Digital Radio Central - Sponsored by TSS Radio
  DRC Home Page DRC Forums Contact Us  
 
SIRIUS Backstage Forum
 
 
 
  Sirius Satellite Radio XM Satellite Radio iTunes/iPod Slacker Pandora  
 
 
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  
Go Back   SIRIUS Backstage Forum > >
Visit Digital Radio Central

Notices

The Doghouse Here is where people are talking everything not SIRIUS related. So be cool, be smart and have something to say!

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
 
Old 10-03-2005, 10:53 AM   #76
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Fine. It moves. Does "length" move? No.

I just don't see what time has to do with length, breadth, width.
It doesn't. But since time is measurable as we perceive it you can associate time with those object qualities...

length... "How long is this going to last?" "The length of the movie is 3 hours" "That's a long movie!"

breadth... that's like length only spread across a spectrum of lengths. Like the span of a war. I know that's reaching.

Width "we only have a small "window" for the launch."
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-03-2005, 03:43 PM   #77
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadClosed
I take the similar view of other scientists. Time has dimension. Never argued it was a physical one only that we physically see it's results. You cannot measure something that has no dimension. By that I mean physical component we observe and understand.
we are then perhaps using a different connotation when we use the word "dimension".

but "spacetime" does have a physical dimension. according to einstein, matter actually warps it. this is where i have a problem with his explanation of gravity. but heck, newtons explanation of gravity lasted for 200 years or so. and his mathematics is still useful in most applications, including i think our space travel of rockets going 100,000 mph or whatever.

i dont necessarily buy either special or general relativity, in totality. most of the special theory evolved from the "fact" that the speed of light is measured by every frame of reference to be the same.

light and time AND space and matter are definitely interwoven.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-03-2005, 05:12 PM   #78
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

Hi gymeejet,

Gravity does warp time in a way because gravity warps light. Or gravity warp our sense of the passing of time. Like I said earlier, building blocks are key and your getting them. If you want to pursue the essence of time being warped by space, meaning by gravity and it's effect on space then sure that is a sort of tangible object. Ask yourself, does gravity warp light? Does gravity change light's characteristics. And since we use light to measure that passage of time in some ways, then time is warped by gravity.

Do not get too consumed in Einstein. His work has been expanded on by others.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-04-2005, 11:35 AM   #79
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadClosed

Excellent, you've been reading notes or outtakes somewhere of my other hero besides Hawking.... the most excellent Carl Sagan (rip). But we are three dimensional creatures capable of "imagining" entire science disciplines we cannot prove, see or construct in our "tangible" universe. Quantum Mechanics has been around for nearly 100 years in and was only in the 80s we conducted experiments that shed light and a real physical entity.
i enjoyed the show "cosmos" when it was on a long time ago, so i guess that some of it could have rubbed off in my consciousness. but i cant say that i consciously have anyone in particular that i read about in physics. i probably tend to look at physics textbooks or internet articles.

since you put quotes around imagining, i guess there is not too much more to say about that.

what do you mean by a "real physical entity" in quantum mechanics ?
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-04-2005, 01:22 PM   #80
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

The Cosmos was released in a DVD set a year or so ago. I own a copy but you can get one at the library. The historical/philosophical context alone is worth owning a copy. The flatlander example is pure Sagan. Also an "illustrated - Brief History in Time" is an excellent book that updates some theoretical principles and is much easier to understand than the original A Brief History. There are also some essays published for Hawking's birthday as a present one year that are excellent. In addition I bet your library has many CD versions of books to listen to in the car, including many that would argue my points. Unsuccessfully.

Search Cosmos at the library there are many titles with the name included, not just Sagan and if you are lucky they will have his books. He may argue against things like creation and the afterlife, but his presentation of science and cosmology is excellent and in some way entertaining beyond the satisfaction of learning. Back on topic...

Quote:
since you put quotes around imagining, i guess there is not too much more to say about that.
I wanted to point out the man and his brain are able to construct ideas and theories that cannot be explained but show through modeling and prediction that there is something viable there but we can't see it or perceive it. We are able to look up at the stars and question our position in the universe. Argue creation, god, perceive the vastness of space, look through time and even question time itself. That is amazing.

Quote:
what do you mean by a "real physical entity" in quantum mechanics ?
Ah, we cannot see electromagnetic radiation but we can imprint it on a film or induce detectable and decodable fields, such as our Satellite radios. In the later part of the century we even updated our model of the atom based on quantum theory. The stuff I was taught long ago in school about the nucleus, protons, etc no longer "technically" applies. So thing go unseen until proven through experiments. Like the atomic bomb explosion. Perhaps your Hydrogen fuel sells and photelectrics.

Particle acceleration is the key. Or restricting particle movement in this case. I noted my disappointment in another thread once about the particle accelerator that was shelved in the USA. Hard to get politicians to understand anything other than S&P, NASDAQ, or makeup for the nightly new feed trough. I was going to spend another few paragraphs pointing out one of the more famous experiments but tossed a view to google and THIS is a good paper. It seems to sum up what I have hinted at, including an earlier comment where I said "Believe it".
Kudos to those authors.

Since you are interested, are you aware of other experiments? Perhaps time experiments involving atomic clocks and airplanes? Although not conclusive they make one think.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-05-2005, 02:12 AM   #81
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

hi rc,

the article was quite long, but i did read a lot of it. some comments.

i do not believe a particle can exist in 2 places at once.

i do not believe a particle can get from a to b, without motion.

i find it ludicrous to suggest that reality needs to be measured before it is real. the universe was around for billions of years before there was a conscious awareness of it by anyone.

what would be more correct is to say that our perception of reality changes, based on the tools that we use to do the perceiving. when i look at you with my eyeballs, i see a human being. at least i hope so. if i look at you with an electron microscope, perhaps you would be a bunch of sub-atomic particles buzzing around. but you have not changed. only my perception of you has changed.

i dont have a big problem with duality of electromagnetic radiation, because it has a very simple and plausible explanation - that which comprises em has components that display what we call "particle tendencies" and "wave tendencies". now what this comprisal is - still a mystery. but just like protons are made up of quarks, quarks are probably made up of something smaller. same with em.

i dont necessarily agree with the heisenberg principle. it may be that we can not measure both the location and velocity of some of these particles, NOW. it may be that we may never be able to do so. but that does not mean that they do not have both a location and velocity at all times.

i dont have a problem with the concept that there may be some things about this universe which we may never be able to decipher. that is not to say that we definitely can not. but i also do not think that just because it exists means that we could ultimately decipher it.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-05-2005, 11:10 AM   #82
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

Lordy, Just from that post alone we could go on for days.

Key point though, you would have to define reality. We all agree it's perception. I could note the cave experiment and many others in classical philosophy but you agree that reality is what we perceive. You seeing me as a human with your eyeballs and brain constructing me based on the light reflected from the matter of my body, regardless of its makeup you detect particles of light hitting your retina and your brain determines reality based on your entire life of input. You are measuring particles.

If you were not able to detect the color red, I would have a different reality to you. What they are saying is a single particle, not the whole of my body, is in an unpredictable state. Meaning we cannot predict where it will be or what characteristic it will hold. It can change. Therefore we cannot know what it is until measured, thus we have an issue with what reality is these days. That's a simple explanation but true. There is a high probability meaning very unlikely that said particle could take on a characteristic entirely new and jaunt across the universe based on a mechanism we are searching for. Very simplistic but I wanted to shed some light on this comment.
Quote:
i find it ludicrous to suggest that reality needs to be measured before it is real. the universe was around for billions of years before there was a conscious awareness of it by anyone.
Einstein found it ludicrous as well. If memory serves he argued the mathematics involved in quantum theory would produce and infinite improbability. You could probably google "eisntein infinite improbability" Oh quarks are one of the tangible items I was hinting at BTW. Alot of those experiments you read are from the late 60s. We are damn smart as a species.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-05-2005, 11:17 AM   #83
Fergz99
Sirius Star
does god exist ?
 
Join Date: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: 2,000
Fergz99 will become famous soon enough
Default

No !
Fergz99 is offline  
 
 
Old 10-05-2005, 11:49 AM   #84
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

hi rc,

i chuckled when i was writing, knowing that my line of reasoning was very much like einstein.

with this point, you and i are exactly 180 degrees different.

REALITY IS. it does not change based upon someone with a conscious awareness of it, viewing it.

we all have our "perceptions" of reality. i am aware that my perception is limited by the tools that i can use to perceive it.

i find it funny that every time we learn more about reality, it seems that the building blocks are always an extremely tiny dense amount of matter, surrounded by a sea of emptiness.

i dont have a problem with us being unable to predict or detect with certainty a sub-atomic particle. i do have a problem with the idea that the particle itself does not have a defined location and velocity at all points in time. i do have a problem with the idea that we need to be able to detect it, before the particle is real.

sorta reminds me of scientists with respect to the elephant. they used to think that elephants were not too smart, because they had a very limited language. then some bright or lucky experimenter found that most of the elephant's vocals are below our hearing range. lo and behold, the elephants were found to have quite a lot of vocabulary.

the elephants all of a sudden became much smarter.

the only people who became smarter was the human observers. hopefully a bit less arrogant, as well - for if they learned their lesson well, it would be just because we can not detect something, dont mean it aint there.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-05-2005, 12:08 PM   #85
lfv2j
Channel Surfer
 
Join Date: Jun 16, 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 28
lfv2j is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to lfv2j
Default

God doesn't believe in Athiests!!
__________________
Lfv2j
lfv2j is offline  
 
 
Old 10-05-2005, 12:32 PM   #86
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
God doesn't believe in Athiests!!
Yes he does, he created them.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-05-2005, 12:38 PM   #87
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
the only people who became smarter was the human observers. hopefully a bit less arrogant, as well - for if they learned their lesson well, it would be just because we can not detect something, don't mean it ain't there.
That was my point about time having a dimension.

Quote:
REALITY IS. it does not change based upon someone with a conscious awareness of it, viewing it.
We aren't 180 apart. The environment that creates reality through perception does not change for us. But reality is by its very makeup how we each perceive it. Given similar capabilities we perceive the same reality. But like the elephant example, I can hear higher than most people. Who often look at me strangely when I say "did you hear that?" My reality is slightly altered. In addition like you, I have a vast understanding of the cosmos that others do not. To them a model of gravitational wells is not conceivable. Their reality is perhaps a little more mystical than mine but the does not remove the wonder and imagination from my own perceptions.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-05-2005, 08:37 PM   #88
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

well now i see that a big part of our problem is semantics. the word "reality" carries absolutely 0% subjective-connotation, for me. on the contrary, it is totally objective.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reality

1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.

dictionary.com seems to bear me out on this one.

the way you are using "environment" in our discussion, i would equate "environment" and "reality" as one in the same - that which is. i then use "perception of reality" or "perception of the environment" as a totally subjective angle. whereas as you seem to be equating "reality" and "perception of reality" as the same, or fairly close.

so we need to come to terms on the use of certain words, because when they are said, we are thinking way differently. just like we could both think that different girls are beautiful, subjectively. but we could have very different objective reasons why we think they are beautiful. you might like yours because she has blue eyes and blond hair, while i might like mine because she is brunette with green eyes.

however, i am not sure that this semantic problem existed between einstein and the other side. you may be more on the side of einstein than you think.

just like that old if a tree falls in the forest, is there sound ? that depends on how you want to define "sound". some people like to think they are tricking someone, by defining sound as something that is detected by a human. i think that seems a bit arrogant.

and so does dictionary.com, if you look at the very first definition.


1. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.
2. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
3. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.
4. Such sensations considered as a group.

the falling tree certainly generates sound waves, and imo, sound. the fact that no one was there to hear it is irrelevant. just as a light bulb would still be emitting light if it was turned on, irregardless if anyone is there to see it.

in fact, just as with your use of the word "dimension" - we are thinking differently when we use that word, at least in this discussion. i was objecting to spacetime being a dimension that could be warped. this to me at least indicates that it is a physical thing that has its shape changed. something that is "measurable" is not necessarily "warpable". i can measure the speed of your car, but i can not warp the speed of the car. einstein said that matter warped space time, which to me says that time is a dimension that can have its shape changed. i dont think of time as a physical dimension that can have its shape manipulated.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-06-2005, 12:36 PM   #89
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

We are on the same page.

In advanced physics the question of what is reality takes a step back. We question the very definition of it. When I say take a step back I mean from a philosophical stance dating thousands, yes thousands of years ago in classic Greece. "what is reality they asked" I do that today when confronted with quantum science. When I say environment, I mean the unseen. Example:

If we close our eyes, and I have done this many times, while floating around 80 feet depth in the ocean at night and turn off all light from external sources then spin wildly in all directions you comes to a state of total immersion with no external direction or stimulus (other than the water touching). There are fish swimming by but I cannot know this except from what I have already measured. My reality is the sound of my scuba gear and the sensation of water. I have no weight, no direction and no external consciousness. Even though I predict there are particles in the water. My reality. Even though the environment supports fish, mammals, plankton etc. That's what I was getting at. Not questioning the reality or the makeup of the environment at all... except at a single particle level. One that doesn't even make a single atom. The fish are there, the stars are there in their own makup but without me knowing it they don't exist.

I have been in your place before, presenting a counter to the logical definition of reality. And even in your argument say "The quality or state of being actual or true" you probably focused on the word True. But to me the state is more important. The state equates a measurable quality in it's own definition. A state is a current but changing status, so to speak. But I don't wish to get stuck (another state) in definition when the horizon is unclear. I believe reality can exist without fact. It can exist in theory. For instance there is no fact other than pieces of paper written by man that states God created the universe and he did it 4000 years ago in 7 days. That is your reality. Not mine and that reality is as real and factual and comforting to you as anything I can perceive.

There is also no fact in the reality that time slows when approaching relativistic speeds in our C universe. That is the speed of light once again since it's so important. When I say facts I mean someone measured by my eyes going the speed of light, flying off to Sirius (the star) and coming back where we exchange atomic clocks and looks. It's a theory but our reality is measured by it.

Actually the more I look at the definitions the more I add to my own perception. For instance "The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence." We do not know if anything is actual or in existence until we see it or imagine it. EVEN if it's setting right in front of us in the environment which surrounds our being. I have a spool of cat 5 on my desk. If I close my eyes and someone quietly moves it a meter to the left and I am asked to "touch" the spool. My "perception" (as measured) places it 1 meter from it's current location in reality. But I have no way of knowing that until I open my eyes or feel around a bit.

Man I have got to run last comments... In fact we, in modern times have coined the phrase "Virtual Reality" which is interesting while on the subject. Oh and yes I do think like Einstein although at a toddler level in comparison. He got most of it right, he only just could not fit in quantum theory. If given time he may have just mastered it. Speaking of quantum... SuperFluids anyone? Space time is still an issue, speed of light speed of light.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-06-2005, 07:52 PM   #90
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

to me, the whole definition is one of an "objective" nature, not a "subjective" nature. i would just caution you that you will more than likely run into this a lot, if you use the word reality in a subjective way. i daresay that the overwhelming percentage of people think of that word as an objective word.

it says to be in existence - not that we are aware of it being in existence. once we become aware of its existence, we are the ones who have changed, not the observed who was already in existence, before we knew about it.

btw, i am not sure where you got the info, but i do not believe that the earth was created 4000 years ago.

i treat the old testament as a biased jewish history book, nothing more.

and while i do treat the new testament as the philosophy of jesus, i do not think of it as being infallible - because i can not put 100% trust in something that had human intervention. if there is a conflict between my conscience and the new testament, i will cide with my conscience, because that is where i have a direct link with god, assuming there is a god, which i do believe. i can not say for sure, either way - just like everyone else. no one has definitive proof.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
 

Go Back   SIRIUS Backstage Forum > >


Digitalradiocentral.com




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:36 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.39 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
All Content Copyright SIRIUS Backstage. All Rights Reserved. SIRIUS and registered trademarks are the property of SIRIUS Satellite Radio, Inc. The opinions posted on SIRIUS Backstage website and forums are those of the individual posters and/or this website and are not necessarily the opinions or positions of SIRIUS Satellite Radio, Inc.