Where did life begin? (Merged)

Do you believe we have a creator, aka "God"?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#851
#851
rjd970 said:
Not sure what you are asking.

Present day mathematical theory cannot adequately explain the singularity. The equations break down. Same with black holes, subatomic behaviors, unified theory, etc. All we can deduce is what may be happening to a point. As soon as we reach that event horizon of the black hole, so to speak, mathematics collapses and our limited reality of the universe no longer holds. That is why using our very limited reality-based philosophical thought (scientific, religious, metaphysical, etc) doesn't work and ends up in circular debates.
Click to expand...

You said that calculus breaks down in theoretical physics. But in your theory of eternal, non-linear time, calculus would break down everywhere. Does calculus break down in the singularity, or everywhere?
 
#852
#852
rjd970 said:
Not sure what you are asking.

Present day mathematical theory cannot adequately explain the singularity. The equations break down. Same with black holes, subatomic behaviors, unified theory, etc. All we can deduce is what may be happening to a point. As soon as we reach that event horizon of the black hole, so to speak, mathematics collapses and our limited reality of the universe no longer holds. That is why using our very limited reality-based philosophical thought (scientific, religious, metaphysical, etc) doesn't work and ends up in circular debates.
Click to expand...

Gravity is a biitch.
 
#853
#853
Orange_Crush said:
You said that calculus breaks down in theoretical physics. But in your theory of eternal, non-linear time, calculus would break down everywhere. Does calculus break down in the singularity, or everywhere?
Click to expand...

Where have I said that? I have repeatedly said it works to a point. For our reality of linear time it absolutely works.
 
#855
#855
rjd970 said:
Where have I said that? I have repeatedly said it works to a point. For our reality of linear time it absolutely works.
Click to expand...

What is "our reality"? Is it an illusion, or are you just saying that linear time breaks down at the singularity? Is our current reality a linear time, or an illusion?
 
#863
#863
Orange_Crush said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

O.K.

So Newton had an explanation of space/time that worked, was experimented, validated, and understood. It is correct.

Einstein comes along as says while it is STILL correct given the reality you are explaining, my theory of space/time explains the same thing but offers a more complete picture of the universe that encompasses a larger reality....and time/space are not separate as you have proposed, they are the same.

So cause and effect work in the linear sense of what we understand and observe. It can still be experimented and validated. it works in every sense of the word, and has utility. But in the more complete picture where time isn't linear, and is the same as space, such distinctions no longer hold. Time really isn't working linear context for which we need to operate. Hence, cause/effect works, but only to a certain point where it no longer has any meaning.
 
#864
#864
Think of it like this.

Newton: Space and time are linear. Cause/effect still holds true. That is absolutely correct for a limited solution space.

Einstein: Space and time are not linear, it can bend. Cause/effect does not hold true. That is absolutely correct for a complete solution space.
 
#865
#865
rjd970 said:
O.K.

So Newton had an explanation of space/time that worked, was experimented, validated, and understood. It is correct.

Einstein comes along as says while it is STILL correct given the reality you are explaining,






my theory of space/time explains the same thing but offers a more complete picture of the universe that encompasses a larger reality....and time/space are not separate as you have proposed, they are the same.

So cause and effect work in the linear sense of what we understand and observe. It can still be experimented and validated. it works in every sense of the word, and has utility. But in the more complete picture where time isn't linear, and is the same as space, such distinctions no longer hold. Time really isn't working linear context for which we need to operate. Hence, cause/effect works, but only to a certain point where it no longer has any meaning.
Click to expand...

Right there is where you lost me. Tell me what the more complete picture is.

Tell me whether time the "complete picture" is actually linear or an illusion that we somehow piece together. I'm not even asking how we piece it together. Just whether it is something we piece together.

Is the "larger reality" the same "reality" that we perceive, or something our mind shifts, rearranges and pieces back together?

Did we actually evolve through a steady progression of cause/effect time, or is "larger reality" static and unchanging?

Philosophically, these are important questions that your theory needs to answer. First and foremost, any philosophy that tells us that our perception is an illusion is dubious, to be generous. Because if our perception is an illusion, we can't trust the perception that told us that our perception is an illusion. Secondly, if incremental time is illusion, then nothing we experience is true. The very thought that you just formed to create the theory that you typed never really happened.

You can't fall back on "utility" because your perception can't even be tested or trusted. Utility is erased. You can't say that reality can be "experimented" and "validated" because experiments are cause/effect related, and that would just be illusion. An experiment is: "I do this, and then that happens..." Well, guess what? You did this, and that didn't happen as a result. It was an illusion. You just thought that happened. It was really just an unrelated eternal moment that you somehow shoved together with the former unrelated, eternal moment.

If "utility" means "it works well enough to fool me", then I'm not sure how you can call this a scientific theory.
 
#866
#866
rjd970 said:
Think of it like this.

Newton: Space and time are linear. Cause/effect still holds true. That is absolutely correct for a limited solution space.

Einstein: Space and time are not linear, it can bend. Cause/effect does not hold true. That is absolutely correct for a complete solution space.
Click to expand...

If cause and effect do not hold true, then you have no basis to create the theory that says that cause and effect do not hold true.
 
#867
#867
If Einstein's theory stated that the speed of light is constant, how can it also claim that time is not incremental? The speed of light measure the increments of time that speed travels-- incrementally.
 
#869
#869
Orange_Crush said:
Right there is where you lost me. Tell me what the more complete picture is.

Tell me whether time the "complete picture" is actually linear or an illusion that we somehow piece together. I'm not even asking how we piece it together. Just whether it is something we piece together.

Is the "larger reality" the same "reality" that we perceive, or something our mind shifts, rearranges and pieces back together?

Did we actually evolve through a steady progression of cause/effect time, or is "larger reality" static and unchanging?

Philosophically, these are important questions that your theory needs to answer. First and foremost, any philosophy that tells us that our perception is an illusion is dubious, to be generous. Because if our perception is an illusion, we can't trust the perception that told us that our perception is an illusion. Secondly, if incremental time is illusion, then nothing we experience is true. The very thought that you just formed to create the theory that you typed never really happened.

You can't fall back on "utility" because your perception can't even be tested or trusted. Utility is erased. You can't say that reality can be "experimented" and "validated" because experiments are cause/effect related, and that would just be illusion. An experiment is: "I do this, and then that happens..." Well, guess what? You did this, and that didn't happen as a result. It was an illusion. You just thought that happened. It was really just an unrelated eternal moment that you somehow shoved together with the former unrelated, eternal moment.

If "utility" means "it works well enough to fool me", then I'm not sure how you can call this a scientific theory.
Click to expand...

Orange_Crush said:
If cause and effect do not hold true, then you have no basis to create the theory that says that cause and effect do not hold true.
Click to expand...

It really seems like you are either being intentionally obtuse, or you really don't understand what you are talking about. It's basic physics. Unless you want to discount Einstein completely, there is no way to argue it.

Time is relative given the speed you are traveling, any physicist in the world will tell you that. Leave in a spaceship going the speed of light and you age slower than everybody else on earth. This alone proves time isn't linear, and the reality of time passage is different for the person on the spaceship than it is for people on earth. Bend space-time enough and it is theoretically possible to arrive at a place before you left. That alone puts a wrinkle in cause/effect and is completely consistent with Einstein and contemporary physics. There is absolutely no reason to not believe it is possible that the universe is a closed manifold, and when you reach the "end" you are back where you started.

Methinks you are only arguing this because you are uneasy with the notion that not all effects have to have a cause in the universal sense which would make the concept of a prime mover unnecessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#870
#870
Orange_Crush said:
If Einstein's theory stated that the speed of light is constant, how can it also claim that time is not incremental? The speed of light measure the increments of time that speed travels-- incrementally.
Click to expand...

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. The speed of light is unattainable, hence, it is the point where our reality of space and time no longer hold true. Reality gets progressively more weird as you approach that constant. But for slower speeds, what we perceive as reality (concept of linear space/time) holds true.


EDIT: Hence, the utility of Newton works for everyday speeds, as we approach the speed of light that utility no longer works.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#872
#872
rjd970 said:
It really seems like you are either being intentionally obtuse, or you really don't understand what you are talking about. It's basic physics. Unless you want to discount Einstein completely, there is no way to argue it.

Time is relative given the speed you are traveling, any physicist in the world will tell you that. Leave in a spaceship going the speed of light and you age slower than everybody else on earth. This alone proves time isn't linear, and the reality of time passage is different for the person on the spaceship than it is for people on earth. Bend space-time enough and it is theoretically possible to arrive at a place before you left. That alone puts a wrinkle in cause/effect and is completely consistent with Einstein and contemporary physics. There is absolutely no reason to not believe it is possible that the universe is a closed manifold, and when you reach the "end" you are back where you started.

Methinks you are only arguing this because you are uneasy with the notion that not all effects have to have a cause in the universal sense which would make the concept of a prime mover unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Look at what you just said and consider if I am being obtuse, or if you are equivocating. Judge the consistency of what you just said.

"Time is relative" (i.e. experienced either faster or slower) is not the same statement as "time is not linear" (i.e. experienced one moment after another, in order).

I really am not uneasy about anything; I assure you. I am just trying to follow you while holding you responsible to a valid argument. So, I think I understand enough Einsteinian physics to follow you. I really do. I understand that a second at the top of the Sears tower is experienced slightly different that the same one at ground level. That's relativity.

But I also understand that that second would be followed by several more in the elevator, and the two people would be in time-sync back on the ground. That's because the relative experience does not interrupt the time sequence of linear time.

So, we are in agreement that time can be experienced relatively. You are yet to prove that relativity abolished a sequenced time of cause and effect.
 
#873
#873
rjd970 said:
Time is relative given the speed you are traveling, any physicist in the world will tell you that. Leave in a spaceship going the speed of light and you age slower than everybody else on earth. This alone proves time isn't linear, and the reality of time passage is different for the person on the spaceship than it is for people on earth. Bend space-time enough and it is theoretically possible to arrive at a place before you left. That alone puts a wrinkle in cause/effect and is completely consistent with Einstein and contemporary physics. There is absolutely no reason to not believe it is possible that the universe is a closed manifold, and when you reach the "end" you are back where you started.
Click to expand...

I am wondering if you are just trolling. I am serious. I think you have to be too intelligent a person to not understand the contradiction your are proposing.

Time is relative, dependent on speed, thus time is not linear.

Think very carefully about that for a second.

Hint: Speed is the measurement of an object through space in linear time. Without linear time, there is no speed. You just used the measurement of something to prove that it doesn't exist.
 
#874
#874
rjd970 said:
Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. The speed of light is unattainable, hence, it is the point where our reality of space and time no longer hold true. Reality gets progressively more weird as you approach that constant. But for slower speeds, what we perceive as reality (concept of linear space/time) holds true.


EDIT: Hence, the utility of Newton works for everyday speeds, as we approach the speed of light that utility no longer works.
Click to expand...

I was using it as an example, goober. lol I used the same example again in my previous post. Again, "relative" does not equal "non-linear".
 
#875
#875
rjd970 said:
At slower speeds. Go research Einstein to see what happens to mass as you approach c.
Click to expand...

So you are just basically saying that sequential time breaks down at the speed of light, while saying that the speed of light is impossible (for anything but light, I guess).

OK.

So cause and effect exists for everything but light. I guess, when astronomers claim that we are peering into billions of years of history through telescopes, physicists would tell them that is impossible since there is no actual sequential time for light?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top