Is Time An Illusion?

[Finshaggy]

unless it was aimed directly at the sun. \

Right here.

 

[Finshaggy]

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.

I forgot to add to this.

My whole point was that there is an "Inside" and "Outside" in reference to the black hole...IF it's real. But they "can't be discovered".

 

[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.

I'm not even gonna rep back at your back stepping and stupidity.
Just point it out instead.

 

[eye exaggerate]

..........

 

[researchkitty]

I forgot to add to this.

My whole point was that there is an "Inside" and "Outside" in reference to the black hole...IF it's real. But they "can't be discovered".

That's called the Event Horizon. It is the point of which no light can pass out of once entered. If you dont understand it after reading about it, also look up Light Cones and how light cones and spacetime are woven together.......

 

[eye exaggerate]

..........

 

[mindphuk]

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.

Are you assuming the object survives it's journey toward the sun or do you include being ripped apart and vaporized, atom by atom also being 'inside' the sun? I'm going to stop here because this sidetrack has is no longer on topic and it sounds like you're arguing just to argue. You don't even believe that black holes can exist yet you argue about what it means to be inside one when honestly, if something falls toward a black hole, not only do it's atoms get ripped apart but the electrons and nucleus also get separated and merely add mass to the black hole. If this is what you mean by going inside one, then yes, you can go inside. To all other humans, inside the actual star at the center of the black hole is meaningless unless you are just talking about crossing the event horizon.

 

[Finshaggy]

That's called the Event Horizon. It is the point of which no light can pass out of once entered. If you dont understand it after reading about it, also look up Light Cones and how light cones and spacetime are woven together.......

Theoretically. Based on math, not anything anyone has ever seen.

 

[Finshaggy]

Are you assuming the object survives it's journey toward the sun or do you include being ripped apart and vaporized, atom by atom also being 'inside' the sun? I'm going to stop here because this sidetrack has is no longer on topic and it sounds like you're arguing just to argue. You don't even believe that black holes can exist yet you argue about what it means to be inside one when honestly, if something falls toward a black hole, not only do it's atoms get ripped apart but the electrons and nucleus also get separated and merely add mass to the black hole. If this is what you mean by going inside one, then yes, you can go inside. To all other humans, inside the actual star at the center of the black hole is meaningless unless you are just talking about crossing the event horizon.

Yes I was assuming the object makes it all the way to the sun, since in the case of a black hole it would be "Pulled in" and my comparison of "in" and "out" was essentially about black holes, and how if they existed, they would exist with the same rules as any other mass. You could be inside, or outside it.
Not "Center" of the black hole. Just "within" itself, but more than "within it's gravitational pull".
But this is ALL theoretical, just like black holes.

I will talk about black holes "In theory", but I will not agree when someone says they are real.

 

[Finshaggy]

Thread: Is Time An Illusion?
Your the dumbest motherfucker on RIU. LOL.
11-06-2011 07:09 PM
researchkitty

This was rep^^^^^^^^^^



Ok... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

While insulting my intelligence... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
You misspelled "You're"

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

LMFAO


Free rep and a laugh. Thanks.

 

[mindphuk]

Yes I was assuming the object makes it all the way to the sun, since in the case of a black hole it would be "Pulled in" and my comparison of "in" and "out" was essentially about black holes, and how if they existed, they would exist with the same rules as any other mass. You could be inside, or outside it.
Not "Center" of the black hole. Just "within" itself, but more than "within it's gravitational pull".
But this is ALL theoretical, just like black holes.

I will talk about black holes "In theory", but I will not agree when someone says they are real.

So are we back to the fact that science never proves anything? You still have a layman's understanding of the word theory. It is still theory that microorganisms can cause disease, it is still a theory that the force of magnetism is carried by photons, it is still a theory that the sun is the center of our solar system. When something is predicted by mathematics, then observations match the math, what do you propose we do? Yes, black holes are theoretical but that doesn't make them imaginary. Unless you have alternate explanations for what we see and measure in binary star systems where one star is not emitting any EM radiation except jets of x-rays perpendicular to an accretion disc, we shall continue to call them black holes. Unless you have an explanation for the extreme speeds some stars in our own galactic center that appear to be orbiting 4.1 million solar masses in with a diameter less than 7 light hours yet gives out no visible light, we shall continue to accept there is a black hole there too. Denying they exist because they can't be seen is stupidity at it's highest order and that you can scrounge on youtube finding the one fringe scientist that also thinks there are no black holes does not make you sound smart, it makes you look like the guy pretending to be smart because he holds all of the contrarian views on gravity and time and black holes. The fact that you aren't currently working in the field of physics gives your opinion absolutely no weight or validity and pretending it is more than a misguided opinion is why so many people here have concluded what you say is nonsense.
Have a nice day.

 

[Finshaggy]

So are we back to the fact that science never proves anything? You still have a layman's understanding of the word theory. It is still theory that microorganisms can cause disease, it is still a theory that the force of magnetism is carried by photons, it is still a theory that the sun is the center of our solar system. When something is predicted by mathematics, then observations match the math, what do you propose we do? Yes, black holes are theoretical but that doesn't make them imaginary. Unless you have alternate explanations for what we see and measure in binary star systems where one star is not emitting any EM radiation except jets of x-rays perpendicular to an accretion disc, we shall continue to call them black holes. Unless you have an explanation for the extreme speeds some stars in our own galactic center that appear to be orbiting 4.1 million solar masses in with a diameter less than 7 light hours yet gives out no visible light, we shall continue to accept there is a black hole there too. Denying they exist because they can't be seen is stupidity at it's highest order and that you can scrounge on youtube finding the one fringe scientist that also thinks there are no black holes does not make you sound smart, it makes you look like the guy pretending to be smart because he holds all of the contrarian views on gravity and time and black holes. The fact that you aren't currently working in the field of physics gives your opinion absolutely no weight or validity and pretending it is more than a misguided opinion is why so many people here have concluded what you say is nonsense.
Have a nice day.

Again as I have said before.
I agree there is something massive than can be seen on a telescope, and it has extreme gravity.

But NO ONE knows what it actually is, because they can't really see it.

To use math to figure it all out is whimsical. It's just imaginary when you do it that way.
There IS math, but that doesn't make it any more than a hope, or dream.

 

[mindphuk]

Again as I have said before.
I agree there is something massive than can be seen on a telescope, and it has extreme gravity.

But NO ONE knows what it actually is, because they can't really see it.

To use math to figure it all out is whimsical. It's just imaginary when you do it that way.
There IS math, but that doesn't make it any more than a hope, or dream.

Yea, sure, whatever you say...

So we can see there are dark, massive objects that behave and appear to be everything that math tells us how black holes should appear and behave but no one knows what it really is? When something conforms to math, it makes it more likely not less. Math is the language of the universe. If you don't accept math can predict and describe the cosmos, then you don't accept Einstein or Feynman or Newton for that matter. So there are really massive things that are black (emit no light) and they conform to every prediction made about black holes, what do you propose we call them? Why do these objects behave as predicted a black hole would, including their mass, size, x-ray jets being emitted from something is black in every other wavelength?
Why are you so concerned about what can be seen? As has been demonstrated time and again is that direct observation is not necessary to demonstrate something as true. You totally ignored the other points in my post about things we can't see but still accept because indirect observation and inductive logic. I'm sure there is no one that has seen an electron but I would bet you don't doubt they exist. No one has seen an beta particle but I bet I couldn't get you to carry around a chunk of uranium for a day.

I think it's more likely that your understanding of science is whimsical, a hope and a dream. You really should quit posting as you keep digging yourself deeper.

 

[Finshaggy]

Yea, sure, whatever you say...

So we can see there are dark, massive objects that behave and appear to be everything that math tells us how black holes should appear and behave but no one knows what it really is? When something conforms to math, it makes it more likely not less. Math is the language of the universe. If you don't accept math can predict and describe the cosmos, then you don't accept Einstein or Feynman or Newton for that matter. So there are really massive things that are black (emit no light) and they conform to every prediction made about black holes, what do you propose we call them? Why do these objects behave as predicted a black hole would, including their mass, size, x-ray jets being emitted from something is black in every other wavelength?
Why are you so concerned about what can be seen? As has been demonstrated time and again is that direct observation is not necessary to demonstrate something as true. You totally ignored the other points in my post about things we can't see but still accept because indirect observation and inductive logic. I'm sure there is no one that has seen an electron but I would bet you don't doubt they exist. No one has seen an beta particle but I bet I couldn't get you to carry around a chunk of uranium for a day.

I think it's more likely that your understanding of science is whimsical, a hope and a dream. You really should quit posting as you keep digging yourself deeper.

Not EVERYTHING in math agrees. In that point you are wrong. Yes there are massive "Black spots" not necessarily "Objects".

Math does make things more likely, but not true.
We count in 10's, this is because we have 10 fingers and toes. NOT because that is the way "Math works"
We use human Earth math, which has been proven over and over to be flawed, and has been corrected. And will again be corrected over and over.

You are right, I do not apply those mens thoeries to all of the universe all of the time, because they had no more perspective than "An Earth being".

We don't know how they behave exactly. We can see some stuff in some places that suggests things.

Because it can not be seen, and even astrophysicists from NASA say that means it can't be "Discovered".

 

[Heisenberg]

Not EVERYTHING in math agrees. In that point you are wrong. Yes there are massive "Black spots" not necessarily "Objects".

Math does make things more likely, but not true.
We count in 10's, this is because we have 10 fingers and toes. NOT because that is the way "Math works"
We use human Earth math, which has been proven over and over to be flawed, and has been corrected. And will again be corrected over and over.

You are right, I do not apply those mens thoeries to all of the universe all of the time, because they had no more perspective than "An Earth being".

We don't know how they behave exactly. We can see some stuff in some places that suggests things.

Because it can not be seen, and even astrophysicists from NASA say that means it can't be "Discovered".

You just reiterated all your ill-informed points again, as if they had not been properly refuted. The quote with the word 'discovered' which you seem fascinated with has been shown to be out of context, and in fact mean the opposite. It means that we are unlikely to 'stumble' across black holes without first consciously looking for them. They can't be accidentally discovered, they have to be purposely found. The only way we can purposely find something that can not be found accidentally is to predict them with math and thoery. This means you have argued for pages and pages about your misunderstanding of a quote who's meaning is obvious to everyone else. You admit there is something there that conforms to what we think of as black holes, but they aren't really black holes. One time you argued with someone about this and thought you won, and now you are unwilling to give up the 'smart' feeling by admitting you were mistaken. The best thing you can think to say is that humans impose human thinking onto the universe, as if we could do anything but, and as if that means anything pertinent. You either do not understand the fundamental truths of the universe, or else you understand them to the point of being a theoretical physicist. Since you have demonstrated that you don't possess quantitative aptitude beyond simple arithmetic, I have to doubt you are qualified to do anything except stand in the park with tin foil on your head and scream into a plastic bag.

Your sort of attitude, speculation, comments and thoughts are useless to science and of questionable use to anyone else besides the makers of straight jackets.

 

[researchkitty]

So you agree there are heavy dense objects out there that we cant see, and since e=mc2, the heaviest of those objects will not allow light to escape them, thus, being a black hole.

Congrats on proving our point.

 

[Doer]

Leonard Suskind seems to be saying we are in a black hole, but because of time dilation we don't know it yet. The bet he won with Hawkins has
Leonard" math prevailing at present. It's saying we are in a quantum holigram projected from outside this "universe."

This bet was on how information is not lost. It only represents a 3D space but on a 2D event horizon. All the information being smeared across the 2D edge of our
universe.

 

[tyler.durden]

Leonard Suskind seems to be saying we are in a black hole, but because of time dilation we don't know it yet. The bet he won with Hawkins has
Leonard" math prevailing at present. It's saying we are in a quantum holigram projected from outside this "universe."

This bet was on how information is not lost. It only represents a 3D space but on a 2D event horizon. All the information being smeared across the 2D edge of our
universe.

On the last episode of Nova, Brian Green ended his. 'The Fabric of the Cosmos' episode with this hypothesis, and it just blew my mind! I don't even fully understand it, but I'm trying. You can watch this episode here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-space
It's all about space, gravity and black holes and it's fascinating. at about minute 48 in chapter 6 of the episode, it goes into this hologram theory. This Wednesday, everyone should tune into to Nova as it's all about time (the illusion of Time, try not to misunderstand that title, FS). These episodes are fast paced and full of cool CGI, I think you'll enjoy them...

 

[Beefbisquit]

Theoretically. Based on math, not anything anyone has ever seen.

How would you see light that doesn't doesn't ever make it out of the event horizon. Your burden of proof requires a black hole to be "seen" when a black hole has an intrinsic property of not being able to be seen in the conventional method. We use the same methods to catch criminals, the police don't see the crime happen they use evidence to figure out the most likely scenario. Like the police, scientists are not always 100% correct, but they have enough evidence to make a strong theory that explains what we do see. And it also happens to mathematically fit....

Essentially what you're asking for is impossible. Like asking to see a married bachelor. It's been explained to you so many times, LIGHT CAN'T ESCAPE A BLACK HOLE SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ACTUALLY SEE ONE. WE DO SEE THE LIGHT THAT IS BENT AROUND BLACK HOLES, AND WE DO SEE GAS BEING SUCKED TOWARDS A POINT WITH A MASSIVE GRAVITATIONAL FORCE AND A PLETHORA OF OTHER EVIDENCE.

You are not smarter than Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, Albert Einstein, or Leonard Susskind. And you sure as hell don't have any math to either disprove their points, or to prove yours. So, sit down, and shut the fuck up.

 

[researchkitty]

My favorite part is that he says "TheoreticallY" and "Based on math, blah blah". Of course its based on math. Does 1 + 1 != 2? Math is the foundation for *everything*.