Is Time An Illusion?

[cannabineer]

Fin, I don't get it.
Are you objecting to the observability of black holes, or are you stating that there is no reason to believe that galactic objects massive/dense enough to wear an event horizon are real?
In re observability: can you see a hole? Take a knothole in a fence. What are you seeing? fence, with a spot where a defocused bit of the neighbor's back yard shows through. If I am allowed to wax philosophically picayune, you cannot see a hole. Even so, describing it as a hole makes cognitive and communicative sense. Nobody except an undergraduate phil. major on tripweed (imo!) would object to my pointing at the defect in the fence and calling it a hole, and saying "I see the hole".
As for black holes, I feel a similar convention applies. We cannot directly observe an event horizon or whatever is concealed "within" it. However we CAN observe essentially conclusive optical (from radio to gamma) "sign", unique consequences of masses great and compact enough to generate an event horizon. We can detect, image, otherwise characterize the optical distortions and particle effects characteristic of the screaming margin of spacetime just on our side of the horizon. Calling these attendant phenomena "black holes" is a verbal convention that I accept as sensible.
I don't know if I'm addressing your basic point, becaue I'll confess i'm having some trouble figuring it out. cn

 

[Finshaggy]

In your world view, have you determined that bacteria and viruses are the cause of some diseases? You haven't observed them doing it. Do you accept that magnetism and light are one and the same phenomena? How do you know anything about our world if you won't accept the word of the scientists that have done the work so you don't have to?

We can compare a Virus infected cell to a clean healthy cell.

We can compare light to magnetism.

Black holes have never been OBSERVED.

 

[Finshaggy]

Fin, I don't get it.
Are you objecting to the observability of black holes, or are you stating that there is no reason to believe that galactic objects massive/dense enough to wear an event horizon are real?
In re observability: can you see a hole? Take a knothole in a fence. What are you seeing? fence, with a spot where a defocused bit of the neighbor's back yard shows through. If I am allowed to wax philosophically picayune, you cannot see a hole. Even so, describing it as a hole makes cognitive and communicative sense. Nobody except an undergraduate phil. major on tripweed (imo!) would object to my pointing at the defect in the fence and calling it a hole, and saying "I see the hole".
As for black holes, I feel a similar convention applies. We cannot directly observe an event horizon or whatever is concealed "within" it. However we CAN observe essentially conclusive optical (from radio to gamma) "sign", unique consequences of masses great and compact enough to generate an event horizon. We can detect, image, otherwise characterize the optical distortions and particle effects characteristic of the screaming margin of spacetime just on our side of the horizon. Calling these attendant phenomena "black holes" is a verbal convention that I accept as sensible.
I don't know if I'm addressing your basic point, becaue I'll confess i'm having some trouble figuring it out. cn

I am speaking in reference to the observability of black holes, and the ability to calculate what they can do, and what they are. It's all "Hopes" and math. (But the world view works in more ways than just black holes)

Ok yes, I agree we can not see a hole. But things like that are why I accept black holes in THEORY. We can observe a hole in wood, and maybe even go as far as to measure it, find out what made it, what has been through it, what the result of it happening was to our reality.

But we CAN NOT do those things with a black hole. They are fun to DISCUSS, but to argue their existence is stupid. They are a HUGE "What if" about some black spots (The REAL Observation) on some telescopes. And that COULD be an infinite number of things.

 

[Finshaggy]

And with black holes there are theories like "Not even light, or time itself can escape a black hole" (Time slows down because of the immense gravity)

So what, now we can grab time and move it.
Time travel is possible?

Why???
Because "Math" says we can move forward and backwards in time. BULLSHIT.

That's just what math does.
Math's a bunch of talk.

"I checked, and talk's still cheap"

And even if they aren't saying "Time" is movable. What are they saying...I can't "wait" my way out of a black hole? No shit.
I'm not gonna age?
Why the fuck should they think that? MATH that's why.
And it's not always right.

Math and Science are corrected all the time, throughout history.

 

[cannabineer]

From what I understand of the theory, black holes can never be used for any meaningful sort of time travel ... but that gets us into the time argument, and i'm in a hurry, lol ...
If we accept that "black hole" is shorthand for "any mass heavy and compact enough to have collapsed inside its Schwarzschild radius", then I do submit that we have astronomical objects (emphatically not "black spots"; they tend to be rather radiant) that match the description so well that they can really be nowt else.

As for what goes on inside the Schwarzschild event horizon ... those theories are math-heavy, since we have no way of returning observations from beyond that curtain ... but they're still rather cool imo. cn

 

[Beefbisquit]

And with black holes there are theories like "Not even light, or time itself can escape a black hole" (Time slows down because of the immense gravity)

So what, now we can grab time and move it.
Time travel is possible?

Why???
Because "Math" says we can move forward and backwards in time. BULLSHIT.

Nope, not time travel. How does time slowing down equate to moving through time to you? It's completely different.

It's a fact that the faster you are traveling the slower time moves as well, but you wouldn't be time traveling in the sense you mean. Do some research on time dilation before you put your foot in your mouth again.

That's just what math does.
Math's a bunch of talk.

"I checked, and talk's still cheap"

And even if they aren't saying "Time" is movable. What are they saying...I can't "wait" my way out of a black hole? No shit.
I'm not gonna age?
Why the fuck should they think that? MATH that's why.
And it's not always right.

Math and Science are corrected all the time, throughout history.

You have a hate on for math. That "talk" is the reason you have a computer.


I'm not even sure how to debate with someone who doesn't use logic to formulate the basis for their arguments. It's like fighting with a small child, no amount of evidence or rational explanation can convince them.

 

[Finshaggy]

From what I understand of the theory, black holes can never be used for any meaningful sort of time travel ... but that gets us into the time argument, and i'm in a hurry, lol ...
If we accept that "black hole" is shorthand for "any mass heavy and compact enough to have collapsed inside its Schwarzschild radius", then I do submit that we have astronomical objects (emphatically not "black spots"; they tend to be rather radiant) that match the description so well that they can really be nowt else.

As for what goes on inside the Schwarzschild event horizon ... those theories are math-heavy, since we have no way of returning observations from beyond that curtain ... but they're still rather cool imo. cn

Exactly.
It all based on this theory..., which is because this theory..., so that makes ... true.

It is VERY interesting.

And TRUE nothing else we have considered comes close to what seems to be in those "Black (masses?)" on the telescopes.

BUT that doesn't make it "THE FACTS".

 

[Heisenberg]

And with black holes there are theories like "Not even light, or time itself can escape a black hole" (Time slows down because of the immense gravity)

So what, now we can grab time and move it.
Time travel is possible?

Why???
Because "Math" says we can move forward and backwards in time. BULLSHIT.

That's just what math does.
Math's a bunch of talk.

"I checked, and talk's still cheap"

And even if they aren't saying "Time" is movable. What are they saying...I can't "wait" my way out of a black hole? No shit.
I'm not gonna age?
Why the fuck should they think that? MATH that's why.
And it's not always right.

Math and Science are corrected all the time, throughout history.

So you don't really understand what is being said. You, once again, are misunderstanding scientific theory and then blaming science for your misconceptions. You imagine that you know, but you only know what you imagine.

 

[Finshaggy]

Nope, not time travel. How does time slowing down equate to moving through time to you? It's completely different.

It's a fact that the faster you are traveling the slower time moves as well, but you wouldn't be time traveling in the sense you mean. Do some research on time dilation before you put your foot in your mouth again.

"Time slowing down" around black holes equates because it was figured out BY MATH. Which relates Time/Blackholes/Math

And math also says, (not in relation to black holes) That time can be "Bent", and moved forward and backward within.

But if you don't believe in the bend, moving time math...Why do you believe in Black hole math???

You do some reading on anything, before you put your foot in your mouth again.

 

[JoeCa1i]

it says in the bible that 1 day in heaven,is 1,000 earth years. http://divinecoders.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/a-thousand-years-as-one-day/

 

[cannabineer]

Exactly.
It all based on this theory..., which is because this theory..., so that makes ... true.

It is VERY interesting.

And TRUE nothing else we have considered comes close to what seems to be in those "Black (masses?)" on the telescopes.

BUT that doesn't make it "THE FACTS".

There is a hierarchy of fact.
There are the incontrovertible "direct observables", in this case images of the objects in question, and sensitive, precise observations of the relativistic effects of mass on space and time. (An awesome example was using atomic clocks as altimeters, as mentioned earlier on this thread.)
Then there are the less-direct but still deductively/inductively "tight" consequences from these observations being slotted into the established, noncontroversial part of scientific theory. An example would be the use of supernovae as "standard candles" to estimate cosmological distances.
At a third tier are theories that rely on a longer but still internally and externally consistent application of tiers 1 and 2. The correlation (I will not address causation!) between atmospheroc CO2 level and global temperature fits this imo.
Tier 5 encompasses "pathological science" like cold fusion or New Age medicine.
There is a tier 6 ... pure tin-hat malarkey which need not concern us.

That leaves tier 4, which contains stuff that is neither demonstrably right nor wrong. Imo the internal structure of black holes falls into this tier. there is much we can say about what does, doesn't, can or can't happen, but an awful lot of speculation comes into play.

I accept tier 1 as proven fact, and tiers 2 and 3 as extremely [respectively] usefully plausible.
I accept tiers 5 and 6 as false.
Tier 4 is where the fun is to be had, and while I place the existence of collapsed masses with event horizons in tier 2, and their temporal effects outside the event horizon in, say, tier 2 1/2, I'm getting the impression that you see them as tier 4 or even 5.
But i'll freely admit I'm winging that guess somewhat.
cn

 

[Beefbisquit]

"Time slowing down" around black holes equates because it was figured out BY MATH. Which relates Time/Blackholes/Math

And math also says, (not in relation to black holes) That time can be "Bent", and moved forward and backward within.

But if you don't believe in the bend, moving time math...Why do you believe in Black hole math???

You do some reading on anything, before you put your foot in your mouth again.

When we do experiments on earth we have the full ability to observe our findings and correlate them with the mathematical aspects of the theory. We then take the math that's been tested an apply it with other math that's been tested, to explain things we see (or don't see) in space with astounding accuracy.

Every time you enter a room that has the lights turned off, does it take you 20 minutes to figure out what the light switch is? I would hope not. You look for a light switch, because in other rooms and other buildings a light switch is what you've used in the past to turn lights on. It's been tested, and confirmed on many occasions, you'd be an imbecile to doubt the functionality of every light switch you see because you haven't specifically tested it.

No one just pulls equations out of their ass and slaps it to a problem hoping it works, there is overwhelming evidence in support of black holes; the math just cements the theory into place.

 

[Finshaggy]

There is a hierarchy of fact.
There are the incontrovertible "direct observables", in this case images of the objects in question, and sensitive, precise observations of the relativistic effects of mass on space and time. (An awesome example was using atomic clocks as altimeters, as mentioned earlier on this thread.)
Then there are the less-direct but still deductively/inductively "tight" consequences from these observations being slotted into the established, noncontroversial part of scientific theory. An example would be the use of supernovae as "standard candles" to estimate cosmological distances.
At a third tier are theories that rely on a longer but still internally and externally consistent application of tiers 1 and 2. The correlation (I will not address causation!) between atmospheroc CO2 level and global temperature fits this imo.
Tier 5 encompasses "pathological science" like cold fusion or New Age medicine.
There is a tier 6 ... pure tin-hat malarkey which need not concern us.

That leaves tier 4, which contains stuff that is neither demonstrably right nor wrong. Imo the internal structure of black holes falls into this tier. there is much we can say about what does, doesn't, can or can't happen, but an awful lot of speculation comes into play.

I accept tier 1 as proven fact, and tiers 2 and 3 as extremely [respectively] usefully plausible.
I accept tiers 5 and 6 as false.
Tier 4 is where the fun is to be had, and while I place the existence of collapsed masses with event horizons in tier 2, and their temporal effects outside the event horizon in, say, tier 2 1/2, I'm getting the impression that you see them as tier 4 or even 5.
But i'll freely admit I'm winging that guess somewhat.
cn

I'd agree with that evaluation of facts, and when they are to be accepted.

 

[Doer]

You know Fin, in a strange and twisted way, I'm beginning to follow, and nar I say,
agree with you. I too believe that "science" is becoming something of a cult of grants.
The universe that is being describe seems preposterous. Get more money to build tech
to get even more preposterous results.

So, religions think themselves real. I wouldn't say that about science. Science is a mad dash to prove the other guy wrong. If at all possible get the press involved. Global Cooling.

And math doesn't prove anything, it merely attempts to describe, right? So math that describes black holes says nothing about proving them. And if this math was built
on broken math, as all this is... No unification math...I get it. I agree.

 

[mindphuk]

We can compare a Virus infected cell to a clean healthy cell.

You can't prove that the virus in infecting the cell if you can't see a virus.

We can compare light to magnetism.

Not without the appropriate math. I'm pretty sure you don't even understand Maxwell's equations. We are only comparing effects of light and magnetism and making inductive reasoning.

Black holes have never been OBSERVED.

Very much like light and magnetism, we have math that tells us how they should behave when close to another star, i.e. a feeding black hole, then we see a binary star system that behaves that way. This is exactly like finding that small particles we can't see cause disease. The problem is that you have not been trained in science and don't understand the enormous leaps of intuitive logic that had to have been made along the way. The stories are famous, the periodic table of the elements, the discovery of what heat energy really is (for a long time there was an incorrect theory called phlogiston), hell, just Galileo's insight into the heliocentric model was inductive as it was not a direct observation but based on the fact that other planets had moons. You should watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos on Netflix or something. It might give you a better understanding of the process.


Now go away.

 

[Beefbisquit]

(for a long time there was an incorrect theory called phlogiston)

LOL - I love that theory... made me smile the first time I heard about it.


If we need to see something to prove it's existence, I'd love to have Fin as a juror if I ever get arrested. If he didn't see it, it didn't happen.


Here are some other things Fin hasn't seen, so he must not believe they exist either;
Air
Electrons
Radiation
Light
Sound
Smell
Microwaves

We all know Fin won't be using CO2 in his grows, can't see it, so it doesn't exist.

I mean, all we have is a bunch of useless math to prove all this stuff... pffft math, what good has it ever done?

 

[Finshaggy]

You can't prove that the virus in infecting the cell if you can't see a virus. Not without the appropriate math. I'm pretty sure you don't even understand Maxwell's equations. We are only comparing effects of light and magnetism and making inductive reasoning.
Very much like light and magnetism, we have math that tells us how they should behave when close to another star, i.e. a feeding black hole, then we see a binary star system that behaves that way. This is exactly like finding that small particles we can't see cause disease. The problem is that you have not been trained in science and don't understand the enormous leaps of intuitive logic that had to have been made along the way. The stories are famous, the periodic table of the elements, the discovery of what heat energy really is (for a long time there was an incorrect theory called phlogiston), hell, just Galileo's insight into the heliocentric model was inductive as it was not a direct observation but based on the fact that other planets had moons. You should watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos on Netflix or something. It might give you a better understanding of the process.


Now go away.

We can OBSERVE the difference in infected and non infected cells.

We can OBSERVE the difference in light and magnetism.

We can not OBSERVE a black hole. We can only solve for x.

 

[Beefbisquit]

We can OBSERVE the difference in infected and non infected cells.

We can OBSERVE the difference in light and magnetism.

We can not OBSERVE a black hole. We can only solve for x.

Can we observe radiation?

 

[Finshaggy]

LOL - I love that theory... made me smile the first time I heard about it.


If we need to see something to prove it's existence, I'd love to have Fin as a juror if I ever get arrested. If he didn't see it, it didn't happen.


Here are some other things Fin hasn't seen, so he must not believe they exist either;
Air
Electrons
Radiation
Light
Sound
Smell
Microwaves

We all know Fin won't be using CO2 in his grows, can't see it, so it doesn't exist.

I mean, all we have is a bunch of useless math to prove all this stuff... pffft math, what good has it ever done?

You don't understand.

It's not about JUST seeing it.

Read back, as I described. I believe in REGULAR holes. Even though I can't see them.

 

[Finshaggy]

Can we observe radiation?

No...You don't understand at all.

We can OBSERVE the effects of radiation. We can MEASURE amounts of radiation. We can see fuck ups in radiated things. We can even go as far as to describe how it effects our reality.