Models versus Reality...

[SpheresOfBalance]

Scott. I presume you realise that you can't have the singularity hypothesis without the god hypothesis. If you're so willing to define the universe as unknowable it makes me wonder why you bother to waste your time in a philosophy forum.
Tisk, tisk, tisk, to attribute another's time in the forum as a waste, while implying that yours is not, as the voice of authority that can certainly judge such things with certainty. What does that imply as to your psyche?

Prey tell us your hypothesis as to the origin, or infinite existence of the universe. While I'm certain of one thing, that you shall assert that it is in fact definitively the superior model, and is most absolutely correct. I mean certainly, as you've said over and over again like a "parrot," all those scientists have got it all wrong, which can only mean that you have it right. When was your noble prize awarded anyway? How about your next one, I want to attend. I'm sure you're running out of room to store them.

Ahhhhh, it's just your weapon of choice, no harm in that huh?

Anyway you're quite wrong about the consensus in physics. Although the position is not unanimous the overwhelming majority of the priesthood are now convinced that the metric tensor equations in the differential geometry of GR become exponentially less descriptive as gravitational field strength increases. Steven Hawking, who is by no means my favourite physicist but whom I acknowledge as the leading expert in this field, has almost completely abandoned all of his previous positions on black hole physics and he is by no means the only one. I suggest you do a bit of homework on the black hole information paradox as well as the firewall paradox. It is almost a certainty that a singularity cannot physically exist although from a metaphysical point of view the entire idea was absurd from the outset. How the fuck can an infinite set be contained within a finite one? ( and don't give me any abstract mathematical bollocks because I mean PHYSICALLY contained)
By the way, it's no wonder why you've chosen this arena as your battlefield. If it's certainly currently unknowable, it tends to assure one of at least a few victories aided with a little knowledge, of the current 'belief' system, and a lot of well grounded BS. But then I guess everyone needs to feel like a winner, sometimes. It's just a shame that some desire to achieve it at the expense of others. When in fact one could frame their diatribe in such a way so as to be all inclusive. Yet it's true that only the wisest are capable of such things. The ones that are interested in knowledge for it's sake alone. I can think of but few that frequent this forum. Ginkgo seems to be one, and in some ways uwot does as well, of course there are surely others. Well we all mature at different rates huh? The ones that are only in it for self stroking are so easy to spot, and plentiful, run of the mill, common!

[Obvious Leo]

SOB. Since you seem to be disinclined to offer a counter-argument to any of my statements I see no need to respond to any of your ad hominem taunts.

In other words I don't give a fuck what you think.

[Scott Mayers]

Scott. I presume you realise that you can't have the singularity hypothesis without the god hypothesis. If you're so willing to define the universe as unknowable it makes me wonder why you bother to waste your time in a philosophy forum.

Anyway you're quite wrong about the consensus in physics. Although the position is not unanimous the overwhelming majority of the priesthood are now convinced that the metric tensor equations in the differential geometry of GR become exponentially less descriptive as gravitational field strength increases. Steven Hawking, who is by no means my favourite physicist but whom I acknowledge as the leading expert in this field, has almost completely abandoned all of his previous positions on black hole physics and he is by no means the only one. I suggest you do a bit of homework on the black hole information paradox as well as the firewall paradox. It is almost a certainty that a singularity cannot physically exist although from a metaphysical point of view the entire idea was absurd from the outset. How the fuck can an infinite set be contained within a finite one? ( and don't give me any abstract mathematical bollocks because I mean PHYSICALLY contained)

Hi Leo,

I'm going to end up having to expand into a depth I'm concerned would not be wise to do here. I'll try to explain it in better depth when I can and will allow you to see it when I'm ready. But thanks for your feedback as this helps to understand how and where different people interpret things and what onus I have to overcome this in my own explanations.

For the moment, I mentioned an argument above to show how SR is dependent on GR. Do you now understand and accept this reasoning? I recognize that this is only an aside issue to this topic. I just want to see if as a sample sub-argument if you are flexible to change your mind considering that issue.

[Obvious Leo]

That GR falsifies SR is actually quite easily proven, Scott. GR regards SR as a "special case" of GR in the so-called "flat space". However this so-called "flat space" is assumed to be a region of the universe where gravity is absent. Since no such gravity-less region physically exists in the universe we are forced to the conclusion that SR cannot possibly be a model of a physically real world. Incidentally Einstein was perfectly well aware of this and it was for this reason that Henri Poincare flatly rejected the SR paradigm when it was first published in 1905. Furthermore since QM is entirely predicated on SR and not on GR this is a complete and adequate explanation for all the so-called "quantum weirdness". Because QM is modelled on an unrealisable mathematical abstraction it automatically becomes an unrealisable mathematical abstraction itself.

[Scott Mayers]

That GR falsifies SR is actually quite easily proven, Scott. GR regards SR as a "special case" of GR in the so-called "flat space". However this so-called "flat space" is assumed to be a region of the universe where gravity is absent. Since no such gravity-less region physically exists in the universe we are forced to the conclusion that SR cannot possibly be a model of a physically real world. Incidentally Einstein was perfectly well aware of this and it was for this reason that Henri Poincare flatly rejected the SR paradigm when it was first published in 1905. Furthermore since QM is entirely predicated on SR and not on GR this is a complete and adequate explanation for all the so-called "quantum weirdness". Because QM is modelled on an unrealisable mathematical abstraction it automatically becomes an unrealisable mathematical abstraction itself.

NO. SR works regardless in both spacial descriptions.

I also reinterpreted Relativity in the space without the 'warping' of gravity to return to the Flat model with the addition of spacial expansion as a fourth dimension. [I'm not sure which name this model is given to prior to Einstein's warped space model.] It alters gravity to be a product of the expansion of space that pushes matter rather than pull OR warp as an explanation that removes actionable cause from a distance. But this is not necessary in either my own nor Einstein's interpretation.

Gravity is just a particular kind of acceleration. As such, SR stands because it defines its frames as "inertial" meaning to have a constant speed. Accelerations are just an additional set of 'frames' that complete the picture. I am sure I gave you the example of a car at rest (ON EARTH) and it moving at a constant speed (still ON the same EARTH). In actuality, even if a car is moving on some road in constant speed, the gravity affects both precisely the same because the car is moving in a giant arc equidistant from the center of gravity of the Earth and so cancels out when only thinking of the car standing still or going in one direction. That is, even if you used GR, all the acceleration factors would cancel out in consideration of problems of inertia alone. So GR encompasses SR no matter what!

[Obvious Leo]

NO. SR works regardless in both spacial descriptions.

I never said it didn't work. I only said it couldn't be a true model of reality because it ignores gravity. This means that SR assumes that time passes at a constant speed, an assumption which GR disproves.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SOB. Since you seem to be disinclined to offer a counter-argument to any of my statements I see no need to respond to any of your ad hominem taunts.

In other words I don't give a fuck what you think.

No, I think that what's really true, is that you don't give a fuck what anyone thinks, but you!

[SpheresOfBalance]

NO. SR works regardless in both spacial descriptions.

I never said it didn't work. I only said it couldn't be a true model of reality because it ignores gravity. This means that SR assumes that time passes at a constant speed, an assumption which GR disproves.

Don't you mean light, not time? Light can be clocked, time cannot, it is not a thing, it is a concept. Time is just a rate of change, different things change at different rates. Or so indicates my study of chemistry. Time is used to clock light, what is used to clock time? Time? Time is used to clock time?

[Scott Mayers]

NO. SR works regardless in both spacial descriptions.

I never said it didn't work. I only said it couldn't be a true model of reality because it ignores gravity. This means that SR assumes that time passes at a constant speed, an assumption which GR disproves.

Don't you mean light, not time? Light can be clocked, time cannot, it is not a thing, it is a concept. Time is just a rate of change, different things change at different rates. Or so indicates my study of chemistry. Time is used to clock light, what is used to clock time? Time? Time is used to clock time?

You responded to this as I would have too.

[SpheresOfBalance]

NO. SR works regardless in both spacial descriptions.

I never said it didn't work. I only said it couldn't be a true model of reality because it ignores gravity. This means that SR assumes that time passes at a constant speed, an assumption which GR disproves.

Don't you mean light, not time? Light can be clocked, time cannot, it is not a thing, it is a concept. Time is just a rate of change, different things change at different rates. Or so indicates my study of chemistry. Time is used to clock light, what is used to clock time? Time? Time is used to clock time?

You responded to this as I would have too.

I guess that means great minds think alike.

Just kidding! I can't speak for you or Leo, but, "I suck!!!!!" (<-- regretting the things not in my head)

I somehow feel better now.

And now back to your regularly scheduled topic at hand, please continue.

[Scott Mayers]

Well, you couldn't be a balanced sphere if you couldn't be both wise and stupid at the same time or in equal measure, right?

[Obvious Leo]

The speed of light and the speed at which time passes are the same thing. That's why the speed of light is always observed to be a constant. It doesn't actually mean that the speed of light actually IS a constant because the speed of light can only be measured by using a clock and clocks tick at different speeds in different gravitational environments. The speed of light is the same on the moon as it is on the earth but the clocks being used to measure this speed are themselves ticking at different speeds. This actually applies all the way down to the Planck scale which makes the speed of light the most inconstant speed in the universe. The clock on the electron ticks faster than the one on the nucleus it orbits.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well, you couldn't be a balanced sphere if you couldn't be both wise and stupid at the same time or in equal measure, right?

Everyone assumes that my pseudonym was created as a reflection of what I believe I am. Which couldn't be further from the truth. In fact it was a concept, born of two philosophy students, getting high (weed), and talking about philosophy, back in '94. It actually started due to one mentioning the idea of Yin & Yang as an answer to a problem, as I tacked on more, i.e., an atoms nucleus with it's valance electrons, then the solar systems star and planets, then I finally tacked on the two hemispheres of the human brain, but it doesn't imply that any particular set of spheres are necessarily balanced, instead I meant it to imply that they MUST be balanced; at all costs they must be balanced. For life to exist, there must be balance. And so everyones work is cut out for them, some more than others, but I'll mention no names.

Me? Balanced? Let's just say that I try!