I beg to differ.
You have avoided and evaded producing any form of mathematics, I suspect, because you are wary lest you fall foul of showing ignorance of the mathematics of the things you are trying to put down or talk about.
Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dark energy
- Status
I beg to differ.
You have avoided and evaded producing any form of mathematics, I suspect, because you are wary lest you fall foul of showing ignorance of the mathematics of the things you are trying to put down or talk about.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,416
So if by your twisted definition, you mean 1-dimensional to be the fact that you are specifying 1 variable (i.e. 'location') then explain again how, say, Newton's Law of Gravitation is 2-dimensional.
Is it because the force is reliant upon two things... namely r ('location') and m ('mass')?
Is that what you mean by 2D?
So because, in Newtonian physics, the force is inversely proportional to the distance squared, you conclude that there is some deep underlying new physics because of this.
Dare I say two things.
Correlation is not causation (something my Year 8 and Year 10 classes obviously understand better than you this week).
There is a simple geometrical REASON why it is inversely proportional to the square of the radius. Think spherically symmetric.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
So long the cause of gravity not is better understood as now; the cause of your reality is also not.
The first step is without any doubts to understand that reality is not”out there” , and can impossible be so, - only plenty of reality-contradictions are.
Hence laws of nature responsible for the “physical /observable!” reality that is unambiguous REAL must reflect that too.
So we are now a place that seems to be beyond the Universe you are so use to, - but where is this ?
Inside your own mind ?
So WHAT is next do you think?
The easiest thing in the world is to criticize.
How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.
Niels Bohr
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical.
Niels Bohr
Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.
Niels Bohr
Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.
Niels Bohr
The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.
Niels Bohr
Is that supposed to mean something, or are you just putting words together randomly?
Try and get it into your head, reality doesn't care what you think. Reality is the same whether you understand it or not.
You mean nature reflects reality?
As you seem to live there perhaps you could explain it.
One of the easiest things in the world is to criticise your ideas.
It's amusing that you think those quotes somehow support your position.
Now, were you planning to address any points, or did you hope to stall for a couple of pages and change the subject as usual?
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Let us see if we can agree about the following points first
1.
You brain tells you that reality is “out there”.
It can’t be true since your reality can change within a split second, the reality / realities that seem to be “out there ” cannot change so fast.
So this / these outer reality / realities "out there" what ever this / these may be , - are useless.
2.
We must therefore of (cow) logical objective reasons conclude that since it is a fact that your reality (which must be the most important) is created instantly, - whereby the whole universe is changing within a fragment of a second - it rather seems that THE REALITY inside your own head that is at least the most valid one.
3.
So what is reality then?
Boiled down to its essence it is nothing but a flow of EM impulses.
Mainly photon that smashes into your retina converts to electrical impulses, and vups the inner monitor is on.
4.
But your inner monitor is only a “2D monitor” working exactly the same way doesn’t matter whether you are you are dreaming, watching a movie, trying to imaging the nature of gravity, or looking at stars and galaxies or cows.
There are no inner third dimensions, - you are always projecting a third dimension.
5.
What have gravity to do with your inner reality?
Gravity is changing the wave length of the photons smashing into your eyes.
That's (almost) all........
Distances between each wave can be either longer or shorter.
This is how your reality instantly is changing in a way that the whole universe very suddenly is different, (but only comparable different) as before.
This happens instantly each step up or down a stair.
6.
So reality is rather a flow of reality / impulses, - its nature has NOTHING with 3D to do, since (the most valid) reality still is not "out there", - but rather "in there", in your own head.
7.
The point is therefore, - that before demanding mathematical explanations or evidence, let us first see if we can agree about the nature such mathematics must have.
I believe 2D is the best answer, doesn’t matter how strange it must sounds, - it is the closest words can come to “that reality”.
If you believe something different, I would appreciate to know why.
Next time you write, remember I live in a different universe that doesn’t seems to exist “out there”.
I mean no I am not insane, - I am just living at third floor, and I supposed you are not.
So please be aware of that.
Last edited:
Ooh, I am surprised, yet another attempt to avoid posting anything of actual substance.
An extreme oversimplification, but as it's you this seems basically OK.
Now you leap off into Bjarne's bovine wonderland...
Your viewpoint changes as fast as it changes, what is the problem?
gibberish
You went wrong at we must and it's downhill from there.
Your confusion is genuinely fascinating.
I know it's your phrase, but you do understand that inner monitor is a loose analogy to aid understanding, don't you?
You seem to be having a great deal of trouble with the concept of up and down.
gibberish
Well, that's not going to happen until you accept reality.
That appears to be because you can't grasp simple geometry.
You already know why, it has been patiently, and impatiently, explained to you in several different ways.
Don't worry, we all know you live in a different universe.
Thus demonstrating the delusional nature of your ideas.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
The only "up and down" that you can be sure about, if how your inner monitor is turning. I do not have a problem with that. But remember it is a 2D monitor, so what is your problem?
Amazingly you now appear to be reducing the universe to one dimension. Usually, in situations like this, knowledge advances.
You should.
Remember it'd not really a monitor, that's an analogy.
Apparently it's communicating very simple things to people who have considerable difficulty with basic concepts.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Well, if you put it that way, you effectively emphasize that you are insane (clinical sense of the word).
I did honestly try to understand the first few sentences but I dont think I get what you mean.
I will repeat again.. I am not looking at 'reality', I do not want to be sidetracked into neurology, psychology etc. I want to stick with mathematics here. And in mathematics, there is a clear and utter distinction between the geometries in 2D and 3D, and between a 'flat' 3D space and a 'curved' 3D space. My question was, do you understand the difference mathematically and can you demonstrate that. Regardless of how a human being 'interprets' the world around them.
All assumptions with no real basis. What do you mean by reality? Why can it not be true? Explain why? And this is philosophy not mathematics.
Metaphysical garbage
So ok.. I would agree that is a basic way of looking at how our 'eyes' and the resultant 'signal' is interpreted by the brain.
What makes you so sure? Can you define what you mean by dimensions? How can you tell apart 2D and 3D then? Without maths I mean. Think carefully without contradicting what you have already said.
By how much? By how much is gravity 'changing' that wavelength? How does that affect the 'image' you perceive with your eyes?
As I said, I am not interested in a neurological interpretation of how the brain uses signals from the eye. Mathematics. Physics. The commonly and clearly defined and well accepted definitions of 'dimensions' and the equations that you rightly state seem to 'govern' the universe. This is independent of the issue of how we perceive the world if we accept the mathematical framework.
No. Clearly and demonstrably not. Restrict yourself to 2D and not allow that 'surface' to be embedded in a higher dimension and see if you can explain things in a mathematical sense. Knock yourself out.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Hmmm bad sign
Already at step one I lost you.
What I mean by reality is how you see reality “inside your head”
This can really never be identical with the reality/the universe “out there”.
There are two reasons to this…….
The one is reason is,- there are billions of different space-time realities “out there”.
We are all projecting our inner reality to an “outside reality”, even though it is a fact that it happens locally / inside our heads.
How the reality “out there” really is, - is a completely different question.
The way we see reality “out there” is off course only naturally caused by the way the brain works and project a inner process “out there” instantly.
But it doesn’t mean that the Universe now is exactly like the brian have projected it.
Now think about different space time realties.
Let’s say you live at ground floor and I live at 3rd floor, - (in the same building) .
Due to the simple fact the dimensions of everything you see (the universe) and even time (1 second) is not comparable the same. (you should agree to that when you have understood general relativity.)
If reality really was something outside our heads, we should both be able to see the exact same reality, but this is not the case.
So it is pretty simple, - since you and me not can agree or share a common observation of the universe / reality, - it cannot be a certain reality “out there”.-
This is therefore the first red warning light, showing you that you must be carefully to conclude WHERE the reality really is / are.
The second reason…
is that you can change your local inner reality in a split second, - but the reality outside your brain cannot change shape in a split second, - but only with the speed of light, and this is slower as it really happens for you (every day).
Again you should see a red warning light when it comes to where reality really is happening.
This is not philosophy but simple logic supported both brain-science and a lot more science too.
The reality happens inside your brain. And that's it. I am also not so happy for this, it make speculation much to complicated - so where can I complain ?
Reality is ONLY caused due to a flow of mainly EM waves that is converted to electromagnetic impulses, whereby the inner brain monitor display reality, - but not a universal reality, - only a local and inner reality, exactly in the same way when you dream, - imagine this and that, - watching a film or watching starts and cows.
Imagine that science in year 3000 can simulate the universe and everything in you reality 100”% exact, - bombard your brain with photons and sounds so that you cannot see any difference.
You would still see 3D even your house you wife the Mercedes, the dog, Jupiter the Sun , cows even nothing of this really exist “out there” but ONLY as controlled flow of EM waves.
This is off course science fiction, but could “in theory” be possible.
I am only saying this to turn your attention to WHAT REALLLY IS, - WHERE IT IS and WHAT is the nature of its basic dimension (2D or 3D)
If you haven’t understood this simply basic logic process, - the range of general relativity so far, - and if you even are not willing to do so, then we better stop here, because continuing would be waste of time, and thus totally meaningless to discus witch math is bad or god.
Last edited:
I believe I understand a little of GR (I needed a bit of it here and there when doing my research in Cosmology).
I would love to hear what "brain science and science" supports your rather vague view of how we perceive reality.
As I said before, I am no expert on how our brain perceives the world around us, I am concerned more with your claims on the objective mathematics that describes it.
You say "reality outside my brain" can only change at the speed of light.. what evidence do you have for this? (and no I dont agree just because I have some inkling of general relativity)
You say dimensions and time for you and me are not comparable, what do you mean by this in a mathematical sense. Define dimensions. Define what time you are talking about. Are you merely referring to different frames of reference in special relativity?
(and no I dont agree just because I have some inkling of general relativity)
You say "If reality really was something outside our heads, we should both be able to see the exact same reality, but this is not the case." which we cannot pick to bits until we satisfy this issue of what is reality and do you have any mathematical formulation of your ideas or is it just all handwaving.
Is it that you have some understanding about frames of reference in GR (I assume you talk about third floor to imply that gravity here is important in defining the difference in our frames of reference).
I would love to hear what "brain science and science" supports your rather vague view of how we perceive reality.
As I said before, I am no expert on how our brain perceives the world around us, I am concerned more with your claims on the objective mathematics that describes it.
You say "reality outside my brain" can only change at the speed of light.. what evidence do you have for this? (and no I dont agree just because I have some inkling of general relativity)
You say dimensions and time for you and me are not comparable, what do you mean by this in a mathematical sense. Define dimensions. Define what time you are talking about. Are you merely referring to different frames of reference in special relativity?
(and no I dont agree just because I have some inkling of general relativity)
You say "If reality really was something outside our heads, we should both be able to see the exact same reality, but this is not the case." which we cannot pick to bits until we satisfy this issue of what is reality and do you have any mathematical formulation of your ideas or is it just all handwaving.
Is it that you have some understanding about frames of reference in GR (I assume you talk about third floor to imply that gravity here is important in defining the difference in our frames of reference).
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
I am sure nobody even not mother cow have understood the full range of that theory. So don’t worry about this. Just keep wondering.
Try to imaging you could swift off the third dimension.
Still you could work around, but you would see everything as 2D.
The question is, - does the brain reproduce reality exactly as reality is, - or would such “crazy” 2D reality be more “real” ? - or also real ? - or just a damage brain ?
I don’t know, but I wonder why many basic reality laws not are 3D, but rather 2D
My mission is not to prove or create new math describing the cause of reality, but only to try to understand the existing math that already must reflect such process; - (it is also to understand the nature of space better, based on what we already know).
What I mean is only, the reality out there (the whole universe) can’t be a true reflection of what our brains tells us, because let’s say you would accelerate fast, that would change your reality but the universe (as a whole) would not change just because you accelerate.
On the other hand, the universe too is changing it shape to, and hence also your reality, but this happens comparable to the first exsample (fast acceleration) incredible slow even the universe is changing (deformation) happens with the speed of light.
Space-time is deforming all you see even time, but proportional and in a way that you cannot see any different, but only comparable differences.
No I have no new math.
Imaging RC’s box at the ground, if you would accelerate and I not, or if you would live at 1st floor and I at 3rd floor the realities of the box would be different.
This mean your and my reality depend on local circumstances.
The question is then, - how local ?
Now I now I am also pointing to the 3D dimension, because where is the “border” between local and universal?
Right..
Think about that a photon do not experiences either time or any dimension, - It lives in a reality where it is either nowhere and everywhere at the same time.
http://www.universetoday.com/87983/astronomy-without-a-telescope-a-photons-point-of-view
So the photon must be 100 % crazy, the muon only 50% crazy. We are luckily then only 1% crazy since we not are moving so crazy fast.
I hope it not is opposite, I mean that we are 100% crazy, the muon still 50% crazy and the photon 100% normal.
The good news is when the photons is normal and reality and distances not exist, there are no infinity, - and therefore no wall “out there” where the universe ends.
This mean one big mystery is solved, but it also leaves new unsolved mysteries them.
For example, - what then about RC’s box ? – Does it not exist at all ?
I am not saying all this is easy, but only that we shall be prepared that our reality is even crazier than Niels Bohr, Einstein or photons ever have imagine.
Why?
Because the laws of nature that I believe should describe basic reality, seems to describe a 2D reality.
Don’t accuse me for anything - I am just speculating what that possible could be about.
Last edited:
Ok.. thanks for your reply.. but reading through it I dont believe you have answered any of my questions really but just recycled the original sentence that doesnt seem to make sense.
Again.. what is this 2D business you keep referring to?
If I give you an equation, how do you decide/know it is 2D or 3D?
Again.. what is this 2D business you keep referring to?
If I give you an equation, how do you decide/know it is 2D or 3D?
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
You cannot describe the cause of the reality you live in, - mathematically, - - but only how it is changing / deforming. Anyway this is better than nothing.
The point is that the way you can change your reality (Lorenz equation) should have been a 3D equation, if your basic reality really is 3D.
But the Lorenz equation equation is not a 3D , but rather 2D.
Furthermore the most basic newtonian gravity equation (g=GM/r^2) is also rather a 2D
And the energy as well E=mc^2
I am not saying this is easy to understand or accept, - but why should so it, - when a lot more we know in science also is very strange.
Last edited:
This is the problem here.. you are not answering my questions at all.
Please explain WHY you think g=GM/r^2 is a 2D equation as opposed to 3D or 4D.
What is it about the equation that you can look at and TELL it is 2D?
Is it the fact that it involves two things, M and r?
Is it the fact that r is squared (i.e. has a power of 2)?
or something else?
- Status