Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.
-
- Posts: 267
- Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am
Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.
You asked what shape is space, and i told you. Again, it can't have a shape because the Universe is ALL area.Steve3007 wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 5:42 amAs I've said, I ask you to show that you understand at least something about the things on which you have. many times, expressed opinions. On subjects that you've never expressed an opinion about, I have not asked you anything. If you consider those things to be irrelevant, why do you express opinions about them?gater wrote:Like you can't be bothered, you only seem to care about my knowledge of experiments from over 100 years ago.
Einsteins general theory talks about space/time and how they are tied together - This is false, time is independant from anything that happens in the Universe. And space doesn't move, matter moves through space.
His special theory, among other things, deals with gravitys affect on time, and he predicted Time Dilation. Most don't understand time, and think its proof that he was right - Wrong. Time Dilation is the effect gravity has on devices.
Gravity is caused by the core and the allignment of all of the mass of a turning sphere. It is a magnetic, and collective force, that pulls all of its matter to the core. Gravity is created by matter and only affects matter - it has no affect on time or space.
If you ask a clear question - I can answer you, but I won't write a term paper for you.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.
No, I didn't ask you that.gater wrote:You asked what shape is space, and i told you.
viewtopic.php?p=351662#p351662
gater wrote:The Universe has no shape, it's just endless space. If it had a shape, then there would be area or space, outside of the boundary of the shape.
I've asked you over and over again, without answer, to show that you understand what people are saying before you reject what they are saying. By all means reject and/or challenge any ideas that you consider to be wrong. But if you decide to do that, first read what they say. By all means declare that space has no shape, but first show that you understand the sense in which "shape" is used in this context.Steve3007 wrote:I know you think that. You've said it before. That wasn't my question. I asked you to show that you understand the sense in which the word "shape" is used in this context and which "shape" would be assigned to the endless space that you have described. Answer?
General Relativity does indeed contain the concept of space-time, but it doesn't dispute that matter moves through space. It's not enough to simply decree "this is false" as you are apt to do. To analyse an idea like this you have to actually show that you understand why it contains the concepts that it does. Why would anybody propose that a concept called space-time is a useful model for describing and predicting the world? Where did the idea come from? Why would anybody propose that light travels at the same speed as measured by all observers? What, precisely, do they mean by that? etc. Then, once you've understood what is being proposed, and why, propose your alternative theory and show how it is superior at describing and predicting what is observed.gater wrote:Einsteins general theory talks about space/time and how they are tied together - This is false, time is independant from anything that happens in the Universe. And space doesn't move, matter moves through space.
As I've said before, to do this you'd have to start with Galilean Relativity. Have you heard of the concept of Galilean Relativity?
No is doesn't! The Special Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with gravity. I say again: how can you reject an idea when you don't understand the absolute lesson one basics of what it actually says?!?gater wrote:His special theory, among other things, deals with gravitys affect on time, and he predicted Time Dilation.
I don't want a term paper. I just want to see that if you reject something then you do so on the basis of understanding at least the basics of what it says. If you have nothing to say about that thing, then fine, there's no need for you to learn anything about it. For example, I have nothing to say about the technical details of macro-economics. I know very little about it. So nobody challenges me to show that I understand it. But if I were to declare that some economic theory or other is nonsense, then I would expect to be challenged.gater wrote:If you ask a clear question - I can answer you, but I won't write a term paper for you.
If you stick your neck out and say "I decree that this is all nonsense" then you will obviously be asked to show that you know what that thing that you think is nonsense actually says.
Can you really not see this basic piece of common sense?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.
And yet it seems odd to me that you would ignore the logic of not describing something that has no size as being "smaller" than something else!RJG wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 1:43 pm Thanks Pattern-chaser for replying with your view of imagining the "Void". Whereas mine is much simpler (at least to me) and also accounts for the dimensional-less-ness of the Void:In other words, and by definition, the "Void" does not exist! (...there is nothing there to exist).RJG wrote:Pure "nothingness" (or the "Void") has no dimensions to it, it has no existing properties whatsoever. This "Void" or "Nothingness" is therefore infinitely smaller than a single 0D point.
And also it seems worth observing that "the Void" does exist, as a label for us to use to describe it.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.
Why is it "self-contradictory" to "talk of what is outside the Universe"? I have never thought the "universe" described everything-that-there-is; perhaps I've been misunderstanding?Steve3007 wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 1:07 pm To be honest, I think your debate about these words like "void" and "space" is just meaningless wordplay. Deciding that "void" means something different from "space" or that putting "-ness" on the end of "nothing" makes it mean something different is, in my view, as irrelevant as a game of Scrabble. Fun but irrelevant. To talk of what is outside the Universe (whatever word you use for it) is self-contradictory. This is true whether the Universe is finite or infinite.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.
I describe it as self-contradictory on the understanding that Universe means everything there is. If you don't use that word to mean that then it's not self-contradictory. In that case Universe appears to me to be an arbitrarily chosen subset of everything there is. I don't really see any obvious purpose to that definition. I don't see the point of having a word that means something like "almost everything there is, but with some stuff missed out".Pattern-chaser wrote:Why is it "self-contradictory" to "talk of what is outside the Universe"? I have never thought the "universe" described everything-that-there-is; perhaps I've been misunderstanding?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.
Fair enough.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 267
- Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am
Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑March 18th, 2020, 7:12 amNo, I didn't ask you that.gater wrote:You asked what shape is space, and i told you.
viewtopic.php?p=351662#p351662
gater wrote:The Universe has no shape, it's just endless space. If it had a shape, then there would be area or space, outside of the boundary of the shape.I've asked you over and over again, without answer, to show that you understand what people are saying before you reject what they are saying. By all means reject and/or challenge any ideas that you consider to be wrong. But if you decide to do that, first read what they say. By all means declare that space has no shape, but first show that you understand the sense in which "shape" is used in this context.Steve3007 wrote:I know you think that. You've said it before. That wasn't my question. I asked you to show that you understand the sense in which the word "shape" is used in this context and which "shape" would be assigned to the endless space that you have described. Answer?
General Relativity does indeed contain the concept of space-time, but it doesn't dispute that matter moves through space. It's not enough to simply decree "this is false" as you are apt to do. To analyse an idea like this you have to actually show that you understand why it contains the concepts that it does. Why would anybody propose that a concept called space-time is a useful model for describing and predicting the world? Where did the idea come from? Why would anybody propose that light travels at the same speed as measured by all observers? What, precisely, do they mean by that? etc. Then, once you've understood what is being proposed, and why, propose your alternative theory and show how it is superior at describing and predicting what is observed.gater wrote:Einsteins general theory talks about space/time and how they are tied together - This is false, time is independant from anything that happens in the Universe. And space doesn't move, matter moves through space.
As I've said before, to do this you'd have to start with Galilean Relativity. Have you heard of the concept of Galilean Relativity?
No is doesn't! The Special Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with gravity. I say again: how can you reject an idea when you don't understand the absolute lesson one basics of what it actually says?!?gater wrote:His special theory, among other things, deals with gravitys affect on time, and he predicted Time Dilation.
I don't want a term paper. I just want to see that if you reject something then you do so on the basis of understanding at least the basics of what it says. If you have nothing to say about that thing, then fine, there's no need for you to learn anything about it. For example, I have nothing to say about the technical details of macro-economics. I know very little about it. So nobody challenges me to show that I understand it. But if I were to declare that some economic theory or other is nonsense, then I would expect to be challenged.gater wrote:If you ask a clear question - I can answer you, but I won't write a term paper for you.
If you stick your neck out and say "I decree that this is all nonsense" then you will obviously be asked to show that you know what that thing that you think is nonsense actually says.
Can you really not see this basic piece of common sense?
Steve, you dont want to know the truth. You just want to hear things that back up your ideas.
I clearly explained the Logic behind infinite space, and you don't get it, or don't want to get it.
I can tell you the truth, but i can't make you understand.
If you think im wrong, tell me how im wrong, tell me about the true nature of the Universe.
Are you able to answer that?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023