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!)
whoa
that's interesting enough, but what does it have to do with Rog's sermon?
8)
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.
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'
ah.
well, that not only makes no sense, it reeks of Roger-hating bandwagon-jumping.
8)
why does disagreement = hate?
Quotedaddy never understood!
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)
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)
thanks
now my brain hurts
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.
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.
verdad.
8)
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:
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.
I didn't even know Roger had a pipe. Or a bandwagon. Damn. Why does he get to go to the circus and not us?
Very good ideas. It reminds me of "The Fabric of the Cosmos" cited above.
[Semantic Alert]
Your word "creation (1)" does not equal my word "creation (2)"
creation (1) means making more of the little bits which universe is made out of, from scratch, from nothing.
creation (2) means an intentional arrangement and combination of said bits in such a way that did not exist before in that space-time.
and so on, through your other definitions.
Sort of. To sleepy to elaborate, but I have a feeling you get the idea.
[/Semantic Alert]
Quote from: LMNO[Semantic Alert]
Your word "creation (1)" does not equal my word "creation (2)"
creation (1) means making more of the little bits which universe is made out of, from scratch, from nothing.
creation (2) means an intentional arrangement and combination of said bits in such a way that did not exist before in that space-time.
and so on, through your other definitions.
Sort of. To sleepy to elaborate, but I have a feeling you get the idea.
[/Semantic Alert]
I get the idea, but you have failed to understand the subtlety of my definitions:
I define creation as the formation something which did not exist before, including "Order".
Your "creation(2)" is rearranging things to form a new Order.
But what you've failed to notice is that the Law of Conservation applies to "order(2)" in as much as there are a finite number of bits in the universe to arrange in certain ways. To "create(2)" one thing, something else must be "destroyed" to provide the necessary materials.
In other words, "creation(2)" is simply "creation(1)" as applied to emergent and apparent existence ("arrangement"). Remember: the hamburger does not exist; it is an illusion created by protons and electrons. ;)
Not always:
Let's say I take a deck of playing cards, and I make a house of cards with it. I have not "destroyed" the playing cards, but I have "created" the house of cards.
Then, let's say I take a picture of it with a digital camera. I have not "destroyed" the house of cards, nor the cards themselves, but have "created" a picture, which could be considered "art"
Then, let's ay I reproduce and print the picture hundreds of times, to make an istallation exhibit based upon repitition. I have now "created" another work of art, without "destroying" the original picture, the house of cards, or the cards themselves.
And it's turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down.
In the act of reproducing it, assuming it's onto paper, then you've participated in the destruction of a tree in order to make that paper. That's the obvious one.
And I will argue that you *have* in fact destroyed the playing cards, because for as much time as they are your house of cards, they are not playing cards.
Also note that TOA only said that *something* had to be destroyed. I could also say you've destroyed a section of empty space by building the house of cards in it, and you've destroyed the blank piece of paper by reproducing an image onto it. The digital camera thing is a little more iffy, since one of the great things about digital cameras is that the images stored in them are ultimately temporary, but for the time that it's there, you've destroyed part of the camera's capacity to store images.
It isn't necessarily obvious to think of it in that way, since the destruction and creation are more or less simultaneous, but it can be broken down that way if one is sufficiently latched on to the notion of creation requiring destruction.
If "creation" can be defined as the intentional re-ordering of things to achieve an aesthetic result, cold not then what you are calling "destruction" merely be part of that re-ordering process; therefore making destruction actually be creative?
I figured that was part of why you had the insight about the expanded chart. :D
(I was gonna phrase that as a question, but remembered I wasn't in that thread. :D)
Indeed!
The New Chart explains All!
what? oh, um...
The new chart explains some. There.
when we breed and live and grow and die all backwards, is it so strange
that an inability to admit fallibility in language is common?
Quote from: N'yo B?©, Terrorist Zenjawhen we breed and live and grow and die all backwards, is it so strange
that an inability to admit fallibility in language is common?
Nope.
That's why we're here, discussing it.
Okay, we're getting close!
DJRubberducky, you're right on the nose except for one thing: nothing digital is created or destroyed. Some zeros became ones and some ones became zeros. You need not "destroy" storage space to create an image since there is no actual creation of an image, merely flipping of bits.
Quote from: LMNOIf "creation" can be defined as the intentional re-ordering of things to achieve an aesthetic result, cold not then what you are calling "destruction" merely be part of that re-ordering process; therefore making destruction actually be creative?
Take it one step further. Right now, you can't see the forest because there are too many trees in the way. Allow me to rephrase:
If "creation" can be defined as changing the arrangement of things, then couldn't "destruction" be defined as changing of the arrangement of things?
"Creation" and "Destruction" are merely categories of "Change" (where "change" is the opposite of "stasis").
Now, the question is: is the categorization of "creation" and "destruction" based on reality or is it an illusion?
We already know it's an illusion.
Cf: The Erisian/Anerisian illusions.
What the difference seems to be is intent. And intent is subjective.
And all things change. So it's up to us to keep the spin positive.
I don't like the use of the word "illusion" in your question, mostly because in my life it's picked up connotations of willful deception. I would say instead that it's a perception, and that it's connected to the progression of time. (If the word "illusion" is not thus sullied for you, feel free to keep using it.)
Let's say we start with a chunk of marble, and end up with a marble sculpture of an elephant. Some artists may claim that the elephant was there the whole time ("...then carve away everything that doesn't look like an elephant"), but most of us saw the chunk as being there first, ergo we perceive that it was destroyed for the sake of creating the sculpture.
I think it's one of the laws of thermodynamics that says that there's really not such a thing as outright destruction or creation - it's merely reorganization. But words like "creation" and "destruction" are usually adequate to describe our perceptions of what is transpiring, and when it comes down to it, our perceptions are the only thing we've got when it comes to trying to make sense of the world.
So while it's certainly fun to kick back and contemplate the fact that nothing is created or destroyed, or that the soft drink I'm about to buy from the vending machine is composed of atoms that are in turn composed of 99% empty space (and so are the can, and the machine, and the dollar which I'm spending, and my hand which is feeding that dollar into that machine), I spend the vast majority of my time interacting with the world through the model of Newtonian physics, because it's a more accurate description of what I *perceive*. That can of soda may be 99% empty space, but the can feels solid to me and the soda feels liquid and gaseous to me. Chaos theory is fun to think about (and I am truly blessed that I have enough comfort and leisure in my life that I can spend time thinking about it), but it doesn't manifest very much in my day-to-day experiences, so it's not my day-to-day reality model.
QuoteI think it's one of the laws of thermodynamics that says that there's really not such a thing as outright destruction or creation - it's merely reorganization. But words like "creation" and "destruction" are usually adequate to describe our perceptions of what is transpiring, and when it comes down to it, our perceptions are the only thing we've got when it comes to trying to make sense of the world.
agreed there. (opinions may differ greatly, see side panel for details.)
(conservation of energy, i believe that 'law' is called.)
we can 'destroy' an object, but then it is still existent as a 'peice.'
we can then break apart it's molecules, but it still exists as atoms.
we can break apart the atoms, but it still exists in protons, neutrons
and electrons.
we can break those down, too, i'm sure, forever and ever (as long as we can
come up with a new name for what's smaller...i think 'quarks' was a recent
thing they called them, and now we have superstings.)
so that mode of creation/destruction is moot.
perceptual creation and destruction, though, are existent in the terms
of perception. even that is not True(tm) though. a buddhist or taoist or
similarly minded person would tell you that no such things are real.
when you see a bike get smashed, the bike's intended functionality is lost,
and even the image we ar acustomed to of the bike is lost, but even if
it is ground down into aluminum powder, it is not destroied. eastern thought
achieves this by- instead of calling the appearance of creation or destruction
an illusion- saying that our assigning a seperate identity for that group of
matter is the illusion. (it
would be forced to follow that creation/destruction
from a perceptual point
would be moot if no 'object' was concieved of
in the first place. instead, when the 'bike' is demolished, you would
effectively witness [in your mind] the
rearranging of that matter..
Quote...it's certainly fun to kick back and contemplate the fact that nothing is created or destroyed, or that the soft drink I'm about to buy from the vending machine is composed of atoms that are in turn composed of 99% empty space
atoms are NOT 99% empty space, not even from a quantum approach.
what is said is that in the representational model of an atom devised by
neils bhor, the appearance is given that 99% of an atom is 'empty space.'
bhor's account of what an atom
might or even
probably looks like
was a simple model to demonstrate to lay people, mostly. vast amounts
of things were not taken into account when he described the model, or
it's funcionality as a
convienient map, but not the territory. [i.e. bhor's
model fails to account for any activities occuring between (a) nucleus and
orbitals (electrons) such as electromagnetic or gravitational fields,
(b) energy exchanges between nucleus and orbitals (protons<~>electrons). if
nothing existed between the nucleus and
the orbitals, the polarity would have no seperation...positive and negative
attract, remember?]
Quotebut it doesn't manifest very much in my day-to-day experiences, so it's not my day-to-day reality model.
it could be. ultimately the way we
experience the reality around us is
to interpret data through our senses and a system of sense-ordering
programs (our beliefs, ideas,
perception..) if your per ception is changed
then, ultimately, the way that you will interpret data will be changed and
the experience you have will be changed. none is better than the other,
though.
I don't know what you mean by that "classical" physics is better tested than quantum physics, in fact quantum theories are extremely well tested and have been found to be entirely accurate down to the finest measurements possible today in lots of systems. Humanity has no other theory that is this accurate. The thing is, we know that quantum theory can't really be "correct" (if a theory can ever be correct; how would you know?), because there are certain conditions under which quantum theory no longer produces correct predictions (namely, gravity).
Classical physics have even bigger limitations; it only works for systems that approach the "everyday" scale where individual atoms don't matter and space doesn't have any appreciable curvature. Both QP and GR (general relativity) merge into CP (classical physics) when the system approaches this middle scale, QP from the small and GR from the large. But they don't *really* meet, which kind of falsifies all of them.
Also, thermodynamics, while considered "classical" physics, can be derived from statistical quantum mechanics. The thing to remember is that the laws of termodynamics are statistical, i.e. probabilistic. It's just that "everyday" systems are so large that their behaviour becomes, for most intents and purposes, deterministic.
Oh yeah, and the "twin paradox" does exist, it's just not very paradoxical :) You just need to take into account that the situation is not entirely symmetrical. Even though it's impossible to distinguish which one of A and B is travelling "away" from the other, at least one of them will have to undergo acceleration in order for them to separate and meet up again. They can't both stay in the same inertial system the whole time and therefore they don't experience the same "time".
The "paradoxes" of special relativity are really only paradoxes in the sense that intuition will come up with an answer that is different from what SR predicts. So in that sense, there is no paradox.
Quote from: nurbldoffEven though it's impossible to distinguish which one of A and B is travelling "away" from the other
In order to travel away from each other, there must be something through which to move.
The paradox, as usually stated, implies that they both exist in Nothing, i.e., B is moving through Nothing.
Now, as far as I can tell, Nothing has no dimension. One cannot say "5 meters of Nothing" or "23 pints of Nothing".
So, the paradox in its usual form suggests that the Nothing between A and B increases in distance, which it does not have.
Therefor, the paradox as usually stated is an example of ignoring reality in the face of over-whelming math. ;)
That is what I was trying to say. Everything else you've said is probably right, since, to accelerate, B must be moving through Something which has distance.
And, as we all might know, every Something has a gravitational force and is thus an inertial frame. Moving though it would of course have an affect.
As for intuition being the cause of paradoxes: most often, it's due to a lack of understanding
how the math applies to Reality (e.g., assuming Nothing between A and B). For this reason, I assume anything with "quantum" in the name is complete bullshit. ;)
I don't think I get what you're saying... what is this "something" that you'd have to move through? I certainly agree that "space" or rather, "space-time" may be viewed as a concept by which we try to understand our surroundings, but so is "moving" in that case, since it's immediately tied to the concept of space-time. What (special) relativity says is that there is no "absolute" movement, in that you cannot say whether A is moving towards B or vice versa without making an arbitrary assumption. But you cannot have "something" without space, right? "Something" is distributed somehow in space, and thus it has dimensions. Movement is tied to space-time, and space-time is shaped by mass. But space-time is also, in principle, independent of mass.
QuoteAnd, as we all might know, every Something has a gravitational force and is thus an inertial frame. Moving though it would of course have an affect.
This just makes no sense to me, you'll have to elaborate :) How does an object "have" an inertial frame? Also, an intertial frame is only locally possible (as an approximation) in a non-uniform gravitational field.
QuoteI assume anything with "quantum" in the name is complete bullshit. Wink
Okay, but still, remember that without quantum mechanics, a very large chunk of our modern technology wouldn't even be possible. It's an *extremely* well tested theory on which almost all physics, chemistry and much of biology rests nowadays. Sure, nobody understands it, but they can still churn out the numbers :D
THE AUTHOR OF THIS FREAD IS A (http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/smoothfag.gif)
YUO = NOT IMPRESSING ANYONE, OPIE.
CHEF D,
IS LAUGHING AT YUO, OPIE.
Don't worry toa, this is just Roger being an asshole under another name, he'll get bored with it in another day or two. You're a good kid and make wonderful contributions here.
Quote from: KallistiDon't worry toa, this is just Roger being an asshole under another name, he'll get bored with it in another day or two. You're a good kid and make wonderful contributions here.
NO, THIS IS JUST ROGER TAKING THA BACK SEAT, ELDORA.
Quote from: ChefQuote from: KallistiDon't worry toa, this is just Roger being an asshole under another name, he'll get bored with it in another day or two. You're a good kid and make wonderful contributions here.
NO, THIS IS JUST ROGER TAKING THA BACK SEAT, ELDORA.
You're just proving you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Quote from: nurbldoffI don't think I get what you're saying... what is this "something" that you'd have to move through?
You can't move through Nothing, so you must be moving through Something. Something == !Nothing. (Something==Anything)
Quote from: nurbldoffWhat (special) relativity says is that there is no "absolute" movement, in that you cannot say whether A is moving towards B or vice versa without making an arbitrary assumption.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM! The assumption is not arbitrary!
Since we must be moving through Something, it is not arbitrary.
I agree: when comparing A and B while ignore Something (C), we end up with an apparant paradox. But if we consider A as it relates to C (standing still) and B as it relates to C (moving), the asymmetry is normal and expected. In other words, we have to know how A relates to B (which is: via C). We can't directly compare A and B because they are not within the same frame (their gravitational fields are not overlapping and thus there is no relationship to analyze). We can only compare A with B via C:
gravcmp(A,B) == undefined
gravcmp(gravcmp(A,C), gravcmp(B,C)) == defined
Quote from: nurbldoffQuoteAnd, as we all might know, every Something has a gravitational force and is thus an inertial frame. Moving though it would of course have an affect.
This just makes no sense to me, you'll have to elaborate :) How does an object "have" an inertial frame? Also, an intertial frame is only locally possible (as an approximation) in a non-uniform gravitational field.
I agree. I have no idea what I'm talking about. In my muddled brain, I assume the only thing which exists is Gravity and that all things either have gravity or are gravity. Further, my brain tells me that the most sensical manner of defining an inertial frame is in terms of gravitational fields. Therefore, everything
is an inertial frame because everything has/is gravity. (Inertia being a result of gravitational forces.)
Am I correct about any of that?
Quote from: nurbldoffQuoteI assume anything with "quantum" in the name is complete bullshit. Wink
Okay, but still, remember that without quantum mechanics, a very large chunk of our modern technology wouldn't even be possible. It's an *extremely* well tested theory on which almost all physics, chemistry and much of biology rests nowadays. Sure, nobody understands it, but they can still churn out the numbers :D
What I don't like about it is that it's too complex. I know alot has been proven correct; the problem is: the mathematical systems and equations and all of that crap are just way too complex. The final result should be simple and elegant and they're no where near that yet. The complexity and lack of completion suggests that there's alot of bull to sort through, so I just wave it all off as a way of encouraging them science guys to make things simpler. (It'll benefit them as well!)
Quote from: ChefQuote from: KallistiDon't worry toa, this is just Roger being an asshole under another name, he'll get bored with it in another day or two. You're a good kid and make wonderful contributions here.
NO, THIS IS JUST ROGER TAKING THA BACK SEAT, ELDORA.
Is that really you, Roger? You gonna cook me some dinner, lover? (You're the one who said I was a smoooooth fag ;) )
Btw, I didn't know you liked it in the back seat. I'll remember that for our honeymoon. :twisted:
Ah, I think the problem is that we have different definitions of "something" :)
Before Einstein came along, the most popular explanation for lots of phenomena was "the aether", being "something" that was everywhere in space and through which everything moved. There were very intricate theories devised involving the aether's "drag" on objects and so on, but ultimately I think they all turned out to be unsatisfactory, especially compared to the simple elegance of relativity.
Relativity supposes that what we move through is simply "space-time", it really says nothing about what that "is", only what it does, treating it as a mathematical construct. This is common to all physical theories, btw. Space-time, according to relativity, is not absolute; there are no universal scales or clocks, only local ones tied to each observer. Space-time is just there, all coordinate systems etc are our own impositions.
QuoteTHAT'S THE PROBLEM! The assumption is not arbitrary!
Since we must be moving through Something, it is not arbitrary.
Well, accorting to relativity, A might just as well move through B's "something" as vice versa, or both A and B move through C's "something"... they're really only points of view and all equally valid BUT none of them is universal. Whether you're A, B och C, you'll percieve a different universe! There is no one "something", there are an infinite number of possible "somethings", which kind of suggests that this "something" is really only a matter of perspective.
I personally find this very neat, since it's also a common discordian assumption :) It's also in accordance with experimental obersvations... I'm not saying that makes it TRUE, but I do think it's the best explanation I've seen so far.
I don't know what you mean by "their gravitational fields are not overlapping and thus there is no relationship to analyze"... gravitational fields (according to GR they're treated as warpings of space-time) extend infinitely far. If you're saying that all interactions are gravitational, I think you're on thin ice. What about electromagnetic interaction? Sure, a truly general theory would have to unify the forces, but we're not there yet by a longshot and it wouldn't be gravity as we know it anyhoo...
QuoteTherefore, everything is an inertial frame because everything has/is gravity. (Inertia being a result of gravitational forces.)
Inertia is a property of mass, not of gravity. If your body hits a surface at 100 km/h after a fall on earth or weightless in space, it'll still hurt as much.
If we're going to even use the term "inertial system", I think we'd better stick to the relativistic definition, which is "a coordinate system in rectilinear motion", i.e. a system that is in free fall; not under any acceleration. And it's not generally compatible with gravity.
QuoteWhat I don't like about it is that it's too complex.
Hehe, well that goes for a lot of people :) But it's really not that hard to grasp once you've got the framework in math; I personally find general relativity a lot harder to "get". Quantum mechanics actually makes a lot of systems pretty simple. I also think it's a bit strange that many people are so unwilling to allow science to be "hard"... nobody complains about medicine requiring lots of education :P
I actually think there's some danger in just expecting theories to be "simple"; what if nature just isn't so simple? I don't think the Final theory (if there will ever be one) will be significantly easier for the layman than QM or GR; quite the opposite. But I'm pretty sure that it will be very beautiful if you sit down and really learn it.
I personally loved QM when I first got into contact with it. Not because I found it easy; I still don't, but because I think it's hilarious that something so weird can be so close to reality :) It's also very elegant.
And it's an endless source of philosophical enigmas!
Quote from: nurbldoffI actually think there's some danger in just expecting theories to be "simple"; what if nature just isn't so simple?
Then you'll hear a lovely tinkling sound as millions upon millions of hopes are shattered - namely, those hopes that belonging to a particular religion will put you in the VIP crowd when you die, and you'll finally get to hear the answers to all the different questions you ever had about existence, and you'll be able to understand them, because you're part of the VIP crowd and that makes you special.
Quote from: KallistiQuote from: ChefQuote from: KallistiDon't worry toa, this is just Roger being an asshole under another name, he'll get bored with it in another day or two. You're a good kid and make wonderful contributions here.
NO, THIS IS JUST ROGER TAKING THA BACK SEAT, ELDORA.
You're just proving you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
(http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/emo.gif)
Quote from: Chef(http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/emo.gif)
I'm not crying, Rog, but here's a kleenex, you must be all teary eyed because you keeping posting that :lol:
Quote from: KallistiQuote from: Chef(http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/emo.gif)
I'm not crying, Rog, but here's a kleenex, you must be all teary eyed because you keeping posting that :lol:
YUO = HAVING TROUBLE READING TODAY?
CHEF D,
THINKS YUO SHOULD LEARN TO DISCERN CONTEXT BEFORE GETTING ON HIS INTERNETS.
I thought it was Al Gore's internet. Or possibly Bill Gates. But definitely not Chef :roll:
Quote from: KallistiI thought it was Al Gore's internet. Or possibly Bill Gates. But definitely not Chef :roll:
IT IS CHEF'S INTERNETS.
DEAL.
Quote from: nurbldoffAh, I think the problem is that we have different definitions of "something" :)
[big long response omitted]
I concede -- for now. I am obviously in over my head. You have proven yourself my intellectual better and have won the other anonymous's money ($267).
But be warned: I'm drinking milk! I will be back years from now to overwhelm you with a lot of big words and fancy ideas. ;)
And to the other people in this thread who keep arguing: Stop. I brought you into this message board, and goddess as my witness, I can take you out of it!
Hehe, it's not about "winning", or at least it shouldn't be, because such a debate is bound to become nothing more than the flame-party some people seem intent upon turning thie thread (hell, the entire board) into. I'm sure neither of us would want that :P
I'm sure you have some interesting ideas, but so far I've been unable to quite get them. Perhaps I'm just an over-educated stupid head, I don't know. But I suspect that some of your questions could be, if not answered, then at least clarified by looking deeper into the theories already at hand, because they're really just the product of an enormous amount of thinking by other smart people :)
Quote from: nurbldoffHehe, it's not about "winning", or at least it shouldn't be, because such a debate is bound to become nothing more than the flame-party some people seem TO HAVE SUCCEEDED IN turning thie thread (hell, the entire board) into. I'm sure neither of us would want that :P
FIXED THAT FOR YUO, OPIE.
CHEF D,
IS GOOD LIKE THAT.
Quote from: ChefQuote from: nurbldoffHehe, it's not about "winning", or at least it shouldn't be, because such a debate is bound to become nothing more than the flame-party some people seem TO HAVE SUCCEEDED IN turning thie thread (hell, the entire board) into. I'm sure neither of us would want that :P
FIXED THAT FOR YUO, OPIE.
CHEF D,
IS GOOD LIKE THAT.
Opie?
Baggie, indeed.
OMG FACE-RAPER!!!
WTFLOL!!!!
8)
Quote from: East Coast HustleOMG FACE-WRAPPER!!!
WTFLOL!!!!
8)
Fixed that for you, Cobra Commander.
thanks, Bueler's Girlfriend.
8)
She DOES look like Ferris' girlfriend!
Save Ferris!
Quote from: DJRubberduckySave Ferris!
What, no gratuitously nasty comment?