Philosophy Now Forum

Gravity isn't bending the light, Phil, because light is massless. Gravity is SLOWING DOWN the light and this appears to the observer as bent light. This is EXACTLY the same phenomenon as the bent stick in the water. Light travels more slowly in water than it does in the air above it and this appears to the observer as a bent stick. It's a fucking OBSERVER EFFECT, Phil, as is every other so-called paradox in physics.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:Calling me merely 'wrong' is not enough.

I quite agree but this is not what I'm doing. All I'm doing is pointing out the mainstream position of conventional mathematical philosophy and simply calling this band-wagoning does not constitute a counter-argument. By adopting the logical positivist stance of physics it is you are placed in the unenviable situation of attempting to defend a minority position. The convention in philosophy is that in such cases the burden of proof lies with you and not with me. What is so uniquely privileged about the Cartesian space that you assume the right to define time as one of its co-ordinates? I'll readily grant that you're probably more proficient with the tools of mathematics than I am but why couldn't time be a co-ordinate of a de Sitter space, or a Hilbert space, or an anti de Sitter space, or any of the vector spaces or topological spaces or fuck knows what other spaces? If the Cartesian space is physically real then why aren't these other spaces?

Please explain why you aren't doing what Minkowski did and assuming that which you would seek to establish and thus defining a self-referential and tautologous model for reality.

Your position is NOT the mainstream on space-time as most accept this since Einstein. Why would you falsely create this myth. Like I said, your band-wagon argument is only intended to insult and lacks substance. Attend to my argument rather than beg who or who does not support my view. Your feigning an understanding of geometric spaces yet accept you lack the math to qualify argumentatively. You disagree with things like mathematical Calculus, yet lack knowing what it is. You assert I lack logical credibility yet lack being able to defend any logic. I am already presenting specific argument here grounded in logic.

And also note that my argument above is ALSO equivalent to the Uncertainty Principle standard within QM. (another supporting factor I share with the standard beliefs of present scientists.) Yet I defend these by using argument without a need to appeal to others'. What I DO differ by others I relates to only inverting Relativity, (not denying it), and redressing the Standard model to accept a Steady State version non-contradictory by the present data. Thus I am combining the different opposing theories by combining them in a way that make them both viable in one theory.

Oh, and on self-referential, this is about perspective only. At present my theory is also based upon using a calculus based upon the perspective of the points themselves but requires using even a more advanced Calculus to deal with multi-variables and vectors. I have been simple here to begin with something easily graspable but you overlook it with contempt.

Nature begins with absolutely nothing, not even laws (which should appeal to you), but you prefer at least a something and never a nothing. You beg causation yet defy it as a "law".

What is particularly "wrong" with THIS post where I introduce a clear-cut argument for my case to begin on? At least even Poetic is attending to it directly even though I disagree (to be responding later).

cladking wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote: I'm not in disagreement. The point was that I was showing Leo is how we could not resist using models to demonstrate reality other than actually witnessing the reality directly all the time. But even witnessing them are based on internal models of our minds through the senses. Regardless, at least some models can represent some part of something with as much detail as necessary to describe it. No one has to confuse the models for the reality as long as we share the same initial denotations for learning the symbols we use to model the realities. Even this is difficult but not impossible.

Yes. I suppose you are right.

My problem is much more intractable than I thought. I usually describe it as everyone knowing everything but they'll never forget what they know to listen to me. Maybe if I could express it as poetry or lyrics in a song People could get it on an emotional level.

People model reality using words that are models while seeing only what they already know. There's no room left over to see the meaning of what other people are saying. Everyone already has his own reality and doesn't need any stinkin' new reality.

The language to express nature's reality no longer exists and we are stuck with language where even reality is questioned and premises remain unexamined. We're left with a language that assumes a shared perspective that can't exist while people, ideas, and language continue to fragment.

There's no fulcrum to change a mind and no wedge to get into one. We're each adrift with no anchor and no horizon.

I think we all compete for our views without initially giving in to others by default. But I believe we DO change if and where we internalize things later. But then we forget the original sources of those who ignited them even though they count. So I'm still optimistic for trying and participating. Your input DOES count too.

Obvious Leo wrote:Gravity isn't bending the light, Phil, because light is massless. Gravity is SLOWING DOWN the light and this appears to the observer as bent light. This is EXACTLY the same phenomenon as the bent stick in the water. Light travels more slowly in water than it does in the air above it and this appears to the observer as a bent stick. It's a fucking OBSERVER EFFECT, Phil, as is every other so-called paradox in physics.

First you say that gravity isn't bending the light because light has no rest mass (agreed), but then you contradict yourself by saying that gravity slows down light which can't be again due to light having no rest mass. Rather it's the warping of space by gravity that has light traveling a longer path which gives an appearance of slowing light
down. So no this isn't the same observer effect.

PhilX

Scott Mayers wrote:Your position is NOT the mainstream on space-time

When did I ever say that it was? What I said was that in mathematical philosophy a dimension is regarded as a mathematical entity and not a physical entity. I hardly need you to tell me that physics takes a different view because my entire thesis is that this is why physics is FUCKING WRONG!!!

Don't forget that ever since spacetime was invented physics and philosophy have gone their separate ways because they are utterly incompatible. Philosophy is about making sense and physics is about predictions. Are you next going to try and tell me that physics makes sense or will you stick with the prevailing view of the priesthood that making sense in science is a mere vanity and a trivial inconvenience.

Phil. How does gravity warp space? Space is just a co-ordinate system.

You guys are getting yourselves all confused about the so-called constant speed of light but the speed of light is the most inconstant speed in the universe, being variable all the way down to the Planck scale. How do we know this? We know this because because the speed of light is always measured to be a constant. Think about it.

PoeticUniverse wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote: Let X be 'true'; If such an X is perfectly void of content, then while presuming 'true' it is also false such that X = 'untrue' as well. If you think of this as a box to which you label it with an 'X', it acts variable in that you can put anything into it or not.

Thus when container is empty it's false that it isn't empty.

What I stated above is about defining the double negation of something as equivalent to its posited assumption. That is, if you presume anything called 'X' that exists, and it lacks any absolute content (meaning), then this is equivalent to not being the case that it exists, yet contain (mean) what it is not. This initiates my argument mathematically as follows:

Assume X
Therefore --X

Then I introduce X as being a box, something we can easily witness in everyday life such that we understand it as being able to contain something. In other words, if we accept a box as 'real', then it is NOT the case that it is NOT a box.

And what we know about all real boxes is that it can contain variable real things.

In other words, I'm initiating that we accept a box (a specific type of X) as real. And so to whatever follows in my argument I cannot dismiss the box as not real later because I assumed it such. But because I've defined X as a box that we know can contain variable things in it, this allows us to recognize at least something that is singular (the box) can contain something that is variable (what could be contained inside it).

Note that the first mention of X is undefined but then I define X as a box, a single real thing (a constant) we can all relate to. But even though the box is one single thing, it can contain more than any one thing you might imagine you can place into it (a variable).

PoeticUniverse wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:If you place something in it, you know that you placed it there and so are able to be confirmed this by putting something in it. On the other hand, if you don't, while you may not actually be placing anything in it, you still know from your inability to determine what may or may not be already present there, the act of NOT placing anything in it acts as an opposing value to placing something in it.

I put some money in my wallet, or, if I don't there might or not be money already in there but this is still the opposite of putting some money in.

Here, I am staging for a new label called, Y. But this label can be a constant or variable too. I opted to define it as an action as opposed to a thing which is still valid. The act of "placing something in the box" and the absence of "placing something in the box". To your wallet, this is the same as first buying a wallet. Only when you first open it are you able to determine whether you can put anything in it or not. It could be filled with bills already. I don't like the wallet example because you could get a hint of whether it is full or not due to it bulging.

Also, the act of "placing something in" opposes "not placing something in" (an absence of acting), here, NOT to take money out (a subtraction of something).

PoeticUniverse wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:Let the act of placing something in the box = Y and the act of not placing something [nothing] in the box = -Y. You realistically recognize that you can either do Y, as an act, or -Y as both equal possibilities. Recognizing this possibility alone is enough to represent that what you can place in the box is as meaningful and real as not doing so.

Either I put the money in or I don't; both have meaning.

Yes. So you agree, at this point.

PoeticUniverse wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:Therefore, the box's content represented as the one with an, X, is real because if it wasn't, no X meaning no actual box = -X exists!

My wallet exists if I can put the money in, because if I can't then it's true that I have no wallet.

Somewhat, yes. That is, assuming you are capable of placing contents in the box, you are incapable to place contents in a box that does not exist. I should have reworded this better though as the grammar I used above could be interpreted in different ways. But this should clarify it. I'm reinstating the reality of the box to assure that you can at least opt to place something in it or not to place something in it.

PoeticUniverse wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:This logically proves that for any minimal concept of reality is necessarily one thing and nothing at the same time. Just note that to place something in the box requires displacing the potential of something else being there as you try which defeats your ability to do Y. Thus all you can be certain of by default is -Y until you try. This is a type of rewording of QM's Uncertainty Principle as an application to reality itself.

I can only be at first be certain that I can't put money into my wallet, as a default, until I try to do so.

Well, an Absolute Nothing/Nonexistence still can't exist, so 'it' can't have any properties, quantities, etc; making it totally bankrupt, that is, if 'it' could be an 'it'.

No, to the first sentence. You can be certain that the option not to put something in the box is a real option by default but can't determine by your inaction to interpret whether something already exists or not inside it. It could already be fully contained such that you only discover that you cannot by opening the box first to determine if it is empty or not.

It is the Y and -Y actions to which I'm demonstrating as real here based on accepting that X is real. So I'm showing that the default to knowing is to assume nothing takes precedence before assuming anything....but that a something can be further deduced because the box itself is real. The fact that it is variable thus makes both possibilities, a something and a nothing, as true.

Note that the significance of this argument is to recognize that if the box was defaulted to be 'full', like a something, then trying to place something in it is not possible without first taking out whatever is in there first. Thus, only where it is empty (a nothing) to begin with, it allows for both possibilities....AND that both such possibilities can rationally be true assuming a nothing initially.

Scott, your analysis pertains to the human realm of finding out about a container but doesn't result in Nothing being real ontologically, but that Nothing, like infinity, is that which can't be reached, along with full solidity and nowhere to put something. Thus, the forced default of there having to be something ever.

Obvious Leo wrote:Phil. How does gravity warp space? Space is just a co-ordinate system.

Scientists run their equations which gives those expected results (and confirmed by an eclipse about 100 years ago and reconfirmed many times since). I suspect the math is challenging as I've never seen it presented (as equations). That's where your answer lies.

With respect to a coordinate system, that's been set up by humans to describe position. I suspect though that the proof wouldn't involve a coordinate system because if it did, the math wouldn't be so challenging (but without the coordinates, space would still be space).

PhilX

Obvious Leo wrote:Phil. How does gravity warp space? Space is just a co-ordinate system.

Obviously not. Depends on how you look at it. It's only a model, but a model that helps us poor humans visualise what is going on.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I suspect the math is challenging as I've never seen it presented (as equations). That's where your answer lies.

Nonsense. The equations don't offer any explanation for what's happening at all. If this were so then virtual particles would be popping into existence out of nothingness and making matter and energy behave in a particular way. If you feel up to the task of running that argument then bring it on. There's nothing quite as relaxing as a quiet morning of shooting fish in a barrel.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: It's only a model, but a model that helps us poor humans visualise what is going on.

It's a mathematical METAPHOR which is being clumsily translated into ordinary language. Empty space has no physical properties and thus cannot be said to physically exist. How is it possible that Einstein could understand this so easily, as could Wheeler, and yet so many of the modern geeks simply don't get it? When physicists speak of the geometry of empty space they are making a mathematical statement and not a physical one and if Phil reckons these notions are synonymous then he's just as metaphysically illiterate as they are.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I suspect the math is challenging as I've never seen it presented (as equations). That's where your answer lies.

Nonsense. The equations don't offer any explanation for what's happening at all. If this were so then virtual particles would be popping into existence out of nothingness and making matter and energy behave in a particular way. If you feel up to the task of running that argument then bring it on. There's nothing quite as relaxing as a quiet morning of shooting fish in a barrel.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: It's only a model, but a model that helps us poor humans visualise what is going on.

It's a mathematical METAPHOR which is being clumsily translated into ordinary language. Empty space has no physical properties and thus cannot be said to physically exist. How is it possible that Einstein could understand this so easily, as could Wheeler, and yet so many of the modern geeks simply don't get it? When physicists speak of the geometry of empty space they are making a mathematical statement and not a physical one and if Phil reckons these notions are synonymous then he's just as metaphysically illiterate as they are.

You only replacing one metaphor with another. You are applying an empty box, Einstein is saying it is more complex than that.

Leo said:

"Empty space has no physical properties and thus cannot be said to physically exist." Depends on what you mean by empty space. Mainstream physics says (empty) space has many properties and you still need the empty space, otherwise where do those properties exist?

PhilX

For the benefit of Leo and others, I put up this article:

http://io9.com/one-of-historys-great-po ... 1726860305

Here's why and I quote:

"...Through modern eyes we see that Laplace took the wrong route to get to the right place. Light can’t be slowed down by gravity, but its path can be bent...."

Exactly what I've said before.

PhilX