Dilemma of beginning of time

[Logik]

You might think and believe you can experience certain things - "apple" is maybe an easier example than "gravity". How do experience "apple"?

But I am not interested in the things that are easy to explain. I am interested in the things that are very difficult to explain. So lets stick with gravity.

[Logik]

Conventionally yes, sure I experience gravity when skydiving, but when really inquiring into this direct experience you will find that this is ultimately not true.

How do you determine whether it's true or false?

[Logik]

How have you decided to draw this line? You aren't experiencing gravity when skydiving?

Conventionally yes, sure I experience gravity when skydiving, but when really inquiring into this direct experience you will find that this is ultimately not true.

I think I have an idea where this conversation is going to go And I think I already know where we are going to disagree.

How many senses do you think you have? Most people would answer five: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.
That list is incomplete.

Because you are going to have a really hard time explaining to me how you sense when you are thirsty or hungry given the above, and I'd like you hear your argument against experiencing thirst and hunger

[surreptitious57]

I am interested in the things that are very difficult to explain . So lets stick with gravity

Gravity is the effect that mass [ specifically objects of mass ] have on spacetime
The greater the object of mass is then the greater the bending of spacetime is
The largest objects of mass therefore have the greatest effect on spacetime

They are super massive black holes and so bent is spacetime around them that not even light can escape from them
In neutron stars the star is crushed to its absolute smallest size possible by gravity but without losing any of its mass
Neutron stars are the densest objects within the Universe because unlike black holes they dont expand after collapse

Large objects of mass have a greater effect on smaller objects of mass

The closer two objects of mass are to each other the stronger the force of gravity between them will be and equally so
the further away they are then the weaker it will be . So the effect of gravity is proportional to both size and distance
All objects are affected by the gravity of all other objects regardless of mass or distance in relation to each other even
though beyond a certain distance the effect of gravity is practically non existent in actuality

Gravity propagates at the speed of light though here on Earth it is only 9.8I metres per second
And so if you fall from a building 98I metres high you shall hit the ground in exactly I0 seconds

The only objects that can manipulate gravity are those that are sufficiently light or aerodynamic [ such as a feather for example ]

Gravity is usually referenced as one of the four fundamental forces although the effect of mass on spacetime it is not really a force
But it is the weakest of the four which may be because it is universal [ though electromagnetism 20 times stronger is also universal ]

[Logik]

I am interested in the things that are very difficult to explain . So lets stick with gravity

Gravity is the effect that mass [ specifically objects of mass ] has on spacetime
The greater the object of mass is then the greater the bending of spacetime is
The largest objects of mass therefore have the greatest effect on spacetime

They are super massive black holes and so bent is spacetime around them that not even light can escape from them
In neutron stars the star is crushed to its absolute smallest size possible by gravity but without losing any of its mass
Neutron stars are the densest objects within the Universe because unlike black holes they dont expand after collapse

Large objects of mass have a greater effect on smaller objects of mass

The closer two objects of mass are to each other the stronger the force of gravity between them will be and equally so
the further away they are then the weaker it will be . So the effect of gravity is proportional to both size and distance
All objects are affected by the gravity of all other objects regardless of mass or distance in relation to each other even
though beyond a certain distance the effect of gravity is practically non existent in actuality

Gravity propagates at the speed of light though here on Earth it is only 9.8I metres per second
And so if you fall from a building 98I metres high you shall hit the ground in exactly I0 seconds

The only objects that can manipulate gravity are those that are sufficiently light or aerodynamic [ such as a feather for example ]

Gravity is usually referenced as one of the four fundamental forces although the effect of mass on spacetime it is not really a force
But it is the weakest of the four which may be because it is universal [ though electromagnetism 20 times stronger is also universal ]

OK. You have read the theory.

What are it’s practical (empirical) implications?

What predictions can you make knowing the above?

[surreptitious57]

One can calculate the escape velocity required to send any rocket into outer space
One can design the best aerodynamic shape for supersonic flight or flight at altitude
One can design parachutes that sufficiently slow a descent from an optimum altitude
One can detect the existence of gravitational waves after two black holes have collided
One can calculate the escape velocities of different planets [ they are not all the same ]

[Logik]

One can calculate the escape velocity required to send any rocket into outer space
One can design the best aerodynamic shape for supersonic flight or flight at altitude
One can design parachutes that sufficiently slow a descent from an optimum altitude
One can detect the existence of gravitational waves after two black holes have collided
One can calculate the escape velocities of different planets [ they are not all the same ]

When last did you need to do any of those thigs?

[surreptitious57]

One can calculate the escape velocity required to send any rocket into outer space
One can design the best aerodynamic shape for supersonic flight or flight at altitude
One can design parachutes that sufficiently slow a descent from an optimum altitude
One can detect the existence of gravitational waves after two black holes have collided
One can calculate the escape velocities of different planets [ they are not all the same ]

When last did you need to do any of those things

The first three are practical applications of gravity as that is what you wanted to know
The fact that they do not benefit me personally is therefore irrelevant to your question

[Logik]

The first three are practical applications of gravity as that is what you wanted to know

Yes, but you only answered one of my questions and you ignored the 2nd one.

Being "What predictions can you make knowing the above?"

The fact that they do not benefit me personally is therefore irrelevant to your question

It's very relevant to "What predictions can you make knowing the above?"

And perhaps even "What predictions do you make?". You know. In your every-day life.

[surreptitious57]

I make no predictions in my everyday life regarding gravity as I have no need to
I am used to experiencing one gee and so it is not something for which I need to make adjustments
My body is automatically conditioned to this specific pressure and it has stayed constant all my life

[Logik]

I make no predictions in my everyday life regarding gravity as I have no need to
I am used to experiencing one gee and so it is not something for which I need to make adjustments
My body is automatically conditioned to this specific pressure and it has stayed constant all my life

Maybe you don't, but your brain has you covered

Every time you take a step your brain is predicting that shifting your center of mass will result in forward motion.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2270143/

Your brain is in for a surprise when this trick doesn't work in zero-gravity.

[surreptitious57]

Your brain is in for a surprise when this trick doesnt work in zero gravity

As I am not planning on going to the moon anytime soon my brain need not worry too much about this
Zero gravity is not something I would want to experience for any length of time anyway so just as well

[AlexW]

How have you decided to draw this line? You aren't experiencing gravity when skydiving?

Conventionally yes, sure I experience gravity when skydiving, but when really inquiring into this direct experience you will find that this is ultimately not true.

I think I have an idea where this conversation is going to go And I think I already know where we are going to disagree.

How many senses do you think you have? Most people would answer five: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.
That list is incomplete.

Because you are going to have a really hard time explaining to me how you sense when you are thirsty or hungry given the above, and I'd like you hear your argument against experiencing thirst and hunger

The only way you can experience hunger in a physical way is via the sense of touch. Stomach muscles contract and as soon as you have learned that this sensation means “hunger “ that’s what you call it. Before this time, as a baby, there is a reflex to cry. Something is physically wrong with the body - result: the baby cries. Does it experience “hunger” or simply a contraction of the stomach?
Later on, of course, hunger seems to be triggered by a range of other factors, smells, pictures of ice cream, but this hunger is purely psychological, not a physical sensation.

[Logik]

The only way you can experience hunger in a physical way is via the sense of touch.

Yes. They are called mechanoreceptors and they are sensitive to pressure, not to chemical composition.

Stomach muscles contract and as soon as you have learned that this sensation means “hunger “ that’s what you call it.

That's a great hypothesis, but you are no closer to explaining to me how the same mechanoreceptor can produce two different experiences: "hunger" and "thirst".

You can tell the difference between hunger and thirst, right?

Later on, of course, hunger seems to be triggered by a range of other factors, smells, pictures of ice cream, but this hunger is purely psychological, not a physical sensation.

I didn't ask if hunger is a "sensation".
I asked if you experience hunger. It's a yes/no question.

If you experience it then it's empirical.

However, since you have drawn the distinction, let me point out how you have put the foot in your own mouth.

How would you empirically determine the difference between "experience" and a "sensation"?
e.g what scientific experiment would you perform to determine if such a difference exists in practice?

And if you can't think of such an experiment then would you say that the distinction between "experience" and "sensation" is merely linguistic?

[AlexW]

They are called mechanoreceptors and they are sensitive to pressure, not to chemical composition.

Yes, thats why they can sense the contraction of stomach muscles.

but you are no closer to explaining to me how the same mechanoreceptor can produce two different experiences: "hunger" and "thirst".

Well, as far as I know they don't... Thirst is very different in that it is the brain (sensors in the hypothalamus) that measures the bloods concentration of sodium etc.. and when found as been lacking certain substances are emitted that stimulate the urge to drink.

I asked if you experience hunger. It's a yes/no question.

I can experience muscles contracting in the stomach - I also experience thoughts arising stating "I am hungry!" - If this qualifies as "experiencing hunger", then, yes, sure... but you see what this experience is made of, right? Physical sensations plus thought.

How would you empirically determine the difference between "experience" and a "sensation"?

Everything you can experience is whatever is being sensed via seeing, hearing, touch, smell, taste plus thought.
What the senses and thought have in common is that both are being experienced.
Whereas the huge difference between the senses and thought is that thought interprets whatever is being sensed and as such adds a conceptual layer to pure experience that is often not in tune with what is actually sensed - this how a concept like "gravity" seems to be experienced while all that you really experience is the sense of touch and a bundle of thoughts talking about gravity (or hunger etc)...

what scientific experiment would you perform to determine if such a difference exists in practice?

Simply look at your direct experience before thought and then compare it to what thought makes of it.