Re: Einstein Made It Up As He Went Along
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 05:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 2, 1:47 am, Damaeus <dama...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In news:sci.physics, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> posted on Mon, 1
Sep 2008 11:43:42 -0700 (PDT):
Damaeus wrote:
In news:sci.physics, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> posted on Tue, 26
Aug 2008 06:42:33 -0700 (PDT):
Don't confuse logic with common sense. Common sense is based
on an extrapolation of what you experience with your senses,
under the *assumption* that what works within the realm of your
everyday experience should work in general. This is a bad
assumption, though it has served well as an evolved survival
strategy.
If common sense has served well as an evolved survival strategy, what
makes you think that common sense won't also serve well in other ways
beyond survival?
Because careful and confirmed experimental measurement has
demonstrated hundreds of times that common sense is not accurate.
That would be true since common sense is not connected to relativity,
but is instead connected to a static universe.
Recall that Aristotelean physics was considered valid and consistent
with common sense for a thousand years. It was also largely wrong.
I don't think it was wrong for their time.
And I think that most scientists would disagree.
I do think it's wrong
today because I think science, itself, has been a discovery process
that has warped reality.
Again, scientists would disagree, as the point of science is to find
out how reality works.
But since you obviously do not care for science or what it does, then
what you are interested in is not science but something else. Since
this is a discussion forum about physics and not metaphysics, about
science and not philosophy, then it appears you are yapping in the
wrong yard.
Of course, if relativity was true then, and they were just not aware
of it, being connected to the universe only through common senses,
then that suggests the existence of two separate universes that are
always apart and might never join. In my particular position, that's
a rather disturbing though, for I want a universe in which relativity
ceases to exist and the universe once again operates based on common
sense.
From that point, as fully-aware creator gods, I think we'll be able to
"create" our own pockets of reality to play in and invite others into.
In those universes, having acquired all the knowledge of physics from
having lived in the world of relativity, we will be able to make
twisting, complex labyrinths of paradoxical realities to get lost in
and adventure in, forever, doing whatever we want.
Also what if this common sense comes from the universe itself, via the
electromagnetic (dark) energy all around us?
Most of the universe behaves *nothing like* what we experience in
the realm of our senses, nor can we insist that it must.
As one who has probably never left Earth, I find it amusing that you
even *claim* to know what much of the universe is like, especially not
even being sure of what percentage of it we've actually observed.
I agree that we've only come in contact with a small portion of the
universe experimentally. However, that which informs our common sense
is an even *smaller* fraction.
AH!!! Then you've admitted that something "in the universe" informs
us of the nature of the universe, just like I've claimed from the
start.
Um... this is not new. It is part of the scientific method. Been
around since the Renaissance. Did you think you had stumbled on
something original?
Your mistake is in assuming that we *only* get information
about our local area. We get much more. The common sense comes from
the static universe hypotheisized by Einstein.
And the additional view that we've gotten, small though it is,
shows that our common sense is not reliable.
That's because there's a disconnect between the common sense of the
static universe, and the reality of the relativity universe. It's not
that your common sense isn't reliable. It's just that it doesn't
apply yet because the universe has not yet slipped back into its
static and infinite state.
Another way of saying this is that common sense is a liar and a
cheat, and over-reliance on it is scientific thin ice.
Only if you choose to discover mysteries through math. It can be done
through experience and common sense, too.
You aren't listening.
You aren't posting WAV files.
Mysteries aren't discovered with math. They are discovered with
*experiment*.
Right. And then they're solved with intuition.
Completely disagree. So would most scientists. See comment above.
It's not far from the truth that Einstein made it up as he went
along. The remarkable part about it is that it accurately (that is,
quantitatively) predicts measurable phenomena as actually observed
later in experiment. In science, the measure of a theory is not at all
based on whether the premises are plausible or the conclusions jive
with common sense. The measure of a theory is how well it is validated
in experiment. And in fact, most people did not believe relativity
could possibly be right -- until the experimental results rolled in
and scientists had to say, "Son of a gun!" Now, this *also* means that
scientists have to go back and question their assumptions that made
them think such a thing is impossible. Because if nature unambiguously
shows that such a thing *is* possible, then what has to move is the
assumption, not nature.
Yes... Interesting how science had to suddenly go back and re-examine
their assumptions. I have a grand feeling that I'm in for the same
treatment.
Exactly.
You're a prophet!
So I must be misunderstanding what the principle of relativity
says, or I must be not seeing some asymmetry...."
Getting information through the twin paradox has a variety of
interactive elements, from thoughts that result in just feelings in
the head, to bodily feelings, and plain surface thoughts. But,
indeed, the twin paradox is not a "ask and receive" deliverer of
information.
To get information from your twin paradox, you have to create a void
in your mind by holding two or more conflicting ideas together in your
thinking. Hold them, and force them to be together. You should (or
at least I do) feel pressure in the head, like more blood going to the
brain to boost your thinking power for a new kind of problem.
I don't think this is what's being asked for at all.
Nothing is being asked for. I'm just telling you what *I* do. That
you believe your twin paradox is asking you for something has you in
the state of *waiting* to find out what it wants, which results in
less growth than you'd have if you'd get past that mental barrier
where you're not waiting, but absorbing interactively.
It is true that there is a conflict with common sense.
Absorption of information through the twin paradox is a paradoxical
experience that results in the restoration of common sense as it
compares to relativity. I think that by knowing how physics behaves
at the most elementary levels, and how belief in theories would affect
the behavior of quanta for you as comparisons between a static and
relative universe, you would be able to, through your own will to
experience a certain feeling, and through the thoughtwaves created by
the desire for those feelings, control the actions of quanta, which
would then shift and move around like intelligent particles, forming
themselves to an environment you find most pleasing to yourself in
ways that give you what set yourself up to want. The proof of this
possibility is found in the accidental hallucinations of psychotics
and schizophrenics. By training the mind to control those
hallucinations and then externalize them to control matter, we become
gods.
This does not mean that you are expected to hold your common
sense notion and the twin phenomenon together at the same time.
Why not? It's good exercise.
Something does have to give.
Yes, something does give. The circuits locking your brain in relative
thought. The more you force your brain to think about, the more you
unlock its secrets. Those who absolutely refuse to even entertain
ideas of what I've been discussing are the very types of people who
need this information the most. It teaches them out to unlock their
minds from relativity and see that the universe is trying to unravel
space-time curvature to reveal a static, flat-horizon universe. The
difference between the two types of univereses is the whole reason
quantum mechanics exists to begin with. I think the quantum particle
actions in experiments are demonstrating all the options available to
them as they "decide" how to move into the future--where to go.
However, what gives is not what's confirmed by experiment. What
gives is often common sense, dear as that may be.
That simply means that you choose to believe in the results of an
experiment that prove to you that relativity is real, and the static
universe absorbed into your mind as common sense is not. The
statement you made above is your religion.
Science by its very nature and methodology is a religion, according to
you.
You choose to believe in
an experiment that shapes the way you see the world, and therefore the
universe gives you what you want: a reality that is filtered through
your believe in the results of an experiment. Certainly the
experiments show what is true *right now*, but the mistake you make is
in assuming that result will always be true. When a static universe
comes into fruition, the results of your experiment will be null and
void, as people like to say, because at that point, common sense will
prevail over relativity.
Damaeus
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Einstein Made It Up As He Went Along
- Next by Date: Re: Einstein Made It Up As He Went Along
- Previous by thread: Re: Einstein Made It Up As He Went Along
- Next by thread: Re: Einstein Made It Up As He Went Along
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
