News:

I liked how they introduced her, like "her mother died in an insane asylum thinking she was Queen Victoria" and my thought was, I like where I think this is going. I was not disappointed.

Main Menu

In Re: Rev. Roger's Sermon #31

Started by the other anonymous, July 30, 2005, 07:40:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

the other anonymous

A lot is being said lately about certain things, such as Chaos and Disorder and Creation and stuff. Allow me to give the last word on this matter so that we can finally move on to more productive discussion.

Creation: Does not exist
Destruction: Does not exist


The second law of thermodynamics says simply that we cannot create or destroy. For all the talk about quantum physics, people forget regular physics -- which, by the way, has had a lot more work and rigorous proofing, firmly establishing it as almost certainly correct.

Order: Does not exist
Disorder: Does not exist


Yes, certain things behave in certain ways. To say that the massive accumulation of behaviorisms within a system constitutes something distinct from the massive accumulation of behaviorisms within a system is merely taxonomy -- which is a means of classifying human observation and has no actual bearing on reality. C.f. "Reality Grids".

And now, I get lost...

Time: Does not exist

Time is a method of taxonomy -- a means of classifying human observation. Things are arranged "chronologically" into three distinct groups: the "past", the "present", and the "future". What is odd about this taxonomy is the fact tht one of the groups has never been seen, another is either lost forever or still exists as part of another group, and the third is constantly changing. Since one group does not exist and another is lost, there is only one actual group: the present.

This taxonomy, being demonstrably absurd, will not be discussed further.

Relatively speaking: when the pressure on a system is increased, the rate at which its members interact decreases.

The greater one attempts to accelerate through a system, the greater the inertial forces counter-acting that movement. As the acceleration approaches the maximum, the inertial forces approach maximum; as the inertial forces approach maximum, the pressure within the system approaches maximum, and the rate of change within the system approaches minimum.

In other words, the accelerating system and the outer system will achieve a limit of stability just beneath gravitational collapse. (Unless they do collapse, in which case we have a Black Star.) This limit can be refered to as a form of "escape velocity". Beneath it, things behave one way ("What goes up must come down.") and above it, things act another ("That's one small step for man...").

Up until now, I have been discussing the rate at which things change and how this relates to pressure. Some may think that "the rate at which things change" is a fancy way of saying "the velocity of movement through the dimension of time", but some would think wrong. We need not posit a dimension to support change within a system. We only need to posit the interaction of gravitational (or electrical or magnetic or whatever) forces to show that change occurs, and then show that the pressures in the locale affect the interaction. For example: Put an egg in a pot of water and let it sit for three minutes. The egg will not be cooked. But if you change the heat energy of the water by boiling it, the egg will be cooked. The interactions of the components of the egg were affected by the water and the temperature of the water in which it was sitting.

With that said, Occam's razor applies. We can model Relativity without positing a temporal dimension. The grandfather paradox is answered by simply not being raised in the first place.

Furthermore, I still believe that faster than light travel is possible, although nothing I've said should be construed to imply a reversing of the interactions when doing so, and I only hold on to the possibility because of a rigorous method of not denying anything that I can't convincingly argue the nonexistance of.

The Twin Paradox: Does not exist

Twin A is standing still and Twin B is moving. Relative to what?

If we say they are still and moving relative to eachother then we posit nothing between them. Nothing has no properties (including distance) therefore neither is actually moving and symmetry is maintained.

If we say that B is moving within the gravitational field of A, or vice versa, then the result depends on the comparison of the gravitational fields. The stronger field is standing still while the smaller is moving because the stronger field is, y'know, stronger. If the fields are the same (two free-roaming planets in orbit around eachother), then their movement will be the same. Remember: coordinate systems are arbitrary and relative. Any attempt to view them as absolute is an error. In other words: if B is moving within A's gravitational field then A is also moving, and vice versa. Take a close look at Earth's orbit: it's wavy due to the influence of the Moon. The orbit of Earth is traced by the center of mass of the Earth and Moon. It is by the center of mass that we measure the effects upon A and B. Non-symmetrical relationships to the center have non-symmetrical results, and symmetrical relationships have symmetrical results. This is demanded by Relativity and is not a paradox.

If we posit a third inertial frame, C, in order to say that A is standing still and B is moving, then we have a non-symmetrical relationships with C and should expect non-symmetrical results, which is what we get.

And to say that C does not directly affect either A or B is to posit nothing between A and B (since C is irrelevant and superfluous) which has already been explained.

Ergo, there is no Twin Paradox.

And this shows us that the Relativity should be superceded by Network theory, not quantum theory. (Relativity talks about how things relate; networking talks about how things relate. The example with C shows this by measuring two non-related objects, A and B, through a common relation, C. In other words, C is a router between two nodes not directly connected to eachother.)

---

By the way, I'm not an expert and I don't claim to be. Please don't directly challenge my statements; I admit that I am most likely wrong. What I'm looking for is any indication that I'm right. This is a unique interpretation of Relativity and we here on this board get to be either pioneers or very smart losers by completing and proving it.

(Ha! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Roger!)

Malaul

Coito ergo sum
O! Plus! Perge! Aio! Hui! Hem!
"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy,the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named Bush, Dick, and Colon.  --Comedian Chris Rock

East Coast Hustle

that's interesting enough, but what does it have to do with Rog's sermon?

8)
Rabid Colostomy Hole Jammer of the Coming Apocalypse™

The Devil is in the details; God is in the nuance.


Some yahoo yelled at me, saying 'GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH', and I thought, "I'm feeling generous today.  Why not BOTH?"

Pope On A Rope

I am not questioning your ideas, just throwing something out:

Before anyone comes up with a theory to prove/disprove time, they should read "A Brief History of the Universe" by Stephen Hawking, and "An Elegant Universe" and "Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene, two people who have studied these things for a career.

Donkeyotay

Quote from: Classic Turdthat's interesting enough, but what does it have to do with Rog's sermon?

8)

I think he just wanted to say 'stick that in your pipe and smoke it'

East Coast Hustle

ah.

well, that not only makes no sense, it reeks of Roger-hating bandwagon-jumping.

8)
Rabid Colostomy Hole Jammer of the Coming Apocalypse™

The Devil is in the details; God is in the nuance.


Some yahoo yelled at me, saying 'GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH', and I thought, "I'm feeling generous today.  Why not BOTH?"

Horab Fibslager

why does disagreement = hate?


Quotedaddy never understood!
Hell is other people.

East Coast Hustle

it doesn't, but since the OP in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the sermon of Roger's that it references, if the only point of that is to be a jab at Roger, it would qualify.

8)
Rabid Colostomy Hole Jammer of the Coming Apocalypse™

The Devil is in the details; God is in the nuance.


Some yahoo yelled at me, saying 'GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH', and I thought, "I'm feeling generous today.  Why not BOTH?"

East Coast Hustle

what was I thinking?

of course disagreement = hate.

you know why?

BECAUSE YOUR WAY OF THINKING IS WRONG AND GOD HATES YOU AND YOU'RE GOING TO HELL WHEN YOU DIE.

8)
Rabid Colostomy Hole Jammer of the Coming Apocalypse™

The Devil is in the details; God is in the nuance.


Some yahoo yelled at me, saying 'GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH', and I thought, "I'm feeling generous today.  Why not BOTH?"

fluffy


the other anonymous

Roger said we never discuss anything important, that's what I'm responding to.

And I don't hate him! I just asked him to marry me, for Bob's sake!

And, yes, I did just want to say "Stick that in your pipe..."

Quote from: Pope On A RopeBefore anyone comes up with a theory to prove/disprove time, they should read "A Brief History of the Universe" by Stephen Hawking, and "An Elegant Universe" and "Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene, two people who have studied these things for a career.

I'm not saying anything about any of that. I'm quite certain that the non-existance of time in no way affects any of the math. All I'm saying is that the concept of time is just a mathematical abstraction and/or sensory perception and does not in actuality exist. Even if it shown that it has all of the properties of a dimension, I doubt we would ever be able to fuck around with it other than dilating it through acceleration/pressure, because it would only have the properties of a dimension for the math.

The map is not the territory, y'know. If you fold a map so that California and New York are touching, they'd still be a few thousand miles apart because (A Stitch in Time notwithstanding) you cannot fold the earth. Simply, you can make the math say whatever you want, but it does not imply that the math can be applied to reality.

illusion

Quote from: Classic Turdwhat was I thinking?

of course disagreement = hate.

you know why?

BECAUSE YOUR WAY OF THINKING IS WRONG AND GOD HATES YOU AND YOU'RE GOING TO HELL WHEN YOU DIE.

8)

No no no. He just said he wants to marry Roger. Can't you see that this is merely an attempt to catch the attention of the man he loves? If the one he loves spurns and/or ignores him, what other option does he have?

This serves a duel purpose - not only does it show that he's capable of intelligent discussion on important matters, but it was bound to draw TGRR's attention via the name of this thread. Even if it made the reverend mad, so what? At this point anonymous has nothing to lose and negative attention is better than no attention at all. Right?

Of course right.

East Coast Hustle

Rabid Colostomy Hole Jammer of the Coming Apocalypse™

The Devil is in the details; God is in the nuance.


Some yahoo yelled at me, saying 'GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH', and I thought, "I'm feeling generous today.  Why not BOTH?"

the other anonymous

Quote from: illusionNo no no. He just said he wants to marry Roger. Can't you see that this is merely an attempt to catch the attention of the man he loves? If the one he loves spurns and/or ignores him, what other option does he have?

Red Rum?

Quote from: illusionThis serves a duel purpose -

Typo or apt pun?

Quote from: illusion- not only does it show that he's capable of intelligent discussion on important matters, but it was bound to draw TGRR's attention via the name of this thread. Even if it made the reverend mad, so what? At this point anonymous has nothing to lose and negative attention is better than no attention at all. Right?

Um, I'm not sure you understand. For years, I was content with just lurking. All I need now is to know that he knows. Once he knows I'm stalking him, I can live happily knowing that he is constantly thinking about me. After all, SubGenii are paranoid conspiracy theorists right? "Paranoid" means he will always be thinking about me! Even if he never acknowledges me again, I'll know he's thinking about me. Fear? Love? What do I care? I have a camera in his bathroom! :twisted:

illusion

Red Rum  =  Okay, you're right. :mrgreen:
I didn't quite understand the depths of your love and obsession.

And "duel" was totally a typo, but it's funnier that way, so maybe it was a Freudian slip or something.