[MEGA] God

[twentysix]

Wise men have to learn to keep emotions out of the equations one way or another.

definitely. you are right.

or they will in turn be fools.

You said many things that related to my own experience, and the bit about the line being an infinite circle- I just finished making a simple line in illustrator with that in mind.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

We do not have the whole picture and I doubt we ever will.

Indeed.

 

[Xorkoth]

Would you like me to share the math for you? I will gladly, if you want me to.

Yes, I do. Please.

Upon clarification, I see what you're saying and I mostly agree with you. Your wording often throws me off though, especially in your first post. You mean you in the sense that we are all the same, not in the way that you are superior over "us". Correct? it's hard to word that sort of thing correctly since language tends towards describing the illusion of separation between us.

 

[rickolasnice]

In our particular dimensional branch, this planet Earth is home to the most complex observers that are ever probable of existing in this universe. Nothing more complex will ever again exist in this universe after we are gone, and this universe will fade into darkness.

I beg to differ.

 

[swilow]

The speed of light is reached when matter reaches the maximum allowed speed and becomes pure energy.

See, thats a fallacy or somesuch there. The speed of light cannot be defined as "maximum allowed speed" if you want to retain your ultimate complexity. Becuase, I highly doubt you invented the laws governing this 'fact' as you put it- hence, there are things you don't know and cannot observe or control (this maximum speed for one), leading me to think your not all that complex. You assume light has a maximum speed- why? Who set it? Also, light has been shown to have similar qualities to matter at a sub atomic level, showing that such as energy and matter are not different. For somethng to become pure energy, as you say, "if matter has energy...." how can it become something it already contains? Where does this extra, purified energy come from? Or is matter shed at such speeds?

Anyway, try and reconcile E=MC2 with the big bang- presumedly, at some point in the first microseconds of the explosion, matter had to travel faster then light which may or may not have existed. For tis matter that emnates light, as we see it.

 

[delta_9]

Anyway, try and reconcile E=MC2 with the big bang- presumedly, at some point in the first microseconds of the explosion, matter had to travel faster then light which may or may not have existed. For tis matter that emnates light, as we see it.

Correct. The universe had to have expanded faster than light during the first few micro/milliseconds of it's existance, or else it couldn't be as large as it is today.
However, it's my understanding that during this time, gravity and the other 3 forces had not yet begun to exhibit any force on matter/light, which could possibly help to explain it. I dunno

 

[SpunkySkunk347]

See, thats a fallacy or somesuch there. The speed of light cannot be defined as "maximum allowed speed" if you want to retain your ultimate complexity. Becuase, I highly doubt you invented the laws governing this 'fact' as you put it- hence, there are things you don't know and cannot observe or control (this maximum speed for one), leading me to think your not all that complex. You assume light has a maximum speed- why? Who set it?

Just because the concept of a "universal speed limit" is hard for you to grasp does not mean it is not true. It is the same type of argument that common men used centuries ago when they were saying the Earth was flat instead of round. They dismissed any scientist who said otherwise as a crack-pot. When the scientist would present evidence (such as a boat's sail sinking below the horizon through a telescope), the common man would come up with a superstitious explanation. Without straying off-topic, let me say that this is also the same type of argument used in attempt to de-bunk biological evolution. Not only must you give evidence when making a significant claim, but you must also give evidence when attempting to make a claim against the claim of another. "There are things you don't know and cannot observe or control" fails to be a valid argument on multiple fronts. For one, this could be used as evidence against literally any piece of fundamental knowledge. For example, one could ask you "Is this piece of paper white or is it black?" and either option you pick, they could invalidate your solution by saying "How would you know, you haven't seen all the colors in the world. You don't know for sure, you might just be blind".
"It might" statements are usually not accepted as valid solutions in a problem, especially when trying to maintain a scientific view. I student could answer every problem on a test their math teacher gave them by answering "It might be one." for all problems. If you can accept that, then you can also accept that in order for us to get as close as we can to a "true fact", that we need to atleast get to a point of "Beyond a reasonable doubt." If you can give me some proper evidence against that logic, then maybe you should also go in front of a national senate and tell them the errors in their ways, as it would probably be much easier than trying to disprove Einstein's laws. If you really need me to explain to you the reasoning of why the speed of light is the maximum speed in our universe, then you can use wikipedia to find the answer; If google isn't good enough for you, you can go attend a high school physics class. If after that you still aren't satisfied, you can go take it up with college professors, but take my word for it that you wouldn't want to; Professors have egos which are more dense than boulders.

Also, light has been shown to have similar qualities to matter at a sub atomic level, showing that such as energy and matter are not different. For somethng to become pure energy, as you say, "if matter has energy...." how can it become something it already contains? Where does this extra, purified energy come from? Or is matter shed at such speeds?

Now you are starting to think similar ideas which the community of quantum physicists have been trying to bring accurate explanations to for centuries! You'll have to pass your own judgement over the information that is available, but my own biased advice is to keep in mind that some of the information out there is more thought-out than other information, and you are going to find certain issues in which both debating parties hold adamant arguments. Try not to pick a side until the bloodshed is done.

Anyway, try and reconcile E=MC2 with the big bang- presumedly, at some point in the first microseconds of the explosion, matter had to travel faster then light which may or may not have existed. For tis matter that emnates light, as we see it.

Usually most physicists point out that it is inaccurate to describe the big bang as an "explosion", and that our current information suggests "expansion" as a much more accurate term.
In any sense, trying to use values of perceptual time when describing the big bang, would be seen as foolishness in any serious attempt of physics. A basic argument against your basic argument, is that matter and light can be in a sense "converted" into each other, and some models of physics go so far to say that the values between what is matter and what is energy are really oscillating, and a particle is never completely one or the other.

Yes, I do. Please.

Very well then, first we must come to the understanding the concept of what "redshift" is. Redshift is when electromagnetic radiation has an increase of wavelength, and in turn a decrease of frequency.

When z is the amount of redshift that took place, then:

z = ( λ observed - λ source) / λ source
and
1 + z = λ observed / λ source

Basically, the redshift in electromagnetic radiation will increase the further away the observer was from the source. What does this imply? An object is moving faster the further away it is.

V = z*c

This is evident in Hubble's Law, in which the universe is expanding.

H = V / D

Where H is Hubble's Constant, the rate at which the universe is expanding. The acceleration of this rate is:

A = DH^2

This suggests a Spin-1 graviton is given off by all particles to all other particles, according to this : http://coraifeartaigh.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/cosmological-distance-at-trinity-college/

After this point, throw in some of Friedmann's equations, which say our Universe either has a spheric spatial curvature, a hyperspheric curvature, or a flat spatial curvature.
As we can expect, there is no spatial curve, and recent technologies show just that. If there was a "spatial curve", then we could no longer consider it space, as it would have to add an extra dimension. This basically is saying "For an object with mass M and energy E, its mass and energy are inversely proportional in a vacuum." or even simpler, it is saying "All the mass in the universe is inversely proportional to all the energy in the universe." Tah dah.... Einstein's E=mc²
E is energy, m is mass, and c² is the value that raises a point of mass in the 3rd dimension to a point of energy in the 4th dimension, i.e. the speed of light. 1/c² is the value that lowers a point of energy in the 4th dimension to a point of matter in the 3rd dimension.

Our existence is an oscillation between matter and energy.

 

[swilow]

Just because the concept of a "universal speed limit" is hard for you to grasp does not mean it is not true. It is the same type of argument that common men used centuries ago when they were saying the Earth was flat instead of round.

Its not hard for me to understand- while I can not imagine how fast such a thing is, I presume its reality. But anyway, you are getting condesending really- speaking of common man, as if your different. I thought your point was that we are all the same. Anyway, you misunderstood what I was saying about the speed of light, or as you put it (this is crucial IMO) the "maximum allowable speed".

If you really need me to explain to you the reasoning of why the speed of light is the maximum speed in our universe, then you can use wikipedia to find the answer; If google isn't good enough for you, you can go attend a high school physics class. If after that you still aren't satisfied, you can go take it up with college professors, but take my word for it that you wouldn't want to; Professors have egos which are more dense than boulders.

Not why, but who? Who determined it- or is it just as it is? Because, in your own proclaimed complexity, shouldn't you know that? Thats my problem with the universe; we have rather definite laws regarding the nature of nature- but no idea as to any "law" which governs these laws. I just find it funny that your not looking even further beyond yourself- you've admitted the speed of light is the maximum "allowed" speeed, a trait presumedly given unto light by its Creator- what I want to know is who is it? Who allowed this? And, by something being allowed, certainly does not rule out the notion of rules being broken.

I don't know what your point is Spunky, but its gone over my head and out the window. I can certainly accept your initial premise as applying to all of us, or none of us, not just one of us- You.

Anyway, complexity isn't neccesarily a positive trait. The more complexity, the more quantum uncertainty, and the greater likelihood of chaos entering the picture. I would suggest that simplicity is actually the highest achievement of a race or species- thus, images like squares and circles and the such seem to reveal a lot more about us and our brains then does the abstarct work of picasso or somesuch. Trapped as we are at the doorway of becoming and being, we can only watch shadows of reality- things like mathematics and meta-physics are probably the only way for us to watch things that cannot be easily observed. Such as the true nature of reality, whatever that is.

 

[SpunkySkunk347]

Its not hard for me to understand- while I can not imagine how fast such a thing is, I presume its reality. But anyway, you are getting condesending really- speaking of common man, as if your different. I thought your point was that we are all the same. Anyway, you misunderstood what I was saying about the speed of light, or as you put it (this is crucial IMO) the "maximum allowable speed".



Not why, but who? Who determined it- or is it just as it is? Because, in your own proclaimed complexity, shouldn't you know that? Thats my problem with the universe; we have rather definite laws regarding the nature of nature- but no idea as to any "law" which governs these laws. I just find it funny that your not looking even further beyond yourself- you've admitted the speed of light is the maximum "allowed" speeed, a trait presumedly given unto light by its Creator- what I want to know is who is it? Who allowed this? And, by something being allowed, certainly does not rule out the notion of rules being broken.

The speed of light is as fast as the observer can perceive it. If we collapsed an observer down to singularity, the speed would simply be an "on" value. The speed of light only seems to have been "given" a value because we gave it the value of 299,792,458 meters per second. But if you had no tools to measure that, the speed of light would seem like a simple "on" or "off". Like it or not, it is how it is, and you haven't thought deep enough about it. The illusion of having thought deeply enough about it occurs to you, but unfortunately there are not many physicists backing your claim.

From a singularity, yes, we are all equal. But as individuals extracted from that singularity, we all have different values for different variables that collectively add up to that singularity. Intelligence is a value, and it evident that by no means is it equal. I may think myself to be more intelligent than you, you may think yourself to be more intelligent than me, but involve a third party (say perhaps a psychoanalyst trained in finding intelligence quotients). When you involve that third party it is no longer self ego determining intellect. If you do not find a simple third member enough to determine intelligence, then go ahead and add three, four, and five seperate parties who are trained in measuring intelligence. It is here you will see that your intelligence collapses as a mere stupidity compared to mine - as you ignore presented evidence which had references (you obviously didn't even look into any of them as more than a mere failed thought process in your own mind), and then you provided not one reference of your own. I'm not talking about books/websites as references, I'm talking about a simple name of a scientist who has a college degree or the simple name of another scientifical theory or any mathematical formula as references - and you couldn't even provide one. Well then now is your chance; what are the names of ANY scientists or the names of any formulas that even make a simple attempt at supporting your "It's true because I said so" Theory?

I don't know what your point is Spunky, but its gone over my head and out the window. I can certainly accept your initial premise as applying to all of us, or none of us, not just one of us- You.

If what I am saying has gone over your head, are you saying that you believe that you don't even exist?

Anyway, complexity isn't neccesarily a positive trait. The more complexity, the more quantum uncertainty, and the greater likelihood of chaos entering the picture. I would suggest that simplicity is actually the highest achievement of a race or species- thus, images like squares and circles and the such seem to reveal a lot more about us and our brains then does the abstarct work of picasso or somesuch. Trapped as we are at the doorway of becoming and being, we can only watch shadows of reality- things like mathematics and meta-physics are probably the only way for us to watch things that cannot be easily observed. Such as the true nature of reality, whatever that is.

"The more complexity the more the quantum uncertainty" is true depending on the context you are using. However, with the human psyche (which I've undoubtedly been talking about) the opposite is true; the more complex the human psyche is, the less the quantum uncertainty.

 

[Roger&Me]

Nothing more complex will ever again exist in this universe after we are gone, and this universe will fade into darkness.

That's ridiculous, given the reality of infinity we can expect everything that is happening now to happen again -- and an infinite number of times. And indeed also every other conceivable combination of variables -- an infinite number of times.

Time is a stationary dimension anyways, we only experience it moving linearly in one direction because of our temperature relative to 0 Kelvin. This is from the third law of thermodynamics for an isolated system.

 

[SpunkySkunk347]

That's ridiculous, given the reality of infinity we can expect everything that is happening now to happen again -- and an infinite number of times. And indeed also every other conceivable combination of variables -- an infinite number of times.

Time is a stationary dimension anyways, we only experience it moving linearly in one direction because of our temperature relative to 0 Kelvin. This is from the third law of thermodynamics for an isolated system.

Yes I agree with you - but in this particular oscillation in the wave of infinity, could you agree that your mind will not exist again until a recurrence of some sorts takes place?

Furthermore:
Imagine you were to completely simplify what we are right now as a point on a line, and that point had to change values (change positioning on the line) in one direction only. If you were to say "that point will cross over the same value on the line eventually" this implies one of two things (or perhaps both):
a) The line is infact a circle.
b) The point is oscillating in value on the line.

-I believe "Time" to be a duality of those two concepts. Now, collapsing the infinity of time to a single point (much like the concept of how a sphere has an infinite number of different radii that lead to its center), we only see one value of what we consider "now", only one value of what the coordinates of matter were in space ten minutes ago, only one value of what the coordinates of matter were in space 10 minutes in the future.
However, upon introducing the idea of "real chance" or "real choice" into the concept, we raise the idea to an even higher dimension, in which the variant oscillations of infinity can lead to a different value on a different line with each corresponding wave of oscillation. This can be explained with the Frenet-Serret equations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenet-Serret_formulas
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Frenetframehelix.gif

This shows that the process of infinity is all the more complicated than we had originally perceived. However, this can be satisfied to an extent with one of two (or perhaps both) concepts:
a) There are a set number (perhaps 10) of dimensions.
b) There an infinite number of dimensions which are collapsing/expanding into higher/lower dimensions in an infinite process.

 

[h.a.]

Time is a stationary dimension anyways, we only experience it moving linearly in one direction because of our temperature relative to 0 Kelvin. This is from the third law of thermodynamics for an isolated system.

That's interesting, I've never heard that before... but then again I did decide to change my major to psychology after trying to deal with physics
Could you point me to some information on this per chance, my good sir? Preferably something comprehensible to a simple fool like myself

OP: I will concede your position as thumb on the condition that I get to be the penis.

May I inquire your general age? Not to denigrate your points, but many of us philoso-philes tend to go through a stage of grandiosity--many times at around the age of 19 - 22, I have found.

I tend to chalk it up to having wonderful new vistas of insight just as our psychology happens to be going through it's wonderful phase of self-identification.

Peace,
h.a. -- putting the "philo" back in philosophy since 1994

 

[swilow]

^Is it not the second law of thermodynaics, that heat cannot spontaneously pass from a cold body to a hot one, while the inverse is indeed possible, what kinda puts a kink in the notion of space expanding; for presumedly, with expansion comes loss of heat, so where does the outer radiation express itself without breaking that law? If it were to a colder body then itself- that is, colder then the universe, thats an odd fact....

BTW, I have no fucking idea relly about any of this stuff; its just popping out of my head when I read this thread.

If what I am saying has gone over your head, are you saying that you believe that you don't even exist?

No, I believe I exist- just no-one else damnit.

The speed of light is as fast as the observer can perceive it. If we collapsed an observer down to singularity, the speed would simply be an "on" value. The speed of light only seems to have been "given" a value because we gave it the value of 299,792,458 meters per second. But if you had no tools to measure that, the speed of light would seem like a simple "on" or "off". Like it or not, it is how it is, and you haven't thought deep enough about it. The illusion of having thought deeply enough about it occurs to you, but unfortunately there are not many physicists backing your claim.

From a singularity, yes, we are all equal. But as individuals extracted from that singularity, we all have different values for different variables that collectively add up to that singularity. Intelligence is a value, and it evident that by no means is it equal. I may think myself to be more intelligent than you, you may think yourself to be more intelligent than me, but involve a third party (say perhaps a psychoanalyst trained in finding intelligence quotients). When you involve that third party it is no longer self ego determining intellect. If you do not find a simple third member enough to determine intelligence, then go ahead and add three, four, and five seperate parties who are trained in measuring intelligence. It is here you will see that your intelligence collapses as a mere stupidity compared to mine - as you ignore presented evidence which had references (you obviously didn't even look into any of them as more than a mere failed thought process in your own mind), and then you provided not one reference of your own. I'm not talking about books/websites as references, I'm talking about a simple name of a scientist who has a college degree or the simple name of another scientifical theory or any mathematical formula as references - and you couldn't even provide one. Well then now is your chance; what are the names of ANY scientists or the names of any formulas that even make a simple attempt at supporting your "It's true because I said so" Theory?

Your an arrogant cock. I'm not launching any theory whatsoever; just trying to point out that you are by no means all that complex. You can't understand what I am saying- that is, sure there is a maximum speed that light can travel, but you cannot tell me why that is so. You also cannot even discern from my post the question that I'm asking.

It is here you will see that your intelligence collapses as a mere stupidity compared to mine

Oh. My. Lord. You are going to realise very soon, child, how inconceivably little intelligence you are showing. An inteligent person has doubts, test theories- does not exhibit a certainty about things no-one in the universe is certain of- thats called being blinded.

Anyway, this debate just became unpleasant. If your the thumb of god, I'd suggest it be reinserted into His anus abruptly.

Unless you are too complex to exhibit kindness or some sort of self-restraint, then I feel the next stage of spunky human evolution is kinda piss poor.

 

[The_Idler]

ok so your first post was a load of shit about how good you are.

this, you revised to be a load of shit about how good all of us are (gaining some listeners in the process, like i never seen that trick before...)

Now you have mentioned some physics theories,
of which you have kindly presented us your own interpretations,
the perfect efficiency of which ...
I could never hope to match.

So, in this case, I shall leave it in your capable hands.... ah, thumb, Thumb.

Don't provoke. Kthx. -- MDAO

 

[Xorkoth]

This is a complete assumption - have you been to the far reaches of the universe? How do you know there is nothing more complex than us? Or that there never will be?

Would you like me to share the math for you? I will gladly, if you want me to.

Very well then, first we must come to the understanding the concept of what "redshift" is. Redshift is when electromagnetic radiation has an increase of wavelength, and in turn a decrease of frequency.

When z is the amount of redshift that took place, then:

z = ( λ observed - λ source) / λ source
and
1 + z = λ observed / λ source

Basically, the redshift in electromagnetic radiation will increase the further away the observer was from the source. What does this imply? An object is moving faster the further away it is.

V = z*c

This is evident in Hubble's Law, in which the universe is expanding.

H = V / D

Where H is Hubble's Constant, the rate at which the universe is expanding. The acceleration of this rate is:

A = DH^2

This suggests a Spin-1 graviton is given off by all particles to all other particles, according to this : http://coraifeartaigh.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/cosmological-distance-at-trinity-college/

After this point, throw in some of Friedmann's equations, which say our Universe either has a spheric spatial curvature, a hyperspheric curvature, or a flat spatial curvature.
As we can expect, there is no spatial curve, and recent technologies show just that. If there was a "spatial curve", then we could no longer consider it space, as it would have to add an extra dimension. This basically is saying "For an object with mass M and energy E, its mass and energy are inversely proportional in a vacuum." or even simpler, it is saying "All the mass in the universe is inversely proportional to all the energy in the universe." Tah dah.... Einstein's E=mc²
E is energy, m is mass, and c² is the value that raises a point of mass in the 3rd dimension to a point of energy in the 4th dimension, i.e. the speed of light. 1/c² is the value that lowers a point of energy in the 4th dimension to a point of matter in the 3rd dimension.

Our existence is an oscillation between matter and energy.

Okay, thanks for the explanation of Einstein's theory. But how is it that this explains that there is nothing more complex in the universe than us?

Arrogance is unbecoming in anyone. Even the almighty Thumb of God.

May I inquire your general age? Not to denigrate your points, but many of us philoso-philes tend to go through a stage of grandiosity--many times at around the age of 19 - 22, I have found.

Well last year or so the OP was in high school as I understood it from his trip report, ODing on prescription drugs. So I believe you're not far off.

 

[h.a.]

I would like to do a study to prove statistically what shall hitherto be known as h.a.'s law

h.a.'s law: individual (20 +/- 2yrs) age + use of psychedelic or dissociative drugs = grandiosity centering on some half-baked, semi-coherent understanding of post-Einsteinian physics.
I swear if I had a penny for every thread fitting this equation I've read on drug related forums, I'd have a good few dollars in my pocket. At least enough to get a dose of something to make those theories seem much more convincing.

 

[Xorkoth]

^ Good theory. I fit into that for a while, although to a much lesser extent than this guy. Mine was always based upon the idea of love.

Like I said, spunkyskunk... one day you'll grow up a little and have a good chuckle at the ego-driven silliness you displayed as a youngster. Of course you can't see that now, nor could one expect you to. But the majority of kids grow up. You seem intelligent (though you must be insecure about it to feel like you need to constantly assert your intellectual superiority over others publically), so I hope you make it. Otherwise you're in for a lonely, sad little life.

 

[Roger&Me]

h.a.'s law: individual (20 +/- 2yrs) age + use of psychedelic or dissociative drugs = grandiosity centering on some half-baked, semi-coherent understanding of post-Einsteinian physics.

Hahaha great observation; and very true. But that's probably a good thing, as psychedelics get people thinking even if they happen to be "wayyy off." :D

And to your query about thermodynamics and the time dimension, the simple explanation is that we experience time linearly in one direction because of particle motion; to which the Kelvin temperature scale is a descriptor of. The closer you get to 0 kelvin, the slower particles move. So if a system were to tend towards 0 K, then the particles would tend toward a state of no movement in which time is a stationary dimension. Because of our temperature relative to 0 K, we experience particle motion and therefore we can only experience time linearly.

 

[swilow]

^What about if the universe is contracting, and time is running backwards, hence we remeber the past and it would still appear that we are in an expanding universe? Time could be running backwards, but we wouldn't neccesarily know.

Then again, the whole concept of entropy kinda determines that we are moving forward in time, unless things decay before they take full form.

Nice post Xorkoth

As we can expect, there is no spatial curve, and recent technologies show just that

That the universe is not curved? Care to link to that- sounds intriguing.

 

[qwe]

I want to let you all know that I will do all I can do to let humanity avoid eternal recurrence, and embrace transcendence to heaven

um. well thanks i guess?

so you are the most complex observer? does that mean you see the most patterns, the most accurate patterns, the most accurate vision of how things really are? aka, you are the most intelligent person, as far as reality is concerned (that is, not taking into account our social games)?

there's a problem with that... i think I'M the most complex observer. sorry!