Is Time An Illusion?

[Beefbisquit]

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.

No, YOU don't get it.

We can OBSERVE the effects of black holes. We can MEASURE the bending of the light around black holes. We can MEASURE the speed things are pulled towards them

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

That's the exact same thing we do for radiation. We can't observe it, we see the effects radiation has on things. JUST LIKE WE DO WITH BLACK HOLES.

The fact that we can't see black holes lends credit to the idea they exist. Part of the prediction of black holes, is that we can't see them (we can only measure their effects, and INCREDIBLY accurately I might add). So science and astronomy are right again.

 

[hmmmmm.....]

the calender that we use was put in by a pope wanting control. we still use it, are we still being controlled? what is time 60bpm, 60mph, 30days in a month--? isnt it your natural tick tock beating heart, when that ticker stops and there is no back up thats when time...?? well you are you and only you know what time is in your perception

 

[mindphuk]

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

Exacltly. We can observe the different behavior between a regular binary star system and one where one of the stars has collapsed into a black hole. We can observe the difference between a group of stars orbiting around each other and a group of stars orbiting a SMB. In fact, the number of lines of evidence for a virus is much higher than black hole. An infection needs to meet Koch's postulates. Even just seeing a virus and sick cells together is not enough. That's correlation, not causation, a fallacy. The fact that black holes conform to PREDICTIONS is what makes the evidence strong.

We can OBSERVE the difference in light and magnetism.

That's part of the point. Magnetism and light APPEAR to be separate things but they are not. My question is how do you know they are the SAME, not different. How do you know magnetism is carried by the photon and not a completely separate field force?

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

Nooo. Solving for x is what gave us the possibility of a black hole. Seeing something behave exactly as predicted by the black hole equations leave us with the conclusion, it must be a black hole. The fact that everyone has to keep repeating this over and over and you still don't understand, makes me think you aren't actually giving anyone's post real critical though but going into automatic response mode.

If physics tells me through equations that supernova happen, but I never see one, just the nebula and the white dwarf, should I pretend supernovas are imaginary until I actually witness one? When do we have enough evidence, like a crime scene, that allows us to explain something even though we never saw it/can see it?

 

[cannabineer]

I believe in REGULAR holes.

Ohhh, the sound of self-restraint ... this is such an amazing and versatile straight line ... must stay nice ... *snort* ~giggle~
cn

 

[mindphuk]

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.

We can observe the effects of gravity and observe the effects of electromagnetism but you are still not convinced gravity is a weak force when compared to electromagnetism. In fact this was an issue that Einstein himself struggled with when he attempted to unify gravity and EM. Brian Greene points out that if you took a leap off of a building, gravity would pull you down to the ground using every atom of the earth to do so, but it is electromagnetism that keeps you from plowing through the sidewalk down to the earth's center. When your negatively charged atoms collide with the negatively charged atoms in the sidewalk, they are repelled with such strength, that a small piece of sidewalk is able to resist the entirety of the earth's gravity and stop you from falling. In fact the EM force is about 10^36 times stronger as gravity. All of that arguing and all you had to do is this - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=relative+strength+of+gravity+and+electromagnetism

 

[Finshaggy]

We can observe the effects of gravity and observe the effects of electromagnetism but you are still not convinced gravity is a weak force when compared to electromagnetism. In fact this was an issue that Einstein himself struggled with when he attempted to unify gravity and EM. Brian Greene points out that if you took a leap off of a building, gravity would pull you down to the ground using every atom of the earth to do so, but it is electromagnetism that keeps you from plowing through the sidewalk down to the earth's center. When your negatively charged atoms collide with the negatively charged atoms in the sidewalk, they are repelled with such strength, that a small piece of sidewalk is able to resist the entirety of the earth's gravity and stop you from falling. In fact the EM force is about 10^36 times stronger as gravity. All of that arguing and all you had to do is this - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=relative+strength+of+gravity+and+electromagnetism

The sidewalk isn't stopping you from falling into the ground. The entirety of the Earth is what keeps the entirety of the Earth's gravity from pulling you further. There is the entire crust, mantel, etc. Stopping you, collectively being dense.

Not a single piece of sidewalk.

 

[Finshaggy]

No, YOU don't get it.

We can OBSERVE the effects of black holes. We can MEASURE the bending of the light around black holes. We can MEASURE the speed things are pulled towards them



That's the exact same thing we do for radiation. We can't observe it, we see the effects radiation has on things. JUST LIKE WE DO WITH BLACK HOLES.

The fact that we can't see black holes lends credit to the idea they exist. Part of the prediction of black holes, is that we can't see them (we can only measure their effects, and INCREDIBLY accurately I might add). So science and astronomy are right again.

No you don't get it.

We guess at WAYYYY more than that.
And we only can see what we with our knowledge of lenses, and light can see.

What if the reason black holes seem real, is simply we haven't ever looked at light from the right perspective to see that far, or stuff like that.

We see light doing things, that doesn't make ANY of it true.

It makes it plausible.

And with that I AGREE. It is plausible. NOT true, yet.

 

[Beefbisquit]

No you don't get it.

We guess at WAYYYY more than that.
And we only can see what we with our knowledge of lenses, and light can see.

What if the reason black holes seem real, is simply we haven't ever looked at light from the right perspective to see that far, or stuff like that.

We see light doing things, that doesn't make ANY of it true.

It makes it plausible.

And with that I AGREE. It is plausible. NOT true, yet.

You have zero concept of what astronomers "guess" at, and you have no basis for making that comment. It's pure... I'd say rhetoric, but rhetoric is usually at least somewhat persuasive, your argument is not.

If we have to come up with some whacky explanation like "we haven't ever looked at light from the right perspective to see that far, or stuff like that", you're probably getting further from the truth.

You're right, just because we see it happening doesn't necessarily make it true, but using that same analogy how can you be sure what you're typing is true? You see it, but it doesn't mean it's true; just plausible that you typed it. If we used that inane line of reasoning for day to day life we'd live in a cluster fuck, if we were living at all.

So, we actually see the blackness of a black hole and the rim of light around the event horizon.
We can test and measure very exact phenomenon associated with black holes, e.g. Gravitational Lensing, etc.
We can use mathematics that have been proven to be accurate through testing on earth (that we can observe) to predict where back holes are with near perfect accuracy.
We can observe gasses and other matter being pulled towards large gravitational forces.
Stephen Hawking predicted radiation dubbed Hawking radiation would be emitted from Black Holes; scientists created a "white hole" in a laboratory, and have actually observed Hawking radiation, first person.


But black holes are fiction...

 

[Finshaggy]

I honestly don't care if you accept what I say, I only get on when I'm bored, especially this thread. It's one I only open when nothing else is coming up.

 

[mindphuk]

The sidewalk isn't stopping you from falling into the ground. The entirety of the Earth is what keeps the entirety of the Earth's gravity from pulling you further. There is the entire crust, mantel, etc. Stopping you, collectively being dense.

Not a single piece of sidewalk.

incorrect and it can be proved by suspending the sidewalk above the surface of the earth to where there is no interaction. The cement still makes you go splat. The fact is the gravity of the enitre earth cannot overcome the electromagnetic force of the atoms in a trampoline either, it is the same idea if you want to put it another way. Of course you probably didn't even bother to click the link even though everyone that understands physics would say you are wrong. You do realize that the interaction of gravity and the other fundamental forces have been accurately measured don't you? The EM force is billions upon billions of times stronger than gravity. The special thing about gravity is it's reach is infinite where the other forces are limited and it is only attractive. Still don't believe me, then click the link and do some reading. Find ONE, just one single science link that agrees with you. I bet you $100 you cannot. Unless you can come up with someone to corroborate your belief, you are tilting at windmills.

 

[Doer]

Carl Sagen?!?!? Did you actually invoke Carl, sell out to global warming, Sagen?

Shame on you. He's a perfect example of what is wrong with science.

 

[Doer]

incorrect and it can be proved by suspending the sidewalk above the surface of the earth to where there is no interaction. The cement still makes you go splat. The fact is the gravity of the enitre earth cannot overcome the electromagnetic force of the atoms in a trampoline either, it is the same idea if you want to put it another way. Of course you probably didn't even bother to click the link even though everyone that understands physics would say you are wrong. You do realize that the interaction of gravity and the other fundamental forces have been accurately measured don't you? The EM force is billions upon billions of times stronger than gravity. The special thing about gravity is it's reach is infinite where the other forces are limited and it is only attractive. Still don't believe me, then click the link and do some reading. Find ONE, just one single science link that agrees with you. I bet you $100 you cannot. Unless you can come up with someone to corroborate your belief, you are tilting at windmills.

I'll bet you that gravity is not a fundamental force, at all. It's more like flotation.
Not a force at all. A displacement effect. Timespace is displaced. The very simple
explaination for the tiniest bit of matter. It has achieved displacement. What we
call mass. There is no need for a force carrier, such as the discredited Higgs bosun.

When energy frosts into matter, it displaces timespace and the energy could not.

Safe bet, your position is less tenable, but mine still lacks the math.

 

[Beefbisquit]

I'll bet you that gravity is not a fundamental force, at all. It's more like flotation.
Not a force at all. A displacement effect. Timespace is displaced. The very simple
explaination for the tiniest bit of matter. It has achieved displacement. What we
call mass. There is no need for a force carrier, such as the discredited Higgs bosun.

When energy frosts into matter, it displaces timespace and the energy could not.

Safe bet, your position is less tenable, but mine still lacks the math.

It lacks a lot more than math.... how about any shred of evidence at all?

 

[Beefbisquit]

I honestly don't care if you accept what I say, I only get on when I'm bored, especially this thread. It's one I only open when nothing else is coming up.

You can't even defend your position anymore, so you just change the topic. Almost every sentence you've managed to type out has been dis-credited; so you have no choice but to either concede defeat, or at the very minimum STFU.

Carl Sagen?!?!? Did you actually invoke Carl, sell out to global warming, Sagen?

Shame on you. He's a perfect example of what is wrong with science.

Sell out to global warming? Global Warming is happening, it's a fact.

 

[mindphuk]

I'll bet you that gravity is not a fundamental force, at all. It's more like flotation.
Not a force at all. A displacement effect. Timespace is displaced. The very simple
explaination for the tiniest bit of matter. It has achieved displacement. What we
call mass. There is no need for a force carrier, such as the discredited Higgs bosun.

When energy frosts into matter, it displaces timespace and the energy could not.

Safe bet, your position is less tenable, but mine still lacks the math.

The Higgs was never claimed to be a force carrier for gravity but an explanation of what causes mass.

Of course you know that is the view of GR, that gravity is a fictitious force that is just the result of curved spacetime. I don't think anyone would have a problem with your description as the idea of gravity as a fundamental field force and the graviton is different from the geometrical description in Einstein's GR. The two points of view are not necessarily incompatible, but reconciling them (in detail) will require a more complete theory of gravity.

Whether or not gravity is a fundamental or fictitious force, the point to shaggy is the same, gravity is billions of times weaker than the EM force and his continued refusal to acknowledge something so easily observed and recognized by every physicist on the planet just tells everyone that he doesn't care about reality and just makes shit up to conform to his own personal, but not empirically objective, beliefs.

 

[Heisenberg]

Carl Sagen?!?!? Did you actually invoke Carl, sell out to global warming, Sagen?

Shame on you. He's a perfect example of what is wrong with science.

What is wrong with science, and how does Carl Sagan embody it?

 

[Doer]

It lacks a lot more than math.... how about any shred of evidence at all?

Well, show me your shred of evidence. The field's wide open. No Higgs.

 

[Doer]

What is wrong with science, and how does Carl Sagan embody it?

Research grants. And Sagen sold out to the early global warming crowd. Now it's
embodied in popular "fact," thanks in part to him. These Climate change types
are probably quietly investing in arctic wear, etc and only our urban heat bubbles will save us.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Well, show me your shred of evidence. The field's wide open. No Higgs.

You're the one making the claim about how gravity works, not me. What would I be providing evidence for exactly?



Sagan? Sell out? More like persuaded by overwhelming evidence. The earth is warming... it's pretty straight forward.

 

[Doer]

Since you know there is no evidence for anything about the details of gravity,
my lack of evidence is on par.