- Joined
- Jun 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,150
- Reaction score
- 15,598
- Location
- No longer Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Real question, can you?
Yes. I can and I have many times. I did so with the Answer.
Real question, can you?
Yes. I can and I have many times. I did so with the Answer.
Far as know, I'm the only one conscious....all the rest of you are just programs to fool me into believing I'm not alone.
Even from a scientific standpoint, there reaches a point where you are forced to take a leap of faith as with religion. That's why I've always refrained from mocking people for what they believe in. Until I have an answer I'm content with for every single question I have, I'm going to logically assume that I probably shouldn't dispel too much.
Space and time are just innate mental templates hardwired in the human mind serving to order human experience.
They don't really exist, or rather they exist in our experience of reality because our minds put them there.
See Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
Everyone always scoffs and makes humor of those who are open to the simulated reality theory, and it probably doesn't help that the University of Oxford suggests that "even just to store the information about a few hundred electrons on a computer, one would require a memory built from more atoms than there are in the universe." However, notable astrophysists who are actually notorious for dispelling silly theories have actually came forward and asserted it's very likely that we could be the simple yet complex complex creation of a being we're not familiar with, with the intelligence of which would leave us drooling over ourselves like brain-dead half-bred monkeys in comparison. We share the majority of our DNA with monkeys, and what the course of evolution had produced (humans) wouldn't be enough if the Darwin theory is correct.
Not to mention, there's a clear pattern throughout history with Russia that we've always had. We've always tried to best them at everything and the moon was no exception. The friction and competitive haste between our two countries are still the same to this very day. There are several different notable people with reputable backgrounds who believe the moon landing was actually a hoax as well.
As far as where to draw the line on only believing what you can see, I think it's very important to ALWAYS remain a particular level of skepticism about almost anything. Not limited to just history either. Hell, if it wasnt for people like Christina Hall, we'd be ALL easily manipulated into conforming to our society in the exact way that those in control would want us to. It's happening vastly, but if that was actually happening in whole and not in part, well.. you get the picture...
I always admired those who read texts from history books and learn to question it. Oftentimes the source comes from a distorted reality of what actually happened. Something as simple as our own American history is notorious for false accounts and distorted renditions being taught in schools as fact, only to misinform our youth. Sometimes the history books we read are nothing more than propaganda.
Shifting the focus over towards European history, and most historians wouldn't dare tell you that Hitler is arguably the most lied about people throughout the entire timeline of human history. Even the most honest historians who know this would never dare acknowledge it because of the unwarranted shunning and scornful criticisms that would ensue. All of the outlash would make it appear as if they were attempting to assert Hitler was one of the greatest human beings on the planet, but simply asserting truths and critiquing what has already been deemed as fact is that in itself, enough to shake your head at.
But, that still doesn't under cut my point. At least as things are now, and measurably so, existing matter requires space to occupy. I am not aware of any spaceless matter postulated.
Well, certainly the classical (Newtonian) view is that we have this empty container called "space" which exists as a primary; and into which we can drop objects like particles (which can only exist "within" a space of some sort). But my understanding is that in contemporary physics space (and time) "drop out" of the fundamental equations. Instead of space and time being a necessary framework within which we can understand physical interactions, it seems the reverse. That the particles (or fields or whatever) and interactions are primary (without any space or time) and that space and time spontaneously emerges out of these relations at a higher level. In the same way that, say, temperature is an emergent phenomenon - at the level of individual particles there is no such thing as "temperature"; temperature only emerges as a real phenomenon at a higher level.
It is just a word to describe what we see..............I contend that there is no space. That every pocket of area is filled. With something. Dark matter? Maybe. All mass, all area, in the universe, is filled.
With something.
This is my thinking as well. In the early 1900's, physicists thought the aether must exist, but after years of failing to detect it they finally gave up. I think the recent detection of gravitational waves has given the idea some new life. Gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, time dilation, and orbital mechanics all converge to strongly suggest that something like the aether does exist as a malleable, rubber-like "substance" of some sort.I contend that there is no space. That every pocket of area is filled. With something. Dark matter? Maybe. All mass, all area, in the universe, is filled.
With something.
Several high-profile theoretical physicists have lined up to support Starkman's theory, including Jacob Bekenstein, theoretical physics professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel, and Andreas Albrecht, cosmologist and physics professor at the University of California, Davis.This is my thinking as well. In the early 1900's, physicists thought the aether must exist, but after years of failing to detect it they finally gave up. I think the recent detection of gravitational waves has given the idea some new life. Gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, time dilation, and orbital mechanics all converge to strongly suggest that something like the aether does exist as a malleable, rubber-like "substance" of some sort.
Aren't there plenty of cases where we know something exists even though we can't detect it directly? (Black holes, Neptune before it was observed in telescopes, etc.) Empty space may not reflect light or any other electromagnetic wave, but it does propagate waves of gravity. So unless we start calling gravity a particle, like photons, we're left with little choice but to consider that empty space is actually composed of some yet-to-be-discovered quantum substance.Space is similar, in that it is a gap, which lacks all reflected output, that can trigger any of our five sensory systems. Space does not give off any signal, that uses our senses, for signals into the brain for a direct interpretation of a tangible reality object. Space is inferred, as an object, by the brain, based on the dark silhouette, defined by the surrounding matter and energy, even though the silhouette, does not give off any output, attributed to a tangible object, relative to the senses. Space is an unconscious and imagination brain game. There is human tendency to make this imaginary space, tangible, when it is in really, it is an interpreted presence.
I don't agree that an aether would poke holes in Einstein's theories, nor does it significantly change general relativity's explanation of gravity. Here's a quote from Einstein:Michael Turner, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago in Illinois, is intrigued by Starkman's theory, but he hesitates to accept it wholesale due to its troubling implications.
For example, the presence of ether would create holes in Einstein's theories of relativity, the widely accepted explanations for how light moves and gravity works (read an excerpt and see images from "Einstein and Beyond" in National Geographic magazine).
"It's early to tell whether this [ether] theory will really pass through the gate," Turner said. "When you change the theory of gravity, you could cause lots of problems elsewhere.
This is my thinking as well. In the early 1900's, physicists thought the aether must exist, but after years of failing to detect it they finally gave up. I think the recent detection of gravitational waves has given the idea some new life. Gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, time dilation, and orbital mechanics all converge to strongly suggest that something like the aether does exist as a malleable, rubber-like "substance" of some sort.
Real question, can you?
Depends on two things: what you see and what are you calling space?
Real question, can you?
Outerspace.
Energy travels by osmosis, more or less. Except in space? Nope. There must be something that energy passes through to travel.
Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particle
Real question, can you?
In short, if space is infinite, so are the possibilities. In all fairness, all possibilities are even likelihoods.
Real question, can you?