| Author | Message | ||
     Sami |
Jeff: We don’t know what, if anything, is outside our universe. I’m not sure we can know. But I’m betting God exists out there, or how could He have made this universe? How could He have existed before the universe? The very fact that the universe appears to have a boundary answers the atheist “gotcha” question of how God could have created something from nothing if He couldn’t have existed before there was something. He existed before this universe because He exists outside of it. Perhaps He created many universes. That, too, is theorized. Einstein once said “The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” Something cannot expand into nothing, because nothing does not exist. The whole notion of expanding spacetime is philosophically nonsensical. Einstein was a poor philosopher, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with relativity. God exists, but He doesn't exist ''out there'' in the universe. God exists outside of time and space, because He created time and space.} (Message edited by Sami on April 11, 2020) | ||
| Court |
>>>> “Indeed. If you move with 60mph away from me and I move with 60mph away from you, then we move 120mph away from each other.“ Careful | ||
| Sami |
How so? | ||
| Aesquire |
I still don't understand your GPS argument. Can you explain how getting different clock readings by radio signal and calculating your 3D location by how far away each one is, shows other than an invariant Speed Of Light? I don't insist on the math, the "thought experiment" word problem version will do. I could care less about consensus. And a variable Speed of light would be nifty for the future of space travel. I'm too old to get a ride to Wolf 359, but still. And I'm well aware Orthodoxy, aka heresy trials for all who dissent on the establishment model, is rampant in Science. ( carefully chosen phrase to avoid common obscenity ) For example, the Neutrinos have mass theory is the Orthodoxy, but is the demand of the same folk who predicted Wall Street would be only navigable by boat decades ago. See Supernova 1987a!!! https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184879-einstei nian-error-the-25-year-old-supernova-that-could-ch ange-the-speed-of-light-forever Also, it's "unfair" that I post articles supporting what might be "your side" in this, when you haven't! ( wah! Unfair!  ) Gps???? Assertion of an idea without explanation is a bit too much like insisting using a Bible version other than a dead King's vanity project condemns one to Hell. | ||
| Sami |
Patric, but I have provided explanations and papers. Kindly see the links to Ronald Hatch's paper ''Those scandalous clocks'' and the other YouTube videos by David de Hilster. | ||
| Sami |
Also, it's "unfair" that I post articles supporting what might be "your side" in this, when you haven't! ( wah! Unfair! ; ) ) Your wish is my command, behold from none other than Wikipedia, the mother lode of all scientific consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_(gene ral_concept) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_th e_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus _on_climate_change (Message edited by Sami on April 11, 2020) | ||
| Aesquire |
Ah! Thank you! Missed the clock paper. I've tended to prefer the Lorentz Ether Theory in several ways. ( not least of which is my desire to be an Arch Heretic like my movie hero Thodin. ( played by Barry Bostwick ) ) My Bacon quote was to point out that the separation of faith and science is far more a matter of politics than reality. Many of the greatest scientists in history were men & women of deep faith. Jewish, Christian, and Greek polytheism. ( Although some may argue Pythagoras was a mere engineer.  ) And personally, I have no problems with spooky spirituality out past the bounds of human understanding, although Blake & I differ on the meaning of "the God of the gaps". I can't say who's more optimistic or cynical on that... The Global Conning movement, aka Give us power over you because of a manufactured crisis Marxist lie, certainly shows godless dishonesty, but not every person of science is a prostitute for despotic funding. | ||
| Aesquire |
So... 2 competing theories, Special Relativity & Lorentz Ether. For practical purposes either lets you navigate. How local local is may be the deciding factor in determining which is more correct. | ||
| Sami |
There are more than 2 competing theories, it just happens that relativity and Lorentz ether are popular. Ronald Hatch was a Lorentzian, but so was Einstein. Einstein had to incorporate Lorentzian transformations into his general relativity, even saying that GR is unthinkable without the ether (I provided the quote where he said that earlier). I'm neither a relativist nor a Lorentzian. The reason why I provided the paper is for purposes of showing that the speed of light is not constant as is often claimed by relativists. Which is more correct? Neither, because both are ad hoc. Science is faith-based, sometimes it operates on good faith, but it often does not as evidenced by the reproducibility crisis. | ||
| Hootowl |
“ Something cannot expand into nothing” That is because we cannot imagine anything beyond our physical universe. That doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. This will be my last post on this topic. I don’t see the point of arguing with friends over something like this. None of us know the Truth, and it’s unlikely to get sussed out in this forum. Be well, friends. | ||
| Sami |
It isn't a question of imagining things, but a question of what is logically and metaphysically possible. Expansion into nothingness is incoherent. Ex nihilo nihil fit. If there is nothing to expand into, then expanding into nothing makes no sense. There has to be something for the universe to expand into, otherwise expansion becomes meaningless. Of course we can know the truth, John 8:32 anyone? We know that 2+2=4 is true, don't we? We know that a squared circle is impossible. There are truths that we know. But there are also truths that we don't know, such as whether or not Epstein killed himself. That, my friends, we may never know. | ||
| Tpehak |
I think things can move faster than speed of light, but we just can not observe them if they move at such fast speed because of light or electromagnetic waves speed measuring tools use can not travel faster than speed of light and as result we can not detect such speed. | ||
| Sami |
Tpehak, we can and have measured faster than light speed. GPS satellites are evidence of that, because they are programmed with c-v and c+v equations. If speed of light is constant, then there would be no need for such equations. | ||
| Sami |
The Number One Problem in Science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQyjIO5hFg | ||
| Hootowl |
Okay, damnit, last post. https://www.technologyreview.com/2011/10/14/190707 /faster-than-light-neutrino-puzzle-claimed-solved- by-special-relativity/ Bottom line, if you think you’ve observed something traveling faster than light, you’ve overlooked something. | ||
| Sami |
Ronald van Elburg (from your article) uses special relativity. However, GPS satellites are in acceleration, so it makes no sense to use special relativity in that case. His argument is faulty from the start, because special relativity does not deal with acceleration. Here's more on why SR is wrong: Why Special Relativity is Wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p-61TFsGCA | ||
| Aesquire |
Of course the universe expands into nothing. What else? A bubble inside a gigantic Chick e Cheese? Past the echo of the Big Bang, ( or The Word, if you prefer ) is unknown. We just call it nothing because tiny limited critters are uncomfortable with uncertainty. If I can get the engineering results I need with Newton, I use Newton. If I got the results with Lysenko... But you don't. Myself, I'm comfortable with uncertainty. My ego doesn't demand I lie to myself that I know all. I've learned to distrust those who claim certainty. Not all who do so are deliberately lying. But the obvious many who are lying to steal absolutely exist. Observe that the most powerful who insist the Oceans will rise and wipe out all today's beaches bought beach front mansions AFTER they got richer lying about the subject. They don't believe, or they'd have spent their ill gotten gains inland. I also judge intent by the willingness to admit imperfection. And that requires the self awareness of imperfection, as well as the repeated observations of disproven models and claims. Newton wasn't completely wrong. Just incomplete. I can use his equations and get useful answers unless I move beyond the scope of his SCALE of thought. The wings I have built did not fold under the forces encountered so far. ( not all my acquaintances were so fortunate ) I can't use Newton to describe the turbulence that lifts my glider. That takes Chaos theory. And it's not a complete answer because it can't predict the next thermal. But it's correct that I can't either. ( There's a circular reasoning cheat, eh? ) I don't need Special Relativity to soar in our atmosphere. It must be considered if I'm navigating a Solar sail. And if a different theory will give me the math to miss a comet and arrive where I can get air, I'll use that one. I'm a slut for usefulness. You think the speed of light is a complex subject? Hah! Get engineers arguing about how an airplane flies! Bernoulli is reviled! Flames! Ego! Condemnations to nether realms! ( I'm a total vector of induced flow field guy, based on watching smoke in wind tunnels, and snow in free flight. Pragmatic, am I. ) And for real fury... Counter Steering!!!!!! | ||
| Aesquire |
"Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad. Are you sure your circuits are registering correctly? Your ears are green." | ||
| Sami |
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. What if I told you that there was no Big Bang? Did the big bang really happen? https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18625061-80 0-did-the-big-bang-really-happen/ No Big Bang, no expansion of the universe. Man is a creature of habit. We accept the Big Bang out of habit, not out of necessity. There is nothing necessary about the Big Bang. It's just a model, and like all models it's replaceable. We shouldn't confuse the model for reality. The Big Bang model is no better than climate change models. | ||
| Aesquire |
Sure it's better! No one is demanding my money to stop the expansion of the universe. Yet. | ||
| Sami |
Expansion cools the universe down. This proves climate change is real. Expansion entails dark matter and dark energy. You can't have the one without the other. | ||
| Sami |
Here's a paper by Richard Lieu critical of the assumptions in cosmology: CDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence? https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.2462v1.pdf | ||
| Sami |
Here's another paper mentioning three explanations for the assumed expansion, one of which being that general relativity is incorrect: 3.The theoretical basis for this equation, GR or the standard cosmological model, is incorrect. Any of these three explanations would require fundamental revision to the underpinning theories of physics. It is of great interest to determine which of these three explanations is correct. REPORT OF THE DARK ENERGY TASK FORCE https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609591.pdf | ||
| Sami |
Why Einstein's Thought Experiments are Impossible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz3hjGu9JGw | ||
| Tpehak |
Time does not exist, it is an illusion our brain casts. | ||
| Hootowl |
Time is an illusion. Lunch time doubly so. | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, Counter steering!? Best discussion on it ever?... http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/496 363/10238.html | ||
| Sami |
I like the humor here. Sometimes it doesn't come across as one intended, but that comes with the digital territory. Truth fears no investigation and seeking it is fun. If you take one step towards truth, truth will take ten steps towards you. The first step is the hardest to take, but God will take you by the hand because God is the truth, the way and the life. All we have to do is to trust Him, especially during hard times. Speaking of, what is time? Is it an illusion? First, we have to explain what we mean by time. Time and the experience of time are related, but not identical. In physics, time is often treated as a dimension, but this understanding of time as a dimension is not the end of the story. The reason why time is treated as a dimension in physics is because we can easily plot it on the x-axis of a graph. That is to say, it is mathematically convenient to treat time as a dimension. But we should not take conventions for truth, or we get into serious trouble. So what is time? Time, to paraphrase the ancients, is the measure of change. That's all to it, really. Time is the measure of matter changing in space. If matter did not change in space, then there would be no time (duh). Time should not be treated as a ''thing out there'', but rather as a measure of things changing in space. Taken as such, time is not an illusion, because change is not an illusion. Change is real, and therefore time is real. Change is what gives meaning to time. Without change, there would be no time. Hopefully reading this wasn't a waste of your time. It made sense when I typed it. | ||
| Tpehak |
Time is human way to predict things. Like if you have watches you know that Sun will be at the same angle after watches mechanism will have counted 24 hours. Or if you have meeting at 5 PM you know when your watches will show 5 PM there will be people in the meeting place, etc. But if you mean time also has past, present and future - it is wrong, time does not have such properties because of each configuration of the universe always exists, it is just your brain shows you one configuration at time, this configuration human call present. Some configurations brain keeps in the memory, this configurations humans call past. And some configurations brain does not show to people, this is what humans call future. And there is the reason why humans do not see "future" - this brain property is product of natural selection because of if humans or any another creatures would be able to see "future" humans would see everything including the fact that life or any another universe phenomenons exist forever and there is no special reason or motivation to be alive and do what they are doing. Another words humans or any another creatures would not be able to evolve or survive or be alive due to they would understand everything which would cause fatalism and such creatures would be basically wiped off by natural selection. So our illusions (including illusion of time) and limited ability to understand and see the universe are properties of our brain which help us to have motivation and reason to stay alive. (Message edited by TPEHAK on April 13, 2020) | ||
| Aesquire |
Check out the movie Arrival, and you kinda have to watch the whole thing at one sitting, so make some popcorn. |
