phoenixbyrd Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 Actually, it is immensly ridiculous popular. I enjoyed your article on time, but please don't fall for what these two guys are saying. Nothing is made out of light except well ... light of course. Hardkraft, Your example makes no sense ... What are you trying to prove here? It doesn't matter if mars observes the sun going boom or not, the sun still went boom and the sun's explosion will still reach mars and all amazingly without mars observing it, without the boom being part of mar's "frame of observation". Reality doesn't care who or what the hell is observing, the sun still explodes. No, I can't prove WHO is talking to each other in china, but that doesn't negate that people DO live there, that the country DOES exist, and that people are up right now having a nice little chat with each other. That's logic and common sense. It doesn't matter if I myself am there to observe this country with these people talking, THEY STILL EXIST. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardkraft Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 And that's precisely the point: it doesn't matter. You can keep speculating about what happens in the other frame but who cares if it doesn't matter. If something doesn't matter , I could be saying just the opposite of what you are saying and I would be as right. Well, not in this universe of course because eventually that frame will catch up with us and then we can see who was right and who was wrong. That's why arkain proposed a thought experiment with a universe with no medium such as light to carry the information. Then it trully wouldn't matter. Those frames would be permanently separated and there would be no way to get any inforamtion about each other. Take the opposite example. Mars is flowting in an empty space and an object the size of the sun appears some milions of miles away. Since there is no light and presumably no gravity which supposedly travels at the speed of light that event would never reach mars and it would keep flowting as if nothing happened. So what if that sun exists. Nobody knows or can know about it. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to people and to Mars.The frames wouldn't even need to be separated by a huge distance. Atoms sitting right next to one another would not know or feel each other's presence unless two actual electrons or protons would acclually touch, I suppose. Therefore the distance disappears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenixbyrd Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 lmao, the distance between them does not disappear. Light from another star not reaching mars due to the distance and ammount of 'time' it would take to travel to mars does not change that there still exists a certain distance between the two objects. Things need not observe other things in order for those things to exist, they don't need any interaction of any kind. An atom 50 billion light years away will still exist of it's own accord without interacting with you or any object in this universe. What has been posted is not a thought experiment, it's a twisted messed up version of the observers effect (with a couple other theories thrown in for good ol fun). Plain and simple. One that is woefully wrong and easily understood if one takes the time to learn about the theory and what it DOES apply to. The point is, with or without light and with or without observation, thing's still exist and thing's are still seperated by each other through varying degrees of distance. It doesn't matter if you can measure the distance or object, it doesn't matter that you guys go on about frames of observation, all that matters is that things still exist and are still seperated by distance regardless of any ill concieved notions you may have regarding really simple concepts and theories if you took the time to learn them. Atoms sitting right next to one another would not know or feel each other's presence unless two actual electrons or protons would acclually touch, I suppose. Therefore the distance disappears. Explain, HOW does the distance magically disappear between the two atoms? Think really hard. here's a diagram (Atom 1) --> o ----distance---- o <--- (Atom two). Both aren't observing each other nor interacting with one another. How is distance magically disappearing? Hell, for good measure, let's say the two atoms are 100nm away from one another and disregard any forces that would come into play. Go ahead, explain away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 The point is, with or without light and with or without observation, thing's still exist and thing's are still seperated by each other through varying degrees of distance. It doesn't matter if you can measure the distance or object, it doesn't matter that you guys go on about frames of observation, all that matters is that things still exist and are still seperated by distance regardless of any ill concieved notions you may have regarding really simple concepts and theories if you took the time to learn them. So far phoenixbyrd I agree with what you have said, and it does not differ with what I was getting at. I agree that just because you can not observe something happen does not change the fact whether it exists or not. Using your examples, china exists, and there is people in it, even with me dead, sure of course, I agree. But I think why we differ where we do is because you are not understanding the point I have tried to get across. you can know alot of things happen and exist, but knowing and trying to observe are not the same thing, which of course I think we both understand. But that is where my point is based from. Because of the fact you can only measure what is observeable, and the only thing that is observeable is information that has reached your frame, -in a strictly scientific manner-, the only thing that exists in respect to measurement is that exactly that; -that which is zero distance away from your measurement frame-. As you extend distance, you are assuming a future, and the further out into the future you assume, the less certain of a measurement you can make that is occuring at the source of what you are observing. Quite literally yes, distance is a seperation of time the same as it is space. Respectfully this has been titled space-time. One of the same thing. Now when you consider this a reality even here at our macro scale, you see it is obvious there will be difficulty finding certainty in the so called 'quantum world'. A high velocity world, events happening with in a seperation of space-time. I am not well educated on exactly what heisenbergs uncertainty principle is about in detail. I have read there is various descriptions?. However, if what I have said is related it was not on purpose. With this considered, even though our world appears certain, it is infact just a incredibly high probability of certainty, but that is also because you have to consider all mind made observations are on a very slow frequency, in the range of 60hertz, things that happen too much faster than that are not technically existent to our minds. Yet, of course a machine can measure much more accurately, at different levels of scale, it too is operative on a frequency, and it too will not be able find 100% certainty in any measurement. With this considered, even though our world appears certain, it is infact just a incredibly high probability of certainty But furthermore, there is no such thing as world, or a country, or a person, etc etc, inrespect to the universe source. Everything we know and see in our mind, is a creation of perception made by information. It isnt really there, we just create it to be there. So for example; if what I say is true, what about the sun? Its not a big burning ball of fire? No.. it is a mass-energy-space-time that is in a sense experiencing slower time relative to other units of space-time like earth. Our minds give it size, but in respect to an atom (in classical illustration) the sun is not there, it is just a higher collection of atoms compared to surrounding space-time. See where I am going? in respect to an electron the sun isn there, its just a place where it attains higher energy states than other places. And that is the topic of discussion, measurments made with the restriction of or obidience to the laws of physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardkraft Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 I am not sure if you understand the part where we talk about a world without light. It's not a world that's dark but a world where light doesn't exist and there is nothing else that travels at light speed instead either.In current universe light detemines the size of the event horizon. We can make theories about what's beyond that but they wouldn't be even theories because there is no way to ever check if they are true. It's more like guesses. And even though we can all agree that there is something out there it's pretty much useless to talk about it since we will never know.In a universe without light the event horizon would collapse to zero. So even though you could speculate (to yourself) about other event horizons out there it doesn't matter. Also it's not just you that's ignorant about the outside world. There is no other being that can see all these event horizons being so close and yet unable to communicate with each other. Everybody is in the same boat. And when I say "speculate" it seems like it implies a thinking being but a single atom would be in the same situation and an electron would not repel from an electron because it wouldn't know that something was there. If "there" is undetectable there is no there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 Right. In a sense put yourself in a photons reference frame, and you are in the universe example of no light. You cant see light because you are light, and a photon does not have its own miniature photons to communicate to. As such space and time do not exist and you are free from restriction, just as light is observed to be. In a sense a photon closes up space-time, and becomes a closed off individual unit of space and time. Where as mass is an opened up exposed space-time flucuation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farsight Posted February 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Actually, it is immensly ridiculous Popular. I enjoyed your article on time, but please don't fall for what these two guys are saying. Nothing is made out of light except well ... light of course. Honestly, I haven't got this from the other guys. Check out my other essays on ENERGY and MASS. This "made of light" business is rather subtle, but please do give it a fair crack of the whip because it seems to work, if you know what I mean. And IMHO nobody has come up with any reasoned rational argument why it doesn't, either here or on other forums. http://hypography.com/forums/search.php?searchid=137736 All: we seem to be rather moving off topic here. And I see that the thread rating has gone from five yellow blocks down to three. Ho Hum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenixbyrd Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Light can be used to make matter yes, but matter is not made or a form of light per se. What interests me is why can light be converted into atomic matter, that's a real cliff hanger as we still don't know for sure what light itself even is. Anywho, out of this discussion now, I can't argue anymore that eleventeen is not a number with you guys. Your obviously dead set in your beliefs that things don't exist if you don't observe them ... soooooo, yea, you go ahead and enjoy your ill concieved thoughts and remember, fight the establishment and take every scientific theory you can out of context! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farsight Posted February 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Light can be used to make matter yes, but matter is not made or a form of light per se. What interests me is why can light be converted into atomic matter, that's a real cliff hanger as we still don't know for sure what light itself even is. Anywho, out of this discussion now, I can't argue anymore that eleventeen is not a number with you guys. Your obviously dead set in your beliefs that things don't exist if you don't observe them ... soooooo, yea, you go ahead and enjoy your ill concieved thoughts and remember, fight the establishment and take every scientific theory you can out of context! I certainly don't think things don't exist if I don't observe them. See how I keep banging on being ontological. Check out pair production and annihilation for matter creation out of light and vice versa. IMHO the moot point here is that if there was no light because space didn't have its permeability and permittivity, there would be no charge, no electrons, no protons, and probably not much else. Who's fighting the establishment? Not me. This is just a forum for talking about things. Don't be so hostile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardkraft Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 I guess the point I was trying to make is not whether things exist when people observe them but they exist when they are observable. It doesn't matter if it's by people or electrons. I suppose this idea can be generalized beyond existence of light. That's why I threw parallel universes in there for good measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Your obviously dead set in your beliefs that things don't exist if you don't observe them If anyone has taken things out of context, I think it would have been you, in the case of taking my posts out of context, pheonixbyrd :lol: Things exist all over the place even if I can't observe them. I explained that thouroughly about 7 posts back. However, regardless of what your mind tells you is out there, you are still restricted to your frame for observation. Why are you missing the point? I am trying to show you that we are agreeing with eachother, but it seems you refuse to read the many sections I have said that. I AGREE WITH YOU, so what are you disagreeing with? :D The context is about making scientific measurments. Throughout history scientists like einstein have formulated laws of observation, or principles of observation if you will. These were in forms of relativity. I agree we should put this to rest and infact I feel a little inspired to write up a bit of an essay on the laws of observation. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 popular:And I see that the thread rating has gone from five yellow blocks down to three. Ho Hum.Heh, I wonder if that is because at one time it had 1 vote at 5, and now its got 3 votes :lol: just kidding around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farsight Posted February 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 Thanks Arkain. Hur, I just voted! :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 hoorah! voted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firecracker Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 :( Popular,Sorry I waited so long to join the forums! I just read your dissertation on Relativity+ and I must say that I am impressed! I have personally been working on the idea of 'time' and all its aspects for more than thirty years. I, too, have not laid back and accepted everything I have heard, read, or been taught and am always sceptical as to what I should believe. What if there really existed a world of Gullivers where everything the Gullivers looked at was (by some factor) larger than we are? I am trying to imagine that they would have visible light whose feet, yards, miles, etc., and years, months, hours, seconds, etc. were proportionally larger than ours. Their 'c' would still measure 186,000mi/sec to all their observers to whom the light could affect. All their heat units would be different as well. By the same manner of analogy, there could exist Liliputians on smaller scales with different units for their physical constants, and so on. After all is said and done, there would be no actual difference between the large and the small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farsight Posted April 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Many thanks firecracker. I'm honoured. Yep, the world is painted in light. Space is "flat". But if the permittivity or permeability is difference, if the impedance is different, c is different. But you can't see it. If it changes gradually we'd say there was some kind of gradient. If the gradient kept increasing we'd say there was some kind of curve. We'd notice something, but we wouldn't see it for what it was. We could travel from Brobdignag to Lilliput and start as a giant and end as a midget. But we'd never know. All we'd see is gravity, and time dilation, and we'd always measure c as 300,000km/s. What a wonderful world it is! And to cap it off sweetly, I live in Lilliput: Lloyds Property Group - Sandbanks Property Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firecracker Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 ;) Popular, I feel better already! I think the scales we measure things on do change gradually. That's why we have red shifts and blue shifts, etc. Thanks for the replyF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.