition tells you that a photon must weigh _something_ is fucking insane. You have absolutely no data. You are unsatisfied with their level of precision, which is pretty fucking high btw.


----------



## Doer (Oct 4, 2012)

Kynes, I know Doctors and you are no Doctor.

Everything is subject to relativity. Certainly the GPS cloud has to take all those effects into account to get the vast accuracy required. You seem be carrying big grudges. But, have a sandy foundation in Science.
You seem against Research, Europe, Conclusions, the Understanding and sadly you must be against Fiction itself, since you butcher even that.

You are muttering your own mixed Fantasy world. There is no science you can discuss and so you are in the wrong section with you inability to communicate in a honest fashion.

We are not talking about beliefs. Hie thee home, Hobbit.

Science is the discovery, not the creation. It is math, not the definition. You are not telling the difference.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 5, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> So does this mean you are backing off from your previous statement?
> 
> You seem to love to misdirect and attempt to distract from the point rather than just admit you fucked up or didn't even know.
> 
> ...


you are thickheaded like i cant believe. 

gps uses triangulation and radio waves as stated in the posted citation. using relativistic calculations to calibrate the satellites does not mean they use einsteinian magical crystal balls to determine your position. 


the only one being dishonest is yourself. claiming that newton's laws are abrogated because einstein says the universe is made of shit that cant be measured, onyl theorized and mathematically shoehorned does not prove shit, it doesnt even sound convincing. 

you insist that photons have a mass of zero. i find that unlikely. every source i read says photns have zero mass, but then states that "zero" means less than X, but not quite provably zero. you dont mention the less than X part you siimply bray about zeros and say that the proof is that if it's not zero then other theories wouldnt work right. well maybe those other theories are fucking wrong! 


theres a fucking shitload of theories that wer once though quite good that now are considered dead ass wrong! 

the Aether theories, but now some scientists are looking at the aether theories with a new eye. ZOMG heretics! BURN THEM!!
"nothing goes faster than light" or does it? no it doesnt, oh wait... we will see soon enough.
man cannot survive passing through the van allen belt! ohh wait... 
canals on mars... 
no water on the moon
pluto is a planet
even some of einsteins theories were rejected, then un-rejected (dont ask me to name them youre the one who claims the expertise, i just remember something i read)
and many more.

your dead certainty that photon mass = zero is at odds with every source i could find, so who the fuck is in need of humility? (also humility is not a virtue in my religion)


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 5, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> you are thickheaded like i cant believe.
> 
> gps uses triangulation and radio waves as stated in the posted citation. using relativistic calculations to calibrate the satellites does not mean they use einsteinian magical crystal balls to determine your position.









Dude, how do you still not get it? There is no einsteinian crystal ball, they use the equations of relativity. If you neglect those equations and assume there is no time dilation and everything is perfectly Euclidean then your gps will not work. The satellites all have to be synchronized correctly and if they aren't then you get fucked up time stamps when you receive your gps signal, then your gps incorrectly calculates your position based on the incorrect times. You have to account for the effects of relativity or gps absolutely will not work. This point is no longer up for discussion.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 5, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> the only one being dishonest is yourself. claiming that newton's laws are abrogated because einstein says the universe is made of shit that cant be measured, onyl theorized and mathematically shoehorned does not prove shit, it doesnt even sound convincing.
> 
> you insist that photons have a mass of zero. i find that unlikely. every source i read says photns have zero mass, but then states that "zero" means less than X, but not quite provably zero. you dont mention the less than X part you siimply bray about zeros and say that the proof is that if it's not zero then other theories wouldnt work right. well maybe those other theories are fucking wrong!
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 5, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Dude, how do you still not get it? There is no einsteinian crystal ball, they use the equations of relativity. If you neglect those equations and assume there is no time dilation and everything is perfectly Euclidean then your gps will not work. The satellites all have to be synchronized correctly and if they aren't then you get fucked up time stamps when you receive your gps signal, then your gps incorrectly calculates your position based on the incorrect times. You have to account for the effects of relativity or gps absolutely will not work. This point is no longer up for discussion.



finer calibrations are needed for better precision measurements, am i disputing that? NO, you wish to colour me as disputing this fact so your ad hominems will be punchier and you can post more pictures with words on them. 

the fact remains i use better instruments and finer calculations to make my rifle cartridges than i do when loading a black powder musket. this does not mean that the existence of modern self contained cartridges makes black powder flintlocks fail to work. they use the SAME principles in a new application, but the measurements must be finer due to tighter tolerances. likewise most of einstein's theories are holding up just fine without your broad shoulder supporting the whole model like a scientific atlas ensuring that the universe moves in time to the music of the spheres. 

MOST of einsteins theories work quite well, but some of it is looking a little wobbly. thats what really pisses you off i guess, that the theories which give your life meaning might be overturned for something different. so it's time to go all orthodox, and demand that the mass be spake only in latin, and the sacred texts be kept from the hands of the great unwashed masses. 

or you could just start setting car bombs. thats another popular choice to vent the rage of dimwits who insist on their doctrine's supremacy.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 5, 2012)

guy incognito said:


>



in response,


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 5, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> finer calibrations are needed for better precision measurements, am i disputing that? NO, you wish to colour me as disputing this fact so your ad hominems will be punchier and you can post more pictures with words on them.
> 
> the fact remains i use better instruments and finer calculations to make my rifle cartridges than i do when loading a black powder musket. this does not mean that the existence of modern self contained cartridges makes black powder flintlocks fail to work. they use the SAME principles in a new application, but the measurements must be finer due to tighter tolerances. likewise most of einstein's theories are holding up just fine without your broad shoulder supporting the whole model like a scientific atlas ensuring that the universe moves in time to the music of the spheres.
> 
> ...


You clearly don't know shit. It's not a matter of better precision measurements with gps. It's a matter of the real world consequences of relativity. When speeds are very low and differences in gravity are ignored the relativistic equations simplify to newtons equations. No matter how precise the clocks are, *time itself* is actually different and must be accounted for. I don't know what you aren't understanding about this. 

You are using the same principals and fundamentals when you are filling cartridges. It may have higher precision than other instruments, but fundamentally it is exactly the same. Relativity is fundamentally different than Newtonian mechanics. It's the same general idea, but the equations are different. So far 100% of the evidence points to relativity fitting reality.

Which theories of einsteins do not work, or have been disproven? I also want to point out that I never said einstein was 100% correct or infallible. I said relativity is the best working model and has 100% success rate to date. If you think different bring some evidence to the table.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 5, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> or you could just start setting car bombs. thats another popular choice to vent the rage of dimwits who insist on their doctrine's supremacy.


Do you honestly not see the fundamental difference between insisting a certain theory has enough credible evidence to be considered correct, and blind faith? Are you a troll or just really stupid?


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> finer calibrations are needed for better precision measurements, am i disputing that? NO, you wish to colour me as disputing this fact so your ad hominems will be punchier and you can post more pictures with words on them.
> 
> the fact remains i use better instruments and finer calculations to make my rifle cartridges than i do when loading a black powder musket. this does not mean that the existence of modern self contained cartridges makes black powder flintlocks fail to work. they use the SAME principles in a new application, but the measurements must be finer due to tighter tolerances. likewise most of einstein's theories are holding up just fine without your broad shoulder supporting the whole model like a scientific atlas ensuring that the universe moves in time to the music of the spheres.
> 
> ...


My guess is that you were too fucking pigheaded to actually read any of the links. When I saw this shit explained the first time, it blew my mind and here you are acting like it's part of everyday experiences for you. Oh, just more precise calculations. I regret to inform you you need to discontinue to post without actually doing the research that I first suggested way back when you started your ridiculous attempts to cover the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. First you claim relativity isn't involved, then you wave it off as merely precision in calculating orbits or some such shit, you know like most rocket scientists do daily. When in fact, the USN has a whole unit working around the clock to keep the GPS ATOMIC CLOCKS in sync with the ones on earth, otherwise our relativistic effects of time dilation occur both because of gravity and GR but also orbital speed SR effects which can be predetermined allow them to purposely make the onboard clocks slower to compensate. Without such corrections the distances error rate would become progressively worse over time making them useless. I mean you can't ask for better real world engineering application of Einstein's theory. Burying your head in the sand by trying to downplay the requirement to apply Einstein to specifically the GPS satellites, and hoping no one notices how stupid you are continuing to sound because you failed to do the proper research has failed. EVERYONE has noticed. Everyone has stopped taking anything you say about science serious anymore. Originally, you appeared to have some chops, at least I recall some knowledge about the scientific method and what it can, as well as cannot do, but now, your babbling regression to pseudoscientific jargon and attempts at similar argument construction merely tells me my radar was off -- trying to paint rationalists as people who's lives would crash down if Einstein's theories were falsified in some regard. This one's always defeatable by pointing to the actual reaction of scientists when it appeared neutrinos violated light speed. They were calm, welcoming a chance to find a new problem to work on. Your idiotic portrayal of the true value of modern scientific consensus makes it obvious you don't have a real true understanding of the process and how that's what's revered, not the work of imperfect humans, genius although they may be. 

I usually can peg a woo artist within one or two posts. The problem is when you guys act as if they shouldn't care whether they're talking to laymen or actual working scientists, you know, one that makes his or her living avoiding the sloppy thinking that many people, including some scientists, delude themselves into thinking they are being logical. A good, critical thinker shouldn't be afraid of criticism of your underlying thought processes, probably more so than when the product of that thought is argued. The only way to know if one is actually not thinking critically, is if you stop and think and go through the process, evaluate each step from the beginning. This is another conflict of being human and being a critical thinker. A human doesn't ever really want to be wrong. I hate being wrong. It makes you feel stupid sometimes. A duh, moment. We all have them and hate to admit when it happens. However, I like learning about being wrong. Some of the best stories in all of history both fact and fiction, has to do with important people being wrong. 

Wow, I'm rambling, I had some edibles earlier and I am only now just noticing the effects.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 5, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Do you honestly not see the fundamental difference between insisting a certain theory has enough credible evidence to be considered correct, and blind faith? Are you a troll or just really stupid?


I am personally amazed and impressed that there are now clocks so sensitive and precise (and portable) that they can be used as altimeters ... sensors for the gravitational relativity effect. cn


----------



## Seedling (Oct 6, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I am personally amazed and impressed that there are now clocks so sensitive and precise (and portable) that they can be used as altimeters ... sensors for the gravitational relativity effect. cn


One better than that, there exists an expanding light sphere that has a radius of ct. Kinda makes your theory obsolete, eh?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 6, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I am personally amazed and impressed that there are now clocks so sensitive and precise (and portable) that they can be used as altimeters ... sensors for the gravitational relativity effect. cn


nice theory . . . .. .lol


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 6, 2012)

Seedling said:


> One better than that, there exists an expanding light sphere that has a radius of ct. Kinda makes your theory obsolete, eh?


No. It fits perfectly with relativity as predicted. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 6, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> You clearly don't know shit. It's not a matter of better precision measurements with gps. It's a matter of the real world consequences of relativity. When speeds are very low and differences in gravity are ignored the relativistic equations simplify to newtons equations. No matter how precise the clocks are, *time itself* is actually different and must be accounted for. I don't know what you aren't understanding about this.
> 
> You are using the same principals and fundamentals when you are filling cartridges. It may have higher precision than other instruments, but fundamentally it is exactly the same. Relativity is fundamentally different than Newtonian mechanics. It's the same general idea, but the equations are different. So far 100% of the evidence points to relativity fitting reality.
> 
> Which theories of einsteins do not work, or have been disproven? I also want to point out that I never said einstein was 100% correct or infallible. I said relativity is the best working model and has 100% success rate to date. If you think different bring some evidence to the table.


using einsteins models gets better calibrations you idiot. i am not denying all science or ANy science i am doubting a few theories that dont add up, and a few assumptions that seem illogical to me. one of those assumptioons is that photons have zero mass, despite the best methods available showing a mass of less than X, which is NOT zero. 

did i state that electrical pulses inside a quartz crystal could not be used to keep time? did i dispute the evidence for nuclear fission? did i claim that the sun is a raging fiery chariot piloted by apollo? argue against my statements if you wish but stop inventing new statements and attributing them to me. that only makes you look illiterate. 

GPS satellites use relativity calculations and models to CALIBRATE their internal clocks for better precision, the basic methods used by GPS satellites and receivers for their basic job is triangulation and radio waves. NOT einsteinian gravity lenses and space warping you fool. an old pocketwatch would NOT help the satellites do their job, and winding them all up would be a difficult proposition in orbit 

regarding your comment on cartridge loading: you mean the piezo electric scales i use are based on the same principles as a balance? amazing! i guess the integrated circuit, transistors, diodes, the microprocessor and electricity were invented by archimedes too. that bastard must have been wicked smart! dipshit the calibrations of GPS internal clocks to measure the time delay of signals is NOT a change of the fundamental principles used by radio transmissions (which has been around since the late 1800's) it is simply a better way to measure the distance the signal travels by using einestein's calculations of the speed of light. why is this so hard for you to grasp? 

as to which einstein theories have been disproved, just off the top of my head, einstein himself lamented his theory of a universal constant when he couldnt make the proofs work, but then he lamented his lamentation a few years later. 

physicists get proven wrong regularly, and sometimes that proof gets overturned too. sometimes they even overturn themselves. 

if i choose to doubt the mass of a photon is zero, even if that is inconvenient for several other theories, then so be it. your constant assertions that i said something i did not, is not only disingenuous, but annoying.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 6, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> My guess is that you were too fucking pigheaded to actually read any of the links. When I saw this shit explained the first time, it blew my mind and here you are acting like it's part of everyday experiences for you. Oh, just more precise calculations. I regret to inform you you need to discontinue to post without actually doing the research that I first suggested way back when you started your ridiculous attempts to cover the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. First you claim relativity isn't involved, then you wave it off as merely precision in calculating orbits or some such shit, you know like most rocket scientists do daily. When in fact, the USN has a whole unit working around the clock to keep the GPS ATOMIC CLOCKS in sync with the ones on earth, otherwise our relativistic effects of time dilation occur both because of gravity and GR but also orbital speed SR effects which can be predetermined allow them to purposely make the onboard clocks slower to compensate. Without such corrections the distances error rate would become progressively worse over time making them useless. I mean you can't ask for better real world engineering application of Einstein's theory. Burying your head in the sand by trying to downplay the requirement to apply Einstein to specifically the GPS satellites, and hoping no one notices how stupid you are continuing to sound because you failed to do the proper research has failed. EVERYONE has noticed. Everyone has stopped taking anything you say about science serious anymore. Originally, you appeared to have some chops, at least I recall some knowledge about the scientific method and what it can, as well as cannot do, but now, your babbling regression to pseudoscientific jargon and attempts at similar argument construction merely tells me my radar was off -- trying to paint rationalists as people who's lives would crash down if Einstein's theories were falsified in some regard. This one's always defeatable by pointing to the actual reaction of scientists when it appeared neutrinos violated light speed. They were calm, welcoming a chance to find a new problem to work on. Your idiotic portrayal of the true value of modern scientific consensus makes it obvious you don't have a real true understanding of the process and how that's what's revered, not the work of imperfect humans, genius although they may be.
> 
> I usually can peg a woo artist within one or two posts. The problem is when you guys act as if they shouldn't care whether they're talking to laymen or actual working scientists, you know, one that makes his or her living avoiding the sloppy thinking that many people, including some scientists, delude themselves into thinking they are being logical. A good, critical thinker shouldn't be afraid of criticism of your underlying thought processes, probably more so than when the product of that thought is argued. The only way to know if one is actually not thinking critically, is if you stop and think and go through the process, evaluate each step from the beginning. This is another conflict of being human and being a critical thinker. A human doesn't ever really want to be wrong. I hate being wrong. It makes you feel stupid sometimes. A duh, moment. We all have them and hate to admit when it happens. However, I like learning about being wrong. Some of the best stories in all of history both fact and fiction, has to do with important people being wrong.
> 
> Wow, I'm rambling, I had some edibles earlier and I am only now just noticing the effects.


so because you are so vehement in insisting that photon mass = zero then all the other scientists should stop saying the mass is "less than X" which is a non-zero number. they should simply accept your word that you did the maths, and if it aint zero then the universe will stop working, and doubting your word is also doubting the calculations of the speed of light, the existence of gravity, the uncertainty principle and planck's constant, calling Einstein's mother fat, and pushing steven hawking's wheelchair down a flight of stairs. 

you colour my statements with the meaning you wish to attribute to them. the speed of light, relativity and all the other shit you claim i am doubting because i dont believe that "less than X" = zero is a figment of your own imagination. 

i may not be a math whizz, but i do read a lot of scientific journaals, and they all spend half their time discussing photons *AS IF *they had mass, and half their time insisting they *CANT *have mass, and then mutter about how if they do have mass then that mass is pretty small anyhow. 

so where would i get the impression that perhaps "photon mass = 0" might be in doubt? 

i remember when i was in school electrons had no mass either. so i clearly must be selling something. 

i dont know why you are so bitter butthurt and furious because i think photons might have mass, when the subject seems to be causing a great deal of problems for actual qualified sheepskin having physicists who's opinion actually matters. 

the OP asked a question, and i layed out the theory (or if you will, hypothesis) that seems to work best in my opinion, and then you went all crazy-ape bonkers like i was taking food off your table cuz i think space doesnt bend but instead gravity moves shit. newton said gravity moves shit too, you gonna dig him up so you can kick him in the nuts? pythagorus believed the universe was made up of fire earth water and air suspended in the Aether... you gonna raise him from the dead so you can burn him at the stake? 

you can tell somebody that you think they are wrong, or even that they ARE wrong without throwing a handful of shit at em. 

fuck even with smok3y1 i started off debating the issue at hand (amaedinejhad and wiping israel off the map) before the shit slinging began. 

question is, who put the turd in your hand? 

the ballistic arc of a wad of shit is not a proof of the unified feild theory.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 6, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> using einsteins models gets better calibrations you idiot. i am not denying all science or ANy science i am doubting a few theories that dont add up, and a few assumptions that seem illogical to me. one of those assumptioons is that photons have zero mass, despite the best methods available showing a mass of less than X, which is NOT zero.
> 
> did i state that electrical pulses inside a quartz crystal could not be used to keep time? did i dispute the evidence for nuclear fission? did i claim that the sun is a raging fiery chariot piloted by apollo? argue against my statements if you wish but stop inventing new statements and attributing them to me. that only makes you look illiterate.
> 
> ...


Do you even know what a calibration is? And what exactly are you calibrating it to? No they aren't calibrating the clocks, they are making adjustments based on the way reality works. If you use a theoretic clock that is perfectly calibrated all the time you STILL have to account for the real world effects of relativity. That is the crux of the argument. It is not a matter of precision or calibration, it is that 

Theory predicts it has to be zero. Exactly zero. If you look at the equations you understand why. Just because they cannot measure it's resting mass to exactly zero with infinite precision does mean it is not so. There is still mounds of evidence pointing to the prediction being correct. Asking them to measure with infinite precision before you accept it as reality is asking a bit much. How close will be close enough? 1x10^-100? 1x10^-1000?

Yes they (a balance and a piezoelectric scale) are measuring the same force. They use different principals, but measure the exact same force. A large enough balance could be constructed and calibrated to measure the same precision as a piezoelectric scale; even while moving at large constant velocities or in areas of high gravity. Newtonian and einsteinian calculations are not always interchangeable though - hence the fundamental difference.

Sometimes physicists do get proven wrong. You seem to be implying that they all have an equal chance of being wrong which is absolutely false. Relativity is not a fringe theory. It has a lot of data to back it up, and you don't have shit to back it. All you can do is bitch and moan about them not having infinite precision, which is unrealistic. 

You have absolutely no reason to doubt that the mass of a photon is zero. No evidence. No good logic. Only some intuitive belief that is must weigh something. Why? Well you don't know why, but it must.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 6, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> i remember when i was in school electrons had no mass either. so i clearly must be selling something.


You keep stating this and I don't know why. It has never been zero. 

You must have had a terrible school that didn't teach facts. Or you somehow made the assumption that since the mass is so small compared to a proton, and it's mass is neglected for nearly all practical applications, that is actually was zero. I can see someone taking chem 101, and not fully paying attention and filling in the rest with assumptions. You seem to be doing that alot. Either way it actually explains a lot about your posts if your entire scientific base of knowledge is built upon faulty principals and misinformation.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 7, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> You keep stating this and I don't know why. It has never been zero.
> 
> You must have had a terrible school that didn't teach facts. Or you somehow made the assumption that since the mass is so small compared to a proton, and it's mass is neglected for nearly all practical applications, that is actually was zero. I can see someone taking chem 101, and not fully paying attention and filling in the rest with assumptions. You seem to be doing that alot. Either way it actually explains a lot about your posts if your entire scientific base of knowledge is built upon faulty principals and misinformation.


again you make the claim that my doubts as to the zero-ness of a photons mass somehow means einstein was full of shit and all his theories are garbage. this is what you call reductio ad absurdum. 

in centuries past technological and scientific advances were made using the theories prevalent at the time. 

Marconi thought that radio transmissions were instantaneous. *They Still Worked!*
Archimedes thought that the universe was made of fire water earth and air suspended in the Aether. *His Theories on Liquid Displacement And Gravity Still Worked!*
Galen Of Pergamum believed that disease and injuries could be treated by balancing the humours. fevers and wounds needed the purifying power of clean water to heal. *He Was Right, Just For The Wrong Reasons!*

and yes, when i was in school back in the 70's. electrons had a mass of zero. all mass was held in the nucleus. and just so you know, there was no "101" classes in my school, since it was a rural public school not a college or university. 

funny thing is, electrical devices from the 30's 40's and 50s still work today, despite their complete lack of sophistication and new modern quantum theory models. sailing ships still sail, despite the utter lack of new quantum theories and computer modeling. penicillin still kills bacterium, despite its utter lack of genetic science. why i hear that a candle can still light a room even if the FIRE is no longer an elemental force. 

if your grandpappy is still alive why dont you ask him about how it was before airliners, and you had to take a week to go from new york to san francisco, or weeks at sea to get to europe. your conceit is that everything which is normal to you is just the way things have always been. it's called the Normalcy Bias, and it destroys more research than hockeystick graphs. 

some of us are old enough to remember when a phone in your car was a NEW idea, and a phone in your pocket was just science fiction. you seem to have forgotten or more likely never considered, that technology and science have advanced at a breakneck pace in the last 40 years, and some of it my in fact be less settled than you would prefer to believe. but then your not nearly as clever as you believe, and also, youre quite a dick. 

to state that the mass of electrons has never been zero is poppycock. 

for centuries there werent even such things as electrons as far as science was concerned. you are =displaying not only ignorance but unwarranted self assurance. thats what we call Hubris.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 7, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> again you make the claim that my doubts as to the zero-ness of a photons mass somehow means einstein was full of shit and all his theories are garbage. this is what you call reductio ad absurdum.
> 
> in centuries past technological and scientific advances were made using the theories prevalent at the time.
> 
> ...


And again you claim that's what they taught you. You either had a terrible school or you are a fucking liar. The electron was discovered before 1900. There were experiments done to determine the mass of the electron before 1900. The standard model was developed by the 1970's. You are absolutely wrong in claiming that electrons had no mass. Maybe they did teach you that, but they were terribly outdated and wrong.

Do you honestly not see a difference between all your examples and einstein? Did marconi draw his conclusion about transmissions being instantaneous from a ton of observational and experimental data? Or was it simply an assumption because he didn't understand how it fundamentally works? You seem to be implying that the declaration that the photon has zero rest mass is based off the same amount of knowledge that all your other examples drew their incorrect conclusions from.

This is your argument in a nutshell:

Hey remember that one caveman that thought 1 +1 =3? Well some how he managed to survive and pass on his genes. Now this einstein character is claiming 1+1=2. Humans have been wrong in the past, therefore there is an equal chance that they are wrong now, even though one character has a significant advantage in his understanding of how math works.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 7, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> And again you claim that's what they taught you. You either had a terrible school or you are a fucking liar. The electron was discovered before 1900. There were experiments done to determine the mass of the electron before 1900. The standard model was developed by the 1970's. You are absolutely wrong in claiming that electrons had no mass. Maybe they did teach you that, but they were terribly outdated and wrong.
> 
> Do you honestly not see a difference between all your examples and einstein? Did marconi draw his conclusion about transmissions being instantaneous from a ton of observational and experimental data? Or was it simply an assumption because he didn't understand how it fundamentally works? You seem to be implying that the declaration that the photon has zero rest mass is based off the same amount of knowledge that all your other examples drew their incorrect conclusions from.
> 
> ...


but we are not talking about simple arithmetic. we are talking about fundamental forces that giovern the basic functions of the universe, and the understanding of these forces through REAL data, not theories that make assumptions which themselves are unproveable. 

claiming that the inability to adequately prove a theory makes the theory unassailable is exactly as ludicrous as demanding that somebody PROVE your theory wrong or they shut the fuck up. 

photons have zero mas is an untestable unprovable theory. the inability to test this assumption does not reinforce the assumption, just as the inability to prove that photons DO have mass is not evidence that photons in fact have mass. 

is any of this sinking in through your magic cloak of self-confidence? 

that i cannot prove a photon's mass is not in itself proof that photons are massless. the simple and observable fact that photons are attracted to gravity sources (apparently Fields now has a meaning other than an area of effect so i will refrain from discussing gravity fields) indicates that photons are susceptible to gravity's influence. 

the conclusion therefore is that photons (like all other things subject to gravitational pull) have mass and thus can be attracted
*OR*
that gravity bends the very space around it causing the photon to be directed off course by the distortions but NOT by the gravity itself. 

the second conclusion requires assumptions which are not in keeping with the science i understand and which has worked pretty well for some time. 
the second conclusion actually sounds more like magical thinking than science
the warping of space by gravity is essential to preserve other theroies that will just not work right if photons have mass. assumptions can be made that support existing theories but if the assumptions are untestable then they are STILL ASSUMPTIONS no matter how elegantly they fit the supported model, or how perfectly they align with the accepted theories of the day. just like the catholic's "scientific courts" who's sole duty was squashing any theory or hypothesis that they determined might undermine the dogma of the church. the god as trinity is a similar theory embraced by catholicism to explain how they can have 3 deities but still be monotheists under the torah's ten commandments. all you have to do is shoehorn your god into 3 forms but insist that hes still just one guy. i see this same idea at work with gravity, as it is being shoehorned into a non-newtonian shape for some purposes but allowed to be a newtonian force for others. 

gravity effects mass in predictable ways. thats why scales work, tides operate with regularity, and buildings dont fall down (unless you hit them with a jet liner) 
overturning this gravitational attraction theory (which so far has an excellent track record for reliability) in favour of a new space warping solution does not seem to be based on observation, but rather the desire to not have gaps in other theory's proofs. 
the warping of space can explain why photons (presuming they are massless) are redirected (but not attracted, cuz that would be impossible right?) by gravity, but it causes other questions, like why are the seas attracted to the moon causing tides, despite the greater pull of gravity from earth? if it were simply a distortion field around the gravity source, the greater distortions of earth's gravity would not allow the seas to rise towards the moon's much weaker and distant space warping "force", or why the distortion directs the passing photons TOWARDS the gravity source. most wave distortion patterns can draw a thing in, or push them away depending on which side of the wave the object sits, but then gravity is not a wave. sometimes. or is it? 

given that photons are in fact apparently attracted towards gravity sources it would seem to be logical that they are subject to gravity's attraction, yet everything else that we know of that is attracted by gravity has mass. 

attracted by gravity + delivers a force on impact + has a measurable velocity + the ability to do work + perceptibility despite our sensory limitations + interacts with matter + subject to electromagnetic forces + produced/released by chemical and electromagnetic reactions in matter (ie fire, phosphorescence, incandescence etc...) = probably pretty damned close to being matter, which is to say, mass or a very mass-like property someplace within it's mysteries

newton showed that force = mass X velocity squared. photons have a velocity, deliver a force, and therefore since velocity is the multiplier of mass to determine force the object with velocity should have a mass of some sort. since 0 x anything is still 0. ten quadrillion times zero still equals zero, so conversely the non zero sum of a photon's force on impact presumably requires a non zero number as the basis for multiplication due to velocity.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 7, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> using einsteins models gets better calibrations you idiot. i am not denying all science or ANy science i am doubting a few theories that dont add up, and a few assumptions that seem illogical to me. one of those assumptioons is that photons have zero mass, despite the best methods available showing a mass of less than X, which is NOT zero.


I'm am idiot because you can't understand basic physics? 


> did i state that electrical pulses inside a quartz crystal could not be used to keep time? did i dispute the evidence for nuclear fission? did i claim that the sun is a raging fiery chariot piloted by apollo? argue against my statements if you wish but stop inventing new statements and attributing them to me. that only makes you look illiterate.


No, you know damn well what you stated. I did not make them up as I quoted you multiple times. You claimed the GPS system does not depend on relativity. Then you backtracked wen you were shown wrong yet still will not admit to making any mistakes. Talk about arrogant, delusional behavior. 


> GPS satellites use relativity calculations and models to CALIBRATE their internal clocks for better precision,


No. Once again you seem to not understand in spite of BEGGING you to do some research. GPS uses relativity so that GPS can actually work without drifting off into ever increasing errors, errors induced by TIME DILATION predicted by Einstein's theories. These are not adjustments made to create higher precision, resolving down to 1 meter instead of 10, these are adjustments made because the fucking clocks are ticking at different rates. 


> the basic methods used by GPS satellites and receivers for their basic job is triangulation and radio waves. NOT einsteinian gravity lenses and space warping you fool. an old pocketwatch would NOT help the satellites do their job, and winding them all up would be a difficult proposition in orbit


How can a satellite triangulate if the clock onboard is not in sync with the earth based ones? How do we keep the clocks in sync, we use relativity because the clocks in space are experiencing less warping of space than the earth based ones, so yes, it does have to do with space warping, you gigantic fool. 


> regarding your comment on cartridge loading: you mean the piezo electric scales i use are based on the same principles as a balance? amazing! i guess the integrated circuit, transistors, diodes, the microprocessor and electricity were invented by archimedes too. that bastard must have been wicked smart! dipshit the calibrations of GPS internal clocks to measure the time delay of signals is NOT a change of the fundamental principles used by radio transmissions (which has been around since the late 1800's) it is simply a better way to measure the distance the signal travels by using einestein's calculations of the speed of light. why is this so hard for you to grasp?


It's not hard for me to grasp but apparently it is for you because you keep making up new strawmen based on what you BELIEVE is the case rather than read up and understand that you are wrong.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 7, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> so because you are so vehement in insisting that photon mass = zero then all the other scientists should stop saying the mass is "less than X" which is a non-zero number.


Why are you so vehemently disregarding the explanations that there is a difference between the theoretical rest mass of a photon and the real-world experiments, which, by their very nature, can only give us an upper limit. 


> they should simply accept your word that you did the maths, and if it aint zero then the universe will stop working,


It's not my word, it's the basic understanding of all of physics. No, the universe will continue to work, but no in exactly the same way we are seeing it. 


> you colour my statements with the meaning you wish to attribute to them. the speed of light, relativity and all the other shit you claim i am doubting because i dont believe that "less than X" = zero is a figment of your own imagination.


You have not given any substantial reason to accept your premise that a photon has rest mass, except because you think so. So yes, you are doubting for the sake of doubt, mostly because of your lack of understanding of the theories and implications of what would be observable if you were right. 



> i may not be a math whizz, but i do read a lot of scientific journaals, and they all spend half their time discussing photons *AS IF *they had mass, and half their time insisting they *CANT *have mass, and then mutter about how if they do have mass then that mass is pretty small anyhow.


Liar. 


> so where would i get the impression that perhaps "photon mass = 0" might be in doubt?


From your mistaken conclusions you reached when reading about theories that you don't understand. 


> i remember when i was in school electrons had no mass either. so i clearly must be selling something.


Your misremembering of what you were taught in school does not make me confident your memory about journal articles are accurate either. 


> i dont know why you are so bitter butthurt and furious because i think photons might have mass, when the subject seems to be causing a great deal of problems for actual qualified sheepskin having physicists who's opinion actually matters.


You're the one that keeps bringing this shit up. You responded to my post that mainly dealt with your inability to admit you were wrong regarding the connection between GPS and relativity. Your response had nothing to do with my post yet you now are trying to paint me as feeling hurt? teh stupid it burns!!!!!!


> the OP asked a question, and i layed out the theory (or if you will, hypothesis) that seems to work best in my opinion, and then you went all crazy-ape bonkers like i was taking food off your table cuz i think space doesnt bend but instead gravity moves shit. newton said gravity moves shit too, you gonna dig him up so you can kick him in the nuts? pythagorus believed the universe was made up of fire earth water and air suspended in the Aether... you gonna raise him from the dead so you can burn him at the stake?


Another tactic of the psuedoscientist, to portray anyone that attempts to correct your errors or counters your bullshit hypotheses with actual science, as someone that is acting unreasonable, i.e. 'crazy-ape bonkers. 


> you can tell somebody that you think they are wrong, or even that they ARE wrong without throwing a handful of shit at em.


I agree. So if you believe that, then why were you the first one to start throwing shit?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 7, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I'm am idiot because you can't understand basic physics?
> 
> No, you know damn well what you stated. I did not make them up as I quoted you multiple times. You claimed the GPS system does not depend on relativity. Then you backtracked wen you were shown wrong yet still will not admit to making any mistakes. Talk about arrogant, delusional behavior.
> No. Once again you seem to not understand in spite of BEGGING you to do some research. GPS uses relativity so that GPS can actually work without drifting off into ever increasing errors, errors induced by TIME DILATION predicted by Einstein's theories. These are not adjustments made to create higher precision, resolving down to 1 meter instead of 10, these are adjustments made because the fucking clocks are ticking at different rates.
> ...


mindphuk, bubbalah. i have made every attempt to avoid ad hominem attacks against you, that ad hominem was directed at guy incognito, this thread's fecal bombadier in primus. 

bravely throwing yourself in the path of my incoming shit-rocket may be heroic, but it is ultimately misguided. 

i admire your expertise in mathematics, which is admittedly superior to my own, but taking offense over jabs and japes directed at guy incognito is hardly sensible. if i said his momma was fat, would that piss you off as well? 

the thorny issue i keep coming back to is _*force equals mass times velocity squared*_. if photons had zero mass they would be unable to deliver force on impact no matter how high the velocity, yet they do. they are attracted (apparently) by gravity, they can be created/released by fire, incandescence and phosphorescence, and have a measurable velocity. all of this fairly insists that they must either have mass, or some other property which is as yet unexplained. the assertion that gravity warps space just sounds too much like a hypothesis in search of evidence, rather than evidence in search of an explanation. 

i may not explain my position with the elegance of a mathematical equation, or have sheepskins to display on my wall but these questions make me think. and i personally never take a question as a threat to my beliefs theories or even my superstitions. 

if you feel i have insulted you personally i apologize for that, i value your opinion, i just still cant accept the ideas youre espousing as fact, since my own reasoning insists that theres something at work here which does not fit. 

to my mind even the tidal foreces indicate that gravity is an attracting force, not a distortion (wave? field? force? i dont even know how one would describe this proposed mechanism)since the opposing attraction of the moon's gravity would partially neutralize the effect of the earths attractant force on the oceans where the moon passes overhead. if it were a spacial distortion the oceans would not necessarily rise in response to the moon's position in orbit, but instead we would see an interference pattern or eddies if it were waves, or a depression if it were, as shown in the two dimensional models (despite the three dimensional nature of space) a compression of space around the mass, as similar forces which overlap but do not interfere often increase their combined effect, like two bowling balls on a trampoline invariable roll together which is the impression i get from the two dimensional simplified models i have seen in an attempt to grasp this slippery concept. 

i still come back to gravity as an attracting force, not a space distorting/compressing/warping force with the warping acting as an intermediary, causing the change in the course of passing objects and photons. 

and as i keep coming back to gravity attracting, this invariably leads me to the conclusion that photons are subject to gravity's attraction, which in turn implies that photons have mass, since mass is the primary trait in common for all OTHER things subject to gravity's force. 

the space warping just seems to be a stop-gap measure to explain a phenomenon without kicking over the apple cart of accepted theories which otherwise work pretty good, like relativity.

also, GPS satellites DO triangulate to determine position. the adjustments to their internal clocks and the clocks themselves may be based on much more sophisticated science and technology than a gunner's transit or a sextant but both those devices do a similar job in similar ways. i am not now, nor do i ever knowingly defy the fairly well proven theories of relativity (both general and temporal) nor do i deny the existence of subatomic particles,, nuclear fission or the hiesenberg uncertainty principle. that would be foolish as they are pretty well established. 

my main puzzlement is photons having zero mass, since the main argument seems to be that having mass would fuck with the math in other established theories, and space warping by gravity which seems to be deus ex machina to explain the photon's otherwise problematic reaction to gravity based on it's presumed massless state, which again seems to be mainly asserted to keep the math in order in other theories. 

im totally trying to make sense and not use too many literary or pop cultural references and metaphors. plus it's sunday and i really should be fucking high as a kite by now.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 7, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> but we are not talking about simple arithmetic. we are talking about fundamental forces that giovern the basic functions of the universe, and the understanding of these forces through REAL data, not theories that make assumptions which themselves are unproveable.
> 
> claiming that the inability to adequately prove a theory makes the theory unassailable is exactly as ludicrous as demanding that somebody PROVE your theory wrong or they shut the fuck up.
> 
> ...


Wow. You are really showcasing your ignorance.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Wow. You are really showcasing your ignorance.




pictures with words on them always get the point across. 

especially since youre a gigantic yeasty twat.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

I've already stated my point about a million times with text words. You need to go study basic science again, you missed a lot during your first pass. Specifically you need to read up on relativity.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 8, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> the thorny issue i keep coming back to is _*force equals mass times velocity squared*_. if photons had zero mass they would be unable to deliver force on impact no matter how high the velocity, yet they do. they are attracted (apparently) by gravity, they can be created/released by fire, incandescence and phosphorescence, and have a measurable velocity. all of this fairly insists that they must either have mass, or some other property which is as yet unexplained. the assertion that gravity warps space just sounds too much like a hypothesis in search of evidence, rather than evidence in search of an explanation.


You HAVEN'T brought up f=mv as a reason to doubt photons have zero mass. This is the first time I have seen you mention it although I addressed it in an earlier thread. Photons have momentum and inertia. This again is basic stuff. Disagreeing with it is fine if you first have some comprehension of relativity. However, since you are using your inadequate understanding of relativity to discount relativity, and you don't seem to bother doing any research, your circular arguments are getting quite annoying and I will no longer answer them but link to webpages that do. Maybe you can learn how to answer these questions for yourself in the future.

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100521204409AAk1lkq
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511175


I keep wondering why you insist on bringing up the topic of photon mass when we are discussing GPS system and the requirement of correcting for time dilation, a relativistic effect. To me, it seems you want to brush it up under the rug, forget that you made a grievous error because it appears you are unwilling to admit mistakes. If I told you I only needed geometry for precision, you would rightly say I was wrong, that geometry is required to calculate the triangulation results. You said relativity was not required for GPS. That may have been true when GPS systems were ground based, but being in a moving satellite, at a distance where earth's gravity is not affecting it the same as here on earth, then relativity is a required component.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 8, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> You HAVEN'T brought up f=mv as a reason to doubt photons have zero mass. This is the first time I have seen you mention it although I addressed it in an earlier thread. Photons have momentum and inertia. This again is basic stuff. Disagreeing with it is fine if you first have some comprehension of relativity. However, since you are using your inadequate understanding of relativity to discount relativity, and you don't seem to bother doing any research, your circular arguments are getting quite annoying and I will no longer answer them but link to webpages that do. Maybe you can learn how to answer these questions for yourself in the future.
> 
> http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100521204409AAk1lkq
> http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511175
> ...


GPS systems are one of Guy Incognito's stalking horses. 

the entire thing revolves around whether space (and time) are warped by gravity or (as in my view as well as newtons) gravity is an attracting force that draws mass together. 

thats where it started. thats where it remains. 
the photon's status as massive or massless is a key point, since if it is massless then gravity cannot attract it, thus implying that spoace actually does get warped by gravity and that warping causes the problematic reaction of photons when they pass by a gravity source. 
IF photons are in fact massless then the space warping can explain the course alteration of otherwise straight line moving photons. 
IF photons have mass then gravity does not have to warp space to divert them since newtonian physics explains that in principle (if not in scale or scope)
HOWEVER
massless photons should have zero newtonian force. they do in fact have a force, even if it's newtonianness is in dispute.. 
massless photons should also be impervious to gravity unless the space actually does get warped, but then that still leaves gravity working on the massles SPACE to do the warpinfg to in turn alter the photon's course by proxy through the intermediary of the warped space. yet gravity (which previously was a force that acted win conjunction with mass) must now be assumed to interact with SPACE which is also presumably massless, just to explain why gravity interacts with the also massless photon. you see where this could rapidly become circular ?

photons are created/released when you pass a current through a filament (incandescence)
photons are created/released when you use electrical current to excite some gasses (flourescence)
photons are created/released when certain chemicals interact (phosphorescence)
photons are created/released when you burn things with good old fashioned caveman style fire. 

these facts (presuming they are still facts) indicate that photons come from matter (including the electrons protons and neutrons) or are a constituent of matter

photons have a measurable velocity. 
photons DO interact with gravity. 
photons deliver a force on impact with matter. 

these facts (presuming they are still facts) also imply a relationship between photons and ordinary matter. 

empty space is by definition Untestable! and anything untestable is suspect in the world i live in. 
empty space has no mass
empty space has not force
empty space does not DO anything since objects (photons and ordinary matter) pass through it without being disturbed, pushed off course or altered in any way that we can observe. 

this indicates to me that empty space is neutral on the subject of physics and is simply the area in which physical laws and events take place. 

the borders of space and it's limitlessness are immaterial for this discussion. let us instead imagine an area of the intergalactic void far enough removed from all available sources of gravity mass and energy as to prevent the interference with our discussion. 

an object passing through this area will maintain a straight course. no deviations. if we introduce a mass with sufficient gravity (such as a neutron star) into this region, our object will have it's course altered by this gravity, to whit, it will be attracted to the gravity source. 

let us presume the object does not become trapped in the gravity of our imaginary star, and passes beyond the area of it's influence. the object will now continue on a straight course which will presumably be the last heading it was on when it passed beyond the gravitational influence of our star. 

if we then REMOVE this star from this region of the void (i dunno how, maybe magic? just go with it), a second object moving on the same original course as the first will pass through the same area. since the gravity of the neutron star is no longer influencing this region, the second object will logically continue on it's original heading with no alteration in course or speed. 

if however we assume that gravity warps space, the warping of space would presumably remain even if the neutron star is no longer present to do the warping, since presumably things which are warped would be unable to UN-warp without another force to do the un-warping. thus in that circumstance the second object would follow the same altered course as the first object due to the curvature of the now-warped space previously influenced by a currently absent mass. 

unless space is elastic. 

this still leaves the question, if the warping of space is the real force of gravity, how does gravity interact with the massless void, and how does the massless void interact with an object which otherwise passes through unimpeded. 

even if i disregard the unexplained interaction of matter and space (warped or un-warped) there still remains the matter of the distortions. 

areas of space which a massive object has passed through would most likely have distortions marking the passing of every object that has gone before, causing measurable distortion, (metaphor incoming) like the wake of a passing boat on a still pond. and without the gravity of the earth (or other source) to settle the waves these distortions would be fairly permanent until overwritten by a more powerful mass's passing. 

the entire idea of warping space as the real force of gravity seems to be based on the desire to explain how gravity can influence objects with, and without mass, with an eye towards explaining away the interaction between photons and gravity just so other theories can keep their photons mass free. 

the sources you offered had plenty of math, but they never overcame the greatest difficulty, NOTHING. 

if photons have no mass, all the velocity in the universe should be unable to give them the ability to do work, since a billion times nothing is still nothing. 
if a region of space is empty of mass, how can gravity warp this nothing. 
if gravity can warp nothing (?) how does this nothing then effect mass?
even if warped nothing DOES effect mass, how does it also effect massless photons? 
if photons have no mass, why does an electrical current eject them from a filament which has mass, by the passing of electrons which also have mass? 
if photons have no mass, why does fire, fluorescence and phosphorescence set them in motion, these are interactions of matter, and matter is still made of particles with mass. 

zero is still nothing, and nothing is not subject to variation, alteration or even math until something is added to make zero into a non-zero figure which can be subjected to testing experimentation and observation. 

zero lacks the ability to change a sum, and nothing lacks the ability to effect the outcome of any test. 

assuming that nothing is involved in any phenomena is a leap of faith i am unwilling to make.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> GPS systems are one of Guy Incognito's stalking horses.
> 
> I think you misundertand the meaning of a stalking horse.
> 
> ...


You also seem to be implying that everyone that accepts relativity and that photons have zero mass is ignoring perfectly valid data so as to not disrupt any of their preconceived notions, and that is absolutely incorrect. No one is ignoring data and evidence other than you. 100% of the data we have confirms relativity.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> You also seem to be implying that everyone that accepts relativity and that photons have zero mass is ignoring perfectly valid data so as to not disrupt any of their preconceived notions, and that is absolutely incorrect. No one is ignoring data and evidence other than you. 100% of the data we have confirms relativity.


i imply nothing of the sort, you have inferred it, but that inference is in error. 

what i am also not implying, but am instead stating outright and in no uncertain terms, is that zero has not function in any mathematic equation. you caqn add all the zero functions to an math problem in whatever form you wish and the solution will always be exactly the same as the same equation with those zero functions removed . 

1+1 - 0 + 0 - 0 + 0 - 0 x0 /0 + 0 = 2

0x 3005 to the 17th power is still zero. 

further, adding spin to 0 still leaves you with zero, zero in motion is the same as zero at rest. in fact im pretty sure 0,0,0, and 0are equivalent to a normal everyday black times new roman zero in a two point font. 

thats where the math becomes irrational. thats where, from the perspective of a non-mathelete it starts looking like voodoo. 

many have tried and all have failed thus far to explain to me why zero is nothing,, except when it needs to be something to make the math work. then it can be multiplied, divided, squared, and even approximated with a mathematixcal sum which relies on a number which is in fact NOT zero. 

very much like the catholic transubstantiation of the sacrament. crackers and cheap wine do not become human flesh and blood because the guy in the robes says it does, and a zero sum cannot be multiplied divided or factored with exponents without returning a value of exactly zero. 

lets make this easy. 

just tell me it's magic. good old fashioned thaumaturgy. just like Merlin used to make. 

but not Harry Potter type shit. That stuff doesnt make any sense, magically speaking.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

True mathematical nothing is [null set]. Zero is a unique point on the scalar of numbers It has properties where [null set] has none. cn


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> You also seem to be implying that everyone that accepts relativity and that photons have zero mass is ignoring perfectly valid data so as to not disrupt any of their preconceived notions, and that is absolutely incorrect. No one is ignoring data and evidence other than you. 100% of the data we have confirms relativity.





Dr Kynes said:


> i imply nothing of the sort, you have inferred it, but that inference is in error.


Orly?



Dr Kynes said:


> likewise your insistence that theres no "strong arming" why does it offend you if i allow myself to presume that photons have a mass. and you cant even say i am wrong if i accept that that mass is UDER the upper limit placed on that mass by every scientific authority available.
> 
> "so close to zero that we cant say for sure it's not some infinitesimally small number, but we can say for sure it is less than 1 times negative 10 the the 18th electron volts divided by c squared." is still not zero. and if it's not zero then it could be somewhere between zero and the limit. or it could be zero, with photons having some property that acts like mass so convincingly that at times it can seem like mass, even if it is some as yet undiscovered force.
> 
> ...


That sounds exactly like you are saying they are ignoring valid data and arbitrarily assigning a value of zero so as to not disrupt several current theories.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> thats where the math becomes irrational. thats where, from the perspective of a non-mathelete it starts looking like voodoo.


You don't understand it so it must be voodoo.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 8, 2012)

1+1+=2 and other equation gone wild


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 9, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Orly?
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds exactly like you are saying they are ignoring valid data and arbitrarily assigning a value of zero so as to not disrupt several current theories.


no, i said it dont believe it and it looks like shoehorning the theory to squeeze in data that doesnt fit. 

i am not a lwayer trying to coinvince you that youre wrong, im saying show me what you mean when you say gravity warps space instead of newtons attraction, 

demonstrate for me the evidence you say proves photns have no mass, cuz i actually do want to know, but the same mathematical model that i slogged through before (and either failed to understand or was unconvinced by them) and saying "well if photons have mass then these other theories are wrong, and these other theories seem to work so abracadabra, photons have no mass!" just doesnt make me see that you are right. 

further, insisting that i must just be horribly horribly dumb to not see it, is akin to a pentecostal saying i my current lack of wealth is because my faith is not strong enough, and i didnt buy enough magic prayer hankies. 

i see evidence in the form of theories that work with massless photns, that would have troubles if photons had mass. likewise, the tansmutation of the eucharist from cracker to christ works great if papal infallibility is assumed, but if not, then i gotta wonder why i dont taste any 2000 year old jew in the sacramental grubstake.

if the assignment of a photon as zero mass is NOT an assumption based on the feasability of other theories, then what gives the assumption it's evidence? 

photons do work, photons come out of matter under the influence of the most banal forces, like fire, photons are readily observable (which is not a claim i have ever heard being made about any other massless particle)photons have a velocity, photons deliver a force when they hit matter, photons can be effected by gravity (or space warping, mindphuk has got me on the curvature thing, that shit's math seems to work, even if it takes me a long ass time to do the sums) and all this does point in the other direction, since i cant think of a single particle that is at all effected by matter. or in ANY way altered by gravity (including the wierd lensing effect) and no other particle i am familiar with is at all effected by ordinary lenses either. 

so all these facts which seem to be contra to the zero mass status of photons, when weighed against the awesomely reliable newtonian models which have stood the test of time make me think photons have mass. minphuk has me waffling in my certainty that photons have mass, but theres still some stinkers out there that make me unsure, particularly when compared to other massless particles like neutrinos which seem completely oblivious to matter, gravity and last i heard even space warping. 

i like my forces to be egalitarian. if they effect mass then they can effect ALL mass, if they effect the massless particles, then they should effect ALL massless particles. anything else would seem arbitrary, and nothjing in the universe seems arbitrary except humans.

edit for clarification, based on cannibus intoxication:

the incorrect inference is that they are ignoring data in some sort of conspiracy. the data is not ignored, it is shoehorned, squeezed, folded spindled and mutilated to make it fit, but nobody in academia is claiming photons dont do work, or interact with matter. the information is simply folded into the math, and left to sit there. 

nobody can seem to explain why photons are different from other massless particles, in that they totally interact with matter, do work, and easily observed. 
thats the question im focussing on, because its a big one to me. 

i also wonder why gravity is described as a field, a wave, a warping of space, and a force. the only thing i havent heard about gravity is that its a particle. 

youre not gonna tell me gravity is a particle are you? 

cuz if so, i seriously would be much happier with the "*Its Magic*" theory.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 9, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> You don't understand it so it must be voodoo.


yes. if i told you that a pinch of fresh graveyard dirt, two dead bees and the bones of a rattlesnake in a gris gris bag would protect you from bullets, if you believed it you would be believing in voodoo. 

likewise, simply accepting somebody else's word on a statement that seems completely irrational (like 0 mass x a velocity of C squared equals an effective mass of anything other than zero) is fundamentally irrational, and that kind of faith whether based on your trust in the pappalooau's communion with the spirits, mathematics which run counter to the fundamental mathematical laws that have served me well since i was knee high, or a christian's magic book are all irrational faith based beliefs. 

thus voodoo. 

if i professed certainty in something i did not actually believe, for any reason other than pussy i would be a liar. (the pussy exception is super important)

since the math presented makes assertions that are at odds with everything i understand about math, i have to have doubts.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 9, 2012)

both my father and my younger sister are quantum physics majors/graduates

this is fun to watch


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 9, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> both my father and my younger sister are quantum physics majors/graduates
> 
> this is fun to watch


dude, i really really want to know why photons are different from othe rmassless particles, have so much involvement with ordinary matter and basically do all the same shit one would expect from a particle with mass, but are still labeled massless. 

give Pops Seedwell a doobie and have him explain that shit. 

but no more math homey. im all mathed out. 

plus i just put my boots back on so i cant count past 10 any more tonight. well, 11. but i gotta open another browser tab to use that variable.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 9, 2012)

seeing as all our science is based on how particles react in gravity

and the theory's or relativity and quantum physics have not been mashed up yet

id say it is entirely possible and provable that atoms without force being exerted on them have no mass

since there are forces always at work, like the connection s between dark matter and regular matter . . . id say best to learn and accept every study until a quantifiable theory that links the two comes up

absence of a mathematical connection doesnt mean the values do not hold true

mass is a effect of gravity, space IS warped by gravity that's how we plot distances in space with Inferred laser and shit, and black holes . .the warp of light in space from a black hole has been recorded and studied for a while, it is fact but we can not prove why it is true yet, not being able to describe what is recorded and seen is not absence of validity

being able to link gravity to the study or small particles will be a bigger break through then the atom itself imho

keep your mind open try not to latch on to current theory's so much

how many subatomic particles did we know about 20 years ago

best to keep an open mind and fill it with possibly relevant information before, citing results as a show of right or wrong(at lose for words at the moment so bare with me) is pointless unless you believe it to be possibly true . . other wise you are not applying the scientific method . . . if you think protons have no mass, id think you would prove it to yourself, by learning then present your case as to why vs, have others prove it to you


does your amp go to eleven Dr, mine only goes to ten

do you have any formal training in Quantum Physics?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 9, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> seeing as all our science is based on how particles react in gravity
> 
> and the theory's or relativity and quantum physics have not been mashed up yet
> 
> ...


*photons*, not protons. protons got buttloads of mass, its the photons that move shit when they hit an object but are labeled massless. 

i got a couple amps one is a tube amp form the 50's and it doesnt have any graduation markings at all, so it goes to OVER 9000!, another is an old 20 watt practice amp from the 70's and it is only marked between 0 and 5. another is a pioneer from the 80's and it reads up to 20, and i got a johnson from the 60's that goes from zero to ten. 

my bass amp is binary. i ripped off all the knobs. it goes only from off to awesome! cant play bass at any level other than seismic disturbance or youre a poser. 

i got no training in anything except agriculture, welding auto repair, mechanical jury rigging, and hillbillyism. 

but i recently got my PHD. 

checkem.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 9, 2012)

epic mis read failure lol, on my part . . . 

nice amps, i assume you play, which is yuor favorite

i have a 3 channel reciever for home steroes from 72 that is all tubes . . .man is the sound incredibly sharp/percise and loud, i can shake a house with the JBL white speakers that came with it

"It is not known absolutely for sure that photons do not have mass. However, there is an experimental upper limit on what that mass could be; and it's pretty darn small.

Additionally, if photons had mass, there should be a third possible polarization for light, and electrostatic potentials should fall off as 
[FONT=MathJax_Main]1[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_r_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_ e_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]&#8722;[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_m_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_&#947;_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_c_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_r_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]_&#8463;_[/FONT] . . .equation wont transfer . . .second post, http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=138395​.​.​.

To understand the statement that even light can't escape from a black hole, you have to understand a little bit about how general relativity describes gravity.

General relativity says that the presence of mass (or energy or momentum or pressure, etc.) actually bends the fabric of space and time. When the path of a particle is affected by gravity it happens, not because the particle is feeling a force, but because the particle is travelling along what is effectively a straight line path on a curved surface. When you think about it this way, it seems natural that even light should be affected.

A black hole is simply the case where space and time are so bent that every single straight line path that exists leads to one single place. (Of course, to be exact, we should say that every path that exists _inside the event horizon_ leads to one single place. Outside the event horizon, there are paths that don't lead into the black hole.)"

sumed up my black hole example much better then I can at this time, i have limited education and vocabulary for a real decision , but what i lack in knowledge i make up in comprehension . . . .like i said earlier mathematics and physics is in my blood


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 9, 2012)

what did you get your PHD in ?

i never wanted a formal education, both my parents have 3 each, PHD's, and well i never thought it added up to much other then a fun JOB, and well i have a lot of fun doing many things . . . . .i also have a welding degree(AA), and an auto mechanics degree(AA), . . .agricultural might be next . . . .weird, or maybe not

red green mofo


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 9, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> what did you get your PHD in ?
> 
> i never wanted a formal education, both my parents have 3 each, PHD's, and well i never thought it added up to much other then a fun JOB, and well i have a lot of fun doing many things . . . . .i also have a welding degree(AA), and an auto mechanics degree(AA), . . .agricultural might be next . . . .weird, or maybe not
> 
> red green mofo


dude youre high as fuck. i posted a picture of my PHD. 
its a Post Hole Digger.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 9, 2012)

why yes i am high






what does this have to do with the mass of photons

black holes . . it will get ya


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> so all these facts which seem to be contra to the zero mass status of photons, when weighed against the awesomely reliable newtonian models which have stood the test of time make me think photons have mass.


the newtonian model is not reliable. It appears to be reliable at slow relativistic speeds and high mass. So it applies to planets, people, cars, baseballs, bullets, and anything larger than a quantum level, and anything that is traveling at a small fraction of the speed of light (which is retardedly fast - at 50,000 mph you are still slow enough to not be concerned with relativity for practical purposes).

At the speed of light though newtonian equations do not work. If they did we would never have needed a more refined theory like relativity. We would have simply stuck with newton if his equations worked.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> yes. if i told you that a pinch of fresh graveyard dirt, two dead bees and the bones of a rattlesnake in a gris gris bag would protect you from bullets, if you believed it you would be believing in voodoo.


Unless it actually worked. The proof is in the pudding, and just because I don't understand the pudding or how the pudding operates doesn't negate the fact that it works.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 9, 2012)

but pudding is testable, repeatable and can be explained with a theory that does not require the assumption of a protective spirit from the netherworld, or sympathetic magic based on principles that has absolutely no logical basis. 

quantum theory is better than voodoo, more logical than christianity, and more reliable than crossing your fingers and hoping shit tiuns out ok, but theres still so many holes, and it sounds so much like traditional home remedies, some of which totally do work, but the users and proponents cannot explain why. they just say, trust me, this shit totally works... and leave me hangin.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)

No protective spirit required, and no magic, just math. 

E[SUP]2[/SUP] = m[SUP]2[/SUP]c[SUP]4[/SUP] + p[SUP]2[/SUP]c[SUP]2

[/SUP]
When an object is at rest its momentum is zero (p=0) and the equation reduces to E = mc[SUP]2[/SUP]
When an object has no mass (m=0) the equation reduces to E = pc

Now the same equation can apply to particles with mass as well as "particles" of light. The equation works beautifully.

If the photon did in fact have mass then the equation would not hold, which doesn't appear to be the case. Coulomb's law would also not work. Neither would quantum electrodynamics. The fact that all these theories work so elegantly is evidence that the mass of the photon is in fact zero. It's not a matter of conveniently ignoring or shoehorning any data, they just work, and they appear to be how the universe actually functions as far as we can tell. 

I have confidence that future measurements of the mass of the photon will lower the upper limit ever closer to zero. The values of the upper limit are already low enough to rule out the alternate theories you have proposed for how the universe works.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 9, 2012)

did that just happen


----------



## fb360 (Oct 10, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> No protective spirit required, and no magic, just math.
> 
> E[SUP]2[/SUP] = m[SUP]2[/SUP]c[SUP]4[/SUP] + p[SUP]2[/SUP]c[SUP]2
> 
> ...


Good post.


----------



## Seedling (Oct 10, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> E[SUP]2[/SUP] = m[SUP]2[/SUP]c[SUP]4[/SUP] + p[SUP]2[/SUP]c[SUP]2
> 
> [/SUP]
> When an object is at rest its momentum is zero (p=0) and the equation reduces to E = mc[SUP]2[/SUP]
> When an object has no mass (m=0) the equation reduces to E = pc


You keep talking about an object being at rest, but you fail to explain what exactly you mean by that. At rest compared to what? There is one object in space and we want to know the momentum of the object. You assume the velocity of the object is zero, so how could you ever have a momentum greater than zero if the velocity of the object is always zero?

p=mv

If the velocity is always zero then the momentum is always zero. If the "object has no mass" (which is absolutely ridiculous to say that an OBJECT has no mass) then the mass is zero AND the velocity is zero, and it goes without saying that the momentum is zero.


...and since p=mv, the equation you referred to when the object has a zero mass, E=pc, can be stated as E=mvc. Zero mass times zero velocity times the speed of light equals zero energy.


----------



## fb360 (Oct 10, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> its physics dude, and basic physics at that
> 
> an object not having a force exerted on it will not have mass, e.i your wieght on mars in different then your weight on earth because of gravity, which is a force


That is not true. We have mass, which remains semi-constant (except for when we take big shits ).
Objects which do not have a force acting on them are said to be at rest, and have no momentum; they can still have mass. i.e (me in the middle of space, with only a very very weak force of gravity working on me).

F = ma. 

No F = No A. NOT No F = no M
very rarely do we speak about massless objects


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 10, 2012)

sorry i keep forgeting the topic is photons, and get side tracked

photons , photons at rest have no mass, until a force is exerted on it 

like gravity . .or a black hole and that is why light is warped like any other mass in a black hole

isd this correct i made a black hole post a fewe pages back



\frac{1}{r} e^{-\frac{m_\gamma c r}{\hbar}}

equation wont transfer nicely

"
It is not known absolutely for sure that photons do not have mass. However, there is an experimental upper limit on what that mass could be; and it's pretty darn small.

Additionally, if photons had mass, there should be a third possible polarization for light, and electrostatic potentials should fall off as [FONT=MathJax_Main]1[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_r_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_e_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]&#8722;[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_m_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_&#947;_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_c_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_r_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]_&#8463;_[/FONT]​.

To understand the statement that even light can't escape from a black hole, you have to understand a little bit about how general relativity describes gravity.

General relativity says that the presence of mass (or energy or momentum or pressure, etc.) actually bends the fabric of space and time. When the path of a particle is affected by gravity it happens, not because the particle is feeling a force, but because the particle is travelling along what is effectively a straight line path on a curved surface. When you think about it this way, it seems natural that even light should be affected.

A black hole is simply the case where space and time are so bent that every single straight line path that exists leads to one single place. (Of course, to be exact, we should say that every path that exists _inside the event horizon_ leads to one single place. Outside the event horizon, there are paths that don't lead into the black hole.)"


----------



## fb360 (Oct 10, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> sorry i keep forgeting the topic is photons, and get side tracked
> 
> photons , photons at rest have no mass, until a force is exerted on it
> 
> like gravity . .or a blach hole and that is why light is warped like any othe rmass in a black hoke


Yeah, photons are said to be "massless" at every state.

But yeah, my previous quote was not with respect to the object you mention, being a photon. I took it otherwise, because you mentioned weight being different afterwards. Can't have weight without mass.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 10, 2012)

Seedling said:


> p=mv
> 
> If the velocity is always zero then the momentum is always zero. If the "object has no mass" (which is absolutely ridiculous to say that an OBJECT has no mass) then the mass is zero AND the velocity is zero, and it goes without saying that the momentum is zero.
> 
> ...


need some brakets there, and then your good, photons are mass less . . . .


----------



## Seedling (Oct 10, 2012)

fb360 said:


> That is not true. We have mass, which remains semi-constant (except for when we take big shits ).
> Objects which do not have a force acting on them are said to be at rest, and have no momentum; they can still have mass. i.e (me in the middle of space, with only a very very weak force of gravity working on me).
> 
> F = ma.
> ...


Name 1 object that doesn't have the force of gravity on them at all times? Failing to do so negates your "logic."


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 10, 2012)

black holes


----------



## Seedling (Oct 10, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> black holes


Wrong. Black holes are massive objects, and they experience the force of gravity in the universe. Any object with mass can't escape the force of gravity.


----------



## fb360 (Oct 10, 2012)

fb360 said:


> That is not true. We have mass, which remains semi-constant (except for when we take big shits ).
> Objects which do not have a force acting on them are said to be at rest, and have no momentum; they can still have mass. i.e (*me in the middle of space, with only a very very weak force of gravity working on me)*.
> 
> F = ma.
> ...





Seedling said:


> Name 1 object that doesn't have the force of gravity on them at all times? Failing to do so negates your "logic."


What are you talking about? I posted NEWTONS equation which is logically sound.
Did you not even read my post. I clearly demonstrate that I comprehend the fact that gravity is always working..

In this term, has no force, also means having equal and opposite acting forces... As is always considered in physics...

I just don't get how you can tell me any of what I said was illogical, when half of my post was f=ma LOL

e;
PS, just to seal the deal.
High energy gamma ray particles . massless, yet destroy dna. BOOM


----------



## Seedling (Oct 10, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> need some brakets there, and then your good, photons are mass less . . . .


The mass of a photon is really neither here nor there. A photon has a velocity of c (299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum). Photons are "energy packets" so they must have a momentum greater than zero. A momentum greater then zero means the mass can't be zero.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 10, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Wrong. Black holes are massive objects, and they experience the force of gravity in the universe. Any object with mass can't escape the force of gravity.


back holes exert gravity they are not a subject to it . . or at least that what i thought


----------



## Seedling (Oct 10, 2012)

fb360 said:


> What are you talking about? I posted NEWTONS equation which is logically sound.
> 
> Did you not even read my post. I clearly demonstrate that I comprehend that fact..
> 
> ...


No, Newton's equation isn't logically sound since you can't tell me of which object you are referring to that escapes the force of gravity.

f=ma is a NET FORCE. Do you know the difference between a force and a net force?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 10, 2012)

Seedling said:


> The mass of a photon is really neither here nor there. A photon has a velocity of c (299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum). Photons are "energy packets" so they must have a momentum greater than zero. A momentum greater then zero means the mass can't be zero.


mass of a photon is the topic currently, so i kinda thought it was relvent


----------



## Seedling (Oct 10, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> back holes exert gravity they are not a subject to it . . or at least that what i thought


Black holes are massive objects, which means they are subject to the force of gravity. You can't "tug on a rope" without it tugging back!


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 10, 2012)

Seedling said:


> The mass of a photon is really neither here nor there. A photon has a velocity of c (299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum). Photons are "energy packets" so they must have a momentum greater than zero. A momentum greater then zero means the mass can't be zero.


mass of a photon is the topic currently, so i kinda thought it was relvent

"It is not known absolutely for sure that photons do not have mass. However, there is an experimental upper limit on what that mass could be; and it's pretty darn small.

Additionally, if photons had mass, there should be a third possible polarization for light, and electrostatic potentials should fall off as [FONT=MathJax_Main]1[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_r_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_e_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]&#8722;[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_m_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_&#947;_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_c_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]_r_[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]_&#8463;_[/FONT]​


ill pots again

"To understand the statement that even light can't escape from a black hole, you have to understand a little bit about how general relativity describes gravity.

General relativity says that the presence of mass (or energy or momentum or pressure, etc.) actually bends the fabric of space and time. When the path of a particle is affected by gravity it happens, not because the particle is feeling a force, but because the particle is travelling along what is effectively a straight line path on a curved surface. When you think about it this way, it seems natural that even light should be affected.

A black hole is simply the case where space and time are so bent that every single straight line path that exists leads to one single place. (Of course, to be exact, we should say that every path that exists _inside the event horizon_ leads to one single place. Outside the event horizon, there are paths that don't lead into the black hole.)"

what do you think about this^


----------



## fb360 (Oct 10, 2012)

Seedling said:


> No, Newton's equation isn't logically sound since you can't tell me of which object you are referring to that escapes the force of gravity.
> 
> f=ma is a NET FORCE. Do you know the difference between a force and a net force?


LOL my goodness.

Do you understand f=ma at all? Rhetorical, no need to answer. Why are you in this section? Again you didn't even read my post you buffoon. Open your eyes and learn to read. You arent worth any further response.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 10, 2012)

Seedling said:


> You keep talking about an object being at rest, but you fail to explain what exactly you mean by that. At rest compared to what? There is one object in space and we want to know the momentum of the object. You assume the velocity of the object is zero, so how could you ever have a momentum greater than zero if the velocity of the object is always zero?
> 
> p=mv
> 
> ...


For the jillionth time, it is at rest compared to the observer. If you are measuring something, or you have an instrument that is measuring something, and you/instrument is not ACCELERATING, then THAT is the frame that is at rest. Even if you are traveling close to the speed of light towards the edge of the universe. Or if you are traveling near the speed of light in the opposite direction. Or ANY other direction, and ANY other speed, so long as you are not accelerating.

There is no "object" we are speaking of. The object is a photon. It is not some physical object you can grab, and the size and speed we are talking about are intuitively impossible to understand. You have no experience with "objects" of that size or speed, so your intuition does not apply. What does appear to apply are the equations of relativity. By assigning a photon a particle like quality you can include it in the equations - and it works.

The velocity is not always zero. If you are measuring an object with zero velocity, then that means it is not moving relative TO YOU. If you are measuring it move relative to yourself, then you can assign it a value.

Remember all those posts when I said newtonian mechanics are not correct? They APPEAR to be correct at slow speeds? That's where your p=mv comes into play. The relativistic equations reduce to newtonian equations when v is significantly less than c. A photon is moving at c though, so the relativistic equations don't reduce to newtonian. The relativistic portion is overwhelmingly important at these speeds.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 11, 2012)

Has gravitational lensing been brought up yet? 

How does Keynes explain that?

Clear evidence of space being warped by gravity.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 11, 2012)

yes... clear evidence that the universe is made of 2 dimensional graphics... just kidding i know what your getting at, but that sbeen all over this thgread. light DOES get pulled off course by gravity, and thats a problem, in fact its pretty much THE problem in this thread. 

my contentioon is that the warping space thing being the cause of light's course change is a macguffin to explain the evidence, not a logical asssertio that can be proved or disproved by any testing method currently availiable. 

i am always wary of untestable hypotheses, its very much like all those things *"THEY dont want you to know" *which invariably turn out to be a scam designed to prey upon the unwary, or perpetually baffled, but in a scientific sense, not a scam artist sense. and thats a huge difference. 

scientists are currently looking for the mechanism that explains why photons are massless (which they MUST be to preserve other theories which currently seem to work real good) yet they are attracted by gravity, and space warping seems to fit in their models. 

it however leaves me perplexed how a massless and otherwise inert area of space can alter the course of an object because mass (and gravity) are nearby. instead of gravity pulling at a photon (with zero mass they should be impervious to gravity) gravity now deforms the area around it (how does it effect the area with it's presumed massless nature?) and this deformed space alters the course of the photon (again, how does it do this?) which can now remain officially massless by dint of some fancy mathematical hocus pocus. the theories currently considered the fucking TITS bvy physics nerds tie everything up in a neat package, with a colorful quantum ribbon, and its just so neat and tidy, i gotta wonder where they hid the forces that make things interact when they are interacting with other shit to do other shit to finally do other shit in a complex non-newtonian game of Telephone

not bein a math whizz i cant express the ideas in the traditional language of physics so i must use words. and words dont work well in an area that prefers its own jargon. thats why mechanics have so much trouble figuring out what people are saying when their car makes some noise. the non-mechanics cant explain that they feel a jolting in their steering wheel when their front strut assembly cycles, that is in fact the rattling of a worn lower ball joint, and not a "noise" at all.

Edit: also,, im certain theirs a joke in there somplace about the pages of that astronomy book being stuck together. i can almost hear the joke, but it's escaping me.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 11, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Has gravitational lensing been brought up yet?
> 
> How does Keynes explain that?
> 
> Clear evidence of space being warped by gravity.


Yes it has. His theory is that newtonian mechanics are correct and that photons have mass, and are therefore attracted to massive objects which gives the illusion of space warping. Several of us have already pointed out that:

1. Newtonian equations are not correct. They don't work in extreme situations (such as light speed particles).
2. Einsteins equations do appear to be correct
3. If you use the upper limit mass of the photon instead of the assumed zero then neither set of equations works properly, which is problematic because:
3.1 we have tons evidence confirming relativity
3.2 we have tons of evidence confirming multiple other theories all which agree with a massless photon
4. He thinks it is an untestable hypothesis, even though it has been tested multiple times. He has a problem in that they cannot achieve infinite precision to say it is 100% for sure exactly zero

He admittedly does not understand the math involved, yet he somehow expects to have an intuitive understanding of how it fundamentally works. All of his questions and perplexed misunderstandings have been elegantly explained for over a hundred years.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 11, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> scientists are currently looking for the mechanism that explains why photons are massless (which they MUST be to preserve other theories which currently seem to work real good) yet they are attracted by gravity, and space warping seems to fit in their models.


Either you are being purposely dishonest or extremely obtuse. No one has ever claimed photons must be massless to preserve any theories, they must be massless to conform to observation. If they are not massless, they cannot move at the speed of light. If they were not massless we would see frequency dependent speed in a vacuum. If they were not massless, Coulomb's law would deviate from the inverse square law we actually observe. You are dishonest to even imply that these are untestable problems as we have linked to examples of how these things are constantly being tested such as http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb Ref/TuCoulomb.pdf

You are being ignorant to imply that using math is somehow akin to jargon. Math is not jargon, it is the actual language of physics. The universe appears to be based in math. Math is used to uncover the hidden universe, it is not used to obscure its view from those unable to grasp it. The universe acts as a mathematical construct. Your ramblings hold as much water as the creationist that whines about evolution because he doesn't understand it. Your inability to grasp these fundamentals does not make you right and everyone that understands them part of the conspiracy. This is why I called you a science denier and no matter how much you disagree with that label, it fits, at least as far as these topics are concerned.


----------



## Doer (Oct 12, 2012)

The basic problem for, K, is this. There is no experimental evidence for mass of a Photon.

To our best Understanding, and we have looked for his hoped for answer; Photons are not subject to gravity. 

They may take a long time to get to the surface of the Sun, for example, but, they still emerge at Light Speed. They don't slowly attain Full Speed after sneaking thru the warped geodesic, they way they sneaked to the surface of the Sun after 100,000 Earth orbits.

No they are instantly at Light Speed after becoming un-encoumbered by matter....just like for a light bulb.

Yet, when we watch star light through this same space geodesic, the light follows the curve of space, in such a way, there is magnification. He can't explain that.

So, nattering about the math that is not understood, by him, and to try to ignore the experimental results, is Red Herring.

The math is not the thing. The experiments have to uphold the math. If they can be repeated by other's in the field, only then do the Experiments create the current, (only) Understanding.

There is plenty of competing math. Only one Understanding.

We should confine our discussion with the amateurs to the Experiments, only. Just my opinion.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 12, 2012)




----------



## Doer (Oct 12, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Has gravitational lensing been brought up yet?
> 
> How does Keynes explain that?
> 
> Clear evidence of space being warped by gravity.


So funny, Padawan-san. Has it been brought up? Very good, and let's do beat this one in, I agree. As Pad bring us back again, the reason we are here on this topic of Space Fabric, is because someone asked how it works. And magnification is the key.

Love those diagrams. It is what got me thinking, how can that be?? I thought about and discussed here, can this be a depression in another dimension? If space is warping, where is it warping to? It was Mr M, that reminded us that this possible compression instead of the press phrase, "fabric warp" is what the math predicts.

We could visualize in 3D, with color codes of gradient, we give that an excellent picture an upgrade. Just imagine the depression around the Earth is a clear sphere.

Then throw in the transparent, glowing, color gradients in a geodesic of smaller and smaller spheres, getting closer and closer and, say, light gold, to blue-green, at the surface. Now examine that in our minds and see that the Space Station, at it's speed, occupies an area of gradient...it's orbit.

And the moon, way out in the light gold gradients, is moving at the appropriate speed. All that math works and space never warped into some, perhaps orthogonal, (and unknown) direction. It is crushed outward slightly by the mass and that creates orbit zones from the center out. Our molten core is in a orbit gradient, at the appropriate speed, as well.

We, surface creatures, are fine in our blue-green gradients, here in the bio-sphere, luckily in the same gradients.

See, it is exactly the same as these pictures, but 3D.

So, Math made a model. The model is subject to experiments. The experiments validate this diagram. New thinking about gravity waves have lead to new experiments. A new diagram can be thought of, that is just an upgrade. 

So, there is absolutely nothing to argue about, unless, as good Pad has said, there is an alternate explanation to Gravity Lens.

We truly do not know, exactly why the tide goes in and out.


In this model, it would simply be following the gradient as it's modified by the moon's gradients.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 12, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Either you are being purposely dishonest or extremely obtuse. No one has ever claimed photons must be massless to preserve any theories, they must be massless to conform to observation. If they are not massless, they cannot move at the speed of light. If they were not massless we would see frequency dependent speed in a vacuum. If they were not massless, Coulomb's law would deviate from the inverse square law we actually observe. You are dishonest to even imply that these are untestable problems as we have linked to examples of how these things are constantly being tested such as http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb Ref/TuCoulomb.pdf
> 
> You are being ignorant to imply that using math is somehow akin to jargon. Math is not jargon, it is the actual language of physics. The universe appears to be based in math. Math is used to uncover the hidden universe, it is not used to obscure its view from those unable to grasp it. The universe acts as a mathematical construct. Your ramblings hold as much water as the creationist that whines about evolution because he doesn't understand it. Your inability to grasp these fundamentals does not make you right and everyone that understands them part of the conspiracy. This is why I called you a science denier and no matter how much you disagree with that label, it fits, at least as far as these topics are concerned.


thats the thing bro. mathematics IS jargon, its a means of communication between specialists in a field which seems vaguely familiar to those outside, but for those inside the meaning is completely different. when one physics nerd talks to another they understand each other's language, but conversely they would not be expected to understand the differences between a lifter pump and a compression pump in a fuel injection system, nor the subtle difference between discing a feild and harrowing a field. if i told you to meet me at my blind in the woods for some deer huntin and you went to my stand in the woods half a mile away i would not declare you an incompetent fool. even though any jackass knows the difference between a huntin blind and a huntin stand. 

i would not expect a physician to be able to sharpen an axe with a fine bastard, nor would i presume my lawyer could gut and skin a deer without fucking it up.physicists however simplky presume that everybody can quote coulombs law, and understand it's ramifications, just like christians assume everybody reads the bible and gets the same meaning from it's text. 

for YOU the idea of gravity distorting space and this distortion redirecting light may seem like the most obvious thing in the world but i still dont get it at all. not one bit. 

i understand that if i roll a marble on a flat surface it goes straight, but if i roll that same marble on a curved surface it will follow the curve, but WHAT IS THE SURFACE THATS MOVING THE LIGHT OFF COURSE? something must be interacting with the photons to alter their course, yet if gravity aint doin it (and thats my best suspect since gravity has a proven track record of moving things of course) then what is the mechanism of the interaction between the presumed curvature of space and the light which does not otherwise seem disturbed by space? 

also, i GET the concept of evolution in the broad strokes. critters with longer necks can feed on higher branches so longer necks give advantage, and eventaully you get giraffes... i see that. but gravity (with it's regular habit of moving things) is not responsible for the movement of light, instead gravity is changing space, and space (which does not seem to do anything usually) now moves the light off course because it's distorted... dude. even if i assume a photon has no mass, not a bit, absolute zero mass, and that gravity DOES in fact distort space, HOW does gravity distort space, and WHY does this distortion effect a photon's course. since photons have no charge it cant bee lectro-magnetic, since they have no mass, it therefore cant be gravitic, this therefore has removed as i understand it, bot the strong force, AND the weak force from the equation leaving what? a third force? or are electromagnetic forces and gravitic forces no longer the strong and weak forces of quantum mechanics?


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 12, 2012)




----------



## Doer (Oct 13, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> thats the thing bro. mathematics IS jargon, its a means of communication between specialists in a field which seems vaguely familiar to those outside....
> 
> ...for YOU the idea of gravity distorting space and this distortion redirecting light may seem like the most obvious thing in the world but i still dont get it at all. not one bit.
> 
> ...


K, I like when you make sense. You have stated the problem. It is a matter of your beliefs. You are finally admitting that your world view does not jib with the experimental evidence. Good for you. But, you stray when you think this is a right-fight. You stray when you dismiss science as si-fi, mumble, fantasy and myth. Again, just a world view problem. 

So, I for one, stipulate to all your analogy as patently un-useful. I so get what you mean, so, leave it all out. Just straight talk please. 

Math is not "like" a box of chocolate. It is the Box. A container for ideas. Math is not jargon. Math is numbers. Numbers form patterns and things reduced to more and more simple number patterns, finally, can show some symmetry to the human mind, let's say it that way. 

But, I see you are on the right track now, yet, defensive. You would not have been so had you not set out on this right-fight so long ago.

Can you not simply understand that there is no Theory of Gravity for just the reasons you say? But, please, again no more, with the analogy. We are not talking about rolling marbles on a surface, that was an old analogy. Nothing is interacting with the photon. It's path is modified, like a dirt bike track. A bigger hill, takes more dirt. The path of the bike is longer. It comes up higher and comes down longer on a bigger hill.

It the same with Black Holes. That, I see is another Red Herring for you. The old Press Release version has light being effected by Gravity. I understand. Don't fight us. This is from the Press, not Science. Actually, now the thinking is the light path is made more lengthy, in the super-super dense SPACE inside a BH, it never gets out. It goes down and around, and before it can make it back out it, the photon energy is absorb into maintaining the dense knot of space time that is forming the gravity in the first place. Another clue. There is no matter left in a black hole. Just a Knot of pure Gravity source.

And Pad's picture is not completely correct, but needs an upgrade. The light that we thought was simply refracted is not. It is curved. So that sharp angle and only 2 ray paths is not incorrect. It is a magnifying sphere of PERHAPS crushed space itself. 

No, K, don't go wild with this. We can calculate the value of distortion. It amounts to, get this, less than 1/10 of the width of a Helium atom. That is what the gravity wave experiment is looking for. I'm not sure they have the sensitivity, yet.

So, we don't know. That is why it is frustrating with you. First, you act like you know and we don't. Then you challenge it all very oddly. And now finally you understand it is a world view problem, that's all. We are all waiting, now with you, for more experiments.

Yet, you want to run ahead. You want the final answer. You phoned friends and we are saying wait with us, brother. We too would like to know WHY. So, I welcome your last paragraph. It shows you are doing some thinking and not just arguing from a weak position.

So, K might now ask, if crushed space slows down light (in relativity, of course) by making it take a longer path, then what would space look like if it was crushed enough to stop light all together?

Space would then look like Matter. So, there is a very simple Key here somewhere. Space and Matter could be the same thing. And that is why they are so easily compared with E = M c2 Why is it Squared? Leads me to think Space Density is a 4th root of Light Speed. I somehow am intuitively skipping the Cube Root. But, that's how math works. Definitions for intuition to work against.

We are hot on the trail, but no final answer, just the Current Understanding.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 13, 2012)

wait wait wait... 

are you suggesting that space under gravity's influence is not bending or distorting, but concentrating? 

just like soup on the boil, as i pass my spoon through it with a force of X it moves through the soup at a set constant speed, but as the soup gets thicker the force of my spoon remains constant, and the spoon moves through a constant amount of soup, yet merely *seems* to be moving more slowly because the soup is more concentrated, and thus the same amount of soup fits in the smaller area of my spoon's course of travel? 

sorry for the analogy bro, but soup is relevant to my interests.


----------



## Doer (Oct 13, 2012)

No, I like soup and cake....

You are getting there. But, to propose condensation is broad thinking, indeed. I'll ponder that. But, it may be too complicated.

How about this? Liquid jello is Space. Mass is a point source of Cold. But, the "cold" doesn't spread very far. If it did, the entire jello would freeze and we would have no Space (liquid Jello) at all, right?

So, the bigger the mass the most Jelling is happening. It fades from very firm Jell near the Cold (ie gravity source) to liquid Jello in a cube root gradient. 

So, is the Jello condensed? Was there material evaporated, like soup? No. It became more firm around the Cold Source (our mass analogy), formed a transparent Sphere of various density and can now magnify light, btw. Try it at home with a super cooled marble in almost jelled Jello. That is your analog. See?

So, WHY, HOW, etc, does Space get more Dense around Matter? That's a good question. A Nobel Prize awaits.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 13, 2012)

Doer said:


> No, I like soup and cake....
> 
> You are getting there. But, to propose condensation is broad thinking, indeed. I'll ponder that. But, it may be too complicated.
> 
> ...


well since BHO got a nobel prize for getting elected, should i not receive one for my soup analogy? and you for your jello? 

You get a nobel prize! You get a nobel prize! You get a nobel prize! You get a nobel prize! and You get a nobel prize! EVERYBODY GETS A NOBEL PRIZE!! Look under your seats everybody!! NOBEL PRIZES FOR EVERYONE!!!!


----------



## Doer (Oct 13, 2012)

Show the math, pie head. No Nobel prize for sloppy thinking. Math.
Your mind is hampered with no math. You piss on math as jargon and show you are a fool.

No Nobel Prize for analogy. I thought you were clearer, but now you fade back to the troll hole.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 13, 2012)

Doer said:


> Show the math, pie head. No Nobel prize for sloppy thinking. Math.
> Your mind is hampered with no math. You piss on math as jargon and show you are a fool.
> 
> No Nobel Prize for analogy. I thought you were clearer, but now you fade back to the troll hole.


what? i cant even make an Oprah joke now? dude. thats fucked up.

they give out nobel prizes for chanting "Hope and Change" so yeah. your jello and my soup both had more substance than previous winners. 

personally i dont feel bad that i cant do THAT math. seems like nobody else can either. 

also, whats with the name calling? i dont call you names for not being able to break through the defensive line on a handoff, or plow a straight furrow under donkey power. my skills tend to be less math oriented, but math wont help you run a clean bead with oxy/acetylene or keep your combine out of the irrigation ditch.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 13, 2012)

Doer said:


> Show the math, pie head. No Nobel prize for sloppy thinking. Math.
> Your mind is hampered with no math. You piss on math as jargon and show you are a fool.
> 
> No Nobel Prize for analogy. I thought you were clearer, but now you fade back to the troll hole.



Troll Hole! LOL...


----------



## Doer (Oct 14, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> what? i cant even make an Oprah joke now? dude. thats fucked up.
> 
> they give out nobel prizes for chanting "Hope and Change" so yeah. your jello and my soup both had more substance than previous winners.
> 
> ...


Well, that's right. There are may of these "Prizes" and some don't seem so Nobel, considering the recipients. But, remember what the first Prize was named...for the inventor of Dynamite. So, I ignore the drift into foo-foo and reserve the term Nobel Prize for the Hard Sciences.

The Peace Prize to me is more like a Dog Bone. Here, let's throw this. Good boy. Speak?

Making Jokes? Look in the mirror? If you work in the trades, as I have you would know that without the mathematical design and pre-setting everything mathematically, on a Combine or whatever, you would not be able to drive the equipment into the ditch in the first place. I have done farming, welding and rougher trades.

The blue collars certainly don't cotton to the bull you call joking. The answer is mostly likely to take a swing at you, as you say you should know. 

You can fix your Math Envy.


----------



## fb360 (Oct 15, 2012)

Doer said:


> The basic problem for, K, is this. There is no experimental evidence for mass of a Photon.
> 
> To our best Understanding, and we have looked for his hoped for answer; Photons are not subject to gravity.
> 
> ...


That's because the math is a constant work in progress, and even Einsteins equations are just approximate in terms of us, and him, not having a full understanding of gravity, physics, or the universe. Everything we do is theory, no better. The smartest individuals in the world will be the first to tell you that, until you understand that you don't know basically anything for certain, you cannot possibly come to have great knowledge.

Math is a language that was created by HUMANS. It is not some mystical, godlike writing, that explains the universe and everything in it, in entirety... Rather, it is a numerical language (numerical is key, because it goes beyond the spoken language barrier, thus is equally distributed to all) that tells of how we observe our world. I like to ask many novice math heads, "Why did we define the circle as 360degrees? Why not 400 to make things easy?". People who know nothing about math will blabber "because sin, cosine and tangent define it so", or "because a right angle is 90 degrees". However, both entities are arbitrary values that are calculated based upon 360 degrees = a circle... To get to my point, THERE IS NO ONE REASON. It was arbitrarily chosen by a Human, and forever kept as such. A great example of how this language isn't "perfect", and was indeed created and added upon by Humans.


This forum has responses that are like 50 lines long; can't focus enough to read all that shit. So if I said anything that was already said, my bad


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 15, 2012)

fb360 said:


> That's because the math is a constant work in progress, and even Einsteins equations are just approximate in terms of us, and him, not having a full understanding of gravity, physics, or the universe. Everything we do is theory, no better. The smartest individuals in the world will be the first to tell you that, until you understand that you don't know basically anything for certain, you cannot possibly come to have great knowledge.
> 
> Math is a language that was created by HUMANS. It is not some mystical, godlike writing, that explains the universe and everything in it, in entirety... Rather, it is a numerical language (numerical is key, because it goes beyond the spoken language barrier, thus is equally distributed to all) that tells of how we observe our world. I like to ask many novice math heads, "Why did we define the circle as 360degrees? Why not 400 to make things easy?". People who know nothing about math will blabber "because sin, cosine and tangent define it so", or "because a right angle is 90 degrees". However, both entities are arbitrary values that are calculated based upon 360 degrees = a circle... To get to my point, THERE IS NO ONE REASON. It was arbitrarily chosen by a Human, and forever kept as such. A great example of how this language isn't "perfect", and was indeed created and added upon by Humans.
> 
> ...


"Everything we do is theory" - indeed, everything _that is done is theory_.

Math is a tool that is universal. If humanity ended, and some other intelligent species rose to prominence, mathematics would still persist. I can't remember the quote exactly, or even who said it (if you can, please link it!), but a great mind once said something along the lines of; If your religion was wiped off the face of the planet, it would never be recovered exactly as it exists today, but if science were wiped off the face of the planet, the next intelligent enough species would develop it EXACTLY as it is today. Science is eternal, regardless of the intelligence that discovers it. There is no rebuttal for this statement. 

Science is eternal. 

To me, there is no greater accomplishment. To me, it tells me we've succeeded. We've reached a level of capability to be proud of. The next level is the abandonment of silly religious traditions. Perhaps then, we can finally accept fate and what it means to truly exist.


----------



## fb360 (Oct 15, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> "Everything we do is theory" - indeed, everything _that is done is theory_.
> 
> Math is a tool that is universal. If humanity ended, and some other intelligent species rose to prominence, mathematics would still persist. I can't remember the quote exactly, or even who said it (if you can, please link it!), but a great mind once said something along the lines of; If your religion was wiped off the face of the planet, it would never be recovered exactly as it exists today, but if science were wiped off the face of the planet, the next intelligent enough species would develop it EXACTLY as it is today. Science is eternal, regardless of the intelligence that discovers it. There is no rebuttal for this statement.
> 
> ...


See, my first post is telling to your post.

Mathematics WOULD NOT EXIST as they are today, if another species were to start over.
Math is a language created by humans, to be understood and expanded upon by humans. If that other species is slightly more intelligent that us, they may create their "own form of math" which describes the universe numerically..
What if the universe is better understood in another language, another sensory, and not numerically? We don't know, our species is relatively primitive (only existing for such a short period of time, on an astronomical scale).

It is a great concept to project that "understanding the universe", what we call mathematics, would be equivalent with another life form. The facts are, that is just not true.

We have much to learn

e;
besides that though, I agree with you. Science is our most valuable "commodity".


----------



## Doer (Oct 15, 2012)

That is so true it actually hurts.

All Si-Fi has us believe that math is a universal language. But, look how long it took us to get a Zero in there.

Math, to alien beings, might be that Unity or lack of, is a stupid concept for some reason. Or that counting "items" at all, is not within their concept. Maybe they see double, never Unity. Maybe they don't know or care about Primes.

Maybe there is no "they." Similarly. We listen in the Hydrogen bands for Radio signals. Perhaps these "beings" decided long ago that was stupid. Maybe they fell backwards into sub-space communication like we did for fire. We just found it. Maybe they have sub-space tree. Maybe they don't "talk" or do math.

Maybe we should not want then to find us as an important source of protein. 

Old Albert said something like, perhaps the Universe is more strange than we CAN comprehend.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 15, 2012)

Mathematics would exist. They would have different symbols for the numbers, but all the relationships would be the exact same. All geometric relationships would hold true. Everything in nature that can be broken down to fundamental units would still function as predicted by math regardless of the nomenclature.


----------



## Doer (Oct 15, 2012)

No no, as fb360 said, and, I agree, math is based solely on Human perception. We can far less propose or expect our math from aliens than, say, for Hawks that perhaps can see Ulta-violet in binocular vision. Or whale math could be pod count based and depends on the numbers present to count a baby as 1 or -1, for a top of the head example.

We cannot even say if human math is the very most primitive way of looking at the Universe. Perhaps causality itself is a mere human concept.

So, even if you think our math would hold up anywhere in the Universe, for us, I don't even see evidence for that. We are possibly experiencing only local conditions of fundamental forces. These conditions may only make the Universe appear to us as it does, right now.

Quantum math is not the same as Newtonian, is just a minor example. Just because we prove our math to ourselves, that is only meaningful to us, right?


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 15, 2012)

The 'alphabet' might change but mathematics will work no matter where you are in the universe. Whether you write 10+10=20 or X+X=XX, the concept of twenty doesn't change. Pi is 3.1415926... regardless of how you measure it. All ratios from e to the Pythagorean to that of mass and gravitation, will be the same whether you use numbers to describe them or harmonics of various lengths of vibrating strings. The laws of probability do not change depending on where you are. The only question is how they will be represented, what number-base and symbols used are inconsequential.


----------



## fb360 (Oct 15, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Mathematics would exist. They would have different symbols for the numbers, but all the relationships would be the exact same. All geometric relationships would hold true. Everything in nature that can be broken down to fundamental units would still function as predicted by math regardless of the nomenclature.





mindphuk said:


> The 'alphabet' might change but mathematics will work no matter where you are in the universe. Whether you write 10+10=20 or X+X=XX, the concept of twenty doesn't change. Pi is 3.1415926... regardless of how you measure it. All ratios from e to the Pythagorean to that of mass and gravitation, will be the same whether you use numbers to describe them or harmonics of various lengths of vibrating strings. The laws of probability do not change depending on where you are. The only question is how they will be represented, what number-base and symbols used are inconsequential.


Mathematics can most simply be comprehended as a numerical language that explains how we observe ourselves, the world we live in, and what we like to call the universe.

So to get straight to the point, I agree that another intelligent species, much like us, would have a universal language that they use to describe themselves, their surroundings, and their universe. I also agree, that relationships, ratios, and fundamental entities (the 4 dimensions we describe things with), would all still hold and exist. However, the key point is: would their language of understanding the universe, indeed be a numerical language, or even remotely resemble ours?

What if their senses are different than ours? What if they are extremely more capable in terms of brain computing power? What if they don't have any senses to observe their environment, and can only speculate and understand the universe through "dreaming" or thought? If another species perception of the universe is different than ours, it is probable that their language of understanding is also different than ours.

I think we tend to believe that other intelligent life forms will be much like humans (physical entities made up of energy. Oxygen breathing, CO2 respirating, endothermic beings), when the probability of that is near 0. Shit, just look at physical life before humans; none of Earth's creature even remotely resembled a human, and this is just one planet. I tend to believe that other intelligent life forms will also come in the form of energy, but not be coupled with a physical structure. 

A thought to keep in mind:
Humans can only see *3.5x10[SUP]-26[/SUP] % *of the light spectrum. What else could be out there


----------



## Doer (Oct 15, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> The 'alphabet' might change but mathematics will work no matter where you are in the universe. Whether you write 10+10=20 or X+X=XX, the concept of twenty doesn't change. Pi is 3.1415926... regardless of how you measure it. All ratios from e to the Pythagorean to that of mass and gravitation, will be the same whether you use numbers to describe them or harmonics of various lengths of vibrating strings. The laws of probability do not change depending on where you are. The only question is how they will be represented, what number-base and symbols used are inconsequential.


And what if our mythical Entity had never perceived our particular Subjective reality? We have an evolution of survival based, sensory certainty. It may not even have a concept for Pythagorean Solids. It may not perceive it's Subjectivity in that way, at all. Multi-dimensional, non-causal perceptions of a Quantum kind would never understand our view that Pi is "always" anything. May not possess a causal concept for always, even.

Is it not merely anthropomorphic to suggest an entirely different sensorium would produce mutually understandable math?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 15, 2012)

Doer said:


> And what if our mythical Entity had never perceived our particular Subjective reality? We have an evolution of survival based, sensory certainty. It may not even have a concept for Pythagorean Solids. It may not perceive it's Subjectivity in that way, at all. Multi-dimensional, non-causal perceptions of a Quantum kind would never understand our view that Pi is "always" anything. May not possess a causal concept for always, even.
> 
> Is it not merely anthropomorphic to suggest an entirely different sensorium would produce mutually understandable math?


if they were part of this universe and interacted with this universe as then they would have to have some sensory input of this universe thats analogous to ours 

ethereal presences from beyond our dimension could be what ever you imagine but when it comes to us communicating its kinda irrelevant


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 15, 2012)

fb360 said:


> Mathematics can most simply be comprehended as a numerical language that explains how we observe ourselves, the world we live in, and what we like to call the universe.


Numbers are within nature. We didn't invent math, we discovered it. That's the main point. 


> So to get straight to the point, I agree that another intelligent species, much like us, would have a universal language that they use to describe themselves, their surroundings, and their universe. I also agree, that relationships, ratios, and fundamental entities (the 4 dimensions we describe things with), would all still hold and exist. However, the key point is: would their language of understanding the universe, indeed be a numerical language, or even remotely resemble ours?


No, the language could be completely different. Like I mentioned, maybe they use sound waves and harmonics to denote special ratios. The thing is, underneath it all, are merely numbers. Counting is basic. I don't see how any intelligence could arise that cannot understand the concept of individual things and numbers of them. Cycles occur all over the universe from pulsars to the orbit of a planet of moon any life form must evolve on. 


> What if their senses are different than ours? What if they are extremely more capable in terms of brain computing power? What if they don't have any senses to observe their environment, and can only speculate and understand the universe through "dreaming" or thought? If another species perception of the universe is different than ours, it is probable that their language of understanding is also different than ours.
> 
> I think we tend to believe that other intelligent life forms will be much like humans (physical entities made up of energy. Oxygen breathing, CO2 respirating, endothermic beings), when the probability of that is near 0. Shit, just look at physical life before humans; none of Earth's creature even remotely resembled a human, and this is just one planet. I tend to believe that other intelligent life forms will also come in the form of energy, but not be coupled with a physical structure.


If we meet any species that has technology, they will have some way of manipulating the environment, otherwise they may as well be whales. As far as we know, whales could potentially be as intelligent as people, their language seems to imply they can communicate in very complex ways, including numbers. The idea of incorporeal 'energy' beings is unlikely until we can demonstrate that information can be maintained without any physical structure. Any being that has evolved on another planet will have to have come about by some sort of Darwinian selection and that means they have some sort of physical form for natural selection to work with.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 15, 2012)

Whether they saw in a different part of the spectrum, had no "vision" at all, or had any other type of sensory input the laws of physics would remain constant. The laws of the universe are universal. There is a fundamental difference between other types of language and math. Every language can create different letters, and different pronunciations, and there is not necessarily any rhyme or reason between different languages. But math is universal; it is expressing the laws of physics. Independent cultures will all measure the exact same speed of light, the exact same ratio of mass between all the fundamental particles, and the exact same constants, laws, and relationships between different particles and forces regardless of what language they speak, or how they physically represent the numbers.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 15, 2012)

[video=youtube;AmeWDaY0R7Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=AmeWDaY0R7Y#t=14 95s[/video]

I think they point out very well how important ratios are and why we should expect any technologically advanced species to recognize them

Here's the link at the correct time code, 24:55 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AmeWDaY0R7Y#t=1496s


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 16, 2012)

^^ Genomic SETI! Wow, what a job. I wonder who funds _that_ project...


----------



## fb360 (Oct 16, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> [video=youtube;AmeWDaY0R7Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=AmeWDaY0R7Y#t=14 95s[/video]
> 
> I think they point out very well how important ratios are and why we should expect any technologically advanced species to recognize them
> 
> Here's the link at the correct time code, 24:55 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AmeWDaY0R7Y#t=1496s


If you watch your example, they clearly state "we think", "trying to work out", "believes", as well as their light example didn't work. Furthermore, their examples were based on a numerical language, leading to ratios, much like I already stated might not be the case.


----------



## fb360 (Oct 16, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Numbers are within nature. We didn't invent math, we discovered it. That's the main point.


That is how WE perceive the world... We invented math, to say otherwise is blasphemy. Mathematics is a HUMAN language; I don't see any other species on Earth communicating between themselves with math. They might use numerical based logic, but that is completely different than creating, using and expanding upon an understanding language.



mindphuk said:


> No, the language could be completely different. Like I mentioned, maybe they use sound waves and harmonics to denote special ratios. The thing is, underneath it all, are merely numbers. Counting is basic. I don't see how any intelligence could arise that cannot understand the concept of individual things and numbers of them. Cycles occur all over the universe from pulsars to the orbit of a planet of moon any life form must evolve on.


You base your argument on the assumption that another intelligent life form will be human-like. I already gave an example of: what if the species is pure energy and communicates in a way we can even fathom? I like to keep my mind open, because we honestly have no clue about nearly everything about the cosmos and universe. It would be silly to state that we FOR SURE KNOW that another intelligent species is going to act in a specific manner.



mindphuk said:


> If we meet any species that has technology, they will have some way of manipulating the environment, otherwise they may as well be whales. As far as we know, whales could potentially be as intelligent as people, their language seems to imply they can communicate in very complex ways, including numbers. The idea of incorporeal 'energy' beings is unlikely until we can demonstrate that information can be maintained without any physical structure. Any being that has evolved on another planet will have to have come about by some sort of Darwinian selection and that means they have some sort of physical form for natural selection to work with.


Same as the above comment. You are thinking of a replica of Earth, because that is the only place we know life exists... 20 years ago we thought it was impossible for life to exist on Earth at 500F or -200F, yet we have found organisms that THRIVE in that environment. Again, a classic example of the FACT that we know very little about the cosmos, our galaxy, and even our own planet.


----------



## PeyoteReligion (Oct 16, 2012)

Omg


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> if they were part of this universe and interacted with this universe as then they would have to have some sensory input of this universe thats analogous to ours
> 
> ethereal presences from beyond our dimension could be what ever you imagine but when it comes to us communicating its kinda irrelevant


Argument to the extreme and anthropomorphic dismissal. Only you say "beyond our dimension."

Only you imagine, "...then they would have to have* some sensory input*... ("Wouldn't they???? Mommy???)

All these discussions with you end up in sophistry.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> Argument to the extreme and anthropomorphic dismissal. Only you say "beyond our dimension."
> 
> Only you imagine, "...then they would have to have* some sensory input*... ("Wouldn't they???? Mommy???)
> 
> All these discussions with you end up in sophistry.


you try so hard to sound relevant dont you?


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

I like the way you think Mr. M. And you won't find me saying that about everyone.

*...will have to have come about by some sort of Darwinian selection and that means they have some sort of physical form for natural selection to work with. *

When I read this, I see the usual clues of shaky logic. "will have to have..." Why? You are now going way past Darwin. You can't propose that Darwinian selection is anything more than something quite unique to our Eco-system.

Natural selection was stamped out long ago in our domesticated species. Just one local example of jacking the DNA. You cannot propose DNA for aliens. And you cannot propose that intelligence requires evolution. No second datum.

And really, I cannot say, we discovered math. It seems a pure invention, like Time to sub-divide periodic durations. Does nature have a Zero? An absolute Nothing? Of course, not. The Zero is a construct for a base 10 or base X number system. I'm also quite familar with Base2, Base8 and Base16. Math is a human Construct. No natural math, no natural time. Only NOW is real. The rest is subjective abstraction of a Human mind. No way to say if math is even a transferable concept to non-human intelligence.

Now, I sure you will not argue that we got our counting systems from Nature. And please grant that by observing Nature we created the abstracts of Ideal Solids. There are no Pythagorean solids in nature.
And latter, Fibornacci and Mandelbrot created Math that was found in Nature. Nature was not the Eureka moment for polynomial expressions.

No, we invent tool to understand our sensorium. Then we apply to the tools to the sensorim and then,what do you know? We find that the sensorium reflects our tools. Hmmmm.....???

It is OK. To not be anthropomorphically, is actually and completely impossible.


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> you try so hard to sound relevant dont you?


And you without trying actually are irrelevant.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> I like the way you think Mr. M. And you won't find me saying that about everyone.
> 
> *...will have to have come about by some sort of Darwinian selection and that means they have some sort of physical form for natural selection to work with. *
> 
> ...


lol your suggesting fully formed intelligent being's "poofed" into existence with no coding(dna analogy) to make them up? with no ecosystem bellow them to support them?

and you try suggesting our logic is shaky


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

No, Sophist. I'm suggesting, only, that you are mired in anthropomorphic thinking. 

How do you possible think that DNA, or analog coding is the only way to intelligence. Only Sophists restate anothers'
point and negatively embellishes it for EGO.

You said 'poof into existence.' I didn't say what you argue against. We see so much condescending sophistry in the Presidential debates. But, it has no place in Science.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> No, Sophist. I'm suggesting, only, that you are mired in anthropomorphic thinking.
> 
> How do you possible think that DNA, or analog coding is the only way to intelligence. Only Sophists restate anothers'
> point and negatively embellishes it for EGO.
> ...


oh so your not proposing evolution of any sort
and your not proposing intelligence appearing spontaneously

what is it your proposing then?


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 16, 2012)

fb360 said:


> That is how WE perceive the world... We invented math, to say otherwise is blasphemy. Mathematics is a HUMAN language; I don't see any other species on Earth communicating between themselves with math. They might use numerical based logic, but that is completely different than creating, using and expanding upon an understanding language.
> 
> 
> You base your argument on the assumption that another intelligent life form will be human-like. I already gave an example of: what if the species is pure energy and communicates in a way we can even fathom? I like to keep my mind open, because we honestly have no clue about nearly everything about the cosmos and universe. It would be silly to state that we FOR SURE KNOW that another intelligent species is going to act in a specific manner.
> ...


As has already been pointed out numerous times by numerous people we didn't invent math, we simply discovered it. No one is proposing that an intelligent species across the universe will use the symbols 3.1415 to represent the value of pi, however they will derive the exact same value for pi. Likewise they most likely will not use a, b, and c to represent pythagorean theorem, nor will they call it pythagorean theorem. But the theorem will be valid none-the-less.

No one is saying if you drop me off on pandora and the locals hand me a calculus book written in their own language, that I will immediately be able to decipher it and understand it. But if you convert their symbols into the ones that you are familiar with they will be the EXACT same. This is not true for other invented languages. English will not translate to japanese letter for letter, and is not constructed the exact same. The calculus will translate letter for letter though, or else one of the civilizations has made a mistake.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> When I read this, I see the usual clues of shaky logic. "will have to have..." Why? You are now going way past Darwin. You can't propose that Darwinian selection is anything more than something quite unique to our Eco-system.
> 
> Natural selection was stamped out long ago in our domesticated species. Just one local example of jacking the DNA. You cannot propose DNA for aliens. And you cannot propose that intelligence requires evolution. No second datum.


What exactly leads you to believe darwinian selection is unique to our eco system?

How exactly do you propose a species becomes intelligent enough to control the environment in such a way as to bypass natural selection and perform selective breeding, without a solid foundation of natural selection leading up to that point?

What is your alternative explanation for intelligence that does not require evolution?


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 16, 2012)

fb360 said:


> That is how WE perceive the world... We invented math, to say otherwise is blasphemy. Mathematics is a HUMAN language; I don't see any other species on Earth communicating between themselves with math. They might use numerical based logic, but that is completely different than creating, using and expanding upon an understanding language.


Just because it was developed by humans, does not make it uniquely human. 



> You base your argument on the assumption that another intelligent life form will be human-like. I already gave an example of:


And I already explained how I am not using that assumption. Continuing to accuse me of that does not make you right. 


> what if the species is pure energy and communicates in a way we can even fathom?


Making up fantasy ideas about what other creatures might be is great, however if you violate laws of physics and nature in doing so, your ideas are probably unlikely. If a species can figure out how to separate consciousness from a physical form, then they must have started with a physical form. If you believe that intelligent energy beings can come into existence without evolution, then that's equivalent to gods and ghosts and I will dismiss that until you or anyone else can provide evidence that such a thing can possibly exist. 


> I like to keep my mind open, because we honestly have no clue about nearly everything about the cosmos and universe. It would be silly to state that we FOR SURE KNOW that another intelligent species is going to act in a specific manner.


They will surely have a physical presence, and if they have technology, then they must have a way to manipulate the environment. How can you disagree with these basic assumptions? 



> Same as the above comment. You are thinking of a replica of Earth,


NOOOO! No I'm not. You just can't read very well.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> I like the way you think Mr. M. And you won't find me saying that about everyone.
> 
> *...will have to have come about by some sort of Darwinian selection and that means they have some sort of physical form for natural selection to work with. *
> 
> When I read this, I see the usual clues of shaky logic. "will have to have..." Why? You are now going way past Darwin. You can't propose that Darwinian selection is anything more than something quite unique to our Eco-system.


Really? How so? The idea of simple organisms becoming more complex over time cannot happen without the basic tenets laid out by Darwin. You need a lot of time and something that can carry information and a method to replicate the information and allow for changes in that information. 


> Natural selection was stamped out long ago in our domesticated species.


Yes but the selection process is still Darwinian in nature, just artificial,, not natural. 


> Just one local example of jacking the DNA. You cannot propose DNA for aliens. And you cannot propose that intelligence requires evolution. No second datum.


Sure I can. I propose a DNA analog, some sort of replicator. Of course it won't be DNA specifically. And yes, any complex intelligence will require evolution. Do you have any other method of getting such complexity? Didn't think so.


> And really, I cannot say, we discovered math. It seems a pure invention,


It might seem that way but you are wrong.


----------



## Seedling (Oct 16, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> If a species can figure out how to separate consciousness from a physical form, then they must have started with a physical form.* If you believe that intelligent energy beings can come into existence without evolution, then that's equivalent to gods and ghosts and I will dismiss that until you or anyone else can provide evidence that such a thing can possibly exist.*


I believe that given a dense massive object, and enough time, that it can produce a white tiger. I believe that given enough time, it can produce a watch, a tv, a cell phone, a computer, and a car that runs on Nitro methane and can travel a 1/4 mile in 4 seconds from a dead stand still. 

So, now, answer the question, can computers evolve from a hunk of mass floating around in space if simply left alone for enough time?


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Really? How so? The idea of simple organisms becoming more complex over time cannot happen without the basic tenets laid out by Darwin. You need a lot of time and something that can carry information and a method to replicate the information and allow for changes in that information.
> Yes but the selection process is still Darwinian in nature, just artificial,, not natural.
> 
> Sure I can. I propose a DNA analog, some sort of replicator. Of course it won't be DNA specifically. And yes, any complex intelligence will require evolution. Do you have any other method of getting such complexity? Didn't think so.
> It might seem that way but you are wrong.


I don't need the sophistry.

The point is just because you think there is only an evolutionary process
even possible for the advancement of species; that is just a guess for you.

To suggest and dismiss I can't imagine an alternative as your brush off; that just mean you need to read up on exo-biology.

I see that you are less a good thinker than it seems. Your entire style is Ego and stupid rude. So, like Buck, you also hide behind fake, tough guy approach. 

So childish to dismiss any discussion 
with...you are wrong.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I believe that given a dense massive object, that *given enough time* it can produce a white tiger. I believe that given enough time, it can produce a watch, a tv, a cell phone, computer, and a car that runs on Nitro methane and can travel a 1/4 mile in 4 seconds from a dead stand still.


well done you've just described exactly what happened on earth 


> So, now, answer the question, can computers evolve from a hunk of mass floating around in space if simply left alone for enough time?


a computer as in the metals and wires version we're typing on? or a biological computer like us?

a computer with wires evolving of its own accord wouldnt happen.

i thing your suggesting one would appear ready formed supposed thats entirely possible but pretty much entirely improbable its about bit like the monkeys writing shakespeare on a type writer 

http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys


> Let's imagine a very simple typewriter that has only the 26 upper-case letters, a space bar and five punctuation characters (a total of 32 buttons). It doesn't even have a carriage return -- it does an automatic return when the required number of letters have been typed, and it has an infinite roll of paper being fed through it. We have a monkey that knows how to press the keys and will do so in a totally random manner indefinitely. All in all, we have a little bit of machinery, but no real intelligence in the system. We want our monkey to type the following snippet: "TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION."
> The probability of this happening is quite simple to calculate, and this will in turn give us some idea of how many monkeys and typewriters we need for a reasonable chance of success. Place your bets now -- our monkeys are fast typists and can type the required number of characters in a single second (there are 41 keystrokes)! On average, how long will it be before one of our monkeys produces a line matching the above sentence?
> Well, there are 32 keys, so starting at any moment, the chances of our monkey getting the first keypress right are one in 32. Not good, but we have fast monkeys and lots of time. However, once it has got the first keystroke right, we also need the second keystroke to be right, otherwise we are back to square one. The chances of it getting the first _and_ second keystrokes right are only one in (32*32 = 1024). Only one chance in 1024, but still lots of time to get it right. To get the first _three_ characters right will be a one in (32*32*32 = 3276 chance. Each time it presses a key, there is a one in 32 chance that it will be correct. To get our little snippet of Hamlet, it will need a total of 41 consecutive "correct" keystrokes. This means that the chances are one in 32 to the power of 41. Let's look at a table of values.
> 
> ...


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> I don't need the sophistry.


Seems you like to claim sophistry at every turn. Your characterization as such does not make it so. 


> The point is just because you think there is only an evolutionary process
> even possible for the advancement of species; that is just a guess for you.


Where did I say there was only one? I clearly said DNA is not necessarily involved, yet there is clearly no other way in this universe that complexity has formed. ALL complex things began as simpler things and were built upon, step-by-step. If you think it can happen other ways, you are free to provide some examples but until then, I think it is pretty safe to say other methods will violate known physical laws. 


> To suggest and dismiss I can't imagine an alternative as your brush off; that just mean you need to read up on exo-biology.


LOL. I am quite familiar with the current state of exobiology and what I'm proposing is exactly in line. 


> I see that you are less a good thinker than it seems. Your entire style is Ego and stupid rude. So, like Buck, you also hide behind fake, tough guy approach.
> So childish to dismiss any discussion
> with...you are wrong.


WTF? Now insults? Grow the fuck up. If you can't have an adult conversation without your anger and condescension, I'm not interested in talking to you anyway.


----------



## Seedling (Oct 16, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> well done you've just described exactly what happened on earth


Good, I got my point across!



ginjawarrior said:


> a computer as in the metals and wires version we're typing on? or a biological computer like us?


A computer as in the metals and wires version we're typing on. I ask you, can a wired computer come from a massive body given enough time??



ginjawarrior said:


> a computer with wires evolving of its own accord wouldnt happen.


Not only could it happen, it did happen.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 16, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Good, I got my point across!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But "of its own accord" can properly be represented by "in an unguided manner". Our computers are clearly the products of (arguably!) intelligent design. cn


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Good, I got my point across!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well i'd have to argue against "its own accord" as there was biological input before the electrical and im unaware of any that survive unassisted

but apart from that its pretty close to your drag racing nitro car?


EDIT ninja'd by the bear


----------



## Seedling (Oct 16, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> But "of its own accord" can properly be represented by "in an unguided manner". Our computers are clearly the products of (arguably!) intelligent design. cn


No evolution occurs under "it's own accord." Evolution is change. You start with a point in time and describe the environment, and you pick a later point in time and describe the differences, the change that has occurred.

The universe was an enormous massive body occupying a very tiny volume in space, and 13.7 billion years later there were computers.


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

So don't Anger Boy
What you call discussion is just fake tough guy iac


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> So don't Anger Boy
> What you call discussion is just fake tough guy iac


the projection is strong in this post


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

My point about exobiology is that it is an anthropomorphic joke

The point of science is to disagree with amateur thinking 

Maybe more si-fi ?


----------



## Ringsixty (Oct 16, 2012)

It's like a Fat Chick squatting down and Ripping her pants. Ever expanding.


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

You mean that stupid dog? The *anthropomorphic joke?*


----------



## fb360 (Oct 17, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> As has already been pointed out numerous times by numerous people we didn't invent math, we simply discovered it. No one is proposing that an intelligent species across the universe will use the symbols 3.1415 to represent the value of pi, however they will derive the exact same value for pi. Likewise they most likely will not use a, b, and c to represent pythagorean theorem, nor will they call it pythagorean theorem. But the theorem will be valid none-the-less.
> 
> No one is saying if you drop me off on pandora and the locals hand me a calculus book written in their own language, that I will immediately be able to decipher it and understand it. But if you convert their symbols into the ones that you are familiar with they will be the EXACT same. This is not true for other invented languages. English will not translate to japanese letter for letter, and is not constructed the exact same. The calculus will translate letter for letter though, or else one of the civilizations has made a mistake.


I understand your point, and I think it is valid, however it does not cause mine to become invalid. I was merely speculating, while you are hypothesizing based upon your observations as a human.
What I do not agree with, is that we discovered mathematics. That statement is incorrect. Rather, we discovered that our world is bound by physical constraints we call laws, and then we invented a language to express such laws; mathematics.

Newton didn't write equations for gravity before the apple hit him on the head... First gravity happened, he observed it, and then created a way to define it in an understandable manner to other humans; mathematics is that language.

The egyptians didn't write math for geometry before discovering that certain ratios and constants hold. Then they wrote the math to describe it. They are actually accredited with inventing engineering.

You would be correct in saying that we discovered physics, but you are not correct in saying we discovered mathematics. And furthermore, our "mathematics" language is extremely primitive, with calculus only being about 300 years old. We still add new expressions to our mathematics everyday. It is a work in progress as I stated in my very first post. Ergo, we did not discover it, we are continuously defining it.



mindphuk said:


> Just because it was developed by humans, does not make it uniquely human.
> 
> And I already explained how I am not using that assumption. Continuing to accuse me of that does not make you right.
> Making up fantasy ideas about what other creatures might be is great, however if you violate laws of physics and nature in doing so, your ideas are probably unlikely. If a species can figure out how to separate consciousness from a physical form, then they must have started with a physical form. If you believe that intelligent energy beings can come into existence without evolution, then that's equivalent to gods and ghosts and I will dismiss that until you or anyone else can provide evidence that such a thing can possibly exist.
> ...


It is you who can't read well... I never disagreed with the fact that another intelligent life form might also know mathematics and have physical form... As I CLEARLY mentioned, I like to keep my mind open, and not close any doors because we continuously prove to ourselves that we basically know shit.

You just like to think it's fact that our little human world and the physics we observe here, are certain and factual everywhere else... We barely know physics in our solar system genius. Closing your mind is naive and stupid. You can continue to think you don't have a narrow vision in terms of knowledge in this argument, but you are becoming comical.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 17, 2012)

fb360 said:


> I understand your point, and I think it is valid, however it does not cause mine to become invalid. I was merely speculating, while you are hypothesizing based upon your observations as a human.
> What I do not agree with, is that we discovered mathematics. That statement is incorrect. Rather, we discovered that our world is bound by physical constraints we call laws, and then we invented a language to express such laws; mathematics.
> 
> Newton didn't write equations for gravity before the apple hit him on the head... First gravity happened, he observed it, and then created a way to define it in an understandable manner to other humans; mathematics is that language.
> ...


I never claimed gravity didn't exist before newton wrote the equations, in fact my point is the exact opposite. Gravity existed independent of newton, everywhere. He merely discovered the mathematical representation - the same as any other intelligent species would. Perhaps they would also discover a closer approximation with the equations of relativity. And maybe they are more advanced than us and have discovered the next theory beyond relativity that includes gravity as a fundamental force and works in all situations from the quantum to the grand.

You seem to be strengthening my point with every example you give.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 17, 2012)

fb360 said:


> I like to keep my mind open


It's a bit too open, I think your brain fell out.


----------



## Seedling (Oct 17, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> I never claimed gravity didn't exist before newton wrote the equations, in fact my point is the exact opposite. Gravity existed independent of newton, everywhere. *He merely discovered the mathematical representation - the same as any other intelligent species would.* Perhaps they would also discover a closer approximation with the equations of relativity. And maybe they are more advanced than us and have discovered the next theory beyond relativity that includes gravity as a fundamental force and works in all situations from the quantum to the grand.


He questioned what caused what he observed, the acceleration of an object towards another object, which we call gravity, and he answered himself something to the effect of "objects of mass attract one another." He then used math to describe his idea. The problem lies in the fact that his math may be self consistent, but his idea is incorrect! So what are we left with, a bunch of math describing a non-reality.

In reality gravity doesn't work like Newton's idea, and the math is not accurate enough to describe reality correctly. So, in my book, that's 0 for 2.

If he'd have thought it through well enough he would have realized that objects DON'T "attract one another."


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 17, 2012)

fb360 said:


> It is you who can't read well... I never disagreed with the fact that another intelligent life form might also know mathematics and have physical form... As I CLEARLY mentioned, I like to keep my mind open, and not close any doors because we continuously prove to ourselves that we basically know shit.
> 
> You just like to think it's fact that our little human world and the physics we observe here, are certain and factual everywhere else... We barely know physics in our solar system genius. Closing your mind is naive and stupid. You can continue to think you don't have a narrow vision in terms of knowledge in this argument, but you are becoming comical.


One of the main assumptions of physics is that laws of nature do not change depending on where you are. I have no idea what you mean when you claim that we don't know physics in our solar system. 

BTW, it always seem that the first to resort to name calling usually doesn't have a strong argument. If you're going to continue to be a rude asshole, just stop responding to me since I'm not interested in a flame war. If you can keep from throwing around personal attacks, by all means, we can continue to discuss this.


----------



## Doer (Oct 17, 2012)

What a cozy idea, that we discovered the Math. The Rosetta stone of the Universe!!!

Such hubris. We discovered some local physics. We created a precise language to describe that. We enhance the language into dialects like Tensors, Matrix Algebra, Calculus, etc. It's a language that can call a spade a spade. But, it is detailed enough to actually re-produce that implement exactly. Without math, there is no ability to record this level of detail. Math is just words we made up to help us.

We observe and assume that Math is holy and sacrosanct, but it is not. Our own observational abilities are limited and always will be.
Our imagination is hampered by that simple fact. We simply cannot imagine what observational powers a non-human intellect might posses or even how they came to possess them. We can't imagine any mechanism that is far beyond our experience.

An alien's entire existence might seem like magic. It might seem that it is not biology based, at all.

The "tech" of the Universe could very easily produce a thinking rock that can make sounds, but it's inner observational powers are strangely non-causal. Sufficiently high tech, even natural tech can seem like magic.

How the smart rock does anything or how it knows so much could always remain a mystery to us. How it can communicate?
Where are all these other Rocks it "mentions?"

We might find that our cumbersome math is just sticks and stones to a true thinker. They may only appear to exist to us.
Magic.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 17, 2012)

There certainly are some aspects of math that were invented but I find it incredibly naive to think that f=ma, e=mc^2, Maxwell's equations or any of hundreds of others somehow were created by us and not some inherent part of nature. Do you or anyone else have a good explanation as to why the universe seems to be able to be described so succinctly using mathematics? Do you actually believe other intelligent beings would not come up with the exact same relationships among variables as we have? If they can't figure out f=ma, then how do you suppose that they can have technology?


----------



## fb360 (Oct 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> One of the main assumptions of physics is that laws of nature do not change depending on where you are. I have no idea what you mean when you claim that we don't know physics in our solar system.
> 
> BTW, it always seem that the first to resort to name calling usually doesn't have a strong argument. If you're going to continue to be a rude asshole, just stop responding to me since I'm not interested in a flame war. If you can keep from throwing around personal attacks, by all means, we can continue to discuss this.


You do realize that the current "hot" theory is that their are multiple parallel universes, maybe even an infinite number of them. Scientists also believe that each one might have its own physics. Furthermore, we are still defining our knowledge of physics, just 27 years ago not knowing if neutrinos even existed. We are searching for the Higgs Boson, another great example of how we KNOW that our understanding of physics is mediocre at best. I could go on and on with examples where we ourselves imply that we don't know everything about physics.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 18, 2012)

fb360 said:


> You do realize that the current "hot" theory is that their are multiple parallel universes, maybe even an infinite number of them. Scientists also believe that each one might have its own physics. Furthermore, we are still defining our knowledge of physics, just 27 years ago not knowing if neutrinos even existed. We are searching for the Higgs Boson, another great example of how we KNOW that our understanding of physics is mediocre at best. I could go on and on with examples where we ourselves imply that we don't know everything about physics.


Parallel universes means the laws could be different... in a different universe, not necessarily here in ours. We are talking about aliens from our universe, not others. Higgs Boson was found this summer and I never said we know everything, or even a significant amount of anything about physics so that observation is irrelevant to our discussion. 

I don't suppose you will man up and apologize for unwarranted personal attacks....


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 18, 2012)

[h=1]Q: If we meet aliens, will they have the same math and physics that we do?[/h] Posted on May 15, 2011 by The Physicist 
*Physicist*: Similar. Were sure to have figured out stuff they havent, and theyre sure to have figured out stuff we havent. But theres likely to be a fair amount of overlap.
Some things have a way of being figured out over and over. For example, the Pythagorean theorem got itself figured out in China, Greece, India, and Babylonia (Iraq).
Lower left: The Plimpton tablet, which lists Pythagorean triples, is from ancient Babylonia (modern-day Iraq). Upper left: a derivation of the Pythagorean theorem from ancient China (modern-day China). Right: the derivation of the Pythagorean theorem as seen in Euclid's Elements from ancient Greece.

However, theres a fair chance that old school mathematicians were just copying each other. Specifically, Pythagoras probably stole his theorem from the Egyptians (Discoveries arent named after the first person to make them, theyre named after the last). Still, its the sort of thing thats so useful and easy to prove that its hard to imagine an advanced culture not knowing about it.
And some ideas are just good. We can say its very likely that aliens have invented hammers, because people (in every culture), several other varieties of apes, several monkeys species, otters (cutest), and others have all done it. However, being a good idea doesnt mean that different people/things will create exactly the same thing. For example the Old World (Europe, Africa, Asia) and Incan abacuses are subtly different.
These devices, the Yupana and Abacus, which were developed independently and served the exact same function, have very different forms. (Yupana beads not shown)

Point is, there are almost certainly going to be commonalities. At the same time, things like the Goldbach conjecture (every even number can be expressed as the sum of two primes), or half of the more obscure theorems in the more obscure mathematical disciplines, are unlikely to be in alien textbooks. Math, being an infinite science, is going to have plenty of twists and turns that only one civilization figures out, and many more that none figure out.
Which mathematical things are most likely to be common is the sort of question best left to sci-fi writers, and other experts (such as there are).
Ultimately the physical predictions each of our sciences make will be the same. Because of, you know: reality. Physics is just a mathematical and philosophical structure that describes the universe. Whats very surprising (or, alternatively, very _not_ surprising) is that you can describe (predict) the same physical laws and behaviors based on very different (one might even say; alien) premises.
For example, Newtons first and third laws (inertia and for every action theres an equal and opposite reaction) are essentially statements about the conservation of momentum. That is, if you total up the momentum (mass times velocity) of a closed system, then the total momentum remains constant forever. Now, you can mumble something about Lagrangians or reference frames, but when you boil it down, conservation of momentum is just something we take as true (because it always, always works).
But an alien might have a different way of approaching the same set of laws. Rather than saying for a given system, if you multiply the velocity of each object with the mass of each object and add them all up you get something that never changes (conservation of momentum), that E.T. might say something like for a given system, the center of mass never accelerates. Same laws, different intuition.
Left: Normally we describe Newton's laws in terms of momentum, P = m1 v1 + m2 v2, which never changes. In this case P=0. Right: Another way to describe the same results is in terms of the center of mass never accelerating. In this case the center-of-mass' velocity is zero, and will stay that way. It turns out that, mathematically, these are interchangeable, but the philosophy is a bit different.

Like the abacus/yupana and big-rock/hammer parallels, these different theories do exactly the same thing, but look pretty different.
So (pressed for an answer), Id expect that no matter how alien an Alien is, whether non-social, immortal, hive-minded, slug-based, whatever, their physics and math has to do a lot of the same stuff ours does, and may even be understandable (to our non-hive minds). At the very least, our physics and Alien physics has to describe the same universe. So, while they may have a completely different approach, it should look familiar, and ultimately do the same stuff.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 18, 2012)

i got into this same argument with my father a physics major from the 70's

math is univerasl . .the symbols we use to represent those values is illrelvent


----------



## Seedling (Oct 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Higgs Boson was found this summer.....blah...blah...blah...


Prove it!!! They didn't find it, they found something, and they stopped short of calling it the Higgs.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 18, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Prove it!!! They didn't find it, they found something, and they stopped short of calling it the Higgs.


No they identified it specifically as the Higgs boson. Two separate teams independently discovered the particle, and they announced it on 7-4-2012.

EDIT

Go read up on it. Wiki has all the information regarding the discovery and press conference. This only happened a few months ago. I remember reading about it in threads on riu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson


----------



## Doer (Oct 18, 2012)

Well, true. The Higgs boson was not found last summer. But, anyone can swing in and out of absolute precision when trying to describe concepts. And though people will flame me for the slightest perceived fault. I see it as no big deal.

Mr. M, knows, they could very well have the Higgs. The data stood quite well to the first round of correctness review. So, what is gained from, calling UNTRUE for this passing detail? In context it is true.

Nothing is gained either from saying, ...."can't imagine." Nothing gained from trotting out someone's human opinion about discovering physical relationships within the human experience. Sanskrit geometry says nothing to me about ET math.

We don't even need other dimensions. Before Hubble, we didn't know about galaxy. He brought a constant into play that is now in serious question. Our entire macro view, BB Theory is based on it. And now Dark energy is blowing up the constant.

These simple equations are the basis of physics, our physics. Our LOCAL fundamental forces. Now, Hubble is blown and so is the 1A superNova Standard Candle, replaced by the questions of Dark Energy. DE is causing completely unknown rates of acceleration and changes over time. And so we have no idea of actual distances or age of the Universe.

We are beginning to see that our local physics is not completely correct. we see Real Uncertainly on a Macro scale. Our model of atoms is incorrect. We wish we could know what gravity is. Maybe we don't have Math, at all, in a Universal sense.

There could be modes of this universe that we just don't see. Quantum modes? These modes could birth ET that may then have no need for cumbersome Math. Just a feeling, and Understanding, I could imagine.

It is very naive IMO, to try to have it both ways. It is only the statistical possibility that makes us even consider ET. In the giant game of chance and change, the odds favor ET. But, those same odds favor a mathless ET, just as much as ET with human similar math.

We are constantly surprised, even by our own ecosystem. To say you can't imagine manipulating reality without human math or even Math at all is just a raw, human based guess.

It is not the '70s. An entire new realm of thought is just opening up. Quantum, non-casual energy exchange is what seems to balance the energy budget at the submicro-scale. Non-causal? What's up with that?

I can't even buy the main assumption that Physics is universal.


----------



## HappyMan420 (Oct 18, 2012)

jello and marbles? Clean socks? Space is the absence of mass. you can move in all directions. 360 degrees by 360 degrees. left and right are subjective along with up and down. Time is our understanding of linear movement.


----------



## Doer (Oct 18, 2012)

No. No mass, equals no space. Volume is defined by the material container. And Space seems to sort itself by density according to mass.

Time is how we sub-divide the major durations. We use the smallest regular duration we can find to diivde the big ones.

Cesium atomic vibration subdivides the earth's orbit period. We created Time to measure space using matter.


----------



## Seedling (Oct 18, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> No they identified it specifically as the Higgs boson. Two separate teams independently discovered the particle, and they announced it on 7-4-2012.
> 
> EDIT
> 
> ...


Looks like you're the one that needs to read up on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson



> The *Higgs boson* or *Higgs particle* is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. The Higgs boson is *predicted to exist* for theoretical reasons, and *may have been detected* by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider. *If confirmed*, this detection would further support the existence of the hypothetical *Higgs field*&#8212;the simplest[SUP][4][/SUP] of several proposed mechanisms for the breaking of electroweak symmetry, and the means by which elementary particles acquire mass.


----------



## fb360 (Oct 18, 2012)

You guys are still trying to associate any other life form with humans...

I bet if our species survives for another 1000 years even, that we will look back and laugh hysterically at the mathematics we currently have. Our language of mathematics is a primitive, premature, young and growing one. To say that another advanced species would be at the same level, doing the same reasoning, using a similar language, is highly unlikely.

Certain geometric constants hold true, as well as a very few physical constants. Aside from those entities, we didn't discover anything in terms of mathematics.

Furthermore, we know that if we encounter other intelligent life forms, they will inherently have an understanding and intellect about the universe that we can't begin to comprehend. We know this because even our closest star besides the sun is about 4.3 light years away in the star Alpha Centauri... Ergo, it would take us a minimum of 4.3 years, moving at the speed of light, to reach our nearest neighbor. Furthermore, we currently believe that the speed of light is the ultimate speed and is impossible to be broken. Again implying that if we encounter any intelligent life from outside of our solar system, they either live very long lives, or have developed techniques which abolish our physics. Further implying that their physics and language of understanding will be different than ours. How different? One can only speculate.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 18, 2012)

fb360 said:


> You guys are still trying to associate any other life form with humans...


No we are not! You either are not paying attention or have some sort of mental block. Certain facts about math have nothing to do with humans or how we experience the world. Do you actually think that addition will be different if done by another species? Is counting a human trait? Addition and subtraction is just counting. Multiplication is just adding many times. The rest of basic math follows from these basics, just like you learned them in school. Euclidean geometry is is inherent to any three dimensional being. Until you can demonstrate where the human bias comes in, you are just blowing smoke.

Here again we have another RIU member that is smarter than all of these mathematicians and physicists. Your arrogance amazes me.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 18, 2012)

"if science went extinct and another intelligent species arose, it would be developed identical to what it is now, if your religion went extinct, it would never be exactly the same.. What does that tell you?"

Wish I knew who said it, it rings completely true...

Science is universal, religion is not. Biased much?


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 18, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> "if science went extinct and another intelligent species arose, it would be developed identical to what it is now, if your religion went extinct, it would never be exactly the same.. What does that tell you?"
> 
> Wish I knew who said it, it rings completely true...
> 
> Science is universal, religion is not. Biased much?


Somewhat dissenting opinion. Science is a humanity: it is marked at every turn by the imagination and limitations of its pioneers. Math, being entirely abstract, has a better claim to universality. Jmo. cn


----------



## Doer (Oct 19, 2012)

the refuge for the ignorant it to invoke a higher power, with disdainful logic. religion and ideology of any kind both intrude.

Refering to "*all of these mathematicians and physicists. Your arrogance amazes me. " *as top cover.... and then the pussy parting Shot. Well, it is clear now.

The ducks really quack when aroused. It has nothing to do with relative smarts. What I'm amazed at is the low tone of people that claim they just want discussion. The appeal to their gods when aroused. The smoking anger of the retort the insult stab, like they really don't know how to have civil conversation.

And the subject is Alien Math!!!! The gods can't be of any help.

It is an exercise to try to be non-anthropomorphic in thinking, if at all possible. 

If you have no need in your perceptions to build geometric solids, then you won't have or understand math for that. These Pythagorean solids are not natural. They are conceived. As the smart bet says, we could easily be trying the equivilence of sticks and rock and just calling it math. Our persceptions could be so limited that we have no idea of what real MATH is. That is the human arrogance.

Oh, poor Sacred Cow.....mmmmmm. Barbecue!


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 19, 2012)




----------



## Doer (Oct 19, 2012)

Not sure what those particular emoti-cons are trying to say.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 19, 2012)

That you are crazy. I am still wondering how you think some intelligent life form could evolve in this universe and NOT need to understand geometric solids, or more precisely, the math behind them. Or how you think it's some human construct that will not hold true across the universe.


----------



## Doer (Oct 19, 2012)

Oh, I see, just call the name, if you're to stoop to that. No need to hide. No need for personal attacks. What you have just said is proof of the hurbis hiding within the insular, subjective nature of human perception. No more no less, except for hiding behind the emoticons to call some that disagrees crazy. You deserve more than that.

I am sure you are much more capable than that, in fact. I've seen it. The statement only proves that you do not know and you can't imagine. That's my point. Thanks. It is the definition, we could say, of anthropomorphism. Pertains to gods, dogs and aliens.

BTW, it so pertains to ourselves. We want to assume everyone is like us or crazy otherwise, yes? We as individuals are hampered by extreme anthropomorphic logic against each other.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 19, 2012)

Without any concept of a sphere, there will be no way for any intelligent being to figure out the forces of a star for example. Triangles are necessary for things like triangulation and calculating parallax of the stars for distance measurements. Oh wait, I forgot, measurements must be a completely human thing. I'm anthropomorphizing too much. 

I can't understand how someone trained in computers cannot see the truth of this. The fact that we can come to the same conclusions in a calculation regardless of the number base used. IOW, symbols or even the counting system is irrelevant to the conclusions reached. Binary, decimal, Base-12 or even Base-57 will all give us identical results. 

I'm not sure what you are imply by arguing about the Platonic solids (I have no idea what Pythagorean solids are). I never once mentioned them. I did mention plane geometry, and it's odd that someone would argue that aliens would not have some sort of geometry. If they live in this universe and are normal, physical animals that can manipulate the environment, i.e the physical world, in order to make technology, then there will be certain concepts they MUST have figured out and they will necessarily have used some sort of math to do so. Continuing to point and say "noooo!" and claiming we are being too anthropomorphic is not an argument, it is whining. You have presented NOTHING to support the argument we are wrong. You have only asserted it, over and over. We, OTOH, have given numerous examples, including some by actual mathematicians and physicists. The only thing you have done with that is argue some weird anti-argument from authority. You have accused me of deifying actual authorities on the subject, a ridiculous notion. It's not an appeal to gods to want the perspective of actual math and physics experts and to insinuate otherwise tells me you a have no real argument. You have an idea on the subject and you think others are wrong so you attempt to belittle them. Well fuck off Doer. You're acting like a petulant child that can't get an adult to understand his crazy ideas.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 19, 2012)

&&&&& + &&&&& = &&&&&&&&&&


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 19, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Without any concept of a sphere, there will be no way for any intelligent being to figure out the forces of a star for example. Triangles are necessary for things like triangulation and calculating parallax of the stars for distance measurements. Oh wait, I forgot, measurements must be a completely human thing. I'm anthropomorphizing too much.
> 
> I can't understand how someone trained in computers cannot see the truth of this. The fact that we can come to the same conclusions in a calculation regardless of the number base used. IOW, symbols or even the counting system is irrelevant to the conclusions reached. Binary, decimal, Base-12 or even Base-57 will all give us identical results.
> 
> I'm not sure what you are imply by arguing about the Platonic solids (I have no idea what Pythagorean solids are). I never once mentioned them. I did mention plane geometry, and it's odd that someone would argue that aliens would not have some sort of geometry. If they live in this universe and are normal, physical animals that can manipulate the environment, i.e the physical world, in order to make technology, then there will be certain concepts they MUST have figured out and they will necessarily have used some sort of math to do so. Continuing to point and say "noooo!" and claiming we are being too anthropomorphic is not an argument, it is whining. *You have presented NOTHING to support the argument we are wrong*. You have only asserted it, over and over. We, OTOH, have given numerous examples, including some by actual mathematicians and physicists. The only thing you have done with that is argue some weird anti-argument from authority. You have accused me of deifying actual authorities on the subject, a ridiculous notion. It's not an appeal to gods to want the perspective of actual math and physics experts and to insinuate otherwise tells me you a have no real argument. You have an idea on the subject and you think others are wrong so you attempt to belittle them. Well fuck off Doer. You're acting like a petulant child that can't get an adult to understand his crazy ideas.


well he has mentioned a talking, thinking rock that we could never conceive the "why of it"


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 19, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> "if science went extinct and another intelligent species arose, it would be developed identical to what it is now, if your religion went extinct, it would never be exactly the same.. What does that tell you?"
> 
> Wish I knew who said it, it rings completely true...
> 
> Science is universal, religion is not. Biased much?



If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.




&#8213; Penn Jillette


----------



## Doer (Oct 20, 2012)

Quack? Did I hear a quack? *

an appeal to gods to want the perspective of actual math and physics experts *

These aren't god, but humans. Mired in human pride and anthro-centricity. Hardly the experts or higher powers to invoke. Experts in the entirely wrong, self serving career for this.

Everyone prefers the right-fight to discussion. Prefer Ridicule to ideas. Not my problem.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 20, 2012)

So here we are again, Doer crying "Noooo!" with no support or explanations, just a mere contrary opinion and no actual substance or critique of the argument. It is impossible to hold a reasonable discussion with someone like this if they can't even verbalize what is actually wrong with the ideas presented.


----------



## Doer (Oct 20, 2012)

Anyone can have a contrary opinion. Anyone can have a contrary attitude. I express my ideas and get called names, dispersed as un-qualified, to have no useful opinion, and generally have my ideas denigrated in an un-friendly goading fashion. You seem to insist that I conduct myself in a certain way and don't present controversy.

I tell exactly what is wrong with anthropomorphic thinking, in some detail. But, I'm not challenge on it. I'm dismissed. And sneered at. That's what you are giving me again. You cannot admit that you cannot know. So, you produce the various level of right-fight, to cover shallow thinking.

You act like I never said a word.

And now we may see the false argument, I somehow can't stand the arena of ideas, when actually I can easliy withstand your sideshow. I just find it distasteful in an amusing sort of way.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 20, 2012)

Doer said:


> Anyone can have a contrary opinion. Anyone can have a contrary attitude. I express my ideas and get called names, dispersed as un-qualified, to have no useful opinion, and generally have my ideas denigrated in an un-friendly goading fashion. You seem to insist that I conduct myself in a certain way and don't present controversy.
> *
> I tell exactly what is wrong with anthropomorphic thinking, in some detail. *
> 
> ...


You did not, you merely made the assertion and never demonstrated why it's anthropomorphic. You are being dismissed because you don't support your argument. You just make the accusation and act as if it is right without need for elaboration.


----------



## Doer (Oct 20, 2012)

How could it not be? We only possess this one point of view and are constantly suprised at how ignorant we were. It is belief only, your contention.

That is my only point. Since you have no data. But, you have only your claim and I'm not making an assertion beyond that self evident fact. You still want to argue. So what? I think I have demonstrated it.

Some will agree. You don't. You can't assume these things with only one data point. But, you are. So, just as statistically you can say there are "probably" these other beings, I can say it favors just as well there are probably, no other beings.

It is the same with math. The human statistics will only work if you postulate a humanoid view of the universe. A being that is in need of triangulation for anything??? I know, you can't imagine. Exactly. That's all you have and all you cling to, it seems. It's not a data set with only one datum.

It is a null set, toss up not a right-fight. You postulate a Universal frame for fundamental forces, but, you also realize that too is only an assumption, the basic assumption of Physics. 

My God man, we could be inside a black hole, for all we know. It would certainly explain a lot. The Universe could already be gone. The Human math works to either conclusion. If you were intellectually honest you could see that. All the time effects, Hubble constant, Dark Energy and Matter work out quite nicely also, if we were just inside an Event Horizon, already.

So, don't chide me, dude. I never said Nooooo to anything except a very narrow view.

I don't think accusation is the proper term, at all.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 20, 2012)

Doer said:


> How could it not be? We only possess this one point of view and are constantly suprised at how ignorant we were. It is belief only, your contention.


A contention backed up by logical thought.


> That is my only point. Since you have no data. But, you have only your claim and I'm not making an assertion beyond that self evident fact. You still want to argue. So what? I think I have demonstrated it.


I have data. The fact that many cultures have repeatedly come up with similar and identical mathematical solutions to problems about the natural world strongly suggests that math uncovers what is already there and not an invention like spoken language. You haven't made a single demonstration from what I can see. Maybe you need to be more clear. 


> Some will agree. You don't. You can't assume these things with only one data point. But, you are. So, just as statistically you can say there are "probably" these other beings, I can say it favors just as well there are probably, no other beings.


I don't have one data point. I have repeatedly shown you many. 


> It is the same with math. The human statistics will only work if you postulate a humanoid view of the universe.


This is your repeated assertion without any support. I have seen nothing that demonstrates this view is human based. I have continuously, along with other mathematicians attempted to remove the human element and we still come up with the same conclusions, that there are some fundamental truths about our universe and numbers and math relate to them, whether I'm a human, a dolphin or a Martian. 


> A being that is in need of triangulation for anything???


Triangulation can be used by any organism that wants to calculate a distance to a star. Can you suggest a way to do it without math? 


> I know, you can't imagine. Exactly. That's all you have and all you cling to, it seems. It's not a data set with only one datum.


Not only is it unimaginable how a being can become technologically advanced without using any math, you haven't even provided a scintilla of a suggestion of what that might look like? You are correct that just because I can't imagine it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, however, we can imagine a great deal of things, including what advanced technology might be able to accomplish, including that of alien races. 


> It is a null set, toss up not a right-fight. You postulate a Universal frame for fundamental forces, but, you also realize that too is only an assumption, the basic assumption of Physics.


Even if physics is different elsewhere, the rules will still boil down to math. If you doubt the assumption about universality of natural laws, that's fine but that doesn't say anything about mathematics which is basically logic, and logic is universal. The rules of logic are absolute. 


> My God man, we could be inside a black hole, for all we know. It would certainly explain a lot. The Universe could already be gone. The Human math works to either conclusion. If you were intellectually honest you could see that. All the time effects, Hubble constant, Dark Energy and Matter work out quite nicely also, if we were just inside an Event Horizon, already.


What the hell does any of this have to do with the discussion? 


> So, don't chide me, dude. I never said Nooooo to anything except a very narrow view.


Don't chide you? Then quit acting like a dick. Your attempts at admonishment, right-fight, refuge of the ignorant, anthropomorphic thinking, sideshow, and on and on, came before I said anything negative to you. I'm trying to have a serious discussion. This interests me. You claim I am unable to think outside of my human existence and if so I want to know how I am doing so. I like to challenge myself and if I am wrong, I want to know. You claim to know where I am failing yet have not been able to verbalize what and how except to repeat the claim that I'm failing. I have attempted to demonstrate how the thought process has extended to include very alien physiology, including extending the range of potential sensory attributes from the very narrow visible light spectrum and auditory frequencies to include broad spectrum and novel ideas such as using Tesla coil discharges. Your argument that I am appealing to authority is lost when the authority is spending their days working on figuring this stuff out. Jim Kakalios was one example. There are many other physicists, mathematicians and information theorists that spend their days trying to solve the problem of how to communicate with species that might not have ears and eyes and may see the world different than we do. This is decidedly NOT thinking anthropomorphically, it is specifically doing what you claim I am not. The fact is that things in this universe have numerical values and although there might be something that we haven't thought of, the probability is high that any organism we come across will have some sort of number system and math if they have technology. You no doubt will still say I'm wrong, and I'm fine with that but then the onus is on you to offer up an example of how it might be wrong.


----------



## fb360 (Oct 21, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> No we are not! You either are not paying attention or have some sort of mental block. Certain facts about math have nothing to do with humans or how we experience the world. Do you actually think that addition will be different if done by another species? Is counting a human trait? Addition and subtraction is just counting. Multiplication is just adding many times. The rest of basic math follows from these basics, just like you learned them in school. Euclidean geometry is is inherent to any three dimensional being. Until you can demonstrate where the human bias comes in, you are just blowing smoke.
> 
> Here again we have another RIU member that is smarter than all of these mathematicians and physicists. Your arrogance amazes me.





fb360 said:


> Certain geometric constants hold true, as well as a very few physical constants. Aside from those entities, we didn't discover anything in terms of mathematics.


What are you talking about? I like to keep my mind open and speculate. I clearly mentioned that I speculate that an advanced species would look at addition, subtraction, multiplication, even calculus and see them as primitive. They might be able to directly sense the probable "belief state" energy, and consequently discern upon which action is "better"; why don't you do some research into Artificial Intelligence and get back to me; we write algorithms which create "learning" in "unintelligent" machines... When you start to comprehend how WE think, you can start to comprehend how primitive we really are.

I would LOVE for any of you to PROVE that my speculation of an advanced species not using our mathematics what so ever, to be completely, and utterly false. Do it.


----------



## Doer (Oct 21, 2012)

I know, we keep saying these things, in a very reasonable fashion, considering the topic. But, many, too many folks here either don't know a discussion from a right-fight, or they pretend they don't. It is troll bait, in that case. You have to be the judge. Reasonable, seemingly, until we answer. Then the rude excoriation instead of civil disagreement and the "who me, I didn't insult you." ploy. Next, "You must Prove me wrong!" is exclaimed.

Then "Why are you even posting?" Always with the insults. "You must have a mental block", is just the beginning.

Pretty transparent. And very childish.


----------



## fb360 (Oct 21, 2012)

It's all good. I don't get butt hurt by name calling. I would just like to see them think more broad, outside of the box... If we are to learn anything from history, it is that we have been 100% wrong 99% of the time. In fact, thinking the exact opposite than current beliefs is not only logical, due to my above statement, it is efficient and worth speaking about.

A good example is when they shut down the possibility of intelligent life forms taking no physical structure. How can be sure of that with our limited and narrow knowledge base? We can't. period.


----------



## Doer (Oct 21, 2012)

Oh, it's not the insults, It's the discussion, distracted and wrapped into dis-honesty, that seems so odd, but, not hurtful.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 21, 2012)

fb360 said:


> It's all good. I don't get butt hurt by name calling. I would just like to see them think more broad, outside of the box... If we are to learn anything from history, it is that we have been 100% wrong 99% of the time. In fact, thinking the exact opposite than current beliefs is not only logical, due to my above statement, it is efficient and worth speaking about.
> 
> A good example is when they shut down the possibility of intelligent life forms taking no physical structure. How can be sure of that with our limited and narrow knowledge base? We can't. period.


Once again you ignore the substance of the responses. No one is discounting the possibility of intelligent life without physical form, but discounting how such a being can interact with the physical universe and thus produce technology. The idea that a being can somehow evolve to eliminate the need for physicality implies that they had physical form at some point in their history. Considering the probabilities of the type of beings that will likely evolve on other worlds is thinking outside the box. Now since you have never actually answered any of the points put to you, I'm not sure why you even bother to continue to respond except to remind us that you haven't been able to answer the objections to you posts.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 21, 2012)

HAHA. Man I am high. I feel like i'm catching retard in this thread.


----------



## Doer (Oct 22, 2012)

I'm not sure why people bother to even speak. But, look in the mirror. Not for you to say or use as a dismissal.. The problem is base lack of understanding how adult communication works on topics where no one can be right. It's not to merely shit on the messenge that attempts to be clear. It is not a bandy of pettiness to obfuscate the narrow view. Then the plea to Prove the narrowness of view is childish.

Expand the view. That is the only thing that can prove the initial narrow.

Very difficult to find substance, if any, in the nature of most responses. Most of these responses are mired in personal ego. That is hardly the topic.


----------



## fb360 (Oct 23, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> HAHA. Man I am high. I feel like i'm catching retard in this thread.


Oh right man, we forgot, you are ever knowing, with a comprehension of physics that is unfathomable. Why don't you just tell us how the universe works, and unify gravity while you're at it buddy.


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 23, 2012)

fb360 said:


> I would LOVE for any of you to PROVE that my speculation of an advanced species not using our mathematics what so ever, to be completely, and utterly false. Do it.


First, you must prove to me that bigfoot is completely and utterly false. Now that the pointing out of the obvious problem with your closing statement has been done...

Please, prove to me how they could possibly avoid basic arithmetic if they have any sort of commerce. You can't have an inventory without addition and subtraction.


----------



## fb360 (Oct 23, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> First, you must prove to me that bigfoot is completely and utterly false. Now that the pointing out of the obvious problem with your closing statement has been done...
> 
> Please, prove to me how they could possibly avoid basic arithmetic if they have any sort of commerce. You can't have an inventory without addition and subtraction.


We already went through this.

Coin, paper and physical "currency" is a primitive human concept.

If you live off of energy, and you have an abundant form of energy, you don't need petty currency. I don't see how you could even project currency onto an intelligent species as it is given... No it isn't. Neither is arithmetic.

And my statement is so much different than your "analogy" lol... He was trying to TELL me that IT IS 100% IMPOSSIBLE to have an intelligent life form without physical form, as if he can scientifically prove it. I never once stated that it is CERTAIN to be true, rather, I speculated it COULD be true, much like your example. However, the Earth is a finite size, and a small finite size at that relative to the universe, which could be infinite, and could exist infinitely in parallel, who knows. Comparing speculation of bigfoot to the universe is silly.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 23, 2012)

fb360 said:


> He was trying to TELL me that IT IS 100% IMPOSSIBLE to have an intelligent life form without physical form


Liar, liar, pants on fire!


----------



## Doer (Oct 23, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> First, you must prove to me that bigfoot is completely and utterly false. Now that the pointing out of the obvious problem with your closing statement has been done...
> 
> Please, prove to me how they could possibly avoid basic arithmetic if they have any sort of commerce. You can't have an inventory without addition and subtraction.


Ridiculous sophistry. No one is proposing an alternate to human math. To try to slide the argument into fairy tail is punk, if you don't understand what sophistry is. Punk to suppose commerce is necessary. Punk to propose counting is necessary. Egocentric and exo-phobic.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 23, 2012)

You really love that word sophistry. Though i'm not sure you actually understand how to use it. There is nothing sneaky or deceptive about kpmarines response. I think he raises a very valid point; The burden of proof is with fb360, and he has not offered any alternative explanation.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 23, 2012)

The more I think about it, the more ludicrous your statement that it is punk to suppose commerce and counting are necessary becomes. It is beyond absurd to think any species could be what we consider "intelligent" would not have mastered basic things like counting.


----------



## Doer (Oct 23, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> You really love that word sophistry. Though i'm not sure you actually understand how to use it. There is nothing sneaky or deceptive about kpmarines response. I think he raises a very valid point; The burden of proof is with fb360, and he has not offered any alternative explanation.


That is the essence of Punk debate. (sophistry) It is false to suggest that there is suddenly a burden of proof on a subject such as this. False Argument. You don't know what sophistry is, actually? It's just a word. To big for you? Use Punk instead. No matter. Still a false substitution to produce a right-fight over a very stupid concept of proof, in this context.

You can't PROVE human math has any validity beyond human thought. So, therefore, for me to insist on holding you to the impossible standard, would be Punk or an exercise in Sophistry, if you will.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 23, 2012)

If anyone is using sophistry it is you. Stop referring to it as human math. It's just math. 1 + 1 = 2, and that is NOT unique to humans, which is the point.


----------



## Doer (Oct 23, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> The more I think about it, the more ludicrous your statement that it is punk to suppose commerce and counting are necessary becomes. It is beyond absurd to think any species could be what we consider "intelligent" would not have mastered basic things like counting.


You are just showing a lack of mastery of your ego sense. It is the argument that is punk. The call for proof, is punk.

Statements such as, "beyond absurd" "the more ludicrous" "mastered basic things" "what we consider intelligent....what? They may not consider us to be intelligent.... have you thought about that?

It is human math only. There is no intellectually honest way to refute that. It is human senses and human outlooks and human math. Ants seem to do PDG with no human math.

So, think again and honestly try to drop the one sided right-fight.


----------



## Doer (Oct 23, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> If anyone is using sophistry it is you. Stop referring to it as human math. It's just math. 1 + 1 = 2, and that is NOT unique to humans, which is the point.


You don't know that. Can't know that. So insisting that you do, is punk.

Humans are unique, sophist. Correct? So the only evidence is directly against your assertion.

Unique, Human only, math. You have not other datum. Or are you just trolling for argument?


----------



## Seedling (Oct 23, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> The more I think about it, the more ludicrous your statement that it is punk to suppose commerce and counting are necessary becomes. It is beyond absurd to think any species could be what we consider "intelligent" would not have mastered basic things like counting.


Do you consider dolphins intelligent? How about Chimps?


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 23, 2012)

Doer said:


> You are just showing a lack of mastery of your ego sense. It is the argument that is punk. The call for proof, is punk.
> 
> Statements such as, "beyond absurd" "the more ludicrous" "mastered basic things" "what we consider intelligent....what? They may not consider us to be intelligent.... have you thought about that?
> 
> ...


If they make contact with us, or become aware of our existence in any way, they MUST be utilizing some kind of technology. Almost certainly it will be using instruments, and the principals of math, to make measurements which are outside of their natural senses. They will, same as us, will come to the realization that their own personal senses are really just a small fraction of a larger spectrum. A larger spectrum that will still have universal fundamental properties, and be measurable and quantifiable.

I think it's presumptuous, and a bit ironic, that you think ants don't use math. Talk about a narrow egotistical view. Or the fact that you consider ants to be doing pretty darn good given the context of this discussion.


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 23, 2012)

fb360 said:


> We already went through this.
> 
> Coin, paper and physical "currency" is a primitive human concept.
> 
> ...


I said inventory. That's your collection of goods in a store. You sell one item in another part of the universe, you have to use basic arithmetic to track it. I made no mention of currency. You're answering a question I didn't ask.


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 23, 2012)

Doer said:


> Ridiculous sophistry. No one is proposing an alternate to human math. To try to slide the argument into fairy tail is punk, if you don't understand what sophistry is. Punk to suppose commerce is necessary. Punk to propose counting is necessary. Egocentric and exo-phobic.


I was pointing out the fact he asked someone to prove a negative. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. Take a course in reading comprehension, or something. 

There is no such thing as "human math". Whether I'm me, or an alien from some distant solar system, this applies: If I have one apple and Jimmy has one apple, and then Jimmy gives me his apple, I have two apples. Basic arithmetic is still in effect. They may not use the same base counting system, but the end result is unchanged. You're implying that math is not a constant, and that would mean it is subjective (At least from the way I'm reading you.). If math is subjective, then how does it keep working for everyone universally?


----------



## Doer (Oct 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Do you consider dolphins intelligent? How about Chimps?


Off point. Can you not even imagine that compared to "something," human might not appear intelligent? When we finally establish some sort of communication, if even possible, can we prove we are more intelligent than dolphins? We are very violent.

Will we even get a chance? All our measures of intelligence, when finally decoded, could easily be "understood" as dog tricks. These dogs. Another dog world.

This math they keep babbling about,...silly dogs. We see dogs like this all over, messing up their planet.

They might say....Can you imagine a species that has such low intellect that it can't do orbital mechanics in it's head. Has to write, EVERYTHING down??? Works from idealized Solids? Distances by this stupid triangle approach. Can only operate in causal spacetime? Sickening and disgusting.

They think bio-dog-evolution is the only way to intelligence? It is the only dead-end if the murder is any indication. They don't even think, just these mind barks.

Just read so more si-fi? It is we, who have no data point that our math is not just some cruel trick of nature, that we need it as a crutch.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 23, 2012)

Doer said:


> Ridiculous sophistry. No one is proposing an alternate to human math. *To try to slide the argument into fairy tail is punk*, if you don't understand what sophistry is. Punk to suppose commerce is necessary. Punk to propose counting is necessary. Egocentric and exo-phobic.


...and oddly homoerotic. cn


----------



## Doer (Oct 23, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> I was pointing out the fact he asked someone to prove a negative. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. Take a course in reading comprehension, or something.
> 
> There is no such thing as "human math". Whether I'm me, or an alien from some distant solar system, this applies: If I have one apple and Jimmy has one apple, and then Jimmy gives me his apple, I have two apples. Basic arithmetic is still in effect. They may not use the same base counting system, but the end result is unchanged. You're implying that math is not a constant, and that would mean it is subjective (At least from the way I'm reading you.). If math is subjective, then how does it keep working for everyone universally?


You are just making assertion ad nauseam. Brother, it is all Subjective. It is based solely on the senses of Our Unique HUMAN family. All we sense and figure out and can somewhat agree upon we call Objective Reality. We are not even born with an Objective Reality. We have to be taught based, only on our senses.

You can not postulate that our subjective, species based Consensual Objective Reality is, at all, Universal. No other datum. 

Just think about what you are saying. You have one, strictly Human only, data point. Now that is not even a graph or creates a baseline or a comparative picture of any kind. But, you want to claim it is universal.


----------



## Doer (Oct 23, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> ...and oddly homoerotic. cn


I love us too.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 23, 2012)

Doer said:


> You are just making assertion ad nauseam. Brother, it is all Subjective. It is based solely on the senses of Our Unique HUMAN family. All we sense and figure out and can somewhat agree upon we call Objective Reality. We are not even born with an Objective Reality. We have to be taught based, only on our senses.
> 
> You can not postulate that our subjective, species based Consensual Objective Reality is, at all, Universal. No other datum.
> 
> Just think about what you are saying. You have one, strictly Human only, data point. Now that is not even a graph or creates a baseline or a comparative picture of any kind. But, you want to claim it is universal.


Dude, our senses cover a very very limited spectrum of what's out there. The fact that we have discovered the math and extrapolated it to all parts of the spectrum that we don't see with the naked eye, and it works, proves that it is not based solely on our limited perspective. It in fact appears that the laws of physics are universal. And it appears that mathematics describes this. We can now detect things that are not based on our unique (ironically it's not unique to humans) senses. We can detect things so far off our human spectrum that it is unfathomable to us, but the math still works out.


----------



## Doer (Oct 23, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Dude, our senses cover a very very limited spectrum of what's out there. The fact that we have discovered the math and extrapolated it to all parts of the spectrum that we don't see with the naked eye, and it works, proves that it is not based solely on our limited perspective. It in fact appears that the laws of physics are universal. And it appears that mathematics describes this. We can now detect things that are not based on our unique (ironically it's not unique to humans) senses. We can detect things so far off our human spectrum that it is unfathomable to us, but the math still works out.


It certainly does appear that way. It appears that it can't be proved one way or another. We make our mathematics describe our world view. Stipulate.

The block, is the idea that it appears to be Universal....only to us. Simply, that we cannot imagine, is in no way a disqualify to me.

Do you get what I'm saying about data? You have no way to know if the Chrystal Sphere of Heavens, is not true. We could get out to an edge maybe, not even too far, maybe that is clear, yet, solid space. We get so smug in our assumptions. But, there is no way to know that we are not ultimately looking at inside edge of the Singularity we are in. 

It only appears to be. That is actually quite the scientific view. Until, at least, one more thinking creature is discovered; And we can communicate; And if it can even learn math, much less HAS math, only then, will there be the second datum. And then I can, hey, maybe math is Universal, but need more data.


----------

