Is Time An Illusion?

[Doer]

No point for the pointless. I'm not trying to be right. Puzzling isn't it.
I see no need to explain the un-explainable. In the nature of the
thread title, I'm tying together a little thought puzzle.

I'm not making anything up. I'm stoned. I ramble. Don't you?

All this is ripped from the current peer-review journals. I'm just
putting it together to ponder, or not. Your discrediting tone is of only passing interest. This may well appear as swine pearls to some. <yawn> Or true pearls to others.

There are those that ramble, perhaps as you see it, and yet, create ripples of understanding, that perhaps even you will perceive thru those other perceptive channels I mentioned.

 

[Heisenberg]

How many of us posting in here actually have a degree in physics or some form of science?

I have a GED and nothing more. You do not need a degree in academics to appreciate carefulness, thoroughness, consistent logic and systematic doubt. You do not need a teacher to be accurately informed about the world. You simply need a sense of humble discovery and a brain that does not forgive itself laziness and mistakes. You need to make the best effort to 'know', not just the best effort at pretending you know.

FS is anything but humble. None of us comes fully equipped to make accurate statements about the world. FS not only forgives himself mistakes, he embraces them with the perception that it makes him uniquely smart. He is concerned with convincing himself and others that these mistakes are legitimate thought, without caring if they really are. He punctuates this practice of self-grandeur with deranged laughter trying to give the impression that those pointing out these mistakes are a source of comedy. As if these things were self evident, yet when asked to simply point to these evidences, he is unable to do more than post a video and stumble through some poorly thought out and ill-informed mental masturbation. The best he can do is say "hey look, other people made these mistakes, I am simply misunderstanding and misrepresenting them further".

To those of us with actual pride, this pretense is quite transparent.

Isn't it interesting that science does not need to rely on any of these tricks? Science is not laughing at the uninformed. Science does not engage in derisive special pleading. Science does not insult or belittle when challenged. If science is accused of a mistake, it makes every attempt to identify, document and acknowledge that mistake. If science took your attitude FS, we would all be making our houses out of mud and treating our children's disease with magnets.

Every time you post an "LOL", every time you point to a video to give the illusion of explaining yourself, every time you answer a challenge with insult, you are only demonstrating how unconcerned you are with science, progress and accurate knowledge. Most of us are here for productive adult discussions about how to view the world, we are not interested in your attempts to elevate yourself to a status of 'smart'. Smart does not come from the things you know, but by the way in which you go about knowing them.

"If an outsider perceives 'something wrong' with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider should be to ask 'what mistake am I making?' before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong." - David Brin

 

[Doer]

Science is vicious circle. A hell of a career choice. Cold fusion? You have to choose early,
and suffer the indegnity of peer review, often. You think it hard for us laymen to communicate. These folks have to publish or perish. They have to underestand the
math. So, de-bunk black holes? Be my guest. When you get through Enstein's tensor
mathmatics, let me know. Here is an example. Dark Matter.

You are observing galactic rotation. You see an interesting thing. Call the National
Enquirer? Jump on a forum? NO. Measure and study, look farther. It's impossible,
all right. Prepare a detailed (it better be good) summary of why you think what you
are seeing is impossible. Have all your colleges laugh at you. Pretty soon, if someone
can't reproduce your result you are Cold Fusion Charlie.

But, when the results can be measured and verified, you get a raise, in terms of more
grant money.

What was found that was so impossible? The edge speed of rotating galaxies are moving
too fast. Impossible.

But, why? Make something up. Dark Matter.

See that the universe is accelerating it's expansion? Dark Energy.

Nothing is known about those, but it's the only plausible explanation
in our CURRENT understanding. Popular science is beginning to say
it's real. That's all.

 

[eye exaggerate]

Steady State Sex. All is sex, something about tension and coupling. (...and not so much like google-able porn) Suppose you could say life is like a long orgasm, followed by that 'ash' experience.

Dike eris, "strife is justice"

If objects are new from moment to moment so that one can never touch the same object twice, then each object must dissolve and be generated continually momentarily and an object is a harmony between a building up and a tearing down. Heraclitus calls the oppositional processes eris, "strife", and hypothesizes that the apparently stable state, dikê, or "justice," is a harmony of it: We must know that war (polemos) is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily.

As Diogenes explains:

All things come into being by conflict of opposites, and the sum of things (ta hola, "the whole") flows like a stream. In the bow metaphor Heraclitus compares the resultant to a strung bow held in shape by an equilibrium of the string tension and spring action of the bow: There is a harmony in the bending back (palintropos) as in the case of the bow and the lyre.

 

[Doer]

A telescope has several lenses. What if we could line up a pair of gravity lens and take a
look? http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/11/gravitational-lens-lets-hubble-zoom-in-on-matter-swirling-into-black-hole.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

Microlensing, when individual stars in the host galaxy pass between us and the quasar in the background, acting as a second lens and magnifying a small portion of the image. With this microlensing, the authors were able to actually detect the size of the accretion disk of the quasar (between four and 11 light days across) and get some information about the light being emitted from different regions of it. Since light emissions are proportional to temperature, this provides the clearest picture yet of the conditions inside the accretion disk.

 

[Doer]

Dike eris, "strife is justice"

If objects are new from moment to moment so that one can never touch the same object twice, then each object must dissolve and be generated continually momentarily and an object is a harmony between a building up and a tearing down. Heraclitus calls the oppositional processes eris, "strife", and hypothesizes that the apparently stable state, dikê, or "justice," is a harmony of it: We must know that war (polemos) is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily.

As Diogenes explains:

All things come into being by conflict of opposites, and the sum of things (ta hola, "the whole") flows like a stream. In the bow metaphor Heraclitus compares the resultant to a strung bow held in shape by an equilibrium of the string tension and spring action of the bow: There is a harmony in the bending back (palintropos) as in the case of the bow and the lyre.

In the East, this is called Yin and Yang. It's never portrayed without a bit of one insides
the other. Cheers

 

[Finshaggy]

Ok, maybe something from a neutron star. I'll accept that.
But tell me how you know what happens in a black hole?
Explain the process, what happens inside...LOL LOL
If you feel like you CAN describe it, you're crazy.

That's a meaningless question, there is no 'inside' of a superdense star. What you seem to be asking is what is inside of the Schwarzschild radius.

Lol. No Scharzschild is a goof. I wouldn't ask for anything about him or his thoughts.

 

[Finshaggy]

And if a black hole DOES exist. There will be an OUTSIDE and an INSIDE.

Are you OUTSIDE of a black hole right now. Or have you ENTERED to become INSIDE it.
I didn't mean like an "inner layer" or anything.

 

[researchkitty]

And if a black hole DOES exist. There will be an OUTSIDE and an INSIDE.

Are you OUTSIDE of a black hole right now. Or have you ENTERED to become INSIDE it.
I didn't mean like an "inner layer" or anything.

We're outside of one, as if we were inside we'd be all squished together as one mass filling space.

 

[Finshaggy]

We're outside of one, as if we were inside we'd be all squished together as one mass filling space.

If they exist we are outside of one. So yes I agree, that was my point. He said there was no "inside".
But if they existed there would be a reference of, "I am inside"/"I am outside" of the black hole.

 

[mindphuk]

And if a black hole DOES exist. There will be an OUTSIDE and an INSIDE.

Are you OUTSIDE of a black hole right now. Or have you ENTERED to become INSIDE it.
I didn't mean like an "inner layer" or anything.

The sun exists. Are you able to go 'inside' the sun? Are you really so stupid to think a black hole is actually a hole?

 

[Finshaggy]

The sun exists. Are you able to go 'inside' the sun? Are you really so stupid to think a black hole is actually a hole?

You can go "In the sun". I bet asteroids fall in the sun all the time.

And no, I don't believe in black holes. We've been over this part.

 

[Finshaggy]

Wanna help someone choose their seeds?
Here:
https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/484273-0callis-seed-strain-review-poll.html

 

[mindphuk]

You can go "In the sun". I bet asteroids fall in the sun all the time.

And no, I don't believe in black holes. We've been over this part.

Now you are trying to twist the words to make them fit. Into the sun != inside the sun. You said "enter" a black hole as if it was an opening.

I'm sure black holes don't believe in you either.

 

[Finshaggy]

Now you are trying to twist the words to make them fit. Into the sun != inside the sun. You said "enter" a black hole as if it was an opening.

I'm sure black holes don't believe in you either.

If you go INTO the sun you are INSIDE the sun.

You can enter a room that has no door. And the sun doesn't open for an asteroid to enter.

 

[researchkitty]

If they exist we are outside of one. So yes I agree, that was my point. He said there was no "inside".
But if they existed there would be a reference of, "I am inside"/"I am outside" of the black hole.

Why dont you think black holes exist? I am a firm believer that not everyone will believe the most popular theories. It doesnt make you a nutjob but when you dont provide any insight to why or any alternatives, its tough to have a conversation about theory.........

You can go "In the sun". I bet asteroids fall in the sun all the time.

And no, I don't believe in black holes. We've been over this part.

Mostly no, asteroids dont fall into the sun...... They are generally content to stay in their belt between Mars and Jupiter. Jupiters mass is so large that if any get knocked out of the path, it takes the brunt of it. We've even observed this with telescopes of multiple astroid impacts on Jupiter. We've never observed any object impacting the sun (yet). Probably one of the reasons for this is that by the time any asteroid got close to the sun, the sun (which is one million times larger than Earth) would melt the tiny little asteroid and vaporize it before it *could* impact the Sun.

After all, asteroids are just the resi-poo from when the Sun was originally formed and started its nuclear process.......

If you go INTO the sun you are INSIDE the sun.

You can enter a room that has no door. And the sun doesn't open for an asteroid to enter.

The sun doesnt need to open a door for the asteroid, it radiates so much heat the asteroid *cant* get in.

Of course then considering angular momentum, an astroid wouldnt actually impact the sun if it was cold either, unless it was aimed directly at the sun. Since angular momentum must be conserved, generally the astroid will "miss" and be slingshotted back out.

 

[Finshaggy]

Why dont you think black holes exist? I am a firm believer that not everyone will believe the most popular theories. It doesnt make you a nutjob but when you dont provide any insight to why or any alternatives, its tough to have a conversation about theory.........



Mostly no, asteroids dont fall into the sun...... They are generally content to stay in their belt between Mars and Jupiter. Jupiters mass is so large that if any get knocked out of the path, it takes the brunt of it. We've even observed this with telescopes of multiple astroid impacts on Jupiter. We've never observed any object impacting the sun (yet). Probably one of the reasons for this is that by the time any asteroid got close to the sun, the sun (which is one million times larger than Earth) would melt the tiny little asteroid and vaporize it before it *could* impact the Sun.

After all, asteroids are just the resi-poo from when the Sun was originally formed and started its nuclear process.......



The sun doesnt need to open a door for the asteroid, it radiates so much heat the asteroid *cant* get in.

Of course then considering angular momentum, an astroid wouldnt actually impact the sun if it was cold either, unless it was aimed directly at the sun. Since angular momentum must be conserved, generally the astroid will "miss" and be slingshotted back out.

I have provided reasons why...Read back.


Whatever, I bet stuff does fall INTO the sun. And when it falls IN the sun, it is INSIDE the sun.
Stuff COULD fall in Earth too, but in that case it would have to open, as the earth has a crust. But stuff can go inside of massive Planets and stars and such.

I NEVER said it OPENS anything.

The asteroid would probably just hit the surface, and mold INTO the sun, kinda like osmosis.

And I'm talking about ones that DO hit, as all of that was just an EXAMPLE for something else.

 

[researchkitty]

Whatever, I bet stuff does fall INTO the sun. And when it falls IN the sun, it is INSIDE the sun.
Stuff COULD fall in Earth too, but in that case it would have to open, as the earth has a crust. But stuff can go inside of massive Planets and stars and such.

I NEVER said it OPENS anything.

The asteroid would probably just hit the surface, and mold INTO the sun, kinda like osmosis.

And I'm talking about ones that DO hit, as all of that was just an EXAMPLE for something else.

Then you bet wrong. There's also a problem with how you define something impacting Earth, as soon as its in the atmosphere, it's in Earth! The way you describe it you think a rock has to swing open. The Earth also has a lot of water, what happens if it hits that? Is that "in" the Earth?

And in order to get past the Earths crust, it just has to be an object larger than roughly 1 Kilometer to penetrate it. The impact does the rest. No door, no bathrooms inside. Sorry.

 

[cannabineer]

The latest posts put me in mind of the Kreutz sungrazers. Not quite a solar impact, but close enough to score major coolness points imo. cn

 

[Finshaggy]

Then you bet wrong. There's also a problem with how you define something impacting Earth, as soon as its in the atmosphere, it's in Earth! The way you describe it you think a rock has to swing open. The Earth also has a lot of water, what happens if it hits that? Is that "in" the Earth?

And in order to get past the Earths crust, it just has to be an object larger than roughly 1 Kilometer to penetrate it. The impact does the rest. No door, no bathrooms inside. Sorry.

You said yourself if it went directly at the sun, it would go in.

In the earth would be below the surface of the Earth, so underwater would be a grey area, but I'd say no, that's not "in" that is still "on".

Well then a 1Killometer object wouldn't need help...great.